Bad Cops and "Bad" Teachers

“Bad Teachers?”

       While Trump disses the WaPo as a “liberal, etc.…. newspaper” (and in general it is, by his fascist, piss poor, standards), the Post does run op-eds which, while not really as Far Right as Trump or Genghis Khan, are not liberal in bent. This is one such. It ran yesterday. I’m cut and pasting some of the article since reading it is necessary to understanding my follow-on comments on the subject. I’m a retired public-school teacher, but I have former colleagues still in the trenches This is for them.

“Purging police of bad cops will require doing something Democrats have long opposed” Op-Ed by Marc A. Theissen,

Washington Post 6/11/2020

        “In the wake of the brutal death of George Floyd, the radical left is demanding that we “defund the police.” That is insanity. The vast majority of police officers are honorable men and women who risk their lives every day to protect our communities. We don’t need to “dismantle” the police; we need to purge our police departments of bad cops. And that will require doing something Democrats have long opposed — reform collective bargaining.

        Just as teachers’ unions make it nearly impossible to fire bad teachers, police unions make it nearly impossible to fire bad cops. ……

…. Like police unions, the Wisconsin teachers unions had negotiated agreements that tied the hands of supervisors in disciplining chronically bad performers. Instead of being removed, bad teachers were moved around from school to school. Act 10 allowed school officials to hire and fire based on merit and pay based on performance. Good teachers got rewarded while bad teachers got the boot.

Walker exempted police unions from Act 10 because he could not afford the risk of a police strike during the fight over the bill… but he says the time has come to reform collective bargaining for police as well: …..He says good cops have an interest in eliminating the provisions that protect bad ones. “The overwhelming majority of people in law enforcement are exceptional,” he says. “But I also believe that bad actors are a threat to them. As we see [in the case of George Floyd], they get tarnished by the bad actions of a very small percentage of people in the profession, and it makes their already dangerous jobs that much more dangerous.”

If we want to stop police misconduct, the answer is not to defund the police. We need more good cops, not fewer. But for the left, it is much easier to go after the police as an institution — or the president, who has no role in setting local police policies —{me: but does have a huge impact in shaping public opinion in support of all law enforcement, even the few truly rotten apples}  than the local Democratic political leaders and union officials who enter into collective-bargaining agreements that shelter bad cops.”

        Off the top, no single entity, management or labor can, unilaterally, enter into any collective bargaining agreement. Any such agreement is entered into consensually by both sides. Otherwise it isn’t an “agreement” huh?  Have unions been unreasonable in some instances?  Yes, I would agree that some have, but they didn’t do it alone.

          In fact many of the union contracts referred to by conservatives as abusive or excessively favorable to labor reflect the fact that when they were initially negotiated, post WWII,  the US had sufficient raw materials and control of world markets, having remained untouched by the war as far as industry was concerned. The US auto industry, as an example, set the stage for current abusive contracts and provisions in two ways. First because of the competition between US auto makers, a threat of strike at Ford (just as an example), while GM and Chrysler maintained production, made Ford unwilling to hold out for conditions they could reasonably concede. Second, as workers around the world were gaining concessions related to quality of work life and employee involvement in some workplace decisions, the US big three refused to even consider such things, instead since we controlled most auto production and were flush with cash, simply  throwing money at the unions vice improving working conditions was pretty much the norm during the late 40s and 50s. This strategy, commonly called “welfare capitalism”, looked less and less attractive by the early 60s but by then the horse had left the barn,     

       As usual with Post op-eds and unlike the Far-Right mouthpieces such as Malkin, Ahlgren, et al, this one contains some significant grains of truth or well stated opinion, while failing to make several significant differentiations. Where it derails is in measuring law enforcement and teachers’ unions by the same standards, regardless of huge disparities in the “mission”, with the same yardstick.  That’s why I’m here, after all. I have several advantages not shared by pundits from either side. First, I have had a number of jobs in the military requiring not just management, but educational leadership and supervisory skills. The US Naval Nuclear power program remains, in my view, one of the premier teacher /instructor training programs extant. I’ll explain that a bit later. I’ll address the allegations of the op-ed sequentially.   

“the Wisconsin teachers unions had negotiated agreements that tied the hands of supervisors in disciplining chronically bad performers..” 

       While it’s theoretically possible for this to be true, acceding to such a demand, if in fact it is categorically true, which I question, reflects a terrible failing on the part of educational leadership/management in Wisconsin. In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t have first-hand knowledge of the bargaining process in that state, but I did it for 12 of my 20 teaching years in Florida for an NEA/AFT affiliated union. If this sort of provision, which is mission critical, (to use a stronger term) was agreed to as stated herein, it is a failing of all persons concerned. Period. 

I have friends, former Public-School administrators, who would agree with the statement and others, more professionally competent, who would perhaps agree in principal but would demur in private.  

       But first, as they say, is it even reasonable to compare Police unions and their concerns with Teachers’ unions? Most police and sheriff's patrol officers learn on the job and in their agency's training academy. The vast majority of teachers have at least 4 years and more likely 5, with ESOL requirements, of college training. Additionally, most teachers have undergone internships, and were required to demonstrate a minimum skill level prior to employment.

        Additionally, one might offer the analogy of the comparison between a forest ranger and a cabinet maker. The ranger’s (policeman’s) job is negative, in that they must prevent illegal acts including lumbering. Their success is, in large measure, gauged by what does not happen.  The cabinet maker (teacher), on the other hand, is evaluated, not by what bad things they prevent, but by what positive outcomes they facilitate. I say “facilitate” because, the cabinet maker, if he is simply given lumber, may well reject all but the best. Unlike the ranger (and policeman) whose job is preventive, and the cabinet maker who, at least chooses the wood he will transform into art, the teacher must use whatever raw material they are handed and are, too frequently, judged with no regard for the initial preparation of the student.

  

       All the above is relevant when we see terms like “bad teachers.”  First of all, the term is subjective to a great degree. At best, the term “ineffective” is less pejorative, but still subjective, based, not on the teacher’s personal ability but on what students, most of whose lives are spent outside the classroom, manage to do on a standardized test.

        Now to the “can’t fire bad teachers” allegation: Again, I can only speak for the district in which I worked, so what follows is from that standpoint.  

         In Orange County, Florida, a beginning teacher, for the first three years, can be fired for almost any reason imaginable with no reason given or recourse. This can be extended to four years, if the supervising administrator recommends and principal concurs.  During this period, in theory, the teacher is observed in the classroom by a competent observer who critiques and gives feedback. While I was active, there was no compensation available for any individual who served as mentor, partner or supervising teacher. New policemen usually work with a training officer, Teachers have no such person, since others in their department have full teaching schedules of their own. The department chair, if one is designated, rarely does a classroom evaluation.

       In summary, if a “bad teacher” makes it through three years, it is almost always due to supervisory neglect. If there are issues rising after that, the key point is due diligence by supervisors. Does it take time? Yes. Should it? Yes. An employee who was worth keeping after three years, of what should have been close supervision and monitoring, is worth retaining if possible.  Suggestion: offer additional compensation to proven master teachers in the beginner’s discipline who, within reasonable guidelines, mentor observe and counsel with a beginning teacher. This could be monetary or simply an extra planning period.

       A teacher who, in any way, actually harms a child is gone, simply gone.   In the years I bargained, I also sat on the committee which heard grievances from teachers whose situations they thought unfair or actions excessive. In 12 years, the group took no action to “protect” a teacher whose performance was clearly or even probably deficient. We did, however, hear cases where the real issue was unrelated to the classroom and reflected a personal issue with an administrator, which leads to the second point.

        I’m fairly certain that Scott Walker’s union busting efforts in Wisconsin were supported by the vast majority of Public-School administrators, since it is easier to manage (fire rather than work with) than lead. While the Orange County Board of education resides in the Educational Leadership Center, it is fatuous to assume all who are work there are leaders.

        Having established that teacher evaluation is site based, little of it ever deals with pedagogy and knowledge in field. (the things the teacher has actually trained for.) Here’s a comparison going back to the Navy way: Any individual selected for assignment to Nuclear Power School for instructor duty was already by close, (almost daily in Submarines), evaluation and qualification, an expert in their field. No matter, no assumptions, the first thing required was to take and pass a comprehensive examination. Following that, before ever coming in contact with students as instructor, the newbie sat through the entire course of instruction and prepared their own teaching notes, taking all the student exams with the class. They were given oral boards by instructors in the teaching division. They then gave a series of practice lectures for qualified instructors and supervisors, with the “hard questions” and concepts and distracting behaviors in full evidence. Following that, the trainee was required to give a practice lecture with resident the Bettis Atomic Power labs technical consultant. (“other building supervisor” in school  speak). Following that, the would-be instructor gave one last practice lecture for the commanding officer who, on satisfactory completion, certified that the individual was appropriate to deal with students. In three tours as classroom instructor, Department senior instructor, Class director and Command Master Chief in the Nuclear power training pipeline I can’t ever recall “firing” an instructor, once certified. (or needing to)

        Now let’s compare that to my experience as a beginning public school Social Studies teacher. I was handed three textbook  for three  subjects and put in the classroom. (actually I "floated" to five different classrooms the first year.)  Admittedly, I was far from a beginning teacher, but still, no one at the high school I was assigned to had the faintest idea of my professional skills by a priori observation.

        The administrative team at the school was a principal, two assistant principals and an administrative dean, all of whom were former Physical Education teachers and coaches, pleasant enough men, but none of whom were remotely close to being able to evaluate a classroom teacher. In my case none of them even set foot in my classroom. Instead writing glowing evaluations, apparently using ESP.

        Good administrators are a teacher’s blessing, and I worked for several. I saw them in my classroom regularly and students noticed this as well.  The best among them had been successful classroom teachers prior to getting to administration. The worst among the rest saw a “principal job” merely as a stepping-stone to the big building downtown. I will not expand specifically on these but suffice it to say we were far better off without them, and one, specifically, would have been better served the county by a career change to waste management.

        Management can be taught, and these persons went through all the wickets, but leadership is learned and generally, I find, is built upon already established personality characteristics. And by the way. I don’t recall ever seeing an administrator fired on a performance related basis. (one in the district did get canned for shtupping a colleague on campus!) That even extends to transfers of grossly incompetent and divisive individuals to lesser admin positions after poisoning the well at one high school as a principal. The “Blue Wall” of solidarity we refer to with all cops only applies to administrators in general in Public Schools. And that’s why Teachers’ Unions matter.

So, in summary, firing “bad cops” may be difficult, but the unions’ best friends are the scare tactics they use to conjure up fictional scenarios related to “what happens if”  and even worse appealing to the innate racism in much of the population they are supposed to protect and serve equally. That last is offered and accepted with a wink and a nod. A close second is the implied immunity which courts grant most cops accused of bad behavior.    Additionally, it seems that “bad cops” are relatively easy to identify, if their administrators look, but are waaay too seldom fired. Hell, the one who killed George Floyd had been identified as such 15 other times!

        On the other hand, any conceivable indices of a “Bad Teacher” (barring those which result in immediate and automatic dismissal and should), are much more difficult to determine and require a discerning and engaged administrative focus, once the generous three year probationary “fire at will”, period has lapsed. As the late Admiral Hyman Rickover wisely said, “You get what you inspect, not what you expect.” This requires “inspection.” (duh!)  The factor of personality conflict presents another issue, and one which happens too frequently. This is a serious issue in a profession where there are no true universal and objective criteria set for good, bad or marginal, if only the classroom is the consideration.

       Finally, I have sat in several groups attempting to define criteria for “rewarding good teachers” and have yet to hear any proposal which is truly equitable, workable and valid. Most are based on student outcomes although in some, in fact too many, cases the other issues in the student’s world (mobility, food, clothes, domestic violence, abuse, parental support etc.) are, in the moment, more important in their lives than  a standardized test. 

        Meanwhile, like Scott Walker and his Republican controlled Wisconsin state government, ignorance has been little hindrance to the Florida legislature, similarly and inappropriately convinced that they know something about the subject. One recent seriously offered proposal was to base teacher bonuses on the teacher’s ACT score.  Of all the factors which might determine a teacher’s proficiency in the classroom, a test taken as a Junior in high school isn’t anywhere near that list. And by the way, if the teaching gig is so cushy and has so much job security, why is it that between 40% and 50% of teachers leave the profession within their first five years of teaching. For teachers working in an urban setting, this rate is right at 50% For cops it's less than half that.