Written and edited by Norm Scott:
EDUCATE! ORGANIZE!! MOBILIZE!!!
Three pillars of The Resistance – providing information on current ed issues, organizing activities around fighting for public education in NYC and beyond and exposing the motives behind the education deformers. We link up with bands of resisters. Nothing will change unless WE ALL GET INVOLVED IN THE STRUGGLE!
Growing up in the East NY section of Brooklyn, I considered myself a liberal, though racism was endemic in my circle of friends. And I get how hard it is to irradiate racist roots when they are planted in the young.
The neighborhood turned from a solid Jewish neighborhood -- there was one Catholic girl in my class -- to a neighborhood in flight due to the influx of people of color by my time in college - my parents joined the exodus in 1965 to Canarsie. I'm sure there were not only Jewish people in the neighborhood but my classes in elementary school seemed to be Jewish. At Thomas Jefferson HS, there was a mix of races but being segregated in a college bound program there was little mixing except for gym.
At Brooklyn College as an
undergrad and grad student from 1962-68 I had little contact with people of color and no contact with anyone on the left.
We had a young lady two years older than me from the midwest who was renting our basement and she and a guy on my block who she didn't know met each other at demos at Downstate hospital in Brooklyn calling for hiring more black people -- I think that was around 1962 in my freshman year. She told me she sat under the wheels of a truck to stop the construction. They were going to the next one together. He was older than me so not a friend but I saw him around for years and was surprised - the first inkling that what we were reading in the papers was touching people I know. (Or maybe he was just interested because she was cute - not unheard of in the world of male activism.)
My first contact with people who were active in the civil rights movement.
A few years later after she moved to Manhattan she called and wanted to stay over for the evening - she was going to a party not far away and wanted me to pick her up after the party. When she called to come and get her my parents hadn't come home yet and I didn't have my car and recruited a few friends to drive me over to an area around Highland Park - I guess today we call it Cypress Hills. I went into an apartment house and knocked on the door - it was opened by a young black man who invited me in. I was at an inter-racial party, something so out of my order of the universe I couldn't comprehend it. They offered me a drink and invited me to stay but my friends were downstairs waiting. And I wasn't very comfortable --- you can guess why.
We drove her back to my house and she was a bit drunk and in a happy mood. (I think my friends were getting ideas.) My parents weren't home yet and my two friends and I were watching TV with her when something came up on TV regarding race. My friends made some racist comments and I either laughed or said something stupid and she went wild -- broke into a crying fit and said she wanted to go home. They left and I finally calmed her down and convinced her to stay.
"What happened that made you go off," I asked her? "You know they are racist"
"Yes," she said, "but I thought you were different."
I thought I was different too. One of the best lessons on racism I've learned. I drove her back to Manhattan the next day and I don't think I ever saw her or heard from her again.
I learned something about racism that night - my racism. How nervous I was walking into that party. I remember how they invited me to stay. The best way to battle racism is contact with people of other races where so many of your misconceptions fall away. A missed opportunity. If I wasn't with my friends I would have stayed.
Who knew that two or three years later I would be working in a school and neighborhood where I would be in constant contact with children of color which had been such an alien world to me and learn lessons daily about racism and my own racism and what a struggle it is to struggle against?
Despite my anti-election stance, as I said the other day on this blog, I will sign all petitions-if asked. I'm not volunteering unless someone asks me. Well, actually, there are a few petitions I won't sign if they were among the people who I've witnessed stabbing people in the back. (But that story is for another time.)
I was asked to go to a petition signing party by a caucus and I will be doing that. I signed a few petitions at the DA the other day.
But let's face it -- what a waste of time.
The amount of emails and social energy and physical energy going on is over the top.
And boy are they all so excited to actually have something to do that seems productive. Wow. Petitioning. Something we can get people to do and make them think they are making a difference.
As I said - busy work.
They have the illusion that they can get people who have not been active to get involved in the election and stay involved after the election as a way to build up a caucus. In every election I've seen maybe one or two people come floating along and stay active. For a bit. Maybe. At that rate, by the 2031 election they will have a dozen.
With all the oxygen in the room having been sucked up by the minutia of the UFT elections over the past few months, the opposition caucuses, MORE, New Action, Solidarity have descended full bore into the black hole of the 4 week petitioning process which will end on the eve of the mid-winter break in mid-February.
Then, when they return from the break they can spend the next 6 weeks campaigning to split the anti-Unity vote in reality, in competition more with each other than with Unity. (I will make my election total predictions before the vote count on April 17.)
I made my pitch to MORE at a meeting in November to not run due to the futility and wasted hours that could be used to actually doing organizing and building up capacity for the future.
But the experienced hands who had been with the old and defunct TJC caucus of the first decade of the century wanted to run and sold the election to the many newbies in MORE who had never taken part in an election before - and with the same election line TJC used to get so few votes in the 2004, 07 and 10 elections. (Full disclosure -- ICE was also part of the slate with TJC and didn't do any better - but at least I learned my lessons.)
History, unfortunately, does repeat itself.
As Einstein (may have) said ----- insanity.
Afterburn
The other day I was chastised by a few people in MORE for being too "negative" on the elections. Well, for them here's a
Oakland public school teachers plan Friday disruption
A group of Oakland teachers said Wednesday that they plan to engage
in a major disruption on Friday to protest the slow pace of contract
talks between the Oakland Unified School District and the teachers’
union.
The action on Friday is largely being organized by a group of Oakland
High School teachers called the Wildcat Underground that coordinated a
sickout by dozens of teachers on Dec. 10.
Protest organizers said teachers and students from Oakland High
School, Oakland Technical High School, Life Academy, Skyline, United for
Success Academy, and Fremont High School plan to gather at Oakland Tech
at 4531 Broadway at 8 a.m. on Friday for a rally outside the school.
They said that at 9 a.m. teachers and students will start marching to
school district offices at 1000 Broadway, which is two-and-a-half miles
away, and at 10 a.m., teachers, student, and allies will gather outside
the school offices.
Oakland High School history teacher Cole Margen said in a statement:
“We hope to disrupt district
business as usual. … We need our district to understand that we are on
the brink of a catastrophic strike. This will impact Oakland’s
educational system, both teachers and students.”
Margen added:
“The issues we face are similar to those in Los Angeles.”
Teachers in Los Angeles went on strike on Monday.
Margen said Friday’s action isn’t sanctioned by the Oakland Education Association, the union that represents teachers.
The OEA said last week that it is strongly considering conducting a strike authorization vote by the end of the month.
The teachers organizing the action on Friday noted that a strike by Oakland teachers lasted for more than two months.
Contract talks between the school district and the union have been going on for about a year and a half.
The two sides currently are in the midst of fact-finding. The school
district’s most recent offer to the teachers is a 5 percent raise over
the next three years.
Suzi LeBaron, a science teacher and pathway director at Oakland High School, said:
“Held up against the cost of living, this offer would send us economically backward.”
Commenting on the teachers’ planned action on Friday, Oakland schools Superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell said in a statement:
“We urge them not to engage in this illegal labor action which is not sanctioned by their union.”
Johnson-Trammell added:
“It is also a move that runs
counter to our collective efforts to reach an agreement between the OEA
and the school district as both parties are engaged, in good faith, in
the fact-finding process with the California Public Employment Relations
Board. … We want our teachers to know that everyone on the Board of
Education and in district leadership firmly believe that they deserve to
be paid more than they currently are. We are hopeful that our teachers
will remain in class supporting students on Friday.”
Johnson-Trammell added:
“We are committed to working with the OEA to come to an equitable contract that works for both sides.”
Teachers reject Denver Public Schools' offer, will vote to strike Saturday and Tuesday
While I (Norm) would not have made the same choice Mike and Arthur did and I won't vote
for them, in the context of what has happened to the opposition I fully understand their
decision -- I feel better having two allies on the EB who I hope will
raise issues of mine and others concerns that would never be put forth if
they weren't there......
Arthur and Mike -- the Goldstein/Schirtzer caucus -- have no interest in
doing what the rest of the opposition is doing --- wasting 4 months
running on the UFT election treadmill to nowhere.... The reality is that their position on the EB in terms of pushing the
union is weaker than it was when they won as part of the opposition
defeating Unity in head to head voting.....Norm again
.... the new caucus of Three Unity Water Carriers (try to look independent but kiss Unity's butt all the way).... The Unity water carriers even get the convention trips. They can suck up even more.... Anonymous comment, UFT Election Petition Day at Delegate Assembly
My response: In effect, anonymous people who bitch about Unity but don't jump into
the waters in fighting them are the real water carriers. Arthur fought
them in the open for 13 years and Mike for 6 years. So let them carry
some water for Unity while you sit back and do nothing. And don't tell
me how afraid you are. They at least have a record of standing up (publicly).
In his latest post Arthur Goldstein justifies running with Unity Caucus - - Moving Forward.
I want to congratulate Mike Schirtzer and Arthur Goldstein on their election to the high school Ex Bd in the upcoming UFT election ending April 17, 2019. And yes, they will also be going to the NYSUT/AFT conventions where I expect them to be free to take any positions they want instead of carrying the Unity water -- and if I'm there I will be monitoring them.
If there is any sure bet, this one is it, so if you have extra pension money to bet, pony up. The difference in the election in 2016 that won MORE/NA were the votes from Arthur's 300 UFT members who supported him on whatever slate he ran on. While their vote totals will be low, as Unity's has always been in the HS and if we add together the total high school votes of the opposition they might be close, the fact that 3 caucuses are all running alone assures Arthur and Mike of victory.
Some MOREs in 2016 clearly resented Arthur for his independence and tried to paint the victory then as a win for social justice unionism as opposed to the organizing work by Arthur and James Eterno in the Queens high schools, which had the highest voting totals of all the boroughs by far. Even Unity's Howie Schoor agreed with this assessment. (This internal dispute in MORE in May 2016 was the opening shot in the wars to come after the election.)
Over the past year or so, or since the Janus ruling,
Arthur has bent over backwards trying not to provide the enemies of
unions ammunition that can be used to get people to leave the union. His decision is based mostly on the Janus situation
but also slams MORE for helping to push him and Mike into
the decision they made.
I can see the point. Once you see no hope for
the future of an opposition that can have real influence instead of
functioning as a club trying to lobby the UFT leaders, but want to
maintain some level of influence, what exactly do you do?
But let's be
clear. Arthur and Mike only got on the Ex Bd because a group of us in
MORE set up a democratic process for choosing candidates - MORE had 4
out of 7 HS EB and then when New Action could only come up with 2 candidates,
we had a 5th - who ended up coming to only 2 meetings before quitting -
that's another story altogether.
They would never have had the
influence and impact they did if there wasn't a caucus like MORE to put
them in a position to win the election. So if I see them acting as if they won the high school seats in 2016 as individuals instead of part of the work of a caucus I smack them down. We might trash the current version of MORE but not the 2016 version. (And I will tell the full story of how we went from there to here after the election.) And I will point out that without Unity Caucus they still wouldn't be on the board. The reality is that their position on the EB in terms of pushing the union is weaker than it was when they won as part of the opposition defeating Unity in head to head voting.
With that option of running to win being closed off and even if they ran with New Action or Solidarity they would still not end up on the Ex Bd, they chose to be on the Ex Bd and still have a voice, even if it is somewhat muted -- no matter what they say.
Some compare their decision to the one New Action made in 2003 to run with Unity endorsement in the 2004, 07, 10 and 13 elections before coming back to the opposition in 2016.
Absolutely no comparison. In 2003, New Action was still the leading opposition and if they had run alone they still would have won the high schools. By 2007, they had lost so much credibility, they could never win alone without joining with the other groups - remember - ICE came into being partly as a response to the NA decision and TJC went from being a fringe groups into an electoral caucus - seeing an opening due to the NA defection.
Now we are in a situation where there is no chance for any of the 3 caucuses running to win anything. MORE in fact is not even going to run for the high school ex bd positions.
Arthur and Mike -- the Goldstein/Schirtzer caucus -- have no interest in doing what the rest of the opposition is doing --- wasting 4 months running on the UFT election treadmill to nowhere. And they look at this election as a holding pattern. If the opposition ever makes sense they will be back there.
And don't forget, Arthur is the chapter leader of a large high school with 300
members. His priority is not to some ideal of opposing Unity but to
address the needs of his chapter. So for those of you who want to snipe at him from an often anonymous position, stand up and be counted if you are so opposed to Unity.
Remember - Arthur's blog came into being around 2005 and that contract pushed him into opposition mode and he soon joined us in ICEUFT - he even ran with us once but also made it clear -- he doesn't run to lose and if there is no chance he won't bother running to make a point. That was why I didn't even ask him to run for MORE in 2013 - with New Action on the Unity line I felt we had no chance. The Unity totals came in so low in the high schools that without the 450 New Action totals, we would have had a chance.
Thus, in 2016, James, Arthur, Mike and I hatched a plan to go after winning the high schools even if NA remained with Unity -- a plan that would have failed. But the other part of our plan was to woo New Action into an alliance -- we had seen lots of signs their deal with Unity was fraying. And our plan, despite some internal opposition from some MOREs -- the very same people who have taken control -- we executed the plan.
Mike, who will be issuing his own statement soon which we will publish, is a newer recruit to the opposition -- since the beginning of MORE - he wasn't part of the planning group but was on board from the beginning. His politics didn't quite mesh with the rest of MORE's often didactic and rigid reactions to organizing and ideologicalizing. (Word is my creation.) They were clearly nervous about putting Mike - and Arthur - on the Ex Bd since they knew they couldn't control them. But the democratic process in MORE won out. This time MORE came up with a better way -- just have a small group choose the candidates without democracy.
The campaign in Mike's school, Leon Goldstein, whose chapter leader Kit Wainer, has been a 30 year oppositionist as a member of TJC and now MORE, will certainly be interesting. The school has been a long time bastion of the opposition - at least the TJC wing --- a sure bet if there is one to vote anti-Unity. And I bet it still is. But Mike, who Kit brought into the movement, will be campaigning in opposition to Kit and MORE this time and things may get sticky. Kit is one of the leaders of the recent moves MORE has made in a new direction, aligning the group along the lines of the old TJC positions. Mike pushed back against this move even before he left MORE.
While I would not have made the same choice Mike and Arthur did and I won't vote for them, in the context of what has happened I fully understand their decision -- I feel better having two allies on the EB who I hope will raise issues of mine and others concerns that would never be put forth if they weren't there.
The Nordic countries — Finland, Norway, and Sweden — are social democracies. They have constitutional representative democracies, extensive welfare benefits, corporatist collective bargaining between labor and capital that is managed by the state, and some state ownership of the economy. These institutions would be much preferable relative to the ones in our neoliberal wasteland.
Yet even if labor is given a greater voice both at the workplace and in the management of the economy, capitalist control persists over the large majority of workplaces.... Jacobin
One view only ---- Democratic socialism, social democracy ---- defining the differences.
With AOC and Bernie declaring themselves socialists of some kind - I think the Scandinavian model below, there are versions and interpretations of socialism that are confusing. There are questions about democracy and socialism and even if we are talking about the same thing in terms of democracy in the way it is interpreted by liberals and socialists.
Some maintain that democracy as we know it and socialism as practiced in so-called socialist nations has never been compatible. And never can be. That it is all just a theory that can never come to pass.
My friend Michael Solo pointed out that I have been confusing the concepts social democracy and democratic socialism and and sent along this Jacobin article.
I remember leaving the 2013 UFT election count and going to a MORE "victory"
party at a bar where there were almost 100 people waiting to celebrate
our first election. What a far cry from that event we are today. Most of those people have disappeared.
There will be a lot of activity at the Delegate Assembly today as 4 caucuses begin circulating petitions for the upcoming UFT election - Unity, New Action, MORE and Solidarity. Expect some chaos.
In normal times today would be one of my busiest days of the year - like the last 5 UFT (04, 07, 10, 13, 16) election cycles.
Ellen Fox and I would have been running a military like operation getting petitions ready for people this afternoon. In 2016, on petition day at the DA, we had everything ready for people as the DA ended and we all went to a bar around the corner for a massive petition signing event. Over 50 people showed up. (Where are they now?)
Today, Ellen and myself will be watching the DA from the 19th floor. There is little election excitement with the outcome already decided. (I predict a lower turnout due to the confusion of 3 separate opposition slates on the ballot.)
But I will be downstairs until the meeting begins to sign anyone's petition.
I have been urging a boycott of the UFT elections, so signing petitions might seem hypocritical.
UFT elections are fundamentally a farce, yet every 3 year cycle all the opposition parties get sucked in. They argue elections are an opportunity for caucus building and organizing. It never happens and after the results are in people are burned out.
I view elections as busy work for small caucuses which often retards the real work of organizing that needs to be done.
And all three caucuses have been scrambling to get the 40 required people to form a slate (Unity will have 800 people getting signatures). That is shameful, since in 2016 we had 300 people running on MORE/NA and could have had hundreds more. What a waste of resources today.
Oh, caucus leaders make all sorts of excuses about getting the message out and reaching rank and file, etc. But they do not state flat out that they cannot win. In 2016 we were very open -- we said we could win the high schools and nothing else -- and I was attacked by the leader of another caucus as not wanting to win or being a defeatist. I think the outcome of the last election, where I predicted the rough totals before they came out, has proven the point.
Each of the caucuses, including Unity, are dominated by a tiny group who are in control,
leaving most members on the fringe. So they use the elections every
three years to pump people up and downplay any hints that they are
running in a futile exercise. Then after the election, they go back to
running the caucus the way they want. Democracy inside caucuses, no
matter what they say, is very limited. We found that out in MORE where
attempts to run a broad-based democratic group were shut down by one
faction that gained total control.
But I will sign all petitions, as a social act.
At last count 3 former disaffected MOREs I am friendly with will be running on the Unity line - and when they explain why it makes sense I will publish their reasons. They all assure me they did not have to sign loyalty oaths and have been told they are free to be critical. Given the state of the opposition, having people with some freedom to be critical inside Unity may be the best option. That MORE lost people to Unity who are very progressive politically is a
sign of the dysfunction on the part of the controlling faction. A number of former MOREs say they will vote Solidarity.
But I won't vote for my pals running with Unity -- nor for anyone individually, as only slate votes are reported. And of course I won't vote Unity. But I will waste my ballot in another way.
Right now I intend to use my ballot to make a statement - invalidating it by voting for all three opposition slates and writing United Front with a check mark. It would be great if more people did that. The only future for an opposition to Unity is to build a big tent caucus, which is what MORE started out being but has turned into something else.
While I am still a MORE, I have no issues with the other caucuses, but my political views on the whole still line up with some people in MORE, especially the few ICEers left. My gripe in MORE is with a certain faction, not the entire group. And I will delve more into this faction in the future. I would still urge people to join MORE and help move it in a more positive direction.
My election objection this time especially is to the inability of the opposition to come together. This is mostly the fault of the faction controlling the MORE caucus which wouldn't run with New Action as we did in 2016. I urged them to run with everyone or not run at all so as to give someone a chance to win. I lost.
New Action is also at fault, to a lesser extent, because they wouldn't run with Solidarity, which was willing to run with everyone. There was a split in New Action over this issue but the anti-Solidarity forces won out. (I will delve deeper into the whys another time.)
But legitimate questions were raised as to the viability of Solidarity as a caucus and also worries by the liberal wing over an appeal to right wing populism. (I already noted one candidate who I would never vote for.) Not only because they didn't get a slate in the 2016 elections, but also because they have had almost no presence in the activities in the UFT since the last election and only have come to life for this election. However, many of us have lightened up on criticism of them and I may even attend one of their events.
The reality is that even if all groups did come together, they could at most win the high schools (a good bet) and the middle schools (a long shot). As for elementary schools - no shot. And that is the key to organizing -- reaching deep into elementary schools for the opposition would be a game changer in the union. And getting people inside the functional chapters. (Assume the OT/PTs will vote opposition on the whole.)
That was my original goal in MORE. To build a structure that went deep into the schools. The 2013 election was a base mark. I remember leaving the 2013 election count and going to a MORE "victory" party at a bar where there were almost 100 people waiting to celebrate our first election. What a far cry from that event we are today. Most of those people have disappeared.
The 2016 election built on that and I expected to make more gains in the 2019, especially in the elementary and middle schools. There are a lot of reasons for the crash in MORE that has dashed all these hopes for the prospect of building a force to challenge Unity. That analysis is for another time.
"The choice is very clear. You can be on the side of teachers or you can
be on the side of Arne Duncan, Betsy DeVos, and those who want to
privatize and undermine public education."... Common Dreams
Diane Ravitch has been covering the story extensively and yesterday was on her way to Los Angeles to join the picket lines. Here are a few of her links.
Imagine my surprise when I opened the New York Times to find the article
below. Miriam Pawel, an independent historian and a contributing
opinion writer for the Times, was allowed to explain the real dynamics behind the teachers’ strike: demographic
change; high poverty rates; overcrowded classes; underfunding of the
schools; and an aggressive charter industry, led by Eli Broad and other
billionaires, willing to spend vast sums to privatize more public
schools and kick out the unions.
Diane has come a long way. Back when we made our movie and went after charters - and Diane did so much to promote it - even being our keynote speaker at the premiere attended by 650 people -- she didn't seem ready to take a hard core stand against charters.
If you didn't yet see the 2011 movie that took the first major shot at charters, it is still relevant --- The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman - http://gemnyc.org/our-film/.
I've been real impressed with the work the team leading UTLA have done in getting ready for the strike, preparations which began when they won power in 2014. I think they have learned some of the lessons from the Chicago strike - positive and negative.
I'm working on some comparisons between the Los Angeles, Chicago and NYC unions and how progressive groups managed to take power in two cities but have gone nowhere here in NYC.
Unity Caucus is the difference.
In both Chicago and LA, there have been changes in power a few times over the past 20 years - or shared power. In NYC Unity has been in control for 60 years. That is due to the fundamental difference in union structure. Here it is impossible to make much of a dent in the Unity machine without having an efficient and canny opposition. So far we haven't had that. If the people from Chicago and LA were here, they would be marginalized or absorbed by Unity.
But there are some lessons to learn from those cities. I met many of the activists in both cities in 2009 and even invited myself to a breakfast at Alex Caputo-Pearl's house one Sunday morning along with a car load of CORE people headed by Jackson Potter who was the key to organizing CORE.
I dredged up some articles from 2014, just before the Union Power slate won the election in LA. Some of the history is worth checking out.
What seems to be interesting is that Union Power is not a caucus like CORE in Chicago but a coalition of activists, which is what needed to happen here in NYC. In fact I proposed a United Front non-caucus slate for this election where anyone who wanted to run against Unity could do so, a way to extend outreach into numerous schools. It didn't happen.
PEAC [LA] and CORE [Chicago] have, in fact, worked together since a 2008 [should be 9] national gathering of reform teachers’ caucuses. And as they prepared for their new roles in 2010, the newly elected CTU leaders visited L.A. to meet with PEAC activists. Back then a PEAC-backed reform slate was represented in UTLA leadership, though it did not have a majority. Caputo-Pearl and other Union Power leaders attended a 2013 teachers’ social justice conference hosted by CORE. .... Labor Notes, Feb. 2014
I was at both the 2009 [See my reports -LA Deamin', LA Confidential) and 2013 conferences - Alex Caputo-Pearl, Sally Lee of Teachers Unite and Jackson Potter of CORE met at a 2008 conference and then organized the 2009 conference in LA - I flew out with Sally who was 8 months pregnant.
It was quite an intense few days with so many LA activists who were so impressive. I think there were 5 cities present in 2009. There was no such thing as MORE then but there was the early days of GEM and ICE was still active and getting ready to run in the 2010 UFT elections.
CORE talked about the possibility of running in the 2010 election but said they would first check their influence by running a candidate for the pension board, which they ended up winning. They then ran in the May 2010 election with 4 other caucuses. The Unity-like UPC had split into 2 and since Chicago has a runoff, and CORE's intent was to finish 2nd and then win the support of the other caucuses that finished behind them. They got less than a third of the vote but that still put them in 2nd place and everyone else climbed on board for round 2 and they won over 60%.
That was about 10 days before the AFT convention in Seattle - see the July 2010 reports in Ed Notes for details of that wild ride -- we spent a lot of time with the new leadership in Chicago.
Here are a few segments from the articles in Labor Notes and Socialist Worker.
The UP slate is headed by Caputo-Pearl, but draws together a number of veteran UTLA activists. The team includes several current members of UTLA's board of directors, rank-and-file members running for union office for the first time, and even three current officers who've broken with Fletcher.
Solomon and Caputo-Pearl were among the founders of PEAC, which now backs Union Power. That group formed in the 1990s, after No Child Left Behind increased the emphasis on tests and on punishing “failing” schools. Members worked with parents to fight against closings and for better schools... Labor Notes
While he was teaching at South Los Angeles’ Crenshaw High, Caputo-Pearl fought the district’s “reconstitution” efforts there. A partnership of teachers, parents, and students sought to improve the school from within.
Caputo-Pearl has a two decade-long history of union and community organizing as a teacher in South Los Angeles schools, working with groups like Labor/Community Strategy Center, the Coalition for Educational Justice and Progressive Educators for Action (PEAC), a militant union caucus. Caputo-Pearl also serves as his school's UTLA chapter chair--the elected union representative for the school--and as a member of the union's House of Representatives and Board of Directors, UTLA's term for its executive board.
the Union Power slate is using its campaign to build a coalition that unites elected leaders of UTLA who are frustrated with Fletcher's stonewalling with rank-and-file members who are tired of their union seeming inactive and irrelevant to their lives. If they win, UP and Caputo-Pearl pledge to continue that organizing effort with the resources of UTLA. They aim to create a fighting union in alliance with parents, community organizations and the wider labor movement.... Socialist Worker, https://socialistworker.org/2014/02/25/new-direction-for-la-teachers
The Union Power slate of activists say the teachers will win community support when they fight for better schools, not just a raise. Photo: Beth Blecherman.
For Los Angeles teacher Alex Caputo-Pearl, if there was ever an example of how his union needed to change direction, it was November’s “Rally for a Raise.”
So far the press and public seem to be on the side of the union - though I wish they would make it very clear that the Supt, Austin Beutner, has no background in education, is a hedge hog, and was installed by the Eli Broad forces on the LA school board. The hedge hogs in the battle for that school board put a lot of money on the table to win a narrow majority.
This article in the NYT points out:
Unlike other states where teachers struck last year, California is
firmly controlled by Democrats, for whom organized labor is a key ally.
And the California teachers unions are among the most powerful lobbying
force in Sacramento..... NYT
Yes, the Democrats are up against a wall.
The article also focuses on the charter issue - this is the NY Times after all --- who expected this?
Can California provide sufficient resources to support an effective public education system? Or will charter schools cripple it?
By Miriam Pawel
Ms. Pawel, a contributing opinion writer, is the author of “The Browns of California: The Family Dynasty That Transformed a State and Shaped a Nation.”
NYT - Jan. 14, 2019
Unlike other states where teachers struck last year, California is firmly controlled by Democrats, for whom organized labor is a key ally. And the California teachers unions are among the most powerful lobbying force in Sacramento.
On paper, negotiations between the 31,000-member United Teachers of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Unified School District center on traditional issues: salaries that have not kept pace, classes of more than 40 students, counselors and nurses with staggering caseloads. But the most potent and divisive issue is not directly on the bargaining table: the future of charter schools, which now enroll more than 112,000 students, almost one-fifth of all K-through-12 students in the district. They take their state aid with them, siphoning off $600 million a year from the district. The 224 independent charters operate free from many regulations, and all but a few are nonunion.
When California authorized the first charter schools in 1992 as a small experiment, no one envisioned that they would grow into an industry, now educating 10 percent of public school students in the state. To counter demands for greater regulation and transparency, charter advocates have in recent years poured millions into political campaigns. Last year, charter school lobbies spent $54 million on losing candidates for governor and state superintendent of education.
In Los Angeles, they have had more success. After his plan to move half of the Los Angeles district students into charter schools failed to get traction, the billionaire and charter school supporter Eli Broad and a group of allies spent almost $10 million in 2017 to win a majority on the school board. The board rammed through the appointment of a superintendent, Austin Beutner, with no educational background. Mr. Beutner, a former investment banker, is the seventh in 10 years and has proposed dividing the district into 32 “networks,” a so-called portfolio plan designed in part by the consultant who engineered the radical restructuring of Newark schools.
“In my 17 years working with labor unions, I have been called on to help settle countless bargaining disputes in mediation,” wrote Vern Gates, the union-appointed member of the fact-finding panel called in to help mediate the Los Angeles stalemate last month. “I have never seen an employer that was intent on its own demise.”
It’s a vicious cycle: The more overcrowded and burdened the regular schools, the easier for charters to recruit students. The more students the district loses, the less money, and the worse its finances. The more the district gives charters space in traditional schools, the more overcrowded the regular classrooms.
The UTLA strike puts the hordes running for the Dem nomination in 2020, a number of them charter school supporters, in a delicate position. Given that a reason for the Dem losses around formerly strong union areas has been their abandonment of union workers, this one is a biggie. UTLA has put charters in their sights in this strike and while unlikely to win much in the way of redress, that they put it on the table at all is a win of sorts. In Chicago, there were also efforts to put charters on the table and the unionization efforts have worked out.
Here in NYC, the UFT often acts like charters are a figment of the imagination and has an awful record of organizing charters. Then there are the ties between our local, state and national union to the Dem party - watch Randi waffle as she gives support to the strike but makes no demands that politicians running for president join her.
With UFT elections upon us, Unity Caucus leaders, well aware of UFT activists alienated by the ideologically restricted environment of the MORE Caucus, have been actively recruiting people who have a history of being critics of UFT policy.
One of the carrots they are offering is not having to sign the Unity loyalty oath which forces members of the caucus to support all policies, even if they disagree.
They are even offering deals where there is no requirement to even join the caucus. This is unprecedented and shows the influence of the Janus decision.
Why would Unity, faced with the weakest opposition in decades - meaning they will have no
voice of opposition on the Ex Bd and barely one in the delegate
assembly - take this step?
Unity attempts to create its own opposition
Word filtered back at the concerns within the top levels of union leadership over what happened in MORE, which was seen at the main opposition.
My analysis is that Unity has taken this step because they are nervous
about the repercussions in the age of Janus in having an entire union Ex
Bd with no political diversity would open them up to attacks from
the anti-union forces as a sign of a one party non-democratic system.
Populism in the UFT?
I also feel that with MORE moving to the fringe, they fear the growth of a populist movement inside the UFT that may not operate under the usual opposition "rules of engagement" -sort of an old-boys and girls network of well behaved oppositionists.
Think of wild cat strike in red states and in Oakland (The Wildcat Underground: Oakland Teachers Pull Wildcat). Imagine a rogue school going off the rails! Just as Unity controls the membership, the opposition caucuses control the spigot of activism, channeling it into traditional lanes. Or even worse, an opposition movement urging people to leave the UFT and find another bargaining agent. They know MORE would never go in that direction.
You are free to speak openly
The story I am told is that Unity/UFT officials have offered a
guarantee of freedom to speak openly. Maybe. I would bet that no matter
what they say, not being opposed to the recent contract is a
requirement.
There is no little irony that Unity on the surface is appearing to be more open than MORE. As one former MORE said to me, "If MORE is less democratic than Unity and throws people out who disagree, why not go with Unity, which at least has the toys?"
I don't necessarily agree but I can understand the thinking which was expressed to me this way:
"MORE blew up the opposition" I see MORE having no future and none of the other caucuses either, especially in this divided election. If everyone ran together, we would have had a chance to win some positions. But now running with any of them is a losing proposition and faced with having no chance to impact union policy, why not let Unity endorse me? As long as I don't have to sign a loyalty oath and can maintain my freedom to be critical of union policy with the aim of pushing it in a progressive direction- why not?
I pushed back, feeling Unity was just using opposition people to give themselves cover as being "democratic."
"So what? MORE's blowing up the idea of a serious opposition in this election is a game changer. Point, set, match to Unity."
Probably right but I can still believe that out of the ashes of the opposition in this election, something may rise post-election, though not very likely.
I have urged people considering taking this step to run on an independent line in the UFT elections or form a mini-caucus so people who can't bear voting for Unity but who want to vote for them would have that option.
I myself am ambivalent. I have urged a boycott of what is even in the best of times for the opposition, a rigged election. I actually wanted to see Unity have all the seats and no opposition as a way to make a point.
I may write in some names or vote for all 3 caucuses, even if that invalidates the ballot, as a "vote" for a united front.
But maybe I will vote for my friends on an independent line anyway because as good old Ricky once said to Lisa, "the problems associated with a UFT election doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."
The main issue under contention is not salary, where the two sides are
close together; Superintendent Austin Beutner has offered a 6 percent
increase, with the union demanding 6.5 percent.
Even
more contentious now is the excessive class sizes suffered by too many
Los Angeles public school students and teachers. The district claims it
cannot afford to reduce class size, while the union says there is a
budget surplus of over $1.8 billion.
... Leonie Haimson
In our wildest imagination, could we see the UFT here in NYC strike over class size? Leonie is on the case.
The press focuses on the salary issue. While always crucial it is not the main issue. There is already a critique from the world socialist web site attacking Alex Caputo-Pearl for selling out because of the strike postponement. I must publish that as a follow up and parse what they are saying.
There seems to be some new money on the table and the UTLA to keep public support must address the issue and not automatically reject. With the entire teacher nation supporting wearing red yesterday, the change to Monday cost some momentum. Here is today's report from LA.
Over the past weekend, AOC was featured in all of the above with some of the most progressive ideas put on the table in decades. Yet the far left trashes her just as much as the right. I'll get to that another time.
Whither: to what place or state. --- old Eng. Wither: become dry and shriveled.
What will be the state of the opposition in the UFT at the end of this election cycle in April? One
of my multiple New Years resolutions is to tell the story of the
on-going history of the opposition inside the UFT over the 5 decades of
my own involvement. Given I am sitting out the UFT elections, I have
plenty of time on my hands. The problem is, where to start?
We are a few days away from the official opening of another
UFT election period
and all three caucuses running on their own against Unity have been
issuing calls for people to run with them and to get ready for the
petition campaign which begins at the Jan. 16 Delegate Assembly. In
normal times, I would be spending all my time getting ready for a 5 week
long petition campaign.
For me, what a relief to be an observer and reporter in the
upcoming UFT elections after having been intensely involved in five
elections since the 2004 campaign.
But these are not normal times. I saw
Ellen Fox the other day at the UFT Ex Bd meeting and she said for her
this was the first time in 40 years she will not be involved in an
election.
Are there so many fractures, will there be no hope for the future growth of the opposition to become an effective force to counter the 60 year old Unity Caucus machine?
It's very disappointing so see what has happened over the past 5 years after the promise of MORE when it began in 2011-12 with the support of almost all the leading voices in the opposition to Unity over the years. New Action was still aligned with Unity but over time I expected that that aging caucus would eventually join with MORE in coalition (it did in 2016) and hopefully merge. A disappointment was the defection of Portelos in 2014 when he formed his own caucus -- there were reasons he will argue. I would argue if he has remained in MORE and brought his supporters in, it would have strengthened the hands of the faction in MORE that was eventually pushed out -- the ICEUFT people. We would have had a stronger opposition to push back against the faction that gained total control of MORE with an boutique agenda aimed at a small segment of the UFT rather than the broader rank and file. That's boiling down the essential disagreements that took place in MORE over the years.
With the Los Angeles teachers in the UTLA about to strike Monday (changed from today - an unfortunate snafu due to a UTLA miscalculation) under the leadership of a progressive, left-leaning social justice caucus and with Chicago TU in the hands of a similar caucus - two of the three largest cities --- proof that such social justice like groups can succeed in winning and maintaining power -- here in NYC we find ourselves in possibly the worst situation we have faced since the New Action defection to Unity in 2003.
There is no clearer difference in the opposition in the 3 cities than to look at union elections. The NYC version of the progressive caucus - MORE - doesn't want to win anything in the election while citing the work of the groups running LA and Chi -- but never seeming to realize that those groups actually did run to win - and they did win. Which is why they can talk about striking.
If MORE had real power school level power through influence in many schools so as to raise its issues with a broad rank and file then a discussion of strike feasibility can be opened. For MORE, which weakened itself to a point where it has less influence
than it has had in 5 years, to talk about strikes here in NYC, is sort of
ludicrous. Instead the MORE campaigns to get the union leadership it so vilifies to do take up the MORE campaign. In Chicago and LA the caucuses themselves had enough widespread support as to take on bigger issues without relying on the union leadership. Here MORE tries to be a lobby caucus.
A fractured opposition
Now we know we can't win the whole ball of wax here but we could chip away at Unity power in the schools which is where the battle will take place. An election campaign could help build power through gathering of votes. The ballot box does count. MORE/NA getting almost 11,000 votes last time was the largest total in a long time and an opportunity. An opportunity lost.
There are consequences for this gap between the 3 big cities. Chicago and LA, have pushed back against the ed deform movement, while here in NYC we have seen the UFT be complicit with so much of ed deform, from testing to charters to teachers being held accountable based on test scores. And of course the willingness to stand by as abusive principals chop up our members. Our own union has partnered with the ed deformers all along the way. And as far as I am concerned, MORE itself has dropped the ball in many areas of push back against deformers. That there is no caucus strong enough to become a bulwark leaves us in a precarious position.
It is a sad situation where each of the three
caucuses will be running their own independent campaigns with the clear
outcome that none of them can win anything on their own.
In what place or state will we find the caucuses post election? Whither or just plain withered?
I
see little point in running in an election where the 3 groups
end up competing as much as with each other than Unity for votes and
candidates and support. There is a lot of blame to go around but let's not get into those weeds at this time.
What a waste of time and energy. I urged MORE to either unite with everyone or don't run and use the opportunity to engage in their campaign outside the election process.
The leadership of MORE, which includes a bunch of people who used to run Teachers for a Just Contract (TJC), a caucus that had shrunk significantly and merged into MORE, opposed me. They argued we would miss a chance to get 2 pages in the NY Teacher - which I had pointed out are barely read by anyone. And they also said they would gain access to all the schools by running -- I pointed out they could gain access to all the schools, even by not running.
When the vote was taken, we could see a lot of doubt about running coming from the newer, younger and untenured people in MORE, which seemed to surprise the old TJC crowd. So they scaled back -- you don't have to run around the city putting stuff in the mail boxes - the very opposite of the argument they used against my position for not running.
Then came the news that even 2 people can get pages in the NY Teacher if they run -- countering their other argument for running a slate.
The only way forward post-election is some kind of united front - a big tent opposition, even if the purists have to retreat somewhat. The Unity machine is the problem and why NYC is different from Chicago and LA. I looked back to the past.
The United Front of the 80s and 90s
In
recent posts I've been exploring the historical record as recorded by
me over the past 22 years in Ed Notes, but especially the early hard
copy publications from 1997-2005. I am reminding myself of all the
issues we faced back then, with a lot to echo today's issues.
These
had wider distribution I believe than the Ed Notes blog -- the Del Ass
and into the schools directly in the latter years of 2002-5 after I
retired.
After the 2001 election, which despite New Action winning the high school seats, showed them declining, I tried to play the role of peacemaker between all the groups (NAC, PAC, TJC) and independents by calling for meetings to form a coalition for the next election in 2004. That effort fell apart very quickly and I saw first hand the level of hostility and infighting that existed - to the extent that I, for the first time began to think that a new caucus was necessary to take on issues being ignored and thus was born ICE a few years later. The 2004 election had 3 opposition groups running, the only time other than the present.
I was reminded of the impact the mass
campaigns against Unity by all elements of the opposition had in the 80s
and 90s when a coalition of groups and individuals under the New Action
Coalition (NAC) began to come together in the late 70-early 80s and found a united front was able to recruit a full slate of 800 people to run. And they began to chip a way at Unity power for the first time.
Now we are back to the beginning where we stood in the mid-70s. The only way forward is for people to get some sense after the election and sit down and find a way to move toward a united front.
I made a chart with the historical links between caucuses over the decades. One day I would like to see them all culminate into one box.
Here are links to recent Ed Notes posts on this topic:
Here is an astounding idea. Get yourself a pal and form a caucus and even though you need 40 to get a slate on the ballot, you can still get 2 pages in the NY Teacher in two separate issues to promote your ideas. That seems to be the outcome of rulings by the election committee, endorsed by the UFT Ex Bd at the Jan. 7 meeting.
LeRoy Barr— All caucuses will get ads regardless of whether they have enough candidates to form a slate.
NOTE: In the 2016 elections, Solidarity did not get a slate but did get the 2 pages in the NY Teacher, which we thought was Unity's way of trying to siphon votes from us.
Arthur Goldstein—If Mike Schirtzer and I decide that we want to
run as a caucus, can we get 2 pages in the NY teacher for Schirtzer
Goldstein caucus-The two of us could run and get two pages in NY Teacher
to promote our duo--is that what Im hearing? Barr—Those who don’t meet requirement want to have representation
in NY Teacher. If you are saying you have two, will assume that is
correct. Washington Sanchez—In essence, what Arthur said is correct. The
committee did not want to prevent this. We didn’t think that would
happen. Committee reserved right to come back and revisit the issue. Was
lengthy discussion, many different views. Because of Janus we did not
want anyone to feel slighted. Michael Shulman—Basically, what LeRoy laid out was essence of
discussion. Was not unanimous. Some raised same concern Arthur did.
Decision was any caucus would be allowed two pages. We will follow the
practice of allowing space. Independents were given space in NY teacher.
Perhaps individuals will get space allotted in line with what has taken
place in past.
And thus was born the caucus of Goldstein/Schirtzer. Will they toss their hat in the UFT Election ring? Will others join the caucus? Since they will not get the required 40 people in time to get on the ballot, they can run as independents and invite any of the other caucuses to endorse them.
Hey James! The caucus of Eterno/Scott? Nahhh! We have golf games to play.
Of course we know the game Unity is playing - divide and conquer.
The more the merrier and the more they can fragment the opposition. But speaking of MORE, guess who did the fragmenting of the opposition?
Petitions become available at the Jan. 16 Delegate Assembly. Come on down and become a caucus.
I'm running a series from the Ed
Notes archives on UFT Elections Past, where the ghost of ed notes makes
an appearance to haunt the modern Scrooges in the UFT and use the past
to show the opposition parties in the UFT the future - unless they
change their ways.
That very same ghost of Ed Notes past also haunts me as I see how my views have changed over the years. Ed
Notes published in hard copy from 1998-2005. Revisiting this history
might be of some use for activists in the UFT. Or maybe not. I offered Ed Notes as a vehicle for all the opposition groups in the UFT to get the word out. I some ways I regret having abandoned that model for getting involved in caucus politics with the founding of ICE.
Reprinted from Ed Notes, Dec. 2000, we can see a much higher level of activity on the part of the opposition in the UFT and by the Unity Caucus leadership itself. Wha' Happened?
Caucus Roundup: Rallies Galore Caucus activity focused on a series of demonstrations: Progressive Action Caucus (PAC) and New Action
Caucus (NAC) held a rally at the Board of Education on Oct. 19. Teachers for a Just Contract rallied at UFT
headquarters on Nov. 9 and the Unity led UFT leadership held it’s big rally outside City Hall on Nov. 16 (see p.1).
Ed. Notes was not present at the Oct. 19 rally as it was raining and we don’t like to get wet, but did cover the Nov.
9 event as there was some food available at a meeting on the 2nd floor of the UFT. Here are reports from the field.
Oct. 20: The demonstration on Wednesday at
the Board of Education was a tremendous suc-
cess. I would like to thank everyone who came
out in the rain. Your efforts were much appre-
ciated.
We called for 11%,11%, 11% increases in sal-
ary and demanded that the Union and the
Board of Education not agree to a longer
school day, year or merit pay. We also de-
manded reductions in class size and a revision
of the unfair licensing and certification pro-
cess. In addition we called for major reforms
of the schools for the benefit of the students.
To our suprise as we called for Chancellor Levy
to come down and talk to us, he actually came
down and talked to us for about 15 minutes.
In all it was a tremedous success. New Ac-
tion/UFT and P.A.C. were united and both
groups had an excellent showing. We look for-
ward to more actions together.
On November 16th we will support our union
by coming out and marching together in the
U.F.T. demonstration, but we will do it as a
united alternative to the Unity Caucus' pos-
sible sellout.
Mark Pessin, Chairperson of PAC
Nov. 16: It's November 2000!
Do you know where your con-
tract is? The UFT leaders
wanted a contract by last June,
but could not get the City to the
table. This fall, they waited im-
potently over a month for the City
even to make an answer to our
bargaining position. Moral sua-
sion won't do it. Television ads
won't do it. The teaching short-
age won't do it: the Board will
merely water down the require-
ments again. We have no clout
in collective bargaining, because
our leadership has neglected the
source of all union power: an
organized, mobilized rank and
file. WE WANT: PAY PARITY! NO
EXTENDED DAY!
NO FORM OF MERIT PAY!
NO GIVE BACKS!
Teachers for a Just Contract
Commentary:
Randi Weingarten doesn’t agree with Mark Pessin.
At Exec. Bd. & DA meetings, she criticized the Oct.
19 demo, claiming that a low turnout made the UFT
look bad and requested that if people have demos,
they do not do so under the UFT banner. A number of people in the opposition accused her
of demagoguery, saying they could certainly could
demonstrate as UFT’ers as they are dues paying
UFT members. But no one challenged Weingarten’s
statement at either meeting. Weingarten had no comment on the Nov.
16 demo. Though not opposed to demos at UFT
headquarters (the very first demo I attended, May 1,
1971, was at the UFT protesting support for the Vietnam War) I raised questions with the demonstra-
tors about the timing of the
demo (a week before the
big rally) and some of the
slogans being used. Since
then, TJC and Ed. Notes have been engaged in a spirited email debate on a
number of issues, which I hope to summarize in the
future. I counted about 60 people and was told there
had been 100 there, pretty much all from HS. (The
majority of HS teachers have voted NO to Unity for
years.)
Despite reservations, the opposition groups
did support each other’s demonstrations and have
continued to promise unity against Unity in the upcoming UFT elections in the spring.
Ed. Notes has learned exclusively that even more caucuses will be running in the UFT elections [in addition to the current ones, New Action, Solidarity and MORE.] The more caucuses the merrier. I may join every caucus - and vote for all of them too.
Ed. Notes reprint from Spring ‘99. Here are the names of the groups and their basic platforms:
SERIOUSLY INACTIVE CAUCUS (SIC): Will do nothing after announcing they are going to run. TELEPATHIC INDEPENDENT CAUCUS (TIC): Will put out no leaflets, but will reach out by projecting their thoughts. PULL-OUT INDEPENDENT PARTY (PIP): Proposes that every teacher should be a pull-out teacher. PUSH IN CAUCUS (PIC): Split from PIP. Wants every teacher to be a push-in teacher. PARTY OF ENERGY CAUCUS (PEC): Wants a health club in every school. New Inaction Caucus (NIC): Self-explanatory.
POLITICAL ACTION for TEACHERS (PAT): Every teacher should run for office in UFT elections. PAY EVERY TEACHER A LOT (PETAL): Advocates accelerated payments for teachers. CAUCUS in OPPOSITION TO POLITICAL ENTITIES (COPE): Union shouldn’t engage in political activity.
Rumor has it that PIC, PAC and PEC will merge and be known as: PIC ‘A PAC ‘O PEC 'O.
Logo got Pic 'o pac 'o
There are reports of a merger of Unity Caucus and Progressive Action Caucus. This new caucus will tentatively be known as: UNPAC or PACUP, UP-NAC, PAC-NU, PUAC, CUP, PUC, UPCHUCK.
Feel better?
I made a chart with the historical links between caucuses over the decades. One day I would like to see them all culminate into one box.
I made a chart with the historical links between caucuses over the decades. One day I would like to see them all culminate into one box.
The more the merrier and the more they can fragment the opposition. But speaking of MORE, guess who did the fragmenting of the opposition?