The 2023 teachers’ strike in Oakland, California, surprised and divided parents as it focused on demands related to racial reparations and environmental justice, rather than just pay. Matt Feeney in UnHerd explains how the strike highlighted the teaching union’s shift towards progressive activism, and raised concerns among fellow parents about the future direction of the school system.
In 2019, my children’s teachers went on strike for higher pay, and I supported it, which was a bit of a surprise. I’d always thought public-sector unions a mockery of the idea of organised labour — not workers bargaining for a larger share of the value they create, but bureaucrats extracting rents from taxpayers, via politicians. On top of this, I’d trained to be an English teacher. I saw up close the pathetic scholarship and inane doctrines that inform teacher education in American universities. To me, unionised teachers were a convergence of these two unhealthy forces.
But then my wife and I had kids in the expensive California city of Oakland, and we sent them to our local government school (‘public’ school, in the US). I saw that, rather than applying dubious theories from their training — ‘child-centred’ teaching inspired by John Dewey, Paulo Freire’s ‘pedagogy of the oppressed’ — teachers were mainly using age-old methods to convey mandated curriculum to restless children. And I learned that many of them, especially younger teachers without spouses, or divorced teachers raising children of their own, were sharing bedrooms in group houses to cut down on living expenses, commuting huge distances from more affordable cities, or even working second jobs.
I was also seeing research showing that the skill of individual teachers was a key variable in both the subject learning and life outcomes of students. I decided to think of our local teachers’ unions as a sort of guild, securing a measure of agency and public dignity and better pay for members of a maligned profession, which might help schools attract talented people to their classrooms, and keep them there. In any case, we were part of the same community now, working together to see our kids through their school years. Some of us — the teachers — needed better pay to have decent lives. Their 2019 strike thus seemed pretty defensible. Despite the learning it interrupted and the inconvenience it caused us, no one in my world of school parents opposed it.
We parents aren’t feeling so communal about the Oakland teachers’ strike of 2023. The strike, which ran from May 5th to May 15th, wasn’t about the thing we were used to feeling invested in and guilty about — teachers’ pay. The parties (the teachers’ union and the Oakland school district) were close to agreement on a pay increase when the strike was called. What they continued to disagree on was a set of broad demands that, the union said, it was making on behalf of the “common good”.
These demands sounded like an odd fit within a contract negotiation. Our kids had been kept home from school not because teachers were being ill-paid or disrespectfully treated, but because the leaders of their union had some theories about homelessness, social welfare, climate change and, of course, racism, along with some conspicuously swollen ambitions about how much policymaking power they might wrest from elected officials.
The two most newsworthy of the union’s demands, and the most noteworthy to parents wondering how long their kids would be out of school, concerned racial reparations and environmental justice. From what we were hearing, the teachers wouldn’t return to work until our schools were remade into places where racial reparations are paid out and environmental justice is finally done.
The ‘reparations’ demand is, at once, confusing and revealing. It’s confusing because, in its details, it doesn’t mean what Americans think of when they think of racial reparations. It’s revealing because it shows the teachers’ union going the way of other progressive organisations in recent years. Instead of protecting the material and professional interests of our beloved teachers, the activist leaders of their union have taken up a new mission — impressing each other with radical gestures.
What the term ‘reparations’ signifies in the United States is a tough national reckoning with the moral, material, legal and political injustice of slavery, in the form of generous payouts to black Americans. As a political issue, it is profoundly unresolved. But what the teachers’ union calls racial reparations is, along with a proposal to let homeless students live in empty school buildings, the most palatable part of its common-good vision. What the union means by reparations — according to a detailed description of its common-good demands, which it published in December — is that the school district would turn schools with large black populations into “Black thriving community schools”, where food, healthcare and other social services are provided to needy families.
Now, the idea of community schools is an old one in education circles. If it turned out that such schools were an effective way to educate poor children and deliver social services to their families, Oakland parents would probably support them, even given the racially specific framing of “Black thriving” (though we’d still object to using them as a reason to hold a teacher strike). We recognise that the overlap between black and poor populations in our city is large. And the fact that politics in Oakland — birthplace of the Black Panthers — is always also racial politics, is a shock to no one who lives here. Indeed, the vernacular rawness and bluntness of Oakland’s racial politics is one of the many things I found refreshing about the city when I moved here in 2004. Feeling all my arguments from ‘colour blindness’ fall away was both a settling-in and a liberation. I lived in Oakland now.
In this context, casting the “Black thriving community schools” proposal as reparations is almost perversely divisive, especially for a teacher organisation ostensibly dependent on the support of parents, including non-black, politically moderate parents. In conversations about the strike I had with such parents, the word came up several times as a bemused question: ‘Reparations?’
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The push back against climate change hysteria needs to be far far more forceful.
At the moment, objections are too reasonable, too nuanced. Such as, we don’t know for sure, the climate has always changed and it could be other things, we don’t know if it’s man made, net zero is too costly, humans are very adaptable and we can adapt. Stuff like that isn’t working.
It has to be brutal and simple. It’s all a lie. There is no man made climate change. It’s all a hoax.
People need to hear those words uttered many times with enormous conviction.
After seeing how the world operates, I’ve come to realise that this is what works with the masses. Forceful repetition.
Yes, but be careful when making statements of certainty about the climate. —-if you say there is no such thing as global warming, activists can then demand you provide proof. ——-You won’t be able to do that. ——You have to be more subtle. I prefer to say something like “There is no evidence that CO2 from human activities is causing or will cause dangerous changes to the climate”. ——–This puts the ball back over the net into the activist’s court, and gives them a huge problem, because they have no evidence that it is causing dangerous problems, so they end up making silly statements like “listen to the scientists”. Which means NOTHING. There are no scientists or experts who know what the climate will be doing in 50 or 100 years time. The idea that they do comes from modelling of the climate. But models full of assumptions that so far have all been wrong are not evidence of anything. Models are not science. ———-So you may know all of this is an eco socialist scam and so do I, but I never make claims of certainty where there are none, as this simply hands victory to the silly activists
I can provide all the proof in the world that climate bollocks is b.s.
What happened to the pending Ice Age we were told about in the 70s and early 80s?
And since when does plant food cause anything except oxygen production?
Good luck with that. —-But there are no proofs in the physical sciences. Trust me I have been looking into this issue since about 2006.
IT’S CLIMATE COMMUNISM
The long winded, nuanced reasonable answer just doesn’t go very far.
I am finding that people are not convinced by reasoned arguments as much as they are by conviction and massive amounts of repetition.
Yep. But if you look at my other comments you will see one that I call for a TV Documentary giving all the types of evidence that indicates there is no climate crisis. The very thing you think you are asking for. ——-If you think this massive eco socialist movement that is dictating energy policy all over the western world can be brought a to crunching halt by shouting loudly and often that climate change is a load of bollox, you are kidding yourself.
Well we disagree then. But that’s fine.
There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but as with so.many other things my views post covid have changed, in this case regarding how people are persuaded.
When it came to the jabs, I found that explanations about how drugs and vaccines take a long time to be safety tested, how all the safeguards were sidestepped, how there wasn’t a dangerous enough disease to warrant such recklessness, all of that got nowhere.
The only time people stopped to think and perked up was when I said simply I’m not putting that poison in me or my kids and anyone who does is mad. No explanation given or wasted. I just made that statement with a conviction that was very easy to conjure. Did I convince everyone? No. Some people? For sure.
People aren’t persuaded by arguments. They are persuaded by force, conviction and good old fashioned wearing down. The simpler the message the better.
There is no climate change, we’re all being taken for a ride. That’s all it needs.
A very important point: Refuting bullshit takes a lot of time and effort and the outcome will invariably be so complicated that many people won’t understand it. As if this wasn’t bad enough, intellectually free-running bullshit emitters can pile up a mountain of more bullshit while a molehill of bullshit is being flattened. That’s an uphill battle which can’t be won.
“There is no climate change” ?? —-All I have said to you is that it is better to say WHY.—– You can say it forcefully if you want, but you need to explain why there is no climate change, and you can only do that with FACTS not by ranting.—– Because the idea that there is dangerous climate change is mostly falsified by the FACTS. You won’t falsify anything by screaming. ——–“Conviction” –Yes– “Ranting” No. ————Or if you are going to rant, do it with the FACTS
IT’S CLIMATE COMMUNISM – COP28 was a classic socialist meeting, vast numbers of Limousine Liberals and their useful idiots, 90% funded by taxpayers.
Bang on tof.
Quite frequently, the people you speak to who accept man-made climate change lying down, when challenged on their views typically fall into the safety net of “97% of scientists believe it’s true and I’ll go with the consensus”.
So that is a good place to start, as it has very simply and comprehensively been debunked:
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html
Secondly, it can be validly pointed out that the various models that are presented to forewarn of climate catastrophe begin from the assumption that humans are predominately culpable for the climate change we see have no consideration of the natural cyclicity of climate change – i.e. they assume the projected linearity of current climate trends into the future. These models are literally designed to find human influence, the only question is by how much, and not designed to look for any other factors.
Even the IPCC is a body whose primary purpose is assessing the human impact on climate change, again sweeping under the rug the large impacts of all the other factors, like solar sunspot cycles, geothermal activity, periodic oceanic and atmospheric currents and an infinitude of other factors that govern local climates.
You just made a rational argument. —Stewart on the other hand thinks what you just said and what I often say is pointless. ——He thinks all that is required is for people to say “There is no such thing as climate change and we are all being taken for a ride”. ——I am sorry but that is absurd. Does Stewart really think the entire UN and it’s IPCC, most politicians and bureaucrats all across the western world, leftist media like BBC SKY CNN Guardian, Independent and the entire Climate Industrial complex are going to listen to —“There is no climate change and it is a scam”———-They will fall of their breakfast stools laughing. ——-Sure the whole thing is an eco socialist scam. But people need to be told WHY, and there is huge amounts of information available to do that, and plenty of scientists and energy experts etc who can put that case well.
National socialism merely mutated in to global socialism. The overarching beliefs/objectives are the same, total control through government/corporations, a pseudo love of nature and a belief there are too many humans. Elwood personifies this new version of global socialism plus a most nasty and also stupid person. Whatever variant leftism it is the result is the same, has always been so since the French revolution.
Oi! Ellwood! Pull yourself together! Get yourself sorted out!
‘The troublesome GT intercooler-recuperators have been replaced with a more reliable design.’
‘….in service the engines were run harder than expected, GTAs were run at almost double and the (Diesel Generators) DGs four times that assumed at the design stage. The T45 propulsion system did not have the inherent redundancy that MEs were accustomed to having. Due to the overall reliability issues, often both DGs were run instead of one at a time, as a backup to avoid dreaded Loss of Power to Command (LPC) incidents.’
‘To further compound the T45 reliability issues, a new through-life support model was adopted for the class at the outset. Contracted Logistics Support (CLS) meant the RN only carried out operator-maintainer tasks and BAES was responsible for fault diagnosis and repair. This reduced crewing requirements but when there were problems the Marine Engineers on board lacked the spares, technical manuals and understanding to analyse or rectify faults at sea or without help from civilian contractors. This inevitably resulted in T45 spending more time alongside.’
Navy Lookout Oct 2022
Every cloud etc. Because they have spent so much time alongside (being repaired!), the Type 45s will be fine in service much longer than originally anticipated.
They will need to be as the defence budget gets reduced again and again and ……..
Real crisis global lying not warming
leaflet to print at home and deliver to neighbours or forward to politicians, media, friends online.
Ellwood is a Globalist stooge ! Mr 77th Brigade himself ! My blood ran cold late 2020 when he stood up in the HOC & personally offered to be in charge of the Vaccine roll out before it had even been confirmed ! A modern day Himmler is Tobias ! Read up on Generalplan Ost & see the comparison ! A very Dirty Barsteward indeed !
Generalplan Ost is a rumour. Even Wikipedia essentially admits this: It’s conjectured that something named Generalplan Ost must have existed (according to people spreading the rumour) and that it must have had a certain shape, but there’s exactly no actual evidence for this.
if Wiki says it didn’t happen then maybe it didn’t happen
but it was a plan ! Ellwood is still a wrong un though !
The Wikipedia article states that nobody has ever seen anything actually labelled Generalplan Ost or at least something sufficiently similar. There’s just circumstantial evidence for its existence.
According to officialdom global temperature (whatever that is supposed to mean) has risen by about 1 C since 1860. ——No one can see that and no one can feel it. It also means that over that 160 year period temperature has actually been quite stable. The IPCC itself cannot tell the difference between temperature that is natural and temperature that is allegedly caused by humans. They say they see no human signal at this time. Yet here is a politician who is saying something specific regarding climate that ships cannot operate in warmer waters with no evidence whatsoever. ——–This is rife. No matter what people do for a living, whether they be Politicians, A Pope, A King, a Pop Star, an Actor, Brainwashed Activists and David Attenborough they can spout whatever they want about the climate, have zero evidence and go unchallenged. ——-But if you question any of this garbage, and even present facts you will be told “You are not a Scientist” . —–But when I last checked neither is Di Caprio or King Charles. —–All we hear is “Climate Change is real” and “All Scientists Agree”——————-Those statements have nothing to do with science. Matters of science are not decided by a show of hands. —-Which reveals something very important. Climate Change has very little to do with science.
Who cares what he says? After all, the MoD isn’t going to blabber too much about any mechanical problems in the Navy – unless there is a psychological benefit re. relations with the enemy etc.
Elwood’s either an idiot or he just enjoys gas-lighting. The voters in Bournemouth have a duty to kick him out at the next election.
Both, perhaps.
Kick him somewhere !!
Civil servants and politicians can do a thorough job of screwing up procurement decisions at the MOD without any assistance from COP. I know from experience.
A new Mainstream TV Documentary challenging the eco socialist scam is required. —–The facts that people NEVER see on BBC or SKY News and their absurd “Climate Show” need to be presented. This will cause the Liberal Progressives and the Climate Industrial Complex to have blood spitting from their eyes, but let’s give the public the chance to decide for themselves. ——Let the people hear from those scientists and energy experts who question this phony consensus with information and real data that never appears on the 6 O’clock News
It is common knowledge in both MoD and BAE Systems that the Type 45 had failings with its cooling system, a mismatch of its operational requirement (‘what job it had to do’), with its specification (‘the engineering solution’).
A ship with a massive demand for electrical power and insufficient oomph. Root causes: too much MoD bureaucracy, micro management, mind changing and massive, systematic cuts in defence spending.
Absolutely nothing to do with warm water operations.
More propaganda from the Carbonocracy.
I’m sure Henry Vlll had the same problem!
The wooden walls of Britain immobilised by climate change, Ffs!
This will be the new ‘global boiling’ we have heard about. Since all the water has evaporated, it naturally makes traditional ships that rely on floating on the surface of liquid water, less manoeuvrable.
Don’t worry, Arum, when our efforts to cool the planet have worked, we won’t need ships because we’ll be able to drive our very green electric tanks across the Frozen Atlantic to reverse the outcome of that awful decision by the traitors of July 4th, 1776
It’s the same mindset that allows people ostensibly in charge to truly believe that –
Covid was/is a novel deadly pathogen
“Vaccines” are completely safe and effective,
No excess deaths,
Ukraine is winning,
There is no genocide occuring in Palestine.
So (if Ellwod is to be believed) not only is climate change greening the planet, but it is beating swords into ploughshares to reap, it instead of making war…
If only the world were so simple.
Ellwood is local to me but not my actual MP thank goodness. He was terrible during covid, constantly pushing for harder and longer restrictions. I’ve just found the following on the web:
In December 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Ellwood urged the government not to relax the rules governing social mixing over the Christmas period, then attended a Christmas party at the Cavalry and Guards Club in London with 26 other people. He was criticized for his decision to attend by Home Secretary Priti Patel, who said, “Having dinner… outside of the rules with a large number of people is a breach of the regulations.”
So the usual hypocrite then. Although it looks like Priti can’t tell the difference between rules and regulations either.
Re. the story above, how do countries in warmer regions of the world manage to run warships then? Is he saying that it’s only British ships that can’t cope with slightly warmer water, or is it a global phenomenon? I can guess the answer of course.
A note to the organiser’s of the Spanish armada:- ref- to whom it may concern,. please put off the invasion of the British Isles until next Tuesday as, the waters are a tad too warm this week!
“Tory MP Tobias Ellwood claims British warships are being immobilised by climate change. Is he spilling military secrets or just whipping up more hysteria to promote the Net Zero agenda?”
The short answer is No. Tobias Ellwood is simply treating the population like imbeciles in the belief that we are all as equally bloody stupid as he is.
In other words, is he a knave, or just a bit of a berk?
Just another corrupt politician acting on behalf of the people on whose payroll he is. This could justify calling him a knave except that there’s no reason that he’s anyhow worse than the bulk of the others and hence, the label would be a bit meaningless.
I will never vote Conservative again while the like of Tobias Ellwood represent them. Listening to his previous comments he is itching to start WW3 in Ukraine, and now he is all in on net zero. Depopulation by any means. A Lieutenant Colonel in the 77th brigade, he is the very worst of them.
At least Toby Driftwood wasn’t pining for the days of sail. All that wind power.
But as long as the Royal Navy’s ships are all the greener for the addition of the new equipment, the planet will be the safer when the vessels sail off to some confrontation with the People’s Republic.
Given the MP’s concern for Afghanistan, shouldn’t his complaint be that these destroyers don’t have wheels?
Absolutely effing hopeless broadcast by O’Sullivan to cut off Chris just as it was getting interesting. Ellwood would not have stood a chance debating the topic.
I’m sure Horatio Nelson wouldn’t set sail if the temperature dropped by a degree. The title “former” is all you need to know about professional grifter Elwood.
It is of course possible to be both a knave AND a bit of a berk.
97% of all Climate Scientists would be unemployed if their was no climate crisis.
Power Drunk-ness, delusions of grandeur, & Belief in Invisibility from the public, can cause INSANITY!