AFT

Should Teacher Eval Mean Something?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, AFT, NEA, teachers

In the fight to close the achievement gap and ensure all kids have access to great public schools, what is the role of the teachers’ union?  I’m not talking teachers, we know how essential great teachers are to learning and achievement.  But when we talk about reform, shouldn’t the unions be part of the solution, rather than an obstacle protecting the problem?

Dear ol’ Eduflack addresses this issue in this morning’s New York Post, reflecting on school improvement efforts in Connecticut, the unions’ initial rhetoric that they were supportive of reforms, and how they have now balked at the process of real accountability and improvement.
From my piece:

The CEA claimed that linking evaluations and staffing decisions was “beyond [its] wildest nightmare”; it’s mounting a full-fledged campaign against any attempt to establish the link. It’s convinced some teachers to fear any linkage — so teachers have been shouting down the governor at town-hall meetings and even calling him a liar when he tried to correct the misconceptions.


What of the AFT? The national union, led by former New York City teacher-union chief Randi Weingarten, has been a key player in the development and early implementation of similar evaluation systems in states and cities across the country. The Connecticut chapter will be at odds with its national affiliate if it blocks key reforms — yet Weingarten’s silence has been deafening so far.


Happy reading!


Representing Kids … or Adults?

Eduflack accountability, AFT, NEA, Students, teachers

What is the primary objective of a teachers’ union?  Is it to represent the adults in the system with the ultimate zealousness, or is it to improve student learning and outcomes?

In the 1980s, the great Al Shanker, long-time head of the American Federation of Teachers, was quoted as saying “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.”  And while some believe he may not have said those words, it is easy to see where such sentiment comes from.
For example, let’s take a look at the Connecticut Education Association.  In reading “About CEA” on the labor union’s own website, the CEA defines its role as, “advances and protects the rights of teachers at the bargaining table, and works with state policymakers to continue to elevate the teaching profession.”  
On that same page, we see the list of accomplishments the “state’s largest public employees union” can tout, including creating the State Teachers’ Retirement System, written notice on contract non-renewals, collective bargaining, fair dismissal laws, binding arbitration, pension benefits, indoor air quality programs, and increased state aid.
But something important is missing from CEA and many teachers’ unions like it.  In its nearly 700-word “CEA: The Advocate for Teachers and Public Education,” the word “students” only appears twice.  Once in saying CEA represents college students looking to become classroom teachers.  The second noting that students also benefit from the clean air rules that CEA fought for for its educators.
Let’s be clear here.  There is nothing wrong with CEA and other teachers’ unions advocating, lobbying, and acting on behalf of its members.  That is the point of a labor union.  It is fighting for the salaries, rights, and benefits of those who pay it dues.  In the case of public education, it is fighting for the adults in the room, ensuring those teachers and other educators are protected and don’t lose what is “theirs.”
But it begs the question, who is fighting for the students in the system?  Who is speaking for those kids who are slated to go to an historically failing school?  Who is speaking for the kids predestined to attend a drop-out factory?  Who is speaking for the kids on the short end of the achievement gap?  Who is advocating, lobbying, and acting on behalf of those kids?
In reform fights like those we are having in Connecticut, many school teachers will get up and say they are speaking for their kids (and we’ll try to overlook those scenes of ugliness when, at public hearings, teachers have been telling parents and kids to “sit down and shut up,” saying they had no business participating in the education reform discussion).  And in their heart of hearts, I believe that to be true. 
But when a discussion that began by focusing on student achievement, opportunity, and college readiness has devolved into one of tenure, property rights, termination procedures, and what is “owed” teachers who have put their time in the system, one has to wonder.  Can one represent both the educators and the students in the same fight?  Can you have it both ways when we know the benefits, to students, of excellent teachers yet we have union leaders saying “the last thing I’d want to do is get someone fired?”
There is no question that the rights of the adults in the room are important.  But at some point, we need to shift our attention to the students, the very reason why public education exists.  Over the weekend, Eduflack wrote about this needed shift in the Connecticut Post, in a piece entitled Conversation Needs to Focus on Children, Not the Adults.
In it, I wrote:
We’ve spent the past two months hearing the Connecticut Education Association and its local union heads focus exclusively on what is owed the adults in the room. We have heard teachers shout down parents in public forums, hurling insults and indicating that families are to blame for the failures of our school system. We have seen the CEA ads and publications spreading lies and misleading half-truths about the content and meaning behind proposed reforms, and personally attacking supporters of those reforms. No wonder the statewide conversation about reform has focused so much on fear and punishment and so little on what’s best for kids.

If we are going to have a serious conversation about improving our public schools, we need to bring all parties to the table — educators and advocates, parents and policymakers — and leave the vitriol at the door.  The stakes are too high for us not to focus on what matters the most … real, measurable student learning.

Tenure is “Not a Shield for Incompetence”

Eduflack accountability, AFT, teachers
“We have made mistakes.  You have to really focus to make sure you’re doing everything you can so that kids are first.  Tenure, for example.  Make sure tenure is about fairness and make sure it’s not a shield for incompetence.”
– Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, acknowledging in The Washington Post that “the unions have been too focused on fairness for their members and not necessarily quality in the schools.”

It’s the Ed Reform Prom!

Eduflack AFT, charter schools

Vision 2032: Shaping the Future of Education.  That is the topic of this year’s Yale School of Management Education Leadership Conference.  The event, hosted by the Yale SOM Education Club, has become a “must attend” for national education reform leaders, offering a virtual who’s who in the reform community.  

This year’s festivities start this evening with a concentrated day of speakers and panels tomorrow.  Friday morning kicks off with a morning keynote featuring John King, Kevin Huffman, and Deborah Gist, the state commissioners in New York, Tennessee, and Rhode Island, respectively.  The impressive lineup of speakers can be found here.
For those who will be New Haven for the event, dear ol’ Eduflack has two roles at the conference.  Tonight, I am part of the kickoff panel titled, “Connecticut — At the Tipping Point?”  I’ll be discussing the reform efforts in the Land of Steady Habits with Mary Loftus Levine, the president of the Connecticut Education Association, and Paul Vallas, the interim superintendent of Bridgeport Public Schools.  Also joining us will be Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy.
Tomorrow, I’m moderating a session on collaboration between school districts, unions, and charter schools.  Participants include Garth Harries of New Haven Public Schools, Boston Collegiate Charter School’s Shannah Varon, Kelly Tynan of UP Academy Charter School of Boston, and the AFT’s Randi Weingarten.
For those attending, welcome to Connecticut (and to New Haven).  For those not registered, you should be able to follow the event on Twitter from @YaleELC or by following tweets with the #YaleELC hashtag.  It’ll be well worth the look.
(Full disclosure, Eduflack served on the Advisory Committee for this year’s Yale ELC.)

Working with Unions on Reform

Eduflack accountability, AFT, teachers

Can real reforms, particularly those targeted at fundamental issues such as educator evaluation, be done in partnership with teachers, or must they be done in spite of teachers?  This has been a question asked over and over in recent years, usual with a poor answer that gets us back to the same question.

Of course teachers need to be part of the reform process.  Educators are the ones on the front lines, the ones who need to implement (with fidelity) the reforms and transformations that policymakers, parents, and educators themselves are seeking.  Excluding them from the process only likely sets us a process destined to fail.
Case in point, the New Haven Public Schools teacher evaluation system.  Here, the City of New Haven worked with the American Federation of Teachers to build a better mousetrap.  An effective evaluation model.  A system that prioritizes student performance above all.  A system that finally aligns our expectations with what is happening in the classroom.
And the system is starting to show its potential.  Nicholas Kristof at The New York Times has also taken notice, penning an interesting piece on “The New Haven Experiment.”
From Kristof:

Yet reformers like myself face a conundrum. Teachers’ unions are here to stay, and the only way to achieve systematic improvement is with their buy-in. Moreover, the United States critically needs to attract talented young people into teaching. And that’s less likely when we’re whacking teachers’ unions in ways that leave many teachers feeling insulted and demoralized.

The breakthrough experiment in New Haven offers a glimpse of an education future that is less rancorous. It’s a tribute to the savvy of Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers and as shrewd a union leader as any I’ve seen. She realized that the unions were alienating their allies, and she is trying to change the narrative.

Yes, the model itself is a remarkable step forward for public education.  But it is particularly refreshing to see NHPS, Mayor John DeStephano (New Haven is a mayoral control district), the AFT, and the New Haven Federation of Teachers working together to develop, implement, improve, and maintain.  
As Kristof notes, “It’ll take years to verify that students themselves are benefiting, but it’s striking that teachers and administrators alike seem happy with the new system.  They even say nice things about each other.  In many tough school districts, teachers are demoralized and wilted; that feels less true in New Haven.”
Indeed.  If only all reforms could work this way.


Reconnecting McDowell County, WV

Eduflack accountability, AFT, Parents, Students, Workforce

Readers of Eduflack know I often speak of my roots and connections to West Virginia.  I am a proud graduate of Jefferson County High School in Shenandoah Junction, WV (Go, Cougars!)  But I am particularly privileged to have served on the staff of one of the greatest U.S. Senators in our nation’s history, the Honorable Robert C. Byrd.  

Working for Senator Byrd, I was able to see much of what makes West Virginia and the nation great.  I had the ability to travel the Mountain State’s 55 counties, from its beautiful ranges to its research universities, its large cities to its company towns, its river rapids to its coal mines.  Yes, West Virginia has much to be proud of.  But it is also a state with communities ravaged by poverty, poor health, and struggling schools.
Which is I was so taken by an announcement made last week by the American Federation of Teachers.  On Friday, the AFT officially launched “Reconnecting McDowell County,” a “comprehensive, long-term effort to make educational improvements in McDowell County the route to a brighter economic future.”
Reconnecting McDowell County has an impressive list of partners, including WV Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, the WV Congressional Delegation, Benedum Foundation, Blue Cross Blue Shield of West Virginia, College Board, Safe the Children, WV AFL-CIO, and the West Virginia State Police, just to name a few.  
The effort’s Covenant of Commitment is a particularly interesting read.  The effort is focused on six key issues: 1) education; 2) services for students and their families; 3) transportation, technology, and other issues; 4) housing; 5) jobs and economic development; and 6) the McDowell Community.  In the Covenant, the partners note:
We understand that there are no simple solutions — no easy answers or quick fixes.  Together, we are striving to meet these challenges, but we know we won’t accomplish that in a day, a month, or even a year.  We will find ways to measure our progress, and we believe that the changes we propose and implement must be judged by rigorous standards of accountability.  We accept that this will be a long-term endeavor, and we commit to stay engaged until we have achieved our goals of building the support systems the students need and helping the residents of McDowell County to take charge of their desire for a better life ahead.
Yes, I realize that McDowell County is not alone its history, its current challenges, or its desire to change.  Across the nation, we have counties, cities, and communities that face similar struggles.  What makes this interesting is that Reconnecting McDowell is committed to demonstrating the demographics do not equal destiny.  Old industrial towns, even old coal towns, can be reborn in the 21st century.  We can rebuild currently struggling schools around a new culture of improving instruction, greater accountability, and rising student performance.  And we can work together to put all of the conditions — from housing and health to education and jobs — in place for achievement and success.
We should all keep an eye on Reconnecting McDowell, looking at its metrics and watching its progress.  And we should be asking why we aren’t launching similar efforts in other states, in other counties, and in other communities across the nation.  The principles laid forward by Reconnecting McDowell are universal.  

Victory Is Its Own Reward

Eduflack AFT, Parents

In the late 1800s, Otto von Bismarck is famously quoted as saying, “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them made.”  While those in the policy world are quick to quote (or misquote) the former German politician, sometimes we just can’t resist letting folks know what happens behind closed doors or in those previously smoke-filled rooms.

The latest example?  An “unauthorized” PowerPoint deck prepared by the AFT (and bedecked with all of the necessary AFT branding and iconography) detailing how the Connecticut affiliate of the teachers’ union scuttled a push to bring a parent trigger to the Nutmeg State.  The presentation was originally offered at last month’s AFT TEACH 2011 Conference, as a learning tool for AFT members.  It was then posted on the AFT website, drawing quite the bit of attention from the edu-blogosphere (starting with a major typo on the title page).  Earlier this week the AFT took the PPT down, saying it didn’t represent the AFT.  RiShawn Biddle has the PDF of the original deck available on his Dropout Nation blog.  Alexander Russo has the AFT response over at This Week in Education.
Some of the choice highlights from the PPT deck?  Superintendents, administrators, board of education, municipalities, state department of education, and the Connecticut Education Association all decided not to get involved in the fight.  Connecticut AFT failed to kill the bill.  AFT calls out the House Education Co-Chair for “courting” members of the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus.  AFT branded parent groups as “the opposition” in Connecticut.  AFT convinced the Legislature to adopt a solution that was “advisory,” giving those concerned parents no “true governing authority” for the solution they sought.
As part of the deck, AFT laid out what helped them in the process (including keeping charter and parents groups from the negotiating table), what hurt (including the CEA), and lessons learned (such as AFT now being the “go-to teachers’ union, despite our size.”)  It also relished a little “karma,” noting that some of the legislative leaders who did not agree with AFT were defeated in the November 2010 elections.
These AFT revelations, of course, follow on the heels of the Stand for Children’s Jonah Edelman’s apology last month for the “arrogance” in his tone when he went into great detail, at the Aspen Ideas Festival, on how he successfully strong-armed the Illinois legislature to advance reform efforts in the Land of Lincoln.  
Don’t get me wrong, legislative victories, particularly on topics such as education policy, are something of which to be proud.  It is a long process with multiple players at multiple stages, requiring a delicate balance of mission, vision, budget priorities, and constituencies.  And real change often means taking from the existing to fund the improvement.
But once one figures out the secret sauce, it isn’t it far more productive to keep it under lock and key than to post the recipe on the Internet?  With so many competing interests trying to break through the white noise, why give a helping hand to a competing interest or even to the “opposition?”  Why not take satisfaction in the victory itself, knowing that you are better prepared to fight the next battle and advocate for the next reform?  Why put that target on your back, boldly declaring your superiority this year, knowing next year you’ll be the top target in a future year?  And in the case of AFT, why call out your supposed friends (like the CEA and other educator groups and the state department of education), while calling legislators’ motivations into question?  There is nothing to be gained, and everything to lose.
Perhaps we need a little more Otto con Bismarck discretion in talking about “how” education policy is developed, and a little less Jay-Z bravado.  After all, it takes a village to improve our K-12 system, doesn’t it?
 

Edu-Media Pitching: Class is in Session

Eduflack AFT, higher ed, Media

Today, boys and girls, we are going to learn a little lesson.  Professor Eduflack is going to go back to his roots and discuss some issues of media outreach, knowing your audience, and maximizing the factors of the technology available to you.  Our teaching tool today is a case study.

Yesterday, a well-meaning and earnest PR consultant sent out an email on behalf of a client (and yes, for the purpose of this story, I see no reason to name the specific client caught up in this).  The email arrived under the subject line: “Urgent: Gainful Employment Rule.”  The sender tried to be a little self-deprecating, noting he was sending a “dreaded pitch email.”
The email went on to say:
In the next 10 days, the Department of Education will issue a rule on “Gainful Employment” – a rule that would cut off federal funding options for students attending for-profit colleges (for example, Kaplan Higher Education, American Career Institute, ITT Technical Institute, Stratford University, and New Horizons) unless the colleges could demonstrate certain graduation rates or levels of student debt.

These rules would be unique to these colleges (no public or private schools would be required to meet the same standards) and would significantly adversely affect students of color in particular, as these colleges educate a disproportionate percentage of minority students.

I know what you’re saying.  What’s the big deal?  Typical pitch from a typical PR firm.  The for-profit colleges (or another group, in this case) write a check to gin up some attention for this battle and to hopefully gain some sympathetic media coverage.  In this case, the flack notes that the rule is harmful to African-Americans, the U.S. Department of Education has miscalculated the issue, the law is being pushed by those dreaded “short sellers” on Wall Street, and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. himself is opposed to the proposed Gainful Employment regs.
But here is where the wheels came off.  The email pitch was sent to a veritable case of thousands, mainstream media reporters and bloggers alike.  Those bloggers included both “media” bloggers, those individuals representing legitimate media organizations and bloggers like Eduflack, who write about opinions far less than facts and preach rather than interview PR company clients to write thoughtful and balanced pieces.  And it meant including advocacy groups and the rest on the same pitch as the MSM.
How do I know?  That’s the real problem we’ll talk about this morning, class.  That entire list was included in the CC field of the email.  Instead of putting us all in the BCC field, where no one knows who was a recipient, we were all put on a list.  And that’s where this “failure to communicate” truly occurred.
The first shot across the bow came from Sherman Dorn, the Florida college professor who blogs under the same name.  He noted, for the entire group to read, that “I’m firmly in favor of the gainful-employment rule.  You’re ignoring the fact that our taxes are going to support loans that go into your client’s pockets, and often it’s students who have to pick up the tab after dropping out.”
Then we all heard from Craig Smith of the American Federation of Teachers.  Smith was a little less kind, starting with a sentence noting that the flack’s “email below contains several inaccurate statements and implications.”  He continues that “the most egregious is the statement that the gainful employment regulation applies only to for-profit colleges.  Not true.”  He then notes Congressman Jackson actually “voted AGAINST an amendment in the House to block the gainful employment regulation.”  And wraps up by writing, “In fact, to describe the minority community as split is a total misrepresentation.”
One of the most interesting exchanges, though, came from Whitney TIlson, the managing partner of T2 Partners LLC.  Tilson is presumably on the list because of the terrific email listserve he puts out on education reform issues (and really just on K-12 education issues, I might add).  Tilson begins by noting, “As one of the founders of Democrats for Education Reform, it’s not often that I agree with the AFT on something, but this is certainly the case here.  This industry exploits low income and minority citizens just like the subprime housing industry did (And, yes, I’m one of the nefarious short sellers…)”  Then he provides a nice little compendium of recent coverage and discussion in the MSM on this very topic.
Why is this important?  What started as a typical media pitch aimed primarily at the MSM (at least based on the distribution list) quickly became a street corner debate on the issue of gainful employment, with all the powerful personalities siding against the original pitch.  It devolved so much, because of the failure to hide recipients, that a member of the MSM finally asked to be removed from the exchanges, considering the back and forth “spam.”  And for those members of MSM thinking about covering, they heard some strong opinions why the original pitch carried no water.
So what are the lessons learned here, at least for those flacking for others?  A few come to mind:
* Learn about the media you are pitching — The majority of the reporters, both MSM and bloggers, are K-12 focused.  Most of them have never written about issues such as gainful employment.  This was probably not how you wanted to introduce it to them.  So take the time to tailor the pitch.  Show us how this debate links to K-12 accountability discussions … or high school graduation rates … or something.
* A cigar sometimes isn’t just a cigar — You need to pitch the MSM differently than you pitch bloggers.  As an independent blogger, I get pitched several times a day. I now have enormous empathy for those reporters I used to bug regularly with faxes (yes, faxes, I’m that old) and emails.  Show me you have actually read a post of mine, and not just pulled my name off a media database that IDs me as someone who writes about education.  Personalization goes much, much further than a mass email, particularly with some of us bloggers, who are even more cynical than your typical reporter.
* Tell a story — This pitch lacked a story.  It was a string of facts, many of which were disputed over the spam of six or so hours.  When one starts a pitch noting that the issue is “controversial, and urgent” it usually means it isn’t.  If you have to tell me a topic is important, because I don’t realize it myself, it says something.
* Don’t offer to guest blog — Please, don’t offer to provide a guest blog from your client.  Again, read the blogs you are targeting.  Do we even post guest blogs?  If not, don’t offer a list of more than a hundred a guest blog, particularly when those MSM blogs are written by the reporters themselves, and many of us “other bloggers” write with a distinct opinion and through our own voice.
* Use the BCC — Please, please, please use the BCC field when doing a media distribution.  I find it fascinating to know who was pitched as part of this little experiment.  But for the good of your client and for the good of the reputation of the firm you work for, please don’t turn a basic media p
itch into a faculty senate discussion.
Class dismissed. 
 

Private Dollars and Public Education

Eduflack accountability, AFT, DCPS, Michelle Rhee

For years now, we have heard how school districts simply don’t have the necessary funds to operate as we expect.  Just in recent weeks, we’ve had education advocates lobby for $23 billion in federal funding to help pay teacher salaries, asking for outside assistance to avoid major cuts to their payrolls and their educator forces.  And while this $23 billion for edujobs has gotten stymied in Congress, it hasn’t been because folks feel it is inappropriate for anyone other than the school district to pay for teacher salaries.

So why the double standard when it comes to the District of Columbia Public Schools and Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s plans for financial incentives and pay raises for teachers who excel in the classroom?  Over in today’s Washington Post, Bill Turque offers up another strong piece on the evolution of teaching in our nation’s capital, this time focusing on efforts by the DC Office of Campaign Finance to investigate charges that the philanthropic support behind the new teacher pay pact somehow violates the law.

Let’s pause to take a look at the basic facts.  Rhee has pushed for nearly three years to enact her vision to boost student acheivement and teacher quality in DC Schools, offering up a new approach to scrap traditional teacher tenure and reward educators based on performance.  To accomplish this, she secured $64.5 million from private foundations, including Broad, Walton, Robertson, and Arnold.  Knowing the politics of our little city by the swamp, these generour philanthropic donors included language in their agreements that they could pull back the $64.5 million if Rhee is no longer with DCPS.  The Cliff Notes version here — these foundations are investing in Rhee and her vision of teacher quality.  If Rhee isn’t here to shepherd the project, the donors reserve the right to re-evaluate their financial commitment to the District.

Accusers say this is a violation of the law, and that such wiggle langauge does nothing more than protect Rhee in the event of a change in mayoral leadership.  The Chancellor, the allegations go, personally benefits because she agreed to such “leadership clauses.”

Over on WaPo’s editorial pages, the newspaper rightfully questions why such an investigation is even being pursued.  As WaPo notes, Rhee raised millions from credible philanthropic organizations, all with a significant track record in public education and school improvement. 

It all makes Eduflack wonder, if Rhee had gone to these foundations, hat in hand, because she needed $60 million to avoid laying off hundreds of teachers, would there be the same outrage?  If the Chancellor were coming forward and saying she can’t make due with her available resources and needs real help to shore up her basic operating budget, would there be the same concern?  Or is this simply an issue of using a little inginuity to break the status quo, and the status quoers being upset about it?

From the cheap seats, it seems that Rhee is using philanthropic support exactly as it is intended.  DCPS operations continue to get funded through the traditional mixes of federal, state, and local funding (though a little less traditional in DC’s case).  Rather than cut those core services and programs, Rhee has secured outside funding to implement an innovative (or not so innovative, depending on your perspective) program intended to boost student achievement and teacher quality.  If it works, terrific.  If it doesn’t, it is largely the outside funders who fail to gain return on their investment.

In return, those philanthropic causes want to see some conditions on their contributions.  They aren’t handing over tens of millions of dollars blind.  They want oversight and assurances.  They want guarantees.  And they want some stability in management to make sure years aren’t wasted or programmatic goals don’t change mid-stream.  All seems perfectly reasonable.

Without question, there are a significant number of individuals — inside DC, in the eduaction community, etc. — who simply don’t like DCPS’s new teacher pact.  They will play whatever cards they can to try and delay and derail the deal, particularly knowing that this year’s campaign for DC mayor could result in new leadership, both for the city and for DCPS.  But this investigation seems silly, even for DC politics.

It does raise a very important point, though.  We are at a time when more private sector and philanthropic money is going into public K-12 education than ever before.  From the Gates Foundation to the matches sought by the pending federal Investing in Innovation grants, public/private partnerships and third-party financial support is becoming more and more the norm these days.  Yet much of these deals seem to still happen behind closed doors.  We learn of private support, but we often don’t know the dollar figures involved or the conditions attached, as we do with the current DCPS deal.

It seems we need some additional sunshine on the process.  A common database where philanthropic donations over a certain threshold are reported and cataloged.  A place where we can see who is giving money (and for what and with what conditions) and who is receiving it.  A clearinghouse where we can both see the inputs of such public/private school improvement efforts, as well as the documented outcomes of such investments.  A way to see what is working and replicate it, using these philanthropic supports to guide systemic reforms later on.

I recognize that folks are tired of reporting and accountability, but if we are to truly learn from these sorts of public/private investments, a little sunshine and accountability can be an enormous help.  And it may even maximize such outside investments, allowing us to see real, long-term results.