Editor’s note: Peter Huidekoper, Jr., is a veteran educator and creator of the “Another View” newsletter.
Some will call this a stretch, but one way to shed light on the reason we have teachers unions is to hear from a great Russian novelist, Fyodor Dostoevsky; specifically, to look at perhaps the most widely discussed chapter (and most widely excerpted—it was in two anthologies I was assigned freshmen year in college) from The Brothers Karamazov.
I taught this chapter myself when I first offered a Russian literature class to high school juniors and seniors in Vermont. Great works of art, we believe, are timeless. Maybe it is not so strange to think these 20 pages might tell us about one of our most troubling issues in K-12 public education in America.
Like many teachers, I had experiences with the union that disappointed or frustrated me. Observing school reform from inside and outside the classroom, I have criticized the stance taken by teachers’ associations on several issues. At the same time, I share a conviction that teachers’ views are given short shrift by policymakers and the district office, that class size IS a central factor in teacher effectiveness and student achievement, and that the latest obsession with teacher evaluation could, if badly implemented, do more harm than good.
But post-Tucson, after reminders to be civil and avoid “going negative” and President Obama’s request that we “expand our moral imagination,” I thought it might help to offer a quiet meditation—not a harsh attack—on unions. It may shed light on why most public schools teachers join the local teachers’ associations. If this comes close to a truth about the attraction, perhaps it also serves as a warning.
And yet it is an explosive topic. A too-literal reading of this will assume I am anti-Catholic—or that the teachers union is in league (like the powerful cleric in this chapter) with the devil. Dear reader, it’s about an idea, a view of human nature. If you don’t see the parallels, I can’t force them on you. Or maybe, as Ivan Karamazov says to his brother as he concludes his tale, “It’s only a senseless poem of a senseless student…”
The Grand Inquisitor
Ivan’s parable, called “The Grand Inquisitor” (Book V, Chapter V in the novel), is set in Seville, Spain, in the sixteenth century—“in the most terrible time of the Inquisition.” The 90-year-old cardinal, the Grand Inquisitor, sees that Christ has returned and begins to win a new following, and so has him taken prisoner. The old man visits Jesus in his prison cell and tells Him how he and the Church have “corrected” His fundamental error—made 1500 years earlier.
In essence, the Grand Inquisitor tells Christ that He wanted human beings to be free—to choose to follow Him or not. But this places too great a burden on them. Men prefer security to freedom; they want bread, not responsibility. So in Ivan’s astonishing version of history, the Catholic Church has invited people to submit—to the Church, not to Christ—to secure some degree of happiness. It has “saved” them, it protects them, from the suffering inevitable for those who live as free men and women. Because His way would reverse everything the church is now all about, the Grand Inquisitor threatens to burn Christ the next day “as the worst of heretics”—a second crucifixion.
“For fifteen centuries we have been wrestling with Thy freedom, but now it is ended and over for good … let me tell Thee now, today, the people are more persuaded than ever that they have perfect freedom, yet they have brought their freedom to us and laid it humbly at our feet… I tell Thee that man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find some one quickly to whom he can hand over that gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born…”
“Thou didst think too highly of men…. So we have corrected Thy work…. And men rejoiced that they were again led like sheep, and that the terrible gift that had brought them such suffering was, at last, lifted from their hearts.”
According to Lionel Trilling, “no other work of literature has made so strong an impression on the modern consciousness or has seemed so relevant to virtually any speculation about the destiny of man.” Trilling, one of America’s greatest literary critics, says
“The Grand Inquisitor” is prophetic of the 20th century totalitarian state exercising “control over the actions of its citizens,” attempting “to win their acquiescence and attachment by providing (or promising) material and social benefits that will relieve them of care and anxiety. It represents itself in a paternal guide, as taking responsibility for the well-being of its people, on condition that they delegate—actually surrender—to the government their will and initiative.”
School life
This teacher wondered why intelligent, thoughtful colleagues could turn to the union—could immediately think, “file a grievance!”—when so many options (like a rational conversation, or an open debate, with the administration) seemed possible. I wondered why colleagues submitted to group-think and turned on a colleague I admired—who crossed the picket line that fall we went on strike. Or why colleagues were so intent on keeping the new administration in check—running battles, it seemed, to test who was in charge (them or us); to make mountains out of molehills in order to keep the union’s power in tact—or as leverage for the next contract negotiation. The union I saw gave voice to a few, yes—our union representatives—but it was striking how many teachers merely echoed their leaders’ complaints.
The unions claim to give a voice to the beleaguered and put-upon teacher. “United we stand,” I guess; no individual educator can influence an election or a piece of legislation, union money and lobbyists can. But as the teachers union seldom expressed my views, I saw I would actually be surrendering my voice. When teaching that Russian literature class in the fall of 1980—including One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn—I picked up the Vermont Education Association’s material and was told VEA members should vote to re-elect Jimmy Carter. Solzhenitsyn was in exile two hours away, in Vermont, for speaking up to a totalitarian state. The Soviet army was in Afghanistan; President Carter seemed surprised that the Kremlin could be so wicked. In contrast, Ronald Reagan understood the invasion as part of a pattern over the past 60 years—of an evil empire.
It is not that my vote for Reagan that November felt right. But it mattered to me then, as it matters to many of us in the teaching profession, that we find our own voice.
Need for protection, or “the gift of freedom”?
My conflicts with principals surely made me wonder if I had colleagues who would stand up with me. I wanted their respect. What I did not want was their protection, or a structure that turned a difference of opinion into a labor-management issue. Yes, a reprimand from the administration made me unhappy. One winter I felt compelled to sign a piece of paper promising the administration I would never bring up the subject of the daily schedule—for two years I had questioned the block schedule—as long as I was on the staff. Humiliating.
Another principal hurt my pride by coming into my classroom, as I taught, to inspect “the lesson plans that need to be on your desk.” It was my 15th year as a teacher, but it felt as if I were in year one, as if I needed to fear her judgment to try hard to be prepared each morning.
Many uneasy moments. But there was always a choice. Speak up; perhaps go too far and get fired; compromise; or resign. It was up to me. And I could live with that. Not easily. But you sign an at will contract—as I did most of my 18 years of teaching—and accept it.
Ivan’s parable is cynical to some, but it gives us one way to understand why so many teachers join and stay. Is it a factor why most teachers prefer the safety of the union’s hold? Does it explain union opposition, time after time, to reforms leading to more freedom—schools granted waivers to control their personnel decisions; more flexibility on employee work rules—expectations that go past 3:30, even on to Saturday, and beyond the 175-day contract; teachers allowed to skip much of the required coursework through the alternative license program? Too much freedom!
The union’s grumbling resistance brings to mind the old folks in Footloose. Rock music? Dancing? “No, no, no, that’s not a good idea.” Frightened of this new freedom. Fearing a loss of control.
“All he wanted to do was dance”
I won’t say I am proud of leaving six teaching jobs. Stability and continuity have their place. And I would never argue a school community is well served by a principal who is allowed to mistreat his or her faculty. It feels awful to be silenced by a principal. But you can resign.
We all want to work in a healthy work environment. I found the best—and the worst—climates in private and charter schools with no union “to protect my job.” My conclusion? That’s life. “The gift of freedom” includes risks. This is news?
When I started at a new school and struggled in my first month with the principal’s micromanagement, a friend said: caveat emptor (as if it were my fault I hadn’t seen these tendencies before I took the job). But when you “buy” into a school there is much hidden from view; less benign patterns only come to light once you join the team and show up every day. Again, c’est la guerre.
We’re big boys and girls, I want to say to the union; we can fight our own battles, thank you. Your “security” does not make me more free. Just the opposite. Like most everyone, I always wanted a school community where I felt I belonged. A few times I found it. No need, from my experience, to seek that belonging—that safe haven—in a union whose beliefs I do not share.
Popularity: 25% [?]
So how many hours past 3:30, on Saturday, and beyond the 175 day school year should teachers be expected to work without compensation? Should it be a teacher’s moral obligation to work for free for the betterment of society? Does the same hold true for fire fighters and police officers? How about our armed forces? Should they be paid a just salary or is their patriotic duty enough fire to keep them going? I just don’t see my administration paying me a living wage with out the backing of my association.
