Connect with us

Louisiana

Stay In Your Lane, Governor Governor Edwards' ESSA Advisory Council Is An Unnecessary Distraction

Published

on

Over the past several weeks, Governor John Bel Edwards has made a flurry of appointments to various boards and commissions, including his Advisory Council on the Every Student Succeeds Act, a new committee the Governor established through an executive order in late May.

The Every Students Succeeds Act (ESSA), of course, is the latest iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Great Society-era legislation that vastly expanded the role of the federal government in K-12 education. ESSA, which President Obama signed into law in December, represents a marked departure from the stringent accountability provisions of its predecessor, No Child Left Behind, giving states more flexibility in how they evaluate school performance and remedy those that are failing.

On its face, it makes sense that the Governor would establish a committee to recommend how Louisiana should revise its policies to align with the requirements of ESSA – that is, until you take into account that the Governor has very little say over education policy. Under the Louisiana Constitution, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) establishes the policies governing public schools; the Governor’s influence is limited to the three (of 11) members he appoints to the board.

So why would Governor Edwards create an advisory council to make recommendations on policies outside of his purview? That’s a good question, especially considering the fact that the Louisiana Department of Education already has a process and timeline in place for developing the state’s ESSA plan. Furthermore, State Superintendent John White spent much of July and August in public forums across Louisiana gathering input on how the state should adjust its policies to comply with the new law.

The Louisiana Department of Education released this timeline for developing their ESSA plan.

The Louisiana Department of Education released this timeline for developing their ESSA plan.

As a result, the recommendations of the ESSA advisory council are likely to be little more than a distraction, but perhaps that’s the point. Several of Governor Edwards’ appointees to the council share his antipathy to Common Core, charter schools, and the reform policies embraced by Superintendent White and a majority of BESE members. For example, Louisiana Association of Educators president Debbie Meaux is on the council, as are her frequent allies, Scott Richard of the Louisiana School Board Association and Debra Schum of the Louisiana Association of School Principals. All three have found themselves – right along with the Governor – on the losing side of fights over these education reform policies during the past ten years.

Debbie Meaux, Scott Richard, and Debra Schum have all been on the losing side of several education fights.

Debbie Meaux, Scott Richard, and Debra Schum have all been on the losing side of several education fights.

By establishing the advisory council, Governor Edwards is giving them a high-profile platform from which to air their grievances and create controversy, but to what end? Anyone familiar with the recent history of BESE knows that the board isn’t simply going to roll over and accede to the wishes of the Governor or his handpicked advisors. Moreover, as this year’s legislative session(s) made clear, lawmakers have little interest in moving the state’s education policies in the direction Governor Edwards would take them.

Given all the challenges facing Louisiana these days, one hopes that the Governor will see the wisdom in avoiding a prolonged and unpleasant fight over the state’s ESSA plan – a fight that he’s unlikely to win – by keeping a lid on his advisory council and its members in the coming months.

Pete became involved in education reform as a 2002 Teach For America corps member in New Orleans Public Schools and has worked in various capacities at Teach For America, KIPP, TNTP, and the Recovery School District. As a consultant, he developed teacher evaluation systems and served as a strategic advisor to school district leaders in Cleveland, Nashville, Chattanooga, and Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. He now writes about education policy and politics and lives in New Orleans.

4 Comments

4
LEAVE A COMMENT

avatar
4 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
0 Comment authors
Keith LegerBrigitte NielandDr. Keith LegerJudith Vail Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Keith Leger

tag:facebook.com,2013:1759660654314890_liked_by_1003376223010049

Keith Leger

https://www.facebook.com/100008129177637/posts/1759660654314890#liked-by-1003376223010049

Brigitte Nieland

tag:facebook.com,2013:1759660654314890_liked_by_1013673191993733

Brigitte Nieland

https://www.facebook.com/100008129177637/posts/1759660654314890#liked-by-1013673191993733

Dr. Keith Leger

tag:twitter.com,2013:770796460501794816_favorited_by_513654552

Dr. Keith Leger

https://twitter.com/petercook/status/770796460501794816#favorited-by-513654552

Judith Vail

RT @petercook: Stay In Your Lane, Gov: Why pick an unwinnable fight over #ESSA? #NOLAed #LaEd #edreform peterccook.com/b/2KL

Louisiana

After Janus, The Drought? LAE & LFT are downplaying the impact of the Janus v. AFSCME decision, but both are subsidized by their national unions

Published

on

The United States Supreme Court handed public sector unions – including the teachers unions – a major defeat on Wednesday with their decision in Janus v. AFSCME, in which a majority of justices agreed that mandatory agency fee laws violate the First Amendment rights of non-union public employees.

In the 21 states with agency fee laws, public employees covered by collective bargaining agreements were required to pay fees to the union to cover bargaining costs, even if they refused to join. Because agency fees only offered a small discount when compared to union dues, many individuals felt compelled to become members.

Screenshot from Education Next.

Now that the Supreme Court has struck down those laws, many observers expect that public sector unions will lose anywhere from 10-30% of their members, and by extension, a big chunk of their revenues. In a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, National Education Association (NEA) president Lily Eskelsen García admitted her union expects to lose at least 200,000 members over the next 18 months, depriving them of around $28 million in funding.

What about Louisiana?

Louisiana, of course, is a right-to-work state, meaning that public sector unions here are unlikely to see a drop in their membership, but the Janus decision could have a significant financial impact on the state’s two teachers unions, the Louisiana Association of Educators (LAE) and the Louisiana Federation of Teachers (LFT).

In an article in The Advocate on Wednesday, officials from LAE and LFT sought to downplay the potential fallout from the ruling, insisting that any impact on their organizations would be minimal. They also wildly exaggerated the size of their respective unions, with both LAE and LFT claiming around 20,000 members.

LAE president Debbie Meaux and LFT president Larry Carter.

Mike Antonucci, a researcher who has been writing about teachers unions for decades, released figures on Wednesday showing that LAE had 10,461 members in 2016-17, of which only 9,416 were full dues-paying members. While precise numbers are not available for LFT, data from tax filings and public records requests show that the union receives far less in dues payments than their counterparts at LAE, while charging their members more on an annual basis. Therefore, it’s safe to assume that LFT is even smaller than LAE’s 10,000 members.

Those tax filings, along with annual reports filed with the U.S. Department of Labor, also reveal that both LAE and LFT are heavily subsidized by their national unions. According to tax returns, LAE reported $3,291,199 in revenue in F.Y. 2016, although Department of Labor reports show that nearly 30% of that money came from the National Education Association.

Data from IRS 990s and U.S. Department of Labor annual reports.

Likewise, LFT reported $1,809,239 in revenue in F.Y. 2016, but nearly 27% of that total came from its parent union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Moreover, as I’ve noted in previous posts, AFT also provides substantial funding to its local affiliates, like the United Teachers of New Orleans, Jefferson Federation of Teachers, and Red River United.

Will the money dry up?

Up to now, LAE and LFT could depend on their national unions to provide a substantial portion of their annual budgets, but the Supreme Court’s decision this week means that steady stream of funding could begin to dry up in the not-too-distant future. While It’s unlikely that AFT and NEA will completely cut-off subsidies to their affiliates in right-to-work states like Louisiana, there’s no escaping the fact that there will be less money to go around.

How that will ultimately impact the activities of Louisiana Association of Educators and Louisiana Federation of Teachers is yet to be seen.

Continue Reading

Louisiana

The Red River Ripoff Shreveport's AFT Affiliate Uses Bureaucratic Obstacles To Keep Dues Coming in

Published

on

Red River United (RRU), the American Federation of Teachers-affiliated union representing educators in Caddo, Bossier, and Red River Parishes, is using bureaucratic hurdles and subterfuge in an attempt to prevent members from leaving the organization.

A reader forwarded me a series of emails regarding three of the union’s current members who submitted a union drop request to Red River officials in October, indicating that they wished to end their affiliation with RRU and stop the monthly deduction of dues from their bank accounts.

The sign outside Red River United’s offices in Shreveport.

The receipt of those forms was acknowledged by the union. Nevertheless, when the three teachers checked with their banks at the end of the month, Red River United had once again deducted dues payments from their accounts. On November 1st, an email was sent to RRU officials notifying them of their mistake and requesting that the union refund those dues to the three individuals.

An emailed response from RRU’s in-house counsel, Elizabeth Gibson, flatly refused to refund those payments, explaining that the three teachers “executed a confidential agreement with Red River United (Membership Form), wherein the individuals authorized Red River United, or its designee, to draft their bank account each month for the amount indicated in the agreement for each billing period.”

She continued:

“Further, they acknowledged that they must give at least 30 days written notice to Red River United to cancel future automated debits. Red River United did not receive written notice at least 30 days in advance personally from the individuals indicating they had chosen to cancel their automated debits/membership. They must physically come to the offices of Red River United to cancel the bank draft due to the confidential nature of the information contained therein. These individuals have not done so. Accordingly, they are not entitled to a refund of the monies they authorized to be withdrawn from their bank accounts.”

Gibson added that the teachers needed to physically go to the union’s offices to provide a so-called “wet signature” in the presence of a Red River United employee in order to officially withdraw from the union and stop the monthly bank withdrawals.

Gibson’s emailed response in which she refused to refund dues to the three teachers.

A ridiculous (and dishonest?) response

Gibson’s response is not only ridiculous, but possibly dishonest. It’s also clearly an attempt by Red River United to make it as difficult as possible for current members to dropout of the union.

To start, the union’s “confidential agreement” – i.e., RRU’s membership form – isn’t all that confidential (in fact, I’ve included a copy of it at the bottom of this post). Nowhere on the membership form does it say anything about the requirement to provide a “wet signature” in the presence of an RRU employee to leave the union and stop monthly payments.

The small print from Red River United’s membership form.

Moreover, Gibson’s contention that the three teachers needed to physically go to RRU’s offices to cancel the bank drafts “due to the confidential nature of the information contained therein” is laughable. Anyone who has ever had a subscription to a newspaper or magazine can tell you that you don’t need to go to their offices to cancel it. Plus, there’s nothing “confidential” about the process. All Red River United needs to do is notify their bank to stop the monthly automatic withdrawals for those three individuals. End of story.

So why is Red River United trying to make these three teachers jump through bureaucratic hoops when they clearly don’t want to be part of their organization anymore? I suspect the union is trying to force them to come to their offices so they can pressure them to remain members, which is the kind of behavior you might expect from a dodgy timeshare broker, not a teachers union.

Nevertheless, teachers unions in other states have increasingly employed similar tactics to stem the departure of their members. For example, after Michigan became a right-to-work state in 2012, the Michigan Education Association (MEA) changed their opt-out policy to mandate that teachers withdrawal in August and force them to send their resignation requests to an obscure P.O. box address hidden on their website. The union subsequently refused to honor opt-out requests that were sent directly to MEA headquarters or were received outside of the month of August.

The United States Supreme Court is set to decide Janus v. AFSCME this spring.

I expect that we’ll see even more of these sort of schemes in the coming months. In September, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Janus v. AFSCME, a case which argues that requiring public employees to pay agency fees to unions (including teachers unions) is unconstitutional. It is widely expected that the Court will end up striking down the laws in the 22 states that currently mandate agency fees, meaning that teachers unions across the country will soon be scrambling to come up with ways to keep their members from dropping out.

Because Louisiana has long been a right-to-work state, the Janus case should have little direct impact here. At the same time, that’s exactly why Red River United’s efforts to make it as difficult as possible for members to leave their organization needs to be called out. Louisiana’s public school teachers have the right to join a union or not. Therefore, they should be able to leave a union just as easily as they signed up. If Red River United wants to salvage some of its integrity, it should immediately accept the resignation of the three educators in question and refund their dues as soon as possible.


Read Red River United’s membership form:

Continue Reading

Twitter

Subscribe

RSS Feed

Subscribe to my RSS feed to get updates in your news reader. Follow

Twitter

Peter C. Cook
Peter C. Cook @petercook
New Orleans, Louisiana peterccook.com
Education Reformer • New Orleanian • Progressive • Democrat • Proud TFA alum • Check out my new side project: @retortonline
  • 28576 Tweets
  • 3203 Followers
  • 2958 Following

Facebook

Trending

Send this to a friend