Chapter 10

The Profession of Teaching

The profession of teaching is in a crisis from media criticism blaming teachers for school failure, increasing requirements for certification, the deskilling of the profession with more scripted lessons and the use of classroom tablets, attacks on teacher unions, and calls for teacher evaluations based on student test scores. Writing in Education Week about steep declines in enrollments in teacher education – California enrollments dropped 53 percent between 2008 and 2009 and 2012 and 2013 – Stephen Sawchuk illustrates the problem facing the profession with teacher candidate Zachary Branson worrying, “I feel like teachers are becoming a wedge politically, and I don’t want anything to do with that.” Leaving the Air Force at age 33, Branson started an online teacher preparation program at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Then, according to reporter Sawchuk,

he had something of a crisis of faith. It was brought on, he said, by the sense of being in the middle of an ideological war that surfaced in everything from state-level education policy on down to his course textbook, which had a distinct anti-standardized-testing bent.

A June 10, 2014 California ruling against teacher tenure and dismissal laws raised further concerns about the future of the profession. The lawsuit, Vergara v. California, was initiated by Students Matter whose lawyers argued that state laws burdened disadvantaged and minority students with poor teachers. According to Education Week reporter Stephen Sawchuk,

The plaintiffs sought to overturn five sections of the state education code that, they contended, allow teachers to receive tenure before proving their success; make it virtually impossible to fire abysmal teachers; and concentrate such weak teachers in schools serving low-income and minority students because of seniority rules.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, arguing that the process of dismissing low-performing teachers was illusory and that these teachers ended up in low-performing schools denying students in those schools with equality of educational opportunity. The Vergara decision contributed to a national debate about the role of teachers’ unions and state tenure laws. Publicity about the decision could be another reason for the decline in enrollments in teacher education programs.

A 2013 report by the American Federation of Teachers on “Inter national Perspectives Teacher Recruitment and Retention” states that “the lowest job satisfaction [for teachers] … in 25 years. … Teachers’ satisfaction in the United States is affected by their perceptions about the school’s budget, student achievement data and time for professional development.”

This chapter discusses the following issues related to the teaching profession:

The changing roles of teachers in the United States.
Teachers and No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top.
Teachers’ salaries and turnover.
Teachers’ unions.
Attempts to reduce the power of teachers’ unions.
Performance pay.
Teachers’ rights and liabilities.

The Changing Roles of American Teachers

What is an American teacher? Guardian of morality and American character? Civilizer of western mining and ranching towns? Saint of freed slaves? Social worker in urban slums? Americanizer of immigrants? Protector against fascism and communism? Warrior against poverty? Champion of the global economy? As educational goals change, so has the image and training of teachers.

Today, the emphasis is on teachers as a key element in educating workers for the global economy. Protecting the U.S. role in the global economy continues the messianic vision of teachers as the saviors of society. In the nineteenth century, the development of professional teacher training paralleled the changing image of teachers from laughable weakling to the protector of American morality and character. In the 1830s, Horace Mann’s declaration that common schools eliminate crime and morally reform society required the recruitment and training of moral teachers. The key was the feminization and professional training of the teaching force. Addressing the New York legislature in 1819, Emma Willard, founder of the Troy Female Seminary, whose main purpose was to educate teachers, declared the saving grace of female teachers:

Who knows how great and good a race of men may yet arise from the forming hands of mothers, enlightened by the bounty of that beloved country, to defend her liberties, to plan her future improvements and to raise her to unparalleled glory.

In 1839, Mann supported establishment of a teacher-training institution in Lexington, Massachusetts. Called a normal school, this institution trained teachers for the elementary grades. Mann quickly recognized the value of recruiting women into the teaching force. He wrote in 1846: “Reason and experience have long since demonstrated that children under 10 or 12 years of age can be more genially taught and more successfully governed by a female than by a male teacher.” As protectors of morality, Mann emphasized the importance of teachers being “of pure tastes, of good manners, [and] exemplary morals.” He charged local school committees with the responsibility of seeing that no teacher cross the school “threshold, who is not clothed, from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot, in garments of virtue.”

Others echoed the sentiment that female teachers would be guardians of American morality. Teachers were to save western mining and cow towns from lawlessness and immorality. Through the Board of National Popular Education, Catherine Beecher recruited teachers to civilize the West. Writing in the 1840s, Beecher envisioned that:

in all parts of our country, in each neglected village, or new settlement, the Christian female teacher will quietly take her station … teaching … habits of neatness, order, and thrift; opening the book of knowledge, inspiring the principles of morality, and awakening the hope of immortality.

After the Civil War, female teachers rushed to the South with a mission to create social equality and political rights for freed slaves.

However, female teachers were often demeaned and exploited. Even into the twentieth century, most school districts did not allow female teachers to marry. In addition, teaching contracts warned female teachers not to be seen in public with men other than their fathers or brothers. Female teachers were to be moral models for their communities. In addition, female teachers were paid less than male teachers. The Boston Board of Education in 1841 urged the hiring of female teachers because:

as a class, they [women] never look forward, as young men almost invariably do, to a period of legal emancipation from parental control, when they are to break away from the domestic circle and go abroad into the world, to build up a fortune for themselves; and hence, the sphere of hope and of effort is narrower, and the whole forces of the mind are more readily concentrated upon present duties.

Willard S. Elsbree, in The American Teacher: Evolution of a Profession in a Democracy, reports that from the 1830s up until the Civil War, increasing numbers of women entered teaching. The Civil War, with its demands for military manpower, completed the evolution of elementary school teaching from a male occupation to a primarily female occupation. For example, Elsbree states that in Indiana the number of male teachers in all grades dropped from 80 percent in 1859 to 58 percent in 1864; in Ohio the number of male teachers went from 52 percent in 1862 to 41 percent in 1864. The second-class citizenship of women in the nineteenth century made it possible to keep teachers’ salaries low and contributed to the continuing low status of teaching as it became professionalized.

The growth of urban centers and immigration changed the image of teachers from protector of morality to that of social welfare worker and vocational trainer. Teachers were enlisted to fight urban problems of crowding, epidemics, drugs, and crime. In addition, they were to prepare students for work in the modern factory. As the United States transformed from a rural to an industrialized nation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, teachers became workers in large educational bureaucracies. It was during this period, as I discuss later in the chapter, that teachers, following the lead of other workers, began to unionize.

Paralleling the new role of teachers as workers and defenders of industrial life, the professionalization of teaching moved from local control to the bureaucratic confines of state governments. Nineteenth-century teachers were usually certified by taking an examination admin istered by the employing school system or the county board of education. Licensing, or the granting of certificates to teach, was based primarily on examination and not on the number of education courses taken. Elsbree reports that in 1898 only four states had centralized certification or licensing at the state level. By 1933, forty-two states had centralized licensing at the state level; the primary requirement for gaining a teacher certificate was the completion of courses in teacher education and other fields.

The centralization of certification and the dependence on teacher education courses led to a rapid expansion of normal schools and colleges of education in the early twentieth century. State certification laws and expanded training in education completed the professionalization of teaching. Since 1933, this pattern of professionalization has continued, with many normal schools becoming college and university departments of education. Course requirements in most states have generally increased and there has been greater monitoring of teacher education programs. From the 1920s to the 1950s, teachers were asked to promote 100 percent Americanism against the threat of fascist and communist ideas. During this period, many states required teachers to take loyalty oaths. Organizations, such as the American Legion and Daughters of the American Revolution, helped purge schools of teachers with leftist ideas. When it appeared in the 1950s that the United States was slipping behind the Soviet Union in the military arms race and conquest of space, American teachers were called on to educate a generation of students to win the technological race. As worries shifted to poverty and race relations in the 1960s, teachers became warriors in War on Poverty programs. As unemployment and high inflation gripped the nation in the 1970s and 1980s, teachers were called on to guide students into the labor market.

Now, No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top are pushing the certification of teachers to new levels of control and hierarchy, while some age-old questions about the profession of teaching still remain:

Should teacher education change as the goals of schooling change?
Should teacher education be focused on the imperatives of the global economy?
Should teachers be trained to meet the special needs of children growing up in poverty, children from differing cultural backgrounds, children with special needs, and gay/lesbian students?
Should teacher education programs prepare teachers for training future citizens and inculcating moral and social values?
Who should control teacher certification?

No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top: Highly Qualified Teachers

No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top are new phases in the history of U.S. teachers involving the federal government directly in the training and certification of teachers. No Child Left Behind requires that public schoolteachers be “highly qualified.” The legislation’s Title II – Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High-Quality Teachers – proposes increasing student academic achievement through strategies such as im proving teacher and principal quality and increasing the number of highly qualified teachers in the classroom and highly qualified principals and assistant principals in schools.

Race to the Top emphasizes new methods for evaluating teachers and the collection of student test score data to evaluate teacher education programs. Speaking to members of the National Education Association, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan explained the issues and goals:

We created seniority rules that protect teachers from arbitrary and capricious management, and that’s a good goal. But sometimes those rules place teachers in schools and communities where they won’t succeed, and that’s wrong.

We created tenure rules to make sure that a struggling teacher gets a fair opportunity to improve, and that’s a good goal. But when an ineffective teacher gets a chance to improve and doesn’t – and when the tenure system keeps that teacher in the classroom anyway – then the system is protecting jobs rather than children. That’s not a good thing. We need to work together to change that.

Data can also help identify and support teachers who are struggling. And it can help evaluate them. The problem is that some states prohibit linking student achievement and teacher effectiveness.

The Rewards of Teaching

Why do some college students pursue a teaching career when they could earn more in other occupations requiring a college education? One answer is that teachers find their greatest reward in interacting with students. In A Place Called School, John Goodlad reports from his survey that the top reasons given by students for entering teaching are “having a satisfying job” and liking and wanting to help children. Despite these altruistic reasons, most students in the survey faced critical comments from family members and friends. Some parents rejected the decision and refused to support their child’s schooling in teacher education.

Also, in comparison with many corporate and factory jobs, teachers enjoy a great deal of autonomy in the classroom. It has been estimated that teachers make more than 200 decisions an hour in their classrooms. These decisions range from curricular and teaching problems to behavioral problems. Unlike routine work, teaching involves creative decision making. In a national survey, “Teachers’ Working Conditions,” Susan Choy found that “the vast majority of teachers thought that they had a good deal of control in their own classroom over practices such as evaluating and grading students, selecting teaching techniques, and determining the amount of homework to be assigned.”

Other ancillary rewards of teaching are attractive to many individuals. A popular reward is the time for extended holidays and travel provided by the long summer vacation and other school holidays. Second to vacation time is the security of income and position. In most states, teacher tenure laws provide a security not often found in other jobs.

Table 10.1 is the National Education Association’s report on starting teacher salaries by state. Note the wide variation in starting teachers’ salaries, from $51,539 in the District of Columbia to $30,844 in Nebraska.

A 2013 report by the American Federation of Teachers on “International Perspectives Teacher Recruitment and Retention” bemoaned the low U.S. teacher salaries and status compared to other countries with school systems sometimes ranked above that of the United States. The report states,

The cost of college to potential teachers in Finland and Singapore is virtually nothing, and the cost of higher education in South Korea is significantly less than in the United States. Teachers in all three countries are paid relatively higher salaries than teachers in the United States. In fact, South Korean teachers rank between doctors and engineers in terms of salary potential.

Teacher Turnover

Do working conditions cause teachers to leave the profession? The 2013 MetLife “American Teacher” survey found that “Principal and teacher job satisfaction is declining. Principals’ satisfaction with their jobs in the public schools has decreased nine percentage points since it was last measured in 2008.” The report states,

teacher satisfaction has dropped [since 2008] precipitously by 23 percentage points, including a five-point decrease in the last year, to the lowest level it has been in the survey in 25 years. A majority of teachers report that they feel under great stress at least several days a week, a significant increase from 1985 when this was last measured.

Dissatisfied teachers often leave the profession. Below are the job satisfaction statistics provided by the MetLife survey.

Table 10.1 Starting Salaries in Selected States, 2012–2013

State	Average Starting Salary	State	Average Starting Salary
Alabama	$36,198	Montana	$27,274

Arkansas	$32,691	North Carolina	$30,778

Arizona	$31,874	North Dakota	$32,019

California*	$41,259	Nebraska	$30,844

Colorado	$32,126	New Hampshire	$34,280

Connecticut	$42,924	New Jersey	$48,631

District of Columbia*	$51,539	New Mexico	$31,960

Delaware	$39,338	Nevada	$35,358

Federal Education	$45,751	New York	$43,839

Association		Ohio	$33,096

Florida	$35,166	Oklahoma	$31,606

Georgia	$33,664	Oregon	$33,549

Iowa	$33,226	Pennsylvania	$41,901

Idaho	$31,159	Rhode Island	$39,196

Illinois	$37,166	South Carolina	$32,306

Indiana	$34,696	South Dakota	$29,851

Kansas	$33,386	Tennessee	$34,098

Kentucky	$35,166	Texas	$38,091

Louisiana	$38,655	Utah	$33,081

Massachusetts	$40,600	Virginia	$37,848

Maryland	$43,235	Vermont	$35,541

Maine	$31,835	Washington	$36,335

Michigan	$35,901	Wisconsin	$33,546

Minnesota	$34,505	West Virginia	$32,533

Missouri	$30,064	Wyoming	$43,269

Mississippi	$31,184

Notes: 2012–2013 National Average Starting Teacher Salary: $36,141. *2011–2012. Source: Adapted from NEA Collective Bargaining/Member Advocacy’s Teacher Salary Database, based on affiliate reporting as of December 2013. http://www.nea.org/home/2012–2013-average-starting-teacher-salary.html.

Profile of Teachers with Lower Job Satisfaction

Personal characteristics:

More than twice as likely to feel under great stress several days a week or more (65% vs. 28%).
More likely to be mid-career teachers (six to twenty years’ experience) (56% vs. 48%).
Less likely to be new teachers (16% vs. 27%).

School characteristics:

More likely to teach in schools with two-thirds or more low-income students (42% vs. 33%).
Just as likely to teach in urban schools (31% vs. 26%).
Just as likely to teach in schools with two-thirds or more minority students (32% vs. 26%).
Just as likely to teach at the elementary school level (49% vs. 53%), middle school level (16% vs. 17%), or high school level (28% vs. 24%).

Student achievement, curriculum, and instruction:

Less likely to report that all or most of their students are performing at or above grade level in English language, arts, and mathematics (50% vs. 61%).
More likely to say that it is very challenging or challenging for a school’s leaders to address the individual needs of diverse learners (81% vs. 73%) and create and maintain an academically rigorous learning environment (66% vs. 56%).
Just as likely to say that it is very challenging or challenging for a school’s leaders to implement the Common Core State Standards (61% vs. 57%).

Teachers’ Unions and Teacher Politics

There are two teachers’ unions. One is the National Education Association (NEA) and the other is the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Both unions have traditionally been active in supporting a wide variety of measures to benefit teachers and schools. Calling her speech “Why Teachers Should Organize,” Margaret Haley declared, as the first-ever woman to speak from the floor of a national meeting of the NEA, “Two ideals are struggling for supremacy in American life today: one the industrial ideal, dominating thru [sic] supremacy of commercialism … the other, the ideal of democracy, the ideal of educators.” Inviting teachers to organize to protect the interests of children, workers, and democracy, Haley exhorted, “It will be well indeed if the teachers have the courage of their convictions and face all that the labor unions have faced with the same courage and perseverance.” Delivered in 1904, Haley’s speech marked the rise of teacher unionism and the eventual founding of the rival organization: the AFT.

In 1998, echoing Haley’s idealism, Mary Kimmel bemoaned the continued rivalry between the NEA and AFT: “How can students learn if they don’t have a full stomach and a safe environment? I don’t know how we as educators can battle foes of public education if we’re still fighting against ourselves.” While struggling to overcome the differences between the two teachers’ unions, organized teachers fulfilled Haley’s dream of becoming an important force in American education and politics. Even national politicians paid attention to the power of the teachers’ unions.

Both teachers’ unions, the AFT and the NEA, actively participate in national elections. They work for both presidential and congressional candidates. Over the past two decades, they have given most of their support to candidates from the Democratic Party. This has created a split between the two national political parties over teachers’ unions. Overall, Republicans oppose the work of teachers’ unions, while Democrats are supportive. Of course, like other aspects of American politics, these alli ances can vary from state to state. In recent years, the Democratic and Republican parties, much to the consternation of the two unions, has supported the revision of state teacher tenure and dismissal laws.

Besides working in election campaigns, both unions have full-time Washington lobbyists who try to ensure that federal legislation does not jeopardize the welfare of teachers. Also, both unions maintain lobbyists at the state level and work for candidates to the state legislature. At the local level, teachers’ unions have increasingly supported and campaigned for candidates in local school board elections. The involvement of teachers’ unions in national, state, and local politics has made them a powerful political force.

In 2014, faced with political attacks on both unions and changes resulting from federal intervention, the agendas of both unions were very similar. Writing for Education Week, Stephen Sawchuk and Liana Heitin reported that both unions:

attacked the prominence of standardized-test scores in judging both students and teachers. And in recent months, both unions have qualified their support for the Common Core State Standards, especially as it pertains to implementation … [and] pressure brought by internal factions that have urged the unions to take a tougher stance against market-based education policies.

A Brief History of the National Education Association (NEA)

Founded in 1857, the NEA adopted the goal of nationalizing the work of state education associations. This would be one of its major functions in the history of American education. The letter inviting representatives to the founding meeting states, “Believing that what state associations have accomplished for the states may be done for the whole country by a National Association, we, the undersigned, invite our fellow-teachers throughout the United States to assemble in Philadelphia.”

The 1857 meeting in Philadelphia gave birth to an organization that in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had a major influence in the shaping of American schools and contributed to nationalizing the American school system. From the platform of its conventions and the work of its committees came curriculum proposals and policy statements that were adopted from coast to coast. Until the 1960s, the work of the NEA tended to be dominated by school superintendents, college professors, and administrators. These educational leaders would take the proposals of the NEA back to their local communities for discussion and possible adoption.

Examples of the work of the NEA include its major role in the shaping of the modern high school. In 1892, the NEA formed the Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies under the leadership of Charles Eliot, President of Harvard University. The Committee of Ten appointed nine subcommittees with a total membership of 100 to decide the future of the American high school. The membership of these committees reflected the domination of the organization by school administrators and representatives of higher education: fifty-three were college presidents or professors, twenty-three were headmasters of private schools, and the rest were superintendents and representatives from teacher training institutions. The work of the Committee of Ten set the stage for the creation in 1913 of the NEA Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, which in 1918 issued its epoch-making report, Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. This report urged the creation of comprehensive high schools offering a variety of curricula, as opposed to the establishment of separate high schools offering a single curriculum, such as college preparatory, vocational, and commercial. The report became the major formative document of the modern high school.

The NEA also influenced the standardization of teacher training in the United States. The Normal Department of the NEA began surveying the status of institutions for teacher education in 1886, and debates began within the organization about the nature of teacher education. The official historian of the NEA, Edgar B. Wesley, stated in his NEA: The First Hundred Years: “By 1925 the training of teachers was rather systematically standardized.” The work of the Normal Department of the NEA can claim a large share of the credit for this standardization.

NEA conventions and meetings further became a central arena for the discussion of curriculum changes in elementary and secondary schools. During the 1920s and 1930s, many surveys, studies, yearbooks, and articles were published. In 1924, the Department of Superintendence began issuing what were to be successive yearbooks on various aspects of the curriculum at various grade levels. In 1943, the Society for Curric ulum Study merged with the NEA Department of Supervisors and Directors of Instruction to form an enlarged department called the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). The ASCD is still recognized as the major professional organization for the discussion of curriculum issues.

