Freshwater Hearing Delay

Posted 17 June 2009 by Richard B. Hoppe

John Freshwater's termination hearing was scheduled to resume tomorrow, June 18, but it has been postponed. Two Board of Education members, Ian Watson and Jody Goetzman, were subpoenaed by R. Kelly Hamilton, Freshwater's attorney, but have refused to testify on the ground that if they testify in the hearing they'd have to recuse themselves from voting on the recommendation of the hearing referee. Hamilton has asked the Common Pleas Court in Knox County to compel their testimony and the judge has not yet ruled on that request. I am reminded of James Hutton's 1788 remark on the age of the earth:

The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning - no prospect of an end.

And yes, I still have those 50 pages of notes on the two days in May in my backpack.

75 Comments

eric · 17 June 2009

Do you think that Freshwater's attorneys have been intentionally drawing out the trial?

After taking six months (so far) to make their case in an administrative hearing over employment, I think I'm ready to abandon the old adage and attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum · 17 June 2009

eric said: Do you think that Freshwater's attorneys have been intentionally drawing out the trial? After taking six months (so far) to make their case in an administrative hearing over employment, I think I'm ready to abandon the old adage and attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence.

You are talking about politico-religionists, those moral absolutists who would co-opt the state to impose their bizarre interpretation on the rest of us, using whatever moral relativist rationale they happen to think of.

Doc Bill · 17 June 2009

Maybe the mantras work.

Location, location, location.

Deny, deny, deny.

Delay, delay, delay.

RBH · 17 June 2009

eric said: Do you think that Freshwater's attorneys have been intentionally drawing out the trial? After taking six months (so far) to make their case in an administrative hearing over employment, I think I'm ready to abandon the old adage and attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence.

It's been 8 months -- the hearing started in early October. No, I don't think Hamilton is delaying merely for the sake of delaying. He's trying to do several things at once. First, he's putting on Freshwater's defense, and attempting to do so on several quite different bases -- administrative bungling; Freshwater didn't do anything that everybody else wasn't doing; Freshwater is an exemplary teacher; the family who brought the complaint is pursuing a vendetta against him; and there's a conspiracy in the Board and administration (and now a bunch of Does) to get rid of him. Each those entail a (more or less) different set of witnesses to attempt to establish Hamilton's point(s). Second, it appears that in effect he's doing discovery for the defense of the federal suit the Dennis family brought against him back in June of 2008. Finally, he's fighting a publicity battle, trying to get as much favorable testimony on the record and in the newspapers as possible in order to pressure the Board to settle. The slow pace is exacerbated by the multiplicity of attorneys involved and the hassle of getting them all in the same place at the same time. There are the three main attorneys involved, the referee, Hamilton for Freshwater, and David Millstone for the Board. The there are also representatives from the law firms involved in the original federal suit, the Dennis' personal attorney and Freshwater's separate attorney for that suit. While I'm not sure the availability of the latter three is a governing variable in determining dates, they surely play a role. A man's job and career are at stake here, so I don't think it's completely problematic to afford him a full opportunity to defend himself. That's what I'd want for myself should I be in that situation. Remember Rawls' approach to building a moral society under a veil of ignorance: design it as though you don't know what position you'll occupy in it. That's not a bad principle to start with.

Chip Poirot · 17 June 2009

RBH wrote:

Remember Rawls’ approach to building a moral society under a veil of ignorance: design it as though you don’t know what position you’ll occupy in it. That’s not a bad principle to start with.

I agree with everything else you say. At the risk of verging off topic, I have to say I have always found Rawls to be unpersuasive. A better and more coherent approach in my view is that of Sen and Nussbaum: ask what bundle of goods (including political freedom) is required in a given cultural context to live a fully human existence. By grounding values in actual human experience (rather than abstract and non-existent states of ignorance) we can also understand the instrumental purposes of many rights. Tenure and due process actually serve a purpose. They force school administrators/boards to fully consider a situation before making a decision. A situation where principals can just wave their hands and make teachers disappear is not one that will lead to better education-in fact it might lead to worse education.

The Tim Channel · 17 June 2009

Funny how the system of due process is taking months determining what any reasonable person could have figured out long ago. Freshwater is a militant fundamentalist willing to risk his teaching career in pursuit of pushing a religious dogma.

Enjoy.

Maya · 17 June 2009

If the two BofE members are compelled to testify, the school district should subpoena the remaining BofE members and ensure that no one can vote on the referee's recommendation.

Flint · 17 June 2009

It would appear that you can add to your list of Hamilton's goals, the goal of eliminating the possiblity of a binding vote after this is all over with.

stevaroni · 17 June 2009

A bit off topic, but it's still about the schools, so a quick note about the (perpetually continuing) Texas BOE drama.

One of the bills that did make it out of the Texas legislature this year was a fairly reasonable one that would allow local school districts to use state funds to buy electronic versions of textbooks (instead of paper) for subjects that were changing quickly

I believe the original intent was to try to make it cheaper to get more current history into, well, current history classes. ( This goal I can sympathize with. In the 80's I went to a high school "current events" class that still speculated that, with the Cuban missile crisis safely behind us, one day our country might be able to focus our energy on landing a man on the the moon )

Anyhow, then conservatives on the SBOE freaked, belatedly realizing that these texts would not be under direct control of the state textbook commissions, and school districts forward-thinking enough to use digital texts might use them to teach - gasp - actual science.

The horror!

So, now, conservative SBOE members are whipping up their bases to pressure governor Perry to veto the bill.

Fortunately, they are being mocked roundly, as they so richly deserve.
(http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/2009/06/17/0617ebooks_edit.html)

Unfortunately, Perry has all the spine of a bowling ball, so the bill may very well be doomed.

eric · 18 June 2009

RBH said: It's been 8 months -- the hearing started in early October. No, I don't think Hamilton is delaying merely for the sake of delaying. He's trying to do several things at once.

Okay, thanks for the response. The six months referred to Freshwater's defense, which started in Jan. It seemed strange to me that the Board took two months and the defense is taking six+, with no sign of resting. However you're right, Freshwater has more at stake than the board so that difference makes sense.

Remember Rawls' approach to building a moral society under a veil of ignorance: design it as though you don't know what position you'll occupy in it. That's not a bad principle to start with.

That's a reasonable approach but it doesn't result in everyone agreeing on what constitutes a good system. Take ten people and don't tell them whether they're the firer or firee, and they'll likely come up with ten different answers as to how much time and how much public money should be spent to ensure a 'fair hearing.'

Chip Poirot · 18 June 2009

Leaving Rawls aside, at present, the legislature of Ohio has decided on the standards of due process in cases of dismissal of tenured teachers. The relevant statute is here: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3319.16 In addition to this statute, the basic underlying premise of requiring a hearing prior to dismissal of a public employee who is not an employee at will is enshrined in Loudermill . It should also be noted that the charges against Freshwater (physically harming a student, insubordination and willful violations of school district policies and Constitutional principles of separation of Church and State) would effectively bar Freshwater from farther employment as a public school teacher. For that matter, based on my very limited understanding of teacher licensing law, physically harming a student either willfully or through negligence could lead to a loss of a license. The primary reason, as far as I can see that it is taking six months for Freshwater to put on a defense stems from the nature of the report completed by the HR firm hired by the District to investigate the allegations against Freshwater. That report interviewed as I recall over 30 people. Freshwater has the legal right to cross examine every single one of them and also to challenge the validity and impartiality of the investigation itself. Currently, Governor Strickland has proposed making it more difficult to get tenure and easier to fire tenured teachers. At least one news report has used the example of Freshwater as a basis to justify the governor's policy. It is not exactly clear to me how or why the proposed language would alter the current requirement for dismissing a tenured teacher. The current standard is:

The contract of any teacher employed by the board of education of any city, exempted village, local, county, or joint vocational school district may not be terminated except for gross inefficiency or immorality; for willful and persistent violations of reasonable regulations of the board of education; or for other good and just cause.

There's a lot more that can be said about Strickland's plan for merit pay and his call for the State itself (rather than local districts) to evaluate teachers and to base teacher pay on "merit" -which has yet to be defined-but that is probably a little too off topic. I believe it is a mistake to believe that science education will be served in the state of Ohio by: 1. Weakening teacher tenure; 2. Paying science teachers on the basis of standardized test performance; 3. Having state evaluators evaluate teachers.

mountvernon1805 · 18 June 2009

RBH,
Your post is correct that one of the arguments the school board is making, for not testifying, is that they would have to recuse themselves. (I obtained a copy of the brief Millstone filed on Wednesday.)

The argument, though, that their brief depended on primarily was the claim that they had the right to quash the subpoenas from Hamilton.

Here’s the link to what I wrote about the board’s arguments:

“School Board Gives Reason for Not Complying With Subpoenas”

Something I found concerning about the brief was that it was signed by, instead of one attorney for the school board, two attorneys for the school board. I’m wondering if the school district is going to be double billed for legal costs from now on—or maybe it was just for this one time. The name of the second attorney is Brendan P. Kelley.

Marion Delgado · 19 June 2009

Not everything IS a bundle of goods, and it's capitalist cultism to say everything is. Political freedom, in particular, is not some "good" to be priced, bought, sold, etc. And that whole paradigm is, if anything, more abstract and less commonsensical than Rawls' veil of ignorance - which is very similar to, e.g., the instructions to a jury, it just so happens.

Unless, of course, you're deeply religious and brainwashed in market fundamentalism, in which case your direct perceptions and reason have been replaced with an addiction to turning everything into a bundle of goods, of course, in which case, carry on :)

Marion Delgado · 19 June 2009

eric:

That criticism would make more sense if it were in fact shown that a system where people knew for a fact what roles they'd play in the system had a greater tendency to agree on what was fair - and that's not the case where situations like that arise. You might get fewer than 10 different answers, technically but you'd also get people locked into them in a way you wouldn't if a discussion was carried out before their roles were assigned.

Most of the lines of attack on Rawls have a conservative and usually a market fundamentalist grounding, at least so far. You don't need Rawls or any other philosopher of the modern era for this perspective at all - the ancient Chinese story "Don't throw stones from not-yours to yours" captures the idea perfectly.

I myself mostly deal with denialists who are not, in fact, conventionally religous. The dollar and capitalism and the magic of the market and the invisible hand are their superstitious intangible dogmas. And it's not just climate denial - they are also very fond of denying evolution, if it's evolution of resistance to DDT, say. Or bacterial resistance to antibiotics being scientifically related to promiscuous use in the meat industry.

And I am still unimpressed with, e.g., an earlier post on Panda's Thumb that pretended it was an issue for the poster if the taxpayers were funding religion tinged science classes when the actual issue for them is that they want to de-fund science-only and religion-tinged education equally, because they regard everything except the Party approved funcitons of cops, courts and soldiers as being a luxury and a gift, and there is no commons and no society and no social goods and no mutual infrastructure and so on - because Mammon/Smith/Mises/Rand/Rothbard/Friedman or other deity or prophet says there isn't.

Chip Poirot · 19 June 2009

Marion Delgado said: Not everything IS a bundle of goods, and it's capitalist cultism to say everything is. Political freedom, in particular, is not some "good" to be priced, bought, sold, etc. And that whole paradigm is, if anything, more abstract and less commonsensical than Rawls' veil of ignorance - which is very similar to, e.g., the instructions to a jury, it just so happens. Unless, of course, you're deeply religious and brainwashed in market fundamentalism, in which case your direct perceptions and reason have been replaced with an addiction to turning everything into a bundle of goods, of course, in which case, carry on :)

If you are referring to Sen and Nussbuam as apologists for market fundamentalism, then you obviously haven't bothered to read Sen and Nussbaum. That's probably enough said for the here and now. I doubt its fair to turn a forum on the Freshwater case into a forum on theories of justice.

eric · 19 June 2009

Marion,

Well, okay. I was really just saying that (for public policy) the ability to put oneself in the other person's shoes/see their point of view does not guarantee agreement. Policy disagreement does not always stem from bias. Relevant to this case: (IMO) reasonable people can disagree about how far a school administration needs to go to ensure their hearing structure gives the accused a fair shake.

Chip Poirot · 19 June 2009

Reasonable people may disagree about what the law **should be**, but reasonable cannot disagree about what the current law **is**.

For that matter, the practical consequences of procedural and substantive due process do not lead to disagreement about the general principles, within the context of the U.S. Constitution.

Procedural due process with respect to public employees who have a property interest in their job requires the employer to follow the procedures specified in civil service rules, collective bargaining agreements and/or in relevant statutes. Substantive due process requires that in the process of doing so, the employer be genuinely committed to fairly considering **all** the evidence-both for and against the employee.

The State of Ohio has clearly defined these procedures with respect to tenured K-12 teachers. The teacher is specifically given the right to confront all accusers and witnesses in an adversarial hearing before the local Board of Education, in front of a neutral referee and to call witnesses of his or her own.

Does due process require that a hearing be before a Board? Obviously no-there could be other ways to do this. It could be before an panel of arbiters, or in front of the school principal. In higher ed it has always been considered to be before a panel of fellow faculty.

In addition to the property interest there is also a liberty interest-the ability to pursue one's field of employment. You can lose your liberty by losing a license, or simply through damage to reputation by the nature of the termination itself. For example, a college professor or K-12 teacher who was terminated for sexual harassment would find it immensely difficult to get another teaching job. And that is why public employees who do not have a property interest in their job (e.g. are untenured or not covered by civil service rules) sometimes have a right to a hearing anyway if the basis for the termination is a reason that will interfere with liberty. And under some circumstances, even private sector at will employees may have similar rights.

Reasonable people may disagree about whether or not the public is best served by the government granting a property interest through tenure to K-12 teachers or any other public employee. Reasonable people may disagree with legal precedents that treat public employees differently than private employees. Reasonable people may disagree about how to interpret these rulings.

But reasonable cannot disagree about the widely accepted legal meaning of 1st, Fourth, Fifth and Fifteenth Amendment rights of tenured K-12 teachers. And reasonable cannot disagree about the legal standard of due process.

The reason this case is screwed up is not because of the law. This case is screwed up because the district bungled it.

Years and years ago the district should reasonably have done the following:

1. Issued clear written guidelines about use of the Tesla coil and informing all school personnel that it should never be used as a demonstration device on students;
2. Given clear, written guidelines as to the appropriate roles of teacher advisors of student clubs and provided special training for teachers advising religious or political clubs;
3. Provided clear, written guidelines for when one goes "beyond the curriculum" (which district policy apparently allows);
4. Provided clear guidelines about what may or may not be posted in the classrooms.

Then the district should have documented violations of these policies, given verbal and then written warnings for violation of these policies.

Had the district done this it would not have needed to hire an HR firm to interview 30 witnesses and it would not have lacked a record with which to document Freshwater's alleged misconduct. Instead, the district is locked in a he said-he said knock down-drag out fight.

So don't blame the U.S. Constitution for this and please spare me assertions about how reasonable people may disagree about the U.S. Constitution. I suppose reasonable people might disagree about waterboarding as well.

fnxtr · 19 June 2009

Yeah, it looks like it was the wink, the blind eye, and the aversion to conflict that got the school board in this mess in the first place. The guidelines may well have been in place, but not followed by either party. I just hope other school boards learn from what could be a very expensive mistake.

eric · 19 June 2009

Chip Poirot said: So don't blame the U.S. Constitution for this and please spare me assertions about how reasonable people may disagree about the U.S. Constitution. I suppose reasonable people might disagree about waterboarding as well.

What? I didn't say anything about the Constitution, its amendments, or waterboarding. I'm not going to engage with you on this Chip, you appear to be looking for a fight.

Chris Lawson · 19 June 2009

Chip,

I think it's untenable to insist the district should have written clear rules that Tesla coils should not be used to burn crosses into students' skin. There has to come a point, surely, where basic rules (don't assault students and don't promote your personal religion in class) can be upheld without every single possible variation being spelled out in detail. Otherwise Freshwater could move on to using soldering irons to burn fish symbols onto students' foreheads, using as his defence, "The district only forbade Tesla coils, crosses, and arms."

Chip Poirot · 19 June 2009

eric said:
Chip Poirot said: So don't blame the U.S. Constitution for this and please spare me assertions about how reasonable people may disagree about the U.S. Constitution. I suppose reasonable people might disagree about waterboarding as well.
What? I didn't say anything about the Constitution, its amendments, or waterboarding. I'm not going to engage with you on this Chip, you appear to be looking for a fight.

This is what you said Eric:

Relevant to this case: (IMO) reasonable people can disagree about how far a school administration needs to go to ensure their hearing structure gives the accused a fair shake.

You made this statement after I posted a link to and directly cited the Ohio Revised Code. It is a clear and plain principle of the U.S. Constitution and the Ohio Revised Code as to what is required to provide a fair hearing. Here, I'll quote further the plain language of the statute:

From ORC 3319-16: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3319.16 The hearing shall be conducted by a referee appointed pursuant to section 3319.161 of the Revised Code, if demanded; otherwise, it shall be conducted by a majority of the members of the board and shall be confined to the grounds given for the termination. The board shall provide for a complete stenographic record of the proceedings, a copy of the record to be furnished to the teacher. The board may suspend a teacher pending final action to terminate his contract if, in its judgment, the character of the charges warrants such action. Both parties may be present at such hearing, be represented by counsel, require witnesses to be under oath, cross-examine witnesses, take a record of the proceedings, and require the presence of witnesses in their behalf upon subpoena to be issued by the treasurer of the board. In case of the failure of any person to comply with a subpoena, a judge of the court of common pleas of the county in which the person resides, upon application of any interested party, shall compel attendance of the person by attachment proceedings as for contempt. Any member of the board or the referee may administer oaths to witnesses.

Yet you said that reasonable people can disagree on a matter that is both statutorily and Constitutionally defined. This is the same dissembling that Yoo used to justify torture. Now, if you want to clarify then fine. Clarify and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Your comments about "reasonable people may disagree" are also being made in the context of a concerted and sustained effort by right wing groups nationally and in the state of Ohio to weaken or eradicate teacher tenure. You are employing the same tactic as these groups and using the same language as these groups. At present, in the state of Ohio, the same right wing Republican yahoos who attack education in general and who have a holy mess out of school funding also want to impose an absurd 9 year requirement to receive tenure and in addition, weaken the plain language of the existing statute. Well Eric, if you are going to walk like a duck, talk like a duck, quack like a duck, then I will come to the conclusion that you are a duck or a fellow traveler of ducks. But like I said-if you want to clarify and recognize what the law is in this case and what is legally required-then all the better. But so far-save for the issue of separation of Church and State, you have taken the same position as Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas on the Constitutional rights of public employees. In fact, you have staked out territory far to the right of Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas, since I doubt even they would dispute the plain meaning of the ORC or the applicability of Loudermill. And if people are going to use this case to attack tenure, due process and the Constitutional rights of public employees in general, then yeah-I am up for a fight on the U.S. Constitution, on defending Unions and teacher tenure. Ya sure-ya betcha!

