UFT Charter School Disaster Will Continue to Undermine the Battle for Public Education

This disaster will echo for years to come. They handed the charter lobby the A-bomb. I have constantly called on the union to close down that school. You know what a UFT employee told me a few months ago -- "That was Randi's mistake." What crap. I ask every one who knows someone in Unity to hold them accountable for their support for this instead of saying, "Oh, Randi is old news. Mulgrew is different."

And while the children will be going to the better performing district 19 schools now, what of the teachers? Do they become ATRs like teachers at other closing schools if they can't get a job on the open market? Or will the UFT give them favorable treatment and work behind the scenes to get them placed, so unlike their turning their backs on the entire ATR community? This one bears watching.

UFT/Unity Caucus members should walk around with bags over their heads.

The UFT charter experiment was a big success - for the charter school lobby and their co-locations helped undermine the public schools just as any charter has done. Just the very idea of a charter was wrong but to actually not go find a building not in a public school made this a double disaster.

The school’s dismal experience neatly contradicts much of the union’s overheated rhetoric about the supposed ills and evils of charter schools... Errol Lewis

Hell yes. Just how much does it contradict the rhetoric? Let us count the ways.

That’s a far cry from the promises made in 2005 by the UFT’s then-president, Randi Weingarten. “Our charter schools will be leaders in scholastic innovation and the perfect environment for the UFT to demonstrate that its educational priorities work,” Weingarten said in a statement announcing a $1 million grant from the Broad Foundation to help launch the school.

Wait, let me get this straight. The leading charter proponent in the world - the BROAD FOUNDATION -- knowing the outcomes of the union experiment will help his cause, brilliantly invests a pittance for him to undermine the union position for all time.

We posted about the charter school over the weekend (UFT Closes Charter: UFT Charter Created Wrecked Co...) 

Errol Lewis in the Daily News has an interesting piece (Why the UFT’s charter school flunked) pointing to just how much more of a disaster this will continue to turn out to be.

The school’s dismal experience neatly contradicts much of the union’s overheated rhetoric about the supposed ills and evils of charter schools. The announcement came on Friday afternoon — a time that savvy political players often choose to dump bad news, in hopes that the focus of news organizations and the public might drift away over the weekend. 

One of the questions I asked Aminda Gentile at the UFT charter info event over a decade ago was whether they would offer a different, progressive curriculum instead of playing the test score game and her answer was that given the evaluation rules they must go along -- they should have walked away right there -- after all -- my original pro-charter idea in the late 90s was based on offering a rich learning environment free of the testing culture. Once I realized that that concept would not work within the context of our schools I gave up the idea. So when the UFT failure is measured by test scores alone but still ....

Start with the 670 children cast adrift by the closure. Most will be reassigned to other schools in District 19, some after spending years in a school consistently rated in the bottom ranks of academic performance citywide.
In 2013, only 4% of the school’s eighth-graders ranked as proficient on math exams - the third worst performance of any charter school — compared with 29.6% for district schools citywide, according to the New York City Charter School Center. In English, the school came in dead last among city charters, with only 3% of the kids ranked as proficient.
While students in the school’s upper grades have done much better, the lower grades had worse numbers than its home District 19.

WTF - they didn't even do better than District 19, one of the poorest in the city. And then there is this:

The poor performance can’t be blamed on a high percentage of special-education or English Language Learner students. As the Daily News reported in 2010, only 9% of the school’s students were in special education (compared with 13% for District 19) and only 1% were English Language Learners (compared with 14% for the district).

You mean they were pulling an Eva Moskowitz all along?

And then this:

Staff and management clashed repeatedly over everything from a scarcity of school supplies to a shocking finding that corporal punishment had been used 10 times.

Actually, only 10 times in 10 years compared to who know what goes on in most charters. But still....

Here is another damaging point that undermines the union positions on so many other issues:

The UFT’s swipe at the Bloomberg administration for promoting inexperienced school leaders finds an echo in the UFT’s under-prepared, hand-picked principals.
Weingarten’s first choice to lead the elementary school was a union staffer who had never run a school before; she resigned within three years. Ditto for an upper school principal who also had never run a school (and who also resigned after three years).
Ultimately, the school had five principals in seven years, and the chaos helped doom the institution.
“When you have leaders coming in and out, they’re not able to really get their vision across. It certainly impacted our school,” is how the situation was described to the education website Chalkbeat by Sheila Evans-Tranumn, an ex-education official hired to oversee the charter.

We do think that Michelle Bodden did stabilize the elementary school, but there was the disaster of the middle school which was moved out of Gershwin MS and into another building. (I have to find those video tapes I have of those hearings.)

 the debacle should be studied closely, and remembered the next time union officials denigrate the contributions of charter schools. All of this is worth keeping in mind as the union gears up its perennial attacks on charter schools as part of some sinister scheme to undermine public education. Many of the union’s frequently-used attacks on charters look different when applied to their own experiment. There were no “hedge fund billionaires” who did the damage here. Nor was it hard-driving educational pioneers of rival charter schools who mismanaged the UFT’s school.

Billionaire Eli Broad did plenty of damage with his investment.

NY State Ed Dept Gives Permission to de Blasio/Farina to Close Schools for a Rally if 180 Days is Met

---- but they will never have the guts to do it.
Closing the some schools or taking a massive infusion of schools on a field trip for tomorrow's March 4 rally day has been a theme of mine since Eva announced she was closing schools and forcing the teachers - at our expense - to go up to Albany. You see, the argument that private money is covering the costs is specious. They may  pay for the buses and other incidentals. But the teacher salaries are paid by us and this is theft of service.

Now if only someone - like the UFT - had the balls to sue them on those grounds.

NYSUT LETTER ON SUCCESS RALLY—Capital’s Jessica Bakeman: “In a letter to state leaders, New York State United Teachers questioned Success Academy's plan to close its 32 schools on Wednesday, when students, parents and advocates will instead attend a rally in Albany. ‘If schools boards and superintendents in the state's nearly 700 school districts also wish to close en masse for a day and transport thousands of their students, parents and staff to Albany to lobby for additional state funding, would that be permissible?’ the union wrote in the letter to Cuomo, Board of Regents chancellor Merryl Tisch and acting education commissioner Elizabeth Berlin.” http://bit.ly/1F3i92M

—Later, education department spokesman Dennis Tompkins responded: “State law requires schools, including charter schools, to be in session for not less than 180 days a year,” he said in a statement. “As long as that requirement is met, local school officials, including both those in school districts and charter schools, have discretion to determine the days in which schools are in session.”

And then there is this from Perdido:

Cuomo Spokesman: The More You Protest, The Worse It Will Get For You

Former Chapter Leader Balks at UFT Plans

I will not participate in this sham. It is a sham because our union---the one we pay more than $100 per month to--- is fighting to restore budget cuts instead of fighting this bullshit eval system (current or proposed).... The union leadership is failing us miserably and I will not participate in a dog and pony show so the UFT can pretend it's doing something that is meaningful for us.....   Former Unity Caucus chapter leader

Many are jumping on board the UFT program because the threat from the Cuomo assault looks so real. Whenever it's over -- win, lose or draw, the UFT top-down undemocratic one-party system continues. One teacher is not buying it.

My chapter leader sent us an email informing us of the UFT's goal to get all schools involved in individual school rallies. She let us know that she will not participate but wanted to keep us informed and left it up to us if someone else wanted to organize it. I responded and replied to all members she emailed.

My response: I've marched. I've rallied. I've handed out flyers. I've volunteered to make phone calls for Election Day. But I will not participate in this sham. It is a sham because our union---the one we pay more than $100 per month to--- is fighting to restore budget cuts instead of fighting this bullshit eval system (current or proposed). Instead of collecting anecdotal evidence on the factors beyond your control that affect student progress, and hiring the best legal team in NY to file suit, Mulgrew et al are fighting for money for the schools. Money for what? Money for all those outside consultants to evaluate you? Money for the software firms to collect our data dumps? Do you really think any increase in school funds will benefit you or your class in any meaningful way? Every new teacher is mandated to pay the same amount of union dues as the rest of us so Mulgrew doesn't care if we all get fired and are replaced year after year---the union coffers will still be full of the money taken from teachers. The union leadership is failing us miserably and I will not participate in a dog and pony show so the UFT can pretend it's doing something that is meaningful for us. It would be more powerful for every teacher to let their elected officials know that if they back Cuomo on anything he wants---even if it's erecting a statue in a park---they will not have your vote next election cycle. It is also important to let NYSUT president Karen Magee know that Mulgrew does not speak for you. The UFT controls NYSUT. We are the largest local in NYSUT so Mulgrew is calling the shots for Magee. Until Mulgrew takes our concerns seriously, you shouldn't do a damn thing he asks of you.

Two MORE's plus Carol Burris - and others on Panel as Brooklyn Parents and Teachers Lead Opt Out, Weds at PS 261K

What can teachers do in their schools to starve the testing beast that gives the Cuomo- deform crowd their ammo? The UFT won't do it because they are in favor of PARCC and testing even if it ends up screwing the members, so it is up to the rank and file to infiltrate info into their schools and into the hands of parents (but always be cautious.)

This is a big week for pushing the opt-out movement. Michael Elliot released a video (The Other PARCC - Parents Advocating Refusal on High-Stakes Testing) on refusing the PARCC yesterday in New Jersey, where the tests were to begin today but may have been delayed by the snow.

MORE's partner in many endeavors, Change the Stakes, created NYC-specific refusal letters this year. Attached are Word versions in English and Spanish. Here are the links:

https://changethestakes.wordpress.com/testing-info/how-to-opt-out-of-state-standardized-tests/sample-opt-out-letter/

https://changethestakes.wordpress.com/testing-info/how-to-opt-out-of-state-standardized-tests/sample-opt-out-letter-spanish/

And on Weds there is a forum at PS 261K where MORE's Marissa Torres is chapter leader and MORE's Sam Coleman and Brian Jones are on the panel. (I can't resist - where are the other so-called UFT caucuses in terms of organizing, agitating, etc other than being key-board warriors? - By the way -- 45 teachers and parents showed up to the MORE meeting on Saturday.)

Janine Sopp posted this link: NYS Testing info presentation 2_3_2015.pdf (This power point presentation is worth viewing and sharing. It helps explain the flawed and invalid nature of high stakes testing. Please share with you community and arm yourself with the answers to those who believe these tests do something worth the time, energy, chaos and money we are forces to endure.)
 Next time your UFT rep or Mulgrew comes around telling you how important testing is, refer to this.

And finally  - for now -- NYSAPE's versions of above for the state.

Hi All,

Attached is NYSAPE’s factsheet and sample refusal letter.  We are also finishing up a Fact vs. Myth document (longer than the factsheet) that I will share soon.  Below is information on Assemblyman James Tedisco’s bill on requiring schools to inform parents their right to refuse the 3-8 CC tests.

http://www.jimtedisco.com/tedisco_new_common_core_parental_refusal_act_to_inform_parents_of_their_rights

Tedisco: New “Common Core Parental Refusal Act” to Inform Parents of Their Rights

POSTED BY JIM TEDISCO 20PC ON FEBRUARY 25, 2015 · FLAG

Assemblyman introduces legislation to ensure schools notify parents they can refuse to have their children in grades 3-8 participate in controversial Common Core state standardized tests

Assemblyman Jim Tedisco (R,C,I-Glenville), who was the top vote getter in the Assembly on the Stop Common Core ballot line in 2014, today announced new legislation he is introducing, the “Common Core Parental Refusal Act” to require that school districts notify parents of their rights to refuse to have their children in grades 3-8 participate in the Common Core standardized tests.

Both parents and teachers have expressed concern over the over-testing of children in New York in regards to how the new Common Core standards are being applied along with the high stakes associated with the results of such tests. Chief among those complaints is that teachers are being forced to spend an inordinate amount of class time “teaching to the test” instead of engaging students in true learning.

In 2014 alone, parents of 60,000 students refused New York State Common Core tests.

Tedisco’s bill provides a notification for schools to send to parents informing them of their right to refuse to have their children take the Common Core tests along with a response form that parents can complete and return to the schools.  These notices can be sent via email, letter or home with children in their school bags.

The legislation protects school districts and individual schools from having state aid withheld or any other punitive measures by the state.  The bill protects teachers from being penalized due to a lack of student participation or performance on the exams.  It also ensures that students are not punished or rewarded for their participation or lack thereof in the exams and would set-aside alternate study activities for those who refuse the tests so they are not forced to “sit and stare” in the same room as their peers who are taking the tests.

            “We need to bring common sense to Common Core because New York is wasting a lot of time and money counting things that don’t count. Too much time and effort is being spent needlessly stressing children out to prepare for these Common Core standardized tests which are of questionable value instead of focusing on supporting teachers so they can do their job and teach children the truly important essentials. ” said Tedisco, a former public school special education teacher and guidance counselor.

            “Perhaps the best kept secret in state government is that parents have a right to refuse to have their children take the Common Core standardized tests if they desire without fear of reprisal against their kids, teachers or schools.  It’s long past time, that those who should have had a say in the implementation of Common Core at the onset in this representative democracy have their say now in defense of their parental rights as it relates to their children’s educational best interests,” said Tedisco.

Link to the bill:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/gq73m70d5k1216v/Assemblyman%20Jim%20Tedisco%20-%20Common%20Core%20Parental%20Refusal%20Act.pdf?dl=0

The (White) Face of Eva Moskowitz Success Charters

Clearly meant to recruit White middle class kids on the upper East side.

Let's bury the sham of claiming they are trying to reach poor kids.

The Other PARCC - Parents Advocating Refusal on High-Stakes Testing

A video with the voices of parents by Michael Elliot from nLightn Media and many leading groups critical of high stakes testing as sponsors, many from New Jersey. Starring:

The PARCC Testing begins tomorrow, and the children of New Jersey and all over the country begin struggling through these assessments. The question must be asked by parents everywhere, how long will it take and how much damage will be done, before this ill fated reform agenda is defeated. How long?
Please watch the film, comment and like and share... Lets make our voices, the voices of parents, teachers and children, heard.

https://vimeo.com/120619448



Refuse the PARCC from nLightn Media


Synopsis:
Parents gathered from many different communities in New Jersey to make a short film to voice their concerns and share their stories about the effects that the implementation of CCSS and the PARCC tests were having on their children, teachers, schools and lives.
Link
https://vimeo.com/120619448 unlocks at 5pm EST
Filmmaker: Michael Elliot editme55@me.com
Grassroots support: Montclair Cares About Schools (MCAS) montclaircaresaboutschools@gmail.com
Michael Elliot is a New York film editor who started working with MCAS some months ago on the idea of doing a refusal piece borne from the NJ anti-testing movement.
The film, “The Other PARCC: Parents Advocating Refusal on High Stakes Testing,” is the result.
In just a few short minutes, Michael manages to present the continuum of concerns that move parents to Refuse high stakes testing.
This film truly was a labor of love.
All of Michael’s time, film and use of equipment were donated by him.
Filming was done in an MCAS member’s basement, and MCAS members
reached out to find the people who appear in the film.
Those people, parents and students, gave their time and shared their stories out of a deep need to speak the truth from both suburban and urban perspectives, from diverse ethnicities, genders and ages.
The resulting film is beautiful, informative and moving.
It has grown outside of it’s Jersey roots and speaks such a shared language that national groups and bloggers are joining NJ groups and bloggers and are quickly coming together in a plan to release the film at 5pm Sunday 3/1/15, after our premiere.
About Michael Elliot
Michael currently works as a film editor for FluidNY in advertising with 25 years of experience in commercials, feature narrative and documentaries. He has made films for Change the Stakes and Parent Voices NY.
His work for Montclair Cares About Schools (MCAS) was done as a result of his experiences with his own children and test refusal, and his belief that Test Refusal is the strongest way for parents to push back against Corporate Education Reform, and needs a strong presence in social media content.
Working with a borrowed camera and a few lights, he tries to help make the voices of Parents, Teachers and Activists heard.
About Montclair Cares About Schools
MCAS was founded by parents and community members in May 2013. Since that time, the work of MCAS has inspired 36 other Cares About Schools Groups and counting.
MCAS is dedicated to maintaining strong, integrated, equitable and excellent public schools, where excellence is achieved through an education that engenders creative thinking, in-depth understanding, and the questioning, independent spirit necessary for democracy.
MCAS is concerned with a number of issues that significantly impact Montclair students, schools and taxpayers, including:
the dangerous and growing emphasis on standardized state tests
the narrowing of curriculum in the service of raising test scores
the need for genuine and robust community dialogue about our schools
the need for transparency about district spending and policies
racial disparities in enrollment in advanced academic courses and special education
the need for reasonable class sizes at all grade levels
MCAS works to encourage and provide a platform for community dialogue about research, trends, and best practices for strengthening and maintaining public schools. All children benefit from schools with rich curriculums, collaborative school environments that engender trust among educators and parents, and project-based learning that goes beyond the narrow scope of standardized tests.
MCAS runs a popular Facebook page, holds public forums and parent meetings, and speaks regularly at Board of Education meetings to encourage policies that will benefit Montclair students and schools.

New Action Tries to Rewrite History, Distorts Story on UFT Charter While Some Brag About "Working" With NA

The UFT charter school came up for a vote at the Executive Board during a time period between 2003 and 2004 when opposition caucus New Action was solidifying their alliance with the dominant Unity Caucus.  New Action's high school "opposition" representatives started going with the Unity party line on just about every topic. The exceptions were my close friend to this day Ed Beller and me however on the subject of the UFT starting a charter school, Ed was with the leadership. Therefore, I was alone so UFT President Randi Weingarten was poised to ridicule me. .... James Eterno

In response to my post on the historical context of the UFT charter and New Action's support for the charter, a prominent member of New Action posted this:

Norm claims that New Action supported the charter. He provides nothing in writing, since there was nothing. Rather, he refers to an anecdote of one vote by one individual, acting on his own. In fact, Scott overlooks years of New Action literature in opposition to charters, preferring his alternate "anecdote as history." This method of attack says more about Scott than about anything else.

I was at all meetings related to the UFT charter - the info meeting, the Ex Bd vote and the DA where Michael Fiorillo from ICE spoke and we handed out a leaflet I believe. James Eterno's memory corresponds to mine and contradicts the New Action fiction. He responded on the ICE blog with his personal account. DEMISE OF UFT CHARTER SCHOOL REMINDS ME OF MY OPPOSITION TO ITS FOUNDING.

James was still on the UFT Exec Bd as a high school rep on the New Action slate elected in 2001 but he and Ellen Fox had already been pushed out of New Action for not going along with the cowtowing to Randi.

James Eterno continues:

I recall vividly being called on after the usual Unity [AND NEW ACTION] sycophants praised the charter school. I spoke out against the UFT running a charter school because we would have difficulty publicly opposing the expansion of charter schools if the union was running one and money would be siphoned away from an already cash strapped public school system to charters.  Randi stopped me in mid-sentence that evening and argued that I was making an argument against private school vouchers and not charter schools but I stuck to my position.

I seem to remember Mike Shulman going over to the other New Action Executive Board members telling them Randi didn't want any opposition on this and to remain quiet. Luckily, he had no control over James.

More from James:

After our debate, I was the lone no vote. A UFT charter school was a no-win proposition.  If it succeeded, the press would see it as a victory for charter schools.  If it did not work out, it would be seen as union failure. That's what is occurring now. Being opposed to all charter schools on principle, not just some we don't like, is a position I am quite honored to have stood up for as a lone wolf at the UFT Executive Board. 

