|
1) Can Teaching Commission Succeed
Where Others Have Failed? The Teaching Commission
is a group that was put together by former IBM Chairman Louis V. Gerstner
Jr. Its members are a distinguished panel of past and present members of the
education establishment. Last month, the commission released “Teaching at
Risk: A Call to Action.” The study’s recommendations are surprising only in
the context of the report’s signatories, who are hardly wild-eyed reformers
or members of the vast right wing conspiracy.
The commission has 19 members, including
former Democratic governors James Hunt and Roy Barnes, former U.S. Secretary
of Education (under Clinton) Richard Riley, current San Francisco schools
superintendent Arlene Ackerman and, most significantly of all, AFT President
Sandra Feldman. “Our members have unanimously signed off on the report,”
stated Gerstner, and immediately declared the report’s purpose to be to
“break through the barriers to meaningful improvement efforts – such as low
standards, low, lockstep pay, mistrust of efforts to identify what makes for
effective teaching, education schools out of touch with current school
needs, and outmoded and inflexible work rules and district regulations – so
that student learning, rather than teacher protection, is the number one
priority.”
Gerstner calls for “a new compact with
teachers,” which would include raising salaries, “while also asking teachers
to be measured and compensated based on their classroom performance,
including the academic gains made by their students. We also propose higher
pay for teaching subjects such as math and science, and for working in our
toughest classrooms.”
Differential pay is the third rail of
teacher union policy, as NEA learned to its chagrin during its performance
pay debate in 2000. But the commission correctly noted, “Effective teachers
who dramatically raise student achievement and who make other teachers
better through their knowledge, leadership, and skills are treated exactly
the same as those who make no positive difference in their classrooms. We
say that quality teaching matters, but we treat quality teachers as if they
don’t.”
The report calls the single salary
schedule “outmoded” and says it “removes the possibility of reward for
success and accountability for failure.” It decries seniority and tenure
rules that protect poor teachers. It advocates higher pay for teachers, but
states unequivocally that “any across-the-board increase in teacher pay must
be combined with a pay-for-performance approach.”
The commission also gives attention to a
long-neglected area: the teacher career track. Under the current system,
most teachers have the same duties and responsibilities for the entirety of
their careers. Advancement similar to that of other professions only occurs
by entering administration. The commission calls for a career track of
mentor, master and lead teachers – with commensurate increases in pay and
responsibilities – so that teachers don’t have to leave the classroom to get
ahead.
“The Teaching Commission will not
measure its success by what it recommends,” said Gerstner. “Its
effectiveness will be determined by its ability to bring these ideas to life
at the federal, state, and local levels.” The makeup of the commission
brings some hope of revitalizing an education reform that was beginning to
fade.
2) NEA-Funded Report Comes to NEA-Funded
Conclusions. Today the Civil Rights Project (CRP)
of Harvard University released “Inspiring Vision, Disappointing Results:
Four Studies on Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act.” In the
introduction, Gary Orfield notes, “At first glance, it might seem surprising
that a research center focused on civil rights should undertake a major
study of education reform.” Well, surprising or not, it wasn’t a big drain
on CRP’s resources because NEA put up the money for the report. To its
credit, CRP doesn’t hide the fact, noting the “generous support from the
National Education Association.”
The four studies conclude that NCLB is
an expansion of federal power at the expense of local control, that the law
enacts heavy mandates but provides limited resources, that the choice
options don’t work, and that the supplemental services provision should be
eliminated.
The report’s acknowledgements include
the statement that “the views and opinions expressed in this report are
solely those of the authors and should not be attributed to the NEA.” This
will be remembered as the most pointless disclaimer in education research
history.
3) Alaska Secession Attempt Easily
Defeated. The Kenai Peninsula Education
Association easily turned back an effort to disassociate from NEA Alaska.
The plan was defeated by a vote of 249 to 56. Though the mail-in vote was an
overwhelming mandate to remain with NEA, the turnout must have been
disheartening for both sides. Fewer than 54 percent of the ballots were
returned, suggesting many members didn’t care one way or the other.
4) Western States Swimming in NEA
Tax Hike Plans. The West has been spared most of
the East Coast’s nasty winter weather, but we are experiencing a deluge of
another sort: tax increase initiatives sponsored and funded by NEA state
affiliates:
* Last week, voters in Oregon defeated
Measure 30 by a 3-to-2 margin, and the initiative was voted down in 35 of 36
counties. The proposal was designed to raise $800 million in new taxes and
its biggest contributor was the Oregon Education Association (OEA), with
$155,422 through January 26. “Well, it’s disappointing to see these
numbers,” said OEA President Kris Kain, in an understatement.
* The California Teachers Association is
sending petitions to its locals in an effort to qualify its $4.5 billion
property tax hike for the November ballot. The union has committed a minimum
of $12 million to the campaign.
* The Nevada State Education Association
announced its plans to place an initiative on the November ballot that would
require the legislature to fund K-12 spending at the national average. The
union’s plan doesn’t specifically call for a tax increase, but since the
measure would require an estimated $500 million in new spending – or roughly
a 30 percent increase – a tax increase would be inevitable.
* In what seemed to be a surprise, the
Washington Education Association came out in opposition to a ballot
initiative designed to raise $1 billion in taxes for public education. It
became less surprising when WEA noted the initiative doesn’t specifically
address teacher compensation.
What all these initiatives have in
common, however, is the demand for more money without a single promise that
the public will get anything in return.
5) NEA to Charters: We Hate You,
Come Join Us! The California Teachers
Association’s charter school organizing project, backed by NEA funding, is
revving up. The January 30 issue of United Teacher, the organ of
United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), contains the first of what promises to
be dozens of horror stories of charter school teachers who lacked union
membership. If CTA is successful in drawing charter school teachers into the
union, the effort will be duplicated elsewhere.
Meanwhile, in Washington, yet another
effort has been mounted to establish a charter school law. Previous efforts
have been strongly opposed by the Washington Education Association (WEA).
Last week, WEA President Charles Hasse editorialized on the issue in a
Seattle Times column headlined, “Charter schools: an underperforming
distraction.”
Hasse claimed “charter schools have
established a monumentally lackluster performance record” and that they are
“bad policy for the nation in general.” Though Washington is one of only 10
states without charter schools, Hasse declared, “In light of a decade of
undistinguished performance and unfulfilled promises by charter schools in
the 40 states that have them, it’s more appropriately a cause for
celebration.”
There’s a recruitment speech for you. A
few more like that and the $1.75 million NEA members are spending on charter
organizing will join the millions spent on the NEA Charter School Initiative
(remember that?) in the union’s dustbin of history.
6) North Carolina Union Spins
Election Carousel. The North Carolina Association
of Educators (NCAE) has been home to some of the most unusual expressions of
representative democracy – particularly a majority vote that essentially
altered the definition of “two-thirds” (see the April 26, 1999 EIA
Communiqué). But its presidential elections are the most entertaining of
all.
The tale goes back to 1999, when NCAE
President Joyce Elliott was elected vice president, and Vice President
Geraldine McNeill was elected president. In 2000, the union altered its
governance structure, and another presidential election was held. Vice
President Elliott recaptured the presidency, while President McNeill was
elected to the NEA Board of Directors.
Yet another presidential election was
held in 2001, and this one was a triumph for “outsiders.” Carolyn McKinney
was elected president, moving up from her position on the NCAE board of
directors, and Eddie Davis resigned his position on the NEA Executive
Committee to become NCAE vice president, an office to which he was reelected
in 2002.
Now it’s 2004, and the candidates for
NCAE’s top offices have been announced: President McKinney is running for
vice president, while Vice President Davis is facing a challenge in his
campaign to become NCAE president… from former president and vice president
Geraldine McNeill.
EIA offers a small gift to NCAE voters:
a copy of Dan Hicks’ classic tune – “How Can I Miss You When You Won’t Go
Away?”
7) Union’s Union Has Labor Problem.
Labor unrest is a perpetual problem, even for unions. But the latest
hilarity from DC shows that no one is immune.
Long-time EIA readers are fully aware of
the fact that teacher union employees themselves belong to a union –
normally referred to as a staff union. The staff union negotiates a
collective bargaining agreement with the teachers’ union (who act as
management). As a short trip through the EIA archives will illustrate, the
relationships between the unions and their staffs are often divisive.
The latest dispute goes to another level
entirely. The National Education Association Staff Organization (NEASO)
represents about 400 staffers who work at NEA headquarters in Washington, DC
and in various regional offices. NEASO collected more than $327,000 in dues
in 2002. This staff union is big enough to require, well, its own staff. To
oversee NEASO affairs, the staff union employs a staff of two: an executive
director and an executive assistant. In 2002, the executive director,
Deborah Leahy, earned $73,940.
Last fall, NEASO dismissed Leahy for
undisclosed reasons. Last week, NEASO informed its members that Leahy has
retained an attorney and is considering suing the staff union for breach of
contract.
If only Ms. Leahy had belonged to a
union! She could have formed the National Education Association Staff
Organization Staff Organization (or NEA-SOSO). Or she could have sought the
help of EIA’s now-dormant staff union: EIEIO.
Scheduling Note.
The next EIA Communiqué will appear on Tuesday, February 17.
8) Quote of
the Week.
“There’s no difference between politics and organizing. People ask us, ‘What
are you doing in politics?’ Yet every scintilla of everything that happens
to public employees – vouchers, pensions, budgets – it’s all politics.” –
AFT Secretary-Treasurer Edward J. McElroy, in a speech during the union’s
Western regional meeting last month. (February 9 Inside AFT) |
