Tuesday, September 04, 2012

Portside Monitor: High Performing Charter Schools: Beating The Odds, Or Beating The Test?


Jeff Bryant's picture

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012083530/high-performing-charter-schools-beating-odds-or-beating-test



[My guest blogger today is Rob Levine. Rob is a Minneapolis-based researcher whose writing focuses on the media, conservative philanthropy and education. His writing can be found at the Cucking Stool blog.]
“Odds-beating charter school.” Those words are like an impenetrable shield for those who operate such places. They are also the holy grail of the education reform movement, which is constantly seeking shortcuts to radically increase measures of educational achievement, which these days is pretty much defined by increased math and language test scores.
One problem with radical test score gains, as many researchers have noted, is that miraculous improvements in test scores over short periods of time are more often the result of cheating, student skimming, or other test manipulation. We’ve seen this pattern repeated all over the nation, starting with the so-called Texas Miracle under former US education secretary Rod Paige's oversight.
Something very similar happened in New York state, where unrevealed relaxations in state testing standards led to a multi-year belief in the efficacy of reforms there. When results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests revealed the gains were illusory, New York admitted the test changes, thereby wiping out half a decade of supposed achievement gains on math and language tests.
Real improvements in test scores are more likely the result of longer-term changes that cause slow but steady rises in achievement. In fact, test results from decades of the NAEP show just such changes for the country as a whole. Scores for all US students have gone up by a full academic year over the past few decades, including breakout scores for various demographic groups including blacks and whites, and achievement gaps have actually been declining. Ironically (or, not) these gains have actually been slowing in the age of No Child Left Behind.
In Minnesota, birthplace of the charter school movement, one charter school operator labeled an “odds beater” has put a new twist on the concept. Eric Mahmoud, a former engineer and convicted mortgage fraudster, operates a group of segregated charter schools targeted at black, inner-city poor children that employs longer school days and years, strict discipline, and an unabashed strategy of beating state achievement tests.
For his success in raising math and reading scores, Mahmoud has been given rock-star status among charter proponents and recently was inducted into the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools hall of fame. In return, the Minneapolis school board recently awarded him the right to open four more charter schools sponsored by the city's school district, all presumably to be run in what a local conservative columnist laudingly called his “drill and kill” style. News stories and opinion pieces from traditional to the alternative press have nonetheless sung his praises, so desperate is the reform community to raise test scores. Meanwhile, almost no one has questioned the efficacy or morality of deliberately segregated schools, nor ones so focused on improving specific test scores. It seemed that, until very recently, Mahmoud could do no wrong.
Three weeks ago that might all have changed with a series of investigative stories in the Minneapolis Star Tribune by veteran reporter Steve Brandt highlighting fiscal and management questions that, given the lax controls on charter schools and Mahmoud's previous mortgage crime are unsurprising. Among Brandt's cumulative reporting is the following:

    • Mahmoud's combined salary for his duties running charter schools (which total 900 enrollment) and their parent organization amounted to $273,000, more than any other superintendent in the state. In addition his wife, whose occupation is listed as “secretary,” took home $105,000, and his daughter got $28,000 as an “administrative aide.” • Three of the four board members of the schools' parent organization, called “Seed Daycare,” which leases property to the school and provides administrative services, are Mahmoud family members. • A letter from the charter school's authorizer “asserts that teachers whom Harvest (one of Mahmoud's charter schools) paid as contractors clearly fall under the IRS definition of employees.” • The school's authorizer, Audubon Center of the North Woods, sent a “letter of deficiency” to Mahmoud asking for clarification of the organization's finances and for an explanation of “frequent payments among Mahmoud's organizations and Mahmoud himself,” and that “it's unclear what they are for and whether state money that supports Harvest and related entities is being used appropriately.” • The Minnesota Department of Education is seeking to recoup money it granted to Mahmoud for an earlier, failed charter school used for its construction and to equip it. The MNDOE turned this issue over to the state auditor. • Mahmoud, who operates deliberately segregated schools, is claiming racial discrimination, a claim disputed by the state, in the revocation of a $300,000 grant to one of his schools. The grant was to be used for a federally funded program called Reading First, which required the school to hire a full-time literacy coordinator and to use licensed teachers in the program, neither of which Mahmoud did.
But more important than the financial and management problems at Seed schools is the nature and structure of the educational pedagogy. The schools teach to the tests. Not just teach to them, but engineer high test scores with frequent testing, 100 minute blocks of reading and math each day and other methods. Few local writers or pundits pause to understand the implications of a strategy so strictly focused on state tests. Alleen Brown quoted Mahmoud's thoughts on teaching to the test for an article in the TC Daily Planet (emphasis added):
“If the standards were different, content absolutely would look different,” said director Mahmoud. He dismissed a question about whether designing instruction after standards amounts to teaching to the test, saying that if an assessment is aligned to the standards, then there shouldn’t be a problem. “The worst thing in the world is to teach to something other than what the students are going to be assessed on.”
That is the discussion we should be having. Do we want to turn over even more of our black students to authoritarian schools that “drill and kill”? The tests themselves, which actually test a very narrow range of skills, are still sometimes useful for what they reveal. Below is a common chart about Mahmoud's schools marvelous achievement rates:
harvestmath
From the chart you can tell that Harvest and Best both had superior proficiency rates and that Harvest had truly outstanding results. Education reformers who tout the primacy of these test score measures say the focus on math and reading is necessary to begin the learning pyramid. If that were true you'd expect Mahmoud's students to do better in science, too, since math is an important component. In fact, as the charts from the Minnesota Department of Education below show, Harvest and Best students are doing poorly and getting worse on science tests. The first chart compares Harvest fifth grade science scores with those of all Minnesota students:
harvest_5_science
An average of all Minnesota students for all grades is a science proficiency rate of approximately 45%. Harvest Prep has a proficiency approaching zero. Next are the science scores for the Best Academy:
best_5_science
Here the story is much the same. Science scores for Best Academy fifth graders are bad and trending worse. In fairness, Best has improved science scores for its eighth grade students, who have improved to about a 30 percent proficiency rate. Best and Harvest science scores for fifth graders are actually much worse than statewide scores for students who are both black and receive free or reduced lunch, where scores are approaching 20 percent proficiency:
science_statewide_5_black_reduced_lunch
The perils of our obsession with narrow testing and the incentives for charter schools to teach to the test were spelled out last year by Michael Diedrich, a then Policy Associate for the think tank Minnesota 2020:
“..the data … support the hypothesis that what isn't tested isn't taught (or at least not with the same intensity).
We need to remind ourselves what the goal of our education system is. It's not just about scoring well on the tests we have. It's about comprehensive student readiness for post-secondary success. To punish and reward schools using just one and a half subjects (reading comprehension being only one part of English/Language Arts) is to encourage a narrow-minded focus on low-level testable skills. The MCAs disproportionately assess students at the lowest levels of learning; the skills necessary for critical thinking, effective creation, and original problem-solving don't make the cut.
Even the reading tests being used in Minnesota for students before the ninth grade have severe deficiencies that further constricts what's taught to early learners, as Diedrich pointed out in a comment to his piece:
“...there are plenty of math and reading skills that aren’t tested by the MCA. The vast majority of MCA questions come from the bottom two levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (“remembering” and “understanding”), a few come from the middle (“applying,” “analyzing,” and “evaluating”) and none at all come from the top (“creating”). Because higher level skills aren’t tested, they don’t get taught, yet these are the skills necessary for students’ future success.”

Education is not the same as beating the test

The problems Minnesota has seen with “test beating” schools like those run by Eric Mahmoud – financial and management irregularities, forms of self-dealing that enrich operators, and engineering test results that bear little resemblance to forms of deep and wide learning – are foreseeable given the relaxed rules that apply to charters and our obsession with test results from a narrow range of subjects.
Mahmoud does not come from a teaching background – he was an engineer, a profession that looks at a problem domain, assesses the metrics on which he or she will be judged and finds a way to meet those benchmarks. From this perspective it is easy to see why his schools operate in a fashion to beat state tests – those are virtually the only metrics that matter, as Mahmoud himself has admitted. But this only shows how an unhealthy emphasis on testing has perverted the educational process.
In 1976 social science researcher Donald Campbell coined his “Campbell's Law” hypothesis, which succinctly explains why our unhealthy obsession with standardized testing is leading to educational failure:
"The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor."
Campbell explained his law in a way that directly anticipated Mahmoud's teaching strategy:
"...achievement tests may well be valuable indicators of general school achievement under conditions of normal teaching aimed at general competence. But when test scores become the goal of the teaching process, they both lose their value as indicators of educational status and distort the educational process in undesirable ways.”
No one can fault the parents of black children in Minneapolis for wanting their kids to excel in math and reading. But methods matter and children aren't widgets to be produced in an industrial process. We shouldn't be surprised that Mahmoud manages to increase math and reading scores given the longer school year, longer school days, a singular focus on beating test scores, and the self-selected nature of his charter school student population. It would be more surprising if he wasn't able to raise those test scores. But those marks come with a high price to a fully rounded education. Beating tests must not be confused with beating the odds. On a national level President Obama's educational policies encompassed in his Race To The Top program only make these problems worse with their focus on expanding charter schools and more standardized testing. We can do better.
Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/jeffbcdm

Susan Ohanian Smashes the Common Core -- and more

Labor Day is the perfect day to send your support to the Chicago Teachers Union. I just sent mine. I hope you send yours.

We have a new cartoon. The title is 'LearnZillion's Gift of Free Common Core Lessons.' but it applies to most things of Common Core ilk.
http://www.susanohanian.org/cartoon_fetch.php?id=684

We also have a new Eggplant. See below.

I hope you will heed the plea below to contribute to Interversity. Eric at Interversity designed this site and when there's a glitch I can cry for help and get it immediately. Please help Interversity keep this site operating.

I went to dinner at a Japanese restaurant and a mother and daughter were doing what they do every year: celebrating the first day of school. So of course, once I overheard this, I had to go over and offer my good wishes to complete strangers. The daughter is a 7th grader and we people associated with 7th grade have to stick together.

Susan


\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Intrusive to the core: Feds overreach on ed standards
 Charles Chieppo and Jamie Gass
Boston Herald
2012-09-03
http://susanohanian.org/core.php?id=332

Here's conservative opposition to the Common Core. Ohanian provides more info on conservative opposition and issues a challenge.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
STOP Common Core
education new york online

2012-08-27
http://susanohanian.org/core.php?id=331

Here is a list of opponents, by state, of Common Core. Help it grow.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I Wandered Lonely as a Teacher
Susan Ohanian, with Bill Gates Tweet

2012-08-30
http://susanohanian.org/core.php?id=330

The Bill and Melinda Gates funds another project. And this one is pathetic. But Bill has been sending out Tweets about how good it is.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Publishers Gear Up for The Common Core
Susan Ohanian
blog
2012-08-30
http://susanohanian.org/core.php?id=329

Here's an update on what's being offered to teachers so they can deliver the Common Core--from National School Supply and Furniture to Bill Daggett.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
 Adam Wheeler Went to Harvard
Jim Newell

2012-08-31
http://susanohanian.org/show_commentary.php?id=1043

Someone who lies a lot gets a year in jail for saying--truthfully--that he attended Harvard.

This article reveals a lot about Harvard. The author lists a few things that Harvard should be ashamed of. He should have put their graduate school of education on the list.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Back to School: A message to high school students who hate high school; Here is why you hate it
Roger C. Schank
Education Outrage
2012-09-02
http://susanohanian.org/outrage_fetch.php?id=1422

Roger Schank believes that 'every single subject taught in high school is a mistake.'

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
J. C. Penney Invites Customers to Join Its Support of Teach for America
J. C. Penney
Press Release
2012-08-30
http://susanohanian.org/outrage_fetch.php?id=1421

J. C. Penney invites customers to contribute to Teach for America.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Contribute to the CTU Solidarity Fund
Solidarity Fund
Chicago Teachers Union
2012-09-03
http://susanohanian.org/show_yahoo.php?id=780

Show your support to Chicago teachers.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Contribute to the Resistance
Susan Ohanian
Interversity
0000-00-00
http://susanohanian.org/show_yahoo.php?id=779

Interversity needs your help. Why should you care? For starters, the survival of this site depends on Interversity.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
STOP Common Core
education new york online

0000-00-00
http://susanohanian.org/show_yahoo.php?id=778

Here's the start of a list of opponents to the Common Core. It is listed by state.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
 U. S. Department of Re-Education Ask Bill Division Releases Hegemony Yoke
Susan Ohanian
The Eggplant
2012-09-01
http://susanohanian.org/show_nclb_news.php?id=884

US DOE Ask Bill issues guidelines for Teacher Relocation Plan
------------------------------
----------------------
Order the CD of the resistance:
"No Child Left Behind? Bring Back the Joy."
To order online (and hear samples from the songs)
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/dhbdrake4
Other orders: Send $15 to
Susan Ohanian
P. O. Box 26
Charlotte, VT 05445

Teachers unions' alliance with Democratic Party frays

Public efforts toward school reform have some Democrats questioning the party's support of guarantees that school districts have made to teachers for decades.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-education-dems-20120904,0,6567521.story


Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, says parent-trigger laws actually gave power to for-profit organizations, not parents and teachers. (Ben Gabbe / Getty Images / September 3, 2012)

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Teachers unions have been the Democratic Party's foot soldiers for more than half a century, providing not only generous financial backing but an army of volunteers in return for support of their entrenched power in the nation's public schools.
But this relationship is fraying, and the deterioration was evident Monday as Democrats gathered here for their national convention.
A handful of teachers and parents, carrying large inflated pencils, picketed a screening of "Won't Back Down," a movie to be released this month starring Maggie Gyllenhaal and Viola Davis as mothers, one a teacher, who try to take over a failing inner-city school.
The plot is ripped from the headlines: California has the first "parent trigger" law in the nation, which allows parents to petition for sweeping changes to improve low-performing schools. The first parent trigger attempts have occurred in Compton and Adelanto; the former failed, and the latter faces numerous obstacles.
Parent triggers, along with other emerging efforts, have some Democrats questioning their party's longtime support of guarantees that public school districts have made to teachers for decades. Those efforts also include merit pay, charter schools, weakening the tenure system and evaluating teachers partly based on their students' performance on standardized tests.
"There is no longer sort of this assumed alliance between the Democratic Party and the teachers unions," Michelle Rhee, a leader in the movement, said in an interview. Rhee, a Democrat who is a target of the unions' ire, discussed the issues on a panel after the film screening here and one at the Republican National Convention last week.
"There are now lots of Democrats who are saying, 'You know what, we're for teachers and teachers unions, we support the concept of collective bargaining, but there are clearly some things that need to change, and we are willing to stand up and talk about those challenges,'" she said.
The film received scant attention at the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., but was scrutinized here because of the divide among Democrats about its content.
"We support authentic school improvement and reform," said Carol Sawyer, a protester from Mecklenburg (N.C.) Area Coming Together for Schools, or ACTS, who wore a "Closing Schools Doesn't Work" T-shirt as she handed out fliers to movie attendees.
Sawyer, a grant writer and a mother, represents the traditional bloc of Democrats and union members who oppose the film's message and believe the education overhaul movement and the movie are simply part of a conservative effort to demonize teachers unions and labor in general.
"No self-respecting Democrat should be caught dead at this screening," an opponent of the movement lamented in a blog post.
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, has harshly criticized the film, saying it is premised on falsehoods and stereotypes to demagogue teachers. Writing in the Washington Post, she said it contained "the most blatant stereotypes and caricatures I have ever seen."
She said parent-trigger laws actually gave power to for-profit organizations, not parents and teachers, and noted that conservative billionaire Philip Anschutz is among the movie's backers.
"This movie could have been a great opportunity to bring parents and teachers together," she wrote. Instead, it "is divisive and demoralizes millions of great teachers."
The screening was not an official convention event, but required approval from the highest levels of the White House and the Democratic Party, according to the Huffington Post. In a measure of blessing, convention chairman and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa stopped by to speak briefly to the attendees.
Voters have long said that education is a priority issue and is typically used to woo moderates and women. But it rarely surfaces in presidential campaigns, and this year, with the nation's economic woes taking center stage, it has received scant attention.
Mitt Romney has brought up offering greater school choice as part of his five-part plan to help the middle class.
"We're going to make sure our workers have the skills they need to succeed, and that our kids have the skills they need to succeed in the coming century, because right now our schools in far too many places in America aren't doing the job they need to do," he said Saturday during a rally in Cincinnati.
"I want to make sure we put our kids and the teachers first, and the teachers union behind," he said, part of an effort to paint Obama as a tool of labor.
Obama enjoys great support from teachers unions, and there are no signs that they will desert him en masse in this election. But he has angered them, notably with his "Race to the Top" competition that rewarded states financially for making moves unpopular with labor, such as increasing access for charter schools and encouraging states to use standardized testing as one way to measure teacher effectiveness.
This has prompted a vociferous response at times. When a leader of the overhaul movement was hired to be Obama's spokeswoman for California, the California Federation of Teachers told state Democratic officials that if she was not fired, the union might not "participate" in Obama's reelection effort. The spokeswoman remains on the Obama team.
seema.mehta@latimes.com


Times staff writer Maeve Reston contributed to this report from Cincinnati.

Saturday, September 01, 2012

How Unions Could Do Much Better

 
Organized Labor Needs to Create a Powerful, Politically Independent Social Movement
 
by ANN ROBERTSON and BILL LEUMER
 
The International Association of Machinists just succeeded in negotiating a humiliating defeat with Caterpillar after a 15-week strike. Workers lost considerable money by striking, and then lost even more with the new contract, accepting almost every concession the company demanded despite the fact that the company was sitting on a record $4.9 billion in profits. The union let scabs cross the picket line and failed to stop production, almost guaranteeing defeat.
 
In the wake of this debacle, one might ask: Are unions doing everything possible to defend their members? As many union members are beginning to recognize, the answer is a resounding “No!”
 
What Unions Are Doing Wrong
For example, the unions have locked themselves into a losing strategy. Like the psychotic who keeps repeating the same behavior while expecting a different outcome, the unions obsessively throw most of their resources into electing Democrats to office, thinking these politicians will bestow generous favors on unions in return. Rather than depending on themselves and putting up a fight, unions sit back and hope the Democrats will save them. However, once elected, the Democrats, who have accepted even larger campaign contributions from the 1%, demand concessions from public workers, they shower tax breaks on the corporations, and they conclude by cutting public education and social services to those that need them.
 
This unholy alliance between unions and Democrats is connected with a second fatal flaw that many unions exhibit. They have adopted the philosophy that politics is a dirty game – a dog eat dog world – where everyone who has the money lobbies politicians and showers them with generous campaign contributions to win favor. This is what is called “realpolitik,” where politics is based on money and power, not principle. It is why, when it comes to budget cuts, the poor are always the first to suffer the loss of programs that serve them: they can’t afford the campaign contributions nor the expensive lobbyists. By descending to this level rather than exposing and criticizing this sordid ritual, unions isolate themselves from the general public, not to mention from other unions that are engaged in the same practice, and they demoralize rather than inspire.
 
