Boston Globe - Three Lowell teachers, who were fired for failing the district's English fluency tests in 2003, should be allowed back in the classroom and receive full back pay, an arbitrator has ruled.
Pedro Espada, 62, Vandy Duch, 43, and Vong Oung, 39, have been unable to find work as teachers since they were dismissed, their lawyers said yesterday. The teachers, who were advised to refer questions to their lawyers, were unavailable to comment.
An arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association, an independent organization, ruled on Monday that the district did not have ''just cause" to fire the teachers and said that any reference to their termination should be expunged from their personnel files. The teachers are also entitled to nearly three years in lost salary and benefits, including their pensions and health insurance. School officials plan to appeal the ruling, said Karla Baehr, the Lowell schools superintendent.
Here is some background on the tests given:
An arbitration association spokesman declined to comment, but lawyers for the teachers said the district's tests to determine fluency were discriminatory. Only nonnative teachers were asked to take the tests, in which instructors were asked to answer questions, such as giving directions, into a voice recorder. In another test, the state-recommended Oral Proficiency Interview, a testing administrator also interviewed teachers by phone or in person.
The tests Lowell used did not focus on the subjects teachers taught, and principals also did not observe instructors in the classroom, said one of the lawyers, Khin Mai Aung, who works for the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York.
''The teaching environment is the best way to observe if they're able to teach effectively using English," Aung said.
One issue I agree with the plaintiff's on is the fact that the test was not given to all teachers. Now, common sense tells us that an English proficiency test is really only necessary in instances where you have individuals for whom the language is not their native tongue. That being said, the test should have been given to all teachers if only as a pre-emptive defense against the inevitable claims of discrimination.
Outside of that, though, I see no reason why these teachers should maintain their jobs. Their employers have found the communication skills to be deficient so that should be the end of the story. Unfortunately, thanks to teacher's unions, schools can't simply fire teachers who aren't up to snuff. Most employers can simply fire workers they don't feel are performing up to par, but when you get a union involved you must "make a case" for firing an employer in a legal setting that involves judges and lawyers. Which is absolute nonsense and is exactly the sort of thinking that has lead to the labor riots in France.
Teacher communication is important. Early last year I did a couple of posts about some legislation setting standards for proficiency in English for the state's university professors. The legislation (which was ultimately signed into law by Gov. Hoeven in March of last year) put in place framework which would allow students to get refunds on tuition for courses taught by professors they had a difficult time understanding. The law also provided for a professor being moved to a non-teaching position should a certain number of students complain about his/her ability to communicate.
To me, this just makes sense. Be it college or K-12 schools, we pay these teachers to instruct our children. It only makes sense that these teachers should be held to certain standards as to their ability to communicate with students. If a teacher is hard for students to understand classroom time is going to be wasted on clarification and education quality is going to suffer.
The lawsuit above is just another example of how unions stand in the way of employee accountability and overall product quality.