Is the Friedrichs case an “existential threat” to the teachers' unions? | The Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Is the Friedrichs case an “existential threat” to the teachers' unions? | The Thomas B. Fordham Institute:

Is the Friedrichs case an “existential threat” to the teachers' unions?

As you’ve probably heard by now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Friedrichs vs. California case next year, giving it a chance to strike down union “agency fees” as unconstitutional abridgements of teachers’ First Amendment rights. (Read up on the case with some great posts from Joshua Dunn, Mike Antonucci, Stephen Sawchuk, and Andy Rotherham.)

In a nutshell, teachers already have the right not to join their local unions, even in non-“right-to-work” states like California and New York. But in such states, even if teachers are not union members (and therefore do not pay union dues), the local union can automatically deduct “agency fees” from their paychecks. The fees, which are often substantial, are supposed to support non-political activities, including the costs of collective bargaining. The unions levy these fees to avoid the free-rider problem; without them, teachers could get all sorts of benefits from the unions without paying for them.

 

Legally, agency fees from public employee unions cannot be used to financially support “matters of public concern” (a.k.a. political activities) because non-members can’t be coerced to support political speech with which they disagree. The fees can only be used for “representational activities” such as collective bargaining, arbitration of labor disputes, professional development, overhead costs, and the salaries of union administrators. Rebecca Friedrichs, a twenty-seven-year teacher, and the other plaintiffs argue that in the public sector, even representational activities are inherently political. Bargaining with elected officials (including elected school boards) is tantamount to lobbying them, they claim. Many commentators think the court’s five conservative justices will agree.

 

So if the court strikes down agency fees for public sector unions—effectively making every state a right-to-work state—will that spell the end of the unions and their political influence? We can make an educated guess by examining union strength in the twenty-five right-to-work states that already forbid agency fees. Thankfully, Fordham published a massive study in 2012 on union strength across the country that allows us to do exactly that.

 

To gauge union strength at the state level, we gathered and synthesized data for thirty-seven different variables across five broad areas:

• Resources and membership, which examined internal union resources (members and revenue) and K–12 education spending in the state, including the portion of such spending devoted to teacher salaries and benefits
• Involvement in politics, which considered unions’ share of financial contributions to state candidates and political parties, as well as their representation at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions
• Scope of bargaining, which looked at collective bargaining status (mandatory, permitted, or prohibited), scope of bargaining, and legality of teacher strikes
• State policies, which considered the degree of alignment between teacher employment rules and charter school policies with traditional union interests
• Perceived influence, which scored the results of an original survey of key stakeholders within each state, including how influential the unions are in comparison to other entities in the state, whether the positions of policymakers are aligned with those of teachers’ unions, and how effective the unions have been in stopping policies with which they disagree

Using these data, we ranked the relative strength of state-level teachers’ unions in the fifty states and Washington, D.C.

When we published the study, our measure of union strength included whether agency fees were legal or not as a part of the “scope-of-bargaining” area. We remove that variable from the calculation of strength below. Comparing strength to “right to work” status shows that union strength is clearly correlated with whether unions can collect agency fees. (All data are as of 2012.) Eighteen of the twenty strongest-union states allow the collection of agency fees; most of the twenty states where unions are weakest prohibit the practice, though there are a handful of exceptions (Washington, D.C., New Mexico, and Missouri, for example).

* Michigan and Wisconsin passed right-to-work laws in 2013 and 2015, respectively. These rankings were calculated in 2012.

Note: States in yellow prohibit the collection of agency fees.

It’s not hard to understand why agency fees are important; they allow unions to collect revenue from all teachers, not just union members, which can be used in turn to fund a variety of activities. However, it’s clear that unions in right-to-work states are still able to amass resources and exert authority using other channels of influence.

Alabama, for example, prohibits agency fees and is firmly in the anti-labor, socially conservative South, yet its union (as of 2012, at least) was the most politically active in the nation. Alabama had a high unionization rate, and therefore generated a significant amount of revenue per teacher through dues alone. Teachers’ unions in other right-to-work states, such as North Dakota, Nevada, Nebraska, and Iowa, have also managed to hold on to a significant degree of power.

So will a defeat in the Friedrichs case weaken teachers’ unions, especially in blue states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Illinois? No doubt. But don’t consign them to the ash heap of history quite yet. Expect unions nationwide to spend the next twelve months studying up on Alabama and similar states to learn how they too can hold on to power in a post-Friedrichs world. Is the Friedrichs case an “existential threat” to the teachers' unions? | The Thomas B. Fordham Institute:

Big Education Ape: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association: Justice Alito’s Invitation Accepted | ACS http://bit.ly/1KMjFdm

Big Education Ape: Friedrichs v. CTA: Justice Samuel Alito invited union opponents to bring a challenge to Abood be... http://bit.ly/1KMjJK9

Big Education Ape: Friedrichs v. CTA: The Road to Abood: Where Did the Supreme Court Go Wrong? - Online Library of ... http://bit.ly/1KMjOh9

Big Education Ape: Suit against teachers unions isn't about free speech but silencing members - LA Times http://bit.ly/1GVAaj1

Big Education Ape: Anti-union groups target California teachers » peoplesworld http://bit.ly/1L34V93

Big Education Ape: The End of Public-Employee Unions?- The Atlantic http://bit.ly/1MI5UQn

Does cursive writing still have cred?

Does cursive writing still have cred?:

Does cursive writing still have cred?

My mother, now in her 70s, has beautiful handwriting. As a young girl, I admired and emulated her expressive script, ultimately winning a couple of penmanship awards for my efforts. My mom was proud and so was I.

But with cursive writing instruction in decline since the 1970s in many elementary schools, widespread pride in the almost artistic form of penmanship seems to be waning.

Some say it’s another casualty of technology and an outmoded form of communication. The increased pressure on public school educators to adopt the Common Core State Standards — which don’t require handwriting instruction — is another reason it’s been dropped from curriculums across the country.

Its very survival may depend on the educators, legislators and parents who believe in the ongoing value of cursive writing in a digital age.

Rising third-grader Mateo Chavez, a lefty at heart, tries his hand at cursive writing. Some experts are beginning to wonder if cursive still matters in today's modern world. (Photo: Jack Gruber)

The benefits of pen and paper

Beyond signing birthday cards, endorsing checks and addressing wedding invitations, does cursive writing still have any practical use?

“We feel cursive is essential instruction,” says David S. Lourie, head of St. Anne’s-Belfield School, a pre-school -12 private school in Charlottesville, Va., which introduces preschoolers to cursive and continues its practice through fourth grade. “Penmanship is a step along a continuum, from kids playing with blocks and clay. Keyboarding doesn’t replace handwriting.”

Lourie’s belief is bolstered by studies that show early childhood learners benefit from the fine motor skills and cognitive development it encourages.

Virginia Berninger, professor of educational psychology at the University of Washington, is a vocal champion of cursive. Her research shows that printing, cursive and keyboarding are each associated with distinct brain patterns.

Berninger followed children in grades two through five and found a connection between cursive writing and increased neural activity associated with creativity, particularly idea generation.

This year, The Walker School, a private school in Marietta, Ga., introduced “Fine Motor Fridays” after receiving teacher feedback that kids in kindergarten through fifth grade were struggling to open water bottles and snacks. Activities include cursive writing, working with magnets and beading.

“With the rise of swiping and touch screening, kids’ muscles are undeveloped and their hands are more easily fatigued,” says Megan Nellen, Walker’s Lower School principal. “The more children write, draw and apply pressure to paper with crayons or colored pencils, the more they strengthen their fine motor muscles.”

Nellen says kids must be able to sustain their writing muscle through the school day, comparing it to the ability to run distances.

Not all students are getting that type of exercise, however.

Suzi Figueroa, a teacher for 36 years, most recently as a third-grade teacher at Monte Vista Elementary in Phoenix, says her students only receive classroom instruction during the last week of school, once state and district testing has been completed. There’s just enough time to teach kids to sign their names, Figueroa said.

“Back in the day, cursive was an actual course with the expectation that you would achieve a certain level of finesse,” she says. “It was well-valued and the skill was Does cursive writing still have cred?:

William Lager, Charter Czar, Makes the Drop to Ensure Lack of Regulation of Ohio Charters | janresseger

William Lager, Charter Czar, Makes the Drop to Ensure Lack of Regulation of Ohio Charters | janresseger:

William Lager, Charter Czar, Makes the Drop to Ensure Lack of Regulation of Ohio Charters

It is no longer acceptable to deprecate women as Mike Royko does in his 1978 column “Bucking Hard for the Equal Rights Amendment,” but just for today I am going let Mike Royko’s references to “do gooder ladies” go.  Royko was the very savvy and funny longtime Chicago newspaper columnist. We will focus on his intended topic: the role of money in politics:

“I was talking to an ERA lady recently.  She was fretting that the (Equal Rights) amendment might again fail in Illinois, after all of her hard work… I said, ‘Make the drop.’  She looked puzzled and asked: ‘Make the what?’  ‘The drop. Give them some money.’ She still didn’t understand. ‘Money? For what?’  ‘Bribes.’…  That’s the trouble with the ERA crowd and most do-gooders.  They are earnest, diligent, and energetic.  But they don’t have much sense.  Throughout the history of this state, sly people have been getting what they want out of Springfield.  They haven’t done it by being honest, earnest, diligent, and energetic… They have done it by throwing a shoebox full of money through the transom of a Springfield hotel room.”  (The essay appears on pages 109-111 of One More Time: The Best of Mike Royko.)

What we used to think was the way things were done in Chicago has come to dominate politics everywhere in America.  The result is that the powerful are regularly buying the policies that affect the rest of us, and nowhere is that clearer than in the policies that shape our public schools, the quintessential institution of the 99 Percent.

As with Royko’s column, the subject today is state government, not in Illinois but in my state, Ohio, whose legislature, after a year of crafting some relatively weak oversight of charter schools, went home at the end of June without passing even a weak bill.  Late last month, Patrick O’Donnell of the Plain Dealer reported, “The Ohio House will head off on summer break without voting on the new accountability and financial reporting rules for Ohio’s $1 billion charter school industry that have been in the works for months.  House leaders skipped a vote on the package late last week and have left it off the schedule for Tuesday, the last session before leaving for recess.” “Republican leaders say the delay is to clear up some issues with the just-revised bill.  Others call it an attempt to buy time to water down the bill to please charter school operators who donate to Republican candidates.”  Rep. Teresa Fedor, a Democrat, interpreted the move: “They never will call a vote, which means the tax dollars will continue on the ripoff train.”

As the legislature adjourned for its summer break without doing anything about charters,Doug Livingston clarified the meaning of all this in the Akron Beacon-Journal: “Though there are only 24 online schools among the more than 380 charter schools in Ohio, they receive nearly one in three state dollars set aside (each year) for charter schools or $267 million… The two largest—the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) and Ohio Virtual Academy—received $185 million in state funding.  Two are run by influential for-profit companies.  White Hat Management, which operates Ohio Distance and Electronic Learning academy founded by Akron industrialist David Brennan, and Altair Learning, which operates ECOT and is owned by Bill Lager.  Brennan and Lager have given more than $1.4 million in political William Lager, Charter Czar, Makes the Drop to Ensure Lack of Regulation of Ohio Charters | janresseger:

DFT Exec Board Puts President Conn on Trial Monday - Detroit Federation of Teachers

Detroit Federation of Teachers | Stateweb:

DFT Exec Board Puts President Conn on Trial Monday

Very unfortunately, Ivy Bailey and the other members of the DFT Executive Board have decided to put me on trial on internal union misconduct charges.  They are planning to hold the trial this Monday morning, August 3, at 115 West Willis St., the DAEOE (DPS Secretaries) union hall.

This is a huge distraction for our union, as well as extremely divisive and dangerous.  We are at a key turning point in rebuilding the power of the DFT, and especially with the fight now to defend our health care and pay against assaults by the governor and his emergency manager, this trial will only serve the purposes of our enemies.

I know that many, many of you will be as upset as I am at this news, and I would like to offer my time to talk with you at 9 am this Monday morning at the location above, before the trial begins. 

I am still hopeful that, even at this late hour, we may be able to reach a settlement – especially if you and other members are willing to help us early Monday morning.

You may also want to read my fuller statement about this situation posted on the DFT website a few weeks ago.

http://dft231.mi.aft.org/files/steve_conns_initial_response_to_the_charges_by_vice_president_bailey.pdf

Steve Conn

DFT President

313.303.1996

sconn@dft231.com

DFT’s Conn goes to union trial on misconduct charge

Detroit — Detroit Federation of Teachers president Steve Conn went on trial Monday on internal charges of union misconduct.

Union executive vice president Ivy Bailey first announced the charges in a June 25 letter to members on the DFT website.

About 50 teachers showed up outside the office of the Detroit Association of Education Office Employees, 115 W. Willis, where the proceedings were being held. Conn had urged supporters to show up.

The union members were denied entrance to the hearing, and police were called.

“I know that many, many of you will be as upset as I am at this news, and I would like to offer my time to talk with you … this Monday morning at the location above, before the trial begins,” Conn wrote in a message posted on the DFT website. “I am still hopeful that, even at this late hour, we may be able to reach a settlement — especially if you and other members are willing to help us early Monday morning.”

But Bailey contends the trial is proceeding because Conn failed to attend a meeting she requested.

“Many members have brought forth serious charges against DFT President Steve Conn,” she wrote in an undated follow-up message titled “Monday’s trial” to members on the DFT website. “The constitution and bylaws require me to attempt to resolve the matter through an informal conference. Steve Conn chose to not attend the conference. After Conn failed to show up for the hearing, the matter was referred to the elected executive board, as required by the constitution and bylaws. The executive board unanimously voted to go forward with the charges.”

Conn steadfastly maintains it is an ongoing effort to unseat him, calling the trial a “kangaroo court.”

“The accusations against me by the executive board are baseless and false to the core,” Conn said in a statement. “This is nothing but a political attack on my leadership by the remnants of the old defeated leadership of the DFT. They lost at the ballot box; so now they are trying to win with a coup.”

He continues saying the DFT executive board opponents do not have a strategy for the union and its members, other than “resurrecting the losing ideas of my predecessor about cooperating with the governor’s emergency manager as he methodically dismantles Detroit’s public schools.”

The charges against Conn, outlined in the June 25 message to members, allege violations of the DFT constitution and bylaws and conduct detrimental to the union.

“The members charge that President Conn has attempted to cancel regular meetings and has failed to preside over them; has improperly called ‘special mass meetings’; and has conducted meetings without agendas, without allowing members to speak, and without proper and valid votes,” Bailey wrote. “It is charged that he has permitted the DFT to become affiliated with BAMN without authorization from the members or executive board. It is charged that he has permitted members to be threatened and abused at meetings and that when a member was physically assaulted (an assault captured in a surveillance video and now the subject of a criminal charge) he refused to take action against the attacker, but instead publicly and libelously blamed the victim. It is charged that he has failed to pay the Union’s per capita dues to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and AFT Michigan.

“The Executive Board and myself have received numerous complaints, that we have a duty to respond to. We hope for a successful resolution which is in the interest of the members of the DFT and the students in the Detroit Public Schools.”

In a statement, Conn countered that he still has not been allowed to see anything beyond Bailey’s summary of the charges against him.

“That is just one of many blatant constitutional and procedural violations, he said in the statement. “The executive board is completely unfit to act as a jury. They are the initiators and instigators of nearly all the allegations, and they have been witnesses to many of the events. There is also evidence that they have already met and decided the trial’s outcome ahead of time.

“I posted a lengthy initial response to Bailey’s statement on the union’s website (www.dft231.com ) several weeks ago, which is still there.”

East English Village Preparatory Academy math teacher Nicole Conaway called the trial “an extremely divisive and dangerous distraction” in a statement.

“We are at a key turning point in rebuilding the power of the DFT, especially with the fight now to defend our health care against a massive assault by the governor and his emergency manager,” she said. “This trial will only serve the purposes of our union’s enemies.”DFT’s Conn goes to union trial on misconduct charge

SLewis@detroitnews.com

(313) 222-2296

Perdido Street School: Where Do Education Progressives Go Politically?

Perdido Street School: Where Do Education Progressives Go Politically?:

Where Do Education Progressives Go Politically?

The following is a guest post by Harris Lirtzman, former Director of Risk Management for the New York City Retirement Systems in the NYC Comptroller's Office from 1996-2002 and former Deputy State Comptroller for Administration from 2003-2007.

The fight against the federal testing and accountability regime aligns education progressives on the "local control" v. "federal control” axis in confounding ways. We oppose federal control because reformistas learned twenty years ago that if they were to move their program forward they had to end the long period of "exceptionalism" in American education, which left education in the hands of local school boards minimally overseen by state education departments but watched closely by teacher unions. Education has now been brought within the full scope of state and national politics--the "federalization" of education serves to make the education reform program possible by moving it to a venue where the full force of money and a new set of political alliances can sidestep parents and teachers.

The mainstream civil rights groups have always distrusted "localism" because in most parts of the country the only way that children of color could reliably be educated was by federal intervention, primarily Title 1. We now have a federalized education reform program supported by its natural ally, the mainstream civil rights groups.

The unfortunate result of all this is that the reform focus on de-professionalizing teaching and breaking teachers' unions requires teachers to make a Faustian bargain: we work together now with Republicans across the country to return control of education to states and localities where we stand a chance of preserving our profession and protecting our unions.

This strategy--and the short-term gains that result from it--is a very high-risk proposition for education progressives. We have seen what happens when Republicans gain unified control in the states—the same place where education progressives assume we will find some relief from pernicious “federal control.” Education progressives who have been so willing to work hand-in-hand with Republicans at the federal level will come deeply to regret the short term gains that the coalition activity has produced.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that “local control” of education policy will make anything better for teachers beyond momentary relief from the harshest aspects of the test and accountability regime. Anyone who has watched what has been going on in Democratic New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts ought not to believe that “local control” of education by Republicans in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Indiana will provide any long-term gain for teachers of any kind, progressive or otherwise.

A federal government under the unified control of the Republican Party—and that will happen one day soon--will result in the direct funding of charter schools and vouchers, the decimation of Title 1 and Title 9 programs, the appointment of judges who will eviscerate any remaining union protections and the dismantling of the regulatory process that protects children with disabilities. 
So where do education progressives go, at least politically?

Nowhere.

Many education progressives have defined "education progressivism" as a single-issue battle and have not done a very good job finding allies anywhere outside our own small world--because, frankly, most people are not sufficiently concerned about the education reform program to have been turned into "single-issue" partisans (see, here). We progressives want education policy purity from our political parties and representatives but we are the only part of the American progressive movement that has made this convenient bargain with the Republican Party.

The radicalization of the Republican Party since 2004 has forced the advocates for every other political cause that education progressives also support--choice, environmentalism, health care, labor law, a sane foreign policy, civil rights, LGBT rights--to align with the Democratic Party.

Education progressives can support a candidate in the Democratic primaries who is closer to our position than other candidates may be but in the end we will either support the Democratic nominee, who will most surely not be an education progressive, or will join a third party knowing that the history of third parties in the United States is an abysmal one for progressives except for the brief period between 1895 and 1915.

The Democratic Party knows that most teachers will ultimately support the Democratic nominee regardless what his or her education policy is because most teachers are not "single-issue" voters, though they have a keen sense of their own interests. They vote for candidates who are acceptable to them for the same reason that most progressive Democrats do: because they know that the Democratic Party, corporatized and feckless though it may be, stands as the only thing between the full range of "progressive" things that teachers care about and disaster. With time there may come a point when a majority of Americans support economic progressivism sufficiently to rebuild the Democratic Party in a way that education progressives can support with open hearts.

"Single-issue" teachers who will go Green or Libertarian will preserve their educationally progressive principles and will lose. It is possible, though not likely, that with the time, energy and money now used to support the battles that education progressives fight to preserve public schools and to democratize their unions they may be able to infuse a third party with sufficient resources to win a national, or even state, election.

Education progressives who have an understanding of practical politics in this country will recognize what most progressives learned in 2000. Any Perdido Street School: Where Do Education Progressives Go Politically?:

If Every Child Achieves Student Success we're Screwed! | BustED Pencils

If Every Child Achieves Student Success we're Screwed! | BustED Pencils:

If Every Child Achieves Student Success we're Screwed!

 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed in 1965 as one of the pillars of the War on Poverty and was a major progressive victory.  It recognized that inequitable funding of our public schools created disastrous learning conditions for children and families in poverty.  Therefore this simple piece of legislation attempted to equalize school funding across the country in an effort to help public schools serve all of America’s children.

Now let me state this very clearly.  If the Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA) passed in the Senate and the Student Success Act (SSA) passed in the House are reconciled and reauthorized as the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) harmful neo-liberal school reform will continue and open season will be declared on public education in Wisconsin.

Yes.  It is that simple.

For the last six years Wisconsin Republicans—funded by the Koch family, the DeVos family, the Walton family, and I’m sure an anonymous list of thousands of other fascist leaning donors—have waged war on public schools, public school teachers, and public school children.

The ability to wage a merciless war on public education has it roots in a simple yet pernicious system—test based accountability as prescribed by No Child Left Behind (NCLB).  NCLB was the radical reauthorization of ESEA under president George W. Bush. NCLB ended the War on Poverty and ushered in the War on Children, Teachers, and Public Schools.

So why be concerned?  Doesn’t it (the new ESEA) take test based accountability away from the federal government?  Yes. Doesn’t it neuter the United States Department of EducationIf Every Child Achieves Student Success we're Screwed! | BustED Pencils:

“Reform” makes broken New Orleans schools worse: Race, charters, testing and the real story of education after Katrina - Salon.com

“Reform” makes broken New Orleans schools worse: Race, charters, testing and the real story of education after Katrina - Salon.com:

“Reform” makes broken New Orleans schools worse: Race, charters, testing and the real story of education after Katrina

An all-charter-school system was heralded as the future for urban schools. The future is filled with flaws

Here is all you need to know about the New Orleans schools before Hurricane Katrina hit, 10 years ago this summer: They were awful. The schools were awful, the school board was awful, the central office was awful—all of them were awful. At a recent conference held to tout the progress made by the schools here since Katrina, Scott Cowan, an early proponent of the all-charter-school model that exists here now, described New Orleans’ pre-storm schools as mired in “unprecedented dysfunction.” In other words, they were awful.

The problem with a story like this isn’t just that it leaves out anything that doesn’t fit but that it can be hard to contain once it gets going. Before long, this “awfulizing narrative,” as it was described to me more than once during the 10 days I recently spent in New Orleans, spread past the school yards and central offices, sweeping up in its wake parents, children, indeed the whole hot mess that is New Orleans. The awful story was at the root of the decision to fire 7,000 teachers after the storm, the majority of whom were black New Orleanians and the backbone of the city’s middle class. It is the reason why so few locals can be found among the ranks of education reform groups here. And it is a rarely acknowledged justification for the long school day favored by charters here—10, even 12 hours when you factor in the cross-city bus trips that a choice landscape necessitates.

“When you start from the point of view that the communities these kids come from are broken, then the goal becomes to keep kids away from them as much as possible,” says Deirdre Johnson Burel, the executive director of the Orleans Public Education Network or OPEN, which seeks to engage community members around school-related policy issues. “It’s a way of containing and insulating kids from their own families.

An advocate of school reform in New Orleans long before the cause was cool, not to mention lucrative, Burel doesn’t fit the pre-/post-Katrina schools narrative at all. A native New Orleanian, Burel is a proud graduate of McMain High School, then a magnet school, now part of the Orleans Parish School Board, still one of the city’s best. She was an early proponent of charter schools here, including the city’s first, NOLA Charter Middle School. “I worked in the district and saw the dysfunction. I saw what a difference it made for children and families when schools had autonomy and a community could create something for its own children.”

But when Burel looks at the version of education reform that has taken root in New Orleans since Katrina, she barely recognizes what she sees. “What we have now isn’t my vision. Reform here has diagnosed children and families as a liability.”

The Urban Education Future?

When Tulane’s Education Research Alliance gathered policymakers, education reform advocates and academics for a conference in late June, marking the 10-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the beginning of New Orleans remaking of its public education system, organizers posed a question. Does New Orleans’ all-charter-school district represent “the urban education future”? The answer seemed predetermined. There is, after all, an aggressive effort already underway to sell the New Orleans model—”relinquishment” to true believers—with its mix of decentralization, school choice and extreme accountability, to urban districts across the country.

But again and again, the official theme of “measurable progress” was undercut by reminders of the real cost of what ERA director Doug Harris describes as “the largest overhaul of a public school system that the country has ever seen”: the 7,000 “Reform” makes broken New Orleans schools worse: Race, charters, testing and the real story of education after Katrina - Salon.com:

NJEA calls on Christie to resign for 'bully' comment (VIDEO) | NJ.com

NJEA calls on Christie to resign for 'bully' comment (VIDEO) | NJ.com:

NJEA calls on Christie to resign for 'bully' comment (VIDEO)

MANCHESTER, N.H. — The head of New Jersey's largest teachers' union called on Gov. Chris Christie to resign Sunday after the governor suggested the group's national counterparts deserve a punch in the face.

Wendell Steinhauer, president of the New Jersey Education Association, said in a statement Christie "should resign as governor immediately" after the Republican presidential hopeful assailed teacher unions for putting the interests of adults ahead of students.

"Chris Christie's instinct is always to threaten, bully and intimidate instead of build consensus and show true leadership," Steinhauer said.

"That's not news in New Jersey, where voters overwhelmingly reject his immature and inappropriate behavior as well as his failed policies and lack of leadership," he said. "It is clear from polling that voters in the rest of the country also reject his rhetoric and his behavior."

---

RELATED: Here comes the first 2016 Republican debate

---

Steinhauer, who's no stranger to publicly criticizing Christie, responded to the governor's interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union."

"They're not for education for our children," Christie told Tapper. "They're for greater membership, greater benefits, greater pay for their members. And they are the single most destructive force in public education in America. I have been saying that since 2009. I have got the scars to show it. But I'm never going to stop saying it, because they never change their stripes."

Christie suggested the national teachers' unions deserved to be punched in the face when he responded to a specific Tapper question that used the "punch in the face" phrase.

"During your first term as governor, you were fond of saying that you can treat bullies in one of two ways — quote — 'You can either sidle up to them or you can punch them in the face.' You said, 'I like to punch them in the face.' At the national level, who deserves a punch in the face?" Tapper asked.

Christie responded: "Oh, the national teachers' union."

The governor is scheduled to be in Manchester Monday afternoon for a meet-and-greet session before taking part in a GOP forum hosted by the Union Leader.

MORE CHRIS CHRISTIE

Matt Arco may be reached at marco@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @MatthewArco or on Facebook. Follow NJ.com Politics on Facebook.NJEA calls on Christie to resign for 'bully' comment (VIDEO) | NJ.com:

Red Flags on the Road to ESEA Rewrite - Education Week

Red Flags on the Road to ESEA Rewrite - Education Week:

Red Flags on the Road to ESEA Rewrite

By Lauren Camera

• Printer-Friendly
• Email Article
• Reprints
• Comments
• Like

"The pundits told us it would never happen—that Republicans and Democrats will never agree on a way to replace No Child Left Behind."

So said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., just hours before the U.S. Senate did just that—passing its own version of an Elementary and Secondary Education Act rewrite with overwhelming bipartisan support July 16.

But sending a final bill to President Barack Obama's desk—at least one that he's willing to sign—will be an entirely different challenge.

Across the Capitol, the House of Representatives narrowly passed its own, Republican-backed version of an NCLB reauthorization a week earlier, without the support of a single Democrat.

The dueling bills, which contain some stark policy differences, now move to aconference process, in which the authors of both measures and other lawmakers from both chambers and parties will try to cobble together a proposal that appeals to everyone.

To do so, they'll have to overcome some serious divergences in revising the law, whose current version is the No Child Left Behind Act.

Chief among them: how to beef up accountability in a way that assures Democrats andcivil rights groups that the result will include stronger federal guardrails for the most disadvantaged students, while at the same time ensuring the small federal footprint that Republicans are adamant about.

The conferees will also debate whether to maintain two provisions in the House bill that are not in the Senate bill. One would allow Title I dollars for low-income children to follow them to the schools of their choice—known as "portability." Another would eliminate language in the current law that lets the federal government punish schools and states that have lots of students opting out of state tests.

Chart

"This is a complicated piece of legislation," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a co-author of the Senate bill. "There are crocodiles in every corner."

The process is set to begin in earnest once lawmakers return to Washington in September from their five-week summer break with the expressed goal of delivering a bill to the president by fall's end. The law has been due for reauthorization since 2007.

Accountability Issues

When the Senate passed its NCLB revision 81-17, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan applauded the bipartisan effort, but was quick to argue that the bill does not include enough protections for the most disadvantaged students.

"This bill still falls short of truly giving every child a fair shot at success by failing to ensure that parents and children can count on local leaders to take action when students are struggling to learn," Mr. Duncan said.

"We need to identify which schools work and which ones don't, so we can guarantee that every child will have the education they need," he said. "We cannot tolerate continued indifference to the lowest-performing schools, achievement gaps that let some students fall behind, or high schools where huge numbers of students never make it to graduation."

Mr. Duncan's sentiments ran parallel with those of civil rights groups that slammed the Senate bill and contended that it doesn't go nearly far enough when it comes to accountability for low-income students and racial minorities.

During the two-week floor debate, the Senate rejected an amendment from Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., that would have required states to establish measurable state-designed goals for all students and separately for each subgroup of students, and to intervene if they didn't meet those goals. It also would have required states to intervene in their lowest-performing 5 percent of schools and those that graduated less than 67 percent of their students.

Democrats threw their weight behind the amendment, garnering support from 42 of their members. That was more than they had expected, given that the National Education Association, a traditional Democratic ally, had been lobbying senators to oppose the proposal.

Though the amendment failed, the tally in favor yielded enough bodies to show that, along with the dozen or so Republicans who are expected to vote against the bill no matter what, the Democrats would be able to block final passage of a conferenced bill should it not include stronger accountability language.

In an interview after the passage of the bill, Sen. Alexander, who chairs the Senate education committee, acknowledged that discrepancies over accountability exist and reiterated his commitment to getting a bill to President Obama "that he's comfortable signing."

But when asked about the prospects of increasing safeguards during the conference process, he said: "I'll need to be convinced. My goal and the goal of the bill is to keep the important measures of accountability—keep the report cards, keep the tests—so we'll know how the children are doing, but turn over what to do about the tests and the accountability for getting a result to the states and local school boards."

"I think that's real accountability," Sen. Alexander continued. "The president would like to have more federal involvement in that accountability process. I understand that. We'll just have to discuss that."

Whatever compromise senators may make on accountability, though, would have to pass muster in the House, where a solid block of Republicans and Democrats would need to support the bill for it to pass. The House version passed by just 218-213. Accepting a proposal with an increased federal role could prove difficult for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who has promised not to allow a vote on anything that might not garner support from a majority of his caucus.

Title I and School Choice

Just as Democrats will push during the conference process for greater accountability and safeguards for disadvantaged students, Republicans will dig in their heels to support provisions that would hand even more control to states and local districts and give parents and students even more say over their education.

They're likely to lobby the hardest for two provisions in particular: the one concerning Title I portability, and the one focusing on opting out of standardized tests.

While both are included in the House bill, Republicans may have a tough time getting such language into a final brokered ESEA overhaul.

For starters, the Senate considered but ultimately rejected three different amendments that would have added to the underlying bill similar portability and opt-out provisions.

An amendment from Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., would have allowed Title I aid to follow students to the schools of their choice. Another amendment, from Sen. Alexander, would have given low-income students $2,100 vouchers to use at the public or private schools of their choice. And a proposal from Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., would have ensured the right of students to opt out of tests.

Notably, the White House, which had already threatened to veto the House bill over a variety of issues, promised to veto any legislation that includes Title I portability language.

After the Senate passed its ESEA reauthorization bill, Mr. Alexander's co-author, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., sought to fend off school choice and opt-out language ahead of the conference. She noted that such provisions played a major role in the House bill's one-sided support.

"Their bill doesn't represent one end and ours represents another, where we have to meet in the middle," Sen. Murray said. "Their bill really represents an unacceptable partisan approach and path, and ours represents a carefully negotiated compromise with just a few important steps to go."

Finding Common Ground

There are also some important similarities between the two measures.

Both would eliminate the current accountability system, with its measure known as adequate yearly progress, and allow states to create their own systems instead. They would also both maintain the current annual federal testing schedule and the requirement that states disaggregate student-achievement data, including by such student groups as race and English-language-learner status.

Under both proposals, states wouldn't be forced to evaluate their teachers.

And both rewrites include strong language that would prohibit the U.S. secretary of education from coercing or requiring or offering incentives to states to adopt any specific set of standards, including the Common Core State Standards.

"A president named Reagan used to say: If you got 80 percent of what you wanted, you might take it and fight for the rest on another day," Sen. Alexander said before the final vote on the Senate bill. "I am recommending we follow this advice."

Impact on Waivers

RELATED BLOG

Visit this blog.

Ultimately, the best argument for supporting a conferenced bill may not be what the proposal itself says, but the immediate impact its passage would have in allowing states to relinquish their Obama administration-granted waivers from parts of the nearly 14-year-old NCLB law.

For Republicans, that would equate to kicking the federal government out of schools. And for Democrats, the outcome would provide a stable federal law for all 50 states and rule out the possibility that a Republican administration would use the waivers to push its own education policy priorities.

"There is a lot of work that lies ahead," Rep. John Kline, R-Minn, the author of the House plan and the chairman of his chamber's education committee, said in a statement about moving to the conference process. "But I am confident we will find common ground and send a bill to the president's desk that helps ensure every child in every school receives an excellent education."Red Flags on the Road to ESEA Rewrite - Education Week: