The New York Teachers' Strike By DEBORAH MEIER FRIEND WHOM I HADN'T SEEN in surely should not have been suspect. many months called me a few Yet never before were their motives weeks ago. She's a New York more under attack liberal who knew me as a radical and The irony is that it was the very ab- pro-trade unionist for many years. Yet sence of a monetary motive that made she felt it necessary to ask: "Well, the teachers additionally suspect. The Debby, what did you do during the New York Times, for example, claimed teachers' strike? Did you go to work or to be mystified at the UFT's contention stay out?" that teachers struck because they were The remark is symptomatic of the "desperate." "The salary offer," said unusual nature of the recent teachers' the Times, "will make the New York strike in New York City. For what, teachers the best paid in the country." viewed in the context of the history of Only extreme frustration would make teachers' unionism or any unionism a walkout defensible, said the New for that matter, ought to have been the York Post: "It becomes wholly inde- most clear-cut and popular strike in fensible in the light of the general years, seemed to many New Yorkers to wage terms." Real professionalism is so be the most complex and dubious one. rare that it arouses greater suspicion While unionism is no where near as than a simpler greed. popular as it once was, it would be a The Union's demands, while "pro- mistake to view this phenomenon fessional," were hardly radical. The merely as old-fashioned anti-unionism, criginal package included some un- or even as simply a manifestation of usual and intriguing proposals for ap- a kind of neo-conservatism. Yet does it prentice teachers, teaching internships, merely reflect the unpopularity of on-the-job training as a replacement teachers, or their "misunderstood" for current educational methodology plight? Strangely enough, never before courses, new forms of supervision for have books, movies and articles on the inexperienced teachers and experi- plight of the urban teacher been so :nents with new methods of selecting popular-witness the success, as both a principals, including the election of book and a film, of Bel Kaufman's "Up principals by the staff in several the Down Staircase." schools. But it was felt that it would It was this that bewildered militant not be possible to get teachers out and United Federation of Teachers (UFT) to win from the city on these innova- members. They saw themselves sacri- tions. The first task was to convince ficing their paychecks for a few weeks the teachers, and a doubting Board without expectation, as most strikers and public, that teachers could have do, of eventually making it up by wage an impact on school reform and not increases won during the strike. Wages merely on wages and fringe benefits. were not at stake in the work stoppage Good education must include teachers and thus the teachers felt their motives as full partners, this was the meaning 36 I- - - - -L- ~ ~ i~~ .( -f t i s r
Transcript
The New York Teachers' Strike
By DEBORAH MEIER
FRIEND WHOM I HADN'T SEEN in surely should not have been suspect.many months called me a few Yet never before were their motives
weeks ago. She's a New York more under attack
liberal who knew me as a radical and The irony is that it was the very ab-pro-trade unionist for many years. Yet sence of a monetary motive that madeshe felt it necessary to ask: "Well, the teachers additionally suspect. The
Debby, what did you do during the New York Times, for example, claimed
teachers' strike? Did you go to work or to be mystified at the UFT's contentionstay out?" that teachers struck because they were
The remark is symptomatic of the "desperate." "The salary offer," said
unusual nature of the recent teachers' the Times, "will make the New York
strike in New York City. For what, teachers the best paid in the country."
viewed in the context of the history of Only extreme frustration would make
teachers' unionism or any unionism a walkout defensible, said the New
for that matter, ought to have been the York Post: "It becomes wholly inde-
most clear-cut and popular strike in fensible in the light of the general
years, seemed to many New Yorkers to wage terms." Real professionalism is so
be the most complex and dubious one. rare that it arouses greater suspicion
While unionism is no where near as than a simpler greed.
popular as it once was, it would be a The Union's demands, while "pro-mistake to view this phenomenon fessional," were hardly radical. Themerely as old-fashioned anti-unionism, criginal package included some un-or even as simply a manifestation of usual and intriguing proposals for ap-a kind of neo-conservatism. Yet does it prentice teachers, teaching internships,merely reflect the unpopularity of on-the-job training as a replacementteachers, or their "misunderstood" for current educational methodologyplight? Strangely enough, never before courses, new forms of supervision forhave books, movies and articles on the inexperienced teachers and experi-
plight of the urban teacher been so :nents with new methods of selectingpopular-witness the success, as both a principals, including the election ofbook and a film, of Bel Kaufman's "Up principals by the staff in severalthe Down Staircase." schools. But it was felt that it would
It was this that bewildered militant not be possible to get teachers out andUnited Federation of Teachers (UFT) to win from the city on these innova-members. They saw themselves sacri- tions. The first task was to convinceficing their paychecks for a few weeks the teachers, and a doubting Boardwithout expectation, as most strikers and public, that teachers could havedo, of eventually making it up by wage an impact on school reform and not
increases won during the strike. Wages merely on wages and fringe benefits.were not at stake in the work stoppage Good education must include teachersand thus the teachers felt their motives as full partners, this was the meaning
36
I- - - - -L- ~ ~ i~~
.(-f
ti
sr
rike
een suspect.
