Audrey Beardsley, a professor at Arizona State University, recently visited parents, educators, students, and state leaders in New Mexico. There she learned that the state had adopted gag orders for teachers, forbidding them from discussing or expressing an opinion about the state tests (PARCC).
She writes:
Under the “leadership” of Hanna Skandera — former Florida Deputy Commissioner of Education under former Governor Jeb Bush and head of the New Mexico Public Education Department — teachers throughout the state are being silenced.
New Mexico now requires teachers to sign a contractual document that they are not to “diminish the significance or importance of the tests” (see, for example, slide 7 here) or they could lose their jobs. Teachers are not to speak negatively about the tests or say anything negatively about these tests in their classrooms or in public; if they do they could be found in violation of their contracts. At my main presentation in New Mexico, a few teachers even approached me after “in secret” whispering their concerns in fear of being “found out.” Rumor also has it that Hanna Skandera has requested the names and license numbers of any teachers who have helped or encouraged students to protest the state’s “new” PARCC test(s), as well.
One New Mexico teacher asked whether “this is a quelling of free speech and professional communication?” I believe it most certainly is a Constitutional violation. I am also shocked to now find out that something quite similar is occurring in my state of Arizona.
Needless to say, neither of our states (or many states typically in the sunbelt for that matter) are short on bad ideas, but this is getting absolutely ridiculous, especially as this silencing of the educators seems to be yet another bad idea that is actually trending?
As per a recent article in our local paper – The Arizona Republic – Arizona “legislators want to gag school officials” in an amendment to Senate Bill 1172 that will prohibit “an employee of a school district or charter school, acting on the district’s or charter school’s behalf, from distributing electronic materials to influence the outcome of an election or to advocate support for or opposition to pending or proposed legislation.”
The charge is also that this is a retaliatory move by AZ legislators, in response to a series of recent protests in response to serious budget cuts several weeks ago. “Perhaps [this is] to keep [educators] from talking about how the legislature has shortchanged Arizona’s school kids by hundreds of millions of dollars since the recession, and how the legislature is still making it nearly impossible for many districts to take care of even [schools’] most basic needs.”
In addition, is this even Constitutional? An Arizona Schools Boards Association (ASBA) spokesperson is cited as responding, saying “SB 1172 raises grave constitutional concerns. It may violate school and district officials free speech rights and almost certainly chills protected speech by school officials and the parents and community members that interact with them. It will freeze the flow of information to the public that seeks to ascertain the impact of pending legislation on their schools and children’s education.”
Where is the American Civil Liberties Union? Why are teachers singled out for a speech ban? As Beardsley asks, “Is this even Constitutional?” I would add, is this America?
New Mexico now requires teachers to sign a contractual document that they are not to “diminish the significance or importance of the tests”
Isn’t that like what they used to make wives sign before they got married?
“You are not to diminish the significance or importance of your husband”
“I heard Mao & Stalin & Pol Pot laughing with delight
The day that free speech died.”
Not in your class, but I was reminded of AMERICAN PIE by Don McLean.
😎
How is this even remotely legal.
It’s only legal until they take them to the Supreme Court and it’s found to be unconstitutional.
Don’t count on a fraudulent Supreme Court reverse decisions made in lower conservative courts.
The silencing of educators is happening across our nation and is a disturbing trend both for our profession and a country that hails itself as the cornerstone of democracy and free speech. You can read how teachers who speak at School Board meetings in Miami are faced with retaliation and intimidation here https://kafkateach.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/a-protest/ .
From Sherrod v, School Board of Palm Beach County, FL
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020101012611
Protected Speech
In determining the threshold issue of whether a public employee has engaged in speech entitled to constitutional protection, the court first asks “whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. If the answer is “no,” the employee’s speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection. If the answer is “yes,” “the question becomes whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public.”
In Abdur-Rahman v. Walker, 567 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir.2009), the Eleventh Circuit discussed the rationale behind the requirement that a public employee speak “as a citizen” to receive constitutional protection for his speech: First, because “government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter,” “Supreme Court precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job.” Second, government employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employee’s words and actions; without it, there would be little chance of the efficient provision of public services. Because of the unique trusted position that public employees occupy, they ought not to receive constitutional protection for speech that “expresses views that contravene governmental policies or impairs the proper performance of governmental functions. Third, when complaints under the First Amendment are limited to instances in which a public employee proves that he “spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” courts avoid “judicial oversight” of workplace communications and “permanent judicial intervention in the conduct of governmental operations to a degree inconsistent with sound principles of federalism and the separation of powers.”
First, America is not a democracy. Secondly, public schools are even less so. I refused to follow NCLB curriculum and was put on the harassment list. My stellar evaluations changed to one with a bunch of slippery slope comments. I sued. I won. Thanks to a strong union. I put up with NCLB for four years by refusing to follow some of the ridiculous curriculum and testing. For my kids (poverty, probationary) it was like forcing square pegs into round holes. When I explained it to my kids they cheered. They knew I was moving away from idiotic reform for their benefit.
I know it’s risky, but it’s so important for teachers to speak up because schools are, to a large extent, a “black box” for parents. I don’t care how involved they are, they aren’t there on a daily basis and they aren’t in a position to see changes over time because each grade and each kid is a “snapshot” – a limited view.
I knew my son’s 4th grade teacher was increasingly concerned about testing but only because two of my older children had her and I could compare her comments on testing over time. She became more and more concerned. By the time my youngest reached her class she was openly discussing the changes that occurred over a decade here. Most parents won’t have her long view, her perspective. That has value.
One of the reasons I’m glad Ohio still has labor unions (despite best efforts by politicians and lobbyists) is because teachers get some protection and can object without getting fired.
This is an important point, Chiara. Teachers do have a long view, lots of institutional knowledge. Parents are really only in the know for the few years their child is in a given school.
I’d love to see a lawyer go over one of those contracts, did it specifically state that they couldn’t ‘say’ anything about the tests? Because then they sure could WRITE anything, about said tests, or pass a note to a good friend and that good friend could say something, hint hint….
