Archives for category: Unions

Jon Pelto has placed an order for a comfortable pair of walking shoes for President Obama, so he can walk alongside the striking teachers in Chicago.

He even paid for priority shipment from L.L. Bean.

Mr. President, remember when you said that “workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner”?

So far, President Obama has had no comment. Like Mitt Romney, he is on the side of the students.

President Obama, the teachers are on the side of the students. They want the students to have smaller classes, art classes, access to a social worker, a library, and the help they need to succeed.

Mr. President, please join CTU on the picket line to show your support for the students and teachers of Chicago.

The Chicago Teachers Union strike has encouraged many educators around the nation, who are fed up with the virulent attacks on them by people who couldn’t manage a classroom for ten minutes. Or five, maybe.

Judging by the comments I am getting, CTU has lifted the spirits of teachers who were feeling as though no one would stand up to the shellacking they were taking.

CTU has stood up.

And we can expect counter-attacks. They have started. I read one news story fired by about 50 comments saying, “Fire them, fire them all.” I wonder if the people who write such letters have ever taught. I know the answer. I read a conservative blogger who predicted that the CTU would fold because the public thinks they are paid too much already.

The strike raises issues for teachers everywhere and for union locals everywhere.

What is the best strategy to ward off the corporate reform attacks?

Confronted with ceaseless attacks on public education, on the teaching profession, and on the right of unions to exist, what should unions do?

Should they collaborate or should they fight?

This post launched a heated discussion.

I am not a union member. I have never belonged to a union. But growing up in the 1940s and 1950s, I learned that the right to belong to a union is one of the hallmarks of a democratic society. Supporting the right of working people to bargain collectively was not at all controversial.

Today it is. Today unions are under fire, even from Democratic leaders like the mayor of Chicago and the mayor of Los Angeles.

What should unions do?

This reader comments:

I am surprised that this post has accepted the “reformers” moving of the goal posts so readily and assumes that it is commonly accepted. The purpose of unions is to advocate for members’ working conditions and pay. The “reformers” have used slick rhetoric to convince gullible people that the purpose of the union should be to “reform” schools. I don’t buy that at all. As has so often been stated, my working conditions are your child’s learning conditions. We can also work for school improvement but that is not our primary mission and if we accept the “reformers” re-imagining of our mission then we are setting ourselves up for accepting blame for failures caused by them.

For the last 16 years I have been involved quite deeply in both the AFT and the NEA (we have a cooperative union in Florida) and I have been a building rep for 14 of my 16 years as a teacher. I’ve visited my state legislature, written letters, called, rallied fellow teachers and worked the phone banks for GOTV. The first half of my career was spent in NYC. The second half in Florida, a right to work state. Unionism is vastly different in the many states that have adopted right to work, with little opposition or pushback from the national unions that it decimates and destroys. Why is that?

I’ve never bought the idea that it is our responsibility to conform ourselves to whatever our opposition chooses for their own comfort level in the hopes of preventing them from being even more extreme. The positions advocated in this post are exactly why we are in the situation we are in: an adoption of the Clinton-era “triangulation” strategies that supposedly reach compromise by taking the position of your opponent and making it your own. Thus we have Dennis Van Roekel and Randi Weingarten agreeing to VAM junk science, echoing the rhetoric of the “reformers” that schools are mess and in need of saving, and the list goes on and on.

I look at our colleagues in Australia and around the world who rally to shut down the entire school system when they are threatened with harmful, ridiculous reforms and then I compare that to American teachers who are an endangered species as public education is brought to the brink of extinction and I ask why aren’t we out in the streets? If you really believe that being nicer, quieter, and more accommodating will win this war then I refer you to the great Frederick Douglas who taught us that power never accedes ground without a fight and those who decry the battle are asking for a storm of change without the thunder and lightning that accompany it.

We are teachers. If our membership and the public are unaware of union history and the important gains procured through the labor movement then we must teach them these things. If we truly believe that truth and knowledge are the keys to good citizenship then we need to use these tools to further our ends. Playing old-school political games that no longer work will do nothing but hasten our end.

Count on Stephanie Simon of Reuters to get the story that eluded every other reporter.

She is the one that got the inside story on Louisiana, TFA, and for-profit investors.

Now she has the scoop on Chicago.

The strike in Chicago is not about money.

It is a national story.

It’s about the survival of public education.

Read her story.

A reader says that Las Vegas teachers are taking action to correct the errors of their elected board:

Here in Las Vegas teachers have moved so as to concentrate their votes. We will be able to remove a majority of the reform bent board. This last week we had to close several schools because the air conditioners failed. Our Superintendent outsourced most maintenance and spent millions on more consultants and tests, but refused to spend allocated money to maintain buildings. The board will be gone soon, we have the votes to remove at least four of them. Next thing you know they will be trying to tell teachers they can’t vote. They like appointed boards for this very reason.

I will be wearing red in solidarity with the Chicago Teachers Union tomorrow, in support of whatever decision they make. If they should strike, they have my support. If they don’t, they also have my support. I am not giving my support unthinkingly or blindly. I support their right to bargain collectively. Knowing Karen Lewis, I believe she has the best interests of the children of Chicago in her heart. I believe in her and I believe in the teachers of Chicago.

One of our readers, GatorbonBC, posted the following comment.

If you know me well, you know I hold our WEAR RED FOR ED close to my heart. I also hold my CHICAGO teacher friends very close to my heart. They have taught me so much over the years. So, please… wear RED tomorrow. Show SOLIDARITY with Chicago teachers. They are fighting the same fight we are all fighting for our KIDS. They are fighting against high stakes testing, against the closing of public schools, against privatization via charter schools and virtual learning, against funneling public tax dollars to corporations … and against blaming teachers for everything wrong with our schools. FAIR CONTRACTS… please stand with Chicago. ~Wear Red for Public Ed !

It seems as though all the really big publicity for the anti-union, anti-public school film “Won’t Back Down” is coming from parents and teachers. Here is a review by a parent.

But that really isn’t so, as NBC’s Education Nation is making a big deal of it, and will have a private screening at the New York Public Library for the upper crust. And you can bet that all the corporate funded activists who want to privatize public education will try to turn this into the fiction version of “Waiting for Superman.” Well, same producer, same goal.

This writer, who was president of her school’s PTA, says the movie demonizes the union. She wonders how the actors–who all belong to the Screen Actors Guild–feel about making a movie that attacks another union.

She writes:

I am all for parent power.  I am all for getting rid of the crappy, demoralizing teachers who should not be allowed to step foot in a classroom.  But, this movie made me sad.  I was really hopeful in the beginning of the film because it was about teachers and parents working together – not something you usually see in movies.  This wasn’t some public school movie where the wide-eyed liberal white teacher swoops in to the minority student school and teaches them violin and magically makes their lives better.  We don’t need any more of those either.  But, this was really a giant anti-union propaganda film that missed the mark.  And that’s too bad because it had the chance to really say something about how parents and teachers can make change – and how hard it really is to find great leadership, and what can happen if we put kids first.  There was NO mention of lack of funding at the school by the way, or lack of professional development for teachers, after school programs, etc.  Seems if you just hang lots of butterflies in the hallway and paint the halls you make a great new school.  That’s an insult to all the parents and teachers who really do work their butts off to make their schools better everyday.

But then, what would you expect from a movie funded by Philip Anschutz, a billionaire who funds anti-public school think tanks and other causes whose goal is to decimate the public sector and privatize everything?

 

Tomorrow is Decision Day in Chicago.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has tried to bully the Chicago Teachers Union and its leader Karen Lewis.

Lewis was elected by the members because they knew she would stand up for them.

Emanuel has the support of the Wall Street hedge fund managers organization, somewhat absurdly called Democrats for Education Reform. He also has the other big-monied people in Chicago, as mentioned in this article in the Chicago Tribune, including billionaire Penny Pritzker.

The article mentions that DFER staged a protest at union headquarters to oppose a strike. I wonder how many hedge fund managers send their children to Chicago public schools. I am trying to imagine hedge fund managers marching in front of union headquarters and carrying signs. I am guessing that what happened was that they “staged” a protest, meaning that they hired out-of-work actors to carry protest signs. Maybe the unemployed actors have children in the Chicago public schools.

The great thing about having Karen Lewis there is that every teacher in America knows she will stand strong for them. She will not sell them out. And she will not sell out the children.

She knows that teachers’ working conditions are children’s learning conditions.

Both Rahm and Penny know that too. That’s why they don’t send their children to the schools for which they are responsible. They send their children to a school with small classes, lots of arts and physical education, a great library, experienced teachers, and a full curriculum. The school where they send their children doesn’t give standardized tests and does not evaluate teachers by their students’ test scores.

