Arkansas Blog

A friend of mine calls the Greene gang up in Walton U. "those ivory-towered peckerwoods." We just wish they were as rare or extinct as our ivory-billed woodpeckers.

Did Cathy give permission for her comments to be printed since she writes in her intro that she doesn't wish this to appear in any blog, etc.?

Cathy is right about the fact that the LRCTA has been more in sync with LRSD over the past few years and has been a strong voice for student and teacher issues.

Andrew Rotherham and a colleague have edited the most comprehensive study on collective bargaining and its impact on public education. It is filled with the most reliable and latest research and is written by some of the best researchers and commenters in the field of education research. One doesn't have to question their methodology or motives as one must do when dealing with papers presented by Greene, et al.

I recommend that both sides of this issue read this book. Maybe it will help them in finding a suitable middle ground that both will come to appreciate in the future.

ARK. BLOG: I didn't receive the mail from Cathy.

Jake,

You're work as the LRSD apologist never ends. As usual you attack the person who makes legitimate complaints of the LRCTA. The editorial brings up legitimate abuses that need attention. It clearly shows how the LRCTA has prevented reforms and improvements that would help the children. I wouldn't be surprised if you were the type of slacker teacher that the author takes issue with over the 4-5 day regular vacations. The LRCTA has had far too much control over the district for years. They have protected bad and incompetent teachers. Some of the teachers have been so bad that they've rewarded them with promotions to LRSD administration. What a deal - they can't fire them, so they have to promote them to get them the hell out of the classroom. It's time to clean house at the LRSD. The sooner the school board decides that the LRSD is not a jobs program the better.

And, as usual, you fail to realize that undocumented anecdotal evidence is not good research methodology. Greene, et al, are the ones who need to apologize for such sloppy research work and writing. One would think that you work for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and are their chief apologist (or wretch).

So, let's stick to the issue of teacher absenteeism and use facts instead of feelings. Click on name for an ERIC abstract that summarizes 12 researches on the subject and makes many recommendations.

Again, one notices the lack of research you post Severus to support your "claims." You have a lot of empty rhetorical phrases with no substance in your rant. In doing a search for research on teacher absenteeism, I found far better material and more substantively research-backed information than what came from the Op-Ed article posted by the Dem-Gaz.

Teacher absenteeism is a legitimate point. Research shows it occurs more in schools in economically-challenged areas, in heavy minority-populated schools, and in schools with poor administration/teacher relations (at the building level). The ERIC research I posted says, "Strategies for improving teacher attendance are also discussed in the materials abstracted. These include setting up a system that rewards good attendance, requiring teachers to speak to the principal when they call in sick, and special counseling for teachers with high absence rates."

I reiterate: the Op-Ed piece is under criticism for its methodology and motive. It presents nothing more than a handful of worst-case scenarios told in anecdotal format and offers no research whatsoever regarding rates of absenteeism or specific causes. It blames teacher contract and professional negotiations for the problem, but offers no proof of this that can be verified by other educational researchers. It provides no detailed analysis or scope of the issue.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." --- Arthur Conan Doyle (via Sherlock Holmes)

Jake,

This isn't rocket science or research. This is about the day to day operations of the LRSD. Even one bad teacher being protected is too many. I don't know why you want to protect bad teachers. Just answer the question - with the LRCTA contract, could the teacher with poor attendance be fired?

Severus, if there was not a contract and even one teacher was unjustly fired/wronged, do you think that woud be right, either?

I've been called lots of things, but I don't think "slacker" was ever one of them. I used to regularly get to my classroom in Lonoke at 6 in the morning (it was in a small outside building and we had keys to access it). My math supervisor would be there working on his plans and preps. He took off at 6:30 to drive a bus and I continued working on materials and lessons.

It is a shame that you stooped to insult and attack me. It destroys your argument and your credibility and I find it difficult to forgive you for such nasty, ignorant assaults on my good name and character.

But, hey, Algebra teachers are used to it, though these cheap putdowns are far and few between. Whenever I encounter former students, I have the pleasure of exchanging compliments with them, laughing about each other's antics, and thanking each other for the time we spent together and the lessons we gained from each other.

When I came back to my old school after retirement to pass out monetary awards for academic achievement from a fund I established, a parent of one of the recipients whom I had taught thanked me personally and tearfully for turning her child around from a problem student into a proficient student. That memory and many others like it help erase the hurt you tried to inflict with your ill-conceived attack.

Tsk.

BTW, before you try to define the topic, please give verifiable evidence that such is the case and what is the scope of this abuse that you are concerned about. I would also be interested in hearing board members and the CTA present evidence on this matter. If you had taken the time to look at the ERIC abstract I listed, you would have been well aware that I have presented proven solutions and viable research on the issue while you have done neither. That you have been uncivil is clear.

I am all for reasonable employment contracts. The behavior described in the editorial was egregious, and any reasonable person would agree that the "teacher" deserved to be fired. Competent teachers don't want their ranks filled with idiots. Another teacher has the hopeless job of trying to clean up the mess left by the incompetent. The kids may waste a year of their lives.

There is a key problem in this whole debate and it is mentioned often by researchers dealing with the "failing" or "incompetent" teacher. The framework for defining competence is not clear, objectively and legally. Also, remediation plans are often absent, poorly written, or badly executed if they exist.
One researcher noted that three areas must be checked: management, the job, and finally the teacher. He stressed that the first two must be eliminated before moving onto fixing the third. There is much to say about the first two, but I'll stick to the latter since it is the core of the concern today.
Recommendations I saw include the following: develop clear and concise defnitions/guidelines for competence; be sure the teacher is informed the very moment any concerns of competence arise; be aware that more often than not it is personal issues which are the main cause of poor performance; avoid all indications of a witch-hunt; make a concerted effort involving administration, peers and the teacher to help the teacher correct the problem(s).

I heartily recommend the output of Edwin Conrad Wragg on this issue.

I would additionally recommend that the CTA add programs and seminars to address this issue. This may help correct misperceptions on the topic and about the CTA's role in teacher dismissal.

As regards to my complaints about methodology and motives, click on my name for Leo Casey's take on the "Educational Research Cherry Pickers Union."

‎ I am the co-author of the piece, and first off I'm glad the bogger put this out, since I think this ‎matter needs public discussion. And if he gets up to Fayetteville I'd be glad to ‎take him out for lunch and tell him what we in the Department of Education ‎Reform are working on, since he seems to have some misapprehensions. I might ‎add that we have a lecture series that is open to the public. Most of the talks are ‎also on our web site. Come check us out. ‎
School Board members, in Little Rock and everywhere else, have a tough job. ‎They hear many competing demands and stories and ‎it is hard to separate the ‎wheat from the chaff. (I was once asked to run for school board back in ‎Pennsylvania and said no ‎way---just too much work for too limited a chance to ‎make policy.) So LR school board members and others have to figure out whether ‎April ‎and I are just talking to a few nuts, or whether we've identified real ‎problems. It could be that the ‎problems we think we have identified are not that ‎serious. The way to tell is to get comparative statistics. ‎Is teacher absenteeism ‎much worse in Little Rock than elsewhere in the state? (I would expect it to be a ‎‎little worse because teaching in big city districts is often more stressful, but it ‎should not be much worse, because that hurts kids.) Ideally, you don't want to ‎fire teachers, but sometimes you have to, since in ‎a large district where you will ‎inevitably have a couple of duds. So my second question ‎would be whether the ‎district has fired any teachers in the past three years. If no one (or almost no ‎one) has been fired, then the contract provisions are probably too ‎restrictive. ‎Third, I'd approach the better principals privately---they will not talk about this ‎publicly---to see if they think the contract is too restrictive. I don't know that ‎much about Little Rock yet, but elsewhere I've found that central office people ‎never care much about contract restrictions since they are not the line managers. ‎And to be blunt, lousy principals don't care much either, since they do not want to ‎manage, and a bad contract gives them a good excuse not to. Good principals, ‎however, want to be able to hire, mentor, colaborate with, and occasionally ‎transfer or separate their people, and a good contract lets them do it. ‎
Robert Maranto
Department of Education Reform
University of Arkansas

So you don't know if LRSD has a serious problem with this but you publish based on a made-up scenario?

Whoa! This is what you call research up in the Northwest Triangle??

And what employer cannot fail to get excited by your line "If no one (or almost no ‎one) has been fired, then the contract provisions are probably too ‎restrictive." Martinets would love your logic.

Come on, Bob, you write a piece that has no basis on data or evidence from the district about teacher absenteeism or teacher incompetence nor does it refer to any peer-reviewed research that supports the basic contention of your piece. And, some wonder why I question the methodology and motives.

I see why Eduwonkette and others found it easy to portray the Department of Education Reform as the Educational Research Cherry Pickers Union. Sounds like Severus called for backup and it hasn't made any improvement to what essentially has turned into someone playing make-believe.

I have offered serious and respected research on the subject and encourage people to pursue further inquiries. I am touched that Bob is concerned about misapprehensions but isn't it a bit hypocritical when one has authored a piece that basically says it would be nice to get some evidence to support my theory. I thought good researchers got their facts before trying to ascribe a theory to a situation?

Actually, I still do, so that's why I find it fun to watch you struggle in the quicksand over this.

I often cite Andrew Rotherham who is a noted educational academic and runs the best educational review website on the internet (Eduwonk). If you click on my name you will get a much more honest appraisal of bargaining and teacher contracts than presented by the Department of Education Reform. No scary scenarios and an honest look at the system and its accomplishments and its shortcomings.

Here is a summary of the findings in the book he and Jane Hannaway edited which I wrote about earlier:

"The work from that conference was presented in Collective Bargaining
in Education. In their introduction to the book, Hannaway
and Rotherham clarify their role as neither advocate nor antagonist
of teachers unions and summarize seven conclusions about
teacher collective bargaining:
. Collective bargaining was the right intervention at the right
time, but the environment has changed, as have the public
demands on pubic schools.
. The lack of empirical evidence on the effects of collective bargaining
by teachers on education practice, finance, and operations
is striking.
. A vitally important distinction exists between collective bargaining
in the private sector and collective bargaining by teachers.
. Many collective bargaining agreements have serious problems:
what is good for teachers is not automatically good for students.
. It is unfair to lay the blame for the current state of affairs at the
feet of the teachers unions.
. Asking teachers unions to look after the interests of their members
and the children they serve is asking them to shoulder a
responsibility exceptional to organized labor.
. Too often, political concerns cloud analysis of the issues and
decisions."

I would encourage you to look at the link I've made in which Rotherhan discusses these topics, or better yet, get a copy of the book and see the research that backs up these statements.

What is very telling about the Op-Ed piece is that it doesn't indicate who instigated it. Why does an outsider suddenly want to come in and make an issue out of this? Why just the LRSD? There are a lot of why's that don't add up the more you look into this.

If they offer so little, then why should you believe so much of what they say? Who is this mysterious other school superintendent who magically knows what's wrong with LRSD's contracts?

If you're going to holler "Fire!" then I'd better see some flames and smell some smoke. Otherwise it's a false alarm. Nor, does it help when the instigator of the alarm tries to plead that it's a practice drill because he thinks we need it.

Simple question for Jake. How many days would a "teacher" in the LRSD have to miss in order to be fired? Could they call in sick without a Dr's excuse for a month? Could they go 2 months?
Could they skip a month, work a day, and skip another month? Short of having sex with a student during class, could a teacher be fired in the LRSD?

I don't know but you can call them up yourself and ask. It's that simple. Maybe they'll have the data that's been missing in all this hoopla. Over and over I keep asking for your facts to prove that something's wrong and have gotten nada that is conclusive and can be verified. I have directed you to a source that will provide you answers to your questions. You haven't returned the favor for mine.

When you have some facts and research that shed some light, then we can have a dialogue on this issue. In the meantime, you owe me an apology for the insult. And please don't resort to oddly phrased questions that imply? (Your last one is akin to the old schoolground inquiry - "Does your mother know you have sex with students in the teacher's lounge during after-school programs?")

Do you know something or are you just pretending that you do? If you're not pretending, you'll present us with the information to support your argument.

More and more, this looks like a put-up job by the anti-union hacks up in Fayetteville. Many assertions are made by anonymous people; no research or data is given; the so-called expert on teacher contracts is another school superintendent - not what you'd called an unbiased source; and the inflammatory worst-case scenario told in anecdotal fashion further debases this report; and there's no idea as to who wants this done but it is telling that it comes out in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette just around the time parents consider enrolling their children for the next school year (a firm with a major interest in a charter school that competes with LRSD).

This piece reminds me of how a vulture attacks those it feels threatened by. It throws up dead meat on them.

I'm not even gonna try and support this with facts: just gut reaction.

"The way to tell is to get comparative statistics. ‎Is teacher absenteeism ‎much worse in Little Rock than elsewhere in the state? (I would expect it to be a ‎‎little worse because teaching in big city districts is often more stressful, but it ‎should not be much worse, because that hurts kids.) "

WHAT?! You wrote this article and you don't even know the stats? WTF?!

Jake, you're doing a fine job, glad you're here.

I can say, with certain knowledge, that teachers HAVE been fired and laid off in LRSD. I'm sure that information is available and BOB should have checked on that before he wrote his--piece.

And bob, why not take time off from the ivory tower and get in that classroom your own damn self?! Try it for 4 years, then get back to us. I'd like to see your attendence record for that. Oh, and be sure to teach in LRSD, or are there just too many black folks for you? I mean, Severus implied this issue when he said: "The sooner the school board decides that the LRSD is not a jobs program the better."

Is absenteeism worse in LRSD? Maybe. Probably. But it's comparing apples and oranges. To teach kids in areas where they face fewer problems than in the inner city is easy. ANYONE can teach a good student. That's why I find AP courses and their teachers such a bore. Mostly good students, mostly easy teachin--fewer teacher skills required. But AP feeds money to testing companies and "ivory tower bobs," so they're here to stay. No one wants to teach in these schools, but LRSD teachers DO teach in them. In high schools, many of these kids are flat damn dangerous to teachers, themselves and other kids. When's the last time you bob, went to work and someone threatened to "whip me a ivory tower's ass up in here?" Try going to work and having that happen once a month...think you'd need a day off now and then?

Some things you guys in the ivory towers of education reform need to know: Teachers don't respect the ivory tower. Teachers don't respect your research. Teachers hate your workshops and recommendations. Why? You know nothing of the realities, nothing of the front lines. Teachers see you as people who write grants to make yourself a salary and then perpetuate bad research at bad workshops to get good money. During break time in workshops teachers laugh at you. Teachers see you ivory tower folks as being in cahoots with legislators and testing companies to make EVEN MORE MONEY while using schools as whipping posts. Teachers are sick of recommendations from your ilk about getting 60 hours of workshops each year (more than lawyers, and I think doctors), so YOU PEOPLE can make consulting fees giving workshops for you and your universities and fecking Co-ops. No doubt, there's school testing money in your article somewhere, it's either coming or going.

And don't give us that crap about school boards being noble. Bullshit. Most school boards in this state are comprised of non-college educated buffoons. They'll spend 10 minutes discussing textbooks and 2 hours on football field fertilizer, roofing, and bus mechanics. They're part of the problem.

90% or better of research people like you put out is nonsense and helps no one, except your salaries or degree pursuits. And everyone in the world of PhD's knows that one in education is worthless and one of the easiest to get.

And what about administrators? Bad principals? Oh, don't go after them, they have strong lobbies with the legislature, haven't they?

At the risk of starting another war with our resident Libertarian, I would hold that the problem is neither the teacher nor the contract but rather the lack of management training for principals and other higher level school and district administrators. It takes actual work to document bad performance. It takes management to develop a program to take positive corrective action. Most school administrators are real big on the glad-hand crap but are seriously weak on managing skills. They make sure teachers get their 60 hours of schooling (even though a lot of teachers are paying these costs themselves which NEVER happens in business or at any progressuive companies). Too bad that the district boards and administers don't do the same on their managing skills.

It takes documentation and follow-up and repeatedly documenting performance in any discipline issue, not just in schools, but in removing university staff who don't perform or clerks and operators in manufacturing plants. If you don't, in most states you not only get the employee back but also the opportunity to give them back pay. It wouldn't happen in this state because we have a long way to go to get off the bottom rung on being a place that people want to move to. Ask some Wal-Mart vendors how hard it is to get anyone to relocate to Bentonville AR. It wasn't known as a "sundowner" town without cause. Too much "plantation management" everywhere including schools including a large university in the area.

Jay Greene gets in a tizzy because 2% of teh school districts are unionized. Unfortunately forhim, these are the districts which garner the largest number of scholarships, sent the most students on to college, and off er the broadest curriculum.

Severus has engaged in the logical fallacy of arguing by loaded questions, questions that are based on suppositions rather than on factual evidence. (Click on name for discussion of the flaws and forms of this type of argument.) It is carefully hidden with the deceiving notion that it is just a "simple question."

This tactic along with many other flaws listed regarding the Op-Ed piece and its poorly constructed, factually barren rationales further diminish what faint luster remains to this petition based on paranoia and a possible conspiracy to mislead the public in order to benefit certain enterprises. Rather than effective arguments, one has to endure special effects. Reminds me of the movie, "Wag the Dog."

As pointed out by myself, there are better written and researched articles that look at teacher contracts and propose solutions. None of which try to engage in the cheap chicanery being foisted on the public by the supporters and authors of this piece of peurile propaganda. And that is what is truly egregious, my lords and ladies. It is conspicuously bad logic and arguments.

Bob,

I checked out the lecture series and one or two seemed interesting but many were just one-sided presentations to support Greene's favorite right-wing education causes. That's my take on it, at least. Furthermore, I checked all your Opinion listings that were published in the Arkansas Dem-Gaz. (It seems to be a required task for professors in your department to get papers published in Hussman's paper.) After reading those previous opinions and some others in addition, it was surprising to see how poorly the teacher contract article was prepared and argued.

(Go to the Department of Education Reform site and lick on Robert Maranto then click on his Opinion piece about Two State School Systems and make the comparison yourself.) The difference in data sources cited, verifiability, and direct mention of those interviewed is quite noticable.

It still begs the question: why bring such charges when the evidence by your own admission is tentative and quite incomplete? There is such a Star Chamber atmosphere about this report and it seems to have only LRSD in its sights.

It certainly seems like you guys are trying to do a hatchet job on the teacher union. It would be awful easy to compare you to those soundrels known as carpetbaggers who came into the state to tell us how to run things.

Severus,

I think you're on to something. My daughter's kindergarten teacher missed quite a few days of class this year. Oh, sure, she +says+ her husband has cancer, but you understand she just needs fired. That'll cure his "cancer".

I mean, really. What was the school board thinking when they signed a contract that allowed some measure of compassion for teachers with critically ill spouses. Why, you'd think they're trying to behave like human beings.

No, what we need is more school boards who understand--as you understand--that teachers are a commodity, to be bought, sold, and thrown on the trash heap when life makes them a little more expensive to have around.

I'm glad to see someone is upholding those low everyday standards. Thanks, Severus.

From reading the tirades from Paul Greenberg and the D-G's editorial henchmen in their editorials about LRSD and teacher unions and the frequent and particularly apoplectic anti-union views of Jay Greene as expressed on his blog, it is amazing how much Severus sounds like them. He channels many of their very same thoughts and expressions.

Interesting . . . for all the huffing and puffing from the status quo defenders around here, not a single person has even acknowledged Maranto's true story about a Little Rock teacher who was able to get paid for a school year where he didn't ever show up to work, and where the only way the principal could punish him was to transfer him to another school. That is just an "anecdote," but the fact that such a thing could occur even once proves that the union contract is ridiculous.

It must remain anecdotal because it is from an anonymous source, the story has not been verified, nothing has been corroborated, and the person accused has not been given any avenue to give their side of the story. What happened to the American principle of innocent until "proven" guilty?

I have provided more than enough documentation and research regarding bargaining and contracts. All the other side has provided are unsubstantiated claims and anonymous "experts" and a lot of logical fallacies. If you guys want to form a lynch mob on the basis of such flimsy and ill-supported arguments, then get prepared to have your rear ends kicked for being such dangerous fools.

Sorry Concerned but witch hunts do steam me up.

Let me just share some information from my 25 years of teaching, roughly a third occurring in NLR, Lonoke, and LR each (give or take a year or two). The only schools in which I saw or heard of a teacher being fired were the LRSD schools. Does that mean by Maranto's statement about the need for schools to fire that the NLR and Lonoke schools were bad? NLR had a union and Lonoke didn't.

Now, the Lonoke story is the interesting one because there were firings and people let go. One principal was arrested by the FBI for downloading child porn off the internet, a second principal was released after substantiated allegations from a student that he attempted to kiss her in his office; one superintendent (Dr. Human, who has been cited here before for his ethics problems) resigned and left due to accounting irregularities; his replacement was fired in mid-term for misusing school funds for personal gain.

Thus, it is troubling to find an allegation with such imprecise support and parsimonious evidence being given such weight. And why would a parent whose children attend school in Fayetteville find it necessary to delve into matters here in Little Rock? Who instigated this paper and why?

It's a shame when tittle-tattle and finger-pointing are accepted as truth without taking time to see if there is any merit to the problem and if the scope of the problem is truly given. It's a shame when due process, just cause, and justice may take a back seat to vengeance and vigilantees.

If you think I've ignored the issue of teacher absenteeism or the contracts, then you have not been paying attention or reading the links I've provided. I've posted a good middle ground sampling of the best research on these topics, avoiding both strongly pro-union or anti-union sources.

I'll put it a little more bluntly than Jake: We have no way of knowing whether the stories told to Robert Maranto, which he then repeated, were true or not, and unless he had access to school records, neither did he.

What happened to the American principle of innocent until "proven" guilty?

Um, that's a principle that applies in the legal system when the question is whether to send someone to jail. But it's completely stupid to act as if that principle applies to everything in life. No one's going to jail here.

And why would a parent whose children attend school in Fayetteville find it necessary to delve into matters here in Little Rock? Who instigated this paper and why?

Yeah, the nerve of some guy thinking that he can write about things in his own state! Why, it's so weird and suspicious anytime someone acts the part of a concerned citizen who isn't just thinking about his own selfish interests in his own hometown.

So you don't care about justice, you don't care about the validity of evidence, you see nothing wrong with accusations made without proof, and you have the gall to wonder why we question such ignoble tactics?

As I said earlier, the real apologists are trying to cover up the sorry mess made by these yahoos from Fayetteville. Heaven forbid that we should point out the festering flaws in their premises or remind you of their own admitted uncertainties. Let's just accept it as gospel truth and get to the guilty verdict post haste.

The most anti-union educational research school in the state and possibly in the country sends someone down to do a report for the most vociferously anti-union paper in the state (and possibly in the country) and publishes a an "opinion" piece that cannot be substantiated and the author admits that it would help if we could find some evidence for him to check out his story -- and, we're supposed to think this is quality research and journalism?

Not on your life, buster!

As John A. points out: we have no way of knowing the veracity of Maranto's claims. He even states in a followup letter that he does not have evidence to prove those claims nor that he has attempted to get the evidence or any data pertaining to such claims.

It's bad research to work that way and publish before having the full facts; it's bad journalism to print suspicions that are unsubstantiated. It's bad thinking to accept any conclusions drawn from such shoddy workmanship as gospel truth. It's terribly naive to think that this "concerned citizen" doesn't have a special interest driving this message he's trying to deliver.

This speculative fingerpointing is the main reason I delete so many e-mails as spam or trash. I prefer not to deal with the viruses or trojan horses that hide in such garbage. Sounds like you've already been infected.

Not to speak for Jake, Concerned, but I look at it this way:

Jake's "innocent until proven guilty" is off a bit literally but dead on figuratively. He might better have said that you don't learn the truth by hearing one side of a disputed story. That, I think, is what he was getting at.

If they want to do a serious study, a real academic undertaking with facts, documentation, and all that, I'm up for it. That is, as I understand it, what academics do. They might have done some good like that.

It's writing an op-ed piece based on unverified stories and publishing it in a paper which has done all it can, short of printing "nigger nigger nigger" in clear text instead of coded headlines, to stoke disharmony in a school district that has real problems not under the control of the school board, the teachers, the parents, or the students, dropping it like a turd into the punchbowl of contract negotiations, that stings.

To Robert Maranto's credit, he grants above that "others have to figure out whether ‎April ‎and I are just talking to a few nuts, or whether we've identified real ‎problems." He is admirably honest in admitting he and his wife haven't proven that themselves, and owning up to the possibility that he and his wife are wrong, but it's still damned irresponsible for them to have published this op-ed without having done so first.

There, I think, is where Jake's complaint about "parents whose children attend school in Fayetteville" is coming from: The op-ed isn't academically worthy, and thus falsely takes on the authority of its authors' credentials. It's no better than any other complaint from an aggrieved parent, who has "heard stories" from disgruntled administrators--worse, really, because a parent from Little Rock might put such stories into context.

I lived in Fayetteville for most of my adult life, and I assure you that, by and large, even my most liberal friends there were, and are, clueless about Little Rock, and not particularly concerned about its fate. (When I founded a newspaper there and cited Daisy and L. C. Bates as my inspiration, I spent a lot of time explaining to people, including people who wrote for me, why I said it, and who they were and what they'd done.)

Thanks John A. and to quote Max - What you said.

"So you don't care about justice, you don't care about the validity of evidence, you see nothing wrong with accusations made without proof, and you have the gall to wonder why we question such ignoble tactics? "

There's no question of "justice" here. The validity of evidence is that a principal told Robert Maranto about one of his problem teachers. There is nothing "ignoble" about this, except in the mind of hacks who can't stand anything bad being said about a teacher or a union contract. You have zero evidence that the story is false, and there's every reason to think that it could be true -- because the union contract specifically protects and allows for such a situation to occur.

"He even states in a followup letter that he does not have evidence to prove those claims nor that he has attempted to get the evidence or any data pertaining to such claims. "

Bullshit. ALl he admitted was that that he didn't have full statistics that would show whether, for example, there are lots and lots of teachers abusing their privileges. But he most certainly did have evidence to prove what he claimed -- that the contract COULD allow abuse of time off, and that there HAS been at least one teacher who abused that privilege. That's a problem in and of itself, and it's certainly worthy of an op-ed.

By the way, don't cite Leo Casey's "cherrypickers" post. It makes you look like an idiot. See http://jaypgreene.com/2008/08/20/false-claims-of-cherry-picking-are-the-pits/

Concerned says, "The validity of evidence is that a principal told Robert Maranto about one of his problem teachers."

Right. Now, what year was that? What was the relationship between the teacher and the principal before this story started? What is the teacher's side of the story? What effort did the principal make to document the teacher's behavior? What did the teacher's doctor say? Is the principal still employed by the LRSD? What does the teacher's employment record show? What does the principal's employment record show?

Oh, and one other thing: How do you know the principal was telling the truth?

But other than all that, yeppers, it's evidence. Of what, I leave to the reader to decide.

John A. is the lawyer and I'll let him handle the legal niceties from here on out. He asks an honest question which is the major fault of this article: How do we know? How do you know?

I read Greene's reply and apparently that's where you stopped. Casey brought back a rebuttal to Greene's challenge of his article and Greene never responded to that. Apparently he couldn't beat the facts and evidence put forth by Casey and chose to slink away and pretend he had a "famous victory." (Click on name for critique that Greene couldn't answer.)

And what was Greene's grownup response to this academic disagreement: the adolescent riposte that his blog was bigger than Casey's blog. And you thought we got deep here at the Arkansas Times blog.....

Greene's star is collapsing and the resulting black hole continues to suck down anti-union, right-wing conservative money with little to show for it. He has openly eschewed peer review in letting qualified researchers check some of his work; he has an unabashed and unrementing hatred of unions; his interpretations of data have been called into question for presuming more than the data presents.

Here are a sampling of critiques I've presented about Greene in the past:

1. I do know that Jay P. Greene is shady. Here is the abstract from one of his studies, designed to produce one and only one result:

"To measure the extent to which schools are properly informing parents about NCLB school choice we sent emails to choice-eligible schools requesting information. The emails were made ambiguous in their origin and purpose so that schools could believe that they came from parents. What we found was widespread lack of cooperation. The vast majority of schools failed to reply at all. Those that did reply were mostly concerned with who we were and why we were asking. Only a tiny minority of schools provided us with the information requested. It is clear that schools are failing to properly inform parents about NCLB school choice. It is also obvious that little is being done to monitor or enforce compliance with these provisions of NCLB." http://tinyurl.com/2zf4dv

Greene sends out an ambiguous message designed to deceive the school, and when they don't respond to his goofball request, he claims that they have failed to properly inform parents. Right. And who failed to get informed consent from subjects before sending out these phony emails?

2. Here are some Greene quotes that would make any teacher laugh at their foolishness.

a) "A typical teacher, unfortunately, will do the same thing for the rest of his or her career that he or she did the first year of teaching. The same lessons, the same approaches forever. No matter what kind of school they teach in, no matter what kinds of kids. They're comfortable with that. It works for them as they see it." (Research shows this to be false.)

b) "One reason for the prominence of the underpaid-teacher belief is that people often fail to account for the relatively low number of hours that teachers work." (Greene does just the opposite - he fails to account for many of the hours they work at home and during the summer, etc.)

c) "Apparently the end of the course occurs 6 weeks before school breaks for the summer. After the tests are done academic work grinds to a halt. Instead, academic content is increasingly replaced with field days, watching movies in school, parties, etc. as the end of the year approaches." (Again, Greene's premise falls down completely if one goes to any high school in the last 9 weeks where they are preparing for critical end of the year exams to determine final grades.)

To those of us who have actually taught in the classroom, the ridiculous nature of his statements is obvious. You might say that they are just "myths." (It's politer than just calling them lies since they are blatantly false and clearly disproven.)

For the last word, researcher Lawrence Mishel described Greene's position in one of their debates as "hand waving" - disregarding evidence with the wave of the hand rather than presenting a reasoned argument. It also seems he can manufacture "facts" without evidence.

I worry that this educantist trait has been passed on to other Education Reform writers when they present us with their learned opinions.

How ironic that Concerned wants to allow the lowest standards possible in making an allegation while expressing concerns that other standards are not strict enough for him.

So, why don't we go talk to some former co-workers of Concerned or his family, take any claim that puts him in a bad light, accept it as gospel truth, and then write it up and publish it in the newspaper as an op-ed piece. Let's suggest he possibly cheated on his wife and that an anonymous supervisor says he knew about it and wanted to fire him but couldn't. Let's print all this in the newspaper and let a guy who works for The Family Council do the interviews and write the resulting paper which will give it an air of authenticity, further making Concerned look guilty of those unsubstantiated accusations.

And what about justice and due process for Concerned? Who cares....he says it's OK to get screwed in this fashion.

American justice is an adversarial system. You have to present evidence and testimony and they must be checked and validated in order to be admitted. We do not use an inquisitorial style of justice, expecially one which ignores the rules of evidence.

Pity the fools who think otherwise.

Wow, "Jake," you sound a lot like "Elton." Same person, or are you just plagiarizing? http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/2008/07/lessons_for_education_policy_research_from_the_market_for_lemons.html#comment-27812

Your last example is even dumber than normal. If Maranto had identified a specific teacher in the paper, then that would be a different issue. But he says that some details are changed to protect anonymity. The important point -- which you CANNOT dispute -- is that the LR contract allows for such a thing to happen. Everything else you say is just mudslinging and blowing smoke, including your weird vendetta against Jay Greene (who was obviously just toying with Leo Casey, a paid liar).

Thanks for the link to the Jay Greene study. Contrary to your mudslinging, it was a great study! And it was approved by an Institutional Review Board (look up the term if you don't know what that means), although your purported concern for "informed consent" is unbelievably stupid anyway (since when do school officials have to consent to receive an email asking them about NCLB?) It was indeed enlightening to see that so many schools nationwide 1) don't provide functioning email addresses on their website, 2) don't answer emails at all, or 3) don't know how to answer a simple question. By contrast, most private businesses (which tend to be more concerned about pleasing their customers) do answer even the dumbest emails in a helpful way.

Again, if you're a paid hack for the schools, I can see why you'd be pissed at someone pointing this out.

Let's give it a rest Concerned. You've proven nothing and offer no evidence to prove that the charges are valid.

As to calling Leo Casey a "paid liar" that is a typical adolescent response and makes me wonder along with your other comments if you're not Jay hisself. Until you can find Jay's answers to the link I made earlier, then it's obvious who runs when the debate gets serious. To say that Jay was "toying" with him is pure bullshit.

At least we've got you worried because why else would you waste all this time looking up listings by Elton (yes, that was me). And, despite all your attempts at diverting us from the lack of evidence or the cloak-and-dagger anonymity that keeps anyone from checking the facts of these charges, all you can do is point at the contract and say here is the "potential" for problems.

I've never argued against that nor do I intend to. That's for the LRCTA and the School Board team to negotiate and find common ground. If you recall, I mentioned the fine book by Rotherham that discusses that issue and offers suggestions on helping both sides find common ground to work together and meet the challlenges of educating these children. They say much to address your concerns and mine without using anonymous and unverifiable sources. Like good research ought to be done.

Over and over you tout this anonymous source as trustworthy but how do we know that? In fact, we know close to nothing about that person and have no clue at all regarding the other person and the alleged absenteeism nor is there a timeframe for this anecdote. And, by any definition: it certainly is unsubstantiated and unproven.

For all your fancy words and outcries, you're holding up a tightly-sealed box and trying to convince us and the people of this state that there is a monster inside. I'm simply asking you or whoever to let us open the box and see whether it is true or not and if the monster is still alive or has been dead for awhile or if it is a monster at all.

BTW - I concede some ground on the e-mail study. Since you didn't address the other quotes from Jay and I guarantee you that facts and data disprove hi's criticisms of teachers rather conclusively then we must assume you have no evidence to prove otherwise.

Goodnite, Fayetteville. Am going berry pickin' tomorrow. Meanwhile, you guys continue with the cherry-pickin' business.

I encourage you to watch an Alfred Hitchcock Theater presentation about the creature in the jar and Thedy Sue. Seems this simple country bumpkin has bought a jar at the traveling circus that purports to be the head of some dead monstrous being. The bumpkin makes money by showing this to gullible folks from his neighborhood until his sister Thedy Sue opens the bottle and reveals that it is nothing but bits and pieces of flotsam with an old doll head stuck in the middle in a jar filled with swamp water.
In the final scene, the bumpkin is again showing the haunting creature sitting in the jar. A young boy tentatively goes up to the jar and walks around it. As he gets around to the backside of the jar, he exclaims that he can see writing. He begis to spell out what he sees on a ribbon floating in the jar: "T - H - E - D - Y....."
The folks recoil in horror because they know that Thedy Sue always had such a ribbon in her hair. The country bumpkin just smiles crazily.

What's in your jar?

"all you can do is point at the contract and say here is the "potential" for problems. I've never argued against that nor do I intend to. "

Well, then you shouldn't have any problem with most of Maranto's op-ed. That's most of what he does.

As for the cherry-picking accusation, the point is that Jay Greene produced a post that listed literally every random-assignment study of vouchers. That's not cherry-picking at all. Leo Casey the paid union hack might not like how Greene described two of those studies, but he's a flat-out liar in saying that there was any cherry-picking going on.

And by the way, just because I didn't say anything about all the Jay Greene quotes you listed doesn't mean I concede anything. I don't have time to look up everything that you quote. It does, however, seem obvious to me (having children in Arkansas schools) that Jay was absolutely spot on in noting that as soon as the tests are over, the schools have field trips, rodeo outings, costume parties, movie days, and just a huge number of non-educational events.

Plagiarism?

Jake above: "For the last word, researcher Lawrence Mishel described Greene's position in one of their debates as "hand waving" - disregarding evidence with the wave of the hand rather than presenting a reasoned argument."

James Hall at Arizona State, http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev527.htm "Lawrence Mishel described this position as "hand waving" - disregarding evidence with the wave of the hand rather than presenting a reasoned argument."

Or are you James Hall?

What the devil are you talking about? I don't even know a James Hall and why you bother bringing such information up at this point other than you still don't want us to find out what's in the box (or the jar).

Goodnight bumpkin!!

Gee, I'm on a blog late at night trying to paste together an argument from several sources and I leave off a credit or two. BFD, asshole.

Open the damned box or STFU!

Just for fun, suppose I just baldfaced stated that the anonymous source is lying. How are you going to prove me wrong?

Right! You're going to have to open the box.

If not, then you're no better than the country bumpkin who believes the tale of terror that he tells the gullible folks staring into a murky jar filled with mysterious and unidentifiable objects.

You can bring up a thousand and one distractions, but all it does it further convince us that you're afraid to reveal to us what is really locked away in your box of alllegations and anecdotes.

The LRSD school board and the LRCTA will continue to negotiate as planned and both sides will ignore the so-called helpful outsiders trying to run the district for them with a list of anonymous accusations in a vague anecdote in an unverifiable report done for some unnamed entity.

That's what will happen. Bank on it. If they work out something on the contract and absenteeism, it's because they'll want to, not because of some unproven and unchecked accusation.

BTW, since middle school and high school tests are given at the end of the school year and no school trips are allowed during the last week of school because students may have makeups to take, I stand by my assertion of the error made by Greene. It's simply impossible for his scenario to occur under the curriculuum-driven system these schools operate under and by the fact that the tests which he says signal the beginning of the playtime do not end until the last day of school.

This playtime he supposes actually has a name: summer break.

Look all you want, I've got plenty of ammo on the others also. And, like I said, anybody who has actually been in school will know how manifestly ignorant his conjectures were.

Baloney. The Benchmark tests are given around the first week of April, and that's grades 3 through 8. That's a fact. As you would know if you knew any children or teachers in Arkansas. Indeed, if you really knew any teachers in Arkansas, you'd know that they all complain about how it makes no sense to give Benchmark tests 6 weeks before the end of school.

So we've established that you have no idea what goes on in Arkansas.

Hate to play gotcha but there are other tests in MS & HS other than benchmark tests. End of course, teacher made, curriculuum-driven, semester exams. Any MS or HS teacher will laugh at your ignorance about these things but they've been a part of HS and lately MS since I was a student 40+ years ago.

The state mandated tests are not the only tests required of students. If you are unnaware of this, you are truly in the dark about middle schools and high schools. It's so basic a fact, I'm surprised at you even attempting to deny their existence.

The state department of education requires many high school courses to do end of semester exams as part of the grades given. The semester grade is a weighted average of the 1st two nine week grades and the semester exam grade. The semester exam is given during the final week of the semester. The class schedule is modified for that week so that each class has two hours to give the test. Usually one or two days or used at the end as makeup days for those who missed taking any semester exams. Most districts require that this exam be comprehensive and over the entire material covered throughout the semester.

In fact, they are usually designed to match benchmark exams so that data may be collected from the results and used to determine progress and educational needs. I have all mine on file in my comnputer still and they must be kept on file by the schools & the district as well. It was mandatory in our school to turn in the test and answers prior to testing week.

Second point: all throughout our debate, you have often checked and double-checked any references I've given. You have eagerly used these resources and references to counter or rebut my claims.

In a sense, you have clearly exhibited to all of us what works in proving a point true or not. You have benefited from the ability to check and countercheck my quotes and sources. Anyone following our discussion (and I doubt anyone else is by now), can verify or substantiate our claims rather easily when we've provided those references. We have many open boxes, so to speak, to exam and show to anyone interested.

All, except for one item: the Op-Ed piece anecdote. It remains closed. Its veracity is totally unproven and so far unprovable. Yet, you demonstrate by your argument techniques that you've spent an enormous amount of time checking me, my material, my sources, and my references out and bringing other easy to view links into the process that pertain to my quotes or my sources.

Point Three: in actuality, the Op-Ed piece is a day-late and a dollar-short. The contract process started weeks ago as both teams prepared their documentation. Once they start meeting, they are pretty much locked into that set of documents and issues. They have a limited amount of time to deal with issues and will not add any at the last minute, especially ones with no substantiated documentation or research to back them up. Both sides want a fair amount of time to explore the issue so as to deal more efficiently and effectively with the negotiations on it.

Please ask any HS teacher friends you have about semester and end of the year course exams for their classes and the state rules for such. LRSD has them for sure and you can verify that with a few simple phone calls. I encourage you to drop the issue for yours and Jay's sake.

As I mentioned earlier, please check out Rotherham's articles and books. You will find much to your liking and make better arguments using his research.

Click on my name for the link to the Bauxite School District website and you will immediately see a link to their Semester Exam Schedule. Click on it to view. This is typical of what I told you earlier and is representative of a regular 7-8 period day schedule (block scheduling will usually refer to A & B days in the Exam Schedule).

Again, due to the mandated grading system, these exams are required.

As to the slacker teacher debate, we've had it before and there was enough testimony given to cast Greene's undocumented, unproven, and basically invalidated statement into the trash can where it belonged. (Click on name)

I can assure you as any teacher or administrator or board member from LRSD can report that for K-12, LRSD does not allow unbridled avoidance of academics simply because benchmark tests are done with. There are rewards, of course, for achievement but these usually occur at the elementary level. Some of the elementary teacher comments on the link I've provided here explain it better than I can.

For my wife's sake and mine, I'm getting away from this and recommend you do the same. Spend some time with your loved ones, enjoying a movie or good book, savor the taste of a good meal or dessert, take a well-deserved nap, and talk to a special friend or family member you haven't spoken with in a while.

Shalom.

"Hate to play gotcha but there are other tests in MS & HS other than benchmark tests."

Hate to play gotcha, but Jay Greene's point was about the Benchmark tests. Once the Benchmarks are over, the schools completely change focus from academics to having fun most of the time. Anyone with a kid in elementary school has noticed this. Not that field trips and costume parties and movie days are a bad thing, but it's just funny that a few teachers are always whining that standardized testing keeps them from teaching "21st century skills" or whatever the latest buzzword is, but that's not exactly what they're teaching after the standardized test is past.

"In Arkansas, as in many states, standardized tests are given well before the end of the school year. This year the augmented benchmarks for grades 3 through 8 were administered April 13-17 and the "end of course exams" for geometry, algebra, and biology were given April 21-29. Apparently the end of the course occurs 6 weeks before school breaks for the summer." - Jay Greene

Notice, he does not omit HS exams from this list. My previous entry links to the AT discussion of this and it has a link to the statement above which opened Jay's blog entry.

Gotcha again. Half truths and undocumented/unproven claims don't cut it Concerned so quit wasting everyone's time on this. It's just more hand waving and abracadabra BS.

Jake/James/Elton:

OK, Jay Greene did mention high school exams . . . and he mentioned the CORRECT fact that the end-of-course state exams are in mid-April. And yet you're disagreeing with that truth?

And you do realize that Jay Greene was just writing a blog post there about his own anecdotal experience? What kind of dumbass thinks that every blog post has to be a 50-page research paper?

No I'm not. I never once discounted the remark about end-of-course STATE exams. I simply said that his premise is false regarding HS & MS students because they must continue to study and learn new material because of end-of-course SEMESTER exams. How much plainer does it have to be for you?

Yes, I realize that he was writing a blog post. So what? He made a very adamant claim with no proof and I called his hand. I even contacted Andrew Rotherham regarding Jay's statement and forwarded Andy's comments on to Jay. Andy found no evidence to support Jay's contention.

Jay's contention is plain: "the end of the course occurs 6 weeks before school breaks for the summer." He places high school students in this category. This flies in the face of reality. Those students must and do continue being taught in order to be ready to take their final 9-weeks exams and their final semester exams.

Yes, they have taken state exams and finished those in April. Never denied that. Didn't need to even mention it since it wasn't relevant to my argument regarding what happens AFTER those exams. Jay tosses out a faux fact. Like you, when he was challenged on proving he had some support for this claim, he waffled and weaseled and engaged in a lot of misdirection, name-calling, and denial.

The evidence of the Bauxite website and its Semester Exam Schedule disprove any allegations that learning and teaching stop after late April state exams. That is the point upon which both he and you cannot refute the evidence. It is mandated by the Arkansas State Department of Education.

FYI - Jake is my real moniker. Never have used James at all. Have used Elton and a couple of others. If this information has any relevance, please don't tell my mother. She calls me by a completely different childhood name.

Finally, I agree that Jay is writing about his anecdotal experience. Most of us do that anyway. In fact, you did so earlier and most of this blog is filled with such stories. BUT, it doesn't give you the write to make sweeping and all-encompassing claims about every educational institution in this country and those who work in it. In a sense, it is a misuse of his position and power. How can one trust any of his works if he reasons and writes so poorly.

PS - To return to the Maranto story: like a fruit which blooms too late in the season and has no water to support it, his unproven allegations will simply wither on the vine. So, it's OK to stop fussing over it because it is no better than a blog posting.

Click on name for posting from last year regarding Greene's public scolding by Marc Dean Milot, Education Week's Edbizbuzz blog writer and former (unpaid) adviser to the John McCain presidential campaign, a conservative Republican no less. Seems Greene eschews peer review and its validation process, a rather unusual stance for a researcher who often cites others for not being professional enough.

Goodness me! People on this site do call names quite a bit...makes me feel I'm back at home on the east coast. But that makes me feel pretty good since, as I often remind my ten year old, name calling is what people do when they feel a bit insecure. One must have patience...Anyway, I have a life and so do not have much time to post here, but I will say that Andrew Rotherham and I have been friends for many years, and I think that on this issue he and I are not too far apart. I have read quite a few of Andrew's books, but I must thank one commenter for reminding me to read the new book he did with Jane Hannaway. Andrew's work is always worth the time.
Second, as anyone who looks at my vitae can see, I do know the difference between research (I have 45 or so refereed articles, along with seven books that went through the referee process) and commentary (I also have several dozen newspaper op-eds and magazine pieces). Research takes YEARS, and should be refereed by (if possible, double blind) reviwers. In fact, I have three refereed articles coming out this summer/fall, as well as two edited books, all of which were several years in the making, in part to satisfy anonymous referees. Commentary, on the other hand, is when one has some reasoned ideas about an ongoing issue, and that is what April and I have in written in this case, and indeed why we published it in the ADG rather than say, Teachers College Record or the American Review of Public Administration.
This brings me to how we wrote this particular piece. April and I were doing fieldwork in a LR public school, in part just to get a feel for the LR system since we are new to the state, and in part to get ideas about a possible research project we want to do down the road---if I say more here it could give away our sources. At the end of it I asked my standard final two questions of the principal, which go along the lines of what would you most like to change about the school system (after all, I am in the department of education REFORM) and what else should we be asking you about. That is when our source really let us have it with the story we related in the article. That led us to talk with four other sources to see if this was a real problem. To varying degrees all four said it was. (Of course this is not a representative sample, but then to repeat, we were writing COMMENTARY---not research.) That led me to ask around to find out when the contract was being renegotiated, with the intent of doing actual research before it was. Alas, I found out that the renegotiation was THIS SUMMER---no time for a research project.
This convinced April and I that we had discovered a real public policy problem, in time to have some impact on it. For an academic who often writes about such things as the 1883 Pendleton Act, this was pretty appealing. So I asked for a copy of the contract and April and I went over it with a friend who negotiates teacher union contracts for a living. Our friend thought it was a dreadful contract, and they found most of the red flags we pointed out. We asked him/her to sign on as co-author, but they feared "stirring up trouble" and so declined. We also had this person and three of our LR sources read over a draft of the commentary, to make sure we had not mischaracterized their views, and did not give sufficient detail to get them into trouble.
Anyway, that's what happened. We plan to do some real research on this issure before the next contact talks---stay tuned.

ejo