Showing posts with label NEA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NEA. Show all posts

Sunday, June 08, 2014

How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution

Maura Larkins' comment:

I don't understand why anyone would think that Gates is motivated by self-interest when he tries to improve education. Why don't people accuse him of self-interest when he spends huge amounts on limiting disease in Africa?

Why are teachers upset about being asked to teach kids basic concepts?

Obviously, not all classrooms will be able to cover all the concepts. Why are teachers so anxious about that fact? It's a goal, for heaven's sake. Anyone who thinks that every kids will learn all the concepts hasn't been paying attention. The important thing is that kids learn as many basic concepts as they can.

Teachers should be responsible for kids making significant strides. But teachers don't need to get hysterical over the fact that they won't be able to teach all the standards to all the kids.

If your students are learning hardly any concepts, then, yes, it's time to worry.

In my experience, the teachers that get upset about standards are the ones who don't know how to teach. They just say out loud to their students whatever is in their textbook.

The teachers unions do not want the most effective teachers to be favored in any way because that would interfere with union politics. Smarter teachers are more likely to question how things are done and don't stay "on message" as reliably as struggling teachers.

The fact is that smarter teachers adapt better to new ideas. Common core is easy for them because they are accustomed to teaching concepts rather than vocalizing the textbook page by page.

The teachers union appeals to the least common denominator among teachers: the mediocre teacher. That's where the bulk of their big bucks comes from.

“The guys who search for oil, they spend a lot of money researching new tools,” Gates said. “Medicine — they spend a lot of money finding new tools. Software is a very R and D-oriented industry. The funding, in general, of what works in education . . . is tiny. It’s the lowest in this field than any field of human endeavor.


Link--click HERE to see full interview: Bill Gates on the Common Core



How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution


Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates is taking heat from education groups, which say the Gates Foundation’s philanthropic support comes with strings attached. Here, he responds to his critics in an interview with The Washington Post’s Lyndsey Layton.
Written by Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post
June 7, 2014

The pair of education advocates had a big idea, a new approach to transform every public-school classroom in America. By early 2008, many of the nation’s top politicians and education leaders had lined up in support.

But that wasn’t enough. The duo needed money — tens of millions of dollars, at least — and they needed a champion who could overcome the politics that had thwarted every previous attempt to institute national standards.

So they turned to the richest man in the world.

On a summer day in 2008, Gene Wilhoit, director of a national group of state school chiefs, and David Coleman, an emerging evangelist for the standards movement, spent hours in Bill Gates’s sleek headquarters near Seattle, trying to persuade him and his wife, Melinda, to turn their idea into reality.

Coleman and Wilhoit told the Gateses that academic standards varied so wildly between states that high school diplomas had lost all meaning, that as many as 40 percent of college freshmen needed remedial classes and that U.S. students were falling behind their foreign competitors.

The pair also argued that a fragmented education system stifled innovation because textbook publishers and software developers were catering to a large number of small markets instead of exploring breakthrough products. That seemed to resonate with the man who led the creation of the world’s dominant computer operating system.

“Can you do this?” Wilhoit recalled being asked. “Is there any proof that states are serious about this, because they haven’t been in the past?”

See all SDER posts re Common Core.

Wilhoit responded that he and Coleman could make no guarantees but that “we were going to give it the best shot we could.”

After the meeting, weeks passed with no word. Then Wilhoit got a call: Gates was in.

What followed was one of the swiftest and most remarkable shifts in education policy in U.S. history.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the development of what became known as the Common Core State Standards. With more than $200 million, the foundation also built political support across the country, persuading state governments to make systemic and costly changes.

Bill Gates was de facto organizer, providing the money and structure for states to work together on common standards in a way that avoided the usual collision between states’ rights and national interests that had undercut every previous effort, dating from the Eisenhower administration.

The Gates Foundation spread money across the political spectrum, to entities including the big teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, and business organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — groups that have clashed in the past but became vocal backers of the standards.

Money flowed to policy groups on the right and left, funding research by scholars of varying political persuasions who promoted the idea of common standards. Liberals at the Center for American Progress and conservatives affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council who routinely disagree on nearly every issue accepted Gates money and found common ground on the Common Core.

One 2009 study, conducted by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute with a $959,116 Gates grant, described the proposed standards as being “very, very strong” and “clearly superior” to many existing state standards.

Gates money went to state and local groups, as well, to help influence policymakers and civic leaders. And the idea found a major booster in President Obama, whose new administration was populated by former Gates Foundation staffers and associates. The administration designed a special contest using economic stimulus funds to reward states that accepted the standards.

The result was astounding: Within just two years of the 2008 Seattle meeting, 45 states and the District of Columbia had fully adopted the Common Core State Standards.

The math standards require students to learn multiple ways to solve problems and explain how they got their answers, while the English standards emphasize nonfiction and expect students to use evidence to back up oral and written arguments. The standards are not a curriculum but skills that students should acquire at each grade. How they are taught and materials used are decisions left to states and school districts.

The standards have become so pervasive that they also quickly spread through private Catholic schools. About 100 of 176 Catholic dioceses have adopted the standards because it is increasingly difficult to buy classroom materials and send teachers to professional development programs that are not influenced by the Common Core, Catholic educators said.

And yet, because of the way education policy is generally decided, the Common Core was instituted in many states without a single vote taken by an elected lawmaker. Kentucky even adopted the standards before the final draft had been made public.

States were responding to a “common belief system supported by widespread investments,” according to one former Gates employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the foundation.

The movement grew so quickly and with so little public notice that opposition was initially almost nonexistent. That started to change last summer, when local tea party groups began protesting what they viewed as the latest intrusion by an overreaching federal government — even though the impetus had come from the states. In some circles, Common Core became known derisively as “Obamacore.”

Since then, anti-Common Core sentiment has intensified, to the extent that it has become a litmus test in the Republican Party ahead of the GOP’s 2016 presidential nomination process. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, whose nonprofit Foundation for Excellence in Education has received about $5.2 million from the Gates Foundation since 2010, is one of the Common Core’s most vocal supporters. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who, like Bush, is a potential Republican presidential candidate, led a repeal of the standards in his state. In the past week, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R), a former advocate of the standards, signed a law pulling her state out, days after South Carolina’s Republican governor, Nikki Haley, did the same.

Some liberals are angry, too, with a few teacher groups questioning Gates’s influence and motives. Critics say Microsoft stands to benefit from the Common Core’s embrace of technology and data — a charge Gates vehemently rejects.

[Maura Larkins' comment: the teachers union, of which I am a member, does not want the most effective teachers to be favored in any way because that would interfere with union politics. Smarter teachers are more likely to question how things are done and don't stay "on message" as reliably as struggling teachers. The fact is that smarter teachers adapt better to new ideas. Common core is easy for them because they are accustomed to teaching concepts rather than vocalizing the textbook page by page.

The teachers union appeals to the least common denominator among teachers: the mediocre teacher.]

A group calling itself the “Badass Teachers Association,” citing opposition to what it considers market-based education reform, plans a June 26 protest outside the Gates Foundation’s headquarters in Seattle.

In an interview, Gates said his role is to fund the research and development of new tools, such as the Common Core, and offer them to decision-makers who are trying to improve education for millions of Americans. It’s up to the government to decide which tools to use, but someone has to invest in their creation, he said.

“The country as a whole has a huge problem that low-income kids get less good education than suburban kids get,” Gates said. “And that is a huge challenge. . . . Education can get better. Some people may not believe that. Education can change. We can do better.”

“There’s a lot of work that’s gone into making these [standards] good,” Gates continued. “I wish there was a lot of competition, in terms of [other] people who put tens of millions of dollars into how reading and writing could be improved, how math could be improved.”

Referring to opinion polls, he noted that most teachers like the Common Core standards and that those who are most familiar with them are the most positive.

...Common Core’s first win

The first victory for Common Core advocates came on a snowy evening in Kentucky in February 2010, when the state’s top education officials voted unanimously to accept the standards.

“There was no dissent,” said Terry Holliday, Kentucky’s education commissioner. “We had punch and cookies to celebrate.”

It was not by chance that Kentucky went first.

The state enjoyed a direct connection to the Common Core backers — Wilhoit, who had made the personal appeal to Bill and Melinda Gates during that pivotal 2008 meeting, is a former Kentucky education commissioner.

Kentucky was also in the market for new standards. Alarmed that as many as 80 percent of community college students were taking remedial classes, lawmakers had recently passed a bill that required Kentucky to write new, better K-12 standards and tests.

“All of our consultants and our college professors had reviewed the Common Core standards, and they really liked them,” Holliday said. “And there was no cost. We didn’t have any money to do this work, and here we were, able to tap into this national work and get the benefits of the best minds in the country.”

“Without the Gates money,” Holliday added, “we wouldn’t have been able to do this.”

Over time, at least $15 million in Gates money was directed both to the state — to train teachers in Common Core practices and purchase classroom materials — and to on-the-ground advocacy and business groups to help build public support.

