Teachers' Unions, Democracy, & Risk-Taking
Deborah Meier continues her conversation with Leo Casey today.
Dear Leo (and Readers),
Yes, indeed, democracy is nonnegotiable, except ... democracy is a constant negotiation, a balancing act, which never gets it quite right.
The role of labor unions is a fundamental part of that balancing act. Nothing can replace it—as you rightly take note. It is a fundamental foundation of democracy, as long as there is labor to be done.
But democracy is not a recipe that can be followed whether we are talking about schools, governments, or unions. And at times there are difficult choices—trade-offs—to decide between. For example, how do we create schools that represent democratically the views and votes of all their essential constituents, the parents who send their kids to them, the citizens who fund them and who are affected by their work, the staff of the school—professionals and nonprofessionals—and, of course, students of varying age, expertise, and wisdom. Who should decide who serves as principal? They each have a strong case to make on their important and essential role. Yet ...
How do we respond if the citizens supporting the school want to teach ideas and engage in practices that we think undermine democracy—not to mention just plain good sense? (Re. climate change, evolution, religious dogmas, historical "truth," etc.) What about when professional teachers decide to use the school to promote their own ideological message—even one you and I might agree with, Leo?
We struggled with each and every one of these points in creating the governing rules of Mission Hill School, the only school I was part of that had the official/legal freedom to carry out some pretty far-out ideas. We did it more informally at Central Park East, and somewhere in between informal and formal at Central Park East Secondary School where, like Mission Hill, we wrote out our agreements as faculty and signed them (or revised them) annually, and distributed them to all parents and other interested parties.
At Mission Hill we also created a semi-powerful board of directors that gave substantial power to each constituency. The latter with both the union's blessing and management's. In fact, all these schools (and the many others they spawned in New York and around the nation) had the support of their teachers' unions and some level of support from the city government—to truly break old molds. Yet each chose somewhat different trade-offs, and all did so in the name of democracy. Is that OK?
The unions I've belonged to and supported faced the same dilemma, and the teachers' unions have hardly been the worst examples when it comes to trade-offs. We know that many unions, like Teachers' Unions, Democracy, & Risk-Taking - Bridging Differences - Education Week: