data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6e4f9/6e4f9da1081cf09372022ddbd7268c1c25a2f62e" alt=""
Click to enlarge
An archive of articles and listserve postings of interest, mostly posted without commentary, linked to commentary at the Education Notes Online blog. Note that I do not endorse the points of views of all articles, but post them for reference purposes.
MICHAEL HIRSCH'S CRITIQUE misleads, or outrightly distorts, many of the points we made in our review.*
Shanker and NCLB
THE TWO-DECADE LONG ROAD from "A Nation at Risk" to NCLB runs right through Shanker and is paved with Shankerisms: accountability, standards, high stakes tests, narrowing curriculum to what's "measurable," identifying and punishing schools (and ultimately, teachers), and charter schools as an alternative to public schools. Clinton's "Goals 2000" plan, which Shanker mostly endorsed, was a predecessor to NCLB. Kahlenberg praises Shanker's role in the process through his alliances with the business community.
Hirsch claims the AFT was opposed to NCLB when in fact, Shanker's successor, Sandra Feldman, sat on the NCLB committee and lauded many of the provisions, something the NEA did not do. Since then the AFT/UFT has consistently signed on to the standards/accountability bandwagon, giving short shrift to lower class size and other essential learning conditions.
The 1968 Strike
HIRSCH BUYS THE KAHLENBERG POSITION that the 1968 strike was about job security and due process and Shanker had no options, a fairly simplistic approach given that the UFT has always counseled teachers to transfer when under attack. Hirsch misses the irony of shutting down the entire school system due to the transfer of 11 teachers, when today the union has agreed to the transfers of hundreds of teachers out of DOE-labeled "failing" schools, teachers unable to get positions and forced to work as day-to-day subs due to the union's giveaway of seniority rights.
Podair's more nuanced analysis in The Strike That Changed New York indicates that Shanker had more of an agenda than just defending due process rights.
The 1975 Fiscal Crisis/Strike
HIRSCH BLAMES GOTBAUM instead of Shanker for the givebacks and pension bailouts. In his "Where We Stand" column (Oct. 19, 1975), Shanker contradicts Hirsch, justifying the use of $300 million in teacher retirement funds: "[T]eachers stepped forward when no one else would. They resisted the normal human instinct to slash back at those who had torn into them. The bankers interrupted their incessant prattle about civic responsibility just long enough to refuse pleas that they help bail the city out." Shanker forced the end of an effective and powerful strike, agreeing to a contract that ensured the layoff of 10,000+ teachers.
Attempt to Marginalize Us
HIRSCH PORTRAYS US as disgruntled, ineffectual leftists, tied to outdated ideological baggage.
Our thrust has always been to build an active and informed membership. UFT leaders have not always been wrong, nor do we claim the rank and file is always right. Leaders should be responsible, honest, and promote democracy: a dynamic relationship between leadership and membership that allows a variety of views to be aired.
From Shanker on, Unity Caucus has used its power to stifle critical voices challenging its positions. It attempts to deny opposition access to teacher mailboxes, despite the fact that the right was won in a grievance without any help from the union.
Using an erroneous analysis of the results of the citywide union elections, Hirsch tries to marginalize our critique and us. In the 2007 election only 21 percent of active teachers voted. The opposition ICE/TJC slate received over 22 percent of the vote of classroom teachers and 12 percent of the total vote, not the 7 percent Hirsch claims. A remarkable 47 percent of the vote cast was by retirees (out of the reach of the opposition) who voted 90 percent for Unity/Weingarten who promote themselves by using dues to fly around the United States to meet with retirees. Unity earned 14 percent (10,000) of the 70,000 classroom teachers, a drop by a third from 2004 (15,500). These results point to a significant loss of legitimacy and support for the union leadership.
Numerous members of the opposition serve as school delegates and Chapter leaders, despite often vicious campaigns in chapter elections, which sometimes include interference by Unity Caucus reps and collusion with principals.
As individuals and through our caucuses and organizations, we have been critical of the union leadership from Shanker through Weingarten. Hirsch knows full well the level of attention the UFT leadership pays to what we have to say, often adopting our language and pretending to support our positions, while undermining attempts to build activism that can challenge NYC DOE's attacks on public education, educators and union members.
