Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: Yes, the cuts are totally unacceptable, but so is everything else these days
Posted in:
* To understand union politics, you first have to recognize that it’s about politics.
Every five years, somebody is elected president of the Chicago Teachers’ Union on promises to be far more aggressive than the incumbent. Then, once elected, they have to govern. When we talk about the CTU, you have to keep those elections in mind. And the education reform bill which was sent to the governor yesterday on an overwhelming bipartisan vote is no different. Included in the bill is a provision requiring a 75 percent super-majority to authorize a strike. The CTU president agreed to it in negotiations, even though the provision applies only to Chicago. And that’s enraged quite a few of her constituents…
CTU President Karen Lewis has already gotten heat from union members about the bill. Said former CTU President Debbie Lynch, “In our opinion, this went down without a fight. … If it was me, I would have never agreed to the 75 percent threshold. Period.’’
As you already know, President Lewis used some significant language problems with the bill to rail against the entire proposal and its backers on the other side of the equation. Other than the real issues with the bill’s language, most of her comments were meant entirely for her union voters.
* Speaking of those language problems…
[House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie] said she is open to passing follow-up legislation to address the CTU’s concerns about who has voting rights in a strike-authorization vote and about language in the bill that takes the pending layoff dispute out of the hands of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board.
But so far, Currie said, unions, business groups and reform organizations have not coalesced around a compromise.
* The bill received national attention…
The U.S. education secretary is praising Illinois legislation that would overhaul teacher evaluations, tenure and strike rules.
Secretary Arne Duncan called the measure “truly remarkable” Thursday, shortly after it was approved by the General Assembly.
* But the IEA said the focus ought to be on how everybody (mostly) cooperated…
Ken Swanson, president of the Illinois Education Association, one of Illinois’ major teacher unions with 133,000 members, said the real take-away from Illinois’ reforms was the way that all sides — lawmakers, schools, unions and advocates — worked together.
“Look at what happens when everyone can come together at the table and talk,” said Swanson. “That’s something that colleagues in other states have not been given the opportunity to do.”
Swanson also downplayed the national potential of Illinois’ reforms.
“I think the Department of Education monitors the goings on in every state,” said Swanson.
The IEA prepared its membership for the bill by explaining it throughout the process. Also, Swanson is retiring soon, so he can be a convenient fall guy.
* Details…
* Teacher seniority would no longer be the sole basis on which teachers are laid off when school boards cut jobs. Instead, teacher performance and qualifications would be factors in the decision.
* Decisions on hiring and assigning teachers would be based not on seniority, but rather on who would best serve the district.
* Extra steps would be required before teachers can strike — a mediator would have to release to the public the last offers made by each side.
* The Chicago Teachers Union would need a three-fourths vote from its membership before being able to strike. Downstate, a simple majority vote of the membership would be needed, as is the case now.
* School boards could more quickly fire teachers for bad conduct or performance.
* Teachers would have to receive two “proficient” or “excellent” evaluations during the last three years of a four-year probationary period to achieve tenure. New teachers could get tenure early if they receive three “excellent” reviews in their first three years. Currently, a teacher gets tenure after four years, or is not rehired.
* And the Chicago Tribune, which earlier editorialized in favor of a much stronger bill, today editorialized in favor of the bill…
Once more, with feeling: The kids come first.
* Meanwhile, on the same day the House voted to reform education, it also voted to cut education spending…
Illinois schools would lose $166 million in state support under cuts approved Thursday as the Illinois House passed parts of an austere new state budget.
That’s about 2.3 percent less than schools get under the current state budget. Most of the cuts would come from funds that schools use for general needs. Early childhood education also would take a significant hit, falling 5 percent.
The cuts were approved 102-12. Legislation making cuts to a wide array of smaller state agencies also was approved, and more budget bills could be approved Friday.
The budget is far from settled, however. Senate Democrats have their own ideas on how much to spend and where. So does Gov. Pat Quinn, although his budget proposal has found little support in the Legislature.
More…
“You can only spend what you have,” said Rep. Will Davis, D-Homewood, who chaired the House committee overseeing budgets for elementary and high schools.
A key reduction calls for general state aid for all schools to be cut by around 4 percent, according to lawmakers.
The education foundation level, the figure viewed as the minimum amount of per-pupil spending, would remain flat at about $6,119, Davis said. If more money comes in later, the state could boost school spending, he added. Transportation funds would rise above the current year’s level, which had been reduced by Quinn, but it does not go up as high as in prior years that were more flush.
Early childhood education funding would drop to $325 million come July 1, which is about a 5 percent reduction, according to Davis.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 13, 11 @ 9:26 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: Yes, the cuts are totally unacceptable, but so is everything else these days
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The bill is sent to Gov. Quinn ,will he cave and veto it?
Comment by mokenavince Friday, May 13, 11 @ 9:30 am
It’s been quite a remarkable few months since the election in the GA.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 13, 11 @ 9:37 am
Why were downstate teachers excluded from the 75% rule?
Comment by PublicServant Friday, May 13, 11 @ 9:42 am
Why does the CTU only want a portion of its dues-paying members to vote?
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, May 13, 11 @ 9:45 am
==The bill is sent to Gov. Quinn ,will he cave and veto it?==
It doesn’t matter since only one member of the entire GA voted no. An override should not be a problem.
I suspect the GA was irritated that the bill was agreed-on in the Senate and then CTU comes out against it in the House. The ship sailed out of port when Karen Lewis endorsed it in the Senate.
75% is one of the big sticking points for CTU. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that 75% is halfway between what the CTU wants (51% in favor of a strike) and what the reformers and Rahm want (no strike/100% voting in favor). CTU dodged a real bullet by retaining the right to strike. 75% is the price they had to pay. CTU backing out on the agreed bill just confirms what everyone is worried about - they won’t come to an agreement with CPS & Rahm and are looking to strike this fall.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:00 am
Cincinnatus - I don’t know if the requirement is a good idea or not (I’m inclined to think that it is, but it needs to be applied to everyone, not just CTU), but to play devil’s advocate… I would think that their argument is that for pretty much any other election in this country, we look at the vote totals of those who actually voted, not of those who were eligible to vote. In other words, you’re elected to office if you get a majority of the votes actually cast, not a majority of the total number of registered voters.
Comment by Katiedid Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:05 am
==Why does the CTU only want a portion of its dues-paying members to vote?==
If the teachers are considering a strike, why would you let other members vote on it? Any strike vote should be restricted to members covered under the agreement in question, not the whole of the membership which can include members under other contracts and retired folks. I think the question of clarification is whether ==at
least three-fourths of all bargaining unit members== means members under the contract in question or members of the entire local. At least, that’s my understanding.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:06 am
PCK is correct.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:10 am
The people who pay union dues to be part of a collective bargaining unit should have the right to vote when the union decides to strike on behalf of the entire bargaining unit, shouldn’t they? If these folks MUST pay the dues as part of their employment (they, like all members, are only allowed to only opt out of the political activities portion of the dues, a couple of percent of the total dues), should they not be allowed to vote on the strike? If not, what rights come with the payment of dues? If the CTU position holds, should the dues-paying members prohibited from voting be allowed to pay no union dues at all?
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:24 am
Cincy:
A local may have more than one contract. Should I be allowed to vote on whether someone under a different contract can strike over their contract just because we are in the same local?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:52 am
The debate over the 75% rule ignores a more important question.
Would you really want to send your kids to a school where 70% of teachers voted to strike but were now working under a contract they considered unfair?
We suffer all of the hassles of democracy only because we recognize the legitimacy of the process.
A process which large numbers of people are bound to view as unfair is going to have awful consequences.
And, at the end of the day, CPS has a budget hole of $800 million, which is going to get a bit deeper under the new budget.
You can strip away teachers’ collective bargaining rights all you want, but you cannot lengthen the school day or school year, hire better teachers, or make other improvements without more revenue.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:03 am
PCK,
Gotcha. Makes sense that way.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:05 am
PCK’S is pretty smart!
Comment by mokenavince Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:11 am
- mokenavince - Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:11 am:
“PCK’S is pretty smart!”
So Say We All.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:18 am
LOL
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:28 am
I’m a CPS parent–not a teacher–but my view is what’s good for teachers is generally good for my kids. And a strong teacher’s union with the ability to fight–and, if necessary, strike–on behalf of its members, is a good, necessary thing.
The union says it never agreed to the language in question. Whether it was an oversight or the sponsors pulled a fast one on them (thanks to Rich, we all know how “technical changes” to “agreed” bills can get slipped in at the last minute, radically altering a bill’s impact), I’m willing to give Karen and her crew the benefit of the doubt.
Along with fighting for their members, they’re also working and organizing for important changes in the classroom: breaking the obsession with standardized tests, bringing back art and music, libraries, PE and RECESS. Changes that will be good for kids and teachers.
You don’t hear any of the that coming out of City Hall or the Central Office. CTU should be applauded for the forward-thinking stand it’s taken here.
If this bill is really about “reform”–and not about neutering the union–the language should be changed. But I’m not holding my breath….
Comment by ENC Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:39 pm