Earlier this week we told you about Rhode Island public schools trashing the time-honored but completely irrational concept of teacher seniority.

    Now, just a few days later, there’s even more exciting news.

    The Los Angeles Unified School District has announced a plan that will allow a simple majority of parents in a given community  to basically fire the administration of lower-functioning schools and allow the district to hire outside, private management companies for those schools.

    According to Education Week, that  new policy is part of a larger reform effort in LA schools. Under the plan, approximately 200 underperforming districts and 50 new schools that will be built over the next four years will be automatically put under  alternative management - either private companies or an in-house group of staff members. Prospective managers will send the unified district specific  proposals and compete with each other to run the schools.

    Finally, a huge school district where the customers - the parents - have the final word.  This is a huge step in the right direction, and it should have the positive affect of scaring some administrators and teachers at underperforming schools into action.

    Of course, United Teachers Los Angeles, which has ties to both the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, hates the reform plan. The union is preparing a lawsuit to block the new policy.

    That’s because parental control threatens the unions’ traditional position atop the educational heirarchy. Parental control means accountablity, putting students first and attempting new programs that might help kids succeed. Accountability and change are two concepts that make the teachers unions break out in blisters.

    Our answer to the union? Get in the game or get out of the way. If a school continues to fail, year after year, parents have the right to rise up and demand something better. Thank goodness LA school officials had the good sense and courage to give them that right.

The non-educational actions of America’s two largest teachers’ unions continue to boggle the mind.

The American Federation of Teachers, along with the National Education Association, have come out to publicly oppose an amendment by Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Robert Bennett (R-UT) “that would require the 2010 Census to ask all individuals whether they are citizens or lawful residents of the United States,” according to CNSNews.com.

It’s the American census, it seems perfectly reasonable to count Americans and legal aliens.  Also:

The bill also would stipulate that for purposes of apportioning congressional seats, the population should be based on the number of legal residents of the United States.

An opponent of the Vitter/Bennett amendment, Simon Rosenberg of the “liberal think tank” New Democrat Network, said:

“If enacted, the amendment would almost certainly disrupt an orderly census count next year, eventually be found unconstitutional, all the while starting a highly divisive conversation about race, the Civil War and the 14^th amendment in the very first year of America’s very first African American president.”

His partner at a recent press conference, Wade Henderson of Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, was equally bizarre:

“The Vitter amendment is deeply troubling. Not only does it undermine ten years and billions of dollars of preparation for the 2010 Census, it also contradicts what Americans stand for – the idea that all people are created equal.”

What am I missing here?  And why on God’s green earth would national organizations, that allegedly have a little credibility, not want to only count Americans and those here legally?

The AFT and NEA aren’t alone in the fringe group.  Consider the others listed in the article:

Other groups that oppose the amendment include the American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation of Teachers, Asian American Justice Center, National Council of La Raza, National Education Association, People for the American Way, and the Service Employees International Union.

That’s pretty much the power base in Washington - the only one missing is the Center for American Progress.  A few weeks ago, we listed at BigGovernment.com a list of several “partner” organizations in the 2010 Census.  That’s funny: many of those opposed to the Vitter/Bennett amendment are census partners.  Just another indication the 2010 Census is nothing more than a boondoggle for the left.

   Every day it seems like we’re tripping on some bit of exciting news about the growing momentum of national education reform.

 But it would be hard to top the news that came out of Rhode Island over the weekend.

   It seems that state Education Commissioner Deborah Gist ordered school superintendents around the state to stop assigning teachers to classrooms, or particular duties, based on their level of seniority. In other words, teachers will be assigned based on their abilities and performance, not how long they’ve managed to ride their tenure status and hang around the district.

  And it gets better. It seems that Gist based her order on Rhose Island’s new Basic Education Plan, which according to the Providence Journal states that “districts must select and train only the most highly effective staff, and teacher assignments must be based on student need.” It goes on to say that a school district “must maintain control of its ability to recruit, hire, manage, evaluate and assign its personnel.”

   Wow. What a huge victory for Rhose Island students. And what a huge blow to the outdated collective bargaining system that the teachers unions ferociously cling to.

   When announcing her order, Gist made the following statement: “I’ve been very clear that every decision I make will be made in the best interest of children. And there is nothing more important than the placement of a highly qualified teacher in every classroom.”

   Hallelujiah! You go, girl!

   Of course the Rhode Island teachers unions - the National Education Association Rhose Island and the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals - immediately cried foul and threatened to take the issue to court.

  That threat drew the following response from Rhode Island Board of Regents Chairman Robert Flanders: “To the extent that there are contract provisions that are at odds with the Basic Education Plan, it’s our view that those provisions would be unlawful. If a challenge were to be brought, we would expect to prevail.” 

  These folks obviously want to improve their schools, and they obviously mean business. How refreshing to hear state officials telling the teachers unions how things are going to be, instead of the other way around.

   When we think about it, it’s quite amazing that it took so long for state officials to identify seniority as one of thefundamental problems plaguing our nations’ schools. The very idea  that a teacher could be maintaind on staff, or assigned to a particular classroom, based on anything but the ability to effectively teach is frightening and absurd.

   The antiquated seniority system is based on the premise that teachers’ longevity is more important than the educational needs of students. As a nation we’re starting to understand what a stupid, self-destructive concept that is, and we’re not going to subscribe to it anymore.

   Gist put the situation in perfect perspective when she said, “I will use every tool available to put a system in place that is child-centered. We have a lot of systems that are focused on grown-ups. Change is always hard. It’s always going to mean that people feel uncomfortable.”

    Actually, we’re quite comfortable with your idea of change, Ms. Gist. We just wish you worked in our home state of Michigan, where the teachers unions still maintain a significant amount of political power. But we believe your message of student-based education, rather than labor-based, will continue to spread and benefit students coast-to-coast.

   When you spend day after day examining the self-serving agenda of the nation’s two largest teachers unions, you develop a tendency to think badly of teachers.

   That’s a mistake. We have to remember that there are millions of great teachers out there, doing their best to help our children develop on a dialy basis. We have to remember that many teachers do not subscribe to the left-wing political agendas of their unions, or approve of their tactics.

    Larry Sand is a great example. This recently-retired educator from Los Angeles was a member of the NEA-affiliated California Teachers Assocation. To his credit, he’s also a major pain in the backside of the CTA.

    Sand is the founder and president of CTEN, or California Teachers Empowerment Network, an organization of union teachers who don’t approve of their union. He appeared at a recent “tea party” rally in his home state, and addressed the gathering about the gross misuse of dues dollars by the CTA.

    See Sand’s remarks here:

    He pointed out that the average California teacher pays $1,000 per year in dues to the CTA, meaning the union collects about $200 million in dues every year. Then Sand outlined some of the left-wing causes the union supports with that money.

    The list includes opposition to a ballot proposal that would have banned sex offenders from the classroom, opposition to a ballot proposal that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, opposition to a ballot proposal that would have extended the service requirement for teacher tenture from 2-5 years, support for a plan to establish a single-payer health insurance system in California, and support for a ballot proposal that would have raised taxes.

    “CTA is using your tax money to try to push something that will increase your taxes,” Sand told the crowd. “Something’s wrong.”

    Even in a state like California, where average citizens are probably significantly more liberal than most Americans, we have to wonder if rank-and-file teachers know about this type of union spending, and if the majority would approve. Our guess is that a sizable percentage of members would be aghast, and would demand some fundamental policy changes at union headquarters.

   We hope to see more educators like Sand come out of the woodwork in the near future, and speak on behalf of the silent millions who simply go to work every day and pay their dues. As more educators become aware of the activities of their unions, more will choose to send their dues money elsewhere, or will try to break with the unions altogether.

   Some day, in the bright, distant future, we can foresee a nation of teachers who bargain individually, like the professionals they are.

   So keep chipping away at the powerful CTA, Larry, and encourage others to do so, as well. Every brick that falls out of the wall makes the union a little less united and a little less harmful.

     We knew the national teachers unions were becoming increasingly isolated and paranoid, but we didn’t realize they would resort to legal threats in an effort to silence their critics.

    Pathetically, it’s reached that point.

     We at the Education Action Group Foundation received a letter last week from the general counsel of the American Federation of Teachers, demanding that we stop using the acronym “AFT” anywhere on our website AFTexposed.com (a companion to this website) and that we turn over the domain registration to the union.

     The strong implication was that if we failed to cooperate, we could find our tiny organization dragged into court by the giant and wealthy AFT.

     To that we say, bring it on.

     Our attorneys have assured us that we’re doing nothing illegal by using the name AFT in the title of our website, or by referring to that acronym on the website. And we firmly believe that it’s our First Amendment right to comment on the activities of a political organization that uses its wealth and influence to block necessary reforms in our public education system.

     “The American Federation of Teachers apparently will stop at nothing to squash dissent,” said Kyle Olson, vice president of the EAG Foundation. “We will stand up to its attempt to silence us and neuter our website.”

    We sure the AFT doesn’t appreciate a website that keeps a close eye on its activities nationwide, then presents all the news it doesn’t want you to hear in a simple, one-stop format.

    But in America, you’re not allowed to simply muzzle your political opposition. We have a Constitution that prevents that.

    If the AFT wants to silence its critics, it will either have to change its ways, or convince the American people that the old way is the right way for public education. We think the former, rather than the latter, would be a much easier sell.

    In the meantime, we’re going to keep doing exactly what we have been doing, regardless of the AFT’s ugly threats. We’re actually proud that the AFT is taking us so seriously just weeks after the launch of the new website, and we can’t help but chuckle at the union’s overblown reaction to criticism.

    As Olson put it in a press release, “For being so well known for bullying school administrators and school boards at bargaining time, it turns out the elephant really is afraid of the mouse.”

   Now we have “furlough Fridays.”

   What more is it going to take to convince the public of the pressing need to transform our schools into student-based institutions, instead of the labor-based cesspools they’ve become in recent years.

   In case you haven’t heard, the state of Hawaii, facing the same type of budget crunch as other state governments, has to cut more than $400 million from its education budget over the next two years. Logically, that would lead to some teacher layoffs in a number of school districts.

   But the Hawaii State Teachers Association has a better idea. It wants to adopt a four-day school week, with unpaid “furlough Fridays,” to avoid any layoffs. In other words, the teachers are willing to sacrifice one-fifth of their students’ education to keep the paychecks rolling in.

   The idea is apparently catching on in other states, as well.

   In one way, the plan is sort of a breath of fresh air. In many states, union teachers are notorious for throwing their younger colleagues under the bus at layoff time, instead of accepting adjustments to their salaries and benefits so teachers with less seniority can stick around.

   But this is not an acceptable alternative. As reported on FoxNews.com, the Obama administration has been pushing for longer school years, to help American kids catch up with their peers overseas. Our children clearly need more class time, not less. If schools have budget problems, cuts will have to occur, but those cuts should never be aimed at children, particularly when it comes to instructional time.

   This is hard evidence that the teachers unions put their needs before the needs of the students. That’s a major, fundamental flaw in our public education system, and it has to be addressed in short order. Teachers that are willing to walk away from their students one day per week, just to keep everyone employed, are not really teachers at all. They lack dedication to their profession and they don’t belong in the presence of our children.

Kevin Jennings, Obama’s safe schools czar, has been under attack lately. Critics say that his rather sordid past should disqualify him for the post. What has been interesting is that many of his detractors don’t seem to be aware of just how bad this guy is. The whole thing becomes even creepier because at its 2004 convention, the NEA gave its prestigious Human Rights Award to Jennings. This was documented in “Outing the NEA”, which was published by FrontPageMag.com in 2005. And to see “how far we have come” in this area, please read “Kevin Jennings’ Twisted Terminology”, an excellent article which was published just last week in the American Thinker.

    There’s no question that the education reform movement has gained a boatload of momentum in the past year, particularly since President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan came on board.

    But has the war already turned into such a rout that the teachers unions are starting to wave their white flags?

    Consider this.  According to Blog.Newsweek, the AFT recently shocked everyone by announcing that the recipients of its new Innovation Fund grants would use the money to develop model teacher evaluation systems that will actually consider student achievement as legitimate criteria.

     Both the AFT and NEA have stridently opposed this idea in the past, and in several states even pushed through legislation preventing such evaluations from occurring.

     But now Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT, has been quoted as saying “Teachers and their unions are not afraid to take risks and share in the responsibility for student success,” and that her union “isn’t shying away from the issue that the evaluation system is broken.”

    Perhaps somebody should check Ms. Weingarten’s temperature. She doesn’t sound like herself in those quotes.

     Then we tripped across an article in Labor Notes, which reported that a group of union teachers from across the nation, calling themselves “reformers,” recently met in Los Angeles to develop their own plan for changing and improving our public schools.

 . They’re going to meet again in October to plan a series of forums and press events to publicize their “vision of education reform that puts educators, not education management organizations, in the driver’s seat.”

     Does all of that sound promising? Perhaps. But we’re more than a little skeptical of the union’s sudden conversion to reform.  Our guess is that they’re quickly developing a strategy designed to beat the true reformers at their own game.

     We’re willing to bet that any teacher evaluation system designed in conjunction with the AFT will put only limited weight on student achievement. But that window dressing may be enough to win millions of “Race to the Top” federal dollars for some states.

    Don’t think for a second that the teachers unions aren’t interested in getting some of that money for their states and schools, despite the nasty things they’ve said about “Race to the Top.” If that means pretending to be interested in student achievements, so be it.

    As for the group of union teacher reformers, their strategy is a bit too obvious.

    By coming up with an alternative reform agenda that presumably doesn’t involve charter schools, merit pay, tenure reform or any other popular concepts, they’re trying to position themselves to remain in control of the educational establishment. If things have to change, the unions want to make sure they change in the most comfortable ways possible. What better way to guarantee that than to design the “reforms” themselves?

    A clever bunch, these union teachers. They may be conniving, deceptive and unscrupulous, but they’re definitely not stupid. They’re not surrendering. They’re simply adjusting their strategy on the run, like a good quarterback trying to salvage a broken play.

    Stay tuned. . .

   We were wondering how long it would take for our union friends to visit.

   We’ve always gotten a kick out of monitoring the number of hits our very first website, the Michigan-based  educationactiongroup.com, received  from folks connected to the teachers unions. Over the past year, officials from the Michigan Education Association visited the site 276 times, while their legal firm visited 224 times.

  Good Lord, we’re afraid to ask how much we’ve cost them in legal fees.  Hopefully not too much, since at last report the MEA was about $36 million in debt.

    Now it appears union offficials have discovered our two new sites - NEAexposed.com, which you are currently reading, and AFTexposed.com, which you should check out if you haven’t.

    In the past week, AFTexposed.com has drawn visits from AFT oficials 8 times and NEA officials 7 times. During the same period, NEAexposed.com has drawn visits from NEA officials 14 times and AFT officials three times.

    Our old friends at MEA have visited NEAexposed.com twice.

    Not bad numbers, considering the two new sites have only been active a few weeks. It tells us that we’re touching a nerve with the unions by addressing the right issues. The more they watch us, the more we know we’re providing useful information that the public will want to know - and the unions don’t necessarily want the public to know.

    But anyway, all are welcome, including our union friends. Perhaps they will learn a few things about their own organizations that they never knew before.

    The Michigan Education Association has flexed its political muscle and won another victory.

    Unfortunately the taxpayers of the state will have to pay for that victory, in more ways than one.

    As recently as last week, the Michigan legislature seemed poised to face economic reality and cut $2.8 billion in spending to balance the state budget.

     While some of the cuts would have been painful for some groups, they were necessary  to bring state spending under control after years of passing the buck and ignoring the need for fiscal restraint and reform.

    One of the proposals, agreed to by the Democratic Speaker of the House and the Republican Senate Majority leader, would have cut $218 per student from the state’s foundation grant for public schools.

     Many Republicans, and members of the business community, also wanted to enact a series of reforms that would have lowered labor costs for school districts and softened the blow of the budget cuts.

     But the MEA wouldn’t stand for it. The union peppered the state capitol with lobbyists, and in the end cowardly legislators buckled under the pressure and voted to cancel the proposed funding cuts and ignore the suggested reforms.

      “I have never been prouder to be a member of the MEA,” crowed MEA President Iris Salters after her union’s self-serving victory.  Salters also warned that “our work is not done” and promised to lead an effort to raise taxes to fully restore education funding.

    The long-overdue reforms were never considered by the legislature, because the MEA wouldn’t stand for them.

     One popular proposal would have moved  all state employees, including teachers, into  a single health insurance pool and removed schools from the health insurance business. Such a move would have saved school districts millions of dollars.

     That wasn’t acceptable to the MEA, because it owns MESSA, an expensive insurance carrier that it forces on school districts throughout the state. The reform plan would mean the end of MESSA and the millions of dollars in kickbacks in provides the MEA every year.

    Another suggested reform would force public schools to seek bids for non-professional labor, like cooks, bus drivers and custodians. Such a move would free schools from having to employ MEA members for those positions, which would save millions of dollars.

    But the MEA wouldn’t hear of it, because privatization would mean cutting union jobs, which would mean fewer dues dollars for the MEA.

    So now, after killing the proposed education cut and ignoring the suggested reforms, the MEA is pushing for tax increases to fully restore the education budget. The union also wants to dip into federal stimulus dollars that were supposed to be earmarked to help balance the state budget next year.

   So there will be no long-term cost-cutting plan for schools, no attempt to tackle the long-term structural problems with the state budget.

   Salters and her allies will just keep running up the tab, then happily send the bill to taxpayers at a time when they can least afford it.

    Just call it a profile in political cowardice, courtesy of the teachers union.