Teachers- America's New Welfare Mothers...

Exerpt of an article by NOAH BERLATSKY on The Atlantic

America hates teachers.

That's not exactly the thesis of Dana Goldstein's The Teacher Wars, but her account of 200 years of education policy provides plenty of evidence for it. Education reform, as so often before, seem(s) to be less about aiding students than about targeting teachers.

Goldstein argues that discussions of education in the U.S. have repeatedly been framed in terms of moral panics. A moral panic, she says, occurs when "policymakers and the media focus on a single class of people … as emblems of a large, complex social problem." That single class of people is then systematically demonized, as politicians and pundits present "worst of the worst" cases as emblematic of the whole.

In fact, moral panics do more than demonize a group of people. They serve in part to create a group of people—to delimit or describe a particular identity and mark it as deviant. Such as the moral panics around poverty and the "welfare mother".

The comparison between welfare mothers and teachers may seem overdone… but again, the good teacher/bad teacher dichotomy is predicated on the idea that the bad teachers are already in place and must be driven out by the good teachers. The dream, from Beecher to today, seems to be that if only our schools could get rid of the career educators and install angels instead, the millennium would arrive...

Read the entire article on The Atlantic

Tenure Ruling is Yet Another Attack on Teachers Rights...

Arne Duncan Calls California Ruling 'A Mandate' to Fix Tenure Laws

A California judge ruled as unconstitutional Tuesday the state's teacher tenure, dismissal and layoff laws, saying they keep bad teachers in the classroom and force out promising good ones.

Poor and minority students are especially hurt by the laws because "grossly ineffective teachers" more often work in their schools, Los Angeles County Judge Rolf M. Treu said.

The ruling was hailed by the nation's top education chief as bringing to California -- and possibly the nation -- an opportunity to build "a new framework for the teaching profession." The decision represented "a mandate" to fix a broken teaching system, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said.

The court ordered a stay of the decision, pending an appeal by the state and the teachers union, the plaintiffs said. 'Reforming teacher tenure and firing laws is a hotly debated issue in American education, and the California case is being watched nationally, as evidenced by a statement from Duncan immediately after the court ruling.

Reformers say firing a bad teacher is almost impossible because of tenure laws and union protections, but teachers and their unions argue school boards and their firing criteria have unfair, overtly political standards.

Duncan, a former schools chief in Chicago, said he hoped the ruling will spark a national dialogue on a teacher tenure process "that is fair, thoughtful, practical and swift."

At a minimum, Duncan said the court decision, if upheld, will bring to California "a new framework for the teaching profession that protects students' rights to equal educational opportunities while providing teachers the support, respect and rewarding careers they deserve."

"The students who brought this lawsuit are, unfortunately, just nine out of millions of young people in America who are disadvantaged by laws, practices and systems that fail to identify and support our best teachers and match them with our neediest students. Today's court decision is a mandate to fix these problems," Duncan said.

Teachers unions, however, criticized the ruling, with one leader stating the court decision was "anti-public education" and a "scapegoating" of teachers for public education's problems. They will appeal the ruling.

Judge's ruling

The judge upheld the plaintiffs' arguments that the state's teacher tenure laws violated their rights to an equal education and caused "the potential and/or unreasonable exposure of grossly ineffective teachers to all California students in general and to minority and/or low income students in particular," he wrote.

The effect of bad teachers on students "shocks the conscience," the judge wrote. He cited how one expert testified that a single year in a classroom with a bad teacher costs pupils $1.4 million in lifetime earnings per classroom.

An expert called by the defendants estimated there are as many as 8,250 "grossly ineffective" teachers in the state -- or up to 3% statewide, the judge said.

But the state's two-year process for evaluating new teachers -- much shorter than the three-year period in 32 states -- "does not provide nearly enough time" for making tenure decisions, the judge said.

"This court finds that both students and teachers are unfairly, unnecessarily, and for no legally cognizable reason (let alone a compelling one) disadvantaged by the current ... statute," Treu wrote.

