Are Democrats Finally Turning Against Charters?

The Legislature may not even bother to take up charter advocates’ most pressing need: lifting the cap on the number of charter schools that can open statewide. Fewer than 10 new charter schools can open in New York City until the law is changed in Albany.

That means the city’s largest charter networks, including the widely known Success Academy, will be stymied in their ambitious goal of expanding enough to become parallel districts within the school system... NYT

One of the losers in Tuesday’s election is the charter school movement, which lost a big and reliable advocate when Republicans gave up control of the majority to Democrats in the State Senate, both sides said.
The strongest backer of charter schools now is Democratic Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who wields extraordinary power in crafting state budgets under New York law. “What that means is you can stop bad stuff, but it doesn’t mean you will see an expansion,” Bellafiore said.... Newsday

Two articles that should give us some joy to read.

I've always maintained that the UFT/NYSUT/AFT weakness on opposing charters over their first two decades was a major reason so many Democrats fell into the charter trap. This goes back to when Clinton was governor of Arkansaw and Al Shanker built an alliance between the AFT and the neo-liberal Clintons -- and when Clinton became president, the alliance continued until Shanker died in 1997. Randi cemented the alliance. And the charter movement began to grow by leaps and bounds as ed deform geared up into this century.

After all, there is no better illustration of neo-liberalism than the anti-union, anti-public education charter movement.

Articles in the NY Times and Newsday is a sign the worm has turned in this state and others.

NY Post: DOE restricts Zuckerberg Summit Learning as Students at Secondary School of Journalism Protest

This just may be the first student revolt against Zuckerberg and hi-tech assaults on education. That it was led by kids of color makes it special, especially when he hear of recent events where wealthier parents are controlling some of the tech infringements while poorer communities are getting Summit Learning like programs pushed down their throats. I think this story should be picked up nationally.

NY Post

Last week I broke a story on a student walkout at the Secondary School of Journalism on the John Jay Campus in Park Slope. The information about the walkout was provided to me by parent activist Annette Renaud, whose niece attends the school.

• STUDENTS ORGANIZE WALKOUT at Secondary Sc...
• Video: School of Secondary Journalism Student Walk...

I raced out of the UFT DA this past Wednesday (Nov. 7) to attend the School Leadership Team (SLT) meeting at SSJ after being alerted by Leonie Haimson, a meeting attended Sue Edelman of the NY Post.

Sue has done some of the best reporting on shenanigans at the DOE on the part of officials and supervisors. She is a hero to many teachers. (Sue is also the niece of my former next door neighbor, so we go back a long way since she first came to NYC to work for the Post decades ago.) Today Sue's article appears in the NY Post: https://nypost.com/2018/11/10/brooklyn-students-hold-walkout-in-protest-of-facebook-designed-online-program/

Leonie, of course, is also a hero to many of us for her amazing work.

I wasn't originally clear about all the reasons for the walkout but the way principal Livingstone Hilaire has run the school was a factor in the student revolt. (His reputation over the years has been sketchy, as reported by some of my correspondents who worked at schools he has run.) From what I hear, a number of teachers have left the school and been replaced by newbies who don't dare speak out.
Sue does quote one:

A teacher who requested anonymity said Summit glitches include system crashes, poor wifi in the old John Jay HS building, and a lack of laptops. What’s worse, the teacher added, many students hate it. “It’s a lot of reading on the computer, and that’s not good for the eyes. Kids complain. Some kids refuse to do it.”

Leonie's eye was caught by the involvement of Summit Learning, which is owned by Facebook's Zuckerberg and we are not surprised that Summit mines student and family data for future use. She immediately retweeted my post and left this comment:

Parents and students throughout the country have rebelled vs the Summit system b/c the students start to hate school, fall behind and become disengaged from their learning having to stare at computer screens for many hours per day. Moreover, all their personal data is being scooped up by Mark Zuckerberg via his CZI LLC.

(See below for a list of links Leonie has provided.)

Zuckerberg is giving away ice water in the winter:

Last summer, Summit trained 9th and 10th grade teachers, paying for four nights in a Newark, N.J, hotel plus meals.

Student Mitchel Storman

Hilaire ran the SLT meeting, which lasted until past 8PM. It was not well attended - there were no teachers present - but there was one freshman student, Mitchel Storman, who gave an honest assessment of what is wrong with the Summit program which turned parents, who at first seemed skeptical of the critiques, in the room around. Mitchel was one impressive 14 year old.

Leonie read a list of the data collected on the students and people's eyes lit up. This is Zuckerberg of Facebook data fame and they took notice. I pointed out that teachers' comments might follow the student forever.

Hilaire, who can be a charming guy, played it a bit dumb when Leonie asked for a copy of the Summit contract and if it complied with the state student privacy law. He said DOE Legal had approved his use of Summit. Yes, DOE Legal -- so competent.

When students walked out, the DOE did nothing but try to convince them not to do it through the Supt. But ---

The DOE only takes action when it gets negative press - it ignored the student walkout. So in response to Sue's story:

The DOE said late Saturday the school will immediately drop the Summit program in 11th and 12th grades. Administrators will ” continue to be in communication with students, staff, and parents about the new strategies over the next few weeks,” said spokeswoman Danielle Filson.

David Bloomfield, a Brooklyn College and CUNY Grad Center education professor, said the online system “fits the Facebook business model,” but came into city schools with little input or review.

“It’s educational experimentation on our kids,” he said.
At a school meeting last week, SSJ parents also voiced concerns about privacy in light of recent Facebook data breaches. Summit collects a wealth of information on each student, from age, ethnicity, and extracurricular activities, to grades, test scores and disciplinary penalties. It insists the data is safe.

Read it all at: https://nypost.com/2018/11/10/brooklyn-students-hold-walkout-in-protest-of-facebook-designed-online-program/

Here is a photo from Sue's story - she went back to the school on Thursday. You gotta love these gutsy kids.

Student protest leaders Zenaiah Bonsu (from left), Kelly Hernandez and Akila Robinson

Leonie Haimson's links:

Students’ personal data is being collected by CZI/Mark Zuckerberg and being shared with up to 18 other companies.  In at least 16 states parents and students have rebelled.

Facebook Takes a Step Into Education Software, NY Times, Sept. 3. 2015

Facebook-backed school software shows promise and raises privacy concerns, WaPost, Oct. 11, 2016

Parents cite student privacy concerns with popular online education platform, WaPost, Sept. 5, 2017:

Parents rebel against Summit learning platform, Student Privacy Matters, Aug. 31, 2017

Update on Summit Schools including visit to a Summit school, Student Privacy Matters, Dec. 6, 2017

Connecticut School District Suspends Use of Summit Learning Platform, Edsurge, Dec 20, 2017

Two Districts Roll Back Summit Personalized Learning Program, Ed Week, Dec. 22, 2017

Zuckerberg and the parent pushback vs Summit schools; Student Privacy Matters, Feb. 2, 2018

Online Learning: What Every Parent Should Know, Network for Public Education, March 2018

Mark Zuckerberg Is Trying to Transform Education. This Town Fought Back, NY Magazine, Oct. 11, 2018.

What Just Happened to Summit? , Curmudgucation, October 14, 2018

https://www.wetheparents.net/resistance , Website posted by parents fighting Summit in their own districts

Afterburn:

Had a great time at dinner with Leonie at a Turkish restaurant on 7th Ave after the meeting. I had a chance to fill her in on some of the dramas taking place in the UFT. 

More drama on the trip home as trains we diverted and stalled and we had to improvise. My car was in Brooklyn and the Gil Hodges bridge was due to close at 11PM. I got to my car at 10:42 and hit the bridge at 10:59. I road that buggy like a formula one.

When American Troops interferred in more than an election in Russia

Pvt. Henkelman, who painted car bodies at Detroit’s American Auto Trimming Co. before being drafted, told the soldiers he would cross enemy lines alone, carrying a white flag. He would invite the Bolsheviks to a goodbye party. Then he and his co-conspirators would walk away from the war. Four days later, U.S. Army officers caught wind of the plot. Pvt. Henkelman was hauled before a court-martial and charged with treason, desertion and mutiny—crimes punishable by death.....
Soldiers in Company A of the 339th tried to forge a separate peace with Bolshevik soldiers across from their lines. One American, apparently the son of Russian or Eastern European immigrants, drafted the truce offering in rough Russian on Knights of Columbus stationery decorated with an American flag. The writer complained about the deceit of the British officers and the absence of British troops on the front lines.

Yesterday's WSJ had an amazing article about one of the most shameless events in our history -- the sending of troops to Russia to fight try to kill off the Russian Revolution. I'm posting this because a member of my writing group, Bruce Bowman, has written an as yet unpublished novel on this very subject. How American troops who were expecting to fight the Germans were sent to Russia to fight the Bolsheviks. So what's a little interference in the 2016 election compared to this?

More proof that Woodrow Wilson engaged in some of the most awful deceptions of any American president, despite his reputation as a liberal. When I studied history we viewed him as one of the good guys. Goes to show you how much stuff has been hidden.

The Saturday Essay

The One Time American Troops Fought Russians Was at the End of World War I—and They Lost

Thousands of U.S. soldiers sent to guard military storehouses from the Germans were instead ordered to wage war on the Bolsheviks

In late February 1919, the soldiers of Company B reached the breaking point, when griping gave way to mutiny.

The Americans had expected to face Germans on the Western Front. Yet three months after the Nov. 11 armistice ended the Great War, they were instead fighting Bolshevik revolutionaries in Russia’s frigid European north.

Dozens of their fellow troops had succumbed to influenza on the sea voyage to the Russian port of Archangel. Others had been killed in combat by an enemy armed with a local’s knowledge of trails and villages. Wounded Americans had frozen to death awaiting rescue in snowy forests.

Kristallnacht - The Day of Fate - David Frum, The Atlantic

Until November 1938, the Nazi program for Germany’s Jews was one of humiliation, segregation, and exploitation. Recent scholarship has drawn uncomfortable parallels between the Nazi subordination of the Jews before 1938 and the Jim Crow system of the American South at the same time. In the half decade leading up to 1938, German Jews were expelled from the civil service and from teaching posts. They were forbidden to marry Gentiles and risked murderous punishment for nonmarital sexual relations. They lost their licenses to practice medicine and law. They were barred from using park benches and swimming pools. They were excluded from Germany’s universities, then its high schools. They were expelled from orchestras and other cultural institutions. At every turn, they were economically defrauded and robbed: subjected to economic boycotts, punitively taxed, denied health insurance and other social benefits, and forced to sell assets at knockdown prices to regime cronies.
Yet through the end of 1937, it remained possible to hope that the Nazi persecution might still respect some last limits of humanity. While many individual Jews suffered assaults and some were murdered in the early years of the regime, systematic killing of Jews solely because of their religion still hovered over the horizon. Surely in an advanced and cultured nation, some decency must still constrain uttermost barbarity?
Eighty years ago this week, the last of those illusions was smashed like broken glass.

I posted another story on Kritallnacht on FB but this one by David Frum is so good as it connects some dots between then and now.

The Day of Fate

Kristallnacht, on its 80th anniversary, still offers a potent lesson: We all face the choice between right and wrong, responsibility and recklessness, conscience and complicity.

7:01 AM ET 
 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/eighty-years-after-kristallnacht/575410/?utm_source=twitter&utm_term=2018-11-09T12%3A01%3A01&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&fbclid=IwAR0VfDZkek5y6MjGrA8C-4Jv0EKbfRGWej_c9KkwNtjgLKaFc39hjVfqBhU

UFT Contract Vote Results - Finally

I've been bitching about the lack of exact numbers (UFT Contract Vote: Where are the numbers?) but here they are:

James has some comparisons to 2014 at the ICE blog:

There were 89,083 total votes cast this year compared to 90,459 in 2014. That's 1,376 fewer voters. In terms of teachers, there were 61,708 votes cast in 2018 compared to 64,232 in 2014. I can't explain that 2,524 drop in numbers for teachers.

Obviously a key vote came in the OT/PT chapter with only 36% approving the contract.

Very significant is the 86% teacher vote. Yes, 8600 voted NO in spite of enormous pressure and speed in the process, but 53,000 teachers voted YES. James points to 2500 less teachers voting than last time.

James points to the total NO vote as roughly 12,000.

Let me point out that in the 2016 UFT elections MORE/NA received 10,600 votes. Add the Portelos 1400 and we get about 1200 total in 2016.

What this tells me is that there is a floating 12,000 people in the UFT who are skeptical or opposed to Unity. That number has ranged between 9 and 12,000 over the past decades.

James thinks if the opposition had been in more schools the vote would have been higher.

But that is the point. Why isn't the opposition in more schools? And why has the number of opposition people and schools remained fairly constant over decades?

Here's how I'm beginning to look at it.
There aren't more opposition and therefore a greater vote because being an active part of the opposition doesn't and hasn't appealed to many people beyond this floating core. And I do not see any prospects for this to change in the near future. In fact I think it may shrink, given the opposition is at its weakest point in a very long time.

The Founders and Us -- Was John Adams Right and Jefferson and Madison Wrong?

Since the 1980s, Ellis argues, the political right has engaged in a persistent, well-funded and “radically revisionist” act of historical fraud, painting government as “demonic” in the eyes of its creators. Faced by the reality that [John] Adams anticipated — deep, endemic, expanding inequality — conservatives peddle Jeffersonian remedies, like the crippling of federal power. Ellis thinks the right has been so successful in selling this “extreme version of capitalist theology” that it has, to a meaningful degree, shut down the centuries-old debate about the role of government. The advocates of regulation and economic reform have been shouted down and shoved to the sidelines, Ellis contends, turning “mainstream politics” into “a one-sided conversation, a muted version of the American Dialogue.”.... NYT Review of American Dialogue by Joseph Ellis

A fascinating review of a book I think I should read but probably never will. I remember this debate taking place in my history classes in high school and college. But no longer I imagine. I keep telling people you can't understand what is happening today without looking back to the past. (Check out this Nov. 1960 article on JFK's victory.)

But no one wants to listen. Just yesterday at a luncheon where I was the only one present who was an adult in the 60s, I was asked if those years were as divisive as now. YES I said. Maybe more so. Here is more from the review by Jeff Shesol.

Jefferson’s romantic notion that economic and social equality would be the natural order of American life and Adams’s retort that “as long as property exists, it will accumulate in individuals and families. … The snow ball will grow as it rolls.” Jefferson’s was the prevailing view at the time. Meanwhile Adams’s “prophecy,” as Ellis notes, struck most of his peers as “so bizarre and thoroughly un-American … that it served as evidence for the charge that he had obviously lost his mind.” Adams saw no way to prevent the consolidation of wealth and power by American oligarchs, but he did believe it could and must be moderated — regulated — by a strong national government....

John Adams an early version of late 19th- mid 20th century reformers?

There can be no question whose forecast was right. Jefferson’s ideal of an egalitarian, agrarian society was an anachronism before the 19th century was out, while the Gilded Age, near that century’s end, provided garish confirmation of Adams’s insight. So, of course, does the current age. Turning his attention to the present, Ellis paints a vivid if familiar picture of the redistribution of wealth to the top of the income scale, as well as the abandonment — indeed the denigration — of Adams’s belief that, in Ellis’s words, “the free market required regulation for capitalism to coexist with the egalitarian expectations of democracy.”

I loved this review, though I don't think I have the patience to read the book.

History was my favorite subject from elementary school on. There was possibly some kind of bias in the material against the Federalists and in favor of the Jefferson wing of the party because of the attitudes I emerged with by the time I left college. That the Federalists like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were patrician bad guys and Jefferson and Madison were truer Democrats. Actually, I remember Madison being views as Jefferson's lackey in some ways. (We visited both their houses which were not far apart in Virginia.) But Madison may be the true father of our nation due to the work he did in getting the constitution passed. If not for him we might need a passport go to New Jersey.

Adams

Jefferson

Madison

Did Madison intend the constitution to be read like a biblical tome, ala the late Justice Scalia?

Ellis argues, the prevailing conservative doctrine of “originalism” is a pose that rests on a fiction: the idea that there is a “single source of constitutional truth back there at the founding,” easily discovered by any judge who cares to see it. As a historian, Ellis takes particular offense at the machinations made by Justice Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) — a sophist’s masterpiece of an opinion that concluded the founders sought to arm the American people without limit and without end. Though Scalia is gone, his ideology remains ascendant, while Madison’s heirs, the proponents of a “living Constitution,” are “on the permanent defensive.” History, to that end, is bastardized, sanitized and turned into talking points.

Over the decades my views have shifted because of the new information and interpretations and John Adams has continued to rise. And Madison is just a giant - though he was supposedly short.

Actually I believe the founding fathers stature in history is connected to their heights.
Washington was 6'3"
Jefferson was 6'2"
Adams was 5'7"
Madison was 5'4"

Below the fold is the entire review.

Are Green Party Defections Due to Trump's Pushing People To Democrats, Countering Some Left Analysis?

Normally, I would agree with the Jacobin election analysis. But  you'll note that all the victories were for Democrats, not Greens. Are we tacking left? If so what about the massive drop in vote totals for The Green Party in the NYS governor race?

Totals dropped from 5% to less than 2% in the election for governor of NYS between the 2014 and 2018 election - from 184,419 votes to less than 80,000 at last count. Howie Hawkins was the candidate both times - and everybody loves Howie -- but his Lt Gov was Brian Jones in 2014 and Jia Lee in 2018 - both are associated with MORE and a socialist agenda. The Green platform was a very progressive agenda -- social democracy at the very least -- the kind of agenda I would normally support.

One of the ironies of Trump is that people seem to be moving from the left and more towards the center as a better alternative to the horrible Republicans. And as an aside, thinks of how this analysis might apply inside the UFT where the MORE Caucus is tacking left in the expectation that the membership is also moving in that direction. I and a few others still around MORE who don't quite agree are taking a wait and see attitude.

I often vote for the Green Party but hesitated to do so this time due to my sense that we are stuck in a two party system and with the Republicans being the party of Trump, it is not easy to brand the Democrats as being little different.

I got a dose of this first hand from a close family member who despises Cuomo almost as much as Trump but voted straight Democratic line as a way to register her protest against Trump.

So, given the option of voting Green or voting for the despised Cuomo despite his tacking left, my sense if that many people felt the same way.

Now the left press doesn't seem to agree. Here are some links to a Jacobin analysis:

Jacobin

• Last night's elections were an important repudiation of Trump — and another confirmation that voters will embrace left-wing policies over watered-down centrism, explains Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor.
   
• By running to the right, Democrats insist on losing twice: at the polls and in constructing an inspiring agenda. Bold left-wing politics are our only hope for long-term, substantive victory.
   
• When it comes to beating Trump, baby steps are not enough. America’s decades-long shift to the right won’t be undone with Democratic Party liberalism.

Normally, I would agree with the Jacobin analysis. But if you read some of it you'll note that all the victories were for Democrats, not Greens.

But right now I am thinking I want an FDR New Deal, which has been being undermined by the Republicans, aided by the Clinton/Obama Democratic neo-liberal wing of the party. If people hadn't jumped into the despised (on the left) Democratic Party, there would be no victories.

Rather than jumping into left-wing parties, I'm feeling that we are at a stage that requires many people to work in the Democratic Party even when some elements are not of a perfect political flavor. Like can the party exist within the two poles of Connor Lamb and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

I'm willing to give it a try. But I also want to note that AOC has come under severe attack from the left-wing ideologues, so expect them to keep attacking the Democratic Party but when it suits them to brag about victories over Trump by the Dems.

I have the sense that it is time to join my UFT brethren in working in the Democratic Party, pushing for a progressive program. Not a radical program, but progressive. I just may start going to UFT Retiree chapter meetings and look at some options -- and let me note I hate canvassing and calling from phone banks but may have to bite the bullet.

I couldn't mark the ballot box for Cuomo but also couldn't vote Green. Someone reminded me that former Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner, who at one time wanted to challenge Cuomo in the primary, was also on the ballot and I want to encourage diversity inside the Dems, so I voted for her.

But there is some good news for the Greens, as evidenced in this article from a Syracuse newspaper.

Howie Hawkins wins enough votes to keep Green Party status in NY

Candidates for New York governor Stephanie Miner, Larry Sharpe and Howie Hawkins speak during the 2018 Global Citizen Festival in New York City. (Photo by Theo Wargo)

By Michelle Breidenbach

mbreidenbach@syracuse.com

syracuse.com

Syracuse's Howie Hawkins has succeeded in his attempt to keep the Green Party's status as an official party in New York state.

With 83 percent of the vote counted, Hawkins had won 79,640 votes. That was less than 2 percent of the vote against the winner Gov. Andrew Cuomo and challengers Republican Marc Molinaro, Libertarian Larry Sharpe and Stephanie Miner, who ran on a new party called the Serve America Movement.

Sharpe has also won enough votes to give the Libertarian Party a line for the next four years. Miner was behind in her effort to win a ballot line for the SAM party.

Although he has not won office in more than 20 tries, Hawkins has been a powerhouse for the Green Party's ballot placement.

Candidates who win at least 50,000 votes in the race for governor win an automatic ballot line for the party for the next four years. It means candidates who run on the Green Party line for all state and local races can collect fewer signatures than independent party candidates. It also means Hawkins appeared fourth on the ballot this year.

The Green Party appeared fourth on the ballot in NY thanks to Hawkins' strong showing four years ago in the race for governor.

Hawkins inched the Greens into recognized party placement in 2010 with 59,906 votes. With a higher ballot line, Hawkins won 184,419 votes in 2014, according to the NYS Board of Elections.

The Green Party boasts that it has successfully won a ballot line three terms in a row by running its own candidates rather than cross-endorsing major-party candidates.

White House Press Release: Trump Fires Racist

President Trump struck a blow for civil rights when he fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an avowed racist.

No further information is forthcoming.

UFT Contract Vote: Where are the numbers? Lack of Transparency Leads to conspiracy theories

"Hey, Norm, I bet they began counting the ballots the minute you were out the door." Comment on my post on "observing" the contract vote last Friday.

I've always pretty much accepted the results to the AAA counts on elections and contract votes, especially when I was able to observe the counts. I saw ballots being pulled from envelopes early Friday afternoon. Why weren't they being put in counting machines?

This one took a hell of a long time and I pretty much accepted the story. But I also expected the detailed results to be published. Details like the % and hard numbers for each of the 14 contracts and also the % of those who voted on each contract. I would also like to see the numbers on each of the divisions - high schools, middle schools and elementary schools.

These numbers are available as every voter was checked off on master lists. But I will say that the primitive nature of how this count was conducted makes the voting snafus we saw yesterday look mild.

I went to the UFT Ex Bd meeting on Monday night expecting to get some real numbers on the contract vote, which according to UFT officials, went through Saturday and into Sunday morning. It didn't happen. I'm sorry the non-Unity Ex Bd people didn't push harder for answers. But only 3 of them were there, two from New Action.

We were told that the turnout was the same as in 2014 which I thought was over 90% but apparently it wasn't. I heard a number like 79%. MORE is reporting 70% voted as a sign that the 30% non-voters are a sign of protest, or disinterest, but I don't know where the numbers are coming from.

I was at the count in 2014 and I remember it all taking place in one day so I can't quite understand the delays.

People are contacting me and casting some doubts on the process and maybe even the outcomes.

Tossing out the 87% YES vote as the major outcome is misleading.
The reports on Sunday were that 80-85% of the teachers voted YES was confusing. My guess this is UFT/Unity spin --- where are the exact numbers?

The UFT leadership needs to get out the numbers ASAP as transparency is important and I hope they put out a fact sheet at the Delegate Assembly today. If there are still the same sketchy reports then I may jump on the conspiracy theory bandwagon.

Video: School of Secondary Journalism Student Walkout - Student Leader Gets in Touch

Here is a follow-up on the walkout of students yesterday at the Secondary School of Journalism on the John Jay HS Campus in Park Slope: STUDENTS ORGANIZE WALKOUT at Secondary School of Journalism - Complain About AI Principal Livingstone Hilaire

Leonie has been in touch as I posted on my original link. And here is an email from the senior student who organized the walkout -- I'm not using the name, nor am I reporting on the parent who is my contact. Why give the enemy info?

Good morning Mr. Scott,

I’m a 15K463 SSJ senior student who organized the walk out to protest against the principal and other wrongdoings within the school. I was networked with you and I want to thank you for picking up on our story. I will be sending you photographs and video clips from the walk out that occurred on November 5, 2018. If any questions or concerns feel free to email me. Thank you, and have a good day.
 
In the video we are chanting “SSJ will pay for our GPA!”

https://vimeo.com/299277119

School Scope: UFT Contract Passes, Pre-Midterm Thoughts

My column submitted to The WAVE for Nov. 9, 2018.

Written Monday, Nov. 5.
School Scope: UFT Contract Passes, Pre-Midterm Thoughts
By Norm Scott

As further proof that I don’t have a life, I did my due diligence as an unpaid reporter for The WAVE by spending over half a day last Friday at the American Arbitration Association (AAA) attempting to observe the vote count for the new UFT contract. It turned into 5 hours of watching 30 workers opening over 100,000 outer, then inner envelopes before a nugget of a ballot with either a YES or NO or a “Go to hell” written on it emerged, to be stacked and ready for counting. Since there were 14 separate contracts being voted on, there were 14 colored ballots. I can’t imagine the range of 14 colors once we get beyond the primary ones.

UPDATED: STUDENTS ORGANIZE WALKOUT at Secondary School of Journalism - Complain About AI Principal Livingstone Hilaire

I'm updating this post with info from Leonie Haimson. Also see her comment in the comment section.

Students’ personal data is being collected by CZI/Mark Zuckerberg and being shared with up to 18 other companies.  Many parents & students throughout country have rebelled.

See the recent NY Mag article here:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/the-connecticut-resistance-to-zucks-summit-learning-program.html

or the many blog posts I've written about Summit -including https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/08/30/parents-cite-student-privacy-concerns-with-popular-online-education-platform/?utm_term=.991a38a334ee

  and https://www.studentprivacymatters.org/parents-rebel-against-summitfacebookchan-zuckerberg-online-learning-platform/

and https://www.studentprivacymatters.org/update-on-summit-schools-including-my-visit-to-a-summit-charter-school/

and https://www.studentprivacymatters.org/zuckerberg-and-the-parent-pushback-vs-summit-schools-inbloom-reprised/

and https://www.studentprivacymatters.org/serious-privacy-concerns-with-new-summitfacebook-platform-used-in-100-schools-across-the-nation/

I don't have the details on what is behind this walkout at this point. I saw something where the students at a school for supposed journalism are complaining about the curriculum. If you have info leave a comment but be patient as I have moderation on.

Part of 15K463 SSJ walkout on 5th November 2018 - despite the Superintendent Janice Ross trying to talk the students out of it.

One of IA Principal Livingstone Hilaire’s cronies who is also a former IA Principal in our school is preaching to the students what the students typed up.

Superintendent Janice Ross is on site at the moment - she was sent by Executive Superintendent Karen Watts to stop the walk out.

UFT Contract Vote Prelim Report: OT/PT Reject But 87% over all — 80-85% for teachers

UPDATE - Monday -  OT/PT Chapter Leader urged YES Vote. Unity Caucus usually controls the functional chapters so this is not surprising.

======

Sunday 3:30 PM Update - I'm reposting the 1:30 with an update.
The OT/PT, nurses unit rejected the contract. I think the leadership will try to punish them for rejecting the contract by letting a lot of time pass so they will be not get any raises. That'll learn em for saying NO.

A CL emailed me:

The more I look at Mulgrew's letter, the more furious I get. "You just screwed yourselves, but we will stand beside you. While you screw yourselves." Solidarity forever.

OTs and PTs were furious that they didn't get a fair pay increase, pedagogical status, or recognition of enough paid hours to qualify for FMLA. Apparently they went to sleep the night before the tentative agreement being assured they'd get some combination of the above things. When asked about the betrayal at the October DA, Mulgrew tepidly responded by saying something like, "Well, the DOE didn't want to talk about any of that." The attached letter, that just went out to the OT/PT & Nurses chapter, is a classic example of passive-aggressive, supportive-but-actually-not-supportive, chastisement. Very disturbing.

Para Contract
There was some back and forth on the para contract, which I'm sure was overwhelmingly ratified. James Eterno sent me his position on the para contract and why he thinks despite due process it was not a good deal for them.

 Paraprofessionals winning better due process is all well and good from their contract which is a totally separate contract from teachers. The UFT has many distinct bargaining units. What about paraprofessional pay? They too are receiving paltry salary increases so that the starting salary for paras will be $28,448 a year in 2021 in this contract. In NYC that is basically subsistence wages for paras. That is less than half of what a starting teacher makes. Another non-teacher chapter in the UFT isn’t catching up with teacher salaries either. Occupational-physical therapists are not anywhere near pay parity with teachers and these professionals have advanced degrees. That is an outrage that has not been addressed. In addition, guidance counselors, school secretaries and other non-teaching titles did not get an arbitration provision in their workload dispute complaint procedures so administrators are free to just pile on the work and the dispute is never heard by an outside neutral party. Most of the non-teacher UFT contracts are not any better than the teacher deal. Because the paras have better due process, it is no reason to say yes to the teacher or guidance counselor or any other of these UFT contracts.

Will Some NOs opt out?
I also got some feedback from the earlier post -- like if there are over 15,000 people who voted NO, does that make them candidates to use Janus to opt out of the union in June?

Impact on Opposition
I will explore what this all might mean for the opposition that led the NO campaign. 80% of the teachers is a victory of sorts. How much did Eterno and MORE move the NO needle? Imagine if there were NO people in 300-500 schools. That they aren't far from being in triple figures after all this time is indicative of the glacial rate of organizing. In fact there has been shrinkage -- glacial organizing retreat. Still, if the number comes in at 80%, given that in 2014 it was less than 10% points lower among teachers, this is not the kind of +90 wave we thought we might be seeing.

Earlier I reported:

Sketchy report from UFT event at the Hilton. Not as high as we expected but higher than in 2014. We’ll do some analysis on what it may mean in terms of the NO vote campaign and the future UFT election in a few months.

By the way, I heard some birdies say that Mulgrew wants to push the election up from when they held it last time, which makes sense to capitalize on the contract numbers ASAP and also to stay away from the late spring when the window opens up to opt out due to Janus.

I keep asking the others in the opposition about the point of putting so much effort into a dead end election. First build up a network of a few hundred schools. Clearly many of the NO votes came from schools where there was an active NO network. Given how few schools the entire opposition are based in, these votes - say as an estimate - 12-14,000 teachers — is not insignificant in terms of building a network. The opposition must go out and find them and organize them, something it has not been able to do - witness 2014 when higher numbers voted NO.

UFT Contract Vote Update - Large Turnout May Top 2014

2 PM, Nov. 2

As you can see I signed a non-disclosure agreement on the outcome but can blog about the process.
I’m here with people from the UFT - Yasmin Colon, Leroy Barr, Howie Schoor and Dave Hickey - who have been in and out.
I’m leaving here around 3:30 for the ICE meeting. I invited Leroy and Howie to come for a true unity meeting with multiple caucuses. They are tempted but can’t leave so I may send a care package of rice pudding.
A final day influx of schools and individual ballots came in at the last minute.
I’ve been here since 10:30 and they still haven’t begun the count but are about to begin. But we did get a fine lunch.
Here is what they had to do all day so far, mostly manually - there are about 30 people doing the work.
Open each school pack.
Manually check off each person who voted against their lists.
They also had loads of ballots sent in from non-school personnel who had to be checked off.
Then a machine slices open the outer envelope and then the inner envelopes get opened and the ballot removed by hand.
There are 14 contracts up for a vote - each one is color-coded.
The machines are able to distinguish between the colors.
Once the ballots are out and stacked they are fed into the counting machines. I was hoping to watch some of the results and make rough estimates but that won’t happen before I have to leave.

It’s freezing down here even with a jacket.

2:35 - still haven’t begun the count. I won’t have to undergo water torture to spill the beans since I will have no beans to spill.

UFT Contract Vote and UFT Election Update: The Split in the Opposition Doesn't Help

I am setting the over/under for this contract at 89% approval as that was the yes vote in 2006, the last early  contract.

James Eterno on ICEUFT Blog

HANDICAPPING THE CONTRACT RATIFICATION PERCENTAGES -

With UFT elections coming in the winter/spring and the contract vote ending today, there is a connection between the two events. With Eterno predicting 89% YES, I won't go that far.

My guess on the contract vote outcome on the teachers contract will be anywhere from 75% to 93% YES. The Unity campaign could only be counteracted by a strong NO campaign. It didn't happen.

[This is a reworking of my previous post: UFT Contract Vote Scorecard Update - Who's For and Who's Against?]

75% would be a major victory for MORE and ICEUFT blog, which led the VOTE NO campaign with yeoman work by James Eterno on the ICE blog, though Solidarity Caucus, with less outreach, also opposed. James' work has impressed people in MORE and there seems to be some healing going on since the rancor last April. The contract issue has closed a bit of the gap between ICE and MORE, though some ICEers are still outraged at the undemocratic behavior of MORE. (I promise to get into these weeds at some point.) How many NO votes can be attributed to the campaigns?

I think James' post, which by the last weekend had 14,000 hits, may have been the most effective of all:  EVERYTHING BUT THE KITCHEN SINK ON WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE NO.  But he has kept up a constant drumbeat.

Also see this excellent piece on the MORE blog:

Movement of Rank and File Educators

NYC teacher union loses all of the battles it never fights - The new UFT-DOE contract makes no change in the 50-year wait for lower class sizes, a fair grievance procedure, and a rational job security process, among ...

I know class size reductions cost money, but to leave this ragged grievance procedure in place is criminal.

New Action leader and Ex Bd member Jonathan Halabi urged a YES vote with reservations. New Action as a group has not even met on the issue so they have not taken a position. This is a problem for MORE. And for New Action. How do you run in the UFT elections against Unity without a position on the contract?

Two elected MORE/NA Ex Bd reps, Goldstein and Schirtzer, are strong YES votes. My beef with them is that it seems OK to wait another 50 years for grievance procedure or real class size relief. Two observations and parental leave are victories but let's keep an eye on where we should have been going. MORE will continue to lobby on the contract.

I'm going to wager that the lack of a strong unified NO campaign will push the YES votes higher. But if the numbers are similar to 2014 where we had a stronger campaign that will be a sign of unhappiness in the rank and file. But much higher means an accepting rank and file of Unity rule. Don't tell me, as I heard someone say, that people voted YES holding their noses. A YES is a YES.

ICEUFT is having its monthly meeting tomorrow to discuss the contract vote and election possibilities.

I am observing the count most of the day but it probably won't be completed by the meeting and besides I cannot share the outcomes with people no matter how much rice pudding they shove down my mouth. (UFT Contract Vote Count Friday - Embagoed Till Sunday).

I am guessing based on previous contract votes where there were Vote NO campaigns. The most effective was in 1995 when teachers voted down the contract. One thing people may not know is that one division of the union can turn down their contract while others may vote yes. I was not yet active in the UFT other than as a chapter leader focused on my own school and I would bet my efforts there helped the school to a NO vote.

In 2005 ICE and TJC led a massive campaign, with rallies at the DA and the UFT and the vote count was intense -- close to 40% of the teachers voted NO. New Action, in alliance with Unity, was not part of the movement though they did issue a leaflet in opposition.

In 2014, MORE led the Vote NO with about 20,000 leaflets handed out as we went around to schools stuffing mailboxes. (Old vets like Eterno and I were somewhat disappointed in the MORE effort.)

Teachers voted 75% in favor but with 92% voting the 25% against came to 16,000 votes and there was another 4000 NOs from other divisions.

This time MORE led a Vote No campaign, but due to its internal issues that have led to a shrunken MORE, there was limited outreach in the schools but a more effective campaign on multi-media. MORES seem to think that in the schools they are in and active, there will be a NO vote -- I agree but there are too few of them.

The OT (Occupational Therapy) teachers are most upset as they were in 2014 where they did ratify the contract despite reports they were organizing to turn it down and this time they seem to be furious, so I will keep an eye on their vote. Expect paras to vote overwhelmingly -- maybe 95% YES.

UFT Election confusion

A contract vote over 85% would make the UFT election pretty much a waste of time. And many veteran opposition people are talking about sitting it out.

Here is what is clear. Things look bleak if not impossible to have one group opposing Unity -- which would be the only way to win the high school seats this time.

MORE in no way will run with Solidarity -- At the MORE meeting on Saturday someone branded it as a right wing group. I pushed back but apparently the Don't Tread on Me symbol is used on the far right and in the current political environment that is being used as a reason. Some people in New Action are using the same argument. Solidarity should address this issue publicly.

MORE may not even be willing to run with New Action due to the fact that NA is not taking a stand against the contract and Jonathan put out a YES vote. There would have to be some backsliding on its NO campaign to run Halabi as an Ex Bd member, though I can see that happening.

 

It was also pointed out that NA wants to focus on winning the high school seats. MORE does not agree -- that focusing on winning the high schools is a distraction and it wants to get its message out to all levels.

MORE does want the work NA would do in the election, since they are retired  mostly and would relieve the working MORE people to some extent, though given the last time when I handled the petition campaign for the election, NA can only contribute a limited number of signatures. So the bulk would have to come from the MORE people. But they would run a limited slate so that would take some pressure off.

What NA offers is a distribution campaign but NA would most likely put out its own lit instead of pushing the MORE line. 

 

But there is division in NA over running with Solidarity -- they are the "one opposition" people -- that there is almost no point in running if there are two opposition parties, while the other portion of NA wants to run only with MORE. A recent vote in NA leaned toward the pro-Solidarity people but that is still being revisited.

 

If the pro-Solidarity people lose they will not be involved in the election and that limits NA's distribution.

If MORE runs at all - which it probably will -- and probably with some accommodation with New Action if NA decides to abandon an alliance with Solidarity....

....it will be a limited campaign with the purpose of pushing it's political line on the contract and social justice issues. And a good chance it may run on its own. It has experienced people from Teachers for a Just Contract to run a limited campaign like they did when ICE ran with them -- they never put forth a lot of candidates.

The pro-election faction wants to use the campaign to push the "contract we deserve" campaign rather than focus on winning the high school seats.

There are people in MORE who do not feel MORE should run at all because it has shrunk over the years and needs to rebuild itself in the schools and that elections are a distraction. The argument that elections help you build has proven false in every single election I've been in. People emerge for a few weeks and then disappear after we lose badly to Unity.

MORE will discuss the elections at the Nov. 17 meeting.

That leaves everyone else -- and the question is if it is worth it to even run if there will be two opposition groups?

 

Solidarity has declared it is running, though I question whether it has the resources to do much of a campaign. It didn't get on the ballot last time because it was short of the 40 candidates. I assume they will get that many this time but doing all the election work is draining. Do they have the resources? They are willing to run with anyone. The elephant in the room for them is Portelos and some Solidarity people who attended the last ICE meeting said they have a broader base and he is playing less of a role.

 

Is it worth it for segments of NA, Solidarity and others who don't want to run with MORE to run a separate campaign?

 

Also there is the situation with EB members Arthur Goldstein and Mike Schirtzer who are alienated from MORE and free agents now and are being wooed by Unity. Both brought in a batch of high school votes in the last election. It is not clear what they will do, or even try to be on the Ex Bd again.

So at this relatively late date in the UFT election cycle, confusion reigns. James Eterno and I may start playing golf this spring.

UFT Contract Vote Count Friday - I'm Going as an Observer, But Must Sign a Non-Disclosure

I intend to check out the vote count this Friday at the AAA before heading to the ICE meeting but won't be able to report results as they come in due to the UFT Ex Bd voting yesterday to embargo the results so they can be announced on Sunday as part of the UFT's annual celebration of its first strike in 1960.

I told Leroy Barr that I would withstand water torture before revealing the outcome. I will release my own analysis of the outcome on Sunday on this blog.

You know, hanging out at the Ex Bd with Unity people (along with some oppositionists) can lead to a stockholm syndrome effect where hostages begin to identify with their captors.

You can read Arthur's report on the meeting here:

UFT Executive Board October 29th--Contract Voting Results Will Be Released Sunday

Also check out Chaz' rebuke of the allies who are backing the contract.

Chaz's School Daze

Why ATRs Voted No On The Contract. 

Some people who have been critical of the union leadership, have decided to support the contract.  These well-respected bloggers are nyc educator, DOEnuts, and JD2715.  One thing all three have in common is that they are not ATRs.

By contrast, all bloggers who are ATRs.  South Bronx Schools, ATR Adventures, and ATR NYC have voted no.  Moreover, ICEUFT, run by a retired ATR recommended a no vote.  Finally, I, as an ATR also voted no.

It's a pity that our usually reliable allies, while giving lip service in support of the ATRs, still voted yes for the contract, despite the contract not making any significant changes to the ATR pool.
 

 I do not necessarily expect people to vote NO only on the basis of the ATR situation if they think there are benefits for the majority -- ie. -- two observations --- but I expect them to at least point out the negatives.

I don't get it. There is absolutely no need for ATRs given the situation in the schools. The continuance of their status allows all kinds of abuses, especially when teachers are excessed into the pool - principals can weaponize the ATR pool. It seems to me that the end of the ATR situation should have been a line in the sand. Now I know many ATRs who are perfectly happy in the pool but it is time to end this farce -- appoint people to schools like it was done in the old days until 2005. The NYC school system survived 80 years without ATRs and could do so again.