Doubletalk

That's what you'll find in the Daily News, where hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson is once again sharing his expertise with us, the bootless and unhorsed. At a time when working people in this country are losing their jobs, their homes, and living hand to mouth, Mr. Tilson suggests fewer options for them is the way to go.

Naturally, it's those goshdarn unions again. If only working people would stop demanding pay, demanding rights, and demanding benefits, we'd have a utopia. The specific problem today, according to Mr. Tilson, is that it's simply too hard to fire teachers.

Mr. Tilson gives the UFT Charter School as an example. He praises the UFT for having opened it, but laments the fact that a teacher grieved being fired, and was reinstated. He hopes the UFT will thus learn the folly of protecting working people. And Mr. Tilson certainly puts his money where his mouth is, investing heavily in companies like Wal-Mart and McDonald's, which have rich histories of exploitation. Mr. Tilson muses that government should follow in the footsteps of his highly profitable investments:

...I do hope that everyone involved takes the opportunity to learn a critical lesson about what makes charters - and, indeed, all public schools - successful: that principals need the authority to manage their schools, especially the ability to hire and fire all staff. At times, this can lead to conflict with teachers' "rights" tokeep their jobs, but in such cases, it's the manager's job - and should be his or her right, within certain boundaries - to make a decision and stand by it.

A key difference between Mr. Tilson's outlook and mine, I suppose, is his utter disregard for facts in evidence. Perhaps Mr. Tilson is simply unaware that all public schools in nearby Nassau County are unionized, and that all teachers here are also subject to state tenure laws. Perhaps Mr. Tilson is unaware that, unlike the city, existing tenure laws are actually enforced here. More likely, he consciously chooses to ignore these facts, as does the Daily News.

Mr. Tilson goes on to cite Green Dot as an example of a school with a more reasonable contract. Here, he's got some support from the UFT aristocracy. But neither Mr. Tilson nor libelous Leo Casey has been able to provide a single example of the Green Dot contract protecting a teacher. In fact, since Green Dot proudly rejects both tenure and seniority rights, I've yet to hear a single example of their "just cause" clause ever having been exercised. Doubtless Mr. Tilson delights in a contracts where working people can be discharged "just cause" it suits the administration's whims.

Actually, what makes good schools successful is not a principal's option to fire whomever he pleases. In fact, it is these very principals who've been routinely assigning tenure to anyone with a pulse. And while Chancellor Klein can complain from now till doomsday about tenure regulations, existing rules work much better in schools where they're actually enforced. Would Mr. Klein do better with better principals? Perhaps. But his track record makes it doubtful he has the remotest notion what a good principal is.

Mr. Tilson is certainly free to admire the Wal-Mart/ McDonald's model. But he's sorely mistaken about what constitutes a good school. Good teachers, reasonable class sizes, and decent facilities, not "reforms," make up the recipe. It's tough for principals, however good they may be, to rise above a lack of ingredients.

Endless work for little reward may have pleased feudal lords, but working people today need more, not fewer options. And it behooves us not to degrade the job of teaching, but to improve the jobs of working people everywhere.

Our children deserve a future with options well beyond those of simply enriching the likes of Mr. Tilson.

Thanks to Schoolgal

Freedom of the Press (and Zit Cream)

Personally, I'm all for it. In fact, I often wish reporters would wake up and take advantage of it.

For example, if you were visiting from another planet, and watched recent Democratic debates, you'd think that the biggest issue facing the voters was flag lapel pins. You'd think, like Charlie Gibson apparently does, that a typical middle class income was 200 thousand dollars a year. And of course, since inflation is apparently not an issue in this country (nor is health care, the mortgage crisis, the war in Iraq, or disappearing jobs), Charlie, out of touch as he is, may soon be right.

Closer to home, we see our local press napping rather than thinking. The coverage of the city's bombastic claims about tenure is a good example. Let's give an entirely hypothetical scenario and say we have three dermatological patients--Nassau, Suffolk, and Joel. Each of them suffers from zits. The dermatologist prescribes a zit cream that costs a hundred bucks. Nassau and Suffolk use the cream and the zits clear up. Joel says the price is too high and refuses to buy it. Six years later, his zit is bigger than his head.

Joel then calls a news conference to declare the zit cream, the one he's never used, is totally inadequate. The press prominently covers the news conference, and rails against the zit cream. Joel then demands untested surgery for any future zits he may get, and the local op-ed pages applaud him. They deplore the hypothetical governor, whom we'll call David Paterson, for opposing the untested surgery. And no one asks or wonders why Joel didn't or shouldn't try the zit cream.

Let's get out of our entirely hypothetical scenario, and take another look at a more recent event, to wit, the hugely hyped opening of Eva Moskowitz' new school. From what I can glean, 3,600 kids applied for 600 openings. It was a huge event, attended by Joel Klein and Governor David Paterson. The press, of course was there, and pronounced in articles and op-eds how wonderful and marvelous it was.

Now let's say, for the sake of argument, their apparent assumptions are correct--that the schools in Harlem are so awful that children need desperately to escape. Let's say that Ms. Moskowitz' school, which hasn't even opened yet, is a fantastic alternative.

This would clearly suggest that Chancellor Klein has failed over 80% of the applicants to the Moskowitz Academy. It also means he's failed all the other residents of the community, the ones who didn't apply. It also begs this question--what on earth has he done to fix those apparently awful schools he's stuck these folks with? Aside from cutting their budgets, it's tough to say.

And maybe NYC parents need consistently good schools, rather than a highly-rated PR game show in which the odds are strongly stacked against them.

Why do none of these things cross the minds of our crack press corps? Maybe it's too much Sominex.

Some People Look For the Quickest Way Out

Some don't read between the lines. Others just read very selectively.

I specifically told Kevin Carey of The Quick and the Ed that the city has been negligent in enforcing existing tenure rules for over thirty years, that neighboring districts do things much differently, and that it was entirely within the city's discretion to do as its neighbors. I'm disappointed he chose to ignore that, using my post on bad teachers to bolster the entirely hollow argument that Chancellor Klein needs more ammunition to enforce tenure.

Chancellor Klein can enforce existing rules today, and could have done so the day he walked in, but opted not to. In fact, despite all his bluster about tenure and quality teachers, Mr. Klein went to Albany where he successfully lobbied for the right to hire and retain thousands of teachers who'd failed a basic competency test, often dozens of times. For Mr. Klein to now try to place the onus on the UFT for the teachers he himself hired and granted tenure is the height of hypocrisy.

If he chooses not to do his job, it's on him. And the truth is both he and his predecessors have neglected it for decades. Shame on the chancellor for obfuscating by demanding new tools while pointedly ignoring those at his disposal. It's disappointing his defenders fail to see the obvious--that this city, its frequent finger-pointing notwithstanding, was and is indifferent to how it treats kids. Rampant and unconscionable overcrowding is just one little extra way Tweed expresses its priorities.

My kids and I work every day half in a vermin-infested closet and the other half in a dilapidated trailer. This would not happen in my home district, and not a single one of the teachers I described would be hired in my home district. Furthermore, where I live, if some blitheringly incompetent administrator were to neglect the Prozac and hire one of these people by mistake, the mistake would be corrected long, long before any discussions about tenure ensued (I'd refrain from placing any bets on that administrator's tenure either).

Those who accept Chancellor Klein's public position on tenure either don't know what goes on in Mr. Bloomberg's New York or don't care to find out.

Mike and Joel Spin and Lose

Fresh on the heels of his congestion-pricing plan defeat, the State Legislature has handed Mayor Moneybags a rejection of his plan to award tenure based on test scores. The Mayor's educational mouthpiece, Chancellor Joel Klein, had this to say:

"I am dismayed that the state Legislature would even consider tying the hands of principals and school districts as they decide who gets lifetime job security," Klein said.

It's odd that this Chancellor, who regularly U-rates tenured teachers and brings them to 3020 hearings, considers tenure "lifetime job security." It's certainly better than nothing, which is what most working people get in the US of A. Still, even without using test scores, neighboring districts deny tenure as a matter of course. While Mayor Moneybags and his faithful chancellor can harumph and complain, it's certainly not the UFT's fault that this city has chosen to grant tenure to anyone with a pulse, up to and including this administration.

While it's an ingrained habit of Mike "Accountability" Bloomberg to blame working teachers for everything up to and including the weather, it's the job of administration to select and hire teachers. It's their job to determine who does and does not get tenure, and it's hard for anyone to deny they've been remiss for over thirty years.

Bloomberg talks a big game on teacher quality. But with all his talk about "accountability," he ought to step up and take some responsibility. The UFT neither hires teachers nor grants tenure. It's their job to protect those selected by the city.

And it's not our fault if the mayor has failed to do his job.

Thanks to Sol Bellel for the picture

The Tenure Question

I recently wrote about a colleague who told me a change in venue brought his Regents passing rate from about 30% to a much more respectable 90%. He claims he did not at all change his teaching methods, but his new audience was simply much more receptive. Was he a bad teacher at the previous locale? You could perhaps conclude that, but his 32% passing rate was the highest in his old school.

Do his new passing rates make him a great teacher? Not according to him. He claims to be the same teacher he was then, albeit a little older.

Now NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein is fighting tooth and nail for the right to be able to grant or deny tenure on the basis of test scores. How do you do that fairly when a simple relocation produces such a radical change in results?

Shall we trust in the good graces of this chancellor? Isn't he the same guy who unilaterally violated the contract via blanket denial of sabbaticals (till the UFT dragged him to court and won)? Isn't he the same guy who's failed to deliver any substantive class size reduction? Isn't he the same guy who went to Albany in order to preserve his right to hire and retain thousands of teachers who'd failed basic competency tests? Is that the sort of person you want to judge teacher quality?

Isn't this the same guy who instituted three separate reorganizations and failed to make any significant improvement in scores he couldn't manipulate? And he now wishes to judge others on a standard he himself has abjectly failed?

Let's simply forget about Chancellor Klein's various double-standards for a moment and examine the situation. According to the DoE, only 1 percent of teachers are denied tenure after three years (and who knows how many get it after its extended?). Whose fault is that?

The overwhelming majority of teachers I know are competent, at the very least. But I've seen some teachers who'd never have landed a Burger King gig, due to the more rigorous interview process. Such teachers would never have been hired in Long Island schools. Whose fault is that?

Tenure can and should be enforced. If the city fails to identify those who don't deserve it, that's plainly the city's fault. If the city chooses to hire based on college credits, or the ability to meet whatever reduced standard it's negotiated with Albany, that's the city's fault too. If the city chooses to hire through bus ads, 800 numbers, intergalactic recruitment schemes, or the capacity to draw breath, that's on them as well.

There was a time when city requirements were higher than those of the state. In fact, I had to take city tests and face the Board of Examiners to get two different city licenses, and that was no walk in the park. Want to "experiment" with "reforms?" Why not try paying the highest salary in the area, rather than the lowest, and utilizing the highest standards, rather than the lowest? Maybe that would work. Who knows? After all, it's just an experiment.

I'm not UFT President Randi Weingarten's biggest fan, not by any means. But tenure issues are not her fault--they're strictly the city's own doing. Tenure laws are enforced in Long Island--I know many teachers who've failed to get it, and every one of them now works for New York City. I can't really attest to their quality, or lack thereof. The obviously bad teachers I know would never have been hired on the island (let alone Taco Bell).

Personally, I think Chancellor Klein would be lost without bad teachers, and despite all his posturing and bluster, will keep them on forever, sending random others to the rubber room as long as possible. After all, without bad teachers, who in the world would he and the mayor blame for their chronic inability to substantively improve this system?

Thanks to Schoolgal

Don't Blame Tenure

by Schoolgal

Interesting how some teachers feel that merit pay and the end of tenure will solve problems.

We "older" teachers had similar experiences, but not on the same level you guys do. Since NCLB, the system and union has drastically changed. Yes we still had horrible administrators and lazy teachers, but we had each other. We also didn't have the mandates that make it impossible to teach and be creative.

Protections in this field are more important than ever. I made it my business to articulate to the administration how I felt about the PD and non-collaboration. Had it not been for tenure, I'd have been out the door.

The union gave away one of the better hiring practices we ever had, the SBO selection, and they took away the right to grieve letters. Instead of using our old extended 50-minute Mondays for pure collaboration, we were forced to listen to stupidity that was far removed from actual teaching. I was on a Professional Development Committee, but my principal would not attend the meetings or listen to our suggestions. The other members were afraid to grieve even though there was a directive from then Deputy Chancellor Farina to develop such a committee. So, the committee disbanded. Again, had our union been stronger, teachers would have supported our efforts. Yet our union is teaming with a charter school that allows for collaboration, input, discipline and real parent involvement. These issues should have been the focus of our contracts; not the givebacks.

I really believe when teachers are empowered, even the so-called lazy ones will once again be enticed to do a better job. No teacher or any employee wants a U rating. So don't blame tenure for the failure of our system. Many schools work because they have innovative and respectful leadership.

Merit pay would also be a disaster because it assumes all children have the same learning styles and progress rates. They don't. Even the new school report card system has given some of the most violent schools As while the best in the city got Bs and Cs. It seems that students who already achieve 4s cannot progress any higher, so the school grade suffers. My school not only got an A, but had the highest raw score. Believe me, it didn't deserve it. The teachers were so afraid that the principal would retaliate that they answered positively on all survey questions.

Yes, there are teachers who decide to stay with the job even though they hate it because of their love for the kids. But that makes it sound like anyone who wants to explore any new options are selfish. I left teaching for a few years because I felt confined. I tried the business world, but I missed teaching. And when I returned (back in the 80s) I was determined to do a great job. I was given a "bottom class". The first thing I did was put my students in groups rather than in rows. All the other teachers still had them in rows. I was the first to use the cooperative model and incorporate journal writing (This was before Lucy came to town). The principal let me do whatever I wanted because she knew I was good. Some teachers, and not all of them "older" did not appreciate my style. But the students and parents liked it. The kids were excited to learn.

Now, I find it hard to incorporate those styles because the ELA is around the corner and the pressure is incredible. The pressure was also there when I started teaching, but the tests were given in April and May. By that time, the students were ready and they improved.

I also know other great teachers who left teaching and are now happier. Personal happiness is very important. And those that make the move away from teaching are not abandoning their students. Others will take their place. One thing I learned from all my years teaching is that no matter how good you are, you are expendable. Look at how many of our best teachers are being driven out of the system because of their age or because they disagreed publicly with the system.

The idea of merit pay or loss of tenure improving this or any school system is, at best, simplistic. The changes must go to the heart of the failure, and to do that many highly-placed people would be out of a job,

Who Needs Tenure?

Well, it appears Andrew Trees does. By all accounts a fine teacher, Mr. Trees has just been fired from the prestigious Horace Mann Academy after having released a satirical novel about "Academy X." It appears Mr. Trees is adored by his students, and he's received positive performance reviews. Still, the administration didn't like his book and Mr. Trees, though he is filing a lawsuit, appears to have little recourse:

David Reis, who specializes in employment law for Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, a San Francisco-based firm, said the language quoted from the faculty handbook about job protection might be sufficiently vague to allow the school to defend Mr. Trees’s dismissal. “The easiest argument for the school is to say the book and the firing are completely unrelated, that the guy just wasn’t a good teacher and we have evidence of that,” Mr. Reis said. “Or they can say there’s nothing to prohibit us from firing someone who writes things about us that we don’t like.”

Of course, tenure would have precluded Mr. Trees' problem entirely. But there are other implications here. Would Mr. Trees have received positive evaluations if the administration had known he was working on this novel? Wouldn't the people who fired him for it have found fault with him whether or not there was any?

When Klein and Bloomberg start rattling swords about getting rid of bad teachers, I have similar apprehensions. Frankly, I have no sympathy for incompetent teachers. On the other hand, I think the administration adores bad teachers. They provide a handy scapegoat, and according to the Times, this administration sorely needs one.

Is it beneath the integrity of this administration to fire those who criticize them? When Bloomberg faced opposition on one of his school boards a few years back, he simply fired two dissenting members. That's one of the perks of mayoral control, apparently.

Would they fire you because you complain there are 4600 kids in a building designed for 1800? Would they fire you for speaking to the press? Would they fire you for complaining about the ice on the floor that your students keep slipping on? Would they fire you for raising a fuss when they assigned your class to an auditorium with 15 other classes? For raising a fuss when they assigned you to teach in a bathroom?

You betcha they would, if you gave 'em half a chance,

Fair's Fair

Mayor Bloomberg's plans include equitable funding--every kid in NYC will get X dollars and no more. The X is significant, because veteran teachers used to draw more money to schools. No more of that.

Now, it appears they'll draw the same amount of money, but principals will have to pay them twice as much. If I'm wrong about this, I'd love to be corrected, so feel free if you know something I don't. But if this is correct, guess who's joining the big ATR party?

Meanwhile, principals say it's hard to get rid of bad teachers. That's not exactly news, though.

"If you give a teacher a U, it's hard to get them out of your school," said one Manhattan middle-school principal.

"So you offer them a satisfactory rating if they'll leave. It happens all the time."

Why is it happening now that principals no longer need to accept transfers? Is it our fault if they choose to lie to one another?

I don't have a problem with denying tenure to incompetent teachers. I don't have a problem with declining to hire them in the first place.

But neither I nor the UFT has any say whatsoever in who gets hired or who gets tenure. It's odd how that fact is never, ever mentioned by a city reporter or columnist.

Thanks to Schoolgal