Parsing Mulgrew on tenure, teacher effectiveness, teacher evaluation, value-added: What he should be saying, but won't

Just heard Mulgrew on Brian Lehrer in relation to Cathie Black's positions opposing tenure and last in first out (LIFO) for layoffs. Talk of teacher effectiveness and cost effectiveness.

Not the latter is a newer wrinkle of the ed deformers - the argument that given 2 roughly equal teachers it is more cost effective to get rid of the one who makes more money. They can even argue that if a teacher who makes 100G is superb, it is still more cost effectie to keep two 3rd year teachers making 60G.

Now if you are running a business that idea looks good. But is it really cost effective over the long term when you are dealing with an entire profession that would react poorly - even the younger teachers who hope to put in a long career and one day get paid accordingly? Other than real newbies who have no plans to stay - think Teach for America - the shock troops of the ed deform movement - the degrading aspect of this attack undermines the profession and weakens teacher effectiveness over the long run. I would bet most teachers from 3rd year on would be absolutely opposed to weakening of tenure and the end of seniority for layoffs - which are a pretty rare affair. Many teachers I know starting around 1969-70 were excessed at least once - and in '75 we had massive layoffs by seniority and call-backs by the same means - an orderly system instead of the chaos the ed deformers are calling for.

Of course we heard none of this argument by Mulgrew who instead talked about the fact that tenure is due process not life-time jobs and that if there are ineffective teachers the principals should have gotten rid of them before it was time for layoffs. Good points for him - he even talked about how tenure is not a contract provision but state law long superceding the lifetime of the union. (By the way - tenure as people talk about it as a lifetime job is more aligned with college teaching though even that is based on some due process system). He also talked about the fair funding formula - the tactic tha charges principals for the costs of the teachers instead of lumping all salaries into a central fund - and how it encourages principals to get rid of of more expensive teachers. So not terrible even though he could have been much stronger - but as we know- the UFT is partway on the ed deform bandwagon - or wants it to appear that way.

When Brian brought up the release of individual teacher evaluations, Mulgrew was weak I thought in not arguing how they should never be released for all sorts of reasons that have been argued. Instead he attacked the accuracy of the value-added results at this point and seemed to argue that when they were accurate it would be OK to release them.

I think there have been enough arguments about VA and the narrow tests they are based on. We think there is a lot more to a teacher than can be expressed in a number. The union should be making that case instead of bragging how they are willing to cooperate in their own members' demise.

For the kind of defense we would like to hear from out union - but never will read this at Modern School:

Value Added & Performance Pay Scams Weaken Teacher Pay and Autonomy

Stephen Krashen, from Schools Matter, has an excellent posting on the idiocy of Value Added teacher assessments and performance pay: Seniority and Teacher Layoffs: A Red Herring

Like so much of Ed Deform: It's all about money. Senior teachers are higher on the pay scale and cost districts more money than younger inexperienced teachers. Krashen argues that this is the only rational argument for dumping experience over youth since veteran teachers generally do a better job. They have more years of on the job practice. They have more experience from workshops, professional development, and collaboration with peers.

However, there is one more reason to dump older teachers: Control

Experienced teachers are less likely to go along with every hare-brained ed deform plan concocted by their administrators. This is one reason why charter schools like KIPP are able to get their teachers to work weekends and summers and be on call well into the night. 

Retired UFT Bronx HS District Rep Lynne Winderbaum on the NYCEDNews Listserve said:

Of all the words used to describe Cathie Black, "parrot" may be a new one. But it seems that after her listening tour of Tweed, she has now come out repeating the tired old propaganda that has been adopted by the Department of Education for the last nine years.

This morning at 6:15 AM on NPR Cathie Black announced that she "has a problem with the practice of granting 25-year-olds tenure, insuring them a job for the rest of their lives for just showing up to work everyday".   Also, she "has a problem with laying off the 'last in' first".  She stated that she could never run a company successfully if these practices existed and that these practices would never be accepted in business.

Frightening to see that her ignorance regarding these issues had been replaced by the misrepresentations she is being taught. First of all, there is no practice of granting 25-year olds tenure. Anyone of that age who does achieve tenure has already served three years in a classroom and has been trained during that probationary period to work on techniques and strategies to improve their pedagogy. At any time during the three year period, if the teacher does not show improvement or an aptitude for the job, he or she can be summarily fired--no questions asked. It is called a "discontinuance of probation" and it is used frequently. After three years, if the teacher has been satisfactory rated, only then is tenure granted. And if an administrator has any doubts about granting tenure, there is the option to extend probation for an additional year...no questions asked. 

