Silencing the Voices

In the current issue of Ohio Schools, Ohio Education Association President, Patricia Frost-Brooks has announced what amounts to an end game.  This is an end game that will ultimately allow the OEA to do something that its parent organization, the NEA, already does, which is to take dues money and use it to support any ballot issue or political cause that it wants to without any consent from its members whatsoever.  If successful, it will do away with the “one-time” assessments that have been used to fund the campaign against Senate Bill 5 in 2011 and currently to fund the Voters First initiative which the OEA is trying with its partners to get on the November 2012 ballot.  It will also do away something else far more important: the right of rank and file OEA members to give nominal consent to the political actions of its leaders.

The opening came last May at the 2011 spring Representative Assembly.  It was there that the $54 assessment to fight Senate Bill 5 was passed.  This was the trigger for me to become a fair share payer in the first place.  In the process of coming to this decision, I had actually written several members of the state leadership detailing what I was planning on doing in response, including Ms. Frost-Brooks.  She was kind enough to respond, as was Central OEA/NEA President Scott DiMauro.  Both of the responses stated among other things that the process by which the assessment would be passed was a democratic one, intimating that this would be done as the Declaration of Independence puts it “by the consent of the governed.”  It was only after the assessment was passed that I found out the “democratic” process was a voice vote.  If you have been to a professional sporting event you have probably taken part in a voice vote, where they put the titles of three songs on the video board and then pick the one to be played at the next time out based on how loudly the fans cheer for it.  If you go to enough games you will inevitably encounter a time where one song gets picked even though it seems like a different one had more cheering for it.  At a ball game that is no big deal.  At a union convention where leaders are deciding whether or not to put money down on a political cause, this has no place.  You have major policy decisions being based on the selective acuity of people’s ears.  That is a clear recipe for manipulation.  Yet there is no major objection as long as the dissenting voices are obviously not loud.

Now we come to this spring’s Representative Assembly.  There is another $22 assessment on the table for Voters First.  Senate Bill 5 for people was an easy call, but Voters First clearly was not.  In the June issue of Ohio Schools, Ms. Frost-Brooks admits as much.  “OEA did not ask members to undertake this expense without considering everyone’s point of view.  Through extensive debate on the dues assessment, delegates shared well-reasoned positions on both sides.”  (Patricia Frost-Brooks, “Bringing democracy back to Ohio”, Ohio Schools, June, 2012, p.2)  There was no such declaration from Ms. Frost-Brooks or anyone else speaking for the OEA last year on Senate Bill 5!  I did get a little bit of a taste of what form that debate took when I spoke with the co-presidents of my local union.  One of them had spoken out against the assessment at the Central OEA/NEA Representative Assembly in April.  He was allowed to speak, but he was booed for his troubles and the assessment passed there, as it undoubtedly did in all of the regional meetings prior to the state RA, and again it was by voice vote.  After this I can only guess, but I can’t imagine that my representative was alone in his dissent and that powers that be noticed which leads us to the end game, the formation of a crisis fund.

The formation of this crisis fund follows the lead of the NEA, which has had one for years.  The NEA sets aside $20 of each member’s national dues and puts it in this fund.  The NEA can then use this money for the support of various ballot issues anywhere in the country, such as the petition drive to repeal Senate Bill 5 in Ohio. Unions are forbidden by federal law from using union dues to support specific candidates, but apparently not from the “third party” ads that have become so popular in recent memory.  The use of that money is at the absolute discretion of the NEA leadership.  (Unions can make donations to candidates from their own PACs, but those are supposed to be funded by voluntary donations from members.)  There is no consultation of the membership, no new business items at the Representative Assembly, no selective hearing of yeas and no’s on a voice vote.  So, if the OEA goes this route, there will be a certain amount of dues (undoubtedly an increase) that will go in and can be used for any non-partisan action.  If Senate Bill 5 somehow gets revived, they can use the money to fight it.  If the OEA wants to try to get a ballot initiative to reform school funding, they can do it.  If the OEA wants to take the next five years to sock away this money for some other major push, they can do it.  This is money for political speech at the total discretion of the OEA leadership, and essentially would continue the practice of the last two years in perpetuity.

