Does achieving aggressive school reform require vilifying the teachers unions?
No, answered Education Secretary Arne Duncan at a Denver conference earlier this month, urging instead "tough minded collaboration." Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, by contrast, opts for the vilify path, saying unions are mired in "19th Century thinking." In his now-famous Feb. 16 speech in Washington, Christie said there are only two professions left where consequences don't matter: weathermen and teachers.
After spending nearly a year following school reforms at what everyone points to as ground zero of reformers vs. unions -- Washington D.C. with Michelle Rhee at the helm of D.C. schools -- I'd like to offer a different insight that to some may seem surprising: In the end, unions didn't matter that much in the famous battle Rhee carried out in Washington. And they aren't the true villains blocking national reform.
The unions didn't prevent Rhee from building an aggressive teacher evaluation system, didn't keep her from closing schools, didn't keep her from firing weak teachers and didn't keep her from refusing to lay off teachers based on last hired, first fired. Further, the unions didn't play much of a role in denying re-election to the mayor who appointed Rhee and had no role in her departure.
I may seem like an odd person to be observing this. My book has an entire chapter devoted to clashes between Rhee and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten. Those two did cross swords and the conflict between these two titans of powerful ideas was a classic.
And while their conflict was both fascinating and predictive about where school reforms of the future are headed, in the end, those conflicts mattered little. For example, Rhee didn't need union sign-off to build her IMPACT teacher evaluation system. The same is true of many other school districts; they really don't have a good excuse for never having truly evaluated teachers.
Refusing to conduct lay offs by last-hired didn't require trampling on any teacher contracts in D.C. Only tradition. Laying off the recent hires -- even though many of the new teachers are more effective than the veterans -- is a choice made by many school chiefs eager to avoid conflict with the unions.
True, the Washington Teachers Union (WTU) worked hard to defeat former Mayor Adrian Fenty in the hope of pushing Rhee out of town. And the AFT, according to published reports, spent $1 million for the same purpose. But anyone looking at the polling knows that both unions wasted their time and money; this election swung on racial politics that had little to with AFT-sponsored ads or WTU door-knocking.
So if the unions weren't the key villain, who gets cast in that role, both in Washington and elsewhere? This is a target-rich environment: Inertia, a disbelief that schools will never change, suspicion, knee-jerk attempts to blame parents and treating schools as a repository of adult jobs -- kind of a department of public works populated by schools rather than roadways. School leaders are as much to blame as unions.
Inertia and the disbelief that schools can change are related. If you don't believe schools can change, then inertia becomes acceptable. And once inertia sets in, the schools-as-jobs mentality settles in.
Blaming parents? That gets lumped with poverty and single parenting, you name it. But the blame-game argument gets upended when you compare like populations. If some districts do a far better job than others with mirror populations, such as black males raised in poverty, then what's the excuse? That's the case in D.C.
Some may find it odd that I put "suspicion" on the list, but that's a player. I experienced suspicion first hand when, at the last minute, Weingarten's press handlers canceled a long promised interview. Why? Because, at their insistence, I submitted a list of questions I wanted to ask Weingarten. Soon after my e-mail with the nine questions arrived, the interview got yanked.
Sure, unions play roles in blocking reforms, but blaming the unions for concessions granted by school boards makes no sense. And yes, some unions in some big urban districts do their best to thwart attempts to root out ineffective teachers. But that crime is a misdemeanor compared the felony committed by school chiefs across the country that don't even have unionized workforces. What's their excuse for tolerating teachers who aren't really teaching?
The really, really awkward truth that you never read about: school district officials use unions as their excuse. Oh, we can't seriously evaluate teachers; that would upset the unions. Oh, we can't lay off teachers on any ground other than seniority that would upset the unions. They're just not willing to fight.
Should we really be blaming the unions for all those lapses? Truth is, schools districts get the unions they deserve.
AFT - American Federation of Teachers - A Union of Professionals
The Role Of Teachers' Unions In Education : NPR
Are Teachers' Unions the Problem or the Solution? - Newsweek
Teachers Unions : Teachers Unions News and Photos - chicagotribune.com
Is it proper to have to go through hearings lasting as much as 2 years to decide if a teacher is not doing a decent job in order to remove them?
Is it appropriate to continue to pay a teacher for years when they can't work due to charges against them?
Is it appropriate to pay a teacher with "X" numbers of years of service with outstanding performance the same pay as a teacher with the same years on the job but that is throwing up red flags all over the place regarding their abilities?
Is it appropriate to lay off a teacher that excels in every way imaginable in order to keep someone with 1 more year experience whose performance is suspect?
Is it appropriate to have teachers hired as exempt employees and yet whenever something a little extra is required for the good of the kids they will not respond until they are paid extra to provide it?
If, and only if, you can honestly answer yes to each question above can you even begin to consider that the unions don't deserve the lionshare of the blame for the situation education is in today.
Teachers deserve decent pay reflective of their worth, and respect for their individual accomplishments. Unionization strips them of those possibilities. This leaves teachers being paid equivalent to the worst teacher in the union and a very low respect level.
Poor teachers must be moved out, but that has nothing to do with age or the number of years taught.
Students must be held accountable to work up to a bar, not wait for that bar to be lowered so passing rates look good.
Administrators need to be more prepared for their jobs, the number of people with 2-3 years of teaching experience going into administration is frightening. How can they evaluate teaching success if they have never been a successful teacher?
Parents have to get involved in their students lives, especially when it deals with school
And local communities must find opportunities to help kids find their passions, then work with the other groups to fuel the passions.
Until the time comes that we stop looking for the "magic bullet" in education (standardized testing, for example), nothing will change, it will just be about show and keeping jobs safe.
People certainly have a right to ask what they are getting for their $$$, yet the teachers unions do everything in their power to thwart anybody who suggests some sort of accountability measure.
No, it's not that they forget, they don't care. They don't care that the many in the public work hard for their money and doesn't have the salaries and perks the teachers get.
You say, people have a right to ask what they are getting for their money.....the unions don't agree. They run the show and the public has no say.
As for the 50% of the teachers who leave teaching...How do you know that that 50% doesn't consist, primarily, of competent teachers who have become frustrated by the system? Who, then, is left in the classroom?
Having been born and raised in NJ, hence it's educational system, and raised 5 children in the system, I am quite familiar with the NJ schools.
I can describe the system in one word: Travesty
I applaud Govenor Christi and can assure you he is a hero to many.
Thank you Govenor Christi, keep up the good work and don't give an inch.
Schools have become big business. They do not exist for the purpose of educating children, imo. They exist as cash cows for whomever can get their hands in the pot, and they will all fight tooth and nail to keep their hands there, turning on each other behind the scenes, smiling for the public.
Two whole industries have risen up in the modern day educational system, neither serving the children, just another cash cow for big business:
Public Schools To Prison Pipe Line - ACLU report
Learning disabilities industry.
The voice that is never heard in the ongoing debate regarding the educational system in America is the voice of the individuals who have suffered from the system. Their voices are ignored, or suppressed And if they dare to speak, shamed.
The burden carried by parents and child are insurmountable. They stand alone against the giant.
Have you, sir, ever taken the time to speak to a parent and asked about their experience? Would you believe them?
The education Industry is a big Industry. Its all interconnected. The largest contributor to Obama came from the University of California. More than Goldman Sachs.
The Industry is constantly looking for more ways to expand demand for their product. They get legislators to write laws mandating certain educational degrees in order to work. Teachers must get Masters degrees in order to get the big checks offered by the school system.
People are punished financially if they don't buy the product that the education business sells. It's not just degrees, its certifications and licenses too.
Its a well organized and well connected racket. There too much money in it.
" People are punished financiallÂy if they don't... " Peter007
Yes, they are. And if they try to put their children in a private education, they are still forced to pay taxes to support the corrupt public education; they pay twice. Poor parents can't afford that and their children are stuck.
When you think about it, the Public Edcational System is in many respects a violation of the first amendment, freedom of speech/conscience, specifically. Parents are being prohibited by the government from sending their children to a school of their choice by the added burden of being forced to pay for an education through taxes, thwarting their need an desire to obtain the best education possible for their children.
What is occurring is unconscionable, and not the intention of a free and equal society as intended by the Declaration and Constitution.
What public schools want to teach children is shocking and preverted, especially in Montana.
Schools subvert the law and they are very clever at doing so. They have more tricks up their sleeve then you could possibly imagine. One of their favorites is labeling children as ADHD and throwing them on meds that don't work, just zombi them. Parents don't know any better, and accept the diagnosis, when in fact it could be completely and utterly wrong.
Schools attempt to subvert doing full evaluations, which include a Social History, WISC testing ( a verbal and preformance IQ test, which measures/ascertains any discrepencies between the two) and an academic test which evaluates and places their academic skills.
Parents and teachers often ask that kids be given a full evaluation, but the admins., lie and say they did when they didn't. They dump the child in the ADHD, or ADD classification and call it a day.
Just asking.
