I know I shouldn't be surprised, but the New York Times hit a new low on education commentary today with their editorial "The New Mayor and the Teachers."
If I violate fair use standards, please feel free to point that out. I'm not a frequent diarist on here.
I think the best way to discuss this garbage editorial will be to point out some of the most imbecilic commentary on a case by case basis. In general, the entire editorial is corporate education deformer trash talking points. The person or persons who wrote it have little or no understanding of teaching, schools, or school systems as a whole. The following quotes and my commentary on their contents roughly follow the article in order.
1) On the contract as a whole
During his campaign, Mr. de Blasio said that a retroactive pay raise — dating back to the expiration of the last contract — would be possible only if offset by cost savings. That’s a good start. But any sort of raise will require concessions in exchange.
- Really? Why does a pay raise require concessions?
2) On Seniority
In progressive systems like the one in Washington, D.C., which has made big gains on federal assessment tests, decisions about which teachers to cut are based on a combination of factors, including how they stack up on evaluations and whether they possess special skills. The goal is to keep the most talented teachers.
and
The scales should be rebalanced so that teachers who are judged highly effective under the new evaluation system can move up quickly in the pay scale.
- Would the Times be mentioning the test gains achieved, in part, via cheating on tests? Or the uber-popular policies in DC that ran the incumbent mayor out of office? Or the teachers who stack up on the flawed evaluation system? Value-added measures of teacher performance fail to pass valid statistical analysis. That has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt on several diaries here and many stories in legitimate educational news venues.
DC's flawed evaluation system
3) On Flexible Schedules
One of their advantages is that individual charter schools can set many of their own rules, scheduling longer school days and making more time for parent-teacher conferences. Traditional schools often follow a by-the-book approach that dictates the length of the day, frequency of meetings and so on. They should be pushed toward greater flexibility.
- Is the Times suggesting to pay teachers less by increasing their work hours (as if they're all not already working well beyond the end of the "work day" as is) as a function of any "raise?" If one wants to extend the school day, hire the staff to run the type of context-building programming that really creates deeper learning. Existing staff is already working a considerable number of hours with international high levels of their time devoted to instruction vs. planning; conferences with parents included. Given these stats, I'm curious as to where the Times suggests one equitably finds the time to staff a school in a manner less abusive and burnout causing that the flawed charter model they so foolishly trumpet.
America's Teachers Working Longest Hours in the World
Teacher Work Week
The Times attempt to discuss education via this editorial is factually incorrect, duplicitous, and flat-out hurtful to schools. The types of people to who this type of school deform appeals are nothing beyond dupes or the deformers themselves who seek to destroy public education. If one really wants to go see an ideal school contract, staffing rules, seniority system, pay scale, and school day; look at the myriad of high-performing suburban school districts that do NONE of what the Times suggests. This type of backwards education policy needs to go out the door with Bloomberg.
A major thank you to anybody who put the time in to read this, rec this, tip this, and comment on this.