Repeat Stuff!! Repeat Stuff!! Repeat Stuff!!

 

 

The NBEA is like a cancer, eating away at the moral fiber of New Bedford!!

The title of this post is a reference to Bo Burnham who managed to skillfully satirize the public's tendency to believe whatever version of the truth they hear most often.  At one point in this You Tube video he has the audience chanting "Repeat stuff.  Repeat Stuff.  Repeat stuff." while he stands up and does a couple of Heil Hitler salutes.

And so it goes with people who scapegoat labor unions.

Since graduating high school in 1978 I've had a total of 13 employers.  I spent a couple of months installing carpets (not recommended), a couple of years in the U.S. Army (ditto), and less than a year pretending to sell real estate.  Real Estate is a wonderful place to meet lots and lots of people who couldn't by lunch on credit but seem (It's the union!!) to have endless amounts of time looking at other people's homes.  With the exception of those three employers, the rest consisted of a variety of corporations, two of which were unionized.  In those two places we mostly just sat around drinking beer in our underwear (It's the union!!) and devised more efficient methods of snatching food from the mouths of hard working corporate executives.

I imagine school teachers do that a lot because...(It's those union thugs!!)

Say that over and over.  Repeat stuff and you'll start to believe it.

Having a large number of employers in a diverse collection of industries allowed me to learn a few things about human behavior that many (Union thugs!!!) people never get the chance to learn.  In every workplace there are people who've been there a very long time.  Some of them have never worked anywhere else.  It was very common for them to tell the new guy (that's me) some equivalent of "this place is screwed up."  Initially I tended to believe (It's the union!!  UUUUUnion!!) them because every workplace has at least a few (and sometimes many) highly visible flaws or procedural dysfunctions.

Then I began to notice...

Every place is "screwed up."

It's the union!  Repeat stuff!  Repeat stuff!  Repeat stuff!  It's the union!

Every place I've been employed exhibited employee behavior that could be displayed very neatly on a bell curve.  I eventually started referring to this as the "10% Dud Rate."  In every workplace about 10% of the employees will do a great job no matter how horribly they're treated, about 10% will intentionally do a lousy job (UNION THUGS!!!) no matter how well they're treated, and the other 80% are more or less evenly distributed between those two points.

In union shops, the 10% who are by any measurable standard, duds are usually protected by their union.  In non-union shops the duds are protected by the fact that few managers really want to fire people.  Some duds are (Damned liberals!!) friends of friends or drinking buddies of those who are supposed to be in charge, but most of the time, firing someone is just an unpleasant experience for the individual manager charged with the responsibility, so they avoid it.

The difference is simple.  In a non-union shop there's no (damned liberals or union thugs) union to blame for the presence of duds.  But in terms of employee performance, every workplace is about the same and employers dumb enough to believe they can fix the problem with more supervision or by churning the bodies are only fooling themselves.

Take notes Pia.  You'll be tested later.

For those of you who haven't noticed, Pia Durkin and her peanut gallery of toadying sycophants are blaming every problem that comes down the pike on "union thugs."  I don't believe either they or the dopier members of the public who listen to them are stuck in some kind of Terry Malloy time warp.  The New Bedford School System (Union Thugs!!!!!) is not the set of "On The Waterfront."  It's part of a massive public service system that nationwide is pretty "screwed up" for a long list of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the teachers (THUGS!!!) union.

But...

As the Nazis learned, if you repeat stuff loud enough and often enough, the public will come to believe it.

As I wrote in the previous post, people don't think...they feel.

How to say absolutely nothing in as many words as possible.

Politicians on the campaign trail are infamous for making speeches that contain little, if any information.  They're not the only people who do that.

A May 14, 2014 article in the Standard-Times (reprinted in the NBEA weblog) illustrates the hollow nature of Pia Durkin's turnaround plan.  The overabundance of slogans and buzzwords is worthy of a Dilbert satire.

"a new beginning, one that would ensure excellence for every child in every school."
"the people of New Bedford"
"outcry for dramatic change"
"bold steps"
"countless parents, teachers, students, and leaders from business, nonprofit and higher education institutions"
"rare opportunity"
"ambitious District Accelerated Improvement Plan"
"A bright future"
"strong turnaround plan"
"dynamic administrative team"
"redesign team"
"emphasize a safe, positive school culture"
"extensive professional development"
"emphasize strong core instruction"
"jumpstart their acceleration toward achievement gains"
"refuse to be discouraged by setbacks and skeptics"
"institute significant reforms"
"inform and engage"
"involve the school communities"
"important to engage the teachers"
"amplify their voices"
"diverse cohort of teachers"
"provide the support they need"

This isn't all of them.  It's just a good representative sample of really exciting but ultimately meaningless slogans, sound bites, and chunks of rhetoric.

