What does ‘StudentsFirst’ mean?

StudentsFirst was formed by Michelle Rhee in 2010 after resigning as chancellor of D.C. schools.  The name ‘StudentsFirst’ implies that they have a mission to oppose those who put students second, third, or even last.  In very clear terms, they say that it is the teacher’s unions who are putting the needs of the adults above the needs of the students.  When the New York franchise of StudentsFirst started a few months ago, they even described it as a “union for students.”

The name ‘StudentsFirst’ is well chosen.  It definitely makes anyone who says they oppose them have to give a big explanation along with it.  There are other organizations that have similar names, like ‘Stand For Children’, or that have slogans like it, most notably in New York City where the slogan of The Department of Education is “Children First.  Always.”  That ‘always’ kind of makes me chuckle.  It’s like they are saying “Children First,” and then someone says “but aren’t there some times where putting the children first could be bad for the system as a whole?,” and they just answer “Always.”

In the late 19th century, the expression “Women and children first” was coined in reference to ship wrecks.  But when it comes to air travel, we are told in the pre-flight instructions which I got from the Boeing website “If you are traveling with a small child or an infant, put your mask on first, then help the child.”  So here is an example where the needs of the child are not met first since it is somehow safer for everyone that way.

So when it comes to education, there are, I suppose, four categories of policy:  1) policies that benefit both students and teachers, 2) policies that harm both students and teachers, 3) policies that benefit teachers while harming students, and 4) policies that benefit students while harming teachers.  StudentsFirst, it seems, thinks that the teachers unions push for too many policies that StudentsFirst would put into the third category.

One oversimplification in the StudentsFirst narrative is that EVERY policy is either type 3 (helps teachers while harming students) or type 4 (helps students while harming teachers).  They don’t say this explicitly, but as there is never any mention of the first two types, it is, at least, implied.  I would argue, however, that MOST policies belong to the first two categories.  An example of something that helps both students and teachers would be the reduction of class size.  An example of something that hurts both students and teachers is the increase of class size, like in Detroit where they are now allowed to have 60 kids in a secondary classroom, from what I understand.

What category would teacher raises go under?  To me, it is something that helps teachers and students.  With higher payed teachers there could be more competition for the teaching jobs.  Also, getting a raise might encourage some teachers to work a little harder, at least subconsciously.  I don’t think raises is necessarily something that is good for adults and bad for kids.  At worst, it is good for adults and neutral for kids.

A policy that would be ‘good’ for teachers, but bad for kids would be a rule that teachers can be as late as they want anytime they want.  Kids in first period classes can just wait for their teacher.  Of course no union is pushing for a policy like that, but I want to acknowledge that there are, at least theoretically, policies that would be of type 3, good for adults, bad for kids.  An example of a type 4 policy which would be bad for teachers but good for kids would be to make it mandatory for all teachers to carry school-issued cell phones and to be ‘on call’ until 9:00 PM every night, for no extra money.  Again, this is not a policy that I see anyone trying to create anyway.

For the rest of this post, I will focus on the third type, policies that are good for teachers and bad for kids, since these are the ones that StudentsFirst is dedicated to fighting.  The first thing I want to point out is that just because something is good for adults and bad for kids does not mean that it is ‘bad’ overall.  It really depends how good it is for the adults and how bad it is for the kids.  For example, imagine a school district where teachers report for duty five days before the students begin classes.  Then in a new union contract they negotiate that teachers only need to come in two days early.  This is something that benefits teachers and, at least in theory, ‘hurts’ kids.  Kids benefit from a well-prepared teacher so losing those 3 days of in school preparation ‘hurts’ the kids.  But the question is (not in New York, where they have that extra “Always.”) how much does it really ‘hurt’ the kids compared to how much it ‘helps’ the adults.  I’d say if there is something that really helps the adults while only hurting the kids a little, and if it really helps the kids while hurting the adults a little, these things should be open for discussion.

Since my second child was born, a little over a year ago, I have not gotten as much sleep as I like.  When I’m up all night as the one year old wakes up the four year old and then the four year old wakes up the one year old, I know that I’m not as sharp in the classroom as I would be if I got to sleep at 9:30 PM.  What if the New York City DOE tried to get into the next contract a clause that all teachers must be asleep by 9:30 PM every night.  This would be good for the students and bad for the adults.  But in this case the amount of ‘good’ for the students is overshadowed by the amount of ‘bad’ for the adults.  I wonder how StudentsFirst would treat this hypothetical.  If the ‘early to bed early to rise’ clause was put into my contract, it might be bad for adults AND for students as all the teachers quit or are just unhappy (despite getting a good night sleep) that their individual freedoms were robbed.

As bizarre as the ‘early to bed’ clause might seem, I bring it up to demonstrate that there are things that on surface are good for students and bad for adults, but which are really, in the long run, bad for both.

And this is where my disagreement with ‘StudentsFirst’ lies.  Things they think belong in category 3 (good for students, bad for adults) I would put into category 2 (bad for both students and teachers).  And it really is just a matter of opinion.  I believe that StudentsFirst would agree that the ‘early to bed’ clause would be over the line and be bad for both teachers and students.  But I feel the same way about their two signature issues, 1) LIFO and 2) using student ‘achievement’ (as defined by value-added) as a major component of teacher evaluation (and as the way of firing teachers after LIFO is abolished).  I see these as belonging to category 2 (bad for teachers and students).  Since value-added is so inaccurate, it really doesn’t help the students that much to have a random group of their teachers fired rather than just the newest teachers when layoffs occur.  But it ‘hurts’ the teachers much more since getting fired, or living in the fear of being fired, because a computer has predicted that in a parallel universe where your students got an ‘average’ teacher instead of you, their grades on the standardized tests would be higher than what they did for you.

In the long run, replacing LIFO with Low value-added first out, will scare good people away from the teaching profession.  Already we see it happening as teacher job satisfaction is at a 20 year low.  Maybe StudentsFirst thinks that is a good thing since teachers have had it so easy for all these years, but my experience is that teaching was already a demanding, frustrating, and pretty low paying job already.  And the teachers I’ve worked with at four different schools have taken their jobs seriously.  At four schools I can only think of one teacher who truly deserved to be fired, and that teacher got suspiciously injured on the job and was getting workers comp for staying at home, the last I heard.

So this summarizes my problem with ‘StudentsFirst.’  1)  Not everything that is good for students and bad for teachers should be done since the bad for the teachers might outweigh the good for the students (the ‘early to bed’ rule)  2) Likewise, there are times where it is OK to put teachers first if the ‘benefit’ to teachers significantly outweighs the ‘harm’ to students.  (for example, teachers get a ‘duty-free’ lunch period and do not have to do cafeteria duty.  This benefits teachers a lot while not really doing a lot of harm to student, though there might be a few more food fights because of it), and most importantly 3) Most of the things they seem to think are bad for the adults and good for the kids (ending LIFO and replacing it with layoff firings based on value-added scores) are actually, in the long run, bad for both.

I’m not trying to be annoying in this post.  I truly believe that this is the source of disagreement between opponents and proponents of StudentsFirst.  I am going to send this post to Michelle Rhee — who I worked with back in 1996 and who is a lot nicer in person than many would figure.  She actually helped resolve a conflict I was having with my school director when I was a corps member adviser, and also to Hari Sevugan, who is one of the top people there, and who I trained in that  1996 institute.  I will report back if they are willing to comment on this.

This entry was posted in Teach For America. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to What does ‘StudentsFirst’ mean?

  1. Alec Timmerman says:

    17 of the worst states for education are non-union states. Almost the entire bottom half of our eduction is non-union states. Only 5 right to work states are in the top half.

    Anyone who wants to kill teacher’s union because it makes education better is lying. I’d rather them just say they want cheaper labor and be honest about it.


  2. Michael Fiorillo says:

    StudentsFirst means many things.

