Why is the closing of the rubber rooms important?  In the Bloomberg and Klein era of NYC public school education, the battles to maintain control over the schools have been and continue to be fought between the media, the UFT, and NYCDOE.  On the one hand, there is a mayor and school chancellor who want to prove that control of the city school systems should rest with City Hall.  On the other hand, there is a very powerful union that would like to remain powerful by flexing their political muscles.   Over the course of his reign, Bloomberg through Klein, have wrestled hard with the UFT to remove incompetent teachers and to reform the way that teachers are evaluated and the way that schools are rated.  The elimination of the rubber rooms allow Bloomberg and Klein to make progress toward removing teachers whom they deem incompetent.

As Chancellor of the NYCDOE, one of Klein’s major focus was to change the way that teachers are evaluated, specifically as it pertains to tenure and seniority.  There have been many discussions and contract negotiations which center around this point.  One of the reasons why tenure and seniority are important to reform is the existence of the rubber rooms.  The rubber rooms may seem to be removed from the evaluation process of teachers. However, upon closer examination, I have found that that is not the case.  The rubber rooms exist because teachers who have seniority and tenure in the school system cannot easily be fired as new, untenured teachers.  While their cases are pending investigations, the teachers are forced to sit in these rooms and wait, but still be paid. In a time when the school system is losing money, Klein and Bloomberg want to eliminate the extra expense of paying teachers who are not teaching.  This is a sound opinion, and as a taxpayer, I wholeheartedly agree.  However, as a professional and as a teacher, I am not as quick to concur.

Teachers work with a very delicate population: children.  Teachers are held to more restrictive behavior and accountability because of the population with whom they work.  When accusations are made against a teacher, the teacher is guilty until proven innocent.  As a society, we do not want to make a mistake that would put any child at risk, so we make decisions that err on the side of the child.  And so the rubber rooms were created to house those teachers who may or may not be guilty of any crime.

I do believe that the agreement between the UFT and NYCDOE is a compromise that works for both parties.  Under this reform, teachers who have been removed from the schools are no longer able to sit in boredom in the rubber rooms, but will be utilized in the duties of office work.  At the same time, this pushes the NYCDOE to expedite their investigations. This does mean that the city will spend more money in attorney fees, but in the long run, the city will save millions of dollars in rubber room pay.  The NYCDOE still laments that it takes too long to fire incompetent teachers.  It can take a couple of years of investigations and observations to permanently remove a teacher.  However, to strip someone of his or her license to continue in this career, I would hope that time and due process is followed so as to avoid unwarranted decertifications.

I wait to see how quickly the NYCDOE can investigate future charges so that the new complaints will not be that there are too many teachers out of the classroom performing menial, office work.

U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
(LBJ Education Building, 7W311)

Washington, D.C. 20202

Dear Secretary Arne Duncan -

What defines a good teacher?  The designation of “good” is a moving target and an obscure term, though it may be possible to observe “good” behaviors: preparing every night for class the next day; creating new lessons every year to keep the curriculum innovative and fresh; continually working to develop themselves professionally. Really good teachers realize that by taking a personal day off, the children’s learning suffers. These behaviors do not necessitate the ascription–and trying to define the term “good teacher” may be an exercise in futility–but they are usually present. Bad teachers do exist and are the antithesis of the aforementioned ideal teacher.  Understandably, they are the bane of the system and there must be some way to separate the “good” from the “bad.” I feel I am a really good teacher. Last year, my school validated my work by honoring me with the “Teacher of the Year” award.  I love what I do.  I love working with my students.  My aim is not to boast, but to lend credence to my concerns.  In light of the recent political attention (or lack of in many past years), I am beginning to wonder if my job makes any difference at all in the education system, and whether or not my job is worth the time that I have devoted to it. My concerns in recent years have revolved around three main issues: teacher evaluation, parental involvement, and nationalized standards.

