Politics

The massive turnout across the state of California on March 4 in defense of public education provides indisputable evidence that this movement is just at the beginning stage. And much credit is due to the countless number of students, staff, and teachers who committed many, many hours of their time, tirelessly organizing for March 4; without this dedication, the event would have sputtered to a stop.

Of course, those who participated are eagerly raising the question: What next? But in contemplating the way forward, casting a glance backwards can help illuminate some of the conflicting perspectives that were competing for hegemony in the struggle to defend public education. In this way we can begin to launch a discussion over the underlying strategy and tactics that can best guide our way forward.

The International Students for Social Equality

Although the International Students for Social Equality (ISSE) offered many correct observations, for example, by placing the blame for the decimation of public education at the feet of both Democrats and Republicans, and by connecting the campaign for public education with the need to create jobs, they included in their list of demands the nationalization of banks and major corporations, placing both under the democratic control of working people. Of course, if such a step were implemented, funding for public education would be solved because profits could be diverted from these sectors to public education.

One can supply at least some rationale for the call to nationalize banks at this historical juncture, given the extraordinary unpopularity among working people in response to the federal government’s bank bailouts. Nevertheless, at this time there is virtually no demand on the part of working people to nationalize banks, let alone corporations, and there is no call among working class organizations (either unions or caucuses within unions or other working class organizations that represent a significant sector of the working class) to institute workers’ control. This slogan was so out of step with the current consciousness of working people in general and the consciousness of those involved in the movement to defend public education in particular that it virtually fell flat and went nowhere.

Rather than helping to elevate the consciousness of workers, such a demand, because workers are not even remotely contemplating it, has the result of discrediting those who raise it. They appear completely out of touch with the current desires, aspirations, and organizational capacity of the working class. Demands must serve to galvanize working people to fight for their own interests as they themselves understand and define these interests, not appear as exotic, esoteric, and alien to them. While the demand for nationalizations and workers’ control might be entirely appropriate at a later date, workers will have to learn from their own experience that these are necessary steps to take.

Along the same lines, the ISSE rejects forming alliances with the trade unions, noting that “these organizations work to subordinate working class opposition to the Democratic Party and the capitalist two-party system.” And they add: “They work systematically to impose concessions on their memberships, accepting the lie that cuts are necessary to ‘balance the budget.’”

However, despite more than a grain of truth in these observations, they ignore both strategic and factual considerations.

Despite their flaws, unions nevertheless represent millions of working people, and they constitute the only institution founded on the basis of defending the needs and interests of workers as workers. Consequently, ignoring the trade unions results in the self-imposed isolation of revolutionaries from the organized working class. Also, because of pressure from their ranks, more and more trade unions are now adopting positions in conflict with the Democratic Party. For example, U.S. Labor Against the War has more than 180 local union affiliates, despite the strong support of the Democratic Party for Obama’s wars. Labor for Single Payer health care has many trade union affiliates and just passed a resolution calling on the Labor Movement to organize a Solidarity Day III demonstration to demand jobs, peace and justice. The Democratic Party does not support single payer health care. And many trade unions, especially teacher unions, are calling for taxing the rich or for progressive taxation in order to fund public education and social services, which again runs contrary to the Democratic Party program.

Turning away from the unions also ignores the unprecedented frontal attack the Obama administration has directed against the teacher unions by applauding when all the teachers at a Rhode Island school were fired or by forcing the conversion of public schools into charter schools, which eliminates teacher unions in a single stroke of the pen. The teacher unions will be compelled to oppose Obama’s policies if they want to survive.

If revolutionaries abandon the unions, then the Democratic Party and the employers will have little competition in terms of the hegemony of their ideas among organized workers.

All this is to say that the trade unions have a long and complicated history. In the 1930s many played a militant role in defending and promoting the interests of working people, often thanks to the role of socialists within their ranks. Because their ostensive role is to defend workers, trade unions are particularly susceptible to pressure from their own ranks to do exactly this, even though it might run counter to the interests of the corporate dominated Democratic Party.

Humanist Workers for Revolutionary Socialism

Humanist Workers for Revolutionary Socialism also offers some correct observations. Its members urge linking the struggle for education to the plight of public employees and the working class in general. Rather than condemning unions as completely irrelevant, they argue in favor of transforming unions into class struggle organs of the working class. And they correctly argue that the problem of the funding of education is rooted in the crisis of capitalism. But they fall into the same error as ISSE when they insist that “only an indefinite general strike can reverse the fee hike and layoffs” and therefore call for such a strike at this time.

While this claim might in fact turn out to be true, the working class at this point in history is far from accepting this conclusion, based on its own experiences. In fact, the current mood of California workers in the public sector leans more in the direction of desperately clinging to their jobs in the face of the massive layoffs of their coworkers, as opposed to venturing out onto what for them is the uncharted territory of a strike, let alone an indefinite general strike.

This is not to say that strikes should not be encouraged where the conditions are ripe and workers are prepared to fight. And if an indefinite general strike could result simply from a few leftists raising the call, then the call would be entirely appropriate.

Unfortunately, organizing strikes, not to mention general strikes and indefinite general strikes, requires a tremendous amount of education, preparation, and organization. Many intermediary steps must be taken where, for example, workers gain a sense of solidarity among themselves; where they acquire an understanding of the tremendous power they can wield when they engage in collective action; where they manage to select leaders who have a fighting spirit, who understand the class nature of the struggle, and are entirely trustworthy; where they have an organization in place that allows them to act as an efficient and effective unit; and where they have been convinced that by engaging in an indefinite general strike they could actually win their demands, as opposed to simply losing their jobs.

Those who call for an indefinite general strike in a context that is lacking most of these elements thereby give the appearance that they are not serious and are completely disconnected from the working class. In the current situation the most advanced trade union actions have only amounted to one day, isolated strikes, such as that called by the University Professional and Technical Employees at U.C. Berkeley and the one day strike tentatively called by the Oakland teachers union.

There was yet another problem with the approach adopted by the Humanist Workers for Revolutionary Socialism. They offered an eleven-point program at the outset of this movement that could only be embraced by people who are already convinced of socialism. It included the call for the defeat of the U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and the condemnation of U.S. imperialism in addition to calling for the establishment of a workers’ government. Only a small minority of those who participated in March 4 is presently convinced of the desirability of these proposals. Most participants are completely oblivious of the imperialist nature of U.S. foreign policy and the need for a workers’ government. If the coalition building March 4 had in fact adopted this program, the demonstrations would have been miniscule in size.

This approach therefore misses the crucial dynamic involved in raising the consciousness of working people by failing to incorporate the strategic orientation of the united front. Masses of people do not become class conscious simply because someone lectures them on the virtues of socialism. They must learn from their own experience that capitalism always operates to undermine their needs and desires while socialism offers them the only solution, but these experiences only become possible when workers are prepared to fight for what they want. The united front therefore brings workers together over the demands that the workers themselves are prepared to stand up and fight for at any particular moment in history, such as defending public education and social services.

Put differently, the correct demands are not those selected by a few radicals who are intent on showing everyone else how far their own understanding has advanced. The demands must rather be carefully formulated to unite all those workers who want to put up a fight, thereby reflecting their level of consciousness at that point. The role of socialists then is to guide this fighting spirit increasingly in the direction of class independence, so that in the process workers come to realize they can only rely on themselves to bring about fundamental change, not on the politicians, the courts or the capitalists.

In the early stages of the current crisis surrounding education, many students and teachers at first impulsively lunged towards demands directed at defending only their own sector of education, even though clearly everyone was suffering. In the California State University system (CSU), the chosen slogan was: “CSU is the solution.” But socialists in the March 4 movement argued effectively that a far more powerful movement could be created by generating slogans that defended all public education, from kindergarten to the universities. And participants immediately perceived the logic of this proposal and adopted it.

Then, many in the movement, including UnitedEducators of San Francisco (American Federation of Teachers, Local 61), the teacher union covering K-12, have been insisting that the movement to defend education must be linked to the defense of social services, since state and city workers have been subjected to unrelenting attacks in the form of layoffs, pay cuts, and furloughs. This perspective has also begun to be accepted as those in the education sector realize their movement could be much stronger if an alliance was formed with these workers.

With a broadening working class alliance now part of the movement, some have been arguing that the next indispensable step is to raise the demand: TAX THE RICH! In this way enough money could easily be generated to fully fund education and social services. In other words, to avoid fracturing the alliance, the various sectors cannot be pursuing solutions that are unique to each sector but must promote solutions that include and unite everyone. This demand also raises the level of the struggle by framing it in class terms: workers and students are demanding that their needs are to be met at the expense of the rich, not at the expense of one another. And this demand has also begun to be accepted among a large number of the participants.

The united front strategy consequently operates in this way: Initially, demands are raised, although they might be entirely modest, that are aimed at uniting those who want to put up a fight, bringing many people together who might have different political affiliations. But when people participate in a struggle, their consciousness is raised. They learn, for example, that the Democratic Party is not supporting their struggle. They see that writing their so-called representatives in the state legislature or Congress accomplishes absolutely nothing. They learn that the courts and police are routinely used to suppress them, even though their cause is entirely just. But this means that the demands must be carefully crafted to resonate with workers each step of the way.

When leftists insist on including the demand for a workers’ government at the beginning of the struggle, they fail to realize that such a demand is accepted only after working people have had considerable experience consolidating themselves as a class and acting independently of the Democrats or Republicans. If leftists insist that participants must embrace socialism or the slogan of a workers’ government at the outset, they will prevent those who are eager to fight from participating and close the door to the real education these people will get through mass demonstrations and class struggle. In other words, this approach accomplishes just the opposite of its intended goal.

Freeway Blockades

Another controversy in the March 4 movement erupted over the question of mounting blockades of major highways and throughways, a tactic that some students ardently supported. Some of them argued that militant tactics such as these are absolutely essential since peaceful protests often amount to nothing and will only attract reformists, not those who are committed to real change. They added that it is not a question of the number of people who participate but the quality of the participation. In their minds, the more militant the action, the better it is, despite the small numbers who participate.

However, highway blockades mostly victimize working people who are trying to get to or from work or are simply trying to do their jobs. This tactic was imposed undemocratically on workers without affording them the opportunity to vote for or against it. Hence, it often results in repelling working people who would otherwise be sympathetic to defending public education, because they want free quality education for their own children.

Moreover, this tactic tends to divide the movement since it attracts only a small minority of students while alienating many other students, staff, and teachers who are sympathetic to the struggle but might be more sensitive to the negative effects of blocking traffic. It therefore serves to minimize the number of people who are engaged in the protest, rather than maximize it. And as a result, the tactic again inhibits the growth of the movement.

People are energized, enthused, and excited by massive demonstrations because they sense that when large numbers of people are united, the movement gains power and has a chance of success. It is as if subjective desires of working people are transformed into objective truths when embraced by huge numbers of people. Hence large demonstrations result in the participants wanting to reach out to even more workers until they succeed in winning a clear majority to the cause. This in turn inspires them to continue the struggle until victory is achieved.

Small demonstrations, on the other hand, usually demoralize the participants because they feel isolated, powerless, and disconnected from the majority of the population. And trying to win demands at the expense of working people who have the misfortune of being caught up in a freeway blockade will only divide and weaken the movement further. By isolating themselves from other workers they undermine their ability to win more workers to the struggle. Soon their demands begin to look entirely unrealistic because their lack of numbers emphasize their lack of power. And because of their disconnection from the working class, the participants, who often feel morally superior to everyone else because of their recourse to militant tactics, often end up drifting into the Democratic Party where they eventually believe real power resides.

Finally, revolutionary change does not result when only supported by a small minority of the population. To be successful, revolutionaries may not need the active participation of the majority of the population, but they do need their support. Most people, especially working people, believe that society should be run democratically. When they discover that the government refuses to adopt a policy even though the majority of the population has clearly embraced it, such as fully funding public education and providing jobs for all, then a revolutionary situation is created. People begin to demand that a new government that truly reflects the interests of the majority, which is constituted overwhelmingly by working people, replace the old, undemocratic system. Therefore, in order to maximize the possibility of fundamental change, activists must reach out to the majority of working people and attempt to win their support. One’s tactics must reflect this strategic orientation.

Read more

In Part I of this essay we looked at strategies in defense of public education that are referred to as “ultra-left,” meaning that they veer so far left that they sever ties with the working class and consequently lose all traction when it comes to influencing the movement. Here we will examine strategies that veer to the right, often ending up in the camp of opportunism, which means sacrificing principles and working class independence for the sake of quick but illusory gains. The interests of working people are subordinated to those of the capitalist class and the politicians who represent them, be they Democrats or Republicans. Finally, we will return to the question of how to proceed forward.

Organized Labor and the Democrats

Many top union officials often serve as examples of this rightward deviation. Some took the opportunity to place the blame for the crisis of public education at the feet of Republican Governor Schwarzenegger, overlooking the fact that the California Democratic Party politicians have routinely showered generous tax breaks on corporations, thereby depleting the state treasury of much needed money for public education and social services. In this way these union officials are taking advantage of the education crisis to offer backhanded support to Democratic Party candidates by denigrating their opponents. Others do this more explicitly by announcing at rallies in defense of public education that “we” are going to support one or another Democratic Party candidate who is truly a “friend of labor.”

But the promotion of Democratic Party candidates or politicians forgets that Democrats, as well as Republicans, receive huge amounts of money from corporations and the rich. Corporations do not give money to candidates without the expectation of a handsome return on their investment, often taking the form of favorable legislation, including generous tax breaks. After all, the people who run these corporations are always looking at the bottom line, as they say.

One need only take a quick look back at the past four decades to realize the Democratic Party has done virtually nothing for working people. Our standard of living has been on a steady decline while the income of the rich has skyrocketed, public education and social services have been decimated, bankers were allowed to prey on us, ruin our lives, and even commit criminal acts in the process, and then get bailouts while we lost our jobs, our health care, and our houses and were left to struggle on our own. Meanwhile the environment has become progressively more polluted. The tax burden has been shifted off corporations and the rich onto students (in the form of tuition or fee increases) and working people. Moreover, not one significant labor law reform has been passed while the Democrats have held the White House with majorities in both houses of Congress. The latest blow came when, even with their recent super majority in Congress, the Democrats could not bring themselves to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have made organizing unions easier. And they have entirely given up pretending that they would like to eliminate the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act.

