Dealing with disingenuous teachers unions: There are no shortcuts

Fordham's Mike Petrilli started a wonderful debate with his article "Dealing with disingenuous teachers unions: There are no shortcuts," which highlights how flawed school boards are and calls for reformers to go after them, either by eliminating/going around them, or winning political control of them.  It has drawn responses from Randi, Ravitch, RiShawn Biddle, Bob Bowden, Caprice Young, Stuart Buck, and Anthony Krinsky.  Here's Petrilli:

And that's where we get to the logic of collective bargaining reform. Yes, school boards should drive a hard bargain with unions, but they don't, because their members are so often elected with the support of those very same unions. As a result, the teachers end up negotiating with themselves. What Ohio legislators (and Wisconsin's Scott Walker) were trying to do was to rein in the ability of school boards to give away the store. These efforts were about curbing local control run amuck. If school boards aren't willing (or able) to play hardball, we'll do it for them.

Clearly, this argument either wasn't made well in Ohio or didn't get through to the electorate. And to be sure, it's hard in a sound bite to explain how collective bargaining rights lead to irresponsible priorities, bad policy, and unaffordable spending.

So where do reformers go from here? One option is to be even more radical: To go after not just collective bargaining but school boards too. Make all of the key decisions at the state level. Negotiate with the teachers around a statewide approach to pay and benefits, the whole kit and caboodle. (Marc Tucker's "New Commission" made such a proposal several years ago.) That's an attractive long-term strategy, but voters—averse to big, sudden changes—will need some time to get used to the idea.

The other approach—call it the "no shortcuts" plan—is to roll up our sleeves and engage in the fight for political control of local school boards. Reformers are already doing this in places like Denver. It's not easy, and previous efforts in cities such as Los Angeles were short-lived. The unions have innumerable ways to topple leaders who don't hew to their demands. And to make an impact, we'd probably have to engage in hundreds of school districts around the country. That would require an operation that would make Michelle Rhee's shop look puny.

Curbing collective bargain rights, promoting mayoral control, creating an alternative charter school system—all of these are efforts to deal with the fact of union-dominated school boards. They are still worth pursuing, in my view. But they are only part of the solution. If we want to win the fight for the more immediate future, we're going to need to take on the unions directly, and take over the school boards. Shall we get started? 

-----------------

Dealing with disingenuous teachers unions: There are no shortcuts

Posted by Mike Petrilli on November 14, 2011 at 9:00 am

http://www.educationgadfly.net/flypaper/2011/11/dealing-with-disingenuous-teachers-unions-there-are-no-shortcuts/

California Dreams RIP: Foxes Now Guarding Educational Hen House

Finally, here is blogger Anthony Krinsky's spot-on take:

 

Just announced was the ouster of Parents' Union founder Ben Austin and his replacement by current Teachers' Union (CTA) Legislative Advocate Patty Rucker. The irony could not be greater. Parents' Union out. Teachers' Union in. California wades deeper into the education back-water hall of fame.

The rest of the slate is a "who's who" of the folks who got us into this mess in the first place and others who will be putty in teacher union hands. We can look forward to nothing but heavily massaged lies about how California cares deeply about our childrens' futures while systematically repealing pro-child initiatives and replacing them with pro-union provisions like wiping out non-union charter schools, watering down testing, strengthening tenure for incompetent teachers, and increasing local (read: union) political governance. Union controlled school boards will be forbidden from liquidating failing schools but given the power to raise taxes. We can look forward to additional obfuscation of the costs of teacher pensions and many, many, devious, union-crafted proposals to pull the wool over our eyes. And according to press-releases from Sacramento, it will be done "for the kids" (to borrow a phrase from the campaign manifesto of LAUSD school board candidate and UTLA water-boy, Dr. John Fernandez).

Unfortunately, Ben Austin's hopes and dreams for Jerry Brown to stand up for poor children and families -- denied of their rights for a quality education by the current establishment for generations -- seem to have been misplaced. California's teacher unions wanted peace on their terms (they have never stood down to any pro-child reforms) and Jerry Brown is giving it to them.

The foxes are smiling widely today as they overlook the hen houses they continue to plunder. May Florida make up for our woes! I hope that Rick Scott swings that state wildly in the direction of children and families -- and may all sensible Californians who like sunshine and aren't otherwise tied down (like me), fly their families to educational freedom in the pan-handle. California seems prepared to guarantee one thing of its government run schools: they will continue to waste more and more tax-payer money every year, plunging our state further into financial and educational insolvency. God help us.

---------------------

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

California Dreams RIP: Foxes Now Guarding Educational Hen House

 

http://edobserver.blogspot.com/2011/01/california-kids-rip-foxes-now-guarding.html

Anthony Krinsky lays out what's REALLY going on in LA (and nationally):

The teacher unions are doing what they do best: manipulating public opinion.  They are channeling economic anxiety to keep focus on recession-driven cut-backs instead of allowing us to talk about how well (not well) we're spending $6.5 billion per year on operations at the LAUSD.  Remember, because of the UTLA contract, you can't fire bad teachers or pay young talented teachers more money.  Whether you want higher or lower taxes, if you're talking about raising taxes instead of reforming the contract, they got you: hook, line and sinker. 

Let's consider the questions that the UTLA doesn't want us discussing.  Why are we laying off young teachers?  Why are we laying off great teachers?   Why is nobody asking about the quality of the teachers that we're laying off?  Why does the LAUSD set quota limits on high-powered TFA teachers from Ivy League schools?  Why did we hire so many teachers over the last 20 years?  Is LAUSD any better because there are twice as many teachers?  Is it really "for our students" or is it "for our dues-payers" that the UTLA wants to "fully fund" schools?  Is there such a thing as "full funding" when there is no limit to the number of members and benefits the UTLA desires? 

Tax the rich campaigns may be popular in down-times but they don't improve school quality.  They are a distraction from the real problems, which is why the teacher unions champion them.

…The UTLA raises and spends $30 million/year protecting their monopoly; statewide teacher unions spend over $300 million -- per year.  Nationally, the number is over $2.5 billion, three times more every year than President Obama raised in 2008.  Parents Union, a state-wide reform organization, won't pull in $2 million this year.  Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) in Los Angeles won't break a million.  Do you see the problem?

The UTLA doesn't want you to know that philanthropic giving to educational advocacy is a rounding error on their balance sheets.  They want you to think this is a fair fight and to think of the billionaires as bad guys.  And they don't want the billionaires to start spending real money.  A million or two in Los Angeles doesn't bother them, but $50 million does.  If they can make giving $1 million hard enough, perhaps Gates won't risk the $50 million.

…The UTLA is occupying the LAUSD for sure.  They have for five decades, four decades semi-officially as the exclusive collective bargaining agent.  The only difference is that today they are using the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement as a smokescreen for doing what corrupt business people do: stifling competition and promoting their interests at the expense of the public.  All of their talk about "democratic" processes producing fair outcomes for children is a cruel hoax.  The "democratic" rules they favor protect their labor monopoly.  The protests they favor are those that fool the public while increasing teacher loyalty to their union.  Protesting alleged injustices against teachers does that.

…Union-teachers will strike, play the victims, and shut down the LAUSD.  And they will call this, "negotiation."  The "barons" of Wall Street will be "green" with envy; they will never have as much power to stop and destroy our lives, as the teacher unions. 

-------------------

LAUSD Occupation -- Big Business for the UTLA

 

Posted on October 24, 2011 at 10:31am  Print

 

http://echopark.patch.com/blog_posts/blog-lausd-occupation-big-business-for-the-utla

"Democracy" Teacher Union Style

LA-based blogger Anthony Krinsky with a rant about how the UTLA effectively hijacks school board elections, which is reflective of a HUGE but little discussed national problem: the school board elections are typically held off-cycle so turnout is usually super-low (10% range).  Given the unions' organizing and turn-out-the-vote capabilities, they can effectively elect the very people who they then negotiate from.  If this sounds insane…well, it is!

 

Against this back-drop, remember that school board elections are held off-cycle and fewer than one in five Los Angeleans will cast a ballot (historically, 11% turn-out is typical). Most of those who do will be school employees, family members of school employees, and union friends commanded to get to the polls. They will come with their lists. For the rest of us, there will be no easy way to distinguish union backed candidates from those truly interested in helping children.

To the slaughter-house our candidates will go. I'm guessing that Yolie knew this would happen. She ain't dignifying the charade. Do you blame her?

