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The Star Ledger has already rescinded its supporting editorial for Governor Bridgegate.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?

Pre Election Current Events Quiz

                 Who said this and when did he said it ?

Teachers Are Threatened With the Loss of Something They No Longer Have ??

"That’s why we organize ourselves to fight for our profession"
When NJEA supported the de facto elimination of the tenure law I don't see it as "fighting for our profession".
In the 70s this kind of thing would have been met with walk outs, picket lines and strikes. Today it's met with conciliation, sappy TV ads and cowering.

I read recently that NJEA spends the most of any organization on lobbying in Trenton. It surely doesn't appear that the money is well spent if the new "Elimination of Tenure Law" is the result !

For those of you who worked in at NHS, does the name "Presuto" ring a familiar bell ???

I've Got Lots of Questions??

I've got lots of questions for our editor. 

* How many principals and administrators have obtained their positions not by superior teaching abilities but instead through relatives and friends with political connections? 

** How naive can this editor be. How many people have you known who got on the "wrong side" of an administrator and then "paid the price"?

*** Since when has education become an athletic competition?

**** Compensation - yes! But also how about - low status, constant public criticism and degradation, being deluged with mandates and dictates by the DOE, being observed and critiqued by those with little or knowledge of the subject matter, seeing "pension reform" stealing their future, observing the cry of politicians to end seniority and any semblance of job security, being held responsible for a student's unwillingness to participate in the learning process, lack of meaningful discipline measures by the administration, confrontations with parents with little or no backup by administrators and last but not least, a bleak outlook for the teaching profession as whole?

I am sure that there is much more that I have failed to mention.  

Maybe you would like to fill the blanks? 

***** "a career ladder" - what does that mean and to whom will it be available?

Will it be attained primarily by those who follow the same "career path" as the administrators I mentioned in the first sentence?  

Tenure - An Educational Football

Several years ago, tenure for school superintendents was revoked in New Jersey. It was replaced with limited contracts, usually about five years in length. Additionally, last year superintendent’s salaries statewide were capped at $175,000. Also, there has been much talk of hiring persons with no educational credentials but with “managerial experience” to fill the role of superintendent.
As a result, the elimination of tenure has forced many superintendents to become even more obliging handmaidens of any BOE member or local politician who may potentially influence the granting of a future contract. The days of superintendents acting on their own moral and educational principles are rapidly fading or in many cases have faded.
Additionally, many experienced superintendents have retired in New Jersey and headed for adjacent states seeking better paying positions (while simultaneously collecting New Jersey pensions).
The reason I am writing about these developments arises from two recently published news stories.
The first was written today on the Star Ledger editor page by the superintendent of Perth Amboy Public Schools. It is entitled – “Superintendent Laments the Toll Tenure Takes”.
In the piece, Superintendent Janine Walker Caffery tells of how tenure protects poor teachers who have committed a wide variety of inappropriate acts. She goes on to cite the cost of removing a tenured teacher to be $100,000 and three years. Of course, she prefaces these statements by giving the obligatory “most New Jersey teachers are honest, hardworking people of great integrity”.
(I think she and many others feel that a few hollow accolades will suffice for a reduction in salaries, rescinding of worker rights, loss of job security and lack of respect)
I have questions about Superintendent Caffery’s statements and motives.
Firstly, does her lament of tenure arise from her no longer having it or from sincere concern about poor teaching? (If she is really concerned about poor teaching maybe she should address the teaching that goes on – or doesn’t go on – in many college classes )
Secondly, could an article such as this further her standing with those holding her next contract in hand?
Thirdly, should firing a person from a long held position be easy in any circumstance?
Fourthly, why does it cost $100,000 to advance tenure charges against a teacher? Where does all that money go? Possibly to lawyer’s fees?
Why not address the outrageous legal fees paid by Boards of Education every year and not just those for tenure cases? Maybe spending for legal services by local Boards should have been capped along with superintendent’s salaries?
Now let’s address the second article which prompted me to write this diatribe.
Nine members of the Wayne Hills Football team were arrested for assaulting two Wayne Valley students and leaving one of them unconscious.
Initially, no disciplinary action was taken by Wayne’s superintendent and the players were not suspended from the championship game that was to be played on the following weekend. After an outcry from the public, the superintendent then announced that they would be suspended. Finally, after a BOE meeting was attended by the team and their parents the players were reinstated and allowed to play. (The superintendent did more flip flopping than Mitt Romney and John Kerry combined).
Why all the back and forth? I think it is obvious that here again the superintendent felt compelled to act in behalf of the interests which would serve him best. The superintendent is an interim and maybe he would like a full time contract? Even if he weren’t an interim, the lack of tenure I am sure would have influenced his decision(s) just as it did now.
If superintendents without job security can be pressed to act in any way desired by one or a group of influential people, how do you think a lowly teacher would be forced to act without the protection of tenure? (Many are even now with tenure by threats of transfer, increment withholding, etc.)
Would all the children of BOE members suddenly become scholars? Would the children of local politicians become much brighter? Would discipline measures regarding the children of “connected” people become lax or maybe non-existent ?
What do you think?

PS
Now I read that the Wayne Hills BOE decision is that they do not play? It appears that educational decisions depend not on principle but upon which way the wind is blowing and how strongly! What a surprise!

Unethical Ethics

I was elected to the Nutley Board of Education in 2007 and served a three year term. As a member of the BOE I was obliged to endure a yearly ethics training session presented by New Jersey School Boards Association.

            The presenter gave a complete discussion of the plethora of rules and regulations regarding BOE ethics. Now don’t get me wrong, I do think Board members should engage in ethical practices and ethical practices only, but it was the answer to my question at the end of the session that really irritated me. I have to say that I thought I knew the answer before I asked but I just had to ask anyway.

            I raised my hand and asked, “Do all these ethics procedures and regulations also apply to State Legislators, that is, State Assemblymen and State Senators?”

            There was a brief pause and then the answer which I had expected, “No!”.

            I said no more but I certainly did think about it a lot.

            I was watching 60 Minutes last Sunday and a piece about insider stock trading by Congressmen was shown. It immediately reminded me of the ethics rules situation I had encountered while on the BOE. 

Why? Because it seems that insider trading by Federal Legislators is perfectly ethical and not illegal based on the laws that are passed and applied to Congressman and their staff.

Meanwhile the commoners are subjected to strict prohibition from even a hint of  this activity (which well they should).

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

            Is it unethical to apply stringent ethics regulations to others and not yourself?

What do you think?

Let's "Reform Tenure" and Keep Only the "Best Teachers"?

I read several articles today in the paper about tenure "reform". In general they want tenure to be renewed after a specified period (5 years or so) based on a variety of factors, most often the opinions of administrators.

  What this really means is that any teacher who gives poor grades to the wrong student (children of BOE members, prominent citizens or politicians, etc.) can look forward to losing tenure.

  Any teacher who stands up to an administrator (rightly or wrongly) can look forward to losing tenure.

  Any teacher who  teaches in an area were a connected person has a credential to teach in that area and needs a job, can look forward to losing tenure.

  Any teacher who has reached the top of the pay scale in an area were there are many job applicants can look forward to losing tenure.

  Any teacher whose politics doesn't align with those of his superiors can look forward to losing tenure.

  Any teacher who does not kiss ass on a regular basis can look forward to losing tenure.

"Tenure reform" are simply key words for firing teachers making a decent living and replacing them with lower pay help, opening the door for patronage even wider, insuring that children of selected people always do well and ridding the system of any descent what so ever.

What do you think?