Parsing Mulgrew on tenure, teacher effectiveness, teacher evaluation, value-added: What he should be saying, but won't

Just heard Mulgrew on Brian Lehrer in relation to Cathie Black's positions opposing tenure and last in first out (LIFO) for layoffs. Talk of teacher effectiveness and cost effectiveness.

Not the latter is a newer wrinkle of the ed deformers - the argument that given 2 roughly equal teachers it is more cost effective to get rid of the one who makes more money. They can even argue that if a teacher who makes 100G is superb, it is still more cost effectie to keep two 3rd year teachers making 60G.

Now if you are running a business that idea looks good. But is it really cost effective over the long term when you are dealing with an entire profession that would react poorly - even the younger teachers who hope to put in a long career and one day get paid accordingly? Other than real newbies who have no plans to stay - think Teach for America - the shock troops of the ed deform movement - the degrading aspect of this attack undermines the profession and weakens teacher effectiveness over the long run. I would bet most teachers from 3rd year on would be absolutely opposed to weakening of tenure and the end of seniority for layoffs - which are a pretty rare affair. Many teachers I know starting around 1969-70 were excessed at least once - and in '75 we had massive layoffs by seniority and call-backs by the same means - an orderly system instead of the chaos the ed deformers are calling for.

Of course we heard none of this argument by Mulgrew who instead talked about the fact that tenure is due process not life-time jobs and that if there are ineffective teachers the principals should have gotten rid of them before it was time for layoffs. Good points for him - he even talked about how tenure is not a contract provision but state law long superceding the lifetime of the union. (By the way - tenure as people talk about it as a lifetime job is more aligned with college teaching though even that is based on some due process system). He also talked about the fair funding formula - the tactic tha charges principals for the costs of the teachers instead of lumping all salaries into a central fund - and how it encourages principals to get rid of of more expensive teachers. So not terrible even though he could have been much stronger - but as we know- the UFT is partway on the ed deform bandwagon - or wants it to appear that way.

When Brian brought up the release of individual teacher evaluations, Mulgrew was weak I thought in not arguing how they should never be released for all sorts of reasons that have been argued. Instead he attacked the accuracy of the value-added results at this point and seemed to argue that when they were accurate it would be OK to release them.

I think there have been enough arguments about VA and the narrow tests they are based on. We think there is a lot more to a teacher than can be expressed in a number. The union should be making that case instead of bragging how they are willing to cooperate in their own members' demise.

For the kind of defense we would like to hear from out union - but never will read this at Modern School:

Value Added & Performance Pay Scams Weaken Teacher Pay and Autonomy

Stephen Krashen, from Schools Matter, has an excellent posting on the idiocy of Value Added teacher assessments and performance pay: Seniority and Teacher Layoffs: A Red Herring

Like so much of Ed Deform: It's all about money. Senior teachers are higher on the pay scale and cost districts more money than younger inexperienced teachers. Krashen argues that this is the only rational argument for dumping experience over youth since veteran teachers generally do a better job. They have more years of on the job practice. They have more experience from workshops, professional development, and collaboration with peers.

However, there is one more reason to dump older teachers: Control

Experienced teachers are less likely to go along with every hare-brained ed deform plan concocted by their administrators. This is one reason why charter schools like KIPP are able to get their teachers to work weekends and summers and be on call well into the night. 

Retired UFT Bronx HS District Rep Lynne Winderbaum on the NYCEDNews Listserve said:

Of all the words used to describe Cathie Black, "parrot" may be a new one. But it seems that after her listening tour of Tweed, she has now come out repeating the tired old propaganda that has been adopted by the Department of Education for the last nine years.

This morning at 6:15 AM on NPR Cathie Black announced that she "has a problem with the practice of granting 25-year-olds tenure, insuring them a job for the rest of their lives for just showing up to work everyday".   Also, she "has a problem with laying off the 'last in' first".  She stated that she could never run a company successfully if these practices existed and that these practices would never be accepted in business.

Frightening to see that her ignorance regarding these issues had been replaced by the misrepresentations she is being taught. First of all, there is no practice of granting 25-year olds tenure. Anyone of that age who does achieve tenure has already served three years in a classroom and has been trained during that probationary period to work on techniques and strategies to improve their pedagogy. At any time during the three year period, if the teacher does not show improvement or an aptitude for the job, he or she can be summarily fired--no questions asked. It is called a "discontinuance of probation" and it is used frequently. After three years, if the teacher has been satisfactory rated, only then is tenure granted. And if an administrator has any doubts about granting tenure, there is the option to extend probation for an additional year...no questions asked. 

Cathie Black is also showing her ignorance of the fact that tenure is not a "job for the rest of their lives for just showing up to work everyday." Tenured teachers can be fired under the terms of state education law Section 3020a. That's all tenure gets them: a due process proceeding. It does not mean a job for life. It is just a guarantee of a fair hearing, with evidence presented and with representation. Private sector workers would love to have such security, but apparently a successful business cannot incorporate fairness according to Black. A tenured teacher cannot be summarily fired for any reason as a probationary teacher can. That's all tenure means. And if Cathie Black is unquestioningly passing along the false myths that we expect of a person who simply repeats what she hears without any independent research, we should fear what lies ahead in her decision making process.

May I add that without tenure, teachers risk discrimination, being punished for their political leanings, and they will rightly fear exposing wrongdoing or questioning violations such as failure to follow special ed or ELL laws, for example. It is just protection Cathie, not a lifetime guarantee. Get out of your cocoon.

"Last in, first out" was never a policy that was debated until the wholesale closing of schools left many veteran teachers without jobs. Before that, the only teachers in excess were those with one or two years experience. Suddenly there were hundreds of employees who had given their lives to the children of New York City, twenty or thirty years in many cases, who had no place to work, through no fault of their own. They were also the most highly paid. So, despite the fact that many are fine teachers, Tweed looked for a way to paint them all with a negative brush and build a pr position around firing them. Black says the practice would never be accepted in business where the model is to have the power to hire and fire at will. But first she must make a convincing argument that the basis of retaining teachers will never be favoritism or silence about problems at schools. Seniority is a fair way to fight favoritism and nepotism. Do away with seniority and tenure and watch what is unleashed in our workforce. After her week of listening to folks downtown, the breadth of her understanding of the issues may be a mile wide but it is a quarter inch thick.

That does not bode well for anyone in the school system.

Do Teachers Need Tenure?

Perdido Street School on the NY Post article:

This Is Why We Need Tenure

Next time Oprah, Arianna Huffington or some other ed deformer says getting rid of tenure is the most important "reform" needed to improve public education, refer them to this case:

A judge tore into city investigators Thursday for a shoddy probe that cost a teacher his job at a Manhattan school for kids with emotional and legal problems.

The decision means Charles Bryant can reclaim his teaching license and possibly get his job back at Public School 35M.

One of my former colleagues in elem school had a child, a second grader I believe, who ran out of class 2 times one day. The child was supposed to not be in the room but with a counselor during that time. The teacher called the father and told him to come up during the class. When the child ran a third time the teacher stopped her (think of consequences if she runs into the street) and sat her in her seat. In doing so her finger caught the collar and a button was ripped off. At least that is what is alleged.

The principal, a Lead Acad grad, was known for putting people in the rubber room. She hated this teacher because the year before she had run for chapter leader against the princ favored candidate and lost by only 1 vote - a real vote of no confidence to the principal.

The principal called up the child’s mother and incited her to call the cops and charged the teacher with assault. 5 cops came and arrested the teacher and took her out in handcuffs in front of the entire community. The teacher had taught in the school for 22 years with no marks on her record. Even the cops were sympathetic and one went back and investigated. I called him and he told me it was clearly a case incited by the principal.

The teacher and parent and child were in the police station until 1 in the morning as the cops tried to convince the parent to drop charges. The teachers was so hot about it all she refused to apologize. The cops released her but the arrest is on record.

She went to the rubber room. For 3 years. She hired a lawyer who I thought was awful.

One of the reasons she hired a private lawyer was that the week after the incident I went to people in the UFT and pleaded with them to get to the cops and get them on record. They told me that was the teacher’s responsibility. “But she is in the rubber room all day,” I said. It was clear that they were more afraid of being charged with protecting a teacher who may be found guilty of abusing a child even in such an obviously rigged situation. She just didn't trust the UFT.

I was at some sessions of her 3020a hearing. She was shell shocked from what has been happening to her and that made her ineffective in her own defense. The DOE showed pictures the principal took of the child’s shoulder which was supposedly scratched. We all looked at them with disbelief. You couldn’t see anything. The photos were taken about 2 hours after the incident. I saw the parent and child testify. It was all about the parent’s pride - she also hated the principal but wouldn’t back down. (The child had been moved to special ed not long after the incident.)

The hearing officer of course never talked to the arresting police. The result: teacher suspended without pay for a year. That means that after a year she will be allowed to teach. They clearly just did this to force her out.

Do teachers need tenure? She has tenure and only that gave her a salary for the 3 years. By the way - the delay was not due to her. I was supposed to attend these hearings on more days but they kept postponing and changing dates.

Bogus Charges Hurt Effort to Remove Teachers Who Should Be Removed: Teacher says, "Take a lap (run)"

....sees words twisted into asking a student to "sit on his lap." DOE turns it into sexual harassment charge and 2nd year rubber room assignment.

"I have something that I normally say. I say take a lap and sit on your spot. Students are assigned floor spots. This young lady said, 'Oh, I have to sit on your lap?' and I said, 'No, you heard what I said. You'll take a lap and then sit on your spot,'" Smith said.

See NY1 report.

It is cases like these (and there are so many of them) that undermine and discredit any move to get rid of teachers who should be removed and makes all teachers dig in their heels to assure their protection.

Some may cast doubt on the teacher's version, but I don't doubt he is telling the truth because of the stories coming in.

A teacher at my old school served 15 months in the rubber room and was completely exonerated for a case of having her words twisted. She told a child that if he didn't do his homework he would never get it (the concept they were learning) and unless he did his work he would never learned. She was removed because of a charge she said black kids would never learn. Of course, the principal hated her because she spoke her mind about the mindless policies of the principal.

Last week I attended the 3020 hearing of another teacher, who also resisted this same principal's machinations and was railroaded. She is coming on the completion of her third year in the rubber room. She is charged with putting her hand on the shoulder of a child who had been repeatedly running out of the room pushing her into her seat. In doing so, they claim her finger caught the shirt and 2 buttons came off (her buttons could have been lost). The principal seized on the opportunity and urged the parent to call the police. Thus, a teacher who had been in the school for 22 years with absolutely no record of any incidents, was taken out of the school in handcuffs by 5 police.

At the hearing, large sized photos of supposed bruises were shown. The child's mother testified they were taken by the principal immediately after the incident. We all looked intently for any sign of a bruise, but there were none. By the way, the child had been coming to school with the remnants of a black eye and the teacher had been calling for an investigation before this incident. The child been out of school for weeks and the teacher had talked to the mother as recently as the afternoon before the incident. The principal did nothing.

It came out that the police were totally sympathetic to the teacher, especially after a detective went to the school and investigated. I spoke to the cop a few weeks later. I'll paraphrase what he said: this is clearly trumped up and the principal was behind it. The parent testified that a group of cops sat around her in a circle and urged her to drop charges.

The teacher was released and should have been back in the school soon after. But the DOE is pursuing 3020 charges. Think of what this case is costing them. They pay the teacher 3 years salary to sit in the rubber room, pay the costs of the investigation, bringing in witnesses, pay the DOE lawyer, pay at least 500-800 bucks a day or so for the hearing officer, some of whom sometimes take a nap, as reported by the NY Times' Jennifer Medina yesterday, who I invited to join me at one of the upcoming sessions in this 3020 open hearing and she said she just may do so. (Teachers must request in writing an open hearing before it begins if they want witnesses.)

And then there are those 20 math teachers at Bronx High School of Science where these vendettas go on all the time.

Tenure protection anyone?

Until the DOE stops the witch hunts engaged by principals using the lack of oversight by the DOE, any attempt to make it easier to remove bad teachers will meet stiff resistance. Offer those teachers out of classroom positions (maybe in the press office of Tweed, which has plenty of room). There are certainly things they can find for people to do and it will be much cheaper in the long run.

Obama Admin Hits New Low on Ed Deform as it Seeks to Gut NY State Tenure

UPDATE: Obama addresses NAACP in NYC at Hilton Thurs. at 7PM. There's some buzz about a protest outside over his education policies.

A must read article at Gotham.

"The Obama administration official in charge of an educational innovation fund yesterday issued a warning to a New York audience: Unless the state legislature revises a law now on the books about teacher tenure, the state could lose out on the $4.35 billion fund she controls."

The official is Joanne Weiss, "who worked at the New Schools Venture Fund before heading to Washington..." Think she has a dog in the race? Talk about rating teachers based on value added assessment when there is no system proved to work is like saying we should start mining the moon with a shovel. Gee, has anyone been working on systems rating doctors, lawyers and even politicians on value added systems?

"Weiss was in town to discuss The New Teacher Project’s report “The Widget Effect,” which was released last month and urged districts to overhaul their teacher performance evaluations."

Ho-ho-ho. The unbiased NTP being taken seriously by an Obama official. This country is in real trouble.

The Gotham article is linked here:

Obama official to New York: Change your tenure law or else

And make sure to read Pissed Off Teacher's and Ceolaf comments. But John Thompson's bears repeating:

Call her bluff.

If moderate reformers in the AFT don’t have the guts to stand firm on this, the backlash will be awful.

If a state as powerful as NY doesn’t have the guts to stand firm on this, others will crumble. OK, a “reformer” has had her say. Obama has bigger fish to fry, but there is a natural compromise that should be a no-brainer to him. The firewall on teacher indicators will be dropped when a firewall is created to keep test data from being used in evaluations. We could still move ahead with the Denver Plan and the Toledo Plan and similar approaches.

After all, it makes sense to use test scores when appropriate as in performance incentives. But it doesn’t make sense where it is not appropriate, as in evaluations where it could destroy the career of good and effective teachers.

I want the AFT to support Obama, regardless. But I’d like my union to be willing to announce the formation of a major litigation fund to destroy any schemes for using test scores for evaluation. I want districts to know that they will lose more in legal fees than they will gain in Race to the Top Funds if they go down that path.

Then when we drive a stake through the hearts of that mentality, I want my union to go back to being as moderate and willing to compromise as possible. If we want sustainable progress for kids, we can’t get punked on this.

If we lose this one, what self-respecting person would make a career teaching in high-poverty schools? We owe this to our profession.

Sorry, John. Don't expect the AFT to do much more than cheer lead. The attack on tenure by the Obama administration is just the cover the UFT and NYSUT need to duck out of the way as tenure law in NYS is gutted.

As a matter of fact, the dysfunctional state leg doesn't even have to be involved. Watch the upcoming UFT contract, which takes precedence over tenure law, as the UFT will trade money for what will appear to be minor modifications but over time turn out to be disaster.

Jeff Kaufman Explains NYSUT/UFT/DOE Deal on Signing Away Tenure Rights

When I get a letter like the one below, I refer it to Jeff Kaufman, one of ICE's experts on all matters UFT. One thing is clear, this teacher would never get a straight answer from the UFT.

I'm writing because you mention in your Jan. 30, 2007 EdNotes blog that "Teachers are being pressured to sign away their tenure rights in these time and attendance hearings. This was a 2005 provision."

I am being called to one of these expedited hearings (I thought it was a 3020a procedure). Can you explain what you meant about "signing away your tenure rights"?

Also, do you know if the DOE has outlined anywhere a time and attendance policy? Outside from the 10 days per year refunded to your CAR, this seems to be a completely uncharted territory. People are getting called out for all sorts of things and there seems to be no clear policy on how you may use the days in your CAR. I used a considerable amount of days [due to illness] but they were in the CAR and they were all very well documented by physicians with causes and reports.

Thanks for any advice you might be able to provide.

Jeff responds:

Since the provision appeared in our contract I have been involved, directly or indirectly, in about 5 of these proceedings. They are 3020-a hearings but have been modified to allow (encourage) speedy resolution with the provision that anything short of termination was a possible outcome.

The case, just like a “regular” 3020-a goes before a single arbitrator and is generally heard within a couple of weeks of the service of the charge. Early on I discovered that the DOE and UFT had entered into a secret unwritten deal that provided a “boiler plate” last chance agreement. While the amount of the fine was negotiable the form agreement contained a provision which required, without hearing, the termination of the tenured employee without further hearing should the employee be absent and or late more than a certain amount of time provided for in the agreement.

When I brought this to Weingarten’s attention she claimed she had no knowledge about this since NYSUT attorneys were involved. While the agreement that was entered into a case I was involved in was taken back I found that this agreement in somewhat different form was still being used.

The T&A hearing basically are designed to determine whether the absence and/or lateness was necessary but allows the principal’s own written policy to determine the parameters of “allowable” absence and/or lateness. Most principals stick to the 10 day rule but there is some difference of opinion as to whether this is reasonable.

In a properly documented case the arbitrator will levy a small fine (I have not found any of these cases having been dismissed but I have only been involved in a small percentage of them).

There is no reason to accept a waiver of future 3020a hearing since this, in effect, puts you back on probation. Good luck and if you have any other question you can email me directly.

Best regards,
Jeff Kaufman

That Randi would claim she knows nothing about it since it is NYSUT (she is a VP of NYSUT) is not surprising of the UFT abdication of responsibility. I don't buy it.

I received another email yesterday from a source with a contact on the inside who said Randi wants to help get rid of "bad" teachers, but "humanely". Jeff's report must be the UFT/DOE humane response. Of course Randi is letting the "bad" teachers be defined by the DOE and the UFT often has the attitude of "guilty until proven innocent," doing the minimal it has to do. So a teacher has to take lots of days off due to illness or personal issues, has the days saved up in the CAR, but is deemed a "bad" teacher.

Surrender of Tenure in Chicago....

...a precursor for New York

by George Schmidt

10/16/08

The Chicago Teachers Union has surrendered tenure in all but the flimsiest thought. Tenure exists now for teachers at "successful" schools, but not for teachers at "failing" schools. Since most of our schools are "failing" (Chicago is much more segregated than New York City, and with much more dense sections of complete poverty) that means just about everyone.

Basically, Chicago began surrendering tenure with the surrender of seniority in the mid-1990s, and has been surrendering since. There was a brief time under Debbie Lynch (2001-2004) when the union wasn't as big a part of the problem, but that is now over and things are worse than ever.

The CTU "Fresh Start" (peer lynching policy, I'm calling it) is based on the monstrosity from Toledo Federation of Teachers (Dal Lawrence) and is now being exported from Chicago via AFT to everyone else.

Randi knows this.

She's lying if she doesn't admit that she is giving away tenure, bit by bit, with Chicago serving as the role model and a couple of other places (e.g., Washington D.C.) coming in a close second because AFT isn't organizing and supporting resistance to people like Michelle Rhee. Of course, the greatest surrender of all is New Orleans. But that, too, is a much longer story.

George Schmidt
Editor, Substance

www.substancenews.net

Ed Note:
Chicago is years ahead of NYC in mayoral control and has had all the horrors that hit here years before. Ed Notes was out there warning people in the UFT about mayoral control from way back in 2001. On the day Randi came out in favor (May 2001) I went to an Executive Board meeting that night and placed a leaflet with the Chicago story in front of every UFT Executive Board member. Of course they knew and went along for the ride. Dumb? I think not. Mayoral control fits the AFT/UFT vision of education. Thus, they will not make a stand against it, though they will have their committee on governance make some namby pamby noises about checks and balances. And thus they will do nothing to try to stop Bloomberg from another term, the truest spirit of collaboration. Their problem is how to convince the members to go along. But they have the answer: scare them with the financial catastrophe that is to come, making reference to the strike in '75 as a failure. Sure, it was a failure because Al Shanker sold it out. We can expect nothing less than a total sellout – on mayoral control, on Bloomberg, on rating teachers based on test scores, on unfairly closing schools, on ATRs, on the rubber room, on grievances, on just about any issue you can bring up. The only hope is for teachers to wake up and forge a militant opposition to Unity.

