Southern Poverty Law Center Sells Out on Common Core - Brands Opponents as Extremists, While Salon Declares They’re lying about Louis C.K.: He’s right about Common Core — and not a Tea Partyer

Give the SPLC a call and ask them to talk to Louis C.K.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 7, 2014

Contact:

Rebecca Sturtevant (334) 956-8372

Rebecca.sturtevant@splcenter.org

Southern Poverty Law Center Report: Extremist Propaganda is Distorting the Debate Over the Common Core State Standards

MONTGOMERY, Ala. – The fierce grassroots campaign threatening to derail the Common Core State Standards is being fueled by far-right propaganda that relies heavily on distortions, outright falsehoods and demonizing conspiracy theories promoted by antigovernment extremists, according to a report released today by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Now being implemented in 44 states, the Common Core is a set of learning standards that identify the literacy and math skills children in America’s public schools, wherever they live, should master at each grade level.

But to Christian Right, Tea Party and antigovernment activists, the state-driven effort to lift student achievement is actually “Obamacore,” a nefarious, left-wing plot to wrest control of education from local school systems and parents. Instead of the “death panels” of “Obamacare,” the fear is “government indoctrination camps.”

“These claims may sound outlandish – and they are – but the fact is, millions of Americans are absorbing this extremist propaganda, and it’s having a very real impact,” said Heidi Beirich, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project. “These lies are being repeated in churches, legislative hearings and town hall meetings across the country.”

The report, Public Schools in the Crosshairs: Far-Right Propaganda and the Common Core State Standards, was researched by the Intelligence Project and the SPLC’s Teaching Tolerance program.

Many Christian Right activists claim the Common Core will indoctrinate young children into “the homosexual lifestyle” and instill anti-American, anti-Christian values. Their fight has been joined by radical antigovernment groups like the John Birch Society, which claims the standards are part of a global conspiracy to create a totalitarian “New World Order.” Glenn Beck, meanwhile, describes the Common Core as “evil” and “communism.” U.S. Sen. Rand Paul has called it “dangerous.”

What’s more, it’s clear that some of the opponents, including national groups associated with the billionaire Koch brothers, are exploiting the Common Core in their broader fight against the public education system in an effort to promote school privatization measures.

“The 50 million children in our nation’s public schools, and the dedicated educators who serve them, deserve better than a debate that focuses on falsehoods and demonizes the very idea of public education,” said Teaching Tolerance Director Maureen Costello. “There are legitimate concerns about the Common Core, but those very real issues are being obscured and distorted by the claims of extremists.”

            Despite the claims of many critics, the standards do not mandate the use of any particular book or course of study. Those decisions remain with individual teachers and school systems.

           

            The standards were developed under the auspices of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Forty-five states initially adopted the Common Core, but Indiana in March became the first state to withdraw.

###

The Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Alabama with offices in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi, is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. For more information, see www.splcenter.org .  

 

Thursday, May 8, 2014 07:44 AM EDT

They’re lying about Louis C.K.: He’s right about Common Core — and not a Tea Partyer

There's a new scheme afoot: Paint all opposition to education reform as "crazy." Don't fall for the "wingnut con"

Jeff Bryant
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/08/louis_c_k_is_right_about_common_core_and_opposition_does_not_make_him_a_tea_partyer/

Louie C.K. (Credit: Reuters/Fred Prouser)

Sometimes it takes a comedian to make a serious point.
When Louis C.K. went on a Twitter rant about the standardized tests and Common Core State Standards being rolled out in his own children’s public schools, he brought to mind other instances where comedians have broken through the fog of typical policy debate to reflect how most people really feel about an issue.
Recall, if you will, when Stephen Colbert roasted then-President George Bush at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner in 2006. His hilarious send-up of the Bush administration’s horrendous decision to turn the tragedy of Sept. 11 into a reckless and nonsensical invasion of Iraq was acknowledged to be, as one Salon writer put it, not just a blistering critique of Bush’s policies but also a ridicule of the “ever-cheapening discourse that passes for political debate” about those policies.
But what people often forget about Colbert’s remarks is that they got huge attention by media at a time when they were mostly ignoring huge protests against the war occurring in the streets. Colbert revealed what a lot of the populace already knew: that the causes for war were trumped up, and the administration was colluding with policy circles in Washington, D.C., and the mainstream media to prop up false arguments for the status quo.
Similarly, what Louis C.K. said about current education policies like standardized testing and the Common Core occurred against a backdrop of popular dissent.

A Movement, Not a Moment
When new standardized tests Louis C.K. railed against rolled out in New York, at least 33,000 students skipped the tests. At one Brooklyn school, so many parents opted their students out of the tests the teachers were told they were no longer needed to proctor the exams. At another Brooklyn school, 80 percent of the students opted out. Elsewhere in Long Island, 41 school districts in Nassau and Suffolk counties reported thousands of students refusing to take the test, and an additional district reported hundreds more.

---

---

What is happening in New York is indicative of a groundswell of popular dissent – what Peter Rothberg, a journalist for the Nation and a New York City parent, called a “nationwide movement” – against the overuse and abuse of standardized testing in public schools.
The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, an independent organization that works to end the misuses and flaws of standardized testing, keeps a running count of the test resistance on its website Fairtest.org. When education historian Diane Ravitch recently reviewed the tally, she found “stories about test protest and reform activities – as well as a few victories – come from more than a third of the states,” which she listed on her personal blog.
Fair Tests’s executive director, Monty Neil, recently wrote for a blog at the Washington Post, “The testing resistance movement has exploded across the nation.” Neil listed major concerns that drive the parent and student protesters, including:

• “There is too much testing. It crowds out other subjects, even recess, depriving children of an engaging, well-rounded curriculum.
• The tests are not useful to teachers, parents or students because they don’t assess important areas of learning, questions and answers are secret, and scores are not returned in a timely manner.
• Parents, teachers and students object to spending millions of dollars on testing and computer infrastructure for online testing while schools suffer increased class size and cuts to arts, sports, and other engaging activities.”

Volunteer activists in the test resistance movement who formed United Opt Out in 2011 have become so disruptive to the standardized testing establishment that their website was recently “hacked into and destroyed – along with a great deal of their web-based educational tools,” according to a report at Alternet, including “years of research, with an archive of guides and tutorials for opting out tailored specifically to almost every U.S. state.”
The Alternet reporter quoted Denver UOO organizer Peggy Robertson who said, “It’s clear we pose a serious threat … it’s not the typical hack job. It was malicious.”  The website has since been restored.
Breaking Through the Bland Rhetoric
Much in the same way that Colbert broke through the cheap dialogue about “patriotism” and “strength” that surrounded the Iraq War, Louis C.K.’s plain speaking about his daughter’s education seared through the bland rhetoric about “standards, expectations, and achievement” that dominates the debate about education policy. He explained what is rapidly becoming the reality about schooling everywhere in America: “It’s changed in recent years. It’s all about these tests. It feels like a dark time.”
Speaking from a parent’s point-of-view, he described his daughter’s schooling as a “massive stressball.” He questioned the role of test-makers like Pearson who now seem to figure more prominently in his children’s education than their teachers do.
Those who defend the Common Core, in particular, were quick to put up blog posts at Newsweek and Vox explaining how Louis C.K. had gotten the new standards “wrong.” Of course, his criticisms weren’t even about the standards explicitly. It’s doubtful Louis C.K. has ever even read them. Among those who have read the standards, some like them, some don’t.
But the truth is, no one actually knows, in an objective way, whether these new standards are any good or not because they’ve never been piloted anywhere and evaluated based on their results with actual students. There’s no proof anywhere they will produce “more rigor in the classroom” or solve the problems of educating “disadvantaged kids,” as so many contend. So the debate about whether the standards represent “high quality” is just so much conjecture.
It’s also true that standardized testing did not begin with the Common Core. And standards aren’t anything new either, as most states had standards prior to adopting the Common Core.
But the current heightened emphasis on standardized testing is an effect of the policies of the Obama administration, for sure. In order for states to get grant money available from Race to the Top and obtain waivers from No Child Left Behind, they had to link scores on standardized tests to their evaluations of teachers and principals. This has heightened the “stakes” in high-stakes testing.
Even ardent supporters of the Common Core are having their doubts. In a Salon interview by Josh Eidelson, American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten warned the new standards “may actually fail” due to a host of problems going beyond testing and the poor rollout to issues with being “developmentally inappropriate for the earliest of kids” and a government copyright that “suggests they’re fixed in slate, and that’s just wrong.”

The Big Picture Most Miss
What’s so often lost in the debate over education policies is that criticisms of the Common Core and testing are symptoms of much larger problems with education spreading across the country. Last year in Chicago there were three days of protests against the city’s decision to close their neighborhood schools for the sake of “reforming” them.
Similar protests occurred in Philadelphia where communities of black and brown citizens openly defied civic leaders’ decisions to cut education spending and close neighborhood schools, again, in the name of “reforming” them.

Waves of discontent with current education policies have washed through Newark, Portland, Oregon; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Bridgeport, Connecticut.
These events, and others, reveal an emerging Education Spring – a counterargument now slipping into the mainstream of American opinion in opposition to the education policies championed by the likes of Michelle Rhee and Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
What’s generally not understood is that these flash points of resistance are driven by common grievances – a grass-roots “common core” if you will – that is shaping the rapidly evolving education debate.
Behind nearly every protest to the status quo education policies are common grievances that our local schools are being appropriated from us, and thus, teachers, parents, students, even whole communities increasingly feel they have less control over their education destinies, while at the same time, they see that governing policies are driving more control to testing companies and other powerful entities we never chose.

Louis C.K.’s joke, this time speaking on the David Letterman show, that when the kids don’t do well on the tests “they burn the school down” is not too far from the truth. And his follow-up comment that “the tests are written by people nobody knows who they are” is no joke at all.
Of course, the folks in charge and much of the courtier crowd of policy and media types who follow them around are the ones who are most immune to these realities. As a parent writing to President Obama explained, in a letter posted at the Washington Post blog of Valerie Strauss, “We have something very important in common: daughters in the seventh grade … Like my daughter Eva, Sasha appears to be a funny, smart, loving girl … There is, however, one important difference between them: Sasha attends private school, while Eva goes to public school … Sasha does not have to take Washington’s standardized test, the D.C. CAS, which means you don’t get a parent’s-eye view of the annual high-stakes tests taken by most of America’s children.”

That parent’s-eye view Obama misses all too clearly sees that “the standards won’t succeed if the tests used to assess them are confusing, developmentally inappropriate, and so hard that even good students can’t do well on them.”
Confusing … inappropriate … so hard that even good teachers, parents and students can’t do well – that pretty much captures how most Americans increasingly feel about current education policies.
“Everything important is worth doing carefully,” the comedian tweeted. “None of this feels careful to me.” Amen.

Jeff Bryant is Director of the Education Opportunity Network, a partnership effort of the Institute for America's Future and the Opportunity to Learn Campaign. Jeff owns a marketing and communications consultancy in Chapel Hill, N.C., and has written extensively about public education policy.

UFT Contract: MORE in the Media

WNYC: http://www.wnyc.org/story/delegates-recommend-yes-vote-teachers-contract/

The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/blog/179726/should-new-york-teachers-reject-de-blasios-proposed-contract

THE AP WIRE - story is in the Wall Street Journal: 

 http://online.wsj.com/article/AP31f7a75d7fba46aeb4863df7d1616d35.html

San Francisco Gate:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/NYC-teachers-panel-approves-proposed-contract-5461649.php

Kevin Prosen's Story in the Socialist Worker: http://socialistworker.org/2014/05/07/nyc-teachers-deserve-a-better-deal

Julie's Story in SchoolBook: http://www.wnyc.org/story/opinion-wait-fair-contract-isnt-over/

NY1: http://www.ny1.com/content/news/education/208222/teachers--union-delegates-vote-in-favor-of-contract-deal

Portelos an ATR as DOE Violates Hearing Officer Mandate - Which is OK With UFT

For those of you who are voting YES on the contract and don't think things can be fixed if we send the negotiating committee back to the bargaining table -- how about all the loopholes and leavouts in our current - and future contract? I have a list - starting with curbing the unfettered power of principals.

Here is the irony that Francesco was the legal chapter leader of IS 49SI, the only bulwark for the staff against a bully principal - who is castigated in the arbitrator's report. So right after the decision basically exonerating him and ordering him to be put back in the classroom in his school, the DOE instigates another battle by removing the legally elected CL (the UFT will just sit by) and making him an ATR with a big target on his back.

As P put it -- they couldn't get him after over 800 days but now the UFT is agreeing to an ATR set-up deal that will allow them to get rid of him in 50 days.

How many principals are out there waiting to put P's pelt on their belt. Imagine how many ways they can create unprofessional behavior -- Portelos -- clean the lunchroom floor with a toothbrush.

Well, the good thing is that P has put everyone on notice - every single thing they pull will be out there for the world to read and yes, if they fool around we will make their names mud.

On the other hand, while P is fighting to get back to his old dysfunctional school (which might be the only sign I've seen of him being nuts) he will be able to traipse around many schools on Staten Island proving to every principal he is not only sane and rational, but an amazing resource -- and this will come back to bite them as their "insanity" campaign will be refuted. Any sane principal would fight to hire him -- but I don't think there are many sane ones around.

How many people have said they made a mistake voting for the 2005 contract?

Truly, here is what I hope -- that people who vote YES for this contract find themselves in this situation and come crying for help and find the UFT won't help. Truly, my response would be FUCK YOU!

FRANCESCO,

You are receiving this email because you are currently in the Absent Teacher Reserve. Included in this email is your school assignment for the upcoming week. You should report to the below location unless you are otherwise notified of an assignment change via atrassignment@schools.nyc.gov or by phone.

Timekeeping and Attendance
Your assignment school is responsible for your timekeeping during this period, so you should provide them with the required documentation pertaining to any absences. If you cannot report for any given day, please contact the school so that they can plan accordingly. If you do not report to your assigned school, you will be marked absent and your timekeeping will be updated.
Below is your official assignment for the period of 5/12/2014 to 5/16/2014.  Please report to the following school:

School InformationSchool: 31R004

School Name: P.S. 004 Maurice Wollin (R004)

Address1: 200 NEDRA LANE, Staten Island, NY 10312

School Phone: 718-984-1197

Contact Name (if applicable): NA

Reporting Instructions
If you have any questions regarding your assignment, please contact HR Connect at 718-935-4000.

Sincerely,
Teacher Hiring Support
NYC Department of Education

Francesco to the union:
Date: Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:30 PM
Subject: My ATR Assignment
To: mmulgrew@uft.org, epietromonaco@uft.org, Sean Rotkowitz <srotkowitz@uft.org>, Debra Penny <dpenny@uft.org>, Leroy Barr <lbarr@uft.org>, Wendy Star <Wstar@nysutmail.org>, Christopher Callagy <ccallagy@nysutmail.org>, Claude Hersh <chersh@nysutmail.org>, Bryan Glass <bg@glasskrakower.com>

Adam,

    I know you are all busy with contact negotiations, but this needs attention as well. No grievances and all that year long battle to put me back to my original school. I don't want that route.

What I want is see written policy, that can be furnished, that shows the DOE can move me to ATR status after a decision like the one I received.

I was voted chapter leader after my removal.

I dodged three to four recall attempts.

We won an arbitration and supreme court confirmation.

The arbitrator noted my cordial and professional in person meeting the principal.

Please keep me in the loop of communication with the department.

Again...no grievance. PERB.

Francesco Portelos
Parent
Educator
IS 49 UFT Chapter Leader
educatorfightsback.org
Mrportelos.com

MORE Contract Meeting Today

Organize the No Vote Against this Contract by morecaucusnyc Saturday, May 10 12:00 - 3:00pm Ya-Ya Network 224 W. 29th St., 14th Fl. Come to a meeting with UFT Chapter Leaders and Contract Committee members to hear a breakdown of the proposal, ask questions, and organize against the proposed contract in our schools. Join us in fighting for The Contract NYC Educators Deserve! RSVP on Facebook Please print and distribute this flyer advertising this meeting and explaining our reasons for opposing the new contract.

Rallies Scare Cuomo into Meeting with Stronger Together

As momentum built toward’s the April 28th rally at Villa Lombardi’s to protest Governor Cuomo, one of the governor’s top aides, Joseph Percoco, reached out, through an intermediary, to the President of the Connetquot Teachers Association Tony Felicio.  Percoco offered Felicio, one of the rally’s organizers, a meeting with the governor to air his grievances in exchange for canceling the rally.  Felicio rejected the governor’s offer, telling him that the rally would go on and that if the governor wanted to meet they could do so after the rally. ...PJSTA

Here is a followup to my earlier post: A Parent Exposes New NYSUT (Revive) Pro-Cuomo Leadership Phony Militancy at Lake Placid - check it out before reading this.


How interesting that Stronger Together, the losing slate in the recent NYSUT election, gets a meeting with Cuomo on THEIR terms. They refused the meeting and held the rally and are doing another rally, which Cuomo "suggested" they cancel. They won't. NYSUT's new leaders didn't attend the first rally for fear of offending Mr. Charter.

Funny when you consider that Revive which won the election attacked ST for not being willing to talk to Cuomo. What they really meant - they, unlike Revive, would only talk to Cuomo standing up and looking him in the eyes, not on their knees.

Stronger Together is not going away - we'll have details on what is going on in a few weeks.

First a report from PJSTA President Beth Dimino that she sent to her members followed by the PJSTA report.

Yesterday, Tony Felicio, President Connetquot TA, Kevin Coyne, President Brentwood TA, Laura Spencer, President Smithtown TA, Tim Southerton, President Sayville TA and I met with Governor Cuomo in his office in NYC. I believe that the one and a half hour meeting was productive. I explained to the Governor that the reason I agreed to
attend the meeting was because I did not believe he fully understands the impact of his agenda on working classroom teachers and students. Each President had a topic to present. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to any of you that I spoke about the testing. I told the Governor that he needed to decouple the testing from the APPR. I clearly articulated what I believe are the problems with Pearson's unfettered stranglehold on NY State's children and I encouraged the Governor to decouple unfunded mandates from the tax cap by either fully funding those mandates or by making those mandates exclusionary under the cap. Both Kevin and Tim fully fleshed out the negative impacts of the cap on LI districts.  Laura spoke eloquently about the APPR and Tony clearly explained that the Governor's anti-teacher rhetoric was not helpful to anyone. Cuomo shared his points of view and the meeting was truly an exchange of ideas. We all spoke and everyone listened and now we wait to see what happens.
Cuomo said he wants to meet with eight teachers from around the State to discuss yesterday's meeting points further. Both Tony and I volunteered to be part of that cadre of teachers and we recommended that Cuomo contact NYSUT President Magee to make the decision about the teachers who would participate. Cuomo said there are twenty more session days for the legislature and he will work with members of both parties to make changes to CCSS and APPR. And now we wait to see what happens.
But while we wait, we must recognize that the reason that we were allowed an audience with the Governor is because we had more than 2,000 voters attend a rally at CHS in August, we helped organize and joined more than 1,000 voters in the fall at a rally in front of Flanagan's office, and we helped organize and joined more than 2,000 other LIers in front of Momma Lombardis on April 28th. I told the
Governor that we are helping to organize and will be at The Save Our Schools Rally in NYC on May 17th and we will help organize and will be at the rally in front of the Melville Hilton on May 21st.
The Governor and ALL of the LI elected officials that are up for election this November are paying attention Folks! We must capitalize on this momentum and keep this movement going!
We do that by showing up for rallies and most importantly by VOTING! School Board elections are May 20th. It's imperative that you vote in your home districts and that you vote yes to the budget and for the candidates that each local is endorsing. That will send a clear message to every politician that we mean business and that we will
VOTE TO SUPPORT PUBLIC EDUCATION!
The PJSTA asks that every Comsewogue tax payer vote yes for the budget and vote for Gordon, Sanchez and Rennard for the open BOE seats.

This report from our pals at Port Jeff Station TA has the delicious details --

Stronger Together’s Meeting with Governor Cuomo

Posted on May 9, 2014 by thepjsta

 

As momentum built toward’s the April 28th rally at Villa Lombardi’s to protest Governor Cuomo, one of the governor’s top aides, Joseph Percoco, reached out, through an intermediary, to the President of the Connetquot Teachers Association Tony Felicio.  Percoco offered Felicio, one of the rally’s organizers, a meeting with the governor to air his grievances in exchange for canceling the rally.  Felicio rejected the governor’s offer, telling him that the rally would go on and that if the governor wanted to meet they could do so after the rally.

You will recall the rally did in fact go on.  Despite the fact that it was not supported by NYSUT, an estimated crowd of 2,500 gathered outside Villa Lombardi’s to protest Cuomo’s education reform agenda.  The rally clearly sent a very powerful message to the governor that the parents and teachers of New York State will “remember in November” the havoc that his policies have wreaked on the children of our communities.  Unless he displays a startling and dramatic change of course regarding his education policies in the very near future he can count on no support in November’s election from the people in New York State who value public education, whether NYSUT endorses him or not.

Following the rally, Percoco once again reached out to Felicio to request a meeting with the governor.  Cuomo’s re-election campaign clearly is rattled by the tidal wave of support for public education that stands in clear opposition to the reform agenda he has helped to force upon our community schools throughout his term in office.  Felicio agreed to the meeting and arranged to bring a few trusted friends in the fight for public education.  Yesterday five Stronger Together local presidents, including Felicio, Tim Southerton (President of the Sayville Teachers Association), Laura Spencer (President of the Smithtown Teachers Association), Kevin Coyne (Brentwood Teachers Association), and our very own Beth Dimino were joined by Brad Lindell (Vice-President of the Connetquot Teachers Association)  at a meeting with the governor.

At the meeting the team raised concerns about high stakes testing, APPR’s, the tax cap, charter schools, Pearson, and RttT, among other things.  Dimino told the governor that given his actions up to this point she could only assume that he didn’t know the truth about the harmful agenda he had been pushing.  After the group gave him the perspective of real classroom teachers they suggested potential solutions to the disastrous situation his policies have created.   Dimino then warned him that he now knew the truth and that there is no excuse for the continuation of such policies.  She stated that there would be a price to pay if swift action is not taken to undo much of what has been done up to this point.  Dimino explained to the Governor that there were two things he could do immediately to mitigate the devastating impact his agenda has had on NYS students, first decouple the testing from teacher evaluations and then decouple all of the unfunded mandates from the tax cap, either by funding those mandates or by making them exclusionary under the cap.

Cuomo, who was polite, respectful, and attentive during the meeting that lasted nearly two hours, responded with a lot of “I didn’t know” or “It’s not my fault” types of answers.  He also told them, “I thought everybody loved charter schools?!”  Additionally he warned that we may want to cancel the rally scheduled for the New York Democratic Convention on May 22nd in Melville so that we don’t upset other Democratic politicians.  Let me be very clear here: The rally will go on!  As Felicio warned on April 28th, the Lombardi’s rally was just a warm up for a bigger, louder, more intense one on May 22nd.

Finally Cuomo pledged to create a task force of classroom teachers to more deeply investigate the issues discussed.  He said he would be in touch with NYSUT President Karen Magee to create that task force.  Unfortunately Magee is no fan of the PJSTA, so don’t expect Dimino or many other NYSUT members critical of the Mulgrew/Pallotta/Revive NYSUT coup to make the cut for the task force.  Of course we have been down the task force road with Cuomo before.  Typically what happens is that any voices of truth who speak for teachers and students are ignored so that Cuomo can stock his war chest with big money from Wall Street, Pearson, and Eva Moskowitz.  In the end the losers are usually public schools and the communities they serve.  Color me skeptical when it comes to any meaningful changes being made.  Still, for a change, it was nice to know that our message was sent to the governor yesterday, loud and clear.

Dimino at the April 28th rally.

Class Size Sellout as UFT Contract/Farina Endorse Continued High Class Sizes

Mulgrew claims to be against ed deform are smoke as the contract clearly supports the ed deform emphasis on PD while disparaging class size reform.

Video of Farina comments on class size below.
 
I'm home today and have many posts to go so take your time and read them all. With Ravitch having her knee replaced today  - did ed deformers CAP her?, I have to make up the difference. And good luck Diane. Use that new knee to good use. 


A YES vote for the contract is a vote for continued high class size. NYC teachers are working under class size limits - with loads of loopholes - that was codified almost 45 years ago. Under the last 20 years of BloomIani there was no chance of improving those numbers. And now with a more friendly mayor - supposedly -- the UFT had its chance to make a dent in these numbers. But instead it codified these class sizes basically in perpetuity. Shame on them. And on Farina, who has never been a big supporter of class size reductions, feeling more PD is the answer. Sure let's do PD with 80 in a class.

What a tandem -  it is not only the UFT/Unity Caucus leadership that feels class size is not an important enough issue to address in the contract but Farina too. Both entered into negotiations with no thought to class size but more PD instead.

When Unity people challenged me on my NO Vote stance I threw the class size issue back in their faces and they just shut up. Please use this point when they come a callin' to your school.

Fred Smith asks:

Folks,

Remember Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego?  According to Wikipedia this is the title of several edutainment computer games... that teach geography and reference skills.

Based on Leonie's question about the Chancellor's acceptance of large class sizes--and our vigorous string of emails trying to nail down exactly what she said, I propose we keep chronicling remarks she makes at public forums (i.e., generalities and statements like: "We're looking into it."; "Give us some time."; and "We can't do that because we must follow state and federal mandates.") 

Let's put them together and follow up on them under the heading Where in the World is Carmen Farina?! 

I get the feeling we're all becoming exasperated by too much slipping and sliding on her part. Maybe this is a way we can pin her down.

Fred

Follow this thread from parents on the CTS listserve on Farina views on class size:

I read a tweet that in response to a parent’s concern about large classes at the d15 townhall, Carmen said that a 3rd grade class of 30 which includes special ed students is not too large. Janine, or anyone else who was there, can you confirm this?

I am so disheartened – the Council hearings yesterday about charters featured the same BS from DOE w/ no change in terms of increased transparency or honesty as far as I could see. Elizabeth Rose even said that it would be impossible to estimate the increased cost of busing charter students even though the IBO has already done this.

Please let me know what Carmen said.

===
I was there and heard this but it sounded so unbelievable that I assumed I heard wrong. I would triple confirm!
===
I was there too & she did say it. I think she made some casual remark that it's on the large side, but as though it was no big deal. In general, I thought she was minimizing things &/or saying Well we just don't have the money. One of her pro-test lines was one I particularly hate: kids are going to have to take tests sometime in their lives.... (So let's start assaulting them early?) How did the rest of us, especially us older farts, manage to survive & even thrive without being given standardized top-down tests when we were little?
====
unfortunately, what ch farinia says here is true. it is hard to find a school where class size is under 30. in fact, i find this is the norm. we now see 31, 32. this is because every student brings a little pot of $$ to the school. what is an admin to do when the budget cuts so deeply that this little pot of $$ is now how we fund things. this sucks, and this is what needs to be addressed. you cannot shrink class size w/o properly funding schools. period.
=====

Video by Michael Elliott re: Farina on class size question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPPqN0-ytq0&feature=youtu.be

A Parent Exposes New NYSUT (Revive) Pro-Cuomo Leadership Phony Militancy at Lake Placid

The most obvious giveaway that NYSUT had completely sold out came when the NYSUT photographer wanted to take a picture of a child who was wearing a sign that said, I "heart" public school, but he wouldn't take a picture of the child's brother whose sign said, No Mo Cuomo. The photographer explicitly stated that NYSUT wouldn't publish anything against Cuomo!.. NYC Parent, Change the Stakes

We all knew this was happening but to have actual proof. Here is her full email to CTS and my response:

Norm and other savvy union members, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that:

• UFT and NYSUT will endorse Cuomo
• In return, they'll get some temporary reprieve from APPR (a moratorium) or some fix in the formula

As has already been reported, the UFT-backed NYSUT slate got a boost from Cuomo in exchange for their silence on the charter deal.


At NYSUT's rally at Lake Placid, it became painfully obvious that NYSUT was not there to challenge Cuomo -- all the rhetoric was directed at DFER and the Walton Foundation. None of the rally speakers said anything about Cuomo (or even Gates!). The most obvious giveaway that NYSUT had completely sold out came when the NYSUT photographer wanted to take a picture of a child who was wearing a sign that said, I "heart" public school, but he wouldn't take a picture of the child's brother whose sign said, No Mo Cuomo. The photographer explicitly stated that NYSUT wouldn't publish anything against Cuomo!
If all this is true, union leadership is even more effed up than I thought....

My response:

I am still in the minority on this but I view the union leadership at city, state and national levels as functioning basically as agents for the other side. This goes back to the early history 50 years ago when union resources were used with the CIA to undermine left leaning teacher unions abroad.
Shanker supported ed deform when Nation at risk came out in 1983. Randi and Mulgrew continue. When you hear militancy it is rhetoric to mislead. Always watch what they do not what they say. Your story nails what they are all about.
Will they endorse Cuomo? They will check the internal political wind to see if they can get away with it. If not they will sit it out. Cuomo will understand. Unless his numbers are falling and he needs them. Then they will paint the Republican as a monster.
Norm

And Lisa says:

I am not up on the inter workings of NYSUT, but it would be in line for the UFT/NYSUT to endorse Cuomo. Remember they endorsed Pataki when he came up with a small amount of money (perhaps $100,000) for the teachers contract, but at the same time would not give a penny for settling the CFE lawsuit. The lawsuit would have given NYC BILLIONS of dollars! 

Harris Lirtzman Sees Ugliness of Unity Machine as he Thanks James Eterno

I came out of that DA meeting with an overwhelming feeling of self-satisfied and corrupted power that is prepared to roll over anything that gets in its way.... this is a vicious crew that will not stand for the slightest difference of opinion and we better recognize that....as still a relative "newbie" to the process it was, shall we say, a sort of "road to Damascus" awakening for me.... Harris Lirtzman

Harry in his short time working with MORE (he was once NYC Deputy Comptroller plus loads of other things before a brief career as a teacher) has garnered enormous respect for his astute observations. Yesterday, Harry saw the monster that was Unity and sends a message to all those who say MORE should find ways to work with Unity and their vassals New Action (which sort of/maybe opposes the contract -- so they can claim both sides in the next UFT election).

What totalitarian regimes like Unity Caucus don't get is that their tactics get a retired guy like Harry ready to roll against them. I mean what makes a guy like me keep doing this stuff if I didn't think Unity Caucus domination of the local, state and national unions was so dangerous? I know people think I go overboard at times -- and many true believers in Unity are incredibly hostile towards me.

There were 2 guys from a school there yesterday on their own handing out a NO leaflet. One of them held up a sign saying he is in Unity but demands his right to express his views. Hilton security confronted him about the sign -- I imagine UFT people made a call -- how embarrassing when one of their own deserts. And how scary if others get ideas too.

Look at Syria and how people started coming out of the woodwork to oppose the regime. There is a mindset of dictatorships that ultimately create a revolution. Will this push for the contract in this manner create the beginning of a critical mass of opposition?

And this comment from a MOREista to James:

From my vantage in the back of the room, you beat the living crap out of him. What you may not know is that the monitors were actually turned on at the time and they showed an ultra close up of his face ... getting the living crap beat out of him. It was a beautiful moment.

Boy I wish someone had taped James.

I have to admit I was surprised after Monday night's Ex bd meeting where MORE had 15 people and Mulgrew allowed us all to ask questions -- unprecedented in Ex Bd history. We actually had a nice dialogue of sorts. I mean the EB is basically dead wood and Monday Mulgrew seemed to come to life. So the repression yesterday at the DA gives us a clue -- they are very nervous about the reactions in the schools. I have reports coming in from schools with people saying no overwhelmingly -- we haven't developed a deep enough network into the 1700 schools to really take the pulse overall. 

And it really would have been so easy for them to allow our people to talk -- I mean Mulgrew has some arguments in his favor -- and Harry admits he had some ambivalence. But it was the tactics used that had the impact - and I bet on some other delegates. Here's Harry:

James,

Thank you for your report, as always.

I was never so proud to be a member of MORE as I was watching you from the visitor's gallery yesterday afternoon.

I admit that I may not be quite so fully "anti" certain parts of the contract as many others in MORE are but I was stunned by what I saw happen at the DA.  It was only the second DA I've attended so perhaps I shouldn't have been so amazed.  I told Megan Moskop in a message last night.

I came out of that DA meeting with an overwhelming feeling of self-satisfied and corrupted power that is prepared to roll over anything that gets in its way.  I was deflated but also more than a bit scared, not personally in an "I'm afraid" sort of way, but more of a "wow, this is a vicious crew that will not stand for the slightest difference of opinion and we better recognize that if we're going to keep playing the game."  Don't know if that makes sense.  Of course, this has been apparent to all of you for a very long time but as still a relative "newbie" to the process it was, shall we say, a sort of "road to Damascus" awakening for me.

Not saying we should throw up our hands but there was something menacing about the process.  The United Federation of Teachers was "debating" a contract that it has waited for for five years, which extends for nine years, which is filled with complex provisions, which involves billions of dollars and which is predicated entirely on one assumption, a false one, that "the City cannot afford anything other than this settlement" and our union allowed less than 20 minutes of farcical "debate" on the entire thing.  Mulgrew's slicing and insulting sarcasm as he presided over the sham "ceremony" with the pretense that any difference of opinion was nothing more than another in a long line of "mytttthhhsss" that he was obligated to destroy in the name of integrity and Abraham Lincoln-like "honesty" was repulsive.  I actually think he was more than a little afraid to engage in any form of active "debate" with some of the bravest and most-informed members of his union.

The applause you heard as you walked away from the microphone was the bleating of sheep responding to their shepherd and to the herd dogs that corral them in their pen.

If we plan to engage a full "vote No" campaign and prepare for an election battle in 2016 we need to get very real very fast about how we're going to do any of that in the face of a well-oiled noise machine that is prepared to eviscerate its adversaries.  

Thank you for what you have done and continue to do, James.  You are a brave man and I'm proud to stand with you.

Harry

UFT Contract: Jeff Kaufman Dissects the ATR Issue Plus a Video Interview - Should All Teachers Be Frightened? HELL YES!

Jeff does a great job in tearing apart the ATR agreement in the new contract at the ICE blog.

After the DA he was interviewed by a reported for The Chief and went into the problems with due process in both the old and new contracts, pointing to how the DOE plays political games with teachers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1uGevRjTb0&feature=share&list=UU9iVb99ewF1omA6LbPUWEOg






http://iceuftblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-problematic-language-is-not-only.html

The “Problematic” Language is Not the Only Part of the Agreement that is Problematic

Absent Teacher Reserve

In order to fully understand the insidious nature of the proposed contract’s ATR provisions it is necessary to break down the language.

1.    Definition.  An ATR is anyone in excess after the first day of school
who is not a para or OT/PT.

2.    Severance. A severance program is established in which an ATR can collect from 1 week of pay for 3 to 4 years of service up to 10 weeks of pay for ATRs with more than 20 years’ service. ATRs are only eligible for this program during a narrow 30 day window between 30 and 60 days of ratification of the contract.

Problematic:  If, as Mulgrew stated at the DA, the contract is approved by the first week of June this entire window will be in the summer.

3.    Interviews. Each year from September 15 through October 15 the DOE will make an effort to schedule interviews for ATRs with principals in their district/borough and license areas. After October 15 the ATRs may be sent to interviews. “An ATR that declines or fails to report to an interview, upon written request of it, two or more times without good cause shall be treated as having voluntarily resigned his/her employment.”

