Video: Julie Debates E4E on Seniority...

UPDATED:

...and presents a defense of seniority and LIFO Mulgrew and the UFT don't seem to want to touch in this March 3, 2011 TV debate, a fine birthday present for me. Julie makes the point that seniority is still the fairest method and adamantly defends the idea that experience really counts. The E4E person says teachers don't get better after 5 years. Watch her try to dance when the moderator talks about TFAers who leave after 2 or 3 years.

Julie's key point in this debate and in our movie is that tenure gives teachers the protection they need to advocate for their children. And since all levels above teachers are a much greater threat to children's interests and benefits, this makes total sense.

Then when the layoff question comes up and the moderator says some schools may lose a good chunk of their young staff, Julie points to the policies that give principals incentives to hire younger, cheaper teachers. And her defense of ATRs too. All of what Julie did here 2 years ago, when she was relatively new to union activism, is an impressive performance and gave many teachers out there hope that here was a voice that talks for them.

Meanwhile, E4E is left with bragging that Syndey got a quote in the Gotham piece on UFT retirees voting, another outrage by Gotham, going to these slugs for a quote (maybe funding is contingent on this?) instead of calling MORE for an opinion.

https://vimeo.com/61814925

Video of Fight Back Friday Press Conf at Christine Quinn Office as Post Cards Delivered

Below is the video I shot at the PC but soon after we heard this:

"We have to fight like hell to make sure Quinn has no chance of becoming Mayor. At least she says she is holding strong to layoffs, all be it while throwing seniority rules under the bus."

----Comment from a teacher after reading article with these comments: 

As for how to conduct teacher layoffs, should they be necessary, Quinn said that selecting instructors for dismissal solely through seniority, rather than on teacher effectiveness, is plainly nuts. Bloomberg had pleaded with Albany to end the so-called last in, first out system, but Albany told him to take a hike.
"Having a system that is based exclusively on seniority does not make any sense," Quinn said.
She also backed the concept of letting go teachers who are paid to do nothing because they were excessed from positions and have been unable to find new jobs in the school system.
Quinn said they should be removed from the payroll after they have had a fair chance to look for work - perhaps after a year, certainly after two.

I would have delivered more than postcards. Quinn is a Bloomberg sucking slug. Today's Times
Unions Weighing New Plan to Avert Teacher Layoffs has an article about how her influence is growing and she is the leading candidate for mayor. UGH!

Fight Back Friday

Press Conference at City Council President Christine Quinn's Office

June 10, 2011 

On June 10, 2011 parents and teachers held a press conference in front of NYC City Council President Christine Quinn's mid-town office to deliver post cards calling for no cuts to education. This was the culminating event of a Fight Back Friday with schools around the city participating.

Quinn, the leading candidate for mayor who has backed Bloomberg came out against following seniority for layoffs.


http://youtu.be/OEGfptIQY4s

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn understands hard budget choices she, Mayor Bloomberg must make

Editorials
Friday, June 10th 2011, 4:00 AM

Corkery/News

Parsing Mulgrew on tenure, teacher effectiveness, teacher evaluation, value-added: What he should be saying, but won't

Just heard Mulgrew on Brian Lehrer in relation to Cathie Black's positions opposing tenure and last in first out (LIFO) for layoffs. Talk of teacher effectiveness and cost effectiveness.

Not the latter is a newer wrinkle of the ed deformers - the argument that given 2 roughly equal teachers it is more cost effective to get rid of the one who makes more money. They can even argue that if a teacher who makes 100G is superb, it is still more cost effectie to keep two 3rd year teachers making 60G.

Now if you are running a business that idea looks good. But is it really cost effective over the long term when you are dealing with an entire profession that would react poorly - even the younger teachers who hope to put in a long career and one day get paid accordingly? Other than real newbies who have no plans to stay - think Teach for America - the shock troops of the ed deform movement - the degrading aspect of this attack undermines the profession and weakens teacher effectiveness over the long run. I would bet most teachers from 3rd year on would be absolutely opposed to weakening of tenure and the end of seniority for layoffs - which are a pretty rare affair. Many teachers I know starting around 1969-70 were excessed at least once - and in '75 we had massive layoffs by seniority and call-backs by the same means - an orderly system instead of the chaos the ed deformers are calling for.

Of course we heard none of this argument by Mulgrew who instead talked about the fact that tenure is due process not life-time jobs and that if there are ineffective teachers the principals should have gotten rid of them before it was time for layoffs. Good points for him - he even talked about how tenure is not a contract provision but state law long superceding the lifetime of the union. (By the way - tenure as people talk about it as a lifetime job is more aligned with college teaching though even that is based on some due process system). He also talked about the fair funding formula - the tactic tha charges principals for the costs of the teachers instead of lumping all salaries into a central fund - and how it encourages principals to get rid of of more expensive teachers. So not terrible even though he could have been much stronger - but as we know- the UFT is partway on the ed deform bandwagon - or wants it to appear that way.

When Brian brought up the release of individual teacher evaluations, Mulgrew was weak I thought in not arguing how they should never be released for all sorts of reasons that have been argued. Instead he attacked the accuracy of the value-added results at this point and seemed to argue that when they were accurate it would be OK to release them.

I think there have been enough arguments about VA and the narrow tests they are based on. We think there is a lot more to a teacher than can be expressed in a number. The union should be making that case instead of bragging how they are willing to cooperate in their own members' demise.

For the kind of defense we would like to hear from out union - but never will read this at Modern School:

Value Added & Performance Pay Scams Weaken Teacher Pay and Autonomy

Stephen Krashen, from Schools Matter, has an excellent posting on the idiocy of Value Added teacher assessments and performance pay: Seniority and Teacher Layoffs: A Red Herring

Like so much of Ed Deform: It's all about money. Senior teachers are higher on the pay scale and cost districts more money than younger inexperienced teachers. Krashen argues that this is the only rational argument for dumping experience over youth since veteran teachers generally do a better job. They have more years of on the job practice. They have more experience from workshops, professional development, and collaboration with peers.

However, there is one more reason to dump older teachers: Control

Experienced teachers are less likely to go along with every hare-brained ed deform plan concocted by their administrators. This is one reason why charter schools like KIPP are able to get their teachers to work weekends and summers and be on call well into the night. 

Retired UFT Bronx HS District Rep Lynne Winderbaum on the NYCEDNews Listserve said:

Of all the words used to describe Cathie Black, "parrot" may be a new one. But it seems that after her listening tour of Tweed, she has now come out repeating the tired old propaganda that has been adopted by the Department of Education for the last nine years.

This morning at 6:15 AM on NPR Cathie Black announced that she "has a problem with the practice of granting 25-year-olds tenure, insuring them a job for the rest of their lives for just showing up to work everyday".   Also, she "has a problem with laying off the 'last in' first".  She stated that she could never run a company successfully if these practices existed and that these practices would never be accepted in business.

Frightening to see that her ignorance regarding these issues had been replaced by the misrepresentations she is being taught. First of all, there is no practice of granting 25-year olds tenure. Anyone of that age who does achieve tenure has already served three years in a classroom and has been trained during that probationary period to work on techniques and strategies to improve their pedagogy. At any time during the three year period, if the teacher does not show improvement or an aptitude for the job, he or she can be summarily fired--no questions asked. It is called a "discontinuance of probation" and it is used frequently. After three years, if the teacher has been satisfactory rated, only then is tenure granted. And if an administrator has any doubts about granting tenure, there is the option to extend probation for an additional year...no questions asked. 

Cathie Black is also showing her ignorance of the fact that tenure is not a "job for the rest of their lives for just showing up to work everyday." Tenured teachers can be fired under the terms of state education law Section 3020a. That's all tenure gets them: a due process proceeding. It does not mean a job for life. It is just a guarantee of a fair hearing, with evidence presented and with representation. Private sector workers would love to have such security, but apparently a successful business cannot incorporate fairness according to Black. A tenured teacher cannot be summarily fired for any reason as a probationary teacher can. That's all tenure means. And if Cathie Black is unquestioningly passing along the false myths that we expect of a person who simply repeats what she hears without any independent research, we should fear what lies ahead in her decision making process.

May I add that without tenure, teachers risk discrimination, being punished for their political leanings, and they will rightly fear exposing wrongdoing or questioning violations such as failure to follow special ed or ELL laws, for example. It is just protection Cathie, not a lifetime guarantee. Get out of your cocoon.

"Last in, first out" was never a policy that was debated until the wholesale closing of schools left many veteran teachers without jobs. Before that, the only teachers in excess were those with one or two years experience. Suddenly there were hundreds of employees who had given their lives to the children of New York City, twenty or thirty years in many cases, who had no place to work, through no fault of their own. They were also the most highly paid. So, despite the fact that many are fine teachers, Tweed looked for a way to paint them all with a negative brush and build a pr position around firing them. Black says the practice would never be accepted in business where the model is to have the power to hire and fire at will. But first she must make a convincing argument that the basis of retaining teachers will never be favoritism or silence about problems at schools. Seniority is a fair way to fight favoritism and nepotism. Do away with seniority and tenure and watch what is unleashed in our workforce. After her week of listening to folks downtown, the breadth of her understanding of the issues may be a mile wide but it is a quarter inch thick.

That does not bode well for anyone in the school system.

Seniority and Layoffs in The Times

There was an interesting article in the Sunday NY Times on the attack on seniority. In some ways one of the fairer ones I've read in that it presented a variety of points of view by at least quoting Arthur Goldstein on how dangerous it was to give vindictive principals the choice.
See Last Teacher In, First Out? City Has Another Idea.


Here are some key points:

...a New York Times analysis of the city’s own reports on teacher effectiveness suggest that teachers do best after being in the classroom for at least 5 years, though they tend to level off after 10 years.

“You want to keep a rookie who looks good relative to other rookies, even if it’s not that great relative to all other teachers, because they are going to turn into a really good teacher,” said Douglas O. Staiger, an economics professor at Dartmouth who has worked with the city on teacher quality studies. “The question is: Are our current methods good enough at figuring out who those teachers are? I’m not sure where you draw the line on that.”

Arthur Goldstein, the chapter chairman of the teachers’ union at Francis Lewis High School in Queens, said that Mr. Klein and his supporters were trying to pit teachers against one another.

“I understand how they feel — I lost my job four times and nobody ever helped me,” Mr. Goldstein said of the younger teachers. “I don’t have a principal who is crazy now, but I’ve had other principals who would have fired me in a New York minute. It had nothing to do with teaching — things he would take as a personal insult.”

In 2008, New York City began evaluating about 11,500 teachers based on how much their students had improved on standardized state exams.

A Times analysis of the first year of results showed that teachers with 6 to 10 years of experience were more likely to perform well, while teachers with 1 or 2 years’ experience were the least likely.

The analysis could not account for differences in the makeup of the 11,500 classrooms, like how many of them had large numbers of students with learning disabilities.

In essence, the Times' research is saying that the 6-10 year teacher are the ones to keep even if seniority rules were eliminated. Since those are in the mid-range salaries before the heavy longevity increases begin, this "research" gives principals an excuse to dump 2nd decade teachers even if they don't keep the newbies.

It was nice to see reporter Jennifer Medina interview Arthur Goldstein, who makes essential points. In 1975 13 teachers, some who started 6 or 7 years before, were excessed from my school. Most were sent to other schools as seniority bumping went on all over the place. Even out 20 year guidance counselor was sent elsewhere as my district eliminated all of them. But within a short time things evened out and those who actually lost jobs started being recalled. Many left the system but others did come back. Some got recertified in shortage areas. Don't forget that layoffs go by license.

The article talks about the young teachers who are upset at seniority rules and the organization some of them have founded.

Mr. Borock, the Bronx teacher, said that the layoffs would discourage newer graduates from entering the profession. “If you have a number of job opportunities, as many of us did, and you have a nagging feeling in the back of your mind that you could lose this job really quickly,” he asked, “why would anyone want to go into that?”

He joined a group created recently by other young teachers, Educators for Excellence, to lobby against seniority rules, taking on their own union

Let's see now. Mr. Borock has many job opportunities (in this economy? - please tell) and reports are emerging that the founders of Educators for Excellence may be leaving teaching, as 50% of the new teachers do within 5 years. So the idea that newer graduates, many of whom were driven into teaching by the economy anyway, would not do so is interesting. I can't tell you how many young teachers I hear from who are dying to get into the system. Something about health care and maybe even pensions - oh, gosh, these are not things teachers should talk about - that's stuff about "adults" and it's all about the kids.

