Showing posts with label Teacher Unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Teacher Unions. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Finish High School or Work At McDonalds #WIunion #killthebill

The battle in Wisconsin has been at a fever pitch for quite a number of days now. The legislature there has passed a bill requiring the democratic representatives who are held up in "The Land of Lincoln" to come to Madison in person to collect their paychecks. Ohio is next, then who knows but it is clear this battle will not end there, it is likely to go from state to state in an attempt to bust up unions, especially the teacher's union. Most of the time I turn on the news or listen to the radio (be it NPR or a conservative station) I hear two basic sides of this issue expressed and we are caught in a recursive blame game. Nothing good can come of this and I would like to take a few moments to reflect on the situation and propose all sides take a moment to, lets not call it "see it from the other's point of view" but rather take a third party perspective.

To boil this down to the point of over-generalization, which is what most people will take away from broadcast media anyway, we have two positions being expressed: 1. The teachers, and other public employees, need to keep their collective bargaining rights and maintain their solidarity in the face of those who would hand everything over to big business. and 2. The teacher's union is nothing more than a thuggish organization that has held the state hostage for years demanding unrealistic pay and benefits. These are the two stories I hear when I turn on the television and radio, is this correct? Lets take a moment to analyze what problems there are with both sides.

The purpose of school.

I have long felt that the biggest problem with education, especially public schooling, in this country is confusion over the purpose of school. I have for the last two years made a point of asking the question a lot. I even began capturing some of these responses on video last fall and I hope to capture some more this week (I'll post them on this blog early next week). Whenever I would ask teachers what the purpose of school was the vast majority would answer, "To develop lifelong learners." Whenever I would ask high school students or their parents this question I would get, "To get a good job," as their number one answer. Another popular response from tends to be, "to create a functional democracy, and informed electorate." The list of possible answers to this question are nearly endless and there really is nothing that explicitly informs us what the correct answer is. There probably is no one right answer and that is part of this problem in Wisconsin right now.

So how does the purpose of school relate? Well, about seven years ago a family member of mine graduated from a well respected and fairly expensive private college. When he was sent there by his parents they had this view that this was a sure investment, just as their own college educations were sure investments. It was expected that once he graduated he would be given a job and that the school would be there to support him in the process. Turns out this was a false assumption and for quite a number of years afterwords dinner table conversation at family gatherings tended to center around this profound misconception. The family response went from confusion, to blame back and forth between graduate and school, anger, then finally acceptance. Mom and dad had no reason from their own experience not to expect that education=good job, that is how it was for them and that was also a line that our institutions of learning have been happy to own for quite some time.


The lie that the purpose of school is to get a good job became so widely accepted as truth that even a lot of educators started to believe it. How many of us sat with school counselors and heard them expel the mantra that the key to success is a good education and that if you don't want to spend your life working at McDonalds (another line I now find quite offensive) you would at least have to finish school and you would probably need a college degree. While there is some truth in this statement, it is not a whole truth. The way this message had been sold for decades led most people, even most of the educators telling it, to believe that a potential outcome improved by a formal education was actually the result of that education when in actuality it is only a factor.

Why all the hate for teachers?

The purpose of school is not to get a good job and most educators know this, it is why most of them will say "to develop life-long learners" when asked the question. But, they have done an exceedingly poor job of selling the public on this idea. So, when I see protest signs that say things like "I lost my benefits, why should they keep theirs" an anger is being expressed and blame being placed that illustrate this confusion. Likely the people who are angry at teachers, the people making up much of this Tea Party movement that swept the nation this last election cycle, are like my relatives who blamed the university when their son couldn't find work in his field when he graduated from college. So, when economic times are tough and when for so long people who are now out of work heard their teachers say "finish school or spend your life working at McDonalds" and they took that advice but are still having to take jobs working at McDonalds or Walmart if they are lucky enough to find work at all it is through deductive reasoning that they might come to blame their teachers, especially when they see them still collecting a paycheck.

What we see going on, especially from those who would otherwise benefit greatly from union membership in their own fields who sit on the Tea Party picket line, is sheer retaliation and anger. There really is no other way to describe it. Especially when the budget crisis really is somewhat small:


What Scott Walker and the Tea Party are doing here seems to make sense when you look at why they might think that way. But, they hold a misguided notion of the purpose of school and there is a whole corporate industry egging them on who would like to see unions crushed and the public schools turned over for profit. There is money to back this misguided notion and enough angry people without jobs willing to buy what they are selling to strike back at those who led them to believe something that was not true.

So, while I support the teachers union in their efforts here I have to lay some of the blame for all of this on, well, teachers.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

How tenure gave rise to Teach for America

Yesterday Tom Whitby posted a well-written response to the teacher he saw at NBC's Teacher Town Hall this weekend who stood up and said she did not want tenure. In his post Mr. Whitby gives a very compelling reason for why tenure is necessary in schools but, I don't believe this account tells the whole story.

