My Conversation with Ben Spielberg Continues

Ben Spielberg (who is, apparently not the son of Steven) was kind enough to respond to my thrashing of his points of view regarding how tough unionists should be as we (yes I said we) support tenure.

I thrashed him here.
He kindly responded here.

My responses are below.

First thing's first. Readers should know that Ben graduated from Stanford (so he's super smart and comes from an Upper Mid-Class background). He has also written for Huffington Post (so he's a better writer than yours truly) and has been featured on EduShyster's blog (so he does have his bona fides with regard to not being down with the edu-reformers).

So when I say thrash, what I mean is thrash in the same way you thrash a teammate in the locker room during half time.

One more thing: I am not sure if he is a highly regarded or highly effective teacher, but his union did decide to make him an instructional coach (and he seems to be of good temperament), so I'm going to go ahead and presume that he his an excellent teacher. That's important. I'm highly effective and this back and forth should take place among two people who know what excellent pedagogy means and understand teacher unionism.

Ok, so. Issue #1:


Ben'sOriginalStatement: ” it’s clear that low-income students sometimes have teachers who aren't as high-quality as we would like”

MyReply. –>>High income students sometimes have the same. Why bother making this point?<—

Ben'sCounter: I make this point because reformers consistently highlight it and I think it’s important to acknowledge that their concern has some merit, even if their reasoning is completely wrong. I go on to explain that, while this fact is true, it doesn’t have relevance to the case or to teacher employment law. You are absolutely correct that high-income students sometimes have ineffective teachers, and I highlight that fact frequently in discussions of teacher employment law. As I wrote during #VergaraChat (https://twitter.com/BenSpielberg/status/479763484817645568): “Research suggests my experience is accurate: teacher quality is similar at low- and high-income schools.” If you read my earlier (http://34justice.com/2014/01/28/vergara-v-california-the-agendas-the-facts-and-recommendations-for-california-law/) articles (http://34justice.com/2014/02/21/student-advocates-oppose-both-bad-teaching-and-bad-lawsuit/) on Vergara, you’ll note that I consistently agree with you on this point.


MyCounter:  I would ask you here to be tough and think twice before acknowledging a point that these blasted reformers make. Their end game is pretty clear: They want orgs like TFA to give jobs to college grads. Tons of jobs. Tons and tons of jobs. The people who run these nonprofits live the same lifestyles as for-profit CEOs. Whatsmore, the nonprofits simply feed into the for-profit entities. Here is one example of how this works:

A Charter School, which does not make a profit, is run by a certain person in a low income neighborhood here in New York. That person, several weeks before opening the charter, purchased two foreclosed buildings from the city of New York for $1 a piece (through a program that existed under mayor Giuliani's administration). He then refurbished the buildings and sold them to his own personal LLC.  That for profit LLC leases the space to his not for profit charter network for at market values. In addition to making a large amount of money leading the charter, the person now also collects rent, at market value and for profit, for every location where the charter network exists. The LLC, which now has several big name investors as co-owners, is now the 8th or 9th largest landlord in this particular low income community.

This isn't made up or anything. This is how things work out here. I don't know how you accept these people at face value but when a reformer says it's about improving instruction, they're not thinking about instruction. They're thinking about profit. And when smart guys like you start stipulating to some points they make (with little evidence) simply because they repeatedly assert it, then they start thinking about scalability.


We know what closes the achievement gap, don't we? It happened in the 1970s and it can happen again: it's about making sure that whole schools aren't 'poor'. It's about placing kids like you in the same classrooms as kids like me (I was poor). I thought we all knew that closed the achievement gap. You want to do something politically tough? Start talking about bussing again. Start analyzing school choice against how well it has integrated students of different backgrounds. End the new segregation -and I'm not just talking racial. End the economic segregation  such that poor kids and rich kids are in the same classrooms again, then offer wrap around services to that poor kid, and you'll see the achievement gap shrink -again.

But please don't just say "ok" to these people as they ignore so much to focus on such a small sliver of the education process instruction counts for less than 10% of the student's overall life experiences. Make them talk about the other 90%!!!



Issue#2:

 Ben'sOriginalStatement The research does not suggest, however (and the plaintiffs did not show at trial), that there is a causal link between teacher employment law and either teacher quality issues or inequities between low-income and high-income schools. “

MyReply–>The research also does not link ineffective teachers at poor schools. I had expected you to defend tenure along those lines: There is nothing by way of research to suggest that ineffective teachers overpopulate poor schools. <—

Ben'sCounter I would again point you to my earlier articles, particularly http://34justice.com/2014/02/21/student-advocates-oppose-both-bad-teaching-and-bad-lawsuit/, for a full explanation of my position (I agree with you). Here’s an excerpt:


(I strongly suggest you read the excerpt. Ben is correct).

MyCounter: I thank you for making this point earlier. It, however, needed also to be said right there in your post. It, apparently, needs to be said to these people at every opportunity! There are issues and there are defining issues. That no apparent connection had been made between tenure statutes and teacher quality is an issue. But the defining issue here is -clearly- do bad, tenured teachers teach at 'poor' (I hate that label) schools? The answer, based even on your (and my) own mutual anecdotal experiences as teachers is absolutely not. In fact, most folks at these schools aren't even tenured! And in fact, based on empirical research: nobody knows at all. NO study has been done.  That's the defining issue of this topic. I urge you to take them to task along those lines.


There isn't any daylight between he and I and the next point, so I'm moving on.



 The next issue was brought up by me during Ben's Vergara chat Twitter discussion.

I complained you all but stipulated that there was 18 month period for tenure in your state (there isn’t. There is two years period. The eighteen month period for SOME teachers who served in different capacities does not count in the manner that Treu asserted, yet you never objected and even went so far as to correct me when I stated that. I know. I was angry. I was on a roll. 


Ben'sCounter Your description is inaccurate (here’s a link to the Twitter conversation for those interested: https://twitter.com/nycUrbanEd/status/479563952238915584) – I never stipulated what you say I did. I wrote that, in California, teachers are “probationary until year 3, but a decision needs to be made by March 15 of year 2.

MyCounter: So this is rhetorical, but Ben, you stand accused here of having 'all but stipulated' saying this. Not of saying it. That really means doing almost everything up to stipulating the 18 month limit. Not actually stipulating. But you did all but stipulate it.

Now as the whole world seems to be stipulating this 18 month limit fallacy, it is of little value for me to beat the horse again.

So I'll beat it lightly! Two points to make here:

1. In New York outside of the city, all employment decisions are made by a certain date as well. What the districts do is fire everyone by that date (pink slips and all). Then, they make their decisions in their own time and either rescind or do not rescind their originally decision. Now I'm not suggestion CA districts can or should do this in the same manner. I am only offering this as an example of what happens what managers manage. It's their job. It isn't impossible to do. Everyone is fired as of March 15 (in NY it's usually May 15) but then the district can change its mind here and there (which the TA would be happy to hear).

2. Wasn't this just recently (as in this very legislative year) amended to reflect this? Isn't this 18 month decision timeframe brand new? My understanding is that it was changed AFTER the case had begun. Is that accurate?

As I said, I am the only one (I think on Earth) making this point. But as a math math person, I'm sure you're aware that every problem needs an outlier. So I guess I'll play that role here.

Next issue:

I complained I don’t know what passes for a teachers’ association out there in CA, and I don’t know where you arrived at your idea of social justice unionism, but here in New York, people who accept the responsibility of representing teachers don’t stipulate to things that aren’t accurate, or are questionably accurate, simply because they want to get along with the very people who are trying to take away teachers’ jobs. Getting along isn’t that important…a seat at the table with a Georgetown professor, former government official and a local TFA organization, is not worth all that. Integrity toward your role as a member of a TA counts -very much.

Ben'sCounter I want to link my post on social justice unionism (http://34justice.com/2014/04/25/teachers-unions-what-we-do-and-how-students-benefit/) for some context about how the San Jose Teachers Association operates. The main points I’d like to make in response to this comment are

1) I have not and do not intend to agree “to things that aren’t accurate” for any reason.

2) I think I can speak for everyone on the SJTA Executive Board when I say that “integrity toward [our] role[s] as…member[s] of a [teachers association]” matters a great deal to us.

The main thing that I think we disagree about is the value of having conversations with reformers and other people with whom we disagree. Reformers are often the aggressors in conflicts with unions and, unfortunately, often push reforms that negatively impact students, teachers, and schools. But most reformers – not all, but nearly everyone I’ve spoken to – are well-intentioned people who are similarly passionate about improving the educational experience for students. I agree with you wholeheartedly that sacrificing principles or arguments for a “seat at the table” would be terrible (in fact, I recently decried that sort of political decision-making here: http://34justice.com/2014/06/03/political-pragmatism-undermines-progressive-goals/), but that is definitively not what SJTA or I do. Instead, we engage with people, indicate a respect for their intentions, and convey why many of their proposed reforms do more harm than good. We also suggest what we believe to be better courses of action. This approach has worked very successfully in SJUSD. I would be interested to hear why you think we shouldn’t talk to people about these issues and try to change their minds (as long as we don’t sacrifice our principles along the way).

MyCounter: Of course, the tone with which I said that was argumentative and, for that, I apologize.

I think much of this disagreement comes down to an age old debate of whether teachers should be part of a professional association, such as the NEA, or part of a union, such as the AFT. As you may be aware, there can be  drastic differences between those two entities. In fact, this has been an historic issue among teachers everywhere there has been a labor movement in the US: 'Should teachers belong to an association of professionals or a union?' They mostly pick association (as evidenced by the size of the NEA when compared to the AFT), but our 1962 (and 65) labor contract showed us here in NYC, that great things can happen when you kick out the association and join up with a union.

 Also, your NEA represented NYS teachers up until 1971. Read this, it'll say that they did a pretty crappy job of it (it's one opinion). It says that low wages, low teacher voice and low teacher respect ruled throughout the time NEA represented NYS teachers.

But something happened in 1971 that changed all that (and has bearing on our discussion here). Some idiot conservative in the NYS Senate launched a successful legislative attack against tenure.  Teachers woke up one day and tenure had been greatly weakened. The response was for the union (who did exist and was in competition with the NEA) to grow in strength and stature.  Eventually, that union exacted political revenge against that political and came to represent all 694 school in districts in New York State. The NEA had been kicked out. Soon, NYSUT won back the tenure rights that had been lost and improved teacher wages throughout the state. That's our ("union") side of the argument, of course. I'm really interested in what your ("association") side of an argument like that would be.

But here we are, 43 years later, and we are -again- dealing with an attack on tenure. It has occurred in a state where there is (at least one) association (no teacher union in San Jose strictly speaking) and has (again?) been successful. It is now coming to New York (a state filled with unionists who have no problem taking to the street and marching up to Albany and protesting outside a courthouse). I don't think it will be successful here.

But the tone with which I approached that historical 'association' vs. 'union' discussion was argumentative and, for that, I do apologize.

I can only urge you to fight!! Argue!! Agitate!!! Be a contrarian every now and then!!! Don't let them try fire Ms. Crabtree and 'Get Kotter' in the name of 'improved instruction' without making -forcing- them to address the issue that what they're really talking about is firing teachers.


Sixth, and finally, you wrote:

I extend an open invitation to the next meeting of the social justice caucus of the UFT

Awesome! Please let me know when it is – I am in the process of moving to Washington, DC, but I would love to come if I can make it work with my schedule.

Thanks again for engaging and have a good one. I look forward to continuing the conversation.

That's awesome!! I'm at nycurbaned@gmail.com and will reach out to the MORE folks for some dates (I'm guessing sometime in September?)

Tenure & Academic Freedom in California Pre Vergara

I was reading over some stuff getting ready for my response to San Jose Teachers' Association member Ben Spielberg and I tripped on the actual text from CA Code 44932 (the things that a permanent (tenured) employee can be fired for in CA) (The highlight has been added by me):

44932.  (a) No permanent employee shall be dismissed except for one
or more of the following causes:
   (1) Immoral or unprofessional conduct.
   (2) Commission, aiding, or advocating the commission of acts of
criminal syndicalism, as prohibited by Chapter 188 of the Statutes of
1919, or in any amendment thereof.
   (3) Dishonesty.
   (4)  Unsatisfactory performance.
   (5) Evident unfitness for service.
   (6) Physical or mental condition unfitting him or her to instruct
or associate with children.
   (7) Persistent violation of or refusal to obey the school laws of
the state or reasonable regulations prescribed for the government of
the public schools by the State Board of Education or by the
governing board of the school district employing him or her.
   (8) Conviction of a felony or of any crime involving moral
turpitude.
   (9) Violation of Section 51530 or conduct specified in Section
1028 of the Government Code, added by Chapter 1418 of the Statutes of
1947.
   (10) Knowing membership by the employee in the Communist Party.

You can be fired simply for belonging to the Communist Party in California!??! Am I wrong about this?? I'm no Communist (not even close), but I thought that the Red Scare was over.

Yikes!

That's not all. Section 51530 is all about Communism. It says:

51530. No teacher giving instruction in any school, or on any
property belonging to any agencies included in the public school
system, shall advocate or teach communism with the intent to
indoctrinate or to inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference
for communism.

Now on one level, this sounds harmless and patriotic enough: Just don't teach your students to grow up to be Communists. It  also goes on to say that we can teach about the facts behind Communism. They just wanted to stop the "the advocacy of, or inculcation and
indoctrination into, communism ". That's all they were worried about.

In other words, I'm allowed to 'teach the facts' of communism. Just not to the extent that my students can, of their own volition, choose or decide that they want to be Communists when they grow up.

If they do become Communists, I lose my job.

And what is Communism? Well, according to the law:

For the purposes of this section, communism is a political theory
that the presently existing form of government of the United States
or of this state should be changed, by force, violence, or other
unconstitutional means, to a totalitarian dictatorship which is based
on the principles of communism as expounded by Marx, Lenin, and
Stalin.

I'm sure if this means that California teachers are allowed to teach a different political theory that seeks to overthrow the US government and replace it with a totalitarian dictatorship. I'm guessing no (Sidenote to the NSA: and might I say that during this, the day of the Espionage Act, I am so fine with NOT EVER teaching ANYTHING that may overthrow this US Government. Thanks!).  Anyway, I saw no law like the one I just described.

