By Tracey

As I’m sure you’ve heard, Wisconsin Governor Walker succeeded in his aim to remove collective bargaining rights to teachers and other public employees.  And, following right behind, Providence, Rhode Island issued pink slips to all of their 1,926 teachers.  Sure, most will likely get hired back.  But what this move effectively does is remove collective bargaining for these teachers.  If you watch the heart-wrenching video of the board meeting, the teachers were begging to be laid-off rather than terminated.  A termination for everyone means that the district can hire whomever they want back, regardless of seniority.  It’s difficult to sit back and watch these two demoralizing attacks on teachers and teachers’ unions. 

In both of these stories, the governor of Wisconsin and the mayor of Providence claimed these were necessary moves because of severe budget shortfalls.  While it’s true they’re experiencing a budget crisis; it’s false to presume these actions will aid in alleviating the budget.  We know that Walker offered tax cuts to businesses and is further diminishing state revenue by eradicating collective bargaining for public employees. 

Unfortunately, people seem to be buying the argument and agree that everyone “needs to sacrifice.”  I wonder if these drastic moves are being blamed on budget issues because if Gov. Walker and Mayor Angeles Taveras came right out and said, “We want to dismantle labor unions and end collective bargaining for working Americans,” they know they wouldn’t get elected.  A recent poll shows that Americans are still in support of collective bargaining.  This brings me some hope.  However, there’s no question teachers’ unions are under attack.  And the fervor behind this comes from the mistaken notion that teachers’ unions are all about protecting bad teachers. 

Continue reading →

By Tom

I think I finally get what’s going on in Wisconsin. It took me long enough. In fact, it took reading George Will’s latest column to understand exactly why Wisconsin is such a big deal.

Wisconsin’s Republican governor Scott Walker wants to eliminate collective bargaining for most public employee unions, including all public school teachers. His stated rationale is that doing so would save the state money. It’s hard to figure out the logic in this, since collective bargaining, at least for teachers, doesn’t actually happen at the state level. It happens at the local level; between a school district and the local association that represents its teachers.

Why should Walker even care about collective bargaining?

To understand why, you need to understand the other half of his proposed legislation. You see, he wants to end collective bargaining, but he also wants to mandate a yearly authorization for public employee unions. They’d have to undergo an expensive, annual vote by their members in order to stay alive.

For most teachers, their experience with the union is based primarily on the agreement that their local association and district hammer out. In the absence of collective bargaining, most teachers would have little reason to value their union. Why would they? The district would dictate the terms of their employment, and they’d have to either agree to them or leave.

And that brings us to the whole piece about the annual vote. Teachers, with little reason to value their union, would have little reason to support it. Why would they? Why would they willingly pay hundreds of dollars per year for a union that can’t do anything to help them? Sooner or later, they’d vote it down. Probably sooner.

But still; why would Walker want this? What’s in it for him?

It’s all about politics. A big part of our union dues goes to the state association, which uses it to lobby for pro-education legislation. They also use members’ political donations to elect pro-education candidates. Thus, when George Will tells us that public employees elect their own bosses, he does have a point. In Washington State, it would have been hard to imagine Governor Gregoire winning without the support of the Washington Education Association.

Walker wants to end collective bargaining. This would diminish the union’s power, resulting in a decreased level of support for the unions by their members. Eventually, they would vote to de-authorize their union, which would effectively end the union’s ability to elect pro-education candidates, most of whom are, coincidentally, Democrats. Walker, then, is doing what’s best for his party.

The obvious question, of course, is “so what?” A better question is “why should teachers care?” An even better question is “what difference does this make for students?”

First of all, consider what happens at the local level. We bargained for many things when I was on my association’s bargaining committee, every one of which affected learning conditions for our students. A great example is the use of professional development days. We successfully convinced the district to designate one-third as individual choice, one-third as building-directed time, and one-third to be directed at the district level. This has led to far more meaningful work being done on those days, and far less time spent on district-directed “spray and pray” workshops.

Let’s look next at the state level. Last week I spent a whole day lobbying our state legislature on two issues: smaller class size and continuing the financial incentive for National Board Certification, both of which are proven to have a positive impact on student learning. Although I wasn’t paid for this time, our day was coordinated by several full-time union employees. Our union’s ability to bring real, classroom teachers into direct contact with lawmakers dealing with education legislation is the sort of activity that would completely end under a Walker-style law.

At the national level, the best way to compare pro-union vs. anti-union environments is to look at data. NAEP scores work best, since that’s basically what they were designed to do. And when you do, it becomes clear that collective bargaining states out-perform so-called “right-to-work states.” In the area of eighth grade reading, for example, ten of the top twelve states are collective bargaining states; nine of the bottom twelve have right-to-work laws. Other subjects and grade levels show the same trend, and while there may be many reasons for this, it’s not hard to imagine that having a strong, pro-education force like a powerful teacher union results in legislation that has a positive effect on student learning.

Yes, I finally get what’s going on in Wisconsin.  A Republican anti-union governor is doing what’s best for his party and their political agenda. It might be good for Republicans, but it’s bad for unions and bad for teachers. But ultimately, and most importantly, it’s bad for student learning.

Wisconsin is a big deal.

By Tom

I was reading a story this year with my third graders. It focused on Cesar Chavez, about whom they knew absolutely nothing. In order to build some context, I drew a stick figure on the board. “This guy is a farm owner,” I said. “And these people are the workers,” I continued, pointing to a large group nearby. “What would happen if one of these workers suddenly asked for a raise, or maybe a weekend?”

“The farm owner would give it to him, because that’s fair,” Margarito said.

“No he wouldn’t,” replied Lucas, “he would probably get fired, because the farm owner wouldn’t want to lose the money.”

“Lucas is right,” I said, erasing the outspoken stick figure, “He would definitely get fired.”

“But what would happen if all of the workers asked for more money or more time off together?” I asked, redrawing the greedy, lazy worker.

“They’d all get fired!”

“But then who would work the farm?” I said, “You see, if everyone asked for the same thing together, there’s a much better chance the owner would give it to them. The owner can’t do all the work himself. He won’t listen to just one worker; it’s easier to fire him. That’s why we have labor unions, so workers can ask for something important together, and not get fired because of it. And that’s what this story is about. Fifty years ago, Cesar Chavez helped farm workers ask for fair working conditions together.”

My students understood the story, while gaining an appreciation for the Organized Labor Movement.

As you might have guessed, I’m staunchly and unapologetically pro-union. For good reason.

Continue reading →

by Brian

I am opposed to high stakes tests as a graduation requirement.  The current law in our state requires students to pass 5 of them, beginning this year.  I am certain that at least 50% of the students who take those tests this spring will not pass at least one of them.  People in favor of high stakes tests often refer to the New York Regents exams, pointing out that those tests have been in place for a long time and that students there are managing to pass them.  I admit I have been curious about that argument.  How do they get their students to pass, when it is so difficult here?  Well, apparently they cheat.

Continue reading →

So it has gotten ugly in Wisconsin.

It didn't help when massive numbers of teachers called in sick for as many as three days in a row in order to go protest in Madison–forcing some schools to temporarily close doors to students. 

And somehow, the Democratic state legislators felt that the best course of action was to skip town. Sure, I get that the tactic was to avoid quorum and prevent a vote and hold out for compromise, but that reminds me of how my six year old storms out of the room when I tell him to pick up his toys. (This tactic has also been tried in other states, but did not accomplish the fleeing groups' aims.)

And then there were the signs that some of the Wisconsin protesters were holding up, depicting Wisconsin governor Scott Walker with a Hitler mustache and making visual comparisons between Walker and other tyrants and dictators. That is of course a level-headed response which invites constructive discourse about Walker's proposal to eliminate collective bargaining and require teachers and other public employees to pay more of their health care benefits. I know that whenever I try to reason with someone I begin by comparing them to Hitler.

To be clear, I disagree with what I understand about Walker's ideas and even more emphatically disagree with how he has declared his unwillingness to compromise.

Continue reading →

By Kristin

Natalie Munro, a Pennsylvania teacher who has said uncomplimentary things about her students on a blog – a personal blog, one unaffiliated with her job – has been busted.

Natalie's story made me think of how we're more comfortable tearing down than building up, how we expect parents to make our lives easier, and how we so readily wave the superhero cape but don't often put it on and get to work.  After all, we're not superheroes.  We can't fly.  We would be fools to believe we could.

Continue reading →

By Tom

I once watched an interview on 60 Minutes with Derek Jeter, one of my favorite baseball players. He was asked what he thought about when he stepped into the batters' box. "I know I'm going to get a base hit," he said. "I don't hope for it, I don't think I'll do it, and I don't know I can. I know I will." When it was pointed out that he only succeeded thirty percent of the time - a remarkable achievement – he said he didn't think about that. All he thought about was knowing that this time he was going to get a hit. And when it doesn't happen? "I'm always surprised."

That's how we need to think about our students. Every time we teach a lesson, we need to know that every child will learn what it is we're teaching. We can't hope they can, think they will or know they can. We need to know they will.

Obviously there's some disconnect going on. If a ballplayer has to know that he will get a hit every time he gets up, he also knows that he'll only succeed some of the time. Those two facts are mutually exclusive. There's bound to be some cognitive dissonance. So what happens to the baseball players that try to resolve this dissonance?

Simple: they enter the workforce with the rest of us and play slow-pitch softball in the evenings.

Continue reading →

By Tom

King 5 News aired a segment on the show "Up Front with Robert Mak" about the governor's proposal to eliminate the National Board stipend from the next budget. It's well done; he gets most of the facts right, and it features a very articulate third grade teacher from Bellevue.

Check it out:

“Rewarding good teachers in tough times could take a hit.”

I don't have much to add, except this:

This money was promised. It is not a "bonus" in the strict sense of the word. A bonus is a reward, usually given annually, for achieving a certain level of performance. A bonus is something companies usually distribute when they had a particularly good year.

This money is actually a stipend. A stipend is a raise given to somebody in recognition of a past accomplishment which has been determined to have a positive effect on current performance.

The distinction isn't trivial or technical. A bonus is something that an employee shouldn't count on. A stipend is. Taking away a bonus returns the person in question to their normal place on the salary scale. Taking away a stipend takes that person to a lower place on the salary scale.

It's a pay cut. And it discourages teachers from undergoing the most powerful professional development they're likely to come across during their entire careers. 

To her credit, the Governor looks very upset when discussing this issue. It's clear that this was a painful decision for her. She also holds out hope that the stipend will return when the economy picks up.

Sounds familiar.

By Kristin

I've got a problem.  The previous owners of our house didn't seal this window enough.  Luckily, there's this – my chop saw.  

Continue reading →