In fact, many unions have an entirely negative public image because they are perceived as pursuing their own narrow interests at the expense of the public good. Environmentalists, for example, have argued that the proposed extension of the keystone pipeline — from Canada to the refineries in the Gulf region — will certainly spike global warming and could tip the planet beyond the point of no-return. Nevertheless, The New York Times reported (“Democrats Joining G.O.P. on Pipeline,” April 19, 2012): “But many companies and unions around the country have been clamoring for the extension [of the pipeline],” since it could create as many as 20,000 jobs.
 
More recently, several New York building trade unions have joined a group of businesses lobbying to reduce the salary and benefits of public workers. These unions calculate that by taking money from public workers, more money becomes available for infrastructure projects, which will directly benefit them (“Donations to Key Cuomo Ally Show a Rift Among Unions,” The New York Times, June 7, 2012).
 
By focusing exclusively on their own interests, unions might think they are maximizing their prospects for success. In fact they are accomplishing just the opposite. Strong public support for union struggles for higher wages and better benefits can easily become a determining factor of the outcome. If a union can organize support rallies of 50,000 — 100,000 people, this show of solidarity can discourage scabs from crossing picket lines, it can turn back the police who conclude the crowd is too big to control, it can imbue the strikers with the conviction that their cause is just, and it can demoralize a corporation that wants to maintain a positive profile with the general public. Massive public support and huge demonstrations are one of the most powerful weapons available to unions.
 
This point was forcefully made this past week by construction workers in Melbourne, Australia in their dispute with Grocon Company. Union workers walked off the job, protesting management’s attempts to preempt the union and appoint shop stewards themselves. Thousands of other union workers showed up on the picket line in support of the construction workers, and sympathy strikes in other cities spread. When mounted police tried to escort scabs onto the worksite, the crowd was so large that the workers succeeded in repelling them and the police retreated.
 
Next, unions will also need to reform their internal dynamics if they want to effectively protect their members. All too often unions have a top-down structure. On paper they look democratic, but top officials typically make all the substantive decisions with little input from the members. In this way, the union officials can minimize criticism of their performance and maximize their prospects of re-election — how can members criticize if they do not know what the officials are doing?
 
There are a number of devices that union officials employ to minimize the role of the members: officials fail to inform them of important decisions that they make, including whom they decide to give union money to; they hold conventions where 90 percent of the proceedings are devoted to “dog and pony” shows, allotting only minimal time for members to discuss and debate policy decisions; they appoint people in advance to speak in favor of their own policies in order to isolate those who have objections; they use parliamentary tricks to rule opponents out of order or call the question before any real debate can transpire; and so on.
 
In contrast, when members are convinced that their voice makes a difference in the union decision-making process, the union is strong. These members participate in picket lines, they don’t scab, and they stand together in support of each other, knowing that their strength lies in their unity. When decisions are made, these decisions clearly represent the will of the majority.
 
But in addition to the question of internal democracy, unions need to reform their compensation practices. Top union officials frequently make two, three, sometimes ten times as much as the rank-and-file members they supposedly represent.  But such salaries place the officials in an entirely different world than their members where they do not live with the gnawing day-to-day financial stress that most people suffer. Whether true or not, bloated salaries give union members and the public in general the impression that union officials only care about their own financial situation so that gestures of support for the rank and file seem like a mere show. The officials’ salaries should be drastically cut and then permanently tied to the wages of their members so that if the members do not get a raise, neither do the officials. Such a mechanism will foster an identity of interests.
 
What Unions Have Done Right
 
This role of defending working people in general, of course, is not at all foreign to the union movement in the U.S. In the 1980s, during the height of South African apartheid, college students were pressing their universities to disinvest in South Africa. In the midst of an anti-apartheid demonstration on the U.C. Berkeley campus, a large contingent of ILWU (International Longshore and Warehouse Union) members marched onto the campus to support the rally, carrying a banner that read: An Injury to One is an Injury to All. Today unions could be organizing demonstrations in support of the striking mine workers in South Africa and sending financial support in order to let the miners know that they are not alone.
 
More recently, in New York City a demonstration was organized to protest the hideous and racist “stop-and-frisk” policy where police do exactly that to anyone they deem suspicious. Not surprisingly, of those stopped, 87 percent are Black or Latino (“Thousands March Silently to Protest Stop-and-Frisk Policies,” The New York Times, June 17, 2012). Significantly, unions played a major role in this demonstration.
 
What Unions Should Do
 
But defending the interests of working people in general cannot amount to a pretense, an occasional event, or a sideshow, playing a distant second to electing Democrats to office. Defending the 99% must be the main event. This means that unions must claim the moral high ground. They must play a leading role in protesting racism, protecting the environment, defending women’s rights, the rights of immigrants and the rights of those in the LGBT community. Unions must protest the closing of public schools and urban renewal projects that only benefit the rich, they must defend workers in other unions from attacks, help non-union workers organize unions, and support the struggles of workers in other countries. Meanwhile electing Democrats to office should be phased out, given their abysmal record in relation to working people and their strong ties to the 1%.
 
This means that unions must take on the challenge of creating a powerful social movement, independent of both political parties. They must organize huge demonstrations around the issues that working people care most about: a federally funded jobs-creation program to put millions of people back to work, the defense of Social Security and Medicare, and fully funded public education and social services paid for by taxing the rich. The Democrats have defaulted on these issues and in fact have already signaled agreement to cut Social Security and Medicare.  They have given corporations additional tax breaks while cutting funding to public education. And the Obama administration has refused to launch a federally funded jobs program, claiming that the government is not in the business of creating jobs, yet Obama bailed out Wall Street — the 1% who are responsible for the loss of millions of jobs.
 
In order to succeed in these struggles, unions will need massive support. Working people are suffering. However, they will become active and provide overwhelming support if they are assured the unions are defending everyone’s interests, not just special interests. By changing their orientation, unions could begin to inspire working people, change the political landscape, and start to create a better world in favor of the 99%. But they will have to sever ties with the 1% first.
 
Ann Robertson is a Lecturer at San Francisco State University and a member of the California Faculty Association.
Bill Leumer is a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 853 (ret.). Both are writers for Workers Action and may be reached atsanfrancisco@workerscompass.org.
 

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

In defense of public education


Publication Date: 2012-08-29
City schools are being dismantled and privatized--with Barack Obama's approval.

This editorial appearing in Socialist Worker, Aug. 29, 2012, offers a good summary of the Obama education policy--and a good and necessary reason for supporting the strike of the Chicago Teachers Union.

WHEN EDUCATION Secretary Arne Duncan praised Hurricane Katrina a few years ago as the best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans--because it enabled the closure of most public schools and their replacement with charter schools--he was forced to apologize.

But Duncan himself--backed by his boss, Barack Obama--has unleashed another destructive storm of corporate-driven "education reform," and it's bearing down on Chicago, where Duncan once ran the public school system, setting the stage for what could be the first teachers' strike in Chicago in 25 years.

Duncan and Co. have already wrecked public education in several cities. Detroit's ravaged economy and declining population were as a pretext for an aggressive bipartisan assault that's already led to the closure of 100 schools. Today, Detroit has two school systems--the Detroit Public Schools and a state-run Education Achievement Authority--that compete to attract students, with 35 percent of Detroit kids attending charter schools.

In Philadelphia, school authorities, backed by Democratic Mayor Michael Nutter, are seeking to dismantle the entire school system, handing operations over to an array of nonprofit organizations, charter school management groups and academic institutions.

In Cleveland, another Democrat, Mayor Frank Jackson, worked with union-bashing Republican Gov. John Kasich to pass legislation funneling even more tax money to charters, giving them equal standing with traditional public schools.

In driving these changes, Duncan is making use of the Bush-era federal law known as No Child Left Behind, which ties federal funds to state and local school officials' willingness to close or "turn around" schools that fail to improve test scores.

The Obama administration itself amped up the "school reform" agenda through its $4.3 billion Race to the Top competitive grant program. To have a chance at the money, state legislators had to pass new laws expanding charter schools and imposing harsh evaluation systems on teachers while weakening job security.

What all this amounts to is the end of universal public education as we've known it--a cornerstone of U.S. society, in the North anyway, since the 1850s.

If that sounds like an exaggeration or conspiracy theory, take it from Duncan himself. Once embarrassed at having cheered on a deadly catastrophe in a majority African American city, Duncan is now openly proud of post-Katrina education in New Orleans. "New Orleans is doing a fantastic job as far as improvement goes," Duncan said of a city where, before Katrina, just 1.5 percent of students attended charter schools. Today, 80 percent do.

Remember that quote the next time someone says that you have to vote for Obama to stop Mitt Romney's education agenda. As Ben Joravsky of the Chicago Reader wrote about Romney's program for education: "[I]n many respects, it reads like it could have been written by our very own union-busting, charter-school-loving Mayor Rahm Emanuel." Emanuel, of course, was Obama's chief of staff when the administration unleashed Race to the Top.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TO UNDERSTAND what's driving the school reform agenda, remember the slogan from the 1970s Watergate scandal: follow the money.

Diane Ravitch, the former Bush Sr. education official-turned-critic of school reform, points to the billionaires' boys club, including Microsoft's Bill Gates and real estate magnate Eli Broad, who both run foundations that bankroll education reform.

Even Facebook boss Mark Zuckerburg, looking for some good public relations after the feature film that portrayed him as a schmuck, decided to toss $100 million to the public schools in Newark, N.J., a city with which he had no previous connection. And according to the New York Times Style section--which usually focuses on fashion design and the leisure pursuits of the rich and powerful-- Wall Street players have taken up adopting charter schools.

But behind the feel-good politics and photo ops--see, the 1 percent really does care about poor kids!--there's an aggressive program to reshape the U.S. working class to suit capital's needs in the globalized 21st century economy.

Unwilling to pay the kind of taxes necessary to support quality public education across the U.S., business and its political operatives like Duncan and Emanuel are creating a system in which access to good K-12 public education will be rationed, with working class and students of color funneled into either budget-strapped neighborhood schools or into charters with corporate and political clout, but dubious educational quality.

The first part of this program has been in place for decades--housing policies and income inequalities enabled the white middle class to leave big cities and enroll their kids in better-funded public schools in the suburbs. Since school funding across the U.S. is overwhelmingly based on property taxes--and since factory closings drained old industrial cities of their tax base--inequality between urban and suburban school districts increased, with African American and Latino students concentrated in underfunded city schools.

The result has been the re-segregation of public schools more than half a century after the U.S. Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education found that separate Black and white schools were inherently unequal.

Today, efforts to redress that racist legacy have all but ceased. To cite just two examples: in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools in North Carolina, a judge in 1997 ended a desegregation plan that allowed Black students to be bussed to suburban, mostly white public schools. "What followed was essentially a reversal of desegregation," according to two researchers at the University of North Carolina Urban Institute.

In 2009, another federal judge lifted a court order that had forced Chicago Public Schools officials to take race into account for enrolling students in magnet and selective enrollment schools. This despite the fact that a Harvard study found that Chicago schools were "only a few percentage points away from total apartheid."

As David Kirp, a University of California-Berkeley professor, wrote in the New York Times:

[D]esegregation is effectively dead. In fact, we have been giving up on desegregation for a long time. In 1974, the Supreme Court rejected a metropolitan integration plan, leaving the increasingly black cities to fend for themselves. A generation later, public schools that had been ordered to integrate in the 1960s and 1970s became segregated once again, this time with the blessing of a new generation of justices.

Today, students in racially segregated urban schools are being treated as lab rats by the corporate education reformers, who are teaming up with politicians to use the economic crisis as leverage.

With the education money in the federal stimulus package of 2009 now gone, officials in Detroit, Philadelphia and Cleveland and other cities are using their busted budgets as a pretext to dismantle public education. Chicago is likely to follow suit, as the Board of Education in that city is deliberately spending all its reserve funds this year. Teachers' union activists believe this is designed to create a crisis and justify the closure of as many as 100 schools.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THAT'S WHY the stakes in the battle over public education in Chicago are so high.

So far, neither the National Education Association nor the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has mounted a fight against corporate education reform. In fact, AFT President Randi Weingarten argues that the union must collaborate with reformers, arguing that teachers must "lead and propose" on the issues.

By contrast, the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU)--which is Local 1 of the AFT--is gearing up for a fight not only for adequate pay and benefits, but for fully funded public education with smaller class sizes and an enriched curriculum.

For the business-backed education reformers, the stakes are high, too. If they can take down the CTU, they will be much further in their goal of gutting the teachers' unions, which together constitute the largest organized labor groups in the U.S. That's why it's so important that everyone who supports public education--and the rights of those who work in them--stand with the CTU.

CTU leaders--members of a rank-and-file caucus that swept to victory in local elections last year--have been mobilizing the whole membership for a fight. That paid off at the end of the last school year when 98 percent of members who cast a ballot voted to authorize the union to call a strike. Meanwhile, parents, students and community organizations have rallied behind the CTU in large numbers--a crucial development given the history of conflicts between these forces in some past struggles.

The showdown is coming in September. Anybody who cares about the future for teachers and our schools--in Chicago and around the country--needs to act now to help the CTU win this fight.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

The real effect of teachers union contracts

An oldie but goodie from the Shanker blog, repub at the Answer Sheet, Oct. 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/how-states-with-no-teacher-uni.html


By Valerie Strauss
Teachers unions are a big target today of some school reformers who view these organizations as the biggest obstacle to improving student achievement. The film "Waiting for Superman" certainly did. So why are states without binding teacher contracts among the lowest-performing in the nation? Matthew Di Carlo, senior fellow at the non-profit Albert Shanker Institute, located in Washington, D.C., looks at this issue. A version of this post originally appeared on the institute’s blog. A follow-up to this post presented a supplemental analysis of the data.

By Matthew Di Carlo
For years, some people have been determined to blame teachers’ unions for all that ails public education in America. This issue has been around a long time (see here and here), but, given the tenor of the current debate, it seems to bear rehashing. According to this view, teachers unions negatively affect student achievement primarily through the mechanism of the collective bargaining agreement, or contract. These contracts are thought to include “harmful” provisions, such as seniority-based layoffs and unified salary schedules that give raises based on experience and education rather than performance.
But a fairly large proportion of public school teachers are not covered under legally binding contracts. In fact, there are some 10 states in which there are virtually no legally binding K-12 teacher contracts at all (there are none in AL, AZ, GA, MS, NC, SC, TX, and VA; there is only one district with a contract in LA, and two in AR). Districts in a few of these states have entered into what are called “meet and confer” agreements about salary, benefits, and other working conditions, but administrators have the right to break these agreements at will. For all intents and purposes, these states are largely free of many of the alleged “negative union effects.”
Here’s a simple proposition: If teacher union contracts are the main problem, then we should expect to see at least somewhat higher achievement outcomes in the 10 states where there are basically no binding contracts.
So, let’s take a quick look at how states with no contracts compare with the states that have them.
In states where there are binding contracts, there is some variation in coverage (the percentage of teachers covered under contracts). In most of them (34, plus Washington D.C.), districts are required to bargain with unionized teachers, and coverage in these states is very high. There are a few other states in which contracts are binding once they’re finished, but districts are not required to bargain (Louisiana also technically falls into this category, but since Katrina, there is only one contract in force). The results for these states are virtually identical to those for the bargaining states.
In the table below, using data from the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), I present average scale scores for states that currently have binding teacher contracts and those that don’t. The averages are weighted by grade-level enrollment, and they include only public non-charter schools (since most charters in all states have no contracts).

Average 2009 NAEP Score By State Teacher Contract Laws
States with binding teacher contracts
4th grade: Math 240.0 Reading 220.7
8th grade: Math 282.1 Reading 263.7
States without binding teacher contracts
4th grade: Math 237.7 Reading 217.5
8th grade: Math 281.2 Reading 259.5
As the table shows, the states in which there are no teachers covered under binding agreements score lower than the states that have them. Moreover, even though they appear small, all but one of these (8th grade math) are rather large differences.
To give an idea of the size, I ranked each state (plus Washington D.C.) by order of its performance —its average score on each of the four NAEP exams – and then averaged the four ranks. The table below presents the average rank for the non-contract states.

Average Rank Across 4 NAEP Tests

Next to each state is its average rank
Virginia....... 16.6
Texas......... 27.3
N. Carolina.. 27.5
Georgia.......36.8
Arkansas.....38.9
S. Carolina...38.9
Arizona........43.3
Alabama......45.5
Louisiana.....47.8
Mississippi...48.6

Out of these 10 states, only one (Virginia) has an average rank above the median, while four are in the bottom 10, and seven are in the bottom 15. These data make it very clear that states without binding teacher contracts are not doing better, and the majority are actually among the lowest performers in the nation.
In contrast, nine of the 10 states with the highest average ranks are high coverage states, including Massachusetts, which has the highest average score on all four tests.
If anything, it seems that the presence of teacher contracts in a state has a positive effect on achievement.
Now, some may object to this conclusion. They might argue that I can’t possibly say that teacher contracts alone caused the higher scores in these states. They might say that there are dozens of other observed and unobserved factors that influence achievement, such as state laws, lack of resources, income, parents’ education, and curriculum, and that these factors are responsible for the lower scores in the 10 non-contract states.
My response: Exactly.

Friday, August 24, 2012

Scams: Obama/Duncan Corporate Patronage Using RTTT

At a CEC3 meeting last year a network leader informed us that he and the other networks were REQUIRED to spend at least 50% of the Race to the Top funds they received - a meager $100k or so across 30 schools! - on DOE-approved outside contractors. We asked if that was a federal requirement or a DOE imposed one but did not receive a response.

If this isn't another corporate patronage mechanism to siphon dollars from our schools, classrooms, teachers and students and instead funnel them to private industry profits and the growing corporate reform bureaucracy why such a requirement?

Very sad.

noah e gotbaum
twitter: @noahegotbaum

--------------
"To support learning strategies that personalize education in all or a set of schools, within specific grade levels or select subjects."

Wonder if this means online learning?

 "form partnerships with public and private organizations to sustain their work and provide services"

Wonder whose private org will benefit? Why should it be a requirement to outsource the programing and services? julie cavanagh


------------------



...a bi-weekly update on U.S. Department of Education activities relevant to the Intergovernmental and Corporate community and other stakeholders
______________________________
________________________________________
RACE TO THE TOP

On August 12, the Department announced it had finalized the application for the 2012 Race to the Top-District competition, which will provide nearly $400 million to support school districts in implementing local education reforms that personalize instruction, close achievement gaps, and take full advantage of 21st century tools that prepare each student for college and careers.  The program sets a high bar to fund those districts that have a track record of success, clear vision for reform, and innovative plans to transform the learning environment and accelerate student achievement.  Race to the Top helped bring about groundbreaking education reforms in states across the country.  Building off that success, were now going to help support reform at the local level, Secretary Duncan noted.  We want to help schools become engines of innovation through personalized learning, so that every child in America can receive the world-class public education they deserve.

The program criteria invites applications from districts or groups of districts proposing to serve at least 2,000 students -- or groups of 10 or more districts proposing to serve less than 2,000 students -- with at least 40% of participating students (across all participating schools) qualifying for free or reduced-
price lunch.  Districts will choose to apply for funding to support learning strategies that personalize education in all or a set of schools, within specific grade levels or select subjects.  Moreover, districts must demonstrate a commitment to Race to the Tops four core reform areas and have sign-off on their plan from the local superintendent, local school board president, and local teacher union/association president (where applicable).  The Department plans to support high-quality proposals from across a variety of districts, including rural and non-rural, as well as those participating in a Race to the Top state grant and those not participating.  The program offers competitive preference to applicants that form partnerships with public and private organizations to sustain their work and provide services to help meet students academic, social, and emotional needs and enhance their ability to succeed.

The Department expects to make 15 to 25 awards.  Awards will range from $5 million to $40 million, depending on the population served through the plan.  Districts are asked to submit an intent to apply by August 30.  Applications are due October 30.  Grants will be announced no later than December 31.  FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE GO TO
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/ <http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/> .  (Note: To assist applicants in preparing the application, the agency is hosting technical assistance webinars [
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/resources.html <http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/resources.html> ] and has posted answers to Frequently Asked Questions [
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/faq.html <http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/faq.html
> ].)

Charter school group's chief blamed for 2010 cheating scandal


http://soc.li/gwKytSj

Charter school group's chief blamed for 2010 cheating scandal

Educators say John Allen asked Crescendo principals to show teachers the state standardized test. L.A. Unified was going to suspend him, but the board voted to fire him and close the campuses.



  • Email



    Share





John Allen
Two separate investigations into the cheating scandal blamed Crescendo founder and chief executive John Allen, who was driven, as one official said, by a desire to be “better, better, better, best." (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times / March 4, 2011)
By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times
August 17, 2012, 5:34 p.m.
The meeting at Crescendo Preparatory South was progressing as usual when the acting principal dropped a bombshell: She had been given copies of the upcoming standardized tests. The teachers were to study them, take notes — and make sure the kids got it.
Some of the eight instructors were troubled by what seemed to be an order to cheat. One burst into tears.
So began one of the most brazen cheating scandals in the nation. Ultimately, all of Crescendo's schools in South Los Angeles, Gardena and Hawthorne were shut down, its teachers let go and 1,400 students forced to find new schools.
Only the rough outlines of the 2010 scandal were made public, but dozens of interviews with former Crescendo employees and officials — as well as a review of previously unreleased documents — portray an environment so poisoned by demands to excel on state proficiency tests that many submitted to a plan to boost the scores of schools that were already doing well.
Two separate investigations blamed Crescendo's founder and chief executive, John Allen, who was driven, as one official said, by a desire to be "better, better, better, best." Allen has declined all interview requests and maintained his innocence in court documents.
Former Crescendo principals are still grappling with how they were drawn into violating a fundamental tenet of their profession, and teachers are left questioning their own actions and an educational mission in which they believed so deeply.
"Here I had been going around bragging about how awesome our school is, and now I wonder: Are we cheaters?" former Crescendo teacher Lisa Sims said.
::
The first Crescendo schools opened in 2005, part of a burgeoning charter movement spurred by overcrowding, shrinking resources at traditional public schools and parents' fears over safety.
The Crescendo network, which combined strict academics with arts and music enrichment, attracted black families in particular; African Americans made up at least 80% of the enrollment, compared with less than 10% districtwide.
The schools were the brainchild of Allen, an imposing figure who started teaching in L.A. Unified in 1988 and became a principal in the Capistrano Unified School District in Orange County eight years later. He then headed the well-regarded Watts Learning Center, a publicly funded, independently run charter.
"John worked 24/7," said a former Crescendo board member who, like some others interviewed, cited legal or employment ramifications in requesting anonymity. Much, if not most, of Crescendo's success could "be attributed to John."
Allen provided a strong vision to his largely young and inexperienced teachers.
Sandra Kim, 24, had been waiting tables for six months before she got a job teaching at Crescendo.
"John Allen seemed sincere and nice, wanting to know about my school, my teaching philosophy, my background. He seemed like he really cared about the kids and how the school was being operated," Kim said. "I was ecstatic."
Allen's ideas on how schools should be run included enforcing his notions of professional attire.
Teacher Patricia Hardison said that when Allen would arrive on campus unannounced, the first teacher to notice would send a student to other classes with the message: "Do you have a red pen?"
That was the signal for teachers to pull out their uncomfortable high heels.
But Allen's biggest fixation was test scores.
Nationwide, schools' reputations and educators' jobs increasingly depend on student test scores. At Crescendo, Allen seemed to push harder each year. In 2009, he had classroom results posted for all to see, teachers said. He also told them flat out: "You better score a 900 this year," one recalled.
Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

Educators Have No Political Party

Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:48 AM PDT

Daily Kos

For about thirty years now, public education as well as its teachers and students have been the focus of an accountability era driven by recurring calls for and the implementation of so-called higher standards and incessant testing. At two points during this era, educators could blame Ronald Reagan's administration for feeding the media frenzy around the misleading A Nation at Risk and George W. Bush's administration for federalizing the accountability era with No Child Left Behind (NCLB)—both Republican administrations.
For those who argued that Republicans and Democrats were different sides of the same political coin beholden to corporate interests, education advocates could point to Republicans with an accusatory finger and claim the GOP was anti-public education while also endorsing Democrats as unwavering supporters of public education. To claim Republicans and Democrats were essentially the same was left to extremists and radicals, it seemed.
As we approach the fall of 2012 and the next presidential election, however, educators and advocates for public education have found that the position of the extremists—Republicans and Democrats are the same—has come true under the Barack Obama administration.
Educators have no political party to support because no political party supports educators, public education, or teachers unions.
Discourse, Policy, and How Democrats Are Failing Education
Behind the historical mask that Democrats support strongly public education and even teachers specifically and workers broadly, the Obama administration has presented a powerful and misleading education campaign that is driven by Obama as the good cop and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan as the bad cop. Obama Good Cop handles the discourse that appeals to educators by denouncing the rising test culture in 2011:
What is true, though, is, is that we have piled on a lot of standardized tests on our kids. Now, there’s nothing wrong with a standardized test being given occasionally just to give a baseline of where kids are at. Malia and Sasha, my two daughters, they just recently took a standardized test. But it wasn’t a high-stakes test. It wasn’t a test where they had to panic.
Yet, simultaneously, Secretary Duncan Bad Cop was endorsing and the USDOE was implementing Race to the Top, creating provisions for states to opt out of NCLB, and endorsing Common Core State Standards (CCSS)—each of which increases both the amount of standardized testing and the high-stakes associated with those tests by expanding the accountability from schools and students to teachers. Under Obama, Democratic education policy and agendas, embodied by Duncan, have created a consistently inconsistent message. More recently, Obama has shifted into campaign mode and once again offered conflicting claims about education—endorsing a focus on reducing class size (despite huge cuts for years in state budgets that have eliminated teachers and increased class size, which Bill Gates endorses) and making a pitch to suport teachers unions and even increasing spending on education, leading Diane Ravitch to ponder:
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.
Throughout Obama's term, Obama's discourse has been almost directly contradicted by Duncan's discourse and the USDOE's policies. Obama tended to state that teachers were the most important in-school influence on student learning while Duncan tends to continue omitting the "in-school" qualifier, but these nuances of language are of little value since the USDOE under Obama has an agenda nearly indistinguishable from Republican agendas: • Promoting that all states should adopt CCSS and the necessary increase of testing and textbook support to follow.
• Endorsing market dynamics and school choice by embracing the charter school movement, specifically corporate-style charters such as Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP).
• Embracing and promoting "no excuses" ideologies for school reform and school cultures.
• Criticizing directly and indirectly public school teachers and perpetuating the "bad" teacher myth by calling for changes in teacher evaluations and compensation, disproportionately based on student test scores.
• Funding and endorsing the spread of test-based accountability to departments and colleges of education involved in teacher certification.
• Funding and endorsing the de-professionalization of teaching through support for Teach for America.
• Appealing to the populist message about choice by failing to confront the rise of "parent trigger" laws driven by corporate interests posing as concerned parents.
If my claim that Republicans and Democrats are different sides of the same misguided education reform coin still appears to be the claim of an extremist, the last point above should be examined carefully.
Note, for example, the connection between the issues endorsed by Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) and the anti-union sentiment joined with endorsing the next misleading Waiting for "Superman"—Won't Back Down.
The Democratic National Convention will be home to DFER, Parent Revolution, and Students First to promote Won't Back Down as if this garbled film is a documentary—including a platform for Michelle Rhee.
There is nothing progressive about the education reform agenda under the Obama administration, nothing progressive about the realities behind Obama's or Duncan's discourse, nothing progressive about Rhee, Gates, or the growing legions of celebrity education reformers.
If the Democratic Party were committed to a progressive education platform, we would hear and see policy seeking ways to fund fully public schools, rejecting market solutions to social problems, supporting the professionalization of teachers, embracing the power and necessity of collective bargaining and tenure, protecting students from the negative impact of testing and textbook corporations, distancing themselves from Rhee-like conservatives in progressive clothing, and championing above everything else democratic ideals.
Instead, the merging of the education agenda between Democrats and Republicans is Orwellian, but it real, as Ravitch warned early in Obama's administration:
This rhetoric represented a remarkable turn of events. It showed how the politics of education had been transformed. . . .Slogans long advocated by policy wonks on the right had migrated to and been embraced by policy wonks on the left. When Democrat think tanks say their party should support accountability and school choice, while rebuffing the teachers’ unions, you can bet that something has fundamentally changed in the political scene. (p. 22)
In August of 2012, educators have no political party to support because no political party supports educators—and this is but one symptom of a larger disease killing the hope and promise of democracy in the U.S. This tragic fact is the inevitable result of the historical call for teachers not to be political. Now that educators have no major party to support, the failure of that call is more palpable than ever.

Originally posted to plthomasEdD on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:48 AM PDT.

Also republished by Education Alternatives.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

TAGs Support Chicago Teachers Union





Their fight is our fight!

Chicago has been the focus of corporate school “reform,” but Chicago is now the epicenter of the push back against it. On June 11, 2012, Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) leaders announced that 89.73% of CTU members—98% of those who cast ballots—voted to give the union authority to call a strike if contract negotiations with Chicago Public Schools fail (Chicago Teachers Union). This astounding vote was about much more than a contract. It tapped into teachers’ deep anger at 17 years of neoliberal education “reforms” that have demoralized and blamed teachers and belittled their knowledge, taken the joy out of classrooms, and decimated public education. After 17 years of the tyranny of high stakes tests, business-like management of public schools, school closings and turnarounds by private operators, disinvestment of resources from neighborhood public schools, and moves to pay teachers based on competitive performance measures, teachers have had enough. A new revitalized teachers union, along with parents, students and community members of Chicago are standing up to the assault on public education.
On July 16, 2012, a mandatory fact finder—tasked with making recommendations for a new collective bargaining agreement between the Board of Education of the City of Chicago (Board) and CTU—shocked Mayor Rahm Emanuel by finding largely in favor of the CTU. Quickly, the Mayor and his appointed Board backed down on extending the school day without paying teachers for their extra time and agreed to rehire laid off teachers to add more art, music, and physical education classes to the school day. This was a victory for students, community members, and the CTU who have been fighting for a “better school day,” not just a longer day. But the struggle is far from finished. Teachers do not want a strike, but CTU leadership rejected the report noting that it left many key issues unresolved, including smaller class sizes, fair compensation for paraprofessionals, a rehire pool for laid-off teachers, and fair systems for teacher evaluation and compensation. Further, issues of charter school expansion and hiring more nurses and social workers are also at stake.
As a national Network of Teacher Activist Groups (TAG), we believe Chicago teachers are in a crucial battle to defend public education and make schools more equitable and just. The outcome of this struggle will not only impact the people of Chicago, but also set the tone for promoting educational equity across the nation. Their fight is our fight. We are asking educators, school social workers, parents, students, youth workers, and any concerned community members to join us in support and solidarity for the CTU teachers as they stand up to the powerful forces aligned to dismantle public education.
Read more…