Search This Blog

Saturday, June 28, 2014

Melinda Anderson: Why Are The Black Teachers Disappearing - Again?

Sixty Years After Brown V. Board,
Black Teachers Are Disappearing---Again

Follow us: @EbonyMag on Twitter | EbonyMag on Facebook

Sixty years ago Saturdaythe Supreme Court issued its landmark Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka ruling. In a unanimous decision, the Court struck down the concept of “separate but equal” in the nation’s public schools. It was a catalyst that invigorated the Civil Rights Movement and its quest to end the inequality of Jim Crow laws, affecting everything from lunch counters to buses. 

With the Brown case pending, Black teachers waited anxiously for the ruling on school segregation, with thoughts fixed firmly on their Black students. Would the case solve the wide racial disparities in facilities, funding and resources? Would Black students’ sense of ethnic identity and cultural solidarity suffer from desegregation? And lingering in the back of Black teachers’ minds: Would they be the collateral damage in the battle to integrate schools?

A hint of this suspicion is found in the excerpt from an oral history conducted in 1991 with a former teacher in a segregated school: 

“…we were under such a terrible strain because when they wanted integration they never considered the effect that it would have on the Black teacher who was very qualified. Practically all of them [Black teachers] had their masters...they put such a terrible strain on the Black teachers.”
Dr. Alfred Roberts remembers this period well. He taught at segregated Pearl C. Anderson Middle School in Dallas and weathered the transition during desegregation. But the path was not so smooth for Black teachers throughout the state.

“I’m from a small town near College Station named Somerville,” said Roberts, co-founder of the Texas chapter of the National Association of Black School Educators.  “The high school had grades 1-12 in one building. When they combined the schools, they sent all of the high school students to the White school, and they made the high school an elementary school. In your smaller cities, I’m quite sure there were a lot of [Black] teachers displaced.”

The data bears this out, revealing a widespread practice across the South. In 1954, there were 82,000 Black teachers. In the 11 years following the Brown decision, the ranks of Black teachers plummeted: more than 38,000 Black teachers and administrators in 17 Southern states were out of a job. Black teachers were suddenly expendable due to all-Black schools shutting down and newly integrated schools shutting the door in their face. 

Charles Bolton in The Hardest Deal of All: The Battle Over School Integration in Mississippi documents the systematic firing of Black teachers in one of the last states to desegregate after the Brown decision. Between 1970 and 1973, the number of white public school teachers in Mississippi increased by almost nine percent, while Black teachers fell by almost 12 percent. White administrators weeded them out as “poorly qualified” – even with impeccable credentials – and moved to rid their districts of Black teachers who supported the civil rights movement.

The displacement and dismissal of Black educators post-Brown is well-researched, supported by evidence, and would be a footnote in history except for the fact that like the resegregation of America’s schools, everything old is new again.

In the country’s largest urban districts, mass school closings are the education policy du jour. From New York and Chicago to New Orleans and Philadelphia, school leaders are targeting schools that disproportionately serve Black students. Startling data from the U.S. Department of Education shows a consistent trend. While 43 percent of Chicago students are Black, they accounted for 87 percent of affected students in schools marked for closure. The same pattern is seen in Philadelphia and New York City, and in every case Black teachers are caught in the crossfire, as they tend to be heavily concentrated in schools with predominately Black student bodies.  

In Chicago, three Black teachers sued for discrimination, citing the disparate impact on Black staff from the district’s school closure plan. Like students, a marked difference was evident. Black teachers made up less than one-third of the tenured staff in Chicago Public Schools yet represented more than half of tenured teachers pushed out by closures and turnarounds. 

The loss of Black schook staff in urban centers is impossible to ignore, though the decline of Black teachers can’t be blamed solely on this course of action. Approaching the Brown anniversary there’s renewed interest in closing the large and growing diversity gap between public school students and teachers.

Conventional wisdom holds that the answer is filling the pipeline – even as data show that efforts to recruit more minority teachers and place them in disadvantaged schools are working. Recruitment has been very successful, but it’s only half of the equation. 

Richard M. Ingersoll, professor of education at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading expert on teacher turnover, points to the culprit: Black teachers fleeing the poor working conditions that prevail in their schools. Simply filling the bucket isn’t the answer, says Ingersoll. The real challenge is to plug the leaks. “We’re hiring more minority teachers but also losing more of them,” he told Pacific Standard magazine. “…minority teachers are not more likely than white teachers to stay in those tough places. They’re more likely to get jobs there, but when it comes to the decision to leave, the demographics seem to be a nonfactor. What’s really driving the turnover is that these are jobs with problems.” 

Whether it’s too little support and too much testing, or Black teachers feeling underpaid and overworked, the result is the same. Committed and effective teachers are leaving the classroom, frustrated and discouraged. The problem is compounded by issues of seniority in layoffs and the system of “last hired, first fired” negotiated by many districts and teachers unions. Retaining teachers of color, regardless of how many years they’ve worked in the school system, would mean foregoing the traditional system – a high but not insurmountable hurdle. 

Sixty years after Brown v. Board, the loss of Black teachers remains a failure of will, not a failure of means. It’s an unforgivable failure because race matters in the classroom

“It matters because the curriculum is usually so focused on white people that children (of all colors) get the impression that the stories that matter, and education as a whole, are not for children of color,” explains José Vilson, a New York City middle school teacher, writer and author. “Having a person of color in front of the classroom says the curriculum they're learning is for everyone.”

Black-Latino male teachers are rare. In his new memoirThis Is Not A Test: A New Narrative on Race, Class, and Education, Vilson shares his journey to the classroom and goes deeper into why Black and Latino children need teachers that look like him:
We have high expectations for the children sitting in front of us because we were once them. We can tell the difference between a kid not knowing how to add fractions and not knowing how to say the word “fraction,” because many of us were once English language learners. We don’t take “Yo, what up, teacher?” or “Hey, miss!” to be a sign of illiteracy, but a sign that they want to connect with us as human beings. Our importance as teachers of color stems from this dire need for kids of all races and backgrounds to see people of color as multidimensional and intelligent, different in culture but the same in capability and humanity.
Melinda D. Anderson is an education writer and activist for educational equity. Follow her  at @mdawriter.

Read more at EBONY 
Follow us: @EbonyMag on Twitter | EbonyMag on Facebook

Monday, June 16, 2014

David Bloomfield: Vergara Decision Starts a Healthy Debate on Teacher Tenure

Vergara's Shaky Significance

by David C. Bloomfield, Jun 15, 2014
A June 10th lower court decision in Vergara v. California found that five California teacher employment statutes violate the State Constitution's Equal Protection Clause by disproportionately maintaining "grossly ineffective schools serving predominantly low-income and minority students."
Speculation immediately turned to Vergara-type suits in other states with the aim of eliminating or weakening teacher tenure and other job protections across the country.
Not so fast.
The ink is hardly dry on Vergara and a lengthy appeals process awaits. Meanwhile the contested statutes remain on the books. Final victory for plaintiffs is hardly inevitable since the trial court decision shows scant evidence proving that the statutes themselves, rather than feckless administrators' failure to initiate required evaluation and termination proceedings, were the cause of plaintiffs' alleged educational injury. In addition, the court's high bar requiring the state to show a compelling interest in preserving each of the current statutes is wide open to appellate attack.
On the other hand, there is little legal traction to arguments that Vergara is over-dependent on suspect test score data and predictions that teacher quality will fall without the statutes' job security guarantees. Not that those aren't good points - but they are not legal arguments. As the court took pains to address, this case will be won or lost on legal principles of equal protection based on California precedents and facts established at trial, not policy pronouncements about the best system of teacher evaluation and due process rights for optimal educational quality. Judge Treu made clear that he believes the judicial system is too crude an instrument to decide those matters and that, under our system of separation of powers, curtailing the evidentiary parade of horribles that he said "shock the conscience" requires legislative remedies.
Which is why Vergara is more an opening for public debate - likely the main intention of the lawsuit - than it is a catalyst to directly bring about substantial changes in state or national education law. For example, Judge Treu found that California's two year probationary period prior to tenure was too short to adequately evaluate teacher quality, disproportionately penalizing poor and minority students. What if, in response, the state legislature changes that period to three years, which Vergara looks upon favorably? New fact, new case! Any or all of the statutes in question can be tweaked - cynically or not - to meet legal requirements surviving appeal.
Similarly, beyond California, any attempt to nationalize Vergara faces a tortuous path, much like the school finance battles that ensued late in the twentieth century and continue today. Each state, assuming the presence of equal protection, will have its own precedential scheme for interpreting those laws. Each will have its own constellation of teachers' employment rights. Each will have different statistical profiles of the presence or absence of incompetent teachers based on differing measures. In short, each years-long case will need to be financed and litigated individually, an extremely tall order, especially when legislative responses after any wins will have the potential to undo plaintiffs' initial expectation of educational improvement.
Remember, too, that teachers' working conditions are not generally statutory but bargained with school districts. It's even a little weird that tenure is a statutory right at all, treated as a public good rather than a private benefit. Teacher unions have been particularly successful in selling that idea so that they do not have to subject tenure, first-in-first-out, and other job protections to the give-and-take of cyclic contract negotiations.
But surely, if the Vergara plaintiffs ultimately succeed at total elimination of tenure, FIFO, etc. at the state level, the fight will just move to districts where school boards will vie with one another to offer sweet deals on job security and due process to attract the best teachers. Like white flight after Brown v. Board of Education, invoked by Judge Treu in the first line of Vergara more as a benediction than a precedent, any state-level evisceration of teacher job protections will have a negative checker-board effect on districts.
I support teacher tenure since it allows teachers uniquely necessary opportunities for classroom freedom and student advocacy that would otherwise be threatened by supervisors or public disapproval. But, with varied experience as a teacher union organizer, New York City Board of Education General Counsel, and expert witness for school districts in termination proceedings, I have too often seen procedural protections used as a sword to preserve ineptitude rather than, as intended, to shield professionalism.
Healthy debate is necessary over these policies and practices, including the crying need for administrators to vigorously exercise their supervisory duties toward probationary and tenured teachers alike. As a catalyst for this debate, Vergara serves a useful purpose even if, as legal mandate, it stands on shaky ground.
David C. Bloomfield is Professor of Education at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. He is the author of American Public Education Law, 2nd ed. and many other works, including an earlier column, Teacher Tenure Tantrum.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Mark Naison: Why Teacher Tenure And Due Process Are Important

Brian Jones and Mark Naison
Why Teachers Need Tenure and Due Process:
Teaching is an incredibly "political" profession. The content of curriculum, as well as school budgets and hiring policies are the subject of intense debate from local school districts through legislators. Public officials, given a chance, will use schools as centers of patronage or places where they build political machines, and they will attempt to make teachers serve those ends if teachers do not have basic job protections. Then there are the parents. Some parents see all the needs of all children as foremost. Others will do anything to get special treatment for their child. If they are powerful, they will use that power to try to bend teachers to their will. I have seen this in action in schools I have worked in ( as well as sports leagues). Teachers need basic job protection to defend them from those parents, who exist, sometimes in small numbers, sometimes in large numbers in every school. Finally, teachers need protection from abusive administrators who are, thankfully, a minority, but do exist in every school district in the country. And these job protections, which protect teachers from abuse, intimidation, bribery, insider dealing and special influence, also protect children, because if teachers are bent to the will of powerful politicians, helicopter parents and abusive administrators, children will suffer. That is whey every society in the world with good schools has the kind of employment protections people here are challenging. And by the way, every single thing I have described above I have seen operating first hand