I dissected that argument here [http://www.edwize.org/joel-kleins-bad-faith-argument-the-contours-of-ideological-thinking]:

Klein writes:
The extent of this “no one gets fired” mentality is difficult to overstate—or even adequately describe. Steven Brill wrote an eye-opening piece in The New Yorker about the “rubber rooms” in New York City, where teachers were kept, while doing no work, pending resolution of the charges against them—mostly for malfeasance, like physical abuse or embezzlement, but also for incompetence. The teachers got paid regardless. (To add insult to injury, these cases ultimately were heard by an arbitrator whom the union had to first approve.) Before we stopped this charade—unfortunately by returning many of these teachers to the classroom, as the arbitrators likely would have required—it used to cost the City about $35 million a year… No one—and the union means no one—gets fired.

For clarity of exposition, let’s dissect this passage into different points.

1. Take special note of the initial use of passive voice: the “rubber rooms” were places “where teachers were kept, while doing no work.” In fact, it was Klein himself who created the “rubber rooms.” Before Klein’s tenure as Chancellor, teachers with charges pending against them were placed in DoE offices and in other schools where they would perform non-teaching work for the school system while they awaited disposition of the charges against them, much as they now do after the agreement to close the “rubber rooms.”

2. Having created the “rubber rooms,” Klein instituted a number of perverse incentives that led to a significant increase in the number of teachers placed in them. While a teacher who was excessed from his school remained on that school’s payroll until he found a position at another school, a teacher who was sent to the “rubber room” was removed from the school’s payroll after a brief period. Add to that policy the elimination of meaningful oversight of principal decisions to send teachers to the “rubber room,” and patterns of abuse began to emerge. Some schools and principals had large numbers of staff sent to the “rubber room”; others had very few. When the ‘rubber rooms’ were finally closed, the numbers confirmed that they had been misused: of the approximately 750 cases in the “rubber room,” close to 25% were terminated, resigned or retired as a result of a hearing. (So much for “No one—and the union means no one—gets fired.”) In over 60% of the cases, teachers were returned to active service, either because they were completely exonerated of the charges or because the findings against them were so minimal that a fine was the only penalty levied. The remainder of the cases are still pending.

3. Now, take note of Klein’s shift to an active voice: “before we stopped this charade…” In truth, Klein opposed the agreement closing of the “rubber rooms,” as he believed that they provided him with a public relations bludgeon to use against teachers and their union. It was only under the direct orders of Mayor Bloomberg that an agreement was reached with the UFT to end them.

4. Klein’s conducted an ongoing campaign around the “rubber rooms.” Steven Brill, a close personal friend of then Deputy Chancellor Chris Cerf, was brought in to write the New Yorker article to be used in this campaign, and was given complete access to the “rubber rooms” for that purpose. At the same time, a filmmaker making a film critical of the NYC DoE role in establishing and running the “rubber rooms” was arrested for entering and filming one of the sites.

5. In the above passage and elsewhere in the Atlantic article, Klein mentions that charges against teachers are heard and decided by “union approved” arbitrators. What he neglects to note is that the very same arbitrators must also be approved by his Department of Education. The law requires that both parties approve the arbitrators, in order to ensure that they are impartial and neutral decision makers. When a lawyer such as Klein describes arbitrators in this misleading, one-sided fashion, he is engaged in a calculated misrepresentation of the process. What Klein really wants here is the elimination of the ability of teachers to have a fair, impartial hearing: he wants one side — the DoE — to control completely the person making the decisions, much like he controlled the DoE officers who heard and decided appeals of unsatisfactory ratings. The result is a ‘rubber stamp’ of whatever the principal wants: in the over 1300 ‘U’ rating appeals that have been heard by the Department of Education over the last two school years, exactly 3 cases have had that rating overturned.

I’m not saying their aren’t bad teachers out there, even some people who are abusive or mean spirited and take jobs in education in order to fulfill some need to exert power over others, the same can be said for any profession that is above the bottom of the pile. But I would suggest that the majority of teachers probably do choose it because some part of teaching appeals to them.

i.e Just because somebody chooses to be a teacher doesn’t mean they LOVE to teach, or that they LOVE their students. It could just be you wanted a nice summer vacation. It doesn’t make it wrong.

Good friend of mine just left a nice sales job to become a firefighter. He openly admits he did it for (and yes this is his quote) “all the macho bullshit reasons you can imagine” and in an oh-by-the-way comment he is veeery happy that regardless of actually working or not he gets triple time for hollidays. For the record, he despises the fact that like most districts nowadays he is forced to become an EMT as part of the job.
He knows my fiscal conservatism very well and laughs when I call him a lazy tax burden. His respose so far has been laughing “well I ain’t going to get rich doing this…but I sure as hell won’t be broke!”

