I’m a Democrat because I believe in the party’s basic principles, particularly the idea that we have to look after one another and stand up for those who need help. I believe in fighting for the civil rights of all Americans, especially children and those facing injustices. That’s why I was heartened to see Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel advocating for the rights of kids in his standoff with the Chicago Teachers Union. Although his stance made perfect sense to me, it surprised many political observers. After all, Emanuel is a favorite within the Democratic Party, and teachers unions have long been allied with the party.
Emanuel went head to head with the union to get a better contract for the city’s schoolchildren. In the process, he underscored a transformation in the Democratic Party. Increasingly, those who staunchly side with unions at any cost appear to be in the minority, while more Democrats are saying we have to look at education differently.
In Connecticut, Gov. Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, pushed through a law bringing more accountability into schools over early and strong union objections. In Los Angeles and Cleveland, Democratic mayors have implemented strong education reforms. As a group, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution (led by a Democrat — my husband, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson) supporting parent “trigger laws” and rigorous teacher evaluations based largely on student achievement growth.
Behind the shift is a desire by average Democrats to support common-sense reforms in children’s best interest. But like any shift in alliance, the changing political landscape isn’t without controversy.
Teachers unions have been helpful to many Democratic candidates who would otherwise be outspent by better-funded Republicans. What’s more, those who identify as liberals or progressives — myself among them — tend to be passionate about the rights of workers to stay safe on the job and earn a decent living. But we also are passionate about the rights of all young people, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, to get a great education.
It’s no longer acceptable to ignore the inequities and overall shortcomings of our public education system. Consider that only about half of black and Hispanic students earn high school diplomas with their peers, compared with three-fourths of whites, and that the academic achievement gap between poor students and their wealthier peers is widening. When kids do make it to college, roughly a third need remedial work because they weren’t adequately prepared by the K-12 system. The United States is also falling far behind our global competitors in math and science.
In Chicago, where 80 percent of children aren’t performing at grade-level proficiency standards, according to the Nation’s Report Card, Emanuel simply said enough is enough and stood up for sensible changes aimed at helping kids make much more academic progress.
At the heart of the debate was a focus on teacher quality. We know that great teachers can have a tremendous impact. Yet we don’t have policies in place to ensure that all children are taught by great teachers. That’s why the mayor pushed for an evaluation system that would help determine who is excelling, who needs help and who may be better off in another profession. I’m so glad that, for the first time in Chicago, teacher evaluations will at least consider whether students are learning over the course of the year. But I do wish the union hadn’t won some key concessions.
Despite the mayor’s efforts, the contract wasn’t a home run for kids. It still allows teacher seniority to trump teacher effectiveness in some cases when layoffs unfortunately arise. And under the new evaluation system, less than a third of a teacher’s evaluation will be based on an objective look at how much academic progress his or her students are making. That’s not enough. Educator evaluations ought to consider several factors, but the degree to which our children succeed academically must be what we emphasize.
I also think it’s a mistake to include a third-party appeals process for poor evaluations. That’s not necessary if you have a robust and fair evaluation system, and it will continue to make it overly burdensome and bureaucratic for principals to replace staff failing to meet students’ needs.
One of the mayor’s proposals that was ultimately rejected was a performance-pay system for teachers like the one in Washington, which offers huge pay increases to effective teachers, making them — deservedly — among the best paid in the country.
The strike advanced the national conversation about education reform but did so at a high price: Chicago’s children lost roughly 18 million collective hours of learning time; moms and dads across the city lost wages, and possibly risked jobs, so they could care for their kids; and some children went without the hot meals they reliably get at school.
It was frustrating to hear Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis say toward the end of the dispute that the strike would continue to see whether there is “anything else they can get.” But at least that was clear evidence that, for union leaders, this strike was never about what was best for kids.
Going forward, I suspect more Democrats will say, as Emanuel and President Barack Obama have, that it makes sense to look at how much children are learning when assessing a teacher’s work and to empower parents to help turn around schools that are failing their kids, and that it is right to pay teachers more but to also hold them accountable for results.
I know that opposing unions on some of these policies isn’t easy. But the more that unions continue to attack fellow Democrats, casting everyone who challenges their policies as “anti-teacher” or “anti-union,” the more they isolate themselves from the broader Democratic Party.
Ours is the party that understands that the greatest equalizing force we have in this country is a high-quality public education system through which people can escape poverty.
Michelle Rhee was chancellor of D.C. Public Schools from 2007 to 2010. She is founder and chief executive of StudentsFirst, a national nonprofit education advocacy group based in Sacramento.
Oh Oh! You must be racist or a 1%er. How dare you
say anything bad about a union? You sure you are a
dem? You can’t be a real libber.
Polarization and absolutist labeling will get you nowhere. Guess what, she (and a lot of us) aren’t “real” libbers. We analyze situations as fairly as possible, think them through, and come to the best possible conclusion. Your assignment: re-read the column and write a meaningful report, as free from bias as possible, report due tomorrow morning. Quiz later in the day.
From what I have read of your posts,
you couldn’t analyze toilet paper. And if you
quack like a libber..at least wear the title
with pride.
Oh really. Care to quote any examples? You may not like what I say but it usually comes with at least some thought. As an independent (note lower case), I don’t qualify as a libber but then anyone the least bit to the left of you is apparently a libber by your (well analyzed?) criteria. I’ll refrain from commenting on some of your posts, especially this one.
Respond to my post, rather than dissing me. Is your report ready? Ready for the quiz? Guess not.Oh, unlike some on these sites, I don’t “quack”.
There has always been an incestuous relationship between unions and the Democrat party which has directly led to a downward spiral of America’s educational achievements. We are ranked 24th in the world. The teacher’s unions are not good for kids as the unions have morphed into political organizations that are more interested in power than teaching. 1 out of 10 delegates at the Democrat National Convention are NEA members.
Rahm Emanuel is a coward. Of course he’s going to whack the teacher’s union. He can. He’s got Chicago’s flinty taxpayers on his side. BUT How much is he getting for his job?
Forget the fact that beginning teachers with student loans and high household expenses can not live in Chicago (or San Francisco, Boston, New York, Dallas, Philadelphia, most of Northern New Jersey, or Connecticut.)
I would be in favor or “reforming” the educational system if all the players had an equal say at the table, but currently Rahm Emanuel Scott Walker, and John Kasich are wielding scythes and cutting the wheat with the weeds. Unions have always been an easy target in rough economic times. This is when the people who have no union wish they did.
Want to cut the salaries of some real do-nothings? Congressional pay begins at $180,000.00 a year. They get full retirement benefits after serving two terms in the Senate (12 years) or four terms in the House (8 years) They have a gold plated health care plan, housing and staff allowance, Taxpayer supplied offices with all the equipment necessary to insure that their fat-cat friends have a place at the trough, and they only work 5.5 months a year.
I’m totally for reform. lets find out who the workers are and pay them the big bucks. I personally do not care if the people who choose not to work starve.
This statement from the commentary: “I also think it’s a mistake to include a third-party appeals process for poor evaluations.”
That, to me, would be very important if I were a school teacher, anywhere. I was a union representative at the national level (federal law enforcement) and spent a lot of time discussing (and cussing) performance appraisal. In my experience, and from talking to others, employee appraisals are usually subjective and are based more on whether or not your supervisor likes you than on your actual performance. It’s very important that an employee have the right to appeal an improper rating. If the rating is valid, the supervisor will be upheld and the employee can be dealt with appropriately. Reducing an employee’s pay or firing them is too important to be left entirely to the whims of the rating official.
I don’t believe there’s any “one size fits all”, objective solution to performance appraisal; but, at the very least, employees should be involved in the process. There’s a big difference in children; some are prepared to learn and some aren’t. How to appraise a child’s “progress” can’t be easy.
Probably the most important thing in education is the involvement (or lack thereof) of the parents, but few people dare to make an issue of it.
And as strongly as I believe in unions, I believe local unions have to reassess their priorities and to get back to basics. They should be focusing more on protecting and bargaining for employees and less on politics.
Performance ratings/reviews in general can be both bad and good. Once again, if the administration is merely covering their six, the reviews will fail to accomplish their purpose and produce resentment among the troops and cause them to give up. The most effective reviews anywhere include 180 degree reviews where those supervised can also review their superiors. It occurs very rarely, for obvious reasons (CYA).
Good column. However, not enough emphasis was put on the role of parents and family. I know a teacher in the Chicago School system (near West Side Jr. High) and the lack of family support (or even a family) for too many of the students is critical. Some families rise above the morass and their kids do considerably better.
Better administration is also critical. For a few years, my friend had an excellent principal, who greeted the students at the door every morning and in general promoted a good atmosphere. He move on (hopefully up) and the newe one is OK but not as good.I see one downside of “huge pay increases” for effective teachers. Good teachers will avoid teaching in the schools with the worst neighborhoods and the worst family situations since they know that no matter how good they are, it won’t be good enough.
While Teachers’ Unions are becoming more didactical, inapropriately political, and increasingly non viable, blaming their actions is often nothing but subterfuge for the real education problems transpiring within our schools and in the classrooms. After teaching in 3 states during a 40 year career, the last 12 in Sullivan, the dominance of incompetent principals, the proliferation of political expediency, and the absence of proven formulas being implemented have usually come to the forefront when viewing failing schools. Re-cycling failing principals has to end, programs utilizing student tracking needs to once again be utilized for ALL students, not just the academically superior to help achieve measurable academic results, and the lack of reading progress in elementary schools needs to be remedied by refusing advancement for any student beyond the 3rd grade whose reading level is 2 or more grade levels deficient without attending a 6 week summer remediation program. As long as political priorities, union considerations, and scapegoating by those in control is allowed to continue, these programs will not transpire and student progress will continue to stagnate. As always, it will depend of each community to prioritize their true goals for educational progress and take necessary steps to activate true progress. Ken
Unions for professionals is a waste. The unions was made so that uneducated laborers would not be exposed to unfair labor practices, heavy handed mgt, unhealthy work environements and other issues that plagued the industrial revolution. Granted in todays world, schools should have metal detectors and search for weapons but those are processes that can be in put in place. Unless of course, we want the teachers to educate our children on getting by on the least amount of effort and still collect a paycheck…
Ironically, “getting by on the least amount of effort and still collect a paycheck” is exactly what the author of this opinion piece has done in her past. As a teacher, she duct taped a child to a chair. Duct taped a child’s mouth shut, and lied about her performance to get a job in administration. She continued her lies and hard ball to rise to chancellor of DC schools where she improved test scores by encouraging cheating and gaming the test. Now she is an advocate of charter schools. She is the biggest leader of the “school reform” movement and she is a quack.
If it was not for unions you would never have what you have today or you mite even be alive today either .
Ok say you get rid of the unions an you still have the same problems an you get rid of teachers an you still have the same problems . Come to find out it was not the union or the teachers fault what would you do then ? Would the teachers be able to to sue the school if it was not there fault the ones there were gotten rid of ?