As I noted in a prior post (http://edobserver.blogspot.com/2010/06/school-board-charade.html), Rod Paige's book The War Against Hope describes how the unions utterly destroyed Mayor Riordan's reform candidates, Caprice Young and Genethia Hayes, in their 2003 re-election campaigns. Did their board perform poorly? Shockingly no. Grade-school math and reading scores had doubled in the preceding four years. Have scores gone up or down under the aegis of the current LAUSD school board? Mmmm....

You would think that a school district's performance would have something to do with whether school board members can win re-election. This is union-style democracy and that message will never be heard. We cannot compete with their megaphone and if you add up the money they have access to at the local, state, and national level - and I'm not just talking about what they have in the bank but their lines of credit (the same ones tapped to kill the 7x propositions a few years ago) reformers cannot possibly be expected to beat them. Has this system changed recently? Are these new capabilities for evil and domination? No, it's always been this way. The real question is why does this system exist. It's not personal, it's structural. Jesus Christ himself would lose a school board election against the coordinated efforts of the UTLA, CTA, CFT, NEA, and AFT.

…It's simply a fact that you will not last long on any school board in America without a pro-union agenda. How do I know? Name a district where the union contract has shrunk? Where hiring and firing is competitive. Where children and parents needs come first. It does not exist. Terry Moe at Stanford studied school board elections and lays bare this central plank in union political strategy: unions elect the school boards with whom they negotiate contracts -- controlling both sides of the bargaining table http://educationnext.org/the-union-label-on-the-ballot-box/.

This is ladies and gentleman, the Democracy that makes Diane Ravitch's heart race. A contest that appears fair but is purpose built for one very undemocratic purpose: to ensure that anyone who challenges the status quo is defeated with authority. The better the candidate, the worse the pummelling. This is democracy: teacher union style.

…We're on the edge of cliff here in Los Angeles. The unions own the governor, the legislature, the state superintendent of public education. They're going to gut the state school board ("needs a teacher's perspective" they mock). And now, they'll control the LAUSD school board, lock-stock-and-barrel. Why does it matter? Putting aside the $30 billion chunk of the LA economy, it really matters now because the district will soon be firing lots of teachers because of state budget short-falls. Will these teachers be the young unenthusiastic ones or the ones committing educational malpractice on our children, every day? In short, will tenure be enforced in the LAUSD or ushered out of existence as large city mayors like Blumberg have committed to do? The ACLU suit merely scratches the surface and the implications for children could not be more fundamental. See Waiting for Superman if you want to learn more.

If you think that a school board contest financed by state and national unions with literally hundreds of millions of dollars on-tap is not fair, speak up! What is so sacred about "public governance" when it can be bought, whenever the unions feel moved?

We legitimize school board elections every time we have one. And the institution hasn't worked in a long time. It just wasn't designed to survive an era of exclusive bargaining and mandatory dues deduction. The odds against children changed dramatically around 49 years ago when Albert Shanker blew up the balance of power in education politics by uniting 100 New York City professional teachers associations into one industrial-style, AFL-CIO affiliated union. NEA affiliates followed quickly to prevent the AFT from raiding their locals and adopted the AFT's militant stance. Look at the data. Spending up. Class size down. Teacher quality down. Student achievement flat-lined. Union influence on the Democratic party: unprecedented. They own us and every school board in America serves at their pleasure. Why do we continue to sacrifice children at the altar of the teacher unions? Why do we allow these injustices to occur?

It's no wonder why our most rapidly improving urban districts are controlled by their mayors (NYC), who aren't subject to being tossed around by union elected school boards. But even mayoral control eventually breaks down -- for these same reasons. Just look east to Washington, DC. The unions got their man and now Michelle Rhee's reforms will be unwound.

…When will sensible politicians raise their hands and leave this teacher union casino? The kids deserve certain success not our wild-eyed dream that this roll of the dice will lead to anything but the loss of another generation of poor kids.

--------------------------

Friday, November 5, 2010

"Democracy" Teacher Union Style

http://edobserver.blogspot.com/2010/11/democracy-teacher-union-style.html

 

A few weeks ago, the LA Times ran an article breaking news of the ACLU settlement that at the margin affected seniority in certain schools. The Times noted that the UTLA had left the bargaining table and the school board reciprocated by going dark. The UTLA was apparently caught off-guard because they were deeply busy interviewing school board candidates to insure that their Banana Republic is this time, more fully compliant. No more pesky 5-4 votes for expanding school choice and no more independent minded board members willing call failing schools "drop out factories" on camera.

