The WSJ penned an interesting editorial yesterday on Secretary Duncan and Michelle Rhee, noting that while the secretary supports important reforms, he hasn't helped the chancellor in her donnybrook with the union.
(I recently wrestled with the secretary's apparent willingness to address reform at the policy level but unwillingness to take on collective bargaining agreements.)
This quote from the WSJ editorial jumped out at me.
But Mr. Duncan loses his voice when it comes to backing Ms. Rhee in contract negotiations. "We generally don't weigh in on local labor disputes," he told the Journal last month.
Given the secretary's audacity--often commendable--in other areas, I can't explain his hesitancy when it comes to union contracts.
He regularly says that state accountability systems lie to kids and he is therefore pushing national standards, so we know he doesn't reflexively defer to states and districts.
He has been agitating for lifting charter caps and tearing down data firewalls, and he scolded Hawaii for its furlough plan, so we know he's willing to inject himself into state policy.
His School Improvement Grant application says that districts have consistently failed to fix their lowest performing schools and therefore need more federal guidance, so we know he's willing to increase the federal government's role when local decisions aren't producing the results desired.
And he??has said publicly that union contracts pose serious problems for reform (???Now let me be absolutely clear about this: Labor issues are an impediment in many places, and we must continue to challenge them???).
So why are union contracts a line he won't cross?
--Andy Smarick