    It means high stakes tests as a weapon against teachers and public schools, and a gold mine for all sorts of publishers, data miners, consultants, mentors, coaches and opportunists of all kinds.

    It means loss of teacher autonomy and academic freedom, with the profession turned into temporary, at-will employment.

    It means silence while the public schools face continuing austerity and cutbacks, and their resources are diverted to privatized charter schools.

    It means increasing segregation, and separating the Worthy (charter students trained to be the future overseers of their less fortunate peers) from the Unworthy Poor (ELLs, special needs, free lunch and homeless students).

    It means an endless stream of lies, half-truths, spin, talking points and faux grass roots posturing.

    It means ever more arrogant, know-nothing Ivy League union busters and missionaries infesting the schools.

    It means the ongoing destruction of the neighborhood school, with intensified gentrification of some communities, coupled with the hollowing out of others.

    It means privateering.

  3. Jack says:


    How come you never hear the same moronic, black-‘n-white-thinking, either-or, false dichotomy for other professions?

    Citizens & Police: it’s time we put the citizens’ needs first, and not the police. We need to get rid of all the job protections and fire all the veteran police so that citizens are put first, since you know, they can’t run as fast during a foot pursuit of criminals as younger cops, so it’s better with newer police. We need to do a database of all the officer’s private information: evaluation, records of citizens’ complaints, formal admonishments… and the post it on the internet so all the citizens can be fully informed.. that way, citizens will be finally put first.

    Patients & Doctors

    and on and on…

  4. Linda says:

    Can you really put students first if you put teachers last?

  5. Linda says:

    This is all you have to know about our present administration:


  6. Linda says:

    Here she is finally being confronted but NOT by an American:


  7. Terry says:

    Engineer For America

    The Problem

    The Association for American Civil Engineers estimated we will need $2.2 trillion over the next five years to repair our infrastructure. The engineers who design our roads and bridges are key to the infrastructure that supports our country. Unfortunately, we are falling behind the rest of the world. As you can see here, the Chinese and the Europeans have built scores of high speed rails as we struggle to keep our bridges safe.

    Engineer for America believes that providing safe roads and bridges for all is the most effective means of ensuring equal opportunities for everyone. Everyone in this country deserves the chance to reach their full potential. Opportunities should not be determined by your family’s income or the neighborhood in which you live.

    Who Can Join?
    Some corps members were engineers prior to joining, but many do not have any prior experience in the engineering field. 

    How Are Engineers Prepared?
    Our summer institutes are a five-week intensive training program designed to set corps members up for success. 

    Although some critics point out that engineering is a profession that requires years of training and experience, reformers and legislators feel otherwise. Both believe five weeks of intense training is all that is necessary to teach future engineers how to safely design roads and bridges.


  8. Joe says:

    I’d like to propose a question about how the teacher raises would fit in to the categories. What if teacher raises were forgone to hire additional teachers, which would push down the teacher student ratio? In most of the reading I’ve done, $$$ that goes towards teachers is almost always discussed as a raise, not in quantity. Many of the frustrations that my wife encounters each day would be greatly reduced if there were fewer kids to spread her effort across.

  9. Students First mean Michelle Rhee First.

    Oh, and the ability to mock students and duct tape their mouths as well.


  10. Lucy says:

    To her horror, I once told an administratior that teachers should always cone first. Of course, understanding that kids are in a safe place where no one wishes them harm, just as in a functional family, Mom and Dad come first or the entire Love Boat is going to SINK. If the teachers are tortured or unhappy or tired or abused, who, ultimately will it affect?

  11. ^^^ Lucy, that is a great point. I have never thought of it that way. Mind if I use that in my blog?

  12. Bill Michaelson says:

    You make perfect sense. But beware – and this, I believe, is the biggest problem educators have with PR…

    “If you are explaining, you are losing.”

  13. Pingback: Remainders: Cash for “pro-reform” comments offered in Florida | GothamSchools

  14. Pingback: What does ‘StudentsFirst’ mean? | Gary Rubinsteins Blog | The Paper Graders

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s