Statesmanship: Will it be a new course for CTA?
Sacramento Bee 1/3/07
But the California Teachers Association, the governor's biggest "special interest" bashee, which spent some $100 million to administer that mauling, changed course as well. And that change could be as significant as the governor's for both the schools and the state's political climate.
Along with CTA President Barbara Kerr, a key figure in that change was CTA government representative Joe Nuñez, who's also been a member of the state Board of Education for the past five years and who's up for reconfirmation by the state Senate tomorrow. Because of Nuñez's board votes against some liberal attempts to water down the state's academic standards, and because of some Republicans' itch to take a shot at the governor's reviving centrism, the outcome is uncertain.
Schwarzenegger, who lost big in 2005, had good reason to change course last year. His new good-guy role paid off big in his re-election in November. For the CTA, which won but had to raise all that money to do it, the change, although likewise a case of enlightened self-interest, was stunning.
Among conservatives -- and for many others as well -- the teacher unions have long been high on the list of roadblocks to school reform. It's a reputation that's often been richly deserved, particularly by the powerful National Education Association and by many of its state and local affiliates.
At the core of that intransigence lay the vestiges of an industrial unionism that was never a comfortable fit for organizations whose members wanted to be regarded as professionals, not as blue-collar assembly line workers.
In some instances, the American Federation of Teachers, the smaller of the two big unions, got beyond that 20 years ago. The slow-footed NEA, including the CTA, continued to resist efforts to implement differential pay or conditions based on need and performance.
Every member was supposed to work the same number of hours and get the same pay as everyone else with the same job seniority. The only deviation was not for performance but for formal training, which often means nothing.
But last May, as more money became available for schools, and as the school lobby negotiated a settlement of the lawsuit that grew out of what it regarded as the governor's failure to fully fund education in 2005, the CTA, much to the consternation of some of its education coalition partners, broke from the pattern.
Instead of demanding that the money be spread evenly as unrestricted funds to all schools -- which meant most would go on the bargaining table -- the union promoted a deal to direct the funds to the state's lowest performing schools, nearly all with high concentrations of poor and minority students. "We're putting our money," said Kerr, "where our heart is." Given the challenges in low achieving schools, "same is not equal."
The plan is hardly perfect. Much of the money will go to yet another class size reduction formula (of 25-to-1 or less) in grades 4-12 that was pulled out of a hat. (In grades K-3, the established 20-to-1 formula will remain in place.)
The money that's allocated, moreover, a total of roughly $3 billion spread over seven years beginning in 2007-2008, will only be enough for 40 percent of the estimated 1,600 low performing schools -- those in the bottom 20 percent on state scores -- that will be eligible for the additional money. In grades K-3, schools will get an additional $500 per student; in grades 4-8, they'll get $900; for grades 9-12, $1,000.
The state superintendent of schools and the governor's secretary of education will pick the schools from those that apply for approval by the state board. That, as the legislative analyst said, raises equity questions, especially since there are no specific criteria for picking the favored schools.
And yet the very fact that the CTA leadership pushed for greater focus on low performing schools and (at least temporarily) abandoned its industrial union fixation is a huge change. Among the elements of that change, all part of SB 1133, a bill passed last summer, is a dramatic increase in the number of counselors in those high poverty schools, a crucial service in which California has been at the bottom of the national heap for nearly 30 years.
The law also requires districts that get the grants to show within three years that the proportion of experienced teachers in the affected schools is at least as high as it is in the district as a whole; to mandate professional development; and to increase attendance and graduation rates even as they raise student test scores.
There are lots of devils in those details. But in this case the whole is easily greater than the sum of its parts. Which brings us back to Nuñez. If anyone deserves reconfirmation, he does.