Brian Jones: "If teacher tenure prevented achievement, Mississippi would have stellar schools. . ."

from NYTimes:

Brian Jones, a former New York City public school teacher, is the Green Party's candidate for lieutenant governor of New York. He blogs at "No Struggle, No Progress." He is on Twitter.

UPDATED JUNE 12, 2014, 12:55 PM

America is the land of misdirected anger. This time, teachers in California are on the receiving end.

That is not to say that public school parents in the state shouldn't be angry. In the last decade, billions have been cut from California’s K-12 budget. A public school system that used to be the envy of the nation has been starved to death. Budget cuts have meant canceled after-school and summer programs. It has meant rising student-teacher ratios, and in some Los Angeles classrooms, for example, overcrowding that has forced students to find seats atop file cabinets.

Now, thanks to the super-sized bank account of Silicon Valley mogul David Welch, who founded the parent group behind the Vergara case and funded the legal team, the court has come to see that students’ rights were not violated by overcrowded classes or budget cuts, but by the rights afforded to the teachers.

The court is wrong — and so is Welch. If teacher tenure is an important obstacle to achievement, Mississippi (with no teacher tenure) should have stellar schools and Massachusetts (with teacher tenure) should have failing ones. Instead, it’s the other way around. Correlation is not causation, of course, but across the country the states without tenure are at the bottom of performance rankings. States with the highest-achieving public schools have tenure (and teacher unions).

K-12 teachers with tenure do not have a job for life. What “tenure” means, for them, is due-process procedures for dismissals with cause, instead of capricious or at-will dismissal from their duties. I've spoken to countless teachers from Southern states who are afraid to do the things that New York City teachers do all the time – write blogs, write letters to the editor, even show up to a rally – because they could lose their jobs for speaking out. All working people should have such protections.

If anything, teacher tenure laws need to be strengthened because the country is bleeding teachers — especially in large urban districts. Between 40 and 50 percent of teachers nationwide leave the job within five years. If 40 percent of all doctors or lawyers quit within five years, I’m guessing we wouldn’t be asking why they have it so good. We certainly wouldn’t be trying to figure out what we can do to make their terms of employment less favorable.

Can we do a better job of training and developing teachers? Sure, but removing tenure doesn’t do anything to get us closer to that goal. In the meantime, teachers’ rights are a convenient scapegoat.

It goes something like this: Angry at the conditions in your local public school? Don’t ask how they got that way. Don’t ask who set the budget priorities. Don’t ask who is in charge of hiring teachers and guiding their development. Don’t ask who’s in charge of making sure the conditions of school are optimal for teaching and for learning. Whatever you do, do not look at the million-dollar man behind the curtain of the lawsuit.

Just blame the teacher.

Teachers File Lawsuit in Memphis to Keep Jobs and Stop TFA Takeover

Reader Highlights Logick of New York Times Editorial Board

Brent Staples and the other pampered fools on the New York Times editorial board are at it again, this time advising the new mayor on how to do to teachers what they  would never dream of doing to themselves.  Below is an excerpt on the seniority issue, followed by one of the 175 comments that lays bare the bankruptcy of thought that characterizes every utterance on education by the billionaires' boys at America's newspaper of record:

. . . . Seniority trumps everything and is treated as a proxy for excellence. Under current rules, a school that has an enrollment shortfall or budget problem and has to cut one of its five math teachers cuts the least senior teacher, period. In progressive systems like the one in Washington, D.C., which has made big gains on federal assessment tests, decisions about which teachers to cut are based on a combination of factors, including how they stack up on evaluations and whether they possess special skills. The goal is to keep the most talented teachers. 

Similarly, the salary schedule in New York is calculated to reward longevity, requiring 22 years to get to the top level. Teachers are also rewarded for work toward advanced degrees, but this coursework does not necessarily have any bearing on how poorly or well they teach. . . .

Response by James in Chicago:

If seniority doesn't matter, and youthful energy and smarts are everything, why stop with the teaching profession? Every business, including the journalism industry (are you listening, NYT?) should adopt a performance-based compensation system. For journalism, it shouldn't matter how long you've been reporting news. If a new graduate from an elite journalism school can write a better editorial at the New York Times, why not replace the old guard? Similarly, our military should forego seniority in its promotions. Newer, younger, and high performing soldiers should replace high ranking, experienced officers. The same with the airline industry. Let inexperienced but bright and high performing pilots replace those old, lazy captains who are protected by the unions. Hospitals should rid themselves of experienced doctors and replace them with new ones with Harvard smarts and youthful energy. Older corporate CEO's should make room for the new kid from Yale; maybe we can avoid more Wall Street crashes, mine disasters, and Deep Water Horizon-type catastrophes. 

 Anyway, this editorial is distinguished by an obsessive focus on teachers, which has prevented overdue acknowledgement of negative social conditions in many urban neighborhoods. That is very revealing.

Open letter to David Welch, Eli Broad, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and their Students Matter Astroturf

"And not merely pride of intellect, but dulness of intellect. And most of all, the deceitfulness; yes, the deceitfulness of intellect" — Leo Tolstoy

To David Welch, Eli Broad, Theodore J. Boutrous, Theane Evangelis Kapur, Theodore B. Olson, Enrique A. Monagas, and Joshua S. Lipshutz:

Your Students Matter website explicitly states "When it comes to education quality, numerous studies show that teachers have the greatest impact on student achievement."

Can you please produce even one peer reviewed study from a legitimate source that backs up that assertion?

As a person closely associated with top academicians in the field of education research and policy, I am not aware of any study that makes such a brazen and strident claim.

Indeed, even Eric A. Hanushek, an economist who shares your unfortunate politics and world view, has found that teachers account for no more than 13% of student achievement. A far cry from the declaration on your website, which, in the absence of any factual basis, is mendacious at best.

Since you're billionaires, businessmen, and attorneys it's safe to assume your knowledge on issues of pedagogy and education policy is negligible. With that in mind, I'll do you a favor and clarify your grossly erroneous statement, albeit even the correction is lacking nuance and context. What some initial studies have shown is that teachers are the largest of in-school factors impacting student achievement. I refer you to the aforementioned Hanushek findings to put that into some context.

I understand that neither your law firm, nor the astroturf public relations 501(c)(3) you created to disseminate misinformation, are interested in facts. That said, I felt a moral obligation to let you know that many community members are not fooled by your propaganda.

I taught bilingual catechism, primarily at St. Teresa of Avila Church, for a dozen or so years. One of the things we had to teach young children about was the definition of a lie. This idea was simple enough for 7-9 year olds to comprehend: "when you say something that you know is untrue, it's a lie." Sadly that concept is seemingly too complex for high powered litigators like yourselves to grasp.

Advocating public education and social justice

Robert D. Skeels

Candidate for District 2, Los Angeles Unified School District

Why Time Magazine Deserves the Same Fate As Newsweek

Recently the scandalously vapid and opinionated "news" magazine, Newsweek, sold for one dollar to the highest bidder, Sidney Harmon.  Not long before it went broke, it published one final salvo of public school bashing in an issue that was universally panned as one-sided, unfair, and inaccurate.

Now it looks as though Time is following the same pattern, choosing to pick up where Newsweek's failure left off by choosing to print as news the perspectives of the ed industry and the vulture philanthropists.  The latest example is last week's issue on education, which provided Morning Joe and his wifey-styled sidekick, Meek Mika, all the research they needed to reinforce the neoliberal party line to the hundreds who watch them every day. 

My favorite example of Time's editorial position gone wild is in this question from its survey of public views on teachers and ed issues:

7. Do you support or oppose tenure for teachers, the practice of guaranteeing teachers lifetime job security after they have worked for a certain amount of time?

Which one of Eli Broad's underlings could have written this kind of question that perpetuates a basic lie about what tenure is?  Sadly, any one of hundreds who have infiltrated the corporate media to spread the gospel according to the Oligarchs.

 

For those who would like a thumbnail on what tenure really is, here is a pretty good gloss:

The term tenure has different legal definitions. In real property law, it refers to landholding of any type; it usually implies, however, that the landholder does not have absolute possession but derives the right from some other person.

The common usage of the term tenure relates to the employment of teachers. Tenure is a guarantee of due process for a tenured teacher facing dismissal charges. Tenure is not a guarantee of a teaching job for life. Tenure laws are designed to protect the free speech rights of teachers and minimize the political pressures affecting their performance in the classroom. Under state laws, which vary by state, the teacher tenure law sets out strict termination and due process requirements for teachers, whether or not they have tenure. It covers certified professional employees below the rank of superintendent employed by a board of education for at least a minimum time period. . . .

Why to Fight SB 191, and How to Get Even With the Prostisuits Who Support It

Great primer here by Angela Engel on how to get smart, get angry, and get even against corporate prosti-suits of the Colorado legislature and teacher unions:

Don't just get mad, Get Even - Senate Bill 191 passes colorado legislature by: Angela Engel Thu May 13, 2010 at 19:45:19 PM MDT

Corporate Takeover of Public Education The Formula Evaluate school according to an unattainable goal (NCLB - 100% proficiency of every student according to a single measure) to ensure the label of "failing schools." -Standardize all curriculum, nationalizing public education (Gates Foundation is funding the "Common Core Standards Initiative" - technically this is a federal directive but the distinction between the federal government and corporate America is no longer recognizable). (corestandards.com) -Cut funding to neighborhood schools so they are forced to grow class sizes; cut music, art, and PE, reduce student services, and eliminate innovative programs. - Replace professional educators with unqualified, temporary, novices that will work cheaply and rotate every two years (Teach for America and The New Teacher Project). (rethinkingschools.org/archive/24_03/24_03_TFA.shtml) - Reconstruct schools under experimental charters lacking sound educational pedagogy and boasting inadequate research outcomes (Google charter school failures) [try charter school corruption, too]. - Tie student and teacher performance to high-stakes tests, creating a monopoly for state test providers. Never require accountability or public oversight for ETS, McGraw Hill, and Pearson while granting them complete authority in judging American schools, students and now teachers. In 2007 McGraw Hill Education reported $403 million in profits. - Redirect remaining limited resources to growing bureaucracy, data management, and failed policy. - Maintain the status quo of 25 million American children living in poverty. Continue to deny those books, lead-free environments, nutritious lunches, nurturing school climates, and cut them off from the emerging world of technology. Then fire their teachers and shut down their schools. Or contract with militant charters who will adequately prepare poor kids for military service or prison life ensuring continued profits for the privatized and profitable penal system and defense contractors. - Undermine local school boards and eliminate publicly controlled schools by centralizing decision-making under the corporate funded federal government (China and the Soviet Republic have provided a working model). - Create policies that scapegoat teachers and alienate parents further removing them from the decision making table. - Use standardized tests as a mechanism for class warfare thus creating the illusion of providing "better education" and instead use the data as justification to cram ethnic groups in overcrowded factory model schools until they demonstrate mastery of the skill of shading bubbles.

Angela Engel :: Don't just get mad, Get Even - Senate Bill 191 passes colorado legislature

If you are angry about the Passage of SB191, here are 10 ways you can take action: - Begin by thanking the courageous leaders who opposed SB191. In a Progress Now survey, 4400 of the 4600 respondents opposed tying teacher compensation and job security to test scores. Let those who opposed the bill know that the public is with them. Here is the link to the Education Committee votes. (leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/BillFoldersSenate?openFrameset) - If you are a member of the American Federation of Teachers, you can withdraw your membership immediately. I can provide you with a contact that can provide standalone insurance policy for the cost of your union dues. - If you are a parent, exempt your child from state tests. The purpose of your child's education is not to police teachers and provide data sets for government mandates. You will save our schools money in the process and provide your child with a living example of the power of democracy. - Do not make financial contributions to your political party. Instead identify the candidates, democrat or republican, who maintain children as the priority and protect our neighborhood schools from commercial interests and government representatives attempting to over step the limits of their authority. Contribute directly to candidates who advocated for the needs of children and provide them with the information and support to win the battle for All kids. - On Facebook, unfriend those legislators who voted yes on SB191. Final votes will be updated shortly. This accomplishes nothing but it feels good. - Recruit a challenger for Senator Johnston (Adams/Denver). Get behind the good people of the world and oust the Boobs. Children aren't represented in the legislature they depend on parents, teachers, and citizens to advocate on their behalf. If we defer all our responsibility to lobbyists and organizations, then flawed policy is what we'll get. - Avoid the organizations which are behind SB191 and the national strategy to privatize and capitalize on our neighborhood schools. Identified Proponents of SB10-191 Stand for Children, Colorado Succeeds/BizCares, Metro Organization for People, Colorado Children's Campaign. - Read the book, Seeds of Tomorrow; Solutions for Improving our Children's Education. Buy one for your legislator; we'll take care of the shipping charges: angelaengel.com

The Truth About "Tenure" in Colorado

Tomorrow Colorado legislators decide whether or not they will be bamboozled by corporate education's billionaire boys' club to disrespect and demoralize Colorado teachers once again. Here's some facts to consider from an op-ed in the Durango Herald News:

What makes a good teacher? Is it longevity, popularity, education or good test scores? Denver politicians are trying to tell the people of Colorado that there is only one answer: test scores. Senate Bill 191 would deny or remove “tenure" from teachers whose evaluations did not demonstrate student academic growth as evidenced by standardized tests such as the Colorado Student Assessment Program.

Most of the controversy and misinformation surrounding this bill comes from the term “tenure." It means only one thing to people outside education - a guaranteed job for life. That connotation, the idea of a publicly funded job for life, stimulates knee-jerk responses.

What the supporters of this bill, including The Durango Herald, have failed to inform the public is that tenure for public teachers in Colorado ceased to exist in 1990. Under Gov. Roy Romer's administration, the Teacher Employment, Compensation and Dismissal Act of 1990 was passed. This law eliminated tenure and replaced it with a due-process clause and created the terms probationary and non-probationary.

Probationary teachers are those who are in their first three years of employment in any school district. Probationary teachers could have a doctorate, National Board Certification or 20 years of proven classroom experience. Nonetheless, they may be dismissed from their employment at anytime during those three years for things as minor, for instance, as sitting on a desk while teaching a lesson, missing a faculty meeting because of child-care conflicts or daring to stand up to a bullying principal.

For probationary teachers, these three years are stressful. Good evaluations are no security for receiving the fourth-year contract. Effective and competent third-year teachers with good or even excellent evaluations are routinely dismissed. It happened this year in Durango. Under the proposed legislation, all teachers could become probationary at any point.

In Colorado public schools, non-probationary teachers are offered some protection from the sometimes arbitrary whims of principals and administrators, though they may be fired for reasons such as: “physical or mental disability, incompetency, neglect of duty, immorality, unsatisfactory performance, insubordination, the conviction of a felony … or other good and just cause." (Colorado Revised Statutes 22-63-301) This is hardly the guaranteed job for life that politicians and pundits would have you believe.

So why then is there this perception that poor teachers are so difficult to dismiss from their jobs? Current law says that a district that wishes to fire a non-probationary teacher must demonstrate with facts why they have good cause to fire the teacher, and that the teacher and district must select an impartial hearing officer if the teacher does not agree with the reasons he or she is being fired. Again, this is hardly an impossible hurdle; it just requires districts to have a reason for firing a teacher. School districts can remove poor teachers from the classroom.

SB 191 attempts to tie 50 percent of teachers' evaluations to student test scores and 50 percent to the whims of the undefined “educational mission" of individual principals. The problem most educators have with this is there is no equitable way teachers can be assessed by the way students learn.

This would imply all students learn the same, that all students have the same support at home, that all assessments of learning are fair and equitable, that parents are held accountable for ensuring their children attend school regularly, and all students come into the classroom motivated to learn and do their best. None of these things are the case. Teachers cannot be held accountable for variables over which they have no control.

Additionally, this bill will unfairly punish teachers who teach very low-performing students, students who by definition do poorly on standardized tests. Strangely enough, it will also dramatically affect teachers who work with students who are advanced or gifted. If a gifted student is in the 99.9th percentile in a subject, how much more growth could the student statistically exhibit? Likewise, Advanced Placement classes could likely be eliminated in an attempt to equalize the performance of classes on standardized tests.

Lastly, SB 191 is entirely unfunded. Each subject not tested by CSAP - kindergarten through second grade, art, music, physical education, drama, career and technical education, social studies and all classes for high school juniors and seniors - will need to be attached to a district-developed standardized test. Districts will bear the cost of this testing and the cost of the constant hiring and firing this bill may create. Communities will pay the price of high teacher turnover rates and the race-to-the bottom mentality this bill will create in public education.

There are good and bad teachers in every system. Revamping educational evaluations to define quality teaching is necessary, but falling for political chicanery that does nothing more than increase the polarity that already runs rampart in our society is not a viable solution.

If preparing students to be efficient 21st-century learners is the intent of Colorado's legislators, then we need to look at the misplaced emphasis on high-stakes testing, the practices that continue to prepare students for our past instead of their futures, and the state funding for schools that ranks Colorado 49th in the nation.

By the way, if you want to know what makes a good teacher, ask any student; they know.

Weingarten Hides Behind Failing Economy to Talk Capitulation on Tenure and Teacher Pay

Almost perfect timing, except that Ms. Randi, as I noted yesterday (speaking of timing), had already bowed to Bloomberg on bonus pay for test scores before the economy went south.

Is this what Randi calls bipartisanship? From today's Times:

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said Monday that given the economic crisis, her union would be willing to discuss new approaches to issues like teacher tenure and merit pay.

“Faced with declining tax revenues, state and local governments are cutting” education budgets nationwide, Ms. Weingarten said in a speech to education policy makers in Washington.

“In the spirit of this extraordinary moment, and as a pledge of shared responsibility, I’ll take the first step,” she said. “With the exception of vouchers, which siphon scarce resources from public schools, no issue should be off the table, provided it is good for children and fair to teachers.”

It is unclear how much practical effect Ms. Weingarten’s speech will have on the stance her 1.4-million-member union and its locals take in negotiations with school districts or in lobbying state legislatures.

“Randi said she was willing to talk about these things,” said Kate Walsh, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, a nonprofit group that seeks to increase the number of effective teachers. “But from my experience, the A.F.T. and its locals have always been willing to talk about tough issues. The problem is that they’re not often willing to give in on them.” . . . .

And where did Dillon get that description of NCTQ, the "nonprofit group that seeks to increase the number of effective teachers."??? More appropriate would have been the nonprofit group (which includes Andy Rotherham) that seeks to make schools to profit corporations, or the nonprofit group that seeks to replace professionally-prepared teachers with non-prepared warm bodies with bachelors degrees? How about the nonprofit group that used Federal grant money to illegally pump their "merit pay" and anti-ed school propaganda into the editorial pages of the nation's newspapers? And they still haven't paid the money back, as demanded in the OIG report (Inspector General's report Word version).

Here is part of an earlier piece I did on Kate Walsh, who has spent the Bush years trying every angle to crush the teaching profession. Sadly it looks like she and her minions might have found a union president who can help in the process.

From 2005:

Those readers who were floored by the allegations that the US Department of Education would fund their own school privatization campaign through paying off high-profile commentators like Armstrong Williams, hold on to your seats. The $240,000 that Williams garnered for his NCLB PR efforts is chump change compared to the $4,686,574 shoveled out ED's doors to a number of groups to carry the school privatization message and the public school failure message across the country, especially into minority communities. Here is a story run on Sept. 3 by USA Today.

Even though the Inspector General's report on the investigation does some fancy parsing to avoid the conclusion that ED engaged in "covert propaganda," anyone reading the report, besides Maggie Spellings and her lawyers, may conclude that the 4.5 mil went to do just that.

The following excerpt from the Inspector General's report (Word version) shows that Paige and Hickok were looking for organizations to front their message before they had even printed the stationery for the OII (Office of Innovation and Improvement):

Although we did not find evidence to conclude that Department officials awarded grants with the intent of influencing public opinion through the undisclosed use of third party grantees, or directly approved or encouraged the specific activities that resulted in improper expenditures, the level of involvement from the Secretary’s office in the approval of unsolicited proposals and the oversight of unsolicited grants in the FIE program raised some concerns. The Department procedures in place at the time stated:

If the unsolicited application proposes activities that can be funded by the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE), the Senior Officer should immediately forward the application to [the] Deputy Under Secretary in the soon-to-be-created Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII). OII will then notify the applicant and process the application under the above procedures. FIE supports nationally significant programs to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education.

The “above procedures” referenced in the preceding quote did not indicate that the Office of the Secretary was to be directly involved in the process of screening unsolicited proposals. However, the Secretary and his senior staff appear to have made the significant pre-award decisions on many unsolicited applications received by the FIE program, including determining which initial proposals deserved further consideration. The Secretary, or staff in his office, also determined which unsolicited proposals were to receive funding. Once the grants were awarded, FIE program staff provided the Secretary’s office with monthly progress reports from grantees. (pp.17-18)

So even though ED did not engage in the legal definition of "covert propaganda," they were given monthly reports from these outfits on how well they were doing in spreading the education gospel according to Bush and the privatizers. That seems to a difference that doesn't make much of a difference.

Nonetheless, ED did not get away with this entirely. Most of the grantees listed in the Inspector General's report published propaganda without the required EDGAR disclaimer, which requires the granting agency to recover associated expenditures:

The Department’s grant regulations at 34 C.F.R. § 75.620 require grantees to include a disclaimer on any publication: “the contents of this (insert type of publication: e.g. book, report, film) were developed under a grant from the Department of Education. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.” If a Department grantee uses grant funds for publications and does not include the required disclaimer language, such activity would violate the condition of the grant and the Department should, if appropriate, recover associated expenditures. (p. 5)

Tomorrow I will publish the list of offenders, but for now here is the Inspector General's conclusion reached on just one grant to the Oquirrh Institute and the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) worth $677,318. It provides a chilling view of how these organizations planned to infiltrate the mainstream media with their propaganda. It is interesting to look at the Board members of these organizations--one can begin to see some familiar names (Doug Carnine, for one) associated with other areas of education profiteering:

We did find that the Oquirrh Institute and the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) initially submitted independent proposals to the Department. A senior official in OII contacted NCTQ and suggested that it work with the Oquirrh Institute because both focused on teacher quality issues. NCTQ confirmed that this conversation occurred and stated that the OII official did not help with the content of the proposal. NCTQ subsequently decided to submit a joint proposal with the Oquirrh Institute.

In each instance the grantee was provided with a copy of the EDGAR regulations. The failure of these grantees to include the required disclaimer appears to have resulted in an improper expenditure of grant funds that should now be recovered.

ß Grant U215U030007-04, Oquirrh Institute and National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) (Appendix A, Item 1)

The Oquirrh Institute and NCTQ submitted a joint proposal with three clearly stated goals: 1) increase the American public’s exposure and understanding of the research and full spectrum of ideas on teacher quality; 2) advance the research on teacher preparation and licensure processes, broadening the nation’s experience of and perspective on these issues; and 3) help state policymakers make the necessary reforms to their licensure systems. According to the proposal, the grantee’s strategy for accomplishing the first goal included “widely publish[ing] op-eds on teacher quality issues” with an ultimate objective of having “at least 100 published works, reaching every state” (p. 21). Further, the proposal narrative, on page 14, specifically states:

[W]e will tailor our writing to the issues that a particular state or community is currently debating … Our preference will be to persuade newspapers to publish our writing as op-eds but, if not, we will also submit letters to the editor.

In the monthly progress reports provided to the Department, we found that the only grantee activities associated with the first goal involved the production of, and attempts to publish, op-eds.

According to the grantees’ monthly progress reports, they were able to publish op-eds in at least 11 newspapers. We have been able to obtain copies of only three. Kate Walsh, the president of NCTQ, authored the three op-eds published in the Mobile Register (Alabama) on 11/21/04, in the Grand Island Independent (Nebraska) on 12/02/04, and in the Sacramento Bee (California) on 02/06/05. Each focused on proposed changes in teacher reform and NCLB.

The op-eds can be construed as advocating a particular point of view. In the op-ed published in the Mobile Register, Walsh states that the NCLB requirement that all teachers be rated “highly qualified” in the subjects they teach “is not overly demanding or unfair.” She later states “[t]he inability to reach consensus over these minimal requirements signals a resistance, however unintended, to putting the needs of children first.”

Similarly, in the other two op-eds, Walsh advocated policy positions. In the op-ed published in the Grand Island Independent, she advocated changes in teacher qualification requirements in Nebraska. In the op-ed published in the Sacramento Bee, Walsh states: “[p]utting merit pay decisions in the hands of states or even school districts [sic] officials still will lead to excessively complicated formulas that suppress the potential benefits that merit pay could achieve.”

None of the op-eds we reviewed disclosed the role of the Department. Prior to the initial publication of the op-eds, a Department grants specialist reviewed a draft op-ed and reminded the grantee that the Department’s regulations at 34 C.F.R. § 75.620 require a disclaimer on all grant publications. The grant specialist did not know why the published op-eds did not contain the disclaimer.

As these op-eds were published without the EDGAR disclaimer, the funds used to produce them may have resulted in an improper expenditure of grant funds. If all of the produced op-eds are similarly silent on the role of the Department, then all of the expenditures associated with goal one of the grant may have been improper.

Top 10 Reasons Why Teaching Jobs Based on Test Scores Is A Bad Idea

It was just a few months ago that Randi Weingarten earned the blessing of Bloomberg for her AFT Presidential bid by endorsing the Bloomberg/Klein/Business Roundtable bonus pay plan for NYC teachers based on test scores. Weingarten patted herself on the back at the time for negotiating the stipulation that bonuses would go to schools rather than individuals. Increased productivity (higher test scores) would be judged on a schoolwide basis, thus assuring Weingarten, at least, that individual teachers would not be evaluated based on test scores. And Bloomberg's lawyers did the ropeadope all the way to the signing table.

That capitulation by Ms. Randi signaled the beginning for a feeding frenzy by the BR and Chamber of Commerce, so that just a few months later, we are faced with the BR's leading media stooge, Jay Mathews, now, today, greasing the slippery slope toward the teachers-on-production model by extending the argument of bonus pay for higher test scores into the dystopian ideal of keeping your teaching job based on higher test scores:

People who have studied the public schools that have significantly raised the achievement levels of impoverished students tend to accept the idea that teachers' salaries and jobs must eventually be tied to classroom results. "Of course," said Andrew Rotherham, an education think tank founder, blogger and Virginia Board of Education member who, at 37, is likely to be a major player on this issue for years to come.

Notice the luridly-misleading style of propaganda. Which "people who have studied" is Mathews referring to, and in which journals are their "tendencies" reported? To say nothing of the sloppy writing. "Of course," what, EduWink? What we can know is that Mathews is as full of digested corn as the Thanksgiving turkey he is planning to eat next week.

Yes, the Jays and Andys and Congressman Millers of the edu-world want to make sure that the teachers who are working in these poverty-blighted schools are earning the big money they are being paid. Just like in the private schools where their children and grandchildren are educated, yes? Here are a few reasons, guys, why this is a bad idea:

10. Teaching jobs based on test scores will hasten the flight of the remaining good teachers from the poorest schools where the best teachers are already in the shortest supply.

9. Teaching jobs based on test scores will attract only the most desperate teachers to the poorest schools.

8. Teaching jobs based on test scores will contribute to cutthroat competition among teachers for positions most likely to produce the best test results.

7. Teaching jobs based on test scores will decimate teamwork and collaboration among teachers.

6. Teaching jobs based on test scores will push the curriculum into a smaller and smaller box based only on what is tested.

5. Teaching jobs based on test scores will further poison the educational climate in schools that is now almost unbreathable.

4. Teaching jobs based on test scores will exacerbate the cheating and corruption associated with high stakes policy implementation.

3. Teaching jobs based on test scores will damage learning for knowledge, skills, and understanding by placing further emphasis only on memorization and short-term learning gains that can be demonstrated with paper and pencil tests.

2. Teaching jobs based on test scores will extend the view of children as raw material to be exploited for their monetary worth.

1. Teaching jobs based on test scores will encourage the marginalization and discarding of the raw material that can't be exploited.

Which Foundations Are Funding Rhee's Union Busting?

Yesterday the world sat at the feet of Bill and Melinda as they outlined their next big-hearted and self-serving ventures into shaping national educational policy to snugly fit the mold of the techno-efficiency zealots. Most of the contenders for the big job of ED Sec were there: Arne, Joel, and even Linda all sat with rapt stares as Bill and Melinda offered them all political cover, while outlining an educational future more dismal than, say, having your computer loaded with Vista--forever.

One of the three legs of the Gates's new 2 billion dollar stool is "teacher quality," which, translated, means higher pay for higher test scores. Does it mean also the continued funding of barracudas like Michelle Rhee in her bid to crush the teachers's union of DC and replace the teaching profession with a permanent stream of Ivy League temps from Teach for Awhile, er, America? Was it Bill and Melinda, or Eli, or Michael and Susan, who promised the $75 million a year for the first five years of the new DC contract? No need for big pay after that? Didn't think so.

From Sam Dillon's piece in the NYTimes today on the big raises promised to teachers who are willing to sell out:

In the interview, Ms. Rhee said the raises would be financed largely by foundations that had given her commitments of $75 million a year for five years, of which a “significant portion” would go for teacher compensation.

“The foundations want to fund things that are innovative and will have national ramifications,” she said. Ms. Rhee has declined to name the foundations, however, raising worries among some teachers about the foundations’ motives and about whether their commitments would remain solid if the nation’s financial crisis were to be prolonged.

Meanwhile in DC, students carry shotguns in the halls while teachers wait or the promised extra academic help that Rhee promised but has not provided. Maybe Bill and Melinda could help. From WaPo:

D.C. Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee has dispatched a team of administrators and extra security to an Anacostia middle school where three teachers have been assaulted, a 14-year-old was charged with carrying a shotgun and students have run the hallways discharging fire extinguishers.

The intervention began Monday at Hart Middle School, where a dismal academic record -- 17 percent of its students read at proficiency level last year -- triggered a mandatory overhaul under the federal No Child Left Behind law.

Interviews with teachers, parents, students and police paint a picture of a troubled school that, far from hitting bottom with its placement on "restructuring" status, has fallen into an even deeper hole. It is overenrolled and understaffed and lacks the extra academic support promised by Rhee, teachers said. . . .

Rhee's "Green Tier" Gives Green Light for Firing

Photo by Susan Walsh-AP
Michelle Rhee has a big bonus for DC teachers who choose the greenbacks of her Green Tier, those teachers who are willing to, 1) give up tenure, 2) spend a year on probation, and 3) trust Michelle Rhee to re-hire them following that probationary year with or without their big bonuses intact.

On the other hand, stubborn red bird teachers who insist on preserving what remains of the due process and academic freedom guarantees that are still offered to the tenured, must wear the scarlet R of the red tier, a clear acknowledgment of their unwillingness to be judged on their true merits (as defined by test scores in databases controlled by Michelle Rhee.)

The younger green birds, many of them like the TFA (Teach for Awhile) contingent, are temporarily padding their resumes with the generosity of their good works while making plans for grander futures. For these ambitious folks who wouldn't be caught dead committing themselves to a dead end career like teaching, they would really like to have those big bonuses to pay for law school or to get their MBAs. It all makes for a perfect divide and conquer strategy that Rhee hopes to exploit for its full potential to gut the teaching profession.

A clip from the Washington Post:

. . . .Teachers who attended the session, which was not open to the media, seemed to remain split on the merits of Rhee's proposal and whether it should come to a vote. Several said the two-tiered system was Rhee's attempt to drive a wedge into the union.

"The red-green salary proposal is designed to divide teachers into two opposing camps," longtime Woodrow Wilson High School history teacher Erich Martel wrote in a flier he distributed. Those choosing green, he said, "surrender tenure in exchange for trusting the objectivity and fairness of the principal and chancellor." Instructors who opt for red will have chosen "the scarlet letter" and "will be stigmatized for not being on the principal's -- and chancellor's -- team."

Other teachers, especially younger ones less concerned about tenure, expressed disappointment that their chance at higher salaries linked to performance might be slipping away.

Some union activists accused Parker of misrepresenting Rhee's plan by downplaying the level of risk that teachers would assume under the new salary framework. Several said that Parker was repeatedly asked why it was necessary to split teachers into two groups but that he never answered the question.

"All they got tonight was bamboozled and confused," said General Vice President Nathan Saunders, who announced the formation of a new teachers group, Committee for Fair Reform in D.C. Public Schools, to oppose Rhee's plan and other personnel decisions she has made as chancellor.

The committee is sponsoring a prayer service for "social justice in the workplace" Friday evening at Covenant Baptist Church in Southwest Washington.

Michelle Rhee Using Gates and Broad $$ to Bribe Teachers Out of Tenure and Seniority

What happens when public officials team up with corporations to use tax-exempt corporate foundation money in an attempt to crush teachers' rights and to further the agenda of societal segregation based on test scores?

We're about to find out in DC. From WaPo:

By V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 3, 2008; B01

D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee is proposing a contract that would give mid-level teachers who are paid $62,000 yearly the opportunity to earn more than $100,000 -- but they would have to give up seniority and tenure rights, two union members familiar with the negotiations said yesterday.

Under the proposal, the school system would establish two pay tiers, red and green, said the union members, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks are confidential. Teachers in the red tier would receive traditional raises and would maintain tenure. Those who voluntarily go into the green tier would receive thousands of dollars in bonuses and raises, funded with foundation grants, for relinquishing tenure.

Teachers in the green tier would be reviewed yearly and would be allowed to continue in their jobs only if they passed an evaluation and boosted students' test scores, the union members said.

Under Rhee's proposal, raises to the green tier would be more than the 19 percent increase over five years she is proposing for all teachers, the union members said.

They said teachers are opposed to giving up seniority and tenure, no matter the size of their raise, and probably would reject such a proposal.

"You may be trading off your future, your tenure, your job security," a union member said. "When you trade that, it seems to me you're not getting much."

. . . .

The two union members said Rhee wants to use donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation and the Broad Foundation, in part, to pay for the raises and bonuses. Officials from the Gates and Broad foundations would not comment on proposed future funding. . . .

Albany Goes Sane on Tenure While Gradgrind/McChoakumchild Choke

Only the latest Bloomberg/Klein flameout.

From NYTimes:

By DANNY HAKIM and JEREMY W. PETERS

Published: April 9, 2008

ALBANY — In the latest rebuke to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s agenda, state lawmakers have decided to bar student test scores from being considered when teacher tenure determinations are made.

Legislators said the move was the final detail negotiated as part of the budget, which they expect to complete on Wednesday. It was a setback to efforts by the mayor and former Gov. Eliot Spitzer to hold teachers accountable by using student performance data, and a boon for the teachers’ unions, which hold enormous influence over the political process in the capital.

The new language being prepared for the state law says that for the next two years student scores will not be considered in decisions on teachers’ tenure; in the meantime, a commission is to be created to study the issue.

The move was denounced Tuesday night by the Bloomberg administration.

“I am dismayed that the State Legislature would even consider tying the hands of principals and school districts as they decide who gets lifetime job security,” said Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein. “This is unconscionable. Lawmakers should do all they can to ensure every student has a good teacher. I urge our lawmakers to vote no tomorrow. Our children deserve better.”

The development was another sign that the fledgling administration of Gov. David A. Paterson, a Democrat, could be a rocky one for the mayor. The new governor was unable to rally support for the mayor’s congestion pricing plan, which would have charged drivers to enter Manhattan below 60th Street. While Mr. Paterson supported the measure, he could not persuade Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver or other Assembly Democrats to bring the measure to the floor, and it was pronounced dead without a vote on Monday. . . .