Conclusion
ONE CANNOT UNDERESTIMATE Shanker's role in shaping the UFT, the AFT, and the union movement, principally through SDUSA, its front organizations, its ties to government institutions and elected and appointed government officials, and its influence among union hierarchies. This raises many questions concerning the role of leadership and the piecemeal destruction of a labor movement both in this country and abroad.
Thanks to Ira Goldfine for his help with this reply.
*Our response is limited by our allotment of space. We will post a more comprehensive response on this web site and on the Education Notes online blog. return
VERA PAVONE taught in Brownsville in the mid-1960s, later served as school secretary, retiring in 2002. She is a founding member of the Independent Community of Educators (ICE), an alternate caucus in the UFT. NORMAN SCOTT spent 35 years in the NYC school system. A former chapter leader and delegate at the UFT Delegate Assembly, he began publishing Education Notes, a newsletter for NYC teachers in 1996. He, too, is a founding member of ICE.
Albert Shanker's Legacy:
Comment on Norm Scott and Vera Pavone's Review in #45Michael Hirsch
LEON TROTSKY'S TRANSITIONAL PROGRAM begins with words that have made the left nuts ever since. "The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterized by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat," the old exiled Bolshevik and Red Army founder wrote. That analysis was arguable in 1938, when it was written, less so in the 1960s, when the United Federation of Teachers was formed. Would that it were remotely plausible today.
Yet that stilted frame of looking less at the development of social classes or class institutions and more at the maneuvers and peccadilloes of alleged elite "misleaders" characterizes what's so wrong with Vera Pavone and Norman Scott's review of Richard Kahlenberg's Tough Liberal, his political biography of teacher union leader Albert Shanker.
Now Kahlenberg's book is hard to like. It's a defense attorney's brief for a highly controversial figure, and Pavone and Scott are not wrong to call it hagiographic, or the life of a saint. Shanker, whatever his strengths and failings, was no saint, yet the biography does read as if Kahlenberg's hand were manipulated by divine forces to write an institutional history that even few in the present teachers union would stand by.
Yet in place of hagiography, the authors opt for demonology, the study of fallen angels, and their idealized approach shares far more with the hagiographers than they know. They blame Shanker and his democratically elected successors for every ill that befell educators in the last 40 years. For them, Shanker is the mustachioed villain in a silent film, his signature heavy-frame glasses in place of facial hairs; the "ruthless neo-con" regnant.
Why that picture is worth taking issue with -- the authors are themselves longtime critics of the UFT's successive leaderships and are entitled to their views -- is that their take on unions is emblematic of a weakness on the left: where rank-and-file maunderings of any sort are valorized, while elected leaders are excoriated, whoever they are and whatever their histories and strengths.
Full disclosure. In my day job, I work for the man. Or at least the woman. My boss is Randi Weingarten, president of both the 200,000 member United Federation of Teachers in New York City and -- since July -- president of the 1.4 million strong American Federation of Teachers, too. This reply is not an official union communiqué, merely a perk of being a New Politics editorial board member. I'm not even a UFT member or a former classroom teacher, but a union staff writer, though in a former life I was a college teacher and a delegate to two national AFT conventions, the second of which saw Shanker ascend to the presidency. I claim no right to challenge the authors' views on specific internal union matters, nor will I do so. But surely the point of view of habitual dissidents whose union caucus garnered just 7 percent of the vote in the last presidential election, and who remain a null factor in union politics is itself a telling critique. These were the wrong reviewers to take on Kahlenberg.
This isn't to dismiss a minority of one, or deny Gandhi's injunction that "In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place." I've been in that minority frequently enough, including as a former steelworker who despised a leadership that stood stock still as the mills closed. Being in the minority can be an honorable place to be. But it also can be a self-interested, self-justifying place. The least a minority can do is speak as if it deserves to be a majority and act as a shadow leadership, though prominent members of "out" caucuses are by nature no more the bearers of truth and virtue and no less self-interested than are caucus leaders who are also elected union officials..
No wonder the reviewers' critique of Shanker and his successors is so sweeping. They even blame Shanker for the Bush assault on education through the misnamed No Child Left Behind Act. Since Shanker died years before the coming of the NCLB, this is like blaming Edmund Burke for the massacre at Peterloo.
Long after Shanker's passing, NCLB was sold to Congress as something that would narrow the yawning achievement gap between white and minority students by making schools accountable. Many are not, and it's one reason that numerous civil rights groups today support reauthorizing the law, despite its dangers to public education. Among the law's many faults, it emphasizes testing as a one-stop means of assuring accountability, leaving students and teachers ill-served. Tests don't measure higher-order skills, and contemporary supporters of the 1983 report "A Nation at Risk," least of all Shanker, never saw testing as key to the report's recommendations.
Then the Bush administration's NCLB radically underfunded remedial programs. It also exaggerated what any schools could accomplish, unlike the group Bold Approach, which urges instead moving beyond just reforming schools to tackling social and economic disadvantages in the larger world, so that pre-schoolers entering school come prepared to learn.
No wonder both the teachers unions -- the AFT and the NEA -- concluded that NCLB was just a tool to bust unions, eliminate tenure, create more turnover and hire younger, inexperienced, lower-paid educators. Among the problems: NCLB was done on the cheap. Again, this was nothing Shanker predicted, advocated or accepted.
The truth is that Al Shanker was more a tragic figure than an evil one. A brilliant union organizer, his virulent anti- communism and his ties to the AFL-CIO's egregious George Meany put him on the wrong side of history. But to posit a 40-year record of class collaboration and teacher union defeats orchestrated by a ruthless personality -- as Pavone and Scott do -- is over the top. When the authors wonder "how Kahlenberg could square Shanker's reputation for militancy with support for a regime that has weakened teacher unionism, demeaned teachers, and undermined public education," I don't recognize the UFT here. I don't even recognize the United Auto Workers, which it can be fairly argued has done a poor job of defending members against concessions, plant closings and off-shoring of jobs.
Yes, another man or woman might have handled the Ocean Hill-Brownsville community control fight better, and the split between African-American community activists and what was then a predominantly white union was a wound that took decades to heal. But what sparked the battle wasn't Shanker's doing; it was the unilateral move of the experimental district's leadership to transfer teachers -- mostly union activists -- without due process. The bottom line for the union had to be defense of members' job security, especially given the "let's you and him fight" perspective of the Ford Foundation, a principal supporter of the experimental district.
Every union -- especially a public sector union -- should put a premium on forming and maintaining excellent relations with the surrounding communities. In fact the future of trade unions may lie not so much in organizing sectorally as geographically and class-wide -- as Bill Fletcher Jr. observes. But if a union betrays its own present members' palpable interests, it's lost its reason to exist.
The fact that within two years of the Ocean Hill-Brownsville debacle the UFT succeeded in winning representation rights for the workforce of largely African-American and Latino school paraprofessionals suggests the racial wounds were already healing. A racist union couldn't have sparked that organizing drive. Neither could a broken union.
And it is disingenuous to write, contra Kahlenberg's assertion that the union's critics were "a coalition of wealthy whites and angry blacks," that "one would be hard put to find people in the black community who feel they have or have ever had the support of wealthy whites." Have the authors never heard of united fronts from above? The Lindsay administration certainly did.
The authors are also factually wrong about Shanker being responsible for the givebacks during the city's fiscal crisis of the 1970s. It was Victor Gotbaum of AFSCME DC 37 and Barry Feinstein of IBT Local 237 who delivered municipal workers and their pensions into the arms of the bankers and the bond raters.
As to the union's not calling strikes in some 30 years: the strike isn't the point; it's the inevitability of a unified strike and its crippling effect on the employer that matters. It's strike preparation that matters. The best strike is one that doesn't get called. With half of all new teachers leaving the city schools in their first seven years, building a strike consciousness alone is Herculean. Should it be considered? Yes, in spite of New York State's Taylor Law, which heavily penalizes strikers and their unions, strikes must never be written off.
But organizing a successful strike action takes more than calling upon the creatures from "the vasty deep," like Shakespeare's Glendower, when the real question is "will they answer?" just as the city transit workers learned from their aborted 2005 job action when, as critics of that union's leadership say rightly, little strike preparation was done or outreach to the public planned.
Yes, strikes and strike preparation have even greater value than what is on the table during a labor dispute. They're a teachable moment of the best kind. Rosa Luxemburg's idea that "Those who do not move, do not notice their chains," is as true today as when the German revolutionary wrote it. But there are numerous ways to move and strategies and tactics for choosing when and how to move. Even the seemingly intractable Lenin knew about tactical retreats.
That's also why cars come with multiple gears.
UFT:
Defend ATR Seniority Rights To Jobs!
