Entry # 2: As a teacher strike looms,
the question becomes, "Which side are you on?"
Limbo,
frustration,
helplessness,
principles,
solidarity,
issues,
teaching and learning,
CHILDREN...
This list of words, in no particular order, says something about my current
state of mind. Here in Philadelphia, we are locked into a bitter set of
contract negotiations.
I have never been on strike as a teacher, but I have been a trade unionist
most of my adult life. I was taught at an early age to respect picket lines;
it was a fundamental principle in my family.
Now I'm faced with crossing the line. My new union has told me that we have
a contract and therefore must go into work. I am no longer considered a
teacher. My husband, the labor lawyer, has investigated the situation and
has learned that the State can fine me if I don't go to work.
So here I sit, desperately waiting for news of a settlement. While I wait
for news, I keep replaying the words of "Which Side Are You On?"
in my head. I keep coming up with the same answer, but it doesn't resolve
my problem. My answer is, "the kids."
I believe my answer is the answer you'd get from most teachers, and that's
why I am proud to be part of this profession. The other night on the national
news they showed a piece about teachers spending their own money to decorate
and supply their classrooms. I wasn't surprised. I know all about the dedication
of teachers on the one side, and the failure of our government to provide
adequate funding on the other.
Time for what?
Funding, the almighty dollar, is at the center of this struggle. The State
wants teachers to work a longer day and a longer year, the union wants compensation
for the extra time. Sounds pretty reasonable to me on the surface, but I
wonder about how the time will be used.
Most teachers already spend much more time than the daily schedule mandates.
I'm not just talking about the papers and phone calls that get taken home
each night. I'm talking about the afterschool meetings and collective planning
that teachers organize and participate in on a regular basis.
The myth that teachers work a six-hour day and a 10-month year is still
believed by much of the general public and it would seem, by all politicians.
I know that there are some teachers who do keep this schedule, but I don't
think I know them very well. Maybe that's because, one, there aren't many
of them, and two, they're not at the extra sessions where teachers actually
get a chance to get to know each other and do substantive collective work.
I actually think we do need more time together, but I'd make a bet that
the politicians and I have different ideas about how that time should be
spent. I want more time for teacher meetings and reflection -- they'll want
more instructional time.
Maybe some day I'll advocate more instructional time, but for now, we need
more time for schools to meet and determine how they will meet the needs
of all of our children. Just adding more minutes to each class without rhyme
or reason, won't do the trick. Making people stay longer without valuing
their time will breed resentment and will result in more ditto sheets not
higher quality teaching and learning.
Seniority transfers have a downside . . .
Another sticking issue in the negotiations concerns teacher placement and
transfer policy. At present a teacher in Philadelphia may transfer after
two years, based on seniority. Teachers are placed at schools on the basis
of seniority or, initially, based on their hiring test score.
These procedures cut against favoritism and discrimination on the part of
local administrators. Coupled with the quotas which have been set for racial
balance, the desired outcome of diverse faculties in all schools is closer
to being a reality.
I understand the need for seniority to protect teachers' rights, I used
my right to transfer to move to Central East Middle School eight years ago.
I also support the need for racially balanced faculties.
The downside of the transfer process comes into play when most senior teachers
opt out of the city's most difficult schools. When senior teachers leave,
it necessarily clusters most of the newer teachers together in the most
challenging situations. On the other side, it means that some faculties
never get the benefit of the brand new talent which new hires bring to the
mix.
The hiring policy also means that a teacher may choose a school with a philosophy
or mission statement which they don't agree with at all, and that spells
trouble. In a district the size of Philadelphia, picking your school means
choosing from among names on a huge list when your number comes up. You
may not even know where the school is when you are forced to decide.
Principals whom I respect have told me that they'd like to interview prospective
teachers to get a sense of whether they'd be a good match for their school.
This seems to make sense educationally, but the issues of favoritism and
bias cannot be overlooked.
So what's the answer? There has been some discussion about committee-based
hiring that includes the administrator, parents and a union representative.
I think this is probably the way to go, but here again, questions of how
and when become critical. While the parents will have children in the school,
I think the union rep should be from outside of the school, otherwise you
could run into a dynamic where the principal goes unchallenged.
Many parents are reluctant to disagree with principals and teachers for
fear of the impact it might have on their children. Some teachers are also
worried about the effects of going head to head with their boss.
It's hard to say how this will all play out. The news just lets out a little
bit of information here and there and negotiations continue.
A strike sets a bad dynamic
My nerves are shot and I know that teachers all over the city are not only
worried about these issues, they're worried about their pay as well. The
news often paints teachers as greedy. The media doesn't generally acknowledge
that the teachers of today have their own families to support and bills
to pay. It's hard to be a great teacher if you have to work a second job
to make ends meet.
How will this end? I wish I knew. If there is a strike, the stakes get higher.
A strike sets up a bad dynamic for the year. Instead of coming back to school
energized and anxious to make a fresh start, you just return and make do.
For now, I guess I'll just sit and wait and see what happens. Did I put
the word angry on my opening list? That's the word that most applies
to our governor and his threat to take over our District if the union doesn't
settle by Thursday, the first day for our students.
The same governor that refuses to adequately fund our schools is now posturing
about taking over and revoking the certifications of any teacher who strikes.
I have no doubt about which side the governor is on, and it certainly isn't
the side of our children.
[Editor's note: Deb will serve as co-moderator of the
new MiddleWeb listserve, which will begin early this fall.]
Read next week's entry >>>
<<< Read last week's entry
Comment on this week's entry
Back to Deborah's 2000-2001
Diary Index