This teacher (from the west) agrees with a previous post that the real goal of the reform movement is to do away with unions. That would leave them clear sailing to cut budgets even more, lay off teachers, increase class size, encourage for-profit ventures, and privatize at will, with no one powerful enough to stop them. What is sometimes called the “neoliberal” agenda is actually the old rightwing agenda, and it starts with union-busting and concludes with privatization.
| I’ve often thought this mess boils down to busting the unions. Once that’s done, it’s smooth sailing for the “reformers.”From where I stand, the union appears to be silent. What gives? I thumbed through a recent national magazine from the NEA. Nothing on what’s currently transpiring. Our local representation is always “looking into that,” yet provides no answers when asked about the union’s stance on privatization. I thought the front page of the NEA website would be bursting with anti-privatization articles. Instead I found all kinds of back-to-school tips for teachers.Anyone here a union rep? In the know? What is going on? |
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I’m not a teacher…. I support teachers and I believe, strongly, in the need for unions…
Teachers need to ask their unions – the AFT and the NEA – why they have taken money from several of the big players in the ed reform movement…
Ask your union leadership about ties to Eli Broad and Bill Gates, for example…
How come Pearson’s is a “partner” of one of the unions?
I don’t believe union leaderships can effectively represent and protect their members’ interests when they are playing footsie under the table with those who want to deprofessionalise the teaching corps and control all of public education – from policy-setting and implementation, to curricula control, school district administration and school boards, teaching, testing, evaluating, remediating, charterisation, vouchers, school property management etc…
This has been my concern for a while now. My district was the only one on strike across the nation last fall. We were on strike not over pay or even class size. Our issue was displacements (layoffs) and using other measures than seniority to make this determination. However, the criteria that were proposed by our district were not measurable. We have come to an agreement now and created a displacement policy that looks at other criteria than solely seniority.
The concern I have though is that this started with the district wanting to include test scores and other student data. Our union rejected this idea in part but in the end we do have one element of our displacement score based on student data, although the teacher gets to choose what student data is examined. We are an NEA affiliate and to my knowledge the NEA, while supporting our decision to strike, did not fully oppose student test scores in our displacement and evaluations.
NEA strongly supports the CCSS. This is another issue I don’t understand. I don’t like to sound paranoid but what is the political motivation for this?
Our union rep gives pro-reform interviews in the paper WHILE layoffs are going on. Our union president does nothing publicly. And this is in Bridgeport, CT– one of the worst ground zeros of the privatization kleptomania.
I cannot figure out just how they have been bought out, which is the only thing keeping me from being 100% convinced that they have.
It is impossible to believe, however, that it is simple incompetence or ignorance.
Part of the explanation may be that the Democratic Party machine has bought into this, and is too closely connected to the unions who helped put them there.
Those in the upper echelons of the unions owe too many favors to those who are doing this, at least in states with Dem. governors like CT.
The AFT supports the Common Core Standards. The AFT/UFT and NEA already threw their support to Obama, yet this administration has done more to aid the demonization of teachers and help privatization of public education than any Republican that I am aware of. The unions have stopped being unions many years ago and have become merely service organizations. This has led me to believe that the automatic dues payment for union members via the check-off may be bad policy. I’m not 100% sure but I think that the Taylor law banning public employee strikes initially was not effective as there were as I recall two teacher strikes after its passage. When the check-off provision for unions was enacted there was a provision included that a strike would result in suspension of the check-off. Since that rule was enacted there have been no calls for strikes. By the way, Randi Weingarten was asked a few years ago under what circumstances would she call for a strike, her answer was the threat of losing tenure. With the new evaluations systems being put in place tenure is effectively gone since teachers can be fired for poor performance as determined by student test scores on standardized tests.
Unfortunately BOTH parties subscribe to the neo-liberal agenda, so whether Obama is re-elected or Romney ousts him, the reality is that privatization is coming to the public school system no matter what.
The difference is in speed and scope, of course, but Race to the Top surely did increase both of those in a way that George Bush could have only dreamed about. Romney plans to blow the whole system up and privatize it, but Obama and Duncan are doing a pretty good job of that themselves. RttT ensures that public schools will continue to be “held accountable” by a battery of high stakes testing and found wanting. And of course schools found wanting are ultimately closed and subject to privatization. How like the Romney plan! Smaller in scope, sure, but quite close in theme.
I never thought I would get to the point where I see the nation as a one party state with two different wings to the party with some slight differences that, in the end, mean little.
But that’s where I’m at.
If Congress had given George W. Bush $5 billion for school reform, his program would have looked just like RTTT.
Only Chicago AFT has rallied its teacher rank and file to fight against the destruction of the public schools. NEA/AFT play ball with the status quo, leadership protecting their own salaries and cushy positions as non-teachers in the school hierarchy where teachers do the hardest work for the lowest wages and take the greatest abuse–union leaders never went to bat for smaller class size, the key to achievement–in NYC the fight for smaller classes fell to Campaign for Fiscal Equity, battled 15 yrs as UFT/Weingarten sat it out. Corporations and banks bailed out by Obama have $2 trillion in cash on hand which can easily finance small classes in pub sector, but no political force in unions can emerge to demand such a policy. Union leadership typically crushes opposition within the union to its leaders-for-life so teachers have no organized options. NEA/AFT so deep into Dem Party that it follows lead of Obama/Duncan down the rabbit hole of RTTT, testing, charters, etc. Until NEA/AFT break with Dem Party and gain alternate leadership, unions will stay out of action.
I’m in Washington State, where, as you know, charters are on our ballot this fall. This fall, as in 77 days from now. Our union is silent. Would this make you nervous?
If the referendum passes, the charters that open will be nonunion.
88% of all charters, according to National Assn of Charter Schools, are nonunion
Diane: Washington is not voting on a charter school referendum. Because of WEA’s work and the work of others, the charter schools bill died. This is an initiatve, funded as I told you earlier by a group of billionaire/millionaire contributors, that paid signature gatherers between $4-6 @ signature. Otherwise, it would never have made it to the ballot.
You are incorrect. WEA is not silent. Go to Our Voice and look at the work they’re doing. They will be rolling out additional efforts right after Labor Day. If you need a contact at WEA to learn more, email Simone Boe.
That is the $64,000 question. Both unions threw their support early and often to Obama. Look at DC’s Teacher Contract if you want to see the future. It was negotiated by George Parker, now a Senior Fellow at StudentsFirst and Randi Weingarten of the AFT. http://www.wtulocal6.org/ (go to Members tab and scroll down) Let’s see NEA partners with Pearson http://www.neafoundation.org/pages/why-partner/pearson/ and the AFT partners with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Grants-2011/Pages/American-Federation-Of-Teachers-Educational-Foundation-OPP1033412.aspx I wish I knew. Help!
I certainly don’t understand it. I have been a NEA member since the day I signed my first contract in 1976, and joined NEA-Retired when I retired. I was a representative at our state assembly for more than 15 years, a local building rep and officer for more than 25 years. Is it “getting a seat at the table” that’s doing it? Are they getting kickbacks from Gates, Broad, Walton or Pearson? It makes no sense.
This is clearly a case of “feeding the hand that bites you.”
Maybe Diane should write a book titled, “The Death and Life of the Great American Teacher’s Unions?”
We are living and dying this story in Wisconsin. WEAC, a state chapter of the NEA, is scrambling as local Wisconsin teachers unions are subjected to district-created employee handbooks with lost rights to union-district negotiated teacher contracts.
I have personally done much in the past year to try to preserve the union through the attempted recall of our governor–who orchestrated this change. The failed recall indicates a slight majority in my state no longer respect unionized teachers.
I won’t claim to understand all the history behind the lost PR battle. All I can identify is how it feels now. It feels like so many forces are working against the teacher’s voice in education.
Those who have read my stuff know I believe strongly about the importance of unions. However, I am beginning to wonder if the whole union system has to bottom out before it gets better and we see a rise once again of teacher empowerment.
Don’t give up. You lost a battle, not the war. The failed recall was not an indictment of the unions; many people felt uncomfortable with the recall as a solution even though there was no alternative. We in Illinois followed events in Wisconsin with great interest; I’m sure the Chicago Teachers Union paid close attention.
The overall unionization rate is down to 11.8% after 30 years of aggressive union busting. Public sector unions are under vicious attack frontally and from within. The teacher unions have no where to turn for support. To support the GOP is an obvious choice to commit immediate suicide. The Democrats have done nothing for unions and support the same educational policies (charters, vouchers, punishing teachers, firing teachers, blaming teachers and closing schools) as the GOP. Too many unions seem to be suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome and are cooperating in their own demise. If the teacher unions are crushed, it could take many decades and generations before unions can become viable again.
