Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind
« Math might be adding up again | Main | Competition - From the Public Schools »
September 12, 2006
Care to Dance?
Do you remember all of the stories about how bad off GM was, or is? And now Ford? Did you hear how GM, instead of laying off employees, or terminating bad ones, would instead put the employees in a "job bank"? What's a job bank you ask? A job bank is where the employee gets to go to work everyday: playing cards, video games, reading the paper etc... at the same base pay and benefits for NOT WORKING.
Sort of sounds like paying farmers for not farming, but I digress...
Anyway, apparently the same thing has been happening in schools for years. Incompetent teachers who can't do the job are put in to the job bank. Except, the job bank in the teachers union works like this: If you can't do the job, we'll just send you to another school to "teach" other kids.
Principals call it the dance of the lemons, and while they'll never admit it, it happens all the time. In private industry, many incompetents are never fired when they should be. When it comes to teaching your kids, is it ok with you if 3% of teachers shouldn't be teaching? What about 5%? What's the magic number for you?
In California it's gotten so bad, a DEMOCRATIC state legislator has a bill to outlaw it. Yep, outlaw bad teachers being transferred around just to save their butts. I'll bet the CTA is in favor eh?
Barbara Kerr, president of the California Teachers Association, called the bill "insulting to teachers," because it implies that every teacher who voluntarily leaves a school is a poor one. Some teachers leave a school for reasons unrelated to performance, such as a personality clash with a principal.
Insulting to teachers is hog wash. What's insulting to talented, hard working teachers is giving them the same raises as the incompetent ones (hear me Simi & Conejo?)
Can yuou believe we need a law that tells government schools it's not OK to simply transfer lousy teachers around? Can you believe Kerr can defend the indefensible?
So come on, let's all support the bill that outlaws the dance of the lemons....
Care to dance?
p.s. BONUS ROUND - Ask your school board candidates whether they support outlawing the Dance of the Lemons - see if they know what legislation you are talking about.
SACRAMENTO
Schools may get break from bad teachers
'Dance of the Lemons' from one campus to another would be curtailed under bill
- Nanette Asimov, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Imagine a company president being ordered by the board of directors to hire any misfit who knocks on the door.
It's a crazy scenario -- but it's exactly the way many California school districts operate when an unsuccessful teacher is quietly edged out of a school. As long as the teacher agrees to leave voluntarily, union rules require the principal of any other school in the district with an opening to hire that teacher.
The practice, common in large and mid-size urban districts, is so reviled by principals that they've given it a derogatory name.
"It's called the Dance of the Lemons," said state Sen. Jack Scott, a Pasadena Democrat who wrote a bill to ban the practice in low-scoring schools and to limit it in others.
Scott, who chairs the Senate Education Committee, got the Democrat-controlled Legislature to pass his bill despite opposition from two traditional party allies: the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers.
The bill was approved 33-1 by the Senate in May and 59-12 by the Assembly last month. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the bill.
If the governor signs it as expected, California will become the first state in the nation to rein in the practice.
"There are a lot of states watching what's happening in California, and I think it'll have significant ramifications nationwide," said Michelle Rhee, chief executive officer of the New Teacher Project, a national nonprofit group that worked on the Scott bill.
Barbara Kerr, president of the California Teachers Association, called the bill "insulting to teachers," because it implies that every teacher who voluntarily leaves a school is a poor one. Some teachers leave a school for reasons unrelated to performance, such as a personality clash with a principal.
Disapproval from the teachers unions often can kill a bill. But their opposition was counterbalanced this time by a constituency that proved just as persuasive: advocates for poor and minority students, who most often attend the schools where the lemons land.
"Right now, poor kids and kids of color don't have their fair share of the state's experienced, credentialed teachers," said Russlynn Ali, executive director of the Oakland advocacy group Education Trust-West. "By giving a principal in a high-poverty, high-minority school some power to recruit those teachers, we can finally make headway on closing that teacher-quality gap."
Principals also love the idea.
"I believe in the teachers union, but some things protect ineffective employees. We've got to put children first," said Principal Patricia Gray of Balboa High in San Francisco.
"It's not just about good and bad teachers," Gray said. "Sometimes there's chemistry and a fit -- personalities that work better together. I've got a wonderful staff. I'd like to have some choice in who comes and who's going to be a good fit for the school."
