9486 in the collection
Teaching Change
Rich Gibson Comment:
Rotherham argues that teacher union contracts are roadblocks to
school reform. He praises the American Federation of Teachers' Randi
Weingarten for backing pay-for-performance schemes, pay for test
scores and suggests similar maneuvers will re-energize unionism. Nonsense.
Teachers, among the last people in the US with health benefits and
fairly predictable pay, are also the most unionized people in the
US, about 5 million in the huge National Education Association and
the smaller AFT. Both unions' bosses embrace what they call, "New
Unionism, " the unity of business, government, and labor leaders in
the national interest, abolishing the reason people join unions: the
contradictory interest of employees and employers. Both unions'
leaders called for and backed what became the No Child Left Behind
Act, betraying the interests of kids and their members.
Neither union's leadership has done anything significant to halt the
three major thrusts into schooling today: the regimentation of the
curricula through one-view-fits-all standards; the oversight of the
standards via high-stakes exams which measure little but class, race,
and subservience; and the militarization of k12 and university life.
There is a vast gulf between the unions' top officials and the rank
and file. NEA's president makes more than $450,000 a year and hasn't
taught for decades, demonstrating why it is he might be fully
energized, live and think differently from a new teacher burdened
with school debts, living and teaching in a trailer.
Pay-for-performance will divide educators, make all education more
inequitable. Teachers in poor areas will be hit first, losing jobs,
wages, and health benefits. That's already happening. Teachers in
wealthier areas will be next; an injury to one preceding an injury to all.
The presidents of NEA and AFT don't need re-energizing. What is
needed is the vision of solidarity unionism, new organizations that
include educators, parents and kids, and direct action on the job to
restore the ability to teach the things that are nearly illegal in
school today: labor, the methods of rational knowledge, love and
sensuality, and freedom.
Ohanian Comment: You can check on more of Rotherham's bona fides by entering his name in 'search' from my home page. Some of them are real dillies.
By Andrew J. Rotherham
WHEN teachers at two Denver public schools demanded more control over their work days, they ran into opposition from a seemingly odd place: their union. The teachers wanted to be able to make decisions about how time was used, hiring and even pay. But this ran afoul of the teachers’ contract. After a fight, last month the union backed down — but not before the episode put a spotlight on the biggest challenge and opportunity facing teachers’ unions today.
While laws like No Child Left Behind take the rhetorical punches for being a straitjacket on schools, it is actually union contracts that have the greatest effect over what teachers can and cannot do. These contracts can cover everything from big-ticket items like pay and health care coverage to the amount of time that teachers can spend on various activities.
Reformers have long argued that this is an impediment to effective schools. Now, increasingly, they are joined by a powerful ally: frustrated teachers. In addition to Denver, in the past year teachers in Los Angeles also sought more control at the school level, and found themselves at odds with their union.
Most contracts are throwbacks to when nascent teacher unionism modeled itself on industrial unionism. Then, that approach made sense and resulted in better pay, working conditions and an organized voice. Yet schools are not factories. The work is not interchangeable and it takes more than one kind of school to meet all students’ needs. If teachers’ unions want to stay relevant, they must embrace more than one kind of contract.
New York City is moving in this direction. In addition to the regular United Federation of Teachers contract, more than 170 schools are participating in a pilot “pay for performance” program. Meanwhile, several charter schools in the city have alternative contracts with the city, including one with a much longer school day. And Randi Weingarten, the teachers’ union president, has invited Green Dot — a unionized public school operator in Los Angeles — to open a school in New York, which would add still another contract to the mix.
Where this leads is not toward the abolition of unions, as some in their ranks fear and their most rabid critics want. Instead, creating a portfolio of contracts to match a portfolio of schools will give parents better options and re-energize teachers’ unions as an agent of progress.
Andrew J. Rotherham is a co-director of Education Sector, a nonprofit policy group, and a member of Virginia’s Board of Education. He writes the blog Eduwonk.com.
Rich Gibson is professor emeritus at San Diego State University and a founder of the Rouge Forum.
— Andrew Rotherham, wit h comment by Rich Gibson
New York Times
2007-03-10
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/opinion/10rotherham.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
INDEX OF OUTRAGES
Pages: 380
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next >> Last >>