One of the lessons I've tried to teach my own children is that the bulk of ordinary people don't think a whole lot.  People make decisions, sometimes very critical decisions based solely upon how they feel.  People vote for the political candidate who is most charming, best looking, or tells the funniest jokes without knowing anything about their record.  As one very slow speaking Palin supporter put it, "She's got the hooooly spirit in her."  Sure Jethro, let's put her in charge.

People see a beautiful model advertising a particular brand of clothing, automobile, or liquor and somehow get the idea that they'll become more beautiful, more successful, and more popular if they simply buy the product.

People don't think, and those who craft political speeches, commercial advertisements, and Pia Durkin's Standard-Times article all attempt to take advantage of this human weakness.

Read her article and try to nail down exactly what she's going to do and how it will significantly improve the academic performance of New Bedford's students.  I bet you can't even come close.

Durkin's "strong turnaround plan" will no doubt produce some useful and impressive numbers for her to crow about, but it won't precipitate any permanent change in the local culture.  Student performance isn't poor because of bad teachers.  Student performance is poor because academically gifted people are not respected by their peers.  Go into any high school in America and ask some of those "countless students" who the most popular kids are.  The school brain rarely makes the list.  In fact, being a good student in some communities is a good way to get beaten up every day after school for making everyone else look bad.  Strangely, Durkin doesn't mention that problem in her article.

Pia Durkin has demonstrated how to say absolutely nothing in as many words as possible.

Nothing speaks to one's character like depraved indifference.

I AM SMILING!!

ME TOO!!

Those who blame the results of bad parenting on teachers are insulated from the problem.  The mayor, the school committee, and the Standard-Times propagandists don't have to put up with being assaulted by sociopaths pretending to be students.  None of them will lose their jobs or be injured.

They don't care how many teachers and students live in fear of attack.  They don't care who gets injured, or who gets killed as long as they make their numbers.  In fact, if someone showed up with a gun and started spraying bullets into crowded classrooms, the city would probably receive a huge federal grant so they could study the problem of bullying (to be quickly squandered no doubt) and the Standard-Times would be able to increase its circulation by having something dramatic to report.

They don't care.

They don't have to.

Think of them as morally equivalent to Jared Remy's lawyer.  He'll never have to bury his daughter, so he doesn't care either.

He doesn't have to.

Durk-Ming the Merciless is not pleased.

My subjects do not blindly worship the ground upon which I walk.  I require and receive absolute obedience from my figureheads in the Mayor's office and School Committee.  Why are my subjects disobedient?!!

 

 

The Elephant can't speak for the toadying figureheads, but I think I can clear up Her Majesty's confusion about the recent near unanimous vote of no confidence cast by members of the New Bedford Educator's Association.

 

First you established your relationship with them by announcing that 50% of the teachers would lose their jobs.  You did not claim to have reviewed everyone's performance as teachers.  You did not announce that 50% of them were performing below the minimum level of professional competence and deserve to be fired.  You just picked a nice, psychologically pleasing number out of your wrinkly butt in an effort to terrify and divide them.

Then you demanded an across the board reduction in the number of student suspensions.  You sent a clear signal to every violent sociopath in the school system that you are now forbidding teachers from administering the already laughably ineffective punishment previously allowed.

Then you attempted to railroad Joanne Maura.  Did you get your Ph.D. from a damned cereal box?  Are you really that mentally challenged or are you so insulated from the disastrous results of your own policies that you live in your own fantasy world...kinda like this drug addled, syphilitic weirdo?

I don't know what happened to you in your youth to make you such an embittered, power mad troll and at this stage of the game I really don't care.  What I do know is that you're punishing teachers because they have the misfortune of working in a community where violent sociopaths who place little or no value on education reproduce early and often.  You're punishing teachers for the criminal incompetence of parents and you're horrified by the very thought of speaking the truth out loud.

They have no confidence in you as a leader and they're not afraid to say so out loud.

Take the hint.

The Imperfect Plaintiff Defense.

