The powers behind education “reform”
LEO CASEY accuses me of caricaturing his argument about education reform when I summarize his view that a corporate education reform movement doesn't exist. Casey, an official at the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), contends that there are important differences in the ruling class about education reform--for example, over the mania for standardized tests.
Certainly, there are differences in the ed reform camp. The Walton Foundation, run by the family that controls Wal-Mart, along with test publishers like Pearson, want to tap the half-trillion-dollar market for public education, and will back most any "reform" that furthers that aim. Others, like billionaires Bill Gates and Eli Broad, are more interested in restructuring public education to boost the international competiveness of U.S. capitalism.
Thus, the Broad Institute trains administrators who seek to impose corporate managerial "best practices" on public education, while the Gates Foundation prefers to shower grant money on school districts--and union locals--who embrace punitive and unworkable teacher evaluation systems to boost teacher productivity. The AFT's Innovation Fund itself accepts grants from the Gates Foundation.
This approach only institutionalizes partnership with those who are committed to dismantling public education as we know it. For example, Chicago Schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett, currently overseeing the closure of 54 neighborhood schools, has chaired the AFT Innovation Fund's advisory board.
Nevertheless, in the view of top AFT officials, Gates' willingness to engage with unions makes him a viable partner, despite their differences. Hence, the Microsoft chair was the keynote speaker at the 2010 AFT convention. At that gathering, AFT President Randi Weingarten declared that the union must "lead and propose" on education reform.
The results of this approach have been disastrous. The AFT accepts tying teacher evaluations to student test scores and has abandoned the union's longstanding defense of job protections based on tenure and opposition to merit pay.
In Baltimore, AFT national staff helped push through a contract that resulted in a majority of teachers being subject to termination because of poor evaluations. In Newark, N.J., Weingarten applauded members signing a contract with merit pay funded by Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg, appearing alongside the arch-teacher-basher, Republican Gov. Chris Christie, to do so.
Weingarten also hailed another contract in Cleveland that channels tax dollars to nonunion charter schools and guts tenure. That deal was made in collaboration with another Republican governor, Ohio's John Kasich, who had tried to eliminate public sector bargaining in his state just months earlier.
Given all this, I'm puzzled that Leo Casey wants to lecture me about the differences in the corporate education reform camp. If there's anyone who has trouble in distinguishing the friends of public education from its enemies, it's his boss Randi Weingarten, who has rather more influence in such matters than I do.
While I welcome the chance to debate with Casey, his time would be better spent by talking with teachers in Chicago, where a strike against education reform succeeded by winning popular support. Casey should also pay attention to teachers in his home city of New York, where incumbent candidates for leadership in the United Federation of Teachers recently won re-election with what is probably a record low voter turnout--an indication of demoralization and lack of confidence in their union.
The teachers' unions, rather than look for allies in the education reform camp, ought to follow the Chicago example and mobilize to hold the line against them.
Lee Sustar, Chicago
