Tim:

This is one of the best things you have written on this blog and you've raised many great discussion points. We can have a debate about policies, but this is the political equivalent of attacking a candidate's spouse or worse, their kids. I fully denounce the politics of profession bashing...

I believe the Governor should apologize to the public, but more importantly to the teachers who work their butts off every day to make sure kids get a good education.

Scott

Tim,
I actually agree with most of what you said. I disagree with the comment about raiding teachers paychecks for politics. We tell all of our members that they may opt out of having any of their dues go to political purposes, and many of them choose this, and we have no problem with it, and once they opt out they are out until they ask to change it. We do have a problem with Prop 75 because it wants to add another hoop for those members who want a portion of their dues going for political purposes. I would also say students benefit because much of that money is used to fight for better school funding. Do you really feel it is fair to try and silence our voice, and not put the same restrictions on everyone else? I do appreciate your other comments on Arnold and his website, and I will blog some on your site as long as we both can agree to civility. Arleigh

Welcome back to the blog. I welcome your comments, and I promise civility so long as you do. You and I disagree on almost everything, which makes for a healthy debate. I am not interested in debating my campaign with you anymore, it ended a year ago. If you can agree with that, and focusing on issues, I welcome your comments.

I respect your opinion on 75. If teachers have the ability to opt-out, then I support that and am encouraged by that. I have spoken with many teachers who just aren't interested in the political side of the union, and who are members because of the collective bargaining aspect. I also (ok... don't yell) don't support compelled union membership.

From my vantage point, the biggest problem with 75, is that it offers no educational reform. It's political reform, and not a very good one at that. Same with the Tenure issue. Weeding out bad teachers before they are tenured is a good thing, but will it generally raise test scores, increase learning or create more mathmeticians and scientists? NOPE.

I don't support limiting the union's right to use it's money to advocate for what it believes. I don't support stopping corporations from doing the same. I don't support limiting individuals from contributing whatever they want. I believe in freedom of speech, and association as protected by the 1st amendment.

The "year of reform" offers no true fundamental educational reform. The Governor and his advisors focused on what they could explain on Talk Radio, instead of resolving to lead and get it right. I don't think that's what the electorate had in mind when they sent Gray Davis packing.

Talk to me...

Tim Keaney

Tim,
I've said everything I was going to say about the last campaign, unless I'm asked a question on it. In terms of "compelled membership" no one has to be a member. A "fee payer" only has money used for collective bargaining and representation. Every year we send every fee payer a form they can send in to get the part of their dues used for politics back, some do, and some don't. Every member can opt out of the political part by signing a card one time. Some people, due to their beliefs, choose to have the same amount sent to an approved charity and they are not members. Why should we have to go to members every year, who want money going to politics, and make them fill out a long handwritten form, when by law someone who does not want money going to politics can sign a card one time and that is good until they say otherwise. Also with Prop 74 it would also affect veteran teachers by saying if they have two bad evaluations in a row they can be fired, without a hearing and they cannot challenge the content of the evaluation. We give criminals a hearing, don't teachers deserve a hearing before being fired? Innocent until proven guilty? Arleigh

So a "fee payer" is a teacher who wants the salary & benefits negotiated through collective bargaining, but nothing else? Can a teacher be employed by a district and not be covered by the collective bargaining arrangement?

On 74, who does the teacher evaluations? How does this system work now? California is an at-will employment state, which means in the private sector, employees can be fired for any reason, cause or no cause. Now, only stupid companies follow this. Most give employees a probationary period, semi-annual or annual evaluations (that should be written & documented in an employee file) and are then retained or not based on those evaluations, typically done by a direct supervisor, with input from a department manager or HR.

In the education field, how does this work? Who is the direct supervisor, what resources are teachers given after poor evaluations and what is done with poor performers, and at what stage is it done? In other words, innocent until proven guilty, but exactly how long is the trial (period)?

