Anthony Krinsky's Education Blog

Arizona calls teacher union bluff

2012-02-13T10:22:00.000-08:00

How many times have you heard the teacher unions say that collective bargaining "improves" student learning outcomes based on comparing performance in Massachusetts, a forced unionism state, with say Arizona, a Right To Work state.

So, by implication, teacher unions are weak in RTW states, right? School boards get their way and teachers don't get lifetime job security? Right?

Wrong.

Just listening to the howling coming out of teacher union-elected Arizona school boards concerning legislation that will wipe out their "right" to give away the farm to local teacher associations. While not called "collective bargaining" this process has the same effect. Combined with state education laws codifying tenure, seniority, and the single salary schedule, education policies in RTW states are often just as restrictive of administrative discretion as they are in compulsory bargaining states.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state_edwatch/2012/02/battle_over_collective_bargaining_coming_to_arizona.html

School boards and teacher unions are tipping their hands as this story unfolds. America: pay attention!!!

From Education Week:

The legislation undermines "local control," ASBA spokeswoman Tracey Benson said. "Our local school boards would be restricted in how they deal with their employees."

The Arizona Education Association has also voiced strong objections, saying a package of bills under consideration in the statehouse would "cripple that ability of teachers and other school employees to have a voice in decisions that impact their classrooms and schools."

"In Arizona, school districts voluntarily choose to meet with our local association leaders," Doug Kilgore, an AEA official, said in a statement. "Bargaining is not mandatory. School boards and administrators know they need an organized voice for teachers in the process to get decisions that create quality schools. Our voice on local budget issues helps ensure our taxpayers' money is spent in the classroom in ways that benefit kids."

If you didn't think that union rule existed in RTW state public school schools: think again.

Fake parents organization creates a new imposter

2012-02-11T19:23:00.001-08:00

What are we to make of a teacher union supported parents organization calling itself "NYC Parents Union" that had no support or endorsement from Ben Austin's Parent Revolution organization. How about another calling itself "NYC Students First" with no relationship to Michelle Rhee's Students First?

It seems as though Mona Davids and her teacher union backers are quite comfortable perpetrating this deception. They hope that the public gets confused. I've discussed this before and it seems that they've only been encouraged. They're even doing it in Los Angeles. I would urge you to consider carefully whether a "pro-parent" or "pro-child" organization is real or fake. If you're confused, pose these "truth test" questions to the imposter:

1) Do you support rewarding individual teaching performance (ie. paying great teachers more and laying off bad teachers regardless of age)?
This violates the core principle of union solidarity. Policies which treat employees differently (they call it "dividing" employees) will not be tolerated.

2) Do you support policies that encourage the non-unionized, independently run schools (ie. charter schools and private school scholarships)?
This undermines the government-union monopoly which is their money supply. They want to make sure that every incremental educational dollar benefits a unionized teacher in a district that the union will at some time control (and therefore give away the farm -- to itself).

There can be no doubt at all that this is a premeditated plan to impersonate reform organizations and trick parents into supporting the status quo. Would such a hijacking of "StudentsFirst" and "Parents Union" fail a "likelihood of confusion" test under US trademark law?

This is deception writ large and I hope that the media pays attention. In an arena where credibility matters, Mona Davids is proving that her depravity has no limit. Blatant hijacking of unique and now well-known reform brands is a cruel hoax on parents trapped in failing schools.

NYC Parents Union is a wholesale scam, however, the precursors are everywhere in teacher union practices. For instance, Randi Weingarten implores us to be civil and collaborative, while her locals bad-mouth reformers continually and shut down school districts with impunity and as much conflict as possible. The lie is: "accept union rule, and we'll take care of the kids." Likewise, their support for school boards is basically a scam: "support school board elections, and you'll have a say-so." Has that ever worked for reformers? Ever? The most twisted one is... "if you want change, simply 'bargain' for it..." As bad as this seems, they're becoming even more brazen. Consider this op-ed where the teacher union rep on the LAUSD school board, Bennett Kayser, actually calls himself "a warrior against the status quo."

We in the media may see through this deception but will pool parents who don't read the newspaper every day and will be pounded with teacher union financed propaganda? Does the consumer protection bureau need to protect poor families from predatory scammers like NYC "Parents Union"?

I expect that StudentsFirst will protect their brand to the fullest extent of the law. Both infringements must be tried case in the court of public opinion.

Chris Christie STANDS UP FOR CHILDREN!

2012-02-09T12:46:00.001-08:00

This is a much watch:

A Tale of Two Missions: Help Make It Viral!

2012-02-07T23:38:00.000-08:00

Here are the current statistics.

Google: "Tale of Two Missions" "Juan Williams"
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmnFQkD0Eg0

February 9, 2012: About 26,600 google hits, 14,554 youtube hits
February 8, 2012: About 24,200 google hits, 14,330 youtube hits
February 7, 2012: About 22,600 google hits, 14,223 youtube hits

This is a must-see 30 minute film.

Peter "the Wolf" Zucker, aka "SouthBronxTeacher", aka "the Godfather"

2012-02-07T09:42:00.000-08:00

SBT characterization of a school reformer

Those of us who have been slandered and assaulted online by SouthBronxTeacher welcome his coming out from behind the curtain of anonymity. He is sometimes HuffPost blogger and full-time NYC teacher, Peter Zucker.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-zucker/who-i-am-and-whats-on-my-_b_1256038.html

On Huffington Post, Peter promised to "tell it like it is, but rather to tone it down, to be less sarcastic, less snarky." I wonder if that will still include mocking reformers for playing "rich kid" sports like soccer, pasting pictures of education reformers on the bodies of sado masochists, and making harassing phone calls to family members.

The kind of personal provocation in which SouthBronxTeacher engages goes beyond passion and advocacy. Make no mistake: it's not a joke. SBT creates a permissiveness toward vigilantism. Read the comments on his site and you'll see the kind of vitriol that he encourages. SBT is playing with matches in the dry, crackling underbrush of brainwashed, unionized teachers. It is the equivalent of "screaming fire in a crowded movie theater."

I welcome Peter to the world of the editorially accountable and hope that he chooses to focus on what seem to be the primary challenges in his own professional life: administrators who do not lead and a system that does not reward professionalism in the classroom.

On behalf of myself and others who "SouthBronxTeacher" has maligned, we wish you much success on this new chapter and applaud your decision to "out" yourself.

Update 2/12/2011:

Peter Zucker (aka Southbronxteacher, SBT) apparently feels emboldened now that he's told his secret.   Do you believe that Zucker has "turned a page" as promised?

I received emails recently which suggest he hasn't and I urge my fellow reformers to stay out of his sticky web. Like me, many of you are not "professionals," have not received legal counsel, and keep an open-minded to befriending the opposition. Learn from my personal experiences with this cat.

Please know that Peter Zucker (aka Southbronxteacher, SBT) has harassed my family (private citizens and non-bloggers, all) and has threatened me personally with lawsuits and blackmail. This all happened AFTER I appeared on his show and exchanging emails and personal pleasantries.

Reformers rarely share notes; here are mine. His modus operandi is to present himself as being sweet and reasonable. He will send an innocent invitation to be on his show and present the debate as a harmless but fair contest: calling the whole thing good sport or some such. That's a trick. His goal is to use you as a pinata after the show and if possible to try to blackmail you personally. They frame their struggle in moral terms and believe that unseemly practices simply demonstrate and validate their commitment to what they perceive as a righteous struggle (to maintain the status quo).

Be forewarned, do not to fall for the "nice-guy act." As late as this week, he invited me back on his radio show. If you've read his post-show summaries, you will know how part ends. But maybe you thought that was all.

From time to time I get an email from Zucker demanding that I take down a post that offends him or one of his personal posse (Skeels, Solnet, Davids).... or else... The opener was that he "did not use lawyers" and a veiled reference to "making a phone call." And then came the harassing phone calls to my family and former associates, and then the threat of a coordinated lawsuit designed to break me down.    He recently reprised his demand, calling it "an understanding." What kind of person does this?

Like many of you I'm an idealist capable of believing that someone with whom I disagree can be a "friend." Don't fall for it. Zucker conducts himself like a mob boss, a "Godfather."   "Godfather's" emails now go into my trash folder; I suggest you do the same.

Let me offer this advice. Do NOT go on his radio show. Do NOT accept his friend requests on Facebook (yes, he actually pulled that one). Do NOT talk to him on the phone. Do NOT share personal information with him. Regardless, he will dig up whatever information he can find and will present it in the worst possible light.

Heard of "Peter and the Wolf?" This Peter is the wolf.

When you decide to take on the teacher unions and their activists, you must be willing to take the heat. Personal harassment is a lesser discussed weapon these thugs employ in their war for total control of public education dollars.

If you think that Zucker is a nuisance, wait until you see what the teacher unions can do from their head offices. Visit the AFT website RheeFirst! You won't find "AFT" on the site anywhere even after they were caught red-handed they admitted to running the site. This site is designed to look "home made" and to trick the public. Likewise, have you heard of "protests" against Rhee in Oakland and elsewhere? Want to know who coordinated those? The Rhee stalker app is particularly disturbing.

Listen up folks. Fighting for kids is hard and only the toughest reformers will survive.    Michelle Rhee is truly a "warrior woman" and in these times when she is under fierce attack, we owe her our support. Rhee takes a lot of arrows today but she's not the only one and if it may be Rhee today, but it could be you tomorrow. Ducking won't help the kids and we should all be sticking up for Michelle.

The goal of thugs like Zucker is to disparage our credibility and to make us disappear.
The Zucker posse toasts Bill Grundfest, an education advocate who "dropped out" last year. Grundfest engaged Zucker and the Godfather took him down (my personal assessment). Review Zucker's blog and you'll find other scalps he wants on his wall. Mine is on that list. Apparently helping readers understand what Solnet, Skeels, Beckles, and Davids are up to is not met the approval of "the family."

Historically, the thugs have beaten us. They get paid whether the kids learn anything or not or whether they even show up at work, or not. The unionists live and breath conflict and civil disobedience. They have staying power, "wrath of god" money ($2.5 billion/year consistently), community, ubiquity (teacher activists are everywhere there are children), and a real-politik ideology that glorifies confrontation and aggression. By comparison, we're resource poor, isolated, idealistic, and conflict-averse.   The power asymmetries are legion. How many responsible school board members have been harassed and ousted by teacher unions over the years?   How many all-star teachers simply quit because they were punished for promoting excellence? How many are now speaking up? How many dare tussle with the teacher unions again?

In our "civil" society these thugs live and breath incivility and mayhem. It is their secret weapon. Consider yourself warned.

Jay Mathews channels Diane Ravitch

2012-02-05T10:50:00.000-08:00

After writing about KIPP, Jay knows that you can't replicate that level of excellence in a government-run system under union rule. It can't be done.

But nevertheless, he says:

"I know some activists who would like all city schools to be charters. Not me. The traditional neighborhood school is still woven into the American education system and our culture. Most people like it. It should be preserved. But there is not much time left to do that here."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/class-struggle/post/depending-too-much-on-charters-is-perilous/2012/02/01/gIQAI1MviQ_blog.html

This is pure intellectual dishonesty. Don't our children deserve THE BEST chance we can provide for them to succeed in life? Is the education of children a case where you'll take a 4-cylinder when you can have a deep-throated 12-banger for the same price?

Allow me to paraphrase, Jay's impression. Since the teacher unions took over public education in America, we have "woven" failure "into the American education system and our culture."

Pathetic, Jay.

Excellent interview with Gloria Romero

2012-02-03T11:40:00.000-08:00

I love how Gloria Romero stands up for kids! Read John O'Connor's excellent interview with State Impact.

Q & A: Gloria Romero, Author Of California’s ‘Parent Trigger’ Law

http://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2012/02/02/q-a-gloria-romero-author-of-californias-parent-trigger-law/

California was the first state to adopt a ‘parent trigger,’ which allows a majority of parents in a failing school to vote on a method to restructure the school.

The bill is expected to be among the most contentious education issues of the 2012 legislative session. Activists have lined up against the bill, arguing it is not being done in their name. Others argue the bill is bad policy.

For more explanation on how Florida’s proposed law works, click here.
StateImpact Florida spoke with Gloria Romero, a former California state senator who authored the original parent trigger bill. Romero is now state director for the California chapter of Democrats for Education Reform.

Q: Tell me what your role was with the California parent trigger bill?

A: I am the author of the original parent trigger law in the nation, which today has seen it go across the nation to some 20 states having this concept introduced into potential law.

Q: When you guys introduced this bill in California, what was the situation you were looking at and how was this bill designed to solve it?

A: It’s really interesting, because to me the imagination of the parent trigger law is really to understand that it is parents who are the architects of their childrens’ future. And for year after year, decade after decade quite frankly, parents felt frustrated, because the administrators — those who run our schools — quite simply did not sense the need of urgency to turn around especially chronically under-performing schools. Failing schools, quite frankly.

So I finally wrote this bill, turned into law, which said quite frankly, if you aren’t going to do it — meaning the school administrators and the school bureaucrats in charge of the education system — then basically move out of the way and we the people, we the parents will. It basically asserts rights, it gives real rights to match the responsibility that parents have and feel towards trying to fight for the best education options for their children.

Q: The first time this law was attempted to be used at the Compton elementary school it turned into a bitter political fight. Is that accurate?

A: It is accurate, however, I think…there’s the law and then there’s the efforts to implement and use a law. I strongly support the Compton parents, what was done. But it was the first time in the nation and quite frankly the organizers did make mistakes. Now some of them were just quite trivial mistakes, for example they forgot to put a staple on a couple of papers. Or they forgot to put a date on the pages of the petition. There were some issues that were quite frankly that trivial. And yet they were dismissed in a court of law because not having a date on the petition with hundreds of signatures of parents was ruled invalid…

Having said that, the law is powerful. It is imaginative. I mean think about it: What law giving parents real rights that you can think of in recent years has sort of spawned the drive of parents and legislators across the country to try to move it into every state in the nation and that’s what I think is so exciting. The funny thing is is that when I was writing this law and fighting for it in the California legislature, I had no idea people across the nation would start looking at that and say ‘Yeah, I want that too because my own school district, my own elected officials, my own government is refusing to do what they’re supposed to do under federal and state laws. So if they’re not going to do it, give it to me and I will have the courage to do it.’

Q: This law has been invoked again since that first example. What have you guys learned since the law was first passed?

A: I think the first thing we’ve learned is parents are, unequivocally, the one sector of the education arena where they don’t have a special interest. Their main objective is to fight for an education for their kids. I’ve learned that parents, not only in California…really care about being part of the education sector where they can understand how to fight for their kids. So we know the parents care. We know that parents want it. And that’s important because too often you hear these stories ‘Oh, the parents don’t care.’ ‘If only the parents care.’ ‘Make them responsible.’ Yes, we’ll make them responsible, but you have to have rights to match the responsibility. So that is a fundamental equation that if we want parents to be responsible, and we do, then give them rights. And parents will utilize those rights.

I think another thing to is it’s important to collaborate. To go and work with many people in a coalition. In California, for example, it was very interesting to see people come together. And this wasn’t on a partisan basis, it wasn’t about Republican or Democrats. People didn’t even ask each other about their political persuasions were. They asked about the quality of their kids and whether or not their kids were better off now than when they first entered their school, and most of the time the answer was no. We found it was a time to coalesce with business owners, to coalesce with faith-based communities and churches and community groups to really move this forward.

But we also found…that too often elected officials are afraid to take on powerful special interests, like teachers’ union, who fear that they may lose control of basically calling the shots in an education system when parents begin to have a greater voice in the system. I think that’s a good thing and I don’t think we should be afraid of that.

Q: One of the criticisms of the law is what results, generally, has been confrontation rather than collaboration. Do you disagree with that?

A: Oh fundamentally. But let’s think about it. Confrontation that’s used in a pejorative sense…but confrontation means basically you confront. You deal with an issue. You look at it. Remember one of the main reasons why I wrote this bill into law in California, was that I was tired — sick and tired — of waiting and waiting and waiting for the school system, a failing school, to turn around. When you finally stand up and say ‘If you won’t acknowledge and confront this issue, then we will.’ I don’t think confrontation is a bad thing in the sense of parent trigger. It means the buck stops with us. If you’re a parent you’re responsible that your child has a quality education.

(Anthony Krinsky comment: Confrontation is "OK" when it is the teacher unions doing the confronting. Have you ever been to a teacher union office building. Walls and walls of posters of teachers marching. Don't let them lecture you about "collaboration." Those goons LOVE confrontation!)

I think those that have opposed it have tried to ‘Oh my gosh, it sets people off against each other.’ All the parents are asking for, if you think about it, is for those in charge to basically do their job. And in the cases where they fail, or they won’t do it, or they let a school fail year after year after year, then it’s time for them to move over and let the parents who fundamentally care and have a real stake in the outcome to say ‘Then we will do it…’

Fundamentally, it largely mirrors the rights that are already in existence under federal law. So to some extent, the revolutionary appeal of parent trigger is not that it’s revolutionary, it’s that these laws have been on the books and those that control the political and education levers to actually pull them to make schools better have simply twiddled their thumbs while Rome has burned and schools and children have failed.

So it’s not about confrontation being negative. It’s about saying that we mean it. That we can’t wait years and years and years for schools to turn around.

Q: What should lawmakers in Florida be asking themselves as they consider this bill?

A: I think when legislators are asking the question, who are they putting first? Are they putting their own political interests first? Or are they putting the opportunity and well-being of children first? Are they willing to step aside to put the kids first?

I think it’s important for them to ask: Does it matter if they are a Democrat or a Republican? It really should be ‘No, it’s not.’ This is a cooperative, bi-partisan effort. I think it matters to them to really, honestly look — dare I say, confront? — at their schools’ outcome data and to ask themselves ‘Is this the best that the Sunshine State can provide for children?’

If legislators who have the honor and privilege of being in public service if they have the opportunity to move an agenda forward that really puts kids first; that recognizes that it’s time to make a change. To ask themselves if they have the backbone and the courage to move this law forward and to help grow a national movement that gives parents real rights while we understand the responsibilities that must accompany those rights…

To me, fundamentally, this is a civil rights issue. It’s an economic opportunity issue as well.

Students First Great Teacher Essay Contest: 28,000 entries

2012-02-02T18:07:00.000-08:00

For a cynical, defeated education reformer like myself, this is news.
Not only did Students First sign up its 1 millionth member in its first year, but its base is activated.

How do we know? Consider this marvellous campaign: a six-word essay contest to describe great teachers. The contrast between EXCELLENCE themes of reformers and SOLIDARITY themes of status-quo defenders, could not be more evident. Over a few weeks, they got 28,000 entries!

Aren't these "essays" great?

Here's the latest thread:

http://www.studentsfirst.org/pages/essay-vote?utm_medium=email&utm_source=StudentsFirst&utm_campaign=sixwords&source=email_vote_1

We need your vote! Our members submitted 28,000 amazing six-word essays and our judges narrowed it down to the 30 best. Now we need you to help pick the winners!

Encouraging the discouraged to defy obstacles.
Karen M., Illinois
Building confidence; Opening doors; Shaping futures.
Stephanie C., Oklahoma
Teachers hold the ladders students climb.
Rebecca H., Pennsylvania
Handing out keys to the world.
Ann Marie O., Michigan
Stretching imaginations, expanding knowledge, multiplying opportunities.
Adam S., Arizona
Changing the world by expecting excellence.
Amanda T., Illinois
Teachers illuminate darkness to reveal possibilities.
Lindsay C., Massachusetts
Planting the seed of I can.
Sinora W., Illinois
Destroy chains. Shape wings. Inspire flight.
Kathleen C., Nevada
I struggled; she never gave up.
Scarlet W., Tennessee
All thirty students raised their hand.
William S., Washington
Spark interest. Ignite curiosity. Fuel dreams.
Jackie K., Texas
Sees a star before it's discovered.
Gisela V., New Jersey
Selflessly dedicated to someone else's success.
Amanda W., Nevada
Believes I'm a superhero in disguise.
Margaret Z., Minnesota
Challenge limitations. Raise expectations. Inspire achievement.
Kara J., Colorado
Transforms barred windows into open doors.
Becca W., Nevada
Instill knowledge; invoke passion; inspire greatness.
Vishak V., California
She said I can be anything.
Yuji N., New Jersey
Holds all students accountable to greatness.
Mary T., California
That all my students surpass me.
Harville H., New York
Point out the stars. Provide rockets.
Adam L., Illinois
Teachers inspire dreamers to become doers.
Judy S., Pennsylvania
Dedication, patience and never ending encouragement.
Mery M., Florida
Open books, open minds, open doors.
Nancy M., Arizona
Molds 'I can't...' into 'I did!'
Kathryn B., Pennsylvania
Watch them soar, then demand more.
Pancho S., Oregon
I remember her fifty years later.
Cullen A., Indiana
They doubted, you believed, I succeeded.
Phillip J., Wisconsin
Spark wonder. Challenge thinking. Dismantle myths.
Valerie V., Pennsylvania

Whitney Tilson updates his deck

2012-02-02T10:34:00.000-08:00

Every education reformer should download this deck. Every American should know the truth.

http://www.arightdenied.org/presentation-slides/

Tilson is a gift and a blessing to all American children.

His ongoing contribution to our fight cannot be underestimated.

THANK YOU WHITNEY.

WATCH IT: Tale of Two Missions Freaking out Chicago Teachers Union

2012-02-01T21:51:00.000-08:00

A video produced by Education Action Group (EAG) is turning a lot of heads in Chicago these days.

I think it's the best video ever produced about education reform, so far. Yes, I said that. Better than Waiting for Superman.

This 30 minute film should be running on a loop in Wisconsin right now. Walker has opened the door of opportunity and residents of the Badger state ought to be SOOO GRATEFUL!

Watching the rats scurry tells you how good this thing really is. Union trained teacher-activist and blogger, Fred Klonsky, is cookoo for these cocoa puffs.

The Chicago Teachers Union blasted Rahm Emanuel for appearing in a video produced by the right-wing anti-union Michigan-based Education Action Group.

EAG was the group that sent Ben Velderman after my work emails and my personnel file using the Illinois Freedom of Information Act.

EAG’s leader Kyle Olson became a national laughing-stock after he attacked the children’s book, Click Clack Moo, Cows that Type, as class warfare indoctrination.

http://preaprez.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/life-in-rahms-chicago-tuesday-edition-2/
http://preaprez.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/anti-public-school-allies-kyle-olson-juan-williams-and-rahm-emanuel/

Did you know that among non-selective schools in Chicago, the Noble charter schools rank 1 through 10 inclusively for student learning growth? This is a devastating indictment of union rule and a mind-bending endorsment of the charter school model. It's also a reminder that not every charter school is created equal and we should do everything in our power to help successful CMOs proliferate.
Watch this movie here. It rocked my world. Take it from Klonsky. It's rocking his.
And while you're at it, check out KidsArentCars.com by the same group (EAG). It's a much less effective treatment of the subject matter but still very powerful. I especially liked the segments on "Electing your own boss" and "Reforms that work." I had forgotten how often the teacher unions use recall campaigns to stop reform in its tracks. What they did in Ohio and are doing now in Wisconsin are chapters in storied playbook that has allowed them to twist our Democracy into an instrument of union rule.

It's not the poverty: Dumb in Beverly Hills

2012-02-01T12:54:00.000-08:00

Did you know that 55% of Californians give their locals public schools an “A” or “B”.

http://dornsife.usc.edu/usc-lat-poll-public-schools-november-2011/

Now check out this article in Education Next. I've quoted and paraphrased below... Take away the poverty and the "financial distress" and what you end up with, under union rule, is at best mediocre. All the privilege in the world can't buy a world class education in even America's best public school districts.

http://educationnext.org/when-the-best-is-mediocre/

The Global Report Card (GRC http://www.globalreportcard.org/) enables users to compare academic achievement in math and reading between 2004 and 2007 for virtually every public school district in the United States with the average achievement in a set of 25 other countries with developed economies that might be considered our economic peers and sometime competitors. The main results are reported as percentiles of a distribution, which indicates how the average student in a district performs relative to students throughout the advanced industrialized world.

To be included in this comparison group, countries had to have a 2007 per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of at least $24,000 and a population of at least 2 million, not be a member of OPEC, and have test results from PISA. Twenty-five countries met these criteria; the comparison group was computed as the average of those 25 countries.

Beverly Hills

It is critically important to compare exclusive suburban districts against the performance of students in other developed countries, as these districts are generally thought to be high-performing. The most wealthy and politically powerful families have often sought refuge from the ills of our education system by moving to suburban school districts. Problems exist in large urban districts and in low-income rural areas, elites often concede, but they have convinced themselves that at least their own children are receiving an excellent education in their affluent suburban districts.

Unfortunately, student achievement in many affluent suburban districts is worse than parents may think, especially when compared with student achievement in other developed countries. Take for example Beverly Hills, California. The city has a median family income of $102,611 as of 2000, which places it among the top 100 wealthiest places in the United States with at least 1,000 households. The Beverly Hills population is 85.1 percent white, 7.1 percent Asian, and only 1.8 percent black and 4.6 percent Hispanic. The city is virtually synonymous with luxury. A long-running television show featured the wealth and advantages of Beverly Hills high-school students (as well as their overly dramatic personal lives). If Beverly Hills is not the refuge from the ills of the education system that elite families are seeking, it’s not clear what would be.

But when we look at the Global Report Card results for the Beverly Hills Unified School District, we don’t see top-notch performance. The math achievement of the average student in Beverly Hills is at the 53rd percentile relative to our international comparison group. That is, one of our most elite districts produces students with math achievement that is no better than that of the typical student in the average developed country. If Beverly Hills were relocated to Canada, it would be at the 46th percentile in math achievement, a below-average district. If the city were in Singapore, the average student in Beverly Hills would only be at the 34th percentile in math performance.

Of course, people don’t think of Beverly Hills as a school district with mediocre student achievement. This is partly because people assume that affluent suburbs must be high achieving and partly because state accountability results inflate achievement by comparing affluent suburban school districts with large urban ones. According to California’s state accountability results, the average student in Beverly Hills is at the 76th percentile in math achievement relative to other students in the state. But outperforming students in Los Angeles, which is only at the 20th percentile in math relative to a global comparison group, should provide little comfort to Beverly Hills parents.

Los Angeles Unified is not the main source of competitors for Beverly Hills students, so the state accountability system encourages the wrong comparison. If Beverly Hills graduates are to have the kinds of jobs and lifestyles that their parents hope for them, they will have to compete with students from Canada, Singapore, and everywhere else. Beverly Hills students have to be toward the top of achievement globally if they expect to get top jobs and earn top incomes.

Take the California Education Reform quiz. How much do you know?

2012-02-01T12:47:00.002-08:00

Prepared by Anthony Krinsky (anthonykrinsky at google mail), http://edboserver.blogspot.com

California Education Reform Quiz: How much do you know?
1.    According to residents of Los Angeles, what should be the highest priority initiatives to improve public education?
A.    Spend more money, reduce class-size, involve parents more
B.    Increase the number of charter schools, choices, and competition
C.    We need to reform tenure, seniority, and union rules in schools
D.    Weaken teacher union political power

2.    There are 163 charter schools in Los Angeles, more than:
A.    Any other school district in the state
B.    Any other school district in the nation
C.    Any other school district in the world
D.    All of the above

3.    California collects basic data on developing, compensating, promoting, granting tenure to and removing teachers
A.    True
B.    False

4.    LAUSD employs over 80,000 people; one for every 8 students; half are teachers. If the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) had maintained its proportionate ratio of adults to students from 2003 to 2009, LAUSD would have taken the following action:
A.    Hired more staff, cut-backs have been severe
B.    Keep the number of staff roughly constant at 82,000, to mirror student enrollment.
C.    Reduced staff by 11,500 as enrollment has dropped by 15%

5.    The 4 million member NRA (National Rifle Association) collects around $230 million per year in revenues. In 1998, Barack Obama raised over $850 million for his election campaign. Around how much do the teacher unions, representing around 4 million public school teachers, collect and spend every year?
A.    $200 million
B.    $500 million
C.    $1 billion
D.    $2.5 billion

6.    In what percentage of America’s 15,000 school districts are teacher unions active in electing school boards and local politicians?
A.    Few of them since picketing and making phone calls on behalf of politicians is a distraction from teaching.
B.    In around 3/4 of them since teachers are not forced to belong to the union in every state.
C.    In all of them.

7.    “Charters schools” in California are public schools that:
A.    Must accept any student who applies, holding a lottery if over-subscribed.
B.    Must have their “charters” authorized and renewed every 5 years by the local school board or state.
C.    Receive nearly the same per student funds as public schools, minus rent and other facility costs.
D.    Must comply with fewer state education laws.
E.    Are rarely unionized.
F.    Cannot teach religion.
G.    Empower principals with discretion to hire, fire, and manage at-will.
H.    All of the above.

8.    In traditional public schools (TPS), tenure guarantees teachers “jobs for life” after how many years?
A.    1 year
B.    2 years
C.    5 years
D.    Never

9.    On what basis are public school teachers paid, given transfer rights, committee assignments, and released when there are budgetary contractions?
A.    Emotional connection with children
B.    Performance in the classroom
C.    Ability to maintain order and discipline
D.    Years spent in the building
E.    A, B, and C

10.    We pay over 10% state income tax, 10% sales tax, and around 1.25% property tax to support California government programs. What percentage of this money (none of which is returned if you use private schools) is spent running public K-14 schools?
A.    10%
B.    30%
C.    50%
D.    70%

11.    What percentage of students in California attended charter schools last year?
A.    1%
B.    5%
C.    10%
D.    15%
E.    30%

12.    LAUSD graduates what percentage of all students across the city from high-school and how many of those go on to collect and graduate from college.
A.    80% from high school, 30% to college, 15% graduate college
B.    65% from high school, 20% to college, 10% graduate college
C.    50% from high school, 10% to college, 5% graduate college

13.    In the private sector, 10% of employees are fired or transfer every year, providing new job-seekers opportunities to apply for vacant positions. Of the 35,000 teachers in the LAUSD, how many were terminated for poor performance (or poor team-work) in the last decade (between 2000-2009).
A.    10% per year or 35,000
B.    1% per year or 3,500
C.    0.001% or 4

14.    What happens every Tuesday at more than 600 LAUSD schools?
A.    Teachers meet with one another and principals to discuss how to improve learning.
B.    Experts train teachers on new techniques and curricula.
C.    Teachers review video of best practices and opportunities for improvement from the prior week.
D.    Union “Chapter Chair” disseminate the Tuesday Talking Points memo produced by the UTLA communications department.

15.    In California, how many of our 330,000 public school teachers pay between $600-$1,200 per year annually for teacher union dues?
A.    We don’t know. The teacher unions don’t disclose their finances or membership figures.
B.    All of them.

16.    If the teacher unions want to raise more money for a political campaign, how do they do it?
A.    They ask teachers to send donations.
B.    They simply pass a resolution asking school districts to automatically withdraw the money from teacher pay-checks and deposit it in the union bank account.
C.    They open businesses to make money.

California Education Reform quiz (answers)

2012-02-01T12:47:00.000-08:00

You've taken the quiz (next post), now check your answers.

Education Reform Quiz: Answers

1. A. Californians don’t understand what works and why. They support spending more money, reducing class-size, and increasing parental involvement more than choice or reform. Although 52% have a favorable opinion about charters and 12% unfavorable, they favor increasing funding for traditional schools over creating more charters by a 64%-21%. About 86 percent said shortage of parental involvement has contributed to problems in public schools, compared to 62 percent who blamed teachers’ unions or 54 percent who blame for-profit corporations, including those that operate charter schools. There are no for-profit charter schools in Los Angeles although technically, there could be. 64% favor raising their own taxes to increase education funding.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/18/local/la-me-poll-charters-20111118, http://dornsife.usc.edu/usc-lat-poll-public-schools-november-2011/

2. D. All of the above. There are more charter schools in California than in any other state (including Louisiana) and more charter schools in Los Angeles than in any other city. Approximately, 10% of students in Los Angeles attend charter schools, 6% in California overall. However, teacher union political opposition to charter schools is very strong and legislation pending today (AB1172) would wipe out charter schools in California completely within 10 years.

3. B. False. California does not collect even basic data on teachers and in fact, returned $6 million to the Federal government in 2011 that was earmarked for data collection. Source: http://www.edtrust.org/west/press-room/headlines/brown-veto-hampers-effort-to-reform-public-schools%E2%80%8E

4. C. There should be 15% fewer staff. LAUSD enrollment dropped from 730,000 to 620,000 while payroll has largely been unchanged (it goes up due to step increases). All things being equal, there should be 11,500 fewer staff (-15%) today. Source: LAUSD 061809 Budget Presentation.pdf

5. D. $2.5 billion. While the teacher unions are the biggest political spenders in most local, state, and national contents, less than 2% of total revenues is spent on campaign contributions. The rest is spent “educating” teachers and “informing” the public. We are taught what they want us to know. Source: Terry Moe, Special Interest: Teacher Unions and America’s Schools.

6. C. All of them. Since government runs schools, pay, benefits, job security, and union power to collect dues and special assessments depends on the support of friendly politicians, even when not all teachers are members of or active in the union.

NEA, AFT Dig Down to Details in Effort To Mobilize Members

By Jeff Archer, Education Week, November 1, 2000

If there is such a thing as a perfect campaign operation, it probably looks something like this:

It has a foothold in every electoral district in the country—an army of members so big that their votes alone might decide many races. Further, those members are public employees whose work lives are shaped directly by elected officials.

Finally, it has in place a permanent network of well-trained field-staff workers at the federal, state, and local levels ready for action whenever election time nears.

In short, it looks a lot like a teachers' union. Few organizations can match the nationwide reach, potential pool of volunteers, and ability to mobilize staff members for political campaigns of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

Even when compared with other labor organizations, the teachers' groups wield an impressive arsenal of political clout, in part because their members are so evenly distributed across the country, and the general public tends to see educators as credible messengers. What's more, both unions are savvier now than ever before when it comes to politics, and both are using new tactics and technology in an effort to deliver votes.

"It's so close this year that the winners are going to be the candidates who get their votes out," said Dennis Friel, one of the NEA's political field managers. "And we've taken it to a new level."

7. D. All of the above. A charter school is a special kind of school that must be both chosen by parents and authorized/reauthorized by government, to receive public funds. However, charter schools run more like private schools internally than public schools. This allows them to enforce high expectations, allocate resources efficiently, and innovate more quickly.

8. B. Two years in California. California put teacher tenure in place in 1921 in order to protect teachers from political firings. Proposition 74, “Put the Kids First Act” in 2005 would have delayed tenure to 5 years. Teacher unions derailed the initiatives with a door-to-door and media campaign calling it “an attack on education” and saying that teachers who would be fired “without giving a reason or even a hearing.” To pay for the fight, they automatically deducted $60 per year from 335,000 teacher pay-checks, spending $21 million in 2005 to defend the status quo. Source: http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/cta%20release2.htm. Governor Bobby Jindal in Louisana stands a good chance of reforming tenure this year. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has no chance; the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) in New York is too strong.

9. D. Years spend in the building. Through state law and local collective bargaining agreements, how a teacher performs in the classroom and maintains order does not count toward pay, assignments, and job security during contractions: only longevity matters. In every LAUSD school, high performers are stuck with slackers and typically making less money than bad teachers who never quit and are never fired.

10. C. Around 50%. The teacher union sponsored Proposition 98 ensures that 40% of the general fund is spent on K-14 public education; actual spending exceeds 50% including local property and sales taxes.

11. C. Around 5%. In 2010, around 340,000 of 6 million students were enrolled in charter schools.

12. C. Only 52% of LAUSD students graduate in 4 years. And, an estimated 60% of college freshman at UC schools require basic remediation (ie. most LAUSD graduates still cannot read or compute). Source: http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_16801481

13. C. 4 in 10 years, statistically zero. What teacher unions call “chronic instability” is normal in the private sector where voluntary and involuntary separations maintain excellence. http://www.laweekly.com/2010-02-11/news/lausd-s-dance-of-the-lemons/

14. D. Tuesday Talking Points. At the LAUSD, principals are not empowered to evaluate, train, and critique teachers. There is no continual improvement requirement or expectation. However, teacher union reps in the schools very actively train fellow teachers to defend the 300+ page contract and teach students and parents the UTLA point of view.

Here’s what Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said on December 7^th, 2010 at Public Policy Institute of California.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/antonio-villaraigosa/it-is-time-for-teachers-u_b_793551.html

“Why, for so long, have we allowed denial and indifference to defeat action? I do not raise this question lightly, and I do not come to my conclusion from a lack of experience. I was a legislative advocate for the California Teachers Association, and I was a union organizer for United Teachers of Los Angeles. From the time I entered the California State Assembly and became Speaker, to my tenure as Mayor of Los Angeles, I have fought to fund and reform California’s public schools.
Over the past five years, while partnering with students, parents and non-profits, business groups, higher education, charter organizations, school district leadership, elected board members and teachers, there has been one, unwavering roadblock to reform: UTLA union leadership.
While not the biggest problem facing our schools, they have consistently been the most powerful defenders of the status quo…”

15. B. All of them. California is a forced union state; collective bargaining is required. “Non-members” still pay “fair-share” dues of around 75% and California teacher unions collect around $300 million per year state-wide every year.

16. B. They pass a resolution. Reverse check-off is the device used by teacher unions to withdraw money from teacher pay-checks automatically. Teachers must petition to have the money returned; few do. Money is never a problem for teacher unions; they just take from teachers what they want.

What did Rigo know? Another Miramonte teacher makes the news.

2012-01-31T15:48:00.000-08:00

Newsflash 2-5-2012

Recently we now learn that Springer, one of the notorious -17 has been arrested for lewd acts. What did Rigo (RIP) know? What is the LA Times that sent him over the edge or was he just stuck with a bunch of low-life slackers?

Today, FoxNews reports that a teacher in Miramonte elementary school, Mark Berndt, was molesting children, potentially for decades.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/31/former-los-angeles-teacher-charged-with-molesting-23-children/

This is the same school where Rigo Ruelas was "stuck with slackers" as I reported last year. By the numbers, Berndt scored at the same level as Rigo, slightly higher than average in the school. Could knowledge of Berndt's lewd acts have factored in Rigo's decision to take his own life? The timeline of the police investigation suggests that he could have known. Did it contribute to his sense of isolation?

While Berndt's crimes seem to have been so lascivious that it's my guess that he'll go to the big house quickly. The same cannot be said for thousands of teachers accused of lesser crimes.

As of 2009, there were over 12,600 cases of alleged teacher misconduct that had not been processed. Not teaching children a thing is not counted as misconduct in California.

As Larry Sand and Education News reported:

“The report describes a backlog of 12,600 unprocessed reports of arrest and prosecution of educators as of 2009 — almost three times a typical annual workload. In 40 percent of the cases reviewed, after a report of misconduct was received, it took almost three months to even open a case. After receiving court documents that a teacher was convicted of a crime requiring mandatory revocation of the credential, it sometimes took months to actually revoke it.”

The Sacramento Bee highlighted specific cases from the report back in April:

• An educator was charged with exposing middle school students to pornography in a case the Commission on Teacher Credentialing became aware of in October 2008. The commission did not request documents from police for 17 months.
• A teacher was arrested on charges for offenses ranging from prostitution to petty theft in 2007 – eventually pleading guilty to misdemeanor prostitution – but was permitted to renew his credential in 2008. It was revoked two years later.
• A substitute teacher urinated in a classroom while students were present and was banned by a judge from teaching for one year or being in the presence of children without adult supervision. The commission did not revoke his credential until six months after the court case ended.

These cases are in some cases horrifying but they don't get to the root of why America is failing economically and why traditional "can-do" values are disappearing from the lower and middle-income strata of our society (as discussed in Charles Murray's new book, Coming Apart). Here's why.

Consider how another peer of Rigo reflected on his job educating students at Miramonte. By way of background, note that between 2000 and 2009, the LAUSD fired 4 teachers (out of 35,000+) for poor performance.

From our email dialog I found this teacher to be a courteous and nice person who has completely rationalized his failure to help children excel. Did this teacher hate children? No. Does he love his job? Yes, it seems that way. Does the teacher have some legitimate grievances about mismanagement in the district? Probably. Do other teachers succeed in the face of similar adversity? Apparently so. Is he comfortable turning in crappy results year after year and collecting a fantastic pay-check, by my estimate over $75 per hour including benefits? Mostly, although he seems a bit ashamed. Does he continually search for rationalizations and excuses for his own poor performance? Yes, absolutely. Does he know his contract protected rights better than how to teacher reading and math? It sure seems that way. Does he feel a sense of camaraderie with the other 10 chronically failing teachers in the building? It seems that way.

Isn't failing children a crime? Should teacher who consistently fail children -- even well-intentioned and well-spoken ones -- have jobs for life? If bad teaching and good teaching are treated the same and paid the same, how can the profession be elevated?

This is the reality in thousands of classrooms around America where our most vulnerable children need the most help and the best teachers. This teacher is one of tens of thousands who will collect a pay-check until the day he retires -- whether the children passing through his classroom learn anything at all. Apparently, Rigo Ruelas couldn't go through with it.

On the tombstones of America's uneducated and morality-free youth will be written: "This kid was my student. I did the best I could and more than my union expected. Sorry it wasn't enough." Say hello to one of the tens of thousands of unionized teachers in whose classrooms children are learning basically nothing year after year.

I am one of Rigo’s colleagues whom you have called a "slacker," a member of the despised "-17 club."

My ideology is pro-union and pro-public school, partly because of my liberal family background, but mostly because I have a job in the public realm which I love, and the compensation and benefits I get for doing that job insure that I will never have to quit doing what I love, or look for a more lucrative career, or get a number of side jobs in order to get by. I have also seen injustice on the job and been the target of some injustice, which makes me glad for union protection. You talk about bad teachers, but there are also bad administrators who really don’t know how to evaluate teachers, or in extreme cases, even treat employees like human beings. So there has to be a balance of power. Believe me, administrators have a lot of power and a lot of ways to get rid of someone they don’t like. I have a seen a lot of good teachers get harassed right out of their jobs or into a transfer. So let’s ditch the canard about teachers being "impossible to fire."

Aside from theory, many historians agree that unions have benefited America by raising the standard for wages and working conditions even in non-unionized workplaces. As for public employee unions, I think very few would argue that police and firefighters do not deserve representation in the workplace. It is certainly true that a union, like any other corporation, can become too powerful. For example, California politics are dominated by the prison guards’ union. But they have a right to exist, and to perform their basic function of protecting and bargaining for their members. If they manage to influence legislation and elections, then so does every other corporation and wealthy individual who can hire a lobbyist. All interests have a right to make their voice heard in politics. The Supreme Court said so, in the Citizens United case! ? (A little facetious, here.)

Sorry if I’m seeming pedantic, but you know I am a teacher. It comes naturally.

In terms of political power, we teachers do not control the basic materials of our jobs. Academic programs and textbooks are dictated by the school districts, and we teachers implement whatever they hand down to us. We are given trainings and professional developments on how to implement the programs more faithfully. And if some of those programs don’t get good results, guess who gets blamed for it? One guess.

There have been proposals to allow teachers’ unions to negotiate about the textbooks and other materials they use, but those proposals have been quashed in the Legislature by the school district lobbyists. So tell me, who has the political power? The answer: school districts and textbook vendors. Selling textbooks to a captive audience is a huge cash cow, and so companies like McGraw-Hill are willing to spend any effort to persuade state legislatures to "adopt" their product.

Also, teachers in California do not have jobs for life. If you are going to be an advocate, you may as well make sure you are fully informed. I recommend that you go the UTLA website at http://utla.net/contracts and download our contract. It’s all there, publicly posted, and you can see for yourself things like Union Rights, District Rights, Hours and Duties, Evaluation and Discipline, etc. (Remember what I said in my first message: our work day is really EIGHT hours, and that’s what justifies our staying later; sometimes, much later.) It may also be worth your while to look up the State Education Code, which defines the basic requirements and training for our profession.

In the meantime, I am going to tell you that our state credentials only last five years, at the end of which time we have to renew by certifying that we have grown professionally. (I know one teacher who actually lost his credential because the principal refused to accept his proof of professional growth. Fortunately, the process is less arbitrary now.)

In addition to that, we are evaluated by our Administrators, at a minimum, once every two years – it’s called the "Stull" process - and if a principal has doubts about an individual teacher, or simply wishes to harass that teacher, he/she can simply choose to evaluate that teacher every single year, as a matter of pure unquestioned discretion. The evaluating administrator observes the teacher in action with a checklist, and depending on whether the teacher fulfills a number of fields (including punctuality, classroom environment, timely completion of paperwork, effective teaching style, etc.), at the end of the year the administrator puts either "Meets Standard" or "Below Standard."

If the evaluating administrator happens to vindictively have it in for the teacher, there is really nothing to stop them from writing what they want and claiming they saw or didn’t see something. The only way a teacher can protect himself/herself against that kind of bum evaluation is to document everything, save every lesson plan and constantly take pictures of the classroom. (And that is exactly how I, myself, successfully overturned two bad evaluations, the only two bad ones I have received in twenty years. And yes, the principal was an evil vindictive son of a bitch, who is now thankfully gone.)

I have to be honest, and tell you that a "Below Standard" evaluation does not immediately endanger your job. It does start a year-long process of Peer Assistance and Review, which is meant to help the teacher do a better job. However, too many "Below Standards" and you run the risk of getting a "Notice of Unsatisfactory Service," the ultimate weapon of a supervisor. An "Unsat" doesn’t even have to be given at the end of the year; it can be given at any time, especially if the teacher does something really egregious, like leaving the kids alone, coming to work drunk, being abusive or lewd, being insubordinate, etc. The "Unsat" carries with it a mandatory suspension without pay, which the union must appeal within three days. If you get a really serious "Unsat," or several less serious "Unsat’s" in a row, and your union rep fails to exonerate you, you are on the way out. Thank God I haven’t had one. My vindictive bully principal may have fantasized about giving me one, but he would have to prove it.

And then there are the teachers who are "locked up with pay" (in the words of my friend who was denied the renewal of his credential). That’s when the teacher is reassigned to an office, to basically sit and do nothing while his/her case is being deliberated. I think these are cases where the evidence is unclear, or where it’s solely the teacher’s word against the administrator’s. The Times has made a lot of hay out of these cases, but I only have personal knowledge of maybe three cases. In two of the cases, I believe the teacher was innocent of wrongdoing, and in the other one I’m not sure.

And of course, new teachers are probationary for the first two years and can be dismissed for any reason.

Now, does this sound to you like teachers have a job for life? Or do you have a problem with the concepts of due process and assistance for teachers who need help? I for one am glad that I cannot be instantly fired on some made-up charge, or whim. That should not happen to any employee, particularly a professional who has invested so much in preparation for this career. But in the bad old days before teachers’ unions, that is exactly what could happen. I do not want to go back to those days.

It may even be true that school systems are reluctant to fire teachers, but I don’t think that has anything to do with respect for our feelings or fear of our unions. I think school districts are simply afraid of not having enough people to fill all the positions, especially now when the profession is being attacked in the press and in the movies and everywhere. I mean, who would want to be a teacher now? I have heard some excellent teachers express to me that if they had to decide all over again, they would not enter the profession.

Standardized tests: they do not "lie," but they do not present a complete picture either. Liberal and conservative academics agree that tests mandated by state governments generally do not adequately measure the scope of a child’s learning. Their results do not factor in the effects of poverty, cultural bias and not being able to speak English. There are even studies which suggest that a child’s performance on a test is only partially accounted for by the performance of the child’s teacher, and you can download some of these studies at the UTLA website, at http://utla.net/te/backgroundinfo. (I know you don’t like UTLA, but please don’t be biased against the source, because these studies are recognized and legit.) The best way to evaluate a teacher is to watch that teacher teach, not to focus on one statistic.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and so is a partial picture of the truth. The Times’ Value-Added ratings do not factor in important things like the assignment of students to teachers, which is not random. (Our former principal has admitted that Rigo was always assigned the lowest-performing students: the ones who scored lowest on tests, or had behavior problems, or couldn’t speak English. Do you think that could be why his VAM was so low?) The Times database also takes no note of the problems with the standardized tests themselves. To me it is incredible that so many people are putting such credence in the Times database, and judging teachers solely on that basis, given that the research about the problems with VAM is widely available. The Times database truly represents the triumph of ignorance in public discourse.

Since you have communicated with me in a civil and courteous tone, I am going to trust you with a little personal information, as you requested. Thanks to a new District database called MyData, we are now able to compare our students’ latest test scores with their scores from the previous year, which is the definition of Value-Added Measurement. Last spring, my students, on average, slightly improved their English scores from the previous year. However, their Math scores went down ten points. But you won’t find that on the Times database, because the database is a blunt instrument: it does not break down the scores year-by-year, only presenting an average over as many as seven years. Therefore it would not show if a teacher has been showing steady improvement, or steady deterioration.

The test, limited as it was, did not "lie." I really tried hard last year with teaching English Language Arts, including practice with test-taking strategies, a required part of the curriculum. I was proud of the job that I did. One thing that helped was that I was allowed to stay in the same classroom all year, and did not have to "rove" or switch classrooms twice a year as per usual, which saved a lot of instructional hours. (Do you know how much time we waste in year-round schools packing, unpacking, setting up the room again, etc.?) I thought this would be the best year ever. However, I did not do a good job with Math, and I was aware of this while the year was still in progress. I apologized to the parents for this at Open House. I was frustrated by mistakes the students were making with very simple procedures. My principal (a good guy who has been traumatized by recent events) knows I was not successful with Math, and he’s going to help me to improve this year.

In my defense, I would like to point out that, until this year, we were required to teach Language Arts for two and a half hours. I think I was not the only teacher who found it hard to squeeze in Math. At our school, Language teaching has profited at the expense of Math teaching for many years. Also, last year the District gave us a brand new Math program. Over the past dozen years or so, the District has constantly changed programs and textbooks, and there is always a learning curve with new programs, for teachers as well as students. So, whenever you have a new program, scores will go down for a while and eventually creep back up. As I said before, teachers do not control what they teach. District bureaucrats and textbook companies do.

Miramonte remains open and after the UTLA scratched PSC, it will cripple another generation of students for at least another 6 years.

Imagine knowing that more than half of the teachers in your school weren't getting the job done and that one of your peers, who was unlikely to be fired or even reprimanded, was a sick pedophile.

How can we expect there to be a "can-do" attitude among teachers in the public schools with this kind of widespread incompetence, comfort with mediocrity, and even malfeasance? Where there is union rule, there is no ability to reform or improve a school. Mr. Bernt's alleged transgressions are atrocious and they make the news.Why not the day-to-day neglect of Miramonte's children? What do we do with failing teachers who talk a pretty good game and don't subject their students to sadistic rituals? We give them jobs for life. Who pays the price? The children.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/31/former-los-angeles-teacher-charged-with-molesting-23-children/

Los Angeles teacher charged with molesting 23 children

A department statement said 61-year-old Mark Berndt was arrested Monday and remained jailed Tuesday on $2.3 million bail. The district attorney's office said Berndt has been charged with committing lewd acts with 23 boys and girls ages 6 to 10, according to the Associated Press.

The investigation began when a film processor gave authorities about 40 photographs depicting blindfolded children in a classroom with their mouths taped shut.

Some of the photos showed girls with what appears to be a spoon up to their mouths as if they were going to ingest a clear-white liquid. A spoon and container found in trash in Berndt's classroom tested positive for semen, the sheriff's department statement said.

Some of the children's mouths and faces had large, live Madagascar-type cockroaches on them, according to the statement.

Some photos showed Berndt with his arm around the children or with his hand over their mouths.

"I am sickened and horrified by the behavior of Mark Berndt," Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent John Deasy said in a statement.

Sheriff's Lt. Carlos Marquez of the Special Victims Bureau said it was determined the children were given semen on a spoon or on a cookie. Marquez said the children reported they didn't like the taste.

The children reportedly told police their teacher said it was a game and the substance was "sugar," according to MyFoxLA.com.

Authorities are recommending the children be tested for sexually transmitted diseases.

Berndt is charged with committing lewd acts between 2008 and 2010. He worked for more than 30 years at Miramonte Elementary School in south Los Angeles. The school serves a poor, mainly Hispanic neighborhood. More than half of its approximately 1,400 students are still learning English, according to the school's website.

Berndt was immediately removed and fired when police informed the school district, Deasy said.

None of the alleged victims told anyone about the incidents and photos, Marquez said.

"They didn't know they were being violated in that manner. They just thought it was a game," Marquez said.

The incidents occurred during school hours but not all the children were Berndt's students, Marquez said.

Berndt has never been married, has no children and there's no indication of a previous arrest record, authorities said.

The sheriff's department said a search warrant served on Berndt's home led to the discovery of more than 100 similar photographs depicting children.

