Comments on: Making “Teacher Caring” Efficacious

By: Sherman Dorn

Sherman Dorn — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:45:26 +0000

Caring and teachers…

See my contribution today to the new group blog The Wall. See also Leo Casey’s note in a similar vein, which I only ran across in preparing the entry…….

By: Leo Casey

Leo Casey — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:48:23 +0000

Jeffrey says:
To my knowledge there has never been a grievance, unfair labor practice or even a discussion hinting at doing anything meaningful about the â€œpolitical will of those who create the conditions in which teachers labor.â€?

Perhaps you and the rest of us live in different worlds.

By: Jeff Kaufman

Jeff Kaufman — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:36:04 +0000

Thanks, Leo but your generic response is inapplicable. As you know I practiced law for over 20 years and am well familiar with the adage you cite. Apart from the fact that my case is not an arbitration (it would be, if filed, an unfair labor practice as was done in the Police Department) bad cases do not make bad law. In fact no cases usually make uncertainty, disillusionment and the appearance that a bargaining agent does not care about its principal, the rank and file.

To my knowledge there has never been a grievance, unfair labor practice or even a discussion hinting at doing anything meaningful about the “political will of those who create the conditions in which teachers labor.”

Here is a great opportunity with ample current precedent to demonstrate how important the concept you so elequently describe is. When we shy away from action we shy away from one of the major reasons we have unions.

By: Leo Casey

Leo Casey — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:10:26 +0000

Thank you, City Sue.

Jeffrey, I am not familiar with the case you cite, so there is not much I can say by way of comment about the particulars. On a more general note, however, I would point out that the union has to consider a number of things in addition to the merits of a case when it decides whether or not to take it to arbitration. Since arbitration is precedent setting, it must, among other things, weigh whether that instant case might result a negative precedent for all teachers. Here the old lawyers adage — hard cases make bad law — is telling. I could understand why union officials might think that a case involving incarcerated students was not the best one for establishing a teacher’s need to maintain a relationship with the student outside of the class setting.

Leo

By: CitySue

CitySue — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:10:22 +0000

Leo, your essay has been life-changing for me. I have spent 30 years living with feelings of failure and guilt about having abandoned, after a relatively short time, my youthful commitment to the most needy students in the inner city. I went on to teach elsewhere, and had many gratifying experiences, but never forgot the growing despair that eventually overwhelmed me during that first teaching experience. Now, finally, I understand it, and I forgive myself.
One, it was not my fault that, with a degree with highest honors in English, specializing in Shakespeare, I was totally unprepared to teach junior high school children struggling with the sounds of vowels. It was not my fault that, because of crowding, I was never able to create my classroom as a sanctuary, but had to travel from room to room every period, dragging books and materials with me. (And even if I inspired a few students to pursue our class reading at home, there were not enough books to permit them to take one home.) During times when I wanted to meet with students, I was accorded a small corner of an assistant principal’s office, through which teachers and students constantly streamed. My appeals to administrators for special arrangements for some students were waved away; my attempts to reach parents were stymied by their lack of home telephones, all in all my every attempt to “care” was discouraged. Perhaps I was weak; certainly I was very young, but quitting seemed was a life-saving choice for me. Thank you for helping me understand that.

By: Jeff Kaufman

Jeff Kaufman — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:37:16 +0000

While I entirely agree with the premise of your position, Leo, I can’t help but comment on my particular situation and how both the Union and the DOE abandoned our teachers at Rikers Island.

While the story is a little complicated the teachers and staff at our high schools on Rikers Island were confronted with a draconian anti-education policy which basically prohibited any contact with our students outside very delineated areas. The policy prohibits “undue familiarity” a tough phrase for educators to fathom.

Many of our students serve prison sentences in state correctional facilities upstate. We were specifically forbidden to communicate in any manner with former students specifically in other prisons and even those who returned to society.

When students had questions about corrections policy or the criminal justice system we were specifically forbidden to discuss or help them seek help in their cases.

As a result some of our students feel the education they receive in jail is no more than an extension of being incarcerated rather than being, as Leo described, a function of teacher caring.

Protests to the administration, superintendent and others went basically unheard. At the time of the implementation of this policy a ruling of the City Office of Collective Bargaining found the Police Department had violated its contract with civilian employees when it unilaterally implemented a “no contact” rule prohibiting any contact with anyone on Rikers without prior Commanding Officer approval.

When this decision was shared with the Union a promise that an unfair labor practice might be filed was uttered. Of course, nothing further developed.

Our teachers on Rikers Island still face this policy when we return next week.