Democratic Leadership vs. the California Democracy Act

More recently, the Democrats have played a devious and manipulative role in response to the California Democracy Act, which would reduce the requirement for the California state legislature to pass a budget and raise revenue from two-thirds vote to a simple majority. While many of the rank and file Democratic Party clubs have actually endorsed the Act, those who wield power in the party are doing everything they can to subvert it.

John Burton, California Democratic Party Chair, is promoting a competing initiative that would only reduce the requirement for passing a budget to a simple majority while raising revenue would still require a two-thirds vote. The logic behind this maneuver is self-serving and perverse: By maintaining a two-thirds requirement to raise taxes, the Democratic Party can continue pretending as if they would really like to raise taxes on the rich and the corporations, but the Republicans refuse and the Democrats lack a two-thirds majority that would allow them to override the Republican resistance. In this way, Democrats can talk as if they support working people — after all, talk is cheap — while at the same time not alienating their corporate sponsors by actually raising their taxes.

Jerry Brown, California Attorney General and Democratic Party candidate for governor, added his own twist to undermine the California Democracy Act. As Attorney General he has the power to label the initiative and cunningly chose the word “taxes” rather than “revenue,” thereby throwing fear into the heart of ordinary working people who do not want to see their own taxes rise and thereby lowering the chances of its passage. However, the majority of Californians, along with the rest of the country, are strongly supportive of raising taxes on the rich and on the corporations, which is the ultimate goal of those who initiated the California Democracy Act. Because he is now a candidate for governor, Brown does not want to alienate the wealthy with the specter of their taxes rising with the passage of this Act.

Why the Democratic Party Can’t Defend Working People

The explanation for the failure of the Democratic Party to defend the interests of working people is straightforward: they place their faith in capitalism. They believe it is the best of all possible economic systems. But capitalism, because of its very essence, operates in opposition to the interests of working people. Because capitalists are in a constant state of competition with one another, in order to survive each must keep production costs to a minimum. Those who succeed can undersell their opponents, push them out of business, and in this way survive. But labor constitutes a major production cost, and accordingly, business owners are always intent on running the business with as few workers as possible, with the lowest wage scale, and with ever-dwindling benefits. Whenever possible, they consequently transform their workforce into part-timers, mercilessly take advantage of undocumented workers, replace workers with machines or computers, demand that the workforce take a pay cut, contract out work to avoid union wages, transfer the entire business overseas to find the cheapest possible labor, and so on. They are not in business to serve the community or provide jobs to those of us who need them; they are in business to maximize profits for themselves. And if they do not succeed, they go under. The Democrats, just as much as the Republicans, are intent on supporting U.S. capitalism at the expense of working people. Accordingly, despite lip service to the contrary, they are compelled to be fundamentally anti-labor and have done nothing to mitigate, let alone stop, these crippling trends.

Even when the Democrats pretend to do something for workers, like pass legislation that would encourage the creation of jobs, they do it by helping out the corporations. Just this past week Congress passed a so-called jobs creation program that simply amounted to giving corporations one more tax break: they do not have to pay their share of Social Security for the remaining year for any new worker they hire. Of course, the workers have to pay their share of Social Security. And perversely, in the final analysis such legislation will pave the way for the Democrats, in alliance with Republicans, to begin to dismantle Social Security on the grounds it is insolvent.

Alliances with Organized Labor

Convinced at this point in history that there is no other game in town, organized labor has turned to the Democrats, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into their campaign chests, with the desperate hope of winning some substantial gains. But despite these munificent gestures, it has seen very little “return on its investment.” In fact organized labor has begun to exhibit the classic symptoms of the neurotic: one repeatedly does the same thing with the exact same results while expecting a different outcome. As long as organized labor is anchored to capitalism, it will have little choice except to humbly plead for help from the Democrats. But as the capitalist system continues to decline, and economic indicators are pointing in this direction, the pressure will intensify on labor officials from their membership to find their sanity and try something different.

Some have argued that because of their ties to the Democratic Party, the movement to defend public education should reject forming a united front with the unions. A united front is defined as an organized movement in which working people, although they might have different political perspectives and belong to different political parties, nevertheless come together to fight for a few fundamental issues that they have in common. The antiwar movement, for example, is a united front as well as the movement to defend public education and social services.

But despite its ties to the Democratic Party, the impulse to reject working with organized labor in a united front is misguided. First, because of the intensity of the current economic crisis, union members are mounting growing pressure on their union officials to defend their interests as they witness the massive layoffs of their coworkers and suffer pay cuts and furloughs. With no help coming from the Democratic Party, organized labor will be increasingly compelled to act independently of the Democrats and begin to turn instead to mobilizing its own ranks, and working people in general, in the form of mass demonstrations in order to exert political pressure in their own self-interest.

Second, as was mentioned in Part I of this article, the Democratic Party has in fact launched an attack on organized labor, particularly the teacher unions, by championing Race to the Top and leaving No Child Left Behind basically intact. And it has signaled its intention to cut “entitlements,” meaning Social Security and Medicare. These attacks drive a wedge between organized labor and the Democratic Party.

Third, by including organized labor in united fronts, union rank and file members will be exposed to a variety of political perspectives, including those that are critical of the Democratic Party and capitalism. These ideas can in turn influence the direction of the unions.

Fourth, by joining a large united front movement to save public education and social services, an entirely new perspective opens up to the unions. Currently, when fighting for gains or when simply defending what workers already have, unions have been engaging in purely symbolic protests. For example, a small demonstration is called at the house of some U.C. Regent, or at a bank during working hours when hardly anyone can come, or perhaps at Senator Diane Feinstein’s house, where a few hundred union members, at best, show up. But small symbolic demonstrations have little impact on employers or government policy. The union officials are only going through the motions of protesting without believing that anything significant can be won.

Mass Action

In contrast, during the 1930s workers staged massive demonstrations, mobilizing all their members and supporters from the community, in order to completely close down a particular business and force the owners to raise wages and recognize the union. The Civil Rights movement organized huge demonstrations and tore down racial barriers. The women’s movement organized mass demonstrations and won the right to vote.

Massive demonstrations unleash a dynamic that has the potential to change the political landscape. When people are brought together in large numbers, they no longer feel isolated and powerless. They begin to experience first-hand the strength that flows from their unity, which in turn encourages and pushes them forward in the struggle to win even more adherents. Here working people are acting independently of the politicians, flexing their muscles, as it were, and beginning to experience their own political power. As the demonstrations grow in size, it becomes apparent that they truly represent the interests and have the support of the majority of Americans. And because of this support, people become convinced that victory is possible. In the final analysis, these demonstrations lead to the recognition that what was considered an unrealistic dream only yesterday, such as full funding for public education and social services, is now entirely within reach.

By endorsing and building the March 4 mass demonstrations in defense of public education and social services, and by demanding that taxes be raised on the rich and the corporations, organized labor is already embarking on a new course of action that, if pursued, will place it on a collision course with the Democratic Party, which has been championing regressive taxation and has ruthlessly slashed social services, taking money from the most vulnerable people in society and transferring it to the big corporations in the form of new tax breaks.

The stakes are high. Those in organized labor clearly recognize that they will be up against powerful forces, representing the wealthiest sector of society, if they continue to insist on raising their taxes. They understand this will be class war. But as the California state budget continues to hemorrhage so that even more teachers and state workers are laid off, the unions will have little choice but to continue along this path. And while the wealthy are surely powerful, working people, when united and organized independently as a class, are even more powerful. If the owners of businesses, that is, the stockholders, are absent from their work sites, no one notices. However, when workers collectively decide not to go to work, society comes to a grinding halt. In the final analysis this fact ensures that working people have the power to insist that society operate in the interests of the majority, and working people are the vast majority.

Read more

A recent New York Times article (March 23, 2010) — discreetly tucked in the back pages of the newspaper — reported that Arne Duncan, Obama’s Secretary of Education, kept a confidential log of names of the rich and powerful who were trying to take advantage of their political connections to get their children admitted into Chicago’s best schools when Duncan was Chief Executive of the school system there. On the list were local politicians and business people, including the state attorney general, the former White House social secretary (a personal friend of the Obama family), and an unnamed former United States senator. The Times based its information on an article in the Chicago Tribune.

We can all quietly speculate about the identity of the former United States Senator who was seeking special treatment for his children.

Peter Cunningham, Arne Duncan’s current spokesperson in the Department of Education, was questioned about Duncan’s activity in relation to the log.

The Times accordingly reported: “A spokesman for the Department of Education [Peter Cunningham] said Tuesday that the log was a record of those who asked for help, and that neither Mr. Duncan nor the aide who maintained the list, David Pickens, ever pressured principals to accept a child. Rather, he said, the creation of the list was an effort to reduce pressure on principals.”

The Times then directly quoted Cunningham as stating: “This was an attempt to buffer principals from all the outside pressure, to get our arms around something that was burdensome to them. It was always up to the principal to make the decision. Arne never ever picked up the phone.”

Given these statements, one might conclude that everything was in order and above-board.

Nevertheless, The Times also went on to observe: “The log noted ‘AD’ [Arne Duncan] as the person requesting help for 10 students, and as a co-requester about 40 times, according to The Tribune. Mr. Duncan’s mother and wife also appeared to have requested help for students.”

This apparent contradiction between Duncan’s spokesperson, Cunningham, saying that “Arne never ever picked up the phone [to lobby for particular children],” and the log indicating that Duncan had in fact acted on behalf of 10 students alone and 40 more “as a co-requester,” was explained by Cunningham in this way, where again The Times is quoting him directly: “The fact that his name might be next to some of these names doesn’t mean he was trying to get the kid in a school,” Mr. Cunningham said. “He was only asking after someone said, ‘Hi, Arne, is there any way to get into this school?’”

The Times was quick to add: “Mr. Cunningham said he did not believe principals would have felt any special pressure because Mr. Duncan was the source of the inquiry. ‘We were always very clear with them that it was up to the principal to make the decision,’ he said.”

In other words, on the one hand Cunningham is saying that Duncan “never ever” made a phone call to promote a child and that Duncan’s initials next to a name “doesn’t mean he was trying to get the kid in a school,” suggesting Duncan did nothing to promote the names on the log. On the other hand, and completely contradicting himself, Cunningham is saying that a principal would feel no pressure to admit a particular student “because Mr. Duncan was the source of the inquiry.” [italics added] But if Duncan did not resort to a phone call when he was the source of the inquiry, he evidently availed himself of other means of communication — perhaps a personal visit — to make these unsavory requests.

The Times article left unchallenged the absurd conjecture that a principal, whose career entirely hangs on remaining on good terms with Duncan, would not have felt under intense pressure to accede to Duncan’s subtle pressure tactics. Perhaps The New York Times writer felt under excruciating pressure to please his own boss by trying to make this account look remotely plausible. Evidently Peter Cunningham felt under enough pressure to provide his entirely incoherent narrative in order to please his boss.

While Duncan is evidently prepared to spend part of his days bending the rules for the rich and powerful, he seems to relish spending the rest of the day terrorizing public school teachers across the country, demanding that they strictly adhere to a whole array of standards, no matter how insidious these standards are in terms of undermining quality education, demoralizing teachers, and forcing students to devote themselves to a boring curriculum. But if the teachers do not comply, Duncan wants them fired. There is no mercy or rule-bending here. To be more financially stable, regardless of whom is in the seat, you might want to consider playing some fun and interactive sports betting games via เว็บพนันออนไลน์ที่ดีที่สุด.

The California Federation of Teachers is bravely mounting a defense of public education in response to Duncan’s and the Obama administration’s attacks. It recently passed a resolution that included the following clauses that highlight Obama’s free-market, profit-driven education plan:

Whereas, over the past year, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has exploited the economic crisis to impose an unpopular, anti-union, anti-democratic, privatization scheme on our nation’s public school system; and

Whereas, this scheme has entailed scapegoating teachers, students and parents for all the social ills of our society that are reflected in the achievement gap between impoverished, predominantly minority, inner-city districts and primarily white, affluent districts; shredding decades of gains won by teachers’ unions; massive closures of public schools and redirection of school funds and facilities to benefit charter schools; and dictatorial “takeovers” of districts to suppress any community resistance to privatization; and

Whereas, if allowed to succeed, this drive to place our nation’s schools under the laws of “market-forces” will end public education as a right, and increase educational inequality based class;…

Therefore, be it resolved that the California Federation of Teachers endorse the April 10, 2010, March on Washington to Defend Public Education, fighting for the following demands:

Demand that Education Secretary Arne Duncan stop toying with our students’ lives.
End the “Race to the Top” scheme now.
Release all federal education funds to the states based on need
End the attacks against teachers, black, Latina/o and poor, working-class and middle-class students of all races
No privatization of public education
No more separate and unequal
Restore Dr. King’s vision for America….
This resolution, in conjunction with other resolutions by the same union that call for progressive taxation in order to increase revenue for education, points in exactly the right direction. It represents an effort to mobilize teachers to defend public education, their students, and their unions. It encourages teachers to rely on themselves, not hold out some desperate hope that those on top will come to their rescue. After all, those on top are perhaps too busy helping others on top by bending rules and dispensing special treatment.

Read more

States everywhere across the United States are facing the common enemy of extreme budget deficits. Many states have deficits in the multi-billion dollar realm, as the budget crises dominate the debates for the upcoming gubernatorial elections. In these debates, Republican and Democratic candidates are finding it difficult to disagree on the most essential issues around the budget crises. The most crucial question for any incoming governor must be: how will you resolve the state’s budget crisis? The answer from both parties is a resounding: “Public workers and those who depend on their services will pay for the crisis”!
Take for instance California, where “friend of labor” Democrat Jerry Brown is running for Governor. The union leaders who endorsed Brown are having difficulty promoting him to their membership, since Brown has been bragging about his anti-union credentials, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:

Jerry Brown said Friday that if elected governor he would have to “do things that labor doesn’t like,” including cutting pension benefits for public employees and asking labor leaders to “put everything on the table” to get California’s bloated budget under control.

In speaking about cutbacks to public workers, Brown said: “If you’re looking for frugality, I’m your man… I vetoed the pay raises for the state employees not once, but twice…” (September 3, 2010). These are his credentials for handling the budget crisis.

Even with his blatant anti-union perspective, Brown is being promoted as a “lesser of two evils,” since his Republican opponent is a billionaire who is more honest in her anti-public worker comments.

In Oregon, the exact same dynamic is at play: a multi-billion dollar budget deficit with both political parties aiming their sights on public workers. The union-backed Democratic candidate, John Kitzhaber, has been in a war of words with his Republican opponent over who can most effectively take from public employees. The Oregonian reports:

Kitzhaber promised to be plenty tough in [contract] negotiations [with public employee unions], noting that state employees went on strike during his first term in office. But he said only he has the necessary trust of union leaders [!] to lead successful cost-saving negotiations [cutting wages and benefits] next year. (September 18, 2010).

In New York, the current Democratic Governor, David Paterson, has viciously attacked public employees, and has promised that the incoming governor, regardless of political party, will resume the attack.

Likewise in Illinois, another state devastated by a budget crisis, the current Democratic Governor has made huge cuts in education and social services, while adding a sales tax that disproportionally effects working-class people.

The above examples are similar not by coincidence, but part of a well-defined policy agreed upon by the Democrat and Republican parties. Politicians everywhere are using similar, coded language to explain their policies to confront state budget deficits, all of them threatening working people. For example, state governments must completely “reset,” so that government reflects the “new reality” caused by the Great Recession, meaning that education and social services are de-funded, as are the wages and benefits of state workers.

Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana, spoke bluntly of this national phenomenon in the Wall Street Journal, saying that it applied to all states. His article, The Coming Reset in State Government, focused on how permanent, massive cuts in state spending was the only way to deal with the recession:

…[state governments] are facing a near permanent reduction in state tax revenues that will require us [governors] to reduce the size and scope of our state governments. And the time to prepare for this new reality is already at hand. (September 3, 2009).

More recently, the Seattle Post Globe spoke bluntly about how this “new normal” directly affected public workers, in an article entitledTime to Reset State Union Rules. The article argues for changes in law that would make it easier to reduce the wages and benefits of public employees, an opinion widely discussed by corporate interests all over the country, varying only by degree and form:

…the Governor and legislature are going to need more flexibility dealing with state unions to truly transform the state budget.

and:

“Another approach would be to follow the lead of Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana. One of the first things he did when he took office in 2005 was to issue this Executive Order, which in effect ended any state negotiations with unions.” (August 24, 2010). Brute force replaced negotiations in Indiana, effectively destroying the power of unions.

These corporate-inspired ideas are shared by both political parties. The now-popular term “reset” refers to a national policy that intends to change the equilibrium of power in the U.S. between unions and corporations. Unions are being attacked, so that wages and benefits for all working people can be lowered. This is how corporations plan to survive the recession and maintain the highest profitability possible.

Consequently, the labor movement should be actively planning its defense and counterattack. Union members and community allies need to be educated about the assault and unite in coalitions to defend themselves. Pro-worker solutions to the crisis — such as taxing the rich — need to be demanded in the streets in mass demonstrations.

But this is not happening. Instead, many unions are spending precious time giving money to their attackers, the Democrats, and encouraging union members to phone bank and canvass for these villains. After the elections, these “friends of labor” will soon become enemies, once the state budgets are being implemented, and union leaders will find themselves having to quickly switch directions, telling their members that they were once again “betrayed” by politicians who didn’t make any concrete promises to begin with.

Experiences like these have already happened in most states, and will continue to teach workers plenty of lessons, since the budget deficits are getting worse. The main lesson is that working people need to organize themselves independently of Democrats and Republicans, and fight back against a national assault on their jobs and living standards. “Tax the Rich!” must be the slogan that working people unite around to defend education, social services, and public employees in the face of the state budget crises.

Read more

Opposition to the Common Core Standards and the tests tied to them is rising, as a recent Wall Street Journal article (May 6) underlined. Approval for Common Core is now languishing at a mere 17 percent while disapproval has shot up to 40 percent. The article continues: “This year hundreds of thousands of students across the country are boycotting Common Core aligned state exams, and this so-called opt-out movement has been growing. Preliminary estimates are that between 150,000 and 200,000 students skipped New York state’s mandatory English exams last month, up from the 49,000 in 2014.”

The concept of Common Core standards should not be rejected outright. The positive intention behind them is to set the same high standards across the country in order to inspire both teachers and students to attain higher proficiency. Unfortunately, this undertaking has been corrupted each step of the way.

Excellent teaching is surely an art, requiring not only a love of rationality in general, but the love of a particular field of expertise more specifically, and an ability to communicate clearly. Even more, however, it requires a love of one’s students. Excellent teaching only emerges when all these elements are properly mixed together. Like some magic brew, good teaching percolates up as the result of some unanticipated interaction between teacher, students, and the learning process. It does not lend itself to mechanization, nor can it be coerced. Yet these are exactly the preferred weapons of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan when introducing policies into our public schools.

In launching the Common Core, for example, Duncan did not give inspiring speeches with compelling rationality in favor of the high Common Core standards in order to win the enthusiastic approval of school administrators and teachers across the country. There was no love lost here. Instead, the introduction of the Common Core took the form of blackmail: If states do not adopt the Common Core, they lose out on desperately needed federal funding. Accordingly, 45 states initially signed on, although now many are having second thoughts.

Consistently on a campaign of coercion, Duncan insisted that the Common Core be tied to high-stakes standardized tests that would purportedly measure the students’ mastery of these standards. Teachers’ continued employment and salary would then be largely based on their students’ scores, while students would be held back if they lacked acceptable proficiency.

Admittedly, test scores might provide some helpful information about the students’ level of achievement. But basing teachers’ employment and salary on student test scores defies rationality. As Joe Nocera noted in The New York Times, “Going back to the famous Coleman report in the 1960s, social scientists have contended – and unquestionably proved – that students’ socioeconomic backgrounds vastly outweigh what goes on in the school as factors in determining how much they learn.” Basing teachers’ continued employment on their students’ test scores amounts to blaming the teacher for their students’ poverty and blaming the teachers for their under-funded schools and overcrowded classrooms. But lacking convincing arguments in favor of the significance of test scores, Arne Duncan once again turns to coercion and threatens to withhold funding if schools fail to link teachers’ terms of employment to them.

It is no wonder that Arne Duncan is also aggressively pushing charter schools – they seem to embrace the same perverted educational philosophy as Duncan himself. The New York Times (April 6, 2015), for example, conducted an investigation into New York City charter schools run by Eva Moskowitz – the darling of hedge-fund managers – where students seem to be performing well on standardized tests. But the pedagogic techniques were horrific. Students who performed poorly were publicly humiliated, all students were required to sit with military-style posture, students were routinely bribed with candy and prizes, and the teaching was overwhelmingly aimed at preparing students to take the tests. Not surprisingly, teacher turnover is quite high.

Yet this kind of regimen will not create critically thinking students who draw their own conclusions and who become life-long learners prepared to meet life’s complicated challenges. In fact, there is little evidence that the “skills” students learn in this way will aid them in any way in their academic or vocational pursuits.

While the Wall Street Journal article naively regards these standardized tests as “objective measures” of a student’s performance, no test can claim objectivity. First, the questions selected on the test are a reflection of the values of those who create the test, and this includes their cultural biases as well. Secondly, some of the questions are poorly formulated. One parent who got a glimpse of a test described one of the questions, undoubtedly with some exaggeration, in this way: “Tommy had 5 goldfish; he gave 3 away. How many dogs are in Paris?”

The SAT exam is a good example of the value-based nature of the questions. The exam is notorious for testing students on arcane vocabulary, it incorporates trick questions that can only be deciphered by those who have been trained in SAT test-taking, and the scoring is skewed in the direction of exaggerating the differences among students, when in fact differences are miniscule (The New York Times, May 4, 2015). In other words, it deviates from testing the skills that will be relevant to a student’s academic career and life vocation and instead veers in the direction of creating a self-serving appearance that the exam significantly distinguishes among students’ abilities.

With parents gaining increasing awareness that high-stakes testing is not in their child’s interests and choosing to boycott the test instead, Arne Duncan is once again challenged to respond. And like a dullard who keeps repeating the wrong answer, Duncan once again is turning to coercion. According to The Wall Street Journal article, “Mr. Duncan told an education conference in April that if the boycott numbers continue to rise, ‘then we have an obligation to step in.’” This was later clarified to indicate that the Obama administration might “withhold federal funding for districts with test-participation rates below 95%.”

As long as the people in charge of public education are incapable of promoting their policies by means of rational argumentation but resort to tactics of coercion, our schools will continue to be pushed in the wrong direction, unfortunately at the expense of students and teachers. Undoubtedly, politicians will eventually be compelled by the evidence and growing opposition from students, parents and teacher unions to concede that their tactics have failed, just like they have been compelled to concede that the policy of mass incarceration that they have pursued for decades has been a massive failure.

Read more