UFT Elections: New Action/Unity joint high school slate
The UFT Executive Board is up for election. TJC is dissolved into GEM into MORE and ICE is supporting MORE also (that’s a lot of names for one caucus, er coalition, er whatever.) Unity and New Action are running independent slates, but have cross-endorsed several candidates. Among the at-large seats, Unity has cross-endorsed 7 New Action candidates. They will appear on the ballot as New Action/Unity. And in the high school division New Action has 3 candidates cross-endorsed by Unity, and Unity has 4 candidates cross-endorsed by New Action. In addition, New Action cross-endorsed Michael Mulgrew for President.
I am on the high school slate, again. Ettman, Goldman, and Lundahl are returning as well. Fessel and Klug are new. James Vasquez was elected HS Exec Board two elections ago, but is currently serving as Exec Board At-Large.
- Alan Ettman – Unity/New Action, DeWitt Clinton HS (Bronx), Chapter Leader
- Keith Fessel – New Action/Unity, Fort Hamilton HS (Brooklyn), Chapter Leader
- William Goldman – New Action/Unity, Tottenville HS (Staten Island), Chapter Leader
- Jonathan Halabi – New Action/Unity, HS of American Studies at Lehman College (Bronx), Chapter Leader
- Anthony Klug – Unity/New Action, Wadleigh Secondary School (Manhattan), Chapter Leader
- Gregg Lundahl-Unity/New Action, *Washington Irving High School (Manhattan) Chapter Leader
- James Vasquez- Unity/New Action, Newcomers HS (Queens), Queens HS DR
Anthony helped lead the fight that got Wadleigh off the closure list two years ago. He currently works PM Staff for the HS VP. Bill has been the longterm Chapter Leader at Tottenville, at the farthest reaches of NYC. He motivated the unsuccessful attempt last fall to get the leadership to work to unseat Republican Congressman Michael Grimm.
Gregg fought like hell to keep Washington Irving open. In 2010 he ran a primary campaign against Assemblyman Jonathan Bing, who had voted to end seniority for teachers. Bing won, but Gregg’s message was heard throughout Albany. Keith Fessell is a 31-year teacher from Fort Hamilton, previously on the consultative committee and a delegate, who is serving his first term as Chapter Leader. He has run for UFT VP Special Education in several previous elections.
Alan Ettman was the Chapter Leader at Walton HS as the New Visions/20th Century Fund/Gates Foundation plan to replace five Bronx high schools at once and replace them with mini-schools was rolled out. Alan spoke out earlier than most Chapter Leaders against this bad policy, which the UFT was supporting (this policy has since been corrected). This year, as Chapter Leader at DeWitt Clinton, Alan mobilized early against a closure plan, and the DoE thought twice and went for the less immediate (but still harmful) “downsize, not close” option. His first UFT work was helping people dying of AIDS (back when it was a death sentence) negotiate the Board of Education bureaucracy, and preserve benefits.
James Vasquez and I went to Chapter Leader training together as new CLs back in 2002. He has been Queens HS DR for about 8 years. And me? I blog sometimes. Support other schools where I can. Speak out at the Exec Board, especially when the rights of our most vulnerable members – most senior, least senior, or facing charges, are abridged. This Spring I’m co-chairing the committee on Specialized HS Admissions, but that has more to do with the decent, caring people in my school than about a caucus or an election.
UFT on School Governance: the second (and stranger) of two debates
…that topic – who had voted which way – replaced the rest of the debate on Mayoral Control. Shame…
[the MORE rep] voted no on one of the 8 proposals. This is not the same as voting no on the recommendations as a whole
Last Monday, at the UFT Exec Board, I rose to speak against the recommendations on school governance. They were approved by that body, seventy or so to 3. I posted about the meeting (click here for account), and promised to write up my notes (click here for the write up).
On Wednesday the recommendations, now approved by the Exec Board, were introduced to the Delegate Assembly. There any chance of debate was obscured by a tertiary question: did the MORE reps on the committee vote, and if so, did they vote against. (I discuss, below.)
Let me start back at the Exec Board on Monday. When Michael Mulgrew reported, he thought that all caucuses had participated in the Governance Committee. When he learned that New Action had not (we declined to serve) he modified what he was saying – all caucuses were welcome to participate (True).
By the way, here was New Action’s reasoning:
NEW ACTION HAS ALREADY CONCLUDED THERE’S BEEN ENOUGH “TINKERING” WITH MAYORAL CONTROL.We call for an end to mayoral control of the school system. We should not place our faith in the next “friendly education” mayor. We are calling for an end to mayoral control!
We do not oppose the call for another Task Force. They may come to the same conclusion. HOWEVER, New Action will not participate in yet another Task Force.
We wrote that October 2012, five months ago.
Michael Mulgrew also mentioned that the vote was unanimous. Ho hum. But wait, all caucuses (‘sides us) had served? At another point he thanked the committee, and asked members to raise their hands, and wouldn’t you know it? A regular MORE guest at the Exec Board, Joan Seedorf, raises her hand. She’s one of the two, it turns out. And when Mulgrew is saying “unanimous” no reaction from Joan. Not that that actually means anything, but I’ve been thinking about it. We don’t usually talk, just say hi, so you can’t read into not having a conversation about it, either. Especially since I ran out quickly at the end. Even though it looked like a few members might have wanted to speak to me about my vote and statement against the recommendations to modify Mayoral Control.
In any case, I walked away wondering whether MORE had supported modifying, and not ending, Mayoral Control. And I blogged my question (third bullet from the end, here)
So a side note here – whoever wrote Mulgrew’s talking points included “unanimous” and “all caucuses” – and they got at least one of those wrong (all caucuses). Fast forward to Wednesday’s DA to discuss, the other – “unanimous”:
AT THE DELEGATE ASSEMBLY
Mulgrew motivates during the President’s Report, and then Emil Petromonico motivates in detail. Mulgrew brushed aside a premature attempt to call the question…a member of the committee spoke, a Unity person, and then Gloria Brandman spoke, and that’s where the debate on the recommendations began… and ended… and a very strange, very different debate started.
Gloria supports MORE. She was the other MORE person on the Governance Committee. She made some remarks about giving voice to parents and the community, and noted that the vote had NOT been unanimous. And that topic – who had voted which way – replaced the rest of the debate on Mayoral Control. Shame. (I would have repeated my remarks, more or less, probably a bit less, from the Exec Board. Never got called on.)
Mulgrew grilled her. Maybe, she offered, hands weren’t seen. That sends up everyone’s radar, not being a direct answer. Mulgrew calls on other members of the committee. They don’t recall Gloria voting no. Finally someone reports that Gloria was not at the last meeting, when the vote was taken. This is looking surreal. No politics are being discussed, not even pretend. Gloria’s trying to get a point of personal privilege since she is being contradicted (point’s not in order), but finally when someone launches an ad hominem attack and Gloria actually had the right to a point of personal privilege, James Eterno is standing next to Gloria, yelling something (I think at Carmen Alvarez, Special Ed VP who co-chaired the committee with Emil), drowning out anything Gloria might be saying.
Finally, Peter Lamphere in back, standing next to Joan Seedorf, attempts to use a “Point of Information” to gain the floor. He wanted the delegates to hear HIM say that JOAN would say that she voted no. Now, that is not a “Point of Information” (Roberts has renamed it a “Request for Information” to reduce the occurrences of exactly this), and even if it were, Mulgrew was not having it. He called Peter on trying to take the floor on behalf of a non-delegate. The “debate” had degenerated into an embarrassing circus.
It ended with an 85% yes vote, no substantive debate having had occurred.
AFTERMATH (yes, this continues)
James Eterno posted a report on the ICE Blog (ICE supports MORE) on Thursday. And Gotham Schools linked it. And Unity supporters showed up, anonymous and aggressive. Some of the discussion was nasty. (and then it drifted into why two top MORE candidates do not regularly attend the Delegate Assembly… I’ll touch that another time, if at all…)
A day later, James posted Gloria’s response on the ICE Blog. Seems that Gloria voted against one of the seven proposals the week before, but did not attend the deciding meeting of the Governance Committee, which had been scheduled against elementary school parent-teacher conferences. There was also some back and forth with Unity supporters in the comments on that post.
Unity supporters drifted over to MORE’s blog, and continued the attacks. Now they are using their real names (Stuart, Delores) and now pretty much dropping governance, and just going after Julie Cavanaugh’s fairly regular (is this correct?) absence from the Delegate Assembly, where she has not spoken (ever?)
CONCLUSION
At the next to last Governance Committee meeting, Gloria (and presumably Joan) voted no on one of the eight proposals (they later became seven) – the one to do with the composition of the PEP. This is not the same as voting no on the recommendations as a whole, the package that goes to the Exec Board and the DA. Gloria did not express this clearly either at the DA or on the ICE blog.
Gloria did not go to the last Governance Committee meeting. It was scheduled during Elementary School Parent-Teacher night – and attendance there is part of the regular duties of a teacher. The meeting should have been scheduled outside of teachers’ working hours. Gloria protested, but did not raise the issue of her vote. I don’t think that there is any evidence that Gloria lied. But by raising things such as “maybe a hand wasn’t seen” and by not mentioning initially that she was not at the final meeting, and by writing “voted NO to the governance plan regarding the PEP” without pointing out that this was not the final recommendation, Gloria gave the impression of evading a direct answer. That was unnecessary.
We never heard from Joan about her vote, though Unity people on the committee say that she did not vote no, and MORE people not on the committee say she did vote no. When Joan heard the initial report at the Exec Board on Monday March 18, she did not seem to react. But Mulgrew reported that the committee voted unanimously, and that all caucuses were represented. He got at least half of that wrong.
There is not enough information to decide, based on what the principals are saying, what happened. But I know this:
When I vote no on the Exec Board, that vote is not likely to change the outcome, but it represents my voice, and my caucus’ voice. I speak with the recording secretary to ensure that my vote is reflected in the minutes. I have objected to approving minutes where a minority NO vote has not been recorded. This is my responsibility.
Neither Joan nor Gloria took steps to have NO votes recorded. This we can be certain of, and this, if they meant to vote no, is what they should have done.
UFT on School Governance: The first of two ‘Debates’
Last Monday, at the UFT Exec Board, I rose to speak against the recommendations on school governance. They were approved by that body, seventy or so to 3. I posted about the meeting (click here for account), and promised to write up my notes (immediately below).
On Wednesday the recommendations, now approved by the Exec Board, were introduced to the Delegate Assembly. There any chance of debate was obscured by a tertiary question: did the MORE reps on the committee vote, and if so, did they vote against. (I discuss, in my next post.)
Monday, March 18, UFT Exec Board. After the report, I spoke. What follows is from my notes – I actually diverged considerably, both because Mulgrew interrupted me, and I responded, and because I thought I was going long, and skipped through a bit. But I said most of this, or something quite similar.
I thank the committee for their work. We have before us seven positive proposals.
The “no waiver for chancellor” – I just wish Dave Kaufman were here to see this.* It is important that we are able to move forward, that we are not always stuck with past discussions.**
The new PEP composition – it is definitely better than what we currently have, though I do note there is no direct voice for teachers or parents. On the other hand, I was ready to support Montgomery-Weperin, which was substantially similar.
On the selection of the Chancellor – that’s a nice process that I had not thought about.
Giving the CEC control over colocation is good. But it should have been a complete moratorium on colocations. That is a discussion for another time. Emil’s point about school closings not belonging in Governance is well-taken. I’m glad that we have a bill in Albany for a moratorium.
Just last month there was an opinion piece in the New York Times, talking about a place in Jersey, Union City, where the schools were improved with the sort of good policies that teachers everywhere would recognize – and without “turning around” or closing any schools. Again, it is good that this body can change a previous stance. When I was a new high school teacher in the Bronx, our struggle against school closings brought us up against Park Avenue South.***
Al Baker had a good piece, front page, February 28, describing the policy of revolving door closures in the old Taft building. Very clear. And jus this Saturday I assume you saw the Liz Robbing piece on the Stevenson Campus, – we should talk about campuses – which shed some interesting light on Bloomberg’s potential legacy. There seems to be a real shift in the coverage.****
The proposal on Superintendents looks very good. But we need to make certain that the organization is geographic, and that the “Networks” get undone.*****
The SLT seeing the budget is positive. But the SLT can’t see members’ disciplinary flags – have we resolved the “Galaxy Flagging” or is it still at PERB?****** And adding in the C30s is a good idea.
If these proposals had come from a politician – yes, of course, with both hands. But the UFT should go further. We should be out front.
New Action petitioned – not just for changes – but to end Mayoral Control. We chose not to serve on the Governance Committee – because the correct outcome, ending Mayoral Control – was obvious. Look, we don’t miss the old Board, no one does. But who in the schools thinks Mayoral Control’s been an improvement? Not a member who was active in the schools before Bloomberg thinks things are better today.
I thank the Committee. They produced a series of good proposals. But I urge this body to vote No, and ask the Committee to embed their fine proposals in a recommendation to end Mayoral Control.
* Dave Kaufman was a leader of New Action who died two years ago. During the renewal of Mayoral Control, seeing that the UFT was just going to ask to tweak the thing, he asked that we at least try to eliminate the waiver for Chancellor (to prevent another Klein, or worse, from taking the job). Unity rejected his proposal. And we had Cathy Black.
** Indirect praise for changing a bad position. It’s a weakness of this leadership that they often hold onto mistakes even after they know they were wrong. In this case, Mulgrew has made an important correction.
*** Park Avenue South was the UFT’s old headquarters. I think I may have said “Seventh Avenue South” in which case maybe no one understood what I was saying. Or maybe they did, as many on the Exec Board know how angry the Bronx High Schools were that they were being closed with the UFT involved in the process. This was Bill Gates and the 20th Century Fund or something like that… Gates has since said that his plan doesn’t work – but has no interest in fixing the damage he’s done.
**** Substantial interruption and back and forth with Mulgrew. He thought the piece on Stevenson was mixed – I thought it was positive for us. He pointed to the opening paragraphs.
***** Substantial back and forth here. Mulgrew said that the superintendents were automatically geographic, and that the Networks were not part of governance, but would likely go away (not sure if I have that right)
****** Michael Mendel indicated that it is still at PERB.
The DoE sets us up principals to cheat, then punishes them for it (maybe)
The NY Daily News has uncovered several instances of principals pressuring students to fill out favorable Learning Environment surveys. This is not at all surprising.
The DoE has a series of “accountability reports” – all depend on data – and all encourage cheating. Principals’ bonuses depend on the Learning Environment survey. Progress Reports partially depend on them. The stakes are high. The surveys are subjective.
None of us would cheat. Easy to say, when we are not placed in that situation. And honestly, many principals do not cheat. But the pressure is real. It is, in some cases, excruciating, when your pay and the jobs of your staff are on the line. I bet the real number of cheating principals is 10 times or 100 times higher.
And all of these accountability reports have the same effect – high stakes, soft data that the DoE pretends is hard. What result do we expect? Cheating on credits, cheating on graduation rates, cheating on denominators for regents, cheating on Learning Environment, etc, etc.
There is another scandal here. Back in the day (be careful, back in the day they talked about back in the day), administrators, always experienced, usually skilled, rated teachers. Super administrators, always experienced, usually skilled, rated schools.
Today? Outsiders do the rating. These accountability reports? They make the rater unaccountable.
Quality Reviews? Ridiculous! Outsiders who nothing of the school spend two days. Where are our experienced school leaders…?
We have data, check off sheets, and untrained managers running our schools. They must encourage cheating, because they must rate teachers, principals, and schools on something that fits on a spreadsheet, since they can pretend to read a spreadsheet, but they cannot pretend to understand teaching.
Mayoral Control Needs to End
At Monday’s UFT Executive Board the UFT should have adopted recommendations to end Mayoral Control of the schools. Instead, we were presented with governance proposals that added “checks and balances” to Mayoral Control.
The individual proposals were, in the main, good. But my caucus, New Action, we are opposed to Mayoral Control. We did not even join the governance committee, as the only correct result was already well-known.
And so I rose, commended the committee, and urged the body to vote no, urged the body to ask the committee to reframe their good proposals in an overall recommendation to end Mayoral Control.
But before that happened…. Michael Mulgrew gave the president’s report, and rolled in some motivation for the governance report. Up to now he’s told everyone what he thinks we should do about school governance, but with the adoption of this report he’ll be able to say what the UFT thinks we should do about school governance. He mentioned that all caucuses were represented. I shook my head no. He clarified. All caucuses were welcome to participate. I agreed. He asked all committee members to raise their hands. I noticed a MORE supporter, regular exec board guest, raised hers. I know that other MORE supporters served on the committee. He called on Emil Petromonico, Staten Island Borough Rep, Chair of the Governance Cttee, and Unity’s candidate for (I think) UFT Secretary to report. Emil ran through the 6 items plus sunset, one at a time. He explained the committee process, which began with a sort of brain-storming of what is currently not working, and quickly settled on the proposals before us (less than three months – that is quick). He discussed the item that was deleted (moratorium on school closings. We support a bill in Albany to do that. Check. Not part of school governance. Check. Can’t ban closing schools in any case – not sure I buy that last one – JD)
Then I spoke. Then a parade of Unity Caucus members responded. Michael Friedman. Michael Mendel. Sandra March. Donna Manginelli. Emil again. Maybe I’m forgetting someone. Delores Luzopone mercifully called the question (we were getting ready to), and the caucus line vote adopted the recommendations, sixty something to three.
Some later thoughts:
- One of Unity’s speakers almost got us to abstain, but the others reminded us that we could not. I’ll leave that a little cryptic. Remember though, we do believe that most of the proposals are positive.
- We often say that we do not go into negotiations with ourselves. It is true. But in this case, our proposals have been negotiated, have been compromised, before we ever sat down at the table. How can you do any give and take if you’ve already given before you start?
- Emil and Michael Mulgrew reported that the committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations. But MORE had reps on that committee. Did MORE vote to add checks and balances, and to preserve Mayoral Control?
- I spoke at least partially from notes. I didn’t stay completely on track (Mulgrew interrupted a few times, we had some back and forth, and I was a little long, so I scrapped some less important points. Had I realized there were going to be five responses, I might have relaxed and not cut points.) Anyway, I will try to type up those notes.
- The proposal goes to the Delegate Assembly tomorrow.
Math for freshmen who want to do extra (status report)
I have an extra class, one period each week, totally voluntary, for freshmen who want to do extra math. I solicited your input on how to start it, and wanted to provide an update.
Here is the background:
This year I am teaching all of our freshmen – half in two sections of algebra, and half in two sections of… hmm… we started the year by finishing algebra, really redoing the second half, but at depth, and have now moved on towards algebra.
A word about my teaching. I go off topic. In many directions. Usually once each period (it provides a planned break, a chance to refocus. The kids just think I am a little scattered. Most of them never realize why it is so easy to move me off topic once, and so hard to do it a second time in the same period. No problem.)
I also will stall a class to look at something interesting that’s shown up in the math. Especially in those advanced classes, where we are often reviewing material they have seen before, going for mastery, going for depth, it is easy to justify taking extra time on an unexpected question. I started the year by asking if all odd perfect squares had a remainder of 1 when divided by 4. But it was in November that Noah, looking at the unexceptional parallel lines y = x + 2 and y = x + 3, and hearing a classmate say that the distance between parallel lines is constant, wanted to know what that distance was. (Try it yourself, they are not one unit apart).
Out of the parallel lines discussion came the suggestion that some kids would really like a math team. Or a math club. I polled them a few times over the next few weeks – I am reluctant to commit to afterschool activities – would they do it on one of their lunch periods (one of my preps), and consistently five or six from that class said yes.
In January I asked the other advanced class. Only one clear yes, but half a dozen maybes. I was envisioning 6 – 10 kids. I ran it by the principal (trading a one-period/week elective for this freshman math thing). He was good. I thought hard, and ran it by one regular class. A lot of interest, but only 2 or 3 who looked likely. And as it looked like it would become a reality, I ran it by the last class.
They were going to have to eat lunch in a math classroom, away from their friends. I thought to send home a permission slip (to keep it down to the more serious). Little did I expect to receive signed consent/request forms from 20 freshmen out of a class of 100, with a few more forgetting the forms but begging to be allowed to submit them late (of course). It’s more boys than girls, but not lop-sided, and a mix from all four classes.
Next: Materials and the opening weeks
Last (for now): What the students have chosen as their first study projects
We need to change our approach to political endorsements
I’ve long known that the UFT endorsement policy was not great, but two incidents in the last few weeks have brought into greater relief the urgent need to reform (or replace) the current process.
Now, no one misunderstood the second part. “Who the membership does not want” is shorthand for Christine Quinn.
1. At the February 6 Delegate Assembly, a number of routine political endorsements were on the floor. I had seen them at the previous Exec Board, and none had stood out to me as extraordinary. But two got pulled from the floor debate – Marc Korashan pulled Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes, and James Eterno, a leader of the ICE caucus, pulled Rory Lancman, a nobody City Councilman from Queens. What? Turns out, Lancman had actively supported over several years the closure and destruction of James’ school, Jamaica High School.
Eterno’s appeal was coherent – school closing is a big deal, and should be a litmus test for endorsement. But it was also emotional. His school, his members, his students had been victimized by Lancman. The delegates empathized. And half of them ignored the official endorsement – the vote split about 50-50 (It really might have been evenly split; I have also heard claims that Lancman was actually voted down. It was certainly close). Mulgrew called for a revote. And the margin was about 75% for endorsing him.
I don’t usually link an opponent caucus (I support New Action), but James’ speech, on the ICE blog, is worth reading.
2. At last Monday’s Exec Board I asked, as our leaders have stated that we WILL be making an endorsement in the mayoral primary, how were we going to poll the sentiment of the membership, and would we also poll the sense of who the membership DOES NOT WANT?
I thought Michael Mulgrew or Michael Mendel might complain that I was trying to “bind the hands” of the leadership by using member sentiment to rule out Quinn (even though I hadn’t used her name, everyone knew that’s who I was talking about.) But that’s not what happened. Mulgrew, and I am glad he was there to respond, stated that we would not make our choice by polling the membership and going with their choice. I readily confess, once I realized that my question had been either misunderstood or misinterpreted, that I didn’t catch all the fine details. I wasn’t asking that we make our choice by membership vote, but just that we include member sentiment in our calculations. But the response did not address the question: We have a process. You (that’s me) would be surprised by the results if we polled the membership. We will pick a candidate, and we can make any one of the four a winner….
3. What’s going on? At the DA, a woman who helped with the Lancman endorsement got up and explained something about a process as well. And added “I’m sorry about your school.” I had been with James through his speech, but it was that comment, how do you say “I’m sorry about your school” that’s clawed at me, cut at me, in the intervening days.
I think the politicians know the process. Mulgrew does. That woman from Queens did. But our membership does not. OK, that happens. But our activists, most of our chapter leaders, do not. We are not involved. Not asked. Not polled. Not part of any discussion. Not part of any process. And that is not ok.
Maybe the entire process needs to be overhauled? Maybe. But I am thinking about much less. Endorsement proposals should be published, as possible, a month before they are to be voted on. District Reps should solicit feedback from Chapter Leaders, especially for local candidates in the district, so that the proposed lists can be modified, if need be, before going to the DA for a vote. That’s all. Our best activists are not all on the borough committees. And our best activists should have their voices heard.
Resolution on Montgomery/Weprin Bill to Modify the PEP
I motivated the following resolution at the January 22 UFT Exec Board. Three Unity members rose to speak against it (cutting short the work of the UFT committee on School Governance was the strongest of three weak reasons. Claiming that we only get one chance to get it right was another – this is our third chance, guys.). Strike while the iron is hot, I say. Every day that the mayor’s dictatorial powers go unchallenged is an affront to students, teachers, parents, real educators across this city. But the resolution was defeated, New Action yes, Unity no, five to sixty-something.
There is a fuller discussion at the New Action website.
Resolution to support
the Velmonette Montgomery / David Weprin proposal
on New York City Public School Governance
Whereas, the current system of governance of New York City’s public schools gives the mayor unfettered control of the Panel for Educational Policy, allowing him an absolute majority of eight on the panel, and the power to remove his own appointees if they intend to vote as they see fit rather than as the Mayor directs, which power he has in fact abused, and
Whereas, such unfettered control leads to the Mayor unilaterally imposing educational decisions, without discussion from stakeholders, including teachers and parents, being considered, and
Whereas our voices are being ignored at the same time as our conditions in the schools are degrading, and
Whereas the United Federation of Teachers School Governance Committee has been reconvened, in part, to address the lack of checks and balances, and
Whereas Velmonette Montgomery and David Weprin have introduced legislation in the New York State Senate and Assembly, respectively, that would reduce the number of the Mayor’s appointees on the Panel for Education Policy from an absolute majority of eight out of thirteen to a relative majority of four out of thirteen.
Be it therefore RESOLVED that the United Federation of Teachers supports the legislation introduced by Senator Montgomery and Assemblyman Weprin, and be it further
Resolved the UFT will offer assistance in moving the legislation forward in Albany, and be it further
Resolved that the UFT School Governance Committee will continue to meet until its charge is complete, or until such time as a better governance system has been selected.
Extra topics for freshman math. Ideas? (some responses)
On Facebook I asked a question, and I got a great discussion from a bunch of thoughtful math-people. Near the bottom, Sue asks if why we aren’t doing this on jd2718, and she was right. So here’s my question, and the discussion follows:
Question for you (and others).
I am going to see a group of 9th graders one period a week, to work on non-curricular “Extra Topics” in algebra or number theory – think of this as pre-research or pre-math team. I’d like them, in 2s, 3s, or singly, to select topics to study, and to decide when to write up their work and move on to a new topic…
I think I am ok with the structure, once they’ve gotten a topic and gotten going. But I am unsure how I should help them pick their initial topics. Suggestions? I was thinking to have a number of books that they could skim/browse. There’s a high school level number theory book (which we use) which could serve that function, generating ideas. Anything for algebra? Or should I just do a full period presentation, 2 or 3 minutes per potential topic, “take notes and let me know next week what interests you”
What do you think?
The answers were helpful, and interesting:
Kate: I’d be inclined to dangle problems in front of them. Ones with low barriers to entry, but rich structures to explore. How you format the dangling doesn’t really matter, I don’t think. You could present them, or print them on cards, or whatever. My intuition is “look through these books” might be a little too open/unstructured for a 9th grader; I’d expect them to not know where to start and feel paralyzed.
Sue: So, Kate, what problems would you dangle? My Spot It problem works with highly motivated kids that age, but not so much with less motivated kids. I love exploring Pythagorean triples, but I have no idea if the problems there are useful for your kids. Jonathan, do you have the Kaplan’s book, Out of the Labyrinth: Setting Mathematics Free? It has a list of good problems in back. If you do want to point to books they might use in their exploration, I’d include the Number Devil, The Cat in Numberland, and Tanton’s Math Without Words.
Kate: Check out Paul Lockhart’s new book Measurement. Or Math Forum’s Problems of the Week? Or yes the Kaplans’ book. If you think there’s interest in grounding explorations in real-world stuff, check out the free lessons Mathalicious has available.
Me: (so I also have a small budget to replenish a classroom library – keep those suggestions rolling in!)
Andrée: I prefer none of these. Sorry. I like stuff like this book I have about NIM games and how to make all the variations. Then just play and play and toss in a question now and then (“Can you predict who will win?” “Will a table help you keep track of winners?”). Or network theory with children’s books (Virginia Lee Burton has a snow book to start) or one of the ancient math riddles (St. Ives) or Boxes with Topses (Marilyn Burns article in one of her books) which I developed into pentaminoes (we made a board and played online) which leads to triominoes, tetris. Or binary birthday cards (why do they work?). All this stuff they play with as in a real game and then can talk and think it out. It is the only math that fascinates me. There is a history of multicultural math that was fascinating: I personally worked each problem in it and learned so much. It wasn’t a text book and I can’t find it at amazon right at the moment and my copy is buried in one of my piles. But if interested, I can get title, etc. The Egyptian palimpsest is just full of problems to play with.
Andrée: you pick the first project and then see where that leads them. make a list of what questions they ask and then you can lead them to sources.
Andrée: oh and there is that game Mastermind (it has a different commercial name) athttp://nlvm.usu.edu/en/nav/vlibrary.html, which is a site FULL of ideas.
Andrée: Let them do the exploration while you rest. But you’ll get dragged into it and learn too. It’s all pretty much number theory and discrete mathematics. But please stay away from deadly textbooks. And keep a journal of your experiences.
Andrée: (Mastermind is taken down at nlvm.usu.edu for trademark stuff. You’ll have to buy the board game) (Rush Hour, online. Game analysis)
nlvm.usu.edu
Sue: Possibly The Man Who Counted. Possibly You Can Count on Monsters. Perhaps Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, though it looks like a textbook. What is your high school level Number Theory book? I’ve used and loved the one from Art of Problem Solving. (But it doesn’t look exciting.)
Sue: Andree’s suggestion of Nim games reminds me that you’ll want to check through the materials Josh. Joshua Zucker has created for the Julia Robinson Mathematics Festival. Josh, do you have any other ideas?
Sue: And if Paul Zeitz has his materials online, he offers up lots of great problems in math circles I’ve attended. Some are extensions of Nim-like problems.
Me: Which of you taught me “puppies and kittens”? I used it last week – a kid said it reminded her of (and then she described Nim, without using its name)
Me: OK, so it is not high school level. But the chapters are very short, and it is kind of readable. This course, or potential course, grew out of me asking some advanced freshmen to skim the book, and see if there was anything that grabbed there interest – and there was. The book is A Friendly Introduction to Number Theory by Joseph Joseph Silverman
Andrée: I just read 1 review of that one at goodreads and it’s on my “to read” list now. The one I was talking about is http://www.amazon.com/Multicultural-Mathematics-David-Nelson/dp/0192822411
Josh (who I think I interacted with years ago, but not in a while, and not on FB ever): Silverman’s book is pretty good. http://jrmathfestival.org has links to a bunch of the activities Sue was talking about. There may be some good stuff at http://mathteacherscircle.org — it’s aimed at teachers, so a lot of stuff there is left more open-ended than we might usually do for kids, plus some of you might enjoy the session notes as well. There’s also lots of good game theory (like the Divisor Game linked at the JR festival site for instance, as well as Nim and the like). The recent Mathematical Magic book might lead to some good ideas too and it’s definitely a good one for your shelf.
Sue: That one comes from Paul Zeitz. (I don’t remember discussing it with you or blogging about it, so I don’t think I showed you.)
Me: It could have come from a discussion about four years ago. I dragged it out of an old lesson. But it definitely came from one of the math blogging people. Dave Marain ? Anyhow I changed kitten to an archaic form, catling… And I think I remembered the rules correctly…
Me: Take as many puppies as you want. Or as many catlings as you want. Or an equal number of catlings and puppies. But if you take the last animal, you lose.
Ben: I second Kate’s general recommendation of dangling problems. If a subject has pretty pictures (e.g. fractal geometry or low-dimensional topology) then those can also be dangled, although I think the problems support initial exploration by a student better. For sources, here’s some quick thoughts: LOGIC: Raymond Smullyan’s puzzle books especially his classic _What Is the Name of This Book?_. ALGEBRA: the book Visual Group Theory by Nathan Carter is a good place to go for inspiration although it’s not designed as a compendium of problems. Also I think the Mattress Problem, and the problem of counting the number of distinct ways to, say, 2-color the vertices of an octagon (or a dodecahedron, etc) are great for motivating group theory. COMBINATORICS: I like the book Aspects of Combinatorics by Bryant, and it’s pretty accessible, though there are lots of good choices here. Okay, now I’m blanking. Books with a motivated history of math might also be useful for dangling: coming to mind are The Calculus Gallery by William Dunham and Gamma by Julian Havil.
Jackie: Thinking along the lines of “math team” type problems — you could get old AMC 10 (or even old AMC 8 contests) I have bunches of both as .pdf’s if you’d like). You could also use AoPS’s ALCUMUS site to set up a “classroom” and pick the problem types on which you’d like them to work — or just pick all that are appropriate and let them work on them until they find an area in which they’d like to delve deeper.http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Alcumus/Introduction.php The upside of that would be that they could continue to work on their own if they’re interested. The downside would be not working together during your time with them.
Jackie: If you’re looking for something more “group like” you could work on the Problems of the Week from the IMP program. (I don’t have those electronically but I could scan a few of my favorites and send them).
Rishana: For student inspiration, you could show some of Vi Hart’s videos.
Rishana: One of my students also introduced me to Numberphile on YouTube. Some really cool topics are explored in those videos,too.
Sheik: Let them start with basic sequence of numbers, find the patterns and built on that and come up with their own function .
Sue: There are two regions in a circle problems, one easier, one harder. I love them both. I call the first the magic pancake problem (magic because a small piece is just as delightful as a big one): Cut a pancake n times, count the maximum number of regions. The second involves putting (n) points on a circle, connecting them with straight lines, and counting the (maximum) number of regions formed.
Sue: Shouldn’t we be doing this at your blog, where the results will be google-able later? This is becoming a great list.
Andrée: of course there is a math ed (research) community at google+ which is just boring links to journal articles. yawn. you could get the starch out of their shorts . . .
https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/104846032595782747037
Mathematics Education Research – Google+
Jack: yea, The Math Teacher Circle problems is a really good place to start. Also, there’s always Martin Gardner’s Mathematical Games series.
DeWitt Clinton – How a School Can Change Us All
Danny Schecter is a filmmaker, and a DeWitt Clinton graduate. And he’s making a documentary film about Clinton. The DoE was going to close Clinton, but afraid of a fight with a loyal alumni, they chose to try to move in two small schools instead. Those of us in the Bronx know, those schools are the first steps towards closing DWC. So we will fight. And Danny’s work is part of that. Below are a two-minute promo and a five-minute trailer.
Both excellent, by the way. Professional. Political. He knows this is an assault on public education, and on democracy. And he tells us, without lecturing us.
Clinton was on the list of the New York City Department of Education’s closure targets this Fall. But it had been targeted once before. Over a decade ago, the DoE brought a small school, Celia Cruz, into the building. This tactic is not new: they bring in the small school or schools to break up the physical plant and begin a process that leads to closure. But at Clinton the DoE lost – the alumni intervened and the small school was located elsewhere.
The DoE’s bullying has a cowardly side: they did not want to fight the alumni who had put them in their place once before. Thus they chose instead to move in the mini-schools…
In which I mention a couple of awards
Today I am receiving two awards for union service. At first I didn’t think it was such a big deal, but here we are, moment is about to arrive, and I’m pretty pleased.
A ten year chapter leader pin doesn’t sound like such a big deal. I remember, twelve or thirteen years ago, filling in for my chapter leader at the Bronx HS DR meeting (Shulman back then)… every CL in the room must have had ten years… maybe a few a few less, probably a bunch a bunch more. Fast forward to today though… I have eleven continuous years of service… five elections (though just one contested)… and today I am the longest serving high school chapter leader in the Bronx. By far. (there’s one guy with more years, but just a couple at his current school).
Trachtenberg Awards go to… I’m still not quite certain. Good chapters or good chapter leaders. And lots of people get them. I’ve been encouraged to apply for at least the last four years. And I think we’ve run an ok chapter, even a good chapter. But I resisted. Until last year, when we did two particularly good things.
First, several teachers had a proposal to adjust our school’s grading system, but over several years found they couldn’t move it themselves. They brought it to the chapter, and we discussed it, shaped it, worked on a presentation, and shepherded it through a longer discussion with administration… leading to agreement and its implementation this September.
Second, Bloomberg announced that he would speak at our graduation. Several members of our faculty organized an appropriate (did not in any way disrupt the kids’ graduation, but visible for all to see) demonstration of our thoughts on this, and managed to involve almost all of us. (It was a combination of bright UFT stickers and in the same UFT light blue “Respect Teachers” stickers). OK, so some of them may have been motivated by a desire to head off a less appropriate demonstration (they worry about me, and I probably, tongue-in-cheek, played on those fears a bit), but they did a great job, involved most of those who might have hesitated, produced the stickers themselves, etc, etc.
They hand out the awards at Teacher Union Day, at the Waldorf Astoria in midtown, where I am heading now. So I’m patting myself on the back, twice, although one of the awards is really for the chapter. The Trachtenberg Award stays with the school, not me.
Perfect no more
A particular, perverse point of pride: in sixteen years of teaching high school mathematics in New York City, I have never had a student score 100 on a Regents Exam. I’ve prepared students for Course I, Course II (never Course III), Math A, Math B, Integrated Algebra, Integrated Geometry, Integrated Algebra II/Trigonometry. Hundreds of students. But no 100s.
A few have come close. Hanna (I did not know until after she graduated, valedictorian, that she lived in the house next to my building) got a 99 on Course II – recent immigrant she did not know the word “similar” and guessed it meant “congruent”. And I’ve seen a few more 98s and 99s, a bunch of 95s, 96s, and 97s, but never 100.
I just don’t teach that hard at the test. It was, honestly, a point of pride that I could prepare a child well, without teaching every bizarre regents twist and turn. Other teachers spoke about 100s, but I knew I never did the intensity of prep, nor showed adequate fidelity to the Regents’ topics, to ever match them.
But I think one of my students, sneaky, did extra studying on his own. My first 100. I’m a little embarrassed.
Plumbers and Roaches
“The Nixon White House is alive and well in City Hall”
Last Thursday, January 17, Mike Bloomberg blew up evaluation negotiations. And on Friday, January 18, he sent City health inspectors into the UFT’s building. If they were hunting for roaches, they were in the wrong place. (UFT cafeteria got an A, but City Hall is infested by vermin.)
UFT Secretary Michael Mendel reached for a different analogy at Tuesday’s Exec Board. Having started with the fact that Bloomberg lied (again and again) and then sent in dirty tricks – style operatives, he went on “The Nixon White House is alive and well in City Hall”
I don’t know that the health inspectors were actually planting bugs, the way Nixon’s plumbers did, but there certainly is a cleverness to the comparison.
Some of us, by the way, are grateful that Bloomberg is such an arrogant pig-headed autocrat. That would not have been a good change, getting that evaluation system, and I appreciate that the mayor’s massive ego got in the way of his destructive agenda, this time.
(by the way, the “big lie” is a product of someone worse than Nixon)
On the Teacher Evaluation Resolution from the December 2012 Delegate Assembly
MORE brought a resolution to last week’s UFT delegate assembly, calling for discussion of any teacher evaluation agreement to occur in the schools, and calling for a referendum to be taken among the membership in the event a proposed agreement is reached. The reason they offered for sending an evaluation deal to the membership is both technical, and political. In the technical sense, they argued that this would be an agreement that while not in the contract, would control what goes in the contract, and contracts are voted on by the membership. In the political sense, I believe the leaders of MORE would prefer that most major items were sent to the membership for discussion, independent of contractual implications, starting with the “biggest” and this certainly would be big. The resolution made a stronger argument in the technical sense.
Did you know that the word “vaccination” is derived from the word “vacca” – which means “cow”? I worked both words into this post.
Leroy Barr responded for the leadership. He argued that the Delegate Assembly was the correct body to make the decision (technically correct). He did not head-on address whether an evaluation deal would be contractual, but held out as an example the June 2009 deal that gave us back our two August days, in return for concessions related to the pension of future members. In that case, the DA voted without referendum (I don’t recall if MORE’s predecessors asked for one. I do remember that I was the only speaker against the proposal, on the grounds that we shouldn’t sell givebacks for members who haven’t been hired yet. It passed, in spite of my appeal, by an overwhelming margin). In a pitch to the faithful, Leroy addressed the delegates and chapter leaders and said that this body, the delegate assembly is the leadership of the organization. I believe he said “you are the leaders.” As far as involving the membership, he reminded us that we are representing the members in our schools.
I’ve heard Leroy give the appropriate body speech at least once before, but with a different twist – when he argued that the Delegate Assembly, three weeks from the 2009 Mayoral election, should not make an endorsement of Bill Thompson, but instead postpone discussion (he made a motion to table the resolution to endorse Thompson, which I had brought forward). If necessary, he added, the leadership could call a “special DA”, in essence asking the DA to cede decision-making authority to a smaller leadership body (AdCom). The discussion was postponed, never to occur, the UFT sat out the mayoral election, and Bloomberg went on to his third term, winning by a much smaller margin, 4.4%, than anyone had expected.
But let’s get back to the evaluation resolution. Getting the technical details right is hard. Certainly the DA would not be required to cede its authority if an agreement comes up outside of the contract. However the DA has the right, if it chooses, to require a membership referendum. (We did it at least once for restructuring the after school time that today is called the 37 ½ minutes). I thought that possibility was worth discussing, and voted yes to put it on the agenda. Interestingly, a retiree sitting near me declined to vote as it was a contractual issue. Hmm.
There’s a distinction about the Delegate Assembly’s role that is worth bringing up. It is the highest decision-making body of the UFT, though it generally does what the officers suggest. But as we talk about a conversation in the schools, DA attendance is weak. If I said that over 1000 schools are not regularly represented at the DA, I might be underestimating. The Delegate Assembly concentrates activists, members of caucuses, engaged chapter leaders. Even with less attendance than we would like, it really does serve as the highest leadership body. But that does not mean it brings discussion back to all schools, or from all schools back to the Delegate Assembly.
That’s not to say I was delighted by the resolution. There is a conceit that a broad membership discussion is always better. I disagree. It depends on the issue; it depends on the moment. I did not find myself in agreement with much of the “Whereas” language. But I was voting to put it on the agenda, not for it as a finished reso. If it made it there, and somehow was garnering support, it would have needed significant amendment.
– – — — —– ——– ————- ——————— ————- ——– —– — — – –
The train has left the station on evaluation. Or the horses have left the barn. Or the toothpaste is out of the tube. Whatever your metaphor, there are people who are saying it is too late to slow this one down. But that’s not so.
The UFT has long had some leaders who supported this sort of thing. For intellectual reasons. For ideological reasons. But then, last decade, it looked like the corporate education reformers had grabbed hold of quantitative evaluation and were using it to punish teachers and local teachers’ unions throughout the country. The UFT, at that moment, came out front, and helped write a law that okayed this, but limited it. The new New York State law keeps testing under 40% of the evaluation, and it puts in some other checks. At the moment that we (UFT) agreed to support this effort, the vast majority of our leadership were convinced that the alternative would be indescribably awful, and would be forced on us if we did not rush a much milder version through the state legislature. It was a form of vaccination. (I’m not saying I buy this, or that I bought this. I am saying that I believe much of our leadership was motivated by a genuine concern to protect our membership. And I think that is important to remember).
That’s what we did. When our leaders say “the new evaluation law” I mentally add (that we helped write).
But what’s happened in the interim?
The national conversation has shifted. It’s not so clear that the corporate reformers will steamroll these laws through every state. There is pushback on charters, pushback on testing (very important), pushback on Race to the Top. None of our leaders are saying this out loud, but at least a few must have questions about finding a way out of this.
The New York City Department of Education has been hilarious. This law will give them a faster path to fire teachers (some, not all. If a deal comes to pass, some people will be well-protected). It will help drive the testing mania that they love. It will fit in with the bogus Progress Reports and Learning Environment Surveys. And these idiots are incapable of striking a deal. The UFT wants a deal. But Bloomberg’s DoE makes it impossible. The idiocy that they insist on is beyond words (and you can read it elsewhere anyway). They are the last people I would expect to sabotage an agreement, but that is exactly what they are doing.
The pause in the national conversation, the shift in momentum, and the DoE idiocy give us a moment, perhaps brief, to reflect.
We helped write the law that took the cow out of the barn. Maybe we should start thinking about rewriting the law to bring the cow back.
Why one quiz did not work
I wrote earlier about a quiz – a single system of linear equations to be solved graphically, then solved again algebraically. I figured it was fifteen minutes, max. It took over forty.
Here’s the system: 
I took to heart comments some of you left here, and others made on facebook. But most of all, I had long conversations with the kids (two full classes) themselves. And then follow-up conversations.
Some of the more interesting points:
- kids really liked the post-quiz analysis sessions. And honestly, they were good discussions. I think me walking in saying “I’m not sure what happened; I need your help” made it different than a regular class discussion.
- some kids have become more comfortable using point-slope to graph directly. However, not all of them have. And none of them had attempted any more than the most rudimentary manipulations of an equation in point-slope form – and then only to mindlessly move it into slope/y-intercept form. The cleanest solutions required thoughtful algebraic manipulation of the equation.
- the demo of getting rid of fractions, and how it makes life easier, that was well-received. A week later and they were still ready to talk about that part.
- one kid wants to write up a discussion of this system on a poster/project.
- some kids created a fraction in the first equation (by solving for y) for graphing, then substituted into the second equation. There were a good number of kids who worked with denominators of 20…
Some things I take away:
- I really want to teach flexibility. It means that kids need to see awkward problems. And they need to be faced with questions where the wrong choice is available. And they need opportunities to examine right choices and wrong choices, or better choices and not as good choices. And talk about them.
- I won’t use this as a quiz again.
- I will use this as a warm-up, and stop the class after letting a little (emphasis on “little”) frustration build. We need a little frustration to make the debrief engaging, but the best part was the debrief.
- I need to remember to occasionally work in discussions where I don’t know the answer, and share with students that this is the case. It’s good for them to see, and they react favorably.
- I like the feedback I get here. Thank you. And I will ask for more.
What went wrong with this quiz?
I have been doing math with kids for a while. Sixteen years paid. And more before that.
Why did this system of linear equations take kids more than triple the time I anticipated?
Writing good questions for the classroom, designing homework, making tests and quizzes. And when I offer a question, I expect a response. Sometimes I set up a mistake, prepared to talk about it. Sometimes I introduce a small twist, to take something that is easy for the kids, and make it challenging. I chose problems to drive conversations, knowing in advance where we are going. Sometimes I set up compare and contrasts (but I never call them that). Why is number three so much harder than number two, even though they look the same?
For tests, I know which skills I am looking for. I can avoid complications from tangents that I don’t mean to assess. I can create five of “the same” where the difficulty increases gradually, pulling them in. Or, for strong students, I can thoroughly mix easy and hard questions, and hector them to choose what to do first. “It’s you and the test, but which one of you is in charge?”
Which is all to say, I know where things are going. Usually.
Last week I gave a quiz. Solve graphically for x and y, and check: (in your check, indicate if your solution is “close” or “exact”). Then solve the same system algebraically, and check. I figured fifteen minutes. It took them about 45. Can you look at the equations, and offer ideas of what went wrong?
Aftermath
The grades were about what I expected – before I watched the unplanned marathon unfold. And I did share my concerns with both classes the next day, and I solicited their opinions of what went wrong, as well. But I’d like yours.
DeWitt Clinton – early engagement
Thursday the Department of Education dragged itself (two representatives) to Mosholu Parkway in the Bronx – to plan the closure of DeWitt Clinton HS. Of course, this is early engagement – they did not announce their intent. But we knew. We all knew.
Early in the week I thought – and most of Clinton thought – that this would be the joint hearing, the spectacle at which a Deputy Superintendent would listen – or pretend to listen – and then announce the closure. But bad info. By the time we found out it was early engagement, many teachers were already planning to attend, some students still wanted to come, and it was not possible to uninvite alumni who had already committed. This accounted for a relatively high turnout (over half of their huge auditorium, only a handful in the balcony) disproportionate to the (relative un-)importance of the event.
Of course, full mobilization will dwarf Thursday night. DeWitt Clinton has been an institution, in the rock-solid sense, in this neighborhood in the Bronx for a century. The social, personal, and institutional connections are myriad. The alumni is active and engaged. It includes rockstars (some of those too, but I mean famous people) who will be drawn by the actual joint hearing, including alumni from previous generations, who lend a different voice, and additional gravitas, to the pushback. And I believe Clinton has impressive political connections (only one politician spoke Thursday – Oliver Koppell, but, you know, “Early Engagement”). The UFT has not always done a great job mobilizing from neighboring schools – this time should be different.
It is the last large high school, untouched, in the Bronx. And despite “we’re hear to listen” we know what the DoE is up to. Every activist, every semi-activist, every teacher in a nearby school, we all should be ready, when the moment comes (think – January) to show up, and lend our bodies and our voices.
More about why another time.
Now, that balcony. Mostly empty. Thursday.
One day back in February or March 1997, I got a call from DeWitt Clinton High School. I had a freshly printed OCPD license OPDC (occasional per diem certificate – means I was legal to sub). This was my very first assignment. I came into the office, got sent to math on the second floor, and the departmental assist gave me a program. My first class (was it second period?) I was to move from a computer lab in the tower, down to the balcony of the auditorium, and just sit with the kids. Sub with computer equipment? Not a great idea – thus the move. I met ten kids by the room in the tower. I walked them to the balcony, and entered, and noticed I only had one kid left with me. “Mister, I’m going…” I sat very still, pondering the complete failure of my very first assignment…
DeWitt Clinton?
I became a substitute teacher in February 1997. The first school I worked in? DeWitt Clinton High School, in the Bronx. And now the DoE is planning to close it. There is a story here – a story I want to tell. But that will come in the next few days.
For now:
Public Hearing.
DeWitt Clinton HS
100 W Mosholu Parkway, South
Thursday, December 6.
6PM – 8PM
I’ll be there – to support the teachers and the students… and to support all of us. This is the last regular Bronx high school standing.
I hope to see you.
Lincoln and arrested development
Good movie, Lincoln. Some nice development of his sons’ characters (I spotted the Third Rock kid!). And I’ve usually always liked Sally Field. Not quite Norma Rae, but made Mary Todd Lincoln interesting. And the portrait of Lincoln is rich – story teller, backwoods lawyer, astute politician, caring husband and father – and politically adept at balancing expediency and long term goals, etc, etc.
But Spielberg left Lincoln’s political allies and opponents flat. The motivations of Lincoln are easy to understand – because they are presented completely consonant with our modern US understanding of right and wrong. His motivations are explained, nuanced. But the conservative Republicans, the Radical Republicans, even Seward… they are cardboard cutouts standing in the way of the Great Man.
At least Thaddeus Stevens is partially developed. Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens is my favorite of the “other” characters. You don’t quite get Stevens from the movie. You don’t get that he’s an abolitionist, even. Or that he was a champion of public schools. You don’t get that he was powerful, and feared. But you can figure out that there’s something complicated there, something special.
You thought Daniel Day Lewis looked a lot like Lincoln? Great job. But think about Tommy Lee Jones and Thaddeus Stevens – more expression than make up:
That’s Stevens, Jones, and Jones as Stevens (twice)
“Right” and “Left” depend on context
Picking a fight with a comic strip? Yup. And xkcd, at that.
Randall Munroe has done a superb job creating vertical time lines for the House and Senate, showing the ebb and flow of different parties. Look here, it’s really cool.
But left and right change meaning over time. Different place, different time, different context. The slaveholders were to the left and the abolitionists to the right? Whoa, Nelly, er Randall. In today’s context, the Republicans are on the right. But the party once was home to advocates of public education, sufferage, abolition, and temperance (hmm, temperance? just ignore that).
Munroe really did make a cool chart. And he gets lots of things right. I hope he fixes the chart.
Do Great Circles Wiggle?
Cool applet takes two cities and draws the great circle between them. You plug in airport codes, the app does the rest. Here’s JFK – Narita (Tokyo)
But look what happens when we go from Buenos Aires to Istanbul:
Help me out folks. Is that a little bit of an “S” curve? Why? And is there a city pair that gives a more obvious “S”?
Do Now
Where do they dig these people up?
From Gotham Schools: “Minetti noted that even though late bell had not yet rung to start class officially, students should be tackling the day’s “Do Now,” the prompt that many teachers across the city have used to kick off their classes since the Department of Education first mandated the “workshop model” in 2003.”
Do Nows were introduced with the workshop model in 2003?
There’s something very iffy about out-of-towners writing about (or running) NYC schools.
What did the New York Times say about the Chicago teachers?
Back a month ago, Chicago teachers stood up, struck, and backed their mayor down, at least a little.
That’s important. And big. There are lots of important stories. And important details. Other people have written about them, and will write about them. One day, maybe I will, too. But today a small detail, really a footnote, is on my mind.
Chicago Teachers’ Folly
wrote the New York Times, in its own name.
“Teachers’ strikes, because they hurt children and their families, are never a good idea. … the strike is based on union discontent with sensible policy changes — including the teacher evaluation system required by Illinois law — that are increasingly popular across the country and are unlikely to be rolled back, no matter how long the union stays out.”
In other words, “sit down and shut up”
“Mr. Emanuel … lengthened one of the shortest school days in the nation. …Chicago’s teachers are well paid, with an average salary of about $75,000 a year …And despite its dismal fiscal condition, the city says it has offered the union a 16 percent raise over the next four years.”
In other words, “sit down and shut up, you underworked, overpaid teachers”
[The union’s] “main point of anger has to do with a state law that requires school systems to put in place an evaluation system in which a teacher’s total rating depends partly on student test scores. Half the states have agreed to create similar teacher evaluation systems that take student achievement into account in exchange for grants under the federal Race to the Top program or for greater flexibility under the No Child Left Behind law. Such systems are already up and running in many places.”
In other words, “Sit down and shut up. You already lost.”
“…this strike was unnecessary… Ms. Lewis… seems to be basking in the power of having shut down the school system, seems more inclined toward damaging the mayor politically than in getting this matter resolved.”
In other words, “Sit down and shut up, you power-hungry, underworked, overpaid teachers”
Of course, the Chicago teachers and their president did not back down because the New York Times told them to. They fought, and ended up better for it.
But will you remember how the New York Times addresses teachers?
Lot’s of New Yorkers look at the Post and News as the gutter press, but hold the Times in higher esteem. Because it’s better written? More prestigious?
But don’t let yourself get seduced by the big words, clean type, and fancy fold. The Times is not on our side.
Nate Silver is no Carnac (but I read him anyway)
Nate Silver predicts elections. Or claims to. Sort of.
He burst onto the scene in 2008, at 538.com. He was a sports stats guy, a sabrematrician, and he thought he could use his skills to analyze poll results. He was good enough that he attracted some attention. A lot of attention. And on election day he had 49 states called correctly. Oh.
He commentated. The New York Times snatched him up. And now “Election Forecasts – Five Thirty Eight – Nate Silver’s Political Calulus” is updated on the Times website daily.
But he’s not very good at predicting. He is good at reading current polls – but not to tell us about the future. He excels in explaining what just happened.
Is that blip statistical noise? Trust Nate. How big was Romney’s debate bounce? Ask Nate. But will Romney do well at the next debate? Who knows?
The mechanics behind his work are simple. He thinks that pollsters are consistent, and that results are fairly consistent. So he tests the same poll with four pollsters, and his result tells him not about the state being polled, but about each of the pollster’s “lean.” He checks state polls against national polls, and sees how tightly they move together… or not. So the next time that state is polled, it tells Nate something about where the national race is, as well. And vice versa. Without a new poll in South Pennsyltucky, Nate intuits which way it has moved from the national polls, and the record of correlation between that state and the country. He easily doubles or triples the amount of information sucked out of each poll, and creates a much better-filled in picture of the state of the race, today, both nationally and in each state.
Which all means that Nate has a great handle on what would happen if the election were held today. But not so good for three weeks from now.
He also tries his hand at analysis of state politics. Not as impressive. He just doesn’t have the depth of understanding of history. Republican in 1940 does not mean the same thing as Republican today. Nate misses this. Gun ownership means different things in different parts of the country. In some states, the whiter places are more conservative, but not in all states. And bellweather counties don’t make sense in states where the electorate is changing. All salient details that escape Nate.
But I still read. His “today” snapshot is wonderful. And there’s no one I would go to first to find out what happened in the polls three days ago. Seriously.
Writing/Not Writing
I’ve received a couple of complaints about not writing. I’m thinking it over.
JD2718 