Why Cuomo and Mulgrew Are Both Wrong

Governor Cuomo and Michael Mulrew have been waging a war of words in the Daily News, each accusing the other of not caring about the kids of NY. Here's what they've said:

Cuomo referred to the teacher unions and the entrenched education establishment as an “industry” that is more interested in protecting the rights of its members than improving the system for the kids it is supposed to be serving.

Mulgrew: “If he truly believes that, it’s the clearest piece of evidence that he does not understand the people who choose to make their life’s work teaching and educating children."

I believe they are both wrong, and I hope I can articulate why without sounding as if I don't care about kids. I most certainly do care about them. I've spent the vast majority of my adult life working for and with children. And part of the problem is that I felt the need to say that before the rest of what I have to say. Because if you are a teacher, and you say that anything matters to you other than the children you teach, you run the risk of being labeled a monster.  Because God forbid if teachers want to make a decent living while serving the community. How dare we?

Perhaps the best way to approach this is to remind myself, and everyone reading, what the purpose of the union is. And this applies to any union, not just teachers.

The purpose of a union is to give individual workers the ability to collectively bargain and to make a better life for themselves.

Cuomo is wrong because he believes that it is the union's responsibility to improve education. It is not. It is the state's responsibility, as part of the constitution, to provide each child with a "sound, basic education". The governor is attempting to shift the burden for this responsibility from the state to the union. If he can make people believe that the union is responsible, then he can blame teachers for all his own failures, especially the failure to address the inequality of school funding.

Mulgrew is equally wrong because he seems to confuse the union with the membership. They are, in fact, separate entities. The union is made up of teachers, of course, and it is our job to educate children, but it does not therefore follow that it is the union's job to educate children, which is what Mulgrew seems to be saying.

Frankly, I wish Mulgrew saw the union's role differently. It is absolutely the union's job to protect the rights of its members. PERIOD.

That doesn't mean that the membership shouldn't advocate for children. We should. In fact, we must, because there are wealthy forces out there looking to destroy public education for their own profit.

The reason that teachers pay union dues is so that the UFT can advocate for teachers--to protect us from abuse, to negotiate fair contracts with adequate compensation and benefits, and to ensure that we have good working conditions.

What Mulgrew needs to make clear is that by protecting teachers, the union is freeing us to do what's right for kids. No one goes into teaching to get rich, or because the job is easy (half of all teachers leave within the first five years, which clearly speaks to the difficulties teachers face). We go into teaching because we are called to it, because it is an honorable profession, and because if we do our jobs, we can make a definite impact on the lives of children and the world we live in.

I think it's high time the Mulgrew owns what the union is. But he needs to make the case that a strong union is a benefit for children. He has allowed the politicians and hedge fundies to hijack the conversation by conflating the role of the union (protecting teachers) with the role of teachers (educating and advocating for children).

He needs to make the case that when the union is strong, education is strong. When teachers feel respected and safe from unjust evaluations, we are free to do the job we were hired to do. Bright and capable college students will be attracted to teaching, and veterans won't be looking to flee as soon as they are able.

Unions working on behalf of their members helped build this country and its middle class. Instead of fleeing from this basic truth, Mulgrew should embrace it.

Unionism helps teachers help kids. That should be the message.

Chaz Gets a Hearing in the Media

Long time blogger Chaz, who was tarred and feathered in the press as a 'pervy' teacher even after his case was resolved in his favor, finally gets a public hearing in a piece by Arthur Goldstein in the NY Times. 

Read it to understand how the DOE can take a single spurious allegation and ruin a teacher's life, not to mention spending what must be at least a half a million dollars to carry out its vendetta.

Frankly, I hope Chaz sues the DOE for sending news organizations letters that were unfounded and removed from his file, and the NY Daily News for printing this seemingly libelous material.

Kudos to Mr. Goldstein for this piece, and to Chaz himself for having the fortitude to endure the slings and arrows of the DOE and the media.

Why Chaz MUST be fired

I hate to do it, but I must disagree with my fellow bloggers and side with the Daily News in the case of Eric Chasanoff, AKA Chaz of Chaz's School Daze, and call for this unrepentant teacher's ouster. Despite the fact that he was cleared to return to the classroom after 4 1/2 years in the rubber room by an independent arbitrator, we simply can't take the chance that he will stop his outrageous behavior, which consists of telling a high school girl that he "could kiss her" for doing well on a test because he was proud of her. If we allow a poor choice of words to stop us from firing a teacher, what will be next?

Actually, I'll tell you what will be next. I know of an outrageous case going on right now. In a case of sexual deviancy that has gotten little attention so far, a sicko has been found to have entered a salacious relationship with a minor. It's hard to believe, but this individual has posted pictures of this girl on a public web site. The pictures include highly suggestive shots of this young lady posing in a bikini and bunny ears, just in time for Easter, I suppose. And there's more. This pervert has also apparently posted pics of this young victim in a Santa bikini and in a white dress reminiscent of Marilyn Monroe's iconic Seven Year Itch photo, with her skirt blown upwards and her underwear clearly visible. In one of the more disgusting photos, this underage girl is shown lying on the floor in shorts and a bra, the strap of which is pulled dangerously low on her bosom.

To make matters worse, this scoundrel has also posted some of this girl's suggestive tweets. For example, 'Come get down & dirty w/me while we floor flash together!' and 'OMG, I'm so ... wet."

So I think you see where I'm coming from. If we allow Chaz to get away with a poor word choice, it will embolden sickos like the one above, who will feel free to exploit even children in the most despicable manner without fear of punishment. We can never allow our children to be exploited in this manner, and I think any sane person would agree that a teacher who could post such explicit pictures and tweets as those above should be fired.


Of course, it wasn't actually a teacher who did such heinous things to a minor. It was the Daily News.


Yes, my friends, see for yourself, if you can stomach it. The Daily News, paragons of virtue that they are, went out of their way to post a slide show of 22 photos of Courtney Stodden, a 17 year old girl, including all the poses and tweets mentioned above. I found this because it was on linked on the FRONT PAGE of their website today, where thousands of other people will no doubt see it as well.


So, you see why Chaz has to be stopped, don't you? I call for his immediate firing--as soon as every single member of the NY Daily News who had anything to do with posting those pictures of a minor on their web site has been fired, as well.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

You have to wonder how the Daily News can get it wrong just about every single time. Today's attack on teachers focused on Fair Student Funding, a bullshit idea that BloomKlein have fed to the press as a way of democratizing schools but is nothing more than a way for the DOE to skirt the UFT contract and try to fire or marginalize senior teachers.We blogged on this issue several months ago.

The opinion piece wrongly says that under the old system, richer school districts got more money. In truth, the money was for the salaries of more senior teachers who transferred into those schools. As far as I know, almost none of that money went to the kids, but to the teachers who worked in those schools.

This article says that under 'Fair' student funding, money is allocated based upon student needs, which again is false. Schools get a certain amount for each student, but they can spend the money as they wish, including on large catered affairs for the superintendents who visit or on extra copy machines or perhaps even betting on cockfights for all I know. The idea that the students get the money is absurd. What has happened in reality is that principals have denied high needs students something they desperately need in order to succeed--highly qualified teachers. If a principal can hire a newbie for 50K or an experienced veteran for 90K, whom will he hire? And there is LOTS of evidence to show that newbie teachers are not as effective as senior teachers--most research shows that it takes 5 years to become really proficient at teaching--but principals generally don't hire those teachers because they cost more.

The article says, "What's wrong with this? Nothing. The students in these schools are clearly in need. If they either can't entice senior teachers, or if they are happy with the junior teachers they have, why shouldn't they be allowed to use the money allocated for their particular students' needs for more books, supplies or additional staff?"

Actually, there's a great deal wrong if a school can not entice senior teachers. That usually means that the school is broken in some way. It's violent, it's abusive to teachers, or it has no intention of enticing them in the first place. Rather than take real action, such as actually fixing the schools no one wants to teach in, BloomKlein concocts a cockamamie funding scheme.

Let's use an example. Suppose a school has 100 teachers making an average of 80K. That would be 8 million in salary. Let's further suppose this school has 1500 students, which is about right for this many teachers. That's a student teacher ratio of 15:1. If fair student funding worked as advertised, a principal could hire 100 newbies at a cost of 5 million, leaving 3 million. With that 3 million, a principal could hire another 30 newbies, bringing the total staff to 130 and a student teacher ratio of 11.5 to 1. Can anyone show me a single example--just one--where this has happened? Where anything close to this has happened? So where does that extra 3 million go?

I'll tell you exactly what happens in real life. Principals look to cut senior teachers to save money, or they replace retirees with newbies. Then when the savings come in, Bloomberg institutes draconian cuts to school budgets and tells principals to just deal with them. So teaching staffs become less and less experienced, and needy kids don't get squat because Mayor4Life cuts the money from the budget anyway.

Finally, the author of the article, one Raymond Domanico, makes the patently absurd claim that, "...fair Student Funding plays no role in putting teachers into the reserve pool." Pardon me? When schools close or enrollment declines, excessed teachers are put in the ATR pool and principals do not hire them because they do not want to take on the salary of a senior teacher under fair student funding because doing so will cost them as much as 50K a year. As a result, we have a bloated ATR pool that has cost the city well over 200 million dollars so far.

Imagine how that much money could have helped needy kids.

Our Side Gets a Voice

Finally, a sane and clear voice gets a platform in the mostly pro-Bloomberg press. Check out Arthur Goldstein's Op-Ed piece in the Daily News.

Good News

As much as the Daily News acts as a mouthpiece for BloomKlein, you still have to hand it to them when they get one right. They published a great Op-ed piece (which they call a Special to the News) that exposes mayoral control for what it is: a rubber stamp in the hands of a megalomaniacal mayor.

What makes this piece different is that it was written by a teacher, one Arthur Goldstein, who rips into the mayor for overcrowding, crumbling school infrastructure, and abuse of power (especially the PEP, a joke of a panel that must vote the mayor's way or face termination.

I especially love the first line: "As a teacher in an A-rated school, I believe mayoral control has been an absolute disaster." Most schools get As or Bs, and far too many teachers are content to let it ride at that. The dirty little secret of the NYC public schools is that the schools have improved little, if any. Yes, the test scores have improved because the tests themselves are dumbed down and we are forced to spend months teaching students how to take them, but that doesn't mean that education has improved one iota.

This is a mayor who is buying his way into a third term because he controls the media with his powerful pursestrings. Kudos to the News for putting the opposing view out there, and to Mr. Goldstein for having the courage to say it.