The NEA May Be About to Endorse Hillary Clinton Without Input From Majority of Members

by Steven Singer, Member of the BAT Leadership Team

 

originally published on his blog: https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/the-nea-may-be-about-to-endorse-hillary-clinton-without-input-from-majority-of-members/

The largest labor union in the United States may be about to endorse Hillary Clinton for President without a poll of its membership.

Leadership at the National Education Association (NEA) has been making troubling moves toward endorsing Clinton that could commit the organization to supporting the Democratic presidential hopeful with no regard for the wishes of its 3.2 million members.

An endorsement could come as early as Oct. 2-3 when President Lily Eskelsen Garcia is expected to propose a primary endorsement of Clinton at the NEA Board meeting, according to multiple NEA sources. Then the PAC council would vote. If approved, it would go to the board for a final decision.

However, since this is only an endorsement for the primary election, the matter would not need to go before the Representative Assembly (RA). In effect, the move could sidestep the voices of the RA’s 8,000 delegates representing state and local affiliates, student members, retired members, and other segments of the united education profession.

The decision would be made by a handful of leaders and the PAC council. Though there are thousands of PAC council votes, they are distributed by the amount of money raised by each state’s members. This means that little states like Delaware – where members donate greatly – have a larger vote relative to their membership than other states.

The voices of the great majority of members would be silenced.

Already leadership at the highest levels seems to be trying to consolidate Clinton support.

Last Wednesday NEA Directors were invited to an hour-long conference call with Clinton. Few directors were allowed to ask questions and only if those questions had been submitted in advance.

After Clinton left the call, only three state presidents had a moment to speak; all gave positive reflections on Clinton and how she supports teachers and public education.

Despite the fact that several Democrats have been courting the NEA’s endorsement, only Clinton was invited to this call.

Last summer, the NEA invited all presidential candidates to participate in the union’s endorsement process. Only Clinton, Martin O’Malley, and Bernie Sanders did so. Each made a video statement that was shown at the summer’s RA meeting and posted by many to their local groups. Though more candidates have entered the race since then, none have chosen to interview with the NEA.

Ironically, at the same RA meeting, the assembly voted specifically NOT to ignore rank and file membership before endorsing a Presidential candidate. New Business Item 79 states:

NEA, as an organization, will actively engage in conversation and outreach on the NEA endorsement process with all 2016 Presidential campaigns prior to the consideration of a primary recommendation.

It seems if the leadership goes through with the primary endorsement as outlined above, they may be violating NBI 79.

The move is doubly troubling because of the strong-armed manner in which the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsed Clinton in July.

Though the AFT Executive Board voted to endorse Clinton, there is little evidence it did so after adequately gauging members opinions through claimed multiple surveys and telephone town halls. The move caused an uproar and claims the AFT endorsed too early and without rank and file support.

Despite politics at the national level of the NEA, some state affiliates have already made endorsements. For instance, Vermont NEA already endorsed Sanders, their state’s Senator.

“We want to let the whole country in on what we in Vermont have long known,” Vermont NEA president Martha Allen said in a statement. “Bernie’s core values are in line with ours: He is pro-family, pro-worker, pro-education and pro-labor and we believe the time has come for his vision to become a national reality.”
Alternatively, the New Hampshire NEA endorsed Clinton in September. Scott McGilvray, NEA-NH president, called Clinton a “tireless fighter” for students and teachers.

However, Sanders is gaining on Clinton in the polls in the first two primary states. A new Monmouth University poll of likely Democratic voters in New Hampshire gives Sanders the lead over Clinton by a 43-36 margin. Sanders also leads Clinton in Iowa by a 41-40 margin. This is a huge gain from July when Clinton was beating Sanders by 49-25 in that state.

A major endorsement from a union the size of the NEA at this time might give Clinton the boost she needs to solidify her front runner status.

Whatever happens, no matter who the NEA decides to endorse, if anyone, it should be someone leadership can demonstratively prove has the support of the majority of its members.

The Badass Teachers Association - No Early Endorsement NEA Letter

 

 

President Eskelsen-Garcia and NEA Leadership,

It has come to our attention that there will be a motion from NEA leadership to consider a Presidential Primary Endorsement for Hillary Clinton.

We, the members of the BATs, feel it is important to share our views with you and hope that in the future the voices of teachers will be heard in a meaningful and significant way.

Therefore, we the undersigned members of BATs, would like to request that the National Education Association make NO PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ENDORSEMENT.

In the last several decades, our public education system has come under fire and been attacked by those who would systematically destroy OUR GREAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS through corporate designs and privatization. They do so through a political system influenced, manipulated, and controlled by corporate reformers who seek to profit from our students while undermining the foundation of our strong union presence. We strongly believe that continued support of candidates who have aligned themselves with the very people who are perpetrating these efforts is neither wise nor prudent.

Furthermore, we believe that a candidate worthy of the support of NEA must agree to the following points: 
First, an unyielding, solid commitment, both verbal and written, to pursue a robust public education system, advocating for excellence and equity for all students as well as working conditions for educators that advance the profession;

Second, we want educators to be viewed not as experts in our field and are treated as such;

Third, we would like to see a business-style view of education halted and recognized as a failure.  We would like to see this model replaced with a student-centered vision that is objectively evaluated and openly transparent;

Fourth, the adoption of a new approach that supports and invests in public education infrastructure and modernization.

These are not commitments to be made lightly by any candidate yet they are commitments that are essential for public educators. Currently, no Presidential candidate has made such commitments. Therefore, we believe that NO PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ENDORSEMENT of any candidate should be made.

BATs believe in unions and will always support them. We want to believe that actions taken by our union leadership reflect the values and wishes of its members. In light of the looming Friedrichs vs. CTA decision which will threaten the ability to collect agency fees, it is our hope that teachers would feel respected in the actions taken by union leadership on this question of primary candidate endorsement.

We ask that our leadership hear this message and refrain from making a Presidential Primary Endorsement.

In Solidarity,

The Badass Teachers Association.

 

On Being the Loyal Opposition

On Being the Loyal Opposition 

by Cheryl  Binkley, Member of BATs

originally posted on her blog: http://3rdmilleniumteacher.blogspot.com/2015/09/on-being-loyal-opposition.html

As a member of both NEA and the Badass Teachers Association, I have watched over the last two plus years as BATs have collectively tried to navigate being both change agents and Union supporters.  

The BAT leadership has carefully stood firmly behind the Unions conceptually and as activists; yet simultaneously, there has been a strong strain of frustration among rank-and-file union members across the country and among BATs on the page.

It’s easy to blame the politicians, and policy makers, the pseudo-education experts, the billionaire edu-dabblers, the test purveyors, the untrained teacher corps, and charter school vendors for the coordinated acts of vandalism against public schools and all our children-- and absolutely, they are to blame for attempting to deconstruct the greatest school system of all time.  

The dilemma becomes harder when confronting people you rally with, teach alongside, and whom you know are giving what they believe is their all for children and fellow teachers.  

Yet, honesty requires coming to grips with the fact that the drops in union membership and existence of the multitude of resistance organizations-- BATs, NPE, Opt-Out, Lace to the Top,  and so many others that have burst onto the scene-- is at least in part because the states and national Union leadership of the last fifteen years have not found a way to address the attacks against teachers and public schools more effectively.

Difficult as it is to admit, we BATs exist because of a failure of our Unions to meet the challenges we all face. Even as we recognize the magnitude of the challenges they/we have faced, it has become imperative that our unions recognize:

The policy of appeasement used for years with our enemies has not worked.

BATs’ very existence is a symptom of the need for a course change for both NEA and AFT-- if we are to be successful in saving the greatest institution on the planet-- our public schools.

The most recent manifestation of the “loyal opposition”  dilemma is the recent controversies over early endorsement of Presidential candidates.  Once again the leadership are moving or have moved in both AFT and NEA to endorse when no candidate has committed to real substantive changes from terribly damaging Reform movement policies. (And make no mistake, nice speeches about pre-K and college tuition are important, but are side-bars to the comprehensive policy problems in K-12 created by the Reformists that candidates are skirting and refusing to address). And, as we have learned with President Obama, unless changes are explicitly agreed to before the deal, what comes after the election is a bloodbath for poor children, poor school systems, and all teachers and communities.

Conceptually, BATs are dedicated to the idea of Unions.  Without collective participation by workers in the conditions of their jobs, and the directions of their institutions, our communities are left to be run by those who see their mission as to get the most work for the least pay and benefits, and to control the input of the various stakeholders for the sake of streamlined management.  

Unions are not just an important part of a balanced society, they are necessary to it. Otherwise the ordinary working people have no voice, and the actual community members are completely disenfranchised from the important decisions about their workplaces and community institutions. Unions are critical to a functioning democracy and quality of life for all citizens.

So how do we navigate between the devil and the deep blue sea of being deeply committed to our Unions and being deeply disconcerted by the the Union leaderships’ choices? How do we change what’s going on in the greater world when we have to change our Union leaders’ minds first? How do we protect the children, not only from the malevolent decisions of profiteers, but from the well-intended appeasement of those profiteers by our own elected and paid staffs?

So is the dilemma of the committed and faithful Unionist these days. At this point our pleas for change can no longer remain internal. There is not enough time to spend years gradually developing internal change.

So I’m here to proclaim publicly-- I still believe in my Union! I still am here paying my dues and working events, and volunteering, but ---We’ve got to alter course! Dear leaders, you’ve got to change your hearts and minds, not just a few sentences in your speeches, because the present path and in part Your choices have led us to this chaotic, disastrous present and the possibility of even more inequity and educationally impoverished futures for America’s children.

• We can no longer accept money from our enemies and allow them to indoctrinate our membership against our own best interests.

• We can no longer allow think tanks, pseudo- education experts, and media to commit slander against us in the public forums and then invite them and sit with them on the conference dais nodding and smiling.
• We can no longer give candidates who offer only the most cosmetic and easy issues but withhold on other devastating funding-testing-accountability policies, the credibility, boots on the ground, and voting booth numbers for election.

Please, we implore you-- Insist on more for your members, our schools, and for the children.

NEA = Sell Out

By: Heather Poland, Member of the BAT Leadership Team

Originally published on her blog: https://ateacherspointofview.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/nea-sell-out/

I was excited to learn that as a California State Delegate I would be able to participate in the conference call with CTA and Lily Eskelsen Garcia about the imminent primary endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

I, as many colleagues, am upset that this is a possibility. I emailed my NEA board reps, many of whom agreed with me. I encouraged members from other states to also email their NEA board members. I was looking forward to the conference call, though I was under no false hope that anything said would change Lily’s mind. I wanted to hear her words from her mouth, and hopefully ask a good question that other members and CTA board members would hear and, hopefully, think about.

The first 15 minutes were Lily speaking, defending why she wants to early endorse Hillary. The overall message I got from her was that she is scared. She mentioned many times that others had called the NEA irrelevant after the last presidential campaign because NEA did not endorse during the primary. Lily believes that a primary endorsement equals a seat at the “inner circle” table. Personally, I don’t believe this at all. The education reformers have money. They use their money to buy policy. Does Lily really think that endorsing during the primary will make the candidate listen and follow through with our recommendations? Money talks. Hillary is already influenced by Broad and Gates. Why would she suddenly change her views and do what is right for education when there is money pouring in from other places, and the dialogue now that so many civil rights groups also buy into is that of more testing and ed reform.

Why aren’t we making the candidates work for us instead of being scared that we won’t have a “seat at the table”? Don’t endorse anyone until they prove that they are 100% against corporate ed reform. That would be badass. The NEA isn’t irrelevant because we didn’t endorse during the last primary. The NEA is irrelevant because it doesn’t push politicians to do the right thing. Why not come out with a statement that says the NEA will not endorse ANYONE who is in favor of high stakes testing and horrible policy such as Race to the Top? That would show power. That would show leadership from NEA.

Another argument Lily gave was that Bernie would never be able to raise enough funds to counter the Koch-Republican candidate because he will not take dollars from Super PACs. So basically, Lily is scared that a Republican candidate will win. I felt that way once, back when I voted for Obama, twice. While Obama has done some great things, he is not everything I had hoped for, and definitely fell VERY short in education. I refuse to act on fear. The NEA should also not act, or react, based on fear. The NEA could be shaping education policy, but instead, it is cow-towing to corporate ed reformers. Bernie Sanders is raising a lot of money from small donors, and will continue to do so. No, he will not have as much money as Koch, but people are sick and tired of billionaires funding candidates.

The NEA is alienating its members, and this is especially bad in light of the Friedrich’s case. If they win, California will lose agency fees. This means that people could opt to NOT pay into the union. As it is now, teachers do NOT have to join the union, but they do still pay a fee to cover the costs of collective bargaining. This fee does NOT include political contributions a fact that many people don’t know. Political contributions are voluntary. Teachers who opt not to join the union still benefit from our collective bargaining. Without the dues from every teacher, that capability would be reduced greatly, and we would see the quality of education decline further. With the NEA pushing for this primary endorsement, many members I have spoken to, who are pro-union, would want to pull all their support from the union.

Eric Heins, CTA president, told u that there was a poll of general members between September 16th and September 21st. He said it was random, though didn’t offer any details or say how big the sample size was. He stated that the results from that showed, Hillary Clinton 41% support, Bernie Sanders 24%, and Joe Biden with 14%. Without Biden, Hillary’s support grew to 47% and Bernie’s to 33%. Personally, I would like to know more about this poll. I don’t know any members who were polled, and I would love to know if anyone was actually polled. I would also like to know what the sample size was. Eric Heins also said that CTA leaders were polled, but I know of at least one who said she was never polled.

Several questions were taken, and Terry Pesta, from San Diego Retired Education Association asked a great question. He asked, “If we endorse for primary, and that candidate doesn’t win, doesn’t that hurt us?”

Lily seemed to think it wouldn’t hurt us. She wants us in Hillary’ “inner circle” and thinks that if Bernie Sanders won the primary, we would, of course, put our support behind him. But wouldn’t that alienate us from him just a bit? Supporting Hillary until she doesn’t win is a standard political move that makes sense to many large organizations. But what if it alienates us from Bernie? Why not be badass, and come out with a statement about why we are NOT endorsing ANY candidate at this time?

I was called to ask my question as well: “Why are we endorsing anyone instead of telling the candidates we won’t endorse until they are 100% against corporate ed reform. Hillary is “in” with Broad and Gates.”
Lily’s response was that she wasn’t sure what “in with” Broad and Gates meant. She also went on to say that people within NEA have taken money from Gates, and some see it as just using that money. When I went to NEA RA in 2014, there was an NBI about NOT taking ANY money from Gates. That was “sent to committee” which is code for, “sent to die”. In 2015 a similar NBI was brought forward, and did not pass. It is pretty clear that Lily has no problem with accepting money from Gates.

She also asked, “would there be anyone we support if we were to stay pure?” That statement was also very telling to me. She has sold NEA out. NEA could be a progressive organization, and that is something many were hoping for under Lily Eskelsen Garcia, but we are not. She is too scared of being seen as a coward. Ironic.

In Puerto Rico, Students Go On Strike to Stop Teacher Relocations

by Steven Singer, member of the BAT Leadership Team

originally published on his blog:  https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/in-puerto-rico-students-go-on-strike-to-stop-teacher-relocations/

Students streamed out of their classrooms chanting in unison in the mountainous Utuado region of Puerto Rico earlier this month.

They took over the halls and doorways of Luis Muñoz Rivera High School on Thursday, Sept. 10, locking their arms together to create a human chain.

They paralyzed their school, shut it down, and allowed no one in or out.

The reason? Not too much homework. Not lack of choice in the cafeteria. Not an unfair dress code.

These roughly 100 teenagers were protesting the loss of their teachers. And they vowed to occupy their own school until the government gave them back.

Six educators had been ordered to other schools, which would have ballooned classes at the Rivera School to 35-40 students per classroom.

Government officials claimed the high school had too few students to justify the cost. However, with more than 500 young people enrolled, the school has more than double the island average.

“These teachers provide education to almost 140 students,” said Sharymel Montalvo Vélez, a senior at the school. “Do you think this is not enough (to justify the) tuition?”

“Those teachers are excellent. I was their student. I learned with them. I’m grateful for it. Their teaching quality is amazing. I can prove that.”

The students including Vélez, 17, called an assembly to discuss the situation where they voted unanimously to take action. They blocked two gates and wrote a document demanding the Puerto Rican Department of Education revoke the decision to remove their teachers.

Later that day, Sonia González, a representative of the Secretary of Education, met with students and signed the document promising to keep the teachers at the Rivera School. Three parents and one student also signed.

The affected teachers are Alex Natal, a 10th grade physical education instructor; Naixa Maldonado, an 11th grade Math educator; José Cruz, a 10th and 11th grade History teacher; María Medina, a 12th grade Physics instructor; Damaris Figueroa, an 11th grade Spanish educator; and an 11th grade English teacher.

Vélez said she’s surprised the government agreed to students’ demands. “ I was willing to keep the strike all the time necessary to solve our problem and get our teachers back,” she said.

“I experienced a large class size some years back, and it was hard on both teacher and students. It’s not that easy to make 30 students understand something and go explaining it chair by chair. Every student likes to show his/her ideas and in a large class there is not enough time for everyone.”

What happened in the Rivera School is not an isolated incident. All across the island, communities are fighting government mandates to relocate teachers, increase class size and shutter more schools.
This Tuesday at Pablo Casals School, an arts institution in Bayamon along the north coast, students protested the government decision to relocate their theater teacher, Heyda Salaman.

About 100 students hung the Puerto Rican flag upside down and taped their mouths shut to represent the state of the government and the silence officials expect from the community.

Young people at the specialized arts school which offers visual arts, theater, music and dance as well as academic classes, protested with music and chants of “injustice!”

Just like in the case of the Rivera School, the government eventually relented and agreed to keep the teacher with her students.

The teachers union – the Federación de Maestros de Puerto Rico (FMPR) – has supported student protesters throughout the island.

“The Teachers Federation from Puerto Rico is proud of the actions these students performed,” said union president Mercedes Martinez about student actions at both facilities.

“Schools belong to our communities according to the law, so the communities have every right to fight for the school they deserve. No more cutting funds to create over-sized classrooms.”
Vélez echoes that statement.

“We have a good education and excellent teachers but the administration is failing their workers,” she said.
“The government is cutting rights and benefits to the teachers and employees and soon there will be no teachers. Maybe our schools get privatized and then only people with money will send their children to (public) school.”

The Commonwealth government has closed 150 schools in the past 5 years in the U.S. Territory.

Officials warn the government may be out of money to pay its bills by as early as 2016. Over the next five years, it may have to close nearly 600 more schools – almost half of the remaining facilities!

The island is besieged by vulture capitalists encouraging damaging rewrites to the tax code while buying and selling Puerto Rican debt.

Hundreds of American private equity moguls and entrepreneurs are using the Commonwealth as a tax haven.
As a result, tax revenues to fund public goods like education are drying up while the super rich rake in profits.

The indigenous population has suffered at the hands of western conquerors since Columbus, but the newest fruit of Colonialism may be these corporate education reform policies.

Young people like Vélez aren’t revolutionaries. They look just like any ordinary teenage boys and girls wearing t-shirts and blue jeans, baseball caps turned backwards, backpacks slung across their shoulders.

But they have had enough. They aren’t going to accept the low expectations of the corporate world about what constitutes a fair education.

Viva Puerto Rico!

The "Silly Season" in Education Reform

By:  Dr. Mitchell Robinson

Originally Posted on his blog:  http://www.mitchellrobinson.net/2015/09/25/the-silly-season-in-education-reform/

So much silliness, so little time. Where to start?

New York's new commissioner of education, MaryEllen Elia, made some curious remarks in an interview with Politico recently, revealing a troubling level of unawareness with respect to the Common Core State Standards, education, schools, learning and children. Let's take a look at what she said...

1. “We’ll make necessary adjustments, but we cannot go backwards,” she said. “Our students need the skills and knowledge the higher standards demand to be successful after they graduate from high school. Change is always difficult, and change takes time, but this change is necessary.”

No.

Teaching to the test and the resultant narrowing of the curriculum is the very definition of "going backwards." If we want to "move forward" then we should let teachers teach and students learn, and stop the incessant testing. This naive belief that "going back to basics" will somehow propel our schools into the future is a dangerous bet that we are playing with our children's futures as the kitty. There is nothing remotely "progressive" about more tests, more retentions, and more punishment. This is not the kind of change that improves anything but the profit margins of the testing companies and charter management groups that stand to cash in from this agenda.

More thermometers don't make the meat cook faster or better.

Standards, in and of themselves, have nothing to do with helping students to be successful. Student success has everything to do with the supports that children receive at home and in their communities, and to how effective we are as a society in addressing the ravages of child poverty that have exploded in too many of our communities in the last 20 years. It is a cruel joke that even as increasing numbers of American children are living below the poverty line, American politicians and corporate reformers float the lie that "higher standards," "more rigorous expectations," and "No Excuses" are the silver bullets that will "fix" our students and schools.

2. “The United States used to lead the world educationally, but we’ve fallen to the middle of the pack. Our students are lagging behind, and the global economy is growing more competitive every day.”

No. No.

American students are not lagging behind. "When results are controlled for the influences of poverty, nearly every international test of student learning shows that American students score at the top of the rankings. For example, when test scores for U..S students on the 2009 Program for International Assessment (PISA) exams were disaggregated by poverty levels, American children from middle– and upper–socioeconomic status families performed
as well or better than students from the top three nations in the rankings: Canada, Finland, and South Korea (Walker 2013a)."

The truth is that US students in suburban schools score at the very top of the PISA tests that these faulty comparisons are inevitably based on. The problem here is poverty, not schools, teachers or students--we know that, and yet ignore addressing poverty in favor of making illogical, ill-advised changes to the curriculum, and insisting on more and more tests, as though that will change anything.

But the larger issue here is the fact that a state commissioner of education is uncritically accepting the myth of "failing schools" and buying in to the corporate reformers' belief that the purpose of education is to make America "globally competitive."

That's not the goal of education; that's the goal of business. That's not an education goal; that's an economic goal. Since when did the failures of America's business sector become the fault of 3rd grade reading in Michigan or the supposed lack of attention to STEM subjects in American schools? If Ms. Elia is that concerned with the global economy, perhaps she should seek a position in commerce, and leave education to the teachers in NY's classrooms.

3. Elia has partly attributed the rapidly growing testing opt-out movement to a lack of publicly available information on the Common Core. In her effort to reduce the number of students refusing to take the state standardized tests, she has said that parents and the public need to become more involved in the process, because many don’t know what the Common Core is.

No. No. No.

When 68% of citizens in your state believe that they are "very or somewhat familiar with the standards," and huge numbers of parents in your state are opting their children out of state and national tests, your response should not be to attribute their opposition to your agenda to ignorance and a lack of parental involvement. That's not just tone deaf--that's insulting. And ignorant.

Parents and teachers in New York have demonstrated that this agenda of obsessive testing and standards disconnected to practice are not conducive to learning, and last year's 20% opt out rate is likely to be obliterated this year as more and more New Yorkers join the movement to push back against the reform agenda.

It's time for leaders like Ms. Elia to wake up and recognize who they work for: the children, teachers and parents of New York State--not Pearson, the Gates Foundation, and Arne Duncan.

Education is a public trust, and leaders like Ms. Elia need to understand that it is their responsibility to establish that trust. Stop the silliness, support your schools, and get to work.

Tonight I have decided.
Tonight our journey TOGETHER has truly begun.
I speak of change
I speak of courage
I ask YOU to risk it all
All the while I sit, comfortable in my home
Comfortable in my future.
So tonight I decide to risk it all
My dreams
My future
My security.
Who am I if I do not put my actions where my words are?
I would be a hypocrite.
I AM NO HYPOCRITE.
I have many faults and I have fallen short many times
But not now…..not tonight.
Tonight I am stepping out….
Off the cliff my foot dangles
Not knowing where it will fall
But confident it will land
Exactly where it was meant to be.
And tonight
I’m asking for you to take that same step
In solidarity.
Your future,
My future,
OUR future
Will be dependent on one another.
I pledge to fight.
I pledge to never give in.
I pledge to never give up.
But I can only do this if you are here with me.
UNITED WE STAND
The advocate and the educator.
UNITED OUR CHILDREN WILL WIN.

By Alabama BAT Terri Michal Rector