AFTexposed

Parents, students demand reform in Boston

Victor — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 20:13:57 +0000

It appears that the public’s growing frustration with teachers unions and their collective bargaining contracts is finally starting to boil over.

This week, “Boston United for Students,” a coalition of students, parents and education advocates, rallied outside of the Boston School Department’s headquarters to demand a more student-focused teachers contract, Boston.com reports.

According to the Web site, protesters waived signs and chanted messages like “Stop bumping the good teachers, reward talent not seniority,” and “What do we want? Better teachers. When do we want them? Now.”

One parent, Angela Tang, summed up the group’s feelings from the podium.

“As parents, we are very frustrated that ineffective teachers are still in the classroom and too many good teachers are laid off,” she was quoted as saying on the web site. “We hope our new contract won’t protect ineffective teachers.”

Wow. We can only imagine what union bosses were thinking as they watched 70 protestors trudge around in 90-degree weather making such a spectacle in downtown Boston.
The event was organized by a coalition of about 30 area organizations and coincided with the last day of the union’s current contract.

The group is the second in the Boston area to call for longer school days, greater flexibility for administrators when hiring and assigning staff, and stronger teacher evaluations, according to Boston.com. Another group, the “Put Students First Coalition for a 21^st Century Contract,” came together last week.

As union leaders know quite well, nothing provokes attention like a good, old-fashioned protest, and we’re excited to see students and parents come together when it matters most – as a new teachers contract is crafted.

Too often, their voices aren’t heard until the contract is approved and the details are set in stone. Boston parents want to be part of the negotiating process, which should be their absolute right.

Good for them for hitting the streets and making some noise. We hope their demands are heard and heeded.

Ed Reform Radar

Victor — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:33:42 +0000

September 2, 2010

Civil rights groups loyal to unions, not black students

How can minority kids escape awful inner-city schools if minority leaders won’t help?

By Steve Gunn

EAG Communications

Civil rights organizations like the NAACP, the National Urban League and the Rainbow PUSH Coalition are traditional allies of the national teachers unions.

That’s understandable from a historic perspective, because many union teachers were on the front lines during the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 60s.

Today the organizations remain closely tied as power brokers in the Democratic Party, with the same basic liberal policy goals in mind.

But now the civil rights groups, and the people that run them, are facing a serious dilemma that really shouldn’t be a dilemma at all.

Do they remain in political lockstep with the teachers unions, even though the unions are fighting to preserve policies that keep black kids consigned to miserable inner-city school districts?

When the unions fight the expansion of charter schools, they are fighting black children. When they oppose school vouchers, they are opposing black children. When they insist on trapping a guaranteed clientele of students into horrible inner-city districts, they are trapping black children.

Freeing those children and their families is the civil rights issue of our generation.

Yet almost unbelievably, many traditional civil rights organizations refuse to acknowledge the horrible injustice being done to the youngsters in their own communities. They continue to support the union effort to maintain the failed status quo in public education.

Doesn’t the acronym NAACP stand for “the national association for the advancement of colored people?” Perhaps that group, and others like it, have lost sight of their primary motivation.

Anthony Bradley, an associate professor of theology at King’s College in New York City, recently summed up this outrage in an editorial published in the Detroit News.

“Civil rights groups. . .recently released a joint statement objecting to the Obama administration’s education reform proposal, which includes the closing of failing schools, increasing use of charter schools, and other common-sense moves toward choice and accountability in education,” Bradley wrote.

“Even though there is overwhelming evidence supporting the success of charter schools for children from low income households, the civil rights groups resist the opportunity for parents to exercise freedom to choose those schools.”

Black students, particularly males, are suffering from the “betrayal of teachers unions and civil rights groups that refuse to acknowledge the dignity of low-income parents by blunting their right to choose what is best for their children,” Bradley wrote.

The bottom line, according to Bradley, is this: “As long as teachers unions have influence in the black community, and in institutions pledged to black empowerment, and black parents are not financially empowered to opt out of failing public schools, black males are doomed.”

The numbers tell the story

Bradley is alarmed by the huge gaps in high school graduation rates between white and black students across the nation.

He’s particularly disturbed by the lack of success of young black males in traditional public schools, and offers statistics to illustrate his concerns.

He cites a Schott Foundation study that says only 47 percent of black males graduate from high school on time, compared to 78 percent of white males.

Much of the failure is bred at inner-city schools with poor academic standards in dangerous neighborhoods.

St. Louis, for instance, has a recent graduate rate for black male students of 38 percent, and it goes downhill from there, according to Bradley. Baltimore is at 35 percent, Atlanta is at 34 percent, Philadelphia and New York are at 28 percent and Detroit is at 27 percent.

“The way urban city school districts fail black males is more disconcerting considering that black professionals are in charge,” Bradley wrote.

He calls for the expansion of charter schools, the closing of underperforming schools, more faith-based education options, mass firings of ineffective teaching staffs, and more home school options.

Bradley is particularly high on charter schools and the success some have had with young black men.

Yet the teachers unions, and their partners in the civil rights movement, continue to fight the momentum of the charter school movement, simply because it threatens the stranglehold that traditional schools, and teachers unions, have on the nation’s public education system.

According to Bradley, the NAACP, National Urban League and Rainbow Push Coalition recently issued a joint statement bashing the Obama administration’s “extensive reliance on charter schools” and the “overrepresentation of charter schools in low-income and predominantly minority communities.”

Meanwhile, the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, petitioned the U.S. Department of Education to prevent single-sex charter school options because “the creation of an artificial single-sex environment will ill prepare students for life in the real world.”

On the contrary, perhaps young men of any race are more able to concentrate on their studies without the distraction of young women in the hallways. In his column, Bradley offers several examples of success.

The Eagle Academy in New York City, an all-male charter school comprised primarily of black and Latino students, has a graduation rate of 82 percent, according to Bradley. The Urban Prep Charter Academy in Chicago, another all-male school with mostly black youngsters, had a graduation rate of 100 percent in the Class of 2010, and all 107 black male graduates are headed to college.

How can the unions and their civil rights allies ignore those results?

“Nothing prepares black males for life in the real world like graduation from high school and attending college,” Bradley wrote. “Sadly the NAACP and the NEA have long undermined the push for low-income black parents to exercise freedom to choose the best schools as a national norm.”

