CLASSROOM STRUGGLE

Strategy and Analysis to Defend and Transform Public Education

JACK GERSON & BOB MANDEL: Mutual Matching is Union Busting: Beware of Collaborating with your Enemy

On January 26, more than 100 OEA members met at Redwood Heights Elementary to discuss OUSD’s “Mutual Matching” proposal.  If Mutual Matching were adopted, teachers whose positions are consolidated (i.e. eliminated) because their school has been closed or reorganized would give up their contractual rights to a guaranteed job.  Instead, they would go into a pool (including consolidated teachers, current teachers who want to change schools, and new job applicants).  (See accompanying article for details).

The forum was enlightening and revealing.  Nine breakout groups met for about an hour, giving all participants a chance to voice suggestions and concerns. There was near-unanimity that OEA should tell OUSD that we will not agree to replace our contractual placement process (Article XII of the OEA / OUSD contract) with Mutual Matching this spring.  Instead, as several teachers agreed, we should tell the district that the placement process doesn’t work because OUSD has flatly refused to implement large parts of it (especially the provisions for voluntary transfer).  Rather than complaining that the process is broken, OUSD should acknowledge that they broke it and help make it work.

Many participants called the Mutual Matching proposal part of a district strategy to blame veteran teachers for OUSD’s failures, with the goal of driving out veteran teachers and busting OEA.  But surprisingly, even teachers who have long expressed interest in exploring Mutual Matching expressed serious doubts about the district’s proposal and agreed that OEA should not be rushed into agreement on it this year.

All of this is quite heartening.  But there were some disturbing aspects.  In her opening presentation, OEA President Betty Olson-Jones reported that OEA and OUSD had worked jointly to develop a new contractual placement process, and that while OEA leadership had not seen or approved the present Mutual Matching proposal prior to its release, several ideas in OUSD’s proposal came from OEA (for one: monetary incentives to induce veteran teachers to resign or retire). Even more troubling: OEA had agreed to let OUSD pilot Mutual Matching on teachers who were consolidated in October.  At least some of the affected teachers were quite upset, and felt victimized and abandoned by the union.

Perhaps most ominous is that despite the overwhelming sentiment at the meeting to stay with the current contractual placement process and to not implement Mutual Matching, some –perhaps most – OEA leaders are still looking for ways to make it work this spring.  Thus, both before and after the meeting, prominent OEA leaders told us privately that they remained open to allowing “volunteers” to waive their seniority rights to join the Mutual Matching pool.  This is fraught with danger.  We all know how much pressure principals and other administrators bring to bear on teachers to “volunteer” for the latest pet project or “silver bullet” campaign.  Once teachers start giving up their seniority rights, it will be a huge fight to get them back.  The District will grab this opening and, having already established its power to impose, will turn the trickle into an all out assault on seniority.  It was bad enough that they were considering this before the forum.  But why, after not raising this during the forum, was this privately floated again as soon as the teacher participants filed out?

The current OEA leadership has insisted for years that OEA needs to collaborate with OUSD administration “when it’s in our mutual interest”.  They have said that OUSD superintendent Tony Smith “is not the enemy; he’s on our side” (for example, at last spring’s OEA-sponsored Town Hall meeting).  They have partnered with the district around a “Teacher Effectiveness” task force.  They have worked with OUSD on developing the Mutual Matching framework, and agreed to let OUSD pilot it.

Meanwhile, Tony Smith and the school board have played hardball. They have closed the Adult Education program, which served 25,000 students when Smith took office in 2009.  They are closing or reorganizing twelve schools this year and at least 25 more in the next two years, while more charter schools open.  They have reduced the number of nurses, counselors, and psychologists to a dysfunctional minimum. They have refused to make a decent contract offer to Oakland teachers (who are the lowest-paid in the county and among the lowest-paid in the state).  Instead, they imposed terms on OEA nearly two years ago, and now they’re trying to hit harder and harder.  Now Smith and many principals blame union contracts for low student achievement, and call for immediately rewriting all contracts (see accompanying article).  Now they refuse to arbitrate grievances, meaning they can violate contractual rights with abandon.  Now they want to eliminate seniority – that’s the meaning of Mutual Matching.

For years, OEA leadership has given OUSD administration – and especially smooth-talking Tony Smith – the benefit of the doubt.  OEA has stressed the importance of collaborating with OUSD.  But collaborating with an opponent intent on undermining the union can only end in disaster.  It is well past time to bend the stick in the other direction. We warn that many principals, with encouragement from Smith and his managers, are using site collaboration to pressure teachers to voluntarily agree to allow erosion of teaching and working conditions – for example, to make “staff agreements” to longer work days and / or longer work years at reduced pay for the extended time; for consultant-led rather than teacher-led Professional Development; for orienting instruction around districtwide exams; for accepting incursions from cyber learning / robot instruction; etc.

And while OEA has been campaigning for adequate funding for public education and other vital services from the 1%, where have Tony Smith and the school board been?   Contributors to this newsletter founded the OEA campaign to “Bail Out Schools, Not Banks and End Foreclosures”, and several of us were arrested last May when we occupied Wells Fargo’s downtown Oakland branch to call attention to our demands.  We have campaigned for years to get funding from the banks, from the Port of Oakland, and from the corporations that pay the city little or no tax.  Tony Smith and the school board have never participated.  They just turn their pockets inside out, cry that there’s no money, and tell us that we have to pay.  Some collaboration!

OEA has a vision for what schools should look like and how they should function – the OEA Vision.  We should all be clear that this is not a vision shared by OUSD.  Let’s not continue to give them the benefit of the doubt.  Let’s understand that they are using “collaboration” to induce us to agree to projects that are harmful to students, communities, and teachers: downsizing, charterizing, privatizing, and union-busting.

When we’re offered a decent contract; when the consultants and privatizers are shown the door; when strong guarantees for education focused on developing students’ conceptualization, spirit of inquiry, and creativity have replaced the current too-prevalent emphasis on test scores and obedience; when OUSD respects schools as communities of students, parents, teachers and staff; and when district administration fights for the funding needed to provide resources, programs, and staffing – then we can consider giving OUSD administration the benefit of the doubt.

One comment on “JACK GERSON & BOB MANDEL: Mutual Matching is Union Busting: Beware of Collaborating with your Enemy

  1. Betty Olson-Jones
    February 21, 2012

    A recent pamphlet put out by the “Occupy Oakland Education Committee” (online at https://education4the99.wordpress.com/) contains many informative articles. But in the interests of accuracy, I want to correct some misinformation in the article entitled “Mutual Matching is Union-Busting: Beware of Collaborating With Your Enemy,” by Bob Mandel and Jack Gerson, both retired teachers and former members of the Executive Board. I spoke with both of them after seeing the article, and expressed my disappointment that neither one had spoken to me before publishing it.

    First, I am happy to report that thanks to the support of our members and the refusal of OEA leadership to back down, we were able to stay solid on keeping current contract language. The district is no longer attempting to push “mutual matching” as a way of getting rid of seniority in transfer rights! More details to follow.

    The first part of the article describes the “Mutual Understanding” Forum OEA held on January 26th, attended by over 100 OEA members. What follows gives an accurate picture:
    “The forum was enlightening and revealing. Nine breakout groups met for about an hour, giving all participants a chance to voice suggestions and concerns. There was near-unanimity that OEA should tell OUSD that we will not agree to replace our contractual placement process (Article XII of the OEA / OUSD contract) with Mutual Matching this spring. Instead, as several teachers agreed, we should tell the district that the placement process doesn’t work because OUSD has flatly refused to implement large parts of it (especially the provisions for voluntary transfer). Rather than complaining that the process is broken, OUSD should acknowledge that they broke it and help make it work.
    Many participants called the Mutual Matching proposal part of a district strategy to blame veteran teachers for OUSD’s failures, with the goal of driving out veteran teachers and busting OEA. But surprisingly, even teachers who have long expressed interest in exploring Mutual Matching expressed serious doubts about the district’s proposal and agreed that OEA should not be rushed into agreement on it this year.”

    Here’s where it begins to veer from the facts:

    “All of this is quite heartening. But there were some disturbing aspects. In her opening presentation, OEA President Betty Olson-Jones reported that OEA and OUSD had worked jointly to develop a new contractual placement process, and that while OEA leadership had not seen or approved the present Mutual Matching proposal prior to its release, several ideas in OUSD’s proposal came from OEA (for one: monetary incentives to induce veteran teachers to resign or retire).”

    Not so. I reported that OEA and OUSD representatives had had conversations over the past few years about improving the current contractual process to make it less stressful for our “priority placement” teachers. Anyone who has gone through this process knows how difficult it can be to choose five sites without knowing much about them, and then be called during the placement process and asked to make an on-the-spot decision because all of their first choices have been taken. Our interest was to make this process more transparent, work on getting rid of hidden vacancies, remove actual teacher salaries from consideration, give teachers a chance to visit schools with vacancies, and make sure everyone had as much information as possible about vacancies before making a selection. At the same time, we made it clear throughout the conversations that we weren’t open to giving up current contractual rights of “displaced teachers” to select assignments by seniority and to follow their students if vacancies were created. Indeed, several of our ideas made it into OUSD’s proposal, most notably removing actual salaries so veteran teachers aren’t seen as “too costly.” Monetary incentives were never suggested on our part as a way to “induce veteran teachers to resign or retire” but to encourage anyone already planning to separate to do so early in order to surface more vacancies for priority placements.

    “Even more troubling: OEA had agreed to let OUSD pilot Mutual Matching on teachers who were consolidated in October. At least some of the affected teachers were quite upset, and felt victimized and abandoned by the union.”

    Yes, we agreed to let OUSD pilot “Mutual Matching” with five teachers, with the understanding that seniority would trump a “match” if any teacher were not placed. We know and understand that some of the affected teachers were not happy, because they were forced to leave their schools due to the consolidation process. We worked with them throughout the process, and are continuing to work on their behalf in case vacancies arise in their former sites.

    This is perhaps the heart of the matter:

    “Perhaps most ominous is that despite the overwhelming sentiment at the meeting to stay with the current contractual placement process and to not implement Mutual Matching, some –perhaps most – OEA leaders are still looking for ways to make it work this spring.”
    No, we’re actually looking for ways to make the current process work better. And it appears that we have been successful, thanks to the support of members who have come to School Board meetings, written letters to the Editor, attended the “Mutual Understanding” forum, and spoken up in site meetings. We believe it’s in our members’ best interests to add to the current process such things as taking out actual salaries, paying for teacher visits to sites with vacancies, and providing incentives to those who already plan to leave. The subtext here is a lack of trust. Where there is trust, there is no need to attribute sinister motives to colleagues.

    “The current OEA leadership has insisted for years that OEA needs to collaborate with OUSD administration “when it’s in our mutual interest”. They have said that OUSD superintendent Tony Smith “is not the enemy; he’s on our side” (for example, at last spring’s OEA-sponsored Town Hall meeting). They have partnered with the district around a “Teacher Effectiveness” task force. They have worked with OUSD on developing the Mutual Matching framework, and agreed to let OUSD pilot it.”
    Here’s where the real differences lie. The authors believe in permanent war with the district. That’s not the message I’ve gotten from most of our members. Tony Smith is not “the enemy,” nor is he always “on our side” (not knowing who said that, it’s difficult to say more). Teachers who participated in the Teacher Task Force and Convention were overwhelmingly positive about it because it spoke to very real issues of academic freedom. As for “mutual matching,” OEA leadership was clear about the attack on seniority from the beginning, and did whatever we could to encourage dialogue among our members. The January 26th Forum was a beautiful testament to the idea that we can find common ground if we listen to each other and respect different points of view. Teachers with a wide spectrum of views on “mutual matching” came together and agreed that despite the allure of allowing teachers and schools to “choose the best match,” this would ultimately hurt teachers, especially those in closing schools.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on February 5, 2012 by in News & Analysis.
%d bloggers like this: