I’ll start the conversation with two questions. In your experience, how do teachers unions support and accelerate the work that teachers do? And, conversely, in what ways do they play a counterproductive role?Posted by: Andrew Rotherham from Education Sector

Caitlin Hollister from Boston Public Schools responds:

I see unions helping teachers to focus on teaching. By clearly defining our schedules and responsibilities in our contracts, the unions help us to make instruction our number one priority. At the same time, I would like to see more unions embrace flexible options. We now have a "one size fits all" policy for compensation and evaluation. We talk about how to make teaching a true profession and I don't think it will happen until we have a meaningful system for measuring teaching quality. It's time to give teachers a way to "opt-in" to a review process would encourage greater innovation in the classroom—with the expectation that teachers can link those innovations to demonstrated student progress.

Bruce Smith from Green Dot Public Schools, Los Angeles responds:

Let me begin with a disclaimer: the following is my personal opinion, which may or may not coincide with that of Green Dot Public Schools.

 

In my experience of the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) when I was working at Locke High School, the teachers' union never supported me or any other teacher in any way related to student learning, period; it only functioned to accelerate the movement of young teachers out of the profession.

 

If Caitlin's union is acting as she describes, I congratulate her on her good fortune. I think we definitely do need reformed, 21st-century unions, such as those of the Teacher Union Reform Network (TURN). I also support the vision of teaching as a true profession, which Linda Darling-Hammond and others have worked so hard to bring into reality. I infer that Caitlin is open to performance pay for teachers--I hope she does, for I support it as a form of the "differentiated compensation" she mentions. I do agree with her point about the difficulty of measuring teacher performance, and although I have my  own formula for such, I think the more important point is that she, I, and thousands of other teachers should be at the bargaining table discussing and defining how such performance should be measured.

 

Laura Bornfreund from Forum for Education and Democracy responds:

I agree with Caitlin about how unions help teachers focus on teaching. Also, for me, the union provided an opportunity for leadership development as an active member of my local executive committee.

However local unions, as the collective voice for their respective teachers, tend to represent the majority who are predominantly "seasoned" teachers. In my experience, newer teachers who makeup a smaller fraction of the union rolls have different issues or at least different ways of looking at the issues. They tend to be more supportive of performance pay, changes to tenure systems, more meaningful teacher evaluations, and using data to inform their instruction. It seems as though unions have been beginning to warm to some of these ideas, but not all.

For example, in my third year and fourth years of teaching, I sat on the collaborative bargaining team and the political action committee. When differential pay for teachers in high-need subjects was proposed, union leaders shot it down. When my county piloted a career ladder program, the union showed disdain. And the union definitely did not support Florida's bonus program for school wide performance on the state's standardized exam... not that I necessarily thought it was a great program myself, but the union was really opposed to the discussion of performance pay at all. I can't speak to how things are now, but that was my impression 5 years ago.

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

A few years ago, I identified a couple of students in my ESL classes who could function verbally, but who were unable to read or write. One had been kicking around NYC schools for almost ten years before he landed with me.

At the same time I was corresponding with then-education columnist for the New York Times Michael Winerip. When I told him about this, he asked if he could include it in his research for a piece he was doing on special education. He asked me whether I had tenure, I told him I did, and he said it ought not to be a problem.

However, after he sent these kids' stories in a fax to Tweed, my principal almost had a heart attack. He called me into his office for hours of meetings in which many people discussed whether their respective butts were covered, and it turned out they all seemed to be. Not one moment of those meetings was devoted to discussing the welfare of these two kids. Both of them stopped attending shortly thereafter, solving many unpleasant problems for the various and sundry nervous administrators.

After being privy to these meetings, I was called to the principal's office at odd times and often for no particular reason. I also found I was unable to order books for my classes. I had several classes of beginners sharing a half a set of textbooks that I couldn't permit them to bring home. A group of muckety-mucks from the city wandered in one day, saw my kids sharing books, and complimented me on my use of cooperative learning.

About eight months after my access to books was revoked, someone told me we had a contractual right to adequate textbooks for our classes. I walked into my supervisor's office, and explained how bad I felt that I was going to have to file a grievance over the lack of textbooks for my students.

The very next day I was able to get books. That's not the primary reason, though, that the union was valuable in that case. The biggest reason I valued the union was that this principal would most certainly have fired me if I didn't have tenure. There was no question whatsoever that my having spoken to the press was utterly unacceptable to him, and he was livid that I had done so.

It's true I hadn't considered his feelings when I spoke to Winerip. Frankly I did not anticipate there'd be any issue whatsoever, naively thinking the principal would share my horror at high school kids being unable to read. But the consequences for my career would've been fatal had I not had tenure.

If I weren't unionized, I wouldn't have had tenure, and I wouldn't have had a job anymore either. An important part of my job is advocating for my students, many of whom lack both the language and confidence to do so for themselves, and I wouldn't be able to do it if I weren't unionized.

Julie Eisenband from SAGE Academy Charter School, Brooklyn Park, Minn. responds:

I sat on a plane recently next to a man who said he thought that teachers' unions were the biggest problem with public education today. I wondered if he might have been channeling Rod Paige. When I pressed him on it, he didn't have much to say except that he felt most teachers get into teaching for the wrong reasons, and that the tenure system rewards bad teachers (most of whom are making six figures, he claimed) and pushes good young teachers out.

I explained that you don't get into teaching unless you want to help kids. Certainly not for a six-figure income (maybe in Chicago or New York City). And I explained that tenure, and other teachers' union features, are there to protect teachers against bad administrators, like Arthur's. I explained that if an administrator really wanted to fire a bad teacher, all they would need to do would be to collect the proper documentation of the teacher's incompetence and follow due process. But often that doesn't occur, which is why bad teachers get bounced from school to school. Someone else's problem.

I will be one of the first to say that teachers' unions don't always "get it right." However, non-unionized charter schools come with their own set of problems.  Charter leaders often don't see themselves as "management," which complicates things and ultimately, I believe, burns staff out and drives them out of the profession. I have seen hourly paraprofessionals take home hours of work off the clock because they have been told they are "not allowed" to work overtime, but at the same time are expected to keep up with their tasks. Salaried employees can be asked to take on additional responsibilities for no extra pay, which would not happen under a union contract.

There are also many wonderful things about working at a small charter school, which I hope I'll have a chance to talk about.

Paul T. Hill from Center on Reinventing Public Education responds:

Unions can foster collaboration and improvement, but there are other methods too -- many charter and private schools have strong internal professional lives without unionization. Unins can also reinforce other regulatory pressures form the state and school board that work against professional collaboration. It is right for unions to justify the,mselves as one possible meant to good things, but they are not the only way.

At the Commission on No Child Left Behind, we've heard consistently from teachers that even though they feel on the hook for accountability, they get little support and their professional development is a waste of time. What, if anything, are unions doing to help ensure that teachers get targeted professional development that improves their teaching and impacts student achievement? Thanks!Posted by: Kelly Scott from Margaret Spellings & Company

Paul T. Hill from Center on Reinventing Public Education responds:

Funny this question has gone unanswered for so long. Maybe the big answer is that unions are fighting the premise of accountability rather than helping teachers to deal with it. But, I know of schools where teachers are really pulling together to figure out what they need to improve and what the need to learn. School-level union leaders are probably important actors in this.

Great discussion! Without unions, could we ever restore a measure of teacher autonomy to our schools? Think of how rare it is today for education reformers to mention freedom of expression. Without unions, is there any future for the 1st Amendment in urban classrooms? Without unions, would Government teachers dare to show clips from the Daily Show or Colbert to start a class discussion? When Bruno, to take today's example, prompts a controversy by visiting an LA school, or when Borat visits my city's Planning Commission meeting, a Government teacher is not supposed to take advantage of these "teachable moments" even though the principal would have a cow if he or she learned about it? My principal freaked when she saw our class having a great discussion after seeing Cornel West on C Span. She saw evidence of learning, and it was clearly an appropriate instructional approach to the Standard (which was written on the board) but where did it fit on the scope and sequence? Without unions, could World History teachers teach the recent events in Iran according to his or her judgements, or would they have to wait until next May, after testing, in order to address relevan tissues? Here's the scary thing. Are we producing a new generation of teachers who have never heard of the concept of "creative insubordination," and would never think of deviating from top down mandates? Sure, many "reformers" want a system where the only response to "Jump" is "how high?" But how would we have fared in school if our teachers had been so subservient? And finally, without union protections how could accurate information, bad news as well as good, ever start up the chain of command? Real world, what administrators are going allow full and meaningful data to be discussed as opposed to their cherry-picked numbers that promote their own agenda?Posted by: john thompson

Paul T. Hill from Center on Reinventing Public Education responds:

The charter sector is full of people who want the chance to innovate and adapt to the needs of their children, and to collaborate with like-minded others. Many of them fear that unions will introduce formal work rules and pressures for conformity. The same is true of many young teachers in public schools. The challenge for unions is to convince such people that the protections offered are not a faustian bargain.

Julie Eisenband from SAGE Academy Charter School, Brooklyn Park, Minn. responds:

I don't think the neutralizing of curriculum is a function of unionization or non-unionization. I think it's a function of funding or graduating being tied to test scores. In Minnesota, there is no required social studies test, therefore I am not required to teach the mountains of material that my friends in New York do for Regents exams. I have an at-will contract; I don't have a union to protect me; yet I can bring in radical speakers, show provocative videos, and assign controversial readings. I feel very lucky to be so liberated in my curriculum design.

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

I think I share the freedom Julie has in curriculum design, except when preparing kids for the English Regents exam, in which case I focus completely on making them pass so they can graduate.

 

I'd also say that my colleagues who are constricted in what they teach are most certainly not constricted because of anything whatsoever regarding the union.  Mandates of any sort come from above, meaning from some level of administration.  The UFT is most certainly not forcing any such thing on them or us, nor would it ever interfere in any efforts to give teachers latitude in teaching approaches.

Bruce Smith from Green Dot Public Schools, Los Angeles responds:

I think that, going forward, a vital issue for teachers' unions will be the need to prove that they won't ruin the schools they succeed in organizing; otherwise they will be backed further into a corner by the general public and, following (not leading) them, the legislators. 

On Monday Jay Mathews wrote a column for the Washington Post looking at the issue of high-performing charters and teachers unions. What’s your take on Jay’s argument?Posted by: Andrew Rotherham from Education Sector

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

My school gets consistently excellent results with not only regular hours, but also with a large percentage of ESL and special ed. students.  We're the most requested high school in New York City. I'd say this is the case in spite of, rather than because of. our "reform"-minded administration. which treats our school, quite frankly. like garbage.  We have a building designed for 1800 with 4450 kids in it--and quite possibly hundreds more next year.  I teach in a filthy trailer well past its expiration date.  I wear a suit and tie to show the kids how I feel, but the surroundings also tell them what the city feels, and they get the message loud and clear. Kids in my school eat lunch at 9AM. They run around outside in gym suits in weather so cold I can't imagine doing so.

Certainly, with hundreds of additional kids anticipated next year we are being set up for eventual failure. We cannot sustain unlimited growth.  And frankly, however good charters may be, we could use some of the space being devoted to them.   Our school should be saved rather than sacrificed. I've seen no evidence of any plans to do so, and systemic neglect has resulted in the decline of many schools I know of.  It would be far better, troublesome though it may be, to avoid that rather than replacing these schools and declaring their successors a miracle.

Personally, I am highly unimpressed with writers and TV personalities who make many times my salary proclaiming the virtues of more work for less pay.   The children we teach will grow up to face the working conditions we leave them.  I sincerely hope their inheritance, including that of my own child, does not include ten hour days and six day weeks.

Bruce Smith from Green Dot Public Schools, Los Angeles responds:

I agree with Jay's argument. A crucial problem is that non-reform unions are backing themselves into a corner, becoming isolated from the public and from advocates for children (which is tragically ironic), and are losing teacher jobs. I saw a clear example this morning, at a rally for the Los Angeles Parents Union outside the headquarters of the Los Angeles Unified School District. I passed the sidewalk tents of UTLA (LAUSD's union partner) teachers who are in the 12th day of their hunger strike. They are protesting the loss of over 2000 teaching jobs in Los Angeles; naturally they don't want to add to the city's 12.5% unemployment rate. By contrast, at the rally, I met Abigail Garcia, President of the Asociacion de Maestros Unidos (AMU), the teachers' union that contracts with Green Dot (where I work) in Los Angeles, and I spoke with our Chief Financial Officer this morning. In spite of the fact that California is out of money, and will start issuing IOUs this week to its contractors (presumably including LAUSD), we at Green Dot are laying off no teachers, but instead are still hiring, and we have received hundreds of applications from teachers formerly "protected" by their UTLA contracts. The fact of the matter is that Los Angeles parents are walking out of LAUSD in droves, and teaching jobs are disappearing as a result. I predicted this when I was debating our problems with my fellow teachers at Locke High School, and had no idea that my dire prediction for Locke's future would be coming true all over Los Angeles.

 

Regardless of what was actually said in the quoted conversation between Mr. Botel and union officials, any teachers' union official who believes that students' learning is not their problem is wrong. This is why the point I made earlier about TURN (the Teacher Union Reform Network) is so important: TURN advocates for "double bottom line collective bargaining", whereby what is best for students is considered at the same time as is what is best for teachers. This is an approach the public at large will support, and it will prove most effective in preserving teachers' jobs. As I used to tell my former colleagues at Locke, you can have a union contract that promises you the Taj Mahal in retirement; but if your employers can't afford to keep those promises, they are worthless.     

Paul T. Hill from Center on Reinventing Public Education responds:

Matthews' article was great. His analysis of Randi Weingarten's approach to charter schools -- trying to adapt the union agenda so it works constructively in the charter sector -- is excellent. There is no reason why charter teachers can't create a common voice to work with management, but that has to reflect the career aspirations of the teachers in the particular school, not some agenda imposed from the outside by the union. Even if unions learn how to represent charter teachers there will always be tensions, the same ones that apply to any very small business. The school can't survive if teachers negotiate arrangements for themselves that make the school ineffective or less able to win and keep customers (parents).  Union members will also lose if school leaders or operators (eg KIPP) close the school because they feel it is unable to fulfill its mission. These "threats to the host" are less immediate in unions' dealings with school districts than they are in dealing with charter schools.  

Is there change in the discussion of unions at some local levels? Is the climate changing, or is it still "business as usual" in places that you have experienced?Posted by: Amy Cochran from Trevecca Nazarene University

Caitlin Hollister from Boston Public Schools responds:

One exciting development that I'd like to highlight is a new teacher-run, union-sponsored school in Boston.  The "Boston Teachers Union" school will open in September, led by two experienced and talented teachers and a small staff.  I'm impressed with the union's interest in creating its own innovative school, rather than simply complaining about charter schools in our area.  I know this new school will be closely watched and I'm very curious to see how it evolves.  This certainly doesn't seem like business as usual.  Unions are rarely in the business of school administration but I admire the BTU's interest in trying something new, putting the expertise of its teachers to work, even if it's a risky undertaking.

Can teachers' unions have any significant role in pressuring school districts to recruit and hire only truly qualified principals? The presence of very underqualified and emotionally unhealthy people as principals in schools IS a problem in education today in the U.S.Posted by: Margaret Viers

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

I agree that's a problem, but I think unions can only address it after the fact.  Teacher unions have no say whatsoever in who gets to be an administrator. Truth be told, they have no say in who gets to be a teacher either.  That is the province of administration.

 

In our school we have a leadership team composed of teacher, parents, students and administrators.  We take part in the selection process, but only in an advisory capacity.  My daughter is in a public school, and if she had an incompetent principal I do believe the community would do something about it.  I guess we're fortunate in that this has not yet occurred.

 

Often the way out for principals in NYC is a story in the Daily News.  It's unfortunate when things have to go that far.

Caitlin Hollister from Boston Public Schools responds:

I agree that this is a significant problem.  At the same time, many well-qualified and effective principals are overburdened by impossibly challenging jobs.  I would like to see unions support a greater variety of roles for teachers that would alleviate the myriad of tasks on the principal's shoulders while also offering teachers more responsibility.  Some unions are wary of differentiated roles (which necessarily require differentiated pay) but many teachers are yearning for ways to contribute more meaningfully to the administration of their schools without leaving the classroom altogether. When we start to enable teachers to work as evaluators, mentors, curriculum designers, coaches, data analysts, and parent liaisons, and formally recognize their work in these areas, principals will be able to serve as more effective and inspiring school leaders.  

Paul T. Hill from Center on Reinventing Public Education responds:

This is a very good idea. Some unions will shrink from it however because it implies subjecting educators (principals but you never know who will be next) to performance tests, and hiring people conditionally, continuation dependent on performance. 

 

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

Caitlin says:

 

When we start to enable teachers to work as evaluators, mentors, curriculum designers, coaches, data analysts, and parent liaisons...

 

It's interesting, because in our school, in fact all over NYC, teachers act as mentors.  And our principal, in fact,  has just introduced part-time teacher positions as curriculum designers and data analyst.  We do have a parent liaison, but with 4450 kids it's a tough, if not impossible job.

 

As is the job of principal, now that I think of it.  Perhaps those mentioned in the original question are emotionally unhealthy, in part at least, because they had no idea what they were in for.

Laura Bornfreund from Forum for Education and Democracy responds:

Unions can apply whatever pressure they like, but ultimately they do not have a decision-making role so the question is whether or not their suggestions mean much. They might if unions actively speak out about this being a big problem: getting the media and parents involved.  And it is a problem. When it comes to student achievement, the next most important factor after having an effective teacher in the classroom is having strong school leadership. Principals set the tone and expectations for the school and someone who is poorly qualified or "emotionally unhealthy" isn't going to cut it.

I have a perfect example of how important leadership is to school quality. Florida gives schools letter grades based on their scores on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). There was a particular school in a poor neighborhood that yo-yoed from an F to an A back to an F to and again to an A over a ten year period with four different principals. This clearly shows that leadership makes a difference!

Bruce Smith from Green Dot Public Schools, Los Angeles responds:

Caitlin's is an excellent idea. I once worked for a very liberal, innovative private school in Santa Monica, the Crossroads School. There everyone, including the Headmaster and the Head of the Upper School, taught at least one class. And conversely, in some of the schools in New York (I read about this in A Class Apart, which deals with Stuyvesant High School), teachers (such as department heads) are doing administrative work, in roles equivalent to assistant principals. The point is to erase the us/them division between teachers and administrators. Having administrators teach, which is not uncommon in Europe, has 2 immediate advantages: it prevents principals from trying to implement half-baked ideas, such as "testing Wednesdays", because they immediately realize, as teachers, than any such mid-year change immediately throws out all the long-term planning they paid for in the previous summer; and it reduces tension in general between the administration and the teachers, and reinforces ideas like "We're all in this together." And allowing teachers to participate in managing their schools as a step on a  new career path for teachers (I suggest Tough Coices or Touch Times for details) will, I believe, help more highly talented people stay involved in the profession, and make a greater contribution to their schools.    

Julie Eisenband from SAGE Academy Charter School, Brooklyn Park, Minn. responds:

I agree with everyone here that effective school leaders are critical to school success.  I think initiatives like New Leaders for New Schools and Bloomberg's principals' institute are going in the right direction.  

 

My school is part of the EdVisions Cooperative, a network of schools whose "design essentials" include project-based learning and teacher-ownership.  Teacher-ownership looks different at each site; some schools have no school leaders, but rather split up the administrative tasks based on each teacher's skill set.  My school has three administrators in a staff of 11.  Some schools in our network are unionized. 

 

What attracted me to the teacher cooperative model was the idea that as a teacher I had an interest in more than just what went on inside my classroom.  Everything - down to what's being served at lunch - affects how well I can do my job.  (You all know how well a kid can focus if he's just had a Monster energy drink versus a can of apple juice.)  Therefore, I should have some ownership over the whole site, not just my corner of it.

 

Just one model to ponder.

I hear much discussion about the need for change and a different way of doing things is needed, but how do we get all the stakeholders together to create the necessary across the board policy changes to bring significant and comprehensive reform to our schools?Posted by: Greg Ahrnsbrak from Denver Public Schools

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

There are a lot of worthwhile reforms that aren't much discussed.  For example, there's class size.  Here in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg has received hundreds of millions of dollars to reduce class size, but has managed only to raise it, more sharply this year than over the last ten.  Today's Daily News points to 238 million earmarked for improvements that went to fill a budget gap instead.  So the city, with the highest class sizes in the state, now has class sizes even higher.

 

Kids in my classes are lucky to get heat in the winter, let alone AC in the summer.  There are bathrooms so incredibly filthy you can't believe it, and soap, paper towels, or toilet paper are left there as occasional treats on lucky days.  In classrooms in the building, you can see lockers, which were used well before the "reformers" decided to explode my school to 250% capacity.    They aren't used, as there's no way every kid could have one.

 

There's plenty of room for reform, including a great many that Arne Duncan has never even thought of.  But I think it's important to first address the basics--the ones you never read about in the innumerable tabloid op-ed columns that blame teacher unions for everything.   You wouldn't see such conditions in suburban schools, and it's unconscionable that Tweed lets them exist in city schools, even the best of them.

 

Let's give kids decent learning conditions to start, and then discuss Arne's agenda.

Laura Bornfreund from Forum for Education and Democracy responds:

Greg's question is not just a big question... it's the question! Reaching consensus has been and will continue to be one of the most difficult obstacles to reform. Since we are discussing unions in this chat, I'll address one way to bring them into the effort.

I think the first step is for reformers to actively reach out to unions and engage them in a discussion of the challenges and potential solutions. People in general, and unions in specific, tend to react defensively when changes are shoved down their throats. This is true for individual teachers too. It is not always easy to buy into reforms or innovations that come from the top without an explanation of the rationale. Teachers need to and should be part of the discussion. And that means engaging the unions in conversations while the reforms are being formulated.

Paul T. Hill from Center on Reinventing Public Education responds:

Sadly, getting all the stakeholders together is a way to produce gridlock. Everyone tries to hold onto what they've got and the result is pretty close to the status quo ante. Change in something as embedded in a union's relationships to a school district needs leadership. This can involve collaboration -- a union leader and a superintendent jointly deciding to take some risks, as Klein and UFT leaders did in NYC, or Bennet and Jupp did in Denver. However, it often comes as a result of one party's action to change the situation, and the other party's reaction. Creation of lots of charter schools in DC made the unions fear that the district would become the employer of only a fraction of K-12 teachers, thus weakening union bargaining power. That is a premise of the current union negotiation. In the past, union job actions were also efforts to change the situation unilaterally. There is nothing inherently wrong with such actions, they are just politics. However, one party or another is often more able to take them. The shoe is not on the unions' foot right now, but that does not mean the bargaining tactics used by reform superintendents are inherently wrong and should be abandoned in favor of stakeholder harmonic convergence processes.     

Paul T. Hill from Center on Reinventing Public Education responds:

Sadly, getting all the stakeholders together is a way to produce gridlock. Everyone tries to hold onto what they've got and the result is pretty close to the status quo ante. Change in something as embedded in a union's relationships to a school district needs leadership. This can involve collaboration -- a union leader and a superintendent jointly deciding to take some risks, as Klein and UFT leaders did in NYC, or Bennet and Jupp did in Denver. However, it often comes as a result of one party's action to change the situation, and the other party's reaction. Creation of lots of charter schools in DC made the unions fear that the district would become the employer of only a fraction of K-12 teachers, thus weakening union bargaining power. That is a premise of the current union negotiation. In the past, union job actions were also efforts to change the situation unilaterally. There is nothing inherently wrong with such actions, they are just politics. However, one party or another is often more able to take them. The shoe is not on the unions' foot right now, but that does not mean the bargaining tactics used by reform superintendents are inherently wrong and should be abandoned in favor of stakeholder harmonic convergence processes.     

I work for a teacher's union. I work here due to personal, as well as idealistic reasons. It all came from one key issue: Missouri NEA saved my wife's life. Both her principal and superintendent ignored her issues. We still need multiple medications for her to breathe after the black mold incident, yes. Nothing's perfect. On the other hand, the district razed that wing of the school that contained the mold. Does that help children? Unions differ in their abilities, processes, and effectiveness. I get that. Nevertheless, in life-and-death matters, you really see where unions count.Posted by: Paul Henley from Texas State Teachers Association

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

I'm very sorry your wife had to go through that, but I'm glad the union was able to help.

 

The union has never literally saved my life, but there's not one moment I'm not glad to be part of it.   When I did get sick, I was glad to have great health insurance.  I was also very glad to be able to take a sabbatical for restoration of health, which I'd never have gotten in a non-union position.

 

I think all Americans should have health insurance, and protections in case of medical emergencies.

Julie Eisenband from SAGE Academy Charter School, Brooklyn Park, Minn. responds:

Thank you for sharing that.  People have short memories and forget that it was unions who gave us many of the protections we take for granted.

 

My airplane buddy said, "I think unions used to be necessary, but aren't anymore." I can't help thinking of the Gilded Age, when the Supreme Court was going around granting civil rights to corprations and unions were seen as taking away workers' rights to choose.

The rock-star charter operators such as KIPP and Green Dot fill their teachings staffs with young newcomers whose youthful energy (and presumably lack of adult-life obligations) allows them to devote superhuman effort and put in ultra-long hours. Recent L.A. Times coverage of Green Dot's Locke High School takeover describes Green Dot's requiring every Locke teacher to reapply for his or her job, and then refusing to rehire most of them, bringing in young newbies instead. The Times describes a 23-year-old teacher putting in 12-hour workdays. How is this sustainable as a successful education model?

The following is a quote form the book "Keeping the Promise? The debate over charter schools," published by Rethinking Schools. "Reforms are bound to fail if they rely on the voluntarism of idealistic, overworked teachers who burn out and leave the school once they decide to have a family or want any semblance of a meaningful personal life."

How do those who endorse pushing out veteran teachers and replacing them with energetic young newcomers respond to my question and to the quote from the book?

Posted by: Caroline Grannan

Paul T. Hill from Center on Reinventing Public Education responds:

I'm not sure I buy the author's argument. KIPP is really doing rather well with its human resource strategy. They might be trying to reduce the burnout effect but I don't think they will be forced to change their reliance on young teachers who turn over. They do need to attract some of their former TFA-style teachers back as school leaders or lead teachers, but that seems feasible. This is not a strategy that everyone can use, however. Most schools will need to employ at least some career teachers. KIPP-style human resource policies prove there is not just one way to staff a successful school. In the future, as online technology becomes a more integral part of instruction, there will be more experimentation with teacher attributes and roles. 

Julie Eisenband from SAGE Academy Charter School, Brooklyn Park, Minn. responds:

I have not read the book, and I do not work for KIPP or Green Dot, so take this with a grain of salt.  But I do know that for many charter schools hiring young teachers is more a budget decision than anything else.  Being on the board of a charter school, I know that charter schools have to make do with a lot less.  Hiring energetic young teachers at the bottom of the pay scale is a smart move.

 

Sustainable?  No.  Eventually these young teachers buy homes or have babies and find jobs in traditional public schools where they can make $10,000 more.  Or they simply burn out and realize they can be making more money while being a more effective teacher.  And school districts have great, innovative programs too.  One of my coworkers left for a unionized, district job where he gets to teach science as part of an outdoor adventure program.

 

I have many, many stories like this.  These are not uncommitted teachers—they are talented, effective, energetic teachers who know they can reach more students when they have less on their plate.

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

I think it's pathetic that teachers are viewed as replaceable commodities, to be tossed away like used dish towels as budget needs dictate. It's remarkable that educational administrators could lack the remotest conception that wisdom can indeed come with age.

 

More importantly, it's a terrible precedent for kids, who will grow up in the miserable job market fostered by companies who see fit to use people like that. Preventing and fixing such conditions for our students and children is precisely why unions are necessary.

Bruce Smith from Green Dot Public Schools, Los Angeles responds:

Ms. Grannan, it's possible that your question was directed at me, since I do work for Green Dot and wrote my first answer in this discussion from the campus of Locke High School, so here goes: I agree with you, I think you and Keeping the Promise hit the nail on the head, and that Locke's current teaching staff cannot, in terms of its average age and experience level, stand as a model for the future of teaching in America. (I do hope that the staff's energy, enthusiasm, and total dedication to students will serve as a model.) I think that, going forward, schools that are thinking of leaving their districts and setting up independently, or of asking a charter management operator to partner with them, as we asked Green Dot to do, may wish to negotiate teacher protections or at least more thorough understandings of the agreement before they sign on to anything; although, as in any negotiation, reaching agreement may prove challenging, and if they push too hard to maintain a status quo, no reformers will be wise to partner with them. Again, the needs of the students must be paramount: every child has the right to a committed, professional teacher in each class; and we as a society have failed to provide those, as witnessed by California's quarter-century "emergency" shortage of teachers (in California, state law says that every teacher must be credentialed before entering the classroom, and every credentialed teacher applying must be hired before any emergency credentials are issued; but this law, like that outlawing the shooting of rabbits from the backs of streetcars in San Francisco, has become so antiquated that district hiring officials charged with enforcing it are no longer even aware if its existence).

 

What is really needed here, as so often throughout education, is balance; and we are still struggling to balance the rights of students with those of teachers and of the families in the schools' neighborhoods. On the one hand, various Locke administrators and teachers told me that the relative lack of experience on campus hurt the school this year, which rendered it good rather than great; on the other hand, at least potentially, hiring cheaper teachers enables the hiring of more teachers (although not under traditional union contracts, which, because they charge individual schools the average teacher salary in the district for each teacher rather than their real salaries, produce the perverse effect of having the education of kids in Bel Air subsidized by families in Watts!), and this in turn can lead to smaller class sizes and better contact ratios (the percentage of teacher time spent in front of classes of students).

 

What we need are new models of the teaching profession that will lead to sustainable lives for educators as well as wonderful teaching for our students; and the best model I know of, the one I'm using as I design my own school, is that derived from Central Park East Secondary School as described in Linda Darling-Hammond's The Right to Learn.

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

The "emergency" shortage of teachers Bruce refers to also occurred in NY.  This basically meant a wholesale lowering of standards for our school system, and I presume it meant the same in LA.  Personally I don't believe in lowering standards for those who'd teach our kids, and I think the results can be disastrous.

 

I find it incredible that so many who sat silent as our school systems deteriorated can now stand up and say that unions make people jump through hoops to become teachers.  I'm particularly surprised by New York Times columnist Nick Kristoff, who wrote that certification requirements were preventing Meryl Streep and Colin Powell from becoming teachers, despite the fact that neither has voiced the remotest inclination to do so.  Kristoff dusts off that column and rewrites it on more or less an annual basis.

 

I'm certified in three different areas, and I certainly don't have any talent that eluded Ms. Streep or Mr. Powell.  And of course, it isn't unions who set certification requirements.  Now many people say, quite correctly, that certification does not necessarily make a good teacher.  I've no doubt that's true, just as licensure doesn't guarantee a good lawyer or doctor.

 

However, hiring and retaining thousands who fail basic competency tests, as Klein and Bloomberg did in New York, is probably not the best way to go either.     Unions, of course,  played no part in this practice.

I once read an article in an NEA publication which discussed the history of teachers' unions in US education. In the article, the author explained that US schools in their early years very much resembled factories and teachers were regarded as little more than factory workers. The article argued that unions were formed to raise the level of professionalism for teachers and to encourage more education and development for teachers.

I do not have enough information to support this argument, but it does cause me to ask a couple of questions:

Firstly, how much of a contribution do you feel that teachers' unions have made towards advancing and improving the level of professionalism for teachers? Secondly, how much influence have they had in improving the level of schooling for children so that all US children are educated in suitable environments which encourage and nurture learning as opposed to being housed in large, overcrowded facilities which do indeed, resemble factories?

Posted by: Lorri Giovinco-Harte

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

Chancellor Klein wrote an eight-page contract a few years ago, which basically reduced teachers to chattel.  It's frightening that such a man runs our school system, and remarkable that such a person fails to see the clear implications of treating adults like that--that the children for whom he professes such concern will grow up and be treated just the same.

 

Of course unions are the only protection working people have against those who'd treat them like this.  And sadly, as this country turned away from unions in the 80s, things have not gotten better for working people.  Americans now work more hours than we ever did before, more than our neighbors in other industrialized countries, and making sure our kids can get union jobs would be a great accomplishment for us as parents and teachers.

 

When I see nonsense such as "right to work" (actually the right to refuse to pay dues for the organization that negotiates salaries, ultimately hurting employees) and the opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act (on the basis it deprives workers of the option of secret ballots, when it actually deprives employers of that option), I worry that people are still buying such drek, despite the recent meltdown of our economy.

 

When I read George Will and Rod Paige demonizing teachers and their unions, I wonder how many people really believe they give a damn about the kids I teach.  Perosnally I won't begin to believe it till they visit the trailer.

Bruce Smith from Green Dot Public Schools, Los Angeles responds:

Arthur says:

 

Of course unions are the only protection working people have against those who'd treat them like this. And sadly, as this country turned away from unions in the 80s, things have not gotten better for working people. Americans now work more hours than we ever did before, more than our neighbors in other industrialized countries, and making sure our kids can get union jobs would be a great accomplishment for us as parents and teachers.

 

Without an international workers' movement, I expect purely national, old-fashioned unions will continue to be of limited force. Of course we'd all like good jobs with reasonable work hours; but even more fundamentally we need jobs, and if we don't produce competitive workers, we will continue to see jobs move overseas and may continue to see increasing unemployment into the foreseeable future. Neither Arthur's daughter nor my sons have any pre-ordained right to work, even if I wish they did; and as long as we remain wedded to ineffectual systems that are unable to prevent overcrowded, moldy trailer classrooms and a huge dropout crisis, the decline in the standard of living for American workers is likely to continue. What we need are new ideas and newly empowered workers, as are so evident throughout this on-line discussion, rather than character assassination and heartfelt wishes that conditions weren't so.

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

It's odd that I'm accused of character assasination for no particular reason.  It's odder still that after participating in this discussion, after writing in the Daily News and Gotham Schools on this very topic, after successfully running for chapter leader in a very large school, I'm accused by someone who knows almost nothing about me of having only "heartfelt wishes."   I don't recall stating that teachers shouldn't be competitive, or that anyone had a pre-ordained right to work, nor do I recall even thinking any such thing.    It's a little disappointing that someone needs to put words in my mouth to make an argument.

 

It's odder still that conditions having nothing whatsoever to do with union are somehow viewed as attributable to union.  In fact, they are created by the very people who most prominently wear the "reformer" mantle--the very people who repeatedly claim to hold "children first" and hold their interests above those of adults.  As I've plainly and repeatedly shown--they haven't much helped my students.

 

We can certainly support bad jobs for our children, if we so desire.  We can certainly lobby for fewer rights, more work, and less pay, as has been the trend since Reagan's union-busting party in the eighties.   However, that has indeed resulted in overseas jobs, and has not much helped working Americans.  Encouraging and enabling this trend, to me, hardly seems the way to go.

 

I'm reminded of a Shakespeare teacher I had who said, "Whenever anyone says but, you may ignore whatever they said beforehand.  So when your girlfriend says, "I really love you but..." well, it's time to look for a new girlfriend.  When someone says, "We'd all like good jobs with reasonable work hours but..." you may bet the farm that person is inclined to produce neither.   That sort of lowering of standards has not proved helpful for either American students or workers.

 

In fact, we have a new President who's pledged support for the Employee Free Choice Act, something that will encourage union and help working people attain good jobs and reasonable work hours, rather than the deplorable conditions offered at places like Walmart.   I think if Obama had offered the sort of vision inherent in the previous comment, he'd be a one-term Senator rather than President.

 

Again, my school is the most desired in the city, and I'm determined to keep it that way.  The conditions are abominable, and as an advocate for children and teachers, I speak out, and I will be part of the solution.  It's patently ridiculous to imply that worse working conditions, poorer jobs, or unreasonable work hours would do anything whatsoever to solve this problem.

Bruce Smith from Green Dot Public Schools, Los Angeles responds:

Arthur, there is much that we could work out here, if we had space enough and time, but I'll ignore much in your comment, including the part about what people like me would be inclined to produce (a topic about which you know nothing). Let's just imagine the following scenario: KIPP (for whom I don't work, and whom I mean to neither admire nor disparage here) opens a school across the street from yours, and offers the "worse working conditions, poorer jobs, [and] unreasonable hours" you mention to its teachers (again, I'm not saying this is what KIPP does, but that is what critics imply). Let's suppose also that 40% of the families currently enrolled in your school try to get in, so that the school is hopelessly over-subscribed; and that those who can't get in start a parents organization to force traditional large schools like yours to change and fast, or they will demand a change in your local laws to allow them to take over your school. What would you do? 

 

This is exactly the situation faced by traditional large high schools across Los Angeles. Now if yours is as good as you suggest, in spite of its terrible working conditions and leadership (and I confess I don't follow that logic), you may be able to out-compete the upstarts and survive. Heaven forbid you should be working in a shocking disaster like I was, and face that challenge.

 

You want to stand as a labor leader. What do you tell those teachers in day 13 of their hunger strike in their tents outside LAUSD headquarters? With no jobs, they won't be educating any students. What do you tell them?

 

As an advocate of traditional unions and public schools (as I take you to be), you have to have something positive to tell those teachers as well as the families who have abandoned their district. There has to be a positive message somewhere in all of these postings. I may have missed it, so please point me in the direction of what you stand for, not against.

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

Thank you again, Bruce, for sharing your thoughts. Thank you also for informing me I want to stand as a labor leader.  I regret to inform you, however, that your mind reading skills are failing you.  Though I ran for CC, that's not how I see myself.   I'm a teacher, and I'm helping other teachers, as well as my school and the community in which we work.

 

Let me clarify a few things for you.

 

You seem not to understand the word "but," yet you use it frequently.   So when you modify a statement like the one I quoted, "We'd all like good jobs with reasonable work hours but..." you certainly appear set to contradict that statement--as in fact you did.  If indeed you do not wish to do this, you ought not to use that word--your word, the one on which I base my conclusion.  I don't base conclusions on nothing, actually.

 

As for your preposterous suggestion that KIPP is building a school across the street from one that routinely scores as high as any KIPP school, without the extra hours, or Saturdays, and they are doing this, in order to accomplish--well what exactly?  To show they can achieve the same results we do with only 50% more work?  Well, they would indeed appear ridiculous. And if KIPP wants to make a ridiculous move like that, it's certainly their right.  However, I'd suggest that if the uber-reformers could find room across the street for a KIPP school (which they can't, of course, yet another factor you've failed to consider in your absurd scenario), then they could certainly find room for the kids we already have.

 

Of course, if the forces of "reform" would do things like that, as nearby suburban schools do as a matter of course, there'd be little or no discussion of "reform," just as there's little or no discussion of it in suburban schools, where people will not put up with such nonsense as having to enter a lottery to get their kids into a decent school.    The schools are decent or administrative heads roll, as rightly they should.

 

And of course, we are the most requested school in the city already.  That's why we're at 250% capacity, something that would never be permitted in suburban schools, or indeed charter schools--which clearly receive preferential treatment over ours, as good as we are.   The implication that the overcrowding has anything whatsoever to do with the UFT, once again, is patently ridiculous.  Furthermore, your comparison of my school with those in Los Angeles is also baseless and ridiculous.

 

It's unfortunate that your arguments consist solely of hypothetical arguments that do not relate to my situation.  Unlike you, I'm willing to opine only on topics about which I know something.   I do not know much about those hunger strikers, and having observed how you derive many of your conclusions, I'd need another source to make even a casual comment, let alone offer advice.  

 

From my very first comment on this forum, you can see what I stand for.  I regret you have apparently not bothered to read it, or the many other comments in which I specifically discuss the value of union.

Those of us who have been teaching for any length of time can probably recall a situation when are unions have supported us when are administrators have behaved poorly but, have we reached a time in our history when we need to ask more from our unions than just teacher protection? Our system is failing our children and our teachers. Is it time for our union leadership to step up and look at how they can take the lead on real reform issues that have an impact on student learning and teacher longevity such as teacher compensation, evaluations, and retention?Posted by: Greg Ahrnsbrak from Denver Public Schools

Laura Bornfreund from Forum for Education and Democracy responds:

In my opinion, teacher protection is one of the most important roles of teachers' unions. A prime example is Mr. Henley's story above. There was a similar situation in my former school district. I had a teacher friend who was sure she had mold in her classroom (her asthma was getting worse), and she reported it to her principal. School leadership and the district were dragging their feet, but once she brought it to the attention of the union she got action. Mold testing was done and her classroom was closed. She was moved to another unaffected classroom and her health improved. This was easy, but union involvement was needed to expedite a resolution.

 

To address your other question, I think it is more about what teachers' unions must do if they want to stay relevant and part of discussions about education reform. Historically, unions have wielded considerable influence in political campaigns and the Democratic Party.  But there is a growing chasm as more Democrats support some type of merit pay, alternative routes to teacher certification, charter schools, and other new ideas. Teachers' union leaders will likely have to ease their resistance to these new ideas—particularly performance pay, accountability, public school choice, and teacher tenure—and instead find ways to make these reforms beneficial for teachers.

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

I am continually amazed at how so many who wave the reform banner lay every ill of society at the foot of teachers.  Frankly, I agree that unions do too little to remedy the conditions faced by our kids.  However, the conditions are often dictated by those who administrate our school systems, who wouldn't patronize them on a bet.  Both Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein sent their kids to private schools with classes far smaller than those they give NYC's 1.1 public schoolchildren.  I'll bet you dimes to dollars their kids had real classrooms instead of trailers.

 

Merit pay?  Those without merit ought not to be teaching.  It's not the union that selects teachers, and it's not the union that grants them tenure.  It wasn't the union that decided to go to Albany to beg for the right to retain thousands of teachers who'd failed a basic competency test, some dozens of times--it was Chancellor Klein, in fact.  The UFT has supported higher standards for teachers for years.  

 

Do you really want reform?  Require people who administer school districts to patronize them.  If school systems are not good enough for their kids, they aren't good enough for ours either, and it behooves those who run them to fix them, even if it means delaying construction of a sports stadium.  I read somewhere that Mayor Bloomberg created more seats in sports stadiums than he has in public schools.  This speaks to values, and if you really wanted to reform education, you'd put children first, rather than simply using it for a slogan.

 

It's time people took a look at what's really going on, rather than simply vilifying the people who choose to go out and teach children every day.  And frankly, much of what I read about school reform is written by people who lack the remotest notion of what goes on in public schools every day.

Caitlin Hollister from Boston Public Schools responds:

 I agree with Arthur that districts and the states need to take more responsibility for hiring qualified teachers and monitoring their effectiveness.  As I mentioned in earlier posts, I feel strongly about better systems of evaluation for teachers.  The current problem in many areas, including my own district, is that evaluations exist, supported by the union, but they aren't implemented because of administrator demands - principals simply don't have the time.  There's a great need for more gate-keeping in years 3-5 of teaching (at this point in a teacher's career, we can tell much more about their effectiveness than we can in their first two years in the classroom).  I would like to see unions come out more strongly in support of measures that would retain strong teachers and remediate or terminate ineffective teachers.  What discourages me is when unions simply react (often negatively) to proposals, rather than proactively promote education policies.

If we as teachers, whether independently or though the unions, propose the kind of policies we know will best support our students,  we can avoid the policies proposed by those without any awareness of classroom realities.  Rather than wait for policy makers to figure it out, let's push for the changes that will make our schools function effectively.

I'd like to build on the last questions. In my experience, the union leadership is always pressing for a 21st century union that will take a collaborative role in instructional issues. The national office always reminds us that we can't remain an old-fashioned industrial union or a "fee for service" self-protection institution.

But the challenge is made more difficult whenever non-teachers compare neighborhood schools to charters and magnets, and tell us that we just need to "raise expectations." And too many prognosticators ignore the issue of sustainability, insulting rank-in-file teachers and often imposing counter-productive policies.

So my question is how can reformers outside of unions help reformers within unions, or at least stop undercutting them? Don't we need some sort of practicum where policy reformers have a chance to actually teach in schools so they can better understand the problems in the buildings? Similarly, don't we need some way to bring the rank-in-file into policy decisions?

Posted by: john thompson

Paul T. Hill from Center on Reinventing Public Education responds:

I think the answer is emerging before our eyes. If unions organized individual schools -- schools as the bargaining unit -- they would be constrained both by the need not to kill the host organization, and their inability to force transfers of teachers from other schools. Also by the school's obviously finite budget.  That circumstance, which now exists in charters, will help unions focus on what matters.

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

We certainly need unions, and most charters don't have them at all.  That's why Nicole Byrne Lau was able to be fired for the offense of letting her colleagues know how much UFT teachers make.  And the more members a union has, the stronger it is.  I feel a lot more comfortable standing with 80,000 UFT members than I would with the twenty or thirty in a small school, or even with the 300 or so in mine.  My school is great, and its problems stem not from the union, but from management's systemic neglect.  A weaker union would be counter-productive and not remotely beneficial to my students.

 

And again, by bettering working conditions for adults, we better the eventual working conditions for our students--who will grow up to be--adults.   Great schools should be great places to teach and learn, not hothouses where McTeachers are chewed up, spit out, and replaced every three or four years.  There's nothing wrong with young teachers, but they will certainly improve with age, if given half a chance.

 

Young teachers often come to me for advice and support.  I've learned a lot of tricks over 25 years, and I'm happy to help.  They've been a great 25 years, and I want my young colleagues to have every opportunity I've had.

 

Incidentally, the last I heard, Ms. Lau was working in a UFT public school, and swears she'll never work at a non-union school again.

Not until nearly 50 years ago did teachers associations begin to assume the rigid shape defined by state collective bargaining laws and internal unified dues structures. Do you foresee in your lifetime a transformation that would devolve power from national & state unions to local teachers associations that would have the flexibility to constitute themselves as profession-protecting guilds, faculty senates, professional development organizations, and/or independent bargaining agents? In other words, is there hope anytime soon to see professional associations that preserve the rights and autonomy of educators (including the voluntary principle of membership) without serving as a political roadblock to a truly consumer-centered delivery system of public education? Do you see this as a worthy goal? If so, what can current teachers do to facilitate the process, or will it just be up to exogenous factors like dramatic technological changes opening up new avenues of educational delivery to make it happen?Posted by: Ben DeGrow from Independence Institute

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

This question, of course, is based on the entirely false assumption that teacher unions are obstacles to good education.  In fact, the highest scoring state is Massachusetts, entirely unionized.   The highest scoring country is Finland, virtually all unionized.  Diane Ravitch asked the folks at Flypaper to "show me a state or a group of states or even a district that is non-unionized and that is leading the way in academic achievement."

 

Though there were numerous responses, no one was able to respond to that challenge.  The notion of "right to work" has not resulted in better conditions for working people, despite the propaganda that persuaded people to go with it.  Freedom from union, quite simply, is the freedom to do more work for less pay, with worse working conditions and fewer benefits.  That's what history tells us.

 

I'm proud my little girl is in a unionized public school.  I'm glad her teachers have rights.  If she becomes a teacher some day, as she says she will, I'll be proud to have done whatever I could, in whatever small way I could, to make sure she isn't working 200 hours a week and burning herself out for the short-term convenience of some boss who doesn't have to care about working Americans.

 

And I certainly hope, for the sake of our country, that the conversation changes from, "Why do teachers have sick days and health benefits?"  to "Why don't I have sick days and health benefits?"

 

Because all Americans deserve decent working conditions, rather than the abject nonsense put forth by Fox News and its ilk.

This has been a great discussion, many thanks to all the panelists. In closing, I’d ask what I see as the fundamental question here, the intersection between unionism and professional work. What evidence do we have from other fields, or our own field of education at scale, that unionism and high-level intellectual professional work are compatible? Or, is that the wrong question and should the unionization of teachers be about a new and different kind of union and unionization that the field is struggling to invent? And if so, what’s your vision for that?Posted by: Andrew Rotherham from Education Sector

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

It's interesting  and flattering that you'd categorize our jobs as high-level intellectual work.  However, much of our work revolves around advocating for the kids we teach.  Sadly, Bloomberg and Klein say they're all about reform, yet they condemn my students to conditions like these.

 

It's great we have a union to stand up for us.  Actually, it ought to do more to prevent these conditions, which touch teachers as well as students.  But when you have those responsible for such conditions standing up and making the preposterous claim they place children first, you need a union and more.  You need a community willing to stand up and say you can't treat kids like that, you can't treat teachers like that, and you can't treat anyone like that.

Paul T. Hill from Center on Reinventing Public Education responds:

This is a darned hard question. Faculty self-governance is a nightmare and law firms where every partner has a lot of clout are often awful. . The best answer is competent management paired with a cooperative but articulate employee group. Does that mean collective bargaining? I'm not sure.

Caitlin Hollister from Boston Public Schools responds:

 I'm encouraged by the national attention on education right now and I see unions in a strong position to advocate both for teachers and for students.  Many unions do this now, and we must make that voice stronger.  While we may not agree on all of the proposed reforms, we can all support a greater variety of school models and push for the funding necessary to support our schools.  I can envision unions using their strong political experience and their vast memberships to lobby for the kinds of basic improvements other panelists have mentioned - quality school facilities, safety measures, greater resources available to address students and families in crisis.  We also have some serious inequities between districts and the state and national unions could become more powerful advocates for fairness in school funding.   As members of a highly intellectual profession, we have a responsibility to influence our unions to focus on the issues most relevant to student learning and teacher effectiveness.

Julie Eisenband from SAGE Academy Charter School, Brooklyn Park, Minn. responds:

It is a darned hard question.  You can think about law enforcement unions.  Police officers often do intellectual work (McNulty, anyone?  Pembleton?), but no one accuses them of not caring for victims when they bargain for better compensation and working conditions.

Heath care costs are rising, state budgets are shrinking, property tax is an increasingly unsustainable way to fund public education.  Something has to give.  Someone has to stick in the craw of the system.  If teachers don't push back, who will?  And how can we do that unless we have a collective voice?

Bruce Smith from Green Dot Public Schools, Los Angeles responds:

Again I find myself agreeing with Caitlin, but I'd like to address the original question, about our vision for the unions we need now and in the future. I personally would like to see:

• an end to mandatory agency fees
• a hyper-egalitarian pay structure
• seniority preferences in staffing
• charging average teacher salaries against schools' budgets
• and the monopolistic assignment of students and teachers to designated schools

instead I'd like to see:

• teachers elect to join and pay into unions they genuinely support
• protection against arbitrary management decisions
• principals with the ability to differentiate pay by performance and subject
• quality preferred in staffing
• actual teacher salaries charged against schools' budgets
• and schools of choice for families, schools, and principals.

 

There are other ideas, such as large, performance-based bonusses, that are also worthy of discussion, but the above are the main principles that I think we should striving for in reformed union contracts.

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

It would be great not to be required to pay dues or agency fees.  I had a long discussion with a right-wing friend of mine, who felt robbed.  GW Bush was President at the time, and I said if you don't have to pay dues, I shouldn't have to pay taxes, since I didn't support the war in Iraq, or very many things this President was doing.  Of course, without taxes, the country couldn't do much, and without dues, the union couldn't do much either.  I often disagree with things my union does, but I understand that, as part of the union, I must pay dues.

 

Not only do union people benefit from union, but non-union shops find themselves having to compete with unions, and thus offering benefits and pay hikes.   I'm very sad so much of the country was snookered by the preposterouly misleading "right to work" laws.  Without union, we'd all be worse off, and plenty of us are, in fact.  Read Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed if you want to see what it's like to get by without a union.   It's all well and good for Blanche DuBois to depend on the kindness of strangers, but if you look at American history, you're better off opting for a strong union.

 

As for seniority, it's absolutely necessary if we've got an eye toward the welfare of our country and our children.  Otherwise we'll be open to capricious dismissal for the offense of our ages or salaries.  Plenty of industrialized countries offer better social safety nets than we do, and you don't see them yearning to copy us.  Making it tougher for working people is short-sighted and will hurt our students and our children in the long run.

There's a lot more to life than test scores, and there's no reason we can't have great test scores and real union--just like we do in my school and thousands of others across the country and the world.

Laura Bornfreund from Forum for Education and Democracy responds:

Yes, unionism and professional work are compatible. The SEIU (government workers union) is a good example of this. And so yes, that is the wrong question. The challenge of teachers' unions has little to do with the professional nature of the work and everything to do with the product they are producing: a public good.

 

The union ideals, we must remember, come from the traditional factory environment wherein there were only two parties concerned with the work product: the worker and his/her boss (or more broadly workers and management). With only these two parties involved, all questions of working conditions, wages, benefits, career growth, etc also had only two clearly defined, generally opposing, points of view. Thus, negotiation and reforms were simply an exercise of push-pull compromise.

 

Education, however, is a vastly different scenario. The product produced by teaching is not some widget that is going to be purchased or consumed; it is a public good for which society has very high expectations of quality and availability. Hence, there is now an important third party (perhaps more important than the other two) that weighs in heavily on all these decisions. In practice, society is represented by politicians and parents (the degree to which they actually represent society is beyond the scope of this discussion).

 

So we come now to the second question: what new kind of unionism is needed for teachers? Teachers' unions need first to embrace the fact that reform is necessary. As I said in an earlier post, nobody can deny that improvement is certainly needed. Further, reformers and politicians must reach out to unions and incrementally start building up mutual trust. The factory heritage mentioned above means that unions by nature will always be leery of how any new policy could be used to take advantage of teachers. Reformers must acknowledge that this is a legitimate fear; it is understandable for non-management employees to be concerned for their job safety. So that means there is great impetus on leadership and government to go above and beyond in explaining the rationale for changes and in improving the transparency of the decision-making process. Again, this will incrementally build trust and make unions a partner rather than an adversary.

 

Finally, unions must acknowledge that society represents a third party in their relationship with management. Admittedly this is challenging, somewhat awkward, and certainly novel. It is simply easier for other unions that represent traditional manufacturing workers. However, that being said, I believe that if any union is up to this challenge, certainly it is one composed of our high-level intellectual teachers.

Bruce Smith from Green Dot Public Schools, Los Angeles responds:

Arthur, I believe that you and I agree about at least this (and more, too, if we had more time and opportunity): it is possible for us all to have a better future with better, more effective teachers' unions. But where I consistently think I see a weakness in your argument is in your failure to consider the realities of the world economy. We do not have any realistic option of raising the drawbridge and cutting off foreign trade; and so economic competition is an inevitable reality, and I can tell you, after 7 years of living and teaching in Asia, that in all likelihood your recent graduates, and in all certainty the education services your school is providing for the dollars spent, are completely and totally uncompetitive in the face of the competition from some of educational leaders in Asia, such as Singapore. This frightening conclusion is laid out in some detail in Tony Wagner's The Global Achievement Gap, which may be the best book on education I've read in the last year.

 

I wouldn't want to stereotype your views--after all, we've only had this limited 2-day exchange--but the tenor of your remarks reminds me of many debates I had with UTLA representatives back when the future of Locke High School was being decided. The policy denigrating the right to work should perhaps be termed the right to not work, which is what I think of when I pass those tents of hunger-striking UTLA teachers outside LAUSD's office. They thought, I suppose, that their union contract protected them; but LAUSD has lost in the neighborhood of 50,000 students in the last few years, generally to other areas of the country and to chartered schools, and those teaching jobs are only paid for by tax money that is tied to student attendance; and if the families continue to vote with their feet, and leave LAUSD, they thereby abandon that bargaining contract, and its protections aren't worth the paper they're printed on. The point is that we must provide our children with a future that will allow them to compete; and better unions can help enable that, while clinging to lost causes won't. And the fact of the matter is that other countries are in similar situations, and are interested in new ideas, including those of Green Dot Public Schools: I never would have believed that Locke's future could have proved an international issue, and so I was amazed when 2 separate overseas news organizations came to our school to interview us and report back to their countries about what has been going on. People in wealthy democracies throughout the Western world are concerned about their future standard of living, and well they should be; and obsessing about the past accomplishments of unions, rather than present and future needs, takes us off the most important point, about the future of our children.       

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

"I don't want to stereotype your views, but..."

 

If you didn't want to stereotype my views, I don't suppose you would. Nonetheless you did, repeatedly and I see precious little evidence you even understand them.

 

Your comparisons of A-rated Francis Lewis High School, about which you know almost nothing, with failing Locke, are preposterous on their face. Your assessment of what our school does and does not do is also based on nothing whatsoever, and your repeated willingness to draw conclusions based on nothing is indeed disturbing.

 

Your absolute willingness to conflate each and every teacher union with what you experienced at Locke is also stereotypical and hardly valid. As a teacher I'm accustomed to being stereotyped by the press, but it's very disappointing that a fellow teacher would indulge in that sort of thing. I'm disappointed you need once again to resort to invective and accuse me of "obsessing," as this is not personal. You know as little about me as you do about my school, and it's regrettable that this, for you, is what passes for argument.

 

Perhaps you think I should shut up and allow my students to wallow in the conditions the "reformers" have created for them. As I can't read your mind, it's hard to say. And perhaps, having read a book, you are indeed on the road to saving the world, though you've shown no evidence whatsoever you have the remotest plan to do so. Preparing kids for a joyless miserable life, I'm afraid, is not high on my to-do list.

 

I will say, however, that I'd give your ideas a lot more credence if you were not so plainly willing to come to conclusions based on stereotypes, of indeed, little or no information at all.

 

Finally, your implication that I am not focused on the future of our children, whether or not I share your conclusions, is baseless, gratuitous and uncalled for.

Bruce Smith from Green Dot Public Schools, Los Angeles responds:

Arthur, I'd like to close by noting that we have a serious misunderstanding here: if you will re-read this last answer to which you have taken the exception (where I explicitly say I do not want to stereotype your views, which words you appear to intentionally ignore in preference to some other, more nefarious interpretation you prefer), you will see that the pronouns you and your do not appear in the last 29 lines of the paragraph. In general I was addressing the counter-arguments I have repeatedly heard and read over the years, which as I say again, may or may not represent your views. I do not claim (and would challenge you to show where I do claim, except that I am getting weary of this) to pass judment on you or your school, as you correctly point out that I have no information on either, and don't even understand how either became the subject of this discourse.

 

 I still wish I understood better what positive view of teachers' unions you stand for.

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

In fact, you explicitly say, as I quoted, "I don't want to stereotype your views, but..."  Perhaps you are unaware of what that word implies.  The opposing preposition "but" indicates you are about to disagree with something just said. FYI, your implies what you are about to say applies to your audience, which in this case, certainly appeared to be me.

You then go on to speak of my ignorance of the world economy, among various other things I'd never mentioned.  Perhaps you were indeed addressing generalities you'd heard over the years.  However, you made no indication of this whatsoever.

 

As for speaking of my school, you say, exactly:

 

"...in all likelihood your recent graduates, and in all certainty the education services your school is providing for the dollars spent, are completely and totally uncompetitive..."

 

And there's that word again, twice more (though it seems to have escaped your notice both times), attributing those recent graduates to me, and my school.    And, to clarify, that is exactly how they became a subject of this discourse--you explicitly made them so.   I hope this clears up your confusion.

 

In any case, you'll pardon me if I made the determination you were attributing these ideas to me, simply because you specifically indicated, not once but twice that you were doing so.   

I regret you do not understand what positive views of teacher unions I stand for, as I have been discussing them in detail for two days now.    You, of course, failed to address them, or indeed anything I actually said, except for implying the awful conditions imposed on my public school were somehow the fault of my union.

I suggest you read carefully before coming to unfounded conclusions, and also consider very carefully what you say before making plainly invalid statements.  I've been teaching teenagers for 25 years and that advice has served me very well.

Bruce Smith from Green Dot Public Schools, Los Angeles responds:

Arthur, every reader of this thread of emails can see for themselves who has read, and quoted, carefully, who has introduced topics at what places, and so on. I'm going to re-direct to a more fundamental issue, of consequence to more people. My original statement, which I stand by, and which was not particular to Francis Lewis, and certainly not to you personally, was this:

 

I can tell you, after 7 years of living and teaching in Asia, that in all likelihood your recent graduates, and in all certainty the education services your school is providing for the dollars spent, are completely and totally uncompetitive in the face of the competition from some of educational leaders in Asia, such as Singapore [emphasis as I originally wrote].

 

This is not the place to lay out anything like a complete defense of that statement, much less an entire plan for saving our educational system; and therefore I referred to the book, which is not the only one I've ever read (talk about gratuitous insults!). Nonetheless, I will briefly explain and defend this point. In Korea, where I taught for 7 years, per-pupil spending is just above $2000 per year, and yet every 11th-grader in the country is studying calculus. The TIMSS results from 1995 (a repeat is being conducted right now) showed that it is particularly in the performance of our highest-achieving students that we are least competitive, in comparison with hgih-achieving countries. The OECD's PISA program has concluded Korea's to be the most efficient educational system among the 27 countries compared in the study; and yet Singapore, which generally out-performs Korea, was not included because it is not in the OECD.

The Economist has shown that the United States has, in per-pupil terms, the second most expensive educational system in the world, and National Public Radio has reported that American teachers work longer hours than anywhere else in the world, and yet American students do not benefit thereby. Sam Dillon of The New York Times has written on the lifestyles of Korea's top students and their success in entering America's elite universities, and the dedication of Indian and Chinese students has led a concerned American businessman to film the documentary Two Million Minutes, which explicitly compares the lifestyles and achievements of America's ambitious honors students whom we are most proud of with these Asians. The Wall Street Journal has reported on the success of Singapore's elite students, specifically those of the Raffles Institution, in being admitted, by Americans and in preference to Americans, to America's top universities. Even a cursory comparison of economic growth rates in the last 50 years can show a direct relationship between Asian educational achievements and Asia's ability to spark growth and create jobs. I personally believe that, while the failures of urban schools like Locke are well documented, it is precisely in our (note, the pronoun may or may not apply to you, I can't read your mind) cozy satisfaction with the local schools in our more fortunate neighborhoods, mine included, that is perhaps most off base, and bodes worst for our future.

Arthur Goldstein from Francis Lewis High School, New York City responds:

Thanks once again for sharing your views.

 

I could certainly see how saying you'd read only one book would be a gratuitous insult.  Of course I said no such thing.   I will spare you the quote and explanation, as you seem to ignore them anyway.

 

Thank you also for sharing your views about Korea.  Many of my students are Korean.  Many of their parents come here to escape what they view as an oppressive educational system, with limited opportunity to go to college.  Some of my kids live here, without their parents, in group homes with little or no supervision.  Can you imagine sending your 16-year-old daughter to a foreign country by herself?  I can't.

Some Korean moms move to other countries with their children, leaving the fathers to a bleak and miserable life,according to an article I read in the Times last year.  Many study English with me and my colleagues at Queens College, hoping to get the degrees unavailable to them in their home country. American degrees are considered quite prestigious in Korea.  One of my college students offered me a job in Korea, saying she'd manage and we'd both become rich.  She was quite intelligent and I have no doubt she's become rich without my help.

 

Another, when I asked on the first day of my college class how they liked the United States, proclaimed she loved it.  I was surprised, as several of her paisanos had just complained how awful American food was.   She said she loved America because here, she didn't have to practice piano four hours a day.  She hated the piano.  I resolved right then and there not to force my kid to play music.

 

It's often hard to teach Korean students English, as they're often disinclined to participate in classes.  But you can't learn a language, not really, unless you use it, speak it, touch it, feel it.  I have to work very hard to get them out of their shells, but I insist, I don't give up, and I do it.  Unless, of course, they come as juniors or seniors--in that case, I have to prepare them for the English Regents exam, whether or not they know English.  I just got a Korean girl with very little English to pass that test, and she wrote me a beautiful thank you note, which I treasure.

 

I regret I must reply from experience, and have no statistics.  At least I did not ignore your comment utterly, as you did mine.

 

Diane Ravitch also has some thoughts on union and international performance.   I'm afraid, having read her columns for years, I'm more inclined to trust her judgment than yours.  She hooked me a few years back with a great column on merit pay.