|
Some years ago
I recall tuning in a radio program on education issues, long an interest of
mine. The details have faded with time, however I vividly remember the reported
comments of a union official who was asked if a certain proposal might help
teachers, but not students: He would worry about the students, he replied, when
they paid union dues.
Lest anyone
misunderstand, there is a huge difference between teachers and teacher’s
unions. While folks have varying motives for entering the profession, any
counting on wealth and glory would be too dumb to earn a credential. The
teachers I know got into it for the love of children, a desire to have a
positive impact, a quest for knowledge, or some combination. Some may burn out
or stay too long, but the desire to teach for a living is about as altruistic an
urge as any.
A union,
conversely, is not a teacher but a service business. Its goal is its own
success, accomplished by providing something of value to their consumer, the
teacher. In retrospect, the official on the radio program may have been more
pragmatic than cold-hearted.
Thus it is
instructive to observe the conventions of the nation’s two largest teacher
unions, both in progress as this is being written. Perhaps the biggest news has
come from the smaller of the two, the American Federation of Teachers, whose
president proposed adding a fifth year of high school for students not cutting
it in four. The extra year would be for those who missed out on recent
educational reforms in their early years and are now unprepared for tougher
graduation requirements.
I
am just cynical enough to see this as an employment grab even if it does make
some sense as an interim measure. I have a tough time believing a union would
stand by and watch such a system be dismantled once its members are employed and
paying dues. Besides, there’s nothing stopping students from being held back
now except “self esteem” worries, which is another column.
Salaries and
class size are also for another day, but everyone needs practical tools and
reasonable discretion to do their jobs. I remember a particular math assignment
my daughter had in second grade, part of a highly controversial program that has
since been dropped by the district. After about an hour of trying to help, I
gave up.
Her teacher was
very polite, and though she stuck to the party line I sensed she was as
frustrated as I. I was civil as well, but I am also a certified public
accountant for crying out loud and felt reasonably certain that I should be able
to dope out a second grade math problem. The thing was simply impenetrable.
Instructors are often handcuffed by texts and curricula they didn’t (and often
wouldn’t) select, locked into methods that are observably ineffective. Just as
you couldn’t be too critical of a surgeon forced to wield a butter knife, one
must be careful in condemning teachers compelled to follow curriculum that is
the moral equivalent. That many must also buy basic supplies out of their own
pockets is unconscionable.
The rival
National Education Association’s conference may have taken a small step toward
accepting some form of merit pay, though what I’ve heard of the proposal sounds
pretty weak. Unions are notoriously resistant to merit pay, preferring wages
tied strictly to seniority. That, and the notion of tenure in particular, is an
absolute disgrace.
Still you won’t hear me screaming for merit pay unless it is accompanied by
reasonable leeway for teachers to use their own instincts and initiative. While
I understand the need for some degree of conformity, someone would have to
explain how an effective merit pay system could be implemented if we tie up
teaching professionals with educational fads.
To see the straightjacket really come off, I suspect what we need is to leave
education to educators and relegate the unions to wage negotiations. The
conventions aren’t over as my deadline looms, but it is a safe bet that’s one
proposal we won’t be hearing.
© 1997 – 2002 Brent Morrison
|
