Since Shelly Silver was sitting next to Cuomo when he said this, we must presume such a law would pass the Assembly (the Senate is a done deal already with Republicans in charge) and wind up on Cuomo's desk.
How did UFT President Michael Mulgrew respond to this news?
Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, said in a statement that he “would prefer a negotiated settlement,” but supported state intervention if talks fail again.
For Mulgrew it's a win/win if the state imposes an evaluation system.
This way, he never has to agree to anything and can always say to members, "Hey, I didn't sign onto this system - the state forced it down on our throats."
Yet he still gets an evaluation system that he claims is going to be the bestest thing in education since the chalk board - with growth models based upon tests and student folders and all kinds of other "accountability measures."
And as Accountable Talk noted a few weeks back, the UFTsters are dying to get a few more teachers fired every year because, as one of the UFT leadership geniuses told AT,
we have to agree to this evaluation system because no other organization he can think of has just 1% of its members rated unsatisfactory, and that has to change.
That's right UFT members - your union leadership doesn't think enough of you are being "u-rated" and fired and they want to fix that in this new evaluation system.
Given that the new evaluation system VAM is going to have a margin of error bigger than Bloomberg's mouth and given that anybody can be "u-rated" using the 57 page Danielson rubric, including Danielson herself, the UFT leadership ought to get their wishes.
Now if I was the union head, I would say publicly how we would challenge any system that is imposed by the state that forces teacher evaluations based upon junk science like VAM.
I would also say publicly how the system has been set up to "get" teachers by putting in place an observation rubric that is too complex and convoluted for anybody to ever be rated "effective" with it.
I would also note how the other states that have pursued this kind of evaluation system - Florida and Tennessee - have made a mess of things and how these systems are being challenged in the courts.
Finally, I would note that if the governor decides to impose such a flawed evaluation system here, I would have no choice but to challenge such a system in court and I would ask the public, do they want their kids' teachers to be evaluated using a system that is error-riddled and will mean Endless Testing all the year through in every subject in every grade, K-12, just so that teachers can be "evaluated" with junk science?
That's what I would do.
Mulgrew, on the other hand, essentially shrugged and said, "Sure, do whatever the hell you want."
Don't we want MORE out of our union leadership than this?
Mulgrew is just like a defense lawyer working with the prosecutors to wrongly convict his client who is actually innocent. Mulgrew is a truly disgusting and immoral individual because he is betraying the people who pay his salary.ReplyDelete
I challenge anyone who reads this comment to write a comment defending of Mulgrew's perverted and immoral approach to teacher evaluations!
I noted this recently that it was a sure bet that Cuomo and Mulgrew would never stand for being upstaged on the reform agenda by Christie and Weingarten. Once the New Jersey deal was agreed to nothing even the obstinance of Mike Bloomberg could prevent Cuomo and Mulgrew to reach a teacher evaluation agreement. Who once stated, "all the world is a stage?"ReplyDelete
This is perhaps the lowest thing I have seen Unity do in a long time. This violates EVERYTHING they promised us last year when they said collective bargaining was going to make these evaluations "fair"? Even by their own standards and own words, the UFT leaders have stabbed us in the back. Et tu Michael and Leo?ReplyDelete
Yes, they have and they will.ReplyDelete
Notice the stage. My take is bloomberg, cuomo, and others were concerned about who to deal with after UFT elections and they all agreed it would be best to ensure mulgrew's election. Can't take a chance on someone MORE challenging. Nope.Mulgrew's our guy.
Had Mulgrew and Bloomberg come to an agreement on evaluations this month, they would be taking a risk on elections no matter how slim a chance most of you believe MORE had in winning.
Soooo, make it look good. We don't come to an agreement, Mulgrew looks like he put up a fight on behalf of members and in time for elections, members stlill believe in the UFT management (note I don't use the word leadership), and then..."Ooooh look. Cuomo and King are being mean. They're imposing stuff on us. It's their fault. They're too powerful. There was nothimg left we could do.".
Classic UFT. It's similar to the CL calling the DR about a grievance and the DR calls the principal behind your back to cut a deal without your consent, then expects you to execute the deal when the DR never even consulted with you about the deal. The difference here is that the membership will not get a chance to say No! We're not accepting the new evals.
"Since Shelly Silver was sitting next to Cuomo when he said this, we must presume such a law would pass the Assembly (the Senate is a done deal already with Republicans in charge) and wind up on Cuomo's desk."ReplyDelete
**This is actually an inaccurate statement. In November, after the election, New York now has a majority Democrat State Senate.
Now, where the Democratic state senators move close towards the ed deform bills in New York is another story.... but we do not have a Republican controlled State Senate anymore, it is majority Democrat now.
شركة نقل عفش بجازان
شركة نقل عفش بمكةReplyDelete
شركة نقل عفش بالمدينة المنورة
شركة نقل عفش بخميس مشيط
شركة نقل اثاث بابها
شركة نقل عفش بنجران
ِشركة نقل عفش بحائل