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

There’s a highly illustrative bit of information in Politico, courtesy of U.S. Rep. David Obey, about the battle over the edujobs bill. Obey says he knew the Obama administration would be upset about the cuts to the Race to the Top program, but that he proposed cuts to some of his own pet projects, “such as expanding broadband computer access to rural areas like his district.”

So to Obey, the plan to incentivize specific education reforms is no different from spending money on rural community access to broadband. It’s safe to say Obey and Obama don’t see eye-to-eye on education policy. It would seem with NEA and AFT in favor of the edujobs bill and against Race to the Top, the lines are clearly drawn between union-allied Democrats and reformy Democrats. But it’s not that simple. With a midterm election looming, neither the unions nor the Democrats want an internal split, so we’re seeing a lot of overlapping messages and some contradictory ones.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan doesn’t want Obey’s cuts to his discretionary spending, but he is promoting the edujobs bill in public.

The NEA affiliates in Massachusetts and Oregon have been angry with the Democrat candidates for governor over their education agendas, but endorsed them anyway.

Both national unions are fighting proposals to lift charter school caps to help qualify for Race to the Top funds, but the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, with the blessing of its state affiliate, wants to become a charter school authorizer.

Even the choice of speakers at each national union convention seemed a bit schizophrenic, as was the response to each. At the AFT Convention, Bill Gates provoked both a standing ovation and a walkout. The apotheosis of Diane Ravitch at the NEA Representative Assembly seemed to signify unanimity on the opposite side of AFT (Ravitch believes “Bill Gates is now running the nation’s education system“), but even that stance is complicated by Ravitch’s prior role as “one of the most prolific — and dishonest — purveyors of the falsification of history and fact which has been necessary, to this day, to the vicious spread of attacks on public education,” according to one staunch unionist.

This is the culmination of the old professional association vs. labor union dichotomy that has plagued NEA and AFT for years. When times are good, you can do both because jobs are secure and pay is increasing. When times are bad, you have to prioritize. It’s inevitable that NEA and AFT will focus on their labor union role. It’s what the members want and what they pay for. But in doing so, the unions send a message about what they consider to be really important. This undermines their credibility when they try to take up the reform mantle.

It may seem strange that I find common ground with hardline unionists, but I prefer clarity over consensus. What’s wrong with stating forthrightly what you support and what you oppose, and then letting the voters decide? If you hate Race to the Top, turn down the money, don’t participate in the process, and fight to have the program abolished. If you win, good for you. If you lose, good for the program because it doesn’t get watered down into an amorphous blob to overcome your objections.

Democrats and the teachers’ unions will need to form a united front to stave off disaster in November. But they can only get there by choosing one side or the other, not both.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 13th, 2010 at 12:09 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.