Maybe I Was Too Extreme in My Cynicism - Probably Not!

As you well know, I have frequently doubted the motives of the organizers of “education reform” groups such as B4Kids and Students First.

At times, after writing these articles,  I  began to question my own cynicism.

“Maybe I was being too extreme in my suspicions?”

Several days ago, the flyer below was sent to me.

Any trace of self-doubt has since disappeared!

******************************************** As you open your pocketbooks for the next natural disaster, please keep these facts in mind: The American Red Cross President and CEO Marsha J. Evans' salary for the year was $951,957 plus expenses.      The United Way President Brian Gallagher receives a $675,000 base salary along with numerous expense benefits. UNICEF CEO Caryl M. Stern receives $1,900,000 per year (158K) per month, plus all expenses including a ROLLS ROYCE. Less than 5 cents (4.4 cents) per donated dollar goes to the cause. ****************************************************** PS There are some worthy organizations however: The Salvation Army's Commissioner Todd Bassett receives a salary of only $13,000 per year (plus housing) for managing this $2 billion dollar organization. 96 percent of donated dollars go to the cause. The American Legion National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth! · The Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth! · The Disabled American Veterans National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.  Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth! · The Military Order of Purple Hearts National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.  Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth! · The Vietnam Veterans Association National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.  Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!   Please share this with everyone you can.

Tenure Reform -Cutting Higher-Paid Teachers

I found this article on the Internet.

Mr. Krausser is right "on the money"

Tenure reform is all about cutting higher-paid teachers
6:52 PM, Mar. 23, 2012 - Asbury Park Press

Gov. Chris Christie’s tenure reform is really all about money. Any type of tenure revision will allow administrators to remove seasoned teachers, who make the highest salaries*

This type of age discrimination will result in having millions of extra dollars in local and state budgets. This money will not be given back to the taxpayer. It will allow politicians to have even more money to use on pet projects.

This is the reason tenure reform is getting bipartisan support. Both Democrats and Republicans will have a field day spending taxpayer money.

Remember, for more than 15 years, both parties raided the teacher pension fund. Now that there is no money left, they have to find another way to take from the middle class.

In the interim, public schools will deteriorate because young, high-quality teachers will leave the profession, knowing that after working for 10 years they will be out the door. Tenure reform also will result in many age-discrimination lawsuits against boards of education, which is just what we don’t need in this state.

If Christie really wanted to improve education, he would introduce legislation that requires administrators to spend 10 years in the classroom as a teacher. Most administrators are teachers who couldn’t teach but had political connections.

The biggest problem in education is the lack of leadership in our public schools **.

Edward M. Krausser

Wall


*Let me add that taxpayer's money will not be saved by cutting high paid teachers. Those "savings" will go into the pockets of the CEOs and highly paid executives that will run the private schools which are soon to replace today's public schools.
** Many of today's "educational leaders" are self proclaimed, well connected  "experts" with a good line of educational jargon and theory but little or no actual teaching experience.

And The Beat (Down) Goes On!

The definition of Tenure - Merrian Webster

: 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

********************

I read in the Ledger again today about the Governor's plan to “reform” tenure. I decided to lookup the exact meaning of the word. 

Based on that definition it appears to me that  the tenure “reform” plan is not to “reform” tenure but instead to eliminate it.

Awarding five year contracts is not at all tenure as it is defined.

“Reform” evidently means to allow the awarding of consecutive, short term contracts granted at the employer's whim. That certainly is not cited in the definition of “tenure”.

The Ledger went on to praise the Newark School Superintendent (Cami  Anderson) for her removing eighty “poorly performing” teachers from the classroom.

It described her anguish regarding tenure in that she was unable to readily dismiss “poorly performing” teachers.

And could  it be that some of her angst arises from the fact that she and all superintendents in New Jersey have lost tenure and therefore no one else should be tenured? I’m just asking!

Needless to say the Star-Ledger editor and she both fully support the elimination of  teacher tenure and seniority rights in New Jersey Public Schools.

I looked up some statistics pertaining to the Newark School System.

“Newark Public Schools, with 75 schools, 7,000 employees and a student population of 39,440, is the largest and one of the oldest school systems in New Jersey. Its origin dates back to 1676 and Barringer High School in Newark’s North Ward, is the third oldest public high school in the nation.”

A little fourth grade math tells me that eighty out of seven thousand is 1.1%.

So let me get this straight!

We should eliminate teachers rights for the 98.9% so as to enable the easy dismissal of the 1.1% of “poorly performing” teachers?

Let's pretend I was teaching a class and 1.1% of the children failed a test. Should I then justifiably punish the entire class for the poor performance of those few? 

Do you think I might be called to the principal’s office if I did?

Suppose I were to tell him that I punished everyone because just punishing the 1.1% was far too difficult for me to do? How do you think that excuse would work?

I'm sure you get my point.

The straw man issue of the expense and difficult of removing “poor performing” tenured staff which is constantly cited as justification for “tenure reform”.  Please take a moment to read my article of Sunday, February 19, 2012  - “$100,000 Questions About Tenure” (which I have added below) and you will see what I mean.

Teachers have spent fifty years, legitimately building the profession into one with a modicum of respect, decent wages and benefits. Now within just a few years those gains are being er
oded and destroyed, all without protest.

In spite of the Governor's claim of a powerful NJEA, it has done little in response to the current attack on teachers. The union has been docile and completely ineffectual at best.

Trust me, all this is a guise to lay the ground work for the complete privatization of public education in New Jersey and throughout the country.

The loss of tenure and seniority will further weaken and destroy what is left of the teaching profession.

 When privatization is finally accomplished the corporations which will run the schools will then not have to deal with teacher rights and tenure issues. They will be able to hire and fire at will, pay low wages and reap great rewards for themselves and their executives.

*************

$100,000 Questions About Tenure

The constant cry from those wishing to eliminate tenure is that the cost of firing a tenured teacher is extreme (the claim is up to $100,000).

Why does it cost so much to remove a poorly performing, tenured teacher?

Because lawyers charge school districts exorbitant  fees in order to carry out the process.

Instead of ending tenure for all teachers, the majority of whom are doing well, why not limit the cost of firing the poor ones?

We should look at capping the outrageous legal fees that are paid by school systems each year.

The State is certainly very good at capping all other aspects of school district spending why not cap these?

If this was done, some questions might arise.

Would lawyers take tenure cases filed by school districts at reduced fees?

Last year,  New Jersey admitted 3037 lawyers to the Bar. Estimated job openings were 844 leaving a surplus of  2193 . The median wage for New Jersey lawyers is $43.84 per hour. *

If the law of supply and demand works, it should be easy to hire lawyers to pursue these actions.

Another question might then be, would districts be able to obtain the “best” lawyers if legal costs were capped?

Well, if the charges brought against an individual are valid and well documented, I don't think districts need Johnny Cochran to win the case!

Another cost saving measure might be, having the State hiring a group of salaried lawyers to be leased to school districts at  nominal rates. These lawyers could then pursue tenure charge cases instead of having districts spend outlandish sums by hiring independent law firms.

If the real motivation behind ending tenure is only so that “poor” teachers can be fired without huge cost why not investigate these alternatives?

(My own opinion, this is not the real motivation for the elimination of tenure.)

PS

Does anyone really think that the Governor (who is a lawyer) and the legislature (which is in majority composed of lawyers) would ever even suggest much entertain these types of action?

It's much easier and more fun to beat up on teachers!

* http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/

Education Reform in New Jersey 2012

I just got a look at Governor Christie's Education Reform Plan guide lines for 2012.
Here they are:
(1) Teachers each day will fill lamps, clean chimneys.
(2) Each teacher will bring a bucket of water and a scuttle of coal for the day’s session.
(3) Make your pens carefully. You may whittle nibs to the individual taste of the pupils.
(4) Men teachers may take one evening each week for courting purposes, or two evenings a week if they go to church.
(5) After ten hours in school, the teachers may spend the remaining time reading the Bible or other good books. (6) Every good teacher should lay aside from each pay a goodly sum of his earnings for his benefit during his declining years so that he will not be a burden on society. (don't count on the pension)
(7) Any teacher who smokes, uses liquor in any form, frequents pool or public halls, or gets shaved in a barber shop will give good reason to suspect his worth, intention, integrity, and honesty.
(8) The teacher who performs his labor faithfully and without fault for five years will be given an increase of twenty-five cents per week in his pay, providing the Board of Education approves. (at least it's not a wage freeze like last year!)
(9) Prepare for school events such as the popular Christmas pageant. Decide what to include in the program each year, teach each student what his or her part is and decorate the building for it.
(10) Bulletin boards in every room must display a large, (very large), flattering picture of the Governor. (that is if one can be found !)**
(11) A copy of “My Pet Goat” must be kept handy at all time in case the school comes under “Lock Down” while the Governor is visiting so that he may read it to the children.**
(12) To keep the school room neat and clean, you must:
-Sweep the floor at least once daily
-Scrub the floor at least once a week with hot, soapy water
-Clean the blackboards at least once a day
-Start the fire at 7 a.m. so the room will be warm by 8 a.m

The following is a list of additional rules for female teachers
(1) You will not marry during the term of your contract. You are not to keep company with men.
(2) You must be home between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. unless attending a school function.
(3) You may not loiter downtown in any ice cream stores.
(4) You may not travel beyond the city limits unless you have permission of the chairmen of the board (Frank Sinatra?)
(5) You may not smoke cigarettes.
(6) You may not under any circumstances dye your hair.
(7) You may not dress in bright colors.
(8) You may not ride in a carriage or automobile with any man unless he be your father or brother.
(9) You must wear at least two petticoats.
(10) Your dresses must not be any shorter than 2 inches above the ankles.
(11) Women teachers who marry or engage in unseemly conduct will be dismissed.
(12) Women teachers must carry an aspirin tablet with them at all times.**

*Raymond Bial’s One-Room School (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999 - **with some of my embellishments)
The good old days of teaching!
If teachers don't stand up and fight back, they may return sooner than you think!

The Power of Observation

  I was reading an article in the Ledger the other day entitled, “Rutgers to Grade Teacher Evaluations”. It described how a “team” headed by William Firestone, professor of education at Rutgers and the “principal investigator” will evaluate teachers based half on classroom observations and half on how much progress students show. Teachers will then be graded as “ineffective” to “highly effective”.
  It went on to say “A bill before the Legislature proposes that the new ratings be used as a major factor in determining which teachers receive or lose lifetime tenure and who would be the first to go in the case of layoffs”. (In other words – eliminate tenure and seniority rights.)
  Upon reading this piece I began to reminisce back to my teaching and even my college days. I even recalled some of the incidents that were reported to me by my own children during their college days.   Several things jumped into mind. Firstly, I remembered my son enrolled in classes RU “taught” by instructors you could not speak intelligible English. Were these teachers at RU ever observed and evaluated the Rutgers “team”? Maybe the Rutgers “team” should look into these situations right in their own backyard before they venture out to evaluate the teachers in NJ public schools.
  Additionally, as I recall (of course from many years ago), the education courses that I had to endure were some of the most poorly taught and uninformative of all. I wonder if they still hold that dubious distinction today.
  Lastly, I remember a fact about teacher observations that has always perplexed me. It is the overreaching authority of supervisors to observe any teacher in any subject area, carte blanche. Knowledge of the material is evidently unnecessary in order to make a decision as to the quality of the instruction!
  I really can’t figure out how they can do it!
  I could never imagine myself evaluating a teacher in - say - a French class? I can’t even read a French Restaurant Menu!

What Next?

I received this article last week from a friend just as I was about to attempt to compile a list of my own. Thanks Joe!

******************
Our overburdened Schools

By Jamie Robert Vollmer

America's public schools can be traced back to 1647.Massachusetts Puritans assumed that families and churches bore the major responsibility for raising children, but they established schools to teach basic reading, writing, and arithmetic and to cultivate values. Science and geography were added later, but the curriculum remained focused for 260 years. Then, at the beginning of the 20th century, society started assigning additional responsibilities to the schools—a trend that has accelerated ever since:
From 1900 to 1910, we added nutrition, immunization, and health to the list of school responsibilities.
Then, between 1910 and 1930, we added the practical arts; physical education, including organized athletics; vocational education, including home economics and agricultural education; and school transportation.

In the 1940s, we added:
* Business education
* Art and music
* Speech and drama Half-day kindergarten. School lunch programs also appeared. We take this for granted today, but it was a significant step for schools to take on the job of feeding America's children one-third of their daily meals.
In the 1950s, we added: an Expanded science and math education
* Safety education
* Driver's education
* Foreign language requirements were strengthened, and sex education was introduced.

In the 1960s, we added:
*Advanced Placement programs m Head Start
* Title I
* Adult education
*Consumer education
* Career education
* Peace, leisure, and recreation education.

In the 1970s, we added:
* Special education
* Title IX programs
* Drug and alcohol abuse education
* Par
ent education
*Behavior adjustment classes
*Character education
* Environmental education
*Women's studies
* African-American history.
* School breakfast programs also were instituted, which means that some schools now feed children two of their three daily meals. Sadly, these are the only decent meals some children receive.
* Prime Start
* Full-day kindergarten
* Preschool programs for at-risk children
* After-school programs * Alternative education
* Stranger/danger education
* Anti-smoking education
* Sexual abuse prevention education.
* Health and psychological services also were expanded, and child abuse monitoring became a legal requirement for all teachers.

In the 1980s, we added.
* Keyboarding and computer education
* Global education
* Ethnic education
* Multicultural/nonsexist education
* English as a Second Language/ bilingual education
* Teen pregnancy awareness * Hispanic heritage education
*Early childhood education

In the 1990s, we added:
* Conflict resolution and peer mediation HIV AIDS education
*CPR training *Death education * Expanded computer and Internet education
* Inclusion
* Tech prep and school-to-work programs
* Gang education
* Bus safety, bicycle safety, gun safety, and water safety education.

In the first years of the 21st century we have superimposed on our overburdened schools a new layer of high:-stakes, politically charged, standardized tests. And in most states we have not added a single, to the school calendar in five decades. All of these added responsibilities have merit, but the schools cannot take all of them on alone. School boards must facilitate conversations in their communities to answer two essential questions: What do we want our children to know and be able to do -when they graduate? And how can our schools and our entire community be organized to make sure all children reach those goals? The bottom line: Schools cannot raise America's children.

Jamie Robert Vollmer (jamie@jamjevollrner.com), a former business executive and attorney, is a motivational speaker and consultant on increasing community support for public schools.

  ******************

Let me add some of  the latest burdens to be placed upon the back of New Jersey Public Schools.
The first,of course, is the anti-bully legislation (an unfunded mandate, of course) which requires schools to make in many cases extremely subjective determinations and then act upon them. Failure to do so can result in severe consequences for administrators and/or teachers.


"Administrators who do not investigate reported incidents of bullying would be disciplined, while students who bully could be suspended or expelled. School employees would also be required to report all incidents they learn of, whether they took place in or outside of school."- www.nj.com.


I would guess, based on the preceding unlined phrase, that even idle, teenage gossip, overheard in a classroom or hallway must be reported? 
So it seems that teachers must be constantly vigilant to overhear any and all utterances that might suggest bullying or else be held liable.
Additionally, an article recently appeared in the daily paper, indicating that the schools may be required to discipline students for out-of-school inappropriate behaviors?
I wonder how the parents of these children will respond. Will it be like the response which occurred at Wayne Hills  when the disciplining of the misbehaving football team was attempted?
I really have no problem with the intent of all these programs and their dictates but I certainly do question the continual burdening of the schools and then the deafening cries that schools are not doing their job!

Learning By Example

I guess "Anti-bullying" Laws aren't for everyone!



“All pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than others”
    Animal Farm – George Orwell

Enough is Enough - Really?

We can always make room for more!

I was reading an editorial in the Ledger last week about the blocking of Christopher Cerf’s appointment as New Jersey Commissioner of Education by State Senator Ronald Rice. It cited Rice’s reason for stopping Cerf’s appointment as believing “Cerf is at the center of a conspiracy by hedge fund managers, like David Tepper of Appaloosa Management in Short Hills, to take over public education and turn it to private gain”.

