Union Dues Now Permanently Mandatory for Public Employees

NOTE: Read Sean Ahern comments below

By JEREMY W. PETERS

Published: July 24, 2008

ALBANY — As political rituals go, it was one of Albany’s most predictable.

Every two years, a state law that required public employees to pay their unions’ dues regardless of whether they joined would near expiration. And every two years, the Legislature would renew the law. For more than three decades, unions pushed to make it permanent. But lawmakers, mainly Republicans in the State Senate who wanted the Legislature to have some degree of leverage over the state’s powerful public sector unions, blocked those attempts, arguing that a permanent extension of the law would amount to a big giveaway to organized labor.

Now, Gov. David A. Paterson has given the state’s public-employee unions their long-desired victory. On Wednesday, his office announced that he had signed a law making union dues mandatory in perpetuity for all public employees who are covered by unions even if they opt not to join.

The law affects mostly state workers, as well as county employees, public school teachers and other civil servants.

The Legislature overwhelmingly approved the bill last month. Similar bills had passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly before, only to fail in the Senate. But with Republicans in a pitched battle to preserve their thin majority in the Senate, the party seemed unwilling to block a priority of organized labor.

It passed the Senate last month by a 62-to-0 vote. The Assembly approved it 140 to 5.

Labor leaders said on Wednesday that making the law permanent guaranteed that unions would have the money to adequately represent members and nonmembers alike, which they were required to do under a state law known as the Taylor Law.

“In public employment, they have the right not to belong, but I still must represent them,” said Richard C. Iannuzzi, president of New York State United Teachers. “If under the law we’re obligated to represent every employee, then it’s only fair that every employee pays something toward the cost of being represented.”

But critics of a permanent policy said that the new law was far too generous.

“It’s a very, very significant present to the labor unions,” said Edmund J. McMahon, director of the Empire Center for New York State Policy at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative-leaning research group.

“What it does is it removes one of the few remaining leverage points people still have over unions. And management, which is the taxpayer, has very, very little remaining leverage.”

A spokesman for the governor, Errol Cockfield, pointed out that because the law had been renewed every two years since 1977, the first year it was enacted, it has long been de facto state policy.

He added that in the governor’s estimation, it was a fair practice to make employees who declined union membership but were nonetheless represented pay dues.

Others said the law was a major concession to organized labor, which has been criticized as getting its way far too often in Albany. Earlier this year, the Legislature approved — over the objection of New York’s mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg — a bill that banned student test scores from being factored in when tenure was being considered for teachers.

The New York State School Boards Association, which urged Mr. Paterson to veto the union dues legislation, said in a letter to the governor that the bill amounted to “denying school districts an important bargaining tool.”

The association added, “This legislation grants employee unions one of their primary bargaining goals without requiring that they negotiate for it.”

Darcy Wells, a spokeswoman for the New York State Public Employees Federation, rejected that.

“Finally, the governor has stepped up and made it permanent,” Ms. Wells said.

“This has been a long time coming, and we think it’s the right thing to do.”

Sean Ahern Comments from ICE-mail:

Union Dues Mandatory in NY State

"Permanently Mandatory", except when NY public employees go on strike.

Last I heard, TWU Local 100 still has its dues check off revoked.

I'm not arguing against the law per se, its just that the law has served to buttress the shift in accountability of union leadership from the rank and file membership to the City and the courts. Lack of accountability didn't start with agency shop but it is definitely supported by it. So it's permanence affixed by law is a mixed blessing in my view and largely irrelevant to the urgent need for organizing the organized and the unorganized. It might even serve to promote greater complacency among the municipal union leadership. Quite the opposite of what NYC CLC President(?) Ed Ott has called for.

The UFT was first rewarded with agency shop in the 1969 contract, after its white supremacist role in the 1968 strike against community control. The agency shop provision assisted Shanker in his efforts to undermine the African American Teachers Association,which began first as a caucus within the UFT, but subsequently became an independent organization of Black teachers supported by voluntary membership dues. After the imposition of the agency shop, it was a burden to pay dues twice. Once as a mandatory payroll deduction to the the Shanker led UFT, and again to the organization of choice , the AATA, which included among its leaders, Al Vann and Jitu Weusi. Talk about taxation without representation! Exclusive bargaining agent designation combined with agency shop provisions is part of what keeps UFT Inc in business. It doesn't matter whether the members vote or participate or they don't, the 'tough liberals' still collect all your dues.

I think a more democratic structural change, apart from the obvious right to strike, would allow the individual member to designate a limited portion of their mandatory dues to a caucus within the exclusive bargaining agent thereby facilitating a more robust internal life within the union instead of the one caucus control of all patronage that now prevails.

With its existence no longer dependent on the dues stream from city hall, the leadership and membership of TWU Local 100, representing the city's quintessential proletarians, are going through the birth pangs of what will hopefully be a new model, for working class solidarity and unionism. Even if they fall prey to external pressure or intercine conflict in the attempt, an effort is being made, contentious as it is.

The dues stream, the real estate holdings, the insurance plans, the retirement system of the UFT, the city's largest union local, is a web of interests defining the "bottom line" to be protected by the leadership. Our union assumes a corporate identity, another self serving 'special interest', a collection of trade union bureaucrats and hangers on, instead of a mass organization for the advancement of mutually agreed upon goals.

Our union today is an institution that can not simply be changed by voting in new leadership. A change in leadership, a strike and subsequent detachment from the dues stream is not a sufficient guarantee that a union leadership will be accountable to the membership. The change needed is a paradigm shift in outlook, expectations, and methods of operation from a service business model that defends white racial privileges to a schools based detachment of the working people in solidarity with the communities of color we serve.

Solidarity, for starters, begins at home. I hope you all will join in an effort to place the issue of the Disappearing Black and Latina/o educator on the UFT agenda as well as in our school communities this fall. (for more info on the Disappearing... go to Sam Anderson's blog at : http://blackeducator.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=18http://blackeducator.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=18


Peace and Solidarity,

Sean

School Leadership Teams

From Leonie Haimson:

The UFT just submitted a brief to the State, in support of our complaint to the Commissioner about the illegitimate way that Klein unlawfully stripped powers from School Leadership teams granted them by state law.

It shows not only how the Chancellor’s revision of the regs related to the rights and responsibilities of SLTs was illegal in terms of its result, but how the process itself was illegitimate – both points that we made in our original complaint.

Amina Rachman, asst. to Randi, has also submitted an affidavit of support, stating that the parent engagement task force that Martine Guerrier ran and referred to in her submission as having helped develop these regs did nothing of the kind, and was not established according to the process required in state law.

I will soon post the UFT brief and Amina’s affidavit on the blog; if anyone would like to read it, let me know.

The following is a short excerpt from the intro, that describes the original state law that created school based management, as well as the “Green Book” that Chancellor Crew developed to guide SLTs in their duties.

Both exemplified a very different vision of school governance than embodied in this administration, with their “top-down” approach – a very different model for school reform that is sadly lacking, on every level, in the current regime.

This Week's Education Gadfly: Diane and Randi vs. Checker

Forum

• Diane Ravitch: In which I differ with a friend
• Checker responds to Diane
• Randi Weingarten responds to Checker
• Checker responds to Randi

Forum

Diane Ravitch: In which I differ with a friend

My longtime friend Checker Finn wrote a critique of Randi Weingarten's inaugural speech as President of the American Federation of Teachers. Checker chastised her for endorsing the idea that schools should help the neediest kids by offering health services and social services in addition to their customary academic fare. Checker notes, rightly, that Randi's vision echoes the manifesto of the "Broader, Bolder Approach."

Checker warns that this means that Weingarten and people like me are "abandoning hope for schools that significantly boost student achievement" just at the time that more states are reporting "stronger test scores" in reading and math. He labels ours a call for "schools that do everything but teach."

I couldn't disagree more. I care as much about academic achievement as Checker or anyone else in the world, but I don't see any contradiction between caring about academic achievement and caring about children's health and well-being. Will it help or harm children's academic achievement--most especially children who are living in poverty--if they have access to good pre-K programs? Will it help or harm children's academic achievement--most especially the neediest children--if they have access to good medical care, with dental treatment, vision screening, and the like? Will it help or harm children's academic achievement--the children whose lives are blighted by the burdens of poverty--to have access to high-quality after-school programs?

Checker argues that the "'broader, bolder' crowd" (me, Weingarten, Tom Payzant, Richard Rothstein, Marshall Smith, etc.) are making an awful mistake because schools can do only one thing at a time--and they must focus on academics first. To the extent that they worry about character, social development, and physical health, he says, they lose that focus and abandon their pursuit of academic achievement. Hmm. Checker, wasn't it Secretary of Education Bill Bennett who said that "character, content, and choice" should be the three C's of American education? Was he wrong then? Should he have stuck with the three R's instead?

Surprisingly, Checker points to gains on state tests as proof that the strategy of standards & assessments & accountability is working. Surprising because it is Checker's organization, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute (I sit on its board), that published The Proficiency Illusion, which showed how phony many of the states' definitions of "proficiency" actually are, as compared to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Last fall, for example, NAEP reported that New York State had made no gains in fourth-grade reading, eighth-grade reading, or eighth-grade math, yet half a year later, New York reported that its own tests showed yet another round of dramatic gains in reading and math in almost every grade. Which shall we believe? NAEP or the states' self-reporting, the numbers from which soar toward 100 percent proficiency by 2014?

To make matters even more confusing to this reader, Checker notes that even as test scores are rising (even as we neglect poor children's health and well-being), "America's standing on international comparisons continues to sag and employers despair over their inability to find adequately skilled and knowledgeable workers for our faltering economy." It would take lots of time to unpack this illogical finding. If test scores are steadily rising, why do our standings in international comparisons continue to sag? If the schools are getting better and better just because of their testing regime, why are employers despairing?

Here is a clue: On July 20th, the Dallas Morning News reported that students in Texas are sailing through the high school language arts tests but can't write a coherent answer to a short-response question. Years of testing have prepared them to fill in the right bubble, but they cannot write a sensible sentence.

Checker, I ask you: Is this the kind of "academic achievement" that you find satisfactory? Is this what American employers are hoping for? Is this the performance that will raise our standing in the international league tables? I don't think so.

So, I explain my dissent briefly: One, what we are doing now--the standards & assessments & accountability strategy alone--bears little or no resemblance to genuine academic excellence. And two, children who come to school hungry and ill cannot learn no matter how often they are tested. And three, a good education must include attention not only to academics but to children's character, civic development, physical education, and physical health.

by Diane Ravitch

Comment

Back to top

Checker responds to Diane

It's never easy to disagree with Diane--not only is she a friend and colleague of long-standing, as well as a Fordham trustee, but also she's so often right about education. I've found over the years that when she and I work at a difference of opinion for a while, we usually discover that the domain of true disagreement is small. I believe that's the case here, but I'm pretty sure that's not true with regard to Randi Weingarten and many of the other "Broader, Bolder" signatories.

I'm convinced that many of them really are trying to change the subject, diverting attention away from U.S. schools' mostly-woeful academic performance while letting schools and educators off the hook for academic results by adopting the well-worn Rothstein story line about how we mustn't really expect kids to learn more until this or that other social problem is solved. Diane sincerely believes, as she says plainly here, that schools can and must work harder and more fruitfully on academics while also addressing some of poor kids' other needs. I agree. To me, however, it's akin to the arguments set forth by the Education Equality Project--the other recent manifesto that came out around the same time as the Broader, Bolder one.

Those folks, too, are concerned above all with poor and minority kids but contend that those kids are being ill-served by far too many schools today and that properly reformed schools alone can make an enormous contribution to their future lives and fortunes. (I was somewhat surprised not to see Diane on that list--but then, again, it was co-led by the lamentable Al Sharpton.) Let me also admit that she astutely picked up on the most confusing element of my initial commentary, my citing recent gains on state tests as encouraging even while lamenting America's sagging performance on international assessments. Though it shouldn't be possible to have this both ways, regrettably it is, because state tests, "cut scores," and proficiency definitions are so elastic. Find Fordham's pathbreaking study of this problem here.

by Chester E. Finn, Jr.

Comment

Back to top

Randi Weingarten responds to Checker (and Mike)

Mike Petrilli is spot-on in this sense: Clearly, a good education is much more than test scores. He's right about the importance of extracurricular activities in providing that education--and I hope he'll agree that we should find ways to make sure kids in our highest-poverty schools have access to those kinds of activities. But as a former social studies teacher who taught my students civics and debate, I know that the skills to which Mike refers also can and should be learned in the classroom--not just after 3 p.m.--while students are debating the causes of the Civil War, drawing conclusions from science experiments, and planning group art projects. I'm stating the obvious when I say that No Child Left Behind's testing regime has left little time for these kinds of in-class activities.

As for Checker's suggestion that my proposal leads to "schools that do everything but teach," let me say this is not an either-or approach. Relying on testing and sanctions, NCLB's message to teachers and schools has been: It's all you. In other words, if teachers would just work harder and care more, all our students would succeed. Teachers, by themselves, even without additional support from families or the community, can help kids immensely, especially if they can work one-on-one with students, are well-trained, and have access to excellent curriculum materials. But teachers alone can't get kids all the way to proficiency, when disadvantaged children typically enter school already three years and 30 million words behind.

