Dancing Lemons? or Festering Lemons?
The Governator is sitting on a live grenade. The 'Dance of the Lemons' law is sitting on his desk, waiting for his signature.
This is a bill he should love, no? A slow acting, sensible reform that would arguably make a significant difference in the efforts to turn many struggling schools around. But Arnold has just spent a budget cycle trying to mollify his educator critics with way more money than he wanted to spend. A lot of it is one-time money, and there was a timely revenue windfall. So far he's not too penned in by his new found generosity. But he has stolen a lot of thunder from Angelides on the education issue.
Now, does he risk stinging the teachers unions by signing this bill? Does he re-energize some of the forces that dealt him a hard body blow in the last election? All for a reform that won't have any immediate effect—it only affects future collective bargaining contracts.
By September 30th we'll know.
The discussions of this bill that I've read have, I think, missed its probable impact. Backers think that the bill will rid public schools of bad teachers in one clean stroke. But it's hardly that simple.
Currently principals rarely take the time and effort to initiate job actions against bad teachers. I don't know the real statistics on this, but the frequently heard story is that it's just too hard to discipline, much less fire, a teacher. Instead, they make life irritating for the teacher and incent them to transfer.
Transferees have priority for open positions in their district, so it is a reasonable solution to a hostile work environment. This is where principals can be forced to hire these so-called "lemons". This is the "dance" that would be curtailed.
If that protection is removed from the contract, as the bill reportedly does, the problem is not solved. It does not make it any easier for principals to fire or remove a teacher. It just makes it less likely the teacher will voluntarily transfer.
I could easily imagine teacher morale being negatively impacted. Conflicts with administrators will be thornier. Rather than move and find a fresh start, teachers will be more likely to dig in their heels and stick it out in spite of the hostility. Also, other teachers that want a change in their career will be more reluctant to transfer if they risk loosing their jobs and their seniority.
The dance of the lemons may end. But the lemons won't go away. And other competent teachers who make good use of the transfer policy will find themselves with fewer options and a slightly more claustrophobic career path. This bill may well be a worth reform. But it does not sound like a fully thought out solution to the problem.
This is a bill he should love, no? A slow acting, sensible reform that would arguably make a significant difference in the efforts to turn many struggling schools around. But Arnold has just spent a budget cycle trying to mollify his educator critics with way more money than he wanted to spend. A lot of it is one-time money, and there was a timely revenue windfall. So far he's not too penned in by his new found generosity. But he has stolen a lot of thunder from Angelides on the education issue.
Now, does he risk stinging the teachers unions by signing this bill? Does he re-energize some of the forces that dealt him a hard body blow in the last election? All for a reform that won't have any immediate effect—it only affects future collective bargaining contracts.
By September 30th we'll know.
The discussions of this bill that I've read have, I think, missed its probable impact. Backers think that the bill will rid public schools of bad teachers in one clean stroke. But it's hardly that simple.
Currently principals rarely take the time and effort to initiate job actions against bad teachers. I don't know the real statistics on this, but the frequently heard story is that it's just too hard to discipline, much less fire, a teacher. Instead, they make life irritating for the teacher and incent them to transfer.
Transferees have priority for open positions in their district, so it is a reasonable solution to a hostile work environment. This is where principals can be forced to hire these so-called "lemons". This is the "dance" that would be curtailed.
If that protection is removed from the contract, as the bill reportedly does, the problem is not solved. It does not make it any easier for principals to fire or remove a teacher. It just makes it less likely the teacher will voluntarily transfer.
I could easily imagine teacher morale being negatively impacted. Conflicts with administrators will be thornier. Rather than move and find a fresh start, teachers will be more likely to dig in their heels and stick it out in spite of the hostility. Also, other teachers that want a change in their career will be more reluctant to transfer if they risk loosing their jobs and their seniority.
The dance of the lemons may end. But the lemons won't go away. And other competent teachers who make good use of the transfer policy will find themselves with fewer options and a slightly more claustrophobic career path. This bill may well be a worth reform. But it does not sound like a fully thought out solution to the problem.
2 Comments:
It is always better to negotiate changes - all parties are committed to the change - imposing from above - in this case through legislation only hardens positions - and it is impossible to foreshadow consequences ...
Nationally Reports and edu-critics have been slamming senior based transfer systems - In NYC the Board and the Union negotiated away seniority transfers - anyone can transfer anywhere: the principal interviews transfer applicants. Last year 300 seniortiy transfers - this yeat 2700 transfers!!! The Union and the Board are both "spinning" the success - When the dust settles I'll bet teachers fled from low achieving schools to higher achieving schools: unintended consequences ... the Board gained national edu-kudos, but, do the kids gain or lose?
Woah. The 1st year where there was no seniority based transfer in place, the actual transfers went up by %900? I want to hear more about that. Sounds totally counterintuitive, unless I'm getting the story mixed up. Either way, that many teachers in flux does not sound healthy for the district or the kids.
Post a Comment
<< Home