Blogger Summit - I Registered But I Ain't A-Goin'

Given a choice of heading down to Washington to join in the Ed Bogger Summit or attend today's UFT Delegate Assembly, I am choosing the DA. No, it's not going to the bar afterward. The Summit is having a cocktail party at 6pm later today. Followed by a film.

Could it be Newt Gingrich, the keynote speaker?
Or that they feature Gov. Roy Romer's blog?
Or that the event is being sponsored by Ed in '08, (supported by the Broads and Gates Foundations) where enough anti-teacher bias for the entire so-called ed reform movement can be found? (Click here for Ed '08 steering committee - try to find one sign of a public school teacher.)

Or maybe it was this from Ms. Frizzle:
"Don’t carelessly exclude us from the conversation!"

So there’s this summit in DC…
called Ed in ‘08, which sounds like it would be interesting, at a minimum an opportunity for networking and debate, and I went right ahead and sent out an email to a couple of folks I thought might agree (turns out one of them is not only going, he’s speaking) but then, luckily, before passing it along to another half-dozen NYC education bloggers whom I know, I stopped and took a closer look. Most of the people I know who blog about education also happen to be teachers… and this summit is on a Wednesday-Thursday. It makes me a little sad & irritated that a summit intended to be about education reform would occur at a time that is virtually impossible for any actual working educators to attend. We have an obligation to our kids to be present pretty much every weekday between now and the end of June. That doesn’t mean we don’t have opinions or experience relevant to education policy - on the contrary, what is policy without the voices of practitioners? We’ve put our voices out there through our blogs - some more overtly political, some more personal, but each trying to share stories because we think someone can learn something from them. Don’t carelessly exclude us from the conversation!

Sorry, ms. Frizzle, it wasn't careless, but intentional. They only want to hear the voices of teachers who agree with them.

I just love that category of "Blogging from the Trenches." I'd love to see that trench.
Ed in '08 would be the first to trash teachers for leaving the kiddies to go to a blogger summit in mid-week.

I did vote for my favorite blogs amongst the finalists for best ed blog, NYC Educator and Eduwonkette – both of whom are not going to be there to accept an award, multiple times.

The Education Sector's Biased Survey

Check that apple for worms

Last week the Education Sector held a pat themselves on the back event ( Teacher Voice: How Teachers See the Teacher Quality Debate) in Washington where they supposedly heard the voice of the classroom teacher as they released the results of their survey of a thousand teachers.

Our posting on the event led to Andrew Rotherham calling us a crazy and challenging us to read the report and listen to the event. The EdNotes gnomes have been busy poring over the audio and the report itself and we'll be posting some analysis over a period of time. Here is some preliminary stuff.

A few days before the event, the Justice Not Tests group here in NYC that has been organizing to get schools to reject merit pay held a conference call with one of the three teachers appearing at the event to review some of the ideas the Ed Sector is pushing. We didn't expect the actual voices of the teachers to get much play at the event and from what we hear they didn't. (I still haven't listened but I'm stocking up on liquor to get me through the 2 hours.)

Our view of the entire exercise is that it is insidious - designed to use the natural range of opinions of teachers to make the case that teachers ultimately want the kinds of reforms being pushed by the Ed Sector and to win over those that don't – designed to show that many teachers really want market-based concepts but their voices are being stifled by their unions.

Note the title of title of the report: Waiting to be Won Over.

Won over to what? Why the Ed Sector point of view of course.

Teacher quality is important, class size - nil
In Ed Sectorville, teacher quality matters more than lower class size. Of course they never asked the obvious question as to where teachers stand on this issue. I posted a follow-up piece on this issue here.

The focus on removing teachers is practically pathological. Here is a result based on one of the tenets of the Ed Sector type reforms:

Still, according to these survey results, most unions do not appear to be engaged in efforts to deal with ineffective teachers. Only 17 percent of teachers say that the union in their district “leads efforts to identify ineffective teachers and retrain them.”

Somehow, "good" unions - like their buddies in the UFT - are associated with taking part in removing teachers rather than defending them.

As a whole, teachers today are what political analysts might describe as “in play”and waiting to be won over by one side or another. Despite frustrations with schools, school districts, their unions, and a number of aspects of the job in general, teachers are not sold on any one reform agenda. They want change but are a skeptical audience. For instance, nearly half of teachers surveyed say that they personally know a teacher who is ineffective and should not be in the classroom. But, although teachers want something done about low-performing colleagues, they are leery of proposals to substantially change how teachers can be dismissed. [my bold]

So nearly half the teachers know of a teacher who should not be in the classroom. I've met as many bad principals as bad teachers. Did they ask how many know of a principal who should not be running a school? Who helpless teachers have to endure? Who have some political angels protecting them? Who cultivate bad teachers as spies? Next time try asking what teachers think about having them elect their principals. (It's done in many places in Europe.)

One of the things we discussed during our conference call was the idea of removing bad teachers. I asked all the participants in the call what percentage of people they have worked with they consider bad teachers. We all agreed on a rough number - about 5%. This included tenured and untenured. We agreed that many are still there because administrators either find them useful or just don't have the will to remove them. 5% - and this is a consistent figure I get from most teachers – becomes the end-all and be-all of the entire Ed Sector reform movement. I claim that no matter what you do there will be 5% "bad"- in all professions (maybe more in the Ed pundit field). Where are the calls to remove bad doctors, who can actually kill people, another question that should have been asked as a control? I bet more than 50% will say they know of at least one bad doctor. And lawyers? And education pundits who did not teach?

The amount of focus on removing bad teachers as the solution to the problems in education is dangerous. Look at the south in right to work states where the lack of a union and no tenure would seem to make it easy to remove anyone. Education is no better and in fact worse.

Three in four public school teachers (76 percent) agree that, “Too many veteran teachers who are burned out stay because they do not want to walk away from the benefits and service time they have accrued.” And this view resonates with majorities of teachers whether they are newcomers to the profession (80 percent) or veterans (68 percent).

What does "too many" mean? Of course the follow-up can become – let's cut these benefits to "improve" education? But there was no joy in Ed Sectorville on this point:

Educators and policymakers frequently discuss ways to attract and retain high-quality teachers. One idea getting attention these days is to swap some of the benefits teachers enjoy later in their careers for more money in the early years. The survey finds teachers are protective of their pensions, and the vast majority of teachers overall do not like the idea of raising starting salaries in exchange for fewer retirement benefits.

Class size not a factor in Ed Sectorville
On attracting and retaining teachers, there are seven options. There is no hint of attracting and retaining people with low class sizes, which many of my private school teacher friends point to as a reason never to teach in a public school. Many teachers who leave cite class size as the single most important factor. Hey! Why bring up a topic that is off bounds in your world of ed reform?

The only mention of class size:
Fifty-five percent of teachers overall say the union in their district “negotiates to keep class size down in the district.”

On how unions can improve teaching? Again, lowering class size was not an option.

There was even less joy in Ed Sectorville at this result:

Most teachers see the teachers union as vital to their profession. When asked how they think of teachers unions or associations, 54 percent of teachers responded that they are “absolutely essential.” This is an increase of 8 percentage points from 46 percent in 2003.
...most teachers do not think that union presence hinders the reputation of the profession. Just 21 percent of teachers agree that, “Teachers would have more prestige if collective bargaining and lifetime tenure were eliminated.”

We see this movement towards unions as a result of the imposition of they very market-based concepts the Ed Sector is pushing. I bet the figures on NYC would be considerably higher on the essential need for a union except for the fact that many teachers feel the UFT lines up way too often on the Ed Sector side of the fence.

I can't wait for the 2011 biased survey. A sign I need to get a life.

The questions, results and audio can be downloaded from the Education Sector. Or email me and I'll send you the pdfs.

John Merrow - Only an Idiot...

...would overlook Merrow's one-sided coverage of education on the News Hour With Jim Lehrer.
(What other news are they doing one-sided reporting on?) A supposed non-commercial station, which always pleads for money because they claim to be a counterweight, is up for the highest bidder when it comes to Merrow bias.

Only an idiot would write "Only an idiot would overlook student performance, be it dismal or outstanding" and then go on to talk about the narrowest form of assessment possible while ignoring all the other assessments of student "performance" - how about attendance? how about functioning effectively in a social setting? - what's the matter, John, too hard to figure all this stuff out for a supposed "expert" on education.

It is no surprise Muroch's Wall Street Journal gives him a platform. What's next? The NY Post?

Merrow's Learning Matters is funded by Annenberg, Gates, Carnegie - the usual suspects.

Check Eduwonkette's take: Who Slipped a Mickey in John Merrow's Kool-Aid?

What Will the Tough Liberals in the UFT Do?

With a UFT Delegate Assembly coming up this week, it will be interesting to watch how Randi plays the Obama/Clinton issue, if she does so at all - we don't see how she can ignore it.

In his post (reprinted below) to ICE-mail, Sean Ahern challenges the Tough Liberals in the UFT's controlling Unity Caucus and makes the important connection between the "Tough Liberal" world of 68/72 and 08/12.

First let me try to put some of the stuff in historical context. Though I lived through all of it, Richard Kahlenberg's "Tough Liberal" bio of Al Shanker has allowed me to make many connections between the current Obama/Clinton battle with the past.

One of the striking aspects is Kahlenberg's attack on McGovernites, Jimmy Carter, the new left, the old left, and just about any progressive forces – the New Democrats. As I read the book it seemed in some ways like a campaign statement for the Clintons. I won't get into the education stuff here, but the Clintons are the epitome of the candidate TL's are looking for. No wonder the book is funded by the likes of Eli Broad and the New Century Foundation, among other backers of BloomKlein.

A book praising Al Shanker backed by the very attackers of teachers and unions? No surprise in these quarters where we have been howling about collaboration for years. It provides some philosophical underpinning of the utter betrayal so many teachers in NYC feel over the actions of their union. But you'll have to wait for our review of the book for more details when it appears in the New Politics summer edition.

Kahlenberg raises issues surrounding race time and again in terms of critiques of affirmative action. Of course, Shanker was not a racist (and I believe that) as his credentials as an activist in the Civil Rights movement are trotted out time and again, as is his relationship to Martin Luther King. But the net effect of Tough Liberal actions were and are often severe racial divisions. The parallels between '08 and '68 are astounding. Perhaps they see Obama as a recipient of some kind of affirmative action while Hillary has worked her way up the ranks. You know. The good ole' merit system, which in their world Obama appears to have skipped. (Does a wife of a president count as affirmative action?)

What irony in the replay of 40 years ago when the '68 convention, which followed the first lesser known UFT strike in Ocean-Hill Brownsville that spring and then was followed by the famous strike later that fall, an event that caused so many rifts in the Black/Jewish relationship, though Gerald Podair points out in his "The Strike That Changed New York" there were many already existing fault lines.

Similar fault lines also existed between the white– "hard working" as Hillary recently put it– working class which Tough Liberals are courting so assiduously and the pointy headed intellectual (Obama supporters today?) over the Vietnam War. Remember the attacks by NYC construction workers on peace marchers? Or the police assault on Columbia students in '68? The white working class vs. college students replayed today. Jeez. My choice to be a history major is reaffirmed every day in the fascination replay of events.

A major focus of Kahlenberg is on foreign policy. Tough Liberals preferred Nixon over any Democrat not aligned with them. Shanker was perfectly aligned with Ronald Reagan in that area despite his attacks on labor. The number of Shankerites that became neo cons is worth noting (Linda Chavez is a prime example.)

Thus, what we are seeing today in Tough Liberal Clinton's battle against what they perceive as New Democrat Obama. Again it often comes down to foreign policy. Enough damage has been done that the undercurrent I get from much of the Jewish community is that they will never vote Obama. Hillary will bomb Iran to smithereens while Obama might engage in a dialogue.
Who do they want? A Lyndon Johnson type candidate who will do non-threatening civil rights stuff while bombing the gooks/Arabs into oblivion.

Education? That takes 2nd place to wars and bailouts in the TL world. After all, their main focus is to keep any hint of socialism out. Tough Liberals will do with whatever piece of pie they are given to work with. Thus, ed reform means improving teacher quality by eliminating seniority and union rules and investing in peace corps, missionary teachers and staff development. But never in class size reduction.

So watch Unity Caucus and their supporters in New Action continue to sit and squirm - there must be some people, especially African-Americans who are not comfortable with what's going on. What Randi says at the Delegate Assembly this Weds. should be interesting. Since she reads the blogs, she will tread very carefully knowing full well her words and nuances will be out there.

This is something Weingarten is very good at and how she says it will be an indication of the way the Clinton campaign will begin attempts at reconciliation – with the 2012 conept in mind if Obama shoud have a McGovern-like disaster. (I know the paid pundits are discounting this, but I am not as anything can happen in politics.)

I'm betting on a strong statement from Randi about how all the union's resources will be out there for the Democratic nominee no matter who he - oops - is. After all, an AFT Pres. must play the proper political role. But if Obama loses in November, Hill in '12 begins.


Will the "Tough" Liberals sit out an Obama candidacy in 2008 like they did McGovern in 1972?
by Sean Ahern

Don't let the Unity Caucus slink quietly back into the woodwork until 2012. I think some of them will have to be brought into the campaign against McBush kicking and screaming. The Shankerites sat out the McGovern campaign in '72 and ended up with Gerald Ford as President in '75. Ford told the city "Drop Dead" during the fiscal crisis and 20,000 teachers were laid off. Ford was followed by Carter who sounds alot better now than he did in the 70's.

A McCain victory gives Clinton and the 'Tough" liberals another shot in 2012 or so they think. Sitting out the Obama candidacy, at least unofficially, makes sense from their view. I think the 'tough' liberals at 52 B'way will need some 'tough' love, like a proverbial slap for their own good, to awaken them to the greater danger. As for those who prefer Nader or McKinney, or some other party, I say more power to you and the people you bring out, as long as you are bringing people into the fight against McBush in one way or another. The Obama camp is the main contingent as far as I see and that where I will be, but there is plenty of room in a movement for different candidates and different platforms provided the focus is positive and not fratricidal . The polls make it pretty clear, if the people's vote is counted , the Republican control of the executive branch will end.

It's a very dangerous gamble to bet that the Republic will survive four more years of McBush and the neo cons. It is a very dangerous thing to 'triangulate' with or embrace facists, white supremacists, right wing evangelicals, Likud fanatics thinking that you can control them for your own ends. The German ruling class thought they could use the Nazis against the Communists. The Republican oligarchs have made a similar pact to hold onto to power and prolong the Empire by embracing a very hard core right wing which they continue to believe they can control. It is dangerous for any citizen in a democratic republic to dawdle and fret over the unsatisfactory programs of both Clinton and Obama while our basic rights and the rule of law are being eliminated by the Executive Branch under Republican control.

The race baiting used by the Clinton campaign was a 'coming attractions' for the Republican campaign (assuming Obama is the Democratic candidate) but Hillary and Bill haven't told the Republicans anything new here. All Hillary accomplished was to disqualify herself. The Republicans will go further into attack mode because they have far more to loose than Hillary and Bill.The Clintons just took a page from an old playbook of the Republicans, who took it from the Dixicrats before them. (And this from the candidate endorsed by the AFT leadership, whose members are charged with educating children of color in many of the country's largest urban school systems?)

What may we expect from the Republican executive during the campaign season? An attack on Iran following some new phony Tonkin incident? A domestic terror attack just prior to election day? Hackable voting machines (no question mark here, they are already in place!), on top of the racial disenfranchisement that has already gone on, and who knows what additional schemes are in the pipeline to keep the Republicans in office. There are too many skeletons, too many crimes. The neo cons will do anything to escape the prison cells they so richly deserve and politicians only care about winning. It's a deadly mix.

The threat to freedom is real. We all have to come together, sound the alarms and stop McBush from setting the world on fire. Whether you are for the Democrat Obama, the Independent Nader, the Green McKinney, or any other candidate who opposes the current regime, get out there and agitate, organize, picket, vote. If you are a Unity Caucus member or a supporter of Clinton you can't afford to sit this one out. The world as you know it won't be there after four more years of Republican control of the executive branch.

Peace,
Sean Ahern
Sean, a former NYC transit worker, teaches high school in Manhattan.

One Big Happy Family - The Roots of Rotherham

One Big Happy Edu-Family at Chancellor's New Clothes.
where the Ed Sector gang is compared to, well, a gang of the Godfather type – Eli Broad as Don Broadeleone. The speculation in the comment section that Bloomberg is Fredo has it all wrong. My vote goes to Kevin Carey.

This was an excellent follow-up piece, with more hopefully to come, on Eduwonkette's groundbreaking post on interlocking directorates on Feb. 14 where she published her web of intrigue and caused just s slight reaction among the Rotherham Ed Sector crowd.

Under Assault: Teaching in NYC: Picking up where I left off...

Under Assault: Teaching in NYC: Picking up where I left off...

More Obama from Fiorillo, Schmidt and Others

Some follow-up debate on Hillary in '12 and Obama from ICE-mail:

UPDATED THREADS AS THEY COME IN:
LAST UPDATE: SUNDAY, May 11, 10:30 PM

Michael Fiorillo, Chapter leader, writes (also posted on the ICE blog):
Hello All,

While it's impossible to underestimate the Clinton's compulsive will to power - which has a hint of the pathological to it - I find the idea of Hillary destroying Obama'a chances of defeating McCain, so that she can be a viable candidate in 2012, a bit of a stretch.

She already has a immovable bedrock core of people who intensely dislike her, for reasons valid and invalid, and a determined campaign to destroy Obama would send her negatives among Democrats and Independents off the charts. It's not that she, and certainly Bill, aren't capable of doing such a thing; it's that I think they are still sufficiently reality-based to see that it would likely forever poison the well against them. An honest cost-benefit analysis on their part would show that it would have only a remote chance of succeeding, while hampering their marketability as spokespersons for neoliberal trade policies, which seems to have been Bill's bread and butter in recent years.

As for Obama, appealing as he is on many levels, don't expect his election alone to successfully push forward a progressive, let alone radical agenda.

Please keep in mind that since his election to the senate, he has:

- campaigned for Lieberman against Ned Lamont in Connecticut.
- voted for all funding for war in Iraq.
- voted to renew the Patriot Act.
- voted for the 2005 bankruptcy bill that was virtually written by the banks and credit card companies.
- voted to limit the ability to file class action lawsuits. Hillary voted against this bill.
- supported merit pay for teachers and the expansion of charter schools

I raise these points not to imply that we should refuse to work and vote for him. I voted for him in the primary with - considering the political history of the past 35+ years - a fair degree of enthusiasm; I'll do so again in November if given the chance.

However, don't think that a lot will happen unless he is pushed hard from, I hesitate to say it, the left. Wall Street, and especially Hedgistan, is investing heavily in Obama's campaign, no doubt seeing it as venture capital investment to establish an equity stake in a possible Obama administration. Unless there is a surge of activism on many fronts, these people will continue to set the terms of debate. As teachers, we've borne some of this, as Wall Street, corporate and foundation money has flooded into education, buying research and policies that undermine public education and teacher's unions in the "marketplace of ideas."

Fortunately, there's evidence that perhaps the tectonic plates are shifting somewhat. The May First ILWU strike explicitly protesting the war in Iraq on the West Coast docks was a profound event, underreported as it was. UAW members have been on strike against American Axle since February, fighting a two-tier wage system. There have been protests on Wall Street against the predatory nature of the credit system. Here in NYC, we may be seeing some cracks appearing in BloomKlein's PR fortress.

By all means, let drive a stake through the Clinton's hearts - politically speaking, of course - and vote for Obama in November. Let's not just leave it up to him after that.

Best,
Michael Fiorillo

George Schmidt responds
5/11/08

I didn't say that Barack Obama was even a New Deal liberal. He's a University of Chicago neo-liberal, and part of the fan club of Richard M. Daley's version of "school reform." We've already reported that. And will continue to do so.

Obama is not a socialist, nor is he even a New Deal Democrat. If you read his policies closely, he is to the right of Richard M. Nixon on some things, and standing with Nixon's policies on others. If you want to know the environment he works in, read the blog of his colleagues Gary Becker (University of Chicago economics theologian) and Richard Posner (most prolific judge on the Seventh U.S. Circuit).

He has never distanced himself from Richard M. Daley on corporate "school reform" or the use of biased "standardized" tests for a "bottom line" on "school reform."

Fact is, his roots are closer to the working class in Chicago -- both his work and his in-laws -- than any candidate we've had since Bill Richardson or Dennis Kucinich. Michelle Obama comes from a union family, and until they slowly became millionaires, both Obamas were counting coupons every weekend.

I'll take him as President of the United States because at this point we're going to trash some white supremacy on the way to realizing all the class issues that have been covered up.

George N. Schmidt
Editor, Substance
www.substancenews.net

My 2-cents on Hill in '12 is that they have just about gone as far as they can and will begin to pull back to mend fences. The last comment about Obama's inability to win white working class votes may have been the last straw. The question I raise is "What is good for the Clintons?" (Have we not seen how the UFT operates under the same mantra - what is good for the leadership is more important than benefitting the members?) And that answer is an Obama loss, the bigger the better. The damage may have been done to Obama, so now they can begin to mend fences. And they are very good at that, though they may have lost the black community forever. Except in the UFT's Unity Caucus and New Action where people will sacrifice integrity for whatever they get.

Back to Norm:
I want to reiterate this point:
90% of African Americans have voted for Obama. Is there not one African American member of Unity caucus that supports Obama? A statistical impossibility.
Not a peep out of Unity or New Action or any caucus for that matter about the total support for Hillary. ICE-mail at least has been vetting the pro and anti Obama debate and the nuances of both candidates. The Unity machine has shut out all debate. On all issues.
That is part of the unhealthy death pall that surrounds this union.

Back to Michael:
Hello George and Everyone,

Though aware of Obama's U of Chi provenance, I neglected to mention it in my post. However, if anything it validates my argument and adds new levels of paradox to the situation. In terms of economics alone, his U of Chicago connections should send a chill down the spine of anyone seeking a more just and fair world.

Your post seems to imply that vitually the only reason to vote for Obama is as an attack on white supremacy, a morally and strategically necessary thing. However, even here there are complications and reasons for critical distance:

In the chanting that "Race Doesn't Matter" at Obama events, and in the explicit and implicit messages of the campaign, there is more than little suggestion of naivete and ideological pacification. Naivete can be forgiven; the realities of class and race in the US will take care of that for those who have the intellectuall honesty to be conscious. But willful pacification of America's "original sin" cannot be excused.

In a recent posting on Doug Henwood's indispensable Left Business Observer (www.
leftbusinessobserver.com), Adolph Reed is quoted, in regard to Obama's "post-racial" discourse, that with Obama there is a danger that

"...inequality could lose whatever vestigial connotation it has as a species of injustice
and be fully consolidated as the marker, on the bottom that is, of those losers who
who failed to do what the market requires of them or as a sign of their essential
inferiority."

Is an Obama presidency going to thrust the nation forward to new era of equality and justice, or will it be an excuse to "move on" and get "closure?"

As I said, I'm going to vote for the man; I'd sooner vote for hope than fear. But my personal hope is that his election will result in an citizenry aroused by increased democratic expectations on many fronts, and that it will force him and his handlers to respond righteously.

Best,
Michaell Fiorillo

From a retired African-American teacher:

Norm: I've read and criticized everything I can find on the flap over Hillary's speaks for itself statement on the so-called "white working class." Your piece on the permanent damage to Hillary's credibility with the Democrats' hard-core constituency in the Black communities and their voters is right on the money. And it is reasonable to assume that Hillary is deliberately disparaging of Obama to weaken him vis-a-vis the Republican front-runner, McCain. In this regard, Hillary has issued a brutal call for the white race to rally to support her opportunist campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, as if such white genies can be manipulated by her or any other politico once let out of the bottle. All this shit hinges on the fictitious assertion that Barack Obama is too "elite" to connect to such "hard working white people," despite the fact that Obama, grounded in his own working class roots, has been getting a remarkable degree of support from working people of all ethnic groups, against the Clintons' usually disguised white race call-out in state campaign after state campaign.

So Norm, keep on pushin'.
Critically yours,
C

Anonymous:
As delegates left last month's assembly and got outside the door, many took off their Hilary buttons immediately. White and black.

Fassella and Prisco

It all could have been avoided back in 2000.
If the UFT had endorsed then teacher, and subsequently one of the founders of ICE, Gene Prisco when he ran for Congress against Vito Fassella.
But NO! You see, the Unity machine would rather sit on its hands and help put a right winger into office than support a critic of Unity even though his policies would be better for the union and workers everywhere.

Even the NY Times saw fit to endorse Gene and he received a respectable 37% of the vote in a Republican district, where he was outspent probably 100-1. Gene sure could have used some of those UFT Phone banks.

Gene, Paul Baizerman (another ICE co-founder) and myself through Education Notes raised hell about it all at the Delegate Assembly.
The entire affair - oops, maybe I shouldn't use that word – was such an embarrassment for Randi Weingarten, she took action. She apologized profusely. Acted like it was up to the Staten Island UFT and she had little role in it. (She did the same thing in absolving herself off responsibility for the red-baiting of Kit Wainer, her 2007 opponent.)
She even formed a committee (standard operating procedure in deflecting issues). Even put Paul on it.

At that time, we still had hopes Randi would take the union in a new direction.
Shame on us.
But we learned from this incident how she operates and didn't get fooled again.
(The affair - oops - was one of the ideas that led to ICE 3 years later.)
The committee even came up with some kind of resolution (lost to history) calling for reform of the way he UFT supports candidates. Good show, old girl.

Now, Gene, a grandfather, is off on some cruise with his wife Loretta, another ICE co-founder, and may not even be aware of the Fossella fiasco. When he comes home I'm sure he will be relieved. The very idea of a love child emerging out of the evils of Washington would scare even the most pristine candidates. Maybe it's the Potomac waters.

Thank you, Randi for saving Gene from temptation. It's been worth having an anti-labor, support-Bush-on-anything member of Congress like Fossella.
If Fossella runs again and if Gene were to oppose him in 2008, guess what? Unity would do like it did in 2000.

The Unity motto: Better lice than ICE.

Coalition Against Privatization Protests GHI/HIP Privatization

Posted by CAP

On May 9^th, a group of determined protesters gathered in front of the office of State Superintendent of the Insurance Eric Dinallo at 25 Beaver Street in Downtown NYC to oppose the proposed conversion of GHI & HIP to a new for-profit company. The march sent a clear message in opposition to the proposal and recommended that Superintendent Dinallo refuse to sign off on it.

Despite heavy rain and winds, demonstrators made their way from 25 Beaver to offices of HIP at 55 Water Street. Along the way, they chanted "Eric Dinallo - JUST SAY NO!" "They Say Privatize - We Say Organize!" and finished the march with a lively chant of "We'll Be Back!" Upon arrival at the HIP offices, demonstrators were able to fraternize with workers from HIP who face the prospect of termination if the conversion is approved.

One participant used a hand-held digital camera to capture the second-half of the march:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxwcEZCW2ds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdD7udfrdl0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V5JEx3Xgo0

Protesters highlighted the negative aspects of the unregulated private health insurance system in the United States. Payments for medical care now eat up the highest percentage of household disposable income and premiums have increased by 80% from 2001-2006. The conversion (privatization) of GHI & HIP will fully expose 4 million people in NY State to the worst effects of this system. A number of speakers at the demo spoke not only against the privatization but in favor of an all-inclusive single-payer national health insurance plan.

The demonstration was the first public act of the Coalition Against Privatization and speakers at the event included representatives from the Independent Community of Educators (UFT), rank-and-file members of the Transit Workers Union Local 100, rank-and-file members of D.C. 37, the Metro New York Health Care for All Campaign, the Socialist Party USA (NYC) and Socialist Action.

The Coalition Against Privatization is planning two follow up actions. On Monday May 12th we are encouraging a phone-in/email-in to the offices of Eric Dinallo. On Friday May 23rd we are planning a march on the offices of GHI. We are also planning a joint action with the health care rights group Healthcare NOW! as part of a national initiative on June 19th.

The next meeting of the Coalition Against Privatization will held on Friday May 16th at 6:30pm at the A. J. Muste Institute, 339 Lafayette St., Buzzer #11.

For more information email noprivatization@yahoo.com or (718) 869-2279

Tag! I'm It

NYC Educator tagged me for a meme.

Okay, so I'm a little late. Retirement keeps people busy.

1. The rules of the game get posted at the beginning.
2. Each player answers the questions about themselves.
3. At the end of the post, the player then tags 5-6 people and posts their names, then goes to their blogs and leaves them a comment, letting them know they've been tagged and asking them to read your blog.
4. Let the person who tagged you know when you've posted your answer.

1) What were you doing 10 years ago?
I was finishing up my 2nd sabbatical which was a dream because I didn't have to go to school. I offered my services to the district as a computer support person for before that job existed. Six months into my sabbatical, the BOE decided to inundate the middle schools with computers and hired 2 teachers to work with them. I was urged to abandon my sabbatical and take one of the jobs, but I was having too much fun so they hired 2 other guys, one of whom I knew from the time he was a sub at my school. I did some work with them that spring but intended to go back to my school and finish out my last 2 years teaching in a self-contained class, which I hadn't done since 1985. But that June I was told a 3rd position would be created and was offered it. When my new boss told my principal, she said her car was stolen that day but the news I was leaving was worth it.

Oh yeah, and I also was getting Education Notes monthly handouts for Delegate Assemblies going.

2) 5 Things on My To Do List:
I have a massive amount of gardening and yard work to do so-
1. Curtail this blogging crap.
2. Curtail this blogging crap.
3. Curtail this blogging crap.
4. Curtail this blogging crap.
5. Curtail this blogging crap.

3) Snacks I enjoy-
Are you kidding? If it's not moving, I enjoy it. And even that's subject to negotiation.

4) Things I would do if I were a billionaire
Adopt a little red-haired orphan girl who can sing. And boy, can that kid in this peformance sing. (One weekend left to see it, so come on down.) Jeez, seeing "Annie" at the Rockaway Theater Company for the 2nd time in 2 days has me thinking I'm Daddy Warbucks.

5) Three of my bad habits
1. Sitting here doing this.
2. Breaking away from this ed stuff.
3. Eating every meal like I'm on death row.

6) 5 places I've lived:
4 places in Brooklyn for 34 years and 1 in Rockaway for 29 years. How boring.

7) 5 jobs I've had:
Teaching in various formats. That's all folks.

8)6 people I want to know more about:

I tag:
Nahhh! I'm skipping this one this time. Everyone I would tag has already done it.

Schmidt on Obama and the White Working Class

5/9/08
Norm:

Thanks for forwarding THE HUFFINGTON POST (Richard GizbertHillary's $6.4 Million is a Wise Ivestment, for 2012Posted May 7, 2008 06:06 PM This is not really a case, as some have suggested, of throwing good money after bad.)

Now that the Clinton phenomenon is sputtering to its final termination, more and more people should enjoy watching one of the things Barack Obama does best: winning over white working class and rural voters.

Many people in the media missed the facts about Obama first time around, especially since many of them were being spun by the Clinton machine. It's a variation on the White Blinddspot, and very funny to watch, since it will have been so widespread nationally (from AFT to the major pundits to, of course, the Republicans).

In late 2001, when the Democartic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat here in Illinois was still a pipe dream for Barack Obama, he began slowly building his base. A key was the Illinois Federation of Teachers, which endorsed him against the regular Democratic Party guy, setting up a screaming confrontation within "labor" over the endorsement. For months, I had to listen to very savvy political people swearing at me saying that (a) nobody with that name could get the nomination and win the Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate less than two years from 9/11 and (b) Illinois was not ready to elect another black senator (theoretically, Carol Moseley Braun was such a bad act that she had ruined the "seat").

Obama went out, after getting the nomination, and charmed people all the way from here to the Mason Dixon Line. Remember, southern Illinois is farther "south" than some portions of the Confederacy, and has some of those traditions (some of the worst Klan activity in the "North" in the 20th Century was in Illinois and Indiana).

Day after day, people would report, first wide eyed and then just chuckling, about how Barack Obama would go to some meeting in a place where there were no black people and leave with grandmothers wanting to bake him pies. In those days, Michelle wasn't as front and center, but she was a similar asset.

The Clintons have taken their nastiest shot, and truly deserve to be remembered forever for it. But they didn't write any script that's going to save the McCain campaign. Once Barack Obama rests up (and he's good at that, too) for the next rounds (which begin with the AFT convention in certain ways) it's going to be fun watching all those pies being baked from Portland, Maine to San Diego.

George Schmidt

On the Clinton attempt to destroy Obama, check out Bob Herbert in today's NY Times.

Deborah Meier Nails What Teaching Is All About

Thursday's final forum of the year featured legendary educator Deborah Meier whose every word resonated with the audience, which was large and enthusiastic. From union democracy - yes, great teachers see more importance in unions than getting merit pay - to the lessons of the classroom to being active as a teacher - if you are too afraid to stand up against teaching lies, can you maintain your integrity as a teacher - she covered so much. And her relationship with Diane Ravitch too. I was mesmerized as she articulated so much of how I viewed teaching but have found it hard to express. A true kindred spirit who I hoped to meet up with as a young teacher but never connected with her.

We broke everyone - veteran teachers, new teachers, people studying to be teachers, etc. into groups and the discussions were wonderful. I taped as much of these as I could in addition to Deborah's presentation and will get this inspiring stuff up soon. Deborah left us with a vision of hope in these despairing educational times. So keep an eye out.

Rotherham Poses Teacher Quality vs, Class Size - Again

Andy is at it again over at Eduwonk.

Small classes are not a silver bullet and research pretty clearly indicates that it's a much weaker -- and more expensive -- strategy than some others, like improving teacher effectiveness. That's especially true where there are a dearth of qualified applicants for teaching jobs so reducing class size merely exacerbates quality problems. The research and evidence base here is pretty clear and it is what it is, so contra what a lot of the advocates it's not something that you get to agree or disagree with any more than you can agree or disagree with gravity. The bottom line is that teacher quality matters more.

I followed Andy's advice (when he called me crazy) and checked and rechecked that teacher survey looking for a question that would ask teachers how they viewed the teacher quality vs. class size reduction. Maybe I missed - it didn't seem to be asked. One would think, given the nature of this post, that question would be fundamental. But he is not really interested in what teachers think about this issue because the answer is obvious. That teacher quality across the board (except maybe the 5% edge) would improve across the board.

And it would be nice to see links to the research that "proves" teacher quality matters more than class size reduction.

It is also interesting that the cost argument is used when it comes to class size reduction, the real reason teacher quality is the hot new thing in rejecting calls for a serious investment in education equal to say, Bear Sterns bailouts or wars.

A recent presentation at Columbia U about the Tennessee study on class size impact also took some aspects of teacher quality into account and came up with the opposite conclusion.

The "research" on teacher quality - based on what factors, by the way - as is the teacher survey – it's about a political agenda, not education reform. How disappointing to the Education Sector that the onslaught going on against teachers due to the "reforms" being pushed by them has resulted in teachers feeling a greater need for a union.

We'll expound more on how the survey was designed to seek out making inroads into the teaching corps to push this agenda.

Hillary in '12

The campaign has begun.
The surprise is that so many pundits don't see it.
They ask"What is the rationale?" for Clinton to continue.
It's all about getting elected president – in 2012, stupid.

Education Notes has been speculating on this for months.
March 26 Education Notes: Is Clinton Strategy Designed to Undermine Obama Chances to Win? We focus on the role the UFT/AFT has played and will continue to play in the goal of making Hillary president.

The Feb. 12 The Randi Weingarten Succession Obsession in where we claim Hill in '12 campaign begins the day Obama gets the nomination.

Randi, Hillary and Oback on April 12 inspired a comment asking what Weingarten has to gain with a Republican administration. A lot to gain in terms of having an enemy to blame all the things Unity can't win for teachers. Dictatorships require enemies. McCain would be perfect.

And if Obama were to win, having him in the White House is not user friendly to the UFT. Better to wait for the big enchilada Clintons, which can inspire so many sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom. Pajama parties, anyone?

Richard Gizbert's Hillary's $6.4 Million is a Wise Investment, for 2012 in the Huffington Post (May 7) makes many of the same points. "Clinton's only chance, for 2012, is to continue to damage Obama so badly that McCain wins in November. That would allow Clinton to take a run at McCain or some other Republican, four years from now."
I posted the entire piece at Norms Notes.

Scenario: Obama loses to McCain - the bigger the loss the better for Clinton (the longer the Clinton campaign, the better the chance to bloody Obama and the more votes lost).
McCain is a disaster as president.

Voila: Victory in '12 for the old war horse who will have another 4 years to build up resources and power. That is why I think the very idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket is so unlikely – unless they think someone will try to bump Obama off – something in the year 2008, 40 years after MLK, is on so many people's minds. (Imagine the crazy charge to come from the right wing Clinton-haters.)

I still think that no matter what the voting patterns in the primaries, Obama still has the better chance considering the enormous magnet for hatred the Clintons have become for too many people.

While there is truth to the point that Obama is winning the black vote overwhelmingly while losing some of the white vote, the sooner the campaign ends, the better Obama's chances of winning over the Clinton votes, though my feeling is that racism is so endemic that any little excuse – and the Clintons are providing plenty of excuses– and a sizable chunk of people will refuse to vote for Obama under any circumstances. This doesn't necessarily mean he can't beat McCain because of the overwhelming factors of the Republican failures.

So, the Clintons are going to do everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen using the "let everyone have their say" argument. They will then make a big show of supporting Obama -wink, wink - after the convention, knowing it is too late. Remember to do what we always tell you about Randi Weingarten - watch what they really do, not what they say.

At the April Delegate Assembly Weingarten was asked - will you be giving Obama the same level of support you are giving to Hillary, she smiled (sort of) and said, "We don't want McCain to win, do we?" The tone with which she answered gave something away. Then this was followed by a slap at Obama. We've also heard about chapter leader training has been used to slam Obama - a great way to get the word out to members without being on the public record.

After the election, the Clintons - and Weingarten - will spend the next few years mending fences.

And they will be aided by the entire AFT/UFT apparatus. Behind the scenes of course. That will be Weingarten's focus as AFT president.

Important to UFT members is how this plays out in the amount of real support Obama will get considering the UFT/AFT has such a big stake in Hillary.

The fact is that the entire union was manipulated into supporting Hillary with not one debate taking place in bodies like the Delegate Assembly or Executive Board. More intriguing, with Obama winning 90% of black votes, where have the black members of Unity Caucus and their supporters in New Action been hiding? Are we being led to believe that not one black member is for Obama? Not one even is willing to stand up and call for a debate at any level?

Where have the Obama supporters in the UFT been all this time? And will they continue to sit by in silence? Will someone get up at an upcoming DA or Exec Bd meeting and call for the UFT to end the sham and support Obama?

There's a Delegate Assembly on May 14. Will we continue to hear the sounds of silence?

The New Teacher Project

...has a heavy load to lift.

TNTP has to support all these people in NYC just for the Teaching Fellows program plus assorted other projects with the NYC DoE. Imagine if all ATR's were placed in jobs, jobs that would otherwise go to Teaching Fellows. Will that lead to TNTP having their own ATR's?

So, TNTP President Tim Daly issues a report blaming the ATR's for the problems.

If you have a dog in the race, BARK!

NYC Teaching Fellows [support]
Lesley Guggenheim, Program Director
Joseph Bywater, Senior Director of Operations
Gabriela Calderon, Selection Lead
Chris Casarez, Director of Placement
Dan Cayer, Recruiter
Alissa Ginsberg, Selection Lead
Paul Hawkins, Director of Technology
Kathryn Hayes, Director of Training and Support: Instructional Quality
Ellen Hur, Director of Marketing and Recruitment
Brandeis Johnson, Director of Training and Support: Development and Design
Jennifer Lee, Operations Associate
Kimberly McCann Fultz, Operations Team Manager
Michelle Mercado, Director of Selection
Crystal McQueen, Pre-Service Training Coordinator
Lindsey Payson, Training and Support Coordinator
Kristen Rasmussen, Communications Team Manager
Lindsey Reu, Communications Manager
Nahid Sorooshyari, Selection Lead
Deborah Teng, Marketing Lead
Liren Teng, Operations Associate
Maria Uruchima, Training and Support Associate
Melody Vargas, Placement Lead
Alice Walkiewicz, Placement Lead
Jessica Wedge, Recruiter

Check out their web site for other interesting tidbits.

Tim Daley: Do you want to hire me?

To: THE NEW TEACHER PROJECT/TIM DALEY, PRESIDENT

From: One of those senior ATRs you want to push into early retirement






Question: Do you want to hire me?

I'm a Music teacher.
Masters plus 30 credits.
20 years longevity in NYC school system.
Biggest Chorus for about a decade in Manhattan middle schools.
Full S ratings throughout career.
Great letters of satisfaction, commendation, awe, and thanks through entire career.
Full of energy, full of skills -- pianist, opera singer, know many languages, accomplished music historian, directed theater, playwright....

Before teaching, was for years a Senior Staff Editor of the largest and most prestigious music encyclopedia in the world - 24 vols. Was responsible for some of the largest bibliographical articles in it, international reputation in music bibliography.

Problem: Am 61 years old with relatively big salary

Repeat. Would you hire me? If so when?

You're not the only one who wouldn't.

Applied to 10 schools through the Open Market. Though clearly one of the most experienced, educated music teachers in the system, did not get called for a single interview.

So, ...... Am still an ATR.

Subbing.

While grad students -- yes! GRAD STUDENTS, with no Masters -- get jobs.

And you think this system works?

Repeat one more time:
Would you hire me?
Would YOU be willing to offer me a job?

CONCLUSION:
You are a corporate sell-out with an agenda, feeding off the DOE chow line and living on the backs of the children of NYC.

Shame on you.

Teacher Quality at the Education Sector... a stacked deck?

UPDATE:
WARNING: Read at your own peril.

The following post has been declared as gibberish and unhinged at Rotherham's Eduwonk world of ed reform fantasyland and this blogger has received an official Eduwonk "crazy" designation, not the first time we have been so designated. Just ask former principal(s), District Superintendent(s), UFT District rep(s), etc.

While over there, make sure to read Edwonk's "unfair and unbalanced report" on the ATR situation in NYC. Then you make the call as to whether you have accidentally fallen into a science fiction blog.


This morning at 9 AM in Washington DC, the Education Sector will listen to the voice of teachers – at a time no working teacher can attend.

Teacher Voice: How Teachers See the Teacher Quality Debate
May 7, 2008 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM (Capital Hilton)

The announcement says:
As policymakers, teachers unions, and other stakeholders react to changing demands on the nation's public education system, there is considerable debate about what teachers think and what they want. Too often assumptions define this conversation rather than actual evidence of what teachers want and how teachers see their profession evolving.

A new survey from Education Sector by Ann Duffett, Steve Farkas, Andrew J. Rotherham, and Elena Silva examines teachers' opinions and attitudes toward teacher unions, teacher unionism, and a range of current district reforms, including those aimed specifically at improving teacher quality. Join Education Sector for a presentation and discussion of the survey's findings

Ed Notes has taken the position that this emphasis on teacher quality has nefarious purposes. There will always be a bell-curve of teacher quality, just as there is a curve for doctors, lawyers, plumbers, etc. Funny, but I don't see the Ed Sector running events trying to discern the quality of the physicians poor kids with asthma attacks might see in the emergency room in the middle of the night and then come into school too sleepy to pay attention and how that factor affects teacher quality.

I'm anxious to see where the surveyed teachers come from. I wonder how many are from places where the ed reform "the fault is on the lack of teacher quality" movement has hit, often in urban schools under some form of mayoral control.

Now there are actually a few teachers on the panel. One is from Denver. And the president of the Providence Teachers Union is also on the panel. In March, he led a protest and called for a vote on no-confidence in the current administration of the Providence schools. The last time they did that was against Diana Lam, who was hired by Joel Klein for a disastrous run as chief of instruction. (If a union protests against someone, that person must be good for him.)

And a NYC teacher too. I have faith than anyone who has taught in the NYC world of BloomKlein, so beloved by the Ed Sector, will have plenty of good stuff to say – if allowed to say much.

I would have loved to see people like NYC educator or Reality Based Educator or Chaz School Daze but they wouldn't take a day off for this stuff. Not like.....

......It is particularly gratifying to see controversial Wash. DC Superintendent Michelle Rhee, a Teach for America alum and former Joel Kleinite in NYC, will be able to take time away from running a large urban school system to attend. A few weeks ago, Rhee also found the time to come up to New York to attend a weekday Manhattan Institute breakfast to push the usual ed reform line. What would they say if scads of teachers took time off to attend some of these things? Bad, bad, go to the rubber room. But Rhee's attendance at these events is indicative of the real ed reform agenda - ideology and politics, not education.

I don' t even have to go. Let's see, bet they say a hundred times: research shows that teacher quality is the single most important factor in a child's education (I was disappointed to see Chaz School Daze say the same thing on his blog.) I don't agree.

We could just as easily proclaim that research shows that small class sizes are the single most important factor in a child's education. That seems to be what I heard at a recent symposium at Columbia about the famous Tennessee study, where all classes, with the good, the bad and the ugly teachers saw improvements when class size was lowered. But fuggedaboudit. Ed Sector, unabashed admirers of BloomKlein would rather talk about teacher quality in isolation of other factors like class size or the difficulty of some children to learn – watch out for the dreaded "we aren't talking about comparing apples and oranges - followed by claims of the unproven and as far as I'm concerned unfounded – value added approach where teachers are rated based on the growth of kids based on past performance (on highs takes tests only, not on things like "Johnny entered my class s serial killer and left a lamb.")

Good Norm Twin: But let's be fair here. You didn't even hear the results of the survey. Maybe it will bear you out on class size.

Evil Norm Twin: Will the teachers surveyed say colleagues they view as incompetent should be made to drink arsenic? And teacher unions are horrible because they protect these people? Anyone check in NYC lately to see how well the UFT has been protecting teachers?

The cast of characters
Featured Presenters:
Andrew J. Rotherham, Elena Silva

This event will feature:
Greg Ahrnsbrak, Teacher, Denver Public Schools
Ann Duffett, FDR Group
Steven Farkas, FDR Group
Ellen Halloran, Teacher, New York City Public Schools
Michelle Rhee, Chancellor of D.C. Public Schools
Steven Smith, President, Providence Teachers Union
Elena Silva, Senior Policy Analyst, Education Sector (as moderator)
Andrew J. Rotherham, Co-director, Education Sector (introductory remarks)

Greg Ahrnsbrak is on the panel because he led a battle to modify the union contract in his school, a trend in Denver. Rotherham loves teachers who are willing to throw out contract rules. He throws out the line we hear form the likes of Kahlenberg [on Shanker] and Leo Casey about the New Unionism (how has that worked out for NYC teachers?]

"If (unions) see this as an opportunity to redefine their roles, they will thrive," Rotherham said. "If they don't get in the game, it will pass them by."

The UFT has always been in the game, so how come NYC teachers feel oh, so passed by?

To get a sense of why Greg Ahrnsbrak is on the panel, check out this excerpt from

The Denver Post reported back in January (edited):

A bid for autonomy at Denver's Bruce Ran dolph school faces another test today, when union leaders meet for the second time to vote on whether to accept a waiver from the teachers contract.

The union, so far, has balked at the request — The school board approved its part of the waiver last month, and a majority of teachers at the school voted for the proposal. Last week, Manual High School in Denver made a similar request.

State Senate President Peter Groff may introduce a bill to encourage other schools to do the same, and more than $100,000 from nonprofit organizations has been offered to Bruce Randolph if the move goes forward.

National education experts are watching the Bruce Randolph proposal that would give the school control over its budget, teacher time, calendar, incentives and hiring decisions.

"It is going to be fascinating," said Andrew Rotherham of Virginia, co-founder and co-director of Education Sector, a national education policy think tank. "This is what progress looks like, messy and contentious."

The union wanted Bruce Randolph to clearly explain what parts of the contract should be waived. Last week, teachers submitted a five-page response, outlining each article and subsection they want waived or retained.

Union President Kim Ursetta said she discussed the proposal with representatives from the school Saturday.

"We want to be able to look at what contract provisions, if any, impede student achievement at Bruce Randolph," Ursetta said.

The union should be flexible, said Rotherham.

"If (unions) see this as an opportunity to redefine their roles, they will thrive," Rotherham said. "If they don't get in the game, it will pass them by."

"We took the worst middle school in the state and brought it to a low ranking," said Greg Ahrnsbrak, a teacher at Bruce Randolph and the school's union representative, who helped craft the waiver plan.

Now Greg Ahrnsbrak is at a school that had lots of problems and the staff has bought into the idea the way to fix these problems is to show a willingness to waive the contract, obviously pegged as the main culprit. The central union has been balking and teachers at Ahrnsbak's school are talking going charter.

Ahrnsbrak said some have encouraged the staff to go ahead and implement the proposal anyway, regardless of the union's stance.

Private foundations love the controversy and are leaping in. The Denver Post reported on Jan. 24:

....the Piton Foundation, ... offered the school $100,000 if the autonomy bid were approved...

"If somebody there says they'd like to do a charter," [said a Piton rep] "we'll give them the $100,000 and I'll go back and try and raise more money."

Ahhh. Bribery from the world of foundations. Check back with the teachers in a few years and see where the money has gone once the union is broken.

Looks like Ellen Halloran, our poor lone NYC teacher, will be seriously outnumbered.

Obama, Clinton, the UFT, Shanker, Kahlenberg

Boy, that's a mouthful.

With today's primaries promising to be somewhat important (my belief is that Obama has been damaged to such an extent, he will be hurting badly by tonight) I wanted to comment on a bunch of stuff related to the Democratic party and the splits going back 40 years to 1968.

Remember that year? Assassinations, the crazy Demo convention in Chicago, the UFT 3 month strike in Ocean-Hill Brownsville - all events that have major impact on today's events. Richard Kahlenberg's "Tough Liberal" spends a lot of time justifying Shanker's actions and blaming the New left, the New Democrats, the limousine liberals, etc for the problems the party has had.

As I read it I kept saying- this book came out at this time as justification for Hillary Clinton to be president. Do many of the attacks on Obama point back to 40 years of splits? Do the wounds of the '68 strike still play a role in the Obama-Clinton split? These are issues worth exploring and we'll take a shot at it at some point this week - if I can force myself to open up Kalhlenberg's book once again.

By the way, a review of Kahlenberg's book (funded by Eli Broad and other foundations that just love the ed reform teacher attack movment) written by Vera Pavone and myself will be published in New Politics summer edition. Interestingly, Michael Hirsh, a writer for the NY Teacher and a member of NP's board, will write a response in the following edition. Hmmm. Will Shanker/Kahlenberg come up smelling like roses? A funny thing, but the NY Teacher edition following our submission of the review had an article by Kahlenberg "explaining" Shanker's real position on charter schools.

Al had a lot of splaining to do that goes way beyond charter schools.

Absentee Teacher Reserves

Don't miss James Eterno's marvelous historical analysis on ATR/contract reopening over at the ICE blog. James points out almost 20 years of UFT obfuscation and dis-information. (I think it should be mis-information but they have gone beyond mis to dis.)

Tim Daly the head of the New Teacher Project which issued the report that condemned the union and ATRs' instead of the DOE (he DOES have contracts with the DOE, so why expect anything else), is the guest blogger at Eduwonkette today. Head on over and leave him a comment.

Jumping in today is NYC Educator (is there anyone naive enough to believe that if Mr. Daly's group came to different conclusions they'd still be riding the DoE gravy train?) jumping in.

Daley criticizes the UFT and on the surface, they actually come out looking good - the defender of ATR teachers. Start scratching to see what is going on behind the scenes and a slightly different story might emerge. We have the itch and some data is coming in. Is this all about the UFT covering its tracks over the role it played in creating the ATR situation in the first place? Their "it's a damn outrage" stuff - "we set up a system that would work if only Tweed were honorable" point should be up on Letterman's comedy of the day segments.

A comment (edited) left on another posting on this blog.

I feel like the tone Randi Weingarten takes is the one I imagine of individuals trying to rationalize with the Nazis. "You are very right that the street is, ultimately, in your jurisdiction, so if you don't believe that the broken glass on the ground is important, I can't argue with you. I would suggest, however, that you consider that the needs of my children are similar to those in neighborhoods where there is no glass on the ground today." What is sad is that I can see myself being equally "appropriate". Gandhi was able to embarass the British with his actions. They knew arresting a man for making salt is ridiculous and their metaphorical cheeks got read. But nothing makes American's blush anymore -- I don't mean sexually -- I mean in terms of standards with which we treat each other. That's why its hard to see how absolutely absurd it is to keep being so seemingly rational. While she is making her nice speech, the tracks are being built. It's a common mistake made centuries over by lesser and better people, so perhaps she is to be set in context and excused for it. Nobody thought they would really send people to their deaths on a daily basis. In plain sight. Would the city fire thousands of people on frivolous charges in broad daylight?

At least, at Credit Suisse, you get a package. At Verizon, there's a whole process you have to go through before you can fire someone. Why would a public sector agency be able to do things the private sector cannot do with such impunity? Can you imagine Bear Sterns hauling off it's over 40 accountants on charges they were dangerous to the clients without actually being able to prove so? Would they dare? Again, at least they would get a package.

On a similar track, rubber room teachers have also come under attack.
Check Saddleshoes' commentary at: http://saddleshoe.blogspot.com/2008/05/daily-news-and-rubber-room.html

Link to May 4 article

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2008/05/04/2008-05-04_teachers_in_trouble_spending_years_in_ru.html

Link to May 5

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2008/05/05/2008-05-05_rubber_room_uproar.html

Uppity.... With Malice Toward None

I was talking to some supposedly liberal teachers not long ago and was surprised at their animosity to Obama. "Distant. Arrogant. Slick. Thinks he's better than regular people." For a second I thought the next word to be uttered would be the dreaded "Uppity." Well, we haven't gone that far. (Well, maybe we have - look upper left.)

Now these are people active in the UFT. Has the Clinton machine been aided in the onslaught on Obama in more subtle ways by UFT underground propaganda? (ie. Randi Weingarten's hint at the April DA that they tried to reach out to him but have been ignored. It was more the way she said it than the actual words that made me take notice.)

I headed home with the intention to write about this but it seemed best to stay away from such a volatile topic. But I now feel free to put my toe in the water after Maureen Dowd used the word today in her column in the NY Times. Quoting Bill Clinton, she wrote:

“The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it’s by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules,” the former president said. “In West Virginia and Arkansas, we know that when we see it.”

Oh, well, at least Bill didn’t use the word uppity. And don’t you love this paean to rules coming from a man so tethered and humbled by rules that he invented an entirely new sexual etiquette to suit his needs in the Oval Office?

Why does Obama, the one with the bumpy background and mixed racial heritage, the one raised by a single mother who was on food stamps, seem so forced when he mingles with the common folk?

Karl Rove and other Republicans say he comes across as the snooty product of a Hawaiian prep school, Cambridge, Columbia and Hyde Park, and that is what led to the damaging anthropological “bitter” disquisition. Yet George H. W. Bush’s attempts to paint over his patrician style with a cowboy veneer was a silly sort of masquerade, obviously engineered by Lee Atwater, who brought the props of pork rinds and country music.

Voters also don’t seem to mind Hillary, with her $109 million bank account, selling herself as the champion of the little people. The blue-collar queen shared her thoughts about the “outrageous” Rev. Wright with the blue-collar king, Bill O’Reilly, last week. In reality, as first lady, Hillary was renowned for her upstairs-downstairs tussles in the White House, and her high-handed treatment of the little people in the travel office, on the switchboard and on the residence staff. The reports were legend about the Clintons’ problems with the Secret Service, and I once saw Bill dress down an agent in a humiliating way over a couple of autograph seekers who got past a rope line in Orange County, Calif.

Obama, on the other hand, may seem esoteric, and sometimes looks haughty or put-upon when he should merely offer that ensorcelling smile. But he is very well liked by his Secret Service agents, and shoots hoops with them. And I watched him take the time one night after a long day of campaigning to stand and take individual pictures with a squadron of Dallas motorcycle police officers on the tarmac.

It must be hard for Obama, having applied all his energy over the years to rising above the rough spots in his background, making whites comfortable with him, striving to become the sophisticated, silky political star who looks supremely comfortable in a tux. Now he must go into reverse and stoop to conquer with cornball photo ops.

“I do think that one of the ironies of the last two or three weeks was this idea that somehow Michelle and I are elitist, pointy-headed intellectual types,” he said, adding sincerely, “I filled up my own gas tanks.”

It’s hard not to be who you are, but it’s doubly hard to be who you’ve strived not to be. Obama not only has to figure out how to unwind with a Bud. He has to rewind his life.

If people think the love of the white male working class for Hillary, so many of whom despised her not too long ago, has nothing to do with racism, they are ignoring something endemic to American society. That the Clintons have chosen to exacerbate it all will cost them dearly in the short and long run.

Dowd touches on points of personal relationships in comparing Obama and Clinton. I remember a friend almost not marrying a guy because, though he treated her very well, he demeaned waiters and other help on a regular basis. There are lessons about character in the way people treat others at all levels. Abraham Lincoln was the master (Dorris Kearns Goodwin is a MUST read.) When some people compare Obama to Lincoln, that is part of what they are talking about. (Check out George Schmidt's personal reflections of Obama that we posted on norms notes.)

But there are other areas of comparison. Obama is painted as weak when he doesn't hammer Hillary in a negative manner and he has been forced to respond because he is branded as a wimp if he doesn't.

If Lincoln were out there today, he would be attacked for being weak and indecisive. No matter how badly he was attacked he never struck back. It used to drive his advisors crazy. (But Lincoln had the strength to put every single opponent in his cabinet.) Obama has tried to take a similar tack and has been pushed to show how "tough" he is.

Some more quotes from Maureen Dowd's column illustrate this point:

Paul Gipson, president of a steelworkers local in Portage, Ind., hailed her “testicular fortitude,” before ripping into “Gucci-wearing, latte-drinking, self-centered, egotistical people that have damaged our lifestyle.”

James Carville helpfully told Eleanor Clift of Newsweek that if Hillary gave Obama one of her vehicles of testicular fortitude, “they’d both have two.”

"With malice toward none, with charity for all" were not just words Lincoln used in a speech, but words he lived.

Can't you just imagine the workup Bill Clinton and James Carville would be doing on him?

Lincoln is proof that toughness can take many forms. I have a sneaky suspicion there's a whole lotta more Lincoln in Obama than he is given credit for.

And did Thomas Friedman in essence endorse Obama in his column today (Who Will Tell the People) when he touched on a similar theme:

Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.

Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.

I don’t know if Barack Obama can lead that, but the notion that the idealism he has inspired in so many young people doesn’t matter is dead wrong. “Of course, hope alone is not enough,” says Tim Shriver, chairman of Special Olympics, “but it’s not trivial. It’s not trivial to inspire people to want to get up and do something with someone else.”

While you're perusing the Week in Review section, check out Frank Rich's "The All-White Elephant in the Room" which compared how McCain's preacher supporters get a free pass even when they attack the Catholic church.