It’s pretty naive for Damon to act like all teachers only take these jobs because they love them any more than thinking they all do it to sit on their asses all summer long.

And guess what? They don’t get to comment on BoingBoing during their workday. They don’t have coffee breaks. They don’t wander over to the water cooler and talk about reality TV. They don’t have lunch with a friend, unless they both work in the same building and can also spare the 20 minutes to sit at a kids desk. They don’t run errands on their lunch hour. They don’t take vacations without arranging for their work to be done in their absence. They don’t go to the bathroom when they feel like it unless they can arrange for someone to watch their classroom. 

And parent/teacher conferences? When do those happen? At the parents’ convenience, after the workday, in many cases. Curriculum development? Planning? Making materials? When is that done? Cleaning classrooms, vacuuming, wiping down tables and chairs? What, you think there are custodial staff to do that? 

So yeah, the kids are there from 9-3 but take a look at the parking lot. Look at those shiny new cars. See when they arrive and when they leave. 

I live in a state with 39 counties but more than 200 school districts, some of which may have as few as 20 students. Requiring/enforcing standards across that mess is not easy. But I expect in the small districts, where everyone knows the teacher(s), trust is less of an issue. It’s when we educate on an industrial scale that we get into trouble. 

Herewith an idea I have been told is impossible, as it was explained to me that the federal government is prohibited from setting national education standards (is that true?): http://wp.me/P56dN-1Lg 

Nations don’t build highway systems or land grant universities or other large public infrastructure components for today but for tomorrow, to help people they will never see or know. Libertarianism seems to ignore all that, claiming that markets will provide better solutions. I am waiting for some developing country to build a dam or railroad by subscription or other means of collecting fees from users, rather than as public investment. There is a striking parallel between the communism of the USSR and libertarian thinking. Both are based on a faith in people that is completely unwarranted. One side thinks people are generous and willing to work together and the other thinks people are always reasonable and rational in all their decision making. In reality, people are both compassionate and rational, by turns. We need markets, investment, innovation, and risk, but we also need security and a concern for others. 

The fact that neither philosophy can survive without a developed host to build on should be obvious. The USSR’s collapse and the dire fate of the people of North Korea don’t do much to boost the value of hardline Marxist economics. And I await libertarianism building a modern state without any public investment. 

If an incendiary bomb was used on a building and a voracious fire ensued, would we blame the firemen for not being able to put it out with the equipment at their disposal? Of course not. Yet, this is exactly what teachers are faced with every day. I’m tired of my profession being maligned. Period.

It’s sad what happens when you feed the trolls. :(

I’m not going to claim that I am unbiased, I am the son of two public school teachers in a family with many more educators in it. On top of that I come from a very poor and very small town in Maine that has had it’s school system demolished due to state, town and federal politics. My one big problem with people who make very high and mighty speeches that these days seem to be demonizing teachers in order to further political agendas is that many of them seem to forget the fact that none of them would be in the position they are or even have the grammar skill necessary to sound so fancy without teachers.

Teachers in this country are often taken for granted, stepped on, viewed as some sort of obstacle or taken completely for granted. But I am sure that if everyone took a deep breath and looked back at all of their years in the American education system (even those in the Ontario system can do this) they can probably find at least one teacher who not only changed their lives in some way but also drastically helped form the person they are today. As for me, not only was I fortunate enough to have two very loving parents who nurtured my personal education outside of school and encouraged me to follow through with my interests and follow my dreams to pursue a career in the arts, I can also think of several teachers who on countless occasions helped me grow as an individual and overcome many of the early challenges in my life.

That is what good teachers do, they don’t just funnel random bits of information into us like assembly-line workers, they take us under their wing and guide us into the future. We owe teachers a lot in this country, if anything we should be giving them more money, not using them as convenient targets for the repeated volleys of political gunfire.

having said that, i’ve never understood why teachers get tenure.  i can understand how a professor can get tenure.  but elementary school teachers?  i dont get it. i’ve no problem with teachers’ union, but tenure seems guaranteed to be abused.

I do make note, without much comment, that Tunku ‘Abidin is the son of Malaysian royalty — specifically the son of the Yang Di-Pertuan Muda of Negeri Sembilan, which is a state in Peninsular Malaysia. Not exactly the hoi polloi voice-of-the-people there.

Which, incidentally, doesn’t mean I like your comment. It’s just that I think in one case, you did get one thing factually incorrect.

It’s what Matt Damon said about paternalism: You want better schools? Fire the administrators and the school boards and let the teachers run the place. You’ve hired dozens of these dedicated college-educated people … and then you hire jerks to push them around, waste loads of money on stuff that *doesn’t educate* and load teachers up with busywork.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/02/is-matt-damon-right-that-teach