In 1968, Steve Ditko, co-creator of Spider-Man and follower of Ayn Rand, published a story in Wally Wood's pro-zine, Witzend, where a teacher was stabbed by one of her students. The student was chased out on a flag pole by a masked vigilante (Mr. A, from Rand's dictum, "A is A."). Mr. A gives the teacher a choice. He can save her or he can save the student ... but not both. The teacher can't choose, so Mr. A saves her, feeling that in the end self-interest is usually the best solution to any moral dilemma and that anyone who did not realize that was lying to themselves.
The problem with Steve Ditko's position is that a statistically significant minority (and possible the majority) of teachers and social workers would not hesitate before telling Mr. A to save the young thug. Based on the profile recently published in the Atlantic Monthly, Michelle Rhee, Chancellor of the Washington D.C. public schools, would be among that group. However, to paraphrase Pierre Bosquet, it is magnificent, but is it education?
The following are some thoughts and impressions on a subject about which I know little. Any thoughts and comments are welcome.
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."---John Adams
- Recently, the NYC and Washington, DC school districts have been placed under direct city control and effectively taken away from local school boards. Mayor Bloomberg and Mayor Fenty are laudable public servants and Mayor Bloomberg is not a traditional politician.
Chancellor Rhee opposes tenure and favors contracts. Given the fact that the school districts in questions are now under control of the city administration and not local school boards, isn't there a chance that under subsequent administrations, teachers will be fired and hired based on political considerations, the very problem that tenure was supposed to solve in the early part of the 20th Century?
Clearly one year contracts would not solve this problem, as a new administration would come in after the November election with a list of teachers from the other party to whom they could give termination notice.
- Since the purpose of tenure is to protect teachers who are meeting the standards, why should it protect teachers who are unsafe, guilty of turpitude or grossly ineffective?
It seems like the system should be more expeditious in resolving administrative actions of this kind. Possibly, the burden of production/proof could be placed on the teacher once the administrative hearing officer who made a threshold determination that the issue was not one of personality conflict? (Something that I understand is not uncommon in education at any level.)
- It could prove cheaper in the long run for a school district to keep this as an administrative proceeding concerning tenure, rather than subject itself to breach of contract actions every time a teacher is fired under a contract, as opposed to tenure, system.
While litigation costs would bar many people from bringing suit, the fact that this is a breach of contract action and that EEOC/State Human Rights Commission Issues might be implicated, will generate many more actions than you would have with at-will employees.
With EEOC issues, there is a chance that a federal agency could maintain an administrative action against the city at no cost to the teacher, and a an enormous cost to the city in good will. Even if the EEOC/State Human Rights Commission did not take jurisdiction, they could give the terminated teacher a "right to sue" letter and any case brought successfully would always pose a risk that the city would be liable for the terminated teacher's attorney fees on the back end.
- Another of Chancellor Rhee's ideas is merit pay.
As someone who is not involved in education, that seems like a good idea. However, the discussions on this issue that I have read never state whether merit pay would be "case-mix adjusted."
Think about it this way: Denton Cooley saved more patients than most surgeons but he also had more die or become sicker. Better doctors might have higher levels of morbidity and mortality in their outcomes data because they serve a sicker patient population.
Is this kind of issue considered in the computation of merit pay for teachers?
- As I mentioned above, Chancellor Rhee appears to be the kind of person who would tell Mr. A to save the young thug. The article in the Atlantic Monthly seemed to indicate that she was surrounded, as charismatic leaders tend to be, by a coterie of true believers, the "Rhee-bots," who agreed with Chancellor Rhee's selfless dedication to education reform.
On one hand, I have never met a doctor, lawyer or soldier who wasn't absolutely obsessed with her or his profession. Go to a social event where these groups of people are present and you will see them slip away to "talk shop." This kind of obsessive fascination with work is one of the characteristics of a profession (or a craft, carpenters and plumbers are this way also).
On the other hand, can you hold out Chancellor Rhee's kind of dedication as the standard? Is there room in education for what one officer I worked for in the Army described as "a guy who does his f#{%ing job and attends all required social events?"
- Malcolm Gladwell, author of Blink, just wrote a book called Outliers. Part of his thesis is very bright people who come from modest circumstances tend to do less well than very bright people from more affluent circumstances because people from more modest circumstances tend to be less involved with their children's upbringing than more affluent parents, who actively nurture their off-spring.
Assuming this is true for the sake of argument, doesn't Chancellor Rhee's campaign create value for the Washington, DC public schools just by forcing more parents to take an interest in their children's education?
- Some years ago, Hedrick Smith, author of The Russians, wrote that he believed that the US education system worked well for Talented and Gifted ("TAG") and Special Education/Special Needs students, but largely failed the 60 or 70% of students in-between.
The Right wants school choice and to end the "government schools monopoly." However, if this means that we would just change the funding paradigm for what would largely be the same educational system, it seems likely the educational system will still fail the majority of students, possibly at even greater expense.
Given this:
---Why is "vocational education" a dirty word?
---Why do we assume many/most students should pursue a 4 year degree?
---Why is no one ever asked, in NYS, if they have a Regent's Diploma with Honors?
---As Labor Secretary Reich noted in the Clinton years, we have a potentially extraordinary system of vocational education in our community colleges. Why isn't that considered the natural capstone of our educational system?
---What is the purpose of middle school? All the topics are re-visited in high school in greater detail. Why not start students in high school n what is now the 7th Grade, allowing most students to start vocational studies or college two years earlier?
As I stated, I am no expert. However, the subject seems important enough to discuss at length.
Any thoughts or comments?