A member of the PDK International family of associations
  PDK

Teachers and unions in transformation

06.10.15 | Learning on the EDge | 1 Comment

It’s time for the two major teachers unions to return to their roots as professional associations.  

By Arthur E. Wise and Michael D. Usdan

Changes in teachers’ roles and in teachers’ work necessarily affect their organizations, notably the NEA and the AFT. For its first 100 years, the NEA, founded as a professional association, supported its members in their roles as solo practitioners in their individual classrooms. Beginning in the 1960s, the AFT emerged as a labor union focused on collective bargaining with management; the NEA quickly followed suit, and the two unions competed to organize America’s teachers in a framework that posited teachers as individual laborers. The views of teachers as either solo practitioners or individual laborers have clearly outlived any utility they may have had. In the 21st century, teachers want to be professionals with influence over and accountability for their practice. Meanwhile, labor unions and collective bargaining, in general, and the teachers’ organizations as labor unions are in decline. What is the proper organization of teachers for the 21st century, and how can their organization (s) support 21st-century teachers and teaching?

Consider some developments that are challenging the established order of teaching, teachers, and their organizations. Each alone may seem to be a minor change, relatively easily incorporated into the existing order. Taken together, they signal the beginning of a possible transformation of teaching, teachers, and their organizations. 

Peer assistance and review. This innovation in teacher evaluation, designed and operated jointly by teachers and administrators, by labor and management, addresses the problem of extremely low-performing teachers. First, assistance is provided to low-performing teachers; if that assistance fails to help the teacher improve, then the teacher is dismissed, and the decision is final and uncontested. While PAR is not widely or sufficiently employed, it nonetheless establishes the principle that some teachers can judge their peers and that the line between ‘labor’ and ‘management’ can be breached, a dramatic departure from past understandings and practices.

National Board certification. Established in 1987, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards has awarded certification to over 100,000 accomplished teachers. While board certification provides recognition to a small fraction of the teaching force, it more profoundly establishes two principles not formerly associated with teachers and teaching. First, National Board certification recognizes that some teachers are ‘accomplished’ and others less so or not yet. Second, such certification defines and measures accomplished teaching. Before these developments, it was widely accepted that all teachers were equal or at least to be treated equally; now there is an official basis for differentiation in treatment. Moreover, contradicting another widely held belief, excellence in teaching is not so idiosyncratic that it cannot be measured.

Teacher leadership in policy and practice. While teacher leadership is not yet the norm, the idea is gaining currency as more and more teachers wish to exercise leadership without leaving the classroom. The impetus for teacher leadership has given rise to such organizations as the Center for Teaching Quality which offers a platform for teacher leaders to share ideas and which magnifies the voice of teachers in policy and practice decisions. Indeed, the title of this paper is adapted from CTQ’s tagline — Teachers Transforming Teaching. The idea that teachers can lead — can influence policy and practice — without leaving the classroom is relatively new and contradicts longstanding practice in schools.

Teacher community collaboration. Both the NEA and the AFT, interestingly through their respective foundations, the NEA Foundation and the Albert Shanker Institute, are supporting new collaborations with the communities they serve. Each has reached the conclusion that teachers and their organizations cannot reach all students without new forms of collaboration. The NEA Foundation is funding specific initiatives that require collaboration among unions, districts, and communities. The AFT has recognized that collective bargaining can be more effective if the union engages parents and communities and focuses on serving students better. Past norms have meant that the unions and the schools have tended to operate independently of the broader community and that all communication between teachers and their communities must be mediated by administrators. The direct connection between teachers and their communities restores a relationship that predates collective bargaining.

Charter schools and teacher-led schools. Many charter schools are created by teachers who have found traditional public schools too limiting. Some charter schools are actually led by teachers. The schools vary in organization and management. At their core, though, teachers are in charge of policy, resource, personnel, and curriculum decisions. These schools give teachers substantial control over their work, a development valued by both professional and nonprofessional workers. Having some control over one’s work is especially strong among younger teachers. The result is more satisfied teachers who are able to teach a rich and varied curriculum and who tend to remain in teaching. Traditional schools have contained teachers in the classroom and generally prevented teachers from participating in decisions affecting their practice.

Test-based management. The over-regulation of teaching through mandated, multiple choice, standardized testing is meeting growing resistance among teachers and now parents. Clearly policy makers have not had uniform confidence in the quality of teachers and teaching — although those same policy makers don’t seem to recognize that they have contributed to this result through the lax enforcement of teacher education, licensing, and oversight. The reality is that schools today are staffed by a mix of properly prepared and fully qualified teachers, accomplished teachers, underprepared or unprepared beginners, and underperformers. While the testing regimen is aimed at low-performing students and teachers, the unfortunate effect has been to limit the range and depth of the curriculum for all students. Since most teachers actually want to teach important content, they’re becoming vocal about the limitations that keep them from engaging in appropriate professional practice.

Incipient professionalization. In recent decades, the teaching profession and its supporters have sought to adopt the quality control measures employed by the established professions. The established professions have negotiated with state legislatures over time to gain the power to regulate the quality of those who want to enter the profession and oversight of those in the profession. The resulting state boards have worked with national professional bodies to use accreditation, licensing, certification, and their revocation to create and maintain professional standards. The consequence has been general public confidence in such varied professionals as lawyers, doctors, psychologists, and physical therapists. The accreditation of teacher preparation programs began in the 1950s but only recently has accreditation started to affect the majority of institutions preparing teachers. The systematic testing of teachers began in the 1940s but only in recent years has that testing become comprehensive. The advanced certification of teachers began in the 1990s but that has reached just 100,000 teachers. The spread of professional quality control has reached new heights but such quality control is still far from universal. Perhaps state legislatures will soon see the potential of using proven professional quality control measures and investing teacher standards boards with powers similar to those of other state boards.

So what then is the proper organization of teachers today? We began with the decline in collective bargaining for teachers. We considered a breach in the labor-management divide, the official differentiation of teachers, the growth in teacher leadership, the growing direct connection between teachers and their communities, the emergence of teacher-led schools, the call for appropriate professional practice, and the emergence of professional quality assurance. Since the NEA and AFT may be limited in collective bargaining, they must find other avenues to advance the educational values they espouse and the needs of their members. They can clearly lobby state legislatures to achieve the goals they have pursued through collective bargaining. They also can emphasize the professional component of their missions. They can return to their roots as professional associations and advocate for conditions that allow for appropriate professional practice. In so doing, they will find that they must advocate for professional quality assurance to ensure that all students are taught by teachers who can actually teach.

 

Comments on Teachers and unions in transformation

  1. Eugenia Kemble says:

    I have great respect for both authors, but am more than a tad befuddled by this piece. Most of what they want the AFT and NEA to promote – supposedly as part of some new approach to teacher representation — have been and still are very much a part of their agendas. So, rightly, is collective bargaining. In fact, without collective bargaining and the historic right to strike, along with lobbying and political action, these two organizations’ efforts to promote the educational changes the authors want are likely to be resisted. In reality school managements and elected officials want to been seen as the sole authors of “reforms” – and most changes currently up for their consideration are very unlike the ones the authors put forward here.

    Let’s just take a few of the items the authors suggest. “Peer assistance and review” was invented by the AFT’s Toledo local in the early 1980’s and has been promoted by the AFT and various of its affiliates ever since. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards was put together after an excellent report, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century; The Report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, was put out by Marc Tucker and others. Former AFT President Al Shanker called for the creation of such a board in a 1985 National Press Club speech. The organization has had its ups and downs, changes in leadership, etc., etc. but the two teacher organizations still play a strong role and have members on its Board of Directors. The degree to which National Board certifications have declined is more a matter of recession fall out, high cost, and consequent governmental resistance than any change in the perspective or commitment of the two teacher organizations.

    There is misinformation and shortsightedness with regard to the other recommendations as well. “Teacher leadership in policy and practice,” has been a goal of both organizations since their very beginnings. The whole point of even having organizations emerged precisely because of the failure of school managements to give teachers a voice – about necessary pay and working conditions to be sure, but also about the quality of education for students. For history take note of the United Federation of Teachers More Effective Schools Program dating to the 1960’s. For today look at the AFT’s Innovation Fund (not mentioned by the authors),” its web-based “Share My Lesson,” its struggle to promote union/ management collaboration, and the grants the NEA makes to teacher innovators through the NEA Foundation.

    “Teacher community collaboration,” was at the root of the successful Chicago strike in 1912 and is a growing plank in the platforms of both organizations. As for “charter schools and teacher-led schools” — these should not be uttered in the same breath because the charter school movement, which was embraced in its infancy by Al Shanker, is not teacher led. Many of the teachers who work in these schools are seeking union representation for precisely this reason. And, as long as these non-unionized schools are funded by the likes of hedge fund operators, the Walton Foundation (Walmart) and the Broad Foundation, the likelihood that they will ever be teacher led will remain pretty much of a mirage.

    What do the authors mean by “test-based management”? “Incipient professionalism”? If these are about their suggestion that the unions do more to control the quality of the profession, they again ignore both the history and that teacher organizations are not all-powerful. The AFT has suggested an entry exam modeled after the bar for lawyers. It has been promoting an induction period for new teachers along with high quality early mentoring. The accrediting organizations have not been a target for reform because of resistance by teacher education colleges, the use of these colleges by universities as cash cows that bring in more students and money when standards are low, etc. etc. In short, there are few political incentives to make this reform approach productive. It’s much easier, and wrong-headed, to threaten teachers with value-added, test-based judgments once they are on the job.

    In sum, there are two faulty premises on which the authors build their case:

    The first is this: “The views of teachers as either solo practitioners or individual laborers have clearly outlived any utility they may have had.”

    A “solo practitioners” model was never the basis for collective bargaining (note the word ”collective”). Rather, the view has always been that collective action can lead to collective good – for teachers, for students and for their families. The unions have been against the egg crate, behind closed doors, individualized view of teaching for years. And while early agendas may have targeted wages and working conditions as elements to better the lives of individual teachers, the good of the whole system was always part of both the diagnosis and the cure in the minds of union leaders. It is still central to their thinking today (See the “school culture” blog series by Esther Quintero-Corral sponsored by the Shanker Institute for contemporary verification.)

    The second faulty premise is this one, suggesting the unions, “Consider some developments that are challenging the established order of teaching, teachers, and their organizations.”

    Ironically everything on the authors “developments” list of items they are pressing upon the unions – are policies the unions themselves either invented or promoted and are still doing so today. Resistance from others should not be mistaken for a change in union stance.

    We urge the authors to take another look at the history and current positions of both organizations. The suggestions they make are already deeply embedded in their commitments, and they have not gone away. The elephant in the room is pushback on the part of management, misrepresentation of what unions do by so-called reformers and, most importantly, a cynical effort to break the unions and reduce their power. The authors should not let their naiveté about what is going on make them part of that bandwagon.

    Eugenia Kemble
    President,
    Foundation for Democratic Education

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>