PSC wins injunction against Governor Paterson’s furloughs
The Professional Staff Congress, AFT Local 2334, represents professors, instructors, adjuncts, lab techs, HEOs and a host of other professional titles at the City University of New York’s many campuses. Barbara Bowen is president.
This last week the PSC has been fighting against furloughs – a forced pay cut – proposed by Governor Paterson. This is the PSC’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd, make that fourth update for members. The communication both keeps members informed, and makes it easier to rally them as necessary.
Update: Read the injunction the PSC and the other unions won, here.
Dear Members,
We won! The PSC’s application for a temporary restraining order against the furlough legislation, Bowen et al v. Paterson et al, was granted. There will be no furloughs and no reduction in our salaries next week.
In response to the motions brought by four public-employee unions, including the PSC, Judge Kahn of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York has issued a temporary restraining order against Governor Paterson, prohibiting the implementation of the furloughs. There can be no imposition of furloughs and no reduction until at least May 26, when the judge will hold a hearing. Governor Paterson may seek to appeal the order, but we have had no indication of that yet.
After the hearing on May 26 the judge will determine whether to grant the unions’ requests for a preliminary injunction preventing Governor Paterson from implementing additional furloughs and from submitting any future extender appropriations bills including mandatory furloughs. The judge’s order is available on the PSC website.
This is a victory for all of us, made possible because our collective strength as a union allowed us to file the lawsuit. I want to thank the PSC members who joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs, every PSC member who wrote with your support and ideas, and every member of the PSC staff who participated in this effort. I am especially grateful to our legal staff and to the legal staff at NYSUT, who led the litigation. Congratulations to all PSC members, and to the membership of the three other unions, UUP, PEF and CSEA, who also achieved a victory today against the scapegoating of public employees and the undermining of the people we serve.
In solidarity,
Barbara Bowen
President
Previous coverage:
Update on furlough legislation – yesterday on the street, today in court
The Professional Staff Congress, AFT Local 2334, represents professors, instructors, adjuncts, lab techs, HEOs and a host of other professional titles at the City University of New York’s many campuses. Barbara Bowen is president.
Since the budget crisis turned to a threat of furloughs, Bowen has written 1, 2, and this is the 3rd time to members:
May 11, 2010
Dear Members and Colleagues,
The PSC has intensified our fight against the illegal furlough legislation that was passed last night in Albany. Union members were in Albany today presenting our case to State legislators; nearly 150 members came on short notice yesterday and demonstrated loudly in front of the governor’s Midtown office; PSC members and I have been speaking out in the media about the impact furloughs would have on CUNY; and this afternoon the union filed a legal complaint and request for an injunction to stop the furloughs from being implemented.
The complaint the union filed today alleges that the furlough legislation violates the U.S. Constitution and the New York State Constitution. In particular, the legislation violates the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution, and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. and New York State Constitutions. We have asked the federal court in Albany to issue a temporary restraining order barring implementation of furloughs for the faculty and staff we represent at CUNY, and are seeking an injunction permanently to enjoin implementation of the law itself. Check the PSC website for updates as the case progresses: www.psc-cuny.org.
Governor Paterson’s public statement about the furlough legislation, issued last night, is patently false. The governor claimed that the illegal furloughs of public employees are necessary only “because their union leadership has rejected all other reasonable attempts at compromise.” If that was meant to apply to the PSC, it is completely untrue. The PSC has never been contacted by the governor’s office with any request to discuss alternatives to furloughs. Instead, we have offered Albany numerous proposals that would provide genuine budget relief—such as closing tax loopholes for hedge funds or temporarily retaining part of the stock transfer tax. So far, none of the proposals has been accepted.
Furloughs, on the other hand, are not a budget solution. If implemented, they would produce only $250 million in savings, while the State’s budget deficit is more than $9 billion. Furloughs have nothing to do with helping the economy, and everything to do with attacking public employees and hurting the New Yorkers who depend on us.
The union’s immediate focus is on stopping the illegal reduction of our workweek and salaries, but we also want to be responsive to your concerns about how 80th Street plans to implement furloughs, if CUNY is ultimately directed to do so. As I was writing this letter, I learned from CUNY management that their implementation plan had just been published on the CUNY website. As soon as we study the plan and discuss its implications for members, we will provide additional information, and will advocate for your interests.
Thank you to the many PSC members who were out in front of the governor’s office protesting yesterday and to all who have called and emailed us. We intend to continue to fight this ill-considered, destructive and illegal plan every way we can.
In solidarity,
Barbara Bowen
President, PSC
NY State furloughs: attempt to wring concessions
Governor Paterson’s furloughs flew through the State Assembly and Senate yesterday. Under the bill, State workers will work one less day each week and get 20% less pay. The governor and the legislators are using the furloughs to force contract concessions from the workers (really, from their unions).
John Sampson, the Democratic leader in the Senate, voted for the bill, then hoped out loud that the unions would challenge its legality in court.
Local coverage from media in Albany. Coverage in the NY Times.
The Professional Staff Congress (AFT Local 2334, at CUNY) sent members two letters in the last few days, organized a protest, and is challenging the furloughs in court.
CUNY Vice Chancellor Dobrin issued a brief statement before the bill passed:
I want to take this opportunity to update you on recent events in connection with the State budget, which is now five weeks overdue.
Governor Paterson has sent to the legislature a draft budget extender bill that includes a mandatory one-day furlough during the week of May 17, 2010 through May 23, 2010. The bill specifically names The City University of New York as one of the agencies that is subject to the mandatory furlough. If the bill is enacted by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Paterson, the furlough would apply to employees on the New York State payroll (primarily employees in the senior colleges), but not to employees in the community colleges.
We are carefully monitoring the status of this bill. If it becomes law, we will provide specific guidance regarding the steps that CUNY must take to comply.
Thank you for your cooperation during these difficult times.
PSC fights Paterson’s Furlough Proposal in the Streets and in the Courts
PSC calls on members:
Demonstrate in front of Governor Paterson’s Manhattan office
41st and 3rd
Monday, May 10, 4 pm – 6 pm.
The Professional Staff Congress, AFT Local 2334, represents professors, instructors, adjuncts, lab techs, HEOs and a host of other professional titles at the City University of New York’s many campuses. Barbara Bowen is president.
