UEA Opposes Education Improvement

From my perspective, the UEA opposes improving academic achievement.  I know many wonder how this could be.  Remember, the top priority of the union is to preserve the union.  All else is secondary.  Most organizations and individuals will work with legislator, even when there is a disagreement.  They understand the importance of helping educate legislators on their particular issues and recognize that they will be working together on other issues in the future.  Unfortunately, the UEA takes the approach that if you are not with them 100% of the time, then you are against them.  A highly polarizing approach.

Also, it appears that the UEA goes out of its way to not educate legislators.  Trying to reach out to the newly elected UEA presidents, Kim Campbell, I sent the following email on September 9, 2006:

Kim,

I was wondering if you would share with me your top 5-10 recommendations for improving the effectiveness of public education (both short-term and long-term) as well as how those recommendations would ulitmately improve the learning experience.  I appreciate your insights.

Thanks,

-John D.

I received no response.  Over the following 6 months I followed up repeatedly with both Ms Campbell and others employed full-time with the UEA.  Still no response.  The non-verbal message received:  We are unwilling to talk about ways to improve public education.  To talk about improvement would require an openness to admit that some things can be done better.  It would require a discussion about change and the UEA opposes change.  The union's ralling cry has been "Students Deserve More," as in more of the same, rather that "Students Deserve A Better Learning Experience" or "Students Deserve The Best Qualified Teacher in the Classroom" or "Students Deserve High Academic Achievement."  The UEA opposes giving teachers greater choice in their compensation.  The UEA opposes giving parents greater choice in education.  The UEA opposes rewarding excellent teachers and dimissing the continually ineffective teachers (as well as giving the increased pay to those excellent teachers that ultimately have to make up for those lost learning opportunity).  It even opposes steps to ensure reading literacy by the 3rd grade.

I'm glad that most of my local Alpine Education Association (AEA) leaders aren't cut from the same cloth.  They are always prompt to return calls and emails, willing to dialogue while providing feedback and recommendations, even when we disagree on issues.

Comments

[Obi wan liberali]

"Remember, the top priority of the union is to preserve the union." That is a big assumption that I think is unfair. The vast majority of educators I know are always looking for ways to improve academic performance. Like any profession, teachers want to be heard and have a voice and have organized to have that voice.

Realtors become realtors to make money, not so they can strengthen the "Board of Realtors." The Board of Realtors serves it's purpose and it does it's job well. But since I can honestly say that teachers aren't in education for the money, I can ony assume that most of them are in it for the satisfaction they get from seeing students progress and being part of that progression.

[John Dougall]

It's absolutely accurate. Every business works to perpetuate itself. The union is just another business. The union agenda doesn't always align with the agenda of individual teachers. There are many teachers who care deply about improving education. Unfortunately, that isn't the focus of the union.

I hate to break it to you, but some teachers are in the profession for the money, including healthcare benefits, pension, and summer breaks. Other teachers thrive on helping students learn and excel. Unfortunately, that worthy objective does not appear to be the motivation of every teacher.