.ui
Leir motives
the very ab-e that madeuspect. Thepile, claimeds contentione they wereoffer," saidNew York
7e country.",vould make1 the Newholly inde-the general,nalism is so2r suspicion
while "pro-idical. The
some un->sals for ap-internships,replacementaethodologyervision fornd experi-of selectingelection ofin several
at it wouldters out andiese innova-to convinceting Boardcould haven and notge benefits.ide teachershe meaning
behind the display of power. It waspartially then a "demonstration"--im-mediately aimed at certain specific andlimited reforms-of the direction inwhich the Union sought teacher in-volvement.
After lengthy, often desultory, nego-tiations lasting all summer and part ofthe preceding spring, the opening dayof school approached without a con-tract in sight. A fact-finding committeeappointed by the Mayor came up witha last-minute proposal which offeredthe teachers one thing: a fairly sub-stantial salary increase! The Union'srefusal, backed by a membership vote,to accept this offer then narroweddown the issues of the strike to a fewminimal demands. The crucial ones,as defined by the Board, the Unionand news media, were those that in-volved class size, class discipline andspecial education programs for ghettoschools.
It was the Union's insistence upona say in these areas which the Boardcalled unjustified interference in pol-icy. Teachers as employees should notbe deciding policy. The teachers inturn argued that the function of aneducator precludes such a concept ofemployee-employer relations.
T HE TEACHERS RESPONDED to the
IBoard's refusal to share decision-making by staying away from work onthe first day of school, September 11.Teachers from every area and borough,both white and black. elementary andhigh school, young and old, "resigned"en masse from their jobs. The onlyareas in which any substantial dissi-dence occurred was in traditionallyconservative Richmond County (StatenIsland) and in parts of Queens. Noone had expected such unprecedentedsolidarity. And swiftly and without di-rection or assistance from the under-staffed Union, leaflets were mimeoedand teachers organized emergency
schools-some times called FreedomSchools-to provide educational servicefor the children. Thousands of "non-working" teachers picketed their schoolsand then spent the day in makeshiftclassrooms-in churches, communitycenters, union halls, bingo parlors,bowling alleys and anything else avail-able. At night many teachers went tomeetings and speak-outs organized var-iously by teachers or parents. Theyargued, talked, explained and an-swered questions. More teachers be-came involved in their communitiesthan ever before; more dialogue-gen-erally bitter-between parents andteachers occurred than in years of or-ganized school meetings. A selectiveprocess occurred in which the angriestparents or community spokesmen con-fronted the most dedicated teachers.
Meanwhile the great hue and cry bythe United Parents Association, theBoard of Education, the school prin-cipals and the Negro and Puerto Ricanassociations for parent volunteers toman the schools produced a maximumof 6-7 thousand the first couple of daysand one thousand by the end of thesecond week. Despite the Board's grand"strategy" of claiming that the schoolsystem was operating normally, parentsand children discovered otherwise andby the end of the second week onlythose requiring baby-sitting were stillgoing to school. Alfred Giardino,Board President, and Bernard Dono-van, School Superintendent, kept issu-ing daily statements to the effect thatschool was open "as usual" and thatteachers would, they were sure, ceaseneglecting their obligations and returnto their posts. Perhaps the Board in-tended to produce a daily confronta-tion between parents and teachers andthus put greater pressure on the Unionto settle. But if this was their hope,only at Harlem's Intermediate School201 and perhaps one or two others,was the confrontation a problem. And
e
_. z
THE NEW YORK TEACHERS' STRIKE
MIDSTREAM--DECEMBER 1967
there it was not primarily parents butorganized Afro-American Nationalist
groups that made the teachers' picket-ing difficult.
The teachers just stayed out-90%remained with their union; and this,despite an array of opposition to theteachers unprecedented in the UFT'sbrief and stormy history.
RADICALS WERE DIVIDED: the most mil-
itant Negro leaders lined up al-most solidly against the UFT, alongwith some "moderates," and manywhite liberals were active snipers too.CORE leaders in Brooklyn called uponthe Board of Education to send strik-ing teachers to Vietnam. Communityaction groups, organized by radical andblack militants, spent the summer or-
ganizing and training parents to bestrike-breakers in case of a walk-out,particularly in the upper west side ofManhattan, in Harlem around I.S. 201and in the area of Brooklyn calledOcean Bay-Brownsville. At one meet-ing in Manhattan, for example, a leaf-let was distributed in early Septembershowing a Negro child with a knifelabeled UFT stuck into his breast. Theanti-union campaign was pitched on ahighly emotional level and saw FloydMcKissick and Rap Brown in the roleof strike-breakers. Of course many con-servative white ladies, conscientiousministers and rabbis, retired teachersand middle-class businessmen also ven-tured briefly into the schools to dotheir little bit. And after the strikewas over, William H. Booth, chairmanof New York's Human Relations Com-mission, publicly condemned teacherunionism, and suggested that teachersinstead should join professional educa-tional associations. He also supporteddemands that striking teachers be"screened" by local parents before be-'ing permitted to return to their schools.When the union protested this kindof old-fashioned anti-unionism and
called upon the Mayor, as Booth's boss,to repudite him, they were accused ofracial bias-since Booth is a Negrol
A group of black teachers, membersof the African-American Teachers' As-sociation (formerly the Negro Teach-ers' Association), took violent issuewith the union and announced thatthey would work during the strike.How strong this group was or is cannoteasily be determined. Few black teach-ers actually did go to work, but a largenumber felt sympathetic to the ATA'sposition-some for reasons of personalstatus and others out of mistrust of apredominantly white union's motives.
