Archives for category: Unions

Follow the money is a basic principle.

To understand an organization, see who funds it.

Take Teach for America.

It presents itself to the public as a noble charity.

Unfortunately, it promotes the bad idea that anyone with five weeks of training can teach. That has the effect of undermining teaching as a profession.

Does anyone believe that five weeks of training is adequate to become a doctor or lawyer or architect or engineer?

TFA supplies the workforce for a large proportion of charter schools, 90% of which are non-union.

TFA simultaneously undermines the teaching profession and teacher unionism, which assures that teachers have rights and voice in the workplace.

Who would promote these goals? .

Who funds  Teach for America? 

Peter Greene lives in Pennsylvania. He is a retired teacher who spent nearly 40 years in the classroom. He has received postcards urging him to abandon his union. He decided to identify the organizations behind this activity.

You may not be surprised. 

Those postcards, he writes, are the product of the same old network of anti-union far-right folks who have been constantly looking for ways to slap teachers down and put them in their place. A full frontal attack on unions has not been as successful in Pennsylvania as it has been in states like Wisconsin….
 
The good news, so far, is that the post-Janus apocalypse that many unions braced for has not actually happened, and actions by teachers in states like West Virginia have shown that even if you could disempower the union, teachers will find a way to push back if you push them too far. 
 
When you get the card, you’ll see that Williams has provided a handy email address. Feel free to ask him about the time that he angrily gave back the raise that the union negotiated form him, or if, now that he’s retired, he’s planning on doing without that pension that the union won him (actually, he may be well enough paid that he doesn’t need it). But at a minimum, you can safely throw your invitation…in the trash. 
 
Because, look– you will never find me serving as an unconditional cheerleader for PSEA, and local leadership can be a crapshoot. But if a teacher’s plan is to depend on their own negotiating prowess to get a personal awesome contract, or they’re just going to trust folks like the Kochs and the DeVos family to look out for their best interests–well, that’s a bad plan. 

Robert Kuttner writes regularly for The American Prospect, where he is co-editor. He is brilliant.

 

ON TAP Today from the American Prospect
May 1, 2019

Kuttner on TAP

In Which the Superb Tom Edsall Gets One Big Thing Wrong About Unions. New York Times contributing columnist Tom Edsall is a national resource. In column after column, he provides encyclopedic research both scholarly and journalistic, extended interviews, astute insights, and hard questions for progressives on politically urgent topics.

 

His most recent column, on the political consequences of the decline of unions, is no exception. As Edsall demonstrates, the Republican right’s strategic war on unions has been devastating to Democrats, since union members and union families, with their sense of solidarity and better understanding of how capitalism works, are more likely to vote for Democrats than demographically similar nonunion families.

 

Edsall was not exaggerating when he wrote that the right has a better appreciation of unions than the left. Thus, the systematic union bashing. In Wisconsin, as Edsall shows, courtesy of Scott Walker’s anti-union crusade, the union share of Wisconsin employees was cut from just over 15 percent as recently as 2008 to just 8.1 percent by 2018.

 

Edsall ends his piece by wondering why “many liberals and Democrats” don’t get the importance of unions.

 

The problem in building support for a resurgent labor movement is that many liberals and Democrats do not appear to recognize the crucial role that unions continue to play not only in diminishing the effects of inequality, but in voter mobilization and campaign finance.

 

And here is where Edsall misses a key part of the story. The problem is not that “Democrats” fail to appreciate unions. It’s that the corporate and Wall Street Democrats who have dominated the presidential wing of the party since Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton actively loathe unions.

 

Carter, Clinton, and Barack Obama all had the opportunity and the votes to put serious teeth back in the Wagner Act, in the face of vicious corporate union busting. All decided not to lift a finger on behalf of labor law reform.

 

All three presidents had progressive labor secretaries. But the real power players were elsewhere.

 

Most Democrats in Congress get unions. The problem has been the corporate influence on the presidential party and its domination of key positions at Treasury, OMB, and Legislative Affairs. Some of this is about campaign finance, but not all of it.

 

Edsall brilliantly depicts the class warfare that leads Republicans and their business allies to bash unions. He misses the fact that the same class warfare has infected the Democratic Party. ~ ROBERT KUTTNER

Follow Robert Kuttner on Twitter



A Conversation with Sherrod Brown
The senator from Ohio on the Green New Deal, trade, and how to beat Trump in 2020 By ROBERT KUTTNER
The Millennialization of American Labor
A generation of young workers is rebuilding a battered union movement. By KATIE BARROWS, ETHAN MILLER & KAYLA BLADO


 

The American Prospect: Liberal Intelligence
Your Tax-Deductible Donation Supports Independent Journalism!

 

Copyright (C) 2019 The American Prospect. All rights reserved.

THE AMERICAN PROSPECT | 1225 I Street NW, Suite 600 | Washington, D.C. 20005 | U.S.A.

If you no longer wish to receive email from us, please unsubscribe.

 

 

Peter Greene has a rapier sharp wit, which he wields so deftly that the object of his attention has been beheaded without knowing what happened. If you want to see him at his best, read this mystery: Who is murdering Charter Schools? 

Teachers?

Unions?

Lobbyists?

If you live in the real world, the people fighting privatization are heroic defenders of the commonweal, protecting the public interest against the Waltons, the Koch brothers, DeVos, and other private interests.

 

Gary Rubinstein moves on to the third episode in the story of Success Academy.

 

In the first episode of Startup’s seven part podcast about Success academy, they presented the case that most schools in New York City are ‘bad’ and how Success Academy’s unique approach to education levels the playing field.

Episode two, The Founder (can be found here) details Eva Moskowitz’s rise to power.  She started as a very self-assured child who had a bad experience with her music teacher.  Her father wrote the music teacher a note that said “(expletive deleted) you” and this becomes a theme throughout Eva’s career in education, according to the podcast — metaphorically writing ‘F You’ letters to various parties who have crossed her.

Moskowitz was elected to the City Council in 1999 and she visited hundreds of schools and found that some had broken toilets.  She aggressively worked to get them fixed and found that it was frustrating dealing with the large bureaucracy of the New York City school system.

When she went to a school where she felt the lunch room was understaffed, she learned that under the teacher’s union contract, teachers are exempt from certain duties, like doing lunch duty.

The narrator, Lisa Chow, then says matter of factly:  “The teachers’ union contract … a document that protects the interests of teachers in traditional public schools. She asked her staff to get a copy of the teachers contract, expecting something that was maybe 20 pages. But instead, it was 300 pages in length.”

This is common complaint I hear from reformers — that the teacher’s union contract is too long.  Somehow the idea that 300 pages is too long but 20 would be about right is the reformer conventional wisdom.  Well, when I signed up for ZipCar rental cars online, the contract that I skimmed through before hitting ‘accept’ was about 10 pages long, so why shouldn’t a teacher’s union contract be hundreds of pages?  Where is the evidence that there is some kind of inverse relationship between the length of the teacher’s union contract and the quality of the teaching that happens in a school?  I’ve been a teacher in NYC for 17 years and I don’t even know what is in the contract aside from a few lines here and there.  But if something ever comes up where something in there will come in handy for me, I’ll certainly appreciate that the contract is thorough.  Next time Lisa Chow rents an apartment or takes out a bank loan, I’m going to ask her if she would willingly cut the contract that lists her different rights down by 85%?

Lisa Chow continues:  “The contract was packed with rules that seemed to control every minute of the school day. And Eva saw a lot of things she believed were not in the best interest of kids. For example, that rule that kept teachers out of lunchrooms — that was in it. And there were rules that promoted teachers based on seniority, regardless of whether they were actually good instructors.”  So yes, teachers get raises based on years of experience.  Get rid of that one and you are likely not going to attract many people to become teachers where raises from your very low starting pay will be at the whim of a computer judging you ‘effective’ or not based on standardized test scores.

Success Academy is noted not only for high test scores but for high rates of teacher turnover.

 

This is the second of Gary Rubinstein’s posts about Success Academy. 

This post and this podcast explain why Eva hates unions.

Gary writes:

In the first episode of Startup’s seven part podcast about Success academy, they presented the case that most schools in New York City are ‘bad’ and how Success Academy’s unique approach to education levels the playing field.

Episode two, The Founder (can be found here) details Eva Moskowitz’s rise to power.  She started as a very self-assured child who had a bad experience with her music teacher.  Her father wrote the music teacher a note that said “(expletive deleted) you” and this becomes a theme throughout Eva’s career in education, according to the podcast — metaphorically writing ‘F You’ letters to various parties who have crossed her.

Moskowitz was elected to the City Council in 1999 and she visited hundreds of schools and found that some had broken toilets.  She aggressively worked to get them fixed and found that it was frustrating dealing with the large bureaucracy of the New York City school system.

When she went to a school where she felt the lunch room was understaffed, she learned that under the teacher’s union contract, teachers are exempt from certain duties, like doing lunch duty.

The narrator, Lisa Chow, then says matter of factly:  “The teachers’ union contract … a document that protects the interests of teachers in traditional public schools. She asked her staff to get a copy of the teachers contract, expecting something that was maybe 20 pages. But instead, it was 300 pages in length.”

This is common complaint I hear from reformers — that the teacher’s union contract is too long.  Somehow the idea that 300 pages is too long but 20 would be about right is the reformer conventional wisdom.  Well, when I signed up for ZipCar rental cars online, the contract that I skimmed through before hitting ‘accept’ was about 10 pages long, so why shouldn’t a teacher’s union contract be hundreds of pages?  Where is the evidence that there is some kind of inverse relationship between the length of the teacher’s union contract and the quality of the teaching that happens in a school?  I’ve been a teacher in NYC for 17 years and I don’t even know what is in the contract aside from a few lines here and there.  But if something ever comes up where something in there will come in handy for me, I’ll certainly appreciate that the contract is thorough.  Next time Lisa Chow rents an apartment or takes out a bank loan, I’m going to ask her if she would willingly cut the contract that lists her different rights down by 85%?

Lisa Chow continues:  “The contract was packed with rules that seemed to control every minute of the school day. And Eva saw a lot of things she believed were not in the best interest of kids. For example, that rule that kept teachers out of lunchrooms — that was in it. And there were rules that promoted teachers based on seniority, regardless of whether they were actually good instructors.”  So yes, teachers get raises based on years of experience.  Get rid of that one and you are likely not going to attract many people to become teachers where raises from your very low starting pay will be at the whim of a computer judging you ‘effective’ or not based on standardized test scores.

Read on and listen to the podcast to hear how dreadful unions are. Not the progressive position. The DeVos view.

 

NYSUT, The New York State United Teachers, issued a blistering fact check of State Commissioner MaryEllen Elia’s claims about the state tests. 

You have to open it to get the full flavor because NYSUT, not normally outspoken, shreds Elia’s claims.

Elia writes in Orwellian Newspeak about value of the tests.

NYSUT response: Because of the lack of movement by SED on NYSUT’s suggested changes to the testing system, the current tests do not provide any useful information to parents or teachers or any real information on how a district is performing. The results do not accurately predict future student success. In fact, the tests mislabel more than half of the test takers as failing, while more than 80 percent of students go on to graduate from high school. The results of the current tests are not only useless, but also damaging to students.

There are several such exchanges.

Bear in mind that no one but the testing company is allowed to know student responses to questions. So teachers learn NOTHING about the strengths or weaknesses of their students. Teachers, students, and parents get a score but nothing of any diagnostic value.

All students in grades 3-8 should OPT OUT of these pointless tests.

 

Ah, Campbell Brown, we hardly knew ye!

Brown blazed across the Deform firmament like a shooting star, fighting sexual predators in the classroom, unions, tenure, and all other things that crossed her fevered brow.

She raised millions, and now she’s off to a new life at Facebook.

Gone and forgotten.

Mercedes Schneider tells the story here. 

 

 

Steven Singer urges the two big teachers’ unions to watch and wait before they make an endorsement in the Presidential race, and be sure to listen to their members.

The good news is that the Network for Public Education Action is creating a report card for all of the candidates and will regularly update the report card. We want education to be an important issue in the 2020 race, as it was not in 2016.

 

Singer begins:

Let’s not mince words.

 

The last Presidential election was a cluster.

 

And we were at least partially to blame for it.

 

The Democratic primary process was a mess, the media gave free airtime to the most regressive candidate, and our national teachers unions – the National 
Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) – endorsed a Democratic challenger too early and without getting membership support first.

 

This time we have a chance to get it right.

 

Edu-blogger Peter Greene spoke my feelings when he took to Twitter:

 

“Just so we’re clear, and so we don’t screw it up again—- NEA and AFT, please wait at least a couple more weeks before endorsing a Democratic Presidential candidate for 2020.”

 

He’s being snarky.

 
No one would endorse two years before people actually enter a voting booth.

 

Singer thinks it was a huge mistake to endorse Hillary Clinton long before the primaries. The result might have been the same, but the membership should have had a chance to weigh in before the decision was made. At the very least, Clinton should have been asked to state in public that she would support public funding for public schools only, with no federal funding for privately owned and privately managed charter schools, even those that call themselves “public charter schools” because they get public money. She should have also been asked to speak out on the subject of testing, its misuse and abuse. She should have been asked if she would change federal law to stop closing schools based on their test scores.

Right now, Congress gives more than $400 million every year to charter schools, even though they don’t need the money. They are flush with money from billionaires, millionaires, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and tech titans. When you are funded by Betsy DeVos, the Koch brothers, the Walton family, John Arnold, Eli Broad, and Reed Hastings, just to name a few, why does the federal government lavish more funding on charters.

Candidates should be required to seek the support of teachers, not to take it for granted.

 

 

We will have more commentary on the Denver teacherss’ strike. Here, Fred Klonsky reminds us of the much-ballyhooed, but ultimately failed merit pay called ProComp, that substituted merit pay for adequate salaries. 

Don’t pay attention to Democratic Senator Michael Bennett, who claims to favor the teachers but was superintendent of the Denver public schools who launched corporate reform and lost many millions in tricky financial deals while he was in charge. He was anti-union when he was superintendent and is a big supporter of VAM.