Firing a bad teacher could take anywhere from two to almost 10 years and cost $50,000 to $450,000 or more, the judge said.

He said that "given these facts, grossly ineffective teachers are being left in the classroom because school officials do not wish to go through the time and expense to investigate and prosecute these cases."

"Based on the evidence before this court, it finds the current system required by the dismissal statutes to be so complex, time consuming and expensive as to make an effective, efficient yet fair dismissal of a grossly ineffective teacher illusory," the judge wrote.

Plaintiffs' reaction

The plaintiffs said the ruling promises to usher in major reforms to public education and could "create an opportunity for California to embrace a new system that's good for teachers and students," according to the nonprofit Students Matter, which has been working with the nine students who are the plaintiffs.

One of the plaintiffs' attorneys called the ruling "a victory for students, parents, and teachers across California."

"This is a monumental day for California's public education system," plaintiffs' attorney Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. said in a statement. "By striking down these irrational laws, the court has recognized that all students deserve a quality education."

The nine students filed their lawsuit with help from the nonprofitStudents Matter, which says it sponsors "impact litigation to promote access to quality public education."

The plaintiffs alleged that tenure is granted too quickly, giving "grossly ineffective teachers" lifetime job protection, and asserted that dismissal laws are so costly and bureaucratic that districts remain stuck with bad teachers. The suit also contends that the state's "last-in, first-out" layoff laws force districts to fire top teachers and retain ineffective ones, the plaintiffs said in a statement.

Teacher unions will fight ruling

The California Teachers Association, a 325,000-member affiliate of the National Education Association, said it was "disappointed" by the judge's decision "as it hurts student and educators."

The union said there is nothing unconstitutional about the laws and says it is appealing.

"We are deeply disappointed, but not surprised, by this decision. Like the lawsuit itself, today's ruling is deeply flawed. This lawsuit has nothing to do with what's best for kids, but was manufactured by a Silicon Valley millionaire and a corporate PR firm to undermine the teaching profession and push their agenda on our schools," CTA President Dean E. Vogel said in a statement.

The state affiliate of the nation's other teachers union also denounced the court ruling.

"This suit is not pro-student. It is fundamentally anti-public education, scapegoating teachers for problems originating in underfunding, poverty, and economic inequality," California Federation of Teachers President Joshua Pechthalt said.

The CTA described Students Matter as a group created by Silicon Valley multimillionaire David Welch and a private public relations firm and said the group is supported by former Washington, D.C., schools chancellor "Michelle Rhee and Students First, Parent Revolution Executive Director Ben Austin, billionaire and school privatizer Eli Broad, former lawmaker Gloria Romero, and other corporate education reformers with an interest in privatizing public education and attacking teachers' unions."

Manny Rivera, a spokesman for the plaintiffs, confirmed the roles of those individuals and groups in the lawsuit and its efforts as stated by the union.

Rhee called the ruling "groundbreaking" and a moment for the state to now build "a first-class educational system."

Will the Supreme Court Kill Public-Employee Unions?

The massive stakes in the court case Harris v. Quinn.

Forget Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow union-bashing governors. Forget the partisan Republican attacks on organized labor. The gravest threat today to public-employee unions—which represent cops, firefighters, prison guards, teachers, nurses, and other city and state workers—is a Supreme Court case named Harris v. Quinn, which could be decided as early as this Tuesday. And, strangely enough, it is the court's most sharp-tongued conservative, Justice Antonin Scalia, who could ride to organized labor's rescue.

The case pits several of the nation's mightiest labor unions, such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), against their longstanding foe, theNational Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which helped bring the case. National Right to Work is funded by some of the biggest names in conservative philanthropy: the Bradley family, the Waltons of Walmart, Charles Koch, and DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, two dark-money ATMs. Labor officials seeHarris as an effort by the deep-pocketed conservative movement to wipe public-employee unions off the map—and to demolish a major source of funding and support for the Democratic Party. "This is an attempted kill shot aimed at public-sector unions," says Bill Lurye, AFSCME's general counsel.

