Archives for category: Unions

Herbert Michael writes that the recently approved Newark teachers’ contract accepts the corporate reformers’ ideas but that it uses the wrong model. Why not change urban schools to look like the schools where the leaders of the corporate reform movement send their own children?

He says:

“Despite the specious claims made by corporate financed education “reformers” claiming
that teacher “performance is our schools’ central problem, the real problem is the failure of our political classes to learn from schools that are effective. The model for effective schools are the ones they send their children to, private schools.

Those children are in small classes 12-16, usually managed by a teacher and teacher assistant. Social services and counseling are available in depth, right in the building (though their parents can afford it on their own).

Private tutoring, real science labs and respect for the students by Administration and security staff contrasts from the zero tolerance and near criminalization of public school security screenings and metal detectors.

Newark’s new teacher’s contract addresses none of these things. Instead it takes the a assumptions of the “corporate reformers” and accepts them a priori. This is a grave error. The new contract creates a merit system that will divide teachers, a two-tier wage system and an evaluation program based on standardized testing.

Over the last few years I have witnessed a steep decline in the morale of excellent teachers. Our “performance” has been confused with the inevitable outcome of increasing inequality in the U.S. Increasing numbers of teachers feel afraid to speak freely and teach creatively ( because of the assault on Teacher Unions ) as Charter schools actually eliminate Union jobs.

Some people would argue that the 600 billion dollars spent each year on public education is the prize the corporate world and Charter advocates seek by demonizing public education. I am sure that’s true but I would argue that our teachers and their students are really victims of a shell game. The goal of that game appears to be to hold political leaders and School Officials harmless for school failures. At the same time, they withhold the solution, making the schools for working-class children in Newark more like those in the private schools.”

EduShyster celebrated Black Friday not by shopping but by thinking about ways that Walmart could really make a difference in the lives of children.

For example, it could provide their parents a living wage and decent benefits or allow them to join a union.

Instead, the Walton family is a big funder of charters and vouchers and other aspects of the conservative reform movement to privatize public education and break teachers unions so that teachers can be treated like Walmart employees.

Walmart is one of the most data-driven organizations in the world. It practices “just-in-time” inventory and outsources its manufacturing wherever wages are lowest.

That may be its model of school reform.

Read her post to see which “reform” organizations are on the Walton/Walmart payroll.

Somebody is dumping a lot of campaign cash into state and local races.

Michael Petrilli of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute is convinced that the teachers’ unions are the Evil Empire. He says that the unions play Goliath to the poor reformers’ puny David. He says the unions were responsible for the defeat of right-wing Education Idol Tony Bennett in Indiana and the decisive repeal of the Luna Laws in deep-red Idaho.

Wow, who knew the teachers’ unions were so strong in those two red states?

I will wait to hear from readers in those two states about whether their unions are so powerful.

But while we wait to hear from them, let’s consider the race between teacher Marie Corfield and her Republican opponent, Assemblywoman Donna Simon.

Simon raised almost $500,000, much of it from business and industry, you know, the working families’ friends.

Corfield, who had the temerity to disagree with Governor Chris Christie, raised about $175,000. The hedge fund guys called Better Education for NJ Kids (B4K) gave Simon $109,000.

What did the Goliath of New Jersey politics–the New Jersey Education Association– give Corfield?
A whopping $8,200. Oh, yes, some other teacher group gave her $1,000.

At last count, Simon was slightly ahead of Corfield, who wanted a recount.

Some Goliath. Some David.

Students for Education Reform at New York University and Columbia University plan a march to demand that the New York City United Federation of Teachers and the Bloomberg administration reach an agreement on test-based teacher evaluation. These groups are off-shoots of Democrats for Education Reform, the group founded by Wall Street hedge fund managers, the guys with annual incomes in the multiple millions, most of whom went to elite private schools.

The members of SFER pay more in tuition each year than a typical teacher’s annual income. They are students at elite universities. They obviously do not know that testing experts have found the evaluation system called “value-added assessment” to be inaccurate and unstable.

Why are they pushing teachers to accept an invalid measure? Why are these students, many of whom went to private schools that never use standardized tests, so eager to impose standardized tests on public school children and their teachers? Why do they want to see teachers rated and fired based on the results of standardized tests?

They should act like students, read the studies conducted by Jesse Rothstein of Berkeley, Linda Darling-Hammond at Stanford, and the joint statement of the National Academy of Education and the American Educational Research Association.

They should not disgrace themselves in public by promoting ideas they do not understand.

After several consecutive years of hearing that teachers’ unions are terrible, teachers’ unions are an obstacle to reform, teachers’ unions are greedy, it’s easy to cringe when the subject of unions comes up. I personally have gotten over that. I have come to realize that the war on unions is part of the larger war on public education. The unions are the strongest political ally for the public schools, which are the workplaces of their members, and they need make no apology to the far-right that wants to reduce all working people to atomized individuals, lacking representation.

Bruce Baker decided to explore the recent attacks on teachers’ unions after reading a comment in The Economist magazine saying that the unions are a “scourge.”

Baker looked at the effect of unions overall and found that they tend to be associated with higher pay for teachers (which attracts better candidates into the profession) and with greater funding fairness. No, unions are not a scourge. Unions give teachers a voice in determining the conditions in which they teach and children learn. Why should that be left to the politicians and policymakers, who know little or nothing about education?

EduShyster has done it again.

This time she nails the Boston Globe.

This is the Boston Globe’s dream as expressed by its lead education writer:

“There’s a lot at stake in the takeover of the Gavin by UP Academy. If it succeeds at raising student achievement with an identical student population, then the main complaint of charter school critics will lose its resonance. If relatively inexperienced teachers can do what veterans can’t — namely turn around a school where only one out of four students performs at grade level — then the public cry for longer school days, merit pay, and stricter teacher evaluations will grow louder.”

How great would that be? If the test scores go up at Gavin, now taken over by UP Academy, every inner-city school could have teachers with high expectations but no professional training. All that is needed is a four-year degree, preferably from an Ivy League college or university. Every teacher could be judged by the rise or fall of student test scores. All unions would be abolished. No tenure, no seniority, just test scores. That solves all problems, right?

EduShyster explains the secret of UP’s success.

David Sirota, an author and talk-show host, here analyzes the election results and says they exposed the Big Lie of the corporate reform movement.

The public is not hankering to privatize their public schools.

The corporate leaders and rightwing establishment dropped millions of dollars to push their agenda of privatization, teacher-bashing and anti-unionism. They lost some major contests.

I will be posting more about some important local races they lost.

We have to do two things to beat them: get the word out to the public about who they are and what they want (read Sirota).

Two: never lose hope.

Those who fight to defend the commons against corporate raiders are on the right side of history.

Nothing they demand is right for children, nor does it improve education.

Andy Rotherham writes a regular column on education for TIME.

This is his take on the election.

He supports the testing, accountability, charter agenda that Beltway insiders refer to as “the bipartisan consensus.”

I think of it as the Democratic embrace of the Republican agenda. Andy worked in the Clinton White House during the time of “triangulation” and the “third way,” when Democrats learned to love high-stakes testing and charters.

This path, I believe, now converges with the privatization movement, ALEC, the Waltons and the Koch brothers.

Are there Democrats who still remember the traditional Democratic agenda of equity and professionalism?

I won’t go into the baggage associated with Bill Ayers. During the campaign of 2008, his name came up again and again and was hurled as an accusation against candidate Barack Obama.

I recall Sarah Palin saying that Obama was guilty of “palling around with terrorists,” or words to that effect.

I did not approve of or condone what he did in the 1960s.

Bill Ayers is not the same person he was forty years ago. Today, he is a respected education thinker. But then, none of us is the same person we were 40 or 20 or even 10 years ago.

People grow and change. If they are willing, they learn.

Ayers has written a letter to President Obama that expresses the views of many educators today.

He calls on the President to rethink his policies.

He reminds him of the great advantages that the University of Chicago Lab School offered to the Obama children, the Ayers children, the Duncan children, and the Rahm Emanuel children even now.

Isn’t this what we should want for all children?

Voters in Idaho gave Mitt Romney a landslide  but simultaneously voted overwhelmingly to repeal the “Luna Laws,” the brainchild of state superintendent Tom Luna.

This stunning victory for public education demonstrates that not even red-state Republicans are prepared to privatize public education and dismantle the teaching profession.

The Luna Laws imposed a mandate for online courses for high school graduates (a favorite of candidates funded by technology companies), made test scores the measure of teacher quality, provided bonuses for teachers whose students got higher scores, removed all teacher rights, eliminated anything resembling tenure or seniority, turned teachers into at-will employees, and squashed the teachers’ unions.

The campaign to support the Luna laws was heavily funded by technology entrepreneurs and out-of-state supporters of high-stakes testing and restrictions on the teaching profession, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The voters in this reddest of red states overturned all three of the Luna laws (which he called “Students Come First”; anything in which children or students or kids come “first” is a clear tip-off to the divisive intent of the program).

As the story in the Idaho Statesman reported:

In a stunning rebuke to Gov. Butch Otter and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna, Idahoans on Tuesday repealed the laws that dominated the pair’s agenda the past two years.

Idahoans agreed with teachers unions — which spent more than $3 million to defeat Propositions 1, 2 and 3 — that the reforms Luna called “Students Come First” and detractors called “The Luna Laws” went too far.

As GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney won a 65 percent Idaho landslide, Otter and Luna — both touted as possible Cabinet secretaries in a Romney administration — lost their signature issue by large margins.

With 99 percent of all Idaho precincts reporting:

— 57 percent opposed to restrictions on teachers unions in Prop 1.

— 58 percent voted no on Prop 2, which paid teacher bonuses based on student test scores and other measures.

— 67 percent rejected a mandate for laptops and online credits for every Idaho high school student.

The scale of the defeat reached across Idaho.

Voters in 37 of 44 counties rejected all three measures. The seven outliers — Adams, Boise, Fremont, Jefferson, Lemhi, Madison and Owyhee — are largely rural. Not one of Idaho’s most populous counties voted for even one of the laws.