The heroes of Newtown

Kudos to the Baltimore Sun for the following editorial that ran on Tuesday 12/18/12.

The heroes of Newtown

Our view: The strength and courage of teachers and school staff — the kind of public employees so often scorned of late — are the revelation of Sandy Hook

As the nation continues this week to deal with the grief and heartache left behind by the murder of 26 children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, let there also be a moment set aside for exultation. Let a banner be raised for the heroes of Newtown, Conn.: the educators who sprang into action to protect the young students in their charge.

We don't know how many lives were saved by the alert and brave actions of the faculty and staff at Sandy Hook, but we suspect they were many. Yet how many among us should stand ashamed today for showing so little respect for such public employees — mocking teachers, in particular, for their cost to taxpayers in salary and benefits — and failing to appreciate how willingly many educators stand prepared to lay down their lives for our children?

Rarely are teachers given the kind of respect afforded soldiers, firefighters or police officers, but how else to describe Principal Dawn Hochsprung but as a first responder? We now know that it was she, school psychologist Mary Sherlach and Vice Principal Natalie Hammond who first confronted the heavily armed Adam Lanza in the hallway. Only Ms. Hammond survived that initial effort to subdue the intruder.

Four other employees, all teachers, died in the shooting. Anne Marie Murphy, a special education teacher, was killed attempting to literally shield her students with her own body.

Meanwhile, stories continue to emerge from Sandy Hook of teachers who helped lead their students to safety, who hid them away and remained level-headed despite the threat, who calmly instructed them to be brave, who stood ready to defend them until they were certain the knocking on their locked doors came from police and not the perpetrator.

That the shooter had to smash his way into the school and not simply enter an unlocked door was due to the security precautions instituted in recent years by the late principal. The school had practiced a "lock-down" drill before the fateful day. Ultimately, Ms. Hochsprung helped provide both the first and last line of defense for her students.

How many among us are certain we would behave so bravely in a similar situation? The military train for that kind of sacrifice, but the faculty and staff of Sandy Hook had no such preparation. What code of conduct informed their choices?

It is common these days to bemoan the state of public education and question whether the next generation will be able to compete in the global economy. Among the concerns are wide disparities in educational outcomes based on wealth, race and class; high dropout rates; and low science and math achievement compared to other industrial countries. Meanwhile, the economic downturn and the strain it has put on the financing of government, including public education, have made educators easy targets for scorn.

Not all teachers are saints, any more than all police officers, corporate executives or newspaper editorialists are. But what happened in Newtown — and what continues to happen in schools across America as faculty comfort and care for students unnerved by the events in Connecticut — ought to be a wake-up call to America.

Last August, it was a guidance counselor named Jesse Wasmer who was chiefly credited with wrestling a shotgun away from a Perry Hall High School 15-year-old who had taken it to school and seriously injured a fellow student. Somehow, he also chose to put himself in harm's way in order to protect the lives of the innocent youngsters around him.

Teachers and other public school employees deserve more respect than to be vilified as lazy, overpaid union thugs, or any of the other various taunts that have been hurled their way in recent years. In some states, they are been stripped of bargaining rights. Often, they are cited as a threat to public education and not its chief asset.

We adopt standardized testing of students, in part, because we don't trust that teachers are doing their best. Too often, we judge them harshly for not achieving the near-impossible: creating a model citizenry from the imperfect products that show up at their doorstep.

Next time we discuss the state of education, let us also recall those images of teachers leading children out of harm's way in Newtown or those half-dozen adults who died in the line of duty. Public educators deserve our respect, not just for what happened in Sandy Hook but for their extraordinary, daily devotion to the education, health and welfare of the next generation.

Why Union? So you don't have the right to work for less

Right now Michigan workers are fighting the railroading through their legislature of laws that are attempting to kill unions in that state. These so called “Right to Work” (RTW) laws have purposely been given this misleading name to make people believe that unions were somehow keeping individuals from working.  Unions are legally obligated to represent every worker in a bargaining unit, regardless of membership.  RTW laws allow some workers to gain from the salary, benefits  and working conditions negotiated by a union without sharing in the costs of those negotiations. That’s why they should really be called “Right to be a Free Rider Laws.” RTW laws make it illegal for unions to collect fees from non-members, while still requiring that they get all the benefits from the collective bargaining that their dues paying co-workers support.

Proponents of such laws say that this will help workers do better. This is not the case. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics eight of the twelve states with the highest unemployment rates have RTW laws. Studies have shown that wages in states that have RTW laws in place are 3.2% lower than those who do not. Workers in RTW states are also less likely to receive employer sponsored health insurance and pensions.  Workers in RTW states experience a rate of workplace deaths that is 52.9 percent higher than in non-RTW states. 

Harold Meyerson's piece in The Washington Post highlights the ever widening gap we see with increasing corporate profits and declining wages for America's workforce. Meyerson notes:

"Defenders of right-to-work laws argue that they improve a state’s economy by creating more jobs. But an exhaustive study by economist Lonnie K. Stevans of Hofstra University found that states that have enacted such laws reported no increase in business start-ups or rates of employment."

This effort, being funded by right-wing billionaires like the Koch brothers and Dick Devos, is yet another attack on America’s working class and highlights why unions are so important to America's working class.  President Obama visited Michigan and had this to say about what is happening:

 “And by the way, what we shouldn't do. I've just got to say this, what we shouldn't be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions. These so-called right to work laws, they don't have to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics. What they're really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.You only have to look to Michigan, where workers were instrumental in reviving the auto industry, to see how unions have helped build not just a stronger middle class but a stronger America. [...]We don't want a race to the bottom. We want a race to the top. America's not going to compete based on low skill, low wage, no workers’ rights. That's not our competitive advantage. There's always going to be some other country that can treat its workers worse.”

Another troubling part to this is the violation of basic democratic principals that have occurred. This is happening in a lame-duck session of Michigan's legislature and basic procedures have been tossed out the window:

 
Needless to say, unions like like the NEA, AFT, SEIU, the Teamsters and others are fighting to preserve workers rights, restore the democratic process and stop this from happening. Unions believe you have the right to a fair wage, fair benefits and good working conditions. We don't believe that you have a right to work for less.

Don't lower our certification standards

Below is a letter submitted by MSEA President Betty Weller to the Maryland State Board of Education on the "Option Four" amendment to the regulations covering teacher certification. There are currently three options (Master's Degree, Master's Equivalency, and National Board Certification) to renew or qualify for your Advanced Professional Certificate (APC) in the the state of Maryland. The State BOE wants to add an "Option Four," which would make qualification for, or renewal of, your APC based on your evaluation. 

Distinct from the other three routes to an APC, Option Four requires no professional development and no ongoing coursework. Unfortunately, teachers may choose Option Four as a quick and less rigorous method to secure or renew an APC, unaware that it may be the most difficult route in the end. The highly effective rating may be impacted by a change in assignments, grade level, content areas, new administrative staff, and the accuracy and validity of the evaluation system itself. Adopting "Option Four" would be premature since Maryland has not even adopted a uniform standard for highly effective teachers. Each local school system will define the standard differently.

The Professional Standards and Teacher Education Board (PSTEB) is still deliberating the issue and the fact that the State Board of Education is about to take action with those deliberations still ongoing, is unprecedented.  

MSEA is working with other state educational organizations to oppose this change in certification regulations and to preserve the high standards and credibility of our profession, and stands ready to work with MSDE to identify other alternatives for strengthening the profession.

RE:      Proposed Amendments to COMAR 13A.12.01.02

Maryland State Board of Education:

            As you know, for more than a year a certification workgroup has undertaken an examination of the current certification regulations with the intent of proposing regulatory changes.  This workgroup passed its recommendations to the Professional Standards and Teacher Education Board (PSTEB).  In its consideration of the recommendations, PSTEB engaged in extensive study and sought stakeholder input regarding the practical applications of the proposed changes and the impact those changes would have on student growth and teacher effectiveness.  As a result of this time and effort, PSTEB unanimously voted to reject Option 4, the Advanced Professional Certificate (APC) option that ties teacher certification to evaluation ratings.  MSEA supports PSTEB's decision and requests that the members of the State Board do so as well.

            MSEA strongly supports the strengthening of the current certification process, but in doing so we believe that rigorous and relevant professional development must continue to be a requirement for renewal.  As such, MSEA strongly supports the continuation of the Master’s Degree, Master’s equivalency, and National Board Certification as options to receiving an APC since each of these routes require teachers to engage in ongoing professional development and course work beyond the receipt of their undergraduate college degrees.  Studies have shown that such a requirement only serves to improve a teacher’s professional practice, which is essential in the development and maintenance of a more rigorous learning environment for students.

            Despite PSTEB's unanimous opposition to Option 4, the State Board has moved forward in its consideration of it. This option as currently written requires no professional development and no ongoing course work; it is entirely dependent upon the stroke of an evaluator’s pen.  Even with the new evaluation system, this process is prone to subjectivity, especially if the evaluators are not highly trained and skilled in how to conduct observations and gather data needed for the evaluation.  We have been working hard with our locals to recruit highly trained educators, upgrade the profession with higher standards, and collaborate with the Maryland State Department of Education to develop a highly effective evaluation system. Yet this evaluation system still needs to be tested for validity and reliability. Creating a new certification route that is dependent on an ambitious, but unproven, evaluation system invites subjectivity, unreliability, and potentially lowered standards into a process that is critical to ensuring the ongoing high quality of our schools.

            We share your goal to increase student achievement and to make sure every child is taught by highly effective teachers; however, we don’t believe that we can get there by making changes that have not been tested for validity and reliability.  Option 4, as currently proposed, devalues the profession and lowers standards, which is clearly contrary to our goals. We want Maryland to remain the number one school system in the nation.  To that end, when creating policies on which our schools and depend, we must take the time and care necessary to ensure those policies move us forward. 

            As president of the Maryland State Education Association and co-chair of the Council for Educator Effectiveness, I am requesting that we do as PSTEB recommended and reject Option 4, continue the dialogue, and utilize research and data prior to amending the certification structure.

            Thank you for your consideration.

Betty Weller

President, Maryland State Education Association

Submitted on behalf of MSEA

No Reason to Change How the MoCo Board of Education is Elected

Below is MCEA President Doug Prouty's testimony that was presented to the Montgomery County Legislative Delegation during their recent hearing on proposed Local Bills; concerning a proposal to change how the Montgomery County Board of Education is elected.

Good evening, members of the delegation. Thank you for this opportunity to testify tonight.

The Montgomery County Education Association is opposed to Local Bill MC 7-13 – the proposal to restructure the Montgomery County Board of Education. We believe that enacting this bill would be harmful to the Board, to MCPS and most importantly, to the students of MCPS.

To begin, we are uncertain as to the reason for this bill being introduced. There has been no public outcry over the number of members of the Board or about the way in which we elect the Board. The functioning of the Board has not been called into question. While any elected body will make decisions which are not universally popular, as you well know, there has been no widespread discontent with the way in which the Board oversees the school system. Quite the opposite - MCPS has become one of the most highly regarded school systems in the country under the watch of this Board and its predecessors.

We are most concerned about the proposal to change the way in which the members of the Board of Education are elected. The proposed change would promote parochialism and undermine the Board’s shared collective interest in meeting the needs of all students.

The current system for electing members of the Board of Education provides a balance that ensures that all regions of the county are represented on the Board, while ensuring that all Board members look out for the interests of all students, and not just the students in their part of the county.

Currently, five of the seven publicly elected Board of Education members must come from the five distinct geographic districts; ensuring that all regions of the county are represented on the Board. However because all Board candidates, including those five, need to run countywide for election, the system is designed to discourage the kind of provincialism that would arise if each district Board member was only accountable to the voters in their district.  

One does not need to look far to see school systems with district-elected school board members who get mired in the politics of fighting for resources for the schools in their own neighborhoods.

Under the smartly designed current system for elected school board members in Montgomery County, that tendency is kept in check by the need for Board of Education candidates to run for office countywide, and to be accountable to parents, taxpayers and voters countywide.

This is especially important in a county that is increasingly diverse in both socio-economic and racial terms. Think back to the early 00’s, when the Board of Education decided to differentiate resources to the ‘red zone’ schools based on the needs of those schools. Had Board members been elected by district, it may have been much more difficult to gain approval of this strategy; which has been vital in helping to improve the achievement of minority and poor students.

Imagine as well the formulation of the capital budget when a majority of the Board would be concerned only about the interests of their portion of the system, rather than weighing equally the needs of the entire county. This change would, inevitably, make the decision making processes of the Board more cumbersome and make consensus more difficult to achieve. Our students in MCPS would find that addressing the needs of all schools and all students may no longer be the first priority of the body charged with overseeing their education.

The change in the number of members of the Board also seems to be unnecessary. It would add administrative expenses to the system at a time when cuts continue in school level spending on classroom resources. It is a solution in search of a problem. There are elections to the Board of Education every two years. There is frequent turnover and there are frequent vacant seats. Some candidates win, some lose. There is always another election. There is no need to increase the size of the Board; and certainly not just because some candidates lose elections.

If one’s priority is improving the quality of education for all our students, there is no compelling reason to change the current governance structure of the Montgomery County Public Schools.

While there is much work still to be done to close the achievement gap, Montgomery County Public Schools continues to be one of the most highly rated, and highly respected, public school systems in the nation. Just last week, MCPS won accolades for its high level of AP course participation, its students’ average AP test scores, and the growing number of minority students taking, and succeeding, on AP tests.  The answers to continuing to improve our schools lay in our classrooms, not in changing the size or make-up of the governing board.

In short, we can find no reasonable rationale for this bill, and many unintended adverse consequences were it adopted. We urge you to oppose the passage of Local Bill 7-13.

Contact your state elected officials by clicking here to urge them to oppose the passage of Local Bill 7-13.

New ideas from a new generation of teachers

The following op ed column was published in the Washington Post on Friday November 30th, by Michael Stryer: Stryer, who is on leave as a high school teacher in Los Angeles, is a member of United Teachers Los Angeles and executive director of Teachers for a New Unionism. [Note the shout-out for MCEA two-thirds of the way through the article!].

What do you think? Post your comments and thoughts.

We have all heard about the dramatic changes in the American electorate and how, because he spoke to the concerns of the growing numbers of Hispanic, black, female and younger voters, President Obama was reelected despite adverse economic conditions.

Another critical demographic shift is occurring. This one is taking place, quietly, in teachers unions: Over the past several years, teachers who have spent 10 years or fewer in the classroom have become the dues-paying majority. The impact of this new majority is as important to the role of unions as the changing electorate is to presidential elections. These newer teachers, along with many longtime teachers, are looking for their unions to elevate the profession — not to sacrifice teaching quality for job security.

But the word is definitely not out. I’m a teacher and a union member — and a member of the new majority. Not long after the Chicago teachers strike ended, I had dinner with lifelong Democrats. Instead of support for a revitalized union movement or sympathy for the plight of teachers, the conversation included such comments as: “The last thing teachers unions think about are students,” “Teachers unions haven’t addressed teacher-quality issues, especially with the weakest teachers” and “Teachers unions have to start focusing on something other than pay and tenure.”

It was painful to hear this — especially because such sentiments accurately describe the situation in many large urban teachers unions. In smaller unions across the country, however, progressive teachers are committed to meeting student needs and advancing the profession. And the new majority is accelerating those changes.

The leaders of the biggest teachers unions, including in New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles, largely focus on narrow contractual protections to the detriment of teacher quality and student achievement, issues that are of critical concern to the new majority of teachers.

Unions in small and medium-size districts are taking a different approach. Eschewing top-down leadership, these unions are highly collaborative. As a result, their actions reflect their members’ priorities: improved student achievement and upgraded teacher quality.

At Green Dot Public Schools in Los Angeles, the union’s mission sets out that “every student deserves to be taught by an effective teacher.” The union reached a membership-ratified agreement last spring with management on a rigorous evaluation system that includes test data as 25 percent of a teacher’s total evaluation score.

In Connecticut, the New Haven Federation of Teachers abandoned its traditionally adversarial role and collaborated with both the school district and the mayor’s office to develop and implement an evaluation system that relies heavily on evidence of student progress — including the use of standardized tests and other measures. The new system, which is strongly supported by New Haven’s 1,600 unionized teachers, more effectively supports struggling teachers and identifies unacceptable performers and helps transition them out of the system.

In Maryland, the Montgomery County Education Association participates in a Peer Assistance and Review program that helps mentor new teachers and struggling veterans. It’s a program with real teeth: A panel composed equally of teachers and administrators has the power to remove teachers who fail to improve with mentoring.

Members of the Newark Teachers Union recently approved a contract tying teacher salaries to measures of effectiveness and giving teachers a leading role in establishing and monitoring those measures.

This encouraging transformation extends beyond small and medium-size districts. Increasingly, statewide teacher associations are collaboratively addressing teacher-quality and student achievement issues. In June, the Massachusetts Teachers Association supported statewide legislation requiring that teacher performance be a major factor in staffing and personnel decisions.

Signs of change are appearing in major urban unions. In New York, Boston and Los Angeles, teachers voice groups — representing the opinions of the new majority as well as those of many senior teachers — have become strong advocates for changes affecting teacher quality. Their efforts, combined with those of civil rights organizations calling for more attention to student achievement, and forces within the Democratic Party pushing for accountability, are putting tremendous pressure on entrenched leadership to adopt more responsive, democratic policies. Transformation of major teachers unions may happen in the near future.

The democratic system is at the heart of our unions’ governance. The majority of teachers believe that student achievement comes first. It’s only a matter of time until all teachers unions reflect that belief — and ardently work to support it.