The corporate media is brutally honest on rare occasions. Take for
example a
recent article in The New York Times Magazine, titled The Teachers' Union's Last Stand (05-23-10). (Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
The title itself is surprisingly sincere, since it admits that the
nation's
teachers are being targeted for attack by the Obama Administration,
through his
"Race to the Top" education reform. And although the article has an
inherently
corporate bias, it contains many revelations that have been otherwise
ignored
in the mainstream media.
The article outlines the two contending forces behind the national
education
"debate": the corporate "reformers" and the "anti-change" teacher
unions. Who
are the reformers? The New York Times answers:
""high-powered foundations, like the [Bill] Gates Foundation" and
wealthy
entrepreneurs, who have poured seed money into charter schools."
Top on the list of objectives for the reformers -- Democrats and
corporate
groups -- is the creation of charter schools, which stand in total
opposition to
public education. The New York Times article speaks at length about the
biggest
obstacle to the charter school "movement" -- the teachers' unions.
Examples are given on a state-by-state level where teachers' unions have
stalled or defeated attempts of the corporate-backed "reformers" to
shift
public funding towards private charter schools.
But the article also mentions instances where teachers' unions have made
shameful concessions to the reformers, such as in Washington, D.C., Tennessee, and Rhode Island. The main concession is the
job
security of teachers. How is the job security of teachers and the
creation of
charter schools related?
Because teachers' unions are the biggest obstacle to the creation of
private
charter schools, unions must be undermined. Unions are powerful because
union
members cannot be fired for engaging in political activity. Union
workers are
thus able to help organize their workforce and communities to pursue
political
objectives -- such as saving public education -- without fear of being
fired.
Destroying teacher seniority is thus the primary goal of the corporate
education
reformers. This is the hidden motive behind all the media attention
towards
"firing bad teachers." The reformers want the ability to fire any
teacher at
any time, consequently undermining teachers' unions.
Thus, teachers are supposed to be rewarded -- by keeping their jobs or
with
raises -- based on their students' abilities to achieve high test scores,
regardless of the number of children in the classroom, or the poverty
level of
the students, or whether or not enough classroom materials exist to do
the
job.
Sadly, the President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Randy
Weingarten, has agreed to abandon teacher job security in recent
bargaining
negotiations. The New York Times reports:
" [The Washington, D.C.] contract"now makes it possible" to fire any
teacher
with tenure"if the teacher is evaluated as "ineffective" for one year or
"minimally effective" for two years. The criteria used to define
"ineffective"
or "minimally effective" are, according to another clause, "a
nonnegotiable item"
determined solely by [school administrators]."
Language like this will be used to destroy teachers' unions. School
administrators will determine that union activist teachers are
"ineffective,"
those teachers that criticize work conditions will be labeled "minimally
effective," etc.
If Weingarten thinks that making this kind of concession will quiet the
demands
of the "reformers," she will need to think again. Giving sharks tidbits
merely
sends them into a feeding frenzy.
Indeed, the frenzied demands of the corporate groups to privatize public
education are more than Weingarten can keep up with. The other, larger
national
teacher union, the National Education Association, has yet to make the
large
concessions Weingarten's AFT has.