EdNotesOnline Blog 7th Anniversary: Reflections on 15 Years of Ed Notes

The real reason I got to meetings: rice pudding

With Aug. 2006 being the founding month of ednotesonline, I thought it time to reflect after seven years of ednotesonline (4954 posts) and 15 years of Ed Notes, when including the published versions.

I was inspired by 3 blogs:

• NYC Educator who began in spring of 2005 but gained a big audience with his opposition to the fall 2005 contract.
• Jeff Kaufman starting the ICE blog during that contract fight.
• Ms. Frizzle who I met at a robotics event and began to follow her blog when she wrote about the event.

The blogging world has changed. With the proliferation of an amazing team of bloggers hitting hard on every issue, the original work of getting the word out no longer seems as necessary.
With Diane Ravitch posting every 10 minutes on the very same issues I used to write about there is no longer that need to get up early to post about things. I go to Perdido or NYC Educator or all the other great blogs on the blog roll. In fact I spend so much time reading them I forget to blog myself. Increasingly, I think it is not as important for me to say my puny 2 cents but to collate what all the others are saying in a way to reinforces their points

And then there is all the organizing work I feel takes priority. I just do not want to be a keyboard warrior -- using blogs and social networks without trying to put real people in real places together to build real organizations at the local level. Thus the migration from ICE to GEM (a sort of bridge org - in retrospect) to MORE, the first org I've been with that has been able to develop some structure with the potential to scale up. (Very early stages, of course.) In fact there are so many young(er) MOREistas that my work is no longer necessary - I don't feel guilty about not doing anything and have been able to restrict what I do to a few areas like the upcoming MORE newsletter modeled somewhat on Ed Notes (3 or 4 times a year - and I hope you will sign up to distribute in your school).

The first ednotesonline blog post was this:

• An attentive class size of three

All these guys are gone (Buffy on the left at the end of 2003, the girls on the right in 2011 and 2009) replaced recently by these gals in 2011 and 2012 who sort of just popped up - like an unplanned pregnancy.

Penny left, 1 yr old, Bernie rt, 2 yrs old

Really, I expected to be living in Paris by this time. Now I'm stuck with a young set of cats that will outlive me. We could always take them with us to Paris. Parlez Vous, Pousse?

My second Aug. 2006 post was this: Ednotes Online - August 31, 2006 which focused attention on ICE.

By the time I began this blog almost 8 years after starting Ed Notes, I was focused on helping build the Independent Community of Educators (ICE) the caucus that Ed Notes helped spawn. But by the 2007 UFT elections it seemed clear that ICE was not going through the kind of growth I had hoped for - in fact it was shrinking -- and I began to refocus.

ADDED: When Angel Gonzalez came to ICE in 2008 he pointed out many of the organizational flaws, which led to the more activist GEM, which is how we met Julie and a bunch of other people who would never have come to ICE.

This blog was an extension of the hard copy of Ed Notes which began in 1998. I lost a whole lot of them due to Sandy but am in the process of trying to get them all online so there is a complete record for anyone to use my rantings for a book or article about the history of ed deform or the history of the UFT since Randi -- her takeover corresponds with the birth of Ed Notes -- and in some ways she helped inspire it -- she seemed to offer in her early years a reform message and Ed Notes was an attempt to influence those reforms -- which never came.

We have been fighting a 3 front war: ed deform nationally, the NYCDOE, and the UFT/Unity Caucus leadership.

We are proud to have been one of the first in NYC to warn against ed deform as far back as 2001 due to our George Schmidt connection in Chicago. Thus my warning headline in Sept. 2002: COMING SOON TO A SCHOOL NEAR YOU: MAYORAL CONTROL.

The DOE since Bloomberg has been the local/devil's incarnation of ed deform.

The UFT leadership has been a longer term battle -- since I became an activist in 1971. I was active 'till the early 80s then spend over a decade working on my house and getting an MA in computer science, teaching as an adjunct at Brooklyn College, etc.

When I became chapter leader in 1994 that pulled me back into union work. But I was no longer viewing the leadership as the enemy. My main focus was on my principal so I wasn't paying much attention beyond that. Though I opposed that first 1995 contract -- Randi's first disaster -- I did not take part in the bigger battle to defeat it  -- led by people like Bruce Markens -- remarkable in that he was the elected Manhattan HS District Rep -- and to their credit, New Action, which actually functioned like an opposition should at that point -- though never really able  or willing to go deep into the grass roots. It was only when I took a sabbatical during the 1997-98 school year that I began to look at central UFT policy more closely.

Randi took over at that time and she was insecure, so she reached out to Ed Notes -- in fact embraced it in some ways -- soon I was receiving offers to join Unity Caucus. For at least 3 years I actually supported her. Given the poor state of the opposition -- even pre-sellout I thought New Action a poor organization with little hope of making much of an impact. So in those early years I aimed to use Ed Notes to lobby Randi to reform the union -- and she managed to play me very well - which I why I am an expert on Randi duplicity -- a Randiologist.

It was only in the spring of 2001 that things began to get clearer that Randi was not only not a reformer, but a dangerous force who began to restrict democracy even further than Shanker and Feldman had done, using her style to fool people into submission.

After the UFT elections in March 2001 I attempted to use Ed Notes to get all opposition people together but that fell apart. So, reluctantly, through the 2001-2002 school year, I began to think about what it would rake to build a new opposition. One thing was clear: I would have to retire in order to make that effort. Thus in July 1, 2002 I retired and immediately set out to expand Ed Notes from a delegate assembly newsletter to a citywide tabloid with 10-20,000 copies in circulation. That led to meeting enough people through the 2002-03 school year to form ICE in the fall of 2003 which led to GEM which led to MORE.

For me the 11 years of retirement have been very fruitful personally, mainly because of the amazing people I've met and worked with.

And I meet new people every day. Yesterday afternoon I went to a Change the Stakes action meeting. A 17 year old student at a NYC HS had attended the meeting we had on Tuesday (see rice pudding photo above -- and YES I had another one yesterday) and came back again as she wants to help organize students to oppose high stakes testing. What a powerhouse this little slip of a girl, whose family comes from Southern Asia, is. I felt such a connection to this kid who is 51 years younger than me. As we walked to the subway she told me her story and I told her mine. I walked down the stairs feeling I had made a friend. How amazing that I could meet and connect with someone like her.

So that is one reason why I keep doing this.

But also because we are turning the tide.

Fred Smith recently wrote:

Call the "reformers" profiteers, one-percenters, privatizers, corporatists, powers-that-be, smart-money guys--call them realists.  And call us parents, teachers, dreamers, organizers--yes, call us idealists.  But don't call us losers.  Because in the end we're going to win.

