The University of Missouri system has been besieged with angry letters and phone calls, and top officials at its St. Louis campus have asked an adjunct faculty member to resign, as a result of the conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart’s posting videos this week that appear to show two labor-studies instructors advocating union violence.

The videos, however, were a “hatchet Job”.

Yet, “both Mr. Giljum and Ms. Ancel [the instructors] said they have been barraged with angry phone calls and letters, and Mr. Giljum said he has received explicit death threats over the phone.”

I assume the contradiction does not go unnoticed. The story continues:

If Mr. Breitbart’s Web site has broadcast a misleadingly edited video, it would hardly be the first time. The site is notorious for having put up the video that purported to show a Department of Agriculture official, Shirley Sherrod, saying she had discriminated against a white farmer, when a review of her comments in context show that she said no such thing. (Ms. Sherrod, who was forced to resign after the video came out, has sued Mr. Breitbart.)

Mr. Breitbart’s Web site also publicized the 2009 hidden-camera videos of employees of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn, which appear to show the employees advising a pimp and prostitute on how to deceive the IRS about their activities and income. Law-enforcement officials who investigated the allegations have said the videos were edited to make it look as if the employees were actively engaged in wrongdoing when, in fact, they were not.

Mr. Breitbart had indicated in an April 18 interview on Hannity, Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News, that he planned to “go after” educators and their union organizers.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Recent news confirms what we have known for a long time: change is coming, and it doesn’t look good. But a key part of contending with change — good or bad — is to step back and analyze how that change is legitimated. In the case of the attack on the right to organize, much can be learned if one examines how the matter is framed and justified.

The nature of the right to organize

Key to attacking teachers is disinformation regarding teachers and their rights. By definition, a right cannot be given or taken away. It is a valid, legitimate claim based in the existence of the holder of the claim. Rights, by their very nature, are not “granted” on the basis of performance, ability, opinion, or any other consideration. I have the right to participate in decision making about matters that affect me, like my working conditions, the condition of my community, the economy in general, etc…whether or not I’m good at math, nice to my neighbors or have friends in high places. I have that right by virtue of being a member of that community, that economy, that workplace. Whether that right is recognized is in practice quite different from whether or not it exists.

So, even if the existence of unions are shown to correlate with some malady, this correlation does not correctly justify attacking a basic right, like that of a group of people with common interests to come together to defend those interests. Does the existence of teachers unions make it harder for administrators to do their job? Sometimes. Does that justify attacking teachers’ right to organize? Absolutely not. This logic would suggest that we should throw harder to educate kids out of school because they make the school’s job harder. Rights establish the boundaries for the negotiation of contending interests, a process which should be governed by the aim of harmonizing those interests, not empowering one group of people at the expense of another as current rhetoric suggests.

So think of it this way, as the right to organize in terms of unions is not simply a matter of “labor rights” but basic to democratic rights in general. Involving all constituencies in making a decision takes longer, is probably a drain on social resources, and might even be properly rendered as “inefficient”. Should we thus abandon the hope that society can be democratically organized? Does this fact negate the claim to have a say over matters that affect our lives? If the process for firing ineffective teachers is burdensome is expanding arbitrary authority of CEO-types with their brooms and bats really a solution? I don’t believe the vast majority of Americans want to wake up in a world run by these broom and bat wielding people.

I hope that these quickly-formulated thought exercises reveal that the logic behind proposals to outlaw or at least largely emasculate collective bargaining are very dangerous. One proposal in fact appears to block teachers from having a say over education policy — so, teachers are key to improving the quality of education, but they should be barred from decision-making (collective bargaining is a decision-making arrangement) about the very thing they are to lead improving? Not convinced?

Certainly, lurking in the public mind is this retort: “yeah, but the teachers are all self interested.” And the billionaires driving school deformation strategies premised on a for-profit model which requires cheap, temporary labor are what, generous and selfless? But let’s actually be serious. What does it mean to be self interested?

Teachers working conditions are students learning conditions

The line that outlawing teachers unions is required so that school boards and parents can be empowered is lunacy. Parents are not empowered if the teachers that teach their children are treated like shit. School boards are not representing the interests of their community if they treat teachers like shit.

More to the point, the line that the problem is that teachers unions only serve the interests of teachers needs to be interrogated. Is self interest wrong? Why is it wrong or socially harmful to want higher wages, better healthcare, and small class sizes, rest and leisure and assurance of being cared for during retirement?

That sounds terrible! I’ll sign up instead for the work camp where I can salute the master every day, as my body cripples and spirit is crushed under the mighty pressure of standards gaps and evaluation evaluation assessments data driven decision-less making brain-numbing ignorance of the 6,000 pound gorilla who just got laid off, has no healthcare and is being evicted, with three children, all of whom are not meeting “benchmark” (although they might be sleeping under the bench, which is not one of the marks). (And, of course, because the gorilla is sooo big, it can’t choose to even live under the bridge, let alone the bench.)

It is a material fact that teachers working conditions are students learning conditions. That is, teachers self interest is connected to their students’ interests. Students under the tutelage of teachers who are themselves under the thumb of a broom or bat totting CEO with unbridled power to hire and fire at will and extend the working day and increase class size at will (all so they can be “empowered to strategically use resources” — i.e., cut costs) will not be served well. Period. Teachers and parents and tax payers have well over one hundred years of experience fighting for real public education. I know its tough, but we need to remember: teachers are tax payers. Teachers are parents. And teachers are mostly women.

So laid out this way, someone is going to have a hell of a time convincing the public that the self-interest of women is somehow fundamentally at odds with parents and the community, and that to counter this, we should put “students first”…because, uh, women are opposed to helping children, and benefit from, uh, illiterate, poorly educated youth?

You know what, I think its time the public eye scrutinized another collective — not teachers, or women, or parents — a much smaller collective, a collective for whom its self interest does not in fact correlate with the general interest!

Bill, Eli, are you there?

Related Posts:

• Thousand Demonstrate Against California Education Cuts
• Evidence on the quality of for-profit higher education?
• Stephen Sawchuk: States Aim to Curb Collective Bargaining
• Anthony Cody: Teachers Beware — They are Coming for Our Pensions
• Inside Higher Ed: For-Profit Colleges Open Another Front

The first site known to be blocked is that of Susan Ohanian. A veteran teacher and author of 23 books, Ohanian has been an active and vocal critic of high stakes testing, the No Child Left Behind legislation, and what she describes as the “politico-corporate takeover of curriculum” (http://susanohanian.org). In 2003, Ohanian reported concerns of teachers from more than one Aldine High School “that some administrators are manipulating testing criteria for students taking the state mandated TAAS and TAKS examinations for the purpose of achieving Recognized or Exemplary ratings which affect the amount of bonus and promotion opportunities for administrators within the district.”

The second site blocked by Aldine is that of the Institute for Language and Education Policy, a “newly formed nonprofit organization,” which describes itself as “dedicated to promoting research-based policies in serving English and heritage language learners…We are teachers, administrators, researchers, professors, students, and others who believe that the time for advocacy is now.” The organization openly challenges the direction the Obama administration is heading, including what they describe as the “test-and-punish approach”. The organization challenges visitors to think about the impact of this direction: “Reform, change, innovation, and other pleasing generalities are in the air and on the lips of the President and his education advisers. Virtually no one on any side of today’s policy debates would oppose these goals in principle. But what will the words mean in practice?” (http://www.elladvocates.org/)

The message received by those attempting to access either of these websites from computers on Aldine’s network reads: “Access to this web page is restricted at this time. Your attempt to access the requested site may be in violation of Aldine ISD policy and has been restricted by the Technology Services Department. Site Category: ‘Education;Political/Activist Groups’”

Participants on the email listserv have challenged Aldine, raising important concerns about the responsibility of government to the public. “This may be [the result of] some site-blocking software, but it seems highly unlikely. Let’s not forget that Aldine ISD and all the other public schools are formally arms of the local governments (and, it could be argued, the state governments). They cannot censor wily-nilly. In this case, I would very much want to know their formal reason for blocking “Education; Political/Activist Groups”, in general, and for classifying any particular site under that label, specifically,” writes Victor Steinbok.

According to Ohanian, Aldine was one of six districts selected in 2007 by the Center for Reform of School Systems to participate in Reform Governance in Action (RGA), described as “a comprehensive two-year training program for school boards and superintendents…. The RGA program is an effort underwritten by the Eli Broad Foundation and the Meadows Foundation to support and encourage reform-minded leadership in school districts across the country. School Boards enrolled in RGA will study ways to better serve their constituents’ needs, how institute effective policy, and how to create and implement a cogent transformation plan.”

Education Week described the school as follows: “Aldine is striking because the district leaves so little to chance when it comes to student success…. It takes little time for a visitor to Aldine to see the heavy emphasis that is placed on preparation for state tests. Computer programs scroll through lists of practice questions. Printers spit out scores for teachers to review. Timed practice quizzes help students prepare for the real thing.”

Related Posts:

• The Common Core: Whose Standards Are They?
• Are Charter Schools Public Schools?
• Bruce Baker: Smart Guy (Gates) makes my list of “Dumbest Stuff I’ve Ever Read!”
• Teachers have a right to unionize
• Inside Higher Ed: For-Profit Colleges Open Another Front

On March 10, 2009, President Obama gave a major speech before the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce outlining his plans for education. During the speech, Obama emphasized the presence of and showed his support for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, and Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis. Duncan was highlighted as an enforcer of “innovation” through his executive use of monetary “incentives” given to him through the recent stimulus package (ARRA).

A main feature of the speech was to use the current economic crisis to further push the test-prep for global competition agenda. He called for more high-stakes testing along with “national standards”, more corporate-style charter schools, financially rewarding teachers who produce high test scores, as well as other changes such as extending the school day and year (an initiative that is not only linked to “closing the achievement gap” but also linked to eliminating unions and collective bargaining, as contracts block corporate charter schools from imposing sweatshop conditions on young teachers). These initiatives are taken up under the banner that education be limited to “prepare every child, everywhere in America, to out-compete any worker, anywhere in the world.” Other countries, Obama claims, are “spending less time teaching things that don’t matter, and more time teaching things that do. They’re preparing their students not only for high school or college, but for a career. We are not.” While many critics focus energy on debating Obama’s claims with respect to U.S. graduation rates, international testing, etc., the real problem is the aim of global competition that is given to education.

Most Americans have rejected the notion that they should prosper at the expense of the world’s peoples. And, after eight years of the testing requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, public opinion is clearly against sending children to school to prepare for arbitrary tests so as to serve the monopolies in their quest to win “global competition”. Public opinion is also clearly in favor of more art, music, media, physical education, and so on, all which continue to be cut to make space for testing. According to a recent study prepared for the Alliance for Childhood, test preparation now dominates the kindergarten experience.

While many themes are present in the speech, the emphasis given to the American Dream is particularly significant as an effort to restore credibility of the U.S. as “land of opportunity.” In fact, Obama began his presentation by chanting “Si se puede,” (yes we can), a popular slogan defending the rights of immigrants in response to on-going government attacks. But Obama did not speak of winning rights in his speech. He instead spoke to re-invigorate the American Dream, presenting his ascension to power as evidence of the vitality of the Dream. After pointing to current economic crises and presenting some statistics about the failure of the U.S. education system to compete with the rest of the world, He said:

What’s at stake is nothing less than the American Dream. It’s what drew my father and so many of your fathers and mothers to our shores in pursuit of an education. It’s what has led generations of Americans to take on that extra job, to sacrifice the small pleasures, to scrimp and save wherever they can, in hopes of putting away enough, just enough, to give their child the education that they never had. It’s that most American of ideas, that with the right education, a child of any race, any faith, any station, can overcome whatever barriers stand in their way and fulfill their God-given potential.

In order to confront the current economic crisis, Obama imposes on Americans the past, with their role to protect “the dream of its founding for posterity.” “This is a responsibility that’s fallen to our generation,” he said.

Obama’s emphasis on the American Dream is significant in part because Americans increasingly see the Dream as just that: only a dream. In 2006, a CNN poll reported “that more than half of those surveyed, 54 percent, considered the American Dream unachievable.” In 2008 this trend continued. The American Dream in the Balance survey reported, “Only 52 percent believed that the American Dream was alive and well. Similarly only 48 percent said that the American Dream was an important part of their family history.” After reading Obama’s speech, one has the impression that being identified as not believing in the American Dream is somehow anti-American and a threat. “To any student who’s watching,” Obama threatens, “I say this: Don’t even think about dropping out of school. Don’t even think about it.”

Having just rewarded Wall Street failures with trillions of public dollars Obama says, speaking of education: “I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences. The stakes are too high.” This points not simply to Obama’s double standard but to the problem he is trying to solve. How to secure the allegiance of the American people to a system that denies their rights, while simultaneously training them to accept the blame for things they have no control over.

A major thesis of the speech is that low quality education has resulted in the Dream being unattainable for many. Teachers, students and parents are, in turn, blamed for low quality education. “Despite resources that are unmatched anywhere in the world,” Obama asserts, ignoring the vast inequalities in school funding across the U.S., “we’ve let our grades slip, our schools crumble, our teacher quality fall short, and other nations outpace us.” Repeating the Bush doctrine that the problem is the attitudes of students, teachers and parents, he says: “It’s time to expect more from our students. It’s time to start rewarding good teachers, stop making excuses for bad ones.” Students, who inherit this crisis-ridden system, are actually blamed for America’s decline: “America cannot succeed unless our students take responsibility for their own education,” Obama says. And for parents: “Teachers, no matter how dedicated or effective, cannot make sure your child leaves for school on time and does their homework when they get back at night.”

These admonitions reflect a profound detachment from the problems facing most people, ignoring the growing, crushing poverty and economic insecurity, segregation, police brutality, and all the attending social and health problems from violence to asthma to lead poisoning. The system of unequal funding is completely ignored and will actually flourish under Duncan’s corporate charter model. In short, Americans are to ignore their experience of a government that denies rights as a matter of course, demanding that more and more people go without, while working longer and harder, if they can find a job. They are to ignore the fact that society has developed to the point where needs of all can be readily met. Instead of taking rights as a starting point, Obama calls on Americans to “to scrimp and save wherever they can” and ensure children show up at school on time!

The blame placed on teachers, students and parents is to be made acceptable with the detached “positive psychology” of “anything is possible if you try”. The call “yes we can” win rights by immigrant groups is transformed by Obama into a demand to pull oneself up by their bootstraps…or else, where academic failure is rendered as a threat to America: “dropping out is quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country, and it’s not an option — not anymore.”

Given the widespread rejection of the direction Obama and Duncan are pushing education, the new administration has resorted to bribes to push people to do what they would otherwise not do. This is referred to by Obama as “incentivising excellence,” a fanatical pragmatism that says whatever gets test scores up and dropouts down is acceptable (and this includes fudging the data), no matter how vile. If perverting learning by offering money for grades “works” (that is, raises test scores), it is acceptable; if humiliating students “works” to “raise achievement” than humiliation is acceptable. If military academies “work” that is fine too.

What is significant, however, is not simply the manner in which this violates rights and in no way will contribute to raising the level of education, but also how it facilitates shoring up the power of executive federal bodies over state and local authorities. Obama presents in his speech a model where federal monies will only be appropriated to those education agencies that toe the line. He says: “Show us how you’ll work to ensure that children are better prepared for success by the time they enter kindergarten. If you do, we will support you with an Early Learning Challenge Grant…That’s how we will reward quality and incentivize excellence, and make a down payment on the success of the next generation.” Arne Dunacn has been given $5 billion to bribe educators into more testing, more corporate charters, and more anti-human teaching methods which can only be understood as methods for socializing the next generation to accept arbitrary executive power against the public interest.

Related Posts:

• Remarks by the President to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on a Complete and Competitive American Education
• Obama’s speech at Hampton University commencement
• Remarks by the President on the “Education To Innovate” Campaign
• Remarks by the President on Strengthening America’s Education System
• President Obama’s Speech to the NAACP Centennial Convention

“Was there ever a time in the history of public education that the guaranteed right of each member was the driving force?”

The short answer is no, but it is an unsatisfactory answer because it does not deal with the meat of the question.

Rights exist. Consciousness of their existence and the ability, objectively, of a society to meet or guarantee those rights, varies across historical time and space. We could say that the only reason we are even speaking of rights is because we are conscious of our needs, but realize they are not met. If rights were realized, we would not be having this discussion…the only reason we have the conception is because of the gulf between the reality that they exist and could be met, while society has yet to meet them.

The content of rights varies with historical epoch and culture, which is not to say it is relative. High school and even college are rights now because that level of education is what is required for full participation and to be a responsible member of society. This makes no sense for the Iroquois of the 18th century, or a colonial settlement.

The ability of the present society to provide all members with a high school education is not in question. Yet, this is not happening. This does not mean that rights don’t exist, but that society has yet to develop – the demand that education is a right is a demand that helps push the society to improve!

Here’s a thought experiment that helps with rights. Take a spider plant (I love those because anyone can maintain them, they have lots of babies, and are generally cool looking). If the spider plant does not get enough water, it will die. Not getting enough water does not change the fact that the spider plant needs the water. Its need for the water is a feature of its being. The need for education is a feature of our being. The level and character of the education needed depends on the level of development of the society, which of course includes the consciousness of its members; it is also always changing.

The more folks claim education as a right, the more conscious they are of it as a need or requirement for living. African Americans, for example, have contributed greatly to this struggle by making this claim to education (note the idea of “equal educational opportunity” is a poorly formulated version of education is a right) central to the fight for rights in general.

Related Posts:

• Teachers have a right to unionize
• “Best Urban School District in America” Blocks Access to Websites Critical of “Education Reform”
• Education is A Right, Not a Dream: Obama Speech before the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce