The PEBC Network
Click to PEBC.org
Click to EdNewsColorado.org
Click to Boettcherteachers.org
Click to Education Research and Practice

Archive for the ‘Teacher unions’ Category

« Older Entries

From the publisher: Shine a light

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

Over the past many years, we have been inundated with articles, columns, essays and rants about the widening red-blue divide in this country. People on one side of the divide can no longer even fathom the perspective of people across the way. We are a long way from reconciliation.

I’m afraid a similar chasm has opened in the world of public education. On one side are people who favor data-driven accountability, school choice, autonomy and pay-for-performance (to name a few issues). I’ll call them (somewhat inaccurately) “outsiders.” On the other are “insiders,” those who feel that market-based reforms and an over-emphasis on testing constitute an assault on public education and specifically on teachers.

Rhetoric on both sides is tilting toward invective. Name-calling is crowding out dialogue. The pitched battle earlier this year over Colorado’s Senate Bill 191 – now the educator effectiveness law – exemplifies the tenor of the debate.

An ongoing Los Angeles Times series, “Grading the Teachers,” provides the latest flashpoint in this escalating rhetorical war. The newspaper hired a researcher and crunched seven years of data from standardized tests to create “value-added” scores for 6,000 third- through fifth-grade Los Angeles Unified School District teachers.

This week, the Times published a searchable database that allows readers to find any L.A. teacher in grades three through five and examine his or her value-added score. Is this teacher, by this measure, getting below average, average or above average test score growth from his or her students?

Some teachers’ scores are based on multiple years of data, some on just a couple. Any teachers in the proscribed grades who taught 60 or more students between 2002-03 and 2008-09 were included.

The L.A. school system has had this data for some time but has never released it to teachers – who might have used it to reflect on their practice. This is one reason the newspaper decided to make the information public.

Leaders of local and national teachers’ unions responded with varying degrees of outrage. Some trotted out the canard that the paper was “anti-teacher”  because it chose to make public this potentially embarrassing and methodologically questionable data.

Fred Klonsky, a Chicago teacher and popular blogger wrote:

“For these reporters and editorial board, there is no complexity in assessing student performance that a series of tests and growth scores can’t simplify. It is simple enough that based on their results they are willing to put the names of teachers who don’t match up to the reporter’s expectations in their article.

“This is a shameful act of attempting to humiliate teachers. It is teacher bashing at its worse (sic). They treat teachers like Johns busted for hiring a prostitute. Why not publish their home addresses and phone numbers?

“Watch out. That’s next

Meanwhile, some leaders of the “outsiders” were over the moon. Charter school advocate and hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson said on his blog:

“I have no doubt that it will be among the most important and influential education-related articles of the year. This is breakthrough journalism.”

And education journalist John Merrow wrote on his blog:

“I applaud the Times for bringing this to the forefront.  I worry that it could be a step backward if it merely heightens the significance of scores on bubble tests, but that’s a risk worth taking…

“So rather than boycott the LA Times, I say we should all subscribe.  And we should turn up the heat on administrators who refuse to set  and maintain high standards for their teachers, and on unions that don’t work hard to give teachers opportunities to be excellent.”

Even as Education Secretary Arne Duncan and other prominent “outsiders” backed the Times, the paper itself published the database last weekend with a somewhat defensive explanation:

“Although value-added measures do not capture everything that goes into making a good teacher or school, The Times decided to make the ratings available because they bear on the performance of public employees who provide an important service, and in the belief that parents and the public have a right to the information.”

And there were prominent voices of moderation in this debate. Even some prominent education voices usually associated with the “outsiders” flinched at the Times’ decision to publish teachers’ names and value-added scores. Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute wrote:

“I have three serious problems with what the LAT did.

“First, as I’ve noted here before, I’m increasingly nervous at how casually reading and math value-added calculations are being treated as de facto determinants of “good” teaching…

“… Second, beyond these kinds of technical considerations, there are structural problems. For instance, in those cases where students receive substantial pull-out instruction or work with a designated reading instructor, LAT-style value-added calculations are going to conflate the impact of the teacher and this other instruction…

“…Third, there’s a profound failure to recognize the difference between responsible management and public transparency. Transparency for public agencies entails knowing how their money is spent, how they’re faring, and expecting organizational leaders to report on organizational performance. It typically doesn’t entail reporting on how many traffic citations individual LAPD officers issued or what kind of performance review a National Guardsman was given by his commanding officer.”

So here’s where I come down on this. The methodology may be imperfect. Some teachers can’t be evaluated based on value-added criteria. Yes, some embarrassment will result.

Still, this information serves the public interest. If we could get similar data from Denver or any other school district, I would be inclined to publish it.

I’m no longer the parent of a school-aged child, but if I were, I would want this kind of data as I chose a school and possibly even a classroom for my child. Yes, this information will make principals’ lives more difficult, as pushy parents demand spaces for their kids in the most effective teachers’ classrooms. But isn’t parental engagement what we all want?

Arguments against the release from people like Hess are reasonable and give me pause. There are a number of red flags here. But then “insiders” like Klonsky make arguments so specious that it makes me think the more we know the better, even if the information is far from perfect.

Here’s what started bothering me during the SB-191 debate, and continues to fester. Some (nowhere near all) “insiders” – teachers and teacher advocates – have made the following arguments at different times over the past few months.

  1. Anyone who wants to use imperfect, emerging data systems as part of a teacher evaluation system is by definition hostile to teachers.
  2. Standardized tests, in any event, don’t measure the stuff that really matters.
  3. Any form of evaluation that has a public component, or is released publicly represents a deliberate effort to shame and humiliate teachers.
  4. Any school that is not part of the traditional public system and shows results above and beyond those of similar schools from within the public system is teaching to the test and creating automatons lacking critical thinking skills. Their students won’t succeed in higher education, and these schools aren’t the promising models “outsiders” claim they are.
  5. Teachers get all the blame when the main challenge to student success comes from disengaged parents and unprepared kids. There’s only so much teachers can do given the raw materials with which they must work.
  6. Anyone who hasn’t been a teacher can’t have a legitimate point of view about how to reform public education. And those former teachers who have become philosophical “outsiders” are corporate toadies and sell-outs.

So the message I’m getting from these folks is that only they know what constitutes good teaching and learning. It isn’t measurable in any traditional sense, but real professionals know it when they see and feel it. If only all the buttinskis from foundations and community organizations and non-profits and the media would let teachers teach, and give them adequate resources, everything would be dandy.

History shows these arguments to be naïve and ignorant at best, disingenuous and dishonest at worst. I’m still waiting for specific, affirmative, measurable ideas and plans from the faction of people who hate what’s happening now.

So far all I’m hearing is why everything Obama, Duncan, Bloomberg, Klein, Vallas, Bennet and Boasberg  are trying is an unconscionable attempt to dismantle public education.

We’d all like to see better neighborhood schools and more money, wisely spent, for public education. So, “insiders,” how, exactly, do we get there from here?

I eagerly await your responses.

Popularity: 23% [?]

Posted in Accountability, From the editor, Teacher unions | 13 Comments »

Losing R2T and the politics of blocking

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

There’s no way to ignore the big news of the week: Colorado lost Race to the Top Round 2. I can’t deny I called it wrong. Like every other observer out there, including many more skillful and attuned than I, my forecast was based on what should happen, not what one might expect given the vagaries of a rigorously bureaucratic grant review process. (Not to mention the “ugly politics” Rick Hess suggests as a result of the misguided focus of the review process.)

To start, there are a couple items I have to clear up. Despite any rumors to the contrary, I had nothing at all to do with this morning’s lead editorial in the Denver Post (“Way to go, CEA.”) And no, I did not put anything in Mark Sass’s coffee before he wrote “Screw the Feds.” Moving on….

In their insightful 2009 volume Liberating Learning, Terry Moe and John Chubb included an important chapter titled “The Politics of Blocking.” Therein they explained how teachers unions with their uniquely enormous capacity to fund a powerful political machine are more adept at stopping reforms they don’t like than they are in implementing changes on their agenda. The authors identify many points in the process at which legislation can be killed — from committee votes to the veto pen to courtroom challenges. One win and it’s done.

That’s why it was so remarkable SB 191 emerging unscathed with some minor concessions to be signed into law. But maybe there are a couple additional points in “The Politics of Blocking” Moe and Chubb might have mentioned. First, undermining efforts to obtain resources to fund the reform plan. It’s not entirely clear to what extent CEA’s refusal to sign on to the R2T Round 2 application (as opposed to say reviewers’ bias against, or inability to understand, systems of local control) hurt the effort. But it certainly didn’t help.

Second, and more significantly, it’s time to consider that Colorado might see the politics of blocking through implementation. Now that we know federal funds aren’t available, the Council on Educator Effectiveness figures to have a harder time overcoming its early inertia. Would certain elements represented on the Council pursue a “kill the clock”-style strategy while lobbying a new legislature to further water down or slow down SB 191′s implementation? For this reason alone, watching this fall’s state legislative and state board of education elections will be interesting.

Once the initial sting of injustice starts to wear off, maybe others will join me in seeing that maybe Colorado is just as well off without the $175 million in federal funds and strings attached. There are plenty of state and local school officials out there who are interested in revisiting the Common Core standards issue, for example. If the money isn’t there anyway, why can’t Colorado re-implement its own standards and add on the few Common Core bits seen as improvements — rather than the other way around?

The fallout from Tuesday’s stunning announcement is just beginning.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Posted in Reform, Teacher unions | No Comments »

Nice timing, Dennis

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

How fitting that National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel launched his “rehabilitate the NEA’s image” tour in Denver yesterday. One has to assume that his state affiliate — CEA — played a major role in sinking Colorado’s bid for $175 million in Race to the Top money. CEA refused to endorse the state’s application, its knickers in a twist because of SB-191, the dreaded educator effectiveness bill.

Don’t hurry back, Dennis.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Posted in Teacher unions | No Comments »

More on the L.A. Times database kerfuffle

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten has weighed in with a more nuanced argument against the Los Angeles Times‘ plans to publish a database of teachers and their “value-added” scores. As I wrote in the previous post, L.A. union President A.J. Duffy slammed the Times in what struck me as a hysterical and shallow diatribe. Here’s how the Times described Weingarten’s take:

(Weingarten) said Wednesday that she believed parents have a right to know how well their children’s teachers are rated on employee evaluations, but strongly disagreed with The Times’ decision to publish data showing how individual teachers may have influenced the standardized test scores of students.

Such data should be considered only as part of a well-rounded evaluation of a teacher’s performance, Randi Weingarten said, and then should be available only to the teacher, his or her principal, and individual parents. It is wrong, she said, to make such information widely available to the public.

…Teachers “look at this as a hammer, a sledgehammer, and they’re scared about it,” she said. “They’re schoolteachers; they’re private individuals…. They’re not public figures. And they just woke up one day and 6,000 names were going to be in the newspaper.”

Even my friend and fellow-blogger Van Schoales, executive director of Education Reform Now, thinks the Times will have crossed a line if it publishes the database. In an electronic newsletter sent yesterday, Schoales wrote:

…publicizing teacher names with accompanying test scores in the LA Times not only crosses an ethical line but could cause reform backlash.  I’m guessing that Diane Ravitch and a few in the NEA couldn’t be more pleased for the overreach.  While I applaud much of what has appeared in the articles, it seems patently unfair for the LA Times to publically shame a select group of elementary teachers because the retrograde teacher union and spineless administrators have been unwilling to do their jobs.  Less than 1% of LA Unified teachers were rated “below standard” by administrators according to a recent New Teacher Project study and only 13% of fourth graders are proficient readers.   Do you think there’s a problem?

Popularity: 19% [?]

Posted in Accountability, Teacher unions, Teaching and learning | 9 Comments »

The L.A. ostrich

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

United Teachers Los Angeles President A. J. Duffy has made a complete fool of himself by calling on teachers and members of other labor unions to boycott the Los Angeles Times for…telling the truth.

How did the newspaper incur the wrath of Duffy? The Times on Sunday published the first installment in what will be an ongoing series on teacher quality. The paper contracted with a Rand Corporation researcher (though not with Rand itself) to conduct a statistical analysis of seven years of math and reading scores from L.A. students.

Not surprisingly, the paper found that some teachers are far more effective than others. The database allows readers to search by teacher name to see how much value an individual teacher has added — or in some cases failed to add — to student learning.

The paper is careful to qualify its findings, and to describe the value-added methodolgy’s shortcomings.

No one suggests using value-added analysis as the sole measure of a teacher. Many experts recommend that it count for half or less of a teacher’s overall evaluation.

And in Los Angeles, the method can be used for only a portion of the district’s roughly 14,000 elementary school instructors: California students don’t take the test until second grade and teachers must have had enough students for the results to be reliable.

Nevertheless, value-added analysis offers the closest thing available to an objective assessment of teachers. And it might help in resolving the greater mystery of what makes for effective teaching, and whether such skills can be taught.

The series is sure to spark serious debate, and merits a serious and thoughtful response from teachers and their leaders. Instead, we get this from Duffy.

After learning of the analysis and the database last week, union leaders began making automated calls to teachers objecting to publication. In the Friday evening call, Duffy said the database was “an irresponsible, offensive intrusion into your professional life that will do nothing to improve student learning.

“Our attorneys are looking into the legalities of this database,” he said in the recorded message. “This is part of the continuing attack on our profession, and we must continue to fight back on all fronts.”

One can only hope he has taken his blood pressure medication.

Tellingly, American Federation of Teachers (UTLA’s parent organization) President Randi Weingarten, who is sophisticated and smart, has remained silent on the matter.

Popularity: 18% [?]

Posted in Accountability, Teacher unions | 1 Comment »

What’s missing from the DPS pension dispute?

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

What’s missing? Teachers.

And that’s a little odd, isn’t it, since it is their pensions primarily at issue, and individually they have the most to gain or to lose.  Now mix in that the same people crying foul over the pension deal are usually leading the charge for this constituency: on blocking direct placement reform and the evaluation provisions of SB 191, and even on individual teacher dismissals. So why not call in the teacher brigade on the pension refinancing?

Well, because one can’t. No matter how one tortures the financing numbers, or claims willful ignorance on the 30-year-old, four-syllable practice which comprises an “interest rate swap” (which, just to clarify, is when two parties, um, swap interest rates), it’s pretty much impossible to argue that DPS teachers are anything but significantly better off as a result of the pension refinancing.

Before the refinancing, DPS’s pension faced isolation, a $400 million shortfall and demographic quicksand of just 1.2 active employees per retiree (more on this later). After the refinance and merger, DPS teachers now have their pensions funded at a higher rate than any other part of PERA; enjoy portability (so taking a job in a different Colorado district no longer means losing benefits); and are supported by a more diversified and stable funding base, as PERA at the time of the refinance had 2.5 active employees for every retiree (and I suspect that ratio has increased).

What is completely absent from this dispute is anyone clamoring for DPS teachers to return to the previous pension system — because even in the dark-clouds-and-lightning claims about the refinancing, absolutely no one can make an argument with a straight face that teachers should go back to what they had before (and if someone asks, I’d like to see their request honored).

So where are Denver’s teachers, and particularly their union, the DCTA? Well, DCTA publicly endorsed the very board members who are most vocal about the financing.  DCTA clashed strongly with the Democratic Senate primary candidate who has the most to lose. And while officially neutral until the primary is decided, when the NYT pointed out that DPS is hiring teachers at a time when most districts are firing them, DCTA head Henry Roman preferred his cloud with a dark lining, stressing that DPS hired fewer teachers this year than in previous years. All of which means DCTA is uncharacteristically silent on an important and highly visible policy issue that is clearly and overwhelmingly in the best interest of its members.

This situation recalls the face egg of the most recent labor negotiation, where DCTA gave the then-superintendent Bennet a vote of “no confidence” on a proposal that was eventually endorsed by their members by a margin of more than 3:1. I would anticipate an even higher portion of their membership would support their current pension deal compared to the old one. So DCTA can’t credibly argue to its membership that the pension deal was bad for teachers. But given their political bedfellows, they also can’t bear to publicly admit that it was very good for teachers. Hence their roar of silence.

For Colorado has not seen a farce with this much hot air since Balloon Boy (which also had as its genesis a staged PR campaign).  And like six-year-old Falcon Heene, the absent teachers seem far more sane then the perpetrators.  Where are teachers? Well, part of their absence might be that they have work to do. As noted above, one of the main impacts of the refinancing and merger was to keep pensions solvent by increasing the base of active employees to retirees.

Overshadowed by the rise in political humidity was the announcement last week that 350 more DPS students graduated than the previous year. Those 350 students mean an additional 12-14 teaching jobs. Which mean 12-14 more people paying into PERA. Which means recent and soon-to-be retiring teachers have an even larger base to fund their pensions.

In fact, reversing a long trend, DPS enrollment is growing, with an increase of over 2,400 students in the current year, which roughly equates to 100 additional teaching jobs. Now a large part of that is preschool (which is a new group, not incremental growth), but these teachers pay into PERA regardless. In fact, one could argue that enrollment, and the corresponding teacher base, is the most important pension variable under direct district control.

Perhaps teachers understand this all too well. Build better schools, attract more students, hire more teachers. The district administration has put its efforts fully behind these measures. Teachers seem largely on board. Were that this was everyone’s focus.

Popularity: 19% [?]

Posted in Legislative/political follies, Pension morass, Teacher unions | 6 Comments »

Envisioning a new union

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

When I was a truck mechanic, I belonged to a union. In the private sphere, unions and ownership fight for the same goal: more money. I twice went on strike when I was a truck mechanic. We were fighting for increased wages and better working conditions.

It was a good, and in my view, necessary fight. Owners were fighting for the same piece of the pie that we were. Companies that successfully navigate the financial bottom line, including a satisfied work force, make it–those companies that don’t fail. That’s how the market works and that is how unions became what they were and are today. Should teachers unions operate differently?

When I look at the role of teacher unions (associations) today, I sense a shift from the “coal miner” union approach. Don’t get me wrong, unions still need to monitor wages and working conditions. But I think, perhaps naively, that unions are becoming more involved in the actual practices by teachers and schools that directly impact students–practices that focus less on inputs and more on outputs. Or in other words, less of a focus on the job of teaching and more focus on the work of teaching. My job pays my bills, my work is who I am.

What does this look like? I envision teacher unions involving themselves more in the professional practices that impact student achievement. For example, unions are very keen to monitor the amount of time that teachers are required to be involved in “non-teaching” duties, like hall supervision. This is less about a teacher’s practice (the work) and more about the management (the job) of a school building.

Don’t get me wrong, teachers need to spend less time supervising lunch rooms and more time planning and analyzing, and we need protection from too much non-teaching duty. Teachers have gone out on strike over such issues. But in my vision of the new teacher union, I’d envision teachers fighting for those practices that institutionally improve student achievement.

Paul Teske just wrote about the negative impact that summer breaks have on students. I have blogged about the research that supports a later start time for high school students. Research supports the notion of teacher collaboration and making sure teachers have time to collaborate. Can you imagine teachers unions fighting for those issues?

Headline: Teacher union goes on strike because district does not implement new high school bell schedule. I can’t imagine even the most adamant union buster finding a problem with this.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Posted in Teacher unions, Teaching and learning | No Comments »

Emotionally powerful film “The Lottery” delivers

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

Last night I was privileged to attend the Colorado premiere of The Lottery at the Harkins Theatre in Northfield. Like nearly all in the genre, it’s a movie with a point of view: Massive reform involving greater parental choice and alternative school models is desperately needed to provide children with greater opportunities – especially young people of color and in poverty.

Set in Harlem and featuring four families trying to get their students into one of Eva Moskowitz’s Harlem Success Academy charter schools, the themes evoked by the film and its central character nevertheless reflect broader concerns in American urban education. And, in many cases, it struck more universal chords of parental determination to obtain the best education for their children. A similar film easily could have been made with Hispanic parents trying to enroll their students in West Denver Prep, for example.

The movie is excellent, but that doesn’t make it easy to watch. Getting a close-up view of the respective families’ challenges and aspirations, combined with some deep-seated political tensions, is heart-wrenching – even more so personally as the father of two small children. Without providing any spoilers, all I can say is you’ll find the ending all too realistic and less than completely satisfying.

While it’s the children and their parents who are the most compelling stars of The Lottery, New York reform leaders Moskowitz and Geoffrey Canada, along with Newark Mayor Cory Booker, fill in the gaps to make the larger case for reform. Former New York City Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum does a workable job as the foil, but many of her arguments against charter school expansion and defending union prerogatives ring as hollow as the shrinking political opposition to school choice throughout the nation.

After the movie aired, an all-star panel featuring Lt. Gov. Barbara O’Brien, outgoing House Speaker Terrance Carroll, DPS Board President Nate Easley and Denver School of Science and Technology CEO Bill Kurtz tackled some provocative questions from moderator Van Schoales. Many of the panelist comments helped to provoke some deeper thinking about education reform and to reinforce the movie’s call to action. Nevertheless, I did have a couple objections:

1. Yes, teachers unions aren’t the sole obstacle to meaningful reform, but it’s impossible to deny the major role they play – as evidenced by the United Federation of Teachers at PS 194 in the film. I listened astutely but heard none of the panelists as much as mention the word union during the post-film discussion. I’d like to think it was more an oversight than a lack of the kind of moral courage impressed upon viewers by the makers of the film.

2. We should have a discussion about whether more resources are needed to deliver a top-notch K-12 education, and what that should look like. But a couple of the panelists misstated (perhaps inadvertently) some facts about Colorado education spending. School Finance Act per-pupil revenue for 2009-10 is $7,241 (not $6,000) – and this money doesn’t include categorical spending, mill levy overrides, and a host of federal program spending (Colorado’s current per-pupil spending is closer to $9,000, and total per-pupil spending is north of $11,000). Also, it was asserted that Colorado ranks 49th in K-12 funding. Simply not the case.

Nevertheless, I had a great time and highly recommend the film. If you missed the premiere of The Lottery, don’t delay to find a theater near you. There’s no sitting back and waiting for change to come, not any more.

Other insightful reviews by:

Popularity: 35% [?]

Posted in School choice, School funding and finance, Teacher unions | 5 Comments »

Some PR advice for CEA from New Jersey

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

I often get accused of union-bashing — in particular, of bashing the Colorado Education Association (CEA). Yes, I am especially hard on CEA, its leadership and political agenda, and more relentlessly so than most.

But never let it be said that I am so mean to CEA that I would withhold from them important friendly advice. Recently a chance has presented itself to learn from a fellow National Education Association state affiliate. Given the public relations nightmare that has taken place of late with the New Jersey Education Association, I offer the following bits of advice to CEA:

Experience is the best teacher. After all, CEA likely wants to avoid the “astonishing fall from grace,” according to Kevin Manahan of the Star-Ledger, that NJEA has engendered in recent weeks. There is time to rebuild bridges after the bitter SB 10-191 battle, and to not make things worse Garden State-style.

Colorado teachers’ union leaders may even want to consider sending thank-you notes to their New Jersey counterparts for setting a clear standard to be avoided at all costs.

Popularity: 31% [?]

Posted in Teacher unions | 14 Comments »

Can teachers’ unions change their role?

Monday, May 24th, 2010

Susan Moore Johnson, a Harvard education professor, studies the roles of teachers unions. She was recently interviewed on Chicago Public Radio about the Chicago Teacher’s Union president’s race. She has some interesting comments on the changing role of teachers unions.

I see a changing of priorities for many teachers when it comes to the purpose of teachers unions. More and more teachers would like to see unions move to a proactive role in recognizing the importance of teacher effectiveness and less of a focus on the traditional bread and butter union issues of wages, hours, and working conditions.

I saw this played out in the debate over SB 191. Some of the push for redefining the purpose of teachers unions comes from new-to-the-profession teachers.

I was reminded of this when I testified before the House Committee on Education a few weeks back in support of SB 191. The committee chair was Mike Merrifield, a vociferous opponent of the bill. Merrifield limited the panel of teachers that I testified with to two minutes of testimony each. He made a point of asking each teacher, except for me,  how many years of experience they had teaching.

When the first teacher said, “three years,” Merrifield made a point of overtly smirking at the response. He did the same to the next teacher who responded with, “two years.” Merrifield seemed to be discounting their testimony because of their lack of experience. Thanks to a Republican committee member I was able to answer “fifteen years,” when asked how long I had been teaching.

I think teachers unions can be major players in reforming education. It will take a concerted effort on the part of reform-minded teachers to push their unions to think about the profession as well as the job.

Popularity: 23% [?]

Posted in Reform, Teacher unions | 4 Comments »

« Older Entries
Daniels fundColorado League of Charter SchoolsColorado Childrens CampaignCollege InvestPitton FoundationsDonnell-Kay Foundation