The good white women of EQUAL,a militant organization of white radi-cal mothers organized some years agoto work for school integration throughbussing, pairing and educational parks,and which has engaged in many schoolboycotts and numerous protests, alsodenounced the teachers with venom,eagerly exposing every inconsistency.The class struggle appeared to havedisappeared and been replaced by anequally deep division within societybetween Parents-as-a-Class and Teach-ers-as-a-Class, the former representingprogress, the latter reaction.
Puerto Rican parents and commu-nity groups, both the militant and con-servatives ones, also came out againstthe teachers. The traditional Establish-ment groups were also anti-union. TheUnited Parents Association and itspresident, Florence Flast, used all itsprestige and influence to urge parentsto fulfill their parental duties by re-placing delinquent teachers in theschools. The Citizens Committee forSchools and the Public Education As-sociation took similar stands. And theBoard of Education and local princi-pals (most of them involuntarily), whohad traditionally made it difficult forparents to enter schools under any pre-text, urged anyone and everyone tocome in and take a class.
New York Times, which rarely sup-ports any strike, seems to have a par-ticular aversion against public em-ployee strikes as incipient forms of"anarchy."
The right wing New York DailyNews acted as expected. The liberalNew York Post was betwixt and be-tween. The editors decried the strikeas unnecessary although they went onrecord as upholders of the "principleand practice of teacher unionism." TheNew York Post columnist Max Lerner
issued a "school credo" which cameout against "using children as pawns"and differentiated learnedly betweenthe automobile industry and the edu-cation industry. A striking teachermight be confused by students with astriking auto worker, he feared, andthis image-confusion could be damag-ing to learning. Post editor JamesWechsler in his column argued most-ly for fairness and expressed doubts asto the responsibility of teachers andthe representativeness of the Union,basing himself on the small attendanceat the meeting at which a strike wasvoted (about one-third of the teachersvoted). Later, however, he printed infull the arguments of Negro leaderBayard Rustin in support of the UFT.Finally, Murray Kempton bitterly at-tacked the UFT, until the strike wassettled. He deplored it for beingstrong enough to protect its membersand for being less "idealistic" than ithad been when he had been its fanseveral years before, and when, hefailed to mention, it had struck forwages and fringe benefits only. In anarticle entitled "The Guilt of theUFT" he described the poor educa-tion received by children in East Har-lem's Benjamin Franklin High School.These children are victims of unionteachers, said Kempton, and "such peo-ple . . . may have rights, but they can-not expect sympathy."
The Amsterdam News, Harlem'sonly newspaper, was against the UFTfrom start to finish and for every oneof the possible reasons: it was a strikein defiance of law, it was an attackaimed at black children, it was usingchildren in a power struggle, etc.
W HY SUCH GENERAL UNPOPULARITY?
Many based their opposition onthe strike's illegality. The Union calledits action a mass resignation, the Boardof Education called it a strike. As astrike it was in defiance of the newlyoperative Taylor Law outlawing pub-lic employee strikes. The United Par-ents Association might have meant itwhen they insisted that regular schoolattendance is too sacred for teachers totamper with. But militant Negro oppo-nents of the strike who argued alongthe same lines this time ("our childrencannot afford to miss a single day ofschooling," said CORE and black na-tionalist leaders) have a long history of"using children" as "pawns" for schoolreform. Only last year boycotts werecalled for at I.S. 201 and P.S. 125 overthe demand for greater communityparticipation in the choice of princi-pals, and CORE and EQUAL werethe leaders of two massive city-wideschool boycotts several years ago.
The Union, it is true, did not do adecent job of presenting its own case.Given the active hostility of so manygroups this was an important and sur-prising default. During the summer nostaff members were assigned to work
with community and parent groupsand, in fact, most of the staff did notreturn from summer vacations untilthe eve of the strike- As a result. ittook more than a week for officialUFT leaflets to arrive. Major news-paper ads did not appear until severaldays after the strike began, and thetransit ads that stared down from busesand subways (and which had beenplaced there many months before) had
. . ,w. .. .~_ ., .;~- , - n -
-£ -,i,
MIDSTREAM-DECEMBER 1967
all the punchiness of a good soap adcampaign: "Teachers want better edu-cation."
Still by the time the strike was overthe press had conceded most of thefacts-albeit half-heartedly and oftenin such a way as to bury the issues.These facts were: (1) The teachers hadvirtually nothing in terms of salary in-creases to gain by the strike. (2) Nomajor fringe benefits for teachers wereat stake in the strike. (3) The crucialissues outstanding involved matters ofeducational policy: class size, schoolreorganization, use of personnel, etc.,matters that teachers believed were re-lated to elective education.
The two most controversial issueswere the handling of "disruptive" chil-dren and the expansion of the "MoreEffective Schools" (MES) program.
A NYONE WHO HAS READ about city
schools know that a serious de-terrent to attracting teachers is thecity schools' reputation for unruly pu-pils and difficult classroom discipline.The teachers have long believed thatthe city schools do not have adequatefacilities to relieve or assist teacherswith "difficult" children. The largeclass sizes, the differences in back-ground between teacher and pupils,the confusion resulting from the au-thoritarian climate of the school andits anti-authoritarian ideology, the lackof contact between school and family,the general contemporary rebellious-ness, particularly of minority groupchildren, the tougher educational de-mands of modern society-these factorsall combine to produce vastly complexdiscipline problems.
To cope with these situations theaverage young teacher without experi-ence is often at a loss. And these are theteachers that too often are expected tohandle the most difficult classrooms.Either of two things now happens tothe most difficult of such children: (1)
They remain within regular classrooms-disturbing their teachers and in turnbecoming more disturbed themselves.Meanwhile other children, bewilderedby the school's inability to keep "con-trol," become angry and confused too.The well-behaved children find thatprecisely by being "no trouble" theyare ignored and maximum and gener-ally useless attention goes toward the"disruptive" children. (2) If, on theother hand, the school does "do some-thing" to relieve the teacher, all thathappens is that it suspends the child,at first for a day or two and finally,with the approval of the District Su-perintendent and after a meeting withthe child's family, "indefinitely" (oftenmeaning forever). The parents are leftbewildered and without help, the childgenerally develops a strong sense ofrighteous grievance, and no one de-rives much benefit except those imme-diately relieved of the child's presencein school.
Since severe emotional problems aremore prevalent among the very poorand deprived, most such children inlarge cities are Negro or Puerto Rican.Furthermore, middle-class white chil-dren who have severe emotional prob-lems are more likely to be sent to pri-vate schools or to be receiving privatehelp from other agencies. Finally,symptoms of emotional problems aremore likely to be exhibited in areasin which children are already unableto achieve success. Thus, academicallysuccessful children with emotionalproblems are less likely to demonstratetheir problems within the school or todisplay them in ways destructive to thelearning situation.
THE ISSUE OF THE "disruptive" child
became critical last spring when theteachers in a Bronx junior high school,where the administration's failure tosolve severe discipline problems hadlong been a standing grievance, staged
,_ __ _. _ _-lrp r UL PII*~ %AIL ~_~*~~( ~ iP~ -lihT~*d
rns are, areasunablemicallyotionalnstrate1 or toto the
childen theschool,
ure tois hadstaged
THE NEW YORK TEACHERS' STRIKE
a wildcat strike for an immediate reso-lution of discipline problems. The de-mands of the teachers were extremeand tainted, some charged, with latentracial and class prejudices. As a resultthe few Negro teachers in this predom-inantly non-white school did not goout with their fellow teachers. How-ever, the strike was temporarily a "suc-cess" and the Board guaranteed to theteachers swifter and more decisive ac-tion in cases of student misbehavior.The position as it was then formulatedby the particular chapter and modi-fied by the union's Executive Board,provided relief for the teacher and therest of her class, but neither safeguardsfor the child nor his parents againstteacher error, nor educational andemotional help for those removed fromthe regular classrooms. It simply guar-anteed that after a specified number ofincidents had occurred a teacher couldunilaterally insist that disciplinary ac-tion-up to suspension-be taken.
Many community groups reactedsharply at the time. During the fol-lowing months a study by the CitizensSchools Committee was publishedwhich factually demonstrated that Ne-gro and Puerto Rican youngsters werethe primary targets of suspensions, andthat few suspended pupils ever re-ceived either academic or emotionalhelp. Not too long after, a lower courtruled that in view of the severity ofthe penalty, a child could not be sus-pended unless he had access to "dueprocess," including the right to a hear-ing at which he could be representedby a defender of his parent's choicewith access to all pertinent informa-tion.
