The NY Times election map still has Cuomo with 54% of the vote from yesterday's election.
But the unofficial results at the NY State Board of Elections site has been updating throughout the day and there's a different tabulation there.
As of 9:25 PM tonight, Cuomo has the following:
DEM - 46.04%
WOR - 3.25%
IND - 1.97%
WEP - 1.38%
The total?
52.64% for Cuomo on all four ballot lines.
The NY State Board of Election is notoriously slow and occasionally error-prone, so maybe their unofficial totals are not the most accurate totals at this point.
But if they are, then Cuomo won re-election with just 52.64% of the vote after having $45 million to spend on his election compared to his opponent, Rob Astorino, who had just $5 million and got no help from the State Republican Party or the Republican Governors Association.
Just imagine if Astorino had gotten backing from the GOP elites.
He might have actually made the election a lot closer than it was.
Then imagine if the union leaders hadn't threatened Working Families Party and WFP had given Teachout their ballot line.
Would have been an interesting election, eh?
But elections are often won or lost well before Election Day and this one was lost when the GOP stalwarts decided they would not back their own party's candidate over Cuomo and when the unions decided to force WFP to give Cuomo their ballot line.
Perdido 03
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Some Good News Out Of The Election - Race To The Top Is Probably Not Long For This World
A Republican-controlled House and Senate is almost certain to try and dump the Obama education agenda, including Race to the Top and the school turnaround program:
Conservatives will undoubtedly push school choice and vouchers.
But we may also see a NCLB Jr. bill come to the president's desk that gets rid of some of the more controlling features of NCLB Sr:
Obama won't want to sign anything like this into law even if it comes to his desk, so what we may end up with over the next two years is gridlock on these issues.
But if Lamar Alexander is going to push for more local control of schools, put a leash on Arne Duncan and his USDOE goons, scale back the accountability measures set by the feds and let states do some of their own setting, well, I'm all for that.
And if Alexander and his fellow Republicans kill RttT and the turnaround program, well, I'm all for that too.
The way politics works these says, especially around education issues, there's no red vs. blue dichotomy that works for me any more.
I may not support choice and vouchers as the GOP will push in this next session.
But I surely can support some of the other items on Alexander's list.
And if he goes after Common Core, well, I'm all for that too.
We'll see if these GOPers put their money where their mouths are on these issues.
After all, there are some corporations that stand to lose millions if education policy changes.
But if they do follow through on some of that stuff like getting rid of RttT and the turnaround program, I can get on board with that.
Conservatives will almost certainly use the budget process to try to eliminate the Obama administration's favorite competitive-grant programs, such as Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, and the School Improvement Grant program. GOP lawmakers in the House have tried for the past few years to scrap those programs, but Senate Democrats have always championed them in budget negotiations.
Conservatives will undoubtedly push school choice and vouchers.
But we may also see a NCLB Jr. bill come to the president's desk that gets rid of some of the more controlling features of NCLB Sr:
Alexander, a former U.S. Secretary of Education under President George H.W. Bush, has already laid out his education priorities, which include overhauling the NCLB law and tackling higher education legislation.
...
The starting point for Alexander would be a bill he introduced last year to renew the NCLB law. The plan garnered support from every GOP member of the committee, but didn't get a single Democratic cosponsor.
The measure would significantly scale back the federal role in K-12 policy, allowing states to devise their own accountability plans, among other things. As under the current law, schools would be required to test students in reading and math in grades 3-8 and once in high school, and report the results, including for subgroups of students, such as English-language learners and those in special education.
Obama won't want to sign anything like this into law even if it comes to his desk, so what we may end up with over the next two years is gridlock on these issues.
But if Lamar Alexander is going to push for more local control of schools, put a leash on Arne Duncan and his USDOE goons, scale back the accountability measures set by the feds and let states do some of their own setting, well, I'm all for that.
And if Alexander and his fellow Republicans kill RttT and the turnaround program, well, I'm all for that too.
The way politics works these says, especially around education issues, there's no red vs. blue dichotomy that works for me any more.
I may not support choice and vouchers as the GOP will push in this next session.
But I surely can support some of the other items on Alexander's list.
And if he goes after Common Core, well, I'm all for that too.
We'll see if these GOPers put their money where their mouths are on these issues.
After all, there are some corporations that stand to lose millions if education policy changes.
But if they do follow through on some of that stuff like getting rid of RttT and the turnaround program, I can get on board with that.
This Is Not 2010
From the NY Times:
Cuomo has a Republican Senate backing him.
He's going to try and claim the 54% he won last night is a mandate to govern the way he wants.
But he's not as strong as he'd like to believe he is.
He is still under investigation by a federal prosecutor for the Moreland mess.
He needed de Blasio's help to dispatch with Zephyr Teachout during Working Families Party weekend last May.
He still saw Teachout win 34% of the vote in the primary in September.
He outspent Rob Astorino 9 to 1 and still only won by 13.5%.
People on the left and right are sick of him, even the people who voted for him did so without really liking him and he has made a lot of enemies his first four years.
This is NOT 2011 when he rammed through his agenda.
He CAN be stopped when he tries to "break" the public school system, as he has promised to do, and he can be stopped when he tries to revise APPR to be more punitive.
He is vulnerable - he won election for governor with the fewest votes since FDR.
This is not 2010.
Hell, it's not even 1930.
Mr. Cuomo’s re-election was far from smooth. The governor was vilified by liberals and embarrassed in the Democratic primary by an obscure challenger, and he watched his national reputation eroded by revelations of questionable ethics and a rushed Ebola response that was criticized by the White House.
More troubling for Mr. Cuomo, perhaps, is that his botched coronation has punctured his carefully cultivated aura of invincibility. A leader who rules by fear, Mr. Cuomo will begin his second term facing a newly emboldened press corps and a Legislature that has seen his political vulnerabilities laid bare.
“People are not going to feel the kind of loyalty to the governor that they have felt before,” said Kenneth Sherrill, who taught politics for decades at Hunter College. “Nobody’s going to want to cross him, but I don’t think they’re going to want to help him, either.”
Cuomo has a Republican Senate backing him.
He's going to try and claim the 54% he won last night is a mandate to govern the way he wants.
But he's not as strong as he'd like to believe he is.
He is still under investigation by a federal prosecutor for the Moreland mess.
He needed de Blasio's help to dispatch with Zephyr Teachout during Working Families Party weekend last May.
He still saw Teachout win 34% of the vote in the primary in September.
He outspent Rob Astorino 9 to 1 and still only won by 13.5%.
People on the left and right are sick of him, even the people who voted for him did so without really liking him and he has made a lot of enemies his first four years.
This is NOT 2011 when he rammed through his agenda.
He CAN be stopped when he tries to "break" the public school system, as he has promised to do, and he can be stopped when he tries to revise APPR to be more punitive.
He is vulnerable - he won election for governor with the fewest votes since FDR.
This is not 2010.
Hell, it's not even 1930.
What Charter School Backers And Education Reformers May Plan For Their Next Assault On The Public Schools
With Governor Cuomo winning 54% of the vote last night while many Democrats around the nation were either losing their races or barely squeaking out wins, Cuomo is going to claim he's got a mandate to govern as a centrist - conservative on economic issues, liberal on social issues:
On education issues, he's already warned New Yorkers he plans to "break" the public school "monopoly" and revise the APPR teacher evaluation system to make it even more punitive for teachers.
You know that agenda is coming as soon as January.
Charter operators have long said they're aiming at the charter cap next legislative session.
Expect Cuomo to push either an increase to the cap or a complete elimination of it.
And then there's this - charter backers dropped a lot of money in Senate campaigns these past months, and they're going to want payback:
One part of that payback?
Continuing to undercut mayoral control of NYC schools to benefit charter schools and eat away de Blasio's power:
When there was a charter-friendly mayor in office in NYC, charter backers loved mayoral control.
Now that there's a less charter-friendly mayor in power, they continue to want to undercut mayoral control - but only in ways that benefit charters or the education reform movement.
With charters subject to comptroller audit after last year's budget, I can see charter operators looking to undercut that accountability mechanism.
That might be a sideline to the re-do on mayoral control here - do away with the auditing power of the state and city comptrollers and put accountability responsibility on dependable charter friendly entities - like the SUNY charter board or the Regents.
It's going to be a rough two years if you're a student, parent of a student or teacher in a traditional public school.
The governor has vowed to break your school, he's got a State Senate ready to help him and there are a lot of money favors legislators are going to have to return to the charter industry after this last election cycle.
That means boom times for charters and education reformers.
On education issues, he's already warned New Yorkers he plans to "break" the public school "monopoly" and revise the APPR teacher evaluation system to make it even more punitive for teachers.
You know that agenda is coming as soon as January.
Charter operators have long said they're aiming at the charter cap next legislative session.
Expect Cuomo to push either an increase to the cap or a complete elimination of it.
And then there's this - charter backers dropped a lot of money in Senate campaigns these past months, and they're going to want payback:
One part of that payback?
Continuing to undercut mayoral control of NYC schools to benefit charter schools and eat away de Blasio's power:
De Blasio is going to have to contend with a GOP majority that used him as a foil in its upstate races, running ads that warned voters against restoring the NYC-dominated Democrats and their radical liberal friends to power.
Two big fights loom this year in Albany that concern de Blasio considerably: Mayoral control of the NYC school system and the NYC rent laws, both of which are set to expire in June.
Charter school interests that was to see de Blasio’s power over the school system weakened and real estate interests that want to see the status quo maintained in the rent laws spent big money to help the Senate Republicans and Cuomo in this election cycle.
The Senate GOP’s victory last night, coupled with de Blasio’s rocky relationship with the governor do not bode well for the mayor in the 2015 legislative session.
When there was a charter-friendly mayor in office in NYC, charter backers loved mayoral control.
Now that there's a less charter-friendly mayor in power, they continue to want to undercut mayoral control - but only in ways that benefit charters or the education reform movement.
With charters subject to comptroller audit after last year's budget, I can see charter operators looking to undercut that accountability mechanism.
That might be a sideline to the re-do on mayoral control here - do away with the auditing power of the state and city comptrollers and put accountability responsibility on dependable charter friendly entities - like the SUNY charter board or the Regents.
It's going to be a rough two years if you're a student, parent of a student or teacher in a traditional public school.
The governor has vowed to break your school, he's got a State Senate ready to help him and there are a lot of money favors legislators are going to have to return to the charter industry after this last election cycle.
That means boom times for charters and education reformers.
Democrats Slaughtered From Coast To Coast
There's no better emblem of how badly voters took the sledgehammer to Democrats last night then what happened to Congresswoman Louise Slaughter in Western New York:
Slaughter claims she's won, but the race is too close to call.
Frankly, the race should have never been close at all.
It was that kind of night for the Democratic Party.
Republicans added seats in the Congress, they took at least seven seats in the Senate, they held on to governor's seats they were supposed to lose (like Scott Walker's in Wisconsin), they made races close that weren't expected to be close (like Slaughter's in Western New York and Mark Warner's in Virginia), and they easily took back the State Senate here in New York.
Message sent: America thinks Democrats suck.
And they do suck - most of them stand for little other than their own careers, many of them govern or vote whatever their corporate masters want and, if you put the politics of a lot of these people up against, say Ronald Reagan's record, they look an awful lot like Republicans.
Slaughter, alas, isn't one of those kind of Dems, but she got caught up in it too - a night when a lot of Democrats went down to defeat or had races of their lives that weren't supposed to be races at all.
In the end, I suspect yesterday's election is as much or more of an expression of overall dissatisfaction with the direction of the country as it is a thumbs-up for Republicans.
In two years, many Republican Senators in blue or purple states face re-election and I wouldn't be surprised to see exactly what happened to a lot of Dems last night happen to Republicans in 2016 - especially if Hillary Clinton is at the top of the Democratic ticket.
But before we get to 2016, there's a whole lot of damage that can be done.
Nationwide, will Obama, dying to do a deal to destroy Social Security, get to do it now that Republicans control both the House and the Senate?
Will we finally get passage of No Child Left Behind II now that the GOP has both houses of the legislature?
In New York State, Andrew Cuomo won re-election with 54% of the vote and now has an out-and-out Republican State Senate to work with - no Jeff Klein or Tony Avella needed to ram through anti-teacher or anti-public school legislation or lift the charter cap completely, though I suspect the members of the Independent Democratic Caucus will be seduced to govern as Republicans anyway and really put an exclamation point on the whole thing.
Early on last night, I tweeted this:
But of course, that won't be the lesson Dems nationwide will take.
The lesson they'll take is to move ever more rightward, ever more corprorate-friendly, ever more corporate-whorey.
The NY Times says the political map has been re-ordered for the next two years, with Republicans in the ascendant across the nation.
That is certainly the case even here in blue New York where a Republican Lite governor has a Republican State Senate and his eyes aimed on "breaking" the public school "monopoly" and bringing a punitive revision to his APPR teacher evaluation system in order to fire more teachers.
Going to be a bumpy two years.
If Democrats went into Election Day anxious about any local race, it certainly wasn't Louise Slaughter's bid for a 15th term in Congress.
In the end, it was likely that contest that caused them the greatest grief. Republican challenger Mark Assini gave Slaughter the race of her career.
The race was too close to call on Tuesday night. Unofficial results from the polls and a partial count of absentee ballots put Slaughter ahead of Assini, but only by 605 votes — 94,251 to 93,646. Another 2,800 absentee ballots still have to be tallied.
Slaughter claims she's won, but the race is too close to call.
Frankly, the race should have never been close at all.
It was that kind of night for the Democratic Party.
Republicans added seats in the Congress, they took at least seven seats in the Senate, they held on to governor's seats they were supposed to lose (like Scott Walker's in Wisconsin), they made races close that weren't expected to be close (like Slaughter's in Western New York and Mark Warner's in Virginia), and they easily took back the State Senate here in New York.
Message sent: America thinks Democrats suck.
And they do suck - most of them stand for little other than their own careers, many of them govern or vote whatever their corporate masters want and, if you put the politics of a lot of these people up against, say Ronald Reagan's record, they look an awful lot like Republicans.
Slaughter, alas, isn't one of those kind of Dems, but she got caught up in it too - a night when a lot of Democrats went down to defeat or had races of their lives that weren't supposed to be races at all.
In the end, I suspect yesterday's election is as much or more of an expression of overall dissatisfaction with the direction of the country as it is a thumbs-up for Republicans.
In two years, many Republican Senators in blue or purple states face re-election and I wouldn't be surprised to see exactly what happened to a lot of Dems last night happen to Republicans in 2016 - especially if Hillary Clinton is at the top of the Democratic ticket.
But before we get to 2016, there's a whole lot of damage that can be done.
Nationwide, will Obama, dying to do a deal to destroy Social Security, get to do it now that Republicans control both the House and the Senate?
Will we finally get passage of No Child Left Behind II now that the GOP has both houses of the legislature?
In New York State, Andrew Cuomo won re-election with 54% of the vote and now has an out-and-out Republican State Senate to work with - no Jeff Klein or Tony Avella needed to ram through anti-teacher or anti-public school legislation or lift the charter cap completely, though I suspect the members of the Independent Democratic Caucus will be seduced to govern as Republicans anyway and really put an exclamation point on the whole thing.
Early on last night, I tweeted this:
Corporate Dems going down all over the place tonight. It be nice if lesson learned was, don't be corporate whore.
— realitybasededucator (@perdidostschool) November 5, 2014
But of course, that won't be the lesson Dems nationwide will take.
The lesson they'll take is to move ever more rightward, ever more corprorate-friendly, ever more corporate-whorey.
The NY Times says the political map has been re-ordered for the next two years, with Republicans in the ascendant across the nation.
That is certainly the case even here in blue New York where a Republican Lite governor has a Republican State Senate and his eyes aimed on "breaking" the public school "monopoly" and bringing a punitive revision to his APPR teacher evaluation system in order to fire more teachers.
Going to be a bumpy two years.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Cuomo Wins, But...
Exit polls have him at 57%.
He won 63% in 2010.
His dad won 65% his first re-election campaign.
Schumer and Gillibrand have won elections with over 70% of the vote.
If Cuomo wins near where the exit polls have him, it's a solid win, but it's nothing to write home about.
He outspent his GOP opponent, Rob Astorino, by tens of millions of dollars.
Astorino got no help from the Republican establishment in the state and the head of the Republican Governors Association, Chris Christie, went out of his way to call Astorino a loser and help Cuomo out instead.
The unions made sure Cuomo wouldn't have a third party candidate from the left on the Working Families Party ballot line today, and while Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins was polling near double digits in some of the public polls, the exit polls have him closer to 5%.
That means Cuomo had himself a two man race, a helluva lot more money than his GOP opponent, and a Republican Party establishment that was either helping Cuomo or sitting out the race.
Of course Cuomo won tonight.
But given all the advantages he had in this campaign, he ought to have run away with the night, beaten his 2010 totals, and set himself up for a decent White House run in the future.
If the exit polls are right (and they just might be - the last public poll, Marist, had him at 56% a few days ago), he hasn't done that.
According to the exit polls, his vote totals among all demographics except white women are lower this year than they were four years ago- with white women his totals are the same as they were four years ago.
In short, Cuomo won the election tonight, but it's not exactly a ringing endorsement for another four years.
He won 63% in 2010.
His dad won 65% his first re-election campaign.
Schumer and Gillibrand have won elections with over 70% of the vote.
If Cuomo wins near where the exit polls have him, it's a solid win, but it's nothing to write home about.
He outspent his GOP opponent, Rob Astorino, by tens of millions of dollars.
Astorino got no help from the Republican establishment in the state and the head of the Republican Governors Association, Chris Christie, went out of his way to call Astorino a loser and help Cuomo out instead.
The unions made sure Cuomo wouldn't have a third party candidate from the left on the Working Families Party ballot line today, and while Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins was polling near double digits in some of the public polls, the exit polls have him closer to 5%.
That means Cuomo had himself a two man race, a helluva lot more money than his GOP opponent, and a Republican Party establishment that was either helping Cuomo or sitting out the race.
Of course Cuomo won tonight.
But given all the advantages he had in this campaign, he ought to have run away with the night, beaten his 2010 totals, and set himself up for a decent White House run in the future.
