The betrayal of teachers by the union

The Belleve Education Association (BEA) capitulated to the Bellevue School District and agreed on a new two-year contract on Aug 31 2011. The agreement reiterates the union's commitment to policing its ranks via the merit pay system. It utilizes teacher time for non-teaching functions by implementing district control over early-release Wednesdays. The teacher workload is significantly increased by mandating that grades on assignments and tests be entered in the online Gradebook within 15 days.

The agreement also freezes teacher pay for two years. Taking the current rate of inflation so far this year into account, this is equivalent to a 3.6% salary cut for the teachers.

The union argues on the same lines as the district that "there is no money" and as such teachers have no recourse but accept lower pay for more work. However, a close look at the district budget shows that it is not a lack of money as a first principle but considerations and interests of policy makers that finally determine the state of funding for schools.

Teachers in Bellevue, just as teachers in other school districts and all across the country have been facing a systematic and sustained attack spearheaded by the Obama administration. The ideology for this attack is based on a false and ludicrous premise - that teachers are somehow responsible for the stagnant economy. This vaguely thought out premise holds that if teachers somehow were more successful, they will produce a smarter workforce that will be able to overcome the economic malaise.

However, the speculative nature of large hedge funds that culminated in the financial crash of 2008 is the immediate reason for the current decline in US economy. Rather than making the hedge funds pay for the crisis of their own making - both Bush, Obama administrations have spent trillions of tax payer money to prop them up. According to an "Associated Press" report, top CEOs of the nation made more in 2010 than 2007, when the economy was booming. For a layer of super rich, the recession has been a lucky stroke. It has allowed them to secure tax payer money for free or near zero interest, repossess land from bankrupt homeowners, drive down wages of employees that work for them and lower their individual and corporate taxes.

By deliberately ignoring the root of the criss, the Obama administration - just like its predecessor - asks the average worker, including the teacher to pay for this. This is the meaning of the term "shared sacrifice".

Thus all across the country, vital programs that working people and youth depend on are being slashed. Workers are being laid off across both the public and private sector. As the Obama administration continues to talk about creating an economy conducive to job growth, the federal government is planning on sacking 220,000 postal workers by 2015. States are not being helped and mass teacher layoffs have happend in Chicago, Detroit, NewYork City and elsewhere. While more than 100,000 teachers have been laid off across the country in 2010-11,  a recent study published by the American Association of School Administrators estimates the loss of 220,000 education jobs for the 2011-12 school years.

The trade unions however have accepted this as the normal order of business. While pretending to be a movement for workers, the union has sided with the ruling class and helped keep the workers down and prevent the eruption of social struggle. AFL-CIO as well as American Federation of Teachers (AFT), National Education Association (NEA) follow the same prescription. The Bellevue Education Association (BEA), beholden to the dictates of the NEA is increasingly showing its support to the district and its determination to hold back the teachers from their struggle for a decent wage and good working conditions.

Even before BEA entered into negotiations with the district, they had signaled their willingness to police the rank and file teachers via the merit pay system. Even though the Bellevue School District was not chosen to pilot a merit pay system, BEA eagerly sought to join the district as it, along with the Washington Education Association (WEA) formed the "Teacher and Principal Evaluation Pilot (TPEP)". This clearly shows that the union is in agreement with the district on merit pay, they just want a seat at the table so that they can help implement such an attack on rank and file teachers.

If the union was actually opposed to the merit pay system, they would act differently. Rather than sit down with the district officials, they would have used the method of the Strike to demand teacher rights and a block on merit pay. They would recognize that teachers should unite across districts and then with the wider working class and move towards a General Strike.

Reading the notes published by the bargaining team of the union makes clear that the issue most important to the union leadership was getting a seat at the table to impose the merit pay system on its rank and file teachers. As we shall see, it was over this issue that the negotiations broke down.

The very first bargaining update on April 1 2011 mentions a team from the BEA working on a teacher evaluation plan. "Bryona Golding, Ingrid Saxon, Jenn Stevens and Michele Miller comprise BEA’s team focusing on the revision of the evaluation tool for Article 12.  Since January, this team has been working toward the development of an evaluation tool with a focus on professional growth.  State law mandates that all districts move to a revised, four-level rating system in 2013.  Both sides agree on the need to take time to develop this new evaluation tool."

According to bargaining update #13 made on July 21 2011, negotiations broke down between the union and the district the day before, with the district requiring the mediation of the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC). On this bargaining update, for the first time, we heard that the district was planning on excluding the union from designing the merit pay system: "BEA has proposed we join the Teacher & Principal Evaluation Pilot (TPEP) implementation consortium, so we can take advantage of state funding, project research, and the good work of the pilot school districts. The District wants to pilot immediately, prior to the release of the state’s recommendations and without the support of TPEP. Why would pilot an evaluation tool we might not even be allowed to implement?" (emphasis in original)

That the union was preoccupied with becoming a tool for the attack on teachers was further shown on their next update made on Aug 02 2011. The union was clearly worried that they might not get a seat at the table if they did not collaborate even more closely with the district. Almost the entirety of the union message was on this single issue as they continued to lament:

"The District wants to move forward in isolation, prior to the release of the state’s final evaluation requirements. The District’s insistence on piloting a new system in advance of the final TPEP recommendations would be premature, and would limit our ability to use the work of theTPEP project to guide us. Working outside the parameters of TPEP could lead to an evaluation tool we might not even be allowed to implement!"

By the absence of a contention in the merit pay plans, the bargaining update on Aug 26th shows that the union had been invited back to the table to implement the merit pay system. In turn, the union made the teachers give up some free time for early-release Wednesdays, enforced online grade reporting and a 3.6% pay cut considering inflation. The union also successfully blocked a strike. That was the price teachers paid in order to have the treacherous union leadership secure a role in the merit pay plan. Thus, in order to become a tool of the district in policing its own ranks, the district demanded of the union - and it agreed to - a further betrayal of the teachers.

However, it then became crucial that the union divert the anger and disappointment of teachers some other way. This was done by taking a no-confidence vote on the superintendent, a figure much despised by rank and file teachers as is shown by the more than 97% vote against her. The union here has taken a calculated risk knowing the deep unpopularity of the superintendent in both the teacher and  parent community. However, the union did not lift a finger when Dr. Cudeiro fired hundreds of teachers and staff last year, nor when she closed Robinswood, a school for special-needs students.

If Dr. Amalia Cudeiro were to leave the school district in disgrace, teachers should view it as a victory for their persistent work in opposing her draconian measures over the past two years. A superintendent who leaves in disgrace is a liability to the ruling class, they will be less hesitant to use her again. But there should be no doubt that her successor would continue where she left off. Ultimately, it is not personalities that decide the turn of policy in the first instance, but stark economic factors.

If Dr. Cudeiro were to leave without substantial legal action against her, it is equally likely that she will continue her policies if given an opportunity again, in some other school district. Even though the ruling class would view her as a liability, they do realize that it takes considerable time grooming people who are apt at destroying the public school system, and she may still have uses for them. Similarly, some crook from another school district could become her successor right here.

When the PTSA sent out a community survey in March of 2011, portraying teachers in a bad light, the union instructed the teachers to not talk about this with parents. The union has always tried to isolate the teachers from parents and to promote the myth that there is a sizable body of "teacher hating parents".

On the contrary, Bellevue teachers have the sympathy of a large number of parents and community. When you went on a strike in 2008, the district wanted to use the legal system to get you back to work. Parents protested and the district was unable to use the law against teachers. However, the union proved timid - it made no significant attempt to grow the strike across school districts. Nor was an appeal made to the broader working class to join the strike.

While the 2011-12 budget does not anticipate any teacher layoffs for Bellevue, continued state cuts could likely change the situation. Teachers should prepare for a continued assault on their working conditions, wages, seniority rights, pensions. Placing trust in the union leadership will prove to be a dead-end. Forming committees of teachers to document the turn of events, including the betrayals of the union will be a key step. The moment a committee is formed, it gives the union notice and it provides a political framework for teachers to organize without the intimidation and demoralization of the union leadership.

A large segment of parents support teachers and find the success of their child in school directly connected to a good working environment for teachers. We reject the phony slogans of "Child First" uttered by the district, PTSA, LEV (League of Education Voters) and Stand (Stand For Children). This is a slogan designed by billionaires who want to portray teachers as somehow the enemy of our children. These are of course ridiculous claims, uttered by desperate people whose ways of swindling and profiteering on the backs of the poor is fast coming undone.

Ultimately, the union can't defend teachers as it is subservient to the Democratic Party, which just like its counterpart, is a party of big business. The NEA is busy trying to re-elect Obama - who spearheaded such a devastating attack on teachers and the BEA is undoubtedly trying to woo some other Democrat in the local elections.

As the past four years have clearly shown, teacher rights will not be protected by either of the two big business parties. Teacher rights can only be won by situating their struggle within the context of the struggle of the working class to achieve a degree of material comfort made possible by their contribution to society. The two big business parties and all their political affiliates should necessarily be counted as deadly enemies with whom negotiations will be fruitless.

The Dictatorship of the School Board

The 2011-12 school budget was presented to the School Board on Tuesday Aug 30th 2011. There was very little discussion and the issues brought up on my previous article were predictably not addressed. The School Board showed their elation in the turn of teacher negotiations that exacted a wage freeze on the Bellevue teachers and still forced them back to school.

As the current rate of inflation tracked up to July this year stands at a 3.6%, teachers have in fact been handed a 3.6% pay cut. The real increase in prices outstrips inflation and thus the real pay cut is much worse. The negotiations have not been settled to the satisfaction of teachers.

The question and answer session was brief. The School Board president Chris Marks called on names of community members who had initially expressed a desire to raise questions. There were about 10 speakers. All but the last two or three speakers could not help but bend over backwards flattering the School Board for a job well done. It may not be a coincidence that these names were called first.

Among this first lot, spokespersons from the reactionary groups Stand (Stand For Children) and the League of Education Voters (LEV) were in display. A gentleman - whose name I do not recall - came up and acknowledged the treacherous work done by the PTSA with the guidance of Stand and LEV in its push/poll survey on teachers. Jess Hasken, an organizer for Stand followed with an appreciative note to the Bellevue Education Association (BEA) and the School Board for reaching a settlement on negotiations. The fact that this "negotiation" does not protect teachers, but is a further lurch by the union to the right was predictably not a concern for Miss. Hasken and this somewhat privileged layer who make their living out of the systematic destruction of the public school system.

Several other individuals came up to give testimony. They were all largely positive. The BEA president - Michele Miller - appeared to feign disrespect towards the Board by yawning as she left the microphone. There was not much else she could do when the union leadership worked from day one to block a strike and force the teachers to the school. The teachers' union and the district were in agreement to put the "children first", be damned the teachers.

By adopting the baseless and reactionary slogan of "children first", uttered by the most hypocritical of all people like the billionaires funding Stand and LEV, the teachers union shows where their true concerns are. The teachers union is responsible for disorienting and confusing the teachers and providing them false hope. The biggest lie they tell the teachers is that their struggle can be won without a protracted political struggle against the establishment on clear class lines.

Sometime after this, a teacher who also identified himself as a parent spoke up. [I believe his name was Todd, but I could be wrong] He was not a sycophant of the Board nor the Superintendent. He asked some pointed questions about the impropriety of Dr. Cudeiro who runs a private education consulting company while being employed as the Superintendent of the School District. He specifically asked the Board the reasons for their lack of transparency in addressing an issue of such vital importance to our children's education.

This is the point where the School Board - on impulse - decided to show its generally hidden face of Dictatorship. The Board president Chris Marks promptly condemned the teacher for asking such questions. She considered the questions rude and uncalled for and suggested that issues like conflicts of interest are not public concerns but things to be talked over in private! She suggested that this teacher come meet with her for an explanation. To his credit, the teacher re-clarified his position and demanded that these matters made public.

Chris Marks is possibly ignorant of general norms of Democracy. There are Washington state laws that are clear on what a conflict of interest is and the situation where it is not permitted for a state official like Dr. Cudeiro. I have remarked on this on a previous posting, bringing up the actual wording of the law (RCW) on the matter. Chris Marks's ignorance however does not excuse her - she is the President of the School Board.

Regardless of her level of education on such matters, the intended aim of her outburst is clear - that of silencing any opposition to the fragile position of the School Board who ardently defends all actions of the District.

Chris Marks' attempted intimidation was followed by a somewhat gentler admonishment from another new member of the Board - Christine Chew. Chew thanked the community who has unfailingly supported the school board and the district reminding the audience how all communication to the district and the board should be of a certain - presumably gentle and tactful - tone. According to Ms. Chew, this means that issues that upset the school board should preferably not be aired in public, and if it must, it has be couched in such language so that it is hard for normal people to understand.

The District has largely given up its pretense at Democratic norms. This year they no longer hold large public meetings. They arrange a small group of supporters to speak in their much smaller Board meetings. The small public meetings arranged by the district-led committees are also controlled by a core group of community members who are hostile to democracy and are quick to intimidate the audience who has genuine questions that runs against the privileged grain of this lot, as I have shown on other postings. Rank and file teachers are scared to criticize anything due to fear of punishment - this I sense through unsigned mail I get from teachers as well as the atmosphere of hostility that all predominant groups like PTSA, LEV, Stand have created towards our teachers.

After the speaker took his seat, a community member who identified herself as being in a profession related to legal matters spoke further on a District practice of providing third parties data on our children without explicit parental consent. She spoke about the loss of privacy this results and how such methods could be used by third parties in ways that could be damaging to the students.

None of these issues were answered by the School Board. Their singular aim was to adjourn the meeting and run to safer havens. The normal protocol for a Board meeting does not adjourn the meeting without asking the audience if there are further questions. But this Tuesday, such norms were abandoned. No further questions were taken.

As this process continues, even less people will attend these elitist meetings. The School Board enjoys their elitist Democracy and in ignorance of history assumes that they can continue without the support of a broad mass of people. And in this way, they provide for the deterioration of Democracy and a movement of the political establishment further to the right.

Today, we, the average working people, who care about a quality education for our children cannot depend on the School Board to conduct any meaningful reform of the school system. Concerned teachers, students and community members need to come together to create a plan for public education for the district of Bellevue. This plan must reject the notion of the district that "there is no money". There is enough money at the local, state and Fed levels but it is the considerations and interests that allocate resources for society that determine the quality of education and the general living condition of the masses of people.

And that is the reason that building a public school system for the twentieth century falls on our shoulders, we the working class who are many and are thus objectively united in our class interests. I ask all those interested to email me so that we can continue this work we started earlier.

BSD 2011-12 Budget Analysis

The Bellevue School District will present the budget for 2011-12 to the School Board today, August 30th 2011. This happens while the Bellevue Education Association and the district are negotiating the teacher contracts as to how best to cut various benefits from teachers and reduce the quality of instruction and extra-curricular activities in the class room. Schools are supposed to start in 6 days and the two parties have not been able to reach full agreement so far. Meanwhile, the teachers and the public are kept in the dark about negotiations that happen behind closed doors.

The district nor the teachers union nor the PTSA are willing to explain to teachers and the community the true nature of the budget or the ongoing negotiations. Theirs is an elitist democracy where they all come together and agree to have us pay for the sins of the ruling class. We, the little people have no representation and the more in the dark we are, the easier it is for this cabal of elites to continue their destruction of our schools. Earlier in the year, the Bellevue PTSA leadership played a crucial role in designing a push/poll type community survey which is undoubtedly used by the district as a supporting document in its continuing attacks on our teachers. Up to this point, the PTSA has refused to even release the full survey results after repeated requests. Today, I heard from a parent that the PTSA does not take a side in the teacher negotiations. Regardless, that they take a side  - that of the district against the teachers - is extremely clear by their actions. In fact not taking a side at this point simply means they take the side of the powers. Theirs is the action of cowards.

In such a situation, we - the small people - have to take it upon ourselves to use the scant resources available to piece together the story of our schools, its continued deterioration under the determined effort of a callous administration that pays lip service to slogans like the "child first" and turns around to stab child, parent and teacher all in their backs with customary charm.

The district has released three documents related to the 2011-12 budget. The first is a presentation (pdf) made by the Superintendent on August 4, 2011 to the School Board. Next is a summarized version (pdf) of the budget, followed by a more complete version (pdf). Dr. Cudeiro has also written an "open letter" to the community where she explains how the state-mandated 1.9% cut on teacher salaries is being used to demand a heavier work load and limit the freedom of teachers even more. It shows a remarkably misplaced confidence that parents will still side with the district, regardless of the ruthlessness of the attack. It seems that Dr. Cudeiro believes that our community can be understood by reading the drivel written in Seattle Times.

While drawing a salary of $225,100 according to data from  kitsapsun.com, Dr. Cudeiro comments :

"We are facing very difficult economic times when many people are losing their jobs or suffering significant pay cuts.  Some districts will not be reinstating the 1.9% state salary cuts for their teachers.  The Bellevue School District is willing to reinstate the 1.9% state salary cut and add one paid professional development day in each of the two years of the agreement.  We do so, because we value our teachers.  This will cost the District nearly two million dollars in each year, but the District is asking to see movement on the issues stated above."

The "issues stated above" refers to the district's insistence that teachers upgrade grade books online in eight days as well as allow the administration to control the time of teachers to plan and co-ordinate activities on Wednesdays after early release of students. Since the Bellevue Education Association supported the merit pay provisions and accepted that as part of the negotiations, these two issues are the only major ones that now remain on the table.

Dr. Cudeiro signals she is ready to go ahead with the 1.9% salary cut if teachers did not agree on these two issues - this after the district got one of their biggest and most destructive designs on merit pay agreed to by the union. It is clear that the administration is not budging much. Whatever concessions have so far come from teachers in large measure, and that points clearly to the role of their union in betraying the interests of the teachers, time after time.

When Bellevue School District applied for the Race To The Top (RTTT) Funds last year along with the state of Washington, BEA agreed on provisions for merit pay for teachers. While the Washington state did not get funded, the district and the teachers union are committed to going ahead with the initial plan. BEA claims that it had to join the "Teacher and Principal Evaluation Pilot (TPEP)" to "take advantage of state funding, project research, and the good work of the pilot school districts."

In the "open letter", Dr. Cudeiro attempts to pass the wage freeze on teachers as something inevitable that needs to be done due to tough economic times. The union, from a position of asking for a pay raise for teachers have fallen back to the position of defending a wage freeze. However, looking through the 2011-12 budget shows that the issues are not simply a lack of money as a first principle, but rather the considerations and interests that determine how resources of society are allocated.

In the summary report, page 8 shows that from year 2010-11 to 2011-12 there is a budgeted increase of 3.2% in the average salary for the category that involves teachers, data coaches - now renamed to be "Instructional Technology curriculum Leaders (ICTL)" and other extra-curricular staff etc excluding central administration. For this same group, there is a 3.7% increase in average pay and benefits. However, we are told that the teachers would either face a 1.9% cut at worst or at best their salaries will not increase. This shows that certain "teachers" within this group are getting raises, and they could be substantial depending on the number of this sub group.

Since the district does not break down the cost structure for this somewhat diverse group, we need to look for clues in the budget document. Page 10 notes the existence of 22.6 ICTL personel and page 9 mentions that $2.45 M has been allocated from the Capital Fund for the same category. Thus, we see that ICTL absorbs at least an average of $108,407 whereas the more complete budget document in page 45 shows that the average elementary teacher salary for Bellevue is a mere $48,295. The highest salary for a teacher is shown to be $65,115 and the average salary for an elementary principal is $104, 339 - which is lower than the package for ICTL.

The reason ICTL are paid highly has to do with their role - they administer programs that are unpopular among teachers/students and in turn police the teachers to make sure they adhere to such programs. The term "data coach" was commonly used to describe them as their role is to use data to invent punishment systems for teachers and students, merit pay for teachers and high stakes testing for students. The reason that Dr. Cudeiro insists on teachers grading student work online in a timely manner has really nothing to do with any overriding concern for keeping parents informed of their children's progress. It has all to do with better enabling these number crunchers to present the administration with the proverbial whip to lash the teachers and students with.

The school board sees no real problem with any of this as they obligingly rubberstamp the decisions of the superintendent and her subservient cabinet. While the board does not strictly get paid, the budget does show an amount of $617,680 under "Purchased Services" and "Supplies/Materials". A breakdown is not given. This is a 8.9% increase from 2010-11 (around page 41, 98 of the more complete budget document).

The superintendent's office has seen a funding increase of 36.9% for the same period, while the district's propaganda arm - referred to in the category of "Public Relations" has grown an unprecedented 70%. The growth of the propaganda arm hints at the growing awareness of the public of the the general rotten nature of the administration - thus more money has to be spent to deceive us. (page 98 of the more complete budget document)

However, none of the people who actually administer the schools take home the biggest haul. That function is performed by the bond investor - the parasite, that instead of paying as high a percentage of tax as the average worker to help the schools, makes money from the worker paying taxes/levies into the school. This he does by buying bonds from the school. When you and I pay into a local levy, that goes to pay this gentleman's interest. To the extent that the district works at hiding these social relationships from us, its administration is allowed a few choice crumbs off the table. The bond holders have had their interest payments increased from $14.3M to $29.6 M, a full 106.8% from year 2010-11 to 2011-12.

While the General Fund has been increased from $182M to $192M, the funding per student has decreased from $10,586 down to $10,576 as the number of students increased from 17,224 up to 18,157 (page 2, 4 of the summary budget document). If we adjust the 2010-11 dollars for the inflation rate of 3.6% for the current year, up to July, then we actually see a decrease of $392 per student in the General Fund. Also, software licences that are generally paid via the Capital Fund are now being paid via the General Fund (page 26 of the summary budget document), to the tune of $1.5M and this represents another raid on the General Fund by corporate interests. [I will recall the reader to my previous exposure of the fund categories and the class interests that underly them - which upset the superintendent enough to most unceremoniously try to unsuccessfully shut me down in a public meeting last year.]

So what have we seen? Nothing but the continuing deception of the district who claims to put the child first, who claims that they are committed to student excellence in learning all the while hiding their true aims - that of supporting the current capitalist exploitative structures in gutting the public school system.

Our students are being sold down the river in an increasingly stressful environment that is conducive to anything but genuine learning. Our teachers have been deprived of their defenses by a union that speaks the language of the district. All the current leaders we have been handed down by history continue to manipulate us, isolate us, divide us and ultimately betray us. Where do we go from here?

I believe the first step is to reject the program of the district - reject this budget - completely. We need to come together to create a budget and program for our schools based on the broad interests of students, teachers and the average working person in our community. We started this work in the Bellevue Public Library recently. Much remains to be done. I ask anyone interested in developing this critical understanding of the social process happening around the public school to please contact me so we can continue to develop our own informed plan for a sound public school system for Bellevue.

A sham survey from a district in hiding

The Bellevue School District has come up with another community survey purportedly to find out how we would like to receive communication from the district. This attempt at posturing reveals itself as a way to validate the district's continued hiding from the public.

The district - along with the teachers union - is clearly intent on making drastic cut backs on education. The recent 1.9% pay cut handed to teachers come on the heels of significant lay offs, health care premium increases over the last two years. Last year, the district officials called several large meetings where the superintendent and members of her cabinet tried to explain the reasons for their attacks on our children's education.

This year, the large meetings where the officials - including the superintendent who runs a private company related to education - have to stand up and face the public have been eliminated. It is clearly because the district finds it difficult to keep lieing. As a community, we have been tempered by the continued erosion of the public school over which these officials have presided. We have discussed and written about these issues and analyzed the reasons for their actions. We have exposed them for deceivers and in fact determined that this is in fact their whole job - deception of the public.

So today, faced with the prospect of facing a politically conscious community, the district hides. As it hides, it tries to build cover for its hiding using a survey. The survey is meant to give us the illusion that the district is clueless about the most effective method of imparting information to us. The fact that they have more than a clue is clear from the single choice they omit in this particular question number 10:

We are not allowed to vote on a choice such as : Hold public meetings where the superintendent and her cabinet addresses the public.

The superintendent has replaced the larger public meetings with "Coffee Meetings". These are small meetings set deliberately in a cordial setting where the superintendent can never be challenged. The smaller number of people cozying up to the superintendent over a warm cup of coffee do not create an atmosphere of accountability for the district officials. Clearly that is why the coffee meetings are the district favorites this year.

In a large public meeting where the district officials are on stage with us plebeians below them, the separation is clear. We instinctively feel that the two sets have different interests, opposing interests. They are on stage to dismantle our children's education by whatever means they can, and we are there to ensure our children get a high quality education.

Over coffee, with a smiling superintendent to your left, it is easy to forget this. And in this setting, the superintendent also has considerable help from a small group of parents who support the district. We saw this happen once with what I called the "center table phenomena" where a small group of parents kowtow to the district and attempt to stop public discussion of key issues. These parents are not just misguided, they have connections to the district, they have relationships built with the high up officials of the district as well as possible ties to moneyed interests intent on privatizing public education. In a large setting, these parents do not have the nerve to shut down the democratic voice of the people, but they are certainly emboldened in a setting where they hold well over a quarter of the attendance.

It is also quite troubling that the district is aware that these surveys can be taken multiple times by a single person. If the superintendent or one of her friends from the "center table" wants a certain outcome, she can take the survey multiple times and tilt the results.

Following is the result of the short email conversation I had with Jacqueline Coe - Director of Communication and Community Engagement of BSD - which clearly shows that the district is aware of possible breaches and is indifferent to them:

Their indifference to the quality of the survey is similar to the contempt shown to the non-English speaking population who according to them must wade through a full page comprising twelve questions in English, and somehow miraculously know to answer in the affirmative to this question that is the third on the second page of the survey:

As these halfhearted attempts show, the district is trying hard to appear friendly. But a politically conscious community is never fooled by wolves in sheep's clothing. As the district continues these attacks, they will at some point be forced to discard the sheep skin. We need to be prepared because anger alone will not be sufficient to save our schools. We must mobilize independently to create our own plan for a public school system, give a voice to our hard working teachers and take up this fight for the sake of our children's future. It is of paramount importance to wrest leadership from reactionary groups like PAGE, the PTA so that our independent strength can be realized.

thank you.

PTA : Who really drives this organization?

The Parent Teacher Association (PTA) is a familiar face on the public school and many of us associate it with helpful parents lending their time and money to schools, teachers and the class room. However, like most organizations, this group has a certain hierarchical leadership with definite characteristics/tendencies along with a larger number of members who fall in line with the demands made by the leadership. In this article, we shall explore this organization in more detail so we can come to a better understanding as to how it operates and what our relationship to it should be.

Perhaps we can start by looking at a most recent effort to solicit parent input driven by the Bellevue PTSA Council. All PTAs of Bellevue schools are hosted under the Bellevue PTSA and in turn, the PTSA's of all cities in the state of Washington align themselves with the priorities set by the WA State PTA. This in turn is a part of the National PTA thus compelled to follow its lead.

Parents of Bellevue got an email from their respective school PTAs around March 4th 2011 that said:

"The Bellevue PTSA Council requests that all PTA members and Bellevue public school parents complete the following survey. The purpose of the survey is to gauge the level of support for a Community Values statement that is currently being developed. The intent of the statement is to provide a data point to both the district and the union about what is important to Bellevue public school stakeholders."

This wording makes it clear that this survey is not the independent effort of the school PTA. The school PTA was simply the messenger. The message of the survey was - we are led to believe - crafted by the Bellevue PTSA.

The survey, unfortunately, is no longer available. It was largely asking the community whether it agrees with having "effective" teachers in schools and whether we support the implementation of various performance driven measures for teachers.

Since then, there has been a large enough backlash on PTA's efforts that the leadership decided to not publish the detailed results of the survey. I met with Linda Mui, Kristen Edelhertz, Carolyn Watson - President, Legislative Director, Secretary of the Bellevue PTSA respectively on May 31 2011 where they clarified that the survey has created a difficult climate specially with regards to teachers and they were trying to "put it behind them" - hence the reason to not publish the survey results.

Kristen Edelhertz presented me with a folder where the council members had "summarized" the comments of the community. Before the meeting, I was promised I could see the comments but that turned out to not be the case. This is the email I got from Linda Mui before the meeting that alluded to being able to go through the comments:

However, it was clear from my subsequent meeting with Linda, Kristen and Carolyn Watson that a large number of teachers correctly viewed the survey as an attack on their profession. Teachers felt - I was told - that parents would likely not be aware of the depth and breadth of issues around the public school system and that their answers to the survey could not but reflect that limited understanding.

This is of course true. What may seem as a simple system - the public school - is anything but. I have been researching the many aspects of the public school for the last two years and there are areas I have not yet begun to explore. Many of the policies driven by the Obama administration - which is really a continuation of the Bush policies with more punitive/incentive measures - are highly debated in intellectual circles. High stakes testing - where punitive measures are tied to the results of a test - has been critiqued by many scholars. Whether tying student scores to teacher evaluations could help student "performance" is another highly debated topic. Understandably, large numbers of parents do not understand these issues well, but the PTA survey quite clearly attempts to use the limited knowledge of parents to advance an agenda that deserves closer study.

It may come as a surprise that the PTA organization - that is widely viewed as the democratic voice of the community - has fallen behind the Obama administration's insistence that it is not chronic underfunding but "bad" teachers that is at the heart of the problems confronting the nation's schools. Many of the PTA membership loves our teachers - they spend countless numbers of hours helping teachers in the class room, on field trips, on special projects, conducting teacher appreciation efforts etc. So it is clearly not this wide membership that has decided to advance an agenda to hurt teachers. The agenda for the PTA has been borrowed from the state - it is clearly not the democratic voice of an informed membership.

As we have already seen, the survey was not designed by the individual PTAs of schools. While the wording of the initial email by the Bellevue PTSA serves to misguide us that the survey was the independent idea of the Bellevue PTSA, a barrage of negative feedback to the survey later compelled them to expose more of the role they played in the form of a letter to the community.

The Bellevue PTSA decided to respond to the negative feedback it received on April 17, 2011 by publishing a letter to the community where they admit that the survey was not even their independent idea. In this letter, Linda Mui explains that "We are bringing aspects of the State PTA legislative platform to the local level and following the lead of other PTA Councils in our area who have also engaged in local advocacy to gather and share parent voices with their negotiating parties."

So what is happening here is simply the extension of the state's agenda under the guise of representative democracy. The Washington State in turn - in their insistence on not allowing tax subsidies for big business to expire and hence claiming that there is a funding crisis in education - carries on the agenda of the Obama administration. By hiding behind groups like school PTAs - that at first glance seems to be democratic - these scoundrels implement their dictatorship on us and further insult us by calling it democracy.

The Bellevue PTSA letter to the community makes a strained claim - or suggestion - that teachers should sacrifice for the benefit of the children. PTA takes the claim made by the Obama administration that "there is no money" for public education as a given, an unquestionable first principle. In refusing to challenge this contemptuous lie, they can then do no more than pit teachers against students, pit younger teachers against the more senior teachers and divide the community all the while claiming that "working together we will continue to strengthen our schools." How such divisive efforts can help in their stated goal of collaboration with teachers is left unexplained.

Even assuming that there really is no money for education - which by the way is absolutely not the case - how can pitting teachers against students help? If my child's teacher has to finish school and rush to a second job, how can that help my child get a good education? If a teacher has to obsessively focus on tests and test results, would my child then be helped to inculcate a love of learning and how to be a life long learner? If younger - less expensive - teachers replace older teachers, would that not mean that these younger teachers would soon themselves leave, thus not being committed to teaching our children? Teacher attrition of this form is already quite clearly happening with Teach For America (TFA) recruits that are generally brought into replace more senior teachers.

As Linda Mui outlines in the community letter, the State PTA sought the input of two groups - "Stand For Children (Stand)" and the "League of Education Voters (LEV)" to come up with a values statement which was then submitted to the community as a survey. These two groups support legislative efforts aimed at stricter teacher evaluation. They support the privatization of public schools via charters, Stand quite openly and LEV with some ambivalence. They both have wealthy backers. A look into their annual reports as well as the IRS Form 990 of 2009 - required filing for non-profit groups - showed that a bulk of their funding comes from a few corporate sources. Thus - contrary to their claims, these are not grassroots organizations. [Since then, it appears the organizations - specially LEV - have tried their best to hide these sources, the 2009 report is not linked from their site and the donor composition  has not been revealed for year 2010. Neither LEV nor Stand seem to have filed a Schedule B for the Form 990 - which must describe the largest donors and their contribution amounts - and I received no response to my subsequent query as to the missing Schedule B. But you can still find links from donor organizations that point their way. You may check on the 990's using this site.]

The turn to attack teachers by these well-heeled business interests is a reaction on their part to resolve the contradictions in the economy of their own making on the backs of our teachers, children and working families. While parasitic hedge funds gambled and lost trillions of dollars of wealth - social wealth, teachers struggled with increasing work loads and were asked to do even more. While big executives of Wall Street were bailed out handsomely, teachers were laid off and they were told that the nation needs "better" teachers to prepare for a "new" global economy. While hard working families in Detroit had their wages slashed with a turn to an even cheaper labor economy, teachers were told to deal with the "New Normal", the era of starving and getting by for the poor while the rich bloats themselves up to astronomical proportions. While not a cent more was used to alleviate the utter human misery that exists for millions of children - teachers returned home from their second job and corrected home work done under lamp light when utilities were cut off for hundreds of thousands of working class families. As Washington State Billionaires including Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen and Jeff Bezos spent $6.3 Million to successfully defeat I1098 - the initiative to tax the richest 10% - teachers dived into their meager savings to buy clothes and supplies for homeless students. When the comfortable upper middle class functionaries of the PTA sent surveys attacking teachers to trap  unwary parents, teachers continued to teach our children and shelved their tears - for they knew through bitter experience that even walls had ears.

In stating that the negative feedback received from the community regarding the survey prompted them to revise the Community Values Statement, the PTA once more attempts to deceive us. This statement is meant to make us think that the PTA leadership took out the harmful aspects from the statement. In fact, a closer look at the final Community Values Statement reveals that no such thing took place.

The values statement was made shorter by lumping a few of the regressive measures together making no substantial difference from their initial draft. Evaluation systems for teachers and the attack on seniority rights are intact in the final values statement.

Kristen Edelhertz claimed that the survey revealed that large numbers of respondents supported the values and that is why no "major" revisions were made. However, the letter clearly states that the PTA received just 876 responses in a school district that is home to 17,870 students based on figures as of  May 2010. Kristen takes the response of barely 5% of the community and decides that there is support for the views of the PTA leadership.

At this point, I'm sure that the famous "unconcerned parents" cry will be raised quite loudly. However, has the PTA done a single thing to make sure that more parents were aware of the issues concerning our public schools so that they will be inclined to respond to the survey? In a school district where 9% of students study English as a second language and 30% of students speak a first language other than English, was any attempt made to translate the survey to other languages? In a district of vast inequality highlighted by 22% of its students using Free and Reduced Priced Lunch services, was any attempt made to send the survey in non-electronic form?

The answer to all those questions is a resounding No.  A teacher confided in me that the survey had the feel of a "push poll" and thus she did not take it. Push-poll is a technique that attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll where the data gathered is of secondary importance. I myself did not take the poll for similar reasons.

Unfortunately, this is not the first instance that the PTA has shown its hidden agenda of backing the undemocratic policies of the state to the direct detriment of the community. 

Last year, the PTA was strictly opposed to any form of community education regarding school budget and its inequitable allocation. Once I understood the issues in March 2010, I appealed to the PTA to make this information available to parents. Carolyn Watson effectively blocked this initiative by kowtowing to the elite of the city that controls much of the local school policies. Ms. Watson put me in touch with such pleasant personalities like Janet Suppes - the former president of the Bellevue PTSA Council. Apart from Shirley, none of these people were in our local PTA, but it was quite clear how the local PTA was supposed to kowtow to their point of view which wasn't enthusiastic about educating the community. The main view of this group was that I should work within their reactionary organization - the PTA - and help them with their various legislative efforts and get my voice "heard" by "important" people in legislature and so forth. There was no need to educate the community, as far as  they saw, but apparently we must spend large amounts of time educating these "important" people who should know more about these issues than us, as that - in fact - is their well paid job.

Here is how Ms. Watson at that time showed her allegiance to this elite set while marginalizing an issue of paramount importance - that of educating the parent community on school related issues:

This year, while the district has run from the community fearing questions from informed parents, effectively delegating this work to a civilian police that calls themselves "Parents Alliance For Gifted Education (PAGE)",  what indeed has the PTA done to make the district hold the necessary public meetings where the public can educate themselves on the wrecking job of the district? What has the PTA done to expose the sham that goes on in the Community Engagement Forums conducted by the district?

Of course the PTA claims that the state has no money for public eduction and that teachers are not doing a good enough job - which are nothing but the parroted lies of the Obama administration - are easy enough to see through. The harder problem is then to figure out how to move forward as concerned parents. How do we ensure that this reactionary organization does not hijack the community's desires for a decent public school system?

Parents clearly see lots of issues confronting their children in the class room. But there is not a single  voice that tries to educate us about them in an insightful way. Instead we are left to grope around our immediate concerns amid a set of increasingly loud voices that tell us that teachers are the problem - get rid of the "bad" ones and things will be better, they insist.

And this presents us - the average parent who wants to do the right thing - with a rather difficult problem.  If the PTA is advancing the agenda of the state without critique, how do we start learning about the reality of the class room, what teachers face daily and how it affects our children? We cannot expect an organization that uncritically tows the line up and down the education food chain to help us understand these issues. We must turn to our rank and file teachers for this understanding.

But here again, we are faced with another perhaps even more difficult problem. Teachers - like any persecuted group - are fairly hesitant to openly discuss the issues they face. Sometimes they are mandated to teach in ways that they know is not the best for our children, but they must do so if they are to keep their jobs. Teachers need all our support and one way we can support them is by an unflinching critique of the policy work of the PTA. A lack of critique would make teachers think that most parents are behind the PTA agenda and that is not the case.

But that is not all that we need to do. If we wash off our hands by critique, we are no worse than those elected officials that insist we must write yet more pointless letters to the same crooks that are hell-bent on destroying the last vestige of a decent public education system. Moving forward, there is an urgent need to come together as a concerned group of parents, teachers and students to organize and develop our independent plan for a sound public school system. We started this work in the Bellevue Public Library recently. Much remains to be done. I ask anyone interested in developing this critical understanding of the social process happening around the public school to please contact me so we can continue to develop our own informed plan for a sound public school system for Bellevue.

thank you.

Stand For Children – Who do they really stand for?

Stand For Children is a group funded by corporate interests and certain wealthy individuals with high stakes in the education market. Since its inception in 1996 it has been active in a number of states lobbying and gathering support for certain K-12 education initiatives. In particular, the group supports the Obama administration’s drastic cuts to the quality of education, which is touted as “education reform”. Thus when the years 2009-2010 saw an unprecedented number of school closures, teacher layoffs, cutbacks on programs and services essential to students, Stand proudly claims in its 2009 annual report that “Stand made a BIG difference in 2009 and early 2010”.

The group has a charitable arm carrying the 501(3)(c) status known as the “Stand For Children Leadership Center” as well as a political arm called simply “Stand For Children” filed under 501(4)(c) status. The law prohibits a 501(3)(c) firm from substantial political activity. Stand For Children is quite clearly a group that aggressively lobbies for education initiatives in the legislative arena and as such requires a 501(4)(c) filing status to conduct such activities. As its 990 forms for 2009 show, the bulk of funding - $5,499,200 - is raised through the charitable arm which provides a tax deduction for donors, whereas a mere $546,095 is raised through the political arm. [You can find the 990 forms by querying:  

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php]

In its 2009 annual report, Jonah Edelman, the CEO of the organization, identifies the lack of qualified teachers as the fundamental problem facing public schools. Mr. Edelman iterates the basic thrust of Stand to “getting great teachers and principals in our schools and ensuring that they have the support, the freedom, and the compensation they need to do their best work.” Clearly he is arguing that there are inadequate teachers in public schools, there is a lack of support for great teachers and finally that there is a need for greater compensation for the better teachers. He follows quickly that this would also require a commitment to apply “consequences for consistently ineffective teachers and principals”.

There is a system already in place to fire consistently ineffective teachers in the public school. A teacher is granted tenure only after three years. Before this time, a principal can fire a teacher without due process. About half of all new teachers leave the profession within the first five years showing the demanding nature of the job. Contrary to popular misconception spread by the mainstream media, tenured teachers can be fired but they are entitled to due process. It prevents an administrator from arbitrarily firing a teacher who has clearly shown a commitment to the public school for more than three years. Clearly Stand finds this setup less than adequate.

Stand For Children is lobbying to pass bills that would allow administrators to layoff the “least effective” teachers rather than the most junior teachers.  It is a strong supporter of SB 5399 in the state of Washington. SB 5399 attacks seniority rights and allows for the firing of the higher paid, more senior teachers. It is – in Stand's own words -  a “Great Schools Bill”.

In the state of Indiana, Stand supported a similar bill – SB 1 and conducted a carefully worded poll to get public support for its regressive measures.

How can the community refuse to lay off the least effective teachers instead of the more effective ones? Clearly the community wants the most effective teachers in the class room. As we have shown, it is highly likely that the demanding nature of the profession self-selects the best and most effective teachers in the first five years, if not sooner. Thus the demand now to insist that this is not enough and that the state must mount a further punishment on top of this is due to an altogether different reason. And that is the sustained drain on the education budget and the refusal of the Obama administration to fund public education as it allows the bankers and big corporations to loot the treasury.

It is a lot cheaper to fire the better paid more senior teachers. Regardless of how much more experienced they are, regardless of how much commitment they have shown to the public school, regardless of how much students have come to know and develop relationships with – they are just not “economical” in a system where labor is simply a commodity to be exploited to the maximum possible by the super rich. Insistence on the need to fire the less effective teachers is thus simply a ploy to fire the on-average more effective senior teachers.

Due to the ongoing economic recession resulting from the financial crisis of Nov 2008, there is a severe lack of funding for K-12 throughout the country making for a sustained effort in the part of the Obama administration to lower teacher salaries and further drive down the quality of life of teachers. Firing the teachers who are more expensive to keep is part and parcel of this strategy of underfunding public education. Stand For Children demonstrates its basic alignment with this cruel strategy that ultimately harms the students as teachers start leaving a profession where they cannot guarantee any sort of stability based on their demonstrated commitment to the profession.

Race To The Top program allows for the closing of schools, firing all or half of its staff, conversion to a charter school if a school does not meet Yearly Adequate Progress (AYP) criteria. Rather than address the vast social problems that confront the students in poor communities where these punitive measures have now become routine, RTTT removes even the highly limited resources provided thus delegating a large section of poor children and youth to a life of poverty and crime. Stand For Children is an ardent supporter of this despicable policy as evidenced by its ready embrace of the same. In its 2009 report, Stand highlights legislative victories in Massachusetts that give superintendents “targeted intervention powers to quickly turn around failing schools” as well as changes made in Washington legislature that enables it to punish struggling schools with this “turn around” model.

The evidence that underperformance in students/schools is tied largely to economic factors is undisputed. In a society rife with a despairing economic gulf between vast wealth and utter misery, the poor students of this country have almost insurmountable obstacles that they struggle to overcome every day. While the government-based social programs for the poor have continued to dwindle, the public school has over the years stepped up to provide a highly limited set of services – like free/cheaper lunch options, student counseling and other social services. Now with Race To The Top, the Obama administration prepares to remove even those highly limited functions of the school amounting to a naked attack on a most vulnerable section of our society – poor children. And Stand For Children stands in awe as can be seen by Jonah Edelman’s address on Stand’s 2008 Annual Report : “President Obama and the team he has assembled will lead well. Not perfectly, but well and certainly boldly. But whether this time of great peril becomes an era of vital progress depends as much on whether we step up, as our forebears did, as on President Obama’s leadership.”

Since then, Stand’s support for the Obama administration is less vocal, undoubtedly due to the growing community/teacher backlash on this reactionary agenda. However Stand’s support for “turnarounds”, increasing charter caps of key states, support for firing teachers without due process, attacking seniority, establishment of a steep pay hierarchy in schools make it all too evident that Stand is supportive of these policies that are unarguably harmful to the most vulnerable of the nation’s children.

Despite its claims to be a “grass-roots” organization, Stand does not have wide support in the communities it serves. As can be seen from its financial statements, the bulk of its funds comes from a few sources – and they are all organizations and individuals connected to wealth.  Stand’s 2009 Annual Report shows that out of its total revenue of $5.5 M at least $1.5M (27%) came from three organizations and three individual families. This includes the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as well as the ACCIO Education Grant setup by Helios Education Foundation which itself was formed in 2004 after the sale and acquisition of a student loan/services company by Sallie Mae – the student loan giant.

The organization is thus propped up because this wealthy elite recognizes the advantage in removing the input of teachers from the education process, which then allows this handful of key individuals to make decisions regarding education very simply, without consulting parents or teachers. This creates a vast opportunity for wealthy backers to invest and make substantial profits in the increasingly privatized education market place.

A key step in removing the voice of the teacher from the discussion around schools is the attack on the more experienced, senior and thus tenured teacher. If such a teacher can be made afraid of the prevailing political trend of  “reform”, there will be a hesitancy to speak out when disastrous policies are suggested by the administration. This in fact is what the wealthy elite interested in the moneymaking possibilities of education is eying. Democracy and labor rights to them are mere trifles, needless obstructions to do away with as fast as possible. 

But does all this help children? To think that doing away with democracy helps education is to give preference to elitist – even dictatorial – rule. And to say that business people - Big Business at that -  know what works in the classroom better than teachers, is an insult not only to teachers, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

The American people – contrary to what Stand may think– have not forgotten that Big Business not only does not know the next thing about education but that they are unable to save the economic system of their own creation without massive government subsidies and outright bailouts. We saw how these hedge funds and mega banks had no compunction in asking for taxpayer help after following decades of speculation and outright fraud, they brought ruin on themselves. We also saw how the government at that time did not insist on figuring out “what works” but scrambled to provide whatever was being demanded.

That reckless act of the government, quite predictably did not solve any of the contradictions that gave rise to the Nov 08 crash. The gigantic hedge funds, banks and the whole parasitic network of financial thiefdoms are increasingly unable to invest profitably due to these contradictions and thus large sections of them have turned to education as a reliable place to invest. Stand is simply a front organization that they fund in order to achieve these objectives on two fronts, first on education legislature, second on the minds of a community that is feeling the brunt of the economic crisis and increasingly looking for answers.

That the market for K-12 is sizable can be seen from reports published by various research firms. For example, Outsell Corporation came up with a report putting the K-12 market at $23.7 Billion in 2007, a 3.6% increase over 2006. The report states at the start: “The US K-12 Education segment, as defined in this report, grew 3.6% in 2007 to reach $23.7 billion. It was dominated by state, district, and school spending on assessment and enterprise software and technology services, as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) continued to leave its mark on the industry.”

Stand is fully supportive of the assessment (testing) infrastructure being expanded across all states, a key priority for them in 2010 being “Improved teacher and principal evaluation systems by using multiple measures to distinguish teachers and principals, a four-tier rating scale…”. In an open letter to Washington residents, Stand lists as its Number 3 priority - “Building 21^st-Century Data Systems”.

In fact, the 2009 statistics at http://www.edreform.com/Fast_Facts/K12_Facts/ shows that only 28% of all K-12 education funding is expensed as teacher salaries. In the city of Bellevue, WA, the Capital Fund and Bond Payments both made up close to half of the 2010-11 budget. Both these funds are absorbed by the private sector for the many services rendered to the public school as a result of increasing privatization of the school. Only 34.74% of the district budget is being used for teacher salaries and benefits. A close study of school budgets throughout the state would show that a substantial amount of the budget is already diverted to private companies. Thus any "in-efficiency" touted by the reformers must first be addressed where the bulk of this funding is channeled to.

There is an urgent need to reevaluate if increasing privatization has helped the school or rather hastened its decay. This is all the more urgent as we clearly saw in Nov 2008 how inept the private sector has been with regard to preserving its capital. But Stand sees the subsequent economic devastation as an “opportunity” to further strengthen the privatization agenda, reduce teacher autonomy and move towards a dictatorial model in running our public schools.  But opportunity for whom? – Clearly for whom Stand really stands for which are certainly not the children.

Committee for K-12 Education (Apr 27, Bellevue Public Library, Room 1, 7-9 pm)

Please join us for an open public meeting at the Bellevue Public Library, Room 1 on April 27th from 7 - 9 pm where we will form a neighborhood committee to develop a comprehensive plan for K-12 public education.

Some may ask the question - "Why form a committee ourselves, does the district not do this work?" While the district does have a strategic committee, and it is tasked with developing a plan for K-12, its past track record does not convince us that the outcome will be one that would serve the needs of students, teachers or parents.

Developing a plan that addresses our diverse needs will not be a simple task. The biggest road-block to creating such a plan is the current existence of divisions that pit different parent groups against each other, students against teachers and teachers against parents. These divisions are accepted and gently encouraged by the practices of the currently predominant advocacy groups. The district utilizes the creative energies of such splintered advocacy groups to create the illusion of democracy. Creating an independent committee seeks to address these problems. 

Looking at the devastation the district has done to public education to date, the interests of the district seem to narrow down to two main items:

1) Taking any and all possible measures to reduce the quality of education given the state mandated budget cuts. These include but are not limited to increasing class sizes, reducing teacher salaries forcing them to take additional jobs, increasing fees for athletics, cutting down arts and athletics programs.

2) Create a strict high-stake testing regime and re-focus education from learning to test taking. The test results are used to constantly measure and punish students as well as teachers, thus creating a hostile environment for teachers and specially those involved with disadvantaged student groups.

These interests are in stark contrast to the interests of students, teachers and parents. We reject the notion that there is "no money" for public education and that cuts need to happen. We will show the $15 Billion of funds the state loses yearly due to tax subsidies it provides to big business. The state budget deficit for 2011-13 is less than one third of this at a  $4.6 Billion. The K-12 deficit for the same period is only $2.2 Billion. Quite clearly there is money, it is the priorities set up by those in power that reduces the money for public education. [Seattle Times article, Crosscut article, LivingGreedy trade ins]

When Governor Gregoire mentioned "making difficult choices" regarding the 2011-13 budget, she quite remarkably overlooked these tax subsidies.

After answering the question of nay-sayers who say "there is no money", we can turn to formulating the plan. What we require from K-12 public education can be summed up along the lines of:

1) A well-rounded education, funded adequately where arts, athletics play a role every bit as important as math, science and reading.

2) Our senior teachers with much experience should be valued and compensated fairly for their understanding of children and proven teaching ability. We do not want to see young college graduates who commit to teaching a year or two replace senior teachers as a matter of "economy".

3) We realize that there is a wide range of abilities in a group of students and to teach every child well it is important to have small class sizes. Students needing extra help should continue to receive special needs assistance and academically more skilled students need the Highly Capable Program.

4) Due to the additional difficulties faced by students from families with low income, we believe schools should continue supporting social services programs.

5) We see the value of counselors, librarians and school nurses as integral to the public school system. We realize that reductions in these services hit the poorer students much harder and thus cannot be separated from public education that strives to be equitable.

Thus, we will form a committee and create a K-12 plan that serves our interests. We will present this plan to the wider community and show how the 2011-13 state/district budget can be utilized for implementing the plan. By working outside the influence of the district, we will be able to create a plan capable of garnering wide support in the community.

References:
http://www.eoionline.org/tax_reform/reports/EverybodyElseGetsOne-Apr08.pdf (Analysis by Economic Opportunity Institute on tax breaks/subsidies in the state of WA)

http://www.eoionline.org/tax_reform/fact_sheets/NewRevenueOptions-Jan2011.pdf (Outlines how ~ $4B revenue can be realized by removing selected tax breaks)