TDRs, Part Two

If you thought the release of two year old TDR data today was bad, just wait for the sequel.

The new teacher evaluation deal struck last week will rate teachers ineffective, developing, effective, or highly effective. While the UFT and DOE have yet to iron out all the details about how and when the deal will take effect in the city, you can bet on one thing: these ratings will be used to further humiliate teachers. Imagine your name in all the daily newspapers, with the word "ineffective" next to it.

If you're thinking "No problem. I'm a good teacher. There's no way I'll be rated ineffective", then think again. The UFT has already agreed to a cut score of 65 to be rated ineffective, and it's all too easy to get below that number.

Leo Casey, apologist for the UFT's failed negotiations for as long as I can remember, makes the case that good teachers will get most or all of the 60 points that are allotted for classroom observations. This is nonsense. Remember that the test scores will come out well after most of the rest of the evaluations have been completed. As such, principals have a stake in fudging those numbers even for the best teachers. Imagine giving a teacher a full 60 points, and then finding out later in the year that the teacher's test scores only netted 5 points out of 40. You might think that teacher would be given a passing score of "developing" for getting a 65, but in truth the teacher would be rated "ineffective" because "Teachers rated ineffective on student performance based on objective assessments must be rated ineffective overall." Your principal is not going to want to explain to his superiors why he gave you a perfect score on evaluations when your students scored poorly.

A much more likely scenario is that principals will fudge the numbers, giving even their best teachers a score of, let's say, 45 to allow for improvement and recommendations. If that's the case, you would need to score 20 out of 40 on the test score portion of the evaluation--in other words, a good teacher with excellent evaluations would need to score in the top HALF in order to avoid being rated ineffective.

Of course, if you are not a favorite of the principal, you might get a 30 out of 60 on observations, in which case you would need 35 of 40 points on test scores to avoid being rated ineffective.

As you can see, it will be pretty easy to be rated ineffective under the current system. And that is the point. If Bloomberg can rate 10-20% of teachers ineffective, he can do several things:

• Fire senior teachers, like he's always wanted to.
• Push for and like get a merit pay system, like he's always wanted.
• Make sure that no one entering the system will ever get a pension again (who will be able to go 30 years without being targeted?)
• And most importantly, he can shift the blame for his failed tenure as the "education mayor".

That blame, of course, will fall entirely on YOU, dear teacher. You are the one whose name (and perhaps picture, if the Post can get hold of it) will be besmirched, while Bloomberg claims credit for having run laggards like you out of the system.

And when that happens, remember who sold this piece of shit to you: Leo Casey. The man who also sold you 37.5 minutes. The man who told you it was a good thing that teachers could no longer grieve letters to the file. The man who told you how wonderful it would be now that we have eliminated seniority transfers and you could get a job through the "Open" Market. The man who sold you the entire 2005 contract that eviscerated our rights now wants to sell you the new teacher evaluation system.

This is the man selling you TDRs, Part Two.

I'm not buying it. I hope you don't, either.

The Next Great Compromise

You can see it coming, can't you? The DOE has agreed to put off releasing the Teacher Data Reports until next month, when the case goes to court. BloomKlein has a history of doing whatever the hell they want, the law be damned (witness Bloomberg's shameless theft of a third term as mayor and his current assertion that the term limit extension should only apply to him). So why didn't they release the TDRs before the union had a chance to sue?

If you buy the argument by my fellow blogger Norm that the UFT is in league with the city, the answer is simple. The threatened release of the reports was just a head fake. If you recall, the city signed an agreement with the UFT saying that they would not disclose TDR information to the public. As such, they would most likely lose in court. At that point, the data would be sealed forever. What to do?

The city doesn't want to come off looking like the bad guys. They need the UFT to support them in releasing this data. So sometime between now and the court date in November, look for the DOE and the UFT to come to some sort of new "agreement". It will probably entail releasing the data some time down the road, perhaps in 2011 when the new evaluations are set to take place. The UFT will agree to release the TDR data as part of some "teacher report card" that includes the TDRs, plus evaluation data, etc. The UFT will claim that this system is fairer because it will give a "big picture" view of a teacher's performance rather than just the narrow TDR view.

By doing this, the UFT can continue to look like a friend of reform while still claiming to be protecting teachers. They'll be able to claim victory even as the reports come out.

Don't think this can happen? Think back to the many things the UFT has signed on to and claimed as a 'victory'. The 2005 contract. Loss of seniority. Changes in tenure evaluations. Race to the Top. The added 37.5 minutes in each school day. ALL of those were claimed as wins for the UFT while they were losses for the members.

Don't say I didn't warn you. TDRs, and along with them your privacy, are the next great compromise.

Mr. Talk Plays Negotiator

Some view Mayor4Life's 2% contract offer a strong arm tactic, but I'm not so sure I agree. It's likely that M4L knows that PERB will give us the 4% we are asking for because they have always insisted on following the pattern. So I think the mayor is trying to offer us a nice shiny carrot in the hope that we'll grab it before PERB rules in our favor.

That 2% means a lot to the mayor. If he gets it, it will show him as a tough guy and fiscal watchdog, and possibly set a pattern for the next set of negotiations. So I say, let's give it to him.

In exchange for givebacks FROM HIM, of course. I'd be happy to accept the 2%. Here's what I'd ask for:

• 2% for teachers at all salary steps, not just up to 70K.


• Restoration of seniority transfers and the elimination of the open market. (This would effectively end the ATR crisis by allowing ATRs to "bump" teachers with less seniority. This move would help teachers and save the city 80 million a year--a fiscal win for Bloomy and a real win for teachers).


• An end to "Fair" student funding that makes principals want to fire senior teachers.


• The elimination of potty patrol and lunch duty.


• Restoration of the right to grieve letters in file.


• An agreement that teachers in the rubber room must have a hearing within 90 days or be returned to the classroom.

I'd ask for the elimination of 37.5 minutes, too, but I'd be willing to give that up in favor of all the above. Bloomy wouldn't ever surrender 37.5 because it would look like a big loss for him, especially since parents would notice their kids coming home earlier every day. But the other points above would hardly matter to the public at all, but they'd be a big win for teachers. M4L could claim that he saved the city millions, which would be true, and Mulgrew could claim that he got a raise while eliminating the most egregious points of the 2005 contract.

I don't think this will happen, because Unity would never want to admit what a mistake the 2005 contract was after humping it for five years. Still, you never know. This could be Mulgrew's chance to seize the reins once and for all from Randi's continued grasp and take us in a new direction. If Mulgrew has the cojones, I'd vote for such a contract. Would you?

Randi Reduhhhhx

In a stunning move that shows how much Michael Mulgrew learned from Randi Weingarten, the UFT delegate assembly today authorized the union to file for an impasse. That means, of course, that the union can send the matter to PERB to try to hammer out a settlement.

This is the same process by which, if you recall, we worked out the wonderful 2005 contract, where we gave away just about all our hard earned contractual rights in order to have a longer school day. It wasn't all a disaster, however. In exchange for 6% more time, we got a 6% raise. Yessir, those Unity types are really on the ball.

So, to sum up, in exchange for not endorsing Bill Thompson for mayor, who just might have won with our help, we are NOT going to get the 4% given to other unions without a long, protracted fight in which we will probably lose some of our few remaining rights, such as the right to have perforated toilet paper in the teachers' bathroom and the right not to be fired for being an ATR.

Way to go, Mulgrew. You're a chip off the old block.

Place Your Bets!

Many of us believe that a contract was in place before Randi Weingarten set out to prove the Peter Principle and became president of the AFT. The would help explain why the UFT sat out an election for mayor in which we had a real chance to effect change. Many union hacks have explained that it would be crazy to endorse Thompson during negotiations for fear we'd be retaliated against. Oddly, to me, that is the very reason we should have done everything we could have done to haul Bloomberg out of City Hall by the slack of his pants.

If the contract is a done deal, the only question is when it will be announced. My guess is that it will be on Veteran's Day. The UFT tends to do things when there is a day off ahead so teachers won't be in school to discuss it. It will also be more than a week after the election so they can avoid the appearance of a quid pro quo--at least in their own minds.

I'm thinking of starting a pool. What do you think? What's the magic date that the agreement will be announced?

The Hack is Back

You wouldn't think the Unity crew would be so happy these days. As I blogged the other day, noted Unity hack Ron Issac, AKA Redhog, advised us all to party the night away while the union goes to hell in a handbasket.

An alert reader notified me that Redhog was the author of one of the most disgusting posts in EdWize history (and that ain't easy). It was a relentless defense of the disastrous 2005 contract. You can read the whole ugly thing here. It was so disgusting that the already anyonymous Redhog didn't even post it under his real pseudonym. Here's some of the lowlights, with my own comments in parens:

Our proposed Contract is a landmark for the labor movement. (Much as Hiroshima is a landmark in the nuclear age)

Randi Weingarten has preserved not only the structural integrity of our Contract’s edifice, but raised it to new heights. (I'd say the 2005 contract was more of an orifice than an edifice)

The UFT blew out of the water the DOE’s stubborn call to empower principals to excess teachers without regard to seniority and to force them to find their own jobs within a stipulated time or be fired. (Can anyone say ATRs?)

Circular 6 suffered some superficial abrasions but is fighting fit. (Never mind that potty duty)

We have strengthened the grievance machinery by jettisoning the fluff of the past. (If you considered steps 1 and 2 of the grievance process 'fluff')


Finally, Redhog finished up with this gem: I have neither sought nor been given any perk or sweetheart deal in exchange for bought loyalty. That goes for both the DOE and the UFT.

Hmm. I dunno about that. My source tells me that Redhog retired just a year after this POS contract passed, thus grabbing the money without having to do the work. Furthermore, I'm told he got a job writing for New York Teacher, which kind of seems like a perk to me. Apparently, he's still working for the UFT, unless he's now writing his drivel on EdWize for free.

And that, my friends, is how hack is done.