Mr. Talk's Complaint

I hate condemning things I don't understand, although I have written a few posts about Sarah Palin. So when I blogged about Bronx teacher Greg Van Voorhis, who had his students read a story from Playboy and ended up in the rubber room for his trouble, I decided I had to read the story for myself. It's called Guts and was written by Chuck Palahniuk. You can read it for yourself here, although I'd advise against settling down with a snack before you read it.

The Post article mentioned that the story contained a bit about a boy masturbating with a carrot up his anus, and the good news is that the Post got something right for a change. The bad news is that the carrot is by no means the worst part. As the story unfolds, we meet another boy who was hospitalized for masturbating--he put a thin rod of wax in his urethra and it got sucked into his bladder. Finally, the narrator relates his own tale of auto-erotic doom. It seems he enjoyed sitting on the drain of his parents' pool while jerking off, and it sucked his guts out of his body. His decision on whether and how to extract himself is pretty graphic and nauseating.

If this all sounds pretty disturbing, it is. I read some of the comments by readers of the story on the author's blog, and they all seem to think this was an shining example of narrative description. I think they miss the point. In my view, the author meant this as a humorous piece in the tradition of Philip Roth in Portnoy's Complaint. If I'm right, then Chuck Palahniuk has a huge problem--namely, that Roth did it far better. Roth's hilarious description of Alexander Portnoy's masturbatory obsession is an example of literary greatness. Palahniuk just isn't as funny.

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe Palahniuk meant for Guts to be what it appears to be on the surface--a gross, raw piece of shock lit. There's something to be said for that interpretation. After reading the story, I was immediately reminded of the movie The Aristocrats, in which a group of comedians try to top each other in telling the most rambling, foul, disgusting version of the same joke. If that was Palahniuk's intention, he succeeded, but it's hardly literature.

All of this begs the question of whether Van Voorhis should have read this story with his class. In the end, I'd have to say no. I'm a great fan of Philip Roth, but I'd never recommend teaching Portnoy to high school kids. And Palahniuk is more graphic without the literary power of Roth.

As to whether Mr. Van Voorhis should be fired, I'd again say no. In my opinion, he showed a lack of judgment, but in no way was the story pornographic (in the sense of appealing to prurient interest). I can understand how a teacher, enamored of an author, would want to share that interest, but this was just a little too much.

Ironically, Guts is basically a tale about that one thing everyone does that they end up regretting for the rest of their lives. We all have one, or two, or three. I have a feeling that sharing this story with his students may be something that Mr. Van Voorhis will end up regretting for a while. I hope the DOE doesn't disembowel him for it.

Matt Polazzo Schooled by Veggie Tales!

If you needed any more proof that Matt Polazzo was wrong, wrong, wrong for calling for the confetti-ization of the UFT contract, it came in today's NY Post. If you recall, Mr. Polazzo was the teacher who called for principals to have the right to fire 'bad' teachers--essentially eliminating tenure protections.

Today's story is about one Greg Van Voorhis, who teaches 11th grade English at the Bronx School of Law and Finance. He gave his students a story to read from Playboy, which the Post says "discusses a teenage boy's use of a carrot in a sex act on himself and autoerotic asphyxiation." Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I have not read the story, nor have I purchased any carrots lately. The point is that word of the story swept through the school, and now Mr. Van Voorhis has been removed from the classroom--he now sits in a rubber room, or 'teacher reassignment center' as the DOE like to call it, awaiting a verdict on his fate. Chances are he will languish there a long time.

I don't know whether the story was inappropriate or not. The point is that in Matt Polazzo's brave new UFT, Mr. Van Voorhis could have been fired on the spot--no questions asked. Polazzo said, "The contract must allow administrators to fire bad teachers, give them the power to hire any teacher they want..."

Thankfully, Mr. Van Voorhis will be allowed a fair hearing and due process under teacher tenure laws. These laws protect teachers like me who teach books that might be objectionable, such as one in which a boy incessantly uses the N-word; or in which the protagonist recalls a visit to a prostitute, later has sex, and is finally tortured; or another in which the main character commits an attempted rape and murder (Huck Finn, 1984, Of Mice and Men).

The dilemma for all of Polazzo's defenders is: whose side are you on here? Those of you who stuck up for Polazzo so vigorously, do you agree that Mr. Van Voorhis should be fired, or do you believe in due process and academic freedom? Before you answer, you may wish to know that Van Voorhis' students believe that he is an excellent teacher, too. They even have a Facebook page up defending him. Sound familiar, Team Polazzo?

Place Your Bets!

Many of us believe that a contract was in place before Randi Weingarten set out to prove the Peter Principle and became president of the AFT. The would help explain why the UFT sat out an election for mayor in which we had a real chance to effect change. Many union hacks have explained that it would be crazy to endorse Thompson during negotiations for fear we'd be retaliated against. Oddly, to me, that is the very reason we should have done everything we could have done to haul Bloomberg out of City Hall by the slack of his pants.

If the contract is a done deal, the only question is when it will be announced. My guess is that it will be on Veteran's Day. The UFT tends to do things when there is a day off ahead so teachers won't be in school to discuss it. It will also be more than a week after the election so they can avoid the appearance of a quid pro quo--at least in their own minds.

I'm thinking of starting a pool. What do you think? What's the magic date that the agreement will be announced?

The Tenure Thing

The press and BloomKlein, assuming that they are two different things, have managed to sell the public a bill of goods on tenure. The majority of citizens, including many of the more recent contributors to this blog, seem to actually believe that tenure is a guarantee of a job for life. I'm not an expert, but I know the basic facts, so let me set the record straight.

A recent poster said: "...my impression is that the tenure process is as follows. You teach for some number of years. You put together a few slightly more polished lessons that the principal will observe (that you know about ahead of time), and then unless the principal can find a specific reason not to give you tenure, he is all but required to do so."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Teachers are hired as probationary employees, and remain as such for at least three years before being granted or denied tenure (I know some principals have figured out how to stretch that to four years, but since I'm not sure how they do it, I'll skip over that). An administrator can observe a teacher as many times as he or she pleases without giving any warning. They can ask to see your lesson plans whenever they wish. And they can terminate your employment at any time and for any reason (or no reason at all) for that entire probationary period.

So, in other words, a principal has the opportunity to interview many candidates, but chooses one. He can then take three years to decide whether that teacher has what it takes. If the principal says no, that's that. But if the principal says yes, tenure is granted. At that point, it becomes more difficult to fire that teacher. Shouldn't it be? It's crazy to believe that teachers work hard for three years, fool the admins, and then put their feet up on their desks for the rest of their careers.

It can, and does, occasionally happen that a teacher burns out or is granted tenure by a nincompoop principal. In such cases, charges may be filed against the teacher. That's where tenure kicks in. Tenure doesn't guarantee that a teacher can't be fired at all; it guarantees that a teacher will be granted due process when charges are filed against him. It only makes sense that a teacher who has proven his or her worth for three (or thirty) years should be given an opportunity to put up a defense against charges.

Some ask why teachers need tenure when business people have no such protections. One reason is that if I'm an accountant, for example, and I get fired, I can apply for a job with the company's competitors or any other company that needs an accountant. In NYC, there are thousands of business that hire accountants. But there is only ONE public school system, and if you are fired from one school you are prevented from working in ANY of them. So you're not just out of a job, you're out of the profession entirely unless you choose to relocate to another city or state. Would good teachers want to work in a system where they could be fired at will and forced to uproot their entire families because of the whim of a principal? Another reason is nepotism. Without tenure and seniority, an admin could replace you with his nephew or because he likes pretty young grads more than gnarled veterans. Tenure protects whistle blowers and teachers who hold unpopular beliefs. Yes, it even protects teachers who write articles in the Daily News that may honk off an admin or two, or the teacher who rebuts that article on a Facebook page.

Yes, it can take a long time to resolve charges against teachers, but that is the fault of the system, and NOT the UFT contract. The Klein administration has filled the rubber rooms to the breaking point without hiring enough mediators to hear all the cases. I know of one guy who was (unjustly in my view) brought up on charges of incompetence and languished in the rubber room for two years. If he was lucky, he would get a day before the mediator once a month. As a result, his hearing dragged on and on for what seemed like forever. His real crime against the DOE is that he was a union rep who stood up for teachers. Even with tenure, he was eventually forced to resign or be fired.

I'm not an expert on 3020A hearings, but both Norm and Chaz have many informative posts about them. When you read them, you'll understand why tenure is needed.

How NOT to Tear Up the Union Contract

I've gotten a lot of heat for criticizing Matt Polazzo, whose destructive piece in the Daily News advocates getting rid of the UFT contract and giving administrators total power. I've been accused of trying to protect bad teachers and of offering no solutions. I beg to differ.

It is Polazzo who offers no constructive solutions whatsoever. He also would never surrender his union membership and live up to his "ideals". Despite the attacks on me, I have actually offered solutions many times. See here and here. See in part below:

1. Reinforce the idea of tenure. Principals have three years in which to decide whether a teacher is acceptable. I could tell you in three days who belongs. If principals change their minds after three years, they better be damn well able to prove a teacher incompetent.

2. Create a meaningful curriculum with the input of teachers (this is done at my school, and you'd be amazed how much teachers want to do justice to the curriculum when they have a hand in creating it). If any teachers fail or refuse to teach the minimum skills agreed upon by their respective departments, they should be put on the hot seat. Divas would be no more--they would have to teach certain units at certain times just like everyone else.

3. We all know that a principal can get his or her admin buddies from other schools to do so-called "impartial" observations, which is nothing more than a way to bolster a case at a 3020 hearing. How about we create "observation teams" of highly qualified teachers to observe teachers outside their own schools instead of admins? These teachers, who truly have no stake in the outcome other than justice and the education of children, would be a better barometer of the truth than the principal calling his friends in to give U ratings to people being targeted.

There are other ideas for reforming schools. Some of them have merit and some are awful. Mr. Polazzo's idea has no merit whatsoever. It is purely destructive of schools and the dedicated professionals who work in them.

Teacher Bashing--It's Not Just for Politicians Anymore!

If you want your 15 minutes of fame these days but you can't think of anything other than claiming one of your students has commandeered a hot air balloon and is somewhere over the Atlantic, I have good news for you. As a NYC teacher, all you have to do is be a traitorous rat and dump on your fellow teachers.

Ariel Sacks just recently did that, and she got considerable attention for it. I thought she was pretty bad, but she was nothing compared to fellow attention whore Matt Polazzo, who recently had an opinion piece published in the Daily News (which he refers to as the NY Daily Post on his Facebook page, which speaks to how accurate the guy is). You can read the article here, especially if you're a fan of illogical arguments and limited vocabularies.

To save time, Polazzo basically says that incompetent teachers, presumably those unlike him, should be fired immediately, while good teachers, presumably those like him, should stay. He never defines good or bad, but I bet he can tell the difference pronto.

I was tipped off to Polazzo's Facebook page by an alert reader, and it tells us a lot about the guy. Other than being unable to identify the newspaper he was published in, we receive many other insights into his mind. For example, the page is called "Team Polazzo" and has a nice picture of a pirate instead of his actual face. What's really unusual is how many teachers have commented on the article, including one who says that they should all wear tee shirts with the words "Team Polazzo" written on them. Personally, I think they could save a lot of time and money by just buying a bunch of "I'm with Stupid" tees.

So, why did Polazzo write a piece trashing his colleagues? One can only guess, but attention whore suggested itself to me immediately. Also, I'd bet his physique isn't quite what Survivor (or even Tool Academy) is looking for, and he most likely flunked the exam for Are Your Smarter Than a Fifth Grader, so he had to look for another avenue for self promotion.

To be honest, Polazzo doesn't bother me that much. The education world has always had bottom feeding ass kissers who look to further their careers by smooching the wrinkled buttocks of the Kleins of the world. What bothers me is that he has followers. In a similar vein, I can understand why the world has Charles Manson types, but I'll be damned if I can figure out why others want to be part of the family.

Since Polazzo wants to tear up the teacher's contract, I assume he has the courage of his convictions. When his supervisor writes him up one day, I assume he will immediately resign. Right, Mr. Polazzo? When that day comes, I bet he'll wish he'd pulled a balloon boy stunt instead. But with that much hot air, he'd probably leave the Earth's atmosphere. Not that I'd object.

UPDATE: To clarify, the FB page mentioned above is a team page, and not Mr. Polazzo's personal FB page. Sorry for any confusion.

To Have and Have Not

There's been a lot of talk out there about charter schools. Bloomberg is for them. Arne Duncan is for them. Barack Obama is for them. Even Randi Weingarten is for them, despite the fact that she's being paid big bucks to represent public schools.

And I have to admit, charters have a lot going for them. For example, they have:

• The ability to 'cream' students, or choose the ones most likely too succeed.
• No nasty union contract.
• Freedom in hiring (and firing).
• Flexible pay and the ability to reward teachers for merit.
• More motivated parents (you have to sign kids up--that alone indicates more motivation).
• Longer school days and longer school years.
• Far fewer ESL students and special education students.
• Lots of seats and good facilities, often taken directly from public school kids--sometimes in a manner reminiscent of a daylight smash and grab robbery.
  

In fact, charters seem to have all the things that politicians say we need in order to make our schools a success. Of course, there is one thing that public schools have that charters do not:

• Success.

Yes, that's right. Despite all the so-called advantages mentioned above, public schools kicked charter school ass. We took their lunch money. On state exams, public school kids showed greater progress this year than charter school kids. Yes, the state exams that BloomKlein tout as the be-all-and-end-all of education.

Now, you know that Bloomberg and Klein love data. It wouldn't surprise me if they put little chunks of data in their boxer shorts before going to work every day. So this has to sting. Still, they are plowing forth regardless. As NYC Educator points out, far from admitting any error, BloomKlein appears to be doubling down on charter schools.

Nevertheless, it's time to rejoice, NYC teachers. We beat them at their own game. We did it despite them stacking the deck against us.

We rock.