Archive | Unionism RSS feed for this section

Alabama falls short on school choice, education reform

By
On May 9, 2012 in Charter Schools, Unionism

More than 5,600 charter schools are celebrating National Charter Schools Week this week, but none are in Alabama. Barring a miracle, there won’t be any in the near future, either.

The Alabama state senate whiffed last week on a historic opportunity to finally bring charter schools to one of the last states without any. It took an initially modest bill that had already been downsized in earlier rounds of legislating and proceeded to make it a joke.

“As watered down as a glass of iced tea left to sit in Alabama’s summer sun,” the Birmingham News editorialized this week.

The original bill would have allowed up to 50 charters statewide. What passed last week reduced the cap to 20. It also limited charters to the four biggest cities; allowed only the conversion of existing, low-performing schools into charters; gave veto power to the local superintendent or any member of the local legislative delegation; and provided for no appeals process. In other words, it makes charter schools in Alabama pretty much impossible.

The House could revive the bill, but that appears unlikely.

What a shame for the students of Alabama. This year’s Education Week rankings put Alabama at No. 44 among the 50 states in K-12 academic achievement. To be sure, the state has made some recent moves in the right direction by beefing up standards and accountability. But they’re not enough. Alabama students deserve to benefit from the kinds of expanded school choice offerings that have helped students across the nation. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

redefinED blog stars: Michelle Rhee’s misread on vouchers, why teachers unions aren’t to blame and more

By
On May 8, 2012 in General, Parental Choice, Progressives and ed reform, School Choice, Unionism

Editor’s note: This is our second installment of “blog stars,” a compilation of thoughtful material from other ed blogs. If I missed something good, by all means let me know at rmatus@stepupforstudents.org.

Jay P. Greene’s Blog: Much to Learn About Vouchers Rhee Still Has

Michelle Rhee’s faith in regulation is odd. The public school system is super-heavily regulated with laws and policies streaming down from the federal, state and local levels. Despite all of that, much of the system performs at a tragically poor level.  That of course is not to say that vouchers should have no regulation, but the right level of regulation is not “heavy.”

Rhee also places far too much weight on the results of standardized test and gives far too little deference to the judgment of parents. Parents make decisions about schools for a large variety of reasons- including things like school safety, peer groups and the availability of specialized programs. In addition to missing the whole point about school choices being multifaceted with parents best able to judge all the factors, individual test scores bounce around from year to year, they often take a temporary hit when a child transfers and adjusts to a new school.

The notion of having program administrators looking at the math and reading tests and deciding to cast children back to their ‘failing neighborhood school’ is very problematic. Pity the poor voucher program apparatchiks who have to drag children back to a public school where they had been continually bullied because they had the flu on testing day. Pity the children more. The subject of what to do about poorly performing private schools in a choice system is a complex topic and opinions vary widely. Rhee’s proposed solution however does not begin to capture this complexity. Full  post here.

The Blog, Huffington Post: Are Democrats Wrong to Blame Teachers Unions?

But why are teachers unions so much more successful than other unions? The answer is simple: public schools lack both competitors and paying customers, eliminating the checks and balances on union demands that exist in the private sector. A business whose unionized workers drive up costs without raising quality loses customers and may have to lay off workers or even shut down. Union success is thus self-regulating. But if, as a parent, you don’t like the way your local district runs its schools, you have nowhere else to turn — not without moving or paying for a private school. And as a taxpayer, if your local schools mismanage your tax dollars, you can’t send those dollars anywhere else. That’s why public schooling’s inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending has more than doubled in the past four decades despite stagnating or declining academic outcomes: revenues don’t depend on satisfying customers.

That’s not the unions’ fault. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

‘Charter school bill in Alabama is barely on life support’ – political reporter Bill Britt, podcastED

By
On April 27, 2012 in Charter Schools, Education reporting, School Choice, Unionism

A bill to finally bring charter schools to Alabama looked like a slam dunk at the start of that state’s legislative session.  But after a barrage of negative attacks, intense lobbying by the state teachers union and a stealth ad campaign that has tried to link charter schools to gays, lesbians, Muslims and President Obama, its odds of passage are no longer so good, said a veteran political reporter.

“The intent was to derail the legislation,” reporter Bill Britt told redefinED in the podcast interview below. “And amazingly enough, through those efforts and the efforts of the AEA (the Alabama Education Association), the charter school bill in Alabama is barely on life support.”

The bill is modest. It initially sought to allow up to 50 charter schools statewide, a cap that was dropped to 20 in the face of opposition. But, Britt said, even that is too many for the AEA, which views charters as a threat to its membership and power – power already curtailed by the rise of a strong Republican majority in the legislature. “It was always said that the Alabama Democratic Party was a wholly owned subsidiary of the AEA,” said Britt, who runs the online Alabama Political Reporter. “And for the most part, that’s been true.”

Britt said he can’t prove the AEA is behind the stealth campaign, which has used a series of shadowy, strategically placed facebook ads to portray charter schools as a left-wing plot. But he said it’s “highly possible” that paid surrogates, acting on the AEA’s behalf, are.

Whoever’s behind it, he said, it’s working.

“The bill has gone through so many iterations and been weakened so much (that) now, if you believe their thoughts or not, Republicans are saying, ‘Why should I put my political career in jeopardy and have the AEA coming after me or financing my opponent, for a weak bill? A bill that really doesn’t accomplish what we set out to do?’ “ Britt said. “There are a lot of Republicans that have begun to waver on the whole notion of fighting for charter schools.”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

rebuttED: Tax credit scholarships (“vouchers”) don’t drain money from public schools

By
On April 24, 2012 in Funding, School Choice, Unionism

No matter how many times critics of parental choice say it, it’s still not true: Tax credit scholarships in Florida (aka vouchers) do not drain money from public schools.

The latest example: An op-ed in Sunday’s Ocala Star Banner by Andy Ford, president of the state teachers union. Ford (pictured below) focuses on the state of education funding in Florida, and much of what he argues is undeniable. These are tough times for schools. The money that Gov. Rick Scott and the Legislature scraped together for education this year is still billions short of where the state was five years ago. I have one child in public school. In a few months, I’ll have two. I sympathize.

But then Ford redirects his financial argument toward tax-credit scholarships, suggesting they’re part of the reason why public schools are in dire straits. “There’s also money in the budget for expanding charter schools and increasing money for corporate voucher schools,” he writes. “Here’s another example of political leaders favoring unproven and less-accountable schools over our traditional neighborhood schools.”

He concludes: “At a time when the governor and lawmakers doled out more tax giveaways for corporations, more money for unaccountable voucher schools and more support and freedom for for-profit charter schools, our public schools are given a budget far from adequate and far from a true investment in our children.”

We’ll save the issue of accountability for another day, because it’s the pervasive myth of financial loss that resonates most with parents and voters. Despite what Ford says, one credible, independent report after another has found tax credit scholarships save taxpayer money. The Collins Center for Public Policy came to that conclusion, as did Florida Tax Watch, the Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability and, just last month, an impact report from Florida’s Revenue Estimating Conference. The latter found the tax credit program will save taxpayers $57.9 million next year alone. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

What do gays, lesbians, Muslims and President Obama have to do with charter schools? To some in Alabama, a lot

By
On April 23, 2012 in Charter Schools, Education reporting, General, School Choice, Unionism

Somebody in Alabama is so desperately scared of school choice, they’ve launched a stealth campaign to make school choice seem scary. Their goal: to tarnish charter schools by linking them to gays, lesbians, Muslims, Democrats, abortions – and if that’s still not frightening enough – to Michelle Rhee and President Obama.

The horror that would spawn such a reaction? The Education Options Act of 2012, a bill now being considered by the Alabama Legislature. It would allow up to 20 charter schools statewide (down from 50 initially) and only in school districts with persistently low-performing schools. Florida, by comparison, has more than 400 charter schools in dozens of districts, enrolling 175,000 students.

But in Alabama – one of the few states left without any charter schools – even a handful, apparently, is apocalyptic enough to throw everything against the wall. In recent weeks, somebody who leaves no obvious fingerprints has posted a series of fleeting, shadowy facebook ads designed, apparently, to make folks think charter schools are a radical, left-wing conspiracy.

