I will protect your pensions. Nothing about your pension is going to change when I am governor. - Chris Christie, "An Open Letter to the Teachers of NJ" October, 2009

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Tom Moran, I'm Begging: Answer These Questions About Tenure

First of all, I don't ever want to hear the Star-Ledger Editorial Board complain about money the NJEA spends on advertising; not after today's anti-tenure editorial. Granting a very occasional space to the union to run an op-ed in rebuttal is hardly equivalent to many, many pieces the Ledger has written in support of policies to abolish tenure as we know it. The NJEA has every right - in fact, they have a duty - to their members to present the other side of this debate.

(And thanks to Matt Katz of the Philadelphia Inquirer for demonstrating that there is wide-spread support among teachers for the NJEA to continue this information campaign.)

I'll assume this piece was written by Tom Moran, who has made his feelings about tenure quite clear. I won't relive the entire history of my attempts to engage him (if you have nothing better to do this afternoon, here it is); suffice to say I know for a fact that Moran is well-aware of my arguments. For whatever reason, however, he has never seen fit to address them.

But now we're getting down to it: the Ruiz bill is getting closer and closer to an actual, final form. I believe Moran has an obligation - not to me, but to his readers - to answer these substantive criticisms of the bill:

1) Where is the evidence that there are large numbers of tenured "bad" teachers holding back students in New Jersey? The "17 out of 100,000" argument has been disproved here and other places many times, but even if it were true, it's not proof that we have so many "bad" teachers that we must get rid of an anti-cronyism measure that's been in place for decades. Where is the empirical evidence that this is such a huge problem? I've put forward the case that it is not; where is your rebuttal?

2) Tenure is a feature of both high-performing and low-performing schools; doesn't that prove that tenure itself is not a factor in student achievement? This is transparently obvious, yet no one on the anti-tenure side ever seems to want to address the point.

3) The Ruiz bill allows districts to strip tenure without a hearing by an impartial third-party; isn't that exactly the same as simply getting rid of tenure? If a district can take away tenure solely on an administrator's says so - which is exactly what the Ruiz bill does - then that is the same as having no tenure at all.

4) Don't we have plenty of evidence that school districts can easily become politicized, ripe for turning schools into patronage mills? Elizabeth alone is proof enough of that - and the primary reporting has come from Moran's own newspaper.

5) Why should "bad" principals have the power to hire and fire their staffs at will? If a "good" teacher is working for a "bad" principal, and the principal has the power to fire the teacher without appeal to a third-party, how does that possibly help students? Doesn't a principal need a check on his power over his staff - especially in a public service position?

6) For decades, senior teachers have earned more as an incentive to join and remain in the profession; why wouldn't a district fire those more expensive teachers the minute they could to save money? It is completely logical to assume they would, isn't it? How does that make teaching a more attractive profession?

7) Why would we ever consider changing tenure, based on a new evaluation system, when that evaluation system isn't even in place? The bill gives far too much power to the Commissioner of Education, who has sole discretion to approve evaluation systems that haven't even been tested. And the New York City debacle shows that teacher evaluations systems are not to be trusted automatically.

8) If the problem is the length, expense, and difficulty of conducting tenure hearings, why not just cap their time and cost, and make the procedures clear? This is exactly what the NJEA proposes, yet there is a bias in the commentariat against anything the union puts on the table. No wonder teachers are demoralized.

These are simple questions and they demand a response. It's very difficult for any teacher to take the Ruiz bill - or any other anti-tenure policy - seriously until these concerns are addressed.

Tom Moran, you are the Editorial Page Editor for the largest newspaper in the state. You owe it to your readers to answer these questions before you continue to push for a radical restructuring of a taxpayer protection that has been in place for many, many years, and helped foster one of the best school systems in the nation.

I'm begging you, Tom: answer these questions.

13 comments:

czarejs said...

He'll never engage you Duke. Nobody would like to get stomped on as bad as he would.

Dr Phrogg said...

Tenure is just a process. Moran thinks process is evil. The problem with tenure is not with the union, but with the Administrators. They do not exercise due diligence when the have a bad teacher. This makes them bad administrators. How does running a school with bad administrators help students? Although administrators are supposed to have 3 years of classroom experience, I know several with none. They got their job by political cronyism and lies. They have no idea how to run the business of education, yet teachers and the union get blamed. I want to know why no one is looking at the people who set policy and are actually in charge of running the schools?

Anonymous said...

1) Where is the evidence that there are large numbers of tenured "bad" teachers holding back students in New Jersey?

Why would “proof” of that (as if you/NJEA would ever be satisfied of any offered) be necessary for changing a practice that is simply moronic on its face like tenure?

2) Tenure is a feature of both high-performing and low-performing schools; doesn't that prove that tenure itself is not a factor in student achievement?

“Low” and “high” performing schools relative to what? Lol…..private schools? No, I’m sure you wouldn’t want that metric. Who knows how high the “performance” bar can be once we get rid of the worst teachers.

3) The Ruiz bill allows districts to strip tenure without a hearing by an impartial third-party; isn't that exactly the same as simply getting rid of tenure? If a district can take away tenure solely on an administrator's says so - which is exactly what the Ruiz bill does - then that is the same as having no tenure at all.


Well, whatever, then I’ll vote for it twice.

4) Don't we have plenty of evidence that school districts can easily become politicized, ripe for turning schools into patronage mills?

Patronage, as in, getting a job for life that you don’t have to be good at to keep?

5) Why should "bad" principals have the power to hire and fire their staffs at will?

Because about the time Leonid Brezhnez died the world figured out that in order to run an efficient organization, management must be allowed to manage. PS: Take that emotive “at will’ off the end of that question, reread it, and see how totally sensible it sounds.

6) For decades, senior teachers have earned more as an incentive to join and remain in the profession; why wouldn't a district fire those more expensive teachers the minute they could to save money? It is completely logical to assume they would, isn't it? How does that make teaching a more attractive profession?

Are you under the impression that the goal of bankrupt NJ citizens is to make teaching a more attractive profession by paying them more than their true value?

7) Why would we ever consider changing tenure, based on a new evaluation system, when that evaluation system isn't even in place?

It’s being piloted right now, remember? You b!tch about it constantly.


8) If the problem is the length, expense, and difficulty of conducting tenure hearings, why not just cap their time and cost, and make the procedures clear? This is exactly what the NJEA proposes, yet there is a bias in the commentariat against anything the union puts on the table. No wonder teachers are demoralized.

Demoralized? Oh, dear. Well, they can cheer up traveling since they have all summer off.

And, btw, lol, nice to see the NJEA “on board”….

Duke said...

Well. You sure showed me...

(Is this how Atrios feels every minute of every day?)

czarejs said...

Seriously Duke, I don't know how you can live with yourself after Anon Troll regals us with his intellect. lol

cage said...

hey anonymous,

I've been teaching for 6 years and have never had the chance to take a summer off.

I work in an inner city high school where the "new" evaluation system is being piloted. What a joke! The students don't take the tests serious because they know it doesn't count. The adminstrators have no discipline in the building for a number of reasons and provide NO assistance to staff. I should soley be blamed for students underperforming when I can't even get a return call from a parent? seriously, wtf!

You're right about the value of a good teacher. I make less than $50,000 a year in base salary, which is way too much to be paying a HS math teacher. So, I will be retiring from my post within 2-3 years since just about any other job I'm qualified for starts out at more than $70K.

Most of my administrators are on their first year of the job. No, they're not making too many mistakes.

I'm not even going to respond to your #4.

You must not have any kids, but if you do I feel sorry for them.

You obviously know very little about educating children. Again, if you have children I feel sorry for them.

no need to comment on your #1.

Anonymous said...

Heck anon, why did you spend so much time listing your (facile) arguments? Next time, just get right to it and screech, "How dare you have summers off!"

Say, how's that "pilot program" coming along? Pretty good, I guess since it's going to be put into place regardless of the findings--now is that the American way?

If you read the work on this site, you didn't understand it; but what does hate understand?

Anonymous said...

"""I make less than $50,000 a year in base salary, which is way too much to be paying a HS math teacher. So, I will be retiring from my post within 2-3 years since just about any other job I'm qualified for starts out at more than $70K."""

As someone involved in the job market on a daily level -- good luck finding anything near the compensation you expect you will so facilely fall into in the private sector, with a true rate of approaching 20 percent unemployment.

Without substantial specific vertical experience, "qualificiations" mean little to anyone seeking to fill a job above $45-50k. There are too many other more experienced people in line for that same job knocking on doors right now.

This is one of the sadder things I see in the educational field -- sad for both the teachers overvaluing their work and sad for everyone else who has to deal with the virulence of their ignorance of how well they have it.

In this market, I guarantee you 90 percent of teachers in your situation will not be able to take your resume and replace even your base income in the private sector, never mind healthcare, pensions and time off.

lol....I can imagine the job interview. "Yes, I am looking for three times the healthcare package you offer, a full pension, and I can only make it in the office about 180 days a year....."

Anonymous said...

as to your disparagement of the evaluation process -- rave reviews from the teachers involved: http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/0312/0304/

Duke said...

Anon, the NJSpotlight story is hardly a "rave review."

"And one teacher, Tanya Tenturier of Elizabeth's Terence C. Reilly School, who also gave many aspects of the pilot high marks, said the state tests at the end of the year leave her uneasy.

"Honestly I am not sure the point of it all." she said. "My students are demonstrating on a daily basis that they are capable and what their strengths and weaknesses are, I'm not about the big culmination at the end of the year.""

As for your other comment: well, we could rely on your anecdotes, or we could rely on mainstream news sources and high quality academic research. Click on "Essential Jersey Jazzman" on the left, then "Fact Toolkit" for both.

Bottom line: teachers have always taken a hit for choosing to teach. That's fine, except now, thanks to Christie, things are getting much worse.

You can hide your head in the sand and pretend this doesn't matter, but the evidence is against you.

But I don't think you much care about that. You seem to have a very personal investment in demeaning the work teachers do and the compensation they receive. I've had enough of these arguments to know I will not be able to change your mind with facts - I post those those for folks who come here seeking to find the truth by hearing from a teacher advocate (me) in response to the flood of press given to the other side.

Please keep visiting and posting - it keeps my sitemeter spinning.

Anonymous said...

You constantly mention your sitemeter. What is it and why is it important to you?

Duke said...

It keeps count of how many hits I get.

I'm telling a joke, if you couldn't tell. Stole it from Bartcop, I think.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough. You've done it like ten times, so I was wondering.