Armed with $476,553 from Gates, the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce’s foundation produced a seven-minute video about the value and impact of the Common Core, a tool kit to guide employers in how to talk about its benefits with their employees, a list of key facts that could be stuffed into paycheck envelopes, and other promotional materials written by consultants.

The tool kit provided a sample e-mail that could be sent to workers describing “some exciting new developments underway in our schools” that “hold great promise for creating a more highly skilled workforce and for giving our students, community and state a better foundation on which to build a strong economic future.”

The chamber also recruited a prominent Louisville stockbroker to head a coalition of 75 company executives across the state who lent their names to ads placed in business publications that supported the Common Core.

“The notion that the business community was behind this, those seeds were planted across the state, and that reaped a nice harvest in terms of public opinion,” said David Adkisson, president and chief executive of the Kentucky chamber.

The foundation run by the National Education Association received $501,580 in 2013 to help put the Common Core in place in Kentucky.

Gates-backed groups built such strong support for the Common Core that critics, few and far between, were overwhelmed.

“They have so much money to throw around, they can impact the Kentucky Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Education, they can impact both the AFT and the NEA,” said Brent McKim, president of the teachers union in Jefferson County, Ky., whose early complaint that the standards were too numerous to be taught well earned him a rebuke by Holliday.




[Maura Larkins' comment: It takes about two minutes for a highly effective teacher to teach a single, simple concept. The rest of the time is spent on re-teaching, using different tactics for different kids, reinforcement, and exploration and wider applications of the concept for the more advanced students.]


The foundation’s backing was crucial in other states, as well. Starting in 2009, it had begun ramping up its grant-giving to local nonprofit organizations and other Common Core advocates.

The foundation, for instance, gave more than $5 million to the University of North Carolina-affiliated Hunt Institute, led by the state’s former four-term Democratic governor, Jim Hunt, to advocate for the Common Core in statehouses around the country.

The grant was the institute’s largest source of income in 2009, more than 10 times the size of its next largest donation.


Bill Gates

Link--click HERE to see full interview: Bill Gates on the Common Core

Bill Gates sat down with The Post’s Lyndsey Layton in March to defend the Gates Foundation’s pervasive presence in education and its support of the Common Core. Here is the full, sometimes tense, interview.

With the Gates money, the Hunt Institute coordinated more than a dozen organizations — many of them also Gates grantees — including the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, National Council of La Raza, the Council of Chief State School Officers, National Governors Association, Achieve and the two national teachers unions.

The Hunt Institute held weekly conference calls between the players that were directed by Stefanie Sanford, who was in charge of policy and advocacy at the Gates Foundation. They talked about which states needed shoring up, the best person to respond to questions or criticisms and who needed to travel to which state capital to testify, according to those familiar with the conversations.

The Hunt Institute spent $437,000 to hire GMMB, a strategic communications firm owned by Jim Margolis, a top Democratic strategist and veteran of both of Obama’s presidential campaigns. GMMB conducted polling around standards, developed fact sheets, identified language that would be effective in winning support and prepared talking points, among other efforts...

Later in the process, Gates and other foundations would pay for mock legislative hearings for classroom teachers, training educators on how to respond to questions from lawmakers.

The speed of adoption by the states was staggering by normal standards. A process that typically can take five years was collapsed into a matter of months.

“You had dozens of states adopting before the standards even existed, with little or no discussion, coverage or controversy,” said Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, which has received $4 million from the Gates Foundation since 2007 to study education policy, including the Common Core. “People weren’t paying attention. We were in the middle of an economic meltdown and the health-care fight, and states saw a chance to have a crack at a couple of million bucks if they made some promises.”

The decision by the Gates Foundation to simultaneously pay for the standards and their promotion is a departure from the way philanthropies typically operate, said Sarah Reckhow, an expert in philanthropy and education policy at Michigan State University.

“Usually, there’s a pilot test — something is tried on a small scale, outside researchers see if it works, and then it’s promoted on a broader scale,” Reckhow said. “That didn’t happen with the Common Core. Instead, they aligned the research with the advocacy. . . . At the end of the day, it’s going to be the states and local districts that pay for this.”

Working hand in hand

While the Gates Foundation created the burst of momentum behind the Common Core, the Obama administration picked up the cause and helped push states to act quickly.

There was so much cross-pollination between the foundation and the administration, it is difficult to determine the degree to which one may have influenced the other.

Several top players in Obama’s Education Department who shaped the administration’s policies came either straight from the Gates Foundation in 2009 or from organizations that received heavy funding from the foundation...

They created Race to the Top, a $4.3 billion contest for education grants. Under the contest rules, states that adopted high standards stood the best chance of winning. It was a clever way around federal laws that prohibit Washington from interfering in what takes place in classrooms. It was also a tantalizing incentive for cash-strapped states.

...[M]ost states eyeing Race to the Top money opted for the easiest route and signed onto the Common Core...

On the defensive

Now six years into his quest, Gates finds himself in an uncomfortable place — countering critics on the left and right who question whether the Common Core will have any impact or negative effects, whether it represents government intrusion, and whether the new policy will benefit technology firms such as Microsoft.

Gates is disdainful of the rhetoric from opponents. He sees himself as a technocrat trying to foster solutions to a profound social problem — gaping inequalities in U.S. public education — by investing in promising new ideas.

Education lacks research and development, compared with other areas such as medicine and computer science. As a result, there is a paucity of information about methods of instruction that work.

“The guys who search for oil, they spend a lot of money researching new tools,” Gates said. “Medicine — they spend a lot of money finding new tools. Software is a very R and D-oriented industry. The funding, in general, of what works in education . . . is tiny. It’s the lowest in this field than any field of human endeavor. Yet you could argue it should be the highest.”

Gates is devoting some of his fortune to correct that. Since 1999, the Gates Foundation has spent approximately $3.4 billion on an array of measures to try to improve K-12 public education, with mixed results.

It spent about $650 million on a program to replace large urban high schools with smaller schools, on the theory that students at risk of dropping out would be more likely to stay in schools where they forged closer bonds with teachers and other students. That led to a modest increase in graduation rates, an outcome that underwhelmed Gates and prompted the foundation to pull the plug.

Gates has said that one of the benefits of common standards would be to open the classroom to digital learning, making it easier for software developers — including Microsoft — to develop new products for the country’s 15,000 school districts.

In February, Microsoft announced that it was joining Pearson, the world’s largest educational publisher, to load Pearson’s Common Core classroom materials on Microsoft’s tablet, the Surface. That product allows Microsoft to compete for school district spending with Apple, whose iPad is the dominant tablet in classrooms.

Gates dismissed any suggestion that he is motivated by self-interest.

[Maura Larkins' comment: I don't understand why anyone would think that Gates is motivated by self-interest. He has enough money to give his own kids exactly the education he wants them to have. He's got billions. He isn't interested in making money off charter schools. Why don't people accuse him of self-interest when he spends huge amounts on limiting disease in Africa?}

“I believe in the Common Core because of its substance and what it will do to improve education,” he said. “And that’s the only reason I believe in the Common Core.”


Bill and Melinda Gates, Obama and Arne Duncan are parents of school-age children, although none of those children attend schools that use the Common Core standards. The Gates and Obama children attend private schools, while Duncan’s children go to public school in Virginia, one of four states that never adopted the Common Core.

Still, Gates said he wants his children to know a “superset” of the Common Core standards — everything in the standards and beyond...

Thursday, July 04, 2013

Union v. union: Rumblings of Discontent in NEA's Georgia Affiliate

Rumblings of Discontent in NEA's Georgia Affiliate
Stephen Sawchuck
Edweek.org
July 04, 2013

I got to the Representative Assembly a bit early this morning to avoid the coffee line and was promptly handed a bunch of yellow fliers from some staff from the Georgia Association of Educators.

"Fair Play!" it reads. "While the [Georgia Staff Organization] staff fights every day to insure fairness and professionalism for GAE members, the GAE Executive Director said not for his staff."

Apparently, GAE management and its unionized staff organization cannot reach a new contract after about a year of bargaining. Sticking points, the staff organization says, include salary, insurance, and seniority.

It's a good reminder that each NEA affiliate's staff is unionized, putting its executives in a shoe-on-the-other-foot position when renegotiating staff benefits and perquisites. Whether you view this as a shining example of the principles of unionism at work or merely ironic probably depends on where you stand politically. But it's in any case historically led to a few odd instances of the union picketing the Union. (NEA National narrowly avoided a similar situation during a period of reorganization last year.)

And that isn't all the beef out of Georgia. According to the list of upcoming New Business Items, one apparently submitted by retirees wants the NEA to appoint an independent investigator "to correct all the injustices and disenfranchisement incurred to GAE-Retired in Georgia."

(As I publish this, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel is ruling the Georgia NBI Out of Order, saying the issues must be handled through the union's constitution and bylaws).

Thursday, January 26, 2012

A whole lot of lawsuits in Jurupa Unified School District in Riverside

January 25, 2012
Subject: Ermine Nelson: PERB Case No. LA-CE-5517-E

I attended yesterday’s PERB hearing for Ms. Ermine Nelson [PERB Case No. LA-CE-5517-E].

The hearing went very well from my perspective. What was alarming, however, is what was testified to about the absolute inaction and ignorance of the leadership of the employee unions’ representatives within the Jurupa Unified School District. Based on the fact that I contacted union leadership for the NEAJ and CSEA before then, I can only assume that the disregard of what the District is doing is intentional or you are being union-busted by the District and don’t even know it.

Under Government Code §§ 3540-3543 and related provisions of law, the District had an absolute duty to send any grievances, however old or new, merit or no merit, directly to the Union upon receipt (where the grievance originated from a member or presumed employee). In this particular case and many others I have tried to tell you about, NEAJ was never aware of grievances (as many as 28 in one case alone in July 2010).

Under oath and cross-examination, Tamara Elzig testified to the two following key facts. Her testimony is memorialized and recorded:

1. It is the District’s position that union and employee rights go on leave at the same time the employee goes on medical leave (regardless of whether breaches of the CBA occurred even while on leave – Which would include: breaches of union privacy, keeping information from the union, interfereing with lawful association of union members, and interfering with attorney work-product under CCP 2018, and union busting);

2. It is the District’s position that it does not have to forward grievances to the Unions when it feels that there is no merit to the grievance.

I very quickly, in an objection-response exchange, mentioned to Judge Cu that we have not filed a charge against the District’s unions. I am aware of 150+ grievances that have been filed by my clients alone (both classified and certificated). I am going to very nicely ask you folks to once again review your policies, practices, and procedures to make sure that your members’ rights aren’t being trampled right under your noses. As you know, the Code does confer the right to an individual employee to bring a Superior Court action. We have already mentioned the violation of many of these rights in Archambault v. JUSD, et.al. (a First Amendment, Due Process, anti-discrimination, ant-racism, and Equal Application declaratory relief case).

If you all really believe that DFEH, EEOC, USDOE, CTA, NEA, CDOE will take to the position that a disabled employee, on approved medical leave, cannot file any grievances whatsoever, this will be a REALLY BIG PROBLEM not only for the District, but for you. If the lack of attention to grievance processes meant that employees did not know they could even file grievances, there is a bigger problem. Unfortunately, there is plenty of sworn testimony on this issue already.

It makes one wonder about how many other employee problems were kept from you and the CSEA. Worse yet, how many breaches of confidentiality of membership, representative organizations, and counsel have occurred? It is a federal and state crime to monitor union membership communications without adequate notice and without sufficient probable cause. I am reserving all rights my clients have under Section 1983 and to take further action.

The District has already lost a motion under CCP 425.16, rendered damaging sworn testimony on lack of Due Process in the Braden arbitration conducted before Hon. Arturo Morales, and Superintendent Elzig’s performance yesterday was an outright admission of an intention to directly interfere with Union Rights. We already know from the Norman and Gonzalez cases that the District monitors all communications over its electronic wire systems and mail systems (as defined under Federal Law) and is aware of and checks the content of union and legal counsel writings and communications. Employees and union membership are not adequately warned of the tapping.

With regard to Mr. Vigrass, why don’t you have a private e-mail address for Union business? The District has already proven that it knows what you discuss. You have no less than two or three members under fire for what was allegedly found on their classroom computers (including Union business). Some of the horrifically perturbing information was placed on my client’s computer, in the Norman case, after he was already on administrative leave (a literal, figurative, and unconstitutionally sound reality).

Yesterday, your District proved, beyond a doubt, that it doesn’t see your union activities as confidential. Superintendent Elzig and her counsel vigorously argued for a claim to know what you are up to, when you meet with your members, and how many times. This is constitutionally unacceptable and, in my privileged opinion, violates many state and federal laws.

The ALJ also could not rule on whether your discussions with accused union members was/is confidential. I am supposed to brief that issue. I’ve never been to a PERB hearing and didn’t even know what PERB was before this proceeding.

Fortunately for the Union, in this limited case, you were not at the scene of ‘crime’ as it were. The unions had already chosen to ignore Nelson’s case and the District made CBA union representatives look ignorant and ineffective. As you can see from the attached briefing done in CSEA cases and testimony, this isn’t new.

I do know what the law is and basically had to argue it for the unions. It is the District’s position, through counsel and Elzig, that your communications with members are fair game. Worse yet, you have an indemnity provision in your CBA that gives the unions the privilege of paying the District’s bill (at their discretion), win, lose or draw. This is a constitutional and due process disaster of unprecedented proportion. I have many friends who are public employees, in official and elected capacities, and none would approve of this – regardless of politics.

I will look back in my files to find the e-mail from the CSEA’s Janet Jones telling me to mind my own business. More than one of my certificated clients has/have heard similar threats from others aside from Messrs. Sibby and Vigrass. I believe that you have all the right intentions, but your rights, as well as those of your members, have been trampled to death. Identifying what’s left of those rights will not be cheap, easy, or likely to come through my one-man office. I just got out of the hospital myself, am still being diagnosed and evaluated, and am overwhelmed by what is going on within this District. I am desperately hanging on to my ability to achieve victories for your members, but also don’t have the resources to keep it up if the Unions don’t get involved more visibly and effectively.

The amount of real exposure created for the Unions is beginning to be massive to say the least. I am on your side, but I don’t have the resources or manpower to argue matters directly affecting your leadership. Messrs. Sibby and Vigrass have been upfront with me, pursued what information they could verify, and don’t appear to be neutral on the rights of their members. Even with their efforts, the District has now crossed battlefield lines that will end up with innumerable casualties of failures in applying the Principles of the Constitution.

Should you choose to share this e-mail with Ms. Elzig and Mr. Duchon, if they have not already seen it, please let them know that these are simply my opinions and the hearing transcript speaks for itself. The unions got worked over bad and were made to look very stupid and ignorant – and it wasn’t by me.

Perhaps we should discuss this in a more confidential forum. My clients are very concerned and so am I. If you want to meet with my clients as a group and get your colleagues to join us from the CSEA, it would be appreciated.

Richard D. Ackerman
Law Offices of R.D. Ackerman
www.AttorneyAckerman.com

Temecula Office:
Madison Executive Suites
27247 Madison Ave., Suite 116
Temecula, CA 92590
(951) 296-2442

Downtown Riverside:
Riverside County Bar Ass’n Bldg.
4129 Main Street, Suite B5
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 267-7000

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

AFT teachers union is moving ahead of NEA in school reform

Union head to propose tying test scores, teacher evaluations
By Nick Anderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 12, 2010

The president of the nation's second-largest teachers union is proposing a new way to incorporate student test scores into teacher evaluations and has asked a well-known mediator to develop methods of expediting disciplinary cases against teachers, according to the text of a speech made public Monday night.

Randi Weingarten of the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers plans to deliver the speech Tuesday. Union officials describe it as a major effort to address flash points in labor-management relations.

The AFT, Weingarten said, wants "a fair, transparent and expedient process to identify and deal with ineffective teachers. But [we] know we won't have that if we don't have an evaluation system that is comprehensive and robust and really tells us who is or is not an effective teacher." ...



http://voiceofsandiego.org/education/schooled/article_e1cb0cfe-ff8f-11de-b443-001cc4c03286.html

Surprise: The American Federation of Teachers, the second largest teachers union in the country, is going to propose including students' test scores in teacher evaluations and finding ways to speed up disciplinary cases against teachers. The Washington Post and USA Today explain why this is such a big deal. Bob Herbert at The New York Times contends that the union had better follow through.

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

NEA delegate says merit pay is union busting. That's silly. It just makes the union a bigger tent that will include more top-notch teachers

July 7, 2009
NEA, Obama Administration May Not Be in Sync

Education Week
By Stephen Sawchuk

...The day before official business began at the Representative Assembly, nearly 7,000 of the union’s delegates packed into the city’s convention center to listen to Arne Duncan, the U.S. secretary of education.

Beginning a few hours later—after Mr. Duncan had departed for Washington—and throughout the holiday weekend, union delegates proposed and debated resolution after policy resolution on elements of the Obama administration’s emerging education policy agenda.

In other words, this year’s convention, which ended yesterday, was marked by the NEA’s first major attempts at getting a handle on what the administration’s push into sensitive policy areas will mean for the union’s 3.2-million members. Issues on the table for the union, which represents mostly teachers and education-support personnel, include the expansion of charter schools, the “turning around” of low-performing schools, and now with Mr. Duncan’s latest address, structural changes to the way teachers are compensated and evaluated.

In his July 2 speech, the fourth he has given on the “assurances” states must meet in exchange for receiving funding through the economic-stimulus measure, the secretary called on teachers’ unions “to become full partners and leaders in education reform” and to be willing to collaborate with districts to create fair ways of incorporating student-achievement growth into evaluation and pay systems.

“Test scores alone should never drive evaluation, compensation, or tenure decisions. That would never make sense,” Mr. Duncan said. “But to remove student achievement entirely from evaluation is illogical and indefensible.”

In addition, he said that teachers’ unions must be willing to reconsider seniority provisions and rework tenure processes, two hard-won rights that unions have long defended.

“When inflexible seniority and rigid tenure rules that we designed put adults ahead of children, then we are not only putting kids at risk, we’re putting the entire education system at risk. We’re inviting the attack of parents and the public, and that is not good for any of us,” Mr. Duncan said. “I believe that teacher unions are at a crossroads. These policies were created over the past century to protect the rights of teachers, but they have produced an industrial, factory model of education that treats all teachers like interchangeable widgets.”
Performance-Pay Worries

Delegates applauded Secretary Duncan’s calls for continued federal funding for education, better training for administrators, and improved teacher-mentoring experiences. But they booed and hissed when he mentioned tying pay and evaluation to test scores.

Echoing President Barack Obama’s November education speech, Mr. Duncan sought to reassure teachers that he would seek reforms to the teaching profession in collaboration with them. But he also appeared to acknowledge teachers’ hesitancy to engage on some of those issues, especially given the union’s poor relations with the Bush administration.

“You can boo; [but] just don’t throw any shoes, please,” he quipped partway through his speech, to laughter and applause.

During a town hall-style meeting with Mr. Duncan following his remarks, delegates raised concerns about the use of test scores.

“In too many cases, our state boards of education, our local boards of education are not getting that message” that pay programs should be based on multiple measures of teacher performance beyond test scores, one delegate said.

Others were more frank about their dislike for performance-based pay. “Quite frankly, merit pay is union-busting,” said another delegate, to applause from her peers...

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Are education reformers bad Democrats? Challengers at DNC convention confront teachers union

More and more Democrats are starting to challenge the National Education Association and other teacher unions for standing in the way of education reform.

Union Tensions at DNC
by Michele McNeil
Education Week

The education event that followed the NEA luncheon showed the growing tensions within the Democratic Party over school reform, and the role of teachers’ unions.

Though it’s no surprise an event sponsored by the Democrats for Education Reform would have a slight anti-union message; many of the speakers at the event took several shots at unions during the press conference announcing the Education Equality Project in June.

Today, the sentiment was strong and persistent at standing-room-only, three-hour forum called Ed Challenge for Change. In fact, some of the big-city mayors who participated predicted that had such a forum been held four years ago, a mere five souls would have showed.

Here at the Denver Art Museum, Democratic mayors from Newark, N.J., Washington D.C., and Denver joined education reform darlings including New York City’s Joel Klein and Washington D.C.’s Michelle Rhee. The group was referred to as the “misfits” of the Democratic Party by DFER's Joe Williams, a nod to their willingness to speak up against the influence of teachers’ unions, which have formed the backbone of the party...

Here's more about NEA and Washington D.C.:

Darcy Burner, Washington D.C.

NEA Throws Darcy Under the Bus, Undermines NEA’s Health Care Agenda
July 22, 2008
by Matt Stoller



The NEA's Washington chapter, the Washington Education Association, just endorsed Republican Dave Reichert for Congress over progressive Democrat Darcy Burner. Now, there are a lot of reasons that organizations endorse, and in this case it's because Reichert has badmouthed unfunded mandates. Reichert has a bad voting record on education, with a 10% rating on education from Progressive Punch. He has among other things voted to gut Head Start and lots and lots of scholarship money, as well as voting down the line with Republicans to gut Federal spending on education. But the NEA's Washington chapter wants a Republican in their pocket, so they are throwing Darcy Burner under the bus...

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Shame on National Education Association


In May 2006, EEOC San Francisco District Director Joan Ehrlich stated, “It is shocking that a union dedicated to representing the rights of teachers and other public school employees would permit this harassment to happen in its own backyard."

(She was talking about the harrassment discussed in my previous post.)

Are you listening, David A. Sanchez, president of California Teachers Association? And Jim Groth, on the board of directors?

I'm afraid these "leaders" listen only to Carolyn Doggett and Beverly Tucker, the Executive Director and Chief Counsel who seem to have all the real power in CTA.

EEOC still functions during Bush admininstration--when the target is NEA

Well, it took me about ten minutes to find out I was wrong in thinking that the $700,000 settlement by the EEOC in 2000 that I mentioned in my previous post would still be holding the EEOC record for biggest settlement. (Well, I might be right that it still holds the record for Arizona, and it might hold the record for racial discrimination.)

I'm glad somebody is holding National Teachers Association (NEA) accountable for wrongdoing, but I wish the administration would go after all organizations equally.

Here's the story:
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AND ALASKA AFFILIATE TO PAY $750,000 FOR HARASSMENT OF WOMEN
Female Former Employee in EEOC Case Said Male Boss was ‘a Ticking Time Bomb’

SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today at a press conference the $750,000 settlement of a sex discrimination lawsuit against the National Education Association (NEA) and its affiliate NEA-Alaska on behalf of three female former employees who were subjected to persistent verbal abuse and intimidation by a belligerent high-level male manager. In addition to the monetary relief, the unions agreed to make policy changes to address any future discrimination.

EEOC’s suit (Civil Action No. A01-0225-CV (JKS)), filed in July 2001, charged that manager Thomas Harvey, then interim assistant executive director for NEA-Alaska, subjected Carol Christopher, Carmela Chamara and Julie Bhend to abusive treatment on a daily basis. Harvey targeted the female staff by screaming and yelling at them with little or no provocation, often using profanity and frequently berating them in public, the EEOC said. The women described Harvey as turning bright red with bulging neck veins as he screamed, coming so close they often felt his saliva spit on their faces. He also physically intimidated the women by sneaking up behind them and watching over their work for no apparent reason. Further, Harvey would shake his fists at the women and come within striking distance, raising fears that he would physically attack the women.

The Alaska Federal District Court had dismissed the EEOC’s case on the ground that the behavior was not overtly sexual and thus not unlawful sex harassment. The EEOC appealed that ruling and in September 2005, the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the lawsuit, stating that it was wrong for the lower court to dismiss the case because harassing conduct does not have to be motivated by lust or blatant misogyny to be illegal sex discrimination.

The Ninth Circuit quoted Chamara describing her work environment as, “working with a ticking time bomb because you’re sitting by and you’re waiting for your turn to be next. You know its going to happen when you hear the sound of his feet walking towards your area. It… raises the hairs on your neck because you just don’t know what you’re going to get.”

Although top NEA-Alaska management officials, such as the president and previous executive director, personally witnessed some of Harvey’s behavior and received complaints about him, they failed to take action to stop the harassment. In fact, despite the complaints, Harvey was subsequently promoted to be NEA-Alaska’s executive director.

After filing the lawsuit against NEA-Alaska, the EEOC uncovered evidence that the national NEA helped place Harvey at the Alaska affiliate, despite knowing of his lengthy record of targeting women for abuse (including his behavior while working at NEA’s Mississippi affiliate). As a result, the EEOC added the national teachers union as a defendant to the lawsuit.

After the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the lower court, the unions and the EEOC engaged in mediation resulting in the settlement. In addition to the monetary relief to be shared by the three women, both NEA-Alaska and NEA agreed to review their employment policies, provide effective means to address discrimination complaints, and educate their employees about their rights and responsibilities in the workplace.

EEOC Regional Attorney William Tamayo said, “More and more women are in the workforce and may work for less enlightened but nevertheless powerful supervisors. These facts were all about the abuse of power. This lawsuit and $750,000 settlement send the message that abusive behavior targeted at women is unlawful and will not be tolerated by the EEOC. We’re glad that the Ninth Circuit’s decision not only gave these women a chance to press their claims against the NEA and its Alaska affiliate, but affirmed that abuse targeting one gender is illegal. We commend the unions for working with us to resolve this matter. ”

EEOC San Francisco District Director Joan Ehrlich stated, “It is shocking that a union dedicated to representing the rights of teachers and other public school employees would permit this harassment to happen in its own backyard. This case sends an important message to millions of working women nationwide: abusive behavior targeted against women or any other protected group is illegal, and employers will be held accountable for it.”

Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov.

This page was last modified on May 22, 2006.

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Teachers Setting Bad Examples


After 30 years of observing teacher and student interactions, my guess is that the teacher in the following story was exceptionally harsh to students when they broke rules.

I found this story on Union Corruption Update
http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=2035

"Ex-Employee of Maine Union Sentenced for Embezzlement"

"Catherine Crosier didn’t set a good example to students. She got a stern reminder of that at her sentencing hearing in federal court. Crosier, a former employee of the 25,000-member Maine Education Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association, was sentenced on May 7 to six months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release. Crosier, 46, a resident of Augusta, pled guilty last November to one count of embezzling more than $45,000 in union funds during June 2002-January 2004. She had made out about 180 union checks either to herself or petty cash.

"“What troubles me the most is the nature of the employer you stole from,” U.S. District Judge John Woodcock told the defendant. “It was as if you walked into a classroom, marched up to a teacher and grabbed the teacher’s pocket or pocketbook and took money out of it. Then, you went to the next classroom and the next classroom and did the same thing.” In addition to serving time, Crosier will have to pay restitution. The sentencing follows an investigation by the U.S. Labor Department’s Office of Labor-Management Standards. (Associated Press, 5/8/07; OLMS, 5/30/07)."