Connect with us

Policy

The Great Class Size Crisis…That Wasn’t Teachers Unions Are Trying To Fool Voters In Oregon Like They Did In Washington State

Published

on

When citizens in Washington State headed to the polls in November 2014, one of the decisions facing them was whether to approve Initiative 1351, a proposition aimed at reducing class sizes by requiring the state legislature to pay for an additional 25,000 public school employees by 2019.

For months, an organization called Class Size Counts had been out in force urging voters to approve the measure, claiming that Washington’s public schools were in the grips of an overcrowding crisis. They incessantly cited a report from the National Education Association (NEA) that said the average class size in Evergreen State was one of the highest in the nation. They rallied outside the state capitol in Olympia waving photos of students cleverly photoshopped into sardine cans. Initiative 1351, they insisted, would offer students a brighter future.

“I think most voters agree that funding a quality education for our kids is a smart investment,” Class Size Counts campaign manager, Mary Howes, told the Washington State Wire. “Our kids only get one chance at a good education, and 1351 will finally do something to give them the personal attention they need to learn and succeed.”

While supporters of Class Size Counts portrayed it as a “grassroots group of 3,000 parents, teachers, students, and community members,” campaign finance reports show it was actually a ballot committee formed in March 2014. Its web domain was registered by Jeff Lennan, co-founder of Winning Mark, a media firm out of Portland, Oregon, that has worked closely with both NEA and the American Federation of Teachers on several projects. Plus, Mary Howes, the public face of the Class Size Counts campaign, was an official with the Public School Employees of Washington.

NEA gave Class Size Counts $1,550,000 to fund the group’s advocacy efforts. Its state affiliate, the Washington Education Association, sent droves of members out across the state to help the organization gather the 350,000 signatures needed to get the initiative on the ballot.

Mary Howes (at podium), the public face of Class Size Counts, was actually a union employee.

Meanwhile, opponents of I-1351 balked at its price tag – estimated at upwards of $5 billion – and pointed out that the cash-strapped state government couldn’t bear the added cost. Others questioned how the state’s public schools could be in crisis when Washington consistently outperformed the national average on most educational measures.

A Seattle Times editorial also brought attention to the fact that Class Size Counts was actually bending the truth. The report the group frequently invoked as evidence of overcrowding referred to student-teacher ratio, not average class size, which the paper noted are “very different concepts and cannot be used interchangeably.”

Nevertheless, when the votes were finally tallied after the election, Initiative 1351 passed 51% to 49%. In sum, NEA and its allies manufactured an overcrowding crisis, launched a ballot initiative to address it, and urged the public to vote for it (while conveniently omitting the fact that it would vastly expand their membership base, coffers, and power) and incredibly, it worked.1

The same play, a state away

Now, a coalition of labor interests, led by the teachers unions, is trying to pull off a similar feat – using many of the same tactics and players – in Oregon.

On Thursday, The Oregonian reported that the Oregon Education Association (OEA), an affiliate of the National Education Association, is filing a November 2018 ballot initiative for a new corporate tax that could raise as much as $1.75 billion annually for the state’s public schools.

The move comes less than a year after Oregon voters soundly rejected another ballot initiative, Measure 97, which sought to raise taxes on businesses, although the proceeds were not exclusively earmarked for K-12 education. The “Yes on 97” campaign was led by OEA, who along with NEA and AFT, spent nearly $9 million backing the effort. Interestingly enough, a significant chunk of that money went to Winning Mark, the same Portland-based political media firm that was behind Class Size Counts in Washington State. Campaign finance reports reveal the group received nearly $2.4 million from the “Yes on 97” committee last year.

This time around, OEA and its allies are more narrowly tailoring their message to focus on education, claiming that extra tax revenues are needed to address an overcrowding crisis in the state’s public schools.

“Parents and students are fed up with having the third largest class sizes in the nation,” OEA president Hanna Vaandering said in a press release last week. “Having strong public schools is an Oregon value, but you would never know by looking at the Oregon legislature. These ballot measures seek to put the power back in the hands of the people, not the powerful business lobbyists that control Salem.”

OEA has been throwing around that “third largest class sizes in the nation” statistic (which comes from NEA’s 2015 Annual Rankings & Estimates Report) a lot lately. In fact, it figured prominently in an op-ed co-written by Vaandering that recently appeared in The Oregonian, which also asserted that Oregon ranked 39th in per-pupil funding.

However, OEA is employing the same rhetorical slight-of-hand that their friends in Washington State did during the I-1351 campaign. The NEA report referenced actually said Oregon had the third-highest student-teacher ratio in the country, not class sizes. Moreover, NEA’s 2016 update of the report, which also came out in May, ranked Oregon fifth for student-teacher ratio and 20th in per-pupil funding, not 39th as Vaandering has stated.

OEA president Hanna Vaandering

A diversionary tactic?

Why is OEA using misleading and inaccurate facts in its latest ballot initiative push? I suspect there’s a method to their madness. By creating the illusion that Oregon’s public schools are in crisis and pinning the blame on state lawmakers for failing to adequately fund them, the union can divert attention from the real threat to public education: skyrocketing health care costs and pension obligations.

Oregon has the highest public employee health care insurance costs on the West Coast, a problem compounded by the fact that state workers contribute a far smaller amount toward their premiums than their counterparts in California and Washington. As a result, public employers, including school districts, have been forced to spend an ever-larger share of their budgets on those benefits.

At the same time, Oregon’s generous Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) is facing a $22 billion unfunded liability. To close that gap, school systems and other state agencies, who already divert about 17.5% of payroll to PERS, will likely see that rate nearly double over the next several years to 32.5%.

Graphic from The Oregonian.

It’s been clear for well over a decade that health care and retirement costs would continue to climb unless those systems were restructured. Yet time and again, OEA and their allies have used their considerable political influence to block reform proposals in the legislature.

So it’s curious that just when school district budgets are being squeezed by those health care and pension obligations, OEA is asking voters to raise tax revenues to address a sudden overcrowding crisis in the state’s public schools. Given the fact that we’ve seen the unions employ this class size routine before, Oregonians have reason to be skeptical.


  1. In May 2015, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed a compromise bill that decreased class sizes in kindergarten through 3rd grade, but delayed the rest of the initiative until at least 2021. 

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.

8 Comments

LEAVE A COMMENT

Reposts

  • Sandy Kress

Mentions

  • Charles Barone
  • Charles Barone
  • TriciaSpencerPotyka
  • Choice Media
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
wpDiscuz

Explainer

Explainer: Does AFT Really Have 1.7 Million Members? How The Union Uses Accounting Tricks To Inflate The Numbers

Published

on

On Friday, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) announced its membership had risen to over 1.7 million members, surpassing the 1.6 million-member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to become the largest union in the AFL-CIO.

According to union officials, the milestone was reached last month when the Asociación de Maestros de Puerto Rico (AMPR), which represents the U.S. territory’s 40,000 teachers, voted to affiliate with AFT.

However, as Education Week pointed out, the pact concluded between AFT and AMPR comes with several caveats. To start, the agreement only establishes a three-year “trial affiliation,” after which the two unions will decide whether to extend their relationship. Plus, although AMPR teachers will be considered full AFT members during this trial period, they will initially pay $12/year in dues to the union – far less than members of AFT affiliates elsewhere.

AMPR got a good deal from AFT: all the benefits of membership at a fraction of the cost.

But AFT’s 1.7 million claim is dubious for a more fundamental reason: the union uses creative accounting when tallying its membership. For example, in AFT’s 2016 annual report to the U.S. Department of Labor, they claimed to have 1.54 million members in 31 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam, but a closer look reveals only 675,000 of those individuals were actual full dues-paying members. A significant portion of the rest belonged to a hodgepodge of special membership classes: one-half members (204,344), one-quarter members (93,047), one-eighth members (34,104), associate members (49,984), and laid-off/unpaid leave members (1,808).

Their count also included nearly 357,000 retiree members and approximately 128,000 members of affiliates – in Florida, Minnesota, Montana, New York, and North Dakota – that have merged with NEA.1

In short, as is often the case with AFT, there is a huge gap between their rhetoric and reality.


Read AFT’s 2016 DOL annual report:


  1. Note that these are self-reported numbers and therefore subject to AFT’s interpretation. In a piece in The 74 earlier this year, Mike Antonucci claimed, “more than 600,000 working AFT members belong to merged NEA/AFT local and state affiliates” in 2016. 
Continue Reading

Policy

Willful Blindness Official Pushing NYC's ATR Plan Has A History Of Giving A Pass to Bad Teachers

Published

on

The New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) is planning to move as many as 400 teachers out of the district’s Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) and into full-time classroom positions at schools this fall, regardless of whether those schools want to hire them.

Principals have had control over staffing at their schools since 2005, when the district officially adopted “mutual consent” hiring. That shift resulted in the creation of the Absent Teacher Reserve, which is comprised of teachers who were forced out of their jobs or lost them due to school closures, but have not found new positions.

UFT president Mike Mulgrew, Mayor Bill deBlasio & Chancellor Carmen Fariña at a press conference in 2014.

Thanks to NYCDOE’s contract with the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), individuals in the ATR pool continue to receive full salary and benefits, even though nobody wants to hire them. According to data obtained by Chalkbeat, the district spent nearly $152 million last year to compensate ATR teachers.

District officials have been trying to shrink the size (and expense) of the ATR pool for years, leading some to wonder whether they would resort to forced placement to accomplish their goal. When New York City Council members posed that question directly to Chancellor Carmen Fariña in 2014, she emphatically stated: “There will be no forced placement of teachers.”

However, NYCDOE reneged on that promise last month when it was announced that principals will have until mid-October to fill vacancies at their schools, after which the district will place teachers from the ATR pool into any remaining openings.

The new policy has gotten an icy reception from principals and parent advocacy groups, who say the district is simply putting bad teachers back into classrooms. As evidence, they point to NYCDOE figures showing that a third of the teachers in the ATR pool ended up there due to legal or disciplinary problems and half have been there for two or more years.

“There is not one parent in New York City who would willingly accept one of these ATRs into their child’s classroom,” StudentsFirstNY Executive Director Jenny Sedlis said in a blog post on the ATR plan. “It is unconscionable to put the worst teachers into the classrooms of the neediest students.”

NYCDOE’s Absent Teacher Reserve by the numbers.

In an effort to allay those concerns, NYCDOE issued a statement noting that “DOE has discretion on which educators in the ATR pool are appropriate for long-term placement and may choose not to assign educators who have been disciplined in the past.” Nevertheless, the department has not explicitly ruled out the possibility that teachers with disciplinary records could be used to fill vacancies.

That fact is especially troubling when one considers that Randy Asher, the NYCDOE administrator overseeing the Absent Teacher Reserve plan, was accused of letting bad teachers run amok in his previous role as principal of Brooklyn Technical High School.

Randy Asher, who formerly served as principal of Brooklyn Tech High School, now oversees the Absent Teacher Reserve for NYCDOE.

Asher served as principal of Brooklyn Tech for nearly eleven years before assuming his current role in January. During that time, the elite public high school was racked by a series of sex scandals involving faculty members, including the widely-publicized case of Sean Shaynak, a Brooklyn Tech math teacher who victimized seven female students.

According to a lawsuit filed by the victims, Asher and his fellow Brooklyn Tech administrators knew about Shaynak’s sexually suggestive antics (such as the time he showed up to a school dance wearing a skimpy schoolgirl’s uniform), but did nothing to address them. For his part, Asher claimed he was unaware of Shaynak’s devious behavior, but was “horrified and disgusted at the allegations.”

NYCDOE eventually settled the victims’ lawsuit for $450,000 and Shaynak was sentenced to five years in prison.

Although Asher claimed he was unaware of Shaynak’s sexually inappropriate behavior, photos of Shaynak in drag appeared in the school’s yearbook.

In light of Asher’s history, it’s hard to see how the public can trust that officials will use their discretion to keep the least desirable ATR teachers out of the classroom. That’s why parents and community members should fight to prevent NYCDOE from implementing its forced placement plan and call on city leaders to solve the district’s ATR problem by demanding a phase-out in contract negotiations with UFT next year.

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
  • 26866 Tweets
  • 2953 Followers
  • 2758 Following

Facebook

Trending

 

Send this to a friend