An Independent Voice That Advocates For The Classroom Educator Without The Corrupting Politics Tied To Our Union And DOE Leadership.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
My Response To Bloomberg's Court Jester, Jonathan Bing On His Teacher Bashing Article In The New York Post
I picked up the New York Post and found that the Emperor's Court Jester and clueless politician Jonathan Bing wrote an opinion piece that explained his position on why seniority-based layoffs, called "last in, first out" should be eliminated and be based upon teacher merit. He wants "justice for teachers and kids". However, he does not explain how his form of "justice" will work. The problem with what Court Jester Bing's idea is that he failed to say how do you evaluate teacher effectiveness! Nowhere in the article does he pretend to have any idea how to evaluate teachers. Just like his Emperor, Mayor4Life Michael Bloomberg, he wants quality teachers but fails to explain who would make that evaluation. He, just like his no longer teaching friends at Education4Excellence (E4E), has no evaluation plan to determine a quality teacher. Justice indeeed.
Of course we know the answer who will evaluate teachers .its the Principal and no one else. Therefore, these politicians, ex-newbie teachers of E4E, and education deformers are willing to allow one person who can be affected by budget, ageism, prejudice, and power to determine the teacher's fate. Exhibit A of why no right-thinking person would ever allow this to happen is Principal Iris Blige, who went after her staff and the DOE apparently looked the other way. If the DOE does not discipline wayward principals who abuse their position of authority, what would stop principals from terminating teachers without cause simply because the Principal doesn't like the teacher? The answer is nothing, nothing at all.
Yes, Court Jester Jonathan Bing, it is nice that you want effective teachers. However, you and your Emperor have not even proposed a fair and unbiased evaluation system that would be a starting point to even attempt to change seniority-based layoffs. I just hope our union is savvy enough not to let down its members by agreeing to eliminate or weaken seniority-based layoffs. Just like the ATRs and tenure, seniority-based layoffs is not negotiable.
update: The New York Post Editorial Board has blatantly stated that the Principal, and only the Principal should determine "effective teachers". Do I need to prove my point that eliminating seniority-based layoffs is simply a way to get rid of highly-paid, senior teachers?