Archives for category: Unions
TO:     Interested Parties

From:  AFT President Randi Weingarten

Date:   August 28, 2012

RE:      “Won’t Back Down”

 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

One can’t help but be moved by the characters and story portrayed in Walden Media’s film “Won’t Back Down.” The film is successful in driving home the sense of urgency parents and educators feel to do everything they can to provide the best possible education for their children. That is abundantly evident in this film—it’s what I hear as I visit schools across the country, and it’s what I heard when I sat down with parent and community groups from across the country last week.

We share that pain and frustration. And we firmly believe that every public school should be a school where every parent would want to send his or her child and where every teacher would want to teach. Unfortunately, using the most blatant stereotypes and caricatures I have ever seen—even worse than those in “Waiting for ‘Superman’”—the film affixes blame on the wrong culprit: America’s teachers unions.

As a former public school teacher and president of the American Federation of Teachers, I have spent my entire adult life working on behalf of children and teachers. After viewing this film, I can tell you that if I had taught at that school, and if I were a member of that union, I would have joined the characters played by Maggie Gyllenhaal and Viola Davis. I would have led the effort to mobilize parents and teachers to turn around that school myself.

I don’t recognize the teachers portrayed in this movie, and I don’t recognize that union. The teachers I know are women and men who have devoted their lives to helping children learn and grow and reach their full potential. These women and men come in early, stay late to mentor and tutor students, coach sports teams, advise the student council, work through lunch breaks, purchase school supplies using money from their own pockets, and spend their evenings planning lessons, grading papers and talking to parents. Yet their efforts, and the care with which they approach their work, are nowhere to be seen in this film.

This movie could have been a great opportunity to bring parents and teachers together to launch a national movement focused on real teacher and parent collaboration to help all children. Instead, this fictional portrayal, which makes the unions the culprit for all of the problems facing our schools, is divisive and demoralizes millions of great teachers. America’s teachers are already being asked to do more with less—budgets have been slashed, 300,000 teachers have been laid off since the start of the recession, class sizes have spiked, and more and more children are falling into poverty. And teachers are being demonized, marginalized and shamed by politicians and elites who want to undermine and dismiss their reform efforts.

Parent engagement is essential to ensuring children thrive in the classroom. The power of partnerships between parents, teachers and the community is at the heart of school change.

But instead of focusing on real parent empowerment and how communities can come together to help all children succeed, “Won’t Back Down” offers parents a false choice—you’re either for students or for teachers, you can either live with a low-performing school or take dramatic, disruptive action to shut a school down.

Real parent engagement means establishing meaningful ways for parents to be real partners in their children’s public education from the beginning—not just when a school is failing. The goal should be to never let a school get to that point. Parents are actually calling for real investments in their neighborhood public schools and that should be our collective focus. 

Across the country, AFT teachers and leaders are partnering with parents and community groups to create real parent engagement that strengthens schools and neighborhoods:

  • In the South Bronx, the Community Collaborative to Improve District 9 Schools (CC9) partnered with the United Federation of Teachers on a school reform agenda focused on teacher quality, school leadership and family-school partnerships. Through the partnership, teachers participated in neighborhood walks to visit with the families of their students. And they established the lead teacher program, which allowed experienced teachers to provide mentoring and guidance to newer and struggling teachers. CC9 members were involved in hiring the lead teachers.
     
  • In Minnesota, AFT affiliates negotiated the Parent-Teacher Home Visit Project into their contract, training teachers to visit their students’ families to establish bonds with parents outside of the school environment and help parents support their children’s learning. And the AFT’s affiliate in St. Paul surveyed parents to get their concerns and thoughts about their schools, and then incorporated the results into their contract negotiations. 
     
  • In Connecticut, the AFT helped create a law that provided an avenue for parents to become involved in their children’s schools. The 2011 law requires that certain low-performing schools create School Governance Councils to develop parental involvement policies and make recommendations on administrator hiring and, ultimately, on the school improvement plan. School councils are composed of parents, teachers and community members, with parents having a majority. This year, Connecticut’s new education reform law requires the creation of such councils in every low-performing school in the state.
     
  • In Cincinnati and elsewhere, AFT locals are working to mitigate the impact that poverty and other out-of-school factors have on students by offering wraparound services, including health and mental health services, meal programs, tutoring, counseling and after-school programs. Many of the services offered in Cincinnati schools were based on survey responses from neighborhood parents on what was needed for children and the neighborhood.
     
  • The AFT is leading a coalition of businesses, community groups, parents and educators to completely transform the educational and economic opportunities available to children and families in McDowell County, W.Va.
     
