Here's a post from this afternoon to an e-mail list from a pretty smart guy I know.
===
What this strike is about.
This strike is 100% about two things…..a fair deal for our teachers and improving educational opportunities for children in Chicago, and even beyond by setting an example for other school districts. There are ancillary benefits as well as it might hopefully spark some debate about the role of public funds in education, source of those funds, the role of unions in American life, the role of corporate money in the public debate, how we value educators and how much further we as a society are willing to allow the rich to get richer, the poor to get poorer, and the middle class to further erode.
First consider it has been 26 years since there was a teacher strike. This is not to say things have been good in that time, but it should lay to rest the idea that this is a strike of choice and that the union couldn’t wait to strike. The mayor has consistently messaged that this is a strike of choice, but if that is true, it was his choice. His role in this has been to antagonize the unions, blame them for the failure of schools to perform in hostile conditions and enflame the public while simultaneously ripping them off.
Lately, the message from CPS and Rahm has been that the teachers are striking un-necessarily and that the remaining issues are just two points….namely teacher evaluations and the ability to have principals control the schools. This is hogwash. There have been agreements on 6 issues out of 43 contract items. If you want to see the latest proposal, click here:
http://www.ctunet.com/blog/text/Summary-...heet-1.pdf
Mind you this is a 23 page version that took lawyers from both sides night and day to reach since Friday afternoon when the framework was announced. It was presented to the CTU Board of Delegates on Sunday less than an hour after it was completed and they voted to present it to their members directly. They didn’t vote to reject it, but if I had a vote, I would certainly vote against it. I should point out that the final agreement is expected to be over 180 pages in length, and that the previous contract guaranteed teachers a 4% raise last year that was reneged on. Regardless of whether you have a public or a private job, if your employer were able to utilize their contract to punish and control you, but didn’t have to live up to the agreements made to benefit you, you would probably be upset. The fact that this is happening to public employees being paid by our tax dollars means we should all care.
The language matters and the constant refrain that teachers and the CPS are in agreement on everything but two issues has been so effectively messaged that the media’s coverage has echoed this over and over. There are a ton of issues and the framework agreement doesn’t even touch on a lot of them that should be in the contract.
The contract doesn’t limit the ability of CPS and Rahm to close schools and it has been learned from CPS documents directly that the plan is still to close over 100 schools in the city. What will happen with these closed schools? Hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent on each one to effect “turnaround schools” in best cases, but in worse cases, it will result in more Charter Schools. In case you are unaware, Charter Schools are private schools using public money. They can kick out students that don’t test well. They can refuse to admit students that they think won’t test well. They can fine students and parents. They can select their enrollment and fire teachers who try to unionize. They can fire teachers who speak out or voice support for CTU or anything they want. They are essentially handed the keys to public institutions and all the public dollars that built them, given public funds to operate and public funds to make profits from. Even with all of this, they don’t perform better than public schools. (
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/...t-a-glance).
Charter Schools are the gateway drug to an even worse idea presented below by the jingoistic Stephen Weinstein of school vouchers, or as they so eloquently phrase it, “school choice”. This is when even more money is siphoned away from public education funding to allow people to use a portion of it to send their children to private schools. It is a lovely idea if it meant everyone could attend the school of their choice, but what it really means is that people that could afford to send their children to private schools can use a portion of the public funds to do so, therefore their private education will be partially publicly subsidized and therefore cost them less. This money is then not usable in the public school system since it has been vouchered. A parent wanting school choice still has to pay the full tuition at these private or religious institutions, so if they don’t have the means to do it with a small amount of public voucher funding, they are still going to be sending their kids to public schools, which will be even poorer with less funding.
Other issues that are not properly addressed in the contract are class size, class climate (air conditioning is hardly a luxury considering my wife’s classroom can reach well over 100 degrees in April, May, June and September), getting learning materials and text books at the beginning of the school year, having an equal number of learning materials and text books to the students in the class, an improvement of the current ratio of 1 guidance counselor to about 1,100 students, the re-hiring of displaced teachers, the cost of health insurance for teachers on family plans and a host of other issues that the Tribune, Sun Times, Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC have spent zero time covering.
There is however a lot of coverage of preachers and parents that are inconvenienced by the strike and want teachers to get back to work. If only these folks cared enough to come out to parent-teacher conferences or help/insist on having their children do their homework and study, etc. They are looking for a return of their daily babysitters and don’t care much about making sure that their children can go to a learning institution that supports their efforts.
The issue of teacher performance which has been labeled as one of two remaining issues on the table is about the degree to which teachers are evaluated by standardized tests. It makes no allowance for subjects that have no standardized testing such as languages, art, music and a variety of social sciences. It makes no allowances for special education students (really). All of this is required now because it is now part of state law. The fact that this is a poor measure of student’s learning aside, it is an extremely poor measure of teacher’s performance. Bear in mind it was never conceived as a way to evaluate teachers and even the principal at the private school Rahm sends his own students to thinks it is beyond bogus. (
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13..._standardi)
All that said, it is part of state law so the argument has been on the degree to which it is included in evaluations, but instead it is being presented as this idea that teachers do not want to be evaluated. They simply want a fair system of evaluation, and that means using this bogus measurement tool to a smaller degree. Originally CPS wanted this to be THE basis for teacher evaluations, making it infinitely easier for them to continue to layoff, displace and fire teachers for schools deemed underperforming. Never mind that these schools were invariably in the poorest neighborhoods with the greatest population of minority students with the smallest tax-basis, fewest resources, most challenging environments, etc. The latest proposal is that it serves as a quarter of the method of evaluation, but again, lets not pretend that this is one of only two issues left to agree on.
The context of all of this is that the law was changed by a big push from Rahm and CPS to require a much-higher percentage of union membership to effect a strike with the thought being that they would never be able to overcome such a high number, but not only did they get that number, they clobbered it with 90% of the membership voting to strike. Bear in mind that not voting was considered a no-vote so if a teacher couldn’t attend on the day they voted, regardless of how they felt, they were considered a “No” vote.
Before you buy into this nonsense being peddled by the right and Rahm, Brizard, and CPS, ask yourself why the alignment of billionaire school “reformers” are spending millions of dollars on air time for anti-union commercials, ads and billboards? Why are Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney rushing to Rahm’s aid? Why have the actions of those that constantly beat the drum of smaller government done everything that can be done to undermine public funding for education? Why do people that organize and support groups like “Stand with Children” collect TIF funds and use them to open luxury hotels?
Because until someone stands up and says this is total bullshit, they can.
This is already pretty long so I will end it here, but will be happy to take on all comers that want to engage further in the debate on or off list. My email address is XXXXXXXXXX