The union leadership, already wor-ried about the wildcat strike and itsimpact, began to revise its own ap-proach in light of these developments.But the revisions were never an-nounced and thus when negotiationsbegan it was not surprising that the
41
story circulated that the union waspressing for teachers' unilateral rightto permanently suspend pupils at will.This was what the newspapers claimed,what community groups were told, andwhat many teachers believed too. Infact, back around the negotiating table,the union was presenting a new posi-tion far in advance of any of its crit-ics. The union proposed the establish-ment within each school district of an
independent Review Board, composedof a teacher, a parent and a third par-ty-psychologist, social worker, etc.-
acceptable to both. If, after attempts ihad been made within a school to findthe best solution to a child's problemsin regular classrooms, the teacher, theprincipal or the parent felt further ac-tion was necessary, they could insiston an investigation by this ReviewBoard. This Board would have accessto all information and would conductmeetings with all those involved. Itwould have responsibility for makingrecommendations and for following upon cases under its jurisdiction. Since,the union argued, it was important tokeep children with their fellow class-mates in regular classes, there shouldbe greater attention to new ways ofaiding teachers and students within theclass or of removing the child from hisregular class for only a part of theschool day.
Albert Shanker publicly announcedthis policy at numerous press confer-ences, but it finally reached the gen-eral newspapers only when Bayard Rus-tin made public a letter he had re-ceived from the union on this ques-tion. Even after this many of the pa-pers and opposition groups ignored theunion and continued to claim thatteachers were out for the power to kickkids out whenever they wanted to. Bythe end of the strike most of the majorpapers admitted to one degree or an-other that this was not the union's po-sition. The new position was reported
___._ _ _ Y .. :: .: .: _ .. ., _w .
I!42
however as: "establishment of an out-side committee to consider a teacher'srequest for 'permanent removal' of dis-ruptive pupils." Even after the NewYork Post and Times were stating itthis way, the Amsterdam News wasstill insisting that the union was seek-ing naked power for biased teachers tokick out black children. (The African-American Teachers Association stillcharges that the U.F.T.-sponsored pro-gram for the "so-called 'DisruptiveChild' ... was racist and did not meetthe needs of the community." General-ly, the more militant black groupsargued that there was no such phe-nomenon as "disruptive" children butonly "disruptive teachers."
THE OTHER ISSUE was the union de-mand for an expansion of the More
Effective Schools program-a union-ini-tiated effort of intensive, compensatoryeducation in 21 "disadvantaged" schoolneighborhoods. These schools combineall the standard but expensive itemsassociated with better education-small-er class size, more remedial teachers,more social workers, psychologists andaudio visual materials, better parent-teacher cooperation, etc. The UFTfeared that MES would follow in thetradition of Higher Horizons, anothermuch publicized, highly financed ef-fort at providing compensatory enrich-ment to disadvantaged neighborhoodschools. The Board began that "ex-perimental" program on a concen-trated and highly publicized basisamid much proof of success, and thenwatered it down until it could legiti-mately claim some years later that itwas no longer effective. Then it wasdropped. To avoid this the UFT an-nounced last year that maintenanceand expansion of MES standards andMES schools would be the major bar-gaining issue in 1967. The controversyover the MES schools consists not inwhether they do good, but whether
MIDSTREAM-DECEMBER 1967
they do enough good to justify the ex-pense. Dispute centers on interpreta-tion of their success as measured byscores on standard achievement tests.The most recent evidence suggests thatwhile some MES schools out-scored anycomparable non-MES ghetto schools,there were others that did not producehigher test scores. Dramatic academicimprovement, at least as measured bythese tests, did not occur. The onlyother clear facts were that MES teach-ers were happier, staff turnover wasgreatly reduced and parents unusuallyenthusiastic. Strangely enough, consid-ering the latter fact, the leaders ofHarlem's Poverty Corporation-HAR-YOU-ACT-joined conservative oppo-nents in demanding an end to the MESprogram. HARYOU-ACT's oppositionreflected the current ideological posi-tion within certain Black Power cir-cles that black children do not needanything special (not even what sub-urban parents take for granted). Theylust need unbiased teachers with theright pro-black ideology. Class size,number of books, specialists, etc. areunnecessary educational luxuries, theyclaim, in a language reminiscent attimes of reactionary white parental op-position to "progressive" education andacademic "frills."
CTUALLY BROTH Board of Educationmembers and Negro militants
were probably not reacting primarilyto the real merits or demerits of theMES, but to the issue of teacher "dic-tation" of policy. The Board reiter-ated time and again that it consideredthe question outside the province ofcollective bargaining. Black militantsechoed this: stick to your classrooms,don't meddle in policy-we're alwaysglad to hear your ideas, but the deci-sions are ours. The Board might feelobliged at last to give up some of itsprerogatives to angry, desperate parentand community groups-at I.S. 201 in
Brooklyn and Two Bridges on the low-er East Side-but it had no intention
of capitulating to teacher demands forparticipation in policy-making. TheNegro groups, in their drive for great-er power, also viewed the militancy ofthe teachers as a threat and preferredto look upon the teacher as a techni-cian who should be prepared to do asordered.
The final settlement was a moder-ate victory for the union. Somethingwas gained in every category. The vic-tories were not dramatic, many teach-ers were disgruntled and others wereunsure. The teachers, however, won aprocedure for "disruptive" childrenvery similar to the one they suggestedwith slightly modified powers for theReview Board. The contract reducedclass sizes slightly, eliminated certainnon-teaching chores from the teacher'sduties, outlined a new transfer proce-dure designed to insure more experi-enced teachers in Harlem schools,maintained and slightly expanded theprovisions for preparation periods inspecial service schools, eliminated thesubstitute teacher category, and cre-ated a liaison between Board andteachers on policy matters. Finally, itprovided for a fund of at least $5 mil-lion to be spent on intensive programs,not necessarily MES, in low-incomeareas. This fund would be spent underthe direction of a committee composedequally of representatives of teachers,parents and the Board.
The work stoppage or "strike" wasover and everyone tried to assess theimpact. The papers played up the de-leterious effect on parent-teacher rela-tions. The "strike" certainly shonelight on the antagonisms, but I doubtthat it really added much fuel. Duringthe early stages and in its immediatewake, tensions were probably intensi-fied. But by now the situation is backto "normal"-that is increasingly ex-
plosive in certain specific areas, mod-erately good and perhaps even improv-ing in rare individual schools, anddrifting in most. Insofar as it produced
a change, I would suspect it was ahealthy one. Teachers are aware of anddiscussing community and parent re-lationships to the school as they never
did before. They understand better theimportance of parental support. Theyare better able and willing to listeneven to the bitter and repetitive at-tacks made on teachers at meeting af-ter meeting. Many are, of course, un-comfortable in this new "awareness"and unsure where it will lead. Thereare others who are reacting with a kindof "backlash," especially teachers inall-white areas who read and hearabout these attacks but do not workin such communities, or others whohad particularly difficult experienceswith African-Nationalist groups. Thusmany delegates to the union's recentDelegate Assembly refused to acceptany proposal to make up for lost time,no matter how well they were paid forit, in a spirit dominated by a desirenot to accommodate to the commu-nity!
HE REAL REASON for the unprece-
dented anger this strike aroused isthat the teacher has become the focusof a new kind of public attention. Neverbefore has the school been consciouslyviewed as such a critical force in society.It is expected to play a social role itnever in the past assumed. It is no
longer viewed merely as the trainingground for specific skills or as the "fin-
ishing school" for an acknowledged elite
(which might co-opt a few select under-
privileged). Instead entire social groups
are looking to the educational institu-
tions to create or alter their future eco-
nomic and social status. Middle class,
working class, lower class-each has
distinct self-contradictory demands and
-P---~- ~ ---C
MIDSTREAM--DECEMBER 1967
expectations. Racial divisions compli-cate this even more.
For the middle and upper-middleclasses the school has become the focusof intense emotional and intellectualconcern. From a status or career view-point, academic success has never be-fore been so important as it is todayin industry, government and otherareas. Many parents therefore are open-ly out to find teachers, schools ormethods (beginning in pre-nurseryschool) that will make their childHarvard-potential. Other well-to-do
parents look to the school to give theirchildren a new passion for life, a be-lief and faith in the vitality of livingand in themselves, a task once assumedby the family. They look for teacherslike A. S. Neill of Summerhill Schoolin England or Sylvia Ashton-Warnerof the New Zealand infant schools (al-
though often secretly still hoping thatSummerhill will lead to Harvard).
Those middle-class parents whosechildren cannot make it into the pri-vate Summerhills or the French lycees,and who do not wish to flee to thesuburbs, turn to the public schoolswith an eye to influencing them. Theyfeel more righteously impatient be-cause they often view their child's mereattendance in the public school as avoluntary contribution to integration,a service to the less fortunate. Onegood turn, they reason, deserves an-other. In addition it is difficult forsuch parents with considerable expertknowledge about teaching technique,learning theory, mental health, not tomention phonics and new math, notto second-guess the teachers, whosebackground and biases are more likelyto be lower-middle class and middle-brow.
The more modest middle- and work-ing-class families are more easily satis-fied, except that they are impatientwith any new-fangled educational gim-micks," and demand merely lots of
homework, discipline, three "R's," and"no fooling around." They also wantless "social engineering," i.e. integra-tion, and continually threaten theschool system with "trouble" if fur-ther integration is attempted. Whilethis group is less likely to move to thesuburbs or send their children to fancyprivate schools, they are, at least inNew York, largely the parents whomparochial schools appeal to.
