Unions again balk at Race to the Top
The six districts leading the state’s second round Race to the Top application were able to recruit nearly 100 other districts and 200 charter schools to the cause. They failed, however, to persuade their own teachers unions to sign the application. And that lack of union participation will likely doom the state’s already iffy odds of winning a piece of the $3.4 billion that U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has dangled for states in exchange for committing to an agenda of school reforms.
Friday was the last day for districts and unions to sign a memorandum of understanding. Of the half-dozen unified districts that formed the working group for Race to the Top, only unions in Fresno and Sanger, a small rural district, signed on. The big ones – in Long Beach, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Clovis – in the end said no. Of the 43 unions that signed, about half represented teachers in charter schools.
Under a short time frame, the lead districts have labored hard to improve on the state’s 29th place ranking in the first round. They have put together elements that, on their face, would make California’s application much more competitive, notwithstanding the lack of an operating statewide student data system – a key requirement.
The boldest changes would deal with how teachers would be evaluated, promoted and paid. Teachers would have a say in designing the evaluations, but at least 30 percent of an evaluation would be based on the growth in student test scores. Teachers at individual schools would help craft a new pay scale, based on performance in and out of the classroom. In a major weakening of tenure rights, teachers that were rated ineffective or unsatisfactory two years in a row could be dismissed.
Those would be dramatic changes. But superintendents and school board can promise all they want; many of the Race to the Top commitments would be unenforceable unless the unions signed an MOU committing to make changes in their contracts. And many teachers remain staunchly behind job protections under tenure and opposed to using test scores as part of their evaluations.
Education Secretary Bonnie Reiss put the lack of widespread union participation in as favorable light as she could.
“California’s application includes a thirteen month time frame that school districts have a to create teacher assessment systems that take into consideration student growth,” she said in a statement, “and our superintendents are confident that they will be able to do this in cooperation with their local bargaining units.”
She may be right. While declining to sign an MOU, United Teachers Los Angeles, the Teachers Association of Long Beach and other union locals could eventually come to terms with their superintendents. But that won’t help the state now in the Race to the Top judging, and the inaction contrasts with statewide tenure and teacher evaluation reforms that have recently been passed in Colorado, Connecticut, Washington, Michigan and Maryland, some of which are angling for Race to the Top money.
In California’s first round application, 745 school districts, county offices of education and charter schools agreed to participate – twice the number as this time. And 115 union leaders signed on as well. Duncan has said at various times that the boldness of the application is as important as the number of districts enrolled. But the finalist states with a smaller representation of districts also included a higher proportion of unions than California will have.
California will send in the application on May 28. Duncan will announce the next round of winners on Sept. 1. It’s expected that an additional dozen or so states, beside the first round winners Delaware and Tennessee, will get grants.
17 Comments
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Featured Video |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
I was at a panel meeting with CTA official last night. They contend that unions had insufficient time to consider the new application for RTTT. It sounded like they got the application at the very last minute and could not respond. Can you check how much time CTA had, and if this is a factor in not participating?
Mike Kirst, Stanford University
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Mike, I can tell you that the MOU and plan were released three days before they had to be signed. Seven “core” districts, including Sanger and Fresno were involved in the development of the plan, and their local unions may have been involved as well. The rest of the LEAs and their unions were given very little time to review.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Rick, I believe it was five days — at least I wrote about the MOU last Monday, and signatures were due on Friday — but your overall point is right. There was little time. However, it was understood from the start that the six districts, with nearly a million kids, would form the core of the application. They took the initiative when others were happy to let the second round pass by. The lack of participation from the core districts’ unions is more significant than the lack of union buy-in overall. Also, given the lack of overall enthusiasm from districts and unions, including CTA central, in the first round, when the application was weaker and the obligations were fewer, I can understand the core districts’ view that time would be better spent putting together a strong application than marketing what most districts wouldn’t go for anyway. The extra time wouldn’t have made a big difference.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Let’s add for good measure that the applications were heavily influenced by the “consultants” hired by the usual foundation suspects. Similar to the Cheney “energy policy,” and other “environmental” policies to follow, these are applications written for and by corporate interests.
And while we are at it, the National Research Council asserts that there is no research base available that supports making teacher evaluations/compensation based on student test scores. The NRC says “value added” is even more complex and even more problematic. A paper delivered at the recent AERA conference says, in part, that a class of 30-40 students is far too small a sample to be used for making statistical conclusions about a teachers performance. The American Pshychological Assoc. asserts using tests designed to measure one thing(student achievement) should not be used for measuring something else (teacher effectiveness)without a research base. Even the Duncan minions suggest our current assessments stink. CA has, by statute, adopted the “Common Core” (aka, national) standards and is embarking on adoption of a new round of assessment based on those. That could take years to implement if CA had the dollars to begin implementation. (I seem to remember something about buying a “pig in a poke.”) CA has been denied federal dollars to try and boot up the computers that started to smoke when CALPADS was “implemented.” Other than all of that the unions just seem to be “afraid of:” accountability/reform/insert your own/yadda/yadda/yadda. My own guess is, there wasn’t “time” for union collaboration because union collaboration wasn’t desired.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
It is not surprising that the unions are reticent to sign on to an unproven, radical change in labor relations. This Race to the absurd sham is an embarrassment to the educational community. It is an outrageous bullying effort by the Federal Government to usurp the state’s right to determine the educational course of their students. California spends 50 billion dollars a year to educate K-12, and the RTTT funds aren’t even a blip on the radar in comparison. If the U.S. Department would have read the study they commissioned in May of 2008 through their “What Works” research arm (IES) this turnaround scheme would look much different. For example three key findings reported in the study:
1. The school leader should assess the
strengths and weaknesses of the staff and
identify staff members who are not fully
committed to the turnaround efforts.145
The school turnaround case studies and the
business turnaround research do not support
the wholesale replacement of staff.146
1. Careful data analysis of student achievement
to improve instruction may be new and
unfamiliar to teachers. Teachers may also fear
reprisals or negative consequences if their
classroom data are carefully scrutinized. The
systematic use of data requires teachers to
shift their attitudes toward solving problems
rather than pointing fingers. The turnaround
leader can facilitate and model this change in
attitude and practice. The principal can also
become immersed in the data to support and
guide teachers. At times, an outside facilitator
or specialized training may be necessary to
help teachers fully understand the different
types of data and the ways to use these data
to further student learning.95
1. Collective bargaining agreements can
often forestall immediate staff changes.
Usually these agreements have stipulations
for seniority: more-senior staff might have
priority in transfers, be able to choose the
grade level to teach, or be able to select certain
subject and class assignments. Soliciting
support from the union at the outset of
the turnaround efforts can be a key task.
When a union has an opportunity to participate
as an active partner in the turnaround
efforts, it may be easier to create workarounds
or renegotiate certain stipulations
in the contract.
Wholesale replacement of teachers: no support.
Data as an enemy: no support.
MOU’s within reason: strong support
This whole “Turnaround Carousel” is so poorly structured, that it would be foolish to acquiesce to the Federal Bully.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
To teachers, this may seem like a “radical change in labor relations.” But basing personnel decisions on performance is the rule rather than the exception among employers.
It’s embarrassing that school leaders can’t set specific performance goals like other organizations. Even worse, schools don’t even measure performance in any meaningful way.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
California news & views re:
“Race to the Top” – Round 2 MOU – (SEE EXCERPT BELOW) –
“San Diego Unified spokesman Bernie Rhinerson said the same reasons that kept the school district from pursuing Race to the Top (Round 1) are even more pressing this time: the requirements are too limiting and the process is rushed. The school board has not voted formally on it, but Rhinerson said there was little interest in the idea.
It isn’t the only educational group with doubts:
The California County Superintendents Educational Services Association sent out an e-mail saying that with a short timeline, little detail about what resources schools would get to make reforms and ‘the total lack of state policy direction,’ they WOULDN’T recommend that school districts sign on. San Diego County Superintendent Randy Ward forwarded that e-mail to superintendents across San Diego County, writing simply that he agreed. ”
— see article source:
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/education/schooled/article_eb4fe5ee-646e-11df-b86d-001cc4c002e0.html
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
DISINGENUOUS cheerleading & slanted hype —
Mr. Fensterwald’s description of potential funds available to the state of California via RTTT (Round 2) is somewhat disingenuous (ie. gilded, shiny ‘false gold’ & misleading).
Financial Facts: California’s share of the current funding round would only be maximum $700 million,
(with only 50% of that — or $ 350 million — to be divided among participating LEA’s and the other half
going to the state for disbursement as Title I funding, etc.).
So, if there is $350 million divided between 91 districts and 200 charter schools, an entire school district
might only receive $1 or 2 million dollars, with charter schools receiving only a few thousand dollars.
This one-time pittance would NOT sufficiently pay for the initial expense and would NOT cover the substantial
ongoing costs of implementing the required, binding so-called reforms, increased testing regimens & curricula,
profiteering consultants fees, data systems & analysts positions, performance/merit pay schemes, and the setting
up of an additional statewide bureaucracy of the RTTT Board.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Garbiella: A couple of points. The 50 percent figure staying in Sacramento is simply wrong – but widely repeated. The portion staying at the state level would be 20 percent of whatever is received, under the state’s forthcoming application. Fifty percent would be distributed to the participating districts automatically using a Title I formula and an additional 30 percent would also go to support district initiatives. As for the larger point, that $700 million would be a pittance compared with what is spent on education and would help districts facing big budget cuts: Over two years, the Obama administration, through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will have spent $90 billion shoring up education budgets across the nation. The $4.35 billion for Race to the Top represents a tiny percentage of total federal spending on education. The money would go toward developing new forms of evaluation and compensation, using and sharing data better, improving STEM education, creating networks to share best practices. All are important, especially when budgets are tight. Yet it’s the type of money that state legislatures, faced with teacher layoffs, would get hammered if they were included in a state budget. Successful companies don’t stop investing in innovation and R&D during a recession; it’s appropriate for the federal government to create incentives through Race to the Top to encourage states to do so, too. It’s a smart use of money.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I agree wholheartedly with Gabriela! This money is a pittance and it’s only one time. I am glad that most of the districts pulled out, I was quite concerned when I read the RTTT 2 application.
As for the comment about performance, teachers are evaluated on their performance currently, however, their pay isn’t linked to their students’ test scores.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
To D. Anderson:
Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but private sector methods of dealing with issues, personnel and otherwise, are not held in high regard right now for obvious reasons. Teaching and learning are not complimentary with business modesls. Learning and children are not products. If by “measure performance” you mean something that can be captured and displayed numerically is it like trying to capture the value of nature, or art, numerically. Attempts to do this are the subject of rants by “reform” zealots and the routines of a number of stand up comics. In fact, numerical prograss, to the limited extent it is constructive and as measured by the NAEP, has slowed dramatically under the imposition of the business model driven mandates called NCLB. Read the book by Diane Ravitch. It’s not 100% on target, but it effectively eviscerates the whole business/market/competition driven fantasy of the zealots.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
It will be interesting to observe how much of this money earmarked for reform actually directly reaches classrooms, educational facilities & individual students in terms of enhancing effective instruction (teaching, resources & school/community environments), meaningful learning experiences, and healthful counseling — to boost students’ thriving wellbeing, academic abilities & creative participation.
I do understandably wonder how much of this ‘educational reform’ money will be skimmed or scammed off or diverted toward their own political agendas & financial bank accounts by wannabe ‘Education Sector’ Profiteers & Privatizers, the Billionaire Boys’ toy think-tanks, Hedge Fund gamesters, etc. (along with their paid-for pundits, planted shills & marketing crew/mouthpieces).
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
D. Anderson says: “Basing personnel decisions on performance is the rule rather than the exception among employers.” … Yes, right. So I keep wondering why my ex-colleagues in the newspaper business aren’t being paid based on shifts in circulation and profits. And when are those of them who are calling for basing teacher pay on student test scores going to start calling for that for themselves? … And for that, matter, we’ve never seen anything like executives of financial institutions that not only combusted themselves but that crashed the world economy getting huge salaries and bonuses — oh, no, nothing like that.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Since you imply a degree of hypocrisy on my part in calling for performance-based pay, let me say that my former colleagues have been paid based on the performance of the newspaper; they (and I when still at the Mercury News) have been forced to take pay cuts — a direct consequence of declining profits. But more to the point, it’s hard to measure an individual reporter’s or editor’s impact on total newspaper circulation, but that changes when you are talking about a newspaper’s Web site. So one can measure how many readers an editorial writer or sports columnist has. So that person’s value can be measured. Had the publisher come to the editorial page staff and said I want more readers for the opinion page on the web site — and we will base part of your pay on growth in readers — there’s a good chance that the page would look different than it does today. To follow the analogy further: If the publisher said, we will base all of your pay strictly on hits, we might have come up with all kinds of tricks to attract readers (comparable to teaching to the test): lots of editorials on Octomom, guns, abortion and inflammatory pieces on immigration, geared to build up short-term readership. That’s why I agree that a teacher’s pay should not be based all or primarily on standardized test scores. Instead, we would probably have responded, let’s find a balance: let the growth in readership account for a portion of our pay, but also consider other factors: how prolific each of us was, whether what we wrote had impact, whether we made a lot of mistakes needing corrections, whether each of us went beyond our job descriptions and were good team member. So let’s agree on goals and ways of measuring them and then base a good portion of our pay on these measures of performance. I’d go for that. Teachers, as professionals, should be open to being paid by comparable standards.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I’m not singling you out, John, but I am calling out a lot of journalists for teacher-bashing and hypocrisy, including editorial writers at the Chronicle and the Mercury News and many other journalists around the nation (special badge of shame to Newsweek, which we’ve dropped after subscribing for more than 25 years). As the spouse of a displaced Chronicle reporter I’m obviously well aware of plight of the newspaper industry. Journalists’ pay and job security have suffered badly as the industry has collapsed, but that’s equivalent to teacher layoffs and pay freezes as school budgets are slashed. Your proposed newspaper journalist pay scenario exonerates you from charges of hypocrisy, but I don’t think it promotes sound journalism, and I’m quite sure many of your colleagues would disagree with your suggestion. A reporter who switched from covering City Hall budget deficits to celebrity gossip would see a big jump in hits and a corresponding big jump in pay. Reporters would be vigorously discouraged from covering serious, important issues. It would be comparable to teaching to the test as well as to shunning disadvantaged, challenged, high-need kids and being willing to take jobs only in high-wealth communities with highly educated parents. Teachers paid based on student test scores will flock to Palo Alto and Piedmont and rebuff East Palo Alto and West Oakland. Teaching impoverished, disabled and limited-English students would be the equivalent of covering reapportionment, infrastructure and municipal budgets.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Greetings, John. Just a note to let you know that Clovis Unified does not have a teacher’s union. They have a Faculty Senate and they did sign on to support the application.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Thanks for the clarification, Larry.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity