John Merrow says that the laws struck down by the Vergara decision are indefensible.
Teachers get tenure after 18 months, but in most states it takes three or four years.
Seniority, he says, discourages young teachers, who are first fired.
The process of removing an ineffective teacher is far too complex, requiring some 70 steps.
My view: The legislature should promptly remedy these defects in the fairest way possible to assure that it is not easy to fire teachers, but that teachers who face charges get a fair and timely hearing. I agree with Merrow that it should take 3-4 years to get tenure, not 18 months. As to seniority, I defer to the wisdom of David B. Cohen, who explained why seniority matters and how it can be improved.
All that said, the decision did not prove that these laws, whatever their defects, discriminate against minority children.
In a footnote, Merrow notes that California spends less on public education than almost every other state, at least 30% less than the national average. Let us see if Students Matter fights for adequate funding of the state’s public schools. I doubt it.
If we seek to remedy the needs of minority children, abolishing tenure outright is not a logical starting point.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
John Merrow is a hypocrite and is no friend to public education or to public school teachers. He frequently makes the claim that he is above suspicion despite accepting funding from the billionaire boys club of reform. Of course he is. Of course it is just coincidental that pretty much every show he produces and every blog post he writes agrees with the reformers. He did change slightly when he questioned Michelle Rhee (after helping catapult her to fame and fortune) but boy did he back down fast and let that go! No, no influence from his backers, no fear of losing his job or influence if he didn’t let that fish go.
Merrow is fine with teachers being made the scapegoats of society. He is fine with New Orleans closing all public schools and he even made some propaganda to promote their “success.”
Merrow, I would say that your claim to be an education “reporter” is indefensible at this point. You have sold your soul in order to keep your job. Teachers, unlike you, are not to be given the chance to save their jobs. They must be punished, made to pay for the sins of poverty and inept social policy and politicians. They must be made to suffer in order that the 1% be entertained and honored.
Have you sir, at long last, no decency? I guess not.
Chris, you’re so right about Merrow. For a minute, he looked like he might want to expiate his history as a liar, fraud and stooge. Then, apparently, he realized where his bank account got its juice.
Here is the deepest, most honest, and thorough examination I’ve found. Why wouldn’t you listen to MrDaveyD and Jeff Duncan-Andrade elucidate Vergara on hip hop radio instead, while you cook a healthy breakfast?
Davey D is defending real-life justice teachers in Oakland from retaliation and censorship. He really cares about his community, so he calls out the false, salacious narrative about how a phantom army of burnt-out, mean white teachers has somehow been assigned to schools in poor communities, and needs to be mowed down by billionaires
.https://soundcloud.com/mrdaveyd/hkr-jeff-duncan-andrade-on-cali-teacher-tenure-court-ruling
What is going on is akin to the Salem Witch trials. The orchestrated hysterical stereotyping and loss of rational thinking in the attack on teachers is a phenomenon of historical dimensions. So many people are going to be so embarrassed when the consequences of this hysteria become as evident as the consequences of our War on Iraq is now evident for all to see!
I agree with both Chris and Phil…this war on teachers is at the point of mass hysteria. The mantra that all teachers are ineffective and all public schools are failing has been implanted in the American public’s psyche by the PR flacks who work for the privatizers, like Merrow and Rick Berman. No NPR or public TV personalities are pure/neutral reporters..
This has been taking place in media for almost two decades, and now it is the well established watchword for those whose motives are clearly to take over the universal education system for profit.
Merrow, however, points to three issues that California must address. Jerry Brown is up for re-election, and it is predicted that he will be a shoo-in….but he too relies on the donations of Broad, Gates, et al. There is major legislation in the hopper now that would change, perhaps rectify, the tenure rules, and also due process. But no one escapes the stigma of taking money from these oligarchs.
These are good points he makes. I’m glad to see it. If protections border on ridiculous, it brings the profession down. It reminds me of the tort awards I’ve read about in Alabama. . .millions of dollars for having a finger smashed type thing.
So even if the case was ridiculous the way it was brought about, maybe the bright side for California is some house-keeping has occurred and future legislators can take it from there.
Except that other states will take this decision and run with it and other teachers will be fed to the wolves. I can guarantee that my state will have a bill this upcoming January session that will take away the few tiny protections teachers have left. I don’t see a bright side.
Fair enough.
And media won’t help, I am sure.
It’s a question of timing. Vergara does away with protections for all teachers so tinkering with what the court says is unconstitutional is pointless. It’s like rearranging the furniture when your house is on fire.
Typical teacher-hating crap. You don’t even know what the due process “protections” are or why they exist.
Hint: They are SOP in public employment and not unique to teachers.
I am a teacher. Therefore, I do not hate teachers.
I believe in looking at all sides of an argument, I live in a right to work state, I find the details highlighted in this article to be interesting and certainly do not sound like SOP.
But if it makes you feel better to say that, then go ahead.
“the tort awards I’ve read about in Alabama. . .millions of dollars for having a finger smashed type thing.”
Please cite sources for that nonsense.
Before you assert that it is nonsense, you should find out if there are sources.
Click to access 54.pdf
And in that article it states that “multimillion dollar punitive damage awards are very rare” for the country as a whole.
And that article is talking about Alabama in the 1980-90s. A tad outdated at this point.
“Some house-keeping” includes censorship, retaliation and firing real, live minority teachers in places like Oakland and East LA. The generalized blandness of such an attack doesn’t insulate it from criticism.
“It reminds me of … I’ve read about in Alabama. . . type thing.”
This comment-structure is a classic example of how purposefully ignorant propaganda is constructed.
What’s the reality of last in first out? Typically, aren’t there enought retirements to offset most unplanned spikes in budget reduction and reduction of force?
Second, why wouldn’t a district layoff teachers and offer them first in line at automatic rehire? Isn’t that the way the airlines work?
In your first paragraph, are you just asking how often layoffs happen? If so, I think it’s actually a good question. It seems to me that districts generally prefer to reduce headcount through “attrition,” i.e. by replacing less than 100% of the number of teachers who retire or quit.
Also, is the layoff scenario the only scenario in which LIFO comes into play? Do districts that have LIFO rules also apply them to transfer decisions, for example?
My district used LIFO for involuntary transfer decisions as well as layoffs. In 2009 the ENTIRE contingent of first year teachers was laid off in my district. LIFO was made illegal in Utah in 2010.
Lots of districts use LIFO when there are “overages” when a position is eliminated at a particular school. In my old school district, “overaged” teachers got first dibs on available jobs, but the person who had the most years in would get a position.
I don’t think my old district ever did a district-wide RIF. The only people who were laid off were in temporary positions, at least when I was there, but the district changed that in the past year or two to treat those teachers like “overaged” teachers, which is fair.
In LAUSD we’ve had a lot of layoffs over the last 5 years. We don’t have anyone left with less than 10 years of experience at my school.
The irony is the legislature reduced the probationary period from 3 years to 2 about 7 years ago to because they couldn’t give us more money.
There really are not that many LIFO issues. In the last 30 years, CA has seen 3: one in the 90s, and two back to back that occurred recently.
While they do pop up every 15 to 20 years or so, they are not a common occurrence in schools.
Very little will be fixed by fixing LIFO.
I guess it depends on where you are. I was involuntarily transferred from a school I loved to a school I detested because of LIFO. The district wouldn’t redraw the boundaries, so the school I loved was shrinking, but the other school was bursting at the seams. The teacher teaching social studies above me was an older teacher who, until that very school year, was not even certified in social studies. He got “highly qualified” just before the transfer came about, or he would have been transferred first. Highly Qualified trumps LIFO.
“Highly Qualified” would mean that your district doesn’t follow LIFO. It means that your district uses a system where LIFO is taken in account AND so are other qualitative factors regarding teacher performance.
I know of no district in CA that does this. What district are you in?
It’s about gutting the pension system by trying to force senior teaches out and by making the probationary period long enough for principals to string teachers along until they are booted right before they get pension vesting.
The Vergara decision is a complete and total travesty.
I’m not in California. I’m in Utah. The question was in general, so I answered. Sorry that I was confusing.
Actually, highly qualified does trump LIFO in California, unless the local association argues otherwise and the arbitrator sides with them. I know this because this is precisely what happened to me a few years ago when I was RIFed a few years ago and my association’s position was that, if they had seniority, multiple subject credential holders with “supplementals” should bump single subject credential holders at the middle school. Even though I had single subject credentials in English and social sciences, most of the multiple subject holders had English supplementals since most college graduates have taken enough English classes to qualify for the supplemental authorization.
I would had no problem being RIFed in favor of another single subject credential holder with more seniority, but it did gall me to lose my job in a single subject credential area to someone without equivalent credentialing or education.
SoCal,
You do have a point. The middle schools/junior highs had trouble with NCLB “highly qualified” label.
LIFO is done in the private sector. The Vergara case is a complete and total fraud.
We want to encourage young teachers …
But not too much …
I choked too on the illogic of wanting to encourage young teachers while telling those who have paid their dues and earned their stripes to drop dead.
Doesn’t the highly vaunted military system all around the world use a similar ranking system?
Doesn’t the federal government, and most (if not all) state and local governments use a similar ranking system?
Don’t many companies still reward longevity and experience, not to mention further education and professional development, along with offering higher salaries to those with the most knowledge and ability to do their jobs?
Don’t most professions, including law, medicine, accounting, and pro sports, come to mind, have seniority systems in place for their employees?
Why is it evil and wrong for teaches but perfectly natural and fine for everyone else?
“Don’t most professions, including law, medicine, accounting, and pro sports, come to mind, have seniority systems in place for their employees?”
I can assure you that the answer for the legal profession is no, or perhaps “you have got to be freaking kidding me.”
Really, flerp!? So a senior surgeon at a hospital has no preference over a newly minted doctor? The star quarterback on an NFL team has no rights over the newly drafted and untried roomy? The senior partner is a law farm has no more rights than the newly hired lawyer who just passed the bar? An accountant with a CPA is on equal employment footing with a recent college grad?
That’s fascinating indeed. I know the military still has their system because my brother in law achieved the rank of staff sergeant and then retired. He certainly had more employment rights and protections than a newly signed recruit.
Law firm partners aren’t employees, they’re owners.
You are avoiding my direct comparison to teaching. Principals and district personnel are not teachers, either. The point is that our society accepts, promotes, and celebrates seniority and experience pretty much everywhere yet it is portrayed as an indefensible evil when teachers benefit from it, even though it is a benefit offered by management and not something teachers or the evil unions created or maintained.
I was trying to answer your question about the legal profession.
As to your larger point, I’m not sure what the specific question is, but I will say that I think you’re using “seniority” in a very vague and informal way that has limited value in a discussion about formalized seniority rules. I would agree that “society accepts, promotes, and celebrates seniority and experience” to the extent you mean that there is a conventional wisdom that experience is generally a good thing. But I would also agree with the statement that society promotes and celebrates youth. There is a big difference between what society appears to “celebrate” and how actual decisions to hire and fire employees are made.
And tell me, and no, I’m not freaking kidding you, don’t potential customers of law firms look at the experience and longevity of a lawyer before hiring one? I know I would.
Experience is valued. So is talent. There’s a balancing that occurs.
Yes, Seniority and LIFO are common in federal, state and local government jobs, especial where expertise matters, and they replaced THE SPOILS SYSTEM.
We have been seeing more and more patronage jobs resurge today, with political appointments for friends and family increasing in key positions of power, especially in education, including Duncan for his entire career.
Though not formalized in private enterprises, Seniority and LIFO are also common practices there, in my experience, especially in non-profit social services, where education and experience are highly valued. But, there are no guarantees.
How quickly the courts, politicians, business people, pundits and the masses forget to learn lessons from history. See:
“What Is the Meaning of LIFO: You’re Fired Mr. Chips!”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-epstein/what-is-the-meaning-of-li_1_b_832052.html
I am not anti-seniority, but you picked some really bad examples there, Chris. Flerp has already explained law. Medicine? Sure, a senior doctor will be given a certain amount of deference, but if a young gun comes along who is clearly superior, he becomes the new superstar. Pro sports? Completely performance- and money-based. If a young draftee can perform as well as a veteran — or if he can perform serviceably well for less money — the veteran will find himself on the street.
As for the military, it happens all the time that 50-year-old majors find themselves saluting 40-year-old colonels who rose quickly through the ranks. In the military, rank means everything, but seniority means nothing.
Chris,
The star quarterback has no more right to play than the incoming rookie. The star quarterback will play because he is a star. A more qualified accounted will preferred to a less qualified account because of the qualifications. A senior partner at a law firm owns the law firm and certainly has rights as an owner.
Chris– you are wise, per the lawyer question, but you would be surprised at how many people just look for the cheapest lawyer.
And all of you, except Cosmic Tinker, completely overlooked my point that seniority and experience matter for teachers just like they do for all professions yet suddenly they are liabilities instead of assets.
I didn’t create this system but I believed the promises that were made to me and the offers for job security and a good pension in lieu of a decent salary when I accepted the job but suddenly it’s OK for management to break those promises because they are inconvenient to the neoliberal narrative?
I don’t think I picked bad examples at all. Just like the star quarterback and star surgeon, when I can’t pull my weight any more I want to be replaced by a younger person but right now I am far more experienced, more effective, and more knowledgable than the newly certified entry level teacher.
The clear impetus behind this court case and the reformers is replace me, with my advanced degrees, national board certification, and years of experience with someone cheaper who is not entitled to any benefits or job guarantees.
Why do you all willfully ignore that? Why do you find that acceptable?
“And all of you… completely overlooked my point that seniority and experience matter for teachers just like they do for all professions”
No we didn’t, we addressed it directly.
“Just like the star quarterback and star surgeon, when I can’t pull my weight any more I want to be replaced by a younger person…”
LOL! You obviously know nothing about the egos involved. The star QB or surgeon almost NEVER thinks he’s past his prime. I’ll bet a lot of teachers are the same way — pride is human nature.
But as we explained, NONE of the professions you cited make seniority the primary factor in determining quality. Not one.
I will go on record right now and say that I do not want to be replaced by a younger person when I can’t pull my weight anymore.
Thanks for mansplaining that to me Jack. I don’t understand though why the NBA playoffs I’m watching feature the star players on the court. Why aren’t they all populated with hot young rookies with more stamina and smaller egos? I’m just a dumb teacher so I know you’ll mansplain to me all the things I’ve encountered today that completely refute your ridiculous arguments.
Just to be clear, Chris, as long as schools have the ability to put out to pasture senior teachers who are not longer doing a good job, I can live with LIFO. But the arguments you are making here are just incredibly lame… they’re almost bad enough to convice someone to actually oppose what you’re saying.
Oooo… the “mansplaining” canard. Well that’s it; you obviously win. I mean, next you’ll trot out Nazi analogies or something.
I really must say that I am amazed you would trot out the NBA example. LeBron James was a starter the day he first stepped on the court for Cleveland (his old team — more mansplaining, I guess). Do you not think for a minute that either the Spurs or the Heat would keep one of their five best players on the bench because he’s a rookie? “Sorry, son, gotta wait your turn.” Or if it’s time to cut salary, do you for a minute think they would cut one of their promising young players to keep an old guy around?
