Nancy Flanagan, a teacher with more than 3 decades of experience, a National Board CertifiedTeacher, says that tenure does not make it impossible to fire bad teachers. She knows. She has seen it. She says the cover of TIME was far worse than the article (true).
What good is tenure? It creates a fair process for decisions about termination.
She writes:
“As a long-time classroom practitioner–going back to the early 70s–I would say that this recent tidal wave of entrepreneurial experimentation with the purposes and structures of public education is the single most dangerous issue facing American families with children. When deep-pockets venture capitalists start thinking they can run an essential public service more “efficiently,” look out.
“Here’s the funny thing. Teacher tenure has never really been a fortress that protects incompetent hacks and abusers. It has functioned as a set of rules by which undesirable teachers could be–fairly–jettisoned, then have the decision to release that teacher stand. It gave teachers a reasonable period of time to establish their long-term worth (with the option to open the trap door quickly, in the early stages, for egregiously inept or shady folks). It also gave administrators and school boards a defined set of reasons why a teacher might reasonably be let go, after the district committed to hiring him.
“How do I know that it’s not “nearly impossible” to fire bad teachers? Because my medium-sized, semi-rural district did so, repeatedly, during the 30 years I worked there. The tenure system worked there, long before state-mandated, data-driven, high-tech teacher evaluation models were established–when we were using what everyone now describes as meaningless checklists. It worked when the probationary period, set by the state, was two years but it worked even better when that probationary period was bumped to four years–more time to evaluate a new teacher’s worth as a classroom practitioner, and make a good decision for the long term.”
She adds, in this thoughtful article:
“”Unions protect bad teachers” is a false meme. Unions also protect good teachers. Unions protect students from tech millionaires and venture capitalists, and having their personal worth, and that of their teachers, evaluated by test data.”
The TIME article ends by citing a growing number of studies that show how flawed test-based evaluation of teachers is.
We all need protection from the whims of tech billionaires, who are using their wealth to control our public institutions, even the electoral process. Our best line of defense: get out and vote.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Yes, we need protection from tech billionaires. Take a look at what’s happening in Russia!
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/world/europe/putins-friend-profits-in-purge-of-schoolbooks.html?referrer=
Nancy did a great job here. I would like to add to this with two thoughts.
Almost anyone has a shot at entering a classroom as a teacher, whether through teacher prep programs or alternative programs. So the model has become “cull the herd” in one way or another. Too often the keepers are culled.
Secondly, for the most part, probationary periods, induction and mentoring programs are either few or shabbily done.
So maybe ten or more years down the road we have some, a few, who should never have been there. But someone hired them in the first place.
But none of the witch hunts for these is doing anything positive (and much negative) for the vast majority of teachers who always have been keepers. But then, for the billionaires and Time, quality teaching is not really the issue.
Nancy Flanagan makes many strong points. I did read a few comments with skepticism. The first being,
“Unions also protect good teachers. Unions protect students from tech millionaires and venture capitalists, and having their personal worth, and that of their teachers, evaluated by test data…”
In this time period, unions are too busy fending off “trojan horses” being relentlessly imposed by “ed reform billioniares” and are in no position to protect teachers. Union leaders are also often too busy just trying to protect themselves -union leadership positions to focus on the actual teachers represented. How many veteran teachers are giving up and leaving the profession due to all the nonsense? There is no protection for the mental and physical exhaustion felt by teachers who have to do “over-the-top” amounts of nonsense work that has no bearing on quality teaching. How many teachers’ school year is dictated by SLO’s or how many teachers continue to be evaluated by student test scores? How many school districts are making monumental changes in every facet of teaching yearly (or in many cases even several times within a school year)? Clearly if every facet of your day is subject to change at any given time, your “performance” is going to suffer! It seems as if THIS IS THE GOAL… make teachers suffer enough that they will leave (if not of their own accord, there will be a paper trail enabling administrators to fire them). It has nothing to do with students and their learning.
Other point…
“Our best line of defense: get out and vote…”
I wish I felt so optimistic about voting. Right now, PAC money must be taken out of the “voting equation”. Politicians should not be for sale. Money should not be the determining factor of who gets on a ballot and elected. There are some exceptions but they are exceptions to the rule.
Union leaders are to unions as party leaders are parties as CEOs are to corporations.
Things get broken when the leadership becomes divorced from those they lead.
Gates didn’t/doesn’t even bother with the election thing.
Much more assured (and effective) just to do an end run around the entire democratic process.
To use Gates own wiring analogy: best to establish a high capacity direct line to the White House so one doesn’t have to worry about the reliability and capacity of the lines available to the general public.
artsegal,
My union is doing nothing to protect me. I have no one to vote for, but I am voting nonetheless.
Everyone on the ballot in NJ is cringe-worthy.
Its not impossible to HIRE bad teachers. Its not impossible to OBSERVE bad teachers. It’s not impossible to EVALUATE bad teachers. It’s not impossible to TENURE bad teachers. . . .
. . . ask any BAD ADMINISTRATOR!
Problem is, most new-age, “insta-pals” couldn’t regognize good teaching if they really wanted to.
That must be expected when they join TFA at 22 and get anointed as principals at 25. Or appointed as Chancellor, or Superintendent, while they are as qualified as ducks.
Exactly. Bad usually comes I the form of (1) lazy, (2), insecure or (3) bigoted–sometimes all in the same administrator. I am working right now under a top-notch principal whose predecessor would do nothing about incompetent teachers in our school, just let them stay year after year, becoming more intrenched. Now he’s expending energy on this issue when he could be putting more of his efforts into leading us forward, which is what he wants to do before he retires!
Nah, don’t ask the BAD ADMINISTRATORS, they wouldn’t know any of that. Ask the good ones if you can find any-I’ve come across perhaps a few who I could count on the fingers on my one hand in twenty years of teaching. And they aren’t the ones who are allowed to work their way up the administrator ladder.
Truly BAD (read: HARMFUL) teachers exist, only because of BAD MANAGEMENT.
TAGO!
Arne Duncan is tweeting studies about the bad effects of principal turnover – “churn”.
The King of Churn is now concerned about churn. You can’t make this stuff up. Do ed reformers worry that nothing they say hangs together in any coherent and rational way?
NOW he values experience and institutional competence. NOW he worries about the effect of the chaos he encourages on kids and communities. I guess “disruption” is falling out of fashion at the Aspen Institute.
The man is a fad-follower. He believes the last thing he read. There’s no cumulative or resilient or coherent plan being developed here, nothing that will hold up over time. “If it’s NEW, it’s BETTER!”
I don’t know: if we have to run public schools like businesses, can we at least get a competent CEO who thinks past the next quarter? It’s like we get people who don’t believe in a public sector, but are also lousy private sector managers. We get the worst of both worlds.
Click to access principal_turnover_cost.pdf
What does TIME mean by “bad”? They and the corporate reformers the cover supports mean teachers who do not hit the testing industry’s moving target of performance. Dear parents, how do you think they will measure these teachers? They will do so by testing your children more and more. This is why they continually use this emotionally charged but vague word – bad. If they were to be more specific and honest, the public’s ire would be against them instead of teachers and then where would the billion dollar testing industry be? Make no mistake: this is the gigantic pot of money at stake in this narrative, not the relatively few dollars spent on tenure disputes as TIME and corporate reformers would have you think. See http://www.lismyers.org for full article.
Make that http://www.lisamyers.org
Based on my observations of the last 15 years of ed reform, the well-intentioned liberal ed reformers who don’t actually want to destroy teachers unions but instead want to tweak tenure will get completely rolled by the conservative ed reformers who want to destroy teachers unions.
Because liberal ed reformers always get rolled by conservative ed reformers, and we end up with far Right public school policy.
I haven’t seen liberal ed reformers win a single round. They ALWAYS get completely screwed by the conservative faction. Funding, testing, charter schools, vouchers, you name it. Liberal ed reformers never get their desired policy goal, instead they just move the goalposts and adopt the conservative policy outcome as their own.
If there’s “tenure reform” conservatives will draft it and run the entire show, just like they now run the entire show on testing and funding and “choice”.
“Equity” will go out the window and it’ll be 100% union-bashing and union-busting. Why would it go any different than any other ed reform of the last 15 years?
Chiara,
This is a distinction without a difference.
Chiara, I am an Ohio teacher. Could you recommend who to vote for on Tuesday? I am going to make a list for my husband and me. Thanks so much, and I immensely enjoy your comments!
“Impossible” (parody of the Cinderella theme song)
Impossible, for a plain mellow principal to fire an awful teacher.
Impossible, for a pol with no principle to act just like a preacher
And rich tech guys will never claim to be ed experts!
Such education policy effectsperts…
It’s possible!!!
Cuz the world is full of zanies and fools
Who don’t believe in sensible rules
And won’t believe what sensible people say.
And though these daft and dewey-eyed dopes keep tangling up their risible ropes,
Impossible things are happening every day!
The unfortunate fact is that, in many school systems across the country, few teachers were ever discharged (and often those who were discharged were the better teachers who were the victims of retaliation by insecure principals). Parents/voters, drawing from their personal experience as students or parents of students, know that school systems often/usually retain poorly-performing teachers. These parents/voters will therefore be inclined to support any school reform that promises to identify/remove the poorly-performing teachers that the parents/voters correctly believe are continuing to teach in their local schools — hence the wide support among parents/voters for high-stakes testing/teacher discharge, weakening/elimination of tenure, and weakening of teachers unions.
The problem, of course, is not tenure or teachers unions but rather over-extended, incompetent, and/or conflict-avoiding administrators who lack the resources, competence, and/or intestinal fortitude to document poor performance and pull the discharge trigger.
As a practical matter, most principals do not have the managerial resources to document poor teacher performance, particularly if the teacher is superficially following the rules (that is, showing up on time, making lesson plans, staying awake during class, not drinking or doing drugs). Speaking from 30+ years as a labor attorney (representing govt and management, never unions or employees), the only realistic way to document poor substantive performance by a professional employee is via a first-line supervisor who has the same professional skills as the evaluated employee and has regular (ideally daily) professional contact with the employee’s professional work and/or work product. In US schools, there are few, if any, such first-line supervisors; instead we have principals or assistant principals who are managers (not first-line supervisors), who often lack the professional skills required to evaluate a given teacher’s substantive work (the former English teacher principal evaluating the math or biology teacher), and who never have regular daily professional contact with the evaluated teacher (the occasional observation does not give the evaluating principal/assistant principal sufficient input re the variables that are influencing the professional work nor suffieicnt opportunity to evaluate the day-in, day-out quality of the teacher’s professional work).
For these reasons, the most effective school reform — from the perspective of identifying/discharging poorly-performing teachers — is a “peer-review” program similar to that which has functioned successfully for over a decade in Montgomery County, MD (a large economically diverse DC suburb). That peer-review program, called “PAR” is not really a peer review program but rather a first-line supervisor program whereby central admin (with union input) selects extremely qualified experienced teachers to serve as temporary first-line supervisors for teachers who are identified by their principals as possibly poorly-performing; the supervising teacher is assigned by central admin with no input from the involved principal; the supervising teacher makes a retain/discharge recommendation to a central committee of principals and other temporary supervising teachers (again, no participation by the involved principal). This has resulted in the discharge or resignation-in-lieu-of-review of 500+ teachers; no high-stakes testing; union supports the program; few challenges to the discharges, teachers generally view the system as fair, and the system protects the good teacher from retaliation by an insecure principal.
This approach would give parents/voters assurances that the poorly-performing teachers were being identified/discharges without the adverse side effects of eliminating tenure or weakening teachers unions.
Nail hit squarely on head. Thank you.
Large districts could support a peer review program. Peer review could also become a shared (county) wide service in smaller districts.
As a labor lawyer, you certainly must agree that instructional effectiveness is not an end in and of itself, but goes hand in hand with a system that allows for it to flourish. All of this talk about bad teaching presumes that the over arching system is healthy, and it is not. By this I mean that teaching effectiveness often depends upon how well prepared the students are in the first place, and this is where district administrators have caved in by allowing students to pass through the system, often at the early stages, without having demonstrated basic levels of competence. A form of teacher undermining–better yet, emasculation–takes place whereby the message is this: “You haven’t mastered your mathematics and reading skills, but we will promote you in spite of this (“we hired a bad teacher, perhaps?”). By the time these passive children get to high school, it is often too late. The only secondary teachers who are not frustrated–or less frustrated–are AP and Honors teachers.
Now, high school has another dirty secret in the public school world: matriculation over mastery. Students who haven’t passed a single math class since 6th grade can take 4 week summer school classes and can also take computer based credit recovery classes to make up credits in subjects. On the surface, this isn’t a bad concept, but it presumes that the students “can’t do” instead of “won’t do” the required work during the ten month stretch we typically call “the school year.” So, either the district has hired incompetent elementary school teachers, or the students and parents haven’t measured up in the formative years. In any event, the message gets out: “They can’t stop us from completing school, and we don’t really have to know anything.”
How does one fairly evaluate qualified teachers who have no control over such matters?
Nobody cares more about teaching and learning than the teachers; yet they are being undermined by those so-called managers who have chosen the path of least resistance. District managers get top pay to make tough choices and to solve problems, but they don’t do it. Why is this?
Theory: in order to break the teachers’ union, collusion has taken place among educational managers, i.e., ex-teachers, to create a system that would eventually self-destruct with the teachers getting the blame.
Labor Lawyer and Veritas have combined to make some of the most cogent points on this “bad teacher/failing school” issue that I have read. Suggest submitting a letter to Time. Thank you both so much for articulating so well.
Add writerjoney to this list of posters who have hit this topic out of the park!
After more than thirty years in a NYC suburban district, I also witnessed how the district used tenure rules to weed out people that were deemed ineffective at their jobs. Not only did the district let people go during their three year probation period, it used a system of “intensive monitoring” that was contract based to notify teachers that the district had concerns about a teacher’s job performance. During this time the staff member worked with department chairs or building administrators to guide and frequently observe the teacher in question. As far as I know, the system worked well, and some teachers chose to leave the system during this efficient, yet fair, process. The district did not spend a fortune to get a teacher of questionable quality to leave.
This was a well written piece by Nancy Flangan. I thought her point about how “messy” education is was particularly thoughtful. Yes, oh boy, is it ever. The comments on Nancy’s piece were good, too. Plus, a poem! A classic, Diane Ravitch blog entry.
And, you know, I’d have no trouble having any or all of you come into my classroom tomorrow morning and give me some ideas as to what I’m doing right…..and what I could do better. I’d certainly give whatever you say some serious consideration.
I can’t imagine the hedge fund billionaires, school “deform” dabblers, state ed. bureau-zombies and politic hacks like Cuomo etc…. ever being willing to do the same…..
John,
You are doing a great job! I can see from here.
Thanks. I have such a tremendous amount of respect for Diane and so many of the people who are contributing to this blog. It’s been a REAL education. These people on HERE inspire….not the Rhees and Browns and Gates and Cuomos…… Thank God for this blog as well as the wonderful students I’m privileged to learn alongside each day. Take care.
I have gained a national perspective from reading this blog. I had tunnel vision before. Now when I am trying to make a point with my colleagues, I intersperse my comments with tales of faraway places. It is small comfort to find out how others are affected by attacks on public education.
My students ask why teachers need tenure. Apart from the historic reasons why tenure and unionization came about, I cite one over arching and compelling reason why teachers today need tenure. Teachers, especially good teachers, have to be pains in the ass. If they are going to truly advocate for their students, it means not going along to get along. It means saying when administrators and elected representatives are wrong. It means saying what the children need and what they do not have and who is not giving it to them.
Ideally, teachers, parents, and administrators will work together to help all of the students. But when that ideal breaks down, when parents have priorities that are in opposition to students’ needs and when administrators cut corners at the expense of the students, then teachers need to be shielded from the consequences that exist for at will employees who speak out.
Ending tenure will make schools worse for students.
Daniel, that is truly a compelling why teachers need tenure.
However, it’s not really why we were given tenure by law. I’m not sure le slathers have ever been really interested in what teachers need.
Definitely not the historic reasons — without tenure, we cannot absolutely know those reasons would come back uniformly. Many likely would, but we cannot predict.
But what we DO know is that today, being an at will employee is absolutely antithetical to what we know good teachers do. At will employees have to do what the boss says when the boss says it or risk immediate termination. Teachers need the ability to advocate for their students regardless of administration — they need that tool in their kit for when the system breaks down and they need tenure so that they have a defense if what motivates their confrontational stance is the good of their students.
What’s neat is the “at will” employment can come back and bite the employer. Some charters are beginning to be bitten.
A school might be able to terminate on a whim, but teachers are just as free to move on. Especially the better ones. I’ve seen it.
“Teachers, especially good teachers, have to be pains in the ass. If they are going to truly advocate for their students, it means not going along to get along. It means saying when administrators and elected representatives are wrong. It means saying what the children need and what they do not have and who is not giving it to them.”
TAGO! Daniel!
I say that if a teacher isn’t getting at least one write up per year then they aren’t doing their job correctly.
The first thing that will happen without continuing contracts is that teachers will become “bad teachers” overnight on their 40th birthdays. There will be a rush at that time to begin to give them bad evaluations to eliminate them within 3 years to save districts money. Younger teachers do not think this could happen…but, believe me, without due process/continuing contracts it will. My fear is that this new teacher evaluation system, which can be extremely harsh, will prevent excellent teachers from getting their continuing contracts at all.
And that harshness is fueled by jargon and “training” that have nothing to offer the child. I am appalled at how many subs are needed because of training sessions to try to get teachers to buy in to the changes that are more easily accepted by those with no vested time in the profession. They had better realize that it will happen to them, too.
The main reason why it is difficult in some districts to oust poorly performing teachers is because there is no evidence of their incompetence. The principal who wants to get rid of a teacher has not done his/her job of observing in the classroom, collecting parent complaints or other evidence to prove the teacher is not doing a good job. From many years of experience as a teacher and a principal, we have a lot more bad administrators than bad teachers.
Now here’s an administrator that understands. One of the few there are!
TAGO on your last sentence!
Ding!
IMO, if we really wanted to improve education, the “critics” should take on the responsibility of the teacher for 2-3 days in each classroom, have a critic for each grade level. Take notes on what each classroom is like. Compare good and bad findings. Hold a grade level meeting and without naming names, point out the best techniques used, based on lesson plans, and point out the least effective/confusing habits they observed. They should also observe the distribution of students with behavior issues and willingness to cooperate, etc. It would give them insights into what really goes on and the problems and solutions needed to make every teacher successful.
Going into a classroom to observe a nervous teacher and maintaining a “gotcha” attitude is counterproductive. We finally got rid of a hateful, vindictive principal who was nothing more than a bully. The school community needs to function as an organism not as a frightened, insecure, terrorized group.
I am now subbing. I am learning a lot about other teacher’s successes and things that work well. Administrators need to do this in all grade levels. It would change opinions, allow for growth, sharing, and build school community rather than tear it down.
Evaluations seem to be tearing down the plane while in flight. Testing seems to be built during flight. Either way, kids fall out into the ocean.
“if we really wanted to improve education, the “critics” should take on the responsibility of the teacher for 2-3 days in each classroom, have a critic for each grade level.”
“If” is the operative word.
If “reformers” were actually interested in improving education they would do what you suggest. They would also pay attention to the large body of legitimate research on the subject — rather than their own think-tank funded echos.
But they aren’t — so they don’t.
And call me cynical, but I don’t believe the people driving “reform” would act differently even if they experienced what teachers experience.
If one needs any evidence of that, just look at the “stacked-ranking” system that Gates imposed on his own employees at Microsoft. The evidence that it was having a very negative effect was right in front of his nose, but, for a long time, he refused to see it and kept going full steam ahead.
And now he is pushing for a similar system for public school teachers.
Some people are driven by preconceived notions and facts are simply inconveniences to be brushed aside and/or “dismissed” with bogus “studies” or outright lies.
At some point, one has to stop holding out hope that such folks are capable of changing their ways.
That was my point … IF they wanted to improve teacher performance … but they do not … because they have no idea of what they speak … they make assumptions … incorrect assumptions … always have, always will. It is pathetic. But, the infusion of big dollars has made this a big time “game” and the money rules. Education, facts, pedagogy, none of it matters. Only test scores.
You can watch the students who are “engaging” with technology … and some do, some don’t. Some progress, some spin their wheels, some click on and off a screen, just like a kid that doesn’t like broccoli shoves it around on his/her plate … and no learning takes place … no interaction with teacher or with tech … just a big lot of nothingness.
HOWEVER, when test time comes around, if the student doesn’t do well, the TEACHER is to blame … no matter what.
I am really, really tired of all this.
I have a perhaps outlier comment here, and disclaim that I’ve even read the story yet. National Board certification, I have read, is a joke and not worth the time and effort. I have read that good teachers can get denied, while someone who may have copied someone else’s paper work, and prepared a slick video, will get approved. I have also read about instances where people who get that title can be pompous, and sometimes not really good teachers, or no better than those who didn’t apply. So, when I see it in the opener “a National Board Certified” teacher, as if it means they are better than the average bear and somehow above a “regular” teacher, perhaps with a Masters, a PhD, and say 25 years experience, it makes me cringe and wonder why the moniker matters.
All of the above, Donna.
May I humbly suggest that we refute these allegations with sound bites. As lovely as the well written beautiful rebuttals are, and they are jewels, my fear is that they won’t be read except by reasonable people and reasonable people themselves think tenure is bad. So, simply refute it. NO YOU CAN FIRE TENURED TEACHERS. TEACHERS CAN”T FIGHT FOR YOUR CHILD WITHOUT IT, THEY HAVE DUE PROCESS TO BE FIRED. Tha’ts about it. Especially the second one because it effects their child. Don’t like a ruling by an administrator on your child a TENURED TEACHER CAN FIGHT FOR YOU. is your child be bullied and ignored by the administration A TENURED TEACHER CAN FIGHT FOR HIM, Is you special needs child being denied his Federally mandated rights A TENURED TEACHER CAN FIGHT FOR HIM. I really think we need to get the truth out, loud, big and simple. Just like they are getting the lies out loud big and simple. Thanks
To all readers:
From: deb November 2, 2014 at 10:57 am
“if we really wanted to improve education, the “critics” should take on the responsibility of the teacher for 2-3 days in each classroom, have a critic for each grade level.”
From: Some DAM Poet (Devalue Added Model) November 2, 2014 at 12:00 pm
“If” is the operative word.
If “reformers” were actually interested in improving education they would do what you suggest. They would also pay attention to the large body of legitimate research on the subject — rather than their own think-tank funded echos.
But they aren’t — so they don’t.
And call me cynical, but I don’t believe the people driving “reform” would act differently even if they experienced what teachers experience.
IMHO, Deb’s idea is marvelous, but Some DAM Poet’s explanation is extraordinarily accurate. I must say that educators, please unite and fight for humanity by cultivate and educate students and parents by creating
“an online magazine about American Public Education”
where all educators, artists, poets, parents and students of each state can contribute article from school to work force. One true goal is to expose all con artists, bad administrator, bad government official, bribery business tycoon; as well as to praise all good Samaritans.
Hopefully, we will be the ONE force in voting the best candidate for each public servant position without worrying of any bad influence from movers or shakers in American society. Yes I am a dreamer. However, educators can weave my dream to come true.
Back2basic
This conversation makes me sad. A false meme… ya think?
If they could harass someone like me out 16 years ago, there is no protections.
Tens of thousands of the top professionals are gone, and
http://www.opednews.com/author/author40790.html
But at least she uses the words PRACTITIONER.
And yes, we need protection, and the unions are the ones to clean up their act and do the job… they failed miserably for 2 decades or we would not be having this conversation.
Hi Mrs. Susan Lee Schwartz:
I feel for your anguish. I have lived in Canada for the past 37 years. I have seen and witnessed what “”capitalists without HUMANITY” (=Communists = fascists) can do to damage people’s dignity.
But I still cannot understand the level of NAIVETE from educator leaders, union leaders, and general public who seem to forget easily the greed from business tycoons who keep dig deeply into public FUND/ RESOURCES to support sleazy public servants and to destroy citizens’ stable standard living as human beings. SAD, so SAD. Back2basic
The greatest propaganda machine in the history of mankind has perfected its reach. I saw television in its infancy, and I witnessed the ‘mad men’–the advertising industry perfect its selling techniques. Them it applied it to politics. No longer did people running for office explain their positions, but now, their ‘handlers’ told hem how to manipulate the voters.
Orwell would understand, but Jerry Mander did. Read “in The Absence of the Sacred,” and you will grasp how television came to be the window on the world for a stressed, busy citizenry, ignorant of history and truth, and the values that his ancestors knew were key to the survival of the tribe, the society and the individual. Cooperation and compromise to find solutions are replaced on television by non-stop competition and aggression. With neighborhood, community, family and religion out of the picture, several generations have reached adulthood completely brain-washed…manipulated by the talking heads and ‘pundits’ who lie to them, and sell them politicians who are not leaders… liars who work against “enlightened self-interest” and lead the people to folly. (Barbara Tuchman: “march to Folly).
I also am a big fan of Al Franken, and have read “Truth,” and “Lies, and the Lying Liars Who tell them. I recommend the audio version of that one, written before Fox news perfected mendacity.