Steven Brill’s New Yorker story on the quagmire that is the New York City school system is an example of the power of facts in the hands a journalist who knows what to do with them.
Brill’s piece, the “Rubber Room,” looks at the standoff between the city’s Board of Education and the United Federation of Teachers—and unabashedly sides with Mayor Bloomberg’s schools superintendent Joel Klein and his team. They’re “reform-minded” and “reformers,” while Randi Weingarten, the UFT’s president until this month, is left to defend the status quo. But what a rotten status quo it is.
The story in its essence is a brief in favor of performance testing for public school teachers.
One can sympathize with unions (and I do) and see all manner of possible abuses that could come from trying to separate the great from the merely good from the truly incompetent among teachers, a job for which quality is so difficult to measure. One can even wish the facts in the piece were otherwise, but there they are, and even union sympathizers must deal with them. That’s journalism for you.
Brill is the entrepreneur and founder of American Lawyer and CourtTV and a notoriously cantankerous boss himself. Here he shows that those who manage can also do.
“Rubber Rooms” are the Department of Education’s Temporary Reassignment Centers, detention centers where teachers facing disciplinary charges must sit, wait, and do nothing for months or even years while their cases move through a Dickensian arbitration system.
The absurdity, cost, and psychological toll of warehousing 600 grown-ups is nicely portrayed:
It’s a June morning, and there are fifteen people in the room, four of them fast asleep, their heads lying on a card table. Three are playing a board game. Most of the others stand around chatting. Two are arguing over one of the folding chairs. But there are no children here.
This weird institution has already been described in recent years by all of New York’s major papers.
But Brill uses Rubber Rooms as an entry point to look at larger issues in a system in which teachers are tenured after three years, compensated in lockstep based on seniority, treated generally as interchangeable parts, and are essentially unmovable unless charged with an offense and removed via a Dickensian arbitration proceeding.
Brill reports that only 1.8 percent of the system’s 89,000 teachers are given an unsatisfactory grade in annual performance reviews and only 50 teachers alleged to be incompetent had actually been taken out of class and put in a Rubber Room
As a longtime member of newspaper unions, I’ve seen both sides: ambitious reporters frustrated by what Brill refers to as the “widget effect,” contracts that treated all reporters the same, no matter what, and supervisors who don’t always do the right thing.
But what is entirely clear after reading Brill is that the system for resolving disciplinary charges in New York schools is a flat disaster. Brill’s account is so beautifully written you feel like you’re traveling back to a time of gas lamps and quill pens. In one passage, he describes the hearing of Rubber Roomer Lucienne Mohammed, a veteran fifth-grade teacher removed from an East New York school in June of 2008 on charges of incompetence. She allows Brill access to her file (though, inexplicably, her lawyer convinces her to decline an interview).
The evidence of Mohammed’s incompetence—found in more than five thousand pages of transcripts from her hearing—seems as unambiguous as the city’s lawyer promised in his opening statement: “These children were abused in stealth… . It was chronic … a failure to complete report cards… . Respondent failed to correct student work, failed to follow the mandated curriculum … failed to manage her class.” The independent observer’s final report supported this assessment, ticking off ten bullet points describing Mohammed’s unsatisfactory performance. (Mohammed’s lawyer argues that she began to be rated unsatisfactory only after she became active with the union.)

why is it always a crime when individuals try to 'game' the system a little, when they see people in much more responsible posiitons than their own gaming it successfully, for MUCH higher stakes? but just an executive perq when the pay level reaches a certain level?
educators know what works. They (we) worked it out mostly by 1990.But what works and what's testable are not in the same conversation. Testable = "Accountability."What works is an active pedagogy (c.f., Vygotsky, e.g.). Watch a kid teach another kid to play a video game. You'll get the idea.
So this empirical reality is inconvenient in a regime in which BILLIONS of dollars are being harvested off 'test scores." Tests which hold to "standards," and 'criteria," and 'knowledge." It's a racket, and everybody who is anybody (Arne Duncan, e.g.) has more than an academic stake in the outcome.
There are a LOT of people who have had taken the time to expound on this. Alfie Kohn is one. Susan Ohanian is another. Read anything by Gerald Bracey. The academic Vygotskyans are many. James Wersch for one prominent example. Vygotsky watched kids teaching and learning from one another, all with varied experiences and skills. Out in Turkmenistan, in the '30s. He got it.
But that kind of insight is anathema when there are billiosn to be made testing, and disqualifying thousands of students from participation in the good life.
All tests do is to provide retrospective evidence with which to sustain and retroactively justify decisions made about students before they ever entered a classroom, based on their zip codes more than their IQs.
The reformers are the militarists, the corporatists. They do not seek to promote democracy, which was the underlying telos of the public school movement of the 1840s and '50s. They are trying to implement a wholesale transformation from democratic education to corporate indoctrination.
They've been up to trying to find the appropriate formula since 1980. With Obama's embracy of the Corporatocracy of Duncan, I guess it's a fucking done deal.
But don't you DARE blame the teachers.
#1 Posted by Woody, CJR on Thu 27 Aug 2009 at 09:24 PM
I don’t think this is about union pressure. I think it is about whether you believe in liberal arts or whether the state can impose an authoritarian version of what’s proper to teach that destroys the very core of a liberal arts education.
It might work for science and math. It certainly doesn’t work for social sciences or even humanities.
#2 Posted by Bill Du Bois, CJR on Thu 27 Aug 2009 at 10:23 PM
Just kiss Brill's ass, why don't you. This muckraking story has been done and redone. Recently the AP had their turn bashing teachers and the UFT. That story pretty much stopped most rubber room inmates from talking to the media. With good reason. Everything the DOE says is taken as fact in Brill's piece, he never examines Mr. Prosecutor Joel Klein's vindictive role in this mess and his project for principals to get rid of senior teachers (age discrimination is for real even though Brill sites one phony example). Their are many whistleblowers that have gone to trial, but never mentioned in Brill's piece (or the DOE's pathetic role in those proceedings). The DOE has the power to move the cases along quickly. They don't want to ... anything to make teachers look bad.
The hidden agenda of this piece is the privatizaton of public education, not evaluating teachers. Mr. Brill, the entrepreneur, must be cooking up his piece of the education pie.
(Great comment above. I knew it was coming, but I do feel sorry for everyone punked by Obama).
#3 Posted by Queens Citizen, CJR on Thu 27 Aug 2009 at 10:27 PM
Over the past generation or two, job security, pay raises and pensions have been wrested from most private sector workers, leaving these things in the hands of government employees--especially cops, firefighters (20 years and out! COLAs!) and teachers. This being America, it's only natural that the folks (like Brill) who want to take these benefits away from those who still have them would be greeted as "reformers." Really, why shouldn't we all be "at-will," short-term contract employees? Hell, why shouldn't we all be day laborers? Especially if, somewhere, somehow, an alcoholic (almost) got to keep her job.
#4 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Fri 28 Aug 2009 at 01:14 PM
To Mr. Brill and anyone else jumping on the anti-teacher bandwagon, I offer you the opportunity to come do my job for one week. One week as a NYC public high school teacher and we'll see how you do.
The Rubber Room is a horrible place which is inhabited, for the most part, with people who should not be teachers. But nowhere in the story does the almighty author talk about the teachers sent there because their principal had it out for them, and latched onto any excuse. Did you know any child could frivolously walk down the hall slandering any teacher, just for the hell of it, resulting in that teacher being investigated and possibly sent to the Rubber Room?
Brill very clearly has an agenda. Children first? Spend one week in the system and you will see how laughable that is. It took me a week into my first semester to discover that last on the priority list of the Department of Education and the powers that be were the kids.
Again, anyone who wants to spend a week as a NYC teacher, please do so. Never again will you side with the author, and certainly not the mayor of New York.
#5 Posted by NYC Teacher, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 01:12 PM
Wow, what a depressing bunch of comments. Ericson sees absolutely nothing in Brill's piece but a naked attack on workers' rights. NYC teacher and Queens citizen are just defensive and bitter beyond all get-out, and Queens citizen even mixes up "there" and "their." Uh, MAYBE Brill is out to demonize the entire teaching profession, and MAYBE he has a long-term plan to make a buck by privatizing public education, but, uh... does that mean that it's good for an arbitration hearing to take a year before it even gets started? Surely there is some legitimacy in criticizing such a massively inefficient, cumbersome system. Oh, and the really shocking thing with the alcoholic, Ericson, was not that she "(almost) got to keep her job," but that the union flagrantly lied about what happened, in pursuit of its own political goal of making teachers out to be victims of an evil system. [&I am a union member myself (not in the education field) and I believe in workers' rights and public education.]
#6 Posted by lila, CJR on Sat 5 Sep 2009 at 04:03 AM
Ouch, Lila. Hastily written grammar error =unwashed idiot. I'm not a writer.I'm just a Queens citizen fed up with Bloomberg's New York and the media in his pocket. I feel sorry for the many GOOD educators caught up in this mess. The UFT has done a terrible job for THEIR members.
I came back to see if Mr. Brill had paid a visit (he commented on another site).Yes, the process takes too long, but Brill's laughably biased, selectively researched piece places all the blame on the UFT and goes after tenure.The DOE's(under Klein) vicious pursuit and prolonging of cases (i.e. David Pakter) is never examined. And it does matter that "entrepreneur" Steven Brill is the New Yorker's choice to write this investigative story. After listening to him on NPR, he clearly has very little knowledge of his subject matter.
#7 Posted by Queens Citizen, CJR on Sat 5 Sep 2009 at 05:36 PM
Thanks for replying, Queens Citizen. Sorry, I guess that was rude of me about the grammar error. Honest question: Is there good evidence that Klein/DOE actually have a policy goal or intent to delay/prolong the hearing processes? What would be their reasoning for doing that ?
#8 Posted by lila, CJR on Sat 5 Sep 2009 at 07:01 PM