A Sign of The Times: Firing Teachers For Facebook Comments: Extreme Lawlessness, Or Denial of Rights?

Should a Facebook post be grounds for firing?

NLRB settlement suggests employee Facebook posts are protected

02/08/2011
LINK

The controversy began last year when a Connecticut ambulance company fired a worker who complained about her supervisor on Facebook. the employee posted a comment about her boss on her Facebook page: “Love how the company allows a [psychiatric patient] to be a supervisor.” She used several vulgar words to communicate how she felt about her supervisor. Other co-workers joined the online boss-bashing.


The company fired the woman, pointing to its policy that prohibits employees from depicting the company “in any way” on social media sites.

The NLRB stepped in and filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the company. It was the first case in which the NLRB argued that workers’ criticisms on social networking sites are “protected concerted activity.”

Usually, protected concerted activity refers to employee efforts to unionize, but the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) also protects the rights of all workers to discuss the pay, benefits and other conditions of their employment with co-workers and others, even in a nonunion workplace. It doesn’t matter, the NLRB says, whether those discussions occur in-person or online.

When it filed the complaint, the NLRB noted that, "Whether it takes place on Facebook or at the water cooler, it was employees talking jointly about working conditions...and they have the right to do that."

The NLRB also alleged that the company maintained overly-broad rules in its employee handbook regarding blogging, Internet posting and communications between employees.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to revise its electronic communication rules to ensure that they do not improperly restrict employees from discussing their wages, hours and working conditions with co-workers and others while not at work, and that they would not discipline or discharge employees for engaging in such discussions. The employee and company reached a separate, private agreement to settle her unlawful termination complaint.

This week’s settlement “sends a message about what the NLRB views the law to be,” said the NLRB regional director who approved the settlement. (NLRB, Case 34-CA-12576, Region 34)

Translation: Review your social media policies to make sure they only restrict communications about things you can legitimately restrict, like disclosure of confidential information. If your policies are overly broad, you may be liable for interfering with employees’ rights to engage in concerted protected activity in violation of the NLRA. Consider training employees on proper use of social media.

Can you fire an employee if she ridicules her boss on a social networking site? What seems like a simple “yes” answer isn’t so simple anymore.

In another example of the complex interplay between social media and HR, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reached a settlement on Feb. 7, 2011, in the closely watched “Facebook Firing” case.

The message for employers: Think twice before you try to restrict or punish employees for trashing their bosses (or the organization) on Facebook or other social networking sites. Employees now have more power to claim that such criticisms are “protected activity” under federal law.

First "Facebook Firing" Case Decided by NLRB Administrative Law Judge

Administrative Law Judge finds New York nonprofit unlawfully discharged employees following Facebook posts

Chief FOIA Report

NLRB and Facebook

Hot Doggin’ on Facebook: Relish the Lessons

by Mindy Chapman, Esq., Mindy Chapman & Associates on October 13, 2011 11:45am
LINK

Are you scratching your head over all the new Facebook litigation? Who knows which employee comments are considered “protected concerted activity” or when you can legally fire workers who socially slam your company. Well, here’s a new Facebook case that involves hot dogs. The courts are on a roll, so relish these new lessons …

Case in Point: Robert Becker worked as a BMW car salesman in a Chicago suburb. The dealership decided to host a promotional party to introduce a new vehicle. However, Becker and other co-workers expressed concerns that management planned to provide lame food at the party, including hot dogs and chips. Privately, the BMW salesmen complained the cheap spread would hurt their ability to earn commissions. Management ignored the objections and served up the dogs.

At the party, Becker took pictures of the hot dog stand. He posted the photos on his Facebook page with comments ridiculing the event.

In a separate event a few days later, Becker posted pictures of a car accident that took place during a test drive at a nearby Land Rover dealership (owned by the same employer). Becker added inflammatory statements, such as, ”This is your car, this is your car on drugs.”

A week later, Becker was fired for the postings. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sued the dealership, saying Becker’s online comments counted as “concerted protected activity” because they related to his terms of employment and they involved other co-workers. The dealership argued that Becker was terminated for his “bad attitude” in violation of an employee conduct policy.

What happened next and what lessons can be learned?

An administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that one posting was protected but the other was not.

Specifically, it said Becker was engaged in protected concerted activity when he posted the hot dog photos and comments because the company’s marketing strategy was related, in part, to his compensation. Thus, the posting was related to the “terms and conditions” of his employment.

But the judge reversed the NLRB and ruled that posting pictures of the test-drive accident was not engaging in protected concerted activity. Reason: Becker posted the photo and comments, “apparently as a lark without any discussion with any other employee … and had no connection to any of the employees’ terms and conditions of employment.” (Karl Knauz Motors Inc., NLRB ALJ, 9/28/11)

3 Lessons Learned … Without Going to Court

1. Fire cautiously. In this case, the judge determined the company’s main reason for firing Becker was based on his postings of the car accident, not the hot dog posts.

2. Analyze closely. Don’t fire an employee for engaging in activities related to compensation, which may include voicing opinions about company marketing strategies.

3. Monitor carefully. The court said the company handbook’s conduct policy was reason enough to terminate an employee as long as the identified conduct isn’t protected by the NLRA. Also, remember to enforce all policies fairly and consistently to avoid discrimination claims, too.
 
NLRB ruling revisited: Can employees really trash you on Facebook?

by Jonathan Hyman,  on April 27, 2011
in Career Management,Employment Law,Management Training,People Management
LINK

It was only a matter of time before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) inserted itself into the burgeoning intersection of social media and employment relations. After all, it has its own Twitter account, Facebook page, and YouTube channel.

It recently redesigned its web site to highlight this newly discovered social interactivity.

And, last November it issued its first complaint challenging an employer’s social networking policy as a violation of the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) protections of employees’ concerted activities.

Facebook ‘rant’ case

The NLRB issued a complaint against a company that fired an employee after she posted negative comments about her supervisor on her personal Facebook page. The NLRB not only alleged that the employer illegally fired the employee for the posting, but that the company maintained and enforced an overly broad blogging and Internet posting policy.

An NLRB investigation concluded that the Facebook postings were “protected concerted activity,” and that the company’s blogging and Internet posting policy contained unlawful provisions. One barred employees from making disparaging remarks when discussing the company or supervisors. Another prohibited employees from depicting the company in any way over the Internet without company permission.

“Such provisions constitute interference with employees in the exercise of their right to engage in protected concerted activity,” the NLRB found.

Misportrayed in the media

Many pundits (including me) were carefully watching this case, hoping the NLRB would provide some guidance on the scope of lawful social media policies. In early February, however, the NLRB dashed those hopes by announcing it had reached a settlement with the employer.

According to the NLRB’s press release:

“Under the terms of the settlement approved today by Hartford Regional Director Jonathan Kreisberg, the company agreed to revise its overly-broad rules to ensure that they do not improperly restrict employees from discussing their wages, hours and working conditions with co-workers and others while not at work, and that they would not discipline or discharge employees for engaging in such discussions.”

What troubles me about this story is how it has been misportrayed both by the news media and in popular culture.

On the night of the settlement, Cleveland’s NBC affiliate teased its coverage of the story with the following: “Tune in at 11 to find out what you’re allowed to say about your boss on Facebook.”

That misstated the effect of the NLRB’s settlement. Despite this settlement, employees don’t receive a free pass on social media posts.

The NLRA grants employees (unionized or not) the right to engage in protected concerted activity, which includes the right to discuss wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment. Neither this case nor any other will give employees carte blanche to trash their employers on Facebook, Twitter, in the press or at a Saturday night cocktail party.

Despite their NLRA rights, employees don’t have license to defame, disparage or otherwise trash their company, management, product or co-workers.

Don’t read too much into this recent foray by the NLRB into the brave new world of social media. Until the NLRB says otherwise, employers shouldn’t treat social media any differently than any other form of employee communications.

Regulating social networking at work

Thinking about establishing or revising a policy on social networking at work? Keeping in mind that more and more employers find there’s marketing value in social media such as Facebook and Twitter, consider these questions:

1. How closely do you want to regulate social networking? It is not realistic to ban all social networking at work. For one thing, you will lose the benefit of business-related networking. Further, a blanket ban is also hard to monitor and enforce.

2. If you limit social networking, how will you monitor it? Turning off Internet access, installing software to block certain sites or monitoring employees’ use and disciplining offenders are all possibilities. Do you want to go there?

3. If you permit social networking, do you want to limit it to work-related conduct, or permit limited personal use? How you answer this question depends on how you balance productivity versus marketing return.

4. How do you define “appropriate business behavior"? Employees need to understand that what they post online is public, and they have no privacy rights in what they put out for the world to see. If they are posting from work, anything in cyberspace can be used as grounds to discipline an employee.

5. How will social networking intersect with other policies on harassment, technology and confidentiality? Employment policies do not work in a vacuum. Employees’ online presence—depending on what they are posting—can violate any number of other corporate policies. Drafting a social networking policy is an excellent opportunity to revisit, update and fine-tune other policies.

"Lynda" Posts on NYCTeacher: Administrators Gone Wild

From "Lynda" (who left the NYC school system as there is no accountability for Principals, and the DOE and UFT do nothing to help):

"After began to apply for leaving South Shore High School, I thought I would never teach again.  I even began to apply for non teaching jobs.

Then Middle School 180, formerly of the Rockaways, came calling.  I started there just after New year's in 2002.

The principal who hired me was warm and very supportive.  He wopuldn't even let the district move to fire me when I got sick and had to be hospitalized for eighteen days in December 2002.  He also saw to it that I could borrow sick days and encouraged colleagues to donate days to my sick bank.  He really bent over backwards for me and for that I will be forever grateful.

The district used political games to force him out in May 2004, when he left to take a positioin in Amityville.  Then they brought in John Comer, Jr., a recent graduate of the mayor's vaunted Leadership Academy.  He was also the Regional Superintendent's nephew-in-law (he married her niece).  Can we say nepotism?

Anyway, he called me down for my first preobservation conference on October 14 and the first words out of his mouth were "I know all about you."

I inquired as to what he meant by that.  He explained briefly that he thought my being supported by the former principal was a lucky break, but he really mneant something else entirely.

He was going to use my Chron's desease against me in more ways than one.  He knew exactly when I had been diagnosed- all of those details.  How could he possibly know that?  I didn't tell anyone.

John Comer Jr. is the son of John Comer, Sr., former superintendent of District 22 in Brooklyn.  My father, who had been a teacher for the DOE for thirty one years, had a rather nasty run-in with him when I was sixteen.  My dad refused to be returned to District 13, where he wanted to transfer from.  He was charged with insubordination and could have lost his job.  John Comer, Sr. was leading the charge. 

My father simply wanted to be closer to home to care for my mother, who was getting sicker at the time.  Unknown to us, she had a virulent form of Parkinson's disease that was diagnosed a few years later that robbed her of her life on March 28, 1995, only six weeks before my graudation from college.

Anyway, because of the defense of a good union rep and my father's seniority, he ultimagtely won his battle against John Comer, Sr. and returned to his former school in District 13 until the 1991 buyout, when he retired.  When I became a full-time employee of the DOE in 2000, it was the day before my wedding in 2000, so I was hired under my maiden name.  I couldn't switch to my married name until I had the marriage license.

Therefore, it would not have taken much work to find out what my maiden name was and that the man his father tried to fire and me were father and daughter.  This wasn't about his feeling that I was an idiot.  This was pure and simple payback.

This payback got even stronger at the end of October in 2004.  Two of my studentds came in the room and said there was a ruckus in the hallway.  I gave my lesson plan to one of them,. who had excellent handwriting, and instructed her to finish writing the do now on the board.  I asked the other student to go around and make sure the attendance form was filled out and I would check her work.  Then I peeked my head outside of the room to see what was going on.

John Comer Jr. was physically pulling the teacher in room 306 out of her room and throwing her into the wall.  Some of my students were behind me and witnessed the assault.  When one student said that we should go back into the room before he did that to me, I thanked him and instructed them to follow me back in.  Rather than complete the lesson, we ended up having what I would call a "teachable moment" and discussed what we had just witnessed: why it is wrong to assault someone, why people do that, and our feelings about the concept of personal space.  That was a lesson where they all paid attention and participated, like the ones every new teacher dreams of.

Three weeks later, on the Monday before Thanksgiving, a classmate of theirs, Emani, was killed by a speeding van on Rockaway Beach Boulevard.  Everyone in my classes either knew her or was related to her in some way- Emani came from a big family.  Thge whole school was shaken by her death- so shaken that the former principal, the man who had been so good to me, came back for her funeral.

What happened next sealed my fate.  Normally, the principal would be the school liason to the grieving family.  Emani's mother made it clear that she did not want to deal with Mr. Comer.  Emani already had several run-ins with Mr.Comer and didn't like him.  She asked Mr. Comer that I be appointed liason between the school and the family since Emani and I had established a relationship through her being in my class the previous school year.  Emani came around to visit every so often during lunch time and I enjoyed hearing about what she wanted to do with her life.  She wanted to try out for the Olympic track team and be a teacher.  She had often said that I inspired her.  I agreed because Emani was a genuinely good kid that I knew.  I almost fell apart when her mother asked me to give a eulogy at Emani's funeral. 

Six weeks later, I decided I had enough if the abuse and left.  I studied and got my certificate to teach in New Jersey, where I still teach. 

I could see that the mayor was sticking with his BS Leadership Academy to produce new principals.  If any of them were like Mr. Comer, I wanted no part of it."

Here is the article that I posted on my website in 2004 about the incident with Melissa Gianninoto:

John Comer, new MS 180 (Queens, NY) Principal, is Accused of Manhandling a Teacher; Staff and Union Attempt Coverup 

---

The book on the falsification of records by the NYC DOE adds another page, as staff and union representatives at MS 180 in Queens NY try to cover up teacher abuse to protect new Principal John Comer.

---

E-Accountability OPINION:

There are two very interesting items in the story below about the alleged manhandling of a teacher by a Principal: first, she was 'advised' not to report the incident by colleagues and union officials. This makes us wonder how many other incidents there may be, left hidden by the staff at the administration's - or union's - request; second, she was asked to sign an observation report without reading it, and when she decided to read it, saw there was a false and misleading statement made. This falsification of records is endemic at the DOE, and leaves both the DOE and the Office of Legal Services open to penalties and damages, if they are sued. We are holding them accountable.
Betsy Combier
MS 180 Principal Accused Of Manhandling Teacher 
By Howard Schwach, The WAVE, November 18, 2004
LINK
A female teacher has accused John Comer, the new principal of Middle School 180 in Rockaway Beach, of manhandling her when she failed to stand in the school's hallway during the change of class one day earlier this month. 
Melissa Gianninoto says that she was stunned when Comer pulled her from her classroom and flung her into a wall in the hallway. 
"I stepped from the hallway for a moment to quiet my class down and get them started on their lesson," she told The Wave this week. "The principal came by and placed his hands on me. He pulled me out of the room and into the hallway." 
School rules require that teachers be in the hallway during "passing" to monitor students moving to their next class. 
Gianninoto, who is a licensed Social Studies teacher and is assigned to teach Language Arts, said that she was ready to go to the 100 Precinct to file charges against Comer, but was dissuaded by colleagues and union officials who warned her that she would only cause herself more problems with the principal and would then be open to have her job terminated. 
New teachers can be fired for small violations of DOE regulations under Department of Education guidelines. In fact, a guidebook on how to fire teachers was recently released secretly to all principals in the public school system. 
Gianninoto did file an incident report with the school's union representative, however and spoke to a union representative from another local school as well. 
And, while no other adults were present to corroborate her story, a number of students witnessed the incident and told other teachers in the building about what had happened. Those teachers did corroborate the fact that witnesses supported her story. 
Union officials also corroborated the fact that the incident report was filed on the day of the alleged incident. 
When contacted for comment on the allegation, Region Five officials issued a prepared statement that read, "It is the policy of school that teachers remain in the hallways during passing." 
That statement did not address the question of the principal placing his hands on the teacher, something that is not allowed under Department of Education guidelines. 
Gianninoto admitted that she had stepped into the classroom against rules to quiet her class. 
She also admitted that she has had problems with the administration of the school in the past. 
"I was observed a few weeks ago by the principal and we never had a post-observation conference as required by our contract," she said. "Today, a secretary came to my room and asked me to sign the observation without reading it. She was in a hurry and told me not to read it, I did. The bottom of the observation noted that there had been a post-observation conference." 
Shortly after the alleged incident with Gianninoto, Comer issued a memo to all teachers and staff. 
"Be aware no one is to call 911 without the permission of the principal or the principal's designee," the memo said, although Department of Education rules require teachers to report certain abuse and criminal activities to the police immediately. 
Gianninoto told The Wave she believes that the principal is harassing her. She said that the union was working out a deal for her to be transferred to another school, but Department of Education officials deny that such a deal is in the works. 
Comer declined to take phone calls for comment and did not return messages left with his secretary.
Previous WAVE articles about Comer:
Comer Appointed MS 180 Principal
By Howard Schwach, The WAVE, June 11, 2004
LINK
John Comer, a newcomer to District 27, has been appointed principal of Middle School 180 in Rockaway Beach, effective immediately.
The position became vacant last month when long-time principal George Giberti left to take a middle school principal's position in Nassau County.
Assistant Principal Monica Murphy has been in charge of the building since Giberti left. It was unclear at the Wave's press time as to what her role would be in the building for the remainder of the school year.
The school is in the process of being phased out as a traditional zoned middle school. 
Beginning with the 2005 school year, the building will house the "Scholar's Academy," a gifted school for all peninsula students. At that time it will contain only a traditional eighth graded – the terminal grade for the school.
It is widely speculated that PS 114 principal Brian O'Connell would then become the principal of the gifted school and that Comer would perhaps move to PS 114 in his place.
A Region Five source, who asked not to be identified because there had been no permission to talk with The Wave from the Department of Education said however, "This is an indication that, even though the school will change next year, we are not leaving the students suspended this year. We are committed to every school and we expect that the new MS 180 principal will continue to move that school forward."
Cashin: New Principal 'A Take Charge Guy'
The WAVE, Front Page June 18, 2004 
LINK 
Despite the fact that the newly-appointed principal of Middle School 180, John Comer, has only eight years of experience in the school system and only one as an acting assistant principal (at Middle School 226), Regional Superintendent Kathleen Cashin told The Wave recently that she is sure that Comer will be an excellent administrator for the often-troubled building.
"He is a real take-charge guy," Cashin says of Comer. "He demonstrated excellent skills as an assistant principal and took over the Region Five Science Fair his first year as an administrator."
Comer was the administrator for the seventh grade at the much-larger MS 226 in Ozone Park, Cashin pointed out.
"He supervises more children now on the seventh grade than he will next year at MS 180 administrating the entire building."
Cashin says that she is not deterred by the fact that Comer has only one year as an acting assistant principal, pointing out that she went straight from teacher to principal with no intermediate step to assistant principal.
"I promise the MS 180 community that they are getting a good guy with Comer, one who will be dedicated to the school," Cashin said. "It's good to have experience, but many people with more experience do not necessarily do a good job. There are other aspects than experience to look at in any candidate."
A number of parents have contacted The Wave this week to complain that the region was placing an "inexperienced young man" in the principal's position while demoting acting principal Monica Murphy, who has been an assistant principal at the school for many years.
A new assistant principal, chosen by Comer from two candidates, will come to the school with the new principal because, Cashin says, "We want him to come in with an AP of his choice."
Cashin says that Murphy will be given a position at another, undisclosed school in the region.
There has been some conjecture reported in the pages of The Wave that PS 114 principal Brian O'Connell would be transferred from the elementary school to MS 180 as principal once the "Scholar's Academy" is in place.
A supervisor at the regional office, who asked not to be identified, said, however, "We have an entire year to make those kinds of decisions. A lot could happen in a year and we have not yet made any decisions about moving anybody at this time.

ATR Nomads Angry and Not Accepting Their Union-less Title

At union meeting, jobless teachers decry ATR deal “shell game”

by Rachel Cromidas, at 10:45 am

Tensions ran high at the United Federation of Teachers Brooklyn office on Tuesday, as union officials volleyed questions, demands, and some cries of exasperation from nearly 100 teachers without permanent positions.

The union office was hosting the second in a series of meetings for members of the Absent Teacher Reserve— the large pool of teachers whose jobs were eliminated when their schools closed or cut costs.

The union is holding the meetings to explain changes to the way teachers in the ATR pool are deployed, based on an agreement struck this summer between the UFT and the Department of Education that stipulates that ATRs must travel to a different school each week. The first weekly assignments are set to start going out today.

But union officials spent much of the meeting deflecting criticism from teachers who charged that the constant upheaval would not make use of their expertise and make them less likely to land permanent positions.

Amy Arundell, a UFT special representative, told the roughly 100 teachers at the meeting that the point of moving teachers weekly is to position them for jobs that could open up at the schools where they are temporarily assigned. The previous arrangement, in which members of the ATR pool often stayed at one school for an entire year, allowed principals to use them as free labor, she said, without necessarily incentivizing them to offer the ATR teachers permanent jobs.

Above frequent interruptions from the standing-room-only crowd, Arundell told teachers they must report to their new assignments next week, even if the principals at the schools they were assigned to for September tell them to stay put. She and several teachers in the room said some principals are asking ATRs to ignore their DOE placements and stay on, in violation of the agreement.

She encouraged the teachers to “be proactive” with the principals and press them to find money in their limited budgets to create permanent positions.

“Otherwise, you can’t stay,” she said. “Unless a principal tells you, ‘I hire you,’ Central DOE won’t know that a principal wants to keep you. You know that saying, ‘Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?’ That’s true here.”

That logic sounded hollow for a Manhattan-based teacher who said after the meeting that the normally “pro-teacher” union had agreed to a deal that does not put ATRs’ best interests first.

“This weekly assignment nonsense is meant to aggravate people so they get disgusted and leave,” she said.

During the meeting, attendees called on the UFT to create a chapter just for ATRs and to file a discrimination lawsuit against the city on their behalf. But the union officials present, which included LeRoy Barr, the UFT staff director, rejected those requests, arguing that discrimination is difficult to prove and that chapter leaders at the schools where ATRs are temporarily assigned are equipped to advocate for them.

Arundell urged teachers to contact their temporary chapter leaders with complaints about hostile principals or requests to teach subjects out of their license.

But several teachers complained during the meeting that they had reached out to the UFT and the DOE with complaints, and received no response.

“It may be news for some of you, but there is not union representation in every school,” one teacher called out from the audience. “I was at one school that had no chapter leader.”

Several teachers complained about being assigned by their new principals to lunch duty or clerical work, which Arundell said was not part of their contract. Others spoke of being asked to take on subjects they are not licensed to teach.

One Manhattan-based librarian, who came to the Brooklyn meeting because the Manhattan meeting is not until next week, said her current principal is using her as an assistant to two kindergarten teachers at an elementary school because the school’s library is closed.

“I take the kids to the bathroom every period. That’s about all I do. My principal said to me, ‘I don’t want you here. You’re not going to work anyway.’” She paused for emphasis and whispered, “I think it’s because of my gray hair.”

Teachers throughout the room clapped when one attendee called on the union to file a class-action lawsuit against the city. Union officials shot down the idea, saying that courts require a high burden of proof for discrimination suits that the union would be unlikely to meet.

“But it’s happening everywhere,” another teacher called out. “Stop the shell game that’s taking place.”

Several teachers in attendance said they would like the union to create an ATR teacher chapter to represent them — something the union officials said was not likely to happen.

As the 2.5-hour-long meeting wrapped up, Vincente DeSiano, an elementary school teacher in the ATR pool, collected names and contact information from the roughly 40 people still present, after union officials said they would not provide information about who had attended.

“We have power that we don’t realize,” DeSiano said. “I want us all to be able to share information with each other and see how we can help the situation.”

Experienced v Newbie Teachers in Memphis: A Sign Of The Times

but who is, will be, has, or wants to do something about it?

 

Betsy Combier

 

Friday, October 7, 2011

Tempers Flare at Jobs Fair as Experienced Teachers Told No Jobs

NYCity Eye

LINK

Memphis surplus teachers crisis instigated by policies of U.S. Education Secretary Arne Dancan
Published verbatim from democraticunderground. Indents are article excerpts that the original post cited. Article excerpts have been broadened to include full articles or letters cited. {Bracketed parts} are from this blogger.

"Gee, Arne. How do you feel about the tempers flaring at the Memphis schools job fair?" {From 10/7 post at democraticunderground, which drew from the "Memphis Commercial Appeal."}

This is your education reform in action, Arne Duncan. Does it make you proud to see all those long-time teachers in their 50s unable to get jobs after devoting themselves to their careers? 

I hope they do file those age-discrimination lawsuits..I will be among the first to offer financial support. 

They are being laid off and replaced by trainees from TFA. Yes, this is your reform in action. Proud of it, are you?

Tempers boil over at Memphis City Schools job fair, "Commercial-Appeal" news story link.
Police were called to calm a disturbance at a Memphis City Schools job fair Friday when about 70 experienced teachers were told there were no openings.
"When I heard that, I turned around and told all the teachers in the auditorium that we need to file a class-action suit," said Dennis Paden, 54, an 18-year classroom veteran with a master's degree.

"Most of the teachers, if not all, were over 50. Several were in wheelchairs. It's a classic case of age discrimination," said Paden, who was told to leave the fair at American Way Middle because he was causing a disturbance and being belligerent.

....Teachers said the flare-up reflects anger over changes that allow the district to hire new teachers over senior staff to help meet "curriculum needs."

One of the comments after the article hits the nail on the head.

"As a result of the teacher shuffling, all sections of physics at Ridgeway High were dissolved this week ... Students were told Friday, a week before the quarter ends, that physics classes would no longer meet."

Ridgeway, isn't that supposed to be one of the better schools in the MCS?

How could an accredited high school not offer Physics? Isn't that sort of like educational malpractice?

As for Dennis Paden, I'd have him teaching my children any day. We can use passionate, interesting history teachers out in the new suburban schools. We could also use someone like him at my children's private school (that is within about a 10-minute drive of his home).

Who's Dennis Paden? Here's his letter today about being treated disrespectfully and being without a job in spite of glowing references. He says the superintendent calls them "lemons:"Letter: "MCS mistakes prove costly," from the Commercial Appeal today:

I am one of the many Memphis City Schools teachers whose official status is "surplus teacher." Supt. Kriner Cash derisively refers to us as "lemons." For him, it may be a joke. For cash-strapped taxpayers it is no laughing matter. By my conservative estimate, his misuse of resources will cost you in excess of $6 million.

Last year I taught advanced placement U.S. history, African-American history, economics, U.S. government and two regular sections of United States history. My other duties included coaching the debate team and serving as head coach for our varsity baseball program. It was a grueling schedule that I accepted as a professional challenge. I did not complain. I was proud to be a team player. At the end of the year when my principal told me that my A.P. class would be discontinued and that as a result of other staffing cuts he needed my slot to hire a football coach, I was stunned. I was placed on the surplus list and have yet to be hired at another school despite glowing recommendations, a master's degree in my subject area and a résumé packed with career experience in virtually every area related to the social sciences. My evaluations contain no deficiencies.

Being a vocal critic of reforms that too often label children, teachers and schools as failures as a result of high-stakes testing, I can understand how I may have rubbed some the wrong way. However, when I meet with other teachers in surplus status, I find they too are highly qualified and were solid contributors in their last assignment. So, what gives?

It is curious to me why so many veteran teachers have been relegated to the sidelines in exchange for less experienced and, in most cases, less qualified Teach For America personnel. According to Deputy Supt. Irving Hamer and John Barker of MCS, it is data that drives all MCS educational decisions. Where is the data that says inexperienced Teach for America personnel are worth the millions of dollars spent to lock proven veterans out of the classroom?

Dennis Paden

In my opinion as a retired teacher, and in the opinion of those teachers I speak to who are still in the classroom....it is past time for the person in charge of all this mess to be fired. 

From day one Arne Duncan started by attacking teachers' unions. He only went to charter schools, he hung around with the reformers and praised documentaries like Waiting for Superman in which teachers were treated insultingly. 

I am sick inside over the way teachers are being treated. Memphis is one of the worst. My thoughts go out to them.{Of course it's totally unscientific, but here's the letter grade that readers gave the record of placing MCS "surplus teachers".}

Commenter wrote:

Similar stories in many districts. This is just sick.

I'm working with a handful of TFA replacements this year. It's disgusting that anyone with a brain thinks they can waltz in and do a comparable job - or even do better - than the experienced teachers they are replacing. 

It's like an alternate universe where up is down, in is out and everyone smiles and pretends the kids are okay.

          Another commenter wrote:
          I'm mentoring my third TFAer. This sucks.

The first two quit; one in the middle of a semester, the other before finals near the end of the year. Most of these people do not belong in front of classrooms. I have only met one TFAer I would consider qualified to teach, and honestly that is because she went back to school and actually took some classes on her own about education, educational theory & practice. Many TFAers believe the hype about themselves as "saviors" and do not feel like they need the sufficient educational background in order to practice the teaching discipline. It's sad for our students who deserve top tier, qualified instructional professionals.

Piece by piece our public education system is being dismantled by a Democratic administration. That should make us all very angry.

Another commenter wrote:

football coach wasn't it

a master's certified teacher to teach history or a football coach to teach history, in the usa it is an easy choice, football is more important than history in the usa... in france the schools do not waste any resources on sports, all sports teams are run by the towns/regions and have fuck all to do with the schools, in school you have physical education class and that is it for sports.

          Another commenter:
          Article from Aug. .They fired the teacher of the year. 

They applied for money from Bill Gates, and it had strings attached. 

http://soetalk.com/2011/08/17/in-memphis-clashes-between-new-and-experienced-teachers/
{Ed.: SOE Talk is an outlet for students, prospective students and alumni of the Johns Hopkins School of Education.}

By Jane Roberts, The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Tenn. (MCT)

When Memphis City Schools accepted millions of dollars from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to improve teacher effectiveness, it agreed to tap new pipelines for attracting teachers.

But after at least 190 teachers with no experience were hired over 100 teachers with lots of it, school board members wanted to know Monday if jobs were earmarked for some of the new teachers—and what they are supposed to tell angry constituents.

“Out of North Memphis, I’m getting this phone call: ‘How can you let the teacher of the year last year go when you’re hiring people who don’t have experience?’” board member Sara Lewis said after the meeting. “That needs to be explained to people. People don’t understand. Our issues are (getting) accurate and adequate information.” While Supt. Kriner Cash did not say whether some positions were intentionally left open for Teach for America and other talent partners, he said the process for filling positions was “open and transparent,” and he reminded board members that he has said if any highly qualified teacher is not permanently placed, he will see to it himself that he or she will be.

When the district applied for $90 million from the Gates Foundation in 2009, its proposal said that 30-35 percent of new hires would come from talent pipelines that produce high-quality teacher applicants. In 2009, the district expected it would hire 190 teachers from those sources this year alone. Next year, the number jumps to 235.

With only 5 percent of MCS graduates ready to succeed in college, Cash said the district has to do something different.

“We are trying to change and improve that rate,” he said. “We also have some of the highest numbers of students who are not proficient. … We have to do everything we can to give principals a choice—that is what research shows—give them the latitude to hire staff they need to move the needle.”

The issue boiled over after weekend media reports that the board would be voting on a $1.4 million contract Monday to hire more teachers from an outside group, Memphis Teacher Residency.

This year, MCS signed a contract to place 100 TFA corpsmen, paying their salary plus $4,000 per person to cover training and recruiting costs.

Since 2009, MTR has placed 45 teachers in public and private schools in the area. The residents complete a one-year master’s degree in urban education through Union University and work four days a week in the city schools in supervised mentorship. They also receive a living stipend.

“MTR does not have a contract that requires MCS to hire our residents,” said director David Montague. “What I would like to think is that our teachers are attractive enough that principals hire them because they want them in the building. I would love for them all to get hired in Memphis City Schools, but they are not going to get hired because they have to be hired.”

Memphis Education Association president Keith Williams told board members that displaced teachers had been upstaged by “outsourced labor,” reminding them that new teachers have no record of their success in the classroom. Williams went further, saying they also have no relationships in the city.

Cash said MEA has been part of the discussions, saying, “We are working together on this issue.”

But he was clear that he has little power over anecdotal evidence, and board member Rev. Kenneth Whalum agreed, saying he could do nothing for teachers who say they are being mistreated but insist on anonymity.

The Current Issue: Teacher Education, Training, Evaluation, Accountability

Teacher preparation ‘front and center’

by MANDY ZATYNSKI on OCTOBER 5, 2011

in TEACHER QUALITY, Quick and Ed

LINK

Top education experts from around the country discussed teacher preparation program reform, performance-based assessments for teachers, and how to identify core capabilities that every teacher should embody during a panel convened by Education Sector last week.

The panelists gathered on the heels of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s announcement to reform teacher preparation in three key ways: more detailed reporting of program graduates’ effectiveness, including student achievement growth during their first two years; competitive scholarships that are awarded to students in their final year of education; and expanding funding for minority-serving teacher preparation programs.

Louisiana and Tennessee were lauded in Duncan’s plan, titled “Our Future, Our Teachers,” because of their statewide systems that link student achievement growth to the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs. George Noell, executive director of strategic research and analysis at the Louisiana Department of Education, sat on the panel and offered his advice based on his experiences with the state’s Value-Added Teacher Preparation Program Assessment Model since 2003.

“This is tough work. At moments it will get tense; people will start wanting to point fingers … ‘It can’t be me!’ and that is very difficult to keep struggling through,” Noell told the other four panelists and more than 100 guests at the Capital Hilton event. “The folks who train teachers did not get in the business to be bad … but it’s happening. They have never had a tool to measure their own success that was [dependent] on kids’ outcomes. Trust that they want to be great, support them and challenge them to be great, and you will find that you will have powerful allies.”

Sharon Robinson, president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, chimed in, acknowledging the long road of reform ahead. She re-stated the importance of identifying “programs that can get it done and programs that cannot,” but went a step further than Duncan’s report when saying government should pull the funding plug on low-performing programs.

“We expect programs will be confronted with some really discomforting information that they will have to address,” she said.

Panelists also spent a sizeable chunk of the 90-minute discussion talking about performance-based reviews for teachers. Deborah Loewenberg Ball, dean of University of Michigan’s School of Education, praised Duncan’s plan for bringing assessments “front and center,” but still cautioned that there’s much to be done – namely establishing the standards or core capabilities from which to assess teachers.

“What we have right now is a system that’s entirely unaccountable for whether teachers can do the work,” Ball said. “We don’t have any other occupation or profession … in this country which does so little to name and then assess whether individuals who are asked to do the work can do it.”

Kate Walsh, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, seconded Ball, saying the profession “absolutely needs” to establish common core competencies, which would help teacher preparation programs adequately train and sufficiently assess their students before graduation. Teaching, after all, can be taught.

“I don’t know why we treat teacher education as such an unknown and why we insist on placing so many young men and women in classrooms without giving them essential knowledge,” Walsh said. “There is such presumption that this is just a free-for-all and there is no real training that does help and we’ve got to just dump people in the classroom and let them get over it and let them learn their own way.”

That’s not the way it should be, she said. Anyone who wants can learn to be an effective teacher, if provided proper and sufficient education and training. But what exactly qualifies as adequate preparation? And who will determine those standards?

Noell said that, based on his experience, states do not have the resources or tools to undertake this responsibility.

“My perception is … states currently are not built or resourced to be effective partners in this,” he said. “It is not that it’s impossible, but to have substantive evaluators who are calibrated to judge rigorously, who will travel the thousands of square miles in these states and get in those classrooms and sit down and watch and provide substantive feedback, it’ll be hard.”

Walsh agreed, saying it’s not the proper role of states, and Ball added that she wasn’t proposing that states do it.

“But we have to distribute the work of building the assessments,” she said.

Which led panelists back to square one: Who?

“I agree with you,” Elena Silva, senior policy analyst at Education Sector, told Ball, “that we need to get to that granularity of teaching, but where is that conversation occurring? Who’s ultimately responsible for making sure it does anything and actually improves teacher preparation programs?”

See full video coverage of the event, including Duncan’s announcement, on ourwebsite.

A New Approach to Teacher Education Reform and Improvement

Secretary Arne Duncan's Remarks at the Education Sector Forum, September 30, 2011

LINK

Thank you all for coming out today—and my special thanks to Dennis Van Roekel and Wendy Kopp for joining me here and to the remarkable group of educators and leaders in the field who are participating in our panel discussion.

Dennis has shown tremendous courage on this issue for a long time. He has said repeatedly that we can't 'fire our way to the top'. I absolutely agree with that. He has said that states should take the lead in making sure that everyone who enters the classroom is ready to be successful with those students. And I couldn't agree with that more. So, Dennis, thank you for your consistent leadership on this issue.

I don't think anyone in the country has done more over the past 15 to 20 years than Wendy Kopp to identify the talents and characteristics that lead to great teaching. This is complicated stuff—there is no easy formula. And no one has done a better job of tracking the impact that their graduates and alumni are having in the classroom. Wendy is relentless in looking at that data and honestly self-reflecting on what is working and what's not working in their program. [Teach for America] has been a great movement for our country, so thank you, Wendy, for your leadership and commitment here.

This is an auspicious day. We're here to talk about how to better support and strengthen teacher education programs. And we're here to talk about our department's plan to help school leaders, states, and teacher preparation programs meet the urgent mission of elevating teacher preparation programs throughout America.

That mission is central to the future of our children and our nation in a globally competitive, knowledge-based economy. And the importance of top-notch teacher preparation is now acknowledged the world over.

In fact, strengthening teacher preparation is going to be the focus of next year's International Summit on the Teaching Profession in New York City.

A powerful, diverse bipartisan coalition is here today supporting reform and the Department's plan. It is a coalition that includes diverse groups, like the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, and Teach for America, one of the nation's largest and strongest alternative certification programs for new teachers.

It includes state superintendents from both parties from Chiefs for Change and big-city superintendents from the Council of the Great City Schools. It includes elected officials, like my good friend, Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado. It includes both longstanding skeptics and longstanding supporters of schools of education.

Deb Ball, the visionary dean of the ed school at the University of Michigan, helped inform our proposal, as did Jim Cibulka at the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. I was with Deb recently at the University of Michigan's School of Education, which is one of the best teacher education schools in the country. And Jim has been a great and courageous leader who is showing the way in this field.

To all of you, I want to express our thanks for your wisdom, guidance, and support.

Now, the starting point for this conversation and for this unusual coalition is simple: supply and demand. The math here is straightforward. In the next decade, 1.6 million teachers will retire, and 1.6 million new teachers will take their place. This reality presents a true challenge and an amazing opportunity.

My goal—our shared goal—is that every teacher should receive the high-quality preparation and support they need, so that every student can have the effective teachers they deserve. But unfortunately, we all know that the quality of teacher preparation programs is very uneven in the U.S.

In fact, a staggering 62 percent of all new teachers—almost two-thirds—report they felt unprepared for the realities of their classroom. Imagine what our country would do if 62 percent of our doctors felt unprepared to practice medicine—you would have a revolution in our medical schools.

Only half of current teacher candidates receive supervised clinical training. Less than 15 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools come from the top third of college graduates. And districts regularly report teaching shortages in high-need subjects like science, engineering, math, and special education.

The current system that prepares our nation's teachers offers no guarantees of quality for anyone—from the college students themselves who borrow thousands of dollars to attend teacher preparation programs, to the districts, schools, parents, and, mostly importantly, the children that depend on good teachers to provide a world-class education.

It is stunning to me that, for decades, teacher preparation programs have had no feedback loop to identify where their programs prepare students well for the classroom and where they need to improve. Our teacher prep programs have operated largely in the dark, without access to meaningful data that tells them how effective their graduates are in the classroom.

A good feedback loop and accountability system would reward high-performing teacher preparation programs and scale them up. It would help programs in the middle of the spectrum to self-correct and improve. And it would support states to reshape low-performing programs—or eliminate low-performers that fail to improve over time, even after receiving help.

Under our plan, teacher preparation programs will be held to a clear standard of quality that includes but is not limited to their record of preparing and placing teachers who deliver results for P-12 students. As Deb Ball says, "it's the outcomes of teacher preparation that matter most."

Now, this all sounds like common-sense. But it is not even close to how America's teacher preparation system operates today.

And let me be the first to say that the federal government has absolutely been part of the problem. For far too long, we have been a compliance machine, rather than an engine of innovation.

Our survey of teacher preparation programs, required under the Higher Education Act, has 440 fields that programs fill in. I wish I was making that up, but I'm not.

Even worse, that burdensome, bureaucratic survey focuses on inputs, not on primary outcomes—like the job placement and retention of program graduates, or their impact on student learning in the classroom.