Problematic:  This provision is unprecedented. There is no limit placed on the number of interviews or the length of time that the 2 failures to report must be committed. Additionally since the language is “declines or fails” the DOE need only document two missed interviews and the burden shifts to the teacher to convince an arbitrator (while receiving no pay since the teacher has been determined to have voluntarily resigned) that she had “good cause” for not showing up. There is no provision for “expedited arbitrations” and it appears the challenge to the DOE action of forcible resignation must go through the grievance procedure. If a teacher misses the first interview how will the DOE determine if it was with or without good cause. Glaringly omitted is any procedure for this determination. Under the provisions of our current contract a teacher may be brought up on 3020-a charges for an allegation of two missed interviews without good cause. Assuming the DOE would even try to dismiss a teacher for failure to attend an interview there is not an arbitrator on our panel that would even consider dismissal for the most egregious violation. Rather the UFT has joined with the DOE to effectively terminate a tenured teacher’s employment without the protections of 3020-a. The resulting grievance would not be decided using 3020-a or its history of protections. While Mulgrew might say “so be it” as he stated at the recent DA he and anyone who votes for this contract is basically saying you will not be protected.

This same provision applies to an ATR assignment only under the proposed contract you have only one chance to fail to appear for the assignment within 2 days or you will be considered to have voluntarily resigned. Again, the only way, under the language of the proposed contract to challenge the DOE’s determination that a teacher has failed, without good cause, to have appeared within 2 days is by way of the grievance procedure where the burden is on the teacher to prove good cause to sustain the grievance.

4.    Assignment of ATRs. Two classes of ATRs are created under the contract proposal. One class, those ATRs who have a disciplinary history where by a finding or stipulation resulted in a suspension of 30 days or more or a fine of $2,000 or more and those who do not have such disciplinary history. Those with the discipline history are not required to be assigned to a temporary position (in other words left to the weekly humiliation of traveling as a sub from school to school).

Problematic:  While the anti-teacher animus of creating this distinction is patently obvious it is clearly a disciplinary distinction which causes those ATRs with a disciplinary history to be further disciplined without any cause. The stigma of a past disciplinary record (teachers settle cases for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with guilt or innocence) carries forward. There is no time limit for the disciplinary history. Civil Service Law prevents allegations (except criminal ones) over 3 years to be used as the basis of discipline in a termination hearing yet a case settled or found more than 3 years ago can put you in this class. This sends a message to the arbitrators that you are to be treated differently should you have a history.

It is no secret that many arbitrations end in some level of finding even where teachers are have been found to be innocent of the major charge. Arbitrators are political beings and are sensitive to these distinctions.

5.    Principal removal of ATR after assignment. Under the proposed contract a principal (not the teacher) has the complete discretion to return a teacher to the ATR pool. If the return is based on “problematic behavior,” defined as “behavior that is inconsistent with the expectations established for professionals working in school.” An ATR accused in two writings within two years of this “problematic behavior” may be accused of a “pattern of problematic behavior” which can become the basis of an “expedited 3020-a hearing” in which a hearing must be completed in one day (half day to each side) within 20 days that the teacher requests a hearing. The decision must be made within 15 days of the hearing date.

Problematic:  Under our present contract there is a provision for time and attendance expedited hearings under 3020-a. These expedited hearings may not result in termination and while they were problematic on their own the issues involved (as far as the charges were concerned) were clear; you were either at work or not. The explanations were generally unconvincing to Marty Scheinman (an arbitrator selected by the UFT for these expedited hearing) but as long as teachers knew they weren’t going to be terminated they reluctantly accepted either the agreement or decision.

The proposed contract goes over broad. What is considered problematic is itself problematic. After I researched the term problematic behavior in the case law I found references to special education students who brought IDEA cases against the DOE for failing to provide needed services. These students’ behavior was termed problematic. For a teacher I could find no case involving problematic behavior so the arbitrators are left to discern this provision without our rich history of 3020-a hearings as precedent or guidance. While the burden still rests on the DOE (it is, after all a 3020-a hearing) the expedited nature of the proceeding might and probably hurt an accused teacher. There are no time limits for the DOE to provide charges or serve the written statements of problematic behavior. Under the language of the proposal there is no clear right to grieve the first (or second, for that matter) written notice of problematic behavior. Clearly, by definition, ATRs will have no relationship with the school they have been determined to be problematic yet they (and their representatives) will be put on a crash course to prepare for the hearing which might end in the ATRs termination. While Mulgrew cited the phrase “justice delayed is justice denied” as an argument for the diminution of our 3020-a rights the fact is there is no justice in ramming through a hearing that the accused has no time or ability to defend. This is class Star Chamber procedure.

The acceptance of this procedure as a perceived benefit signals our union’s position in future contracts where it appears all teachers will “enjoy” the benefit of expedited and ill-defined termination proceedings.

This proposal is anathema to the good order of the teaching profession and must be completely understood before it is blindly accepted.

Portelos Verdict - Despite Enormous DOE Assault and Expense....

Respondent’s admissions, conduct, demeanor and demonstrated commitment to education persuade me that, if given the chance, he can resume his career as a highly effective educator. Finally, the record is replete with evidence of Respondent’s exceptional teaching and abilities from the administration, colleagues, parents and students. After two years of reassignment, it is important that Respondent be returned to the classroom. ... Hearing Officer

We are gratified to report that Francesco Portelos has received his verdict and is still standing. Few would have predicted he would survive a massive assault by DOE Legal, which spent enormous sums to try to get him fired and walks away with a fine - which by the way is still outrageous. But I do get that the hearing officer had to give the DOE something if she wants to continue working. Given their zeal to terminate him, she still may be in danger -- and I will say, all of us found her to very fair and run an excellent ship over 23 days of hearings. I attended 12 days of the hearings and other MOREista retirees were there more often than I. I have 75 pages of notes but I guess they are no longer important.

Now we must help him fight to make sure the DOE follows the orders of the hearing officer and puts him back in his old school and not push him into the ATR pool where we now know that the new contract makes him extremely vulnerable with a big target on his back.

Here is his post:

New post on Educator Fights Back

DOE vs Portelos Termination Verdict Is In 826 Days After They Took Aim to Fire. by Francesco Portelos

I want to say that I write this with overwhelming glee. I want to say that I write this while in a state of euphoria and with a Kool-Aid smile, but unfortunately I cannot.

Read more of this post

Julie Cavanagh Video at MORE Press Conf and at WNYC: Here's Why NYC Teachers Should Reject Labor Contract

Union members have been without a contract for more than five years. We, along with the communities we serve, have faced a tidal wave of attacks on our neighborhood schools. A new contract has the power to right these wrongs....Many teachers I know would have happily conceded some financial compensation in favor of a greater improvement to teaching and learning conditions. Given this contract extends beyond the next mayoral election, it wrongly surrendered a great opportunity for meaningful improvement... Julie Cavanagh, MORE

While Julie takes on the financial issue, she also tackles the other issues that are not being talked about in this article published on the WNYC web site.