New Action claims to oppose charter. They have been on the Executive Board for almost a decade. Where are their efforts to raise the issue at the EB and the DA if they are opposed to charters? Where are they at the co-location hearings? Did they make a stand when the UFT/Unity leadership capitulated to Cuomo last year when he pushed through the charter support plan that undercut De Blasio? Show me one resolution or public protest they have raised.

Mike Schirtzer, who was in diapers when the UFT charter was on the agenda (he was a late bloomer) posted this response to the New Action whine:

Yes, all your support of Mulgrew, begging for ex bd seats, and all those resolutions really show commitment to fighting charters. I was at countless co-location/charter hearing, I must have missed New Action.

Now, here's the funniest thing. The leader of a new caucus is actually bragging about working together with New Action as a major way to distinguish the caucus from MORE (which refuses to work with New Action until it renounces its deal with Unity). As Mike has pointed out, Weingarten and Mulgrew were at the top of the New Action slate as their presidential candidate, as recently as 2 years ago and Mulgrew will head their ticket in the 2016 elections.

Working with New Action = endorsing Mulgrew, no matter what language is being used to cover this up.

Afterthought
My personal break with a guy to whom I gave supreme support came over his insistence that New Action must be worked with in contradiction to the entire history of that caucus over the past dozen years and MORE's established policy that it would only work with New Action when its deal with Unity ended. A constant barrage of emails to MORE steering over this issue that has continued to this day and a willingness to break up the opposition to Unity. The alliance with New Action and in essence Unity, is designed to make sure Unity controls 100% of the Exec Bd seats in next year's elections by keeping New Action on and MORE shut out. No matter what you hear, that is the bottom line.

UFT Closes Charter: UFT Charter Created Wrecked Co-Located Public Schools in its Wake

We won't even get into the millions of dollars from who knows where - our dues? -- the UFT spent to support the charter. Will ed deformer supremo Eli Broad ask for his million dollar contribution back?

From Day 1 members of ICE, many now with MORE (I included) took a strong stand against the UFT's opening a top-down run charter school (are they capable of anything else?) in 2005 while the UFT's house opposition, New Action, supported the charter. I remember attending an info meeting with Jeff Kaufman and James Eterno from ICE where we raised the problematical issues to a representative of the leadership while the New Action people sat on their hands. Michael Fiorillo made an eloquent statement at the Delegate Assembly as to why this move was not in our best interests.

To be perfectly fair, James Eterno was a New Action Ex Bd member and reminded me of this point:

I was on the Exec bd in 2003-2004 (last NAC year) and I was the lone no vote on the charter school. I remember my argument with Randi well. What a waste.

James would not fall into Mike Shulman's bullying NAC people to vote to stay in Randi's favor. I was at that Ex Bd meeting. Good for James -- one of the reasons he and Ellen Fox were pushed out of New Action. (I hope their new allies have fun defending their actions over the years.)

Every single member of Unity Caucus went along, including the Unity chapter leaders of schools that are getting decimated by charters. Don't forget this in the upcoming chapter elections.

Arthur Goldstein has a strong piece today: UFT Charter School--Another Spectacular Failure for Leadership, and I love his cartoon enough to steal it.

Chalkbeat, reporting on the decision to close the school:

The move, while not unexpected, is an embarrassing one for the union. When the school opened in 2005, then-UFT President Randi Weingarten said its success would demonstrate that unions could play a starring role in efforts to improve the school system and show that a union contract was not the “impediment to success” that education leaders like then-Chancellor Joel Klein portrayed it to be.

Of course they announced this on Friday and then slunk away without comment. Arthur gives them some credit for not creaming like some other charters. 

UFT leadership, to its credit, was not willing to play that game. 

Even if they didn't cream consciously, the very idea of placing a school in direct competition with a co-located public schools leads to creaming. They co-located into 2 public school buildings in District 19 (East NY in Brooklyn) with space given to them by their pal, Superintendent Kathy Kashin. One of those buildings was George Gershwin - MS 166 - the school I graduated from in 1959. Gershwin, due to the erosion of kids creamed by the UFT charter, was declared a failing school and is being closed. At a PEP meeting, parents, teachers and the principal who I interviewed on tape said the UFT charter played a role in their closing.

At that hearing, the UFT charters were being consolidated into another middle school and the chapter leader, PTA president and a number of parents and teachers were there to oppose the move into their building as a threat to their existence. (I have some of these comments on tape.) That was a Bloomberg PEP rubber stamping the UFT charter request. Backscratching 101.

And then there is the back story of Michelle Bodden, principal of the charter. Bodden, who many of us liked, was at one time the heir apparent to Weingarten and a UFT VP. Suddenly, she became principal of the school and Mulgrew replaced her as the heir. More backstory -- in 1998-9 I pushed the idea of TEACHER RUN charters with UFT support. Randi basically told me, "How can we trust teachers?" She put me on a committee headed by Bodden to explore the idea of a union charter. But it became clear to me this charter was not what I had in mind --- a top-down run by the union leadership, not by teachers -- and yes, Virginia, there is a difference. That was the turning point for me in terms of charters.

Arthur nails the political weakness of the UFT's support for co-location.

But just like they did when they failed to allocate enough money to pay recent retirees, they played a weak chess game. They failed to look ahead. They failed to see what they charter movement was all about. They assumed it was somehow idealistic rather than a direct assault on public schools. And in the end they were unable to compete with their utterly unscrupulous privatizing colleagues.
Not only that, but they weakened our potential as a force for truth. By supporting charters, they failed to anticipate what the charter movement was about. By actually indulging in co-location, they made it very difficult for us to argue against it. And by actually failing, they gave our opponents ammunition to make the false argument that union contracts are an impediment to student achievement.

 In fact I have evidence, which I will present early next week, that the UFT still support co-location when their interests are involved.

The UFT serves as the collective bargaining unit for 21 charter schools, including the University Prep Charter High School, where Weingarten, now the head of the American Federation of Teachers, is still a board member. But the vast majority of the UFT’s 110,000 members work in district schools, and many remain deeply critical of the sector. ....Chalkbeat

Yes, if these 21 schools need to co-locate, the UFT machine will run all over the interests of the public school, as they are doing at PS 157 in Brooklyn. More on this in a few days where we are helping the teachers and parents of PS 157 organize AGAINST the UFT's plans to infiltrate a charter into that school.

Some people may be celebrating the UFT's decision to close the charter.
------

See Capital Education report: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/02/8563129/uft-shuttering-lower-grades-its-charter-school

And a reader comments:

Randi turns everything she touches to shit!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/nyregion/new-york-city-teachers-union-is-closing-portion-of-its-brooklyn-charter-school.html?emc=edit_tnt_20150228&nlid=23691631&tntemail0=y&_r=0

What the UFT Should Blanket the Schools With But Won't: Three Steps to Refusing the PARCC Test:

Download this as a printable PDF to share at your school:
Three Steps to Refusing the PARCC Test

Three Steps to Refusing the PARCC Test:

• Make the decision. As a parent, it is your right to direct your child’s education.

• Submit your OPT OUT letter. See the Sample Opt Out letter below.

• During testing days, either send your child to school with alternative work, or keep them home. It’s a great time for students to pursue their own learning interests, visit museums or get caught up on some rest and relaxation.

Additional Resources

OPT OUT Guide - http://unitedoptout.com/state-by-state-opt-out-2/colorado/

PARCC FACT SHEET (The Colorado Department of Education): http://www.angelaengel.com/faq/

Sample Opt Out Letter

We are respectfully notifying _______(your child’s school) that __________(your child’s name) will not be participating in PARCC or CMAS testing. (She/He) has alternative work and is prepared to complete (his/her) studies in the library.

We fully trust ______ (student’s name) teachers and their assessment of our childs' educational progress and needs.

We support a meaningful education, one filled with passion, inquiry, research, discourse, higher-level thinking - all wonderful and essential elements of learning cultivated by the excellent teachers in _______(school district) - and those very conditions that High-stakes testing jeopardizes. When it comes to accountability, parents are the first line of defense and it is our job to advocate for our children, a quality education, and worthwhile assessments.

Signed,

PS - Please make this part of our child’s permanent file.

10 Reasons for Parents to OPT OUT of PARCC

Your child is not a guinea pig – PARCC tests are not proven reliable valid measures.

You value experiential collaborative learning – Standardized tests reinforce the lowest levels of thinking and learning.

You want more money for your child’s classroom and more time for instruction – Government mandated testing has created a 1.7 billion testing market and a monopoly for Pearson with zero return for taxpayers and zero benefits for students. By the time your child graduates from high-school they will have spent the equivalent of one full school year taking standardized tests.

You trust teachers – standardized tests are graded by temporary workers and have a long record of failures that incorrectly label students and create barriers to future opportunities.

You agree students should not be labeled at early stages in development – standardized tests are not developmentally appropriate, especially for young children. Students’ progress at different rates and have unique talents and abilities that fall outside of shaded bubble measurement tools.

You believe in an equitable education system – socioeconomic status has the highest correlation to test scores. Tying indicators of school or teacher quality to test scores incorrectly labels high-poverty schools as failing and unfairly rewards high-income schools reinforcing an unequal and increasingly divided education system.

You understand the meaning of accountability – An informed and engaged citizenry is designed to hold political representatives and government institutions accountable, not the other way around.

You recognize that parents have the right to direct their child’s education – Opting out is a means to leverage power and assert that a student’s learning should be for their own purposes.

You are committed to protecting your child’s privacy – student data is sold and shared without your knowledge or consent. Massive amounts of data and metadata are collected by these online tests; this data is currently not protected by privacy laws. Data will follow your child and be shared with third parties through federal, State and corporate agencies. The collection and unregulated distribution of the data has the potential to interfere in your child’s future opportunities for college, military and career.

You have had enough of testing and tracking – Instead of punishments and sanctions you support curriculum and assessment choices and real opportunities for students, teachers and families.

Read more.

Prof. Bruce Baker Points the Fickle Finger of "Failing" Schools Directly at Cuomo

Presumably, these are the very schools on which Angy Andy would like to impose death penalties – or so he has opined in the past.
The report identifies 17 districts in particular that are home to failing schools. The point of the report is to assert that the incompetent bureaucrats, high paid administrators and lazy teachers in these schools simply aren’t getting the job done and must be punished/relieved of their duties. Angry Andy has repeatedly vociferously asserted that he and his less rabid predecessors have poured obscene sums of funding into these districts for decades. Thus – it’s their fault – certainly not his, for why they stink!... Bruce Baker

Angry Andy’s Failing Schools & the Finger of Blame

Baker aims his arrow right at Cuomo:

I have addressed over and over again on this blog the plight of high need, specifically small city school districts under Governor Cuomo.

1. On how New York State crafted a low-ball estimate of what districts needed to achieve adequate outcomes and then still completely failed to fund it.
2. On how New York State maintains one of the least equitable state school finance systems in the nation.
3. On how New York State’s systemic, persistent underfunding of high need districts has led to significant increases of numbers of children attending school with excessively large class sizes.
4. On how New York State officials crafted a completely bogus, racially and economically disparate school classification scheme in order to justify intervening in the very schools they have most deprived over time.

Condemnation of DeB/Farina PEP as "Same Old Song" And Increasing Opposition to Mayoral Control

Yup. Making mayoral control permanent would guarantee

that the next mayor, whoever he or she may be, could push even harder to privatize our public schools, close them by the hundreds, and push NYC kids to corporate-run charters and outsource their education to tech vendors, testing and curriculum companies – and get whatever corrupt contracts they like approved, no matter what watchdogs warn or how parents, teachers and community residents feel. It would be playing right into the hand of the hedgefund/privatizers/ profiteers.... Leonie Haimson

There are 2 interesting blog posts:

Leonie Haimson on the PEP contract fiasco: Approval of the huge Computer Consultant Services contract -- what de Blasio said that day in Albany, and the failure of mayoral control
and Arthur  Goldstein at NYC Educator Why Does Bill de B. Want Mayoral Control?

Leonie is livid:

[The PEP] proved once and for all that that the contracting and accountability reforms that were supposed to improve mayoral control are NOT working.   Yet de Blasio argued in Albany yesterday that the State Legislature should make mayoral control permanent, leading Chalkbeat to say: the move towards mayoral control “illustrates a growing consensus about how the city’s schools should be governed.”  Really? 

“Before mayoral control, the city’s school system was balkanized,” de Blasio said. “School boards exerted great authority with little accountability and we saw far too many instances of mismanagement, waste and corruption…. [Making mayoral control permanent] would build predictability into the system, which is important for bringing about the deep, long-range reforms that are needed.”

 

Funny, as opposed to this “growing consensus” for mayoral control that Chalkbeat imagines, many key Democratic Party groups in Seattle have voted against giving their Mayor two out of seven appointees on their school board.  And Chuy Garcia, who is in a run-off against Rahm Emanuel for mayor of Chicago, supports eliminating mayoral control in that town and creating an elected school board – though Chicago has had one of the longest runs of mayoral control of any school district in the country.  I don’t know of any city that has adopted mayoral control since Washington DC adopted it in 2007.

Former PEP people's champion, Patrick Sullivan - and it is clear why de Blasio wouldn't reappoint him --  suffered through the debate:

I watched the contracts debate last night. It was painful. The DOE procurement people could and should have used the years since CCS was party to the fraud to manage them out. Instead DOE only increased their dependency on them and had the audacity to claim their more expensive bid was considered more attractive because of CCS's track record with us. They basically claimed that we were painted into a corner and had no choice but to suck it up and give them the contract. Three years to watch that paint dry. Thank God for Robert Powell. The rest of them were thoroughly disappointing. I turned it off after Robert made his stand and before I had to watch him get voted down alone. And thank God for Leonie. Without her, DOE would have gotten away with getting the contract approved without anyone the wiser. The ironic thing is that DOE is let the whole thing explode in the Post and Juan Gonzalez's column on the very day de Blasio is in Albany asking for permanent mayoral control, essentially handing the legislature exhibit A against the case for permanent mayoral control. I bet City Hall was happy about that. Where's David Cantor when you need him?

A parent commented:

Ironically, the Chancellor made a comment that night about how this is *not* the same PEP as the last administration, and everyone laughed. Sheep, all but one of them. So far, the only substantive difference I've seen is that they "delay" a vote for a month....then vote the way they were going to anyway.

Back to Leonie:

Fabulous comments from Miriam Farer Aristy, given on her behalf by [MORE Steering Comm Member] Mindy Rosier.

Miriam wrote:
I could not be here so a representative (Mindy Rosier) is speaking on behalf of CEC 6 myself and many outraged parents in Northern Manhattan. As our DOE struggles to regain trust, transparency and more funding from our Gov how can we approve such a proposal with Custom Computer Specialists when we know they have cheated our children before?

How can we continue to give them our business and excessive amounts of money when we know they did us wrong before. If you truly embrace the Chanecellors new pillar, and community engagement, you will listen to the people tonight. The bodies in this room are not as many as those on social media outrages at this company even being considered again. Again I urge you to vote against the proposal to give Custom Computer Specialists more of our money.

It would be the right thing to do and send a strong message about who the DOE is today, not who they were. By approving this you will prove all the naysayers right that nothing has changed and never will.

Not to mention you are giving fuel to the opposition to critique the DOE and rightfully so. Again do the right thing stop corrupt past practices, VOTE no for Custom Computer Specialists, no place for that in our and Carmen’s DOE.

Thanks you, Miriam Aristy-Farer, CEC 6 President representing 41 Washington Heights, Inwood and W. Harlem elementary and middle schools.

List of PEP appointees here: http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/leadership/PEP/members/default.htm

One of the Mayoral appointees is Norm Fruchter --- who ran the Annenberg ed operation here in NYC for years --- I never liked him and always saw him as a closet ed deformer; another is Roberto Carrion, son of a city agency head – which, according to Leonie, may conflict with at least the spirit of the conflict of interest laws which bars city employees from serving on the PEP.

Norm in The Wave: Oh, Sweet Suspensions, Wherefore Art Thou?

This week's column in the Rockaway beach weekly, The Wave.
http://www.rockawave.com/node/204715?pk_campaign=Newsletter

Oh, Sweet Suspensions, Wherefore Art Thou?

By Norm Scott

 
Norman Scott 

 “City planning significant changes to school discipline rules to cut down on suspending students,” proclaimed a headline in the Feb. 16 edition of The Daily News, resulting in yet another hail of attacks on the liberal policies of Mayor Bill de Blasio and schools Chancellor Carmen Farina for hastening the end of western civilization.

The critics just love those charter schools in the city which suspended students at almost three times the rate of the public schools during the 2011-12 school year, the last year for which public data is available. Eleven charter schools suspended more than 30 percent of their students according to Chalkbeat, the education blog. Given all that has been going on about race recently, it should be no surprise that discipline and suspension rates have also become hot racially tinged topics. The News reported, “Stats for the 2013-2014 school year show roughly 90 percent of 53,000 suspensions in city schools involved black or Hispanic kids.” On the other side, people raise the issue of whether these numbers represent racial bias.

Now, as a teacher, I was opposed to suspensions and harsh discipline, feeling that having to resort to them was an admission of failure on my part. That or an admission of failure to the administration. As an outspoken teacher, I never wanted to give my supervisors an edge on me by asking them for assistance. And if one of my kids got suspended, what do I do when he (most suspensions are boys) returned from a number of days out of school or my classroom? I preferred to deal with things on my own.

Things can get pretty ridiculous in this debate. An editorial slamming the policy stated, “Principals will now have to get written approval from Department of Education headquarters before suspending a kindergarten to-third-grade student, or a student in any grade who commits one of the most common infractions: insubordination.” I taught in elementary schools for 30 years and yes there was some bad behavior by kids in K-3 grades but suspend kids that age? A school can’t manage to figure out some alternative? If a child has serious emotional issues then they need help, not suspension. I never taught high school where some students may be more threatening if they engage in serious misbehavior and containing them in the school might be a problem. But there are answers for schools willing to explore alternatives to suspension. Restorative justice (RJ) programs where students must face and take responsibilities for their actions in front of a peer pressure group have been having enormous positive impacts on schools where discipline was an issue and have resulted in some remarkable transformations. Wary educators without direct knowledge of these programs fear they may be just a cover up for another failed onslaught in the blame the teacher game over the past 15 years.

My friend who teaches at a high school in Brooklyn was one such skeptic. Now he has the entire school involved in restorative justice programs.

He reports, “I visited a few schools, one a 300 student school that had 150 suspensions (some students suspended multiple times). They dropped to 63 suspensions after they initiated a new disciplinary program in 2012/13. Now in the second year of implementation they have had only 2 principal's suspensions.” These are hard facts pointing to the success of RJ programs. He told me about mediation programs where “two students, who engaged in a verbal or physical fight, meet in a room, sit across from each other, and each one has a student representative trained in meditation. Both students tell their side of the stories, the objective being to get both sides to understand the other, discuss calmly how they could have handled the situation differently and come to a compromise agreement on what will happen now. Most mediations end in the two students hugging and becoming friends.”
If a school with a rational administration – not always easy to find – wants a shot at solving the suspension issue, giving restorative justice a shot is the way to go.

Norm restores himself daily at his blog, ednotesonline.org.
 

Paul Krugman Goes KIP -- He Needs a Bit More Knowledge Than Just Blaming the Right WingNuts

 ...while agreeing with Krugman, many blamed the "right wing." I wish he'd come right out and lay the blame at neo-liberals we well as right-wingers. ... Susan Ohanian

Krugman basically says: It's poverty stupid. I've been intending to write about what bothered me about the Paul Krugman piece in Monday's NY Times - Knowledge Isn't Power.

I'm glad to see Susan Ohanian agrees. I take a harsher view of the Krugman piece, which gives cover to Obama and the Democrat ed deformers when he says: given the determination of one major party to move policy in exactly the opposite direction, advocating such an effort makes you sound partisan. Hence the desire to see the whole thing as an education problem instead....

Message to Paul: BOTH MAJOR PARTIES. Let's not pretend that Krugman is ignorant of that fact. My take is that a guy I usually admire is pandering and covering up for the Democrats - and I include the so-called left like Elizabeth Warren (who was shameful in her statements when Jia Lee testified in the Senate.) And that shakes the trust I have in Krugman.

Ohanian Comment: I posted the following comment at the website of this article.

The public would be better served if people on the New York Times Editorial Board would read Paul Krugman before writing editorials about NCLB and assorted education policy.

Comments must be approved by the New York Times before they "appear." This one was not approved.
That said, there were good comments. My quarrel with many is that, while agreeing with Krugman, many blamed the "right wing." I wish he'd come right out and lay the blame at neo-liberals we well as right-wingers. 

Here is the complete Krugman piece:

Regular readers know that I sometimes mock "very serious people"-- politicians and pundits who solemnly repeat conventional wisdom that sounds tough-minded and realistic. The trouble is that sounding serious and being serious are by no means the same thing, and some of those seemingly tough-minded positions are actually ways to dodge the truly hard issues.
The prime example of recent years was, of course, Bowles-Simpsonism -- the diversion of elite discourse away from the ongoing tragedy of high unemployment and into the supposedly crucial issue of how, exactly, we will pay for social insurance programs a couple of decades from now. That particular obsession, I’m happy to say, seems to be on the wane. But my sense is that there’s a new form of issue-dodging packaged as seriousness on the rise. This time, the evasion involves trying to divert our national discourse about inequality into a discussion of alleged problems with education.
And the reason this is an evasion is that whatever serious people may want to believe, soaring inequality isn't about education; it's about power.
Just to be clear: I'm in favor of better education. Education is a friend of mine. And it should be available and affordable for all. But what I keep seeing is people insisting that educational failings are at the root of still-weak job creation, stagnating wages and rising inequality. This sounds serious and thoughtful. But it's actually a view very much at odds with the evidence, not to mention a way to hide from the real, unavoidably partisan debate.
The education-centric story of our problems runs like this: We live in a period of unprecedented technological change, and too many American workers lack the skills to cope with that change. This "skills gap" is holding back growth, because businesses can’t find the workers they need. It also feeds inequality, as wages soar for workers with the right skills but stagnate or decline for the less educated. So what we need is more and better education.
My guess is that this sounds familiar -- it's what you hear from the talking heads on Sunday morning TV, in opinion articles from business leaders like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, in "framing papers" from the Brookings Institution’s centrist Hamilton Project. It's repeated so widely that many people probably assume it's unquestionably true. But it isn't.
For one thing, is the pace of technological change really that fast? "We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters," the venture capitalist Peter Thiel has snarked. Productivity growth, which surged briefly after 1995, seems to have slowed sharply.
Furthermore, there's no evidence that a skills gap is holding back employment. After all, if businesses were desperate for workers with certain skills, they would presumably be offering premium wages to attract such workers. So where are these fortunate professions? You can find some examples here and there. Interestingly, some of the biggest recent wage gains are for skilled manual labor -- sewing machine operators, boilermakers -- as some manufacturing production moves back to America. But the notion that highly skilled workers are generally in demand is just false.
Finally, while the education/inequality story may once have seemed plausible, it hasn't tracked reality for a long time. "The wages of the highest-skilled and highest-paid individuals have continued to increase steadily," the Hamilton Project says. Actually, the inflation-adjusted earnings of highly educated Americans have gone nowhere since the late 1990s.
So what is really going on? Corporate profits have soared as a share of national income, but there is no sign of a rise in the rate of return on investment. How is that possible? Well, it's what you would expect if rising profits reflect monopoly power rather than returns to capital.
As for wages and salaries, never mind college degrees -- all the big gains are going to a tiny group of individuals holding strategic positions in corporate suites or astride the crossroads of finance. Rising inequality isn't about who has the knowledge; it's about who has the power.
Now, there's a lot we could do to redress this inequality of power. We could levy higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and invest the proceeds in programs that help working families. We could raise the minimum wage and make it easier for workers to organize. It's not hard to imagine a truly serious effort to make America less unequal.
But given the determination of one major party to move policy in exactly the opposite direction, advocating such an effort makes you sound partisan. Hence the desire to see the whole thing as an education problem instead. But we should recognize that popular evasion for what it is: a deeply unserious fantasy.
— Paul Krugman with Ohanian Comment New York Times
2015-02-23
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/23/opinion/paul-krugman-knowledge-isnt-power.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=origin®ion=Header&action=click&

Unity Caucus "City is Broke" Lie During Contract Battle Exposed

I know a Unityista who's a chapter rep at an elementary school in the Bronx. Last summer, he told me how the city is "broke". I laughed at him and asked him if the union thinks we are all that uninformed and stupid. He also told me what terrible teachers the ATRs are. I asked him if his school closed and he wasn't rehired, how he'd feel after a couple of years of changing schools every week. Such callous scum, these so-called Unity representatives.... Ms. Tsouris, comment on ICE blog,

ANOTHER BILLION DOLLARS FOUND IN CITYBUDGET

Comptroller Scott Stringer has found an extra billion dollars over what Mayor Bill de Blasio projected in the city budget.  Are the Unity supporters still saying the cupboard was empty when we settled for 10% over 7 years and we will have our retroactive payments for 2009-2011 deferred so we won't be made whole for those years until 2020?  How much more money has to be found before Unity will admit that Michael Mulgrew did not get us the best deal possible?

The ICE and NYC Educator (Look What Bill de B. Found in the Sofa Cushions) blogs have stories today exposing the sham selling points for the contract ratification battle last May where the contract was passed with 75% of the vote where over 90% of the 108 thousand UFT members voted. I looked at the fact that despite the lies, 16,000 classroom teachers and 4000 non teachers voted NO. If only they would come out of the woodwork and become active in a struggle to take back the union. Even a few hundred who were willing to distribute literature to their colleagues in their schools would make a difference in battling the Unity machine (email me at normsco@gmail.com).

The fact is that lie is allowed to fester because most teachers don't read the blogs and I bet if you share the news about how much money there really was people would be surprised. I'm not even just talking about more money in salary -- but all the other lack of resources you don't get ________ (fill in the blank, starting with the impact a billion bucks can have on class size).

NYC Educator says:

Man, when I read things like this I just don't know what to say. Just a few short months ago I was at the New York Hilton with my school's delegates and Punchy Mike Mulgrew was regaling us with tales of how the cupboard was bare and we'd have to wait an extra ten years for the money most city employees had received by 2010. It was the best they could do. Retro pay was not a God-given right.
You see, until that point, I'd thought the city pattern was sacrosanct. After all, when we wanted to get a little more than the pattern, we were told we had to give back, and boy did we give back. We gave up seniority rights and sentenced thousands of experienced teachers to be wandering ATRs. We made sure thousands of teachers would be patrolling lunchrooms, halls and bathrooms. Because perish forbid anyone should have more than 40 minutes to prepare the classes that Charlotte Danielson demands these days. But every time I turn around, there's more money.

Video: CTS/MORE's Jia Lee Featured at Testing Forum on Long Island, March 7, 4PM

At The Village Center, Port Jefferson.

A forum dedicated to educating our communities on high stakes testing and the dangerous education reforms being enacted in New York State. Featuring keynote speaker and Teacher of Conscience Jia Lee, Comsewogue school board member Alexandra Gordon, Long Island Opt-Out founder Jeanette Deutermann, and the Co-President of the Suffolk County Middle Level Principals Association Andy Greene. RSVP to studentsnotscores@gmail.com. For more information visit studentsnotscores.org.

http://youtu.be/l4X_yS1COuY

NYSAPE: Rolling Anti-Testing Billboards in Long Island

And great ads on TV from the New Jersey Teachers Association -- The kind of imagination or political theater you won't see from the UFT. You know why? Because they are not really opposed to testing other than to mouth a few words to try to keep their base confused.

From Patch http://patch.com/new-york/portwashington/common-core-critics-roll-message-across-long-island --- Thanks to Joel, sitting by a pool in California --

Talk about taking your message to the streets.
A truck, wrapped with the message “More Teaching, Less Testing: Refuse the NYS Common Core Tests,” is making its way across Long Island.
The campaign is the message of NYSAPE, NYS Allies for Public Education, whose members reside across the state.
“We’re not anti-test or assessment,” said Lisa Rudley, a Briarcliff parent, who serves on the organization’s steering committee. “We’re for well-rounded classrooms.”
“Our mission is to stop the test-prep environment in the classroom and protect data privacy,” she added.
Tuesday was the mobile billboard’s second day on Long Island. From now into sometime in April, around the time of the state’s last standardized test, the truck will travel across Nassau on Tuesdays, and Suffolk County on Thursdays and Fridays, Rudley said.

• Sign up for your local Patch newsletter and breaking news alerts here.

The group aims to take the campaign statewide, with traditional billboard ads going up in Syracuse, Kingston, Albany, and Amsterdam. The group raised nearly $10,700 through an Indiegogo campaign to fund the advertising. They are also looking into print advertising, Rudley said.
The idea for the truck ad came about as NYSAPE members sifted through various zoning laws and costs.
“The truck gives us more bang for the buck,” Rudley said.
The organization will also have a presence at St. Patrick Day parades in Rocky Point and Bay Shore, Rudley said.
On Long Island, the truck will travel across “the most high volume streets” near gyms, coffee shops and wherever else parents and grandparents gather, Rudley said.
Billboards on Wheels, the Ronkonkoma company handling the outdoor mobile advertising on Long Island, has been posting its route on Facebook. On Tuesday, the truck was in Port Washington, Glen Cove, Searingtown, Syosset, Plainview and elsewhere on the North Shore.
The effort seems to be gaining traction, at least on Facebook, where followers suggested the truck visit Babylon, Merrick, the East End and other destinations.
That momentum is good news to Rudley, who said the group might add another day on Long Island.
“We’re going to be fluid about it,” she said.
For Long Island NYSAPE forums featuring information and speakers, click here.

Kristof Doesn't Deserve Praise for Mea Culpa on Unions - He's Still a Slug and Ed Deformer

In recent weeks, we’ve been repulsed by some of Kristof’s work... Increasingly, Kristof’s work seems sloppy and strange. Maybe he’s simply over-extended. Do you believe he recently learned that corporate tycoons can be greedy?
... The Daily Howler

Too many people cheered when Nick Kristof, the NY Times house liberal, semi-reversed his opinion that unions in this country are more of a threat than ISIS. Nice to see my pal at Raging Horse blog take this shot in his must-read piece on the Kristof column.

How nice of Nicholas Kristof to arrive at that conclusion that unions should not be “eviscerated.” But note well, my fellow public school teachers, Kristof’s stipulating that the non-evisceration be limited “to the private sector ” which, in the all out war against all public institutions, should strikes us as particularly weasel-like and ominous.
Such words, in an article that ostensibly defends unions, could only bring comfort to the likes of Obama, Cuomo, Walker, Rainer and all their patrons who know that the first step to a “Right To Work” or union free nation is the evisceration of public unions. Nicholas Kristof is not our friend.

Former teacher Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler takes an even harsher tone by eviscerating Kristof himself:

Will the real Kristof please stand up!

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2015

Like Brian Williams, a brand: Once again, we find ourselves puzzled by Nicholas Kristof’s latest column. It appears in this morning’s New York Times. The column starts like this:

KRISTOF (2/19/15): Like many Americans, I’ve been wary of labor unions.
Full-time union stagehands at Carnegie Hall earning more than $400,000 a year? A union hailing its defense of a New York teacher who smelled of alcohol and passed out in class, with even the principal unable to rouse her? A police union in New York City that has a tantrum and goes on virtual strike?
More broadly, I disdained unions as bringing corruption, nepotism and rigid work rules to the labor market, impeding the economic growth that ultimately makes a country strong.
I was wrong.

All through the column, Kristof says he’s been wrong, oh so wrong, about unions—at least about private sector unions.
What a guy! Here’s how the column ends:

KRISTOF: Lawrence F. Katz, a Harvard labor economist, raises concerns about some aspects of public-sector unions, but he says that in the private sector (where only 7 percent of workers are now unionized): “I think we’ve gone too far in de-unionization.”
He’s right. This isn’t something you often hear a columnist say, but I’ll say it again: I was wrong. At least in the private sector, we should strengthen unions, not try to eviscerate them.

In comments, the usual suspects rushed to praise his honesty and his courage. We had a different reaction to the puzzling fellow’s latest puzzling column.
Kristof is 55 years old. He went to Harvard, then to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. For all those reasons, we think this part of his column is rather hard to believe:
 

More at Will the real Kristof please stand up!