Last week she explained to members that the proposed furlough was really a mandatory pay cut. (Read the proposed legislation). And today she announced a two-prong strategy involving a fight in the courts AND member mobilization.
May 9, 2010
Dear Members,
Developments in the governor’s proposed furlough legislation have been occurring rapidly since I last wrote, and the union is acting rapidly in response. Over the weekend, Governor Paterson released a new version of the proposed legislation that would reduce the workweek and the salaries of affected public employees by 20 percent during the week of May 17 to May 23. In the new version, Program Bill #250, the City University of New York is explicitly named. It is unclear whether the proposed furlough, if enacted, would apply to both the senior and the community colleges.
The union is taking immediate legal and political action. Union lawyers are preparing to challenge the proposed furlough in court, and the PSC is calling on members to demonstrate in front of Governor Paterson’s Manhattan office (41st St. and 3rd Ave.) on Monday, May 10, between 4 pm and 6 pm.
Legal Challenge
The proposed legislation, should it pass, would be illegal. The PSC is preparing to file immediately for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to stop implementation of the bill. The president of UUP, our sister union at SUNY, has announced that UUP will also be seeking injunctive relief.
Emergency Rally
The PSC is also taking our protest directly to the governor. We have called an emergency rally in front of the governor’s New York City office, on 41st Street and Third Avenue, on Monday afternoon, from 4:00 to 6:00. Please make every effort to be there; we need to send a strong, swift message to the governor that we will challenge his illegal and irrational attempt to balance the budget through furloughs of public employees. Reducing the workweek and the salaries of CUNY faculty and staff—right in the middle of final exams and at the moment of highest-ever enrollment in CUNY’s history—would cause chaos in the lives of thousands of people and unfairly target students, faculty and staff.
Students will inevitably suffer if the furlough is imposed, especially during exam week. A 20 percent reduction in our workweek would mean that some exams are not administered, many exams and papers are not graded on time, grades are not processed to meet deadlines, some students fail to graduate, others lose their chance to register for summer courses, jeopardize their graduate school admission, finish the year with transcripts unfairly marred with Incompletes, or even compromise their immigration status. Our message to the governor is simple: Let us do our jobs!
A False Solution to the Budget Deficit
Embedding a provision for furloughs in the legislation to extend funding for the Sate government is a cowardly and cynical political maneuver. The State has not even considered the numerous proposals that would both treat New Yorkers fairly and contribute to the long-term economic health of the State. The PSC, as part of a coalition of unions and community groups, continues to press Albany to close tax loopholes and adopt other rational measures that would put the State on the right path toward economic recovery.
We will continue to fight the imposition of furloughs every way we can, and we need your help. Come to the rally on Monday, and call Chancellor Goldstein’s office at 212-794-5311 to tell him why a 20 percent reduction in your workweek and salary during exam week would damage both you and your students.
I am sure you have many questions about how furloughs would be implemented next week and whom they would affect if the legislation goes forward. At this stage, I cannot provide answers: the legislation itself is unclear, and CUNY management has not discussed implementation with the PSC. The union would of course do everything in its power to protect your rights in the event of imposition of a furlough, but we remain focused on preventing furloughs from taking place at all. Furloughs for CUNY faculty and staff would cut short the aspirations of thousands of students on the brink of graduation, and would scapegoat hard-working public employees for a budget deficit we did nothing to create. A furlough is a tax increase, imposed on modestly-paid public employees by a governor and legislature who claim they will not consider new taxes. This is not about sacrificing for the common good; this is about playing politics while refusing to offer real solutions to the State’s budget problem.
Your union is fighting hard for you and for our students. I will continue to update you as there is more information. Please do everything you can to attend the rally tomorrow, Monday, May 10, from 4 pm to 6 pm at Governor Paterson’s Midtown office.
In solidarity,
Barbara Bowen
President, PSC
The Chestnut Tree
Analyzing the UFT elections
The UFT elections earlier this Spring resulted in no changes in the line-up of officers or Executive Board. Then why look more closely? Because we can. Because the numbers exist. Because there were shifts, including some surprises.
Michael Mulgrew, running with both his own Unity support, and the support of New Action, received 91% of the vote. The Chief asked “Randi who?”
Unity’s vote stayed steady. New Action (my caucus), emphasized both our support of Mulgrew, and also our willingness to disagree when the leadership is wrong. We aggressively got our literature into schools, and saw our vote increase by 75% among active members. The Independent Community of Educators and the Teachers for a Just Contract, running in coalition, through much of the winter on criticized the leadership’s work on school closings, and counterposed mobilization. They maintained that theme through the election, concentrating almost exclusively on the high schools. Their vote fell 10% in the high schools, and 25% overall, even as turnout rose.
I am no Nate Silver, but over the last few weeks I have poked at the numbers, caucus by caucus, division by division, and year by year. I looked at turnout, slate voting. I considered the campaign and the events leading up. And I considered exceptional details.
I tried a few models before settling on a group of assumptions that I felt comfortable with – both by agreeing with the results and by making sense.
I’ll be sharing my findings, division by division, over the next two weeks. As I complete them, I’ll link them from here:
Retirees – Active – Elementary – High School – Functional – Middle School – Summary
Puzzle: continued root (Part 2)
So in two classes (algebra II, if that matters, mostly juniors) I did some problem solving this week instead of “course material” because I like problem solving, but also because we were down 20% due to the AP Spanish exam, and their attention spans were down about 60%, and their nerves were frayed to a similar extent, by the upcoming (today! hooray!) US History AP.
They attacked
Find x:
and in each class some of the kids evaluated some nested root 2s (easy with the calculator, once you think of it) and could tell that the sum was either 2, or close to it. And I teased each class by saying that that was good enough, we would do something else, and each class objected to moving on without knowing. This much I told in the previous post.
So what else did they do with this thing?
1. I refreshed Polya’s problem solving model for them. I was pleased that many recalled it on cue, even though I’ve been racing through “material” in this damned course and haven’t been taking big chunks of time to solve problems. The little challenge problems are nice for playing math, but we haven’t been trotting out Polya’s model.
(Note: this problem was first shared with me with a purpose: to be confronted with an answer that was so lovely that the student (me) would be encouraged to “look back” to investigate why the answer was so nice.)
2. I introduced limits. I didn’t formalize them. I talked about getting as close as we like. It was a nice chat. It will come back to them next year in precalc. I believe in foreshadowing. I do.
