That was Chris Christie on streaming radio yesterday, talking about teachers. Listen, and then I'll tell you what I think, as a newly-elected school board member:
Early on, in the conversation hosted by NJ School Board Association, he trotted out the now-debunked canard that only 17 tenured teachers have lost their jobs for poor performance. We know that many poor teachers are either weeded out by not getting hired for the third year, or by self-selection (leaving the profession). But it suits his purpose to blame tenure for poor teachers as if that's the real and only problem in poorly-functioning school districts. His plan is to continue evaluating teachers even after they have earned tenure. If they are rated "ineffective," then they lose tenure for the next year. They can earn it back, but that's not guaranteed. It's a great plan in his mind.
I suspect that Christie's real plan is to poison the well of teachers. Make teaching, or getting ahead in the profession, so difficult, that most new teachers won't see the value of the union. If joining becomes optional, then fewer and fewer will join and pay dues. He called union dues a "political slush fund." That's right, a political slush fund. So, reducing that fund will reduce the influence of the profession and allow the hedge fund managers to take over.
He also said this: "If you spend 5 minutes thinking about the teachers' union argument that NJ schools are functioning well, you can see the holes. Even good schools aren't operating at peak effectiveness. To think they are is absurd."
I don't know of any teachers who believe their schools, even very good schools, are perfect and can't be improved. So, aside from a red herring, I don't know why he mentioned that. Except that it let him use the word "absurd."
He does love the idea of charter schools and vouchers for private schools. For Christie, it's the non-union freedom of it all! He said that these schools offer non-tenured and non-union ways for innovation. We can see which innovations work and then add them to public schools. Currently, he said, schools aren't adding those new ideas. Where does he get this from? They aren't? Can some teachers here help me with that? Have you come across some ideas developed in charter schools that you know about that were great, yet you rejected them because they came from an icky place?
The second to last question was "What is the role of school board members?" That one is interesting to me as a newly-elected school board member. Christie said that their role is important. They need to be able to stand up for kids and their families, to be "agents of change" for them, not "curry favor" with the union. I beg to differ. As is typical, it's black and white for the governor. But the world isn't black and white. Teachers and the unions are agents of change, too. I believe that the teachers in my district are smart and tough. They work every day to educate our kids so they will be productive members of society. We're all in this together.
In all, I was struck by how much vitriol he has for teachers and the union. He was calm and composed, but his language was dripping with contempt. He really hates the idea of unions and a profession offering the best teachers tenure.
.gif)