So Mr. Borock if he's laid off should take all those job opportunities. There are plenty of people waiting to take his place when they start rehiring.

Add on
Chaz has some thoughts on E4E:
The Educators4Excellence Group Is Just A Stooge For Bloomberg & Klein's "Education On The Cheap" Policy

And as usual, South Bronx School has been going wild.

Seniority and Pakter Non-Hearing

UPDATED (see below):

I attended the David Pakter 3020a "hearing" today but there was no hearing (search this blog for background if you don't know about this case as I'm too lazy to get the links). Or at least while I was there. I left at 2 when they broke for lunch. David will update us soon.

We had quite a cast of characters. The wonderful hearing officer, Douglas Bantle - who is such a decent guy the DOE is getting rid of him. The NYSUT lawyer, Chris Calegy, who whenever I see him in action is impressive. Betsy Combier, who is always there for people and her sidekick Polo Colon. I alerted Gotham's Anna Philips about the hearing and unfortunately she showed up and wasted 3 hours waiting for a hearing that never took place. I owe her lunch - or at least an ice cream. But I did give her an earful for classifying New Action as an opposition caucus instead of bottom-feeding weasels. (See my recent post: UFT election figures for New Action Over the Years)

Ken Hirsch tagged along with Anna. Ken is the most likable ed deformer, some kind of hedge fund guy who helps fund scuzzy charter schools like HSA and Girls Prep and who knows what else. He also helps fund Gotham, which is a good thing, despite the fact some people feel they tilt (I am not yet convinced of that.)

I always have very deep discussions with Ken. He is a guy who while may not be convinceable about the errors of ed deform, is always willing to engage and listen - which with me around is just about all you can do. So we had a brief discussion on a number of issues and touched on the seniority issue. I pointed out how the longevity of teachers in one school creates a certain level of stability and teachers make strong connections to families over time. I'm talking about the elementary school level. Of course, with charter schools parachuting kids and teachers in from all over the place and the destruction of the neighborhood school concept by the deformers, this concept become irrelevant.

I get home and low and behold find that Diana Senechal wrote a great piece at Gotham on this very issue. Accountable Talk linked and wrote his own piece.

The Other Argument for Seniority

There's a nice piece in the Community section at Gotham Schools that lays out the case for seniority, especially in light of possible upcoming layoffs. I won't repeat any of the author's arguments here; you can read them for yourself and decide if they are compelling. I think they are. I'd like to address an argument for seniority that I rarely hear, but it warrants discussion. I believe that ignoring seniority as it exists now would ruin education in the future, and here's why.

Head over and read both pieces and all the comments.

After Ken left, who should show up but blogger South Bronx School, one of my faves – he goes even lower than I do. He's not happy that Gotham doesn't link to him and told Anna so. She defended herself. This was better than the hearing that wasn't taking place. I love SBS but I can understand them not linking. He was promising Anna not to be so raunchy while I begged him to keep it up. What would Whitney Tilson and Thomas Carroll do if he toned it down?

If you dig beneath the crust of SBS, you find the instincts of a teacher who gets it and gives a crap. I'd rather have the fun crusty stuff than see links on Gotham, which often links to Ed Notes. What am I doing wrong?

UPDATE:
Since I posted the above a few minutes ago, I have been in touch with 2 former students who friended me - my 4th grade class in the early 80's and -listen to this - the son of a former student from 1976. His mom brought him to my house when he was one month old and we put him on a blanket on the floor and my cat came over and was bigger than him. Look at him now. His mom was one of my favorite kids of all time and we stayed in touch.

In the small world department, his dad's (his parents never were together) sister was the mom of a couple of kids I had and she was a parent who I always like a lot and I got to know a lot about the family. One day I was at the UFT and I see someone familiar and she said, "Mr. Scott." It was her daughter who I had in my computer classes. She has been working at the UFT - now in the tech department (think those Apple IIe's got her ready for the job market?) - for many years and we run into each other every so often and she fills me in. She has kids herself and her mom is doing fine.

Jeez. The more I am hooking up on facebook, the more the memories come flooding back. One of the students is a NYC teacher and we are getting together soon - the first time I will see him in over 25 years and next week I am meeting a student from the late 70's for lunch - I haven't seen her since she was in high school.

Sorry, but this is my "data."


