Why Does the UFT Sounds Like E4E?

This piece on the MORE caucus blog, entitled No Deal for Teachers or Students, makes it clear that the UFT is sounding more like an arm of E4E these days than it is an organization standing up for teachers' rights.

Mulgrew's people and E4E both want to put in place an evaluation system that uses value-added junk science as a major chunk of a teacher's score. This means that if you fail the junk science part two years running, you can be terminated in 60 days:

A teacher who fares poorly on the 40% of the evaluation that includes VAM test scores cannot be rated effective, regardless of how effective he or she is deemed to be by administrator evaluations.

This is utter nonsense. Our union should be trying to stop this, not looking for ways to implement it.

MORE in unequivocal on this issue. They oppose any evaluation system based on this crap. You should, too.

The only way to stop Mulgrew from selling off our rights is to make it clear that we will vote against him if he sells us out on this bogus system. Tell your CL and especially your colleagues that MORE is fighting for a better way.

Mulgrew Demanding Wage Increase in Return for Evaluation Sign-off

In a stunning development, Michael Mulgrew appears to have developed a backbone. According to the New York Post and DOE officials, Mulgrew has refused to sign off any new evaluation system without a guarantee of a wage increase in a new contract:

The teachers’ union has refused to sign a long-awaited agreement with the city on a new teacher evaluation system unless it gets a guarantee of wage increases in the next contract, Department of Education officials charged today.

Lending credence to the usually suspect Post, Chancellor Walcott responded saying, "Mr. Mulgrew’s failure to bargain in good faith and insistence on including issues unrelated to teacher evaluation is unacceptable and illegal." Leave it to Bloomberg's toadie to claim that negotiating a contract is illegal.

Mulgrew declined to comment, saying "“I’m not negotiating in public."

Of course, the Post is possibly the most unreliable paper in the country, but I think this story must be true. Why would the city claim that the UFT is stalling for more money if it isn't? Wouldn't that basically force Mulgrew to do just that?

Also, the terms seem to be somewhat Mulgrewian, in that it appears that the union is asking for a "guarantee" of a raise in the next contract, rather than an immediate signing of a new contract with the 4+4% raises given to the rest of the city's unions. Even if the city agreed, would that contract ever get signed? Does anyone remember when the city guaranteed that Teacher Data Reports would never be made public and then supported them being published in the papers? Moreover, if a new contract isn't signed and we're only given a vague guarantee, would the next mayor have to honor it? Would a downturn in the economy, real or manufactured, nullify it?

So this appears to be real. Perhaps Mulgrew really does feel the heat of MORE and his re-election bearing down on him, especially after he bungled Sandy. We can hope. The signs are good.

Now let's see the UFT execute.


UPDATE: The city has filed with PERB, claiming that the UFT is not bargaining in good fair by demanding an "economic credit" to be applied to any increase in a future contract. See the filing here.

Another Loss for the UFT and Teachers

Before the ink is even dry on the bill, the UFT is going out of its way to frame today's teacher evaluation disclosure agreement as a win. It is nothing of the sort. It is a total loss.

Let's remember how this all happened. The UFT agreed to a "pilot" program to evaluate teachers solely on test scores, with the stipulation that these rankings would not be released. Joel Klein promised to fight against the release of these scores should they be FOILed. They were, and he didn't. Simply put, he lied to teachers yet again, and actually fought for the scores to be released to the papers, which they eventually were.

And what did the UFT gain from giving this to the DOE? A new contract? The same 4% raise that was given to other unions without having evaluations made public? No, all they got was a lot of teachers' names in the papers, and a lot of humiliation for a lot of people.

Remember, no other union has their evaluations published. Now, we will. The UFT will claim that only parents will get to see this info, but there is nothing to stop parents from sharing and publishing this information themselves. This will lead to more teachers being vilified due to faulty evaluations with a margin of error of more than 80%.

The UFT should have pitched it thusly: We played ball once, and we got crucified when the TDRs got published, so we are NOT going to allow it to happen again. Teachers will agree to allow our evaluations to be made available to parents as soon as police evaluations are made public to all citizens in a precinct--in fact, as soon as ALL evaluations are made public, including the mayor, governor, and all of their staff.

Instead, our union has once again agreed to allow its members to be humiliated and targeted. Again, no other union has its evaluations made public in this way. Only the UFT could suffer a loss that no other union has, and still tell its members that it scored a victory.

When Good Teachers Go Bad

I talk a lot about good teachers and bad admins on this blog, but I do recognize that there are many fine admins and some not so hot teachers. So while I have met many more incompetent admins than incompetent teachers, I think it's time we explored that issue, especially as I brought the topic up myself by complaining about my child's Diva teacher.

Obviously, the current system for evaluating teachers stinks on ice. Tyrannical administrators, of which there are far too many in New York, can manipulate the system to harass and rid themselves of senior teachers who make too much money for their budgets, or to quash union activities. Also, far more scrutiny is placed on English and math teachers because their students are tested.

Now, I don't want incompetent teachers working with my child, and I don't want them working in my school (or even in my city). I honestly believe that most teachers feel the same way, but the current system places a target on the back of every teacher. So what to do?

KitchenSink (who got me started thinking about this) posted in the comments section that "School leaders should have real data at their fingertips (I'm talking qualitative observations and feedback and rubrics about performance here, not test scores), and should have the freedom to remove the chaff for the benefit of kids." That sounds like a lot of administrative double talk to me. Who decides what quality means? Who creates the rubric? What stops a vindictive principal from using these tools to drive out teachers he or she doesn't like?

I have a couple of ideas:

1. Reinforce the idea of tenure. Principals have three years in which to decide whether a teacher is acceptable. I could tell you in three days who belongs. If principals change their minds after three years, they better be damn well able to prove a teacher incompetent.

2. Create a meaningful curriculum with the input of teachers (this is done at my school, and you'd be amazed how much teachers want to do justice to the curriculum when they have a hand in creating it). If any teachers fail or refuse to teach the minimum skills agreed upon by their respective departments, they should be put on the hot seat. Divas would be no more--they would have to teach certain units at certain times just like everyone else.

3. We all know that a principal can get his or her admin buddies from other schools to do so-called "impartial" observations, which is nothing more than a way to bolster a case at a 3020 hearing. How about we create "observation teams" of highly qualified teachers to observe teachers outside their own schools instead of admins? These teachers, who truly have no stake in the outcome other than justice and the education of children, would be a better barometer of the truth than the principal calling his friends in to give U ratings to people being targeted.

So, what are your ideas? How do we ensure the highest teacher quality while protecting the rights of teachers who are doing their jobs?