A DVD depicting adult sexual bondage activity "which mirrored the bondage-type photos of the children" was also found during the search, according to authorities.

"The adults in the bondage video were not identified and the images in that video are not a crime," the department said in a statement.

The department said about 10 children seen in photos have not been identified.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

WSJ Announces Jindal Moon Shot

2012-01-30T23:32:00.000-08:00

Check out the WSJ today.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204652904577190983319125916.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Will common sense win somewhere?

I never bet against the teacher unions.

Jindal's Education Moon Shot

Louisiana's Governor pushes vouchers and tenure reform.

Newt Gingrich wants the U.S. to return to the moon, but as challenges go he has nothing on Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's school reform plans.

Mr. Jindal wants to create America's largest school voucher program, broadest parental choice system, and toughest teacher accountability regime—all in one legislative session. Any one of those would be a big win, but all three could make the state the first to effectively dismantle a public education monopoly.

Louisiana is already one of 12 states (including Washington, D.C.) that offer school vouchers, but its program benefits fewer than 2,000 students in New Orleans. Governor Jindal would extend eligibility to any low-income student whose school gets a C, D or F grade from state administrators. That's almost 400,000 students—a bit more than half the statewide population—who could escape failing schools for private or virtual schools, career-based programs or institutions of higher education.

Funding for these vouchers ("scholarships" is the poll-tested term) would come not from a new fund, as in New Orleans, but from what the state already spends on public education per capita. So every student leaving a failing school would take about $8,500 (on average) with him, hitting the bureaucracy where it hurts. This is called competition, that crucial quality missing where monopolies reign.

Post-Katrina New Orleans is already the nation's leading charter-school zone, with 80% of city students enrolled, academic performance improving dramatically, and plans to go all-charter by 2013. To spread the model statewide, the Governor would create new regional boards for authorizing charters and offer fast-track authorization to high-performing operators such as KIPP. He'd also give charters the same access to public facilities as traditional public schools.

As for tenure, Mr. Jindal would grant it only to teachers who are rated "highly effective" five years in a row, meaning the top 10% of performers. And tenure wouldn't equal lifetime protection: A tenured teacher who rates in the bottom 10% ("ineffective") in any year would return to probationary status. Ineffective teachers would receive no pay raise. Louisiana would also ban the "last in, first out" practice under which younger teachers are dismissed first, regardless of performance.

No points for guessing where the teachers unions stand on all this. The real problem is that "the revenue base is inadequate," says Steve Monaghan of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers—though spending doesn't correlate with academic improvement, and in any case Mr. Jindal has increased education spending by 10% since 2008.

At least Mr. Monaghan is guilty only of ignoring evidence. Louisiana Association of Educators leader Michael Walker Jones took to insulting Bayou State parents: "If I'm a parent in poverty I have no clue because I'm trying to struggle and live day to day," said Mr. Jones of parental choice. How's that for faith in self-government?

Louisiana used to be one of America's most ill-governed states, but Mr. Jindal pushed major economic and ethics reforms in his first term and is now starting his second with his education moon shot. It would be one giant leap for Louisiana students.

LAUSD drags its feet on teacher evaluation

2012-01-29T11:28:00.000-08:00

HOW LONG MUST THE CHILDREN WAIT? FOREVER??? WHO STANDS FOR CHILDREN IN THIS BROKEN SYSTEM? NOBODY????

Edvoice has been pushing forward with a lawsuit to enforce a long-ignored, pro-child law to evaluate teachers properly. As you know from reading Beth Barret's piece, Dance of the Lemons, the LAUSD barely pays lip service to teacher evalution. Why? It doesn't have the authority, resources or power. Unionized teachers decide what happens in the schools. Principals and school administrators, try as they may, are as hostage to teacher unions as are the children trapped in the system. As the LA Weekly describes:

But the far larger problem in L.A. is one of "performance cases" — the teachers who cannot teach, yet cannot be fired... Superintendent Ramon Cortines tells the Weekly he has a "solid" figure, but he won't release it. In fact, almost all information about these teachers is kept secret.

But the Weekly has found, in a five-month investigation, that principals and school district leaders have all but given up dismissing such teachers. In the past decade, LAUSD officials spent $3.5 million trying to fire just seven of the district's 33,000 teachers for poor classroom performance — and only four were fired, during legal struggles that wore on, on average, for five years each. Two of the three others were paid large settlements, and one was reinstated. The average cost of each battle is $500,000.

Is it any wonder why there's no sense of responsibility for educating children in the District? Is it any wonder why they are blaming poverty for not being able to teacher basic skills in the 12 years when they hold children hostage? With the help of Edvoice, I sent the following fax to the board today. I simply ask the board to be honest with the public as the Mayor has begun to do. If you cannot control who works in your schools or what they do there, come clean with the public? You are not providing public oversight and accountability. You are rubber-stamping union rule. The LAUSD school board is a cruel hoax, a charade, a trick played on the public and the students.

I respectfully urge you to empower Superintendent Deasy to include information on how well students are learning in the evaluations of the adults employed to educate them. It's already California law and the district has ignored it long enough. Please follow the lead of the brave parents in the Doe v. Deasy lawsuit and do what's right for kids.

At a time when the district is trying to fix a $500 million annual budget deficit, it is forfeiting millions of dollars available from Sacramento for the very purpose of conducting effective performance evaluations. We can no longer afford willful failure to follow the law!

Teachers put in tireless effort to help kids learn. Yet their successes and areas for improvement are too often ignored because district evaluations fail to look at data on student learning. The same is true for principals and other school site leaders and instructional personnel who work hard to help teachers better educate kids.

Meaningful performance evaluation is a critical tool to recognize success and target help to struggling adults so they can be more effective for kids. That's why the state has had a law on the books for over 40 years that requires evaluations of adults employed to educate kids to include information on student progress toward grade level expectations, and also mandates that schools provide help to struggling staff.

The feedback from effective evaluations is a critical tool for the adults in charge to provide kids with their constitutional right to access a quality public education. Without keeping track of how students are learning, generations of kids can be stuck in classrooms and schools that are ineffective and assigned to struggling adults denied the help they need to better serve their students.

40 years is long enough for adults in Los Angeles to ignore the law at the expense of kids. Under California law and the California Constitution, the board and the superintendent have the authority-and responsibility-to do what's right. It's time for the board to act in the best interest of the children.

America cannot afford the stiff price of a dropout nation

2012-01-27T14:04:00.000-08:00

Russell W. Rumberger wrote this fabulous piece for SVEF

America cannot afford the stiff price of a dropout nation

Kenny Buchanan is 44 years old and dropped out of high school 26 years ago. He’s been paying the price ever since. He’s held eight jobs in the last five years and has never earned more than $40,000 in a year.

Kenny is one of 40 million Americans who never graduated from high school.

Dropouts face bleak economic futures. Dropouts are the least educated workers in the labor market and thus have the poorest job prospects compared to more educated workers. This means they are less likely to find jobs, and when they do find them, the jobs generally pay the lowest wages.

Dropouts are also less likely than more educated workers to invest in additional education and training, further limiting their prospects for securing well-paying jobs over their entire working lives. The difference in lifetime earnings between dropouts and high school completers exceeds half a million dollars. As a result of their low earnings, dropouts are more likely to live in poverty and require public assistance throughout their lifetimes.

The consequences of dropping out are not just economic. Dropouts are more likely to engage in crime and, consequently, are more likely to be arrested and incarcerated. In 2006-07, young dropouts were six times more likely than high school graduates to be incarcerated. Dropouts are more likely to experience teenage childbearing, unplanned childbearing, and non-marital childbearing, all of which can lead to adverse consequences for them and their children. Dropouts also have poorer health and, as a result, have a life expectancy nine years less than high school graduates. Finally, dropouts are less likely to vote and to participate in community activities.

The individual consequences of dropping out exact a huge social cost that all Americans must pay. The low human capital of high school dropouts robs the economy of skills needed to fuel economic growth and enhance U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. President Obama has set a national goal of the United States having the highest proportion of students graduating from college in the world by the year 2020. But we will never get there as long as we remain 20th in the world in the proportion of high school graduates.

The poor economic outcomes for dropouts translate into huge financial losses for the country, for states, and for local communities. Economist Cecilia Rouse estimates that over their lifetimes the nation’s dropouts from a single 20-year-old age cohort will account for at least $165 billion in foregone economic income for the country and $58 billion in lost tax revenues. The Alliance for Excellent Education has produced similar estimates for states and local communities. For instance, if half of the estimated 70,000 dropouts from the high school class of 2008 in the Los Angeles-Long Beach metropolitan area had graduated, they would have generated $575 million in additional wages over their working lives and paid an additional $79 million in taxes.

The increased criminal activities from dropouts – arson, robbery, theft, rape, murder, and family violence – exact tremendous economic, physical, and emotional harm on victims. The victim costs alone for crime range from $370 for larceny to $2.9 million for murder, while the incarceration expense – borne by taxpayers – ranges from $44 for larceny and theft to $845,455 for murder.
Dropouts are more likely to qualify for and receive government welfare benefits.

Taxpayers also pay for dropouts’ poor health. Dropouts are two to three times more likely than high school graduates to receive government-funded Medicaid benefits.

Adding the reduced tax revenues and increased public expenditures for crime, welfare, and health, economist Henry Levin and his colleagues estimated that the “average” 20-year-old dropout generates more than $200,000 in economic losses over his or her working lifetime, while an entire cohort of 20-year-old dropouts generates a total economic loss of $148 billion.

Dropouts are indeed costly. But the costs are not just economic.

The high rate of poverty among dropouts is transmitted from one generation to the next. Children raised in poor families are two to seven times more likely to be poor in early adulthood compared to children raised in non-poor families.

And the low voter and civic engagement of dropouts undermines our democratic way of life. As political scientist Larry Bartels points out, the growing economic inequality in our country produces inequality in political responsiveness and public policies that are increasingly detrimental to the interests of the poorest and least educated Americans.

President Obama recognized that every American has a stake in solving the nation’s dropout crisis when he said: “So this is a problem we cannot afford to accept and we cannot afford to ignore. The stakes are too high – for our children, for our economy, and for our country.”

Russell W. Rumberger is Vice Provost for Education Partnerships at the University of California Office of the President and Professor of Education at UC Santa Barbara. He also directs the California Dropout Research Project. He has written about dropouts for the past 30 years and is author of Dropping Out: Why Students Drop Out of School and What Can Be Done About It (Harvard University Press). This article first appeared in Education News.

"The Experiment" A brief review

2012-01-24T18:24:00.000-08:00

There is nothing more critical to fixing America’s schools than the success of the New Orleans education experiment. Why? Because America’s most powerful interest group – teacher unions – has parlayed doubt over the applicability of competition in education into a thicket of regulations that have slowed the creation of charter schools to a crawl. Nowhere else in America can the hypothesis that markets work be tested: there’s not enough density for choice to drive competition. Without New Orleans, the teacher unions can count on a tidy catch-22. Game. Over.

What is happening in New Orleans today is quite possibly what Albert Shanker called a "Humpty Dumpty" event. His worst nightmare was the creation of a critical mass of pro-choice voters that would never allow "public education to be put back together again." Thus, he always felt that choice on this scale was an "experiment" too dangerous to implement let alone seriously consider. It's the kind of thing that "puts public education at risk, " lets the genie out of the bottle.

Among the faithful there is no doubting that the experiment is a political miracle. It would never have occurred without an epic flood (Hurricane Katrina, August, 2005) that occurred during a period of Republican control at state and national education agencies. Critics seek to discredit the circumstances themselves, calling the experiment, "disaster capitalism."

Just how improbable is the experiment? Imagine this series of events occurring anywhere else in America. In November 2005, every New Orleans teacher was fired, tenure was abolished and teacher union collective bargaining "rights" were revoked. Of 66 failing schools in the district, 50 were converted to privately run charter schools. Recently, the Recovery School District (RSD) has been flipping more schools to charter. Parents can send their children to any school, traditional or charter.
Los Angeles, dream on.

And it’s going as badly (for teacher unions) as Shanker foretold. Five years on, there are only 20 state-run schools (through MOU) and 5 Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB) schools left. Based on the school performance index (SPI), 19 of the 20 highest performing non-selective schools were charter schools. Whereas two-thirds of schools were failing before the storm, only one-quarter are failing today and most of those are government run. Last November, the experiment had its first electoral test. In state-wide school board elections, reformers held on amid hardened opposition. That never happens. Moreover, if the experiment continues, the teacher unions may never win in New Orleans. The power symmetry will have shifted permanently. Humpty. Dumpty.

The teacher unions are terrified that the word will get out; for reformers, nothing could be more vital. But how?

The critics are spinning furiously and we hear that PBS commentator John Merrow is preparing a deeply "nuanced" film. Fortunately, we need not wait for it. Last night, in celebration of National School Choice Week, I screened an amazing documentary called fittingly, "The Experiment." The film is a passion project by local reporter turned documentarian, Ben Lemoine, who follows in the footsteps of New Jersey television personality Bob Bowdon, creator of the award-winning education documentary "The Cartel" in 2009.

LeMoine’s film is professional work that like "Waiting for Superman" (WFS), weaves personal narratives together with reform facts, an original score, and compelling illustrations. But whereas WFS left viewers confused when it begged them to volunteer at traditional public schools and channel their outrage down the rabbit-hole of teacher appreciation, "The Experiment" is gritty and real from the first frames where it shows the body of a dead and bloody teen through the closing comment offered by Democratic strategist James Carville.

This film out-performs in many ways but what it does best is to get the big ideas right.
Can you imagine an urban school district where children have so many good choices that KIPP school directors are scrambling to children’s homes and students transfer from one college prep school to another in order to find the superior music program? We learn about it through the eyes of the Lewis (son Keelan and daughter Kalani) and Morton (son Sam) families.

Do you know the difference between a teacher who is "doing what she can" and one who is doing what it takes? Meet Live Oak Elementary’s Yvette Jones ("he’s ready, he’s my baby") and New Orlean College Prep’s (NOCP) Jeff Cox ("There’s no such thing as throwing in the towel on a kid"). The public schools kids fail or barely pass their LEAP exams. Kalani Lewis advances 2.5 years in reading in her first year at KIPP.

Lemoine's interview with Diane Ravitch is priceless. Losing the patina of objective policy analyst, she discusses how the teacher voters can do a lot of damage to Democrats if they don't turn out in 2012.
There is much, much more to love and discuss about the film.

Here are handful of memorable quotes to tide you over until you watch the film on Starz or Netflix:
"It’s another kick in the face to remind us that what we do every day is urgent." NOCP principal, Ben Kleban.

"I care less about how they achieve the work and execute the work and more about if they execute and do the work." Former Superintendent, Paul Pastorek

"We’re seeing the city as a model for education reform nation-wide." Barack Obama

"This is an experiment around a very strong hypothesis." Former Superintendent, Paul Pastorek

"We failed 500,000 kids over 40 years." Former school board member.

"Principals don’t do nothin’ so that’s why I keep defendin’ myself back." Gerald Carter, 10 years old

"Before Katrina I never fired a single teacher… 20% of my teachers were ineffective and didn't want to improve." Aldine Lockett, traditional public school principal

"I want you to experience having a lot of homework like she did." Mother of Kaalen Lewis
"If it works, who cares." James Carville

"RSD has kidnapped local control. Local control of schools is the cornerstone of the constitution." Critic

"Give our schools back to the OPSB." Critic

"We only have 8 years to get Keenan into college." KIPP principal

"It’s easy to blame bad choices without blaming bad options." Ben Lemoine

"Once people get a taste of freedom, a taste of choice, they aren’t going back." Kevin Chavous "The Experiment" is a welcome addition to a growing library of credible education documentaries. This Thursday we are screening "A Tale of Two Missions" which marvelously unpacks the fight for charter schools in Chicago, highlighting the role of the Chicago Teacher Union in holding children hostage. Bowdon’s "The Cartel" provides a shocking portrait of administrative bloat in New Jersey – and the public’s ignorance of it. His interview with NJEA’s Joyce Powell is utterly damning and his analytical defense of tuition vouchers is marvelous. "The Lottery" peels back the veil on local, teacher union political power. The cross-examination of Eva Moskowitz by a union-bought local council makes clear how democracy can be perverted in America. "Waiting for Superman" is a devastating portrait of a nation heading toward oblivion and obsolescence.

These films are disruptive technologies which may in-and-of-themselves, change the educational power symmetry. Remember that in the 19600s the teacher unions used telegrams to out-maneuver policy-makers. In the 1970s, the NEA deployed one of the first and largest Wide Area Networks (WAN). In the early 1990s, the teacher unions were some of the most aggressive adopters of AOL chat rooms and today they carpet the internet with disgusting lies and half-truths. Their most powerful weapons are the human shields which comprise their 1 million member teacher activist army. Backed by a $2.5 billion per year command-and-control structure, teacher activists impose their will on 350 million Americans.

On the reform side, practitioners are making better use of the internet (Students First signed up one million members in 1 year) but we still have no ground-game. We don’t collect dues and have no infrastructure. But films like "The Experiment" can spread cheaply and virally. The credibility and weight of evidence that they present cannot be explained away or rationalized. Carville’s closing remarks are the key to understanding the importance of the experiment.
"I don’t want to go back… You can’t go into these schools and see what’s happening, and not be impressed. It’s impossible." The case for choice and against teacher unions is irrefutable, emotionally and intellectually. The faster these films can be disseminated and the clearer their prescriptions, the faster Americans will turn-away teacher activists soldiers. Their political triumphs are our collective shame and will be their undoing.

Beneath the sea of mediocrity in American education is a system that tolerates incompetence, encourages deceit and survives by cover-up. Thanks to Ben Lemoine, America is going to learn about the New Orleans experiment, the strength of its hypothesis, and the incontrovertible truths it reveals. Let us hope that this film breaks through like the waters that wiped out the educational status quo in New Orleans.
　
Catch "The Experiment" on Starz today: http://www.starz.com/channels/online?SelectedTitle=4210594;-1

Or Netflix (available on instant for now):
http://movies.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70225129

AB1172 will snuff out CA charters within 10 years, most in 5

2012-01-21T19:22:00.000-08:00

Last year, AB1172 started snaking its way through the teacher union dominated education committee in Sacramento. It's back and it could be up for a vote next week. How many Democrats in Sacramento were elected by the teacher union machine and will vote for it? A better question is: "how many will not?" I don't know. The teacher unions have our state covered, corner to corner. Will Governor Brown save the children with a veto? You can bet that the teacher unions are negotiating him into a corner, right now.

From my post on this back in April:

It will do so by eliminating the the only chartering authority without a clear conflict of interest -- the State Board of Education -- and make any demonstrable sign of financial "distress" in a school district an legal rationale for denying a new charter or 5-year renewal application. Local and county boards, who owe their power to teacher unions and are elected by them in 8 of 10 cases, would be the sole authorizers and countywide and statewide benefit charter schools including online schools, would be vaporized.

We're just getting started. Charters that would utilize unused classrooms in existing public schools would effectively be denied automatically -- forcing every charter school to build it's own physical plant. If we include the costs of building schools (the LAUSDs building effort makes Boston's "Big Dig" look like a snow-man), the true cost of an LAUSD education jumps from around $12,000 per student per year to twice that. Charters get none of that facilities money.

In order to prevent a majority of school teachers from breaking away their schools from the District (like Locke High School teachers did by one vote), the bill adds a majority sign-off requirement for classified school personnel (ie. janitors) who charter schools cannot afford to keep. Given the considerable risk an investment in starting a new charter school, this bill spells the end of charter schools in California -- within 10 years but most will be gone within 4. Great charters schools like KIPP, ASPIRE, ICEF, and CELERITY all have charters that come up for renewal in the next 5 years, and after the union installs Bennet Kayser on the LAUSD school board, those charters will be summarily denied.

To this day, not a single article has been written about this insidious bill in our city newspaper, the Los Angeles Times. When will be the right time to tell Los Angeleans that the teacher unions are doing something so evil to destroy hope and fight excellence in California schools?

Next week, it heads out of committee on the back of teacher union organizer, bill author, and assembly man, Tony Mendoza (see Tony leading candidate recruitment sessions for the UTLA).

Why does Mendoza hate charter schools? Because charter school employees are private employees and they typically do not unionize. If every public school were a non-union charter school, teacher unions in California would whither away. Conversely, if charter schools are eliminated, parents will have a harder time finding out for themselves what can happen in public schools that are not government managed and union ruled.

When great charter schools like KIPP, Aspire, American Indian, Celerity and others are denied renewals in the next few years, Californians will ask how this is possible?

How did the teacher unions steal opportunity from families without even a word or whimper from the press? It's happening now.

One bad teacher costs students $2.5 million over 10 years

2012-01-10T20:54:00.000-08:00

Teacher unions have been defending the right to pay and retain teachers based on age not ability for DECADES. Children and America have paid the price. Should it take another study to prove what anyone knows intuitively? When you fire good, young teachers, and keep around, rather than replace bad teachers: children suffer.

How bad is the problem?

The study concludes:
Replacing a teacher whose true VA is in the bottom 5% with a teacher of average quality would generate lifetime earnings gains worth more than $250,000 for the average classroom

Another economist adds:

“If you leave a low value-added teacher in your school for 10 years, rather than replacing him with an average teacher, you are hypothetically talking about $2.5 million in lost income,” said Professor Friedman, one of the coauthors.

The benefits go beyond earnings. Students with top teachers are less likely to become pregnant as teenagers, and more likely to enroll in college.

“The message is to fire people sooner rather than later,” Professor Friedman said.

So why can't we fire bad teachers? In Los Angeles, just 4 teachers of nearly 40,000 were fired in the past decade, over 10 years.

So why do we do it? Teacher unions.
Here's the full study:

http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/value_added.pdf

Executive Summary of National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 17699, December 2011

THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF TEACHERS:
TEACHER VALUE-ADDED AND STUDENT OUTCOMES IN ADULTHOOD

Raj Chetty, Harvard University and NBER
John N. Friedman, Harvard University and NBER
Jonah E. Rockoff, Columbia University and NBER

... We address these two questions by tracking one million children from a large urban school district from 4th grade to adulthood. We evaluate the accuracy of standard VA measures using several methods, including natural experiments that arise from changes in teaching staff.We find that when a high VA teacher joins a school, test scores rise immediately in the grade taught by that teacher; when a high VA teacher leaves, test scores fall. Test scores change only in the subject taught by that teacher, and the size of the change in scores matches what we predict based on the teacher’s VA. These results establish that VA accurately captures teachers’ impacts on students’ academic achievement and thereby reconcile the conflicting conclusions of Kane and Staiger (2008) and Rothstein (2010). These methods provide a simple yet powerful method to estimate the bias of value-added models in any district; interested readers can download computer code to implement these tests from this link.

In the second part of our study, we analyze whether high VA teachers also improve students’ long-term outcomes.We find that students assigned to higher VA teachers are more successful in many dimensions. They are more likely to attend college, earn higher salaries, live in better neighborhoods, and save more for retirement. They are also less likely to have children as teenagers.

Teachers’ impacts on students are substantial.Replacing a teacher whose true VA is in the bottom 5% with a teacher of average quality would generate lifetime earnings gains worth more than $250,000 for the average classroom. VA estimates are less reliable when they are based on data from a small number of classes. However, even after observing teachers’ impacts on test scores for one year, estimates of VA are reliable enough that such personnel changes would yield large gains on average.

Teachers have large impacts in all the grades we analyze (4 to 8), implying that the returns to education remain large well beyond early childhood. Teachers’ impacts on earnings are also similar in percentage terms for students from low and high income families. As a rough guideline, parents should be willing to pay about 25% of their child’s income at age 28 to switch their child from a below-average (25th percentile) to an above-average (75th percentile) teacher. For example, parents whose children will earn around $40,000 in their late 20s should be willing to pay $10,000 to switch from a below-average to an above-average teacher for one grade, based on the expected increase in their child’s lifetime earnings.

Overall, our study shows that great teachers create great value – perhaps several times their annual salaries – and that test score impacts are helpful in identifying such teachers.

Read the NYT coverage (I don't say that often):
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/education/big-study-links-good-teachers-to-lasting-gain.html

Learn more about how they manipulate our political system and deceive the public: and become outraged.

Teacher union proxy fight against NYC charters continues

2012-01-04T11:56:00.000-08:00

Today the fake parent union called NYC "Parents Union" celebrated an ambiguous ruling on whether NYC charter schools must pay $100 million in back pay for public school facility rental, thereby wiping them out.

Why would a "parents union" be trying to shut down charter schools? Because it's not a real "parents union" following the Parent Revolution model. It's a fake, a con-job. By calling itself a "parents union," it is trying to capture energy and buzz around parent power and divert it so that it poses no threat to the status quo. Politically, this group functions as a honey-pot, entrapping disenfranchised parents and training them to accept and defend union rule rather than turn against it. It's a spoof attack. A sick masquerade. Bait and switch.

Note the "remedies" it supports as compared to those endorsed by a "real" parents union like Parent Revolution. Note the legislative agenda and parent "education" agenda. Do you see anything in there that would practically give parents more power than unionized teachers over where education dollars are spent? Is there anything here that would elevate parent power relative to teacher power? Or is this organization designed to shape gullible parents into another constituency to support and defend the status quo while burning more and more tax-payer dollars? You decide.

Can you think of policies where the positions of teacher unions are anti-thetical to those of parent power? I can.

In a blog post that seems to have outraged sympathizers, I proposed a simple truth test for outing fake parent organizations functioning as teacher union proxies.

1) Do you support rewarding individual teaching performance (ie. paying great teachers more and laying off bad teachers regardless of age)?
This violates the core principle of union solidarity. Policies which treat employees differently (they call it "dividing" employees) will not be tolerated.

2) Do you support policies that encourage the non-unionized, independently run schools (ie. charter schools and private school scholarships)?
This undermines the government-union monopoly which is their money supply. They want to make sure that every incremental educational dollar benefits a unionized teacher in a district that the union will at some time control (and therefore give away the farm -- to itself).

How does the NYCPU stack up? It doesn't. It's a fake.

The tangled web of teacher union proxies is something to behold. It has been reported widely that the AFT has been supporting NYC "Parents Union" since its inception -- and it's going out of its way to nonor teacher union leades like UFT President President Michael Mulgrew. It even held its first awards banquet in the UFT headquarters. What's the depth of the relationship? Did the teacher unions draft the legislative agenda? Did their lawyers? Who will be lobbying for it? What will its effect be on empowering parents to challenge crippling union contracts and opt out of failing union schools? Figure it out.

Here's the latest missive from the teacher union parents union, celebrating a union tool judges verdict that charter schools might face $100 million in capricious, post-facto fines.

http://www.nycparentsunion.org/archives/894

"Founder" Mona Davids lays bare her priorities here in this statement:

"co-located charter schools must pay their fair share of the costs of taking up valuable space in public school buildings and utilizing the services of city employees, as the law requires. The gears of justice may grind slowly, but they do grind.”

"Justice" in her view, will grind down the rights of parents to choose successful charter schools, at the expense of "city employees" they choose not to support. What are some of the mechanisms by which "city employees" stomp on the dreams of poor children in failing schools?

Assignment to failing schools with no better options
Lifetime employment (tenure) for employees
Seniority based layoffs, transfers, and pay
Crippling work rules
Short school days and years
Meaningless evaluations with no consequences for failure
School governance theatrics that mask no public accountability
Crappy school administrators
Wasted money
Powerless school directors
Lip service for parents

This is the "parent power" that the NYC "parents union" supports.

The lawsuit is advocated by Advocates for Justice for new group by Arthur Z. Schwartz, a longtime labor lawyer who has fed his family for decades on union dues. Who funds "Advocates for Justice" anyway? Poor parents whose children are being systematically destroyed one day at a time by failing schools that cannot be closed? Those parents whose views are being represented by parent unions following the "Parent Revolution" model? Or is it those who fight parent power every day: unions of employees for whom failing public schools are a guaranteed pay-check? We'll find out some time soon.

Remember Robert Chanin, the private sector lawyer turned NEA general counsel, who literally laid the foundation for industrial teacher unionism?

I wonder if Chanin is also going to file suit on behalf of parents and start a "parents union." Perhaps the media might not notice anything strange. Oh, and we'd be criticized for calling it a teacher union proxy, wouldn't we?

By the way, have you seen the websites of these two fake parents union/teacher union proxy organizations lately? Check out Parents Across America and New York City Parents Union. can you tell which is which?

What is NYC Parents Union trying to prove when they claim on their tag-line to be: "of the Parents by the Parents for the Parents"? It would make a whole lot more sense if they just level-set with us and said: "NYC Parents Union: of the teachers, by the teachers, and for the teachers."

Teacher unions have been waging war against parents since a public school board tried to fire 20 teachers for incompetence in Ocean Hill-Brownsville in 1968. Although the UFT framed the conflict as being about race (reverse racism), it was always about teacher quality. UFT teachers walked out for more than a month to protect what? To protect lifetime job security, euphemistically called tenure. We've seen the teaching force grow from 1 to 2 to over 3 million since Ocean Hill-Brownsville. In the past 44 years, when has a public school district fired 20 teachers for incompetence? Did it ever happen until Michelle Rhee cleaned (some) house in DC a few years ago? Ever? Why not? How many crappy, uncaring or burned-out teachers punch a clock in New York City today? How many thousand? Parents are no match for teacher unions. Why do parents need to fight groups calling themselves "parent unions" as well as those calling themselves "teacher unions"?

My guess is that NYC "Parents Union" has just begun to gear-up. They are sure to follow the model of the California Teachers Association and fashion itself as a "Title I" parental advocacy organization entitled to tens of millions of public funds every year.

Oh, it already has.

"Title 1 Workshop – covering federal guidelines of parental involvement in schools that receive Title 1 money"

As if defenders of the status quo need more power. These people are a disgrace to our once proud country.

Madison Upholds Union Rule: Madison Prep loses 2-5

2011-12-23T16:31:00.000-08:00

Ed Hughes, a contemplative union-lover on the Madison Wisconsin school board writes today: "We Blew it On Madison Prep."

Yip, Ed. For the millionth time in the history of union ruled school boards in America, you voted with the union to block opening the Madison Prep charter school. You're screwing the kids, and you know it.

You wrote:

" I reluctantly voted against the motion because I was unwilling to violate the terms of our collective bargaining agreement with our teachers."

You mean the collective bargaining agreement which locks children in failing schools, that one right?

Well, you explained why this objection makes no sense today. Thank you for that bit of honesty.

"Viewed through the lens of the perceived urgent need that called it forth, many of the criticisms of the Madison Prep proposal seem vacuous and condescending.

We couldn’t approve the school because it would be exploitive to allow African-American teachers to work for less than union wages, as if the teachers at Madison Prep would be incapable of making their own choices about where they are willing to work.

We couldn’t approve the school because it would be unfair to hold parents accountable for their level of involvement in the education of their children, as if opponents of the proposal weren’t complaining that the Urban League’s criticisms of the school district unfairly ignore the roles of parents in students’ learning.

We couldn’t approve the school because it would lead to segregation, as if white folks are always complaining that they don’t have enough Blacks around.

Uniforms would be too expensive for the families sought to be served. The school would have too many administrators. Classes would be too hard. The ACLU is frowning. The school district couldn’t spend money on this because we might need it for, well, I don’t know, for something. Blah, blah, blah.

After all that, the “couldn’ts” prevailed. I can’t help feeling that the vote came out the way it did not because of faulty analysis, but because of too much emphasis on analysis. The proposal certainly raised a host of issues, but too often we viewed those issues as excuses for saying no rather than as challenges to be solved. More, we saw the notes but missed the music. We simply weren’t able to appreciate and appropriately value all the emotional capital arrayed in the school’s support.

Lots of members of our African-American community forced us to confront how our schools are failing their children. They asked – sometimes not so politely – for our approval to try something new that might help, to endorse a proposal that had garnered unprecedented offers of assistance from the community. We said no.

We should have found a way to make it work. We should have found a way to make it work and we just didn’t.

So, the plan to redirect the wave of support towards opening a smaller-scale, privately-funded Madison Prep next fall seems like a logical next step. I hope the school succeeds; as should we all. I wasn’t able to vote in favor of sending public money to the school for the first year, but I’ll donate some of my own now.

The ultimate goal has to be the conversion of the school from private status to an MMSD charter school. It is conceivable that this could happen for the school year beginning September, 2013, which would be consistent with my un-seconded motion. Whether that’s in the cards will depend in significant part on the outcome of the School Board elections this April."

Watch the video and prepare your barf bag. Watch a right denied in technicolor.

https://mediaprodweb.madison.k12.wi.us/node/715

Ed, get out of the way. School boards like the one you're on are part of the problem. Your board exists to perpetuate union rule. That's the only reason the teacher unions keep you around. You are a USEFUL IDIOT.

Government has a role in education; it is not to perpetuate union rule. It is to educate the children and make sure that public dollars are spent responsibly.

Duping the Public at UTLAUSD

2011-12-21T10:11:00.000-08:00

I can understand the cheering going on at UTLA headquarters these days. The union got everything it wanted without an embarassing -- albeit inevitably successful -- strike.

What I cannot understand is how members of the "Don't Hold Us Back" (DHUB) coalition (apparently Parent Revolution, DFER, and Communities for Teaching Excellence dropped out), the LAUSD school board and administrators -- are also celebrating. Why can't find enough enough backs to slap after removing all staff accountability for failing schools and giving control over them to the UTLA? I applaud the United Way for taking a stand for children, but what now does it have to be proud of? Supt. Deasy didn't just hold back the kids, he sold them out.

http://journal.lausd.net/district-hq/lausd-board-adopts-utla-contract-7-0

Just to be clear, school-level management is a good thing, but this proposal doesn't get us there. It is symbolic in the fake sense by providing SOME freedoms but not the most important ones, and zeros out accountability entirely. It therefore does little more than trick the public into thinking that pro-child change is going to happen, when it's won't. The so-called "independent" school administration and school board is complicit in duping Los Angeleans. This is just another extension -- 6 years to be precise -- of union rule at the UTLAUSD.

The kinds of so-called "turn-arounds" envisioned in this contract could have occurred under the existing public school choice (PSC) program. However, what the UTLA has done is removed the non-unionized competition. It has guaranteed the union rule continue in all "turn-around" schools, which we know means they will never be turned around. While the LA Times trumpeted (in the print edition) that now charter schools face competition due to school based management, they do not justify or clarify the comparison. Charter school operators are not required to hire union teachers and are not hog-tied by the contract and state civil service laws (tenure). The difference is not subtle, it is night-and-day.

But here's what's worse. The kinds of restrictions that this contracts leaves in place are the kinds of things that kill turn-arounds and make a farce of "reform." Forced placements, flexibility to put more money in classrooms (and spend less on support staff), differential pay, performance pay, longer school days, longer school years, the ability to fire slackers and retain young teachers in lean years -- FORGET IT.

Charter schools don't face competition; they face extermination. With AB1172 alive again (Mendoza), the union-controlled LAUSD school board will just deny charter renewals "due to financial hardship" and stop approving new ones. KIPP, closed. Aspire, closed. Green-Dot, closed. Celerity, closed. Game over.

I'm a pretty well informed member of the public. What am I not understanding? How is this contract not too little, too late? Where is the document that lists what a students-first agreement would look like? Would that have been too incriminating of the capitulation and crime this document represents? How about a document listing what the UTLA wanted but did not get. That would surely be a short document, wouldn't it? I hope that document would discuss the strategic imperative for the UTLA to say that it is "for reform."

What the UTLA has done is cleverly bought 6 more years of unrestricted union rule in the schools.

As I discussed in "Teacher Union Collective Bargaining Explained" we are now at the stage in the process, after giving away the farm, when the school board comes together to reassert that the collective bargaining process worked!

"Teacher Unions to the Media: In this negotiation, both sides made enormous strides to bridge differences and mend fences. We believe that outside meddling in our district has gone too far and hope that this is a time when we can all take back our schools. Together, our children will grow.

School Board to the Media: We are delighted to have avoided labor unrest in these turbulent times. Now we can get back to the important business of educating our children, the future of our city.

Liberal Media to the Public: Teacher union embrace of the growing education reform movement was on full display today. Teacher unions are finally turning a corner. While fascists in Ohio and Wisconsin want to destroy working families, here in our town, we proof positive that collective bargain."

This is a pathetic sell-out of the children. Timidly worded endorsements of this whitewash agreement, and carefully encouragement to include "what it left out" are starting to leak out to the media. How pathetic. How is the public to know that they've been screwed? How are parents to know that their children can expect no educational relief, while they are young? How are tax-payers to know that the District is now officially part of the fund-raising propaganda arm of the teacher unions?

The "reformers" in Los Angeles continue to whitewash union rule of the schools. When will the children come first? Never.

The lesson of this fiasco is quite simply the school board led reform doesn't work. Private management of schools is the ONLY way you're going to see real, pro-child reform.
When the children don't learn, who will pay the price? Not UTLAUSD staff. It will be the children and their families bearing the full cost of this further abdication and erosion of management authority in the District.

UTLA members rubber-stamp 6 more years of union rule

2011-12-16T10:24:00.000-08:00

I'm still looking for the "compromise" in the UTLA contract agreement.

Help me understand what reformers won here in exchange for giving up the only thing that matters: the right for non-district managers -- unbeholden to teacher union contracts or state tenure laws -- to take over failing schools. Without this threat and the ability for real school reconstitution, how can the culture of failure be changed? How can schools be systematically filled with quality teachers?

The UTLA won (they will say through "hard fought negotiations") 6 more years of union rule and it seems likely that not a single under-performing teacher will lose a job during that period. Quite remarkable when you think of it. Through legal means, the UTLA will be holding our children hostage another 6 years. And some will still say the school board is "packed with reformers."

"United Teachers Los Angeles announced Thursday that nearly 70 percent of the 19,500 members who cast ballots voted in favor of the School Stabilization and Empowerment Initiative. About 35,600 of the union's members were eligible to vote."

Fletcher took Deasy to school. This agreement was a complete sell-out of the children in Los Angeles. It means only one thing: the school board was not interested in fighting the UTLA. And why should it? The UTLA has an army; the school board, a few pea-shooters.

The demands of the "Don't Hold Us Back" coalition, which includes the California Charter School Association (CCSA) went completely unheeded. Insiders will tell you that their protests could be dismissed as harmless "theatrics."

The continuance of school board management is simply a continuance of union rule. While reformers have done a poor job organizing themselves, the results show that their efforts were wholly insufficient.

I hope that they will now take the opportunity to denounce this agreement for what it is. The people of Los Angeles deserve real reform, not this hoax.

How long before the teacher unions shut the door on charter school expansion in California and shut down Parent Trigger?

School Quality Shortage: Parent Nightmare

2011-12-15T00:27:00.000-08:00

An LAUSD charter school parent wrote this great editorial for the LA Times today. Thanks to the teacher unions, the supply of quality alternatives to failing public schools is limited. Komaiko deserves kudos for speaking up! She will eventually be forgiven for not understanding or mentioning why she, and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of other parents are in the same predicament every year and every day.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-komaiko-school-20111214,0,4863599.story

L.A. Unified's grade-school game

Getting your child into the L.A. Unified elementary school of your choice involves a lot of planning, patience — and luck.

By Leslee Komaiko

December 14, 2011

Want to send your child to a well-regarded LAUSD elementary school? Get your notepad ready, and maybe some aspirin too.

If money is no object, move — simply purchase or rent a home near your desired school. Residential property. An office where you're writing a novel won't do. And don't take the real estate agent's word that the school a block away is your home school. Just because you can hear the tether balls being whacked, it doesn't mean your child is destined to hit those tether balls. (Double-check addresses for home schools here:

Oh, and if the school you want is a magnet or, in certain cases, a charter, disregard the above. For that, even money won't help. You have to amass points.

And you may still have to move. What you'd be looking for is a house in an area with a crummy home school, a school that's overcrowded, without enough books and desks. That gives you points. So does a PHBAO home school. No, that's not one that serves PH-balanced pork-filled dumplings to its charges. It stands for "predominantly Hispanic, black, Asian or other." (Never mind that every school is predominantly Hispanic, black, Asian or other. Hello, LAUSD — "other" means everyone else.)

Now submit your application to your desired magnet or charter the winter before your child can begin kindergarten. (The application deadline for the 2012-13 school year is Dec. 16.)

And don't forget about race. If your child happens to be of mixed race, be flexible. Find out which one is underrepresented at your school of choice and go with that; it could increase your odds of success.

If it all works and your kid gets accepted into the magnet or charter of your dreams, congratulations and please don't gloat too much in front of your less-fortunate friends. And if your kid is rejected, you're out of luck, at least for kindergarten. Maybe you could try home schooling — you don't have anything else to do, right?

And remember there's still good news in the form of those much-coveted Los Angeles Unified School District points. A kindergarten rejection will move your child up the list when you apply for a spot the following year.

And of course if the magnet (or program) of your dreams doesn't start until first grade, what you want is a kindergarten rejection. So study the numbers carefully in the Choices guide, which has moved online this year and which should really be called the You Wish guide. It will reveal the schools that are most in demand, the ones that therefore have the stinkiest odds. That's where you should apply to kindergarten, because remember, rejection and thus points are the goal here. Confused yet? I thought so.

Maybe you'd like to try something less duplicitous? Find a charter that operates on a lottery system (some use the point system, some don't), which means your kid will have essentially the same chance of getting in as any of the hundreds of other kinder vying for those few garten spots.

Or here's a seldom used but effective strategy: Siblings get preference at charters and magnets, so adopt a third-grader at your school of choice. Now your little kindergartner-to-be has more points, and in the case of some schools, automatic enrollment. On the flip side, you have another PB&J to make every morning and, well, another kid.

What, you're still not happy? Clear out a little more time on your calendar because you'll need it to fill out open enrollment applications. Yep. Open enrollment. Sounds nice, doesn't it? Hopeful. You apply for the few empty seats that might appear at the schools you prefer. You may have to wait until school has begun to find out if you've won the game of musical chairs. But cheery persistence, they say, can be effective. So put on a smile before you dial.

Had enough? If not, try one more angle: special circumstances that can get your kid transferred into a better school. Like SAS programs. That's Schools for Advanced Studies programs, for which your smarty-pants kid may be eligible if your home school doesn't have one. Or you may qualify for a PWT (Permits Without Transportation), a child-care permit or an "intra-district and inter-district parent employment-related transfer permit" (if ever a permit was in need of an acronym...).

Alas, last I checked, there's no MHIATEJTIJK permit. That's the My Head Is About To Explode Jeez This Is Just Kindergarten permit.

Leslee Komaiko got a magnet rejection letter for her son for kindergarten, but now she is the very satisfied parent of a first-grader at an L.A. Unified charter school.

Teacher unions: Jolly Green Giant, Teddy Roosevelt, and Gulliver

2011-12-13T23:25:00.000-08:00

Here were some notes I found recently from 1994. Some things haven't changed. Bob Nelson, the CTA’s political consultant during the Proposition 174 campaign had the following advice for the CTA:

You have the most powerful grassroots political machine ever created. You have 235,000members who are willing to put money where their mouth is. You have a fantastic, dedicated and intelligent leadership and staff… I also have some advice for you in your role as a political powerhouse. I must tell you that you are not the only group that I have given this advice to. It is very similar to what I have said to some of America’s largest and most powerful corporations. It goes like this: if you are going to be real powerful, I urge you to be quite humble, generous, and conciliatory in your strength and power. I believe in democracy, and if you are going to be a giant, you should strive to be the Jolly Green Giant. When you are huge,you should not roar. Like Teddy Roosevelt once said, “speak softly… and carry a big stick.”

As a giant, you can make another decision, but if you decide not to be the Jolly Green Giant, then your real other option is to be Gulliver. And that is fine, but don’t ever take a nap. Because if you do, you are going to wake up and all those little people out there who are afraid of you are going to swarm over you and tie you down because they are scared.

Consider this anecdote by Ralph Flynn onJanuary 22-23, 1994:

In a recent poll conducted among California voters,when asked whether teachers wanted more funding for schools because they were more concerned about improving their own welfare – voters, by a margin of more than 2 to 1, believe that teachers want more money for schools because oftheir greater commitment to education than their own welfare.

Parents and the public trust teachers to speak forthe interests of their children. This is the most valuable asset that we posses. As CTA’s most valuable asset, every public position we take on an issue must pass the litmus test of whether that position will reinforce or erode that trust.

Trust can be squandered. In December, the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association voted to switch its position on the Clinton Health Plan from support to oppose. Why did they switch? When the smoke cleared, the M.D.’s switched because of the mandatory 7.8% payroll tax in the Clinton plan. What is the connection between the AMA House of Delegates vote and a payroll tax on small business? The AMA’s House of Delegates is composed of small businessmen who happen to be M.D.’s, many if not most of whom, provide no health insurance for their employees.

Sitting in my dentist’s chair, always a compromising position, my dentist asked about the health care proposal and if it was true that he would have to pay a7.8% payroll tax. Given my position in the chair, I wondered what kind of answer to give him. In a moment of inspiration I said, “You will not have to pay 7.8% more than you are now paying for health care.”

He looked at me, and I looked at him. As he reached for a larger bit for his drill,I suspected that he was not paying anything for health insurance for his employees. He knew – that I knew.. But he also knew, that I knew that he knew…

Over time the credibility of physicians may become so eroded that in the extended debate on health care that the public may refuse to listen to them, even when it is in our own interest to listen to them.

Don’t let that happen to us. We have too much to lose and too much too offer.

Great Charter Schools: More testing. More evaluation. More hours. More effort. More communication.

2011-12-06T11:53:00.000-08:00

There's an interesting study that affirms what common sense and high-performing teachers know:

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/12/06/roland-fryer-identifies-five-habits-of-successful-charter-schools/

Here's the study:

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/effective_schools.pdf

The results show that traditional solutions like class size, per-pupil expenditure, and the number of teachers with advanced degrees are not correlated with effectiveness, and in fact, “resource-based solutions” actually lowered school effectiveness. Instead, they found five qualities that made up about 50 percent of a charter school’s effectiveness.

What helps? More testing. More evaluation. More communication. More effort. More hours. If charter schools are the laboratory for public education, there are no lessons learn which can be transferred under union rule.

Roland Fryer Identifies Five Habits of Successful Charter Schools

Their results are fairly counter-intuitive. They showed that traditional solutions like class size, per-pupil expenditure, and the number of teachers with advanced degrees are not correlated with effectiveness, and in fact, “resource-based solutions” actually lowered school effectiveness.
Instead, they found five qualities that made up about 50 percent of a charter school’s effectiveness.

These are:

1. Frequent teacher feedback
2. Data driven instruction
3. High-dosage tutoring
4. Increased instructional time
5. Relentless focus on academic achievement.

For example, a high-achieving charter middle-school teacher gets feedback 13.42 times per semester, versus 6.35 times at other charter schools. Similarly, high achieving middle-schools test their students 4 times per semester, compared to 2.4 at other schools.

Perhaps even more interesting, these qualities remained paramount to a successful charter school despite different styles of environment, such as “Whole Child,” “No Excuses” (like KIPP), and teacher-retention."

Panzers roll in: UTLA candidate development begins

2011-12-05T23:11:00.000-08:00

The last school board election was supposed to be a partial victory for reformers; Vladovic and Galatzan kept their seats. Wrong. The darling duo apparently sacked PSC during the last contract negotiations, pulling the rug on children stuck in failing schools and perpetuating the myth that union rule is actually responsible school governance. Who are the board members willing to stand up and say "WE GIVE UP. WE CANNOT BEAT THE UNIONS. WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO UNIONS NOT THE PUBLIC. WHAT WE ARE RUNNING IS A CHARADE, A UNION RULE LAUNDRY. SHUT US DOWN." No, instead, they just bend over and cough up the last vestiges of managerial discretion to the UTLA. The MOU under discussion now is no quid-pro-quo. It is a big white flag.

But the UTLA is just getting started. The smoke from their Panzers is already fouling up the Ardennes.

Consider the November 18th United Teacher update in the section called "Politics & the classroom" by Juan Perino, political organizer.


		UTLA’s workshop on running for office included a primer on the “field game” of campaigns—direct voter contact efforts—by Sue Burnside of Burnside & Associates

These guys are smart, rich, hard working, and prepared. Education reformers: 2012 and 2013 are do or die.

"UTLA launches candidate development effort
With an eye toward the future, union begins recruiting volunteers who want to shake up the electoral arena.

Paul Wellstone, the U.S. senator whose life was cut short in a 2002 plane crash, entered politics after serving as a community organizer and professor of political science. His service as an elected official was rooted in his fervent belief that “politics isn’t about big money or power games; it’s about the improvement of people’s lives.”

Winning office should not be centered on playing the game in order to secure the next political seat, being
more concerned with term limits than meeting constituents’ needs, or putting more stock in rubbing elbows
with the privileged few than in standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the many struggling to make ends meet.
Elections need to be won by those who reject petty self-interest and put the common good first.

UTLA has embarked on a campaign to recruit volunteers who want to shake up the electoral arena and who share Senator Wellstone’s belief that politics should be focused on bettering people’s lives. The long-term strategy to our candidate development effort is to invigorate our political program so that it is capable of tangibly improving teachers’ working conditions and bettering students’ learning conditions.
On November 9, UTLA held a workshop titled, “So You Want to Run for School Board or Political Office?
(Or Know Someone Who Should).”

The after-school session ran for two hours. The 45-plus participants were primarily UTLA members, but some nonmembers also attended. The session was designed to provide an introduction to the electoral process for people interested in running for office, recruiting prospective candidates, or helping conduct election campaigns.

An A-list of trainers was on hand. Assembly Member Tony Mendoza headlined the roster. John Shallman (Shal lman Communi cat ions ) , Sue Burnside (Burnside & Associates), and CTA Region III Political Organizer Don Hillman—all of whom played integral roles in Bennett Kayser’s
LAUSD School Board victory lent their talents and experience to the training team. Newly appointed PACE Chair Marco A. Flores spoke about the UTLA candidate endorsement process. John Shallman introduced the imperative that a candidate be able to authentically and effectively answer three questions first: Who are you? Why are you running? What will you do if elected? Being able to effectively respond to these questions requires a compelling personal story, unique vision, effective preparation, and concerted endorsement efforts. The Three
“M’s” then come into play: money, message, and media. When it comes to money, by law UTLA can contribute only a nominal amount directly to candidates.

Even in a volunteer-centered LAUSD School Board campaign, candidate fundraising therefore is a must. As
has been noted by Common Cause, “In California, the candidate who raises the most money wins 97% of
general elections.”

Veteran election practitioner Sue Burnside offered guidelines on running effective voter contact field campaigns and carrying out successful phone banking. Don Hillman, a former teacher who has spent decades
organizing teacher union political efforts, lent his perspectives on gathering endorsements and fundraising.
The star of the evening was Assembly Member Tony Mendoza. He told his compelling story of having
been an LAUSD school teacher who successfully ran for the Artesia City Council and then was elected to the State Assembly. Mendoza’s story and his practical insight as a candidate resonated with, and energized, the workshop participants. Participant feedback was overwhelmingly positive and included such remarks as “Thank you for the wealth of information” and “Great blueprint if you’re planning to run.” Participants

asked for additional and more in-depth workshops.

Join UTLA’s candidate development effort: Paul Wellstone asserted, “I think we can do better. That is what Robert Kennedy always said. I think we can do better too. Won’t you join me in the effort?” If you’re interested in joining UTLA’s candidate development effort, email UTLA Political Organizer Juan
Parrino at jparrino@utla.net for more information and to be placed on the contact list. Be sure to provide your name, employee number, phone number, and non-LAUSD email address."

Remember: They're Everywhere

2011-12-05T15:44:00.000-08:00

If you read between the lines of Mike Antonucci's last December 5th EAI communique you will understand that education reform in America does not just happen; the teacher unions are fighting to protect their interests EVERYWHERE. All of those little wins put teacher union advocates in positions of influence, staffing, and budget authority in our communities.

What pro-child, pro-consumer organization is competing with them across thousands of local races that happen every year? Nobody. What is the systemic effect of their political anvil falling around the country ALL THE TIME? It's huge.

Teacher unions have been destroying America, city-by-city, mostly unopposed, for nearly 50 years. Whether they out-man and out-spend us 1,000 to 1 or 3:2 leveraging local resources or calling upon state and national resources, they are a predictably devastating political machine.

Terry Moe figures they win 4 of 5 races in which they participate. What are the odds of children getting a fair shake? What are the odds, over time, of substantive reforms from being adopted and of sticking. Zip.

Thank you Mike. The big story is the little story.

"Last month's elections in California didn't generate a lot of publicity, but that doesn't mean the California Teachers Association sat idle. Despite membership losses and reduced revenue, the union still has plenty of money to go around. While the focus is naturally on the state Capitol, CTA had its hand in a host of local elections as well.

EIA recently obtained a list of CTA contributions from its Association for Better Citizenship political action committee (ABC/PAC) to party committees, candidates and local ballot measures, as well as donations to local affiliate PACs for them to pass through to targeted campaigns.

For November 2011 local elections, CTA donated $14,432 to county party committees, ranging from $80 to the Tehama County Democratic Central Committee to $3,500 to the Orange County Democratic Central Committee. Only one donation, of $150, went to a Republican committee, in Shasta County.

In addition, the union PAC contributed $226,542 to at least 63 local elections. These ranged from $350 to the Chualar Teachers Association to support the school board candidacy of Rosalba Moreno (she won, 36 votes to 32 - that is not a typo) to $20,000 contributions each to the United Educators of San Francisco PAC and the San Bernardino Teachers Association PAC (three of four school board winners).

Here's the full list of PAC contributions to local affiliates and their ultimate destination, if available:

Alvord - $3,000

Baldwin Park - $3,234 ($1,078 each to Jack White, Natalie Ybarra, and Mary Ferrer, school board candidates)

Banning - $2,000

Beverly Hills - $2,000

Brawley - $1,500

Burlingame - $600 (Measure E - education parcel tax)

Chaffey - $4,250

Charter Oaks - $1,800

Chualar - $350 (Rosalba Moreno, school board candidate)

Citrus - $2,000

College of the Canyons - $10,000

Compton - $5,000

Culver City - $3,000 (Nancy Goldberg, school board candidate)

Dixon - $1,400

Eastside - $2,000

El Centro - $500 (Patricia Dunnam, school board candidate)

El Monte Union - $1,500

El Segundo - $2,000

Empire - $1,000

Eureka - $2,500

Fairfield-Suisun - $9,466

Garvey - $1,450

Hacienda La Puente - $4,200

Hart - $8,000 ($4,000 each to Gloria Mercado-Fortine and Steve Sturgeon, school board candidates)

La Canada - $1,000

Laguna Salada - $830 (Yes on L - parcel tax increase)

Las Virgenes - $9,000 (Measure K - parcel tax)

Lynwood - $5,000

Modesto - $9,000

Mountain View - $1,890

Newark - $575 (Measure G - school bond)

Newhall - $4,536 (Measure E - school bond)

Norwalk-La Mirada - $6,300

Oakdale - $4,000 (Synthia Jones - $3,000, Tina Shatswell - $1,000, both school board candidates)

Pacific Grove - $2,000 (Measure V - parcel tax)

Palmdale - $13,500

Perris - $1,000

Pomona - $6,000

Potter Valley - $1,000 ($500 each to school board candidates Tammie Smith and Diane Johnson)

Rio Hondo - $10,000

Riverbank - $2,000

Riverside - $4,000

Rosemead - $500 (Qui Nguyen, school board candidate)

Salinas - $1,600

San Bernardino - $20,000

San Francisco - $20,000

Sequoia - $5,000

South Tahoe - $1,400

Sulphur Springs - $2,200 ($1,100 each to Denis De Figueiredo and Rochelle Weinstein, school board candidates)

Sylvan - $3,436 (Steve Miller - $2,000, Chuck Rivera - $1,436, both school board candidates)

Temple City - $1,925

Ukiah - $3,500

Vacaville - $5,000

Visalia - $3,000

Westside Union - $1,400

Wilsona - $1,200

In each instance, the above money is in addition to whatever money may be raised and spent by the local affiliate. In large cities, this may be substantial. In smaller towns, this may be non-existent, giving the local teachers' union power over local elections far beyond its numbers."

LAUSD/UTLA MOU: 5.9 more years of failure

2011-12-02T11:53:00.000-08:00

I've yet to seen a comprehensive analysis of the LAUSD/UTLA MOU agreement. To fully understand it, you would need to know the existing contract and state statutes well. We deserve a layman's guide.

If my analysis is wrong, please let me know.

Here's my understanding of it.

This MOU seems to give SOME autonomy to the most failing schools first. It's widely understood that replacing under-performing staff (not just bouncing them around the system) is the only way to turn-around a school. The MOU proscribes "disruption," tenure and dismissal appears totally unaffected. And once there is no threat of closure or dismissal, what are the incentives?

Elaborate processes are put in place for writing "improvement" plans and if schools don't create them, the UTLA will. Why? Because an "improvement" plan buys 3 years of protection from out-of-District operators (materially, they only need 1.5 years to pack the school board and toss make 3 years infinite). But here's the clever union catch: PSC dies for 3 years first. So if a school spends 2.9 years working on their "improvement" proposal, they are really buying 5.9 years of job security (and pain for students).

See II B:

"District school operation proposals shall be suspended and the PSC program shall be limited to In-District applicants. In-District applicants are defined as any proposed school operators and plans that are reliant upon District employees to staff the particular school's faculty positions. Upon the expiration of the three-year period of suspension of non-District applications, the following limitations shall apply. The District, prior to entertaining PSC applications from non-District school operating plans for any given school, must have previously implemented on of the (in-District) intervention options under NCLB... as provided in III-G... and determined that the school has not responded to that intervention with substantial progress in student achievement."

Ok, so in year 2.9, how long will it take for an "in-district" turn-around to be proven a failure following the approval of the plan? See section G:

"So long as schools... demonstrate continued reasonable progress toward overall improvement they... will not be placed on the PSC list or otherwise subjected to intervention for a period of three full school years following approval of the Plan. However, should the school persist in underperforming... it may be subject to any of the interventions specified in the NCLB... with the exception of turning control of the school over to a non-District operator."

So what are the chances that a plan will not be submitted within 3 years? None. If no proposed plan is deemed "high quality" ... the UTLA and AALA "may themselves develop the plan" (IV A).

So there is no incentive to improve but schools can do SOME things. What can they do? How good can these plans be?

- Single salary schedule with steps and lanes is defined by state law: off limits.
- Seniority-based layoffs defined by state law: off limits.
- Incorporation of student performance in dismissal process: no.
- Longer days trigger contractual pay increases (C5)
- Funding equity between schools unaffected (younger faculty are cheaper), (C8)
- "return rights and placement rights" retained (C9)
- Forced placement of displaced teachers in aux roles required and "not subject to 'mutual consent'" (H3)
- "any other non-UTLA bargaining unit's collective bargaining agreements" must remain in compliance (police, support staff, admin).

So could I pay great teachers more and fire bad ones? No. Could I consider diffrent schemes for non-certificated work? No. Could I lengthen the school day or year? Practically no.
Could I stop giving periodic exams? Yes.
Could I make organizing for elections part of the curriculum? Yes.
Could I make hating class warfare part of the curriculum? Yes.
Could I make blaming poverty part of the curriculum? Yes.

Consider the other things which are going unspoken. For instance, students and parents are incorporated in staff and principal selection committees but in minority roles (G4-5, IVB). This is plainly manipulative and is intended to white-wash not empower. Also, it asks for "community involvement" in improvement plans. Again, this is "buy-in" not accountability. Respect never needs to be EARNED through results in this MOU.

And now the District is an OFFICIAL, contractually obligated partner in raising taxes (I).
In summary, who would not want school based budgeting and autonomy -- for all schools, not just failing ones? But what are the consequences for failure or a bad plan? Who gets fired when the children don't learn? I think the answer to that question is now nobody. This plan buys 5.9 more years for failing schools in the optimistic scenario that reformers win back the board. That's plenty of time for the UTLA to drop this even a modest charade for supporting reform.

For parents and children suffering under the yoke of failing public schools, this MOU keeps them hostage another 5.9 years. It removes all consequences for failure and dropping out remains the only exit.

Am I mistaken?

Thank you Mr. Dazy (part 1)

2011-11-30T13:34:00.000-08:00

The following parody describes how some radical teachers heard the news yesterday of an "deal" that strengthens and deepens union rule in the LAUSD.

"Thank you for stopping those teacher basher threats to shut down our school next year and give it over to a rich corporation. Do you still hate us and our union?

Yes, we've had challenges and many of my peers probably should not be in the classroom -- but you do understand that we want to improve and we've got BIG plans. Our students want to be here and the community wants us to turn-around!

For starters, we're going to burn those corporate textbooks. Howard Zinn has an better way to teach math: kount the layoffs! Sooo cool. New books are coming next week for us to check out.

We're going to march with the kids every two weeks and our 2012 goal will be to make sure that every parent votes in every election! We'll of course help them understand who are good candidates.

Oh, and sixth period, that will be school-wide protest prep. You'll see. We're going to "give back" to the community and help them take it back from the greedy 1%!

Thank god those periodic assessments will be gone. Boycotting them was a pain and I never knew if I'd get amnesty! In our professional judgment, they're EvIL!

We're even going to call our new school Community Academy 1! With luck we'll reach 100!

This is going to be sooooo awesome. You did say that we get three years to try this out, right? But once we start, we get a second three year grace period before you can give our school to a corporation, right? Six years is plenty! We really only need two, well maybe one and a half. Once our co,mrades are fully installed on the board... oh, that will be fun.

Let me keep reading this "agreement." Broad did SOMETHING right. Thank you so much. Where you going next? I've got lots of great friends in New York."

A-M-N-E-S-T-Y

2011-11-29T22:17:00.000-08:00

Poor Rick Perry is out of his depth.

Herman Cain, you blew it.

Gingrich, you're poison but right on immigration.

Mitt, keep fighting, but learn to spell "amnesty."

That's the only way to welcome most of the 11 million hard working "illegals" to America officially.

It will also give you 4 years to make Republicans likeable, after which those 11 million will be Democrats forever and Republicans will never hold a national branch of government again.

America is a nation of immigrants, and not just smart ones.

Amen.

CTA creates fake 'Parent Union' in Los Angeles: Beckles

2011-11-29T08:44:00.000-08:00

Through his LA Parents Union, Ben Austin is offering parents in Los Angeles a second option to escaping failing public schools. Today, dropping out is their only escape. Is that what we want as a society? Should poor children be forced to fail because keeping bad schools open is good for teacher unions?

The California Teachers Association (CTA) wants you to believe that everything they do is good for students and families: it is not. The CTA is very powerful and smart and have been able to steam-roll and co-opt parents for generations. Why? Because parents, unlike teachers, have never been effectively organized to protect their own interests. But parents are often part of the PTA, right? Did you know that policy-making the PTA is dominated by "T"eachers? Did you know that the PTA will never side with the school board if teachers strike? "P"arents can never have their authentic voices represented in PTAs, where it does not align with teacher unions.

Teacher unions hate the LA Parents Union because it helps parents understand that their interests do not always align with teacher union interests. Once this happens, organized parents are harder to roll over. More significantly, once they are empowered by the Parent Trigger law, parents can actually shut down unionized schools and cause the loss of union dues. Without organizations like LA Parents Union helping them, parents would not organize spontaneously and and be able to exercise their power collectively.
Organizing is necessary today because parents are stuck. If parents were actually empowered by law to simply take their children out of failing schools and put them in higher performing schools, and the money followed the child, there would be no urgency. You don't need a union to buy a Cadillac instead of a Yugo: we can just go buy one. Because you decide where to spend your own money.

In a system of choice, education would work that way also.  But by blocking the creation of new and better schools (charter schools), the teacher unions give poor children only two options: spend every day in a school where you will learn very little or drop out. Is it surprising that more than half head for the doors?

There is some "school choice" in LA, but not enough great schools to offer good choices to most parents.  Parents are stuck sending their kids to failing schools. And since they have no real power, their complaints are either ignored or they are tricked into accepting their fate lying down. The hard truth is that even well-intentioned school administrators can't help them. Unions run the schools. Administrators just get the credit.

Parents are often told that by "participating more" their children will be saved. But that's mostly a lie.   Let me ask how increased parent participation will help when a teacher has given up on his class and is not teaching properly? Where else are students to learn? What if principals are setting a bad example and making great teachers feel demotivated? What if young teachers are fired every year, regardless of their abilities? How will increasing parent participation in such a failed system, help children? Of course parent participation matters, but it matters much less in a dysfunctional system where children aren't going to learn much at school no matter what happens at home.

(Parenthetically, remember that teachers already have school choice. When you hear that rich kids learn more consider the fact that rich kids also have better teachers because talented teachers are more likely to apply for and win jobs in high socio-economic communities where the children are more well behaved. Generally speaking, lower quality teachers are "left behind" in schools where the most vulnerable students are forced to attend. Is this right?)

In a broader sense, school board elections are designed to do the same thing as fake parent participation programs. They perpetuate the idea that if individuals get involved -- they vote for instance -- they will be able to affect change. But what if the school board cannot fire a bad teacher or close a bad school because IT doesn't have the power? That's the way it works in Los Angeles. The real power is with the teacher unions. As hard as the school board may try, it cannot change what matters most in schools -- teachers -- without the support of the teacher unions. That support will never come. Is that right?

So why would the teacher unions be organizing parents?

It turns out that a charismatic "hired gun" from England named Yolande Beckles is building up an organization she now calls the "California Title I Parent Union." Its home today are the CTA offices in Culver City. It will certainly be moving soon and the CTA will disavow that it's a teacher union organization. You will notice that there is no mention of teacher unions in this outreach email (below) to parents. But call this number and see who picks up: 213-251-8088. It's the CTA.

So what is the state's largest teacher union doing create something they call a "parents union." They're tricking parents, that's what. They want parents to think that by organizing, they will be able to get a great education for their children. What they're actually doing is trying to make sure that parents never find the REAL parents' union, Ben Austin's LA Parents Union. They want to prevent parents from exercising REAL power; they want them to waste their time and effort doing what the teacher unions tell them to do.

Consider the mission statement of this "parents union" organization:

"Giving back authentic parents their human dignity and parental rights in public school education"

Is that a truthful statement? How cynical? Is the purpose of a teacher union parents union designed to free children from the prisons of failing schools or is it to trick them into making the walls stronger? Parents trapped in a fake parents organization are having their interests silenced instead of being represented.

In a prior blog, I provided a guide to spotting fake teacher union organizations. In that article, I proposed a simple "truth test" that parents may ask:

1) Do you support rewarding individual teaching performance (ie. paying great teachers more and laying off bad teachers regardless of age)?

2) Do you support policies that encourage the non-unionized, independently run schools (ie. charter schools and private school scholarships)?

It also featured a fake "parents union" in New York that was incubated by the mighty United Federation of Teachers (UFT). Recently the AFT leaked a memo describing how in Connecticut, the teacher union conspired with legislators they elected to create a fake parent trigger bill that does not actually give parents real power, only the impression of power.

Do you think that the CTA pays Yolande Beckles to give parents REAL rights, like the right to choose a non-failing school or fire under-performing unionized teachers? Do you think that the "California Title I Parent Union" will pass the "truth test"?

To echo the cynical mission statement above, what dignity is there in FORCING a poor parent to send their child to a FAILING school?

The "California Title I Parent Union" is a fake parents organization designed to trick and fool parents rather than give them what they really want, need, and deserve: great schools.   Haven't poor children been held hostage in failing public schools long enough? Don't parents deserve REAL power?

This charade has been going on for some time here in Los Angeles and it is picking up steam quickly. The CTA has a budget of nearly $200 million per year. What they can do with this continually recurring revenue stream is limited only by their evil imaginatons. I must admit, this new gambit is quite creative.

Why hasn't the press reported on it? Volunteer activists like me have limited media exposure and no financial upside for our participation; only huge personal risk in many dimensions (social, economic, personal).   Teacher unions have always maximized our pain and outlasted us: they count on it.

There is no bigger issue in Los Angeles today than abuse of teacher union power. Why isn't it covered? Why doesn't every article on the LAUSD start with something like this: "Every year the LAUSD writes checks of $27 million to the UTLA which it uses to align teachers and the public against change in the district. The CTA pools over $180 million annually from dues collected across the state, including $5 million from the UTLA." Statements like these are the minimum required to give context for what happens in the district and why.

But count the number of thoughtful articles that were written in the LA Times about how the CTA and UTLA dominate education politics in California and in Los Angeles: 0. How many articles were written about the Sanchez/Kayser run-off election in weeks leading up to the election: 0.

Doesn't the public need to know? In America's education system, parents are grossly unrepresented, un-empowered, and uninformed. Teacher activists are over-represented, over-powering, and brain-washed. The teacher union opposition is broadcasting their deceptions through the mouths of a million teachers and through advertising budgets in the hundreds of millions.

Us activists are no substitute for an active an interested press that takes issues of union power seriously and considers the full breadth of how they win continued public support for a system that is manifestly NOT WORKING. I have high expectations for a free and independent press: may Google (or bloggers like me) ever take away your avocation. We cannot do what you do.

From: yolandebeckles@aol.com
Sent: October 5, 2011 10/5/11
To: yolandebeckles@aol.com
Subject: invitation and communique

Dear parents and community members

Arne Duncan Secretary of State for Education is coming to our town next week.

He will be speaking to the Board of Education of LAUSD on Tuesday 11th October at 1pm.

WE MUST PACK THE BOARD ROOM AND HAVE OUR VOICE HEARD BRING EVERYONE TO TELL THEIR STORIES USE ROBERTO Communique for guidance to assist you with your public comments.

Secondly we have been invited to the Town Hall meeting in the evening in Pico Rivera. For members of the California Title I Parent Union there will be buses available to go from our offices. If you are a member and wish to travel to the meeting and back by bus please call Yolande on 213-251-8088 or email me back with your name and membership number plus one child as they wish to speak directly with Title I students of LAUSD as well.

I look forward to us welcoming the Secretary of State and telling him the truth about parental involvement and Title I funding in LA and surrounding districts.

"Giving back authentic parents their human dignity and parental rights in public school education"

Yolande Beckles Founder California Title I Parent Union
213-251-8088 office
213-XXX-XXXX cell

Newton: Teacher Ratings and the Public's Right to Know

2011-11-28T10:39:00.000-08:00

There is surely more to Supt. Deasy's denial of the LA Times request for LAUSD teacher evaluation scores than is concern about what will be done with that information. My guess is that he's about to give away the district's right to disseminate the data all together during the current contract negotiations as part of an evaluation deal. If he got something substantial, that the next union-controlled school board could not repeal, he'll be onto something. However, the next union-controlled school board will repeal it and arbitrators, as a rule, never take anything OUT of a contract. In short, he's screwed either way.

UTLA teacher activists seem to want it both ways: the benefits of working for a unionized, public monopoly, without actually being accountable for delivering quality public services.

An op-ed in the LA Times sums up my views on the matter. Thank you for your common sense, Jim Newton.

Op-Ed: Teacher Ratings and the Public's Right to Know

The Los Angeles Unified School District is going against public opinion by siding with the teachers union against full transparency on value-added teacher ratings.

Gompers Middle School Principal Sonia Miller observes an English class in 2009. A new poll finds that a large majority of California voters want teacher evaluations to include students' test scores. (Liz O. Baylen, Los Angeles Times / November 25, 2009)

By Jim Newton

November 28, 2011

There's a shocking disconnect at work these days in the relationship between the public and government workers: The public is demanding greater accountability, and public employees — social workers, police, teachers, even state legislators — are finding ways to avoid it.

Legislators contend that they should be allowed to conduct budget deliberations in private. Police unions are fighting forcefully to protect the names of officers involved in shootings or other uses of force. Social workers are fighting to keep dependency court hearings private. And the Los Angeles Unified School District, in the sway of its unions, has said it won't release the so-called value-added evaluations of teachers it has prepared as part of an attempt to analyze which teachers are most effective.

There are differences of opinion about whether value-added analysis is an accurate measurement of a teacher's performance and about how much weight to give such scores. But L.A. Unified clearly puts some stock in them; in fact, the district argues that the scores illustrate how teacher performance, as its own lawyers put it, "impact the academic growth of students."

It's hard to imagine a measure of more compelling interest to parents than scores that might predict the ability of teachers to help students grow academically, but the district has refused to turn over the names of teachers connected with the scores. Such disclosure, it argues, could be "embarrassing and painful." As district lawyers argued in a truly breathtaking letter explaining their refusal to disclose this information, "Imagine how the teacher would feel coming to school knowing that not only do their peers know how LAUSD rates their performance as a teacher, but their students and parents also are aware of their ratings."

Rarely have I seen a sentence that better captures the perfectly enclosed logic of bureaucracy. Insight might embarrass employees, but the answer is not to help those employees improve or show them the door. Rather, it's to cut off insight.

Imagine the parent whose child missed a chance to learn to read because the school district saddled her with a bored or incompetent teacher. Isn't that parent's right to advocate for his or her child more important than the potential for embarrassment of the teacher?

These same arguments run through the responses of police and social workers — and their unions: Imagine the danger to a police officer if members of the public knew that she had shot and killed a suspect. Imagine how devastating it would be for a foster-care employee to have it known that he left a child to be brutalized by his parents or foster parents. Imagine if the public really knew how the Legislature deliberated over the state budget. The bureaucracy's answer: Cut off the information.

But you have to wonder about any solution that requires deception or secrecy. I have been writing about police for almost 20 years; the vast majority of officers I've met are noble, brave men and women. They would thrive under close scrutiny. But police, like social workers and teachers, work for the public and must answer to it.

Yes, it can be embarrassing to have one's peers know about a bad test score; surely teachers understand that. But there is such a thing as a social compact. Students are required to attend school, and teachers are entrusted with their care and learning. In return, parents are entitled to know that their children are being well taken care of and are being educated by teachers who know what they're doing. The district's position basically boils down to this: It's more important to protect teachers from embarrassment than it is to inform parents about the competency of the teachers to whom they're entrusting their children.

By a margin of more than 2 to 1, Californians — whose taxes pay for public schools — disagree. A USC/Times poll last week found that 58% of Californians want the value-added scores made public; just 23% opposed the idea. That means Los Angeles' public school leadership is allied with its teachers union against the vast majority of the public it serves.

Supt. John Deasy is a major force for good in this community. He has a serious educational mission and a genuine dedication to the lives of Los Angeles students. On this issue, though, he's flat wrong. He needs to be reminded of his fundamental duty, which is not to teachers but to students and their parents. Teachers, like it or not, are accountable to the public.

Scape-goating testing

2011-11-27T13:57:00.000-08:00

Have you seen statements like this, lately?

"The test prep industry is the new wild west in the education marketplace; the lack of regulation enables eye-popping carpetbagging. Standardized testing brings hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the handful of corporations that produce the tests, grade the tests and supply materials to raise students’ scores on the tests."

As I've discussed previously, the teacher unions want to remove the evidentiary basis of accountability. If there are no tests, there will be no scores, and therefore no objective measure of value-added. Therefore, there can be no reward or sanctions for teachers who don't teach. That is what this is really about.

There's a lot of ground to cover in this area and I can't do it all today. Let's just start with this article on the cost of state testing: $14 per California student. In the LAUSD, the UTLA advises teachers to boycott periodic exams. From my post:

The last idea to percolate through the UTLA reform factory was to boycott periodic evaluations. It asks the teachers to simply not turn in student tests. This action is not permitted in the already crippling contract; no matter. According to the UTLA, no member has ever been sanctioned for such an action and they will be granted full immunity in the next contract.
If the goal is the highest possible objectivity and fairness assessment, why not buy much better and more expensive tests? The periodic exams are a start. Apparently, deeper and better testing passed through the California legislature (amazing) recently; Brown vetoed the bill. The only good thing that come come from this is that year-over-year scores will continue to be comparable.

Consider this article on the cost of testing. Is the cost of testing the problem? Why are opponents of reform blaming the test makers? Why do teacher unions want to stop testing kids?

http://www.educationsector.org/publications/truth-about-testing-costs

"But while testing can’t solve our educational problems, all this vitriol obscures another important reality: Testing consumes just a tiny portion of education budgets. While states vary considerably in the amount, type, and quality of their testing programs, no state comes even close to spending 1 percent of total per-pupil expenditures on testing. A 2010 study by the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education, or SCOPE, which is led by the respected professor Linda Darling-Hammond, noted that in per-pupil terms, testing costs “substantially less than that of a new textbook, a typical student’s school supplies for the year, or almost any educational intervention.” A random sample of states, small and large, confirms SCOPE’s findings.

For example, California, the country’s largest and most financially distressed state, spends less than $14 out of its $8,955 per-pupil total educational outlay on statewide standardized testing (see image). These costs, which include testing contracts and administration for not only federally mandated tests in reading and math but also high school exit exams and state tests in science and history, are dwarfed by spending on such items as workers’-compensation insurance, housekeeping services, and travel.
Even if the California figures underestimate various expenditures related to testing, such as preparation materials or personnel, testing is still a drop in the budget bucket. For the sake of argument, let’s double the amount spent on testing to $28 per student, or about .03 percent of the budget. Under this scenario, the state’s schools still spend 265 times as much on salaries and benefits."

NYT: Policy-Making Billionaires Privatizing Public Policy

2011-11-27T11:57:00.000-08:00

A provocative article claims that quotes Diane Ravitch extensively says that by increasing their philanthropy and spending more on advocacy rather than programming, "Billionaires are Privatizing Public Policy."

The suggestion of malfeasance is clear: the rich are making policy for the rest of us. Democratic?

What the article does a terrific job of NOT discussing is that those who enrich themselves from current public policy -- government workers and crony capitalists mainly -- are organized and financed to defend their programs.

The math of advocacy is lost on nobody. The LAUSD has an OPERATIONAL budget of over $6 billion annually. With a "measly" $27 million annual contribution by the UTLA -- half of which flows into a much larger state-wide and nation-wide pot -- they control how that money is spent and has done so for over 40 years. Let's not belittle the other unions in the district: nearly half of the LAUSD payroll does NOT go to teachers!

What I find of great concern is the lack of awareness and appreciation of two important facts:

1) How poorly the public is represented in education policy.
2) How powerfully the existing stake-holders are represented.

The first point is easy to explain: the "public" has no voice at the education policy-making table because the "public" does not pay anyone to represent it. The power of a single parent in a place like Los Angeles is quite like the story of the tree falling in the woods. If nobody hears it, did it even fall?

The closest thing to "public" representation in education policy-making is whatever wealthy people are willing to spend trying to best represent the public. Additional "public" contributions, like the $400 which I begged my wife to let me give to the Luis Sanchez for School Board Campaign (she relented), is a rounding error that doesn't pay for much.

On the other side of the ledger, the cascading effect that Nicholas Confessore describes on the potential impact of advocacy dollars on public spending, is wholly unreported in the context of union spending. Also, it's mute on the multiplier effect.

For instance, Confessore does not mention that the teacher unions collect $2.5 billion in funds every year, with which they juice their multi-level advocacy organization. How? A sliver of that money flows directly into political campaigns. Ironically, that sliver happens to be the largest contributor in most campaigns, big or small.

But most of the money isn't spent on mailers and advertisements; it goes to training an army that is already on the public payroll. I estimate that 1 in 3 public school teachers in America are enlisted to reach out to parents, phone bank, march, and tell their friends and family to vote for union-favored candidates. What's the true cost of that advocacy? How much influence does it have on how we spend $600 billion annually trying to build the ladder of opportunity for America's children?

In most school districts, no other union or political organization has access to public school facilities, mail boxes, bulletin boards, and email systems -- by law. Collecting dues is turn-key; it is mostly deducted automatically by schools themselves and then electronically transferred to teacher unions. Do school districts also transfer an equal amount to organizations representing the public? No, they transfer nothing.

An under-appreciated foot-note is that teacher unions can dial-up automatic deductions any time they wish. Typically, teachers must petition individually for refunds if they disagree with political deductions which have already been taken.

Is this good public policy? How many people know what's going on?

More importantly, what would the "billionaire boys" to come close to matching this scheme? How much would they need to spend?

What teacher unions collect every year is enormous -- more than three times every year what Barack Obama collected in 2008 -- but it's the public financing multiplier that is the kicker. The "billionaire boys" have no access to public school teacher soldiers.

By spending $1-2 billion exciting teachers to become politically active, teacher unions are paying for a political army that would cost $100-$200 billion per year to maintain from scratch: a 100x multiplier. They've been at this for over 40 years. What's the net-present value of their investment in teacher "political capital"? In an off-cycle election where non-employees vote at rates of 3-4%, what's it worth to have a voting block that when urged stridently, will vote for one candidate at rates of 75%? In many school board elections it takes around 20 registered voters to balance a single teacher whose union has said: "you must vote or else your family will not eat."

And what happens when local government, particularly school boards, are systematically represented by teacher unionists? It distorts public discourse. The union school board avoids controversial but high-impact policies like laying off bad teachers and paying good teachers more, and instead incites the blame game (stingy people hate children and should pay more taxes). Not only are we losing children to teacher union political influence, but political dialog is systematically corroded.

Who speaks for disenfranchised parents? Who pays for their organizational leadership? Where is their direct, financial interest in becoming actively involved? Are their jobs on the line every school board election?

I'm delighted that people with means are choosing to become more involved in educational advocacy. However, the dimensions of the education advocacy asymmetry in America are so vast that they exceed even the collective resources of every billionaire on earth. These are not good odds for children.

Bennett Kayser speaks: I am a warrior against the status quo.

2011-11-24T11:39:00.000-08:00

This is the first major piece I've seen from Bennett Kayser and it's worse than I could have ever imagined. Not only is he spiking the football, but he's promising to disqualify the defense entirely.

This just about says it all.

"I am a warrior against the status quo. We are in a battle against a well-funded opposition interested in privatizing education that has millions to spend promoting an Orwellian doublespeak that claims reform as their own and paints those who have actually worked in a classroom as defenders of the status quo."

Read the rest on Patch here:

http://echopark.patch.com/articles/opinion-lausd-trustee-bennett-kayser-on-occupy-lausd

The UTLA ran Bennett Kayser's school board campaign and they hope for a majority in 2013. Here was one of the sleezy mailers they sent against reform candidate Luis Sanchez.

The teacher vote itself is estimated to have been 4 or 5 times the margin of victory (600 vote margin, est. 2,500 teacher votes) in an off-cycle run-off election where fewer than 5% of non-teachers showed up to vote.

Make no mistake about it: for the past 40 years, since the UTLA became the exclusive bargaining agent, the LAUSD is really the UTLAUSD. The often maligned "reform majority" on the board hasn't been able to do much against powerful UTLA opposition. After all, the "reform" majority is basically a bunch of volunteers without an advocacy budget. The UTLA collects $27 million per year, and if they need more money they just call the CTA, NEA, CFT, or AFT: it's a joint NEA/AFT affiliate.

Stopping the board in its tracks is not enough for the UTLA. They don't want the school board to even try to fix the problem. They want it lobbying to pay spend mor money on the same broken system: that is all.

Here was my reply on the Patch:

Anthony Krinsky

11:26am on Thursday, November 24, 2011

Wow. Talk about Orwellian double-speak. So the system we have today which educates over 90% of students the same way it's been done for 40 years is not the status quo? Who exactly, if not people with money (billionaires have more) should pay for reform advocacy? Teacher unions collect $2.5 billion per year in dues, $27 million from Los Angeles alone. What if parents disagree with teacher union policy? What if they don't want their children consistently getting teachers who are not "the best?" What can they do? Has spending or class size per student gone down ever, year after year? If money and class-size were the problem, why aren't schools great? Are bankers in schools making sure kids aren't learning? Are the teachers you protect holding back because they want more money? Should average the hourly teacher wage plus benefits be higher than $75/hour (could be more)? Why can't we pay starting teachers more money? Why can't we keep talented teachers during cut-backs, regardless of their age or seniority? Common-sense is the only guide necessary to smell that your not being truthful. What if the billionaires are actually giving back and standing for children. What if you're standing with the UTLA who ran your campaign? What rights do children and families have? I hope that readers greet this post with great skepticism. Fighting against choice and accountability is shameful. How sad to see your office turned into a UTLA bully pulpit.

Larry Sand on Martha Montelongo

2011-11-22T22:08:00.001-08:00

It was an amazing show tonight on how little the public knows about school spending.
http://www.latalkradio.com/archives/Gadfly-112211.mp3

Larry Sand spoke eloquently about his article on public awareness of school funding.
http://unionwatch.org/california%E2%80%99s-looming-fiscal-disaster-sunshine-and-an-informed-public-are-the-best-disinfectants/

He was inspired by a question in a recent USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times poll:

“As you may know, California currently ranks forty-second out of the fifty states in funding per student. (Bold added.) Would you favor or oppose increasing funding for California’s public schools, even if it meant an increase in your own taxes?”

61 percent responded that they would favor raising taxes.

Sand notes that often cited ranking does not include vast amounts of unreported spending including every nickel on bond initiatives (ie. buildings), and is also adjusted for cost-of-living which is not mentioned at all.

According to Sand:

"A more objective source like the Census Bureau, “…surveys all forms of school spending and pegs California’s per-pupil number at $11,588, just $662 under the national average and 27th-highest in the nation…. And it’s much higher in some big-city school systems, such as Los Angeles Unified, which has more than 600,000 students, spends $14,100 per pupil and has about a 50 percent high-school dropout rate."

The non-partisan California Legislative Analysts Office has the state in 31st place in school spending.

The whole spending issue becomes even more convoluted, because typically school districts don’t count capital expenses, e.g. the cost of school buildings, in their per-student spending. Since students don’t take classes at the beach or in a field, these costs must be included to give the public an idea of the true cost of educating a child. Including capital costs, the dollar amount that Adam Schaeffer of the Cato Institute came up with for Los Angeles Unified is $25,208 per year."
Would it have been more accurate to pose a question like:

“As you may know, Los Angeles currently ranks 3rd (?) in the nation in real spending per student, some $25,208 per year. (Bold added.) Would you favor or oppose increasing funding for California’s public schools, even if it meant an increase in your own taxes?”

Sand raises questions that LA Times writers Teresa Watanabe and Howard Blume do not:

"• What do those people really know about the amount we already spend on education? For example, do they know that over 50 percent of the state’s general fund spending already goes to education?
• Do they know how much is wasted on an excessive number of administrators and useless bureaucrats?
• Do they understand that due to an archaic tenure system, it can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to rid a school system of one incompetent or criminal teacher?
• Do they know the average teacher’s salary and how much more they get in additional healthcare and pension compensation?
• Do they know that teachers can pad their pay by taking useless “professional development” classes that can “earn” them an extra million dollars in their careers and retirement?
• Do they know that practically every teacher contract in the state has a provision whereby teachers who are union representatives get classroom time off each month to do union business while the taxpayers foot the bill for the rep’s substitute teacher?
• Do they know that it is the taxpayer supported school district, not the teachers unions, that collects the union dues that teachers are forced to pay in this state?
• Do they know that California already has one of the highest sales and income tax rates in the country?"

On the show, they also discussed the Stull Act lawsuit. Every single school board in California has ignored the requirement to factor student achievement into teacher evaluation. Every one. Larry raised the provocative question of why there was not a single whistle-blower among those who knew of the legislation, in 40 years.

He also raises the provocative question: would you rather have good teachers or more teachers? That question is not ever asked.

Education polling is ironically, still in its infancy. Listen to the show and email the LA Times. Challenge them to provide more than half the story. A poll which claims to explain something, but only tells us half of what we need to know -- may do more harm than good. The teacher unions do THAT all the time.

This is 2011: the children deserve more thoughtful reporting. Unless, of course, the poll is not designed to be impartial at all, in which case it is simply a fig-leaf for advocacy. The fact that a "Republican" pollster participated is unimpressive. Republican pollsters have a proven track-record of failure when it comes to understanding what drives the electorate on education.

Jay Greene on Teacher Union Collective Bargaining

2011-11-22T11:03:00.001-08:00

Jay Greene dispels important myths in this must-read article in Education Next.

I would disagree that teacher unionism in Right To Work states is money-losing or needs to be. While there are certainly cash transfers from national to state unions, even a poor teacher union is stronger than it needs to be. Even if only half of teachers pay dues, pro-reform representation in state-houses remains negligible compared to even partial teacher union coverage.

Any student of teacher union finance knows that slush money is always available at the state and national levels to redistribute on an as-needed basis. Here in Los Angeles, the UTLA sends half of what it collects to the state and national branches, and that money comes back when they need it. The sums we saw transfered to Ohio to defeat SB5 were unusual, but as a rule of thumb, the nationals spend what they need where they need it, making even "weak" locals in Right to Work States, extremely strong.

The outcome can be expected to be the same when the teacher unions are down half their team: 5 versus 1 is as likely to win as 10 versus 1 or 100 versus 1. There just isn't an organized, well-funded constituency for reform because fundamentally, teacher jobs don't go away when they become unionize. They just become more of a grind. Union jobs and the careers of crappy teachers, however, do go away when teachers do not pay union dues. So they have huge incentives to preserve union rule, if not at the local level then in statehouses.

Unions and the Public Interest

http://educationnext.org/unions-and-the-public-interest

Jay P. Greene: Asking if teachers unions are a positive force in education is a bit like asking if the Tobacco Institute is a positive force in health policy or if the sugar lobby is helpful in assessing the merits of corn syrup. The problem is not that teachers unions are hostile to the interests of students and their families, but that teachers unions, like any organized interest group, are specifically designed to promote the interests of their own members and not to safeguard the interests of nonmembers. To the extent that teachers benefit from more generous pay and benefits, less-demanding work conditions, and higher job security, the unions will pursue those goals, even if achieving them comes at the expense of students. That is what interest groups do. Unfortunately, a public education system that guarantees ever-increasing pay and benefits while lowering work demands on teachers, who virtually hold their positions for life regardless of performance, harms students.

Collective bargaining is the primary vehicle through which the unions enact their preferred policies regarding pay, benefits, job security, and work conditions. It is also the mechanism by which unions collect fees from teachers that provide them with the resources to prevail politically. Until the ability of teachers unions to engage in collective bargaining is restrained, we should expect unions to continue to use it to advance the interests of their adult members over those of children, their families, and taxpayers.

Teachers unions only won the privilege of engaging in collective bargaining in the last 50 years, about when student achievement began to stagnate and costs to soar. A return to the pre–collective bargaining era may be the tonic our education system needs to return to growth in achievement and restraint in costs.

The nature and function of organized interest groups is widely known and understood. Of course, there is nothing wrong with people organizing interest groups to advocate for themselves. That is an essential part of the freedom of assembly, protected by the U.S. Constitution. If people dislike what an interest group is advocating, they can organize other interest groups to compete in the marketplace of ideas and advocate for other concerns. The normal process of checks and balances among competing interest groups, however, has failed when it comes to education.

There are three factors that have contributed to the failure of other groups to check the power of teachers unions. First, there is an asymmetry in the ability of groups to organize in education, significantly favoring the teachers unions. Teachers unions have a huge advantage in organizing and advocating for their interests. Employees of the public school system are physically concentrated in school buildings, making it easier for them to organize. And because current employees are in a good position to know how they can benefit from the system, they can be mobilized relatively easily to advocate for those policies. Parents, taxpayers, and members of the general public are geographically dispersed, making it harder for them to organize. And because they are not immersed in education matters, they cannot easily envision how policy changes might help or hurt, making it harder to mobilize them on those issues. It is hardly unique to education that concentrated interests have an advantage over diffuse interests, but this is one factor contributing to teachers union dominance.

Second, teachers unions have fooled a large section of the general public and elites into thinking of them as something other than a regular interest group advocating for their own concerns.

The teachers unions have worked hard to convince people that they are a collection of educators who love our children almost as much as the parents do. They’re like the favorite aunt or uncle who dotes on our children. This image of the teachers unions as part of our family is facilitated by the fact that virtually every college-educated household (the households with the greatest political influence) has at least one current or former public school teacher sitting at the dining table when they gather for Thanksgiving. This impression is also fostered by ad campaigns featuring teachers buying school supplies out of their own pockets and movie portraits of heroic teachers believing in students, even as their parents have abandoned them.

Of course, some teachers really do buy school supplies with their own money (which should make people wonder what kind of education system would make that necessary after spending an average of more than $12,000 per student each year). And some teachers really are like the doting aunt or uncle who sticks with kids, even when the parents have given up. But loving children and being part of the family is certainly not what teachers unions are about. They are about accumulating the power necessary to advocate for the interests of their members. In a moment of candor, Bob Chanin, former general counsel of the National Education Association, explained the key to the union’s effectiveness: “Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is NOT because of our creative ideas. It is NOT because of the merit of our positions. It is NOT because we care about children, and it is NOT because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.”

The disarming image of teachers unions as Mary Poppins has begun to morph into that of a burly autoworker, as teachers union advocacy has become more militant in recent years. As states attempt to trim very generous benefit packages for teachers, the unions have organized large demonstrations, occupied state capitols, and chanted angry slogans. The public image of teachers unions fighting like autoworkers for the benefit to retire at 55 with full medical coverage and 66 percent of their peak salary while the economy is in shambles and the quality of their industry stagnates has done much to undermine the doting aunt or uncle meme. The angry slogans emanating from Diane Ravitch’s and Valerie Strauss’s Twitter feeds may soothe disgruntled teachers, but they are eroding the public perception that teachers unions are somehow different from other interest groups. Media and policy elites are increasingly treating teachers union claims with the same skepticism that they used to apply only to other interest groups.

A third factor is that unions have significant influence over who is elected or appointed to negotiate with them over pay, benefits, and work conditions. In the private sector, the power of unions is constrained by the competing organized interests of management. When they sit down to negotiate pay, benefits, and work conditions, members of management are inclined to represent the interests of shareholders, not those of employees. But in education, as in other public-sector collective bargaining, the interests of employees are represented on both sides of the table. The employees, as citizens, can organize, finance, and vote for elected officials who favor the union’s interests. It is precisely for this reason that public employees historically did not have collective bargaining rights.

But didn’t the lack of collective bargaining rights sometimes leave teachers vulnerable to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment by school administrators? Yes, but unionization and collective bargaining were neither necessary nor efficient means of correcting those abuses. We can look to other public employees, such as members of the armed forces, who still do not have collective bargaining rights, to see how progress could have occurred without unionization. The military, like public schools, was once racially segregated. African American servicemen and servicewomen were treated horribly. And sometimes officers treated all soldiers in an arbitrary and unfair manner. These abuses were not corrected by unionization and collective bargaining in the military. They were corrected by executive orders and changing legislation governing those public employees. The same path could have been taken with public school employees without the political distortions that public employee unions introduce by virtue of having their interests represented on both sides of the bargaining table.

It may have taken longer than many would like to integrate the military, expand the roles of women in the armed forces, and end “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but we were able to achieve all of those through an open, public process of changing laws and regulations. Unionized collective bargaining might also have addressed those issues, but it would have been done mostly behind closed doors and would have been accompanied by provisions to protect the narrow interests of the unions at the expense of the public interest. Perhaps the use of drones would have been restricted because it displaces jobs for Air Force pilots; perhaps there would be caps on the hours soldiers could engage in combat. Who knows what else a unionized military might have produced? The point is we rightly restrict the ability of members of the armed forces from unionizing and engaging in collective bargaining, just as we once did and could again for teachers. The claim that public employees have a “right” to unionize and collectively bargain and that exercising this “right” necessarily advances the public interest is obviously false.

The proper mechanism for improving compensation and work conditions in the public sector is through changes in law and regulation. The salary, benefits, job security, and work conditions of public employees are just as much a matter of public policy as the work that those employees are supposed to do. We don’t allow smoky backroom deals arrived at in collective bargaining to dictate the goals, structure, or existence of the public education system, so neither should we use that process to determine compensation and work condition policies.

What evidence is there that teachers unions have actually had negative effects on students and the education system? The research literature generally finds that unionization is associated with higher per-pupil costs and lower student achievement, but those findings are not very large and are sometimes inconsistent. A 1996 article by Caroline Hoxby in the Quarterly Journal of Economics is widely considered the most methodologically rigorous analysis of the issue. Claremont Graduate University professor Charles Kerchner described Hoxby’s study in a literature review prepared for the National Education Association as “the most sophisticated of the econometric attempts to isolate a union impact on the student results and school operations …” Hoxby finds that unionization is associated with higher student dropout rates as well as higher spending.

But the reality is that it is very hard to produce rigorous research on the effects of teachers unions on education. For one thing, teachers unions are powerful and active almost everywhere. Even in states without collective bargaining, the unions push state legislatures to put into law what is normally put into collective bargaining agreements. This is less than ideal for the unions, because they don’t collect dues in exchange for pushing through legislation like they can for representing members to achieve the same ends through collective bargaining. Unions operate these money-losing operations in right-to-work states to make sure that there is no meaningful policy variation on their key issues. They’d rather that we not discover that the world does not end without a mandatory step-and-ladder pay scale, fair dismissal procedures, and favorable work rules. The lack of policy variation hinders researchers, because outcomes are not likely to be very different where the policies are not very different.

But we don’t need a wealth of evidence on teachers unions specifically as long as we know about the effects of interest groups and recognize that teachers unions are indeed interest groups. Seeking to produce evidence on the effects of each interest group separately, especially when there are empirical challenges to doing so, is a bit like trying to prove that gravity operates in every room of a house. We could drop a bowling ball in each room to see if it hits the floor, but sometimes there are tables, couches, or beds in the way. If we don’t get the result we expected, it doesn’t mean that gravity only applies in certain places; it just means that research constraints prevent us from seeing in a particular situation what we know to be true in general.

In general, we know that interest groups advocate for the benefits of their members, even if it comes at the expense of others. We know that teachers unions are interest groups. And we know that the interests of teachers unions are not entirely consistent with the needs of students and taxpayers. Thus, teachers unions are likely to be negative forces for the education system and certainly should not be seen as helpful. The most rigorous research that does exist bears this out, but we also know this from our more general knowledge of how interest groups affect policy.

It is not currently practical to forbid the unionization of teachers, as we forbid the unionization of members of the armed forces. But if we want to limit the ability of teachers unions to advance their own interests at the expense of children, their families, and taxpayers, we need to consider ways of restricting their ability to engage in collective bargaining. Restricting collective bargaining would force teachers unions to pursue their interests through the legislative process, where competing interests might have a better chance to check their power. And forcing unions to operate through legislation rather than backroom collective-bargaining negotiations would improve transparency, which could also place a check on the unions’ ability to satisfy their own interests at the expense of others.

My Reply to South Bronx Teacher

2011-11-21T20:37:00.001-08:00

In his post Anthony Krinsky Fractures Reality, SBT cannot imagine that after a few months working as a volunteer in a public school back in 1994, I actually managed to teach poor children math during homeroom. I've never needed more evidence to know that poor children can learn if they have three things: structure, love, and a competent teacher. But for West Philadelphia High School, I didn't have what was required. I was just a Harvard junior (spent that year off, actually), and did not have a teaching credential.

I graduated in 1995, with a Cum Laud on my thesis: The Failure of Education Reform in America. It was both late and had misspellings and half-sentences, so it never made it to the Harvard archive but one day I will publish it; most every conclusion I reached then has been proven true.

That paper was written to explain to myself what happened as a "volunteer" ($20,000/year stipend!) with the Pennsylvania Service Corps (PSC). PSC eventually folded into Americorps (I have an Americorps hat somewhere). At PSC, I was assigned to the West Philadelphia Partnership Community Development Corporation (WEPIC CDC), which was run capably by Blane Stoddart, a hard-working, executive of Jamaican heritage. I reported to his lieutenant, Mike Connely, a self-taught carpenter and super all-around guy, who ran the construction side of things.

WEPIC is no longer and I can only imagine that it had something to do with the "community development" business model. WEPIC would take hundreds of thousands of dollars in public subsidies subsidized and foundation money to renovate dilapidated at top-dollar using union workers at "prevailing" wages. It then sold the finished units to deserving poor for what they could afford, say $50,000. Every losing transaction was celebrated by highly political ribbon-cutting ceremonies. The model was justified, I believe, by the idea that fixing up a home well would stop the domino process of neighborhood blight.

It turns out that one of the union carpenters helping with the rehab projects, was actually a full-time public school teacher and was moonlighting with us. During class, I remember him reading the newspaper and calling a child "nigger" (not in front of them). He was near retirement and it seemed to me that he'd written off the 11th graders in his class.

But Mike Connely at WEPIC cared about those kids, a lot. He wanted to help these kids and to give them a career.

Unfortunately, in Philadelphia, as in most cities, there is nothing that do-gooders like me or Mike or Blane can do to improve the circumstances of poor children during the school day. What happens during the school day is controlled by teacher unions. We could not paint the walls or god-forbid, teach. However, I was allowed to show up and "assist," without interfering too much. Mike also worked the sidelines, shuffling some of Bill's students to the job site after school (but not for too many hours, those were union jobs too).   Union rule keeps able bodies out of the classroom.
So there I was, an ambitious suburban kid who wasn't allowed to teach but could meander around the cutting machines helping the students draw lines on wood. In broad daylight, someone had stole my car right outside the classroom window (nobody squealed) but I still felt a connection with the students.

Most of them could not even read a ruler. As a student representative on the school board, I had been told by the union rep at Radnor High School that Philadelphia schools were not performing because of poverty and inadequate funding. That made sense to me at the time. It was a crime against Martin Luther King himself that Radnor spent more than Philadelphia!

But once I got into the schools, it did not seem like what the students needed, they lacked. There were walls, books, and frankly well-paid teachers. What more did a school require?

Putting aside my prejudice that the kids were disabled by poverty or that the school was disabled by insufficient resources, I cut up some blocks and started teaching the kids how to count, measure, add, subtract, divide, and multiply. We played games and when someone won, they got a nickel. I made learning pay (before there were any studies suggesting it was a good idea) and they thought it was cool. Even the "tough kids" softened up. They could see that I was trying and many other teachers at West Philly High, were not. I wasn't allowed to teach during the school day, we worked only during home-room. Kids started coming to school early to work with me but the janitor would not let us in the building; that was against the rules. Within a few months, I was asked to stop visiting the class-room. I am quite sure that I was making other teachers look bad.

I don't recall exactly how many children there were in the class or even their names. What I do remember and what lit a fire in me. The children could learn. I experienced it myself. And if the children could learn, yet they knew nothing, who was to blame?

PSC experience (working at a local park/camp) proved to me that I had no gift for community organizing, so I decided to devote my energies after college to fighting teacher unions. But after 3 years working for the irascible and impractical Myron Lieberman, realizing that the bow-tied education analysts at the Heritage Foundation lacked basic credibility, and getting my butt kicked by the Washington Education Association (WEA) during the Jim & Fawn Spady Charter School Initiative, I quit education reform for 12 years.

Last year my girlfriend (now wife, thank God) saw something in the Jewish Journal on "Parents Union" and suggested that I become re-engaged in my true passion, education reform. So I started blogging (thanks for following).

As for the other questions posed by Bronx Teacher (SBT), the internet was in its infancy in 1994 so it's hardly surprising that there is no much available on WEPIC. He also asked why this whole chapter in my life is not on my Linked-In. That's a funny question coming from a guy who will not reveal his real name (SBT) and proudly photo-shops our (reformer) heads on the naked torsos of sadomasochists.

"Soliving urban blight" with hammers and nails is at best a band-aid. The root of the problem was clear then and is still obvious to me: government managed, union-run schools have stolen away the skills, dignity, and self-respect that comes from a rigorous K-12 education.  Housing and economic development problems are symptoms of failing schools who produce too many young people who are functionally unemployable.

Why teacher unions keep school boards around

2011-11-21T20:05:00.001-08:00

In Mike Petrilli's brilliant post, Dealing with disingenuous teacher unions: There are no shortcuts, he discusses the immensely important subject of teacher union dominated school boards. This is a follow-up to that post.

Union meddling in low-turnout, non-partisan, school board elections stacks the deck against reformers, that much is certain. But this thread would be incomplete without mentioning the fact that even union-friendly school boards don't even have to give away policies like seniority-based pay and layoffs; the unions have already written them into state laws.

Emily Cohen, Kate Walsh and RiShawn Biddle have discussed this extensively in their paper "Invisible Ink in Collective Bargaining: Why Key Issues Are Not Addressed" (http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/nctq_invisible_ink_20080801115950.pdf)

In Los Angeles, the last NCTQ report on district staffing policies speaks to this issue as well: (http://www.nctq.org/tr3/consulting/docs/nctq_tr3_lausd_06-2011.pdf)

The process of neutering school boards and moving key decisions out of their purview has been long in the making. Myron Lieberman, previously a champion of collective bargaining, discussed the strategy in 1958 when he supported the coming “revolution” in teacher unionism (http://edobserver.blogspot.com/2011/11/local-control-of-education-by-laymen.html).

Here were some ideas from “The Future of Public Education” (I wrote about this earlier):

Laymen should not be setting education policy; that should be done by professionals:

“Laymen ‘participate’ in helping to solve the medical problems of their children, but the nature and limits of this participation are well understood. Everyone has a stake in a clear-cut delineation of parental, public, and professional authority in public education. ..” (p. 283)

State and national laws have a much bigger impact:

“Insofar as elected officials are concerned, the rule is clear: for short-run, relatively minor, but more immediate improvements, concentrate upon local school board elections; for long-range major improvements, concentrate upon the state and national election of education-minded legislators and executives who have the power to shape the context and limits of local action…” (p. 283)

There are limits to the power of persuasion vs. the persuasion of power:

“NEA leaders continually proclaim the virtues of negotiation and persuasion, apparently in complete ignorance of the fact that these are not substitutes for a position of strength. The teachers will be persuasive only when they have enough power to command the respect of school boards.” (p. 244)

Teachers need to learn to be political activists:

The teachers might begin by demonstrating to politicians that opposition to the sound professional recommendations of teachers is an invitation to political disaster. The best way to conduct this kind of invitation is to deliver the votes. Teachers might try to educate the public to the importance of academic freedom by withholding their services where there are serious violations of it. These techniques have not been tried on a large scale, but they may be more effective than the techniques currently in use. The mass distribution of movies or literature cannot be effective while the everyday performance of teachers demonstrates that they are weak and inconsequential group.” (p. 238)

“I believe that within the next few decades, education in the United States will undergo changes of tremendous shape and magnitude… These changes will be so basic that we will be fully justified in using the term “revolutionary” to describe them….“ (p. 2)

School boards will be cut down at the knees:

“The power of national and state professional organizations must be utilized to affect the outcome of negotiations between teachers and school boards at the local level.” (p. 274)

“It is one thing for the local board to carry public opinion when the teachers have neither the funds nor the facilities for making a sustained appeal; it is quite another matter when the resources available to the teachers far outweigh those available to the board.” (p. 240)

“A school board which knows that its actions are leading straight to an all-out contest with a national organization of teachers is not likely to invite such a contest.” (p. 240)

“A powerful national organization ready to step into local situations when a matter of principle is involved would serve a preventative function.” (p. 241)

Once managerial discretion is removed through contracts, state and federal statutes, school boards shall be demoted to ceremonial roles:

“Local control of education by laymen should be limited to peripheral and ceremonial functions of education… Laymen can make their most valuable contribution to public education in their non-educational organizations… Citizens should support school boards which are willing to negotiate conditions of employment with representatives of the majority organizations of teachers, provided such organizations have adequate safeguards against administrator domination… “ (p. 281)

So what do we make of it? Teachers, justifiably I would add, don’t think so highly of lay school board leadership and teacher unions took away most of their power long ago. So why keep them around? Why don’t teacher unions favor abolishing them and simply focusing their lobbying activities at the state level?

The answer is clearly that teacher unions find school boards useful. There’s really been no research on this important question. The teacher unions know. Here’s a short list based on my understanding of teacher union priorities:

1)      As discussed previously, every school board election legitimizes a system that teacher unions control. It gives members of the public the impression that the results are deserved because they are in charge, they have the opportunity to affect the outcome through a “fair” democratic process. This is a cruel hoax, a charade.

2)    School boards are the largest single employer in most communities, which comes with real explicit and implicit influence. In both “strong” and “weak” union states, teacher unions face little and often no political opposition. As Terry Moe discusses in Special Interest, union candidates win 4/5 of the time and despite legends to the contrary, the business community is no counter-balance. The rule (not the exception) is that school boards and the superintendents in America owe their offices to teacher activists.

3)    If you want to see a bunch of well-intentioned people wasting their time, go to a school board meeting. Matters that would profoundly influence learning in schools are buried in state laws and union contracts: they’re off-limits. So why don’t school board members break their silence? Why don’t they spill the beans? Serving on school board is a well-known power trip and stepping stone to higher office. Why admit impotence and sully the institution they swore to uphold? We need a witness protection program for former school board members.

4)   Union-controlled schools amplify union propaganda. Teacher unions drive up spending continually so there’s always a funding shortage. Every time a school board remind community-members of the importance of public education, raises taxes, declares a funding crisis or floats a bond, they are reinforcing union messaging that teachers are victims and more money is required – and distracting community-members from what really matters: quality teaching.

5)   School boards are the bogey-men that teacher unions need to keep their troops motivated and politically involved. The importance of having a plausibly villainous boss cannot be under-estimated. The short-math on activism is that you will not have action without outrage, and you will not have outrage without a villain. Teacher unions need villains to keep their members active. Often all it takes is just single tax-cutting board member to enervate teacher activists. Sometimes I wonder why teacher unions don’t go all out in each and every school board election. A board that is too friendly makes the troops soft; a little but not too much resistance is the best combination. Teacher unions both love and hate school boards: this is why.

6)   Finally, where most schools are government managed, they are unionized. Privately run schools are not subject to the same open meeting laws (charter school associations naively cave on this one), civil service laws (like tenure), and state statutes like LIFO. More importantly, privately run schools are small and have a family-like environment. Benevolent managers give teachers no reason to unionize and there are no economies of scale for unionization campaigns designed to trick teachers into thinking they will be better off letting the AFL-CIO broker relationships with principals. Even in RTW states where teachers are not required to join, half or more teachers do and that’s all they need: RTW teacher unions outspend their opponents by similar margins and their teacher activist armies are materially as powerful.

Teacher union meddling in low-turnout, non-partisan, school board elections definitely stacks the deck against reformers. But at the same time, school boards have their hands tied by laws unions enact at the state level as planned in the late 1950s. Why keep them around at all? I’ve provided six reasons why teacher unions want to keep school boards instead of simply focusing their energies on state legislatures. School board elections legitimize the charade of union rule. Controlling school boards means controlling jobs. Captured public schools amplify union propaganda. School board members can be counted on to bless the office. Oppositional school boards (or members) energize activists and keep the teacher army fit. And school boards ensure that schools are unionized, or partially unionized. Can you think of more?

Teacher unions hide behind arguments about "democracy" but there is really a lot more to it. Mike's post is an invitation to investigate.

ERS Hold'em Game

2011-11-21T16:06:00.001-08:00

I just love the "game" developed by Education Resource Strategies to help naive, lay school boards understand what they can do to improve schools and reduce spending.

http://holdem.erstools.org/card-game/index.html

The metaphor for the game is "Hold'em" and it has a pretty slick interface. The only problem is that with union rule, you just can't play the most effective "cards." I think the game could be enhanced with a little checkbox that defaults to "Union Rule." With the checkbox enabled, a big red "X" would flash every time a sensible reform is proposed.

That would help school boards understand the futility of their offices and why they should simply come clean with the public and adopt wall-to-wall charter schools.

Reformers hold on in New Orleans, for now

2011-11-20T19:13:00.001-08:00

I woke up this morning sweating about what had happened in the BESE board of education run-off elections.

New Orleans is the only place in America where the majority of teachers are non-unionized and organized in a competitive system where parents pick winners and losers, deciding who gets paid and who does not. And it's working.

Pushing such elections to run-off where every teacher vote is relatively more valuable is a tried and true tactic.

With all 389 precincts reporting the results were:

Roemer:49,967, or 56.76 percent.
Songy: 38,067, or 43.24 percent.

With all 540 precincts reporting the results were:

Hill: 46,338, or 58.07 percent.
Guillory: 33,455, or 41.93 percent.

With all 524 precincts reporting the results were:

Jones: 31,086, or 56.55 percent.
Givens: 23,886, or 43.4 percent.

Voter turn-out was incredibly low and reformers won by what could be the margin of unionized teacher votes. Approximately 2,500 more public school teachers in each district would have generated perhaps 10,000 more pro-establishment votes, causing reformers to lose.   Conversely, charter school teachers voting the other way could have made a huge difference.

In Los Angeles, we saw that after teachers voted, reform candidate Sanchez needed 40% more votes at the polls (after mail-in voting) where most of the poor vote; he lost by just a handful.   If LA teachers voted in the same percentages as other registered voters, I estimate that Sanchez would have won by 2,000 votes (20%).

In New Orleans, how many fewer unionized teachers were there in these districts due to charter school penetration? 1,000? 2,000? 3,000? Did the reduced unionized teacher footprint make a difference?   Did charter school teachers vote for reform candidates? These are important questions. Nowhere in America have we seen teacher unions lose a high-stakes education-specific election such as this one. Will they lose the next one too? Did the stars align in Louisiana?   There must be an explanation.

For now, I'm cautiously celebrating. Losing this election would have ruined my year.

The "Collaboration" Mirage

2011-11-18T10:29:00.001-08:00

It should be abundantly clear to all but the brain-dead that the incessant calls from union leaders to "collaborate" with them is a cynical fig leaf designed to launder their veto power.

The bottom line with education policy is quite simple: if proposed changes will result in identifying or rewarding high achievers and low achievers or reducing their labor monopoly, the teacher unions will not support it. Since the quality of teachers is vastly more important than anything else that happens in a school, and nothing but the fear of losing money can align incentives in a building, teacher unions stand in the school-house door of reform. That math is simple enough.

Therefore, "collaborating" with the teacher unions is a dance with the devil. If causes two very powerful and insidious things to happen which are hurtful to children:

1) Waters down reform to the point where it does not work. Just look at what Mike Bloomberg got for a 40% raise in teacher salaries in New York City.

2) Gives the public the impression that teacher unions are part of the solution, not the problem.

It is this second point which so worries union leaders like Randi Weingarten. While her union continues its rape of urban America, it continues to demand public support. Simply agreeing to "collaborate" with them, legitimizes their power and forces compromises for which children cannot wait.

Simply calling out teacher union obstruction has the effect over the long term of chipping away at their public support. Without public support, teacher union activists are likely be called what they are: complicit in the genocidal, intellectual death of millions of urban youth.

If "collaborating" is considered "main-stream," what 99% of education policy-makers do when faced with reforming schools or being pummeled by the teacher unions (capitulating or "collaborating") will suddenly seem justified and even smart. They don't want us to think that union rule is bad public policy. They want us to think that union rule is clever. After all... . When I was in High School, teacher unions were saying that Saturn automotive was a triumphant example of worker-management collaboration. Not so much anymore right? Here's the fig leaf Randi Weingarten offered a few weeks ago for somebody who WANTS to believe that capitulating to teacher unions is noble:

http://www.educationgadfly.net/flypaper/2011/11/dealing-with-disingenuous-teachers-unions-there-are-no-shortcuts/
"And finally, as I said at the debate with Rick Hess this summer-read this summer’s Harvard Business Review’s front page story about collaboration. If business now sees that collaborative practice is so essential in moving business’ forward in this economy, why don’t you, who believe we must follow a “business model” see its importance for schooling?
Just saying."

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/11/16/12collab-changes.h31.html?tkn=MULFyULppYAEhw5Ao7hGuO18nnF4r6lu4BAF&cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1&intc=EW-LM1111-ENL

Their mentality and real political agenda make "Peace with Honor" let alone "Peace with Learning," impossible. Playing Neville Chamberlain just means more carnage for our most vulnerable families.

Collaborating with the teacher unions is plain and simply selling out children. Why do it?

"They’re all for honoring the voice of the people, except when they’re not."

2011-11-17T22:33:00.001-08:00

Bob Bowdon wrote a stunning comment on Mike Petrilli's ground-breaking piece on school boards.

http://www.educationgadfly.net/flypaper/2011/11/dealing-with-disingenuous-teachers-unions-there-are-no-shortcuts/

Bob Bowdon says:

Posted November 16, 2011 at 2:46 PM

I was intrigued to see the democracy defense offered by the Establishment Reactionary Dynamic Duo of Ravitch & Weingarten, as if to say it’s okay to sentence children to chronically failing and dangerous schools, as long as unions succeed in getting the vote out on off-peak election days.

Apart from the underpinnings of their logic, can we at least hope that they’ll remain consistent in applying this “Democracy First” philosophy no matter where the chips fall? Not so much.
When the elected legislature in Georgia authorized the state’s chartering of schools, the Georgia Association of Educators union wasn’t so happy with the voice of the people. They later filed a brief in support of a lawsuit to strike down the law — and that suit prevailed. Democracy be damned.
When elected leaders in Douglas County Colorado passed a voucher plan this year, the Colorado Education Association union publicly opposed the wishes of the local voters, with no apparent bout of misgivings over democratic values.

When the Indiana legislature and governor passed a statewide voucher law this year, the Indiana State Teachers Association financed a suit to stop it. Why persuade when you can sue?
And when the elected Mayor of New York City decided that empty floors in district schools should be offered to the charter school kids, did the UFT union propose a city council vote on the matter, in a flourish of democratic principles? Nah, they chose a lawsuit instead.
In short, teachers unions and their defenders give us lectures about how “the people have spoken” quite economically, i.e. when it suits them. They’re all for honoring the voice of the people, except when they’re not.

The simple fact is that there have been many times in American history when democratic institutions were undermined by bubbles of power and corruption. New York City’s Tammany Hall, Al Capone’s Chicago, Huey Long’s Louisiana… and Frank “I Am the Law” Hague’s Jersey City, all illustrate this point.

So it’s not that Ed Reformers are against democracy. It’s that when millions of union dollars are shoveled into the campaign coffers of politicians — politicians who swear their allegiances to union bidding at the expense of children — that’s a perversion of democracy, not a manifestation of it.
The good news is that democracy does self-correct; these corrupt institutions eventually metastasize to the point of their own destruction. Tammany Hall didn’t die for lack of cash; it began to lose the contest of hearts and minds. That’s already begun with the teachers unions.

In any large war, there are always many battles won by each side. But despite their war chests, despite their ad campaigns, and despite their profligate use of words like “corporate” and “greed” to brand charter and private school operators as collections of Bernie Madoff’s — in the aggregate, we education reformers are winning. We might have lost in Ohio, but we won in Indiana and Wisconsin. And we’ll soon win reforms in New Jersey. The public is starting to sour on the insular, corrupt, job-protecting monopolies of teachers unions. We reformers are simply on the right side of history.

We’re not at the tipping point yet, but how will we know when we get there? Weingarten & Ravitch will go from selectively invoking the democracy argument, to opposing it entirely. Stand by. It won’t be long.

Mike Petrilli Calls a Spade a Spade

2011-11-17T22:15:00.001-08:00

On Monday, Fordham's Mike Petrilli got to the heart of it. Go Mike!

Dealing with disingenuous teachers unions: There are no shortcuts

He seems to have hit a nerve. Both Diane Ravitch and Randi Weingarten chimed in. What are you so worried about ladies? Someone calling your bluff? I particularly liked Caprice Young's rejoinder:

Caprice Young says:

Posted November 15, 2011 at 11:45 AM

When I was on the LAUSD board, we had one board member who would literally flip open her cell phone and talk with union staff while we were in closed session, disclosing our private dialog and getting direction. Three of us tried to move to censure her, but four didn’t want to anger the union by identifying the illegal behavior during negotiations. Such is urban big city union negotiations.

Bob Bowdon's response was so strong I've created another blog post for it.

Here was my comment which may or may not be posted:

Mike,
This could be the most important thread of the past half-century. School boards are the key to laundering teacher union power. Every vote in a school board election is buy-in to a system teacher unions (or associations in RTW states) control. The fact that Ravitch and Weingarten have weighed in together is a clear indication that you’ve hit a nerve. They really don’t want you poking around.

In a system juiced by collective bargaining (which strongly influences what happens in RTW states also), government schools mean union rule. If the public knew that school boards do not represent public accountability, but rather are just a fig leaf over union rule, they would be justly outraged. Friendly school boards are they key to maintaining this deception.

Where school boards are pro-child and pro-excellence, teacher union villainy can be seen openly. Here in Los Angeles, a representational AFT/NEA local, the teacher unions have pulled out the stops to pervert school board elections. Remember that LAUSD writes the UTLA $30 million in dues checks every year and they use this money to train an army. Reform candidates cannot count on a trained and highly motivate constituency (parents work and charter school operators are by law forced to the political sidelines) and they must scrounge for campaign funds from whom other than wealthy do-gooders.

The UTLA campaign in the last school board election was calculated and despicable. It included misleading and libelous mailers designed to confuse voters (Republicans for Lamotte!) and suppress Latino turn-out (Sanchez is a “big wig” responsible for failing schools), a massive get out the vote effort internally (which heavily targeted parents), and careful choreography before the election that resulted in maximum public awareness of funding cut-backs and minimum awareness of the election itself. Reform candidate Sanchez needed around 40% more non-teacher votes to win the race – this strategy was all spelled out in the unions own newsletter in months prior.

The so-called “Coalition for Education Reform” which was the independent campaign for reformers wasted millions of dollars NOT attacking teacher unions or promoting what we would consider common-sense reforms. This too was a colossal mistake which can only be understood in the context of decades of teacher union propaganda. Los Angeles voters are now unreceptive to reform messaging. This was clearly a first-time rodeo for certain leaders of the “coalition,” not so for the UTLA.

Here are some of my observations:

Another Sham School Board Election
School board elections: this game is rigged
District 5 LAUSD School Board Election: UTLA Demonstrates Villainy
Stop the UTLA Wrecking Ball
UTLA Declares "Public" Mandate
Media Ignores UTLA Scheming in SB5 Election
Where is the California Charter School Association (CCSA)?
The School Board Charade
Teacher Union Collective Bargaining Explained

Their hand-picked candidate in the District 5 race was teacher activist Bennett Kayser. The UTLA's substantial disinformation campaign appealed to his virtue, on the merits of his former occupation. We should respect our teachers, right?

Teacher activists have always been the front-lines weapon of choice simply because we the public, widely and readily confuse them with teacher/mentors we have all had and love. They are natural "human shields." But when teachers take up arms against reform they are no longer innocents; they are combatants. If education reformers have made one mistake over the past 50 years, it is that they have not helped the public distinguish teachers who fight excellent from those who support an excellent system.

What do you think is the primary product of the $2.5 billion in dues that teacher unions collect and spend annually? According to their filings it is not direct political activity and it’s not “bargaining”… so what is it? This money is spent to organize, indoctrinate, and keep on hair-trigger alert an army of teacher activists ready to wage war on reformers. This infantry is the front-line behind which their lobbyists and officials launch legislative and contract mayhem.

Keep digging here: the school board charade is critical to the continuance of their domination.

Thank you!

Anthony Krinsky
http://edobserver.blogspot.com

Here is Mike's post:

Dealing with disingenuous teachers unions: There are no shortcuts

After its big referendum victory last week, Ohio teachers union vice president Bill Leibensperger said “There has always been room to talk. That’s what collective bargaining is about. You bring adults around a table to talk about serious issues.” He voiced an argument made by union supporters through the fight over Senate Bill 5 (and the similar battle in Wisconsin over public sector union rights): All employees want is the right to bargain; they are more than willing to make concessions during these difficult times.

If we want to win the fight for the more immediate future, we’re going to need to take on the unions directly, and take over the school boards.
And to be sure, you can find examples of unions—of police, firefighters, even teachers—who have agreed to freeze wages or reduce benefits in order to protect the quality of services or keep colleagues from being laid off. But they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Consider the survey of big-city school district leaders published by the National Council on Teacher Quality a few weeks ago. When asked how they “reduced their budget gaps” over the past two years, fewer than half had eliminated or limited cost of living raises for teachers, only 30 percent cut automatic step increases, and just 13 percent trimmed benefits. In other words, in the midst of the Great Recession and historic unemployment, teachers in the vast majority of urban districts continued to get raises and generous healthcare and retirement benefits. So what exactly are their unions conceding? In fact, more districts cut the number of working days for teachers than addressed the spiraling cost of health benefits. Whose interests are we putting first?

I can hear the response from union supporters now: But school boards and administrators signed off on these policies. They are the management; if they aren’t driving a hard enough bargain, take up your beef with them.

And that’s where we get to the logic of collective bargaining reform. Yes, school boards should drive a hard bargain with unions, but they don’t, because their members are so often elected with the support of those very same unions. As a result, the teachers end up negotiating with themselves. What Ohio legislators (and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker) were trying to do was to rein in the ability of school boards to give away the store. These efforts were about curbing local control run amuck. If school boards aren’t willing (or able) to play hardball, we’ll do it for them.

Clearly, this argument either wasn’t made well in Ohio or didn’t get through to the electorate. And to be sure, it’s hard in a sound bite to explain how collective bargaining rights lead to irresponsible priorities, bad policy, and unaffordable spending.

So where do reformers go from here? One option is to be even more radical: To go after not just collective bargaining but school boards too. Make all of the key decisions at the state level. Negotiate with the teachers around a statewide approach to pay and benefits, the whole kit and caboodle. (Marc Tucker’s “New Commission” made such a proposal several years ago.) That’s an attractive long-term strategy, but voters—averse to big, sudden changes—will need some time to get used to the idea.

The other approach—call it the “no shortcuts” plan—is to roll up our sleeves and engage in the fight for political control of local school boards. Reformers are already doing this in places like Denver. It’s not easy, and previous efforts in cities such as Los Angeles were short-lived. The unions have innumerable ways to topple leaders who don’t hew to their demands. And to make an impact, we’d probably have to engage in hundreds of school districts around the country. That would require an operation that would make Michelle Rhee’s shop look puny.

Curbing collective bargain rights, promoting mayoral control, creating an alternative charter school system—all of these are efforts to deal with the fact of union-dominated school boards. They are still worth pursuing, in my view. But they are only part of the solution. If we want to win the fight for the more immediate future, we’re going to need to take on the unions directly, and take over the school boards. Shall we get started?

Outing teacher union replicants: How to spot a fake "parents" group, operative, or outfit

2011-11-12T20:14:00.001-08:00

America's teacher unions have seen their brand diminished in recent years so they are aggressively trying to promote their spokespeople into credible positions within communities and as leaders of front-groups which disavow union allegiance. The most troubling new development, which I predicted years ago, was that they have begun to setup fake "parent" groups that waive the banner of parent advocacy but which actually promote the teacher union agenda. They are going beyond parking parents in the strategically "neutral" PTA, they are enlisting parents in proxy-armies to fight reforms which are clearly in the parental interest. This is the next chapter in their multi-generational struggle to fool parents.

My non-friend, South Bronx Teacher (SBT), is outraged that The New York Post outed Carl Campanile and the "NYC Parents Union" as a teacher union front group (New parent group all $nug with UFT). These groups go beyond the collusive relationship between the National PTA and the teacher unions. Remember that the PTA will never weigh in on the side of parents in collective bargaining negotiations and can be counted on to preserve the government school monopoly. This explicit quid-pro-quo can be observed anywhere in America and is described very clearly in Charlene Haar's Politics and the PTA.

The deception does not stop there.
Parents Across America is another "parent" front group, Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is their "independent research" arm, Purple America is a new "values" front group, and in communities like Los Angeles, the teacher unions have allegedly hired "education activists" like Yolande Beckles to embed themselves into communities. Beckles has already talked her way onto the Greater Echo Park Elysian Neighborhood Council and leads a CTA front-group called "California Title I Parent Union." A friend of mine calls her "quite impressive" personally, which did not surprise me in the least.

How many hired guns are sneaking into the fabric of America's neighborhood councils where they will powerfully present teacher union dogma as "good for families?" Some union sympathizers like Rita Solnet (PAA "Founding Member" and SOS national spokesperson), come from the private sector and advertise their business experience. Picking off pro-business voters has a high priority since the 1997 Kamber Report: An Institution at Risk: An External Communications Review of the National Education Association.

The teacher union sponsored and crafted "Save Our Schools March & National Call to Action" (SOS) launched last year and is already being replicated around the country. I believe that SOS represents the capstone achievement of the teacher unions. It shows that the capacity for independent political action has been transferred from the 10,000 paid political henchmen who are the teacher union permanent staff and officers, to the 1 million die-hard activists (of 3.3 million teachers) who make up infantry. The Death Star, as the Emperor says wryly, is now "fully operational." Due to our inability as a movement to distinguish teachers from teacher union activists, we have no second-strike defense lethal attack by these union missiles (as described in Teacher Activists: Pitiable?) masquerading as the teachers we love.

If you're a parent, how do you know that the "parent" group you are considering joining is a teacher union front-group? How do you know that the "parents" group will actually represent parent interests and is not designed to co-opt parents (as the AFT did in Connecticut)? How do you know that the reason the group was created was to destroy parent power rather than to strengthen it?
The test is actually very simple, but consider first the scare-crow arguments that the opposition promotes to better understand the smoke-screen.

South Bronx Teacher (SBT) lays out the agenda of "NYC Parents Union" (cynically calling itself "of the parents, by the parents, for the parents"), to prove that this group is innocent of wrong-doing if not teacher union control. He finds nothing untoward in its transparently teacher union crafted agenda:

"What subversive wishes does Mona and the New York City Parents Union have in mind? Let's have a looksee at their "demands."

Smaller Class Sizes
Excellent Community Public Schools for ALL Children
More Teaching – Less Testing
Parent and Teacher Empowerment and Leadership
Equitable Funding for ALL Schools
Moratorium on school closings and charter co-locations
Culturally Relevant Curriculum
Expand Pre Kindergarten and Early Intervention Programs
Qualified and Experienced Educators and Educational Leaders
Enforcement of the law requiring charters to recruit, retain and show their retention efforts of students with special needs and English Language Learners. The practice of pushing/counseling out such students must end
An end to the granting of waivers for chancellor appointees who do not qualify under the law
An immediate end to mayoral control and the failed education policies of the past 9 years

How dare she!! How dare Mona and her organization want these things. For shame Mona, for shame. How can you sleep at night? But in all seriousness, what Mona is demanding, and let's stay out of the union politics for a moment, are what teachers everywhere throughout the five boroughs are demanding. That is except white, twenty somethings, from elite colleges, that plan to teach only a few years to pad their resumes."

To my readers, I say: pay attention. This is the teacher union agenda; a teacher union activist or officer wrote it.

As Terry Moe discusses in Special Interest, teacher unions favor policies that support their priorities and also poll well. Smaller class sizes is their hall-mark achievement. This policy is singularly responsible for doubling education spending and teacher union membership, without budging the needle on student achievement even 1%. Common sense, research, and the staffing policies of the best charter schools make it clear that spending more money per teacher on better teachers, is far more effective than putting more mediocre teachers in a school building.

But parse the list and you see more here than smaller class size non-sense.

Excellent Community Public Schools for ALL Children
Actual intention: No independently run, non-union charter schools or private scholarship schools. Ensure political control = union control.

More Teaching – Less Testing
Actual intention: No teacher accountability for performance. Remove the evidential basis for accountability. No data = no objective evaluation criteria = no threat to lifetime job security.

Parent and Teacher Empowerment and Leadership
Actual intention: Ensure that decision-making is made by union-controlled committees that may appear democratic but are not actually. Make sure that teacher activists have veto power.

Equitable Funding for ALL Schools
Actual intention: Increase school funding for the lowest spending districts to those of the highest spending districts (ie. "money is the problem, spending more is the solution"). Continually blame problems on funding since there will ALWAYS be a higher-spending district.

Moratorium on school closings and charter co-locations
Actual intention: Why a moratorium? Don't we know what schools are failing already? The teacher unions do not want them closed or to make room for reconstituted, independently run, non-union faculties. They want to make sure that drop-out is the only exit for poor children.

Culturally Relevant Curriculum
Actual intention: Teaching "diversity" subjects is easier than math, reading, history, and science, harder to test, and makes for stronger teacher union political alliances. It also effectively bars charter schools with narrow, specialized curricula.

Expand Pre Kindergarten and Early Intervention Programs
Actual intention: Providing poor children with early intervention is a great idea. But when teacher unions propose it they are mainly trying to shift blame for educational failure to the lack of "wrap-around" services. They are also trying create more union jobs by making early childhood education "a right." When this "weapon" against poverty is used properly (as in the Harlem Children's Zone) it can be very powerful. When teacher unions advertise the concept, it is usually to distract from systemic failure.

Qualified and Experienced Educators and Educational Leaders
Actual intention: Alternately certified Teach For America (TFA) candidates tend to (but do not always) have more subject-level expertise, aspirations for educating poor children, and aptitude (as doctors and lawyers do statistically) than do traditional education school graduates. Every year, 90% of TFA applicants -- over 35,000 teachers -- are NOT placed annually. It is a poorly kept secret that "can-do" TFA graduates are an important driver in the charter school movement since they invariably find that success is illusive under-union rule. Teacher unions want TFA dead.

Enforcement of the law requiring charters to recruit, retain and show their retention efforts of students with special needs and English Language Learners. The practice of pushing/counseling out such students must end
Actual intention: Teacher unions wish to foster the lie that academic growth in charter schools can be explained by their removal off difficult students from the student population. This argument is an insult to thousands of dedicated charter school teachers that are successful with hard-to-teach students in ways that government run, union-controlled schools are not.

Also, it is a strategic pre-emption of the diversity that naturally occurs in a free market. When enough charter schools are organized, specialization will increase. While all be responsible for learning growth in the core curriculum, some schools will cater to special interests and student populations for instance, special needs (ie. deaf students) or truant youth (who need more structure). Some will teach boys and girls together, others will keep them apart. Some will emphasize trade skills, others college readiness.
Specialization is hard to do in huge, unionized public schools where staff flow between schools based on seniority and not skills. It's only ever been done successfully in magnet schools which are a release-valve for motivated parents and students, and which are not subject to district-wide staffing rules. The teacher union attack against charter school diversity is an attack against choice itself. In their view, one size does fit all (even if it fits none).

An end to the granting of waivers for chancellor appointees who do not qualify under the law
Actual intention: This is an opportunistic smear against the Bloomberg administration for promoting Cathy Black to the Chancellor position. It is important to understand that while certainly philosophical, the political philosophy of teacher unionism is pragmatism: whatever works to demonize the opposition and deify their cause is what they draw upon.

An immediate end to mayoral control and the failed education policies of the past 9 years
Actual intention: Mayoral control did fail -- it caused 40% teacher raises and lowered the retirement age, with no actual contract concessions. How? By delaying contract resolution until political crunch-time, Bloomberg was blackmailed by Randi Weingarten to keep the UFT neutral in the last mayoral election (which he almost lost). However, union control of local school boards would have been even worse. Local school boards provide lots of teacher union supported jobs and guarantee teacher union control over time. Long live mayoral control.

You can see that the "NYC Parents Union" agenda is a smoke screen which they hope parents in New York will champion because they don't know any better. They're counting on being able to trick naive parents.

But let's assume that these organizations get smarter and they throw in some bogeys that apparently contradict union policies (but actually not really). The NYC Parents Union says that one restructuring option is to replace half the staff. With whom? On what basis? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the teachers will be unionized at a minimum and from the same teacher pool. Perhaps they're even placed by system-wide seniority, rubber room teachers even better!

In that case, how do you spot a teacher union front group from an authentically pro-parent organization? The test is to simply ask about two obviously pro-parent policy items that the teacher unions cannot tolerate. These questions have nothing to do with millionaires, billionaires, or Wall Street. They are simply about providing parents with excellence and choice of high-performing, non-union schools.

1) Do you support rewarding individual teaching performance (ie. paying great teachers more and laying off bad teachers regardless of age)?
This violates the core principle of union solidarity. Policies which treat employees differently (they call it "dividing" employees) will not be tolerated.

2) Do you support policies that encourage the non-unionized, independently run schools (ie. charter schools and private school scholarships)?
This undermines the government-union monopoly which is their money supply. They want to make sure that every incremental educational dollar benefits a unionized teacher in a district that the union will at some time control (and therefore give away the farm -- to itself).

That's it. Teacher union "replicants" are now deeply embedding in communities around America. Ask them about rewarding excellence and increasing choice and do it soon before they are promoted to positions of authority and credibility. Also, these positions often confer public financing which will accelerate dissemination of teacher union propaganda.

The paid, professional staff of 10,000 or more teacher union leaders are the first Division of the teacher union army. Teacher union activists are the second Division and are still largely unacknowledged and considered "grass-roots" by the mainstream media. What I describe here is even more dangerous because of the perceived "arms length" relationship with teacher unions. From positions of power and perceived credibility, these combatants against the public promote ruinous teacher union policies while lying transparently about teacher union affiliation. This next-generation of leaders, front-groups, and "parent" organizations are the third Division in the teacher union proxy army; and one no less lethal to America.

NEA staffers head to New Orleans to "clean-up" unfinished business

2011-11-09T23:59:00.000-08:00

Having dispatched SB5, the NEA will now be free to send its staffers to New Orleans to make sure that the Recovery School District becomes a more union-friendly organization in 2012. There will be school board run-off elections next week and the nation is watching; and by that I mean America's privileged, unionized teachers.

There is nothing that upsets teacher unions and their activist members more than the miracle that non-union charter schools are performing every day in New Orleans. And they intend to put that little "experiment" to bed. Sometimes killing reform takes a few years but they've never NOT gotten around to "clean-up." Will this be the last swan-song for charter schools in New Orleans? Can the teacher union assault be repelled for a few more years?

Check out the Louisiana Association of Educators newsletter: http://www.lae.org/ImagesLive/Users/8/LAEVoiceSpecialEdition2011_FINAL.pdf

Due to the LAE Fund for Children & Public Education (LAEFCPE) and its support, BESEcandidate Lottie Beebe already "ran away with the District 3 seat."

They tell all members to "stand up for public school children":

As the fight for public education continues to heat up, we need you more than ever as we stand up for Louisiana’s public school children. Now is the time for you to join your colleagues across the state and volunteer for the 11.19.11 elections.

The organization president continues:

"Jindal will stop at nothing to help get 6th District incumbent Chas Roemer and 2nd District candidate and Teach for America Alum Kira Orange Jones elected. This is why he, the Louisiana Association of Business & Industry, and other big business donors are throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars behind these candidates who, in their eyes, will aggressively push a business
model to privatize our schools. The Alliance for Better Classrooms Political Action Committee, a group that favors a wide range of steps in the name of school choice, including tax credits, and major changes in how schools are funded, plans to spend at least $1 million on BESE races. The same group also received a $100,000 contribution from the New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
LAE has something more valuable than cash – we have YOU! Make your voices heard.

BESE District 2 candidate Louella Givens will be an independent vote for New Orleans and the
River Parishes. She has no money from Louisiana corporate groups or corporate money from New York City. BESE District 6 candidate Donald Songy will help maintain the rights of working class families while protecting the interests of public school children. Mr. Songy has been an educator and an education administrator from more than 35 years.

We need you out there in full force garnering votes for these LAE-FCPE-endorsed candidates.
I’m urging you to get politically active and volunteer. They may have money, but we have hard working, dedicated educators who will not go down without a fight. I’m asking you to join us in the fight of our professional lives. You are our lifeline – you are our only hope."

What do Louisiana's public school educators do better than teaching? Political activism.

And now, with the air brigade from the NEA, I expect a murderous final 9 days before the unions blow America's most promising education reform efforts to smithereens.

Teacher Union Collective Bargaining Explained

2011-11-09T23:20:00.000-08:00

Clearly, a large number of voters don't know what Collective Bargaining is and how it works. There's still a perception that it is a "right" that has been earned or exists in nature, and there's a "mutually consenting adults" aspect to the word "bargain" that implies that everyone's a winner.

Here's a role-play to explain why "collective bargaining" is a euphemism for blackmail. "Collective Bargaining" is simply a technique to whitewash union rule of the schools. As intended in the late 1950s, it completely decimates School Board discretion and power. It is a hit-and-run, an untraceable crime, an abombination to the idea that union-controlled public service delivery is in the public interest.

Teacher Unions to Members: The despicable schoolboard wants to take away our rights. Weshall march this Friday and every week, to escalate our intensity so that whenthe contract is being bargained, the troops will be fit and ready.

Teacher Unions to Media: Teachers are the key to achild’s education. We are partners. Work with us not against us. Remember your favorite teachers? She’s one of us.

School Board to Teacher Unions: We hear that you’repartners in reform. That’s great! Children in our district haven’t learnedanything in decades. Additionally, wehave 500 teachers in the rubber rooms and 2,000 teachers with pending felonycharges, who are still in the classroom. We’re paying for all of themwhile laying off young teachers to save money. Can we bring up these issues in contract negotiations?

Teacher Unions to School Board: Ask any teacher. Our members don’t want to see bad teachers inthe classroom any more than you do. Buteveryone has potential, even bad teachers. Let’s bargain.

School Board to Teacher Unions: So you’ll work withus to come up with a process to get rid of bad teachers?

Teacher Unions to School Board: That’sfor you to do. Let’s bargain.

School Board to Teacher Unions: We spent $10 million on consultants to create this wonderful, fair process. Here it is.

Teacher Unions to School Board: We weren’t part of that discussion so it’snot fair. Let’s bargain.

School Board to Teacher Unions: Ok, will you be partof that process?

Teacher Unions to School Board: Sure, here’s our counter proposal. Let’s bargain.

School Board to Teacher Unions: Interesting, but it doesn't look we'll ever be able to fire a really terrible teacher this way. Also, we can neither pay nor layoff anyone accordingto merit. It’s the same seniority-basedsystem.

Teacher Unions to School Board: So you want to bust our union? Let’s bargain.

Teacher Unions to Members: The despicable schoolboard wants to bust our union!

School Board toTeacher Unions: So how can we resolve this impasse?

Teacher Unions toSchool Board: We’re partners. How about you pay teachers more money andincrease benefits? Let’s bargain.

School Board to Teacher Unions: So what do we get?

Teacher Unions to School Board: You get “labor peace.” Remember, we’re partners and this isbargaining.

School Board to Teacher Unions: That’s not acceptablefor children in this district who are 1,000 times more likely to go to jailthan to Yale.

Teacher Unions to Members: The despicable schoolboard is union busting! Ready to strike!

Teacher Unions to School Board: How about we raise taxes? This is good-faith bargaining.

School Board to Teacher Unions: Ok, we’ll raise taxesif you support needed reforms.

Teacher Unions to School Board: We do support reforms. So you’ll raise taxes. Let’s bargain.

School Board to Teacher Unions: Yes, that is one power we have retained: putting levies on the ballot. What reforms do yousupport?

Teacher Unions to School Board: How about school-based merit pay, $5,000 perteacher if student achievement improves. We’ll run the experiment for fiveyears, and we’ll accept pay increases of10% per year, retroactively 1 year. Let’sbargain.

School Board to Teacher Unions: How can we affordthat?

Teacher Unions to School Board: We’ll raise taxes, like you said, and lowerthe retirement age to 50, allowing more expensive teachers to move out of thesystem. Let’s bargain.

School Board to Teacher Unions: But we’ll pay themthe same amount anyway, in retirement.

Teacher Unions to School Board: But that’s paid by the state, don’t worryabout it. Let’s bargain.

School Board to Teacher Unions: But we pick-up 15years of health coverage before they get Medicare. How can we afford that?

Teacher Unions to School Board: Do you want reform? Let’s bargain.

School Board to Teacher Unions: This doesn’t seem likea good deal for the public who we represent.

Teacher Unions to School Board: What’s good for teachers is good for thepublic. How many classes can be taught without the buy-in of the teachers werepresent. Shouldn’t they feel valuedevery time they come to work? Are youready to bargain yet?

School Board toTeacher Unions: Yes, we love teachers. But what about working with us to keep great, young teachers in theclassroom?

Teacher Unions to School Board: We want what you want but understand, ourmembers will only let us go so far. Rememberthe last school board that they helped elect? You know what happens when teachers get upset. Everyyear they give us $30 million in dues and fees; you know because you collectthe money and write us the checks. Whatdo you think we do with that money? Webuild an army to run election campaigns for children. How much do you have for re-election? Remember, we’re partners in thisdistrict. If teachers care, studentslearn. If teachers don’t feel that theyare valued, everyone hurts. Let’sbargain.

Teacher Unions to Members: We’re nearing adeadlock. Ready to shut down the schoolsbecause this board doesn’t care about children?

Teacher Unions to School Board: You’re not bargaining in good faith. Times up. Our members are going to vote to strike. All we ask is that you bargain in good faith. We are clearly demonstrating support forreform.

School Board to Teacher Unions: Can’t you tell yourmembers not to strike? Please? We are partners, right?

Teacher Unions to School Board: We'll, it's not really a "strike." We would be staging a march for children. But it sounds like you're ready to support reform. So, are we agreeing to a win-win deal? We are bending over backwards to give youmerit pay and you know that our members HATE the idea. And we also want to unionize all the charterschools in the district, OK?

School Board to Teacher Unions: Yes, agreed. You really aregoing all out for the children. It is so wonderful to work with forward-looking union leadership. You are at the vanguard of reform; our children have waited long enough for it! And besides, we're exhausted and the mayor is anxious. Our families want usback home, as I’m sure do yours. It iswonderful that we can value civility in these times of turmoil.

Teacher Unions to Members: The despicable schoolboard has decided that they did not want to face down our powerful union. There are benefits to unity and solidarity:we got you a 10% per year raise for 4 years, lowered the retirement age to 50,and avoided pay schemes that would divide us. Teachers unite!

Teacher Unions to the Media: In this negotiation,both sides made enormous strides to bridge differences and mend fences. We believe that outside meddling in ourdistrict has gone too far and hope that this is a time when we can all takeback our schools. Together, our childrenwill grow.

38% of Ohio Voters Get It. 12% to go.

2011-11-08T19:46:00.000-08:00

Today, around 62% of Ohio voters voted to knock down SB5. What does this mean?

It means a few things:

1) "NO" votes are easier to get. The safest choice if you don't understand the myriad of initiatives that are always on a ballot is to always vote NO. One votes YES when one understands the issue well and cannot find one reason to oppose it. This is why SB5 proponents wanted the initiative posed in the negative: it's a valid issue and probably explains the outcome.

2) 38% of Ohioans know what SB5 was about and support it. That's not a small number when the public sector unions are spending BILLIONS of dollars nationally on outreach, protests, and paid media spreading the lie that collective bargaining is good for America: it is not. Do you know a teacher, police-man, fireman, letter carrier, etc.? Are they telling you that collective bargaining is a good idea? What does their family say?

3) Proponents of SB5 have not made their case against collective bargaining on the merits. It is scandalous that the SB5 campaign were making the case that they were "nipping and tucking" collective bargaining. How should voters be expected to support limitations on collective bargaining if they think it's a good idea? It has not been clearly explained how public services would be improved, and how corruption and over-spending would be reduced, without collective bargaining.

4) Too many voters naively trust public sector unions. These entities have been sucking the blood from America for 50 years. The trail of their destruction is everywhere in plain view: spiraling pensions and health care expenditures, absurd work-rules contracts, abusive and distorting electioneering, and a pervasive culture of mediocrity and free-loading in public service delivery. Moreover, their solidarity focus makes change impossible: their talk about supporting policies in the public good is a ploy. The trust we have in the teacher and other public sector activists who speak for their unions, is misplaced.

The lessons learned are clear: educate the public. Continue to show how public sector collective bargaining is destroying America. It is much cheaper to spread truth and than lies. We have on our side the most valuable ally any politician can have: truth.

Let public sector unions go bankrupt propping up their myth-making while they sadly and inevitably bankrupt America and destroy the quality of our public services.

12% to go. To win the next election we must help voters understand the truth.

Could Stull save LAUSD?

2011-11-08T10:55:00.000-08:00

Members of the "Don't Hold Us Back" coalition have sued the LAUSD to implement an ignored teacher evaluation requirement that has been on the books in California for 40 years. Because collective bargaining did not come to California until Jerry Brown signed the Rodda Act in 1975, the California Teachers Association in 1971 actually supported this legislation (the AFL-CIO affiliated California Federation of Teachers, parent to the UTLA, did not).

As Howard Blume recounts:

"Forty years ago, however, California was on the vanguard of evaluating teachers. Former Republican Assemblyman John Stull of San Diego sought to ensure that teachers and principals would be accountable for the academic performance of students. He also wanted teachers to receive the help they needed to be effective.

Stull's bill received mixed support from unions: The California Teachers Assn. backed it; the California Federation of Teachers opposed it. Among other provisions, the law set up a three-person panel that would review teacher dismissals. Previously, a district went to Superior Court to fire a tenured teacher, said education consultant John Mockler, who developed the original legislation with Stull."

The teacher union position? "It must be bargained." Anyone in school management knows what the people of Ohio (and elsewhere) either don't know or won't support: collective bargaining means union rule. With collective bargaining, school boards are demoted to symbollic care-takers (teacher unions perpetuate the myth that they are more). School administrators are barely baby-sitters. They serve at the pleasure of the union steward. "Bargaining" means union control. Union rule.

Will the lawsuit conclude before the California Teachers Association repeals Stull with Brown's blessing? That is the question.

LAUSD faces suit linking teacher ratings to student performance

Source:

Los Angeles Times

Date:

October 31 2011

By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times
A group of parents and education advocates is preparing to sue the Los Angeles school district, demanding that it follow an arcane 40-year-old law that requires all California school systems to link teacher and principal evaluations to student performance.

The law, known as the Stull Act, was passed in 1971 with bipartisan support although neither school district officials nor teachers unions ever pushed to enforce all of its provisions, with their potential for conflict.

Now, with L.A. schools Supt. John Deasy locked in a stalemate with the teachers union over performance reviews, a prominent group of advocates believes it can force the issue with a lawsuit, which is expected to be filed Tuesday.
Although the lawsuit would be technically filed against L.A. Unified, its underlying target is the teachers union, which has fought efforts to make student test scores any part of evaluations. United Teachers Los Angeles leaders say tests scores are too unreliable and narrowly focused to use for high-stakes personnel decisions.

The issue is bigger than L.A. Unified, said Arun Ramanathan, executive director of Education Trust-West, a nonprofit advocacy group not involved in the pending litigation.

"This has implications for every school district in California," he said. "This has the potential to put districts on notice that they should be fundamentally rethinking their evaluation systems."

The lawsuit was drafted in consultation with EdVoice, a Sacramento-based group. Its board includes arts and education philanthropist Eli Broad, former ambassador Frank Baxter and healthcare company executive Richard Merkin.

Tracking student progress "is a required element of evaluations, and the union and district cannot bargain it away," said attorney Scott Witlin, whose firm, Barnes & Thornburg, is preparing the suit. "If the adults in the system can't get their acts together to comply with the law, then people have to intervene and force them to comply."

The Stull Act demand surfaced in an Oct. 26 letter giving L.A. Unified until the close of business Monday to demonstrate that it will follow state law regarding teacher evaluations.

The district "refuses to implement the Stull Act in complete abdication of its responsibility to its students, their parents and the taxpayers of the district," states the letter, signed by attorney R. DeWitt Kirwan. "We demand that this change."

The timing is no accident. District officials had set Tuesday as the deadline for settling key contract provisions, including some involving evaluations.

Nationwide, a growing number of school systems and states have begun to include student data in teacher evaluations. The approach is strongly backed by the Obama administration, although California has not followed the trend.

Forty years ago, however, California was on the vanguard of evaluating teachers. Former Republican Assemblyman John Stull of San Diego sought to ensure that teachers and principals would be accountable for the academic performance of students. He also wanted teachers to receive the help they needed to be effective.

Stull's bill received mixed support from unions: The California Teachers Assn. backed it; the California Federation of Teachers opposed it. Among other provisions, the law set up a three-person panel that would review teacher dismissals. Previously, a district went to Superior Court to fire a tenured teacher, said education consultant John Mockler, who developed the original legislation with Stull.

As a conservative who believed in local control, Stull trusted school districts to develop their own evaluation systems that included student performance, Mockler said. But that didn't happen.

"The Stull Act has become a very cursory process, and it hasn't provided support to teachers," said UTLA President Warren Fletcher, echoing the view of district officials and advocates.

School districts and unions ultimately agreed to evaluation systems that declared virtually every educator satisfactory and set aside more contentious questions of whether students were learning.

Only now, with the school district and the union unable to agree on teacher evaluations, has the Stull Act been resurrected.

The Stull Act is imprecise on the type of evaluation measure to use. Some teachers, for example, might prefer using a portfolio of student work to demonstrate academic progress rather than a standardized test score.

But under the law, Deasy said, the district can decide how teachers will be evaluated.

The union's Fletcher said state law requires any teacher evaluation system to be negotiated with teachers.

"If the district is interested in putting together a reasonable, intellectually honest — and legal — evaluation system, you have to have teachers involved," Fletcher said.

Deasy responded by saying that the union's right to negotiations is far more limited. It applies, for example, to whether teachers would receive more pay for extra work in a new system but not to determining the evaluation method itself.

Witlin, the attorney, said his group would sue to stop any contract between the district and teachers that did not include all the requirements of the Stull Act. Deasy also said he would not ink such a deal.

The litigation would mark the second time that outside parties have turned to the courts to exert pressure for a school-improvement policy opposed at the negotiating table by the teachers union.

The tactic was used last year in a suit supported by L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and public interest attorneys. It resulted in a settlement that protected schools from being affected disproportionately by layoffs that were formerly based only on seniority.

This lawsuit "could build on the success of our court victory … providing a legal framework to allow teachers, parents and students to improve learning in schools," Villaraigosa said.

LA SB5 "Coalition for School Reform." Gone without a trace.

2011-11-07T20:05:00.000-08:00

For the sake of future school board campaigns we need to know who were the clowns who ran the so-called "coalitionforschoolreform.org," how they blew over $2 million, and what the good folks who gave them all that money are going to do better next time.

This organization and the political consultants who cashed out seems to have closed shop without a trace or post-mortem.

The teacher unions have been waging a ware against us in Los Angeles for more than 40 years. They have a building. They're not going anywhere. The same people crush us every 2 to 4 years. How can we win elections if every campaign is a one-off, throw-away, pup-tent affair.

What a waste. What a disgrace.

Douglass County School Board hangs on - this time.

2011-11-07T09:44:00.000-08:00

Douglas Country school directors who support sensible reforms include vouchers barely won re-election. Had the teacher unions not had a number of high priority races around the country right now, we can assume that the vote would have gone the other way.

How long can a reform school board stay in office? How long can unpaid volunteers commit their spare time to fighting the teacher union? How long can they dodge the inevitable scandal? How long can every school board member say or write only what is politically correct? If this board is to remain in place their campaigning must be continuous, and over time they cannot have any retirements or scandals -- actual or made-up.

Over time, the teacher unions will find their opening and they will strike. That's what they do. Over time, they've never lost. In the post-industrial teacher union era, the odds are never good for students and families. Still, their efforts to allow parents to find the highest value education outside the system have been stymied by the teacher unions and their allies, in court. You can bet that legislation will be moving in the state government to prohibit this once in five generations effort of a "rogue" school board.
Likewise, in Los Angeles we are seeing the roll-back of "Public School Choice" and soon, I'm sure we'll see state legislation preventing such a creative school board policy. As described by Terry Moe in Special Interest, this is how the teacher unions roll. It's called the politics of blocking: they block reform at any and all levels of government.
http://www.ourcoloradonews.com/castlerock/news/douglas-county-school-board-election-a-pro-voucher-sweep/article_7ff2e605-11ea-56b9-80c8-8a6f01e099d6.html

School board director results
District A
Craig V. Richardson - 24,502 votes, 45.64%
Susan D. Meek - 20,498, 38.18%
Kevin Reilly - 8,686 votes, 16.18%

District C
Kevin Larsen - 29,921 votes, 56.60%
Gail Frances - 22,941, 43.40%

District F
Justin G. Williams - 27,187 votes, 51.17%
Susan McMahon - 25,942, 48.83%

Juan Williams stands with kids

2011-11-03T23:21:00.001-07:00

I'm so proud of Juan Williams:http://video.foxnews.com/v/1257165200001/whos-protecting-problem-teachers/?playlist_id=87937.

Cradle of Democracy scraps referendum to save country

2011-11-03T10:18:00.000-07:00

The teacher unions love a popular vote on a single issue. Why wouldn't they? They have the troops, the money, and no scruples about presenting voters with whatever lies and half-truths are required get the vote they need to win.

Today we see that there are times for republican (structure not party) government. Political leadership is the only option if we know that popular votes will be won by union assassins manipulating the public.

From a news article today:

"Greece's position within the euro area is a historic conquest of the country that cannot be put in doubt," Venizelos said, adding that it "cannot depend on a referendum."

Venizelos said the country's attention should be focused on quickly getting a crucial euro8 billion ($11 billion) installment of bailout funds, without which it faces bankruptcy with weeks.

Even the pro-labor leaders in Greece know that the public sector union train has wheels that fit only one track, goes in only one direction, and cannot stop. There is no reforming and no stopping. The trains inexorably steam toward the graveyard of Democracy. They cannot stop until the nations that have nourished them are dead, and then at the funeral, they feast on the remains until the ashes are fully consumed.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11/03/greece-on-brink-collapse-as-lawmakers-urge-prime-minister-to-resign/#ixzz1cfBI1BAv

Just watch the teacher union circus around the SB5 referendum in Ohio. Teacher unions have turned their activists out on the state, spreading lies and innuendo about the only bill that could save Ohio. After the teacher unoins kill SB5, as they did Schwarzenegger's 2005 initiatives, Ohio will follow California into bankruptcy. Kasich will join Arnold on the beach in Venice, pumping weights while the states they love and could not save, burn.

Leaders around America take note: teacher unions today will beat you on single issue referenda. The merits of your arguments don't matter. Spend your resources in states where good policy cannot be remanded through teacher union referenda campaigns or spend your resources unmasking the teacher union army. Teachers who take arms against education reform are not innocents: they are combatants. They've waged a 40 year war against America and have won: we've been slaughtered economically. It's time for our own revolution. The teacher union army must be defeated.