Pages

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

The Queen of Tenure Speaks

I've been following the saga of the war between Dr. Janine Caffrey and the Perth Amboy Board of Education closely for several reasons:

  • Caffrey was given a platform multiple times in the Star-Ledger to opine that tenure is "...the single greatest impediment to education improvement in New Jersey, without a doubt," even though she hadn't even served one year as a superintendent in New Jersey.
  • When Caffrey was accused of malpractice by her board, B4K - the New Jersey reformy lobbying group with deep-pockets and ties to Michelle Rhee's Students First - rushed to put out an ad campaign in her defense. It remains unclear whether the Perth Amboy schools have financial ties to B4K's or SF's backers, although there is substantial circumstantial evidence.
  • Despite her previous calls to, as Tom Moran put it, "...end tenure, to pull it out by the roots and to spread salt over the patch of earth where this weed once grew so that nothing like it can rise in its place, ever," Caffrey has been happy to appeal her firing by the PABOE to ACTING Commissioner Chris Cerf, an act I find massively hypocritical. His latest response to her case mirrors the current tenure law so closely that I am amazed that either Cerf or Caffrey would ever consider revising the law in the future, let alone rescind it.
Apparently, I'm not the only one who is fascinated by all of this. In response to both the PA teachers union, and the rumors that Caffrey says are "swirling around" her district, she has posted a blog entry addressing her experience and connections.

If you've followed the case here or elsewhere, you really should read the post. And then realize Caffrey has not addressed any of the following:
  • What qualifies her to say that tenure is the "...single greatest impediment to education improvement in New Jersey" when, by her own account, she has scant experience as a principal or superintendent in New Jersey schools? While I do find it interesting to hear the views of a neophyte superintendent on the issue of tenure, why should she get multiple appearances in New Jersey's largest newspaper to make the case before hundreds of more experienced administrators?
  • A member of the PA school board directly contradicts the anecdotes Caffrey used to make her case in these anti-tenure pieces. Is Caffrey saying he is lying? Does she dispute his contention that publishing unconfirmed stories about her staff was bad for their morale?
  • Does Caffrey feel it's appropriate for B4K - a lobbying firm that shares her views on tenure, yet has ties to Students First - to wage a public campaign on her behalf? Can she confidently say that there are no financial conflicts of interest between B4K's and/or SF's funders and the Perth Amboy schools?
  • If so: does Joel Rose's New Classroom's still use Wireless Generation as a contractor? New Classrooms has a $60K contract with the Perth Amboy schools. Wireless Generation is owned by Rupert Murdoch, reportedly a funder of SF. SF and B4K have "partnered" in New Jersey. And B4K paid for Caffrey's PR campaign:
  • Finally: was Tom Moran wrong when he said you want to "...end tenure, to pull it out by the roots and to spread salt over the patch of earth where this weed once grew so that nothing like it can rise in its place, ever"? What is your position now on tenure for teachers? Should they, like you, have the chance to appeal personnel decisions to a third party outside of their school district?
I'm glad Caffrey is interested in quelling rummors. But this story now goes well beyond her tiff with her school board. This is about whether or not educators will receive equal workplace protections, regardless of whether wealthy and powerful interests back them or not.

Because if Caffrey and her backers don't believe every teacher and principal deserves the same protections she's enjoying, well...


4 comments:

  1. Well, right this very second the PA BOE is once again, discussing pending litigation involving the Superintendent, personnel matters involving the Superintendent and "other matters protected by attorney-client privilege. There may be formal Board action at this meeting. This is the notice that all staff members received via email last week. We'll see....

    ReplyDelete
  2. One of the things that this fiasco has shown me is the extent to which BOEs do not understand what is happening to education in our state and in our country. PA school Board should have identified her as a corporate reformer a mile away and never let her into the school system. I really do not know the situation under which she was hired, and there may well have been objections. But those of us involved in advocacy need to be sure that we share what we know about corporate ed and not let anyone be duped into hiring someone without understanding the direction they intend to take a public school system.

    Duke - as usual you are spot on. I am glad you can articulate the hypocrisy because it leaves me speechless.....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unfortunately Deb, they are not that smart. It's 10:30--and according to the BOE, she is still large and in charge....."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ugh. The November BOE election looks like it will be a rough one.....

    ReplyDelete

Sorry, spammers have forced me to turn on comment moderation. I'll publish your comment as soon as I can. Thanks for leaving your thoughts.