Seriously, I am just astounded at how ridiculous your arguments are. Please tell me you don’t teach anything requiring a grasp of basic logic.
Chris,
This pretty much tells us all we ever need to know about Jack:
“Oooo… the “mansplaining” canard. ”
Anyone who thinks the concept of mansplaining is a canard (an unfounded rumor or story) is clearly not worth attempting any sort of conversation with. Disregard someone so disrespectful.
Thanks Ang! John is so enamored of his own vast knowledge that he just can’t believe that I am so dumb. Yet the Miami Heat’s top 5 players, each of whom are paid a 7-figure salary, have an average of 9 years experience. The team’s newest rookie player makes a 5-figure salary. Now most people would agree that the top 5 player’s salaries and games played are good examples of how experience matters and how seniority has tangible benefits. Just like experienced teachers.
But not Jack! No, I am dumb and my example is bad because he likes to insult me personally, demean my postings without ever even slightly engaging with the content other than make pronouncements about how stupid it is, and he becomes very angry that I won’t accept his supposed superiority of argumentation, LOL. What a guy!
Chris,
Lets look at longevity and salary on the Miami Heat. Here is a list of players, ordered from most to least years in the league, and salaries. We expect to see the folks with the most years have the highest salaries, right?
Ray Allen, 17 years, 3.2 million
Rashard Lewis, 15 years, 1.4 million
Shane Battier, 12 years, 3.3 million
Chris Andersen, 10 years, 1.4 million
Chris Bosh, 10 years, 19 million
Udonis Haslem, 10 years, 4.3 million
LeBron James, 10 years, 19 million
James Jones, 10 years, 1.5 million
Dwyane Wade, 10 years, 18.5 million
Michael Beasley, 5 years, 1 million
Mario Chalmers, 5 years, 4 million
Greg Oden, 5 years, .9 million
Toney Douglas, 4 years, 1.6 million
Norris Cole, 2 years, 1.2 million
Justin Hamilton, .8 million (2014-15, not sure whats going on here)
All years in the league from this site: basketball.realgm.com/nba/teams/Miami-Heat/15/Rosters/Current/2014
All salary from this site: hoopshype.com/salaries/miami.htm
So fifth year players get paid more than all the 17, 15, 12, and some 10 year players. Some individual ten year players, of course, get paid more than the 17, 15, 12, and three of the 10 year players combined.
This is another flawed example, Chris. The value of NBA rookie contracts is determined by a schedule, not market value or productivity. As a result, productive young players are wildly underpaid. Here is an article that will mansplain it for you, even though it was written by a woman: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2012/06/28/the-structure-of-nba-rookie-contracts/
The most valuable player of the Finals so far has been the Spurs’ forward Kawhi Leonard, who is not only still on his rookie contract, but who also was drafted late in the first round. He is making $1.89 million this year, a ridiculous bargain for his employer.
The point is that without the rookie scale, someone like LeBron James or Kevin Durant might have been the highest paid player in the NBA before even playing in a single pro game.
te, I was waiting for you to show up. So, again, the players nearing or past the common retirement age of 4.8 years aren’t making as much because they are no longer able to negotiate a good contract, mostly due to injuries and slower reflexes. Players in their prime are still paid more than brand new players.
And all of you STILL ignore the point I made that coaches do not, as a rule, play the most inexperienced rookies in important games or championships because seniority and experience matter.
“SPORTS More: NFL NBA NHL MLB
CHART: The Average NBA Player Will Make A Lot More In His Career Than The Other Major Sports
CORK GAINES
OCT. 10, 2013, 4:24 PM 4,411
The average NBA player will make $24.7 million in his career. That is based on an average salary of $5.2 million and an average career length of 4.8 years and is $18.6 million more than the career earnings for the average NFL player ($6.1 million).?
So by using your logo, te, teachers who teach, say economics (the NFL of education?) should be paid far less, over the course of their career, than say, math teachers (the NBA of education?). Extra degrees, training, publishing papers, attending conferences and presenting papers, etc. should have no bearing. If say, a new graduate of the Harvard graduate school of education is hired right after graduation then the teacher who graduated from State U. 18 years ago, has been named Teacher of the Year by the state, and who published 3 bestselling books about teaching algebra should be fired or at least see a cut in salary because, new blood! Harvard! Experience means nothing!
Again, that’s why Lebron is making so much less than Cole and playing far less and earning far fewer points. Oh wait…..
You guys have turned into a dog with a bone about this. I’m not going to concede that my analogy was bad just because you all disagree with it or don’t find it apt. That’s the joy of having differing opinions!
Have a great evening though!
Chris,
You seem to be only looking at half the roster. Where is the love for Shane? For Rashard? For Ray? None of them earn what Chalmers earns (one does have to wonder if they are getting their money’s worth in this series)
Do teacher salaries look like the Heat? Ten year veterans paid 6 times more than 17 year veterans?
I should add that Lebron is underpaid. Another great story from Planet Money: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/01/04/168627825/episode-427-lebron-james-is-underpaid
Just to throw a wrench into the I-am-right and you-are-wrong discussion of rudeness:
Attorneys who work for the state (prosecutors, district attorneys, etc)–at least in CA–have a form of tenure, belong to a union, and follow LIFO (seniority for layoffs).
Click to access bu02-20110401-20130701-mou-.pdf
And many other state employees from engineers, doctors, and nurses follow seniority for layoffs as well:
http://www.calhr.ca.gov/state-hr-professionals/Pages/bargaining-units.aspx
There absolutely is LIFO in private sector business. Usually the new guys are let go first, execs let go tend to parachute goldenly so are immune, and then it becomes GOFO (get old, first out) after 40.
I sat in many a layoff meetings where the list was drawn with new employees our first. It is less disruptive, easier, and they usually are quick to find new jobs without pulling clients and other good employees with them, though no compete clauses have reduced those issues.
I don’t know know it is in other States, or even at the present time, but in Michigan many years ago, for all the mythical power of the unions in those days, it was routine practice for districts to pink-slip the entire teach-force at the end of the school year, sending out rehire notices at the very last minute in August. A certain amount of clerical slippage allowed them to eliminate anyone they didn’t really want back, but it it weren’t for seniority they would have had a free hand to trim their budgets in the obvious way.
… IF it weren’t …
And don’t forget that this argument arose from and is bolstered by incompetent and lazy principals who claim that their hands are tied and they can’t possibly supervise or remove “bad” teachers under due process guarantees.
Either they are incompetent to do their job or they are lazy and don’t want to take the time to follow the rules.
I attended so many hearing when I was a union rep where the principal showed up with literally nothing to prove that the teacher was incompetent then, when they lost the case, complained loudly about how impossible it was to fire teachers.
All they had to do was document the problems, document their interventions, and document the failure of the teacher to improve. They didn’t and wouldn’t go through that simple process because they wanted the power to fire at will.
Chris in Florida: the best single contribution to this thread.
Like so many other things put forward by the leaders of the self-styled “education reform” movement, “fire at will” [aka management by fear] is merely the formalized expression of many in management to completely escape the responsibility of expending time, energy and thoughtfulness on their jobs. For those folks, management is an escape out of—or from ever even being in—the classroom.
It simply formalizes the contempt that many in positions of authority OVER teaching staff, have FOR teaching staff.
One of the most important reasons why there is a need for teacher unions/professional organizations and due process.
Keep commenting. I’ll keep reading.
😎
Chris, I’m scanning down this baseball score nonsense looking for reasoned responses and I stopped on yours again.
KrazyTA is right. Everybody else, lets build on this. I’m going to add my Oakland hip hop link again, which addresses Chris’ point of what is actually happening in real schools.
.https://soundcloud.com/mrdaveyd/hkr-jeff-duncan-andrade-on-cali-teacher-tenure-court-ruling
Exactly right, Chris!
Although my state is non union, we do have right of fair dismissal. As a long time teacher, sometime department chair, I have also set in on and been asked to testify at hearings. Invariably, the administrators and district FAILED MISERABLY at documenting, presenting evidence, building a case, etc. even in the cases when the teacher was poor, the admin bungled it.
And of course the next day the word was out that ” you cannot fire teachers, no matter how bad”.
The gullible but it, I suppose .
Seniority is cast in stone. No cuts in line at school, no cuts at the grocery store, and no cuts in line at Disneyland. People take this stuff seriously.
Why is it, I wonder, that teachers are the scapegoats for the decline of the American intellect and the vulgarization and trivialization of American culture? Why are teachers, and not school administrators, the scapegoats? I have worked in three schools in New York City, and in the first two it would be no exaggeration to call the principals unscrupulous and dimwitted. Can I ask you to take a walk down Memory Lane with me?
In the first school that employed me, in the South Bronx neighborhood of St. Mary’s Park so poignantly chronicled by Jonathan Kozol in “Amazing Grace,” the first principal under whom I worked drank on the job–he offered me a belt of scotch every time I entered his office–and didn’t observe me at all in my crucial first year as a teacher. After he retired I learned he was under investigation for financial malfeasance and corporal punishment. His replacement, a genuinely awful woman who was probably a moron, was belligerent, alienated teachers, and was finally cashiered after lying to her superiors about an act of arson a student committed.
The third principle who employed me was a 29-year-old with two years of teaching experience, Indeed, he was in my New York City Teaching Fellows Cohort, number six, in 2003. He had persuaded himself that he could build a great school with Teach For America arrivistes. Within three weeks of the opening of the school (I made the extremely foolish mistake of joining his inaugural faculty, something I will never do again) I warned him that he was on his way to destroying his school. His response? To rate me as unsatisfactory.
Three years later, his school received an “F” and was closed.
The principal for whom I currently work is a genius by comparison to those I’ve profiled above, but that is damning with faint praise. He too is hostile to teachers, and I think his competence, not to mention his knowledge of pedagogy and his almost non-existent leadership qualities, is at the very least open to question. I’ve lost confidence in him, and our school was downgraded from “Well-Developed” to “Proficient” this year, so apparently his superiors have lost confidence in him as well.
I’ll be the first to admit that we teachers have to clean our own house. But why are we the bad guys? There is plenty of blame to go around–that’s true enough. But why is that blame laid on teachers? Why are low-performing, low-functioning school administrators given a pass in the tabloid press? Is the administrative class somehow above reproach? I’ve been a New York City schoolteacher for 11 years, and I’ve not only seen this going on, but have heard similar horror stories from colleagues in my Teaching Fellows cohort.
This dynamic continues to mystify me.
In the end it isn’t about teachers. It’s a wholesale assault on the public sector because neoliberalism and neoliberals see the public sector as illegitimate, and that all institutions have to be privatized.
This nothing more than an attempted bank heist by the few against everybody else.
Additional spending won’t do a darn thing to improve the performance of California schools. It never does.
No, Jack, it can’t possibly make a difference if you are learning in a rotting, infested, broken down, burning hot school with no facilities and frequent gunfire outside the no-equipment playground. How could spending money on schools like that possible improve anything? Why on earth would higher pay and better benefits and working conditions draw a higher caliber of employee? That’s only true in the so-called “free market”, right/
There’s a difference between spending and spending wisely. Little of the extra money went directly into the classrooms in the past. That doesn’t mean if it did it wouldn’t have an impact.
What a stale Fox-News style argument!
Speaking of a stale argument… I can’t recall the last time I watched Fox.
As to your rather pitiful attempt at reductio ad absurdum, it is absolutely the case that horrible facilities might contribute to bad outcomes, but fortunately, the vast majority of public schools in California and elsewhere in this country are not the kind of third-world facilities you describe. Most are perfectly serviceable even if not luxurious.
My point — and one that has been demonstrated repeatedly — is that beyond the amount of money needed to provide the basics, additional per pupil spending does nothing to improve outcomes. Kansas City is the poster child for this.
As for the “frequent gunfire outside”… that is beyond the school’s control, but certain begins to explain the REAL problems causing the bad outcomes of certain schools.
Your wildly overgeneralized statement that most schools are in fine shape is easily debunked.
Yes, William Bennett, among others made the claim that more per-pupil spending did not directly impact test scores in carefully manipulated studies.
Why is it then that upper middle class white districts who offer the best possible education for their children have exponentially higher rates of acceptance into top-tier colleges? That their graduates enjoy much higher lifetime salaries and job opportunities? That charter schools, despite promises of doing more for less, have proven to be just as expensive, if not more expensive, than public schools despite paying teachers less and offering less in the way of extracurricular activities?
Your point is absurd in itself, claiming that the amount of money invested in schools makes no difference in outcomes. It is conventional wisdom and popular anti-school and anti-teacher trope used to deny schools adequate funding all over the country.
No sale here.
I wasn’t aware of Bennett’s study, but it has been shown over and over. One reason affluent suburban school districts do so well is because those kids come from homes with educated parents who are involved with their kids and have high expectations of them. They spend a lot on the schools because 1) they can afford it, and 2) because they like nice bells and whistles. Take those same kids and put them in a rundown school in a rural area, and most of them would do about as well.
I have seen multiple studies on this, and it is absolutely true that per pupil spending is meaningless above the amount needed to cover basics. If you wish to believe otherwise, feel free. But you have already shown logic is not your strong suit.
Check out Roosevelt Long Island. Taken over by the state 20+ years ago. Brand new state of the art campus. A quarter of a billion dollars invested in one of the poorest performing schools in NY history.
NEWSDAY
Sept. 9, 2013.
Roosevelt High School reopened Monday after a $66.9 million renovation that caps the largest reconstruction project ever undertaken in a single Long Island school district.
With completion of the 223,700-square-foot high school, the entire Roosevelt system — formerly one of the Island’s most dilapidated — has been rebuilt at an approximate cost of $245.5 million, the bulk of it with state funds.
“This entire district has been reinvented,” said Deborah Wortham, the new superintendent who took over in July.
Roosevelt’s hour long celebration played out against a backdrop of continued academic challenges.
The high school remains on the state’s list of lowest scholastic performers — a spot it has occupied for more than 20 years. Several state authorities, among them Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, have threatened to place such schools under new management, either by a state agency or a private charter manager, if they don’t raise student test scores and graduation rates.
Jack…you must be living in LaLa Land. There are so many rundown schools in LAUSD that it is a crime. Small children are still in quonset huts on some crowded campuses. Bathrooms are flooded, there is no AC in summer triple digit heat. Rats are in kitchens.
If you want a tour I am sure we can arrange it. If you haven’t been in a public school in 50 years, you are not a valid person to offer such uninformed opinions.
I volunteer to take you into So. Central if you are not too scared to be in the hood.
Well Jack, in your strong logical way, I’d like for you to come and teach in the elementary school in the South Bronx where I begn to teach. I had 38 fifth graders and 32 desks. I had no textbooks of any kind. I was given no supplies. We had no classroom library, no air conditioning in May and June when the temperature in the room got to be over 100 daily. There were rats, mice, and roaches in the room. The bathrooms down the hall were broken all year and so my students had to go down 2 floors to relieve themselves. We had a nurse 1 day a week, shared with 4 other schools. Our psychologist and guidance counselor came 1 and 1/2 days a week.
This was all in one of the poorest neighborhoods in America. I watched two people die from my classroom window while teaching math one day. We heard the pop pop and looked out watched the shooting. I many times had to escort children out the back exit because a gang war was starting or in full force at the front entrance of the school. On September 11, 2001 I stayed with my children until 8:00 PM and then escorted them home, one by one, because their parents had been trapped in Manhattan at their jobs and no one was home to let them in. We watched the black smoke cloud rise over Manhattan that day and several students never saw their parents again.
To say that per pupil spending makes no difference is hateful ignorance personified. You get the award! If I had had enough seats so that a group of my students didn’t have to sit in the floor, if I had been given textbooks, supplies, and library books I could have made a much bigger difference in those kids’ lives.
You keep pushing your more for less line if it makes you feel good though. And by the way, I still have friends who teach at that same school and things are no different now than they were 20 years ago. Except that they get a few more dollars per student but not enough to make a real difference.
Tell it to Zuckerburg. He spent millions in Newark, and all his Unicef rice disappeared en route. Now he’s trying in California, so maybe he’ll prove you wrong.
Newark hired peer validators to come down from Connecticut to write up evaluations. They spend the week staying in a hotel. The “reason” they schlep from Connecticut is the Newark Public Schools could not find a New Jersey company. I am guessing they did not look very hard. Anyone want to start a company?
Merrow also wrote against PAR. He doesn’t want teachers to be judged in a fair and balanced manner. I suppose after getting his a$$ kicked by the Reform Community and media after his Rheeport, he wants back in with the haters.
While the country is arguing about the extent to which it is OK to trounce teachers, this is happening:
Click to access 24_01_05.pdf
Good things are happening. We can’t be set back by the blows. That’s what haters want to see. We can be motivated by them. But I think wise folks take it, learn, reflect, refuel and move forward.
I have also read about an initiative to help uneducated mothers obtain education in the field of early childhood while raising their children. A win win—sometimes those do happen.
Good things?
Today, 150 years after the end of slavery. 39.6 percent of all black children live in families below the poverty line. A quarter of all children in the country live in poverty. This report details the effects of that. They aren’t pretty, and nothing is being done. Oh, yes. Come to think of it, we just had a $8.7 billion CUT in the food stamps program.
But the problem, you see, isn’t that millions of children live in homes wracked by poverty. The problem is due process delaying the firing of a few bad teachers.
I know. It’s not all good. And your link isn’t (I didn’t line up my phrasing very well). I was trying to point out that there are good things happening. Or being thought about
I would have thought this to be part of the solution that D.R. discusses (“The legislature should promptly remedy these defects in the fairest way possible to assure that it is not easy to fire teachers, but that teachers who face charges get a fair and timely hearing.”)
Bill reforming teacher dismissals goes to governor
I don not think Vergara case is really about tenure. It is about Eli Broad getting more charter schools so that he can control them and make profits. If he does that tenure is not going to matter much.
Maybe he after getting non credentialed teachers to work for him at lower salaries.
While working in a District in So. Ca. District, we only received tenure after 2 Satisfactory evaluations. And even after that if one received 2 ‘needs to improve’ reviews, the district could let you go.
When money was tight Tenure was frozen for years. The people are misinformed in general. This is a witch hunt.
This is also about money and control. When Broad hired 8 attorneys from Gibson, Dunn law firm I knew he would prevail.
CA teachers do not get evaluated by test scores. Yet CA is implementing Common Core. Hmmm….another CC hodegpodge of nation wide arbitrary laws.
Is test score evaluation Broad’s next venture?
It’s about gutting pension benefits and higher salaries. Period.
John Merrow is a fraud just like his good friend Michelle Rhee. He clearly doesn’t know squat about civil service protections.
No other job, save for college and university professors, requires such a long probationary period as teachers.
I guess Merrow doesn’t know that people in the private sector are “post-probationary” only after 90 days or six months.
There is NO real job security in teaching.
Most jobs are always probationary in the sense that they are at will.
When I started teaching in CA in 1968, tenure was three years. Teachers in CA must major in an academic subject, mine was History, and complete one year of coursework after you receive your BA. After completing the above you would receive a lifetime credential. That is no longer offered at all. You must renew your credential periodically and send the state a good sum of money with each renewal!
CA continues to have the largest class sizes and less school libraries than other states. I retired in 2003.
John Merrow lost his credibility many years ago.
How to Put a Great Teacher in Every Classroom
1. Make teachers into contingent, at-will employees with no job security whatsoever.
2. Let them know that any number of years of service they put in will count for nothing.
3. Explain to them that any education they receive beyond the undergraduate level will count for nothing because their learning doesn’t matter.
4. Evaluate them based on their students’ scores on invalid summative standardized tests or, better yet, on the basis of the scores of other teachers’ students on invalid summative standardized tests; make the evaluation systems arcane and capricious so that the Teacher of the Year this carnival season can be an unsatisfactory loser the next.
5. Require all teachers to implement scripted lessons or, at a minimum, to use minutely scripted lesson plan templates and rubrics, with the ultimate goal of removing all autonomy and decision-making authority they might have had in their jobs.
6. Make sure that each day they have written on their white boards what “standard” they are covering from the prescribed set of acceptable “standards” prepared by the noneducator from the national Curriculum Commissariat and Ministry of Truth–the one hailed, unlike said teachers, as “the most important figure in education today, perhaps in all of history.”
7. Take away from them any input they have regarding the curriculum materials that they teach and the pedagogical strategies that they employ; teaching, there’s an app for that.
8. Require that they submit to continual “trainings” (Sit. Bark. Roll over. Good boy.), and make certain that what they are told in a given carnival season (“Do not provide prereading or background material before students read a text”) directly contradicts what they were told they had to do last carnival season (“Provide prereading or background materials before students read a text”).
9. Increase their class sizes because “class size doesn’t matter,” and it’s cheaper that way, which frees up money to be paid to testing companies and funds for creating more state department and district-level administrative employees.
10. Require that they spend a third of the school year proctoring tests, giving pretests and posttests and benchmark tests, delivering test prep, attending data chats, and receiving training on testing and data, and being evaluated on their students’ test scores.
11. Turn them into proctors milling among students doing scripted worksheets on a screen from Pearson/Gates, Inc.
12. Bash them and their unions in the press continually; full-page ads in national newspapers and magazines showing them throwing kids into the trash will do quite nicely.
13. Turn their schools into charters run by a CEO who has no educational experience but who makes in a week what they do all year.
That should do the trick.
It’s extremely important that we implement ALL of the above so that all children can be taught by truly great teachers,
unlike the utter failures that we have in classrooms today.
If we fail to do these things, each student will lose lifetime earnings equal to what Bill Gates and Sam Walton and the first emperor of China made put together,
and our future workers, incapable of outgritting the Singaporeans, will have to watch as those, those FOREIGNERS buy up all our Walmarts and turn them into Singaemporiums.
Clearly, this is THE CIVIL RIGHT ISSUE (and the investment opportunity) OF OUR TIME.
This message (and all your media) brought to you by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (“All your base are belong to us.”)
Although I have no hard numbers for you to crunch, I would estimate that 90% of you list can be checked off Bob.
Excellent, Bob!
Here’s the perspective of a young teacher who is the union steward in her Minneapolis district school:
http://www.minncan.org/news-blog/blog/vergara-let%E2%80%99s-change-conversation
In part, she writes: “So please join me in changing the conversation, from one in which teachers are victims, to one that celebrates us as the best agents to elevate our profession and reward talent, to improve American public schools and provide all kids equally with a top-notch education…Restructuring traditional seniority-based pay and lay-off systems will make teaching a more attractive career option and keep highly effective and expert—not just senior—teachers in the classroom.”
A perfect example of just how naive a nøøb can be.
MinnCon • Who Funds Us
‘Nuff Said …
Perhaps naive, or perhaps eager to have teachers leading, as she suggests, in helping create more effective district public schools. She teaches at one and is the union steward.
My apologies, Jon – are you an urban public school teacher?
No, Joe, I’m just a senior citizen who is feeling much better now about my seniority. Us old-timers always get a bad rap for being gullible and easy prey for con artists, but I can see that it could be much worse. At least I’m senior enough to have heard all these lines before and I haven’t yet bought any MedicAlert bracelets over the phone. At any rate, I have full confidence that your young teacher will feel a bit different in a few years when she quits being a spokesmodel for WallyWorld and find herself getting shooed out the door of what used to be a “profession”.
Diane,
If the probationary period is to last 3 to 4 rather than two years, then perhaps there needs to be a change in how the probationary period works, to at least give some due process. (I don’t know how it is in other states.)
In California, in the first two years in a school district, before one has tenure (the probationary period), a teacher can be fired (actually called “not re-hired” without any cause at all. For instance, if a principal does not like a teacher.
I was at a school years ago where this happened to an excellent experienced teacher. Yes, an experienced teacher, but new to that school district. (Tenure is not statewide in CA, if one changes school districts one has to be on probation again.) That teacher was highly regarded by everyone. Except the principal did not seem to like her, and she was “non-rehired”, which also probably made it difficult for her to find another job anywhere.
I would not be in favor of extending the current two year CA probationary period, unless at least a little protection was built into it.
There is some misinformation being spread around, that tenure means a guaranteed job for life. Totally untrue, at least for CA K12 public schools. All tenure means is that there has to be some due process for teacher dismissal.
The other myth is that eliminating tenure would help get rid of “bad teachers”. On the contrary, it might more often be the best teachers who would be targeted. Look who was put in teacher jail in LA. World-renowned Crenshaw High Choir Director Dr. Iris Stevenson was put in teacher jail right after returning from a trip with her students to perform in France, and to perform for President Obama in DC. She is still there. I am sure you know about science teacher Greg Schiller. If there were no tenure these teachers would not have been put in teacher jail, but rather immediately dismissed.