I am reminded of the warning given to the people of Israel when they asked for a king in I Samuel 8:17.  “He (the king) will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.”  What is the difference between that situation and the one now faced by the members of the OEA?  Frankly, I see very little.  I also see this as a recipe for ultimate disaster for the OEA.  There are already lost members due to job losses, and I believe there will be more people who will do what I did as more information comes out about how the OEA and the NEA handles its political action decisions.  The scrutiny public employee unions face today even outstrips what the Teamsters faced when Robert Kennedy famously dueled with Jimmy Hoffa.  If the OEA is truly interested in listening to the voices of it members then it needs to be more open, not less.  If there has to be a crisis fund, then at the very least they should have a process in place where the membership is consulted through their representatives.  Likewise the voice vote should be abolished.  Secret ballots should be used and the results of the votes should be published for all members and fair share payers.  The NEA actually did use a secret ballot when it voted to increase member contributions to its crisis fund.  This spring the leaders of the OEA heard some voices they were not expecting to hear.  It is time to listen to those voices, not to silence them.

A Bridge Too Far

In September 1944 allied forces under British leadership embarked on Operation Market Garden.  This campaign was an attempt to take advantage of the collapse of German resistance in northern France and to knock out V1 rocket launch sites in the Netherlands that were bombarding southern England.  However, the plan overextended the Allied forces, especially its airborne units.  The German counterattack ravaged the airborne forces, and stunted the Allied advance in Western Europe.  It is believed that the German victory, their only victory on the western front following the Normandy invasion, was part of the inspiration for the Ardennes offensive in December, which led to the Battle of the Bulge.  This ill-fated operation was depicted in the 1977 film A Bridge Too Far, which had the very definition of an all-star cast.  As we look at the fallout from the failed recall election of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, we can see some striking similarities to the ill-fated Operation Market Garden in 1944 and the strategy of the teachers unions in 2012.

In both cases the attackers are coming off of major victories.  For the Allies it was the Normandy invasion and subsequent drive into France.  For the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers it was the massive repeal victory of Senate Bill 5 in Ohio last November.  Of course with the teacher unions much of the Senate Bill 5 fight was going on at the same time as the fight in Madison over similar reforms being pushed by Governor Walker.  One could argue, quite convincingly, that Senate Bill 5 itself was a bridge too far for Ohio governor John Kasich, in that it targeted all public unions including police and fire unions, which have a lot more good feeling with the public than the teachers or service employees unions.  Governor Walker and the Wisconsin legislature exempted the police and firefighters from its collective bargaining reform.  Differences aside, it is clear that the unions wanted to build momentum from Ohio to Wisconsin with the hope that it would also carry to November and the Presidential election.

In both cases the attackers had factors beyond their control go against them.  In the case of Market Garden it was the weather and the unexpected positioning of a German unit.  Bad weather changed the timetable and delayed key pieces of the operation from being put in place, which allowed the opposition to react forcefully.  Furthermore, there was an elite German unit positioned in an unexpected location resting from battle, which fatally interfered with the mission.  In Wisconsin, the factor out of their control was the law under which they had to operate.  Unlike Ohio, Wisconsin does not have a referendum process by which citizens can petition and repeal laws.  Instead they had a more liberal recall process for elected officials.  The election results clearly show that it is much easier to strike at a law than it is at an elected official.  There were other factors, too.  CBS Evening News noted in its post-mortem on June 6 that Wisconsin law allows elected officials facing a recall vote have no limits on fundraising, which Governor Walker used quite effectively to the tune of $30 million.  The same report also referenced exit polling data showing that more than 60% of voters believed the recall option should only be used for those guilty of official misconduct (i.e. corruption, malfeasance, or criminal acts).  That is far greater burden for the unions to bear in an election, and it was clearly a bridge too far.

In both cases the attackers overextended themselves.  In Market Garden the airborne forces were stretched beyond their capabilities.  Indeed World War II would show the limitations of airborne forces, as the only airborne assault in the European theater that was considered “successful” was the German invasion of Crete in 1941.  The Allies never tried airborne assaults again after Market Garden.  In the case of the unions the overextension came in terms of money.  The unions faced a major disparity in spending on the campaign.  According to The Washington Post, Governor Walker raised over $30 million dollars, which is more than 7 times that of his opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.  Even more telling was that Governor Walker’s total was more than the spending of pro-Democrat groups, like teacher unions, at $17.9 million. (Pro-Republican groups chipped in $16.3 million.)  Columnist Michelle Malkin gave examples of several state unions sending money collected from union dues to Wisconsin (and other tactics of a questionable nature), including the Ohio Education Association at $58,000, but that was nowhere near enough to combat the advantage.  Such a disparity shows that the unions cannot campaign by just outspending the opposition.  With a Presidential election upcoming in just 5 months, it needs to be asked if the unions didn’t just waste their resources in a losing cause.

Lastly, and most tragically, in both cases the attackers were stricken with their own hubris.  Operation Market Garden was the brainchild of British Field Bernard Marshall Montgomery, whose pride had been hurt due to his failures during the Normandy invasion as well as the successes of American rivals George Patton and Omar Bradley, wanted one more success before his command was finally brought under the supreme command of General Dwight Eisenhower.  He moved forward despite the reservations of other commanders and the outright opposition of General Bradley.  The unions have let their inflated sense of efficacy guide their actions in Wisconsin.  In Ohio the unions dominated the conversation over Senate Bill 5 to the point that it was basically the only voice that was really heard last November.  By virtue of the loud protests in Madison and the success of getting the petition approved to recall Governor Walker, the unions thought they had momentum to get this done, but they were ignoring warning signs that were present.  There was an attempt to recall senators in the Wisconsin legislature so that the collective bargaining law had a chance at repeal.  It failed and yet they continued with the plan.  In so doing what had a chance at being a legitimate redress of grievances under Wisconsin law devolved into a primal attempt at revenge, which apparently was something Mayor Barrett was actually trying to avoid.  The union leadership should have listened to him.  As the exit polling mentioned earlier showed, the Wisconsin voters were not interested in using the recall process as a method of exacting vengeance.

What remains now is the aftermath.  If Operation Market Garden is any indication, then the aftermath may not be pretty for the teacher unions.  Allied momentum was stopped and the German Army went on its last offensive of World War II, culminating in the Battle of the Bulge.  It was a German defeat, but only because of a heroic march by Patton’s Third Army.  RiShawn Biddle on Dropout Nation predicts that the victory in Wisconsin will embolden efforts in Florida and Michigan to enact their own reforms and even raises the possibility that Governor Kasich could try again with collective bargaining reform specifically for teachers, which Governor Kasich has since denied.  Mr. Biddle additionally takes note of a growing issue within the Democratic Party, where a number of its membership is advocating for education reform that goes against their union supporters.  The Thomas B. Fordham foundation has also called on Ohio in particular to move aggressively on education reform in light of this week’s results.   Then there is the Presidential election.  President Obama was noticeably silent during the Wisconsin campaign, and now he has a decision to make.  How close can he get with the teachers unions?  His education reform plans to date have not made them entirely happy either.  Yet, the NEA has promised to be “the boots on the ground” for the President in the next five months.  At this point they have to hope that an Obama victory will be like Patton’s march to the Ardennes, which relieves their beleaguered forces.  If that doesn’t, then Wisconsin may not be the bridge too far for the teachers unions.  It may their Waterloo.

Midterm Report: My Top Three Ohio Education Issues for the 2010-2011 School Year

So, have I been any better at predicting Ohio issues than I was national issues?  I said that being an educator in Ohio would be “dangerous business.”  It looks some of that remains to be seen.

1. Senate Bill 5 – Senate Bill 5 got squashed like a bug in the November election.  I don’t really see this as a big union victory, but rather as a really poor job of politics by the Republicans.  About $40 million dollars got pumped into the state’s various media outlets on the campaign, with the teachers, police, and fire unions spending about 80% of that.  Is it really over?  Probably not.  Governor Kasich has more chances to make changes to collective bargaining.  Look for the next attempt to be more limited and focused on the teachers, which I still believe is the weakest politically, especially with the continued stories of teacher misbehavior coming up in the news.
2. The Coming of Consolidation – Looks like we are going to wait on this one for a while.  There has already been a delay in coming up with the new funding formula, as Governor Kasich has found out what Governor’s Strickland and Taft before him learned that this is one tough problem to solve.  Losing out on Senate Bill 5 probably complicated his calculations a bit.  There is also the priority of getting Ohio into the win column for whoever the Republican presidential nominee is.  One thing to look for in the meantime is for local school districts to start partnering up on certain items and services.  The local school districts in Pickaway Country, including my district, are looking into an agreement to buy fuel in bulk for their school bus fleets.  The agreement may eventually expand to include vehicle fleets of other country agencies.  Agreements like these, although relatively small, are tangible moves in the direction of consolidation.  More of these may come in the next several years.
3. Will the ODE take Duncan’s Deal?  While 11 states have taken it, there has been no indication at all that Ohio will join them.  I suppose Superintendent Heffner could still surprise us all in the next few months, but given the political climate, and the attitude of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, why should Ohio bother with it?  By offering the waivers up for the states, Secretary Duncan is basically saying that the power of No Child Left Behind is no more.  Whether it is through a legislative action in 2012 or 2013 (much more likely), he’s right.  Taking the waiver may just be adding federal burdens when they probably aren’t needed.  The truth is those burdens will likely be coming regardless of who gets elected.

In the meantime we have to wait until November to figure out who that is.  I am not amused.

 

It Doesn’t End Here

As I write this, we are less than 24 hours from the polls closing in Ohio, and the battle over Senate Bill 5 at which point will end, but under no circumstances will the war over the compensation and evaluation of public school teachers be over.  Indeed, all of the signs point this merely being the first shot.  While the opinion polls overwhelmingly favor repeal of the controversial law tomorrow, that same data has also shown that there is support for certain aspects of the law; particularly where it comes to monetary issues, such as requiring public workers to pay 10% of their retirement and 15% of their health insurance benefits.  There is also some support for merit pay for teachers as well.  All of these things point to the General Assembly and Governor John Kasich making another more measured attempt at reforms, probably next spring.  This time they will have learned from their greatest mistake and instead of putting all public union employees in one group, they will in true Darwinian fashion focus their efforts on the weakest members of that larger group, the teachers unions.

 Why would I say that the teacher unions are the weakest?  I have several reasons.  One, teachers were almost an afterthought in the political ads leading up to election day.  There was only one ad featuring a teacher from Ironton that was run.  Sure, teachers and teaching conditions were mentioned in other ads, but you saw many, many more ads featuring firefighters, policemen, or even nurses exclusively.  The clear message was that these groups were politically unimpeachable.  Even those who would typically oppose anything with a union label on it, have had a hard time countering some of the claims made by these groups concerning minimum staffing levels and their effect on public health and safety.  As for the claims of teachers and their unions, all you have to do is check out my blog roll and you will find numerous stories about some of the things teachers unions have stood for (of which Dropout Nation is one of the most critical out there).  The cops, firemen, and nurses have been hitting as well as Albert Pujols in game 3 of this year’s World Series.  Whereas the teachers have been like Yadier Molina, a contributor to be sure, but not counted on for their offensive strength.

 Another reason for their weakness is financial.  All of the unions charged their members extra to fund We Are Ohio.  The Ohio Education Association voted to charge all members $54 dollars in a “one-time” assessment, but one thing you didn’t see were a lot of signs in the yards of OEA members saying to vote no on Issue 2.  Why?  A colleague of mine asked about it, and found out the OEA was charging members $25 per sign.  The assessment raised around 5 million dollars for the campaign, so why couldn’t the OEA afford to hand out a few signs to its rank-and-file members?  The answer to that question is unknown, but it may not even be important because if another  attempt comes, and if it is done to an isolated OEA, then chances are they will not be able raise enough money to mount an effective campaign.

 Still, another weakness is one of arrogance.  The OEA has been operating on the assumption that it’s members will simply follow lockstep with what  they say.   If you don’t believe me, then believe the mailer I got from the OEA this past weekend.  It was a color picture of the door of a refrigerator.  On it were two Post-it notes, with the following message:

 

“Brian,

 

You have two things to remember on November 8 …”

 

First note: Vote no on Issue 2

Second note: Make sure Trisha (my wife) votes, too.

 

I was more than a little annoyed to read this.  I immediately saw their tacit assumption that I was going to vote how they told me to.  My wife, who is not a teacher, actually more respect than I did!  Their assumption is partially correct; I am voting no, but as a fair share payer I am not doing it out of any sense of loyalty to the OEA.  I am doing it because I believe the law is poorly written and overreaches in its intent.  I know plenty of colleagues in teaching who believe as I do, that the OEA, and its parent organization, the NEA, are overly political organizations that given the opportunity would be just as ham-handed as the Kasich Administration has been.  How many times can the OEA go to that same well with its members?  How long before that “one-time” dues assessment becomes permanent?  Will the members even get so much as a “thank you”?  Actually, I did get one; a form letter with the “signatures” (obviously typed, the letter “J” on both names is identical) of my local co-Presidents, thanking me for having a voting record and detailing how I could do early voting.  The problem?  I got it today and early voting ended last Friday.  That’s what the OEA calls appreciation and gratitude.  

 I close with a story a colleague told me today.  He and his wife, both teachers, were at a party with some police and firefighters in attendance and the discussion, of course, turned to Issue 2/Senate Bill 5.  The police and firefighters essentially took the attitude that they had done more of the work in the campaign than the teachers.  While that frustrated my friends to no end, their friends certainly had a point.  That also points to something more ominous.  If the groups that are within We Are Ohio have believe this, then the Kasich Administration will see it and have an opening.  And they don’t need to read posts like mine to figure it out.  That opening will be used, and while Governor Kasich claims that he hasn’t thought ahead, he will start soon.  Hopefully, this time both sides will actually take the opportunity to make a deal that can help Ohio government while maintaining some rights for Ohio teachers and other public workers.  But if that doesn’t happen then we will be back at this point again, but this time we might be alone with the police, firefighters, and nurse unable to rescue us this time.

Local Issues: Senate Bill 5’s Wild Card

With just two weeks to go before election day, things on the surface look good for those supporting a “no” vote on Issue 2, which would repeal Senate Bill 5.  The poll numbers, while they are a couple of weeks old, still show a comfortable lead for no.  I have seen far more yard signs imploring people to vote no than to vote yes.  Interestingly enough the only “vote yes” signs I have seen couple together Issues 2 and 3, which is a largely symbolic repudiation of Obamacare (I plan on splitting my vote: no on Issue 2 and yes on Issue 3.).  Those signs started showing up this weekend in Central Ohio, but may be entering the fray too late.  They really don’t concern me all that much.  Of much greater concern is the fact that are going to be over 1,100 local tax issues sharing the ballot with Issue 2 across the state according to The Columbus Dispatch.  These tax levy requests include 186 for local school districts, a ratio of almost one for every three school districts statewide, along requests for police, fire, local income taxes, townships, libraries, and community mental health.  Many of these requests involves groups that could be affected by the enactment of SB 5.  Nearly all of them are on the ballot due to budget cuts enacted by the General Assembly this past spring.  This represents a wild card in this already complicated game.  Will the presence or absence of a local tax issue affect how voters approach Issue 2?  Those voters who have both are then presented with a decision; if you vote no on the local issues does that automatically mean you are voting yes on Issue 2?  Is the reverse also true?  Is there a possibility that a significant number will vote yes or no on both?  I wonder if the pollsters are taking this into account, and if there will be exit polling data to see if there is an effect on the outcome.  From what I have seen on TV (when I am not watching the World Series) no attempt has been made to tie local tax issues to Issue 2 so far.  I don’t really envision We Are Ohio (No on Issue 2)  or Building a Better Ohio (Yes on Issue 2) trying it, because they would run the risk of going off message.  But perhaps a third party, an anti-taxi or tea party affiliated group, may try to make the connection.  After all, Governor Kasich did say that Senate Bill 5 was intended to help local communities survive state funding cuts without the need to raise taxes.  Regardless of which side you come down upon, if you are faced with both a local tax issue along with Issue 2, you get a chance to evaluate those words and actions.  It would be unwise not to.

Full disclosure:  I will be one of those with an opportunity to vote on both.  There is a community mental levy on the ballot for residents of Pickaway County along with Issue 2.  I plan on supporting the levy.

Votes Have Consequences

We are exactly 3 weeks away from election day, at which point Ohio voters are going to decide upon Issue 2 (Senate Bill 5).  In anticipation of the final weeks of the campaign I found it rather instructive something that has been happening in my school district.  For the past several weeks our curriculum director has been meeting with teachers in all grade levels to begin the work toward switching to new academic content standards that are set to be in effect by 2014-2015 “at the latest.”  With these standards will come new assessments; including the replacement of the Ohio Graduation Test with end-of-course exams in core subjects, all students required to take the ACT and complete a senior project.  The challenge for teachers in grades 3 – 10 is to continue to teach to the current standards for the next three years and then switch over to the new standards in the space of one summer.  I am fortunate in that I teach 11th and 12th grade courses and I am free to make changes now (and I am doing so).  What is instructive here is that these changes originated from people who elected, in this particular case it was then-Governor Ted Strickland, and fellow Democrats in the Ohio General Assembly.  Those men are not in power now, but the consequences of the votes cast for them in 2006 have been making themselves known 5 years afterward in school districts across the state.

Regardless of what happens on November 8 there will be consequences to the vote on Issue 2.  Some are predictable.  A lot of teachers will likely retire if it passes.  Voters should expect more requests for tax levies if it fails.  Others will be of the unintended variety.  While those are by definition unpredictable, it is still helpful to understand that they will come.  Do not make the mistake of thinking there will not be unintended consequences of keeping the status quo by voting no.  The current Governor, John Kasich, has yet to take his turn at education reform and he has promised to do so in his second budget in 2013.  What he and the Republicans will do will likely depend on the outcome on November 8.

I do not pretend that I am going to convince anyone to vote one way or the other.  I just want readers who are Ohio voters to just consider the consequences of this vote before you go to the polls.  If you do that, you’ll have my respect even if you end up voting yes.  And know that I will continue to work to the best of my ability and my calling, even if it passes.

Where are the Teachers?

This morning before I left for work I was watching the news, while eating breakfast, and one of the many ads regarding Issue 2 came on.  This particular one featured a nurse, imploring voters to vote no.  I had seen this one before, many times, along with ads featuring firefighters, and police officers, giving their reasons for voting no on Issue 2.  What struck me this time was a question:  where are the ads featuring teachers?  Maybe I have missed them, and with my schedule that is a distinct possibility, but I have not seen a single ad against Issue 2 involving public school teachers.  In fact the only ad have seen involving a teacher was one in support of Issue 2.  My wife Googled the teacher in that ad and found that he is heavily involved in the Republican Party in Fairfield County.  It is surprising to me that We Are Ohio, which has the Ohio Education Association as a major backer, has not done this.

There are several points that a teacher could make in this debate, including:

• Teachers are already required by law to pay 10% towards their State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) pension, and that may go up depending on what the General Assembly does to address the unfunded liabilities STRS currently faces.
• Teachers have historically accepted lower salaries in exchange for paying a lower percentage on health care benefits.
• Many teachers may be forced to leave their posts if Issue 2 passes because they will not be able to afford the increase in health care premiums.

No, I am not volunteering to appear on an ad for We Are Ohio, but it does seem strange that one of the most visible groups of people potentially affected by this issue is seemingly left on the sidelines as cheerleaders (and providers of money) and not being given airtime for campaign ads.  The only reason I can think of that the public view of teachers unions is percieved to be low enough to be considered a liability, but part of me says it can’t be that bad . . . can it?

An from We Are Ohio featuring a public school teacher has begun to run as October 12, 2011.

Let’s Make A Deal

Where is Monty Hall when you really need him?  (or Wayne Brady if you like the current version of the iconic game show)

There are six days left before the August 30 deadline to pull Issue 2, the repeal of Senate Bill 5, off the ballot in Ohio.  Six more days in which the public employee unions can head off what promises to be an ugly and bitter campaign that will sully the reputations of teachers, firefighters, and policemen for a long time to come.  It can happen if the union leaders are courageous enough to face up to the cultures they have made in their organizations and make the tough choice to come off the cliff.

Brent Larkin makes a compelling case in his opinion piece in the Columbus Dispatch.  I actually believe he has revealed what will be one of the main selling points for keeping SB5.  That concerns the fallout for local school districts.  The spiel will go something like this; either vote yes on Issue 2 or be prepared to vote yes on your local tax levies, because if you vote no on both of them you will lose teachers from your classroom, you will lose police officers from your streets, you will lose fire fighters from your firehouses.  It’s Machiavellian to be sure, but it is representative of the choices that are going to have be faced as these difficult economic times continue.

Mr. Larkin also makes second point that really hits home.  What happens if SB5 is repealed?  Sure its a union win, but there is still a full year to go before the next election, and in that year the General Assembly could easily pass a new version that has the parts that have been shown to resonate with voters.  What then?  Does We Are Ohio try to repeal it again?  Will there be any resources left to do so?  According to Mr. Larkin the unions raised $5 million to fund the current campaign through dues assessments of its members (a decision which caused me to end my membership in the OEA).  Will they have to raise more?  Will the dues assessment become permanent?  Let’s not forget who is funding Building a Better Ohio on the other side.  It’s business interests.  Normally they avoid controversy, but they have a lot more money than even the public employee unions have.  Not to mention the unions would have to wage the next campaign while trying to support Democratic candidates that support their cause on the state and national levels.  Going all in now could leave the unions with nothing left over for the next fight, and there will be a next fight regardless of the outcome this November.

Finally, there is the image of the unions themselves, especially the teachers unions.  The slide that started with Waiting for Superman a couple of years ago has only continued and with greater momentum.  The AFT took another direct hit to their image when RiShawn Biddle exposed on Dropout Nation their plans to oppose and then diffuse the new parent trigger law in Connecticut.  Steven Brill has piled on with his two cents in his new book Class Warfare.  While Brill’s work has been criticized in some circles for a lack of accuracy, there are other more scholarly works that have made the same arguments such as UCLA Professor Terry Moe’s new book Special Interest.  And let’s not forget what happened in Wisconsin a few weeks ago, when the union led recall effort to take back the Statehouse from the Republicans fizzled despite some nasty campaigning.  If there is to be a campaign here, then all of that will come up.  It won’t change the minds of those who signed the petitions or those on the other side, but it will cast a pall over not only the unions but those they represent.  It will take a very forgiving soul for the independent voter who has to try to separate the individual teacher from the union that represents him, if that is even possible.

In the last couple of days I talked to some of my colleagues in my building about what is happening.  So far their focus has largely been short term on what will happen in November in trying to win the repeal campaign.  I can’t say as I blame them.  Personally, I wish the legislature had just focused on the immediate budgetary needs and used the bill to address them.  In a nutshell, that is why I am voting no if there is a vote.  But all along I have had a feeling that I have not been able to shake that the Kasich Administration is taking a longer view with Senate Bill 5 and with this campaign.  As Mr. Larkin said, he knows the poll numbers as well the rest of us, and there will be a contingency plan ready to go into motion on November 9 if he needs it.  And that plan will certainly take into account that even though he may lose this battle, the “victorious” opposition may well be too spent to fight the rest of the war.

That is unless we look behind Door Number 3.  Let’s make a deal.

Empty Tables and Gunfighters

While I and my fellow teachers at were getting our rooms ready for students to come on Tuesday, a great piece of political theater was happening in Columbus.  Governor John Kasich, along with Ohio Speaker of the House William Batchelder and Senate President Tom Niehaus were showing reporters an empty table, where members of We Are Ohio were invited to negotiate a settlement to head off the campaign against Senate Bill 5.  It is a table that I can guarantee you will see again and again and again during interminable campaign ads from Labor Day to Election Day.  The question about whether Governor Kasich was actually serious about negotiating or if he planned to embarrass the opposition is an open one that may never get answered, but what is clear is that the Governor Kasich is willing to fight if the unions want one.  It was reminiscent of the scene in Tombstone when a drunken Johnny Ringo was spoiling to fight Wyatt Earp following the gunfight at the OK Corral and Doc Holliday steps in saying “I’m your huckleberry!”  As the two enemies stare down each other fingering their guns, Doc invites Ringo to “Say when” and start the gunfight.  It doesn’t happen at that point but later they get their chance following several battles, and Holliday gets the better of Ringo.

I want to be clear that I am not assigning roles of good and evil to Governor Kasich and We Are Ohio respectively here.  Rather I am using the scene to show that we are now on the edge of a protracted struggle that will hurt everyone involved.  Just as the gunfight at the OK Corral was only the beginning of the fight between the Earps and the Cowboys, the passage of SB 5 and today’s scene are just the beginning.  There will be other scenes, other moments where one side jabs at that other.  (One can imagine that We Are Ohio already has Governor Kasich’s “idiot” quote ready to run.)  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that this will not be nearly as entertaining as watching Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer bring law and order to the Arizona Territory.  The real question to ask is will all of this actually lead to something constructive?  As things stand now we are looking at in the short term one of two outcomes, either things will stay the way they are and SB 5 is repealed, or things will fundamentally change with SB 5 surviving.  I don’t know that either way is really what Ohio needs right now.  Time is running short, but if there is a chance to make a deal it should be taken.  If there is a next time, let’s make sure the tables are full.

My Top Three Education Issues for the State of Ohio for the 2011-2012 School Year

If things were crazy on the national education scene, then what was Ohio?  The answer may be beyond contemplation.  One thing is for certain, being an educator promises to be a dangerous business in Ohio with these issues upcoming.

1. Senate Bill 5 – This is the obvious choice for number 1, and I am not going to dispute that, but could the fight over repeal be overrated? There have already been meetings between the OEA and representatives of the Kasich Administration.  While those haven’t gone anywhere yet, Kasich is still trying.  If a compromise can be reached by August 30, Issue 2 can be pulled from the ballot.  Even if the deadline is not met there are plenty of reasons to make a deal.  What is really bad, and what makes this number one is what happens if  here is no deal.  If you thought the Wisconsin recall elections were bad, this will be worse.  Millions of dollars have already been raised and will be pouring into the state.  The campaign ads will be ferocious on both sides and the teaching profession will come under unprecedented scrutiny.  I, for one, am not looking forward to that.  Morale among teachers will be quite low as the pressure turns up.  The polls currently predict that SB 5 will be repealed, but it will not be without a fight.  Yet there is an Ohio education issue that could potentially dwarf this one, albeit in a longer time frame, and that is . . .
2. The Coming of Consolidation – Almost lost in the entire storm over SB5 is the fact that Governor Kasich has commissioned a study of scenarios for the consolidation of the state’s 614 public school districts.  Coupled with this is the promise of the Kasich Administration making its attempt at reforming education funding.  The clear target in these efforts is the inordinately high percentage of funding going to administrators (second highest in the nation).  With the Governor’s popularity being relatively low, and no guarantees concerning the outcome of the 2012 elections, the goal will be to get this done as soon as possible.  The study will likely be done by next summer, and the entire package could be in place for Governor Kasich’s second budget in 2013.  If the Republicans retain control of the Statehouse in 2012(and they should given that they have control of redistricting), then the state’s superintendents, treasurers, curriculum and special education directors could become endangered species.  In the meantime there is one final question to answer, and that is . . .
3. Will the ODE take Duncan’s Deal? – Ohio has been like most other states in its approach to No Child Left Behind, using the “hockey stick” model in the hopes that NCLB would be replaced before the bills came due.  It hasn’t happened, and nothing will likely change until after the 2012 elections, unless the Ohio Department of Education takes the deal offered by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.  Ohio has already committed to the Common Core Standards for reading and math, and is already a part of Race to the Top, but only the participating school districts have to come with a plan for merit pay and teacher evaluation.  Those not in RTTT, like my district, can wait a couple of years.  Will that be enough for the federal government to grant a waiver to Ohio, or will all districts have to go to merit pay and evaluations based on test scores?  The ODE could go ahead and accept that on the thinking that eventually all school districts are going to have to it anyway in a couple of years.  Or the Republicans can play politics and decline the deal in the hope of a better one with a Republican president.  Or Ohio could go the route of Utah and just pull out of NCLB altogether.  With the 100% requirements not in force until 2014, there is still time and options, but none of them can be exercised without a good set of nerves.

Hope you like roller coasters, because Kings Island and Cedar Point have nothing like this one!