LA Teachers Drink Kool Aid, Trade Souls For Layoff Moratorium

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

Los Angeles teachers have approved an initiative calling for a new teacher-evaluation system and a moratorium on layoffs, the Los Angeles Times reported this week. The initiative was approved by 56% of the vote. However, only 11,412 teachers voted, or roughly one-third of the membership.

The initiative was sponsored by Teachers for a New Unionism (TNU), who immediately claimed that the vote indicated growing support by teachers for using student test scores to evaluate them, despite the low turnout. TNU, it should be pointed out, is not a true grassroots opposition movement within UTLA, but an Astroturf opposition supported by the Future is Now Schools project—a spinoff of Steve Barr’s Green Dot charter management organization that receives funding from the Gates Foundation and New Schools Venture Fund—and by NewTLA co-founder Mike Stryer (see Our Place in History and  LA Teachers Seek to Put Evaluations to Referendum, for more).

Additionally, the initiative made no direct mention of student test data. The actual text was:

"Shall UTLA’s contractual negotiations with LAUSD include a moratorium on all RIFs (Reduction in Force—AKA layoffs) for all UTLA bargaining unit members through June 30, 2014, as part of a revised, phased-in, teacher-driven evaluation system mutually agreed upon by UTLA and LAUSD?"

United Teachers Los Angeles president Warren Fletcher endorsed the initiative and the union declined to submit a statement in opposition. Though Fletcher has opposed using student test scores to evaluate teachers, the union leadership has supported using such data to help teachers improve instruction—an irrational, copout position intended to mollify those who call the union an impediment to progress. Standardized test scores and improvement on the tests are dependent primarily on students’ socioeconomic backgrounds and provide very little data on the quality of teaching.

While it is true that teachers can sometimes help some students improve their scores, this cannot be considered “improved instruction.” On the contrary, the biggest gains in test scores can be made by teaching to the test and giving students repeated practice with standardized test questions. This does little to improve students’ critical thinking, literacy or mathematical skills. It takes away class time from other types of learning and curriculum. It is also tedious and mind-numbing and could contribute to students’ alienation from learning and school.

Several Important Unanswered Questions

---What will a “teacher-driven evaluation system” actually look like, especially one that is mutually agreed upon by a district that has been pushing for the use of student test scores and a union that is so conciliatory?

---If LAUSD lacks the funding to retain all its teachers (a prerequisite for the moratorium), how will it resolve its deficit? Pay cuts? Furloughs? Shortened school year? Benefits cuts?

Who Needs Tenure? Who Needs Green Dot?

The new contract between New York's United Federation of Teachers and Green Dot, the California-based charter school operator, offers teachers no tenure or seniority-based layoffs, according to Gotham Schools. Green Dot NY teacher evaluations will be based 20% on student standardized test scores and 20% on other measures of student academic growth.

Dana Goldstein (lady wonk) sees this as a model for teacher contracts of the future, assuming that teachers are well-trained and allowed to participate in the administration of their schools. She sees Green Dot as a “healthy” environment that emphasizes collegiality and professionalism and that has little “administrative overreach.” Randi Weingarten told her that she could envision entire districts based on Green Dot-like contracts.

The problem is that even if it was true that Green Dot was a “healthy” work environment that truly valued collegiality and professionalism, there would necessarily still be an adversarial relationship between management and employees, as there necessarily is in all workplaces. As long as someone else is in charge of one’s income, working conditions and job security, the relationship is exploitative and adversarial by definition.

Forgetting (or denying) this is asking to be walked all over. Without tenure, seniority, or other job protections, teachers at Green Dot can be fired or disciplined for almost any reason, like at non-unionized charter schools, including organizing or taking job actions to defend their contract or fight for a better one.

The other problem is that Green Dot is not a “healthy” work environment that values its employees. It is a private, for-profit enterprise whose entire raison d’etre is to maximize profits. They do this by exploiting teachers, paying them as little and working them as hard as possible. They cannot afford to give teachers any real autonomy or authority and will inevitably try to impose policies that are detrimental to students’ and teachers’ wellbeing. Without tenure and seniority protections, teachers are far less likely to challenge such policies, no matter how “collegial” or “professional” the environment.

Let’s not forget that Green Dot was behind the intimidation campaign in Compton by the astro-turf Parent Revolution. Green Dot has been sucking millions of dollars from cash-strapped public schools in Los Angeles and elsewhere, with some of its schools performing so poorly they have gone under. They have surrounded some of their schools with private thugs who have pepper sprayed students.

In short, Green Dot is a dysfunctional and dangerous work environment, not a “healthy” environment to which teachers should aspire. And Weingarten and UFT are collaborationist sellouts—unhealthy for teachers.

Teachers Veto Parent Trigger

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

In a potential (albeit double-edged) victory for teachers, they may gain the power to nullify charter conversions resulting from California’s Parent Trigger law. The law has been in limbo, as the State Board of Education tried to resolve conflicts and ambiguities in its original wording. A final version probably won’t be completed until July, reports John Fensterwald - Educated Guess, in his Toped piece: Could teachers veto charter option?

It is a victory for teachers because it gives them some power to fight the potential layoffs or loss of union rights that typically result from charter school conversion. Charter schools conversion also typically reduces or eliminates teacher and parent oversight and their voices from decision-making. It is also a victory for teachers because they are in the best position to understand the needs of their student population and to be able to see the larger picture and plan reforms that benefit the majority of students, rather than a vocal subset.

The decision is potentially double-edged because if teachers veto a decision made by the majority of parents, they will likely alienate parents and exacerbate relations with a powerful ally. This could increase animosity toward their unions and further fuel the anti-teacher hysteria that is currently poisoning the education reform discourse. However, this should not happen if teachers cultivate strong relationships with parents in the first place and work with them to develop a common understanding of the needs of the school and solutions that are not only beneficial to students, but that also preserve parent and teacher oversight of the school.

The problem is that the Parent Trigger law is not really about parent power at all. It is a Trojan Horse that allows private charter school companies to force their way into districts under the illusion that parents made the decision. This was clearly manifested at Compton’s McKinley Elementary, the law’s first test case, where Parent Revolution, a front group for Green Dot Charter Schools, funded and manipulated the process, even resorting to intimidation and extortion in order to pad the vote. Astroturf organizations like Parent Revolution will certainly exploit any teacher resistance to their advantage, making it even more urgent for teachers to be well-organized before anyone evens starts to discuss Parent Triggers.

The reason why teachers may win a veto over Parent Trigger charter conversions is because there was already a law on the books that allowed a majority of teachers to vote to convert their school to a charter school. Therefore, if a school hasn’t already been converted to a charter as a result of a majority vote of teachers, it can be assumed that a majority of teachers did not want a charter conversion. Because the Parent Trigger law must follow existing law, a group of parents should not be able to overrule a prior decision by teachers.

If a reform is truly worth doing (i.e., it is both beneficial to students and the benefits outweigh the costs), then it would make the most sense for there to be a consensus of all stakeholders, rather than pitting one group against another. Alienating any of the stakeholders can undermine their buy-in and full participation and consequently the success of the reform.

Not surprisingly, the Astroturf phony parent power proponents are angry with this turn of events. Advocates say that the purpose of the law “is to empower parents to change schools, not put obstacles in the way,” reports Fensterwald. He also quotes Gabe Rose, deputy director of Parent Revolution, who said “It’s nonsensical on its face” to also require teachers’ approval. Tellingly, Rose also noted that if teachers wanted a conversion, they would have already done it, suggesting that he doesn’t give a damn about the professional expertise of teachers or their concerns and issues. He simply wants free reign to use his vast war chest to manipulate, bully, intimidate and confuse parents in opposition to teachers and in support of his corporate charter school buddies.

Detroit’s Continuing School Problems

Robert Bobb, now in the final months of his contract as state-appointed emergency financial manager for Detroit Public Schools (DPS), has failed to close the district’s budget deficit, which currently stands at $327 million. He has shuttered dozens of schools and privatized many others. He has also proposed closing half of DPS’ remaining schools (which would raise class sizes to 62) or privatizing 41 within the next six months. The Detroit Free Press says that this would make DPS the 2^nd largest chartering district in the nation. However, many charter operators believe it is impossible to achieve Bobb’s ambitious goal within his 6 month timeframe.

DPS plans to release the list of schools slated for privatization within the next week and will choose charter operators within a month. The Detroit Free Press says that KIPP, Edison and Green Dot are not interested in DPS, but White Hat and Leona (both for-profit) are interested. It is indeed unlikely that White Hat and Leona, alone, could take over 41 schools and have them all up and running by fall. Furthermore, the charter plan is opposed by teachers who would lose their contracts and union protections, and possibly even their jobs in the conversions. DFT President Keith Johnson says the conversions won’t happen under his watch, but there have already been dozens of charter conversions under his watch, as well as numerous cuts to teachers’ pay, benefits and working conditions. Detroit teachers should not count on Johnson to look after their interests.

If the charter plan does not fly, Governor Rick Snyder could simply shut down DPS entirely under Michigan’s new financial martial law legislation, thus nullifying all existing contracts with teachers and support staff, and place the district in the hands of a new financial manager. This would allow Detroit to create a new district from the ground up with all new contracts offering much lower wages and benefits. While this would not instantaneously achieve the Bobb/Duncan/Broad goal of privatizing all the schools, it would certainly weaken the union and bring them a step closer.

Brown’s “Pro-Teacher” Board Fast Tracks Parent Trigger

California’s infamous Parent Trigger law, which allows a majority of parents to petition to have their low-performing school converted to a private charter school, has been given the green light to move ahead by State Board of Education President Michael Kirst. The law’s first test came last year, when parents at Compton’s McKinley Elementary, led by the Green Dot front group Parent Revolution, used strong arm techniques to bully parents into signing the petition. Some parents complained that they were threatened with deportation if they didn’t sign. As a result, Compton exploited irregularities in the petition to invalidate it, while community groups and anti-charter advocates called for a revamping of the law. Instead, under Kirst’s leadership, the State Board extended emergency rules for the law and expedited the timetable for coming up with new rules to clarify disputed issues.

Kirst and the School Board diverted the issue to a committee assembled by new State Schools Superintendent Tom Torlakson that includes representatives from Parent Revolution, as well as the California Teachers Association. This committee is to make recommendations by next month on permanent regulations on the Parent Trigger law. Meanwhile, the existing emergency regulations will hold, with a vote of 9-1 by the State Board, with only the former CTA lobbyist Patricia Rucker voting against it.

Some Issues That Still Need Resolution

• How signatures will be verified
• How to ensure that parents receive accurate information
• How to ensure that petitions are handled fairly
• Who decides which charter operator will take over
• What will be the appeals process
• How to prevent bullying and intimidation of parents

California to Modify Parent Trigger Law (Maybe)

Trigger Happy Ed Pirate (by Alberto+Cerriteno)

In its first meeting with the new Gov. Brown-appointed majority, the California Board of Education moved to restrict the Parent Trigger law that allows parents to shut down a low-performing schools, fire its teachers and reopen as a private charter school. Board of Ed officials said that the law, as written, was too vague and would be difficult to enforce, thus requiring “cleanup” legislation.

While Parent Trigger cheerleaders are saying that the move is an attempt to derail the law, the Board of Education is merely attempting to fine-tune the law, not do away with it. They did not even take any concrete actions on the law, but simply set up a working group to study it. They say they want to continue supporting parental choice, which sounds like a capitulation to proponents of the parent trigger law, as well as vouchers, charter schools and other anti-education schemes.

The Parent Trigger law was first implemented at McKinley school in Compton. In this case, there were numerous complaints of coercive techniques and intimidation to get parental support for the takeover. Some parents were threatened with deportation if they didn’t vote for the closure. Others were harassed at home or work. The group behind the takeover, Parent Revolution, is a front group for Green Dot charter schools, a private Educational Management Organization (EMO) that stands to profit from the Parent Trigger law.

Much in the same way that the anti-health reform hysteria has been bankrolled by Tea Party funders, like the Koch brothers, the Parent-Trigger movement has been funded by corporate Ed Deformers. Parent Revolution was bankrolled by Eli Broad, a billionaire who has no kids in k-12 public schools anywhere, and by Green Dot, a private, for-profit charter organization. Parent Revolution is headed by Steve Barr, former CEO of Green Dot and had eight paid staffers working on the campaign to take over McKinley, hardly a grass-roots, parent led movement.

There are many problems with the current law. As written, the law does not require that accurate independent information be provided to parents, nor does it require any independent analysis of the propaganda that is provided (which in the McKinley case came primarily from a group seeking to benefit financially from the decision). The law also does not require transparency, which allows groups like Parent Revolution to pretend to be a truly parent-led organization, thus disguising their profit-motive. Another problem with the parent trigger is that it cannot solve the make a low-performing school become a high-achieving school. As long as the clientele remain the same, generally low income students, simply swapping teachers or bringing in some corporate raiders is not going to miraculously close the achievement gap for them, anymore than it will put food in their mouths, a roof over their heads, income for their parents, healthcare, summer enrichment activities, etc.

Is it really parental empowerment to give parents the power (with only a 51% majority) to fire teachers or relinquish control and decision-making (and possibly profit-making) to an unaccountable private company?