politicalcivility.com Blog

In education circles (see NEA Foundation — Building A Profession — the NEA has decided not to call themselves a union anymore but by the more modern term: a teacher organization) I have heard talk about really ‘professionalizing’ the teacher function so that those working everyday to educate our children can be looked at on par with lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, etc. 

I think this is a wonderful idea.  I know this was topic (professionalizing a career for HR professionals) that came up a lot while I did HR for P&G.  I think it could do wonders to increase teacher pay, to afford teachers greater classroom autonomy, and to revolutionize and inject greater innovation into teaching methods as well as teaching evaluation method research.

But I have to wonder how serious the teachers’ union really is about all this professionaliztion talk, because what is the ultimate result of truly professionalizing the teaching career?  The end result is that the union goes away, because under labor law most full-time teachers would fall under a category of “professional employee” (National Labor Relations Act–NLRA–see NLRA (12) definition of “professional employee”) thus significantly reducing the number of employees that could be represented by a union.  So if professionalizing the teaching career path means the union goes away, how likely is the union to do what appears to be in the best interest of teachers?  History says that survival will out-trump what in the best interest of teachers.

And yes, I am assuming that the increased ability to individually negotiate pay is one major benefit of not having a union; there are the others I mentioned above.  There is a significant teacher shortage, just like there is a nurse shortage.  Guess who’s getting paid better and guess who has more flexibility in work schedules, etc.: nurses because if the hospital doesn’t give them what they want, there’s another hospital down the road that is willing to let them work weekends only. 

So here’s the dilemma of the day: where does the issue of professionalization leave Utah’s teachers and what’s in their best interest, when what’s in the union’s (as an entity) best interest is in direct conflict with that teacher beneficial end goal?

Last week I was at an education conference in Orlando and heard some very interesting presentations on a wide range of education reforms.  One of the most interesting sessions I attended featured the former Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent, Roy Romer (Romer is also a former Democratic governor of Colorado) and current NYC public schools chancellor, Joel Klein.  (If Klein’s name rings a bell for you it may be because he was one of the lead attorneys that represented President Bill Clinton during the impeachment hearings.)

Klein’s presentation centered on getting quality teachers into every classroom because that is where the most bang for the buck is in terms of improved student achievement.  This is no surprise.  What did surprise me, given Klein’s long-standing political affiliation, was his top three reasons (which Romer quickly seconded) why this isn’t happening, and they all point squarely to the union. Klein’s top three barriers to getting quality teachers:

1. Seniority
2. Tenure
3. Lock-step Pay

While the teachers’ union consistently claims to be real pro-education advocate, it appears that the chorus on both sides of the isle is growing ever louder that they are actually becoming the biggest hurdle to bringing about the types of change needed to deliver a quality education to Utah’s (and the nation’s) children.