The Teacher Tenure Wars

Here's an opinion piece in Schoolbook about the recent anti-tenure decision by Judge Treu in California.

I think this guy knows what he's talking about.

Email From Mulgrew Regarding APPR Decision

My fellow UFTers,

I'm delighted to tell you of the total victory we emerged with today by wisely allowing John King, whose cup of coffee as a teacher gives him wide ranging knowledge of education, to decide the fate of the 75,000 teachers we threw under the bus represent.

There will, of course, be plenty of time for you to get to know the details of this plan as you stand on the unemployment line, but here are some highlights:

• You will be judged on all 22 elements of the Danielson Framework. The city tried to cheat us and evaluate us on only 21 of them, but we insisted. Win!
• You will be observed from 4-6 times per year, as opposed to the previous two. Obviously, we wanted more observations because teachers asked for them. In a recent poll of teacher preferences conducted by New York Teacher, 52% of teachers said "I want to be observed three times as often." None of the other choices, such as "I want my scrotum stapled to a moving roller coaster" garnered even half as much support.
• If you teach ELA or math, only 20% of your score will be based on value-added measurements (VAM, aka junk science). Or 25% if the Regents changes its mind. Oh, and if your kids don't do well, it will count for 100%. But it'll only be 20% as long as you don't have to teach any kids with learning disabilities, limited English, or behavior problems, which, as we know, is reflective of the majority of classes in NYC.
• If you teach science or social studies, we have even better news! We know that many of you have been bemoaning the fact that you don't get to teach to high stakes state tests like other core subjects, but those days are over! 20% (or 25%, or 100%) of your evaluation will come from a new set of tests designed just for the city! No siree, we didn't forget you in this system!
• As a bonus, you will also have the unheard of opportunity to be evaluated by your students. Yes, student surveys will now contribute to your overall score. If you thought being evaluated by an admin with only 3 years of teaching experience was fun, imagine how you'll love being graded by children who've only been in school for three years! Many of them still eat library paste!
• Mayor Bloomberg wanted an evaluation system that would never sunset, or run for a million bajillion years, whichever comes first. We, of course, wouldn't stand for that. In a stunning victory, we made sure that the law would sunset in FOUR years! True, the rest of the state will sunset in two, and we got four, but you have to admit that's not even close to a million bajillion! If that's not a victory, we don't know what is (no, really, we don't).
• The DOE wanted to ability to fire any teacher rated ineffective two years in a row. To be honest, they did get that, but hey, you'll get up to a full four hours to prove that you are competent before you are fired. What more could you ask for? To make it even sweeter,  13% of teachers will actually get a semblance of a real hearing instead of a kangaroo court. So if you're a chapter leader loyal to Unity, or willing to sleep with a chapter leader loyal to Unity, you may just end up being one of the lucky few.
• For those of you worried about getting tenure, we have something for you, as well. Now that teachers can be fired for two years of ineffective ratings, tenure no longer matters anyway! All teachers will enjoy exactly the same protections, or lack thereof.

We just wanted to get the word out to you ourselves, before the press and the DOE get their spin on it. Remember, if you have any questions about the new APPR, don't forget to contact your DOE representative. You can be sure that he or she will always be there to answer your questions, because they are not subject to this evaluation plan and therefore can't be fired.

Yours in appeasement,

Michael Mulgrew

DOE Decides to Torture New Teachers For A Change

The NYC DOE has become pretty adept at torturing teachers. Up until now, they've pretty much stuck to shoving bamboo shoots up the fingernails of veteran teachers, however. We've endured rubber rooms, ATR pools, public shaming by the puppet chancellor, and the TDR fiasco. Newer teachers have pretty much gone unscathed. They're the ones the DOE calls talented and energetic, and who the DOE tried to spare from layoffs. That looks like it's about to change.

