Dog Fights

Here is my comment which I have posted -

There are plenty of reasons teachers are under attack - the most notable is because they  are easy targets and don't fight back. If Albert Shanker was still alive politicians wouldn't find teachers so easy to accuse and abuse. Alas, he and those like him seem to no longer exist. Current union officials chose to cower instead to confront! Until teacher mentality reverts back to the days of the 1970s be prepared for more and more degradation and condemnation.
I have always remembered the sign on the wall of the football locker room when I was in high school.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog that wins!"
Walt S.
http://teachersdontsuck.blogspot.com/
http://wsautter.com/

Newspeak - Reform - verb \ri-ˈfȯrm\ : To eliminate: To end

The Star Ledger has already rescinded its supporting editorial for Governor Bridgegate. Now I see this editorial praising the “accomplishments” of Commissioner “Tenure Reform” Cerf.

Mr. Cerf is a well-seasoned educator with vast, firsthand knowledge of teaching and education. He spent four years (count them four) as a high school history teacher and that was over twenty five years ago.

Additionally, his vast experience was obtained at Cincinnati Country Day School in Cincinnati, Ohio, a private school with a tuition rate of $23,600. However he is still  somehow regarded as an authority on urban schools and urban education!

Mr. Cerf, unlike the claims of the editorial, has been instrumental not in “tenure reform” but instead, tenure elimination. Tenure, as it formerly was, made due process a requirement before dismissal.

“Tenure (.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenure) - the act, right, manner, or term of holding something (as a landed property, a position, or an office); especially :  a status granted after a trial period to a teacher that gives protection from summary dismissal”

The words “summary dismissal” are defined as  (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/business-english/summary-dismissal ) – “a situation in which a company tells an employee that they have lost their job and must leave immediately because of something that they have done”

Tenure “reform” has actually eliminated the due process and replaced it with two consecutive years of poor evaluations as a basis for firing. Poor evaluations are not “dishonest or illegal”.  It is obvious then that calling the new system “tenure reform” is newspeak for tenure elimination.

Additionally, evaluations by whom and based on what criteria?  Hopefully the evaluations would not be made by Mr. Cerf since it appears that he would have little background upon which to base his evaluations.

The editorial also mentioned his unfortunate inability to eliminate seniority rights for “poor teachers”.

It did mention that he is leaving to join a “commercial venture”. Should I assume that it is a private education enterprise? Considering the quote below I kind of think so.

The commissioner said he remained deeply committed to the value of public education. Some education advocates have warned of the dangers of for-profit entities influencing policy in schools, or being hired to run them. But Cerf called such claims “propagandistic,” and emphasized his view that “public schools should be run by and accountable to public authorities.”

http://www.northjersey.com/news/NJ_education_chief_Chris_Cerf_stepping_down.html - Tuesday, February 11, 2014

I firmly believe that Mr. Cerf’s motivation for his “accomplishments” is to push public education into private hands!

Elimination of tenure will make replacing teachers on the upper end of the salary scale a breeze for corporate owners of the private schools which replace our public schools. Ending seniority will further grease the skids.

Even before privatization is complete, the elimination of tenure and seniority rights has many advantages (not for teachers that is for sure). It reduces dissension in the ranks, quells even hints of protest and dampens the atmosphere at the negotiating table (assuming negotiations will not be made illegal).

Also, loss of tenure and seniority opens the door for replacement of veteran teachers (whether good or poor) by the relatives and friends of political cronies and supporters. This is not to mention it punishes those who failed to support his pal “The Governor” (as he likes to audaciously call himself).

I wonder if the day might come when the Star Ledger may retract this aggrandizing editorial just as it has recently done for his good buddy Governor Bridgegate?

A New Staff Member Joins Rutgers Faculty - Robo Prof !

As usual, there are a lot of questions to be answered about any new privatization plan.
(1) Who hires those who will create the Internet lectures? Pearson or Rutgers?
(2) Will new lectures be recorded each year or will the same ones be used over and over?
(3) How will those lecturers be paid? A flat fee or on a residual basis each time the lecture is viewed?
(4) Will the cost of tuition be substantially reduced using this "online" teaching method?
(5) Will the executive payout at Pearson or any other private company that produces "online education" for Rutgers be held at reasonable levels?
(6) Will university admissions be unlimited since classroom seating space will no longer be a factor?
(7) Will "online" students be required to pay fees relating to on campus activities?
(8) How long will it be before "online education" filters down into secondary and elementary schools?
(9) What are the tenure implications when a large number of professors will be supplanted by "online education"?
(10) Will tenure play a part in the selection of those who will teach the "online" courses?
(11) Will the lectures be live or recorded?
(12) If recorded, who will have the rights to the recordings, Pearson, Rutgers or the professor?

"Smart Teachers" - A Contradiction in Terms

Just when I'm about ready to quit writing this blog another inane article about education and educational schemes appears in the paper and I can't help myself  but to comment on it !
Here the state wants only "Smart Teachers" and a GPA of 3.0  or better will insure that ?
Do we really think that a student studying Basket Weaving with a GPA or 3.0 is smarter than one studying Nuclear Engineering with a GPA of 2.9 let's say ?
How naive can you be, especially when there is a continual dearth of science and math teachers.
It looks like the state educrats in their wisdom, have  issued a blanket statement without much thought and in doing so, maybe it shows that they themselves aren't really that smart ! 
Additionally, how smart can anyone be, who would spend tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollar to obtain a job in a "profession" that is constantly humiliated, denigrated and disrespected.
What "smart" individual would enter a "profession" where job security has been eliminated and is now, more than ever, subject to political whim and expediency ?
Who would start a career where pension benefits and benefits in general are continually "reformed" (reduced).
Why would an intelligent person enter a "profession" filled with greedy and lazy people who are only in it for "summers off" as described by a plethora politicians and newspaper articles.
Who would want a job where they are held accountable for the performance of others over which they have little or no control and  where attempts at control can be seen as bullying or harassment?
Why would anyone enter employment where even the slightest accusation of impropriety by anyone, results in instantaneous suspension or dismissal, front page news and the immediate assumption of guilty. 
The way things have gone for the teaching "profession" during  the past ten years and are continuing to go, makes me think that anyone, even those with GPA of 4.0, who enter teaching, can't be that smart !!
It is truly unfortunate that politicians, with the cooperation of the media, have turned a noble profession into one of ridicule and detain ! 


 

Confronting The "Educrats" NJEA Style ?

I sure hope there's a better  NJEA  Plan C because Plan A (a lot of whining with little action) didn't work too well and if this is Plan B (essentially cuddling up into a fetal position), it won't work either!

NJ Commissioner of Education's Report to the Governor

Still Waiting

I wrote on this blog site on December 15th in my “Show Me the Money” piece as follows:


"My note sent to Student’s First –


Sent to Students First on 12-15-11


Before I donate I would like some information about how my money will be used.
Please forward to me information regarding the compensation packages for the
executives of the organization.
Thank you"


I received this response yesterday form "Michele Rhee". Here it is.

Needless to say, I called the number indicated at the bottom of the email and was connected with "$NJKids.org" another "education reform" (eliminating tenure) operation in Edison, NJ . I repeated my request for information pertaining to executive compensation. I got no verbal information but instead was told that Kaitlyn (the woman who answered the phone) would "try" to obtain an answer for me and that it would be emailed to me.
I get the feeling that this inquiry will go unanswered like the previous one. I hope I'm wrong but I don't think so. I'll let you know!

Teacher Tenure – An Unspeakable Evil (as cite by Tom Moran and the Perth Amboy “spark plug” in Sunday’s Ledger – Dec 4, 2011)

I had a wonderful evening yesterday. I went to dinner with my wife and two other couples (old friends). The meal was great and the conversation was just as enjoyable.
I got up this morning still feeling pretty good, that is until I picked up the Star Ledger!
Here we go again. Never a minute’s rest. Front paper headlines, “Public School Enemy #1 is Tenure”. Needless to say the good feelings with which I awoke were immediately dashed!
Now, let me make this clear, I am a retired teacher and would be not effected by any “tenure reform” but I can’t help being seriously offended by the injustice these new rules would impose. I am equally offended by the constant diatribe against teachers used to validate attempts to “reform tenure” and the attempts to ease teacher firing, eliminate seniority and reduce compensation and bargaining rights.
Again, all of these proposed “reforms” will not effect me personally but the justifications for them which constantly degrade the teaching profession do! I increasingly find it difficult to admit that I was part of the profession for forty years. It is difficult to be viewed as having been lazy, uncaring, greedy and poorly performing.
Now let me get back to the morning headline. The article was written by Tom Moran (a liberal – I thought) using numerous quotes from Superintendent Janine Caffrey of Perth Amboy. It is in essence a rewrite of the article she wrote in the Ledger a week or two earlier.
Again, in it, several cases of egregious conduct by teachers are cited and she bemoans the fact that tenure protected the teachers involved. Tom Moran holds her hand throughout the article portraying her as a champion of justice who was unable to fight the sinister, tenured teachers.
In the article, Caffery (“a spark plug of energy” according to Moran) tells of teachers arriving at work “so high on drugs that the kids could spot it a mile away”, “so incompetent”, “terrifying kids”, and “washing out a child’s mouth with soap”. None of these teachers can be removed according to Caffery, why not - tenure! “Get rid of it altogether” she proclaims.
“I don’t understand why people who work in public schools have greater rights and protections than other people” she says. I think Superintendent Caffery should review the history of education to find out and maybe she might find that it is to protect teachers from people like herself.
I was the Grievance Chairman for fifteen years at the school system in which I worked. I was privy to many situations within the district (of about four to five hundred staff members) and never did I encounter such problems as does Caffery. Maybe it was luck on my part or maybe something else on her part?
Additionally, I noticed throughout the article, Moran never inquires of anyone, except Caffery about all these incidents. I suppose he assumes the “spark plug” has all the correct information that he needs in order to write his attack on teacher rights.
Oh, but then again, we don’t want to punish the “good” teachers only the “bad” teachers by denying tenure to all teachers!
Lastly, the article claims that removing a tenured teacher costs up to $200K and that’s a prime reason to eliminate tenure. Where does that $200K go? Into the pockets of lawyers representing both sides. Maybe, instead of just eliminating tenure, a cap on legal fees spent by both the BOE and accused teacher during a tenure charge hearing would be a better solution.
But wait! Do you think the legal community would go for that? We can’t offend them. They pretty much run State government (and the NJDOE). It’s much easier to end tenure. Teachers will complain but they don’t have nearly the wherewithal (nor the gumption) of the lawyers to fight back. Teachers are a much easier target!

I Tried to Restrain Myself But I Just Couldn't!

I was going to give everybody a rest and not write anything today, that is, until I read the Star Ledger editorial page. Then I just couldn’t help myself.
Here we go again, more “experts” with official titles from official sounding organizations all telling how the educational system should be overhauled to “benefit the children”.
The editorial was written by Mike Lilley, “Executive Director” of “Better Education for New Jersey Kids” and Tim Melton “Vice President for Legislative Affairs” at “Students Firsts”. Now who could argue with those bearing such lofty credentials from organizations with such prestigious sounding names?
The thrust of the article was, as is usual, an appeal to “reform” tenure, eliminate seniority and impose a new set of evaluation standards. All of these reforms are supposedly designed to eliminate poor teachers.
In my opinion, they are designed to place teacher employment at the whim of administrators, BOE members and politicians and to save money by enabling the elimination of the highest paid staff.
If we are really just concerned about removing poor teachers why do we propose to reduce job security for the vast majority of good teachers in so doing?
Additionally, with the loss of employment rights and the continual berating of the teaching professional how can we possibly expect the “best and brightest” to enter the field? (Anyone who enters teaching in the current environment certainly can’t be that bright!)
Also, how can we expect children to respect teachers when they are constantly portrayed as poor and lazy and not deserving of job security? (Believe it or not, in spite of all the poor teaching, most children can read the newspapers!)
Lastly, at the risk of being called racist, I would like to point out that it is widely accepted that Asian students are “smarter” than the rest (It’s either that or they never have had any poor teachers).
I disagree! My experience with those students is that they, as a group, are no smarter or duller than any other group.
Here’s the difference, they by in large, have a home life that involves respect for education and teachers. Poor efforts by the student are not tolerated. When the child does poorly, the teacher is not blamed, the child is encouraged to work harder (might I add, strongly encouraged).
Until the same mentality is adopted by the majority of American parents, no tinkering, teacher bashing, tenure “reform” or evaluation schemes will enhance learning in our public schools.