IOWA: Gutting Unions

The Iowa House and Senate have voted to gut the public service unions of their state.

Under the new bill, Iowa's public service unions (that, of course, includes teachers) may not negotiate anything but wages. Health care, evaluation procedures, and other language items may not be part of contract negotiations. And should those wage negotiations stall, the arbitrator must consider management's ability to pay and may not raise wages beyond either a 3% cap or the cost of living index-- whichever is lower. Which means, of course, that local school boards and other management groups don't actually have to negotiate at all.

The bill also kills the automatic deduction for union dues and requires the union to be recertified before every new contract negotiation.

In short, this bill is aimed directly at busting unions in the state.

The bill was supported only by the GOP (a handful of GOP reps defected to vote against it), and it appeared magically from behind closed doors, like Venus rising from a lily pad, just ten days ago. GOP lawmakers didn't run on a promise to bust unions, there were no big public demonstrations or even spirited calls from friendly astro-turf groups. The GOP won't even identify supporters or sponsors of the bill. The GOP just decided to bust them some unions. Opponents have asserted that this is an ALEC bill, and the whole process certainly smells like ALEC at work, but truthfully, at this point there's no smoking gun-- just assertions. Still, if it walks like an ALEC fat cat, and talks like an ALEC fat cat, it's hard not to conclude it's another ALEC fat cat.

The justifications have been spectacularly lame:

“This bill, I believe heart and soul, is a win for all Iowans and the delivery of a promise from Republicans that we would reform governments to make it more efficient for the people for Iowa,” said Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison and the bill’s floor manager in the House. “Smaller, smarter, innovative government is in this bill.”

Nope. As opponents (like the editorial board at the Des Moines Register) have noted, this will drive down wages, create economic damage especially in rural areas, and expand government bureaucracy. In addition, as laid out in this report from the Iowa Policy Project, it will increase income inequality while eroding pay in the private sector. Most notably, it will make it that much harder for Iowa to convince teachers and health care workers to pursue a career in a state whose legislature is openly hostile to them.

So what's the upside of this for GOP legislators? Not this bullshit that Senate Majority Leader Bill Dix is slinging about:

For years we have been working for fiscal responsibility and pushing for more local control. This bill does that exactly. ... It empowers local school boards. It empowers local officials. It will increase efficiency and innovation at every level of government, giving the taxpayers better services at a lower cost.

Nope. It makes public services cheaper by stiffing the people who provide them, and then reduces the quality of those services by insuring that it will be harder to fill the professions that provide them.

This is not a problem for rich folks, who can always get the best service by simply paying for it out of pocket. But it does keep them from having to shell out good tax dollars to help Those People. Goodness! If they wanted better education, health care, and wages, Those People should have thought of that before they decided to be poor.

Union busting isn't just about destroying the union's ability to stand up for working people. It's also about busting their ability to be a source of money and support for the Democratic Party. As we've seen in many states (and may yet see at the federal level), if you want to establish one party GOP rule, you have to kick out any of the legs on which the Democratic Party stands.

When the bill passed, the gallery was full of Iowans yelling, "Shame," at their legislators, but apparently shame is something that Iowa's GOP is beyond. Sure, all of Iowa may suffer for it, but at least the GOP will hold onto power, so if some rural kids can't get the best health care or education, well, that's a small price to know that guys like Bill Dix can have a cushy job for life, protecting the fat cats of Iowa.

In the meantime, condolences to the teachers of Iowa. So sorry your state Republicans decided to screw you over.

Performance Pay Bombs Across the Pond

I don't know if this will make you feel better or make you feel worse, but our nation is not the only one caught in the throes of bad education reform.

The UK has a performance pay system in which teachers get an increase of pay based on their job performance. Well, if there's money to pay for a raise. Well, if the raise is within the cap of 1% (aka "not enough to keep up with inflation").
 

The UK put this system in place four years ago, incorporating many reformy favorites wrapped in a thick helping of baloney. Said education secretary, Michael Gove:

"I am clear that these changes will give schools greater freedom to develop pay policies that are tailored to their school's needs and circumstances and to reward their teachers in line with their performance." There was, he added, "further work to be done" in deciding the best way to implement the recommendations.

Other supporters laud the system's "flexibility," which as usual appears to mean "the freedom to avoid paying teachers very much money."

Recently a joint survey of 13,000 teachers by the National Union of Teachers and Association of Teachers and Lecturers has suggested that mostly the system just beats teachers down. The UK includes its fair share of members of the Cult of Testing (after all, we're talking about the home of Pearson), but the system also seems to include a healthy slice of bias-- your school's "head teacher" can give you a raise based on whatever they feel like basing it on. It could be worse-- Catholic schools in the UK will also judge their teachers on their spiritual performance. Yikes.

In 2016, according to the survey, one in five teachers received no raise (the Brits actually call it a rise). The system has created a great emphasis on more time-wasting paperwork (because you can't get your raise without a multi-page hoop to jump through). And lots of folks can't get a raise because they have topped out on the scale (I feel you, British teacher brethren and sistern).

As is the case here in the colonies, there is no evidence that this approach actually brings a better education to students in the classroom. There's no reason to believe that teachers are actually holding back their best efforts, just waiting to be bribed sufficiently to wake up and actually try to teach. Nor has there been any attempt to address the Really God District performance pay problem-- if every teacher in my school is really, really good, does somebody go out and collect more money from the taxpayers, or do those great teachers just get a smaller slice of a zero-sum fixed-capacity pie? And if so, doesn't that mean that I have to root for the failure of my teaching colleague, because their success will diminish my performance pay? And wouldn't that the number of excellent teachers I find in my school has less to do with how many teachers are great and more to do with how much money I have available for rewarding those teachers ("Budget's tight this year, so we can only afford for one of you to be great!").

Nor is there any reason to believe that performance pay makes a positive difference where it matters-- in the classroom. Do teachers really think, "Well, I was going to just nap through my job, but since I might get a 1% raise out of this, I guess I'll really try hard."

The teachers in the survey and a UK union leader didn't think so:

Mary Bousted, who leads the ATL, warned that school leaders and teachers are “having to spend far too much valuable teaching and learning time on paperwork and admin to decide pay awards”.

“Performance related pay is threatening collegiate working in schools, demoralising teachers who feel they have been unfairly treated and undermining the valuable contribution that performance appraisal can, and should, make to improving teaching – and pupils will lose out as a result.”

In fact, the UK system is not so much about rewarding excellence as it is about having a system that denies raises. Having a default that nobody gets a raise unless the Right Person decides you need a (very small) one-- well, that certainly can't be helping with the UK's growing teacher shortage crisis. Certainly it's not a legitimate free market approach ("When you can't purchase goods or service for a particular price, then you should just.... refuse to budge?")

Performance pay doesn't work. Never has, most likely never will. And that turns out to be true no matter what country you're in.

I Am Not Hostile To Change

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos spoke today to a gathering of Magnet School folks, and opened up by suggesting that "some people" are "hostile" to change.

I just want to be clear. I am not hostile to change. In fact, there are some changes that I would love to see.

I would love to see a change in the rhetoric about failing schools. Instead of declaring that we will "rescue" students from failing schools and offering lifeboats for a handful of students, I'd like to change to a declaration that where we find struggling and failing schools, we will get them the support and resources that they need to become great.

I would love to see a change in how we approach the communities where those schools are located. Instead of pushing local leaders aside so that outsiders who "know what's best" for them can swoop in and impose decisions for them instead of letting them have control of their own community.

I would love to see a change in how teachers are treated. Instead of trying to bust their unions, smother their pay, ignore their voices , and treat them as easily-replaced widgets, I would like to see teacher voices elevated, listened to, respected, and given the support and resources that would lift them up. I would like to see them treated as part of the solution instead of the source of all problems.

I would love to see a change in how we discuss race and poverty, treating them as neither destiny nor unimportant nothings.

I would love to see a change in how we treat public education. I would love to see public education treated like a sacred trust and not a business opportunity. I would love to see us pursue a promise to educate all children-- not just the few that we deem worthy or profitable or best reached by a sensible business plan. Every child.


I would love to see a change in the status quo. Because at this point, the status quo is a public education system that is being smothered and dismantled by people who lack expertise in education and belief in the promise of public education. The education "establishment" has been pushed out and replaced by well-meaning amateurs, profiteers, scam artists, and people who have no desire to maintain the institution that has been the foundation of a robust and vibrant democracy. Reformsters are the status quo, and that is a status quo I would love to change, because they have had their shot, and all of their promises have proven to be at best empty and at worst toxic.

I would love to see us change from test-centered schools, data-centered schools, and revenue-centered schools to schools that are student-centered, that steer by the children at their center.

And all of that is because I welcome the change that I have always welcomed, built for, worked for-- which is the change of young humans into grown, fully-realized, awesome, grown, valuable, living, breathing, completely individual and fully capable adults, the change of each child from an unsure rough draft into the version of their own best self.

No, Secretary. I am not hostile to change at all. I embrace it, welcome it, hope for it and work for it every day. There are many of us out here, and if you imagine we are hostile to change, that is one more thing about public education that you do not understand.

The Proper Use of Mockery

Jimmie Fallon has done it again, and not, I'm afraid, in a good way.

Fallon has now twice included a Betsy DeVos sketch. His show's version of DeVos is bumbling and clueless, the kind of hapless twit who says, in response to questions about her fitness for the job, replies "I am totally got this."

As regular readers of this blog are well aware, I am not above or beyond mockery of certain subjects (I still kind of miss Arne Duncan). I believe that some well-aimed mockery, some pointed satire, can be just the thing for dealing with difficult individuals, offices, or policies.

But mockery, improperly done, can be dangerous.The dangers are twofold.

First, mockery of little piddly things can take our eyes off the ball. the big, ugly, spikey, dangerous ball that we're not paying attention because we're making fun of someone for tying her shoes badly.

The Trump regime has provided more than ample examples. Quick-- name all the bad policies that came closer to fruition while we were making fun of the Trumpinator's insistence that his crowd was the biggest of them all.

Mind you, little things can matter. I've burned up a lot of internet on little things, because little things are often the key details that tell you what someone really thinks, what they really see, what they're really up to. I have parsed the living daylights out of single sentences because words matter and the ones that people choose matter. But attention to detail is only useful when it helps us see the big picture-- not when it takes our mind off the big picture. For instance, did the fumbling of historic/historical tell us anything important about DeVos (or one of her aides)? I don't think so, nor do I think it was mistake that revealed some unusual confusion; it's a mistake that lots of folks make.

The repeated mistakes with spelling and usage constitute a pattern, showing a carelessness about details or exactitude that is not encouraging. But I'd rather pay close attention to what she has in mind for education policy in this country.

Second, and more importantly, misplaced mockery can make the dangerous seem safe.

This is my complaint about the Fallon DeVos-- she's so hilariously incompetent, unable to form sentences or express an intelligent thought, stupid about the ways of math and words. This mockery can be anchored in her fumbled tweets and her lackluster hearing appearance, but it puts a soft fuzzy gloss on the damage she did to Michigan.

Melissa McCarthy's Sean Spicer is a good piece of mockery because, like the Baldwin version of Trump, it bares the ridiculous qualities of its target without ignoring the aggressive, sharp edges. Baldwin's Trump and McCarthy's Spicer are fools, but they are not harmless.

Fallon's DeVos, and SNL's too, though to a lesser extent, is silly and ignorant, but none of her real power for harm makes it into the portrayal. There's no hint of the billionaire heiress who has run roughshod over the Michigan GOP, who has made elected officials fold out of fear of her opposition, who has taken the position that the public schools of Detroit should just be closed (Damn the poor black kids, full steam ahead).

And really-- we already know better. Fallon and SNL both gave Trump airtime in which he could be presented as a clown, but a harmless one. Pre-election night mockery of Trump focused almost exclusively on his most ridiculous qualities in a message that was one part "Isn't he silly" and one part "There's nothing to fear here." Fallon's patting of Trump's famous hair is like a policeman going before a group of school children to stick his head in a stuffed bear's mouth and say, "See how funny this is? I bet you could do the same thing with a real one."

So as much as I love some mockery, I can't really get excited about or amused by mockery that ignores the real claws and teeth of the bear. Sure, DeVos has earned some mockery from defenders of public education, but it really serves her purposes to be portrayed as a bumbling dope who is so clueless she must be harmless. She is not harmless, and seeing that message put out there is not harmless, either.

FL: Merit Pay (Still) Doesn't Work

Yes, and in other news, the sun is expected to rise in the East tomorrow.

So, Florida has a merit pay system. In fact, Florida has tried to implement merit pay for quite a while. Of course, there are issues:

The design and implementation of merit pay faces several key challenges. First, student outcomes are difficult to define and measure. Second, the contributions of individual teachers to student outcomes are difficult to disentangle from student background and prior achievement. The analysis shows serious deficiencies in several measures of teacher performance. Policy makers should be wary of adapting any measure without careful analysis of its properties and a plan to monitor how it is performing. 

That's from a RAND Corporation study of Florida merit pay published in 2007.

Florida: Why drain the swamp when you can sell swampland?

So maybe that system wasn't so great. Florida's leaders maintained their childlike faith in competitive test-based merit pay, and by 2011, they were ready with a great new law to enshrine it. Flanked by students brought in to serve as props, Governor Rick Scott signed the bill into law. It tied teacher pay directly to test results. In fact, it tied teacher job security directly to test results for all new teachers. Because the bill was suppose to help with recruiting. Because lots of new teachers say, "You know, I'd go work in Florida, but I hate the idea of having job security. I want a job where I know I can be fired every single year." Not only does the system rest on the widely-debunked VAM scores, but the majority of teachers get to be judged based on subject areas they don't even teach ("Don't like your pay check, Mr. Phys ED teacher? Then get these kids to read better!") Of course, some folks thought it was great stuff:

It was quickly praised as "breakthrough legislation" and a "model of bold reform" by the foundations run by education reformer Michelle Rhee and former Gov. Jeb Bush, respectively.

That was 2011. It's now 2017, and Orange County schools, based on their own internal study, are ready to call the whole thing a bust. 

“Performance pay systems are not an effective way to increase student achievement,” the report concluded.

The system requires teacher evaluation to be tied to test scores without local district input. It continues to evaluate teachers with test scores for subjects they don't teach. Merit pay has lowered morale without consistently raising test scores (which, as always, is the only "achievement" we're talking about). Some go up, some go down, and nothing in the study suggests that merit pay is helping in any way, shape or form. But because the accountability system is part of state law, there is no escaping it.

And absolutely none of this is a surprise. We've known all along that teacher merit pay does not work. Here's a synopsis of the arguments and some pertinent research from ASCD, published in January of 2017. We know this doesn't work, but Florida is intent on trying to be the nation's leading laboratory for bad education policy.  And I would mock this foolishness some more, but M.S. from the Economist got there first-- in March of 2010.

HEY THERE, talented recent university graduate! I'd like to offer you a job in an extremely challenging and rewarding field. The pay is based almost entirely on performance metrics—you know, what they used to call "commission" in the old days. The better you do, the more you earn! Of course the worse you do, the less you earn, but don't focus on that—you're a winner, you'll do great. We can offer you a five-year contract to start. By "contract" I mean we'll let you work for us, if things work out, but we can of course fire you at any time. And after that you'll have solid contracts! Each contract lasts one year, and we can decide to let you go at the end if you're not performing up to our standards. And by that time, you'll be earning...well, actually, you'll be paid at exactly the same rate as when you started out. We're prohibited by law from paying you more just because you've worked for us longer. If, however, you want to go get qualified in some new technical field or obtain an advanced degree, then...we can't raise your pay either. We basically just pay you a flat standardized commission depending on how well you perform on the mission.

The mission is to train 18 to 25 children to correctly fill out the answers on a series of standardized tests. You have no control over which children will be assigned to you, and unlike other commission-based workers (door-to-door salesmen, say), you will be stuck with the ones you're handed for the whole year. Average salary is $45,000 a year, but if you work your butt off and get lucky with the kids who are assigned to you, you could push it to, oh, $60,000.

And that is why Florida remains a state of last resort for people looking for a teaching career (not that North Carolina isn't trying hard, too). Because it's the Florida way-- we were told this doesn't work, there's proof this doesn't work, and we've collected our own evidence that this isn't working, but by gum, we're just going to keep doing it anyway.

Guest Post: Open Letter To Pat Toomey

Barbara Ferman is a professor at the College of Liberal Arts, Temple University. She's also the Director of the University Community Collaborative. She passed along this letter to share. If you want to make sure Senator Toomey sees it, feel free to help direct it to him.

February 13, 2017

An Open Letter to Senator Toomey, Pennsylvania


Dear Senator Toomey:

I grew up in a working class family and neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York. I was the first in my family to get a college degree, made possible by the then free City University of New York system, an institution that enabled many working and lower middle class kids to achieve the American Dream. I have been an educator for 32 years, 25 of those at a public institution in Philadelphia (Temple University). During that time, I have enabled other kids, like the one I was, to reach, dream, and land higher than the place from where they came. But, now, that dream is in jeopardy.

I am extremely fearful of what the new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, will do to public education (K-16) in this country. In the confirmation hearings, she demonstrated her total lack of knowledge about public education and the federal laws that govern it (e.g IDEA), and, even worse, a lack of desire to learn about public education. The unregulated system of charter schools that she financially supported in Michigan has been an unmitigated disaster. The danger she poses to public education has been articulated by some very conservative stakeholders. Eli Broad, a major investor in charter schools, called her “unqualified” and “unprepared,” and cited her support for unregulated charters and vouchers as particularly problematic in his letter to Senators McConnell and Schumer. The Massachusetts Charter Public School Association, an organization representing seventy charter schools in that state, sent a letter to Senator Elizabeth Warren expressing concern that “efforts to grow school choice without a rigorous accountability system will reduce the quality of charter schools across the country.” Two of your Republican colleagues, Senators Murkowski and Collins, voted against her in the full Senate. I am totally perplexed as to the reasons why you voted to confirm her.
Can you please tell me how you think Ms. DeVos will improve public education in this county given her rather poor record in Michigan and her total lack of understanding of our most cherished institution.

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to this letter. I am genuinely interested in your response.


Sincerely,


Barbara Ferman

New Congressional Attack on Education

You probably already heard about H.R. 899, a bill elegant in its simplicity. Here's the whole text of the bill:

The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2018.

Thanks to Rep. Thomas Massie (R) of Kentucky for this little zen koan of legislation. It raises many questions. Will the department evaporate? Will it be terminated with extreme prejudice? When the ball drops on New Years Eve, will fall onto the department and crush it? Will the offices terminate, or just the people in them? Will it be like the obliviate spell that Hermione cast, causing everyone to forget that the department ever existed?

But H.R. 899 is actually not the first proposal for the 115th Congress to trash US Education. An earlier bill (filed on January 23, the Monday right after His Regal Orangetude was crowned President) proposes to erase ESSA, launch a national voucher system, and end federal financial support as we know it. And fix a big problem with school lunches, too.

Meet H.R. 610, a bill from Rep. Steve King (R) of Iowa. Its official not-very-musical lead is "To distribute Federal funds for elementary and secondary education in the form of vouchers for eligible students and to repeal a certain rule relating to nutrition standards in schools." The punchier press-ready title is "The Choices in Education Act."

Whose Baby Is This?

If you're not familiar with Rep. King, his picture can be found in the dictionary next to "piece of work." Born in 1949, he attended Northwest Missouri State University, majoring in math and biology. He did not earn a degree, but he did earn three 2S student deferments from serving in Vietnam. Once upon a time he claimed to be Latino, but he's not. This college dropout has, in his political career, displayed a real gift for quotable baloney.

In a discussion of the DREAM Act: For everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.

On maintaining the border: We could also electrify this wire (on the border) with the kind of current that would not kill somebody, but it would simply be a discouragement for them to be fooling around with it. We do that with livestock all the time. 

Harry Reid can defend those ghoulish and ghastly and gruesome practices that Planned Parenthood is advocating along with child prostitution and illegal immigration. He can play defense on that.

We could also throw in his thoughts on how immigration laws are like picking a dog, but we need to get back to his proposal for education. Just want you to know what kind of guy we're talking about here.

Let me walk you through the parts of the bill. After we get past Section 101, which gives it its name, we get to--

Section 102

Scrap ESSA. Done, dead, gone. Give Secretary of Ed only the power to read applications for grants under Section 104.

Section 103

States will receive block grants in amounts proportional to the number of students in the state. The purpose of the block grants will be to fund a voucher program.

Section 104

To get the grant, states must show that they'll spend the money on a voucher program (as defined in Section 105) . They must also show that they are going to make it lawful for parents "to enroll their child in any public or private elementary or secondary school in the State" Emphasis mine, because, really, in the whole state? Granted, Iowa is the Tofu Block of states, a valuable and vital, yet flat and featureless expanse of corn-fed homogoneity, so maybe any corner of the state is indistinguishable for any other. But really-- legal to put your kid in any school in the state? How does anyone even begin to manage that?

Oh, and the state must also promise to make homeschooling legal as well.

Section 105

The feds will distribute money based on how many kids you have in your school. In other words, the money will follow the child. Also, it's the "sense of Congress:" that said money should be distributed in a way that "promotes competition and choices."

The amount of money will be determined by straight division-- total stack of federal money divided by number of eligible children, so there will be no special considerations. A kid from a poor family is followed by the same amount as a rich kid. Kids with special needs get no extra money to meet those needs.

The set amount of money will also follow students to private schools, and to home schooled children. Home school your child (however you personally choose to define that), get a check from the federal government. King has built in some restrictions-- you may not collect a voucher for greater than the cost of private school or home schooling. How, I wonder, will home schoolers "prove" how much their home schooling cost? And to whom will they prove it?

Also, funds sent to local schools must be used to supplement, not supplant. Just in case you thought we were past that argument. And the vouchers sent to private and home school parents will not be considered income.

Section 106

Vocabulary. Children that fall under the bill are ages 5 to 17 inclusive. Which I guess means that if Junior takes a couple of extra years to finish high school, his federal funding is shut off.

The Other Part

Title II covers the lunch thing. King apparently is still upset about the whole healthy lunch thing and wants to add a couple of clauses to school lunch program regulations so that no school can restrict maximum calories in a lunch, nor can they poke their noses into lunches brought from home. Glad to see a solution to those problems.

How Concerned Are We?

One of the features of life in Trumpistan seems to be the steady volley of whackadoodle ideas for rules and regulations, some of which are destined to die quickly and quietly, and some of which will win the approval of the Beloved Leader himself. So not only do we have to pay attention to what's being thrown about, but we have to assess real threat level.

This bill comes to us from the same guy who is sure the best way to deal with Obamacare is to kill it with fire, not "even if" there's no replacement but "especially if" there's no replacement. His voucher program would be a way to spend that $20 gazillion dollars that His Royal Trumpitude wants to throw at school choice, and vouchers fall right in line with what Betsy DeVos has long desired. On the other hand, he wants to scuttle ESSA, a bill that it took Congress eleventy-jillion years to put together and represents a crowning bi-partisan achievement of some Senators, even if they immediately started arguing about what they had accomplished. That alone makes this look like the kind of bill that the Senate swipes away with the back of their hands while quietly complaining about the nut jobs in the House of Representatives. Plus, folks who were excited about getting the feds to stop dictating state ed policy will not be fans, either. "We stopped the Department of Ed from telling you what to do so that WE could tell you what to do" is not a winning argument. So actual threat level could be only medium.

But.

But if you have been comforting yourself that a national voucher program could never be achieved, particularly by people who are bent on destroying the Department of Education, well, here's one example of how it could work.

Granted, it would be terrible. It would gut programs, leave many schools impoverished, and absolutely abandon students with any sort of challenge, from poverty to learning disabilities to English language learners. It requires absolutely zero accountability measures, inviting exactly the sort of fly-by-night hucksterism that has been fostered in Michigan by DeVos. On top of that, by scrapping ESSA and replacing it with nothing at all, the feds would leave all sorts of mundane-but-necessary functions and decisions of schools in a state of chaos and mystery.

Because it's one thing to get rid of the entire Department of Education, and another thing entirely to get rid of the entire body of education law.

But if you are the kind of person who believes that we ought to shut down all the gummint schools and stop giving special treatment to anybody who claims to need it and if you're poor that's your own damn fault so stop asking for help-- well, this approach would be might appealing.

So keep your eyes peeled. We haven't yet seen the last of this bill, or the many bills just like it waiting for their own special moment in the sun.

In the meantime, public ed supporters might want to drop Rep. King a line. And while you're talking to him, ask about all those tax dollars going to Iowa corn subsidies.