When I first ran for the NEA Executive Committee in 2002, I couldn't possibly anticipate all the questions that would be flung at me during all the interviews I'd have to endure. But I did know one of them: How do you feel about merger?
The issue was still pretty hot. In 1998, NEA President Bob Chase, a true visionary, thought he could hammer an NEA-AFT merger through the NEA Representative Assembly. It's evident that he believed that his personality and sheer will could perform a miracle and effect merger. AFT President Sandra Feldman pushed from her end to get her organization to merge, and that group approved.
Chase got past the then Executive Committee, the NEA Board of Directors, and a merger committee in a way that mirrored, if not directly reflected, the way in which Republicans find it nearly impossible to object to anything that ex- presently says; that is, you risked Chase's wrath if you stood in the way. But the difference was that the acquiescence of the leadership was not reflected in the knee-jerk support of the RA delegates. Teachers and support staff are an independent lot; if we sense power plays, we tend to push back with massive, passive resistance. As well as we can stampede like a herd of horses, we can also sit like mules.
So, even though the talk behind his back was that he'd have to learn the hard way, the proposal of merger was brought to the RA. And, as many expected, it got stuffed. It needed a 2/3 majority to make it a done deal, and it didn't even get half. As good an idea as it was, it just came on too fast for the RA.
Wisconsin favored merger overwhelmingly--and I unquestionably--but as a state affiliate, we were the cheeseheads that stood, if not alone, then with lots of empty seats. But that was because of our history. In 1976, after nearly a decade of fierce intra-labor competition and accusations of dirty tricks tossed at both sides, the NEA and AFT state affiliates declared peace and promised to respect each other's territories (with the NEA claiming the overwhelming number of locals). The armistice had worked, so we saw the greater good with trying to merge, one way or another. It took until 2014, though, for Wisconsin to try very, very hard to merge--but still failed. We still await that Great Pumpkin.
States like Illinois, Michigan, Alabama, Virginia and New Jersey, member-rich but fierce in identity, took a directly anti-merger stand. Those members couldn't imagine being merged with AFT folks anymore than, say, Ukraine can think of itself as Russian. They, too, had had ferocious disputes over territories; they, too, had had tumultuous histories. Nothing had been 'settled,' in any manner of the term. Their members overwhelmingly said no.
There were three states that had already merged, though: Minnesota, Montana, and Florida. Nothing disrupting their stances was done; they stayed merged. Other states were either in the pipeline or in discussions as to possible mergers, and we all knew it. But discussions are often no more than that, and the NEA is a confederation of affiliates, with the RA as the governing body. It might be influenced, but if there are strong opponents at the local and/or state level, whatever someone wants for the whole group is going nowhere. Democracy is sometimes like herding cats.
Chase had crossed a bridge too far, and led a parade with only 42 percent behind him. So a follow-up new business item and a compromise of sorts was passed, allowing Chase to save face after being drubbed. We decided to wait until the number of merged states reached six, and then the discussion would take place again. That was acceptable, so we moved on.
So when I was asked about that, the first time in Alaska, I knew there was a conflict between stances of what I and my home state had taken and that which what many other affiliates, which combined had many more votes at the RA, had done and had never budged. (Interestingly, neither has Wisconsin, though it has tried; despite its bold stance in 1998, it has never merged with AFT.) My answer was a political one: Merger would take place when the political situation demanded it. It was logical, it was safe, and it leaned toward merger without driving the idea around like it was on the Indy speedway. And, in 2002, the vote had been sufficiently recent so that nerves were still on edge because plenty of leaders involved in initial conversations were still around.
But now it's nearly 2022, going on two decades later. I'm not privy to discussions so I have no idea, absolutely none, where national merger sits or how close things are in any one state. To be sure, more states have merged, but in a way that reflected the path of least resistance, as in New York (pretty much a hostile takeover by AFT) and North Dakota (with a minuscule number of AFT members). Note that makes five; that magic sixth merger hasn't happened, and it's been going on a quarter-century now. Some large locals have also followed suit, as in Austin, Texas; Los Angeles; Topeka, Kansas; and San Francisco. But it's way, way, WAY past time when national merger should have happened.
In the end, I was accurate: Merger should be dictated by external political situations. But that time has passed long ago. It should have been done yesterday: in fact, many yesterdays ago. One has to wonder what it will take, or whether it is already too late. But even obviously pervasive political challenges haven't tipped the scales.
The merging of the three million member NEA and 900,000, more or less, of the AFT might not cause a huge turnaround in how the country views and supports public education. But there is still power in numbers, and both organizations have had, and taken, opportunities to shoot themselves in the foot instead of uniting permanently and driving initiatives inside state legislatures and Congress.
Have they ever combined forces? Sure, especially during state and federal elections. NEA and AFT have always supported the Democratic presidential candidate, for instance; I can't recall when they haven't. But when the polls shut down, so do the united fronts. Both groups go back to their respective camps and preserve their identities.
There are structural barriers to merger, to be sure:
- Term limits--The NEA has a 6-year term limit for members of state and national leadership (usually two 3-year terms), the AFT has not. Randi Weingarten, for instance, has been president of the AFT since 2008.
- Running campaigns on a 'ticket'--the AFT runs presidents, vice-presidents, secretaries and treasurers on a 'ticket' basis, the NEA does not. That doesn't stop people from pairing up NEA candidates in.their minds, but their campaign signs or literature do not join people together.
- Minority guarantee--the NEA has a 'minority guarantee' policy that demands that if there are minorities willing to run for state positions and none are otherwise elected, a minority candidate must fill a position designed specifically to guarantee that minorities are represented in leadership. The AFT has no such requirement. In addition, the NEA's state affiliates have to promise that, if they cannot fill quotas of minority members to represent them at the NEA-RA, they must prove that they try very hard (which exposes the unending, unfulfilled need for minority people in the classroom). The AFT does not go to that trouble.
But there are other barriers as well:
- State or large local affiliates--especially those that had (and still have) issues with the other side, and those that have a lot of members to whom influential leaders can say that, after all this time, it's still a bad idea to merge. It still looks like too big a tradeoff--a gain in external power, but a clear loss in internal power.
- Identity--in states where one outnumbers the other but the other maintains a decent presence, true compromise, where no one gains an outward advantage, is difficult to gain. It comes down to a simple question: How come we lose influence? Because that means you have to give up what was once your identity.
- Elections--those of state or large local affiliates in which the other side has always been a thorn in their fannies. No one running for a significant leadership position can promise conciliation without seriously threatening their chances for election or re-election.
- Egos (or Pride, if you wish)--especially if merging would mean that one side's leader would stay the leader and the other one wouldn't. The only way to solve this is to make both promise that they won't run the next time. Having maneuvered and politicked for years to gain power, though, it's a lot to ask to give it up just to be nice.
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has made progress on any of these fronts. People can pretend that they've tried, but time and tide have proven otherwise. The enemies of public education keep chipping away at what it calls the "monopoly" of state union membership amidst teaching and support staffs, plotting legal and quasi-legal methods to undermine them. The latest is the absurd declaration that teachers have been dictating "critical race theory" in school classrooms for years, justifying the latest effort to introduce or re-introduce, advertise or re-advertise vouchers into school choice options.
A united front might go a long way to dismiss, challenge or disprove these claims. But it isn't there. Yes, both unions have concluded that this is ridiculous, but who knows if they'll be separately strong enough to turn it back?
It has long ago become necessary for these two significant education unions to put their differences aside and make the big move. It's become painfully clear that there's no other way to fuse the efforts of two labor organizations which have had their individual successes and at least try to create a powerhouse that will turn back the ever-rising forces that undermine and aim to destroy public education, replacing it with a vacuum of disconnected nothingness.
We are not so far from that any longer, and certainly closer than at the advent of No Child Left Behind in 2002. Betsy DuVos certainly isn't the only Cruella who is aiming at the ultimate failure of education unionism by spreading the poison of school choice and its various components.
Merger must happen, and soon. Someone will pay a price, yes, but the price that all in public education are paying--the slow but steady costs of death by a thousand cuts and thousands of nonsensical claims--is being witnessed daily, in large communities and small, throughout our land. It is a growing disaster, and a desperate tragedy. In the end, Bob Chase's vision must triumph.
Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment