"Teachers Union" is a Conundrum

In this politically charged environment, one can't even say the words "teachers union" without getting everyone crazy.  So let's get something straight before you read on.  To the left, I am not in favor of "breaking the teachers unions" or "privatizing education."  To the right, I am not in favor of the traditional adversarial approach between District and Union that has produced below average student achievement.  I am suggesting that it is time for the union and the administration to develop a new paradigm; one that is a working relationship commonly referred to as a "team".  Sorry for the sarcasm, but really.  How can we possibly eliminate the racial achievement gap, improve our science and mathematics achievement and educate all students if we are not all pushing toward the same goal - providing students with the skills to have a quality life.    

Background

Teacher Unions/Associations began over 150 years ago.  It is of value to take a look at their history. The National Education Association (NEA), founded in 1857 was the country's first teacher collective.   The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) was founded in 1916 as a union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, eventually the AFL-CIO.  The NEA was formed out of a desire for teachers to "associate" in a professional organization.  The following quotes were taken from this reference on the Internet:  Teacher Unions - OVERVIEW, INFLUENCE ON INSTRUCTION AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES.

"In 1960 the NEA assembly had rejected a resolution endorsing representative negotiations. Although this position was reversed the next year, for much of the 1960s the NEA stressed that it was an association and referred to professional negotiations, rather than collective bargaining, because of the resistance of many of its own members to identification as a union."

The AFT was formed out of a desire to unionize teachers and represent their interests to School Districts.

"The AFT embraced collective bargaining earlier and more enthusiastically than the NEA, but changing circumstances and the competition between the two organizations resulted in victories and growth for both, including legislative and political victories that saw collective bargaining laws adopted in more than half of the states by the early 1970s."

In 1998, the NEA and AFT proposed a merger.  

"Despite individual strengths, emerging challenges have led to strong efforts by both organizations to merge. The AFT was prepared to accept a merger in 1998 but, at its annual convention that year, the NEA's delegates defeated a proposal by nearly a three to two margin."  

The conundrum is exemplified by the problems that the NEA and AFT have had in determining:  Are we Professional Educators or School Workers?

One Person's Experience

My parents were not college educated, nor could they financially contribute to my college education.  I paid for my college education by working as a truck driver in the Teamster's Union in Cleveland, Ohio.  In 1970, my pay ($4.20/hr) was three times minimum wage ($1.40); I made time and a half overtime ($6.30) and double time ($8.40) on Sunday.  It was a great job, and it completely paid for my tuition, room and board at Carnegie Mellon University.  Can you imagine?!!  I paid for an education at a private university based on the money I made during the summers and vacations at the age of 18 to 21.  It is because I worked for a strong labor union that I was able to pay for my education.  I graduated from CMU with a bachelors degree in mathematics and Pennsylvania teaching certification in secondary mathematics.

Upon being hired as a mathematics teacher in 1975, I immediately joined the Upper St. Clair Teachers Association (NEA affiliated.)  I stayed two years at that job and then went back to graduate school to obtain my masters degree in education.  I then was hired in 1979 by the Pittsburgh Public Schools and immediately joined the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers (AFT affiliated.) I was happy to be in the union, it provided support, protection and after two strikes (before I started teaching), a reasonable salary. 

On my second job in Pittsburgh, I made friends with older teachers who were in the union during the strikes. We all believed in the union struggle to organize the teachers and make our profession more respectable by having a seat at the table with district administration. Often the relationship between the union and district was adversarial.  Clearly, without the union, teachers would never have gotten competitive salaries, quality benefits and reasonable working conditions.  I am grateful to the efforts of the unions, particularly to Albert Fondy and the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers.  

After teaching for a number of years, I began to argue with my friends about some aspects of the union contract (seniority, tenure and a tight definition of our work day) that I felt were counter productive; elements that were hard to defend with respect to the needs of my students.  My buddies said "you weren't around when we didn't have a union, the administration did whatever they want, we are not going backwards." I understood where they were coming from, but what about the students?   I also began to question the attitudes of the administration, specifically my principal, mathematics supervisor and the central office staff. They would create policies or make decisions that seemed to be in denial of the reality of my classroom.  I believed that something was fundamentally wrong with the culture of schools with regard to the relationship between faculty and administration.   

"Am I a professional educator or a school worker?"

"Am I a leader/thinker/problem solver or am I a school worker?"  

"Who knows better about what works in my classroom: quality professional educators or central office bureaucrats?"  

I was getting frustrated that both central office and the union had made decisions that directly affected what I could and couldn't do as a teacher.  And I felt in the end, it was the students who suffered.  As usual, I started to run my mouth and question the assumptions. 

Who chose this terrible math book?  It is dumbed down, has simple minded problem sets and will never challenge my students. 

Why are these halls so crowded?  We need to get students to class on time. What about a dress code (for students and teachers?)

Why is the choice of who teaches a particular course based on seniority?  

Was the best use of my 45 minute duty period to yell at students in the cafeteria to clean up after themselves?   Why can't I spend that time tutoring students who need additional help?  

Why does that incompetent teacher continue to have a job?

Why does that incompetent principal continue to have a job?

No one really evaluates me or gives me feedback.  How should teachers be evaluated?  Should merit matter with regard to compensation?  Why am I paid the same as inferior, lazy teachers?  

Does central administration really know the needs, desires and background of my students?   Do they understand education from the viewpoint of the students and the teachers?

If I am held accountable for the mathematics education of my students, why don't I have some say in the many different aspects of curriculum, instruction and assessment in my classroom?  

It became clear the administration, the union and my colleagues considered us to be school workers.  We were not in charge; we were told what to do.  It was hard to have ownership in that type of environment.  In a sad sort of way, it is easier not to have ownership.  We could blame the bosses for what was going on. Thus we defined ourselves as workers.  The current union contract is 173 pages long.  You should read it to see whether you think we are professional educators or school workers.  

This is the conundrum. And here are my personal answers.   

Am I a professional educator or a school worker?  I am a professional educator.

Is the administration my enemy or are we a team?  The administration and staff must work as a team.

Can this adversarial model of education possibly help the students?  The current adversarial model of education cannot possibly help students and if continued, will be the downfall of public education.   

My answers to these questions represent my beliefs that we have to find a new paradigm for public education that is based on quality educators, quality administrators and a focus on the one and only goal - student success.