Back in 1996 I offered a resolution at the DA calling for abolishing tenure for principals on the basis it is because of them that we need tenure in the first place and why help make our enemies stronger. I made a pretty funny speech, not funny enough to get Unity to buy it. Their argument was that if principals lose tenure we would too. Hmmmm. 4-7 years and counting for tenure now. President Sandy Feldman loved my speech though and wanted me to write it up for the NY Teacher - which I didn't quite understand until she explained that she agreed with me but because of the other union - the CSA - we couldn't do this. That was my insight into the partnership between the UFT and CSA which explains some things.
Now Unity is attacking MORE for opposing the eval system and trying to pin on us a charge it is we who are making principals stronger.
Arthur Goldstein at NYC Educator is astounded at the utter lack of logic Unity people put forth as he argues with them on twitter. I don't even bother. I'd just end up calling them all slugs and be done with them. But in arguing with them Arthur does uncover some gems. Here is one:
This caused me to smack myself in the head so many times I may need to go to the emergency room.
Now you just have to follow the Unity argument. There are so many awful principals we can't trust them to give fair evaluations so we need a measure that is fair to teachers - like Danielson and tests that mismeasure teacher performance.
We have so many bad principals because of what? How about a union leadership that gave us an open market system which is basically principal choice as to whether someone gets a job - meaning that if you are teaching enough years to have a high salary, you are dead meat.
What has happened over the past 15 years since I retired is moving almost total principal power I saw when I left to absolute principal power and all this under the tenure of WeinGrew.
You'll note that in all these years - and I go back to my resolution at the DA c. 1999 which called for a rigorous response on the part of the UFT to principal transgressions and Unity opposed it but I think were so embarrassed by what was going on in some schools, especially those with vast turnover, they actually did a few Principal from Hell pieces over the years. But basically when people want to take action against these principals the word is often MUM. Or backstage maneuvering instead of a public assault.
Why is that you might wonder? Well for me the answer it the cozy relationship to the principal union, the CSA, which I believe has put a gag order on the UFT, which to some might seem like the tail wagging the dog but maybe they have dirty pictures of the UFT leadership.
Now under Farinia/de Blasio, there is also a cozy relationship with them and I read another astounding comment from a Unity person that Farina is putting in better principals.
From Arthur's facebook posts:
Arthur Goldstein I agree. Most insidious, though, is the burden of proof being placed on the teacher at 3020a. Admin ALWAYS had to prove a teacher was incompetent. In NYC, teachers are observed by a UFT-enabled rat squad, which forces 70% of teachers on charges to prove they are NOT incompetent, a very high, if not impossible, burden. If I read correctly, the Cuomo/ Heavy Hearts plan, the one for which Mulgrew thanked the legislature, the one UFT Unity will not oppose, places the burden of proof entirely on teachers all the time. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.