There are still a few merger vote odds and ends to clean up:

EIA is making available through e-mail or fax three documents from the NEA Representative Assembly. The first (one page) is New Business Item #1, which contains the guidelines which will govern the merger process from this point on. The second (two pages) is the Haisman alternative. Drafted by representatives of the anti-Unity coalition and submitted by Illinois Education Association President Bob Haisman, the document was defeated on a 53%-47% roll call vote. The last document (two pages) is a transcript of a speech made by NEA General Counsel Robert Chanin on the union's coordinated national strategy against the right-wing.

The post-vote reporting and punditry have left something to be desired. The significance of the crushing defeat of a plan — any plan — designed, developed, promoted and vigorously lobbied for by NEA's national office should not be underestimated. Perhaps NEA learned a lesson. But preliminary indications are that NEA will treat its merger campaign the same way it treats its various political campaigns — with relentless pressure. Instead of amalgamating two competing follow-on negotiation proposals, it pushed for the pro-Unity proposal (with a minor amendment by the "No" side).
 
Both sides express support for merger. But support for merger is like support for world peace — the devil is in the details. The Haisman proposal called specifically for "a single national organization of all education employees." AFT contains a large minority of non-education employees. The Haisman proposal refers to NEA and the AFL-CIO as "separate, independent entities." AFT's AFL-CIO affiliation is reportedly non-negotiable.

What happens next? That depends entirely on whether the Coalition for Democratic Principles, as the anti-Unity forces called themselves, continue to work together as a group on this and other issues. If not, NEA will eventually, inexorably, work its will and merger with AFT and affiliation with AFL-CIO will become a reality.

Over the past few months, I was remiss in omitting from merger positions those NEA affiliates which are not states. The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and overseas affiliates of NEA each sent delegates to the Representative Assembly. DC and overseas supported merger. Puerto Rico was opposed.

EIA was able to find only one state delegation to the RA whose official position switched from the support or oppose position taken by its state assembly. Rhode Island had voted to support merger during its state convention, but a vote taken during a state caucus meeting in New Orleans resulted in a majority to oppose.

The NEA staff was very quiet over the last two weeks. Not any longer. "Certainly, the 58 percent vote against the Principles of Unity was a stunning setback for the NEA and its quest of a single national organization," said Chuck Agerstrand, president of the National Staff Organization, the union of NEA's professional staffers, in an open communication to NSO members. Agerstrand also noted the divisions caused by the debate over follow-on negotiations. "NEA leadership, through parliamentary maneuvering, was able to get a new business item adopted that sanctioned continued talks," he said. "However, it is fair to say a large number of delegates were overly unhappy in the manner in which NEA leadership maneuvered the adoption of NB1."

Investor's Business Daily published a column of mine on how California's Proposition 226, the paycheck protection initiative, would have resulted in no net loss in income for the California Teachers Association had it passed. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe also wrote a column about it. Now there is further proof that laws designed to restrict union campaign contributions are easily circumvented.

In Ohio, yesterday was a big day for pro-labor politicians. Because a court appeal was refused on July 1, and a campaign reform law to restrict union donations didn't go into effect until today, unions had a 12-day window to give unlimited funds to candidates. Hard numbers are as yet unavailable, but apparently Christmas came early for a host of statewide candidates.

Corporate Watch, a pro-labor watchdog organization, has put together a report entitled "The Education Industry: The Corporate Takeover of Public Schools." Referring to school privatization as "Education Maintenance Organizations," the editors wrote "For over 100 years, education has been shaped to fit the needs of business." The editorial portion of the report, written by Julie Light, continues in this vein:
 

"Analysts at the conservative think tanks, like the Heritage Foundation, Hudson and Pioneer Institutes, tell us that the problems in education stem from inefficient, bloated school bureaucracies. Conservatives talk about ‘school choice,' referring to vouchers and other public/private schemes. Free marketeers strike a chord with many parents when they point out that families do not have the choices they deserve, especially in urban school districts.

"However, according to progressive school activists, the problems in education have their roots in decades of unequal school funding. They say that as long as school districts are financed through property taxes, kids in poor, urban districts will never receive an equal education with suburban schoolkids. Wide disparities in school resources open the doors for corporations to fill the gap (and their pockets), especially in inner city schools."

The California Teachers Association have put together a media kit for its field staff and local presidents on the results of the Student Testing and Reporting (STAR) tests. Partial scores on the statewide standardized test have been released and they are not good. The CTA kit includes "a list of potential questions about student achievement and suggested answers" and "sample letters to the editor that address issues surrounding needed resources, standards, norm-referenced tests, and the alignment of standards, curriculum, and assessment."

Quote of the Week #1: "If we cared about excellence in teaching, we'd be doing everything differently. Our organization has been as guilty as everyone else. We've been concerned about getting a warm body in the classroom." — Sue Carmen of the National Education Association.

Quote of the Week #2: "It is certainly not necessarily true that a teacher who demonstrates high levels of knowledge on a test is a good teacher. But you can be very sure that person who can't even pass what everybody agrees is a low-level test couldn't possibly be a good teacher." — Kati Haycock, executive director of the Education Trust..