  • The AFT worked with a British corporation to develop a digital filing cabinet of lesson plans and resources for teachers called Share My Lesson. It’s an online community for teachers to share their best ideas and collaborate with one another.  

Sadly, this film chooses to ignore these success stories and the many others happening across the county. Instead, it promotes the deceptively named “parent trigger” laws, which are marketed as parent-empowerment laws. Actually, these laws deny both parents and teachers a voice in improving schools and helping children, by using parents to give control of our schools over to for-profit corporations. Parent trigger laws are being pushed by organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which Walden Media owner and oil billionaire Philip Anschutz helps fund.

The film advances a policy that in reality limits teacher and parent voices, the very voices that are celebrated and empowered in the movie.
 
In real life, there have been only two attempts to pull the parent trigger. One never made it to the approval process. In Adelanto, Calif., where the trigger petition is still in progress, many parents report feeling deceived by the for-profit charter-backed organizers who came in to gather petitions. They actually sued to take their signatures back when they found out they were being used to give their school away to a charter company.

Confusing the matter even further, those supporting the parent trigger asked the court to rule that once a signature was on a petition, it could not be rescinded. The court ruled in their favor, stating that the parent trigger law did not allow for rescinded signatures. But just this month, the Adelanto school board rejected the parent trigger proponents’ call for a charter operator and instead instituted numerous reforms including the formation of a community advisory council, an extended school day and improved technology, among other reforms. In both situations, the use of the parent trigger law has been disruptive and divided the school community. 
 
That’s one reason why a Florida parent coalition representing half a million parents joined with the Florida PTA and others to oppose parent trigger legislation when the bill was proposed there last year. They knew from the California parents’ experience that it would put all the power in the hands of for-profit companies, not public school parents.

It must be pointed out that the film contains several egregiously misleading scenes with the sole purpose of undermining people’s confidence in public education, public school teachers and teachers unions.
 
The film advances the “bad teacher” narrative through the character of Deborah. This teacher barks at students from her desk, uses her cell phone in class, refuses to let students use the restroom, puts children in a closet as a disciplinary measure and resists all reform efforts, yet miraculously remains employed at the school. She tells parents that she refuses to stay after school hours to help her students, and Davis’ character in the film asserts that union rules prohibit teachers from working past 3 p.m., an egregious lie. I know of no contract or local union that would ever prevent a teacher from remaining after school to help a student or do the work necessary to help children.

Let’s be clear—this teacher, or any teacher who engages in such deplorable actions against children, should be fired for this outrageous behavior.
 
The film features the union leader sharing a quote that anti-public education ideologues and right-wing politicians often attribute to former AFT president Albert Shanker: “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.” Despite the frequency with which corporate interests claim Shanker said this, a review of news reports, speeches, and interviews with Shanker’s aides and biographers, and even an analysis by the Washington Post, failed to find any person or report that could corroborate the statement. 

This is not the only time the movie resorts to falsehoods and anti-union stereotypes. Viola Davis’ character tells other teachers that the new school they create cannot be unionized because the union would restrict their ability to implement reforms that help kids. This is a false—unions are democratic organizations made up of individual educators, and collective bargaining is the process by which individuals come together to make things better. Many examples demonstrate that far from blocking reform efforts, unions fight for the things children need to thrive in school, like safe classrooms and smaller class sizes. And unions empower educators to win the tools and voice they need to help children.

Half of all teachers in the United States do not have collective bargaining contracts. The reality is that the states with the highest union density—states such as Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota—are the states that lead the nation in student achievement. And a recent Education Sector survey of teachers made clear that America’s teachers—both union and nonunion—recognize the importance of unions in strengthening the teaching profession and our public schools.
 
Though deeply unfortunate, it is also unsurprising that “Won’t Back Down” is such a false and misleading depiction of teachers and unions. Anschutz’s business partner is on record saying that he intends to use Walden Media (which also produced the equally misleading “Waiting for ‘Superman’”), as way for him to promote their values.
 
A look at the organizations in which Anschutz invests makes those values crystal clear. He has funded 20 organizations, including ALEC, Americans for Prosperity and the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation. All of these groups operate against the public interest in favor of corporate interests, and all of them actively oppose collective bargaining rights and other benefits for workers. Anschutz has also invested millions in anti-gay and extreme religious-right organizations such as the Promise Keepers, whose founder declared that “homosexuality is an abomination against almighty God,” and organizations affiliated with Focus on the Family. 
 