Peter,
I always enjoy your thoughtful analysis. We are politically on different sides of the divide, but I have my own issues with teacher unions. Nonetheless, I belonged to a union when I first taught. I was accused of improperly touching a sixth grade girl in an after-school rehearsal for a play. I had legal representation from the start, which I greatly appreciated. The girl backed off her accusation, so my career wasn’t threatened. Yet, the union backing was appreciated. I have not belonged again to a union, but often wonder about legal protection in this society.
I believe strongly enough in the power of unions to change society from studying of history; I also believe that unions have been greatly weakened since Reagan shut down the air traffic controllers. Thus, I support the public employee unions in Wisconsin, more for the symbolic efforts to bring back a strong middle class. The pendulum has swung too far the other way. When tax breaks for the rich pass easily through Congress and the burden of bad economic times falls disproportionately to the poor and middle class, it no longer feels like an issue of freedom. When energy companies write energy policy and environmental safeguards are short-sightedly seen as anit-business, something is wrong. When the rest of the world has high-speed rail and modern infrastructure, yet such spending is seen as wasteful, we are in trouble.
Finally, I stand with you on reform efforts. When I see KIPP schools or Big Picture Company Schools breaking the mold and getting kids into college I know we can do better. What is the answer? Keep agitating for these successful school models until mediocre schools disappear. In many cases the NEA and AFT are the enemies of reform, so pro-union folks like myself can push these institutions harder. I believe Obama is striking the right balance in his position. Unfortunately, we might not see the changes we would like until the US is a second-rate country. I heard Japanese students are turning away from science and math in droves. What is it about economic success and comfort that creates more artists, poets and philosophers?
Thanks very much David. I appreciate all that. Means a lot to get that kind of response. Thanks, Peter -
Peter, thanks for a very thoughtful piece. Takes me back to reading these Dostoevsky pieces in college and afterward. Maybe they are fodder for a future essay, but my questions are as follows: Would you say that the tendency for men to clamor for security over freedom is more predominant among the current class of public educators (granted there always being exceptions like yours) than among the general population? If so, how does that affect students? How crucial is this point to restoring a broader teacher professionalism, and how much responsibility do teachers own in that process relative to other players? What policy solution if any do you see to address the situation effectively? At least here in Colorado, teachers have the basic right to choose whether or not to join or support a union. But I believe we still have a long ways to go.
Thnaks so much Ben. Great questions–to ponder! Thanks, Peter
There are so many sides to this issue. As a pro-union advocate, I see my membership as a chance to speak up for children. As a National Board Certified Teacher who works well beyond the contract day you described, who has had positive evaluations year after year, and whose students test well by all standards, I would never leave the teacher’s association. One of the biggest contested issues in our last negotiations was whether the schools had to enforce their own discipline codes. It is impossible to teach when there is no accountability on the part of the students in the room for their behavior or their efforts. A big factor that is ALWAYS overlooked when folks talk about the success of magnet programs or charter school is the process by which most students are enrolled. Step one is that a PARENT must want their child in the program and take steps to enroll him or her. Such parents tend to support education and want their children held accountable. That makes all of the difference in the world. If there is no support for teachers from parents or administration, ALL children in that classroom are cheated. I watch the good students sigh, roll their eyes, and struggle to get their fair share of the teacher’s attention. They are the ones who tug at my heart. They deserve better. There is no doubt that there are some teachers that should go, but until students and parents are also held accountable, good teachers will either leave or give up. Without an association to speak for them, teachers become scapegoats.
I went from teaching in an at-risk program with almost no parent support to a magnet program with high parent support over the course of three months. If one looked at test scores, it would seem that my teaching skills improved exponentially over that summer. It’s not that my current kids are geniuses. They are simply kids who want to learn from families with the same goals. That’s all that almost any teacher needs, and the Education Associations are the only ones pointing this out.
Without unions, workers would have little, or no, rights. For teachers, unions have created the atmosphere for such reforms as smaller class sizes, enhanced instructional materials and higher salaries. Mr. Huidekoper enjoyed academic freedom because teachers’ unions have created an atmosphere that encourages teachers and acts a bulwark against authoritarian school administrations. Without union “protection”, Mr. Huidekoper would, indeed, fight his own battles with principals and other administrators and lose.
Ed, unions have definitely had their place. I notice the advances you mention aren’t primary benefits to the children we’re supposed to be educating. We’re faced with an education system geared toward developing “products,” or work-ready citizens, and a teaching system structured accordingly.
We need to professionalize the teaching field and that requires us to reward and recognize good teachers and stop pay and job security based on time in service.
I’d like to see the mainstream teachers’ unions transition to have more of a guild focus, advancing excellence, than promoting progress made in the past.
Perhaps it would be easier to professionalize the teaching field if there were a commodity that had a value commonly traded in an open marketplace. While private schooling exists by which one may conceive of possible competition in which a P-12 education may be valued, it is not soon a realistic situation. One essential difficulty with the dis-empowering of teacher unions is the diminution of their power to set their wages without a complementary public valuation of the service they provide. The upshot, I will guess, would be exactly what we see happening in several states and that is, without any standard by which to value the labor of teaching, states and municipalities are rather free to lower wages with impunity.
As an individual teacher, I may be open to testing my worth in a truly open marketplace but until and unless such a system evolves or is created via fiat, sociology would suggest that teachers en masse will remain a very conservative force.
If Ohio is serious in its new legislation that teachers may not strike, it’s kind of all over for teachers to have a say in their economic futures sans some other market mechanism that fairly values their labor. And yes, we could ask parents to set the price of an education except that education is a non-perfect public good: everyone benefits from the skills accrued through an education but not everyone pays. Bu then, if most Ohio teachers decided to strike anyway, there would be no way to hire enough new teachers fast enough to satisfy voters/parents. And eventually, the cycle will turn and teachers will regain rights lost as people re-remember it takes time to create a teacher–I think it is called training for a profession. Thus, once again, politicians play petty games with the lives of the children about which they pretend to protect. It’s all Kabuki theater.
Peter…. very thoughtful reflection! I learned a few things as I often do from you. I’m somewhat embarrassed to admit that I have not read Dostoevsky and I call myself an educated person (I was too busy being a geochemist).
I’m with a few others here that while teacher unions (the NEA primarily) are all too often a barrier these days to policies that are built around what’s best for kids, I would not want to ditch collective bargaining as WI Governor Walker is pushing to do now.
Teacher unions need to be supported and PUSHED to change…do right by kids and professionalize teaching. They can’t be the only pro-public education voice and they shouldn’t monopolize education policy for the Democrats. As others have pointed out here, there is still a need for unions to protect teachers from frivolous lawsuits and advocate for salaries/benefits etc.
My problem with many of today’s union positions are that they are built on schools on an early 20th century model of schooling with teachers being interchangeable widgets. In contrast to what teacher unions’ claim, their policy agendas are built almost entirely around a factory rather than a modern professional model of teaching. Check out Joe William of DFER’s fantastic note on the Badger state and teacher unions for more on their role and the right’s overreach. See here http://www.dfer.org/2011/02/dfer_on_wiscons.php#more
As a fellow English teacher I’ve got a total diametrically opposed reading of Dostoevsky’s conception of freedom. It would seem obvious that if an individual teacher is repeatedly treated badly by a paternalistic 20th century highly bureaucratic educational system then it makes perfect sense that “thoughtful, intelligent colleagues” would take advantage of their constitutional right to freely assemble in order to protect themselves. More bluntly, administrators/principals have almost all of the power in the school, and unions provide a little bit of a counterweight against that. All these people babbling about the all-consuming power of unions in schools have obviously never worked in a school district. Grievances don’t do squat except make you a target for a Principal, if a Principal wants to get rid of you from their they’ll get rid of you, etc. etc. It may be life, but that doesn’t make it right, which is why people join unions. Yeah, I want the “security” of not being arbitrarily fired by a Peter-Principle Principal, of which there are many, but most people would call that common sense, or due process, or freedom.