Yes, the Mayor Got His A$$ Kicked. No It's Not the End Of the World

It's budget season in  New York State. That period of time from February 1 to April 1 is very a exciting time to follow politics. Lately, it has become a very exciting to follow education issues as well. The calculus of democratic politics don't seem to be just right during budget season. It can be a time where down seems up and up left seems right; a time where the voice of the few -those who can afford TV ads and can afford to drag thousands up to Albany- seem to outnumber the many. It is a time where politicians find themselves in all sorts of contorted positions with the hope of making as many constituents as possible happy with the how they voted.

This year's budget season is no different. Yet it should be remembered for two great things: First, this year's season has marked the return of the #edwars here in New York. It has seen charter school leaders backed by funders worth tens of millions, successfully fight their way out of a corner they found themselves in after last year's election. Second, it has marked a rare loss for State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Shelly, as he's called upstate, did something he doesn't normally do during budget season; he publicly stated a few positions. That's rare because he usually likes to be the last voice in the room that is heard. After that, he did something he hardly even does; he changed those positions in the name of compromise. 

That's a significant shift. New York State budget negotiations has often been referred to as 'three men in a room', the governor, the leader of the Senate and the leader of the Assembly, hammering out a deal. Shelly doesn't like to change his positions very often (that's why he hardly ever shared them with the press during negotiations). 

This year's budget season is also significant for another reason; the 'fourth man' in the room -the mayor of New York City (and the one person who holds sway over the most amount of legislative votes (of both houses) up in the Albany, had his a__ royally kicked this season, then made a speech that reached out to the charter groups and finally fell completely silent during the last, intense week of negotiations, letting the 'new' powers that be hammer out the details. That's a first and is indicative of just how bad he got whooped. 

To hear Diane Ravitch tell it over on the New York Review of Books, the man simply caved to the powerful funding of charters. Ravitch writes that, at some point during this budget season:

De Blasio decided he could not win this war. The other side had too much money and proved it could drive down his poll numbers.

And to hear Norm Scott tell the story over on Ednotes, BDB is, at best ineffectual and, at worse, a man who wasted our vote. "Enjoy the victory", Scott writes to all of his readers who voted for BDB back in November. "--he is folding faster than a cheap suit--".  Then there's this:

I hate to tell you I told you so, but I told you so. That Eva would never pay a dime in rent...Not only that but now de Blasio will have to pay her rent....can I predict right now -- one term.

Ouch.

So the guy who wanted to stand up to the powers that be had his head handed to him. Instead of thinking of ideas like organizing a press conference to  accusing charters of getting some of the school aide that he had wanted for pre-k (he had wanted $342 million. He got $300 million, with more than $42 million in new dollars going to charters), he caved. Instead of getting creative, perhaps using his bully pulpit powers to visit NYC students who are forced to attend class in trailers (then, perhaps accusing the governor of not caring about those students), he remained silent.  In short, instead of fighting, he turned tail and ran. Gave up.  Here are afew ways you could describe it.

He had his head handed to him.
He got hit straight into next Tuesday.
They beat him so bad his stars saw stars.
He got his butt kicked so hard, mine hurt just watching it.
He was a tomato.


He definitely some missteps. He probably shouldn't have announced the end of co-locations during budget season -when the fog of war hangs over New York politics like a, well, like a fog. And he probably should have taken the gloves off with Eva before she grew as big as she is now (I personally felt she should have been investigated by OSI for calling off school for all those children for a day to head up to Albany. Charters, you may recall, are still required to follow the rules of education in New York State). But what's past is past and it's time to sum up and measure exactly how much was lost.

• Instead of an end to the standardized test regime, we got an affirmation of it. The suburban backlash amounted to less than what many of us had hoped for. Instead of a moratorium on testing, we got a reminder that our jobs are about test results and a warning about teaching to the test. 
• Instead of a $342 million tax on the rich, we a $300 million handout and a slap in the face to the principal of home rule. New York City is now the only district in NYS that cannot create a new funding source to teach it's four year olds. The governor did that to us.
• Instead the end of co-location, we lost a small part of mayoral control and three co-locations must now continue. The topic that the governor actually dismantled part of mayoral control when he didn't exercise the type of control that the moneyed interests like to see is a topic for another blog post. But it happened.

But before you go thinking it's the end of the world, consider two things. First, consider what we gained this budget season:

• A ton of new cash from the state for city schools. Yes, not as much as it should be, but BDB was able to get $6.3 billion from the state in addition to a guaranteed funding source for Pre-k. At no point were we talking about a funding cut.
• An affirmation that co-locations may now end.  If you're crying about co-locations, understand that Silver held off the really bad stuff. The mayor did not lose the control of creating new co-located schools. Unless Fariña decides to co-locate at some future PEP, they are now over. I mean OVER. That's a win in any language.
• No new city dollars going to help charters.   Charters are getting a whole lot of new money, but it's from the state. What does this mean? Well the trend of siphoning off money from the public district to pay for the charters is now reversed. Yes, the state is picking up the tab. But, given the nearly $7B that NYC schools are getting this year (which is a huge increase), that new money (coming from the state) is not coming from the city (at least, this is what I have taken away from the news stories). It's coming from the state. That's a win that Diane Ravitch and Norm Scott should be happy about. 
• [This is an Update] The rent is offset Now some may think that, since the city must now pay for the Eva's rent, that the outcome is terrible. But the fact is that those funds (up to $40 million per year) are being offset (and then some) by the monies that the state is providing. I just wanted to be clear: Mario Cuomo's son is paying the rent for charter schools. He's doing so with money from upstate and long island and all of the suburbs in between. The taxpayers of New York are not paying for that rent. 

Second, consider this; BDB wasn't the only one to get his a$$ kicked this season. As I noted earlier, this season saw a rare loss for Sheldon Silver as well. That is a rarity and it should be factored into anyone's analysis of exactly wth it was that happened up there in Albany this year.

Concusion:

So is deB a one term mayor? Maybe. The way I see it, he's two choices; he could switch teams, like state Senator Tony Avella, has apparently done, or he could find his inner Bill Clinton and figure out how to fight back against all of this. Which way his survival instincts take him is anyone's guess at this point. If he brilliant politician anywhere in him, now would be a good time to let it out.

But I would like to give you a brief history lesson before you go writing off this, or any Italian from Brooklyn. This city's last populist mayor; Theorello H. La Guardia, was elected on the promise of putting everyone back to work. Yet during his first year, he laid off thousands of city employees, because the NYC government was heavily in debt. . It wasn't until after that year until he found his groove and became the mayor we all remember him for. And how he is remembered? Well, among other things, for finding ways of getting the city new money from Washington DC) and for putting people back to work during the Great Depression. 

So, Yes!! BDB got is a$$ kicked this season!! But no. It's not the end of of the world. 

The Press, de Blasio and Class Warfare

Word to the wise: Anyone seeking public office with the hope of helping this city's left-behind is going to get bashed by the press.

Why? Well because the press belongs to the upper classes and, as one popular musician put it some time ago, "when they own information, they can bent it all they want".

Here is a case in point: Maureen Dowd -who I've never seen bother to write a single word on behalf of improving the lives of New York's nearly 50% poor- recently foiled de Blasio -a man who's integrity is impeccable-  against new LA mayor Garcetti -a man who admitted to tending bar and getting so drunk on Monday for St. Patrick's Day that he doesn't quite remember everything he did that day. And, according to Dowd, the guy who was AWOL the day of an LA Earthquake, is doing a better job.

"He has been a stark contrast to New York's new Democratic mayor, Bill de Blasio, who has been visible but abrasive(1) about one cause: funding a pre-K program by taxing the wealthy. While de Blasio came to power belittling Michael Bloomberg's tenure, Garcetti went to Manhattan before he was sworn in to seek Bloomberg's advice.

...

While de Blasio has been battling Gov. Andrew Cuomo on raising taxes (1) and closing charter schools, Garcetti has been quietly and amiably working with Gov. Jerry Brown on climate change and on tax inducements that would stem the exodus of film and TV companies to Louisiana and Canada.

          ...

While de Blasio is seen as a captive of unions and foe of business (3), Garcetti has pushed back against the powerful public works employees' union and reached out to business.

The hope of liberals that de Blasio would turn New York into a lab for populist government theories has faded, as that mayor's disapproval rating has more than doubled since January. (4)

This is classwareafe at it's most slick. It's the type of mentality that put JJ Walker into office during the 1920s (later resigned during a scandal) and the precise type of rhetoric that leads people in the middle classes to wage war on the poor, instead of on poverty.

Sad as it may be, Dowd is, of course, not the first to take pot shots at the only big city mayor who speaks for the poor. You're aware of how residents from the Upper East Side complained about how their streets didn't get plowed during a snowstorm. The New York Post picked up on that story and sold a million copies (for a change)!

And, on the now famous day that schools were kept open during the snowstorm, did anyone notice how the press was only interested in how the middle class (their audience) felt about schools being open?

When New York City schools stayed open that day, it did so for the benefit of the few people who needed them most. And despite doing the right thing for this city's most vulnerable the  press slayed him.

WABC's noon coverage from that day is an excellent example of the class warfare the press plays.

After the anchor, Ken Rosato,  introduced senior reporter Art McFarland, who did a live shot from the ritzy Upper West Side, the McFarland offered this lede to his story:

"Well, Ken, if anyone was looking forward to going to public schools in the city  today for a hot meal or any other reason, we-did-not-find-them"  

He then played his recorded story which featured his interview of two parents -homeowners from Astoria, Queens- about whether it was too dangerous to put their children on the bus during the storm.  He also interviewed students and parents from Astoria's IS 141 "The Steinway School" about how upset they were that the mayor hadn't closed schools. All in all, it was a very nice three-minute piece (you can see the full report for yourself here).


In Astoria's 11105 zip code, where McFarland interviewed parents, just 7.5% of residents live below the poverty level. The children of the parents he first interviewed may very well attend P.S. 234 in that neighborhood. That school has an Economic Need Index of .58 (meaning just over 1/2 of their students qualify for a free hot lunch). The Economic Need Index at "The Steinway School", Mc Farland's school visit, is even less than that: only .49.

McFarland could have, but never did, travel to another Queens neighborhood that day -one with a higher percentage of students who might have benefitted from having an open school during a snowstorm and who may well have traveled there for a 'hot meal or any other reason' during one.

He might have, for instance, visited a neighborhood in the Rockaways. Zip code 11691 is in the Rockaways. 11691 has a poverty rate of 47.3% -much higher than the Astoria neighborhood that he actually visited. He could have interviewed students from one of that neighborhood's schools, such as M.S 53 and asked them how they felt about the option (it was only an option) of going to school that day.  MS 53 has an Economic Need Index of .90.  He might also have visited the recently famous PS 106 in that same neighborhood. The Economic Need Index there is .94!! Almost every student in these schools qualify for the free hot meal that the mayor and the chancellor were talking about when they justified opening up schools during that storm.

McFarland, however, did not go to these neighborhoods. Instead, he was sent a middle class neighborhood to ask middle class parents questions.

Throughout the day, I saw reporters interview parents in front of such prestigious schools as PS 89 (Battery Park City) and PS 41 (Greenwich Village) but I never saw them travel to the Bronx or to Harlem or to Jamaica or East New York. I never got to see those parents answer questions about whether or not schools should be opened.


Why would the press stay away from showing people who would have benefitted from having an open school door during a snowstorm and, instead, going to a neighborhood with a relatively high household income and  'go live' from one of the most upscale neighborhoods in the world? Did they want to ask middle class people how they felt about schools staying open? Or did they want to ask middle class people how they felt about schools staying open for the benefit of the poor? Is it because they only want to see the middle class and above? Is it because poor people don't buy their newspapers? Or is it because they want the war against the poor to continue? Given the track record since January 1 -when the richest a-hole in New York left public office- I'd have to say it's due to their distain of nearly 50% of New York City residents. That's right, they just don't like poor people.


Only now that the New York Times and Marueen Dowd have jumped on the bandwagon, you can expect the class warfare from the press to really heat up!!! It will be open season on BDB, and open season on anyone who takes a strong public stance in favor of helping the 'other half' in our society.



