and you did not say anything.
Yes, that is a deliberate reference to Pastor Martin Niemoller's famous poem/statement, the one that begins "First they came for the Jews," one version of which is on a wall at the Holocaust Museum.
One year ago you could read a piece that began
There’s a myth circulating out there that not only threatens to ruin the reputation of America’s school teachers, but has the potential to side-track any realistic hopes of education reform. It’s the assertion that "powerful" teachers’ unions are responsible for the decline of public education in the United States in general, and California in particular.
It appeared at Counterpunch, written by David Macaray in response to Bill Maher and titled The Myth of the "Powerful" Teachers' Union. I want to explore Macaray's arguments and then explain why you should care about attacks on teachers' unions, even if they come from Democrats or liberals.
Macaray's piece was written in particular to respond to comments made March 13, 2009 by Maher, where the "comedian"
railed against the "powerful" California teachers’ union, accusing it of contributing to the crisis in public education by not allowing the school district to remove incompetent teachers.
Maher came armed with statistics. He noted with dismay that the U.S. ranked 35th in the world in math, 29th in science, and that barely 50% of California’s public school pupils manage to graduate from high school. He blamed the teachers for this.
Although every teacher in the LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District), has a college degree and a teaching credential and managed to survive the scrutiny of a lengthy probationary period, Maher piously maintained that these teachers were unqualified to run a classroom.
Maracay also takes Arianna Huffington to task for her similar criticisms
given that she lives in Brentwood, her daughters attend prestigious private schools, and the closest she’s ever come to an inner-city school was the day she accidentally drove by one, causing her to hastily lock the doors and windows of her Prius and speed away.
So let's start with some basic facts, offered by Macaray.
The rate of firing tenured/post-probationary teachers in California is less than 1%. That's true. It is also the national average. It applies in states that have unionized workforces, like California, but it also applies in states where teachers largely lack union protection, perhaps because they are right to work states. Consider:
In Georgia, where 92.5% of the teachers are non-union, only 0.5% of tenured/post-probationary teachers get fired. In South Carolina, where 100% of the teachers are non-union, it’s 0.32%. And in North Carolina, where 97.7% are non-union, a miniscule .03% of tenured/post-probationary teachers get fired—the exact same percentage as California.
As to whether it is unions that are the problem, in his next paragraph Macaray provides evidence that strongly counters the argument:
In California, with its "powerful" teachers’ union, school administrators fire, on average, 6.91% of its probationary teachers. In non-union North Carolina, that figure is only 1.38%. California is actually tougher on prospective candidates.
Macaray acknowledges the decline of California schools and explores the reason. I will not quote from that part of his post. I will note that California's diversity has increased, with many children in need of instruction because of their limited English proficiency. We have also seen continued disintegration of families in some communities. All this has occurred at a time since Proposition 13 severely restricted the funding school systems had for schools. He rightly discusses how schools with higher family incomes tend to have better schools, something largely an artifact of family economic status. He suggest that if one thinks the problems are the teachers in such schools, perhaps switching teachers between "good" and "bad" schools might demonstrate that the students in the wealthier communities would continue to perform better and those in the poorer ones would still have higher dropout rates and lower test scores.
Here I have to note that there are clear teacher effects, when teachers are (a) properly trained, (b) given sufficient resources, (c) given the necessary administrative backing. Remove any of those three and teachers will not be as effective as they might otherwise, whether or not they belong to unions, whether or not they communities of their schools are wealthy, middle-class, or full of impoverished families.
Maracay offers one additional set of statistical comparisons worth noting:
Fact: Oregon has a good public school system. So do South Dakota, Vermont, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine and Washington, among others. Is that because the folks living in these states are exceptionally bright? Is it because their teachers are extraordinarily talented?
Or is it because these school districts are stable, relatively homogeneous, and don’t face a fraction of the challenges facing California?
For the record, the teachers in these aforementioned good schools are overwhelmingly unionized. Oregon and Washington teachers are 100% unionized; Wisconsin is 98%; Connecticut is 98%; etc.
Looking at the rate of firing tenured/non-probationary teachers distorts the picture. Before achieving that status, management at the school or the school system can discharge a teacher without offering a reason. That applies equally in unionized districts as it does in non-unionized states. The length of achieving that status can be after two years or only after 4 or 5, by which time an administrator who is properly doing her job should have been able either to turn around subpar performance or have recognized the inability of the teacher in question to meet the requirements of the job and gotten rid of him.
That's if the teacher in question does not leave voluntarily. Remember, e have a very high turnover of those who embark upon teaching. Some discover they do not like the job. Others realize they are over their heads. Some enjoy the work but cannot afford the costs imposed by the hours, the stress and the lack of income.
If we have a real problem in teaching, it is how we recruit and train those who enter our teaching profession. There is much we can learn from other nations, and that should be the real international comparison, not the silly stuff we do with scores on tests that really are not if you understand them all that informative about the job our schools are doing.
David Macaray was not an educator. He is now a playright, and previously was a labor union rep. Some might choose to dismiss what he has to say, and yet they will rely on arguments of economists like Carolyn Hoxby and Eric Hanushek who bash public schools. Macaray makes his arguments on facts in the public domain, facts that gainsay the argument that everything is the fault of teachers and their unions.
Full disclosure - I am an active member of the National Education Association who has served as building rep (shop steward) and presented at a state-wide conference. I have good relations including at a national level with the American Federation of Teachers. I know that absent union protections too many teachers would be subject to bullying by administrators and school boards, would be denied basic due process in job issues.
Because I am a teacher it is not surprising that I write about educational issues. I do so at a political blog for another set of reasons. I have remarked in the past the what happens in schools is the canary in the coal mine for what happens in our society as a whole. Schools are perhaps the most visible public service we have, other than perhaps public safety. There are more school employees than there are public safety employees, education consumes a larger share of financial resources. Absent a meaningful, vibrant public education sector there is little left in our society to bind us to one another in any kind of common purpose.
There are those who do not want us to be able to come together in common purpose. Schools serves as an obstacle to them. They want to destroy public schools.
And there are several million members of teachers unions. They tend to support Democrats, which makes them a target for Republicans. Perhaps those whose symbol is an elephant, rather than attacking unions, should ask themselves why teachers support Democrats? Could it be that we see the need for social services, for providing for the less well-off lest we condemn them to an inferior status and diminish their hopes and dreams for a better a life, for themselves and their progeny? Perhaps because we take seriously that part of the Declaration where the signers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their progeny? Perhaps we believe that ALL should share in those blessings of liberty, which should include the opportunity to be all they can be without having to join the military?
Economic power has been shifting away from ordinary people. I should not have to remind those who read this how much those already at the top are gaining increasing shares of income and wealth, while shifting the burden of paying for their riches to taxes on the rest of us. That's right - we are subsidizing their obtaining and maintenance of wealth.
Those who read this should also remember the important role unions have played in improving the lives of ordinary Americans - paid health insurance, vacations and holidays; 5 day week and 8 hour day; establishment of government agencies to ensure that workplace conditions are safe; etc.
First they came for the teachers' unions. . . If you stand by and remain silent, and they are able to break the teachers unions, what unions will be next? What group will there be that can speak for the economic rights of ordinary people?
First they came for the teachers' unions . . . - They are coming, NOW. Will you speak out? Or will you remain silent?
And if you do not speak out against these attacks, if you allow them to take root, who will speak out for you? Because you know they will not stop with the teachers; unions, will they?