I was certainly glad to see that it is not only I who is suspicious of the “education reform” movement but also someone else like Senator Rice who could act to at least slow its insidious progression.
Then the editorial continues on to demean anyone who could possibly believe Rice’s suppositions to be correct. “No one who is firmly based on the planet Earth believes that nonsense. Tepper is worth about $6 billion and his engagement in education reform is charity work. Does Rice really believe Tepper would need to engage in the mess of Jersey politics to earn a few more bucks?” it says.
Well, I think Rice probably does believe that he would (and so do I) and it is and not necessarily for a “few more bucks”. The current expenditures for education in New Jersey is surely not just a “few bucks”.
If the logic of the editorial suggests that Mr. Tepper is disinterested in making more money just because he now has so much, the question becomes, at what point in his accumulation of wealth did he lose interest in accumulating more? One billion would certainly be enough to satisfy me but evidently not Mr. Tepper because he apparently continued on to amass two billion. Then, I must assume that two billion was insufficient to satisfy his greed (I use this word since our Governor feels it’s OK to use it in reference to teacher’s salaries) since he went on the obtain a third billion and on finally to six billion.
So now I guess the Ledger editor has read the mind of Mr. Tepper and has determined that six billion is the cut off point for his desire to make more money! It must be grand to be able to peer into other people’spsyches and read their thoughts, motivations and desire
                                                                                       as does our editor.

Interestingly enough, a follow up editorial a day or two later seems to emphasize my point. It was about the climate change debate. Here is the excerpt that I found most interesting. “the oil-rich Koch brothers (who have backed climate-denier Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign) donated $200,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 and had given before. Their involvement supports the belief that the Heartland Institute is a shill for oil companies that have a huge profit motive in dirty fossil fuels”.
If memory serves me correctly, the Kochs have even more than six billion in their coffers. Using the logic applied to Tepper’s involvement in NJ “education reform” why would the Ledger ever think that the Kochs would want to make even more money?
All I can figure from this is it must be fuzzy thinking or selective naiveté on the part of the Star-Ledger editor. Or could it be something else? 

Who’sFirst?

Here we go again! Another message from “Students First” and, of course, a “Donate” click box included. Once again I replied asking why my previous inquires about executive compensation at “Students First:” was ignored. Finally realizing that my requests were in vain, I did a little research about the head honcho, Michele Rhee. My findings are contained in an article which I have inserted below the attached flyer. It gives me the suspicion that maybe “Students First” should be renamed “Michele and Executives First”.

PS
My suspicions are not reserved for "Students First". There are now organizations that proclaim to be promoting quality education crawling out of the woodwork. Many are fostered by big money interests and education "experts".
Is altruism the real motivation? Maybe, but I'm not so sure!

******************************************************************************

****************************************************************************** Guess Michelle Rhee’s Severance Pay! (Hint: It’s Not Too Shabby) Posted by Alan Suderman on Oct. 13, 2010 at 6:31 pm Admit it, you're curious about how much Michelle Rhee's severance paycheck will be, aren't you? That's so rude. Fortunately for you, LL is also rude. Here's what her contract (provided by a wonderful tipster) says: You shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and may be removed in accordance with the Act. In the event that your employment is terminated for any reasons other than (i) criminal conduct, (ii) gross dereliction of duty or (iii) gross misconduct, you shall be entitled to a severance payment of up to 12 weeks of your base salary, plus any accrued leave, as well as an additional 12 weeks of administrative leave. Additionally, should you choose to terminate your appointment for good cause, you will receive a payment of up to 12 weeks of your base salary, plus any accrued leave, as well as an additional 12 weeks of administrative leave. LL's no lawyer, but that looks like Rhee can get 24 weeks, also known as six months, of severance pay for leaving "for good cause," whatever that means. (It's hard to imagine Rhee didn't ensure her departure falls under that clause when she discussed it with Almost Mayor Vince Gray and Still Mayor Adrian Fenty.) Her contract, which she signed in 2007, has a base pay of $275,000 plus yearly cost-of-living adjustments. So, for six months' pay, we're talking roughly $140,000 in severance, plus whatever leave she's built up. LL has tried unsuccessfully to reach various city officials who can provide an authoritative amount, but hasn't gotten much of an answer. (Fenty spokeswoman Mafara Hobson says this: "I don't know that she gets a severance.") LL will update as needed.

$100,000 Questions About Tenure

The constant cry from those wishing to eliminate tenure is that the cost of firing a tenured teacher is extreme (the claim is up to $100,000).
Why does it cost so much to remove a poorly performing, tenured teacher?
Because lawyers charge school districts exorbitant fees in order to carry out the process.
Instead of ending tenure for all teachers, the majority of whom are doing well, why not limit the cost of firing the poor ones?
We should look at capping the outrageous legal fees that are paid by school systems each year.
The State is certainly very good at capping all other aspects of school district spending why not cap these?
If this was done, some questions might arise. Would lawyers take tenure cases filed by school districts at reduced fees?
Last year, New Jersey admitted 3037 lawyers to the Bar. Estimated job openings were 844 leaving a surplus of 2193 . The median wage for New Jersey lawyers is $43.84 per hour. *
If the law of supply and demand works as claimed, it should be easy to hire lawyers to pursue these actions.
Another question might then be, would districts be able to obtain the “best” lawyers if legal costs were capped?
Well, if the charges brought against an individual are valid and well documented, I don’t think districts need Johnny Cochran to win the case!
Another cost saving measure might be, having the State hiring a group of salaried lawyers to be leased to school districts at nominal rates. These lawyers could then pursue tenure charge cases instead of having districts spend outlandish sums by hiring independent law firms.
If the real motivation behind ending tenure is only so that “poor” teachers can be fired without huge cost why not investigate these alternatives? (My own opinion, this is not the real motivation for the elimination of tenure.)

PS
Does anyone really think that the Governor (who is a lawyer) and the legislature (which is in majority composed of lawyers) would ever even suggest much entertain these types of actions?
I guess he thinks it's much easier and it's  more fun beating up on teachers! (and it probably is).

PSS
I see today in the Ledger, Tom Moran's column describes NJEA as "a union whose highest goal is to protect bad teachers". I guess he's referring to the union's resistance against eliminating tenure.
I'm not a big fan of NJEA but I certainly don't think that "protecting bad teachers" is their objective at all and I would doubt that "Tommy Boy" really believes that either!
And about Vince Giordano's salary, "it is a little over $300K! Yes, that's way too high for a union guy". Again, I'm not a fan of Giordano but who is Moran to decide that his salary is "way too high for a union guy"? The NJEA members should make that decision not Tom Moran.
I guess being involved with a union in any way, shape or form  means you deserve only poor salaries and poor benefits. The only people who deserve good salaries and benefits are in the "private sector"!
(By the way Tom, working for  NJEA is a private sector job!)

* http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/

Cooked Up Schemes and Catchy Titles

 I got to thinking about all the educational schemes that are constantly cooked up in Trenton, Washington and throughout the U.S. What really impresses me is not the results they yield but the grandiose sounding names that are dreamt up for these fruitless projects. The ability to continuously conjure up such pretentious titles (and of course, the catchy sounding acronyms) is astonishing especially in light of their constant failure to help improve the education of our children.
The Renaissance Act
The Urban Hope Act
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
The Race to the Top
The Quality Education Act (QEA)
Thorough and Efficient (T&E)
High School Proficiency (HSPT)
(HSPT9)
(HSTP11)
Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA)
Quality Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC) Comprehensive Education Improvement and Financing Act (CEIFA)
The School Funding Reform Act
The New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ ASK)
NJ ASK 3
NJ ASK4.
NJ ASK 3-8
Minimum Basic Skills testing program (MBS)
Early Warning Test (EWT)
Alternate Proficiency Assessment (APA)
Elementary School Proficiency Assessment (ESPA)
Core Curriculum Content Standards (CCCS)
Professional Improvement Plan (PIP)
None of these programs and tests occurred before the 1970s. Up to that time, education was left in the hands of local school boards and teachers.
The system must have worked quite well since during the that prior time a record number of people were graduated from high school and college, America remained and improved its position as a world economic power, we sent men to the moon, we instituted civil rights for all and we backed down the Soviet Union.
Not bad for a country with an inferior educational system that was seen to require all the remedies which have been proposed and imposed during the past forty years!
I can only think of a few reasons as to why such a plethora of dictates are constantly issued from the DOEs.
(1) it is an attempt to justify the positions of public officials and the executives in the DOE (public education has to be saved and they are the ones who will do it)
(2) the state no longer trusts local school boards and teachers to provide the best possible education for their children (even though they did so for decades prior)
(3) the state feels that local school boards and teachers are incapable of providing sound education (even though they did so for decades prior)
(4) teacher's salaries have become too high and we need justification to lower them
(5) politicians will be able to better promote the privatization of public schools thereby allowing select individuals and corporations to reap the rewards
(6) maybe they really do think that education can be improved by the myriad of programs and proposals. I would like to think that this is their motive so that I might view them as being misguided rather than sinister - but I’m not so sure this is the case?
What do you think?

PS
I have contacted the NJDOE and asked who constructs and publishes the aforementioned tests (and is well paid with taxpayer money I am sure). Of course, once again, no one was there to answer my questions. “They will call back” was the reply from the secretary.
I left my number and email address.
So far, I have received the same reply as that from “Students First” – NONE!

Tenure - Going, Going, Gone!

       I read another editorial in the Ledger today about a new great savior of the Newark Public School system, Cami Anderson. “Cami Anderson sees her job as helping all kids in Newark to learn, charter schools are not a threat, they are a help” she is quoted.
My question is “help” to do what?
Maybe “help” to gain ground in the efforts to privatize the New Jersey Public School System?
Additionally, the editorial goes on to tell how she has placed a hundred staffers in an “excess labor pool” because of their poor performance and how she can’t fire them due to tenure laws.
When I read this several questions arose.
I know that it is not good to have poorly performing anybody in any job but should tenure for the vast majority be eliminated for the sins of a tiny minority?
I looked up the statistics pertaining to the Newark School System. It employs 108,591 full time teachers. One hundred therefore represents 0.092%.
Another question is, did these poorly performing people receive unsatisfactory evaluations in the past from the well performing administrators who supervised them? If not, then maybe the administrators who are said to be performing well really weren’t performing that well after all.
Were any increments withheld in these prior years? Tenure charges are not required to allow increment withholding and costs the district almost nothing except possibly the costs to respond to a grievance filing by the teacher.
I also decided to look at the biography of Ms. Anderson. I found that she has excellent credentials however when I noticed her actual teaching experience, it was very disappointing. It appears that she has taught a mere two years (1993 – 1995) in California. It seems to me that this is another case of those who really haven’t done the job are assigned to tell others how to do it! I guess it plays right into the Christie proposal of allowing those with no teaching experience but having “managerial experience” (maybe even managing a Wendy’s) to be appointed as superintendents.*
As I was searching the Internet for information pertaining to this article, I happened to notice some other interesting facts relating to tenure and its elimination.
Tenure was originally established to prevent the kind of thing that will surely occur if it is eliminated and public schools are privatized.
“Tenure emerged in response to the spoils system in public schooling, under which teachers were hired (and fired) as a consequence of the political process rather than their competence or fit. Advocates intended it to be part of teachers’ total compensation, helping to attract and retain teachers by making up for relatively low starting salaries and back-loaded pension benefits through long-term job stability.”
I also discovered other interesting statements and facts. The well publicized documentary (or should I call psuedo documentary after reading the facts) called “Waiting For Superman”, made numerous erroneous statements about teaching and tenure that those who seek to eliminate tenure constantly cling to.
Here are some, " ...in Illinois, 1 in 57 doctors loses his or her medical license, and 1 in 97 attorneys loses his or her law license, but only 1 teacher in 2500 has ever lost his or her credentials."
“In reality, only 121 doctors lost their licenses in Illinois in 2009, out of 43,670 physicians, rather than 1 in 57, as the movie claims. That means an average of 0.3% of doctors per year lost their licenses; or 3 out 1,000 per year. And according to data reported by the American Bar Association, 26 lawyers in Illinois were disbarred in 2009, out of a total of 58,457 - in some cases, by mutual consent. The total number of lawyers disbarred in the entire country, either involuntarily or by mutual consent, is 800 per year out of 1,180,386; which is about .07%”**
To summarize, it appears that many who desire to place our educational system and its teachers in the hands of corporations and profitable companies are playing hard ball. They will go to any means necessary to disparage teachers and the teaching profession. Meanwhile teachers and teacher's unions chose to play Whiffle Ball!


