90 Responses to “Posted: Oakland’s new high school teaching positions”

1. Katy Murphy Says:
   March 9th, 2012 at 6:38 pm

   As I read through the document more closely, this bullet point really jumped out:

   “TSAs must have the ability to manage stress and the change process. Candidates with high emotional intelligence are preferred as are those who have demonstrated resilience, calm and a problem-solving attitude in the midst of constant unrest”

2. David Orphal Says:
   March 9th, 2012 at 6:50 pm

   I wonder.. what will the district do with teachers who are in these schools now, and have contractual rights to employment with OUSD, if they DON”T apply for these TSA positions???

   Will these experienced teachers be sent to other schools, like Skyline, in turn bumping less experienced teachers out of their jobs? Will the then bumped teachers at Skyline have to apply for one of these TSA positions?

   I mean, I think it might work out if all of the teachers who want to stay at these three sites are excited about the new directions being explored AND is there is an equal number of teachers at non-TSA sites who would like to join these new TSA cadres as there are teachers at these three schools who don’t want to be TSA’s, but have a contractual right to a job.

   I wonder if Dr. Smith thinks that he can simply ignore the now half-decade stale, non-renewed collective bargaining agreement he has with OEA and let go any teachers who refuse to apply for the TSA positions.

   I wonder if teachers are fearful enough of the current economy to accept one of these TSA positions, and go to work with resentment filling his/her heart.

   I wonder what school turn-a-round could look like if the district and teachers were really in partnership over the scope and direction of the change.

   I finished reading _All Systems Go_ by Michael Fullan and _World Class Education_ by Vivian Stewart. Both of these books use Ontario, Canada as an example of a large school system that made a remarkable turnaround. I bring up Ontario rather than Finland or Singapore specifically because Ontario began their turnaround from a place of extreme antagonism between the teachers’ union on the one side, and district and elected leaders on the other.

   I think both OEA and OUSD leaders should invents the time and the $45 to read these two books together – studying specifically the Ontario case-study. Oakland has a long way to go before the district leadership regains the trust of the teachers.

   I think it is vitally important to note, that no educational reform can happen without our teachers engaging in the daily work to make reform real. The classroom is where the rubber of reform and policy meets the road of learning and teaching.

3. Katy Murphy Says:
   March 9th, 2012 at 6:51 pm

   I just got this tweet from Michael Siegel, an Oakland civil rights attorney and son of former OUSD board member Dan Siegel:

   Need disclaimer: “Union likely to file legal challenge; may invalidate hiring process”

4. David Orphal Says:
   March 9th, 2012 at 7:00 pm

   So instead of taking the time to go slow, and build a vision together… OEA and OUSD will fight it out in court.

   Basically, instead of being slow-going and cooperative, we’ll be slow-going and antagonist.

   Please, please, please Dr. Smith, sit down with your teachers and listen to their ideas for school reform. Share with them your ideas for school reform. Build a compelling vision for Oakland schools together. Your teachers are not happy with the status quo either. We really, really want what’s best for our students.

5. Relieved and Excited Says:
   March 9th, 2012 at 7:50 pm

   I’m an OUSD teacher – have been in the district for 15 years – and the mother of an OUSD African American male student. I’m relieved and excited by this news.

   I am pro-union, pro-labor, but I do not support OEA’s opposition to this.

   I am considering leaving the school I currently teach at (which I love and am committed to) in order to apply for one of these positions. I see possibilities to play a leadership role that I haven’t seen at many schools. I already work the long hours but I want to be involved in transformation.

   I’m also inspired by the district’s guts – it’s about time someone stood up and interrupted the gross structural inequities that have been a factor at these schools for so long – that in part are due to the hiring processes. For all those in opposition to this initiative, I wish you could visit these schools, observe the classrooms where students have been verbally humiliated and abused for decades, and where their learning needs have been ignored. As a BTSA coach I’ve been in these two high school and have been horrified by what I’ve seen. It’s about time.

   Thank you, Dr. Smith and whomever else was involved.

6. J.R. Says:
   March 9th, 2012 at 9:21 pm

   Relieved,
   Are you saying that the CTA code of ethics has been violated?

   http://www.cta.org/About-CTA/Who-We-Are/Code-of-Ethics.aspx

7. Peach Says:
   March 9th, 2012 at 9:40 pm

   The parents of students at the three soon-to-be Acceleration High schools might be concerned by what the district is going to offer to their children. If one looks at the comments section of the Edjoin postings you will see the courses that are to be staffed. The list represents the barest minimum of what a school can legally get away with in California.

   Fremont has more than two electives, but its proposed program is as anemic as the ones being prepared for Castlemont and McClymonds.

   Parents and community members might want to compare these programs with the course descriptions of Skyline and Oakland Tech (which are available for view on the district website). We’re talkng, once again, about separate and very unequal opportunities to learn between hills vs flatlands schools.

8. J.R. Says:
   March 9th, 2012 at 11:17 pm

   @relieved,
   When you say “gross structural inequities that have been a factor at these schools for so long – that in part are due to the hiring processes” do you mean the seniority priority placement and bumping leave only flatland schools as options for new and junior teachers? In other words, mostly new and junior teachers work at flatland schools, is that correct?

   This study confirms the damage done by seniority driven policies:

   http://www.edtrust.org/west/publication/victims-of-the-churn-the-damaging-impact-of-california%E2%80%99s-teacher-layoff-policies-on

9. Stevie Says:
   March 10th, 2012 at 7:06 am

   David Orphal: I think that Tony Smith IS listening to teachers. He’s listening to the vast majority of teachers who want to see systemic change and are held hostage by the OEA oligarchy. The OEA oligarchy who wants to 1. protect seniority even if it means that ineffective teachers continue to drain the district through some of the biggest salaries 2. keep ineffective teachers even if it means that generations of young people and society as a whole suffer 3. disrespect effective teachers by letting them get bumped out by ineffective ones 4. discourage young, motivated, and energetic teachers to enter the district by negotiating an attractive compensation package for more senior teachers (benefits are great in OUSD) but a pittance for younger ones.

   Senior teachers get 100% of the decision making power to decide where they work if they get displaced, but school staff and families have zero power to decide who is a good match for their school community? That means that well-run schools will be punished for their success because an expensive and ineffective teacher who was not rehired by one of those three high schools could choose to go there and ride it out until retirement. It drains that school’s resources, reduces their effectiveness because they now have an ineffective teacher, and school officials have to spend time mitigating that teacher’s negative impact.

   I agree with those who say that change to the status quo is welcome, even if it is uncomfortable. Occupy Oakland? Occupy OUSD and bring down the OEA 1%!

10. it's all about the kids Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 7:14 am

    Will the lemons who don’t apply or who don’t get chosen–will these lemons be foisted on other high and middle schools? This is good for the three high schools and good for their students – it is also bad for the other schools who will be responsible to employ folks who don’t get picked up.
    Lemonade!

11. Rodney Brown Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 9:26 am

    That same bullet point was one that jumped out at me too, Katy. What “emotional intelligence” test will occur during the one-hour interview? Also, this “rigorous and risk-taking professional development” says nothing about it being teacher-led. Whoever is backing this endeavor finically may also have some investment in this Adventure PD.

    This all comes down to those who believe that destabilizing three high schools will somehow help to stabilize each in three years and those who see this merely as another experiment on Oakland kids dreamt up by those furthest away from the classroom. As a Castlemont teacher, I find it extremely contradictory to speak about piloting teacher retention programs while “Acceleration TSA” helps play musical teachers and alienates students and teachers. Teacher retention is largely ignored. Staffing is only an issue when vacancies occur. With this unilateral decision to create wholesale vacancies at three flatland high schools then staffing does become a self-inflicted chore. Where vacancies results from attrition, what different conditions and supports could lead to retaining more teachers? Instead the conversation becomes how “Acceleration TSA” allows those with access and opportunity to pick and choose their colleagues, and teacher prevention rather than retention, as in “how can we prevent this teacher from coming to our school.” The same school-of-thought applies to those who would rather pick and choose the students they serve.

    The entire “Acceleration TSA” description above reads as the musings of the Office of Transformation rather than any concise job description. So much is thrown into this goulash that something is liable to resonate/appeal/attract anyone, while details get lost in the rhetoric/propaganda.

    So long as there is the disclaimer: “Incumbents may perform any combination of the essential functions shown below. This position description is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties, knowledge, or abilities, associated with this classification, but is intended to reflect the principal job elements accurately,” then no one will know with any certainty what an “Acceleration TSA” is or does, other than duties as assigned.

12. Rodney Brown Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 9:43 am

    Whoever is backing this endeavor *financially* may also have some investment in this Adventure PD.

13. Gordon Danning Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 10:50 am

    It’s all about the kids:

    I don’t know why you refer to those who do not get chosen for these positions as “lemons.” There are many people who might be excellent teachers but who would not be interested in this sort of position because it is an 11 month position, or because they don’t want to work somewhere where they will be assessed on their “emotional intelligence” and “cultural proficiency.” I wouldn’t.

14. LK Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    To answer Katy’s question, most of the teaching duties outlined in the job description are things teachers do anyway. My question is, what additional duties are these TSAs going to double up on in order to pay for the salary increase. For example, does “work to promote college and career awareness and access at all times,” mean that teachers will have to do the work of counsellors? What other positions are being eliminated in order to give teachers more pay? More important, what problem is this solving and whose problem is it?

    To answer Katy’s other question, I wouldn’t apply for this job myself. It seems like a bad faith, end run around the contract, for one. For another, the job description is filled with vague language and buzz words. What exactly does the following entail? “Plan and develop cross-curricular/interdisciplinary content aligned to Linked Learning E framework including development of rigorous CTE courses and high quality internships and work based opportunities.” Will teachers be out there knocking on corporate doors to get internships for their students? Or will the leg work be done by others? Again, whose jobs are being eliminated and pushed onto the teachers?

    I’ve been in the district long enough to see fads come and go. I really thought the small schools movement would stick, but the district’s commitment to that seems to be flagging in the face of budget pressures. This TSA business just seems like another “let’s try anything” stab at solving social problems that are really insurmountable through education alone. The thing with OUSD is, anyone with a bag of money and a theory can come in, create havoc, then waltz out of town leaving the rest of us to deal with the mess left behind. There is a dedicated, experienced staff already in place at these schools. Please don’t mess with that.

15. Harold Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    “cultural proficiency”? … sounds like a slippery slope.

16. What does this mean? Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    In response to LK:
    —What exactly does the following entail? “Plan and develop cross-curricular/interdisciplinary content aligned to Linked Learning E framework including development of rigorous CTE courses and high quality internships and work based opportunities.”—

    Check out:
    http://www.linkedlearningousd.org/node/6

    http://www.connectedcalifornia.org/home

17. MissMatched Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    Re: Emotional Intelligence. I remember a teacher I worked with for several years. Academically, in terms of how she designed (or slapped together) curriculum, she was one of the least able teachers I have ever met, and to put it more bluntly, not very bright. I often wondered how she had even been able to become a teacher. However, I guess she hads loads of “emotional intelligence,” the kids just loved her, and the parents also were big fans. She was warm, friendly, encouraging, and empathetic. I’m sure there would have been massive protest if she’d been forced out due to her poor curriculum.

    I already see this becoming a popularity contest.

18. J.R. Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    Miss,

    Oh yeah, I can see it now, parents fawning all over teachers just because the are likeable(as if we aren’t smart enough to know if and when they may be putting on a show). I can hear parents exclaiming ” my child hasn’t learned much if anything this year, but you are such a wonderful person I think you should be kept”. In what reality does this happen? I will tell you though, I would much rather have a warm friendly encouraging type of teacher as opposed to one who is retired on active duty(R.O.A.D.). I guess if you believe principals will put their job on the line to keep a substandard teacher who is a friend then you will believe most anything. what we have had for the last several decades has not worked, time to move on.

19. MissMatched Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 9:55 am

    J.R.: if you actually think that parents don’t base most of their judgments on whether they (or their children) like the teacher, and if you actually think principals don’t play favorites… then you clearly know little about the realities of teaching in Oakland and probably elsewhere. It is almost ALWAYS a popularity contest; and other qualifications, when they are considered, are a distant second. I have seen this many many times over the years; and have been passed over in favor of far less qualified people because the principal chose her friend. Yep, happens EVERY day, in various ways.

20. J.R. Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 10:48 am

    Miss,
    First of all, when you say a principal chose her friend, that is a subjective judgement on your part(no doubt tainted by your internal bias). Secondly, the fact remains that a principal is not shielded from losing their job as a teacher is(they are basically at will employees)so anyone that would jeopardize his/her job for a friend is truly a fool. Thirdly, teachers such as you who claim they are doing their jobs(and are busy with their own classroom)would be in no position to judge other teachers on their merits or lack thereof. Subjective judgement is woefully inadequate, and human nature being what it is, not to be trusted.

21. Gordon Danning Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    JR:

    You have made Missmatched point for her: that subjective judgment is woefully inadequate. Do you really believe that hiring decisions — even in the business world — are made wholly objectively? Especially when one criterion is “emotional intelligence”?

    As for a principal hiring a friend over someone more qualified, given the difficulty of assessing “quality” and the extremely small role that any one hire plays in affecting the criteria that the District uses when deciding whether to retain principals, and given that having friends (or at least people with whom you see eye to eye) makes a principal’s job easier (which is very important, since it is a VERY hard job), a principal would be foolish NOT to hire a friend, when possible.

22. Trish Gorham Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    Why is it the assumed imperative that in order to get rid of a (very) few underperforming teachers it is necessary to destabilize a community and humiliate, stress out, and remove due process from all teachers?
    It’s more than a little disturbing that the majority of comments approving the proposal have more to do with punishing teachers than helping students.
    FYI to all: There is no such thing as “bumping rights”. Teachers only have the right to move into a vacant position.

    Why the OEA should question this proposal:
    1. Such a plan should be thoroughly discussed with all stakeholders. No one outside of Central Administration had anything to say about the proposal because no one was informed that it was being considered until it was announced that it would happen. It took over a week to come up with this not so descriptive job description and we have yet to see an implementation plan (because there isn’t one yet). And this starts in 3 high schools in less than 5 months?
    2. There are no assigned principals for 2 of the high schools for next year yet. Wouldn’t it be more effective to have a leader involved in the development of plans? Who, then, is making the hiring decisions?
    3. It was news to Superintendent Smith that very few staff members at Castlemont have been involved in the design plans for returning to a single school. Does not an entirely new school design now have to be developed?
    4. TSA is an at-will position from which the employee can be removed next year. While some teachers are willing to take the chance, the OEA would be irresponsible not to inform members that the TSA position does not protect them from willful and capricious reasons for removal by the administration, thereby continuing the destabilization process.
    5. It was stated that the instructional days would still equal 180. So the students do not actually get more instructional days?
    6. And if the school year is extended in a way that adds additional support without additional instructional days, how does that look?
    a. And how does that impact summer/other jobs?
    b. And how does that impact families that travel to home countries during student breaks?

    I could go on. You get the idea. No critical dialogue. No real plan. No trust.
    Teachers are the ones who MUST ask the difficult questions, even if erroneously appearing rigid. For it is the professional practitioners upon whom all successful plans depend.

23. Peach Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Thanks “What does This Mean” for the links to an unfamiliar OUSD site and to ConnectEd.

    At the ConnectEd site, the program seems to be an industry-high schools-higher ed program that provides high school students with pathways to get industry experience while taking concurrent courses at UCs – akin to some of the academies at Oakland Tech.

    Is this clear connection between high school courses, industry work and UC what we will see at McClymonds, Fremont, and Castlemont?

    After a cursory look at the OUSD Linked site, I see school trips, college tours, and dance programs at some schools, as well as mentoring for seniors at Life Academy. Are these the initiatives that will be installed at the 3 schools instead?

    Also interesting is the fact that Brad Stam is Vice President of ConnectEd, and he was Chief Academic Officer of OUSD when the district joined the consortium.

    Usually Board approved school plans and high school master schedules are completed in the spring. There are only three months left in the academic year for putting the pieces for the tranformed schools in place.

    Who has been part of the collaboration on the design of the accelerated schools?

24. makeitgoaway Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Gee, I kinda like the idea. It sure isn’t working now. but the vehemence of the opposition before this even gets started is intense. Is it possible the Superintendant saw that this plan would be attacked no matter what, so he floated it while dangling the higher pay? Better jump on the train- this is the wave of the future, especially in failing districts. It is about time teachers who go above and beyond every day get paid for doing so while those who want safety and same old same old stay where they are…

    And, what if it works?

25. MissMatched Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    J.R.: you have completely revealed how little you know about how schools operate these days. The idea, first of all, that I couldn’t know what is going on in anyone else’s classroom because I’m somehow not connected with the rest of the staff is simply not how schools work in 2012. Most schools are organized into teams, or academies, or houses, or other groups, where teachers meet regularly. We also present curriculum to each other and observe each other. So, yeah, I do know what goes on elsewhere. Probably much more so than the principal, who does not attend meetings or curriculum sharing, but simply pops in for a few disconnected minutes here and there.

    As far as it being my “subjective” opinion as to why I was passed over, it actually was the opinion of most of the rest of the staff as well. Principals, with exceptions, of course, tend to hire and give opportunities to people whom they see as subordinate to them. Teachers who are older than them, more experienced than them, who know the contract and know their rights, tend not to be chosen, in favor of the young, the inexperienced, and those who haven’t made the mistake of asking the hard questions.

    Since I have over 2 decades of experience in the classroom, and you, clearly, do not, and I know, at least as colleagues, probably hundreds of teachers, I would say my assessment of the situation is valid not only for myself, but for many other teachers in OUSD. But we’ll all soon be forced out if Smith, Marshall and Co. get their way.

26. MissMatched Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    It is NOT higher pay. It is MORE WORK paid at the SAME RATE. Higher pay would be more pay for the SAME WORK. I really don’t see how this is framed as a raise.

27. Trish Gorham Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    @24
    What is the idea you kind of like? There hasn’t been one that is clearly defined yet.

28. J.R. Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    Here we go with the experience(would that be twenty years of the same thing over and over again)? I guess I have to re-post the studies that have shown after five years of experience there is no real difference on that basis(the real difference is in the psychological makeup of the teacher). I was watching the city council meetings regarding Desley Brooks and the teen center, and I listened as this little black girl eloquently pleaded her case as to why the center should remain, and I was impressed by her intelligent and articulate testimony.I have a real hard question for you, why have we been leaving these kids behind for decades? Don’t tell me that just poverty is responsible, because there are so many who are dropped through the cracks that could really excel despite their circumstances. If you really want to see poor, travel to Mexico and India, that’s what poor is.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC77oMoaWZE

    http://blogs.denverpost.com/coloradoclassroom/2009/04/23/teacher-effectiveness-the-studies/153/

    Try some objective data for a change.

29. it's all about the kids Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    get. rid. of. the. lemons. they are hurting kids. these three high schools are drop-out factories.

    stop with all of the defensiveness.

    OEA. go. away.

30. J.R. Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 8:56 pm

    Trish,
    You stated “FYI to all: There is no such thing as “bumping rights”. Are you sure about that?

    https://sites.google.com/a/oaklandea.org/oea/pink-slipped-march-15-2011

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/1WpIIdJ5ID7FMTwOEGBoGotqmcEcG45yE8uWJ1x3WQMqWgtTRdaJxogxAlsE0/edit?hl=en&pli=1

    You also stated “For it is the professional practitioners upon whom all successful plans depend”. Well we haven’t had much success for decades, what about that?

    All the taxpayers see is unions throwing anything and everything against the wall to see what sticks, but thats about it. Nothing better, and it figures.

31. J.R. Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    Trish,
    You also stated “Why is it the assumed imperative that in order to get rid of a (very) few underperforming teachers it is necessary to destabilize a community and humiliate, stress out, and remove due process from all teachers”? I would like to know how you determined that there are very few under-performing teachers. There are quite a few reasons why teachers could be classified as under-performing or incompetent. I’ll list what I have witnessed:

    1. The teacher who hands out busywork that is not even close to curriculum standards.

    2. The teacher who doesn’t feel the need to keep a gradebook, or properly assess each child.

    3. The teacher who does mostly art work and grades core subjects based on a pathetically small number of assignments and tests.

    4. A teacher who year after year takes time of with liberal use of illness bank.

    5. The teacher who hasn’t one shred of patience left and belittles students at every opportunity.

    6. The teacher whose grades signify nothing(gives good grades to most all)and fails to let students earn their grades.

    7. teachers who stray so far, so often from standards that the teachers who have the children the following year exclaim and I quote “did this #*## teach these kids anything last year”?

32. Gordon Danning Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 9:55 pm

    JR:

    Thanks for the links. They are a valuable lesson that, when it comes to the law, it is impossible to trust what anyone says. The CTA publication that you link to does indeed seem to say that teachers have a right to “bump” less senior teachers. Yet, it actually refers to teachers “slated for LAYOFF,” NOT teachers who are unassigned or whose positions have been eliminated. Morover, the statute it cites only says this, in relevant part: “Except as otherwise provided by statute, the services of no permanent employee may be terminated under the provisions of this section while any probationary employee, or any other employee with
    less seniority, is retained to render a service which said permanent employee is certificated and competent to render.”

    In other words, it says that a teacher cannot be laid off while a less senior teacher is retained. It does NOT say that a teacher who loses his or her ASSIGNMENT is entitled to bump a less senior teacher and take over his/her assignment. Why the CTA publication uses the term “bumping” is beyond me.

    And, the OEA contract says that teachers who are involuntary transferred (ie, the Fremont/McClymonds/Castlemont teachers who are not selected as “Accelerated TSAs”) can submit a list of their top 5 choices from the Position List, which is defined as a list of VACANCIES. (see pp. 34 et seq of OEA contract).

    The upshot is that, no, the unselected teachers will not be able to bump current teachers out of their positions; instead, they can only be offered vacant positions.

33. Gordon Danning Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    Its all about the kids:

    I think it would behoove us all to avoid the term, “drop out factories,” because it is a term that tends to obfuscate, rather than clarify. I say that because Oakland High School was identified as a “drop out factory” a couple of years back, due to what was seen as an unacceptably high drop out rate, yet at the same time it was sending literally dozens and dozens of students to UC schools, and many, many more to the Cal State system. In other words, it was serving 1/2 of its students pretty well, and the other half not so well. Or, perhaps the fault (or credit) lay as much with the students/parents/community as with the school.

34. Zinnia Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    Tony and admin would be going about this a very different way if they were really interested in developing trust and a cooperative district.

35. anon Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 5:54 am

    I am a Castlemont teacher and will be applying to work there again. I appreciate the focus on the students-this is about the students. I think that Dr. Smith has made a bold move to support these students and so the extra duties of a TSA that are mentioned in the job description will only further support the students.
    At the meeting he attended on the Castlemont campus, I appreciated when he said we need to be doing a better job of producing better outcomes for these kids as they too are the future of Oakland.
    I am not saying TSA’s were the only option (obviously there were a lot) but this is a unique opportunity to better support our students and so I am on board.

36. former ousdteacher Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 6:27 am

    When I read the comment #22, all I hear is “FEAR FEAR FEAR”. Words like “willful and capricious reasons” make OEA look like fear-mongerers.

    I’d be curious to know what percentage of Oakland teachers their leadership is aligned with. Most Oakland teachers are sane and hard-working. But the 1% runs the organization and have a paternalistic attitude towards the rank and file.

    They’re starting over at Castlemont because the school was horrible. Anybody with a brain can see it. Can’t get any worse. Glad the district is doing something instead of business as usual.

    Shame on OEA leadership for fighting on his one. My goodness. Either sign up to help or move on. Stop blaming everyone else, there’s enough blame to go around for all of us. Lastly, if you think a community is hopeless, you have no business teaching in it or leading those who do.

37. J.R. Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 7:38 am

    Gordon,
    If you read the whole thing(CTA bumping rights) you will see that senior teachers can and do elect to bump junior teachers from preferred schools, it happens all the time in other districts. In oakland it does not happen too often because of the turnover, but it does happen. It also explains “triangular bumping”, and goes on to tell junior teachers “in so many words”, just accept bumping and shut up, because we don’t want to undermine seniority principles. This system of failure,(and that is what it is) when nearly half of the students fail to graduate ,and on top of that some students must have remediation in college. You should know that getting it only half right is still an F.

38. Seenitbefore Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 9:51 am

    The problem in Oakland, by and large….. is that the district structure is unprofessional towards certificated teachers with experience.

    The entire Oakland public school system has been undermined by hiring idealistic, uncredentialed “teachers” who are enrolled in “alternative programs”. These “teachers” generally get paid the exact same salary as a fully credentialed teacher would get. they also get their student loans reduced/forgiven/paid off. In return, they know to keep their mouths shut and NOT complain about unfair labor practices, stand up to workplace harassment, or (God forbid) participate in union activities. If they do… they WILL be “non-re-elected”, thus losing their income and their student loan forgiveness program. Once these “teachers” have completed their obligation to their teaching program, MOST leave Oakland and the teaching profession.

    Now…… if you want to believe that THAT is a roadmap for success….or that these unfair labor practices of changing the job description of a classroom teacher to “TSA” is “bold” and innovative… YOU are delusional and part of the reason that this district never moves forward…..only sideways and on to the next “ed-fad” or scheme of the wealthy philanthropists who throw money at OUSD in vain attempts to experiment with some of the most vulnerable and needy students in our nation’s educational system.

    It’s not only Union Busting…. it’s immoral…and likely criminal.

    The problem in this district has never been too little money…. it’s too MUCH of your tax money…..in the hands of greedy upper management and never enough devoted to your kid’s experienced and successful teacher or their classroom.

39. J.R. Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 11:14 am

    Seenit,
    I agree with your point about too much money being allocated to a bloated bureaucracy, I really do. This district gets a tremendous amount of money relative to other districts of the same size(I have posted about this before).

    http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1911-california-school-spending-soared-on-administrators

    http://www.calchamber.com/pressreleases/pages/californiaeducationstudyrevealsdisturbingtrend.aspx

    On your other points I disagree, we have had for decades(before reform) a deep seated almost system-wide apathetic attitude of entitlement(exempting certain teachers of course), which has resulted in a very lax educational environment. The very opposite of rigor, like it or not many union backed policies encourage these attitudes. As far as money goes it is not really a predictor of success, if it were OUSD would be near the top in achievement, not the bottom.

    http://californiaschildren.typepad.com/californias-children/2010/07/the-list-cas-most-fiscally-unsound-school-districts.html

    http://www.ibabuzz.com/onassignment/2011/09/07/a-closer-look-at-spending-and-test-scores-in-east-bay-schools/#comments

40. J.R. Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 11:19 am

    Seenit,
    To add, if our lack of performance problems go back decades, how can the new teachers be responsible for it? If not, them then who, think about it.

41. Gordon Danning Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    JR:

    Re: bumping, I know that it happens in other districts, but it doesn’t happen in OUSD. I personally know several very senior teachers who were at small schools or programs that closed, and are now in positions that they do not like, because they could only be placed in open positions. One used to teach at Oakland HS, and would have LOVED to return, and is more senior than every single member of the OHS social studies dept. But, she could not move to OHS because there is no bumping.

    PS: The CTA article specifically refers to LAID OFF teachers, not teachers who must be REASSIGNED.

42. Katy Murphy Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Gordon’s right that there is no “bumping” of teachers in OUSD. (For classified staff, it’s another story.)

    Say the district lays off 20 teachers for budgetary reasons, based on seniority and credential (which it says it does not plan to do this year) and/or dismisses 40 temporary or brand new teachers without job rights. Those decisions — in some cases — will create vacancies into which a more senior teacher or credentialed administrator can move. But first, the district would need to create that opening. The teacher at School B, regardless of her seniority and job rights, can’t just take someone’s job at School A.

43. Catherine Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    Trish:

    As a parent and an advocate for those students I tutor on my own time I have consulted with the “stakeholders”. The stakeholders – just to be clear – of whom I speak are the student, parents or guardians, teacher or teachers, any specialists the student sees with a reasonable frequency (once a quarter or more), the principal, the NeXO or ReXO, the superintendent, Betty Olson-Jones, the school’s union steward, and our elected school board member. For those that do not attend meetings, I write letters outlining the situation as I see it.

    We have a district in which the vast majority of teachers do not pre-test and do not know what students know before they walk in the classroom. I would like to think that middle and high school students are placed into classes based on their background knowledge and ability but far too often this is not true.

    Students who excel in elementary school – and who have not been pretested – are “taught” information and skills they already possess. It matters only to the school, the district and often, unfortunately, parents or guardians “stakeholders” that students are performing well on benchmark and California State Tests. Then those same students get to middle school and have not acquired the organization, study and deep-thinking skills required to succeed, such as blocking out the interference of many, many disruptive students in class. Now, they are moved into classes that do not challenge them and they begin to do the bare minimum.

    Not one of the stakeholders is willing to accept responsibility for fulfilling the union contract of differentiating the curriculum. I have witnessed many high performing students allowed to read a paperback book two-thirds of the day. Sometimes they are given more of the same work rather than more challenging work.

    In Oakland, the stakeholder theory of which you speak does not work for the benefit of the students. It does work to allow for many, many of the “stakeholders” to point fingers at who is “causing and supporting the problem.”

    I support those parent, students, teachers, principals, counselors, union stewards, district administrators and all other stakeholders who are working to insure that ALL students get the education they deserve – those performing at the highest to those performing at the lowest levels in the district. All students deserve to graduate high school when they have attended school daily, worked hard in class, worked hard and smart with homework assignments and communicated what they know and what they don’t know so they have an opportunity to bring up their skills and knowledge.

    I am tired of Betty and her 75 – 100 followers dictating who is allowed to learn and who is not.

44. J.R. Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    Thank you for clearing that up regarding specifically OUSD. Do you not still have the issue of “must place” teachers, and if 40 temps have to be cut to make room for senior teachers, then that is what happens? My point(which is still valid) is that the system is so rigidly job oriented that the kids don’t matter anymore, and the lack of academic results as far as OUSD can’t really be argued with. In many districts teaching is no longer a profession, it is just a job bank(which is I guess why they attach themselves to labor unions).

45. J.R. Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    Catherine,
    The CTA is an immovable object, and we need a force to counter it(taxpayer & Parent power I hope). We are getting there, I am disheartened when I think of the thousand of kids who lost an education in the previous 3-4 decades.

46. J.R. Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    Gordon,
    I forgot to add, many teachers that I know(some are relatives in fact) have indeed been “bumped” so I know it happens(different districts in the east bay). Bumping caused so much havoc with P/O’ed parents that the super stated that we need to avoid the cascade of movement and instability that ensues with bumping.

47. On the Fence Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    Well said, Seenitbefore #38. I agree with much of what you have written.

    I am concerned about the district setting precedence with the process of rehiring of teachers into a nebulously defined job with little protection. I, too, worry that this is just the latest trend of a district that has little crediblity. Let’s face it, the district has tried all sorts of new gimmicks and reinventions. Usually the miracles that they promise do not pan out.

    In this case, the district gets the PR of ‘starting over’ and ‘really changing the game’ for the group of students (and schools) that has typically been most vulnerable which sounds great on the surface, and they also get to quash the needed protections that the teachers currently have.

    I have no doubt that there are many teachers who will step up, and I wish them luck. I hope that they will not regret their involvement. If I were a teacher, I don’t think that I would reapply as I would fear that those of us who stepped up would be later thrown under the bus, casualties of the OUSD’s lastest debacle. The first way that that might happen is if the school fails to produce the outcomes that we had worked towards. It seems to me that it would be very convenient to lay any failure squarely on the shoulders of the participating teachers and start the next year with a ‘better crop’. It would be easy to posit that the teachers were lemons, or jaded, or inexperienced, or racially insensitive. My other worry would be that the participating teachers would be put in untenable circumstances in order to attempt to produce the goals set forth. For example, if the schools API did not rise sufficiently, teachers might be pressured/suggested to hold longer office hours, weekend school, home visits, and other unpaid duties. “You did after all self-select into this very unique school where the expectations are to be a team player…and those are the kinds of teachers that we will be retaining at the end of the year”, I could imagine someone saying.

    Like most others here, I would like all of our school children to receive a great education. Clearly, however, I have doubts that this will happen via the latest district scheme.

48. Trish Gorham Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    Former @ #36
    I find it very hard to believe, that as a former OUSD teacher, you never saw an administrator perform a “willful and capricious” act against a teacher. Lucky you. I do not consider asking logical questions that have yet to be fully answered fear mongering.

    I do not see this issue as one of assigning blame. However, one can say that Tony Smith is to blame for not providing the opportunity for OEA “to sign up and help”. I believe the questions we are asking will only HELP to improve the current impulsive course of action.

    I’m afraid the attitude of it “can’t get any worse” so ANY “something” is laudable is not good enough for the students we serve.

    Catherine @ 43

    I do not disagree with anything you are saying.
    I know that Betty does not disagree with anything you are saying.
    I fail to see how this proposal addresses the very real issues you bring up.

    Fence @ #47 and Seenit @ #38
    Yuppers. Thank you.

49. del Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 5:34 pm

    seen it before, I do not believe you have actually seen it before. If you think the number one problem facing the district is teachers being treated “unprofessionally,” I strongly suggest you ask your students what they did the night before. The number struggling through the violence of abject poverty or outright neglect is staggering and directly affecting what happens in EVERY classroom in the district. To suggest that the desires/perceived needs of the adult employees is a more pressing issue is exactly the problem.
    Some call it union busting, but the union is already busted. Members above say it is run by the 1%, it is certainly hard to argue against that—the participation rates do not lie.
    What we are currently doing is not working and we know this. The budget does not allow for many changes, but one thing we know is that the teacher & their skill matters the most. And we know that at almost every school (not just in Oakland) there is a teacher who is simply not doing a good enough job. I’m not talking about needing training & professional development, I’m talking about responsibilities like consistent lesson planning, being at work on time, and providing a safe classroom environment. How can we get every classroom a well qualified teacher? The union has not made that a priority, and conversations between the union leadership and district (or within the union) haven’t been civil in decades. So what can be done? Something has to be done, and done now. This is an attempt. It is more severe than the “mutual matching” that was rejected by the union in favor of bumping, but I guarantee that if I were at one of these sites, I would be very happy to re-apply for my job. And every faculty member at these sites can tell with very little uncertainty who the one or two teachers who will not be welcomed back will be.

50. Catherine Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Trish: If Betty does indeed not disagree with what I have said then why is she not working with the schools’ union stewards to have changes in behavior at particular schools that are not serving student needs? I know in at least three – and I will check with teachers and parents about the fourth.

    Funds were raised to send teachers to a Saturday program in differentiation. The teachers were to be paid $35 per hour to attend and if they needed child care there were parents who were willing to provide the child care. Not one teacher agreed to go. Not one.

    The program and the outstanding offers have held for three consecutive years twice per year. No one teacher in three schools, perhaps four schools, have been willing to follow through. They simply do not care enough about how to serve students to attend.

51. Catherine Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    Trish:

    The relevance is that there are teachers who were kicked to the curb by Oakland who were new and needed to give up their district jobs and go back to the classroom. These are some of the teachers who had the dedication and training that Fremont, Castlemont and McClymonds need. They are teachers who have taken classes on their own time, have worked with students to create individual learning contracts and who have made real progress in reading, writing, math and science in students who had not passed the CAHSEE.

    Of course Hayward and Alameda snapped up these teachers.

    We chose to have Betty continue the status quo. Because it works for some teachers; it works for the union; it works to keep the dues flowing. It did not help the students who did not have transportation to transfer (although three did transfer to Alameda with their teachers). The current method is not working for students.

    So, I propose that the union set aside money to pay for the students to have tutors when they could have had a credentialed teacher for an extra two months per year. The union should come up with a plan that benefits both teachers and students.

    The union needs to stop acting like a two-year-old having a tantrum because they did not get the gallon of licorice whips and only got a box of 20. Greed.

52. del Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    RE: Bumping
    Technically it does not happen to teachers who have permanent contracts. BUT if there is a teacher on leave this year, they are guaranteed a job in the future. As a result, a new teacher hired on will be hired as a TEMPORARY contract, no matter how qualified, experienced, or excellent they are. Every year HR has a certain number of contracts that will be temporary based on the credentials of union members who can either choose to return at the end of the year or who may need to move if a school is closed (for example). So that great new teacher with a ton of non-OUSd experience and expertise WILL NOT be rehired the next year if someone returns to the district or loses a position elsewhere, they will be bumped (but it’s not called bumped because they were not hired as permanent employees). Their best case scenario, depending on when they are rehired, would be to be hired as a first year probationary teacher, and sometimes as a temp. And if they complain to the union that it’s not fair, that they have worked for 3 years in the district and haven’t been given tenure, they will be ignored. I think THAT scenario (which plays out scores of times every year) has a lot more to do with teacher turnover than the most are willing to admit.

53. Catherine Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    re: 51 – The teachers who were new got kicked to the curb. The teachers who chose to leave the classroom for district jobs got priority when their gig came to an end.

54. Trish Gorham Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    Catherine @50
    I can only speak for Betty by posting a quote she posted today:
    “….tired of all the distractions the district throws our way, when we’d all rather be focused on REAL reforms for students — lower class sizes; resources that support students as human beings rather than test scores; time to plan and collaborate that isn’t contingent on job insecurity, [reducing] instability for our students, and competition among colleagues.”

    And, ongoing, I can only speak for myself. I know how hard it is to organize something you think is a critical factor for professional understanding and growth and get the big ho-hum.

    It looks like you did everything you could to make the training easy to participate in. Why the teachers didn’t could be one or more factors, all of which have degrees of validity.
    1. too tired
    2. want to be paid their professional hourly rate
    3. want trainings to take place on a duty day
    4. topic was not developed as a need by whole staff, but they were told it was a deficit of theirs
    5. they feel they know topic sufficiently
    6. if all were not going to implement training, why should just a few show up?
    7. have a second job

    I am really not trying to make excuses for teachers. Again, I’ve felt the frustration you feel.

    But, in agreeing with Betty, there is a WHOLE lot of nonsense we have to deal with which drains us and takes time away from adequately assessing and collaboratively planning on how to address the needs (not the test scores) of our students.

55. Trish Gorham Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    Catherine @51

    Greed? Really? Who told you the lie that we actually got a box of 20 licorice whips? I thought we were on our way to a civil dialogue with my last post. I shall try to maintain one.

    I’m afraid paying for your own education, creating individual learning plans, and having students make progress does not really make your new teachers stand out from the crowd.

    I was pink slipped my first two years of teaching. It’s kind of a rite of passage. And I, like EVERY TEACHER who was pink slipped LAST YEAR had the lay off rescinded and had the right to return to their classrooms. So why didn’t the teachers you mention return?

    So here’s the rub about seniority. I will never advocate taking away a protection for teachers who have dedicated their professional lives to the children of Oakland. Yes, I unequivocally maintain, that those who have served our children for DECADES have more of a right to stay than those who have yet to show such dedication and commitment. Seniority is a protection for those who consider teaching a career, not a mission. And when those new teachers have made serving Oakland’s children their career, they should expect the same respectful treatment for their service. And because there is a union, they will have it.

    Now I really must finish up my report cards.

56. ex-oakland teacher Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 8:38 pm

    Is this the first time that the word “love” has appeared in a government job description?

    “Create a classroom/community culture of learning by modeling positivity, love, risk-taking, support and the ability to revise and improve work”

    Overall, that is one of the most complete and accurate teaching job descriptions that I have seen.

57. Teacher Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    I work at one of the three “acceleration” schools. When I read the requirements of “love,” “emotional intelligence,” and “cultural competence,” I can totally picture at least one colleague who lacks all three traits and is likely to be among those not selected for the TSA position. When you call students “f’ing idiots” and say to an African American male, “BOY, pull up your pants,” you likely are in the wrong teaching placement.

    I wish that teacher well and hope he finds a “mutual match” position. Right now, he humiliates many young people and seem highly frustrated with his job. It is not a good fit.

    I am thankful that the district has an easier way to get rid of him than to spend several hundred thousand dollars in lawsuits. I am sorry he will be in OUSD at another school.

58. J.R. Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    Teacher,
    I almost wish I knew this guy so I could show him what being miserable is really like. It brings to mind this:

    “I will never advocate taking away a protection for teachers who have dedicated their professional lives to the children of Oakland. Yes, I unequivocally maintain, that those who have served our children for DECADES have more of a right to stay than those who have yet to show such dedication and commitment”.

    No one deserves respect who does not give it. No one should ever think that they deserve recognition for just having a pulse for a long time. It is not service when you abuse a child in any form or manner. No one is to blame but the teacher in question and the system that gives him protection he doesn’t deserve. It’s a shame that we let politics destroy our kids, when we simply just want capable,decent,hardworking people teacher our kids. Why is that too much to ask? Why should a union be able to strong-arm and dictate(through law & contract) such things.

59. J.R. Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 9:51 pm

    Now we are about to hear why this guys attitude is someone elses fault. That seems to be standard practice these days. It is a sad situation indeed.

60. Cranky Teacher Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    The bad faith on all sides is at the root of the problems and is evident in every conversation on this blog. Nobody trusts anybody else’s motives! It really is astonishing.

    There is one thing that confuses me about all the OEA bashing: If the majority of teachers in Oakland, as is claimed above, do not feel well represented by their union, why won’t they do anything about it?

    The excuse that they are too busy helping the children doesn’t wash if they think the union is actually hurting those children.

61. Cranky Teacher Says:
    March 12th, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    For those just hearing about Linked Learning and Career Technical Education for the first time, you might like to know that by 2015:

    “The 5 year strategic plan calls for 80% of OUSD students to be enrolled in
    career pathways that integrate academics, career technical, work based
    learning and student support services known as “Linked Learning.”

    And yes, we are supposed to find internships for every junior in a pathway!

    Why such a rush to ramp up this ambitious program most teachers have never even heard of? Chasing dollars, y’all!

62. J.R. Says:
    March 13th, 2012 at 8:12 am

    Cranky,
    You posted “Why such a rush to ramp up this ambitious program most teachers have never even heard of? Chasing dollars, y’all!

    You know what?
    Chasing after and aspiring to something is good motivation to do better and improve. In this educational system there is none of that, once you are locked in you are pretty much set with no need to demonstrate or prove continued growth.performance and ability. Maybe apathy is the problem when it comes to some teachers(some teachers do just enough to get by). Here is an Oakland students assessment of what the problems are, and here is one relevant snippet:

    “My older sister got a 4.0 all through high school. But when she got to college, she found it difficult to keep up, because Fremont didn’t prepare her for the workload. I know, because I went to 7th grade in Fairfield. When I moved back to Oakland in 9th grade, I was learning the same things I learned in Fairfield. We’re two years behind kids in those places! How are we supposed to succeed”?

    Note to Trish: is this the dedication and service you were talking about?

    Here is the complete story:

    http://toped.svefoundation.org/2012/03/13/a-students-plea-schools-need-more-money-%E2%80%93-but-make-sure-it-gets-to-us/

63. J.R. Says:
    March 13th, 2012 at 10:03 am

    “There is one thing that confuses me about all the OEA bashing: If the majority of teachers in Oakland, as is claimed above, do not feel well represented by their union, why won’t they do anything about it”?

    Do something about it, like withhold dues(which would work), and or resign from the union(still pay agency fees)? Unfortunately by law, the union is force-fed dues and or agency fees. This is why unions are so obstinate, they get paid irregardless, they have no incentive to change. It’s similar to welfare in that there is no incentive to do better, just get comfortable(status quo), which is why they needed to mandate strict time limits.

64. Seenitbefore Says:
    March 13th, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    @ J.R.

    “No one deserves respect who does not give it.”

    My question would be….are we willing to hold our STUDENTS accountable for learning this valuable life lesson as well?

    @ Del

    This is just one of many examples of how TEACHERS are treated in an unprofessional and demeaning manner.

    How so? Well… let’s just focus on Middle Schools for a moment. Please consider that on most OUSD campuses, 11-14 year old students have already figured out that they need not complete even ONE assignment during their entire 6-8 grade “career”. Why? Because they will be “socially promoted” to the next grade each year irregardless of their GPA. Their teachers have NO SAY in holding students accountable for successfully mastering the curriculum. And…. the kids KNOW it! Results? Students who are unprepared to be in the classroom and don’t want other kids to find out how far behind they really are.

    Therefore, when a teacher tries to hold a student accountable for learning…by suggesting that he/she focus on the lesson, or stop distracting others with their talking or touching them, or get his/her hands out of their pants, or stop eating chips, and candy, and sunflower seeds in class….. we are likely to be told, “F%#& You, B@&©#!”. If you think I am exaggerating….. sadly, I am not. This kind of behavior is tolerated in the “learning environment” by the school administrators every day. Teachers are verbally and physically abused, have their property damaged or stolen and are forced to take 100% of the blame for the behavior of someone else’s kid. With no access to accountability tools other than the final grades….which are VERY often changed if a student or parent complains to the administration. They and the district have created and nurtured the abysmal conditions of, and statistics for, student success/failure in OUSD.

    Yes….Oakland is a violent and dangerous city to grow up in. However, patronizing our youth…by socially promoting them…allowing them to be disrespectful to adults, each other, and public property, and then making excuses for their ridiculously inappropriate behavior….does not help these children AT ALL! Do you really want me to believe that Martin Luther King would say that we cannot expect any MORE from a child (of ANY race) in Oakland than this???? Is this what we marched in Selma for? Is this what Ruby Bridges walked up those steps to get to?

    If we truly want equality…and EVERY student to be successful…. then set some standards..and for Pete’s sake….let our students know that if you do not complete the criteria for mastery at each semester/grade level… then you don’t pass on to the next level. It’s really just that simple! That way…. the kids who are moving along….keep moving through the system and onward to success. The kids who need more time and more support…will get it…and they will have more resources available to focus on their special needs.

    When middle school students cannot read or write or speak or multiply 9×7…… they tend to find other ways of proving themselves “grown” and capable…. their ways tend to include getting high or drinking at school, mouthing off to adults, bullying others, and the ever popular having sex and making babies…and yes…this is happening AT SCHOOL in many instances.

    You want to change the lives of our students such that they can be successful in the great big world out there????? Do them a favor and teach them to respect and appreciate the fact that they have the right to a FREE education. Teach them also that they do NOT have a right to disrupt and interfere with the learning of others.

    THIS is why good teachers “get burned out” or leave Oakland, or “seem” like they are getting worse instead of better with age. about 70% of our school’s 8th graders have below a 2.0 GPA. Right this second, outside my classroom door, kids are screaming bloody murder at each other in the rain…I can hear them calling each other the “N-word” among othehr colorful phrases. They are skateboarding all over the campus, one of our 8th grade students is pregnant by another one and we have had at least 30 families transfer from our school due to safety concerns this year alone. Yet, when I bring up these concerns…. I am the problem. I am “mean”. I am “insensitive to the cultural differences of their homelife”. I am… a “racist”. Really?????

    They will ALL get promoted to the next grade anyway……so…….

    Whatever! Tony Smith and his little band of union busters will get what they want in the end. God help this city, your home value, and your child at that point.

65. J.R. Says:
    March 13th, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Seen it,
    Just so you know, I am dead set against social promotion as indicated in earlier posts(google it). I believe that when a child struggles but is socially promoted, that they are essentially two years behind at that point. This whole liberal ideology of fairness,equity, social justice just turns people into victims who are never responsible for their own actions(the cold cruel world doesn’t work that way). I am not totally blaming teachers(just the ones who have no business in the classroom, but those irresponsible breeders(I hate to call them parents)are a major problem that society faces today. The breeders don’t, won’t, can’t understand that the word parent is not a noun but a verb! Just so you know, I think full service schools wont do much good either because there are so many people born into generational welfare mentality that it is a natural thing for someone else to be responsible for their child. Further addressing the teacher issue Re: burnout and so forth, if you believe the seniority system is best, then logic dictates you put your best teachers where they will do the most good, but your union is against that(contradictory on their part). The children’s parents are responsible for their home-life no one else is or should be, but as far as educational policy the union is responsible along with inept legislators and school boards. Maybe what needs to happen is designate a certain number of classes to be militarily strict for these kids who are screw-ups(male teacher and male aid) in every class with strict unyielding discipline. Students must earn their way back to general classes.

66. J.R. Says:
    March 13th, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    Sorry, I neglected to break this into proper paragraphs, I am just wingin’ it.

67. del Says:
    March 13th, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    Hmmm seenitbefore, what exactly have you seen before? One of the most important things to remember in education is that WE are the adults, and the children are children. We know how middle school children behave, and we know it is natural and cuts across race, class, and even species lines. They are SUPPOSED to be defiant and disrespectful. It is very frustrating but it is natural and normal—in fact, most mammalian species exhibit defiance and aggressiveness towards older generations during adolescence. What you describe is not specific to your school or to Oakland. Obviously, if you’ve “seen it before” you would not blame the kids for this behavior.
    Hence, the key is obviously to build relationships with the students so that they have structures and expectations to rely on as they develop their adult personalities. If a student knows that there are clear and consistent consequences for their behaviors (both positive and negative) they will respond appropriately. This is not dependent on administrators or any outside forces, it is quite literally the teachers job. Obviously, having back up from admin etc is helpful, but the reality is that if your students know they can depend and rely on you, they will do amazing things to fulfill and exceed your expectations. This also does not mean “flunking” as a consequence—like any young animal the consequence needs to be immediate and real… vague threats a year away have never been effective, nor is externalizing responsibility. As adults these behaviors are abhorrent in children (blaming, coming up with some vague far off righting of wrongs/punishment), but then we model the same behaviors we say we DON’T want to see.
    On the subject of flunking/retention/social promotion, we all know it is not an effective measure in schools. It is only linked to increased drop out rates, and it is embarrassing that an educator would bring it up. BUT, if we are talking about flunking kids, why is it absurd to flunk a teacher? Why not do away with THAT social promotion? A teacher can get FAILING grades on their evaluation but, due to union rules, this has to continue for multiple years with external (expensive) coaching before a teacher can have any impact to their employment/pay status. Shouldn’t what is good for the goose be applied to the gander?
    Lastly, let me tell you the option besides social promotion: keeping a kid in the same grade till he “gets it right.” I was at Montera in the late 80′s when it was grades 7-9 (you see, I have actually “seen it before”). There was a young man in the 9th grade who had been retained many times because of failing classes. He turned 18 while a student in junior high. He drove to school, and parked in the teachers’ lot. He made tons of money writing absence and tardy notes for the kids (since he was 18, at the time it was accepted). He was of course the most popular student ever, since he was a grown man with actual money and a car. However, he always had a 7th grade girlfriend. How does social promotion sound now?

68. Seenitbefore Says:
    March 13th, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    yes…. Del…. let’s focus on the ONE student who was driving in the 7th grade….. ignore the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS who understood what they needed to do to actually pass their classes back in the day……and actually did.

    I’ve seen enough to know that OUSD is broken beyond repair and that social and class warfare will soon be even MORE rampant in the streets of Oakland.

69. OUSD Parent Says:
    March 13th, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    @ Del. What Seenitbefore is describing is not acceptable behavior. Period. My teen is horrible to me and a royal pain AT HOME. He does not behave that way at school. It is never okay for a kid to ruin it for other kids in the classroom with their bad behavior. Especially on a regular basis. The kind of behavior Seenitbefore is describing seems to be all too common in the schools here in Oakland. It happens in other districts as well but there are many districts that simply do not allow that to go on. It is beyond what is acceptable and normal adolescent behavior. Hence people leave and move to other areas where kids may be defiant and annoying and entirely disinterested in learning a damn thing but certain lines are not crossed at school and if they are, it is addressed. Not all schools function like that and allow that behavior to happen.

70. del Says:
    March 13th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Well seenitbefore, I’m disappointed that you missed the entire point of what I wrote and focused on the last little anecdote. However, you make your true feeling and pedagogy clear when you say “I’ve seen enough to know that OUSD is broken beyond repair and that social and class warfare will soon be even MORE rampant in the streets of Oakland.”
    That’s fine, you obviously have given up. That is your right. But if you don’t want to try, DO NOT blame it on the kids, admin, or any other external factor, that is a choice YOU made. Please leave our district, I’d hate to think you may be educating my family, my friends, or my community.

    OUSD Parent: I know it is not acceptable behavior. But I also know that it is OUR responsibility as adults to teach, model, and reinforce the behavior we wish to see. Seenit is doing none of those things, just blaming people and giving up.
    Certainly, in some classrooms children’s behavior is getting in the way of education. But it is not happening in ALL or even most classrooms in Oakland. And, just like in our homes, WE decide and allow the types of behavior we see. We know that teaching in Oakland is tough, but we also know that WE as adults in classrooms are the ones who decide what behaviors are accepted and which continue. If we decide to shirk that responsibility, we are not fit to be in a classroom and no union should protect us.

71. MissMatched Says:
    March 13th, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    Here’s an additional series of postings for seven”Transformational Teachers” in all subject areas, including a TSA position; these seem to be focused on the middle school; http://edjoin.org/searchResults.aspx?countyID=1&districtID=43

    (I’m not sure if this will link to the screen with all the postings for OUSD, but if you choose “certificated,” they should pop us right away on the first screen asthey were posted today, (3/13/12)

72. Peach Says:
    March 13th, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Seen it all and others are not giving up on students when they point out a huge deficit in the running of all but a few of OUSD middle schools. If there is to be any progress on the high school front, something has to be done about the 3 years of nothingness that happens at most flatland middle schools. This is not an indictment of the administrators and teachers who are tryng very hard to create environments of learning within the instability caused by upper administration’s relentless demands and transformations, whoever the Superintendent.

    Not only is unacceptable student behavior tolerated in a bid to keep the suspension and expulsion numbers down, but middle schools have few resources available for their academic programs.

    1. There is constant churning of administrators such that policies and rules are always new.

    2. There is endemic turnover of teachers and support staff such that policies, rules, classes taught are always new.

    3. At the lowest performing schools OUSD middle school students have one, if not more, substitute teacher in each of their three years – usually in math or science. This situation results in students who have not learned anything in that subject before being put in the next class the following year. Some of the social promotion is due to the fact that the district has not provided students with teachers or instruction so promotion covers up these deficiencies.

    4. These vacancies result in students having one or two periods a day in which they can do whatever they want, go wherever they want, and keep themselves excited and distracted. This is how students arrive at their classes with real teachers.

    5. The environment of middle schools is going to have its high school equivalent with the TSA initiative. Because of teacher turnover each year, middle schools seldom are able to build collegial efforts. In contrast schools like Montera have a tradition of teacher efforts across subject areas (students working on a type of academic writing) or within grade levels to bring alive a topic in several subjects. The few schools that have an academic orientation will find it hard to build a strong academic program if instability of the group is the norm.

    There are large institutional deficiencies in OUSD and other urban districts. Pointing them out does not signal that a teacher is not giving his or her very best for students in the midst of all the dysfunction. If anything it shows that the educator has faith in the potential of students and knows that much more can be done to promote their success.

73. del Says:
    March 13th, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    Peach says “There are large institutional deficiencies in OUSD and other urban districts. Pointing them out does not signal that a teacher is not giving his or her very best for students in the midst of all the dysfunction. If anything it shows that the educator has faith in the potential of students and knows that much more can be done to promote their success.”
    I will go one further, and say that these deficiencies exist in all human endeavors, be they schools or businesses. Pointing them out (admitting them) is always the first step to recovery. However a quote like “whatever” and the other quote I referenced above is indeed absolute proof that the teacher is not giving their best. Again, the children are not the problem. It is the adult created system and the efforts of adults that is. If anyone believes the children are the problem at the school, it is time for them to go.

    Turnover at the middle school level is not new (or surprising)—very few adults would choose to work at a middle school, and even fewer have the resilience necessary to last a long time. That always has and will be the case. This does not equate to “three years of nothingness,” it is the same reality we all lived through in middle school. In terms of the learning that takes place, brain research has shown how limited humans are in our capacity for new information at that age and how warped the brain is in terms of what is of interest and can be learned. Anecdotal evidence: what standards were WE taught at that age?
    Regarding substitutes, for the reasons above staffing a middle school is difficult. Most educators are drawn to those early years where learning is so fast and students are so receptive or to secondary education where the concepts can be so deep and enlightening. Few are drawn to middle school where classroom management is the main objective every day as students learn to regulate the new chemicals/sensations/interests that will dominate the rest of their lives. Obviously having a substitute is no one’s ideal… but due to bumping rights, etc, when the normal turnover takes place at a middle school, those positions are filled with “must place” candidates from within the district who have no interest in the job. Three “must place” teachers left one middle school in Oakland before January—not because it was poorly run, but because they didn’t want to deal with a middle school. That is more than 10% of the staff—which was already 20% “must place” teachers new to the site THIS YEAR. Meanwhile, that promising new teacher who is excited by the challenge of middle school is hired on a temporary contract and will receive a letter by Thursday that states they may be replaced by one of the many teachers that have come from a recently closed school, or a teacher rejected by the hiring process discussed in this post. Again, it is incredibly important that ANY school community have control of what adults are working with the children, and this is what this hiring process is about. Why is that a problem?
    I would also argue about the instability of middle school administration—only one middle school had a principal new to OUSD this year, most have been in place for 3 years minimum. Certainly collegiality amongst a staff can only help (as long as people are united by their passion for the students), but Montera is hardly the only school where that is the norm, and in fact tomorrow we will see all middle school teachers in the district working together on common lesson plans and assessments. Certainly most schools have PLCs in place where common assessments and lessons plans are created.
    To be clear, all is not hunky-dory at any middle school, especially in Oakland. Those of us who choose to teach in Oakland middle schools know the impact and challenge we have, and we CHOOSE this responsibility. When we have random teachers assigned to the school, when we start shirking this responsibility, when we sell students short or blame them for the challenges we face, we fail at our jobs, and our community and our society depend on us doing our jobs well.

74. J.R. Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 12:40 am

    Del,
    Good enlightening observations, there are so many factors that contribute to educational breakdown: home-life, staff instability, ineffective leadership, bad,hiring placement policies. So many different problems to correct, and worse yet having to drag along a union kicking and screaming all the way. As if it isn’t hard enough, maybe that’s way these plans are always termed half baked, the union will never let change happen fully(it’s in the unions best interest not to let change happen). Smaller class size,sure more teachers, more money for the union, and better for the kids, provided they have a quality teacher, that is. Where is the tax money going to come from, and how can the state sustain such a huge pension burden(people are making more money being retired than when they were working, and they still get raises). Don’t forget that having a system where senior teachers are prioritized for just being senior teachers means we can afford less teachers, and therefore we will have larger class sizes.

75. Cranky Teacher Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 9:00 am

    J.R. — on unions: Not paying dues is an infantile response. If you hate unions that bad, you can go work in a private school or charter.

    The union is a democracy — all leaders are constantly facing re-election. All major decisions are voted on. If the “silent majority” think the leadership is the problem, they have only to get off their asses, organize a slate and win the election.

    Bottom line is most teachers are not committed to this job and district enough to get involved on that level. Those that do, eventually come to a much more nuanced understanding of why the union is important.

    It is lame to claim the union hurts kids but then say “I am too busy to get involved.”

76. MissMatched Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 9:44 am

    The union may not offer perfect representation. However, it does offer some protection. I would like to see those who oppose unions give up their health coverage, or not accept the next raise (if and when, I suppose! and an increase in work days is not a raise…!)

    As the bumper sticker says, “Unions. The folks who brought you the weekend.” And many other improvements in working conditions, such as safety, due process and other benefits.

77. J.R. Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 11:19 am

    Cranky,
    there is nothing democratic about a taxpayer-funded law enforced revenue stream. Whether by dues or agency fees which are approx.75% of dues. I guess you have not learned that when people tell you what your choices are and give you limited options(that’s right, just like the two party system), that is nothing more than a facade, and you need to learn how your union works. Here’s a little starter info for you:

    http://www.psrf.org/issues/lloyd.jsp

    The union has become corrupt, and the people who run it are distanced and disconnected from the working teachers.

    http://educationnext.org/a-union-by-any-other-name/

    http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_california-unions.html

    http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/opinions_on_education/54478.html?print

    http://educationnext.org/the-union-label-on-the-ballot-box/

    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/jul/02/no-recession-teachers-unions/

    http://www.nj.com/njvoices/index.ssf/2012/02/high-paid_njea_official_vince.html

78. J.R. Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 11:36 am

    Here is another interesting one:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/head-of-nj-teachers-union-got-paid-over-twice-as-much-as-the-governor-2010-9

    This guy must be awesome to earn that much,right?

79. del Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    I think everyone agrees that education in the United States in general and specifically is not where it needs to be. What we strangely enough cannot agree on is that ALL of us need to make a change or sacrifice to have an improvement.
    The district needs to come up with a transparent long term plan that shows clearly where the money is coming from and going to, and why.
    The union needs to put student needs first and help ensure that a GOOD (not well qualified, not experienced, not standardized test proficient) teacher is in every classroom. They need to start moving lousy members out, because there are far more lousy teachers than there are capricious administrators getting teachers out at a whim.
    Taxpayers need to either fund schools adequately or stop complaining.
    Parents need to have a sense of urgency about their child’s education—get their child to school and ready to learn daily.
    Communities need to look to schools as an asset and to the children attending them as regular kids who will grow up soon. The kids will treat their community exactly as their community treats them.

    No one aspect of this can be overlooked, and anyone thinking the blame goes to one place alone is shortsighted and not using the critical thinking skills we are trying to teach.
    Anyone in this mission to improve schools who wants to spend more time defending themselves than looking to see what they can improve is also failing (or succeeding to hurt the schools). We can all do better, but we have to do it together.

80. del Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Also, anyone who ignores the wonderful things unions have done for our country and our current employees should indeed re-examine their history. At the same time, our teachers’ unions should be PROFESSIONAL unions, not LABOR unions. It is a profession, not labor, and teacher should not be regarded as widgets BUT if bumping, seniority, and keeping a bad teacher in a classroom are priorities, we educators are treating OURSELVES as widgets.

81. Peach Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Del,
    It is heartening to hear that there is greater stability in middle school leadership (although the 3 year claim may not apply to an important minority of schools), and that teachers in all schools are working collegially on academics.

    One hopes that the adult planning results in strong content and instruction, and that the consistent good teaching and class activities reach the vast majority of students.

    We all look forward to seeing students at West Oakland Middle, Madison, Elmhurst, Simmons, and Frick produce wonderful essays, critiques of literature, mathematical explorations/problem solving, and artistic creations as mandated by the old and new standards. And these are the same activities that people were taught and learned before high school throughout the twentieth century.

    We all know that adolescents of color, those with families that may be in crisis, and those who suffer from the results of poverty and violence can learn well and at high levels. We know this because millions of inner city and rural students were successful during the 60′s and 70′s when there was concerted effort toward that end.

    It’s not easy or simple. Teens’ education calls for committed, professional adults, orderly and safe schools, and every academic and social resource that will aid their efforts. It is our responsibility to give young people instruction that they feel is worth interrupting their social lives for. Educators, along with parents, can help them substitute interest, motivation, goal setting, and effort for angst and discouragement.

    Yes, teenagers have issues with compliance, perserverance, and good judgment. It’s our job as adults to get them to adulthood with those qualities, as well as with a large portion of their innate skepticism and creativity intact.

82. Peach Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    Of course, students learn mostly from our actions.

83. Seenitbefore Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    this guy pretty much sums it up.

    http://www.examiner.com/k-12-in-topeka/in-what-other-profession

84. J.R. Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    Seenit,
    There are good teachers, no doubt about it. This author is dealing in hyperbole. To be honest there are teachers that people admire and then there are the ones that for many different reasons do not strive(or are just not capable) of teaching in a way that helps their students learn,master, and progress and improve. For instance teachers have the choice to “teach to the test” or “teach the concepts & material” and that will achieve even more. Believe it or not, the world isn’t easy either, just figuring a way to please people so that you can get paid and survive day to day. Count yourself lucky that you don’t worry about that(IT is pretty cut-throat these days). I would love to be nearly untouchable irregardless of what I do or fail to do, but I’ll never see that day.

85. Trish Gorham Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    NOT nearly untouchable.
    SIMPLY merely justifiable.
    Due process: that which makes an underpaid and under appreciated job a viable career choice.

86. J.R. Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Trish,
    The objective numbers tell a different story.

    http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_18626604

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/devil_in_details.html

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers3-2009may03,0,5765040,full.story

    http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2010/07/layoffs_seniority_vs_effective.html

87. Seenitbefore Says:
    March 16th, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    J.R. clearly you have your opinions, and professional educators have our own.

    The dismal state of public education has been manufactured by well-meaning social reformers who refuse to accept that individuals are ultimately responsible for the consequences of their actions. They always want to blame someone else.

    Bottom ine… the students who work hard, pay attention, show respect and do what they are supposed to do in school…will succeed. The ones who do not…will fail. THAT is the reality of life, my friend.

    The responsibility does not lie with the parents…or the teachers….or society…or that kid who keeps saying crap about your mama….

    “Education is the great engine of personal development. It is through education that the daughter of a peasant can become a doctor, that a son of a mineworker can become the head of the mine, that a child of farm workers can become the president of a great nation. It is what we make out of what we have, not what we are given, that separates one person from another.”
    Nelson Mandela

88. J.R. Says:
    March 16th, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    Seenit,
    Is that your final cop-out? The children are reflections of their parents, and they do not learn by osmosis. Children must be taught by competent parents and teachers. If kids are not learning, someone is not doing their job. You may think that all that’s necessary is to hand out work, grade papers and so forth, but if you are a professional you better know how to explain concepts, assess and reteach if necessary. If you can’t teach effectively then you are putting up to thirty children behind even more when they are pushed to the next grade. Are you a professional, or are you a laborer?

    “Bottom ine… the students who work hard, pay attention, show respect and do what they are supposed to do in school…will succeed. The ones who do not…will fail. THAT is the reality of life, my friend”.

    You know, it is possible to replace the word student with teacher, the only difference being that the student will pay a dear price for his/her mistakes or lack of effort, but conversely the teacher is almost completely protected from any consequences.

    Go figure………

89. J.R. Says:
    March 16th, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    Seenit,
    I guess when it comes down to it you really have no skin in the game, and you won’t be hurt so why knock yourself out? All the kids could fail(right now its 50%), and nothing would ever change if the unions had their way. After all it’s the kids fault, and that’s what a particular math teacher has said when 95% of his class is lost in algebra. The teacher next door runs intervention, and strangely enough she has those kids understanding the concepts. Imagine that!

90. J.R. Says:
    March 16th, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Seenit,
    I forgot to post the relevant facts, the male teacher(in which 95% of students are lost) is a 20+ year veteran. I talked to parents with kids in his class and siblings that had been in his class, and he has a long history of the same lack of properly explaining concepts. The other teacher is a six year teacher who explains concepts clearly(I sat in and even I could understand it, and I’m not a math whiz)and she has a history of students performing very well. What really upsets me the male teacher makes twice as much when she is clearly better and has the trachk record to back it up.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

MediaNews Group - Northern California Network