Michelle Rhee and the D.C. Schools (PBS report)

[tonysam]

Last night on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, there was a report about D.C. tyrant Michelle Rhee and her battle against the district teachers with her attempt fire veteran teachers and replace them with cheapies (and some say she deliberately overhired new teachers for the reason of getting rid of the veteran, tenured teachers), all because of an alleged budget shortfall.

John Merrow reports:

link

[tonysam]

1. This report ought to scare the shit out of any teacher

Rhee and company give principals almost blanket authority to get rid of teachers they don't want, the law be damned. For the RIFs, according to the report, seniority counts only for five percent according to principals' "formulas." So whoever the hell doesn't suck up to a principal or who isn't a nepotism hire is going to find themselves vulnerable to being fired and their careers subsequently destroyed.

NOBODY in this economy should have the absolute ability to do whatever the hell they want to employees, but school district principals and higher administrators do have this unique ability and with NO accountability whatsoever.

[FBaggins]

2. That last sentence is the key

I wouldn't have a problem with a school administrator having the ability to fire a teacher for poor performance (in many cases it's too hard to fire a bad teacher and it gives the rest a bad name)...

...BUT the principal should also be accountable for her/his performance. If the principal fires good teachers and keeps poor ones than the school (and students of course) will suffer... and that should have consequences.

I heard a radio news report here about a teacher who has been charged with multiple counts of sexually abusing students. The county superintendent was reported to have recommended his firing.

I thought "what's the point of a superintendent if even he can only recommend a firing in these cases???"

And who is he recommending it to?

[tonysam]

3. It isn't hard to fire a teacher at all; it is laughably easy.

It is a MYTH teachers have ironclad job security; in fact, it is a damnable lie. Damned few teachers are fired for real misconduct including criminal acts as you describe.

By the way, superintendents are hired and fired by school boards. School boards must vote to approve all terminations, which they basically rubber stamp.

Getting back to the garden variety teacher terminations, all a principal has to do is create a paper trail--and remember, "due process" hearings are JOKES almost always finding for the district. You have to understand what goes on in these "due process" hearings to understand tenure. "Tenure" is simply the right of a teacher to have a "due process" hearing before being fired. School districts simply rig the hearings--paid for by taxpayers--to get rid of teachers on bogus charges.

Tenure was created in the 1920s to prevent abuse of teachers by principals and to prevent favoritism. It was honored for decades because principals in previous eras actually cared about staff morale and the right of students to not have their learning disrupted. Now principals don't give a shit, knowing the districts and the court systems will back them up.

[FBaggins]

4. Have you ever read John Taylor Gatto's books?

If so.. can you straighten out for me what appears to be a contradiction?

I'm not saying "ironclad security"... just that it is reportedly difficult to fire a poor teacher. Remember that it isn't just the legal protection of tenure, but also the protection of the union (which obviously varies substantially from state to state).

Of course few are fired for criminal behavior. But those should be the easiest cases to fire. If those are hard, then performance-related firings should be harder.

My only personal experience with it was my 1st-3rd grade teacher in CA who was fired over a decade later for being unable to pass a basic skills test at the 3rd grade level. I can't imagine how that could go unnoticed for a couple decades.

Where firings become easy is when the county/district cuts the budget. Now a certain number of slots are going to be cut and it's a question of who to get rid of. Which brings in the favoritism problems of the OP. What I'm talking about is just a school administrator who says "Mr Jones can't teach" and wants to get rid of him>

Of course... many teachers I know would point out that this makes Mr Jones an obvious choice for administrator. lol! :)

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. My guess is he/she was a favoritism/nepotism hire.

>>>My only personal experience with it was my 1st-3rd grade teacher in CA who was fired over a decade later for being unable to pass a basic skills test at the 3rd grade level. I can't imagine how that could go unnoticed for a couple decades.>>>>

Believe me, if he/she couldn't pass a 3rd grade skills test... it was noticed early on. Principal may have liked him/her for reasons other than her classroom ability (example: He/she was politically cooperative.); then provided the necessary cover. Then the principal moved on/up. A new principal had to pick up the pieces. It's a plausible scenario. I've seen variations of this over the years. A weak union creates the potential for all kinds of ed abuse.

When the union is strong, the system should be strong. It should be... and generally IS... a win/win. That is: for consumer AND provider.

[tonysam]

6. I've substituted in schools where the teachers,

typically the young "bimbo" types, couldn't spell for anything and couldn't even capitalize correctly.

For example, I went into a first- or second-grade class to substitute, and the teacher did not capitalize "Halloween" or "Christmas" correctly. She was teaching SPELLING, for crying out loud, and apparently spelling the holidays, and she didn't know how to capitalize.

No doubt she had family connections in this district in order to keep her job. I would be outraged going into these classrooms, and here I couldn't get a job to save my life.

Then when I DID get a job with the district, well, let's put it this way...I've hated myself for ever working for such a crooked outfit.

[tonysam]

7. More about the attempt by Rhee to gut tenure

for teachers in order to shaft these teachers out of their salaries and retirement benefits right here, in an article which is typically slanted against teachers:

link

In September, the 39-year-old Ms. Rhee, citing a looming budget gap, laid off nearly 400 school employees, including 266 teachers. The dismissals came weeks after Ms. Rhee finished hiring 934 new teachers over the summer. Ms. Rhee said she was initiating the layoffs based on "quality, not by seniority."

The Washington Teachers' Union filed a grievance and a lawsuit against the district over the layoffs, calling them "a blatant violation" of the union contract and a pretext for dismissing veterans without proper cause, which the district denies.
____


Of course they deny it, but it's obvious the massive hirings were done to shaft the veteran teachers.

[tonysam]

8. Newbie sightings are rumored around the school district

I have received emails confirming sightings of new 'teacher hires' beginning the second week of November, only a month after the notices of layoffs were given to 388 DC teachers and school staff. This is pretty darn amazing given the budget pressures that DC public schools is reportedly faced with. Ever wonder why Chancellor Rhee has yet to implement a freeze on hiring and spending practices given the twenty million dollar deficit DC schools is up against ? Well let me make an educated guess why this administration continues to spend willy nilly. Perhaps Rhee does not want to freeze spending so that she can continue to hire staff on the DL (down-low) to replace teachers who were unfairly laid off.

Not only have there been sightings of new teacher hires in local DC public schools but unnamed sources report that new hires have been spotted at the DCPS central office personnel department as well. Shortly after teacher and staff layoffs, copies of an October 19 email from Morgan Gieseke, a Teach DC recruiter in the Office of The Chancellor (OOC) circulated to perspective 2009-10 DCPS teacher applicants stating the following:


If you are still interested in teaching for DCPS during the 2009-2010 school year, please let me know. We will resume the selection process next week and will only contact you if you have indicated to me that you would like to remain in the pool of applicants. If you would like to only be considered for 2010-2011 vacancies, please withdraw your application and reapply in January. If you have already found a position with DCPS and we have sent you this email in error, please submit your school information. Your response is requested by Wednesday, October 21st. If you have any questions, please let me know. DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL. Please click on the following link to complete the two minute survey:


More, including a link to the survey