* We do however unfortunately, have kind of a precedent for this. The previous NJ Commissioners of Education was a lawyer and I don’t believe had any public school teaching experience.

** Feedblitz.com

PS

With regard to Christie's latest tyrant about NJEA, here are some of my thoughts.
So eliminating tenure, starving the pension plan, eliminating benefits, firing well paid teachers so as to hire cheaper replacements and connected people, bashing teachers and privatizing schools so as to enrich corporations who will run the schools will cure the ills of "failing schools"?
Who the hell is he kidding. What a bunch of arrogant, ignorant  BS.
Is NJEA the best? Absolutely not! Why?
They don't have the courage to demand respect and call for a state wide strike! Instead they hide in their Trenton offices, put out sappy ads and engage in name calling. Name calling will never suffice for meaningful action.
As my mother used to say " If you're willing to take a lot of crap just wait, there's more coming."

Back to the Future

Back in the “old days” of teaching, the 1960s and 1970s, teachers and the teaching profession fought long and hard to gain bargaining rights and respect. Prior to that time, salary negotiations, employee grievances and teacher rights were unheard of issues.
Only by “stand up” tactics was the tide changed. Teacher strikes and the threat of strikes pervaded the state. Teachers stood tall and demanded respect and fair compensation and benefits. Some people went to jail rather than continue to work as second class citizens without benefits, equitable grievance procedures and a solid (but not extravagant) pension system.
Today, all that was fought for and attained in those bygone years is being lost with little or no outcry from those effected. I see no massive response from teachers and teacher's organizations, only the whimpers and whines that occasionally appear on the newspaper's Letters to the Editor page. Is the timid reaction a tacit approval of “education reform” measures taken by the state or is it just pervasive apathy?
They say that it is impossible to relive the past but without a loud, forceful rebuttal teachers and the teaching profession will soon do so.
I am sure that some might say, “they only raised health care contributions a few percent, it's not so bad, we can afford it”.
I am sure that some might say, “they raised the retirement age but I'm far from that and I'll worry about it then, not now”.
I am sure that some might say, “they increased the denominator for pensions but again, I'm far from that and I'll worry about it then, not now”.
I am sure that some might say, “they eliminated the C.O.L.A. from the pension, but I'm far from that and I'll worry about it then, not now”.
I am sure that some might say, “they under-funded the pension and are still not contributing, but I'm far from that and I'll worry about it then, not now”.
They severely capped school spending and the chances of maintaining a decent wage are slim but “I'll let the negotiators worry about that – it's their job!”.
They are creating more and more “private public schools” “but that's only in the urban areas and it won't effect me”.
They want to institute “merit pay” but “that won't effect me (unless a connected person wants your job or you are at the top of the salary scale or you're on the administration's shit list) because I'm a good teacher and I would never get poor evaluations”.
They want to eliminate tenure but “I wouldn't be let go, I've been here for years with a good record” (see the previous sentence).
They want to end seniority (LIFO) but “I wouldn't be replaced by a younger, lower paid teacher. I'm a good teacher and they know it!” (again, see the previous sentences).
Now, you might ask “why do you care? You've been retired for years and most of these factors don't effect you at all!”
Well, here's why. I was seriously involved in improving the plight of the teaching profession for many years and I find it difficult to see all the hard work done by myself and many others go “down the drain”. Additionally, when people ask me about my career I want to be able to proudly proclaim that I was a public school teacher without fearing that I would be viewed as having been one of a group which demands little respect and is willing to continually suffer degradation and humiliation without protest.

Distortion or Incompetency? You Decide

I was sent this article by a of TDS viewer. It was originally posted at:

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2012/01/once-again-tom-moran-doesnt-do-his-job.html? spref=tw

It is definitely worth reading. I’m not sure if it suggests that the media or at least some in the media purposefully choose to help bolster the Governor’s education “reform” plan by distorting the facts or if it merely reflects editorial in competency. I’ll leave it to you to decide.

Below the article I have listed a link to a video that I am sure you will find enlightening. It clearly demonstrates the lengths to which those advocating education “reform” will go to achieve their goals (It’s also got some humor in it). Take a look! “
*******************************************************
"I will protect your pensions. Nothing about your pension is going to change when I am governor.” - Chris Christie, “An Open Letter to the Teachers of NJ” October, 2009 Sunday, January 29, 2012  

  Once Again, Tom Moran Doesn’t Do His Job I have tried - no, really, I have - to back off of Tom Moran and the editorial pages of the Star-Ledger. But I just can’t let this one pass: In a typically insouciant editorial about the problems with one of Chris Christie’s “reform” schemes, the S-L writes: But it’s not just school buildings that are needed. The instructional programs in the Camden schools are disastrous failures, too. At Camden Street Elementary, just 10 percent of third-graders read at grade level. At Camden High School, fewer than 17 percent of juniors are proficient in math. [emphasis mine]

  Here’s the problem: Camden Street Elementary is not in Camden. As the Camden City Public Schools website shows, there isn’t a school even remotely named Camden Street Elementary. (It took me all of 30 seconds to find this through Google, Tom). I happen to know that Camden Street Elementary is in Newark. Why? Because I wrote about how the school that was bad-mouthed by a child advocate group and the superintendent of Newark’s schools, Cami Anderson. And then Bruce Baker shared some further graphs about Camden Street Elementary, which really got me angry about how the staff was being treated publicly. 

  You see, Tom, Camden Street Elementary is a school whose specific mission is to serve children who have autism, cognitive disabilities, and behavioral disabilities: Branch Brook Elementary is the highest-performing elementary school in Newark; is it any wonder why Camden Street’s wonderful and deserving children don’t do as well as Branch Brook’s in standardized tests?
From the school’s website: Camden [Street Elementary]’s special needs program houses approximately two hundred students. These students live throughout the City of Newark, and are transported to Camden by bus. Opportunities for integrating classified students into a least restrictive environment are accomplished through inclusion and mainstreaming. Our goal is to meet the various needs of all. To accomplish this task, we provide students with whole group and individual learning experiences. Academic success is the mission of Camden Street Elementary School’s staff. The strategy used to achieve this goal is through high expectations and realistic goals. High expectations are communicated to the students by the teachers letting them know specifically what they are expected to learn, and that they can learn. [emphasis mine]
  So let’s review:
  Tom Moran wrote that Camden Street Elementary was in Camden; it is in Newark. Tom Moran bemoaned the poor showing of Camden Street’s third graders on standardized tests. Tom Moran showed no sign of knowing that Camden Street serves special needs students. This is lazy, indifferent, who-gives-a-s*** journalism that demeans the difficult work that both the educators in the City of Camden and the educators at Camden Street Elementary in Newark do every day .Moran owes them all an immediate correction

******************************************************************************

Video worth watching -

“Paid to protest?” video

http://www.wgntv.com/videogallery/67610540/News/paid-to-protest 

Starved to Death – It’s Just a Matter of Time

Each year for the past twenty years the New Jersey Pension Plan has been unfunded or under funded. This was done under both  Democratic and Republican administrations (it started with Whitman).

“For more than a decade, the state legislatures and governors of both parties have overridden a law requiring full payments.” -  NJ.Com. 
I think violated or disobeyed better describes what has happened than   “overridden”.

Now with the arrival of Christie the contributions to the plan are again inadequate (despite promises and laws requiring full funding). The article below shows the current condition as still severely under funded and anticipating much less than full future payments.

What does this all add up to for current workers and future retirees?

 I sincerely believe the next move will be an effort to destroy TPAF and PERS. Serious attempts will be made, (I think successful attempts)  in the not too distant future, to replace both with defined contribution plans. (401K plans with limited matching  by the State – probably very limited). This has become a common practice in the private sector and it will soon come to the public sector. The cry will again be “if it’s good for the private sector then it must also be good for the public sector as well”.  (The private sector with its highly paid executives and continual outsourcing are the epitome of  American archetype!).

The current condition of  the New Jersey Pension System is cheered  by those who seek its destruction. They will readily justify its demise by pointing to the current shortfall and continued under funding which they have created  and continue to create.

I think it’s just a matter of time, a short time!

************

Attachment: Ranking of Pension Funds by State

News 12 Website Article

New Jersey (STONJ1)’s pension fund has only two-thirds of the assets needed to pay future benefits, and the gap widened even as Governor Chris Christie boosted employee contributions and froze raises, according to state data.

The seven retirement funds covering government workers and teachers had a funded ratio of 67.5 percent as of June 30, down from 70.5 percent a year earlier, according to data released yesterday by the Division of Pensions and Benefits. The deficit swelled by $5.5 billion during the 12 months to $41.8 billion.

To address chronic shortfalls, Christie in June signed bills that raised pension and health-care expenses for public workers, increased the minimum retirement age for new employees to 65 from 62 and froze cost-of-living increases.

Without Christie’s changes, the deficit would have been $61.8 billion, Andrew Pratt, a spokesman for Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff, said in an interview. “We always planned for that,” he said. “This is no surprise.”

The so-called unfunded liability stood at $53.9 billion before passage of Christie’s plan. After approval, the gap was lowered to $36.3 billion based on revised 30-year projections, Pratt said.

A 2010 law required the state to begin phasing in the full payments over seven years after a decade of lapsed funding. Christie this year has budgeted $484 million for a pension payment, according to the Treasury Department. Actuaries had recommended the state put in $3 billion. Pratt said 20 years of underfunding “magnified” the problem.

Moody’s Investors Service said a day after the pension law was signed that it wouldn’t help New Jersey until 2017 and that the health of the funds would “continue to deteriorate” as the state skipped payments. A 2010 law required the state to begin phasing in the full payments over seven years.

New Jersey’s pensions in 2010 had 66 percent of what was needed to pay promised benefits, down from 71.7 percent in the preceding year, according to an annual study by Bloomberg Rankings. The median for all states was 74.6 percent.

Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?

Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer? by wsautter

Walt's Intro to Adding Audio Comments to TDS

Walts Intro to Voice Commenting on TDS by wsautter

Profitable Non-Profits (For Some!)

Well the day has come (and by the way, with the blessing of NJEA)

Copyright © 2010-2011, njSPOTLIGHT. All rights reserved.
Fast-Tracked and Rewritten Bill Could Put Some Public Schools Under Private Management
By John Mooney, January 4, 2012 in Education
First proposed by Gov. Chris Christie and since taken up by South Jersey Democrats, a plan that would open up select public schools to nonprofit or even some limited for-profit management appears poised for passage in the final days of the legislature's lame duck session.
And in the Star Ledger last week:


Now I got to thinking about the “non-profit” and “limited for-profit” qualifiers in the articles. I took the time to investigate the operation of one of the largest “non-profit”, educational entities in the country. Here’s what I discovered:
********
Corporate Culture and Big Pay Come to Nonprofit Testing Service
By TAMAR LEWIN
Published: November 23, 2002

Buoyed by growing revenue, the Educational Testing Service, the not-for-profit group that produces the SAT, the Advanced Placement exams and the Graduate Record Exams, last year gave one-time bonuses of as much as $366,000 to 15 of its officers.
E.T.S., the world's largest testing organization, has traditionally paid salaries comparable to those at colleges, universities, and groups like the College Board, which administers the tests that the service devises for it.
But under the leadership of Kurt Landgraf, a former chief operating officer of the DuPont Company who became president of E.T.S. two years ago, compensation has soared.
Mr. Landgraf himself received nearly $800,000 for his first 10 months on the job -- about twice as much as Gaston Caperton, who heads the College Board -- and more than all but two college presidents in the nation. One new vice president earned $25,700 for her first five weeks on the job and received a one-time payment of $212,306.
E.T.S. was founded in 1947 as a tax-exempt organization to meet the growing demand for admissions tests for colleges and graduate schools. In large part, the pay changes reflect the service's conversion from an entity staffed mostly by academics to one that is run by executives recruited from the corporate world and that had revenue of more than $700 million in the last fiscal year.
********
Sounds pretty profitable for the guys at the top, however for the average employee:
********
Average Educational Testing Service Salaries from http://www.simplyhired.com
“The average salary for educational testing service jobs is $53,000. Average educational testing service salaries can vary greatly due to company, location, industry, experience and benefits.”
********
It will be interesting to see if the same compensation pattern plays out at the newly created “non-profit” and “limited for profit” schools that are being created by the New Jersey Legislature and Governor.
I think you probably know my guess! What’s yours?

The King’s New Clothes

I read in the paper today an article about a recent “driving and texting” law. It immediately brought to mind a whole variety of thoughts.
The first reminded me of the “cell phone and driving” which has been in effect for some time now. As I drive around the state, I see person after person driving while holding a cell phone to his ear. I rarely see or hear of anyone being ticketed in spite of the enacted law.
Now, Trenton has decided to enact a “driving and texting” law. I wonder if it will be enforced in the same fashion as is the “driving while cell phoning ” law?
Enacting a law without enforcement is a waste of time and effort! It is akin to writing on the blackboard in a classroom full of students, “There will be no gum chewing in this class” and then allowing everyone to chew away without penalty! The teacher just wasted a piece of chalk!
The reasoning behind the enactment of the rarely enforced “driving and texting” and the “driving while cell phoning” is that they will help to prevent accidents, and that they will (if enforced). While all this legislation is being created in name of accident reduction, a major cause of highway accidents and death is ignored.
The continual promotion and sale of vehicles with four hundred horsepower engines, zero to sixty in five seconds capability and top speeds of one hundred and seventy miles per hour is never even mentioned as a primary cause highway mayhem. Why?
It is the “King’s New Clothes” mentality. Legislators certainly don’t want to offend citizens who eagerly buy these vehicles or the car companies who produce them. Surely requiring vehicles to be equipped with governors (speed controlling devices) would create an unprecedented uproar so instead they chose to ignore the situation and pass unforced “driving and texting” and “driving while cell phoning” laws. Both laws give the illusion of doing something about the accident problem without having to address the overriding unpopular issue of preventing the sales of cars without speed limiting devices.
Another “King’s New Clothes” issue can be found in Washington. Proposals to cut spending are constantly bandied about to the exclusion of cuts in military spending , the largest expenditure in the Federal Budget. Again our law makers ignore the obvious fact that cutting military spending will significantly help to balance the budget.
Now what has all this to do with education?
Well, the same “King’s New Clothes” mentality exists in the “educational reform” measures that are enacted in Trenton!
Legislators and the administration refuse to accept the fact that only a dramatic change in public attitude will provide a substantial cure for the problems plaguing education in New Jersey and America. Until the public becomes convinced that education and those who provide it are to be revered and aided in their efforts, educational success will continue to be illusive. Until parents strongly engage in the educational process with their children, little improvement can be expected.
Dare a politician suggest that a significant step to better education lies in the hands of the public? I think not! It might be considered offensive and is better left unsaid!
“Aren’t we paying taxes to have our children educated? Why should we have to participate? It’s the teacher’s job!” will be the outcry.
As a result, lawmakers ignore the fact that educating a child is not like buying a new suit. To have a good result everyone must be involved and not just show up to pay the bill.
So why then again, are none of these statements being voiced in Trenton? Again, it’s the “King’s New Clothes” mentality.
Instead, a constant flow of edicts spew from Trenton, course standards, testing requirements, hackneyed educational jargon and teacher bashing all designed to supposedly cure our educational ills. Meanwhile the major cure is ignored!
I suppose the next question is “Can education really be elevated to a revered status and if so how?” Certainly the array of laws and proposal flowing from Trenton haven’t done much in this effort.
However, if Lady Gaga, the NFL, MLB, Professional Wrestling, etc. have been able to propel themselves to the heights of public admiration and respect it shouldn’t be impossible for education to improve its public image. Like the aforementioned it can be accomplished with proper promotion and fortitude. The public view of education could be greatly enhanced and thereby the levels of achievement greatly improved if only a campaign to “sell” education was instituted instead of the constant tinkering and debasement which is now occurring.

Peering Into The Future For NJ Retirees