I personally know of two new teachers who have been publicly humiliated by the DOE using an entirely new method. Even though they work in different districts, the same thing happened to them, which I have never heard happen to anyone before, so I assume it must be a new DOE strategy for making teachers miserable.

Both were up for tenure this year. Both are extremely hard workers and beloved by their principals. Both deserved tenure and both were recommended for it. Both received it, and got official letters telling them the good news. They shared their good news with their teacher friends, and there was much rejoicing, partying, and back-slapping.

Then the DOE took their tenure back.

A teacher at my school was notified that his tenure was revoked because despite having the required three years in the system, he has only spent two of those at my school. The other teacher I know, in another district, had her tenure revoked because superintendent didn't like one of the comments that a supervisor made in the teacher's observation last year, despite the fact that the teacher obviously corrected that deficiency and was recommended for tenure by the principal.

If I know of two cases of this happening, I can only imagine how many times this has happened across the city. The DOE spends a lot of time talking about how important it is to retain talented new teachers. Why is it treating them like this?

Because it can. Because if you are a teacher, you are the enemy. Because it wants to let teachers know that this isn't a job they should expect to have for very long, even if they are granted tenure.

Get used to it, new teachers. Don't expect to get through the 40 years or so you'll need under the new retirement system to call it a career. The DOE is planning ways, even now, to get you to quit or to fire you well before you've ever climbed the salary scale or become vested in the retirement system.

And expect them to humiliate you along the way, no matter how good you are.

Ruben Brosbe's Waterloo

Probably no one was looking toward the release of the NYS test scores with more trepidation than Ruben Brosbe. He has twice had his tenure extended and now appears to be on the five year plan. As such, a lot rides on this year's scores. After all, he was apparently extended because of his dismal scores in the fourth grade which he was foolish enough to publish in the NY Post. Then, he switched to third grade, which, conveniently, kept him from getting another dismal score (as only grades 4-8 currently get them).

Apparently, it didn't work. While Ruben's individual scores are not out there, his grade's scores are. Here are the third grade results for PS 310:

SUBJECT    # Tested    % Level 1    % Level 2    % Level 3    % Level 4
Grade 3 ELA      90             24.4             46.7            28.9             0
Grade 3 Math     98             12.2             39.8            43.9             4.1

Now, obviously, these aren't all Ruben's kids. Even so, it's clear that Ruben could not have gotten a single student to level 4 in ELA. Less than a third of the students on his grade achieved a level 3. There are nearly as many level 1 students as level 3 students. Math scores are marginally better (as math scores usually are), but they are still abysmally low, with more than half the children failing to meet standards.

This does not speak well for Ruben's chances of getting tenure next year. The numbers will do him in. That, of course, is what Ruben and Asshats4Education claim they want. No excuses. If kids don't perform, it's the teacher's fault. Poverty, drug abuse, and neglect be damned. Data is king. Teachers must perform or perish.

I hope the Asshats have a job lined up for you, Ruben, because these numbers would appear to be your Waterloo.

Ruben Brosbe Uses Occam's Razor To Cut Himself Some Slack

OK. It official. Ruben Brosbe, award winning blogger, darling of Gotham Schools, and hero in his own mind, was denied tenure, for the second time. He will now embark on his 5th year in the NYC Public Schools.

Ruben wasn't the only one denied tenure, of course. A bunch of other E4E people, like the teachers at Aspirations HS, also had their tenure decisions extended. There's talk that E4E will be officially renamed "Extensions4Educators".

The irony, of course, is that these E4E folks are the very ones who advocated for stricter tenure requirements. Well done, E4E folks! Congratulations!