But first watch this video of Julie at the MORE press conference after the DA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOgFQ28xBgg&list=UU9iVb99ewF1omA6LbPUWEOg&feature=share




http://www.wnyc.org/story/opinion-wait-fair-contract-isnt-over/

Opinion: Here's Why NYC Teachers Should Reject Labor Contract

Thursday, May 08, 2014

By Julie Cavanagh

(Stephen Nessen/WNYC) 

 

The proposed new contract for New York City public school teachers highlights the current mayor's commitment to collaboration and communication between the United Federation of Teachers and the city after years of deteriorating learning and working conditions.
It includes some steps forward in rebuilding respect for educators, including parents more and improving conditions for students and teachers. But I have serious concerns about several aspects of this proposal.

For example, the proposed contract would divide educators into several tiers. Once we destroy union solidarity, we destroy our union. Career ladders are nothing more than a merit pay scheme with a different name. Teacher leadership is critical to the success of schools but dividing teachers by salary is not a way to achieve this goal.

Due process, job security, and fair evaluations for all educators are the foundations of any teacher’s union contract. There cannot be two sets of rules for educators. Those who were excessed through no fault of their own and were placed in the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) pool should not be held to a different standard than their fellow union members.

I also hoped this contract would address pay parity. Occupational and physical therapists, who are essential to the success of the children we serve, make considerably less than their educator colleagues. Paraprofessionals also deserve consideration in this contract, as they are underpaid for the important and challenging work they do.

While I commend the effort to address the needs in hard-to-staff schools, I believe a different path should be taken. Wraparound services, reduced class size, additional nurses, librarians, social workers, counselors, healthy food initiatives, after-school and weekend academic programs, and extracurricular activities are all proven formulas for success, not $5,000 bonus pay. Simply, I feel this money would have been better spent on direct services to children.

I also commend the additional time for educators to work in teacher teams, engage in meaningful professional development, and complete the monumental tasks that we frankly do not have the time to complete. However, I am concerned that the change leaves our children behind, because, with the information I have seen thus far, there will be no efforts to replace targeted intervention for students.

UFT members are dedicated professionals and although we didn’t become educators for the money we do have families to raise and financial obligations to meet. I am a teacher, a wife, a mother, and a New Yorker; I want to live where I work and provide my son with every opportunity, including doing my part to improve our schools and society for him and all children and their families.

This proposed contract would have members accept raises, worth less than 2 percent each year between 2009 and 2018. This does not keep up with the rate of inflation. Salaries around the country have fallen behind, which has caused terrible income inequality for many families of the children we serve. Every working man and woman deserves a living wage and fair annual cost of living increases. If our union does not take this stand, who will?

If we accept this deal, other union members may be forced to accept similar bad contracts. Politicians now have the green light to refuse to negotiate in good faith and force pay freezes for workers, deferred raises and a contract below the rate of inflation.

Union members have been without a contract for more than five years. We, along with the communities we serve, have faced a tidal wave of attacks on our neighborhood schools. A new contract has the power to right these wrongs. I believe the path to real change must be traveled together. Only through the active involvement of our members, parents, and with respect for all students can we achieve the promise of public education.

Many teachers I know would have happily conceded some financial compensation in favor of a greater improvement to teaching and learning conditions. Given this contract extends beyond the next mayoral election, it wrongly surrendered a great opportunity for meaningful improvement.

 Julie Cavanagh 

• Julie Cavanagh is a special education teacher at P.S. 15 Patrick F. Daly in Red Hook, Brooklyn. She is also an active member of the MORE caucus, a group of public school educators.
    
  
  Below is the longer version published on the MORE site.
  

  The Wait Isn’t Over

  by morecaucusnyc
  
  By Julie Cavanagh
  Teacher/Chapter-leader P.S. 15k
  A shortened version of this was published at WNYC/NPR Schoolbook 

Elfrank-Dana Slams Mulgrew on DA

Dear President Mulgrew,

I was surprised by your insinuation that I am against people's right to vote when I objected to retirees voting last night. 

Are you going to let me vote for my District Rep instead of appointing her/him?
Are you going require high school VP to be elected only by high school members instead of having their votes disenfranchised?
Are you going to be concerned that you are elected mostly by retirees, as member voter participation is barely 20 percent at election time? 

If the answer to these questions remains NO, you are sadly, smugly self-righteous.

John Elfran-Dana, CL Murry Bergtraum HS

And here are some more comments from John:

Unity Dominated DA Rubber Stamps Surrender

As expected, the recipients of patronage jobs at the UFT in exchange for their vows of silence and obedience (a prerequisite for membership in Unity caucus) voted for this lousy contract proposal.

James Eterno, Chapter Leader from Jamaica High School, makes a monkey out of Mulgrew showing him he was out of order by not allowing for alternating pro/con speakers in debate and that the time limit was for the question period. The parliamentarian even had to approach the dais and correct President Mulgrew. 

Furthermore, Eterno challenges Mulgrew's assertion that there's "no money" out there to get us the raises now. Eterno cites reports in the press of city budget surpluses that now and in the future. Presently over a billion dollars. That the money can be moved around to get the teachers the dignity other unions got with raises immediately. Mulgrew escaped by ruling him out of order. It's the old adage - "Never argue with the guy who controls the microphone." To read on go to www.MoreCaucusNYC.org 

Mulgrew did had a flash of religion when he said my objection to letting retirees vote on the contract (which for the most part does not affect them) was an affront to voting rights. I say religion because this is the same UFT President who won't let Chapter Leaders vote for their own District Reps. This is the same UFT President that allows your vote for High School Vice President as a high school teacher to be disenfranchised by allowing retirees and elementary and middle school members to also vote for VP, and visa versa (guaranteeing via this bogus "at large" VP a Unity caucus/retiree majority in each election). This is the same UFT President who thinks there's no problem with less than 20 percent of the membership voting in union elections. Hence, my surprise about his smug self-righteousness surrounding voting rights.

 

Fear and Loathing at the UFT Delegate Assembly Contract Vote As Mulgrew Filibusters

Mulgrew purposely shut down the debate with Julie Cavanagh, his opponent in the UFT elections last year, waiting at the microphone to speak. Mulgrew will never let Julie get up in front of a DA -- look for them to call a fire drill if she ever manages to get the mic.

Who would think that Mulgrew could turn the UFT into a more undemocratic institution than Randi Weingarten? Give me the days of Shanker and Feldman who at least followed basic rules of order. Lesson to people opposing Unity: Don't expect to be able to use the floor at a DA to make any points -- most of your time will be spent fighting for time.


Even I, the ultimate cynic, expected there to be a debate of sorts. The fact that Mulgrew purposely chewed up almost all the time, then called on a Unity Caucus hack to speak and followed with another -- until James Eterno temporarily put a stop to the farce -- means they know their arguments in favor of the contract can't stand up to scrutiny. I mean, how do you jive the DA vote with so many reports coming in from schools where almost everyone is saying NO? Not just from schools where MORE has activists. People at the DA who I didn't know - I was handing out VOTE NO leaflets -- told me their schools were opposed.

Of course this is before the UFT sends out its horde of people -- working on our dime -- to sell the contract with all sorts of distracting and specious arguments. Too bad the number of schools with a strong voice countering the Unity spin are a minority -- how much a minority will influence the final outcome.

This comment from JP at facebook:

Would have loved to have a chance to hear different perspectives; however at today's Delegate Assembly, the vote was pushed through to send the contract to a member wide vote. Four were allowed to speak for and two against before our union leader stopped the debate and went to a vote. The big scare tactic to rush to a vote was the claim that if we don't do this today, we'll be placed at the back of the line while the other 150 unions get negotiated with. By then, we may not get what we have right now. As a union of professionals, is this how we operate? Rushed and without consideration to the multitude of perspectives, questions and to discuss, this is not professionalism. S,o here's our chance before the member wide vote

Join

Vote No UFT Contract Organizing Meeting

Saturday at 12:00pm

Ya Ya Network - 224 W. 29th St., 14th floor

MORE held a post DA press conferences outside the Hilton -- I will put up some video -- and issued a press release - which I will put up with the video -- and will lead a campaign against starting with a meeting this Saturday beginning at noon. All invited who want to give us a shot at winning this vote -- or at the very least, turning this into a referendum on the Mulgrew leadership.

I'll be posting stuff through the day so don't get worn out.

Our pal Urban Ed was at the meeting and has a report:

Urban Ed

How Did Mulgrew Get a Such a Sizable Majority At the DA on Wednesday? - He talked! He talked so long that people who don't usually go to Delegate Assemblies (many of whom feel out of place just being at one) were afraid they'd ...

And here is the first part of James' report on the ICE blog:

MULGREW MANGLES DEMOCRACY BEYOND RECOGNITION AT DA AS CONTRACT IS SENT TO MEMBERSHIP

It was a very sad day indeed in the history of democracy at the May Delegate Assembly.  The meeting was moved to the NY Hilton.  I am going to dispense with my usual lengthy summary of what President Mulgrew said because you've already seen most of it in the UFT propaganda literature or you will hear it when union representatives come to your schools.

Mulgrew made the case for the contract for over an hour and then doubled the question period to half an hour to speak some more.  He finally allowed for debate on the contract after 6:00 pm when there is an automatic adjournment at 6:15 p.m. His basic argument is that the city has no money for raises because former Mayor Bloomberg depleted the labor reserve. The one sided discussion was worse than even the usual DA mangling of democracy.  It was a complete sham.

After Mulgrew finally finished talking, one Unity person (majority caucus of the UFT which does not allow dissent) spoke in favor of sending the contract to the membership for ratification and then Mulgrew pointed to a second Unity member and that is when I sprung forward and called for a point of order.  As everyone who regularly reads this blog knows, debate is supposed to alternate between speakers for and against every topic according to Robert's Rules.  Since there was a speaker for the contract, there should be one against.  The Unity speaker was willing to yield the floor so Mulgrew gave it to me.

I had a thorough speech ready (see below) where I was about to go point for point to refute much of what Mulgrew said.  I started right out on the economics. 

"Up until two months ago at the DA, Mulgrew was telling us that the city has money but they always say they are broke.  I keep reading in the papers that the city surplus is growing."

(Mulgrew in February:
“We look at the city’s fiscal numbers all the time; it is clear to us that there is money out there. We need our teachers to be paid at least at the level of the school districts around us, which we are not.”)

I continued: "The city is not in bad shape financially so why are we settling for so little.  If we take out the 4% + 4% for the first two years that just equals the last pattern (and we won't see until between 2015 and 2020), the pattern we set for the rest of municipal labor is 10% total over 7 years."  That is the worst pattern in municipal labor history (at least as long as I have been around)."  At this point, Mulgrew stopped me and said I was wrong.  I responded that according to Robert's Rules when I have the floor, he has no right to interrupt me. I also told him that I have an interpretation of what's in the agreement and so does he and that doesn't make me wrong.

Someone then called a point of order and said that during the question period we agreed that people would only get 30 seconds to ask a question so I was only entitled to the floor for 30 seconds and my time was up.  Mulgrew said I could make one more point and I responded by telling him that the 30 second rule was for the question period.  I also stated that I sat and listened to him politely for an hour motivating the contract and now it was my turn.  He claimed that was my one point and time was up.  I then proceeded to say that I wished I was being recorded (earlier he said UFT policy is no recording) because the entire membership should be permitted to see how he treats people who are dissidents.  There was fairly loud applause as I walked away. 

Maybe I should have stayed and further held my ground but I felt I blew away his no money argument and other people could handle some of the other issues as well or better than I could.

Unfortunately, they never had the chance.  The opposition's next speaker took his 30 seconds to point out how Mulgrew was wrong on his 30 second rule as it pertained to the question period.  We had one other Delegate who had the chance to speak.

Mulgrew then stopped the debate at exactly 6:15 p.m. and called for the vote.  The overwhelming Unity majority obeyed their caucus obligation and supported the contract.

Time allotted for contract discussion:

• Pro contract side talked for well over an hour. 

• The opposition was given about 3 minutes of which half of the time was spent trying to keep the floor and tell the president he was out of order.  Would you call that a fair debate?

I have written out the points I wanted to make and will instead make them here.  Below that is a statement on health care.  We don't have to make up anything about the contract.  It is bad enough to fall on its own.

Read the rest of James' report.

Vera Pavone on the UFT Contract

The power of a union derives from the power of its membership acting together. But also, its ability to get the support of a wider part of the community.

So, the main job of a union is to build solidarity among its membership and with its natural allies. In the case of a teachers’ union the natural allies are parents, community, students, other unions and workers, and other teacher unions throughout the state, country, etc. 

Each stance that the union takes must be measured against the effect it has on building unity. Seen from this vantage point the proposed contract offers up a number of red flags:

1. The vulnerability of ATRs: Although they mostly play down the vast problem of unfair, incompetent, corrupt and often insanely vindictive principals and supervisors (except when they were arguing for the “objective” VAM to rate teachers), our union leaders along with DoE and city officials are surely aware of the problem that this poses for ATRs sent to these schools. Two such principals can end the teaching career of any ATR, ¾ of whom were excessed from closing schools or schools that lost student population. With the practice of sending ATRs from school to school, almost every one of them will end up in those schools with a lot of staff turnover. In addition, in selling out the ATRs, this puts the UFT leaders in the camp of those who say that ATRs who aren’t wanted by principals are incompetent teachers.

2. The extra pay scheme for so-called expertise, which only serves to create divisions among staff: This is especially dangerous in the present context of top-down unworkable educational mandates, widespread favoritism and other types of corruption, which unfortunately may the norm. Good teaching practices are best developed and spread in a collaborative way. For the union to sign on to a competitive winner and loser approach to rewarding individual teachers is a further blow to collegiality and solidarity.

3. The less than cost-of-living wage increases that have ramifications for all other municipal employees.

4. Nothing about class size and increased services for children, particularly crucial to those teachers (a majority of classroom teachers) who are working with children who are have needs that can only be met in small classes and with extra supportive staff. Nothing that addresses school closings and using test scores to punish students and teachers.

5. We have seen how the DoE, mayor, and union leaders have been so far unable/unwilling to take on the State in standing up against the high stakes testing/common core mandates, and the usurpation of funding and property by charter school businesses and private contractors. Our union contract should have an added agreement in which the DoE, mayor, and union work together along with other municipalities and school districts throughout the state to end the current policy of siphoning education money into private hands, and redirect all government education funds back into public education.

Vera is a retired school secretary and a founding member of ICE.