Archives for category: Unions

Ebony Murphy-Root was intrigued by what she heard on television about Steve Perry’s Capitol Prep school in Hartford, and she applied to teach there. This is her report on her year teaching in Perry’s school.

She started work during the six-week summer session. And she noticed something strange:

“But within that six week period, six teachers disappeared. I didn’t yet know this but such sudden disappearances were a regular occurrence at Capital Prep. After the December break, one of the best teachers in the school simply failed to return. I never found out if she’d been fired or had just become disenchanted with the place. By that point the shine was already off for me. Dr. Perry was gone constantly, traveling the country on paid gigs even as he was accepting his sizable salary. Once we went almost a month without paper in the copy machine with no explanation.”

She was puzzled by Perry’s hatred of unions:

“Perry directed his insults toward members of the Hartford Board of Education, the Hartford Federation of Teachers, even other principals. I could never figure out Perry’s obsession with unions, and as the daughter of a Teamster it didn’t sit well with me. What sort of jobs did he envision for his students after college? I wondered. After all, Perry himself belonged to a union. If our poorest students had parents with union jobs, steady wages and paid time off, they might be able to support their kids better, both financially and emotionally. I wondered how Perry, if he’d ever been a classroom teacher himself, might teach about the history of the labor movement.”

She was not happy, and the school was not happy with her. By February, she was offered a choice of resigning or being fired.

This is an interesting insider’s view of a school that boasts of miraculous results.

Institutional Investors is a business magazine that reports on issues for the investment and banking industry.

In its current issue, it identified the top 40 people fighting either to defend defined benefit pension plans or to abolish them.

It selected Randi Weingarten as the #1 figure who is fighting to protect teachers’ defined benefit pensions. That means, to teachers, that they will have a pension when they retire no matter what happens to the market. Critics want teachers and other public employees to be required to adopt defined contribution plans, where teachers choose their investments and take their chances with the vagaries of the market.

Randi opposes the defined contribution plans because it puts the burden of investment on individual teachers, who may make bad choices and see their pensions evaporate, or may be the victims of an unstable market. In the article, she notes that West Virginia tried the defined contribution plan in 1990 but reverted to a defined benefit plan in 2008.

She has also taken the lead in criticizing hedge fund managers who collect fees managing defined benefit plans while supporting right-wing groups that want to dismantle those plans. The AFT has made clear that it will divest from funds that work both sides of the street.

You go, Randi!

David Sirota points put the facts that most educators acknowledge: poverty is a far more potent threat to academic success than “bad” teachers or unions. The bugaboos of the loon right have become the basis for federal policy, and it is taking its toll on teacher morale.

There is a pattern on the rug.

First, you silence the teachers’ unions.

Then, you strip teachers of tenure, ie, any job protection, to keep them fearful.

Along the way, you keep saying that the public schools are broken, failing, obsolete.

Keep demonizing teachers.

Destroy public confidence in public schools.

That clears the way to hand public money to private corporations. That opens the door to for- profit schools.

As Randi says in this article, “Follow the Money.”

Here is how it happened in Indiana.

There was a snag in the plan when the voters turned out privatizer-in-chief Tony Bennett and elected Glenda Ritz, who polled more votes than the governor.

Since then, Tony Bennett was hired by Florida but resigned because of a grade-fixing scandal back home in Indiana. And Governor Mike Pence has set out to strip the job of Commissioner of Education of all its powers, to sneer at the voters and keep the destruction of public education on track.

I thought Randi wrote an excellent letter in response to Mercedes Schneider’s questions. I repeat, as i have in the past, that Randi is a personal friend. We disagree about the Common Core, but that does not diminish our friendship. The fact that Randi engaged in this dialogue shows her willingness to listen to criticism and to respond thoughtfully, as she did. This is a trait I admire. I too have been the subject of harsh attacks, and I usually ignore them. I don’t have enough years left to fight all my critics, so I try to look ahead, not let them pull me down. But Randi chose to engage, and I admire her for doing so.

Many commenters have continued to criticize Randi, and Leo Casey, who has worked with Randi for many years and is now director of the Albert Shanker Institute of the AFT, responds here to the critics:

Leo Casey writes:

Mercedes Schneider’s blog post repeats a false and malicious account of Randi Weingarten’s teaching and, on this basis, accuses Randi of misrepresenting her experience. Her post is a direct attack on Randi’s personal integrity.

It is one thing to criticize, even heatedly and vehemently, political positions; it is quite another matter to engage in unscrupulous personal attacks, as Schneider has done.

What makes this personal attack by Schneider especially offensive is that it is based on a smear mounted by the New York City Department of Education under Joel Klein in retaliation for Randi’s criticisms of its Children First corporate education reforms, a smear that has since been taken up by anti-union forces on the far right.

What makes this personal attack by Schneider inexcusable is that a simple Google search leads one to an open letter from Randi’s supervisors, colleagues and students at Clara Barton High School. The letter refutes this smear and provides insight into how those with direct knowledge of Randi’s teaching viewed it and her. (The full text of this open letter is included at the end of this post.)

I am one of the signatories on that open letter.

I first met Randi Weingarten in September 1987, on the steps of a New York City courthouse. She was counsel for the United Federation of Teachers, and I was a social studies teacher at Clara Barton High School in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. In a saga I have recounted elsewhere in some detail, in 1984 the New York City Board of Education (as it was then called) had begun renovation on the Clara Barton school building—with us in it. After three years of disruption and dislocation, we had returned to our building a few days before it was to open for a new school year and found it filled with debris and a thick layer of dust. I enlisted the White Lung Association and a prominent law firm in our cause, and with their help, a court closed our building. The air and the dust were tested, and friable (loose) asbestos—a dangerous carcinogen when inhaled or ingested—was found. The school building remained closed for two months while a top-to-bottom cleanup and asbestos abatement were completed. I ended up working closely with Randi during a number of court hearings and as she negotiated, with our input, a protocol for the completion of the renovation of our school building. This protocol became the basis of protocols for all subsequent school construction work in New York City.

As we worked together, Randi and I became good friends. We discovered we had a common passion for teaching, and we shared notes on teaching students at Clara Barton and at the Cardozo School of Law, where she had taught. I was something of an evangelist for teaching in an inner-city high school, but Randi was in no need of conversion: She told me that she wanted to teach in a New York City high school, in part because she believed it was very important social justice work and in part because she felt the experience of “walking the walk” of New York City school teachers would make her a better advocate on their behalf. I told her that the Clara Barton staff was grateful for what she had done on behalf of our school, and that we would welcome her to our faculty if her work with the UFT allowed her to teach.

In 1991, Randi took up that invitation and started teaching at Clara Barton. Randi and I co-taught a class in political science, and she taught courses in American history and government, law, and ethical issues in medicine, a public policy course for Clara Barton’s nursing students. The essential facets of Randi’s teaching are addressed in the open letter from her supervisors, colleagues and students reproduced below.

Two accusations repeated by Schneider need to be put to rest. I speak from firsthand knowledge in both instances.

First, the only time during her teaching at Clara Barton that Randi and I discussed her future role in the leadership of the UFT was after Al Shanker became seriously ill with cancer and then passed away in early 1997. Sandy Feldman had taken on the job of AFT president as Al’s successor, and it was clear she could not also continue as UFT president for long. It was only when Sandy had asked Randi to consider standing for UFT president that Randi and I discussed for the first time what she should do. The notion that Randi taught at Clara Barton in order to become UFT president ignores the obvious fact that no one could possibly have known that Al Shanker would be taken from us well before his time.

Second, the “evidence” used to dispute Randi’s account of her teaching was the manufactured product of a personal attack on her mounted by City Hall and the New York City Department of Education. At the UFT’s 2003 spring conference, Randi announced the union’s opposition to the Children First corporate reforms of the Bloomberg-Klein Department of Education. The response from City Hall and Tweed was immediate. Rumors were circulated about Randi’s sexual orientation. Her personal finances were investigated. Neighbors reported that strange men were surveilling and photographing her house. Officials in the DOE passed word that they were being ordered to provide copies of Randi’s confidential personnel files over their objections. Then, two weeks after the UFT’s spring conference, Wayne Barrett published a story in the Village Voice that took up the Bloomberg-Klein cudgels. Barrett wrote that Randi had not taught real classes but was a day-to-day substitute teacher, and that she was absent three days for every day she was present. Using the passive voice, Barrett wrote that “records reviewed by the Voice” were the basis for these claims. We will probably never know what documents were shown to Barrett by the Bloomberg-Klein administration or what they actually reflected, but we do know that the conclusions he printed about Randi’s teaching were entirely false, and that they were part of a smear against Randi conducted in retaliation for the UFT’s opposition to the NYC DOE’s Children First policies.

It is passing strange that those who claim to be the strongest opponents of corporate education reform and who characterize everyone else as weak and vacillating would now be spreading these false and malicious charges. It is beyond odd that self-styled opponents of corporate education reform would be not be focusing on opposition to privatization and austerity, were we would all seem to have common cause, but in mounting personal attacks on Randi Weingarten. If nothing else, it shows their lack of confidence in their own arguments against the AFT’s principled support for the Common Core standards and its strong opposition to the destructive ways in which too many states and districts have implemented them that they have to resort to personal attacks. That’s pretty sad.

Leo Casey

OPEN LETTER
To whom it may concern,

We have learned of publications that challenge the teaching record and accomplishments of American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, disputing the account provided in her official AFT biography. The allegation is that Randi was a substitute teacher who did not teach regular Social Studies classes at Clara Barton High School from 1991 to 1997. Further, it is claimed that she was never observed or evaluated by the school’s Principal or Assistant Principals.

We were students, professional colleagues and supervisors of Randi Weingarten in the years she taught at Clara Barton High School. We have first-hand knowledge of her teaching, and know that these allegations are completely unfounded.

Those of us who were students of Randi know that she taught us in regular classes, from U.S. History and Government and Advanced Placement Political Science to Law and Ethical Issues in Medicine, and that she was in class virtually every day to teach us. A number of us had the privilege of studying with Randi when she prepared our Political Science class for participation in the national We The People civics competition, and our class won the New York State championship and placed high in the nationals. She gave countless hours, before and after school, on weekends and on holidays, to ensure that we would be able to do our very best. We know Randi to be an excellent teacher, completely dedicated to her students.

Those of us who were professional colleagues of Randi know that while teaching at Clara Barton, Randi taught the same regular classes that every teacher teaches, and that she was in her classes virtually every day. We know Randi to be a master teacher who was supportive of her colleagues. She was a welcome presence in our professional community.

Those of us who were supervisors of her know that like other Social Studies teachers at Clara Barton, Randi’s teaching was observed and she was evaluated by the Assistant Principal for Social Studies and the Principal. We know Randi to be a conscientious educator who was ever mindful of fulfilling her obligations to the young people she taught and committed to the mission of our school and the inner city community it served.

Marsha Boncy-Danticat§
Leo Casey§
Madison Cuffy*
Connie Cuttle§
Fania Denton*
Thomas Dillon¶
Tamika Lawrence Edwards*
Sean Edwards*
Jacqueline Foster¶
Zinga Fraser*
Judith Garcia¶
Karen Gazis§
Renne Gross§
Gail Lewis Jacobs*
Keith William Lee*
Joshua Medina*
Andrew Mirer§
Maurice Pahalan§
Joseph Picciano§
Elizabeth Ramos Mahon*
Judieann Spencer-McCall*
Tina Vurgaropulos§.

§: Was a Clara Barton teacher or guidance counselor colleague
*: Was a Clara Barton student
¶: Was a Clara Barton supervisor

I have a simple policy: When you are fighting for your life, you don’t get into battles with the others on your side. There is a long history of doctrinal and personality battles that have split the opposition to those in the highest seats of power. The story of leftwing politics is a history of doctrinal quarrels. My first job when I arrived in New York City was as an editorial assistant at the New Leader magazine, a small magazine of ideas with a history of democratic socialism (i.e., anti-Communism). It was founded by Sol Levitas, who sympathized with the anti-Communist Mensheviks. When I got a job as an editorial assistant at the age of 22, I knew nothing of these quarrels, but over time I learned about not only the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, but the Trotskyites, the Lovestoneites, the Cannonites, the Schachtmanites, and a few other splinter groups. All of this was fascinating to me, a wide-eyed young college graduate who never heard of any of this stuff before arriving at the dusty offices of the New Leader on East 15th street in New York City.

The message I learned was to try, try, try to build a coalition; try not to fight with your allies; try not to get into quarrels over doctrine while your enemies grow stronger, while they feed and encourage your quarrels, and while they gloated as you battled.

That is why I make a point of never criticizing those who are on the side of public education, even when I disagree with them. Maybe someone will find an example where I broke that rule, but that’s what I aspire to. I also try never to get involved in union politics. To begin with, I don’t belong to a union, but to end with, it does us no good to fight internally when the forces we face are so well-armed with money, a rigid ideology, and expensive public relations.

Others don’t agree with me.

In the spirit of open dialogue, I present here a recent exchange of letters between Mercedes Schneider and Randi Weingarten.

Since I admire them both, I would like to see them working together as allies. I hope this exchange brings that day closer.

Ever since the Nation at Risk report, we’ve had a reform narrative in this country that begins with the premise that our schools are failing (despite the fact that when one corrects for the socioeconomic level of students taking the international tests on which this claim is based, our students consistently perform at the top or very near the top). Then, the Gates Foundation decided that the “problem” was teacher quality and not having metrics in place to drive improvement in teacher quality. They made this decision based on lousy research that used invalid test scores as the determinant of outcomes.

So, the simple-minded, one-liner for insertion into politicians’ speeches became, “Our schools are failing, and this is because we have lousy teachers.”

This narrative appeals to a lot of authoritarian types on both the left and the right–to all folks who are fond of hierarchies and top-down mandates.

What did the unions do to contribute to the teacher bashing? Well, the two main costs of education are facilities and teacher pay and benefits, and the teachers’ unions negotiate the latter. So, folks on the right who want to control costs–to keep wages and benefits down–and who believe the reform narrative think that the unions have pushed up pay and benefits unnaturally at the very time when teacher quality and educational outcomes have taken a nosedive.

There are three-and-a-half million public school teachers in the U.S. As Jon Stewart pointed out during an interview with Dr. Ravitch, in any profession–fast food customer service–there are going to be some incompetents and some jerks. But the basic current reform narrative–that our schools have failed in general and that teacher quality is, in general, to blame is wrong on both counts.

Can our schools be improved? Can teacher quality be improved? Of course. But here’s the rub: you get what you pay for. If we really want to improve teacher quality, then we have to pay teachers more, we have to raise barriers to entry to the profession, and we need to give teachers lighter loads so that they can do the careful planning, the collaboration, and the mindful self-examination the lead to continuous improvement. And we have to give them more autonomy, for people perform best in conditions of autonomy, which is something that the deformers do not understand AT ALL.

In the hagiography of the charter school movement, we often hear that Albert Shanker was one of the original proponents of the idea. Shanker was president of the American Federation of Teachers, and his imprimatur is supposed to persuade people that charters have a progressive patina.

This is ironic, because 90% of the nation’s 6,000 charters are non-union and oppose collective bargaining. Some charters have even insisted in federal court and to the National Labor Relations Board that they are private schools to avoid complying with state labor laws that would allow teachers to join a union.

Shanker never intended that charters would be non-union, nor that they would compete with public schools. He thought they would be formed by teachers to create a “school within a school,” and eventually autonomous schools whose purpose was to enroll the students who were bored or disengaged in regular school. He thought that charter teachers would belong to the union and would collaborate–not compete–with public schools.

Here is his 1988 speech describing his new idea at the National Press Club.

By 1993, he had reached the conclusion that he was terribly wrong. He wrote column after column describing charters as a new form of privatization, no different from vouchers.

Corporate reformers should not take his name in vain. He would never have approved of non-union schools and for-profit schools. He denounced privatization in all its forms. As early as1993, he recognized that charters were a back door way to turn public dollars over to entrepreneurs and to attack the foundations of public education.

A state investigation revealed the identities of donors to a secret fund to oppose an initiative that would increase funding to public schools and to support an initiative to weaken the unions’ political influence.

Among the donors to the $11 million secret fund was billionaire Eli Broad. He publicly supported Governor Jerry Brown’s measure to raise taxes to help the state’s struggling public schools at the same time that he put $1 million into the fund to defeat the new tax.

Broad similarly has pretended to be a friend to unions, but was a contributor to the fund–organized in part by the far-right Koch brothers–that would have limited the ability of unions to raise political cash.

The billionaires failed. The tax increase passed, and the effort to curb union spending was defeated.

If the bill limiting union spending had passed, only the super-rich would be able to give large campaign contributions but those who represent working people would be stripped of any opportunity to fund candidates or issues they cared about.

Other donors to the secret fund were investor Charles Schwab and the Fisher family, owners of the Gap and a major funder of KIPP.

Eli Broad and other donors to this fund went to great lengths to hide their antipathy to public schools and unions.

When I spoke in Sacramento two years ago, I spent two hours with Governor Brown and he told me he had to be diplomatic and nice to Michelle Rhee to keep Eli Broad’s support for his tax increase. He was fooled.

The tax increase was needed because former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had cut the public schools’ budget by about $15 billion while setting aside capital funds for charter schools and giving charter advocates a majority of seats on the state board of education. At that time, charters enrolled about 4% of the students in California.

Rod Ellcessor of the Indiana Education Association raises a question: what kind of “new Democrat” wants to eliminate unions and public schools? He writes:

“Diane, unfortunately, we are besieged by the Mind Trust in Indianapolis. Bill Gates’ money is one of the primary sources for the Mind Trust which allows TFA to be placed in the Schools in Indy. As the Director of the Indianapolis Education Association, we are fighting the war with the right wing agenda and the super majorities in our Legislature. As well, our Tea Party Governor is no better. The goal of the Mind Trust is to collapse our Indianapolis Public Schools. The Director of the Mind Trust is David Harris who headed the Charter Schools for the former Indy Mayor Bart Peterson, a “New Democrat.” We have had horrible results with the TFA teachers. In fact, IPS administration came to us not knowing what to do due to their dismal results and discipline. The TFA’s barely last two years and DO NOT join the Union. Indiana has to be ground zero with all of the Charter schools and unrestricted vouchers. As well, we have had our collective bargaining rights diminished to a point that we just meet and confer. Clearly, if we do not follow the advice of Robert Reich and get involved there will be nothing left of Public Education. Thank you for your national leadership and the latest book, “Reign of Error.” I am recommending it to everyone I know and make contact with.”