The last thing that the country and the debate over public education reform needs is another movie that maligns teachers, caricatures teachers unions and misleads the American public about what is happening in public education today. Children deserve great schools. That’s how we build great communities. And real public education reform comes from teachers, parents and communities working together to help all kids thrive.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further. To learn more about what AFT members are doing to help all children succeed, contact Marcus Mrowka at 202-531-0689 or mmrowka@aft.org.

 

Education Week has an article by the always well-informed Alyson Klein that speculates about Romney’s possible choice for Secretary of Education.

The possibilities include:

Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, who shaped the Romney agenda for privatization of the nation’s schools;

Tom Luna, the state superintendent in Idaho who is known for his allegiance to online corporations and his efforts to increase class size;

Joel Klein, the former chancellor of NYC, now selling technology for Rupert Murdoch, another supporter of privatization and opponent of unions, seniority and tenure;

Michelle Rhee, leader of a national campaign to remove all tenure, seniority and collective bargaining fromt teachers;

Chris Cerf, acting commission in New Jersey, who is leading Chris Christie’s push to privatize public schools in that state;

Here is the big surprise:

Arne Duncan, who is seen by Republicans as compatible with Romney’s agenda and, as the article, says, eager to stay on.

There are other names, but it is interesting to realize that at least four of the six listed here are allegedly, nominally Democrats.

A teacher in Florida received an email from Students First inviting him to a screening of the parent trigger movie at the GOP convention.

He doesn’t know how he got on the StudentsFirst email list. He  probably signed a petition to support “great” teachers and didn’t know he was duped into joining StudentsFirst.

This is the email he forwarded to me. Remember this the next time you hear Michelle Rhee claim that she is a Democrat. A “Democrat” who works for the nation’s most conservative Republican governors, attacking unions, tenure, seniority and promoting vouchers, charters, for-profit schools, and online schools.

StudentsFirst, Twentieth Century Fox & Walden Media
Invite You and a Guest to a Complimentary Private Screening

Maggie Gyllenhaal and Viola Davis play two determined mothers­, one a teacher, who will stop at nothing to transform their children’s failing inner city school. Facing a powerful and entrenched bureaucracy, they risk everything to make a difference in the education and future of their children. This powerful story of parenthood, friendship and courage mirrors events that are making headlines daily. WON’T BACK DOWN will be released by 20th Century Fox on September 28, 2012.


During the GOP Convention
Tuesday, August 28 – Tampa, FL
Further location information to follow.

12:30 PM Reception with Special Guests:
Blues Traveler Band & Caroline Kole

2:00 PM Private Screening of Won’t Back Down

Panel immediately following screening with:
Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Former Secretary of State
Gov. Jeb Bush, Chairman of Foundation for Excellence in Education
Michelle Rhee, Former DC Chancellor; Founder of StudentsFirst
Daniel Barnz, Director, Won’t Back Down
Campbell Brown, Moderator

STAND UP, SPEAK OUT, FIGHT FOR SOMETHING BETTER
Space is limited/first-come-first-serve

Click here to REGISTER NOW and see the trailer.
Save your access code, you will need it to register: GOPSF

For you & one guest; Invite is Non-Transferable
If you are unable to register please email: info@WizEventTech.com

 

This just in.

The Florida Education Association and two named teacher-plaintiffs sued to block VAM because the process is confusing and the state has provided inadequate guidance.

A judge agreed with the plaintiffs. The state education department will either appeal or have to redo the rules and clarify the way VAM is supposed to work.

This teacher-evaluation stuff is complex, poorly thought out, and endlessly divisive.

It is being foisted on states across the nation–thank you, Race to the Top–without any clear evidence that it works.

No one knows whether VAM identifies the worst teachers or those unlucky enough to get difficult students or those who are good at teaching to the test.

District after district will be thrown into unnecessary turmoil.

A few teachers will be thrown out, and they may not be the “bad” teachers.

And the cult of data worship will grow stronger.

 
 

Teachers speak up to refute claims of reformers.

The reformers assert  that unions are the root problem of American education because they protect bad teachers.

The answer: Get rid of unions so wise administrators or charter school operators can fire bad teachers.

One letter here says it is the job of administrators to deny tenure to bad teachers and to evaluate teachers.

Maybe our problem is weak or incompetent administrators, those people who came through faux leadership programs.

If unions were “the problem,” we would expect to find high performance in right to work states.

But we don’t.

On the NAEP, the highest performing states are Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey, all strong union states (up until now).

The lowest performing states do not permit collective bargaining.

Should we aspire to be like Massachusetts or Louisiana?

What do you think?

 

This article was published last year. It was written by Marc Epstein, a social studies teacher and dean at Jamaica High School. Marc has a Ph.D. in Japanese naval history. Since he wrote this article, the New York City Department of Education closed Jamaica High School but a court stayed the closing. The city has already placed small schools in the historic building.

Josh Greenman of the New York Daily News writes today that President Obama has been terrific on education reform issues: he has challenged teachers’ unions, pushed for merit pay, encouraged the expansion of charter schools, and used billions of dollars in stimulus funds (via Race to the Top) to promote an agenda that either President Bush would envy. In its editorials, the Daily News has stridently defended charters, testing, and accountability, and has led the charge against the teachers’ union. The billionaire owner of the Daily News, Mort Zuckerman, is on the board of the Broad Foundation, which avidly promotes school closings and privatization.

So imagine Josh’s disappointment that the President is now kowtowing to those teachers unions and saying that more money will solve the problems. He writes, “So count me disappointed that Obama is campaigning for reelection with education rhetoric that is ripped right out of a dusty old Democratic Party playbook.” Wow. A Democratic President actually sounding like a Democrat on education.

Josh wonders why the President doesn’t stick up for his strong testing-and-accountabiilty and school choice agenda. Why doesn’t he boldly admit that his program is not all that different from Romney’s? (There are two big issues where they differ: Romney supports vouchers, Obama doesn’t; Obama wants to help students with their crushing student loans, Romney doesn’t.) UPDATE: (One other major difference: Romney thinks anyone should be allowed to teach, without any certification or standards, and you can bet that he will continue the Republican assault on teachers’ unions.)

Josh implies that the President is reaching out to teachers and their unions and supporters of public education because–guess what?–it is an election year. With a few more eloquent speeches, maybe he can persuade them that his agenda has some resemblance to the traditional Democratic view that schools should have adequate resources, that teachers have a right to bargain collectively, that the federal government has a responsibility to promote equity (not competition), and that school choice is the rightwing plan to privatize the public schools.

Well, it is good to hear the rhetoric. That’s a change. We can always hope that he means it. But that, of course, would mean ditching Race to the Top and all that absurd rightwing rhetoric about how schools can fix poverty, all by themselves.

LG responds to another reader who suggested that eliminating unions and tenure was “part of the solution” to reinventing education:

“I can tell you that eliminating teacher unions is part of the solution, not THE solution. Self-interest groups have to lay down their swords. There are so many structural changes we need to make to our public education system. Lifetime tenure and ‘last-in, first out’ policies are only pieces of the puzzle.”

You still have not responded to the request made in another post for just what exactly the unions are doing that is bad for public education. Instead, you are spewing the same “unions are bad” stuff with no evidence of how.

Let’s shed a little light on the misinformation in your comments.

Lifetime tenure does not mean “lifetime job.” School districts have the power to bring tenure charges up on ANY tenured teacher and prove such charges are with merit. At that point, districts can and do terminate tenured teachers’ contracts. The power is with the school districts–if they do not prove that their charges are valid, then that is on them, not the unions.

The unions only protect the tenured employee’s right to a hearing on the matter. This is actually a good thing for the schools because it gives teachers a chance to speak up for themselves without fear of being fired for frivolous reasons. It provides some validity to termination instead of allowing districts to terminate teachers’ contracts for political reasons.

Tenure also grants a teacher academic freedom: “…the freedom of teachers…to teach, study, and pursue knowledge and research without unreasonable interference or restriction from law, institutional regulations, or public pressure. Its basic elements include the freedom of teachers to inquire into any subject that evokes their intellectual concern; to present their findings to their students, colleagues, and others; to publish their data and conclusions without control or censorship; and to teach in the manner they consider professionally appropriate.” (Fromhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/2591/academic-freedom)

Tenure is good for the schools because it encourages a dedicated staff of individuals to stay in a particular district. In the private sector, the instances of “job-hopping” (at least in a decent economy) are much greater as employees are always trying to get better-paying positions. You are aware that teachers cannot transfer tenure rights from district to district in order to get better compensation packages, right? Some districts will grant a new hire a few years against the salary schedule for “some” experience, but tenure has to be re-earned every time a teacher switches to a new district. It does not behoove teachers to go “job-hopping” since they always have to earn tenure again and again.

Non-tenured teachers live in fear that they will be fired because the principal doesn’t like their personalities or the way they part their hair. Tenured teachers have more incentive to stay with their districts. Therefore, you get a staff of teachers who invest in the school district and community. They have a vested interest in the district since they are teaching in it over the long haul.

