Rick Bobrick is a veteran teacher in New York. He is sick of the punitive high-stakes testing that he is compelled to administer. This regime is child abuse. He is a conscientious objector. He thinks that teachers should have the same right to opt out that parents and children have. He knows if he refuses to give the tests, he puts at risk his job, his income, and his pension. He asks a simple question: why not a law protecting the rights of teachers to refuse to do what they know is wrong? Why not give teachers the right to be conscientious objectors?
Here is his letter:
I teach 8th grade science in a small city school district located in the Mid-Hudson Valley. I am in my 35th year in the classroom, the last 13 of which I have been required to administer punitive, high-stakes tests in math, ELA, and science. Last spring I hit the wall and I have decided that, in all good conscience, I no longer want to participate in this detrimental practice. However, like most teachers, I am unwilling to risk losing my income, or my pension, or my even my reputation, in order to take a principled stand against this new wave of failed reform. On the other hand, why should I have to risk anything in order to stand against what I know is wrong?
No teacher or administrator should be required to ignore their moral and professional compass out of fear of violating NY state law. No teacher or administrator should have to comply with educational policies more harmful than helpful to children. No teacher or administrator should be forced to remain complicit to policies that are tantamount to educational malpractice at best – and child abuse at their worst. No public school educator should ever submit to inaction out of fear of jeopardizing their professional standing, personal well-being, or their family security. The fear, the veiled threats, and the de-facto intimidation are all very real concerns for many NY public school professionals. There is something deeply wrong with a system in which teachers and principals are afraid to act in the best interest of children.
My proposed solution to this professional dilemma is to try to establish legal protections for any NY educator who no longer wishes to comply with New York’s RTTT commitment. Following the advice of my local NYSUT representative, I have drafted a resolution that would establish a ‘Conscientious Objector’ status for any NY teacher or administrator who wants to abstain from the malpractice of high-stakes testing. I have never been politically connected, nor a particularly strong supporter of our union. All I ever wanted to do was to teach science and provide my students with the best learning opportunities possible.
I will be working with a group of like-minded citizens to convince lawmakers to support this initiative. If this proposal is submitted as a bill and passed into law it would provide legal protection for any teacher or administrator who wants to opt out of the testing debacle. As has been seen over the past two years, parents can ‘refuse the test’ without fear of legal consequences. Nearly 60,000 students across New York State sat out the 2014 round of Pearson testing, supported by parents who wanted nothing to do with tests designed to fail students and intimidate their teachers. It is my strong belief that teachers and administrators should have the same right of refusal, a legally protected right to, ‘refuse to test’. Passage of this resolution into law may be viewed by some as a long shot; if successful it would open a very messy can of worms for Governor Cuomo, the Board of Regents, John King, and the State Education Department.
Regardless of the end result, the message this sends to our political leaders could open some eyes and help bring this federal testing regime to an end, sooner rather than later; one more nail in the coffin of New York’s Regents Reform Agenda. At the very least it would let parents, boards of education, and the media get a better handle on just how much opposition there is from the educators who are being forced by the power of state and federal law to pursue education policies and practices that we know are inflicting harm to our students. Teachers whose voices are being silenced by fear of professional retribution, would be muzzled no longer. To sit back and continue to be a part of this testing madness, in my view, makes us part of the problem – ‘refusing to test’ makes us part of the solution.
If we do nothing, this whole mess will eventually die a slow death by a thousand cuts, collapsing under its own weight – but not after a generation of students has been short-changed by the educational blinders of the Common Core and damaged by the pressures of punitive, test-based reform and all the negative labels that come with it. Parents, college professors, and others will be pointing fingers and asking very serious questions as they try to make sense of what happened to our collective professional voice if the majority of us remain complicit through inaction. The ‘Nuremburg Defense’ doesn’t cut it for me. Burris, Farley, Naison, Lee and a small handful of other strong voices from within the trenches of New York’s schools are not enough. We have a choice to make, nearly half a million strong: defiance or compliance?
If adopted, the Conscientious Objector legislation will make it possible for the majority of NY educators to speak out against the misguided attempts of reformers; changing fearful whispers into strong and meaningful action. By granting the right of refusal, this proposed resolution would also help to restore our status as professional educators whose judgment and trust are valued by the communities we serve. Teachers, coaches, supervisors, principals, and parents, please keep your ears to the legislative track and when the time comes lend your support at the local and state level. Together we can make this happen and bring the joy of learning back to our children’s classrooms.
Rick Bobrick
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I think teachers should have to give the tests because it’s their job. But, unlike the military where dissent is not allowed, teachers should be free to question and voice their opinion. That’s the golden tenet of intellectualism. If their voice is stifled, intellectualism is dead, and then it should be called indoctrination, not education.
Teachers in Utah are not even allowed to tell parents about opting out, at the risk of losing our licenses. I have to be able to speak out somehow!
I have devised a way for teachers to publicly support and encouraging opting out without violating this oppressive policy. I can get your email I will send it to you.
The sophistry of indoctrination vs. education is an empty glass. If part of a teachers job is to administer corporal punishment, force the use of a dunce cap or do other obviously wrong, abusive and criminal things well then what? No one should lose their job for having the guts and moral integrity to speak truth to power, especially when that power is responsible for criminal activities.
Your example of the military where “dissent is not allowed” strikes me as quite odd as a “conscientious objector” (CO) is literally defined as any individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, and/or religion. In the United States, conscientious objection was permitted from the country’s founding, although regulation was left to individual states prior to the introduction of the draft .
In 1948, the issue of the right to “conscience” was dealt with by the United Nations General Assembly in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” The proclamation was ratified during the General Assembly on December 10, 1948 by a vote of 48 in favor, 0 against (with 8 abstentions).
In 1976, the United Nations treaty the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force. It was based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and was originally created in 1966. Nations that have signed this treaty are bound by it. Its Article 18 begins: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. …”
Your example of the military where “dissent is not allowed” strikes me as quite odd as a “conscientious objector” (CO) is literally defined as any individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, and/or religion. In the United States, conscientious objection was permitted from the country’s founding, although regulation was left to individual states prior to the introduction of the draft .
In 1948, the issue of the right to “conscience” was dealt with by the United Nations General Assembly in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” The proclamation was ratified during the General Assembly on December 10, 1948 by a vote of 48 in favor, 0 against (with 8 abstentions).
In 1976, the United Nations treaty the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force. It was based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and was originally created in 1966. Nations that have signed this treaty are bound by it. Its Article 18 begins: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. …”
TC you are wrong. It is not a teacher’s job to “give tests” Our job it to teach, inspire and guide students. Tests are part of our job not our only job.
I’ve read post after post stressing the importance of tenure in that it allows teachers to do what’s right for kids. Why isn’t that the case here?
This teacher had due process protections, and this is what happened to her: http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=30550267&itype=storyID
It isn’t clear from that article whether the teacher was tenured. The process for attempting to remove a tenured teacher in NY State is significantly different.
In fact, if the goal is to allow teachers to opt out of administering tests, having a tenure teacher being brought up on charges would probably be the quickest route to a resolution (there’s no chance of a teacher CO law will ever be passed in any state).
Tenure is the right to due process not the right to life time employment. Before a teacher is given tenure he/she is an at will employee. As a probationary teacher, a school district does not have to have a reason to fire you. The right to due process is framed differently by each state, but generally would not protect someone from state or district mandates like standardized testing. It protects a teacher from losing a job because the principal wants to hire the superintendent’s niece. It protects a teacher from being fired because some powerful parents don’t like the grade their son earned in his/her class. It allows a teacher to present material that some may find contrary to their beliefs. (Holocaust , evolution, Huckleberry Finn…)
Another commonly cited reason for the importance of tenure is to protect the learning conditions of students, such as those with IEPs.
If the author truly believes that standardized testing (oddly, there’s no specific mention of the bigger problem, test prep) is harmful to children and constitutes abuse, it falls into that same category. He should refuse to administer the state tests, presumably be written up, and ultimately have the state supreme court decide whether testing is harmful and abusive to children.
Granted, this would involve some risk. Standardized tests are administered at the vast majority of private and parochial schools in New York State, for example, including Woodland Hill Montessori. But it seems to be the quickest route to take the issue to the courts, and it is a nod to the reality that there is absolutely no chance of a “testing conscientious objector law” passing in New York State (or any other state).
Tim,
And who do you think is going to take it to the Supreme Court and why would you assume that they would even hear the case? That is, of course, after the case wove its way through the lower courts (funded by fairy dust?).
Reminder: Standardized tests are not the enemy. High stakes standardized tests have many shortcomings that have been discussed thoroughly in the time you have been on this blog. Generally, private schools do not use standardized tests as weapons. They are used to inform instruction and learning although, in isolation, they cannot do that job well. I am sure I am going to hear about entrance exams. Spare me.
“There is something deeply wrong with a system in which teachers and principals are afraid to act in the best interest of children.”
This sentence rings so true for me!
Rick Bobrick, your notion of teachers being able to “conscientiously object” has never occurred to me before but it makes logical sense.
I do not live in NY but will be following your efforts. Thank you for your efforts.
One would think that tenure/due process would suffice in this regard, but alas.
I fully support a conscientious objector status for teachers. The “teachers of conscience” who are refusing to administer the tests should not have to sacrifice their careers and pensions. The tests that are currently in use for high-stakes decision making are not vertically aligned from year to year and are not able to actually measure learning over time. I salute teachers who refuse to administer poorly designed tests that are being used to make high-stakes decisions. Count me in as a full supporter of a conscientious objector status bill. The refusal to comply with unethical practices should be honored, not punished.
“. . . and are not able to actually measure learning over time. . . ”
And they don’t “measure” anything.
To understand why read and understand Noel Wilson’s never refuted nor rebutted “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
1. A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other word all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
By Duane E. Swacker
“He asks a simple question: why not a law protecting the rights of teachers to refuse to do what they know is wrong?”
No one can think of any possible answers to this question?
Because current policy and significant money depends on teachers performing malpractice.
Great time to teach. “Do what they say, how they say, when they say BUT and then be held accountable for the failure”.
You might expect “them” to own the results. Refer to Ras Baraka’s letter in the NYT about the 20 year history of state control of a Newark schools.
Such a shame.
Talent is fleeing the NJ classrooms in droves thanks to Christie and BROADIE quislings like Chris Cerf.
In the current climate, teachers are under attack. They are not being offered new protections.
If the Nuremburg Defense was cutting it pretty well for me, why on earth would I be promoting legislation that would provide legal protections for any NY teacher of conscience? I am simply trying to take a principled stand via proper legal channels. I am obviously not sitting back compliantly as I “just follow my orders”. It would also be a heck of a lot easier for me to just say no and refuse to test in the privacy of my own district. I would be long gone before a successful 3020A proceeding could be carried out. And they would have a replacement administering the tests anyway. If you focused on the main idea being presented, rather than nit-picking an analogy, you would realize that this about teachers interested in working through the same legal system that now has us handcuffed. Yes of course this is a matter of LAW and that’s why I am trying to take action within the system, not just for myself but the many others that feel the same way about the educational malpractice we are being forced to carry out.
Mr. Bobrick writes: “I am unwilling to risk losing my income, or my pension, or my even my reputation, in order to take a principled stand against this new wave of failed reform.”
Mr. Bobrick also writes: “The ‘Nuremburg Defense’ doesn’t cut it for me.”
It seems to me that the “Nuremburg Defense” cuts it pretty well for Mr. Bobrick.
Inappropriate analogy.
Certainly.
If the Nuremburg Defense was cutting it pretty well for me, why on earth would I be promoting legislation that would provide legal protections for any NY teacher of conscience? I am simply trying to take a principled stand via proper legal channels. I am obviously not sitting back compliantly as I “just follow my orders”. It would be a heck of a lot easier for me to just say no and refuse to test in the privacy of my own district. I would be long gone before a successful 3020A proceeding could be carried out. And they would have a replacement administering the tests anyway. If you focused on the main idea being presented, rather than nit-picking an analogy, you would realize that this about teachers interested in working through the same legal system that now has us handcuffed. Yes of course this is a matter of LAW and that’s why I am trying to take action within the system, not just for myself but the many others that feel the same way about the educational malpractice we are being forced to carry out.
You’re “following orders” because your “orders” are to administer tests (“commit educational malpractice”), and you are administering them. And you’re “just” following orders because the only reasons you’re following orders are because (1) “this is a matter of LAW” and (2) you don’t want to risk your career, pension, or reputation. To use the ill-advise analogy of war crimes: You’re not disobeying orders, you’re seeking an exemption plus immunity for past crimes.
In your defense, I am nit-picking the analogy. I don’t see your proposal having the remotest chance of becoming law in NY or any other state, however.
WOW! An important read! I want to sign up! I feel so bad when I tell the kids, “You will be fine.” Really? Maybe this is what it will take so an entire generation doesn’t fall through the cracks. Two years of 70% or more failures in NY State? How much more should our kids take? Do you think perhaps the tests are flawed? BTW, I am wondering if some of us are teaching out of our certification. I am certified for N-6th. The lessons and tests are two grades above the grade level. I am not certified to teach 7th grade and boy am I struggling with some of the content, especially 7th grade Math 😦
As a 20 year teacher, I gotta say the whole “conscientious objector” to testing is nonsense. Protest all you want: Write letters, create blogs, picket lawmakers. These are all legal and fine means of protest. However, as much as we hate testing, currently it is the LAW OF THE LAND. Those who refuse to do their jobs and claim “conscientious objector” will loose their teaching jobs and rightfully so. What if firefighters refused to put out fires at buildings occupied by corporations that they do not like? What if a cop refused to patrol a neighborhood that they they thought did not deserve to be patrolled? What if a sanitation worker refused to pick up trash from a cineplex showing movies that were deemed immoral? We might not like what we do, but until the law is changed, we gotta do it. A “conscientious objector” law will never happen as it is too fragmented to be practical. (Who will test the kids in place of the “objectors?) Until the testing regime is eliminated via federal and state laws, teachers will have to continue to engage in testing or face the consequences. We may disagree with the testing nonsense but until the law is changed we gotta do what we gotta do.
The federal test-and-punish regime can only be eliminated through the repeal or re-writing and re-authorization of the NCLB act. Congress has refused to touch this political hot potato for years. It was this reticence that spawned the Common Core, Race to the Top, and Duncan’s NCLB waiver plan. The law will not change without a lot of political pressure from as many different directions as possible. Teachers of conscience advocating for students and the future of public education will hopefully ramp up this pressure. The attempt alone will also send a message to the many concerned parents; a message that says we will not just sit back silently while New York’s public schools are turned into math and ELA test-prep factories. A message that reminds parents that we are held hostage by the force of law and that we will stand up to what we see as wrong but we will do so within the legal system that created this mess.
The federal test-and-punish regime can only be eliminated through the repeal or re-writing/re-authorization of the NCLB act. Congress has refused to touch this political hot potato for years. It was this reticence that spawned the Common Core, Race to the Top, and Duncan’s NCLB waiver plan. The law will not change without a lot of political pressure from as many different directions as possible. Teachers of conscience advocating for students and the future of public education will hopefully ramp up this pressure. The attempt alone will also send a message to the many concerned parents; a message that says we will not just sit back silently while New York’s public schools are turned into math and ELA test-prep factories. A message that reminds parents that we are held hostage by the force of law and that we will stand up to what we see as wrong but we will do so within the legal system that created this mess.
I started my career in New York and remember that I was required to sign a loyalty oath. The details are hazy, but I think it included a pledge to support the state and federal constitutions and faithfully discharge the duties of my position. I’m not sure how administering mandated state assessments factor in to discharging the duties of a teacher. They might in New York State.
A direct remedy would be to amend whatever part of New York State statute requires th e loyalty oath. I think New York may be anomalous in requiring a loyalty oath for teachers if it still does.
I like the idea of CO status for teachers. There is precedent in some other areas of our society. For example, pharmacists may refuse to fill certain prescriptions (contraceptives) if it conflicts with their morals. Also, corporations may refuse to provide medical insurance for their employees if it violates their “conscience”. Think Hobby Lobby.
Why not educators?
Because that is private industry.
This post asks a legal question, and it bears on the speech rights of teachers and whitleblowing. Hire a lawyer. I am not one, but here are some status reports on the issue,T
In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the High Court ruled that, when they are speaking as part of their “official duties,” public employees have no First Amendment rights because “official” speech belongs to the employer, not the employee.….
One way to avoid the Garcetti pitfall is to “go public.” Writing a letter-to-the-editor is rarely an employee’s official duty. But most school employees don’t have to rely on the First Amendment to safeguard their jobs. If an employee has tenure or “just cause” protection under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), it’s highly unlikely she can be disciplined or discharged for reporting wrongdoing, even if it’s a part of her job.
Employees who don’t enjoy such job protection should make sure their CBAs ban retaliation for whistleblowing. And through their state Associations, they can explore legislation to provide protections.
Of course, the Supreme Court may see the light and overturn Garcetti. That possibility was enhanced by the election of Barack Obama, who likely will appoint at least two employee-friendly Justices.—Michael D. Simpson, NEA Office of General Counsel
That was before the June 2014 ruling, with more detail here. Teachers, professors can speak more confidently after Supreme Court protects whistleblower’s rights
http://www.splc.org/blog/splc/2014/06/teachers-professors-can-speak-more-confidently-after-supreme-court-protects-whistleblowers-rights By Frank LoMonte | Published 06/22/14 12:00pm
In a 2006 ruling, Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court said speech “pursuant to official duties” — like writing a memo assigned by a supervisor — is the speech of the employer, not the individual. …
In a June 19 (2014) opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor …phrased the issue as “whether public employees may be fired … for providing truthful subpoenaed testimony outside the course of their ordinary job responsibilities.” If that is how the Lane precedent the case under consideration) is understood, then it will protect only a minimal range of speech. But the Lane case means quite a bit more than that.
….The practical takeaway from the Lane ruling is, counter-intuitively, that the employee who obediently follows the internal chain of command to resolve her concerns will benefit from less protection than the employee who takes her complaint to law enforcement or the news media.
The Lane ruling is especially noteworthy because of the eagerness among college and university employers to exert more punitive authority over their employees’ off-campus social-media lives. Last month, the Kansas Board of Regents was roundly criticized for a Garcetti-based policy that exposes employees to sanctions including termination for speech “contrary to the best interests of the university.”
It’s now crystal-clear that the set of social-media speech to which Kansas can lawfully apply that fire-at-will policy is essentially an empty set.
Only where an employee is actually posting on social media as part of a job assignment, such as the person who manages the Facebook page for the campus P.R. department, can the speech be treated as constitutionally unprotected.
Thanks Laura for the info!
Mr. Bobrick certainly deserves a great deal of respect for his integrity and his concern for students. In one sense, though, I wonder if some people will say, well, conscientious objectors are associated with the military and the draft. And, teachers aren’t being drafted?
But on the other hand…. if the captain of a ship refused to take his or her vessel out of port for fear that the passengers were endangered….well, wouldn’t most people say that the captain was not only doing what is professionally correct but fulfilling a moral obligation? It reminds me of the oath that a doctor takes, first do no harm.
Same goes for a pilot who approaches a plane and sees that the aircraft is not safe. Doesn’t the pilot have a similar, ethical responsibility to not fly that specific plane at that moment? And, would the pilot or captain or doctor be punished for their professional and ethical decisions? I can imagine the public actually welcoming those decisions and even celebrating their integrity.
I’d like to focus on the example of a pilot, of course, because of the wacky analogy the NYS Education Department is said to have used when rolling out its harebrained teacher evaluation schemes: “Building a plane in mid-air”.
Diane wrote a wrote a wonderful blog entry about this lunatic analogy: https://dianeravitch.net/2012/05/03/brave-principals/
Don’t teachers and principals have a responsibility to protect their students if they see that the state is endangering those kids? What kind of plane is built in mid-air? What kind of bureaucracy is allowed to experiment on its nation’s children and their teachers nationwide? Don’t we want educators to question and even challenge dangerous decision-making? And, even if you work in a state that still has tenure (an endangered species), is that enough to protect educators in these circumstances?
I don’t know what’s going to happen with our public schools. But I can say that I’m hnoored to have fellow teachers like Rick Bobrick. Best of luck to you.
And, hats off to those brave New York Principals who were also mentioned in Diane’s May 2012 blog entry. Your efforts have been a real shot in the arm!
spelling correction: honored. (It was a long Monday)
While I think the idea is interesting, I wonder if it would be better to concentrate efforts to end abusive testing altogether. Do we need another issue? Just my two cents.
That is the point of this effort. It is going to take a lot of nails to pin down the coffin lid on the federal, test-and-punish regime.
Ending abusive testing practices IS the point of this effort. It is going to take a lot of nails to pin down the coffin lid on the federal, test-and-punish regime. Hopefully this will be one of them.
This is what the Campbell Browns of the deformer world fear most, this is why they are he’ll bent on destroying tenure. Deformers want to prevent anyone but themselves from speaking out on any educational topic. They want to murder the voices of professional expertise and substitute the mind numbing blatherings of greedy profiteers and ideologs so there will be no cogent public discourse ever again, just propaganda.
Jon Lubar: thank you very much for you comment.
Please pardon if you think me presumptuous or exaggerating, but it brought to mind a very famous quotation about what happens when we allow our voices and those of others to be stilled.
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
“Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.”
Link: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392
Just my dos centavitos worth…
😎
KrazyTA…. I use the quote you mention (though a lengthier variant he wrote) every semester on my Participation in Government final exam. I use it (and other ideas) from a longtime colleague (now retired) who taught the course for many years. Foremost, I do this because the subject matter is so incredibly important to our country, to the world. But I also use many of this retired teacher’s ideas because she really knew what she was doing. In fact, I use lots of ideas from all the great teachers and thinkers I’ve learned from, not only in homage but because those ideas and lessons matter….and they work. I have to really worry what will happen to this wealth of teaching, what will happen to this particular quote that I use, when everything is “Core-ized” …..when everything is “Modular-zed”…..when we’re all directed by law to do everything the same, bland, standardized way….the David Coleman way…..bought and paid for by Bill Gates and company. I know some people are glad to see their longtime colleagues, these senior teachers, retiring. Not me. I miss them, and all their “dos centavitos worth” as you put it. If only the public really saw the full scope of how much needless destruction the Teach for America, must disrupt, “destroy the school in order to save it” radical agenda is causing.
In my opinion, more teachers have got to step up and refuse to administer these tests. This is not for everyone – but there ARE teachers out there ready to do this. And again – I understand not everyone is able to do this and that is okay. But when these teachers do it – we need to publicize it like crazy in order to help educate the public about the truths of what is actually occurring in our schools. I refused to administer the PARCC this year. Valerie Strauss published it in Wapo if you want to read it. Susan Bowles refused to administer the FAIR test in Florida – also published in Wapo. And then we had a third teacher refusal a week ago in Broward Cty FL – it can be read on our website at www dot unitedoptout dot com. I recommend finding teachers who are retiring or teachers who are already planning to quit and see if they are willing to take this risk. As they refuse to administer these tests, parents will start asking questions – parents will find out what is really going on and many will opt out/refuse the test in order to protect their children AND the teachers. Finally, take this to your local unions. FEA (Florida) has already passed an NBI and resolution to advocate for teachers who share opt out info or who refuse to administer the tests. My local in Aurora, CO is in the process of approving an official statement re: their support for my refusal to administer PARCC. If we are to win this, anyone who can take the risk to refuse to administer the test should do so now. We are at the tipping point. And quite honestly, no one is going to do anything to help our children,our teachers, or our communities until we rise up and fight back. Starve them of the data. Right now they are simply trying to appease us in anyway they can. A full on revolt is what is needed.
All teachers are mandated reporters of child abuse and neglect, which affords them protections though whistleblower laws, so they can carry out this responsibility with impunity. Conscientious objector status for teachers should be seen as an extension of that, especially when those that teachers would need to report are the very government officials who legislate and require that they implement policies which, in their professional opinions, are abusive or neglectful. Teachers need recourse, so that their responsibilities to stand up for children are not suddenly obliterated and so their whistleblower protections are not dissolved at the whim of politicians and their appointed cronies who may have hidden agendas and/or who lack the professional expertise that teachers have for determining what is in the best interests of children.
Holy Role Model Batman, what are we showing the children about their “Best Interests”?
Do I need a special de-coder ring for this?
We are “showing the children” that their “best interests” are unrelated to the personal agendas and interests of politicians and corporate leaders who are banking on education and benefit from student failures and successes.
We are demonstrating that someone is trying to protect children from profiteering schemes which have been created and condoned by those with money and power and foisted upon the poor and powerless.
We are showing children that they are more important than the adults who exploit them for personal and financial gain.
We are also demonstrating how professional educators know and care more about children and education than non-educators who commandeer and control education with sticks and carrots.
And what does your version of a role model show the children? Oppression is a good thing?
It is truly a shame that people can’t see the truth. Children and their education are the real investment in the future of America and of the students. We have really lost our way.