I'm a member of a teacher voice
group, and a member of a union. Well
actually more than a member - an activist.
I value both experiences a great deal.
I struggle to bring them together.
The Teacher Leader Network Forum (TLNF),
the granddaddy of teacher voice groups, has been a valuable community for me to
talk to teachers across the country, and broaden my perspective on education
policy and its impact on the classroom.
At the same time, as a union activist, I have my hands on levers to make
that policy perspective influence local and state policy. I see the two things working together, but I
also feel a tension between teacher voice and teacher unionism.
The emergence of a plethora of
teacher voice groups such as VIVA (Voice
Ideas Vision Action), Teach Plus, Educators for Excellence, and
the Center for Teaching Quality
(sponsor of TLNF) throw that tension into higher relief. These groups tend to be nimble, low budget,
and high tech - and very effective in developing a big picture perspective in
participants. The question becomes are
they alternatives to the unions or are they complementary?
Unions theoretically are supposed
to bring the voice of workers to the table.
They suffer some disadvantages in that task in education. They are huge, expensive bureaucracies which
become caught up in issues of institutional sustainability which often can
obscure their original intent and purpose.
Their orientation to economic issues, while essential to public policy,
obscures important professional issues, weakening impact and credibility. The focus at the state and local level on the
nuts and bolts of unionism, on the legalistic aspects of contract negotiation
and administration, obscures the big picture.
In the best of both worlds, the
union would cultivate the capacity of members to see the big picture, then
marry that perspective to the nuts and bolts of policy making via collective
bargaining agreements and legislation.
Unfortunately, engagement of a high capacity membership is not perceived
to be in the best interests of the union bureaucracy.
In the best of both worlds,
teacher voice groups would help teachers not just become adept at persuading
the powerful, but actually become powerful themselves. Unfortunately, the messiness of power is
often treated as "unprofessional," as if we could somehow surf above
the fray, pure and innocent and virtuous.
What if we thought of unions and
teacher voice groups as complementary, rather than mutually exclusive?
I just heard of an effort to
bring together a union and a teacher voice group in partnership. Paul Toner, president of the Massachusetts
Teachers Association, invited
VIVA to build a teacher voice network in the gateway (smaller) cities of
Massachusetts. Toner regards VIVA as
a partner who can build the capacity of the union by engaging teachers with
interests beyond the traditional bread and butter issues of industrial
unionism. VIVA, for its part, partners
with an organization with a robust capacity for making real impact in terms of
access to the levers of power that can make the vision real.
There is a risk for both: an
engaged membership may make uncomfortable demands on the union; the teacher
voice group may have to descend from the ivory tower into the impure realm of
political sausage making. But the
potential results in terms of great public policy, as well as the health
and well being of both institutional partners, seem well worth the risk.