Can Deans Be Granted Tenure?

The Dean at my school is up for tenure this year. My principal is very supportive of her but is unclear on what a Dean should submit in their portfolio. Does anyone have any experience or guidance on this?

UFT/Unity stance on tenure

The above was today's question posted on the MORE chapter leader listserve. The discussion is useful for people who may be in the Dean position in your school. Clearly there is little or no guidance from our esteemed union, which basically acts like there is no such thing as nontenured teacher rights as it has allowed tenure rules with unlimited extensions to be used as a political football and slapped all over the place. Here are the responses.

There's no such thing as a Dean's license. It would be in her license area.
-----

I don't know the exact process but my principal also indicated there is a separate tenure process for Deans. Our Dean is licensed but is a full-time Dean and is up for tenure. She has been told by admin she is being recommended for tenure but has never been observed because she doesn't teach any classes and just confirmed last month with admin that Deans can be granted tenure differently. If that is definitely incorrect, please let me know what you find!

--------

Well let's hope she gets tenure but there is no Dean license. I'll be surprised the Supt approves it without classroom experience. As CL I would never allow a full time comptime position. 

--------

Now we hear from a CL about our UFT Is Not At Work:

This happened at my school. The superintendent didn't inform the principal, and neither did the UFT, that a dean up for tenure needed to be teaching 60% of their day in order to get tenure. No one is really sure where this number came from, but it was cited as the reason our dean's probation was extended. The next year he taught one more class and was granted tenure. I would recommend that the principal and/or teacher check with the superintendent ASAP about portfolio expectations and any other expectations that are generally not communicated. 

This is just one other outrage against the non-tenured. Do we know that the 60% number of classes that must be taught is citywide or just one district supt making it up as she went along?

I'm Shocked, Just Shocked WSJ Reporter Leslie Brody Would Write a Biased Article on Tenure

The Wall Street Journal article is just another example of how the media uses "fuzzy math" to distort and pervert the statistics to suit their ideological aims and to support the attack on teacher "due process rights"... Chaz School Daze

Chaz on ICE blog:  The exoneration rate in 3020-a cases has remained consistent over the years at 4%.

James Eterno response:

You won't find that in the Journal. Doesn't fit the argument.

Note to reporters: What you leave out assumes more importance than what you include. The sad thing is that WSJ ed reporter Leslie Brody probably thinks she did not write a biased article. Rather than rehash, here are 2 excellent commentaries by Chaz and Eterno.

Eterno at ICEUFT blog:

I am no fan of the Wall Street Journal.  However, today's article with NYC teacher tenure trial statistics is somewhat interesting reading because there are some actual, although incomplete, figures presented. 

Looking inside the numbers, it is clear that teachers who choose to go to a hearing, rather than settle beforehand, usually receive a fine. That seems to fit in with anecdotal information we have heard over the years.

However, the Journal does not put in their big chart (copied below) and barely mentions that out of 826 cases filed by the Department of Education, "Hundreds of cases settled, often with teachers agreeing to resign or retire, and hundreds haven't been resolved."  Their chart shows only 261 decisions out of 496 resolved hearings. That leaves 235 which they agree are often resignations or retirements.  Add say 150 resignations or retirements to the forty terminations and their chart would look completely different. See how statistics can be played with.

The Journal is obviously trying to lowball the numbers on how many teachers are no longer working in the system so they can prove how hard it is to terminate a tenured teacher.  This shows their anti teacher prejudice. If someone resigns or is forced to retire, they are no longer teaching in the system.  I gather that in private business many employees are urged to resign or retire rather than be fired but showing these statistics for teachers would not fit in with the Journal's preconceived notion that the Department of Education can't get rid of us.

They also neglect to note how many teachers are completely exonerated in the 3020a process. That number from what we have been told is so small that to print it would make the union look weak and that would also not coincide with the right wing myth on how strong the union is.

Remember all of these cases were heard under the old evaluation system.  Under the new evaluation system's weakened due process provision that will start in 2015 in NYC for most teachers, there will be a presumption of incompetence after two ineffective ratings.  The burden of proof will shift to teachers to prove we are not incompetent if a validator upholds an ineffective rating. 

 Chaz:

The Fuzzy Math The Wall Street Journal Used For Their 3020-a Statistics

The Wall Street Journal received from the NYCDOE the 3020-a statistics for the last two years April 2012 to January 2014 on educators who were charged under section 3020-a for tenured educators.  If you browsed through the chart supplied by the newspaper it would seem that only 40 out of 826 cases ended in termination or 5% and that's what the newspaper wants you to believe.  However, if you read the article more thoroughly, you realize that 330 cases have not been resolved and the termination rate jumps from 5% to 8%, not a large jump but its not 5%.  Wait there's more.  Of the 826 disciplinary cases, it turns out that apparently 235 educators agreed to resign or retire rather than go through the 3020-a hearing process.  Add the 235 to the 40 terminated educators and the total educators removed from the system is 275.  Since only 496 cases have been resolved (826 - 330). the total percentage of educators that left the system after being charged under the 3020-a law is 55%!  That's right 55% not the 5% the Wall Street Journal would like you to believe is the case.

While the data shows no educator acquittal rates, historically, its been consistently around 4% in the last decade. Therefore, of the 826 disciplinary cases, one could expect approximately 20 educators to be exonerated.

The Wall Street Journal article is just another example of how the media uses "fuzzy math" to distort and pervert the statistics to suit their ideological aims and to support the attack on teacher "due process rights". Michael Bloomberg may be gone but his ideology still inhabits the corridors of Tweed and the New York City media.  The ICEUFT blog also has a similar take on how the Wall Street Journal manipulated the statistics.

MOREista John Giambalvo: Judges in California enjoy some of the most stringent job protections of any employee in the nation

Does recall process offer more protection than tenure?

In fact, everyone who was involved in the presentation and decision of the Vergara case had some type of job protection above and beyond the “at-will” status that the rest of Californians have... John G. at MORE blog

Oh, how sharp are MOREistas like John? Did you see anyone from the UFT/Unity?AFT complex come close to making these powerful arguments? While anti-deformers railed against the Vergara decision, John looked at how the rest of the world enjoys protections, especially judges, of whom certainly the same % - if not more - are incompetent as teachers are -- and much more harmful to society. John's piece should go out far and wide.

Here's MORE from John at the MORE blog:

The Lawyers who argued the case have their protections. They are only prevented from practicing their craft if they are disbarred. California has it’s own special court, called the State Bar Court of California, just for making these decisions (here). That court boasts that attorneys who practice in California do so in “the only state in the nation with independent professional judges dedicated to ruling on attorney discipline cases”. That’s a nice protection!
The court reporter and clerk, as well as the officers who ensured the safety and security for all involved in the Vergara case, have special job protections too. They are considered “court employees” and their due process includes “a system of progressive discipline and termination “for cause” rather than “at will” employment” (here).

 John looks at Judge Treu's protections:

Treu’s conclusion, that teachers have too many workplace protections, is ironic. This is because he is not exactly an “at-will” employee himself. Judges in California enjoy some of the most stringent job protections of any employee in the nation. Superior Court Judges are elected to six year terms. Treu was elected in 2001 (here) and has been reelected twice since. Unless faced with an actual opponent, he will be automatically reelected at the end of every term without his name even appearing on a ballot (here and here). Given that the judge’s wife is a donor and former staffer of Republican Congressman Gary Miller (read his “Thank You” to her on the official Congressional Record here), I doubt that anyone will be challenging him anytime soon. And, being as only three judges in the entire state have lost reelection since the Great Depression (here),  I doubt that his chances of losing that election would ever be a concern....
You will be happy to know the judge’s job is also well protected if he ever finds himself in hot water. In the state of California, judges can only be removed through their own “tortuous” process called a recall vote (see here). If someone ever wants him fired, they must first collect vast amount of signatures from concerned citizens all across his district. They must then win a general vote.  As of 2008, no California judge had ever been recalled (here again). These protections are in full force whether the judge is highly effective or ‘grossly ineffective’.

 So can someone bring suit that ineffective judges is a civil rights issue of our time given the overwhelming prison population is non-white? Hey Moaning Mona, why don't you take this on? Oh, sorry, no millionaires out there looking to bring down judges.

John takes us on a lovely tour of the possibilities.

Of course, anywhere from 1%-3% of any professional from any profession may be ‘grossly ineffective’ at what they do. This is true for my profession as it is for his. In his decision, the judge briefly examined the damage that ‘grossly ineffective’ teachers may cause if left in the classroom. Let’s briefly examine the damage that ‘grossly ineffective’ justices from his state may cause if allowed to stay on the bench.  There are 2,287 judges in California (here), the extrapolated number of ‘grossly ineffective’ judges may range from 23 to 68. Now there are 38 million people who live in California. That’s one judge for approximately every 16,615 people. You may be surprised to learn that just 23 bad judges from California have the potential of adversely effecting the lives of 382,145 people. 68 bad judges can negatively effect the lives of 1,129,820!   If we’re only considering how bad judges may adversely effect the lives of school children, (California has 9,240,219 school aged children (here) or one judge for every 4,040 children), then  23 ‘grossly ineffective’ judges can hurt 92,920 students in that state and 68 ‘grossly ineffective’ judges can hurt a whopping 274,720! I don’t think too many people could refute an assertion that this large amount of bad judges may have, to paraphrase judge Treu, “a direct, real, appreciable, and negative impact on a significant number of California students, now and well into the future for as long as said [judges] hold their positions…”. And yet the judge continues to enjoy stringent workplace protections.

 Oh man, this is some of the best dessert, with whip cream and a cherry. Go John, Go.

In fact, everyone who was involved in the presentation and decision of the Vergara case had some type of job protection above and beyond the “at-will” status that the rest of Californians have. The Lawyers who argued the case have their protections. They are only prevented from practicing their craft if they are disbarred. California has it’s own special court, called the State Bar Court of California, just for making these decisions (here). That court boasts that attorneys who practice in California do so in “the only state in the nation with independent professional judges dedicated to ruling on attorney discipline cases”. That’s a nice protection!
The court reporter and clerk, as well as the officers who ensured the safety and security for all involved in the Vergara case, have special job protections too. They are considered “court employees” and their due process includes “a system of progressive discipline and termination “for cause” rather than “at will” employment” (here).
A progressive discipline process is something that tenured teachers in California do not have. Neither do they have their own ‘special court’ to determine whether or not they should be removed.

 Well, John did even more work at MORE. Don't miss a word.

Walcott With Tenure Numbers

We'll have more comments on the tenure story since our last post (read it and check out the comments). Does the UFT Wish Tenure Would Go Away While Hoping the Taylor Law Stays for a Lifetime?

SCHOOLS CHANCELLOR DENNIS M. WALCOTT ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF TEACHER TENURE DECISIONS

For the Second Year in a Row, More Rigorous Standards Raise the Bar for Tenure

55 Percent of This Year’s Eligible Teachers Were Granted Tenure, Compared to 97% in 2007

Schools Chancellor Dennis M. Walcott today announced that 55 percent of eligible teachers were awarded tenure this year—maintaining the more rigorous standards developed for the 2010-11 school year. The Department of Education’s new approach to teacher tenure raises the bar by asking principals to provide detailed evidence to support their tenure recommendations.

“I’d like to congratulate the teachers who were granted tenure this year, and commend principals who are demanding higher standards. Receiving tenure is no longer an automatic right, and our new approach ensures that teachers who are granted tenure have earned it,” said Chancellor Walcott. “But our work is not done. We must improve the tenure process even further, and a teacher evaluation system will do just that and ensure our children are taught by the best.”

Under state law, a teacher who has completed his or her “probationary period,” or first three years of teaching, is eligible for tenure review. The number of eligible teachers decreased by 24 percent this year from 5,209 to 3,954 because fewer teachers were hired the past few years. Of the eligible teachers:

·         55% of teachers had their tenure decisions approved this year, compared to 97% in 2007 

·         42% of teachers had their tenure decision extended this year, compared to 2% in 2007

·         3% of teachers had their tenure decisions denied, compared to 1% in 2007

Of the teachers who received extensions last year:

·         42% received tenure this year

·         35% received another extension

·         16% were denied tenure or left the system

·         7% were not included for review this year due to service, license or assignment changes

Principals must support their tenure recommendations with evidence in three categories: teacher practice, evidence of student learning and contributions to the school community. For each of these categories, teachers are rated on a four-point scale: ineffective, developing, effective or highly effective. Principals collect data from classroom observations, quality of student work, progress on state assessments, attendance, and student and parent feedback, among other measures. Special consideration is given to gains demonstrated with high-need populations, including students with disabilities, English Language Learners, and students who are over-age and under-credited. 

Does the UFT Wish Tenure Would Go Away While Hoping the Taylor Law Stays for a Lifetime?

New York’s Taylor Law banning and penalizing public worker strikes violates fundamental workers’ rights protected by international law. -- ILO

If you start digging into the UFT response, or lack thereof, on the tenure issue, they want tenure to go away so they don't have to answer for it...

Would UFT leaders be happy if we had the right to strike like teachers in Chicago despite the limitations? What do you think? Let me try to connect a few dots.

There is an interesting article on tenure and the politics behind granting, not granting, extending, etc. at Gotham Schools:

Amid tenure crackdown, some targeted teachers get good news

Making tenure go away

It is worth reading along with some of the comments. Watching the behavior of the UFT/AFT leadership based on lots of anecdotal evidence and some observations I added the comment below which I expanded into a general analysis of the motivations behind the actions of UFT/AFT/NYSUT complex. Before going to the analysis there are a few points to make about the tenure issue.

First, meet any untenured teacher and the concept of getting tenure is absolutely on their minds -- except if you run across a TFA or E4E slug on the way out of teaching. I met quite a few at the Gotham party yesterday and that fact was reaffirmed.

Secondly, I want to tell a brief story about a UFT DA I attended last spring where Mulgrew was asked what to do if a teacher keeps getting tenure extended year after year -- like a 3rd time. His response: let us know. Too bad the person asking the question didn't follow up with "But if we let you know what will you do about it." Oh, I know the answer: We'll look into it. OK, after you look into it what will you do?

In fact, I believe the UFT wants tenure to go away as an issue and would breathe a sigh of relief if the politicians took it away while they put up a feeble fight (see New Jersey, Cleveland, and the rest of the AFT sell-out tour).

In fact the more you dig the more you find all sorts of revised unwritten tenure issues that have come up that the UFT is ignoring. Like teachers who transfer to a new school in their 3rd year are told that they can't get tenure because they have to work under the principal for 2 years. Or teachers who switch from middle school to high school have to go through some sort of retenuring process. And of course the big enchilada, principals who want to show their bosses how tough  they are --- like how does it look if 100% of your teachers get tenure even if they are all John Dewey? And finally, the denial of tenure to teachers at schools branded as failures, the main point of the Gotham article. In other words, the entire process of not granting tenure for political and not educational reasons.

Send me any info you find on any UFT response or comments on these issues. Is this the fear of Campbell Brown-like attacks operating?

You know this is reminding me of what was done in NYC during the 1930's depression when they had 2 classes of teachers, regulars and permanent subs who made less money and had less rights -- they found all sorts of ways to keep people in the permanent sub category. And I believe the denial of tenure, possibly year after year is returning us to those years.

Taylor Law outlawing strikes takes union leaders off the hook

This is from an interesting article in the Labor Press about an International Labor Organization ruling:

A November 2011 International Labor Organization decision ruled, after the Transport Workers Union Local 100 filed a complaint with the ILO in November 2009 after the union struck in December 2005 and was heavily fined, that New York’s Taylor Law banning and penalizing public worker strikes violates fundamental workers’ rights protected by international law. With 200,000 city public workers without contracts, in some cases over five years, the ILO decision would seem to have presented the city’s public sector unions the economic leverage they have desperately needed to win new contracts. ...... However, since the November 2011 ILO decision regarding the TWU’s complaints ... there hasn’t been a unified response from the city’s public unions, although 200,000 members are working without contracts.

What does that tell you about our labor leaders?

Here was my comment at Gotham:

I believe if you start digging into the UFT response, or lack thereof, on the tenure issue, they want tenure to go away so they don't have to answer for it ala Campbell Brown attacks, etc. But if they are too open about it they face some wrath from the members. So in the ideal world of the UFT, the politicians take it away and they say, "See, it wasn't out fault we just have to give more money to COPE to elect OUR politicians," which of course they know they never will but it takes them off the hook. This is part of the consistency of the UFT/AFT/NYSUT policy -- try to appear as one thing to the members but as another to the rest of the world.

Thus the policy of pushing collaboration because the alternative would be to engage in a war which given the way they operate internally (lack of democracy, total top-down, lack of engagement of the members) they cannot win. (Vs Chicago TU which has mobilized its membership to engage in the war). Why won't they do what Chicago TU has done? You can only mobilize people effectively if they feel they have a say in union policy and the ability to influence it. Giving people such a say is a bigger threat to the union/Unity Caucus leadership than the ed deformers. Thus the support for charter schools and even co-locations in the hope that they can organize teachers in charters even if a small percentage. (See: Exposing UFT/Charter Connections as UFT Supports Co-location)

They know that in the long run the teachers unions without a fight will suffer slow strangulation but given that within the straight jacket of their political framework they are helpless to stop it, at least the people at the top can exist for quite a while and if they make the proper deals with ed deformers (Gates, Broad, etc) they might be able to keep the shell of a union going with them at the top. Ed deformers are not unified. The right wing Republicans want to kill the unions and the leadership completely while the Dem/liberal deformers (Obama, Bloomberg, Gates) see the usefulness to them of keeping the shell and as long as the union gives them pieces of what they want and keeps giving they will support the existence of the current leadership. That is why Chicago is such a massive threat to the entire arrangement between the unions and the Dem deformers.

================
The opinions expressed on EdNotesOnline are solely those of Norm Scott and are not to be taken as official positions (though Unity Caucus/New Action slugs will try to paint them that way) of any of the groups or organizations Norm works with: ICE, GEM, MORE, Change the Stakes, NYCORE, FIRST Lego League NYC, Rockaway Theatre Co., Active Aging, The Wave, Aliens on Earth, etc.

Riveting Video: Jeff Kaufman Blows the Lid off Tenure Denial Scandal at Aspirations HS and UFT Bureaucrats' Attempt to Deflect Their Do-Nothing Policies by Blaming Kaufman

UFT Foils While Tenure Burns: A Case Study in DOE and UFT Perfidy

On July 12,  I interviewed Jeff Kaufman, one of the most knowledgeable union people I know. Whenever someone with a union problem contacts me I often send them to Jeff or James Eterno rather than the UFT. To say Jeff has a contentious relationship with the UFT/Unity Caucus leadership would be a gross underestimation. They despise him even more than they do me after his 3-year stint on the UFT Exec Board representing the Independent Community of Educators (ICE) where he regularly took apart the phony Randi Weingarten agenda.

In this riveting video Jeff takes us step by step through the process of how all 8 teachers at his school who were up for tenure had their time extended and now face the prospect of having to wait for a 5th year. The lies and perfidy of just resigned principal Matt Malloy (who often referred to these Teach for America young women as "Matt's Harem") and Superintendent Amy Horowitz who did zero supervision of Malloy while he did no observations and pushed almost all the administration burdens of running a new school onto these young and inexperienced teachers.

And then there are the UFT bureaucrats - VPHS Leo Casey and District Rep Charley Turner (one of the all time sleazeballs who even outranks Washington Sanchez in that category)  who instead of providing assistance to the teachers, attempted to use this as a way to undermine Jeff with his colleagues -a long-time tactic of Unity Caucus with people who oppose their policies.



Direct Vimeo link: http://vimeo.com/26575544

The video is mostly focused on the actions of the principal but it is a microcosm of not only what went on in so many schools but of the helpless reaction to this crisis by the UFT leadership. Jeff wrote a companion piece on the ICE blog July 16 focusing on the UFT and the tenure story.

UFT Fiddles While Large Numbers of Probationers Are Denied Tenure

Here is an excerpt but go read it all:

A note on tenure…

We have explained before, in this blog, what tenure is and what it isn't. Briefly stated the law defines tenure as that period of time, usually 3 years, where a teacher has performed satisfactorily. Tenure fundamentally changes the employment rights of a teacher from being an "at-will" employee while under probation and fired for any or no reason at all to one that is entitled to a due process hearing where the DOE must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the teacher should be fired before an arbitrator.

Education Law 3012 provides, in relevant part: "At the expiration of the probationary term…, the superintendent of schools shall make a written report to the board of education …recommending for appointment on tenure those persons who have been found competent, efficient and satisfactory, consistent with any applicable rules of the board of regents adopted pursuant to section three thousand twelve-b of this article. ...Each person who is not to be recommended for appointment on tenure, shall be so notified by the superintendent of schools in writing not later than sixty days immediately preceding the expiration of his probationary period."

The statute provides that tenure decisions must be made solely on a teacher's competence, efficiency and satisfactory service. The part of the statute which refers to State Regulations only refers to the new, 4 part, evaluation system, effective September 2011 which make no mention of probation or tenure at all.

So why is the UFT so conspicuously absent in the face of such a radical change in working conditions for so many teachers? Perhaps, their lawyers believe that since tenure is not a subject of bargaining there is legally little they can do. While, admittedly, legal avenues are limited although there are actions that can be brought if the Union knew or cared about its members.

Now, we must wait for a FOIL request to be filled (they can take months or even years) and teachers who have provided competent, efficient and satisfactory service must serve additional probation time or be terminated.

---------------------

Kaufman on E4E

I put up a separate excerpt of the video the other day where Jeff focused on the E4E people in his school and the contradiction between their support for that organization and what happened to them. In that short video Jeff points out how E4E is anti-union:  ICE's Jeff Kaufman Dissects Educators 4 Excellence and Judges Them "Antiunion" -

Tenure Extensions Lead to Growing Disaffection of Young Teachers - What Say You E4E, TFA?

And now it's some of the high-quality, newer recruits - the same ones the administration was trying to save from layoffs - that are being pushed to other careers or jobs elsewhere because of the crackdown. Department of Education officials haven't released numbers but acknowledge that they expect an increase in extended probation periods after setting out new standards last November. --- Rachel Monahan, Daily News

E4E ought to come out with a public statement decrying the process, if their members feel it is invalid. --- Leonie Haimson

Isn't this process what E4E was advocating? They just didn't think it would affect them. - ---Diane Ravitch

Yeah, funny how folks' criteria become much more thoughtful and sophisticated when it is their job on the block.  --- jmb

We have been predicting for months that the numbers of teachers leaving the system will be much higher than predicted based on sources in the schools who told us teachers who were told how good they and ended up having tenure extended were outraged enough to walk away from a system more dysfunctional than anything experienced under the old status quo.

Numbers we are hearing are that 50% of 3rd year teachers did not get tenure or were extended. I hear FDR HS in Brooklyn only gave tenure to 4 out of 16 (or was it 20?) teachers.

Don't underestimate the importance of the Daily News stories by Rachel Monahan, who has been on this case for a month or more - we've been waiting for these reports but Rachel probably had to wait until the official results are in. Philissa Cramer of Gotham Schools also has been on the case.

We have no such qualms about waiting for facts and have been hearing for the last two months on the growing denial/extension to a 4th year of tenure. This will turn into bad news for both the DOE and their allies in Educators 4 Excellence and Teach for America.

 "The irony is that a lot of these teachers were teachers that the city paid millions of dollars ... to recruit," he [Mulgrew] noted, referring to Teaching Fellows and Teach for America.

Mulgrew must have had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek. Do you think the UFT is rushing out to help these teachers out?

Wasn't it just a short time ago we heard from Wallslug and Bloomcrud and yes E4E about how important it was to end tenure and seniority protections to keep these excellent (because they are TFA and young) teachers?

There are some interesting nuggets. Rachel went to Aspirations HS in Brooklyn a few weeks ago to talk to Chapter Leader Jeff Kaufman and some of the teachers. Jeff has been keeping us informed  about some of the goings on at the school, where a young principal (other sources beyond Jeff who knew him at Columbus HS and other venues describe him an asshole) recruited lots of TFA teachers, who basically helped run the school. The principal pushed Educators 4 Excellence with the staff and many supported E4E - initially. He hired almost all young women and used to call them Matt's Harem. Nice. What does E4E, which organized a mixer for Matt's Harem think of that? (Read Jeff's account: Up Close and Personal With An Opposition and his follow-up analysis of the E4E lies and misdirections: “White Paper” on a Roll: How Ed Deformers Distort ...  Also his piece  on how some of the E4E and TFA people began to show their union consciousness: UFT Chapter at Aspirations HS Stops Charter School...

Some people think Jeff has been off-line but he has been doing the scut work of basic chapter organizing.

Rachel writes:

At Aspirations High School in Brooklyn, three of the school's founding teachers, all recruited through Teach for America or Teaching Fellows, were told they need to serve another year before being considered for tenure. They say none had been observed in the three years since they arrived at the school, even though it's a requirement for tenure. At a meeting with a superintendent, they said they were told that because the school received an F on the high-stakes report cards, they should not expect tenure. The teachers say the decision is galling because they helped build the new small school over the last three years, filling in the gaps for a principal who was new to the job - and who has decided to leave after this year. He didn't respond to requests for comment.

Jeff has told me so many goodies about the whole scene there. The role the UFT played through slimeball Distict Rep Charlie Turner and HS VP Leo Casey in their attempt to undermine Jeff is a classic story - I have the emails somewhere but I may do a video interview with Jeff to flesh out the whole story.

Philissa wrote:  but there's more to this story than it reveals

At Aspirations High School in East New York, many teachers did not have any formal observations from their principal, teachers said. None of the eight Aspirations teachers up for tenure this year received it; instead, their probationary periods were extended.
One of them, Samantha Love, said she had finished her third year at the transfer high school with increasing confidence in her abilities. Following the city’s new guidelines, she put together a portfolio that included detailed statistics about her students’ Regents exam passing rates; evidence that she had improved her instruction; and proof that she helped run the school, even earning thousands of dollars in grants to buy supplies and pay for a class trip to Washington, D.C.
But she learned that she did not receive tenure the same day she turned in the portfolio, before the school’s superintendent could have reviewed it. Jeff Kaufman, the teachers union chapter leader at Aspirations, said the extensions came as a surprise because the principal never told the teachers their tenure was in jeopardy.
Love and Kaufman say Aspirations teachers were told that they were not eligible for tenure because their school received an F on its most recent progress report — one of just nine high schools to do so.
In fact, the city does not have a policy of prohibiting tenure for teachers in F-rated schools, Mittenthal said.
Along with some of her colleagues, Love and other teachers at Aspirations are members of Educators 4 Excellence, the group of young teachers that advocates for tougher evaluations and changes to layoff rules. “I do believe we should be examining our personal effectiveness, and I don’t think [tenure] should just be a given,” she said. “But the way the process is being carried out is not an objective assessment.”

Duh, Samnatha! Not an objective assessment? Your group admits there are no value-added models that are fair but still advocates for using them. What about the unfair U-ratings given to so many people in just as an unfair manner? The leaders of E4E admits there might be unfair U-ratings but so what if some innocent people get chopped.

Come on Samantha, when do you stop showing your love of E4E, which has been caught with its pants down. Is it possible that even E4E's Ruben Brosbe, who blogs at Gotham, was either denied or extended tenure, as SBS is reporting -  Is Th-Th-Th-That All Ruben? Go tell E4E to issue a statement on where they stand on tenure denials. E4E has invited people to

Spend your summer break with E4E! We will be hosting events throughout July and August. Join us on Wednesday, July 13 for the first in a series of roundtable policy discussions on different issues.

• What: Roundtable Discussion on Teacher and Principal Evaluations (Dinner will be provided)
• Where: E4E's offices at 333 W. 39th Street, Suite 703
• When: Wednesday, July 13 from 6:30 - 8:00pm
• RSVP: Join us for the summer's first roundtable discussion!

 Hey, free food on E4E. All you have to do is sign the pledge in blood.

No wonder TFA wants go get their people out of the schools in two years before objective reality hits so they can go off spouting how much they know about fixing education. They become tenure bashers before having to go through the process themselves. I haven't talked to one teacher whether TFA or not who doesn't want tenure and the protections it offers them.

The bottom line is the principal who pushed E4E to his staff and recruited all these teachers lied to them about why he had to deny them tenure and screwed them in the end. I'll do another post on the Aspirations story after I speak to Jeff. Here are some more comments on the tenure situation:

Leonie Haimson:

Definitely the case that fewer teachers are getting tenure and many are being delayed with third years…Superintendents are often the ones deciding tenure (belying principal autonomy) and they have been told by Tweed only to allow a certain number in schools each year. Lots of good teachers are very disaffected and say they will go elsewhere -  they are sick of being abused by a system that does not accord them the respect they are due.

NYC Educator had some comments: Tenuous Tenure in NYC

Retired UFT Bronx District Rep Lynne Winderbaum said:

I have yet to see any sign that the Department of Education gives a darn if they retain teachers or not. They do not believe this is a skilled profession and, regardless of what they say, promote the sense that anyone can teach and teachers are totally replaceable. They are indifferent to the loss of talent be it veterans or idealistic new teachers. I swear they think they can maintain the same standard of instruction no matter how much they abuse and disrespect their teaching staff and how many leave.

They are wrong. But it no longer matters in this system.

Read Daily News article:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2011/07/07/2011-07-07_new_york_city_awarding_less_tenure_to_young_teachers_in_public_school_systems_ed.html#ixzz1RSimwKk9

And Gotham piece:

Instead of giving or denying tenure, city is deferring decisions (click headline for original article)

AFTERBURN
Look for an upcoming post about a great venture from a new group of young teachers:
New Teacher Underground
---------
Check out Norms Notes for a variety of articles of interest: http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/. And make sure to check out the side panel on right for news bits.

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