Bob "Hoover" Ingle Update

It's been a while since I've checked in with Chris Christie's favorite suck-up, Bob "Hoover" Ingle:

Should public school districts be allowed to use tax money for lawsuits that seek to keep charter schools from opening? As charter schools increasingly go from urban to suburban it's a question that needs the public spotlight.

The Princeton International Academy Charter School seeks to bring attention to the issue by suing three public school districts, contending that for two years Princeton Regional, South Brunswick and Plainsboro-West Regional districts have spent at least $44,000 in tax money for legal fees and other expenses in a "calculated and continuing campaign with the objective of ensuring that PIACS never opens its doors."

PIACS was approved by the state but needed two extensions before opening; it is scheduled to start in the 2012-13 school year. The suit was filed with acting Education Commissioner Chris Cerf, who has kicked it to a state administrative law judge.

That's a significant milestone for the charter school movement, said Carlos Perez, president and CEO of the New Jersey Charter Schools Association: "It's unfair that a startup charter school is forced to spend its limited resources fighting a public school district instead of using that money to educate children."

Moreover, there is a process in place for districts to participate in the evaluation of charter schools. They can appeal a charter school's approval.

Yes, they can appeal to... charter cheerleader Chris Cerf! Think that'll work well?

If anyone is having their rights stomped on and due process denied to them, it's the citizens of the Princeton area. They are having this charter school shoved down their throats by unelected bureaucrats whether they want it or not. The school board - their elected officials, whom they picked to represent them on education - have no say in approving this charter.

Now, these same officials are expected to just to hand over taxpayer money to these guys without any due diligence. What happens if the charter school - like charters in Philadelphia, and California, and Texas, and all over the country - is run by a bunch of crooks who scam the citizens out of their money? These boards have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure the taxpayers aren't being bilked; they will answer to their own communities if they don't, and they know it.

You'd think a self-styled crusader like Ingle would appreciate that. You'd think he's be put off by things like this:

The charter school isn't mounting its case on the cheap, either. It has hired one of the state's preeminent law firms, as well as a well-known public relations shop to defend its cause. Block said it was being entirely funded by private individuals, although he refused to disclose who they are. [emphasis mine]

No, "Hoover" couldn't care less about that. Just like he couldn't care less about interviewing the hundreds of people who showed up to object to PIACS at a zoning meeting in April that required the police to enforce fire-code restrictions on occupancy.

See, "Hoover" is "baffled" by their objections:

The other side of the debate comes from Save Our Schools NJ, which wants the law changed so that local residents have more say about charters opening in their communities.

That baffles me. If the public schools are doing such a great job, parents won't want to send their kids to a charter school and it will close. If the public schools are failing, competition is what they need to get them up to speed.

Either way, monopoly is never good and forcing kids into a failing school based on their ZIP codes is right up there with wasting tax money on lawsuits when the courts have ruled school boards can't take advocacy roles.

"Hoover" thinks it's "choice" when bureaucrats from Trenton come to your district and force you to fund a school that has no track record, whether your community wants it or not. He thinks it's a good idea for taxpayers to roll the dice on the off chance this school will "succeed," and if the kids who actually go there wind up getting a crappy education for a few years and have to transfer when the school closes - well, that's life.

The fact is that there is no "choice" when a charter is forced on your community. That charter will not take the kids who are hardest to educate; the ones who cost more to educate. No, that expense will be left for the district, which will not be able to count on economies of scale when some of the "average" kids leave for a charter. The taxpayers won't have a "choice" but to fund the now disproportionate number of special needs children with program cuts or tax increases.

That's not "choice," Hoover, no matter what that man you keep sucking up to says...

My "choice" is to keep sucking up to the bestest guv EVAH!

ADDING: Hoover just can't help embarrassing himself, can he?

Derrell Bradford runs Better Education for Kids (B4K), a new advocacy group based in Newark which is financed by hedge fund managers. The status quo types who think the Abbott schools decision is the answer, even though in 30 years it has changed little but costs a lot, want us to think there is something amiss about that. Bradford is one of the most dedicated people I’ve run across. He believes in looking out fore the kids but also rewarding the good teachers.

Let's see some of that "dedication," shall we?

Hoover, if Bradford is "one of the most dedicated people I’ve run across," you need to hang out with some new people.

The "Other" Ben Chavis - Reformy Maniac

I want to start this with a hat tip to some terrific bloggers who were nice enough to drop by here and leave some great information for this post:

• Robert D. Skeels over at solidaridad.
• The Perimeter Primate
• South Bronx School (not anything about Chavis, but plenty on the NYC schools and Moskowitz)

You should check them out - they're all on my blogroll at the left.

I honestly had not heard of Ben Chavis (no, not that Ben Chavis, this Ben Chavis), before his disastrous and embarrassing appearance in MSNBC's A Stronger Nation. But, thanks to my rockin' commenters, let me fill you in a little more on this maniac.

Chavis has been wreaking havoc in the Bay Area for a while, which is why I guess I didn't know him. For those of us in the NYC area, I'd almost say he is Northern California's equivalent of Eva Moskowitz: a shameless self-promoter with an abrasive style that corporate reformers love but makes the rest of us crazy.

Chavis, however, brings the crazy in a way Moskowitz can only dream of:

One morning in March, Mills College education professor Sabrina Zirkel brought some graduate students to Chavis' famed charter school. She chose the school in part because its outstanding test scores and harsh disciplinary practices strike at the heart of a national debate on education reform. 

Zirkel said she expected to see some "tough talk." She didn't expect Chavis to drive one of her graduate students, a 25-year-old African-American man, out of the school after he showed up 15 minutes late. 

"He pushed his chest into my shoulder and begun to usher me out of the building, shouting profanities and insults in my face. He called me a '(expletive) minority punk" at least five times and shouted, 'I'm going to kick your ass' at least seven times.' 

"He said ... I was a 'worthless piece of (expletive) people have been making excuses for' all of my life," was the account Unity Lewis gave in a complaint letter, echoed by others in his group. 

Chavis acknowledges he swore at Lewis and that he called him a "disgrace" to his race. He did so, he said, because Lewis "acted like a fool," called Chavis a "homey" and initially refused to leave the school grounds. 

Chavis was hardly chastened by the scathing complaints. In fact, he said, he showed Lewis' letter to his students, and they made fun of its spelling and grammatical errors. 

He hooted. "They think he's a loser," he said. 

Chavis had little reason to worry that the Mills incident would cause him any problems. The school district, and his own board, had received allegations of belligerent behavior for years.

The same article reports he calls students "darkies." That itself is enough for me to wonder why this guy is ever allowed near students.

Oh, and just to reiterate: MSNBC put him on their Stronger Nation panel in lieu of ANY working teachers, and the host, Tamron Hall, described Chavis as a "genius."

Then there's this:

Two charters, both cited as models that traditional schools should emulate, must include a warped version of the First Amendment in their civics curriculum. The schools, American Indian Model Schools in Oakland and Green Dot Public Schools' Locke High School in Los Angeles, are so committed to indoctrinating students with their promoters' economic ideology that they require students to recite pro-capitalist pledges or prove that they believe in the economics of Adam Smith. 

California's social studies guidelines do not even mention capitalism, although the economics section could have been written by Milton Friedman. 

At Oakland's American Indian Public Charter School, the school's director, John P. Glover, refuses to confirm that his students are required to recite a pledge to capitalism, yet that the kids recited such a statement - to be "productive members in a free-market capitalist society" - was reported by Los Angeles Times staff writer Mitchell Landsberg in May 2009 after he visited the school.

Talk about a Randian wet dream.

I'm left wondering why any one of these Wall Street charter cheerleaders would want to go near this guy. Unless they LIKE this sort of thing...

At a public education forum last April, Tilson witnessed Ben Chavis’ aggressive verbal attack onNew York City Council Member Charles Barron. According to Tilson, Barron was approached by Chavis who said,

“You're a mother f-ing black pimp, you're f-ing our kids. Come to the reservation and I'll beat your ass. You want our kids to take Home Ec? YOU should wear a dress!"

Lovely, just lovely – what a great behavior to model for his students who hope to find success in the larger society 

For those of us in Oakland who have been experiencing Chavis for years, hearing something like this was nothing new. I wonder if someone will happen to provoke him while he’s out on his book tour; whatever comes out of his mouth is sure to shock. But I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of his handlers or ed reform patrons have admonished him to tone down his remarks. His words may titillate some people, but will repulse many more others.

Click through to see Whitney's 5-star review: "I LIKE this guy!" You're some judge of character, there, Whitney...


I'm going to quote Perimeter Primate directly from my comments:

Chavis talks big about educating black and brown skinned kids, but he basically changed his school's test scores by changing its demographics. He achieved his "miracle" by recruiting more and more smart Asian kids. Only the most Tigerish parents will send their kids to this school; it is totally unattractive for most everyone else. His AA students have included the children of a local principal -- not exactly kids who have much in common with the typical high risk urban kid in town.

And here are some demographic changes for the Chavis's American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland - watch the American Indian kids just magically fade away...

Please take a look at the changing percentage of students who belong in one of the following subgroups: American Indian or Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, Filipino, Hispanic or Latino, or African American. This is for the 13 school years from 1996-97 to 2008-09. All figures are from DataQuest at the California Department of Education’s website.

· 1996-97 = 100.0

· 1997-98 = 97.0

· 1998-99 = 93.8

· 1999-00 = 100.1

· 2000-01 = 97.0

· 2001-02 = 100

· 2002-03 = 98.7

· 2003-04 = 74.3

· 2004-05 = 55.4

· 2005-06 = 65.3

· 2006-07 = 51.1

· 2007-08 = 50.5

· 2008-09 = 42.3

The school’s American Indian or Alaska Native percentage in 1996-97 was 100%. This year it is 1.1%.

Now look at the changing percentage of the school’s students who are either Asian or White.

· 1996-97 = 0.0

· 1997-98 = 2.9

· 1998-99 = 6.2

· 1999-00 = 0.0

· 2000-01 = 2.9

· 2001-02 = 0.0

· 2002-03 = 1.2

· 2003-04 = 25.7

· 2004-05 = 44.6

· 2005-06 = 33.7

· 2006-07 = 22.4

· 2007-08 = 38.4

· 2008-09 = 54.4*

Ben Chavis took over the failing school in 2001-02. It only took him a short time to figure out how to maximize his school’s test scores. One of his primary methods was simply to change the demographics.

I don't think I've seen a better example of changing a charter's demographics to change the tests scores.

I'll admit that at times I've kept a Jersey-centric focus on corporate education "reform." But it is really, really important for everyone to understand that this is happening everywhere. For every Eva Moskowitz in NYC, there's Ben Chavis in Oakland, and a Derrell Bradford in New Jersey.

The mendacity is part of a national trend, even if it needs to be fought locally.

Corporate "Reformers" HATE Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor: "The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." That's a little simplistic, perhaps, but the principle is important: it shifts the burden of proof away from those who state the obvious and the observable on to those who want to believe in their preconceived notions.

Which brings us to charter schools:

An umbrella group for the city's charter schools says its members outperformed district schools on state exams this year - but admits they serve fewer special-needs kids.

A study by the New York City Charter School Center says charters "have lower enrollment rates for students with disabilities [and] much lower rates for English language learners."

District schools serve more than twice as many English language learners than charters, the report said. And just 12.7% of charter school students have disabilities, compared with 15.1% at district schools, the report says.

Now, wouldn't the simplest explanation for the higher scores be that the charters are serving far fewer kids who are difficult to educate? Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest to us that the difference in the students would account for the difference in the scores?

If you're a corporate "reformer"... no:

Still, Charter School Center CEO James Merriman says the demographics aren't what boosted the charters' state test scores above those of district schools by 11.2% in English and 0.7% in math this year.

"I don't think the evidence suggests that it accounts for all of the difference," said Merriman, noting that many charters have longer school days than district schools and more days of instruction.

Really? You're going to look at us with a straight face and tell us that a longer school day - and we don't even know what the charters do with that school day - accounts for the difference? And not the fact that you have half the number of English language learners?

Folks, I've said this a thousand times here: charters may indeed have a place. I am not against charters per se; I started at a charter.

But this is beyond absurd. We can't have a rational conversation about this stuff unless and until people are willing to start facing the truth. The research that makes a case for lengthening the school day is weak, at best. But we know without question that student characteristics influence test scores more than any other factor. Why can't these charter cheerleaders admit the obvious?

ADDING: I need an editor: "principle," not "principal." Well, guess what's on my mind this time of year?

Son of "Our Failed Education Discourse"

Honestly, where do they find these guys?

Reformers led by Gov. Chris Christie are now trying to employ practices that have worked well in the private sector — competition, accountability and reward — to raise the academic performance of these schools.

Yes, these things have worked so well in the private sector...

Yeah, that's working just great.

The governor also wants to hold teachers accountable for their performance, in part by tying their tenure to objective measures of effectiveness, such as how their students perform on statewide tests and how much academic improvement they make during the school year.

Because it's a great business practice to base evaluating your employees on measures that they can't control and have error rates of 35% percent. 

This brings us to Christie’s plan for merit pay for teachers. It would set up a system to base teacher compensation partially on demonstrated effectiveness in advancing student learning. It would also provide financial incentives for teachers who choose to work at a failing school or teach in a subject area that has been identified as difficult to staff.

Merit pay is one of the most important principles for managing a work force, whether in business or government. If employees are paid the same amount whether they do a good job or not, it won’t be long before much of the work force loses motivation.

Let's just ignore the fact that merit pay has never worked in schools and just keep "clapping harder" for the Merit Pay Fairy!

Honestly, I can't continue. It's not just that guys like this have no clue what they're talking about. It's not that they have no standing to make these pronouncements that only serve to make them look stupid.

It's that they are demonstrably bad at their own jobs. A guy from the "New Jersey Business and Industry Association" thinks NJ businesses are doing so freakin' well that he has the right to come into my world and tell me he's going to "fix" the "problems" in my schools? Is he serious?

Dude, you're the problem. You can't even put together a decent system to employ people in this state and pay them reasonable wages. You can't even come up with a way to punish corporate pirates who run their companies into the ground before they steal away with millions from their shareholders. You can't even keep the air and water clean and keep food safe and not destroy infrastructure without whining like a bunch of babies that somehow it's all the government's fault. You've can't even treat your employees with enough respect to allow them decent health care and retirements.

Clean up your own mess before you start coming around and blaming me for all the problems YOU'VE created. Man up and accept some responsibility for once.

If you can't, then just shut up and go away.

Our Failed Education Discourse

Dana Goldstein and Ezra Klein are two smart, capable writers who know plenty about education policy. And yet, when they get together to discuss teacher evaluation, they completely - COMPLETELY - miss the most important point to be made in the entire debate:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I've watched this twice: there is a lot of talk about using student test scores to evaluate teachers, but not once do either mention that it doesn't work.


There is no debate on this - even the corporate reformers admit that value-added modeling based on standardized test scores is hugely error-prone. Every major research group that has studied this says not to do it, including the National Research Council (p. 8), the "gold standard"of science research in the US. The error rates for misidentifying a teacher are 35% - and that's only the 10%-20% of teachers you could judge with test-based evaluation anyway.

Isn't this the key part of the entire debate? Isn't this the most relevant point to be made in all this?

How in the hell can you have a serious talk about using test scores to evaluate teachers without mentioning that all the research says NOT TO DO IT?!?!


I'm sorry, Ezra and Dana, but this is just not acceptable. You MUST acknowledge this every time you discuss the topic. Omitting the fact that evaluation of teachers by tests scores has huge error rates is like omitting the fact that the Earth is warming from a climate change debate.

Ben Chavis: Uninformed "Genius"

Just one thing more about about MSNBC's attempt to cover eduction reform last Sunday:

One of the panelists was Ben Chavis; no, not that Ben Chavis, this Ben Chavis. He's a former principal at an American Indian charter school.

Tamron Hall described Chavis as a "genius." Wow, really? Well, we'd better listen to what this "genius" has to say:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"I not blaming the white people or the Chinese. I'm telling you: they're low too. They don't know they're low. Everybody in America's low. Until you start offering math and science... I hear people telling you, "Let's be creative. We're killing creativity." Creativity?! Our kids can't do math! If you want to compete in a global aconomy... if you're from China and you come to America and you can't speak English and you're great in mathematics, you can teach at the University of Michigan."

First, I'd like to point out to Dr. Chavis that those Chinese people are coming to our amazing university system to study math - not the other way around.

But let's examine Dr. Chavis's contention that "everybody's low" in America. Is it true?

Fast forward to January 2011 after the NASSP had time to scrutinize the scores more closely. We now realize that if we remove the scores of American students who live in poverty from the  results, American students score the highest of any country in reading, higher than Finland! Finland’s reading score was 536. When the the United States included ALL of its students’ scores, our score was a mediocre 500 in reading. When we remove the scores of students living  in poverty (students who qualify for free and reduced lunch), U.S.  students scored 551 — the top reading score.

Free and Reduced Meal Rate of U.S. Schools	PISA Score
Schools with less than 10%	551
Schools with 10 – 24.9%	527
Schools with 25 – 49.9%	502
Schools with 49.9 – 74.9%	471
Schools with greater than 75%	446
U.S. Average	500

To quote Dr. Gerald N.Tirozzi, the Executive Director of the NASSP: “Once again we’re reminded that students in poverty require intensive supports to break past a condition that formal schooling alone cannot overcome.”

Get ready. The next chart will shock you. WARNING: I suggest that unless you want many sleepless nights that you skip it altogether.

Although not all countries tested submitted their poverty rates, here is an abbreviated list of some of the countries that did. (At the bottom of this post you will see a link to the actual NASSP site where you will find complete listings.)

Country	Poverty Rate	PISA Scores
Finland	3.4%	536
Czech Republic	7.2%	478
Germany	10.9%	497
Australia	11.6%	515
Canada	13.6%	524
Japan	14.3%	520
United Kingdom	16.2%	494
United States	21.7%	500

Look at the chart below at the scores from countries with poverty rates of less than 10% and compare them to the U.S. scores of schools where the poverty rate is less than 10%:

Country	Poverty Rate	PISA Scores
United States	Less than 10%	551
Finland	3.4%	536
Netherlands	9.0%	508
Belgium	6.7%	506
Norway	3.6%	503
Switzerland	6.8%	501
France	7.3%	496
Denmark	2.4%	495
Czech Republic	7.2%	478

Is  the real problem coming into focus? It’s not teachers, stupid. It’s not unions or any of the other willy-nilly things the NCLB reformers have been targeting. It’s poverty. Now we know what the problem is. Next we have to figure out effective ways to address it. No longer do we need to ask what’s causing our mediocre scores. We only need to look for solutions to poverty!  Now let’s get to it and drop NCLB, RTTT and all of the other nutty things we’ve been doing the last 10 years.

What's that, you say? You want to get picky and talk about math? Well, I haven't found the same breakdown in the math scores, but there is this news:

The second point to keep in mind is that U.S. scores actually improved in two subjects.  One of the more positive developments in education policy over the past decade or two has been a shift in focus from absolute scores to growth. The idea is that schools with relatively low average scores need not be considered failing if they exceed expectations in boosting their students’ performance every year. Rather, they are often considered successful. This same standard might apply to PISA as well.

And the new 2009 math and science scores are higher than they were in 2006 (the last PISA round) by a statistically significant margin (though the math scores are not higher than in 2003, because there was a drop between 2003 and 2006).  There are no 2006 data for U.S. reading (due to a printing error in the test booklets), but reading scores are not statistically different from 2003 or 2000. 

It’s therefore somewhat misleading to say that we’ve gotten worse.  Overall science and math scores actually improved since the last administration of PISA. [emphasis mine]

 If someone can point me toward a similar treatment to above on math and science scores, please do. It may well be we aren't #1 in math or science when accounting for poverty - but I'll bet we're damn close.

I'll also point this out:

Rhee's claim is that the top 5% of students have these low scores, when, in fact, they do not.  Not even close.  OECD disaggregates scores based on percentile rankings, and here are the results below, for reading, math, and science. Contrary to Rhee's lie, our top students 10% (90th percentil of students outscore any nation and the Chinese city-state, Shanghai.  When you look at the top 5% of American students (95th percentile), these kids leave the rest of the world in the dust in reading, math, and science. Click any of the charts to enlarge.

In reading, top-scoring Shanghai scored 556.  As you can see, our top 25% bested that score.

Michelle Rhee lied about test scores? I'm just shocked...

As I've said before: there is a group of people in this country who have a vested interest in bad-mouthing the great work our students are doing in school. These people are either clueless, soulless, or both.

Christie Insults Teachers: Add Your Own

As I posted yesterday, there's still an idea floating around out there that Chris Christie has insulted the teachers union, but has refrained from insulting teachers themselves. That's nonsense, and we're collecting the evidence right here.

Look at our growing collection below (all emphasis is mine), and then add your own example of Christie insulting teachers - not unions - in the comments. I'll continue to update this list and eventually post it in one of the permanent pages of this site.

That way, whenever someone makes this claim again, you know where to send them.

April, 2010, CNBC:

“I love the public schools but the fact of the matter is there is excess and greed there,” said Christie, during an appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box. [That's in the "public schools," not the union offices - JJ]

July, 2010, MSNBC:

The state teachers union said--they had a rally in Trenton against me. 35,000 people came from the teachers. You know what that rally was? The "me first" rally. "Pay me my raise first. Pay me my free health benefits first. Pay me my pension first. And everybody else in New Jersey, get to the back of the line." Well, you know what? I'm not going to sit by and allow that to go unnoticed, so we'll shine a bright light on it, and we'll see how the people react. But I think we are seeing how the people of New Jersey are reacting, and that's how you make it politically palatable in other states in the country. Just shine a bright light on greed and self-interest.

April, 2010, The Star-Ledger:

 "Scaring students in the classroom, scaring parents with the notes home in the bookbags, and the mandatory 'Project Democracy Homework' asking your parents about what they're going to do in the school board election, and reporting back to your teachers union representatives, using the students like drug mules to carry information back to the classroom, is reprehensible."

November, 2010, The Trentonian:

“These teachers have all summer off. Can’t they have their convention during the summer?’’ the governor said as he spoke to a clutch of high schoolers surrounding him.

“They got to get two days off from school because, you know, they don’t get enough time off now, right? They get two weeks off at Christmas, they get all the different holidays, then they get all the summer off and now they need two more days.

“Why do you think that is? Do you think If they cared about learning where would they be today?’’

Ashley Batts, 16, a Trenton Central High School sophomore answered “in school.’’

“That’s right, in school, baby, they would not be down there in Atlantic City having a party — because that’s what it is.’’ [Does everyone understand that the Governor of New Jersey told a group of students that their teachers do not care about learning? Does everyone think that's acceptable? - JJ]

May, 2010, Politico:

The teacher responded by saying that she has a master’s degree and that her current salary isn’t compensating her for the value of her higher education as well as her experience. 

To that, the governor responded: “Well, you know then that you don’t have to do it.”

 March, 2010, Blue Jersey, quoting Christie directly:

"Teachers who crowded the statehouse on Monday to try to intimidate public officials like Assemblyman Schroeder and Assemblywoman Vandervalk into not voting for pension and benefit reform.

"And when one teacher was asked, "What are you doing here today? It's a Monday in the school year." She said, 'Oh, we got a substitute. I left a plan; it's not like they're watching videos or something.' 

"They. 'Not like they're watching videos or something.' I thought that was a really interesting part of the quote. That contraction: 'they're.' They didn't say 'the kids' then, did they? No, they only use the words 'the kids' when they want to evoke an emotional response from you which will get you to open your wallet and pay them. 

"When they're talking about protesting and fighting in Trenton, then it's 'they're.' 'They're watching videos or something.' I thought that was an interesting part of the quote. Language matters, ladies and gentlemen. Language is a window into attitude. And this isn't about the kids. So let's dispense with that portion of the argument. 

"And I have heard these stories over the last week, over and over again from all over New Jersey about teachers standing in front of classrooms, and lying about and excoriating the governor and the lieutenant governor." [This one is my personal favorite. He is criticizing a teacher for using a pronoun to describe her students. So, every time you hear Chris Christie use a pronoun to describe kids - or seniors, or taxpayers, or police, or the military, or whomever - understand that, by his definition, that's an insult. - JJ]

Again, add your favorites below. The rule is that Christie must be insulting teachers, not the union.

Chris Christie: Teacher Insulter

One more thought about Jane's Roh's pieces in the Courier-Post this past weekend - the pieces that featured such sagacity from yours truly... (oh, let me have a little fun, OK?)

Jane says this:

The teacher known as StoptheFreezeNJ said he was driven into anonymity after starting a Facebook group criticizing Christie. While the governor himself has never publicly insulted teachers, many of his admirers do so freely on the Internet. [emphasis mine]

Oh, really?

“I love the public schools but the fact of the matter is there is excess and greed there,” said Christie, during an appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box. 

Or how about:

The state teachers union said--they had a rally in Trenton against me. 35,000 people came from the teachers. You know what that rally was? The "me first" rally. "Pay me my raise first. Pay me my free health benefits first. Pay me my pension first. And everybody else in New Jersey, get to the back of the line." Well, you know what? I'm not going to sit by and allow that to go unnoticed, so we'll shine a bright light on it, and we'll see how the people react. But I think we are seeing how the people of New Jersey are reacting, and that's how you make it politically palatable in other states in the country. Just shine a bright light on greed and self-interest. (emphasis mine)

Or my personal favorite:

 "Scaring students in the classroom, scaring parents with the notes home in the bookbags, and the mandatory 'Project Democracy Homework' asking your parents about what they're going to do in the school board election, and reporting back to your teachers union representatives, using the students like drug mules to carry information back to the classroom, is reprehensible." (emphasis mine)

I think any fair reading is that Christie, in each of these cases, was insulting teachers and not union officials. He's certainly not talking about Barbara Keshishian's pension in the second example. The "reporting" in the third is to union officials, not by union officials.

I will not let this guy off easily for this. He's insulted teachers, not just teachers unions. It's indisputable.