The legendary mediæval Jewish sage, Maimonides, wrote one of the more marvelously heterodox texts of religious thought, A Guide for the Perplexed. For those who did not study Maimonides as part of their youthful religious education, such as this Irish Catholic boy from Brooklyn, A Guide for the Perplexed is a text written for an educated, discerning reader, one who would not be satisfied with unquestioning faith and its a priori dogmas, but was capable of grappling with the most difficult and complex of philosophical and theological inquiries. For Maimonides, the art of questioning, the application of the rational, thoughtful and open mind to complicated, perplexing issues, is the only path to truth.
The op-ed “Time To Take On The Teachers’ Union” which appeared in yesterday’s New York Daily News, and the study upon which it was based, A Better Bargain: Overhauling Teacher Collective Bargaining for the 21st Century, are anti-Maimonides texts, written for an uneducated, ignorant reader who will accept any dogma, provided that it conforms to an already existing prejudice. Let us call these texts A Guide for the Gullible.
Make no mistake about it, you have to be pretty damn gullible to buy the Hess-West argument about the evils of collective bargaining in education. Consider their very first example of the clauses of the agreement they consider to be so educationally damaging. “For instance,” they opine, “the contract stipulates that ‘excessed’ teachers unable to find a position will be placed in vacancies in their district, on the basis of seniority, regardless of their previous performance.” Anyone who has even casually followed developments in the collective bargaining agreement in New York City knows that it now operates on the basis of an ‘open market,’ such that an ‘excessed’ teacher has no automatic placement in another school of the sort described above. An ‘excessed’ teacher is placed in another school only when he and the principal and personnel committee of the receiving committee all agree it is the right match. In light of the above, one could call the references to “seniority” and “previous performance” red herrings that embellish the misrepresentation, but that would miss their rhetorical function: they are the red flags of anti-union discourse, to be waved in front of the gullible reader just like the bull-fighter waves the red flag to excite the slow-witted bull. [It is also worth noting in passing that, by definition, an ‘excessed’ teacher lost his position due to a decline in the number of teaching positions in his school, so the presumption would have to be that his performance was satisfactory, since it is the clear responsibility of his supervisor to have him removed for cause if it was anything less than satisfactory.]
So here we have two individuals presenting themselves as experts on the NYC and other contracts, and they can’t even get their first basic fact right.
Unfortunately, this misrepresentation fits a pattern that characterizes the entire argument developed in A Better Bargain. Attempting to make the case that teacher unions are hostile to educational change, Hess and West assert that innovative and collaborative teacher union leaders are voted out of office by their members, and then cherry picks a total of three anomalous examples to make their case, ignoring the far more numerous instances where the most outspoken union reformers, such as Adam Urbanski in Rochester and Tom Mooney in Cincinnati, were re-elected for decades. They find that school districts in so-called ‘right to work’ states such as Texas and Georgia, where collective bargaining for teachers is legally proscribed, adopt the very same bureaucratic regulations and procedures they condemn when they exist in school districts which are engaged in collective bargaining. Yet rather than face up to the all too plain implications of their own research, that collective bargaining can not be the source of the problem, Hess and West evade this conclusion with a series of rather implausible ex post facto rationalizations. Perhaps the most outlandish is the suggestion that state legislatures which deny teachers the right to bargain collectively are going to turn around and do the bidding of teacher unions on all of the substantive educational issues, such that the state law becomes a proxy contract. Flying pigs would fit right in A Guide for the Gullible.
On issue after issue – whether teachers are underpaid for their professional status, merit pay, transfer policies, dismissal procedures and on – Hess and West look only at the literature which supports their predictably anti-teacher, anti-union position, and ignore the scholarly research which reaches a different conclusion. Even when the contrary view represents a strong scholarly consensus on the subject it merits not even a passing citation. Rather, their footnotes are filled with right wing critiques of teachers, teacher unions and public education. The supposition appears to be that you can make a report fly, even with only the wing on its right side, so long as the reader is gullible enough.
Hess’ and West’s op-ed appeared on Wednesday, April 5th of this week, the very same day as the widely publicized expanded negotiating committee of the UFT met for the first time. The timing was neatly arranged by Tweed, as was the publication in Tweed’s house organ, the Daily News. Tweed even kindly provided Hess and West with a copy of Randi’s recent letter to the membership on the subject of contract negotiations. None of this played a role, of course, in Hess’ and West’s conclusion that Klein is a “savvy negotiator.” Skepticism on that count would be what you would expect from “the perplexed.” And this is A Guide for the Gullible.
35 Comments:
1 NYC Educator
· Apr 8, 2006 at 9:17 am
How odd that when Unity is selling the contract, teachers are guaranteed placement, yet when it addresses the teacher-bashers of the Daily News, they are not.
2 Leo Casey
· Apr 8, 2006 at 12:26 pm
It appears that Hess and West are not the only ones who think their readers are gullible.
There is an important distinction between having a job when excessed, which is what we have always said here [just look it up in the archives], and having an automatic position in a particular school.
Under the open market, an excessed teacher has no automatic placement. The new system frees him up to seek a position in any school in the city, unlike the old system of automatic placement. But it requires him to have the agreement of the personnel committee and principal of the receiving school to be appointed there.
When a teacher can not make that match on their own, they become part of the ATR [Absent Teacher Reserve] in their old school or district, where they cover classes of absent teachers. In this status, they continue to receive their full salary and benefits.
So, they have a job [indeed, this contract has what is, in effect, a 'no lay-off' provision], but not a placement.
3 curious3
· Apr 8, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Hi Leo,
A few comments and questions:
1. I agree that it is surprising that Hess and West didn’t realize that the latest contract changes made their statement in the Daily News no longer true about automatic placements.
2. Are you suggesting that you think the recent end of automatic placements was a good thing?
3. You write:
“It is also worth noting in passing that, by definition, an ‘excessed’ teacher lost his position due to a decline in the number of teaching positions in his school, so the presumption would have to be that his performance was satisfactory, since it is the clear responsibility of his supervisor to have him removed for cause if it was anything less than satisfactory.”
Are you suggesting that it should be relatively straightforward (subject to reasonable due process) for a supervisor to remove a teacher if their performance is “anything less than satisfactory”? Do you think the current contract allows for this?
4. What is going to happen to the ATR teachers that are unwanted by any school? What is going to happen as the size of the ATR grows?
5. Martin West is from the Brookings Institution. Do you think this is a right-wing organization?
6. Was there anything in “A Better Bargain” that you liked? I encourage others to actually read the document that Leo helpfully attached a link to.
Ken
4 NYC Educator
· Apr 8, 2006 at 3:52 pm
City Sue wrote in Edwize, hyping the contract:
“…for excessed teachers, there’s always a job for you back home (in your school or district) if you can’t find anything else.”
Perhaps she did indeed think her “readers are gullible,” as Mr. Casey so charmingly puts it. Actaully, that sounded remarkably like one of those “personal attacks” that Mr. Casey so often purports to deplore.
City Sue’s words would certainly lead reasonable readers to assume their jobs were secure under the new contract.
Was she lying?
If, in fact, teachers do have jobs after being let go, if in fact they are guaranteed positions, the Daily News is substantially correct, and Leo Casey is splitting hairs.
I stand by my words. Someone from Unity is lying to us now, or did so before.
Take your pick.
5 Michael Hirsch
· Apr 9, 2006 at 2:04 am
Leo’s choice of Maimonides to critique the Hess-West twins is not bad. Not bad for a self-described Irish boy from Brooklyn, or from anywhere else. Myself, being a lapsed Yeshiva bucher from Manhattan, I’d have gone with the polemical St. Jerome, but no matter.
As to Ken (Curious’s) question of whether West’s Brookings affiliation should give him a pass: take a look at his CV on the Brookings site [http://www.brookings.edu/scholars/mwest.htm]. What’s more important than West’s mini post at Brookings is his affiliation as a researcher for the Hoover Institution quarterly, “Education Next,” which is a nasty piece of work that regular publishes Checker Finn, among others. West is also completing his doctoral work at the Kennedy School with Carolyn Hoxby, education’s answer to Margaret Thatcher. Hence the unfortunate Harvard imprimatur on his awful report.
6 Leo Casey
· Apr 9, 2006 at 11:37 am
One would have to amazing gullible to read through these comments, and not note that NYCEducator first accuses us of having said that excessed teachers would have an “automatic placement,” not a job, and then offers as evidence of our prevarication on the subject an excerpt from a post of City Sue that says excessed teachers will have “a job for you back home (in your school or district) if you can’t find anything else.” [An excessed teacher who ends up in ATR pool will work out of his old school, or if that school is closed down, out of another school in his old district.]
If the words quoted here are not damning enough, when you go the actual text City Sue wrote, you see that the phrase about always having “a job,” follows a long description of the ‘open market’ with the clear statement that there will be no automatic placements. The supposition of NYCEducator’s comments here, it appears, is that no one will actually read City Sue’s post, so accusations can be made in inflammatory language without the slightest heed.
Needless to say, the primary concern of teachers in considering the contract proposal — and therefore, the issue that we were addressing — is whether or not they would continue to have a job, and thus continue to be able to support themselves and their families. Insofar as the contract has an effective ‘no lay-off’ clause as it moves ALL excessed teachers who do not find a placement into the ATR pool, the protection of jobs is ironclad: under this contract, teachers can only lose their jobs for cause.
On to the real questions…
There are positive and negative features of both the old system of automatic placement and the new system of the open market. Under the old system, the teacher had a guaranteed placement, provided that an opening existed. However, he could be laid-off if there was no opening, and he had no choice regarding the school in which he was placed. Under the new system, the teacher is guaranteed a job and can not be laid off. Moreover, he has a choice in placement: he can be appointed to any school in the city, provided that the personnel committee and principal of the receiving school agrees that it is a good match. But he can not be placed in a school where the personnel committee or the principal decide they do not want him.
If the UFT had its druthers, we would not choose either system, but one closer to our old SBO staffing and transfer plan. Under that system, there had to be a match between the teacher and the school, but the teachers from the receiving school constituted a majority of the committee that had the final say on applications. This provided protections for the rights of the applying teacher, and kept the system from degenerating into a “who you know” old boys club system.
But contract negotiations, especially contract negotiations following on fact finding, being what they are, the UFT is not in a position to simply impose what we think works best. If we were, this would be a much better school system. And we wouldn’t be reorganizing it, from top to bottom, every three years.
I do think it is relatively straightfoward process to dismiss a teacher for cause, subject to due process. While a teacher is on probationary status for a minimum of three years, there is not even a burden of proof to enact a dismissal; it is only after tenure, that the supervisor has to meet a burden of proof, and demonstrate that a teacher should be dismissed as his performance is not satisfactory.
We do not accept the excuse from teachers that it is too hard or too difficult to teach their students, even though we know that many students bring with them enormous social burdens with mitigate against learning. Why should we accept the excuse of supervisors that it is too hard or too difficult to dismiss a teacher whose performance is unsatisfactory, when it is clearly a task which is many worlds easier to execute?
Finally, I do my best to hold to a personal standard of not accepting or rejecting an argument based on the person, or the person’s credentials, making it. As I understand it, these are forms of the logical fallacies of the argument from authority and the ad hominem argument. So it is immaterial to me who West’s current employer is, or what he believes his political views to be. What is material is the argument he makes, and the evidence he adduces to support those arguments. And in A Better Bargain, both the argument and the evidence are completely bereft of the consideration of all sides of a question which should govern scholarly research.
7 curious3
· Apr 9, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Thanks Leo.
I agree with your final point — it should be immaterial
who West’s current employer is. I was reacting to my
impression that you were attaching Hess and West’s
sentiments to the “right wing”, but I think I might have
been incorrect in that assumption.
I am fascinated by your statement “I do think it is a
relatively strightforward process to dismiss a teacher
for cause, subject to due process.” Your original
posting states “… it is the clear responsibility of his
supervisor to have him removed for cause if it was
anything less than satisfactory.”
These two statements together are much different than
what I had understood. You seem to be suggesting that:
1. If a teacher does not do a satisfactory job he or she
should be removed; 2. It is straightforward to accomplish
this. Is my understanding of your viewpoint correct? If
so, I think Hess and West would be satisfied with the NYC
system in this regard.
I think they believe that: 1. It is extremely difficult
to remove any teacher; 2. The teacher has to do something
really egregious to even have a chance of being removed.
They point to the alleged fact that an extremely small
percentage of teachers have been terminated for poor
performance. Could you tell us what the numbers are in
NYC?
Finally, I think there could be disagreement as to what
“removed” means. To be clear, I think they would mean
“terminated”. I suppose you might mean put into the ATR.
I am still unclear as to what you expect should happen
if we end up with a very large number of people in the
ATR who don’t have the talent to teach effectively.
Teaching is so difficult that not everyone can do it
effectively. What happens to these people?
Ken
8 NYC Educator
· Apr 9, 2006 at 1:20 pm
“…you see that the phrase about always having “a job,” follows a long description of the ‘open market’ with the clear statement that there will be no automatic placements.”
City Sue wrote, exactly:
“Not true. In fact, there’ll be more transfer opportunities. The only thing is, like in the real world, you’ll have to sell yourself. See a vacancy? Just apply! All vacancies will be declared, not just half. No limits on how many jobs you can apply for. No release needed from your principal. No limits on how many teachers can transfer out of a single school. No discrimination in hiring allowed, not even for union activities — or age, race, etc. No involuntary transfers. It’s a free market, for those who dare!”
I do not see the words “no automatic placement.” Do you? In fact, she makes this blatant deterioration of teacher rights sound as though it’s a day in the park.
And the, of course, she leads on to precisely the words I quoted. Perhaps they eluded Mr. Casey.
Here they are again:
“…for excessed teachers, there’s always a job for you back home (in your school or district) if you can’t find anything else.”
Mr. Casey continues:
“The supposition of NYCEducator’s comments here, it appears, is that no one will actually read City Sue’s post…”
Mr. Casey is not nearly as adept at mind reading as he fancies. I supposed no such thing, and there is, in fact, a link to her post at my website, which my post linked to.
More likely, that’s Mr. Casey’s supposition, particularly considering it is who blatantly misrepresented its contents.
The implication of her words is clear, and does not lead the readers to assume they will be placed in the purgatory of perpetual substititute teaching that Mr. Casey and his party so cleverly negotiated for.
“On to the real questions…”
The highly sensitive Mr. Casey repeatedly bemoans “personal attacks” yet treats those who dare disagree with his grandiose presumptions with blatant contempt.
This is what we can expect from Mr. Casey and his party, who think we all work for Unity.
They’re supposed to be working for us.
And I stand by my comments.
9 Leo Casey
· Apr 9, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Ken:
You are mixing together two distinct processes.
When speaking of removing a teacher who was not performing satisfactorily in the classroom, I was referring to a process which results in the loss of a teaching license, not that by which a teacher is excessed. If a teacher can not or will not teach satisfactorily, despite efforts to help him improve professionally, it is the professional obligation of the supervisor to have that teacher removed from teaching. That is what their job is about, just as teaching children is what our job is about.
The suggestion of Hess and West and others they cite that only a small number of NYC teachers are removed from teaching for unsatisfactory performance is based on a misleading account, taking as the number of dismissals only those tenured teachers who are removed after a full ’3020a’ dismissal hearing. It does not include the probationary teachers who are removed, and in a system of tenure, this is precisely where the great bulk of teachers who can not make it in the classroom should be and are removed. Even among tenured teachers, it takes into account only the small minority of tenured teachers who fight dismissal charges to the end of the process; most tenured teachers facing such charges either resign or retire. It is precisely those teachers who believe that they are being unfairly targetted who are going to fight dismissal charges to the end, and insofar as a significant portion of these teachers are vindicated, this should give us some pause that their beliefs might be well-grounded — certainly they have on their side an impartial arbitrator who came to that conclusion.
[For their own reasons, the DOE does not keep data on all of these categories, so it is not possible to give definitive overall numbers. The UFT is not in a position to develop its own numbers, because we would know about the circumstances of a teacher's departure only if he tells us, asking for assistance and union representation. In a system where thousands of teachers leave every year, and more than 1 in every 2 new teachers leave by the end of their fifth year, only the DOE could develop accurate numbers, and they have an interest in not doing so, because they would rather have the misleading accounts of Hess and West propagated.]
Finally, even if the number of dismissals were so low as to suggest that something was seriously amiss, and I do not think that a careful investiation can sustain that claim in NYC, it does not follow logically that this means that it is too hard and difficult to dismiss teachers. It would be just as plausible that supervisors are not doing their job. Evidence here is anecdotal, but what I have seen is very strong: New York City supervisors are required, by DOE regulation, to do six full period observations of probationary teachers each year. That is, I would think, a professional minimum for doing one’s job of working professionally with a probationary teacher, and of properly assessing his classroom performance. But in workshops on lesson planning I give two or three times a year, virtually all of the participants — who are also mostly novice teachers — report that this regulation is observed in the breach. And I have never heard of the DOE sanctioning a supervisor for failing to do the minimum number of observations of probationary teachers.
By contrast, a teacher is excessed when the school’s budget contracts, usually due to a decline in the number of students enrolled. Only teachers who are excessed will be placed in ATR pools.
10 HS SHOP TEACHER
· Apr 9, 2006 at 3:42 pm
NYCEducator:
Maybe you speak a different language than the rest of us.
Perhaps you can explain what
“The only thing is, like in the real world, you’ll have to sell yourself,”
means, if not there is no automatic placement?
11 NYC Educator
· Apr 9, 2006 at 3:45 pm
HS SHOP TEACHER,
Maybe you speak a different language than the rest of us.
Perhaps you can explain what
“…for excessed teachers, there’s always a job for you back home (in your school or district) if you can’t find anything else.”
means, if there is no automatic placement.
12 HS SHOP TEACHER
· Apr 9, 2006 at 4:13 pm
It means you have a job as an ATR in your home school or your district.
Now maybe you can answer my question.
13 Michael Hirsch
· Apr 9, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Leo and Ken:
Of course what matters is an argument’s content, its logic, its marshaling of facts and its exposition. The Hess-West screed has none of these, so refuting it is not a heavy lift. Its only credibility is the venue it appears in, which is as a publication from Harvard’s JFK School. What it really amounts to is right-wing speakers notes, with a pedigree. Had it been released by a lesser institution, we wouldn’t be discussing it.
14 Chaz
· Apr 9, 2006 at 4:48 pm
By the way curious3 asked an interesting question. What about those teachers who are stuck in the ATR pools because nobody wants them? Do they stay in the regional/District offices indefinetly?
15 Leo Casey
· Apr 9, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Teachers in ATR pools are never assigned to regional or district offices. Under this contract, they are returned to their home school, or if that is phased out, to another school in the district, where they cover the programs of absent teachers.
16 jd2718
· Apr 10, 2006 at 6:13 am
The big changes from SBO to the current transfer system are:
1. Final say now belongs to the principal. Period. (As the committees are largely administrative and disempowered, it may be a struggle to get them to function in some schools).
2. Seniority is no longer a criteria in transfers. Under SBO transfers, the job went to the senior qualified applicant. Now it goes, more or less, to the principal’s choice. All of our chapters will need to watch carefully that our senior members are not being systematically discriminated against.
Jonathan
17 curious3
· Apr 10, 2006 at 12:18 pm
I am a bit concerned by Leo’s comments on the ATR that we might end up with a large number of substitute teachers that no principal thinks is capable of teaching effectively. I wonder if there will be enough work for these people. I also wonder if we should have substitute teachers that are unwanted as regular teachers. This sounds like a bad educational result. Perhaps I misunderstand what is going to happen.
18 NYC Educator
· Apr 10, 2006 at 1:54 pm
HS Shop Teacher,
I’m afraid that’s not what those words mean.
As for answering your question, I did so yesterday, it was censored, and I’m not going to bother reposting it here.
19 Leo Casey
· Apr 10, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Ken:
One of the reasons for having an open market, with excessed teachers remaining in the school as ATRs if they do not find a match, is that it takes the incentive out of a principal not doing his job, and trying to pass a teacher who does not perform satisfactorily along to another school. Under this system, he is back in your school in the ATR pool, so if he is not doing his job, then you better do your job as a principal, and see that he is removed.
20 redhog
· Apr 12, 2006 at 11:59 am
Under this system, he is back in your school in the ATR pool, so if he is not doing his job, then you better do your job as a principal, and see that he is removed.
I respectfully expand on the last detail of his postby submitting that all of our members are forever competent and innocent unless proved beyond a reasonable doubt,defined in their favor and defended with ferocity and cunning. That is the perpetual cornerstone of unionism, and the reason for our members’ unyielding faith in the UFT and its leadership. Whatever we may confess to our heart of hearts, we must not concede in clash and conflict with management. When truth does not suit our purposes we must still insist that it reposes with us. Management has the lawful perk of taking morally lawless actions against our brothers and sisters. We must never grease skids unless it is to run the would-be tycoons off the road.
21 NYC Educator
· Apr 13, 2006 at 8:12 am
“…all of our members are forever competent and innocent unless proved beyond a reasonable doubt,”
Actually, under the new contract, we’ve specifically lost that protection, and can be suspended for 90 days without pay, whether or not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
22 jd2718
· Apr 13, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Redhog,
I’ve clipped these quotes from you for future reference as well:
“Whatever we may confess to our heart of hearts, we must not concede in clash and conflict with management.”
and
“When truth does not suit our purposes we must still insist that it reposes with us.”
and most importantly
“Management has the lawful perk of taking morally lawless actions against our brothers and sisters. We must never grease skids unless it is to run the would-be tycoons off the road.”
Every chapter leader should know these by heart. (at least the content. The wording…?)
Jonathan
23 NYC Educator
· Apr 13, 2006 at 1:22 pm
“Whatever we may confess to our heart of hearts, we must not concede in clash and conflict with management.”
That’s remarkable, actually, and I didn’t consider its implications the first time.
Thanks for making me look, Jonathan.
24 redhog
· Apr 13, 2006 at 5:21 pm
“Clipped for future reference”? It sounds like an NSA dossier! All kidding aside, let’s all become one flesh as we fight the Armadeddon that Tweed has unleashed against us.
25 NYC Educator
· Apr 13, 2006 at 5:59 pm
All kidding aside, it’s you and your ilk who enabled the “Armadeddon that Tweed has unleashed against us” by, among many other things, specifically giving up the right to be “forever competent and innocent unless proved beyond a reasonable doubt,defined in their favor and defended with ferocity and cunning.”
If that is, as you put it, “the perpetual cornerstone of unionism, and the reason for our members’ unyielding faith in the UFT and its leadership,” you and the Unity leadership, by supporting such measures, have irrevocably betrayed that faith.
26 jd2718
· Apr 14, 2006 at 1:33 am
““Clipped for future reference”? It sounds like an NSA dossier! ”
What if I just stick it in my CL’s Handbook?
“All kidding aside, let’s all become one flesh as we fight the Armadeddon that Tweed has unleashed against us. ”
And NYC Educator, while I agree with you about the contract, you are wrong to go after chapter leaders who run good chapters on the basis of their vote alone. Unless you think redhog does a lousy job, which seems to me fairly unlikely….
Jonathan
27 NYC Educator
· Apr 14, 2006 at 8:04 am
You’re mistaken, Jonathan. I’m not going after chapter leaders. They’re by no means the only ones around here who represent Unity.
However, I don’t much care for transparent hypocrisy in front-page Edwize writers.
28 redhog
· Apr 14, 2006 at 10:30 am
Affiliation is a “red herrings.” The “real deal” is whether chapter leaders are fighting like hell in blind love of their members; if they are, then they can never be hypocrites.
29 NYC Educator
· Apr 14, 2006 at 11:19 am
“…all of our members are forever competent and innocent unless proved beyond a reasonable doubt,”
Actually, under the new contract, we’ve specifically lost that protection, and can be suspended for 90 days without pay, whether or not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
It was you who called that “the perpetual cornerstone of unionism.”
Thanks for “fighting like hell” to give it up.
By the way, people who say one thing and do another are often called hypocrites.
That’s what defines them.
30 Chaz
· Apr 14, 2006 at 6:29 pm
redhog;
Really, you mean the negotiated settlement that allows DOE to suspend without pay any teacher for 90 days that is accused of sexual misconduct, based upon a simple student accusation is only a figment of our imagination?
How is that innocent until proven guilty? Shame on you to try to deceive us that way. I expect such nonsense from the Leo Caseys of the world not a classroom teacher like you.
31 curious3
· Apr 16, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Redhog, Chaz, and NYC Educator,
I am trying to understand how you think about one issue in particular. Do you think it is an acceptable result to have incompetent teachers teaching on a fulltime or substitute basis? The statement “…all of our members are forever competent and innocent unless proved beyond a reasonable doubt,defined in their favor and defended with ferocity and cunning” is a bit concerning to me. Couldn’t this lead to incompetent teachers teaching our kids for an extended period of time?
Ken
32 redhog
· Apr 17, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Very few teachers are incompetent. They may appear ineffective, due to absence of enforceable discipline codes, systemic cowardice ( over which they have no control), unsupportuve administrations, families that are irresponsible, students that are not self-reliant, etc. In many schools, Beethoven, Einstein, Shakespeare, and Churchill wouldn’t be able to get a lesson across. Also, those who sit in judgement of teachers often have less knowledge, training, and experience than those they rate. There is a morbid array of indecent forces against teachers and the dignity of their vocation. Let me be judged by judges who are themselves competent and I shall maybe relent just a tiny bit in my conviction that our members are always right.
33 NYC Educator
· Apr 17, 2006 at 4:56 pm
“Do you think it is an acceptable result to have incompetent teachers teaching on a fulltime or substitute basis?”
I do not. Well, I have low expectations for substitutes, as it’s a largely impossible task, but for full-time teachers, absolutely not.
Preferably, though, not for subs either.
Low standards, though, will certainly lead to incompetent teachers for an extended period of time, and perhaps it’s time to end NYC’s 30-year flirtation with them.
Higher standards, rigorous interviews, demonstration lessons, and demanding more than the ability to fill a chair seem to work well where I live. Competitive pay, rather than the lowest in the area seems to factor in as well.
I’d also venture that lower class size and well-maintained facilities send a certain message. Insisting that teachers actually pass competency tests is a good idea too.
I’d also suggest that having exactly the number of applicants you need for the job–one applicant, or less, per job–is less than ideal.
The mayor, though, rarely calls me for advice.
34 Chaz
· Apr 18, 2006 at 4:38 pm
curious3;
Redhog & nyc educator said everything I would have said. However, to summerize if you want good teachers in the classroom, the following is needed.
1. Small class sizes.
2. Administrators with a decade+ of
teaching experience.
3. Competitive salaries.
4. Enforceable discipline codes.
5. Elimination of social promotion.
Especially for the 8th graders the
DOE promotes into the high school.
6. Micromanagement that makes lessons
boring and reduces student
achievement.
How about complaining to Bloomberg & Klein on how they shortchange the NYC public school system’s students with their reaching out to non-educator consutants than to the teachers in the classroom.
35 Chaz
· Apr 18, 2006 at 4:43 pm
oops #5 should read eliminate micromanagement…..