|
| |
 There’s
No Need for the NEA in Stepford
Nancy Salvato
July 27, 2004 |
Even though I have other pieces that I would
like to finish writing, I’m compelled (yet again) to deliberate on the lack
of job security for non-tenured teachers and the NEA role in all of this. I
have taken issue with the third finding of the Public Agenda’s Stand By Me
What Teachers Really Think About Unions, Merit Pay, and Other Professional
Matters, where it reports an appalling misconception; the teachers’ belief
that the union protects them from administrators, school board members,
parents, or students.
The Public Agenda found that teachers in highly politicized school districts
often feel a large amount of vulnerability from a number of sources,
including; school administrators, school board members, parents, or students
who can endanger their livelihood by holding a personal grudge, giving an
unfair evaluation, making a false accusation, or any other number of
scenarios. I read the report, nodding in agreement, until I got to the part
where it said that teachers view the union as their protector in such
situations.
I might have let this go except for the fact that I’m really angered by some
of the correspondence I received regarding one of my recent pieces,
Forcing Good Teachers to Fade to Black.
Although many who wrote me were sympathetic to the situation I described, or
encountered many of the same experiences, there were a handful of readers
speculating that I was a lousy teacher and that if I was any good my
contract would have been renewed.
First, let me point out that in any business environment, employees in
danger of termination would receive notice that the job expectations were
not being met and receive some sort of probationary status or a series of
warnings before being let go. However, teachers can receive average to
excellent evaluations and still not be rehired to teach the following school
year for any number of reasons –none of which have to be explained.
Conversely, if a teacher is well liked, but not meeting average
expectations, suggestions for improvement might be given and help offered to
improve the situation. Generally speaking, teachers are not fired. A
contract might be terminated early because of gross incompetence, but in
that instance, a union might come to the rescue and for the school district
to pursue the termination might be cost prohibitive.
Teachers in many states are essentially forced to pay union dues because the
union negotiates their salary and contract of employment. But, I wonder how
many people are aware that many union negotiated teaching contracts lack
provisions requiring that the administration of a school provide the
following kinds of support to the teacher: quality mentoring of new
teachers, sufficient help in maintaining the discipline of all students,
assistance in accommodating "special needs students”, or even establishing a
quiet school environment. It shouldn’t need to be pointed out that all of
these scenarios can work against students achieving excellence in education
and hinder the ability of teachers to leave no child behind.
So what do unions do? Their contracts ensure that teachers who don’t buy
into the system receive no help against an administration that wants all
their employees to think and act the same. In today’s teaching environment,
teachers are expected to follow a line of instruction that is arguably
liberal in nature, i.e.; multiculturalism, reflective of a politically
correct agenda and which often results in the common denominator of
mediocrity. This philosophy doesn’t hold expectations for the students, only
of the teachers. Teachers who demand more of the institutions that they work
for in the name of educating children, are greeted with the pitchforks and
torches of an "it takes a village” to educate a child mentality.
What is needed are teachers, parents, and administrators who are committed
to discipline, high expectations, and disavowing excuses for why students
"choose” not to work, "choosing” being the operative word. When students
-children who come to school to learn, are replaced by children -who simply
attend school, these children do whatever makes them happy because there are
no significant consequences for their actions. Established precedent is that
teachers bear a responsibility for meeting the children’s needs for
continual stimulation instead of expecting students to meet even the most
basic education standards. Teachers unions, for all their rhetoric about
accountability and inclusive standards, are essentially political action
groups who pay homage to the liberal left with their ideology and the
Democratic Party with money collected through union dues in pursuit of
purchased influence.
While teachers unions continue suggesting more tax dollars to accommodate
smaller class sizes, higher teacher salaries, and professional development
in liberal teaching methods, little if any educational progress is actually
achieved. To organizations like the NEA and the AFT, smaller classes mean
more teachers. More teachers mean more dues. But it isn’t in their best
interests to allow the teachers with a different agenda to move up through
the ranks. The current education community is very comfortable in Stepford.
Stand By Me
http://www.publicagenda.org/research/pdfs/stand_by_me.pdf
 |
|
