I Do-nut agree with the union on this one.

In the omnipresent quest to stand up for kids, another local teachers’ association has gone about getting its way in a fantastic display of pomp and pouting. Upset about the district’s alleged reneging on a contract agreement–apparently, they agreed to a 20 minute lunch and no nutrition break on minimum days–the union thrust a stick into the eye of the district, enticing students with Krispy Kreme donuts so that they would avoid the district provided nutrition. Of course this amounted to a significant loss of funds for the district. That’ll show them. Of course that’s money that goes towards students, who unions enjoy reminding us can’t learn if they’re not properly fed.

I understand it’s a bit difficult to hit back at the district without aiming at cash flow. But it’s near impossible to do that without effecting students, who are the magical talisman hoisted by union spokespersons at times of political uncertainty. This is one more example of how teacher and student best interest do not always go hand in hand. Unions who ignore the conflict of interest are flirting with brass-balled hypocrisy.

The bottom line is, teachers need to stand up for their rights. Not get pushed around. It’s the holidays, and these educators are about to enjoy a hard-earned two weeks off. It’s the last Friday before the big break. It’s a minimum day. And district officials have the audacity to require teachers to stay an extra 15 minutes?!

I defer to the eloquence of a random commenter at msnbc newsvine:

In this case, the union is upset over having to work an extra fifteen minutes with the students they normally claim are the centers of their being. They are the ones who will “suffer” if teachers have to be subjected to competency tests based in part on whether students actually learn. They are the ones who will be deprived of essential knowledge if a single teacher is cut loose for not being able to teach. Yet, having to spend an additional fifteen minutes of time with their beloved charges sets them off into a Krispy Kreme paroxysm in which calories and fat fly in the face of administrators.

Teachers’ Unions and Achievement Gaps

I put a heck of a lot of work into my final paper for my class on the achievement gap that exists between students of varying ethnicities and social classes. I read multiple academic journals regarding the effect of unions on education and student achievement data. I sifted through editorials from multiple popular press outlets. I read several reports, and a few union reports. After all this, I must admit that I was a bit surprised to find that teachers’ unions, on average (according to 4 or 5 researchers), agree that unions have had a positive effect on achievement for average students. Not so surprisingly, they standardize educational practices and increase school resources. They also have a significant role in shaping educational policy. All of this contributes to an equally negative effect for students at the margins, which would be those affected by achievement gaps.

When union interests conflict with the best interest of students, students lose. Of course, union literature (and I would argue rhetoric) goes far to divert curious observers who might wonder whether or not unions, by definition, are good for students. It is unfortunate and sad that teachers’ unions in general demonstrate intransigence, and when necessary, distortion and manipulation.

Often times they stand in the way of programs that are demonstrably beneficial to students because such programs challenge highly valued institutional practices like seniority or differentiated pay. I continue to witness manipulation and misrepresentation in my own professional environment. I am highly discouraged and irritated at the manner in which a union is willing to jump to conclusions, encourage group thinking, or repeat phrases or slogans ad infinitum as a substitute for debate or–forgive me the educational cliche of the day–”critical thinking.”

Anyway, here’s the report. It could stand for a bit of revision. In particular, at one point I put the word “radical” in quotes, and it comes across as if I’m suggesting that the radical change referred to is not really radical at all. Actually, I quoted it because it was lifted from a larger quote, and I didn’t want to burden the reader with a parenthetical citation every time I used the term in the context used by the author. I can see that not doing so has caused worse confusion.

achievement gaps and teachers’ unions

More what-the-heck from my CTA

I’m still trying to figure out if this is a little white lie, a dose of doublespeak, or an “innocent” obfuscation meant for manipulation. I have always been under the impression that the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as “the nation’s report card” is the best measure we have for comparing student achievement nationwide. Whereas different states can set their own assessments and proficiency bands (which leads to all sorts of difficulties when comparing states based on their standardized test score performance), NAEP measures students from all states against the same criteria.

CTA has a few words on NAEP on their latest issue of California Educator, which focuses primarily on tests. They argue that NAEP scores are an

unreliable method to gauge the progress of students from one state to another due to differing standards. Because the NAEP assessments are not currently aligned to California’s content standards, and each state is allowed to set its own standards under No Child Left Behind, NAEP scores are an inaccurate means of comparison.

I don’t think this is meant to be purposefully asinine. But what the heck? Isn’t the reason for NAEP’s reliability rooted in the fact that it DOES NOT align itself to any particular state’s standards? And if it did, wouldn’t that make it an unfair means of comparison between states? Is CTA actually suggesting that the CST’s, which they so often decry, are actually the gold-standard? I acknowledge that many researchers have deemed California’s standards among the most rigorous nationwide, but the fact that California is doing poorly on NAEP should cause pause, not disqualification of the messenger (NAEP).

So, in conclusion: NAEP says we’re not doing well, so NAEP is not a good indicator. Because after all, California has tough standards, and our tests are standards-aligned, and NAEP is not aligned to our standards…so disregard NAEP data. Makes no flipping sense.

Who’s Lying?

Regarding Race to the Top and certain affiliate of the California Teachers’ Association:

It has come to my attention that some teachers’ association leaders believe (or at least say they believe) the following about Race to the Top, the federal government’s incentive plan to improve schools.

• Teachers “need to know” that Race to the Top is relatively small sum that is more like a bonus in funding, rather than a raise (we only get it one time).
• Teachers “need to know” that Race to the Top allows districts to use test scores as THE (emphasis mine) criteria to “determine conditions of employment.”

Then the FAQ section of the Dept. of Education (all boldface mine):

H-1. Does the Department advocate evaluating, paying, or dismissing teachers or principals on the basis of test scores alone?

No. The Department believes that teacher and principal evaluations and related decisions should be based on multiple measures of teacher performance. The Department also believes that student growth should be one of those measures and should be weighted as a significant factor. For this reason, criterion (D)(2) (Improving Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Based on Performance) asks LEAs and/or States to develop evaluation systems that take into account student growth as a significant factor. In response to public comments, the definitions of effective teacher and principal and highly effective teacher and principal have been clarified; these now specify that States, LEAs, or schools must use multiple measures in determining effectiveness. These definitions also state that effectiveness must be evaluated, in significant part, based on student growth, and they provide examples of supplemental measures a State or LEA may use (e.g., for teachers, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher performance). We believe that the decision about which supplemental measures should be used is best left to educators and leaders in LEAs and/or States who are close to the classroom and who can best determine which metrics work in their environments.

What the heck. This is some shady business. We’re all supposed to get on board against Race to the Top because it’s THE way to evaluate teachers and transfer/can them, but the official RTTT FAQ page says something quite different. And these revised guidelines on RTTT were up before all this “teachers need to know stuff.”

Oh and the relatively small amount of money is upward of 4 billion. In these tough times I find it highly unusual and somewhat hypocritical that educational “leaders” would so flippantly dismiss a chance at a chunk of 4 billion. And why? Why obfuscate, manipulate, and deliberately miscommunicate? How many teacher jobs might that money save that will otherwise be lost due to archaic systems of seniority? CTA will certainly be “standing up for schools and teacher” next March when the layoff notices arrive. Will anyone remember what some of their local affiliates are encouraging member to resist?

When Union Leaders Do Stupid Crap

First of all, charter schools are a form of public education. This union guy wants nothing to do with them because they take money from public schools. Whenever these charter critics talk about them siphoning money off of the public school fund, they make it sound like the dough is being diverted to some nefarious group of capitalist pigs or something. The money goes to charter schools, which are public schools that serve public school students. Framing it as an us against them battle is disengenuous at best, and at worst it exposes fraudulent union claims of “standing up for kids/standing up for schools/doing what’s best for students.”

Which schools and which students, is the question to ask. Students and schools affiliated with the unions. Screw the rest of them.

Via Intercepts.

Teachers Unions and Achievement Gaps

 

For a research piece in my class (“The Achievement Gap”), I’ve decided to investigate the the ways teachers’ unions contribute to and ameliorate the achievement gap between advantaged/disadvantaged students. I’ll work on definining those two groups later.

The literature I’ve encountered so far breaks down into a few categories:

1. The popular press for the most part has been coming down hard on unions. Consider the following:
   • “Poor kids learn. Unions are not pleased.”
   • “courting irrelevance”
   • “Will Teachers’ Unions Learn?”
   • “Is this truly for the children?
   • “The Union war on charter schools”
2. The peer reviewed research suggests unions have a small positive effect on average student achievement, a standardizing effect on education, an effect of increasing expenditures, and perhaps most troublingly, a negative effect on minority/economically disadvantaged students.
3. Union literature indicates a poignant awareness of the political relevancy of this issue, and it has therefore adopted a variety of remedies for the problem, most of which seem to be consistent with goals already in existence (increase teacher training, teacher quality, cultural awareness, high academic expectations, etc.) Charter schools, they argue, don’t increase achievement, and should be viewed with skepticism. In addition, targeting them for unionization is job one.

I know there are no citations here, which is sort of garbage. I admit. Maybe later I’ll post my paper. It should have at least 20 sources. I’m learning a lot about this problem, what might work, and what reformers and unions think will work.

One non-surprise is that everyone’s doing it for the kids. Reminds me of a quote I have in my pink “From the Heart” journal:

(They) say they’re doing it for you, but they’re really doing it to you.

 

CTA Supports New Teachers

Guffaw.

On a personal note, I think the message behind this cartoon from my latest version of California Educator falls somewhere along the spectrum between lies and total bullcrap.

“Standing up for teachers,” it seems, involves ensuring that new teachers are the first to go when budget woes strike.To my understanding, the catastrophic layoffs that took place last March-June were enacted entirely upon the backs of new teachers. Makes no difference how many hours you work, how effective you are, or how valuable you are to a school.

The fact that CTA fights for more funding more funding more funding, and yet refuses to budge on many of its extant structures (especially those that pertain to laying off new teachers first), should be small consolation to newbies, especially when publications like California Educator continue to bleed them down to their last drop of political capital.

Albany Teachers Union vs. Charter Proliferation

Education Next’s Fall edition features an article by Peter Meyer highlighting charter school success in Albany, New York. The road to success met with several obstacles: most notable, according to “Brighter Choice” charter foundation founder Tom Carroll, was the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT):

“They fought us every step of the way….Not a day goes by that they aren’t trying to kill charters.”

Meyer adds to Carroll’s indictment of NYSUT:

“On one occasion, NYSUT slipped an amendment on to an obscure law that ould have limited the market share of charters in Albany to 5 percent. Thanks to their many legislative connections, Carroll and team heard about the move and sent a busload of parents and students to the legislative hearing room.”

I’m guessing that these are the same “students” (usually they are referred to as “children” or “kids”) constantly heralded by the NEA as the innocent victims who suffer when policy doesn’t blow their way. As I type, I realize I’m turning into a serious union antagonist, but with every “for the children” appeal I hear from a union, these sorts of anti-student policies gnaw at me like a brain parasite. I can respect that the purpose of a union is to watch out for its members, but I cannot countenance the use of students and teachers as pawns for accomplishing this end.

Albany board member Scott Wexler’s lament is telling:

“We cannot compete with charter schools with 200 days while our…calendar committee (has) not (had an) instructional discussion (but) an employee benefit discussion. Our employees apparently need to understand our desire to have more time on task so we can be more succcessful.”

Just get real already. All the teachers’ unions I’ve encountered in real life or in the press appear concerned with kids, but their actions consistently indicate that member benefits are of utmost importance. It makes me want to stick two fingers in the back of my mouth, Phil Hendrie style, every time a union luminary says “our children.” Selling out students for benefits is what it amounts to.

Unite for the Children. We’re all the same.

Not to be sacreligious, but here’s another example of a given group of individuals (teacher’s union) talking out of several sections of the mouth. This one comes from the nifty little blog Intercepts. 

A teachers’ union in Massachusetts recently

 voted down, by a 305-47 margin, a five-year, $856,000 grant from the Advanced Placement Training and Award Program. The program, among other things, pays teachers of Advanced Placement courses bonus money “if they successfully recruit more students to take AP courses and if the students perform well on the end-of-the-year AP exam.”

Some district officials and parents complained about the union decision because the bonuses were just one part of the program, which includes professional development and a subsidy to offset the AP exam fee for the students. But the union stood firmly opposed.

“We understand that some people will not understand the vote, but we confronted this from a union perspective,” Marso said. “We have a fair and equitable contract with the district, and to have a third party come in and start paying certain teachers more money than other hard-working teachers goes against what a union is all about.”

Teachers are just cogs in a wheel, baby. Wouldn’t do the wheel any good to have one cog thinking it’s better than the next.

Word to all the mothers. And fathers. Let’s all be clear where the priorities lie.

All School Union Meeting

Once the superintendent and other administrative folk left the building, we got down to official union business. I actually took notes this year, and here’s what I learned.

• Out of all the “chicken little” antics last year surrounding layoffs, it turns out 90% of those pink-slipped were rehired.  Every single teacher at our school has a teaching job this year. 
• Out district doesn’t have a history of weak probationary teachers; it has a history of weak administrators. (Something probationary teachers were to keep in mind in case of receiving a poor evaluation. I don’t dispute this general claim, as I have no hard evidence to the contrary. Personal anecdotal evidence both affirms–I’ve seen [and been one of] many solid probationary teachers–and denies [it's been a privilege working with all the admins. I've come into contact with]the claim, so absent research, data, etc., I’m not sure if our president should be wrapping us in such a fuzzy blanket statement.
• Teachers with lots of experience (I forget the number and I don’t have notes in front of me, but I think it was around 7-10 years) only have to be evaluated every four years. (This was met with hoots and hearty applause. If I had a garbage administrator, I guess I’d hoot and holler too, but I find it hard to believe that all those teachers had crappy administrators. It’s disheartening, then, to hear so many professionals so averse to opportunities to improve their professional practice. I admit that our evaluation system has much to be desired, but I would hope we would be able to leverage it in such a way that it could give us at least a modicum of information on how to improve.)