 Just because I want them off my chest, here are some thoughts, arranged as footnotes:

1) de Blasio isn't an abrasive Mayor. After 12 years of Bloomberg, does she really think her readership is too stupid to remember Michael R Bloomberg?

2) He isn't battling Cuomo about the Pre-K tax. Cuomo is battling him. Anyone following the pre-K story knows this full well.

3) If making sure that people can have a few paid days off and a livable working wage is a "foe to business", then we really have left the building of truth. There was once a time when that paper would only publish the truth.

4) But it's people like Down who have creamed his approval rating! It has nothing to do with 'liberal hopes fading' It has to do with a concerted effort by rich idiots.



Final thought: According to each of the three Abrahamic Religions, it is the duty - the sacred duty, in fact- of people to care for the poor in their society. The very impeccable Raginghorse blog recently reminded me that, in a for-profit society; 'All that is sacred becomes profane'. I never was a big Marx fan, but that quote describes the press' treatment of New York's City's mayor to a T. If this guy is a one-term mayor, it won't be because of anything he did. It will be because of an unfair, untruthful fourth estate that assassinated the character of his leadership.


And if you were once poor, and you're watching this unfold without calling it out for what it is, then shame on you too!

Omens, Auguries and Portents Hopeful (The Future of Networks!)

Reading the tea leaves, it looks like the Support Networks are going away -sometime pretty soon.


It was fun reading this piece from the ed site formerly known as Gotham Schools last week. Says Philssa Cramer: :

"Douglas Knecht, who had been running one of the department’s five “clusters” of school support networks, will oversee the department’s plan to identify schools that can be models of good instruction and operations."

Of course, there was no mention of who would replace Douglas Knecht as the leader of Cluster one.

Clusters aren't mentioned too often, but they are kind of important to the current organizational structure of the NYC DOE. Clusters are that layer of bureaucracy that separates 'Support Networks' from Tweed. The current organization goes from school to network to cluster to central (or Tweed). To put it a different way, there is one Tweed, five clusters,  flocks of 'Support Networks' and about 1800 schools. So you might think that a cluster in charge of roughly 20% of support for schools would need a replacement leader kind of quick, right?

Not so.

Here's the word on the street: The group of support networks in Knecht's cluster, Cluster One, have been rolled in with Cluster Two. There will be no replacement for him. In fact, the cluster he's leaving will no longer exist. All of the networks and schools within it will be part of 'Cluster Two'. I'm sure there's some nice jargon that explains it, but that's the general gist of things.

So what? Imagine it's WW2. General Patton loses command of his Third Army and, instead of replacing him with a new commanding general, Eisenhower just rolled the Third Army in with Omar Bradley's First Army, making Bradley in charge of both Armies (one in Italy and one in France) at the same time. That's what happened with Knecht's old Cluster.

There are only two reasons you do something like that: You're either consolidating even  more central control at Tweed or (and here's the cool part) you're not planning on keeping the Clusters around for much longer.

And if you're not planning on keeping the Clusters around for much longer, then that means that you're not planning to keep the Networks around for much longer either.

And if you're not planning on keeping the Networks around, then it sounds like districts are coming back -before September.


;D

The Online Backpay Calculator for NYC Teachers

UPDATE 9/26/2015!!

I strongly suggest you read the full directions at the very bottom of this blog. They walk you through logging onto payroll portal to get precise figures on what you actually earned. This, however, is so simple to use you can still follow the steps and use some best guesses.


1. What did you earn between Nov. 1, 2009 and today? Enter it in the top space of the calculator.
2. What did you earn between Nov. 1, 2010 and today? Enter that in the bottom space of the calculator.
3. Click "Send"
4. See that number that came up? Multiply it by .125 (12 and a half percent) and that's what you'll get before taxes on 10/15/15.

You should comment now and say thanks. It's only polite.

Oh, btw....
This has been in testing for over a year now. It's accurate. Any inaccuracies are attributable solely to:
1.  Your own inaccurate figure for what you actually made (I told you to follow the instructions below). 
2. Something having to do with the formula that Unity leadership agreed upon but hasn't shared. 