Cathie Black is also showing her ignorance of the fact that tenure is not a "job for the rest of their lives for just showing up to work everyday." Tenured teachers can be fired under the terms of state education law Section 3020a. That's all tenure gets them: a due process proceeding. It does not mean a job for life. It is just a guarantee of a fair hearing, with evidence presented and with representation. Private sector workers would love to have such security, but apparently a successful business cannot incorporate fairness according to Black. A tenured teacher cannot be summarily fired for any reason as a probationary teacher can. That's all tenure means. And if Cathie Black is unquestioningly passing along the false myths that we expect of a person who simply repeats what she hears without any independent research, we should fear what lies ahead in her decision making process.

May I add that without tenure, teachers risk discrimination, being punished for their political leanings, and they will rightly fear exposing wrongdoing or questioning violations such as failure to follow special ed or ELL laws, for example. It is just protection Cathie, not a lifetime guarantee. Get out of your cocoon.

"Last in, first out" was never a policy that was debated until the wholesale closing of schools left many veteran teachers without jobs. Before that, the only teachers in excess were those with one or two years experience. Suddenly there were hundreds of employees who had given their lives to the children of New York City, twenty or thirty years in many cases, who had no place to work, through no fault of their own. They were also the most highly paid. So, despite the fact that many are fine teachers, Tweed looked for a way to paint them all with a negative brush and build a pr position around firing them. Black says the practice would never be accepted in business where the model is to have the power to hire and fire at will. But first she must make a convincing argument that the basis of retaining teachers will never be favoritism or silence about problems at schools. Seniority is a fair way to fight favoritism and nepotism. Do away with seniority and tenure and watch what is unleashed in our workforce. After her week of listening to folks downtown, the breadth of her understanding of the issues may be a mile wide but it is a quarter inch thick.

That does not bode well for anyone in the school system.

Do Teachers Need Tenure?

Perdido Street School on the NY Post article:

This Is Why We Need Tenure

Next time Oprah, Arianna Huffington or some other ed deformer says getting rid of tenure is the most important "reform" needed to improve public education, refer them to this case:

A judge tore into city investigators Thursday for a shoddy probe that cost a teacher his job at a Manhattan school for kids with emotional and legal problems.

The decision means Charles Bryant can reclaim his teaching license and possibly get his job back at Public School 35M.

One of my former colleagues in elem school had a child, a second grader I believe, who ran out of class 2 times one day. The child was supposed to not be in the room but with a counselor during that time. The teacher called the father and told him to come up during the class. When the child ran a third time the teacher stopped her (think of consequences if she runs into the street) and sat her in her seat. In doing so her finger caught the collar and a button was ripped off. At least that is what is alleged.

The principal, a Lead Acad grad, was known for putting people in the rubber room. She hated this teacher because the year before she had run for chapter leader against the princ favored candidate and lost by only 1 vote - a real vote of no confidence to the principal.

The principal called up the child’s mother and incited her to call the cops and charged the teacher with assault. 5 cops came and arrested the teacher and took her out in handcuffs in front of the entire community. The teacher had taught in the school for 22 years with no marks on her record. Even the cops were sympathetic and one went back and investigated. I called him and he told me it was clearly a case incited by the principal.

The teacher and parent and child were in the police station until 1 in the morning as the cops tried to convince the parent to drop charges. The teachers was so hot about it all she refused to apologize. The cops released her but the arrest is on record.

She went to the rubber room. For 3 years. She hired a lawyer who I thought was awful.

One of the reasons she hired a private lawyer was that the week after the incident I went to people in the UFT and pleaded with them to get to the cops and get them on record. They told me that was the teacher’s responsibility. “But she is in the rubber room all day,” I said. It was clear that they were more afraid of being charged with protecting a teacher who may be found guilty of abusing a child even in such an obviously rigged situation. She just didn't trust the UFT.

I was at some sessions of her 3020a hearing. She was shell shocked from what has been happening to her and that made her ineffective in her own defense. The DOE showed pictures the principal took of the child’s shoulder which was supposedly scratched. We all looked at them with disbelief. You couldn’t see anything. The photos were taken about 2 hours after the incident. I saw the parent and child testify. It was all about the parent’s pride - she also hated the principal but wouldn’t back down. (The child had been moved to special ed not long after the incident.)

The hearing officer of course never talked to the arresting police. The result: teacher suspended without pay for a year. That means that after a year she will be allowed to teach. They clearly just did this to force her out.

Do teachers need tenure? She has tenure and only that gave her a salary for the 3 years. By the way - the delay was not due to her. I was supposed to attend these hearings on more days but they kept postponing and changing dates.

Nothing to Do, and All Day to Do It

Cross-posted from Brainstorm

August is upon us, and we academics are nearing the end of our so-called "summer vacation.” My heart always sinks a little when I hear someone (usually a student) call it that, since I know the truth—it’s the busiest, most stressful time of the year. Those three months after grading ends and before the next term begins is when we try and finish every article, start several new ones, plan courses for the upcoming year, write grant proposals, and accomplish a million other small tasks that can supposedly be crammed in since, after all, we are not teaching (ok—some of us aren’t). These insane expectations, perhaps most often held by the untenured among us, lead to 80-hour weeks where we work frantically in fear that come September our to-do list won’t be any shorter. It’s hot, the pool calls, our kids are around to play, but we ignore all that and keep going.

Is life like this after tenure? I'm terribly afraid it is. I'm also sad to think (to realize) that this is likely the life of most Americans—especially those with no hope of eternal job security, whose hourly wage is so low as to demand these long hours? I’m betting yes. Will it ever change? Is there any hope of bringing a little sanity to our working lives, such that we can feel good about saying yes to questions like “will I take a vacation this year?” and “will I take one now?” Since I’m fairly sure that intermittent periods of relaxation are required for mental and physical health, I sure hope so. I’d love to see the Secretary of Health & Human Services get together with someone like the First Lady to take this on. This is a stressful time for so many reasons—and we (all of us) deserve a vacation. Or at least, an afternoon beer summit.

Valuing Children

Cross-posted from Brainstorm


I am in the midst of what I sometimes feel is an incredibly risky endeavor. Or rather, what some would have me feel is risky.

I’m having a baby. A second baby. On the tenure track.

My ears sense some e-groaning. My fears detect some e-judgment. Maybe, somewhat out there, there is a little applause, and elsewhere sighs of relief.

The truth is, I don’t know what to say—except that I’m completely happy and scared, all at the same time.

Why happy? Because having a family is exactly what my husband and I always wanted. And having our first has proven to both of us that professional success is entirely eclipsed by the sheer joy of watching our son learn to eat a popsicle, or experience his first swim lesson.

Why fear? Because it is far from clear what baby #1 means for my tenure prospects, let alone baby #2. Because I have already been the recipient of far too many stories about pregnant professors overburdening their colleagues when they take leave, of comments from both men and women who say “well, one kid pre-tenure is one thing, but two…?” Because the question of how I am to juggle a late December birth with a two-course teaching load come spring has not yet been resolved.

I know I’m in good company—plenty of American working women have more than one child, and do it while working far less cushy jobs than I. Many have to forgo the pleasures of nursing, a job that requires upwards of 30 hours per week initially by itself. And a scary proportion do it all without healthcare.

I am lucky, to be sure. I am also—however—completely freaked out. Maybe that will change? I’ll keep you posted.

I (Finally) Figured Out Why I Want Tenure

Today was a big day. This morning’s paper ran a story containing quotes from me and from this blog that many of my colleagues will likely view as uncouth. Others will misinterpret it as desire for publicity and name recognition. These folks just don't know me like my family, and particularly my Poppa, does.

To my mind, I had little choice but to do what I did. My University is moving in an untenable direction, one that makes middle-class folks feel good, while at the same time trampling the long-term opportunities of the voiceless. I'm not alone- my family members have a long history of doing exactly this. I went on the record as opposed to a policy that is strongly supported not only by my administrators and supervisors, but also by most of the faculty around me. I wish I could say I felt brave and confident as hung up the phone with the reporter. I didn’t-- in fact, I ran to the bathroom and lost my lunch.

Over the course of the past many months, I’ve received a lot of advice about the Madison Initiative. Advisers have patiently explained to me that the policy is going forward with or without me, and that my time and energy spent fighting will be wasted. I’d be better off simply recommending a few minor alterations and falling in line; at the bare minimum this would help to ensure I could devote my energies to peer-reviewed publications and the kinds of thing academia typically rewards. A fight like this one, I was told, was something I had to earn the right to participate in—something I needed tenure for.

This is all undoubtedly true. The numbers of hours I’ve spent agonizing over the Initiative, pouring over its details, listening to the administration, reading what students have to say, reviewing relevant research on the topic again and again—it’s taken plenty of time and left room for very little sleep. If I were more prudent, that time could have been spent on my many R&Rs, helping put the icing on my tenure case.

Except until now, I really wasn’t sure what tenure was good for. I never set out to be a professor—I just wanted to question conventional wisdom and address it with the best available social science evidence. I'd do it in whatever setting allowed it. I never worried about unemployment; heck at times I find myself with 3 or even 4 jobs at a time. I am insanely fortunate, I know it, and so I thought how could I expect more? Tenure, I began to think, could be phased out in favor of more competitive salaries.

But today, I get it. At the end of my 5th year as an assistant professor, I just spoke out in a manner that could hurt my job prospects, possibly my research agenda, and who knows what else. I’m not saying anyone will directly throw the hammer at me- not at all. But people will be pissed, and they’ll find ways to make my life difficult. I recognize that.

So why bother? Why not wait until I had tenure- and true academic freedom? Because I’m not a professor just anywhere—this is Madison. Madison, for pete’s sake—the place where every academic in the country believes anyone can and does speak their mind, and is praised for it. I am deeply proud of this University’s tradition, and I want it upheld.

And in this case, the truth simply couldn’t wait. In my reading, the research here is unequivocal. I’ve got mountains of evidence that truly open discussions were not occurring, and could not under institutional constraints. I spend my days with students who have struggled to gain access to UW-Madison, and also with many of those who’d hope to attend but for major financial barriers. Yes, this policy increases financial aid—and that is a wonderful thing. But there were other routes to achieve the same end, and much better policy designs that were never considered or outright rejected. And so it was time to stand up for my students—and even more importantly for the Wisconsin high school graduates from poor families who will never find their way here. My own personal interests (e.g. salary, community of faculty, even tenure) be damned.

I have a two-year-old. When I leave the house every day I think about why I’m bothering. Today, the world knows why. And honestly, I’m both proud—and scared.

My Take on Taylor

Right now the blogosphere has run amok with talk of Mark Taylor's New York Times op-ed ("End the University as We Know It"), calling for the end of the university as we know it. Of course, with an op-ed like that, many will hate him. So I figured, why not highlight what's good here--and worth considering? In truth, Taylor hits a few high notes I'd like to simply echo. Such as....

1. There is far too little intra-departmental collaboration, and this may well point to the need for new models. I love the idea of cross-disciplinary organizational schemes with faculty gathered around common problems rather than traditional disciplines. But the "problem" areas have got to be more specific than simply "education" or "journalism" or "public policy." Not enough. I'm surprised Taylor didn't recognize that we already have a faculty focused on the problem of "law"-- duh.....

2. Grad students need to know how to get non-academic jobs, and know that life exists (and can be quite good) outside academia.

3. Colleges and universities need to start acting like teammates, especially those within public systems. Yes, SYSTEMS. Share resources, share students, share faculty--share. Can you tell I have a two-year-old?

The only one I strongly oppose--abolishing tenure. Not for the reasons you might think--truth be told, I'm not really focused on long-term job security. I think bright creative people tend to find jobs, somewhere (and of course I'd like to think I meet those criteria). But we need tenure, or something like it, because now is not the time to throw academic freedom into the wind. Trust me.

On Tenure

A hot topic in my life lately, though unfortunately something I know next to nothing about. (All's I know is that guaranteed academic freedom is and will continue to be important in my life). So I want to highlight another person's wisdom, from a cool article from Inside Higher Ed entitled "What I Wish I'd Known About Tenure".

These days I'm especially intrigued by the following pearls:
1. "Tenure is based on the university’s needs, not the achievements of those seeking tenure, and the university sets the rules and controls the odds."
2. "...the tenure process is like a form of academic hazing...Your chances of success may also improve if you do not get mired in departmental politics or have major conflicts with powerful departmental members."

So much for the "meritocracy."