We’re accustomed to strange political phenomena rising out of Minnesota.

   We can accept the occasional Jesse Ventura or Al Franken winning statewide office, because the state’s voters obviously like to be different.

   But we doubt even the most offbeat citizens of that state would approve of the new K-12 teacher education program that’s been proposed for the University of Minnesota’s Twin Cities campus.

   While the rest of the nation is trying to force teachers to help our children reach their potential, the university’s College of Education and Human Development wants to make sure future teachers are more anti-American, so they can share that philosophy with their future students.

   We couldn’t even begin to make something like this up.

   According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, College of Education officials recently established the “Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group.” It’s charged with helping to devise a new system for training prospective K-12 teachers, because current teachers lack “cultural competence,” a factor officials believe contributes to the poor performance of minority students.

   The task force has issued its final report, and officials from the College of Education are expected to review its recommendations in January.

   What’s the task force’s main recommendation? That new teachers be immersed in a liberal political agenda that’s highly critical of American social norms, particularly the notion that all people can positively influence their own destiny through hard work and determination.

   The task force “recommended that aspiring teachers must repudiate the notion of the ‘American Dream’ and instead “must embrace  – and be prepared to teach our state’s kids – the task force’s own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic,” according to writer Katherine Kersten of the Star Tribune.

   “The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the ‘overarching framework’ for all teaching courses at the university,” Kersten wrote. “It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching, based on their willingness to fall into intellectual lockstep.”

   The task force recommends that prospective teachers begin by confessing their own bigotry. They would have to prepare a report “describing their own prejudices and stereotypes, questioning their ‘cultural motives’ for wishing to become teachers, and take a ‘cultural intelligence’ assessment designed to ferret out their latent racism, classism and other ‘isms,’” according to the newspaper.

   More than anything, “future teachers must. . . recognize and denounce the fundamental injustices at the heart of American society,” the article said.

   What about those prospective teachers who refuse to fall into “intellectual lockstep?” After all, there’s bound to be a stubborn conservative or two who think America’s a pretty decent place to live, work and raise a family.

   For them, the university “must develop clear steps and procedures. . . including a remediation plan,” the report said.

   We wonder if the university’s “remediation” program will prescribe years of hard labor, so the unenlightened will have plenty of time to ponder their foolishness.

   Silly us. The whole time we thought the problem was that our kids were falling behind in key subjects like science and math.

   We never understood that the key to quality education is to teach all youngsters to hate their country, and teach minority kids that society’s cards are impossibly stacked against them, so they might as well go sell crack.

   And silly us, we were  under the impression that free thought was still allowed in this country, even in the intellectual gulags otherwise known as university campuses.

   But back to reality. We think the proposed program at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities is an unbelievable pile of dung, a complete waste of tax dollars, and an insult to university students and the K-12 students they will be teaching.

   God help us if this is the prevailing attitude in schools of education across the land.

   Now that the good citizens of Minnesota are aware of this nonsense happening right under their noses, we trust they will kill it out before it’s put into practice.

   Last week we explained how D.C. school chief Michelle Rhee has declared open warfare on teacher tenure.

   Today we can happily report that the state of Arizona has won the war!

    Starting tomorrow, a new law severely curtailing traditional aspects of tenure will take effect in the Grand Canyon state. The law passed the legislature with bipartisan support and gained the signature of Gov. Jan Brewer in September, according to the Arizona Republic.

    Seniority will no longer be a consideration for layoffs or callbacks. Schools will no longer be required to make salary reductions equitable for all tenured employees. District will be able to lower salaries for selected employees if they choose.

   And districts will no longer be required to give teachers notification of their fall employment status by April of every year.

    The new law does not tell school districts what criteria to employ it when it comes to staff assignments, layoffs or callbacks. But State Rep. Rich Crandall, chairman of the House Education Committee, suggested that districts take advantage of the law by tying teacher salaries and other workforce decisions to student performance.

    “The bottom line is teachers need to be retained based on their achievement, not on how long they’ve been on a job,” Crandall told the Arizona Republic. “This is where the United States is going and we’re just the early leaders.”

    Representatives from the NEA and Arizona Education Association were predictably upset.

     “I don’t know another sector of the economy or the workforce that would find itself the subject of interference of the relationship (between) employer and the employee,” said John Wright, president of the AEA.

     You’re not part of the private workforce, John. Teachers are public employees and work for the government. That gives the government the right to determine the terms of your employment. The public wants more for its education tax dollars and the state is honoring that wish. Nobody is doing anything wrong here.

    In fact, this new law gives Arizona school districts the tools they need to make rapid improvements in the classroom. We’re guessing that many of them will not only take advantage of the new rules, but will entice more teachers to excel with different forms of merit pay.

    We’re also guessing that this will light a fire under a bunch of teachers who could use a little motivation.

     But one thing is for sure. The state of Arizona is no longer going to allow bad teachers to hang around and collect paychecks. This is a huge step in the right direction, and we expect to see other states falling into line very soon.

     If President Obama is really serious about education reform, he ought to consider putting D.C. school Chancellor Michelle Rhee in charge of the effort.

    This lady is not afraid of a major challenge, as evidenced by her latest brawl with the AFT.

     Rhee is courageously targeting the sacred cow of teachers unions – tenure. It’s the system that pretty much guarantees a teacher a job for life, if he or she can make it through the first few years. It doesn’t matter if they go on to become good, mediocre or bad teachers. With tenure, they are pretty much protected until retirement.

    But Rhee understands that such a system can no longer be tolerated in Washington D.C. schools, which have a dropout rate of nearly 40 percent. She knows that the school district must have the power to sift through the teaching staff, keep the good ones, work with the middle-of-the-roaders, and get rid of the bad apples.

    She also understands that it has to work both ways. She’s willing to develop a compensation system that would offer teachers much higher pay, in exchange for the union abandoning, or at least reforming, the concept of tenure.

    We have no problem with that at all. Teachers are extremely important in our society, and good ones deserve to be paid like the vital professionals they are. While schools throughout the nation are struggling with their budgets, we’re sure that most would be happy to find the money to increase teacher salaries, if only they had to power to pick and choose what teachers to keep.

    Rhee has already backed up her words with action. Earlier this year she hired more than 900 new teachers for the district, then weeks later laid off 266, citing budget constraints. But the layoffs weren’t limited to the recent hires. She made cuts based on ability, not seniority, a move that drove the AFT into court to challenge Rhee’s decision.

     According to the Wall Street Journal, AFT President Randi Weingarten said Rhee “has so poisoned the environment that I am not sure that we can ever get back to a good situation here.”

    That’s where you’re dead wrong, Ms. Weingarten. Rhee’s “poison” is exactly the proper remedy to get D.C. schools back on track, and restore public confidence in the district.

    Families aren’t interested in a teacher’s longevity, Ms. Weingarten. They want to know if that teacher can manage to help their children reach their potential, and if not, then he or she no longer belongs in a classroom.

    It looks like the national education reform movement may be on the verge of cracking its toughest nut.

   We recently reported that teachers unions in several large urban districts are warming up to the inevitability of reform, while the AFT chapter in Detroit remained militant and defiant.

    Now it seems the leadership of the Detroit Federation of Teachers has had a change of heart.

     According to Monday’s edition of the Detroit Free Press, union negotiators are close to agreement on a tentative teachers contract that embraces several types of welcome reforms. They reportedly include peer evaluations, incentive pay for teachers and extended hours for failing schools.

    “This school year is going to bring unprecendented changes,” Keith Johnson, president of the DFT, was quoted as saying in the Free Press. “We can’t keep doing things the way we’ve done them and expect a different result.”

     Indeed not. The Detroit school district, generally considered the worst in the nation, has a shameful graduation rate of 58 percent and has lost half of its enrollment over the past 10 years.

    Still, we never expected the union to see the light this quickly, despite the fact that the current teachers contract expires this week.

    As recently as last week, contract talks were described as being slow and unproductive. Last spring, DFT President Keith Johnson was quoted as saying the union would go a strike before agreeing to reforms demanded by the district’s state-appointed emergency financial manager.

     In 1992, the union actually went on strike over some of the same issues. We’ve obviously come a long way since then.

     Despite the strong hint of good news, we’re going to hold off on throwing the confetti until we see the details of the tenatative contract, and measure the response of the rank-and-file membership. Even then we may withhold our applause, because the union and the district have a lot of fixing to do before Detroit kids can say they attend quality schools.

    Still, this is an unexpected step in the right direction, and we can’t help but be a little encouraged.

    If you didn’t catch it when it was published last month, we would highly recommend that you take a moment and read “The Quiet Revolution,” a thoughtful column by David Brooks in the New York Times.

    Brooks summarizes President Obama’s impressive effort to impose long overdue public education reforms, despite fierce opposition from teachers unions and others on the political left.

     He begins by pointing out that in many areas, Obama has a serious credibility problem.

     After working the public and the media into near hysteria with his promise of “change,” the president has managed to deliver very little. His wild spending habits are  status quo for Washington D.C., and there’s little proof that the stimulus dollars are doing much for the economy.

     His incredibly disorganized health care effort has convinced half the nation that the issue is better left alone.

     And he continues to wring his hands over Afghanistan and the military’s recommendation to use a surge-like strategy to quell the insurgency.

     But as Brooks points out, Obama has delivered when it comes to education. And he’s done so while facing incredible pressure from powerful groups within his own party to back away from his list of reforms, which were mostly borrowed from the Republican playbook.

     “The real questions were these,” Brooks writes. “Would the administration water down their reform criteria in the face of political pressure? Would the Race to the Top money end up being doled out like any other federal spending program, and thus end up subsidizing the status quo?”

     So far, so good, according to Brooks.

     State leaders are scrambling to meet the criteria to qualify for “Race to the Top” funding. Even the unions  have been showing tentative signs of warming up a bit, according to Brooks. The AFT recently introduced grants for performance-based compensation plans, while New Haven, Connecticut teachers recently approved a contract that embraces reform concepts.

    Brooks claims he’s talked to pro-reform figures ranging from Bill Gates to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and they all say the same thing: “They are all impressed by how gritty and effective the Obama administration has been in holding the line and inciting real education reform,” he wrote.

     There are still potential stumbling blocks for the president, according to Brooks. Some powerful organizations have offered to support health care reform in exchange for a watered-down education agenda. Some state leaders seem determined to get Race to the Top money, even if they have not met the reform criteria.

    But thus far the president has remained strong, even though the public and mainstream media have taken little notice. Thus they’re calling it the “Quiet Revolution.”

    More power to Obama, at least on this very crucial issue. We hope he maintains his diligence and insists on seeing this through.

   We almost shed a tear for the poor union workers in West Virginia, including many AFT members, who recently turned out to protest a cut in their state-run Public Employee Insurance Agency benefits.

   Almost.

   Then we remembered the thousands of United Auto Workers who had the good sense to accept major contract concessions in order to help their employers survive. We also remembered the millions of people throughout the nation who have no jobs and no benefits at all.

    Whether one works in the public or private sector, there is one indisputable fact – if your employer has serious money problems, you’d better be ready to accept a little less, or be ready to join the food stamp line.

    As for the idea of having the unions manage the West Virginia Public Employee Insurance Agency, as discussed in the Charleston Daily Mail, we can only laugh. We doubt the people who run the government in that state are stupid enough to let the fox in the henhouse.

    The constant cry would be for more, more, more – even during hard times when there’s nothing more to give. There would be nobody at the controls with the courage to make necessary cuts in benefits when the situation calls for it.

    Regarding the behavior of the union workers who protested at the recent PEIA board meeting, we can only say, “For your own good, grow up.” Nobody’s impressed by adults sitting in the audience acting like spoiled children. Shouting down opposing speakers, and childishly accusing the PEIA director of having a louder microphone than others, is not going to win you any sympathy.

    Employ a little dignity for a change, and deal with situations as adults. Then maybe somebody will give your point of view some consideration.

    Can you think of any type of employer these days that doesn’t require mandatory drug testing of some sort?

    In most cases, the rule makes total sense. We obviously don’t need airline pilots, bus drivers, air traffic controllers, school crossing guards, police officers or firefighters drugged up on the job. Too much is at stake.

    We would argue that the same is true for school teachers. As a West Virginia school board member put it, “If a teacher in a room with 20 children is not safety-sensitive, than what is?”

    Unfortunately everyone doesn’t see it that way. The Kanawha County (W. Va.) Board of Education has decided to abandon its random drug testing policy for teachers and other school employees, and has settled out of court with two teachers unions that filed suit over the policy.

    Actually the drug-testing program never got off the ground. It was put on hold by a federal district court three days before going into effect Jan. 1, and the school board decided to drop the entire effort in August.

    According to the Charleston Daily Mail, the school agreed to pay the American Federation of Teachers and the West Virginia Education Association a total of $147,971 for legal fees.

    We have no idea why the board decided to buckle at this point. We would assume that any judge or jury would find it desirable to have clear-minded teachers at the chalkboard, rather than drugged-up zombies who are protected by union rules.

    We would have also assumed that the unions would be interested in positive public relations. Are parents asking too much by seeking sober individuals to instruct and oversee their children? Why would the unions not welcome random testing as a way to demonstrate their unity with parents on this crucial issue?

    Finding a few drug addicts within the teaching profession is not a black mark against the entire profession. There are substance abusers in every line of work. Indeed, it would be a plus for the unions to support efforts to weed out abusers within their ranks. It would show that the unions care about their reputation, and about protecting kids.

     But somehow that doesn’t seem to be the case. Why? Your guess is as good as ours.

     When asked by USA Today about random drug testing for teachers, Michael Simpson, assistant general counsel for the National Education Association, said “It would be a waste of money because there is no problem that a drug-testing program can address.”

     Come again? Such a program would certainly address a big problem by getting the druggies out of the classrooms, at least until they clean up their acts. That’s just simple logic.

     So here we have yet another case of teachers unions defending their “rights” at the expense of children. This type of thing is getting very old, very fast.

     If these labor organizations want to preserve any credibility or public trust, they had better start worrying more about what’s best for the students, because everyone else interested in education is headed in that fundamental direction.

   There is apparently a degree of disunity within the ranks of the American Federation of Teachers.

    This might be viewed as a promising sign, because it demonstrates that some within the union are quickly realizing that education reform is going to happen with or without them – so they had better get on board.

   A  good example is in New Haven, Connecticut, where teachers have overwhelmingly ratified a new collective bargaining agreement that embraces ideas like merit pay, teacher evaluation, peer assistance for struggling teachers, regular review of those teachers, and terms for union cooperation with a special reform committee.

   It also allows the city to reform chronically failing schools by dismissing the entire staff and making teachers re-apply for their jobs, according to a column in the New York Post. Those who are not rehired must be placed elsewhere, which is a backward step, but at least they won’t be clustered together in one miserable school building.

    Interestingly enough, AFT President Randi Weingarten referred to the pact as a “model or a template” for other contracts, according to the Rockford Star Register. U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who has been a hated figure for teachers unions since he took office, said the contract demonstrates a willingness on the part of the local union “to go into areas that used to be seen as untouchable.”

   We’ve also read about a new $1.2 million grant from the AFT Fund that will create, among other things, new teacher evaluation systems in New York and Rhode Island and a teacher compensation plan that considers student achievement on Florida. Again, these are baby steps, but perhaps they are steps in the right direction.

      Then there’s Detroit, home to what is generally considered the nation’s worst public school system. Contract negotiations between the local AFT and a state-appointed emergency financial manager have reportedly been “brutal,” according to the Detroit News.

   Despite the district’s miserable academic track record, the union is still resisting common sense reforms, like setting aside the seniority doctrine so the district can place the right teachers in the best possible spots.

  The union is reportedly also resisting the “site-based management” concept, which would allow administrators and teachers in individual schools to manage their own buildings, rather than waiting for key decisions to be made by distant administrators and union bigshots.

    If there ever were a situation where the union should sit down, shut up and take its medicine, it’s in the Detroit Public School system.

   As the Detroit News pointed out in a recent editorial, the emergency financial manager has the power to declare bankrupty, erase the terms of the most recent teacher contract and rewrite key rules and procedures for the entire district. Those new rules and procedures would clearly have an pro-reform, anti-union spin to them.

    Quit while you’re behind, teachers of Detroit. You had your chance and you fumbled. The only way you can salvage some community respect is to let the reformers clean up your mess the best way they can,  so you can start over with a clean slate and a willingness to change.

     In our home state of Michigan, we’re about to find out where our teachers’ loyalties really lie.

    Will they stand behind their students, who are being threatened by massive cuts in state education spending, or with their unions, who remain rigidly opposed to the types of reforms that could yield millions of desperately needed dollars for our schools?

    Michigan’s governor and state legislature just completed a very long, ugly budget adoption process, and public schools took a very big hit. Roughly six weeks into the new school year, our leaders informed the 500-plus school districts that their state aid will immediately be cut by nearly $300 per student.

   Everyone is angry about the outcome. School officials are preparing for massive mid-year layoffs. Teachers unions and some school administrators are accusing the state of underfunding education. Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm implied that it all could have been avoided with a nice, healthy tax increase.

    But they’re all missing one very key point: With a little cooperation from the teachers unions, the cuts would not have to be nearly so painful for schools.

     School administrators throughout the state have been telling us for years that they could save millions of dollars if they were allowed to seek competitive bids for health insurance and support services, like cooking, custodial work or bus driving.

     But the teachers unions are clinging to a state law that makes insurance a topic of collective bargaining. That’s because the largest union, the Michigan Education Association, owns and operates its own insurance carrier – MESSA – and pressures school boards throughout the state to purchase overpriced coverage from that company.  Millions of dollars of MESSA funds are then transferred to the MEA every year.

    The unions also oppose privatization of support service jobs, which are currently filled by union employees, and their ugly protests have forced many school boards to shy away from that dollar-saving strategy.

     Even bigger dollars could be available through President Obama’s “Race to the Top” education initiative. Michigan schools could be in line for about $600 million of that money if state government would enact four basic reforms: lift the cap on the number of charter schools, strengthen alternative teacher certification, link student performance to teacher evaluations and introduce reforms for failing schools.

     Alas, the teachers unions oppose all four of those ideas, as well, because reforms threaten their traditional control of the state’s education system. Considering the results of a recent national report card, which showed Michigan students falling behind their peers in neighboring states, perhaps they deserve to be knocked from that perch.

    The unions’ answer to the money problem? They say we need to “restructure” the state’s tax system, which is another way of calling for a general tax increase, at a time when nobody can afford it.

    In the meantime, the clock is ticking on the potential availability of the “Race to the Top” money, and everyone in Lansing is afraid to act because they don’t want to anger the teachers unions.

     Apparently, whether or not we compete for that money is up to the unions.

      What about it, MEA and AFT? Do you care enough about the students to accept a few changes that will bring needed money to the state, and necessary improvements to our classrooms, or are you willing to throw the kids under the bus in defense of your antiquated, failing labor-based system?

     The ball is clearly in your court.

    Every day can’t be sunny.

     Last week were were excited to report about Rhode Island schools officially rejecting the tired concept of teacher seniority, and Los Angeles officials allowing parents to demand alternative management for failing public schools.

     On a more sour note, we have to report that three Chicago charter schools became the first in that city to formalize their union status by reaching a three-year contract with their administrative board. According to the website ProgressIllinois.com, the new contract calls for wage increases, capping classroom sizes at 29, “due process” in teacher disciplinary cases and creation of a formal system for teacher and community input.

    Some observers applauded the contract, claiming it increases public accountability for the three Chicago International Charter Schools. Some critics have complained that charters in Chicago have operated much like private schools, with little public scrutiny to accompany a healthy investment of public dollars.

    We have nothing against accountability, and it’s hard to argue against controlled class sizes in any type of school. But as we’ve repeated in the past, we very much fear that charter schools could quickly lose their unique qualities if they fall under the negative influence of  ”employee-first”  unions.

    Charter school teachers realized they were signing up for something different when they took their jobs. They knew they were going into an environment where students are the top priority,  innovation and positive results are expected, and compensation will probably never reach the level of standard public schools.

   Charters are truly schools for teachers who love to teach, not teachers who are focused on maximizing their earning potential.

    At least that’s still the case in most of our nation’s charter schools. Unfortunately the AFT and NEA have publicly announced their intentions to aggressively organize charter schools, so they become much more like traditional public schools. To us, that could mean the death of charter schools as they were meant to be, which is exactly what the unions have in mind.

    We promise to contact administrators at the three Chicago International charters a year from now, to ask them how things have changed since the union contract became effective. Perhaps the positive spirit of the charter schools will not suffer too much under the weight of cumbersome union rules. At least we can hope that will be the case.

   In the meantime, we urge teachers at the dozens of other Chicago area charter schools to treat the new contract at the International schools as a guinea pig.  They should cease further discussion of unionization until they see how those institutions perform with a union presence. If they jump too soon, they could be getting themselves into something they might regret down the road.

   We assume they became charter school teachers for a reason, because they wanted to teach in a different kind of environment. That environment could disappear overnight if the union is allowed to cast its dark shadow into their classrooms.