|
It is well-known that you are a strong supporter of private school tuition
vouchers. Nonetheless, I am shocked and appalled that you would lend your support to
an organization that is dedicated to undermining the effectiveness of the National
Education Association in its ability to advocate for the interests of children and public
education. As a national co-chairman, with Senator Joseph Lieberman, of the
Alexis deTocqueville Institution, you have lent your name and credibility to a letter that
was recently distributed to a number of NEA members around the country. The letter
is a patchwork of falsehoods and distortions arguing against the proposed unification of
the NEA with the American Federation of Teachers. I find it disturbing that you
appear to oppose this unification, since it is intended to enhance our ability to address
some of the most challenging issues affecting the future of public education and the
United States itself.
Over the past few months, the NEA/AFT Joint Council has been working on substantive
efforts to address school safety, school modernization, and teacher quality. A
unified organization would be better able to expand these efforts–and meet other
pressing needs in America's schools and communities.
I must assume, from your support of the deTocqueville Institution, that you subscribe
to the idea they have been trying to promote that there should be a panoply of teachers'
unions–the more the better. I fail to see how that will improve things for
children and education, but I would welcome your explanation.
The deTocqueville Institution works closely with the Center for the Study of Popular
Culture, which supports Myron Lieberman's life work–trashing NEA and AFT. In
addition, they work closely with the Institute of Justice, Clint Bolick's organization
that is pursuing a litigation strategy in favor of vouchers. And they work with the
National Right to Work Foundation, the nation's largest anti-union organization. In
February 1997, deTocqueville hosted a forum on Capitol Hill with many of NEA's fiercest
critics, including the National Right to Work Foundation, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation
of Washington state, and a number of "alternative" teacher organizations,
including the American Association of Educators. All of these groups are dedicated
to the destruction of NEA.
I was a classroom teacher in Connecticut for 25 years. I have always had the
interests of children foremost in my mind. As you well know, I have worked in recent
years to help change the direction of NEA–to move toward more partnerships with
parents and school administrators, to take risks and bring about the kind of changes
schools need and parents want, and to use the Association's advocacy tools to bring about
the kinds of school transformation necessary to meet the challenges of the next
century.
I am an elected representative–whose salary, benefits, and activities are the
subject of close scrutiny by those who elect me. My salary is a matter of public
record, published in a budget voted on by 10,000 delegates to our annual Representative
Assembly. The deTocqueville letter cites my "total compensation" as
$301,302. That number is equivalent to taking your total salary, retirement, health
care, and travel budget as your "total compensation." In fact, my salary is
$185,000. The rest of the amount includes expenses for travel, lodging, and everything
else. As you know, keeping in touch with the members of our organization is a
demanding pace. I spend about 60 percent of my time on the road, talking with
members, visiting schools, and talking with leaders in every walk of life urging change
and improvement in America's public schools. That salary, as you know, is in the mid-range
for leaders in comparable organizations, unions, businesses, membership organizations,
etc.
In a similar way, the deTocqueville letter inflates the number of staff employed by NEA
and AFT, as well as their salaries. It raises a number of irrelevancies, such as my
travel to foreign countries at the invitation of my sister unions and my participation in
a conference in California at Palm Springs Riviera. My business travel is not, as
the letter suggests, luxury vacations at the members' expense, but the challenging
struggle to promote new ideas, build community support for educational change and
improvement, and inspire our members to stay active in efforts for children and public
education. The Palm Springs meeting was a working conference hosted by the United
Teachers of Los Angeles–not a vacation.
The grossest distortion in the letter your group sent to our members was the notion
that the unification of NEA and AFT would not be good for members. There is no basis
for the letter's claim that the new union would be more concerned with politics than
classrooms. Every decision affecting what happens in America's public schools is a
political decision, made by elected or appointed officials at the local, state, and
national level. Only those interested in making education a partisan issue and those
interested in undermining the effectiveness of teachers' Associations try to make this
distinction between collective bargaining and legislative and political advocacy.
This false premise illustrates one of the links between deTocqueville and the National
Right to Work Committee. Since the Right to Work people press on with the legal argument
that only collective bargaining expenses are a legitimate part of agency fees,
deTocqueville and its allies press with the political argument that the only appropriate
role for a union is to engage in collective bargaining.
I do not believe it is up to the deTocqueville Institution, the Right to Work
Committee, or Myron Lieberman to dictate to us what is the appropriate role for our
Association. Our members tell us we should continue efforts to be effective advocates for
children and public education in every arena where decisions affecting them are
made. I'm sure you would agree it is absurd to tell a union's members that its
organization should focus in only on bargaining for salaries and benefits only (pushing us
into the old union mold) and then criticize us for being too hard line. Equally
absurd is the notion that we should bargain at the local level–and not attempt to
influence those who set the budgets at the county, state, and national levels. Your
endorsement of this organization seems to imply that you agree that teachers should not
recommend candidates who support children and public education. If so, I would like
to know.
I have not asked for an independent analysis of the figures former Senator Bob Kasten
uses in his letter about the increases in education spending and teacher pay.
However, such a simplistic analysis wholly ignores the significant changes that have taken
place in the public schools over the past four decades. In 1959, there were very few
special education programs, few efforts to assist disadvantaged students or students with
limited proficiency in English. In 1959, we educated a much smaller proportion of
the eligible population, the high school dropout rate was much higher, and there were
fewer choices for students and parents. For example, there were no magnet schools,
no alternative schools, and no advanced placement courses.
In the end, the deTocqueville letter you endorse, and the activities they pursue,
constitute a blatant counterorganizing attempt. Of the 22 articles posted on the
deTocqueville's web page, purported to be articles on education reform, two lambaste the
U.S. Department of Education, five talk about private school tuition, and the other 15
articles are attacks on unions in some form or another. One is left with the
impression that the most significant education "reform" is to defeat, dismantle,
or harass unions. Is that your philosophy? If you lend your support to an organization
that spends less than one-fourth of the time promoting vouchers and three-fourths of the
time blasting unions, which appears to be most important for you?
Despite our disagreement about private school tuition vouchers, I continue to believe
that there are many areas where NEA would like to work with you. We all remember and
appreciate the fact that you were the only candidate for the Republican Presidential
candidate nomination who agreed to talk face-to-face to with Mary Hatwood Futrell when she
was NEA President in 1988. And yet, as the deTocqueville attacks become sharper (and more
ludicrous), your support for them becomes increasingly difficult for us to explain
away. I would like the opportunity to sit down and discuss these issues with you at
your convenience.
|
|