 

On May 1st at 11:09 A.M. someone left the following comment on my Every campaign needs campaign slogans post.

"the elephant should look in the mirror"

I left the following response:

"This is called the Imperfect Plaintiff Defense.  Trial lawyers used to defend rapists by dragging the victim's sexual history into court or by implying that she somehow brought it on herself by dressing or behaving "provocatively." People are mean, stupid, and jealous so it worked quite well much of the time.

It's often referred to with the maxim that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

There's even a Biblical reference, "Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone."

And it's a very efficient method of preserving one's right to behave badly. It implies that anyone who has ever done anything wrong should refrain from criticizing the antisocial or criminal behavior of others. So...as long as you live in a society full of imperfect people you never have to clean up your act because no one is allowed to complain.

If you know my children or have witnessed something I should know about I'd very much appreciate being informed. And if you're aware of some details regarding my own imperfect behavior as a parent, I would also appreciate knowing about it."

The Imperfect Plaintiff Defense is closely related to the human tendency to blame the victim, a problem I wrote about here.

If you witness this behavior during your sentence in the public school system, feel free to write about it here.

The financial con game of Charter Schools.

Way, way back in the early 1980's a "reformed" conman was interviewed on the David Letterman Show.  He may have written a book about his various crimes but I really can't remember.  What I do remember is that he was very interesting to listen to.

For his first "job" as a professional conman he rented a cheap looking security guard's uniform and a sturdy looking strong box.  He knew that a dozen or so stores and restaurants dropped off their money at an after hours bank deposit box so he taped an "Out Of Order" sign to the deposit door and stood there for an hour or so next to his box.  He said that he was terrified that the first person to come along would either beat him up or call the police.  Much to his surprise and relief, most of the store and restaurant managers simply looked at the Out Of Order sign, looked at him, and dutifully dropped their money into his box.

It's tempting to react to such stories by asking how people can be so stupid.  Yes, some people really are stupid but that's not what makes confidence tricks work.  He said that after a few months of dreaming up and carrying out similar crimes he began to divide his potential victims into two distinct groups.

Group One consisted of people who appeared to be relatively unsuccessful in life.  They drove old cars, wore plain looking clothes, and worked boring, low paying jobs.  He claimed that it was very hard to gain their confidence and subsequently failed to make much money by tricking them.  These people were accustomed to being disappointed with false promises and instinctively avoided them.  They may not have known how the trick worked, but they knew from experience that no one outside of their inner circle of close friends was going to do anything for them.

Group Two consisted of people who were accustomed to believing that the world was a pretty good place where hard work and education paid off.  The business managers who blindly trusted their day's receipts to a 20 year old in an ill fitting uniform thought of themselves as successful.  They decided who to hire and fire, how to run their business, and of course, they enjoyed the highest salary.  They believed in the system and subsequently, they could be tricked into believing almost anything.

You're wondering about those charter schools...

There are private schools for those who can pay for them.  Private schools do not have to accept your son or daughter simply because you have lots of money.  Like colleges and universities, they can cherry pick the brightest, most well behaved, most mentally stable students and "just say no" to everyone else.  Nancy Reagan was referring to drugs when she said that but the principle is the same.  Private schools can say no to any student they consider to be beneath their lofty standards or otherwise harmful and embarrassing to their image.

Public schools are where you go if you belong in the "everyone else" category.  Public schools are funded by an unpredictable mixture of local, state, and federal taxes.  Some schools seem to have money blowing down the hallways one year and then lay off teachers the next.  If public schools were listed on the stock market they'd be avoided because of their economically chaotic behavior.  As far as the students go, you can be dumber than a bag of donuts and more violent than a rabid dog and you'll still be welcomed with open arms.

Then there are charter schools which appear to be neither fish nor fowl.  From what I've read, they generally accept just about anyone, good, bad, or ugly.  Most of their students come from the population group that would normally attend public school.  And like public schools they receive the majority of their funding from the local public school budget.

But...

Correct me if I'm wrong but when October rolls around they swiftly deselect or unenroll or otherwise eject a significant portion of their students, most of whom are sent back to the local public school system.  The parents who, like their restaurant manager equivalents expect the system to actually work.  SUCKERS!!!  The parents are told by the school that their child has needs that the charter school simply isn't equipped to handle.  I suspect they know who will be tossed to the curb when they accept them but I doubt anyone can prove it.

Here's how I'm going to connect my conman story to the normal business practices of charter schools...

They can send your child back to the public school system, but they don't have to send any of the funding back with him.  SUCKERS!!!

This is pure genius.  The public is conned into believing that charter schools are some sort of wonderful alternative when in reality, they are just sucking money out of the public's pockets.

G-E-N-I-U-S

Confidence?! Confidence?!! Pancho don't need no stinking confidence!!

 

Does Pancho look worried?

Of course not.

Pancho's job is quite safe.

And thanks to the time tested tactic of divide and conquer...

Your job is...well...somewhat less safe.

 

Pancho Durkin's announcement that she would be firing 50% of the teaching staff didn't make much sense outside of the fact that nice round numbers tend to be psychologically pleasing.  I explained my thoughts on the matter here.  But after a few weeks of thinking about it, her announcement makes perfect sense for another reason.

 

Humans are not ants.  All of them are individuals with individual and often mutually exclusive objectives.  The New Bedford Teachers Association is legally considered a union, but in reality there has never existed a group of people that could not be turned against each other or otherwise divided.  On Friday there was a lively meeting where members of the NBEA were deciding whether or not to cast a vote of "no confidence" in their Superintendent of Schools.  The appearance of unified purpose is certainly intact.  But Pancho Durkin's 50% announcement was the opening move in what may be a very successful effort to divide the teachers union into smaller, more manageable, and perhaps more toadying and compliant chunks.

 

If every teacher in the New Bedford School System simply handed in their resignation on the last day of school, Pancho would have little choice but to change her tune.  Her exact response is not knowable of course, but she would certainly have difficulty replacing everyone before September.  There's only one problem...

 

Pancho Durkin understands that unions are unified in name only.  There are teachers who are in no financial position to lose their jobs because they are no more than a few paychecks away from being homeless.  There are teachers who are not that bad off, but certainly don't want to empty their savings or decimate their retirement fund while they look for another job.  And their are possibly a few teachers who simply have no loyalty to their fellow union members.  Pancho Durkin, like any competent Guerrilla familiar with Sun Tzu's "Art of War" understands that the secret to defeating a larger, more powerful foe is to divide and conquer.

 

 

 

 



Grim Reaper Pia Durkin licks her chops in anxious anticipation of an easily preventable tragedy.

Too long have I gone without the taste of fresh human meat.

Pia Durkin, Ph.D. (Piled Higher and Deeper) appears to have learned something after her utterly boneheaded attempt to railroad New Bedford school teacher Joanne Maura.

On Tuesday, April 30th another student whose name has not been released struck her teacher in the head with a metal trash can.  In this video, Durkin attempts to clean up her image by stating that the teacher did an "excellent job" of trying to deescalate the situation.  She did imply that other students should place themselves in danger by somehow addressing the problem, but she wisely refrained from blaming the teacher/victim for not using everything in her "toolkit."

What Durkin carefully avoided mentioning was the fact that a violent crime was committed by a violent criminal.  Yes Pia, you can refer to criminals as criminals.  Zeus will not cast lightning bolts in your general direction.  She also avoided offending all of America's precious animal breeders by not questioning the home environment responsible for producing such gems of civility.  Fear of lightning bolts again...or is it just good old fashioned indifference?

I've been writing about bullies and the criminally incompetent parents who produce them since well before Columbine and I'm truly impressed with everyone's willingness to avoid acknowledging the Elephant in the room, even after it has precipitated a series of very public acts of mass murder.

When I first learned of the Columbine Massacre I was anything but horrified.  In fact, I felt an overwhelming sense of relief.  I genuinely believed that this tragedy would break the ice.  And briefly...it did.  But very quickly the Circus of Denial rolled into town and dazzled the public with tales of Satanic influence, Marilyn Manson music, and the morally corrosive effects of violent video games.

The bodies had hardly begun to cool when the jackals began their feeding frenzy.

Opportunistic politicians called for more gun control.  Church leaders blamed supernatural forces, and in at least one case claimed to have smelled burning sulfur in Clement Park, immediately adjacent to Columbine High School.  Lawyers like Jeffrey Feiger gleefully spoke of "a wave of lawsuits."  Almost everything but the source of the problem was identified as...the source of the problem.  The bullies who precipitated the massacre have blithely moved on with their lives, free from the unreasonable burden of criminal accountability.

And that's what will happen in New Bedford if a similar media event is staged.

Your children will die...and the jackals will feed.

Start talking about bad parents...a lot.