Here's the original post from 2/14/2014)

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

Online calculators are about as reliable as the weather forecast. They make certain assumptions that may or may not come to pass. This online calculator is no different. I made the following assumptions as I put it together:

• It assumes that we will agree to a 4% and 4% raise for 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively.
• It fairly assumes we will be paid for those raises retroactive to the expiration of the last contract
• It assumes that the .58% reduction discussed in this blog post will not come from this amount. 
• It assumes that we will not be receiving retroactive pay for the contract years of '11-'12, '12-'13, and '13-present. (It assumes zero retroactive pay for that period).
• It does not include any after school. or per session activities that you may have worked during this time (all money that came from a separate check is NOT included in this calculator) 
• But it does assume that the per session amount will follow lockstep with the base salary amount (that's a fancy way of saying any coverages, etc. that you did and showed up in your regular check would be part of the 4% and 4% raise. It probably won't happen exactly that way, but it will probably happen somewhere close to it. Close enough to estimate anyway). 
• It assumes the first 4% becomes effectives on 11/1/2009
• It assumes the second 4% raise becomes effective on 11/1/2010

So here's your disclaimer: None or all of these assumptions may come to pass. This calculator is only based on the assumptions listed above.

The Math

The way I have calculated the two 4% raises is fairly straight forward. I calculate that on November 1, 2009, you should have received a raise of 4%. That means that between that date and today, your pay should have been augmented by 4%. On (or about) November 1, 2010, I calculate that you should have received another raise of 4%. That means that between that day and today, your pay should have been augmented by 8%. Since it wasn't, the amount of money that is owed to you is what I'm calling backpay or retroactive pay. The calculator will perform the following functions:

• (Your total salary from 11/1/2009 to today) * 4% plus
• (Your total salary from 11/1/2010 to today) * 4.16% (compounded)*

Adding these two numbers, which is what the Backpay Calculator does, reflects what you are owed from the '09-'11 contract period.

Therefore, the amount you enter in the first field will be multiplied by .04. The amount that you enter in the second field will be multiplied by .0416. Once you hit enter you'll see the sum of both of those products.*

What you need to get started

 All you need in order to use this with some accuracy is:

1. Your Annual Gross Earnings from the periods of 11/1/2009 and today 
2. Your Annual Gross Earnings and 11/1/2010 and today.  

It would be better if you use accurate numbers. Try to avoid using your W2s from those years. That will give you inflated numbers. Instead, use the NYCDOE's Payroll Portal. The Payroll Portal has a tool called the 'Total Earning/Deductions" tool. Use the screenshots below if you need help finding and using this tool from the Portal (and click here to go to the payroll portal).

My beliefs

I do not believe that this is the backpay I or you and I will receive. It is only my belief that this is the amount of money that is owed to us.

It is also my belief that individual teachers should have some understanding of exactly what is owed to them from this failure to settle four years' worth of teacher contracts. For me, a well-informed membership, even with something like this, is much more preferable than an ill-informed membership. My belief is to get as much information out to as many members as possible.

Suggestions?

I would like this to be as accurate as possible under the circumstances. If you think any part of the assumptions or the math that went into the calculator is wrong, feel free to let me know. It won't be hard for me to make changes to this calculator. Also, if you would like create a version based on your own assumptions, feel free to reach out to me. I don't at all mind helping you calculate retro based on your own assumptions or math skills.

UPDATE* Many thanks to @N00sunlight from Twitter, who pointed out that the second raise would equate to a compounded 8.16% instead of the 8% I had originally figured.
UPDATE* Thanks the commenter below for pointing out an earlier mistake. To say I'm no math guy is usually a blessing


UPDATE (2/21/14) : Appreciating link backs and differing perspectives on the word optimists, this calculator is anything but optimistic. It takes only the first two years of raises we did are owed but did not receive into consideration and ignores the last three years of raises that are owed to us. It also ignores a full four years worth of per session raises for after school activities (which will come to us in a separate retro check). If anything, the numbers you come up with probably represent the least likely amount you are owed. My advice? Be angry if you don't get it.

We hear a lot in the newspapers and on TV about how much settling our contract, including our full retroactive pay, will cost the government of the City of New York. The newspapers all say that the '$3.2 billion' that is 'on the line' will cost the government way too much.

It is interesting to note that as we're hearing this, we are not hearing how much this potential backpay can bring us as individuals. The sad irony here is that as the whole city talks about backpay for teachers, we ourselves are fairly in the dark as to how much is on the line for us.

I'd like to to see that change. That's why I asked a few bloggers and union activists to help me create this online backpay calculator. It's intended to help you get a grasp of how much is on the line for you from any future contract agreement.

Many Teachers Have No Stake Fighting For Retroactive Pay

Michael Mulgrew was on the Brian Lehrer Show yesterday and the topic of retroactive pay came up. According to this Schoolbook.org piece, Mulgrew admitted that backpay was a 'big issue' for New York City teachers.

The Schoolbook piece went on to feature the thoughts of "Nate" -a teacher who called in to say that retroactive pay was not as big of a deal for him as the reduction in paperwork and the ability to loosen the grip of the work rules. Nate's thoughts were a significant part of the rest of the post.

A commenter (I love comment sections) named "Allan" made a point which I found very interesting:

I'm curious as to whethewr those teachers who would forego retro would be eligible for it. After all, you have to have been working since 2009 to be entitled to full back pay.

The point Allan makes is well worth thinking over. Conventional wisdom states that over half of new New York City teachers quit within the first five years. It also states that senior teachers are retiring just as soon as they are able. If that's true, then it stands to reason a great many of our colleagues, being newer that we, don't have a direct financial interest in any fight for retroactive pay as we do.

To a new teacher, any amount of backpay may seem "paltry" (a commenter's use of the word. Not mine) in exchange for less demanding work rules. This is because for them, a check with retro pay would be exactly that -paltry. It's easy to give up next to nothing in exchange for something that matters to you.

I don't blame younger teachers for thinking this way. If you were a less senior teacher, which would be more attractive to you: a reduction in the insane amount of paperwork you have to do? Or an extra check for $1,500? If I were a young teacher, I'd pick the reduction in paperwork.

Of course, I'm not. I'm a more senior teacher. I have a house and a family and I'm living the dream and the lack of those raises has taken it's toll on my wardrobe, personal life and my debt to earnings ratio. Whatsmore, I stand to gain over $30,000 in back pay if the city stays within 1) the bargaining pattern for '09-'11 and 2) their own recent pattern of coughing up the money it owes for retroactive pay (and that's just for the '09-'11 contract alone). For someone like me, hearing 'eh screw the retro pay. Let's focus on work rules' is like nails drawing across a chalkboard (I can literally see the dollars fly out of my bank account).

And that's just it. There is a real deep divide among teachers over this issue. Older teachers have a large financial stake in fighting for retropay. Younger teachers do not. They simply don't have as much money to gain from retro.  That's probably why many are willing to give it up as a bargaining chip during negotiations (ah, the Gawker Generation: They sure do know how to play negotiator with our money. Don't they? ;) ).

Thing is, there are a lot more younger teachers in our union than used to be.


Written by,
Ed (who, despite managing his finances well, racked up $20,000 in debt during the recession when he normally wouldn't have ... and sure would like to pay off the credit cards).

Why I'm Glad Schools Are Open During the Storm

Well, they have done it again. Despite forecasts calling for 8-12 inches of snow -from a powerful Nor'Easter- the New York City Schools are open today.

The  announcement caused some anger from teachers through social media which included an accusation that the administration was putting teachers, parents and students in harm's way by 'making' them travel during a storm.

I've traveled to work from my suburban home during every snowstorm so far. I've seen accidents I  never thought I would see and have experienced commutes that were longer than a Bollywood trilogy. And boy oh boy have I come to the limitations of my four wheel drive vehicle. So I know exactly what these folks are talking about when they talk about dangerous commutes during a storm.

Having said that, I'm glad they opened schools today. I believe Chancellor Fariña when she says that school is the only place where some children can get a hot meal. I also believe her when she asserts that parents, who still have to get to work today, don't needed their schedules placed in further upheaval by having to find a sitter at the last minute.

I would also like to add that with 46% of New Yorkers living in poverty, and many more living in the ranks of the working poor, missing one day of work because schools are closed and no sitter can be found, equates to missing one day's worth of pay. For many parents and families, that one day makes the difference between paying the rent or not.

Most importantly; the 'Great Winter of 2014', with its many snowstorms and frigid temperatures, has created an enormous amount of upheaval for the entire metropolitan area. Upheaval is the enemy of a good education and schools represent a type of consistency in children's lives that helps to negate that. Everyone (children and adults alike) need consistency during times like these. If for no other reason, schools should be open as a towering symbol reminding us all that this is New York and life here doesn't stop because of a few inches of snow (even of it is a few inches twice a week that then freezes and becomes these ice mountains that ruin shoes as well as snow shovels).

And for all those folks out there, who cry -cry!- about the roads being dangerous and children being placed at risk because schools were kept open, let me remind you that you don't have to go in. With schools open, parents can choose to keep their children home if they want and teachers, as well as most school staff, can take a full paid day off if they choose. I myself am not going in today because I simply can't do another seven hour commute. But I realize that that's my choice and I'm not going to whine and complain because the day has to come out of my CAR. No one is forcing anyone to go to travel to work or school during a storm.

But school during a storm is now an option for many families who might need that option available to them. And that's important -well worth the day in my CAR.

14 years and 42 miles to my classroom; my two cents.

Delay on Common Core Testing? Not For HS Teachers

No big commentary this week. Just a quick parsing of some of the headlines.

News this week that Sheldon Silver, who leads the NYS Assembly, and  Dean Skelos, who leads the NYS Senate, were announcing their support of a delay to use Common Core tests on teacher evaluations led many of my friends and colleagues to be giving high fives to each other.  I have personally been predicting a moratorium on the testing portions of the New York City (via NYS) evaluation system for a very long time now, so I have to admit when I first heard it I was happy too, although not very surprised.

But then I took a careful read of Al Baker's NYTimes piece of the story. This passage jumped right out at me and gave me a few moments of pause

"The lawmakers said no tests linked to the Common Core should be used in decisions regarding teachers for at least two years. The change, if made, would affect about 18 percent of teachers — those responsible for teaching math and English in the fourth through eighth grades."

Now The Times actually has part of this wrong. The (old) information they have says that teachers of grades 4- 8 , ELA and Math comprise 18% of the city's teaching force. That is correct. However, it sounds like the editors made the assumption that those were the only teachers who had Common Core state tests this year. That's not correct and the people at the Times should do more homework before they publish. The Common Core exams are now grades 3-8 and high school ELA and Math teachers are working off of a CCSS exam this year as well. In addition to that, every elementary school teacher this year is set to receive some type of score from a state exam (some of these will count as local measures and some will count as state measures). So the number Baker asserts is way too low. The change will in fact effect a great majority of NYC public school teachers.

But he does make a great point! Silver's call for a delay will not include every teacher who teaches to a test or who is evaluated along a test. Some teachers will be let off the hook from a 'Common Core' delay and some will not. Because of this, the suggestion from the Senate and Assembly will create a fairly messy situation for all 694 school districts across the state because some teachers' evaluation will be based on test scores and others will not.

So who doesn't a delay like this cover? Who will still be on the hook to be evaluated along these lines? The following groups of teachers all teach to an exam that is a standardized assessment and is not a new, Common Core exam. For these teachers, there has been no call to separate test scores from teacher evaluations.

• Middle School Science Teachers
• High School Science Teacher
• High School Social Studies Teachers
• High School ESL Teachers 
• High School Foreign Language Teachers

So, while a great many teachers will benefit from the delay in using Common Core testing, some middle school teachers, and virtually all high school teachers, will still be scheduled to have their "STATE" 20% measured from flawed, faulty standardized exams. 

For instance, I teach Global History -the exam with the lowest results across the entire city. The August exam for that subject had students read primary source documents about the economic development of Botswana, among other nations, and then generate a 5 -6  paragraph essay describing a change that resulted from it. If I am not able to teach my decile 2 students the skills needed to digest and understand a document and topic like that, my job will still be taken from me. 

So a close read of the details leads me to one sad conclusion: The escape hatch offered by Mr. Silver et al. does not effect me. 

But I am happy for the other teachers!