Tuesday, August 19, 2014

More Gratuitious Attacks on School Teachers

-- Posted by Neil H. Buchanan

A few weeks ago, Stephen Colbert interviewed someone named Campbell Brown.  I had never heard of Brown, but it turns out that she was formerly one of the interchangeable talking heads on those network morning shows, before moving on briefly to host her own low-rated show on CNN (which airs nothing but low-rated shows).  Brown appeared on Colbert to promote her new union-busting group (the funders of which she insistently refuses to name), putting a happy face on an anti-teacher-tenure lawsuit that her group has filed in New York State.

Brown probably assumed that she would get an easy ride on Colbert, expecting him to play the clown while she recited her talking points and smiled demurely.  Instead, Colbert proved that he has actually become an excellent interviewer, asking pointed questions and making trenchant comments that left Brown flat-footed.  (For example, when she tried to hide behind feel-good assertions that everything she is doing is "for the children," and some people in the audience applauded, Colbert said, " They’re going to clap because you’re playing the 'good for child' card.")

In some ways, the most amazing thing about the interview was the end, when Brown said, "I respect that," in describing her funders' refusal to be named publicly.   Colbert visibly stopped himself from attacking Brown directly, and instead said, "Well, I respect … you. I was trying to figure out who I will respect at this table, and there was no one left but you."  Ouch.  He then smiled and ended the interview. It was fascinating TV, available here.

Of course, Brown is merely one cog in a machine that is trying to end tenure for school teachers.  The latest output from that machine was an op-ed in today's New York Times by Frank Bruni, "The Trouble With Tenure."  Bruni completely buys into the idea that teacher tenure's only role is to prevent teachers from being fired for incompetence, not even bothering to give lip service to the idea that tenure might have some positive effects, like, say, protecting teachers from being fired for expressing unpopular political views. (By contrast, here is Colbert: "What if there’s someplace where the parents don’t want certain things taught to the kids? ‘Cause I’d love my kids not to be taught evolution.")

Bruni builds his story around a Democrat who helped pass a "2010 law that essentially abolished tenure in Colorado."  Making the story about a Democrat is important strategic choice for Bruni, who assures his readers that there are now "many Democrats defying teachers unions and joining the movement." Yes, jumping on a heavily-funded gravy train that attacks the beleaguered teachers union is now an act of grit and defiance!

On the substance, Bruni also accepts without question that principals and administrators are the heroes who could save the day, but that "traditional tenure deprived principals of the team-building discretion they needed."  Quoting the politician who sponsored the anti-tenure law in Colorado, Bruni writes: " 'Do you have people who all share the same vision and are willing to walk through the fire together?' he said. Principals with control over that coax better outcomes from students, he said."  This is beyond preposterous.  We knew that the Times op-ed page was filled with people who have no known expertise, but I thought that at least these guys were capable of committing journalism.  Maybe just a little bit of skepticism would have been in order.

Bruni allows that "[t]here are perils to the current tenure talk: that it fails to address the intense strains on many teachers; that it lays too much fault on their doorsteps, distracting people from other necessary reforms." But this stipulation only arrives after he allows his subject to re-frame the debate: "[I]t’s not the kids who are the problem! It’s the system."  So, when someone says that teachers are wrongly blamed for the effects of poverty, family breakdown, and so on, that apparently amounts to saying that "the kids are the problem."  And teachers thus do not deserve "job protections that most Americans can only fantasize about."  Right.  Why protect one of the few (and most important) job protections remaining in the U.S., given that we have allowed too many other people to become easy to fire?

Perhaps the most notable aspect of the column, however, is Bruni's description of the actual Colorado law that he admires so much: "To earn what is now called 'non-probationary status,' a new teacher must demonstrate student progress three years in a row, and any teacher whose students show no progress for two consecutive years loses his or her job protection."  This means that a brand-new teacher's (minimal) job protection is determined by "student progress" (presumably meaning increasing scores on standardized tests), and even experienced teachers can be canned if their students scores are unchanged for two years in a row.  Even if one thinks that there is some broad statistical connection between teacher "quality" and student "progress," that connection cannot possibly be so tight that even the best teachers could be confident that they would not be dealt a bad hand for two years in a row.

Yet Bruni wraps himself in the flag: "We need to pay good teachers much more. We need to wrap the great ones in the highest esteem. But we also need to separate the good and the great from the bad."  Great.  How are we going to do that?  Once everyone is "defying" the teachers unions, where is the pressure to pay teachers more going to come from?  Are the superman-principals who are getting people to "walk through fire together" never going to make decisions on illegitimate bases?

If we want to have a warts-and-all discussion about tenure, then we have to make the comparison meaningful, and think about the many imperfections in a system where teachers can be fired at will.  It is easy to describe an Eden in which enlightened administrators gallantly lead their properly motivated troops into battle.  But if people were that virtuous, then they would not succumb to the supposed evils of tenure in the first place.  Bruni is essentially saying, "Real-life tenure leads to less than perfect results, but fantasy-world non-tenure can be wonderful."

No one has yet designed an alternative to tenure (and unionized teachers) that actually makes matters better, for teachers and students, in a way that could be applied generally.  Until then, all this noise from people like Bruni is an excuse to sound concerned about children, while taking the easy way out and blaming the only group of people who are actually trying to deal with kids as they exist.  Teachers are not perfect, but continually attacking them only makes matters worse.

