2) There is no “anti-teacher bias” to his words, either, unless you want to “read between the lines” again.

3) You assert that he makes statements unfavorable to teachers, but really, you haven’t shown even that. All you’ve shown is that he makes statements unfavorable to you and those that share your perspective, as I guarantee you there are teachers that have different perspectives.

4) My “strong reaction” is because you keep peddling these accusations on the comment threads here and no one really catches on (or wants to catch on) to how morally bankrupt it is to do so. If you disagree with the guy, that’s one thing, but it’s another altogether to claim that he hates teachers.

When a person reads critically, he or she infers the author’s purpose. That means the reader forms opinions in his mind according to the words used, as well as the context of the text. Many other things are involved also, including the background knowledge of the reader along with that person’s personal views on a subject.

So when I make comments about Rotherman’s blog, I read “between the lines” and form my opinions. Many times his comments have an anti-teacher bias to them. If you notice, I’m not the only one who interprets his words this way. In my opinion, it’s only a matter of time before the Obama administration sees it this way too, if it already hasn’t. Duncan is now talking about collaboration with “the stakeholders” (as in teachers). Now that’s a beginning!

If Rotherman simply wrote “It’s a nice day today” very few people would take that literally. Many would ask “Now why would he say that?” These people would be making inferences based on their knowledge that he has never made a statement of that kind. Some might even jump to the conclusion that he meant “good news” or “There isn’t much going on so I might as well talk about the weather.” The more literal types might find out where he lives to see why he’d comment on the weather.

So the “evidence” for my opinions are the statements that Mr. Rotherman frequently makes that are not favorable to teachers. From what I know of him and some other reformers (and also by strong reactions such as yours) I suspect ( that is, it is my opinion) that his eyes are on the money and not the kids. Is this libel? If so, he has my permission to delete any of my comments.

In my state new teachers are “at will” employees for two years. That means the district can fire them “without cause.” Basically they tell the teacher that her contract will not be renewed and that teacher is not even entitled to a reason for her “non-renewal” (the word “fired” is infrequently used in education). If the teacher is a minority or a handicapped person or a “whistleblower” and believes she was “non-renewed” for that reason, she can contest her termination. Otherwise, she can do nothing. This is the law.

I’ll admit that a good number of these new teachers are dismissed for valid reasons by effective principals. However, many others are not. This is what I witnessed at my former school within the last fifteen years:

A principal promised a job to a “friend” in Canada. The friend wasn’t able to make it in September because of immigration problems so he (principal) had to hire another teacher, who was excellent. At the end of the year he let the teacher go, so he could make room for his friend. The excellent teacher had no course of action because she was an “at will” employee.

Another principal had an affair with a first grade teacher. The teacher got into an argument with another teacher, who was in her second year. The principal’s friend threatened the new teacher with these words “I can have you fired.” And she did.

An excellent new teacher was let go at the end of the year. No one could understand why and the teacher was not given a reason. The next year her position was taken by a former superintendent’s daughter and then we knew. I suppose in this case the teacher could have challenged it, but by the fall she had another job.

A third grade teacher became active in the union and accompanied an experienced teacher to a board meeting. The experienced teacher gave a speech that offended one of the board members. At the end of the year the third grade teacher was dismissed and the veteran was given a low evaluation by the angry principal. To this day the veteran teacher is being harassed but is protected by due process laws. Her bad evaluation was overthrown by the court. The district took this case all the way to the state Court of Appeals, where the judgment for the teacher was upheld. (This is exactly the sort of case that is blamed on “the unions” because this is what administrators tell the media. The district will insist that they tried, and failed, to fire a “bad” teacher because they are not going to admit to any other reason. )

These are the very things that happened to teachers before the enactment of due process laws. If we do away with these laws, teachers will be let go for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which will be the relatively high salaries for the experienced. I know some people say “Well this is the way it is for the rest of us” and that’s true, but traditionally it’s been very difficult to hire and retain well-qualified teachers and that’s basically why these protections are needed.

Our discussion shows that we all agree there needs to be a streamlined system for dismissing ineffective teachers. But (hopefully) few people want to go back to the days when a teacher had no employment rights and could, and often was, dismissed to make room for the board member’s relative.

We’re not ignoring those laws. We’re celebrating and defending them. Yes, we want to help create common sense changes to streamline the process of terminating bad teachers. We have been making those proposal for twenty years. But if “reformers” reject those offers, we’ll just have to fight it out in court.

And as I said, I’m glad that Randi is stressing the collaborative. If reformers really want to help kids, however, they need to play out the chess game in advance and not stumble into a legal Battle of Verdun.

the Hart, your comments strike me as a good faith effort for discussing the nature of social change. I strongly disagree with your statement that “principals will not play favorites because if they do their ass is on the line too. if the principals are in the hot seat, they will make damn sure that they are doing evaluations in a way that actually favors good teaching (they would be irrational not to do so in this scenario)”

How’s that rational model worked out on Wall Street?

Yes, the overall job market has become less secure and more capricious. Do you think that’s good?

I’m with Linda in celebrating the excellence produced by traditions of peer review and the balance the grew out of the New Deal, and the dynamism of our post-war economy. She’s also right about the inner city world that was left behind.“inner-city” Inner city districts are so desperate for teachers, that the word “evaluation” is never even mentioned. I’ve never met a principal who didn’t spend weeks or months at a time without letting classroom instruction entering their consciousness. When would they have the time? Any inner city principal must be afraid she wouldn’t get anyone to replace teachers and would have a string of substitutes for the entire year. This is not a union problem.

Let’s remember what caused our problems. The biggest controllable factor was the rapid deinstrustrialization of America, made worst by the abandonment of the balanced institutions that grew out of the New Deal. Together, we must negotiate new institutions for addressing the irrationalities that featherless bipeds share.