Without Tenure I never would've kept my job. It had nothing to do w/my teaching & everything to do w/my being vocal and a learning advocate.less than a minute ago via TweetDeck



While I understand the need for due process that teacher tenure provides and I fully support the position that we need due process to protect against the potentially wrong-headed decisions by an abusive or short-sighted administrator in my own experience the inverse has been true. Let me modify Mr. Whitby's statement to make it fit with my experience:
Without Because of Tenure I never would've have been able to kept my job for more than three years. It had has nothing to do w/my teaching & everything nothing to do w/my being vocal and a learning advocate(of which I am both), it has to do with budgets and unequal protection.
Tenure does not protect teacher jobs equally. It protects those who have been in their positions the longest the most. The problem is, our nation's teacher workforce is unbalanced. There are a lot of teachers who are from the "boomer" generation who are nearing retirement, are mostly wonderful teachers, whose experience is a great resource for our schools and for younger teachers, but who cost more because of union-negotiated steps and lanes. Whats more, many of these teachers would like to retire (and many could by rule of 90 that many states have) but they can't because of the cost of health care. So, each year (until they reach 65) their employment costs school districts more money. The tenure provision coupled with the seniority and teacher pay structure in a time when schools are tightening their belts means that cuts always happen first at the bottom of the seniority list and first among the highest-payed employees who do not possess tenure who work in areas not considered "core" subjects.

I think this graph illustrates the issue. These stats were from 2004 so you can shift the lines to the right by six years to estimate what the teacher workforce looks like today:

In the past seven years I have been on the receiving end of budget cuts three times and four times my classroom was directly affected by those on the receiving end in adjacent programs at the schools where I have worked. After ten years experience as a teacher and now with my Master's degree I have been told by many school administrators in interviews that the place they would have to place me on the pay scale if they hire me would be cost-inhibitive. I have also sat in on interviews for candidates for other teaching positions where when a teacher with 10-15 years of experience comes in with high mobility on their resume the others on the panel have expressed this mobility raises red flag for them. That is a hard thing to hear when I know my resume reflects this same level of mobility. That is two strikes, one more and I am out.

The real truth about tenure is, given this imbalance in the age distribution of the teacher workforce, and given that not all teachers are granted due process, and given that schools are being forced to deal with less means that tenure only protects the jobs of teachers at the top of the seniority list. The other inconvenient truth about tenure is because of this imbalance and because of the weight at the top these "protection" measures have in fact caused a condition that has allowed programs like Teach For America to flourish. Teach For America fills the need for cheap teachers by foregoing traditional teacher training and recruiting Ivy League graduates to give two years of their time, before embarking on their high-paying careers, teaching in our country's public schools. Instead of a career commitment to education, TFA teachers receive only a five-week crash course in how to teach. It is not that that TFA teachers are filling jobs that no one wants, there are plenty of teachers out there who would love to take these positions but whose qualifications make them too expensive.

I would like to be able to lend my support behind the fight to keep tenure but I can't. I need to be able to feed my family. I would prefer to work toward eliminating the need for things like tenure in schools. It is why I so fervently support and advocate for teacher-run schools and teacher professional partnerships.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Teacher's Union Wants in on the Charter Business!

About a week ago I wrote a post on A Denominator of Many - Teacher Professional Partnerships about schools run by teachers. Since that piece was published (both here and at Dangerously Irrelevant) there has been an very important closely related development.

Something very interesting is unfolding in Minneapolis involving Minneapolis Public Schools, the local teacher's union, and the AFT. Evidently the union wants to become a charter school authorizor. When I first heard about this on Minnesota Public Radio last week I thought that the union and charter schools seem to make strange bedfellows but after reading a bit more about what is going on and why the local union wants in on this I am optimistic and intrigued. I don't have time tonight to write much more about this and quite frankly I still don't feel I have enough information to write an informed post on the matter. But, I do want to pass on what I have collected regarding this turn of events. If you know of any other stories, articles, posts, etc. on this topic please post the link in the comment section below.


Thursday, October 9, 2008

Professional Responsibility - If You Are A Teacher


20 Questions:
  1. Is teaching a professional job?
  2. Do teachers have professional responsibilities beyond their teaching contract?
  3. What are professionals responsible for?
  4. Why do you do what you do?
  5. Do professionals have a responsibility to keep up-to-date on what is current in their respective fields of study?
  6. Would you expect your doctor or dentist to be aware of new medical developments, assuming you consider doctors or dentists professionals?
  7. Would you expect a detective to keep up with current trends in forensics?
  8. How is it that many teachers are unaware of sweeping trends in education?
  9. If you are a teacher, shouldn't you know what UBD is?
  10. If you are a teacher, shouldn't you know what web 2.0 is?
  11. If you are a teacher, shouldn't you be aware of the concept of disruptive innovation?
  12. If you are a teacher, shouldn't you know what is in NCLB?
  13. If you are a teacher, shouldn't you know what state education policy is? Or at least how to look it up?
  14. If you are a teacher, shouldn't you know what bills are being passed around the state legislature?
  15. If you are a teacher, shouldn't you know, understand, and be able to at lease paraphrase your state's academic standards in your content area?
  16. If our teacher contracts don't explicitly address #9-#15 do we have professional responsibilities to address these on our own?
  17. Should teacher contracts address these issues? Or is it our own professional responsibility to address these for ourselves?
  18. Wouldn't teacher unions have an easier time negotiating "professional" salaries for teachers if more teachers exhibited "professional" behavior in their own learning?
  19. Why is it that when a "professional" teacher takes great interest in all of these things they usually are asked to move into an administrative or leadership role?
  20. If you are a teacher, what motivates you to care about these issues?