To address your last post:

You claim that the charter school you chair is the highest-rated elementary school in
Albany. If so – and we will leave the debate about the meaning of these ratings to another
time – then in the interest of the transparency you hold so dear, please

– tell us the percentage of special needs students you serve compared to the
percentage served by local zoned public schools.

– tell us the percentage of ELLs served in your school compared to the percentage
served by local zoned public schools.

– whether a child’s acceptance and continued enrollment is dependent on parent’s signing a
contract of any kind.

-the student attrition rate.

-the teacher attrition rate.

As for charters being public schools, it is simply not so. They are publicly-funded, privately managed corporations. The public has no input over the composition of the board or the policies it promulgates. You say it is non-profit, and while that is true (for the moment) it ignores the gravitational force of the profit motive that drives the business model you and your fellow free market- now, that’s a misnomer if there ever was one – fundamentalists celebrate.

You use deceptively loaded language to refer to my criticism. It was you, not me, who used the word “rail” in regard to my description of your op-ed pieces. In fact, I used the far more neutral term “editorialize.” Please don’t put words in my mouth. Your asking us to point out specific attacks against teachers is disingenuous: your frequent writings about seniority, tenure and merit pay are objectively anti-teacher, no matter whether they’re couched in the fake-objective prose of policy analysis.

As for the platforms from which you speak, I can’t quite believe you even try to use them as a defense. The Huffington Post, despite it limousine liberal trappings, is a frequent venue for ed deform propaganda. The New York Times has been a consistent enabler of Bloomberg’s policies here in the city, and the Washington Post is a nationwide loudspeaker for school privatization. This is – or in a less corrupt and intellectually dishonest world, should be – a particular conflict of interest scandal , since they own Kaplan, a direct beneficiary of corporate ed deform.

Then there’s Randi Weingarten. Sad to say, she has her peace with the privatizers, as long as the union gets its cut and she can be feted as a labor statesperson. She actually seems to think that the union can continue to exist if public schools are destroyed. She has signed a tenure and seniority-free contract with Green Dot, and she is pushing the recently signed New Haven teacher’s contract – which will accelerate public school closings and their replacement by charters – as a national model.

You accuse me of being intolerant – there’s that loaded language again – when I merely noted the background of people on your Board, two of whom have close connections to explicitly pro-privatization groups. You are free to recruit anyone you like for your Board, but please don’t play the victim when their backgrounds are pointed out. And by the way, facts are not intolerant; they merely stand in mute contrast to deception and self-deception.

Once again you refuse to deal with the transparency issues raised by the proliferation of no-bid contracts under Bloomberg and Klein, saying you know nothing about them and will leave it to the DOE to comment. But you also say you don’t know anything about the contract negotiations, yet you are clamoring for the parties – but in reality just the union, so you can attack them in your “objective” way in Rupert’s and Morty’s rags – to reveal their positions. You don’t seem to grasp, or refuse to acknowledge, the hypocrisy of that.

And, finally, we don’t agree that the current bargaining positions should be made public. Your faux-objective claim of wanting ‘transparency” in the name of taxpayers is belied by your interests, actions and ideology.

Wait, since Carroll has a free pass to write Op-Eds for the NY Post (even if the last one was a warmed-over press release)–he’s saving those quaint exclamations for Rupert’s rag.

The UFT demands, actually called “goals” are public, they were crafted with the participation of the entire union membership and are listed on this website.

It is the City that has not released demands.

In the sophisticated world of negotiations there are “public posture” issues and then the actual discussions across the table. Public posturing delays the process.

Much of what you advocate, pay for performance, relaxation of tenure rules, etc., are not the subject of contract negotiations.

The Gates-funded Methods of Essential Teaching program, jointly supported by the DOE and the UFT, which hopes to identify particular practices that lead to higher pupil achievement is the type of collaboration that could lead to alternate methods of compensation.

These are complex issues and require levels of trust on both sides, trust that is currently absent.

To the best of my knowledge the DOE does not release their demands to the public, although the chancellor has discussed particular issues.

The “thin” contract has been mentioned by the chancellor, but what would the “thin” contract contain?

Does it mean deleting the grievance clauses, or, from the union perspective allowing chapter a significant role in school decision-making?

It’s not the “thin-ness,” it’s the content.

These are all very interesting, and I will try to address as many of them as I can, but regardless of our disagreements on all these unrelated issues, let’s agree that the current bargaining positions of both sides should be made public.

First, as for various people who have asked for financial disclosures, I have not asked Mr. Mulgrew or Mr. Bloomberg to declare their net worth or annual earnings, just to declare their bargaining positions. I have fully disclosed my position on the negotiations, apparently to the dismay of some of the participants on this blog, but my positions nonetheless are transparent.

Second, because I chair a charter school (which by the way is the top rated elementary school in Albany on math, science, and ELA) does not mean I am “objectively undermining public education by creating private schools with public money.” Since charter schools are public schools this argument makes no sense. And, just for the record, I receive no compensation from the Brighter Choice Charter School and the school does not contract with a for-profit management company. So, the privateering comment is nonsensical.

Third, I am criticized for using my position as head of the Foundation for Education Reform and Accountability to express my views. Yes, I do. I do not rail against “teachers and public education.” Would love to know the specific quotes that you thought did that.

Fourth, I am criticized for having opinion pieces published by “privatization-friendly venues” such as the New York Post and New York Daily News. You conveniently left off that my views have been published in the Huffington Post, New York Times, and Washington Post. At any rate, I have been published in the same places that Randi Weingarten has been published. Is she thus deemed privatization friendly?

Fifth, it is argued that I can’t be a nice guy since my board of trustees includes several individuals who at different points have worked on Wall Street or served on the boards of AEI and the Manhattan Institute. Egads, my critics are becoming mighty intolerant now. I didn’t realize that any of those three associations would be viewed as intellectually scandalous. Silly me. By the way, it was interesting that you chose to ignore the other affiliations of the people you attempted to caricature, presumably because it would have undermined the picture you were trying to paint.

Sixth, on the repeated questions on alleged no-bid contracts by DOE, I will leave it to DOE to defend themselves. I have no particular knowledge of the contracts you are referencing and thus have nothing profound to add to that side debate.

I doubt my answers to these various questions will satisfy, but can we return to my simple proposal: let’s have both sides reveal their current bargaining positions to the public?

While Tweed may not have expressly made public its demands, the Chancellor seemed to express his ideals in that 8-page contract, and nothing he’s said or done since has persuaded me he’s changed his mind. Do you know if that contract represented the city’s demands in 05?

It’s very simple. It’s called walk a mile in my shoes. I cannot take anything these people say seriously as they simply don’t have a clue. And that includes people who are heads of foundations with names that talk about educational reform. There are supposed to be regulations regarding who can serve as District Superintendents (which is in effect the position Klein holds but it’s given this fancy name reserved for politicians) for a very good reason. Schools are not businesses. Kids are not widgets. And as far as this age old argument about charter schools, when the day comes that charter schools have to take in all kids, kids who come in off the streets after arriving in the country and never having had a day of formal education (but because they’re 14, they’re put in the ninth grade and we’re told we are not allowed to use tracking so they go into classes with kids performing on a far higher level) or behavioral problems or whatever. Because, as everybody knows, the first variable in education is the kids. Good schools are made by good kids. It has always been that way and will always be that way. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try but let’s not bring down the good kids.

As far as the UFT negotiations, certain things have to be deal busters for the UFT leadership. One is the ATR issue. With the budget cuts coming into effect, more and more teachers will be excessed. And more and more Principals will want to staff their schools with teachers on the lowest salary level possible. UFT has already given the incompetent civil rights lawyer too many things that he has used to destroy education in this city. There comes a time for self protection and when teachers are protected, that does not mean kids are not, Mr. Carrol.

Yet again, you have neglected to address my questions about no bid contracts in the DOE. Why the apparent discomfort?

As for your professed lack of animus toward unions or anyone else, on the level of personal temperament I will accept what you say at face value.

However, that is rendered meaningless by what you actually seem to be doing. As chair of the Brighter Choice Charter Schools, you are objectively undermining public education by creating private schools with public money.

You use your platform as head of the Foundation for Ed reform and Accountability to editorialize against teachers and public education in privatization-friendly venues such as the New York Post and Daily News op-ed pages. Your Board of trustees includes Peter Flanigan of UBS (Wall Street being behind the curtain of charter schools), Bruce Kovner of the right-wing, pro-privatization American Enterprise Institute, and Richard Gilder, former Chairman of the Manhattan Institute.

As I said before, your mildness of tone is belied by your institutional connections and the work you actually seem to be doing. Ultimately, that counts for much more than your tone on these pages.

I concede that you and I are on different pages on a host of issues. That’s what is great about America. Room enough for both of us.

On unions or any other issue, I assure you I personally possess no animus towards anyone or anything. Not in my makeup.

As for my “actions as a privatizer,” to what specifically are you referring?

On transparency, I would like both sides to let us all know what their current bargaining positions are. Then they can go back into the negotiating room and close the door. As I explained in an earlier post, I did not intend to call for actual negotiating sessions to be held in open.

Simple request. Would not advantage or disadvantage either side, but it would let the public know what is going on. Presently we don’t.

“How about giving others a chance to opine?”

Do you really think that this is a City with a shortage of opinions or venues in which to express them?

You neglect to address the issue of no-bid contracts in the DOE, which are rampant. Are you suggesting there is no negotiation between the DOE and its vendors, professional or otherwise? If there are, then why are you not aghast at the lack of transparency, as you seem to be whenever the union is concerned?

Your seemingly objective push for transparency masks the anti-union animus behind your commentary and your actions as a privatizer. It may be mild, in tone but is toxic in purpose towards teachers and public education.

As for the issue of transparency in negotiations, as a union activist who often criticizes the UFT leadership, especially on matters of openness and transparency, people should nevertheless understand that the ability of negotiators to do their work in privacy, without the intrusion of outside parties, has its place.

Your last Op-Ed piece on Commissioner Steiner’s proposals for reforming teacher training/preparation was really a news story disguised as an opinion piece. I don’t know why they ran it in the editorial section. How about giving others a chance to opine.

PS: I appreciate your knowledge of DOE bidding and procurement SOP.

you are paid (receive a salary) to engage public policy debate. What is it?