Tim

Tim:

Tonight, I see candles lit at Royal High School. You have done so much for cancer research over the past few years. I just want to say I appreciate all you have done to bring hope to a worthy fight.

To all that read this... Light a candle and hope for those that have been struck down by cancer. Please give all you can for cancer research and relay for life.

Scott

Scott,

Thank you for your kind words. My family has been touched by cancer so many times, with tragic results, that it's a cause that is criticaly important to us. We have not done nearly enough as some, and the ACS and volunteers should be commended.

When I walked last night, I am always in awe by the number of people who turn out, and with what's really left to do to fight cancer. My 9 year old says there will be a cure someday, and I believe her.

Tim

Tim,
Currently the Principal or Vice-Principal does the evaluation. Those evaluations can be used to put a teacher into a PAR program (Peer assistance and review) where a teacher gets help from a PAR provider. If the teacher fails PAR the District can move to release the person if they can show and defend their proof. Under 74 they would not have to prove what they wrote was accurate. Of course under NCLB teachers must become "Highly Qualified" but under NCLB Principals do not have to become "Highly Qualified", does this mean the un-qualified are evaluating the qualified? Also Tim I do have on last question on the last election, where did you buy the metal brackets for your signs? Thanks, Arleigh

Arleigh,

Michelle Foster at PrintMasters (805)527-3608 did all of my signage and provided the metal brackets as well. We used a combination of stakes and brackets.

I don't accept the premise of your question about Principals being un-qualified to make these judgements. I think if the principal makes the judgement that a teacher isn't performing, then they should have the right to terminate that teacher. The teacher then has the union & the courts to pursue a wrongful termination argument.

Again, if the teacher's direct supervisor thinks a teacher isn't performing, and has documented the case in a personnel file, then the district should be able to release that person.

I do, at the same time however, really like the idea of PAR. How does Par work with first year teachers & mentoring?

Tim

Tim,
Thanks for the printing info. New teachers are in a BTSA (Beginning teachers program) and they are not part of PAR because they have no rights for the first two years. Veteran teachers can go into PAR or be placed in PAR. In terms of Principals are you saying they should not have to prove they are qualified? Arleigh

Nope, not what I said at all. What I believe is pretty clear - If an employee (be it a teacher, driver or Principal is unqualified or not performing), that should be documented in their personnel file and they should be terminated if they don't improve their performance. Peer Review, Mentorship and extensive training is critical, as it is in the private sector. But when you've done all of that, and someone just isn't up to the caliber of their peers, then you are actually doing both them, and the organization a favor by asking (and in some cases forcing) them to go do something else.

In the current system, how long is it between the time a person is identified as "not performing" and the time the district has the right to terminate?

Tim

Tim,
It depends on the situation. There are of course some things that a teacher could do which would lead to an immediate firing. With PAR it is normally, I believe, a nine week program. Part of the problem though with 74 is that it places all of the power in the hands of the principal to make the decision on the evaluation and on the content that cannot then be challenged. But guess what? Some principals are petty and vindictive and do not like some teachers for reasons other than performance. 74 would allow good teachers to be fired for reasons besides performance, they could not challenge the content meaning the Principal has no burden of proof. Isn't it the American way to be innocent until proven guilty? Or did W change the Bill of Rights?

Seriously:

How many teachers would we label as poor performing teachers in SVUSD? I'd say less than 3% of the entire district. Maybe, even less than that.

In the context of real problems effecting the district, supplies seem to be a big problem that effect 100% of the district.

At-risk kids seem to effecting 100% of districts in some way.

Also, in the context of emergencies. Are teachers an administrators trained to deal with a catastrophic event? That probably effects 100% of the school district and community too.

So, should we be talking about a way to get rid of 3% or less in bad teachers or things that effect 100% of the school population...

It seems there are more important issues than this one.

Scott

Scott,
I agree with you 100%. As I've said before from a teachers point of view class size is a huge issue, disruptive students are a huge issue. Of course I don't know if the three of us would agree on the solutions. At middle schools in Simi this year we have added new accountability, this is something I fought very hard for and middle school teachers fought hard for, and the School Board is being very supportive. Teachers want high standards for students and we have high expectations. We do need to focus on the broader issues.

Well Scott, while I have never been discussing just SVUSD teachers on this topic, if we were, here is an example: 3% would equal 27 teachers, or 1 per school. So given that, it sounds like it really is an administrative hassle to fire a teacher, as opposed to what happens in the private sector.

I am doubtful that SVUSD is a microcosm of other districts in the state, where lower quality and inexperienced teachers are much more common.

Arleigh, what is this new accountability at the middle school level?

2nd question for you guys. The cafeteria at Knolls school was broken into last night while the power was out, and many of the fundraiser prizes were stolen. What can be done to help these great kids who raised money for their school?

Tim

Tim:

My family sent some birthday money, can I donate some of it, so kids can have prizes? Let me know...

Scott

Tim:

Even in the private sector, there are many hurdles to firing an employee. Yes, we are all at-will, but EDD likes to see a lot of documentation to get rid of someone. Basically, I feel raising the tenure requirements has three problems.

1. There is a long held tradition of academic freedom in the US. By extending tenure to five years, I think you enable administrators to root out teachers who may have unorthodox, but effective methods of achieving the same results that might not be on par with the principal's "way of doing things". Also, some teachers may be inclined to try new methods, pursue funding, and actively pursue their schools, which might not be in the interest of what the principal wants to create.

2. This throws the baby out with the bathwater in my opinion. Why should high performing teachers suddenly have to wait five years to receive tenure because of a small few? Seems like they are punishing a lot of high qualified teachers who have jumped through the hoops of the credential process.

3. It doesn't deal with the problem why poor teachers cannot be identified in three years. Honestly, if a poor performing teacher cannot be identified in three years, I think I question management more than the the employee. It doesn't take three years for private business to identify a problem. What's the deal with the administrator?

Thoughts...

Scott

Scott,

I completely agree. Schools should react much faster, have much more incentive and be more proactive in both teacher training, retention systems and weeding out poor performers. I am not saying the private sector is perfect for this, or even the model. There are lousy employees in every company or organization.

Tenure is exactly what you describe at the college (and even high school in some cases) level, but does this really apply in k-5?

Tim

More on this issue from the Sac Bee:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/13636270p-14478771c.html

Tim

There is nothing in Prop 74 or the Ed Code section 44660 that gives a principal total control over the teacher reviews and thus firing. The Ed code authorizes the board to "establish a uniform system of evaluation and assessment of the performance of all certificated personnel". All personnel reviews are reviewed by the director and the superintendant if necessary. No personality conflict with a principal can lead to a termination unless the administration, School Board and union are all not doing their job.

Greg,

Welcome to the blog and thanks for your comments. Your information is helpful. I am sure there is stuff you cannot comment on, because it affects personnel. But my question for you is this. Does 74 provide enough "reform" to really make a difference in California's education system?

What would?

Tim

Prop 74 would have a very minimal impact to a district like Simi Valley. We do occaisionally have a teacher who is iffy at two years, so a few more years of probation would be a help. It's a step in reform, but a small step.

Prop 74 may be of more importance to districts that aren't as desirable for new teachers. It would give them a little longer to find a replacement for a marginal teacher. In districts with hiring problems, there is pressure to keep each teacher, no matter what. This could help reduce those pressures.

The basic problem is the homogeneity of the pay system - as if all teachers are equal and simply get better with age. That is not realistic and causes lots of 'issues' between teachers. We need to create promotional opportunities so that more challenging positions can be better paid. We are doing some of this with lead teachers and dept head stipends, but the system is inconsistant and really needs an overhaul.

Greg,

It's very interesting. Seems to me against human nature to just accept to earn what your peers earn, regardless of capability and performance.

I have gone ahead and posted all of the relevant Prop 74 information under a seperate heading. Should be quite the debate.

Tim