GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

This is an extremely valuable video of the mayor candidates’ take on ed issues and we owe much thanks to Gotham Schools for organizing it. On many if not most of the issues there were only differences of nuance or emphasis. All essentially agree that mayoral control is good, class sizes in some manner must be reduced, that co-location between charters and public schools has problems that must be fixed, that charters are good, that tenure must remain in some manner, that merit pay should be considered in certain special situations, that public hostility to teachers in harmful, that exclusive focus on high stake testing should be a lower priority, and that more public input of educational decisions was needed.

Stronger differences emerge on other issues, the nuance of the words they used or issues they thought most important. The following is my impression.

Quinn is clearly the milder, friendlier Bloomberg redux. She said Bloomberg “clearly made progress but not enough”. Although she wanted to “tone down the rhetoric” against teachers, she allowed that the next chancellor need not have teaching experience and could be selected from “non-profit” educational establishment. She thought the new teacher contract in Newark “needs to be heralded”, which pretty much summarizes where she’s planning to head. Very smart and articulate, but no real change coming here and essentially Bloomberg’s fourth term candidate but with a smile and lack of temper-tantrums.

Allon spent a lot of time talking about why we need better prepared teachers, and better evaluations and making sure teachers didn’t enter the classroom until they had 2 years experience within a school much like medical education. He did say that something has to be done about having 50% of new teachers leave after five years, but only came up with more mentoring and PD as a solution, entirely missing the work environment that teachers work under as the cause.

Lui was the only candidate to discuss even briefly why tenure is necessary and good from historical experience, that the value added models of teacher evaluation have a “50% margin of error” and are unsuitable (the only candidate who mentioned that), but noted that is was had to say yes or no whether ed progress had been made under Bloomberg. His top priority is to hire more school counselors, but did call for a moratorium on co-locations.He did say that he would consider hiring the next chancellor from within the DOE. Probably somewhat more friendly to teachers, but hiring more counselors, though needed, is not going to cut much progress in improving education as his top priority.

Thompson took a strong stand on several issues, agreeing not to hire a new chancellor within the DOE, and the only candidate who said he would put a moratorium on school closing. He as also strongly critical of how co-locations is being implemented and the disparities resulting. Be he also said whether Bloomberg made progress in education cannot be answered “yes or no”. Also, likely to be more friendly to teachers, but his vision of exactly how education is going to be improved lacks any cutting edge focus.

I was most impressed with de Blasio, who was the only candidate who strongly put forward the priority of increased Pre-K, which long established research does show likely to make strong and long lasting improvement in education. He also clearly stated that Bloomberg educational improvements “stalled” after the first term and criticized Bloomberg directly for his attack on teachers. He wanted to work with the UFT as a “partner” going forward and
called the current co-location practice “disruptive”. Repeatedly he emphasized in how important “democratic” input from the public must be established in many ed reform issues.

In summary, although both Lui and Thompson clearly will bring a relief to the wasteland in education of the previous 12 years, I sense that and more in de Blasio.

The School calendar already had scheduled 184 days. Monday-Thursday (4 days) schools were closed, many of whom worked at a shelter instead; most caught up on the extreme amount of paperwork involved. For teachers, this means that they will serve 180 days (not all days students are in session, however the 180-day calendar includes Chancellor days, Regents Rating days, etc.. – thus Schools were open for those 180 days). Which means that the 180 school year is satisfied without taking any days from the mid-winter vacation (a contractual right).

Now, I’m not disputing the fact that our students need as much help as possible and it would be best to make up those lost days. However, “negotiating” these days away without even consulting the teachers and staff that the UFT “represents” sets yet another dangerous precedent of the UFT for giving away a contractual right without receiving anything in return. Teachers and staff have now worked for three years without a contract or a pay raise, meanwhile all our other expenses have increased.

Teachers give so much of their time, hearts and soul into their jobs; they ask for very little in return except to be treated fairly – having a contract with an annual pay raise (retroactive) as the other city professions is only fair. However, every year the UFT “negotiates” further aspects away without receiving any fair return.

A second point that should not be overlooked is that the previous year teachers were scheduled for 187 days. Did they receive the unused weather emergency days back? The previous year was 185; did they receive those days back? No.

Even though the teachers “owe” no days on this calendar, most if not all, would gladly serve the 3 days to help our students succeed. It is the teachers that put the students first; yet they are not being treated fairly by this administration.  An administration that squanders public money on consultants and no-bid contracts for shoddy work, rather than reducing class size and hiring more teachers and truly putting students first.

The only things that concern me are 1. Mulgrew’s lack of concern to let members know until management made their announcement (real unions have ways of sending information down the line so members are prepared for the news) and 2. The LACK of assurance from my president that this is a one time deal for this year only.

Although that’s clearly the reasonable assumption, this president has got to be aware of the credibility issues he has with his rank & file members. He has got to be aware that members are suspicious he will deal these days away forever with nothing in return (like so many other deals he’s made in the past). Being aware of that yet not addressing it in his ketter to members makes even me a littke suspicious about what he will allow the city do in the future.

seems he did after all, but I didn’t notice it.
http://www.uft.org/news/making-up-lost-instructional-time-due-to-hurricane-sandy