Some former 4th graders had an elementary school reunion in Feb. I can recognize 4.

Well, I finally saw some tears flowing/Day of Infamy

Comments from ATR's posted on the ICE blog. The UFT is less than useless. More like toxic. I wish these anonymous commenters would at least identify the UFT officials publicly.

Many letters were given out at Tilden yesterday and today. Veteran teachers are all being assigned as ATR's to various locations. Since they all must appear on Monday, the number of teachers who got letters through out the week are all here today, Friday the 19th.

I can hear a teacher crying next door as I write this. If she wanted to leave Tilden, she would have asked for a seniority transfer years ago. She loves the kids in this community and wants to stay. She has over 20 years experience.

The locations are, well, to be blunt the locations that parents usually use the no child left behind act to get their kids away from. Seniority transfers used to allow you to pay your dues in a tougher school then move somewhere that the kids really think that the N word is really a bad word. Now it is the opposite. You work in a tough neighborhood for twenty years with dreams of finishing your career in that nice school near your home in the borough or place that you live in and as you walk out today past that new young teacher hired by a new school, you realize that you are on your way into the belly of the beast.

The place where that younger teacher should have been paying their dues at this very moment. I feel bad for the ones who voted no on the last contract. For the ones who voted yes and were dumb enough to tell me that you did? LOL seems appropriate.

A DAY OF INFAMY

Yesterday September 19th 2008 was a Day of Infamy. All the ATR's in my school and other schools got their new assignments. ATR"S are being sent to alternative schools, learning centers, mini schools, not places that senior teachers would normally go to.But since we were sold out by the UFT we have no choice. The plan as most people see it is to make us uncomfortable so that we will quit or retire or they will send us to the Sup's office on some type of phony insubordination charges.

And where is our union, Blowing Smoke" like the district rep did at our school yesterday. He just answers questions with double talk answers. Why did they call an emergency meeting yesterday at 2:15 this meeting should have been last week. The reps response was that they did not anticipate the DOE's action. Everyone else in the system knew that this was going to happen yesterday except the UFT.

ATR's wake up. The UFT sold us out.The time for a Class Action Case is now. Do not expect any help from the UFT, they created this whole situation with their lousy contracts.

Some teachers in my school are calling for a job action. That's one thing Randi is afraid of doing so it should be done. It was done in Philadelphia a few years ago and it worked. Lets work together and forget the UFT.

And a comment on this blog:

At South Shore on Friday, a notice was posted over the timeclock that all ATR's, with or without programs, had to report for a meeting with the principal at 2:15. Mind you, our day ends at 2:25. So all 20 ATR's gather and wait and wait and wait. (This after a really horrible day of anxiety and tears. Normally nice tempered friends were at each others' throats.) So we wait. And wait some more. Finally, after someone called downstairs, the principal and APO arrive with the dreaded pile of letters. Some ATR's had already left in anger since it was now OUR time.

There was a rumor that Charlie Turner, our union rep, would be there too but he was a no show. My envelope was one of the first and since I could deal with the tension no longer, I ran out opening my letter as I did so I have no idea what news others got or what the reaction was.

On my way out I ran into two former students who were so glad to see me but I couldn't talk for the lump in my throat. I never said goodbye to anyone but the wonderful safety agent at the front desk whose two daughters were in my AP classes a few years ago. South Shore is my neighborhood school; the kids there are my neighbors' kids. I had always intended to end my career there. And when none of us were able to get jobs at the 8 new schools upstairs, it was clear that we don't count for anything. I report Monday to a school I don't know, to administrators who will do whatever they like with me; I could be a classroom teacher out of license or a day to day sub or a much hated competitor for classes in license. After almost 20 years of excellent teaching, mentoring, etc., what a pathetic way to almost end a career. I wish I could just go away. Teaching is my identity and Bloomklein and the Randi and the union have destroyed my identity.

Ed Note: Ed Notes rates Charlie Turner as one of the lowest of the low Unity Caucus hacks. Having crawled out from under a rock, he must have returned from whence he came to avoid facing the music from an angry group of teachers, who have as much anger, if not more, towards the UFT.