In my inaugural speech as president of the American Federation of Teachers, I called for a bolder view of what schools should do, and said that while high standards and accountability must be a centerpiece, NCLB's approach does not work.

But if you read my speech closely, as Checker urges, my message was twofold: first, let's put in place a federal education program that, unlike NCLB, provides space and opportunity for children to be taught a rich, well-rounded curriculum, with standards and accountability that support rather than undermine that curriculum; and second, let's--at the same time--try to address the outside factors like nutrition and healthcare that affect a child's ability to reach her full educational potential. And yes, I said that we also should try to help parents so they can better support their children's learning.

The AFT's goal is to ensure that children are learning to their potential, and that teachers are teaching effectively. To suggest otherwise means you don't understand what drives teachers--or their union, for that matter. Look at a union-run charter school (the UFT Elementary Charter School) in New York City: 81 percent of this year's third-grade students met or exceeded state standards on the state English Language Arts test, and 98 percent of third-grade students met or exceeded standards in mathematics.

We know that without a rich, rigorous education, so many of the kids we teach will be lost in our 21st-century economy. And no one wants to go back to the pre-1990s education world, in which standards were lax or nonexistent.

The AFT hopes to put forward a third way, one that learns from the best of the standards movement and other school improvement efforts, and draws on the collective wisdom of the more than 1.4 million people we proudly represent. Stay tuned.

by Randi Weingarten

Comment

Back to top

Checker responds to Randi

Because I'm mostly home playing grandpa to a four-year-old this week (and doing my small part to assure that at least one small child is ready to succeed in school and beyond), this must be very brief. To my eye, Randi's explanation is clearer and better balanced than her speech was, maybe because it lacks some of the crowd-pleasing anti-NCLB rhetoric. I'm sorry not to see her even acknowledge that NCLB, for all its flaws, has done at least one good thing for American K-12 schools, which is to focus attention as never before on their academic performance and to shine unprecedented beams of sunlight on that performance. Ending NCLB's focus on standards and assessments would, I fear, place the performance of many U.S. schools back in the cave-like darkness that previously enveloped it. My one other comment to Randi is that the praiseworthy academic performance of the AFT-run charter school in New York that she rightly boasts about seems to have occurred without any new multi-zillion-dollar federal cradle-to-grave social services program--and with all the pressures (for both good and ill) that come with NCLB in its present form.

by Chester E. Finn, Jr.

Dumbing Down Tests Raise Grad Rates in NY

Dear Commissioner,

The NY Daily News article by Marc Epstein ( see forward) on July 23rd, hit the nail on the head concerning the NY State Regents Exams.

As a NYC High School Social Studies teacher, I can tell you there is consensus among my colleagues that the NYS Regents has been skewed through the scoring rubric to increase the passing percentage of students.This has resulted in the exam becoming a sham as a measurement of what students have learned in these subjects. This has been the case for the last five or more years.

I have noticed students passing the USHG Regents who hardly or never came to class. To make matters worse, the administration then asks teachers to reverse failing grades for these students.

In addition, I agree with Mr. Epstein's statement concerning the Document Based Essay that "students need no prior knowledge of American History to answer the questions successfully".

It has also been noticed that the Science, Math and English Regents have skewed scoring rubrics and that standards in content have decreased.

The standards of the Regents Exams must be increased in content and scoring rubric in order to regain respect for it as a measurement of student learning.

Sincerely,
James Calantjis
718 458-4237
calantjis@aol.com


Ignorance is bliss on the state Regents history exam

BY MARC EPSTEIN

Daily News Op-Ed

July 23, 2008



A year ago, I wrote about the dumbing down of New York State's Regents exams, the five tests in core subjects that students must pass to get a regular high school diploma. Since then, little has changed - unless it's that the exams have become even dumber. Look no further than this year's United States history and government exam for 11th-graders, which was administered last month.



The test has three parts and a total of 75 points weighted and calculated to total 100%, in a Byzantine formula established in Albany. Fifty multiple-choice questions, along with 15 document-based questions, account for 65 of those points. The student's raw score is then plotted on a conversion chart provided by the state in combination with the student's score on two essays, which account for the total score's remaining 10 points.



If a student receives as few as 36 points out of 65 in the first two parts of the exam, he can still pass - by earning five out of the 10 essay points. If he scores 50 points in the first two parts, he doesn't even have to answer an essay question to pass - because his overall grade is already a 65, the minimum passing grade.



If you're confused by this elaborate scoring system, you're not alone. The key point is that students who get fewer than half of the questions correct can pass. And this leniency applies to other Regents tests as well. Students taking the algebra exam, for instance, need only earn a "raw score" of 30 - out of a possible 87 points - to pass.



Some might argue that the rigor of the examinations justifies this system of weighting scores. That's laughable. Consider some of the questions on the history exam. The multiple-choice section features a political cartoon in which a Supreme Court justice points to a chart showing pictures of the three branches of government. The cartoon reads "U.S. Constitution" at the top and "checks and balances" at the bottom. The test question asks: "Which constitutional principle is the focus of the cartoon?" This is all too typical of the half-dozen graphs, maps and cartoon questions in this section of the test.



The document-based questions, which account for 15 points, are also instrumental to the essay section; information garnered from them is then incorporated into one of the essay questions. Students need no prior knowledge of American history to answer the questions successfully.



For example, a picture of students outside Little Rock Central High School, where troops guard the schoolhouse doors, bears the caption: "A white student passes through an Arkansas National Guard line as Elizabeth Eckford is turned away on September 4, 1957." A second photo of Elizabeth Eckford, a black student, reads, "A mob surrounds Elizabeth Eckford outside Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas." The question asks the student to describe what happened to Eckford when she tried to attend Central High School!



Another photo depicts the eventual resolution of the Little Rock standoff, when the military enforced desegregation rulings at President Dwight Eisenhower's command. The caption reads: "On September 25, 1957, federal troops escort the Little Rock Nine to their classes at Central High School." The student is asked, "Based on this photograph, what was the job of the United States Army troops in Little Rock, Arkansas?"



This is more a test in reading comprehension - and a low-level one at that - than in history.



However, the Regents exam does perform a useful, albeit cynical, function: deceiving those who wish to be deceived. Education reform advocates seize every opportunity to celebrate higher standards and tout improved teacher and student performance on tests like these. But in the end, there is only one difficult question that the Regents exam seems to pose: What does a student have to do to fail?



Epstein, who teaches history at Jamaica High School in Queens, has been grading Regents exams for 13 years. A longer version of this essay will be posted at www.city-journal.org.

