“Then They Came for the Trade Unionists,” Why Democratic Trade Unions Are the Essence of Democracies.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

Among the first organizations that tyrants suppress are labor unions, whether the Stalinists of the 1920s, the Nazis of the 1930s, the Chinese of today, or the anti union crowd that views teacher unions in the same light. Not only do labor unions argue for better salaries and working conditions for their members they avail themselves of the primary mechanism of a democracy: the vote.

In Washington DC teachers and their union donated dollars, knocked on doors, made phone calls,  engaged themselves in the process that elects and defeats candidates. A mayor and a school chancellor popular with the elites and unpopular with the electorate was defeated.

Teachers and their union are pilloried, for exercising basic democratic rights.

Unions not only engage in politics to the extent that laws allow, they are internally democratic organizations. Union officers are elected by memberships, and proposed collective bargaining agreements must be ratified by memberships.

In Baltimore the union membership (BTU) defeated a proposed contract (58% opposed), in spite the accolades of the US Department of Education and the ed (de)reform community.

 A Baltimore Sun editorial lauds the contract here , and a post-vote article analyzes the teacher rejection, with teacher comments, see here.

The proposed Agreement ( read here ) is complex with many key components to be negotiated over the future months by labor management committees.

In 1995 the UFT negotiated a five year Agreement, the first two years had no increases, hence the contract is referred to as the “double zero” contract. While Mayor Guiliani claimed the city was in dire financial straits the national economy seemed to be in good shape. The Union leadership mobilized the troops, sent union staff into each and every school, in spite of their efforts the contract was soundly defeated. Five months later a similar contract, with some cosmetic fillips was approved.

Democracy is a bitch, it can defeat mayors, and union contracts.

The UFT learned lessons,

The 300 Member Negotiating Committee: Union contracts are usually negotiated behind closed doors by select groups: union officers, professional staff, lawyers and financial experts. Members can speculate, until both sides come to an agreement the membership is out of the loop. In New York City a 300-member negotiating committee representing all divisions as well representation from different political factions within the union acts as a “sounding board” for the negotiators, and increasing the chances that the final product will reflect memberships views.

User-Friendly Contract Language: Contracts are written by lawyers, frequently the language is not clear to members. Teachers vote on a memorandum of agreement that is converted into a contract after membership approval. It is important that members fully understand the meaning and impact of each clause/change. The Baltimore contract ratification allowed for teachers to attend a meeting and ask questions, perhaps not enough time to explain a controversial agreement.

A Period of Reflection: The Baltimore union decided to hold a vote only a few days after the announcement of the Agreement and answered at a meeting.  A Q & A sent to each member, a website, meetings in every school; teachers have to feel comfortable, have to feel that every query has been addressed.

Maximizing the Ratification Vote:  In NYC contract ratification takes place in each school by secret ballot, More than 90% of members participated in the last ratification vote. Union officer elections must comply with US Department of Labor rules, a mail ballot, a 50% return is considered excellent; a contract ratification vote with a limited participation is unhealthy for the union.

Comments by Proxies Can Be Harmful: After the Agreement and before the vote the US Department of Education, newspaper editorialists, bloggers, the ed (de)(re)form crowd “waxed poetic” about the proposed contract, and clearly raised suspicion among already suspicious union members. Superintendent Alonzo’s comment after the rejection, “that teachers were shortsighted,” was not helpful.

Neither Arne Duncan nor Randi Weingarten has a vote, the three thousand plus Baltimore union members have the fate of the contract in their hands. The question of using student achievement data to evaluate teachers is a difficult one for teachers. Teachers feel that “scores” directly correlate with the ability of kids and have doubts about the efficacy of using this datum for teacher ratings, salary and tenure determinations, and, a just released peer reviewed Report by Linda Darling-Hammond and others seems to support the teacher doubts. The proposed contract does make teachers partners in a range of decisions impacting teaching and learning.

In the weeks and months ahead the BTU leadership and membership will engage in a democratic process, weigh the pros and cons, and eventually thrash out a contract.

Of course the Michelle Rhees and the Joel Kleins would rather live in the world Mel Brook’s Louis XIV, (“It’s good to be king,” see U-Tube here)


One response to ““Then They Came for the Trade Unionists,” Why Democratic Trade Unions Are the Essence of Democracies.

  1. Robert V. Rose, MD

    Home | Log in / New member? Register now | Set as homepage | Add to favorites

    Edu Assoc Articles
    Education Organizations
    Think Tanks
    Book Reviews
    Opinions on Education
    Higher Education
    Campus Views
    Community Colleges
    Big Brother
    Political Correct
    Political Opinions
    Political Releases
    PR Releases
    Free Sign Up
    Search | Advanced search

    Add to: del.icio.us Digg

    12/05/2010 00:27:00 EducationNews.org
    Font size:
    Maria Montessori
    5.12.10 – Bob Rose, MD – I started a yahoogroups listserv and recruiting a number of “whole language” teachers to help test Maria Montessori’s 1912 postulate that making young children “expert” at writing the alphabet would make them “spontaneous” readers


    During the school year of 2002-2003 I started a yahoogroups listserv and recruiting a number of “whole language” teachers to help test Maria Montessori’s 1912 postulate that making young children “expert” at writing the alphabet would make them “spontaneous” readers.

    To my delight, there turned out to be a very strong correlation between how many letters of the alphabet first-graders could write in a timed, 20-second period of time and how good their reading skills were. To my delight, there was a very strong correlation. However, the Whole Language Teachers did not believe in “setting specific achievement goals”, and I was asked to unsubscribe from the list.

    During the following school year (2003-2004) I created my own yahoogroups listserv and recruited another group of five kindergarten teachers willing to submit correlation data between alphabet-letter writing fluency and reading skills. Children were identified by ID numbers, rather than by names, to keep the study ethical.

    There had been 94 students in the Whole Language “control” group, and I got a total of 106 student correlations from the five “experimental” kindergarten teachers, all of whom had also gotten very strong correlations between writing fluency and reading skill.

    I immediately emailed the editorial offices of over a dozen well-known education journals, asking if they would be interested in me submitting a write-up of our study for possible publication. I got only two responses: one said, “That couldn’t possibly be true”, but the editor of the Harvard Educational Review enthusiastically invited my submission. I wrote up our study and had it sent in three days later. (In March, 2004). A few months later I received a standard letter of rejection from them.

    Since then I have emailed copies of “my manuscript” to HUNDREDS of educational psychologists, journalists, education professors, politicians and school superintendents. Though I received a few informal polite replies, no one seemed to take my idea seriously.

    During the second half of the 2008-2009 school year I recruited a number of different kindergarten and first-grade teachers to my listserv. All who participated again saw positive correlations, but it was decided to wait until this present (2009-2010) school year to repeat the study and see if we could get enough data to publish a meaningful meta-analysis onto the internet.

    So far (5/5/10) we have data from three first-grade teachers at a Catholic private school in an upper middle-class Midwestern city. The data from these three teachers involve a total of 60 first-graders. Not only is there a correlation between alphabet-writing fluency and literacy, BUT EVERY ONE OF THESE CHILDREN IS NOW ABLE TO READ. (We got baseline data last year from a first-grade in one of the most affluent and academically successful elementary schools in the state of Pennsylvania. NOT ALL of their first graders were readers, though there was indeed a correlation between writing fluency and reading skill).

    At this Catholic school teacher # 1 wrote she had the children practice writing the alphabet three days a week. (We had recommended five minutes each school day). Her class’s writing fluency rates ranged between 63 and 123 letters-per-minute (LPM), and her median student wrote at a rate of 72 LPM. Teacher # 2’s median rate was 75 LPM, and the median rate for teacher # 3 was 84 LPM.

    A kindergarten teacher in our study wishes to be identified as “Mary Jane from rural South Carolina”. She tells us that 93% of the children in her school receive subsidized lunches, and as of early May, 2010, only two of the children in her kindergarten are not yet readers. The principal of a highly successful elementary school in Atlanta had once told me on the telephone that children should learn to read in kindergarten, not in the first-grade.

    Some years ago the retired archivist of the Calvert School (a private elementary school in Baltimore, Maryland), sent me a copy of a privately published booklet published in 1996, the centennial of the founding of the school. The original headmaster, G. Vernon Hillyer, wrote that, “If you teach children to write, you needn’t bother teaching them to read”. In his first-grade (the school had no kindergarten), children simply learned to write the sentence, “I see a tree”. Thereafter they learned to write, “The tree is green”. After about three months, all the children were literate, and then began to study a formal curriculum and to write meaningful essays. Twenty years later, he wrote that the school had never failed to teach a normal child to read and write.

    In traditional Russia, children were taught literacy at home, before they began school. In Russian, as in English, various letters are pronounced differently in normal colloquial speech than they are written. As a matter of fact, there is not word for “to spell” in Russian. Instead, if one wishes to ask how a word is written, one just asks, “How is that written by syllables”. For example, the word “govorit” (he speaks) is colloquially pronounced “guvareet”. When asked how it is written, one answers: “Goh-Voh-REET”.

    In other words, one basically doesn’t learn to read in Russian, one learns simply to write. And anyone can read anything anyone can successfully write! (I studied Russian for three years in college, and this way of learning to write in Russia is confirmed by several people educated in Russia whom I have known in the past.

    We appreciate this May 1st, 20101data from Ardis, which we’ll consider “end-of-the-year” data, even though a nice lady at the Michigan Board of Education just told me on the telephone that the children in Macomb Count, Michigan, adjacent to Detroit, will actually probably be attending school into sometime in June.

    In the past Ardis, a kindergarten teacher, has told us her school has a high number of the children of immigrants in her class. I’m waiting to hear by direct email from Ardis whether she wants any particular restrictions placed on her identify and location, and/or can she give us any more graphics about her class.

    Ardis included two interesting remarks in her report. One is “I have to admit I haven’t kept up with the fluency training during this second semester as much as I did last year.” The other important comment is “Every single person [i.e., kindergartner} is a reader – there are no struggling or non-readers this year”.

    At any rate, Ardis’ data of May first indicate there were 26 kids in her kindergarten. One has moved away, and of the remaining:

    Four students wrote the alphabet more rapidly than 40 LPM. There reading levels were, respectively, high, average, high and high.

    Eight students wrote at between 30 and 39 LPM. In descending LPM order, their reading levels were high, high, high, high, very high (3rd grade level), low average, low average and average.

    Eleven students scored between 21 and 27 LPM. Again, in decreasing order of LPM, their reading levels were: medium, high, high, low average, low average, medium, average, low average, high, very very high [3rd grade level; autistic], (this student’s LPM was 21) and average.

    Two students scored only 18 LPM. Their reading levels were high and low average.

    Nancy, an Ed.D kindergarten teacher, also from Macomb county (part of metropolitan Detroit), just provided us with the following data:

    Two of our 26 students scored better than 40 LPM and both rated as “above grade level” in reading skill.

    Two students scored 39 LPM, and that are also “above grade level”.

    Five students scored between 30 and 36 LPM. In decreasing order of LPM rates, they were rated

    “above grade level”, “below grade level”, “above grade level”, “above grade level” and “at grade level” respectively.

    Eight students wrote at between 21 and 27 LPM. Each of these eight were rated as “at grade level”, in my opinion of their reading ability.

    Five students wrote at 15 LPM. Of these, one was “at grade level” and the other four were “below grade level”.

    In the fall of 2009 the average LPM rate in my class was 7 LPM. At present it is 28 LPM.

    Historically, many authorities on the subject of literacy instruction have stressed the importance of adequate practice in printing alphabet letters. The first-century Roman writer and rhetorician, Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (ca A.D. 35-98?) wrote that with regard to becoming literate, “Too slow a hand impedes the mind”.

    In 1912, Maria Montessori wrote, in effect, that teaching young children to print letters is easy, that it is easy to teach children to read after they have practiced printing alphabet letters, but that it is difficult to teach children to read if they have not practiced writing them.

    Marilyn Jager Adams noted that prior to the onset of the twentieth century the “spelling drill” was the principal means of inducing literacy for several millennia.

    I believe that the cumulative suggestion of our repeated on-line meta-analyses supports the idea that making children fluent at writing the alphabet during the first two years of school will be an important advance in the teaching of literacy throughout the world. We hope this summary will be relayed to K-1 teachers everywhere via the internet.

    I think the importance of our findings is not in the strength of this on-line research. To be scientifically valid, studies must not only be reproducible, but reproducible by different experimenters.

    The most outstanding result of our research is having learned that no one, in spite of vast sums being spent on “literacy research”, has ever done and published a study to see if Maria Montessori’s postulate holds true for Anglophone children, or whether it does not!

    Bob Rose, MD (retired)

    Jasper, Georgia

    email: rovarose@aol.com

    Add to: del.icio.us | Digg
    Comments (1 posted):
    Patrick Groff on 14/05/2010 07:52:10

    Dear Dr. Rose:

    I was pleased to see your revelation of the fact that most young children in the U.S. are denied an effective manner in which to develop their reading abilities. This practice is so notorious that I call it a form of academic child abuse.

    Your comments also lead me to the conclusion that the public needs to be informed that professors of reading education are the major cause of the failure of American children to read commpetently. I hope in the future that you will add that truism to your other pertinent remarks.

    Patrick Groff, Professor of Education Emeritus, San Diego State University


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s