Author: Robert I. Grundfest

I am a teacher, writer, voice-over artist and rationally opinionated observer of American and international society. While my job is to entertain and engage, my purpose is always to start a conversation.

Categories
Domestic Policies News Politics

The 5:22 to Sequestration Station

You can change here for Dysfunction Junction, or take the local, making all stops to Interminable Terminal. Have your tickets ready. If you can afford them.

This latest skirmish over the economy and the role of government is highlighting more than just the usual differences between the parties. It’s uncovering the stripped-bare disdain the Republicans have for negotiating with the president and their utter lack of gravity when it comes to exchanging ideas. Yes, the left does not want Obama to back down on anything related to Medicare or Social Security or balancing budget cuts with revenue, but when the other party simply refuses to meet you halfway, they cease to be a responsible partner.

Up to now, the GOP criticism of Obama was that he was playing politics with the sequester, didn’t have a specific plan to confront it, and was only looking to blame the Republicans for their obstinacy. And besides which, some said, the cuts will not be as bad as advertised. In fact, they won’t be bad at all.

Well, here comes the reality. Governors of both parties are getting plenty nervous about the effects the cuts will have on their still-fragile budgets. They won’t bring the government to a standstill, nor will they shut down Washington, which I believe to be the secret Republican fantasy, but they will do something worse. They will be a nuisance and a slow trickle of bad news. They will deny people who need certain services what they need. They might result in layoffs at the state and local levels. In short, they will drain away confidence at a time when we need it to increase. But if that’s what the GOP wants, then they’ll get it.

If government by enforced austerity was a theory, then I could see that implementing it could have some positive attributes. But all we need to do is look at Europe to see the real world application of destructive government pullbacks. It ain’t pretty, and it’s getting worse. So why continue to push it? Because the Republican Party is bent not only on destroying itself, but on sticking with ideology at the expense of common sense. I do not question anyone’s patriotism or call them disloyal in the way that Senator Ted Cruz did to Chuck Hagel, but I do wonder what motivates the right to follow policies that will have such a negative effect on the country.

I suppose that President Obama’s, and the Democrats’, worst nightmare would be that the sequester takes effect and the effect is minimal and possibly positive. That would embolden Republicans to continue to push for even more cuts, though not to the military I’m sure, and would discredit and undercut the left’s economic arguments. I’m not gambling on that outcome. The economy needs more money to circulate and get spent, not less. Exactly the opposite will begin happening on Friday.

All aboard.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

 

Categories
Politics

The GOP Eats Its Own

Once Chuck Hagel is finally confirmed as Secretary of Defense, he should think twice about accepting any lunch invitations from his former GOP colleagues. My fear is that he will become the meal. Yes, friends, the imploding tsunamic A-bomb that is the Republican Party is trying to claim another trophy for its sagging walls, but all they’ve done is drawn out a fight they’ve already given up on to a president they never get tired of losing to.

You would think that a decorated Vietnam veteran who served as a Senator would be a lock to be confirmed even in the polarized political world we live in. Apparently though, his maverick denunciations of Bush era foreign policy including a spot-on critique of why, exactly, we were in Iraq has led the true maverick, John McCain, to sputter and croak about service and events like Benghazi that have nothing to do with Hagel.

Then you have the reincarnation of Senator Joe McCarthy, Ted Cruz of Texas, who decided that disagreeing with Hagel was not enough and that he had to smear him by alleging that Hagel not only took money from Iran, but might have a problem with Israel’s foreign and domestic policies.

I don’t have to justify my support of Israel from a religious, cultural or moral perspective, but I have a real problem with the Netanyahu government’s policies on settlements and their hypocritical support of the ultra-religious parties he needs to keep his coalition. Religious governments of any stripe are dangerous, discriminatory and extreme, and the Orthodox who want to impose strict Jewish law on Israel are no exception. For the conservative Christian right in this country to blindly support Israel because they would protect Christian historical shrines is self-serving, and brooking absolutely no dissent is dangerous in any group.

Chuck Hagel’s questioning of Israel’s policies is what any good Defense Secretary would do. It’s what Hillary Clinton did as Secretary of State. Friends are always friends, but there are times when they can go too far. That’s when true friends tell them the truth. It doesn’t seem as if Netanyahu or the radical Republicans understand that message, and recent elections in Israel saw a backlash against Netanyahu. Israel must survive and I know that the United States government will do everything it can to ensure that. GOP questioning of Obama’s and Hagel’s motives is a red herring (in cream sauce).

Cruz’s accusations against Hagel’s patriotism relating to Iran was beyond the pale and rightly earned Cruz a back room scolding by both Republicans and Democrats. He defended himself by saying that he was elected to shake things up. That he did, but not in a way that will help him in the long run with his fellow Senators. I’m sure the Democrats will highlight this Tea Party behavior in 2014. John McCain’s one-man Bengahzi crusade might satisfy his supporters, but it’s only postponed the inevitable confirmation.

The next issue will be the sequester and the massive cuts that are on the way on March 1. Again, the GOP is ready to sink the economy in a misguided attempt to end programs that most Americans want and voted for in 2012. My hope is that President Obama will make an attempt at a pragmatic bargain to forestall the cuts, but if not, we know where the blame lies.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Politics

The Boy Scouts See The Light

Hey Boy Scouts! Guess what? You’ve had gay scouts and gay scoutmasters for years. You’ve given them badges and congratulated them on excellent fundraising and (get this) rewarded them for exemplary moral behavior, helping others, being patriotic and making their parents proud. These gay scouts have also met legislators, built structures for community organizations, worked at soup kitchens, told jokes, endured camp-outs and Klondike Derbies, and generally represented the organization with pride.

So what do you do? First of all, you deny that gay scouts and scoutmasters have a place in your organization, even though they’ve done exemplary work. Then you say that gay scouts do not reflect the vision that you have of what a healthy American boy and a committed adult male are all about and you begin to exclude them from your group. Is exclusion such a hallowed American value that you feel the need to protect it with your reputation? In a country where communal groups such as the Scouts are seeing shrinking enrollment, does it make sense to exclude people who actually want to help, and have helped throughout your history?

Now you say that you’re considering scrapping your discriminatory and hateful policies. Good for you. I will give you all the credit when you really make this decision final. In the end, you really have no choice.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Entertainment

Talking Thomas Jefferson With Author Jon Meacham

I recently had the pleasure and honor of interviewing author Jon Meacham about his book, Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power for Audiofile Magazine.

The interview is below. Here is a link to my sound review of the book on Soundcloud.

Interview

by Bob Grundfest

Talking With
JON MEACHAM

Our nation has always had a place in its culture for public historians. These are people like Barbara Tuchman, Theodore White, and David McCullough, who can make history come alive for the general reader while also producing books that are rigorously researched and connect the past with the present.

Welcome to the club, Jon Meacham.

Not yet 45, Meacham is an executive editor at Random House, a former co-anchor of the public affairs broadcast “Need to Know on PBS” and former editor of NEWSWEEK. His book, AMERICAN LION: ANDREW JACKSON IN THE WHITE HOUSE, was published by Random House in 2008 and in 2009 was awarded the Pulitzer Prize. Meacham is also the author of two other New York Times bestsellers–AMERICAN GOSPEL: GOD, THE FOUNDING FATHERS, AND THE MAKING OF A NATION, and FRANKLIN AND WINSTON: AN INTIMATE PORTRAIT OF AN EPIC FRIENDSHIP, about the relationship between Roosevelt and Churchill, which was named a book of the year by the Los Angeles Times and won the Churchill Centre’s 2005 Emery Reves Award for the best book of the year on Churchill.

Meacham’s latest book, THOMAS JEFFERSON: THE ART OF POWER, is not just another biography of our third president. He focuses on Jefferson the politician and philosopher and adds texture to what we already know about this complex man. “My goal was to try and walk with Jefferson and see things from his perspective, who his mentors were and how his education affected him,” Meacham says.

“His presidency hasn’t translated as clearly to the public as his other accomplishments, but he was president during tumultuous times, and although he didn’t see himself as a successful executive, the public certainly did. After all, they elected Jefferson or Jeffersonian politicians in every election but one from 1800 to 1840.” He writes that Jefferson understood the art of compromise and governed as a Renaissance man, applying the arts and sciences to the political realm.

Meacham wants us to see Jefferson as a man of ideas and of the Enlightenment, but he also notes that Jefferson was a sensuous man with big appetites when it came to women, wine, and gaining life experiences. “We have an image of Jefferson as a clinical man who was somehow removed from
emotion. I learned that he was intensely human and interested in other humans.

I could see myself having a glass of wine with him. I couldn’t say the same thing about George Washington.”

The audiobook is narrated by actor Edward Herrmann, whom Meacham requested. “I think he’s brilliant,” Meacham says. “He made the text better. The audiobook universe is so fascinating. I have never listened to a book I’ve also read and not had a different experience. Edward Herrmann is a central element of the authorial experience. He’s the translator. I had listened to his work before and knew what he could do. I respect the skills I don’t have that he does.”

For his efforts, Herrmann was awarded an Earphones Award for this book. To Meacham, that’s proof that the right narrator can enhance any written work. “I think serious readers value audiobooks. For a writer, it’s one of the only ways you can end up with a coauthor who is interpreting your words. I want people to feel that their investment in time and money is well spent. I want to repay that to the reader.”

All but one of Meacham’s previous books are on audio, but he wants all of his forthcoming books to be recorded as well as written. He knows that with all of the technology, there’s only so much mind space available for people to read or listen to or view specific media. With this book, he’s provided our minds, and ears, with an opportunity to learn and enjoy ourselves.

FEB/MAR 13
© AudioFile 2013, Portland, Maine

Categories
Politics

The Liberal Ascendancy

Yes, I know, it’s only been a week and already I’m full of prophecies and predictions about a liberal (say it with me: Lib-er-al) era that’s just beginning. Others have argued with me that it’s too soon or that the conservatives aren’t going away or that I live in good old liberal (say it again: Lib-er-al. Doesn’t it sound all smooth and creamy?) New Jersey and that I have no idea what’s happening in redder areas of the country.

Possibly true, and you might not lose money betting against me, but not only do I believe it to be true, there is some solid evidence to back it up. The conservative era is coming to a close and the implosion of the right wing is decidedly under way. Don’t get me wrong; the conservatives and the Republican Party can and will do a lot more damage to the country and to Barack Obama‘s second term (look what they’ve done to reproductive rights and collective bargaining), but their ability to set the agenda is pretty much over.

Consider:

The GOP gave in on taxes in the fiscal cliff negotiations, and then they postponed the debt ceiling fight for three months under the utterly mistaken belief that they will have the upper hand when it comes to negotiations over the debt. I have news for them: they’re going to lose again. The debt is actually slowing and the nation’s fiscal trajectory is towards recovery, more employment, higher housing prices and improved tax collection. Add in the fact that most Americans do not support the massive cuts that the Republicans are proposing and you have the recipe for disaster for the right’s agenda.

Opposition to all forms of gun control, an area where the GOP still has some strength, will take its toll on Republican popularity. I think we’ll get a background checks bill and perhaps a limit on ammunition, but there probably won’t be a national assault weapons ban. Still, the right is on the defensive about not wanting to do anything on guns, when it’s likely that some Republicans will vote for some limits.

We will get an immigration bill this year and the GOP will have to come along or face increasing political marginality. Even so, the Republicans might not get any political advantage from a bill that allows more children of illegals to obtain citizenship. Why? because many Hispanics are already liberals (a third time: Lib-er-als) who are in favor of the government programs that serve the nation and their communities. On this, the right wing is correct: voting like Democrats will not help the GOP. It will only help the president and the left. But they really have little political choice.

Opposition to Chuck Hagel will not block his nomination, and no evidence of Israel-bashing will be found. True, many on the left are uneasy with his anti-gay comments, but he’ll get enough votes to be confirmed.

Marriage equality will become legal in more states over the next few years, even if the Supreme Court rules against a national right, which I would say is a 50-50 proposition at this point. Remember that the Court will be ruling on economic and social rights, and not the moral correctness of whether all adults should be able to marry the person they love. The right wing is moving backwards on this issue. Even gay Republicans know that.

Storms have raised the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there’s something to this climate change thing that conservatives have been denying for years. Oil will rule the day for a while, but more severe weather will finally un-jam the logs and we can truly move towards energy independence based on fuels other than fossil.

There are many more issues, but I’ve made my point. The Democrats and President Obama have the wind of public opinion at their backs and as long as they both run a smart campaign to win support for specific legislation, we should see the first fruits of the liberal (in Texas, lib-ruhl) movement this year. We won’t get everything we want, but more progress will come in later administrations and Congresses. One more presidential election win will also result in some conservative Supreme Court justices retiring, and all it will take is one switch to get a liberal (one more time for FDR: Lib-er-al) majority.

Can you dig that? I knew that you could.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Politics

The Second Term Begins

Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of office for the fourth time today, and then let the country know what it voted for and what it could look forward to in a second Obama administration. The speech hit all the right notes. The implementation, though, will take longer than the four years remaining in Obama’s term.

His calls for marriage equality and for legislation on climate change, while preserving entitlements, is a clarion call for progressives and proof that the country has turned a corner and moved away from the stultifying conservatism of the last 30 years. The United States will not be looking to become more religious, nor will it be demonizing gays and lesbians or attempting to make reproductive choices a matter of whimsy for the government instead of a collective decision made by people and their doctors. We will be paying attention to the world, but not trying to run it according to a naïve ideology that says we can bring our form of democracy to everyone. And for the first time in our history we will have a health care system where all citizens not only can have care, but must have care because it’s the right thing to do.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would never make a speech like this, and thank heaven they won’t have the opportunity to do so. They would take us backwards. We are now moving forwards.

Obama called out the conservatives by fighting back against labeling people who use government services as “takers,” a word the GOP used to little effect in the 2012 campaign. We need programs to help the poor and to try to educate every child. We need programs to make sure that the elderly get care when their resources have dwindled or disappeared. We need adjustments to the tax code and to close the dreaded loopholes in the code, and to use the revenue from those actions to strengthen the United States, not to reward the wealthy or corporations with more tax cuts or advantages.

During Obama’s first term, the right was fond of saying that the great liberal realignment never occurred and that the only reason Obama was elected was because of the recession or the weakness of the Republican candidates. The Tea Party revolt of 2010 was supposedly the end of the “mistake.”

Wrong.

What 2008 uncovered was cemented in 2012. The country’s experiment with smaller government, massive income and resource inequality and a sense that large corporations and institutions were going to swamp the middle class is over. Yes, big money does support Democrats and Republicans alike, but that will be remedied, as will all the issues that the GOP ignored for decades. We will have climate legislation, more revenue, marriage equality and immigration reform. It will take more than four years to accomplish these. The pace will ebb and flow. But they will be done.

And it all starts with today.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Politics republican fail

The Tide is Turning For Obama

Whatever happened to the Republican opposition? President Obama hasn’t even taken the oath of office for the second time and already the GOP has caved on the fiscal cliff, the prospect of immigration reform, and Sandy relief. Oh, and their opposition to any and all forms of gun control is going to cost them at the ballot box. Maybe not in their gerrymandered districts, but on a national level. Newtown was a tipping point. Mark my words.

The negotiations over the debt ceiling and spending cuts will likely go the president’s way too. Why? Because more of the public wants a compromise that includes modest adjustments to entitlements rather than the slash and burn Greek/Spain approach that the “take your medicine” caucus led by Eric Cantor is proposing. Do not ever forget that the true purpose of the Republicans Party’s spending program is to overturn the New Deal and Great Society. They’ve hated those programs for almost 80 years now and for a long time they could taste the victory they believed was rightfully theirs.

But then came November 2012 and the revenge of the real math league that correctly forecast an Obama victory. That didn’t just anger the right; it led to conspiracy theories and a final take-no-prisoners approach to governing that the GOP thinks is a winning strategy. It isn’t.

So now they’re talking about forcing the president to accept drastic cuts in exchange for a debt ceiling rise. The only problem is that most Americans are on Obama’s pragmatic side because they understand that the Recession caused the deficit, not the other way around. Once we get ourselves out of the downturn, and we’re slowly doing just that, the deficit will narrow. People will be productively back at work. Tax revenues will rise. Consumers will begin spending again, if only cautiously. So the GOP’s strategy is doomed to fail. They’ve tried it before and our credit rating was cut. Now there’s evidence that it could be cut more. We’ve seen this movie. It doesn’t end well.

President Obama seems like a new man these days, issuing ultimatums and using the power of his office to effect change on gun control and, I’m assuming, on immigration. He’s said that he’s no longer going to negotiate on the debt ceiling and he’s exactly right. If push comes to shove, he should invoke the 14th Amendment and let the Congress and the Courts figure out if he’s right. He’s said he won’t do that. Too bad. The other option is to call Congress’s bluff and let them take the heat when the government shuts down. Ask Newt Gingrich how that worked out the last time.

Oh, wait. I don’t care what Newt says.

The boss has a new attitude. And things are about to change.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Politics

GOP Threat: Stop Us Before We Kill Ourselves!

Can the Republican Party possibly do more to inflict damage on itself? Is this a cry for help from a psychologically wounded group? Perhaps we should give every GOP member of Congress a gun and watch them shoot themselves in the foot. Or form a circular firing squad.

The honest truth is that we are witnessing the end of an era and the implosion of the party. The election of 2012 signaled the beginning of the end of the conservative era and like most things these days, the decline is coming swiftly and unmercifully. The fiscal cliff deal is emblematic. Denying the Northeast hurricane aid was a public-relations disaster. The worst is yet to come.

Now we get to look forward to two more rounds of economic negotiations on the debt ceiling and entitlement programs. Other writers are saying that these will be fought on more sure-footed GOP ground. I don’t buy that for one second. Having been beaten soundly by the president on the tax issue, they now have little leverage on the debt ceiling or budget cuts.

Think about it.

Most Americans already blame the Republicans for almost scuttling a New Year’s deal and then witnessed first hand the comeuppance of John Boehner at the hands of those frisky Tea Party conservatives. They saw how the party hesitated to even raise taxes on millionaires and how the House abdicated its responsibility and needed to be bailed out by Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden.

And this was the easy deal.

Most Americans, again, do not want severe cuts to their government Medicare and safety net programs, but that’s exactly what the GOP is peddling. And the sheer size of the cuts that will be necessary to achieve Paul Ryan’s aims will ultimately prove to be a disaster for them. I just know that Boehner and Cantor will overstep the mandate they think they have and will also want their pound of flesh from Obama to make up for the just-completed deal.

Likewise for the debt ceiling. The country certainly remembers that it was the right that played brinkmanship with the budget in 2011 and got us a lower credit rating. Just let them do the same thing again and see what happens.

Of course, all of this is predicated on the idea that the president keeps his cool and doesn’t give away more than he needs to in the negotiations. The left is not happy with the tax deal, but really, how much can you push tax cuts for the wealthy? The difference between what he wanted and what he got is miniscule, which is exactly the problem, budget-wise, and Obama still came out a winner. Plus he’s already offered cuts to social programs that the GOP has rejected as too little. He’s in the driver’s seat.

The GOP is still convinced that only their ideas are correct and I seriously doubt that they will come out with specific proposals on how to retire the debt responsibly or which tax loopholes they want to close (which will also be unpopular). So the way I see it, this should be a good season for the president and Democrats.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Politics

The Fiscal Abe: What Lincoln Can Tell Us About the Cliff

Just when you thought we knew so much, along comes history to teach us a lesson in humility. Of course I’m talking about the present political and fiscal morass, but the history lesson comes from our star attraction of the season, Abraham Lincoln.

Neither the left nor the right seems to be happy with the deal worked out in the Senate concerning the tax hikes and lack of spending cuts to avoid the fiscal calamity that won’t come quickly anyway. But the larger lesson here is that solving the nation’s problems take time and, in most cases, many steps. There will be no grand bargain, and I challenge anyone to show me an instance where the two parties immediately came together to solve a problem the first time they attempted it (outside of war). Far-reaching bills and programs have evolved over time, for good and for ill, with additions and tweaks based on the moment and level of political will. So it will be with us.

For perspective, consider Lincoln and the major issue of his day: Slavery.

Think the parties are divided today? The debate over slavery led to beatings of legislators, acts of violence in statehouses and a rehearsal for civil war in Kansas. Abolitionists protected runaway slaves when it was expressly illegal to do so and proponents of slavery abducted free blacks to make up for their losses. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that slavery was legal. Case closed.

But of course, case not closed. So how did we get from the Dred Scott decision to the Thirteenth Amendment, which ultimately abolished slavery? Very slowly.

Columbia University History Professor Eric Foner does his usual terrific job framing the story in this article from Tuesday’s New York Times. In it, he reminds us that Lincoln did not, in fact, free the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation, whose 150th anniversary was January 1. It took years to do that and Lincoln made many enemies along the way.

The real lesson, though? From the article:

Like all great historical transformations, emancipation was a process, not a single event. It arose from many causes and was the work of many individuals. It began at the outset of the Civil War, when slaves sought refuge behind Union lines. It did not end until December 1865, with the ratification of the 13th Amendment, which irrevocably abolished slavery throughout the nation. 
But the Emancipation Proclamation was the crucial turning point in this story. In a sense, it embodied a double emancipation: for the slaves, since it ensured that if the Union emerged victorious, slavery would perish, and for Lincoln himself, for whom it marked the abandonment of his previous assumptions about how to abolish slavery and the role blacks would play in post-emancipation American life. 
The slaves were freed first in areas where the Northern government did not even have jurisdiction (the southern states), and not in areas where it did (border states such as Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri). For abolitionists, this was not enough. For slaveholders, it was an abomination.
And then there was President Lincoln’s attitude, which also had to change. Slowly:
While not burdened with the visceral racism of many of his white contemporaries, Lincoln shared some of their prejudices. He had long seen blacks as an alien people who been unjustly uprooted from their homeland and were entitled to freedom, but were not an intrinsic part of American society. During his Senate campaign in Illinois, in 1858, he had insisted that blacks should enjoy the same natural rights as whites (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), but he opposed granting them legal equality or the right to vote. 
By the end of his life, Lincoln’s outlook had changed dramatically. In his last public address, delivered in April 1865, he said that in reconstructing Louisiana, and by implication other Southern states, he would “prefer” that limited black suffrage be implemented. He singled out the “very intelligent” (educated free blacks) and “those who serve our cause as soldiers” as most worthy. Though hardly an unambiguous embrace of equality, this was the first time an American president had endorsed any political rights for blacks. 
It took a four-year war and the suppression of southern representation in Congress to finally rid the country of the scourge of slavery. There was no grand bargain. It required a president who took a stand, and a slow process that pleased no one.
Our constitution was written to slow down the pernicious influence of passion and haste. We are supposed to deliberate and debate and recognize that a balance of powers will provide us with the best chance of solving our problems. It is frustrating and sometimes we do ourselves some harm while paying it respect. So for those of you who see evil in the Republican’s attempts to undermine President Obama’s every turn, or see the president as having given up too much in the fiscal negotiations, I say, relax. Take one step at a time. Neither side is evil and neither side’s program will lead to the country’s destruction. Taxes will go up and some social programs will need to be changed, slowly. The tax code will be modified, slowly The chances that you will be completely satisfied with any of these developments, or the speed with which they occur, will be close to zero.That’s how we know we’re getting it right.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
New Jersey Politics teachers

New Teacher Evaluations, Same Old Issues

While most of the rest of New Jersey was shopping and celebrating, I immersed myself in an article that shined some light on New Jersey’s new teacher tenure and evaluation law. The lesson? Principals, supervisors and other district evaluators are going to have to be crystal clear, honest and consistent in their written evaluations or face the probability that cases brought against teachers will backfire on them.

Why is that important? After all, teachers have been evaluated multiple times every year for their entire careers, and those evaluations have decided whether they’re rehired or earn tenure, right?

Um, well…that’s complicated.

The ugly truth is that administrators have been fudging evaluations for a good long time, with the result that many effective teachers have been unfairly culled from the herd while some ineffective teachers have earned their due process rights. I personally know of three teachers who have earned sterling evaluations in their first two-and-a half years of teaching, and then were saddled with one terrifically poor evaluation at the end of their third year, resulting in their not earning tenure. In every case there was more to the story, in that the teacher had become too vocal or too involved with local association activities or, in one unfortunate case, the principal simply didn’t like the person and wanted a friend to have that job.

The TEACHNJ law is supposed to remedy all of this. The new evaluation system is geared towards making sure that every teacher in every public school classroom is, at the very least, rated “effective” according to the law. The main problem with the law is that it’s still in the testing stage in most districts, with a target date of September 2103 for full implementation. With hundreds of schools still working out the details, along comes the first case to be decided on the merits of a teacher’s performance in the classroom (the first ever case involved off-campus teacher behavior and an excellent analysis by Jersey Jazzman can be found here).

Arbitrator David L. Gregory’s decision was both well-written and concise. You have to love a jurist who cites both Felix Frankfurter and Occan’s razor in their writing, and Gregory gets to the heart of the issue, rendering his decision in five pages. What he found was there there was a “stark and stunning 180 degree turn by the Principal” in the difference between their written evaluation, saying on the one hand that the teacher possessed “marginal abilities” in preparation and classroom environment, but “clear and expressive” oral and written communication. The principal goes on to say that “(T)he teacher’s well-chosen vocabulary enriches the lesson and serves as a positive model.” There’s more, but the upshot is that Gregory recognized that the principal contradicted themselves so egregiously, that the teacher was being evaluated “arbitrarily and capriciously.”

The teacher won the case and all charges were dismissed.

Is there something besides an honest evaluation going on between principal and teacher here? Without other evidence, it’s difficult to say, but the inference is that this was a multilayered case. In any event, it’s a warning to evaluators throughout the state that they must henceforth be honest, consistent and specific with their language if they are to prove that a teacher should be fired.

The 45 day limit on deciding cases was also a factor here as there was no actual hearing due to delays associated with Hurricane Sandy. Quick does not necessarily mean accurate. In this case the facts supported the teacher, but in the future the time limit might have a more deleterious effect and lead to a less fair decision.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Domestic Policies sandy hook shooting violence

The Gun Conversation

Why are we still having this conversation? Why are we still debating whether we should regulate assault and military style (whatever that is) weapons and limit large purchases of ammunition? Why are we still beholden to an organization that believes that the United States Constitution guarantees an unlimited, unfettered, absolute right to a gun, despite a giant clause at the beginning of the Second Amendment that clearly refers to  militias? Do we have absolute free speech rights? Religious rights? Rights to assembly? No. These are all regulated activities. We need to regulate guns.

I’ve read the arguments about how a weapons ban or more regulation would not have stopped this horrific shooting. I’ve listened and watched as talking head after talking head drones on about how politically difficult it is for a Democratic president to pursue controls on weapons because it would be political death.

I’ve had conversations in person and on social media with people for whom their weapon seems to be their most cherished possession.

“If they come for my gun I’ll give them the bullets first!”
“Over my dead body!”
“From my cold dead hands!”
“First it’s my gun, then they’ll come for my house and my family!”
“What we need is for every teacher and principal to be trained in how to use a gun and to be issued one for their classroom.”

Clearly I don’t understand the mania, the attachment, the fear, the anger, and the entitlement that many people have with their guns. I’m not advocating taking anyone’s gun away who can’t prove that they’re responsible enough to carry one. I’m questioning the idea that we don’t have to ask more questions, or do more background checks or limit what kind of gun people can buy and how much ammunition they can get at one time. There are responsible ways to do this. We regulate so many things in our society from marriage to driver’s to pet licenses, from who can be a teacher and a police officer to how fresh the meat and dairy has to be in our food stores.

But guns? Weapons that can destroy lives? Kill children? Apparently not more than the way we regulate them now, despite the fact that the system doesn’t work. When a system doesn’t work and results in people’s deaths, you fix it. That’s what we need now.

Are there ways around these proposals? You bet. And people will find them. But the point is to put them in place and see how they work because what we have now has led to one of the bloodiest, tragic, heartbreaking years this country has seen in quite a while. Gun deaths are preventable. Let’s prevent them.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Domestic Policies New Jersey Politics teachers

Alternate Route to Undermining Teaching

It’s not enough that the Christie Administration has bashed teachers as union mules and the source of New Jersey’s fiscal ills. It’s not enough that the governor has promoted private partnerships with public schools to avoid paying the state’s fair share of education aid to school districts in need of money. It’s not enough that he’s advocated for merit pay based on an evaluative model that is reliant on faulty research. And it’s not enough that he’s attacked NJEA officials personally because of their private organization salaries.

Now the governor’s administration wants to make it easier for charter schools to hire lesser qualified teachers simply, it seems, for ideological reasons. How is he doing this? By proposing that alternate route teachers who want to work in charter schools be able to earn teaching licenses with fewer requirements than those people who want public school teaching certificates. If you ever need any more evidence that the governor hasn’t a clue about how to attract and train quality teachers, then here’s your proof.

Let me state from the outset that I have taught the alternate route New Pathways to Teaching in New Jersey (NPTNJ) program since 2003. It’s a wonderful program that has trained thousands of people in New Jersey to become qualified, knowledgeable, effective teachers. It asks these prospective teachers to take hundreds of hours in pedagogy, theory, educational psychology, literacy and mathematics instruction, and classroom management techniques. They need to have at least 30 hours of college credit in their chosen discipline. Once teachers are hired by a school (either public or private) they need to be observed and are required to have a mentor teacher from their school’s staff. All of these things are done to ensure, as best we can, that those new teachers have the practical and theoretical skills that will allow them to succeed in their new field. Besides, the state says they have to do this.

But not, apparently, if you want to teach in a charter school.

For reasons I can only assume are arbitrary, unthinking and ideological, the new state rules for alternate route charter school teachers are different. From the article:

Under the proposal, the charter schools would no longer need to meet the existing requirements that their alternate route teachers have at least 30 hours of credits in their content area, nor would they need to have a set number of hours of classroom training before they are hired and once they are hired. They would also not be required to have a mentor teacher as rookie teachers do in the public schools.

This is being done because of the word most associated with charter schools. This word is supposed to be able to solve the problems that public schools have, like the fact that New Jersey’s public schools are among the nation’s best, or that we have among the highest SAT and Advanced Placement Test scores in the country, or that we have the best trained teachers in the country thanks to an organization whose first objective in to ensure that only the most highly qualified teachers are in the classroom, or that we are the envy of both teachers and parents in other states.

The word is supposed to signal to the public that the stodgy old public schools are stuck in the past and that throwing more money at them would only be a waste of taxpayer resources. The word is supposed to bring to mind the most effective trait we need in education today.

That word is flexibility.

Charter schools should have the flexibility to hire people who are underprepared for classroom teaching.

They should have the flexibility to hire people who have less than the requisite knowledge, 30 credits in an academic discipline, that most every college in the country believes is the bare minimum a graduate should have for a 4-year degree.

They should have the flexibility to teach without the help and guidance of a mentor teacher who can help them navigate the intricacies of the profession in a supportive, nonevaluative manner.

They should have the flexibility to hire people who have fewer hours in the classroom, fewer classroom experiences upon which to draw, and fewer student contact hours either teaching or observing in a classroom with an effective teacher.

This is stunning, not just for its outright ignorance of what constitutes effective teacher training, but what it will mean for the quality of charter school teachers in the future. And yet, the Christie Administration believes that this will ensure their quality. Perhaps that’s why they announced this plan with as little fanfare as possible and buried the change deep within the State’s Professional Licensure Code. Here’s the link. Have fun.

This change is bad enough, but when you pair it with another Christie goody on education, it makes even less sense. The state announced on Friday that it will partner with the Princeton-based Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship Foundation to recruit smarty-pants college students in math and science to teach in New Jersey’s worst performing high schools.  These prospective public school teachers will luckily be able to shadow mentor teachers and will earn Master’s Degrees after they’re finished with the program.

Why can’t the alternate route charter school teachers get the same advantages? Must have something to do with flexibility. Maybe they should hire personal trainers and physical therapists to address that.

I’ve trained hundreds of teachers over the course of my career are mentored scores of others. Teaching is a difficult job and one that needs to be done right. The new charter school rules are an insult to educators and will create a two-tiered system of teachers within the schools and the state. The Christie Administration is again applying ideology in place of thought. It’s a mistake they’ve made time and time again.

Guess they don’t learn too good.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Exit mobile version