Following the passage of the National Defense Education Act in 1958, the NEA’s leadership role in the determination of national educational policy was greatly reduced as the federal government became the major springboard for national policy. The NEA became an organization whose central focus was teacher welfare and government lobbying. This shift was a result of several developments: the emergence of the leadership role of the federal government, demands within the NEA for more emphasis on teacher welfare, greater democratic control of the organization, and the success of the AFT in winning collective bargaining for its members (thus serving as a model for the NEA).

In 1962, the NEA’s activities underwent a dramatic transformation when it launched a program for collective negotiations. This meant that local affiliates would attempt to achieve collective bargaining agreements with local boards of education. This development completely changed the nature of local organizations and required a rewriting of local constitutions to include collective bargaining. Up until this point in time, local school administrators had controlled many local education associations, which used the local organizations to convey policies determined by the board and administration. Collective bargaining reversed this situation and turned the local affiliates into organizations that told boards and administrators what teachers wanted.

Collective bargaining created a new relationship between locals of the NEA and local boards of education. Traditionally, local units of the NEA might plead for the interests of their members, but they most often simply helped carry out policies of local school boards and administrators. Teachers bargained individually with the school board over salary and working conditions. With collective bargaining, teachers voted for an organization to represent their demands before the school board. Once selected as a representative of the local teachers, the organization would negotiate with the school board over working conditions and salaries. Many school boards were caught by surprise when their usually compliant local branch of the NEA suddenly demanded higher wages and better working conditions for all teachers.

The NEA’s early approach to collective bargaining differed from that of the union-oriented AFT. The NEA claimed it was involved in professional negotiating and not in union collective bargaining. Professional negotiation, according to the NEA, would remove negotiation procedures from labor precedents and laws and would resort to state educational associations, rather than to those of labor, to mediate or resolve conflicts that could not be settled locally. All pretense of the NEA not being a union ended in the 1970s, when the NEA joined the Coalition of American Public Employees (CAPE). CAPE is a nonprofit corporation comprising the National Education Association; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; National Treasury Employees Union; Physicians National Housestaff Association; and American Nurses Association. These organizations represent about four million public employees. The stated purpose of CAPE is “to provide a means of marshaling and coordinating the legislative, legal, financial, and public relations resources of the member organizations in matters of common concern.” The most important of these matters “is supporting legislation to provide collective-bargaining rights to all public employees, including teachers.”

By the 1980s, support of collective bargaining legislation became one of many legislative goals of the NEA; the organization by this time was also directing a great deal of its energies into lobbying for legislation and support of political candidates. The turning point for the NEA was its endorsement of Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election. This was the first time the NEA had supported a presidential candidate. After this initial involvement, the NEA expanded its activity to support candidates in primary elections. In 1980, the NEA worked actively in the primaries to ensure the victory of Jimmy Carter over Edward Kennedy for the Democratic nomination. Through the 1990s, the NEA committed itself to the support of Democratic candidates for the White House.

Today, as discussed in the previous section, the NEA is concerned with attacks on teacher unions, tenure laws, and standardized testing. In 2014, NEA President Lily Eskelsen García announced support of testing to guide instruction but stated that parents and educators know that the “one-size-fits-all annual federal testing structure has not worked.” In the same year, an NEA article announced, “NEA Survey: Nearly Half of Teachers Consider Leaving Profession Due to Standardized Testing.”

A Brief History of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT)

Unlike the NEA’s origins as a national policymaking organization, the AFT began the struggle on behalf of female grade-school teachers for an adequate pension law in Illinois. The first union local, the Chicago Teachers Federation, was formed in 1897 under the leadership of Catherine Goggin and Margaret Haley. Its early fights centered on pensions and teacher salaries. Because of its success in winning salary increases, its membership increased to 2,500 by the end of its first year. In 1902, with the urging of famous settlement-house reformer Jane Addams, the Chicago Teachers Federation joined the Chicago Federation of Labor, which placed it under the broad umbrella of the American Federation of Labor (AFL).

From its beginnings, the AFT placed teacher welfare issues and improving public education in the more general context of the labor movement in the United States. In an interview entitled “The SchoolTeacher Unionized” in the November 1905 issue of the Educational Review, Margaret Haley declared: “We expect by affiliation with labor to arouse the workers and the whole people, through the workers, to the dangers confronting the public schools from the same interests and tendencies that are undermining the foundations of our democratic republic.” Those “same interests” referred to in Haley’s speech were big busi ness organizations, against which Haley felt both labor and educators were struggling. The early union movement was based on the belief that there was unity between the educators’ struggle to gain more financial support for the schools from big business and labor’s struggle with the same interests to win collective bargaining rights. Haley went on,

It is necessary to make labor a constructive force in society, or it will be a destructive force. If the educational question could be understood by the labor men, and the labor question by the educators, both soon would see they are working to the same end, and should work together.

Margaret Haley’s comments highlighted the union’s efforts to create mutually supportive roles between teachers and organized labor. On the one hand, teachers were to work for the interests of workers by fighting for better schools and working to remove anti-labor material from the classroom. Teachers would fight to provide the best education for workers’ children, while organized labor would offer the resources of its organization to support the teachers’ struggle for improved working conditions and greater financial support for the schools. In addition, the type of education received by children in the schools would give children the economic and political knowledge needed to continue the work of the union movement, and teachers could share their knowledge with the adult members of the labor movement. Teachers would also increase their political and economic knowledge through their association with the labor movement.

In December 1912, the newly established magazine of the union movement, the American Teacher, issued a statement of the beliefs of the growing union movement in education. First, the statement argued that the improvement of American education depended on arousing teachers to realize that “their professional and social standing is far too low to enable them to produce effective results in teaching.” Second, it was necessary for teachers to study the relation of education “to social progress, and to understand some important social and economic movements going on in the present-day world.” Third, it was believed that teachers could use their experience in teaching to adjust education to the needs of modern living. Fourth, in one of the earliest declarations for the end of sexism in education, the statement called for high-quality teaching “without sex-antagonism.”

In 1915, union locals from Chicago and Gary, Indiana met and officially formed the AFT. In 1916, this group, along with locals from New York, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and Washington, DC, were accepted into the AFL. At the presentation ceremony, the head of the AFL, Samuel Gompers, welcomed the AFT to:

the fold and the bond of unity and fraternity of the organized labor movement of our Republic. We earnestly hope … that it may … give and receive mutual sympathy and support which can be properly exerted for the betterment of all who toil and give service – aye, for all humanity.

It was not until 1944 that the AFT exercised any organizational control over a local school system. In 1944, the AFT local in Cicero, Illinois signed the first collective bargaining contract with a board of education. The form of the contract was that of a regular labor union contract. It recognized the local as the sole bargaining agent of the teachers and listed pay schedules and grievance procedures. At the annual convention of the AFT in 1946, a committee was assigned to study collective bargaining and its application to school management. In addition, material was to be collected from trade unions on the education of shop stewards and union practices. With the introduction of collective bargaining, the AFT entered a new stage in its development.

The involvement of the AFT in collective bargaining led naturally to the question of teacher strikes. Since its founding the AFT had a no-strike policy. In 1946, the use of the strike for supporting teachers’ demands became a major issue at the annual convention. Those supporting the use of the strike argued that it was the only means available to arouse an apathetic citizenry to the problems in American education. It was also the only meaningful leverage teachers had against local school systems. AFT members who favored retention of the no-strike policy argued that teachers were in a public service profession and that work stoppage was a violation of public trust. In addition, it was argued that a strike deprived children of an education and was counter to the democratic ideal of a child’s right to an education.

The AFT maintained its no-strike policy in the face of growing militancy among individual locals. In 1947, the Buffalo, New York Teachers Federation declared a strike for higher salaries. The strike was considered at the time to be the worst teacher work stoppage in the history of the country. Other local unions supported the strikers, with local drivers delivering only enough fuel to the schools to prevent the pipes from freezing. The Buffalo strike was important because it served as a model for action by other teachers around the country. School superintendents, school board associations, and state superintendents of education condemned these actions by local teachers. The national AFT maintained its no-strike policy and adopted a posture of aid and comfort but not official sanction. As William Edward Eaton states in The American Federation of Teachers, 1916–1961, “Even with a no-strike policy, the AFT had emerged as the leader in teacher work stoppages.”

The event that sparked the rapid growth of teacher militancy in the 1960s, and contributed to the NEA’s rapid acceptance of collective bargaining, was the formation of the New York City local of the AFT, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). In the late 1950s, the AFT decided to concentrate on organizing teachers in New York City and to provide special funds for that purpose. Following the organization of the UFT in 1960, there was a vote for a strike over the issues of a dues check-off plan, the conducting of acollective bargaining election, sick pay for substitutes, fifty-minute lunch periods for teachers, and changes in the salary schedules. On November 7, 1960, the UFT officially went on strike against the New York City school system. The union declared the strike effective when 15,000 of the city’s 39,000 teachers did not report to school and 7,500 teachers joined picket lines around the schools. In the spring of 1961, the UFT won a collective bargaining agreement with the school system and became one of the largest and most influential locals within the AFT.

During the 1960s, teachers increasingly accepted the idea of collective bargaining and the use of the strike. This was reflected in the rapid growth of membership in the AFT. In 1966, the membership of the AFT was 125,421. By 1981, the membership had more than quadrupled to 580,000. This increased membership plus the increased militancy of the NEA heralded a new era in the relationship among American teachers’ organizations and the managers of American education. With the coming of age of the strike and collective bargaining, teachers in the NEA and AFT proved themselves willing to fight for their own welfare and the welfare of American public schools.

However, the union struggle came into conflict with anti-union groups, resulting in a convergence, as discussed in the last two sections, of goals between the NEA and AFT.

Performance-Based Pay

Recently, the issue of performance pay has concerned both unions. The traditional pay scale, or what is called a democratic pay scale because everyone receives the same salary based on qualifications and seniority, provides salary increases based on years of service and level of education. A performance-based pay scale bases salary increases on some measure of teacher performance – usually student test scores.

Both unions agree that any change in the traditional salary scale should be as a result of collective bargaining between the local teachers’ union and the local school district. The AFT issued the following statement regarding pay scales. In the statement, the AFT declared: “Teachers reject being evaluated on a single test score [student scores on standardized tests].”

The American Federation of Teachers believes the decision to adopt a compensation system based on differentiated pay should be made by the local union leaders and district officials who know best what will work in their schools. Systems must be locally negotiated, voluntary, school wide, and must promote a collaborative work environment. Well-designed compensation systems based on differentiated pay for teachers must include the following elements:

Labor-management collaboration
Adequate base compensation for all teachers
Credible, agreed-upon standards of practice
Support for professional development
Incentives that are available to all teachers
Easily understood standards for rewards
Sufficient and stable funding
Necessary support systems, such as data and accounting systems.

In addition, AFT locals have developed school-wide differentiated pay based on a combination of academic indicators, including standardized test scores, students’ classroom work, dropout rates, and disciplinary incidents. Teachers reject being evaluated on a single test score.

Assault on Teachers’ Unions’ Collective Bargaining Rights

In 2011, Republican Officials in Ohio, Idaho, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and other states have sought to curb collective bargaining rights to control education costs. Education Week reporter Sean Cavanagh quoted Michele Prater, a spokeswoman for the Ohio State Education Association, regarding the effort to curb collective bargaining of teachers’ unions in Ohio: “It represents an anti-worker, anti-student, anti-education agenda.”

The goal of this political movement was to restrict or eliminate the collective bargaining rights of teachers and other public employees. Besides those calling for the elimination of public employee collective bargaining rights, there were those who want to limit collective bargaining to wage issues. In other words, teachers’ unions would not be able to bargain over working conditions, evaluations, and other non-wage issues. In addition, Ohio Republicans support limiting bargaining rights to wages and ending bargaining over class size and pension contributions.

Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, criticized these attempts to limit collective bargaining as a means of reducing state budget deficits: “Don’t let anyone tell you that robbing workers of voice will somehow repair deficits … collective bargaining is not the cause of our state budget crises, but it can be a part of the solution.” In a news article released by the National Education Association, Cindy Long claims:

But trying to blame public employee salaries and pensions for budget shortfalls is a red herring. Republican-controlled legislatures around the country, from New Hampshire to Arizona to Florida, are attacking collective bargaining by scapegoating public employees for budget problems.

In addition, she claims:

When states try to reduce public salaries and pensions by eliminating collective bargaining, they take an economic hit in the long term. The lower the wages of public employees, the less discretionary income they have to spend in the local economy. The higher the wages, the higher the reinvestment into the economy. And research shows that most public employees stay – and spend – within the state after retirement.

Given this uproar about public employee unions, the reader must ask themselves whether they favor collective bargaining by teachers’ unions. Should collective bargaining be limited to wages only?

Should Teachers Strike?

In 2006, an Education Week headline read: “Labor Disputes Heating Up in Urban Districts, After Respite.” In the article, reporter Vaishali Honawar warns:

After a lengthy period of relative harmony, teachers in several bigcity districts are raising the stakes in collective bargaining battles. Teachers in San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., have threatened to go on strike later this month, following strike-authorization votes by union members in both districts late last month. In Detroit, meanwhile, 1,500 teachers in more than 50 schools called in sick March 22.

Strikes occur when a local teachers’ union is unable to reach an agreement with the board of education regarding salary and working conditions. The steps leading up to striking begin with union representatives bargaining with a board of education over a new contract that will bind both sides to a particular wage scale and work rules. The wage scale includes salary and benefits such as health and dental insurance. Work rules involve length of school day, teaching load, class size, and a host of other work-related issues.

Conflict between the two sides is generated when the board of education wants to maintain the existing salary scale and benefits and increase teachers’ workload, while the union wants higher salaries and improved working conditions. Both sides will usually claim to be representing the interests of the students and community. When the bargaining process fails to reach a mutually acceptable contract, union members may authorize a strike. For instance, a recent strike in Yonkers, New York occurred when the union rejected attempts by the adminis tration to increase teachers’ workloads by extending class time.

During a strike, the local teachers’ union organizes picket lines around schools. Union members are assigned times and places for picketing. The purpose of the picket line is to prevent members of other unions from entering the school. Theoretically, a union member is not supposed to cross the picket line of another union. For instance, truck drivers, usually members of the Teamsters’ Union, are not supposed to cross teachers’ union picket lines to deliver goods to the school.

Picket lines also serve as a barrier to other teachers who refuse to strike. Teachers crossing picket lines are called “scabs.” Conflict among teachers over a strike can result in years of hostile feelings. I have known situations where, even ten years after a strike, union members still refuse to talk to scabs in faculty meeting rooms.

One of the questions frequently asked of organizers for the NEA is: If we form a faculty union, will we have to go on strike? The NEA’s answer is:

No. A strike can only be authorized by the faculty. State or national union officers or staff members cannot under any circumstances authorize or declare a strike. Faculty would have to vote on any strike action if they ever felt compelled to do so. In some states, a strike is an illegal activity.

While many states outlaw strikes by public employees, teachers’ unions in those states still conduct strikes. I was involved in an illegal strike in Ohio where the final agreement between the two sides ruled out any criminal action against union members. On the other hand, there are cases where union leaders are arrested and jailed, and the local union is heavily fined by the state.

Should teachers strike? On the one hand, some argue that teachers’ strikes are sometimes necessary to improve the quality of education provided to students. Teacher welfare is directly related to student welfare. High pay and good working conditions attract and retain the best teachers. On the other hand, some argue that strikes only benefit teachers. Students lose valuable time at school while teachers are on strike. Communities are forced to raise taxes to pay for increased salaries that might result from a strike. Working parents’ lives are disrupted when children are forced out of school by a strike. These conflicting concerns raise the following questions:

Do teacher strikes endanger the public welfare by denying an education to children and disrupting the employment of parents by requiring them to take charge of their own children during strike periods?
Should teachers worry only about fulfilling their instructional duties without concern for their wages or working conditions?
Do teachers’ unions enhance school instruction by improving teacher morale and creating conditions that foster good teaching?
Would you strike as a teacher?
Are there any salary- or work-related issues that you might be willing to strike for?

Teachers’ Rights

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, schoolteachers were expected to be models of purity. Pressure was placed on teachers to be circumspect outside the school regarding dress, speech, religion, and types of friends. Within the school, a teacher’s freedom of speech was abridged at the whim of the school administrator. Some school administrators allowed teachers to discuss controversial topics freely within the classrooms; others fired teachers who spoke of things within the classroom that were not approved by the administration. Very often, teachers were fired for their political beliefs and activities.

During the past several decades, court actions, the activities of teachers’ associations, and state laws granting teachers tenure expanded academic freedom in the public schools and protected the free speech of teachers. The expansion of academic freedom in the United States first took place at the college level and later in elementary and secondary schools. The concept of academic freedom was brought to the United States in the latter part of the nineteenth century by scholars who received their training in Germany. The basic argument for academic freedom was that if scientific research were to advance civilization, scholars had to be free to do research and to lecture on anything they felt was important. The advancement of science depended on free inquiry. In Germany this was accomplished by appointing individuals to professorships for life.

The concept of academic freedom was not immediately accepted in institutions of higher education in the United States. Many professors were fired in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for investigating certain economic problems and for backing reforms such as child labor laws. College professors found it necessary to organize the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) to fight for academic freedom. The major protection of academic freedom in American universities is provided by tenure. The idea behind tenure is that once individuals prove they are competent as teachers and scholars, they are guaranteed a position until retirement so long as they do not commit some major act of misconduct.

Tenure and academic freedom are supported by the NEA and AFT as ways of protecting the free speech of public schoolteachers. Many states adopted tenure laws for the express purpose of protecting the rights of teachers. Court decisions also played an important role in extending academic freedom. But there are major differences between the way academic freedom functions at the university level and how it functions at the secondary and elementary levels. The organizational nature of public schools and the ages of children who attend them place some important limitations on the extent of teachers’ academic freedom.

Before they teach in the public schools, teachers must understand their rights and the limitations of their rights. There are three major types of rights about which teachers must be concerned. The first deals with the rights and limitations of speech and conduct of teachers in relationship to administrators and school boards. The second deals with rights and limitations of the speech of teachers in the classroom. The third deals with the rights of teachers outside the school.

The most important U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with the rights of teachers in relationship to school boards and administrators is Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School (1967). The case involved an Illinois schoolteacher who was dismissed for writing a letter to the local school board criticizing the district superintendent and school board for the methods being used to raise money for the schools. The letter specifically attacked the way money was being allocated among academic and athletic programs and stated that the superintendent was attempting to prevent teachers from criticizing the proposed bond issue. In Court it was proved that there were factually incorrect statements in the letter.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that teachers could not be dismissed for public criticism of their school system. In fact, the Court argued in Pickering:

Teachers are, as a class, the members of a community most likely to have informed and definite opinions how funds allotted to the operation of the schools should be spent. Accordingly, it is essential that they can speak out freely on such questions without fear of retaliatory dismissal.

Here, the participation of teachers in free and open debate on questions put to popular vote was considered “vital to informed decision making by the electorate.”

The Court did not consider the factual errors in the public criticism grounds for dismissal; it did not find that erroneous public statements in any way interfered with a teacher’s performance of daily classroom activities or hindered the regular operation of the school. “In these circumstances,” the Court stated, “we conclude that the interest of the school administration in limiting teachers’ opportunities to contribute to public debate is not significantly greater than its interest in limiting a similar contribution by any member of the general public.”

The Pickering decision did place some important limitations on the rights of teachers to criticize their school system. The major limitation was on the right to criticize publicly immediate superiors in the school system. In the words of the Court, immediate superiors were those whom the teacher “would normally be in contact with in the course of his daily work.” The Court, however, did not consider the teacher’s employment relationship to the board of education or superintendent to be a close working relationship. One could imply from the decision that teachers could be dismissed for public criticism of their immediate supervisor or building principal. But what was meant by a close working relationship was not clearly defined in the decision. The Court stated in a footnote:

Positions in public employment in which the relationship between superior and subordinate is of such a personal and intimate nature that certain forms of public criticism of the superior by the subordinate would seriously undermine the effectiveness of the working relationship between them can also be imagined.

