Reposted with permission from the American Federation of Teachers
http://www.aft.org
Where We Stand
by Albert Shanker
Blaming Unions
Robert Dole did not reveal his vision for education in his acceptance 
speech at the Republican Convention, but he did find time to lash out at 
teacher unions and blame them for the failure of American education: "If 
education were a war, you [the teacher unions] would be losing it. If it 
were a business, you would be driving it into bankruptcy. If it were a 
patient, it would be dying." Unions were right up there, in Dole's speech, 
with notorious public enemies like Saddam Hussein, "Libyan terrorists," 
"voracious criminals," and the U.S.'s old adversary, the Soviet Union.
     In making his accusations, Dole was careful to separate teachers from 
their unions: "I say this not to teachers, but to their unions." But who 
started teacher unions? Who pays the dues that keep them going? Who elects 
the officers and determines union policies? Teachers do not have to join 
the union-- although in some districts non-members must pay a fee because 
they benefit from the contract as much as members do. And if a majority of 
teachers did not support the union in their school district, they could 
vote it out and choose or form another union--or decide they did not want a 
union at all. Individual teachers may not always agree with what their 
unions do, but separating the two is like separating a church from the 
members who support it with their money.
     Unions developed because teachers thought they needed them. Before 
unions, teachers were paid far less than other educated workers. Unions 
helped raise the pay scale to a decent level, though it is still far lower 
than the scales of other professionals like doctors or architects or 
accountants. Before unions, teachers were often compelled to punch a time 
clock and bring a written excuse from a doctor if they were sick. They were 
routinely ordered to give up lunch periods to monitor the cafeteria or the 
toilets. If a teacher disagreed with a principal at a faculty conference, 
the teacher could be sure he would be loaded up with additional unpleasant 
duties. Before unions, teachers could not take part in politics on their 
own time, and in most places they couldn't even have a beer in a pub. If 
individual teachers sometimes differ with their elected union 
representatives about policies or actions, you would nevertheless have a 
hard time convincing them that an attack on their union was not an attack 
on them and on the fundamental rights that, through the union, they have 
won.
     Another version of the Dole argument that attempts to dissociate 
teachers from their unions goes like this: Teachers would like to make 
changes, but their unions prevent them. There is no question that teachers 
and unions sometimes oppose change, and no wonder. All too often in 
education, changes are pushed through without any evidence that they will 
work--or would be useful if they did. Teachers have seen so many 
"innovative" or even "revolutionary" programs come and go, it should be no 
surprise that a large number are cynical about the likelihood of real 
improvement.
     Unions sometimes also resist change--and for the same reasons--but 
contrary to what Dole says, they lead it, too. A report issued by the RAND 
corporation several years ago found that the more established a union is, 
the more likely it is to take the lead in introducing positive change. 
Cincinnati and Toledo, with their peer review programs, which provide 
mentoring for new teachers and assistance for tenured teachers whose 
teaching is not up to par, are good examples. The unions pioneered and 
developed these plans, and union leadership was able to bring along the 
teachers, who as I've indicated, are skeptical of change for very good 
reasons.
     Teacher unions are an easy target for political rhetoric like Dole's, 
but the evidence just isn't there. In 1994 and again this year, a number of 
D.C. schools could not open on time because of serious fire code 
violations. Was that the fault of the teacher union? Is the union 
responsible for the fact that millions of dollars from the D.C. school food 
program have disappeared without a trace? Is it the fault of the union that 
school districts across the country were unprepared for the surge in 
enrollment that hit the schools this month and are now forced to hold 
classes in hallways and closets?
     In the 1970s, when American automobiles were losing out to foreign 
imports (made by union workers), and especially to the Japanese, can you 
imagine a Bob Dole acceptance speech that blamed the plight of the 
automobile industry on the union? People would have laughed and asked, 
"Does the union design the cars? Does it run the plants? Does it hire and 
fire the workers?" 
     It would be foolish to say that teacher unions do not make mistakes. 
But it is even more foolish for Bob Dole to lay the blame for everything 
wrong with our schools at the unions' feet. There are far more eligible 
candidates.
Chuck Beams
cbeams@dreamscape.com
http://www.dreamscape.com/cbeams
___
* UniQWK #5290* After all is said and done, more is said than done.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------