The Washington Education Association has sent letters to legislators demanding action in exchange for the cash and people support they have given. The same demand by the Washington State Labor Council killed the bill to gag employers speaking to their own employees.
True to form, the WEA is trying to kill HB 1410 that does restructuring based on a thorough study. Instead they want more funding. It hasn't worked before - funding has climbed and climbed in real dollars, while measured results have moved little.
Rep. Deb Eddy (D, Redmond, Bellevue) blew the whistle in a comment to this entry at Publicola.
Publicola is the liberal response to Washington Policy Center. Their blog gives a more thorough report:
[WEA sent a letter to] Speaker of the House Rep. Frank Chopp (D-43, Wallingford). The letter condemns a pair of education reform bills. It says, in part:Posted by Ron Hebron at April 14, 2009 05:31 PM | Email This"Our members have contributed time, effort and dollars to candidates we respect and who share our educational values. We have been active and generous regarding candidates on the state level as well...HB 1410 and SB 5444 are education reform bills that do things like allow the state to intervene in failing schools and upgrade graduation requirements--provisions the WEA opposes in lieu of funding, but provisions that reform advocates support. The reformers argue that despite the lack of funding right now, the state must put "a stake in the ground" so specific reforms are queued up when funding becomes available. They also argue that without these specifics, Washington state will lose out on federal dollars. The WEA argues that this is no time to define or mandate reforms, given that schools are reeling from cuts.I hope you will be able to alleviate our concerns by ending any consideration of any bill containing the onerous provisions of of HB 1410 and SB5444 in any form or fashion."
Rep. Eddy, who supports the education reform bills, says, "I hope legislators don't cave to this quasi threatening letter. I hope we do the right thing and pass an education reform bill."
Eddy also pointed out that these WEA letters were similar to the controversial emails the Washington State Labor Council (WSLC) sent out earlier this year about a different bill--a bill that protected workers from captive anti-union meetings--which the WSLC supported. A now-infamous WSLC email threatened that Democrats wouldn't get "one dime" unless they voted WSLC's way on the bill.
"I don't know how what they're [the WEA] is saying is substantively different from the [WSLC] letter," Eddy says. Eddy acknowledges that the WEA and the WSLC has every right to make support contingent on voting records and says this type of lobbying goes on all the time, but says she thinks it's inappropriate when financial support is made contingent on one vote.
The Democrats--infamously now--didn't cave to the WSLC threat earlier this session, and Rep. Eddy hopes they don't cave to the WEA threat. "What kind of signal do we send?" Eddy asks, "if we cave."
Perhaps the bills that are raising the ire of the WEA are HB 2261 and the companion Senate bill, which are both apparently alive and well.
Aren't these part of the legislature's efforts to redefine "basic education" and reform (that is, increase) the funding formulas used by the state to apportion funding?
If so, the effort has been ongoing for a while; so I'm surprised that the WEA has waited until now to holler.
What exactly does the union dislike?
Posted by: Micajah on April 14, 2009 08:29 PMI fully understand that it's a second hand story (now third) and sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory (I never believe them) so take it for what you think it's worth. He never characterized it as a conspiracy; just two guys talking. I know him reasonably well and have seen what the NEA does so I tend to buy it.
The NEA, at least, influences the WEA so maybe not really so distant from the topic.
Posted by: mykela on April 15, 2009 08:59 AMIt's unlikely that a letter of this type from WEA exists, as WEA would be able to deliver its message orally and directly, if it so chose. Why send a letter, when you can deliver the message in person with much greater force.
Now, individual chapters of WEA might create such a message, but they are not representative of WEA, only of their chapters. So, it's possible you're ascribing to WEA that which was done by individual chapters.
Finally, if several Republican senators were to sponsor a bill, creating a corporate income tax, I suspect AWB or some such unit would likely send them a letter, reminding them of AWB's support in the past and indicating such support would be withdrawn, if the income tax bill is pursued. That's neither unusual or inappropriate. It's called politics.
Micajah: Since you asked what the union dislikes, you should know that the only portion of the reform bills they support is prototype schools. Much of the rest diminishes their ability to bargain and imposes impractical expectations; such as a three tiered salary system in which 1/3 of educators would be made ineligible for the highest rate. The proposed accountability system for teachers is unworkable and impractical, as written. And the bills have no viable revenue allocation to fund the proposed changes. Huge new responsibilities, radical systemic changes, controversial proposals, and no money. Hmm, now why would anyone oppose that? More to the point, WEA seems to want to see the current economic crisis resolved before entering into lengthy and complex discussions of reform.
The content and concerns of reform are being pushed into the background in a rush to passage, which has even cut the House Education Committee completely out of the process. That's right, the legislative committee of the House, assigned to review matters of education, has not even been allowed to see the bill. Makes you wonder?
Posted by: kmort on April 15, 2009 11:11 AMAt least that way, both the Washington Indoctrination Association and National Indoctrination Association would more accurately reflect their existing political agenda.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 15, 2009 11:25 AMI link to the Publicola entry. When I indent I am quoting that entry, as you know. At the time I posted this their entry linked to a letter, which I saw, but now the link doesn't load. Do you think they had to remove it?
Posted by: Ron Hebron on April 15, 2009 08:08 PM