Ozaukee Community Awareness Forum

Education

Talking Points

CONventional wisdom:

     “Teachers’ unions are the reason schools are failing!  The unions block educational progress and are only looking out for themselves, not the students.”

 PROgressive response:

    Actually, students in states where there are strong teachers’ unions have higher rates of achievement on the ACT and the SAT than students in states with weak or no unions, according to a study published in the Harvard Educational Review (2000).

    How do strong unions help boost achievement?  Researchers found that strong unions push for better working conditions which result in better learning conditions, that there is lower turn-over among unionized teachers, and that union contracts provide for better professional development.

    Researchers for the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future (www.wisconsinsfuture.org) found similar patterns of achievement between states with strong unions and states without strong unions.  They concluded that “public education faces serious problems but teachers organizing to secure decent wages and working conditions is not one of them. Data from this study demonstrates that ‘breaking the unions’ will hurt, not help students’ performance.” 

Talking Points

CONventional wisdom:

     “No Child Left Behind keeps schools and teachers accountable to the public.”

 PROgressive response:

    Certainly, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) attempts to hold schools and teachers accountable.  Not everyone associated with NCLB is held to such high standards, however.  There is little oversight of companies that provide supplemental educational services to schools deemed to be failing. “Millions of dollars are being spent,” says Jack Jennings, director of the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy, “and nobody knows what’s happening.”

    That lack of oversight was deliberate, according to a report from Project Censored (www.projectcensored.org).  The report cites a statement made by Michael Petrilli, a former member of the Department of Education:  “We want as little regulation as possible” to encourage the market.

    While little may be known about how the money is being spent, there is information about where the money is going.  According to Project Censored, the NCLB Act has resulted in “billions of dollars in profits to corporate clients,” many of whom have ties to the Bush family.

    Those who have benefited include President Bush’s brother Neil and William Bennett, Education Secretary during the Reagan administration.  Neil Bush’s Ignite! Learning company sells educational software while Bennett’s K12 Inc. provides online services for virtual schools, such as the Wisconsin Virtual Academy.  Companies like these have garnered more than $2 billion in state and federal funds.

    Another who profited was Sandy Kress, education advisor to President Bush.  Kress wrote the NCLB legislation and worked to insure its passage.  Kress then left the administration and began working as a lobbyist.  By 2005, Kress had made $4 million securing government contracts for educational testing and supplemental services clients.  Currently, Kress is lobbying for reauthorization of the Act.

    [Project Censored is a nonprofit media research program sponsored by Sonoma State University.]

Talking Points

CONventional wisdom:

     “Teach for America proves that you don’t need certified teachers to get results.  You just need smart, dedicated people who believe kids can learn.”

 PROgressive response:

    No doubt many of those who join Teach for America (TFA) are sincere in their efforts to teach students.  Whether their endeavors are effective, however, is questionable.

    TFA Founder Wendy Kopp is convinced that TFA recruits are effective teachers.  During a 2008 interview with Charlie Rose, Kopp stated that “many have obtained incredible results with kids.”

    One of the studies that TFA proponents often cite is the 2004 study conducted by Mathematica Policy Research (MPR). This study did find that TFA teachers were somewhat more effective at teaching mathematics than a control group of teachers; there was no difference in student reading achievement between the two groups. 

    However, the MPR researchers did not compare the effectiveness of TFA teachers and traditionally-certified teachers.  In fact, nearly half the control group was made up of teachers who had gotten their licenses through emergency or alternative certification processes.  Further, TFA teachers reported more problems with classroom management and had more discipline referrals.  The final conclusion of the MPR researchers was merely that “there is little risk that hiring TFA teachers will reduce achievement.”

    Other studies are even less favorable.  For instance, Arizona State University researchers Lackzo-Kerr and Berliner (2002) found that students of certified teachers out-performed students of TFA teachers on all three subtests of the SAT 9—reading, mathematics and language arts.  They concluded that “our results contradict claims made by TFA advocates that enthusiasm and subject-matter knowledge, as well as a general education in a prestigious university, prepare these recruits to teach adequately in America's classrooms.” 

 [According to the Journal Sentinel, TFA plans to place up to 30 teachers in MPS schools next school year.]

Talking Points

CONventional wisdom:

     “Unions?  They’re a thing of the past!  American workers don’t want some union telling them what to do.”

 PROgressive response:

    Actually, a majority of Americans would join a union if they could.  Results from the Worker Representation and Participation Survey document that the desire for union representation has grown sharply among American workers since the 1990s (Freeman & Rogers, 2006). 

    So why don’t workers unionize?  There are a number of reasons, according to Cornell University researcher Kate Bronfenbrenner (2000).  Most often, pressure from employers deters efforts at unionization:

  • ·   Union organizers face a 1-in-5 chance that they will be illegally fired during a union campaign.
  • ·   51% of employers threaten to close the plant or office if the union wins certification.
  • ·   78% of employers force employees to attend one-on-one meetings with supervisors against the union.
  • ·   92% of employers force employees to attend frequent group meetings against the union.

    Employers are aided in their efforts against unions by union-busting consultants, which include lawyers from Milwaukee’s Foley and Lardner.  About 75% of employers use such union-busting services, which have grown into a multi-billion dollar industry. 

    Further, The Progressive (September 2008) reported that the Bush administration spent 100 times more on regulating union activities than it did in ensuring employer compliance with labor laws.

    On occasion, however, the National Labor Relations Board does act on illegal employer actions.  On December 23, 2008, the NLRB ruled that Starbucks had unlawfully fired three New York baristas who had engaged in unionizing activities.  Starbucks was ordered to reinstate and pay back wages to the baristas, who have begun organizing Starbucks workers through the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).

    Starbucks—which has worked hard to create a reputation as a socially responsible company—actually has a long history of anti-union activity.  In the last few years alone, Starbucks has made settlements in NLRB suits in New York, Grand Rapids, and Minnesota (New York Times, 12/24/08; Seattle P-I, 8/29/08).