The "Passion" of Chris Christie

Our governor just can't understand why, after two years of relentless teacher bashing, broken promises, and slashed salaries, anybody wouldn't want to go into public service:

I think for those people who are feeling discouraged right now, because they're going to have to pay a percentage of their health insurance premium, or they're going to have to pay one or two points more towards a lifetime pension, then I would suggest to you respectfully that those people have completely lost touch with reality, and probably didn't have the passion to begin with.

See, all you cops and firefighters, you've got to understand that you can't expect to make salaries in the high five-figures just because you do a job where people point guns at your head or you run into burning buildings. And teachers, you should be thrilled that you work 5/6 of the time but get paid 2/3 as much as other college graduates. But don't worry - Christie wants you to make more! He can't say how much more, because he won't say where he'll get the money, which you'll only get if your students pass a test you can't see that has huge error rates...

Also, be prepared for when you become a teacher and your governor tells a room full of teenagers that you don't care about them. That's the sort of prestige you get when you pursue a career in education. Ready to sign up?

Now, it is true that the governor wants to break the promise that was made to you to have a modest COLA on your pension, because he needs the money to keep taxes low on millionaires (apparently, they create jobs, although no one knows where these jobs are right now...). So, yes, the value of your pension will degrade every year, even though you are now paying more than ever and Christie still won't pay the state's share, putting the solvency of the whole thing in grave doubt.

And, yes, you public servants are taking pay cuts of up to 10% or even more to pay for increasingly crappy health insurance with larger copays and larger deductibles, and nothing is being done to rein in outrageous cost increases while contractors like George Norcross reap untold millions of dollars off of your hard work.

But if you have a problem with any of this... it's YOUR fault! YOU aren't passionate enough! And if you need an example of how to be passionate, look no further than your governor, Chris Christie!

Yes, friends, Chris Christie also had a passion as a young man: corporate lobbying! He felt so passionate about his "life's calling" that he made the sacrifice of becoming a very, very rich man living in a very, very big house with a wife who works part-time yet pulls down half-a-mil a year.

So, all you young people who are looking at a career in public service: follow your hearts, just like Chris Christie! Live your dreams, even if that means sacrificing decent health care for your family and a modest pension. I mean, look at all Chris Christie gave up...

Chris Christie says: "Look at the sacrifice I made to follow my passion! Why can't you cops and firefighters and teachers do the same?"

America's Smartest Man

Is apparently a school supervisor in New Jersey named John Fenimore, who wrote a letter containing some well-needed logic:

The editorial “High marks” (Sept. 12) regarding 75 percent of likely voters favoring merit pay for teachers misses an essential point. No one seems to be asking how much more it will cost to pay teachers based on merit. As a supervisor in a New Jersey public school district in the early 2000s, the school board insisted supervisors’ contract language include salary increases based on merit rather than a pay guide. As supervisors continued to attain the predetermined goals set by the superintendent, the cost to the district increased much more than anticipated. After two contracts, with the salaries of supervisors in this district far surpassing any in adjacent counties, the board eliminated merit pay for supervisors and returned to a pay guide, where costs could be more adequately contained.[emphasis mine]

You mean, there actually might be a cost to paying teachers on merit? Even though "we're all out of money"?!?! (that's a lie, by the way)

It is a source of continual amazement to me that the most basic questions about the corporate "reformers'" plans have not been asked: not by politicians, not by pundits, not by pollsters, not by think-tanky types...

Apparently, only people who write letters to the editor and a few smart-mouthed bloggers have decided to think this through.

Polls and "Experts"

I had briefly ragged on Patrick Murphy's Monmouth poll on schools a while back. Bruce Baker (via Twitter), DS Wright, and Matt DiCarlo gave their criticism as well.

Now Murphy's fighting back. But scroll down, and you'll find both Bruce and Matt have left responses of their own. Here's Bruce:

4) Setting aside this methodological quibbling, I take issue with Mr.
Murray's point that academic researchers might come at these issues with
normative values - as I admittedly do - and that having normative
values (based on years of extensive research on these topics) somehow
invalidates someone's ability to critique the poll. As Mr. Murray frames
it, only through outright blissful ignorance can anyone be sufficiently
impartial to be involved in, or make claims or arguments about polling
methodology.  Those with knowledge, and opinions derived from that
knowledge are necessarily too biased to have valid concerns. I'll admit
that I have biases for rigorous research methodologies, and that is
perhaps what is at play here. Like Dr. Di Carlo (who holds a Ph.D. in
Sociology from Cornell, I believe), I'm not a pollster. I'm a researcher
and perhaps that alters my view on how research is conducted and what
kinds of conclusions can be reasonably drawn from survey responses to
questions with specific wording.  I generally don't care much for polls
or polling results, but I am a stickler for methods. This poll was about
policies, not politicians. And as someone who studies policies I am
particularly sensitive to the details of policy design &
implementation. This poll was clearly not, and was exceptionally sloppy
in its characterization of policies and policy design. And that's a
methodological problem, and one that is so glaringly apparent because of
my academic expertise in this area - not because of some normative
bias. Because of actual details, including statutes and regulations. [emphasis mine]

In many ways, this one sentence wraps up the entire debate about education "reform." Why does it seem that everyone who is driving the reform has no theoretical or practical expertise in education? Why aren't educators allowed to lead the dialog about reforms?


Murphy relies on argument by authority in his piece: "To start, most of the criticism has come from people without expertise in the field of survey research." Well, OK - but's what's YOUR expertise on education? Why do you get to decide what is and what isn't a mischaracterization of tenure when you have no experience in the field?

I've made this comparison before: nobody treats doctors or lawyers this way. Nobody would dare attempt to talk with authority about CPA licensing without a background in accounting. No one would put out a poll on nursing practices and reword the rules on employment practices unless they had a deep knowledge of nursing.

Just like no one would have a TV show panel about pilot training and safety without a lot of pilots. Or how no one would have a task force on veterinarian oversight with only one practicing vet.

And yet here we have, yet again, another example where teachers are treated like unskilled laborers instead of the professionals they are. It's insulting. It certainly insulted Patrick Murphy when folks outside of his field questioned him...

Party of Losers

May I just say how sick and tired I am of being in a party of losers?

Unions and progressives need to follow Britain's lead and create a third party that caucuses with DLC-Obama-Weprin-type Dems. Except we don't allow losers like Weprin to run.

The "Passionate" Bill Gates

Jiminy Christmas...

A passionate believer in education reform, Bill reviews Steven Brill’s book, Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America’s Schools, a well-written account of the people, politics, and policies involved in the effort to improve teaching and learning.

Well, if he's "passionate," he must be right...

Brill clearly took the time to learn about some complex issues, like how charter schools compare and what the federal No Child Left Behind program did to the education system in the U.S.

What Brill did was oversell charters in contradiction to the actual research.

The book is over 400 pages, so it is not for anyone who just wants a quick skip through the status quo and a few debating points.

Do I really have to point out how condescending it is to those of us down in the trenches that a CEO can read 400 pages and think that he has paid a huge price to become informed about what we do?

There are some surprising facts too. One of the things that amazed me was the high proportion of people pushing for education reform who had spent time at Teach For America, the non-profit group that trains and places teachers in schools in low-income communities.

Yes, we all need to get behind more "white people... destroy and leave." 

I was impressed by the key role that the group Democrats for Education Reform has played in encouraging Democrats to be willing to make changes that the teachers union resists. Brill doesn’t cover the challenges in getting Republican politicians to get behind reform as well as he does the Democrats though.

You know why, Bill? Because Whitney Tilson knew Republicans were already on board for these policies that won't work (h/t Leonie Haimson - who else?). The entire plot has been about co-opting the Cuomos and the Obamas and Duncans. Speaking of whom...

President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan come across very well in speaking up passionately for a system that has to do better for the children.

Does anyone really give a crap anymore about how "passionately" anyone in power "speaks up" for the children? Haven't we all figured out by now that "speaking up" for the children is what cynical, self-serving political and business figures do when they don't want to be called to account for the absolute failure of America politics and business?

The person that Brill spent the most time talking to in preparing the book is Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers union. Overall, he shows sympathy for the position she is in as a union leader, but he does highlight some places where she presents the union in a more reasonable light than their actual behavior would justify.

Let's just throw that little snipe at teachers and their unions out their and let it fester a while, shall we? Makes all the oligarchs feels better about themselves...

The book suggests that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg backed off from pushing for as much change as Klein, chancellor of the city’s Department of Education for eight years, was asking for and that his pension generosity was a mistake. If someone like Bloomberg – who is far braver and more committed to change than most politicians – shies away from the toughest part of changing the work rules and personnel system, then it shows how hard it is going to be.

Yes, and we all know Joel Klein is in it for the kids, not the $2 million or more he's getting from Rupert Murdoch. And it's not like Gates and Klein and Murdoch see a huge business opportunity in American education (h/t again to Leonie - she's relentless).

Overall, this book gives a real sense of the challenges that lay ahead for us in improving education in this country and it’s an important one for anyone who cares about an issue which ultimately affects us all.

I can't argue with that: the fact that Gates is pushing this ridiculous screed is all the proof you need that people who really care about public education - teachers, parents, education researchers - have a daunting fight ahead.

We're just going to have to be as "passionate" as Mr. Gates, who I wish would show some passion for making a computer that doesn't crash every five minutes...

I'm all about the passion...

"Education Industry"

I really don't want to upset Matthew Yglesias and indulge in a "generalized presumption that people who care about education have a hidden agenda." But then I get stuff like this in my email box:

I added the little red oval to make a point: did you know our schools are an "industry"? And that we should be discussing them as part of an "Economic Development Summit"?

Mr. Norcross is proposing that his health care network "provide services" for a new chain of charter schools across New Jersey. Talk about new markets...

Oh, I'm so sorry. Did I imply anything but the best of intentions for everyone involved? Terribly sorry. It's not like there's a history of this sort of thing...

ADDING: I'm the last one who should laugh at grammatical mistakes, but when you send out an invitation, you should know the difference between "it's" and "its." And these guys are going to tell us how to run our schools... (h/t Berdanette J over at Facebook)

OK, Smart Guy - What Would YOU Do?

Over at Blue Jersey, I recently spent a week demolishing the corporate "reform" argument. Well, no, that's not quite right; I'd spent the last week bringing together a bunch of research and writing that did all the demolishing for me. Folks like Bruce Baker, Matt DiCarlo, Valerie Strauss, Leonie Haimson, and Diane Ravitch are among the many who have done the legwork that makes it so easy to build a case against these rash, uniformed, and just plain silly proposals.

But all of this leads to a question: what should we do instead?

It's a fair question. Even though this notion of an education "crisis" has been blown way out of proportion, I do believe that we could make things better. And I do believe that the continued achievement gap is a serious problem that needs to be fixed once and for all if we're ever going to live up to our promise as a nation.

But let's not destroy what already works. Let's not come in with cheap gimmicks that will wreck great schools like "merit pay" and "tenure reform" and "charter schools" and all that other reformy jive. Let's instead come up with a serious plan for serious reform.

Here then are the key points of the Jazzman Reform Plan:


1) Pay teachers and principals more across the board, pay more to teach in the toughest districts, and extend tenure protection to teachers who've already earned it and who wish to move into those districts.


You want better teachers? Grow up, and pay up. That's the way the market works. You want better teachers in the hardest places to work? You have to make it worth their while. But people like me will never even consider going to those districts unless we can keep our tenure, because there's no guarantee we'll be any good in those districts anyway. We should be able to move on without penalty if it doesn't work out.

And let's do what Daniel Pink says: take money off the table as an issue. Pay teachers well, and leave it at that.


2) Get rid of the superintendent pay cap in New Jersey.


Dear lord, who ever came up with this stupid idea? It couldn't be a Republican, because they love the "free market"...

You need the best of the best running our schools. Do some consolidation if you like (how about no more K-8 districts to start?), but this was always a really, really dumb plan.


3) Establish a dedicated, statewide tenure "court," cap the entire process at 90 days, and have the state pay half the costs of prosecution.


Yes, I am encouraging more tenure cases. Let's make this a regular occurrence, so we can flush out the admitted dead wood (overblown as the number is by the corporate reformers). But set the rules clearly so principals know the data they should gather, and teachers know what will bring them to the court. By the way, all you corporate "reformers" - you'd be amazed at the number of teachers who want this. The union wants this as well - it'll make their lives easier, give them renewed purpose, and cut their costs as the length of prosecutions drops. Win-win.


4) Adopt National Board Certification, and give teachers who earn it and 10 years of experience the designation of "master teacher."


Just like "board certified" for a doctor, right? It is not easy to get this, and it shouldn't be.


5) Make those "master teachers" the co-equal evaluators of teachers with principals.


Bring them in from other districts - teachers will love to have this, especially when their principal is a pain in the neck. They'll get affirmation that they really are doing a good job (or not), but they'll also have to put up or shut up.


6) Open up the NJASK and HSPA to review every year after scores are released.


It is ridiculous that the tests themselves are never, ever evaluated by outside authorities. New York has shown us the folly of trusting the testing industry: again, put up or shut up.


7) Make those tests scores and VAM assessments available to teachers, but do not allow them any weight in evaluations. NEVER publish these!


These are highly imprecise instruments, but they can yield insight if used properly. But any LA Times-style publishing is strictly off the table - that's a deal breaker.


8) Tighten requirements for advanced degrees, but compress pay scales to reflect that it will be more difficult to get those degrees.


I will be the first to admit that there are a lot of joke graduate education programs out there that have little to no value. But if you're going to have to get a real masters degree, that should be enough: MA+60 is a pay level that makes no sense. Of course, two masters or a doctorate should be rewarded if they are germane.


9) Increase the number of annual observations by principals and "master teachers" both for tenured and non-tenured teachers; every evaluation should have immediate feedback and discussion with the teacher, and the teacher should provide feedback on the evaluator.


Every non-tenured teacher should be observed every month. One observation a year for tenured teachers is not enough. And the report of the observer needs to be made in the context of things the teacher knows about the students that the observer doesn't - they need to talk about that right away. Remote camera observations is a horrible idea for this reason. And why shouldn't the teacher have a say in whether the evaluator was any good?


10) Throw out most state-made rubrics for teacher evaluations.


Most are useless and encourage lazy thinking on the part of principals. Give your teachers something real to work with. Who cares whether they made eye contact x%, or if they turned toward the wipe board? That's the sort of stuff that insults the great art of teaching.


11) Give principals and "master teachers" the ability to "spot check."


I honestly think this "problem" has been overblown - every district I've taught in has allowed spot-checking. But it is insane if a principal can't know what's going on in her own school.


12) Drop the "100 hours" requirement for professional development, and replace it with meaningful, assessed, college-level coursework.


Most professional development is a joke. Let's substitute it with real, meaningful learning. And if the teacher can't cut it... that's an indicator he shouldn't be teaching. But the teacher shouldn't pay for this.


13) Give every school a business manager.


Principals waste way too much time with stuff that someone with good business training/experience and minimal education training/experience could do. This would be a great place for all those Broad-types to make their bones. The principal then has time to concentrate on being a true educational leader.

14) Once and for all, address childhood poverty. None of the above matters nearly as much as this.

Yes this is all going to cost money. But the money is there - we all know it. Are we really committed enough to this nation's children that we will go get it and use it?

So that's it. What do you think? There's probably a lot here that needs fixing; please tell me where.

More Charter Awesomeness

Totally awesome:

A top Winslow School District official who moonlights at three South Jersey charter schools misled state investigators assigned to look into her nearly $300,000 annual income, according to the New Jersey Department of Education.

Ann F. Garcia came under investigation early this year after state officials noted that she had worked the equivalent of almost three full-time jobs simultaneously since 2009, an "unusually high" number, authorities said in a report by the department's Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance filed last month. 

[...] 

Ann Garcia's combined income last year exceeded the base salary of the highest-paid public school official in New Jersey, the Newark School District superintendent, who was paid $280,000 during the last school year, according to state records.

State education officials did not find fault with the volume of work she performed.

Thank the lord Christie got those superintendent caps in, so we could stop this feeding at the trough...

God Bless America

God bless America.

The Biggest Idiot in America

Ann Coulter:



Gosh, thanks for the really spirited defense of teachers, Gretchen...