tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post1558046624718322402..comments2024-03-29T06:44:19.414-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Supplemental: The New York Times bungles teacher tenure!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-19561229016776455332014-06-26T03:01:16.730-04:002014-06-26T03:01:16.730-04:00She should have stayed away from someone who is so...She should have stayed away from someone who is so grammatically challenged. Apparently, at the alter, he said in answer to "will you respect this women" he responded "I duuune so, right honey?"Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09123641289500585982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-73575032873547480402014-06-24T16:14:29.330-04:002014-06-24T16:14:29.330-04:00One point not mentioned in the debate is that LIFO...One point not mentioned in the debate is that LIFO (layoff of newly hired teachers first) prevents administrators from using staff reductions as a way to reduce aggregate teacher compensation. Teachers with long tenure typically earn more than newly-hired teachers. If a superintendent can fire anyone, surely the superintendent, in an effort to reduce personnel costs, would fire those teachers with the highest salaries. Thus teachers with seniority would be the most vulnerable to being dismissed if a school has budgetary constraints. That is what the LIFO rule prevents. It protects those teachers most likely to be fired regardless of their competence. Superintendents are not above such Machiavellian ploys as using a "staff reductions" as a way to remove more "costly" teachers if not for LIFO.<br /><br />By the way, speaking of education, did anyone notice that the the Judge used the word "paradigmatized?" Yes, he really did. For my money, the entire opinion is tainted by the Judge's efforts to appear intellectual. Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09123641289500585982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-60196059205772003172014-06-24T01:52:43.067-04:002014-06-24T01:52:43.067-04:00Norm at ed notes online,
Thanks especially for yo...Norm at ed notes online,<br /><br />Thanks especially for your <a href="http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2014/06/supplemental-new-york-times-bungles.html?showComment=1403537469981#c2144906470102241961" rel="nofollow">June 23, 2014 at 11:31 AM</a> comment. That post-trial brief Ravitch cites casts the merits of the suit in an entirely different light for me.CMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13481861530761114492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-21449064701022419612014-06-23T11:31:09.981-04:002014-06-23T11:31:09.981-04:00Anon 10:01 - Ravitch blogged about the schools and...Anon 10:01 - Ravitch blogged about the schools and teachers the kids attended. Here is an excerpt. (My name is Norm by the way). These beautiful kids were used by the ed deform anti-union crowd to do a hit job. The real hit should be on the utter incompetence of the teacher unions in making their case. <br />http://dianeravitch.net/2014/06/11/were-the-vergara-trial-teachers-grossly-ineffective-no/<br />I was curious to learn whether the plaintiffs in the Vergara trial actually had “grossly ineffective teachers.” The answer is “no, they did not.”<br /><br />Not only did none of them have a “grossly ineffective” teacher, but some of the plaintiffs attended schools where there are no tenured teachers. Two of the plaintiffs attend charter schools, where there is no tenure or seniority, and as you will read below, “Beatriz and Elizabeth Vergara both attend a “Pilot School” in LAUSD that is free to let teachers go at the end of the school year for any reason, including ineffectiveness.<br /><br />It turns out that the lawyers for the defense checked the records of the plaintiffs’ teachers, and this is what they found (filed as a post-trial brief in the case): (See pp. 5-6).<br /><br />“Plaintiffs have not established that the statutes have ever caused them any harm or are likely to do so in the future. None of the nine named Plaintiffs established that he or she was assigned to an allegedly grossly ineffective teacher, or that he or she faces any immediate risk of future harm, as a result of the challenged statutes. The record contains no evidence that Plaintiffs Elliott, Liss, Campbell or Martinez were ever assigned a grossly ineffective teacher at all. Of the remaining five Plaintiffs, most of the teachers whom they identified as “bad” or “grossly ineffective” were excellent teachers. Because none of the five Plaintiffs are reliable evaluators of teacher performance, their testimony about the remaining purportedly ineffective teachers should not be credited. Nor could Plaintiffs link their assignment to purportedly “bad” or “grossly ineffective” teachers to the challenged statutes. Not a single witness claimed that any of Plaintiffs’ teachers were granted permanent status because of the two-year probationary period, would have been dismissed in the absence of the dismissal statutes, or would have been laid off had reverse seniority not been a factor in layoffs. Indeed, Plaintiffs did not call any administrator of any of Plaintiffs’ schools to corroborate their testimony or in any way connect the teachers they identified to the statutes they challenge. Furthermore, any threat of future harm to Plaintiffs caused by the challenged statutes is purely speculative. Plaintiffs Elliott and DeBose are high school seniors who will almost certainly graduate in spring 2014. Plaintiffs Monterroza and Martinez both attend charter schools that are not subject to the challenged statutes at all. Beatriz and Elizabeth Vergara both attend a “Pilot School” in LAUSD that is free to let teachers go at the end of the school year for any reason, including ineffectiveness. As for the remaining three Plaintiffs, there is no concrete, specific evidence supporting any claim that they will be assigned to grossly ineffective teachers due to the challenged statutes; instead, their claims are based on pure speculation.”<br /><br />One of the plaintiffs (Monterroza) said that her teacher, Christine McLaughlin was a very bad teacher, but McLaughlin was Pasadena teacher of the year and has received many awards for excellent teaching (google her). ed notes onlinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15018047869059226777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-50688203635389847292014-06-23T10:01:13.576-04:002014-06-23T10:01:13.576-04:00You raise excellent questions, Ed. Yes, how did th...You raise excellent questions, Ed. Yes, how did these teachers get to be "tenured" in the first place? Were they at one time excellent teachers who are now suffering from burn out? If so, that's a whole 'nother problem that removing job protections for classroom teachers won't solve.<br /><br />And bear in mind these protections were put in place to protect GOOD teachers from the whims of local politics, not to keep lousy teachers in their jobs. In how many schools would excellent science teachers get kicked to the curb for introducing their students to Darwin? Or the Big Bang? Or the fact that dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist?<br /><br />Or how many teachers get a pink slip for demanding too much out of Johnny, and Johnny's dad is the president of the school board?<br /><br />So let's say we can get rid of all the bad teachers in fairly short order. Now what? Is there a large pool of excellent, unemployed teachers who can take their place?<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-77615416218908335792014-06-23T08:32:25.306-04:002014-06-23T08:32:25.306-04:00I look forward to Somerby's future coverage. ...I look forward to Somerby's future coverage. I hope he tells us how many online comments there were and provides a sample of bad ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-15495684740300506272014-06-23T08:12:44.474-04:002014-06-23T08:12:44.474-04:00I'd say his first comment was premature.I'd say his first comment was premature. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-3867141282225168262014-06-23T02:07:19.378-04:002014-06-23T02:07:19.378-04:00Yeah, imagine that. The anti-tenure decision, an ...Yeah, imagine that. The anti-tenure decision, an analysis of the law regarding 5013(c) organizations, a discussion of executive power and deadlines with regard to the ACA, equal protection law, a historical perspective on DOMA, patient explanations when we get TDH's seeming inability to understand physics. Just of few examples of the topics to which my pellucid prose has provided you insight.<br /><br />On the other hand, I also ridicule trolls. I'd like a little credit where that's due as well.<br /><br />Is that too much to ask, troll?<br /><br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-46823233928727411862014-06-23T01:57:56.616-04:002014-06-23T01:57:56.616-04:00ul, I can't tell whether we're in violent ...ul, I can't tell whether we're in violent agreement or not. My original comment was to Justin, who wondered whether the decision was tantamount to making tenure unconstitutional because the judge didn't specify a replacement.<br /><br />The answer is no, not least because the judge is not allowed to specify a replacement. @3:17P you tell me I'm wrong, and a day later you agree with me.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-35047672823146813852014-06-22T16:23:34.740-04:002014-06-22T16:23:34.740-04:00Sorry, deadrat, but guidance is not specifying a r...Sorry, deadrat, but guidance is not specifying a replacement, and it is perfectly consistent with separation of powers. Of course, the judge cannnot change the existing tenure rule. Actually, your second paragraph is exactly what I was talking about. Thanks for that. I skimmed the decision and while I saw those things said, it seemed elsewhere like there was a lot of ambiguity whether he was opening the door on those observations to improved statutes or was more definitively attacking tenure and seniority as inherently damaging. urban legendnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-18193053476632371642014-06-22T14:35:44.505-04:002014-06-22T14:35:44.505-04:00Credit where credit's due.
[D]eadrat actuall...Credit where credit's due. <br /><br />[D]eadrat actually posted a reasoned response without indulging in unnecessary over-the-top pedantics and name-calling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-25640291255462805452014-06-22T09:38:40.249-04:002014-06-22T09:38:40.249-04:00They may be beautiful kids and their teachers may ...They may be beautiful kids and their teachers may have been rotten. But the issue has been raised as to whether these teachers were actually tenured. Also that the schools these kids attended had the ability to remove teachers. Did anyone ask about the people supposedly supervising these teachers? We all know who is behind the case. I bet there are also beautiful children being used by terrorist networks as suicide bombers. ed notes onlinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15018047869059226777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26246967659055141972014-06-21T19:36:18.603-04:002014-06-21T19:36:18.603-04:00Good point.Good point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-5484659819403180452014-06-21T15:35:55.602-04:002014-06-21T15:35:55.602-04:00I'm sorry, urban legend, but in the Unites Sta...I'm sorry, urban legend, but in the Unites States, a judge may not specify the replacement to a law that he finds unconstitutional. That power is reserved for the legislature. Certainly, a judge may give guidance by specifying exactly what parts of the law are unconstitutional and how they err. But that's different from specifying the solution.<br /><br />In fact, the judge gives hints as to what he might find acceptable. He notes that other states have longer times before tenure is granted, that in other states, seniority is a factor in layoffs but not dispositive, and that the more efficient dismissal procedures for other state employees has been declared constitutional by California courts.<br /><br />But he can't change the two-year rule for tenure to four years.<br /> deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-25291891504063499922014-06-21T15:30:21.008-04:002014-06-21T15:30:21.008-04:00Eliminating LIFO is eliminating due process. A sta...Eliminating LIFO is eliminating due process. A staff reductions is not a legitimate time to do a backdoor weed-out because it depends solely on an administrative determination without the teacher having any recourse. A termination for cause (of a teacher who was previously judged competent when given the right to due process) is the time to get rid of incompetent teachers who were mistakenly given tenure.urban legendnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-80368694153061429452014-06-21T15:17:58.755-04:002014-06-21T15:17:58.755-04:00"Separation of powers forbids the judge to sp..."Separation of powers forbids the judge to specify an alternative."<br /><br />Wrong. Courts issuing a ruling of unconstitutionality or non-compliance with a statute often give guidance as to the type of changes needed to satisfy requirements.<br /><br />The idea that a law that requires a district wishing to terminate experienced teachers who previously passed the test of competence to follow fundamental of fairness, including objective evidence that the charge of incompetence is valid -- that's what we mean by due process, and that's what tenure is -- is bizarre. Tenure laws in education have been around for a century or more, and for a lot of legitimate and important reasons. It only means that a firing must be "for cause," a type of clause that exists in every union contract. If the judge thought the application of the tenure law reached a level of unconstitutionality because the cause requirement had become impossible to meet, it was incumbent upon him to show how that had happened. It is either due to administrative incompetence or laziness -- unwillingness to take the time to collect evidence showing cause -- or overly stringent arbitrator interpretations. However, poor administration does not make the law unconstitutional. <br /><br />It also appears the judge looked only at the formal statistics of decisions reaching an arbitrator, without considering the many more cases of teachers charged with incompetence deciding not to fight it -- or deciding to quit because they are not good at it, or not receiving tenure in the first place. urban legendnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-73724094672414633592014-06-21T13:41:35.517-04:002014-06-21T13:41:35.517-04:00I don't know everywhere that 1% to 3% figure f...I don't know everywhere that 1% to 3% figure for incompetent teachers might come from but <a href="http://www.tubechop.com/watch/3107378" rel="nofollow">I did hear the same thing about it</a> that Anonymous @ June 21 at 8:47am claims.<br /><br />Anonymous @ June 21, 2014 at 10:47am says:<br /><br />>>>>><i>If the % of incompetent teachers is 1-3%, then the likelihood of having two in a row is very small.</i><<<<<<br /><br /><a href="http://studentsmatter.org/ai1ec_event/2084/" rel="nofollow">The article</a> Somerby links to says:<br /><br />>>>>><i>...During her testimony, Beatriz testified about her experience with three ineffective teachers: her sixth-grade math teacher; her seventh-grade history teacher; and her seventh-grade science teacher....</i><<<<<<br /><br />The point to consider being that if you have several teachers at each grade level, it's much more likely that two years in row you might have a bad teacher than if you just had one teacher each year. Also, there might be a localized effect at a particular school that might cause a higher percentage of bad teachers to be at that one school than is found throughout the system.CMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13481861530761114492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-38284291784156173432014-06-21T13:00:31.500-04:002014-06-21T13:00:31.500-04:00These comments were especially helpful to me in un...These comments were especially helpful to me in understanding this important matter, and I am grateful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-82230515385944069532014-06-21T12:50:51.484-04:002014-06-21T12:50:51.484-04:00I really appreciate the detailed explanation. Thi...I really appreciate the detailed explanation. This really helps me understand the issues.<br /><br />Thank you so much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-24063173889685348692014-06-21T12:02:32.221-04:002014-06-21T12:02:32.221-04:00Anonymous @10:47A,
I haven't read the testimo...Anonymous @10:47A,<br /><br />I haven't read the testimony, so I don't know the evidence presented to the court. But union practices are not at issue, and the Cal Teachers Assoc was not a defendant. They were intervenors, i.e., they asked to join the suit on the side of the defendant, the state.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-44696012893863771792014-06-21T11:53:43.151-04:002014-06-21T11:53:43.151-04:00Kids by school age are not at a critical period in...Kids by school age are not at a critical period in development the way they are in the first three years of life. Somerby hasn't proven anything -- he cites researchers who have studied this stuff. Further, he is talking about gaps between different groups of children, not what influences an individual child's success. Do you have anything substantive to say about that or are you just interested in knocking Somerby?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-63008629102551102502014-06-21T11:40:48.091-04:002014-06-21T11:40:48.091-04:00Somerby has proven for a fact that having a bad pa...Somerby has proven for a fact that having a bad parent for the first 18 months renders may get all future teachers off the hook. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-68932944111169132592014-06-21T10:47:41.678-04:002014-06-21T10:47:41.678-04:00If the % of incompetent teachers is 1-3%, then the...If the % of incompetent teachers is 1-3%, then the likelihood of having two in a row is very small. If students had the same teacher every year, I could see the problem, but children have different teachers each year. How can they conclude that one year with a bad teacher ruins a child's life to such an extent. We all had good and bad teachers in school and we all survived the bad ones and learned from the good ones. I really don't understand this issue.<br /><br />Is there any evidence that the % of bad teachers is any different than the % of bad practitioners in other fields? If there is no difference how can it be concluded that union practices are protecting bad teachers from being fired?<br /><br />As someone who has taught, my experience is that the students themselves punish bad teachers to the point that they voluntarily leave the classroom. It is not fun to be ineffective in a classroom. There are much easier ways to make a living, especially given the low pay of today's teachers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-7226345549582009352014-06-21T08:47:45.188-04:002014-06-21T08:47:45.188-04:00Some commenters cite the “statistic” that between ...Some commenters cite the “statistic” that between 1 and 3 percent of California teachers are “incompetent” as though it somehow has meaning. It doesn’t. It’s made up; it’s a “guesstimate.” David Berliner was the source of that 1-3 percent guess, and he said later that “I pulled that out of the air...There’s no data on that.” Berliner added that “In hundreds of classrooms, I have never seen a ‘grossly ineffective’ teacher.”<br /><br />Judge Rolf True based his decision not only on the 1-3 percent “guesstimate,” but also on the assumption that student test scores determine teacher effectiveness. And that’s a very shaky assumption indeed.<br /><br />Judge Treu was first appointed to the California bench by former Republican governor Pete Wilson. Wilson is the prototypical “free” market conservative who subscribes to trickle-down economic nonsense. As governor Wilson pushed more standardized testing of students, his tough-on-crime policies led to Three Strikes legislation –– incredibly costly, with huge racial disparities, and resulting in stupidities and injustices like a life sentence for stealing golf clubs or a $2.50 pair of socks or 5 videotapes –– and he cut spending significantly on both infrastructure and public education.<br /><br />Presumably Wilson appointed people who shared his conservative ideology as judges.<br /><br />While serving on the bench, Treu has been characterized as being irascible and criticized for letting “his personal political agenda control his behavior and decisions” and for doing the entire “legal system an injustice.”<br /><br />In this particular case, the plaintiff’s attorney told Treu in closing arguments that “most teachers are talented, hard working, doing a good job.” But he also told Treu that “echoes” of Brown v. Board filled the room, and that “evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly” that ineffective teachers produce “education harm” and “deprive students of their rights to a good education."<br /><br />The “evidence” was mostly this. As Judge Treu wrote in his decision:<br /><br />“The evidence is compelling. Indeed it shocks the conscience. Based on a massive study Dr. Chetty testified that a single year in a classroom with a grossly ineffective teacher costs students $1.4 million in lifetime earnings.”<br /><br />The Chetty study cited by Treu is chock full of problems. It’s a correlational study that purports to show a direct causal link between mostly elementary grade teachers, their students’ test scores, and student lifetime earnings.<br /><br />On the face of it, it’s a flimsy allegation. Think about it a slightly different way. Does one year of “bad” coaching, or of faulty coaching decisions, bilk a team of young players out of a million-plus bucks in potential lifetime sports earnings? Highly doubtful.<br /><br />Rolf Treu cannot be said to be a “bright” man. That he bought lock, stock and barrel the Chetty correlations as “overwhelming” proof is testimony enough.<br /><br />This decision will eventually be overturned.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-76207931997919939252014-06-21T01:42:58.889-04:002014-06-21T01:42:58.889-04:00Separation of powers forbids the judge to specify ...Separation of powers forbids the judge to specify an alternative.<br /><br />There was a trial to determine facts like the percentage of grossly incompetent teachers, which was set at 1% to 3% based on things like the number of teachers in the interminable dismissal pipeline.<br /><br />If a contract contravenes constitutional law, then it's null and void. Sorry.deadratnoreply@blogger.com