8 comments:

Hashim said...

Unlike in the university setting, tenure in the K-12 setting seems like it's grossly overprophylactic if the intent is to protect the expression of unpopular views.

Expression outside of the school is already protected under the 1A, and expression w/in the school is typically focused on the curriculum, not on the teacher's personal views of the curriculum. I went to a very good public high school, and even there most of the teachers kept their own views to themselves. All in all, it seems pretty likely that there are very few public-school K-12 teachers out there who would have been fired for their unpopular views but for tenure.

By contrast, there are unquestionably many incompetent teachers--just as there are many incompetent people in all other fields--and tenure protects them all. I'm not disputing the difficulties of measuring competence--or the foolishness of focusing on test scores w/o considering the student body's capabilities--but there's no reason to think that all people who choose to go into teaching are uniquely competent and that their job status should uniquely go unquestioned.

If unions were really worried about protecting unpopular views , then they'd bargain for rules/constraints/disincentives targeted at such conduct, rather than insisting on the blunderbuss of tenure.

Joe said...

I respect Colbert -- he manages to provide better and more informative interviews (his seven minutes with John Paul Stevens was impressive) on a range of topics than most things you see on t.v., and does so by mostly keeping in character.

I don't think unpopular views is the only reason to have tenure, but at least as applied to the high school context, it is not w/o its value. This is seen repeatedly in coverage of some goings on there and the attempts by localities to limit viewpoints.

Anyway, she was a surprising guest to have. Seemed a bit too much there to lobby a controversial local cause. Wonder what went behind picking her.

Greg said...

After reading this and trying to educate myself on the details of teacher tenure, there seem to be two problem areas.

Area 1. Teacher tenure protects more experienced teachers from layoffs due to their being paid higher than less experienced teachers. This is mostly good.

Area 2. Teacher tenure makes firing a teacher for cause so difficult and expensive that it is for all practical purposes impossible. This is a good and bad.

Based on this, the solution seems to be:

1.) For all dismissals characterized as layoffs, the least experienced teachers continue to be laid off first. This is basically how it currently works.

2.) For dismissals made for cause, there must be documented cause (but this is cynically assumed to be a rubber stamp) and the teacher will be paid a GENEROUS severance. Think 1-2 years salary, which, if the current estimates of the cost of firing a teacher are correct, is going to be less than what is currently being paid to administrative staff and lawyers.

I would even consider numerical limits (say 0.5-1% district-wide) on the number of tenured teachers fired for cause per year to be reasonable.

The idea here is to make it sufficiently costly to dismiss a teacher that it will not be taken lightly, while at the same time removing the current administrative barriers that keep tenured teachers who everyone knows should be let go. Further, it likely benefits the teacher as well, since good teachers who are simply poorly thought of will have a year to find a new job where they will be perceived more fairly.

Emma O'Connell said...

protecting teachers from being fired for expressing unpopular political views. (By contrast, here is Colbert: "What if there’s someplace where the parents don’t want certain things taught to the kids? ‘Cause I’d love my kids not to be taught evolution.buy fifa 15 coins Elo Boost

Dr. Jen Dudley said...

Tenure only ensures due process. Bad teachers can be fired but they cannot be fired "at will". The true purpose of union busting is retaining the ability to fire anyone who can be replaced by a lower priced instructor. Following this model, we will soon have an army of educators without valued experience. It's an interesting way to "fix" education.

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

高合金鋼 said...

外送茶莊這個憂傷而明媚的傳播妹三月我從我單薄的青春裏打馬而過,穿過

紫堇,穿過木棉,穿過時隱時現的悲喜和無常。

油壓外出
淒美的季節,淡淡的憂傷,我們用淡淡的微笑,選擇在這樣的世界裏不停

的穿梭,匆匆的停留,桃園一夜情匆匆的離去;

如詩的歲月,傳播妹我們不應該讓心變得蒼老

而又麻木,我們有我們還有沒有圓滿的夢想,援交

即便有著淡淡的憂傷。其實,外送茶

在我們的生活裏,外送茶莊並不是因爲不快

樂而台北一夜情免費魚訊不是因爲不懂得珍惜和援-交line失去了才憂傷,指油壓全套也不是因爲不幸福才憂傷;或許,壹曲憂

傷的音樂,壹段感人的文字,援-交line

壹個傷感的畫面,魚訊都會讓人有淡淡

的憂傷,援交妹讓人感受著外約其中的唯美,台中援交這也許台北援交就是壹種與一夜情留言板生具有的情緒吧,!

哈哈哈 said...

太陽初升,萬全套物初始,生之氣最盛,按摩個人工作室雖不能如傳說中那般援交餐霞食氣,但這洋迎霞鍛體自也有莫大援助交際好處,可充盈人體生機。壹天之計在於晨,每日早起多用功,強筋壯骨,活血煉筋,將來才能援交在這蒼莽山脈中有活命的本錢。台北援交”站在前方、指點壹群孩子的中年男子壹臉嚴肅,認真告誡,而後又喝道:“妳們明白嗎?”“明白!”壹群孩子中氣十足,大聲回應復面紅顏。山中多史前生物出沒,外送茶時有遮蔽天空之巨翼橫過,在地上投下大片的陰影,亦有荒獸立於峰上,吞月而嘯,更少不了各種毒蟲伏行,援交異常可怖。