What struck me most about his "Occam's Razor" post is that Ruben decided the simplest solution to his denial of tenure is just that he isn't good enough yet. Actually, I could respect that kind of stance--if it were genuine. But Ruben leads up to this realization by giving us many, many excuses, such as:

• The superintendent is making it tougher to get tenure (which is what E4E wanted).
• It's difficult to earn tenure in a new school.
• His TDR was flagged because he scored so low (again, something that E4E wanted).
• The principal's decision was beyond her control (which assumes she wanted to grant Ruben tenure, but did not. There is no evidence presented to support this).
• Fifteen of his students started as level 1, and many were ELLs (welcome to NY, Ruben!).
• Four of his students required special education services (welcome to NY, Ruben!).
• He didn't take criticism from the principal well.
• He might have poisoned his relationship with the principal.
• Something on his blog might have upset his superiors.
• His previous principal would have given him tenure (but how could this be when we know these decisions are based on data and supervisors are always fair?).

That's a lot of excuses to give his readers before he comes to the conclusion that the fault lies not in his stars, but in himself.

I think the most telling part of his piece, however, was this: My principal told me she saw a “disconnect” between what I understood and how I put it into practice in the classroom. Swallowing my pride for a second, I could see it was true. A critical step between the planning of my lessons and their instruction was missing, and as a result, lessons sometimes lost their way.

I don't believe that Ruben understand what a harsh criticism this really is. Ruben has had four years to learn how to execute lessons effectively, but has not. What his principal actually is saying is, "You seem to understand the nuts and bolts of lesson planning, but you aren't a very good teacher." That's why he was denied tenure.

Just how bad is Ruben? Honestly, I don't know. Let me put it to you this way, though. He carries water for the DOE and Joel Klein. He published his own crappy Teacher Data Report score in the New York Post to help them advance their agenda of publishing all teacher scores. He helped write the white paper that would have effectively ended seniority, which was Mayor4Life's wet dream. He stabbed his colleagues in the back at every conceivable turn and wrote about it for GS. And with all this major sucking up, he was still denied tenure.

Twice.

Let's not forget that in Ruben's little white paper, he and his E4E cronies wanted to give the city the ability to lay off any teacher who had gotten a U rating in the last five years. Meanwhile, Ruben has had four years to prove he deserves his job, and has failed to do so.

One of the tenets of E4E, as adroitly pointed out by NYC Educator, is that teachers don't improve after the third year. While I don't believe that for a moment, I can tell you one thing: I have never seen a mediocre teacher improve dramatically after the third year. From all indications, Ruben is, at best, a mediocre teacher and it is highly unlikely that his FIFTH year will make him into a teaching superstar--you know, the kind of excellent teacher that E4E says everyone deserves.

So why is Ruben still teaching? How many years should the grotesque science experiment that is his teaching career be allowed to go on before his principal pulls the plug? How many students have to be subjected to his mediocrity before someone stops him?

And GothamSchools should be asking itself why they are giving such a broad forum to someone who has proven, year after year, that he really isn't a very good teacher.

So do us all a favor, Ruben. Instead of using Occam's Razor to cut yourself some slack, use it to cut your ties with the teaching profession.

Ruben Brosbe's Blame Game

I might have missed one of Ruben Brosbe's epic blog posts had it not been for a mention in one of the comments in Gotham Schools. You see, usually I follow Ruben's exploits by reading GS itself, as they publish everything he writes, including his most vapid and feckless reflections (on second thought, that pretty much is everything he writes). This time, I had to go directly to his blog, after which I had my browsing history scrubbed with hydrochloric acid.

As it turns out, poor Ruben's students once again stunk up the joint with their standardized tests. If you recall Ruben's past disasters, he scored in the bottom half of teachers twice even when he was compared only to other newbie teachers. He refused to disclose his third year numbers (despite insisting that the city release everyone else's) but we know from his blog posts that he still did a piss poor job. And from his latest bird dropping, we know that Ruben's kids did poorly for the fourth consecutive year. Luckily for Mr. Brosbe, he managed to escape to the 3rd grade where he will not receive a fourth consecutive turd of a TDR. But to show you the kind of fearless guy he is, he still wants everyone else's data put in the papers. What a guy.

