Pathetic Letter to Times From Weingarten

Want to get a bead on why teachers are in a losing two front war where the enemy is within? Instead of castigating David Brooks for his outrageous column, Weingarten says:

The educational improvements that have occurred during Joel I. Klein’s tenure as chancellor of New York City’s public schools are the result of hard work and collaboration with the United Federation of Teachers and the teachers we represent.

Improvements? Every teacher knows this is a crock.

OK, stop gagging. Susan Ohanian's comment:

This "cover your backside no matter who gets chosen" letter shows how morally bankrupt union leadership is.

Letter in New York Times

To the Editor:

The three very different candidates David Brooks (column, Dec. 5) names as possible choices for secretary of education share a common denominator — they all have worked with teacher unions, to great effect.

The educational improvements that have occurred during Joel I. Klein’s tenure as chancellor of
New York City’s public schools are the result of hard work and collaboration with the United
Federation of Teachers and the teachers we represent.

In Chicago, Arne Duncan has partnered with the local affiliate of the American Federation of
Teachers to restructure struggling schools and adopt promising innovations.

Linda Darling-Hammond has worked with the A.F.T. on projects going back decades to implement lessons from the best research and real-life experience for the benefit of students and teachers in America’s classrooms.

We agree that the choice of a secretary of education is a crucial one. But we disagree that distance from and disdain for teachers’ unions are positive credentials. Demonizing teachers’ unions might win favor in certain quarters, but it won’t do anything to help kids or advance school improvement.

Randi Weingarten
President
American Federation of Teachers and United Federation of Teachers

2008-12-13

So Randi, how do we say people like Klein and Duncan who demonize teachers' unions and castigate teachers and then claim to have made "improvements" are somehow "collaborative?"

British Columbia Teachers to Boycott Tests

When will teachers in the States get as fed up one day?

A solid majority of B.C. Teachers' Federation members voted this week in favour of a controversial plan for a province-wide boycott of the tests - known as the Foundation Skills Assessment and delivered in Grades 4 and 7 - unless the government agrees to stop testing every student and introduces random sampling instead.

"It's clear that teachers are ready to take a strong stance," BCTF president Irene Lanzinger said in an interview as her union announced that 85 per cent of teachers who voted were in favour of the boycott plan. Slightly more than half of the 41,000 members cast ballot

Read full piece at http://www.vancouversun.com/teachers+vote+boycott+standardized+tests+unless+changes+made/1063369/story.html or at norms notes.

A Voice speaks da trut about Rhee....

.....at The Chancellor's New Clothes

Quite frankly, I’ve never met anyone who works in the system for a few years, who does not eventually see the truth.

Perhaps this is the real genius of Teach for America and of Michelle Rhee who is a product of it; get the teachers out of the schools before they question the corruption and label those who stay and begin to question it as “burned out.”

The New Know Nothings

I just heard Jonathan Alter rant against teacher unions on Don Imus while praising Bill Gates as a reformer. Alter joins David Brooks, another education Know Nothing in pushing the Joel Klein/Michelle Rhee/Arne Duncan model of "it's all the teachers and their unions fault" model of school reform. Brooks recently wrote his second column pushing his vacant ideas on education.

What's interesting about these Know Nothings is how they refuse to look at places where the anti-union market based "reforms" have had little impact. Arne Duncan brags about how he fired the teachers at low performing schools. How has the Chicago model worked out? (See my recent column about how PS 225 in Rockaway had most of the teachers dumped out in March 2005 and is now being closed.) As a matter of fact, the refusal to look at the record of Chicago 13 years after mayoral control began and where George Schmidt reports the union has been rendered just about helpless, is a major plank in the Know Nothing platform.

Another plank is the refusal to look at all the right to work states where unions barely exist and how education is working out in those places.

Alter never mentions Gates' recent turn around on his support of small schools, a movement that has decimated and de-stabilized so many schools in New York City. Ooops! Let's try another experiment with no data backing it up. The irony, of course, of all these data kings never using data to judge the validity of their "reforms," would be delicious if it wasn't so destructive.

The rants ignore the significant voices of vocal parents in New York who have actually made a firmer stand against BloomKlein than the UFT.

I put a lot of blame for how this is being played out squarely on the teacher unions, who could of/should of been fighting for the kind of education reforms that would work. But they abandoned that fight a generation ago. We expect people like Gates, Alter, Brooks, Klein, etc. to act the way they do. But when the rank and file have to fight a two-front war, their situation is very bad indeed.

As we full well know, the UFT has barely made a stand at all. I won't go into the gory details. You see, the UFT/AFT wants to play "me too – see, we are also reformers." No, not the kind of reformers who call for low class sizes and offering urban kids the same kind of education wealthy kids get. But merit pay, ending union work rules, support for the testing mantra (though making squeaks about how much they are opposed.)

The tragedy is that our union leaders are not Know Nothings. They actually know something about how schools work but have decided to play the political game with the union attackers. "We'll give you some of what you want now and sell it to the members while leaving you loop-holes to get the rest. We will then put on a big act for the members about how awful this is but shrug our shoulders with a 'what can we do' attitude." The key issue: hold on to power.

They want to be a partner with the business community and have a seat at the table. Except for the extreme right wing union attackers, the reformers are perfectly happy to have a UFT/AFT on board as their intermediaries in selling their platform from the inside. The union leaders will get dues no matter what happens to the teachers. And most importantly, they will remain in power.

If a reform movement within the UFT ever got started and attracted masses of rank and filers, watch how quickly the gang running the schools line up with Unity Caucus to keep militants away from union power.

Related
Greg Palast had a great post at Huffington which I posted at Norms Notes. Is the real Gates interest to make sure poor kids are educated in a narrow, test-driven school he would never send his own kids to so he can assure enough data entry clerks?

Is Obama Getting Bad Advice on His Appointments?

Joel Klein is being considered for secretary of education, which would make as much sense for our schools as Michael Brown did for disaster relief.

Has Barack Obama forgotten, Michael "Way to go, Brownie" Brown? Brown was that guy from the Arabian Horse Association appointed by President George W. Bush to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Brownie, not knowing the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain from the south end of a horse, let New Orleans drown. Bush's response was to give his buddy Brownie a thumbs up.

We thought Obama would go a very different way. You'd think the studious senator from Illinois would avoid repeating the Bush regime's horror show of unqualified appointments, of picking politicos over professionals. But here we go again. Trial balloons lofted in the Washington Post suggest President-elect Obama is about to select Joel Klein as secretary of education. If not Klein, then draft choice No. 2 is Arne Duncan, Obama's backyard basketball buddy in Chicago.

It's not just Klein's and Duncan's empty credentials that scare me: It's the ill philosophy behind the Bush-brand education theories they promote. "Teach-to-the-test" (which goes under such prepackaged teaching brands as "Success for All") forces teachers to limit classroom time to pounding in rote, low-end skills, easily measured on standardized tests. The transparent purpose is to create the future class of worker-drones. Add in some computer training and -- voila! -- millions trained on the cheap to function, not think. Analytical thinking skills, creative skills, questioning skills will be left to the privileged at the Laboratory School and Phillips Andover Academy.

Alphie Kohn has a piece in The Nation which I also posted at Norms Notes.

Beware School 'Reformers'

For Republicans education "reform" typically includes support for vouchers and other forms of privatization. But groups with names like Democrats for Education Reform--along with many mainstream publications--are disconcertingly allied with conservatives in just about every other respect.

Sadly, all but one of the people reportedly being considered for Education secretary are reformers only in this Orwellian sense of the word.

Duncan and Klein, along with virulently antiprogressive DC schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, are celebrated by politicians and pundits. Darling-Hammond, meanwhile, tends to be the choice of people who understand how children learn. Consider her wry comment that introduces this article: it's impossible to imagine a comparable insight coming from any of the spreadsheet-oriented, pump-up-the-scores "reformers" (or, for that matter, from any previous Education secretary). Darling-Hammond knows how all the talk of "rigor" and "raising the bar" has produced sterile, scripted curriculums that have been imposed disproportionately on children of color. Her viewpoint is that of an educator, not a corporate manager.

Imagine--an educator running the Education Department.

For more research-based pieces, check Leonie Haimson's consistent defense of reforms that will work at the NYC Public Parents blog. Leonie's stake is that she has a child in the NYC schools. In this piece Leonie punches holes in the entire Bill Gates rationale.

No evidence of improved outcomes at NYC's small schools

And of course the work done by Eduwonkette to debunk the Know Nothings. And then there's the ongoing discussion between Deborah Meier and Diane Ravitch at Bridging Differences.

You see, the new Know Nothings want to know nothing about all this evidence of opposition that goes way beyond teachers.

Previous Ed Notes articles on another David Brooks column in July.

David Brooks and the Status Quo at the NY Times

Responding to David Brooks

Michael Fiorillo Challenges David Brooks

Randi in Miami

Paul Moore sent this link to Randi's speech today in Miami.
http://www.teachdade.com/Randi-Weingarten-Addresses-Board
She sure brought along her shovel.
I love the part where she says she was a social studies teacher.
She left out the "full time for 6 months" part.
She doesn't mention her former buddy Rudy Crew, who left (or was chased out of) Miami recently.
And she agrees with rewarding teachers who produce results.
Hmm. Exactly what kinds of results are we talking about? Test results, of course. But don't be shocked to see Weingarten make a speech to another group tomorrow where she rails against the evils of testing. Remember the mantra: watch what she does, not what she says.

When Schools Close

My column for the Dec. 12 edition of The Wave (www.rockawave.com)

The geniuses at the Tweed Courthouse (the HQ of the NYCDOE) have done it again. Joel Klein and Mike Bloomberg have been in charge of the NYC schools for seven years and they still don’t have a clue. But they have to make it look like they’re doing something, so they race around closing schools. Closing schools has been a failed policy. The mantra should be, “fix schools, don’t close them.” Like, have they ever tried the idea of drastically reducing class size?

Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters has written on the NYC Public School Parents blog:
The Institute for Education Studies has concluded that that class size reduction is one of only four, evidence-based reforms that through rigorous, randomized experiments have been proven to work – the "gold standard" of research. None of the strategies attempted by the NYC Department of Education under Joel Klein's leadership were cited.

But Joel Klein has always pooh-poohed class size reduction with the response that high quality teachers are more important. Our response has been that with smaller class sizes the overall quality of teaching will go up across the board.

The act of closing a school is a deflection of responsibility and an open admission by Klein that he has no answers. After all, he is in charge. He can change the administration of a school at any time. But that’s not the fish Klein wants to fry. His minions have put in these administrators to run most schools in the city and their continued problems can be laid directly at his door. So, it becomes “blame the teacher” time.

The most recent list of schools to be closed includes PS 225 on Beach 110th Street here in Rockaway. Howie Schwach’s front page story has a list of exactly how this plan will be implemented. Tweed arrives at these plans by tossing a bunch of post-it notes in the air and those that land inside a square are the ones implemented. More of that rearranging of deck chairs on a sinking ship.

They have a particular problem with PS 225. In Schwach’s article, a parent says, “This school was closed once before. They got rid of all the teachers, some of who were very good. They kept the administration and the kids, who are the real problems in the school. What good did it do?” Over two-thirds of the teachers had to find new jobs and the others had to reapply and be accepted by the administration.

In the world of the BloomKlein model of education reform, the lack of quality teaching is the problem with poor academic performance. So how did changing the teachers three years ago at PS 225 work out?

Now let’s get this straight. We know there have been some problems at PS 225. But Tweed doesn’t care about the problems parents and teachers worry about. They care about data. And the widgets (or idjits) at the DOE looked at some numbers and made the decision to close the school – again. Guess what? Watch them do it again in three years.

There’s been a lot of focus on the “D” grade the school received on the school report card, another bogus attempt to create a phony accountability system by Klein, where everyone is accountable but him. These grades are 85% test-driven and ignore so many other factors. Leonie Haimson suggested we focus less on the grade and explore the more reliable state accountability status of PS 225 and compare it to other schools that are not closing down. “We simply have no idea why DOE chooses certain schools to close and others to keep open,” she said. “If there is a problem with the principal the DOE can remove him and put another in place without closing the school.” People who want the school to stay open can do this and make their case to the public. But with a union that goes along and gets along, teachers are left to the wolves. Imagine if there was a real union out there that made a big issue of this! Nah, not in this universe.

The “new” plan for PS 225 now calls for two separate schools instead of the current K-8, which was supposedly forced down the throats of the school administration to relieve the pressure on the other middle schools in Rockaway. Beginning in September 2009, a Pre-K to 5th grade school will open, which will ultimately go up to 5th grade and a 6-8 middle school with a different administration will open. See, now we can have two high priced principals and sets of administrators and office staffs all fighting over the same space. Like, I said, geniuses. The “old” DOE policy seems to have been to form lots of K-8 and 6-12 schools. Is that policy now dead? Or will it be resurrected when the “new” policy become old. How about trying this? Form two separate schools with odd and even numbered grades. We can have a school with grades 1, 3, 5 and 7 and another with K, 2, 4, 6, and 8. Ok, I’m joking. But don’t be surprised if it doesn’t happen.

The teachers at PS 225 now face the prospect of being added to the growing ATR (Absentee Teacher Reserve) list, where those that don’t get jobs (while brand new teachers do) will be relegated to substituting and doing scut work around the school or being sent off into the hinterland to other schools while many of whatever union rights they had left disappear. Oh, yes, there is always that Open Market System of job searching, so vaunted by the UFT (Unfortunate Federation of Teachers.)

I’ve been working with groups around the city to defend and rally around the ATR atrocity created by the disastrous 2005 contract agreed to by our wonderful UFT leaders, who have broken a Guinness record by selling more teachers down the river in the shortest amount time.

Teacher quality
Speaking of sell-outs, I’m really getting sick of the line being pushed that the single most important factor in student achievement is teacher quality, something the UFT unfortunately signs onto. That has lead to a focus on so-called accountability where teachers are being measured by the scores of their students (again, something agreed to by the UFT). Many teachers in NYC will be getting report cards supposedly based on the value added approach, which measures how much their students have grown (not height, unfortunately). But researchers have pointed out that the value added approach is an unproven commodity. And even if it was, we still question whether the narrow test score approach that leaves so much out about what teachers do is an adequate way to judge a teacher’s quality. There will never be a true measure. But here is what I know about judging whether someone is a good teacher: you know one when you see one.


Related: No evidence of improved outcomes at small schools

Are Racial Achievement Gaps Closing in Chicago?

Gee, has it only been 13 years of mayoral control and market-based education with 2 Superintendents (Vallas and Duncan) who were not educators? Eduwonkette zeros in on that elusive gap.

Gov. Patterson to Sell Senate Seat to Randi

Gov. Patterson is expected to enjoy his food at UFT Ex. Bd meetings along with his (free) copy of Ed. Notes in exchange for giving Randi the Clinton Senate seat.

New York has a tradition of copying events taking place in Chicago and Illinois. Such as mayoral control – and other recent events.

With reports surfacing about Randi Weingarten's consideration for the US Senate by Governor Patterson, Ed Notes News is reporting in an exclusive that he has offered to sell the Clinton Senate seat to Weingarten in exchange for a lifetime pass to attend UFT Executive Board meetings so he can partake in the fabulous food offerings. "They meet around 26 times a year," said a spokesperson. "That's 26 free buffets. We only asked they add surf and turf."

Weingarten is taking it under consideration, though she is thought to have doubts about accepting a Senate seat since that would be such a come down in power from her current positions as AFT/UFT Czarina. Being held accountable for her actions by a voting public would be quite a novelty.

In addition, it is thought she would miss the action where she can shout at the top of her lungs at a packed meeting, "NORMAN PUT DOWN THAT CAMERA!"

Klein Lied to the National Press Club

Trevor Cobbold of Save Our Schools has been in touch. They have followed up on Klein's recent visit. Leonie Haimson sent out this excerpt of their report. (See below for links to full document.)

Click to enlarge (page 1 only)

Check out the latest report from the Australian organization Save Our Schools. Here is an excerpt from "Klein Lied to the National Press Club":

New York City Schools Chancellor, Joel Klein, was exposed as a dissembler at his National Press Club address in Canberra last week. Under forensic questioning from The Canberra Times’ education reporter, Emma Macdonald, Klein resorted to lies and deceptions to justify his claims of increases in student achievement in New York City schools.

Macdonald challenged Klein on his claims by citing national reading and mathematics assessments which show that there has been no improvement in student achievement in NYC since 2003, except for 4th grade mathematics. She questioned him on whether the grades given to schools in this year’s school progress reports had been manipulated by reducing the cut-off scores to achieve an A or B.

Klein denied both charges. He said that Macdonald was wrong on both facts. His response was to falsely assert that the cut-off scores for school grades had not been reduced, falsely claim that New York State tests were a better measure of student achievement than the independent national assessments, and to selectively cite evidence about the success of African-American students.

Check out the entire document, complete with bibliography.

By the way, it was our own Steve Koss who first figured out the cut-off scores had been manipulated in this way: Don’t Like the Results? Change the Scale!

Full SOS document posted at Save Our Schools web site and Norms Notes.

RELATED:
Paul Moore - "The likes of Klein will perish in the blaze."

More on Rhee from DC

I posted themail's editor Gary Imhoff's insightful editorial on Rhee over at ed notes last week and there were some interesting comments. One of the insightful comments is from a parent activist in Oakland.

The Perimeter Primate said...

I have yet to meet, or read any commentary by, a "Skinner-type" who has been a classroom teacher for more than a few years.

People with that mentality seem to leave the classroom about the time that the Truth is starting to dawn on them.

Sometimes they leave it before that point because their two-year commitment has come to an end. Then they slink off and wash the challenges of those "nasty" children off their hands, feeling superior as they proceed into law school, educational-reform management, or administration.

It's too bad the usual TFA-type commitment for baby teachers isn't seven years because great insights would be gained. Of course, the organizationa probably know that few of those somewhat arrogant, but disillusioned, youngsters would be able to hack it.

Perimeter Primate doesn't post often, but when she does she brings an insightful parent perspective from the perimeter.

Here is some follow-up from at week's themail posted at Norms Notes – More on Rhee in DC from themail.

Ira Socol's (Who's Behind the Curtain?) makes some great points (see the ones on interest-based reading which are so similar to my thoughts in this morning's post) on why Rhee is being pushed and by whom. Here's an excerpt but go read the entire piece here.

Which brings us back to Michelle Rhee. Who's marketing her, and why?

Rhee is part of a broad push by America's true "old guard" to ensure that education doesn't really change. The same folks at Harvard and Penn who offer our minorities the lowest educational expectations possible through Teach for America and KIPP Academies, are selling you Rhee, and lowered expectations for all schools - except of course, for the schools attended by the children of those elites.

There is a reason the television networks and New York Times and Time-Warner love TFA and Rhee. These organizations are run by people with power, and by people who would rather not share power.

So they have adopted the ultimate in reductionist standards. "If we had even decent education - or even enough teachers of any kind - in most of the places it places its students, then [TFA] would be a step down," a commenter on this blog said yesterday. Right, so here's the standard: Teach for America, or Michelle Rhee's DC school system, is better than not having schools at all.

Rhee's own words: '"People say, 'Well, you know, test scores don't take into account creativity and the love of learning,'" she says with a drippy, grating voice, lowering her eyelids halfway. Then she snaps back to herself. "I'm like, 'You know what? I don't give a crap.' Don't get me wrong. Creativity is good and whatever. But if the children don't know how to read, I don't care how creative you are. You're not doing your job."'

No, she doesn't give a crap. She wants her African-American students prepared for the lowest possible jobs on the economic ladder. That way (perhaps, in her unconscious thinking) they will not threaten the success of her small minority group - a group which has found itself accepted by the powers-that-be because it isn't big enough to be threatening.

Of course I have a different view of reading than Rhee, and of language itself. First, I know that there are lots of ways "to read," and second, I know that when children are inspired to learn about things, they tend to want to learn to read (in one form or another). As opposed to the Joel Klein-Michelle Rhee-KIPP Academy-George W. Bush notion that reading is a skill which should be learned outside of the context of interest-based education.

But then, my goal is opportunity, and my belief system - not being market-capitalist in nature - doesn't think an underclass is a good idea (to hold down upward pressure on wages).

Rhee is not important, of course. She's racist in her expectations and racist in her strategies, she's not an educator at all in the real meaning of that term, she talks a great deal but has little actual impact in her job. But Rhee being hailed as the educational messiah is important.

Like those who favor TFA solutions - the Rhee idea is to NOT change US society. Yes, we'll make impoverished minority groups marginally more competent - thus improving profits at the top and reducing the cost of the dole. But no, we will not empower those groups by empowering their children. Teaching them to be creative 'will have to wait' (forever). Teaching them to find their own learning styles - thus accepting cultural change instead of social reproduction - is dangerous (as it always is for those at the top).

We lower expectations. We test meaningless things (Time: "The ability to improve test scores is clearly not the only sign of a good teacher. But it is a relatively objective measure in an industry with precious few. And in schools where kids are struggling to read and subtract, it is a prerequisite for getting anything else done." Really? Anything? You can't teach the physics of a bouncing ball to a non-reader, or the love of literature?). We strip time away from what is precious to children and force them into chanting. We enforce white majority cultural norms and deny identity. We argue that teachers should be paid according to the "short term gain" rules that worked so well for traders at Citigroup and AIG.

And this is all brought to you by the wealthiest people, and the largest old-line corporations in the country. Because, I'll say it again, they have no incentive to allow those below them to succeed.

COMING SOON: Ed NOTES' EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH MICHELLE RHEE

Data-Zilla Comes to Gotham

Click to enlarge. Print and share with your school.

Graphic by David B

OK for Scarsdale, Off Limits to City Kids

From my first days as a teacher, I felt the the key to reading well was an interest and joy in reading.

So, what comes first? An enriched curriculum that will create a need to read or a skill-based reading program based on a data and accountability program? Scarsdale, the gold standard of school districts, increasingly pushes the boundary in the direction of enrichment.

An article in Sunday's NY Times, Scarsdale Adjusts to Life Without Advanced Placement Courses, talks about the change from a focus on teaching to the Advanced Placement Tests toward a more enriched curriculum in AP courses.

A handful of exclusive private schools, including Ethical Culture Fieldston, Dalton and Calhoun in New York City, have abolished Advanced Placement courses in recent years, but Scarsdale has set a precedent for high-achieving public schools.

A year after Scarsdale became the most prominent school district in the nation to phase out the College Board’s Advanced Placement courses — and make A.P. exams optional — most students and teachers here praise the change for replacing mountains of memorization with more sophisticated and creative curriculums.

Bruce G. Hammond, executive director of the Independent Curriculum Group, a network of private schools that do not teach to standardized tests, said that many private and public schools chafed under the limitations of Advanced Placement courses, and would drop them if not for opposition from parents.

Now comparing AP courses in Scarsdale with the way kids in the inner city are being taught in the test and data driven world of the NYC school system may look like a classic case of trying to compare apples to oranges.

I don't agree. I have heard Joel Klein and his minions talk about equity and the civil rights struggle of our times. But when challenged about the narrow casting of the curriculum that has resulted from his data and accountability emphasis, he has said that first kids need to read well before they can take full advantage of an enriched curriculum.

I beg to differ.

The primary motivation in reading development is a need to read and many kids who struggle don't feel that need. Reading in a world of test prep equals tedium and with the pressure and threats of being left back added, becomes an often joyless exercise.

Build an enriched curriculum and they will come. And improve their reading in surprising ways. Of course, there are often some techinical issues, like poor phonics, that may interfere in the process, but those are relatively easy to solve.

Reading well is based so much on vocabulary, which expands in the context of experiential learning. Poor vocabulary development is one of the major gaps in the so-called achievement gap and it takes years to overcome.

The lessons about test prep being learned in Scarsdale (a system run by real educators – would they ever pick a Joel Klein for Superintendent?) should be applied to a broader base.

The Klein/Leibman model denies urban kids the same kinds of opportunities given to wealthier kids by restricting their learning to things that can be measured, leading to the creation of an even larger gap.

Talk about lack of equity. Bringing the apples and oranges of the inner city and the wealthy suburbs into alignment is the true civil rights issue of our times.

Update on Cerf Investigation....

Graphic by David



....from Leonie Haimson, who foiled the report. (I mistakenly gave the NY Times credit in my last post. I shoulda known better.)

Check out Juan Gonzalez' column in today's NY Daily News about the long-suppressed report from the Special Commissioner of Investigation on Chris Cerf, the Deputy Chancellor, as well as the NY Times story here. Elizabeth Green of Gotham Schools has some of the back story here; Gotham Gazette has an analysis here.

I was the one who FOILed the report and made it available to Juan last week. Some of the questions answered by the report – and some important questions that remain, as well as a link to the report itself, are posted on our NYC parent blog at http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/ Take a look. This report raises real concerns about whether the current system of Mayoral control has sufficient accountability and oversight.

Speaking of which, save the date! The Parent commission will hold a forum on the need for more accountability, transparency and checks and balances under Mayoral control on Dec. 19 at 6:30 at Judson Church. Speakers include CM John Liu, George Sweeting of the Independent Budget Office, Udi Ofer of the NYCLU, and Bob Tobias of NYU, formerly head of testing for the Board of Education. More information on this important public forum is posted here, and a flyer you can post or distribute in your school is here. Please spread the word!

Elizabeth Green made a very pertinent comment on the report which has

not only resurrected questions about Cerf’s propriety, but bigger questions about how sufficiently the Department of Education is held accountable. … Advocates charge that the current structure allows school officials to hide from scrutiny. This report provides them some new ammunition.”

NYC Deputy Chancellor Cerf "Chided" About Soliciting Donation

Chided? That's it?
Would you buy a used car from Christopher Cerf?
A teacher would be hung.
Remember the librarian at Brooklyn Tech who was hounded for promoting his daughter's book?
Don't they have rubber rooms for deputy chancellors?
Five years ago I spoke at a PEP meeting and said one day the entire gang would be taken out of Tweed with their coats over their heads.

Mr. Cerf’s relationship with the company, now called EdisonLearning, first made headlines in February 2007, when he assured a citywide parents’ group that he had “zero” financial interest in Edison. He later acknowledged that he had relinquished his equity stake in the company only the day before.

“Raising money for a not for profit, tell me, what’s wrong with that?” he added.

Graphic by David

Interesting how the DOE imposes all kinds of crap on schools and teachers attempting to raise money.

The NY Times had to get the Condon report using Freedom of Information. Good for them.

DC POV on RHEE

You can't say this any better.

From Gary Imhoff
Editor
themail@dcwatch.com

Practice Makes Imperfect

Dear Practitioners:

I’m reluctant to disagree with Jay Mathews, the Washington Post’s national education reporter, because his years of experience have given him a deep knowledge of his field. But on Monday he wrote an article that I have to challenge, “New DC Principal, Hand-Picked Team Make Early Gains,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113001929.html. This article is yet another link in the Post’s chain of articles prompted by Michelle Rhee’s national public relations campaign. This public relations blitz explains why Rhee’s school “reform” remains popular with those who are untouched by it, though it is viewed with deep skepticism by the teachers, students, and parents whom it affects. Mathews’ article praises the work of the principal whom Rhee hand-picked as a shining example for Mathews to interview, Brian Betts at “Shaw Middle School at Garnet-Patterson,” as the combined schools are clumsily called.

I’m sure that Betts is as enthusiastic and energetic as Mathews describes him. In addition, Betts was given the opportunity that Rhee wants to give all her principals, to replace almost all of the teachers at his school with new hires. In the most telling paragraphs of the article, Mathews quotes what Betts thinks was the key question in his interviews with prospective teachers: “‘Shaw and Garnet-Patterson have proficiency rates in both math and reading in the low 20 percents. To what do you attribute this poor performance and what do you plan to do or do differently next year to improve test scores and student achievement?’ A young teacher from New Jersey named Meredith Leonard was hired after saying: ‘Every kid can learn, and we all say that, but what is missing is the last part of the sentence: every kid can learn given the motivation, given the supports, given the expectations. I will be motivating my kids, I will be giving my kids the support and I will be expecting them to do it.’ Many more applicants, including experienced teachers, blamed the bad test scores on undereducated parents and impoverished homes and suggested that those social ailments would be hard to cure. They weren’t hired.”

In one way, Betts’ and Rhee’s emphasis may be right. Teachers aren’t social workers who can solve their students’ home and social problems. That’s not their job. They should concentrate on what they can accomplish in their classrooms. They also should have the attitude that teaching their students is not hopeless. In another, more important way, Betts and Rhee are very wrong. Teachers can make all the difference for some students, but it is naive and foolish to think that they can be the most important factor in the education of most of their students. Meredith Leonard is simply wrong in thinking that the motivation she provides will be the most important thing determining the performance of her students; she’s setting herself up for disappointment, disillusion, and an ultimate fall. Betts rejected the teachers who correctly recognized that most students are much more influenced by the attitudes of their parents and peers, and that if their parents and peers do not value, or are even scornful of, education, that will be more important to them than any single teacher’s enthusiasm and energy. Betts chose to hire the teachers who gave the answer politically and ideologically approved by Rhee, not the right answer.

The Washington Post shares Rhee’s faith that the path to improvement is to get rid of older, experienced workers in favor of younger, inexperienced ones, assuming that the new workers will have an initial burst of energy and enthusiasm that will make up for their lack of background and knowledge. Malcolm Gladwell, in his new book Outliers, argues “that excellence at a complex task requires a critical, minimum level of practice,” and that “researchers have settled on what they believe is a magic number for true expertise: 10,000 hours,” http://tinyurl.com/6jsvo7. It’s a commonsense notion, long ago distilled into three words: “practice makes perfect.”

Rhee rejects it; she thinks teachers are best at the beginning of their careers, and that practice at teaching makes them imperfect. Similarly, over the past few years the Post has used repeated worker buyouts to rid its newsroom of many of its best writers and editors, those with years of experience and depth of knowledge in their fields. As readers of the newspaper, we’ve seen how well that is working out. As one of the rare survivors, Mathews should know it better than we do. Now the Post is urging the same road to perdition on DC’s school system.

The Left Wing of Teach for America

Updated Thurs Dec. 4, 8PM:

Chancellors New Clothes has an excellent post on Teach for America (and not because she mentions me favorably a few times) on how some TFA's really do get it.

Two weeks ago I attended a Teachers Unite (check out the new web site) social at a bar in downtown Brooklyn. I've been working with TUs' director Sally Lee for a few years and am on the steering committee of TU. A 5th year TFA alum still in a NYC classroom is also on the steering committee.

At the social (it was wonderful to see how many teachers are interested in the work TU is doing) Sally introduced the TFA alum to another TFA alum. "The left wing of TFA," said my fellow steering committee member.

Many TFA's really do get it.

Note: We are currently working with others in the UFT and TU to develop a series of workshops on the UFT and teacher union activism that goes beyond a narrow definition. It will be aimed at the recently arrived teacher corps with a focus on those who have decided to stay and make teaching a career. We expect a number of TFA's to be involved.

They see beyond the single-minded phrase "the achievement gap" and will look to be active in the union in a way to promote true ed reform and not to attack career teachers as being ineffective. You know the mantra. The system has failed so many students. Teacher effectiveness is the single most important factor. Ergo, the failures must be due to these teachers. Like a geometric theorem to the official TFA world.

Weingarten to Meet with Washington TU Exec Bd Tonight

The Washington Teacher blog reports:

WTU Executive Board members have been notified that a special meeting of the executive board will be held Thursday, December 4, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at the WTU. Ms. Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), has been invited to the meeting to discuss critical issues affecting the WTU. I am sure that issues related to our tentative agreement (teacher contract) and recent discussions with Chancellor Rhee will be among the hot topics to be discussed.

In addition to dealing with Michelle Rhee, the Washington TU has internal issues with what looks like a top-down leadership that acts without input of the members. But the union does seem to have people on the Exec Bd who will raise issues with the leadership, something the UFT has made sure cannot occur in NYC.

Maybe that will be Randi's advice to WTU leader George Parker who has failed to hold a representative assembly meeting in September, October or November.

Keep up the good work. Now just get those people who criticize you off the Exec Bd and all will be well.

Randi will come on all militant at this meeting. Maybe even throw a few curse words around about Rhee. My message to the rank and file of the WTU is: make no mistake about it. The AFT is not your unequivocal advocate in the war with Rhee, who has so much support from politicians and the business community which Randi so much wants to court. So out and out support for the WTU will not be in the cards, though Randi's speeches internally will make it look that way. We have learned here in New York to watch what she does, not what she says.

The AFT, which is after all controlled by the UFT – Ed Notes has written extensively on this tail wagging the dog situation – wants to be viewed as "ed reform" friendly. Witness recent quotes from Leo Casey about not being wedded to ideology. They are "realists." Translated that means the winds of reform are calling for merit pay, measuring teacher quality by standardized tests, developing flexibility about tenure, having the union play a role in removing teachers, etc.

This mindset has existed since the early 80's when Al Shanker shifted the role of the union (without any internal discussion, of course) into this reform camp in exchange for a seat at the reform table even when "reform" has been narrowly defined by the enemies of teacher unions. So don't blame Randi for instituting this policy. In fact she is even better than Shanker at this stuff because she play the I feel your pain role so well.

And that is exactly what she will do at the WTU meeting. But behind the scenes she will urge a deal with Rhee in which teachers will lose half a loaf and then proclaim that a victory. That is what Rhee is after. She and Joel Klein put outrageous demands on the table and then Randi gives them part of what they want with lots of gaps left open for them to get the rest over time. What Randi will get is a bribe for teachers to give up their rights by getting them money, some of it for longer days and years. This is a good short term investment in the world of Rhee who full well knows with the absolute power to hire and fire, she can make sure few teachers will reach the higher salaries promised.

Only democratic elements within the WTU can put roadblocks in the way of the almost unstoppable events set in motion when your own union stops functioning as your advocate but shifts to the role of mediator between people like Rhee and Klein and the rank and file.

Fighting a frontal assault and a rear guard action from the likes of Randi Weingarten and justifiers like Leo Casey can easily turn into a lose-lose proposition.

It is not too soon to start to scream.

ATRs/Seniority Rights: The Fight for All Members' Rights

Guest column

By Angel Gonzalez, Retired UFT Teacher - November 30, 2008

The October Delegate Assembly (DA) resolution calling for a mass Nov.24 rally at the DOE was initiated by ATR Ad-Hoc Committee members who were supported by UFT opposition caucuses (e.g. ICE and TJC) and many other delegates who understand that seniority is a sacrosanct union provision.