New Yorkers loom large on new education task force

Klein joins a national group called “Strategic Management of Human Capital Task Force”, focused on “teacher quality” – co-chaired by “Take no prisoners” Michelle Rhee: “The task force’s mission is to encourage state and local efforts to elevate the importance of talent management in public schools in kindergarten through the 12th grade.”

Other members include Sir Michael Barber, former consultant for DOE, and LaVerne E. Srinivasan, formerly Klein’s deputy and now head of New Leaders for new Schools.

The task force is funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Gates Foundation, and it will conduct “case studies to document the impact of SMHC reforms in six places: 1) New York City; 2) Chicago; 3) Boston; 4) Long Beach, CA; 5) Fairfax County, VA; and 6) the state of Minnesota’s “Q-Comp” program. Additional case studies are being conducted of Teach for America, the New Teacher Project, and New Leaders for New Schools.”

I’m sure these case studies will be highly objective, given the presence of many of the leaders of these organizations on the board.

In any event, the task force’s website is already operating much like a personal PR firm for Rhee and her initiatives. See this, posted by the co-directors, from the home page:

http://www.smhc-cpre.org/

DC test scores are up

Posted on July 14th, 2008 by jkelly

Image via Wikipedia

Student test score’s just in for students in Washington, D.C. showed large gains across the board, providing empirical short-term support for the efficacy of the reforms the SMHC Co-Chair, Chancellor Michelle Rhee, has begun to implement in that district. Several principals attributed the results to initiatives the Chancellor suggested. Though there is more to do, these first year results show that an intense focus on increasing student performance can have significant positive results.

Allan [Odden] and Jim [Kelly]

The SMHCTF website conveniently does not link to another Wash. Post article, citing earlier statements from Rhee “she did not think test scores would receive a bump from her initiatives for a few years.”

Amazing how efficient these guy like Klein and Rhee are at raising test scores even before they’ve put their reforms into place.

(For more about how Klein takes credit for the bump in 2002-3 test scores, though his reforms were announced for the first time in January 2003 at the same time that students were taking the tests – and not put in place until the following year, see the debate between Chris Cerf and Sol Stern here: http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/07/from-chris-cerf.html

See also Eduwonkette on what Klein’s more muted attitude was at the time:; http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/2008/07/cerfing_the_web_1.html)

Rhee has obviously learned from Klein’s mistakes and will take as much credit as soon as possible.

No mention in any of these articles how the 2007 NAEP results also showed DC schools had made some of the largest gains since 2003 – and far larger than NYC, where NAEP scores have been largely flat, though by the time the results were announced, Mayoral control had already been established in DC, Superintendent of DC schools Janey let go and Michelle Rhee hired – in an attempt to emulate the great successes of the Bloomberg/Klein administration.

See our earlier posting, http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2007/11/who-really-deserved-to-win-broad-prize.html

Whether or not these guys know how to run school systems is still in grave doubt; but clearly they have gotten very good at creating a massive PR infrastructure around them, including this new “task force”, funded in large part by their supporters and dedicated to generating stories and reports about their supposed achievements.

Article about task force below, from Crain’s Weekly.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080721/FREE/285837058

New Yorkers loom large on new education task force

Group, which includes Schools Chancellor Klein, to focus on improving teacher quality.

July 21. 2008 2:35PM Samantha Marshall

A national task force heavily populated by veteran New York education reformers meets for the first time in Washington, D.C. this week to discuss ways to improve the quality of teachers in public schools. The Strategic Management of Human Capital Task Force, which numbers among its members New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, also announced today the addition of Josh Reibel, president of Brooklyn-based Wireless Generation, an online student assessment and class planning system.

The task force’s mission is to encourage state and local efforts to elevate the importance of talent management in public schools in kindergarten through the 12th grade. Particular emphasis will be placed on sourcing professional teaching staff, developing their skills, and retaining them once they have been trained. The nonprofit organization will also determine what additional support teachers need in classrooms across the country.

“We must put great people in classrooms and give them the high quality tools and support they need to be successful and committed to schools for the long term,” said Mr. Reibel, whose programs are currently used by about 150,000 teachers in the U.S. and overseas.

Mr. Reibel, who began his career as a high school teacher, has also held positions at commercial and non-profit education organizations, including SCORE! Learning and the Institute for Learning Technologies at Teachers College, Columbia University.

Another New Yorker on the newly-formed task force is Timothy Daly, president of Park Avenue-headquartered The New Teacher Project, a national nonprofit dedicated to improving teacher quality. It has helped train or hire about 28,000 teachers in 27 states.

Teachers Unite - July Newsletter

July 2008 Teachers Unite Newsletter In This Issue Cool Professional Development Join Teachers Unite A Youth-led View of Schools Foundation Supporters · Ben & Jerry's Foundation · North Star Fund · Yip Harburg Foundation · Rose & Sherle Wagner Foundation Partners Teachers Unite members receive special offers from our partners... IndyKids Panade Bakery A teacher-owned and operated bakery! Punk Rope Rethinking Schools P.D. You'll Love Are you a teacher looking to: · grow as an educational leader? · play a role in grassroots campaigns for social justice where you work? · participate in community-based Professional Development? Teachers Unite will be hosting an open informational meeting August 25th (please check back with Teachers Unite for details) where educators can learn more about our growing work with grassroots activists throughout the city. Teachers Unite is building a movement of public school teachers who play a critical role in working for social justice. Our members contribute their insight and expertise as educators to grassroots organizing campaigns that demand justice in New York City communities, particularly in schools. Teachers Unite seeks to defend public education by rebuilding the relationship between teachers, students, families and communities as partners building power for social change. Some examples of how teachers can contribute to community organizations: · lead a workshop about innovative pedagogy and educational issues · give an educator's perspective on life within a NYC public school · provide training around lesson- or workshop-planning, tutoring or other instruction · conduct outreach to neighborhood colleagues about a community issue Just some of Teachers Unite's ally organizations: FUREE ICOPE Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition VAMOS Unidos Please contact sally@teachersunite.net for more information. Build Our Power: Join as a member! * Define your role as a teacher - Be a part of the movement of educators working in solidarity with the communities they serve. * Build strength in numbers - Becoming a member is the most basic way to build and sustain power for our organization. * Support our work - Invest in a teacher organization committed to social justice. Your dues are a vital contribution! * Receive excellent benefits - Discounts and promotions from our partners: Rethinking Schools, Panade Bakery, Punk Rope, IndyKids and more! Teachers Unite membership dues are $50 for a WHOLE YEAR (that's approximately what NYC teachers pay in dues to their union per paycheck). We do not yet have online donation capability. Please send your check payable to Teachers Unite. Mailing address: Teachers Unite, c/o Brecht Forum, 451 West St., New York, NY 10014 What else besides mayoral control? For years Teachers Unite's ally organizaiton ICOPE (Independent Commission on Public Education) has been working to engage the city in a conversation about what schools could and should look like. Their Education is a Human Right Campaign has two main purposes: 1. To show that a more just, democratic, and effective education system is possible; 2. To encourage a citywide dialogue, so that all stakeholders can knowledgeably share their views before a legislative decision is made in Albany about the sun-setting of the current governance law, which gave the mayor total control of the system. The campaign insits that this decision, which affects the education of 1.1 million students, can be made only after open, public dialogue. ICOPE proudly presents the Y.R.N.E.S. (Youth Researchers for a New Education System) report. "We have done this research to contribute to a crucial conversation at a crucial time: the future of Mayoral control and school organization and leadership in NYC. We have written this report to widen the perspectives on this debate to include youth voices and concerns." Check out this impressive piece of participatory action research conducted by NYC youth! Teachers Unite is building a movement of public school teachers who play a critical role in working for social justice. Our members contribute their insight and expertise as educators to grassroots organizing campaigns that demand justice in New York City communities, particularly in schools. Teachers Unite seeks to defend public education by rebuilding the relationship between teachers, students, families and communities as partners building power for social change.

An Apparent Heir to Weingarten Emerges at N.Y. Teachers Union

ELIZABETH GREEN, Staff Reporter of the Sun | July 18, 2008

Having been elected president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten is saying she has no current plans to leave her other job as president of the AFT's New York City local, the United Federation of Teachers. But she is indicating who her preferred New York City successor is: a former high school English teacher known as a fighter and an independent thinker, Michael Mulgrew.

Ms. Weingarten named Mr. Mulgrew the union's new chief operating officer in a memo sent to union officers yesterday evening. The promotion makes him the no. 2 person at the United Federation of Teachers, which calls itself America's largest union local, and puts Mr. Mulgrew in a strong, though not guaranteed, position to become the union's fourth president when Ms. Weingarten decides she is ready to leave.

Ms. Weingarten has been UFT president for 10 years. She was elected president of the American Federation of Teachers on Monday at the union's annual convention in Chicago.

UFT presidents also must be voted in, but both previous presidents were handpicked by their predecessors and groomed for the roles before standing for election. Traditionally, holders of the job have been powerful in shaping both the city's education policy and its broader politics.

Asked how long she will remain president of the New York City union, Ms. Weingarten said her main concern is making sure the UFT remains strong.

Whether Mr. Mulgrew proves he can do that is an open question and his main challenge.

In an interview with The New York Sun earlier this year about who would succeed her, Ms. Weingarten said, "Anybody who thinks that they can just walk into New York City and become the next Randi Weingarten is smoking something."

Several people at the union who were long considered likely successors to Ms. Weingarten have ended up falling out of the running.

Yet now Mr. Mulgrew's star appears to be rising — and the timing of his rise, just as Ms. Weingarten is taking on a national role, could make him the last man standing.

At the same convention where Ms. Weingarten was elected president, Mr. Mulgrew became for the first time a vice president of the national American Federation of Teachers; the same thing happened to Ms. Weingarten when her predecessor, Sandra Feldman, was elected AFT president.

In an interview with The New York Sun, Ms. Weingarten said she is modeling her steps on Ms. Feldman's transition plan.

Mr. Mulgrew is known in the union as a "fighter" who stands out for being bold enough to stand up to Ms. Weingarten when he disagrees with her.

A Staten Island resident, Mr. Mulgrew began his career in construction, where he belonged to the carpenters union. He became a teacher in 1990, starting as a substitute.

By 2005 — after more than a decade teaching English at a career and technical education high school on Coney Island, William Grady — he was being elected vice president of the union.

In recent months Mr. Mulgrew's profile has risen inside and outside of the union. He led the union's efforts to fight threatened school budget cuts, standing in for Ms. Weingarten at press events, traveling to Albany with her, and being introduced to the union's allies and partners.

Among his new contacts is Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott, who yesterday praised him as a "forceful" advocate, saying the two have a "great relationship."

Following in Ms. Weingarten's footsteps, Mr. Mulgrew seems already to have won the disdain of the union's internal opposition caucus, the Independent Community of Educators, or ICE.

An ICE leader, Jeffrey Kaufman, said Mr. Mulgrew allowed the department to get its way in its overhaul of special education schools. Ms. Weingarten's memo cited Mr. Mulgrew's work in that effort as a reason she promoted him, saying he forced the department to protect teachers' rights.

Others at the UFT praised Mr. Mulgrew. "I think he's extraordinarily talented and the right person," a union vice president, Leo Casey, said.

Mr. Mulgrew declined several requests for comment.

Michelle Rhee on Charlie Rose Transcript

Michelle Rhee -- she is the aforementioned educator, chancellor here in Washington, DC and test scores are up here because of some very innovative ideas that she has put into play. Back in a moment. Stay with us.

We go from politics to education in our continuing series on education in

America. The public school system in Washington, DC is our focus. It is

reportedly one of the worst in the nation, a graduation rate of only 43

percent. And it`s public schools repeatedly fall near the bottom on national

test. Yet, the District spends 50 percent more money per pupil than the

national average. In e, 2007, DC Mayor Adrian Fenty took over the schools.

He then dissolved the board of education.



Joining me now is the woman he turned to for help and change, Michelle Rhee.

During her first year in office, she`s already closed 23 schools and fired

34 principals. She`s negotiating with Teacher Union leaders to raise

teacher`s pay in exchange for the loss of tenure and hirer accountability.

This is a controversial issue. Randi Weingarten has talked about it on this

program. She`s the former head of the union in New York City and now the

newly head of the AFT.



We talked about tenure. We talked about charter school and a lot of other

issues with her. And here is part of that conversation.



(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)



RANDI WEINGARTEN, AFT: Where the mayor is really wrong, and virtually every

educator would say that to him, is that standardized tests were never

intended as a measure of good teachers, good teaching or how teachers teach.

And every expert in the country, including the mayor`s own experts, will

tell you this. Why is it in the United States of America that one of the

only industries that have such union density is teachers? The reason that

teachers still have such union density, are so well organized, is because

they are powerless. Everything is thrown at them. And ultimately what they

do is they ask for unionization.



ROSE: Why are they tolerating it.



WEINGARTEN: Because what happens is that we have the fad of the month. We

have the reform of the year. What happens is all they want to do is they

want to teach kids.



(END VIDEO CLIP)



ROSE: I am pleased now to talk about education from a different perspective

with Michelle Rhee.



RHEE: Thank you.



ROSE: You`ve got new personality. You`ve closed some schools. You`ve brought

some new people in. What`s happening to raise the scores?



RHEE: I think a lot of things. I think the bottom line is that we have begun

to shift the culture and that people understand that it`s no longer business

as usual and that this is going to be a cultural accountability. One of the

first things and probably the most dramatic things, in a lot of ways, that

we did was we introduced legislation to the City Council that asked for

permission to turn all of the central office school district employees into

at will employees. And after sort of a battle, we did that, and the City

Council approved that legislation. And that was one of the sort of key

parts, I think, to this, you know, sea change that`s begun to occur in the

District around people understanding that they`re going to be accountable

for the work that they`re doing and they`re going to be accountable for

producing results.



ROSE: What happens in the classroom that makes a difference? What is it that

a teacher has to do?



RHEE: A teacher, number one, has to be extraordinarily clear with the

students about what the expectations are. Those expectations need to be very

high, because the kids know when you don`t have high expectations of them.

And they will rise or fall to the level of expectations that the adults have

of them. And then they need to be just absolutely relentless in their

pursuit of those expectations and of those goals. They have to hold the kids

accountable. They have to hold themselves accountable. And they have to make

sure that all these things that could serve as excuses are challenges that

need to be understood and they need to be recognized, but they won`t stand

in the way of, you know, these kids achieving at the highest level.



ROSE: You have aid one time about your own teaching and your own experience

that it wasn`t so much that you were the world`s greatest teacher or even

that you had the world`s most brilliant ideas.



RHEE: That`s right.



ROSE: It`s just sweat and sweat and sweat, in there every day, every moment,

making the kids know this is about you, not your parents, not some

administrator, not some politician, but you.



RHEE: That`s right. One of the things that I did with the kids, I -- one day

I brought in a list that was published in the "Baltimore Sun" of all of the

schools in the District and how they ranked on the test scores. Ours was at

the bottom. I asked the kids, so what do you think people think about us

when they see that, you know, our school`s at the bottom of this list. The

kids said, people think we`re dumb. And I said that`s right. Are we dumb?

And they would say no. I said, that`s right, we got to show people what we

can do and I got them all riled up.



Kids understood that. They wanted to actually know where they stood in

relation to other kids. They wanted to be inspired in that way. They knew

they could do more. And so people thought I was crazy to have those kinds of

conversations with eight year olds. But I thought it was exactly the kind of

inspiration that they needed, because they knew that they could achieve at

much higher levels.



ROSE: Are you saying to me that if, in fact, America goes out and finds the

best teachers, the very best teachers, and put them in the classrooms,

teachers who know how to inspire and encourage, that we could change public

education in America?



RHEE: There`s no doubt in my mind about that.



ROSE: That`s it.



RHEE: There`s no doubt in my mind about that, absolutely.



ROSE: Then why aren`t we doing that?



RHEE: That`s a great question. That`s what I spent the last 15 years of my

life fighting for, because everything, all the research, all of the data,

everything shows that when you have a great teacher, all of those barriers

can be overcome. And they literally are sort of, you know, put on the side

line if you have a wonderful teacher. And it can make up for any achievement

gap. Wonderful things, if you have the right educators. That`s where our

focus has to be 100 percent.



ROSE: Why aren`t we getting it?



RHEE: Look first at how teachers are sort of treated now. When I came into

the school system, you know, I met a lot of educators who I think are

absolutely heroic who are currently teaching in DC public schools. They were

treated incredibly poorly. They couldn`t get their pay checks on time. They

couldn`t get their spouses on the benefit plan, that sort of thing. So they

weren`t given the support that they needed to be successful.



I have -- I have a quick story. I got an e-mail at 1:00 in the morning one

from a student in DC and he sent me this email and said basically, if you

really want to know what`s wrong with our schools, you should come and talk

to the kids, because I`m afraid that by talking to the adults you might not

be getting the real story.



ROSE: How old was this kid?



RHEE: A high school student. So I set this appointment up. I went to go talk

to him and a group of students and I walk in the room. They were all sitting

around the room. They pull out this three page, typed, single spaced agenda

of the things they wanted to go over with me, very prepared. The first thing

on their list was they said, we have on average 15 teachers absent a day

from this school. If the teachers aren`t here to teach, how do you expect us

to learn? I did not have good answer to that question.



They spent an hour just drilling me on all these things in school that were

going wrong. I thought, I`m not going to be able to solve all these problems

in the time frame that these kids have, because most of them were seniors.

Before I left, I said if there was only one thing that you could choose that

you believe would most radically improve what`s going on in this school and

your education, what would that be? And they said, bring us more great

teachers. All the other great stuff on this list doesn`t matter if we have

great teachers.



Then they said, bring us more great teachers like Mr. Wallace. So they start

to tell me about Mr. Wallace. They said, Mr. Wallace is the best. He sets up

camp at the McDonald`s down the street after school. If you`re hungry, he

buys you a hamburger, but he makes you stay. He tutors you in pre-calculus

until you understand all the homework, you can pass the test. We know that

guy cares about us. If you bring us more teachers like Mr. Wallace, we`re

going to be good.



So after I had this conversation with them, I go trekking through the school

and looking for Mr. Wallace. I finally find his room. I walk in and the kid

looks like he`s aged seven years in 18 months. He`s a Teach for America Corp

member. I walk in and he`s a mess. He`s got chalk dust in his hair and pit

stains on his shirt. I say Mr. Wallace, the kids love you. He`s like, I

know.



He`s at the end of his second year commitment. I said are you going to say

next year. He says I don`t know. I said why. I know the guy`s spending half

of his 40,000 dollar salary on hamburgers every night at McDonald`s, but

why? And he says to me -- he`s like, first of all, I spend all my free

periods covering for other teachers who aren`t here. I don`t have any time

to plan. I don`t know anything about teaching Spanish or teaching English,

but I know the kids are going to get more out of it if I`m in front of them

than if we stick the next video in.



And then he says, people here, they don`t like me that much. They`re always

saying to me, Wallace don`t come in so early, don`t stay late.



ROSE: You make us look bad.



RHEE: Yes, you make us look bad. It`s not part of the contract. So I`m

thinking to myself, this is the exact kind of teacher that we both want and

need in this system. And we haven`t created an environment where this guy

feels like he can be successful. That`s the biggest crime I think that we`re

doing by not setting people up for success.



ROSE: Can you fire teachers?



RHEE: Currently, it is --



ROSE: The current contract you`re negotiating --



RHEE: The contract that`s in existence right now.



ROSE: You can`t fire teachers.



RHEE: You can. It`s very difficult.



ROSE: Can you fire them because they`re bad teachers, inadequate teachers,

their kids don`t do well, their kids don`t like them?



RHEE: There`s a process that you can go through where you have to show a

tremendous amount of documentation to show that a teacher is incompetent or

ineffective.



ROSE: Suppose you have a teacher that`s doing a fantastic job like Mr.

Wallace. Can you double his salary?



RHEE: Absolutely not, no way.



ROSE: Your a principal, your superintendent, your chancellor can`t say we

want to pay Mr. Wallace a lot more money.



RHEE: No. I can barely bring in the principals that I need because our

salaries for principals are so much lower than the surrounding jurisdiction.

I`m trying to poach right now. I`m trying to poach the best principals from

all over the region. They`re actually inspired to come. My biggest inhibitor

right now is I can`t pay them anywhere near what they`re making right now in

the counties.



ROSE: Because you don`t have the money or because --



RHEE: No, because there are rules and regulations that govern how much I am

allowed to pay folks.



ROSE: This is part of the union contract?



RHEE: Yes. There are a whole lot of rules. There are municipal rules. There

are contract rules. But I am absolutely prohibited from going above a

certain amount in terms of compensation.



ROSE: Question of the teacher `s union; Randy Weingarten on this program

said many things, and I think she would say a lot of thing you`re in favor,

she`s in favor. Do you think that`s true?



RHEE: I think that she probably says, yes, that she`s in favor of a lot of

the things I`m in favor of.



ROSE: She says we like charter schools. She says we believe in merit pay.

She says --



RHEE: I believe that one of the things that we have to be cognizant of is

believing in charter schools does not mean you start a charter school or two

charter schools. If you truly believe in charter schools, then you believe

in an open market system where charter schools can flourish. If she really

believed in charter schools, is she advocating for a lift of the cap of

charter schools? I don`t think so.



ROSE: Do you believe that teachers` salaries ought to be based in part on

how their kids do on standard tests?



RHEE: Absolutely.



ROSE: You believe that?



RHEE: Absolutely.



ROSE: Does she believe that?



RHEE: I don`t think so.



ROSE: Do you believe teachers unions are part of the problem in American

education today?



RHEE: I believe that the constructs that are in existence, I believe that

the collective bargaining agreements that govern how school districts

operate when it comes to teachers and human capital and school districts

today are a big barrier, definitely.



ROSE: But it`s because of the contracts you negotiated for.



RHEE: That`s correct.



ROSE: And the teacher`s union negotiates on the other side.



RHEE: That`s right. Let me clear. You asked, do I believe the teacher`s

unions are the problem. My thing is people like to demonize the teachers

unions. They like to say, it`s all the teachers unions fault. These

contracts were negotiated by two parties, and superintendents and school

boards across the country have signed off on these contracts just as much as

the teachers union has. So the blame does not fit, in my mind, with one

party or the other.



ROSE: It`s with politicians who make deals, who negotiate deals because they

have political constraints or political imperatives.



RHEE: I certainly think that is part of the issue. And if you look today at

school boards, a lot of school board members are -- you know, were elected

with the union money and that sort of thing. And so are they going to off

and, you know, negotiate really aggressive union contracts? Probably not.



ROSE: So tenure, that`s a big issue.



RHEE: Yes.



ROSE: What are the issues for you beyond tenure that you think ought to be

part of a program for change for American public education K-12?



RHEE: I think that, at the end of the day, it all comes down to

accountability. We have to be able to hold rMD+IN_rMDNM_everyone accountable

for the results they`re producing for kids. That`s the bottom line. If you

operate within that mind set or that construct, then all of your problems

are solved.



Now, if we talk about more of the nuts and bolts, certainly tenure is an

issue, seniority rights that govern the movement of teachers. When we have a

situation where you put the rights and the privileges and priorities of

adults ahead of what`s in the best interest of kids then you know we have

the system that`s not going to produce the kind of results that we need to

see. It`s just is not possible.



ROSE: Do you want to make some -- let`s take your union specifically --

grand bargain with them? If so, what is the grand bargain?



RHEE: We`re actually still in negotiations, so I can`t talk about the

specifics of it. In general terms --



ROSE: You are prepared to say, I`m going to give you this if you give me

this, because I think I need this in order to produce the kinds of schools

that the mayor`s demanding of me.



RHEE: That`s right. What I`ll say in very broad terms is that we are

prepared to ensure that we have the most highly compensated and highly

effective educator force in this country. And we believe that people should

be recognized and rewarded in a very dramatic way for producing significant

gains in student achievement. And what we need to have is a system and a

contract where the best interests of kids trump everything else. Trumps

seniority. All of those thing are secondary to us believing that kids are

actually going to benefit from every single decision they make.



ROSE: Then comes the question how do you determine that.



RHEE: Based it on student achievement.



ROSE: That`s the only thing you can do. In other words -- I don`t know, I`m

asking. The only way you can test a teacher`s effectiveness is how well

those kids are doing on test scores.



RHEE: No.



ROSE: That seems to be a principle difference between teachers unions and

some administrators.



RHEE: I don`t think test scores are the only way.



ROSE: But by far the best.



RHEE: I think it`s the most consistent. I think it`s the most objective. And

I think that it should have the greatest weight in looking at teacher

effectiveness, absolutely.



ROSE: When they say that`s unfair to teachers to base it on test scores?



RHEE: I would say it`s unfair to children to do anything but, because when

you are basing, you know, the effectiveness of teachers on lots of softer

things, whether the kids feel good, whether the classroom is happy, whether

we`re creative -- don`t get me wrong, those things are important. But if the

kids can`t read and if only nine percent of them are at grade level or

above, that`s not acceptable. You might have a happy classroom. It`s not the

classroom we`re going to have in this district.



ROSE: Give me this other term you have, which is called value added.



RHEE: Yes.



ROSE: What does that mean?



RHEE: That means that you can`t just look at kids and say, if 100 percent of

your kids are not on grade level, then that means you have not done a good

job. Because in our system, we have kids who are coming in, two, three,

four, five grade levels below where they`re supposed to be. So you could

have a teacher who has seen dramatic gains, who is moving their kids two or

three years in the span of one year. You have to basically measure the

growth. And that`s what a value added model does.



ROSE: Are you optimistic.



RHEE: Very optimistic. I`m incredibly optimistic.



ROSE: Because you`ve seen what you can do in the classroom if you have some

of the circumstances that are necessary?



RHEE: That`s right. I believe that in Washington, DC today, we have a once

in a lifetime opportunity. You don`t meet a mayor like Adrian Fenty every

day, maybe, in fact, once in a lifetime. This man is unbelievable. He`s

relentless. He`s focused. He`s disciplined. He will not let anything stand

in the way of progress in the schools. I never met anybody like him in my

entire life. I`m certainly not a politician.



So we`ve got the leadership and we have a great union leader. This man,

George Parker, he wants to do the right thing for kids. He wants to do the

right thing for his teachers, and we believe that this contract that we put

together, it does exactly that.



ROSE: Does he believe that?



RHEE: Absolutely. I believe he does. He`s getting a whole lot of pressure

from people. So he`s beginning to sort of wonder. But I believe in his heart

he absolutely believes that this is the right thing for kids and teachers.



ROSE: When you came into this job, for a long time, they were demonstrating

outside your office.



RHEE: They still do, every Friday, yes.



ROSE: What`s that about?



RHEE: They don`t like me.



ROSE: Who doesn`t like you?



RHEE: There`s certainly a very loud and organized contingent of people in

this city who really really dislike what I`m doing.



ROSE: Even though the test scores are up, even though it`s a different

dynamic in the classroom.



RHEE: It doesn`t matter.



ROSE: What do they say to you?



RHEE: They say that I am cruel, that I am cold, that I am a dictator. They

say that I`m not taking the community sort of voice into account as I`m

making decisions. They say that I`m acting rationally, that I`m unfair,

inhumane.



ROSE: What do you say, not true, not true, not true? Or do you say, it`s

necessary. If you want to make an omelet, you have to break an egg.



RHEE: I say that some people -- and some of those people included -- want me

to do the same things that have been done for years.



ROSE: A lot of people came into your job believing in reform, believing in

change, said I`m going to do this. I`m going to try different ways. I`m

going to change the dynamics.



RHEE: That`s right.



ROSE: And they all failed.



RHEE: Right. Not because --



ROSE: Good people.



RHEE: Good people, smart people, well meaning people, hard working. That`s

why I said I believe we have a once in a lifetime opportunity, because what

those people did not have that I have -- because there`s nothing special

about Michelle Rhee, let me be clear about that. It is because I`m in this

situation with this mayor, who singularly is focused on education, with a

community dynamic where people understand the need for significant change,

with a great union president, with a ton of momentum.



So I happen to be sort of the fortunate person who is sitting in this role

right now. All of my predecessors, just as an example, had to deal with

school boards and the politics of a school board.



ROSE: You don`t have to do that.



RHEE: I never would have taken this job if it was a school board structure.

This is a strong statement. I don`t believe that really significant

education reform is possible with the school board structure. I don`t think

it`s possible.



ROSE: We`re in a political year.



RHEE: Yes.



ROSE: What ought to be the debate? Is this a national issue or not? Is it

really a question of states and local communities.



RHEE: Absolutely not. It is a national issue that is not getting national

play.



ROSE: What`s that? What makes it a national issue? What`s the national play

it ought to have? What`s the question we ought to be arguing?



RHEE: The national issue, the way I frame it is this: public education is

supposed to be the great equalizer in our country. It`s supposed to be the

thing that ensures that it doesn`t matter if you`re black or white, rich or

poor. We have public schools so that every child in this country can have an

equal shot in life. If you work hard, you do the right thing, you can live

the American dream. That is not the reality that we have in most of our

urban school districts today. The reality here in Washington, DC is, if you

live in Georgetown versus if you live in Anacostia, you get two wildly

different educational experiences. That`s the biggest social injustice

imaginable, because it basically says that we`re allowing the color of a

child`s skin, and the zip code that they live in to dictate their

educational attainment levels and their life chances and their life outcome.



That is counter to what this country is supposed to be, the land of equal

opportunity. We`re not making our good our promise to the children of this

nation. That should be the number one priority. In my mind, that should be

the only thing that we`re talking about in these presidential debates. How

are we going to ensure we`re giving every single kid an equal shot in life.

The fact that it`s almost absent from all of these political debates -- and

we get into this jargon about whether NCLB is good or not --



ROSE: No Child Left Behind. You think it is good and you think it still

needs to be changed and made better.



RHEE: Absolutely. It`s an accountability structure.



ROSE: That`s what you liked about it.



RHEE: Absolutely, 100 percent. I`m held accountable. Our principals are held

accountable. Every single school in this country, because you can`t just

have high achievement levels, period. You have to have no achievement gap.

Those things are incredibly important.



ROSE: How would you revise it?



RHEE: There are some tweaks I would make for sure. For example, one piece of

No Child Left Behind calls for highly qualified teachers. But those

qualifications are sort of front end qualifications. Does a person have

this, you know, certificate or this degree. And I believe we have to move

away from the front end inputs, to looking at highly effective teachers. If

you can produce results in the classroom, that makes you effective and you

can stay in the classroom. And it really shouldn`t matter on whether or not

you have your PHD or your Masters.



ROSE: We know what you did between 2007 and 2008, what do you think you can

do between 2008 and 2009?



RHEE: I know we can institute the most radical and reform minded teachers

union contract in this country. We can finally begin to recognize and reward

our most effective teachers, and that we can actually begin to shift the

dynamic in this city, and eventually in the country, of who should go into

teaching. When we`re able to offer people the types of salaries that we`re

talking about offering them, then it`s going to just attract different, you

know -- a different caliber of people in the profession.



ROSE: Wendy Kopp, the people she recruits, some of the people who surround

you.



RHEE: That`s right. The kind of people that Teach for America recruits,

absolutely.



ROSE: You believe you can do it?



RHEE: A hundred percent. I like to say to my staff, you know, if I can`t --

if I can`t make 121 schools better for 50,000 kids, then my game is weak and

I should go home.



ROSE: That`s your own sense of accountability.



RHEE: That`s my own sense of accountability, absolutely. I believe this is

absolutely possible. I have tremendous confidence in that.



ROSE: You same to be saying, I`m not for the abolition of teachers unions.

That`s what you seem to be saying.



RHEE: Absolutely not.



ROSE: You seem to be saying, give me a teachers union like the one I have

here, tough, hard nosed, negotiating for their members.



RHEE: For their members, for sure.



ROSE: But we`ll give each other something that will make our lives better

and our challenge achievable.



RHEE: That`s right. The dynamic that George Park and I have created here in

DC, he fights me tooth and nail. We negotiate and we sweat it out and sort

of go through. And he always has to be looking out for the best interests of

his members, which he does very well, which is why in our system, the system

that we`re sort of putting together right now, people have choice. I happen

to believe that the teachers are going to make the choice, that they have to

give up some of these rights, but that they see the upside benefit. They

know they can get there. They know what the ramifications are on the

positive side for the kids and they`re going to choose to do that.



ROSE: If they do well, they`ll be rewarded.



RHEE: Absolutely, like they`ve never been rewarded before.



ROSE: Thank you for your time.



RHEE: Absolutely, my pleasure.



ROSE: Thank you for joining us, part of our continuing series on education.

See you next time.