When Retirees Count Most (or More on Randi Weingarten and Listening to Teachers)
As you would expect, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten was none too pleased with Saturday’s Dropout Nation commentary on
the role teachers should play in shaping education policy. Particularly
annoyed with your editor’s point that the AFT is more-concerned with
the perspectives of retired teachers who no longer work in classrooms
(as well as soon-to-retire Baby Boomers in the working rank-and-file)
than with younger teachers in the ranks. Declared Weingarten on Twitter: “retirees do not sway local elections”.
Yet
data from the elections held in 2010 by the AFT’s flagship local in New
York City, the United Federation of Teachers (which Weingarten ran
before taking over the national presidency and is now led by her
aspiring successor for the national presidency, Michael Mulgrew), tells a
different story. This, in turn, belies AFT’s claim (and that of the
National Education Association) that it listens to — and represents —
all teachers.
Retired
AFT affiliate members (many of whom are enjoying their sunset years far
away from classrooms and the chilly Big Apple weather) accounted for
two out of every five votes cast during that election. More than likely,
retired members were the largest single demographic voting block within
the affiliate. But those numbers belie the level of influence they had
over the election. Some 25,000 retirees voted in the elections, almost
as many participants as the 27,500 rank-and-file members still working
in classrooms; only an affiliate rule restricting retirees to only
18,000 votes kept retirees from exercising their full strength. The fact
that half of retired members voted in the elections versus a mere 24
percent of working rank-and-file members, also shows the strength of
retirees; after all, teachers’ union bosses are no less astute about
counting votes than their counterparts in political office.
Considering
that many of the retired voters were also likely part of the Unity
coalition that has controlled AFT local politics since the days of the
legendary Albert Shanker (and is part of the larger Progressive faction
that has run the national AFT for decades), they remain an influential
force within the union. So important are retirees to the internal
political fortunes of Mulgrew and his allies that the union proposed
last January to lift the cap on retiree participation in elections from
18,000 to 25,300. [This, by the way, was not received kindly by
dissidents within the union ranks.]
Why
would retirees, who have already collected the full array of packages
from traditional teacher compensation, would be so active in
participating in a union election? One likely reason has to do with the
fact that the union, from their perspective, is likely addressing their
concerns. After all, over the past few years, Mulgrew has actively
pushed against New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s efforts to use
student test score growth data in teacher evaluations, overhaul how
teachers are granted near-lifetime employment, and end quality-blind
Last In-First Out layoff rules that often benefit longtime teachers
regardless of their performance at the expense of younger counterparts.
Even though these matters are no longer any of their concern, their
participation in AFT elections is one way they can retain a voice in
shaping how the AFT’s leverages its declining influence over education
policy.
But
what about the low level of participation among rank-and-file working
teachers? Some would argue that this, in part, reflects the reality that
for most longtime veterans in the classroom (and even for some younger
counterparts), the value of union membership mostly has to do with the
perceived ability to shape workplace conditions and pay through
negotiations and strike actions (even though state laws governing teacher quality are
a much bigger factor than collective bargaining). So long as the union
continues to protect the seniority-based privileges from which they
benefit, they are unlikely to pay mind to the union’s political
influence activities. Yet the growing legion of groups representing
younger, more reform-minded teachers such Educators 4 Excellence (which
is working within AFT affiliates to push for a reform agenda) — along
with the complaints from more-radical elements of the traditionalist
ranks such as Norm Scott (a longtime critic of Weingarten and Mulgrew)
and Movement of Rank-and-File Educators – offer a different reason for
why voter participation is so low: Apathy and discontent, especially
among younger teachers, over how the AFT local (and the national union
itself) ignores their concerns.
As
you would expect, more-radical traditionalists, most of which are Baby
Boomers, are frustrated with Mulgrew’s willingness to occasionally give
in to Bloomberg on some issues, and with Weingarten’s longstanding efforts to
triangulate the school reform movement (which began during her tenure
as head of the New York City local). Looking toward the union’s
elections this coming April, they are backing challengers to Mulgrew who
will embrace the more-pugnacious approach of Chicago affiliate boss
Karen Lewis. At the same time, the traditionalists also have truly
legitimate concerns about the lack of input they have in shaping the AFT
affiliate’s direction. From where they sit, Mulgrew (and Weingarten)
have not been any more willing to listen to them than the school
reformers they mutually oppose. And this lack of democracy has been seen
in Unity’s successful efforts to squelch rival, more-progressive
factions within AFT politics at the Big Apple level, including New
Action (now a de-facto affiliate of Unity), and Independent Coalition of
Educators (which unsuccessfully challenged Mulgrew back in 2010), as
well as Unity’s threats to anyone within its caucus who dares to
disagree with its agenda.
For
younger teachers, who now make up the majority of AFT affiliate
members, their issues with Mulgrew are different, and yet similar to
those of their more-radical traditionalist counterparts. They are
frustrated with the AFT’s continued embrace of an obsolete industrial
union-style model that values seniority over professionalism. Mulgrew’s
continued opposition to Bloomberg’s overhaul of teacher performance
management (including the implementation of New York State’s new teacher
evaluation system) hinders their ability to gain the
high-quality data and feedback they need in order to help all children
achieve success. They also resent the AFT’s defense of seniority-based
pay scales that do little to reward high-quality work (as well as allows
laggard counterparts earn the same compensation that they do despite
doing poorly in classrooms), and are dismayed that the union supports
reverse-seniority layoff policies that are more-likely to cost them jobs
(and years of future retirement savings) while protecting Baby Boomer
counterparts regardless of the quality of their work.
For
both sides, the AFT at both the local and national levels hardly
represents an organization that “listens” to teachers. When one
considers that most of the AFT’s finances go to lobbying, contributions
to supposedly like-minded outfits, and other efforts to retain its influence (instead
of toward organizing rank-and-file members, as more-radical
traditionalists prefer, or elevating the profession, as demanded by
younger, more reform-minded counterparts), as well as take note of
financial mismanagement by AFT affiliates such as Broward County,
it is hard to disagree. This is no inconsiderable thing. After all,
unlike participation in Movement of Rank-and-File Educators or Educators
4 Excellence, AFT membership isn’t voluntary; even those teachers who
don’t want to join the union are still forced to pay dues in the form
of so-called agency fees). Simply put, it may be time for teachers of
all philosophies to move away from the AFT (as well as the NEA) and embrace a different form of professional representation.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment