Doesn't anyone find this a little suspect?

I don't know if it's suspect, but I'm not comfortable with the executive director of the state Public School Employees union taking-over management of the state's schools.
What makes union / management relations work is two separete camps of interests pulling from opposite directions that force comprimise in the middle.
hmmm...

Jim D. I fail to see the logic in your post Did you forget that Terry Bergeson was once president of the Washington Education Association? The WEA is a large union representing hundreds of thousands of teachers. Is there a differnece between that and someone from PSE? Do you know what part of the school system PSE represents?

No I do not. I'd appreciate your viewpoint.

teacherfor38 must not be a regular reader of this blog.

JimD needs to comment on and dominate discussion of every issue mentioned, regardless of his personal knowledge/lack of. He is even in talks with the Blethens regarding having the blog's name changed to "JimD on Politics; with occasional reporting by a certain Mr. Postman."

I'm really interested in the point of view of someone who can address the big picture - union leadership flipping over to management.
Would they not still be representing the union's interests in their new position of it's natural adversary?
Is this kind of of cross-loyalty common?
Got a comment on the subject, AD?

The reason this would not be a change if Dorn is elected over Bergeson is that the head of the negotiating unit for the Washington State Taxpayers ( Gregoire) is already on the take from the Union.

Well....I guess the buck stops with the governor, but she's not day-to-day education "management" the way the Superintendent is.
I get your point, but an ex-union official taking the superintendent's job seems like a more direct conflict of loyalty where the rubber meets the road.

Hi David,

I heard one of the Dorn ads the on Wednessday while I was driving home from work. They are out there.

I must admit, I haven’t paid much attention to the SPI race. I took a few moments to cruise each candidate’s website, and it appears that this will be a battle of WASL vs. NO WASL. The other issue that both candidates mention is funding. Both seem to want to secure more funding for education.

My question to both of them would be: “why not focus on how to effectively utilize the existing funding?”

The WASL is also intriguing. I cannot comment on it from an education standpoint, but I can say this: Employees (teachers) will stop at nothing to reach a goal if their compensation is tied to it. All this talk about “teaching to the WASL” may have some valid points.

I would be interested to hear some teacher’s viewpoints on the subject.

Just a consideration - all or almost all principals are former teachers, but does that mean some conflict of interest in teachers flipping over to management? I realize a bit rhetorical, but....

I don't think a former union member or former union leader is per se a problem, but I agree with watching carefully.

I have been impressed with Bergeson when she speaks at conferences, etc., but even I have finally decided it's time for her to go. New blood is good from time to time anyhow, but even I have come to think we need to pull back on the WASL a bit (at least in its current high-stakes form it's too overemphasized). I don't know Dorn but I can guarantee from what I've seen in my union's literature that they've wanted Bergeson gone for some time.... longer than I have. She's a good person and educator for sure, but just has been too sold on the WASL in its current version which needs some serious tweaking and not just slight modification.

Wiz, as a newer teacher (after admin career for 10 years) I agree there are concerns about teaching to the WASL, but then again I don't have a total problem with that if it's like teaching to the standards. What has shocked me is the lack of preparation for school many students have (I'm in a lower end school economically). I have loved the transition to teaching but believe the issue(s) is much deeper than WASL/no WASL. Give me a higher economic class and I can get most past the WASL, give me a lower economic group and I will work a lot more hours and still have lower results. Reality is like my other jobs there are some great employees, most are good - neither great nor bad, and one or two teachers here and there whom you'd wish would just leave. My annoyance w/ the union is they spend too much time supporting the weakest teachers - I bet we'd make more teaching if the bottom 3% was axed because then the public would not be as opposed to paying for good/great teachers when they only see good/great teachers.

So union leader alone at OSPI or not isn't the big issue.

Well, the Chris Vance thing is odd, but a change in leadership is urgently needed at SPI and Dorn would bring a wealth of experience to the job.

Particle Man

"Well, the Chris Vance thing is odd, "

If you where a consultant would you have a sign that said Democrats only?

The "truth"
It is a fact that the vast majority of political consultants only do work for candidates of one party.
Chris Vance is odd and so is the fact that he is working on the Dorn campaign.

Their free agents, if postman hadn’t brought Vance into this you would have never known. Carvel is another example not here I doubt but overseas he works for conservatives.
His input could help our kids.

Seateacher: Thank you for the insight. I think it would be interesting if only education professionals were able to vote for SPI. I have to believe there are many people like me who do not understand the environment well enough to cast an educated vote.

The economic class issue is fascinating. Is economic class an issue because of resource allocation, or is there a higher level of parent participation in higher economic areas?

Cutting the bottom 3% is an interesting idea. Reminds me of the Jack Welsh from GE management strategy. Each year, the bottom performers are let go. Apparently it does wonders for motivation and productivity. Of course, implementing this process requires a very fair, straightforward appraisal process.

Given that Vance ran a dismal campaign for Superintendent of Public Instruction himself a few years back, the fact he's a consultant to Dorn may be good news for Bergeson. And, I'd add, for the parents and schoolchildren of Washington.

Wiz,
The Welsh attrition method is a mixed bag.
I worked for an organization that employed a similar method, and no matter how fair and objective the measurement criteria used, it introduces new problems.
For one - employees become less flexible, creative and cooperative with each other - especially in interdepartmental situations where they find ways to screw someone else to improve their own results.
What you get is employees more focused on how their performance looks on paper, than achieving the organization's overall goals.
And that's in the rather droll world of production work.
Imposing it on the more creative and social nature of education could do some real harm to the goal of getting kids properly educated through graduation, as teachers and administration make their personal standing more important than their underlying mission.

There's a lot of devil in the details of a "very fair, straightforward appraisal process."
It frequently advantages those you'd most like to lose - the ones willing to twist the process to save their skin - while discouraging the best and brightest from applying their talent to progress if it's not an investment in their measured results.

It should be noted that GE has turned into a Wall Street disaster.
While much of the blame goes to it's current management, they inherited an employee culture that had evolved into a cut-throat competition between employees, instead of a cohesive team motivated to collectively advance the company's goals.

There has to be a change. Twelve years and the system is a mess; underfunded, drop out rates soaring, WASL failure rates among all groups except caucasian and asian are in the 60% ranges, schools becoming test-prep academies, and the legislature and the State Board basically taking control away from present incumbent because she lacks credibility and effectiveness. Dorn may not be the best choice, but he is committed to some very solid changes.

Changing the head is not going to fix the problems.
I do not know what the answer is for better teachers in today’s world.
Perhaps going back in history when I attend public schools we had three types of teachers.
The one who hated kids after 10 years of teaching, one who teaches because they want to teach, and the one who wanted to make a difference. I had all three and the last one was the winner she would make a boring subject interesting she would make you want to learn and have good grades to see the smile on her face she was a teacher that deserved the highest in pay and benefits. I ‘m not sure if they where union in the 50’s-1965 and the buildings we had where nothing like our kids are taught in today.

New schools look like Corp. Offices I do not know if schools are exempt from 1% of artwork this is not a necessary expense.
The state should start over on education and set what is the priorities better screening of new and old teachers ways to release teachers. Stop spending billions on school buildings and spend it on the kids and teachers.
I'm sure we all could come up with many more.
That is my 2 cents.

i challenge the notion that a union person moving to management is a bad thing... as if management's job is to squeeze the worker in order to maximize profits and executive salaries!

i see no problem with management acting in a nurturing manner to maximize the benefits and salaries for the employees that get the work done. the only reason i imagine someone would be wary of this is the suspicion that the workers would ask for too much eventually driving prices too high for demand - but this arguement fails to recognize that employees also depend success of whatever enterprise they are in to succeed. now in this scenario we're talking about elected leadership for a public institution rather than private business. this does make me a bit tentative with my position but i imagine that the superintendent does not set the tax rates or alloce the school budget, so i still think that there is nothing wrong with having an advocate for the interests of employees rising to management level of an institution.

"i challenge the notion that a union person moving to management is a bad thing... as if management's job is to squeeze the worker in order to maximize profits and executive salaries! "

That's exactly what management's job is - to the extent that it best serves the reason for the business's existence - to make the most money possible for the owners/investor.
Sorry upchuck, but the sole purpose of "business" is to create profit.
And a component to that end is the never-ending push to reduce costs, including labor costs.
Unions push back with a their objective - to provide workers the best total wage package possible.
Inherent in this dynamic tension is the likely result of a balanced compromise.
That's why a high-ranking labor official becoming (in effect) the CEO of the organization he used to represent his workers to, has the potential to be problematic.

The public schools are a little different since they're not in a monetary profit business.
But the union / management dynamics are similar, of course.
I'm not saying Dorn wouldn't necessarily make a fine superintendent or couldn't negotiate this conflict between his old loyalties and his new mission.
But it's unusual - to say the least - and hopefully is dependent on an extroardinary opinion of Dorn and his ability to go where few have before.

As an employee of OSPI, I can tell you that Terry Bergeson has one terrific attribute - the gift of gab! She excels at convincing people she is sincere but on the contrary she is mean and has no leadership abilities. The agency's morale is extemely poor under her leadership and has been for a number of years now. Change is definitely needed at OSPI.
I will be voting for Dorn.

JimD i usually agree with you…

i don't dispute that the prime motivation for business is to make profits. my challenge is not based on suggesting that businesses should abandon profits as a motive, but that our society would be better off if we worked to organize in such a way that profits are shared more equitably with all. there are many ways to achieve this: profit sharing, possibly through stock options, or bonus incentives based on productivity. and as i suggested, if former union members eventually succeed to management positions why would they not also want their industry to be profitable? don’t their former co-workers and friend’s livelihoods depend upon continued success of the said industry?

also, while business exists to make profits, society allows it to exist because it is an efficient way to provide us with the goods and services we need to survive and thrive. with a significant enough stratification of wealth it is conceivable that businesses could exist quite profitably in an economy that makes it impossible for a large portion of society to merely survive with adequate food and shelter - even though they may play essential rolls in that economy providing necessary services to many. some say we are already well on our way in that direction. so again, with that in mind, i do not necessarily challenge the notion that business should pursue an efficient and profitable business model, but that how those profits are shared is not only a matter of interest for the unions, but also management, executives, and also an important consideration for the mere sustainability of our society.

and it just occurred to me… don’t you at all feel that the notion that former union members are not fit for management is a somewhat classist point of view? with regard to this particular situation i think it might at least be anti-democratic. this is a public institution we are talking about here, and if voters decide that a former employee representative is also who that want representing their public interest in management side of education then that would be the voter’s choice to make.

I don't dispute your view of how folks could handle themselves in a manner that better serves everyone's collective interests.
The reality is they generally don't, and the creative tension between union and management provides a check-and-balance to those on either "side" who'd otherwise take advantage of their power.
You suggest a very optimistic and hopeful version of how folks could work together better.
I tend to be a bit more cynical about anyone who holds much power.
I firmly believe the abuse of power is is a universal given - such is the nature of man - which necessitates boundaries, limits and separation of conflicting agendas.

Of course -- WEA and NEA aren't exactly the Teamsters, and if there ever was a union work force personally invested in the quality and rewards of their work, teachers are surely motivated and inspired in a way many other career folks are not.

But in principle at least, a high-ranking union official like Dorn moving to the organization's top management position of superintendent, would be unconventional and COULD be problematic if other conditions do not make it an otherwise superb match.
He may well be the smartest guy in the room and best able to pull our school system together.
But part of his new job will be saying "no" to objectives he previously may have pushed in his primary role as agent for the teachers.
Not saying Dorn would necessarily be the proverbial fox in the hen house.
But his campaign challenges our conventional concept of interest conflict, for sure.

I don't get the classist argument.
Unions represent many high-end, up-scale workers as well as the blue-collar class, Dorn is already an accomplished "suit" (if you will) in the union and is not entering a different "class" - just taking on a new mission.

I appreciate the come back.
You make some excellent points, as always :)

thanks for the thoughtful debate, JimD = )

Now that you two have agreed to disagree, try this one . Should John McCoy be assigned by the Governor to the State Gaming Commission?

I think the message is there is a huge undercurrent AGAINST Bergeson's WASLmania. Both Reps. AND Dems, Union and non-Union folks are SICK of paying for an expensive, unproven 'test' being pushed as promoting high standards. The REAL question is: Which high standards is the WASL promoting? It certainly isn't the Traditional 3 R's of education! Nope, it's the "NEW" 3 R's in Washington now. And what ARE those 3 R's? Relating, Representing, and Reasoning.... from the conceptual framework for our state "NEW" education by a man named Robert Carkhuff. THESE "NEW" 3 R's are what the WASL is testing.... NOT true skills in Reading, Writing and Arithmetic our teachers were teaching until Bergeson decided to scrap the 'old methods' and bring in the "NEW" mumbo-jumbo.

The WASL isn't fit for measuring anything... and certainly not teachers, students or schools. Scores should NOT be used to grant diploma's, reward teachers compensated pay, or quality of education in our schools. It's an UNFIT 'test' and would be better used as toilet tissue.

I'm not in favor of union's being able to use their mega-funds to support candidates, but this time I'll make an exception. How else do you do battle against someone who has testing company execs donating to her campaign funds? (not exactly kosher, if you ask me) Fight fire with fire.
No, two wrongs don't make a right, but we can hope THIS time is the exception.

Obviously, Chris Vance has been brought onboard to balance out the State Dem and WEA endorsements in order to appeal to the Republican vote. Having been the former Republican Party State chair, Mr. Vance has likely still got some support from his party, which Dorn needs and deserves. Smart move on Dorn's part. Typical Republican's might not want to consider voting for Dorn because of his backing by multiple Unions and the State Dems. This time, they need to hold their nose and do it ANYWAY! ABB: ANYBODY BUT BERGESON!!! Duncan ~ Hansler ~ Dorn ~ ANYBODY!!!

Bottom line: WASL needs to GO, or at least change in format, and having high-stakes trumping common sense. WASL is not about the high standards we wanted for our children! Bergeson speaks a different language when she uses the terms "skills" "future" "education" and "high standards." HER version of 'high standards' are for the Global Economy for the "NEW" One World Order coming IF life on Earth continues beyond 2012. (Carkhuff thinks it won't.)

HER version of 'future' is the NEXT LIFE, not this one! Remember: Memory doesn't carry forward to the next life; only experiences do. This is why our children are being drilled to 'experience' education instead of memorizing math facts! Spooky, huh?
Yep, but none the less, it's the reality of Bergeson's WASL.
thefactsaboutwaedreform.org is good reading if you want this post to make complete sense.

Bergerson needs to go ! She is part of the cancer, along with the NEA that is responsible for the lowering of educational standards here.

You’re my favorite liberal JIMD. Both personalities have shown me why my party will win in 2008 and why America needs to stand up against liberalism.

You cannot hide under the name Jamesb Mr. Jimd, I only wish you could go National with your intriguing thoughtless mind process of many words but nothing to really say. In fact BHO must be your mentor, you have so little to say on anything that your posts are meaningless when it comes to substance. I have never been a racist and find your accusations laughable.

I do not want to cause other posters trouble on this blog everyone knows what your real motives are on this blog now, so I will not be posting here any longer as you true colors have been reveled.

As I said before I am your worst nightmare as you have proven in your hits on me, which brings a smile thank you.

I expect what ticked you off today was this…

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Cheers,
John

KS,
How is the NEA responsible for lowering our state standards?