Chicago's teacher strike! I don't get it.

Public Employee Labor Unions

I have never understood public employee labor unions. "The primary reason public employee unions are a bad idea is because politicians pay them off with our money. These unions receive billions from taxpayers, who in return contribute millions to the politicians who gave them those billions." Scott Walker. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/28/public_unions_a_bad_deal_for_the_public_109052.html

I was a freshman student at Bethel Park High school in 1970. Many students chose not to attend school when our teachers threatened to strike. Even when I was 15 years old I knew it was wrong, and I went to school that day. 

Now we are in the middle of a Chicago teachers strike against democratic mayor Rahm Emanuel. For those of you who do not know. Rahm is the former chief of staff for the Obama administration. The Romney-Ryan ticket just backed Rahm's hard line position against the union that brought on this strike. I can not imagine that I am the only one who does not see the obvious conflict of interests. If Rahm caves in this will be a victory for bureaucracy over the education of our children. I hope Rahm sticks to his ideals and stays the course. I hope that he is not union president of the Illinois state teacher association next year.

When I began my teaching career in 2004 I remember clearly brushing against this conflict in the Philadelphia school district. I was watching some video footage of a former strike, and I was very surprised to see my principal at the front of the picket line with a sign that said the administration was unfair to her. When there is no difference between labor and management the protests against management no longer seem credible. Instead of fighting against injustice they are really fighting to protect their turf. This is the essence of what is wrong with government. It is these kinds of forces that cause bureaucracy and inefficiency in government. These teachers would say that they want to improve education. I think they are more interested in protecting their wages and working conditions over student needs in the district. Public employees need to go back to the days of being public servants. Before their were labor unions in government there was a stronger desire among government employees to work for the good of their country.

I respect a union employee who wants to stick it to the man. However, I find it silly to do this when that man is me.  

Boycott PSEA's discussion board!

Agora cyber charter school is way ahead of us in the organizing a union. They have posted 1500 times on the PSEA discussion board. Over time these BLOG posts have changed. It seems that the teachers formed a separate organization from the union called AEEA. Since then another association started under the title VOA. The union seems to be using this a means to prolong the recruitment process instead of leaving them alone. This is a lot like the recent good intentions of many teachers who are attempting to avert a union by forming a teachers association. Will there be a splinter group in the future that will develop from the teacher association? The union will applaud these efforts. They want employees to continue thinking about organizing against management.

The first link below is the Agora PSEA discussion board. The second link shows clearly from a simple Google search that the PSEA is for removing state wide charter schools. To me this is the bottom line. Teacher unions are the largest political contributors in most states. A union perspective would not reflect the views of the majority of the stakeholders in our school. My recommendation is to boycott the PALCS PSEA union discussion board. I made one post on that board. That was enough. If we really want to stop the buzz to organize, then we should stop organizing the  buzz.

http://www.agoraea.psealocals.org/ShareYourThoughts/tabid/14877/Default.aspx

PSEA opposes state authorized charter schools.

http://www.psea.org/uploadedFiles/LegislationAndPolitics/Legislative_Updates/PSEAPosition-AmendmentsToSB560.pdf

What is the political impact of forming a union at PALCS?

Only seventeen of fifty states have state wide cyber schools. Pennsylvania leads the nation in both the growth and success of this movement. Many of our early employees had a mission mentality about our school. When we came to work every day we felt that we had more than a job. We were on the front lines in the American Revolution of education. Until about three years ago there was a legislative crisis that threatened our very existence every year. As we hired more employees they did not share in the uncertainty of those early years. The lobbying efforts by the PSEA were a big part of that uncertainty. In recent years we have been able to recruit the best and brightest teachers graduating from school. The collision course of intermediate unit, district, and collegiate cyber schools is adding uncertainty to our employment. Local control in education is already a sacred cow in Pennsylvania. Will the PSEA side with state wide charter schools, or will they negotiate with the status quo where most of their rank and file are members?

Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School has many friends in the state political community. State senators Jeff Piccola and Andy Dinniman both serve as the majority and minority chairs of the education committee. Dr. Hanak and our board members have worked many hours to foster this relationship. If we develop a formal relationship with the PSEA will this change our relationship with lawmakers? It will to the extent that we will now be giving money to advocates lacking a conservative agenda. When we have a union a percentage of our entire payroll will be diverted to politically liberal activities. This would put us on a collision course with the majority or teacher, parent, and student stakeholders in our school.

This introduces a competing agenda that distracts from the education of students. Will our stakeholders be less enthusiastic about our existence when they find out that a percentage of our payroll is paying for advocacy favoring abortion, anti-globalization campaigns and race, gender and human rights issues?

Should PA Leadership Charter School have a union?

PA Leadership Charter School, affectionately referred to as PALCS, is a cyber charter school that attracts students with leadership potential. What does a cyber leader look like? A cyber leader is a student who is willing to be a pioneer and not settle for a standard education. Cyber leaders are also parents who are dissatisfied with the current state of education, and, like pioneers, are willing to take risks for a better education. Parents can have a say in cyber education. Recently my students initiated a snow ball dance in West Chester, PA. One of our parents made a formal complaint about the dance. She was concerned with the dress of the students and behavior of the dancing. I have been in business for 20 years, and I have never seen such responsiveness to a complaint. My students and I designed and put into place a new dress code and behavior guidelines within two weeks time. This change included the input of students, teachers, parents, and administrators. Could such a change have happened in a traditional school setting based on one compliant? I ask this question to demonstrate the flexibility and turn-on-a-dime execution of our cyber school, and the validity of the policy. If we want to keep this flexibility in the laboratory of education, then my vote is to keep unions out.

Perhaps the most confounding reason to vote no to a union is that it is likely to produce opposite results from the rank and files’ expectations. Some people at our school may want a union because they want to protect their jobs. If PALCS does get a union, it is likely that some individual salaries may go up, but there is only so much money, so this is likely to result in the layoffs of the very people who may have voted yes.

Should a charter school have a union?

The charter school movement was started to change the status quo of education. Charter schools improve student achievement and provide an alternative education for parents and students which creates laboratories of innovation with the least restrictions possible. The goal is to maximize student achievement within the boundaries of their charter. Do unions represent restraint to change?  The purpose of unions is to maintain or improve the conditions of employment according to the “History of Trade Unions.” Since to maintain is the opposite of change and to improve conditions of employment can conflict with the goal of improving student achievement, it is easy to see why unions could hinder student achievement in the charter school setting.

Should cyber charter schools have a union?

Cyber charter schools represent innovation in the charter school movement. Cyber charter schools like regular charter schools operate apart from local politics. This gives them the freedom to try out new strategies of education to increase student achievement. Cyber charter schools are only bound by their charters. They represent a least restrictive environment to many students who struggle with public alienation or bullying. When we place a union into this type of environment, it might be compared to placing an electric motor into a model T automobile. It may fit in the space, but there is nowhere to make the connections. The working conditions of a cyber teacher differ vastly from a traditional teacher in a brick and mortar environment. Teachers in a cyber environment typically work in the cubical farms of corporate America, have larger class loads, and respond asynchronously to instant messages all day from their students. In traditional education teachers’ work in classrooms, have smaller class loads, and work simultaneously with a class in a group environment with little time for individual interaction. These working conditions are different. The structures supporting them should be different also. When an organization representing millions of people attempts to represent these constituents, there is likely to be misrepresentation and, at the minimum, a great deal of confusion.

Is it a conflict of interest to recruit union membership and fight state wide charter schools?

I am a teacher/ administrator in a state wide cyber charter school in Pennsylvania. My concern is that we are a school of choice. For whatever reason we have attracted a majority of politically conservative parents and students. I am concerned that they will become alienated from the teachers when they find out how much of the money goes to liberal causes.

I am also concerned that our state teachers union, the PSEA, has gone on record as being against state wide charter schools.  http://www.psea.org/uploadedFiles/LegislationAndPolitics/Legislative_Updates/PSEAPosition-AmendmentsToSB560.pdf

Isn't it a conflict of interest for them to proselytize union membership and be on record as being against our school;s existence at the same time?

If an employer is the government, and the government is made up of its citizens, then how do we unionize?

We are, in essence, unionizing against ourselves. Franklin Delano Roosevelt made this point in 1937. Perhaps people might make the case that charter schools represent competition in the education market place, and this justifies a union. Charters schools could be considered competition, but the purpose of charter schools is to change the existing system, not to take it over. So the charter schools very existence is meant as a tool for change, and not a replacement for school districts. The moderating influence of unionization would be incompatible with a laboratory for educational innovation.

Should PALCS have a union?

Unions have a place in our country’s history. With out them their might be child labor, unsafe working conditions, and no guarantees of employment for those of who become competent in their jobs. Employees have relied upon business to provide the bulk of employment over the years. However, this has not been with out problems. When business becomes so successful that it monopolizes a product or service, this squeezes out any competition. An undesired by product can be the miss-treatment of its employees. The trade unions are a part of our country’s economic development to protect workers along side of anti-trust legislation which protects the consumer.

This all makes sense in a competitive market place where monopolization is possible. Anti-trust legislation is meant to stop business from becoming a monopoly. No one wants a monopoly which can become an inefficient blob of over priced capitalism. Unions serve as a safeguard against employers using employees in unfair and inefficient ways. Anti-trust and unions help moderate lazy practices of business that would mistreat employees or raise prices without a moderating counter force.

In a public setting there is a difference. Public employees are not competing. They are already a monopoly, and the addition of a union can make things less efficient. I will post several BLOG posts with confounding answers to questions that we should consider asking.

A teacher does not teach what to think. #Cyberschool, #edchat, #election, #palcs

I have made a decision, and I am voting tomorrow. Unfortunately, I can not let you know what that decision is. You see I am a high school teacher. My students may be watching my posts. Tomorrow, on Election Day my students and I will be giving out copies of the constitution to every teacher at our school. The Constitution tells us in the first amendment that the government shall not establish or create a religion or forbid its exercise. I agree with this clause. I would even fight and die for this limitation of government.

During the colonial period many evangelical Christians were being persecuted around the time of the  American Revolution in America. The Anglican church at the time was state controlled. During this period the church was a beneficiary of the tax dollars of the state. People did not have the freedom to join the church of their choice. Our founding fathers did not want what they saw In Europe repeated. Giant cathedrals were built with tax dollars and the people resented it, and their religion with it. The first amendment guarantees that this history and oppression over controversial beliefs will not be repeated.

So I know what you are saying. political parties are not a religion. This is true, but I see my job as a sacred trust. My job is to teach students to think, not teach them what to think. My students need to be able to make judgments for themselves. If they must be influenced by someone, then I would prefer that, that someone be their parents. I do not desire to alienate those students who would disagree with my perspective. It is my desire to influence as many of students as possible to think critically. If I take a position, then I want my students to see it as an opportunity to argue with me. I want them to challenge me and be challenged in an environment where there are rules and safety. In this laboratory of kindness students will be able to explore their political, religious and ethnic values in a way where they can make up their own minds with the primary influence from their parents. I will vote tomorrow, for the person who I believe will take us on a systemic course to preserve the free enterprise system, and restore the middle class so that my grandchildren will have the same opportunities that I did when they are able to make their mark.

Are you going to vote tomorrow? If you do, and you should, remember that high school teacher that taught you how to think, not what to think. :)