The First Amendment to the US Constitution addresses our right to freedom of speech. As such, I was happy to see a letter generated by a colleague, South Side High School Principal Carol Burris, on the topic of Principal and Teacher Evaluation (APPR). Carol and Sean Feeney’s letter outlined reasons against the APPR guidelines, and I, as a child of the sixties, found myself swept up in their fervor.
Eventually, I committed my hands to the keyboard and signed the letter. I made sure to include a comment specific to our profession, adding that teachers would not comport themselves unethically in order to acquire a favorable evaluation. A moment later, my name and comment flew into cyberspace, and was listed in the Principals’ Letter database.
In the fall of 2011, discussions on the letter increased in frequency, in school, in meetings, and with friends and colleagues. I never returned to glance at the signatories because I wasn’t particularly interested. I read about Principal Burris and her strong opposition to the newly termed “Teacher Evaluation,” periodically eyeing her posts in The Washington Post and on other forms of media. Emails came sporadically under Sean Feeney’s name, with content frequently urging readers to push others to sign while simultaneously providing numbers of participants. My concern grew on where this particular “train” was headed and where it would ultimately stop.
Slowly, slowly the APPR was rebranded into “Teacher Evaluations.” In our district, Principal Burris told her staff of the mistakes made by NYSUT with regard to the evaluation system. Members grew increasingly anxious with each update. Principals in other buildings within our district simultaneously spread her word in order to garner support of the letter. Newsday got into the act. Washington Post’s The Answer Sheet became the primary forum for vocalization.
Our unit had no need to address APPR when this swirling tornado loomed overhead; rather our principal goal was to determine the impact of the New York State 2% tax cap on our members. But, like an annoying hangnail, the Principal’s Letter continued to crop up. During an executive council meeting, a middle school building representative announced that her principal told her that her union president had signed the letter, so why didn’t she? Annoyed, I responded that I had indeed signed the letter, with a comment. Had my added comment been mentioned in their conversation? No, it had not.
I then wrote to Sean Feeney, inquiring about the status of the comments posted with the signatures. On January 25, he replied, “That is a good point, Viri. Before we went to Albany last month, we prepared a document containing many of the comments. We should expand on this document and post it to the web site. Given that we told folks that only their name, title and location would be made public, we need to make sure that the comments are not readily identifiable. They are worth sharing, however.” A sufficient response? Admittedly yes, since it was their letter, but not one that made me pleased. A visit to their website yielded a handful of responses, all adamant in their support for the letter. My comment was absent.
The push to attend the principals’ February 15 forum at LIU’s Tilles Center was inspiring, particularly when members were offered the opportunity to use the event as part of their professional development hour requirements. The PD decision was certainly an administrative call, but I do wish that a similar offer were proffered when a rally to save public education was hosted at nearby Hofstra University last spring.
On February 16, Carol Burris sent the following email to LIU forum panelists and South Side High School teachers: “They settled. Cuomo got his 40%. The commissioner got the authority to say that the local plan is not rigorous enough. If I were a NYSUT member, I would not be pleased.”
As a proud NYSUT member, I knew that we would be hearing from our leadership shortly with the facts that made the settlement a good one.
Later that day she wrote, “I am totally perplexed by NYSUTs [SIC] praise for this agreement. Know that I will continue to do all that I can and then some, and I am sure that I am speaking for Sean and others. They would like nothing more than'to turn the page'. Last night Regent Tilles conveyed a personal message from John King to me. It was "tell Carol to take the 10% of her energy that she is putting into opposing APPR and now put it into promoting the rest of the reform agenda". Really? Well you all know me well enough to know that means I 'double down' :)” Seeing the principal’s relentless responses and use of catch-phrases such as “double-down” yielded a passion to make a point, but simultaneously created a frightened and anxious atmosphere within our educational community.
More emails poured out courtesy of Principal Burris, highly critical of NYSUT, as indicated in this letter, sent on February 19: “Dear colleagues, Sorry to intrude on vacation. The new principal and teacher eval system that our dear friends at NYSUT and SED negotiated is by far the worst ever. King gets to approve and overrule our plans, we do not do evals till Sept when we have the scores, and the point system for the categories is awful. You can be effective, effective and effective in all three and be ineffective overall. I write about it here…If you are one of the few on Long Island who have not signed on, please do so.
thanks and enjoy the vacation,
Carol”
The spin grew steadily, through a well-implemented approach. But, where was the tone of the original letter, to rally support through educators…calm, rational, generally non-confrontational educators? What had become of the group’s initial intent? Was it to show voice on a common concern or had it morphed into a new battle cry, with teachers’ lives at stake? And where, oh where was mention of the principals’ evaluative component?
What had been a point of reference in the summer now became a vehicle for ego and anti-union sentiment.
Ultimately, I admitted my mistake in originally registering with the Principals’ Letter database. I wrote to Sean Feeney, requesting removal from the signature roster. What could have been an attempt to cooperatively work with educators of all levels had evolved into a mess that could well hurt our teachers.
Consider my story. If you find that you, too, have fallen victim and question the purpose of this misleading and potentially damaging product, request removal as a signer, too.