F THE LOWER-CLASS, economically
marginal parents, the whites arerarely heard from and are, perhaps, themost forgotten of all groups. But theNegro, and lately the Puerto Ricanpoor, are, at last, becoming a majorforce for school change. They consti-tute, for one thing, probably a major-ity of the school population. Past pas-sivity, which was a mixture of fear andrage, ignorance and awe, is giving way.As the schools are more openly at-tacked by powerful middle-class groups,past taboos against criticizing theteacher are dropped by less militant in-dividuals too. The general mood ofblack militancy also gives courage toangry parents-some wild and para-noic, others just miserable with con-cern. And a certain irrefutable logic(and one wonders that it took so longin coming) makes many black parentsask:
"If this country is smart enough toget to the moon, rich enough to fighta war thousands of miles from ourshores for God knows what reasons,then how can anyone explain why theycannot teach our children just to readproperly? It cannot be lack of know-how or power or resources, and we nolonger believe it's because we are nogood. It must be that society does notwant to do the job. And how do theyavoid doing it? By sending us teacherswho do not teach our kids the sameway and the same stuff they teach oth-
engineering," i.e. integra-continually threaten thein with "trouble" if fur-
tion is attempted. Whileless likely to move to the
end their children to fancyrols, they are, at least in
largely the parents whomhools appeal to.
LOWER-CLASS, economicallynal parents, the whites arefrom and are, perhaps, theen of all groups. But thelately the Puerto Rican
t last, becoming a majortool change. They consti-
thing, probably a major-bool population. Past pas-was a mixture of fear andIce and awe, is giving way.,ols are more openly at-werful middle-class groups,
against criticizing theropped by less militant in-3. The general mood oficy also gives courage tots-some wild and para-just miserable with con-certain irrefutable logic
orders that it took so long:akes many black parents
untry is smart enough tooon, rich enough to fightands of miles from our,od knows what reasons,anyone explain why theyour children just to readcannot be lack of know-r or resources, and we noe it's because we are no
be that society does notle job. And how do theyt? By sending us teachersteach our kids the samesame stuff they teach oth-
TIIE NEW YORK TEACHERS' STRIKE
er children. They make sure our kids
fail."Since poor people, like most Ameri-
cans, view teaching as a matter of "tell-
ing," and learning as a matter of "lis-
tening," then their conclusion is that
ghetto teachers are not telling it rightto black kids or else they won't make
black kids listen.Put that way it makes a lot of sense,
and it surely explains the anger in thevarious Harlems.
And, after all, there is a lot of truthto it. To begin with we do not applytoward learning the kind of energy,tenacity and brain power that we dotoward space theory. And while thisinjures all children, it is less disastrousfor those whose families provide thekind of background which makeslearning within the school of less con-sequence. Secondly we do not expendthe resources on education that we doon space, war, highways, etc., and whatwe do spend on education is dispropor-tionately spent on those least in needof it. Finally, many teachers and schooladministrators are biased: some aremerely sadistic toward all children,others toward those without middle-class manners. The overwhelming ma-jority are prejudiced both toward non-whites and toward the "shiftless" poor,some without intention, some throughthoughtlessness, some out of their ownfrustration in the teaching situation,and some consciously because of racistconvictions. And even those who arefond of the children often harborstrong dislikes and lack of respect fortheir parents.
ET WHEN ALL THIS is said, the fact
remains that the "plot" which an-gry lower-class non-whites believe indoes not exist and biased teachers donot explain the depth of our crisis.The African-American Teachers Asso-ciation is doubly naive when it de-mands that the UFT and the Board
of Education "admit it never intended
to educate black children." For even
where no racial bias exists (where it
is whites teaching the white poor, orblack educators teaching the black
poor) and even where the educators
are clearly the most dedicated, we have
yet to make a major breakthrough increating an educational system that
truly educates, and not merely trains,the lower classes.
For learning is nowhere near so sim-
ple a matter as merely "telling" and
no teacher can succeed in producinglearning in an atmosphere of mutualmistrust, rage, fear, anxiety and vindi-
cativeness. It is this atmosphere, which
has long characterized public education
in general and which is rampant inghetto schools in an exaggerated form,that is the main enemy of learning.
Where children's energies are pri-marily focused on protecting their bas-
ic sense of well-being, holding backdamaging rages, resisting authoritieswhose aims they fear, then learninghas a poor chance. Many new teachersannually enter the system intending todo away with all of this and "reachout" to their children. Many try, and
perhaps the very best are among thosewho quit in those first few years orwho flee from the "difficult" neighbor-hoods into the suburbs or privateschools. Almost all those who remainlong in the system begin to succumbto the teacher's easiest rationale forfailure-it's the parents' fault anyhow.
This is the counterpart to the parentrationale that it's "all the teachers'fault." Like its counterpart it also hasa certain "irrefutable" simplicity andlogic. Teachers too have their storiesabout parent brutality toward chil-dren, parent neglect and indifference,authoritarianism and capriciousness,etc.