3. I asked, if
did that mean we could generalize. Each class tested the idea and found
The teacher rather than confirm their suspicions encouraged them to keep extending the expression until they got close to 3.
4. I asked if they’d ever solved anything similar. As I was intentionally vague, first responses were about sums of geometric sequences. Good, but not what I was going for. Had they solved an equation that looked anything like this? (recall, I started with x =). And yeah, they mentioned radical equations. I asked them to suggest some, and we solved a couple of quickies, until a kid interrupted to suggest that we go back to our problem and square both sides.
5. So the next line down goes: 
6. In each class a kid noticed that we had 
7. Going back to 
8. Pushing further, I had them calculate 
Another note: One kid, really growing on me, wanted to know why the TI doesn’t have an “elipsis button.” Good question, eh?
In both classes I did a little golden ratio riff at the end. In the first I pointed out the ratio of successive Fibonacci numbers… But that was fluff. The good stuff was earlier.
The attempt to close 20 schools and the UFT elections
The campaign by the DoE to close 20 schools ran into a campaign by the UFT not to let them. The result was a temporary win for the schools and the kids and the teachers and the union: a court has stopped the closures from taking place at this time. But it is a sort of draw – the DoE can go back and try again, and has a guide for the steps to follow. They may not be able to follow for that guide, maybe not for all 19 (one is off the list) at once – but they can choose to reengage on all 19 or on a smaller group or larger group, they choose the timing, etc.
The series of events had some impact on the UFT elections. This was the first big conflict for newly appointed-but-not-yet-elected UFT President Michael Mulgrew.
Th closings
School closings are not new to New York City this year. The DoE has been closing schools at a fairly rapid clip for a decade, and some even earlier. The union, on paper, has a resolution calling for a moratorium on closings (until/unless a study shows that it is an effective strategy. I don’t like that clause). But moratorium or not, the UFT has not done much to stop any closings, or even to object to them. In fact, in 2007, in response to over a dozen closings, the official UFT statement did not condemn the closings but rather “called it ‘a major upheaval for all involved’ and said the city needed to see ‘every effort is made to ensure that everyone affected is treated with care, dignity and respect.'”
Last year the UFT challenged a few of those closings, but it was 3 specific schools for a specific reason. We did not challenge “closings as policy”. So when the UFT decided to fight these closings en masse this year, that was a change people noticed. There was a two-pronged approach. President Mulgrew challenged the policy of closing schools, and the field staff helped most of the schools organize both a brief and attendance at their CEC/SLT meeting, and a bus to the PEP in Brooklyn.
At the same time, New Action was pushing for a bigger mobilization prong to this strategy, including reaching out to teachers in schools that were not immediately threatened.
ICE went further, denouncing the leaders, and calling their own demonstration against the school closings in front of Bloomberg’s actual residence. Attendance, as at all away-from-school demonstrations in this period, was weak. ICE also sent speakers to several of the CECs, and distributed literature.
In the event, the PEP voted to close all the schools. The UFT joined a suit with the NAACP and others, and a court agreed that proper procedures had been violated, and stopped the closings in the middle of the UFT election period.
Elections
ICE was banking on a groundswell of support, especially in high schools where they run their strongest. But members did not mobilize in large numbers around the school closings. The issue was passively followed by members in other schools. And even in the closing schools, while ICE’s speeches were rousing, they didn’t translate into new support.
Most voters supported Unity directly. That’s not a surprise. Additionally, neutral voters would have seen the court victory around voting time. They would have seen the union actively involved supporting the schools. That helps Mulgrew. But it probably helps him get votes through New Action as much as through Unity.
Voters who had voted for opposition caucuses (New Action, ICE, or TJC) previously were now looking at a UFT that had challenged the DoE on the closings policy after 10 years of more or less acquiescing. Those voters were likely to stay with New Action (Mulgrew was NA’s presidential candidate as well), or switch to New Action.
New Action’s vote increased almost 50%. A piece, albeit not the major piece, was our good positioning around school closings. I’ll discuss the numbers in more details in future posts.
But ICE’s vote fell hard, and that was linked to their work around school closings. 1) I don’t know why they didn’t run anyone for middle school exec board, but I assume that they were too tied up with the school closings to work on getting candidates and signatures. Their middle school vote fell 45%. 2) Their elementary school vote also fell by a similar amount. During school closings their most active members were going to CEC/SLTs and giving speeches… it is likely they were too spent to campaign in the lower divisions. 3) In the high schools, their efforts were focused on a smaller number of high schools, their mobilization strategy did not work, the mobilization they ran themselves was small, and they were sharply criticizing a popular president who clearly was interested in fighting back, effectively. This was their focus, and they only lost 15% of their vote. 4) Functionals include many high school teachers. There, too, ICE lost a smaller percent of their vote.
ICE’s strategy was to mobilize around school closings, and parlay that into a surge in high school votes, and win those seats. With limited resources, they ignored the other divisions to concentrate on their chance. As a result, their vote in those other divisions (unsurprisingly) fell. But as the mobilization of members never developed, they were not able to win new votes in the high schools. Mulgrew’s appeal actually pried loose a chunk of their voters from the previous election, leaving ICE stunned and routed.
Milestone Missed
Sometime last month a page on this blog was viewed, and it was the millionth time that that had happened.
Current numbers via Sitemeter are 661,000 visits and 1,017,000 views (those trailing zeros aren’t really zeros). I turned Sitemeter on within a month of starting “JD2718” missing only a tiny number of hits.
In the scheme of the internet, a million is nothing. Yet from this little corner, it is overwhelming.
Thank you, readers.
PSC reacts to Paterson’s proposed furloughs and buyouts
The Professional Staff Congress, AFT Local 2334, represents professors, instructors, adjuncts, lab techs, HEOs and a host of other professional titles at the City University of New York’s many campuses. Barbara Bowen is president.
May 5, 2010
Dear PSC Members,
Yesterday Governor Paterson issued two proposals, both of which may—and I stress may—affect us at CUNY. The first is legislation to enact “a mandatory furlough program which will continue until there is an enacted budget in place” (State of New York Executive Department Budget Bulletin B-1189). The governor proposes that the legislation to provide continued funding for State government operations, which is offered on a week-to-week basis until a final budget is approved, simultaneously include a provision to reduce the salary and the workweek of every affected employee by 20% per week.
20% Salary Cut ProposalWe are deeply opposed to the governor’s proposal for a 20% salary cut for “employees in Executive branch agencies” (Budget Bulletin B-1189). CUNY is not an Executive branch agency, and employees represented by the PSC, whether at a senior or a community college, are not State employees. We are employees of CUNY, which is, under the law, a separate and distinct corporate body. The PSC leadership has successfully argued this position in the past, when Governor Paterson sought to impose a unilateral pay cut on employees of Executive branch agencies, and we are prepared to make the same argument again this time. We have also argued that it is illegal for the governor unilaterally to abrogate the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Should the State pass the legislation and seek to impose the 20% salary cut on us, however, we are prepared to fight it every way we can, including through legal action, legislative advocacy and mobilization of members.
Governor Paterson’s press release announcing the furlough proposal cites “the unions’ unwillingness to make any sacrifices” and vows to “do whatever is necessary to protect New York’s finances.” There is nothing “necessary” about a 20% salary cut. What is necessary is the closing of tax loopholes and the restoration of a progressive personal income tax system that would replenish the State’s revenue. The governor’s proposal to cut the salaries of public employees—like his proposal to cut another $100 million from CUNY’s budget—represents a political choice: to impose further hardship on working people, the middle class and the poor while sparing the richest New Yorkers from paying their fair share. There are many other choices the State could adopt to close the budget gap without imposing a 20% salary cut on public employees. We will fight vigorously for an alternative approach to the budget and for the right of public employees to be compensated according to their collectively bargained contracts.
Early Retirement IncentiveThe second proposal is for a temporary early retirement incentive “for certain State employees and other public employees to assist in streamlining the workforce while also achieving cost savings” (Governor’s Program Bill 2010 #249). If the proposed legislation is approved by the Legislature, eligibility to participate “would be determined at employer discretion.” As in the past, CUNY’s Board of Trustees would have to approve participation in the incentive by CUNY employees. If the legislation passes, and if CUNY approves participation, the incentive would include both TRS and Optional Retirement Program participants (such as those in TIAA-CREF), although it would be structured differently in the different systems.
The other PSC officers and I have been in conversation on the issue with CUNY management and our representatives in Albany since the governor made his announcement yesterday. There is no news yet on whether CUNY expects to approve participation in the early retirement incentive. In the past, the PSC has taken the position that even though we are concerned about the loss of experienced full-time faculty and staff through early retirement, we strongly support our members’ right to avail of such an option and have urged CUNY to approve participation. As soon as we know whether the proposed early retirement incentive is passed and whether CUNY faculty and staff will be eligible to participate, we will make an announcement.
The PSC leadership and staff are acting quickly in response to these two proposals and will keep you abreast of developments as they occur.
In solidarity,
Barbara Bowen
President, PSC
Puzzle: continued root (Part 1)
With Spanish AP taking 20% of each class, and with all the juniors worked up over AP US stress, this was a “diminished” teaching day in the midst of a diminished teaching week. I scheduled today for “practice solving trig equations” – but I had a beautiful challenge problem, and let it and its extensions eat up two-thirds of each period:
Find x:
Divided by missing classmates into clusters, the kids got stuck or made little progress on their own. Five minutes in the buzz changed… I could hear groups considering answers. At least two had decided to evaluate 
They disagreed. Fairly loudly. Was x 2, or was it a little less than 2?
I took a risk. “You guys did well. It’s clearly either 2 or a little less than 2. One of them’s got to be the answer, the other’s close. Let’s go on to some trigonometry practice.”
I read them right. Nothing doing. They wanted to know. And I had them hooked for a half hour or so investigation. That’ll be Part 2.
NY State thinks Integrated Algebra is as hard as the AP?
Teachers out there, hold on to your hats. NY State massively overestimates the level of challenge.
The New York State Education Department favorably compares a passing score on the Integrated Algebra Regents with decent scores on the SAT in math, the IB, and even the AP Calculus exam.
Really? Really.
When NY moved from the Math A fiasco to Integrated Algebra, they were required to get “Annual Yearly Progress” ok to use substitute exams. And so they are out there, without shame, looking for public comment. They want you and me, but more likely our superintendents, to agree that the following are the equivalent of passing IA (where 40% is well above passing, and the questions don’t rise above algebra I, though they range across many more stand-alone topics).
| Alternative Examination | Minimum Acceptable Score |
| Advanced International Certificate of Education AICE Mathematics Examination | E |
| Advanced Placement Calculus AB | 3 |
| Advanced Placement Calculus BC | 3 |
| International Baccalaureate Mathematics Studies Standard Level | 4 |
| International Baccalaureate Mathematics Methods Standard Level | 4 |
| International Baccalaureate Mathematics Studies Higher Level | 3 |
| International General Certificate of Secondary Education IGCSE | A |
| SAT II Math IC | 470 |
| SAT II Math IIC | 510 |
For some students, Integrated Algebra is challenging. Integrated Algebra’s a lousy exam, covers way too much. It is clearly not designed to measure if a student has learned a good chunk of algebra. And it makes a lousy test of whether a kid has enough math for the outside world; it just tests the wrong stuff, and poorly. But it is not the equivalent of a 470 on the SAT II or a 3 on the AP Exam. Sorry. No.
To get approval from the Feds, the State has to open this up for public comment. Here’s the NYSUT announcement. Here’s the pdf of the Request for Comment.
But it sounds like they only want to hear from districts, not teachers. Tough. I think I am writing in. If you want to, the deadline is May 10. Comments go to:
David Abrams, Assistant Commissioner
Office of Standards, Assessment, and Reporting
NYS Education Department
Room 675 EBA
Albany, New York 12234
Fax: 518-473-7737
Saying hi in public
When my cousin was about 10 he was playing outside with friends. My aunt, before pulling in the driveway, rolled down her window and said hi. “Mo-ooom, why’d you embarrass me like that?”
Kids. Adults. Hello. In public. Iffy proposition. I say hi to my students. Quick, polite, direct. I greet their parents the same way, although slightly friendlier, offering an opening to a quick convo, (if appropriate).
