Education Intelligence Agency

Public Education Research, Analysis and Investigations

Let's begin with Douglas McGray, who wrote a lengthy and insightful piece in the January 16 New York Times. Headlined "Working With the Enemy," the article detailed the trials and tribulations of Brad Jupp, the Denver Classroom Teachers Association official widely credited with being the architect of that city's teacher performance pay plan. McGray did a thorough and even-handed job describing the internal and external struggles of NEA and AFT over the issue.

Next, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation President Checker Finn spotted an article in the January 2005 NEA Today that suggested to him a softening of the union's position on the No Child Left Behind Act. After reviewing NEA's recent statements and actions – including quotes from the McGray article -- Finn concluded that NEA will continue down the same road.

This prompted Andrew Rotherham, director of the 21st Century Schools Project of the Progressive Policy Institute, to gently chide Finn on Eduwonk.com for "meandering," adding that NEA has no desire to repeat the performance pay debacle of 2000 (see the July 5, 2000 EIA Communiqué).

While this train was slowing down, another was picking up steam. Terry M. Moe, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, penned an editorial for the January 13 Wall Street Journal in which he committed the heresy of suggesting that the teachers' unions routinely pursue their self-interest. Here is the gist of his piece:

"The problem is not that the unions are somehow bad or ill-intentioned. They aren't. The problem is that when they simply do what all organizations do -- pursue their own interests -- they are inevitably led to do things that are not in the best interests of children.

"To appreciate why this is so, consider the parallel to business firms. No one claims that these organizations are in business to promote the public interest. They are in business to make money, and this is the fundamental interest that drives their behavior. Thus, economists and policy makers fully expect firms to pollute the water and air when polluting is less costly (and more profitable) than not polluting -- and that is why we have laws against pollution. The problem is not that firms are out to destroy the environment. The problem is simply that their interests are not identical to the public interest, and the two inevitably come into conflict.

"Teachers unions have to be understood in much the same way. Their behavior is driven by fundamental interests too, except that their interests have to do with the jobs, working conditions, and material well-being of teachers. When unions negotiate with school boards, these are the interests they pursue, not those of the children who are supposed to be getting educated."

To AFT, Moe's common-sense analysis was akin to an accusation of baby-eating, and it reacted accordingly. The union sent an e-mail alert to its activists, calling on them to barrage the Journal with angry e-mail, decrying the "outrageous attack on teacher unions by Terry M. Moe." The activists complied, and the Journal responded by publishing AFT's directive in its January 21 edition. This morning's Journal contained the official response from AFT President Edward McElroy.

But wait, there's more. An excellent article on the state of organized labor appeared in the unlikeliest of venues, the pages of In These Times, a left-wing periodical whose contents consist of such standard fare as "Gay Matrimony: Get Used to It" and a piece on the inauguration called "Democracy's End." But in "The Fight for Our Future," Christopher Hayes smartly sums up the trials and tribulations of the AFL-CIO and the efforts of several factions to do something about it.

Even AFT has gotten into the act. In a proposal sent to the AFL-CIO called "Joining Voices: Inclusive Strategies for Labor's Renewal," the AFT notes, "As the labor movement loses membership and the proportion of workers belonging to unions continues to shrink, we run the risk of further isolating ourselves from the public at large when our focus narrows to the needs of unions rather than the needs of workers and their families."

Sounds like something Terry Moe might write.

2)  Arnold vs. CTA: Judgment Day. I'm not sure why California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to take on the California Teachers Association (CTA) and most of the education establishment over issues of pay and funding. Perhaps it was his bodybuilder/action hero background and the continued references to CTA as an 800 pound gorilla.

But I suspect it was because Arnold is a layman, not a politician. You don't have to spend very much time in the state Capitol to realize that the education lobbying groups run the place – and not just among the Democrats. Previous governors have tried hostility (Deukmejian), appeasement (Davis), or situational bouncing between the two (Wilson). Not one could really claim a major victory. Faced with perennial budget deficits, Arnold probably wondered why this should be the case.

You can count major CTA political defeats on one hand. Plans to expand the scope of collective bargaining or raise property taxes were derailed or abandoned because of broad-based opposition. An English immersion initiative passed because union opinion was divided. California was one of the first charter school states, but only through a 100-school cap, a threatening voucher initiative, a Democratic sponsor, and legislative subterfuge. Arnold is proposing a battle on the education establishment's own territory, revisiting the provisions of Proposition 98, the initiative with a funding formula that guarantees public education approximately 40 percent of the state's general fund and the bulk of any unexpected increase in revenues.

In addition, he has proposed introducing performance pay in one fell swoop across the state. "The rules now are if you give one teacher a dollar more, you have to give all the teachers a dollar more, and we want to change that," he told the Sacramento Bee.

The conventional wisdom is to bet on the gorilla. "Expect governor to be taught a political lesson" is the trenchant headline of a San Francisco Chronicle story. There is zero possibility that Arnold will get his plan as stated through the Democratic-dominated legislature. But if he places an understandable reform plan on the statewide ballot, all bets are off.

Prop 98 passed with 50.7 percent of the vote in 1988, when the state's fiscal house was in much better shape than it is today. Since then, California has risen to 25th in per-pupil spending and 1st in average teacher salaries (according to NEA figures), while continuing to dwell near the bottom of the NAEP scores in virtually every subject. I'm sure CTA has an army of PR professionals ready to explain this away, but the great unwashed of California might actually demand more for their money.

CTA has a State Council meeting this weekend, and there are rumors the union might revive its property tax initiative as a counter to anything the governor might put on the ballot. If so, it is of consequence to every NEA member, since CTA's first stop will be NEA headquarters, wanting some more cash from the national ballot measure fund to which every member contributes.

Whatever happens, it will be a clash of the titans, with a campaign that political observers will be rehashing for many years to come.

3)  Retired Staffers Sue Ohio Education Association. For years, NEA state affiliates have been blaming staff retirement benefits for their budget deficits. Some have taken drastic steps to deal with the problem. Now the Ohio Education Association (OEA) may be the first to feel the backlash.

A group of retired OEA staffers have sued the union over termination of health benefits. The Coalition of Retired Employees (CORE) of OEA claims the union violated guarantees in the staff collective bargaining agreement. OEA claims it has no obligation to provide benefits beyond Medicare Part B reimbursement to retired staffers over 65, and that any additional coverage they had been receiving was not authorized by the contract. All additional coverage was terminated last August, prompting the CORE lawsuit.

In concert with the lawsuit, CORE is also treating OEA to a bit of labor activism, picketing the union's representative assembly last month with a sign reading "OEA Cheats Retirees," publishing a newsletter, and setting up a web site (http://www.coreofoea.com).

4)  Obesity Report Cards and Other Weird News. If Texas state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) was out to make national headlines, she certainly succeeded with her bill to include a student's body mass index on his or her report cards.

"We should be just as concerned with students' physical health and performance as we are with their academic performance," Sen. Van de Putte told the Associated Press.

The idea was roundly lambasted and it probably won't surprise many of you that Sen. Van de Putte is not exactly, well, svelte herself (http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist26/dist26.htm).

Meanwhile, Milwaukee high school student Peer Larson filed a lawsuit because the summer homework he was given in his honors pre-calculus class gave him "undue stress."

As I wipe my tears away, I recall my sympathetic response to my navigator students when they would complain about their workload: "Boys and girls, school is as easy as you're ever gonna have it."

5)  Teacher Retention in Denver: Help or Hindrance to Performance Pay? The Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA) released a survey claiming 40 percent of the city's teachers are planning to leave or would do so for higher pay.

Since DCTA is in the midst of contract negotiations with the district, it is easy to dismiss this survey as a standard bargaining ploy. But the situation in Denver is anything but standard. Last year, DCTA members voted to gradually institute a performance play plan. Assuming Denver voters approve a $25 million property tax hike in November, necessary to fund the plan, performance pay will be mandatory for new teachers, and optional for veteran teachers until 2012.

Because of the way the vote and the plan's implementation were structured, only about 1,600 teachers voted for performance pay – out of 4,500 in the district – and many of them will not have to switch before retiring. That leaves a very small percentage of teachers who are personally wedded to the idea. It was inevitable that teacher retention and recruitment would be affected.

EIA said so in a March 22, 2004 communiqué item headlined, "Will Denver Teachers Vote with Their Feet on Performance Pay?" Calling the performance pay plan "an experiment in recruitment and retention," EIA asked, "What kinds of teachers will now apply for jobs in Denver? Which teachers will remain in the district and which will transfer to a district with a traditional salary schedule? Which teachers in other districts will want to transfer in?"

The DCTA survey said that two out of three teachers have no confidence in the district's ability to run the performance pay program. There is no way to know whether this is a bad or a good thing. At some level, teacher buy-in is absolutely essential to the program's success. But it doesn't necessarily require buy-in by the current teacher workforce. If the program attracts sufficient numbers of teachers who believe in the concept, then low retention of those who don't believe in it is a better outcome for everyone involved. The outgoing teachers will find a district with a traditional salary schedule, opening spots for teachers who are more supportive of performance pay.

But no one has ever tested the teacher labor market on this scale before. It may ultimately decide the fate of the Denver program.

6)  New York City Union Hires Marketing Firm to "Engage Member Base." The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) in New York City hired Plus Three, a strategic marketing company with close ties to the Democratic Party and organized labor, to create and maintain a web portal for the union.

Plus Three's mission sounds very similar to that of NEA's recently subsumed member portal, OWL.org. The UFT site will allow "timely, topical information to be quickly disseminated by targeting content to specific member groups."

Plus Three's clients include the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the John Kerry for President campaign. The firm boasts of it ability to enable organizations "to build dynamic online constituent communities with shared interests and values, direct targeted messages and appeals to them with laser focus, and stimulate donations and actions to support specific causes."

Isn't capitalism great?

7)  Indecency Allegations on Opposite Ends of Country. Teacher union officials are no more apt to commit crimes than those in any other profession, which makes it all the more unusual when two stories appear in two days on opposite ends of the country alleging indecency by local officials.

Matthew Valenti, president of the Torrington Education Association in Connecticut, was suspended for allegedly viewing pornography on a school computer. He denies the allegations. The school board will hold a disciplinary hearing tonight.

Steven M. Linder, secretary of the Tucson Education Association and member of the Arizona Education Association board of directors, was arrested and charged with allegedly exposing himself to an undercover police officer in a public bathroom stall. Linder pleaded not guilty, was placed on paid leave from his teaching job, and will undergo an investigation by the Arizona Department of Education.

8)  Run, Forrest, Run! For those of you who are interested, I ran the Maui Surf & Sand Half Marathon last week in 2:17:22 – much slower than I trained, but very happy to finish. If you want the details, I posted a race report on the Runner's World bulletin board at http://forums.runnersworld.com/thread.jspa?threadID=239392&tstart=0.

9)  Quote of the Week. "Given the enormity of injustice throughout the world, including injustice sponsored by the current administration, teachers need to find new ways to encourage student questioning. We can create communities of conscience and critique. The critical habits of mind that we nurture in our classrooms can stay with students long after they've left school…. That's where teachers come in. Bush may be president of the United States of America, but he is not president of our curriculum." – from an opinion piece titled "Four More Years – of Resistance" by the editors of Rethinking Schools in their Winter 2004/2005 issue. (http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/19_02/four192.shtml)

© 2005 Education Intelligence Agency. All rights reserved.