Sigh

The Education Partnership is a group in Rhode Island that has made quite a name for itself recently by going after teacher contracts, even getting one of the back-page editorials in Education Week some months back. They hit most of the same points that we’ve seen recently from Rick Hess or the New Teacher’s Project, but it’s still fun to read. For example, here’s a great quote from their most recent report:

We have heard union leaders say, “The union and the teachers are one and the same.” We disagree. Teachers are not the union. Teachers are professionals in classrooms where teaching and learning take place. Unions are big-business associations that receive union dues – whether or not the teachers believe in the unions’ positions and representation. The unions are focused on their own economic interests, on membership and membership outcomes – not students.

I sat in on a meeting the other day with a teacher who was facing being force-transferred to one of the other buildings in our district because she has a special ed credential. Two other teachers are looking at involuntary transfers because declining enrollment means their current jobs may be cut, and I’ve been working hard with them to figure out the angles so they can have an idea of what’s going on and what could be coming up. That’s what I’ve done for members this week alone, and that’s why comments like the above really tick me off. My union really is about the teachers, and all of us in the leadership work hard to do right by the people we represent.

Plus, it’s not like unions arose in a vacuum. Listening to old interviews with Al Shanker gave me a great appreciation for just how vital forming the unions was, and just how bad things could be without them.

Later on (page 7) they list some of their recommendations for improving teacher’s contracts. One of the old chestnuts they suggest (emphasis in the report):

Adoption of a governance model that requires school committee members to prioritize student needs when allocating all resources during contract negotiations.

The phrase, “What’s good for the teachers is what’s good for the students!” has been trampled on pretty good in recent years, but let’s think this through for a second. Students don’t need their teachers to have good health insurance, dental, or retirement, so shouldn’t the schools eliminate all these things so the money can go to the kids?

Oh, wait. You do that and no one is going to want to teach the kids.

Not that the union doesn’t do stupid things, especially at the national level, like ream the membership so they can make money off their partnership with ING. But still—the good outweighs the bad, to me.