The
ATR/School Closing (ASC) committee of the Independent Community of
Educators (ICE*) consists of UFT members seeking justice and fairness
in regards to the ATR and school closing issues, which are negatively
affecting teachers, children and communities. Teachers, students and
communities should not be victimized when it is government that has
failed our schools. Our union must not sit on the sidelines in a
defensive posture. Or issue tepid responses of support for teachers.
Or surrender to a “fait accompli” attitude.
The
UFT must take the offensive in an aggressive manner by using all its
resources to reverse the decline of protections for teachers and
children that have been taking place in the era of Joel Klein and
Michael Bloomberg.
What
is to be done?
ATRs and RTRs,
the class of new teaching fellows threatened with losing their jobs
this past December if they didn’t find jobs, learned in recent
months that relying on UFT officials to carry the ball is not enough.
Through the Ad Hoc ATR committee, ATRs organized throughout the
school system with a petition campaign that reached into over 100
schools, presenting these signatures as part of a resolution calling
for a rally at Tweed. On the eve of the rally, the UFT responded with
a side agreement with the DOE that ostensibly provides some
protection for ATRs from being penalized for their higher salaries.
At the same time, the UFT went to court to stop the firing of RTRs
and won an injunction stopping the DOE. It should be pointed out that
in 2007, when there was no agitation, the UFT did nothing and
Teaching Fellows were fired in December. Thus, an important lesson
has been learned: Do not rely on the UFT officials to do the right
thing on their own. But they will respond when there’s
agitation from the members.
We
will have to monitor this agreement over the next year to gauge its
impact. In the meantime, with more new school closings announced, a
new class of ATRs will be thrown on the market to compete for jobs.
When you entered teaching did you ever think you would be in the
position of having to race around the city begging for a job,
especially if you have been teaching for years?
The UFT
response has been: we’ll teach you how to interview, how to
write a resume, how to put on makeup to make yourself more appealing.
We reject these “solutions.” The UFT is not exactly "on
the sidelines." Weingarten sits on the board of New
Visions and a UFT rep sits on the so-called core committee that signs
off on school reorganizations. The UFT uses the same language of the
DOE "reformers," referring to schools as "failing,"
while applauding yearly rises in test scores as a triumph.
It is clear
there will be no permanent resolution unless we reverse some of the
disastrous consequences of the 2005 and 2006 contracts, which
eviscerated so many seniority rights. The UFT/DOE touted open-market
hiring system has been a disaster for many teachers. But it goes
further than that. The closing of schools and its consequent movement
of teachers, the chaos of what is euphemistically called “parent
choice,” the creation of a dual school system of semi-private
charter schools, often existing within the same building, is
destroying the concept of a school community where teachers often
spend their careers getting to know generations of students and
parents. We think these communities are beneficial and their
destruction is a major loss for the children and parents as much as
for the teachers.
ICE
demands that the UFT:
Oppose
school closings. These created the ATR quagmire and scapegoat
educators unjustly. It is the City that has failed these “poorly
functioning” schools; not the teachers, parents or students.
We need contractually mandated smaller class sizes.
Restore
our contractual right to Seniority Transfer.
Protect
Tenure, Evaluation and Due Process procedures. Educators must
not be subjected to severance or firings due to students’ test
score results which are used to close schools and to create the
ATR’d educator.
Promote
a Hiring Freeze until all ATRs/RTRs get job placements.
Return to school budgets based on average
teacher salary applied to each school to prevent age/vet
discrimination.
There
will be no change unless you get involved and help build pressure for
change in the UFT. Help
organize. Join us.
Weds,
Feb. 4 - 5 PM @ The Skylight Diner on W 34th St, (9th Ave)
P.O. Box 1143
Jamaica, NY 11421 Tel. 718.601.4901
Email:
asc.ice.uft@gmail.com
http://www.ice-uft.org Blog: http://iceuftblog.blogspot.com
* The
Independent Community of Educators (ICE) came together in the fall of
2003 to address the inadequate response of the UFT leadership to the
deteriorating working conditions for teachers and learning conditions
for their students. We believe in democratic unionism based on an
active and involved rank and file. ICE is committed to help form a
movement for progressive change within the UFT and in the NYC school
system by forging alliances with other rank and file movements in
other unions and with parent and community groups that share our
vision.
Next
ICE Meeting: Fri, Jan. 16, ‘09 - 4:15PM @ Murray Bergtraum HS
(Pearl St. behind Police Plaza)