But what about “once removed”? 3 times in the last weeks I have encountered youngsters, to whom I have been previously introduced – by students. What’s the protocol? Be cool. Make the slightest eye contact and look away. Not a word. We both know who the other is, but we won’t acknowledge it. Or just say hi? Silent seems the safer way to go. But weird and awkward either way. (note, these are teenagers. from other schools. saying hi.)
Fighting NYC School Closings: What happened? What worked? What next?
This is going to take more than one post. I’ll start with some thoughts and questions.
The governance law.
How bad that the Mayor controls the majority on the PEP? Any sense of checks and balances on the PEP?
The court stopped the closings because of major and systematic procedural errors (intentional errors) on the DoE’s part. The notification/public hearing requirements, and the need for input, the DoE screwed that stuff up. To what extent will those provisions continue to help us?
Strategy differences
There was some discussion and dispute about how best to fight back: school-based initiatives or centrally-based? (we did more school-based). Involve members from other schools, or not? (we did not). Media campaign? (we did not do one). Lean on mobilizing members? (we gave mixed messages). Argue that the closings were bad decisions? (we did a lot of that)
In the event, Central designated a few organizers who worked closely with the schools and created what we called a “war room.” The borough offices worked even more closely, assigned point people, helped the schools develop local efforts. Some of that effort went towards mobilizing for the CECs; some of that effort went towards constructing the case that the school was being unjustly targeted. The UFT claimed that the schools themselves knew what the DoE was hiding or ignoring, that the schools themselves were best able to counter the charge that they were “failing schools.” And, as it turned out, some of the schools did create explanations and counters to the DoE propaganda.
There was not a general UFT-generated anti-closure campaign. We had statements that sounded sharp, mostly internal. There was a great Mulgrew piece in the News. But as a union we relied more on “HS XYZ has a good case about why it should not close” and less on “The UFT opposes school closures as policy”
Mobilization at the schools
The joint SLT/PEP meetings were a mixed bag. At some of the larger schools, turnout was larger. And at most of the smaller, it wasn’t. (based on going to five of them and reading reports from a bunch of others.). The biggest two were Columbus/Global Enterprise and Jamaica, with Smith third, each substantially larger than the rest.
Who showed up differed from school to school. At Columbus (and apparently Jamaica was similar) – everyone. Administration. Teachers. Students. Alumni. Community. And some teachers from other schools. At the others I went to, only part of that list showed up. In one school, the staff seemed absent. In another, only current students but no alums.
Several schools organized rallies or protests the day of the SLT/CEC, or in the days leading up. In some cases there was outreach to neighboring schools, but they tended to be smaller and local. I know Maxwell, Smith, Columbus had something, but I think I am missing 3 or 4 more.
Mobilization outside the schools
ICE/GEM held its own rally in front of Bloomberg’s house. It was small. 350 people. The UFT didn’t block it, didn’t endorse it. The Bronx UFT organized a “rally as backdrop” on the steps of the Bronx Courthouse. The Bronx PEP member, Ana Santos, was announcing that she was going to vote against the closings. (but the rally participants did not know in advance about the announcement, nor that they were going to be backdrop). It was also small, maybe 150?
And finally, there was the ‘big’ rally outside the PEP at Brooklyn Tech. Mulgrew pushed it from the podium at the DA. But the message that ran through the organization was weaker – there was push for members from closing schools, but not much of a push for others. The UFT brought 50 or so buses from closing schools, but made less effort for the rest of us. And what happened? I think about 3000 showed. The UFT low-balled an estimate of 1500 (organizers never low-ball these. What was that about? There were about 1500 bus riders alone, I’d guess.)
So, push past the finger pointing (there’s going to be some of that). Ask, why were all three turnouts low? That question needs a general answer. And does that mean that there was not potential for a larger rally? Also needs an answer. Was there potential for larger local rallies? Needs an answer. Should resources have been allocated differently? Needs an answer.
The Court Case
So we brought people to CEC/SLTs. We made 17 or 16 individual cases for KMOP (keep mine open, please). We rallied at the PEP; we spoke at the PEP; we watched the PEP vote to shut them all down. And then we sued. And won.
Why? The DoE was sloppy on the governance law. Arrogant? Probably? Careless? Good guess. Couldn’t be bothered? Perhaps. Too hard to comply? Hmmm. It’s a lot of paperwork (they like giving busy paperwork to our members, but probably don’t much enjoy it themselves.) They tried to ambush us, making announcements just inside the minimum window (late November, for January hearings, for a January 26 PEP vote, with less than 8 months until closure – in other words they left about 6-7 weeks to spare – pretty tight). On that timeline, they probably can’t comply. But if they have all summer and start in September? That’s a question.
Our individual cases made some of the argument that such cases might exist. But the court did not say that our individual cases were good – just that they were ignored, not heard. It was the procedural violations of the law that saved the schools, for now. I’m glad we have good lawyers. I’m glad we won. But it is a temporary victory.
What next?
I don’t know. What next? Will the DoE come back and try to close all 19, but another dozen from the NY State list? It depends. Do they have the capacity to comply with the new law on a massive scale? That’s a lot of hearings to hold, comments to listen to, comments to respond to. The impact statements will be much harder to write. They will need to account for students and programs that are displaced. Will they instead target a smaller number of schools? Will they give up? (yeah, not going to happen)
For the schools and teachers and the UFT, we need to be prepared for their most likely strategies.
Do we think that forcing them to actually respond to our 16 individual cases will do the trick? That, for example, Columbus’ case is so well prepared that the DoE will have to concede and leave that school alone? And that it now will depend on the quality of the individual case each school makes?
Do we think we can mobilize our membership more widely, differently from this year? Do we think mobilization can slow the DoE down, or stop them?
Do we think we need a citywide response, a response with our officers at the lead?
Do we think we need more of a national response – against restructuring, RTTTing, and the general assault on us?
Which, or which combination?
At least we know that sit back and sadly watch is no longer an option.
That’s a lot of questions. But we should not wait until September to start talking about them.
Bronx Science Arbitration – DoE Rejects Findings
Two years ago the level of harassment in the mathematics department at the Bronx High School of Science reached a point where almost all of the teachers signed a special complaint. The new AP had, in their opinion, been making their lives miserable, and had been picking on teachers. And, according to them, continued after the complaint was filed.
Attempts at resolution, to the extent they were made, went nowhere. The complaint went to the American Arbitration Association, to an independent arbitrator, for fact-finding and recommendation. Teachers testified. Administrators testified. Evidence was introduced. And the proceedings dragged on.
Two years later, the arbitrator issued her report. (published in the NY Times, open the document, it’s 9 pages). Her reference to tape-recordings of the AP were especially compelling. She found that there had been harassment, had been intimidation by the AP. She found that the principal was aware, but had not intervened. And she made a series of recommendations.
For two years the teachers had been waiting. Some retired prematurely. Others transferred. Or moved to schools out of the system. And for two years, through DoE excuses and delays and foot-dragging they waited.
And in two days the DoE rejected the facts. In two days the DoE rejected the recommendations. In two days the DoE showed us, again, that it knows how to adhere to the letter while doing violence to the spirit of our agreements.
High School matching – still lousy
In New York City, 8th graders choose a high school. Um. They choose 12 high schools.
There are parts of the City where there are 12 nearby good options. But, strange, not every good option is good for every kid. And there are parts of the City (like most of the Bronx) where a kid is lucky to have a couple of nearby good options.
And then there are 19 schools that the DoE is trying to close, and tried to stop from getting freshmen next year. Even now, even after the NY State Supreme Court stopped them from closing those schools, they are still doing everything can to keep freshmen out. They make the next round confusing, with multiple choices. They persist in labeling the schools “failing schools.” ** They don’t want kids in them.
And the results citywide? One in four students did not get one of their top 3 choices. This includes almost seven thousand who got no choice at all. (Out of 12! How do you manage that??) And I don’t know how the DoE is screwing with the stats as they relate to the 19 no-longer-to-be-closed schools.
Having some choices might be nice. But in of NYC, school choice has been an excuse to target neighborhood schools, community schools – to starve them of resources, overcrowd them, and (try to) close them down. Where is the default option? They’ve intentionally destroyed it. And replaced it with? In parts of the City, there are options. But in much of the Bronx, kids are faced with an array of Nadelstern-failure academies. And the options are lousy in parts of other boroughs, as well. And in more middle class areas of other outer boroughs? There are still, essentially, large and medium-sized zoned high schools. Poor kids get “special” treatment.
New year, similar story.
2007 – Mismatch
2009 – taking pride in failure
** Additionally, after a recent State Supreme Court ruling halted the City’s plans to phase out 19 failing schools, the Department ran a match process for students who listed one of the schools originally slated for phase-out on their initial high school application.
New Action on the End of the Rubber Rooms
Good agreement. We should be vigilant for DoE cheating and abuse.
Pretty simple, right? But of the UFT bloggers I’ve read, only one other (Chaz) got it right. (We don’t agree 100%, but at least we are on the same page). I thought it would be obvious. I’m a little disappointed.
The Boogeymen vs The Jose
(Vilson)
First time I posted this, I completely dropped the link. Here goes, again:
The boogey men use words like “accountability” and “executive decision” to siphon monies to third-party vendors and call the “support” an in-kind trade of thousands of dollars. The boogey men make up a set of neologisms to describe archaic and corporatist ideas in the hopes of pushing ideas that make no sense for the reality of millions of students across the nation. They’ll make unfair comparisons to other countries who’ve limited their educational opportunities to a certain sect of their population and boil their decisions down to “biology.” They’ll move the cursors on their graphs and charts just to make gains look greater than they actually are. just before election time.)
Writing Recommendations
This week I had two juniors ask for college recs for next year. I’m glad they asked early (I told them what artifacts and documents I wanted from them). And it made me think a bit about one of the advantages of working in a (well-functioning) small school, with stable staff.
“In a small school the adults get to know the kids.” In high-turnover small schools, this does not happen.
Usually I teach freshmen and one senior class. But I was tired of the little kids (in high school math, everyone thinks “Ooh, calc!” or “Aah, Precalc!” “those must be challenging to teach.” They are wrong. They should be saying “Ouch, freshmen! They are a LOT of work”) so I asked to rotate to upper grades this year. And, if I’m lucky, next. (one year I’ll go back to the little kiddies. But I needed the break)
Anyhow, I teach most of the juniors, and I taught the entire grade when they were freshmen. Which means I can write about growth over time. And that is a huge advantage for a recommendation. What can I pick from? Work habits? Enthusiasm? Growth? Native ability? I can write about kids calming down. Focusing better. If they are not so hot today, I can dwell on their adorable 9th grade self. I can fill in with other positives from around the school.
The mantra is, “in a small school the adults get to know the kids.”
The reality is, in high-turnover small schools, this does not happen. With a revolving door of adults, who knows anyone? (the kids know each other, but beyond that?) And the majority of mini-schools set up over the last eight years or so, faculty turnover is high, and there are not many adults who get to know kids well. There’s a Nadelstern link there, but that’s for another post.
But not every mini-school is high turnover. Mine is extremely low.
So what do I do?
Back in freshman year, I tell all the kids to hang on to good work. Projects. Tests (with stickers!). Anything super hard they did. (I tell them they should do this for all their classes).
And senior year, or in these two cases with I hope more to come, junior year, I ask them to dig out those projects and tests, and to write me a little note about the kinds of stuff they remember doing as freshmen. That’s it. Oh, and I want their more recent work, too. Plus what they are thinking about for college. (place, field, etc)
What do I write?
It falls into a predictable formula. Not because I started with a formula, but it just sort of developed.
Four paragraphs.
- First impression. Emphasize small school. Something specific (to scream to the reader, I really do know the child – this is not a generic recommendation)
- A bit deeper. Some specific strength, with a classroom anecdote or reference to specific work to back it up. Usually some sort of weakness from the freshman class.
- Picture of the student today. Growth (show how the weakness has been addressed). Current level of achievement. Emphasize grades, or personality, or drive, or leadership, or wherever the student’s greatest strength lies.
- Sum up. Recommend. Positive comments, as possible, linking the student’s performance, ability or aptitude with the direction they think they are headed in.
I hope this works. I am not sure. At least I seem not to be doing harm. I do want to help them. It feels like a big responsibility.
As I teacher I devise grading systems that reward (to some extent) effort, since I know greater effort often leads to greater achievement. But Admissions Officers? I doubt they have any idea how much time I put into each rec. I wish they did. I wish they graded for effort.
Rubber Rooms Eliminated!
The UFT just announced that the Rubber Rooms will be eliminated as of September 1.
The agreement adds time lines to the contract. I didn’t take notes, so this is roughly from memory:
- Closing the Rubber Rooms (all of them!) September
- Teachers who are removed from the classroom will be reassigned within their school, or to a DoE office, or, in a few specific cases, to stay at home (1 such case is a charge of theft over $1000)
- It sounded like a slight narrowing in the definition of who will get suspended without pay (need to reread details). No one new added (certain about that).
- 60 day? Am I remembering wrong??? A 60-day enforceable (not like 18 months ago) timeline.
- A 4-week expedited time line. (This is the only loss, and it is not a real loss. The DoE currently NEVER uses the expedited process. Now they will be able to go to the shorter process when they choose – the teacher will not be involved in the decision).
This is the first pure win I have seen as a UFT member. I look for the flaws, the gaps, the secret trap-doors. There ain’t none here.
Joel Klein’s DoE has taken “reassignment” and perverted and twisted it into a fear tactic. If you challenge an out of control principal, they can threaten to send you to the Rubber Room. Point out a contract violation? They can threaten to send you to the Rubber Room. Don’t want to give up your lunch for a meeting, participate in mandatory-voluntary per session…? You get the idea.
And that’s over. No more.
A huge obstacle to rebuilding, or building from scratch, real chapters in the scores of mini-schools – the threat of being rubber roomed – that obstacle is history.
I often say that we should be judged not only on what we do for the average teacher, but on how we protect our weakest and most vulnerable. Our newest teachers (who are covered by this agreement, with or without tenure), our senior teachers, and our targeted teachers. It has been a point of embarrassment that this union has sometimes not looked out for our weakest. But today Michael Mulgrew has delivered for our most vulnerable, and really, for all of us.
UFT Election Results: 2004, 2007, 2010
| Division | Total Votes | |||
| Unity | New Action | ICE/ TJC |
||
| ES | 2004 | 9,757 | 556 | 1,239 |
| 2007 | 6,252 | 562 | 1,337 | |
| 2010 | 7,761 | 978 | 703 | |
| IS/JHS | 2004 | 2,794 | 311 | 422 |
| 2007 | 1,499 | 273 | 444 | |
| 2010 | 1,981 | 421 | 248 | |
| HS | 2004 | 2,893 | 700 | 1,417 |
| 2007 | 2,183 | 521 | 1,524 | |
| 2010 | 2,595 | 774 | 1,369 | |
| Functional | 2004 | 8,464 | 512 | 990 |
| 2007 | 6,464 | 548 | 1,032 | |
| 2010 | 7,337 | 1,175 | 708 | |
| Active | 2004 | 23,908 | 2,079 | 4,068 |
| Subtotal | 2007 | 16,398 | 1,904 | 4,337 |
| 2010 | 19,674 | 3,348 | 3,028 | |
| Retired | 2004 | 18,067 | 1,558 | 872 |
| 2007 | 18,864 | 1,616 | 1,061 | |
| 2010 | 20,744 | 2,234 | 1,037 | |
| 2010 (weighted) | 14,935 | 1,608 | 746 | |
| Total | 2004 | 41,975 | 3,637 | 4,940 |
| 2007 | 35,262 | 3,520 | 5,398 | |
| 2010 | 40,418 | 5,582 | 4,065 | |
| 2010 (weighted) | 34,609 | 4,956 | 3,774 | |
| Division | Percents | |||
| Unity | New Action | ICE/ TJC |
||
| ES | 2004 | 84.5% | 4.8% | 10.7% |
| 2007 | 76.7% | 6.9% | 16.4% | |
| 2010 | 82.2% | 10.4% | 7.4% | |
| IS/JHS | 2004 | 79.2% | 8.8% | 12.0% |
| 2007 | 67.6% | 12.3% | 20.0% | |
| 2010 | 74.8% | 15.9% | 9.4% | |
| HS | 2004 | 57.7% | 14.0% | 28.3% |
| 2007 | 51.6% | 12.3% | 36.0% | |
| 2010 | 54.8% | 16.3% | 28.9% | |
| Functional | 2004 | 84.9% | 5.1% | 9.9% |
| 2007 | 80.4% | 6.8% | 12.8% | |
| 2010 | 79.6% | 12.7% | 7.7% | |
| Active | 2004 | 79.5% | 6.9% | 13.5% |
| Subtotal | 2007 | 72.4% | 8.4% | 19.2% |
| 2010 | 75.5% | 12.9% | 11.6% | |
| Retired | 2004 | 88.1% | 7.6% | 4.3% |
| 2007 | 87.6% | 7.5% | 4.9% | |
| 2010 | 86.4% | 9.3% | 4.3% | |
| 2010 (weighted) | 86.4% | 9.3% | 4.3% | |
| Total | 2004 | 83.0% | 7.2% | 9.8% |
| 2007 | 79.8% | 8.0% | 12.2% | |
| 2010 | 80.7% | 11.1% | 8.1% | |
| 2010 (weighted) | 79.9% | 11.4% | 8.7% |
Numbers include only slate votes.
Why do math scores track poverty?
I am not going to try to answer. But here’s a dramatic slide (I found it at Schools Matter, a pro-Public School website, thanks) –
Click to enlarge.
Note: this is not comparing lots of years.
This is comparing kids by income. The kids get poorer left to right.
funny query re: post-election analysis
Hi Jonathan,
I was wondering: to what do you attribute the 2,000 vote increase New Action received this year?
I don’t get much mail from Gotham School reporters, so I noticed this.
After all the coverage they gave ICE through the elections, I’m surprised not to see anything from GS on the collapse of the ICE vote. This isn’t the first time that GS seems to go quiet on an issue when Norm Scott get’s tongue-tied!
And so much free coverage and space! Regular links to Scott and NYC Educator. Quite a few more to others supporting Eterno. Arthur Goldstein, an ICE Exec Board candidate, wrote no fewer than five feature columns on GS during the elections. True enough, the columns were not about the elections (and some of them were quite good), but Gotham Schools featured no candidates from other caucuses.
When I search for “UFT Election” on their website I find (just using articles from this year):
March 11 Remainders (The UFT election is coming up and Norm says district reps are intimidating the…)
March 18 Remainders (Inside the UFT election: Chaz explains why he’s voting down the ICE ticket with one …)
March 19 Remainders (… who is also a candidate on the ICE ticket for UFT elections, reminds teachers to vote.)
March 24 Remainders (UFT elections are coming soon and in the last few days before break, the …) (this is a link to their own coverage)
March 25 article: As ballots come in, a look at the teachers union elections This is a background piece, saying among other things, that Unity always wins
March 25 article: Teachers union elections: who votes and who cares This is an attempt at an article on turnout. The beginning describes the voting process. The end talks about retiree vote, and active member participation rates, and reads like an attempt to paraphrase Norm Scott explaining the same. The reporter apparently flubbed one word in the last sentence (she wrote “union” when Norm clearly said “leadership”), generating, ironically, condemnation among the ICE crowd including an angry NYC Educator column.
March 26 Remainder (A New Action candidate for a seat on the UFT’s exec board writes about the upcoming election.) (that’s me!)
April 5 article: Teachers union election: a look at caucuses and candidates Another article that looks largely written by Scott. At least New Action gets covered. But GS takes ICE’s pov of New Action as spoiler. At least they didn’t respond to Scott’s request not to call us an opposition – he made a similar request last fall, and that time they complied.
April 6 article: Teachers union election: results in tomorrow Just a neutral update
April 7 article: Teachers union election: the ballot counting begins Ditto
April 7 article: Returns begin to arrive in teachers union election
April 7 article: Michael Mulgrew wins teachers union election in a landslide
But after the results were in? No analysis, no commentary from Gotham Schools.
My prediction? Gotham Schools will have little to say about the election results until ICE figures out how it will spin its ugly loss of votes – almost 1500, dropping from 12.2% to 8.7%
In the meantime, I have some preliminary notes here. And there is an initial New Action reaction over here. And I will be writing more on this blog. Everyone is welcome to read it.
UFT election results – watching the count
I arrived hours after it started, but not much had happened. A dozen observers were watching scores of election workers sort, separate, flatten, roll, separate, did I say sort? fifty thousand or so pieces of paper.
That’s not true. Mostly we did not watch. Just hung around the corridor and the room at the end of the hall. And waited. And waited. And, for some, left. With comings and goings there were at one point or another 2 of us from New Action, looked like a bunch more from Unity, maybe five from ICE? It’s funny that they seemed to take it very seriously, but their partners, TJC, did not send anyone. At the very end, close to 9PM, there were fewer than ten observers, and Ray Frankel who chairs the election committee.
They reported turnout before I arrived. Ballots mailed were 168 thousand, up from 162 thousand in 2007, and 152 thousand in 2004. More importantly, the number returned which had fallen from 54k to 47k, returned to 54k. The percent returning ballots which had fallen from 35.6% to 29.3% rebounded partway, to 32.1%. Turnout is a proxy for interest, and even a small increase in member interest is good for our union. (Think of the story if the number instead of rising 3% had fallen another 3%)
High schools were the first division reporting. New Action/Unity beat ICE/TJC 3369 to 1369. New Action (and obviously I was watching our totals carefully) came in after ICE/TJC (2 caucuses, 1 slate, we would have been 2nd or 3rd out of 4 if each caucus reported its own vote.) Our numbers had improved: from 700 in 2004 we fell to 521 in 2007, and rebounded to 774. ICE/TJC had 1417 in 2004, rose to 1524 in 2007, but slumped to 1369 this time. This was not good news for them, as they had put significant effort into this division. At that point we knew all the winners and losers, as no other races were closely contested, but we didn’t know the margin. As for New Action, surpassing our 2004 percentage was good news, but we still reported the lowest total (ICE/TJC were reported as one slate). And where they doubled our vote in 2004, and tripled it in 2007, they didn’t manage to double us this time.
Little did I know, this would be the worst news of the day.
Middle schools came in. I still don’t know why ICE/TJC did not run anyone for middle school exec board, but there it is. So I was not shocked that their vote fell from 444 to 248, and that we picked up from 273 to 421. They had beaten us in this division in 2004 as well, so I noticed that we came in second. And then I started looking at combined Unity + New Action figures, IOW, Michael Mulgrew’s vote. And he was running even with 2004 in high schools (by per cent) and 3 points up in middle schools. If that pattern held, he could top Weingarten’s high vote total. My colleague from New Action listened. I told a guy from Unity, but he didn’t think so. But I saw the numbers.
(Plus, there was massive waiting time, during which we could really poke at the numbers)
Finally, late, Functionals came in. New Action’s total doubled from 548 to 1175. ICE fell below its 2004 and 2007 marks, from a peak of 1032 down to 708. And by percent, Unity stayed steady (80.4, down to 79.6). We doubled our vote? And we finished second. I nudged someone, Mulgrew’s vote would clearly break 89%
Retirees votes are scaled to keep the division from dominating active members. Unity’s vote increased 2000, but their percentage fell slightly from 87.6 to 86.4. New Action’s vote increased 600, and our percentage increased from 7.5 to 9.3. ICE’s numbers were flat: they lost a few dozen votes from 1061 to 1037. Ironically, this was the only division they did see a sharp drop in.
New Action finished second in the elementary schools as well. In the last two elections we had around 550 votes, this time 978. Unity added 1500 votes, and raised their percent back over 80. And ICE lost 600 votes, from 1337 down to 703. Their percent fell from 16.4 to 7.4.
At the end of the night, New Action had increased votes from 3500 to 5500, passing ICE/TJC which fell from 5400 to just over four thousand. Our percent of the vote (after weighting) climbed from 7.3 in 2004 to 8.0 in 2007 to 11.3 today. Unity’s vote increased by 5000 (unweighted) and their percentage ticked up (from 79.8 to 79.9). But combined, and with the non-slate votes, Mulgrew broke 91%.
– – — — —– ——– ————- —– — — – –
With time there will be deeper analysis. For now, New Action campaigned hard. Our message – critical of Unity when they are wrong, support them when they are right – played well. Having Mulgrew on the ticket was clearly a plus. And having a record to stand on, many years of opposition, and almost a decade of bipartisanship – this combination of support and pushing for tougher stances – this record played well.
For Mulgrew, he has in his months as president emphasized his roots (not only what he says, but how he says it). He has been willing to speak plainly, and to stand up to the DoE and the City. The members rightfully rewarded him.
JD2718 