|
1) Puerto Rico Representation Election Likely to Go
Forward. If my limited Spanish reading skills are up to snuff, it
appears the labor commission in Puerto Rico has recognized the Asociación de
Maestros de Puerto Rico (AMPR) as a legitimate teachers' union, paving the
way for an election to represent the island's more than 42,000 teachers.
The incumbent Federación de Maestros de Puerto Rico (FMPR)
had challenged the status of AMPR, claiming the rival union was a company
union - a management tool to rid it of the antagonistic FMPR. The labor
commission disagreed with this assessment, and although it has the authority
to call an election with 14 days' notice, it probably will not schedule a
vote until August.
FMPR used to be affiliated with AFT, and AMPR with NEA,
but currently both are independent (see
Item #2 here). Both national unions are gun-shy about getting involved
again in Puerto Rico, but an AMPR victory could eventually lead to renewed
ties between Puerto Rico's teachers and one or both of the mainland
teachers' unions.
2) Favorable Ruling for Teamsters in Las Vegas.
The wheels turn slowly, but the representation battle for education support
workers in Las Vegas between NEA and the Teamsters is headed back to the
state labor relations board for dispensation.
Now entering its sixth year, the fight over some 8,000
bus drivers, custodians and cafeteria workers began with a card check
campaign (which the incumbent NEA affiliate challenged), finally resulted in
an election that the Teamsters won and lost, and, naturally, ended up
in court (see
Item #6 here).
The Nevada Employee Management Relations Board washed
its hands of the campaign after conducting the election, but a district
court judge has now remanded the case back to EMRB. In the meantime, the NEA
affiliate maintains its status.
A Teamsters victory would be a devastating blow to NEA
in Nevada, and would open the door for Teamster organizing of education
support employees elsewhere.
3) What Liverpool's Laptops Tell Us About School
Reform. A story by New York Times reporter Winnie Hu received a
lot of deserved attention when it appeared last Friday. Hu used the
experiences of the Liverpool Central School District in New York to examine
the entire question of
providing laptop computers to students. While more and more districts
are instituting laptop programs, Liverpool is going the other way, by
phasing them out.
"After seven years, there was literally no evidence it
had any impact on student achievement – none," said school board president
Mark Lawson.
This is not a surprising outcome, since NAEP scores for
2002 showed the more students used a computer at school for social studies,
the lower they scored on the exam (see
Item #2 here). At the same time, students who used the Internet for
research projects scored higher than those who did not. I thought the lesson
was clear in 2002, and I still do today.
Computers are wonderful education tools, but they tend
to increase the performance of only those students who would have used other
tools if computers were not available. In other words, making it easier to
do research does not increase the desire to do research. Given a computer, a
well-motivated student will use it to access materials unavailable at school
or the local public library. A poorly motivated student will, as Hu tells
us, "exchange answers on tests, download pornography and hack into local
businesses." While I have no data to support this speculation, it wouldn't
surprise me to learn that the laptop program increases the achievement gap
between high- and low-performing students.
But I find technology in the classroom less compelling
as a separate issue than as a microcosm of the application of school reform.
For all the research we have in education, we have precious little
development. Someone somewhere floats an idea, say, laptops in the
classroom, funding follows, schools institute the plan, and eventually the
plan loses steam or is reversed entirely. But since the process doesn't
happen everywhere at the same time and at the same pace, you have the
maddening spectacle of some districts racing to dump an idea while others
are racing to fund and institute it.
Liverpool district officials are to be commended for at
least evaluating the relationship between laptops and achievement, but the
fact remains that the program was funded for seven years with no results. No
one will lose his job for that. No one will be disciplined. And the next
unproven idea is probably already working its way through the system.
4) Chicago Election Reminds Us What Unions Are For.
When Exxon Mobil runs a television ad showing all its efforts to preserve
wildlife, we are naturally skeptical, even if its claims are true, because
we know Exxon Mobil is in the business of drilling for oil, not protecting
wildlife. And if the two things come into conflict, we know where their
sentiments lie.
There are liberals and conservatives who
criticize teachers' unions for failing to improve the productivity and
achievement of the public education system, and EIA finds itself in the
awkward position of agreeing with the more traditional members of the
unions, who say that teachers' unions exist to protect teachers from
management, to increase their salaries and benefits, and to improve their
working conditions.
That's not to say unions can't help reform
education. But just like Exxon Mobil, that's not what they're paid to do,
and we should be just as skeptical when they profess their mission to be
"great public schools for every child."
Which brings us to the upcoming election for the
presidency of the Chicago Teachers Union. The contest features long-time
nemeses Deborah Lynch and Marilyn Stewart. Chicago Sun-Times reporter
Kate N. Grossman provides a service by printing the
self-claimed accomplishments of each candidate and their goals, if
elected.
Lynch's three goals are to "negotiate the best salary
increases that CTU members have seen," "put a moratorium on school closings
for academic reasons," and "rebuild strength of unions on the front lines."
Stewart's three goals are to "negotiate a good contract
with no givebacks," "secure affordable health care not tied to salaries,"
and to gain "more job protection and security."
"Closing the achievement gap" didn't make these lists,
nor should it. Stewart and Lynch both want to be elected, and to do that
they have to promise to provide the services for which their members pay.
The sooner we accept this fundamental fact of life, the sooner we'll
understand why we have the public education system we have.
5) Good Luck with That. In honor of National
Charter School Week, the American Federation of Teachers
reaffirmed its commitment to organizing charter schools. AFT President
Ed McElroy noted the "growing group of charter school teachers nationwide
expressing a strong need and desire for union representation."
AFT boasts that it represents teachers "in over 50
charter schools spread out over nine states." The latest estimate from the
Center for Education Reform indicates there are almost 4,000 charter
schools in 40 states and the District of Columbia.
With a 1.25 percent market share after 15 years of
charter school existence, it is clear that charter school teachers recognize
AFT is committed not to representing them, but to putting them out of
business. In the meantime, the union hopes they will contribute to the
purchase of the rope that will hang them.
6) Alfie Kohn to Be Paid for Not Speaking.
Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Hiller Zobel ruled that the state
Department of Education
violated the First Amendment rights of author Alfie Kohn when it
rescinded his invitation to speak at a conference in 2001. The DOE canceled
Kohn's appearance when it learned he would use his time to criticize the
state's MCAS tests. As a result, Massachusetts taxpayers will shell out
$155,000 to Kohn.
"It's too bad that the Department of Education was so
committed to its agenda of high-stakes testing that it would violate the
Constitution to silence those who disagree," Kohn said in a statement.
This may be the first instance of a retracted
invitation violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but
$155,000 is the prescribed compensation for such an offense in the Code of
the Emperor Ming the Merciless, on the
Planet Mongo, from where Alfie Kohn originates (see
Item #2 here).
7) Iowa Agency Fee Bill Dies. The legislative
session ended in Iowa without the union-backed agency fee bill making it out
of the lower chamber (see
Item #4 here). Not only did the bill encounter the staunch opposition of
the business community and the
Professional Educators of Iowa, but her refusal to support the bill
finally drove Democratic
Rep. Dawn Pettengill out of her party and into the GOP. Congratulations,
Iowa State Education Association!
8) New State Affiliate Executive Directors Named.
NEA Alaska named Lydia Garcia as its permanent executive director. Garcia
had been filling the post on an interim basis after the resignation of Tom
Harvey, who was the
subject of an EEOC lawsuit.
The South Dakota Education Association went outside of
the organization to find its new executive director. Bryce Healy was
previously the state Commissioner of School and Public Lands.
9) Last Week's Intercepts.
EIA's blog,
Intercepts, covered these topics from April 30-May 7:
* Eraserhead
Meets Sunshine Superman. The groovy solution to school violence.
* Flogged
with an Olive Branch. Striking union staffers agree to return to work,
but union execs lock them out.
* Hawaii
Teachers Approve Random Drug Testing. Union members approve a tentative
agreement, and everyone goes nuts.
Here's the first newspaper column ever to depict not voting as a
selfless, noble act.
10)
Quote of the Week.
"The only
thing worse than a government monopoly is a highly unionized government
monopoly. It's a recipe for mediocrity." – ABC News' John Stossel. (May 2
Rocky Mountain News) |