Under the Scott bill, SB1655, existing labor contracts with teachers would be honored, but future agreements would largely disallow the forced hiring.
The new law would no longer require principals in low-scoring schools to hire unwanted teachers. Like Balboa, these schools rank 1, 2, or 3 on the state's 10-point Academic Performance Index.
Principals in higher-scoring schools would have a window of time each year to hire whom they please -- beginning on April 15 and running through the summer.
Under current law, principals don't have that window. They are forced to give unwanted teachers hiring priority throughout the summer, forcing more desirable candidates to look for jobs elsewhere, usually in suburbia.
The so-called Dance of the Lemons is not just a California problem -- it goes on across the country.
"It is the students who lose the most," according to a recent study by the New Teacher Project, which found that the forced hiring results in the placement of "hundreds, and sometimes even thousands, of teachers in urban classrooms each year with little regard for the appropriateness of the match, the quality of the teacher, or the overall impact on schools."
The New Teacher Project looked at the impact of forced hires in five urban districts across the country. It found:
-- City schools have large numbers of unwanted teachers;
-- Teachers who should be fired are instead passed from school to school;
-- Good teachers are unable to wait all summer for the chance to be considered, so they apply elsewhere, usually by June.
The practice of forced hiring has been a part of labor contracts since the early 1960s, beginning with districts on the East Coast and growing in popularity over the years, according to the New Teacher Project.
In San Francisco, Balboa High was one of those schools that could never get ahead. In 1999, Gray was hired as principal and was asked to turn the school around.
But it was slow going.
Gray wanted to transform the school's chaotic atmosphere by setting clear expectations for students and teachers and aligning the curriculum with the state's expectations for high school students.
Though it sounded simple, Gray said it took the cooperation and enthusiasm of every staff member.
Under Gray's new system, all Balboa students could look at the blackboard and know immediately what they were expected to do because every teacher wrote a "Do Now" list for every class.
Teachers also wrote the "Aim for the Day," the "Lesson Steps" and the homework assignment on the board for all to see.
"You find that in every room," Gray said.
The idea was to lessen confusion and help students improve.
One day, a new teacher started at Balboa who had been "consolidated" -- teacher talk for squeezed out -- from another high school. Gray had no choice but to hire her.
"I was forced to take a consolidated teacher on more than one occasion," Gray recalled.
When this particular teacher arrived at Balboa, Gray said, she refused to follow the school-improvement plan that every other teacher had agreed to do and that students had come to rely on.
"She felt it stifled her creativity," Gray said.
Since then, Gray and a few other San Francisco principals trying to turn around low-scoring schools have received a district waiver from forced hiring.
"It did make a difference," Gray said. "If you've got a teacher who has had problems in another school because she was ineffective, then of course the children are not getting the instruction they need. So the children absolutely benefited."
Comments
I know that when I go in for surgery, I am happy to have a Doctor who has been booted out of every hospital because they aren't any good. If it's good enough for me...
Posted by: Don at September 13, 2006 02:33 PMThe worst "Dance" is being performed by some of our lcoal legislators who occupy their offices term after term, doing nothing productive. And, both Jerre & Tim, I suppose you would extend your logic to sheriff & firefighters also? To all lees-then-optimally productive employees in all fields of work? Or are you simply choosing to attack only teachers who have bargained for certain job protections in lieu of wages, deferred wages and other benefits?
After all, Elton Gallegly's mediocre career in the House will net the man deferred wages & benefits, when he retires, amounting to much more than any of us could ever expect for doing a heck of a lot more work.
Posted by: gs at September 13, 2006 02:37 PMGary,
I appreciate you're trying to change the subject, but we're talking about the small percentages (and I mentioned a specific % - you are welcome to argue it, but you won't) of teachers who should be out of the classroom.
But to answer your question, yes, I indeed would extend my logic to include firefighters who couldn't save a family during a fire, or a police officer like Barney Fife. However, those organizations are legendary for taking those types of employees out of critical positions and putting them elsewhere - they're called desk jobs for a reason.
Defend it all you want, but I think it's time for someone to cut in on this dance.
Posted by: Tim Keaney at September 13, 2006 06:58 PMIn all honesty I did try to change the subject but to illustrate your logic. And I can't claim to know what the % of bad teachers is. Is it higher or lower than most fields? I'd think most fields, from agriculture to zoos would probably have in the neighborhood of 8% poor performers or, by definition, those you'd label as deserving of being fired. That would be an awful lot of people and yet the group that's endlessly being chosen to illustrate this problem are teachers, to the virtual exclusion of all other groups.
You've already made it clear that underperforming firefighters and sheriffs should get desk jobs. I can't disagree with that. But you feel that their counterparts in teaching should simply be fired. What's the reasoning there? As a group teachers have bargained for and received certain job protections in place of wages and other benefits so in a real sense they are owed those job protections. Workers in almost all fields bargain for and receive a variety of such perks as a routine part of their compensation package. Would you prefer to pay wages in place of those job protections? The cost could be astronomical.
Posted by: gs at September 13, 2006 08:34 PMGive me a break. Or better yet, give me the name of one bad teacher? And prove they are bad. Of course for Keaney and Reimers I assume a "bad" teacher is one who is not a right wing nut job like they are, or someone who does not share their hatred of teachers and public education. Prove either one of you are any good at your jobs. A democratic legislature also proposed a bill to legalize gay marriage, I guess that means things are so bad they had to do it, I guess that means Reimers and Keaney are pro-gay marriage.
Posted by: Doc at September 13, 2006 09:48 PMWhen debating the merits of merit pay, the fundamental divide between opposing views concerns itself with employee rights and due process. Unions and social liberals think workers should be entitled to them, while businessmen, economic libertarians, and conservatives tend to think that workers work at the whim of the employer. An incompetent teacher ought to be fired or encouraged to seek another career path. I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that premise. But let's be clear, the primary function of the teachers union is to safegaurd the rights and due processes agreed to in the bargaining process. It is the function of the administration and perhaps the Board of Education to ensure that students are receiving the kind of education that they need and deserve. If principals would more effectively pursue their duties within the guidelines that currently exist, there would be no need to discuss merit pay.
Simply giving the state and the administation more executive power over hiring and firing and the dipensing of merit pay stipends would invite corruption and be a disaster in the hands of an unscrupulous or vindictive personality. Teachers would be cowed into volunteering more of their time and would be less inclined to provide input for fear of rocking the boat or alienating the boss. And, like just about any organization, it would only encourage the brown-nosers, back-stabbers, and horn-tooters that many of us are already forced to co-exist with on a daily basis on the job.
If you want quality teachers, offer a good salary and fully fund the efforts that the 95% of us are making on a daily basis trying to win the hearts and minds of our students. We continue to work and endeavor to reach out to children in a society that edges ever closer to the brand of social darwinism embraced by our conservative friends.
Posted by: R.J. Lebeck at September 13, 2006 11:07 PMBut back to the topic . . . .
Posted by: Jerre Reimers at September 14, 2006 07:33 AMR.J. Lebeck is absolutely on topic and presents a good argument against doing away with a working system simply because certain politicos find it hard to work with. Maybe the answer is to replace those politicos with brighter and more productive ones.
So there you have it, Tim. There is no problem to deal with. It is expected by the parents that there will be a certain percentage of low performing teachers.
Next topic.
Posted by: Jerre Reimers at September 14, 2006 11:42 AMI think Gary & Doc's debate teachers fell into that dreaded 3%...
Posted by: Don at September 14, 2006 01:16 PMI noticed Keaney and Reimers did not answer my question. Don you sound like a masterdebater.
Posted by: Doc at September 14, 2006 04:48 PMWow! Jerre tries to stop the discussion???? What scared you in the previous writing to make you throw in the white towel so quickly, Jerre!!
Posted by: tsunami at September 14, 2006 04:48 PMAs stated before there is no problem to deal with. It is expected by the parents that there will be a certain percentage of low performing teachers.
It's very sad actually that this becomes a discussion of job and wage protections. Let's do some math:
Let's assume an average, larger school district has 800 full-time teachers. And let's assume, just for argument sake, that 3% of them should not be teaching. That's 24 teachers. That doesn't sound tragic...except when you keep doing the math...
So we also assume an average class size of 20 kids.