The resolution called for a protest to support the ATRS:

"THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the UFT will organize a mass citywide rally to show our unity and strength, calling on the NYC Department of Education to reduce class size and give assigned positions to all teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve who want assignments before any new teachers are hired."

While Randi Weingarten initially signaled tepid approval for this friendly amendment to support the ATRs, she simultaneously threatened to cancel support--and move the body to reject it--if she did not agree with the argument (the motivator) for it as presented by John Powers. The DA did overwhelmingly approve the call for this "Support the ATRs" rally, with Ms. Weingarten's subsequent approval.

Perhaps Ms. Weingarten's reluctance to support such a militant mobilization, initiated at the grass roots, was due to the realization that the source of the ATRs' predicament lay in our last [two] contracts, in which the UFT Executive Board negotiated away seniority transfer rights. For years, the UFT leadership's strategy has been to lobby government officials for "favors" to our members in exchange for an endorsement from our union. This focus on intimacy at the top has
contributed to our leaders' becoming disconnected from our day-to-day reality in the classroom. Depending upon fickle politicians as opposed to the strength and conviction of our members has served to backfire on teachers and the students and families we serve.

The DA is the body that should direct the UFT Executive Board. If this is so, why do so many delegates feel that the Executive Board has to approve our decisions in order for them to be realized? In truly democratic structures, the leadership fulfills the will of the membership—not the other way around. Our DA saw an opportunity to seize the moment and affirm that reducing class size while also allowing our experienced teachers to continue to offer their expertise
benefits students and honors the hard-won rights that our colleagues fought so hard for in years past.

As the Nov. 24 date set for the rally approached, and as rank and file members began to be energized with the feeling that together we were finally fighting back, the UFT Executive Board was quietly negotiating--what can only be characterized as a back-room deal--to temporarily stall the dismantling of seniority and tenure. It is unclear if the motivation for these discussions was to assuage the powerful City Administration who obviously did not approve of an angry
rally exposing the outrage of the ATR fiasco, or to quell the spontaneous mobilization of so many members who felt that they were helping to construct a movement to defend our rights.

Ms. Weingarten's proposal to alter the character of the rally into a silent candle-light vigil would have reduced us to a group of passive mourners, as opposed to a body of professionals rightly proclaiming what belongs to us, while exposing the City's ill-conceived and costly indignation to which it condemns our ATRs. The DA was correct in indentifying the need for a mass rally, and strong member opposition to a "silent vigil" forced the Executive Board to back down.

A week before the rally, further attempts to squelch it materialized in the "deal" brokered by the Executive Board and the City—again only a temporary band-aid on a gaping wound. This agreement encourages, rather than mandates, placement of ATRs with an administration whose
track record has shown unprecedented commitment to eat away at public unions' power. It is tantamount to having the fox watch the chicken coop. The deal was characterized as a resolution to the issue by the UFT leadership, who decided there was no need for a rally after all.

It would appear that the threat of the rally was being utilized by the UFT leadership to maneuver this deal. This is corroborated by the fact that the Union made no genuine efforts to mobilize or organize in any broad way for this event. However, the passion of the members and our just cause began to take on a life of its own, beyond the leadership's control. Teachers are tired of give-backs. We deserve more respect than that.

The final blow to this member-driven initiative was the Executive Board's decision to call for a meeting to celebrate the band-aid "agreement" at Wall Street [UFT] Headquarters, at exactly the same time as the rally! A leadership that truly supported its members' needs and aspirations would have instead supported this rally. A subsequent meeting could have announced the proposed temporary stop-gap measure, with the recognition that serious errors were made in the 2005 negotiations—the framework that set these unfortunate events in motion.

Regardless, the ATR rally started at 4PM, bringing out over 200 spirited members -- thanks to the hard work of the rank and file organizers. Many speakers denounced both the City and the UFT officials who created this situation and allowed it to fester so long.

Although Ms. Weingarten declared that the rally was unnecessary at the 4pm Wall Street "wine and cheese" meeting, she appeared with a bullhorn as the rally was winding down at 6pm (with about 75 people). She gave lukewarm thanks to the organizers, perhaps to assert a certain level of control or to save face, in light of such strong grass roots sentiment regarding what many have defined as a carefully crafted strategy to chip away at tenure .

When Marjorie Stamberg, a key rally organizer, approached the bullhorn to address the crowd, Ms. Weingarten refused to let her speak, chastising her "for what she did." The crowd chanted: "Let Marjorie speak!" forcing Ms. Weingarten to relent. After Marjorie spoke, many members began to chant: "Restore Seniority Transfer Rights Now!"

Clearly frazzled with the dissidence targeted at UFT leadership, the Executive Board's contingent left the rally.

This rally was an excellent beginning in our hard battle ahead to restore our contractual seniority transfer rights, to protect tenure, and to bolster and defend our contract.

In a truly democratic union, the leadership has faith in and responds to the will of the membership. The "deals" that have been made over the past 30 years to "save" unions have in fact resulted in the dismantling of Trade Unions and workers' rights across this country.

We cannot abide continued UFT complicity with the City's plans, which waste valuable qualified experienced educators--and over $75 million annually--while further diminishing the quality of education that our children deserve. Our communities have the right to know that part of this plan results in experienced and quality educators being replaced with less costly, less experienced teachers, thus impacting negatively on the quality of education for their children.

The lack of information, transparency and open debate in our union denies member input into critical issues about pedagogy and historic union rights. An uninformed membership gives even a well-intentioned leadership free rein to function as it pleases. As the economy worsens, we need to take a strong stand in defense of the rights of teachers and communities, rather than to facilitate the erosion of all that has been built over the years.

From the momentum generated by the ATR Ad-Hoc Committee, we could help to build a democratic movement within the UFT that recognizes that our strength derives from our members' interactions, conversations and mobilizations. Such efforts will require a great deal of work, but the alternative is to passively stand by as we observe the destruction of quality education and ALL of our members' rights.

We need to build the fight for a UFT contract that promotes and defends:
1. Seniority Rights
2. Tenure Rights
3. Smaller Class Size
4. Against All Merit Pay Schemes
5. Against the use of testing to rate teacher performance
6. Quality and Justice - Not Testing
7. No cutbacks
8. No more privatization schemes (Charter Schools and vouchers inclusive)
9. No layoffs and more.

Our current UFT leadership has not indicated its commitment to achieve these goals—it is up to the members to make this happen!

For more about the ATR Rally, the ATR issue, the current UFT-ATR agreement with the City and other comments go to:

http://supportatrs.blogspot.com/ and

http://iceuftblog.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=50

The Execrable Richard Lee Colvin...

...Feels Urban Kids Don't Deserve to Ride in a Mercedes

Leonie Haimson on the NYC Education News listserve:

See letters below by Jane Hirschmann and David Bloomfield in response to an execrable column in EdWeek last month, in which Gina Burkhardt and Richard Lee Colvin of the Hechinger Center (which is supposed to support balanced journalism on education issues) wrote the following tripe, in sympathy with Joel Klein’s supposed difficulty to tell his side of the story in the media about his incredible successes in our schools.