Last but not least, here are Anthony Krinsky’s thoughts:

 

This could be the most important thread of the past half-century. School boards are the key to laundering teacher union power. Every vote in a school board election is buy-in to a system teacher unions (or associations in RTW states) control. The fact that Ravitch and Weingarten have weighed in together is a clear indication that you've hit a nerve. They really don't want you poking around.
In a system juiced by collective bargaining (which strongly influences what happens in RTW states also), government schools mean union rule. If the public knew that school boards do not represent public accountability, but rather are just a fig leaf over union rule, they would be justly outraged. Friendly school boards are they key to maintaining this deception.
Where school boards are pro-child and pro-excellence, teacher union villainy can be seen openly. Here in Los Angeles, a representational AFT/NEA local, the teacher unions have pulled out the stops to pervert school board elections. Remember that LAUSD writes the UTLA $30 million in dues checks every year and they use this money to train an army. Reform candidates cannot count on a trained and highly motivate constituency (parents work and charter school operators are by law forced to the political sidelines) and they must scrounge for campaign funds from whom other than wealthy do-gooders.
The UTLA campaign in the last school board election was calculated and despicable. It included misleading and libelous mailers designed to confuse voters (Republicans for Lamotte!) and suppress Latino turn-out (Sanchez is a "big wig" responsible for failing schools), a massive get out the vote effort internally (which heavily targeted parents), and careful choreography before the election that resulted in maximum public awareness of funding cut-backs and minimum awareness of the election itself. Reform candidate Sanchez needed around 40% more non-teacher votes to win the race – this strategy was all spelled out in the unions own newsletter in months prior.
The so-called "Coalition for Education Reform" which was the independent campaign for reformers wasted millions of dollars NOT attacking teacher unions or promoting what we would consider common-sense reforms. This too was a colossal mistake which can only be understood in the context of decades of teacher union propaganda. Los Angeles voters are now unreceptive to reform messaging. This was clearly a first-time rodeo for certain leaders of the "coalition," not so for the UTLA.
Here are some of my observations:
Another Sham School Board Election: http://edobserver.blogspot.com/2011/05/another-sham-school-board-election.html
School board elections: this game is rigged
http://edobserver.blogspot.com/2011/02/school-board-elections-this-game-is.html
District 5 LAUSD School Board Election: UTLA Demonstrates Villainy http://edobserver.blogspot.com/2011/04/weingarten-teacher-unions-partner-in.html
Stop the UTLA Wrecking Ball
http://edobserver.blogspot.com/2011/05/stop-utla-wrecking-ball.html
UTLA Declares "Public" Mandate
http://edobserver.blogspot.com/2011/05/utla-declares-sham-mandate.html
Media Ignores UTLA Scheming in SB5 Election http://edobserver.blogspot.com/2011/05/media-ignores-utla-scheming-in-sb5.html
Where is the California Charter School Association (CCSA)?
http://edobserver.blogspot.com/2011/05/where-is-california-charter-school.html
The School Board Charade
http://edobserver.blogspot.com/2010/06/school-board-charade.html
Teacher Union Collective Bargaining Explained
http://edobserver.blogspot.com/2011/11/teacher-union-collective-bargaining.html
Their hand-picked candidate in the District 5 race was teacher activist Bennett Kayser. The UTLA's substantial disinformation campaign appealed to his virtue, on the merits of his former occupation. We should respect our teachers, right?
Teacher activists have always been the front-lines weapon of choice simply because we the public, widely and readily confuse them with teacher/mentors we have all had and love. They are natural "human shields." But when teachers take up arms against reform they are no longer innocents; they are combatants. If education reformers have made one mistake over the past 50 years, it is that they have not helped the public distinguish teachers who fight excellent from those who support an excellent system.
What do you think is the primary product of the $2.5 billion in dues that teacher unions collect and spend annually? According to their filings it is not direct political activity and it's not "bargaining"… so what is it? This money is spent to organize, indoctrinate, and keep on hair-trigger alert an army of teacher activists ready to wage war on reformers. This infantry is the front-line behind which their lobbyists and officials launch legislative and contract mayhem.
Keep digging here: the school board charade is critical to the continuance of their domination.