There is a big disconnect between OEA and many teachers. As a second-career teacher, I am put off by the antagonism and radicalism of OEA officials. Many of the loudest union members are embarrassing. They come off as overgrown hippies and I think they have little credibility with the district. The teamster model does not work for me. I am an educated professional and I don’t identify with many of the union tactics.

And that will be justice earned.

Furthermore I just wish for 1x the OEA, OUSD, etc. could organize some actions (family friendly) marches that happen BEFORE the State cuts happen so we can all do something about it. Teachers, families, AND kids.

Finally, I voted for Measure L, and although I agree with the OEA in principle that Charters should not benefit, at some point there has to be compromise for the greater good. Maybe the OEA is run by malcontents who so love to complain, strike and want to hold on to an “all or nothing” “us vs. them” attitudes that compromise is simply impossible for them?

Or maybe OEA leaders would have nothing to do if they actually got the raises they want?

This is an excerpt from an article about education issues:

Fourth. Oakland teachers make less on average than other districts, but other districts don’t have to give the state $6 million a year to pay back a $100 million bailout loan. It also should be noted that there’s ample evidence that Oakland schools got into trouble in the first place and needed the loan because the district badly miscalculated when it awarded teachers a 24 percent raise at the beginning of the last decade.

Fifth. Teachers in other districts have made trade-offs for higher pay. Chief of among them is accepting more students per class. As a result, those districts have fewer public school teachers per capita than Oakland does. A state audit several years ago found that districts typically either choose to have fewer well-paid teachers or more lower-paid teachers. Oakland has chosen the latter, and there’s strong evidence that Oakland simply has too many teachers, because its class sizes are smaller than what the district can afford.

The entire article is here:

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/92510/archives/2010/03/04/some-hard-truths-about-oakland-teachers

In Waiting for Superman, the narrator describes how the DC teacher’s union didn’t allow a measure to go to vote that would have either allowed teachers to choose individually to work for performance bonuses or just keep the status quo and get a raise.

In Oakland, the OEA didn’t endorse Measure L, which then failed to pass by fewer than 800 votes. Seems to me that it’s not just “society” that doesn’t want teachers to be paid more, but the unions themselves who think it’d be better for teachers as a whole to be paid less and have more protection than be paid more in return for greater accountability.

I agree this nation and particularly this state have answered this question for decades. It’s not the answer I want, but it’s been answered. If we want to change that answer, there will need to be less bickering among the disenfranchised. Divide, confuse and conquer has been an effective strategy.

At some point Oakland goes past progressive and just appears “out of touch.” That might win cheers in SF and Berkeley, but is it getting anything done.