Seeing Covin's name reminded me of my encounter with him. Richard Lee Colvin is an execrable something or other (there's a better word.) I knew nothing about him at the time but this confirms it. He practically bit my head off (did I detect just a bit of arrogance and condescension?) at the AERA conference last March when he was on a panel with Rotherham, Russo, and the NY Times Jenny Medina (some balance) on journalism and education. (Medina responded to my question about why the voices of classroom teachers are rarely heard in school reform issues by saying they are afraid to talk publicly.)

I dared to suggest that kids in the cities deserved the same class size as kids in the suburbs (I believe Eduwonkette was there too for part of it) And Colvin got real hot and responded that not everyone can ride in a Mercedes – a Pontiac will still get you to your destination (maybe he should have used a different car since it will be defunct any minute.)

Not when the car for urban kids is packed to overflowing while the Mercedes is half empty.

Here's an excerpt from the March 30, '08 post on Ed Notes.

AERAPLANING - Don' Need No Stinkin' Research

...to tell me lower class sizes benefit kids.

I bit the bullet and headed for AERA for the entire day, carrying the 500 page AERA Kahlenberg's "Tough Liberal" and Podair's book on the '68 strike to entertain myself between workshops. As a quasi educator/blogger/reporter/ed commentator I was interested in this mouthful: Disseminating Education Research Through Electronic Media: Advice from E-Journalists.

I was interested in raising some issues related to the coverage of events in NYC, especially by the NY Times which is viewed by so many as biased for BloomKlein but wasn't sure how to raise it. I've actually seen a slightly more nuanced tone in Medina's reporting but there's so much the Times leaves uncovered. I was surprised when she said there were 11 education reporters at the Times.

I wanted to get a few points in regarding the absence of the classroom teacher voice and how class size is addressed in terms of research.

So I made the statement about not needing stinkin' research in the context of the argument the anti-class size reduction people make that we can't lower class size until we have a quality teacher available and that resources would be better spent in recruiting and training better teachers. That reporters repeat that all the time. Less kids = lift all teachers quality is so obvious.

I said, how come the same questions are not raised about the medical field: we don't refuse to put more doctors and nurses in hospitals because some of them will not be high quality. (Did you know how many practicing doctors have not passed their certification boards?) The legal field – do we ban the guys who can't run fast enough to catch up to the ambulance? The financial field? Judges? Politicians? The ones who have the most number of affairs are the lowest quality. Or the highest. Or better yet, take NYC education journalists. Do you see a difference in quality? If you can't keep up with Elizabeth Green, you can't write a story.

Of course this comparison was totally ignored. This is about education, not the rest of the world.

How come the focus on teacher quality to the exclusion of other areas of society? Actually, I got a lot of the answers at Lois Weiner's session on Saturday about the world-wide neo-liberal attack on teachers and their unions (see Lois at the April 15 Teachers Unite forum) but will post on that soon.

What ed journalists do is narrow-casting. Like there was a UFT/coalition rally to restore budget cuts while down the street the fed was coming up with $200 billion and no one made the ironic connection.

Or report that class size research is inconclusive and ignore the fact that parents spend $30,000 for private school and parents in rich areas like Scarsdale pay so much for small class sizes.

I got a rather heated response from Richard Colvin (did I detect a note of hostility when I ran into him in the press room later?), who said just because people in Scarsdale drive a Mercedes, it doesn't mean we all have to when cheaper alternatives are available - that the best uses of resources in resource-starved urban schools may not be to reduce class size. He didn't quite say that the better use was to recruit quality teachers, but he may have been thinking it.

I didn't get a chance to say it but I guess urban kids never get to ride in the Mercedes unless they do the drug thing. What I would have said: How about giving kids in a few places the Mercedes just to see if it works. Like, instead of closing down one high school and loading it up with multiple small schools (sure, that's certainly more cost effective), try doubling the staff for a few years and see what impact that had. Why don't class size researchers suggest that as a test? Or ed reporters? Like I said, narrow casting.

Here are the letters of objection to the outrageous claim that BloomKlein have been unfairly treated by the press.

Jane Hirschmann

To the Editor:

We are shocked that Gina Burkhardt, the president of Learning Point Associates, and Richard Lee Colvin, the director of the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media (an organization whose mission is “to promote fair, accurate, and insightful coverage of education”), would encourage a journalistic approach to education reporting that fosters one-sided, and no doubt self-congratulatory, talking points ("Telling the Story of School Reform," Commentary, Oct. 29, 2008). Yes, superintendents should be allowed to tell their stories to the press. But journalists owe the public a comprehensive and critical analysis of those stories. Unfortunately, the authors appear to have forsaken that caveat.

Furthermore, for them to support New York City Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein in his assertion that he hasn’t been able to tell his story successfully because “other people” have used “very sophisticated media machines” is shameful, not to mention an unexamined acceptance of Mr. Klein’s story. The New York City Department of Education’s public relations office is legendary both for its effectiveness and its size, which Mr. Klein has increased under his tenure. Moreover, the chancellor has attempted to employ intimidation techniques to silence his critics, who include education historian and Education Week blogger Diane Ravitch.

In this hostile atmosphere, principals and teachers will not talk to the press out of fear of reprisal, since those who have been brave enough to do so have been humiliated and threatened.

As we all know, there are at least two sides to every story. For the sake of our schools, I urge education journalists to ignore Ms. Burkhardt and Mr. Colvin’s advice and examine all of them, so that we may truly have “fair, accurate, and insightful coverage.”

Jane Hirschmann

Time Out From Testing

New York, N.Y.

David Bloomfield

To the Editor:

I laughed in disbelief at “Telling the Story of School Reform.” The description of New York City Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein bemoaning a supposedly inadequate communications strategy is ludicrous. The city’s education department has spent millions, and funneled millions more in private dollars, in a ceaseless media campaign to buy public support for its supposed reforms, backed by suspect data that many observers—including Education Week bloggers Jennifer Booher-Jennings ("eduwonkette") and Diane Ravitch—have debunked. It has successfully spun press reports, allegedly spied on opponents (including Ms. Ravitch), and recently killed a negative New York Daily News story, according to reports, by interceding with its publisher after editorial approval.

Please spare us the crocodile tears. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein have brought Orwellian tactics to public discourse over New York City’s schools. If districts are to tell stories of reform, they should be true and responsible to public, rather than political, interests.

David C. Bloomfield

Program Head, Educational Leadership

City University of New York Brooklyn College

Colvin's "Telling the Story of School Reform," is posted at Norms Notes.

Is the UFT "A Union of Professionals?"

UFT leaders like to play make believe by trying to give the impression that we are a union of professionals. A profession is controlled by the members. But in NYC the UFT has assisted Joel Klein in the process of de-professionalizing and de-skilling teachers, who have less control than ever over what goes on in their classrooms.

I never looked at teaching as a profession. Though we used to be able to make a lot more basic decisions in our classes, most of us had little or not say in the curriculum or the materials we could use. Until 1979 I still had a lot of freedom. But that year we got a new principal who was a testing freak (she figured that if the raised our scores drastically she could become a Superintendent). There went the remnants of our freedom. I fought the testing wars with her for the rest of my career but gave up the ghost by leaving the self-contained classroom to become a computer teacher for my last 10 years in the school. But ever there we had friction as she wanted me to use the lab for test prep instead of teaching word processing (who measures that?)

There is a direct correlation between the standards and accountability movement that the UFT has so supported since the early 80's and the disappearance of whatever element of professionalism we used to have.

Witness the initial imposition by Joel Klein of the Diana Lam so-called progressive education system modeled on Teachers College, a program that was the core of District 2 (most of lower Manhattan) and then District 15 (Park Slope and Sunset Park in Brooklyn.) I was in District 14 (Greenpoint/Williamsburg) where we had the opposite program, a more rigid method of teaching, which we also didn't have a say in either, but at least they left us alone - mostly. The methods used were brutal and many teachers who could not adapt quickly were attacked by administrators. Some teachers "adapted" by faking it.

If we were a union of professionals, we would have played a role in these basic decisions.

The other point of attack has been the use of instant teachers in the Teaching Fellow and Teach for America program, many of whom leave after their two year commitment. The attacks on career teachers, a basic tenet of a profession, were inherent in the acceptance of this approach.

Now, I'm not taking a position vis a vis these people entering teaching (it was the way I came in in 1967.) I think it takes at least 3 years to become a proficient teacher no matter how you come in, though people with some background in student teaching have less ground to cover. Instead of calling for a paid apprentice program which would professionalize teaching, the UFT has gone along with the instant teacher schemes. (The Teaching Fellows idea came from Harold Levy, Klein's predecessor.)

The UFT supported the elimination of 1000 teachers who did not pass the teaching test but who had taught for years and were rated Satisfactory for their teaching while supporting people who had no experience and 6 weeks of training, but who did pass the test. What does that tell you about how they view professionalism?

The UFT view of professionalism is as narrow as you could get:

More money for teachers (not a bad thing but in our case, tied to longer days and school years, which is easy - and given the tremendous amount of increased responsibilities heaped on teachers - money for blood.)

The other plank of professionalism is a seat at the table for union leaders.

As to fighting for the right of classroom teachers to control what they do on the job, nada.

The idea as to whether to put money into massive accountability schemes and ignore class size is made by politicians, not educators. the UFT has gone along all along, paying lip service to class size for three decades (you'll notice the million dollar campaigns with petitions, etc has disappeared from the UFT's lexicon.)

That the UFT tries to call this a Union of Professionals is a joke.

Their idea is to give the union leaders a seat at the table while the rank and file gain little. The UFT can only gain this seat at the table by agreeing to be partners in the so-called reform movement based on standards and accountability. We know that the latter means "blame the teacher."

The UFT/AFT has been part of the public relations mantra used by Klein and Rhee that teacher quality is the most important element.

The first time I heard Randi talk about teacher quality, I immediately emailed her that she was walking into a trap. (At that time I actually thought she might be well-intentioned - silly me.)

That is why unless power within the union is shifted from the top, teachers will be given the illusion they are professionals but treated as drones.

The union has played this role: not as a strong advocate for teachers but as an intermediary between the so-called political reformers and the rank and file teachers, selling them mayoral control, merit pay, getting them to sign on to one way accountability (we don't want to make excuses, do we?)

Thus, teachers should not view themselves as professionals but as much a part of the working class as construction workers and teamsters.

In these times, that is exactly the type of union leadership teachers need. The type that will say, "Take yur stinkin' accountability and yur phony test driven curriculum and bury them in yur black robes."

My point is proved by these droppings from the Little Red Book of UFT high school VP and blogger in residence, Leo Casey from a post on a listserve.

We have had rather substantive critiques of the school progress reports and on their over reliance on test scores, but we are also political realists who take stock of developments in the real political world, and not just our ideal positions

While some think that there should be no differentiation for pay among teachers other than seniority and educational credentials, we do not believe that there is some special merit in such an industrial, proletarian view of teaching, and are quite willing to support the development of a teaching profession that allows for the development of different roles with special expertise, and provide additional financial remuneration for them.

Leo loves to use words like "proletarian." Sorry Leo. Your policies have made teachers more part of the proletarian proletariat than ever. I have a lot more droppings from Leo to report on. You can read the entire raw thread from the arn listserve on Norms Notes. But watch where you step.

Ragging on the Gag Order

Some people think there is a hint of legitimacy in the UFT position - theoretically. That it is in a union's interests to keep certain information from leaking to the bosses or press. In 40 years of attending Delegate Assemblies, Executive Board meetings and countless other UFT functions, there is nary a time that much of anything in this category has come up. (Talking about strikes given Taylor Law penalties is certainly something to keep under cover.)

As Jeff Kaufman points out at ICE, the union always can go into Executive session. Randi has said that numerous times with me in the room and has often publicly has asked me to keep info confidential so she won't have to clear the room. I always complied and will continue to do so. And she full-well knows that, which only makes her demagoguery last Monday ("Norman, put down that camera" as a way to rile up the Unity troops, who were the majority of people in the room) so manipulative. She tries to direct the finger of blame in case something does leak out (often from her- and this actually happened after she once hinted I was leaking to the NY Post and it was clear she did it).

We have a union that is interested in keeping info from flowing to the rank and file. The gag is an attempt to maintain Unity's monopoly on access to the members, similar to their attempt to keep critical info out of teacher mailboxes. When you are faced with despotism and demagoguery, the appropriate response is to fight fire with fire.

Randi is trying to paint this as protecting rank and filers from having the words and images up on the web that can come back to haunt them. Like ATRs and rubber room people or chapter leaders being critical of their school leadership. I absolutely concur with that point. Rank and filers who speak up at meetings should be protected. And at no time have I ever violated that.

But we are talking about UFT leadership and the positions they take. Last Monday I caught Randi in an out and out contradiction between what she said at the info meeting at 52 Broadway (this is not the time to make noise, a less than subtle dig at the rally) and what she said an hour later to the demonstrators at Tweed (the noise you made led to the ATR agreement.) Should I suppress the video of District 19 rep Alan Weinstein cursing and threatening me for taping him leaving the meeting? Weinstein probably makes $120,000 or more a year paid from our dues. Any person on the payroll of the UFT is fair game.

Meetings should be taped and made available to the members. I'll tell you what, let Unity Caucus put forth a series of reforms that will establish a democratic union that will allow the free flow of information. That proverbial snowball is already melting.

ICE reports on the UFT attempt to stop the info flow:

Paranoid UFT Leadership Attempts To Silence Opposition By Proposing Inept Gag Order Over Union Meetings

Just like our sweetheart agreements with the DOE, the resolution, unsurprisingly, provides no penalties for violating its provisions.

When a Union becomes nothing more than a self-serving public relations operation, it ceases to care about free speech or other rights of its members. We must protect our precious rights and demonstrate to our misguided, paranoid leadership that they work for us…not the other way around.

Besides, Jeff seems to be saying it violates the Landrum-Griffin Act.

ICE will be discussing the issue at this Friday's meeting. Maybe everyone should come with cameras and create an I am Spartacus moment.