The origins of Harris date to July 2003, when the Illinois legislature passed a bill recognizing certain home-care providers as "public employees" and designating a Midwest branch of SEIU to exclusively represent those workers. Before that, these workers were deemed independent contractors with no union representation, even though the Illinois government paid them with federal health-care funds. In June 2009, Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat, went one step further. By executive order, Quinn declared the state's disability-care providers, another type of home-care worker, eligible for exclusive union representation. (Ultimately, the disability providers voted against unionizing.)

Organized labor hailed these moves. Unions see a huge opportunity in the rapidly growing population of elderly Americans—what SEIU president Mary Kay Henry calls the "silver tsunami." Labor leaders believe that organizing home-care workers across the country could slow the decline in union membership.

When the Illinois labor bill passed in July 2003, no home-care worker was forced into SEIU. But if they chose not to join, the union still was allowed to deduct a small amount of money from their paychecks. Why? It was the union's responsibility to represent every home-care worker impacted by the new law. To pay for representing union and non-union home-care workers, the union began taking what it calls a "fair share" fee. (This money cannot be used for political activity.) The Supreme Court has upheld a union's right to collect fair share fees. (This is where so-called right-to-work laws come in. Such laws ban unions from collecting fair share fees from non-union workers even if the employees benefit from union-negotiated contracts.)

Home-care workers, consumers, and advocates in Illinois say union representation has led to higher quality care, safer workplaces, and more stability. Flora Johnson, an 85-year-old home-care worker in Chicago and SEIU member, says union-funded training sessions taught her how to properly lift a person and how to feed patients without choking them. Johnson points out that the union brought a level of professionalism to her industry. "Before we got the union, it was like we was babysitters," she says. "We had no dignity."

But there was a backlash. In April 2010, a group of Illinois home-care workers, led by plaintiff Pamela Harris, filed a class action arguing that the state had infringed on their First Amendment rights by forcing them to be represented by a union and pay fees. (The suit named two unions, SEIU and AFSCME, as defendants.) A district court and the US Seventh Court of Appeals each dismissed the case.

The case lay dormant until last October. That's when, at National Right to Work'surging, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Harris. Until that point, Harris was narrowly focused on the Illinois home-care workers; it posed no existential threat to the likes of SEIU and AFSCME. But after the high court intervened, National Right-to-Work expanded its argument to threaten all public-employee unions. As SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston wrote, Harris "mushroomed…into a major test of the continuing validity of the Abood precedent."

Cue organized labor's freak-out. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education is the 1977 Supreme Court decision that, in effect, upheld the constitutionality of the public-employee union model. The majority in Abood said these unions did not infringe on the First Amendment by collecting representation dues and collectively bargaining on behalf of public workers.

"This is an attempted kill shot aimed at public-sector unions," says Bill Lurye, AFSCME’s general counsel

During oral arguments in January, the Obama administration contended that overturning Aboodwould result in "radically reshaping First Amendment law." Yet several of the court's conservative justices appeared to want just that. Writing for the majority in 2012's Knox v. SEIU, Justice Samuel Alito all but invited National Right to Work to challenge Abood. During the oral arguments in Harris, Alito and Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed eager to demolish Abood. The court's four liberal justices questioned National Right-to-Work's arguments at every turn, with Justice Elena Kagan saying that tossing out Abood would lead to a "radical restructuring of the way workplaces are run." John Roberts, who has used his time as chief justice to push a pro-corporate agenda, gave few hints about where he stood on the fate of public-employee unions.

That leaves Justice Antonin Scalia. A conservative who says he interprets the Constitution through an originalist lens, Scalia would make for a strange ally of organized labor. Yet it was Scalia who asked some of the toughest questions of William Messenger, the lawyer for National Right to Work, challenging Messenger's argument that public-employee unions are lobbying organizations focused mostly on influencing public policy. Forcing workers to be represented by a lobbying outfit, Messenger argued, infringes on the First Amendment rights of workers who don't agree with the union's positions.

Scalia didn't appear to be buying it. He seemed to lean more toward labor's argument: that unions exist to better the working conditions of the workers they represent. "Listening to Scalia's voice in oral arguments made me feel like he really doubted that there was a need to go so far right now," says Lee Adler, an expert on public-employee unions at Cornell University. "He couldn’t follow National Right to Work's logic."

The Supreme Court's decision in Harris could cut several ways. It could affirm the lower court's decision—a big loss for National Right-to-Work. It could issue a more narrow opinion, saying, for instance, that Illinois home-care workers aren't public employees and shouldn't be unionized without touching Abood. Or the high court could take that kill shot: Eviscerate Abood and gut public-employee unions.

Like many other court watchers, Cornell's Lee Adler says the fate of Harris—and, potentially, the fate of public-employee unions—rests with Scalia. For the labor movement, Adler says, "He's the great white hope."

Rally For Dignity & Justice

STA Rocks VOTE-COPE

(guest post from Taylor Putney, Vote-Cope Chair)

While I’d like to awe you with tons of statistics based on all the great achievements you had with VOTE-COPE this year, statistics show people delete long emails without reading them so I will cut right to the chase! J

As of this moment 85 out of 126 members have pledged to VOTE-COPE.  That is more than two-thirds (67.5%) of our members.  This is insanely amazing and great!!!  I have had a few “hallway” discussions with people not included in that 85 number so I know this will grow even more by year end.

That being said, I want to extend a sincere thank you to STA as asking people for money is a difficult task but is much easier when people are willing to hear the reasons why and give it some critical thought.

I hope you will trust me with this responsibility again next year.  VOTE-COPE is ongoing so the 41 members who are still considering it can join on at any time!  Please contact me whenever…you can start making a donation at any moment.  Please no calls from 9pm – 5am. J

To finish out the year, my VOTE-COPE project this summer will be getting in touch with our most recent retirees and then working my way back to increase our number of 126 (current members) to include those folks who are sipping Pina-coladas on the beach.  Just kidding!...as we know our retirees are watching their grandchildren, working in new careers, busy volunteering, etc.!  They too keep a close on a legislation because their NYSTRS pension is rooted in state law.

That being said, you are probably wondering when money will start to be drafted.  I have now completed my work with SW payroll and the auto deductions will start tomorrow (May 9, 2014).  If too much or too little seems to be coming out please don’t hesitate to contact me.  Those of you who wrote checks I would expect VOTE-COPE will cash those during the month of May at some point.

It has been my pleasure being your VOTE-COPE coordinator this year.  Ok…a few statistics if you are interested…after calculations are complete we are on pace to raise $2814.50 on an annual basis ($469 last year!).  This is an average of $22.34 per member (about $3.72 last year!).  This is awesome as my goal was $1 per pay for EVERY member.  If we assume 21 pays we exceed that goal!  VOTE-COPE has three levels of awards.   There is the:

Albert Shanker Award for locals who raise an average of $50 per member, Dan Sanders Award for locals who raise an average of $25 per member, and Abel Blattman Award for locals who raise an average of $10 per member.  It is amazing that we went from incredibly low participation to receiving a “bronze” award.  We were so close to “silver.”  Next year.  J

Take care…THANKS…AND CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU FOR STEPPING UP!

-Taylor

Picket in the Pines! Put the PUBLIC back in public education!

Sunday, May 4, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Lake Placid, NY.

• Register online: http://www.cvent.com/d/h4qslh
• Spread the word via Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/events/234136926786807

WHY:

Education Reform Now, a union-bashing "reform" group run by Wall Street hedge fund managers, is hosting a retreat at Lake Placid May 4-6. The hedge-funders' deep-pocket Political Action Committee - Democrats for Education Reform - also will hobnob at the$1,000-a-head "Camp Philos."

These groups promote non-union charter schools, overreliance on standardized tests and Common Core, student-data collection, vouchers, merit pay, test-based teacher evaluations, privatization, and removing teacher unions from almost any role in shaping curriculum or determining working conditions.

ACT:

Picket in the pines to put the "public" back in public education! For too long, so-called "reformers" have drowned out the voices of parents and teachers. These hedge-fund propagandists have contributed to New York State's Common Core mess, the (failed) In-Bloom push for student data, and the spread of corporate charters that undermine public schools serving all kids.

WHEN:

Sunday, May 4, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.

WHERE:

Meet at the Comfort Inn
2125 Saranac Ave
Lake Placid, N.Y. 12946

REGISTER ONLINE:

Register online at http://www.cvent.com/d/h4qslh.

The deadline to register is Wednesday, April 30.

Based on participation and need, buses from NYSUT Regional Offices will be made available.

SPREAD THE WORD:

• Promote via Twitter. Use the hashtag #picketinthepines.
•  RSVP via the official Facebook event - and share with your friends!
• Download the flier.

TENTATIVE PROGRAM:

1-2 p.m.
Lunch

2-3:30 p.m.
Presentation by Sabrina Stevens of Integrity in Education

3-4 p.m.
Picket Sign-In and Sign Making

4-5 p.m.
Picketing at the Whiteface Lodge where Education Reform Now and DFER are meeting

Stand With Spencerport

More than 60 teachers at Spencerport’s Cosgrove Middle School have signed a petition calling for action by the NYS Commissioner of Education John King, Chancellor Meryl Tisch, and Governor Andrew Cuomo.  The petition takes issue specifically with this year’s ELA and Math tests for grades 3-8 characterizing the tests as “poorly written, developmentally inappropriate, deliberately confusing, and ambiguous.”  Additionally, the tests require students to complete tasks with insufficient time.

Stand with Spencerport – SIGN THE LETTER TODAY

______________________________

To Whom It May Concern:

We, the teachers at Cosgrove Middle School in Spencerport, NY, hereby demand transparency and accountability in the administration and scoring of the Grades 3-8 ELA and Math exams.  When teachers, parents, and the public cannot access the tests students are required to take, in their entirety, test-makers and policy-makers are not held accountable for the following:

• Reading passages that are:
  • Poorly-written
  • Developmentally inappropriate
• Questions that are:
  • Poorly-written
  • Developmentally inappropriate
  • Deliberately confusing
  • Ambiguous, with multiple correct answers, or no clear, correct answer
• Tasks in which students are given insufficient time for their completion

In their current state, these tests serve no discernible purpose other than wasting precious

hours of instruction in order to rank schools, teachers and students against one another. Even if the tests weren’t completely flawed, which they are, the data that they generate are vague, released to schools too late to be of any relevance, and are completely useless to our instructional practices. Without access to the test questions themselves, these exams provide us with no valuable information to help our students learn.

If time on task is important, and teachers are truly valued, we must be allowed to teach. We will lose approximately three weeks of instructional time to administer and score these absurd exams. Effective students have effective teachers who are in the classroom…teaching.

As educators, we are constantly asked, “What’s best for students?” but it’s obvious that

these tests do not have students’ best interests in mind. At best, these exams waste time and money. At worst, they traumatize students and create unnecessary stress in their lives. Students gain nothing of value from taking them, and their teachers gain nothing of value in their administration and scoring.

To correct these grievous errors, Commissioner King and the Board of Regents must eliminate these exams entirely, or be held accountable for their quality by releasing them to educators and the public for scrutiny. The privilege of keeping the exams secure was lost when they became grossly flawed and filled with purposefully deceptive questions. Only when our concerns are heard and addressed can we honestly say that the question “What’s best for students?” is guiding education in New York State.