Intercepts
A listening post monitoring public education and teachers’ unions.

Jay Mathews of the Washington Post is an invaluable asset. Not just because he’s a great writer, but because he is probably the last of what was once a thriving breed – the national education newspaper columnist. We won’t know how badly we’ll miss Uncle Jay until he’s gone. For reference, newspapers used to have labor columnists. Tell me we’re better off now that they’re gone.

Mathews’ latest column discusses the grants made by the Broad Foundation and the Gates Foundation to the innovation fund created by the American Federation of Teachers.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, unveiled the first union-led, private foundation-supported effort to provide grants to AFT unions nationwide to develop and implement what she called “bold education innovations in public schools.”

He is supportive, though he acknowledges the doubters, stating, “Of course, it might turn out to be just another publicity stunt.”

This partnership is not as unusual as you might think. The Broad Foundation and others have supported the Teacher Union Reform Network. Broad and the Rose Foundation put up a lot of money in support of the Denver performance pay project. What’s new about this effort is the money is going directly to the unions. Mathews wonders why AFT President Randi Weingarten accepted the money.

It could be, as some cynics insist, that Weingarten is just trying to look reasonable and impress empty-headed optimists like me.

I don’t think Uncle Jay is an empty-headed optimist, and I don’t mind wearing the label of cynic. I have heard a lot of excuses explaining why teachers’ unions aren’t innovative, but not a single person – supporter or opponent – has ever suggested it was because the unions lacked the funds for it. They have money for all sorts of things.

Why is she accepting the foundations’ money? Why not?

Here’s the topper:

When I asked why she was dealing with foundations whose support for charters is so unpopular with her members, she replied, “The ties that bind us are so much greater than the squabbles that divide us.” AFT founder Al Shanker, she noted, was one of the first to suggest the charter concept, and AFT-run charters operate in New York.

Once again, the ghost of Al Shanker rises from the grave to frighten doubters into silence.

Whether you love or hate Al Shanker, he died in 1997, and despite best efforts, he’s not coming back.

When Shanker was AFT president, he wrote a column about the charter concept, originated by Ray Budde. But what did his union do when the first charter school law was proposed in Minnesota in 1991? The Education Week archive tells us:

Ironically, the Minnesota Federation of Teachers, Mr. Shanker’s state affiliate, remains the most vocal critic of the new law.

Rose A. Hermodson, the union’s lobbyist, said that while Mr. Shanker “used the term” charter schools, “it may not be the same concept.”

The union claims the law lacks sufficient collective-bargaining guarantees for teachers, puts existing public schools at a disadvantage by not extending deregulation to all schools, and fails to ensure adequate accountability.

The accountability argument was legitimate, and school systems are still wrestling with it today. But isn’t it interesting how back then the union downplayed Shanker’s link to the idea, then claimed the law was no good because a) the charters didn’t have to be unionized, and b) because regular public schools weren’t also deregulated.

Since that first charter school law was passed, the national unions and their affiliates have opposed every charter school law, are largely responsible for keeping charters out of the states that don’t have them, and are the the driving force behind the caps on new charters in states that do have them.

That’s on one side. On the other you have a newspaper column by a late former president and two union-run charters that haven’t been immune from labor problems.

Every few years since the mid-1980s we are treated to these “teachers’ unions embrace reform” stories, and every year we have the same battles over the same ground. Commentators and observers are wondering whether Randi Weingarten is serious about school reform or if she is being duplicitous. I don’t know the answer to that question, but I do know the answer is immaterial. She’s walking the same tightrope as Bob Chase, and the result will be the same.

This entry was posted on Monday, May 4th, 2009 at 11:00 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.