Both the Post and NY1 are hailing a Q poll out showing that 85% of New Yorkers are opposed to using seniority over "merit" as the basis for teacher layoffs.
And of course the corporate whores at Gotham Schools roll with that story at the top of their education listings this morning.
The pushback on this "poll" is very simple - if seniority rules are displaced by "merit" rules for layoffs, school districts are ALWAYS going to lay off expensive, veteran teachers and keep cheaper newbies regardless of merit, talent, skill, or expertise.
Because the "merit" can always be ginned up just the way the principal in the Bronx tried to gin up "U" ratings against teachers she didn't like so that they could be rubber roomed or fired.
That's it - that's the deal.
So until some "objective" form of "merit" can be found to evaluate teachers - and value-added evaluation systems using student test scores that have 12%-35% margins of error are NOT that form - seniority MUST be kept in place or you will see a mass firing of good veteran teachers and a hiring of cheap 22 year old rookies.
That of course was not how the LIFO question was framed by the polling firm.
And that is why the results came back with 85% approving of ending LIFO.
You can be sure the corporate whores at the Post, the News, the Times, NY 1 and Gotham Schools will use this in the coming weeks to push their corporate-driven agenda to end seniority and tenure.
The framing of the pushback is simple - end seniority and there will be no more senior teachers because Bloomberg and his principals will fire them all and hire much cheaper, less knowledgeable and less experienced newbies - not to make the system better, but simply to save money.
BTW the headlone at the post resd "Bums Away". I don'nt think you can be any more contemptuous to teachers.
ReplyDeleteNotice, everybody ignores the teacher retention issue dealing with this issue?
ReplyDeleteI think that this issue is much more complex. I think that there are some veteran teachers who do need to be fired before hard working, up and coming, young teachers. I don't think it's fair to fire people based on when they started teaching because start date does not correlate to success in the classroom. An authentic way to measure success in the classroom needs to be created even if no one was getting laid off. However, I don't think that Bloomberg and his cronies would be able to do this in a fair and genuine way. So I guess we're stuck.
ReplyDeleteIn the last 24 hours, I have been embroiled with the system that I can not take it anymore. They all make me sick.
ReplyDeleteIt is time to have recall elections on all those elected officials who are making these insane decisions that will hurt the working class.
ReplyDeleteEveryone should decide a day and time, hopefully on a weekend, to storm their state capitol. If we all across the nation do this unprecedented protest on one day, the message to all the union bashers, the self-serving politicians, the oligarchies will understand the impact of "WE ARE ONE!"
This is NOT a "complex" issue. LIFO is the ONLY fair way to do layoffs. It is done in the private sector, too, whether or not it is unionized. That is because "merit" does NOT exist.
ReplyDelete@Pensamientos: You are partially not incorrect. The problem is not the protection of bad teachers, the problem is the abuse of the system by administrators and corporatists looking to save a buck. The whole point of seniority is to protect against cronyism, and tenure guarantees due process. We've all known teachers who were absolutely horrible, but if they're 15 years in and they have tenure, then that means that the administrators are not doing their jobs. Simply giving a U-rating doesn't mean a teacher is terminated, because, as we've all seen, some U-ratings are bogus, just as some S-ratings are bogus. If an administration wanted to get rid of a bad teacher, then it has to submmit to due pocess - meaning, someone has to takethe time to observe multiple times, write the observations, give the teacher a chance to respond. offer the teacher a chance to improve with a comprehensive course of action, including professional development and/or mentoring. All of this has to happen with union representation so that administrators cannot simply harass a teacher they don't like.
ReplyDeleteJust as U-ratings can be bogus, we've all known teachers who were the "principal's pets," who basically just kiss the Almighty Principal Ass, and they receive perks like priority parking placards, glowing observations even if the principal never walks into their rooms, even time off without any corresponding docking of their sick bank.
Seniority is the only way to guarantee that cronyism, harassment, racism, ageism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, or any other personal, non-teaching-related, factor, colors the decision. But again - why are we even talking about laying teachers off? It's been demonstrated over and over that the city has means to keep all services running, and Little Andy's refusal to extend the millionaire's tax while he simultaneously de-funds special schools for blind, deaf, and severel-disabled children says it all. But it'll be 30 years before we have another Willowbrook, so, basically, who the hell cares besides us?
More from Anon 3:12 - also, by some quirk of contract or law, some teachers who are observed multiple times with all S ratings in one year get U ratings at the end of the year. They are VERY hard to fight - why? Actually, I don't know why, I only know that it happens. Teachers who come in on time, do their bulletin boards, teach their kids, work through lunch, etc., and who are NEVER observed by an administrator also get these inexplicable U ratings. How do you terminate someone based on a U rating unless you know whether it was fairly given? No, Susan is correct - LIFO is the ONLY fair method. But again, why are we even talking about layoffs?
ReplyDeleteThe Daily News lead editorial starts with "The people have spoken". Which people are they refering to? How were the questions presented to the people? What groups were represented in this poll? How many were from the city? How many from upstate? How many from Suffolk were the bill was introduced by a right of right Republican beholding to Bloomberg and the corporate mob? LIFO will not pass the assembly, no way. Bloomberg will back off the layoffs once he see'e all this media coverage does not budge the assembly democrats. With Wisconsin in the public eye no way the dems and unions in NYC will let this happen. I think they are desperate and this is the big push by the Bloomberg crew.
ReplyDeleteEverybody needs to e-mail or phone their legislators to counteract this perception and stand up for the seniority layoff procedure. I already have.
ReplyDelete@Anon 4:42. I hope you're right. The cowardice of the press as far as Bloomberg is concerned is frightening. Nellie Bly is dead and gone - who will take her place?
ReplyDeleteشركة تنظيف مجالس بالطائف
ReplyDeleteشركة تنظيف ستائر بالطائف
شركة جلي بلاط بالطائف
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض
شركة كشف تسربات بالرياض
شركة عزل اسطح بالرياض
شركة تسليك مجاري بالرياض
شركة تنظيف كنب بالرياض
شركة تنظيف مساجد بالرياض