In my first 3 years of teaching in NYC, when I did not have tenure and, as with all teachers, was on probation, admin were required to make 6 observations a year with pre and post observation meetings to help me grow and improve my craft, set goals, and plan appropriate PD. In those 3 years, the admin did not do their job and I had a total of 5 observations out of the required 18 and only a few post observations meetings, one of which was retaliation because I refused to do something that was extremely unfair to students. Another person in the room for that one was appalled by the behavior of my boss.
Despite what Rhee et al would have us believe, observations are supposed to be a method for improving teaching by identifying weaknesses and helping teachers improve. Somewhere along the way, people have started to believe the purpose is to weed people out and decide on their pay. Principals are supposed to be lead instructors and are supposed to help teachers improve. Often, they are overburdened by paperwork (not their fault), and.or only have a few years experience, if any at all. We have truly lost our way when the public has accepted that school administrators are the educational equivalent of "efficiency experts" that go to companies to fire people rather than being a collaborative partner in improving schools, their employees practice, and, ultimately the learning outcomes of their students. .
I entered teaching as a third career, and am in my third year. What I have observed are administrators whose major efforts are directed at protecting their positions and paychecks (substantially larger than teachers') by playing politics (and ego-tics) with the local school board (generally politically ambitious people) and socially elite, with education only an incidental. The plethora of physical education majors that crowd the principalities is astounding. (The school I teach at has 12 coaches, but only three teachers in its science department. Funding is apportioned similarly.) These are the people who need to be "evaluated."
Non involved absentee parents single or married they all have the same responsibility to there children
The student who is disruptive non attentive or lazy
The unions who do not think about about the student’s welfare but care only about there own wages and benefits while protecting teachers whom should be fired
The teacher who lacks the proper classroom skills or has lost the passion to teach
Poor leadership or vision from school administrators
The sadist trend I saw was new and bright teachers who came into the system leaving on their own accord to better paying jobs in the private sector. They saw poor working conditions, long hours, a lack of leadership in the building, and low pay as the basis for their decision. There are no easy solutions, as reforming education is like nailing jello to the wall.
Most people in the U.S. have spent a dozen or more years in the Public education system.
In light of Wisconsin, people have done the research, and the answer is "no." Period. Unions do not hurt education or reform. In fact the opposite is true. If you care about public education, change the framing! Try:
"Do all conservatives want to destroy public education?"
"Are Republicans trying to privatize our public school systems?"
"Why won't President Obama defend teachers and their right to collectively bargain?"
Yes, teachers unions often can be a barrier in K-12 reform. But the bigger question is, why? Some of this, to be sure, is about protecting teaching jobs and especially tenured teachers. Much of this, though, is about the realities of education reform, especially in large school districts. The fact is, a new slate of reforms flow into districts like Washington, DC or New York City every three to five years. Most of them are unproven, overemphasize the role of teachers, and don't lead to long-lasting changes in the academic success of students. If I were a high school teacher instead of a college professor and a former manager of a K-16 initiative, I'd want my union to run interference on my behalf, too. And so would police officers, and so would firefighters.
We pick on teachers because they are easy targets It's why Gov. Christie (NJ) could shout down and shut up a teacher over inadequate pay. It's why Gov. Walker (WI) and the state GOP reps thought that they could go after unions (especially teachers unions) in their rhetoric and indirectly, through the budget process. Strip away the speeches and the grandstanding, teacher performance and teachers unions are a proxy for the sexism that remains toward teachers in America.
I'm not sure if it is sexism, or the realization that the Education budget is much larger than that of public safety (fire, police, etc.)
In most states, K-12 expenditures consume more money than ALL other expenditures combined.
1) Good teachers should be paid more money, potentially a lot more.
2) Increased pay needs to measured on merit NOT seniority.
It is with these 2 facts that union creates a conflict of interest. Many people see #1 as a possibility, the problem is the union will view #1 only through the lens of ALL teachers and only provides seniority as the primary differentiator.
We need to come to a time where a good teacher with 5 yrs experience can make more than a mediocre teacher with 10 yrs. We need to come to a time when, if cuts are necessary, the first people out the door are not just the new hires with the least seniority.
Teachers need to be able to control their own career paths and realize if they are good at what they do they can command a premium. They can not be tied to sitting in a district for 30 yrs at the mercy of union negotiations on their behalf.
Now removal of unions is only half the story, teacher funding is via government and we need to get ready to set aside some real $$$ for this. You want the best and brightest teaching our future, we need to pay for that.
It is all about money and cheap labor. So called "reformers" have one ONLY goal on their mind: break the teacher unions , the only obstacle to achieve a cheap labor hire and fire on the will.