CHARTER DEBATE IN TEXAS

Dennis Van Roekel, president of the NEA, argued last week that the state of Texas should not invest more education money into buildings for charter schools.

His reasoning? Some charter schools do not produce the desired results.

“If you look at the research for charters, the results are not there,” Van Roekel was quoted as saying in the Dallas Morning News. “We still have many advocates who say it is the silver bullet for what’s wrong in education. But the record shows many of those schools are not delivering for kids.”

Hmmm. Schools not delivering for kids. That’s a topic that Van Roekel ought to know something about. And he admitted that much when he said the following: “We also have public schools that are not delivering for kids, and that is where we need to focus our attention.”

Who says?

First of all, charter schools are public schools, supported with public money. In principle they have as much right to the public dime as traditional public schools.

And if everything is pretty much equal in the failure department, why should one type of public school get more financial assistance than the other?

The answer is parental choice. The people of Texas should be able to determine which schools survive or which fail, based on where they decide to send their children. If there is considerable interest in charter schools in Texas (and it seems obvious there is), then there’s nothing wrong with the state government providing money for those institutions to have better facilities.

Van Roekel seems to be arguing that traditional schools deserve more investment because they were around first. We would argue that charters may be a better investment, because they are relatively new and some are still working the bugs out.

Charters may actually hold more promise for students and taxpayers, because they are less expensive to operate and aren’t burdened by constrictive union work rules.

Traditional public schools have had decade after decade to get their act together, and many still struggle to adequately instruct their students. After so many years, perhaps we can conclude that some of them are a lost cause and deserve extinction.

Perhaps it would be wise for the unions to stop whining about charter schools and focus on making traditional schools more valuable to the public. Then maybe the public won’t be so eager to fund alternatives like charter schools.

FREE TICKETS FOR THE COMPETENT

Remember the recent Los Angeles Times story that tracked elementary student test scores over a number of years, and rated their various teachers accordingly?

American Federation of Teachers officials were extremely upset with the report, but Bob Bowdon, director of “The Cartel,” thought it was a useful way to inform taxpayers about the effectiveness of their city’s teachers.

He was so impressed, in fact, that he’s offering free tickets to view his hit documentary to any LA teacher who had an “above average effectiveness” rating. The tickets can be redeemed at the film’s screening at the Burbank International Film Festival on Sept. 11.

“The Cartel,” which takes a close look at the ugly state of public education in New Jersey, has won seven awards at various film festivals.

“Now that this data has been made public, we hope businesses all over Southern California will follow suit and offer discounts to LA’s best educators,” Bowdon said.

“Since the Los Angeles teachers union won’t allow merit pay for their highest performing teachers, this is one way we can thank them for their hard work without the (United Teachers Of Los Angeles) permission. This should become a trend.”

It would be interesting to find out how many teachers take pride in their strong performance rating and claim their free tickets.

It’s important that these teachers understand how much they are appreciated by the school reform movement, and how much more society could offer them if their union stopped insisting on protecting the job security of their most ineffective colleagues.

School Choice: The Civil Rights Issue of Our Time

Victor — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:14:00 +0000

A July 2010 Gallup Poll found that only 34 percent of Americans have trust in the nation’s public school system; that’s down four points from 2009.

Most Americans believe that the public schools are failing the nation’s children. But as a new column from Anthony B. Bradley makes clear, it is black male students who are being hurt the most by inferior public schools.

And sadly, many leaders in the black community are still siding with the national teachers unions and fighting efforts to help minority kids escape failing inner-city schools.

Bradley writes “that only 47 percent of black males graduate from high school on time, compared to 78 percent of white male students.” In urban school districts throughout the nation, the graduation rates for black males get even worse. In New York and Philadelphia, for example, only 28 percent of black male students graduate high school.

But the situation isn’t hopeless. Certain charter schools throughout the country have helped black male students to not only graduate, but to excel.

“This summer, Chicago’s Urban Prep Charter Academy, with a 100 percent graduation rate, graduated a class of 107 black male students, all of whom are attending college in the fall,” Bradley writes. Another all-male charter school in New York “boasts a graduation rate of 82 percent.” Charter school success stories such as these ought to be celebrated by all Americans—but they’re not.

Opponents of charter schools include the usual suspects: the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association. Oh, their websites say they support charter schools, but read further and it becomes clear they support charter schools only if they can organize their staffs and control them.

But here’s the bigger story: Civil rights groups such as the NAACP, the National Urban League, and the Rainbow PUSH Coalition also oppose the efforts of charter schools. According to Bradley, “Even though there is overwhelming evidence supporting the success of charter schools for children from low-income households, the civil-rights groups resist the opportunity for parents to exercise freedom to choose schools.”

How can this possibly be? It’s just old-fashioned politics.

Civil rights leaders, like most politicians associated with the Democratic Party, know that if they want to get ahead in the party, they need to play nice with the NEA, which has a huge influence on the party and its policies. So-called leaders in the black community are more concerned about their own political power than they are about the future of young black students.

On its website, National Urban League officials write that they “wholeheartedly” support charter schools. Yet a few sentences later, they warn, “While some charter schools can and do work for some students, they are not a universal solution for systemic change for all students, especially those with the highest needs, and should not be considered as the sole useful reform.”

Let’s review, once again, graduation rates for black males in major urban school districts: 34 percent in Atlanta, 27 percent in Detroit, 38 percent in St. Louis, 35 percent in Baltimore, 28 percent in both Philadelphia and New York.

Those numbers reveal an educational catastrophe for black male students, and the National Urban League responds by preaching a “wait and see” approach to charter schools. The only explanation for this is the old saying used for worthless politicians: “They came to do good, and stayed to do well.”

It’s an outrage that there are powerful adults who are willing to sacrifice the well-being of children for their own selfish political interests.

Bradley writes, “As long as teachers unions have influence in the black community and in institutions pledged to black empowerment, and black parents are not financially empowered to opt out of failing public schools, black males are doomed.”

Still, there is one reason for optimism: more and more Americans are coming to the realization that parents everywhere should be allowed to choose where their children attend school. But Americans need to understand that it’s more than just a good idea. It’s the most important civil rights issue of our time.

Ed Reform Radar

Victor — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:39:01 +0000

August 26, 2010

One union pension bailout could lead to another . . .
Will taxpayers pick up the tab for $1 trillion in teacher pension liabilities?

By Ben Velderman
EAG Communications

     WASHINGTON, D. C. – Will the madness ever end?
     Just over two weeks ago, Congress passed a $10 billion “Education Jobs Fund” that gave money to cash-strapped states to keep teachers and other school employees on the job.
     It was spun as a victory for the kids, but the real winners were the teacher unions, whose members were spared from making salary and benefit concessions to avoid layoffs.
     While the teacher unions won a temporary victory, we have to believe that they are paying careful attention to another, bigger prize that’s lurking in the shadows – an expensive federal bailout for private companies with union-negotiated pension plans.
     If this latest bailout becomes law, it will mark the first time in American history that tax dollars are used to fund the pension plans of private industries.
     In late July, Sen. Dick Durbin (D – IL), the second most powerful Democrat in the U.S. Senate, announced that he is supporting the “Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act of 2010.” This proposed bill that would make select labor union pension plans the “obligations of the United States.”
     Here’s how it would work: Congress would specifically bail out troubled Multiemployer Pension Plans (MEPPs). These pension plans are used in the transportation, construction, and entertainment industries (among others) in which workers regularly change employers but stay working in the same field.
     Instead of having each employer set up a unique pension plan, MEPPs establish a general pension fund that employers fund at a rate determined during collective bargaining sessions with the union. Unlike traditional pension plans that are controlled entirely by the company, the unions help manage the MEPPs.
     But they haven’t been managed very well, and the taxpayers could be stuck with the cost of making them whole.
     Why would this be of interest to the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers?
     A recent study from the Manhattan Institute and the Foundation for Educational Choice finds that “teacher pension liabilities for all 50 states now total almost $1 trillion….almost triple the cost of what state officials have on their balance sheets.” The study concludes that these unfunded public burdens “could bankrupt state budgets, including education programs.”
     The teachers unions know that their lavish pension plans will result in a financial tsunami for the states. Should this new bailout go through, it will pave the way for a massive bailout for the teacher pensions, the likes of which has never been seen. This is a very big deal.

Death By A Thousand Cuts

Back to the MEPP bailout.

     The MEPP system may work okay when the economy is humming along, but its structural flaws quickly become evident during a recession.
     Since the beginning of this current economic downturn, a large number of companies have gone out of business. As a result, fewer employers are paying into the MEPPs, and those employers are having to pay more and more into these pension funds just to keep them afloat. Employers are in danger of death by a thousand cuts.
     If the unions were responsible, they would head back to the negotiating table and rework their pension agreements to make them sustainable. But why do that when there’s bailout money to be had? That’s where Congress enters the picture.
     The bill supported by Sen. Durbin would take the pension benefits of workers whose companies have gone bankrupt and put them into a separate account. This new account would be administered by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), a government run insurance fund for pension plans. Currently, when a pension plan goes bust, the PBGC takes it over and uses the insurance premiums paid by its members to cover the costs. But since the PBGC itself is more than $20 billion in debt, that is not a viable solution.
     Under this proposed bailout, these new, separate pension accounts (called the “partitioned plan”) would become the “obligations of the United States.” In other words, the multiemployer pension plans would be given a clean bill of health after the taxpayers make them whole. As Yogi Berra might say, “It’s deja vu all over again!”
     In testimony before the U.S. Senate, Assistant Secretary of Labor Phyllis Borzi put it this way: “The proposal ultimately makes the taxpayers liable for paying the benefits of the partitioned plan. Currently, no other benefit obligations assumed by the PBGC are subject to the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.”
     Read that last sentence again and let it sink in. Should this bill pass, unions will realize that no matter how reckless and irresponsible their demands are during a collective bargaining showdown, the U.S. taxpayer will be forced to come to the rescue should their employer go bankrupt.

“We want ours!”

     This proposed bailout needs to clear a few major hurdles before it can become law.
     The first hurdle: the American people are sick of bailouts. That’s why supporters are selling this as a jobs bill. They argue that if the taxpayers take responsibility for these pension plans, employers will have money freed up to spend on job creation.
     This is the “Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm” approach to economics: it’s nice and simple, but it has no basis in reality. Adding more debt (which will need to be paid back in the form of higher taxes) is no way to grow the economy. Not even the bill’s supporters believe this. But by labeling something as a “jobs bill” instead of a “bailout,” they hope enough people will be bamboozled into supporting it. Hey, it worked for the teacher unions.
     The cost is another major sticking point. Supporters of the bailout argue that it would “only” cost around $10 billion. Here’s how a spokesman for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters put it: “We’re not asking for trillions of dollars like the banks get. We’re just looking for temporary relief for pensions that lost money in the stock market crash.” Translation: “We want ours!”
     The $10 billion price tag for the bailout is laughable. A 2009 analysis by Moody’s Investor Services looked at some of the largest MEPPs in the nation and concluded “that these plans are collectively underfunded by upwards of $165 billion.” Do they not want us to know about the $155 billion? Does anyone really think this bailout would stop at $10 billion? Anyone?
     The Senate bill and its counterpart in the U.S. House of Representatives are currently hung up in committee. It looked like the union pension bailout was going nowhere until Sen. Durbin threw his weight behind it. This has fueled speculation that the Senate may try to push this bailout through later this year, after the November elections. Even though there is no appetite among the public for another bailout, organized labor might demand that Congress jam it through.
     If that occurs, the two major teacher unions, plagued with their own self-inflicted pension nightmares, won’t be far behind, demanding their piece of the pie.

MORE INDIANA UNION INSURANCE TROUBLES

     Perhaps the Indiana State Teachers Association should get out of the insurance business.
     The first clue came last year, when ISTA Trust, the insurance wing of the teachers union, enrolled roughly 30 local school districts into an insurance plan that would allow the districts to recover unused long-term disability premiums.
     But the ISTA Trust folks apparently comingled the schools’ dollars with other funds and made bad investments, resulting in the loss of at least $20 million that should be reimbursed to local schools.
     Now there’s another ugly tale coming out of Indiana, which makes the ISTA look even worse.
     The Metropolitan School District of Pike Township (Indiana) filed a lawsuit last week, accusing the union of fraud, conspiracy and racketeering activities.
     The union intentionally fleeced school funds through a prolonged insurance scam, according to claims in the lawsuit that was filed in U.S. District Court. Union officials overrode required prescription drug co-payments for its members and sent inflated, fraudulent invoices to the school district, the lawsuit says.
     The ISTA also billed Pike schools to cover benefits for individuals that were not employed by the district and were not eligible for coverage, the lawsuit says.
     The union’s conduct, if true, serves as yet another fist in the eye of taxpayers who fund ISTA’s unscrupulous activities, as well as the school districts that rely on the union to administer health benefits.
     We at EAG issued a press release earlier today, regarding this troublesome situation.
     “The leaders of the Pike Township school corporation have taken a bold stand for taxpayers and should be lauded for it,” EAG Vice President Kyle Olson was quoted as saying. “They appear to have provided the necessary documentation to back up their accusations. EAG encourages other school leaders to look at the lawsuit and the evidence to determine if ISTA has been pulling a fast one on them, as well.
     “If so, other school corporations should join Pike Township in its demand for legal action. School corporations must not allow the ISTA to treat them as a money-making machine, and they ought to redouble their efforts to ensure every dollar is being used appropriately.”

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

“Instead of trying to figure out how to get more money for education, schools across the state are figuring out how to get more education for our money. We should all follow their examples. And while we are at it, we must channel the resources we do have directly to student learning.”

– Tony Bennett, Indiana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, during his innaugural “State of Education” speech Monday.

Ed Reform Radar

Victor — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:08:10 +0000

August 19, 2010

Teachers union fights transparency and accountability in LA

Unions should realize that their tantrums are a turn-off for the public

By Steve Gunn

EAG Communications

LOS ANGELES – Accountability is a dirty word for teachers unions.

They believe it’s unfair to hold their members responsible for the outcome of their work, which is student progress.

And they get really angry when taxpayers – the people who are paying the teachers – are allowed to find out how well the teachers are teaching.

After all, citizens simply pay for public schools. How dare they expect to see the results of their investment!

The Los Angeles Times caused a major stir last week when it published a story based on a detailed study of teacher performance in that city’s school district.

The newspaper published the names of more than 6,000 elementary teachers and the standardized test scores of students in their classes over the course of seven years.

The study was conducted as a simple measure of teacher effectiveness, something parents and taxpayers – and the unions themselves – should clearly be concerned about.

It found large disparities in test scores for students of various teachers, indicating that some teachers are far more effective than others.

The release of the study prompted a major hissy fit from union officials at the local and national level.

United Teachers Los Angeles responded to the article by announcing plans to organize a mass boycott of the newspaper, with teachers and others in the labor movement encouraged to cancel subscriptions.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, got into the fray by suggesting that teacher perfomance is a private matter and doesn’t belong in the newspaper. She argued that standardized test scores should only be available to teachers, administrators and individual parents, and not the community at large.

Weingarten even asked the editors of the Times to keep the story out of the newspaper.

”Teachers look at this as a hammer, a sledgehammer, and they’re scared about it,” Weingarten was quoted as saying in the Lexington (Kentucky) Herald-Leader. “They’re school teachers. They’re private individuals. They’re not public figures. And they just woke up one day and 6,000 names were going to be in the newspaper.”

They work for the public, Randi

We’ve got some news for Ms. Weingarten.

Public school teachers are public employees, living off the public dime, so therefore they are indeed public figures. Their performance determines how well the children of a community are educated.

Yet Weingarten somehow believes that this is not the public’s business?

Get real.

In case Weingarten has not noticed, the public has become increasingly concerned with the state of education in this country. Our students are falling far behind their peers in other nations, a fact that’s making people wonder if union domination of the public education system is really working.

If teachers don’t want to be held up to public scrutiny, they should go work in the private sector. As long as we’re paying them, we have an absolute right to know how well they are performing.

Public knowledge of teacher performance is particularly important in cities like Los Angeles, which is home to one of the nation’s worst public school systems. If the public is not allowed to know what’s wrong in the district, how are the problems ever going to be fixed?

Besides, it’s not as though the school district can do much about underperforming teachers. That’s because tenure “due process” rules force districts to spend a fortune to try to fire them.

According to L.A. Weekly, the district spent $3.5 million over the past 10 years trying to fire a mere seven teachers for poor performance. Only four were fired, two were paid large settlements and one was reinstated.

On top of all of this, we believe it would be wise for Weingarten and the United Teachers Los Angeles to consider the repercussions of their public tantrums, particularly when they defend bad teachers.

Imagine being a parent in Los Angeles and reading about the large disparities in test scores for students of different teachers. That parent might expect the union to react with concern, and a pledge to help address this obvious problem.

Instead the parent learns that the union wants to boycott the newspaper, because the newspaper is keeping citizens informed.

That parent is likely to start viewing the union as an enemy in the battle to educate their children, rather than an ally. Is that really the impression that Weingarten and UTLA wants to leave with the people who generate their salaries?

SHIRT THROWERS IN ESCONDIDO

Public relations are clearly a challenge for teachers unions, probably because they’ve been shielded from the cleansing light of public scrutiny for so long.

It’s just like spoiling a child for the first 10 years of life, then suddenly expecting that child to behave responsibly. The predictable result is a loud temper tantrum, which is exactly what we’re getting from the teachers unions.

Sometimes the tantrums are downright hilarious.

A few months ago, union teachers in Escondido, California reacted to a proposal to trim their salaries for two years by taking off their shirts and laying them at the feet of stunned school board members at a public meeting.

Luckily, it appears that the shirt-shedding teachers were wearing other garments to cover their skin. Otherwise a silly protest might have turned rather unsightly. Photos of the protest clearly indicate that the participants are not undernourished.

”It seems to reason that the next item you want is the shirt off our backs,” union president Romero Maratea told the board before taking off his shirt.

Other teachers took their shirts off before the meeting, put them in a box and placed them before the board, according to the North County Times – Californian. Some audience members threw shirts at the board, the newspaper said.

