http://www.psrf.org/issues/confronting.jspConfronting Teacher Union Powerby David Y. Denholm

There is a growing awareness that America's system of public education is in trouble. Notonly are scores on standardized tests low but colleges are reporting that record numbersof students are in need of remedial classes upon reaching college and employerscomplain that high school graduates are unemployable because they do not possess the basic skills of reading, writing and figuring at a level sufficient to perform routine entrylevel work.This disaffection with the quality of public education and the apparent futility of meaningful reform is beginning to challenge the very precepts upon which America'ssystem of public education is based.Too many in the education establishment are in denial. They insist that the public schoolsare doing a good job of educating students. Even parents who say that they think publiceducation is not what it should be are very pleased with their own schools. But, theobvious need for improvement in public education is encouraging many people to become active in promoting reforms and improvements in the schools. Unfortunately,when they consider "education reform" issues, they do not give enough consideration toteacher unions. This is misguided because teacher unions are a very powerful force indetermining education policy. All too often, the unions are dismissed as dealing only with personnel policy, which too many people don't really see as "education" policy.This ignores the fact that the unions are involved in virtually every aspect of education.Whether it is curriculum, text book selection, discipline or particularly the cost of education, the unions are very concerned and have a profound influence.All too often, the proponents of reform, because they fear to appear to be "anti-union,"refuse to confront the power of the teacher unions. They want to believe the problems can be solved without confronting the power of the teacher unions. In doing so, they fall rightinto the unions' hands because the teacher unions have an undeserved reputation for supporting quality public education.Indeed, if anything is ever going to be done to make meaningful changes in education andrestore the quality of public education in America, teacher union power much beconfronted.So, I hope that I can set the stage for you today by saying that, if you are concerned aboutthe future of public education, you must confront teacher union power.

Teacher union power is based on membership, money and prestige. When you begin toattack these sources of power, you must expect a reaction. Most of what follows is aboutthe reaction and how to deal with it.In the 3rd edition of my booklet,

Beyond Public Sector Unionism: A Better Way

, I addedan appendix on Saul Alinsky. It leads off with a quote from John Lloydwho is a former National Education Association Uniserv Director and the former executive director of an NEA state affiliate. He says,"To understand the NEA - to understand the union - read Saul Alinsky. If you read

Rules for Radicals

, you will understand the NEA more profoundly than reading anything else.Because the whole organization was modeled on that kind of behavior which was really begun when NEA used Saul Alinsky as a consultant to train their own staff."Listen to what Alinsky has to say in

Rules for Radicals

about the qualities of anorganizer. He says, an organizer understands that,"Before men can act, an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convincedthat their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil."And, further in discussing how this applied in a particular case, Alinsky said,"Many liberals, during our attack on the then school superintendent, were pointing outthat after all he wasn't a 100 per cent devil, he was a regular churchgoer, he was a goodfamily man, and he was generous in his contributions to charity. Can you imagine in thearena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack with qualifying remarks such as 'He is a good churchgoing man, generous tocharity, and a good husband'? This becomes political idiocy."This was an example of one of Alinsky's rules that is very troublesome to public officials,"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." I've included a list of Alinsky'srules at the back of this paper. In his book, Alinsky admits that any of these tactics could be defeated if they were perceived for what they really were.

Rules For Radicals

is worthreading. These rules are worth studying. Now, I realize that I am speaking to an audience with widely different backgrounds andcoming from many areas of the state.I also realize that many of you may not have given unionism much thought, so I want togive you just a little bit of background on what has been happening to the unionmovement in America over the last 40 years.In the mid 1950s unionism in the private sector was almost forty percent of the work force and in the public sector it was about ten percent.In the mid 1990s these figures are reversed. In the public sector it is almost forty percentand in the private sector it is about ten percent.

This is having a profound impact on the union movement. They know that their future isin the public sector and since so much of public employment is in education, that meansthat public school employee unionism, particularly teacher unionism, is becoming anincreasingly important topic.This interest in the public sector and the confrontational tactics used will undoubtedly beincreased as a result of the election of John J. Sweeney as the president of the AFL-CIOin October 1995.One of his key supporters in this election was Gerald McEntee, the president of theAmerican Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public sector union in the AFL-CIO.Sweeney was the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), aunion with substantial public sector membership, which became notorious for militant --in your face and in the streets -- activity. In July, when the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors was considering reducing the size of the payroll, Sweeney told them that hisunion would conduct a "massive campaign of resistance and retribution." To show he wasserious, he arranged a demonstration of 3,000 union members at which 20 were arrestedfor blocking traffic.With this new (old fashion) radical attitude now at the helm of the union movement, Iexpect to see a great deal more militancy from the public sector unions.The growth of teacher unions has been very much a part of this growth in public sector unionism. Between 1963 and 1993 teacher union membership increased by 300% from963,720 to 3,100,000.You also need to know that the teacher unions have undergone a transformation. Therewas a time when the National Education Association was truly a professional associationof educators. This began to change in the early 1960's when, in order to protect educationfrom the "union" -- the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO -- the NEAtransformed itself into a union. Until that time, the NEA had been a broad-based professional association of educators which included teachers, administrators, professorsof education and virtually anyone else with a professional interest in education. Duringthis transition control of that union was captured by radical liberal elements, who stilldominate it today.One of the major factors in the growth of the NEA as a union was the adoption of a policy of unified dues in 1974. Prior to that several state affiliates had already adopted aunified dues policy. Before unified dues, it was possible for a teacher to belong to a localclassroom teachers' association without also being a member of a state or nationalassociation. Under unified dues, in order to belong to the local association a teacher wasalso required to belong to both the national organization and its state affiliate.