At least in Utah, where we have been threatened with our licenses if we even MENTION opting out, the UEA lawyer told me that this is perfectly acceptable and no a violation of free speech, because it has to do with our employment. I was told to not even have my own children talk to their friends about opting out, because it could come back to me. http://www.standard.net/Education/2014/04/24/25-SAGE-warning.html
Let’s put aside testing for a minute. A question for parents: If a teacher at your child’s school knew of an action or policy taken by the school that was harmful to the children there, wouldn’t you want teachers to stand up and say something? Teachers see your children on a daily basis – sometimes for more hours in a day than you do. When teachers are silenced, ask yourself why and who is behind it and for what reason. In most cases, I would bet that your children will not benefit by silencing teachers.
“. . . knew of an action or policy taken by the school that was harmful to the children. . . ”
You mean like this:
Board Policy PBS 103.4.1: Teachers shall rap the knuckles of any student before and after they use the rest room.
And the teachers wouldn’t legally be able to say, write, comment on that???
ACLU supports testing as a “civil rights” issue, so don’t expect their support on this one. Unless they change their stance, which would be great.
Yes, unfortunately true, and the courts have made it clear that teachers are not much more than ” hired speech” and have little discretion on anything not approved by the school board.
What is there to stop teachers in this situation from declaring, at every opportunity, in online newspaper article comments sections and elsewhere, “As a teacher in this state, I am contractually forbidden to say anything negative about these tests”?
If enough teachers do it, I’m sure they’ll get a message across.
Interesting. In NY, teachers are “mandated reporters” which means they MUST report any suspected abuse. Many teachers and administrators feel that this testing is child abuse. So, does following their contracts and gag orders not to speak override their role as mandated reporter of abuse???
I sometimes do that. At least in my neck of the woods, everyone else just shrugs. I guess the removal of free speech rights of others is no big thing.
The funny thing is, about the time I was threatened if I said anything about opting out, there was a report on TV about how “wonderful” Common Core is, prominently featuring a teacher in my own district. So, a teacher can sing the praises of the testing, but not give factual information to parents or kids when they say, “Do we (they) HAVE to take these tests?”
It’s really quite simple: Don’t sign the addendum. Or if it is the main contract scratch out the offending language, initial and date it and then sign.
Could districts deem teachers “insubordinate” if they don’t sign?
School districts can find many reasons to label them “insubordinate”. That’s the preferred method of getting rid of due process rights teachers. Have seen it done many a time. Force the teacher to attempt the impossible “Teacher X must speak with the parent of any student who has any part of any assignment missing on the same day that the teacher discovers it.” (Yes, I’ve seen that mandated to a teacher.). Then when they can’t do it (it’s impossible) they are insubordinate. Bye Bye!
Not only should the ACLU be involved, but where are conservative tax groups to protest this policy? The tests are paid for with the tax money of Arizona residents. Don’t these teachers have a right to question how their tax dollars are being spent? One of the events that led to the rebellion of the colonies against the British was taxation of a group of citizens despite those citizens lacking a voice on how that money would be spent. This policy sure sounds like taxation without representation to me. I’m sure many of these teachers are parents as well. Does their profession prohibit them from exercising their rights and responsibilities as parents to question the education policies affecting their children? It’s a scary situation when state rights trump parental rights.
From the ACLU: https://aclu-wa.org/news/free-speech-rights-public-school-teachers
Teachers do not forfeit the right to comment publicly on matters of public importance simply because they accept a public school teaching position. Teachers cannot be fired or disciplined for statements about matters of public importance unless it can be demonstrated that the teacher’s speech created a substantial adverse impact on school functioning.
A teacher appears to speak for the school district when he or she teaches, so the district administration has a strong interest in determining the content of the message its teachers will deliver. Washington courts have upheld the authority of school districts to prescribe both course content and teaching methods. Courts in other jurisdictions have ruled that teachers have no free speech rights to include unapproved materials on reading lists.
Depending on the precise form of message displayed on the teachers’ clothing, a school may have legitimate concern that a teacher’s display of a political message is more likely than a student’s to disrupt the school’s intended educational message. This right may be limited only if there is good reason to believe that the speech would cause a substantial and material disruption to education or violate the rights of others. Washington courts have not considered the question, but courts in other jurisdictions have differed over whether teachers have the same right as students to display personal political messages on their clothing. In one case, a court upheld a dress code that prevented teachers from wearing political buttons in the classroom because school districts have legitimate authority to “dissociate themselves from matters of political controversy.”
“Does their profession prohibit them from exercising their rights and responsibilities as parents to question the education policies affecting their children?”
Here’s a real chiller — could a teacher laboring under contractual rules like the ones in New Mexico and AZ be considered to be in breach of contract if they opted their own public school children out of the tests?
I’m not sure if there is any legal precedent, as the opt out movement is a relatively new phenomena. I can’t imagine an America where parental rights do not trump worker rights. If a parent/teacher in NM or AZ were to be dismissed for opting out their child, it would result in a precedent setting case. There is statutory law (laws in the books) and there is case law which establish legal precedents. Because The Resistance is a new movement, many of the questions have yet to be settled in a court of law. Not one teacher has been brought up on charges in NYS as a result of speaking out against test-and-punish reform. Thanks to Cuomo, this seems even more unlikely because he has angered virtually every stakeholder that isn’t making money off his education agenda.
Friday was a meeting for professors of teacher education; a gentleman from AACTE spoke to us Mark LaCelle Peterson (Vice President ) … only two people asked questions. At the end a faculty member spoke to Dr. Lacelle Peterson and said “this person is writing about VAM in Arizona” so I piped up you mean Professor Beardsley? she is excellent” and the gentleman asking the question of the speaker nodded and said “yes, she is excellent”… Other than one or two questions from the audience there was not much discussion about the current situation. Mark L. Peterson said ‘we have turned the corner” … and the story has several chapters.. He prides himself on quoting Dewey and Horace Mann so I guess he can put the issues outside fhe pain of the daily work that we do with schools…. He was saying “ignore Kate Walsh” … but his opinion seems to be high above court side and he doesn’t get many elbows in the face I guess. I took a couple of pages of notes if they would be useful to anyone.
Jean,
What is AACTE?
Thanks,
Duane
AACTE is the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education
Thanks for the info, as you probably know I am self-diagnosed AI.
sorry, Duane: it is American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education; I am not technically a member because I only taught adjunct (at 4 different colleges) but then I think 80% of the faculty are adjunct…. doesn’t say much for where the profession is going… didn’t mean to confuse people with the acronyms…
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
It’s hard not to use acronyms when talking about education, eh!?!?
the only other question was from a University Department chair who questioned whether the current curriculum in vogue was appropriate for the early childhood students (he has an accredited program at Bridgewater State University for ages Birth to 5 (overlaps somewhat with the license for elementary school teachers) — Good course outlines from Bridgewater if they would be useful to anyone; (Greg Nelson at Bridgewater State University — program seems to be very sound , of high quality , and they have overlaps with community college preparation so that students can transfer in to get the 4 year degree)
https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/18/this-article-may-be-illegal-lifting-the-veil-of-silence-on-standardized-testing/
Hanna Skandera: yet another corporate whore, protecting the interests of her financial backers instead of children. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding…” – Upton Sinclair.
It has troubled me for some time that even when teachers are offered the opportunity to vent they are often ignored, even by those that are supposed to represent us. A few years ago the NEA magazine published an editorial on why America’s teachers should embrace common core. I wrote back and got no response, but perhaps it was badly written and did not deserve one, but I did not see anything published in response to that editorial that expressed opposition to the union leader’s position. At my school we were told by our superintendent that we could not make public statements on educational policy as that was the superintendents prerogative. We of course have freedom of speech, but as in the old Soviet Union we may not have freedom after speech. I can speak freely in department meetings but I can also be largely ignored. Most teachers I interact with feel as I do on most issues but when they speak they are ignored as well. Nothing we say changes very much if anything. But worse than that it not only doesn’t change anything, it isn’t even acknowledged outside of those meetings. It has been my experience as a public school teacher that much of administrative control is exercised through intimidation. Teachers are often afraid to say anything because they are afraid there will be consequences. But beyond that in the press and inside the schools themselves, teacher confidence is under constant attack. Being reflective by nature it is easy to put a teacher on the defensive about their practice and once confidence has been eroded the fear to speak increases not solely because they are afraid of consequences, but because they start to question their own judgment and practice. There is rarely truth to this intimidation, but that does not keep it from being effective.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
AFT also supports Common Core and accepts money from Bill Gates.
Yes the Unions do accept that filthy money and until teachers grow a backbone and stop letting others tell them what they can and cannot say the tyrants will simply grow more brazen. I can’t believe I am reading comments that question whether or not an individual can or cannot speak on a certain subject. This America for God’s sake not Cuba! Boy how America has fallen. People who truly fought for our freedoms are probably rolling in their graves right now wondering how a nation once comprised of noble and brave individuals has allowed itself to become a full fledged fascist police state full of yellow bellied cowards. If you are scared to speak up about what it undoubtedly wrong then you have already lost the battle.
“This America for God’s sake not Cuba!”
People like the Jebster are jealous of that fact.
When you are asked to sign the gag-order-of-the-day try signing in your fanciest, script the following. No one reads them anyway and when they challenge you, just ask them to find your name.
Sample names you can sign gag orders with:
“I. M. Refusing”
“Will Not Sign”
“Youcant Silenceme”
“Refuseto Sign”
“Refusing Tosign”
“Goto Hell”
“Never Will Isign”
If any of you have some other creative signatures, please add to the list.
What if they wear a shirt that says, “don’t ask me about the test, I just work here”.
Maybe an all black shirt that reads; “Got freedom of speech”? Followed by a question mark.
As bad as some of this is, we have to be careful and separate activities on and off the job as well as consider some professional responsibilities.
All states, as far as I know, prohibit pubic employees or public institutions (like schools) from doing anything on the public dime that pushes candidates or even legislation. So a district really can’t spend money to support, say, a bond referendum. Employees or leadership can’t push certain issues or candidates when on the clock. They often do,Mobutu it’s not legal. We have a nearby leader under indictment.
Off the clock is fuzzy. A teacher shouldn’t criticize another teacher in public (FB is public). Criticizing their administration in public is debatable. Publicly recommending parents opt out is even fuzzier. But what about discussing testing while on a panel?
Whistleblowing is protected, but that’s not the issue. It this: imagine a superintendent who put in a school governance model to really empower teachers, to provide resources and support the teachers have asked for, all this with board and teacher approval. What if a small but vocal group of disgruntled administrators took to the media and social media to speak negatively of the program? This is causing confusion in their school to say the least; it’s suspected they are worried about their football programs.
Is their speech protected legally and professionally?
You can’t protect only the speech you like?
Free speech of public employees (teachers) is determined by case law. It is a very gray area and will come down to the particular circumstance, legal precedent that applies, and the judgment of judges or juries. Very “fuzzy” grounds.
From NYSUT:
While management may attempt to discipline or discharge a member for reasons such as insubordination or incompetence, it must provide the member with due process rights. Due process affords our members certain protections, including an opportunity to see the written charges levied against them; an opportunity to respond to such allegations; the right to union representation as allowed by the collective bargaining agreement; and in some cases the opportunity to proceed to a hearing before a neutral hearing officer. At the hearing, the member may call witnesses and cross-examine witnesses brought forth by management. Remember, in “just cause” proceedings, the burden is upon management to prove its case.
While a hearing officer will consider many factors, “just cause” also establishes certain criteria that may be examined. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
•Did the employee know or should he or she have known the conduct in question could result in charges?
•Did management perform a fair and reasonable investigation?
•Has management consistently applied its rules among all employees?
•Is the level of punishment that management is seeking reasonably related to the seriousness of the behavior?
•What is the employee’s record of service?
While the criteria and standards will differ from contract to contract and from arbitrator to arbitrator, “just cause” provisions require that management afford our members due process rights that prevent management from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it comes to imposing discipline. This protects our members from political agendas and personal vendettas, while providing an environment fostering professional freedom.
READ THIS IMPORTANT ASPECT OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS:
Has management consistently applied its rules among ALL employees?
NYT, thank you for this and your other very informative comments on this matter.
Well, corporations are people and money is speech according to our NON-Supreme Court. SIC.
Constructive criticism is the nature of democracy. If the teachers can’t air their professional opinion to the school board or state, the process of continuous improvement is hampered.
This just sounds like an unwritten executive order of state intervention on free press and media–like Karl Rove & Scooter Libby did under the Bush II administration. Politicians and deformers in NM and AZ look quite similar to Japan PM Abe and LDP politicians who racketeer both domestic and international media for making criticism of nation over their Abenemic public policy.
Let the protest marches begin!
I’ve posted this here before, more than once. Governor Rick Scott silenced teachers throughout the state with his first singed bill. We are discouraged from speaking against any state education policy for fear of losing our teaching licenses since we are all at-will employees now, thanks to ALEC and Jeb Bush.
All Florida union members (Florida Education Association) received this Action Alert on Sept. 18, 2014 from our president, Andy Ford:
“Dear Colleague:
As educators, we know that the idea of all children moving through school at exactly the same pace, under the tutelage of the perfect teacher and performing equally well on the exact same tests might be convenient for adults, but it has little to do with how our children actually learn.
Sadly, what is convenient for adults rather than what is best for students has become the guiding principle for almost every education “reform” in Florida. Education experts know this is not sound practice. Teachers know it is not sound practice. Parents know it is not good for their children. And it must STOP.
In recent weeks, frustration among parents, teachers and students has boiled over.
On August 27, parents in Lee County succeeded in pressuring their school board to pass a motion to opt the district out of all statewide standardized tests.
The reaction to the Lee County action from those heavily invested in high stakes testing was swift and the potential penalties stunningly severe: high school students might not be allowed to graduate, state funding including lottery funds and school recognition money might be withheld. It has even been suggested that teachers who talk to students and/or parents about the opt-out controversy might be targeted for sanctions from the state against their teaching certificate.
The Lee County School Board called an emergency meeting and rescinded their vote just six days later.
Earlier this month, a Gainesville kindergarten teacher risked losing her job by saying she would not administer new state tests to her young students. She had the backing of her administrators and school board. Coincidentally, this week the state DOE suspended the FAIR test for this year, citing technical difficulties, rather than the growing opposition to testing.
This debate must continue and educators must speak out. But the threat of retribution is real. School employees – particularly teachers who hold professional certificates — must be aware of the difference between advocating for policy change and encouraging disregard for current statute.
Below is a Q&A that should be helpful in the coming weeks.
Questions and Answers about Opting Out of Standardized Testing
I am hearing parents, teachers and even some students talk about opting out of state standardized tests and local assessment tests … is that even possible?
Currently, there is no legal process for a parent or student to opt out of testing in Florida.
Our school’s open house is coming up. What should I tell parents who ask me about opting their child out of standardized tests?
As a teacher, you need to know that you have a professional and ethical obligation to uphold district policy and state law. Therefore, you should not encourage students and/or parents to opt out of any mandatory test because that action MAY lead to sanctions from the state against your certificate and/or discipline by the district. Parents should be directed to the principal, the district superintendent and/or school board members as the ones who set and implement district policy.
Wow. Don’t I have the right to voice my professional or personal opinion on this issue?
Gagging teachers is one of the many direct and intended consequences of Senate Bill 736, the very first bill signed by Gov. Rick Scott. Teachers can no longer speak out in the best interest of students or for themselves. Teacher evaluations are affected and job security can be threatened if teachers do not implement current policies … even those widely recognized as educationally unsound. The most effective and highly effective annual contract teachers can be released for any reason or for no reason at all.
So what can we, as education professionals, do to fix this misguided system? Our students are being subjected to toxic levels of testing and cheated out of an education!
There is little disagreement that Florida’s so-called accountability system has gone horribly wrong. Florida’s use of testing must change, but we must follow the rules and work within the system. Many education stakeholders, including FEA, are calling on Gov. Rick Scott and the State Board of Education to immediately stop using standardized testing for any purpose other than as a diagnostic tool. Until standardized testing is again focused on teaching and learning, Florida should adopt a comprehensive opt-out policy that allows parents the choice to have their children excused without penalty from participating in statewide standardized or state required assessments.
What can I tell friends and family who are concerned about their children and the future of our public schools? What can they do to help?
Florida voters must hit the reset button on education reform by turning out and voting out those who are responsible for what one newspaper has dubbed, “an incomprehensible mess.”
Sincerely,
Andy Ford
President, Florida Education Association”
He didn’t silence $hit you silenced yourself. One thing is certain and that is; I will never let anyone silence me from speaking on anything in which I feel passionately about especially a thieving plead the 5th 55 times lying ass criminal like Prick Scott.
Are you going to pay my rent and feed my disabled partner when I get fired for speaking out?
I’m so sick of self-righteous people like you telling me what I should do. Why don’t you get fired and tell us how you survive? I’m 53 and have no savings, am a renter, my car is 12 years old, and I have major dental problems that I can’t afford to have treated on my current salary.
Tell me again how I need to speak out and get fired when I live in a county with the highest unemployment rate in a 50 mile radius.
I have nowhere else to go. I have no one to help me out if I get fired.
And keep your cursing to yourself, “The Real One”.
Go ahead and be a hero. I’m doing what I have to do to survive and to keep my family housed and fed and that means putting up with a lot of crap and swallowing a lot of words. Last thing I need is to be attacked by fellow teachers. I’m doing what I can when I can as I can. That’s all that’s possible for me right now. Sorry if it isn’t good enough for all you ‘hero’ teachers out there who are willing to lose your job on principle.
Chris in FL: I hear you.
Last thing I need is to be attacked by fellow teachers. I’m doing what I can when I can as I can. That’s all that’s possible for me right now.
The only way that I can speak out even now is that I am retired and they can’t fire me…. So I do emails, phone calls, leave comments in local newspapers etc. and participate through on line groups . When I was working I did have some freedom because I was divorced without children. People in a different situation are responsible for their families and they cannot speak out because they will be penalized or harassed or fired. It has been like that for some time but it has gotten worse over this past decade. As early as the 70s my boss/supervisor would bang that table and say “think like a businessman not like a teacher”…. The only way for teachers to make progress at this point is to join up with other unions (all kinds) including the machinists union and others. The intent of mean-spirited politicians is to destroy the unions and they will use the same tactics on teachers (remove the professionals and replace them with a younger cohort of TFA or other short timers). It is a definite attack against the profession. Thank you for all you do and there are many of us who understand what the pressures are.. An Associate Commissioner spoke last week and she said “I don’t want to sound crass but we are not out to shut down the teacher’s colleges”… yet, I cannot believe her because I don’t have faith in the political systems that are driving this agenda and the intertwining and interlocking boards of the thinky tanks and the co-opting of all of the professional associations that should be the bulwark — they have convinced people that the only road to modernity is this computer hype and marketing and “market” based system which is reckless capitalism. There are some who are not well-intentioned at all and they manage to convince those who should be guarding the R&D process and the school improvement agenda… Then the well intentioned people get persuaded, they get “bought up” or they are pushed aside . I know tho is long winded but I hear you
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
Your sick of people of people like me telling you what to do but your not sick of the people who are making your life a living hell at work at least not enough to speak up? You cannot let fear determine the course you take in life. No one knows what lies ahead. However, sometimes we have to take chances without worrying about the things that are used by the people in power to scare us into conformity. I taught for 13 years and you know what? I got tired of the bullshit and quit the first day back after summer vacation last year after hearing my Principal go into a pro common core diatribe during a pre planning meeting. I had zero savings at the time and I liive in one of the highest cost of living Counties in Florida. No matter how disastrous the results of quitting could be, it couldn’t be as bad as waking up and going to a job that had become everything that I knew in my heart was absolutely wrong in order so a select few could profit from it. I also had someone who depended on my income but I knew I had to make the leap and I simply put my faith in God that all would turn out well and so far it has. I was awarded unemployment l and am excelling academically in a Medical program. The loans I have taken out combined with the unemployment almost equal what my pathetic teacher salary was but if I didn’t take the change I would still be miserable and unbearable. I am happier and everyday that goes by it is clear that I made the right decision. It is human to have fears because in this Country we have been conditioned into subservient little debt slaves but if you are unhappy with your job walking away, as scary as it may be, could be the best decision you ever make. Life is short and you only live once. Teaching in Florida is heading nowhere but the gutter and unless you guys speak up it will never change. Teachers have yet to realize that they hold all the cards because you guys are strong in numbers. If you stand together and speak up as one you will win no matter what obstacles you face and it is evident your Unions are never going to let that happen because of their vested financial interests that coincide with what is right. I was not attacking you and if you feel that way then I apologize for my tone. It’s just frustrating when you have thousands of teachers and only a handful show the courage to do what is right.
This conversation has touched more than one nerve. The topic is something I think about often.
I’m in an interesting position, because my spouse is a pediatric oncologist who easily earns three times what I do. Even though we have children, if I were to lose my job, it would be an inconvenience, not a disaster. I’m pretty vocal about this and I’m fairly certain that my local administration is aware of it.
I tend to speak my mind about things, but then I feel a bit more free to because of my situation. It’s probably compounded by the fact that admin know that I’ll probably call a bluff intended to intimidate, and a confrontation with me over free speech rights would be likely to escalate quickly because of this.
I was put on administrative leave the day after writing a letter to the editor of a local paper that dealt with high stakes testing and revealed some major flaws in my state’s testing plan (long-time readers may have read this letter, which Diane was kind enough to print here). When I explained the situation in e-mail to the editor of the paper, he e-mailed me back offering to write an editorial about me if I felt my free speech rights had been abrogated. I made sure to discretely include a transcript of this conversation in a packet delivered to my union’s lawyer, and the next day I was allowed back to work (coincidence?).
I’ve since written letters to the local papers more than once, and am a regular commentator on local online education articles. I’ve never had trouble since that one incident.
But, as I said, I’m in a different situation than most people. When I was put on leave, I told several co-workers who were kind enough to call as ask how I was doing that “the worst they can do is fire me.” For me, it wouldn’t have been the end of the world. It isn’t that way for everyone.
On the other hand, I do agree that we can’t expect much in the way of real change until people are willing to put their jobs on the line and go on strike.
My theory is that this isn’t going to happen until teachers get uncomfortable enough with their jobs for it to seem like a preferable option to then. As bad as things are now, we aren’t there yet.
This is why I often say that it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
The Real One. Courage behind a keyboard, again? The teachers you condemn are fighting these battles daily. The question is always “is this the hill I want to die on?”. You fight battles to win a war. But I’ll bet if you publish an address, all those courageous fired teachers could send you the bills and mortgage payments.
I think this is not so simple. If I am fired any good I can do for the students I teach is lost. I teach in a district that is not well to do and many are very poor. The community is not as supportive of their students as, I think, they should be, but that is not the students’ fault. I cannot with all the testing, common core, and other ed reform problems I have to deal with teach my students as effectively as I would like, but I believe I am able to do some good. If I am fired I can do no good and the students suffer most (not that I am a great teacher, but that students lose the benefit of whatever good I can do for them). I suppose when the time comes when I can do no good because the impositions are so onerous than perhaps more risky behavior may be an option.
There are many things to weigh. Ultimately I went into the profession to do some good for kids, to help them acquire the skills and maturity they need to succeed in life. It is not so simple, I think, as doing this produces only good and doing that produces only bad. Compromises need to be made and each teacher needs to assess where they can do the most good and be the most effective and which actions are worth the costs that accompany them. I can’t change the climate, I can’t change politicians and their agendas, I cannot change corporate America, or that part of it that sees everything as a business opportunity with a potential for profit, I cannot change people that want to blame me rather than accept their responsibilities when it comes to educating America’s children (I think most of the self-proclaimed ed reformers are not looking to solve problems, they are looking for someone to blame). But what I can do is help to change kids for the better, to contribute to their growth, development, and maturity. I am frustrated by what I cannot do, but I am committed to doing what I can do. I suppose we all have to decide what that means and the best way to go about achieving what we are capable of achieving.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
I may make someone angry, but I suggest we leave the sneer, jeer and smear to the rheephormsters.
The edubullies put people in truly difficult circumstances. As I remember the situation, one teacher in the Atlanta case was fairly new to her position and participated (against her own best judgment) in cheating parties. So she did, indeed, do the wrong thing. But she was also a single mother, sole breadwinner for her children. What about her moral obligation to her own children?
I fully believe, with all my heart, that explanation is not exculpation. But I will not follow the example of the leaders and enforcers of the “new civil rights movement of our time” that mandate perverse incentives and then act all high and mighty about the “little people” that fall prey to the damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t rheephorm policies.
In all sincerity I urge people to save their powder for the heavyweights and leaders of the self-styled “education reform” movement. Like a John Deasy, for example, that walks away from his world-class wrecking of LAUSD with $60,000 (and more) while a fine teacher like Ms. Patrena Shankling was fired by same for doing the job he can’t. And Mr. Deasy now has a plush position at the Broad Academy. He can’t lose for winning!
The rheephormistas want to take away our public schools and genuine teaching & learning and responsibility for same. Call them out on their smash-and-grab assault on the public good. Say it like it is, in plain English, without mincing words. But, IMHO, don’t let them take away our mercy and compassion for those that, in other circumstances, we would call our brothers and sisters, our neighbors, our friends.
So, for example, stand firm on opt out. Starve the public school haters and teacher bashers of their blood money. But keep the dialogue going.
A small personal example. While picketing Woolworth stores in Detroit while young re discriminatory hiring policies, not everyone that saw our small picket line or read our leaflets turned around and walked away. Some people would ignore us, walk in and shop and buy, then walk out. But guess what? More often than not when they walked out they would stop, maybe pick up a leaflet, or pause for a second to talk to one of the picketers.
Convincing people and building a movement isn’t a one-stop gimmick. It takes time and patience and effort and giving people many chances to agree with you.
Woolworth ignored us for a good while. Then they caved in, and for a very good reason: they longer they waited for us to just go away, the worse things got for them.
As the owner of this blog has stated, the good guys don’t always win—
But we’re going to win this one.
By standing firm. On principle. And not shutting the door on anyone that is for a “better education for all.”
That’s just the way I see it…
😎
Reblogged this on donotmalignme and commented:
This one frightens me on so many different levels.
You know MathVale you are a coward of the highest order. I am far from a keyboard warrior. In fact, I was the most vocal teacher at my school. I had to speak up for many who were too scared to voice their opinions for whatever reasons. If you are going to be held hostage at your job without having a say, then why waste time coming here to vent like a little child. Instead man up and speak up where your opinion needs to be heard. You think reformers are going to be scared because you come and spew your frustrations on a blog after a long day at work? Please wake up and grow some! I don’t have to pay anybody’s mortgage or rent because I am not making them do anything. However, you are going to work and being made to administer a test that is flat out criminal and like a subservient little serf you do so and then come here to cry about it. Your pay is also being determined by faulty metrics and you accept it in silence rather than go to work and speak up about the obvious injustices; and to make matters worse, then you call someone who is telling you the truth a keyboard commando. If you saw me in person you wouldn’t say shit to me because you in fact are the keyboard coward. I already set you straight on another thread for calling me out for the same nonsense and I waited for a reply but instead I heard crickets chirping. How are people fighting these battles everyday when they are questioning whether or not it is even appropriate to talk about something that is flat out criminal? The teachers that are in fact fighting the battles are few in numbers as most are too scared to do what is necessary. Do you know how many times a sick out was planned in my school by a few brave teachers only to hear the minority say “but I don’t want to get in trouble”? With attitudes like that you might as well pack it up and go home. Just remember this message if and when public education is ultimately destroyed. I bet then you won’t question whether or not you should have stood up for what is right but by then it will be too late. The time is now and teachers must realize that you can’t play Mr. nice guy with a bunch of thieving heartless immoral crooks. I understand the worries about losing your job but with every inch teachers continue to give the reformers will continue to take a mile. Good night! Just remember you guys are invincible in numbers all it takes is some courage they cannot fire you all.
correction: the above sentence should read the “majority” say not the “minority”
The Real One this is an older blog post by Curmudgucation but it speaks to the issue in a timely way. http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2014/10/ma-committed-to-chasing-teachers-away.html
comment: Last Friday Associate Commissioner Peske stood up in front of a room full and said “it may be crass that I bring this up”…. but and then she made two statements to illustrate the state department is not trying to “close” or “shut down” the teachers’ colleges. Again, I do not have trust or faith in anything they say. (#pearson watching)…. I looked for my notes to get her exact wording but I have paraphrased here rather than take the time to look up what I wrote down. Then , she went on to describe the tools for the preparation/licensing and mentoring of teachers and they held breakout sessions on the use of Harvard’s “DATAWISE” to gather data. I lose faith in a lot of ways (a) they are pushing conformity (b) one of the programs in use is Millken Foundation (lost trust with them in the hedge fund and Savings and Loans days) and © how things are implemented — (fidelity of implementation of something that is truly useful, valuable with reliability and validity behind it)…. As an example: my local city televised school committee meeting : a young woman does an excellent job presenting the MCAS testing data the state gave her (not that they gave her the most credible information — but more of their “growth” algorithms) , school committee doesn’t know what questions to ask, and the superintendent closes by saying “now we have data so we can “… and the “state will come in and fire the principals and the teachers” so it was used as a direct threat in front of the school committee and any citizens watching on TV but the Associate Commissioner says “we are not ” and is defensive about the strategies of the state department.. (#pearson watching)
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
quote: “You know MathVale you are a coward of the highest order. I am far from a keyboard warrior. In fact, I was the most vocal teacher at my school. I had to speak up for many who were too scared to voice their opinions for whatever reasons. If you are going to be held hostage at your job without having a say, then why waste time coming here to vent like a little child.”
comment: I don’t think it will be helpful to insult people … individuals have to make choices based on circumstances and context. Even being retired I would like to save a PROFESSION…. this is not my individual choice to go into another career path. We need stronger professional associations and unions and groups like BATS and parents and others. Take a look at the groups that had to fight for HIV/AIDS treatments and see how they had to alter the approach — attacking each other and forming smaller isolated factions doesn’t solve anything. The largest coalition ever was the Title I grouping with parents, teachers, others in leadership ; Anyone is entitled to an individual choice based on the context…. then come back to fight another day. This is a long term battle and the values held for public schools (in the past) are being eroded by short-term greed, Take a look at James Risen’s book “Pay Any Price” … or some of the other literature (if you never read The Band Plays on, I would recommend it… or one about climate change that exposes the greed and the short-term profits in a computer-hyped market that has no bounds. Or “House of Cards” by Cohan; this is what we are up against — a vision of the U.S. hegemon that is abhorrent to me. You are probably still hurting because of the sacrifices you had to make to get to your current status.
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
Because my scanner is malfunctioning I have to type the following:
Teachers and the Law by Louis Fischer , David Schimmel, and Cynthia Kelly 1981
is about teachers and the law that affects them, law established by state and federal statutes, constitutions, and court decisions.
p 119
“Do teachers have the right to circulate controversial petitions on school premises?
According to the California Supreme Court, they do. In Los Angeles, the school board prohibited the circulation of a teachers’ union petition to public officials protesting cutbacks in education funds and calling for an overhaul of the tax structure. The board prohibited the petition because it was controversial and would clause teachers to take opposing political positions, thereby creating discord and lack of harmony. However, the liberal California court strongly defended the right of teachers to petition for redress of grievances.
The court pointed out that “tolerance of the unrest intrinsic to the expression of controversial ideas is constitutionally required even in the school.”
”According to the court: “It cannot seriously be argued that school officials may demand a teaching faculty composed… of thinking individuals sworn never to share their ideas with one another for fear they may disagree and like children, extend their disagreement to the level of general hostility and uncooperativeness.”
p.120 (cont.)
The judge noted that the union’s petition in this case falls within “the desirable category of political activity,” and their past conduct evidences respect for law because of their willingness to try to resolve differences in court “rather than through disruptive channels.” the court concluded: “Absent of showing of a clear and substantial threat to order and efficiency in the schools such proposed First Amendment activity should not be stifled.”
To me this substantiates the fact that the state of Arizona can not legally place a gag order on teachers. We need education lawyers to get involved and defend teachers who speak out against abuse imposed on them by the fed. and state.
Using the big guns and $$ to come after researcher Julia Sass Rubin. If we don’t like what you say, we will silence you. A tad ironic in NJ, given Christie, Cami Anderson and Newark. Rutgers is the state university, BTW.
http://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/rutgers-professor-faces-ethics-complaint/
Reblogged this on Vanessa's Blogueria and commented:
NM gag orders silencing educators. That means they can’t talk about for fear of state retaliation and losing their jobs. Being over-the-hill and out of the game has its benefits ~ and carries with it the obligation to speak up for and about the silenced
Where is the American Civil Liberties Union?
Follow the donations that fund the ACLU and see if a large portion came from the Gates and Walton foundations—that might reveal the answer to the question.
You are correct everything is bought.
You know, we still have a first amendment in this country. Why not a class action suit by the teacher organizations representing them. How dare they silence opinions!
Pam
As public employees, teachers do not have full, first amendment protections.
Free Speech Rights of Teachers?
The following are a series of excerpts from various articles concerning the free speech rights of teachers as public employees. This information is intended to shed some light on the general sense of fear that many teachers are feeling in regards to speaking out against the federal test-and-punish reform movement. I am a teacher, not a lawyer, but perhaps this information will help some teachers of conscience make a more informed decision about voicing their concerns about what many of us perceive as the harmful effects of the federally coerced Common Core standards and the required companion assessments, as well as linking said scores to teacher evaluations. In the opinion of many educators, this toxic mix of bad educational policies are undermining classroom environments and often constraining the professional judgment of teachers and limiting our use of best practices.
From the ACLU: https://aclu-wa.org/news/free-speech-rights-public-school-teachers
Teachers do not forfeit the right to comment publicly on matters of public importance simply because they accept a public school teaching position. Teachers cannot be fired or disciplined for statements about matters of public importance unless it can be demonstrated that the teacher’s speech created a substantial adverse impact on school functioning.
A teacher appears to speak for the school district when he or she teaches, so the district administration has a strong interest in determining the content of the message its teachers will deliver. Washington courts have upheld the authority of school districts to prescribe both course content and teaching methods. Courts in other jurisdictions have ruled that teachers have no free speech rights to include unapproved materials on reading lists.
Depending on the precise form of message displayed on the teachers’ clothing, a school may have legitimate concern that a teacher’s display of a political message is more likely than a student’s to disrupt the school’s intended educational message. This right may be limited only if there is good reason to believe that the speech would cause a substantial and material disruption to education or violate the rights of others. Washington courts have not considered the question, but courts in other jurisdictions have differed over whether teachers have the same right as students to display personal political messages on their clothing. In one case, a court upheld a dress code that prevented teachers from wearing political buttons in the classroom because school districts have legitimate authority to “dissociate themselves from matters of political controversy.”
From the New York State Association of School Attorneys:
http://www.guerciolaw.com/school-employees-right-to-free-speech-appears-limited-when-job-related/
School employees’ right to free speech appears limited when job-related.
Does a school employee’s right to free speech stop at the schoolhouse door? While the outcomes of employee disciplinary cases and other cases involving adverse job actions always depend on the facts, court rulings suggest that there has been a deterioration of public employees’ rights to free speech in the workplace. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2006 ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, courts have been taking a different approach when public employees claim to be protected by the First Amendment in connection with an adverse job action. All such lawsuits now involve an examination of whether the employee was speaking pursuant to his or her job duties. According to Garcetti, if speech was made as a result of an employee’s job duties, no First Amendment protection applies (see sidebar below). For school districts, the change raises a question that is not always easily answered: What do the “job duties” of a specific school employee entail? Some New York courts have closely examined the employee’s “actual duties” as opposed to the employee’s job description in an effort to afford the most First Amendment protection. Nevertheless, the Garcetti decision appears to have made it harder for public employees to successfully assert First Amendment protection.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has jurisdiction over all of New York State, made this ruling about free speech rights: “The general principle … is that, when a public employee airs a complaint or grievance, or expresses concern about misconduct, to his or her immediate supervisor or pursuant to a clear duty to report imposed by law or employer policy, he or she is speaking as an employee and not as a citizen.” In light of Garcetti, “the First Amendment does not protect the employee’s speech from discipline or retaliation by the employer,” the court said. The court continued: In such circumstances, the employer is free to “discipline” the employee without violating the employee’s First Amendment rights. If, however, the employee goes outside of the established institutional channels in order to express a complaint or concern, the employee is speaking as a citizen, and the speech is protected by the First Amendment.
For instance, the Second Circuit ruled that statements by a special education counselor to administrators about the lack of physical education and art classes at a satellite BOCES facility were made within the scope of employment and were not protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, conversations with other teachers about the same issues were not part of any official duty. Therefore, a teacher might be able to prevail in a free-speech defense against any alleged retaliation for critical comments about the school made to colleagues but not if the adverse job action stemmed from similar comments made in the line of duty.
From Joshana Jones, Esq. Atlanta, GA:
http://theeducatorsroom.com/2012/12/teachers-freedom-of-speech-rights/
Public school teachers are in a unique position. They are employees of the state and therefore school districts have an interest in making sure that messages from teachers are in line with the goals and vision of the district.
The following factors will help a teacher understand if their free speech is protected:
1) The speech must touch on a matter of public concern
2) The teacher’s speech must outweigh the district’s interest in efficiency. The courts may consider any of the following:
a) The effect of the speech on the harmony of the staff
b) Whether the speech has a detrimental impact on working relationships
c) Whether the speech interferes with the normal operation of the employer’s business
The Pickering Balance Test: http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/essentials-of-pickering-balancing-test.html
Essentials of the “Pickering Balancing Test”
Pickering v Board of Education, 391 US 563
The so-called Pickering Test is applied in balancing the interests of a public employer with its employees’ right to Free Speech and requires the court’s consideration of the following:
1. Did the individual demonstrate that his or her speech address a matter or matters of public interest and concern?
2. Did the individual demonstrate that his or her speech was a significant or motivating factor in the employer’s decision?
3. Did the court balance the interests of the individual commenting on matters of public concern as a citizen and the public employer’s interest in “promoting the efficiency of public service?”
From Sherrod v, School Board of Palm Beach County, FL
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020101012611
Protected Speech
In determining the threshold issue of whether a public employee has engaged in speech entitled to constitutional protection, the court first asks “whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. If the answer is “no,” the employee’s speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection. If the answer is “yes,” “the question becomes whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public.”
In Abdur-Rahman v. Walker, 567 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir.2009), the Eleventh Circuit discussed the rationale behind the requirement that a public employee speak “as a citizen” to receive constitutional protection for his speech: First, because “government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter,” “Supreme Court precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job.” Second, government employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employee’s words and actions; without it, there would be little chance of the efficient provision of public services. Because of the unique trusted position that public employees occupy, they ought not to receive constitutional protection for speech that “expresses views that contravene governmental policies or impairs the proper performance of governmental functions. Third, when complaints under the First Amendment are limited to instances in which a public employee proves that he “spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” courts avoid “judicial oversight” of workplace communications and “permanent judicial intervention in the conduct of governmental operations to a degree inconsistent with sound principles of federalism and the separation of powers.”
Garcetti v. Ceballos (Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos
Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, ruling in a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy that the First Amendment does not prevent employees from being disciplined for expressions they make pursuant to their professional duties.
Kennedy’s majority opinion
The Court wrote that its “precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job.” Instead, public employees are not speaking as citizens when they are speaking to fulfill a responsibility of their job.
Though the speech at issue concerned the subject matter of his employment, and was expressed within his office rather than publicly, the Court did not consider either fact dispositive, and noted that employees in either context may receive First Amendment protection. The “controlling factor” was instead that his statements were made pursuant to his duties as a deputy district attorney. Restricting such speech, which “owes its existence to a public employee’s professional responsibilities,” did not in the Court’s view violate any rights that the employee had as a private citizen. Instead, the restrictions were simply the control an employer exercised “over what the employer itself has commissioned or created.”
NYSUT “Free Speech” lawsuit:
http://www.nysut.org/news/2014/october/lawsuit-charges-state-education-department-ban-on-discussing-tests-violates-free-speech
ALBANY, N.Y. Oct. 9, 2014 – New York State United Teachers has filed suit in federal court seeking to invalidate confidentiality agreements the State Education Department requires teachers to sign before scoring state tests, saying the prohibition – with its accompanying threats of discipline, including dismissal, license revocation and criminal prosecution – is an unconstitutional prior restraint on teachers’ free speech rights.
The suit, filed Wednesday by NYSUT’s Office of General Counsel on behalf of five teachers, charges the State Education Department with violating teachers’ First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by preventing them from speaking out on matters of public concern. The suit charges SED’s rules unconstitutionally make teachers’ speech conditional on government approval while establishing a “system to police the free exchange of ideas and opinions regarding its compulsory and costly testing regime.”
Bobby Jindal’s Executive Order: http://eagnews.org/bobby-jindal-issues-executive-order-protecting-anti-common-core-teachers/
BATON ROUGE, La. – Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has issued an executive order to protect teachers who are critics of Common Core national standards. Teachers statewide are feeling pressure from all sides, saying they are overworked and students are over-tested, and now many are saying they aren’t allowed to voice concerns or dissenting opinions.
The newspaper reports today, “Jindal issued an Executive Order to protect freedom of speech and the rights of teachers.”
The order reads, in part:
FREEDOM OF SPEECH PROTECTIONS FOR LOUISIANA TEACHERS
NOW THEREFORE, I, BOBBY JINDAL, Governor of the State of Louisiana, by virtue of the authority vested by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Louisiana, do hereby order and direct as follows:
SECTION 1: As part of the ongoing discussion among state and local education officials, teachers, parents, and stakeholders regarding classroom curriculum and testing, and as part of the larger discussion of the quality of Louisiana’s educational system, legal guarantees afforded to all citizens shall be maintained and provided to teachers;
SECTION 2: State and local school administration officials are not authorized under the existing laws of this state to deny a teacher’s constitutional freedom of speech in order to stifle the discussion and debate surrounding curriculum and standardized assessments by teachers.
“Why not a class action suit by the teacher organizations representing them”
HA HA HA. Thanks for the laugh before I retire for the evening!!
Reblogged this on stopcommoncorenys.
The right to work laws are far more insidious than any recent attempts to limit speech. I returned to Arizona, my home state, after a professional career spent in the union rich states of MA, CT and NY. As I tried to learn more about what was happening in AZ, especially reactions to NCLB, a consistent theme was fear of losing their job. For all practical purposes there are no rights and hasn’t been for a very long time. Moreover, given the rural nature of AZ, a teacher cannot just quit and move to a job nearby, nor is there union/association help to defend a firing.
A giant step was the joint letter signed by more than 230 superintendents protesting the most recent round of state budget cuts. A first. The failed Senate Bill 1172, restricting speech, had to be the only way the state could rein them in. AZ BATS is another bold move, albeit only 370 members strong. However, the work of Audrey Beardsley is largely unknown in the school districts.
I had the same concern about teachers’ freedom of speech being violated when our superintendent informed us, via our union president, that it would be considered “insubordination” if we publicly expressed a negative opinion of the PARCC tests. So I did a little research into the legal history of public employees and freedom of speech, and this is my understanding of what the supreme court decided in the case of Pickering vs the Board of Education, where a public school teacher was fired for writing a letter to the editor criticizing the way funds at his school had been spent. The court decided that two conditions had to be met in order for an employee’s first amendment rights to be violated: first, it has to be a matter of “public concern,” which the PARCC certainly is, and second, the employee’s protest can’t disrupt the day-to-day running of the school. Unless teachers are calling for a sit-down strike, I don’t see how posting reasoned and evidence-based critiques of the testing is going to disrupt the school day. (Although in the long run, I hope it brings about substantial changes to what goes on in schools throughout the year.)