In the wake of recent efforts to eliminate collective bargaining, StudentsFirst members have been asking for my views on this critical topic in public education today.
We agree that citizens can no longer avoid the budget crises happening across the country. Governors are having to make very tough decisions. We need to reduce bureaucracies and address bloated pensions that are crippling state budgets, and introduce new models for state employees to contribute to their benefits.
However, in no way does this mean we should take away teachers' rights to collectively bargain.
In my own experience with collective bargaining as chancellor in Washington, D.C., I definitely haven't agreed with everything union leaders believed. We fought tooth and nail on some issues as we strove for a new balance giving more weight to student achievement in our contracts. But in the end, we came to a groundbreaking agreement that finally allowed the district to recognize and reward great teachers and swiftly separate those who weren't up to the task.
When we lament unbalanced union contracts that do not serve children well, it is important to remember that these contracts were signed by two parties, making district leaders just as responsible for the lack of balance that exists today. And district leaders do need to take a hard line in union negotiations to bring a balance back in favor of student achievement. But that doesn't mean we should encourage getting rid of those negotiations altogether. Disagreement and debate can be a good thing and do not have to result in policies favoring adult interests over children's.
StudentsFirst absolutely supports the right of teachers to collectively bargain on many issues, such as base compensation and professional development. Some have asked if we say we are putting students first, why are we agreeing with unions on this point?
Here is why. Collective bargaining for wages and benefits is not the reason American schools fail. Even in "right to work" states that do not have collective bargaining, we still see many of the problems that hurt our schools: bureaucratic inertia, red tape limits on parent choice, seniority-based layoffs, and fiscal irresponsibility. Overseas, many countries see teachers unions drive high standards and expectations for all teachers.
The problem is not collective bargaining. The problems arise when unions use collective bargaining to push for policies that devalue great teachers, such as insisting that all teachers should be treated as interchangeable in terms of performance and pay.
Unions should have every right to continue representing their members, speaking up for teachers as they negotiate salaries, professional development and benefits. But they should not actually be co-managing school systems, and many decisions do not belong on the bargaining table. For example, it would present a huge conflict of interest for unions to be negotiating performance evaluations when unions have to represent effective and ineffective teachers alike. Districts should be able to create evaluations, reward teachers' success, empower parents with more choices, and run the school system while held to high standards for accountability and success.
We founded StudentsFirst to create a balance with other special interests, not to snuff out other voices. To put students first on this issue, we need to be smart and focus on the issues that matter in advancing student achievement. We absolutely can do that with collective bargaining in place.
Follow Michelle Rhee on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@m_rhee
Teachers' union leader's remarks irk mayor
Head of national teachers union defends collective bargaining
Teachers union to host telephone meeting
Wisconsin Universities Vote to Join Teachers Union in Wake of Walker Bill
Teachers' Facebook rebellion against union
BREAKING: Wissahickon, teachers union reach tentative agreement
My experience with education unions is that they function in a blue collar fashion. When performing a job dealing with standard tasks with little differentation between skill level a union is proper to protect an indiviual from being replaced simply to save money. Teaching does not fall in that category. Modeling processes in a standard fashion works against quality teachers and the overall education system as it "rewards" poor teachers and keeps them in the system even though they perform at a low level.
We routinely hear about the poor pay and lack of respect teachers experience. It's time to take a look internally and see how much teachers and their unions own in creating that circumstance. Respect is earned, not bargained for, and having teaching salaries driven by the performance level of the worst teacher in a given system will continually hamper the abililty to pay what an educator is worth.
First, some teacher's contracts are filled with articles supporting work rules for staffs, participation in partnerships that promote events for employees, parents, and students, requests for state and federal funds to be spent directly in the classroom, and teacher input and placement on committees implementing mandatory policy. Teachers have every right to participate in crafting credible evaluations; we want higher expectations for our profession. I challenge you to review different contracts from around the country and focus on the good they provide. It is insulting to the profession to put the slant that unions only care about protecting ineffective teachers and not about student achievement.
Secondly, unions don't want to "devalue" great teachers. We want our profession revered for the job it does- educating kids. So when you and others use "negative" language toward unions, "you" devalue great teachers who are union members.
Lastly, when you mentioned "bloated pensions...", many unions, on behalf of their members, accepted better benefits on the "backend" of teacher's careers in the form of pensions because of low salaries.
Education will not change until teachers are truly allowed to have a voice in the reform of their profession.
First, some teacher's contracts are filled with articles supporting work rules for staffs, creation of partnerships for events to benefit school employees/parents/students, requests for state and federal funds to be spent directly in the classroom, and teacher input on committees for implementation of mandatory policies. All of these things and more affect student achievement and teachers need a "front row seat". When you say that teachers shouldn't be included in the policy creation or process for their evaluations, you are wrong; teachers want high expectations. I challenge you to read a few teacher's contracts from around the country to see all the good. It is an INSULT to the profession to put the slant that union teachers only care to protect ineffective teachers and not care about student achievement.
Secondly, unions don't want to "devalue" great teachers. We want our profession revered for the job it does- educating kids. When you use "negative" language towards unions, "you" devalue great teachers who are union members.
Lastly, when you mentioned "bloated pensions...", many unions accepted better benefits for teachers on the "backend" of their careers in the form of pensions because of the poor salaries they receive now.
As long as Public Workers Unions can buy influence as the funding arm of the democratic Party,we have no choice but to end Collective bargaining.
I have no doubt that people who brought Rhee to the power knew well there was no improvement in students' educational outcomes under her management of DC schools.
The poor , urban school district remains the same before and after Rhee. However scape goating teachers and their unions served well the political agenda of privatizing public education for corporate profits.
We can't seem to avoid the educational consequences of politicians turning over more and more public money to corporate interests. The tough decisions Governors are having is how much money can they give to corporations and get the people of their states to sacrifice for it.
That's ironic coming from someone who came from and pushes for a program that puts anyone with a college degree in a classroom with as little as five weeks of training. The real problem is with "performance" because it is measured by faulty standardized tests that reveal more about a students zip code than their teacher's ability. Corporate school reform supporters like Michelle Rhee have turned standardized tests from a useful barometer that could help identify student and school needs into a mechanism for union busting and privatization.
25 is great; most of the classes have been around that.
When you get much over 30, it does make it tough to meet the needs of every child. Say you have 60 minutes for a math lesson... and, well... do the math. 2 minutes per child doesn't add up to a lot of differentiated instruction. Classes of 40 are not going to be uncommon in the next few years, and trust me... there will be plenty of children left behind. Plenty.
I agree that low class size does not translate to effective teaching.
I contend that large class size can make the job of effective teaching more than challenging.
The fight to increase class size is a way to up the profits for corporate for profit charter schools. More students, fewer teacher, higher profit.
How about the problem that arose when we started treating STUDENTS as interchangeable in terms of performance? Children come from a variety of backgrounds, with varying interests and situations. As teachers, we're required to "differentiate" instruction to reach individual needs, levels, and interests of our students. However, on the "big" day, students sit down and take the same test. Every student has myriad different influences that will affect his or her perfomance, but we expect them to all meet our "standards."
Students are not widgets any more than teachers are. If we're protesting a system that "protects bad teachers," then why are we protecting a very similar system for students, one that essentially requires teachers to bring instruction down rather than up? Instead of trying to force all students into the same mold, why aren't we providing them with authentic support in areas where they're struggling, and choices for their futures? No matter what politicians believe, not every student is going to college. Not every student wants to go to college or is cut out to go to college. We have as many different types of student careers in the world: why do we continue to buy into the "one size fits all" education pholisophy instead of building a legitimately skilled, diverse workforce for our future?
You can give students all the knowledge in the world but if they do not do their part they are not going to be successful. Nothing a teacher does is going to make a difference if the student doesn't do their part.
A teacher friend of mine has students who never do homework, are always in trouble, skip school constantly and are habitually absent. Tell me how she is responsible for their learning? There are virtually zero consequences for students who fail to do their part. Everything is put squarely on the teachers shoulders.
The problem with education in this country is absolutely NOT the teachers fault. It is the stunning level of apathy on the part of students who have no consequences to their level of apathy because the system forces the teachers and schools to work extra hard and jump through hoops to MAKE the students successful while the student barely has to lift a finger or strain a brain cell.