 |
CAT Tracks for August 11, 2011
THE SAD TRUTH |
A couple of thoughts that crossed my mind while reading the article below:
The article below is a lament that plows no new ground...simply updates the "Warning, Warning, Warning!" with the latest statistics, a further slide down the slippery slope of ignorance and bliss among "newbies" (and some tired-of-fighting "oldies".)
I have visited this topic in previous editions of CAT Tracks.
However, a reading of the article did bring forth a thought that has nagged me of late as I ranted and raved against the National Education Association and (more vehemently against) the Illinois Education Association for their "sell out" of members...yeilding to calls by modern "education reformers" and "band wagon" politicians to end seniority, tie job security to flawed standardized tests, and to abolish teacher salary schedules...imposing proven-not-to-work merit pay systems.
Have been having a friendly debate of late with a reader of CAT Tracks who absolutely despises the NEA as, well, the "evil teachers' union".
My adversary is particularly riled with the undisputed FACT that the NEA donates much more money to Democratic politicians than it does to Republican politicians. He dismisses my efforts to point out that "Well, duh...the Democratic Party is the one which generally supports things that teachers support; the Republican Party generally disrespects teachers as incompetent and self-centered leeches, akin to welfare cheats. Is it surprising, then, that a teachers' union would support Democrats over Republicans?"
My adversary is not impressed with my rationale...lambasting the NEA as a mere "fund-raising arm" of the Democratic National Committee.
We agree...to disagree.
However...
There is one thing that I need to admit/acknowledge...the nagging voice of the little angel/devil on my shoulder which pipes up when I ascend my soapbox with halo gleaming in the light:
Before I explain, I need to backtrack to our "friendly debate".
My position in defense of the NEA (the IEA has not merited a place in our discourse, but the same reasoning applies) is that the NEA is simply acting upon the wishes of its members. His position is along the lines that the NEA is some monolithic force that grabs teachers by the nose and leads them in directions they don't want to go and spending their hard-earned money in the process. As in most debates, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.
But...
...one truth is undeniable. I can't have it both ways.
If I take a position in "debate" that the NEA is simply doing the bidding of its members and not following the dictates of a conspiratorial Democratic National Committee hiding behind the curtain, how can I in clear conscience accuse/condemn the NEA (and the IEA) of/for selling out its members.
Nope!
I must confess...
In truth, the NEA and IEA are selling out their DINOSAUR members...those of us who fought the battles and won the rights that are now being freely handed back to our adversaries. Dinosaurs remember when...there was no right of collective bargaining and strikes were illegal. Dinosaurs have been there, been subjected to that, union leaders led away in handcuffs.
In the article below, Walt Gardner quotes former labor leader Albert Shanker:
So...
As I rant and rave against the recent actions of the NEA and the IEA, it is with the (sad) knowledge that these assaults on my dinosaurian beliefs are not the result of a roomful of suits dictating their own hidden agenda. The "suits" are listening to "voices" - a changing rank-and-file membership, one inclined to give away that which I and other dinosaurs hold dear. The "suits" are engaged in a balancing act...trying to keep both groups happy, satisfying no one.
Hey...it's called democracy!
The growing "new blood" of the NEA and IEA have always had the rights that dinosaurs hold so dear. The "new blood" dismisses the horror stories related by dinosaurs as the exaggerated ramblings of old folks who really, really need to move on, pass the torch to the new generation...teachers young enough to relate to today's students, able to "Friend" them on their Facebook pages.
To you "newbies" out there...
This doesn't make you bad persons. I've walked in your shoes. Once upon a time, I was also young and dumb. I also rolled my eyes at the ramblings/warnings of my predecessors.
And...
I lived to pay the price for my ignorance...
From the Education Week...
Divide Within Teachers Unions
By Walt Gardner
Just when it seemed that teachers unions could not possibly be subjected to any further attacks, they find themselves confronting a totally unexpected foe. According to a new survey by the National Center for Education Information, nearly one in five educators say they support abolishing teachers unions ("Profile of Teachers in the U.S. 2011").
The 33-question survey of 1,076 public school teachers across the country found that 19 percent favored eliminating unions and 33 percent supported eliminating tenure. This compares with 15 percent and 28 percent, respectively, from 15 years ago. Fifty-nine percent also said that they should be paid on the basis of student achievement, as compared with 42 percent in 2009.
What stood out were the contrast between new and experienced teachers. According to C. Emily Feistritzer, the author of the report, newer teachers are "considerably more open" to reforms than their veteran colleagues. Teachers with five or fewer years of experience were twice as likely as teachers with 25 or more years of experience to support evaluating teachers primarily on student achievement.
The survey also found that there were "striking differences" between teachers certified through alternative routes and teachers certified through traditional routes. The Wall Street Journal was quick to argue that "unions are opposing education reforms that an increasing number of their members support" ("The New Teachers," Review & Outlook, Aug. 6).
Yet it's important to note that half of new teachers nationwide quit within five years. In inner-city schools, half leave after only three years. Teach for America, which is the best known source of alternatively certified teachers, requires only a two-year commitment. According to a study by Zeyu Xu, Jane Hannaway and Colin Taylor, the majority of corps members leave at the end of that period ("Making a Difference? The Effects of Teach for America in High School," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Summer 2011). Once these new teachers from traditional or alternative certification are gone, what difference do their attitudes make? They cannot be the agents of change that reformers hope.
Nevertheless, teachers unions would be foolish to dismiss out of hand the changing attitudes. If the teaching profession continues to get younger - since 2005, the portion of teachers with five or fewer years of classroom experience increased from 18 to 26 percent - unions will not be able to count on the same support they automatically received in the past. That's because new teachers take for granted the rights they possess. But these were not given to them out of the goodness of the hearts of boards of education and state legislatures. They exist only because previous generations of teachers went on strike to obtain them. Albert Shanker said it best: Before collective bargaining, there was collective begging.
I wonder if new teachers fully understand the difference.
The NEA and the IEA are not selling out their members.
"Before collective bargaining, there was collective begging."
