Were local school board elections politicized, run as partisan competitive events, you’d have school reform issues openly discussed and acted upon.

The reassertion of control by big city mayors over school departments is dramatic evidence of how easy(hah) it is to bring major reform to highly resistive intransigent public school systems.

Would Michelle Rhee even be hired or Duncan, were it not for the involvement of an elected mayor?

There are many challenges facing our schools. In this case, I believe the cause of the angst for both unions is the perception that at the negotiating table, they are only focused on maximizing the return (salary + benefits) of their members without consideration to the sustainability of their employers.

As I wrote here: http://interacc.typepad.com/synthesis/2008/12/blame-game.html, both unions and management need to approach the table genuinely committed to creating sustainable outcomes for their end customers (students/parents, car buyers).

Perhaps this would lead to improving their image.

“Teachers and autoworkers are two very different cornerstones of American society, but they are cornerstones nonetheless. Our attitudes toward them are a reflection of our attitudes toward working people in general. If we see teachers and autoworkers as our enemies, we are in serious need of an attitude adjustment.”

You say that teachers aren’t being blamed, but please keep your ears open and if/when you hear attacks on teachers, please cite Herbert.

Bur let me cite some of the words you link to, and explain why I call it teacher-bashing.

If you argue that the key missing ingredients for transforming high poverty schools are “Expectations” and “Accountability” and that basically we know what needs to be done, then teachers must be “guilty of the bigotry of low expectations” or incompetence. So, what does it mean when accountability advocates argue “high schools in impoverished communities across America are saddled with a curse of low expectations that impedes the achievement.”?
Then you add, “there is a small industry in the education community built around tacitly giving schools soothing reassurance that they really can’t do much better with poor and minority kids than they are today.”
You also write a sentence that drives me crazy, “Different schools have different effects on similar students.” Technically, that’s like saying the Sun rises in the east or “all children can learn.,” That “small industry in the education community” has shown that we have had very little success in improving neighborhood secondary schools. You know that.

But you may not know why so many teachers find the words of your allies, and often your words, to be so offensive. When we leave the hospital, the funeral, or the jail cell of one of our students, yes teachers seek reassurance. Yes, when we commit ourselves to school transformations and learn painful lessons that the challenge is far tougher than even we realized, we need soothing of our feelings. Being human, yeah we sometime seek someone to blame. And maybe we’re not being completely fair in blaming you guys for blaming us.

But, please debate the evidence. If you read the evidence differently, fine; but don’t couch your words in ways that imply that teachers could be saving all of these kids if we didn’t have such low expectations and if the union didn’t put us first to the detriment of kids.

Would every teacher sacrifice their own welfare for the students? No. But can the leadership and many of the rank-in-file persuade the members hip to sacrifice some of their welfare in order to help kids? Yes. You don’t seem to realize how much harder you make it for reformers within the profession. Half-truths are the norm in politics. But if you want to help kids, you need our help. If you want to help us help kids, then you need to take a higher road. And you need to persuade your less restrained partners to back off.