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

There isn’t much left to be said about the Los Angeles Times‘ teacher value-added database, but I’ll try anyway.

1) It’s not something I would have done, because the wholesale naming of teachers doesn’t, um, add much value to the story. The numbers should be used to identify schools and teachers who deserve further review, and then find out if the statistics accurately reflect what’s going on. Afterwards, the naming of teachers who are doing exceptionally well, or exceptionally poorly, is justified and necessary.

2) That having been said, the Times analysis was generated from public records about public employees. The letter signed by the presidents of the National Education Association, California Teachers Association, and United Teachers Los Angeles calling on the Times to ”cease the publication of data” is a blunt attempt to censor information with which the teachers’ unions disagree. I wish I could say this is an unusual position for them to take, but it isn’t, even when they don’t have a case.

3) I wonder how different the reaction to the database would have been if everyone were confident that the results would be positive and laudatory? I’m struck by the union presidents’ statement that “The LA Times proposal to expand its public shaming to the 6,000 teachers in its ‘database’ will exponentially compound the damage.” All 6,000 teachers will be publicly shamed by the value-added data? I also had a laugh at this:

Reasonable people understand a single test score does not define student learning and can never solely measure the effectiveness of a teacher. We would think a reasonable and respectable institution such as the LA Times would as well. So, we are only left to assume, the purpose of the publication was to sell newspapers.

The purpose of the LA Times is to sell newspapers, and the purpose of the teachers’ unions is to defend teachers’ interests. Holy cow! We’ve made an intellectual breakthrough!

But by the unions’ logic, reasonable people won’t take the data seriously, so how does that sell newspapers? And if only unreasonable people will accept the information at face value, why bother to try to censor it or argue about it? They’re unreasonable!

4) Finally, the Times story should give a short pause to those who like to repeat the old lament about how Americans fail to treat their beloved teachers the same way they treat professional athletes and celebrities. I once commented:

When we have a system for teachers that differentiates the Iversons from the guys playing pickup hoops in the schoolyard, or the Brad Pitts from the actor/waiters in Hollywood bistros, we’ll see some teachers making stratospheric salaries. Will they ever make $16 million a year? Only when people will pay just to watch them at work, and follow their statistics in the morning newspaper.

Now that people can follow teachers’ statistics in the morning newspaper, it’s time for a change in tactics. Instead of sending angry letters to the Times, maybe the union presidents should set up bleachers in Zenaida Tan’s classroom, and charge admission.

Last summer Oregon Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals (OFNHP) President Kathy Geroux decided to call a meeting to discuss disaffiliating her local from AFT. Soon after, AFT placed the local under national trusteeship and sent in a troop of staffers to take over the union.

In a classic act of impotence and deference, the U.S. Department of Labor declared the AFT trusteeship “unlawful,” but decided that because it has since been lifted and new officers elected, “allegations concerning the validity of the trusteeship are moot.”

So congratulations are in order for AFT, which succeeded in Oregon where it had failed in Puerto Rico. Apparently a union can prevent any disaffiliation simply by acting faster than the government bureaucracy. A low threshold indeed.

Hat tip: Education Notes Online.

I am back in the office, but it will take some time to get caught up. Please stand by.

This is the EIA Communiqué for July 5, 1998:

+ In my efforts to ensure that I didn’t underestimate NEA’s ability to push through a “Yes” vote on the Principles of Unity, it appears I dramatically underestimated the ability of the opposition to persuade the undecided delegates and win over a substantial number of Yes voters.

An astounding 57.9 percent of the delegates to the NEA Representative Assembly voted to defeat the Principles of Unity. (Total votes = 9,715. Yes = 4,091. No = 5,624).

EIA estimated that the pro-merger side arrived in New Orleans with 53.5 percent of the vote. NEA President Bob Chase, his staff and supporters were expected to use their natural advantages in the convention setting to boost that support. Instead, it is clear that the anti-merger forces employed superior tactics and arguments to win the day.

As expected, both Chase and American Federation of Teachers President Sandra Feldman released statements promising continued cooperation and collaboration between the two teachers’ unions.

At the press conference following the vote, a visibly shaken Chase denied the vote showed the NEA leadership was out of touch with the membership. “No,” he said, “I don’t think it means that at all. As a matter of fact after the discussion that occurred yesterday, I think we are absolutely in touch with our members, about the fact that our members do want to bring about unity between the two organizations.”

Asked if he or the staff should have done something differently, Chase responded, “I’m not going to second-guess anything.”

Chase was emphatic that the embarrassing loss did not affect his ability to lead the union. Nor did he believe it would have any political impact. One wonders if he believes this as much as he believed his statement on Friday that “Momentum is building in a positive way and I am confident.”

The delegates will vote tomorrow on the alternate “Unity Without Merger” proposal submitted by the Illinois Education Association. The document provides for a continuation of the current “no-raid” agreement with AFT, allows for collaborative ventures, and authorizes state and local mergers with AFT affiliates.

More than just the vote occurred today, including a description by NEA General Counsel Robert Chanin of the union’s right-wing research program (described here in previous communiqués). Those details will have to wait until I return home.

This is the EIA Communiqué for July 4, 1998:

+ Happy Independence Day, everyone. Even as late as this morning, some among the delegates and reporters seemed to be persuaded that the merger would pass. I don’ t think they feel that way any more. The first jarring moment for merger supporters occurred when the results of the Executive Committee election were announced. As I mentioned in yesterday’s dispatch, Bob Gilchrist, president of the Iowa State Education Association, ran for the Executive Committee against two incumbents on one issue — opposition to the merger. He was not elected, but he received 4,253 votes — a full 45.1 percent. Since it was unlikely that many people voted for Gilchrist for any reason other than his anti-merger position, it was a clear indication of the lay of the land. A further indication was presented at the afternoon merger debate.

Let’s say up front that no state delegation declared a position opposite to the position taken by its state delegate assembly. Speakers for and against the Principles of Unity alternated at the microphones. From the outset of the debate, the emotional advantage was with the anti-merger side. Gerri Williams of Delaware was the first anti-merger speaker. She spoke of her fears that a small state like Delaware would lose its voice in the larger organization. She choked back tears as she told the assembly, “I urge you to vote against the Principles of Unity, and save my vote.”

But if one speaker could be said to have brought the house down, that speaker was Mary (“None Of Your Business”) Washington, president of the Louisiana Association of Educators. Speaking on behalf of the Louisiana delegation, Ms. Washington said that “today we are given a set of principles that makes a mockery of our core beliefs.” Focusing on the lack of policy-making power of the Leadership Council, the new organization’s replacement for the NEA Board of Directors, Washington declared that reducing that body to an advisory one was “unacceptable, unacceptable, unacceptable!” If the vote had been held that minute, the merger might have been defeated by a two-to-one margin.

The pro-merger side was not helped by Mike Billirakis, president of the Ohio Education Association and a merger supporter, who elicited groans and shouts from the crowd when he likened a vote against the Principles of Unity to a vote against the Declaration of Independence.

Throughout it all, Bob Chase appeared taken aback by the forcefulness of the opposition. The debate was heated, but decorous. It was, however, extremely interesting to see that the vote to close debate passed easily — after only two hours, and 34 speakers (17 from each side). This showed that not only was neither side interested in spending the entire Independence Day arguing about merger, but that both sides felt that further debate was unlikely to sway anyone.

The voting will take place tomorrow between 8:30 and noon, Central time. I expect the results to be announced at around 1:30 p.m. You will probably hear the results from your regular press outlets before you hear them from me. I plan to spend the rest of the afternoon at the Assembly, already trying to determine what follows.

This is the EIA Communiqué for July 3, 1998:

+ NEA President Bob Chase held a press breakfast to discuss professional development issues. He and his fellow panelists did not leave a whole lot of time for questions, but he was asked about the controversy in Massachusetts involving the failure of more than half of teacher applicants to pass the state’s qualifying test. Chase said he would not comment on the specifics of the case, being unfamiliar with the state assessment. He did say that it was “unfortunate that the issue has become politicized as it has.”Chase spoke about the lack of qualified math and science teachers. Asked if he would support salary incentives for teachers in those subjects, he replied, “It’s something we’re looking at.”

Chase also expressed optimism about Sunday’s merger vote. “Momentum is building in a positive way and I am confident.”

+ The source of Chase’s optimism is hard to discern. Extensive review of the state delegation’s positions reveal very little movement from the state affiliate votes. At this point, California may be slightly more pro-merger than before and Michigan slightly more anti-merger. One source reported that Keith Geiger, one-time president of both the Michigan Education Association and the NEA, came to give the Michigan delegates a pro-merger speech. When he was done, the delegates held a vote. The reported results: One vote to support merger, almost 500 against.

I’ve been officially informed that NEA has NOT polled the delegates, so we can put that particular rumor to rest. States are holding straw polls and sharing the information with like-minded colleagues. So, apparently, NEA is working from virtually the same information as you and I are.

+ The opening of the Representative Assembly was interesting, particularly the invocation, delivered by Rabbi Murray Blackman of Temple Sinai. It was the first prayer I have ever heard that called for increased educational spending and the rejection of school vouchers. I was so completely unprepared for it I didn’t even get it on tape.

Bob Chase followed with a speech that touched all the usual buttons. “The NEA will not let extremists colonize public education for their own ideological ends,” he said. He proceeded to focus on the merger, utilizing some rather far-fetched analogies. “The Principles of Unity are like the Declaration of Independence — just a first step. They describe the basis of the new union. But the ‘Constitution’ — the actual document that spells out how the new organization shall be governed — has yet to be created.”

He then compared the merger to another historical event. “We are gathered in New Orleans because almost 200 years ago, the stewards of our nation signed the Louisiana Purchase. They, like us, were engaged in creating a greater union. They, like us, were facing the prospect of expanding their world by one third. And they, like us, were facing a new frontier of unknown, uncharted territory.”

Having won over the history teachers, Chase went for everyone else. “We must not forget: The Principles of Unity are about public schools and education employees. They are about children…. We cannot forsake these children. We must be the adults who set aside our battles and put our concern for children ahead of our own uncertainties. We must be the adults who do not fail them, who unite for them.”

+ The usual convention business followed: the reading of reports and procedures. Just before lunch (and after most of the press had left) came the speeches by candidates for NEA’s Executive Committee. Running against two incumbents is Bob Gilchrist, president of the Iowa State Education Association. Gilchrist is one of the leaders of the anti-merger forces, and the delegate response to his speech would have given Bob Chase pause. “Never mind what it (AFL-CIO affiliation) means to the NEA officers or even your state officers. I want you to focus on the folks back in your (school) building,” Gilchrist told the delegates.

“A couple of my friends have said, ‘Bob, you know this merger was going along pretty good until you folks in Iowa and some other states got involved. You’re just the proverbial skunk at the picnic.’ Well, I guess I’m a bit of a skunk, but this deal has a smell to it,” he said to the cheering crowd — many from New Jersey, who were seated right in front.

“This election is not a career step for me,” he concluded. “This association is not my career, it’s a service project. My career is teaching.”

+ The other big event of the day was the appearance of Vice President Al Gore. There’s just not enough space to get to everything, but I did record all that happened. For now, suffice it to say that the era of big government being over is over. Gore had a federal program for everything and the delegates loved it.

+ Quote of the Week: “I’ve got one question: Where do you get all that information from?” — NEA Vice President Reg Weaver to this reporter.

This is the EIA Communiqué for June 29, 1998:

+ My editorial on the proposed NEA/AFT merger is scheduled for tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal.

+ The next EIA communiqué will be delivered from New Orleans, where I will be attending the NEA Representative Assembly. I will be accessible via e-mail during the entire convention. I encourage those of you who will also be attending the convention to contact me as soon as possible if you wish to meet.

The politicking for the merger vote has already begun. The latest new information is that the Texas delegation (14th largest) is leaning strongly against merger, while the Ohio delegation (5th largest) is leaning strongly in favor. There have been unverified reports that a recent NEA internal poll shows 62 percent support for merger — putting passage in sight. Since EIA is in contact with a number of delegates, and none has reported being polled by anyone, it’s difficult to evaluate this information.

As regular communiqué readers know, EIA has been handicapping the merger vote for several months. Taking all the information at my disposal into account, EIA estimates current merger support among delegates at 53.5 percent. The next (admittedly unscientific) step is to estimate how much of the opposition is “soft,” and liable to be turned by the very real pressure that will be brought to bear by the national leadership and by those within some of the state caucuses. EIA predicts an ultimate 60-40 vote in support of merger at the NEA Representative Assembly on July 5 — falling some 650 delegate votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority.

EIA will continue to monitor trends while in New Orleans and will report any new information.

+ Depending on whose estimates you believe, somewhere between $25 and $45 million was spent by both sides in the battle over California’s Proposition 226, the paycheck protection initiative. The outcome was in doubt until Election Day, leading EIA to wonder what would have happened if 226 had passed. Now, thanks to documents provided by sources within the California Teachers Association, we have the answer.

CTA drafted two separate budgets for the 1998-99 fiscal year — one to be put into effect if 226 lost, and the other if 226 won. The difference between the two budgets, or, more accurately, the lack of difference, indicates the union planned to circumvent the intent of the new law almost immediately.

First, since 226 would not have gone into effect until July 1, nearly a month after the election, CTA would have emptied the current contents of its Initiative Fund and PAC Fund. The destination of these funds is unknown, but it is safe to assume that most of the PAC money would have ended up as “soft money” donations to Democrat and (to a much lesser extent) Republican party committees. Some candidates might have found themselves with a huge direct infusion of CTA cash. The fate of the Initiative Fund cash is more problematic, since the union is not heavily involved in any of the proposed November initiatives. It is possible the money could have supported a new statewide school construction bond initiative.

In any event, the PAC and Initiative Funds would have begun the new fiscal year at zero — and would have remained that way. CTA was going to completely divest its budget of political expenditures, as defined by the provisions of 226. Therefore, CTA had no intentions of undergoing the so-called “bureaucratic nightmare” of collecting political spending permission slips from its members. Since there was to be no “political spending,” there would be no need to get permission for it.

However, the two contingency budgets are exactly the same size. Dues would not have been reduced by the amount previously spent on politics. In fact, both budgets include an increase in CTA dues of $9 per year — to $399. So where would that former political money have gone? According to the “226 wins” budget: “Funds previously budgeted in the CTA/ABC department and Initiative Fund are reallocated to the budget for Public Policy Center.”

CTA would have formed a new $7 million center which, among other things, would have allowed the union “to engage in organizational outreach to other interested groups with common goals and objectives to obtain visibility and coordinated advocacy on educational issues.” Clearly, the Public Policy Center, barred by state law from providing funds to candidates or initiatives, would have simply provided “outreach” money to other organizations. If these organizations deposited that money in their general funds, they would be free to do with it what they wanted thereafter — even form PACs or donate to candidates.

What’s more, agency fee-payers, who currently are reimbursed the entire amount of their dues allocated to the Initiative and PAC Funds, probably would not have received the same amount back from the Public Policy Center. The amount of the Public Policy Center’s expenditures devoted to politics (governed by a member’s Beck rights, not the circumscribed provisions of 226) would be thrashed out in court or arbitration. In an irony that must have had CTA officials smirking, the passage of 226 could have forced fee-payers, some of the most ardent supporters of the measure, to pay more to the union.

In the weeks to come, EIA will provide details from the actual CTA budget.

+ The Idaho Falls School District granted a 3 percent pay hike for school employees this year, plus an additional 1 percent bonus for teachers. To pay for it, the district emptied the reserve fund, and is cutting the budget for classroom supplies, heat and electricity. “Our main concern is we wanted to give the teachers more,” said board member Ernest Jensen. “We were really concerned.”

+ A U.S. Justice Department investigation of the New Mexico School for the Visually Handicapped revealed the school failed to teach most of its students to read Braille or walk with a cane. When federal investigators visited the school last year, they found only a single part-time Braille teacher, and reported “many of the other classroom teachers appear to consider Braille too difficult for their students.” The Alamogordo school spent $105,000 “per-pupil” last year, with a staff of 160 — of whom, according to the Justice Department, “only 21 provided education and habilitation services directly to students.”

+ Quote of the Week: “It’s not anti-public education to support the escape attempts of these frustrated parents. In fact, though, I would rather support the efforts of the public schools to be more successful. The problem is, so few of them seem to be making a consistent effort to improve. Is it because they don’t know what to do?” — Syndicated columnist William Raspberry, on charters, vouchers and poor minority parents.