School reformers across the nation thought they had scored a
victory in their efforts to weed out ineffective teachers last year
in New York. Then-governor Eliot Spitzer convinced legislators to
enact a law requiring new teachers seeking tenure to prove that
they successfully use standardized test scores and other forms of
student performance data in shaping their classroom
instruction.
Even sweeter, the law was passed over the objections of the
state’s largest public employees union, the United Teachers — an
affiliate of both the National Education Association and the
American Federation of Teachers — and its largest local, New York
City’s United Federation of Teachers, which has battled the
much-lauded school reform efforts of Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
A year later, reformers watched in dismay as the UFT and United
Teachers struck back, convincing the legislature and Spitzer’s
successor, David Paterson, to strike the law off the books without
so much as a committee hearing. Now the Empire States joins Indiana
as one of the only two states that explicitly ban the use of
student test data in evaluations, making harder for schools to
accurately assess teacher performance.
“It is nothing more than a special interest protection for the
few teachers who shouldn’t get an automatic lifetime appointment to
the classroom,” complained Bloomberg. His plan to use test data in
evaluating new teachers had been thwarted.
This was just the latest defeat for school reformers. They also
lost a battle in Idaho to develop a teacher performance pay plan
and have seen recommendations made by an education panel in
California convened by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger almost
summarily ignored.
Such reversals show that the real clashes over the direction of
America’s public schools won’t take place in the corridors of
Congress, but in the halls of the nation’s state capitals, where
the affiliates of the NEA and AFT are well-positioned to advocate
for their vision of education.
WHILE THE No Child Left Behind Act, with its accountability rules,
may foster the perception that education policymaking has moved
from local school districts to the federal government, the reality
is different. States continue to be the key movers in shaping the
direction of schools.
Since the 1970s, funding equity lawsuits, along with property
tax reforms such as California’s Proposition 13, have led to state
budgets accounting for the largest single source of school funding.
States now supply 47 percent of all education dollars.
States also govern collective bargaining between teachers unions
and school districts, since the federal government does not require
governments to engage in collective bargaining. More importantly,
states also set the framework for the compensation teachers get and
the conditions under which they work through such measures as
class-size reduction initiatives.
The standards-and-accountability movement which gave birth to No
Child began with governors and chambers of commerce in states such
as Tennessee, which in the 1980s, rolled out an array of
standardized tests and consequences for school failure. Those
reforms were ultimately embraced by the federal government thanks
to presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both of whom,
remember, were governors who won acclaim for their school
initiatives.
No Child itself gives much leeway to states when it comes to
interpreting how to meet requirements such as assuring that all
teachers are “highly qualified” for instruction. States may be
required to improve graduation rates and test scores, but the
federal government allows them to develop their own solutions — or
more often, game the system — in order to reach those goals
A FEW SCHOOL REFORM groups such as Achieve Inc., a Washington
D.C.-based nonprofit that works with states on improving the
quality of curricula and aligning standardized tests to them,
recognize that reality.
Most, however, ignore statehouses, focusing on Beltway arguments
over such matters as the reauthorization of No Child. Teachers
unions, on the other hand, have sensibly kept their eyes on the
states to their benefit.
Teachers unions are particularly suited to statehouse lobbying.
Armed with large memberships — who contribute mightily to their
coffers and form a potent lobbying force — and aided by their
success in gaining collective bargaining rights, teachers unions
are often the biggest spenders when it comes to lobbying.
The fact that these unions are often the largest donors to state
legislative campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans — as
compared to the Democrat-only spending by the national unions —
also gives them extraordinary access. The father of New York’s
current governor — a player in state Democratic politics —
lobbies on behalf of UFT, while Joseph Bruno, the state senate’s
Republican majority leader, has benefited from the state union’s
largesse.
Also aiding their efforts: The general skepticism of
rank-and-file teachers, and more importantly, suburban parents, who
don’t want themselves or their children to bear the costs of higher
standards through flunked tests and more homework. All of this
makes teachers unions effective at fighting back efforts by
reformers to shake up the status quo.
THE WOULD-BE REFORMERS themselves, even those who should know
better such as former California assembly speaker-turned-Los
Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, fail to consider any of
this.
Villaraigosa’s 2006 proposal to take over Los Angeles Unified
may have won over parents and activists long-frustrated with its
academic and fiscal failure. But his plan ran headlong into the
opposition of the UTLA, which used its clout at the legislature,
rallied mayors in other cities in which LA Unified operates, and
used the courts to weaken and, finally, defeat, his effort.
School reform advocates, especially those advocating exclusively
at the national level, may want to devote more time to lobbying
state policymakers if they want lasting success. This would likely
mean teaming up with chambers of commerce, who have been able to
rally their business memberships to get some school reform measures
passed. Such ties would offer school reformers the muscle they need
and offer business groups the intellectual caliber most often
lack.
Advocates should also think about how to do a better job of
selling their prescriptions to suburban parents, whose cozy
relationships with teachers often makes them willing supporters of
union goals. Hoping in federal intervention alone will only allow
the unions to win the most important fights.