Stories of the Day

Updated 7/4/08

Rubber rooms: UFT makes deal with DOE
Check out the ICE analysis of the deal which comes up smelling of public relations
One would ask why there had to be a deal to hire more arbitrators to speed cases as an alternative to letting people rot in rubber rooms when it seems it would be in the interest of the DOE to get these things done as quickly as possible. So why haven't they? Is it due to the numerous cases of people being railroaded by principals with vendettas? Has the DOE been using the rubber rooms as holding pens to support principals who wanted to keep political opponents or people who were "negative" when they tried to push programs that looked ridiculous to educators? Knowing full-well that many of these cases would not hold up, they chose to pay people. Maybe the political pressure grew too great.

By the way, when I made a suggestion to do this at an Executive Board meeting back in 2005, Randi Weingarten attacked me. And when Jeff Kaufman called on the UFT in June 2006 to hire people to do independent investigations, he was similarly attacked.

It was ICE people that consistently drove the UFT to take action on the rubber rooms, which they did not want to know about until we raised it and began bringing people to Executive Board meetings to speak out. What we ended up with was a useless UFT SWAT rubber room team where the infighting is worthy of Kabuki theater.

Michelle Rhee Targets Seniority, Tenure
Rhee wants to bribe people with high salaries to give up seniority and tenure and be willing to undergo a yearly review, based on the ability to raise test scores. People in it for the short term might take the deal, as might people near retirement (bet these people get reviewed out of the system in a heart beat.) Anyone looking for a teaching career in Washington DC better not be tempted.

And here's a good one because of some old friends:
Miami/Dade County Teachers locked in battle with district
They want to cancel promised raises due to budget cuts. So NYC teachers who expect automatic raises should be aware that this can happen. It did to us back in the 70's and 80's (I think.)

Former NYC Chancellor Rudy Crew (forced out by Giuliani) is the Miami superintendent and former long-time NYCDOE personal director Howie Tames is a labor consultant.

Labor consultant Howard Tames said the district hoped to reach a compromise with the teachers. ''It's the district's position that all employees are important and we want to give money to them,'' Tames said. "But by law, the budget gap has to be filled before we can give out the raises.''

Crew said he will not take his raise either. Crew and Tames still look like gold compared to the crew we got at Tweed.

Howie was a former chapter chairman Unity Caucus member in District 14 who rose quickly though the ranks at the DOE in the mid -70's to head the DOE personnel department, becoming a mainstay and dominant figure through multiple chancellors. Howie knew everyone and knew which buttons to push and he did a lot of favors for a lot of people. He didn't fit the corporate model and was purged under BloomKlein (though he will deny it.)

Howie is also one of my fraternity brothers. We went through some rough times in the 70's when the opposition group "Another View in District 14" (members were amongst the founders of ICE a generation later) battled the local political gang and city-wide Unity Caucus machine. Some of my colleagues still have resentments but Howie and I buried the hatchet a long time ago. Bet he has some fun Tweedle stories. Can't wait for him to write his memoirs.

Seniority Be Damned!

When you get on an airplane, peek in the cockpit. Do you feel better or worse if there's a gray-haired gent sitting in the pilot's seat? How would you feel if you saw, say, a 22 year old? How do you feel about seniority now?

NYC Educator today raises an interesting point in his "They Should be Shocked! Shocked!" piece (Claude Rains, where are you?)

It's funny to read in the UFT paper that they've filed a discrimination suit against the city. Apparently, the Absent Teacher Reserve is largely composed of senior teachers. Amazingly, principals, who now have to pay salaries out of their own school budgets, prefer to hire newer teachers for half the price.

Clearly no one in the UFT anticipated this when they agreed to Klein's third reorganization. This was the reorganization that made principals pay salary lines out of their own budgets. UFT bigshots are shocked that principals snap up newbies at half the price while senior teachers are left to rot in the ATR brigade.

Weingarten and Klein both gain from the attack on senior teachers. The more years people teach, the more they see how the UFT and the DOE operate and the better chance some of them will become resisters. Just look at the experienced core that is built around his blog. Many only became resisters in recent years.

A younger crowd without a memory of an active union helps Unity keep power. Unity talks the game on seniority - they've been finagling these law suits for years, for PR purposes. People who have been tracking them know just how they've made sure to file these things in a way that will take as long as possible - the idea is to shut people up and say - "See, we're doing something." Ignore what they say, but watch what they do.

Even Mike Mendel's attack on Klein's tenure manipulations bragged about how many ways principals have to deny tenure. The UFT unofficial position on the non-tenured is to say "wink, wink, do what you will." That was the basis of his outrage. "We are letting you do anything you want and you still want to make a political deal out of this?"

It works for Klein too in the same way - fearful and manipulated, new teachers will ignore even the union rules they have. Like a duty free lunch hour, one of the basic rights in the contract, is being ignored all over the place, especially in elementary schools where it is considered unpatriotic to refuse to attend "working" lunches.

The UFT has been part of the attack on senior teachers - underground by agreeing to gut the contractual protections, starting with going along with Klein not to allow seniority transfers. Klein used this as his opening salvo when he took over, claiming these people were all incompetent. I even saw Randi at a City Council meeting not defend these transfers but brag how we were cooperating. These were maybe 600 people a year and they were attacked like this was the cause of educational failure.

One of the ironies is that Klein also attacked these transfers because "they were removing needed experienced teachers from the ghetto schools that needed them." What bull, considering how the DOE turned this around. Klein said the same thing in the last reorganization, claiming the "white" schools got more money because of higher teacher salaries. That is how he sells his program to the black and Hispanic communities. Playing the race card.

I knew many excellent teachers who after 20 years got tired of battling with struggling students and wanted to end their careers working with a different population. Principals always resisted these transfers and for years managed to hide openings - just check all the young kids teaching in Staten Island for many years while teachers who were residents and working in Williamsburg waited years for a transfer.

But many of my friends found it so much easier to teach when they got to these schools because discipline was easy as pie. They were often looked at within a year or two as one of the best. Were there some rotten apples? Of course. But these were magnified by Klein and others who spread stories about them - check Sol Stern's book about the awful math teacher his kid at Stuyvesant ended up with after transferring from Seward Park. He built his rep with the right wing anti-teacher crowd on the back of that teacher.

The UFT, always not wanting to appear to be defending bad teachers, is willing to allow good and bad to go to slaughter, so they can claim "we are a union of professionals" that help remove poor teachers. This is not just a Weingarten thing, but comes directly from Al Shanker - some of his quotes will make your hair stand up. From merit pay to seniority to the use of a testing regime.

I just finished working on a review of the Kahlenberg book on Shanker and that has provided a deeper understanding of how and why the UFT has made the moves it has. They have not been outfoxed by Klein. Philosophically, they've been there before Klein ever set foot in Tweed.

In fact, there's a defense of seniority, with all the attending ills. I taught for 27 years in a school in a poor neighborhood and most people spent their careers there. New teachers were absorbed every year a few at a time and working next door to senior teachers always had people to rely on. Of course, the cushy positions were filled by seniority. In some ways that worked. After all, you spend 10 or 15 or 20 years in the all-day classroom, maybe it's better for the teacher and the kids for you to do a less intensive job.

Ok. I know the argument that new teachers shouldn't be throw into the fray right away. My first year and a half, I lucked out and was an ATR (they had them in '67 and '68 when they overhired) and I went through hell. But I learned without ruining a class, other than the day I had them. By my 2nd year I felt like a semi-pro and when I took over my first class midway through that year, I really knew what I was doing.

So my solution is to either set up an internship program and/or make the new teachers ATR's instead of the senior teachers, a massive waste of talent and money.

Do you hear snoring?

Guest Column by Woodlass

You've heard about scripted lesson plans for the classroom? Wait until you see what the DOE has scripted for us now.

They've just sent excessed educators a hefty "Placement Guide," which is a manual on how to let the Open Market System process you. Once again our employer has confused us with our students, and once again a very sleepy union is taking it on the chin. They, too, want to keep us barefoot and pregnant: to stay with the kids, do what we're told, and keep our mouths shut.

The new guide starts with this pandering come-on: "We hope this guide will give you an understanding of how the job search process works." If you really want to know how the Open Market works, just read the recent blogs. It "works" to further destabilize the system and hurt the educators in schools that are being closed or restructured, particularly those who teach the minor subjects and exercise their political voice.

There are some questionable sentences in the opening pages about hiring practices being changed in the teacher contract in 2006. I looked at the 2003-7 contract posted on the UFT website and I actually don't see anything in there about the Open Market system, particularly where it would hurt us most, in the article on excessing (17.B). Which contract are they referring to, the next one? I didn't know contracts prepared for a future date apply to the current moment. Correct me if I'm missing something here.

Then follows a deprecating little section in this guide of "tips" for conducting a successful job search, six DOs and DON'Ts that are basic for anyone looking for a job, much less educators who might have actually taught the subject themselves. After some "Job Search Strategies" on pages 7-8, you'd have to see the remaining pages to believe the content of this enormous script. There are 11 pages of how-to instructions: how to research schools, update your resume (sample provided), write a cover letter ("a basic three-paragraph" one no less), communicate with principals (two more pages of DOs and DON'Ts), prepare and take an interview (I guess they think all of us are getting them: Double Not), and much about a demonstration lesson. The last pages are filled with administrative info on certification, office hours, and the like, and finally my favorite -- an Appendix consisting of a long list of "Action Verbs."

I have said it many times before. The people who are running the DOE despise teachers. They see us as minions, not as educators, and having no regard for our degrees or our experience, they send us scripts so we can fit better into their plans. These are of course driven by corporate values and do not serve the public. They have degraded a school system many of us would have been happy to put our own kids in, even if we didn't have to.

Do you hear snoring? It's the union.

UFT To Members: Seniority is No Longer An Issue Because We Eviscerated It

......was posted by Jeff Kaufman on the ICE blog.

It lays out the basic seniority issues very well from the teacher rights point of view.

We should not view the issue solely from the perspective of teacher rights.

Joel Klein makes the argument that a school system should not be about job protection but about teaching and learning. Sounds noble if you don't know the real deal. Weingarten goes along with these beliefs as evidenced from her actions in relation to seniority protections and by info from the inside that she talks more about getting rid of bad teachers than about being worried about protections.

There's a case to be made (NEVER by the UFT, of course) that seniority rules create stability and school cultures that overcome the instances of the bad teacher being protected (I still think there are as many poor teachers, if not more, since BloomKlein and many people loyal to the principal will be protected no matter how bad they are.)

Stable schools include experienced people, many of whom share their knowledge and do the real training of newbies. Kids have long-standing relationships with teachers in these schools. The assault on seniority had done as much damage, if not more, to the educational institutions as it has to the traditional perspective of job protection.

The REAL story behind the "Open" Market Transfer List

by a NYC teacher

Last May, I was desperate to leave my school.

I had responded to six schools that were on the "Open" Market Transfer list did not hear back from any of them.

Through friends, I heard of four possible openings at schools. When I looked, NONE of them were on the "Open" Market Transfer list.



I have been active in the system and have friends in many schools through curriculum projects that I have worked on and some email lists. This is how I found out about the openings (two via the mailing lists, one from a friend and one from an AP who is now a principal).

I talked to one principal on the phone (I had worked in a school with him when he was an AP) and he said that he would get back to me. He said I should check the "Open" Market Transfer List and that if I saw my job posted it, that it was for me and I should apply.

I talked to another principal (unfortunately at a school which involved a long commute). He said if I wanted a job, to call him and he would try to post a job for me on the OMTL.

I interviewed at the two jobs I found out about on the mailing list. One said that they were considering it. It was a very small school and I wasn't sure if the job would last.

The other school interviewed me twice. Then the principal offered me the job. He said that when I accepted he would post it.

By now, I had applied to over 12 schools on the "Open" Market transfer list and gotten no replies. And talked to four schools with openings BUT nothing posted on the OMTL.

When I accepted the offer, it was posted. I am now very happy at a new school.

Nothing done by the principals who didn't post first violates the rules of the OMTL. There is no necessity to interview anybody for the people who posted on the OMTL. The other jobs that I inquired about through the OMTL never contacted me to submit my resume.

So, do you need a new job? Call friends and contacts, send out your resume and then maybe you will get contacted!

IN FACT: I do know a few people who got jobs that they applied for on the OMTL — but most of the people who changed jobs got them they way I did.

First they applied, then they were accepted, then they accepted the job and THEN it was posted. Makes it easier for the principal — but means there is no longer system wide seniority which has led us into the ATR situation.

The OMTL reflects the death of a basic principle of unionism: the ability to transfer within a system based on seniority rather than cronyism or nepotism.