Charter teachers receive "psychic salary"

Ohio's largest professional teachers organization, OEA, at their recent spring representative assembly, overwhelmingly voted to allow for the organization of charter school teachers in Ohio. Unthinkable mere years ago, but after a long hard battle over collective bargaining rights, the teachers and education support professionals enshrined rhetoric into core belief and action. A belief that all employees have the right to representation and bargaining, even those who work in charter schools that OEA has long opposed.

The reaction from the charter school apologists has been predictable, but Bill Sims, president and CEO of the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools had the best response

"Of course this is something that has always been possible, but I would say that it's easier said than done," he said in an interview. "Charter schools are smaller entities, they're more personalized, and teachers tend to feel more positively connected to management with defined grievance procedures and participation in the mission and strategic plan of the school.

"There tends to be more resistance or less interest in charter schools for this sort of thing. Charter school teachers often are making less than district teachers but because they tend to be smaller schools, with smaller classrooms, less bureaucracy, they officer[sic] a pay in 'psychic salary' that more often than not makes up the difference."

Psychic pay! Why would charter school teachers want to give up their low salaries and psychic pay for better working conditions, smaller class sizes, better benefits and equitable pay? Let's take a look at this so called "more personalized environment, where teachers tend to feel more positively connected to management", with this first person recount of working for White Hat management

With buildings being shut down and teachers being canned in droves across the state, White Hat seemed to be the only place hiring. I was brought on board as an academic adviser. It seemed like a pretty cool gig at the time; I would be helping students graduate, via phone and e-mail, from a cubicle farm in downtown Akron.

On my first day at OHDELA, I was shown to my cube, given a large gray binder, and ordered to copy my own training manual. One week later, promptly at 8 a.m., a huge pile of messy files and the educational fates of 150 students were handed down to me by four overworked and mentally scattered advisers. It was the beginning of the school year. Enrollment was picking up rapidly. The little online high school was approaching an enrollment of 1,500 kids -- with a staff of only 30 to 40 teachers and advisers to steer their education.
[…]
My job at Mr. Brennan's gerbil cage was contacting students and parents every two weeks, telemarketer-style, and attempting to hold kids accountable for their progress. More often than not, there was no progress at all for a variety of excuses -- valid and not -- concocted by students who seemed less interested in their educational well-being than I was. Faced with choosing between the importance of their education and the irresistible allure of the Xbox, the odds weren't good.

So every day at 8 a.m., I strapped into my headset and launched into my 30-plus Cheerleader/Bad Guy phone calls, for 11 bucks an hour with zero benefits.

Nothing says "personalized environment" like a 6 by 6 cubicle. But what of having "less bureaucracy" to make the day go faster and the work more rewarding? Back to our story

White Hat, meanwhile, seemed more preoccupied with charting spreadsheets, calculating endless employee performance measures, appeasing streams of irate mothers, and raking in cold, hard state cash.

Organizationally speaking, it was a nightmare on steroids. The place was built on a lopsided pyramid of spreadsheets, spreadsheets, and more spreadsheets. I was given the daily task of updating huge Excel workbooks with student data and test scores. Copies would circulate throughout the office, so that no two staff members had the same information about one student.

Every morning I arrived to stare eight more hours of drudgery in the face. It was one of those jobs that are traumatic to any creative, intelligent mind. I had to admit to myself that it really was nothing but a poorly run credit factory with killer marketing.

I've never witnessed lower morale at a workplace. Rumors circulated, cliques gossiped, managers took sides, and everyone had a cynical attitude toward the company. Many of the young, inexperienced teachers were hired straight out of college or after long bouts of trying to find "real teaching jobs." They became resigned to their roles as cubicle slaves, with no control over the material they "taught."

It does make you wonder if Bill Sims, president and CEO of the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools, has ever stepped foot in a charter school, or talked to someone who has worked there. But Mr. Simms wasn't the only apologist painting charter schools with the rosy brush. Fordham had an opinion piece titled "Why unionized charters would be a setback for Ohio’s school improvement efforts" that set up their argument against organizing charter schools by first erecting a straw-man

But, would unionized charter schools be good for students?

