Imagine reading the following statement on a website:
We think it’s simple: reward…passionate, [successful students] and hold those accountable who are failing… [S]triking down the following laws…will create an opportunity for lawmakers, teachers, administrators and community leaders to design a system that’s good for teachers and students…
[Law 1: As long as they have attended school for at least eighteen months, this law gives students accused of wrongdoing the opportunity to hear what they did wrong and try to correct their behavior before being expelled. It] forces [teachers and] administrators to…grant [due process rights to students facing an expulsion]…before [teachers and] administrators are able to assess whether a [student] will be [successful] long-term.
[Law 2: Though this law allows districts to quickly expel students who commit serious offenses, it requires districts and schools to prove that other expulsions are warranted]. The process for [expelling] a single [unsuccessful student] involves a borderline infinite number of steps, requires years of documentation…and still, rarely ever works. In the past…year…in the entire state of California, only [8,562 students] have been [expelled], and the vast majority of those [expulsions] were for egregious conduct.
[Law 3: This law dictates the order in which schools facing economic pressure should expel students. The] law forces [teachers] to [expel successful students] and keep [unsuccessful students] instead, just because they [are older].
The arguments for striking down these laws would disgust most of us. Shouldn’t we assume all students want to learn and avoid expelling them if at all possible? Law 1 doesn’t go far enough – students should have due process rights preventing unwarranted expulsion from the first time they set foot in a school, as it is our duty to provide them with a public education. Likewise, it is perfectly reasonable for the student expulsion process in Law 2 to require well-documented proof of the reason for expulsion. Expulsion should always be a last resort, and the burden of proof for an expulsion should fall not on the student, but on the teacher and school. Finally, while Law 3 is ridiculous, the premise of the complaint with Law 3 misses the point entirely: isn’t the real problem with the law the idea that we would expel students for economic reasons? Shouldn’t we only ever expel students if they create an unsafe learning environment for other students on campus?
Most of us would conclude not only that the people who wrote the arguments above had no compassion, but that they also did not believe in educational equity. If they believed in educational equity, they would focus on supporting unsuccessful students instead of expelling them. If they believed in educational equity, they would ask how the adults in charge could help unsuccessful students improve their performance. If they believed in educational equity, they would divert their energy away from expelling a small minority of students and towards creating systems that address the needs of most children. There is a small element of truth to what they say – the expulsion process described in Law 2 seems unnecessarily cumbersome, and in the terrible situation in which factors out of our control would force us to expel certain students, using age as our expulsion criterion seems like a stupid approach. But the overarching paradigm of this critique runs counter both to our values and a logical analysis of the stated goal (“design a system that’s good for teachers and students”).
Though recent movements have increased the documentation required of a school wishing to expel a student for a nonviolent offense, the process described in Law 2 is exaggerated. Law 3 doesn’t actually exist, and we fortunately have a better law than Law 1 (all students facing expulsion have due process rights no matter how long they’ve been in school). An examination of these arguments is still instructive, however, because the opinions they reflect aren’t entirely hypothetical – they’re just marshaled against teachers rather than students. Much of the text above comes directly from the website of Students Matter, the organization behind Vergara v. California. Here’s the original:
We think it’s simple: reward and retain passionate, motivating, effective teachers and hold those accountable who are failing our children. By striking down the following laws, Vergara v. California will create an opportunity for lawmakers, teachers, administrators and community leaders to design a system that’s good for teachers and students. Because when it comes to educating our kids, there should only be winners.
Permanent Employment Statute: The permanent employment law forces administrators to either grant or deny permanent employment to teachers after only 18 months—before new teachers even complete their beginner teacher programs and before administrators are able to assess whether a teacher will be effective long-term.
Dismissal Statutes: The process for dismissing a single ineffective teacher involves a borderline infinite number of steps, requires years of documentation, costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and still, rarely ever works. In the past 10 years in the entire state of California, only 91 teachers have been dismissed, and the vast majority of those dismissals were for egregious conduct. Only 19 dismissals were based, in whole or in part, on unsatisfactory performance.
“Last-In, First-Out” Layoff Statute: The LIFO law reduces teachers to faceless seniority numbers. The LIFO law forces administrators to let go of passionate and motivating newer teachers and keep ineffective teachers instead, just because they have seniority.
I discussed the plethora of problems with this lawsuit in my last post, not the least of which are the inaccurate characterizations of the laws above and the plaintiffs’ clear anti-labor agenda. Equally troubling to me, however, is the discrepancy between our vision for the classroom and the Students Matter vision for the world in which the classroom resides. Teachers and students are different – we should be more patient with kids than with adults – but they aren’t different enough to warrant such a drastic discrepancy in how we treat them. An intense focus on teacher employment law is as unethical and unlikely to improve overall student outcomes as an intense focus on removing poorly behaved students from their classrooms.
We expect teachers to concentrate on classroom structures that support their students. We recognize that student test scores do not necessarily reflect intelligence or effort, that poor performance on academic assessments may reflect a lack of investment in tests, a poorly designed assessment, pure chance, inadequate instruction, and/or life circumstances outside of a student’s control. When a student is clearly underperforming or negatively impacts other students with disruptive behaviors, we assume the best about the student. We assume the student wants to learn and behave appropriately, but that the student may lack the skills necessary to do so. We do everything in our power to keep that student in our classroom, continuously trying new approaches to help the student improve his or her behavior and academic performance. We still implement systems to deal with the situation when students, despite all the support they have received, continue to disrupt their peers’ learning. When we take disciplinary action against these students, however, we stipulate that the teacher and school prove that alternative, supportive measures failed to achieve the desired results and that the disciplinary action is warranted. We then redouble our efforts to design better student support structures that can help us avoid future expulsions.
We should adopt a similar paradigm when we consider education reform. We should expect policies, districts, and administrators to concentrate on supporting teachers. We should recognize that student test score data does not necessarily reflect quality of teaching or effort, that low value-added scores may reflect reasonable concerns about “teaching to the test;” assessments that may not measure what they’re supposed to and that have questionable longitudinal validity; pure chance; inadequate teacher training, evaluation, and support; and/or external factors outside of a teacher’s control. When a teacher is clearly struggling to meet student needs, we should assume the best about the teacher. We should assume the teacher wants to teach effectively, but that the teacher may lack the skills necessary to do so. Especially because teacher turnover is bad for students, we should do everything in our power to help the teacher improve and keep the teacher at our school. We must still implement systems to deal with the situation when teachers, despite all the support they have received, remain ineffective. When we take disciplinary action against these teachers, however, we should stipulate that the district and school administration prove that alternative, supportive measures failed to achieve the desired results and that the disciplinary action is warranted. We should then redouble our efforts to design better teacher support structures that can help us avoid future dismissals.
Students Matter and supporters of their frivolous lawsuit betrayed their true agenda, which has nothing to do with educational equity, when they took the opposite approach in Vergara v. California – they ignore support and focus their efforts primarily on dismissal. We wouldn’t accept that approach from teachers and we shouldn’t accept it from the ed reform movement.