Archives for category: Unions

When I read about the tragedy in Bangladesh, where hundreds of garment workers died when the building collapsed, it reminded me of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. Working at NYU, I frequently walked past the building where over 100 immigrant girls perished in a factory fire. The doors were locked. They could not escape. They could jump from the 12th floor or perish in the fire.

Events like these gave birth to the labor movement. Working people didn’t stand a chance until they organized to have a collective voice. The factory owners could treat them like human waste or lock them into their squalid work quarters or pay them as little as possible, and they had no alternative but to take the abuse or lose their job.

Unions changed that. They compelled factory owners to improve working conditions. They used their collective strength to elect officials with a social conscience. Unions changed working conditions for all workers, not just their members, and they enabled working class men and women to join the middle class.

Big business never liked unions. But only in recent decades has big business found a way to escape the legal structures that regulated wages and hours, safety, and working conditions. More and more corporations discovered that they could lower costs and improve profits by outsourcing their work to poor nations. First they fled to Mexico, then to Asia. They move their factories and facilities wherever they can pay the least.

So now we see the same conditions in China, Bangladesh, and other countries that our nation experienced a century or more ago. We see American and global corporations manufacturing their goods wherever wages are lowest (in the factories in Bangladesh, it was $40 a month), with no regard to safety or working conditions or child labor.

We pay a price too, though not so great as the price paid by the factory workers in Bangladesh. We have plentiful cheap goods, but we have lost the good manufacturing jobs that sustained millions of workers. Our leaders say that education will fix everything, and someday everyone will be college-and career-ready, but they forget that schools and colleges don’t create jobs.

I don’t have the answers to all these problems, but I have an uneasy feeling that our elites are getting fatter as the middle-class grows more insecure about the future. As I watch the war against unions, I wonder why so few people remember why unions were created.

And I worry about the disappearance of good middle-class jobs, as they are exported and turned into low-wage work and as they are replaced by technology that requires no workers at all. A friend who is now retired used to supervise a candy plant for a big corporation. It employed nearly 1,000 workers, each of whom supported a family. The same plant now is run by two or three people. Everyone else became superfluous.

Leo Casey at the Shanker Institute drew some parallels between the disaster in Bangladesh and the factory explosion in West, Texas.

I worry for our nation. Some inequality is inevitable. Dramatic inequality is toxic to the spirit.

A few days go, Professor Ira Shor posted a comment and asked if Mercedes Schneider would analyze the poll showing that 75% of AFT teachers support the Common Core standards. Mercedes Schneider saw his request in the comments section and posted her analysis. Schneider is a high school teacher in Louisiana with a doctorate in statistics and research methods.

Hart Research Associates, which conducted the poll, did not agree with Schneider. The Hart firm is a highly respected polling organization. I invited them to respond to Scneider’s review of their work, and they agreed to do so.

Their response begins here:

TO: American Federation of Teachers

FROM: Guy Molyneux, Hart Research Associates DATE: May 10, 2013

RE: Methodology for Common Core Survey

Following are some facts about the methodology for AFT’s recent survey of AFT K-12 teachers on Common Core implementation that may help to answer the criticisms and questions raised by Mercedes Schneider.

Schneider’s objections speak to two distinct questions: 1) does the survey reflect the views of AFT K-12 teachers?, and 2) if so, can the AFT results be extrapolated to all U.S. teachers? The answer to the first question is “yes,” for reasons explained below. The answer to the second question is “not necessarily.” When Randi Weingarten refers to what “teachers” think about the Common Core, she is referring to AFT teachers. This shorthand is not meant to deceive anyone; if it were, the press release and various poll materials would not have stated so clearly and repeatedly that the survey was conducted only among AFT members. (Indeed, even the quote highlighted by Schneider mentions “a recent poll of AFT members.”)

In fact, it is likely that a survey of all U.S. teachers would report results broadly similar to what we found among AFT members, for reasons explained below. However, it is true that we cannot be sure of this unless further research is done among non-AFT teachers. Such research would be welcome.

 The survey employed a standard sampling methodology, used in countless surveys by many polling organizations. On behalf of AFT, Hart Research Associates conducted a telephone survey of 800 AFT K-12 teachers from March 27 to 30, 2013. Respondents were selected randomly from AFT membership lists. This process of random selection produces a representative sample, allowing us to generalize from the survey respondents to the larger population being sampled (in this case, all AFT teachers). There is nothing unusual or controversial about this method.

 A sample size of 800 teachers is appropriate and common. Schneider notes that “AFT/Hart only surveyed nine one-hundredths of a percent of the AFT membership (.09%),” and adds for emphasis: “Please don’t miss this. AFT did not survey even 10% of its membership before forming an opinion of teacher acceptance of CCSS.” In fact, a survey sample size of 800 is reasonable and quite common: for example, most national media surveys interview between 800 and 1,000 registered voters. Moreover, researchers understand that survey samples are not properly evaluated as a percentage of the underlying population. By randomly selecting respondents, a relatively small sample can provide an accurate measurement on a much larger population. If Schneider’s 10% standard were correct, pollsters would need to interview 20 million U.S. voters to conduct a single survey of registered voters. Needless to say, not many surveys would be conducted.

1724 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 202-234-5570 http://www.hartresearch.com

Paul Thomas reacts here to Randi Weingarten’s call for a one-year moratorium on high-stakes testing associated with the Common Core and to Jennifer Jennings’ apology to Secretary Duncan for being booed at AERA.

He warns that moderation and civility are not appropriate responses to extreme conditions.

From an AFT press release:

CHICAGO—Teachers and staff in the one of city’s largest charter school networks overwhelmingly have chosen the Chicago Alliance of Charter School Teachers and Staff (Chicago ACTS), an affiliate of the 1.5 million-member American Federation of Teachers and the Illinois Federation of Teachers, as their bargaining agent.

The decision involves more than 400 teachers and staff in 13 schools operated by the United Neighborhood Organization. In March, UNO and the AFT reached a neutrality agreement under which UNO agreed not to take a position on whether its teachers and staff organized. Some 87 percent of the 415 workers who voted approved Chicago ACTS as their bargaining agent.

The decision by UNO employees to join Chicago ACTS means that more than 20 percent of Chicago’s charter school teachers and staff are now unionized—the highest union density where charter school employees do not automatically have a union.

This morning I went to hear Randi Weingarten speak to a major group of business and civic leaders in New York City. Present also were the state’s education leaders, including Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch as well as College Board President (and Common Core architect) David Coleman.

Randi praised the Common Core as the most important innovation in education in our generation, but warned that it would fail unless there is time and support for proper implementation: professional development, curriculum, materials, collaboration, field testing, etc.

New York State and City plunged right into testing without adequate preparation. Randi predicted that Common Core was doomed unless there was enough time to do it right. She urged the importance of a field test. She suggested to the business leaders that none of them would roll out a new product without field testing.

The leaders with the power to make Randi’s proposal into reality were in the room. Let’s see what they do now.

Here is her announcement:

Dear Supporter,

This morning I addressed a group called the Association for a Better New York and spoke about the Common Core State Standards for math and English language arts that have been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia. I predicted these standards will result in one of two outcomes: They will lead to a revolution in teaching and learning, or end up in the dustbin of abandoned reforms. Educators want these standards to succeed—we know; we’ve asked them. But, in order for that to happen, we must have a chance to implement them before someone starts assessing how they’re working.

So today I called for a moratorium on the consequences of high-stakes testing associated with the Common Core standards until states and districts have worked with educators to properly implement them. Stand with me.

We are committed to the success of getting the transition to Common Core right. To do that, we must help teachers and students master this new approach and not waste time punishing people for not doing something they haven’t yet been equipped to do. Can you imagine doctors being expected to perform a new medical procedure without being trained or provided the necessary instruments? That’s what is happening right now with the Common Core.

We have the ability to transform the very DNA of teaching and learning, to move away from rote memorization and endless test taking, and toward problem solving, critical thinking and teamwork—things I know we have been advocating for years. It’s kind of amazing that we have to call on states and districts to implement the Common Core State Standards before making the new assessments count. But that’s what we’re doing.

Send a message to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan:

When states and districts get the alignment right—which will require moving from standards to curriculum to field testing to revising—success will follow. But, until then, a moratorium on the stakes is the only sensible course.

Making changes without anything close to adequate preparation is a failure of leadership, a sign of a broken accountability system and, worse, an abdication of our moral responsibility to the kids we serve. The Common Core standards have the potential to be a once-in-a-generation revolution in education, but there must be a tangible commitment from leadership that says very clearly, “We support you, and the Common Core, and these are the concrete steps we are going to take to help you and them succeed.”



Stand with me, because if we are able to put our foot on the accelerator of high-quality implementation, and put the brakes on the stakes, we can take advantage of this opportunity and guarantee that stronger standards lead to higher achievement for all children.

Help me send that message.



In unity,

Randi Weingarten

AFT President

There is a new parlor game among the cognoscenti called “Albert Shanker Said This 20 or 30 Years Ago So It Must Be Right.”

Last fall, I had a tiff with New Jersey Commissioner Chris Cerf, who invoked Shanker’s name to support the Christie administration’s push for charters. I patiently explained that Al Shanker was indeed a founding father of the charter movement in 1988, but became a vehement critic of charters in 1993. He decided that charters and vouchers were the same thing, and both would be used to “smash” public education. This is not a matter of speculation. It is on the record.

Now the Shanker blog has an article by Lisa Hansel, former editor of the AFT’s “American Educator” magazine and now an employee of the Core Knowledge Foundation, asserting that Shanker would endorse Common Core if he were alive today. (The Core Knowledge English Language Arts program is now licensed to Amplify, which is run by Joel Klein and owned by Rupert Murdoch.)

Hansel also quotes Shanker as a great admirer of “A Nation at Risk.”

But here is the problem. Hansel speculates about what Shanker would say if he were alive today. She doesn’t know.

Would he join with Jeb Bush to endorse the Common Core? We don’t know.

Would he be as enthusiastic about “A Nation at Risk” in 2013 as he was in 1983, now that it has become the Bible of the privatization movement? We don’t know.

However, I can speculate too. Al Shanker cared passionately about a content-rich curriculum. So do I. Would his love for a content-rich curriculum have caused him to join with those who want to destroy public education? I don’t think so.

Would he have come to realize that “A Nation at Risk” would become not a document for reform but an indictment against public education? If he had, he would have turned against it.

Would he have felt good about Common Core if he knew that it had never been field tested? Would he have been thrilled with the prospect that scores will plummet across the nation, giving fodder to the privatizers? I think not.

Would he have been concerned that the primary writers of the Common Core were the original members of the board of Michelle Rhee’s union-busting StudentsFirst? Absolutely.

Would he have allied himself and his union with those who want to destroy the union and privatize public education? No.

Where would Albert Shanker stand on the Common Core if he were alive today?

I don’t know, and neither does anyone else.

Jersey Jazzman deconstructs John Merrow’s post “Who Created Michelle Rhee?”

If you recall, Merrow spread the blame for her undeserved celebrity among four suspects:

1. Rhee herself, by inflating her resume

2. The media, including himself, for featuring her 12 times on PBS

3. Rightwing funders

4. The unions because of their intransigence.

JJ pins the blame for Rhee on…..read it yourself.

Leo Casey, a long-time union activist, here reviews a recent report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute decrying the immense power of teachers’ unions. Michael Petrilli of TBF described the unions as “Goliaths” battling the weak, underfunded “Davids” of the corporate reform movement.

Casey challenges the report and the characterization, pointing out that corporate reformers have deployed vast amounts of money–far greater than the teachers’ unions could ever muster–to destroy the last vestige of teacher unionism. This assures that teachers have no voice at the table when governors and legislatures decide to slash spending on education or to privatize it to the benefit of entrepreneurs and campaign contributors.

Leo Casey explains here that there really is “class warfare” in the U.S. today.

It is not the 1% that is attacking unions and working Americans.

It is the 1% of the 1%.

Nine of the ten richest Americans–all billionaires–are united in opposition to rights for working people.

They don’t want working people to have an assured pension.

They don’t want teachers to have any job security.

They want to roll back the New Deal.

They want capital to be unfettered.

They want teachers to have no rights at all.

They want to open up public education for entrepreneurs and profiteers.

They want privatization of public education.

But do not despair.

Armed with knowledge, we can beat them where it counts: at the polls.

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?