Log in  |  Search

Teachers for Stringer

Elected officials don’t often clearly pick sides — they usually hang somewhere in the middle. However, the City Councilperson who chairs the Education Committee, Eva Moskowitz, had decided to assault the union during several education hearings. The councilperson has chosen to run for Manhattan Borough President – an unusual position. Once upon a time the Borough President served on the Board of Estimate, a powerful body that controlled the budget. The revised City Charter abolished the Board of Estimate but retained the position of Borough President. The position has been reduced to a bully pulpit, and perhaps a launching pad for a future run for office, maybe mayor.

An old axiom is: reward your friends and punish your enemies. Eva Moskowitz has chosen to be our enemy, and the enemy of classroom educators. The UFT carefully reviewed the herd of candidates seeking to replace C. Virginia Fields, who opted to run for mayor and endorsed Scott Stringer. He is a friend and a forceful advocate. In a lackluster State Assembly he vigorously supported a reform that forced Assembly folk to be present when they vote! In a body were independent voices are the exception Scott is one of those few voices. He’ll be an excellent Borough President.

Just as important as rewarding your friends is holding your enemies accountable. Moskowitz must be held accountable for attacking the union in the midst of a life or death struggle – and she will be with our votes and with our advocacy. If politicians choose to attack the union, to attack teachers and our schools they must suffer the consequences.

If she’s the darling of the right wing anti-union press in NYC then, in my view, she’s definitely on the wrong side for working people.



  • 1 institutional memory
    · Sep 12, 2005 at 5:59 pm

    Eva has apparently decided that what seems to be working for Mayor Mike will also work for her. Thus, her anti-teacher rhetoric. We’ll see just how successful she’s been when the ballots are counted.

  • 2 jesse
    · Sep 12, 2005 at 8:24 pm

    There’s definitely a disconnect here for politicans. We have so many litmus tests in this country, but no one ever has one that says unless you’re working for workers, firefighters or teachers you’re disqualified. It’s as though you can elect someone who goes out of their way to pander to anti-union, anti-good government policies as long as they please the anti-union crowd. I wish I lived in Manhattan so that I could get a vote.

  • 3 mathped
    · Sep 12, 2005 at 9:04 pm

    Help me understand the logic here. We say we endorse Stringer because he is independent, yet it sounds like we want him because he will do whatever we want. We value independence, yet we want to “punish” someone who has called it as she has seen it in her job. Sometimes we liked what she said, sometimes we didn’t, but it strikes me that we should at least stop pretending we support people because they are independent. Stringer will do whatever we tell him to do, that’s why we support him.

    I’m sorry for ranting here. I have resisted posting for a few days, but this one really bothered me because there were several occasions when Moskowitz was the only person who stepped forward to help my school when we needed it, and she got results. Unfortunately, in the process, she exposed our chapter chair as an incompetent tool who was in cahoots with the administration. But regardless of what the UFT’s endorsement says, I know I will be joining my colleagues in casting my ballot in favor of Eva Moskowitz.

  • 4 mvplab
    · Sep 12, 2005 at 9:56 pm

    Lets put it this way, did you read the transcripts of the Council hearings or read the press reports? She’s a loose cannon, political opportunist who has taken an anti-teacher union stance on so many issues. She may have come through for some schools in her district, but she certainly hasn’t for the rest of them. See the 8/28/2005 NYTimes endorsement of Scott Stringer for more reasons why Eva is wrong for the job.

  • 5 nycparent
    · Sep 12, 2005 at 10:35 pm

    For those who had any doubt that the UFT is completely out of touch with parents, this should erase any lingering questions. Eva Moskowitz is the single best thing that has ever happened to NYC parents. She is the only one who has listened to parent concerns and the only one who gets things done. OOOH but she asked questions about the contract. How outrageous! And by the way, the teachers at my school are in complete agreement ( but too scared to say so publicly). She made a direct and immediate impact to the quality of our school.

  • 6 kombiz
    · Sep 12, 2005 at 10:54 pm

    Out of touch? Hardly!

    The comment section here is completely open, and people from all walks can comment on the on any thread. We’ve got voucher adovacates commenting, Charter School CEO’s, and people who have play voucher advocates and privatizer in real life. We also have a whole range of UFT members comment. We’ve had commenters from Houston advocate charter schools in NYC in the comment section.

    The problem that can arise with some comment sections like this one, are that people come in posing to be something they are not. I’m sure we can all find exception but Stringer has very strong support with Manhattan teachers and other UFT members that I’ve met.

  • 7 nycparent
    · Sep 12, 2005 at 11:36 pm

    All opinions are welcome, correct? Excellent! Then I will continue to post mine and while I don’t purport to represent all parents, I represent myself as a PTA/SLT parent of 2 great kids being under-served in the system. I agree Stringer has great support among teachers and UFT and I was simply pointing out that he does not have the same among parents. As for the bizarre “posing” comment, I’m not sure if that was directed at me but sure seemed like it. Do you know something about me I don’t? Am I due for a big award or something? Do tell and I will change my name to nycparent-extraordinaire!

  • 8 kombiz
    · Sep 12, 2005 at 11:43 pm

    I don’t… I’m pointing out that there are a whole group of people who comment here, there have been a slew of people who’ve signed up to comment tonight. My main fear with threads like this is that they (the comments) have the possibility to be overtaken by specific campaigns. I’m more pointing that out to people reading this comment section than to you specifically.

  • 9 mvplab
    · Sep 12, 2005 at 11:46 pm

    NYCParent is mistaken about Moskowitz Here’s what she really thinks about parents: (From a June 6, 2005 NY Observer piece by Jessica Bruder)
    “Earlier in the week, Ms. Moskowitz had also unveiled a slim yellow volume called The Education Guide for Dummies. The publishers of the actual Dummies series complained, and — in time for the “Kids Only” hearing — the cover was rapidly redesigned, morphing from yellow to blue. The word ‘Dummies’ became ‘Parents.'”

    That’s a new synonym for the rest of us, but I guess not for Moskowitz.

  • 10 nycparent
    · Sep 12, 2005 at 11:54 pm

    now i see what you mean kombiz! :-) Tonight’s postings definitely have a different feel to them.

  • 11 kombiz
    · Sep 13, 2005 at 12:28 am

    Short of having to clarify myself for a third time, I don’t mean anyone who has commented tonight. New readers, and NY Teacher readers discover the site pretty regularly so I expect a lot of different voices.

  • 12 Norm Scott EdNotes
    · Sep 13, 2005 at 8:12 am

    How does a Manhattan Borough race suddenly become the end all and be all for the UFT as the Scott Stringer candidacy is raised as supremo important? I call the “Stop Moscowitz” campaign a red herring designed to distract UFT’ers from the true state of the union. You only had to see UFT officials preening at the special Exec Bd meeting this summer where they bragged that all the 9 candidates – even Eva -showed up for interviews. Read: look how important we still are and not irrelevant politically like so many newspapers are reporting after the 3 failed mayoral endorsements that helped put Bloomberg in power 4 years ago. I call the Scott Stringer string-along more busy work “do-nows” for the membership.
    Norm Scott, Education Notes and ICE

  • 13 Peter Goodman
    · Sep 13, 2005 at 8:15 am

    As a union we fought to elect Schumer and defeat Damato not because “Schumer would do what we told him to do” – he was clearly the better candidate, he understood the needs of schools and teachers, amd Damato chose to run a campaign against our union. If Moscowitz had problems with our contract she could have picked up the phone and called Randi – she chose to “take on the union” as a campaign strategy – we have an obligation to our members to both support and oppose candidates – our support of Stringer and our opposition to Moscowitz is what democratic unions do …

  • 14 WebMachiavelli
    · Sep 18, 2005 at 1:07 am

    I’m a little mystified what exactly has Moskowitz pointed out about your contract that wasn’t basically dead on?

  • 15 firebrand
    · Sep 22, 2005 at 6:47 pm

    I just got a call from some person paid by the Bloomberg party. He had the nerve to ask if he and Bloomberg can count on my vote for mayor. I told him ABSOLUTELY NOT and he hung up. Well he thanked me and hung up.

    I just want to know if anyone else got one of these calls. It showed up on my caller ID as coming from 718 709-0000 and I suspect that the calls I that have been registering as “public interest cm 412 622-7387 are from the Bloomberg camp as well.

    Let’s send him a very personal message guys.