Last spring, Jeb Bush and Michelle Rhee tried to push the phony “parent trigger” legislation through the Florida legislature. It seemed to be a slam-dunk, since the legislature is controlled by Republicans and the governor is Republican, and the skids were greased to turn more public schools over to the charter corporations. These corporations give generous campaign contributions, so the table was set to add to their portfolios.

But they forgot about the parents, the alleged beneficiaries of the “trigger.”

Florida parent organizations turned out in force to oppose the “trigger.” They knew what the game was, and they knew it was not for their benefit that Bush and Rhee and ALEC were so eager to “empower” them with the ability to give their public school to a corporation. The Florida PTA and groups like Testing is Not Teaching, Fund Education Now, and 50th No More opposed the “trigger.”

Parents made a difference. They understood that the goal of the “trigger” is to shoot public education in the heart. They convinced enough Republican senators to vote against the bill that it ended in a 20-20 deadlock in the state senate. Of course, the forces of greed will return again, but parents will organize again.

Parents in Chicago are organizing to support the Chicago Teachers Union. One group, the parents of the 19th Ward, have been outspoken. I got this email today:

I wanted to share this post, which was written by Nellie Cotton, an involved Chicago Public Schools parent, an activist who speaks truth to power in a snap, a strong CTU supporter and a woman I am so happy to call my friend. Nellie has agreed to let me forward her post. I think it speaks to the experience a lot of parents have had in CPS, but not a lot have taken up the cause as brilliantly as Nellie.
 
Maureen Cullnan
19th Ward Parents
I was just thinking of how I became involved in all this and of all the wonderful people who have helped me become empowered. Please forgive me for rambling.
 
All this first started about three years ago when due to budget cuts, we were going to lose positions. One of those was an exceptionally gifted and beloved teacher, Miss Susan Cummings. Miss Cummings is simply amazing as a teacher. Her love of teaching and her “spark” are palpable. I felt helpless. Not knowing what to do, I approached my LSC for guidance, only to be told this happens, nothing you can do against CPS and, by the way, “Where were you when this issue first came up? “
 
I could not let this rest. My daughter Cecilia (she was Miss Cummings’ student)  and I went door to door with a petition demanding her position not be cut. We collected 261 signatures and went to a board meeting to present them, sent copies of the  same stuff every Tuesday and Thursday to our congressman, House Speaker Michael Madigan, and to Mayor Daley. I went to the monthly CPS school board meetings. Then one day as I had given CPS CEO Ron Huberman my weekly packet, I coincidentally met that dynamo ,Karen Lewis. She was president-elect of the CTU and she introduced me to Jesse Sharkey, who took my information and urged me to join CORE, any parent groups, or my LSC because “Parents and teachers must work together to be effective.” 
 
I knew then she was a dynamic force. 
We are grateful we still have our Miss Cummings!
  
Fast forward to Mayor Emanuel pushing longest day on CPS schools. Again I was shot down by my LSC, as this was a done deal, I was told. CPS had several staff people come talk to the parents and tell them it was a done deal, accept it.  
 
I couldn’t!  I knew better.  
 
My mother picketed and boycotted in order to get a high school built in Pilsen.  I had been active in keeping Pope John Paul II school open!   Again I started with petitions, signs and red bows on trees. I asked to use Lawler Park to have an informational meeting and, honestly, did not have a real grasp on all the issues at the time.  I was struggling with medical issues, my Mom was terminally ill, and I was just going on faith. 
The day of my meeting, I realize now that I had no grasp of the issues. I was going on moxie alone. I was so blessed to have Maureen and Christine contact me out of the blue and take time to do a presentation on the issue at hand. I was blown away. They came armed with information and passion. They are incredible! Through them and because of them,  I have met so many other fantastic people that are affecting positive changes and inspire me every day. Wendy Katten, Erica Clark, Kelly, Jennie, Becky, Laura and Jimmy, The 19th Ward Parents,  I am proud to know you, you guys ROCK! And so many others …
 
If nothing more,  this journey has afforded me the opportunity to meet such incredible people. Thank you for advocating for what truly matters!
 
Nellie Cotton
CPS parent

A reader asked me to describe the differences between charter schools and magnet schools

This is what came to mind.

I welcome readers’ thoughts about other differences.

Magnet schools and charter schools have superficial similarities. They may or may not be selective. Their differences are greater than their similarities.

Magnet schools were initially created by local school boards in the late 1960s and 1970s to promote racial integration. The idea behind them was that a theme like the arts, or the sciences, would attract so many applicants that the school could select a racially diverse student body. Charter schools rarely seek racial integration; many charter schools are one-race, one-ethnicity. The UCLA Civil Rights Project warns that charter schools are more segregated than the districts in which they are located.

Another significant difference is that a magnet school is part of the public school system, the result of a decision by a democratic board to create a school for a special purpose. By contrast, a charter school requires a transfer of public funds to private management; it is a form of privatization.

The magnet school is subject to the same laws, rules and regulations as other public schools; the charter is exempt from most of the laws, rules and regulations applied to public schools.

Magnet schools don’t boast of their higher scores because everyone understands that they have a selection process and do not represent a random representation of all students; charter schools do boast of their higher scores (when they have them) and claim to be “better” than public schools and deserving of more public and private funding.

Magnet schools have the same funding sources as public schools; charter schools have private boards which are able to raise additional funding for them. In some districts, like New York City, charters spend more than public schools.

Another difference is the workforce: where unions are permitted by law, public school teachers are part of a union or collective bargaining unit; this is not true for charters. Nearly 90% of charters do not have unions.

Some charter schools are owned by for-profit corporations; some part of the tax dollars they receive are paid to investors and stock-holders. Some charter schools are nonprofit but pay exorbitant executive salaries and management fees; it is a matter of record that some high-profile charter leaders are paid $300,000-500,000 annually to oversee a small number of (non-profit) charter schools. The charters pay a hefty management fee to those who run them. A well-known charter chain in New York City is paid a management fee of $2,000 per student, all from taxpayer funds. That’s a nice income for a “nonprofit.” One charter in Pennsylvania pays a management fee of $16 million to chief executive officer, whose for-profit company supplies all goods and services to the charter.

No public schools are run by for-profit organizations.

Magnet schools are part of the public system; charters are part of a separate system, which has its own interests, its own lobbyists, its own separate advocacy organizations.

A new reader has joined our discussion and is looking for answers to important questions. I assured this reader that we have explored these topics in some depth; that we know that the purpose of reform is to eliminate unions; to get rid of tenure; to cut the budget for schools; and to privatize the greatest extent possible, with profits where possible for smart investors in “reform.”

I invite the new reader to hang out with us and join our discussion.

Any advice for the new member of our discussion group?

Please forgive me if I am pulling this conversation back to farmed-out ground (I’m new); but is it fair to say that the gist of the corporate-backed educational “reform” movements today is generating cheaper teachers?This is how the equation boils down for me (a public school teacher). As I’ve been trained to show my work, my thinking is that the greatest “reform” that privatization and charter school movements bring is the elimination of union contracts. And that the primary consequence of eliminating unions in any field is lower labor costs.If the above argument holds water, is it acceptable to eliminate the obfuscating phrase “educational reform movement ” and replace it with the clearer “reducing educator salary” movement? Or, more simply, the “labor-busting” movement? Or the “cheapness” movement?In a similar vein, I am wondering if Dr. Ravitch and others have exposed the cant behind the argument that problems with tenure stem from unions. There don’t seem to be many general-public sources pointing out that no one from a public teacher’s union awards tenure to teachers. Every single public decision to grant tenure is made by an elected school board, advised by its appointed educational managers. If the nation’s schools are saddled with incompetent tenured teachers, the blame falls on leadership and management, does it not? From all the complaints being voiced about tenure that outsiders — many from the world of corporate management — it seems pretty clear to me that the nations educational managers apparently couldn’t recognize an incompetent teacher if they got hit with a hammer by one of them. What is eliminating tenure going to help this group of apparently bumbling crop of managers transform into brilliant predictors of pedagogy? At least tenure forces educational decision-makers to live with the consequences of their incompetence. Lifting the pressure of having to evaluate their teachers in three years and educational managers will be even less accountable for their bad decisions. In the world of corporate management, weakening the chains of accountability is an insane act — something that you would think the corporate nabobs nattering about our schools would understand. Unless they absolutely do understand what they are saying is absurd but don’t care, since the real goal isn’t improving our schools at all.