Left-wing conspiracy? The darkly creative minds behind the ads should at least get credit for attempting to upend the dominant narrative about school choice – that it’s a right-wing conspiracy. One ad suggests charter schools will protect gay and lesbian kids who are bullied in Alabama schools. Another says “Coming to Alabama soon: Barack Obama Charter School. Support our President and Charter Schools.”  Yet others raise the specter of Muslim charter schools  – and we all know what that means, don’t we?

“If you believe the advertising on Facebook, Gay/Lesbian and Muslim matriculation will be what Alabama parents have to look forward to if the Education Options Act of 2012 becomes law,” Bill Britt with the Alabama Political Reporter, an alternative online news source, wrote recently. “This seems silly on its face but it is nevertheless effective in inciting fear and prejudice.” Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Low-income parents vs. teachers unions on teacher layoff policies

By
On April 19, 2012 in Parent empowerment, Unionism

Editor’s note: High-poverty schools and low-income families are hurt the most by last-in-first-out layoff policies for teachers. In Los Angeles, groups representing low-income parents filed suit against the practice – and so far, they’re winning. Berkeley law professor and redefinED host Stephen D. Sugarman writes in this post that low-income parents have the right to equitable treatment for their children.

Unions typically bargain for terms that protect current members and, if need be, give priority to members with more seniority than those with less. In hard times when an employer is downsizing, this “last in, first out” policy best serves the needs of longer-term union members who are most experienced and perhaps most economically dependent on holding onto a job they have done for some time. It also provides a routine practice that lies in contrast to what might be an employer’s desire to lay off those who are, say, the most expensive, the least productive, the most troublesome, or the most active union members. 

This “last in, first out” plan is typical in union contacts with public school districts. What it means when teachers have to be laid off is that the least experienced in the district are the first to be let go. These teachers are generally the most recently trained and the least expensive. It is also typically the case that they are disproportionately employed in schools that have had the hardest time attracting and retaining effective teachers, schools that almost invariably contain a disproportionate share of children from low-income families and children of color. These are often under-performing schools as well, although in some cases they might have recently put into effect a promising school improvement regime with the cooperation of the in-place local teaching team. 

Does this mean that, in times of economic downturn and curtailed school district budgets, high-needs schools end up with very few teachers and terrible student/teacher ratios? No. Union contracts and federal law require that student teacher ratios remain fairly comparable across the schools in a district. Instead, slightly more experienced teachers from within the district are meant to be shifted over to these teacher-short schools, either via transfer or after themselves being laid off and then re-hired. In theory, this could actually provide high need schools with more experienced teachers than they had before, and that could possibly be desirable for their students on the theory (generally supported by research) that brand-new teachers are generally less effective that those with three or more years of experience. 

But on the ground, it often works out quite differently. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

redefinED roundup: charter school performance in Florida, school shopping in Michigan and more

By
On April 16, 2012 in Charter Schools, Education and Public Policy, General, Parental Choice, School Choice, Unionism

Florida: State report says charter school students perform better than peers in traditional public schools. (Florida Times Union) State task force will begin planning for digital learning. (Orlando Sentinel)

Washington, D.C.: President Obama should support the D.C. voucher program, which has shown good results and enjoys bipartisan support, the Washington Post editorializes.

Montana: Businessman gives $4.6 million to expand private school choice. (Bozeman Daily Chronicle)

New Hampshire: Lawmakers begin planning override of Gov. John Lynch’s potential veto of a bill to establish tax credit scholarships. (New Hampshire Union Leader) Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Former teacher: Progressives need to better convince progressives about need for education reform

By
On April 9, 2012 in Progressives and ed reform, Teacher empowerment, Unionism

Editor’s note: The set-in-stone narrative about education reform is progressives vs. conservatives, Republicans vs. Democrats, teachers unions vs. the “corporate agenda.” The truth is more complex – and more colorful. One of the more dynamic angles is the degree to which progressives are divided. In this guest post, former teacher Catherine Durkin Robinson makes a case that progressives have become too resistant to needed change - and that fellow progressives need to do a better job persuading them.

When I began working in education reform, some of my Democratic friends and fellow activists weren’t happy. Some had long railed against any attempt to change education, empower parents or hold teachers responsible for their own performance. While plenty of Democrats support reform, including President Obama, some of my friends looked at other supporters of the movement – supporters like Jeb Bush – and freaked out.

I was one of them, once.

Years ago, as a new high school social studies teacher, I wondered how testing fit into the curriculum. I looked at too many students, with hungry bellies and less than ideal home lives, and wondered how to help them learn. I looked at my special education students, too often seen as afterthoughts, and wondered how to provide the unique help they needed. They already came to me so far behind their peers. How would I reverse years of a failed system in just under 45 minutes each day?

Then I got to work.

By my eighth year of teaching, I was helping even my most challenging students learn and grow. I prepared them for important assessments without teaching to the test. I showed them history and economics could be entertaining. The recipe? An unwavering belief in my students’ ability to learn, setting high expectations for them, and working hard to follow through and do justice to those principles.

But then I looked around me.

Too many other adults in the lives of these students relied on excuses for why they couldn’t do an effective job. While passionate educators devised creative and unique lesson plans, ineffective teachers blamed parents or faulted an unfair society. Principals faulted a lack of resources and elected officials blamed others. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Michelle Rhee’s evolution on school choice

By
On March 29, 2012 in Charter Schools, Customization, General, Online learning, Parent empowerment, Parental Choice, School Choice, Unionism

Michelle Rhee and I are members of the same political tribe. We’re progressive Democrats. Throughout most of the 1800s and into the mid-1970s, our tribe supported school choice, including allowing parents to use public funds to help pay for private school tuition. Our group’s position began to change in the late 1960s as urban teachers, who are core tribal members, began to unionize. By the time Jimmy Carter ran for president in 1976, the transition was complete. Progressive Democrats opposed school choice.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, school districts began using within-district school choice to promote voluntary desegregation, so our tribal position began to gradually evolve. I say gradually because in 1986, I led a floor fight at the annual National Education Association convention, on behalf of then-NEA President Mary Hatwood Futrell, for a resolution endorsing within-district magnet schools. The opposition argued that magnet schools were voucher programs which siphoned off money and the best students from neighborhood schools. The resolution failed.

As the number of unionized teachers working in magnet schools expanded, the NEA eventually embraced magnet schools and other within-district school choice programs, and progressive Democrats followed. Today most progressive Democrats support within-district school choice programs that employ unionized teachers, and they oppose publicly-funded private school choice. But this latter position is evolving. Increasingly, core progressive constituencies, such as African-Americans and Hispanics, are embracing full school choice, as are some progressive leaders.

At Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s annual education reform conference a few years ago, Michelle Rhee began her morning speech by saying she was hired in Washington D.C. to reverse the flow of students into charter schools. But in her new position as founder and CEO of StudentsFirst, Michelle is slowly becoming more open to school choice. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Parent trigger founder: Teachers unions launched “sweep and destroy” mission to deny parents

By
On March 28, 2012 in General, Parent empowerment, Parental Choice, Unionism

Two weeks ago, Gloria Romero, the former California state senator who wrote the original parent trigger law, wrote in this redefinED piece that the “status quo” killed the parent trigger bill in Florida. Today in this op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Romero uses much tougher language – and singles out a specific foe - to describe the parent trigger battle in two California locales. Some excerpts:

In both Adelanto and Compton, parents trying to exercise their rights felt the full onslaught of a “sweep and destroy” mission launched by the California Teachers Assn. and its affiliates. What had taken weeks to build was destroyed in a few days of heavy-handed lobbying. Parents have reported being told outright lies about charter law and about their rights. Some parents reported that they were even threatened with deportation if they didn’t rescind their signatures …

A recent survey by California Common Cause revealed that the top lobbying force in the state in 2011 was the 300,000-plus membership of the California Teachers Assn. In other words, the massive teachers union is the top political force in the eighth-largest economy in the world. The union has made it clear that it wants to take the trigger out of the hands of mothers and fathers. Parents who attempt to lobby for their children now find themselves on a collision course with this powerful organization …

So what can we do to help parents actually see things clearly without biased interference? We need to direct attention to failing schools, so that parents understand the situation and understand that they are not alone. And when they send out cries for help, we should defend their right to occupy a political arena previously dominated by vested interests.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }