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

In California, today – the Ides of March – is Pink Slip Day. By state law, today is the deadline for school districts to notify teachers of their possible layoff for the 2011-12 school year, which begins in September.

Because they have to give such notice well in advance of knowing what their final budgets will be, district administrators tend to err on the side of caution, and send pink slips to the maximum number of employees. While this has a certain PR value to the California Teachers Association, union officers also recognize the disruptive effect the tentative notice has, particularly on new teachers, who are the most likely to be laid off.

It’s also bad public policy, since it gooses politicians to react to inflated numbers. Emily Alpert of the Voice of San Diego has done some stellar work on the topic, citing a report by Education Trust West, which states:

Our data reveal that of the 6,600 pink slips sent to teachers in three of California’s largest districts in March of 2010, 78 percent were rescinded by July 1. If this rescission rate is similar statewide, we can estimate that fewer than 5,000 jobs — of the 22,000 initially projected — were actually lost in 2010. And that estimate is likely to be on the high side.

Alpert found that Bill Freeman, president of the San Diego Education Association, also thinks it’s bad policy:

My concern is we’re alarming teachers. We’re alarming the community. And in some cases we’ll run teachers off. If they receive a pink slip and there’s a job somewhere else, that’s a bird in the hand. They are going to go there.

It’s an issue in many other states, and the early deadline isn’t providing a benefit to the public or the teachers themselves. During a time when there’s a fight over every aspect of education labor policy, this seems like one place for common ground.

Click here to read:

1) Sex, Drinks and Rock & Roll: The Wisconsin Education Association Council’s Collective Bargaining Agreement With Its Own Employees

2) Last Week’s Intercepts

3) Quote of the Week

He only appears every so often, but it’s always worthwhile.

Hans Moleman explains why the showdown in Wisconsin was foreordained.

While protesters in Wisconsin are screaming about democracy and having their voices heard, the Anoka-Hennepin teachers’ union in Minnesota utilized collective bargaining and, together with district management, hammered out an agreement to institute the state Q Comp performancy pay program instead of just the traditional salary schedule.

The negotiators must have done a fine job, since the tentative agreement went to a vote of the union rank-and-file, and there was a more than 72 percent turnout of the 2,811 eligible voters. Almost 59 percent of the voters approved the plan.

But there will be no performance pay in Anoka-Hennepin. That’s because the threshold for instituting performance pay is 75 percent.

I can’t find that provision in the collective bargaining agreement itself, though I assume there is an MOU or some other document that spells it out.

Anoka-Hennepin Education Minnesota president Julie Blaha said:

Q-Comp garnered 58.8% of those voting, but when you consider that 72.4% of our membership voted, that translates to 42.6% of the entire membership actually casting yes votes. One of the reasons we have super majority requirement was so we would get closer to a true majority when you factor in those who don’t vote. Also, we know that initiatives work best with wide buy-in.

Perhaps there are good reasons for having a three-quarters threshold for Q Comp. I wonder if having such a supermajority requirement was itself subject to a supermajority vote, or whether a mere 50% plus one got the job done.

I’m sure the advocates for “teacher voice” can explain how in Anoka-Hennepin those who didn’t speak – the non-voters – determined the outcome.

The fact that teachers’ unions spend a lot of money on politics will not come as news to readers of this blog, but we are witnessing a new phenomenon in recent months.

The money isn’t buying very much anymore.

NEA reportedly spent $40 million on the 2010 elections, and we know how they turned out. As we’re seeing, the loss of state legislative seats was a lot more devastating to the union’s cause than the loss of the U.S. House. In Oklahoma, NEA committed up to $3 million for a ballot measure that garnered less than 19 percent of the vote.

Now we hear that the New Jersey Education Association spent $6.6 million on media ads last year, only to see its public approval rating drop to 39 percent. No one else spent as much as $500,000.

Before we accept this as evidence the union is losing the PR war, let’s remember that quantity has a quality all its own*. Screaming in someone’s ear may not be an effective method of communication, but it might be sufficient to get them out of your way.

_____

*Quote widely attributed to Stalin, but in applying the Josh Billings rule, we find no primary source for that citation.

Over the years, the National Education Association has created many subsidiaries to fulfill a multitude of tasks not suitable for the union to handle directly. One of these is a 501(c)(3) charity organization called The NEA Foundation. Its activities have been similar to those of any other education-related charity. The NEA Foundation lists its mission priorities as closing the achievement gap, providing small grants to educators, and handing out awards. The foundation also purchases library books for needy schools and helps fundraise to build schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Member dues money helped create the endowment for The NEA Foundation, but its 501(c)(3) status allows it to accept donations from individuals, corporations and philanthropies – something the union itself cannot do. The foundation currently has net assets of more than $40 million.

But with teacher collective bargaining in danger in a handful of states, NEA is drawing on all of its resources to make a stand – and that includes The NEA Foundation.

Having already decided to tap the members for additional funds for its political war chest, NEA sees the opportunity to use the foundation to raise money from non-members and outside groups for its political battles to come.

Under the auspices of The NEA Foundation, the union created The 51 Fund:

By donating to the 51 Fund, support will go to where the need is greatest: to assist people fighting back on the frontlines. The 51 Fund will help feed volunteers, organize rallies, and get the message out to people everywhere that the right to collective bargaining ensures a strong middle-class. And, a strong middle-class is the back-bone of our economic vitality.

Checks are to be made out to the NEA Foundation, though the web site advises parenthetically “Please indicate on check that contribution is for the ’51 Fund’.” What isn’t clear is how much segregation exists between the 51 Fund and the rest of the charity. If I write a check to The NEA Foundation, will my donation buy library books for underprivileged children, or pizza for picket captains at state capitols?

I’ll leave the rest of the jokes to you, but I do eagerly await the response of Joel McNally.