Read More

Why Scott Stringer? Patrick Sullivan on the PEP and Beat Evil Eva Mosowitz

It was not small feat for Scott Stringer to give us the gift of Patrick Sullivan on the PEP, the lone consistent voice of the people over the years challenging the Tweedies time and again, at times on the verge of a fist fight, at times coming down off the stage to join the audience during certain disruptions. Now I know people say, "So what? Bloomberg doesn't really care about one or two voices in opposition. So Stringer could gain some political capital (with yahoos like you) while costing him nothing.

Well, it's enough for me to vote for him even if he won't get the sex worker vote (I've been told I am not being PC when using the term "prostitute"  -- ooops!.

In addition, Stringer beat the evil one in the Man B Pres election in 2005. Now you may say he did her a favor as she has gone on to charter school heaven, heading for a 100 schools one day. I'll bet that never happens as the bubble will not only bust due to the anti ed deform crowd, but the charter school crew itself is often outraged at her --- and guess where these 100 schools will be going? In direct competition with the current charters. Let's see them start talking about choice when there are no public schools to kick around and the choice is only between them.

Read More

WHY De Blasio? Make Evil Eva Moskowitz Pay the Damn Rent

That's enough for me to vote for him. Do I actually think de Blasio will deliver on his promise to make charters pay rent? Slim to none. I don't see the charter lobby sweating much over his rise in the polls. I wonder if some secret message with a wink has been sent. Fact is I don't trust any politician and I think we will be sold out. But I still don't necessarily see him winning over Lhota. Just wait - after a runoff what will happen. And interesting if it's Quinn and Bill what does the UFT do, especially given Randi's attack on De Blasio over the pre-k funding plan.

Read More

Urban Ed Blog Takes Shot at Peter Cunningham

....people on the other side will respond with public jeers and snickers and will invoke the children in order to marginalize these very real concerns and discredit the people who express them. This is how their kind always responds to criticism and dissent. ... Urban Ed

Our pal at Urban Education exposes Peter Cunningham, who used to work for Arne Duncan, after he went after Diane Ravitch's new book we are all so excited about. (I'm going to every Ravitch event here in NYC -- in fact I would pay her to carry her bags as she goes around the nation promoting the book. (Hmmm, what a great documentary that would make as she interacts with anti-deformers around the nation?))

Here are excerpts:

Ed Reform Gone Wrong: How Teachers Are Required to Engage in Unethical Conduct

I was just recently reminded of this trait (of discredit critical professionals) when I read this piece by Peter Cunningham, former media relations assistant to USDOE Secretary Arne Duncan. He went to great lengths to discredit Diane Ravitch, who works harder than anyone else in the country to responsibly criticize the Ed. Reform movement under the Obama administration. Apparently, Mr. Cunningham, who is now a privately paid consultant for the very same US Department of Education he once worked for (see his Linkedin profile here) wasn't happy that Dr. Ravitch is about to release a new book which squarely takes aim at the reform movement itself, including the need to spend so many oodles of public money on private consultants (like him).  Views expressed in the book, if well received, might possibly change public opinion and threaten to bring policy changes that may effect the bottom line of his very own company; Cunningham Associates.

While it would be unfair for me to opine that Mr. Cunningham's true stake in this discussion is to advance his own personal profit, it should be pointed out that it was unfair for him to leave the bio  "Former Assistant Secretary for Communications and Outreach, U.S. Department of Education"  under his byline as he entered this discussion of "Ravitch vs. the Reform Movement". I say this because he left out the fact that he is now a paid consultant. Cunningham Associates is nowhere in his byline. But that's what they do: They level hard and harsh critiques on dissenters without making clear what their stake really is, where they're coming from or how they might personally -financially- benefit from continuing the current policies. This is why I cringe whenever anyone says the profession of teaching has changed for the worse without attempting to offer any proof. Profit making reformers like Mr. Cunningham will take to the public airwaves and simply slay us (smote, I believe, may be a better term) with snickers and jeers and a good dose of discredit.

Read it all: http://nycurbaned.blogspot.com/2013/08/ed-reform-gone-wrong-how-teachers-are.html 

I left this comment:

Excellent points. All that lamenting and hand wringing sometimes irks me too. No matter how much that goes on -- and it does have some impact in turning the discussion -- the only true solution is to organize and activate people to take action. For me that has always started with the one institution that if turned around would be a key player in the fightback - maybe THE key player -- is the union. Imagine if the UFT had fought a full frontal war against ed deform. It might be bloodied but the teachers in this city would be much more prepared to engage in this political war. Instead we have people angry, disillusioned and weaponless. And that takes me to why I have put my flagging energy into building MORE even with some of the problems we have seen crop up -- the only game in this town for teachers. A MORE chapter in every school will do MORE to change things than anything I can think of.

I'm leaving these comments on all the blogs. We can't only be keyboard warriors. So few people read the blogs relative to what I view as the target audience --- UFT members which is the group I hope to organize into an effective force. In fact I know that most of the activists in MORE do not read the blogs which I believe is a mistake since they miss so much of what they need to really  do the organizing work necessary -- knowledge is power.

But I see every day as the infrastructure of MORE grows and starts accomplishing things just how important that aspect is. You need active bodies to do all that work -- just our little 5 person newsletter committee has put in a lot of work getting it ready -- intense work at times. One little aspect of the overall work. Look at the job Julie did on the evaluation -- she has worked with others to hammer out a lot of points -- MORE has an eval committee and a contract committee -- each group is in many ways semi-autonomous so it can work under its own rules.  Actually, these points are fodder for a separate post. So signing off for now.

Read More

Fred Smith in DN: One sad measure of Dr. King’s dream

King would not have accepted test scores that only confirm the profound inequities that plague poor kids. Nor would he have blamed teachers for the problem. Rather, he would have let his voice ring out about the need for sound education designed to prepare students to lead fulfilling lives and provide a means for overcoming economic injustices.  ... Fred Smith

What a day. We got 2 of our published pals for the price of one. First MORE's Julie Cavanagh on the MORE blog (The Noose or The Sword: Choosing Your Evaluation) and Change the Stakes' Fred Smith.

New York State schools named after the civil rights leader have a dismal record of raising achievement

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/sad-measure-dr-king-dream-article-1.1438608#ixzz2dK6z0N5p

The poor scores of schools with Martin Luther King’s name is a sad legacy.

How do you measure a dream? Today marks the golden anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King’s visionary speech.

There are many metrics of the current status of African-American young people: school segregation, test scores, graduation rates, college attendance, income levels. The results are mixed.

I looked at a different indicator, one that’s admittedly unscientific but potentially revealing.

Nine New York State public schools that educate third- through eighth-graders honor King by carrying his name . They are located in counties and districts that range from Buffalo to Brooklyn, Rochester to Yonkers and Wyandanch (in Suffolk County) and across the tier of cities that includes Syracuse, Utica and Schenectady.
Taken together, 91% of the children enrolled in these schools are black (67%) or Hispanic (24%); 13% are considered to be limited in English proficiency. About 90% receive free (85%) or reduced-price (5%) lunches.
At these schools, 2,883 students took the statewide English Language Arts exams and 2,921 took the math tests — providing 5,804 test scores. Most students were in grades 3 to 5.

This was to be a pivotal year. The state Education Department called for tests that contained more difficult items, popularly referred to as the Common Core, purportedly to raise learning standards.

State and city officials forecast that the results would nosedive. They assured us that this was necessary to get children on track for college and careers. They’ve insisted the numbers will rise as teachers and students adjust to the material.

But what of the 8- to 10-year-old children whose educations, hopes, formative development and chances for future success are bound up in these wonderfully named schools where circumstance has placed them?

In 2009, when the state exams were discredited for being ridiculously easy, 55% of the heirs to King’s legacy were found to be proficient in reading, as were 71% in math. By last year, with the advent of tougher “more rigorous” exams, the results had fallen to 24% and 31%.

The April results released this month fulfilled the prophecy: 7% and 6% proficiency in reading and math at the nine schools.

The overall 2009, 2012 and 2013 statewide figures show English exam decreases from 77% to 55% to 31% proficiency over the testing periods. In math, the drop is from 86% to 65% to 31%. It’s a precipitous decline any way you slice it — with a sharper falloff in the nine schools.

As for the school in Brooklyn , obviously a limited sample, the percentages of students judged proficient fell 53 points — from 72% to 19% — in English Language Arts and 72 points (86% to 14%) in math between 2009 and this year. Citywide, the corresponding results were 43 points (69% to 26%) and 52 points (82% to 30%)

Another part of this unsettling story is revealed by the increased percentage of students who were at Level 1 in 2009 and now. Level 1 is described as being “well below proficient” on the tests.

This group grew from 2% to 32% and from 3% to 33% of the state test population on the English and math exams. At the nine King schools, the students deemed to be low achievers shot up from 6% to 63% in English Language Arts and from 7% to 68% in math.

King would not have accepted test scores that only confirm the profound inequities that plague poor kids. Nor would he have blamed teachers for the problem. Rather, he would have let his voice ring out about the need for sound education designed to prepare students to lead fulfilling lives and provide a means for overcoming economic injustices.

We honor King in words and monuments. It would be a far better remembrance to take actions to realize his magnificent aspiration.

Smith, a testing specialist and consultant, was an administrative analyst for the New York City public schools. He is a member of Change the Stakes, a parent advocacy group.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/sad-measure-dr-king-dream-article-1.1438608#ixzz2dK6eCj8d

Read More

Julie Cavanagh Analyzes Teacher Evaluation Options

If only our current union leadership could communicate to teachers how best to protect themselves in what is going to be a very challenging and dangerous school year for everybody - students, teachers and administrators - as well as Julie Cavanagh does. ....Perdido Street School blog

Decide to get involved:  I am convinced the overwhelming majority of educators, after navigating this evaluation system, will be moved to action.  Do not get discouraged; do not believe we cannot affect change.  Whether you donate, sign a petition, attend a rally, come to a meeting, run for office, or join an organization-- the time is now to stand up and fight the tidal wave of attacks on public education.... Julie Cavanagh

Julie has spent a lot of time this summer learning the ins and outs of this mess. She shares her thoughts in this post on the MORE blog which I am cross posting.

This is not only about Julie's wonderful work in breaking all this down but also expresses Julie's philosophy of working together which so attracts people.

Make decisions based on what will bring you together:  do not allow these decisions to divide you.  Stand in solidarity together, take care of each other, and do what benefits students and teachers collectively.

This is important stuff to working teachers but for people like me the details give me a headache. But if you want clarity, read this all the way through. Julie's piece should actually be a pamphlet.

The Noose or The Sword: Choosing Your Evaluation

by morecaucusnyc

Analysis and Guidance Regarding Teacher Evaluation Choices and Decisions

By Julie Cavanagh PS15k Chapter Leader

I have yet to meet a parent, teacher or student from a school community who tells me they believe the new teacher evaluation system being implemented in NYC is a good thing, for anyone.  It seems most people understand this system is nothing more than another cog in the wheel of a machine with one clear purpose:  the destruction of our public education system.  This system and the accountability and testing measures and movement preceding it, reduce our students, our teachers and our schools to numbers and data, dehumanizing our schools and our profession. 

There is a growing movement that says, “Don’t feed the beast! Deny the data!” My heart lies with this sentiment, but in terms of the teacher evaluation framework, it may not be the right one.  Let me be clear, this system is irrevocably flawed, and the illusion of choice is no choice at all.  But while the system is fundamentally flawed and hurts our schools and profession, we can choose to participate in order to mitigate the damage to individual teacher jobs as well as our schools and students.

MORE members and allies have received multiple requests for guidance and analysis concerning the decisions UFT members and local committees must make regarding the teacher evaluation system.  Below I attempt to lay out, as I see them, the pros and cons of the choices individual teachers and school-based evaluation committees must make in the coming weeks.  This is by no means complete and it would be immensely helpful if folks offer their additional comments, analysis, and suggestions in the comment section!

The Lay of the Land

There are basically three “paths” to journey on as you make decisions as an individual UFT member and as a committee:

1. Non-Compliance:  There is an argument to not comply or participate in this evaluation system at all.  The consequences of this decision would be that embedded in the law are defaults for all decisions.  So, your principal would choose your observation course, you would not submit and therefore would not have anything counted in terms of your artifacts for Danielson, and the principal could trigger the default for the committee which would mean state tests and growth model.
2. Uber Compliance:  Make decisions/choices that would result in the most work possible, particularly for the DOE and administration.  This would flood the system with responsibilities and paperwork and highlight the sheer insanity of the evaluation system.
3. The Middle Way: Make decisions and choices that will produce the best anticipated outcomes in terms of ratings for teachers and will mitigate the negative consequences of this system on children and staff.

Decisions, Decisions:  Part 1 Observations and Danielson

Teachers have one individual choice to make at the beginning of the school year:  what observation course will they choose and how will they related to and work with the Danielson Framework.

As far as observations go, there are two choices:  at least six 15 minute or more informal observations that will include feedback, which can also be somewhat informal OR at least one formal observation with a pre and post conference with more formal feedback combined with at least three informal observations.

Choosing an observation course is an individual preference, but here are several factors to consider:

1.       If you have a principal who is a “gotcha type” choosing the course with a formal observation may offer you more protection because there are added steps to ensure more meaningful feedback and support and therefore, more documentation.  In addition, the formal observation would be an announced observation whereas the 15 minute informals would not have to be announced.

2.       If you are an inexperienced teacher, you may benefit from choosing the course with a formal observation because you would benefit from (in an ideal world) your principal’s guidance, feedback, and one would hope, support.

3.       If you worry about Danielson being applied to only “15 minutes of fame” via informal observations (the rubrics are complicated and what you don’t see as a principal, unless it comes from a conversation related to the observation or one of the eight artifacts teachers can submit by April, cannot be counted) then you may want to choose the formal observation course.

4.       If you have been identified by your principal in the past as someone who needs more support, have been given a U or feel targeted by your principal, as mentioned in #1, the formal observation course may offer you more protection and hopefully, support.

5.       If you are an experienced teacher with a good relationship with your principal and s/he is someone you trust, then choosing the informal observation course will save you both time while still offering an opportunity for feedback… and of course those 15 minutes of fame!

6.       Finally, there is a political argument to choose the course with the formal observation because it will require more work on the part of administrators and highlights the overarching problems with creating such a complicated system without proper planning and resources.  Within this same argument, there is also a provision in the UFT contract that provides for announced observations with pre and post conferences, so choosing this course maintains, at least some of the protections that exist in our current (all be it expired) contract.

In terms of how teachers should work with and within the Danielson Framework:

1.       Teachers must choose to submit, or not, up to eight artifacts by April of 2014, to their principal (two can be submitted in the beginning of the year conference).  These artifacts will support the principal’s rating on the Danielson Rubric.  This is particularly important because, when examining the rubric, it will be very difficult to give folks effective and highly effective ratings in certain component areas without them.  For example:  the area of planning can be more effectively supported by showing a teacher developed curriculum map or weekly lesson plans.  The flip side to this is that as educators, our labor has worth, and the time we are given in comparison to our output is valuable, matters, and is not currently supported both in terms of time and resources.  We have been without a contract for 4+ years and the current contract does not compensate us for this additional labor, both in terms of the time to do it, nor monetarily.  It must also be stated that creating artifacts, like elaborate lesson plans, are not necessarily a determination of good teaching and learning.  Bottom-Line:  you can refuse to submit the artifacts and stand on principle, after all, withholding our labor is the power that lies within our union.  However- since we have a union leadership that has agreed to this system and believes it is a good thing, the power of withholding our labor isn’t so powerful and choosing to not submit artifacts most likely will hurt your overall rating for the observation portion of your evaluation.

2.       There has been a lot of talk about how Danielson will force teachers to change how they use and develop curriculum, lesson plan, meet and plan with other teachers, take on additional responsibilities in our schools, and analyze data.  Similarly, to what I state above, the issue here is principle vs practicality.  In principle, we should not jump through the hoops of writing elaborate and scripted lessons, those things do not make good teaching and learning.  We would love to take on additional responsibilities and meet and plan with our colleagues, but we have to be allotted the time and resources to do those things meaningfully so that our labor is properly compensated and so that time is not taken away from other things that are important for our students, our school communities, and for our own families.  In practicality, if we do not have the evidence needed to plug numbers into the Danielson rubric that equal effective and highly effective, our jobs are at risk.  Bottom-Line: If we don’t work outside of the contract in order to fulfill the requirements of the Danielson Framework, we risk a rating that falls below effective.  Chapter Leaders should work with principals to carve out additional time to meet these requirements.

As chapter leader at my school, we have revamped our extended time and working lunch schedule (we have extended lunches and preps and have working lunches in lieu of after school staff and grade meetings) and process to try and provide increased time and individual and grade level team autonomy to help with the work required by the Danielson Framework.  It is not enough, but as CL, I don’t feel I can encourage my colleagues to refuse the data, because they have families too feed and because the power in opting out comes from the parents of our students refusing to feed the testing beast, as well as our union harnessing the power of our collective action, not in teachers acting alone.  While it is tempting for me to encourage my fellow teachers to refuse to participate in this damaging and destructive policy, we will stand together as we are led to the proverbial slaughter, and do our best to make sure the impact on our schoolhouse is as minimal as possible while we fight for change at the statehouse.

In full disclosure, we have a principal who is not a “gotcha type” and works hard to support and protect our teachers so our students have the best educational opportunity we can provide, because, she knows supporting and retaining teachers is an in-school factor PROVEN to positively impact student achievement, along with class size.  There is NO research to suggest that evaluating teachers based on test scores and scripted pre-packaged rubrics benefits students in anyway.

I understand that many educators and their school communities have leaders whose interest lies in not supporting educators; in some cases harassing, forcing compliance, or demonizing them.  For these teachers and schools, this process will be particularly demoralizing and challenging and I am truly sorry.   It is my hope that the energy and anger that is born out of this process will be harnessed to fight for the changes we need so desperately in education and union policy.

Decisions, Decisions: Part 2 Evaluation Committees and MOSL (Measurement of Student Learning)

Evaluation committees have three decisions to make:

1.       What tool will you use?  State tests, NYC approved assessments (for example: F&P for elementary schools), or NYC benchmark assessments (basically Common Core tasks).  Committees only have to choose one tool in either math or ELA not both.

2.       Who will the target population be? Whole school, whole grade, individual class, bottom third of individual class

3.       How will the test/assessment be measured? Growth model (Value Added Method with a peer group determined by the state) or Goal Setting (goals set at the committee level with feedback from the DOE)

What Tool?

Because all UFT members (with the exception of  prek, PT, OT, APE and guidance counselors/social workers) will be evaluated based on a test/assessment regardless of whether one exists for their subject (think art, gym, various high school courses...) there is an argument for choosing the same tool for all UFT members in the building as an act of solidarity, to maintain fairness, and squelch any issues of competition or the consequence of making certain positions more or less desirable which would have a negative impact on our students.

I strongly agree with this sentiment and am advocating for this position.  The other side of this argument is of course that by choosing one tool, greater emphasis is placed on that tool above all others (at least in theory) and applies immense pressure on the teachers who administer that tool and on the students who take it.  This portion of the decision is a political one (How can we minimize the destructive nature of these choices on union rights, solidarity and protections while also protecting the legitimacy of our work in our schools?).  It is also is a decision that must be made in consideration of your school climate (If you choose one tool, will that unite your teachers, lessen or eliminate potential conflict or could it create conflict?).