Apparently, out of 26 students, Ruben had to assemble eight promotional portfolios, which means eight of his students failed to meet the minimum cuts scores set by the city for promotion. EIGHT. (For the record, I did not have a single student below the cut, and as a middle school teacher, I have more than 90 students, not just 26). To help Ruben understand the magnitude of his blowout, about 31% of his students failed. Had I produced similar results, I would have had 28 students below the cut.

Now, as I have stated many times, any teacher can have a bad year, which is only one of the reasons why I think TDR scores are a farce. But RB has now had FOUR consecutive bad years, and unless I am as bad at math as one of Ruben's charges, that means he must either receive tenure this year or be let go. So far, he has not mentioned putting his resume together, so he probably got tenured despite his crappy results. That is exactly what Asshats4Education, of which RB is a charter member, says they want to prevent.

A4E also claims that there are NO EXCUSES for bad scores, and one would assume that would apply to RB as well. Despite that, Ruben's blog post is full of excuses for his terrible results. Here are some of the lowlights:

• The title of his post is "Looking for Lessons When Your Students Fail". Pardon me? According to Asshat scripture, children are never to blame for failure. If a child fails, the teacher simply didn't do enough, and that applies to RB, as well.
• His drivel continues: "These portfolios are meant to show that in spite failing the ELA or math exam, these students are still at level 2, i.e. approaching grade level. Unfortunately, this just isn't the case for most of my kids who failed, since the majority are ELL's, including several newcomers." Isn't RB responsible for his kids' scores? They can't speak English? Boo hoo...that's just another one of those lazy teacher excuses.
• RB further laments: "Two of my students who I consider "high 2's" or even 3's didn't mean (sic) the cut-off." In other words, Ruben really has no clue where his students are at. This is inexcusable. He should have differentiated their instruction according to their ability, and apparently he had no idea what their level was.
• RB also teaches "...a girl who has been in my school since kindergarten, and while her reading improved from a level B to level G this year (from kindergarten to first), she still hasn't grasped phonemic awareness." He teaches third grade and hasn't gotten this student out of first grade reading? That is another failure, which Ruben excuses by claiming "I can take some pride and consolation in the knowledge that I've instilled a love of learning in this girl that I hope will last." Actually, since data is everything to RB and A4E, I'd say this is scant consolation. She's not making grade level, but Ruben continues to make excuses.

RB closes his whine by saying that, " Sulking or self-flagellation will not get us far though." I have mixed feelings about this, as I have twice called Ruben the king of self-flagellation, here and here. It's good to know that he reads this blog and gets some of the truth about himself. On the other hand, it sucks knowing that RB is still out there, getting tenure while trying to get far better teachers than himself fired.

And Ruben, on a personal note, there is no need to self-flagellate. I will be happy to continue doing it for you, as long as you continue to spout your garbage.

And South Bronx School will happily join me. Along with the legion of commenters on GS who have your number (which, I am sure, is well below the cut score).

An Ex-Hooker Makes the Case for Tenure

By now you've probably read about Melissa Petro, the teacher who used to be a hooker. Mayor Bloomberg is trying to use this case as another opportunity to attack tenure by trying to yank it from this teacher. Oddly, he actually makes the case for tenure in doing so.

Most of us find prostitution morally wrong, and it certainly is illegal in New York. Still, here we have the case of a woman who climbed out of that sordid life and earned her way into the teaching profession. Nevertheless, Mayor4Life would seemingly prefer to fire her and perhaps cause her to return to that profession rather than starve. I'm sure the mayor feels she deserves it; after all, he himself has never done anything wrong. For example, when he was accused of sexual remarks toward a co-worker, he settled the suit without having to admit guilt, so we know his hands were clean even if his mouth may have needed washing out with soap. And of course, Bloomberg's company was accused of discriminating against 80 women as well, but none of that is his fault, either. Accountability is for the little folk.

What we have here is the case of a woman who had a sketchy past, but who managed to get her life together and turn in at least three satisfactory years for the DOE. As such, she earned tenure. Now Bloomberg wants to take it away. Let's imagine what will happen if he succeeds.

Have you ever smoked pot in the past? Had a beer while underage? Those things are just as illegal as prostitution, and if Bloomberg somehow gets the right to pull tenure from teachers who may have engaged in some illegal activity in the past, then the floodgates are open.

Where does it stop? Can you lose tenure because you once got a speeding ticket? How about if you got arrested at a peaceful protest of the Iraq war? Failed to curb your dog? Smoked a cigarette in a public place? Worn too short a skirt? Cheated on your third grade spelling test?

Without tenure, the mayor, chancellor, or your principal would be able to fire you for any of those reasons, or for no reason at all. That is why tenure is needed.

Ms. Petro was certainly unwise for letting her past become public. But if her tenure is taken away for her past behavior--if she is denied due process--then everyone becomes a target. Except the mayor, of course. He has the money to bury his past.

Let he who is without sin, or sexual harassment lawsuits, cast the first stone.

If the Hat Fits...

When the Klan marches, the newspapers have to cover it because it is a newsworthy event, however repulsive and ignorant the Klan may be. While "Educators 4 Excellence" may not quite rival the Klan for cluelessness, they do their best to come close. I've tried to avoid covering them because they are outstanding attention whores all by themselves and they don't need any additional coverage from me. Besides, Chaz and South Bronx School have both done an admirable job of exposing the idiocy of the E4E crew. Still, there are two things that bother me that no one has addressed.

First is the E4E website itself. It's certainly nicely done, as it should be--it's powered by Media Mezcla Campaign Engine, which provides tools for politicians to run campaigns. I wonder how two low-salaried teachers managed to put up a website using expensive software that politicians use in their campaigns? A suspicious person might infer that these two fine newbie teachers somehow managed to hook up with powerful, moneyed pols, but we all know that couldn't be, could it? In any case, one of their goals is to join the "debate" on how to improve schools, apparently by eviscerating them. Toward this end, they have a blog that does not accept comments. So much for debate.

A bigger bone to pick with E4E is that they brainlessly list two contradictory goals on their "Declaration" page, to wit:

• Reestablishing tenure as a significant professional milestone through the use of a comprehensive teacher evaluation system and
• Eliminating the practice of "Last In, First Out" for layoffs

Perhaps these two don't understand that tenure is already a significant professional milestone. A teacher must produce results for three years, and can be fired for any reason whatsoever before that time frame elapses. How E4E plans to make tenure more rigorous remains unclear; it seems to me that getting fired for any reason is already pretty rigorous. Perhaps E4E would like those who fail to attain tenure to be drawn and quartered or slammed in the iron maiden.

What the E4E crew fails to get is that eliminating seniority for layoffs effectively renders tenure meaningless. What good is tenure when you can be fired any time the mayor declares a fiscal crisis? Fiscal crises happen in NYC with greater regularity than ethnic street fairs. Let's see how far tenure gets you when your principal hands you a pink slip and sends you skidding down the street on your hindquarters.

Of course, none of this probably matters much to the E4E crew. I doubt their ultimate ambition is to be great teachers. More likely, they want to be the Grand Wizards of education--superintendents or better. If layoffs were based on the ability to brown nose and kiss Joel Klein's wrinkled ass, these two would have jobs for life.

So the E4E crew get awarded a pair of matching dunce caps. Which, when you think about it, look kind of Klannish, which seems to fit.

Joel Klein Honors New Teachers!

In an email today, Joel Klein laid out his plan to make tenure more difficult to achieve. His three part plan includes: Rigorous review, Transparency, and Accountabilty. To boil it down for you, he proposed using test data, having principals talk to new teachers about how their test data isn't good enough, and having principals evaluate test data.

Klein claims that new teachers will not be evaluated on test data alone. That would be insufficient, he says. Now let's all try really hard to imagine the scenario in which a teacher with promise but below average test scores will be granted tenure. No, I can't imagine it either.

In exchange for this new review, which is most likely against state law and the spirit of the contract, Klein promises to "do more to honor the achievement of earning tenure." In Kleinspeak, he means that he considers evaluating teachers by test scores to be an honor. How he will do more is anyone's guess. Perhaps he will honor new teachers whose student portfolios are thicker than the Queens white pages, or whose TANs have their own gravitational pull. I also suspect learning to kiss the ass of your principal will become one of the biggest honors of all. If you can give your principal a prostate exam with your nose, tenure is yours.

For the record, I am not, in theory, opposed to making tenure a more challenging process. New teachers should be of the highest quality we can find, and those who can't cut it should be fired. Still, it's pretty easy to see who's cutting the mustard and who is not. And judging new teachers on test data that even the state of NY, who make the tests, have said is faulty borders on lunacy.

Let's face it--this isn't an honor, it's a power grab. Probably a third of new teachers leave of their own accord before three years are up. Of those that remain, Klein wants to get rid of anyone who doesn't meet his standards, whatever those may be. I get the feeling that few will make it, and Mayor4Life and his stooge will get what they have always wanted: a transient, temporary work force of young healthy people who will demand little in the way of health care, who will command the lowest salaries, and who will contribute to the retirement system with little hope of ever making it more than three years.

Oh yeah. And they won't dare ask for help from that pesky union for fear of their jobs. Don't you feel honored?

The Surgeon's Knife

Looks like I'm going to lose my bet that the teachers' contract would be announced right before Thanksgiving. Unless you let me count Thanksgiving, 2o10.

Mayor4Life Bloomberg launched an attack on the UFT today, asking for the moon and trying to run an end-around through the state legislature. He wants to tie test scores to tenure, have the right to fire ATRs and in the event of layoffs, to get rid of teachers based on test scores rather than seniority. (All of you who believe that good teachers with high salaries won't get laid off, raise your hands.)

Luckily, Michael Mulgrew and the Unity Crew wisely decided to tacitly support mayoral control and sit on the sidelines during the mayoral election. If they hadn't, the mayor might be calling for more serious concessions, such as water-boarding teachers based on test scores.

I'm sure the ed blogosphere will be buzzing with analysis of this latest assault on teachers, so I won't go too deeply into it here. But I did find an analogy by Bloomberg rather telling:

"...Mr. Bloomberg said that banning the use of student achievement in tenure decisions is “like saying to hospitals, ‘You can evaluate heart surgeons on any criteria you want — just not patient survival rates!’ ”

Any doctor will tell you that some of the best heart surgeons around have some of the worst survival rates because they take on patients in the most desperate situations. What teacher will want to take on the most challenging students, knowing that by doing so, they are risking their careers? Bloomberg, who knows as much about education as my dog (sorry, Spot) obviously can't see that.

Trading Tenure for Jobs

A perfect storm is brewing in NYC, and career teachers better take notice before they are washed overboard by the squall.

Mayor Bloomberg is calling for 14,000 education layoffs, mostly of teachers, if he can not get enough money from Washington and Albany. Of course layoffs, if they come, would affect only the newest, lowest salaried teachers in a normal world. This is Bloomy's world, however, so it wouldn't surprise me if something underhanded was afoot. Knowing the man, wouldn't he at least take a shot at getting rid of the most senior, highest paid teachers first, considering that would save more money and accomplish his goal of a cheap teacher workforce who'll be forced to do his bidding?

He could accomplish this in three steps:

• Threaten massive layoffs if nothing is done. (Step already taken)
• Find a union stooge (cough Randi cough) willing to assist him in eliminating tenure.
• Trade a no layoff guarantee for the elimination of tenure.

Can't happen, you say? The UFT would never go for it, you say? Let's think about that. Randi isn't really interested in tenure--she's interested in union dues. If 14,000 teachers lost their jobs, the UFT would lose $14 million a year. They'd have to cut down on those nice gala luncheons they hold while the rank and file are fighting for their jobs. If she gets a no layoff guarantee in return for the elimination of tenure, she not only keeps said luncheons but also the 14 mil. Sweet.

This would require a contract revision, and you might be inclined to think such a thing would be dead in the water. But Unity sold out seniority in the 2005 contract with nary a peep from the members through careful manipulation of information. They put lipstick on that pig of a contract by selling us the "Open Market", which many new teachers were too ignorant to vote against and which many senior teachers accepted in exchange for more money and a promised 55/25 retirement clause. Randi trumpeted that contract as a win that would allow teachers to be free agents who could go where they were wanted. Nevermind that no one wanted them and that the ATR pool was created instead.

How does all that apply here? How could Randi sell out tenure? Easy. Convince all the new teachers that voting for the elimination of tenure would save their jobs. Scare the 3-15 year teachers with threats of virtually unlimited class sizes when the layoffs happen. And offer senior teachers a retirement incentive in exchange for voting yes. I'd say that's a majority. And then Randi would put her unique Unity spin on it, claiming not that she sold off the only remaining vestiges of teacher unionism, but that she single-handedly, through relentless negotiation, managed to save 14,000 jobs.

Thus, Randi looks like a hero. The mayor looks like a genius for averting layoffs and eliminating tenure. Klein keeps his job as he continues to slowly oscillate his head from side to side in a curiously reptillian fashion.

This whole scenario may seem unlikely to you, but you can bet that if I thought of it, so has the DOE. And I remember thinking it unlikely that I would ever do cafeteria duty or potty patrol again. Ignore it at your peril.

Sour on Sweet Caroline

Now, Lord knows I hate to rain on the parade of any more rich people. What with the economic downturn, it's all some of them can do to maintain their strings of poloponies. I know Smellington G. Worthington III would agree.

Caroline Kennedy is no exception. Despite being filthy rich, with an estimated wealth in excess of $100 million, Caroline has nevertheless felt the pinch of the current recession, telling the Times that she has been personally affected by the economic crisis. How she has been affected, she refuses to say. Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg will only take the calls of those with a nine figure net worth.

Despite my empathy, I am afraid I must withhold my endorment of her quest to be appointed senator from New York. As far as I can tell her platform consists of the following planks:

1. I am a Kennedy.

2. I have written a children's book, which got published because I am a Kennedy.

3. I have raised funds for education, mostly by virtue of being a Kennedy and thus able to put the bite on other rich people. ("Hello. I'm a Kennedy. Would you care to contribute tax-deductible funds to my cause?")

4. I am a mom.

Now, thanks to the Times, we can add a fifth plank. It appears that she would do away with tenure for teachers. Oh, she didn't say that, of course. What Caroline said, in her best Palinesque voice (Sarah, not Michael) was, “To pick out the most controversial [issue] as a stand-alone thing, I don’t think that’s really the way to go about this." If the Times had asked me that question, the interview would have been brief:

The Times: If appointed senator, would you abolish tenure?

Mr. Talk: No.

NY1 asked her whether she'd support a third term for Mike Bloomberg. My answer, again, would have been a simple "No." Caroline said that she thinks the mayor is doing a good job. 

You know, maybe she knows more about being a politician than we think.

I watched the NY1 interview. What struck me the most is how she asserted that the education system in NYC is in "crisis". In the next breath, she discussed what a fine job she thinks the mayor is doing. Hey, isn't this the same mayor who has had total control over the school system for the last seven years? How long would you have a job if your classroom was in crisis for seven days, let alone seven years?

Of course, the mayor doesn't need tenure. His job is secure, he has $20 billion in the bank, and he has the support of the woman who appears poised to be the next senator of New York. I bet his poloponies are well fed, too.