AFT Convention Report 1983

Hide Document

t

AFT CONVENTION REPORT -19'83

. ,

SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS


EDUCATION REFORM

I. Education Today: What We Face
American public education is now experiencing
the kind of attention this nation has not given it
since the days of Sputnik in the late '50s and the
era of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act in the mid '60s. It is a time of both tremendous
opportunity and potential danger. During this
historic period, there are two possible agendas for
education's consideration. One includes tuition tax
credits for private schools, to the certain detriment
of the public school system. The other represents
the possibility of a great public education renewal
and revival. The choices we make now may decide
for years to come whether or not public education,
will have the human resources, both to survive, and
to provide for the nation at large.
Education must not experience the disasters we
are now witnessing in other fields. Those worn·out
bridges we have been warned about in recent years
are now falling down. Just as this nation has
neglected its roads, bridges, railroads and basic in·
dustries like auto and steel, so too could it con·
tinue to passively watch the erosion of its human
resources. Education's traditional pools of talent
are now drying up. The older professionals who
emerged from the Depression years are retiring.
The, talented women and minorities to whom
teaching was one of the few available careers now
go elsewhere.
. Repairing our national infrastructure will take
years of commitment and substantial resources.
Insuring quality education will also demand time
and money. Neither are passing fads. Without
serious attention both sets of problems will only
become worse.

The American Federation of Teachers was
among the first to argue that developing human
capital takes intelligent investment. Before us now,
in response to this argument, are a series of critical
but constructive reports, analyzing public educa·
tion's contemporary problems and offering many
worthy, and some debatable, solutions. The most
important of these are well known by now: "A Na·
tion at Risk: The Imperative for Educational
Reform," the report of the National Commission on
Excellence in Education; "Action for Excellence,"
produced by the Education Commission of the
States' Task Force on Economic Growth; and the
"Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force
on Federal/Elementary and Secondary Education
Policy." From these can arise both discussion and
action on sound education reform. i

We believe that these reports can become a
serious part of our national agenda only if those
who act on them at every level recognize that
change and improvement I cost money. Neither
RORald Reagan nor any local school board should
think we will be fooled into believing that changes
can be made without added resources.

We have also argued strenuously that tuition tax
credits, whether they be instituted federally, at the
state level or locally, offer a recipe for dismantling
public education. It is impossible to underestimate
the ammunition the recent Supreme Court decision
upholding Minnesota's tuition tax deduction plan
gives to the advocates of tuition tax credits .
Bolstered with renewed energy, the push for tuition
tax credits 'can divert our attention away from con·
structive reform. Besides being dangerous, it can
sap our energy and make us defensive. The time is
upon us when virtually every policy move we make
in education should be measured in terms of its

64



potential impact in the war over tuitio~ tax credits.
In these circumstances, the Amencan Federa


"

tion of Teachers will make a clear choice. There is
much in the new reports and the moves for reform
that we laud and commend. We will choose constructive
engagement with all who support the
public education system, critical though they may
be of teachers, over any isolated, rigid position that
could have the effect of courting tuition tax credits.
Besides, we think the public schools need changing
anyway. The time to act is now if we are to have
the necessary talent to run the schools of tomorrow.
Our agenda will be to:

• upgrade the public education program, and in
so doing enlist broad public support for the
schools;
• find ways to recruit and keep a quality teaching
force;
• prevent the enactment of tuition tax credit
plans at all levels-federal, state and local.
11_ Quality Education and Quality Teaching-A
New Agenda

The American Federation of Teachers welcomes
the discussion now under way among leading
figures in education, business, labor and government
over the need to tighten standards of excellence
in the public schools. We repeat here, as
we have said elsewhere, our stance in favor qf:

• stricter high school graduation requirements in
academic subjects including math, science,
English, history, and foreign languages, though not
at the expense of other essentials like music, art,
and vocational education;
• the use of fair and objective student testing to
insure a continuing relationship between school
and grade completion and educational content;
• increased homework assignments;
• tougher requirements for student discipline;
• transfer of students who repeatedly prevent
others from learning to alternative settings until
such time as they are able to return to a regular
classroom setting;
• curriculum review and renewal to insure use of
the best materials and updated information,
especially in areas like science, math, and computer
education.
Since our special responsibility is to insure the
future of quality teaching, we are particularly concerned
that today's education reform movement
not come up with faulty solutions and misguided
emphasis. We are firm in our view that only competent
· teachers should be in the classrooms of this
nation's schools. We believe that excellence
should be rewarded. We are distressed that the
teaching profession is proving to be less and less
attractive to high quality potential recruits and that
it is losing some of its best and brightest to m~re
lucrative private sector jobs. We also recognl~e
that whatever solutions are offered to address thiS
problem could significantly transform our schools.
This is not a simple problem that can be patched
over with superficial answers.

The American Federation of Teachers welcomes
the opportunity to discuss this problem openly.

While we have no final judgments, we have views
and concerns. We believe that some options
should take priority over others. Incentive payor
discretionary merit pay is not the first and best way
to insure teacher quality. Unfortunately, the public
and the media are giving it more attention than it
deserves. In fact, it is our fear that a preoccupation
with this Single idea will divert attention away from
a set of proposals much more likely to solve the
problem. In our view a real solution would include:

• An insistence on beginning teacher tests
which will set a high standard for entry level
teacher recruits. Minimum competency is not
enough. All beginning teachers should be tested
and required to meet a standard which represents
at least the average of all college graduates.
• Higher teacher certification requirements that
specifically include gre~ter emphalilis on subject
matter competence ancl'less emphasis on methods
courses.
• Radical increases in beginning teacher pay.
Unless teachers can start teaching with salaries
equivalent to those of other college graduates, we
will stand no chance of attracting good candidates.
This will mean entry salaries at least $6,000 to '
$8,000 higher than the current ones.
• Salary amounts and patterns that encourage
good teachers to stay in the profession. Salary
schedules of 10 to 12 very small steps, spread out
over a decade or more in years, can hardly serve
this purpose. Keeping good teachers is more likely
with adequate salary schedules of 3 to 5 years at
most.
• The need to maintain teacher excitement and
intellectual stimulation. Teachers want to teach
courses that are challenging to students who are
interested. At least part of the attention given to
curriculum should also focus on how all teachers
can have schedules, courses, retraining and
enrichment opportunities that act as incentives for
them to continue in the profession.
• Assurance that whatever measures schools
take to improve discipline and minimize disruption-
not turn teachers into policemen. Discipline
codes and school organfzation patterns should not
burden teachers with responsibilities that sap their
energies and divert their attention away from their
proper teaching role.
• Expanded opportunities for teacherS to help
new teachers, to implement staff development
plans and to create patterns of collegial.ity t~at insure
ongoing professional renewal. ThiS Will undoubtedly
cause major revision of the current
authority structure in schools and considerably
alter the traditional role of the principal. We favor
change that would further separate administrative
functions from educational leadership.
• Implementation of fair and practical methods
for removing incompetent teachers from the profession.
These must involve due process and be
based on evaluation criteria which teachers regard
as objective and reasonable.
III. New Compensation Proposals
.
While we put our faith in reform measures like
65



.~ those cited above, we cannot ignore the current IV. The Unfinished Agenda

misguided preoccupation with the idea that incentive
payor discretionary merit pay is the most important
cure for what ails the ta'aching profession.
We do not accept this view. There is little evidence
to support it. We recognize that the public wants a
response on this issue, and so we will offer one.
But, we hope thinking about it will not turn
business, pOlicy-makers and educators away from
more fundamental and sound solutions.

Traditionally such pay plans have been plagued
with serious flaws. The history of such efforts is
riddled with failure owing to their inherent subjectivity,
staff morale problems and the cumbersome
nature of their administration. Few such plans
reward more than a few teachers. Most keep the
vast majority of teacher salaries low. All of this has
been well documented. '

But this said, we do think that some of the more
recent proposals allowing the advancement of
large numbers of teachers to "master teacher"
type career roles involving extra pay warrant consideration.
Therefore, while merit pay is not AFT
policy, under certain circumstances state federations
and locals may feel the need to negotiate
such plans. In such circumstances they should
meet the following criteria:

• Any new compensation plan should have as a
fundamental a higher base pay for all teachers.
• Evaluation cannot be left solely to principals
and supervisors who have traditionally made subjective
judgments about te,acher competence
based more on favoritism and patronage than
merit. New evaluation patterns should be
negotiated and must offer protections against subjectivity
and local school politics.
• Those who do not receive extra pay should suffer
no loss of tenure, job security or status.
• Decisions to grant additional pay must be subject
to appeal and review procedures that are fair
and objective.
• Any financial rewards offered must be part of a
plan committed to improving the conditions and
pay of teachers who function in classrooms, and
not simply result in adding new layers of administration.
• The possibility of applying for and receiving additional
pay above a basic salary should be open to
all applicants voluntarily. It should also be actually
awarded to substantial proportions of the teaching
force.
• Once additional compensation is made it
should not be subject to diminution.
• Evaluation criteria should reflect the complexity
of all the factors contributing to teacher and student
success. Any simplistic efforts to measure
teacher success using student achievement
scores should be opposed.
• Even if the above criteria are met, conditions
vary locally and in different states. Therefore, such
plans should not be imposed on teachers and
should not be adopted unless they are acceptable
to teachers through collective bargaining or other
appropriate actions.
We caution all educators and policy-makers that
in the drive to raise standards, insist on excellence,
and crack down on laxness and discipline, we not
neglect those difficult children who are prone to
failure. For almost twenty years, our public schools
have concerned themselves with reaching the
underserved and the disadvantaged. Any new emphasis
on quality must continue with this goal. If
raising standards creates problems for some, then
they must get speCial help. No new-found concentration
on stringency and performance should
cause an increase in dropping out, a decline in high
school graduation or the creation of schools that
do not deliver for every child. Part of the adjustment
we may have to make must include the
strengthening of special programs for children with
speCial needs. . .'

This kind of concern was behind nearly two
decades of growth in federal education dollars for
the poor, the handicapped and the non-English
speaking. Those dollars, and the dollars added to
them at the state and local levels, have produced
profoundly successful results. Research has
documented these results over and over again. No
argument for quality and excellence can ignore this
experience. Nor should any new emphasis replace
a continuing effort to serve these groups.

There can be no conflict between the goals of
equal educational opportunity and educational excellence.
Achieving both will cost money. We accept
no cheap denials of the fact that in education
dollars and standards must go hand in hand,
whether for the tested programs we know will work,
or for the new ones we are about to try.

V. An Action Plan
Our dialogue has already begun on these mat·
ters with the education, media, government and
business worlds. In order to continue it at an even
higher level and in even greater intensity we plan to
initiate a series of internal discussions among our
own leaders and members on the future details of
our ,further response. We also intend to formalize
our consultations with leaders in the broader socie·
ty who are concerned with these issues. To begin
its program the American Federation of Teachers
announces its intention to:

• Invite a number of notable leaders from all
walks of me to serve on a special AFT Advisory
Commission on Educational Quality. This group
will be asked to consult with us regularly on the
best ways of implementing education reform.
• Initiate a series of regional conferences beginning
this fall to discuss reform issues and to
recommend methods for carrying out change.
• Continue our efforts to defeat tuition tax
credits by discussing their implications for public
education and by opposing the election of any
public official who supports them.
These steps represent only a beginning. We intend
to approach the opportunity before us as one
that will require enduring creativity and fortitude.
We also believe that without this kind of effort the

66



public schools that. made this country great face
possible demise. It is with this in mind that we
choose to rethink our ways of defending them, and
through that process, hope to make them better.
(1983)



Hide Document