We know, too, that the existing accountability system is weak to non-existent. The Higher Education Act requires states to identify and improve low-performing programs. But few states hold any teacher preparation program to a meaningful standard of quality.

In 2010, states identified only 37 low-performing teacher preparation programs at over 1,400 institutions of higher education. During the last dozen years, more than half of the nation's states have failed to identify a single low-performing program. This would be laughable, if the results weren't so tragic. People rightly expect that teacher certification or licensure should be based on a demonstration of effectiveness. Unfortunately, that's not the case today.

Paper-and-pencil licensure tests for teachers are not rigorous, meaningful, or useful. More than 95 percent of applicants pass their licensure exams nationwide. And licensure tests do not reflect either the skills new teachers need, or indicate how they will perform in the classroom.

Our other teacher preparation program under the Higher Education Act—the TEACH Grant program—provides scholarships to recruit teachers to work in high-need schools.

The TEACH program is a fantastic idea. But it needs to be strengthened, so it can better serve its vital role, and support more rigorous accountability in teacher preparation programs and licensure.

Everyone here knows that maintaining the status quo in teacher education is unacceptable. As the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education has said, teacher preparation needs to be "turned upside down" in America—with much more attention paid to selectivity, accountability, and developing a stronger clinical practice. I couldn't agree more with those recommendations.

So, today we are releasing our plan for teacher education reform and improvement.

We seek to create more accountability in teacher preparation programs, better prepare teachers for the classroom, boost student learning, and foster systems of continuous improvement. Unlike today's teacher preparation system, we want to reward good programs, improve the middle, and transform or eliminate consistently low-performing programs.

Our plan has three core elements. First, it would reduce the reporting burden on states, but help them build an effective data and accountability system, driven by essential indicators of quality.

Second, it would reform financing of students who are preparing to become teachers and direct scholarship aid to higher-performing teacher preparation programs.

And third, it would provide more support for institutions that prepare high-quality teachers from diverse backgrounds.

The first of those elements, improving institutional reporting and state accountability, follows on the pioneering work of a number of states, especially Louisiana.

Both Louisiana and Tennessee now have statewide systems that track the academic growth of a teacher's students by the preparation program where the teacher trained.

For the first time, teacher preparation programs in Louisiana and Tennessee are able to identify which of their initiatives are producing effective teachers and which need to be strengthened or overhauled.

It turns that there is a big difference between a strong preparation program and a weak one. Just as teachers are not interchangeable widgets, neither are the programs that prepare them. In fact, the variation between programs is stunning.

After controlling for student differences, the most effective preparation programs in Tennessee produce graduates who are two to three times more likely to be in the top quintile of teachers in a subject area. The least effective preparation programs produce teachers who are two to three times more likely to be in the bottom quintile.

Our Department would scale down the 440 fields in surveys that we now ask teacher preparation programs and states to fill out. We want states and teacher prep programs to report far fewer input measures. We must stop wasting their time and resources.

Instead, we want them to report on at least three outcome measures that are true indicators of quality: student growth for graduates of different preparation programs; job placement and retention rates of teachers, especially in shortage areas; and surveys of program graduates and principals that look at whether preparation programs provide graduates with the skills really needed to succeed in the classroom. Again, today the vast majority of new teachers, almost two-thirds, report they were unprepared to enter their classroom.

The second element in our reform plan, reforming scholarship aid for students who are studying to be teachers, would strengthen the TEACH grant program and incorporate it into a new $185 million Presidential Teaching Fellows program.

The bulk of funds in the Presidential Teaching Fellows program would be used for scholarships of up to $10,000 for high-achieving students in their final year of study at either high-quality traditional or alternative certification programs. The remaining funds would support statewide reforms, like upgraded teacher licensure and certification standards.

The third and final part of our plan is a $40 million budget request to support teacher preparation programs at minority serving institutions.

This new program would fund Augustus Hawkins Centers of Excellence at minority serving institutions, with awards expected to average $2 million per year. Congress has previously authorized the Augustus Hawkins Centers of Excellence. But it has yet to fund them, despite the pressing need for a more diverse teaching workforce.

I have been traveling across the country, trying to encourage the next generation of great talent, so that our teacher workforce represents the great diversity of the country. There is a growing imbalance today between what our students look like and what our teachers look like. And we have not seen nearly enough creativity and urgency brought to bear on addressing that imbalance. This would be a huge step in the right direction.

We want to work with Congress to build a world-class teacher preparation system, one that provides more accountability and builds better support for students looking to teach in high-needs schools. Senator Bennet has already shown great leadership by advancing the idea of a Presidential Teacher Corps.

As many of you know, earlier this year we requested $250 million for a new Teacher and Leader Pathways program to seed and scale-up programs that prepare teachers and leaders to be effective in high-need schools, subjects, and areas.

This competitive grant program would be modeled broadly after the Invest in Innovation or i3 program, and it would complement the teacher preparation reforms presented today. It would help the nation meet the goal of preparing 100,000 new teachers in science, engineering, math, and technology over the next decade.

Soon, we will begin a negotiated rulemaking process to solicit maximum input on improving the implementation of the Higher Education Act for teacher preparation programs.

Negotiated rulemaking takes time, and we want and need the guidance and wisdom of stakeholders in the field. But I would urge us to be bold and not simply tinker around the edges of the problem.

Today's system for accountability in teacher preparation programs is largely dysfunctional. It serves no one well. And that is totally unacceptable in a competitive, global economy.

America's teachers and America's children deserve world-class preparation programs that prepare teachers for today's classrooms and students for today's information age.

The need to improve teacher preparation programs is urgent. It cannot be deferred. Children get only one shot at a quality education.

I thank everyone here today for committing to the cause of improving teacher education in the U.S. Your courage, your willingness to tackle these longstanding problems—even when it takes you outside of your comfort zone—is helping lead the nation where we need to go.

Working together, collectively, you are helping bring us closer to the day when our education system lives up to the American promise of providing every child with the education that they need to succeed.

A Measured Approach to Improving Teacher Preparation

LINK