Are teachers unions to blame for failing schools?

This was the question debated last week on NPR's Intelligence Squared. At the beginning of the debate, less than half the audience believed teachers unions should be faulted for poor-performing schools, but by the close of the program, an astonishing 68 percent believed school employee unions contributed to the problem.

In Michigan, with the drama surrounding the federal Race to the Top competitive grant program, the role of teachers unions has been scrutinized. The Michigan Education Association refused to sign on to the reforms passed by the Legislature early this year, and many believe this was one of the reasons why the state wasn't selected to be one of the finalists for the first round of grant money.

The Intelligence Squared debate featured six panelists, three critical and three supportive of unions. The debate became heated at times, especially when the audience began asking questions. One pro-union participant, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, insinuated that the audience was packed by groups presupposed to be anti-union.

The chief arguments made by the pro-union panelists were that some heavily unionized states outperformed less unionized ones; that unions do not oppose reforms; and that unions simultaneously work to do what's best for kids by protecting the best interests of teachers.

Union critics argued that public employee unions commonly block effective reforms like greater parental choice; that they protect the jobs of the worst teachers by demanding seniority-based hiring practices and tenure; and that they use their political power to command public support and legal protection.

Two major sticking points centered on school choice, particularly charter schools, and teacher evaluations.  Michigan recently selectively expanded its cap on the number of charter schools that can operate in the state. Union critics in the debate argued that unions have successfully pressured lawmakers to create charter school caps, because most charters are not unionized.

Weingarten asserted that unions "want to make sure every single child has a choice," and pointed out that she chairs the board of trustees for a New York City charter school run by an AFT affiliate. Weingarten did not mention that a progress report of this union-led charter school showed the school fell short by many different measures of student achievement.

The panelists critical of unions asserted repeatedly that unions protect bad teachers, and that it's nearly impossible for schools to remove an ineffective teacher. Terry Moe, a Stanford professor, pointed out that 99 percent of teachers receive satisfactory performance evaluations because it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to remove tenured teachers. In response to a question from the audience, both sides agreed that less than 20 teachers were fired out of the more than 50,000 teachers in NYC last year.

In the recent "Race to the Top" legislation, Michigan lawmakers wrote language into the school code that would allow schools to use a new evaluation system to identify ineffective teachers and remove them from the classroom. However, the new laws left the Teacher Tenure Act untouched, effectively keeping in place the laborious and expensive process that discourages many schools from even attempting to rid themselves of ineffective teachers.

During the NPR debate, Gary Smuts and Kate McLaughlin, both union proponents, claimed that both the school districts in which they work have effective evaluation systems, and argued that this goes to show that unions really can work in the best interest of students.

In response to this and the argument that unions are supportive of school choice and charter schools, Moe closed by saying:

"We've heard that several times that [unions] want choice, that they want accountability, and my response is: 'Hey, it's 2010. Where've you been?'...The reason we don't have them is that they've been opposing them."

Michigan House Bill 4248 would allow retired nurses who worked for the state Department of Corrections to return to a job with the department on a part-time basis and collect both their full pension payout and a salary. This "double dipping" by state workers is prohibited by a 2007 law, according to the House Fiscal Agency. The new bill was advanced because the DoC states that it has a nursing shortage and is in need of an enticement to bring more help to their facilities.

A memo from the Senate Fiscal Agency indicates that the policy might bring about "modest savings" for the department.

However, the SFA also notes that savings for the DOC could come at a cost in another area because it will encourage current nurses to retire early and then return for the salary on top of their full pension payout. To the extent that this occurs, it will increase claims against the state's public employee pension system.

The Department of Corrections testified in favor of the bill when it was in the House Judiciary Committee. The legislation was also endorsed by the United Auto Workers Local 6000, a Michigan state employees' union.

On March 5, 2009, the Michigan House voted 98-6 in favor of approving HB 4248. The six dissenting votes were all Republicans.

More than a year later, on Wednesday, March 17, 2010, the Michigan Senate voted 37-1 to approve the bill. The lone dissenting vote was Sen. Michael "Mickey" Switalski, D-Roseville.

Switalski gave a short address to the chamber, explaining his concerns with the legislation. The remarks are reprinted below.

A MichiganVotes.org listing of the roll call vote in both chambers follows the Switalski remarks.

Contact information for all lawmakers is available at www.MichCapCon.com/9313

~~~~~

Senator Switalski's statement is as follows:

I must rise in opposition to this bill, although by itself it might be an acceptable bill with a few changes. It is an example of a growing practice that is bad policy. It is a growing practice that is incompatible with what should be our No. 1 public policy goal because our biggest problem in the state is jobs and unemployment.

This bill does not create new jobs for people who are laid off or unemployed. This bill changes the law to allow workers already drawing a public pension to draw a second paycheck. It gives the lucky ones two checks while the unemployed get none. Regrettably, this practice is growing. It is an element in the Governor's retirement reform package. Current employees could retire and return part-time to do the same job. We have a growing number of contract employees in state government who too often are retired state employees who walk through a revolving door and return doing the same job at twice the pay; while low-seniority state employees are laid off to free up funds to pay the contractors.

Then we have the worse abuse, the DROP program that allows State Police to collect their pension without ever retiring for five years. We laid off troopers last year while we were providing others a chance to double dip. This hurts the solvency of the retirement fund and wastes the money we spend on a troopers school.

These practices in this bill are incompatible with our goals of reducing unemployment in Michigan. The policy must change.

~~~~~

(Editor's Note for May 10, 2010: Please note that the vote from the House of Representatives noted below was the first vote taken on this legislation. More than a year after this first vote, and shortly following the action in the Senate described above, the House took a second vote on the matter before sending it to the governor for a signature on April 22, 2010. The House voted a second time with a large 100-7 majority, but the group of lawmakers voting for and against it changed slightly. The second vote is here.)

Lawmakers who voted IN FAVOR of allowing "double dipping" for some state employees:

SENATE REPUBLICANS (22)

~Allen ~Birkholz ~Bishop ~Brown ~Cassis ~Cropsey ~Garcia ~George ~Gilbert ~Hardiman ~Jansen ~Jelinek ~Kahn ~Kuipers ~McManus ~Nofs ~Pappageorge ~Patterson ~Richardville ~Sanborn ~Stamas ~Van Woerkom

HOUSE REPUBLICANS (35)

~Ball ~Bolger ~Booher ~Calley ~Caul ~Crawford ~Daley ~Denby ~DeShazor ~Haines ~Hansen ~Haveman ~Horn ~Jones, Rick ~Knollenberg ~Kowall ~Kurtz ~Lori ~Lund ~Marleau ~Meekhof ~Moore ~Moss ~Opsommer ~Pavlov ~Pearce ~Proos ~Rocca ~Rogers ~Schmidt, W. ~Schuitmaker ~Scott, P. ~Stamas ~Tyler ~Walsh

SENATE DEMOCRATS (15)

~Anderson ~Barcia ~Basham ~Brater ~Cherry ~Clark-Coleman ~Clarke ~Gleason ~Hunter ~Jacobs ~Olshove ~Prusi ~Scott ~Thomas ~Whitmer

HOUSE DEMOCRATS (63)

~Angerer ~Barnett ~Bauer ~Bennett ~Bledsoe ~Brown, L. ~Brown, T. ~Byrnes ~Byrum ~Clemente ~Constan ~Corriveau ~Coulouris ~Cushingberry ~Dean ~Dillon ~Donigan ~Durhal ~Ebli ~Espinoza ~Geiss ~Gonzales ~Gregory ~Haase ~Hammel ~Haugh ~Huckleberry ~Jackson ~Jones, Robert ~Kandrevas ~Kennedy ~Lahti ~LeBlanc ~Leland ~Lemmons ~Lindberg ~Lipton ~Liss ~Mayes ~McDowell ~Meadows ~Miller ~Nathan ~Nerat ~Neumann ~Polidori ~Roberts ~Schmidt, R. ~Scott, B. ~Scripps ~Segal ~Sheltrown ~Simpson ~Slavens ~Slezak ~Smith ~Spade ~Stanley ~Switalski ~Tlaib ~Valentine ~Warren ~Young

~~~~~

Lawmakers who voted AGAINST allowing "double dipping" for some state employees:

SENATE REPUBLICANS (0)

NONE

HOUSE REPUBLICANS (6)

~Agema ~Amash ~Genetski ~Green ~McMillin ~Meltzer

SENATE DEMOCRATS (1)

~Switalski

HOUSE DEMOCRATS (0)

NONE

Legislators who DID NOT VOTE:

~Rep. Elsenheimer (R) ~Rep. Griffin (D) ~Rep. Hildenbrand (R) ~Rep. Johnson (D) ~Rep. Melton ~Rep. Womack (D)