I have the same frustration over the union agenda. I have been to a few leadership conferences, and there was a glaring difference between the mood of the first and the mood of the last. The first was a boisterous, happy, self congratulatory weekend of procedural awareness and professional technique workshops. I will say that I was unhappy with the amount spent to get us all together. I am more of a beer, wings and talk with my team guy than I am a “napkin on the lap and 3 choices for entree” guy.
The most recent was the same setting, the same type of expenditure, but the message was more or less “Folks, we are screwed.” Our workshops were all about how to make the violation of our profession hurt as little as possible. I am wondering why these boulders (NCLB, RTTT, CCLS , test-based teacher evals/tenure/job retention…) keep coming at us, while union leaders stand shoulder to shoulder with legislators praising deals made to allow the tanks to roll on. To me, this is not collective bargaining, it’s collective acquiescence. What is missing is collective action, and I think the willingness of political leaders to openly attack my profession is a nod to me to be more openly share my opinions about those politicians.
At the last NEA-RA, the only state delegation aggressively pushing back against the privitazition agenda was California…and we kept getting ruled out out order or voted down by 2-1 margins!!
My NEA magazine came in the mail and out to the recycling bin on Saturday. I thought it was an incredibly patronizing and irritating issue. I’m so disappointed in the NEA and my local. They do so little and take so much in terms of dues.
I love how the title of the magazine was, “Who protects NEA members?” It’s obviously not the NEA.
“I love how the title of the magazine was, “Who protects NEA members?” It’s obviously not the NEA.”
Those were exactly the words that went through my head when I saw the magazine cover. I wonder how many teachers across the country had the same thought.
Not the NEA here in MO. The way they protected me when I was being falsely accused of a number of things including sexual harassment was to have an NEA rep in all my meetings with the administration. That and “advising” me to look for another job in another district. They were in bed with the administration as shown by seeing that same principal (now superintendent) at a February “Meet the Legislators” night sponsored by the eastern MO NEA.
What a joke!
I am a member of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, and our union is currently constructing a partnership with parents and communities to combat and offer an alternative solution to that proposed by the Boston Consulting Group and our city’s and state’s politicians. I had numerous conversations last school year with many of my colleagues, and my fellow teachers forget that they are the union. The union is not the 12 to 15 people that appear on the inside cover of our contract and calendar. Each union member has a responsibility to keep themselves and others informed of what is happening not only to the teaching profession, but also to the American middle class in general.
You’re absolutely right, Brian. The union is us. Time to speak up. If you’ve already spoken up, it’s time to speak up again…
I recently read that the AFT and NEA received six million dollars from the Gates Foundation. If it’s true, then that more than adequately explains why they have thrown their dues paying membership under the bus. I guess six million bucks is the new thirty pieces of silver.
I keep hearing that the union is us and that we are responsible for turning things around. However, when I ask how we go about recalling the people at the top and replacing them with those who care about teachers, no one knows. Is there anything being done about that?
Do you have a source for the info on the six million from the Gates Foundation? I’d like to read more.
I thought I posted this, but I must have done something wrong. I’ll post it again:
What is happening in K-12 public education across the country has already been occurring over the past 40 years in higher edutation. At least 75% of college faculty are adjuncts now, most of whom are non-union and gross an average of $20K per year –with no benefits and short term contracts, regardless of experience and advanced degrees. I’ve taught at a university where there is not even one full time faculty member. Meanwhile, across the country, the number of administrative postions and their salaries have skyrocketed.
Please read How The American University was Killed, in Five Easy Steps http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-The-American-Universit-by-Debra-Leigh-Scott-120819-373.html because, as the author says, “what I’m saying has more recently been applied to K-12 public education as well.”
The primary difference between lower and higher ed thus far is that, in higher education, due to the reliance on Title IV (federal student aid), the impact is not just on public universities, but also on private colleges, whether non-profit or for-profit, since they must meet DoE requirements to qualify for federal funds. The expectations are that, as in K-12, colleges will aquiesce to DoE demands for increases in career training curriculum (previously seen mostly in Voc Ed schools), a stronger focus on assessement, becoming more “data-driven” and use of VAM for evaluating faculty.
I think that teachers’ unions have become too tied to politics and corporate sponsors to be able to speak out on behalf of their memberships today. Therefore, I believe it’s time for faculty in higher ed and P-12 ed to join forces themselves in spreading the word about what is going on in education AND in suggesting alternatives to the corporate sponsored agenda. If action is not taken now, you, too, are very likely to join the ranks of those of us in higher ed who are the working poor.
I recently wrote here that I thought there was a strong need for educators to name and define themselves, rather than accept the label of “anti-reform” imposed by corporate sponsored agitators. I think partnerships with parents and communitiies should be encouraged in this, too. I aslo mentioned a willingness to set up a blog for folks willing to involve themselves in this. Unfortunately, few responded. I still think that is very much needed. At this point, however, my current job is ending next month, therefore, I regret that I can’t take the lead on this, or even write here much anymore, as I’m very desperate to find another job ASAP and must gear my attention to that, since I am at high risk for becoming homeless. (I have Crohn’s disease and must work from home. I don’t qualify for disability income, unemployment comp or government assistance, and I’m limited to teaching online college courses or finding some other kind of online work.)
Best of luck to you, fellow educators at-risk!
What unions?
In Washington state, WEA has a three front battle field with which to deal. First front is to elect enough education supporters to the legislature to maintain their legislative agenda. The second front involves one of the most hotly contested governor’s races in the US. The third front, which is most closely associated with Ed reform, is charter schools initiative #4. I can assure you the union is not being silent. Watch for their anti-charter schools campaign after Labor Day. I’ve been monitoring the legislative & other state wide races & I can assure you that WEA is anything but silent.
Our district purposely brought in a new superintendent with a union busting agenda. Unfortunately, it is backfiring. The union here is growing stronger. In the past we had a good relationship with the district. Now we are headed to arbitration again over a contract. Funny how teachers and unions were once respected and loved and now they are hated. Everyone needs a scapegoat and we’re an easy target. Plus, there are some greedy people with a bad agenda pouncing on us. Keep calling tham out! The public has to wake up someday! I hope!
I am in complete agreement. After Gates and Knowledge Works came in and performed their “Magic,” (complete chaos), we fell into academic emergency. Since then, almost all of our contractual rights have been stripped. OEA has done nothing to help. I fear their loyalties lie elsewhere. The magazine is a farce .
The unions are not doing the simple things to push their narrative. They are keeping quiet about ALEC; about DFER, SFER, Stand for Children, StandFirst; about Gates, Broad, Walton.
They won’t put it all together for their teachers or for the parents. At community forums they ask for support, we give it, but they don’t provide the leadership. We feel they are pulling their punches. I suppose it is called survival.
Allow me if you would to correct your last sentence: “I suppose it is called TOADYISM.”
Diane, thank you for asking this question.
It is really a stretch to say the PFT is doing something just because it has a press conference twice a year. The union is sitting by as the corporate reformers take over.Yes, the union is the membership, but the leadership must lead. They must take the issues to its membership and organize them to take action.
As far as national leadership goes, all you have to do is read Randi’s comment in Frank Bruni’s editorial.
I’m going to go out on a limb here because the comments I am about to post are probably not going to be very popular with anyone who has commented in this discussion.
So many people want their state and national teachers unions to launch a campaign of all-out protest toward the corporate reform movement.
If anyone here has not yet noticed, there is a great deal of public dissatisfaction with the mere idea of public unions, let alone their actions. It would be political suicide for unions at any level to come out with “horses on fire and guns a-blazing” against these public perceptions. I have found that unions will seek to publicly take the high road in working towards better ways to improve the system.
There are times to get aggressive, but for all the “right-is-on-our-side” mentality among union members, there are plenty of people with the mentality that any aggressive union action (whether in word or deed) is negative. This negative public perception was demonstrated in Wisconsin, and it can and does continually appear in just about every other state in this country. Too many people in the public do not understand the value of unions nor know the history behind the formation and support of unions throughout the last century. Many union members themselves do not even have a background in this.
This is not a time for unions to take a defensive position–there are ways to approach these issues without giving the anti-union camp more fodder to spread their “unions are bad” message.
There are many facets to the politics of the cause that can work for or against the public perception of the unions. Whether you as a purist believe that the public perception is not important is irrelevant—it is of great importance if one wishes to garner support for public education.