“Last in, first out” is not a perfect system, but without it, public schools would be filled with novice teachers since districts will seek to cut expenses by firing those at the top of the salary guide.  Districts notoriously hire private contractors to do large work projects on their public buildings using a practice known as “going with the lowest bidder.” For those who believe that cutting expenses in a teaching staff is a good thing, it is important to know that the most experienced teachers are the ones who mentor the novices and even those in the middle of their careers. Experienced teachers know the community and have a stake in the success of the community.

Anyone who knows anything about seniority in the private sector knows that those with the most experience in the company tend to be the people who have the most vested interest in the company. They have the most to gain and the most to lose if the company does or does not do well. Education is not exactly the same, but if you strip LIFO from the public schools, what would behoove teachers to take these jobs in the first place or to engage in professional development that brings them to a better understanding of the jobs they continually do?

Without LIFO, the experienced professionals will just move on thus making a very transient teaching staff with very little vested interest in the community. Eventually you will no longer have an experienced staff since experienced teachers would just be “terminated like expired food” in order to bring in a “fresher” and cheaper workforce. That is what stripping away LIFO will do. How is that better for the schools? If districts do not have a requirement for keeping experienced staff members first, the districts will invariably take the lowest bidder in education staff. Do you seriously want to leave public education to novice teachers?

Tenure protects a community from a transient and completely novice teaching staff. If the community invests in its teachers, the teachers will invest in the community. When people are valued, they are more likely to do their best work compared to when they do not feel valued.

What you are proposing devalues teachers, and that is never good for public education.

This teacher (from the west) agrees with a previous post that the real goal of the reform movement is to do away with unions. That would leave them clear sailing to cut budgets even more, lay off teachers, increase class size, encourage for-profit ventures, and privatize at will, with no one powerful enough to stop them. What is sometimes called the “neoliberal” agenda is actually the old rightwing agenda, and it starts with union-busting and concludes with privatization.

I’ve often thought this mess boils down to busting the unions. Once that’s done, it’s smooth sailing for the “reformers.”From where I stand, the union appears to be silent. What gives? I thumbed through a recent national magazine from the NEA. Nothing on what’s currently transpiring. Our local representation is always “looking into that,” yet provides no answers when asked about the union’s stance on privatization. I thought the front page of the NEA website would be bursting with anti-privatization articles. Instead I found all kinds of back-to-school tips for teachers.Anyone here a union rep? In the know? What is going on?

I have often been struck by the uneven playing field that policymakers and legislators establish for charter schools and public schools. The public schools are increasingly strangled by regulations and by high-stakes testing and punitive evaluations, at the same time that the charter schools are exempt from most of the strangulation. I have heard many times from principals who say that they want to turn their public school into a charter so they can escape the tentacles of regulation that are wrapped tight around their school. And I have wondered whether the purpose of “reform” was to make public schools fail while the deregulated charter schools increase and thrive.

Here is another take on the current corporate reform movement, inspired by an earlier post about stagnant ACT scores:

The more conversations I have about the entire “reform” movement, the more convinced I am that it’s really about disbanding teacher unions so that the majority of education programs will eventually be part of a private industry thus paving the way for the privatizing of all public systems.

The evidence just keeps mounting to show that standardized testing is a flawed way to judge the efficacy of the public schools, and the mere fact that charters and private/parochial schools do not have the same “rigorous” standards as public schools points to the idea that “standards” are not really important at all to the reformers who push for these kinds of alternate schools.

Utilizing standardized tests that the reformers know are flawed is a tactic to devalue the people who teach in public schools so that they can be fired and a private interest can take over.

It’s as if these policy-makers have found a way to rig the game: Create new rules that make for impossible goals and then watch a good system that serves the public fail under these new rules. They have set up the game so that the players will fail no matter what–IF you believe the rules are sound.

It’s pretty evident that the main goal is to disband two of the largest public unions in the country using children as pawns. Once the AFT and the NEA are toppled, so they must think, the rest will follow, and the privatization of public systems in America will ensue.

I would not put it past our policy-makers to be trying to sell the public a bill of goods by pretending they care about the children at all, when in reality, they care about getting rid of union teachers and privatizing education so their buddies can “invest” and continually get rich.

This isn’t about parent choice (unless legal segregation is what they’re after), this isn’t about success, and this isn’t about getting rid of “bad” teachers. It’s about getting rid of unions and privatizing. To me, the evidence points to these intentions no matter how anyone else wants to spin it.