Charter School Shills With Ties To Cuomo Plan To "Bankroll" Bid To Destroy De Blasio

Anybody else think this idea came straight from Cuomo?

Ken Lovett of the Daily News reports the following:

ALBANY — Business bigwigs — some with ties to Gov. Cuomo — have begun discussing the possibility of bankrolling an early effort to go after Mayor de Blasio in hopes of further weakening him in advance of the 2017 elections, sources say.

Home Depot founder Ken Langone, who once headed a “Republicans for Cuomo” effort, had private preliminary discussions last week about the idea of putting together a group to help raise money and coordinate a public campaign designed to chip away at the mayor, sources said.

...

The idea is to capitalize on de Blasio’s weaknesses early enough to make it easier for a challenger to come forward, several said.

Langone, in discussions with several business cronies, offered to immediately pony up a significant amount of money toward the effort if the others do the same, one insider said.


Besides Langone, who did not return a call for comment, others mentioned as potentially getting involved in the effort are billionaire Paul Singer, a big-time Republican donor who helped Cuomo in the effort to legalize gay marriage in 2011, and Tudor Investment Corp. founder Paul Tudor Jones.

Several hedge-fund backers of the pro-charter school movement — which has had close ties to Cuomo — like Dan Loeb have also been mentioned as possibly being part of the effort. Singer, Jones and Loeb could not be reached for comment.

I'll remind readers that when Eva Moskowitz was at odds with Bill de Blasio over the DOE's rejection of three Success Academy co-locations, it was Andrew Cuomo himself who suggested to Moskowitz she hold a big Albany rally that he would speak at in order to weaken de Blasio.

Considering the ties the names mentioned in the Lovett column have to Cuomo, it's reasonable to think Cuomo's got a hand in this latest effort as well.

Make no mistake, the charter school shills want City Hall back 100% in their corner and they're going to do everything they can to ensure that happens.

Looks like that may be happening with Cuomo's help.

PDK/Gallup Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Reject Test-Based School Accountability

Lyndsey Layton in the Washington Post:

Americans overwhelmingly think there is too much emphasis on standardized testing in public schools and that test scores are not the best way to judge schools, teachers or students, according to a national poll.

The results released Sunday come from the 47th annual PDK/Gallup poll of attitudes toward public schools, the longest-running survey of Americans’ views on public education.

 The survey showed that the public rejects school accountability built on standardized tests, which has been federal policy through No Child Left Behind, the signature education initiative of President George W. Bush.

64% say there is too much emphasis on standardized testing in schools.

That's nearly two-thirds of respondents.

Here's an interesting finding on teacher evaluations and test scores:

A majority of respondents — regardless of political affiliation — opposed the notion of evaluating teachers based in part on test scores, an idea heavily promoted by the Obama administration and fought by teachers unions.

As Americans move away from the idea that tying teacher ratings to test scores is a practical way to evaluate teachers, Andrew Cuomo is moving toward it.

Until he is made to pay a political price for pushing what is clearly an unpopular education policy, he'll continue to do it, of course. 

As for Regents Chancellor Tisch and NYSED Commissioner Elia, they say they're going to get the opt out numbers down next year by convincing parents that standardized testing is swell and a civil right and schools just cannot function without them.

The PDK/Gallup poll shows they're going to have an uphill climb.

Same goes for Common Core - 54% oppose it according to the PDK/Gallup poll.

Also there's this interesting tidbit that goes right to the core of the testing issue:

In a rebuttal to those who say states should use common tests so that the public can compare how students perform across state boundaries, fewer than one in five public school parents said it was important to know how children in their communities performed on standardized tests compared with students in other districts, states or countries.

The rationale for the PARCC and SBAC tests was just that - to give the public the ability to compare how students perform in different states.

At less than 20% support, not so much on this tenet of the education reform agenda either.

So let's see, the public doesn't like standardized testing, doesn't think teachers should be evaluated using test scores, doesn't care about the PARCC/SBAC comparisons, and opposes Common Core.

Quite a victory for education reform, eh?

Oh, and one last thing - 57% of the respondents gave the public schools in their own communities (you know, the one's they're familiar with) either an A or B for performance.

So much for the "failing schools" crisis.

How Are Teachers Handling The Opt Out Issue?

NYSED Commissioner MaryEllen Elia said any educator who supports or encourages the Opt Out movement is "unethical".

A commenter on a previous Perdido Street School post said she/he never encourages parents to opt children out of tests:

I am a teacher and I totally support the opt out movement. However, I do not believe it is ethical for teachers to ENCOURAGE parents to opt out. On the flip side I have no problem whatsoever for teachers to give information to parents who ASK for opt out information. It is the same with cops. They might not support a certain law like drinking in public but they can't encourage people to just brown bag it in dark corners.

In a reply to that comment, another commenter wrote:

At my school the principal asked us NOT to discuss opt out with parents, even if they ask. If a parent brings it up we have to tell them to speak to the principal. Talking to parents about opt out is a good way to get rated ineffective.

There is some conjecture that going forward, NYSED will go after educators with high opt rates, from superintendents leading districts to principals leading schools to teachers in individual classrooms.

Both Regents Chancellor Tisch and NYSED Commissioner Elia have made some not-so-subtle comments to back up that conjecture that they will look to punish educators over opt out rates.

So, there's an important question to ask here:

How do teachers out there handle the opt out issue?

LoHud: Teachers Union Not Behind Opt Out Movement

I keep seeing this allegation that the Opt Out movement was started, nurtured and spread by the teachers union.

The latest incarnation of that was from some woman arguing with Assemblyman Ed Ra on twitter about the wonders of Common Core and Common Core testing (Assemblyman Ra wasn't convinced of the the wonders of either) who claimed the Opt Out movement was "astroturf" created by the unions, including the UFT.

In an editorial today, The Journal-News dispenses with this myth that the union started opt out:

Many advocates and commentators continue to insist that the opt-out movement was surreptitiously created and nurtured by teachers unions, sort of like Frankenstein. This is simply not the case. At least in New York, the movement was built over several years — slowly, in stops and starts — by parent groups using social media. Local teachers unions started to publicly back the opt-out idea only in the final months before April's tests. And NYSUT, the statewide union, did not jump in until the final weeks, after it was clear that Gov. Andrew Cuomo would not allow lawmakers to topple his much-despised teacher-evaluation system.

