The attack on unions flared into public view in 2011, when Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin attacked public sector unions, and thousands of people surrounded the State Capitol in protest.
Since so many radical Republicans took office in 2010, the effort to destroy public sector unions–especially the teachers’ unions–has accelerated.
Leo Casey explores the context of the anti-union movement here.
In state after state, legislatures have wiped out collective bargaining rights. That meant teachers would have no voice in the funding of public schools or their working conditions. Teachers’ working conditions are students’ learning conditions.
The so-called reformers are closing public schools and turning the students over to private corporations. 90% of charters are non-union.
The questions that I keep asking are, where was Barack Obama as the efforts to destroy America’s workers gained momentum? Why didn’t he go to Madison in the spring of 2011? Why did he go instead at the very height of the Wisconsin protests to hail Jeb Bush in Miami as “a champion of education reform?”
Why did his Secretary of Education effusively praise some of the most anti-union, anti-teacher state commissioners of education in the nation, like John White in Louisiana and Hanna Skandera in New Mexico? Why have Secretary Duncan and President Obama said nothing in opposition to the attacks on teachers, the mass closure of public schools, and the growing for-profit sector in education? Why was the Democratic National Convention of 2012 held in North Carolina, a right-to-work state? When was the last time that the Democratic Party held its convention in a right to work state?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is happening because most people have not had enough yet. It is happening because most union members have come to think that “the union” is some officials in a building downtown that they probably didn’t even elect — not themselves and the people they work side by side with.
Nothing will change for the better until these things change.
It is also happening because far too many union members don’t want to take risks — but this factor goes hand in hand with the other two above.
And too many who would otherwise take risks think that they need to wait for “permission” from “the union” without realizing that, again, they ARE the union.
One change that I think would be useful is a switch from aa defined benefit retirement plan to a defined contribution retirement plan. This would force the polititions who negotiate the agreements to pay the actual cost of the agreements rather than kicking those costs down the road to future taxpayers. This would also be a benefit to those many teachers who leave teaching after only a few years.
For most state teacher retirement systems (don’t know about all) a teacher that leaves before being vested can withdraw their paid portion so that knocks out one of your arguments for the ripoff that is a “defined contribution” retirement plan-see the 2008 economic meltdown and ask those seniors who had these types of plans how that worked out for them.
True social security can be forever funded fully if the limit on income taxed was lifted to no limit so that those who make the most pay their fair share just as those under the limit. But hey, the banksters couldn’t steal that money then could they? Defined contribution is a mechanism to transfer wealth to those who already have the most. What a great capitalist concept!!
But programs like NYU’s allow professors who leave to take BOTH the paid portion and NYU’s contribution when they leave.
NYU is not a public K-12 institution to which I was referring.
Duane,
The NYU defined contribution plan seems more advantages to people who leave early, so I am arguing that my position has been “knocked out”. I chose NYU so that Dr. Ravitch would have the opportunity to talk about a retirement system that she has participated in.
Diane;
Re: your comment of….
“True social security can be forever funded fully if the limit on income taxed was lifted to no limit so that those who make the most pay their fair share just as those under the limit.”
What’s your idea of “fair share”? Would it include a “fair share” of the PROCEEDS as well? I.e. – would their BENEFITS go up in relation to the extra amount they PAID?
If not, I don’t see anything “fair” about it; rather, I see a member of the “gimme, gimme” crowd attempting to confiscate what OTHERS have earned in order to subsidize HER existence in a very UN-fair manner.
Obviously, from your “great capitalist concept” remark, you’re not a supporter of capitalism…and, as such, one can’t help but assume that you expect the rest of the world to subsidize your existence in the face of your inability and/or unwillingness to support YOURSELF. So be it…but don’t expect the contributing members of society to all feel the same way.
Ken Meyer,
You are quoting the writer of the post, not me.
I love living in a free-market economy.
But free market strategies don’t belong in schools.
They don’t work.
Competition and choice don’t work in schools.
They fail. Merit pay fails. Closing schools fail.
Competition and choice don’t work in families either.
Some values are not subject to market forces.
Period.
Diane
Dr. Ravitch,
I assume that when you say choice does not work in schools you don’t mean to rule out the possibility of students choosing classes, just students choosing classes in another building. Is that correct?
I think “defined benefits” versus “defined contributions” is a red herring
with respect to any education issue.
I agree that this is not directly related to education.
It is a discussion in the context of negotiations between public employee unions and sitting politicians. I think it would be preferable for all concerned that promises about future payments be fully funded at realistic rates of return.
“But programs like NYU’s allow professors who leave to take BOTH the paid portion and NYU’s contribution when they leave.”
Really? That’s a good thing.
However, why did you refer to a plan for College level instructors in a Private University as opposed to a plan for K-12 level instructors in our public schools?
Are you confused? Or are you just attempting to confuse the rest of us? If it’s the former, I’m not all that surprised. If it’s the latter, you’re doing a poor job of it.
I am not confused at all, just suggesting that there are merits to a defined contribution retirement plan as opposed to a defined benefit plan. It seems to me that it is simply too easy for politicians to make promises that others need to keep and not necessarily be best idea for teachers to depend on the others to keep them.
He went to the company store for comfortable shoes, but what he bought were Rheeboks.
” A demagogic appeal was made to private sector workers: “why should a teacher, a nurse or a firefighter have such retirement benefits, when you, who finance that retirement with your taxes, do not?”
Why would anyone want a public sector job without a decent retirement package? The retirement plan is what makes these jobs attractive to workers. Working conditions in the public sector pale in comparison to those of my friends’ who work in the “real world”. They get bonuses AND a decent retirement package.
A defined contribution retirement system can provide a decent retirement package. What it can’t do is hide the costs somewhere down the road.
Not being much into economics, despite a minor in labor economics eight million years ago, please tell me more about what that would look like.
Here is a link to NYU’s retirement plan: http://www.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu/hr/documents/benefitsforms/SPDRetirement-100-102-103.pdf
Basically the institution contributes 5% of an employees salary to the retirment account and matches another 5% contribution by the employee. If you don’t think that is adequate, you might negotiate an unmatched 10% or whatever.
Thank you. I’ll have to read more about this.
“Why would anyone want a public sector job without a decent retirement package??
Don’t have an answer for that one….except to point out that the article complains that the jobs are being turned over to the PRIVATE sector (charter schools), and they don’t seem to be having a problem finding individuals to fill THEIR jobs. If that’s the case, perhaps that’s the way we should go; i.e. – if individuals DON’T want those “public sector” jobs, then let’s give them to those who ARE willing to work at them. Problem solved.
Face it; teachers have spit in their own punchbowl over the last few decades. Through their behavior, job actions, etc., they’ve convinced society (and perhaps correctly!) that teaching is no longer a profession, but rather yet another blue collar job. It’s difficult to convince citizens that teachers primarily have their students interests at heart when they pull out of the schools as they are now in Ohio.
Lastly, if teachers want what the private sector has to offer, then they’re free to go that route. However, I seriously doubt that, when it comes right down to it, many of teachers today would be willing to make the change; they know how relevant the claim “pales in comparison” is, and the “comparison” that would face them scares the devil out of ’em.
“Face it; teachers have spit in their own punchbowl over the last few decades. . . ” Bovine excrement! Why do you hate public school teachers? What have they done to you personally that evokes such ire?
Can it be possible that teachers can have the interests of their students as well as themselves at heart? The teachers I know work their asses off for the benefit of their students. We will also say no to having meetings scheduled during our duty-free lunch breaks, for example. I don’t think having 25 minutes to eat your lunch is asking too much.
Sure, charter school jobs are easy to come by. That’s because of the high turnover rate; most charter teachers realize they are more fairly treated and compensated at traditional public schools. Hence, charter schools “churn and burn”, constantly hiring rookies to replace those who are out the door after two or three years. Which is, btw, exactly the way they were designed. Problem is, experience counts, especially in education.
“…jobs are being turned over to the PRIVATE sector (charter schools), and they don’t seem to be having a problem finding individuals to fill THEIR jobs.”
Of course they don’t. Who does? What employer is complaining that “no one wants to take our jobs”?
Maybe you’re isolated, or sheltered in some sort of gated, private world, but in case you haven’t noticed, people are desperate these days for any kind of work. There are always numerous qualified applicants for ANY job, despite the lousy pay and working conditions.
And anyone who thinks our teachers have an “easy” job that anybody could do” is moronic. Do you have anything other than your personal animosity towards educators to back up your idiotic claims?
Your vile words are the ones people heard from the owners of the horrific sweatshops of the 19th century; they’re nothing new.
They’re based upon the same ignorance, stupidity and hatred that we heard then.
I’m happy that people like you have little or no influence. The few that do won’t last long. We taxpayers and parents will see to that.
Until workers in this country declare their political independence from the 1%, including the Democratic Party, and develop a party with a program for the 99%, the unions will be in trouble.
Agreed. I voted the Green Party last November. I may never vote for a major party at the national level again, at the local level the options are not always there, and, living in blue Connecticut, I have to say that some of the candidates are worth voting for.
It is no longer possible to tell the difference between Democrat and Republican representatives when it comes to Educational policy. I think the allegiance to a party based on the title is what has contributed to this problem of “reform.” People have blindly followed along party lines, and now when we all look through the haze, we see that both groups are seeking to benefit from the total control over children – financially, mentally, socially.
One would almost think both parties have been holding secret meetings together where they’ve plotted the overthrow of education, and whoever is in office when it finally happens is king of the hill!
Anyone see this alarming Report? Secret Group Developing Low-Cost Schools
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/04/19/612819mixgreducationoverhaulmichigan_ap.html
Soon we’ll be back to the days when the teacher boards with families in the district and children bring firewood to school to keep the schoolhouse warm.
Wow. It is true. Who can get that market-share and make the most money by creating the cheapest product? And parents are being kept in the dark, but through some good marketing, will buy into it all.
Meanwhile, our children will be transformed into test-taking, computer-adaptive, mind-numbing zombies.
They’ll prey on the poorest children.
Thank you Diane for stating the obvious, but some still can’t see it. I live and teach in North Carolina and am appalled with what is happening. This “right to work” state is really a “right to get screwed “state. I was hopeful that public employee unions would eventually come here, but now, have just about lost all hope. It’s a hard pill to swallow. Some of my own colleagues are anti-union. Many people from here just don’t know any better because they have never experienced anything different. Anti-union is so drilled into their head I don’t think it will ever get out. They say after a child learns to say “mama”, the next thing he learns to say is “unions are the devil.”
North Carolina has a long history of vilifying, attacking, and even murdering workers who attempted to form unions — especially those that tried to unite both black and white workers.
I think it’s obvious that Mr. Obama really serves the interests of the same 1% that run both the Republican and Democratic parties. When conditions get worse (and they will) I predict a lot of folks will start organizing themselves into unions and against further cutbacks. But there will be those who are organized, quite strongly, to oppose them as well.
Diane writes:
“In state after state, legislatures have wiped out collective bargaining rights. That meant teachers would have no voice in the funding of public schools or their working conditions.”
That’s not true. Teachers would still have a voice through the normal political process (like any other citizen or group of citizens). Teachers and their unions have a strong voice in states without collective bargaining, although it is certainly true that their voice is stronger when they have the tool of collective bargaining. Diane should probably write: “teachers would have a less powerful voice…”.
Ken,
Why don’t you travel to states like North Carolina and South Carolina and Louisiana and meet with teachers? Ask them how powerful their associations are. Don’t take my word for it. There is a reason that reactionaries want to silence the teachers’ unions.
I could believe “weaker voice” or even “much weaker voice”, but “no voice” is not accurate. They have the same voice as other groups of citizens without a privileged negotiating postion. Maybe “no privileged voice”?
I certainly agree that collective bargaining is a very powerful tool and losing it makes a big difference.
“Teachers and their unions have a strong voice in states without collective bargaining,”
Nonsense.
We do not have unions my state.
We do not have a voice.
You are misinformed.
Ang: simple truths, clearly put.
In a reply to a previous post, Diane makes the same point about a different matter: “Mercedes, it takes more than a moment to realize that the punitive practices of the Bush-Obama era are harmful. Most educators already knew it, but for those who believe in market reforms (as I did), it takes a willingness to consider evidence without ideology and to think about what happens to real children, not theoretical children.”
The ‘theoretical existence’ of the “big bad unions” lives on, zombie-like, in an era when the actual influence and power of unions [private and public] in the real world has dramatically diminished. And it was never that great to begin with, at least on Planet Reality where most of us live.
Look at it from a different angle. Some historians love to work up ‘counter-factual’ narratives like ‘What if the South had won the Civil War?’ and ‘What if Hitler had won the Second World War’ as a way of initiating wide ranging discussions that [hopefully] lead to intriguing new perspectives on well-worked over topics.
‘What if Unions are All-Powerful?’ is a counter-factual argument, however, meant to obscure and derail, not clarify and deepen understanding.
Use your own judgment, but I suggest not wasting too much of your gunpowder on this.
Regardless, please keep posting and I’ll keep reading.
🙂
KrazyTA,
“Planet reality”…
LOVE IT!
We should invite some others to give it a try.
Where are these other people dwelling?
“Planet Faux” perhaps?
😉
As always, appreciate you!
Which state?
I think Ken is confusing this country with a nation where people with wealth and power do not have a greater say than the average citizen, Our country is a plutocracy and the oligarchs who are calling the shots, like Bloomberg, have declared that great teachers are able to teach twice as many students in their classrooms. That is utter nonsense. Teachers should have more say in their working conditions than non-educators who haven’;t got a clue what it’s like to teach an overcrowded classroom of children.
They may have a voice but obviously no one is listening. So, I’d say their voices at this time are quite weak.
Ken, your assertion that teachers have a voice with their votes is not entirely accurate . I work in one school district and live in another, therefore I do not have that political voice to which you refer. Without my union, I would be voiceless. And do not tell me all I have to do is move to the district in which I work. That is not feasible, as I do not make enough money to own a home in that district. People are good a suggesting very simple, completely obvious solutions for teachers’ problems, mostly because they don’t understand the complexity of teachers’ problems. They are different from most other professions, whether you believe that or not.
I didn’t write “with their votes”, although that’s one way to “have a voice”. One can advocate politically without voting and without living in a given school district.
Special interest groups (including teachers unions) exert enormous influence on the political process using tools other than collective bargaining and the right to vote. Again, though, collective bargaining is an extremely powerful tool that would be missed by the unions that have it.
“Special interest groups (including teachers unions) exert enormous influence on the political process…”
Right, that’s why politicians have been so compelled to let teachers have a lot of input into all major policy decisions in education, including NCLB, RTTT, Common Core, high-stakes testing, VAM, etc.. NOT. Again, Ken is confusing this country with another, like maybe Finland, where what teachers’ think is valued and respected.
Aren’t the unions just as broken as the public school system itself? In Washington State I experienced some of the shortest school days I’ve ever seen because the bus drivers were unionized and refused to drive outside certain times daily. Likewise, I saw teachers that would be terminated or at least not promoted in any other line of work continue to receive their yearly raises and serve in classrooms, yet they couldn’t connect with or teach the youth.
When a bargaining agreement supports these things, when it supersedes the educational needs of the kids – how is that about fixing the education problem in this country? I’m all for teachers that are skilled and qualified being paid what they are worth, but when a system doesn’t allow for accountability or incentive similar to other entities that do, and whose workers work just as hard or harder – that’s just ridiculous.
I’m neither anti or pro union. I’ve seen too many aspects to be either frankly. I think the problem resides at a different level than policy, incorporation, collective bargaining, etc. If we emphasized (and put our money toward) education like we do oil production, pharmaceuticals, professional sports, medical care – we-the-people would then be able to do more for the education backbone of the nation. It won’t be unions, or policy makers that fix this problem. It will be the grass-roots efforts of kids and their families – neither of which give a damn about what unions want for their teachers/administrators or what other conflicting issues tug at the policy makers’ sleeves.
“I’m neither anti or pro union.”
Half right.
Ay, Ay, Ay! Looks like we have a few rheephormers on board today! Welcome, but do not expect to be treated lightly by some of us. Ignorant (meaning lack of knowledge on the subject) musings on teachers and the supposed power of the unions, such as yours, doesn’t lend much to the discussion.
Meant no disrespect to be sure. I share from my perspective of 16 years in youth work from a social services framework.
If there is some piece of the puzzle I have missed in my experience I would honestly love to hear your knowledge. I have a great deal of respect for most of the teachers I have work with through those years, both in Texas and in Washington State. I don’t believe I speak in ignorance when I speak of some of the same frustrations many of those colleagues have shared with me. But if I err, please explain.
The piece you missed was actually working in a classroom.
Actually, I wrote curriculum and taught 16-18 year old dropouts in life skills, goal setting, job skills, mentoring relationships, etc for ten years out of those 16. So I am familiar with classroom management issues if that’s what you mean. An in that regard, teaching wasn’t my primary task, yet I spent 70 – 80% of my time teaching/grading/tutoring etc.
One area I was blessed with was class size. I never had to teach classes larger than 25 to 30 on a regular basis.
As I say, I have the utmost respect for what teachers do. I didn’t choose teaching in the public sector, because i wanted to address the specific demographic (dropouts) that I felt could be helped in other ways.
I’m serious about wanting to learn different points of view. What are the missing pieces on my earlier expressed impression. Are you saying that the system isn’t broken? Are you saying that the unions as a whole work? Is the problem, in your opinion and from your experience in the area of local or higher policy makers? And what is the ultimate focus here? Is it not best to dialogue in pursuit of a win-win rather than a solution that serves only one area best?
I am sure that there are some poor quality teachers out there, but I don’t know of any union that truly supports them. As a union leader I can tell you that we offer support to any of our members, but when someone is troubled or in a teaching position that is not good for them, the students or the school we try to find solutions or counsel the teacher to resign. If there are poor quality teachers in a building it is the fault of the administrator that does not do anything about it. Teacher unions were created to be the buffer between the politics and the job. Along the way we managed to win a few battles that allowed the teacher to be treated like a human being. Problem now is that there are too many in politics that want to return to the old ways, and too many young people that have no idea what the union has gained for them in the past.
Can you educate me about who the key, or typical “political” players usually are in the example you shared? My perspective from the services side means that I probably haven’t seen those folks in action in order to understand that aspect of the issues. Are they at the school administration levels in some cases? School boards, parent groups, local politicians, state or higher? What does the flow look like, for example, when a stupid decision is made or handed down that hurts the service providers and clients (teachers/administrators and kids)?
My impression, in addition to what I’ve already explained, is that schools are asked to do too much (more than the old 3R’s so-to-speak) because there is often no other outlet to provide things like driver’s Ed, parenting (for example). Is that not the overarching, bigger problem – the cause for the need to compensate and provide other considerations for overworked teachers?
Have you looked at the overall society?? Have you looked at the lack of employment, broken homes, poverty, and crime??? Can you say our society isn’t broken? Education is available in the poorest urban areas. The question is why are children in this type of environment performing well below their peers. The idea that the education system is broken and unions are the problem is laughable. The overall society has serious problems, yet, all of the reformers provide no answers.
I didn’t say “unions are the problem” anywhere in my posts here. The point I’ve tried to make is the focus on attacking or on defending unions in order to fix the overall problem is what is fundamentally wrong. All that has resulted in these two approaches is to cloud the real issues for all stakeholders. I believe this is not an educator problem, or a union problem, or even a policy maker issue. The “sheeples” that are supposed to fix this problem get confused with all this huff and puff. If voters were leveraged, not to fight or defend unions – but rather to influence actual organizational change, then we might see some actual solutions flourish.
This is the same political mumbo-jumbo that fools people into thinking that politicians need to fix “welfare” programs. Social workers – those in the field who know how people abuse the system – should be the majority at the table, not lawyers or career politicians. Teachers and other educators, likewise, should be the ones at the table. They should be at the table representing what is measurable and what works in each state (no apples to oranges comparisons). The people to fix this is not educators representing educators, but those representing the field of education and the future of our youth. Sure – parents should play a role, and maybe community partners, but as you put implied above, DeeDee, only those that know the world inside the classroom know how all the efforts outside translate when the rubber meets the road.
Yes – solutions would involve pay, and retirement plans; before that, they would include channels of communication being opened and titles and decision makers being changed.
Finally, I apologize for all my earlier typos. I was responding via my iPhone so that I wouldn’t miss the great dialogue and intel I hoped to discover.
There is a total all out war against unions in this country and it has been going on for decades. The overall unionization rate is down to 11.3% and the private sector unionization rate is between 6% and 7%. So much of the media enables or participates in anti-unionism, union people are always portrayed as lazy, protected thugs; in fact, unionthug has become one word. There is big money (pretty much the same big money behind educational reform) behind demonizing and smearing unions, especially public sector unions. Most Americans don’t belong to unions and have bought into the propaganda against unions. Unions are necessary to level the playing field between management and the workers, to fight for better wages, benefits and workplace conditions. The GOP is rabidly anti-union while the Democrats only pay lip service to unions without any actual actions that would help unions.
If you look at the list of those who donated $500K+ to the presidential election last November, Obama got ALL of the contributions from labor unions. (Romney received a lot more contributions from hedge fund managers than Obama, who mostly just got money from Soros and his kids, so I don’t know where all those DFERs were.)
Clearly, it’s time for Americans to establish a Labor party, as they have in England, to represent workers and stand up to all the neo-liberals who have taken over both the Democratic and GOP parties that now represent just the 1%..
You can see a pictorial of each of those donors if you scroll down to the “Donors Giving $500,000-Plus to Super PACs” slide show here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/27/sheldon-adelson-super-pac_n_2030517.html
As a Wisconsin teacher, I wondered the same thing about Obama’s whereabouts. He didn’t “put on his comfortable shoes and join the picket lines” as he pledged. He did nothing. That was particularly frustrating as I think large part of dismantling unions was to get their money out of the 2012 campaign in order to defeat Obama.
I still voted for him, because he seemed better than the alternative, but he did not get a penny of campaign contributions from me.
It’s kind of funny (not ha ha), but the main objection I always here about public sector unions is the idea of collusion. Supposedly the government and the unions are not adverse parties in the public sector like management and the unions are in the private sector. So, according to those who spout this line, the unions and the government collude to give public sector workers unfair advantages, which is supposedly how Chicago teachers supposedly became the “highest paid teachers in the nation”.
Setting aside the various faults in that argument, you’d think people making that argument would be thrilled to death to have Karen Lewis as CTU president – the one thing you can say for sure is that she and Rahm Emanuel/CPS are most definitely *not* colluding. But the same people who spout the above argument are almost universally the same people frothing at the mouth over Karen Lewis and extolling the virtues of former CTU president Debbie Lynch, who most certainly was colluding.
So which way to people really want it?
Arg, make that, “So which way *do* people really want it?
“Setting aside the various faults in that argument, you’d think people making that argument would be thrilled to death to have Karen Lewis as CTU president – the one thing you can say for sure is that she and Rahm Emanuel/CPS are most definitely *not* colluding.”
1. What are the faults in that argument?
2. Or maybe they’re thrilled to death to have Rahm Emanuel as Mayor.
Chicago teachers are NOT the “highest paid teachers in the nation.” Not one Chicago teacher makes a six figure income, but many do at schools in the suburbs of Chicago, such as New Trier: “More than half the teachers at New Trier make a six-figure salary” http://wilmette.patch.com/articles/new-trier-superintendent-explains-high-salaries
Thank you for helping FLERP! out with one of the faults in the argument.
Dienne, no, I was referring to the argument that public employee unions have an inherently less adversarial relationship with their employers than private employee unions.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
For those who cannot recall, policies that recognize education and training and acknowledge the seniority of experienced workers in public service jobs were put in place because the previous ”spoils” system, prior to unionization, was replete with patronage hirings and promotions, which fostered cronyism and nepotism, as well as the firing of skilled workers for political purposes and other erroneous reasons. That was a corrupt system, which we are seeing repeated in unregulated charter schools that give no bid contracts and jobs to relatives and friends, such as at UNO charter schools in Chicago.
Our tax dollars should not be supporting patronage jobs, especially if we want career teachers, police, firefighters, social service workers etc. with the proper training, experience and expertise serving our nation, and not a revolving door of novices who happen to have connections to political clout. We have enough of that already in education today, such as appointmented superintendents and school boards in mayoral controlled school districts, the federal Department of Education and TFAers,
“What Is the Meaning of LIFO: You’re Fired Mr. Chips!”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-epstein/what-is-the-meaning-of-li_1_b_832052.html
Sorry, meant appointed not appointmented.
Or you could have said “annointed”, eh!
Another question to ask Obama and the Democrats is why was Michelle Rhee allowed to have a panel discussion following the viewing of the anti-union movie, Won’t Back Down, at the Democratic Convention.
I have never heard ‘I told you so’ as much as I have in the past few months. I live in a very republican county and am a democrat. I really wanted to believe Obama would stand by unions, teachers, education but I can see he seems to be just what most republicans say he is “just another Chicago politician…out to make a fast buck”. And if you’re from Chicago, you really know what that means!
