Teacher union hunts for `hidden vacancies’
By Katy Murphy
Tuesday, June 15th, 2010 at 6:17 pm in OEA, OUSD central office, teachers, union contract.
Let’s say a teacher announces in April she’s retiring at the end of the school year. The teacher tells the district’s HR department, and if that position needs to be filled, the HR department tells the teachers union, which tells its members they may apply for that job.
Teacher contracts in many districts allow displaced teachers (usually, the most junior teachers from schools that have eliminated positions, teachers from shuttered schools, or those returning from leave) to choose another job from the list of openings, based on their credentials and seniority.
The process is called “priority placement,” and it ended June 4. As of today, however, at least 18 of the teachers need to be placed, and the district is obligated to find jobs for them before hiring outside the organization, according to the union president, Betty Olson-Jones.
At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
Principals hate this process — not because the displaced teachers are bad, but because they have no say about who will be joining their staffs. So some administrators keep their openings a secret from the district’s HR department until the displaced teachers have all found jobs and they can hire whomever they want (well, anyone who’s still looking for a teaching job in late June or July). They might, for example, ask a teacher to hold off on submitting his retirement or resignation paperwork until then.
The practice is so common there’s a term for it: “hiding vacancies.”
The Oakland teachers union is asking its members to help expose this open secret. It posted the district’s official vacancy list on its website, and is encouraging teachers to report any openings that are missing from it.
The union’s e-mail listserv has been ablaze with reported violations, including a number of Craigslist ads — though some have since been removed. Someone found a June 7 job listing, apparently placed by people with the district’s Middle School Staffing Initiative, for positions that weren’t included on the district’s vacancy list. (Although the ad was posted three days after the priority placement period ended, Olson-Jones said some of the displaced teachers — those still without jobs — are eligible for those positions.)
Another teacher wrote in about a principal who acknowledged asking departing teachers to keep their decisions hush-hush. Others wrote about instances in which teachers felt pushed into certain positions without adequate time to consider their options.
The district administration, as you might remember, proposed a compromise last month: a system that would let principals interview interested candidates from a pool of displaced teachers before the seniority preference kicked in. San Francisco Unified, where Superintendent Tony Smith last worked, does it that way.
The union leadership is opposed to such a change. So for now, the priority placement rules still stand — except for those who manage not to follow them.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
June 15th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
GOOD FOR PRINCIPALS for taking whatever steps they can to circumvent a policy that keeps them from hiring the best teachers for their schools.
Look at the news out of Denver, DC and elsewhere: the nation’s public schools are moving towards merit factoring into teachers’ employment and compensation, and away from seniority ruling. Oakland will surely be one of the last to catch on to this trend, but catch on it will — eventually — OEA’s efforts notwithstanding.
June 15th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Don’t forget Chicago, Owen, where it was tried and produced no gains for students (Education Week, June 9, 2010).
June 15th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Totally understood; there have been many others, in fact. But the trend seems inexorable at this point as unions’ former allies (Democrats) are turning away from tenure. Alternative programs’ success will vary, but as with any innovation trend the strongest options will come to the fore over time — and if the OEA doesn’t get on board they’ll soon be irrelevant.
June 15th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Owen,
That will be a day to celebrate, after the unions have been kicked in the teeth, and they become irrelevant. People should always be judged on merit ALONE.
June 15th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
It never fails to amaze me, the amount of vitriol aimed at teachers, especially experienced ones. Would you prefer to have surgery performed by a doctor who had been practicing for one year or twenty? Would you prefer a lawyer who had only a few trials behind him or her, or one who had years of experience? Would you prefer the mechanic who checks your airplane in-between flights to be the one who just got out of school yesterday or the one with plenty of experience? Yet, when it comes to teaching children, there’s some sort of belief that newer teachers know something more experienced teachers don’t. Well, I’m twenty years in and absolutely the top of my game. There are no new beginning teachers who know half of what I know about curriculum, assessment, instruction, classroom management, methodology or, for that matter, have the connections and knowledge that I do about the district. Brand new teachers are great; but they’ll be even better after 10 or 20 years. So, when it comes to seniority, damned right, I have earned it. Any school that is “forced” to take me at my oh-so-inflated salary of $67 k per year is damned lucky to get me; I may cost twice as much as a new teacher, but I bring a great deal more than twice as much to my classroom. When I’m being consolidated because of school closures, as I am this yearm I know most principals would take one look at my step and column on the salary schedule and go right on the next, cheaper teacher. Thank god the union continues to protect seniority; otherwise, you’d have a school full of new teachers and no mentors. This district kids need experienced teachers, not exclusively newbies.
June 15th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
I saw Roosevelt Middle had a whole slew of jobs up on CL this past week.
June 15th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Judging on merit alone is great, but of course it never happens in the real world – not in government, and not in private industry. In particular, where are these mythical principals who are able to accurately assess the merit of teacher applicants? I’ve never met one; principals have a hard enough time accurately assessing teachers with whom they have actually worked. For example, no principal has ever asked to look at work my students do, or have even looked in any detail at what I ask them to do.
Moreover, it must be borne in mind that many, if not most, of the currently unassigned teachers are from small schools that didn’t make it. Do we want teachers to volunteer for such schools, or not? Right now, i am pretty much the senior social studies teacher at a large high school; my chances of ever getting laid off are nil. Why would I ever risk that security for a small school, if the system is changed so that I have no say in where i am placed if the small school doesn’t work out?
June 15th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Owen–you have it perfectly right. But if the democrats bail on the unions, who will union membership vote for–republican candidates? That would be awesome.
Yet Another Oakland Teacher–if you’re so effective, why on earth would your supervisor consolidate your position? Further, why wouldn’t another administrator snatch you up? Every administrator is under the gun for results in the classroom, and with all of your experience, you must get good test scores. You’re worth $87k + benefits, not a paltry $67k. You should be a commodity–what gives?
These rules don’t protect good teachers; they enable bad teaching in the system and further constrain administrators from making hard decisions that benefit STUDENTS.
Seniority is bad for kids. Bad for teachers. Bad for everyone.
June 15th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Mutual consent is crucial to building and maintaining well functioning schools. Our current hiring practices make it difficult to staff our schools with people who are both wanted and who want to be there.
Anon: I believe the article covered your point.
June 15th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Yet Another Oakland Teacher:
Principals prefer experienced teachers over new ones. If you don’t know this, I don’t know what principals you’ve been talking to…
It is not experienced teachers that are the problem, the problem is that pricipals are not adequately involved in the placement process of priority placement teachers.
While it is definitely important for a teacher to want to be at a school (of course!), it is equally important for principals to have a say in who is placed at their school. We cannot expect to build stable learning environments for our students if we do not base our hiring decisions on working relationships that will last– those where both parties agree that they want to work together.
June 15th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Yet Another Oakland Teacher , you really have a great opinion of yourself but I wonder if others do. The teachers I know who have been teaching the longest are among the worst. They don’t want to quit because they lose their health benefits but they are tired of teaching. They don’t bother to learn new technology and continue to use the same old lessons they have always used which bore the students to death and teach them nothing. Often their knowledge of their subject, apart from what is in their textbook is limited. At least the TFAs are well educated, unlike many of the teachers in their 50s and 60s. I fact, I know very few really good teachers and I worked at various middle schools, but the ones I do know are among the younger ones.
June 15th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
The most important attribute of good teachers is their performance in the classroom. This is not the only attribute of good teachers.
If you are a 10 on the teaching scale, you will probably always be able to find a job. However, if you are a 7 on the teaching scale, and a 10+ on the pain in the behind scale, why would a principal want to keep you around? Some people’s personalities are so toxic and infectious that it doesn’t matter how good they are at their jobs.
This is not a knock on teachers; it is true in all professions. But all too often, especially on this blog, we talk about the potential for abuse in the review process of subordinates (teachers). This potential exists. it exists in the private sector, too. Good employees are terminated for lousy reasons on occasion, and this is too bad. If it happens to frequently, it comes back to bite the leader. On the flip side, a leader who keeps a single, toxic employee at the expense of everyone else is doomed. You either trust your leaders to make those decisions or you need to hire new leaders. Whoever you ultimately put in the position needs to be able to make that call.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:36 am
“Well, I’m twenty years in and absolutely the top of my game. There are no new beginning teachers who know half of what I know about curriculum, assessment, instruction, classroom management, methodology or, for that matter, have the connections and knowledge that I do about the district”.
Since the inception of NCLB all prospective and new teachers have been through much more rigorous requirements than teachers from previous years.No matter how long a list you give “pedagogy” in and of itself is not the difficult part(and it isn’t rocket science either). differentiating instruction is probably as hard as it gets. you don’t get points for cronyism and connections, it would be more impressive if OUSD weren’t one of the worst districts in the state academically. The top of one persons game might be the bottom of another persons scale.The young teaching might know more than you, they just lack classroom time, and studies have shown that once a teacher hits 5 years they will have acquired all the experience that they need to do their job effectively(unless they picked the wrong profession of course).
June 16th, 2010 at 12:50 am
Owen, J.R., Ivette…couldn’t agree more. Where’s Michelle Rhee when you need her? We need a contract like D.C.’s to see some real change!
June 16th, 2010 at 12:56 am
You could never compare doctors,lawyers and teachers, only one profession has a mapped out guide(curriculum)Teachers editions and so forth and you just have no need for a ton of experience. it’s really not useful in a teachers line of work. They’re just struggling with math um……….. re-teach, wow brilliant. there are just not very many variables involved. I prefer young college grads who are energetic knowledgeable and haven’t lost their patience. On the good side teachers(the good ones) do change lives and that is awesome. I just have no use for bad, ill mannered, impatient teachers.
June 16th, 2010 at 6:39 am
I could not disagree more with #13 that you just open a teachers edition and start talking. I am still learning and developing as a teacher, even after more than 10 years. The first few years as a teacher are a blur for most people they are so stressful; that is why so many people leave teaching.
I work at a school that the principal is holding back, but while I am very opposed to this practice, cannot seem to drum up the courage to “out” the opening. I agree it is unfortunate that principals do not get some type of input into who works at the school, but also agree that the policy of seniority is important to avoid unfair hiring practices. Positions are held back for two reasons: avoiding the higher salaries of veteran teachers (there could be a 30k difference over a new/young hire) and avoiding teachers who have been involuntarily transferred (with possibly really poor classroom skills). The one other reason is that the principal has someone in particular in mind and is hoping that everyone else has already found a position before theirs is actually listed.
I wonder if in the private sector, people try to hire new and inexperienced people to save money?
June 16th, 2010 at 7:24 am
@ Yet Another Oakland Teacher Says-
I would rather have a brand new surgeon who studied on animals that have the surgeon who successfully performed heart surgery and every patient died in May.
My sons have had EXCELLENT teachers in Oakland. They have also had some of the worst 12 year / 14 year and 17 year teachers I have ever seen, heard or had. They were absolutely unfit.
A teacher in a class for 12 years can have 12 years of experience or one year of experience 12 times.
June 16th, 2010 at 7:44 am
It’s a common perception that principals consolidate, or displace, their worst teachers. In reality, several principals and the director of labor relations told me, principals have little to no say in the matter. Union rules govern consolidations as well as the placement of those displaced teachers, so it’s usually the newest teachers who go if a school cuts a position. A veteran teacher will be displaced — and then receive “priority placement” — if her school closes or, possibly, if she’s returning from leave.
June 16th, 2010 at 7:45 am
It’s not just the principals who prefer to hide the vacancies. As a teacher, I don’t want to be stuck with a tenured coworker who may not be a good fit for the school or has been out of the classroom for years and years – as is the case with some of the teachers in the current pool. We have much more knowledge about the teaching ability of teachers already in the system through word-of-mouth. In our case, it is not so we can higher a younger teacher; it is so we can hire the teacher that is the strongest and best fit for the open position.
June 16th, 2010 at 8:31 am
Yet Another Oakland Teacher Says:
“It never fails to amaze me, the amount of vitriol aimed at teachers, especially experienced ones.”
Hardly. It is possible to have great respect for teachers and teaching, and total loathing of the teacher’s union and what it has done in Oakland to prevent reform.
June 16th, 2010 at 9:07 am
HS Math,
You summed up the issue exactly, we need to hire the strongest teachers without regard to time served. What could be more fair than that. Let the principals do the job that they were hired to do, and the teachers union needs to be concerned with whats best for kids and shaddup.
June 16th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Oakey,
I too have great respect and love for the great teachers(the majority) who have changed lives, and their good names, and reputations are being dragged through the mud for the sake of an agenda to protect people who are unfit to teach our children. The teachers unions have been an impediment and they must be removed.
June 16th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Katy,
“It’s a common perception that principals consolidate, or displace, their worst teachers. In reality, several principals and the director of labor relations told me, principals have little to no say in the matter. Union rules govern consolidations as well as the placement of those displaced teachers”
I am glad you are putting these fallacies to rest, one more fallacy is that principals will hire new teachers to save money, could we research and expose this one too. As I understand it principals are not given “x” amount of money to hire “x” amount of teachers, and would a principal really put their jobs in jeopardy from angry parents reacting to inferior teachers, just to save some money? It just doesn’t make any sense.
June 16th, 2010 at 9:50 am
unions are under attack. Thankfully, the anti-union voices who contribute to this blog, have no say in the of the OEA!
Should we get rid of the Administrators union?
how about getting rid of the Fireman and Policeman union(s), and have them work under a merit system?
let’s pay the fireman based on how many fires they put out and how fast they do it? if fire engine No. 2, regularly puts out fires so fast that more private property is salvaged – lets pay them more!
Also, lets pay Policeman on a merit system … more moving violation citations equals more pay!
bust more drug dealers, get a bonus check!!
how about Newspaper writers? the more hits you get on the papers website, the more money you get!
no more unions… no more regulation … straight up, free-market capitalism for everyone!
June 16th, 2010 at 9:55 am
JR:
My understanding is that, under Result Based Budgeting, principals DO get X number of dollars to hire X number of teachers, and based on my conversations with administrators, of course they take that into account when making decisions, at least at the margins: eg: can we afford to have a teacher teach an extra period after school? Well, it depends on the teacher’s salary. That being said, that is a flaw in the current budgeting process, and is not inherent in the seniority system.
June 16th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Here is a good article on teacher averaging that substantiates some of my claims:
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/124013_seattleschools29.html
Most teachers will probably ignore it though.
June 16th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Harold:
There is a difference between a profession and a trade. Teaching is a profession– it’s about time we start treating it like one.
If we want teachers to be a respected as professionals(like doctors, lawyers, etc.), we need to put an end to the trade mentality. Teachers are not widgets, the individual filling a specific teaching position makes a huge difference. This is part of the reason performance matters in the teaching profession.
It’s easy to ridicule the merit system when you’re not addressing it in the proper context, try doing the same thing with professions and you’ll see that the merit system makes sense. It is the backbone of establishing and maintaining successful/well functioning organizations and businesses.
June 16th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Harold,
I do not want to name names, but at some schools this year, parents are angry when children are not doing grade level work and several teachers had lesson plan books that were rather skimpy and incomplete and few tests were given during the year.Let me ask you, should these teachers be paid as much as the others whose lesson plan books are full? At certain schools smart boards were used, these are computerized white-boards that store data(lessons being taught on the board)on a laptop to be used to gauge what is being taught and what the children are learning. Many older teachers objected, can you tell me why?
June 16th, 2010 at 10:18 am
“So, when it comes to seniority, damned right, I have earned it. Any school that is “forced” to take me at my oh-so-inflated salary of $67 k per year is damned lucky to get me; I may cost twice as much as a new teacher, but I bring a great deal more than twice as much to my classroom”.
This mindset of entitlement and arrogance can no longer be tolerated.
June 16th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Harold-
I like it!! Go and get itism is what free market capitalists like.
Whats the opposite-government reliance. Yeah – that’l work.
June 16th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Yet another Oak teacher,
I am assuming you must have at least ten “teacher of the year” awards at home. You must bring at least 70% of your students to or above grade level every year. You must really stand out, and others teachers come and observe you to see how you have bucked the OUSD trend and have been an educational light in the darkness. WOW, I’m really impressed, but if you haven’t done those things you aren’t exactly at the top are you?
June 16th, 2010 at 10:29 am
J.R.,
I am earning the lowest (Teacher)pay in Alameda Co. I am good at what i do. Until that changes, i can’t even hear you.
Merit pay will drive down wages in cities like Oakland. I cannot support that.
Show me a system where we can measure the “merit” through testing, of: P.E., Visual Arts and Performing Arts Teachers?
I have never heard of any.
June 16th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Harold,
I know you can’t or wont hear me, thats because you are still hoping to think of a cogent response, and far as P.E. visual arts, etc go, the children are in school to enrich and nurture their magnificent brains. All other pursuit are secondary and tertiary at best. these are just “straw men” that are practically irrelevant. As far as your pay you can look at it this way, the district is not in the top half in the whole state, it’s on the bottom, so there you go, something to shoot for. I suggest you start by helping to rid the district of inferior teacher and then the academic scores might rise and people will take notice, and you will get your raise.
June 16th, 2010 at 10:53 am
I am making this an open question because Harold can’t or wont answer it:
I do not want to name names, but at some schools this year, parents are angry when children are not doing grade level work and several teachers had lesson plan books that were rather skimpy and incomplete and few tests were given during the year.Let me ask you, should these teachers be paid as much as the others whose lesson plan books are full? At certain schools smart boards were used, these are computerized white-boards that store data(lessons being taught on the board)on a laptop to be used to gauge what is being taught and what the children are learning. Many older teachers objected, can you tell me why?
June 16th, 2010 at 11:07 am
ANOTHER OPEN QUESTION:
Show me a system where we can measure the “merit” through testing, of: P.E., Visual Arts and Performing Arts Teachers?
I have never heard of any.
June 16th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Harold,
Like I said before, those disciplines are nearly irrelevant to the major educational issues that stand before us, but if I had a preference for teachers in those disciplines I would opt for highly motivated, energetic, demanding and patient teachers irregardless of time served, does that answer your question? Are you going to attempt to answer mine?
June 16th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Harold,
This brings to mind an incident from this year, a district terminated some PE positions which then resulted in tenured multi-credentialed PE teachers bumping junior classroom teachers. Some of them were miserable and complaining, and the kids were subjected to displays of anger and yelling throughout the year with very little graded work done(most parents felt that it was a wasted year). Parents complained and of course it was all hushed up and nothing was done. After all those kids and parents won’t be there next year to raise a stink, and so on it will go year after year.
June 16th, 2010 at 11:45 am
JR:
You complain in #36 that things were “hushed up,” yet in #33 that you don’t want to name names. That’s part of the problem — no one ever wants to name names. How does silence help students?
There is something to be said about the motivating power of shame. It’s too bad that no enterprising reporter came by my school this week to see what is going on in many, many classrooms during what ostensibly are final exams. A story on exactly what is happening in each teacher’s classroom might lead to some welome changes.
June 16th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Yes…. those stupid “straw men” teachers!!! Why do Oakland students need art, music, dance, theater, physical education or culture!!! What a waste!
Critical thinking, logic, reasoning and problem solving skills? Noooooo! Too hard to measure on a fill in the circle standardized test.
The inherent value of learning to work together with others to create magnificent and unique and life altering learning moment? To understand one’s own responsibility and the part each person plays in a group or in a society successfully achieving it’s goal??? As J.R stated…Irrelevant!
Who the heck says any of THIS stuff is important for the adequate education of a human being??????
Oh! I remember now! The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Mayans, Africans, Chinese, Japanese, Indigenous people of all lands and of course those darn Europeans! <- always trying to make trouble!
But OAKLAND kids don't need ANY of that stuff!!!!!
THIS is exactly why enrollment is down, our students and families become unengaged and teachers LEAVE OUSD! But of course…. good riddance right!?
When they excavate the ruins of ancient civilizations, they find cultural treasures and piece together how each society lived and what it valued enough to preserve. When they dig up Oakland in 500 or 1000 years…. what will they find?
June 16th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Gordon,
Such is the beast that we have borne, in the vast expanse that is the education system, the parental shouts of anger are almost silenced, and the system is in full defensive mode and that is a tough nut to crack. Make no mistake, this is by design. We will shatter this system and build anew.I can tell just from your posts that you are a thoughtful person who carefully measures his words.You need to really objectively look at this and decide for youself. This has eerie parallels to the Catholic church debacle in some ways. As for shame, it only works where a conscience is present, and you have read some of these posts, “they are entitled to it all”, and damn the children.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
“The young teaching might know more than you, they just lack classroom time, and studies have shown that once a teacher hits 5 years they will have acquired all the experience that they need to do their job effectively(unless they picked the wrong profession of course).”
And after five years, most will have quit already.
But I’m sure you’ll find a way to blame that on the union, too.
What folks keep ignoring is that the need for teachers over the next 20 years is so massive that we will need both the young and old teachers if we are to staff our schools.
As for J.R., your ignorance of what it takes to teach our students is phenomenal. Just go with the textbook guide? Yeah, that works for middle-class kids at middle-class schools. But what if you are facing 35 kids who can NOT MAKE MEANING FROM THE ‘GRADE-LEVEL’ TEXTBOOK written for the “average” kid in Massachusetts or Orinda? Well, then, you have to find or make appropriate curriculum which can engage the students you have. But you are teaching two other subjects as well, and these are different from the subjects you taught the year before. Meanwhile, two of your students are in juvenile hall and you need to send them modified assignments, another slept in his friend’s car last night because his mom threw him out of the house for the umpteenth time so you need to figure out referral services and whether to call CPS, and your special ed aide is out sick today so you have three children who need one-on-one attention or they will be just rotting there half the day and you have that school-site council meeting tonight, don’t forget, plus the piece of the WASC report you were asked to write, there’s a mom on the phone who wants to know why you took her son’s iPod away from him during class, and the district person called, you have to finish your BTSA paperwork or you might lose your credential and wait, does that hat qualify as gang paraphenalia? Was it Norteno or Sureno? Never mind, gotta get my Donor’s Choose reminder up on Facebook so my friends and family will pay for the frogs we need to buy for the dissection unit, since the district/state/country has no money and WOULD SOMEBODY STOP PULLING THE FIRE ALARM too bad the security guard was laid off and the school secretary and the school nurse and the custodian is half time now, so I better mop my own damn floor — oh, and remember to check the boy’s bathroom twice a day, so it doesn’t get TOO nasty, don’t forget to take those essays home — dare I bring some on the camping trip or will the girlfriend kill me? Remember what happened with the last one; she said, ‘I’ve lost you to teaching and I can’t honestly think I’m going to get you back.’ Oh well, she probably wasn’t The One, anyway, right? Good news is summer is here — gotta get a job! And redo my curriculum, since I’ll have a different age group…and I’m teaching that new elective, for which there IS no textbook…hmmn… could I get a grant to write the curriculum? Better research that…Oh, and I wanted to pain these walls — they haven’t seen paint in a few decades — but is that against the union? even if nobody is going to paint them if I don’t? uh oh stop writing on the blog, lunch is over and grades are almost due…
June 16th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Harold:
My sons’ elementary teachers never taught ANY of those subjects with the exception of in kindergarten and first grade. They simply chose to avoid those subjects even in the Open Court readers they skipped them.
Middle school PE is okay – but because my son is advanced in math his principal is making him take advanced math as his elective. No visual or performing arts to measure if none is taught.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I agree #14, we need a better system. One like Washington DC’s. As for yet another Oakland Teacher.
I would take my chances on the less experienced if I received the type of results that have been produced over the last twenty to thirty years in education. At least I’d know they were trained in the lastest technology and I would not have to spend a lot of time determining whether or not they are effective or be stuck without a choice if they were not. I could dismiss them and move on.
I would not want my Toyota worked on from a 20 year mechanic that have not gone back to school to learn to work on computer chip intergrated cars but yet was kept on the job just because….
I see private and Christian schools getting it done without unions. And it not just a matter of money. These schools are suffering from budget cuts as well.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Once again, “The Truth Hurts”
The Truth
It is clear from the teachers and parents who have posted here that “hiding vacancies” is warranted. It is simply asinine to have a system where the supervisor has no say in the staff and then is held accountable for the results of a staff who themselves can’t be held accountable for the same results. It just makes no sense!
This is not about teacher-bashing or even teachers. It’s about having a rational system to best deploy talent for the benefit of CHILDREN. Remember them???
Is it any wonder people are running, not walking away from such systems – including our Democratic president and even some unions (albeit east of California).
Why it Hurts
If folks continue to insist on such nonsense, they will simply get what they deserve. The shame of it is, the schools with the most turnover (the poorest) suffer the most. They have more vacancies to fill with no say in who fills them. How’s that for institutionalized racism and classism? How is this in line with the mission of a school district? In Oakland???
What to do??? I don’t know, but
There ought to be a better way to protect against principal abuse than giving them NO say on who joins their staff. Seems a bit of an overreach to me. Katy mentioned an idea from SF that might be better than the current mess.
Great teaching is worth so much more respect than it gets, but it is hamstrung by these stupid rules that facilitate poor teaching and mismatched staffing which WE collectively seem unable to deal with – while having students and not adults as the focus. (I blame the districts, unions and us as the public for tolerating such nonsense)
We should expect the union to fight for what its adults want. However, I’m not even sure their adults want this. Seniority is not a bad concept when given the proper weight. But to use it in deciding who teaches a child – it’s ludicrous. There are so many variables regarding that child, that teacher, that school, that community, that someone with responsibility for all of the above should be in a decision-making role.
OUSD doesn’t use such inane rules in selecting principals – who teachers will tell us are less important than a teacher.
“Hide” on principals – it’s a rational response to an irrational system and the teachers who support such a system should be ashamed. Clearly, many teachers don’t support the system because it is these very teachers who allow the principals to do the hiding.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Cranky,
Tell me that is your last card to play, the “I teach a room of nothing but gang-bangers card”, well then it just isn’t your fault. There, do you feel better? Good back to reality: I have spent years in those classrooms, and I have witnessed it all. Even in the worst of schools in every classroom there are kids that want to learn. I can promise you something with absolute certainty, that you can leave the teaching profession any time you wish, it is your choice, and no one will force you to stay.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
@J.R. – we both want the kind of Teachers you described in #35. But, that doesn’t answer my question:
Show me a system where we can measure the “merit” through testing, of: P.E., Visual Arts and Performing Arts Teachers?
I have never heard of any.
How can these Teachers get more money, if we are not testing the Arts?
June 16th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Truth,
Just so you know, your well thought out and reasoned post is very likely being ignored(as a matter of fact Harold is probably holding his breath, stomping his feet, and cupping his hands over his ears because he wont hear anything until he gets more “allowance”.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Harold,
I don’t know about you, but I’m just a crazy person that worries about the most important things first. I’m sorry but PE and the arts are just not important in the scheme of things. You can’t get fit in one hour of low activity per day, it’s not possible and irrelevant to the big problems.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
“the Truth” spoke on the process of filling vacancies, not your anti-union diatribe.
I have no problem with *competent* Principal’s, hiring their staff(s).
J.R.- i know your heart is in the right place (kids first). Me too. That’s why i took a job in Oakland and not in the burbs. Have i seen poor-quality Teaching in Oakland? yes. But, i will just agree to disagree with you on how to make our district better for the Children and the Teachers.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
@J.R.
I am well aware that on most blogs/discussions, there are 10x or more “lurkers” than posters. They are the audience.
I’m also aware that some “can’t” hear what is being said for whatever reason. For them, there is simply Darwinism and their goal may be to forestall the inevitable. Not that everyone should agree, but only that those who choose not to mentally engage with ideas presented will ultimately be left behind by those who do. Given the state of public education, particularly in CA, you’d think many more would see the writing on their walls.
Interestingly, there are unions elsewhere that are engaging with the world around them and there are others that are not. Only time will show the result, but I have a sinking suspicion that those that engage will ultimately benefit their constituents and their organizations far more.
Having lived away from the Bay Area for some time, it is remarkable how willing some are to avoid the real issues staring them in the face. Everyone is struggling, but some at least choose to recognize, the truth hurts, and struggle directly with the issue at hand instead of so much ignoring, band-aids and scapegoating.
We’ll see . . .
June 16th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Well, there we go Harold, I’m glad to hear it, I love dedicated teachers and we can agree to disagree.
June 16th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
# J.R. Says:
June 16th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Cranky,
“Tell me that is your last card to play, the “I teach a room of nothing but gang-bangers card”, well then it just isn’t your fault. There, do you feel better? Good back to reality: I have spent years in those classrooms, and I have witnessed it all. Even in the worst of schools in every classroom there are kids that want to learn. I can promise you something with absolute certainty, that you can leave the teaching profession any time you wish, it is your choice, and no one will force you to stay.”
WTF are you talking about? What isn’t my fault? I never said all my kids were gang-bangers or that anybody didn’t want to learn. My point was that you are oversimplifying teaching until it is non-recognizable to anybody who has actually taught. You said experience doesn’t matter, that it is a simple point a to point b activity. I think that is ridiculous, IMHO.
Or are you one of those folks like Sen. Tom Pawlenty I saw talking on the teevee about how we should replace state colleges with downloadable “iColleges.”
Such things exist already, of course — they used to be called libraries and now they are called the Internet. There will always be some folks who can just digest a textbook or audiotape and move on, with knowledge retention, whether because that’s the way their brain works or because their motivation (joy or fear both work) is so high. For the rest, the vast majority, they need teachers or learning facilitators or whatever you want to call them.
And of COURSE I can leave teaching whenever I want. What is your point? I like teaching, even though it is hard and a bit crazy-making sometimes. I just want you to deal with reality: We don’t have ENOUGH good teachers who want to do the difficult job so nobody systematically goes after the bad ones and you want to blame the weak man in all this — the union — as the bad guy.
Now you want to bully me — “love it or leave it.” Screw that. We get it: You, like me, are frustrated by the status quo. Yet, you don’t want to hold anybody else accountable but the unions — not the taxpayers, not the officials, not the corporations, not the private “consultants.”
But enough of that, J.R. Why don’t you offer a proposal you would make to the unions so they would give up seniority. Would you offer to increase the total compensation given to ALL teachers, as has been done in sports league negotiations? I.e., OUSD would promise to put 60% of all ADA toward teacher salaries, in exchange for a major relaxation of tenure and seniority structures.
Now, where would the money come from? Nobody is willing to raise taxes. In D.C., the super went begging to corporations to fund her pioneering merit teacher program. Is that repeatable across the country?
You want/guarantee unions are just going to dry up and blow away on there own. But can you tell me with a straight face this comes from a pragmatic place, or is it just a thinly disguised political position?
June 16th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Cranky Teacher: We did want to raise property taxes to give teachers a raise but the union took out ads to tell us to vote no. Until the ads our neighborhood (Dimond) all agreed to vote yes – the unions said to vote no and now we have this economy and people don’t want to add to the tax burden.
The teachers and the union need to take responsibly for the stance in the last vote. You took a stand – now it is time to live up to the consequences.
June 16th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Whew! Take a couple of days away from this blog and look what develops…
There are many sub-threads here, so I’ll try to tie a few together by re-conveying my personal convictions about all this:
-I deeply respect teachers, and by and large I’ve loved the OUSD teachers my kids have had. But they had one who was ineffective, negligent, even abusive — and I believe she was the highest paid of all of them.
-Any professional who gives their all to their job and thereby achieves success deserves to be compensated more than those who just manage to show up day after day, year after year.
-We’re smart. Evaluating teachers fairly is very hard — but we can figure it out.
-Strong teachers like YAOT (above) deserve far more than the $67K s/he earns, but his/her union prevents change that would allow that.
-If I were a strong, confident teacher and learned that my union campaigned against a parcel tax that would have gotten me a raise I’d stop paying my dues tomorrow.
June 16th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Cranky,
We’ve all seen ample evidence that the union has shot itself in the foot on several occasions(the parcel tax fiasco),and have taken a once highly respected profession and turned it into a shameful mess to pursue aims for the union:
1. political clout
2. union has teacher pay and benefits are uniformly high(except at the bottom tier) even for those of questionable ability(gotta keep those union dues coming).
Re: union membership I found out that teachers can opt out of the union($1000)per month if you join and only $500-$750 if you don’t, what a bargain.The mafia would be proud.
June 16th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Did I put an extra zero on that?
June 17th, 2010 at 5:41 am
Responding to the post
Sara Says:
June 15th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
“At least the TFAs are well educated, unlike many of the teachers in their 50s and 60s.”
Sara
The tone of your comment could lead one to assume you are not in favor of teachers in their 50′s or 60′s and I do wonder if you have family members that are of that age. Would you consider them uneducated regardless of training/exposure/degrees, because of age? In addition, are you suggesting that the myriad of colleges from which Oakland teachers receive degrees, hand out degrees, in a manner akin pulling to pulling a token from a cereal box? Sometimes listening is better than babbling. Should the audience assume you have reached your own defined capacity of “teachers in their 50s and 60s” before your time?
June 17th, 2010 at 6:19 am
In response to Post 5. If after 20 years, you are indeed a better teacher, then wouldn’t merit pay and merit hiring benefit you?
June 17th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Real issue,
YAOT is being somewhat contradictory, imagine that!
June 17th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Ann, I am in my mid-50s. I am in favor of teachers of any age, as long as they are well educated and do a good job. I know plenty of teachers with degrees but that certainly has not meant they are well-educated. That reminds me of the PE teacher I knew with the Masters who was one of the most un-educated people I have ever met. A college degree doesn’t equal well-educated.
June 17th, 2010 at 11:10 am
There are so many good points being made on this thread, but sadly the ad hominem and other mean-spirited aspects really detract from the quality of the debate, and are characteristic of virtually any debate around teacher tenure and compensation that I’ve observed or participated in. Not that we’re going to solve anything commenting on this blog, but I’d urge everyone to keep it civil; JR, it seems that you and I are philosophically aligned on this issue, but sarcastic posts like yours 9:02 make it tough to be on the same side! Let’s treat each other with respect.
June 17th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Owen,
I couldn’t agree more with your post #61. The sarcasm and hostility make it hard to read this blog and posts, although I want to in order to be informed not only of OUSD news but also of public opinion.
I generally know whose comments are going to be thoughtful and respectful at this point, and I look forward to reading the insights of many frequent posters, even if I don’t agree with their points of view. But some people seem to see this blog as an outlet for their general anger at life. And too many make blanket statements which can only be based on anecdotal evidence or stereotypes, simplifying what have been revealed by Katy and several posters to be quite complex issues.
When I read many of the attack posts, I feel tempted to respond with my own frustration, but I don’t think that’s the point of this blog or of conversation. At least it’s not what I hope to gain from engagement with others. But it’s hard to learn and to respond respectfully when so many others are being snide, ignorant, and disrespectful.
Ms. J.
June 17th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
In response to various comments: like most of you, I’m a lot humbler in person. But I will say that at 20 years (of service) in (age 52), I’m a much better teacher now than I was 10 years ago, and 10 years ago, I was a much better teacher than I was in year one.
I have no idea what to make of the comment that newer teachers are better educated. I’ve never heard that and it’s too absurd to merit any further comment.
Sense of entitlement? Only in the sense that I have earned every nickel, and then some. And I know way, way, way more than twice as much as new teachers making half of my salary. And 67 k per year is not so great after 20 years of teaching Oakland kids. And I put in the extra hours, most of which are unpaid.
Merit pay? What would you base it on? I can say in resonse to someone who wondered if I’d ever been Teacher of the Year. No, but I have won several awards for teaching, have National Board Certification, and am probably by far the most tech savvy person at my site, including the young ones, who don’t know nearly what I know about using and integrating tech into the curriculum.
To those who would choose recent grads over experience for doctors and lawyers; can’t say I would. Experience is PRACTICE; recent grads have mostly book knowledge. And those recent grads will soon enough be older teachers. Do you really think they’ll be less effective when they’re 40 or 50 years old? The best teachers I’ve met in my 20 years have all had at leasat 10 years in, and the very best I knew was still at the top of her game when she finally retired after 40 years. So much for generalizations. And older teachers are often far more patient than younger ones and command more respect simply *because* they are older. I know I’m far more patient now than when I began.
TFA is a good program as far as it goes, but most TFA teachers have one foot out the door before they even begin; they’re planning to do two years of do-gooder work in education before going to their real interests. They get six quick weeks of summer school training before they are dumped into their own classrooms. And you think they’re better than me?
As far as NCLB: I’d say it’s pretty thoroughly discredited by now, and having been a mentor in the BTSA progam for many years, I do not see a huge difference in the preparation of teachers now and from 10 years ago. Teaching is not something you learn to do in education classes; you learn to do by trial and error in your own classroom.
And for what it’s worth, my new principal is very excited to have me; my reputation as one of the best teachers in the district preceeds me; and I’m only being transferred because of school closure.
I’m so demoralized to read the anti-teacher comments on this board. Most of you wouldn’t last one day in a classroom. And what really leads kids to be successful in school? The home environment is the number one factor in students’ academic success. The best teacher in the world can’t do much for the kid who is frequently absent, has malnutrition, poor sleeping habits, untreated health problems and lives in a home and community that undervalues education. My students who do the very best come from homes where the parent is well-educated. There is a DIRECT correlation between parent education attainment and student academic success. That doesn’t mean we don’t give all we’ve got, but too many kids come from homes that defeat much of we put in place during the school day. So, more attention should be paid to supporting parents to create better home environments.
My .02, and worth EVERY damned cent at a million times the price.
June 17th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
@YAOT
thank you for post #63.
To all the Teachers on the blog, have a restful break from the classroom.
And a BIG
June 17th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
@YAOT
thank you for post #63.
To all the Teachers on the blog, have a restful break from the classroom.
And a BIG thank you to everyone serving on the summer-school staff.
June 17th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
YAOT,
I am also a teacher, but I don’t like the union. I think it is silly that jobs are protected simply because of tenure. I also don’t like the idea of them taking a huge part of my paycheck away every month.
As for merit pay, I’ve said in other threads that I think Merit pay should incorporate many measures: whole school API growth, principal and lead teacher observations (minimum of two per month from each), parent and student surveys, and colleague surveys.
I have no doubt that you are an excellent teacher, I don’t think anyone is attacking that. At least, I am not. I am attacking the resistance of teachers to move away from this idea of a guaranteed job just because you’ve been doing that job for awhile.
I also dislike TFA and OTF because I think they perpetuate a cycle of poorly trained teachers and high rates of turnover. I would like to see an apprenticeship model of teacher education. I believe it would be better for students and for new teachers. It will take a lot of money, but isn’t the future worth it?
June 17th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Real Issue,
You have defined the problems exactly, no one should ever be guaranteed a job just because they have “paid their dues”, in this world you are owed nothing. Even freedom itself was bought with the price of blood.My heart just breaks for all the really good teachers who have been “pink slipped” under this disgusting system we have in place at the present moment. I am saddened for all the great veteran teachers whose reputations are being allowed to be smeared just for the sake of protecting incompetent teachers. You need to understand that these laggers(who are the minority) are making the profession look bad, and they need to be treated like scabs unless the straighten up and fly right.
June 18th, 2010 at 7:15 am
I run a budget at an oakland school and i wanted to add–if i could buy effective teachers, i’d pay any price for them and i’d buy as many as i could get. then i would eliminate all the other budget expenditures that are necessitated by ineffective teaching: extra site security, credit-recovery classes for after school, tutors from the colleges, extra counseling programming, in school suspension teacher, etc.
The more effective teachers are in a given school, the less there is a need for these paraprofessionals. Teachers deserve all the dough–truly–but can’t we insist that they are effective? insist that they are good and support them in getting good and get rid of seniority so the folks who are not effective, can find another line of work?
ineffective teaching (and principaling) causes 95% of the problems in schools. principals don’t get seniority and union protection – if a nexo wants to fire a principal, it takes two simple meetings. unless the parents revolt in support of the administrator…
but my point–good teaching is the silver bullet. because principals’ hands are tied in relation to whom they can hire, how much they can pay based on performance, real reform is a joke. OEA runs OUSD and it’s sad to see so many great teachers support OEA when this union has some good goals mixed with some really bad practices. there needs to be more dialogue in OEA between teachers–i don’t think there is space for minority opinions like Real Issue’s opinion.
i hated paying dues when i was a teacher because oea protected a teacher down the hall from me who was a god-darned SLOB. the guy came to work smelling like booze, his kids were out of class more than in class and OEA backed him up. when i saw that, i tried to opt out of union membership because it infuriated me. and this is common in teacher unions: protecting REALLY ineffective people.
if we can get rid of seniority, the right people will get the money and teaching will improve in so many classrooms.
i urge the thoughtful teachers to create a separate union…
June 18th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
While teacher quality is important, I think everyone has missed the point of Katy’s article. This story is about District personnel integrity.
The public school employees that are violating the contracts are violating our trust. These same educators are then teaching our children about honesty.
Years ago, I taught for OUSD. I am a former OEA Union Rep. Now, I am a parent.
I am a parent first.
When I was younger, there was a popular book called, “Everything I Know, I Learned in Kindergarten.” Something similar could be written about parenting… everything I learned about parenting a school kid…
If OEA teachers want my support, they better support each other. If the District wants my support, it better stop breaking contracts.
I won’t choose sides, but I do not want to hear about educators lying. I expect more from a profession that is educating my child how to become a better person.
… and if the principals do not like the contract, too bad. Learn to Follow the rules. My kindergartener does not like all of your rules either.
June 18th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
just an aside… I like our school and our principal.
bf
June 18th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
From xi-ping wu, “i urge the thoughtful teachers to create a separate union…”
Good luck Xi-Ping. Apathy, fear and straight up EXHAUSTION are the enemy of this ever coming to pass. I’ve met several teachers (not just in Oakland) who left the profession because they said it was too hard to do when many of there own were pulling in the opposite direction and getting paid more for it.
I’d like to think all good teachers are superhuman martyrs who can indefinitely sacrifice and suffer disrespect for the “good of the children.” That’s simply not true and we shouldn’t expect it. That’s partly why good teachers need more pay and partly why it’s so hard to give it to them.
When they are told or have evidence that principals and administration are against them and then they find their union supports mediocrity, they bounce (or wear down) and I can’t say I blame them.
We should be clear about who is making a difference for kids, get that group together, let them run the union. I love that I live in a democracy, but you see what kind of elected officials we get from elections with no qualifications. Popularity contests and schmoozefests. Maybe there should be a bar you have to pass with students before you can take office in the union.
Most outstanding teachers I’ve met run from the idea of union leadership. Of course, that’s more true in Oakland than elsewhere I’ve been. Here, I think their reputation must precede them.
June 19th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Wow! Skimming over these comments I am led to believe that one really has to have taught in schools with different populations in Oakland or elsewhere to see that the major differences in achievement are due to the students and not the teachers!
Also, school leadership can make a huge difference–a low tolerance for disruption produces a stronger learning environment.
I am not trying to excuse poor teaching, which does exist, but on a much lower scale than has been claimed over the past decade or so. Teachers have been made scapegoats because it has become politically incorrect to criticize parents and their children. Our national union has not come out swinging in the way it should to defend us. It’s not cool to look like you’re picking on kids…
But schools failing primarily because of bad teaching is a myth. Unfortunately, many teachers are suffering from “battered teacher” syndrome. They’ve been beat up in the media for so long, they are blaming themselves, in spite of the fact that they are being asked to accomplish more and more with less and less support.
And come on, people! There is no magic wand that places only the “best” teachers in high-achieving schools and the “worst” ones in low-achieving schools. For the most part you could switch teachers in those schools and wind up with the same results in both institutions–because of the student population and/or the leadership.
I hope we don’t have to wait until the public schools have been completely destroyed–and children are still failing–to see the error of our ways. Please, folks–let’s start focusing on helping our children come to school better prepared to learn and providing them with whatever extra support they need when they get there. These are the keys to better schools.
June 19th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Get Real,low tolerance for disruption needs to start with the teachers, and if we were able to switch teachers between high achieving and low achieving schools, the primary change would be that most teachers now at that low performing school would not know how to effectively manage, much less teach, their new classes. The effect would primarily be felt in the low performing schools.
June 19th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
I tend to agree that the problem Oakland Unified has is more the bad students than the bad teachers. There is no mechanism for flunking out and removing the bad students from the normal schools. There should be. Bad students should be put in their own schools, the continuation schools, and given limited coursework, heavy on remedial reading and vocational studies.
You would then see higher performance in the “real” schools.
June 19th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Nextset,
The rotten apples(whether students or teachers)should be kept in a separate basket or discarded altogether. We arelosing more and more kids with this status quo crud.
June 19th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
“Many of our teachers are substandard. That is simple fact. Most are not able to assist students in conducting research. That is also a fact. It does not serve our students’ needs to pretend otherwise, or to hush it up.”
That is what I said in an email to an assistant principal 2 years ago. The result? She tried to issue a “letter of concern” which stated, in part, “If this kind of communication continues, further disciplinary action will be taken.”
Of course, I wasnt worried about being fired or even transferred to a less desirable position. Why? Because I have TENURE and SENIORITY. So, the assumption that tenure and seniority act only to impede the “weeding out” of incompetent teachers is a gross over-simplification.
June 19th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Gordon,
Those kinds of things do happen, but I have witnessed so many teachers who just “mail it in” year after year with hundreds of students having “wasted years” and then struggling to catch up(if in fact, they even do). You have to remember, when one teacher gets disciplinary action, that is one teacher, but when one teacher fails to do their job because they should be in a different career, thats “thirty kids” paying the price for each substandard teacher. The tenure and seniority criticism “is not” an assumption, it is a cold hard fact. Different principals may apply the rules differently, but it is there. Maybe schools need some kind of parent supervised disciplinary committee’s since there is no trust in the principals. I personally haven’t seen any dictatorial principals, or any who have stepped over the line. I have seen several principals who have had so much heat applied by parents that they left(that is accountability, no one is there for the expressed purpose of shielding them).I have never ever seen a teacher leave but once(she transferred to a neighboring district). The problem with saying things are “too complex” is that things will never change with that mindset. We should never stray for the one “simple” mission that public schools have, to educate our students(period), not to be an employment department, or a political PAC. It does not really have to be all that complex,but self interest and greed have a way of changing that.
June 19th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
J.R.:
We both agree that teachers should be held accountable. But you want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I better solution might be to redefine the job of the principal — principals, especially in larger schools, spend vast amounts of time dealing with trivialities that have little impact on student achievement (eg: should the wood on the walls at Oakland High be painted this summer? ) Perhaps principals should have one job – visiting classrooms, holding teachers accountable, etc — and the rest of the stuff should be handled by an assistant principal.
June 19th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Gordon,
If we had the money for assistant principals that could work(principals would be free to observe and make personnel decisions), since we don’t how about a citizens oversight committee(volunteer of course)to help with these decisions. I don’t think the central office should make these decisions anyway, these decisions should be made “on site”.We’ve got too many layers of bureaucratic paper pushers, and not enough funding for teachers I see that, but I also know that you will never get support from the public unless the unions stop being a hinderance to much needed reforms.
June 20th, 2010 at 9:17 am
J.R.:
We do have money for assistant principals, at least at larger schools where the problem is most acute (i.e., where principals have 50+ teachers, plus other staff, etc etc). It is more about funding priorities and distribution of duties. A principal could simply refuse to deal with any issue not directly related to teacher performance and curriculum. If the district supports that, it can happen.
PS: The district might have no choice; when we interviewed principal candidates last year, there were something like 4 candidates for 5 openings. No one wants the job, as currently structured, and who can blame them?
June 20th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
I am going to post my comments again, because I think they were easily glossed over.
This is not a discussion about teacher quality.
This is not a discussion about administer quality.
This is an article about Administrators who do not follow rules.
We can justify our behavior all we want, just as I can justify my own child’s reasons for breaking rules. But the people who are in charge of enforcing the school rules are breaking the rules.
If the principals do not like the rules, they are free to leave Oakland.
If teachers do not like the union contract, they are free to change the contract or leave the District.
Let’s not make this about something else.
June 20th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
“This is an article about Administrators who do not follow rules”.
It has everything to do with the quality issue at its very core.Stupid rules are like stupid laws(they exist to benefit the few to the detriment of the many). What is it about admins wanting to hire the best teachers that you do not understand? After all principals are right on the front lines when it comes to taking parental heat. They have nowhere to hide, why in heaven would they even want to hire someone inferior(it makes no sense). I know quite a few principals in quite various districts and they would never put their position in jeopardy for a friend(anyone who would do that is borderline stupid).
June 20th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
I don’t see this as breaking the rules – I do see this as a teacher quality issue and an administrator quality issue. Both of which because each knows their “rights” and each moves to the very edge of the line to get their needs met.
As a new teacher – when I was one – I was given a choice to pay lower union dues or higher union dues. The lower union dues to not get a vote and double union dues to get a vote. I did not get a choice to opt out of the union. I was also forced out of schools by controlling teachers who thought that I was not being loyal “to the cause” by opening my classroom early in the morning – elementary students were told they could not be in the hallways even in the pouring rain – and I was not being loyal when I kept my classroom open until 4:30 everyday to help struggling students. Eventually the pressure in the public school system was too much and I moved to the private sector where I can open my classroom early and keep it open later. This is a matter of individual choice. Principals are responsible for the quality of their schools – their jobs depend on how well and cohesive the school operates. All of this is part of the discussion.
Students do not succeed with a revolving door of teachers.
Students do not succeed with a revolving door of principals.
Some teachers cannot work well with other teachers.
Some principals cannot work well with some teachers or some styles of teachers.
Everyone wants a job.
Everyone needs to figure out the best way to serve students.
Sometimes the union member “rights” make it VERY difficult to serve the needs of students.
Sometimes the union member “rights” make it difficult to work with principals.
Until there is some flexibility with what the union members can do to teachers or administrators, there will be methods found to serve the needs of students.
40% of my students are on financial aid – my students are primarily students of color and nearly all are advancing 1.7 grade levels per school year as compared to public classrooms with 32 students per room. My classroom is open to serve students voluntarily from 7:45 – 8:35 and then again from 3:05 – 4:30. Students may also eat lunch in the class and work on homework, get help or simply be in the classroom to read. Something my fellow brothers and sisters did not allow and pressured the union steward and the principal to stop allowing in the public school. My former principal is someone who is not reporting the two open positions and it is a respectable choice given the hostile climate.
June 21st, 2010 at 11:09 am
Jenna,
I have seen and heard the same kinds of things. A few union site reps will(in so many words)tell the teachers in a meeting to not “do too much”, because it makes the other teachers “look bad”. The teachers who are the politically minded types tend to be minimalists and follow the path of least resistance(translation: get away with doing as little as possible). These things need forced change from taxpayers and parents because the union and district want status quo, and we cannot afford it for many reasons.
June 21st, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Jenna and J.R., I can’t speak for all of the teachers you say discourage others from working before and after school hours to assist students, but I think, in most cases, it may not be rooted in just wanting to do as little as possible.
I think it may stem more from the unfairness veteran teachers have seen developing over the years as more and more has been demanded without a commensurate increase in salary, as would be expected in other professions.
For instance, there was a time in the not too distant past when schools had certificated reading specialists on site to help students in need. Our district phased out reading specialists over the years as it has phased out other support personnel, such as instructional assistants, leaving the responsibility for intervention entirely in the hands of the classroom teacher–unless a teacher has students who qualify for resource specialist help through special ed., or she is fortunate enough to have capable adult volunteers to assist.
In other words, district officials have saved money by no longer hiring certain personnel, and, as a bonus, have managed to find a way for teachers to take up the slack without receiving–or even expecting–additional compensation. Think about that. It is simply not fair! If the trend continues, which it likely will if teachers don’t object, would you just continue to do more and more without complaining or would there be a breaking point for you?
Also, not all teachers have the liberty of coming to school early and/or staying late. Shouldn’t the school district provide a means for students in those classes to receive the extra help they may need if it cannot be provided sufficiently by the classroom teacher? Why shouldn’t our district provide equitable access to all students in need by making sure all sites have a reading specialist or other resources to assist?
I believe students should receive the extra help they need to succeed whether they are in public or private school. But I also believe those who provide the instruction and support should be compensated justly for the work they do. That is the right that every worker should have–a right that unions fight very hard to protect.
June 21st, 2010 at 11:42 pm
We don’t have the luxury of specialists, at this juncture. Some teachers want to do whatever it takes to get the job done(these are the excellent ones), and other teachers have priorities elsewhere, I understand that. We should never get in the way of attempted excellence, politics do not belong in education.
June 21st, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Since when is compensation political? Excellent teachers deserve to get paid for their hard work.
June 22nd, 2010 at 12:19 am
“Excellent teachers deserve to get paid for their hard work”.
Absolutely, and some want to work harder and not be stigmatized for doing more(because it is politically incorrect). Sometimes for some teachers the reward is not simply monetary, but instead it is being highly regarded by colleagues,principals,parents, and children(changing the world if you will,sometimes even an extra 30 to 60 minutes can do that).I am very proud to say that I know many teachers like this. Jenna, my congrats to you as well for being one of the best, and believe me, people do take notice.
June 22nd, 2010 at 12:59 am
So…. only people who are willing to work overtime for free, and make sure everybody knows about it…. are excellent!?!?
Outrageously ridiculous reasoning?
June 22nd, 2010 at 8:25 am
In my 40 years as an Oakland middle school teacher, many of them as the union’s site rep, I have never heard a teacher critize another teacher for putting in extra time or working too hard. There were years in which I put in considerable extra work, and years where family concerns made that impossible. When I could do extra work I always felt it was appreciated by students, parents, administrators, and other teachers; but when other facets of my life made the extra work impossible I felt no pressure or resentment from any of those groups.
Extra work is a gift many teachers give because they love their jobs and care about the children they teach. Appreciate the gift and thank the giver, but don’t demand or expect gifts, and don’t compare or judge based on who is giving most–it is those things that lead to resentment.
June 22nd, 2010 at 8:32 am
Seenitbefore makes a good point. Furthermore, those teachers would not run away from payment if it were offered in those instances. In fact, this is already going on at schools that can afford it, and I can’t imagine that anyone has declined. This is another case of inequity in OUSD that should be addressed.
And by the way, how many teachers do you know who are in this profession only for the money? There’s a difference between enjoying the rewards of teaching, but wanting to get paid for your service, and just wanting to collect a paycheck somewhere.
Just to be clear, J.R., I do not think anyone should be put down for doing more whether paid for it or not. No one should be stigmatized for that. Originally, I was just trying to point out the historical devaluation of teaching in our district, and to make you aware that not all teachers who refuse to teach beyond their contract hours are doing so because they are “minimalists” or any less excellent than anyone else.
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:09 am
to Jenna,
This issue is incredibly complicated. I agree that there must be more flexibility.
I also believe that we cannot justify our education leaders breaking or bending rules because other education leaders bent or broke rules too.
Instead, we can challenge educators to do better. I do not expect every principal to get along with every person any more that I expect every child to get along with every classmate. However, if educators are going to teach our young people how to get along with each other and how to follow rules, then educators should practice doing it themselves.
I think they will become better teachers.
I also do not know your personal experience. Perhaps you might have learned more by challenging the teachers who you thought were telling you to do less. Perhaps you did the right thing by moving to another location. Whatever your personal choice, you are able to share this experience with your students… as long as you are aware that this is how you deal with conflict and uncomfortable situations.
I do not want my children to learn how to bend rules and move on, but there are times when that is the right decision.
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:15 am
Seen it before,
Did I say only those that work extra are excellent? I said that those who do extra are making an effort to show that they are excellent and most probably are. You would actually dispute that those teachers that put in extra work are not excellent? I believe excellent teaching is largely a mindset, just like learning in students. Those students that work the hardest and give it their best are generally “the best students” though there are exceptions to every rule.Extra work is a gift, as you said, but resentment is largely a childish “immaturity” reaction, and hardly worthy of professionals. Unfortunately, No one can read minds and or hearts and no one can know intent, so we have only actions to base our conclusions. The important things are not what you say but what you do, pretty much like your students.
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:25 am
Bryan,
Would you want your children to agree with slavery(which was lawful at one time)or the Chinese exclusion act in SF, or segregation? This is about right and wrong, and sometimes the law is on the wrong side of the equation. Laws are made by man(and sponsored by lobbyists)for the benefit of special interest. Your student would be well served to learn that right over wrong and morality trump the law.
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:35 am
Bryan,
In your class, does every student earn equal grades, or do the students that work the hardest, and do the best work earn the highest grades? Would it not be unfair to the students that give their best effort the same grades as those who don’t work very hard?
June 22nd, 2010 at 11:52 am
J.R.; I’d want the children to understand that Slavery, Chinese Exclusion, Segregation and all the other historical facts are decisions that “reasonable” people made at the time. I’d want them to understand that they cannot go through life expecting other people to do at all times what they think they would do in the same place. We can disagree with historical events and decisions all we want, but we cannot presume to believe there is only one way of thinking and that we are always the center of the universe. And there are two sides to most policy debates.
These things, slavery and the others, have happened throughout history, are happening now and are going to happen again. The reason they happen may involve various people setting the stage. One may condemn away something while working as a stagehand (wittingly or unwittingly).
Stalin killed more of his own people than almost anyone in history and yet the USA has plenty of people in the 20th Century (and today) who were/are communist sympathizers, CPUSA agents and fellow travellers inside the USA. Hitler could have won WWII with the help of Neville Chamberlin and the American Pacifist movement. The American nuclear arsenal prevented a Soviet Pearl Harbor against the USA yet there are many who oppose it’s creation, use, deployment or willingness to use it.
And the list goes on. Children are best cautioned about any notion that they/we are magically morally superior and more correct to people in the past who made their own decisions (right or wrong) with their own lives on the line. That kind of thinking leads to spectacular miscalculations and failings in the future. Like thinking it can’t happen here, or it can’t happen again.
Better policy is to study the past and look for the reasons disagreeable things happened, not to childishly presume that everything you find disagreeable (Custer, for example) only happened because the people on the scene were bad people, immoral people, “prejudiced” people (so what?) etc.
When you are brought up to think “bad” people do disagreeable things you easily become a stagehand on some fresh disaster in the making because you can’t recognize in say, Obama (or The Pope, or your child, or anybody you like or love), the genesis of disasterous policy.
June 22nd, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Nextset,
What you do not seem to understand is: moral relativism is one of the great ills of mankind, and you can gloss over it all you want. The fact remains that there are absolutes: right and wrong. Some of us as human beings do not want to be held responsible, and that is human nature itself. As far as Obama or the Pope, you should be smart enough to never put your own trust or destiny in the hands of any man or woman that is just foolish. And as far as your contention that any given era is and of itself an excuse or reason for the stupidity of various decisions is simply misguided or flat out wrong……
You are conservative so the odds are you do not “truly” believe in the bible(money itself is much too important to you, and there isn’t room for much else), but I believe that people will be judged on their own, and for every idle word.
June 22nd, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Nextset,
When you wrote “SO What”? It reminded me of the way “Tricky Dick” Cheney used to say “So?….” that was just perfectly amusing, no other comment was necessary(that said it all).
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:25 pm
J.R.,
Yeah, you actually did make the case that somehow only teachers who work extra unpaid hours are worthy of being called excellent. I have no idea why you hate teachers so much and feel like we are to blame for every problem inherent to the OUSD. Teachers in this district have to work so hard and yet have absolutely no power or decision making clout whatsoever.
For as long as I’ve been in this district (well over a decade), I have seen nothing but constant change and obstacles thrown at teachers. Every year it’s some new curriculum package, some new training, some new computer system, some new administrator with their own agenda, some new consultant who LEFT teaching and now has carte blanche to armchair quarterback all the teachers who STAYED in the classroom to actually TEACH the students.
And yes, I do disagree that working longer hours is always a sign of excellence. If a teacher is knowledgeable, organized and efficient… why would they need to work longer than anyone else to get their job done? Is it because we expect teachers to do a ridiculous amount of work each day knowing full well that it cannot possibly be done within normal PAID working hours? Or, are you referring to free after school tutoring, perhaps? Most teachers willingly help any student who genuinely asks for assistance. However, have you been to some of the schools in Oakland and seen the sort of classroom behavior that many students feel is acceptable? Cursing, eating, pants sagging, rude comments disrespecting their classmates, their teachers, school rules and any authority figure. It’s appalling! Any yet,,,, the teachers still try to teach their classes. Ask an administrator for assistance in removing a disruptive student and somehow the TEACHER is to blame for “not engaging the student”. Call some (not all) parents for support in disciplining their unruly student and hear the frustration from the extended family (grandma, auntie, foster parent) who is unable to handle the child at home. So…. a teacher is “bad” if they are resentful at having to reteach underperforming students who refused to cooperate when the original lesson was taught or assist students who were unable to grasp the lesson because they were distracted by the obnoxious behavior of another student? How is that supposed to work exactly?
And the final insult? Your rant to Bryan about how it would be unfair for all students to get the same benefits if they didn’t do the same work in class. I agree! BUT…. ironically, that’s EXACTLY what we allow to happen to the students! For 9 years (K-8) students are passed along through the OUSD based on “social promotion” and NOT on their actual grades earned. Students quickly learn that the TEACHER has NO POWER to hold them accountable for their actions because the Principal and the school system will allow them to be promoted to the next grade no matter WHAT the teacher says. Case in point, several schools including Claremont Middle School allowed EVERY 8th grader to walk the stage at promotion whether their grade point average was 2.0, 4.0 or 0.0. (yes… some students go through their entire middle school career and making F’s in every single class…. and STILL get promoted to high school) Teachers who opposed this practice were overruled by the Principal and shamed by their own union into attending this sham ceremony… which ran well past the time of their actual paid work hours by the way.
School is SUPPOSED to be a place where STUDENTS learn, grow and take responsibility for their own futures. People like J.R. seem to forget that holding students accountable for producing results is kind of the whole point of even having school!
And for the record, I don’t have many discipline problems in my class. I don’t tolerate it, and my students know that. If they misbehave, there WILL be a consequence. My students produce extraordinary results and are regularly assessed by independent outside sources as well as by myself. As for my work ethic, be glad that you don’t have to pay me for all of the extra hours I have willingly given to OUSD over the years. But guess what? You finally win! Because this year, I was so beaten down by having to fight constant attacks on myself and my teaching colleagues by your glorious administrators that I chose to abide by “work to rule” and am now actively looking for positions in other school districts. I’m sure that the 23 year old, non-credentialed Teach For America person wanting their college loan to be paid off in three years will do a “great” job replacing me. You will see them at school ANYTIME you demand it! Because, they will have no tenure and be so afraid of retaliation for speaking out that they will keep their mouth shut and do whatever they are told to do. No questions asked, or even allowed! In fact, I know of a TFA teacher just last week who was told by their Principal that “you ask too many questions” and “you should leave”. The actual number of excellent teachers, parent volunteers and staff members that have been run off and bullied in this way is appalling. The same group of teachers made big gains in test scores last year. This year the test scores will most likely plummet. Same teachers, different administration. What do YOU think we should attribute the decline in achievement to, J.R?
You can’t have it both ways. Teachers are not the problem in this system. Teachers are the ONLY solution. Get rid of the top heavy administration and layers of costly do-nothing consultants. Hold each student accountable for EARNING their grades and behaving in class or they DO NOT promote. How hard is THAT to figure out????
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:56 pm
But back to the original points…..
Is it wrong for Principals to lie, hide and withhold information about vacant teaching positions?
Isn’t it wrong for anyone to lie, hide and withhold important information from the community that they are supposed to be serving, leading and inspiring? Why would people be inspired and want to follow a liar and a cheater? Which leads to the question….
What exactly is the role of the School Principal in OUSD?
Do we expect our Principals to have some degree of positive interpersonal characteristics like honesty, leadership, team building and cooperation?
Is it appropriate for schools to follow the so called “CEO-Business Model” for Principals where new principals can swoop in and use their overall power to make broad sweeping changes contradicting years of community building? Which leads to….
WHO is the community of a school?
Are teachers not included in the school community? Shouldn’t parents, students AND teachers be involved in the decision making process at a school? How can people make informed decisions if a Principal is lying and withholding information so as to cheat the system?
June 22nd, 2010 at 4:27 pm
JR: This seems like it would be an interesting thread to pursue on it’s own.
My point is that rad-libs – and I don’t have another word to describe them (don’t worry, some of my friends are rad-libs) – would have our kiddies spending all their energy reviewing history and complaining about various people everywhere being just sooo bad. And feeling smug in their own political correctness. There, lesson done.
This reminds me of England punishing the settlers for being mean to the Indians (who were busy wiping out the settlements, kidnapping and torturing to death the English, etc. etc). As the English Administrators said at their trials back in London, you just had to be there…
The orientation of the rad-libs is that they are always victims, and all their friends and co-rad-libs are always victims. Everyone who opposes them or their policies are just evil. Only they know the way. You see this with certain people who “cannot understand” the appeal of Barry Goldwater or say, Sarah Palin, or Stalin, Or Mao, Or Hitler, or Bill Clinton, or anybody other then their own diety.
So you get people trained to never get anything as the world swirls around them. They just can’t see the world from the viewpoint of other working people.
This is what seems to be the products of the public schools. And it makes them very useful idiots until maybe (if they survive) they get hurt enough to grow up.
The schools would do well to start teaching such basics as “survival is the first law of the land” and moving onward and upward from that. Eventually your will reach the US Constitution. Then move into George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” with the pigs out at night on ladders with a paintbrush adding to the law written on the wall.
I know what moral relativism is and that is not what I’m advocating. I’m not saying the events we find distasteful are moral. I am saying they always happened for reasons and the kids should be taught enough about people and history to understand what does happen, why, and how to recognize it starting again, and what it takes to avoid undesired events.
That is more in line with my education.
Brave New World
June 22nd, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Seenit,
I love good teachers, I have at least a half dozen close relatives who teach, and I don’t want the profession(which has mostly good teachers)smeared. I am addressing the unions(which has cost the teachers dearly by protecting the incompetent). You cannot continue to try and misdirect the public (whose attention and ire are on the union imposed rules that hire,fire, and layoff based on seniority not ability). This is not by any stretch of the imagination objective criteria. Taxpayers are being ill served, and they want changes. The union resists any kind of common sense change to benefit the children and always have. They represent the teachers best interests and they must take responsibility for that, and answer to the taxpaying citizens, and they will. The bill SB955 was only the first try at change there will be more. Principals are trying to keep the teachers who can do the best job possible(why shouldn’t they).They are going to answer to parents if they don’t, they are not shielded as teachers are so I really think this “favortism” excuse is overblown and is pretty much a straw man. Every wrongly terminated teacher(rarity)is one teacher, but every incompetent teacher can conceivably harm thirty students educational future. We see no need to put teachers needs ahead of students(we have already been doing that for decades, and where are we)? Our expectations in our teachers need to be high, just as for the students, and if we ignore that things are going to go downhill from here.I think our system is so adversarial and broken that we may need parental committees to step in and make these decisions. Do you know what your union would say to that? How can no educators decide who can teach, well I’ll give you some ideas(as I’ve said before pedagogy is not rocket science).
1.If you can compile cumulative files on students, then you can do so with teachers.
2. Gradebooks, how complete are they and do they reflect state standards, are lessons consistently being differentiated for the students.
3. Is an adequate amount of homework being assigned, along with assessment testing.
These are just a few truly objective criteria that any capable teacher could handle.
Teachers are not the same, just as students are not the same and should all be treated as individual with different strengths and weaknesses.
Speaking of dishonesty, I have known some teachers who believe themselves to be great teachers, but by all objective measures with past performance over years taken into account, they are not good at the craft of teaching. Good teachers that I have known for years ask themselves “Are my students as a whole, better educated at the end of the year than they were at the beginning”. As I have stated before some children have had to endure “lost years” because the teacher was on “autopilot”, and by the time parents got their due attention summer was upon us.
June 22nd, 2010 at 4:58 pm
and yes, I do disagree that working longer hours is always a sign of excellence. If a teacher is knowledgeable, organized and efficient… why would they need to work longer than anyone else to get their job done?
Simply put, the little one’s need extra help, would be the short answer. If we had that many teachers who fit the description of: knowledgeable,organized, and efficient would we be at or near the bottom of school districts in California? I don’t think so.
June 23rd, 2010 at 6:31 am
JR–
Can you run for school board please?! You have it SO right.
-OUSD High School Principal
June 23rd, 2010 at 10:48 am
Steph,
So you don’t think we would be at least somewhat better if we:
1. Trimmed away the useless bureaucratic waste, and put that money “IN” the classroom, where it belongs.
2. Trimmed all the dead-weight teachers(irregardless of time served).
3. Instituted parent review boards, because the kiddies(admin & staff) just can’t get on the same page, and make the kids first priority over salary.
If you don’t believe any of this, then some of these teachers were right, and I have just had my first brush with a clueless principal.
June 23rd, 2010 at 11:05 am
Steph,
Educators(principals included) do not like non-educators telling them what and how to do something but we have a very valid point of view. Let me use an easy analogy for you:
I have a revenue stream(faucet)my job,and my business(which I provide a service in order to be paid money), and my faucet needs maintenance from nozzle to ipe, and I must pay money(monthly) to keep it on, I have learned how to adapt and overcome in order to pay this and other liabilities.Your revenue stream is the tax payers, that faucet is always on(although now at a lesser rate)you have never had to learn to adapt and overcome because that money just keeps flowing, and so you don’t worry(librarians,junior teachers, janitors)they will all be cut before your number comes up anyway, right? Just keep in mind where your money comes from, and how hard we work to get it, and you will count yourself very fortunate indeed. You are welcome!
June 24th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Seenitbefore: I did not care if people knew about my keeping MY class door open or not. I did not make it public with anyone but the students and the parents who asked if their students were actually in my room working. It was not about “making myself look good at the expense of others” as I was told by other teachers. It was simply how I CHOOSE TO SPEND MY TIME.
I paid union dues to earn time to spend as I desire. I desired to spend my time at the school most days with my room open to students. I often graded papers. Many teachers choose to grade papers at coffee houses or home, I chose to grade papers in my classroom – it worked better for me and it worked better for the students to see that my day did not end at 3:00.
What I resented then and still feel frustrated by is to be a working adult who is not given a choice of how to spend my free time. It is my time, given to me by a contract and the union dues. It is mine to spend as I choose. To take it away from me feels like stealing. Many of my co-workers stole my choice to work in public school and keep my classroom open.
June 24th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Jenna,
I for one,am so sorry that your co-workers did that to you. I as a parent and PTA member appreciate what you have done for the children. In this economy some children are in effect homeless,while others are in difficult home circumstances for one reason or another and their classroom is the only taste of normalcy that they have. You may have made a bit of a difference in at least one child’s life, thank you!
June 24th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Jenna,
The point of “work to rule” was to shed a little light on the enormous amount of extra, donated or otherwise “free” labor that nearly ALL teachers have been doing and continue to do each day whether at school, home or on vacation.
Sometimes….. when we all just do whatever it takes…. people just start taking for granted that we are “supposed” to do all these extra things and that in fact, we HAVE to do it….. for free!
In a time where the community and the district are telling teachers that we should be paid LESS for the job we are doing. Maybe it is time for people to realize what exactly teachers are actually doing all day…and night… and weekends!!!
I have no doubt that you have made a difference in the lives of your students as J.R. has suggested. And I know for a fact that I too, have made a difference for many of my students. It’s not about neglecting the children of Oakland. Many of their parents are already doing a good job of that.
It’s about being fair, honest and paying an honest day’s wage for an honest day’s work. People who think that OUSD teachers don’t deserve to be paid what we’re asking… should spend an entire week in the classroom and see what they think after that…. if they last that long! It’s not like this in other school districts. I know because I have taught elsewhere. If all you know is Oakland and it’s dysfunctional system, then maybe I can understand all this upset. But really, there’s no reason to be laying the blame and shame of OUSD on the shoulders of teachers who are only asking to be treated fairly in the workplace.
June 24th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Some people misunderstand the difference between experience and repetition. Having spent twenty years in the classroom and another twenty as an administrator, I have seen far too many teachers who claim to have twenty years’ experience when, in fact, they have one year of experience repeated nineteen more times. Quality teaching cannot be defined in terms of years. It can be determined by teachers’ efforts, and ability to engage students in learning. The evidence is shown by student progress.
June 24th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
JB,
Yep! You are correct. We should be seeing progress, but we have witnessed mostly regression. If these kids are that unruly and bad, maybe we as taxpayers should hire multiple educational aides to babysit and or teach them(we’ll save money and more importantly union induced headaches). As for honesty, if you look at the pay-scale differences from district to district the pay is not that dissimilar, the oft quoted low wages of OUSD teachers are an average which is brought lower because of the great number of new teachers every year(the older teachers are doing just fine)If there is someone to feel sorry for it’s the young teachers who get shafted.
June 24th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Going back a bit. J.R. Asked me “Would you want your children to agree with slavery(which was lawful at one time)or the Chinese exclusion act in SF, or segregation? This is about right and wrong, and sometimes the law is on the wrong side of the equation.”
While I do not think that education leaders violating employment contracts is the same as slavery, I think this is a fair question. I hope my children learn to answer your question. I hope my children know when to disobey. I also hope they do so without hiding if possible.
Since you brought up the legal argument, I will tell you another of my concerns. Everyone assumes that after principals hide vacancies that principals choose the best teachers available. We also assume that after principals violate contracts, that principals will start following rules and laws.
How do we know this? How do we measure?
Would principals follow fair hiring practices? Would they follow the Americans with Disabilities Act? What if principals didn’t agree with laws that got in their way? We know what happened last time.
I would be interested if someone has studied how hiden vacancies are filled.
I am also interested how this affects our opinion of the educators who follow the rules.
June 25th, 2010 at 12:29 am
Bryan,
I won’t lie to you Bryan, there is not a whole lot of certainty in this world, we may be unemployed tomorrow(well, maybe not you if you are tenured and have seniority), but we may die tomorrow, managers hire and fire who they wish all over the world(thats the world), but more often than not if you are good they want to keep you around. Like I said before, principals are not protected the way teachers are, and it is in their best career interest to hire the best staff they can.The taxpayers put the school board, and district in charge, and in turn they put the principals in charge, but in reality principals effectively have one hand tied behind their backs in personnel matters. By union contract dictate the district is essentially the “boss” of all teachers, not the principal(who is onsite and should be in charge). You can blame the absence of normal business practices and collective bargaining for these problems. No one is allowed to keep the best employees because people are entitled to their jobs and their has never been any accountability. The education system is nothing more than a mechanism to build wealth for certain people who don’t merit it by effort. I have seen far more deficient principals leave or be sacked than deficient teachers(the ratio is probably 50 to 1). The mechanisms of teacher employment in place are flat out wrong and unfair to the children. I may not condone hidden vacancies, but I as a taxpayer understand them. If I was in charge and my butt was on the line, I would want the best people surrounding me. There is no doubt about that. I put some large blame on the scope and size of administration in education(I think it has far too many layers and is redundant and wasteful. When you comment about following rules, my first instinct is to ask myself “who made these rules and who benefits from them”. Think about it.
June 25th, 2010 at 1:36 am
Bryan,
I am a stickler for rules. Rules keep us safe and ensure order. HOWEVER, I also encourage people to think critically and question the status quo.
I used to be a huge union supporter. In some aspects I still support collective bargaining. But the blatant truth is that teachers unions exist to ensure job security for its members, not advocate for children. One constantly undermines the other. I am tired of witnessing ridiculously negligent teachers with a boat load of “rights” keep their jobs and have no accountability. What about the “rights” of their students?! One group has to win, and right now its the teachers union, not students.
I support leaders reaching the end goal (quality education) versus obeying “the rules” (job security). Respectly, your argument is dangerous and the reason why OEA runs this district and weakens the high standards our students deserve. Not to mention, it prevents good teachers from receiving the salary and recognition they/we deserve. Regretfully I understand why society will not increase our salaries. How to you justify a substantial increase in salary for a work force with no accountability, who is not obligated to produce any result? You can’t. I am starting to believe unions hurt students AND good teachers.
Fight on principals! Continue to choose excellence over job security. When the union has the same goal, THEN you should obey this rule.
June 25th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
It’s news to me, OUSD P/T, that OEA runs the school district. In fact, one reason Oakland schools continue to suffer is that teachers DO NOT have enough input when it comes to school policy.
Please stop blaming teachers for poor decision-making and poor use of resources on the part of district officials.
Successful schools do not become that way based on teaching alone. There are many other things in place at those schools–including good leadership–that create a successful learning environment for students.
You could fire every teacher in the district (many of whom are excellent teachers at dysfunctional schools), hire a new crop of the “best” teachers, and wind up with the same result because you have done nothing to change the underlying causes of the problem.
Please stop spreading this anti-teacher rhetoric! Stop blaming teachers for poor education policy!
June 25th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Lets Get Real,
Once more and for the last time, parents and taxpayers are not blaming all teachers just the deficient ones, we realize most teachers are hardworking and good at what they do. There are teachers on pretty much every school site who should not be teaching because:
1. They never had what it takes to be a teacher(patience, drive, determination,fondness for children, and an ability to help kids understand concepts).
2. They lost what they had because they are washed out,burnt out or just playing out the string.
3. They have developed an attitude of apathy and don’t see that every child(has the potential to change this world if a teacher is willing to show them the way.
Great teachers are almost magical, they can do so much, but unfortunately a bad teacher can do grave harm as well. When I think of great teachers I think of that story of the millions of starfish on the beach, and the person who throws them one at a time in a seemingly futile effort to save them. Just then another person standing by asks the first person ” whats the use you cannot possibly save them all it doesn’t matter, and the first person says while flinging another starfish into the ocean “it matters to that one”! All kids deserve a good education, and you can’t have that with bad teachers in classrooms, and unions standing in the way of whats best for kids. This is truth not rhetoric, we parents have seen this with our own eyes. The union dishes out rhetoric we have already established that.
June 25th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Get real,
The problem is not policy or money, it is a structural waste of resources that should be expended directly on children, and a horrible seniority(tenure) based system of compensation instead of merit. If we can track kids and create a (cumulative file) we can do something along the same lines for teachers.
June 25th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
t’s news to me, OUSD P/T, that OEA runs the school district.
In the union contract, the union dictates:
The hours that are worked, the rate of pay(including stepping, built in raises and colas, which incidentally they feel wholeheartedly entitled to before and after the fact) the process and terms of disciplinary action including termination,and they protect substandard teachers with ferocity. Last but not least they can and will fire a teacher for not paying union dues.(you can be derelict in your duties as a teacher but you dare not forget to pay up the MONEY. Well, the union better think again, because thats taxpayer money, and we wont play nice with them anymore.
Once again a reminder:
The good teachers are worth the money we taxpayers pay, but it just sickens me to be forced to pay for people that just don’t measure up. Not to mention the damage they do to upwards of thirty kids at a time.
June 25th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Nawsflash from CTA
“Tell Senator: Stop Blaming Teachers
Urge Assembly to Defeat Steinberg “Favoritism” Bill
Your help is needed to defeat the newest version of a measure that would ignore the real needs of students and public education – adequate and stable funding – and blame teachers for the system’s ills.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) has authored SB 1285, a CTA-opposed measure that again will make it easier to lay off experienced teachers from lower-performing schools and undermine local control. On top of that, the measure is completely unnecessary because state law already gives school districts flexibility in layoff procedures to best meet the needs of students. CTA continues to battle against these attacks on the protections against discrimination and favoritism, including seniority”.
In my opinion(and that of millions of disillusioned taxpayers) seniority protections are discrimination and favoritism, the only fair way is to keep the best workers like they do in private enterprise(unless your the head honchos kid of course). There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING fair about seniority. I have to borrow a great line from another post paraphrasing ” some teachers claim to have 15-20 years experience when all they really have is first year experience 15-20 times over”. That is just so true.
June 25th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
One more specious claim from their website:
That provision(SB1285) would allow district officials to practice favoritism and discrimination. They could decide not to hire back a more expensive teacher or a teacher who has been a vocal advocate of student needs.
Fire a teacher for being a vocal advocate of student needs? This is worse that perpetrating a fraud this is a flat out LIE!
June 25th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
J.R.-
It’s heartening that your hatred for educators is matched by your incredible wealth of free time. If only “once more and for the last time” really were.
June 26th, 2010 at 12:50 am
Let’s Get Real,
I agree, leadership is extremely important. I would NEVER suggest that site and district leadership is not vital, but teachers and instruction also play a role. The most important role, after all we are the ones who have direct contact with students. That’s what the union seems to not grasp. They want to shift all ownership on administrators, with no ownership on its members.
I worked with a colleague who would take off repeatedly (a minimum of once a week, every weekend was a 3 day weekend for this guy). He never left lessons plans and sometimes he wouldn’t bother to call a sub. I spent hours covering his classes. When we complained to the principal, you know what OEA said “it’s his RIGHT to use sick leave”. #$#@!!! What other job in America or union would support this kind of behavior? And the sad truth is that I could go all night with story after story! And this is not the most egregious story I could share. How is that the fault of the district? His students learned NOTHING. OEA made sure that he kept his job and there was nothing the site or district leadership could do. Even an employee at a fast food restaurant is expected to maintain good attendance and call in when absent. And they aren’t responsible for children. What organization allows you to do that and keep your job?! Poor attendance is a surefire way of getting fired…..in OTHER professions. So I ask you, who had control in this situation? Should the site and district leadership be held accountable for his students’ test scores? This one is 100% on OEA. If you think teachers are under fire now, let more stories like this go public! People in other professions will hear these stories and flip out….rightfully so.
Lets get real….Get real!
And as far as the comment that we could fire every teacher, then we would get the same results. Once again, the union response is extreme and an over-reach. Bloggers shared that the district should have the right to fire underperforming teachers, not all teachers. But the union mindset always interprets things in an exaggerated manner. Why so extreme?
I give tenure 10 years at the most. America has had it with union scapegoating.
June 26th, 2010 at 8:27 am
OUSD P/T, you don’t call “OEA runs this district and weakens the high standards our students deserve” an extreme comment? How do you expect someone to respond?
You cite one instance of poor teacher conduct in which the teacher was defended by his union and, by doing so, imply that this behavior is the biggest problem facing students in our district. I agree that there are cases like this, but they are relatively few, and they are not the biggest problem in Oakland schools.
One of the most challenging issues in most schools is the high tolerance from district and site administration for bad behavior on the part of students. The other is the high degree of support students need because they enter our schools unprepared for the rigor of the curriculum. These issues affect the quality of ALL teaching.
These same issues plague every urban district–they are not unique to Oakland. And until they are addressed effectively, schools will continue to have problems–no matter who is teaching.
June 26th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Mike,
Have you ever heard the phrase “in context”, when I used “once more and for the last time it was in reference to my statement that I am only complaining about two things:
1. The teachers union
2. Union enabled bad teachers
one more thing, if you do not understand the meaning and usage of context, I hope you are not teaching our kids.
And oh yes, I love good teachers!!!!!!
June 28th, 2010 at 7:23 am
Interesting discussion – here’s my take…
I have worked under 6 principals and at least 12 VPs. None were evil, but most were incompetent in at least one or two of their 3 responsibilities – relations to the parents and community, budgeting and running the physical plant, and being an instructional leader. In all fairness the job is really an impossible one. The principals could not recognize nor implement effective instructional methodology, maintain a budget, summon up the guts to discipline a recalcitrant teacher, run a meeting, or have a vision as to where the school should be going. The VPs have the worst job and most were learning on the fly, making mistakes on a regular basis and leaving disasters in their wakes -ordering the wrong state tests, mismanaging funds allocated for computer labs, letting discipline matters stack up so that months would go by without any action, or rubber-stamping teacher evaluations because they couldn’t tell good teaching if it bit them on the ass. Basically these are just people who wanted the higher pay and couldn’t or wouldn’t cut it in the classroom. So when you impart “good” motives to an administrator, I question whether they really know what they are doing. That is why you need a contract.
On the subject of teachers working extra hours, or putting in extra work, let’s face it. Teachers are VERY jealous of each other. Schools are like “Peyton Places” to use an old TV analogy, where excellence is not held in high esteem but is instead attacked for being different. Those teachers who go an extra mile are viewed first with suspicion and then derision for overworking the kids, or showing others teachers up, or “who exactly does he think he is?” This attitude is not just found in the teaching profession, but in every profession. That is why it is so hard to consistently be excellent. Jaime Escalante was eventually forced out of his school. However, I will add this caveat – I have seen teachers work extra hours because they were NOT efficient at all by using a convoluted system of grading which required them to stay at school until 8 p.m. But my compliments to the teacher who spends extra hours with their students because they uphold the nobility of the profession. And no, you don’t get paid enough, but never hold back from the kids because you resent the District’s underhanded tactics. When you feel that resentment building up you should find a new profession – or how about becoming an administrator?
June 28th, 2010 at 8:20 am
Thanks Hot R,
That evenhanded assessment really does bring real perspective to the subject, good post.
June 28th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Hot R,
I guess you could call a principal who lets parents run roughshod over them because they feel that their child was “graded too harshly” as incompetent or at least derelict in their duties. A principal who just doesn’t “see” the teacher who is not giving much “class” or “home” work or tests to their students could also be regarded as deficient,derelict and or incompetent. Good points all. If they cannot handle it time to find a more suitable career. It really is making me think just how destructive bad admin and bad teachers can be.