I would add that the UFT has continued to support the state's testing regime despite NYSUT leadership showing support for the opt out movement right before the state tests were given in April.

This came after UFT President Michael Mulgrew said he'd punch anybody who took his Common Core away last year.

When it comes to Common Core and Common Core testing, the UFT is squarely on board with the program.

So, to reiterate:

The Opt Out movement was parent-created, parent-nurtured and parent-supported - a true grassroots movement.

Assemblyman Ra himself said it:

@CharmianAgain @JamesTedisco 1 of the biggest falsehoods is that this is a teacher union thing, parents started this movement and spread it

— Assemblyman Ed Ra (@EdwardRa19) August 21, 2015

Next time you see or hear some CCSS and/or Endless Testing regime supporter claiming the Opt Out movement is an astroturf thing started by the teachers unions, dispense with that jive using the LoHud editorial and Assemblyman Ra's statement that parents started opt out and spread it.

Reality Punches Chris Christie In The Face

Politico reports Chris Christie's 2016 campaign for president is fading into darkness:

Chris Christie, the voluble New Jersey governor, is once again facing the possibility that he might be relegated to the junior varsity debate — and rival Republican campaigns and outside observers say his window to re-enter the top tier of presidential candidates is closing fast.

Wednesday night’s scene in New Hampshire showed the daunting challenge ahead of Christie. As CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC covered Trump’s first town hall live — breaking only to run clips of Jeb Bush attacking the real estate tycoon — Christie was gasping for air on C-SPAN. Because the governor’s dimly lit event — a town hall at a restaurant outside of Manchester — was outdoors, the few viewers watching saw the candidate gradually disappear into darkness. The next day’s headlines duly focused on the Jeb-Donald contretemps, ignoring Christie’s play for a state he has made central to his fading White House hopes.

...

Christie has become such an also-ran that the Associated Press and the New York Times recently reassigned reporters dedicated to covering Christie — Jill Colvin and Kate Zernike — to other beats.

Then there are the polls.

If current trends hold, the New Jersey governor will likely lose his spot in the primetime CNN/Reagan Library debate on Sept. 16, displaced by a surging Carly Fiorina. As of mid-day Thursday, Christie was in 11th place among GOP presidential contenders in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls — behind Trump, Bush, Ben Carson, Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Ted Cruz, Fiorina, Sen. Rand Paul, Gov. John Kasich, and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

On Tuesday, a new CNN/ORC poll found Christie in 11th place, with only 3 percent support among registered GOP voters. (A separate POLITICO analysis of the five most recent national polls that would factor into who would appear for the main debate finds Christie tied with Kasich for 10th place. For now.)

And with Trump owning the Straight Talk vote, said former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, there’s little Christie can do to claw his way back.

Christie tried punching teachers in the face rhetorically a little while back, but that didn't help him regain any campaign momentum.

 

He's tried sharing too much information about himself (Hey, I've used birth control!), but that only freaked people out. 

Perhaps if this was an ordinary year, Christie's bluster could create one of those video moments that would go viral and get his campaign back on track.

But that's almost impossible to do with Donald Trump trolling the race, as Kean notes in the Politico piece.

 

He's got a campaign infrastructure and some money to burn, but the cash will start to dry up soon enough as donors move to other more viable candidates (it's already starting to happen) and his campaign apparatus won't save him if he starts running low money.

Christie's big on wanting to punch other people in the face, at least rhetorically.

Well, reality's punching back.

A 2016 victory, a longshot for Christie ever since BridgeGate, now seems all but impossible.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

NY Times: Cuomo Should "Stop Being Ridiculous," De Blasio Should Stop Overreacting To Nonsense

A scathing NY Times editorial on the bullshit story that is the Times Square topless problem:

Times Square is not going to hell, or anywhere near hell’s vicinity. Mr. de Blasio’s enemies have been predicting New York’s downfall since before the mayor took office. He should not be feeding their false narrative by panicking over some localized crudeness. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who recently said that he thought what the women were doing was illegal and had to be stopped, and that they reminded him of the “bad old days,” should stop being ridiculous.

The Times has a long relationship with our namesake square. It’s in our backyard now, since we moved to Eighth Avenue, but it was our front porch for more than 100 years. We and the city have survived rallies and riots and many, many New Year’s ball drops. More seasoned members of our staff remember how shuttle vans used to take late-shift employees in safety from our old 43rd Street building to the Port Authority Bus Terminal and Pennsylvania Station.

Times Square can reveal New York at its bleakest and most brilliant. It took grit and resolve to stick with it through the bad times. This is not one of them.

It's a bullshit story and the Times is right to tell de Blasio to stop overreacting to the attacks.

De Blasio's foundering, the sharks are circling, shills for Hakeem Jeffries, Ruben Diaz Jr., Scott Stringer and Tish James are declaring they may primary the mayor in two years and Eva Moskowitz all but announced for mayor on the radio.

De Blasio's pushback early in the summer against Cuomo has set much of this stuff off - Cuomo's working overtime behind the scenes to do de Blasio in (see here for example.)

I dunno how he rights the ship, maybe he doesn't right the ship ever.

But it's important to point out when the attacks are unjustified - "ridiculous" in the words of the Times - and point out that the attacks are coming from pols and their shills with ulterior motives.

That doesn't mean de Blasio doesn't need to get a handle on this - he does.

The PR issue has been a problem from the beginning.

Ben Max has one idea how to handle it here. 

I'm no political expert, but I would say the mayor needs to put his head down, get to work (on time!), stop giving his enemies opportunities to nail him on stuff (i.e., stop with the unforced errors like wondering if Times Square toplessness can be solved by pulling out pedestrian plazas), focus on issues important to New Yorkers, have the friends he has left (though that group seems to be dwindling) push his message and his "successes," and watch his back as best he can.

Overreacting to the Times Square bullshit by wondering aloud if the pedestrian plazas should be pulled out was not the way to right the ship, that's for sure.

Hakeem Jeffries, Eva Moskowitz Weigh Odds Of Challenging Bill de Blasio

This isn't a surprise.

Criminal justice reform hypocrite Hakeem Jeffries (it seems prison abuse only bothers him at Rikers, not in the state system) is said to be "reconsidering" a run for mayor against Bill de Blasio.

Oh, and guess who's pushing for him?

The Education Reform community, or more broadly the “donor community.” This is a group of people who have taken an “I told you so” attitude when it comes to de Blasio lately. They feel as though his tone deafness on education reform (mostly opposing charter school expansion) is emblematic of a problem on other issues – whether it’s the perceived explosion of the homeless population, or basic concerns about competency.

Some have even questioned the mayor’s interest in actually governing, which includes running the day-to-day operations of the city and ensuring that all is well. More importantly, many of these donors have always been “big fans of Hakeem.”

It's been a rough summer for de Blasio and if he doesn't turn the media narrative around soon, he will face a primary challenge or challenges in 2017.

State of Politics blog goes on to say that some leaders in the black community, once supporters of de Blasio, are now off the bandwagon and ready for a jump onto Hakeem's.

Also some in the "tech" world, which is pissed at De Blasio over his attempts to regulate Uber (how dare he regulate a tech company!)

In addition, Eva Moskowitz announced she's interested in running for mayor:

Success Academy founder and C.E.O. said Friday that she is interested in running for mayor, and that she will "let everyone know" when she decides whether to run against Mayor Bill de Blasio in 2017.

"It's an interest," Moskowitz told the New York Post's Fred Dicker on his radio show, after Dicker asked Moskowitz about her oft-rumored mayoral ambitions.

"I'm not being coy, I just honestly haven't decided yet," said, adding, "my husband doesn't know, my children don't know."

"It's a ways away, so I don't feel the need to decide immediately," Moskowitz said.

I'm not that worried about Moskowitz as a candidate.

She couldn't win in a Democratic primary in this city, not with the animosity she engenders among many rank-and-file Dems, not against an incumbent mayor.

She would have to run as a Republican in the general election where she would still be a longshot to win, given her personality, temperament and track record at Success Academies (she has fought to keep from getting audited more than once, which suggests she's got stuff she wants to, you know, hide.)

Nonetheless, the sharks are circling Big Bill this summer.

De Blasio's got, realistically, about a year before the primary challenge train leaves the station.

It seems second years are often tough on NYC mayors - Rudy and Bloomberg also fell in the polling in their second year in office.

Still, I'm not that confident de Blasio's going to be able to pull out of this and that worries me.

If you're a teacher out there, you should be watching very, very closely what happens.

You could be looking at an education reformer-backed mayor in two years, one who will look to "bust" up the system, shed it of unionized teachers and pay back education reformers by pushing their agenda.

In a worst case scenario, it could be Moskowitz.

I wouldn't worry too much about her getting elected (or even running - it's a significant pay cut to be mayor), but I would watch Jeffries very closely.

Jeffries gave an award to Cuomo last week, and you know how Cuomo feels about de Blasio.

Don't be surprised if Cuomo doesn't push behind the scenes for a Jeffries run against de Blasio - they've got mutual friends and mutual interests.

He was the one, after all, who pushed for Eva Moskowitz to have that Albany rally against de Blasio.

De Blasio's got plenty of issues and God knows, there is much about the system that has not changed since he took over from Bloomberg.

But practically speaking, I would worry about an education reformer-supported candidate like Jeffries mounting a challenge and then getting elected.

He'd have a lot of payback to hand out, if you know what I mean.

And if the longshot comes in and Eva actually becomes mayor, well, I'm sure you can imagine how that would go for public school teachers.

Tisch, Elia Warn They Will Go After Educators Who Support Or Encourage The Opt Out Movement

Yesterday Regents Chancellor Tisch announced that there will be no sanctions against districts with high opt out rates this year but put the onus on district superintendents for communicating the importance of the state tests for next year:

Ms. Tisch said that Ms. Elia had told the Board of Regents she would present a plan to them in September about how she would work with superintendents and principals whose districts and schools had high opt-out rates, in order to get them to reverse the tide of test refusals.

Ms. Tisch did not rule out withholding money in the future if the state discovered that district officials were encouraging opt-outs.

School officials need to know, Ms. Tisch said, that “they have to be responsible to work with parents to explain why the testing system is so important to the district and to the school.”

That warning came after NYSED Commissioner MaryEllen Elia called teachers who support or encourage opt out "unethical."

Elia also warned:

I don't agree with opt out. I will, uh, and am moving forward to do everything I can so that we can make sure that we don't have our opt out in any way grow and in fact when people I think become more aware of the importance of having the assessments

...

There are ramifications that can occur. I'm not saying what will occur, I'm just saying there are. The federal government has the ability to withdraw funds from districts and we have the ability as the state to say to any educator that's not an ethical thing you're doing. We have the ability to say to a superintendent, um, I just want you to know that you are an officer of the state and encouraging people to not follow the law is not acceptable.

A commenter at Perdido Street School took the gauntlets thrown down by Tisch and Elia for opt out next year to the the logical conclusion: they are going to go after any educators - teachers, administrators or superintendents - who are not fully on board the Endless Testing regime express:

Cuomo's, Tisch's, and now Elia's recent statements are suggesting how they will be approaching Opt Out.....3020A'ing any "educator," Admin or teacher, who in any way support or do not OPPOSE opt out. Cuomo and Tisch were putting the happy face on it to parents.....no penalties! And Elia was very clear in saying that any educators who support opt out are "unethical." That suggests the "moral character" language of a 3020A.

Their path forward cannot be penalizing parents, kids, or funding of schools...thats a political shit storm and they know it. The only thing left on the table are those that they are trying to destroy anyway.....educators....so thats where the hammer will fall for opt out.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that writing on the wall. We've been warned. Hey NYSUT leadership...y'all listening? Nope, probably not. 

The commenter nailed it with her/his comment - the politics around Endless Testing and opt out are such that the politicians and the educrats cannot punish the parents or the students.

But the teachers - well, that's another matter, isn't it?

The language being used here, especially by Elia - people who support opt out are "not reasonable," teachers who "support or encourage opt out...are unethical" - suggests they will look to frame opt out as the evil educators manipulating parents into opting their kids out of the state tests.

NYSED Commissioner MaryEllen Elia Attacks Parents And Teachers Over Opt Out

Gates Foundation-funded MaryEllen Elia gave the keynote address to Gates Foundation-funded astroturf group Educators4Excellence and attacked parents and teachers who support the Opt Out movement (video below).

She was very "specific" (her word) that she opposes the Opt Out movement, thinks parents who opt their children out of state tests are "not reasonable," says educators who encourage or even just support the Opt Out movement are "unethical" and is doing everything she can to make sure opt out does not grow next year

Here is a partial transcript of her remarks on the Opt Out movement:

"I believe that people involved in the opt out movement are not aware of the use and support that assessments can give to what happens in a school and in a classroom and/or what happens in a district.

Let me give you an example. I was with a superintendent the other day and she said to me I had a very high opt out rate.  Right now I'm not getting information back that can help me on what I need to provide for my teachers, what particular schools are doing really well with something, what I need to do in terms of academic interventions for students, because if you didn't take that you don't have as much information about that. And she said, it's - we're at a disadvantage.

So let me say this very clearly. I think opt out is something that is not reasonable. I understand that it can about as a result of people wanting to become involved in what they thought was the political way to approach it. I am absolutely shocked if - and I don't know this happened but if any educator supported and encouraged opt outs, I think it's unethical.

I believe that we have a responsibility as teachers to support our students. The realities of taking assessments that number one are state law and federal law and give information for teachers on things that they may have done well or not and give information to principals about what they need to do to support their schools and their teachers and tell us how well we are doing in places across this state where we have large populations of students that we won't have information on.

I don't agree with opt out. I will, uh, and am moving forward to do everything I can so that we can make sure that we don't have our opt out in any way grow and in fact when people I think become more aware of the importance of having the assessments...

There are ramifications that can occur. I'm not saying what will occur, I'm just saying there are. The federal government has the ability to withdraw funds from districts and we have the ability as the state to say to any educator that's not an ethical thing you're doing. We have the ability to say to a superintendent, um, I just want you to know that you are an officer of the state and encouraging people to not follow the law is not acceptable.

So I'm pretty specific about opt outs, I hope you all heard that."

 

On the very day Elia took a bat to parents and teachers who support opting children out of state tests, Governor Andrew Cuomo said he thought parents were in charge of their own children and he didn't think there should be any sanctions against districts with high opt out rates and Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch announced that there would be no sanctions from either the federal or state government on districts/schools with high opt rates.

Tisch did reserve the right to hit districts/schools with sanctions next year if she thought educators at those schools or districts were encouraging the Opt Out movement.

So Elia's still talking tough, but her words are mockable given the "ramification" tool she threatened earlier this summer over opt out has been taken from her by Cuomo and Tisch.

In short, here's where Elia is today:

New NYS ED Commish is : pic.twitter.com/65ds2IutRj

— lacetothetop (@lacetothetop) August 21, 2015

Merryl Tisch Says There Will Be No Penalties For Opt Rates This Year

From Kate Taylor in the NY Times:

School districts will not be penalized for having large numbers of students refuse to sit for the New York State standardized tests this year, education officials said on Thursday, ending months of uncertainty over how they would respond to a growing antitesting movement.

...

As recently as last week, the state education commissioner, MaryEllen Elia, said that she was not sure if the federal Education Department would withhold money from districts with high opt-out rates. She declined to rule out the possibility that the state would do so on its own.

But on Thursday, the chancellor of the State Board of Regents, Merryl H. Tisch, said that the federal Education Department informed the state’s Education Department “a couple of weeks ago” that it was leaving any decision about financial penalties to the state. And Ms. Tisch, whose board oversees the state agency and appoints the commissioner, said the state did not plan to withhold money from districts.

“I think when you withdraw money from a school district, what you’re doing is you’re hurting the kids in the school district,” she said. “So I don’t think that’s an effective way to deal with it.”

But...

Ms. Tisch said that Ms. Elia had told the Board of Regents she would present a plan to them in September about how she would work with superintendents and principals whose districts and schools had high opt-out rates, in order to get them to reverse the tide of test refusals.

Ms. Tisch did not rule out withholding money in the future if the state discovered that district officials were encouraging opt-outs.

School officials need to know, Ms. Tisch said, that “they have to be responsible to work with parents to explain why the testing system is so important to the district and to the school.”

I figured there wasn't the political will from Tisch, NYSED or Cuomo to take money away from districts or schools this year.

But they'll have something up their sleeves for next year to try to get the opt out rate down - of that you can be sure.

That's why Tisch is leaving the possibility of withholding money in the future.

It seems the onus will be on district officials "to work with parents to explain why the testing system is so important to the district and to the school.”

Does that mean if parents continue to opt their children out at similar rates to this year - or even higher rates - that district officials will have failed "to work with parents to explain why the testing system is so important to the district and to the school"?

It's a mess for Tisch, Elia and Cuomo and they know it.

They want to come down hard on this - you know they do, they're authoritarians and autocrats by nature, temperament and politics - but they can't without fanning the flames of the Opt Out movement even more.

It will be interesting to see how Tisch, Elia and Cuomo handle this going forward.

I suspect they are going to work extra hard to get that 20% opt out rate down for next year - it does all sorts of harm to Cuomo's vaunted APPR teacher evaluation system.

Ah, but given the mess that is the Endless Testing regime, I suspect they're going to have a hard time doing it - especially since the leaders of the Opt Out movement were proven right when they said no money would be withheld from districts or schools for opting out.

Cuomo Says High Opt Out Rates Shouldn't Be Held Against Districts

Cuomo says he doesn't believe school districts with high opt out rates should face sanctions.

— Jimmy Vielkind (@JimmyVielkind) August 20, 2015

More:

Schools with high rates of students opting out of standardized tests shouldn’t be penalized through a withholding of federal funds, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said.

Cuomo, speaking in Utica with reporters on Thursday, wouldn’t criticize parents for choosing to have their children not take the tests.

“I don’t believe there are sanctions for opt outs,” Cuomo said. “At the end of the day, parents are in charge and parents make the decisions.”

That's the public statement, of course - you can bet Cuomo doesn't have either the political courage or the political backing to take on the parents who opted their children out of the state's Endless Testing regime directly.

But make no mistake, behind the scenes he and his minions are trying to figure out ways to get those opt out numbers down next year.

You see, he's put a lot of political capital into his vaunted APPR teacher evaluation system, but if 20% of eligible students opt out of the tests the system is based upon, well, that does put in a crimp in things.

If the trend for opt out continues to grow - opt outs went from 5% in 2014 to 20% in 2015 - Cuomo's vaunted APPR is DOA.

So I don't make too much of this statement by Cuomo.

This is the sort of thing he has to say in front of the cameras, but behind the scenes it's a different story.

The Opt Out movement hurts his teacher evaluation system and you can bet Cuomo doesn't like that at all.

MaryEllen Elia Gives Keynote At Educators4Excellence Conference

Gates Foundation-funded MaryEllen Elia meets up with Gates Foundation-funded Educators4Excellence for a reformy extravaganza (per the Capital NY education update):

MaryEllen Elia and former NYC schools chancellor Dennis Walcott will discuss East Ramapo with Brian Lehrer. Elia will also later deliver the keynote address at an Educators 4 Excellence conference. Eva Moskowitz will appear on NY1’s Inside City Hall tonight. Carmen Fariña and Merryl Tisch did not release public schedules.

Maybe they can compare notes on how swell it is off the live off the Gates Foundation largesse?

Chris Christie Says Schools Without Teachers Unions Would Be "Nirvana"

We must destroy the village in order to save it:

Governor Chris Christie said that the academic achievement gap can't be fixed until after a "fundamental fight" with the teachers unions.

"We know how to fix this, but we’re not doing it," he said Wednesday afternoon during an interview with Campbell Brown, of the Partnership for Educational Justice and the74million.org, at an education summit in New Hampshire. "We’re not doing it because the teachers unions and the educational establishment, not only in New Jersey but across the country, know that fixes to that take apart the monopoly they have on education."

"And until we have that fundamental fight in this country as to who’s going to run education in this country, parents or unions, until we fix that and come to a conclusion on that, we’re not going to be able to fix the achievement gap." (He later said that schools without teachers unions would be "nirvana.")

Schools without unions would be "nirvana"?

Well, at least he's honest about wanting to destroy teachers unions.

Nice thing is, his political future is destroyed, what with Bridgegate and a few other scandals related to Port Authority funds and his cronies hanging around his neck, New Jersey an economic and quality-of-life mess, and Donald Trump stealing the outrage vote from him in the GOP primary fight.

His latest poll numbers have him dropping out of the top ten in the Republican presidential primary battle, which means he may not get an invite to the next big table GOP debate.

As I posted after Christie said he'd like to punch the teachers unions in the face, his teacher bashing isn't helping him in either approval with New Jersey voters or GOP primary voters.

When he shows up at an unvetted event, people let him have it, Bronx cheer-style.

Quite frankly, Ralph Kramden and his big mouth are done, his political career is over (he's term limited in New Jersey and his chances of getting elected president are about as good as mine) and it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

Enjoy political obscurity, Chris.

Maybe you can ask George Pataki how he deals with it when you see him on the campaign trail.

Message To John Kasich: They Took Our Teachers Lounge

TPM:

Ohio Governor John Kasich said at an education summit in New Hampshire that many teachers believe that "we’re out to take their job" when schools evaluate teacher performance and that teachers' lounges provide an environment where this worry spreads.

"No we’re not out to take their job. If you need help, we’ll help you. If you’re a terrible teacher, then you should be doing something else because you’re going to find more satisfaction doing something else that you’re good at," he said. "We have to constantly communicate that."

He then suggested that teachers' unions contribute to educators' worries.

"I’ll tell you what the unions do, unfortunately too much of the time. There’s a constant negative comment, ‘They’re going to take your benefits, they’re going to take your pay,'" Kasich said. "So if I were, not president, but if I were king in America, I would abolish all teachers' lounges, where they sit together and worry about, 'Woe is us.'"

In my school we have no teachers lounge.

There used to be a teachers cafeteria, but that got taken and made into classroom space.

Individual departments sometimes have their own spaces, but those have been cut down or completely eliminated in recent years as well because space is at a premium.

Teachers share classrooms as well.

There isn't much private space for commiserating where I work, that's for sure.

Frankly, I don't want the private space to complain about things - I'd like it so I could get some work done (i.e., grade papers, plan those wonderful Common Core-aligned lesson plans, etc.)

Alas, it is sometimes difficult to get that where I am.

So I dunno what the hell Kasich is talking about, but I can assure him that we're not all sitting around in teachers lounges complaining about teacher evaluations tied to test scores and the like.

I can say that teachers certainly talk about topics and issues that affect them, just as any group of people talk about things that affect them.

Where I work, it ain't happening at the teachers lounge, however.

The bathroom, maybe, or the hallway, but definitely not the teachers lounge or teachers cafeteria.

Maybe Kasich wants to ban teacher bathrooms as well?

I mean, if he's so concerned about teachers commiserating over things and all.

Maybe he can make all teachers bathrooms one stall?

That ought to cut down on the commiserating, eh?

Cuomo's Offended By Topless Women In Times Square

Gov. Cuomo on topless women in Times Square: "I believe this activity is illegal. … I think it has to be stopped." pic.twitter.com/VltmQMvBQp

— Cuomo Watch (@CuomoWatch) August 19, 2015

That was Governor Cumo today, announcing on NY1  his opposition to topless women in Times Square after Mayor de Blasio had already announced his opposition to the topless women there.

This was another example of Cuomo trying to stick it to de Blasio, since Cuomo got to claim that the topless women - most of whom are painted with the American flag, btw (very patriotic - who could be against the flag?) - are bringing back the "bad old days" in New York.

Now I dunno about you, but I'm old enough to remember the "bad old days" in New York and while I'd rather not have to run a gauntlet of topless women and costumed characters on Broadway trying to get tourists to take photos with them, I gotta say, this is NOTHING like the bad old days in New York.

So it stuck in my craw when I heard this b.s. statement out of Cuomo today, even more so after CuomoWatch retweeted the infamous "Wandering Eyes" photo of the younger Andy.

More hypocrisy from Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Maybe Cuomo is offended by the topless women because he's afraid they will distract from other things?

@perdidostschool @MercyMercyf @NYGovCuomo Distracts him from focusing on corruption?

— Cuomo Watch (@CuomoWatch) August 19, 2015

Yeah, that must be it.

Wealthy Political Donors Are Sad Some Republican Candidates Are Running Away From Common Core

Some Common Core shills seem unaware that Common Core is about as popular as Ebola these days with a good segment of the population.

Take the editorial boards at the Washington Post and NY Times, both of whom recently wrote up glowing assessments (yeah, I'm using that word on purpose) to talk about the wonders of Common Core and the ancillary tests that go with them and tow warn about the dangers of opposition to the Core (and the tests).

In reading the Washington Post editorial, you'd think it was still 2011 and Common Core opposition was "fringe" instead of increasing by the year.

It's not just clueless newspaper editorial board shills who don't get what's happening with Common Core with the general populace.

The Wall Street Journal today has a piece that says wealthy GOP donors are getting bummed out that Republican presidential candidates are trashing the Common Core.

The Journal reports that wealthy donors are sticking by the Core and pulling support away from candidates like Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker who initially supported the Core but now oppose it.

Candidates who continue to support Common Core are getting love - and dollars - from the Wall Street Common Core-lovers:

Mr. Bush’s approach is drawing a section of donors who have previously backed education accountability efforts in New York and New Jersey. Daniel Loeb, a New York City hedge-fund manager who encouraged Mr. Christie to run for president in 2012, has given $2,700 to Mr. Bush’s campaign, according to the Bush campaign’s financial disclosure. New Jersey education-minded donors that have given to Mr. Bush include Rick Rieder, of BlackRock Capital, Joseph Amato of Neuberger Berman, and Richard Pechter, the past chairman of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, the filing shows.

In July, a fundraiser for Mr. Bush was co-hosted by Mr. Lilley and David Tepper, a billionaire hedge-fund manager who helped cofound the Better Education for Kids organization in New Jersey. Members of the organization that advocates for high education standards have donated to Mr. Christie previously.

Alan Fournier, founder of Pennant Capital Management and co-founder of the New Jersey education organization, gave at least $14,400 to past Christie campaigns, records show. Mr. Fournier gave $50,000 to a super PAC supporting Mr. Bush, disclosure reports show. Mr. Tepper has also given $250,000 to the pro-Bush group, Right to Rise.

Mr. Lilley said his support for Mr. Bush is separate from his official role with Better Education for Kids. A spokesman for Mr. Tepper declined to comment. Mr. Fournier didn’t respond to a request for comment.

So even as opposition to Common Core continues to mount around the country, our "betters" - wealthy Wall Street and hedge fund donors, the newspaper editorial boards that shill for them, and at least two GOP presidential candidates - continue to support it.

As a sidenote, some of those donors backing Bush also back Andrew Cuomo, another lover of Common Core and Common Core testing.

Until the politicians who support the Core are made to pay a political price for that support, we're going to continue to see the political establishment push it.

Christie, Jindal and Walker made political calculations that they would pay a political price for continued support of the Core in a GOP presidential primary race and dropped their support it, with Jindal the strongest in opposition.

There are a whole host of reasons why Christie is losing the backing of donors that have nothing to do with education - he has plummeted in polls (indeed, he may not even qualify for the top ten in the next GOP debate), Bridgegate and other scandals hang around his neck further weighing him down and New Jersey's poor financial health and quality of life have made him a target of barbs from other candidates.

But as the money starts to dry up from CCSS-supporting donors, Christie may start to wonder if he made the wrong calculation in turning rhetorically against the Common Core.

Ironic thing is, since New Jersey still gives the Common Core tests, even though Christie claims he's against the Core, the practical effect is that CCSS will still be taught in schools to ready students for the state tests.

So Christie has the worst of both worlds with the Core - he's really not dropped support for Common Core in effect, since the state tests are still CCSS-tied and schools will have to teach it, but since he's talking trash about CCSS, he's losing some wealthy donors over it.

Jindal was never really a top tier candidate, so I'm not sure his opposition to the Core matters in the GOP money race one way or the other.

Walker, on the other hand, was top tier but has seen his brand and poll numbers drop since Donald Trump entered the race.

He's the guy to watch to see what happens as a result of his "turning" against the Core (I put "turning" in quotes because like Christie, his opposition is more rhetorical than practical in consequence.)

Does Walker pay a political consequence - i.e., have trouble raising money from wealthy donors - because of his turning on the Core?

I'm skeptical that Common Core will be a big reason why Walker has potential money problems, given how the rest of his politics cohabits quite well with the GOP donor base.

If Walker has money problems in the future, it will more likely be due to his poor debate performances and rote campaign stump appearances that give him the reputation of being overly calculated and unable to generate real excitement for his candidacy.

In any case, the Journal piece goes to show that the politics around Common Core remain dicey even for Republicans, where opposition to Common Core is strongest.

The base hates Common Core but the moneyed classes love it and that dichotomy has got even Jeb Bush twisting himself in circles trying to please both.

Guards Beat And Kill Prisoners In Andrew Cuomo's New York With Impunity

Michael Winerip and Michael Schwirtz have another piece in the NY Times detailing the systemic abuse of prisoners by guards that goes on in the New York State prison system under Governor Cuomo's leadership.

Last week they detailed prison abuse at Clinton Correction Facility after two prisoners escaped there in June - more than 60 prisoners have alleged being beaten, choked, threatened with waterboarding and other abuses at the hands of corrections officers at the prison.

This morning Winerip and Schwirtz detail the homicide of a prisoner at the hands of corrections officers known as the "Beat Up Squad" at Fishkill Correctional Facility:

On the evening of April 21 in Building 21 at the Fishkill Correctional Facility, Samuel Harrell, an inmate with a history of erratic behavior linked to bipolar disorder, packed his bags and announced he was going home, though he still had several years left to serve on his drug sentence.

Not long after, he got into a confrontation with corrections officers, was thrown to the floor and was handcuffed. As many as 20 officers — including members of a group known around the prison as the Beat Up Squad — repeatedly kicked and punched Mr. Harrell, who is black, with some of them shouting racial slurs, according to more than a dozen inmate witnesses. “Like he was a trampoline, they were jumping on him,” said Edwin Pearson, an inmate who watched from a nearby bathroom.

Mr. Harrell was then thrown or dragged down a staircase, according to the inmates’ accounts. One inmate reported seeing him lying on the landing, “bent in an impossible position.”

“His eyes were open,” the inmate wrote, “but they weren’t looking at anything.”

Corrections officers called for an ambulance, but according to medical records, the officers mentioned nothing about a physical encounter. Rather, the records showed, they told the ambulance crew that Mr. Harrell probably had an overdose of K2, a synthetic marijuana.

He was taken to St. Luke’s Cornwall Hospital and at 10:19 p.m. was pronounced dead.

In the four months since, state corrections officials have provided only the barest details about what happened at Fishkill, a medium-security prison in Beacon, N.Y., about 60 miles north of New York City. Citing a continuing investigation by the State Police, officials for weeks had declined to comment on the inmates’ accounts of a beating.

An autopsy report by the Orange County medical examiner, obtained by The New York Times, concluded that Mr. Harrell, 30, had cuts and bruises to the head and extremities and had no illicit drugs in his system, only an antidepressant and tobacco. He died of cardiac arrhythmia, the autopsy report said, “following physical altercation with corrections officers.”

The manner of death: Homicide.

A week ago, Governor Cuomo received an award from the National Urban League for showing leadership in criminal justice reform.

Congressman Hakeem Jeffries handed that award over to Cuomo at a roundtable discussion on criminal justice reform.

Since that time, Winerip and Schwirtz have written two articles detailing what amounts to the systemic abuse and murder of prisoners in the New York State prison system and we have heard not a peep from any New York politician or criminal justice reform advocate on these allegations.

The National Urban League just gave Cuomo an award for being a leader in criminal justice reform - you'd think they might be upset that Cuomo's running a prison system with endemic prisoner abuse and murder in it.

But you'd be wrong about that - so far silence from them.

As for Congressman Jeffries, the guy who handed over the Urban League award to Cuomo, so far silence from him too on these allegations.

The same goes for the rest of the New York political establishment - crickets abound.

Last I saw, Russell Simmons and other celebrity criminal justice advocates who were hailing Cuomo a couple of months ago as a criminal justice reform warrior have been silent on the horrific allegations of abuse, torture and murder of prisoners by NY corrections officers.

It looks like these prisoners who are getting beaten, choked, threatened with waterboarding and murdered are out of luck because its happening under Governor Cuomo's leadership and the very same politicians and reformers who were happy to hammer Bill de Blasio over "Broken Windows" policing or Rikers Island prisoner abuse are loathe to say anything untoward about the abuse and murder that is taking place in the state prison system under Governor Cuomo's leadership.

In short, prisoners can be beaten, choked, abused, tortured and murdered in Governor Cuomo's New York by prisoner guards known as the "Beat Down Squad" and nothing - nothing - will happen to them.

Not unless these prisoners get a transfer to Rikers, where Russell Simmons or Hakeem Jeffries will be happy to stand up for them then, since they're fine taking a rhetorical bat to de Blasio any old time.

But so long as standing up for the prisoners getting beaten, choked and killed in the prison system means taking on Governor Cuomo, not so much.

Carl Heastie Acknowledges Even A "Super Teacher" Can't Break The Ravages Of Poverty, Mental Illness, Outside Issues

Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie suggested to the Times-Union that success in school may be a little more complex than "It's the teacher's fault!":

In a wide-ranging interview with the Times Union editorial board on Monday, Heastie said it's high time lawmakers and others looked at students' lives inside and outside the classroom when it comes to addressing education.

"I really think that we shouldn't be looking at education alone anymore or mental health alone anymore or poverty alone anymore. I think that we have to look at the total family structure and see why it is that students are going into school not prepared for these challenges," the speaker said. "And I think a lot of it has to do with what's going on at home and their neighborhoods. Even super teacher may not be able to get through to a student whose life outside of school has issues."

...

"It's anti-poverty legislation, mental health, social services, minimum wage, all of these things that can change the outcome and plights of families," he said.

Heastie's allied with the teachers unions, so it's not a surprise that what he said to the Times-Union sounds like it could have been said by Randi Weingarten or Michael Mulgrew as they pushed for community schools that offer social and health services to students.

Nonetheless it is good to have one of the three men in the room state this publicly, though you can bet the other two men in the room (Cuomo, Flanagan) won't acknowledge any such thing.

Not that Heavy Heart Carl will do anything about it - last legislative session was heavy on the "Blame The Teachers/Blame The Schools" items, with standardized tests now counting for 50% of a teacher's evaluation, tenure gutted by two consecutive "ineffective" ratings, and the state getting receivership powers over "struggling" and "persistently struggling" schools.

The governor and his education reform donor pals wanted that legislative and that's exactly what they got it.

The only thing Heastie and his Assembly Heavy Hearts held on were Cuomo's beloved school voucher program that would have allowed him to steal even more money from public schools and give it to private schools.

As it is, Cuomo still managed to steer hundreds of millions of extra dollars the way of the private school sector and of course none of the new "accountability measures" for public schools count for charters.

So what Heastie says about taking a holistic approach to education, that's nice to hear, but in reality, it will have no bearing on our teaching or students' learning.

This coming school year will be another "Blame The Teachers/Blame The Schools" year thanks to Governor Cuomo, State Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan and Heavy Heart Heastie.

Being A Teacher These Days Means Walking A Tightrope Without A Safety Net

There's this myth perpetuated by education reformers, politicians and the media that "bad teachers" can't be fired, that once you become a tenured teacher, all you have to do to remain in the job is breathe and not get convicted of a felony.

The truth is far from the myth as this commenter at Perdido Street School blog writes:

Who'd want to become a teacher anywhere? I don't teach in a struggling school (though its close) and the decision to come in to teaching ranks as the biggest mistake of my life. Financially, psychologically, etc. A toll is taken on the psyche when your profession is labeled as the reason for almost all the negative issues going on in our society, relentlessly, no matter how ridiculous. The volume of it and the incessant nature makes one a bit twitchy. It was a stupid call. At least working at Amazon, you are probably paid well for the few years you survive....and then you can go get another job.

The thing that isn't talked about so much, and should be, is that when a teacher is drummed out, for any reason really, they will never teach again in public school. It's an established, formalized, institutionalized, fully-legal blacklisting. So a public school teacher falling under the hatchet of reform faces a much steeper slope out of unemployment than does, say, a corporate person who gets fired. As always, the "accountability" and "disruption" on the corporate side is always somehow lighter than they want to impose on the public side.

A fired teacher is DONE....the one thing they have prepared and trained for is no longer something they can tap on in their job search. (Unless they go to work at a desperate private school that will pay them like $19k a year.) Even admin....they leave or get booted somewhere, they get to become admin somewhere else (see Elia). No deep institutional, legal blacklisting for them! Even principals, AP's, Directors, etc in my district who have been let go for deep incompetence always get another job in Admin by the next school year in another district.

So that's a thing and it matters. For teachers, our options become way way way limited after being fired. We are the ultimate tightrope walkers...no safety nets.

That's right - as I posted this morning, get the "I" rating smeared on your head and you're pretty much done - administrators will look to drum you out (especially if you're a senior teacher higher up on the salary step ladder), the system will look to drum you out (and with two "ineffective" ratings in a row, that can be done in an expedited manner), and no one will look to hire you.

I am in my fifteenth year as a public school teacher, before that I was in grad school and working as both a per diem substitute teacher and an SAT tutor.

I haven't had a job outside education since 1999.

Let's say I get dinged two years running under the new iteration of Andrew Cuomo's APPR teacher evaluation system and get an expedited trip out of my NYCDOE teaching job by 2017.

What would I do for work then?

As the commenter above noted, my experience and my resume is stuffed to the gills with education-related credentials and work.

Good luck to me trying to get a job doing something outside education with that kind of resume, but good luck to me trying to get a job inside education with the "ineffective" scarlet letter.

Walmart greeter here I come.

Welcome to Walmart, welcome to Walmart, welcome to Walmart...

It's time to dispense with the media myth that tenure is a lifetime appointment to a teaching gig.

The truth is, tenure no longer exists and it doesn't take a whole hell of a lot to have your career taken from you in an expedited (and rigged) process.

Think I'm engaging in hyperbole?

Head on over to a receivership school and see where you are in two to three years.

Teachers Should Think Long And Hard Before Working At "Struggling" Or "Persistently Struggling" Schools

NYSED has labeled 144 schools around the state "struggling" or "persistently struggling," with 62 of those schools located in NYC.

According to the NY Times article I linked to above, "struggling schools" have two years to make "demonstrable" improvement in graduation rates, test scores and attendance or be given over to "an outside receiver, like a nonprofit group, that will be chosen by the district superintendent or chancellor to oversee the schools."

The Times reports that "persistently struggling schools" have just one year to make the "demonstrable" improvement or be given over to an "an outside receiver, like a nonprofit group, that will be chosen by the district superintendent or chancellor to oversee the schools."

Teachers who currently work at any of the "struggling" or "persistently struggling" schools will have to reapply for their jobs.

Some will not be rehired and will either have to find other jobs in the system or become ATR's.

"Struggling" and "persistently struggling" schools will almost certainly be looking for new blood to replace some of the teachers who aren't rehired at those schools.

The UFT put out this statement regarding that part of the receivership plan:

The UFT is working to support the Renewal program, including by building teacher leadership in the schools and ensuring that all hiring is conducted by joint city-union committees.

Here's what may await any teacher who goes to work in one of these "struggling" or "persistently struggling" schools, per a comment left on another post here at Perdido Street School blog:

Graded regents this week with a teacher who taught at a specialized school. He told me about 5 years ago a friend left to take a job at one of the struggling schools where Math/Science teachers would get a 10k bonus for transferring there. After just 1 year they began phasing the school out and he became an ATR. While he eventually found a job in a decent school it is nothing compared to his original situation.

That's actually the best case scenario, where the teacher becomes an ATR but eventually gets another placement.

The worst case scenario?

Toiling forever after as an ATR (or at least until the UFT completes throwing the ATR's to the wolves and the program no longer exists per a future contract deal) or two-three years of consecutive "ineffective" ratings and a swift trip to the unemployment office.

Teachers should think long and hard about going to work at any of the "struggling" or "persistently struggling" schools on the receivership program list.

Despite Carmen Farina's desire to put asterisks next to the names of "highly effective" teachers who transfer to "struggling" or "persistently struggling" schools, the first people that will get thrown under the bus when these schools do not make the "demonstrable progress" timetable that the state wants will be the teachers.

And it won't matter what a teacher's evaluation rating was before she/he got to the "struggling" or "persistently struggling" school either, because the system is set up with a "What Have You Done For More Lately" gloss and teachers who get dinged as "developing" and "ineffective" at those schools will wear those ratings on their heads like scarlet letters no matter what their ratings were in the years before they got to the receivership schools.

Reformers pay lip service to wanting to reward so-called "excellent teachers" who go to work with the most vulnerable populations, but all it takes for an "excellent teacher" to become a "developing" or "ineffective teacher" is to work a year or two in a school with low test scores.

Reformers, including the governor of the state and the commissioner of NYSED, do not care what a teacher's rating was a few years before, they care only what the most recent rating was - and remember that two consecutive "ineffective" ratings will get you fired under Cuomo's latest APPR evaluation system iteration.

Reformers also constantly demonize "ineffective" teachers in the press, never once noting that maybe some of those "ineffective" teachers were actually "effective" or "highly effective" teachers who transferred into a school with low test scores and had their ratings implode as a result.

So if you're a teacher out there with an "effective" or a "highly effective" rating and you're thinking about going to bring your talents and skills to one of the receivership schools, think long and hard before you make the jump.

In a year or two, you could very well be a "developing" or "ineffective" teacher headed for the ATR pool.

Or, if we're looking at another mayor in two years who gets elected with the backing of the reform community, an ally of Eva Moskowitz and her ilk, you could be looking at a dried up ATR pool and instant unemployment.

The way the system is these days, the only way for a teacher to protect herself/himself is to think and act very carefully around employment decisions.

It doesn't take much to get demonized as "ineffective" and smeared with the "I" scarlet letter on your head - and if that"i" is on your head for two consecutive years, you could be out of a job.