Who’s Climbing the Education Career Ladder?
A one-sentence embedded link in Elizabeth Green’s Remainders column led me to a chain of thought that culminated in the above question.
Blogger Miss Eyre, writing at Life at the Morton School, posted an entry about conditions in her New York City school, and the problems faced by her United Federation of Teachers chapter leader. A chapter leader is a union site representative, or shop steward, if you’re more familiar with the private sector term.
Miss Eyre says her chapter needs help, and she mulls increasing her participation. This is the section that caught my eye:
I have no excuse for not being involved anymore; my instruction, grading, and classroom management are now slightly better than half-assed, and I’m not doing grad school anymore since I finished my M.S.Ed. and have no idea what I’d do another degree in. So SLTs and the like seem to be something I ought to get involved in.
I’m sure Miss Eyre is simply being self-deprecating when she describes her teaching as “half-assed,” but it does raise a serious question. When teachers finally establish that comfortable routine we all like to achieve in our work, what happens next?
Most will continue to find their challenges dealing with a couple dozen squirming third-graders each year, but others, like Miss Eyre, will consider new avenues. Are the folks who take on new duties a cross-section representative of their colleagues, or are they a specific type? The answer might help explain a lot about school-level relations between labor and administration.
Are the teachers who become heavily involved in union matters young and idealistic, or experienced cynics who know where the bodies are buried? Are the teachers who become principals tired of teaching? What separates them from those who choose to climb the union hierarchy?
I think these are intriguing questions because we forget all these folks come out of the same pool. The most recent Schools and Staffing Survey reveals the average public school principal taught for 13 years before becoming a principal, and that 28 percent of them still teach. Teachers who think their principals are the spawn of Satan don’t stop to consider that the eggs were laid in the teachers’ lounge. Principals who think union chapter leaders are rabid dogs were probably happy to sic them on administrators back when they were teachers.
We are so concerned with why people leave the profession we don’t spend a lot of time on why they stay. It’s human nature to join groups where you feel you’ll fit in. We may find that the people who fit in the public school system have a lot in common, regardless on which side of the labor-management divide they stand.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:08
Don’t you think she was talking about getting involved with the professional issues side of union work? Don’t you think she may be talking about improving her teaching?. You make so many assumptions with her statements. I knew you were unbalanced in your posts but this one discredits you forever. Good day sir.
May 19th, 2009 at 06:05
As a long time school administrator I have observed that union leaders come to their positions from a need to lead but do not want to take the necessary steps to become an administrator; i.e., courses, credentials, service as curriculum leaders. Administrators on the other hand come to their positions from a need to exert a greater influence on the outcomes of teaching and operations of schools. Of course, administrators also are motivated by higher pay and greater authority. Union leaders who complain about the higher pay and greater authority of administrator obviously have made a choice not seek those positions.
May 19th, 2009 at 09:12
The administrator’s comment is offensive and misguided. Being a union leader and a school administrator are totally different jobs – apples and oranges in terms of what they actually do on a day-to-day basis. To assume that they did not want to “take the necessary steps” is offensive. Also offensive, is how you characterize the union leaders “need to lead” as opposed to the more benevolent need of the administrators to “exert a greater influence on the outcomes of teaching and operations of schools”. As a union staff person, I have seen that union leaders are typically motivated by a desire to be an advocate for the teaching profession and their colleagues, not a need to lead. Most of the time the very thing that keeps them from being involved as a full-time union staff person is their desire to continue teaching their students.
May 20th, 2009 at 11:48
Not that anyone particularly cares–but I think Robert and Lisa each have it about half-right.
I do believe teachers who get involved with the union have an internal desire to have influence, to step out from their peers, to lead–and usually have the personal confidence to believe that they will see at least some of their ideas come to fruition. For many teachers, the only defined leadership roles they see are attached to association work. Lisa is right when she says that many excellent teachers have zero desire to become administrators– they are gratified and challenged by teaching, and realize that being an administrator is an entirely different skill set.
On the other hand, many local union leaders choose to lead strictly for the power and influence–especially the power to counter what they see as adversarial administrators and bad decisions. It may or may not have anything to do with advocating for the profession, let alone instruction, curriculum or work-embedded critical issues. Sometimes, it’s just about choosing sides and/or winning.
Robert and Lisa, although polite, have just provided a model of that kind of adversarial thinking.