Tenure Uncovered

Tenure is a much misunderstood concept and the fact that the concept is under attack as a major cause of the so-called achievement gap is part of the business community and the Educational Equality Project's focus on the teacher as the problem.

Historically, tenure came into existence before teacher unions existed as a way to protect educators and education from political interference. And to give people the right to a defense. It was not designed to protect the incompetent and there have always been tools available to administrators to remove teachers. The length of the process has been under attack even though much of that has been due to the other factors (like few hearing officers.) For some good history, read "Blackboard Unions: The Aft and the Nea, 1900-1980" by Marjorie Murphy.)


An excellent discussion on tenure occurred a few days ago at the NYC Public School Parent list serve, which also includes teachers. That teachers and parents were involved is of some interest.

Note the point in Leonie Haimson's comment where she compares teachers in public and private schools, where there is not tenure, yet there are poor teachers there too. Leonie should know as she has children in both.

Leonie also points to the fact that tenure exists all around the nation - yet it doesn't seem to be under attack in the suburbs. This exposes the fault line in the anti-tenure argument as part of the attack on teacher unions.

The discussion was sparked by an article in The Chief, which pointed to the big rise in the numbers denied from 66 in 2006/7 to 164 in 2007/8 and the numbers extended for probation from 115 in 06/07 to 246 in 07/08.

Principals Tighten the Reins on Tenure, Deny It to 164 Teachers

New Department of Education figures have revealed that the denial of Teacher tenure more than doubled compared to last year, as Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein continue to push for stricter evaluations of Teachers up for long-term job security.

Still, 93% received tenure from principals under BloomKlein. So how will they blame teachers in the future when their own principals gave them tenure?

I’ll start in the middle of the debate where Jeff Kaufman (ICE), who was a NYC policeman and a lawyer before becoming a teacher, responds to Leonie's comment with the crucial point that there is another agenda going on.

While I don’t disagree about concentrating on issues of smaller class size and reducing the impact on high stakes tests the issue of tenure, unfortunately, due to political considerations, needs to be periodically addressed. Having worked for a few City agencies I don’t understand how tenure is singled out for teachers as such a “hot button issue” except that there is another agenda going on.

I have not heard any cries of the ruination of our other City departments because the line workers, for the most part, have tenure. Police Officers, Firefighters, Sanitation Workers and hundreds of other titles have probationary terms and tenure (only teachers call it that) which require that poor performers be granted hearings so that city officials must prove that they lack the skills necessary to carry out the job. A police officer who makes no arrests, goes out sick all of the time, has no summonses and whose response time is totally inadequate can be dismissed, not because his commanding officer doesn’t like him, but because he doesn’t perform his job satisfactorily.

It is amazing to me, as a teacher and parent of school children, that principals and some parents can “tell” if a teacher is any good just by their reputation. I have been in schools where the principal does not observe teachers and bases his or her opinion about the teacher’s performance on walks through the hall and the chatter of other staff members.

Teachers shouldn’t have to defend tenure any more than other public employees. If there is a problem a supervisor should be taking affirmative steps to correct it. Unfortunately there is little accountability in this area.


Parent Eugene Falik:

I think that Jeff has hit the nail on the head.

It is not possible to have incompetent teachers in a school without incompetent or lazy administrators.

It reminds me of a meeting that the Far Rockaway postmaster had with members of the community. There were all manner of complaints, and comparisons of conditions in the Rockaways to the Five Towns (nearby area of Nassau), as well as other areas of the city. The postmaster explained that all of the employees sent to work for him were stupid and / or lazy. All of the good workers were sent elsewhere! Possible? Perhaps, but not likely. Most of those present blamed management.

And keep in mind, Mayor Bloomberg has said that we should judge him by the results in the schools. I believe that we should take him at his word. It certainly will not be a favorable judgment in my opinion.

Eugene Falik


The above comments were to some extent sparked by parent Ellen Bilofsky:

Despite my strong support for teachers' rights, dare I say that this might not be such a bad thing? I would say that for both my kids, poor teachers was the biggest problem in their high school years. Of course, it's a complex issue, and tenure is only a small part of it. At the end of the article, Randi mentions the support given to new teachers so that they can become excellent teachers. Being able to get rid of tenured teachers who are simply burnt out (we have examples of teachers who were literally almost comatose in the classroom) is a big issue. Shortages of teachers in certain subjects is a big part of the problem, since a teacher can't be dismissed if there is no one to replace him/her.

Ellen


Leonie Haimson’s response to Ellen’s comment.

A bunch of different issues are being debated and I think confused here:

1- I believe that too few NYC teachers are denied tenure, when you look at the statistics. Why that is, I have no idea; whether the problem is lazy principals or the system of tenure itself.

2- Once teachers have tenure, it is very difficult to get rid of them, even for poor performance. I have heard that there are ways to “counsel” them out of the profession but don’t know how often that is done. Yet there are good reasons for giving tenure.

3- For one thing, teacher tenure exists in most if not all districts throughout the country; eliminating tenure in NYC alone would not only be highly unrealistic; it would further disadvantage NYC schools, by giving a powerful disincentive for anyone who would like to teach here.

4- I also imagine that many principals would unfairly base the decision to eliminate a teacher on low test scores or even retaliate against teachers for personal reasons – after looking at the situation with the rubber room, etc.

5- NYC principals now have additional incentives to get rid of experienced teachers any way they can, and if there was no tenure, would be firing them left and right, as they have to pay for their higher salaries out of the schools’ discretionary budget. This is a perverse incentive that Tweed has built into their “fair funding system” which is highly destructive.

6- I have had children in public schools and in private schools; the quality of teaching has varied just as much in private schools, where there is no tenure. In fact, some of my daughter’s worst teachers were at her private school. What was far superior were not her teachers per se, but the smaller classes, arts programs and extra-curriculars, facilities, and the underlying attitude that all students should get maximum help and be exposed to as many activities as possible, in order to reach their highest potential in all areas.

7- If we really want to improve teacher quality and effectiveness in NYC, the best way is not to get rid of the tenure system, but to support all teachers and kids so that they can be more successful, by reducing class size, and also put less emphasis on test scores and more emphasis on non- academic areas and activities like the arts.

8- Smaller classes and a smaller working load will also likely diminish teacher attrition, which is extremely high in NYC and results in a far less experienced teaching force, which also means a less effective one, compared to other school districts throughout the state.

9- I believe but cannot prove that class size reduction would also diminish teacher “burn out.” How would you feel if you had year after year of 150 students or more, that you could only get to know a few of them, and reach so few?

10- This is true even at elite public schools like Stuy. If you’d like more info on this, read Frank McCourt’s book about teaching at Stuy, in which he talked about wanting to toss all his students’ assignments into a trash bin. Here is an excerpt from Teaching Man:

“If you asked all the students in your five classes to write 350 words each then you had 175 multiplied by 350 and that was 43, 750 words you had to read, correct, evaluate and grade on evenings and weekends. That’s if you were wise enough to give them only one assignment per week. You had to correct misspellings, faulty grammar, poor structure, transitions, sloppiness in general. You had to make suggestions on content and write a general comment explaining your grade. …If you gave each paper a bare five minutes you’d spend, on this one set of papers, 14 hours and 35 minutes. That would amount to more than two teaching days, and the end of the weekend…that’s the life of the HS English teacher.”

It’s no wonder he retired early. And he was thought of as one of the best teachers there!

Leonie Haimson

Stories of the Day

Updated 7/4/08

Rubber rooms: UFT makes deal with DOE
Check out the ICE analysis of the deal which comes up smelling of public relations
One would ask why there had to be a deal to hire more arbitrators to speed cases as an alternative to letting people rot in rubber rooms when it seems it would be in the interest of the DOE to get these things done as quickly as possible. So why haven't they? Is it due to the numerous cases of people being railroaded by principals with vendettas? Has the DOE been using the rubber rooms as holding pens to support principals who wanted to keep political opponents or people who were "negative" when they tried to push programs that looked ridiculous to educators? Knowing full-well that many of these cases would not hold up, they chose to pay people. Maybe the political pressure grew too great.

By the way, when I made a suggestion to do this at an Executive Board meeting back in 2005, Randi Weingarten attacked me. And when Jeff Kaufman called on the UFT in June 2006 to hire people to do independent investigations, he was similarly attacked.

It was ICE people that consistently drove the UFT to take action on the rubber rooms, which they did not want to know about until we raised it and began bringing people to Executive Board meetings to speak out. What we ended up with was a useless UFT SWAT rubber room team where the infighting is worthy of Kabuki theater.

Michelle Rhee Targets Seniority, Tenure
Rhee wants to bribe people with high salaries to give up seniority and tenure and be willing to undergo a yearly review, based on the ability to raise test scores. People in it for the short term might take the deal, as might people near retirement (bet these people get reviewed out of the system in a heart beat.) Anyone looking for a teaching career in Washington DC better not be tempted.

And here's a good one because of some old friends:
Miami/Dade County Teachers locked in battle with district
They want to cancel promised raises due to budget cuts. So NYC teachers who expect automatic raises should be aware that this can happen. It did to us back in the 70's and 80's (I think.)

Former NYC Chancellor Rudy Crew (forced out by Giuliani) is the Miami superintendent and former long-time NYCDOE personal director Howie Tames is a labor consultant.

Labor consultant Howard Tames said the district hoped to reach a compromise with the teachers. ''It's the district's position that all employees are important and we want to give money to them,'' Tames said. "But by law, the budget gap has to be filled before we can give out the raises.''

Crew said he will not take his raise either. Crew and Tames still look like gold compared to the crew we got at Tweed.

Howie was a former chapter chairman Unity Caucus member in District 14 who rose quickly though the ranks at the DOE in the mid -70's to head the DOE personnel department, becoming a mainstay and dominant figure through multiple chancellors. Howie knew everyone and knew which buttons to push and he did a lot of favors for a lot of people. He didn't fit the corporate model and was purged under BloomKlein (though he will deny it.)

Howie is also one of my fraternity brothers. We went through some rough times in the 70's when the opposition group "Another View in District 14" (members were amongst the founders of ICE a generation later) battled the local political gang and city-wide Unity Caucus machine. Some of my colleagues still have resentments but Howie and I buried the hatchet a long time ago. Bet he has some fun Tweedle stories. Can't wait for him to write his memoirs.

The attack on teacher unions...

..... is broad-based and international - Lois Weiner put together an excellent presentation at the Teachers Unite forum last week and I hope to have the video up in a few weeks.

Naturally, one aspect is money. Non-union teachers can be paid less - don't be fooled by 125K salaries - the numbers still don't compute in terms of time. The other costs associated with contracts are health care, preps, and class size and other aspects.

But it goes beyond to the ability of organized unions (not the UFT, of course) to drive a progressive education agenda by mobilizing people.

Teachers are the point people all over the world in bringing information to the mass of people and are viewed as potentially dangerous to any agenda unless they can be controlled through fear and intimidation. That's the Taliban assassinate teachers, especially those working with girls. And why teachers in Mexico have been murdered. This is echoed all over the world where teachers are amongst the leaders of progressive movements - except here.*

Thus the real reason for the attack on tenure and senior teachers, people who are the most capable and knowledgeable in terms of resisting the idiot ed ideas being fostered on them.

They want teachers to respond when they are told at 12 midnight that it is really noon to say, "Where are my sunglasses?"

*[Analysing the Kahlenberg "Tough Liberal" book on Al Shanker with supplemental reading goes a way to explaining a lot.]

Misinterpretation (Deliberate?) on Tests and Tenure

Kevin Carey at the Quick and the Ed at the Education Sector, which is part of the Rotherham Empire, misses the point of our post on tenure and testing.

Ed Notes offers a justification for banning the use of student performance data in teacher tenure decisions: Using test scores to estimate teacher effectiveness is methodologically complicated. (This is true). Therefore, it should be outlawed. (This is absurd).

Yes teacher effectiveness is complicated and therefore test results should not be used, or misused. Why outlaw it? Because the practically criminal people running the NYC schools are not to be trusted. But read on, as Carey says:

Most important things, including teaching, are complicated. If we squelch every attempt to understand such things and act on that knowledge, we'll be left knowing very little about very little, which more or less describes the state of knowledge about teacher effectiveness today. Indeed, most teacher policy failures are a function of privileging easily measurable unimportant things, like master's degrees and state certification, over difficult-to-measure important things, like effectiveness in boosting test scores.

Do you understand any of this jargon? Let me translate: I think it means that we know little about teacher effectiveness but let's throw testing for tenure against the wall and see if it sticks. If there's a high body count of teachers who don't get tenure due to something we know very little about, so be it. Us policy wonks need data, data, data.

I do agree with Carey that MA's and state certification mean little in teacher effectiveness. But how come the wonks always use the term "like effectiveness in boosting test scores." I love the word "like." Like what else makes for teacher effectiveness? They always stop at boosting scores - how about, like Johnnie enters a class as a serial killer and leaves tame as a pussy cat but alas, the teacher is a failure and denied tenure because he didn't boost Johnnie's test score. Or the teacher did fabulous science projects with the class which turned many kids onto science but, darn, we just don't know how to measure a rise in enthusiasm.

Carey goes on:

Ed Notes also offers the "it hasn't been tested" argument, i.e. the chicken-and-egg theory of policy obstructionism: it can't be tried because it hasn't been proven; it can't be proven because it hasn't been tried.

I love being called a dreaded "policy obstructionist." The "teacher effectiveness" crowd seem to use the "it hasn't been tested" argument when it comes to class size reduction, i.e. the chicken-and-egg-theory of class size reduction obstructionism, preferring to focus on teacher effectiveness (which is guaranteed to improve with lower class sizes) despite the fact no one has come up with any way to judge other than observation - not a bad way if done objectively. (Here I will be accused of not wanting this method either because I always talk about vindictive principals, but offer the solution of teachers being allowed to call in an independent arbiter. And while I'm on this, I often tell teachers under attack to tape an observation, which seems to make some supervisors incredibly nervous.)

And of course the obligatory attack by Carey on Eduwonkette for calling all the hysteria over the tenure/testing law "union-bashing:"

Meanwhile, some unknown person who claims to be a social scientist but isn't willing to offer any credentials to prove it labels all critiques of the union's role in legally banning evidence of student learning from judgments of teacher effectiveness as "union bashing."
I'd always been under the impression that "science," and thus "social science," involved certain values of empiricism, evidence, and transparency of information..
But maybe "science" means something different wherever they hand out anonymous, theoretical social science degrees, I don't know.

Now, isn't it interesting how Carey on the one hand disparages official teaching credentials
"that most teacher policy failures are a function of privileging easily measurable unimportant things, like master's degrees and state certification, over difficult-to-measure important things, like effectiveness in boosting test scores."

....but attacks Eduwonette for not showing her credentials, without which we obviously can't trust what she says. The quality of what she (or he -wouldn't that be a kick) write is enough for me. Like take this one from Eduwonkette:

Joel Klein, in his op-ed, even blames unions for the existence of achievement gaps:

Protecting grownups rather than making sure students can read and do math is how our country has gotten into the educational mess it's in today. It's the reason we have shameful racial achievement gaps separating our white and Asian students from our African-American and Latino students.

That's why there are no achievement gaps in North Carolina and Texas!

And add Florida and Mississippi and probably a few other non-unionized states around the nation. Gotta love Wonkette, credentials or not.

And what if it turns out that Eduwonkette drives a school bus? Her credentials are what she has to say. Enough for me.

And note the consistent attack on Wonkette by the Rotherham crowd for being anonymous. Boy, will they all be surprised when she turns out to be 13 and in junior high school.

A future post will go into more detail the entire BloomKlein tenure/testing PR sham.

The Sham of Tenure and Test Scores

Updated 2 pm

With the NY State legislature rejecting BloomKlein's attempt to tie tenure to test scores on the heels of turning down the congestion pricing plan, the attacks from Bloomberg and Klein are coming fast and furious. This is not really about tenure. Principals have the right to delay tenure for teachers and many are so vulnerable, they can pretty much be let go quite easily.

First of all, an enormous number of teachers are not even in the mix. Gym teachers? No tenure if the kid can't pole vault? Music? Kids can't play Bach or sing like Callas? OUT! Computer teachers? Typing teachers? 20 words a minute? or 30? or 5? OUT! So where's the equity?

But let's look at the kinds of classes that would be affected. High school regents would be the only ones at that level. Now we need a system to compare apples to apples. What rules are in effect to adjust for the differences in schools and between different classes in schools? What impact does attendance have? Should teachers of a first period class, where many more kids don't show up, be held to a different standard than other periods? What about teachers of non-regent classes? What tests are they to be judged on?

In elementary and middle school, the tests they are talking about are math and reading. So are only these teachers in the line of fire? Do social studies, science, gym, computer, etc. get off? What about reading with push-in programs? What if the teacher who comes in daily is tenured and incompetent while the classroom teacher is untenured? What about the literacy or math coach? In sports the coaches are the ones to get fired, not the players.

Of course, the pro BloomKlein press will express outrage while ignoring all these angles.

With all these questions left on the table - and I blame the UFT for not raising them publicly to point to the folly of the plan. Unity Caucus slugs will jump on this statement: "See you chronic complainer, give the union credit for using its political muscle to win this." Without battling it out over the ideology and relying solely on the political sphere, they will win some battles but will lose the war.

It is clear there is another purpose on the part of BloomKlein. They know full well the linking of test scores to tenure will have no impact on the kids. It is a political and ideological ploy so they can say they beat the union and were successful in modifying tenure. Kudos from the anti-union right will follow. It's about PR.

This is also about putting pressure on just those untenured teachers who can influence the only results BloomKlein care about - the ones that they can use to bolster their political case that they really, really did close the achievement gap. The message: DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO MAKE US LOOK GOOD OR YOU WILL NOT GET TENURE!

The next step is to hand out erasers that do not leave a trace.


Update from Leonie Haimson on NYC Education listserve:

I was just interviewed by Marcia Kramer on the teacher tenure/test score controversy – I said basically what I wrote in today’s news wrap-up:

1- standardized test scores alone are not sufficient to judge teachers’ competence, since they have to be examined in relation to a lot of other important factors, including class size and the type of students they have, as well as other evidence of the teacher’s skill and what else is going on in the classroom -- and that this administration cannot be trusted to use this data carefully, given their record on merit pay and school grades.

2- tying teacher tenure to test scores could have very destructive effects, discouraging teachers from taking on struggling or special ed students, and lead to a further loss of morale, with even more test prep replacing real learning.

3- Off camera, I said that a hiatus of two years was good since whatever is decided will be implemented by a new administration that will hopefully be more trustworthy with the use of such data.

Marcia Kramer’s Channel 2 story came out pretty good; except for last line, which is blatantly untrue. Video available here:

For more on this issue, see the blog here. Use test scores for tenure? Not a good idea, with these bumblers.

Who is Killing Tenure, Klein or Weingarten?

While Joel Klein has used sturm und drang in his attack on tenure, Randi Weingaten has actually gone out and done something about it by bargaining away tenure rights guaranteed by state law. Contracts supersede the law.

Here is how tenure has been weakened

1. 3020A hearings are now heard before a single arbitrator as opposed to a three person panel that is in state law. It is more difficult to get a three person panel and there is more hope of convincing two out of three arbitrators that a teacher is right as opposed to a single arbitrator.

2. We can be suspended for up to three months and even longer without pay before a 3020A hearing based on an allegation. This provision began in the 2002 contract and was expanded in 2005.

3. For time and attendance problems, there is an expedited process where they can give us any penalty short of termination without having to go through the 3020A process. Whatever is decided can be used against us in future 3020A cases. Teachers are being pressured to sign away their tenure rights in these time and attendance hearings. This was a 2005 provision.

Once upon a time in the West ---
Until UFT crack negotiators manage to overrule courts