Teachers need to demand respect? (Strike?)

January 15, 2008

Is this a state school board member urging teacher unions and — heavens to Betsy!  — a strike?  Tim Beagley, at Educating Utah:

In very real terms, I’m afraid that the reason the teaching profession has fallen so far is that teachers have allowed it to happen.  In the face of ridiculously low wages and poor academic environments, teachers keep showing up and going through the motions of their job.  That must change if the system is going to improve.  We need (and I believe would ALL be well served) for teachers to be more forceful with their demands for respect and dignity.  The standards that our accountability plans are based upon should be high and the expectations teachers have of us need to be just as high and stringent. There was a time when the teacher was known to be one of the most respected and strongest members of society.  We need to get back to that.  Respect and dignity are likely products of strength.

His post reminds one of Bill Bennett’s old “$50,000 solution” — hire a good principal, which in 1986 and 1987, would run about $50,000 (it’s higher now).

When will legislators and school boards really get the message that to make our schools competitive, we have to hire people who can make them compete, which means we need to compete against other hiring authorities to get the best?

Beagley is a member of the Utah State Board of Education, and a biology professor at Salt Lake Community College.


There once was a Union Maid

October 8, 2007

Labor Day blew away too quickly. We didn’t honor labor as we should have — nor do we ever, in my estimation. Summer, especially in a teacher’s life, is a parenthetical expression between two holidays that fail to honor the designated honorees, Memorial Day and Labor Day. Perhaps that is fitting and proper, but of what, I do not know.

Nor do I wish to live where such dishonoring is proper, or fits.

The United Auto Workers called a strike against General Motors, but a contract agreement arrived in just a couple of days. Today UAW announced a strike deadline for Chrysler, in their “pattern” bargaining, whereby the union strikes a deal with one of the Big 3, then takes that as the starting point for negotiations with the others, who usually have to keep up with the Sloans, Fords, Chryslers and Ketterings (used to be a Romney in there, remember, not to mention Kaiser and Packard and Willys).

NPR’s interviews at the GM strike featured one autoworker who remembered the last GM strike, when 400,000 workers left the assembly lines to man the picket lines. This time? He said he realized the stakes when they announced 74,000 workers would strike. What happened to the other 326,000 people? Gone to competition, mechanization, globalization, and general political wind changes.

Mrs. Cornelius wrote at A Shrewdness of Apes about the labor dream, the union dream, that some of us still remember (not enough of us). I won’t say the dream is shattered. It is not a dream shared by as many people any more.

When you read her essay, note a key part of it, a piece of almost every story about a working, union family in the U.S.: Mrs. Cornelius was the first in her family to graduate from college. Once upon a time a good, basic union job offered the opportunity to raise a family, buy a house to make a home, and send the kids to school and to college, in the hope and expectation that the children would have a better life than the parents as a result of those educational opportunities.

That shared belief is gone. America suffers for its loss.

I wonder whether there is a correlation between the loss of those two shared value planks that once formed the platform of our national morality, the respect for unions and the hope that hard work would help the next generation, and the understanding that educational opportunities would and should be available.

When did we lose those dreams? I first became aware when I left the Senate Labor Committee; while we generally had a few sourpusses complaining about education as a monolithic institution at every education policy hearing, they were vastly in the minority, and their views were not views that generally pushed discussion. Touring the nation with the President‘s Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO), we kept running into people who, though not rich by any standards, had adopted the turtle-with-head-in-shell stance of the hereditary rich and other nobles, resisting change in an effort to cling to what property and privilege they had. It was in Lamar Alexander’s Tennessee that fellow driving a decade-old car phrased it succinctly: “I didn’t graduate high school, and I get along pretty well. I don’t want my kids learning stuff they don’t need.” (Lamar was chairman of PCAO.)

Then a few months later, after I moved to the U.S. Department of Education, at a speech talking about changing the ERIC Library System to increase accessibility especially for parents, the usually-angry-at-ED cluster of teachers afterward had a guy who said, “You just don’t get it — the parents don’t care. The parents don’t want their kids to get a good education if it means they can read books and see movies the parents don’t approve of.”

Pete Seeger segués Woody Guthrie’s story of the “Union Maid” into the chorus, “You can’t scare me: I’m stickin’ to the union/I’m stickin’ to the union . . . ’til the day I die.”

When did that become, “I’ve got mine, get your own?” When did the hope of Woody Guthrie give way to the experienced, cynical blues of Billie Holiday?

When did we move from communities that made schools a first priority, as in the Northwest Ordinances of 1785-1789, as in the first things pioneers did once they settled west of the Mississippi, as in the creation of the Land Grant Colleges, to communities where plucking out the bricks of the foundation of education is acceptable government policy? Utah’s pioneers prided themselves on establishing schools as a first order of business once they got to the Salt Lake Valley, in 1847. This year the Utah legislature, no longer dominated by the kids of those pioneers, voted to start unraveling that system despite it’s being a model in many ways, and successful by almost any measure, by using vouchers to take money from public schools.

And how do we make those not sticking to the union, nor sticking to any communities of shared values that emphasize building for the future, get back to the hope that we can make a better future, if we work together?

Announcements for Nobel winners started today (it’s October, after all). I’ll wager, again, that most Nobel winners will be American, and that most of the winners will be products of America’s public schools. How long can we keep that up, if we don’t dream it any more?

Mrs. Cornelius said:

There is no such thing as a job Americans won’t do. There is such a thing as a job Americans can’t afford to do on the salary offered.

God bless the working man and woman. They deserve much more than a day off from work. They deserve our respect. They are the backbone of our country.

People are so scared they won’t stick to the union, to any union. That’s not because the unions are too powerful, certainly, or it would be the other way around.

Now, excuse me, but I have to go listen to Taylor Mali again.


Post-Labor Day: Unions and pay inequality

September 13, 2007

Stumbling and Mumbling has some pithy thoughts on whether unions aid or abet pay inequality.


Quote of the moment: Andrew Carnegie, on competition

August 1, 2007

Carnegie Steel Works, Youngstown, Ohio, 1910

While the law [of competition] may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it insures the survival of the fittest in every department. We accept and welcome, therefore, as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves, great inequality of environment, the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few, and the law of competition between these, as being not only beneficial, but essential for the future progress of the race.

Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919), “Wealth,” in the North American Review, June 1889.


Quote of the moment: Lincoln on Labor

May 12, 2007

Abraham Lincoln, president-elect, on Feb. 23, 1861 - History Place

Labor is prior to, and independent of,capital.  Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could not have existed if labor had not first existed.  Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Lincoln in the Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861

The photograph shows Lincoln as president-elect; it is one of a series taken on February 23, 1861; from The History Place.


Carnival of Education 101

January 12, 2007

Postcard of Little Rock's Central High School

Little Rock’s Central High School, portrayed in a postcard (courtesy of Curt Teich Postcard Archives and the University of Arkansas Libraries)

Just a postcard to remind you that the 101st Carnival of Education is up over at I Thought a Think. There is a new Congress; many state legislatures are gearing up. It’s a good time to discuss education policy. Perhaps more to the point, if we don’t contribute to the discussion now, policy changes will go on without our contribution. Read the posts, and take action.


Samuel Gompers: Mission of the trade unions

September 5, 2006

Gompers

 

To protect the workers in their inalienable rights to a higher and better life; to protect, not only as equals before the law, but also in their health, their homes, their firesides, their liberties as men, as workers, and as citizens; to overcome and conquer prejudices and antagonism; to secure to them the right to life, and the opportunity to maintain that life; the right to be full sharers in the abundance which is the result of their brain and brawn, and the civilization of which they are the founders and the mainstay. . . . The attainment of these is the glorious mission of the trade unions.

Samuel Gompers (1850-1924), speech in 1898

 

Image: Samuel Gompers on the cover of Time Magazine, October 1, 1923; drawing by Gordon Stevenson; Time Archive


Remembering Labor, on Labor Day

September 4, 2006

Here in the U.S. we celebrate Labor Day on the first Monday in September. Throughout much of the rest of the world, Labor Day is May 1. The U.S. changed that because international labor movements, especially communists, celebrated the day (remember the annual parade of missiles and tanks in the old Soviet Union’s Red Square?); U.S. politicians wanted there to be no confusion that the U.S. doesn’t endorse communism. September honors America’s early union movement appropriately, too — the first Labor Day parade in New York City was on September 5, 1882.

America has much good labor history to celebrate, however, and we should make more of it. Textbooks we have in Texas classrooms tend to shortchange the labor movement, and especially the notable social gains made because of labor in wages, benefits like health care and vacations, civil rights, etc. Teachers need to supplement labor history offerings to keep kids up with Texas standards.

Memphis garbage workers in 1968

Memphis Sanitation Workers, striking in 1968, for suitable wages and treatment as human beings. It was in support of this strike that Martin Luther King, Jr., was in Memphis when he was assassinated. Photo by Richard L. Copley, from Wayne State University’s Walter Reuther Library’s I AM A MAN exhibit. You can sponsor a traveling version of this exhibit.

Read the rest of this entry »