Christie's New Pension Plan (For Lawyers)

This letter reminds of a quote from one of my favorite writers. 
"All pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than others".
Additionally, wait until you see the final bill because this thing will be dragged out forever and essentially provide a pension plan for all the lawyers involved.
I know this from my experience on the BOE . A suit regarding construction was lodged against the  Board. That was ten years ago. As of today a settlement has still not been reached and legal fees exceed $600K! That's a lot of public money that could have bought mucho pencils and paper.
When it comes to extracting money from public entities, lawyers surely know how to siphon the last drop of blood from taxpayer coffers.

My First Time!

I read about the Newark teacher's settlement today in the Ledger.

One of the statements made was "implementing a system known as merit pay for the first time in New Jersey".

 I beg to differ!

Way back in 1965 when I first began teaching I worked at New Providence High School in Union County as a chemistry teacher.

At that time there was a "merit pay" system in place. I was not part of it because it only applied to tenured staff and I was a first year teacher (just out of college) but I did see how it worked.

The highest possible "score" that could be obtained by a teacher was a five which of course yielded the largest "bonus".

All teachers were evaluated and scored by their department heads, the principal, the superintendent and I seem to remember the vice principal being involved too.

The evaluations were very subjective and to me seemed whimsical.

Those in the English department rarely if ever received a rating of five from their department head. When I asked why, I was told that it was her feeling that no one was a teacher as good as she and therefore no one could ever be rated superior. (I don't really know if that was the true reason but I do know fives were rare if ever for the English staff.)

The people in the math department by contrast, were consistently rated five by their supervisor. When I asked why, I was told that he often said that he would never have hired a less than superior teacher and therefore all were given fives.

As for the superintendent I am not sure what his rating were based on. I rarely saw him in the building and never saw or heard of him observing a class. When I asked how he could possibly rate teachers without actually seeing them perform, the answer was "he knows!"

I could never really understand that answer. I must surmise it was that he had  clairvoyance or ESP going for him.

The end result of all this was low morale (except for the people who routinely kissed up and got fives) and dissension.

 Additionally, I don't think that it improved instruction one iota. Most of the people I met were there doing the best possible job they could because of their professionalism and their concern for the kids, not for the "five".

This is my experience with the "merit pay" system. I realize it was a very limited experience and obtained many, many years ago but it has stuck with me and caused me to view any similar system with grave suspicion.

I certainly hope that which is implemented in Newark shows me that my suspicions are misplaced but I'm not so sure that will be true.

My honest opinion is that  the new Newark contract is just another step towards the privatization of public education. Again I hope I'm wrong!

PS

I don't know when the "merit pay" system was abandoned in New Providence or how long it lasted. I left the system in 1967.

However it must have been eliminated, otherwise its proponents surely would now be pointing to its success.

Fear of Firing

I read an article on the front page of  the Ledger on September 24th. It was lengthy so let me summarize. It pertained to a law suit regarding the firing of Mr. Jose Cotto, a non tenured Newark Public School teacher.

            Mr. Cotto received a death threat from a student during class. The boy was sent out of class only to return a short time later. Mr. Cotto, fearing for his safety, called the Newark Police who where turned away when they arrived at the school.

            Subsequently, Mr. Cotto was fired for "making too much noise" about the incident. He then filed a suit claiming wrongful dismissal and was awarded $225,000. The boy has since been jailed for the murder to two people during a hold up.

            The principal of the school has since been place on "principal without placement" status (whatever that means?).

The jury unanimously declared the teacher was fired for being a "whistle blower" while the city cited Mr. Cotto as a poor teacher who "normally tasked students with memorization and did little to improve his lesson plans" (again - whatever that means?).

            I have several serious questions about this whole thing aside from the main issue of  the teacher's unlawful dismissal and the refusal by the administration to provide a safe working environment for  him and his other students.

            Firstly, Mr. Cotto taught Spanish. How can anyone learn Spanish without memorization. If you don't memorize Spanish vocabulary how can you speak Spanish. This points clearly to the absurdity of allowing those who know little or nothing about the subject to evaluate a teacher.

            Secondly, if evaluations by poor or incompetent administrators are allowed to determine whether a teacher is going to receive a raise or possibly even be fired, can we expect many more incidents of administrative failure to go unreported?

            How many times have you experienced or heard of disruptive students being sent to the office only to return shortly with little or no consequences.

            How many times have you experienced or heard "don't send them to the office - if you are a 'good teacher' you should be able to handle classroom discipline".

            How many times have you experienced or heard "if the teacher made the class interesting there would be no discipline problems".

            If tenure is eliminated and the "merit system" is introduced (as the politicians would like) expect even more of this. It doesn't bode well for the teaching profession and the learning by students in a chaotic environment.

PS

            Mr. Cotto worked in the Newark Public School System. Newark (as well as Paterson, Camden, Jersey City, etc.) has been run by the state for over a decade.

            Wouldn't one think that with all the "education experts" at NJDOE, the problems of all of these districts would now be in the rear view mirror?

            Could it be that the State has found the rehabilitation of these systems is a task that they have not and cannot accomplish? I guess, now, instead of being held accountable for their failure, they find it much easier to blame on the "hordes" of "poor teachers" in these schools.

           

A Meritorious Comment on "An Unmeritorious System"

Jack Parish has left a new comment on your post "An Unmeritorious System":

I agree with your article on merit pay. Too many supervisors are just pushing papers and aren't trying to evaluate good teaching. I think all supervisors, principals and superintendents should be actually teaching in the classroom and not just teaching the honor students. Once you are an administrator you don't want to be seen in the classroom, way to many everyday distractions, like making lesson plans, grading papers, handing out progress reports and emailing all the students parents about how "johnny" is doing. The reason why NJ has one of the best education systems in the country, they were willing to pay the teachers. Many systems are top heavy with to many high priced administrators. I do like the one thing governor has supported and that's
reigning in the Superintendents salaries.

An Unmeritorious System

I was going to write on another subject today but I happened to see a discussion of merit pay and tenure on News 12 – “12 In Our Schools” and immediately decided to change my topic.
I have had very limited experience with merit pay during my forty years of teaching however, very early in my career (back in the sixties) I did work in a district that used the merit system. I have always remembered the way in which it operated primarily because it was so absurd.
The system evaluated teachers on a one to five rating (five = best and one = poor I don't know if anyone ever got a zero?). Ratings were given by four administrators, the department chairman, the principal, the vice principal and the superintendent.
The rating from the department chairman was often a function of which department you happened to work. If you were in the math department the chairman's philosophy was “I would never hire a poor teacher” – everybody was five. If you were in the English department, well “Nobody was as gifted a teacher as the chairman”– everybody got less than a five.
The principal ruled with an iron hand and although I didn’t know his philosophy on merit ratings, I did know that the vice principal (a timid little man) always, somehow gave the same exact ratings as the principal.
The superintendent was rarely seen in the building. When I asked how he could possibly give a legitimate merit rating when he had never seen the teaching of many of those whom he rated, the answer was “He knows!”. I guess you had to have faith in his omnipotence.
That was the merit system as I experienced it. Not too good, from my standpoint anyway. I'm sure there are better systems (and probably some worse) but I certainly found it to be unfair, arbitrary, divisive and intimidating. Needless to say, I left that system at my first opportunity.
There is another interesting point about the evaluation system, not only at the school I have just mentioned but state wide. It is that a supervisor has the authority to evaluate any teacher in any area as long as he has proper certification. This means that if I had a certificate and was a chemistry teacher I could evaluate a French teacher. I don't even know how to say “French” in French! How could I possibly know if the teacher was even teaching the correct information much less teaching it well? I find this incredible but these are the rules that are currently in place.
In an article, “Up Pay for Math, Science Teachers, Christie Says – Governor: Give gym instructors less cash” in the Ledger the Governor indicates that he feels that gym teachers are less valuable than science teachers. I am mindful of the fact that many ex gym teachers become principals and supervisors. It is they who then become authorized to evaluate the math and science teachers!
The more I hear about “Educational Reform” the “curiouser and curiouser” it becomes?