There has been a lot of talk about teacher evaluation.  One of the ideas that seem to be on the forefront of this reform is tying teacher’s ratings to test scores.  As one of many teachers who work extremely hard to develop and implement our curriculums and lessons, it is disheartening to hear that you are a proponent of this idea.  I do understand the need to have a standard to which teachers need to be held; however, in linking the evaluations directly with test scores, we are creating curriculums that are test-driven.  Students lose out on a lot of other knowledge, including civic studies, global studies, and even spelling & vocabulary.  Whether or not you mean to, curriculums will include (if they don’t already), testing genres, which skews the goal of education.  We will prepare students to become better test takers, not necessarily to become more knowledgeable.  When colleges and universities around the country are questioning the importance of standardized tests like the SATs or the ACTs, why are the public schools going in the opposite direction to place the value of students’ progress and growth on the scores of standardized tests?  A student’s progress needs to be measured in many ways to fully assess his/her growth. I don’t know the answer to teacher evaluation, yet; I just know that test scores are not the answer.

On Meet the Press (Sunday, November 15th), one concern that was brought up was parental involvement.  I can’t begin to express to you how important that is.  In some cases, what the parents do or don’t do can undermine what we as teachers are doing in the classroom.  There is a lot of discussion to allow parents to choose the best schools and to allow parents to hold schools & teachers accountable.  However, there is very little to be said about parent accountability.  As much as I try, there is little that I can do about the lack of parental involvement  or interest in the students’ lives.  In my years of teaching, I have encountered parents who fight to allow their children to stay at home, who make excuses for why work cannot be completed, and who do not believe in disciplining their children for any misconduct.  These hinderances play a large part of what I (or any teacher) may accomplish in the classroom with the students.  Yet, their lack of progress may be tied to my evaluation.  At what point are parents accountable for any part of their children’s education?

On the issue of Nationalized Standards: I believe in one standard for all students in this country.  Nationalized standards insure that all students in our country are held to the same expectations.  Students in Detroit should expect to be taught what the students in Scarsdale are taught.  At no point should we “dumb down” our expectations or curriculums for the students in our community.   If we want to accurately measure the progress of the students in this country, we need to be able to assess students using the same rubric.  I am not saying that lessons and curriculums needs to be exactly the same; I’m saying that the information that students are taught and the skills that they learn should be equal.  There is no reason why students who pass a New York State test shouldn’t also be able to pass a California state test.

Finally, I’d like to close with one thought for your tenure as Education Secretary.  You need to include teachers in the forming of education policy and standards.  As a country, we seek and expect changes to the education system because we expect and want our students to be successful.  However, many people who make these policies are out of touch with the day-to-day teachings in a classroom. Visiting a school for one hour or for one day to meet with teachers, students, and administrators does not provide an accurate or true picture of what goes on in the school.  Whether or not you realize this, there is a level of performance that is staged for you.  To have a well-rounded discussion of where to direct our schools, teachers, parents, and students, we need fair and accurate representation from those directly involved.

I have high hopes for what you can accomplish as our new Secretary of Education, particularly under the Obama administration.

Thank you for your time.

Ronald Reagan decided that the first Thursday in May would be National Prayer Day (NPD), so today is National Prayer Day.  The question that so needs to be answered in light of this day is: Why does the United States of America even have a National Prayer Day? Isn’t there supposed to be a separation between state and church?  Isn’t that one reason why the First Amendment is so important?  Thomas Jefferson wrote that the government had no direct authority over the religious practices of the American people.  So why has our government created a National Prayer Day?!

In today’s Washington Times, President Obama was criticized by several Christian organizations for not publicly observing or celebrating NPD.  Instead, he chose to observe the day in private, as religion is a private issue.  The  Concerned Women for America  said that the president should “put aside his own lack of faith, and live up to the office.”  Someone tell her that he IS doing that!  He is keeping his personal beliefs separate from what he needs to do as president.

It is also ridiculous that Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Prayer Day Committee, should object to Obama’s personal decisions when she would not allow Mormons to hold religious services on NPD in 2004.  It seems that what Dobson truly objects to is the missed opportunity to hang with the president.  If Dobson, and other religious organizations, are so gung-ho about celebrating this day of prayer, then all people of all religions should be able to pray as they wish.  No one religion should determine who gets to participate and who does not.  Additionally, no one should have to pray either.  No religion or person should condemn nor direct any individual’s or group’s religious activities.

I have serious issues with these Christians who object to Oabama’s statement that the US is not a Christian nation.  In my opinion, we are not.  He was absolutely correct in stating that the United States is not a Christian nation because we DO NOT have a national religion.    We are a nation of different cultures, languages, and religions. Rather, he is stating what is true; we are a nation of many religions.  Why is that wrong?  Why can’t we acknowledge that  there are  other religions?  What is wrong with these Christians who say stupid things in public that reflect on their religion?  Do they realize that it is the stupid sqaubbles that cause wars?!