Nor am I sure if I am allowed to teach about communism as expounded by Marx, Lenin OR Stalin. You see Marx's communism was slightly different than Lenin's and Stalin's Communism was completely different than the other two when you count the, you know, massive amounts of deaths caused. You'd have to either be a Communist or a history teacher in order to know that. I'm no communist, but as a history teacher here in NY, I must teach the difference, so I am aware of it. I just don't know if they're lumping all three of these guys in together!

Nor am I sure if there is a similar statute here in New York State (and I am not about to go and check!).

All I can be certain about is this: The more I learn about what tenure was in California, the more I learn about what is was not: It was not, in that state, the academic freedom for social studies teachers to teach whatever he or she wished. It was not the freedom to teach anything but the facts about communism. Anything beyond that got you fired.



 "A single termination is a tragedy. A million is a statistic."
Ed

Treu's Toys; Playing With "Evidence"

Judge Rolf M True (pronounced /troi/ like the ancient city of Troy), the dude from California who took tenure from tens of thousands of teachers, 'played around;, as we say here in NY, with a few things in his stunning Vergara decision (here). In one instance, he played with around with the Equal Protection Clause of California's Constitution. He also played around with the effect that one to three percent of bad teachers may have on students across the state. In addition to that, he greatly played around with whether the students who were named in the lawsuit were even damaged to the point where they should be suing (more on all of these things later). I'm calling these' things he played around with Treu's Toys and my first post is about how he played around with the definition of research and the general understanding of evidence.

I have to start this discussion with an exchange in the comments section of the ed website Chalkbeat (the first quote comes from Geoff Decker's article):

Geoff Decker: Chalkbeat: "The plans come two weeks after a judge in California said data showing that poor and non-white students in California are more often taught by low-performing teachers convinced him that the laws violate the state’s constitution."

Me: This is untrue. Judge Treu in California never linked poor performing teachers with poor schools in his decision

Geoff Decker: Chalkbeat: (after platitudes) 'The judge's decision ... definitely cites research linking the distribution of crummy teachers to poor schools."


commenter Flerp: It's a garbage opinion [BUT here's the passage where Treu links bad teachers with 'poor schools' ...]

"Substantial evidence presented makes it clear to this Court that the Challenged Statutes disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students. As set forth in Exhibit 289, “Evaluating Progress Toward Equitable Distribution of Effective Educators,” California Department of Education, July 2007" ...

So do bad teachers teach disproportionately at low performing, or what Decker described as "poor" schools? Judge Treu said yes. But his answer is largely based on what he described as "substantial evidence".

The question then is "what substantial evidence"? Treu answers this for us this in his decision. According to Treu, substantial evidence is what is "set forth in Exhibit 289, “Evaluating Progress Toward Equitable Distribution of Effective Educators,” California Department of Education, July 2007" ...".

Now Geoff Decker -a highly respected education reporter here in New York City- identifies this as 'research'. But is this research? Is the document “Evaluating Progress Toward Equitable Distribution of Effective Educators,” California Department of Education, July 2007" actual research?

To the point where it can be cited as evidence?

Unfortunately, I've got to establish three things here: 1) I have to establish what research is (yep. True's decision was that bad). And second, I have to discuss exactly what this exhibit -number 289- that True pointed to was all about. Finally, I have to talk about "Evidence" that was introduced during the case. And then I've got to ask you to decide; should this document be accepted as evidence?


Let's start with research -which is a very tricky thing!! In order for something to be research, it must be empirical. It must study a specific topic and it also must be peer reviewed. Merriam-Webster defines research as " studious inquiry or examination; especially :  investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws". And all research, even social research, must follow the process of the Scientific Method (shown in the chart here only because the chart looks really really cool).

Was there a study conducted proving that crappy teachers -who have tenure!- are over populating schools that serve high need schools? If there was, I certainly missed it -and I usually don't miss studies like that!

But if so, did Treu cite it as substantial evidence?

 Research based evidence saying that says a disproportionate amount of the lousy tenured teachers teach all of the poor and/or minority students?  If, like Mona Davids and Sam Pirozzolo,  you believe to Geoff Decker and Rolf Treu, you may actually think the answer to these things is yes!

But is it?

Well, it all comes down to this one document that Treu cited.

"Evaluating Progress Toward Equitable Distribution of Effective Educators,” California Department of Education, July 2007 ..."


"Substantial Evidence"

The document has an abstract. It does not say "Hey! Hi! I'm an empirical study and I'm here to prove that crappy teachers are tenured in the schools where there is a high amount of poor and/or minority students!! Nice to meet you!!" What it actually says is:

This document is intended to assist local educational agencies (LEAs) in thinking about how teacher qualifications and characteristics can be used to ensure that poor and minority students have access to highly qualified and effective teachers. It also provides guidance for LEAs as they develop strategies for recruiting, developing and retaining highly qualified and effective teachers and administrators

That doesn't sound like research to me. You'l have to see for yourself: Here's the (publicly available) Exhibit 289 from the Vergara trial below. Feel free to click through it for a few moments. Then you tell me whether or not it is "substantial research"

“Evaluating Progress Toward Equitable Distribution of Effective Educators,” California Department of Educat...

br />


I don't know about you, but I see a hiring guide. In fact, I see a hiring guide designed to help local school districts (LEAs) figure out how to hire the most qualified teachers. 


I need to say this again: You are looking at a hiring guide written by the state Dept. of Education and written for local school districts. Its job is to help local school districts hire good staff.

This is not research.

Whether or not it is "Substantial evidence [making] it clear ...that ...[tenure laws] disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students." is something we have to look in a few moments.

But this -what Treu pointed to as you decided- is a hiring guide. It is, in fact, an outdated hiring guide. But it is a hiring guide nonetheless.

Now I know this *hiring guide* says "qualified and effective" on it. And here -yet again- I have to explain some more in order to peal back *yet another* layer of this 'big lie'. So pardon me ....

You see, you and I know that Qualified teachers (teachers who have qualifications (or high qualifications)) and Effective teachers (teachers who are effective at what they do are two) are two completely different things. This 2007 document is barely aware of that.

The section about effectiveness starts on page 9 of the document. Scrolling to page 9 and actually reading over pp 9 -11 will help you understand what this document's authors understood teacher effectiveness to be.


It makes the assumption that qualifications and effectiveness are on in the same. The writers of this document do attempt to use research to establish what 'effective' teachers look like during a job interview. But that research is from 2002 (when even I was young and handsome) and says (with emphasis added by me)

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) U.S. Department of Education 2002) showed that students in high-poverty secondary schools were 77 percent more likely to be taught by teachers without degrees in the subject they were teaching than were their affluent counterparts

That sounds like qualifications to me. How about you?


But in the year 2014, Treu knew this. And for him to blatantly come out and call it 'research' is nothing short of willfully ignorant. I'll the commenter Flerp (a NYC lawyer and parent) describe it:

 a garbage opinion, just horrendous

You're so incredibly patient to keep reading. Thanks! I'm also there!! So far, I've established 'research' and I've helped you understand the main document that Treu accepted as evidence (Exhibit 289) is not actually research. Now lets' talk about what other evidence he may have accepted, but chose not to accept.

In my last post, I took a very cerebral member of the San Jose Teacher Association -a union brother (whom I've never met)- to task on whether or not he was being stringent enough in fighting against this decision and for tenure. He was kind enough to respond (our discussion will continue shortly) with, in part, a link to this piece which he published way back in February. In it, Ben Spielberg writes:

Yet very little evidence, if any, suggests that teacher quality at low-income schools is worse than teacher quality at high-income schools. 

and

plaintiffs’ own expert witnesses have acknowledged in their research that “the quality of teaching…does not differ substantially across schools.” 

That last part quotes from and links to the famous Chetty Study. Among other things, that study looked at teacher effectiveness and value added measurements. My understanding is that it is was introduced as evidence during the Vergara trial, so Treu had access to it. Curious why judge Treu didn't quote it in his decision? So am I. Here's a larger portion of that quote (from page three) of  the Chetty study:

An auxiliary implication of this result is that differences in teacher quality explain a small share of the achievement gap between high- and low-SES students. This is ... because teacher VA [value added data] does not differ substantially across schools in the district we study.

Let me come back to the English language for a just moment. This, right here, what you just read is evidence stating clearly that teacher effectiveness (as measured by VA data) does not greatly change from high achieving students to low ones. It says that teacher quality does not "disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students".

Treu ignored this evidence! Instead, he embraced evidence from a frekkin' hiring guide -put out by CADOE way back in 2007 (and by the way, that quote is from the very first paragraph. Lazy jerk didn't even bother reading the rest)!!

So to review:
1) What the press saw as research was, in fact, not research at all.
2) The judge ignored a conclusion from real research, the Chetty study (where the plaintiffs themselves all but admitted the teaching quality isn't any worse for "poor and/or minority students" than it is for other students) and, instead, embraced a state DOE hiring guide from 2007.
3) Tens of thousands of school teachers in California may not have tenure because of it.


I hope I've been able to explain how, with regard to the Vergara decision, the term "evidence" was just another one of Judge Treu's Toys.  I'd like to close with a somewhat related quote and ask you consider how that chapter in American history is working out:



"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -George W. Bush

My Comment to Ben Spielberg

Ben Spielberg is a member of the San Jose Teachers' Association. He has hosted several discussions about teacher tenure in the wake of the Vergara decision out there. One of those discussions was a Twitter chat entitled #VergaraChat that was hosted earlier in the month. I came away from it feeling a bit let down at the vigor with which he defended tenure.

He seems intelligent, very well connected, and able to get people on 'the other side' to listen to what he has to say. Too bad his ideas don't go far enough to defend teachers. His ideas about teacher tenure ]a and about social justice unionism in general leave (for me) a lot to be desired. I'm sure he is wonderful guy who has a bright future in the non classroom based field of education. I hope he does good work.

I just had a moment to read a post on his blog about a panel discussion about tenure in which he participated. His full post may be found here. I took issue with a few of his positions (I have issues with his basic premises, which is pretty bad in terms of ever finding common ground with him). The comment I left in on his post is pasted below (I added emphasis on some of his quotes).

" it’s clear that low-income students sometimes have teachers who aren’t as high-quality as we would like"  

-->>High income students sometimes have the same. Why bother making this point?<--

"Additionally, there’s broad consensus that improving teacher quality and addressing inequities between low-income and high-income schools is important."  

-->These are two separate points you're making here, yet you seem to be making them as though they're one in the same. I can almost see an ed reformer (mis)reading this passage and nodding in agreement. Great job<--

" The research does not suggest, however (and the plaintiffs did not show at trial), that there is a causal link between teacher employment law and either teacher quality issues or inequities between low-income and high-income schools. "
-->The research also does not link ineffective teachers at poor schools. I had expected you to defend tenure along those lines: There is nothing by way of research to suggest that ineffective teachers overpopulate poor schools. <--

Ben,
Reading this post left me *as* disappointed as I was during your #VergaraChat on Twitter the moment you all but stipulated that there was 18 month period for tenure in your state (there isn't. There is two years period. The eighteen month period for SOME teachers who served in different capacities does not count in the manner that Treu asserted, yet you never objected and even went so far as to correct me when I stated that. I was disappointed then, and frankly, I'm disappointed now after reading this.

I don't know what passes for a teachers' association out there in CA, and I don't know where you arrived at your idea of social justice unionism, but here in New York, people who accept the responsibility of representing teachers don't stipulate to things that aren't accurate, or are questionably accurate, simply because they want to get along with the very people who are trying to take away teachers' jobs. Getting along isn't that important. (I'm very sorry if Randi gave you that impression. She really is the exception). I would have presumed that your progressive background taught you that a seat at the table with a Georgetown professor, former government official and a local TFA organization, is not worth all that. Integrity toward your role as a member of a TA counts -very much. Apologues if those sentiments sound harsh.

Here in New York, where our working conditions are our students' learning conditions, we don't think the lawsuits against tenure will be as successful as it was in CA. After reading about some of your ideas about social justice unionism and your "defense" of teacher tenure, I can see how we've reached that conclusion. I don't think we will let them get away with it.

In fact, and I don't mean any vitriol here, based on all I've seen from you as you 'defend' teacher tenure, I respectfully wonder, as intelligent and as thoughtful and as committed to students as you are, if you should be working with a TA at all.
With respect and in solidarity.

With all due respect to young Mr. Spielberg, I don't know what passes for unionism out there in California, but I don't think it, nor anything short of a vigorous defense of tenure, would pass muster here in New York.

At least, I hope not. I invite Mr. Spielberg to read this description of exactly what tenure is and isn't before he attends another panel discussion and I extend an open invitation to the next meeting of the social justice caucus of the UFT; MORE.

"so just then, the sea cucumber looks over to the mollusk and says: with friends like these, who needs anemones." 

-Marlin

Dropout Nation and Comes Out Against Teacher Tenure

It is a total bummer that Rishawn Biddle, the editor of Dropout Nation has come out against teacher tenure and in favor of the lawsuits that would that would kill teacher tenure here in New York State (here). In particular, Biddle takes to task Arthur Goldstein's amazing defense of tenure in the New York Daily News.

Dropout Nation is a national oriented blog and although I often disagree with what I read when I click its pages, it is one of my favorites because it is an issue-focussed blog.  Those are a rarity these days.  Biddle tends to write specifically about how Ed policy affects his perception of America's Dropout problem. I like that. In a world where everyone writes about everything 'ed' related (and no one develops a deep understanding of of anything as a result), it is refreshing to see one publication seek to focus on how something as complex as education policy affects just one thing. He can also do something that lots of other pro reform education writers across the national scene can't do: Biddle can really write! His pieces are such a pleasure to read that I almost feel like I'm reading a piece from one of the NYC edu bloggers.

Those platitudes aside, it was truly disappointing to read passages like "Traditionalists will do anything to defend tenure laws giving teachers near-lifetime employment" and that tenure was some sort of  "grand bargain" that was struck between the AFT and NEA and their members. Particularly disappointing was that Biddle accused Goldstein's brilliant defense of tenure as 'absurd' and asserted that "The evidence doesn't support his [Goldstein's] case."

Traditionalists (which is a label I only bear because the alternative is far worse) will not do anything to defend lifetime employment laws. Yes, we are interested in defending our job protections and yes we will lay those reasons out for people to read or see. But to imply dishonesty among teacher activists, particularly from Arthur Goldstein (whose honest voice and efforts helped save teaching as we know it during the previous education wars) goes, despite his compliment of Goldstein being one of the good teachers, a bit beyond the pale.

As he lays claim to 'evidence' that doesn't support Goldstein's case, Biddle says that

As a civil servant, he [Goldstein] is already covered under New York State’s civil service law, which provides rather reasonable protections against unfair dismissals by laggard leaders. In fact, if the New York City Parent’s Union’s Vergara suit (along with that being filed by Campbell Brown’s Partnership for Educational Equality) succeed in eviscerating tenure, Big Apple teachers would still be protected from unfair firings.

and

NEA and AFT leaders cannot argue legitimately why teachers should be granted protections that go far beyond those given to police officers and firefighters (who endanger their lives daily and are subjected to far harsher politicking), much less other civil servants and those of us in the private sector.

I've seen this assertion made before. The argument goes something like "There are already civil servant laws protecting all public servants from being unfairly fired". Rolf True, the judge in Vergara asserted that teacher tenure in California represented "uber due process". Regular Civil Servants, Treu said, have a process that calls for written charges and an administrative hearing. Why should teacher be any different? 

Thing is Treu got this part entirely wrong. In fact, it is probably one part of his decision that is sure to be reversed upon appeal. Why? Well, there really isn't any difference between the teacher tenure process of dismissal and the typical civil servant process of dismissal in California. Both call for charges to be filed. Both call for an opportunity for the employee to respond and both call for an administrative hearing (in California, they are called "a Skelly hearing" (check p. 12 of Treu's decision). The processes are one in the same.

Treu's only finding about this was that the teacher process took far longer and cost a lot of money when compared to a typical civil servant hearing (he heard no evidence about how much a typical Skelly Hearing took or how much one cost. He just sort of ass-u-med there was a difference in time and cost and made his decision accordingly).

Biddle buys into this same flawed reasoning in his post attacking tenure (and tearing down Goldstein's defense of it). When he says that "if the New York City Parent’s Union’s Vergara suit ...succeed in eviscerating tenure, Big Apple teachers would still be protected from unfair firings." what he thinks he's saying is that teachers here in New York have uber due process protections viz the teacher tenure laws. We don't.

We don't

We don't!!

We have the same protections. The only difference here is that our Ed Laws spell out the process of dismissal in their own statute.

Those processes, spelled out in our 3020-a statue are spelled out here and here.

The processes for dismissing any other New York State civil servant can be found here.

I urge Rishawn Biddle, or anyone else, to take the time and read these two processes and challenge anyone to find any significant difference in the way teachers can be fired and the way police officers and fire fighters can be fired. I think anyone who reads through these documents will see (rather plainly) than teachers do not enjoy any uber due process protections above and beyond what other public employees enjoy -save that our protections are spelled out in our own separate statute and (in the case of New York).

As to why teachers should have their own, I supposed a good question may be why shouldn't we? I see the point Biddle (and everyone else he agrees with) makes, and if anyone can link the separate statute to poor test scores, or an over crowding up ineffective teachers in under privileged schools, then I'll hear that talk.  But not even Treu linked ineffective teachers to underprivileged schools (not in a factual way anyway. He is given credit with quoting research, but the only research Treu could link to was a guide for hiring staff that the CADOE put out for its local school districts to you. He intentionally mistook the title of that hiring guide "Evaluating Progress Towards Equitable Distribution of Educators" as thought it itself was evidence. But a read of that 2007 document shows it says nothing about how or whether effective teachers are assigned to impoverished schools (it does examine qualified teachers, but for the record, 'qualified' does not mean effective). You may read that document here. The name of the file, 'toolkit2.doc' says all that needs to be said about that document). I don't see how or why Biddle and the rest of the reformers have jumped to that conclusions as well.

Given all that, it seems pretty clear to me that there isn't a reason why we shouldn't be granted a separate statute that does in essence the same thing. Clearly it does not 'go beyond' what other civil servants have at all. If anything, it keeps teachers' process separate from the process for the rest. I thought anti-union people liked that sort of thing. Or not. I'm actually not quiet sure where they're coming from.

And this is the whole entire problem with having this discussion!! No one cares to get straight or to accept that one thing that is supposed to hold us all together: Facts. No one cares about the facts of teacher tenure!! They all (all) only want to attack.

In a recent post, famously influential NYC edu blogger NYCEducator wrote a title "Someone Finally Defends Teacher Tenure" (check that out here). The blogpost itself was left blank. I like the idea of someone, particularly someone like Goldstein, finally defending teacher tenure. I think the first place to begin that process is to explain what, in somewhat minute detail, teacher tenure here in New York State really is. I think it's time to start clearing up the fog of accusations about teacher tenure and begin talking about it in factual terms. That way, when a writer as intelligent and passionate as Rishawn Biddle asserts things like "the evidence does not support his claims" we can all presume that there is an actual understanding -of all involved- of what exactly that evidence, and of what teacher tenure, really is.

Mr. Burns Sends A Tweet

Private sector business executive, and former federal prosecutor,  Joel Klein sent a tweet earlier today! This, during a slow summer month, is really big news!

His Twitter account, which was created in 2011 but has hardly been used, has had some activity as of late.

Twitter's annoying "twitter notice" feature on my cell phone informs me that reporters from the Ed sites Chalkbeat and Schoolbook * just today decided to  follow the tweets of this very successful business executive. While there is no way to tell whether or not this notice update feature is accurate, I would like to say that it is really annoying to be receiving these notices, and super annoying that they compel me to read the words "Joel" and "Klein" during my summer vacation.

These notices do, however, remind me that Mr. Klein, who happily collects a $34K fixed pension (which he spent on a laptop so he could write this Op-Ed opposing teacher pensions) has been busy working for some Australian guy, somewhere in New York City.

I am also reminded that Mr. Klein made himself famous for railing against the monopolistic practices of the Microsoft Corporation during his tenure as head of the DOJ's Antitrust Division. His hard work and dedication earned him such confidence that the pro business New York Times once noted that it was :

"disheartening and disqualifying that President Clinton's nominee, Joel Klein, is scheduled to come up for confirmation.. with a record that suggests he might knuckle under to the powerful ... companies and the politicians who do their bidding." (NYTimes; 7/11/97 "A Weak Antitrust Nominee")

We, of course, know this not to be true.!!! Mr. Klein (who can be seen here posing for a picture with former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates in 2011) rallied hard against corporate interests during his time with the Federal Government- almost winning a breakup of Microsoft. As I recall, Mr. Klein, out of the sheer kindness of heart, changed his mind at the last minute and took the settlement that MS offered.

Mr. Klein now earns his tax dollars by selling tablets to public schools (and advises his boss at Parliamentary hearings as needed).  He can be found on Twitter @JoelKlein and would, I'm sure, love to read a tweet from teachers (who will praise his company's tablet).

STILL no word on exactly what Mr. Klein was up to between his time at DOJ and Amplify. Some folks say he has been working for Fox this entire time. The Ed Team could not confirm nor disprove this theory.

Tenure Quotes Through History (Pt. 2)

Last night, I threw some quotes about teacher tenure out and asked if you could name the year they were given (I would have been happy with a decade). Obviously, the post was intended for history buffs (of which, there are far too few in the United States these days!!). For those history fans, here are the answers (as well as some quick background of the quotes.)

1. "Tenure, an abhorrent, outmoded practice, lets people whose performance would not allow them to keep their jobs in the private sector continue with the responsibility of teaching our children".

Richard Heyman was a resident of Clark New Jersey. He wrote this in a letter to the editor of the New York Times. There isn't much information about Mr. Heyman except that he came from a town so small that its district had only three schools (one primary, one middle and one high) when he wrote these words -back in 1980. 

2. [In NYC, the] "school system is "burdened and clogged with many teachers who are unfit and unsatisfactory," and whom it is practically impossible to remove because of their "permanent tenure."

Ok. 1917. William G. Willcox was president of the Board of Education of New York when he asserted this. Willcox was aligned with the 1 percenters of his time, work with the not so famous 'Rockefeller Interests' in New York City. He was staunchly 'anti- Tammany' (which was also opposed to tenure because they liked to control political appointments)  and went on to serve as the head of CUNY.

(Fun fact, Sam Pirozzolo, one of the people currently suing to end tenure in New York State, is the President of the CEC that governs the school named after Willcox (PS 048). There must be something in the water over there in Staten Island!)

3."Tenure ... for teachers was instituted by law to protect teachers for political changes and for the reason, it is good"

W.R Seigart was a Lutheran pastor from Ramsey, New Jersey. In 1931, he wrote these words as part of an argument favoring of paid vacations for clergy (I know, I don't quote get it either, but I thought it was a cool quote).

4. "Teachers enjoy greater security of employment than most private employees and many public employees. Once they have acquired tenure, they are protected by law against dismissal  except for proven misconduct"

I couldn't find out much about Walter O. Howe, but he said this in 1946. The reason it made this is because of it's sheer counter-intuitiveness! He wrote these words in the middle of a huge national teacher shortage which affected NY, as well as NJ. Why he wouldn't want applicants to have the incentive of tenure protections is beyond me.

The Historical Controversy of Teacher Tenure (Guess the Year)

Guess which year each of the following quotes about teacher tenure was made (Hint: It none of them come from the 21st century)

1. "Tenure, an abhorrent, outmoded practice, lets people whose performance would not allow them to keep their jobs in the private sector continue with the responsibility of teaching our children".

2. [In NYC, the] "school system is "burdened and clogged with many teachers who are unfit and unsatisfactory," and whom it is practically impossible to remove because of their "permanent tenure." 

3."Tenure ... for teachers was instituted by law to protect teachers for political changes and for the reason, it is good" 

4. "Teachers enjoy greater security of employment than most private employees and many public employees. Once they have acquired tenure, they are protected by law against dismissal  except for proven misconduct"