If the exit polls are right (and they just might be - the last public poll, Marist, had him at 56% a few days ago), he hasn't done that.
According to the exit polls, his vote totals among all demographics except white women are lower this year than they were four years ago- with white women his totals are the same as they were four years ago.
In short, Cuomo won the election tonight, but it's not exactly a ringing endorsement for another four years.
Weingarten Says "Maybe I Will, Maybe I Won't"
From the Politico Morning Education Email:
Few people in public life can spew as much verbiage while saying so little of consequence as Randi Weingarten.
As I posted last night, her statement on the AFT website criticizing Andrew Cuomo for his anti-public school statements is essentially meaningless.
There's been a furor over Weingarten's defending Cuomo's statements as "campaign rhetoric," so she felt the need to push back publicly.
But nothing about Weingarten's and the AFT's refusal to stand up to Andrew Cuomo has changed.
That's been obvious if you watch what she and the AFT do and listen less to what she and they say.
That strategy hasn't changed any this past week - not with her earlier defense of Cuomo nor her equivocating critique of him now that she feels pressure to say something critical about him.
American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten raised some eyebrows Monday when she publicly listed [http://bit.ly/1phg7cx] the candidates she plans to vote for - and did not include Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Instead, she called out the incumbent, writing: "I am deeply disappointed and appalled by Gov. Cuomo's recent statement that public education is a 'monopoly' that needs to be busted up." Education historian Diane Ravitch jumped on the statement with a blog post titled "Randi is NOT Voting for Cuomo." That turned out not to be accurate. Or, then again, maybe it was. 'I didn't say I would, didn't say I wouldn't," Weingarten told Morning Education. "I said it's painful and heartbreaking.' In other words, she's keeping her vote for governor secret. At least for now.
Few people in public life can spew as much verbiage while saying so little of consequence as Randi Weingarten.
As I posted last night, her statement on the AFT website criticizing Andrew Cuomo for his anti-public school statements is essentially meaningless.
There's been a furor over Weingarten's defending Cuomo's statements as "campaign rhetoric," so she felt the need to push back publicly.
But nothing about Weingarten's and the AFT's refusal to stand up to Andrew Cuomo has changed.
That's been obvious if you watch what she and the AFT do and listen less to what she and they say.
That strategy hasn't changed any this past week - not with her earlier defense of Cuomo nor her equivocating critique of him now that she feels pressure to say something critical about him.
Cuomo Raked In $1 Million From Real Estate Magnate
Via State of Politics comes this doozy of an item:
Those of you wondering what Cuomo will do when the rent laws come up for renewal in NYC need only look at how much cash he and his fellow Democrats have taken from the real estate interests to get an inkling of where he'll go with his policy.
Billionaire real estate magnate Leonard Litwin has outspent all political donors.
The president and chief executive officer of Long Island-based Glenwood Management donated $1 million to Governor Andrew Cuomo’s re-election campaign. Litwin also donated almost a combined $500,000 to the state Democratic Party and Kathy Hochul’s campaign for lieutenant governor, according to data from the New York Public Interest Research Group cited by Crain’s.
The 100-year-old investor was also the biggest donor to Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s and State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli’s re-election campaigns. The magnate donated $240,000 to Schneiderman and $130,000 to DiNapoli, 50 percent and 30 percent more than the next largest donor, the news outlet reported.
Litwin is also a big donor to Jobs for New York, the Political Action Committee backed by the Real Estate Board of New York. [Crain's] – Claire Moses
Those of you wondering what Cuomo will do when the rent laws come up for renewal in NYC need only look at how much cash he and his fellow Democrats have taken from the real estate interests to get an inkling of where he'll go with his policy.
What Cuomo Needs Today To Really "Win" This Election
Blake Zeff at Capital NY:
If Cuomo gets 56% of the vote, as the last Marist poll showed he might, that's a clear win and he'll claim it's a mandate and look to push through his odious policies claiming the people of this state voted for them.
But taking 56% of the vote is also a sign of weakness, given that his dad received 65% of the vote the first time he ran for re-election and Schumer and Gillibrand received 71% and 72% in their first re-election bids respectively.
Hell, even Christie got 60% in a blue state.
If Cuomo can't break 60% today, let alone break his 63% mark from four years ago, it demonstrates just how weak he is politically these days, with many on the left despising him and the right despising him too.
Cuomo will put a smiley face on his win tonight, no matter the totals, and claim mandate.
But if he comes in with totals close to what he's been polling at, it's a show of weakness for Cuomo, not a show of strength.
Though Cuomo is almost certain to win, the outcome of this struggle on the left isn’t just academic, and it affects him, too.
For one thing, it will have an impact on Cuomo’s share of the vote, which, despite his protestations that he just wants to win, will determine whether the juggernaut image he's shaped remains intact. And the governor well knows that in elections, there are wins and then there are wins.
While he’s cleaning Astorino’s clock, polls also show his share of the vote often sitting under 60 percent.
Here’s what that looks like when you put it into recent historical context for a Democrat in New York State. The governor’s father Mario Cuomo received 64.6 percent of the vote in his first reelection campaign. Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand showed the potential for a statewide Democrat to dominate in recent (presidential) years, with the former nabbing 71.2 percent of the vote in his first re-election, and the latter getting 72.2.
Chris Christie got 60.3 percent last year in a neighboring blue state as a Republican, and Cuomo himself got 62.6 percent his first time around in 2010.
He’ll want to outperform those numbers. And for that matter he’ll want to outperform his fellow statewide Democratic candidates, Eric Schneiderman and Tom DiNapoli. That will depend in part on whether disaffected liberals vote for him—or vote at all.
If Cuomo gets 56% of the vote, as the last Marist poll showed he might, that's a clear win and he'll claim it's a mandate and look to push through his odious policies claiming the people of this state voted for them.
But taking 56% of the vote is also a sign of weakness, given that his dad received 65% of the vote the first time he ran for re-election and Schumer and Gillibrand received 71% and 72% in their first re-election bids respectively.
Hell, even Christie got 60% in a blue state.
If Cuomo can't break 60% today, let alone break his 63% mark from four years ago, it demonstrates just how weak he is politically these days, with many on the left despising him and the right despising him too.
Cuomo will put a smiley face on his win tonight, no matter the totals, and claim mandate.
But if he comes in with totals close to what he's been polling at, it's a show of weakness for Cuomo, not a show of strength.
Jeff Klein Suggests He Might Govern With Republicans Again
Here's a betrayal you could see coming from miles away:
Democrats taking back the State Senate would not have guaranteed a more pro-public education or teacher-friendly body.
But you can be sure if Klein is co-running the State Senate along with GOP leader Dean Skelos, it will remain an Eva Moskowitz-friendly body that will give Cuomo whatever he wants on the charter cap, a revision to APPR to make it more punitive and his desire to "break" the public school "monopoly" this next term.
We'll see if Klein decides to go all the way with the betrayal - 2016 is expected to be a better year for Dems, with Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket, expanding the turnout for Dems.
So Klein has to maneuver carefully here.
He can end up holding power for two years before Dems retake the Senate and exact revenge on him.
But I'm not surprised he's already walking back from his promise to caucus with Dems.
Klein's a slippery fellow, that's for sure - as are many of his fellow members of the IDC.
Bronx Sen. Jeff Klein, the leader of a breakaway faction of Democrats, edged away from an agreement made with the mainline conference of Democrats earlier this year, saying in an interview on Monday that “a lot has changed.”
In an interview on The Capitol Pressroom, Klein insisted he remained committed to electing more Democrats to the state Senate.
But at the same time, Klein acknowledged that it’s likely no one will be sure who has a clear majority in the chamber after Election Day, signaling that his conference will once again be in a position to play kingmaker.
“I think you have a lot of competitive races, I’ll be very surprised if we know tomorrow evening if there will be more Democrats than Republicans in the state Senate,” Klein said.In a foreshadowing of what is to come this month – and potentially for the end of the year – Klein would not rule out working with Senate Republicans in some capacity next year.
“I’m a Democrat, I want to elect Democrats, but when the dust settles it’s incumbent on us to work together,” Klein said, adding: “I think it’s premature to say what anyone is going to do until the dust settles.”
In a clear overture to Cuomo, Klein criticized those on “the extreme left” who have been critical of the governor, saying such statements hurt the Democratic ticket.
Democrats taking back the State Senate would not have guaranteed a more pro-public education or teacher-friendly body.
But you can be sure if Klein is co-running the State Senate along with GOP leader Dean Skelos, it will remain an Eva Moskowitz-friendly body that will give Cuomo whatever he wants on the charter cap, a revision to APPR to make it more punitive and his desire to "break" the public school "monopoly" this next term.
We'll see if Klein decides to go all the way with the betrayal - 2016 is expected to be a better year for Dems, with Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket, expanding the turnout for Dems.
So Klein has to maneuver carefully here.
He can end up holding power for two years before Dems retake the Senate and exact revenge on him.
But I'm not surprised he's already walking back from his promise to caucus with Dems.
Klein's a slippery fellow, that's for sure - as are many of his fellow members of the IDC.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Randi Weingarten Writes Another Letter
Randi Weingarten writes more letters than the characters in a Samuel Richardson novel.
First she wrote a letter to TIME Magazine telling them how bad their "Rotten Apples" cover was.
Then she wrote a "private" letter to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo after he promised the Daily News he was going to "break" the public school system "monopoly" in his next term.
Now she's written a letter to the AFT membership that Diane Ravitch posted a bit ago with a headline along the lines of "Randi Is Not Voting For Cuomo."
That caused some uproar on Twitter, as people started to read the letter and say "Hey, where does it say she's not voting for Cuomo?"
The headline's now changed on Ravitch's post, probably because nowhere in the letter does it say explicitly that Randi's not voting for Cuomo.
Here's the letter in full:
It's Talmudic in its text, that's for sure.
She's criticizing Cuomo for making the monopoly comment, but she already did that in an interview with Jessica Bakeman at Capital NY.
She's using a bit Cuomo's line of attack against Astorino, characterizing him as an extremist who shouldn't be in power in a state like New York.
She did that with Bakeman too.
She writes that she's voting the Working Families Party line, starting with the AG and going down the line.
I guess we're supposed to take that as a gesture that she's not voting for Cuomo.
But she never actually writes those words.
Intead she writes:
What does that mean?
She's not voting for governor at all?
She is voting for governor, just not for Cuomo?
She's voting WFP because she lives in NY, but if she lived in another state she'd be voting Dem?
Who knows what it means because it's classic Weingarten - it's inscrutable and could mean just about anything, depending upon the weather, the phases of the moon and how the Dow Jones ended up the day.
In the end, I don't particularly care whether Weingarten's voting for Cuomo or not and I frankly am not assuaged by the letter in anyway.
When Weingarten spends a tenth of the time, resources and energy she put into the TIME Magazine boondoggle or the Pearson protests to fighting Andy Cuomo when he tries to raise the charter cap or revise APPR to make it more punitive (as he has promised to do) or "break" the public school "monopoly" by underfunding public schools and giving that money to charters, that's when I'll start caring about something Weingarten does or says.
Until then, this is just more Randi jive.
Her track record of giving in to deformers - from Michael Bloomberg and Joel Klein to Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation to Andrew Cuomo and John King speaks louder than any words she posted at the AFT website.
First she wrote a letter to TIME Magazine telling them how bad their "Rotten Apples" cover was.
Then she wrote a "private" letter to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo after he promised the Daily News he was going to "break" the public school system "monopoly" in his next term.
Now she's written a letter to the AFT membership that Diane Ravitch posted a bit ago with a headline along the lines of "Randi Is Not Voting For Cuomo."
That caused some uproar on Twitter, as people started to read the letter and say "Hey, where does it say she's not voting for Cuomo?"
The headline's now changed on Ravitch's post, probably because nowhere in the letter does it say explicitly that Randi's not voting for Cuomo.
Here's the letter in full:
The difficult choices New Yorkers face at the polls
As I head back home to vote on Nov. 4, I’ll be casting my vote for the candidates endorsed by NYSUT, my statewide union, starting with Eric Schneiderman for attorney general, Thomas DiNapoli for comptroller, Tim Bishop for the U.S. House of Representatives, and a strong pro-public education, pro-worker majority in the state Senate and Assembly. And I’ll be voting on the Working Families Party line. If I lived in another state, I’d be starting with the governor—but not in New York.
It’s heartbreaking to see what’s happening in New York, especially after campaigning across the country for gubernatorial candidates who unequivocally support public education, respect teachers and will fight for the investment our schools need.
But in New York, the decision is painful. I am deeply disappointed and appalled by Gov. Cuomo’s recent statement that public education is a “monopoly” that needs to be busted up. (Frankly, it’s only hedge fund millionaires, right-wing privatizers and tea partiers who would use that terminology.) Public education is a public good and an anchor of democracy that is enshrined in our state constitution. Public education needs to be nurtured and reclaimed.
At the same time, the other major candidate, Rob Astorino, would be no day at the beach for New York’s students, educators and working families. His letter was a needed salve to teachers, but his embrace of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s politics of destruction, public education funding cuts and attacks on workers’ voices is not a model for New York.
Whichever candidate is elected governor on Nov. 4 needs to know that I (and so many others) will hold his feet to the fire to strengthen public education. Our public schools and our students are a sacred responsibility, and our educators are national treasures. It’s well past time to fund our schools, care for our children, support our teachers, and stand up for workers and working families everywhere in our state.
Randi Weingarten
It's Talmudic in its text, that's for sure.
She's criticizing Cuomo for making the monopoly comment, but she already did that in an interview with Jessica Bakeman at Capital NY.
She's using a bit Cuomo's line of attack against Astorino, characterizing him as an extremist who shouldn't be in power in a state like New York.
She did that with Bakeman too.
She writes that she's voting the Working Families Party line, starting with the AG and going down the line.
I guess we're supposed to take that as a gesture that she's not voting for Cuomo.
But she never actually writes those words.
Intead she writes:
And I’ll be voting on the Working Families Party line. If I lived in another state, I’d be starting with the governor—but not in New York.
What does that mean?
She's not voting for governor at all?
She is voting for governor, just not for Cuomo?
She's voting WFP because she lives in NY, but if she lived in another state she'd be voting Dem?
Who knows what it means because it's classic Weingarten - it's inscrutable and could mean just about anything, depending upon the weather, the phases of the moon and how the Dow Jones ended up the day.
In the end, I don't particularly care whether Weingarten's voting for Cuomo or not and I frankly am not assuaged by the letter in anyway.
When Weingarten spends a tenth of the time, resources and energy she put into the TIME Magazine boondoggle or the Pearson protests to fighting Andy Cuomo when he tries to raise the charter cap or revise APPR to make it more punitive (as he has promised to do) or "break" the public school "monopoly" by underfunding public schools and giving that money to charters, that's when I'll start caring about something Weingarten does or says.
Until then, this is just more Randi jive.
Her track record of giving in to deformers - from Michael Bloomberg and Joel Klein to Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation to Andrew Cuomo and John King speaks louder than any words she posted at the AFT website.
Election Eve Predictions
It looks like a Republican rout all over with the GOP adding to its majority in the Congress, winning between 5 and 8 seats in the Senate (though some of those may come after runoffs), and a NY State Senate that remains in the hands of Republicans and Independent Democrats.
Governor Cuomo looks like he is going to win re-election by a healthy margin though he should fall well below the 63% he won in 2010.
Your predictions?
State Senate turn over to the Dems or stay with the GOP/IDC?
Does Howie Hawkins top the 60,000 votes he won in 2010?
Does the Working Families Party win 50,000 votes and get to keep its ballot line for the next four years?
How big are Cuomo's victory margins and, as a corollary to that last question, when does he start dismantling the public schools system?
Governor Cuomo looks like he is going to win re-election by a healthy margin though he should fall well below the 63% he won in 2010.
Your predictions?
State Senate turn over to the Dems or stay with the GOP/IDC?
Does Howie Hawkins top the 60,000 votes he won in 2010?
Does the Working Families Party win 50,000 votes and get to keep its ballot line for the next four years?
How big are Cuomo's victory margins and, as a corollary to that last question, when does he start dismantling the public schools system?
Does Andrew Cuomo Really Think He Can Win A White House Bid As A Democrat?
It's pretty clear New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is preparing for a presidential run in the future.
Over the past few months, Cuomo has tried to raise his national profile, going on TV programs he once eschewed in order to sell his book (a book that has actually sold little, but that's another story), making high profile overseas trips to Israel and Aghanistan to tout his experience keeping New York safe from terrorism and joining fellow metro area governor Chris Christie in going his own way on the Ebola crisis response.
While Cuomo will not run in 2016 if fellow New Yorker Hillary Clinton runs, he certainly is positioning himself to run in two years if she doesn't run or in 2020 if she runs and loses to a Republican.
Cuomo has tacked to the right most of political career but even more so lately, hammering teachers and public schools in the weeks before the election, mocking the liberal base of his party in his recently released memoir (and elsewhere) and doing pretty much everything he can to keep the State Senate in Republican hands (despite promises to Working Families Party to the contrary in return for their ballot nod.)
This looks like a general election strategy, not a strategy for a Democrat who needs to get through Democratic primaries in a potential White House run, so what Cuomo is doing here is anybody's guess.
This weekend, in another sign he couldn't win a Democratic presidential primary, Moveon.org hammered him in an email blast.
In the past, Markos at the Daily Kos has hammered him too.
This election cycle, Cuomo has infuriated liberals in his party even more than usual, taking special care to tweak them even more right before the election.
I dunno, maybe he thinks he can run a general election strategy in a Democratic primary and eke out a win.
Maybe he's delusional and he thinks he's not doing permanent damage to his relationship with the liberal base of the Democratic Party (after all, he did repair his image after nearly destroying it in 2002 with the Carl McCall debacle.)
More likely, though, he simply despises liberals and the base of his party and can't help himself when he slams liberals, shoves through right-wing policies and governs like a fiscal conservative.
In any case, he has no chance to ever be president, no matter how many trips he makes abroad or how many appearances on FOX Business with Maria Bartiromo he makes - not if he runs as a Democrat at any rate.
The base of his party despises him and that scorn becomes more and more clear by the day.
He'll win re-election tomorrow and he may even post decent numbers doing it.
But the anger he's engendering with his antics will come back to haunt him in the end.
Over the past few months, Cuomo has tried to raise his national profile, going on TV programs he once eschewed in order to sell his book (a book that has actually sold little, but that's another story), making high profile overseas trips to Israel and Aghanistan to tout his experience keeping New York safe from terrorism and joining fellow metro area governor Chris Christie in going his own way on the Ebola crisis response.
While Cuomo will not run in 2016 if fellow New Yorker Hillary Clinton runs, he certainly is positioning himself to run in two years if she doesn't run or in 2020 if she runs and loses to a Republican.
Cuomo has tacked to the right most of political career but even more so lately, hammering teachers and public schools in the weeks before the election, mocking the liberal base of his party in his recently released memoir (and elsewhere) and doing pretty much everything he can to keep the State Senate in Republican hands (despite promises to Working Families Party to the contrary in return for their ballot nod.)
This looks like a general election strategy, not a strategy for a Democrat who needs to get through Democratic primaries in a potential White House run, so what Cuomo is doing here is anybody's guess.
This weekend, in another sign he couldn't win a Democratic presidential primary, Moveon.org hammered him in an email blast.
In the past, Markos at the Daily Kos has hammered him too.
This election cycle, Cuomo has infuriated liberals in his party even more than usual, taking special care to tweak them even more right before the election.
I dunno, maybe he thinks he can run a general election strategy in a Democratic primary and eke out a win.
Maybe he's delusional and he thinks he's not doing permanent damage to his relationship with the liberal base of the Democratic Party (after all, he did repair his image after nearly destroying it in 2002 with the Carl McCall debacle.)
More likely, though, he simply despises liberals and the base of his party and can't help himself when he slams liberals, shoves through right-wing policies and governs like a fiscal conservative.
In any case, he has no chance to ever be president, no matter how many trips he makes abroad or how many appearances on FOX Business with Maria Bartiromo he makes - not if he runs as a Democrat at any rate.
The base of his party despises him and that scorn becomes more and more clear by the day.
He'll win re-election tomorrow and he may even post decent numbers doing it.
But the anger he's engendering with his antics will come back to haunt him in the end.
How Cuomo Governs In Crystallized Form
In the middle of the NY Times piece today that reports how New Yorkers don't really like Andrew Cuomo much is this story:
Andrew Cuomo's New York is not a "healthy democracy" in any way.
It is an autocracy where the autocrat - Andrew Cuomo - pushes for his own way on everything and either gets it or sends his "gruff and beefy aide" to discuss matters with Cuomo's irritants.
Sometimes Cuomo or his people don't get what he wants - as happened with Ms. Levine-Pritzker and the “NY Says No to Fracking" to T-shirt.
But most of the time Cuomo does get what he wants and often his irritants are destroyed in the process.
If you are a student, a parent of a student, a teacher or an administrator of a public school, know that he's coming for you in the next budget in order to "break" the school system.
Something to think about before going in to vote.
“Initially, I had a good impression of him — he’s a Democrat, I’m a Democrat,” said Jamie Pagirsky, 22, a recent graduate of the State University of New York at New Paltz who lives in Rockville Centre. “But over time, that changed.”
Mr. Pagirsky said that his view of the governor had been sharply affected when Mr. Cuomo spoke on campus last fall, and a friend, Jaklin Levine-Pritzker, wore a T-shirt saying “NY Says No to Fracking.” A gruff and beefy Cuomo aide tried to eject her from the lecture, then demanded that she turn her T-shirt inside out, because of fears that she would be too disruptive, according to Mr. Pagirsky and Ms. Levine-Pritzker, who confirmed his account. She ultimately was allowed to stay, but the incident irked her classmates. And when she told Mr. Pagirsky about it, the image stuck with him.“We were all in disbelief — Is this real? Is this happening to my close friend? Is this how his administration operates?" he said. “This is supposed to be a healthy democracy, and this was completely obstructing that process. After that incident, I was just completely turned off by him.”
Andrew Cuomo's New York is not a "healthy democracy" in any way.
It is an autocracy where the autocrat - Andrew Cuomo - pushes for his own way on everything and either gets it or sends his "gruff and beefy aide" to discuss matters with Cuomo's irritants.
Sometimes Cuomo or his people don't get what he wants - as happened with Ms. Levine-Pritzker and the “NY Says No to Fracking" to T-shirt.
But most of the time Cuomo does get what he wants and often his irritants are destroyed in the process.
If you are a student, a parent of a student, a teacher or an administrator of a public school, know that he's coming for you in the next budget in order to "break" the school system.
Something to think about before going in to vote.
Cuomo Deliberately Widens Rift With Liberal Base In Waning Days Of The Campaign
Since your reading this blog, I know you already know how Andrew Cuomo took deliberate and conscious aim at teachers and public schools in the last week and let us all know he's coming for us in the next term.
Ken Lovett in the Daily News reports that's not the only rift Cuomo has consciously widened with the liberal base as the campaign winds down:
What's Cuomo's goal?
Perhaps this:
Cuomo definitely wants a State Senate run the same way as it currently is - by an amalgam of Republicans and Independent Democrats who govern rightward - so that could be one of the reasons he's taking on the base here.
Or it's possible that he just can't help himself.
In his memoir, he took on the left as well.
He seems to genuinely despise the base of his own party.
Not that teachers and public schools are "left" in any way for most people.
But for a politician who calls the public schools a "monopoly" that he plans to "break", I guess they just might be.
In any case, you should vote your conscience tomorrow and support candidates you can legitimately support and vote against the ones you can't.
I am supporting Howie Hawkins and Brian Jones for governor and lieutenant governor.
Ken Lovett in the Daily News reports that's not the only rift Cuomo has consciously widened with the liberal base as the campaign winds down:
Cuomo in the past two weeks:
— Created a furor among educators by referring to the education system as “one of the last remaining public monopolies.”
— Pressed New Yorkers to vote for him on the Women’s Equality Party ballot line he created — leading many progressives to believe it’s an attempt to kill or weaken the Working Families Party, which party publicly embarrassed him in May before he ended up getting the party’s endorsement after Mayor de Blasio helped broker a deal.
— Did virtually no campaigning for state Senate Democrats who are trying to take control of the chamber. Cuomo had promised to make it a priority.
Working Families Party co-Chairwoman Karen Scharff called the governor's actions “kind of puzzling.”
“Who does that before Election Day?” she asked. “I don’t quite get the goal. The public overwhelmingly supports our public schools, so it’s hard to understand why the governor would attack public education right before the election.”
What's Cuomo's goal?
Perhaps this:
"You would think that this is the time (Cuomo) should be bringing everybody back home," said one Democratic operative. "But this is the reason there is no enthusiasm at the top of the ticket and that can impact the down-ballot races."
Cuomo definitely wants a State Senate run the same way as it currently is - by an amalgam of Republicans and Independent Democrats who govern rightward - so that could be one of the reasons he's taking on the base here.
Or it's possible that he just can't help himself.
In his memoir, he took on the left as well.
He seems to genuinely despise the base of his own party.
Not that teachers and public schools are "left" in any way for most people.
But for a politician who calls the public schools a "monopoly" that he plans to "break", I guess they just might be.
In any case, you should vote your conscience tomorrow and support candidates you can legitimately support and vote against the ones you can't.
I am supporting Howie Hawkins and Brian Jones for governor and lieutenant governor.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
You Can Say That Again
Tweet of the Day:
That's why Randi Weingarten takes on TIME over an anti-teacher cover while giving Andrew Cuomo a pass for saying the public school system is a "monopoly" he plans to "break" in his next term.
The TIME cover, while not innocuous, certainly doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot in the grand scheme of things.
It's the not first anti-teacher cover they've run.
It probably won't be the last.
And I'm not sure outside the already anti-teacher Beltway circle how much influence the thing will have anyway.
Cuomo's promise to break public schools is a serious threat and one a labor leader for a teachers union ought to be pushing back against rather than defending.
But that's AFT President Randi Weingarten for you.
There's never a windmill she won't fight and a real battle with a deformer she won't run from (or worse, aid in.)
I will say it again. Andrew Cuomo is a much greater danger to teachers and public education than Time Magazine
— Mark Naison (@McFiredogg) November 1, 2014
That's why Randi Weingarten takes on TIME over an anti-teacher cover while giving Andrew Cuomo a pass for saying the public school system is a "monopoly" he plans to "break" in his next term.
The TIME cover, while not innocuous, certainly doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot in the grand scheme of things.
It's the not first anti-teacher cover they've run.
It probably won't be the last.
And I'm not sure outside the already anti-teacher Beltway circle how much influence the thing will have anyway.
Cuomo's promise to break public schools is a serious threat and one a labor leader for a teachers union ought to be pushing back against rather than defending.
But that's AFT President Randi Weingarten for you.
There's never a windmill she won't fight and a real battle with a deformer she won't run from (or worse, aid in.)
How Randi Weingarten And Other Union Leaders Help Andrew Cuomo Bring The "Death Penalty" To New York's Public School System
Last year, Andrew Cuomo promised to bring the "death penalty" to "failing schools."
This year, Andrew Cuomo has called the public school system a "monopoly" which he plans to "break" in his second term.
Cuomo doesn't seem to like teachers any more than he seems to like public schools.
Cuomo has promoted a punitive teacher evaluation system that superintendents in the Lower Hudson Valley have said is a disaster that needs to be changed as soon as possible as one of the best in the nation.
Last month, Cuomo said that teacher evaluation system needs to be revised because too many teachers are being rated "effective" or "highly effective" with it.
Last week, a highly-respected 17 year teaching veteran filed suit against the NYSED commissioner after she was rated "ineffective" in this system as a result of her students' test scores - even though her students' test scores were high in comparison with other students' scores around the state.
Last week, Cuomo promised to make the teacher evaluation system that rated a highly respected teacher "ineffective" even more punitive by adding "real sanctions" to it.
Last week, AFT President Randi Weingarten defended Cuomo's "monopoly" comments by saying they were "campaign rhetoric."
Cuomo made these comments twice - he doubled down after the Daily News first reported them - so the comments seem less like "campaign rhetoric," more like campaign promises.
Yet Randi was running interference for Cuomo even as she was also mounting a symbolic battle against TIME Magazine over a cover they ran about teacher tenure.
This wasn't the first time Randi Weingarten helped out her buddy Andy during the election cycle.
Back in the spring, Weingarten, along with UFT President Michael Mulgrew, engineered a putsch within the NYSUT to toss out the old NYSUT leadership when it started to show guts and take on Cuomo over issues and replace them with a more Cuomo-compliant leadership.
Also last spring, union leaders put pressure on the Working Families Party to endorse Andrew Cuomo over Fordham President Zephyr Teachout when they threatened the party with dissolution and financial ruin if Teachout were given the party's ballot line.
You can be sure the UFT was not part of that pressure on WFP without Weingarten's okay.
This September, when internal polling showed Teachout's running mate, Tim Wu, with a real shot to beat Cuomo's banker lobbyist running mate, Kathy Hochul, in the primary, Weingarten joined NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio in making robocalls for Cuomo's running mate, Hochul.
Hochul won her primary - Wu said the momentum in the campaign turned against him when the robocalls started.
This morning on Twitter, Randi Weingarten defended her defense of Andrew Cuomo's comments, saying she had criticized him and what more could she be expected to do?
Well, what she has done is quite clear - and quite helpful to Andrew Cuomo.
To reiterate:
She helped engineer a putsch against the old NYSUT leadership and helped install a new, Cuomo-compliant leadership at NYSUT.
She helped other union leaders push for a Working Families Party endorsement for Andrew Cuomo, a huge thing that meant Cuomo wouldn't have to worry about a third party candidate from the left during the general election (and multiple polls had shown Cuomo losing a lot of support if that happened.)
She made robocalls for Cuomo's bank lobbyist running mate when it looked like she might lose and helped the bankster lobbyist win her primary.
And now she defends Cuomo's plan to "break" public schools by calling the comments (which he made twice) "campaign rhetoric."
As I noted above, Cuomo has promised to bring the "death penalty" to schools he considers "failing" - and from comments he made this week, he seems to think the entire public school system around the state is failing.
When Cuomo "breaks" the school system, when he takes a sledgehammer to the public schools and gives them the "death penalty," that sledgehammer will have the fingerprints of AFT President Randi Weingarten on it.
This year, Andrew Cuomo has called the public school system a "monopoly" which he plans to "break" in his second term.
Cuomo doesn't seem to like teachers any more than he seems to like public schools.
Cuomo has promoted a punitive teacher evaluation system that superintendents in the Lower Hudson Valley have said is a disaster that needs to be changed as soon as possible as one of the best in the nation.
Last month, Cuomo said that teacher evaluation system needs to be revised because too many teachers are being rated "effective" or "highly effective" with it.
Last week, a highly-respected 17 year teaching veteran filed suit against the NYSED commissioner after she was rated "ineffective" in this system as a result of her students' test scores - even though her students' test scores were high in comparison with other students' scores around the state.
Last week, Cuomo promised to make the teacher evaluation system that rated a highly respected teacher "ineffective" even more punitive by adding "real sanctions" to it.
Last week, AFT President Randi Weingarten defended Cuomo's "monopoly" comments by saying they were "campaign rhetoric."
Cuomo made these comments twice - he doubled down after the Daily News first reported them - so the comments seem less like "campaign rhetoric," more like campaign promises.
Yet Randi was running interference for Cuomo even as she was also mounting a symbolic battle against TIME Magazine over a cover they ran about teacher tenure.
This wasn't the first time Randi Weingarten helped out her buddy Andy during the election cycle.
Back in the spring, Weingarten, along with UFT President Michael Mulgrew, engineered a putsch within the NYSUT to toss out the old NYSUT leadership when it started to show guts and take on Cuomo over issues and replace them with a more Cuomo-compliant leadership.
Also last spring, union leaders put pressure on the Working Families Party to endorse Andrew Cuomo over Fordham President Zephyr Teachout when they threatened the party with dissolution and financial ruin if Teachout were given the party's ballot line.
You can be sure the UFT was not part of that pressure on WFP without Weingarten's okay.
This September, when internal polling showed Teachout's running mate, Tim Wu, with a real shot to beat Cuomo's banker lobbyist running mate, Kathy Hochul, in the primary, Weingarten joined NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio in making robocalls for Cuomo's running mate, Hochul.
Hochul won her primary - Wu said the momentum in the campaign turned against him when the robocalls started.
This morning on Twitter, Randi Weingarten defended her defense of Andrew Cuomo's comments, saying she had criticized him and what more could she be expected to do?
Well, what she has done is quite clear - and quite helpful to Andrew Cuomo.
To reiterate:
She helped engineer a putsch against the old NYSUT leadership and helped install a new, Cuomo-compliant leadership at NYSUT.
She helped other union leaders push for a Working Families Party endorsement for Andrew Cuomo, a huge thing that meant Cuomo wouldn't have to worry about a third party candidate from the left during the general election (and multiple polls had shown Cuomo losing a lot of support if that happened.)
She made robocalls for Cuomo's bank lobbyist running mate when it looked like she might lose and helped the bankster lobbyist win her primary.
And now she defends Cuomo's plan to "break" public schools by calling the comments (which he made twice) "campaign rhetoric."
As I noted above, Cuomo has promised to bring the "death penalty" to schools he considers "failing" - and from comments he made this week, he seems to think the entire public school system around the state is failing.
When Cuomo "breaks" the school system, when he takes a sledgehammer to the public schools and gives them the "death penalty," that sledgehammer will have the fingerprints of AFT President Randi Weingarten on it.
Vote NO On Cuomo's Smart Schools Bond Act
Gary Stern at LoHud does a great job of giving both sides of the Smart Schools Bond Act story.
Here's why critics are opposed to Cuomo's technology bond for schools:
And:
Why in the world would anybody want to vote for a $2 billion dollar boondoggle bond act that gives John King and Nancy Zimpher the right to approve or reject what districts do with the money?
You can be sure King and Zimpher, staunch Common Core proponents and testing advocates, will want every district to use the money for infrastructure for the PARCC (or some other online tests) to grade students, rate teachers and evaluate schools.
We ought to call this the Infrastructure For Online Computerized Testing Bond Act, because that's exactly what it is.
Don't be fooled, thinking much (or any, for that matter) of this money will go to building schools or getting rid of trailers in the city schools.
This is tech bond, pure and simple, meant to get the state up and running for the coming online PARCC tests.
Vote NO on the Proposition 3 on Tuesday.
Here's why critics are opposed to Cuomo's technology bond for schools:
Opponents of the bond act say that borrowing $2 billion to pay for computers and other items with limited life spans would be an unprecedented move that has not been supported by analysis.
Nicholas Tampio of Mamaroneck, an associate professor of political science at Fordham University who has tried to incite opposition to the bond act, said money from the bond act will ultimately tie districts to the state's agenda. The state Education Department's goal, he said, is for districts to prepare for online tests aligned to the Common Core.
"School districts face a choice: Submit investment plans that (state Education Commissioner) John King wants or relinquish any chance of having the plan approved," Tampio said. "And what John King wants is the technological infrastructure to support online Common Core testing."
If the bond act is approved, each district would be eligible to receive a set amount based on the state's aid formula. But districts would need to have spending plans approved by a high-powered review board consisting of King, SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher and state Budget Director Robert Megna.
And:
E.J. McMahon, president of the Empire Center, a conservative think tank in Albany, has been the most prominent critic of the bond act. He said Cuomo has no research that proves New York needs to borrow $2 billion for school tech.
"There was no assessment of need and no one asked for this," he said. "This is the most ill-conceived and wasteful bond act to be put in front of New York voters in 30 or 40 years."
He noted that the state Board of Regents, which sets educational policy, has not endorsed the bond act.
"The governor treats the need for this as self-evident: Tech is good," McMahon said.
Why in the world would anybody want to vote for a $2 billion dollar boondoggle bond act that gives John King and Nancy Zimpher the right to approve or reject what districts do with the money?
You can be sure King and Zimpher, staunch Common Core proponents and testing advocates, will want every district to use the money for infrastructure for the PARCC (or some other online tests) to grade students, rate teachers and evaluate schools.
We ought to call this the Infrastructure For Online Computerized Testing Bond Act, because that's exactly what it is.
Don't be fooled, thinking much (or any, for that matter) of this money will go to building schools or getting rid of trailers in the city schools.
This is tech bond, pure and simple, meant to get the state up and running for the coming online PARCC tests.
Vote NO on the Proposition 3 on Tuesday.
Saturday, November 1, 2014
Cowardly Cuomo Refuses To Own Up To Working Families Party Slam
Typical from Governor Narcissist - say something scummy, then make believe he didn't say it:
Clearly he was tweaking WFP yesterday with the "We have Democrat, Republican, Green, Red, White, Blue, Working People, Working Short People, Working Tall People” comment on Lehrer's show.
Too bad he didn't have the guts to admit it in front of working people from 1199 SEIU, 32BJ SEIU and the Hotel Trades Council who were rallying for him.
Too bad the working people from 1199 SEIU, 32BJ SEIU and the Hotel Trades Council who were rallying for him don't realize what an arrogant, anti-union prick he is.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo today denied identifying the labor-backed Working Families Party as a “fringe” party, despite radio remarks yesterday that seemed to mock and belittle the left-leaning group.
On a Friday interview on the Brian Lehrer Show, Mr. Cuomo seemed to allude to the WFP–with which he has long had a fractious relationship, and which reluctantly endorsed him twice for governor–as a “fringe” party, while pushing the Women’s Equality Party, which he created this year. The WEP purports to promote the anti-discrimination, pro-choice Women’s Equality Agenda, but many critics view it as an effort to lure progressives away from the WFP and deny it the 50,000 votes it needs to keep its ballot line.
“The Women’s Equality Party, the Women’s Equality Agenda, is something that is very important to me. I think it can be a national precedent. And it empowers women in a way that’s never been done. It’s almost amazing when you think about it. We’ve formed every kind of fringe party for every kind of reason. We have Democrat, Republican, Green, Red, White, Blue, Working People, Working Short People, Working Tall People,” Mr. Cuomo said yesterday.
But following a rally in the Bronx today with 1199 SEIU, 32BJ SEIU and the Hotel Trades Council–all components of the WFP’s union-community group alliance –“I don’t think I called them a ‘fringe party,'” Mr. Cuomo said, then clarifying his remarks when the Observer quoted his words from yesterday to him. “I think that I said there are a number of parties, you can vote for me on the Democratic Party, you can vote for me on the Independence Party, you can vote for me on the Working Families Party, you can vote for me on the Women’s Equality Party.”
Clearly he was tweaking WFP yesterday with the "We have Democrat, Republican, Green, Red, White, Blue, Working People, Working Short People, Working Tall People” comment on Lehrer's show.
Too bad he didn't have the guts to admit it in front of working people from 1199 SEIU, 32BJ SEIU and the Hotel Trades Council who were rallying for him.
Too bad the working people from 1199 SEIU, 32BJ SEIU and the Hotel Trades Council who were rallying for him don't realize what an arrogant, anti-union prick he is.
Why Is Randi Weingarten Willing To Fight TIME Magazine For Teacher Bashing, But Not Andrew Cuomo?
For the past couple of weeks, AFT President Randi Weingarten has been fighting the good fight against TIME Magazine for running this cover:
Weingarten fumed on social media over the TIME cover and mobilized her union cohorts and followers to try and force TIME to "apologize" for the cover. Weingarten, who also loves to write letters, wrote TIME a letter to tell the editors just how wrong they are about teachers. You can see that letter here.
This was a whole lot of time, energy and activity Weingarten devoted to fighting a magazine few people read anymore - TIME averages less than 60,000 copies sold on the newsstand a week (at its height, it sold over 400,000 copies a week on the newsstand and even in 2005 it was selling 150,000 copies a week) and it's subscriber base has fallen from 20 million to a little over 3 million (see here for that story.)
Much of the subscriber and newsstand customer base was lost years ago, but even in the past seven years TIME has shed nearly a million subscribers, going from over 4 million a week to just over 3 million a week.
This is not a news magazine that anybody is actually reading anymore, though Weingarten certainly did them a favor by publicizing the "Rotten Apples" cover and providing them some click bait that might have translated into a few extra ad dollars and maybe a subscription or two from some ed deformer fans.
As for what harm Weingarten's campaign against TIME did to them, well, perhaps her attacks against the magazine caused some teachers to cancel their personal or classroom subscriptions although to be honest, I don't know any teachers who have either of those.
In the end, it was probably a wash for TIME and the Rotten Apples Apology Movement Weingarten led - TIME perhaps gained a bit of ad revenue from the extra clicks, perhaps lost a few subscriptions from some teachers.
One thing they did get that they haven't had for a while - people talking about TIME Magazine as if it mattered in any substantial way. That may not have been Weingarten's goal in the battle, but that certainly was one of the consequences.
Now I must admit, I didn't actually pay much attention to any of this.
As I noted earlier, from the time TIME Magazine first ran their infamous Michelle Rhee broom cover in 2008 to now, they've lost a lot of circulation and subscriptions, so my feeling was, whatever shows up on their cover doesn't really matter much anymore.
TIME Magazine is a lot like the Sunday news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and FOX - there's a lot of bluster going on, a lot of "serious people" doing some "serious talk" about "serious issues" that nobody outside of the Beltway and their own insular circle is seriously listening to.
As Weingarten's social media campaign against TIME's cover assault against teachers was going on, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo launched his own assault against teachers - and unlike the TIME Magazine assault, Cuomo's had real import.
Cuomo told the New Daily News Editorial Board the following:
Cuomo then doubled-down on those "monopoly" comments later:
Cuomo also attacked teachers in his initial comments to the Daily News Editorial Board:
Cuomo's teacher evaluation system is a disaster, with superintendents in the Lower Hudson Valley saying it takes too much time, energy and resources to implement and does nothing to improve teaching and learning.
From the perspective of teachers, the system does much harm since no matter how excellent a teacher you are, you can be found "ineffective" in this system.
The first lawsuit against the system was launched this past week by a widely respected teacher whose students all passed their state tests but was nonetheless deemed "ineffective" by Cuomo's evaluation system based upon her students' test scores:
This is the system that Cuomo plans to revise so that it has "sanctions," the system that Cuomo claimed in a 245 page campaign policy document was one of the best teacher evaluation systems in the nation, though he did complain last month that it needed to be revised because not enough teachers were being found "ineffective."
Imagine that - Cuomo wants to strengthen a system that rates one of the most widely respected teachers in the Great Neck School District "ineffective" based upon some voodoo value-added measurements because not enough teachers are being rated "ineffective."
Now you'd think after Andrew Cuomo twice attacked the public school system as a "monopoly" that he planned to "break" in his second term and threatened to "strengthen" his teacher evaluation system with "real sanctions" for teachers even though it's a disaster that unfairly rates teachers, Randi Weingarten would have put down her TIME Magazine for a minute and joined the outrage many New York educators expressed on social media over Cuomo's comments.
But you'd be wrong about that - instead Weingarten defended Cuomo:
Now as I noted above, Cuomo doubled down on his "monopoly" comments later, so it's difficult to see how Cuomo's threats to "break" public schools is anything but a threat, but Weingarten managed to do so in an interview with Capital NY's Jessica Bakeman.
Weingarten says she wrote Cuomo a letter:
More jive from Weingarten here - if ever there was a time to go public with a conversation about public education, it's now, during the heat of a campaign, when a politician still has to worry about his re-election numbers.
But instead of taking Cuomo on the way she took on the TIME cover, Weingarten defends Cuomo's comments as nothing more than "campaign rhetoric" and says she's having a "private conversation" with Cuomo about this matter.
One thing I've noticed about Weingarten over the years - if there's ever a symbolic fight she can take on that will have little-to-no impact on the damages being done to public schools, teachers and the teaching profession by the ed deform movement, Randi is all in.
But whenever there's a moment when she can fight to defend public schools, teachers and the teaching profession from politicians who are doing real damage to all three, she's instead defending those politicians, or robocalling for them, or diverting attentions from the damage they're doing.
That's EXACTLY what Randi Weingarten is doing here - happy to take on TIME in a symbolic fight that is essentially meaningless while declining to fight - nay, worse, defending - a neo-liberal politician like Andrew Cuomo who plans to "break" the public school system in his next term.
Why not fight both fights - the symbolic fight against TIME and the real fight against a politician with a personal vendetta against teachers and public schools who plans to destroy both in the next few years?
Weingarten fumed on social media over the TIME cover and mobilized her union cohorts and followers to try and force TIME to "apologize" for the cover. Weingarten, who also loves to write letters, wrote TIME a letter to tell the editors just how wrong they are about teachers. You can see that letter here.
This was a whole lot of time, energy and activity Weingarten devoted to fighting a magazine few people read anymore - TIME averages less than 60,000 copies sold on the newsstand a week (at its height, it sold over 400,000 copies a week on the newsstand and even in 2005 it was selling 150,000 copies a week) and it's subscriber base has fallen from 20 million to a little over 3 million (see here for that story.)
Much of the subscriber and newsstand customer base was lost years ago, but even in the past seven years TIME has shed nearly a million subscribers, going from over 4 million a week to just over 3 million a week.
This is not a news magazine that anybody is actually reading anymore, though Weingarten certainly did them a favor by publicizing the "Rotten Apples" cover and providing them some click bait that might have translated into a few extra ad dollars and maybe a subscription or two from some ed deformer fans.
As for what harm Weingarten's campaign against TIME did to them, well, perhaps her attacks against the magazine caused some teachers to cancel their personal or classroom subscriptions although to be honest, I don't know any teachers who have either of those.
In the end, it was probably a wash for TIME and the Rotten Apples Apology Movement Weingarten led - TIME perhaps gained a bit of ad revenue from the extra clicks, perhaps lost a few subscriptions from some teachers.
One thing they did get that they haven't had for a while - people talking about TIME Magazine as if it mattered in any substantial way. That may not have been Weingarten's goal in the battle, but that certainly was one of the consequences.
Now I must admit, I didn't actually pay much attention to any of this.
As I noted earlier, from the time TIME Magazine first ran their infamous Michelle Rhee broom cover in 2008 to now, they've lost a lot of circulation and subscriptions, so my feeling was, whatever shows up on their cover doesn't really matter much anymore.
TIME Magazine is a lot like the Sunday news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and FOX - there's a lot of bluster going on, a lot of "serious people" doing some "serious talk" about "serious issues" that nobody outside of the Beltway and their own insular circle is seriously listening to.
As Weingarten's social media campaign against TIME's cover assault against teachers was going on, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo launched his own assault against teachers - and unlike the TIME Magazine assault, Cuomo's had real import.
Cuomo told the New Daily News Editorial Board the following:
ALBANY — Vowing to break “one of the only remaining public monopolies,” Gov. Cuomo on Monday said he’ll push for a new round of teacher evaluation standards if re-elected.
Cuomo, during a meeting with the Daily News Editorial Board, said better teachers and competition from charter schools are the best ways to revamp an underachieving and entrenched public education system.
“I believe these kinds of changes are probably the single best thing that I can do as governor that’s going to matter long-term,” he said, “to break what is in essence one of the only remaining public monopolies — and that’s what this is, it’s a public monopoly.”
He said the key is to put “real performance measures with some competition, which is why I like charter schools.”
Cuomo then doubled-down on those "monopoly" comments later:
A firestorm ignited between several state public education advocacy groups and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo over remarks he made to the New York Daily News editorial board published Monday—in which he threatened to “break” what he deemed “one of the only remaining public monopolies,” New York’s public school system—grew hotter Wednesday, with more groups joining in his criticism.
Cuomo vowed to offer competition to public schools in order to raise the bar on the current education system via an expansion of charter schools and punitive teacher evaluation systems if re-elected. He dismissed educators’ and parents’ concerns about tying teacher evaluations to standardized test scores—a practice that has come under enormous scrutiny since the botched roll-out of the Common Core curriculum two years ago.
Despite the initial backlash, Cuomo reiterated the controversial statements later that day during a tour of Mineola Middle School intended to showcase his Smart Schools Act proposal, which would provide up to $2 billion in tech funding for schools throughout the state if approved by public referendum on Nov. 4.
“As governor, I’ve probably spent more of my time trying to change the education system than anything else,” Cuomo told reporters after a briefing on the funding plan. “Why? It is very hard to change the education system. When you think about it, it’s probably the single-largest public monopoly in the United States of America.”
Cuomo also attacked teachers in his initial comments to the Daily News Editorial Board:
Cuomo said he will push a plan that includes more incentives — and sanctions — that “make it a more rigorous evaluation system.”
Cuomo expects fierce opposition from the state’s teachers, who are already upset with him and have refused to endorse his re-election bid.
“The teachers don’t want to do the evaluations and they don’t want to do rigorous evaluations — I get it,” Cuomo said. “I feel exactly opposite."
Cuomo's teacher evaluation system is a disaster, with superintendents in the Lower Hudson Valley saying it takes too much time, energy and resources to implement and does nothing to improve teaching and learning.
From the perspective of teachers, the system does much harm since no matter how excellent a teacher you are, you can be found "ineffective" in this system.
The first lawsuit against the system was launched this past week by a widely respected teacher whose students all passed their state tests but was nonetheless deemed "ineffective" by Cuomo's evaluation system based upon her students' test scores:
Sheri G. Lederman has been teaching for 17 years as a fourth-grade teacher in New York’s Great Neck Public School district. Her students consistently outperform state averages on math and English standardized tests, and Thomas Dolan, the superintendent of Great Neck schools, signed an affidavit saying “her record is flawless” and that “she is highly regarded as an educator.”
Yet somehow, when Lederman received her 2013-14 evaluation, which is based in part on student standardized test scores, she was rated as “ineffective.” Now she has sued state officials over the method they used to make this determination in an action that could affect New York’s controversial teacher evaluation system.
How is it that a teacher known for excellence could be rated “ineffective”?
The convoluted statistical model that the state uses to evaluate how much a teacher “contributed” to students’ test scores awarded her only one out of 20 possible points. These ratings affect a teacher’s reputation and at some point are supposed to be used to determine a teacher’s pay and even job status.
...
Lederman filed her lawsuit against New York State Education Commissioner John King Jr., Assistant Commissioner Candace H. Shyer and the Office of State Assessment of the New York State Education Department, challenging the rationality of the VAM model being used to evaluate her and, by extension, other teachers. The suit alleges that the New York State Growth Measures “actually punishes excellence in education through a statistical black box which no rational educator or fact finder could see as fair, accurate or reliable.”
The lawsuit shows that Lederman’s students traditionally perform much higher on math and English Language Arts standardized tests than average fourth-grade classes in the state. In 2012-13, 68.75 percent of her students met or exceeded state standards in both English and math. She was labeled “effective” that year. In 2013-14, her students’ test results were very similar but she was rated “ineffective.” The lawsuit says:
This simply makes no sense, both as a matter of statistics and as a matter of rating teachers based upon slight changes in student performance from year to year.
This is the system that Cuomo plans to revise so that it has "sanctions," the system that Cuomo claimed in a 245 page campaign policy document was one of the best teacher evaluation systems in the nation, though he did complain last month that it needed to be revised because not enough teachers were being found "ineffective."
Imagine that - Cuomo wants to strengthen a system that rates one of the most widely respected teachers in the Great Neck School District "ineffective" based upon some voodoo value-added measurements because not enough teachers are being rated "ineffective."
Now you'd think after Andrew Cuomo twice attacked the public school system as a "monopoly" that he planned to "break" in his second term and threatened to "strengthen" his teacher evaluation system with "real sanctions" for teachers even though it's a disaster that unfairly rates teachers, Randi Weingarten would have put down her TIME Magazine for a minute and joined the outrage many New York educators expressed on social media over Cuomo's comments.
But you'd be wrong about that - instead Weingarten defended Cuomo:
ALBANY—American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten attributed Governor Andrew Cuomo’s characterization of public education as a “monopoly” to last-minute campaign rhetoric and called on teachers angered by the governor’s comments not to vote for G.O.P. candidate Rob Astorino as an alternative.
“We’re in the political season. At the end of the day, … I’ll chalk it up to politics,” Weingarten told Capital on Friday when asked about the governor’s comments earlier in the week to the Daily News' editorial board.
Now as I noted above, Cuomo doubled down on his "monopoly" comments later, so it's difficult to see how Cuomo's threats to "break" public schools is anything but a threat, but Weingarten managed to do so in an interview with Capital NY's Jessica Bakeman.
Weingarten says she wrote Cuomo a letter:
"I decided I would actually write him a letter explaining why public education isn’t a monopoly but a public good, a moral imperative and a constitutional mandate in New York,” she said. “I really decided to spell that out, not in the high-pitched moment of the last few days of a gubernatorial election, but privately, in a letter. Because the values of public education are so important that we really have to have a real conversation about it.”
More jive from Weingarten here - if ever there was a time to go public with a conversation about public education, it's now, during the heat of a campaign, when a politician still has to worry about his re-election numbers.
But instead of taking Cuomo on the way she took on the TIME cover, Weingarten defends Cuomo's comments as nothing more than "campaign rhetoric" and says she's having a "private conversation" with Cuomo about this matter.
One thing I've noticed about Weingarten over the years - if there's ever a symbolic fight she can take on that will have little-to-no impact on the damages being done to public schools, teachers and the teaching profession by the ed deform movement, Randi is all in.
But whenever there's a moment when she can fight to defend public schools, teachers and the teaching profession from politicians who are doing real damage to all three, she's instead defending those politicians, or robocalling for them, or diverting attentions from the damage they're doing.
That's EXACTLY what Randi Weingarten is doing here - happy to take on TIME in a symbolic fight that is essentially meaningless while declining to fight - nay, worse, defending - a neo-liberal politician like Andrew Cuomo who plans to "break" the public school system in his next term.
Why not fight both fights - the symbolic fight against TIME and the real fight against a politician with a personal vendetta against teachers and public schools who plans to destroy both in the next few years?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)