Successful charters work because they are flexible and constantly seek improvements to how they do things. They deploy funds, teachers, time, materials, and technology in different ways to impact student achievement. High-performing charter schools almost always display strong cultures, astute and driven leaders, dedicated teachers, coherent curricula, shared responsibility, and a sense of common purpose. Successful schools know their students and address their needs. In fact, one of the strongest arguments for charter schools is that they are expected to be different. Collective bargaining agreements put constraints on all these factors that lead to success and impede not only innovation but seek conformity across schools.

Successful charters are a rare breed in Ohio. The bottom 113 ranked schools in Ohio are all charters. Fordham themselves, in a preceding post titled "Accountability and perspective needed for drop-out recovery charters" acknowledge that charter quality is often very low and in desperate need of improvement and accountability.

No one is arguing that a charter school contract has to be identical, or as comprehensive as a traditional school's - in fact they are often quite different and more limited in nature. Opponents and proponents alike ought to read the entire Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) study on this matter.

Price examined nine charter schools unionized either by management design or by teacher vote. For comparison, he examined traditional district contracts and analyzed data from non-unionized charter schools as well. He found that the new contracts can be crafted in ways that respect the unique missions and priorities of charter schools, provide teachers with basic protections, and maintain organizational flexibility. However, while these new contracts innovate in many ways, they could go much further given the opportunity to create contracts from scratch.

That sure sounds a lot better than mystical "psychic pay", doesn't it?

Cleveland teachers advance the way forward

According to an excellent news report in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Cleveland Teachers Union (CTU) just wiped away all of Frank Jackson's empty rhetoric for why he would not involve teachers in the development of his plan, by presenting a clear set of workable alternatives, that advances the way forward for Cleveland schools..

Whether educators express it through massive surveys, or actual deeds, they continue to prove a deep commitment to reforms that lead to quality learning for students. Cleveland teachers, with their clear set of alternative, have demonstrated that too.

Just a week ago, less than 24 hours after Jackson released his plan, he was complaining that he didn't have a response from CTU. We could be petty and point out that Jackson has now had CTU's proposals for nearly a week and still hasn't gotten around to reading them.

"I'm not in a negotiation or compromise mode," Jackson said. "I'm in an outcome mode. If I'm wrong in how I'm proposing to get there, tell me how I should do it. I'll do anything that gets us the outcome."

Jackson was unwilling to say whether CTU's plan offered the kind of change he wants, but said that "my expectation is that there is something that we have a deeper dive on in terms of conversation and details."

School district Chief Executive Officer Eric Gordon said he has also not had time to review the plan in detail but is "hopeful."

We suggest he and his team now make that a priority. The alternatives put forward by CTU are based upon research and principles that work, and provide for a fair way forward. If Jackson is unable to begin to compromise now he has a credible and clear way forward, it should become crystal clear to all that his objections are political, not pedagogical.

Below is a table of comparisons between current policy, Jackson's plan and the way forward presented by Cleveland teachers.

Seniority
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
Until the summer of 2013, seniority is the deciding factor in layoffs and recalls. Teachers with short-term, or limited contracts, are laid off first, but based on seniority, then teachers with tenure, or continuing contracts, are laid off based on seniority. When CTU's contract expires in 2013, a 2011 law makes teacher evaluations the deciding factor. Teachers with limited contracts will be laid off based on evaluations, then teachers with continuing contracts based on evaluations. Seniority is used only as a tiebreaker between teachers in the same pool.	Mirrors the budget bill by making teacher performance the main factor in layoffs and recalls, but removes the distinction between a continuing and limited contract except as a tiebreaker. Also adds other factors to determine the ranking of teachers, including recent teaching assignments and specialties.	Would create eight "buckets" that would divide teachers first by their evaluation (ratings of 1 to 4, with 1 being the lowest) and then by seniority. Teachers with the lowest rating and a limited contract would be laid off first, followed by teachers with the lowest rating and a continuing contract, then teachers with the second-lowest rating and a limited contract, then the second-lowest rating and a continuing contract, and so on.
Merit pay
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The contract pays teachers based on their experience and education level, with bonuses for extra duties. Last year's state budget bill required districts to include teacher ratings in their salary schedules but did not specify to what degree.	Jackson wants to make performance a major part of a "differentiated compensation" plan for teacher pay that pays more for higher performance, extra duties or teaching subjects where there is a teacher shortage or in troubled schools. The proposed law would mandate that this plan prevail over any new contract.	The union has issues with the wording of this part of the legislation. It did not raise objections to the compensation plan itself.
Evaluations
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The district is testing a plan that mirrors statewide requirements to have an evaluation system that measures teachers half on academic growth of students and half on other factors. The state requires a plan for all districts by the 2013-14 school year, but Cleveland is a year ahead of that timetable.	Reaffirms that plan but offers some flexibility in timing.	Teachers and the district mostly agree. Teachers want any law changes on evaluation to include extra training and support for teachers who fall short, and to be sure that evaluators are properly trained. They also don't want to jeopardize the federal Race to The Top grant the district and others are using to develop the plan.
Firing
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The district can seek to fire a teacher for poor teaching after either a year-long review process by the principal, or after following that year with a year of peer review and assistance through a system the union has helped set up. Teachers can also be fired for other behavior.	Would allow a teacher to be fired for having the lowest evaluation rating two years in a row. Jackson also wants the system to move faster. His plan would give teachers short-term contracts that the district can simply choose not to renew.	The teachers union believes the current plan or one developed by its national union is just as fast and effective as Jackson's. Its plan includes help for teachers with low performance ratings before they are fired.
New collective bargaining agreements
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The old contract between CTU and the district guides all new negotiations, and the contract includes several rules on specific issues that roll over in the new contracts.	Jhrows out the previous contract and all previous rules and would start negotiations from scratch. If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, the district could impose a contract rather than reverting to the old one.	The union objects entirely to this proposal. It proposes instead creating a new contract that starts from scratch for three specialty schools within the district, Campus International and two MC2 STEM schools, and it would be in place by July 2013. Those schools would be exempt from layoff and recall rules that apply to the rest of the district.
Tenure/continuing contracts
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
Teachers can apply for a continuing contract after three or seven years of service, depending on when they were hired, and their removal becomes much harder after that. If teachers meet experience and continuing education rules, continuing contracts are generally granted.	All new teachers would not be eligible for continuing contracts and existing teachers would have strict limitations on applying for them. Even then, continuing contracts would be granted at the discretion of the CEO and school board.	The union completely opposes the plan, saying that if the district does not offer job security, it will be at a recruiting and hiring disadvantage.
Reforming low-performing schools
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The law allows reallocation of resources, redesigning academic programs or giving extra assistance to students. The district and CTU must negotiate any changes in work rules or hours. The two sides have reached agreements for some schools in the last few years.	The district CEO would have wide authority to close or reshape a school. The CEO could lay off or fire teachers or change the length of the school year or day in order to reorganize the school.	The teachers union wants to forbid the layoff or firing of teachers just because they work in a low-performing school, regardless of their individual performance. It proposes turning low performing schools into "New Generation" schools that would focus on failing students in the third through seventh grades. Those schools could have a year-round calendar, an extended school day and work with social services agencies.
Union presence in district-sponsored charter schools
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
If a district converts a school to a charter school, a 2011 law allows it to exempt the school from any unions as soon as the current contract for that union expires.	Jackson sought this change last year so his plan does not propose anything further.	The union wants to repeal the rule. It also wants more leeway to try to organize teachers in any charter school sponsored by a district. This would let teachers at the district-sponsored Breakthrough charter schools talk with CTU without fear of reprisals and possibly unionize.

Teacher evaluations are becoming big business for private companies

New education reforms often translate into big money for private groups. Following the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, states paid millions of dollars annually for companies to develop and administer the standardized tests required under the law. Companies also cashed in on a provision mandating tutoring for students at struggling schools.

Now, a movement to overhaul the teaching profession is creating another source of revenue for those in the business of education. More than half of states are changing their laws to factor student test scores into teacher evaluations and adding requirements for the classroom observations used to rate teachers. The main intent of the new laws is to identify which teachers are doing a good, bad, or mediocre job and to help them improve. One early outcome of such recent legislation, however, is a booming market that sells services and products to help states and school districts scrambling to meet the new standards.

“It’s an incredibly heavy lift for states,” says Sandi Jacobs, vice president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group. “Some have contracted out big pieces of it, whether it’s someone internal in the state or an outside provider.”

Nonprofit groups and for-profit companies alike are vying for contracts to design evaluations, train teachers and principals to use them, and set up online platforms to help sort the data that schools will be collecting. Private foundation money is subsidizing some of the contracts, but districts are also spending millions of public dollars, much of it from the Obama administration’s $4.3 billion “Race to the Top” initiative.

[readon2 url="http://prospect.org/article/campus-cash"]Continue reading...[/readon2]

Public Employees saved $1billion for tax payers

A new report has looked at collective bargaining compromises in Ohio and found that public employees have saved their employers and taxpayers a substantial amount of money (over $1 billion).

Among the findings:

• Public union workers have saved taxpayers $1,059,881,500 billion through collective bargaining concessions since 2008.
• Teachers and support staff accepted wage freezes in more than 90 percent of collective bargaining agreements this year – concessions not tallied in this report because they are not yet available.
• Last year, at least 65 percent of public employee contracts included at least 1 year of wage freezes, some furlough days, reduced compensation, rollovers or economic re-openers.
• Some of the lowest-paid public employees – non-teaching personnel such as custodians – have gone up to eight years without a pay increase in exchange for stable health care costs.
• A Warren police officer blames cuts in safety forces for the injuries he sustained while rescuing people from a burning building in which one person died.
• More than two-thirds of all teachers’ contracts increased employee insurance premium contributions or significantly changed their health plans, with the savings often used to improve educational opportunities for students.
• More than 93 percent of public workers already pay for their own pension contribution, with no pick-up from their employers.
• On average, county and state employees pay more than 15 percent for their health care plans.

Public Employees Shared Sacrifice Report

When endorsements go wrong

Toledo Mayor Mike Bell (I), is probably regretting his ill-conceived endorsement of SB5 right about now. No sooner had his claims about the benefits of SB5 been debunked as nonsense, and it revealed he was laid off as a firefighter before collective bargaining existed, now the attention he has brought himself has landed him in some ethical hot water.

The chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party has asked the Ohio Ethics Commission to investigate the $656,000 in federal grants and loans the city of Toledo has awarded to a development company owned by Mayor Mike Bell's niece.

In a brief letter yesterday, Chris Redfern, the party's chairman, formally requested the ethics commission "to commence an investigation into the contractual relationship that exists between the City of Toledo and Shayla Bell."

Ms. Bell, 27, started Fort Industry Development shortly after her uncle took office in January, 2010. Since then, the city has awarded Ms. Bell's company five contracts to buy, rehabilitate, and sell foreclosed homes. The rehabilitation work itself is performed by a general contractor. Fort Industry also is to receive two more contracts, which would bring the total close to $1 million.

"I think it's clear that Shayla Bell wouldn't have received one penny if her last name wasn't Bell," Mr. Redfern said.

City officials dispute that claim. Mayor Bell has said his niece earned the contracts on her own initiative with no assistance from him. She had to qualify with the city's neighborhoods department to begin receiving the contracts.

She had no prior construction or development experience, but she teamed up with two businessmen from an established commercial and industrial glass company in creating Fort Industry. That gave the firm the experiences and financial wherewithal to qualify for the program, neighborhoods department staff has said.

Is it any wonder that people are sick and tired of politicians taking care of themselves and their special interests while attacking hard working people?

Vote NO on Issue 2

Vote NO on Issue 2

Having broken records to be placed on the November 8th ballot, SB5 will now be known to voters as Issue 2, with a NO vote required for its repeal. This is how it will appear to the voters

Issue 2 Referendum

A majority yes vote is necessary for Amended Substitute Senate Bill No. 5 to be approved.

Amended Substitute Senate Bill No. 5 is a new law relative to government union contracts and other government employment contracts and policies.

A “YES” vote means you approve the law.
A “NO” vote means you reject the law.

The Ohio ballot board, made up of 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats and the Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) acting as chair, met for 7 hours to determine the title and lauguage of 3 issues.

Issue 2 was taken last, and the final 10 minute recess before voting turned into a 2 hour meeting, behind closed doors, amongst the Republican board members and staff members from the Republican House Caucus. Over the last hundred years, all 12 efforts to repeal legislation have required a No vote, yet Republicans lobbied Secretary of State Husted hard to try to change the voting requirements from a NO for repeal to a confusing Yes.

To his credit, Husted held fast and in the end the board voted unanimously to uphold over 100 years of precedent and the constitution.

On November 8th, 2011 voters should be urged to vote NO on Issue 2 and repeal the unfair SB5, before it hurts the middle class and creates unsafe working conditions.