What an impressive display of concern for the district’s financial plight. We’re certain that the residents of the district noticed that the teachers were acting more juvenile than the children they instruct.

Union temper tantrums come in other forms, as well.

The Indiana Department of Education has issued a list of underperforming schools that could eventually be taken over by the state. The South Bend district has three of those schools.

To prevent a takover, state officials want school districts to sign a “memorandum of agreeement,” which outlines steps the districts can take to improve academics and avoid a takeover.

One step is making teacher assignments without regard to seniority. That obviously upset the South Bend teachers union, which threatened to file a lawsuit against the school board if it signed the memorandum.

Fearing litigation would zap district savings and create hostility with the union, the superintendent recommended against signing.

“There’s no guarantee that the state won’t take over (the three schools) if we don’t sign the MOA,” Superintendent James Kapsa told a local television station. “There’s no guarantee that the state won’t come in if we do sign the MOA. But there is a guarantee for litigation and we don’t want that. We want to use our money – what little we have – for kids and programs and education, rather than in the courts.”

So the union won through intimidation, and kids stuck in rotten schools were the clear losers. We wonder what the people of South Bend think of that? [See EAG's Hoosier Report Card for more information.]

PUTTING VIAGRA FIRST

The “Boneheaded PR Move of the Year” award has to go to the Milwaukee teachers union.

The Milwaukee school board is battling a huge budget deficit, while still trying to offer students some sort of quality education.

But the union has been putting up as much resistance as possible.

A few months ago the union rejected a school board proposal to change health insurance carriers, a move that would have saved millions and kept many younger teachers on the job.

Then last week we heard that the union is suing the district so Viagra, the male sexual stimulus drug, will be covered by employee insurance. The annual cost to the district would be approximately $786,000, according to published reports.

Luckily several major media outlets picked up this story and let everyone know how incredibly self-serving this local union is being.

How do union officials expect the public to be on their side when they literally want to steal money from school kids to pay for their sexual kicks?

It’s gotten to the point where those of us in the school reform movement don’t have to publicize the selfish behavior of the unions, because they do that themselves.

But we still couldn’t resist the temptation to issue a press release regarding this bizarre tale.

“Milwaukee union leaders think teachers should be held harmless when it comes to concessions, and they would very much like us to pay for their recreational sex drugs, as well,” EAG Vice President Kyle Olson was quoted as saying. “If this pathetic situation doesn’t tell us something about the twisted priorities of teachers unions, nothing will.”

OLSON SHARES VIEWS ON TV

Olson was a guest on two national television news programs last week, addressing education issues.

On Aug. 9 he appeared on the Fox News Channel’s “Your World,” discussing the pending passage of the teachers union bailout bill in Congress.

On Aug. 13 he appeared on the popular “Fox and Friends” morning program on the same network. He discussed the fact that four states are scheduled to receive money from the teachers union bailout legislation, even though they had few, if any, teacher layoffs.

Billions for Teacher Unions, Bupkis for Students

Kyle — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:33:46 +0000

Here’s a story problem to get kids ready for the new school year:

If Congress borrows $10 billion to bail out the public schools, and if toilet paper costs fifty cents a roll, how many rolls of toilet paper will each of the nation’s 132,000 K-12 public schools receive?

The answer: Zero. Zip. Zilch.

The average American can be forgiven for thinking that the $10 billion “edujobs” bill signed into law last week by President Obama would directly benefit the nation’s school children. That’s certainly how the National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel spun it: “As a result of this vote, we expect to see less crowded classrooms, reinstated bus routes and restored education programs and services,” Van Roekel said.

What a windfall for the kids, right? But how to make sense of this headline in The New York Times: “Back to School? Bring Your Own Toilet Paper.” Just five days after the $10 billion bailout became law, the Times reports that schools all across the country are sending out shopping lists to parents and students, requiring them to help stock the janitorial closets that have been stripped bare by shrinking school budgets. Wasn’t that money supposed to prevent this kind of thing?

It’s a fact that school districts all across the country have smaller budgets to work with, due to the aftermath of “The Great Recession.” It’s also a fact that unlike most American workers who have had to take less pay and fewer benefits to keep their jobs, many teacher unions all across the country have refused to make any concessions (i.e. accepting a freeze in pay or contributing to their health insurance costs). Left with no other options to balance their budgets, school districts were forced to cut teaching jobs. This resulted in a “crisis” and led to Congress’ $10 billion bailout.

With Congress pumping all this new money into the education system, the teacher unions can forego any unpleasant concessions and can protect the status quo. Meanwhile, parents and students are forced to stretch their back-to-school budgets to help stock the restrooms with toilet paper and Kleenex.

Despite all the spin, it is clear that the “edujobs” bill was simply a bailout for the intractable teacher unions dressed up as being “for the children.” Once again, the nation’s school kids are asked to do with less so the teacher unions can do with more.

Welcome back to school.

Ed Reform Radar

Victor — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:47:01 +0000

August 12, 2010

School choice advocates gather in California to plot winning strategy

The goal is to sell choice and reform to an increasingly receptive public

By Steve Gunn

EAG Communications

SAN FRANCISCO – Some prominent leaders of the school choice and reform movement believe they’re on the cusp of a major national victory.

But only if the various entities within the movement work together, and take advantage of opportunities created by political and economic conditions.

“Public schools in the next 2-4 years will undergo such wholesale changes that you really won’t recognize them in the next 24 months,” said Dick Morris, the best-selling author and Fox News analyst told an audience Wednesday night.

“Two or three years from now, the NEA and AFT will not amount to a hill of beans politically. If we do our job well, we will change public education so fundamentally, it will be one of the great moments in the history of our nation.”

Morris’ bold words came during the opening session of the “Where’s the Outrage? – Lighting a Fire Under the School Choice Movement” conference in San Francisco.

The conference, sponsored by the Gleason Family Foundation, is a three-day pow-wow for hundreds of activists and dozens of organizations that have been promoting change in public education.

It’s also the kickoff of a national effort to draw public attention to school choice and reform, which will culminate with the inaugural “National School Choice Week,” January 23-30, 2011.

Besides Morris, featured speakers at the conference include National Public Radio commentator Juan Williams, political pollster Dr. Frank Luntz, nationally syndicated talk radio host Mike Gallagher, Democratic political strategist Joe Trippi, documentary writer and producer Patrick Prentice and Education Breakthrough Network President Lisa Graham Keegan.

Organizations on hand include the Association of American Educators, Citizens for Educational Reform, the Black Alliance for Educational Options, the Center for Educational Reform, the Hartland Institute, the Foundation for Educational Choice, the Cato Institute and Media Solutions for Education Reform.

Gleason: Time to bring the public on board

On the surface, it might appear that the reform movement has all the momentum it needs. State legislatures across the nation are approving education reform measures, and school boards are starting to reject the expensive, self-serving demands of the unions.

But the movement has not attracted enough popular support, according to Tracy Gleason, president and CEO of the sponsoring foundation.

The evidence is in the numbers. Luntz, in a Thursday morning presentation to the conference, pointed out that, in a recent poll of Americans, only 12 percent listed “schools and education” as a topic that worries them most.

That degree of popular concern will obviously have to increase before permanent progress can be made.

“We have had an incredible effort put forward by people in all areas of the school choice movement,” Gleason told the Radar during a break in the conference. “But yet, when you look around, most people know little about us or what we’re doing. We haven’t been good at selling it.

“There’s no reason why our movement should simply maintain a conversation with itself. There are a number of opportunities now that we haven’t seen for awhile. The American people are scared, and they’re paying attention to corruption and waste in government.

“We’re also up against the wall when it comes to public budgets. In the past, the teachers unions would just say they need more money for education and the public would accept that. Nobody was nickle and diming back then, but they are now. People are asking more questions.”

In other words, the American people are ready to listen to arguments about doing things differently. They just need to be aware of the need for change in education and how it can be accomplished. And they, in turn, will pressure lawmakers to allow more school choice and make wholesale changes in existing schools.

The people just need to be brought on board.

The path to change, according to Morris

Morris, in his role as conference keynote speaker, spelled out how he sees change coming.

He believes it will begin with the mid-term elections in November, when he expects Republicans to sweep into power in Congress.

That means the federal government will no longer be available to bail out state governments and public employee unions, like Congress did earlier this week when it put the finishing touches on a $10 billion package to subsidize salaries and benefits for public school teachers and other employees.

“The Republican Congress will say no – hell no,” Morris said.

Morris said some Republican lawmakers are already working on amendments to federal laws, which would allow states to file for bankruptcy, on the condition they dismiss current benefits and pensions stipulated in public employee union contracts.

Such a bill would almost certainly be vetoed by President Obama, and a standoff will occur in the nation’s capitol, according to Morris. Meanwhile states and schools will run out of money and become more desperate and cooperative with reform efforts, he said.

“We’ll just sit there and watch all hell break loose,” Morris said. “We’re going to play chicken with them, and you know what? We’re going to win.”

Republicans and reform-minded Democrats will also sweep to power in statehouses around the nation, according to Morris. Faced with severe money problems in public schools, they will become more accommodating to education alternatives, like charter schools, which spend a lot less per child and frequently get better academic results.

The final key will be mobilizing the various factions of the movement to sell the concepts of choice and reform to the public, so citizens will demand that lawmakers put education near the top of their agendas.

One key will be mobilizing the parents of current charter school students, Morris said.

“The purpose of this conference is to take the next three days and take a movement and turn it into a fighting force,” he said. “Our work will be to point out the availability of alternatives and work with incoming officials to develop a new system.”

The result will likely be new school choice voucher programs throughout the nation, and their existence will break the power of the teachers unions, Morris said.

Morris repeated a now-famous line from his book “Outrage” – “There is nothing wrong with public education in America that breaking the power of the teachers unions will not solve.”

“The obstacles are gone and the impediments are removed,” Morris told his audience. “Go ahead and create as much change as you can.”

National School Choice Week

Kyle Olson, vice president of Education Action Group, is also serving as executive director for National School Choice Week.

According to Olson, the effort will span much more than a week. There will be months of outreach and publicity efforts designed to attract public attention and build momentum for the movement.

Organizers have kicked off the publicity effort by producing a video of government and education leaders, as well as other celebrities, endorsing the school choice movement.

Those appearing on the video include Sen. Joe Lieberman, Sen. John McCain, former New York City Councilwoman Eva Moskowitz, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former D.C. Councilman Kevin Chavis and Grammy award winning vocalist John Sechada.

The video will be shown for the first time at the San Francisco conference.

“We wanted to show that national leaders support empowering parents through school choice,” Olson said. “We did not have to twist any arms to get them to participate.”

During the highlight week in January, “people are going to be on talk radio, hosting events and rallies, and engaging their friends and neighbors about all things school choice,” Olson said.

The effort will be possible because of the voluntary cooperation of dozens of organizations throughout the nation, Olson said. Many of them have different ideas about the best way to educate kids, but they all agree about the value of school choice, he said.

“They are going to be engaged in working in their own communites and states and areas of influence and expertise, to spread the word about empowering parents to choose the best educational options for their children,” Olson said.

To learn more about the effort, visit schoolchoiceweek.com.

Milwaukee teachers union should be ashamed of itself for Viagra demand

Victor — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 18:28:20 +0000

We’ve got a news flash for the leaders of the Milwaukee Teachers Education Association:

Our nation is in the midst of a severe economic recession, which has cost local government units, including public school districts, a great deal of tax revenue.

In order to maintain operations, and adequately serve students, schools are being forced to cut back on expenses. That’s tough to do when at least 80 percent of their budgets are tied up in labor costs.

So how does the Milwaukee teachers union respond to this financial challenge? First by refusing to accept less expensive health insurance, which would have saved hundreds of jobs for younger teachers and maintained smaller classrooms. Now union leaders are demanding that their insurance cover Viagra prescriptions for male teachers.

They must be living on the moon.

For years, Wisconsin K-12 teachers have lived a pretty nice middle-class life, with salaries and benefits that compare very well with compensation for teachers in other states. The vast majority of teachers in the state also have the luxury of being covered by “Cadillac” health insurance through the union-owned WEA Trust, even though it costs local districts an arm and a leg.

Teachers unions must accept the fact that public schools are struggling financially, and this is definitely not the time for them to spend even more money on employee health coverage. That’s particulary true for a prescription that has nothing to do with the health or well-being of the patient.

The school district says Viagra coverage would cost about $786,000 a year. How can the union ask for this when student programs and activities are being cut? Are union leaders capable of thinking about anything but their own selfish desires?

They give the distinct impression that the schools can rot and the students can miss out on crucial opportunities, but they will be happy as long as they get their automatic, annual step raises, exorbitant number of paid sick and personal days, and free health coverage.

“The rest of America is sacrificing,” said Kyle Olson, vice president of EAG. “Millions of private sector workers have lost their jobs or accepted concessions to keep them. Thousands of school administrators, bus drivers, cooks, secretaries and custodians all over the nation have accepted concessions to remain employed.

“But Milwaukee union leaders think teachers should be held harmless when it comes to concessions, and they would very much like us to pay for their recreational sex drugs, as well. If this pathetic situation doesn’t tell us something about the twisted priorities of teachers unions, nothing will.”

Ed Reform Radar

Victor — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 15:10:43 +0000

NEA flexing its political muscle in key election year

Union money altered crucial primary results in two states

By Steve Gunn

EAG Communications

MUSKEGON, MI – The National Education Association has earned a reputation for using campaign contributions to purchase the loyalty of lawmakers at the federal and state levels.

In the 2007-08 election cycle, for instance, the union, through its political action committees, spent a whopping $56 million on various candidates and state ballot proposals. That ranked the NEA as the largest political contributor in the nation, outspending the second-place donor by more than $12 million.

The smaller American Federation of Teachers doesn’t give as much, but it’s still a major player in the purchase-a-politician game. In 2007-08 the AFT spent about $12 million on candidates and ballot proposals. The two teachers unions even combined to form a third PAC, “NEA AFT,” which spent more than $3.3 million on campaign contributions.

As one writer recently put it, “America’s two teachers unions outspent AT&T, Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, General Electric, Chevron, Pfizer, Morgan Stanley, Lockheed Martin, FedEx, Boeing, Merrill Lynch, Exxon Mobil, Lehman Brothers and the Walt Disney Corporation – combined.”

Then there are the political expenditures that don’t get counted. The NEA employs a team of several thousand regional Uniserv directors, who as one observer put it, comprise “the largest army of campaign workers that any organization has.”

The Uniserv directors are spread across the map to raise funds for union PACs, recruit pro-union candidates, recruit union members to campaign on behalf of those candidates, and get those members to the polls to vote for those candidates.

Union-backed candidates not only get big donations, they get a built-in army of volunteers to lick their envelopes and hand out their literature.

This year the NEA can be expected to spend even more money, and field even more campaign volunteers, with very good reason.

The education reform movement has a great deal of momentum across the nation. Leading Democrats, including President Obama, are finally joining Republicans in calling for fundamental changes in the nation’s public school system.

If the union can’t find a way to halt this movement, its dominant influence over public education policy will clearly be threatened. If ever there were an election year for the NEA to pull out all the stops, this is it.

We’re already seeing evidence of the union’s political machine springing into action across the nation. And the NEA has proven, at least in two states, that it still packs a punch when it comes to doling out money and influencing public opinion.

“True Republican PAC”

In Alabama, the state teachers union took the unusual step of getting involved in the Republican gubernatorial primary.

That’s pretty extraordinary for an organization that gives 95 percent of its campaign donations to liberal Democrats.

So why did this happen? Because one of the GOP candidates, former State Sen. Bradley Byrne, has been an outspoken critic of the teachers union for years, particularly on the topics of tenure and expansion of charter schools.

According to press reports, the Alabama Education Association formed a new political action committee called the True Republican PAC. This organization accepted millions from union PACS and spent it on attack ads against Byrne, the winner of the earlier Republican primary.

The strategy worked. In the primary runoff last month, Byrne was edged out by State Rep. Robert Bentley, and most of the credit went to the AEA. As another GOP candidate said about Byrne’s predicament, he “reaped what he sowed” by taking on the teachers union.

The ironic part is that the teachers union has no real interest in Bentley, or maintaining the True Republican PAC. Full union support in the November general election will go to the Democratic nominee, Ron Sparks.

In a scathing editorial before the July primary, the Mobile Press-Register called the union effort to defeat Byrne and partner with his GOP opponents “one of the most disreputable political liasons in recent Alabama history.”

The newspaper focused on AEA President Paul Hubbert, a “superlobbyist” and powerful figure in the state Democratic Party. It said Hubbert was the driving force behind the effort to knock Byrne out of the race before the general election.

“Republican voters must not allow Paul Hubbert to hijack the GOP gubernatorial primary,” the May 23 editorial said. “If he succeeds in stopping Mr. Byrne, his already enormous power will grow exponentially, putting him in a position to block proposed government reforms.

“It doesn’t matter whether or not there is an explicit connection between Mr. Hubbert and the other Republican candidates; it’s obvious he would have tremendous influence on a GOP nominee who benefited from the AEA’s anti-Byrne campaign.”

Prophetic words indeed. We only wish Alabama voters had read this editorial and taken it to heart.

In the meantime, the union can put another notch in its victory column. Say what you want about this self-serving group, but it doesn’t go down easy.

Michigan and Oklahoma also targeted

Then there’s Michigan, where two candidates were battling for the Democratic nomination for governor.

One candidate, House Speaker Andy Dillon, is a political moderate who has drawn the scorn of the teachers union by backing education reform. The other, Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, is a hot-tempered liberal who is more than happy to parrot the union line.

Less than a month before the primary election, Dillon held a commanding lead in the polls, and Bernero was out of money and dying on the vine.

Then the Michigan Education Association, in cooperation with the United Auto Workers and several other unions, came to the last-minute rescue. Over the last three weeks they took over Bernero’s campaign and pumped nearly $2 million into statewide television ads that savaged Dillon for being pro-life and anti-labor.

By Tuesday, which was primary day, Bernero suddenly had a big lead in the polls, and that held up in the election. He became the Democratic nominee with 59 percent of the vote, and the MEA maintained its firm control of the Michigan Democratic Party.

Most experts expect Bernero to get creamed in the November general election by the Republican nominee, Ann Arbor businessman Rick Snyder. That’s because Michigan’s economy is in ruins, the jobless rate remains far above the national average, and a Democrat, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, has been in office for the past eight years.

But with union money backing Bernero, anything could happen.

A real test of the NEA’s financial prowess will be in Oklahoma, where it’s pumping big bucks into an effort to pass the wrong-headed State Question 744 ballot proposal.

That proposal, crafted by the teachers union, would require the state to spend the average of bordering states on public education. If those states cut education spending, Oklahoma’s investment would remain the same as the previous year.

Critics, including the very liberal Oklahoma Policy Institute, say the proposal would cost $1.7 billion over three years and financially cripple many state government departments. But the NEA has pumped a whopping $3.7 million into the campaign to pass the proposal, in a state that has only 27,000 union teachers.

If the union can get this turkey of a proposal passed in a weak-union state with a very conservative voter base, it deserves to take a bow.

UNIONS WANT THEIR HANDOUT NOW!

With so much NEA political money flying around, it’s not surprising that the union expects a decent return on its investment.

That’s probably why union lackeys in Congress, most notably Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried (D-Nevada) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) are pushing the “education jobs bill” for a third time.

Similar bills were introduced in the Senate twice in recent months, but died before roll call votes due a lack of support. The last time around, supporters had the nerve to attach the bill to war-funding legislation. This time they’re tying it to legislation that would provide extra Medicaid funding for cash-starved state governments.

Evidently Congress knows that a spoonful of sugar will help the medicine go down.

If you recall, this $10 billion giveaway is designed to keep K-12 teachers and other school employees from being laid off. The NEA wants it to pass so its local unions won’t be asked to make contract concessions to help their districts survive the financial crisis.

Employees in nearly every other industry have had to make sacrifices to keep their jobs during the recession. Teachers want to be held harmless, despite the fact that labor costs eat up about 80 percent of a typical school district budget.

Union leaders have another incentive for pushing this bill. By keeping teachers on the job, more dues money will continue to flow into union coffers. The NEA would haul in an estimated $36 million in dues money if this legislation becomes law, while the AFT would receive an estimated $14 million.

The legislation would only provide money to spend on school employee salaries and benefits. Not a dime is included for other educational costs.

Meanwhile, sponsors say the cost of the bill would be offset by cuts in the food stamp program. How nice is that?

In any case, union bosses were not willing to accept rejection of this bill. That’s why they pressed Reid to bring it up a third time in the Senate, which finally approved it earlier today. They also pressured Pelosi into calling the U.S. House back from summer recess to pass the bill as soon as possible, before the new school year begins.

This is a really sickening game of political tit-for-tat. The unions give big donations to the big politicians, who return the favor by spending big chunks of taxpayer money to benefit the unions.

Whatever happened to campaign finance reform?

A QUICK GLANCE AT THE NEA’S TRUE COLORS

Several pundits noticed that the NEA website’s “diversity calendar” had marked Oct. 1 as a special day, because that’s the anniversary of the Communist takeover of mainland China.

As soon as the news started spreading about the calendar entry, it apparently disappeared from the website.

But enough people saw the calendar and word got around: NEA leaders are fans of Chairman Mao, the brutal dictator who squashed dissent and sent millions to their deaths for purely political reasons.

We’ve long known that the NEA has a terrible public relations problem. Its crybaby reactions to overdue school reforms have not impressed anybody. And now they’re observing the anniversary of one of the world’s most hated Communist strongmen. We just don’t think the average American is going to be impressed.

READERS SOUND OFF

Hi – I love receiving your articles. It’s a treat to see an educational community that actually uses common sense!

Although I agree with virtually every point your articles make, I find it odd that no mention is made of the failure of PARENTS to prepare their children to be successful in school.

Teachers can’t do it alone.

The current mentality that “the government will fix it,” “the schools will teach it,” and “whatever I do, some agency will bail me out” has resulted in kids and parents expecting to be spared the consequences of their poor behaviors.

In many cases, they are (at least in the short run).

Definitely you should continue to run your articles. They would be even more powerful if you included – in every article, if need be – the necessity of parental reform as well as educational reform.

Susan Heumphreus

Fairfield, CA

EduJobs bailout perpetuates the broken system

Victor — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:52:11 +0000

The teacher unions are in a panic. School districts all across the nation are facing huge budget deficits, leading to teacher layoffs, increased class sizes, and shorter school year calendars.

But more and more Americans are realizing that a few reasonable contract concessions from the local teachers unions would allow schools to avoid such drastic measures. After all, the nation is still reeling from the “Great Recession.” Is it so unreasonable to ask teachers to accept a temporary wage freeze and maybe kick in a little for their health insurance? Isn’t that what American workers are doing to keep their jobs? Taxpayers all across the country are asking those tough questions, and it’s causing union leaders some sleepless nights.

But don’t expect the unions to give up. No way. The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are on the verge of passing a $10 billion dollar bailout for the teachers unions. Politically-savvy readers may be wondering why Congress would pass another bailout when previous bailouts of the car companies and Wall Street have proven so unpopular.

The answer isn’t very complicated. What’s really going on here is a quid pro quo: Congressional Democrats (with the help of a few Republicans) will provide states with tax dollars to paper over the school budget deficits. In return, the teacher unions will “bail out” the Democratic Party by providing lots of money to help re-elect Democrats, like they do every election cycle. It’s a win-win, at least for the unions and the Democrats. The teacher unions won’t have to make difficult concessions regarding wages and health insurance, and congressional Democrats will have the nation’s largest political contributor, the National Education Association, squarely in their corner during the election season.

Of course there will be a lot of blather from the unions that this bailout is really about doing right by the nation’s school children. But if that were the case, why have they allowed all the layoffs and the over-crowding classrooms in the first place? A few concessions at the local level already would have saved the jobs of many young, non-tenured teachers.

If the teacher unions want to self-destruct, that’s their business. But when their greed threatens the education of the nation’s children and requires a bailout from the American taxpayer, they’ve gone too far. To borrow a line from the 1986 film Hoosiers:

“Look, mister, there’s… two kinds of dumb. The guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and the guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don’t matter, the second one you’re kinda forced to deal with.”