Cracking down on opt-out movement may cost UFT

The United Federation of Teachers has long had a reputation as one of New York City’s most militant and well-organized unions. But when it comes to the opt-out movement – the growing number of city and suburban teachers and parents who have their students and children sit out many statewide tests – the absence of union leadership in providing support to this vocal faction of its membership is troubling.

The New York Times reported on Friday that the city’s Department of Education is actively discouraging teachers from speaking out against testing, deeming it a “political statement.” The article details how, earlier this month, teachers at a public school in Lower Manhattan emailed parents their discontent with statewide tests. Ten days after those emails were sent, those same teachers did not attend a PTA meeting, apparently concerned that they didn’t feel safe to speak out against testing, and, somewhat shockingly, “their union had informed them that their email could be considered insubordination.”

This line stuck out to me for several reasons, but mainly that it was a perfect demonstration of the UFT only serving its membership so long as they toed the company line. And under UFT President Michael Mulgrew, the company line can be summed up this way: We don’t like testing, but only so far as it is used as a tool to evaluate our members.

The mission behind the MORE (Movement of Rank and File Educators) faction of the UFT and the driving force behind the opt-out movement in the city is that testing narrows their curriculum, forcing teachers to “teach to the test,” and stripping educators of their autonomy. This is not a movement borne out of self-preservation, but rather out of distaste for a curriculum that discourages students. (For a very thorough breakdown of the warring factions within the UFT over testing, read John Antush’s excellent summary in the Monthly Review.)

That disconnect between UFT membership and leadership appears to extend all the way up the ladder in New York’s education apparatus. Earlier this week, Betty Rosa, the newly elected chancellor of the state Board of Regents and the state’s highest education official, earlier this week appeared to sympathize with the opt-out movement.

“If I was a parent and I was not on the Board of Regents, I would opt out at this time,” Rosa said on Monday.

And New York State United Teachers President Karen Magee also publicly supported the opt-out movement, launching a robocall campaign informing parents of their opt-out rights. As a result, school principals and teachers outside of the five boroughs are empowered to speak out against testing.

There are obvious reasons for why Mulgrew is hesitant to buck city Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña and Mayor Bill de Blasio. The mayor is one year away from his re-election campaign, and it would be bad politics for Mulgrew to openly support the MORE faction of his membership, especially after winning a very favorable contract from the de Blasio administration, including retroactive raises for teachers dating back to 2009.

But Mulgrew’s lack of support for his own membership could come back to bite him. Jia Lee, a special education teacher who has vocally opposed testing since 2014, is running against Mulgrew for president this year, supported by the MORE faction. It bears watching whether Mulgrew can solidify his membership support enough to suppress the fast-growing opt-out movement.