FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Julian Vinocur, julian@aqeny.org, 212-328-9268
Maria Bautista, maria@aqeny.org, 347-622-9706
*** Media Advisory for July 31st, 4:15pm, Outside Colbert Report Studio Taping 513 West 54th St.***
Parents and Teachers to Protest Campbell Brown’s Appearance On Colbert Report
Growing Outrage Over Brown’s Refusal to Disclose Wall Street Backers, While Proclaiming to Speak for Parents
WHAT: On the heels of Campbell Brown filing a bogus lawsuit attacking teachers, public school parents and teachers will protest her appearance outside tonight’s taping of the Colbert Report.
Parents and teachers will expose the Real Campbell Brown: a right-wing, out-of-touch elitist, with no background in education who is running a political campaign funded by Wall Street donors.
Participants will be tweeting from #WhoFundsCampbell & #Questions4Campbell
WHO: Parents and teachers, members of the Alliance for Quality Education and New York Communities for Change.
WHERE: Outside Colbert Report studio on 513 West 54th St, NY, NY (between 54th st. and 10th ave.).
WHEN: Today, at 4:15pm. Thursday, July 31st, 2014.
# # #
Diane Ravitch's blog 
If she comes to the Bay Area, I’ll be there to protest her out of here.
Sorry to be off-topic but it relates in a way to Campbell Brown and her anti-union lawsuit:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/wisconsin-court-upholds-2011-law
“MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the 2011 law that effectively ended collective bargaining for most public workers, sparked massive protests and led to Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s recall election and rise to national prominence.
The 5-2 ruling upholds the signature policy achievement of Walker in its entirety and is a major victory for the potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate, who is seeking re-election this year.
The ruling also marks the end of the three-year legal fight over the union rights law, which prohibits public worker unions for collectively bargaining for anything beyond base wage increases based on inflation. A federal appeals court twice upheld the law as constitutional.
“No matter the limitations or ‘burdens’ a legislative enactment places on the collective bargaining process, collective bargaining remains a creation of legislative grace and not constitutional obligation,” Justice Michael Gableman wrote for the majority.”
The end of collective bargaining has begun with the blessing of the conservative majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The conservative majority of the US Supreme Court will follow their lead, I am sure.
Now do the AFT and NEA understand the need for militancy and fighting back or will they continue to fiddle while Rome burns and their very existence is legislated away, state by state?
Campbell Brown’s lawsuit may be superfluous. Stripping away due process and collective bargaining will be on every state’s legislative agenda, complete with an ALEC template in the coming months now that this decision has been handed down.
Chris, you are right on target. The destruction of all unions is the goal of the billionaires and large corporations. We already have too many right to work states that make unions powerless and toothless and now we have this latest anti-union ruling from Wisconsin. In the 1950s, the unionization rate was in the 30% to 34% range and now it’s at 11.3% (the private sector unionization rate is a measly 6.7%). The GOP was always anti-union (though Ike was an exception) but the Democrats have abandoned unions for their friends on Wall Street.
I would have gone to the protest if I had known in advance. I’ve been tweeting pretty successfully, but I will also be making a few phone calls and sending a few emails. Not sure if these are accurate, it’s a list of what I found on the Internet:
Busboy Productions
513 W 54TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10019 212-468-1762
Colbert Nation webmaster: colbertweb@gmail.com
Colbert Report Studios at (212) 586-2477
Comedy Central Press Contacts
PRESS OFFICES
New York
345 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10014
212.767.8600
Steve Albani
Senior Vice President, Communications
steve.albani@cc.com
Jenni Runyan
Vice President, Communications
jenni.runyan@cc.com
Renata Luczak
Vice President, Communications
renata.luczak@cc.com
Eve Kenny
Publicist, Consumer Publicity
eve.kenny@cc.com
Kassie Canter
Executive Vice President, Communications – Viacom Entertainment Group
kassie.canter@viacom345.com
Aileen Budow
Senior Vice President, Communications – Viacom Entertainment Group
aileen.budow@viacom345.com
Matt Conte
Assistant, Communications – Viacom Entertainment Group
matt.conte@viacom345.com
Lezlie Wills
Executive Assistant, Communications – Viacom Entertainment Group
lezlie.wills@viacom345.com
She is the educational “Sarah Palin”. How is that taking money from hedge fund managers working for you?
I’d say it’s working pretty well for her. Twitter (yeah I know) is full of the usual ed reform morons congratulating her on a great interview. At least Mr. Colbert made her say out loud that she won’t reveal her funding sources.
This just highlights the fact that our media is owned by Wall Street. Stephen Colbert is a sell out like the rest of them. He’s funny, don’t get me wrong, but he’s got a role to play and he is willing to play it.
Once again, turn you TV off. It is brainwash central. Don’t let them have access to your brain.
Maybe Colbert ought to watch the Jon Stewart show to learn about education issues! How idiotic of Colbert – IDIOTIC.
Well he lost this teacher as a devoted viewer!
I watched. And I think he did a great job. Satire is Satire…Colbert ruffled her.
Do you understand his humor? When he used his desire to fire a teacher who taught his kids evolution- is he not showing how vulnerable teachers will be to undeserved termination?
Please watch the interview if you haven’t already. He made her explain why she wouldn’t name her funders and likened it to the superPAC he used to have. If you followed his superPAC proceedings, you will understand how that makes her look. There was also complete silence after she finished her explanation, which is good.
Colbert has a history of going easy on “reformers”.
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/qj7ov5/wendy-kopp
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/ptxagr/melinda-gates
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/leatvt/geoffrey-canada
etc.
Maybe he will surprise us and put Campbell in her place.
Yay! He did!
Colbert’s show won’t be satire tonight: I predict that he will softball her.
You can also post on his twitter account if you’re too far away to protest!
To echo and add, The Daily Show and Colbert Report have invited many privatization lizards (and many other terrible people) in the past, often more than once. Rhee, Duncan, Canada, et. al. And every interview was soft balled. I personally believe it to be an effect of the politico-media complex, but lately I’m thinking that Stewart and Colbert actually believe in privatization of schools and everything else.
Here’s a list of TDS and CR episodes, just to give everyone a glimpse of just how establishment these two shows are:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Daily_Show_with_Jon_Stewart_episodes
-and-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Colbert_Report_episodes
Watched Colbert and I want to thank the protesters who clearly made a positive impact on Colbert. He asked the right questions and in my opinion succeeded in showing Campbell Brown to be nothing more than a spouter of talking points for the Koch agenda. I loved his question about a teacher losing her job for teaching evolution and Brown’s reply that no one wants to take away due process rights from teachers. What nonsense.
@GST. Agree!..I was concerned, given the confines of his show and his ¨character.¨ But I was pleasantly surprised. He called her on her funding sources and noted the protests outside of the studio. Along with other snark. Good job Colbert!
Yeah that was strange. She said that everyone has due process rights but that’s not true. Is she lying or misinformed?
Colbert was the master in this take-down of Brown. He didn’t give her a single opportunity to marginalize the protesters or avoid his questions about her funders. She was stumbling & stammering her talking points trying her best to dance around his pointed questions.
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/07/colbert-spars-union-busting-campbell-brown
He made her look ridiculous. Good job Colbert!
Woke up in time to catch the interview at the end of the show. I was wondering who was cheering for the bullscheet emanating from CB’s mouth. She said the student plaintiffs and their families (i.e. the plutocrats’ puppets) were in the audience. So CB wanted to pack the audience with her supporters to give the appearance that the lawsuit had popular support. At least the camera didn’t pan over their faces to earn CB more points in the court of public opinion.
I felt Colbert did attempt to pry some info from CB on how her group was funded, but CB refused to provide this information, yet she said they were taking these lawsuits nationwide. BTW, what other lawsuits has the high-priced Kirkland and Ellis done pro bono? That would be an interesting list to see.
Too bad there wasn’t enough time to explain how so many teachers leave before obtaining tenure; hence the higher number of qualified teachers.
I hope Colbert follows up on this issue and exposes CB and the rest of her ilk for what they are – members and tools of the 1 percent whose end game is to destroy teachers unions and the teaching profession itself. Better yet, I would love to see Diane R. or members of the BATS guest star on the Colbert report.
About the growing number of Teach for America recruits who are getting a few weeks of training before being thrown into a classroom (usually a high needs one).
This issue is so much more- if it really is about teacher effectiveness, when are we going to start going after college teacher- prep programs. Aren’t they the ones to blame?
Here is my Campbell Tweet:
Campbell Brown’s Hedge Fund Lawsuit going after Professional Educators who Teach & Care 4 Kids. SHAME!#WhoFundsCampbell#questions4campbell
thanks! I’m retweeting.
I was really happy that he asked her the tough questions too! She just hemmed and hawed when it came to the money. I also think she misrepresented the Vergara decision. She said a teacher of the year got fired to keep an incompetant one–wasn’t it the other way around? Wasn’t the one said to be incompetant the Teacher of the Year? I hate when people have to change the facts around to justify their arguments.
Now that you bring this up Texas Teacher, I remember that being EXACTLY the case. Thank you for reminding us.
Thank goodness for those of you who were out there protesting. I don’t think he’d have played it the same without you.
This is the only interview I’ve seen where he couldn’t help but intermittently come out of character in order to make his point that she was wrong. He was trying to stay “on her side” and he simply could not. It was clear he viewed her as despicable; no initial eye contact, no wasting time with silliness… he even got her on playing the “student card”.
I have never seen him speechless at the end of an interview the way he was after her “protect my poor persecuted anonymous funding sources” spiel. I guess it’s hard to play a fraud when you’re sitting with an actual fraud.
You are correct. Colbert is a master. It was clear he read the tweets. too.
Follow the trail…thanks Mother Jones.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/campbell-brown-new-york-schools-rhee
Try to access CB’s website…no Contrary Comments Allowed!
Diane, a teacher at BATs wrote a wonderful comment to Campbell that I wanted you to read! She says it is okay to share it.
Pamela Casey Nagler
“Campbell Brown, Many of us teachers serve populations that are roiled by poverty and its attendant problems – debt, unemployment, underemployment, hunger and illness. When doctors serve communities riddled with disease, they are not blamed because so many are sick. They are honored because they are helping. And yet, your conversation last night blamed and shamed teachers who work in our poverty schools for not posting higher test scores. After it was over, you mentioned that it was”fun” to use the Colbert Report to empty your vitriol against teachers who serve in these schools. Exactly what I would expect from the super rich who send their kids to private schools, but want to experiment on our kids – the struggling middle class and the poor. Your lawsuit will not put one more book in our schools, not one more desk, or qualified teacher, or art program or physical education class, but it will have worked to defame the very people who are helping. Removing job protections while cultivating a culture of disrespect will weaken a valuable profession that requires 2-4 years of college beyond a BA and that serves some of our most difficult communities. Some of us work in schools that are the one stabilizing force. Why aren’t you working to stabilize us? It is a dishonor to listen to you. It’s a rich person’s game, you are playing.”
It would be interesting to see how Campbell Brown’s income from “corporate reform” activism compares with her predecessor Michelle Rhee, who makes more in an hour of bashing public school teachers & their unions as the average starting teacher makes in a year—while we have to read the outrageous stuff that her supporters claim about how self-less and noble she is..
Below, we can read as one of her backers blathers about how Rhee is now “shunning high salaries” to “improve the lot of our nation’s students,” and how she was targeted and victimized in D.C. because she “put students first.”
Check out what WAITING FOR SUPERMAN director Davis Guggenheim wrote in his blurb accompanying her page in TIME Magazine’s 100 Most Important People list:
(CAPS are mine… Jack… it’s in the last paragraph)
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2066367_2066369_2066128,00.html
—————————————
DAVIS GUGGENHEIM:
“She (Michelle Rhee) SET A GOAL TO IMPROVE THE LOT OF THE NATION’S STUDENTS, and she has stuck to that. And she PAID DEARLY FOR IT, stepping down from her D.C. post in 2010 after Mayor Adrian Fenty lost his bid for re-election, a public rejection that some saw as A REPUDIATION OF THE TOUGH STEPS to raise the standards of the city’s public schools.
“Subsequently, SHE SHUNNED ANY HIGH-SALARY OFFERS that resulted from her high-profile tenure and INSTEAD FOUNDED HER OWN ORGANIZATION.
” ‘PUTTING KIDS FIRST’ could be a pithy slogan. For many it is.FOR RHEE, IT’S A LIFELONG COMMITMENT.”
—————————————
Hey Davis, you know who else has to “pay dearly”? The folks who have to pay to have this woman speak for an hour or two!
Ms. Rhee may have “shunned any high salary offers” after the voters of D.C. ran her out of town, but she sure isn’t shy about lapping up her $50K / hour speaking fees!
(NOTE: her 2013 STUDENTS FIRST tax forms indicate she currently makes $350,000 annually… isn’t that “a high salary?)
It’s nice that her “lifelong commitment” to “putting kids first” pays so well.
Here’s Hollywood agency CAA’s promo blurb for her:
http://caaspeakers.com/michelle-rhee/
——————————————————————-
“In the ever-evolving landscape of education in America, Michelle Rhee has been working tirelessly for the past two decades to give children the skills and knowledge they will need to compete in a changing world.
“From adding instructional time after school and visiting students’ homes as a third grade teacher in Baltimore, to hosting hundreds of community meetings and creating a Youth Cabinet to bring students’ voices into reforming the DC Public Schools, Michelle has always been guided by one core principle: put students first.”
——————————————————————
Wow, Rhee has “been guided by one core principle: put students first.”
How touching and noble of her? Given that moving statement, I’m sure that—like Dr. Ravitch—Ms. Rhee probably donates her time to give speeches and make appearances… at most only asking to have her expenses covered.
Wait a sec. I just found something on-line. It says that… Ms. Rhee… NO, I DON’T BELIEVE IT… SOMEBODY’S LYING OR MAKING THIS UP TO HARM HER REPUTATION…
No… it says that… she actually CHARGES MONEY (???!!!) for her speeches?
Say it ain’t so!
And that, when giving speeches, she is represented by the top Hollywood agency C.A.A., Creative Artists Agency?
Well, I’m sure her pay is just a small honorarium… as, like you, Dr. Ravitch, her true motives are to improve the educational lives of children, and to make sure every child has a great teacher at the front of his or her classroom, and, as Davis Guggenheim puts it, her mission to “put students first,” while “shunning high salaries.”
What’s that? It’s NOT just a token honorarium. Let me guess…
$1,000?
$2,000?
Higher? You gotta be kidding!
$5,000?
$10,000?
Get outta town!
$15,000?
$20,000?
What? She gets more than that just for an hour or two of speaking and answering questions?
Really? It’s actually higher?
$25,000?
$30,000?
Okay, someone’s just winding me up here. There’s NO WAY she charges more than THAT!!!
$50,000!
BINGO!!!!!
$50,000???!!! I don’t believe it.
Somebody’s gotta be making that up to discredit Ms. Rhee. It’s probably some evil, corrupt defenders-of-a-failed-status-quo teachers union thugs who put adult teachers’ interests ahead of children/students’ interest that hacked into C.A.A.’s website and created… yeah, it’s probably them who are making up and spreading these lies in an effort to harm Ms. Rhee’s reputation, and protect those teachers’ own selfish interest and cushy jobs-for-life.
Apparently not.
Some enterprising writer named Molly Bloom at the on-line publication STATE IMPACT actually got a copy of the contract that Rhee uses for her personal appearances and posted it on-line.
Oh, will you just shut up and gimme that link!
http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2011/10/10/michelle-rhee-to-speak-at-kent-statestark-prompts-faculty-to-organize-counter-event/
What’s that? Just scroll down and you can see
a scanned copy of Rhee’s boilerplate contract? Hmmm….
Yep! There it is… In the contract posted, $35,000 is indeed what she’s getting paid to speak at Kent State, plus a bunch o’ FIRST CLASS expenses. .. (She claims here that she was discounting her usual $50,000 / hour fee because the venue, Kent State, was “a school.)
The contract posted is the actual one used for Ms. Rhee’s appearance at at Kent State University,
Why, that’s SECOND worst atrocity ever associated with that school’s history. (“Tin soldiers and Nixon’s coming… Four dead in O – hi – o… “)
(Watch this whole video… it’s pretty well done!)
I like how the “Purchaser”—the entity or person who hires her— sends the payment to:
“Rhee Enterprises, LLC” (PAGE 2)
Helping improve the education of children and “putting students first” is a lucrative Big Business, apparently.
There’s more on PAGE 3:
——————————————————————
“a. Purchaser shall provide the Artist with one (1) First Class round-trip, unrestricted, fully-refundable airplane tickets, or cash equivalent, at Artist’s election;
“b. Purchaser shall one (1) VIP hotel suite; Purchaser to make and confirm reservations in consultation with the Artist; Artist reserves the right to choose hotel;
“c. Purchaser to provide the Artist with meals and all reasonable incidentals;
“d. Purchase shall provide Artist with a towncar and Professional Driver for round-trip transportation from the Artist’s home to the airport, airport to hotel, hotel to engagement, or any combination thereof;”
——————————————————————
Yes, that’s right… Rhee demands not just a hotel room, but a “VIP hotel suite” at a hotel approved by her, as well as a towncar with a chauffer to drive her around???!!!
Come one. Be fair. Don’t beat up on Rhee because of this. You need all that if you’re going to be “putting students first.”
Item 6 is telling. Michelle or her agent crosses out the following:
——————————————————————
(CROSSED OUT WITH A PEN)
“6. RESPONSIBILITY for EVENT-RELATED TAXES. Purchase agrees to pay any and all local, State, and/or Federal rental, amusement, sales or other taxes as required by law.”
——————————————————————
Next to the crossing out, Michelle or her agent scrawls,
“TAX EXEMPT”…
… as Students First is a non-profit organization.
Awww, that’s too bad. That money would have gone to the state’s general fund for education, as Ohio schools are hurting for cash right now.
Item 9 is interesting:
——————————————————————
“9. ARTIST’S MERCHANDISING RIGHTS. Artist shall have the right, but not the obligation, to sell souvenir programs and other merchandising items on the premises on the place of the presentation without participation by the Purchaser, subject to local venue’s contract requirements, if any, of which the Artist is notified in writing.”
——————————————————————
(INSERT JOKE HERE… it’s too easy… i.e. Michelle Rhee T-shirts, action figures, etc.)
There’s also a pay-or-play clause, which means that if the event is cancelled for any reason, you have to pay Michelle her $35K anyway.
Reading this I feel like I’m watching a final scene of “THE WOLF OF WALL STREET”, where the slimebucket and convicted Wall Street felon Jordan Belfort now makes a cushy living as a “motivational speaker.”
God save us all!
I love how Colbert stated to Brown, “And I respect . . . . . . . . . . . . (thirty second pause) . . . . you. Well, I was wondering who I ought to respect, and there was no one left here at the table except you.”
Great line, great delivery. He pounded her and turned her into carpaccio . . . .
Now Brown and Rhee can get together and form the sisterhood of the traveling teacher bash. But they will both meet the public like sitting ducks at a county fair . . . . . They are lame and pathetic and full of lies.
It will be interesting to see what the NY courts have to say. I am not holding my breath.
Diane, since it appears that Brown is the new poster child for the reform movement
(replacing she-who-I-will-not-name), perhaps you can challenge HER to a debate?
I, for one, would love to see that!
If you missed it, the full episode is online here: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/full-episodes/0salbz/july-31–2014—campbell-brown
Colbert’s interview with Brown starts around 13:14
If you missed it, the full episode is online here: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/full-episodes/0salbz/july-31–2014—campbell-brown
Colbert’s interview with Brown starts around 13:14
This is very cool. Leftists shrieking in outrage when someone voices an opinion different than theirs.
It should be made clear that Brown wants to reform the unions, not do away with them completely. That being said, eliminating tenure would mean the end of ineffective teachers keeping their jobs solely because they have been there the longest. As a teacher, I have seen how difficult it is for evaluators and principals to fire teachers who don’t do their jobs. It is not tolerated in any other profession, and the students are the ones who suffer when we tolerate it in the teaching profession.
Amber, if a student accuses you of inappropriate touching and it is not true, if a parent demands your dismissal because you taught Huckleberry Finn, if your principal wants to fire you because she doesn’t like you, do you think you should get a hearing?
Have you noticed that the best school districts have tenured teachers? If tenure were eliminated, would those teachers seek jobs in difficult schools and districts?
Please keep in mind the importance of the word “reform.” I never said that all teachers should be fired at the drop of a hat without due process. I am merely supporting the idea of changing certain aspects of my profession that make it impossible to fire people who are not doing their job properly. When a politician is caught up in a scandal, there is an immediate outcry for his resignation; however, even after years of evaluations, ineffective teachers are allowed to continue clouding the minds of students because the principals’ hands are tied. I support unions and understand the importance of them in the teaching community, but just like in many other professions, sometimes change (reform) needs to happen in order to rectify imperfections in the system. Change doesn’t have to be a scary thing, and if it means a better education for the students, then why are we trying to stop it?
Clearly you do not understand how budgets work. If the policy of last one hired first one fired were not upheld, all districts would balance their budgets by firing their longest working teachers earning top pay and replacing them with new teachers. All of the time it took older teachers to improve and strengthen the effectiveness of their teaching would become a detriment instead of an invaluable resource.
You refer to reforming “your profession”? I find it hard to believe a teacher would hold the short sighted view that tenure is an obstacle to student learning.
Dawn,
One of the main reasons I felt compelled to comment on this blog was to balance the argument and show people an opposing point of view. That being said, I will respectfully disagree with some if the opinions being stated, but I will not attack anyone on a personal level; all I ask is that you show me the same respect.
I understand the concerns that will arise if the “last one hired, first one fired” policy is reformed as far as budget is concerned, but a well written reform will address those concerns, meaning policies will be put in place that only allow low performing teachers (based on evaluations, NOT test scores) to either lose their job, be suspended, or be put on a retraining plan.
I want to clarify that I am not attacking all teachers, and I do not think this is a black and white issue – there are many grey areas – 99% of teachers are amazing, hardworking individuals who deserve better pay and job security; however, I have seen with my own eyes what one bad, unfirable teacher can do to the educational system. It is heartbreaking to see students miss out on learning opportunities and evaluators give up because they know they cannot make changes happen.
Diane, what administrator do you know that wouldn’t want to keep teachers who are ‘successful’ at their profession. Of course there will be occasional differences of opinion on methods, study plans etc., but wouldn’t you agree a teacher should eventually respond favorably to advice/instructions given by their principal. Without tenure, personal vendettas will undoubtedly cause some/many teachers to try another profession where they’d be ‘more productive’, but you must also agree most will be fueled to teacher ‘insubordination’ that would be considered unproductive and intolerable in any organization, non-profit or profit.
Saying “the best school districts have tenured teachers” is like saying successful companies have low turnover. Come on, of course these contented teachers wouldn’t “seek jobs in difficult schools”! What we would find is a lot more ambitious, motivated teachers will remain at difficult schools if they don’t have to teach in the room next to a hanger on.
Perhaps I am too blunt. My post was not meant as a personal attack. I disagree with your views and do not feel the argument needs to be balanced on this blog. There is enough teacher bashing going on in the media every day to balance out anything said here. I will refute any argument against tenure. It is a necessary protection against capricious principals and self-serving superintendents.
Long before the Vergara v. California verdict, there was evidence that called into question the claim that teachers’ unions hurt students. If the argument is true, then states where teachers’ unions are strongest should report the worst student performance. But that is not so. Massachusetts and Minnesota, which both have strong tenure laws, post the highest level of student achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Conversely, Mississippi and South Carolina, which have neither collective bargaining nor due process rights for teachers, have a long record of student underachievement.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/walt_gardners_reality_check/2014/07/teachers_unions_at_crossroads.html
You are right about the bullies in the media who think that teaching is “easy,” and that we all have “cushy jobs,” but my intent here is not to bash teachers – which wouldn’t make any sense because I am one (as hard as that is to believe) – instead, I wish to blur the lines that have been drawn. Once again, I do not disagree with unions, and in fact, belong to one myself. What a reform would do is change aspects of the union that do not work properly. This does include, in my opinion, tenure. The statistics you have stated and that are stated in the link you provided are amazing and prove that many teachers gain experience and improve their skills with every year. This does not change the fact, however, that tenure sometimes is used to protect individuals who deserve to be let go. When someone is not doing their job properly, they need to be held accountable, but tenure does not allow that to happen. I believe that Campbell Brown is trying to reform a part of the educational system that is flawed, but I don’t think she has plans of trying to get rid of unions all together. I only hope that those who oppose Brown’s actions will try to see the grey area here, and not suggest that those who back her are bashing teachers and trying to eliminate unions.
This may be idealistic thinking, but I support Brown because I think she is trying to get rid of the bad (protection of low performing teachers) and keep the good (unions that support teachers and legislation that doesn’t put too much power in any one organization’s hands).
“When someone is not doing their job properly, they need to be held accountable, but tenure does not allow that to happen.”
The premise of your argument is faulty. Tenure only guarantees due process; it does not prevent someone from being fired. All a principal has to do is document with evidence (detailed notes of observations including date, time, occurrences of wrongdoing, intervention, teacher response or lack thereof) that a teacher is not fulfilling their job description and they can be brought up on charges and fired once the teacher has had a chance to answer the charges and obtain legal counsel.
School districts have two beautiful chances to weed out any person they feel is not up to par as a teacher: hiring in the first place and the granting of tenure (which is after a three year period of teaching in New York.) If the district makes the mistake of hiring someone who is ill prepared to actually teach, and then makes the egregious mistake of granting tenure to that person (out of laziness on the principal’s part), there is a third way to hold teachers accountable. That is to document their legitimate faults and charge them officially to bring the case to the point of firing the individual. It is up to the administrators to see to it that the teaching staff is doing their job. Accountability is a principal problem, not a teacher problem. Put a person with teaching experience and high integrity in charge of every school and see what changes can take place.
I am in full support of the evaluation system. In fact, I wish evaluators would observe lessons more often, but principals are bogged down with so many other tasks that I don’t see how that could be possible. The due process you’ve described is exactly what all teachers, tenure or not, receive if/when they go through the firing process. I have witnessed this process – even in right to work states. Firing a teacher takes time for a principal in any state or district. What tenure does is take this lengthy process and make it even lengthier. I was exaggerating when I said that tenure does not allow principals to fire teachers, so let me reword: tenure makes the firing process take years and is usually so frustrating that most cases don’t make it to the final outcome of relieving the low performing teacher, usually because the principal is overworked, not because he/she is lazy.
I agree that a principal has the responsibility of hiring only the best for their schools, but sometimes in my profession there is such a thing as burnout. A teacher starts off with passion and enthusiasm, and over the years, some (not all) lose their gusto. Most of these cases end with the teacher respectfully moving on, but there are times when one feels so secure and comfortable with their job that they don’t know when to say goodbye. These are the teachers that do not deserve the pleasures of tenure.
I can only hope that these grey areas I’m trying to fill in will eventually become clear to those who are so violently against what Brown is attempting to do. Her agenda might not be 100% angelic, but she is by no means trying to fire all teachers or ruin the sanctity of teaching.
Amber,
You’re either a shill for C.B. incredibly naive and presumptuous, or a fake. It is not your job as a teacher to judge the effectiveness of another teacher. Neither is it the job of another teacher to judge you. State laws put administrators exclusively in charge of that responsibility. If an administrator says that a union prevented him or her from firing an ineffective, tenured teacher, take that as an admission that that administrator is either lazy or incompetent. Unions do not protect “ineffective teachers.” That’s such a canard. Why would a union want to protect an “ineffective” teacher? Unions act as a “check and balance” to make sure that administrators follow the rules in dismissal cases. That’s all! Are you qualified to judge the effectiveness of your colleagues? Are your colleagues qualified to judge your effectiveness? Have you ever been involved in a dismissal proceeding? What makes C.B. into an expert on the effectiveness of public school teachers? The answer is nothing! Has C.B. ever found “ineffective” teachers in charter schools? C.B.’s motives are not a crusade to eliminate “ineffective” teachers, it’s purely to denigrate public education in order to destroy that institution and to replace it with privately-run, completely unaccountable charter schools for simple greed.
Amber, “a teacher feels so secure and comfortable” and stops being “effective?”…. I still can’t quite determine whether you’re a shill, incredibly naive and presumptuous, or a fake.
Karl,
I have a right to my opinions and you to yours. Unfortunately, I don’t debate with people who resort to name-calling and insults to back up their opinions.
Thank you.