I also take issue with these leaders of the Christian Churches who decide who may or may not attend service, receive communion, etc.  Since when did they become dictators?  Is Christianity a religion that excludes people who don’t follow their “rules” to the t?  If so, then most people are not truly Christians, and this is truly not a Christian nation.  Also, these leaders need to look within their own organizations, and deny all religious services to their own priests and archibishops.  Hypocrites.

Powell goes on to opine about the ways in which China may work towards “fixing” their economy.  I am not an economist, nor do I work in the financial industry.  However, one of Powell’s suggestions really irk me in its ridiculousness.  In addition to stating that the Chinese economy should be more like the U.S’, he says that, “Chinese consumers can [spend] more and [reduce] their stratospherically high national household savings rate, which stands at more than 25%, compared with a savings rate in the U.S. that hovers near zero.”  He goes on to claim that “The Chinese save much of what they earn because the government has yet to provide the web of social services available in other countries.  China’s national social-security system and government health-insurance schemes are drastically underfunded; moreover, they don’t cover the millions of migrant workers who helped power the country to high growth but are now being laid off.”  I nearly choked on my Chinese food. For real?

Powell has been a writer for TIME, CNN, and Fortune magazines, so I am sure that he does have much more knowledge than I do about the economies of the world, among other things.  However, I really took issue with what he says.

#1 – Why SHOULDN’T people save their money?  It’s not just the Chinese people in China; the question applies to everyone in the world.  The U.S. is a country that lives on debt.  Americans borrow money from banks and credit card companies to maintain the often frivolous lifestyles that we want.  We continuously pay down the interest that we owe, and not the principal.  We expect our parents or Uncle Sam to bail us out when we can’t make those payments.  And when worse comes to worse, we stiff those institutions that lent us the money to begin with.  We will never truly own anything of value because we will always owe someone else money.  So really, why would you want to save? Why wouldn’t anyone want to live a life of debt?  For whatever the reason the Chinese people save, I think it is THEIR model that the Americans should model. Powell also states that Chinese people accumulate large nest eggs because  they only have one child who can take care of them when they are older.  It is a cultural tradition that the children care for the parents.  In the U.S., there isn’t such a demand or expectation, which means that parents are pretty much living on their own savings (or lack of) and their $500/month social security checks.  Which is MORE reason why people should save.  Who can survive on $500/month without supplemental income?

#2 – It is true that the Chinese government does not have the social securities in place for its people. They don’t have adequate health care for all the workers in the force.  But neither does the United States.  How many times have we been told that Social Security will not be around when we are old enough to retire?  We need to put our money in other types of private investments or savings for our future.  If we are doing that, then we are *gasp* saving!  The government can say we have social security, but it means nothing if you cannot truly protect these securities for your citizens.  Additionally, there are millions of Americans who are uninsured, as there are in China.  While China has a national health-care system, the U.S. has none.  Neither is truly effective as so many people remain uncovered.  For many people in the U.S., healthcare is an out-of-pocket expense.  If there is no savings, the cost of an emergency visit to the hospital could bankrupt you.

My point is that Powell is making more of a judgement on the way of life of a group of people, more than providing any real or meaningful solution to an economic problems in China.

First of all… it always makes me angry when people assume that there is only one god, and it is their god.  If you can have a god, so can I and every one else on this planet.  You are entitled to your belief, but don’t impose your religious beliefs onto the rest of society.  I know the argument has already been made, but why would your god or any other god create gay people if they did not want them to exist, be happy, etc. (assuming that any of these gods even exist).  The leader of this campaign, Frank Shubert, has a sister who is a lesbian.  So in his own defense, he says that he is not against gay people, he just wants to protect the idea of marriage as god intended.  Apparently, God speaks through him, and tells him what His intentions are, even though He created all people.

Let’s get down to the idea of marriage here… the argument against gay marriage, for the sake of protecting the sanctity of marriage, is that it is a union between a man and a woman.  Did Shubert, the Mormons, and the Church of Latter Day Saints misread that to be woMEN?

The irony of this campaign is killing me!

When the media’s attention was focused on the Mormons in Texas earlier this year, one Mormon family went on Oprah to discuss and defend their lifestyles.  They had said that they do lead an alternative lifestyle. We should be tolerant, if not accepting, of different lifestyles that are different from our own.  Just because it is different doesn’t mean it is bad.  At the time, I totally agreed.  Whatever our judgments about plural marriage, they are our own judgments.  If people want to be in plural marriages and families, and it makes them happy, then they have every right to it; what is the real harm to society?

My stance on that has not changed.  It just bothers me terribly that the same group of people, the Mormons, are now condemning the lifestyle of another group of people.  How can you ask society to be accepting of your alternative lifestyle if you cannot do the same for others?  Mormons obviously do not lead lives according to our norms; many people do not.  It is outrageous to me that they should put forth so much energy and money to campaign against another group of people.

Additionally, they misled the public by implying that same sex marriage would be taught to children in school.  Are you CRAZY?  Teachers have a hard enough time trying to teach BASIC sex ed to kids; why would we even want to talk about anything beyond what we must?  Besides that, Mormons teach their children that men can have many wives! Is THAT okay, but the idea of a same-sex couple is not?!  Such hypocrites!  We just shouldn’t tolerate anything that is different from what we expect.

The teachers were appalled that black people would vote for a man because he is black.  To one, the idea of voting for someone based  purely on race is laughable, completely ridiculous.  What struck me, after I had listened to Howard Stern, is that the teacher did not mention that McCain’s supporters are just as ignorant.  They interviewed one black man who supported McCain, but did not know any of his policies or who his vice presidential candidate was.  I feel that the point Howard Stern was trying to make was very different than the one my colleague was trying to make.  Howard Stern was saying that there are many ignorant voters out there; people are unqualified to make decisions because they are not informed.  My colleague was saying that Obama’s supporters voted purely on race.

I do believe, without a doubt, that many black people did vote for Obama because he is black.  Is that the only reason why they should have voted for him? No, of course not.  However, there are just as many people who voted for McCain because they could not vote for a black man, or an “Arab”, or a “Muslim”.  Are these valid reasons not to vote for a person?  No, again.  Are these cases of racism? Of course they are; by determining that one race is superior or inferior to another, it is racism.

Unfortunately, we’ve all seen racism play out publicly with McCain’s supporters, who are ignorant of the facts, and chose to remain ignorant.  We have also seen the McCain people/ Republicans try to diminish accomplishments of Obama by also claiming racism with the voters.  But the reality is: black people have not always been racist against white people.  Black people have voted for many white presidents because the white males are the only ones, until this year, who have been able to make it past the primaries.  I think that there is a sense of pride that exists within a race/ group of people.  For a group of people who has been ostracized for years, it is quite an accomplishment to overcome odds, to perform better than expected or thought of possible; it is a huge reason to be proud.

Many people claim that the margin of victory for Obama is very small.  I have heard from several people that he only won because the black voters came out.  I actually heard this from a FOX commentator on election night, after the winner was declared.  When people say these things, I feel that they have refused to acknowledge all the other voters in our country.  We are not a country of black and white people.  There are so many races and mixed races, and it’s ridiculous to even try to make things so black and white, literally. Why haven’t people given the percentage of Asians, Latino/ Hispanics, and Whites who voted for Obama or McCain? According to one poll, 81% of Indian Americans support Obama; many polls showed that Asian Americans in general were more supportive of Obama than McCain; as well, Latino/ Hispanic voters were 2 to 1 for Obama.  Obama may have received many votes from African Americans, but he also received many votes from OTHER Americans.  For that reason, he will be the President of the United States.

What truly bothers me about this exchange with my colleague is the implied message in her comments.  It bothers me to no end that there are teachers and educators who view the world through very narrow lenses.  I worry about the impressions that are left on the children that they teach.

PART 1 – Government & Abortion

Let me get this straight here… we should not abort a baby because it is a “living thing”;let the mother die if she can deliver the baby.  Even though she is ALREADY a living, breathing, functioning human being, she doesn’t really matter.  I see… that is perfectly illogical!!!  This is not a discussion on what God/ gods think(s); it is not even a discussion on when life officially begins.  This is determination by the church/ Church on whose life is more important: the egg, embryo, fetus, or the mother.  Who is the church to decide that the baby’s potential life is more important than the mother’s existing life? Who is the church to tell any family that the life of the mother is less important than the fetus she is carrying? Who is the church, period! To delve into the beliefs of different churches would take more time than I have right now, so here’s the point: since Egan, church of pedophiles & co., doesn’t share my beliefs or those of my church’s, of the flying spaghetti monsters, then let’s just stick with what we each believe.  Egan – you don’t ever have to have an abortion if you don’t want to.  I will just do what my church tells me to do.

The conservative right, among others, propogates an illogical argument, which may be done in the name of religion or in the name of Sarah Palin.  Whatever the reason, it is incorrect for any pro-life person to accuse a pro-choice person of “being for abortion”.  McCain repeated this line several times in the debates.  He accused Obama of being “for abortion”.  Apparently, the word “pro” meaning “for” and the word “choice” meaning “right to choose” equal “for abortion”. Oh wait, I see… again, illogical! [side thought: where did these people go to school!? did they not learn math, vocabulary, or LOGIC?!?!]  Pro-choice people do not push pregnant women to have abortions; pro-choice people are not promoting abortion as a means of birth-control. They just believe in the right for every person to think for him/herself.

Pro-choice is simply the right for every person to choose what to do with your own body.  Every man and woman should be able to decide that they want to tattoo their entire body, that they want to have a vasectomy, that they want to donate a kidney, or that they want to have an abortion.  This is a personal matter, much like whom you decide to marry or vote for, that the government should not and cannot regulate.  For a party that believes in less government interference and regulation, they sure like to stick their noses into other people’s business.

PART 2 – Church & Education

A university may be founded by certain people of certain religions, and may regularly hold services in these religions.  However, a university is also a place of learning where students, faculty, and staff work with the changing social climates and curriculum improvements.  Universities are places that recognize the work of others who have made tremendous impact on our lives.  Universities are places where people learn about other people and other cultures.  The staff, faculty, and students at Fordham University are not all Catholics or Chrisitans or of any one religion.  It is a diverse institution that values thoughts and opinions of all people as to not be closed to change and advancements. If the university’s faculty or board bestows an award on an individual, who is the church to demand that it be rescinded?  Since when has a jesuit university told the Pope who he should promote to cardinal?

In Egan’s defense, Fordham University is a Jesuit university, and one can obviously understand why he thinks that he can dictate what they do.  The same concept applies to all Catholic church-goers.  A big “SURPIRSE” to all Catholic church-goers who did not know or understand that Egan actually dictates your every move.

What matters more to me in this situation is that the church, any church, should not dictate the actions of universities or the path of education.  It is through a free & unfiltered education that people are able to explore and discover innovative ideas.  Education promotes free-thinking, debates, and questions that allow people to  continuously seek answers, paths, and even religions.

The presentation of the award to Justice Breyer by Fordham University would be a great opportunity for the church, Egan, or any other person to discuss the accomplishments of Breyer.  In this discussion, one may debate Breyer’s decision on the Nebraska case, the selection of Breyer for this particular award, or the issue of abortion in general.  Whereever the discussion leads, it is understood that this is a decision made by the University faculty, who chose Breyer not just for his decision on one Supreme Court Case, but for the many choices he has made over a long career.

PART 3 – Friends

One friend cannot tell another friend that you cannot respect and be friends with Joe, the Judge because he and I do not agree.  That would be childish.  No friend of mine would make such a demand, because as my friend, you would also respect my decisions and my opinion.

Another issue with NCLB is that it expects ALL students, regardless of needs, to meet the same (by same, I mean unclear) standards by 2014.  What of the English Language Learners (ELLs) and the Special Education students?

It is ridiculous to expect ELLs to become proficient in a new language in a very short period of time.  In NY, students are granted a reprieve for the first year; however, they are expected to take the state tests in their second year. The tests that the students are expected to take are extremely difficult.  An ELL entering 4th grade may only have enough language to read at the second grade level.  However, they are expected to take a fourth grade level test.  This is unfair to the student and to the school, which will be penalized for the low grade that this student will get.

Special Education students’ needs are so varied that everything is lumped together under the term “special education”.  The reason that these students’ are categorized as such is because there are modifications in their learning environment and and teaching to help them make progress in school.  There is not a clear solution to help any of these students.  There is not one solution that will fit ALL students.  So how can they all be held accountable to the “standard” set by NCLB?

NCLB is obviously not created by educators of our current educational system.  A knowledgeable & practical educator in our system would recognize the unrealistic expectations set forth in NCLB.   NCLB was created by politicians for political purposes.  It should never have been passed into law.  NCLB should have been established as a motto or an ethic for all educators.