Obama(and Hilary to come after him)govern as moderate Republicans(DINO’s, Dems in name only. Dem Party is financed by same Wall St billionaires as is the GOP. Obama’s first task on election night in ’08 was to lower expectations among the millions celebrating in streets. His remarks outdoor in Chicago that night began this task. Then, he nominated same Wall St crowd to run the country and a Broadie CEO-type with no backgrnd in educ to run Dept of Ed, out of which came O’s signature reform Race-to-the-Top(which folks here know as ERASE-to-the-Top). O then gave a dismal and boring inaug speech Jan 20 to a record crowd of 1.8mil in DC eager for marching orders and a champion to lead the people int he streets(never happened–stand down was the msg instead), more lowering expectations. O refused to consider single-payer health care favored by majority of Americans and refused to march with labor in Madison during its peaceful takeover of the Capitol. I could go on but point is obvious–Obama is a moderate corporate Republican as are all the leaders of the Dems like Cuomo and Hilary. The Liberal and Progressive factions of the Dems lost power over that party 40 yrs ago in wake of McGovern campaign. Our task is to build democracy despite the interference of govt and business, build a robust public sector of green parks, clean mass transit, affordable family housing, health care for all, with creative and productive public schools. Not possible to do with or in or through the Democratic Party. Hilary in ’16 will do what O does now and what Bill Clinton did in 90s, push a moderate Republican agenda seeking compromise with the right-wing Republicans. To get to a democratic society, we need coalitions, mass movements, activist labor unions, and an alternative party–for democracy, equality, ecology, and peace, as broadly unifying values. For now, building a coalition of education advocates, like all the parents choosing Opt Out and all teachers and union locals with activist principals, schl bd members, is an obvious step forward, for which Diane’s and Anthony’s NPE is a start.
I think most Secretaries of Education have had no background in education.
Leo Casey has backed almost every Gates initiative so of course he and Weingarten are going to put a spin on this as well. Do you have any idea Diane how hurtful to read from our own leadership how wonderful “Open Market” “ATRs” and “VAM” are?? And knowing they align themselves with “reformers” while at the same time a post appeared in Edwize disparaging the work of Carol Burris is exactly why I do not trust Weingarten. I can see why you want to turn this into an “Obama” issue, but frankly Weingarten is making it so easy for him to turn his back on public ed. Teachers are stuck between a rock and a hard place due to this alliance, and believe it or not, but no PAC including yours or anything else you do can stop this train if you cannot see the forest through (or for) the trees. When you are ready to start calling both the AFT and NEA leadership out on their collusion, then things may change for the better. In the meantime I see more public schools closing, more money being diverted away from public education, more testing and less teaching. And, no real voice for the teachers or public school students in the trenches. You of all people lived through following an agenda you finally saw as destructive. Do you not see Weingarten on the same path??
http://nyceye.blogspot.com/2013/03/eli-broad-who-is-eli-broad-and-why-does.html
The Broad Foundation and the unions
“The Broad Foundation Mission Statement states that one of its goals is the transformation of labor relations. The Broad Foundation is not anti-union. Rather, it seeks to transform unions into a form of company union. A company union is a union located within and run by a company or a national government, and the union bureaucracy is incorporated into the company’s management. This opens up the workforce to unfettered exploitation for profits of the owners…
In the early days of this collaboration, labor leaders joined leaders in politics, business and non-profit organizations in staffing the faculty at the Broad Superintendents Academy, training the future Broad Superintendents. According a 2002 Broad press release (Page 2) participants included…
• Randi Weingarten, President, United Federation of Teachers.
In 2005 the Broad Foundation made a $1 million grant to help the United Federation of Teachers in New York City, at that time headed by Randi Weingarten, open two union-run charter schools in Brooklyn, the first such schools in the country….”
A “company union”…like the ones coal miners were forced to endure????
Schoolgal,
AGREED!
We need to reinvent our unions . . .
In Douglas County, Colorado, even though the board has dismantled the union, they are still using the union as their scapegoat for the next election.
This is an excellent article by a parent around the funding behind the union attacks.
http://www.examiner.com/article/it-is-all-about-the-union-again
Since teachers in Illinois receive no Social Security benefits (which is a defined benefit system by the way), there would be no advantage to change our pension plan (the only guaranteed retirement earnings that we receive after teaching for 35 years) to a defined contribution system. That would place our retirement system in jeopardy based on the swings in the market. Our current pension (under attack by the Democratic Party which holds veto proof majorities in both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly and the Governor’s seat) is protected by the Illinois Constitution. That does not seem enough to prevent an attempted assault currently underway.
Good grief, no SS benefits, that’s a travesty!! Thank God, that’s not true here in NJ. Defined contribution systems were designed to screw the worker, a way to give him/her less money after years of service.
No SS here in CT, either.
Is that why Dr. Ravitch has a defined contribution retirement plan?
No SS in some GA districts, either.
No, SS in the Show Me State, either. I contributed to SS from the age of 16 to 38 and cannot touch any of it as long as I receive a teachers pension. Can’t get any of it back. You think a banker, senator, representative would tolerate that?
But Fred, a defined contribution plan would reduce the jeopardy from based on swings in the political system, and the ability of the state to fulfill their promises still depend on a) the return the state gets on investments and b) the growth rate of per capita output for the state.
I don’t think there’s much jeopardy from political swings, at least not in the many states whose constitutions protect public employee pensions from being reduced. In those states, the only risks to pension payouts are (1) the risk that a legislative supermajority will amend the state constitution; and (2) the risk of bankruptcy. Both are generally very remote, and it’s not even clear whether bankruptcy poses a real risk in the first place. (The bankruptcy of Stockton, California may yield the first indication of how federal courts answer that question.)
I think the bankruptcy issue might well be a problem. We will have to see how different classes of creditors are treated.
These are important questions. The American people who believe in workers’ right to have a voice deserve answers.
Teachingeconomist why aren’t you talking about the real reason they are not performing? That is because of Bill Clinton and the 1999-2000 Banking Deregulation Acts which wiped out a stable financial system which Obama has put on steroids by putting in charge of finances those who made the mess and no one in their right mind would ever do that. Also, Clinton eliminated a free press with the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Until these 1933-36 regulations like Glass-Steagle are put back into place no one except the wealthiest controllers will get anywhere as it is impossible. Barack and Michell are right wing corporate privatizers by defination. As my friends grandfather taught him “I hear real good, but I see a whole lot better.” Only what they do counts not what they say. Obama is better than the other guys and that is not saying a lot. He is certainly not for the people but the corporations which is promotion of fascism and he is a complete enemy of public education and he and his wife always have been bought and sole by that group if you look at their real history. Shameful.
In answering the last few questions in your article:
The Democrats – the majority of them – have turned against the ordinary working person in this country because they have become just as seduced and corrupted by corporate financing of their elections, plain and simple.
This will only motivate us working folk to found a third, true party who will represent us. Obama and others are about as much of a Democrat as a bag of rusty nails.
Unions exist to support their members. There is no other purpose for unions.
Is that wrong?
Why should parents support Teacher’s Unions whose
only purpose is to gain advantages for teachers?
You’re presuming that parents will lose if unions do well. I’m not sure why.
Ed Bradford,
Teachers working conditions are children’s learning conditions.
To be fair, unions negotiate about more than working conditions.
TE, unions seek smaller class sizes. That’s good for kids. They want fully staffed schools with social workers, guidance counselors, librarians. That’s good for kids. They want higher pay, which helps retain good teachers and attract better candidates. That’s good for kids.
No doubt many of those things do help the student, though you argument about recruiting and retaining strong teachers is not about working conditions per say. Teacher unions also work to require uniformity in pay across disciplines and last in, first out hiring policies that seem to have less to do with working conditions and more to do with protecting school insiders from school outsiders.
First, it’s “per se”.
Second, are you aware of what system prevailed prior to “LIFO” and the problems associated with it? I recently read a fascinating article on the subject that might have been linked to from this blog. The article referred to it as the “spoils” system.
I think there would be little argument from good teachers against a system that showed preference to better teachers, but at this time there isn’t much confidence among teachers that the evaluation systems currently on display do an adequate job of determining which teachers are “better”.
What would you say about the validity of a teacher ranking system that tended to rank teachers in wealthier districts higher than teachers in impoverished districts?
I have posted in favor of using per evaluation systems as the best way to evaluate teachers. Something like that used in Montgomery county. This position is not universally accepted, however. One frequent poster on this site has argued forcefully that it is unethical for a teacher to inform administrators of poor teaching (in the particular case I was citing, poor teaching was teaching creationism as biology) on the part of other teachers in the school system.
PAR is not a system where teachers spy on or report other teachers. These are teachers who the principal has deemed either unsatisfactory. It is up to the PAR committee to decide if the teacher should get staff development or be fired. The teacher in question retains all due process rights. This is the only option that gives teachers ownership in their schools. I haven’t seen the comment you referred to. If you can find it, let me know.
There were several posts during last summer concerning peer evaluation (which I favor), but others saw it as the responsibility of administrators to evaluate teachers.
My original question involved the firing of a veteran teacher in Mt. Vernon, Ohio. The specific incident that sparked the investigation was that the teacher was accused of burning a cross into a students arm. What I found most disturbing was some of the testimony offered at the board hearing. The article in the NYT characterized some of the testimony:
“One high school teacher said she consistently had to reteach evolution to Mr. Freshwater’s students because they did not master the basics. Another testified that Mr. Freshwater told his students they should not always take science as fact, citing as an example a study that posited the possibility of a gene for homosexuality.
“Science is wrong,” Mr. Freshwater was reported as saying, “because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and is therefore a sinner.”
A third teacher testified that Mr. Freshwater advised students to refer to the Bible for additional science research.
School officials said Mr. Freshwater’s science classroom was adorned with at least four copies of the Ten Commandments and several other posters that included verses from Scripture.”
Would it have been proper for these teachers to have reported any of this before the hearing?
I just read the article and it seems clear the principal knew about the posters and Bible on his desk. There was no need for any teacher to report him. However, if a teacher did see him burn the cross, no matter how harmless, and it went against the child’s belief system that is a clear form of abuse. It’s like me demanding a Jehovah’s Witness to recite the pledge. And, if he indeed broke rules by speaking about politics, religion, and homosexuality, they are cause for dismissal. Teachers are mandated to report any act of abuse whether it be by parent or teacher. In my school we report anyone absent 3 days in a row, and the home is contacted. (see the Lisa Steinberg case). Was this Ohio case ever adjudicated??? btw, I once saw my principal demand a child remove his cap. I had to tell her it was a yarmulke. Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut after seeing the look she gave me.
I sincerely think a lot of facts were left out of this article. I bet the principal’s meetings with this teacher and her observations of his lessons are also on the record.
Since Winerip’s was ripped off the NYTimes Ed beat, I have seen many articles regarding teachers being skewed. Case in point…how certain teachers who were cleared on sexual abuse charges by an arbitrator. I was very upset with those teachers until I read a blog by one of those teachers….a blogger I have been following for year. When he told his side of the story, it was obvious there was no sexual intent but his remarks which were clearly innocent on his part, were used as retaliation. The NYTimes left out those details.
Again, this doesn’t fall within peer review. That’s totally different.
It is interesting how we focused on different parts of the article. You noted that administrators knew of the posters in the room, while I was concerned that the downstream teacher knew that students taught by this teacher were inadequately prepared for her class. How many years of inadequate preparation would be required before there was a professional obligation for the teacher to inform an administrator?
In the interest of full disclosure, I know several graduates from the Mt Vernon public school system, including one of the dismissed teacher’s former students.
I’ve seen a bunch of teachers, and as yet, I have not seen one that
is inadequate. The education problems is not a teacher problem.
All of America should know that.
I have run across a few.
Would you say that the 21 year veteran in Mt. Vernon was adequate?
I do not have 40 years of experience with teachers. I have seen the idiots that
fiddle with their students but I think they are less than 2% of the teacher population.
However, they do make the news.
I would guess the % of teachers is about
the same as the % of RC Priests.
I have no statistics on either of these issue.
Focus on the idiots of America and
you fail to deal with the problems of the other 98%.
Do you think teachers have a duty to expose those 2%?
Peer evaluation, of course.
“One frequent poster…”
That is “one” persons opinion, not necessarily representative of teachers as a whole, and could be an outlier. I would have no problem reporting a teacher who “teaches creationism as biology,” and a systematic peer evaluation program should make that easier to do, even for those who might be apprehensive. I suspect many others would report as well, especially if peer evaluations are intended to be used to help teachers improve their practices, not merely to get them fired.
And BTW, many of us have reported teachers, even without peer evaluation systems in place, if what they were doing was detrimental to the well-being and optimal development of children.
Right, Ron. I wrote about and posted a link to the article regarding our prior history with the “spoils” system earlier on this page, which can be seen here: https://dianeravitch.net/2013/04/22/the-attack-on-unions-which-side-are-you-on/comment-page-1/#comment-154706
In the real world, where budgets exist, higher pay generally comes at the expense of higher class sizes. Same with better medical benefits and pensions. That’s bad for kids.
The article did state that a “full investigation” took place. This would have to include meetings w/ the principal with the union rep in attendance. Follow up meetings, observations and interviews with other teachers and students and/or parents prior to the hearing. This falls under due process.
I understand that a formal investigation took place at the request of a parent.
My question is about the possibility of a formal investigation taking place at the request of a teacher. Lawyers and physicians have a duty to inform the relevant authorities if they observe malpractice, initiating a formal investigation. Ought teachers have the same duty?
The principals already knows. We know they know. And I have a very strong feeling this principal also knew, but did nothing. But principals have their favorites–even the ineffective ones. Or, they don’t want to go through the full process. They claim it’s too much paperwork. Excuse me?? You want to see paperwork??? Go to any classroom!!! And they get paid the big bucks. And sometimes these same teachers are “connected”. This teacher seemed to have strong connections within the community.
Unfortunately, a parent complaint holds more water than a teacher complaint. And we also have no recourse over an ineffective or incompetent principal.
Again, that article left out many relevant facts.
My question is broader than the specifics of the Mt. Vernon case.
Do you think that teachers have a duty to report inadequate teaching to administrators in the district?
Indeed, Teachingeconomist, ought not everyone have the same duty? I would say that a teacher who a court could prove had known about damaging malpractice on the part of a fellow teacher, and failed to report such, should be as liable as a police officer who did the same with a fellow police officer. Would you agree?
Yes, I agree.
I already answered your question.
You did say teachers have a duty to report abuse. Would you consider poor teaching practices to be abuse?
You would need to define “poor teaching practices” in order to get a good answer to that question. If one doctor in a practice knows that a fellow doctor is prescribing some sort of unverified Eastern medicine to his patients, is that doctor obligated to report his fellow’s “poor doctoring practices”?
I don’t think they are, unless a clear and present danger to a patient can be proven. Shouldn’t the same rule apply to teachers?
If you define “poor teaching practices” to mean anything other than the latest methodological fad, you’re going to get some justified pushback.
I think physicians might look to a standard of care approach to evaluate other physicians. Teachers could do the same.
You “think they might”, eh?
Note that we’re not talking about an evaluation here — we’re talking about an obligation to report to the relevant authorities.
What kind of standards are you talking about? Common Core? I think requiring teachers to report on each other for not following Common Core would lead to a faster death for the Common Core, with some more pain along the way, and not much else.
Four letter acronyms seem to be all the rage these days, so I hope I’ll be forgiven, maybe even celebrated, for creating yet another one to mark that common, all too common rhetorical strategy to which some people appear to be addicted beyond all hope of recovery —
PTBS = Pretending To Be Stupid
I know they think they are being clever, but they’re not …
Diane writes in part, “I love living in a free-market economy….But free market strategies don’t belong in schools. They fail. Merit pay fails. Closing schools fail. Competition and choice don’t work in families either….Some values are not subject to market forces.
Period.
Diane”
Does this mean it’s fine for some families like hers to earn lots of money and be able to afford private schools (which she used), but it’s not ok for low income families to have choice among distinctive public schools?
Does she mean its fine for educators to create for example, exclusive private Montessori schools, but it’s not ok for public school educators to create, for example, Montessori public schools from which families can choose?