Finally, there is also the question of choosing a tool that would potentially be more beneficial to students.  I do not find much validity in this final question.  Teachers assess their students all the time, that is what good teachers do.  We do not need external pressures, data collection systems, and evaluations tied to these assessments to do the good work we do.  Assessments are not designed to evaluate teachers, they are designed to inform teachers of what students know or don’t know, to highlight areas of strength and weakness, and to guide our instruction.  Data does have purpose, but that purpose is being perverted and we must be careful to avoid feeding into the narrative that distorts our profession and harms children.

State Tests:  choose one of these if your students do well on them within the framework of the growth model and/or if your school community does not want to do additional grading and data input.  The merit in this decision is protecting the value of our labor (it can’t be repeated enough:  we should not be giving our labor away for free, especially when we have been without a contract for four years) and this ensures students will not be subjected to additional external tests/assessments.  You probably do not want to choose this option if your students do not typically do well on these tests (think about your school report card grade as a loose guideline).  In addition, there is a principled argument to avoid choosing state tests so we do not place even more value on these flawed, invalid and racially/class biased tests. Finally, because the 40% MOLS section basically equals 100%, you may want to diversify.  Choosing state tests for the local 20% portion would result in the entire 40% being based on state tests.

NYC Approved Local Assessments: choose one of these if your students/school does not typically perform well on state tests, if you do not want to put an even greater emphasis on state tests, and/or if you find an approved assessment that your school community finds or would find useful.  The downside to this choice is that teachers will not be able to grade their own assessments and teachers and/or schools in some capacity will have to enter the data from these assessments and thus far, no compensation in time or resources has been offered or explained so this will be in addition to the excessive data and paperwork responsibilities we already have. Teachers who administer these assessments will have to do so in addition to any state assessments and there will be a pre and a post (fall and spring). School based committees will also have a greater amount of work to do in making this choice because the MOSL tool requires data inserted for each teacher when not choosing state tests.  Yes, it is a set up- noose or sword?

NYC Performance Benchmarks: Similar to the above, this choice provides an alternative to the state test as well as an alternative to a more formal assessment in general.  These benchmarks are designed like tasks and would be administered in the fall and spring.  The pros and the cons remain basically the same as choosing a local assessment.

Bottom Line: Choose a tool that will result in the best results for your staff, that will burden your students the least, and will require as minimal free labor as possible weighed against these decisions.  Remember, the 40% MOSL portion will count more than the 60% observation portion so if your school performs poorly on state tests, it would be best to diversify and not choose state tests for the local 20%.  I strongly encourage the choice of one tool for all teachers as an act of solidarity and a way to keep things as fair as possible in an unfair and flawed system.

Who is the Target Population?

This decision is mostly a statistical and strategic decision.  What target population, given the tool, would result in the best outcomes?  If you choose a state test for example, would you get better results by choosing the whole school or a certain grade? (*Note if you choose the same tool as the state does for their 20%, the target populations cannot be the same.) If you choose a NYC performance benchmark, would it make sense to choose a particular grade that could be allocated the minimum intervention resources that exist to administer them, grade them and input them so there is less of an impact on the whole school population?  One ideological or political issue that does exist in this decision:  I would advocate against choosing individual classes as a target population as this will potentially pit teachers against each other and feed into the deeply flawed push for merit pay. Bottom Line: Choose a target population that will result in the best mathematical outcome and avoid feeding into individualist decisions that sort and separate our teachers and children and potentially lead to a framework for merit pay. (*I should note that I *think* committees can choose any tool option and also choose any of the target populations, for example one grade.  I have not fully explored the MOSL tool yet, so it is possible that while you may be able to choose one tool for all UFT members, you may have to diversify the target population.  I believe however, that all choices can be the same for every member. I am working on greater clarification on this and will update with a final answer.)

How will you choose to measure?

The growth model is determined by the state.  This model is highly flawed, was not designed to compare results across a district, and is based on preset assumptions about the growth a student should make from year to year in the case of state test or from pre to post in the case of a local assessment or task. For certain state tests, where there is no test the previous year, there will be a different benchmark test given in the fall or another existing test deemed comparable by the state would be used to measure growth.  This sets up the possibility of measuring growth based on different assessments that were not necessarily designed to be compared to determine “growth”.  Choosing a growth model requires no additional work from school staff.  Bottom Line: Choose the growth model if this is a model that has not statistically been a problem for your school population, doing so will protect your labor and require less time that could be spent serving children.  If your school based analysis shows that growth models do not result in good outcomes for your school population (for example your scores tend to stagnate or plateau , you have been consistently placed with inaccurate peer groups in the past, or students are high performers and may not show much growth because they enter at a high score already).  You may also want to avoid the growth model if you have concerns about the invalid and unscientific nature of this model.   It should be noted that the state and city have heavily pushed the growth model, which may be in and of itself a reason to not choose it.

Goal setting is done at the committee level.  The DOE does send their recommendations for goals, but the committee decides with the principal having the final say to agree or trigger the default. (*Note:  a principal may NEVER modify the will of the committee on ANY decision. If the principal does not agree/approve her/his only choice is to trigger the default which is state scores and growth model).  Goal setting will require more work and data input.  It offers more control at the school level, but committees must set goals carefully because with a goal, either you meet it or you don’t, there is only one way to “get points”.  If the goal is met, full points will be given.  If the goal is not met, there will be no points.   Bottom Line:  If your school historically does poorly with growth models, you may want to consider goal setting.  If your committee feels there is a strong principled argument/stand to make/take in refusing growth, because value added is a deeply flawed measurement model for the purposes of evaluation, then you may also want to consider goal setting.  If your school community feels it can set goals that are sure to be attainable, goal setting offers more control and autonomy.

I am sure this is all clear as mud!  I encourage folks to use the comments section to continue the conversation, to ask questions, to offer suggestions, and share what they decide at their schools (I will certainly share our final decision when we have one, which insanely must be by September 9^th!).

As you move forward weighing each decision against what will inflict the least pain and suffering upon your school community, some final thoughts in summary:

1.       Make decisions based on outcomes:  what will result in the best “scores” for your staff?  (What tool? Who will the target population be?  How will they be measured?)

2.       Make decisions based on what will bring you together:  do not allow these decisions to divide you.  Stand in solidarity together, take care of each other, and do what benefits students and teachers collectively. (What tools/population/measurement model can you choose that will impact teaching and learning the least and can be applied evenly and fairly across subject and grade level positions?)

3.       Decide to get involved:  I am convinced the overwhelming majority of educators, after navigating this evaluation system, will be moved to action.  Do not get discouraged; do not believe we cannot affect change.  Whether you donate, sign a petition, attend a rally, come to a meeting, run for office, or join an organization-- the time is now to stand up and fight the tidal wave of attacks on public education.

"These are suggestions only and does not represent the official positions of MORE or UFT. MORE strongly advises that you conduct your own research, attend DOE/UFT trainings , and consult with your staff in making these critical decisions"

Read More

Seattle public school teachers reject proposed contract

Seattle is a hotbed of teacher activism. The revolt last spring when teachers refused to give a standardized test (scrap the map) was more than a warning shot.

Seattle teacher Dan Troccoli (SEE Caucus) joined MORE's Julie Cavanagh, NEWCaucus (Newark)' Sanyika Montague and CORE's (Chicago) Jen Johnson in a panel discussion at the Social Justice Unionism Organizing Conference in Chicago (Aug. 9-11).

Here is Dan's presentation (preceded by Ellen Friedman's 5 minute intro to the panel).




Here is Seattle teacher Jesse Hagopian who helped lead the test boycott at a MORE forum back in May.

Here is today's article on the contract rejection

Seattle public school teachers reject proposed contract

by James Lynch
Q13 FOX News reporter

SEATTLE — The Seattle Education Association board of directors and the representative assembly both unanimously voted to reject the current contract proposal on the table from the Seattle School District.

Monday night, thousands of union members endorsed that decision by voting to reject the proposed pact. Negotiations with the district are expected to continue Tuesday morning.

The sticking points include a proposal for elementary teachers to work longer days after students leave the classroom.

The union says that is time for which the teachers won’t get paid while at the same time the district wants to eliminate supplemental pay those teachers get now.

The union says that amounts to a pay cut.

And speaking of teacher pay, compensation is another big issue.

The district is offering a 4% salary increase over the next two years and full restoration of a 1.3% salary reduction that was mandated by the state Legislature.

But union leaders say that is simply not enough to keep up with the high and rising cost of living in Seattle.

Also at issue are caseloads for educators and staff associates, and teacher evaluations.

Superintendent Jose Banda released a statement which reads in part; “We have been negotiating since spring and are committed to continuing discussions with SEA. We are hopeful that a fair agreement will be reached that focuses on the best interests of our students.”

SEA President Jonathan Knapp issued a statement that said, “By a near-unanimous voice vote Monday night, members of the Seattle Education Association rejected the Seattle School Board’s latest contract proposal, which they said falls far short on several major issues that directly affect students. The current contract ends Aug. 31, and school is scheduled to start Sept. 4. SEA members plan to meet again the evening of Sept. 3 to either approve a contract or take further action.”

Read more: http://q13fox.com/2013/08/26/seattle-public-school-teachers-gather-to-vote-on-new-contract/#ixzz2dAlwOaYP

Read More

NY Times to Adopt TFA Model: Will Fire all Reporters With More than 2 Years Experience

"Strong newspapers can withstand the turnover of their reporters," declared the Times on its editorial page. "Experienced reporters grow tired and less effective."

Ed Notes satire

New reporters will undergo two and a half weeks of training before being sent to locations like Syria and Egypt. An extra week of training will be required to cover the White House.

"Novice reporters will receive constant feedback from their bureau chiefs," said the editorial. "Reporters with the lowest 20% of readership of their articles will be terminated."

The Times will adopt the "two claps and a sizzle" celebratory chant for reporters whose stories go viral.

The Times is actively searching for a 27 year old with at least 3 years on the job to run the paper.

===
Afterburn
RBE at Pedido:

“It’s two claps and then a sizzle.” 

I dunno, maybe I'm a fool.

I never wanted to go on to something "better."

I like working with students in a classroom.

I think it's important to have experience at this job.

I have gotten better every year I have taught (I start my 13th year next week.)

The social and emotional learning skills I have picked up over the years as I have grown older myself have really helped me as a teacher.

I know how to reach students better now than I did in my first few years - sometimes that means academically (okay, that way of teaching isn't working, let's try this way...), sometimes that means emotionally (diagnosing what is holding a student back and then finding a way to begin helping the student through that issue...)

This is not the skill set a third year 24 year old TFAer has.

Read More

John Owens' "Confessions of a Bad Teacher" Making Waves

I finished reading the entire book by John Owens about a week ago. I had to stop often to absorb -- and relish -- the devastating attack on the Bloomberg version of ed deform by Owens, who changed careers to go into teaching only to end up in a school with a principal from hell on his first - and only - teaching job. John, a teaching fellow, went back into his original field, publishing.

Normally I would resent a teacher with less than a year under his belt racing off to write a book about the poor lil children. But not John, who I got to meet at Leonie Haimson's Skinny Awards in June. I'm proud to have a blurb of mine on the book cover. When John asked me for a blurb back in May I looked over my shoulder and said, "who me?" As usual I procrastinated and only had time to read a few chapters of the pdf he sent, but saw right away John had nailed so much of it, amazed he was able to "get it" in such a short time in the system.

I don't agree with everything he recommends as a solution -- if John had remained in the system I believe he would have come to see that nothing will change policy wise without a political movement within the union to engage teachers and parents in an active fightback (he does make recommendations with a list of orgs to join). John wasn't around long enough to see the bigger picture of the neo-liberal assault on public education. He would be a MOREista I believe -- and I would like to make John an honorary member -- maybe even gift him a MORE tee-shirt.

I've been working on a more comprehensive chapter by chapter analysis (not review) of the book and want to compare it to a play I saw at the Fringe Festival this past Sunday by another career changing teacher in the Bronx ("Why You Beasting" -- which will be performed in the fall and I will be getting some group discounts for teachers).

I'll just let Diane Ravitch carry the load (so nice of me).

Today (Aug. 27)

A terrific interview in USA Today with John Owen, who patiently explains what is really happening today in education.

A sample:

Q: You call yourself a “bad” teacher. When did this idea first occur to you?
A: I was a bad teacher because I was a teacher. Today, “bad teacher” and “teacher” have become almost interchangeable. Listen to billionaire “visionaries” such as Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg, as well as “experts” such as Michelle Rhee. The problem with our schools is bad teachers. Almost immediately, I realized that I was destined to be a bad teacher because many of my eight- and ninth-graders had learning problems, and I couldn’t fix them in the 46 minutes I had them each day. Many of my students had behavior problems, and I couldn’t fix those problems either. And I wasn’t very good at masking these problems, so my “scholars” didn’t look like they were learning when they weren’t learning. I also couldn’t keep them from getting excited and boisterous when they were learning.

Last week:

I Recommend This Book by dianerav

This is a book written by John Owens, who left his own comfortable job in publishing to become a teacher in a high-poverty school in New York City. His eyes were opened by what he saw. This is his story of what he learned.

"An explosive new look at the pressures on today’s
teachers and the pitfalls of school reform,
CONFESSIONS OF A BAD TEACHER
presents a passionate appeal to save
public school education, before it’s too late.

"When John Owens left a lucrative publishing job to teach English at a public school in New York City’s South Bronx, he thought he could do some good. Instead, he found an educational maelstrom that robs students of real learning to improve school statistics at any cost, cons parents and taxpayers into thinking their children are being educated, and demonizes its own support system: the teachers.

"The situation has gotten to the point where the phrase “Bad Teacher” is almost interchangeable with “Teacher”. And Owens found himself labeled just that when the teaching methods that were inspiring his students didn’t meet with the reform mandates.

"With first-hand accounts from teachers across the country and practical tips for improving public schools, Confessions of a Bad Teacher is an eye-opening exposé of the dire state of American education and galvanizing call-to-action to embrace our best educators and incite real reform for our children’s futures."

Open the link to order the book.

Read More

NY Times Distorts Mexico Teacher Revolt Which is About fighting Neo-Liberalism in the Streets

RANDI'S NIGHTMARE

Omar Torres/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Teachers blocked access to a government building in Mexico City on Thursday. The city’s central square was also occupied.

A radical teachers' group mobilized thousands of members in Mexico City last week, chasing lawmakers from their chambers, occupying the city's historic central square, blocking access to hotels and the international airport, and threatening to bring an already congested city to a halt in the coming days... NY Times

Why hasn't this happened in the USA? Because the bosses of NEA and AFT would oppose every bit of it. They're the misleading Quislings of completely rotten and corrupt organizations, much like all the fake "professional" organizations and the opportunist saps who run them. ... Rich Gibson

The Times report  (see below Gibson's piece) made a radical teacher takeover of Mexico City appear to be a reaction to the removal of the teacher union's corrupt leader -- sort of like calling a MORE rally against the neo-liberal agenda as being about support for the queen of neo-liberals, Randi Weingarten.

Rich Gibson pretty well nails our union leaders as neo-liberal defenders of the status quo - not the old SQ ed deformers refer to, but a deeply supported SQ of increasing wealth misdistribution. Union leaders will over manage us into oblivion. Their reward will be that they will be allowed to be left standing in the shell of what remains of the unions with their role to maintain the fiction that they represent the workers and not their overseers.

And RBE at Perdido Street just nailed Randi's ass to the wall for doing exactly what Gibson accuses her of:

Randi Weingarten Attacks Bill De Blasio Over Pre-K Plan

You see, Randi is bothered by this:  

“When you put out a plan that basically says, ‘We’ll raise money from the rich so that we can actually fund pre-K’ when Albany has already called it dead on arrival’... it sounds non-serious,” said Weingarten

 Oh, that 1 percent is just itching to crawl out from her. We don't really want to ask the poor rich people to pay more for pre-k and it's dead on arrival because the UFT with its so-called political operation is not interested in mundane issues like universal pre-k.

But the increasing radicalized Diane Ravitch jumps into the fray against her old "friend" Randi.

De Blasio on Monday parried the attack in part by unveiling an endorsement from education historian Diane Ravitch, who in a campaign release specifically cheered the idea of gleaning more money to fund pre-K by taxing high earners.

We have a MORE correspondent on the scene in Mexico City and should get some reports - and maybe pics -- soon.

Susan Ohanian sent this comment and links: 

In Mexico, when education reformers tried to declare teachers unfit, politicos got run out of their offices. You can 'read' this the way the New York Times does. Rich Gibson offers an alternative reading.

Here is Gibson's comment

Mexico's School Workers Fight Back

Publication Date: 2013-08-25

  By Rich Gibson  

by Rich Gibson
Why hasn't this happened in the USA?
Because the bosses of NEA and AFT would oppose every bit of it. They're the misleading Quislings of completely rotten and corrupt organizations, much like all the fake "professional" organizations and the opportunist saps who run them. .
Because the teaching force is pacified and for the most part bought off.
Being bought didn't work so well for, say, the UAW rank and file. When the payoff stopped, they were lost--jobs and income, and ideas, gone.
Still, people in pacified areas become instruments of their own oppression, and to a considerable degree, responsible for it.
Mexico's tactics are worth examining, if not the limited analysis they represent.
Barbarism rises, world wide, largely in several forms of fascism: the demagogue Obama to the Catholic invaders under Reagan/Bush to the Syrian/Libyan/Pakistani jihadists, most backed by the USA which so many patriots still love as "theirs" when it is, in fact "Theirs."
Try to catch up and good luck to our side. We won't like, and won't win, WWIII
The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism,Fifth Estate, 1984

And the NY Times piece today while even though presented in a distorted manner, expresses the remarkable takeover of Mexico City - not by drug dealers -- but by teachers.

Fighting Education Overhaul, Thousands of Teachers Disrupt Mexico City

By Karla Zabudovsky
New York Times
August 25, 2013

By KARLA ZABLUDOVSKY

MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s highly anticipated education overhaul program — intended to weed out poorly performing teachers, establish professional hiring standards and weaken the powerful teachers’ union — is buckling under the tried-and-true tactic of huge street protests, throwing the heart of the capital into chaos.

A radical teachers’ group mobilized thousands of members in Mexico City last week, chasing lawmakers from their chambers, occupying the city’s historic central square, blocking access to hotels and the international airport, and threatening to bring an already congested city to a halt in the coming days.

These mobilizations, analysts said, suggest how difficult it may be for President Enrique Peña Nieto to get through this and other changes he has pushed since taking office in December, including an energy and telecommunications overhaul deemed vital to revving up the economy.

Already, lawmakers, who passed the principal outlines of the education program in December and are negotiating additional legislation needed to carry it out, have shelved one of the bill’s most vital provisions, an evaluation requirement aimed at halting the common practice of buying and selling teaching jobs and establishing mechanisms to fire poorly performing instructors.

“What has happened is very grave,” said Sergio Aguayo, a political analyst at the Colegio de México. “A kidnapped city and a dismantled reform.”

Mr. Peña Nieto had focused on the public education system because he and analysts have called it vital to moving more people into the middle class.

Mexico ranks last in standardized test scores among the countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Teachers buy, sell or inherit positions as though they were family heirlooms. Removing poorly performing teachers is virtually impossible, even over allegations of sexual or substance abuse.

But this year began with hope that change was coming.

The main political parties agreed to work together to pass the overhaul. In February, the seemingly untouchable leader of the powerful main teachers’ union, Elba Esther Gordillo, was ousted from her post and jailed on suspicion of embezzlement, a rare rebuke to powerful figures here.

But by April, members of a small but militant faction of the union began pushing back with violent protests in Guerrero State, including the shutdown of the highway connecting the tourist hub of Acapulco to Mexico City. Demonstrators then paralyzed parts of Oaxaca and Michoacán States, in the south and west.

Last week, they descended on Mexico City, where they turned the central square into a tent city, forcing the Mexico City Marathon, scheduled for Sunday, to be rerouted. And they blockaded the two buildings belonging to the chambers of Congress, forcing the legislature to meet at a convention center. “The president of the country, the secretary of education, they are not putting up a fight for the reform,” said Edna Jaime, director of México Evalúa, a public policy research group. “They threw it out and left it alone.”

Ms. Jaime said she believed the federal and state governments were afraid of heightening the conflict with a direct confrontation.

On Friday, Mr. Peña Nieto defended the proposal, saying that teachers who objected to the changes misunderstood them.

“The education reform will give them opportunities that they don’t have today,” he said. “The reform benefits Mexico’s teachers because it is designed to give them job stability, clear rules and certainty for ascending within the national education system.”

Much of the rancor from the teachers has focused on evaluations. The new law would make them obligatory every four years. Teachers who failed an evaluation could try again a year later, and again a year after that. After failing three times, tenured teachers would be moved to administrative positions while newer teachers would be fired.

“This evaluation is disguised to start firing our peers,” said Floriberto Alejo, 50, a teacher who came from Oaxaca State on Monday.

Mr. Alejo said the proposed overhaul poses a risk to teachers’ seniority. “The education reform, full of tricks, is on track to privatize education.” He said the change intends to fire many teachers and make it harder for parents to find fully staffed public schools, therefore forcing them to send their children to private ones.

Last week, Congress stripped that requirement from the bill, saying it would be taken up at a later date.

“If this content of the law is eliminated in order to avoid conflict, the reform will be practically inconclusive and have no effect,” said Sergio Cárdenas, an education expert at CIDE, a Mexico City research university.

By Friday, the city ground to a near standstill. Getting around the city, in some places, took two to three times as long as usual.

The country’s main airline, Aeroméxico, waived all change fees for passengers who missed their flights, while television stations showed alternate routes to the airport and other neighborhoods.

“This is the expression of a country that is drowning in violence,” said Mr. Aguayo, the political analyst. “There is no ability to impose democratic rules.”

Read More

Ed Notes Redux: UFT Election Results, 1999 - New Action Vote Drops 75% Over Years But They Gain More Ex Bd Seats

New Action Off the cliff

New Action  received 31% in ‘91. New Action received 24% in ‘99. PAC received 2%.... Ed Notes, May, 1999 election analysis

New Action with this tremendous drop in vote totals between '99 (11,500) and '13 (3600 - half from retirees) goes from 'winning" 6  Ex Bd seats in '99 to ten EB seats in '13. Ahhhh, democracy at work! 

I've been going through the archives for a project geared to making print copies of ed notes available online. Until that is done I am publishing items of interest that might provide perspective.

Note the trend from '91, soon after NA was formed from a merger of Teachers Action Caucus and New Directions in 1990 when they got 31% of the vote. By '99 the opposition totals dropped to 26% -- call it the Randi effect -- she was initially selling reform of the union. That had disappeared by 2001 but NA was not capable of organizing and when totals dropped again in the 2001 election Randi jumped in to buy herself an opposition caucus.

For the record, as an independent Ed Notes, after the 2001 election I tried to broker a united front between all opposition forces but it fell apart, which led me to start thinking of the need for an alt caucus and the concept of a citywide edition of Ed Notes (beginning in Fall, 2002 after I retired) which became the basis of ICE. It took another 10 years to forge the highest degree of a united front with MORE (except for the now outlier, New Action). So much irony all over the place.

There were 2 opposition caucuses running in 1999: New Action and Progressive Action, a group focused on the licensing issue. Note return totals- so much higher than today. Did the NA sellout have an impact on lowering vote totals? NA in the high schools with Paul Milstein running for HS veep received 2880 to John Soldini's 2517 yet Soldini was elected because the entire union voted for that position. Union dues without representation. Throw that tea in the bay.

In the 2013 election New Action got 452 slate votes to MORE's 1430 and Unity's 1592. Even better. NA's total votes has dropped in 14 years from 11,500 to 1900 working people plus 1800 retirees, many of whom still think NA is a real opposition. In other words almost half the NA vote came from retirees in '13. So how is that collaboration deal with Unity working out?

Yet, even better, New Action with this tremendous drop in vote totals goes from 'winning" 6 (or 7) Ex Bd seats in '99 to ten EB seats in '13. Ahhhh, democracy at work!

Think of these numbers given that 30,000 more ballots were mailed out in 2013 and about 4000 more in HS. Also note that over 17,000 votes were returned by retirees in '99 and about 22,000 14 years later with a much larger membership pool. Even though 52% of the total vote in a weak turnout, even retirees (with 25,000 more ballots mailed) are losing interest.

Here is my commentary from the May 1999 edition of Ed Notes:

UFT Elections: Looking at the numbers (non-slate votes not included). PAC votes basically irrelevant,except in Academic HS, so not included. 

Interesting Points 

Retirees are the happiest people in our union. They returned the highest percentage (51%) of the ballots, because they clearly had the time to wade through all the names. (The other 49% were too busy getting ready for The Earlybird Special.) Retirees are happy with the way things are going and voted for Unity by 85%. The 33,000 retirees are the 3rd biggest block in the union. After the massive retirement expected in 2 years, they will clearly be the largest voting block. At some point we have to deal with the issue of the impact retirees have on the working conditions of active teachers. If retirees didn’t vote, Unity would have received 67% of the total vote in- stead of 74%, still a significant victory.

Election Facts
Ballots mailed: 136,565
Ballots returned: 49,108 (36%)
Ballots not returned: 103,023 (64%)
Ballots mailed to active members: 103, 023 Ballots returned by active members: 31,908 (31%) Ballots mailed to retirees: 33,542
Ballots returned by retirees: 17,200 

There has been little change in voting patterns for last 5 elections. Unity’s share of the vote has grown from 69% in 1991. NAC received 31% in ‘91. New Action received 24% in ‘99. PAC received 2%. Their impact was minimal, other than perhaps causing some people who would have voted with the opposition, to not vote at all and could explain, to some extent, the higher than usual (69%) of ballots not returned by active teachers. That’s over 70,000 ballots not returned
by ctive teachers. Is it apathy or a silent vote against all caucuses?

Academic High Schools
The only division where New Action had some success. They won half the Academic high school Executive Board seats (the rest were at large) and received about 52% of the vote. With PAC’s vote added in, the opposition polled 55% of the vote in this division. They did not win the Academic HS VP position because these positions are voted on at large, a change instituted by Unity Caucus after the last time an opposition candidate won this position.This is a bad policy for the union as it disenfranchises the divisional voters. 

Read More