Chip Poirot · 19 June 2009

Chris Lawson said: Chip, I think it's untenable to insist the district should have written clear rules that Tesla coils should not be used to burn crosses into students' skin. There has to come a point, surely, where basic rules (don't assault students and don't promote your personal religion in class) can be upheld without every single possible variation being spelled out in detail. Otherwise Freshwater could move on to using soldering irons to burn fish symbols onto students' foreheads, using as his defence, "The district only forbade Tesla coils, crosses, and arms."

A Tesla coil is not like a soldering iron. Multiple teachers were using the Tesla coil in class and students were apparently routinely allowed to touch it or to have it applied to their skin. Students also engaged in this activity voluntarily. The district should have put an end to this in the bud. They didn't even need to address Tesla coils specifically. It's not an unheard of instructional technique in a science class for a teacher to show or demonstrate an impact of something that is otherwise physically harmless. On the other hand, the district may be able to argue that Freshwater acted recklessly. If it can show that he was acting recklessly and doing so to promote religion, then their case is strengthened. But as it is, so much of this case is going to hinge on "he said-he said" because the district failed to act: not because of the statute on teacher tenure in the ORC.

JGB · 19 June 2009

As a teacher I disagree with tenure. I'm with a charter school and jumping through this many hoops to get rid of someone so blatantly incompatible for the job would be maddening. The old archaic administration- union- parent model has one too many stake holders to avoid passing the buck. It's much easier to form a productive and self correcting system when it's teachers and parents.

dogmeatIB · 20 June 2009

JGB said: As a teacher I disagree with tenure. I'm with a charter school and jumping through this many hoops to get rid of someone so blatantly incompatible for the job would be maddening. The old archaic administration- union- parent model has one too many stake holders to avoid passing the buck. It's much easier to form a productive and self correcting system when it's teachers and parents.

A couple of misconceptions here JGB. First, the person has been "gotten rid of," he has been fired, no longer works for the district. So this isn't a matter of tenure stopping a district from firing the teacher, this isn't a matter of union-ship, etc. In fact, I believe that Freshwater isn't a member of the union and they aren't involved in this case (though I could be wrong). For a number of states, I'm not specifically familiar with Ohio law, tenure has little to do with the ability of a fired professional (to use that term very loosely) from challenging or suing their termination. You can still challenge your termination, at the very least going to the EEOC. This is both for public and private employment situations. Finally, these procedures have been put into place because, historically, employers have been guilty of violating the rights of individual employees. You might not like unions, but I guarantee you probably prefer the modern educational situation as a teacher than the "good old days" when districts could fire female teachers for walking on the wrong street, or walking down the street with a male who was not her father or brother. Where female teachers were regularly fired if they got married, etc. Unions exist for a reason, the legal foundation for these hearings is a solid one, even when a loon like Freshwater gets to benefit from it.

Mike Elzinga · 20 June 2009

JGB said: As a teacher I disagree with tenure. I'm with a charter school and jumping through this many hoops to get rid of someone so blatantly incompatible for the job would be maddening. The old archaic administration- union- parent model has one too many stake holders to avoid passing the buck. It's much easier to form a productive and self correcting system when it's teachers and parents.

DogmeatIB has already addressed many of the major issues. But as far as unions are concerned, I believe it was my father who once told me that unions are a necessary evil that arose in response to a whole series of unnecessary evils.

Chip Poirot · 20 June 2009

Mike and Dogmeat:

I have already explained the law in the state of Ohio wrt teacher tenure and commented on the OEA issue. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me, the fact of the matter is, I actually have reason to know what I am talking about in this case. I see not point in repeating my earlier posts.

Freshwater's situation is defined by the Ohio Revised Code:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3319.16 Since I have already excerpted from it twice, I won't do so again. As I have also said before, this is a Constitutional issue because Freshwater is a tenured public employee and also due to the liberty interest in this case.

Untenured teachers may be terminated at the end of their contract for any reason, no reason, a good reason, a bad reason, or simply because the district believes it can find a better teacher. However, in some cases, if the justification for the termination or non-renewal would bar that person from pursuing their career, then there are due process issues because of the liberty interest. In addition, in some very limited cases the free speech clause of the First Amendment may apply.

An untenured teacher cannot just go to the EEOC: You have to prove that the termination or non-renewal was based on a discriminatory motive as defined by EEOC categories: race, gender, national origin, religion.

None of this has anything to do with what one thinks or does not think of the evidence. Having looked at the evidence myself, my own conclusion is that the Mt. Vernon school district will ultimately prevail, though they have seemed bound and determined to make their case more difficult than it needs to be.

Regardless, Freshwater still has a right to defend himself and confront his accusers.

Mike Elzinga · 20 June 2009

Chip Poirot said: Mike and Dogmeat: I have already explained the law in the state of Ohio wrt teacher tenure and commented on the OEA issue. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me, the fact of the matter is, I actually have reason to know what I am talking about in this case. I see not point in repeating my earlier posts.

It’s not necessary to remind us of the law. I have first-hand experience with a teacher just like Freshwater; and the system failed to eliminate him. While I wouldn’t take away their rights, I certainly know that these people have more rights than they deserve. They tend to abuse everything that is handed to them.

Chip Poirot · 21 June 2009

Mike Elzinga said: It’s not necessary to remind us of the law. I have first-hand experience with a teacher just like Freshwater; and the system failed to eliminate him.

But several people have said things that are contrary to what the actual law is in this case. I'm simply saying that people should specifically look at the actual law in this case.

While I wouldn’t take away their rights, I certainly know that these people have more rights than they deserve. They tend to abuse everything that is handed to them.

I appreciate that Mike. I also appreciate what you said earlier about Unions, except I see them as a positive good-not a necessary evil. That's not to say Unions are perfect or always right. But they are fundamental for a free and just society. I also agree that any tenure system will lead to abuses. Tenure is supposed to protect professionals from unjust retaliation. But some people are just good at gaming the system and lack professionalism. But here again, I'm suggesting people think about this in the context of the current law in Ohio and the political situation in Ohio. Several news sources, including the Columbus dispatch, have pointed to the Freshwater case as an example of what is wrong with the current tenure law. I keep reading over and over again that the current tenure law does not allow termination for just cause-which is patently false when one reads the statute. I also keep reading over and over again that teachers are subject to a higher standard for dismissal than other public employees. But again, no one has explained how or why this is true. I also read over and over again that the system is rotten and full of bad teachers and that all these bad teachers cannot be gotten rid of. But these news stories provide no data and no evidence to support these blanket assertions. Again, I don't think anyone disputes that there are bad teachers-just like there are bad cops or bad plumbers or bad lawyers. But what evidence is there that there is really a huge number of bad teachers out there? And why is no one willing to discuss lazy and incompetent educational bureaucrats or the presence of politically opportunist K-12 administrators? And why are teachers constantly blamed for all the problems-especially when what is being asked of K-12 teachers is near impossible? Let's suppose that Freshwater was working under Governor Strickland's proposed K-12 reforms? What would have been concretely different? Apparently, Freshwater's students were meeting the district standards on the standardized tests. Freshwater had positive evaluations. He had never been sanctioned or disciplined before. Now I agree-that he probably **should** have been-if for nothing else than for allowing and encouraging students to touch the Tesla coil or demonstrating it on students-even with their consent. But if school administrators are not willing to use the sanctions available to them now-how is changing the language in the Ohio Revised Code going to improve the situation at all? How does making a teacher wait 9 years for tenure improve the teacher shortage or encourage teachers to stay in the profession? Why is tenure blamed for this situation when it is the district and school administrators who made the mess? For the record: the following are Strickland's proposed "reforms": 1. Change the school funding formula (I actually agree with this); 2. Provide for a four year mentoring program of new teachers after they graduate (the OEA is supporting this but I don't see what it is going to accomplish); 3. Mandate an additional five years to tenure **after** the teacher passes the four year mentoring program; 4. Change the current wording of the Ohio Revised Code to "just cause" from its current wording:

The contract of any teacher employed by the board of education of any city, exempted village, local, county, or joint vocational school district may not be terminated except for gross inefficiency or immorality; for willful and persistent violations of reasonable regulations of the board of education; or for other good and just cause.

Presumably, tenured teachers will still have to be given a full hearing before being dismissed. The only irony I can see in this whole situation is that Freshwater's supporters tend to vote heavily for the Republican yahoos in the Ohio House and Senate who are exactly the ones who have tried to completely eliminate tenure in Ohio.

Mike Elzinga · 21 June 2009

Chip Poirot said: ... And why is no one willing to discuss lazy and incompetent educational bureaucrats or the presence of politically opportunist K-12 administrators? And why are teachers constantly blamed for all the problems-especially when what is being asked of K-12 teachers is near impossible? ...

From what has been reported so far, it appears to me that the school administration had nothing but spineless cowards (and probably some enablers also) dealing with the Freshwater case. This was also the case in the situation with which I am familiar. The teacher in question should have been let go at the end of his first year of untenured teaching. Problems were already blatantly obvious by that time. He was incompetent at every subject he was allegedly qualified to teach. It turned out that he had faked his resume. He proselytized, and he openly denigrated the religions of the Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, and other religious students in his class. He even denied this when confronted with audio and video recordings taken by his students. His supervising teacher strongly recommended he be let go, he argued with his supervising teacher that his “freedom of speech” permitted him to proselytize; he wouldn’t take any instructional advice from the supervising teacher. Parents were coming in en-mass to complain, he wouldn’t cooperate with any of the rest of the staff, he stole a sandwich off the sectary’s desk and ate it while she had turned her back to deal with the fax machine. He asked inane, irrelevant questions at staff meetings and of guest speakers at assemblies. He bribed students who held his own sectarian views with As to give him good recommendations (which they did, and they got As while those students who stood up to him got Cs and Ds despite their superior course work). All of this was well-documented repeatedly. This continued throughout his next three years of untenured teaching, and the problems just got worse. But when the administration had to make the decision to let him go, they couldn’t do it. This teacher brought in a State Representative from his district to mix it up with the administrators (this Representative sponsored or cosponsored several creationist bills in the State House of Representatives). There were apparently also threats of lawsuits, but none of the teaching staff who had to work with this idiot could ever find out what was going on. The teacher’s union was of absolutely no help. The director of the program was behaving like a breathless Chicken Little running around unable to make decisions. He finally recommended him for tenure and the game goes on. The effects have been devastating for the rest of the teachers who have to pick up the load when students refuse to sign up for his class and flood other classes to avoid him. Yet this idiot is given “professional development opportunities” to fill out his unscheduled time. He manages to get the most inane activities and refuses to take on anything challenging that would improve his knowledge and teaching skills. I have seen it first hand. It’s unbelievable, incomprehensible, outrageous, infuriating, frustrating, and yet there is absolutely nothing being done about it. And the entire teaching community gets the blame for the existence of this kind of incompetence in their midst.

Chip Poirot · 21 June 2009

Mike,

Thanks for the story. It certainly explains your frustration. That is really an amazingly horrendous story. Untenured teachers get fired (or non-renewed) for lots less and even tenured teachers can be fired for lots less. In Ohio, the OEA is advising teachers-including tenured teachers-to not even maintain facebook pages because of teacher licensure requirements.

The other aspect of the Freshwater case that I find curious-but not surprising-is how many supporters Freshwater appears to have in the district and among the students. One of the reasons these teachers are able to proselytize (either overtly or surreptitiously) is because a significant number of people in some districts, or even a majority, want a religious environment in the local public school. I have the sense that if Freshwater had been just a little bit smarter (i.e. he had had the brains not to use the Tesla coil to demonstrate on students) most of this stuff would have never come out. And even after that, it was only when the student's parents filed suit that the district took action.

A lot of this seems to go back to the decision by the Courts to allow use of school facilities by groups dedicated to proselytizing. Admittedly, it's a sticky wicket-students ought to be able to form any club that interests them as long as its legal. But nobody ever forms a Wiccan club and if they did, you know there would be one hell of an uproar. But all these groups-Campus Crusade, FCA are all out to proselytize.

dogmeatIB · 21 June 2009

Chip,

I wasn't arguing against the points you had made, my point was simply that an untenured teacher in Freshwater's case (where s/he was arguing religious discrimination) could file with the EEOC. Certainly there are greater limitations for non-tenure teachers in other circumstances. Given the grounds alleged by Freshwater, I assumed that a religious liberties appeal to the EEOC would be the assumed point of contention in a non-tenure case.

My further point was that JGB's arguments against tenure and unions were off the mark because first, the above mentioned EEOC argument and second because the union, again to my knowledge, isn't involved.

In addition, I agree with you that it appear the administration and the board botched it badly. I said so very early when Richard started posting the notes from the case. But again, if this is the case, it isn't an indictment against tenure, it is an indictment against incompetent administrators who didn't do their job.

I do disagree with a few of your points, for example if the owner's manual of a classroom tool says to avoid putting it in direct contact with human tissues, the administration shouldn't have to have a special warning not to do so. I mean c'mon, they don't have to have special rules telling biology teachers not to show students how scalpels work on their student's arms, do they? On the other hand the apparent use of this "technique" for years in the district suggests that both teachers and admin didn't know what the hell they were doing. Of course if you look at the testimony we've seen here, the teachers who testify that they did this too have almost invariably discontinued doing it and claim to have last used the Tesla coil on a student in the neighborhood of a decade ago. Both seem to be rather convenient for Freshwater, evidence that it was a pervasive practice with little or no ability for the district's attorney to confirm or contradict the story.

JGB · 21 June 2009

The point I would argue Chip is that the tenure process creates more organizational inertia. Even if technically teachers can be let go for good cause after tenure, it creates an environment were that is viewed as a huge headache i.e. it creates bad administrators from mediocre ones. One of the most frightening and entertaining activities we did while I was in an education class was to go around and share stories about our worst teacher. Almost invariably they were dinosaurs playing out the string until pension time. That a room with 20 plus people could all pretty much tell a story about someone who was just plain not fit for the job (not merely inexperienced) suggests that there is more deadwood in the system then there should be. And you are right it's not all the teachers fault, but the rules don't really favor administrators going out and cleaning house.

Chip Poirot · 21 June 2009

Thanks for clarifying dogmeat.

If I understand his suit correctly, he might not even have had to file with the EEOC. I'm not sure though.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act makes religious based discrimination illegal. Part of Freshwater's suit is that he was treated differently because of his religious beliefs. That is EEOC and/or Ohio Human Rights Commission.

However, Freshwater is alleging that his First Amendment rights to free speech and/or religious expression were violated. I'm not sure if he is arguing Establishment or Free Speech Clause. Either way, since he is a public employee that makes it a Constitutional case.

In addition, even if he were not tenured he could argue that the nature of the termination involves a Liberty interest.

Finally, he could bring suit for defamation even if he were not tenured.

So I see your point better now. Even if he were not tenured he still has other avenues he could pursue.

Chip Poirot · 21 June 2009

JGB said: The point I would argue Chip is that the tenure process creates more organizational inertia. Even if technically teachers can be let go for good cause after tenure, it creates an environment were that is viewed as a huge headache i.e. it creates bad administrators from mediocre ones. One of the most frightening and entertaining activities we did while I was in an education class was to go around and share stories about our worst teacher. Almost invariably they were dinosaurs playing out the string until pension time. That a room with 20 plus people could all pretty much tell a story about someone who was just plain not fit for the job (not merely inexperienced) suggests that there is more deadwood in the system then there should be. And you are right it's not all the teachers fault, but the rules don't really favor administrators going out and cleaning house.

OK-these are fair points and I can tell you the same stories from the higher ed side about people running out the retirement clock. There probably is a case for strengthening the evaluation process post-tenure. But then again I have to wonder: if administrators are already not using the tools available to them, why would they start using them if tenure were weakened? As matters stand-the whole K-12 system seems rather bizarre to me with all the incentives for everyone geared in the wrong way. As far as I can tell, it starts about the sophomore or junior year of the college curriculum for education majors. I've seen several very promising kids just drop out of the education major due to its incredibly bureaucratic nature and my colleagues in the ed department have to spend an awful lot of time jumping through hoops created by NCATE. Add to this the pressure to teach to tests created by the focus on high stakes standardized testing, zero tolerance policies, and just on and on. The impetus right now seems to be more and more and more on teaching as the profession-with the focus placed on pedagogical technique rather than subject matter knowledge. I think that a lot of people who might otherwise go into K-12 teaching are just turned off by the whole system. Also, in relation to dogmeat's last point I stand corrected on the Tesla coil issue. When I read a little more about Tesla coils and how they work it strikes me that you would have to be really, really, really dumb to demonstrate it on a student. As I understand it there is a pretty significant risk of injury-even if it is not 100%. The school nurse can't even give kids aspirins these days. So you have to know that sooner or later someone is going to have an injury from its use, and that even if it is relatively minor, someone is going to complain. So, in other words, its reckless to do it and also just plain dumb.

RBH · 21 June 2009

Chip wrote

Also, in relation to dogmeat’s last point I stand corrected on the Tesla coil issue. When I read a little more about Tesla coils and how they work it strikes me that you would have to be really, really, really dumb to demonstrate it on a student. As I understand it there is a pretty significant risk of injury-even if it is not 100%.

I worked around RF sources (which a Tesla coil is) when I was in the Navy, and we were paranoid about them. There's been a persistent mischaracterization of Tesla coils as "electrostatic" devices akin to a Van de Graaff generator, which they are emphatically not. A static charge accumulator is a very different animal from a device that generates a constant high frequency current.

Matt Young · 21 June 2009

In Ohio, the OEA is advising teachers-including tenured teachers-to not even maintain facebook pages because of teacher licensure requirements.

Why? What's the connection?

Mike Elzinga · 21 June 2009

Chip Poirot said: As matters stand-the whole K-12 system seems rather bizarre to me with all the incentives for everyone geared in the wrong way. As far as I can tell, it starts about the sophomore or junior year of the college curriculum for education majors.

I can certainly agree with that. Way back when I was an undergraduate (sheesh, that was a long time ago), I decided in my senior year to pick up a teaching certificate in addition to my majors. After a year of fulfilling those requirements, I decided never to teach in a high school and went on instead for a PhD and a career in research. I also did some college teaching but much of my time was spent in industry where, because of my background, I also mentored graduate and undergraduate students doing their physics or engineering internships. However, just as I was retiring from research, an opportunity fell into my lap to teach in a rather unique program that was started by a very generous grant from a local industry to create a math/science center in the community. The students were extremely bright and talented and were competitively selected by a racial, ethnic and gender-blind process. There were nearly equal numbers of female and male students from many backgrounds. It was a dream job, and I worked my ass off. I was teaching subjects to high school students at levels most college juniors and seniors would be taking, including multivariable and vector calculus, calculus of variations, relativity in a calculus level physics course, differential equations and so on. Other courses in chemistry and biology were at similar levels. These kids were doing Fourier transforms in their research projects, became coauthors on research papers in nuclear physics at a nearby accelerator facility, with local medical researchers in hospitals and industry and in engineering departments. The list was amazing. In my college recommendations for them I compared these students with the better graduate students I had worked with. In addition to our teaching responsibilities, several of us were also expected to be available as educational technology consultants for local school districts. As a result, I got to sample the atmospheres and some of the inner workings of a number of school districts. I spent ten years doing that before I retired permanently. It was into this scene that that teacher I mentioned fell. In the process, I learned a lot about the Byzantine politics that go on beneath the radar in education. There is always a lot of jealousy about programs like the one in which I had the privilege of teaching. It is considered “elitist”, and there are strong political forces always seeking to sabotage such programs. Whether this teacher was one of those political bombs someone tried to drop on the math/science center, I don’t really know, but nothing in the dealings with him ever made any sense. If public education is ever going to change, those changes will have to be significant. They must allow for talented students to go as far as they can. They must meet the needs of students who will find their way into the skilled technical trades. And they will have to deal with all the problems of students who come from dysfunctional backgrounds with a myriad of physical and mental problems in addition to attitudinal, behavioral and drug problems. I’m not convinced that the schools of education are up to the challenge. Their requirements for both teachers and administrators are simply too low and unrealistic for the challenges that will be faced by most teachers and administrators. Teachers are not paid enough. And many of the public school systems themselves are governed by too much political pandering and corruption. Even more bizarre are the “professional development” requirements. They are childish and inane, more suitable for kindergarteners. Those science teachers who captured summer grants to work in research or at one of the NASA facilities couldn’t get credit for those activities, but still had to spend the 120 hours per year meeting those inane requirements. This is some of the crap that has to change.

Chip Poirot · 21 June 2009

Matt Young said:
In Ohio, the OEA is advising teachers-including tenured teachers-to not even maintain facebook pages because of teacher licensure requirements.
Why? What's the connection?

Matt, it has to do with Teacher licensure and the State Board of Regents (not local school Boards). I don't understand the whole thing entirely. I have gotten the story from our OEA Rep (who also represents K-12-we are higher ed) and from my local President who had attended an OEA conference. As I understand it, teachers can have their licenses yanked for "immorality". By having a facebook page, people can access facebook. This leaves you vulnerable to accusations for any objectionable material you might post on your own page or for people who contact you via facebook. Facebook leaves you vulnerable to accusations you encouraged or allowed a student to contact you outside of official channels-which leaves you way open for charges of improper contact. One story I heard (I don't have all the details) is that a teacher was at a party where a couple of students showed up. The students were drinking and took a photo of the teacher and posted it on their facebook page. The teacher lost his license. And its not just already licensed teachers either. Education majors can be drummed out of education programs or denied licensure for posting objectionable content on their webpage. Understand-this material does not have to be illegal or obscene. It simply has to reflect what someone might consider "immorality" and then that person files a complaint with the Board of Regents. The OEA advises all faculty-K-12 or higher ed- to observe pretty stringent guidelines when interacting with students at all outside of class (as well as in class obviously) to avoid accusations of sexual harassment. Some of this advice is more K-12 oriented. But even at the higher ed level it is extremely easy to leave yourself open to accusations. To sum up: the OEA is basically giving members legal advice. Legal advice tends to be much more conservative than necessary to prevail in court or a grievance. But who wants to have to prevail in Court or in a grievance process? It's a lot easier to just avoid the whole mess.

Marion Delgado · 22 June 2009

By the way I agree with the general sentiment that you can't take the misbehavior by the 1st-amendment-violating plotters out on an individual case - Freshwater deserves due process and I think he's getting it. Hence, we can't really complain about the long time it's all taking.

What I'd like to see happen is that outraged citizens in the neighborhood get mad at the school administrators for costing them so much money, but I think a "What's the Matter with Kansas?" sort of system applies here.

clerihew · 22 June 2009

I once knew a professor at a school of education, who offered an egregiously bad student an A for the course if s/he'd promise never, never to teach.

Mike Elzinga · 22 June 2009

clerihew said: I once knew a professor at a school of education, who offered an egregiously bad student an A for the course if s/he'd promise never, never to teach.

Obviously attempting to extract such a promise from that student couldn’t possibly work. Just flunking the student would be more appropriate and would be more likely to keep him or her out of teaching. However, if the story is true (and I can imagine that it could be), the professor must have felt some deep frustration about the relationship between the required courses and training in his department and the competence and abilities of the typical students who pass those courses. And from what I have seen of the course requirements in departments of education and the students who pass them, there is little that could give anyone confidence that meeting such requirements had anything to do with knowledge of subject matter and the ability to teach. The student internships are probably the closest one could get to being able to see the student in action in the classroom, but even here the student doesn’t feel the true brunt of the responsibilities they will face when they are on their own. Many school districts are supposed to supply mentor teachers to guide a new teacher through the tenure and training process, but the realities of the day-to-day hassles of teaching often leaves that process almost entirely neglected. Most of the State requirements that I am familiar with for obtaining and maintaining certification are absolutely irrelevant to such competence and knowledge. They are simply inane, time-consuming make-work activities that allow administrators to keep teachers under their thumbs. As I mentioned in my previous comment, those teachers who went far beyond these requirements to engage in summer training and activities that were absolutely relevant and essential could not get credit for those activities. I myself have made many inquiries about why this is so, and all I could ever get was bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo that never addressed the question but simply reasserted the inane requirements. I have also talked with faculty in departments of physics and mathematics who are completely frustrated with the departments of education and think these departments are an embarrassment to their university.

Chip Poirot · 24 June 2009

Mike,

I think you put it very well. I'd be more convinced of the ability of the current fads in educational theory and testing to deliver, if I saw positive results among college students. We've had 8 years of NCLB, and thus far, i've seen no improvement in entering college students. Granted-this is not a scientific sample.

For those interested in reading more about the risks of My Space and similar issues for teachers and educational majors, here are two interesting links.

http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/related-top-news/index.cfm?i=50557

http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=2029

John Davis · 25 June 2009

I would actually expect NCLB to lead to similar if not worse college entrants. There is increased emphasis for every student to go to college, rather than the best. It's a noble goal, but perhaps not a realistic one.

College graduation rates have been slipping for years, and can most easily be explained by the increased attendance. It looks good if you send more high school students on to college, until you see a lot of them drop out. Then they have the increased burden of attempting to pay school loans with low salary jobs they could have gotten straight out of high school.

I'm not sure how you remedy this situation, but I don't think NCLB is the way.

As for unions, they only do what they're meant to. They attempt to put individual workers on a level playing field with the large organizations they're employed by. Any time a group has a lot of influence, there is the potential for abuse. I don't think you could argue that corruption is any more prevalent in unions than it is in industry, government or academia.

Mike Elzinga · 25 June 2009

John Davis said: I would actually expect NCLB to lead to similar if not worse college entrants. There is increased emphasis for every student to go to college, rather than the best. It's a noble goal, but perhaps not a realistic one.

We had a similar discussion in another context about a year and a half ago. It has never been clear to me why people in education think that everyone should go to college. There are many excellent jobs to be had in the skilled trades. It is not, as often implied by those who advocate only a college degree is “worthwhile”, a step down or a lowering of one’s sights to aspire to one of these. Society needs people with a large variety of skills; and we are losing good people and skills by sending them off on a wild goose chase that doesn’t use or develop their native talents and interests. One of the things I often pointed out to my physics and engineering students is that, when they finally get into the workforce, they will find all sorts of people in the skilled trades who have been there working and training for years while they, the engineers, have been in school. These technicians and skilled tradesmen can be an engineer’s best friend or his worst enemy depending on how they are treated and respected. Most engineers, particularly the younger ones, would do well to treat their technicians with respect. In fact, I know of many cases in which young engineers learned more from the technicians and skilled tradesmen than they did in school. And it is the kiss of death for an engineer look down his nose at the skilled trades or to take credit for an idea developed by the technicians and skilled trade people.

It looks good if you send more high school students on to college, until you see a lot of them drop out. Then they have the increased burden of attempting to pay school loans with low salary jobs they could have gotten straight out of high school. I’m not sure how you remedy this situation, but I don’t think NCLB is the way.

It also puts pressure on colleges and universities to dumb down courses. The better approach is to recognize that a functioning society needs a broad range of knowledge and skills; and not all of these are necessarily met by a college degree. Talent and intelligence is manifested in many forms, not just in "book learning". But none of the advanced training in any area can presume to trump the laws of the universe. Just because one is clever at one’s trade or specialty doesn’t mean one is an expert in the development of perpetual motion machines, or supernatural alternatives to natural science. There has to be a solid general education component to all fields of training and education; not simply feel-good sound bytes that make one appear to be educated.

RJ · 25 June 2009

A lot of talk about public reason here. Does the present topic really require a discussion of Rawls and Sen?

I understand that there's a lot of ideological busybodies out there looking for ways to get rid of teachers they don't like. But 6 or 8 months just isn't reasonable for a hearing like this. It's a deterrent to getting rid of people who don't deserve their jobs.

I'm sure the teacher (should I say 'teacher'?) under discussion here is getting a lot of mileage from his faux conservative-martyrdom.

A teacher who burns his students' arms - aren't there some cases where it is reasonable for someone to be turfed out the first devil-blessed day?

RJ · 25 June 2009

My 2 pence on standardized testing. In principle, love the idea. In practice, it tends to frustrate educational objectives because students will seek to become good test-takers instead of good readers and writers.

On the other hand, I'm kind of embarrassed at the poor performance of many teachers on tests that look pretty easy to me. The pitfalls of standardized tests are just too great to overcome, but it seems to me that any math teacher should be able to do all standard high school math questions with essentially trivial effort. I could, if I studied the text for a couple of days. Apparently this is not true of all people with math degrees!

Dan · 25 June 2009

RJ said: My 2 pence on standardized testing. In principle, love the idea. In practice, it tends to frustrate educational objectives because students will seek to become good test-takers instead of good readers and writers.

My apologies if this is off topic, but: I recall reading a parody of "Consumer Reports" in the late 1960s. The article was titled "We compare the ten most popular washing machines" The text went something like: "There are a lot of technical challenges in comparing the ten most popular washing machines, so we decided instead to compare the ten most easily compared washing machines. Then, to make things even easier on ourselves, we decided to compare the five most easily compared washing machines ..." If I remember correctly, there were sketches of five identical washing machines, each with a rating: "Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad" It seems to me that school testing has fallen into this same trap: The tests measure what's easiest to test, not what's most important.

RBH · 26 June 2009

A fundamental principle of human performance management is "Water the behavior you want to grow." Part of the pernicious effect of state-run standardized testing is due to making a variety of rewards and punishments for teachers and principals contingent on students' test performance. Principals and teachers are evaluated in greater and greater degree on how well students perform on the standardized tests. Why is anyone surprised that under those circumstances teachers slavishly teach to the tests and principals pressure teachers to do so? Is anyone surprised that anything not on the test is de-valued?

One of Freshwater's defenses is that his students did well on the standardized tests relative to the students of other 8th grade science teachers. Of course, no one has mentioned sampling problems -- students are not assigned randomly to the various classes.

Chip Poirot · 26 June 2009

Mike Elzinga wrote

It has never been clear to me why people in education think that everyone should go to college. There are many excellent jobs to be had in the skilled trades. It is not, as often implied by those who advocate only a college degree is “worthwhile”, a step down or a lowering of one’s sights to aspire to one of these. Society needs people with a large variety of skills; and we are losing good people and skills by sending them off on a wild goose chase that doesn’t use or develop their native talents and interests.

Many of the initial breakthroughs in manufacturing technologies in England during the Industrial Revolution came from "tinkering". Indeed, going back several hundred years English farming was particularly known for systematic application of new crop and husbandry techniques. One argument, that IMO at least deserves some exploration is that the focus of philosophy in England on empiricism and the overall pragmatic character of England was critical to its technological edge. It's probably more likely it was a contributing factor-but it still merits some research. A big part of the overall breakthrough in scientific thinking in the 19th century was the willingness to seek practical application of knowledge combined with the view that practical knowledge was worthwhile. On the other hand, a focus on trades and skills is more suitable for an industrial society. One of the reasons we de-emphasize these kinds of skills is because they are less in demand. If you want new practical skills than you need to go into medtech, computer repair and similar areas. Most of the "skills" that people will need in today's workforce are not however practical, concrete skills-they are general skills: can you read and follow an instruction manual? Can you problem solve? Can you write clearly? A college degree has in effect become the "hew high school diploma"-it's perceived-rightly or wrongly-as the ticket into the middle class. So students in Universities now often look to get their ticket punched. There are some other issues as well. One is that in order for a democratic society to function well, you need an educated citizenry that is capable of engaging in constant critical thinking as they evaluate proposed solutions to problems. On a more abstract level, I do think that there is something to be said for learning **just** for intellectual curiousity.

Chip Poirot · 26 June 2009

Dan wrote

It seems to me that school testing has fallen into this same trap: The tests measure what’s easiest to test, not what’s most important.

Well said. Even when you write your own test for a class at the University level you are very limited on what you can test for. Or you can use standardized test bank questions-which then means you have to focus on the kinds of specific skills the test bank questions test for. In addition, many of these test bank questions test a student's ability to parse sentences as much as they test a student's subject area knowledge. I don't like the idea of "teaching to the test"-but on the other hand, it does seem to me that a good test focuses on the specific skills, knowledges and abilities you cover in class.

fnxtr · 26 June 2009

Chip:

In my part of the world (Canadian west coast), the trades are crying out for new blood, 'cause the boomers are retiring and the whiz-kid generation turned up their noses at skilled labour.

dogmeatIB · 26 June 2009

Mike Elzinga said: It has never been clear to me why people in education think that everyone should go to college. There are many excellent jobs to be had in the skilled trades. It is not, as often implied by those who advocate only a college degree is “worthwhile”, a step down or a lowering of one’s sights to aspire to one of these. Society needs people with a large variety of skills; and we are losing good people and skills by sending them off on a wild goose chase that doesn’t use or develop their native talents and interests.

Mike, Just curious, where did you get the idea that people in education think everyone should go to college? It's been my experience, at least in secondary education, that if you made such a suggestion to the faculty at any average high school across the country, they would laugh uproariously at the idea. The idea that everyone should go to college us much more a social-political idea than something that came out of the education profession. First, it sounds better to parents than the idea that their kid might become a mechanic. Never mind that their mechanic kid is far more likely to make more money than a teacher and have far greater job security than a computer programmer, etc. Then it worked well for elected officials because technical programs are expensive as hell. Most school districts have to have special provisions in place for tech ed teachers because they command a much higher salary. A body-shop teacher? Welder? etc.? Can command much higher wages outside the educational professoin in their respective fields. Then their "classroom" is infinitely more expensive. It tends to be the size of three or four regular classrooms, has hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, and has limitations on class size for safety purposes. Eliminating those programs saves underfunded school districts millions. There is a significant movement among high school teachers and administrators who want to revamp the programs to implement more technical training, 21st century schools, etc. Problem is funding. If anything educators, at least in the high schools, are opposed to the idea that everyone should go to college, not supporters of the idea.

Mike Elzinga · 26 June 2009

Chip Poirot said: On the other hand, a focus on trades and skills is more suitable for an industrial society. One of the reasons we de-emphasize these kinds of skills is because they are less in demand. If you want new practical skills than you need to go into medtech, computer repair and similar areas. Most of the "skills" that people will need in today's workforce are not however practical, concrete skills-they are general skills: can you read and follow an instruction manual? Can you problem solve? Can you write clearly?

This is an area I think I know something about. All during my career in research have been directly involved in education at nearly every level; in industry, in the military, in community colleges, in universities, and in high schools. That has included the training of technicians as well as graduate students and young engineers just getting started. There is no such thing as a “post industrial society” in which the skilled trades are in less demand. But I do however suspect that many of those “in charge” of such a society have become so detached from and unaware of the underlying physical infrastructures on which their societies are built that they only think that skilled trades are in less demand. We have become a throw-away society that has outsourced much of its requirements for skilled labor. But with the arrival of peak oil, the looming climate change, the need for conserving energy and resources and finding clever, efficient ways of doing things, the need for direct, hands-on skill and experience has never been greater. People who can work with infrastructure such as plumbing, electrical networks, distribution of resources, energy sources, building in energy efficiency and all the jobs that require actually putting physical things together and making them work correctly and safely will always be needed. Old things need to be torn down and recycled, and new things need to be built. Someone has to actually implement the knowledge coming from science and engineering into functioning systems or objects to be used. Someone has to actually take apart and reuse stuff that is thrown away, and do it safely and without further degradation of our environment. And in the absence of immediate information from science, someone has to wing-it on the ground. Clever technicians and skilled trade people can do that. And there will always be the “dirty” jobs of society that need to be done by someone. Why should such workers be less respected? Why should less attention be given to their safety and welfare? Who digs for the resources and energy? Who actually builds the distribution systems? Who does the welding, the construction, the cleanup of waste, the recycling? Sitting at a computer and easily expressing one’s thoughts to others around the planet is made possible by a huge, multifaceted infrastructure distributed all over the planet and in the space around the planet. People doing actual physical work put that infrastructure together and continue to maintain and expand it even though it seems invisible to us. There will be no room in our future societies for derailing the educational spectrum of knowledge needed with sectarian ideologies or ideologies of any type coming from people who live in a complete vacuum and think they know it all.

Mike Elzinga · 26 June 2009

dogmeatIB said: Just curious, where did you get the idea that people in education think everyone should go to college? It's been my experience, at least in secondary education, that if you made such a suggestion to the faculty at any average high school across the country, they would laugh uproariously at the idea. The idea that everyone should go to college us much more a social-political idea than something that came out of the education profession.

As you say, it is a political ploy used by politicians running for office. We heard a lot of this in the last Presidential election. But when politicians latch onto such campaign slogans, they also have the backing of people who benefit from those “promises”. So we hear a lot about giving everyone a chance for a college education and the leaders of colleges and universities pressuring their faculty to take on more students and “meeting them where they are”. I see this taking place on many campuses around the country. But we still don’t hear much in the way of political campaigning about the dignity and prestige of a technical education, or some other kinds of skills that society needs but doesn’t value.

Mike Elzinga · 26 June 2009

dogmeatIB said: Then it worked well for elected officials because technical programs are expensive as hell. Most school districts have to have special provisions in place for tech ed teachers because they command a much higher salary. A body-shop teacher? Welder? etc.? Can command much higher wages outside the educational professoin in their respective fields. Then their "classroom" is infinitely more expensive. It tends to be the size of three or four regular classrooms, has hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, and has limitations on class size for safety purposes. Eliminating those programs saves underfunded school districts millions. There is a significant movement among high school teachers and administrators who want to revamp the programs to implement more technical training, 21st century schools, etc. Problem is funding. If anything educators, at least in the high schools, are opposed to the idea that everyone should go to college, not supporters of the idea.

One of the ways of dealing with the expense of technical facilities is to construct regional facilities which serve a number of schools. That distributes the cost over a larger area, although it involves greater transportation costs. The same issues come up with science labs for those students intending to go on to college, but there is far more resistance to concentrated programs for the best students in these areas. Such programs are considered “elitist”, and it apparently is assumed that the brightest academically talented students can “fend for themselves” while resources are distributed elsewhere. There is no question that educational funding and staffing is generally screwed up in this country. Good schools are the exception rather than the rule. Part of the problem is related to the fact that we, despite claims to the contrary, are very much a class-conscious society, with various social classes and groups vying secretly and politically with each other behind the scenes. Adding the fears of the fundamentalists attempting to dictate curriculum in many parts of the country simply adds to the problems of finding intelligent answers to curriculum and funding issues. Another issue relates to how one juggles all the various programs within a school district or a regional district without also making these class differences more entrenched. In a particular case some years ago, I had suggested that teachers of college bound students who had science or engineering projects to do might connect with the regional Education for Employment Center and set up a sort of engineering-to-technical relationship between students in both programs, much like those in industry. Here the students could actually start communicating with each other as engineers and technicians do in the real world. The idea was received with a great amount of enthusiasm by the teachers, but was killed by the school administrators. We never learned why.

There is a significant movement among high school teachers and administrators who want to revamp the programs to implement more technical training, 21st century schools, etc. Problem is funding.

Funding is always a big issue in public education, but it is by no means the only one or even the smallest one. I have seen cases in which funding was more than adequate, but mind-numbingly dumb politics screwed everything up. For example, a math/science center I know about in another city was well-funded by some grants by several local industries. Students would spend part of their day at the center and part of their day at their regular schools. The intent was to have the program select students blindly and competitively who would benefit from an advanced program in math and science. Somehow, in all the politics, the school principals and superintendents retained the role of selecting which of their students should go to the center. Guess who got selected; all the disciplinary problems and those with the lowest grades. The center finally failed.

Chip Poirot · 26 June 2009

Mike Elzinga wrote

But when politicians latch onto such campaign slogans, they also have the backing of people who benefit from those “promises”. So we hear a lot about giving everyone a chance for a college education and the leaders of colleges and universities pressuring their faculty to take on more students and “meeting them where they are”. I see this taking place on many campuses around the country.

Mike, in thinking about this and your previous comments, I am trying to discern where it is we agree and where it is we disagree (if at all). We certainly agree that every society needs people who have practical skills and knowledge as well as a physical infrastructure. In a lot of ways, its a good idea for everyone to have some practical knowledge. We certainly agree that people who do a hard day's work for pay should not be devalued or disparaged. On the other hand, there is an equal danger from the "Joe the plumber" crowd who disparage anything that they view as smacking as "elitist" or "intellectual", even while trumpeting the worn out solutions of their own idealogues and intellectuals. On the other hand, due to global technological shifts and increased productivity the **number** of these people needed has declined in proportion to the rest of the labor force. That's not to say that some of this demand (in the market sense) could not be revived given a focus on rebuilding and revamping infrastructure. But we are not going to fundamentally reverse the technological shifts of the last 40 years and return the U.S. to a smokestack economy. And that means that higher ed is, and is going to continue to be-rightly or wrongly-the "ticket" into the middle class. And that is what is exactly driving the demands for "relevance" and "meeting students where they are" and insisting on "career ready degrees". In other words, politicians, the public, students and increasingly University administrators and even some faculty have all joined the chorus to teach college students stuff that is "practical". But as far as economic success goes, a lot of what is going to be "practical" as far as a college education goes, is not what students, politicians, the public and University administrators, or even in some cases businesses think is going to be "practical". I sometimes get the sense that banks would like us to produce "loan officers" instead of well rounded economics undergraduates or that businesses would like us to produce "memo writers" instead of people who can just write well. In looking back over the history of technological innovation it has come from two interactive sources. One kind of technological innovation comes from the people on the ground. The other is those who have theoretical knowledge and figure out how to apply it concretely. Where would the chemical industry be today without theoretical chemists? Where would medicine be without the biologists doing DNA research, just because they were interested in solving the puzzle of DNA? As long as a college education is the ticket (rightly or wrongly) that employers want to see to hire someone, fairness will require that everyone get an equal shot at it. What people need to realize is that what can be done in college is limited and should focus on imparting general skills and general knowledge and training how to think. The actual practicalities of the "how to do" everyday operations is what the employer's training program is for.

Mike Elzinga · 26 June 2009

Chip Poirot said: On the other hand, there is an equal danger from the "Joe the plumber" crowd who disparage anything that they view as smacking as "elitist" or "intellectual", even while trumpeting the worn out solutions of their own idealogues and intellectuals.

My suspicion with the “Joe the Plumber” characters and the Joe Newman types is that we are seeing the effects of class and culture warfare that have been stoked by demagogues in politics and religion. There are (or, at least, should be) a number of paths up the educational ladder; one doesn’t have to go directly to college or university right out of high school. I am sure many lurking here remember the GI Bill and returning veterans who were more experienced and more mature when they entered college. And of course there are the community colleges with their associate’s degrees. And many technicians and skilled tradesmen continue with their educations and get degrees while working (it’s extremely hard to go this route, but many do). This latter approach usually has the advantage of obtaining a degree without the hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt at the end.

On the other hand, due to global technological shifts and increased productivity the **number** of these people needed has declined in proportion to the rest of the labor force. That’s not to say that some of this demand (in the market sense) could not be revived given a focus on rebuilding and revamping infrastructure. But we are not going to fundamentally reverse the technological shifts of the last 40 years and return the U.S. to a smokestack economy. And that means that higher ed is, and is going to continue to be-rightly or wrongly-the “ticket” into the middle class.

This part I don’t understand; and I doubt it is correct. We have shipped much of our manufacturing overseas. That hides a lot of the “smokestack” aspect of our economy (transfers much of it to China). It also reduces the proportion of those who do hands-on work to those who sit at desks in this country. But population worldwide has increased to nearly 7 billion. That’s a lot of people’s food, waste, communication, education, shelter, and other needs to be dealt with. It seems to me that suggesting that a college degree is the future “ticket to the middle class” already has a built-in class-conscious message from those who have the more easy access to the public forum. I think we already know that there are quite a few millionaires out there who have not been to college. However, I think we would all like them to have a bigger picture that could be obtained by having a deeper and broader education rather than simply seeing the planet as something to be exploited by them alone. I had mentioned in an earlier comment that whatever track one takes through the educational system, they should encounter a general education component that pulls together the best of what we know about ourselves and our existence, and how we can best get along and continue to survive. Certainly there are specialty areas such a science, medicine, engineering, that require intense and prolonged training. But I would hope that any path through the educational system would include an education that makes one more resistant to demagogues who exacerbate and exploit class differences and grudges.

Mike Elzinga · 26 June 2009

Ah; I see my link to Joe Newman no longer works. Apparently Joe has gone out of business.

Mike Elzinga · 26 June 2009

And that is what is exactly driving the demands for “relevance” and “meeting students where they are” and insisting on “career ready degrees”. In other words, politicians, the public, students and increasingly University administrators and even some faculty have all joined the chorus to teach college students stuff that is “practical”.
— Chip Poirot

When I made the comment about “meeting students where they are”, I wasn’t criticizing the notion; just the method. What I have seen on a number of campuses, and from comments I have heard from colleagues, their deans with their budgets are expecting these students to be met where they are in courses that are way beyond where they are. Deans don’t want drop-outs for financial reasons; but remedial courses cost both money and time, which students don’t want to waste or pay for. I know of specific cases in math for example where students, who can’t do basic algebra and trig, are in their third semester of calculus complaining in e-mails to the deans that the instructor is “lecturing in math”, and “talking about multiple dimensions” (actual quotes), and engineering students who are complaining that instructors expect them to use their graphing calculators and computer algebra programs like Maple.

Chip Poirot · 26 June 2009

Mike Elzinga wrote

When I made the comment about “meeting students where they are”, I wasn’t criticizing the notion; just the method. What I have seen on a number of campuses, and from comments I have heard from colleagues, their deans with their budgets are expecting these students to be met where they are in courses that are way beyond where they are. Deans don’t want drop-outs for financial reasons; but remedial courses cost both money and time, which students don’t want to waste or pay for.

Right. That is **exactly** my experience. Students are there (not always, but often) to get the ticket punched. When they confront a topic that they can't do (often because they lack the skills for the topic) they view the demand as unreasonable. This puts professors in the impossible dilemma of dumbing down the material or of simply creating unrealistic curves. If you are tenured, you have a little more freedom, but you still have to maintain the course enrollments. And over time, the system grinds you down. If you turn to teaching or reteaching basic algebra, the students are even more bored. Eventually, the temptation become strong to just go with the flow-because that is where the incentives are. I suspect from my observations of higher ed, that a lot of the complaints (not all-but a lot) about K-12 teachers flows from the same source. And it all comes down to what is driving it-and that is the demand and the perception that a college education is the ticket to the middle class. You may decry that as elitist or think it is misplaced, but at least given the current economic data, the indication is that at least in this respect, students correctly perceive and rationally act on the economic data to minimize the costs of a college education (including time spent working on class) and to maximize the gains. But this does not really wind up achieving the goal they or employers want. What you wind up with is a 22 year old in a bank loan officer training program who lacks the background accounting skills. So the bank blames the University for not imparting the right skills and demands a "relevant" and "practical" education. In a post that seems to have gotten swallowed up by server connection problems, I went over some of the background in terms of shifts in rates of return to human capital. Simply put, while you are correct that we still need practical skills, the return to investment on these skills in the U.S. has declined dramatically. This drives a lot of students into college who see college as a form of "training" much like being trained to be a plumber is training. I'm also not sure what you meant by this:

But I would hope that any path through the educational system would include an education that makes one more resistant to demagogues who exacerbate and exploit class differences and grudges.

Mike Elzinga · 26 June 2009

Chip Poirot said: In a post that seems to have gotten swallowed up by server connection problems, I went over some of the background in terms of shifts in rates of return to human capital. Simply put, while you are correct that we still need practical skills, the return to investment on these skills in the U.S. has declined dramatically. This drives a lot of students into college who see college as a form of "training" much like being trained to be a plumber is training.

I would offer an educated guess here. We have gradually come to devalue such practical skills because we have been able to farm out many of them to other countries and save the “mental, prestige jobs” for ourselves. We have developed a skewed perception of which jobs are really essential in supporting society and what behaviors and attitudes are considered “refined and educated”. I personally believe that can’t hold in the long run; and such stratification within and among societies can only mean trouble in the long run, especially when societies run up against limits to growth. Science fiction has explored this topic many times; including that episode where James T. Kirk was stuck in the mines with “savages” who became that way by breathing gases in the mines, and who were looked down upon by the “educated and refined” society in the sky that was built upon and supported by the labors of the miners.

I’m also not sure what you meant by this:

Simply that every individual who is supported by and benefits from a society that protects and feeds him or her, no matter what path they take through that society’s educational systems, needs to encounter a serious education in the common elements that all members of that society depend on for survival. They should not be so isolated that they come to think that somehow their dependency on the society and others is a privilege that only they have because of their imagined high social status in that society. Much abuse comes from seeing others as simply inferior fodder for doing unpleasant labor or for waging wars.

Chip Poirot · 26 June 2009

Mike Elzinga wrote

I would offer an educated guess here. We have gradually come to devalue such practical skills because we have been able to farm out many of them to other countries and save the “mental, prestige jobs” for ourselves. We have developed a skewed perception of which jobs are really essential in supporting society and what behaviors and attitudes are considered “refined and educated”. I personally believe that can’t hold in the long run; and such stratification within and among societies can only mean trouble in the long run, especially when societies run up against limits to growth.

I wouldn't have put it like that, but essentially, that is the big picture. The smokestack industries have migrated to China and similar countries while the growth in the U.S. has been in either the abstract, mental field (lawyers, doctors, computer programmers, finance specialists) a very few technical fields (computer repair, med tech, paralegal) and a lot in low skill jobs (Walmart, etc.). I don't think that the smokestack jobs can come back. But we could be creating skilled jobs in green technology. I agree that this has been and will continue to be an unhealthy trend. But that doesn't change the fact that at least in the present, college education is accurately perceived as a ticket out of the Walmart jobs. And as long as that is the case, colleges and Universities will continue to be swamped by demands for "relevance", "access", "accountability", and "job ready degrees". The sad reality is that those demanding these aspects don't understand what it is they are demanding. If you want a "job ready skill"- med tech, computer repair, auto mechanic and similar skills will be in high demand. But if what is wanted is a job doing mental labor, then colleges and universities cannot train you to be "job ready" except to help you obtain the general skills that will serve you well in a number of jobs. Or we can educate people to be capable of moving on to law school or med school. But this will still require an awful lot of "impractical" education.

Mike Elzinga · 26 June 2009

Chip Poirot said: I don't think that the smokestack jobs can come back. But we could be creating skilled jobs in green technology.

Another of the areas I have had some experience with is, in fact, just such technology. And I know what it is like to live in a partially self-sustaining cylinder under water. None of it is as “green” as it is made to appear. But we have to move in that direction now. Wind turbines and solar cells are made of materials that require intense energy sources to mine, produce, refine and recycle; and those energy sources are not green. Solar energy depends directly on technologies that can only be built with current technologies that burn fossil or nuclear fuels at the moment. Building up a solar infrastructure that could produce the kinds of energy intensities necessary to continue building and replacing parts in that infrastructure is still a long way off. We are not at a point where we can bootstrap off green technology to produce more green technology. Nuclear and fossil fuels will still be needed in the foreseeable future, and these technologies are not really green. Electrical energy storage depends on minerals such as lithium and other elements that still have to be obtained from somewhere using energy that is obtained from non-renewable sources. Copper and aluminum to be used in generators and motors and distribution grids still have to be mined. The demands on other minerals will continue to increase as world population and competition for these resources increases. Return on energy investments with fossil fuels have been enormous (on the order of 40-to-1 to 100-to-1), but this has been dropping steadily since peak oil in the US in the 1970s. There may come a time when it is at best 1-to-1 if not less. That doesn’t mean everything is hopeless, but it will certainly bring human societies back to an understanding of the realities of pre-industrial revolution economies. Societies living up against such carefully balanced returns on energy investment will come to understand what is important and what is not. And all of this will enhance the status of those who can discover and make sustainable green sources with the highest returns on energy investments. That won’t be limited to bankers, lawyers, politicians, computer specialists, mathematicians, or sports heroes and entertainers. Scientists, technologists, technicians, and skilled labor will be near the top of the prestige list along with medical practitioners, health workers, farmers, and food and resource distributors. We can only hope we won’t need too many warriors.

Paul Flocken · 27 June 2009

nearly a week old i know

The only irony I can see in this whole situation is that Freshwater's supporters tend to vote heavily for the Republican yahoos in the Ohio House and Senate who are exactly the ones who have tried to completely eliminate tenure in Ohio.

well, consistency is certainly not the wingnuts strongpoint :)

Ed Darrell · 28 June 2009

I think Freshwater had a duty to protect his students. Branding students with this tester is opposite the safety instructions on the device, and contrary to every duty any person has to protect a child in their care. It is difficult, for me, to imagine a more clear breach of duty on the part of a teacher.

Imagine this guy's colleague, William Tellwater. Tellwater coaches the schools rifle shooting team. As a demonstration of his own prowess, and how to win competitions, he has for years put students up against a tree with an apple on their head, and then used one of the competition rifles to turn the apple into apple sauce with one bullet. A few months ago another student sneezed as Tellwater pulled the trigger, and he grazed a student's head. Tellwater treated the contusion with Neosporin and asked the kid not to tell his parents. His barber father noticed the wound the following Saturday while cutting the kid's hair.

What defense would this fellow have? Freshwater only used a different weapon.

Stanton · 29 June 2009

Ed Darrell said: What defense would this fellow have? Freshwater only used a different weapon.

That he's being persecuted by those awful liberal atheists?

phantomreader42 · 29 June 2009

Stanton said:
Ed Darrell said: What defense would this fellow have? Freshwater only used a different weapon.
That he's being persecuted by those awful liberal atheists?

Yeah, how dare they take away his god-given right to steal tax money, lie to children, and brand them with the symbol of his cult!

fnxtr · 29 June 2009

Imagine for a moment the book on Freshwater's desk was one by Aleister Crowley, and the mark on the kid's arm was a pentagram. How far do you think his defense would get him?

Stanton · 29 June 2009

fnxtr said: Imagine for a moment the book on Freshwater's desk was one by Aleister Crowley, and the mark on the kid's arm was a pentagram. How far do you think his defense would get him?

They would have crucified him upside down if that were the case.

mountvernon1805 · 1 July 2009

Just a minor update on the subpoenas that I put on my website and which I’ll repost here:

The minutes of the May 4, 2009 school board meeting are now online.

http://www.mt-vernon.k12.oh.us/content_pages/School_Board/documents/05-04-2009Regular-PDF.pdf

In this meeting, it was voted—by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education—to quash the subpoenas of Margie Bennett and Ian Watson.

The board believes that only these two members were subpoenaed. Attorney for John Freshwater, R. Kelly Hamilton, filed an “application to compel attendance of witnesses” that says that Jody Goetzman was also subpoenaed.

The relevant portion of the board’s minutes are below:

Mrs. Fair moved, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to quash Dr. Bennett’s subpoena to testify at the Freshwater termination hearing on May 7 and May 8, 2009.

Call of votes: Mrs. Fair, Yes; Mr. Hughes, Yes; Dr. Bennett, Abstain; Mrs. Goetzman, Yes; Mr. Watson, Yes.

Motion carried.

Mrs. Goetzman moved, seconded by Mrs. Fair, to quash Mr. Watson’s subpoena to testify at the Freshwater termination hearing on May 7 and May 8.

Call of votes: Mrs. Goetzman, Yes; Mrs. Fair, Yes; Dr. Bennett, Yes; Mr. Hughes, Yes; Mr. Watson, Abstain.

Motion carried.

mary · 1 July 2009

How is this relevant? We already knew this.

mary · 8 July 2009

Freshwater has amended his complaint against the school. He ( and his wife) have added "Loss of Consortium". I looked it up here is what it means:

loss of consortium- n. the inability of one's spouse to have normal marital relations, which is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Such loss arises as a claim for damages when a spouse has been injured and cannot participate in sexual relations for a period of time or permanently due to the injury, or suffers from mental distress, due to a defendant's wrongdoing, which interferes with usual sexual activity. Thus, the uninjured spouse can join in the injured mate's lawsuit on a claim of loss of consortium, the value of which is speculative, but can be awarded if the jury (or judge sitting as trier of fact) is sufficiently impressed by the deprivation. (See: consortium, damages)

Lyn · 9 July 2009

Some fine discussions on this board. I want to just point out a couple facts (& correct me if I'm wrong).
1. John did not have tenure. Actually, there is nothing called tenure in the MV city schools for teachers; however, a continuing contract is considered the equivalent since once a teacher is given one, it does not need renewed. I do not believe John held a continuing contract since he earned only a bachelor degree. One of the criteria that must be met before applying for a continuing contract is the earning of a master degree. So, John was not "tenured".
2. The work of the union (i.e., negotiating contracts, pay scales, etc.) benefited John; however, he was not a member of the union. They were under no obligation to help him with his issues with the school board or administration.

stevaroni · 9 July 2009

Freshwater has amended his complaint against the school. He ( and his wife) have added “Loss of Consortium”

Maybe his arm wasn't the only place he tried his tesla coil.

fnxtr · 9 July 2009

I guess the value of the award depends on how valuable the "consortium" is....