Skip to main content

DSEA President now trying to backpedal furiously to "victory"

Yesterday the Senate proved once again that nobody there--despite party differences--actually thinks about public education critically by passing Dave Sokola's ridiculous SB 51, which is supposed to improve teacher preparation in Delaware.

I will have more to say on this later today, but here's the morning takeaway.

Earlier this week the DSEA Facebook page praised the bill because
It also gives DSEA a seat at the table to help develop the criteria for the exam and the assessment.
I pointed out that this is both disingenuous and dangerous.  There are already plenty of teachers involved in the teacher preparation programs at UD, DSU, and WU (which produce 95% of our new teachers), that there are already rigorous national standards being closely monitored (via NCATE), and that no research has ever EVER actually determined the preparation of our entry-level teachers in Delaware to be a problem.

Today I discover DSEA President Frederika Jenner, who has publicly endorsed this bill now backpedaling away from the (brutally honest) statement on her own organization's Facebook page:
DSEA leadership does not actually want that proverbial "seat at the table." What I would like to see is a greater number of working teachers involved in every aspect of teacher prep--the profession managing the profession, so to speak. I do not know which teachers were involved in any of the planning of this legislation. I have recommended that teachers be involved in planning, preparation, and implementation of teacher prep. A variety of working teachers. I also believe that lots more teachers could and should be involved in teaching college students about teaching.
Ms. Jenner, get real.

Your first statement is contradicted by your own organization's testimony in front of the Senate and other public statements.

And your agenda is for DSEA, not teachers, to become involved in teacher preparation, and involved not on the basis of professional quality, but involved on the basis of having state law MANDATE that involvement.

My guess is that you don't even know how many teachers are currently involved in such preparation programs.  There are dozens if not hundreds across the State.

Master teachers work with ALL the pre-service candidates for extended periods.

Teachers have a virtual veto over the credentials of all student teachers.

Many teachers are involved as adjunct faculty at our universities, and many retired teachers (or teachers who went on to get their advanced degrees and then switched career fields) are on the full-time faculty. Take a look at the teacher preparation faculty at our universities and you will discover ... teachers!

But apparently not the right teachers for Ms. Jenner.

Her rhetoric about not wanting a seat at the table is woefully thin at this point, given that such has been the argument she used while committing DSEA's full support for Vision 2015 and Race to the Top, both of which have been disasters for Delaware teachers as a whole.

How the teachers of Delaware continue to support a union that makes common cause with corporate officials who blame virtually all the problems of public education on them is beyond comprehension.

Comments

Anonymous said…
"How the teachers of Delaware continue to support a union that makes common cause with corporate officials who blame virtually all the problems of public education on them is beyond comprehension."

Its not like they have a choice. I am sure most teachers would stop paying dues if they had the chance.
I am sure most teachers would stop paying dues if they had the chance.

First, teachers do have a choice. While DSEA is an "agency shop" it is not a "closed shop." This means that you CAN choose to pay the representation fee, not join the union, and not have a single dollar support DSEA political lobbying.

Second, DSEA--primarily through its local affiliates--does provide a necessary service for teachers in an collective bargaining environment. Having worked in such a union in an education environment for years, I can tell you that our teachers do need effective representation when administrators try to ignore contract, due process, and employment law.
Joanne Christian said…
I have to say I am totally flummoxed by this bill. Not perhaps 200 yards from Leg Hall sits the Townsend Building home to about every education subset task force, think tank, standards board etc., and this bill appears, endorsed, ratified and touted as the "Magic Bullet". Ah--hello? Proclamation is one thing--but law? Does anyone from the Senate realize there are volumes, and layers of regulations, rules, and rubrics already in place to insure quality teacher prep? And people are already paid to assess, deliver, design,investigate and implement at various checks and balances levels? And there are other regional and national considerations and benchmarks that need to be upheld? How come the Senior Class President is allowed to make rules for the District? Isn't there a process in place to navigate snafus, realities, and legalities, that brings this legislation forth? Would someone please tell the Legislature they are not just signing a high school petition of a really good idea. That really good idea hasn't even seen the sclera of ANY non-partisan educational panel/board in this state to my knowledge, but apparently is receiving much momentum because except for TFA--the assumption is made, it must have been approved or it wouldn't have gotten here! Tacit approval, implied consent ARE VERY DANGEROUS in this business. Demand the roots for this bill---and be prepared for all the weeding of a whole new imploded landscape of education--when the acreage we are already tending is well tended, rotated, nurtured, and weeded as necessary---with many willing hands.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...