There is a possible procedural limitation on a teacher’s right to criticize a school system if the school system has a grievance procedure. This issue is dealt with in a very important book on teachers’ rights published under the sponsorship of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The question is asked in David Rubin’s The Rights of Teachers: “Does a teacher have the right to complain publicly about the operation of his school system even if a grievance procedure exists for processing such complaints?” The answer given by this ACLU handbook is “probably not.” The handbook states that this issue has not been clarified by the courts, but there have been suggestions in court decisions that if a formal grievance procedure exists within the school system, a teacher must exhaust these procedures before making any public statements.

The Rights of Teachers also argues that a teacher is protected by the Constitution against dismissal for bringing problems in the school system to the attention of superiors. But, again, the teacher must first exhaust all grievance procedures. The example in the ACLU handbook was of a superintendent who dismissed a teacher because her second-grade class wrote a letter to the cafeteria supervisor asking that raw carrots be served rather than cooked carrots, because of the higher nutritional value of the raw vegetable. In addition, when the drinking fountain went unrepaired in her classroom, her students drew pictures of wilted flowers and of children begging for water, and presented them to the principal. The ACLU handbook states that the Court decision found “the school policy was arbitrary and unreasonable and in violation of … First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of free speech and freedom peaceably to petition for redress of grievances.”

Concerning freedom of speech in the classroom, one of the most important things for public elementary and secondary teachers to know is that the courts seem to recognize certain limitations. The three things that the courts consider are whether the material used in the classroom and the statements made by the teacher are appropriate for the age of the students, related to the curriculum for the course, and approved by other members of the profession.

An example of the courts considering the age of students, given by the ACLU in The Rights of Teachers, is a case in Alabama where a high school teacher had been dismissed for assigning Kurt Vonnegut’s Welcome to the Monkey House to her eleventh-grade English class. The principal and associate superintendent of the school called the story “literary garbage,” and several disgruntled parents complained to the school. School officials told the teacher not to use the story in class. The teacher responded that she thought the story was a good literary work and believed she had a professional obligation to use the story in class. The school system dismissed her for insubordination. The first question asked by the Court was whether the story was appropriate reading material for eleventh-grade students. In its final decision, the Court found that the teacher’s dismissal was a denial of First Amendment rights, since it had not been proved that the material was inappropriate for the grade level or that the story disrupted the educational processes of the school.

Another important issue is whether the classroom statements of a teacher are related to the subject matter being taught. One example given in The Rights of Teachers is of a teacher of a basic English class making statements about the Vietnam War and anti-Semitism, although the lessons dealt with language instruction. The Court found that his remarks had minimum relevance to the material being taught but may have been appropriate in courses such as current events and political science. What is important for teachers to know is that their freedom of speech in the classroom is limited by the curriculum and subject being taught.

Whether the method used by the teacher is considered appropriate by other members of the teaching profession may be another consideration of the courts. In a case in Massachusetts, an eleventh-grade English teacher wrote an example of a taboo word on the board and asked the class for a socially acceptable definition. The teacher was dismissed for conduct unbecoming a teacher. The teacher went to court and argued that taboo words are an important topic in the curriculum, and that eleventh-grade boys and girls are old enough to deal with the material. The ACLU handbook states that the Court ruled that a teacher could be dismissed for using in good faith a teaching method “if he does not prove that it has the support of the preponderant opinion of the teaching profession or of the part of which he belongs.”

In addition, officially stated school policies can limit the free speech of teachers in a classroom. A 1998 Colorado Supreme Court decision involved school regulations requiring teachers to obtain the principal’s approval before using controversial materials in the classroom. A Jefferson County, Colorado schoolteacher failed to gain approval before showing the Bernardo Bertolucci film 1900 to his high school logic and debate class. The Colorado Court upheld the firing of the teacher because the film depicted “full frontal nudity, oral sex, masturbation, profanity, cocaine abuse, and graphic violence.” These scenes, according to the Court, clearly fell under the school district’s controversial materials policy.

In another case, Cecil Lacks, a Missouri high school teacher, was fired for not complying with the school district’s policy prohibiting profane language. She allowed students to use street language in writing plays and poetry dealing with sex, teenage pregnancy, gangs, and drugs. Other teachers defended her methods as being student-centered but the Eighth District Circuit Court supported the school district’s firing of Lacks because she had willfully violated school board policies against the use of profane language in school.

Besides the question of academic freedom regarding curriculum and instruction, there is the issue of teachers’ freedom of conscience. For instance, a New York high school teacher was dismissed from her job for refusing to participate in a daily flag ceremony. The teacher stood silently while a fellow teacher conducted the ceremony. In Russo v. Central School District No. 1 (1972), a federal circuit court ruled in favor of the teacher. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case and, therefore, the circuit court decision was allowed to stand. The circuit court ruled that the teacher’s actions were a matter of conscience and not disloyalty.

Although teachers do not have to participate in flag ceremonies or say the Pledge of Allegiance if it is a violation of their conscience, they cannot refuse to follow the curriculum of a school because of religious and personal beliefs. In Palmer v. Board of Education (1979), the U.S. Court of Appeals decided – and the decision was later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court – that the Chicago public schools had the right to fire a teacher for refusing to follow the curriculum owing to religious reasons. The teacher was a Jehovah’s Witness and she informed her principal that because of her religious beliefs she refused “to teach any subjects having to do with love of country, the flag or other patriotic matters in the prescribed curriculum.” The Court declared, “The First Amendment was not a teacher license for uncontrolled expression at variance with established curricular content.”

Can school districts require urine testing of teachers? In 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District struck down two Louisiana school districts’ drug policies on testing teachers. The court argued that there has to be some identified problem of drug abuse before requiring tests. The ruling stated, “Despite hints of the school boards, the testing here does not respond to any identified problem of drug use by teachers or their teachers’ aides or clerical workers.”

In summary, teachers do not lose their constitutional rights when they enter the classroom, but their employment does place certain limitations on those rights. Important is the requirement that teachers follow the prescribed curriculum of the school. In addition, they must comply with any school policies regarding controversial materials and profane speech. Teachers have freedom of speech in the classroom if their comments are related to the curriculum but, when exercising the right to freedom of speech, teachers must consider whether their comments are appropriate for the age of the students and would be considered appropriate by other educational professionals. While teachers are required to follow a prescribed curriculum, they do not have to participate in flag ceremonies and other political ceremonies if it is a violation of their personal beliefs.

Teachers’ Liability

Is a teacher liable for monetary damages if a student is seriously injured by rocks thrown by another student? The answer in some situations is yes! In this example, Margaret Sheehan, an eighth-grade student, was taken along with other female students by her teacher to an athletic field. The teacher told the students to sit on a log while she returned to school. During her absence, a group of boys began throwing rocks at the girls, resulting in serious injury to Margaret’s eye. In Sheehan v. St. Peter’s Catholic School (1971), the Minnesota Supreme Court declared: “It is the duty of a school to use ordinary care and to protect its students from injury resulting from the conduct of other students under circumstances where such conduct would reasonably have been foreseen and could have been prevented by the use of ordinary care.”

In Teachers and the Law, Louis Fischer, David Schimmel, and Cynthia Kelly state that teachers can be held liable for student injuries under the following conditions:

Teachers injure the student or do not protect the student from injury.
Teachers do not use due care.
Teachers’ carelessness results in student injury.
Students sustain provable injuries.

The issue of teacher liability for student injuries is extremely important because of the potential for the teacher being sued for monetary damages. To protect themselves in these types of situations, teachers should carry some form of professional liability insurance. Often, this insurance coverage is provided by teachers’ unions. In some cases, teachers may want to contact their insurance agents about coverage.

Now consider whether school districts should be liable for a teacher’s sexual harassment of a student. In a small Texas school district, a high school teacher was fired after district officials discovered he was having an affair with one of his students. The student, Alida Gebser, testified that the teacher, Frank Walrop, began giving her special attention in 1991 when, as a 14-year-old, she attended an after-school Great Books discussion group. She stated that the 52-year-old teacher acted as a mentor; however, she became “terrified” when he made sexual advances. The following year, the teacher and student began having sexual relations until the police discovered them having sex in a wooded area. The teacher was barred from school and lost his state teaching certificate. The student and her mother sued the school district. The plaintiffs argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that the school district was responsible for the conduct of the teacher and that they should be awarded monetary damages under Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in any school receiving federal funds. Ruling that the school district was not liable in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998), Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated in the majority opinion that school officials are liable only if they have “actual knowledge of discrimination … and fail adequately to respond.”

Can gay or lesbian teachers inform students of their sexual orientation? In 1998, U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins ruled that Wendy Weaver could not be fired from coaching high school volleyball because she answered yes when asked by a student, “Are you gay?” The judge said her free speech and equal protection rights were violated. “Although the Constitution cannot control prejudices, neither this court nor any other court should, directly or indirectly, legitimize them,” Judge Jenkins stated.

Teachers’ Private Lives

Another concern is teachers’ activity outside the school. A controversial issue is whether a teacher’s membership in a radical political organization is grounds for dismissal or denial of employment. The two most important U.S. Supreme Court decisions on this issue both originated in cases resulting from New York’s Feinberg Law. The Feinberg Law was adopted in New York in 1949 during a period of hysteria about possible communist infiltration of public schools. The law ordered the New York Board of Regents to compile a list of organizations that taught or advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence. The law authorized the Board of Regents to give notice that membership in any organization on the list would disqualify any person from membership or retention in any office or position in the school system.

The first decision concerning the Feinberg Law was given by the U.S. Supreme Court in Adler v. Board of Education of New York (1952). This ruling upheld the right of the State of New York to use membership in particular organizations as a basis for not hiring and for dismissal. The Court argued that New York had the right to establish reasonable terms for employment in its school system. The Court also recognized the right of a school system to screen its employees carefully because, as stated by the Court, “A teacher works in a sensitive area in a schoolroom. There he shapes the attitude of young minds toward the society in which they live. In this, the state has a vital concern.” The Court went on to state that not only did schools have the right to screen employees concerning professional qualifications, but also:

the state may very properly inquire into the company they keep, and we know of no rule, constitutional or otherwise, that prevents the state, when determining the fitness and loyalty … from considering the organizations and persons with whom they associate.

The Adler decision underwent major modification when the Feinberg Law again came before the U.S. Supreme Court fifteen years later in Keyishian v. Board of Regents of New York (1967). Here a teacher at the State University of New York at Buffalo refused to state in writing that he was not a communist. This time the Court decision declared the Feinberg Law unconstitutional. The reasoning of the Court was that membership in an organization did not mean that an individual subscribed to all the goals of the organization. The Court stated: “A law that applies to membership, without the specific intent to further the illegal aims of the organization, infringes unnecessarily on protected freedoms. It rests on the doctrine of guilt by association which has no place here.”

The Keyishian decision did not deny the right of school systems to screen employees or to dismiss them if they personally advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government. What the Keyishian decision meant was that mere membership in an organization could not be the basis for denial of employment or for dismissal.

Whether a teacher’s private life can be the basis for dismissal from a school system has not been clearly defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU argues in The Rights of Teachers that courts are increasingly reluctant to uphold the right of school authorities to dismiss teachers because they disapprove of a teacher’s private life. Examples given by the ACLU include an Ohio court ruling that a teacher could not be dismissed for using offensive language in a confidential letter to a former student. The Ohio court ruled that a teacher’s private actions are not the concern of school authorities unless they interfere with the ability to teach.

The California Supreme Court ruled that a teacher could not be dismissed because of a homosexual relationship with another teacher. The Court could not find that the relationship hindered the ability to teach.

It would appear that the major concern of the courts is whether teachers’ private lives interfere with their professional conduct as teachers. But the difficulty of establishing precise relationships between private actions and ability to teach allows for broad interpretation by different courts and school authorities. Teachers should be aware that there are no precise guidelines in this area. The best protection for teachers is to develop some form of agreement between their teachers’ organization and their school district regarding the use of private actions as a basis for dismissal and evaluation.

One limiting condition applied by the U.S. Supreme Court is that teachers’ and students’ actions cannot interfere with normal school activities. For instance, in Board of Education v. James (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that a teacher could not be dismissed for wearing an armband in class as a protest against the Vietnam War. The lower court reasoned that the wearing of the armband did not disrupt classroom activities and, therefore, there was no reason for school authorities to limit a teacher’s freedom of expression.

Conclusion

The profession of teaching has changed greatly since the nineteenth-century model of teachers as paragons of morality. The changes in the profession parallel changes in the goals of U.S. schools. Essentially, the changes were from a moral to a global model. Teacher issues and concerns range from teacher education and licensing to high-stakes tests and classroom conditions.

Teachers are not passively manipulated by policymakers. Teachers’ unions are a powerful force in American politics and in the formulation of educational policies. Unions protect wages and working conditions and allow for the voice of teachers in national and local educational policy decisions. However, teachers’ unions are criticized for protecting poor-quality teachers and resisting performance pay based on student test scores.

In summary, there remain important questions about the profession of teaching.

Who should determine the qualifications for entering the teaching profession? Teachers’ Unions? Politicians?
Should teacher pay be based on some form of performance-based assessment?
Should teachers strike?
Which union best represents the interests of teachers?