Thursday, April 4, 2013

Why Was Atlanta's Beverly Hall Indicted For Racketeering While Michelle Rhee Won't Be?

Great article by Bruce Dixon.



Why Was Atlanta's Beverly Hall Indicted For Racketeering While Michelle Rhee Won't Be?

By BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon
Atlanta's black former school superintendent and 34 other black teachers and administrators have been indicted for “racketeering” in a cheating scandal. Why aren't others like former DC Schools chancellor Michelle Rhee and her team indicted? Should we be rallying the racial wagons around Dr. Hall and the other 34? No way.

Why Was Atlanta's Beverly Hall Indicted For Racketeering While Michelle Rhee Won't Be?
By BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

Last night former Atlanta superintendent of schools Beverly Hall, along with 35 teachers, principals and others, were indicted for racketeering. The core “criminal” activity alleged is that teachers, principals and test administrators, either under Hall's explicit direction or thanks to a “climate” that endorsed such behavior altered the results of hundreds, or thouands of standardized tests given to Atlanta's public school children.

MORE Elem Ex Bd Cand Jia Lee Helps Sponsor Ed Forum at Earth School on Testing April 8

Why MORE has a future? Activists like Jia Lee who doesn't just talk about the problems with high stakes testing. A number of MORE teacher/parents and allies are opting out of tests in increasing numbers. The big events in Washington DC starting tomorrow will spark a national movement. Jia and her school are doing their part.


Please join us as we discuss our questions, concerns and develop a common understanding of the high stakes tests looming upon our children. Feel free to forward, print and distribute this flyer. I apologize for not being able to get it translated into other languages with the time constraints.
Bring as many parents as possible, and they don't have to be in testing grades this year. Next year, they are planning to roll out the K-2 Standardized assessments. 

At the Earth School, we are planning to have two teachers present a statement. We are steadily moving towards a place where the tensions between the important work that we do with our students is being impacted to a detrimental degree because of high stakes testing. 

We look forward to coming to some answers and plans of action together. 

Best,
Jia
Parent and special education teacher

Julie Cavanagh Refused to Cooperate with NY Post Article Calling Mulgrew "Chicken" on Debate

Every day I am reminded why Julie Cavanagh is not just MORE's presidential candidate but a true leader and why I defer to someone half my age.

Fear.

No, not really. Julie always seems to be the most sensible person in the room. A supreme realist, strategist and with high level political skills that many of us can't match.

Thus her reaction when the NY Post came calling to do an article on Mulgrew's refusal to debate Julie -- and can't you see why he won't.

I got the call from Yoav Gonen from the Post, the one guy many of the fighters against ed deform sort of trust even though he works for the Post. He wanted Julie's number to get her reaction. I didn't think twice about it. The press wanted to do a story so why not I thought?

So we don't hear anything for 2 days and then Julie emails that not only is she busy with a sick Jack but she feels icky even talking to the Post on this issue even though she likes and respects Yoav. She said that the Post would use this to bash the union and Mulgrew in an unfair way and didn't want to be a part of that. Thus an internal debate inside MORE.

One MORE member was to get back to Yoav as a courtesy. But at this point the vicious anti-union Post reporter Carl Campanile entered the picture and MORE was pretty unanimous we wouldn't get involved. In fact he wanted a quote from Julie and wanted to send a photographer to her house to run a picture which would have appeared next to Mulgrew's.

Instead of looking at this as an opportunity to troll for votes, given that the Post is read by more teachers than the NY Times, Julie flat out refused. The Post was informed her letter to Mulgrew was public knowledge. And that is what was used in the article co-written by Yoav and Campanile -- the good and the bad.

The upshot of this is that for those of us who were initially not put off by Yoav's inquiry, is that Julie's instinct that a Post attack on Mulgrew and the UFT was not a good thing for any of us, a reaffirmation why Julie Cavanagh is the perfect spokesperson for an alternative to Unity that sees the big picture.

When Julie talks, I listen. Except when she calls me "grandpa."


John King at E4E, Unity Caucus and E4E in Alignment on King, Ed Eval and Common Core

Both the Unity Caucus leadership and E4E love John King, the front man for the ed deform movement in NY State. This guy is going to decide on an eval plan as an arbitrator? We might as well get Bloomberg himself. Or Quisling himself.



Unity Caucus and E4E: perfect together.  Mulgrew showed up to an E4E meeting but won't show up to debate Julie Cavanagh. 

This is the 2nd appearance King is making at an E4E event. He must have too much time on his hands.

Some MORE teacher and parent reps will be handing out Vote MORE leaflets but expect E4E supporters to vote Unity given they agree on so much. Come on down and join us.

Why go since they won't let anyone in who might ask a question or not sit there like a yoyo? At a recent NYCORE event a young lady came over and said she recognized me from the last time I leafleted John King's appearance. She trashed E4E -- she saw how they tried to bribe people with expensive gifts and raffles and finally saw through them. So you never know how many of these people if they stay in teaching will move politically as they see through the e4e sham.

E4E had the oportunity to test its support by running in the UFT elections. They declined, preferring to use the DOE to help them slink around schools. Their updates are so much more about LA than NY now, a sign of just how much they are petering out here. That is funny as how some of the press were bragging that E4E types won some seats in the last LA union election, which they are pushing as a sign the next gen of teachers are supporting ed deform while wearing egg on their faces when real reform groups like CORE can get 98% of the teachers to strike and MORE actually stands up to Unity.

But Gotham will strive to keep E4E alive by using every excuse to mention them. Did you see their story on chapter leaders where they quote James Eterno extensively but make no mention that he is a candidate for MORE? But they make sure to get one quote from one of the few chapter leader E4E has so they can mention the group.

Don't be surprised to see Gotham do a story on this event while ignoring every other group's events. Like did anyone see something on the NYCORE conference of over 600 people with Karen Lewis as keynoter?

---------------

Critical Questions: A Conversation with NYS Education Commissioner John King
Tell New York State Education Commissioner John King about how policies are impacting your classroom, ask your questions, and advocate for meaningful change for our students and our profession. »
Thursday, April 4, 2013 | 6:30 p.m. (doors open at 6 p.m.)
Bank Street Auditorium
610 West 112th Street, New York, NY 10025
Subway: 1 to 110th St

 

Take Action

Show your support for the Common Core: Student Achievement Partners is launching a campaign to ensure teachers remain at the center of conversations around the new standards. Sign the letter from 10,000 Teachers in Support of the CCSS. »



Wednesday, April 3, 2013

MORE Candidates Julie Cavanagh and Seku Brathwaite on WBAI Thursday Eve at 7PM


Spread the word and tune in if you can!

Education at the Crossroads

http://www.wbai.org/program.php?program=94

New Action: No Action on Social Justice, But Lots of Talk

New Action claims that "action" is talking about something. They were the "first to call" and sometimes they "repeatedly call" for action, as if "calling" is action.  Hey, I call for world peace. I'll wait a few minutes to check if it worked. Maybe I should try doing it repeatedly.-- Ed Notes
I recall members of New Action enthusiastically supporting the creation of the UFT Charter School.  I was alone in my negative vote. I oppose charter schools and so does MORE because they take precious public resources away from the public schools. -- James Eterno, ICE blog
I can't tell you how much glee the MOREs are having with these New Action posts: The crew that actually MADE a movie defending public education and teacher unions. Or the crew that has not only "repeatedly called" for people to go to closing school and charter co-locos and PEP meetings, but ACTUALLY went and spoke and leafleted.

If you haven't read it yet see my post from yesterday with links to wonderful NYC Educator posts.

New Action Seeks Free Pass on Mulgrew Endorsement While Giving Cover to Unity on Lack of Democracy

The funniest is their claims on mayoral control when ICE took on that issue in the process of formation in 2003 because no other caucus even mentioned it. And I will point out that Ed Notes went after Randi for supporting it as far back as pre-ICE 2001, as James Eterno points out on the ICE blog today.

I was sitting behind James when Randi raised it at a May or June 2001 meeting and I watched NA dictator Mike Shulman run around to the NA Ex Bd members telling them not to oppose it (according to one NA EB member at the time) because Randi would be mad at them. I was yelling in the ear of James and NA's Bob Dehler, who turned around and told me how good mayoral control would be.

Here is James today on the ICE blog on mayoral control:
New Action states that they have opposed mayoral control from the start.  I remember it a little differently. While on the UFT Executive Board, I seem to recall the subject of mayoral control first came up around 2001.  The Unity majority brought forward a school governance recommendation that supported giving the mayor the majority control over the Board of Education.
Norm Scott showed up at the Executive Board and schooled me quickly on how it would be a disaster. Chicago was already ahead of New York on mayoral dictatorship; there were already horrible consequences for teachers and students.  I spoke up and voted against supporting mayoral control that night but I don't remember some of the other NAC members of the Executive Board voting with me. NAC had no position on the subject at the time. {James doesn't remember but NA member Bob Dehler turned to me at that point and said mayoral control is a good idea. --Norm
I also recall members of New Action enthusiastically supporting the creation of the UFT Charter School.  I was alone in my negative vote. I oppose charter schools and so does MORE because they take precious public resources away from the public schools.
I'm glad James brought up the enthusiastic support New Action gave to the UFT charter co-location of 2 public schools -- and note that issue is absent from their literature, probably because Mulgrew told them that was a no-no. ICE took a strong and immediate stand against the UFT Charter with Michael Fiorillo leading the way at the DA.


James and MORE and ICE members Lisa North, who left New Action to form ICE in 2003 after their dirty deal with Unity, and Gloria Brandman take apart the New Action claims at the ICE blog. James starts it off.
AN INSIDE LOOK AT NEW ACTION CLAIMS

New Action is supporting Michael Mulgrew for President in the UFT election. Ballots will be mailed today so now it is up to members to decide who will lead our union. The only caucus running an opposing presidential candidate is the Movement for Rank and File Educators (MORE).  MORE is running Julie Cavanagh for UFT President as most readers of this blog already know. This blog endorses Cavanagh/MORE.
Unity and New action are the two longest running caucuses (political parties) in the UFT.  Unity has run the UFT for five decades.  New Action opposed Unity for years.  I was a member of New Action from 1995 to 2003.  I was elected to the UFT Executive Board three times while in NAC. 
In those days they were a genuine opposition group that actually ran a candidate for UFT President.

When I was a new Chapter Leader in 1996, NAC co-chair Michael Shulman spent a great deal of time teaching me about the job and was a valuable resource as was NAC's Ellen Fox.  Therefore, it was very painful to leave NAC in 2003 after they decided not to oppose Unity's Randi Weingarten for UFT President, but it was necessary. Camille Eterno, Ellen Fox, Lisa North, Chris Ash and others have not looked back since we defected although I do miss my New Action friends.

New Action in its current form basically exists to confuse members into thinking they are still the main opposition group within the UFT.  They put out literature that looks critical of the leadership but they do not run against President Mulgrew; instead they endorse him.  In exchange they are given ten candidates for the UFT Executive Board that the majority Unity Caucus is cross endorsing so they are pretty much assured of victory.  NAC maintains this arrangement gives them a voice inside the UFT much like the Unity leaders say they have a voice at the table with Bill Gates and others. What good does that do us?

NYC Educator correctly points out that supporting the other party's candidate for president would be akin to the Democrats in 2004 saying they are the main opposition party and then supporting Republican George W Bush for president.  You wouldn't think that is much of an opposition, would you?

NAC is running for these seats and others based on their record.  However, a look at that record shows that some of what New Action is taking credit for is a little far fetched.

Currently, New Action is making many claims in their literature where they take credit for their accomplishments within the  UFT. Former NAC member (now running with MORE) Lisa North comments on what they do.
I'll interrupt James for a second. Lisa and Gloria have worked with the UFT social justice committee and pushed for many of the issues NA is trying to take credit for. I always told them not to waste their time there because NA would take credit for all the work they did. And so it has come to pass. But they are so socially conscious that won't stop them.


On the disappearing black and Latino educator, every activist in the city knows that ICE founding member and current MORE member Sean Ahern has been the leading voice on this issue since the issue first emerged. As a matter of fact I'm not sure the issue would have emerged if not for the work of Sean.

Defense of the Puerto Rican teachers
Give me a break on this. Angel Gonzalez who is as close as anyone can be to Rafael Feliciano who led the PR teachers, came to ICE, not NA for help in putting the issue before the DA (that's how I met him). And we supported him on the blog and at the DA. See if NA was writing about this issue in 2007 and 2008. In fact, Ed Notes was writing about the Puerto Rico teacher story and their withdrawal from the AFT all along. (Angel then joined ICE and he and I and a few others founded what became GEM in Jan. 2009.)


Stop and frisk
ICE/MORE's Jeff Kaufman, a former cop and lawyer, has been an activist in opposing Stop and Frisk, along with James Eterno's brother John, also a former policeman. They speak all over the state on this issue. MORE took an early stand on this issue and MORE people have worked with and supported the amazing work Teachers Unite does on so many related issues.

On the anti-war issue
Gloria and Lisa were the key people in keeping this flame alive and ran the UFTers to Oppose the War listserve since its founding. 

Well, I'll let James, Lisa and Gloria continue (and my message to Gloria is: these guys are the enemies of union reform and prove it every day.)

"While it's true that NAC proposes some resolutions on important issues at Executive Board meetings, they do little or NO organizing!  It was MORE people who held meetings, sent emails, had rallies, circulated petitions, passed out fliers, contacted other community groups for support, etc. New Action is just like UNITY....pass a resolution and DO NO ACTION to organize to make a real change happen.  
 
Gloria Brandman sits on the UFT Social Justice Committee along with Lisa North.  Here is her critique (in italics) of New Action:

New Actions says they are: The only caucus to repeatedly call for action on the disappearing Black and Latino educators-   
Reality: This issue was originally brought to the Social and Economic Justice Committee (which is co chaired by a NAC and a UNITY person) by MORE's Sean Ahearn with support from Lisa and Gloria, Sean and other MORE people. Teachers Unite, and CPE worked on this issue even before it was brought to the UFT.
New Action says they initiated a resolution in Support of Puerto Rican Teachers Federation Leadership- 

Reality: Not sure if this is true but whenever Rafael Feliciano who was the President of the PRTF came to NYC, he spoke at many events in NYC, none of them organized by anyone in NAC.  It was GEM (Grassroots Education Movement) people who took leadership in supporting the PR Teachers and members of GEM who organized speaking engagements, forums  and fundraising events for  President Feliciano.
{IT IS TRUE GLORIA}
New Action says they called on UFT to support the April 9, 2011 anti-war demonstration. 
 
The Whole Story: This is positive but resolutions without actions do little to make change. It was members of ICE who are now MORE members that formed UFTers to Stop the War. UFTers to Stop the War brought anti-war resolutions to the DA as well as worked to make sure all high schools had information about opting out of military recruitment. NAC supported some of this work, but they did not do the organizing to bring any of it about. It was MORE people! And for the anti-war demonstration in Washington, DC on Jan 27, 2007 it was MORE members who requested and got the UFT to provide two buses, and Lisa and Gloria were the bus captains on the buses. One or two NACs may have attended as well. 

New Action says they achieved: 
 
Bipartisan Social and Economic Justice Committee passes rent control resolution
Bipartisan Social and Economic Justice Committee gets resolution passed  on Reducing the Environmental Footprint. Calls for an end to plastic bottles at UFT and for recycling bins.
 

Reality: Not Bipartisan- There were people from three different caucuses at these meetings. 

(Bipartisan =including members from two parties or factions) I will say that getting rid of the plastic bottles at the DA is probably the most concrete and successful  action that has come about due to this committee!  

New Action says they exposed SESIS as a “nightmare.” Called for help for our members. 

Exactly how did they expose this? Most of them have never even seen SESIS as they are retired.

New Action says they won bipartisan support in solidarity with Chicago teachers
 
The Whole Story: It was MORE that brought teachers from Chicago here, wrote and circulated petitions, organized and participated in meetings, rallies and a march that started in Union Square.

New Action asks the UFT to join NAACP suit on selective school entrance exams

MORE actually proposed a resolution at the DA which was combined with the Executive Board's resolution and approved

New Action called for support for Seattle teachers who refused to administer standardized tests.

The Whole story: It was a MORE member who brought a resolution to DA.  it was combined with the Executive Board's resolution and approved
Back to James.
One final point: New Action met with some people from MORE last fall and NAC says there was an agreement that MORE would not attack them.  Kit Wainer from MORE was at that meeting and says no such agreement was ever made.  I know Kit and I will stand up 100% for his integrity.  I will be diplomatic and say that apparently there was a misunderstanding.
I am not so kind. They are lying skunks, and I hate to insult skunks.

Now here is the New Action attack on MORE's claim to be the social justice caucus of the UFT.

The Social Justice Caucus? Action vs Words

MORE Coalition- The Social Justice Caucus?

The MORE group has highlighted their commitment to fight for social justice in recent election material. They call themselves the social justice caucus.

On the other hand it is noteworthy that New Action/UFT has been in the forefront of the struggle for a non-racist, just society. While focusing on all the issues affecting educators in the schools, from the attack on veteran teachers, the attack on probationary teachers, the insanity of SESIS, abusive administrators, the fixation on standardized tests, and blaming educators for all the problems of the education system–New Action has taken action on ALL of the following–

The first to call for disaster relief for Haiti
The first to call for justice for Trayvon Martin
The first to call for an end to Stop and Frisk
The first to call for the defeat of Mike Bloomberg and support for Bill Thompson
The first to call for the defense of the fired leadership of the Puerto Rican teachers
The only caucus to repeatedly call for action on the disappearing Black and Latino educators
The only caucus to petition to end mayoral control
The first caucus to pass a resolution against gun violence
And New Action spoke up for organizing home care providers


MORE would like to have a record to match New Action but it’s not there yet. 

When the MORE coalition matches its actions with its rhetoric–maybe then it can wear the mantle of the social justice caucus!
 Let me just add one more thing.

Among the lies and misdirection from New Action, there is purposely calling MORE a "coalition" instead of a "caucus", a word branded all over everything MORE does, from the blog to the email to every single leaflet.

Why? Because a coalition is a group of groups, a notably unstable and often temporary alliance, which is the impression New Action is trying to give. about MORE. MORE is a caucus where individuals but not all members from many groups have joined.

There is an important difference and New Action, which itself formed as a caucus, not as a coalition between Teachers Action Caucus and New Directions where both those groups disappeared as entities. (TJC has disappeared and while ICE continues as a discussion group most ICEers are working inside MORE.)

Note that TAC was formed out of  Teachers for Community Control after the 1968 strike --- and where has that idea gone with New Action? They want to end Mayoral control but say precious little about local control. Some social justice caucus. And a reason why Ira Goldfine in my post yesterday pointed to how the early leaders of TAC who opened up schools in 1968 must be turning over in their graves.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Malcolm Smith, Another Charter School Crook, Takes a Fall

Today's news of Smith's arrest skips over the role he played in the charter
school playpen. Which goes to prove you can do anything you want when it comes to charter schools and get away with it but don't step on certain toes when it comes to getting in the way of the agenda of the 1% to put in their choice of mayor. I'll leave you to peruse the Ed Notes and Wave posts regarding Smith but make sure to check out the visit of our pals from Rochester on a very hot July day in 2010 to fight Smith's ed deform agenda attempt to turn the schools over to the mayor. James and Camille showed up for that I remember. (I have tape of that somewhere).

If we could only have the time to dig into Rhee and Klein there would be hope they end up doing a perp walk too.

(A teacher goofs for 10 seconds and it done it while these scam artists get away with it for years.)

See ednotes on smith below:

New Action Seeks Free Pass on Mulgrew Endorsement While Giving Cover to Unity on Lack of Democracy

It's pretty obvious that New Action is independent of Unity...... Unity and New Action are running independent slates, but have cross-endorsed several candidates. Among the at-large seats, Unity has cross-endorsed 7 New Action candidates. They will appear on the ballot as New Action/Unity. And in the high school division New Action has 3 candidates cross-endorsed by Unity, and Unity has 4 candidates cross-endorsed by New Action. In addition, New Action cross-endorsed Michael Mulgrew for President.
---- Jonathan Halabi, New Action Chair
How does New Action look at themselves in the mirror? Ann Filardo (former TAC* Pres candidate) would turn over in her grave if she saw what Shulman is doing. I'd rather go with Unity than this scum..... Ira Goldfine, retired teacher, former coordinator of Coalition of School Worker election campaigns along with Teachers Action Caucus in the 70s and 80s. {*TAC is one of the 2 groups that merged in 1990 to form NA and Shulman came from TAC.}
It's oh so "obvious" that New Action is independent, it can blow your mind. It did NYC Educator's today.

Let's see -- Halabi claims independence from Unity while being dependent on Unity to win ANY ex bd seats. Does that work for you?

New Action is in a tither over the fact that MORE has linked them to Unity Caucus despite the fact that 10 New Action candidates are running on the Unity line, the only way they can win any executive board seats, thus giving Unity cover over the fundamental lack of democracy. Unity controls 100% of the executive board.

As example: in the 2010 election ICE-TJC received 1360 high school votes while New Action alone got 750 but since their candidates also ran on Unity they added the 2600 votes from the Unity coat tails.

By the way, if New Action had renounced its dependency on Unity this time and considered running a joint campaign with MORE I have no doubt we could have won a bunch of Ex Bd seats but New Action wants no MORE person on the EB as much as Unity doesn't.

[In a dream sequence, both New Action and Unity high school vote totals fall below 3000 and MORE breaks 3000 to beat them both -- hey gang, there are 19000 high school teacher votes out there -- get them out for MORE and make NA and Unity eat crow.]

In an email to the New Action troops, Halabi made this laughable comment:
MORE has shifted its campaign - from attacking Unity to attacking Unity/New Action. We weren't really expecting this, but it's not a great surprise either. (Even though they assured us a few months ago that they would not do this).  Looks like they panicked when they saw how widely our literature had gotten out. 
This is so funny. In fact MORE has barely mentioned New Action while they have used this occasion to attack MORE, which is a threat to their phony attempt to appear to be an opposition while being used by Unity to create confusion amongst the voters who are not aware of New Action's dirty deal with them. New Action having been around for 23 years may still carry some weight while the year old MORE is in the process of branding itself. Watch the MORE action and No Action over the next few years to see which group actually does stuff. (Have you EVER seen a No Action presence at a PEP meeting?)
  
I'll deal with their lie about MORE assuring it would give them a free pass --- did they think for a minute I and other ICEers would allow that? But they were worried Ed Notes would go after them and figured the MOREs had corralled me, something they never would or never could do. In fact, NYC Educator, not a MORE member or candidate, has done a much better job on exposing New Action than I have. See today's great post:  UFT's Fake Opposition Hates Being Called Fake Opposition.  Also see Neutered Action.

They are crying on their blog that Kit Wainer cannot control bloggers like NYC and me. Boo-hoo.
 
Is MORE in a state of panic over NA's distribution of literature? MORE has bigger fish to fry. NA always gets their literature out since they are massively loaded with retirees who spend an enormous amount of time going to schools, plus there is some evidence that Unity district reps are "assisting" especially in schools with MORE people running.

One way I know that MORE is far ahead of where ICE was in 2010 is that ICE retirees did so much of the distribution while this time I relatively have little to do other than picking up from the printer and delivering to distribution points. Meaning: we finally have many more activists in the schools than retirees doing this scut work.

When I was at the drawing of candidate ballot positions as a MORE rep with Unity's Bob Astrowsky -- one of my favorite Unity people -- (Shulman from NA didn't show) I was shocked to see how many retirees NA had to use to fill its Exec Board at large slate. In MORE we could have run without any retirees on the 48 member EB at large slate and only included the 5 or 6 retirees who were most active in MORE. In fact New Action could not fill the 19 slots on the functional EB and only filled 12. That was because they had to use their retirees to fill the at large EB positions. In addition, NA could fill only 10 of the 12 officer positions. (MORE filled 11 out of 12, the only seat we didn't fill since it is for a non DOE employee and would have meant someone like a charter school teacher running -- we have one in MORE but it wasn't the time.)

I know, this is arcane useless stuff for many people but it indicated the weakening condition of NA and the threat that MORE presents to them even more than to Unity. Until NA is totally irrelevant, an opposition will not be able to get traction in an election. I just have to convince my fellow MOREs of that.

Halabi continued: 
We haven't responded, at least not yet. We don't think too many people will be fooled.  It's pretty obvious that New Action is independent of Unity, supports them when they are right, opposes them when they are wrong, and tries to point them in the right direction when they are in between. 
Love that "pointing them in the right direction" thing. Like Mulgrew gives a crap about anything they say, knowing full well they have no where else to go. What I think is that some people will be fooled by the New Action phony attempt to present itself as independent of Unity when as I've shown they are totally dependent on Unity to win ANY exec Bd seats. Really, there comes a time when Halabi should hang his head in shame.

Now note this little cutesy point from Halabi:
The UFT Executive Board is up for election. TJC is dissolved into GEM into MORE and ICE is supporting MORE also (that’s a lot of names for one
caucus, er coalitioner whatever.)
er - next time you see Halabi ask him when the next New Action open meeting is taking place. Have you ever even heard of a New Action meeting? While MORE has struggled in monthly open meetings (which some New Action people have attended) to create a democratic organization the antithesis of Unity, New Action has endorsed in spades Unity's continuous violation of democratic principles in every aspect of the union. And functions not much differently than Unity. [Thus note the outrage above of my pal Ira Goldfine].

Here Halabi he saves the coup de grace for last.
Unity and New Action are running independent slates, but have cross-endorsed several candidates. Among the at-large seats, Unity has cross-endorsed 7 New Action candidates. They will appear on the ballot as New Action/Unity. And in the high school division New Action has 3 candidates cross-endorsed by Unity, and Unity has 4 candidates cross-endorsed by New Action. In addition, New Action cross-endorsed Michael Mulgrew for President.
Ooooh! IN ADDITION. An afterthought of sorts. Shhhh, don't tell anyone.

Given all this and the fact that the majority of teachers have no idea of what MORE or even New Action is about -- they would have to read deep into the NA lit to find they support Mulgrew, a number of anti-Unity people will be fooled into voting NA and giving Mulgrew another vote without intending to.

We will all be in the same room watching the results on April 25. I'll bring my NA repellent.

In a future post I'll take on the NA claims of being first in everything -- like did they forget that ICE ran against them and Unity in 2004 over the mayoral control issue? And ICE was first on testing? Jezz, they are like the FOX Faux News.

Monday, April 1, 2013

Shachtmanism: Unity Caucus, Know Your Roots

Al Shanker's long-time secretary was Yetta Shachtman, Max Shachtman's wife. Almost all the early leaders of the UFT were members of Social Democrats USA (SDUSA) and in fact it was well-known you could not rise in the UFT without being a member.

In 1976 Al Shanker tried to push the UFT into supporting Henry Scoop Jackson for president. I was the opposition speaker at the DA and in probably my best moment in those years raised the guns/butter argument as we were right smack in the midst of the massive 1975-76 NYC budget crisis with 15,000 teachers laid off. I was really astounded at Shanker's brazenness.

Note this interesting 2003 item talking about Shachtmanites in the Bush White House.

Trotsky's ghost wandering the White House

Influence on Bush aides: Bolshevik's writings supported the idea of pre-emptive war 
www.prisonplanet.com/trotskys_ghost_wandering_the_white_house....
Shachtman had a legion of young followers (known as Shachtmanites) active ... When the Shachtmanites started working for Senator Jackson, they forged close ...
Really fascinating stuff and maybe a hint of why the UFT/AFT are closet neo-liberals. Or maybe not so closet. I didn't read it all yet but intend intend to.

Randi was never outwardly known to be a member of SDUSA but some people think she would not have been let in the door if she wasn't, at least in her early days. Some think she would have joined whatever they wanted her to to serve her ambition, that she is agnostic on these issues. I am not sure. But given the fall of the iron curtain before Randi took over and the UFT initial support for both Bush wars, despite the fact it was clear they would decimate education budgets, someone has to show me where she has strayed from basic Shankerism/Shachtmanism.

I'm putting this up front since it has the most application to the UFT:

Social Democratic Shachtmanism

Social democratic Shachtmanism, later developed by Shachtman and associated with some members of the Social Democrats, USA, holds Soviet Communist states to be so repressive that that communism must be contained and, when possible, defeated by the collective action of the working class. Consequently, adherents support free labor unions and democracy movements around the world. Domestically, they organized in the civil rights movement and in the labor movement. Social democrats influenced by Shachtman rejected calls for an immediate cease-fire and the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam, but rather opposed bombings in Vietnam and supported a negotiated peace that would allow labor unions and government-opposition to survive. Such social democrats helped provide funding and supplies to the Solidarity, the Polish labor union, as requested by the Polish workers.
Sounds simple when the say "free" labor unions. In fact "free" means any union free of left influence. They spent money undermining left-leaning labor unions around the world, most notably in Chile (see George Schmidt's late 1970s pamphlet in this issue which I can send you upon request.)

Thus the Unity Caucus MUST prevail against any opposition because by nature any serious opposition will have left influences or it wouldn't get anywhere. Some people on the left view New Action, which has/had a left base, as selling out any chance for a real opposition to get a foothold by making a deal with the devil for a few Executive Board seats.

Here is the full wiki piece and links to other info:

Shachtmanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Shachtmanism is the form of Marxism associated with Max Shachtman. It has two major components: a bureaucratic collectivist analysis of the Soviet Union and a third camp approach to world politics. Shachtmanites believe that the Stalinist rulers of Communist countries are a new ruling class distinct from the workers and reject Trotsky's description of Stalinist Russia as a "degenerated workers' state".

Origin

Shachtmanism originated as a tendency within the US Socialist Workers Party in 1939, as Shachtman's supporters left that group to form the Workers Party in 1940. The tensions that led to the split extended as far back as 1931. However, the theory of "bureaucratic collectivism," the idea that the USSR was ruled by a new bureaucratic class and was not capitalist, did not originate with Shachtman, but seems to have originated within the Trotskyist movement with Yvan Craipeau, a member of the French Section of the Fourth International, and Bruno Rizzi.
Although Shachtman groups resignation from the SWP was not only over the defence of the Soviet Union, rather than the class nature of the state itself, that was a major point in the internal polemics of the time.

Currents influenced by Shachtman

Regardless of its origins in the American SWP, Shachtmanism's core belief is opposition to the American SWP's defence of the Soviet Union. This originated not with Shachtman but Joseph Carter and James Burnham, who proposed this at the founding of the SWP in 1938. C. L. R. James referred to the implied theory, from which he dissented, as Carter's little little pill. The theory was never fully developed by anybody in the Workers Party and Shachtman's book, published many years later in 1961, consists earlier articles from the pages of New International with some political conclusions reversed. Ted Grant has alleged that some Trotskyist thinkers, including Tony Cliff, who have described such societies as "state capitalist" share an implicit theoretical agreement with some elements of Shachtmanism.[1] Cliff, who published a critique of Shachtmanism in the late 1940s,[2] would have rejected this allegation.

Left Shachtmanism

Left Shachtmanism, influenced by Max Shachtman's work of the 1940s, sees Stalinist nations as being potentially imperialist and does not offer any support to their leadership. This has been crudely described as seeing the Stalinist and capitalist countries as being equally bad, although it would be more accurate to say that neither is seen as occupying a more progressive stage in the global class struggle.
A more current term for Left Shachtmanism is Third-Camp Trotskyism, the Third Camp being differentiated from capitalism and Stalinism. Prominent Third Camp groupings include the Workers' Liberty grouping in Australia and the United Kingdom and by the International Socialist predecessor of Solidarity.
The foremost left Shachtmanite was Hal Draper, an independent scholar who worked as a librarian at the University of California, Berkeley, where he organized the Independent Socialist Club and became influential with left-wing students during the Free Speech Movement. Julius Jacobson and the New Politics journal continued to develop and apply this political tradition.

Social Democratic Shachtmanism

Social democratic Shachtmanism, later developed by Shachtman and associated with some members of the Social Democrats, USA, holds Soviet Communist states to be so repressive that that communism must be contained and, when possible, defeated by the collective action of the working class. Consequently, adherents support free labor unions and democracy movements around the world. Domestically, they organized in the civil rights movement and in the labor movement. Social democrats influenced by Shachtman rejected calls for an immediate cease-fire and the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam, but rather opposed bombings in Vietnam and supported a negotiated peace that would allow labor unions and government-opposition to survive. Such social democrats helped provide funding and supplies to the Solidarity, the Polish labor union, as requested by the Polish workers.

References

  1. ^ Ted Grant: "The Marxist theory of the state (Once more on the theory of 'state capitalism')", Appendix to Russia: From revolution to counter-revolution.
  2. ^ Tony Cliff: "The theory of bureaucratic collectivism: A critique" (1948) at Marxists.org.

External links

The Fate of the Russian Revolution, Lost Texts of Critical Marxism Vol 1, edited by Sean Matgamna: Max Shactman, Hal Draper, CLR James, Al Glotzer, Joseph Carter, Leon Trotsky, a.o [Phoenix Press, 1998]

How the UFT Misleads and Obfuscates on Danieleson "Pilot"

Our union was formed in order to protect teachers from administrative malpractice… not to facilitate it. Yet , with the “pilot” unchallenged by UFT leadership and now in its *second* year,   the pedagogy of teachers of severely and profoundly handicapped kids will again be analyzed and  rated according to Danielson’s  ”spam-in-a-can” criteria.
 ----
Danielson doesn’t work in D75. Mulgrew knows this.  Alas, the rest of UFT … even ( and I really don’t  quite *get* this part)   the Special Ed  section of  UFT…does not seem to understand what I’m talking about...
....after twenty-six years on the lookout for this sort of thing, I can recognize a truckload of DOE  *stupid* from a mile away. Especially when it’s headed right at me.
----
So when I saw this… this thing, “The Danielson Framework”, unveiled in September of 2011 and renamed ( Why?)by the NYC DOE ,”Talent Management Pilot”, I recognized a code-blue situation immediately and made a bee-line to my union leader, President of the United Federation of Teachers, Michael Mulgrew.
----
I managed to corner him  after the  UFT monthly Delegate Assembly  in October. I told Mr. Mulgrew that my District 75 “Network” ( group of NYC schools) was “piloting” ( testing) the Danielson Framework as a teacher observation tool in D75.  He exclaimed, and I quote: “They’re using *Danielson* in D75 !?”  He squinted, his brow furrowed. Then  he rolled his eyes. I slapped some related paperwork into  his hand.
 ----Paul Hogan, The District 75 Danielson Pilot: CRASH! Burn! Fizzle………..
Paul Hogan is a retired District 75 teacher and MORE member. He has become active with MORE because of the outrage at not only the DOE but of the tepid, misleading response of the Unity/New Action UFT leadership.

A comment from a mentor to teachers at ICE:
Danielson is being used as a tool for observation all over the place. D 75 is using it -they are said to be "piloting" it. Even though Danielson herself said it is inappropriate for special ed. She said she would be hiring someone to develop a rubric for special ed but it has not happened. Instead there will be an accompanying piece of things to look for-but the rubric is not changing. Principals will be trained in it and it is being rolled out on June 1st citywide and being tauted as the first time everyone in the city will be on the same page. What a claim!!!!

Paul Hogan posted a detailed analysis on his blog. Below are a more excerpts below but read it all at:

The District 75 Danielson Pilot: CRASH! Burn! Fizzle………..

25 Mar
 
Can Charlotte Danielson “cure” Down’s Syndrome?  Can she make it “go away” ( i.e. render it educationally irrelevant)?  What about cerebral palsy? Fetal Alcohol Syndrome?

Ms. Danielson  is the creator of the now-famous “Danielson Framework”. It is  a teacher observation/evaluation tool that is all the rage  in  those school districts  around the country that are  right now undergoing what is generously described as school “reform”.  So my admittedly loaded  question is this: Can she ( or *it*; i.e. the Framework)  enable a  16-year-old quadriplegic — with irreversible birth trauma-related organic brain damage, no spoken language capacity, and profound intellectual disability — to miraculously rise from his wheelchair and his wordlessness and lead his  classmates in a grade-level discussion of , say, Shakespeare’s break with  Renaissance literary convention in “Romeo and Juliet”?

All reasonable people agree: no. But the NYC Department of Education, particularly in the Bloomberg era,  treats  “reason” as one would  sensibly treat a contagious disease.  And, after twenty-six years on the lookout for this sort of thing, I can recognize a truckload of DOE  *stupid* from a mile away. Especially when it’s headed right at me.

Mulgrew used to teach in D75 and *instantly* saw the problem: Danielson’s work is  normed on general education teachers of general education students in general education classrooms. District 75, in contrast,  serves students with severe and profound intellectual and/or behavioral handicaps, often compounded by physical disabilities,  who are taught in specialized, *self-contained*  ( i.e. special ed only) classrooms by teachers who are trained and licensed to do  this highly specialized — and very different — type of teaching.

In short: NO gen ed students, NO gen ed classrooms; NO gen ed teachers in D75. This being the case, it seems inarguable that  mistakes were made ( a lot of them) when, last year:

1. the DOE  assigned 11 schools in District 75 to the so-called Talent Management Pilot ( DOE-speak for its version of Danielson);
2. the UFT agreed to go along with it;
3. no one bothered to consult the Special Ed professionals ( many with post-graduate degrees in Special Ed. and decades of experience working with the student population affected) in those 11 schools; the teachers whose professional lives were about to be turned upside down by the astoundingly *dumb* idea of test-driving  the Danielson Framework through District 75 .

Here’s the problem: Danielson doesn’t work in D75. Mulgrew knows this.  Alas, the rest of UFT … even ( and I really don’t  quite *get* this part)   the Special Ed  section of  UFT…does not seem to understand what I’m talking about. In November of 2012, more than a *year* after my ‘brief encounter” with President Mulgrew at the DA and, after a  lengthy  and complicated correspondence with the UFT VP for CurrIculum  that seems to have gone  absolutely *nowhere*,  I emailed said VP as follows:

“It is not a trivial issue. Evaluating teachers of severely  multiply-handicapped children with a rubric that is designed to evaluate teachers in general education settings with general education students is tantamount to punishing and penalizing teachers who go into this demanding , difficult and highly *specialized* type of teaching. Our union was formed in order to protect teachers from administrative malpractice… not to facilitate it. “

The simple fact is that the vast majority District 75 kids cannot, by definition, perform to the standards  required by the Danielson Framework.  (That’s WHY they’re in District 75!)  Yet , with the “pilot” unchallenged by UFT leadership and now in its *second* year,   the pedagogy of teachers of severely and profoundly handicapped kids will again be analyzed and  rated according to Danielson’s  ”spam-in-a-can” criteria.  The inescapable consequence: artificially low ratings for the aforementioned Special Ed teachers. It’s hard to explain to people  outside of the district  just how   ridiculous this  is; how *utterly* mismatched the tool is to the task;  how blatantly unfair to the specially-trained and  specially-licensed special educators who are — along with their students , of course — its  primary victims.  And, one increasingly suspects, its *targets*.

Ridiculous, you say?  It can’t be? Well, let’s look at some examples. In  Danielson’s  “Domain 3: Instruction,” the classroom teacher can earn a rating of “Highly Effective” ( the highest rating possible; it corresponds to a rating of 4 on a 4-point scale)  *only* if his/her students are observed by the evaluator ” formulat(ing) high-level questions.” Additionally, said students must “assume responsibility for the success of the discussion.”  In short, if one’s students aren’t observed doing this ( i.e. assuming “responsibility for the success of the discussion”) the teacher cannot be rated as “Highly Effective.”  These behaviors are, evidently, what Ms. Danielson expects of high school students in general education.

Now.  Perhaps we can excuse Ms. Danielson. ( And perhaps not . Her website bio says she has experience in teaching “all” levels, which is clearly not the case.) Statistically speaking, we are talking about kids that are outside the norm: 5% or less of NYC public school enrollment. It’s unlikely that Ms. Danielson understood this initially — I told her later —  but many of the youngsters in District 75 programs cannot speak. I don’t mean to say their language is “weak”. Or that they don’t speak *clearly*. I mean to say they literally “cannot speak”.  At all. 


Is something analogous happening here? It’s difficult to know. But  I  do think it’s incumbent on Ms. Danielson… given Gates’ scuzzy  history… to make plain the full  extent of her collaboration with him and be utterly clear on the question of exactly who  is paying exactly whom for exactly what.
Corporate influence aside, other disturbing questions are raised by the D75 Danielson Pilot.   The public trusts that there are responsible and knowledgable adults in charge at  NYC DOE  who  presumably SHOULD have put the kabbosh on a no-go notion like Danielson in D75 but did not, have not, and … apparently… will not. Does not the district have a Superintendent? Do not these 11 schools have a Network Leader? Do these education leaders not understand the nature  and  learning characteristics of the student population whose interests they purport to serve? Did they really read and  really understand the Danielson Frameworks before they decided to take the education of NYC’s least advantaged children out for  what amounts to a two-year joy ride? Do they really know what they’re doing?
Ms. Danielson has a vaguely  worded — and weirdly redundant ( Three paragraphs. Paragraph 3 repeats paragraph 1, nearly verbatim. BTW,should we rate that particular writing sample  1, 2, 3 or 4 ?) — official bio her on  website. She was kind enough to send me two meatier resumes on request. Likewise, Kirsten Busch Johnson, the DOE official in charge of the aforementioned Talent Management Pilot ( the Danielson Framework slightly ——and pointlessly, imo— revised by NYC DOE)  boasts a google-able online resume . Three years teaching experience right out of college. Before going to work for Microsoft, i.e. Gates. (Hey, she must be an expert.)

But what about the Superintendent ? And the Network Leader? You know, the upper-level DOE managers who are really supposed to know these D75 kids. Who are these people, really? I know their names and their faces and have met and spoken with both. Yet I can’t find an online  resume for either. I’m wondering if there’s a reason for that. How much do they really understand about this population? What is their training and education, exactly?  How many years– if any — have they spent  working in classrooms with these profoundly  impaired kids? Did they spend enough time  there to really absorb the nuances and complexities of getting these kids to learn?  Frankly, one doubts it. In any case, this taxpayer  wants to see the resumes.

Alas, we are kept in the dark.  And, while were at it,  let’s look at the building administrators: our principals  and their  assistant principals —  the bottom rung of the ed admin  ladder and consequently the paramecia, if you will, of  the now-immense corporate “reform” movement food chain.  These grim souls  do the dirty work.  Now functioning as professional nit-pickers and fault-finders,  they are in fact  ex-teachers (usually) with very limited ( almost always) hands-on experience themselves.  They nonetheless  go into  classrooms, ( in teams, if you can believe it) observe the instruction in progress and try to make the Danielson-based Talent Management Rubric sound relevant to a situation where no  objective, clear-thinking adult believes it has the slightest applicability.

One could almost feel sorry for them. It’s a fool’s errand if ever there was one.  But, by dutifully following   orders from the “big fish” in this particular  bureaucratic swamp, the small fry get to keep their  out-of-classroom jobs, along with the attendant perks.  So they  play along (or should I say “swim along”), aiding and abetting when and where they are needed. Classroom teachers, consequently,  take on a serious risk by teaching profoundly impaired  kids what they actually need to learn….as opposed to what’s in Ms. Danielson’s  Framework… and  doing so in ways that help those kids to actually *absorb* it.  Whatever her intention,  Ms.Danielson, by her own admission, has no clue as to what they need to learn. Nor how to deliver it. And her rubric reflects that. But what’s really alarming is this: neither do  the DOE “suits” who brought the Framework   into the D75 buildings.  And they’ve been involved with the D75 population for years. At this point , it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that they just don’t care.  At least not about the education of handicapped kids.

So, what do they care about then? Again, I’ve no idea. I’m neither mind-reader nor psychiatrist.  Some people don’t care about anything. Let’s leave that  ”to Dr. Freud along with the rest of it!”  But instinct ( and experience)  tells me  that the Talent Management Program’s application  to D75  is  concerned less with education than it is with *defamation*. This being the case,  it becomes more of a labor/management issue ( or a legal matter) than  an educational one. As to possible motive: it’s a lot easier to fire people if you can manage to professionally  discredit them first… even on the basis of such absurd  evidence as that yielded by the use of the Danielson Framework as a teacher observation tool. And it’s easier still to create a hostile work environment falling just short of the legal standard of  “hostile work environment” by setting them up to fail.  The Framework is useful for this purpose as well.  Then you don’t have to fire them. You can just drive them away.

So… where were we?  OH! Right! Now our union leader is going to do….well…. what exactly?