Yet it is precisely because teachingis "only" a job that teachers are in abetter position to understand, and to
MIDSTREAM-DECEMBER 1967
bend a little further. But few teachersseem able or willing to comprehendthe extent of the bitterness and despairwhich a lower-class Negro mother feelswhen she says "it's the teacher's fault."For the failure of education dooms thiswoman's child, and her entire socialclass and ethnic group, to a hopelessstatus within a society of incomparableopportunity.
Unlike past lower-class immigrantgroups, the black poor today have onlythe option of education as a way intothis constantly tempting, seeminglyoverabundant mainstream. Time waswhen the American poor, who thenconstituted a majority, saw an escape,a way "up," based on the vast demandfor unskilled labor. This escape nolonger exists. Only after they hadachieved moderate financial stabilityand a sense of "belonging" to a well-organized working class, did the formerimmigrants turn to education as ameans of upgrading their child's future.But the non-white was specifically andpurposely excluded from pursuing thatpath at that period; that option wasdenied him.
Having excluded Negroes from thatroad into the mainstream, we offerthem now only one quick way to makeup for our past discrimination -
through academic success. And thenwe say: but, alas, you're not really fitfor that either.
THE TEACHERS' UNION, to its credit,recognized this stalemate. And in
the attempt to sidestep the "it's yourfault" contest, it switched its old rolethis fall and decided to go all out foreducational reform rather than teacherbenefits. But the leadership, probablyahead of its membership in this recog-nition, was fearful of going too far outahead. And because they dared not goall out for really significant educa-tional reforms, many of their demandshad the ring of being "old cliches." The
union, as a result, could not really pre-tend to parents that if the Board con-ceded to every UFT demand, educa-tion in New York would really be sub-stantially better. And, as the history ofthe disruptive child issue demonstrates,the union was often insensitive to thefeelings of parents, or felt obliged tosoft-pedal excellent demands or empha-size irrelevant ones in order to main-tain the solidarity of its own ranks.
It is of course questionable whether,given the eagerness with which manyghetto parents, aided and abetted byeven more angry Nationalist groups,sought revenge against teachers, anyprogrammatic demands that the unionmade could have had support in Har-lem. "It's too late for anything youhave to say. You've had your day.You're guilty, guilty, guilty. Let ustake over," they shouted. Vengeancewas at least as sweet as anything manyhad tasted for years.
But the vast majority of Harlemparents, while sympathetic to BlackPower slogans and logic, are also sym-pathetic to the opposite kind of defen-sive and apologetic positions. Few havea consistent ideology, and thus they areready to applaud many differentthings. "Nationalism" and hostility toteachers speak to something in all,but what is incredible is that many arestill open to hope, to an awakening onterms more compatible with good edu-cation. For this to become possible itwill require changes not merely in theinternal line-up within the UFT, notmerely in the attitude of teachers inHarlem or throughout the city; it willrequire educational resources from theState and Federal government, newemployment possibilities for Negroyouth, improved training programs forhigh school graduates aimed at realcareers, new housing and recreationalfacilities-in other words, a new com-mitment from society as a whole, notmerely from teachers.
.
.: Y . .'
.1967
' pre-
con-
duca-sub-
ry ofrates,
the:d toipha-nain-S.
ther,nany
I by)Ups,any
nionHar-youday.t us
ance
iany
clemlacksym-
!fen-iaveare
rent
y to
all,areon
2du-e itthenot
inwillthe
aew:grofor
Foal
aial
otm-
not.
THE NEW YORK TEACHERS' STRIKE
In the meantime the struggle will
go on within the educational systemwith, as Albert Shanker said on the
day of victory, "the common victimsof the inadequacy of the school system
... turning on each other." The direc-tion the union took was right. But,Shanker went on, "the problems of theschools are so overwhelming that this
kind of piecemeal approach may not
avert disaster." Yet is the union pre-pared to offer something more compre-hensive and less piecemeal?
Failure to do so will surely lead toparental hysteria, for no parent cancalmly and objectively discuss the com-ing "disaster" that faces his own child.In coming up with their own program,teachers may have some effect in con-vincing parents that if we are to havegood education it takes more thanbetter bosses-it takes better teachingmethods, better ways of organizing ourclassrooms. Good teaching requires thecreation of good learning environ-ments. And in the creation of this theteacher plays a critical role. Learning
of some sort occurs no matter how
classes are organized or what teachersdo, but unfortunately what is learnedis usually not what teachers, the Boardor the public intends. In order forlearning to be related to what the pub-lic and the teachers intend, the teachermust be in a position to control thelearning environment. High pay, tech-nical skill and dedication are notenough. The teacher who accepts theorder to get back to his "duty" andstop interfering in policy is alreadyderelict. There is no such thing as"dedication to duty" separate from theduty to insist upon standards underwhich learning can occur.
In offering such a program, in de-manding such standards, and in riskingtheir security in a daily struggle forthem, teachers might yet play a rolein igniting the sparks that could lighta new movement for change in whichparents and teachers might join to-gether.