24 teachers times 20 kids equals 480 students who may not learn a whole lot this year, or who may be permanently turned off school and learning in general.
And that's 480 kids every year, in every district. and so on and so on...
Let's say a district has 3000 teachers - that's 1800 very unhappy kids...
And so on.
Aren't we glad we now have those union protections for those 3% of teachers who shouldn't be teaching?
So yes, I will go ahead and say they should be fired. To say anything else is to say teacher wage, benefit and job protections supercede the needs of the schools to provide an education to all.
Which is absurd.
Posted by: Tim Keaney at September 16, 2006 07:06 AMTim,
Teacher associations do protect the fundamental rights of a teacher. Associations, as do business/industrial unions, ensure that due process of law is provided to any member. Associations don't magically keep teachers from being fired; they ensure law and procedures are followed [just as the administrators do]. If a principal/district administrator follows the protocol necessary to terminate an employee, that employee leaves.
So, why the attack on teachers, Tim?
Your intro states you look for solutions. Lately all I've read on this blog is 'whine' and old cheese.
Let's start with one area of education: the teacher in the classroom. [oh, assume it's one of the 97% of quality teachers]. What do YOU propose schools and the teachers in the classroom need to be more effective? What would YOU do to improve public education... let's keep it at the school and classroom level for starters, if you choose to respond.
Thanks,
Sue
Its apparent that today's politicians find their work to be "a hard job" and so there's a trend on to make those jobs easier by changing the playing fields in favor of those who really shouldn't be doing those jobs. This is happening daily as the White House tries to eliminate civil rights and established laws that the president finds too complicated to understand or work with. It happens in Sacramento when our Governor decides it's too bothersome to work with a representative legislature and thus appeals directly to the Voters, backed up by $100M campaigns. And its happening on the local level as politicians and community leaders seek to change the laws to favor their agendas, when those laws get in their way. As sjlebeck has pointed out, there ARE protocols to deal with bad teachers IF school boards are willing to do the work AND if they have due cause. Ignoring this point is simply looking for an excuse to ease up on those protocols, which makes it easier to fire teachers that certain politicians and community leaders disagree with.
You got me Sue - you are on to me - Yep, I got the legislature to write a law to outlaw the 3% of lemon teachers because It's a secret attack on my part. Yep, that's what this is all about, Keaney hates teachers, never makes suggestions blah, blah, blah...
I guess when 20% of americans think Elvis is alive, we can't be surprised when we write of kids' education in favor of teacher "rights"
Posted by: Tim Keaney at September 18, 2006 05:12 AMSo do you have any solutions or do you choose to mock people on the blog?
Posted by: Hmmm... at September 24, 2006 03:41 PMAlan,
After two years of offering solutions and debate, I think I've made my point.
Now do you have solutions Alans, or do you prefer to just being the only comment maker on this thread.
Alan?
Posted by: Tim Keaney at September 24, 2006 06:04 PMI don't have solutions because I don't think the educational system is broken.
My problem was not with your "lack of answers" it was with your approach to answering Sue's questions. You stated earlier that the 3% of "bad" teachers can be multiplied out to the students. That's great, and I fully agree. If a person is not capable of doing their job, teacher or otherwise, then they should not be in that position. But what does one of those "lemon" teachers look like?
What do you think would be a good was of assessing whether or not a teacher is capable of doing a good job? I would not look at test scores since there is no accountability for students and would not be fair to anybody to have thir job hanging in the hands of a student. The current system is that new teachers are evaluated by the principals and the department chairperson. This seems to be an effective way since it would mean that people can see what the students are doing in class, how the teachers are presenting the material, and where the teachers can improve. Again, I don't think the system is broken.
It was Sue's opinion that you were "attacking" teachers. You replied to her, but text does not display human emotion, it appears as though you are being extremely sarcastic. You did not answer her questions and I wanted to know why; aparaently my curiosity got the better of me. I am sorry that I was asking about something you had already answered numerous times.
Posted by: Alan Reed at September 24, 2006 06:48 PM
Excellent question! The “dance” has been going on far too long. Perhaps Arleigh can tell us how this problem can be resolved. Surely the union could join with the local schools boards to stop the “dance”. I know that the union wants to do what’s best for the kids.
Posted by: Jerre Reimers at September 13, 2006 11:46 AM