'Fess Up, Teachers!

I was going through my Sunday morning ritual of reading PostSecret. If you've never seen it, you should give it a look. It's a site where people confess their innermost secrets by sending them in on postcards with appropriate pictures and captions. This one caught my eye:

I must admit that this is not my postcard, as I don't teach elementary school and I hate Twilight. Personally, I would have watched Die Hard. But this postcard did get me thinking. We all have little teacher secrets we don't let on to everyone. I'll tell a few of mine.

Many years ago, I spilled a Coke on a set of unmarked tests. I was too embarrassed to admit what happened. The tests could never be marked or returned to parents, so I kind of put the students off until they forgot the test ever happened. It tooks months for them to stop asking.

I often read essays aloud in class when someone writes something great. I don't identify the writer unless they choose to be identified. Sometimes, I choose essays by shy kids, even if their papers are not the best ones. The students often look mortified, but I've had a few claim ownership of their papers, and I think it changed their lives in some way.

An mean spirited admin once came into my class and tried to tell one particular student what to do. I knew the kid, and I knew the admin was walking into a mine field, but I let it go. Sure enough, the student told the admin exactly where she could shove her walkie talkie, horizontally. I still laugh about it to this day.

So, those are a few of mine. If you'd like to share, please comment. I repectfully request that you don't post anything that could land you in the rubber room.

Good Old American Values

Crime doesn't pay, you say? An ex-UBS bank employee, one Bradley C. Birkenfeld, was convicted of helping rich tax evaders sock away millions of dollars that should have gone into tax coffers. He was sentenced to 40 months in jail. But here's the kicker. He became a whistle-blower and told the feds exactly how rich folks were hiding their massive wealth in offshore accounts. As a result, these rich folks have finally had to pay--no jail time, of course--just come forward and pay. Now Birkenfeld wants the government to award him several billion (yes, you read that right--billion) dollars as a reward for blowing that whistle. And he just may get it.

I understand the reason we reward whistle blowers, but where I come from, if you participate in the crime, you're a rat, not a whistle blower. You don't get rewarded; you get to sleep with the fishes.

Of course, if you blow the whistle on the DOE, you don't get money--you get sent to the rubber room like David Pakter, a former teacher of the year who was vulcanized for his troubles.

There's a lesson here somewhere, but I'm not sure what it is. All I know is a criminal may get very wealthy, and a bunch of already wealthy people will suffer no penalty for trying to cheat the government.

And teachers? We get skewered for wanting a 4% raise.

Something is wrong here.

Mulgrew--Think Big this Time

Mayor4Life (M4L) Bloomberg thinks big and long term. He was always several steps ahead of the late lamented Randi Weingarten, and remains about a furlong ahead of Mike Mulgrew and the U-Crew. That's why, when assessing the mayor's latest assault on teachers, you have to think long term like the mayor. He's a big picture guy. UFT leadership has a short term view--from election to election.

Why does the mayor want to tie teacher tenure to test scores? Two reasons immediately spring to mind. One, he wants to qualify for the Race to the Top funds (always follow the money). Second, he wants to claim that this will improve teacher quality. On thinking about both of these, however, I don't think either is Bloomberg's long term agenda.

Let's look at the idea that tying test scores to tenure will improve teacher quality. It has a visceral appeal that voters will like--Why should new teachers get protection unless they can prove their worth? Lots of people, including myself and Miss Eyre in this blog post today, think granting tenure should be a more rigorous process. But why test scores? Even though state law prohibits it, does anyone really think that principals don't look at that data already? Sure, they can't explicitly fire new teachers for low scores, but in reality, they can fire untenured teachers for any reason or no reason at all for a period of three years. So why the sudden need to change the law?

Now, let's look at the Race to the Top (RttT) funds. Sure, Bloomberg wants them, but remember that he is a big picture guy. A one time infusion of RttT fund would be welcome to Bloomy, but it isn't enough for a guy like M4L. At most, those funds would stave off some of the cuts he has already planned for the schools. So what does he really want?

I think if you put RttT and new teacher tenure together, you get the answer. Once M4L gets the state to OK tying test scores to tenure decisions, how long will it be before he demands that the legislature approve the use of test scores for all teachers? I'd bet my pension it would be on the table for the next contract, assuming we ever settle this one soon. If Bloomberg gets that concession, he'd have license to fire almost any teacher he wants by giving highly paid teachers the worst classes with the least support.

Imagine the mayor with the power to fire senior teachers based on bogus test scores! He could get rid of those pesky high salaries, and basically ensure that almost no one would ever get in the 27 years needed to retire. That would save the city and state billions of dollars annually. All this makes the RttT funds look like chump change.

In my view, M4L wants to parlay a seemingly small change in tenure for new teachers into an evisceration of tenure for all teachers as a means of dismantling both seniority pay and the retirement system as we know it. That's the kind of big thinking SOB the mayor is.

The question is, can Mulgrew and the U-Crew stand up to it? I don't have a lot of faith. They are not big thinkers. They are contract to contract thinkers who only care about whether they can claim victory and so get re-elected to their high paid, high powered, double pensioned positions. So they do think big--but only for themselves.

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.

200 and Counting...

I had a few snarky, sarcastic things to say today, but I realized when I hit the "New Post" button that this is post #200. This blog is almost a year old, as well, so it's not too soon to start shopping for that perfect gift.

I honestly never thought I'd last this long as an ed blogger, and I sure didn't think I'd ever get to 200 posts. Thanks to all who have blog-rolled me, and everyone who has participated. While writing this blog has been enough to make my blood boil at times, it's been worth every minute.

Bloomberg's New Math = Layoffs

Mayor4Life Bloomberg has changed an accounting procedure that makes it much more likely that municipal employees, including school employees, will be laid off. According to the New York Times, the change involves allowing city agencies to count health benefits and Social Security payments as part of an agency's budget, even though these costs are paid by the city and not the agency itself.

In other words, getting rid a teacher in the past would have saved only the teacher's salary. So if the teacher made 50K, the principal would save 50K. Now, the principal will save that 50K plus perhaps another 20K in benefits which the principal does not have to pay, bringing the total savings to 70K.

Now, if you're a principal and you're told you need to cut the budget by 70K, would you prefer to ax one teacher who costs you only 50K or find the full 70K in other reductions?

In other, but likely related, news, Michael Mulgrew visited a school and discussed the budget crisis facing the city and state. He said: “Tough decisions need to be made, but protecting our children and classrooms must be our first priority,” he said.

Funny, but I thought Mulgrew's first priority was to the teachers who actually pay both his salary and 120 million dollars in dues. Why doesn't he come right out and say that protecting school employees from layoffs should be our first priority? Or protecting our rights?

It's a scary time, because under Bloomberg's new math, getting rid of ATRs and teachers in rubber rooms would now save the DOE not only 200 million or so in salaries, but untold millions more in health benefits. And since those teachers are not Mulgrew's first priority, they'd better watch their backs.

Them's the Breaks

The other day, totally unbeknownst to me, I dropped my phone in the hallway of my school. A student stopped me and pointed out what happened. I thanked him and said, "I owe you one."

No problem, right? Well, not exactly. This student happens to be one of those kids who is always late, hanging out in the hallways and talking to girls. When there are no girls around, he just wanders until someone ushers him into class. Few teachers do that, because he's a big kid. It seems that the larger the student, the fewer teachers there are who want to move them along. It's never bothered me much.

Until now, of course. I owed him one. Today, he was cruising the hallways, late as usual, and I just nodded and watched him amble off to class. So I figure we are now even. Tomorrow, I'll go back to my usual self and yell at him to get a move on.

It got me thinking. As teachers, we often tend to give breaks to certain students. I know that I sometimes let missing homeworks slide for a day when my "good" kids forget, because, well, they're good kids and everyone is entitled to a mistake once in a while. Unless they are "bad" kids, in which case they get a letter home the very same day.

So, what's your deal? Who gets favored treatment from you? (Oh, come on--you know you do it. We all do.)