There truly are no advocates for teachers and public education with any kind of position of effectiveness outside of the public teachers unions. Therefore, one must tread lightly when publicly criticizing the unions. That is not to say that members should feel as if they cannot have any critical opinions—these opinions must be voiced to the union leadership, but it is never a good idea to publicly criticize your own union as a member. It only weakens everybody’s position including that of the members themselves.
Unions invariably seek to effect positive influence on policies that affect public education. One of the most effective avenues of influencing positive public education policies is through conversations with legislators in the public forum. Union members should maintain a presence in their state legislature’s public sessions–the policy-makers need to hear from the unions especially before enacting some of the horrific proposals by some factions of the political arena.
Another way to be an effective force in public education is to continually work within a public advocacy program to show the public that unions not only work to continually improve schools, they continually work to improve communities.
I ask those who are critical of the national unions: How many of you have taken the time to attend your state legislature sessions to speak up about the policies in the public forum? I’m sure there are some here and there, but it has been my experience that most union members who complain about the union have never done this very thing. Have you at least made a phone call or sent an email to your legislators? If you have not joined in the conversation and simply left that to your representation, then it might be safe to say that you are not part of the solution. It’s so easy to be critical of your union representation when you have not gotten involved. Once you see what is required of union representation on many levels, you can take a more informed position of criticism toward what union leadership actually does.
For those who have had bad experiences and felt your local representation did very little to help you, know that you should never be left without recourse. Just like in any other area, there are varying levels of effectiveness among local associations. This is why there are country and state affiliations, just like in the court system. Take it to a higher level if you are not satisfied with the local level. Your personal situations are understandably important to you, but it is not fair to characterize every local in every state across the country as the same, just as it is not fair to characterize every teacher, student, school, district, etc. in the same way. We have used this “avoid generalizations” argument time and again in discussions on this blog. I caution anyone who is using one example as evidence of how all locals operate to be a little more responsible.
In my state, engaging in conversations with the public policy-makers is just what one of the state unions does. This practice has effectively prevented many bad policy ideas from becoming law despite what some perceptions of the actions of union leadership might be. I applaud the leaders and members of our state union for having not only the courage to continually speak up, but also for working WITH the legislature to ensure that public demands for improvement are answered without demeaning of devaluing the professionals who work in the school system.
We do not operate in a public vacuum–we do need to be quite aware of the needs and perceptions of our constituency. We also need to be aware of how damaging perceptions without evidence can be.
It’s amazing that so many union members themselves believe in the existence of “back-door” deals about which so many conspiracy theorists and anti-union pundits are always going on. When did the membership start believing this hype? Where is your evidence that union leaders are conspiring with the “reformers?”
This link posted above by another reader (touting how national unions are “in bed” with the Gates Foundation) caught my attention:
You have to read a great deal before you even get to the excerpt that speaks to this claim, but here it is:
“While the foundation has given money to both the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, totaling about $6.3 million over the last three years, some of its newer initiatives appear aimed at challenging the dominance that unions have exercised during policy debates.”
An article on the Gates foundation with an excerpt stating that the foundation gave money to union membership three years ago is not evidence of anything–it is supposition based on a concept that every donation has an agenda. Does the reader have any evidence of how that donation was appropriated? I also wonder where that money went. Let’s find out before we use this as “evidence” that the unions are “sleeping with the enemy.”
It is never a good idea to try to sway public opinion by openly declaring war on what many of the uninformed have convinced themselves to be “good” policies (i.e., “corporate reform”). The political stronghold on the public message belongs to those with the power and influence to control these messages, and in case no one has noticed, it isn’t the teachers unions. A great deal of the public does not support the public unions because people have been fed a constant diet of anti-union rhetoric by the powerful voices in politics. I have found even among my teaching colleagues, that just being affiliated with a teachers union turns people off from listening to you. Do you seriously think that you can change the message as a union without flack from the usual anti-union camp that is so powerful in the media and in politics?
You need a strategy of positive influence and cooperation, not a defensive posture. One needs to heed the lessons of good public relations as a union member. Start by supporting your own unions–ask questions, yes, but never, NEVER put your union down publicly because you’re so angry. Work from within the system that advocates for you, whether you want to believe it actually does or not. And for those who do not believe that the unions advocate for you, try doing your job without the unions. While I’m sure there would be isolated instances of “great non-union experiences,” the majority of us would be mistreated in our jobs just by the very nature of human nature and the public’s perception of “public service.”