With all my union blogs, I'm beginning to feel a bit like a broken record. However, with the hiring of many new teachers at my school (including me), the pressure is on to join the union. I wanted to speak about how a new teacher gets sucked in.

I am no longer a new teacher, although I'm not yet old! I can see through many of the arguments and the "friendly" pressure. I also have the confidence to stand up for my opinions.

To suck in a new teacher is quite easy. They are eager to make a good first impression. The union explains that all the other teachers are union members. This has the advantage of either being true or so close to true that the difference doesn't matter.

Once in a while a new teacher balks either at the cost or because they've heard something and they're idealistic. The union then brings out the big guns.

The first is legal protection. What new teachers don't know is that the school protects them in cases of parental/student legal problems. Of course, in cases of firing or staff reduction, the school will provide no protection. The new teacher doesn't realize that there are non-union alternatives and that all the legal protections apply to them no matter whether they are union members or not.

The second big gun is guilt. The union member explains that all the teachers have to stand together or the board will take away what they've gained. What the new teacher does not realize is that, in North Dakota, the board can just do what it wants anyway. I've experienced that first hand. (This isn't true of all states.) The new teacher also doesn't realize how collective bargaining has killed excellence, specialization, and created shortages in specific fields.

By now, most new teachers will have succumbed. Even I did my first year. Once in a while, a recalcitrant teacher will bring up some of the creepy stances the NEA has taken. However, very few are even aware of what the NEA has its fingers in. Those who are aware are simply told, "That's the national union. They don't affect us."

In many states, to actually get away from the union is an arduous process. Too many states have "closed-shop" rules. To get out of the union requires specific objections and a long, unpleasant string of red-tape. Even so, union fees must be paid to a charity from a list created by the union.

Along with this, the union in larger schools plays "nasty." Non-members are harassed, ostracized, kept "out of the loop," and generally made to feel unwanted. One woman I know cannot enter the teacher's lounge without it emptying out. Some teachers yell or whisper insults as they pass her, and there has even been some vandalism.

The bright hope is that union membership is declining among the younger generation of teachers. I pray that this is the beginning of a trend. Teachers entering the profession right now tend to be quite idealistic and less political than the generation that is retiring. Right now we are seeing the greatest turnover of teachers we will see in a generation. Now is the time to make some long-lasting changes.

Today I got Internet at my new house! It was an exciting day that I've been waiting for a bit better than two weeks. The fun of rural North Dakota! I will not be posting daily. However, I will post 2-3 times per week and I will continue posting only positive and uplifting things on Fridays. It's a nice way for me to end the week.

I'm beginning at a new school located a few miles away from the edge of the Earth. I'll be teaching science full time (rather than part math and part science). Furthermore, the students are in grades 10, 11, and 12, so they have a bit more maturity than the mix I've taught previously.

My description of my previous school has been rather harsh due to my experiences with the NEA there.  However, I want to start my year on a positive note. Important point: I will not criticize my current employer except in the most generic, non-specific way. I want to look back at my work history and some of the lessons (good and bad) that I've carried away.

1. Rural Pennsylvania school
What an education! I graduated from this school. I took the job there as a math teacher because it was short term and I'd already accepted a position in North Dakota (it started half a year later).

I learned limits in a BIG way. I'd gone to school with some of my students. I learned the importance of discipline, professional distance between teacher and student, and the importance of time management. I also learned how important an administrator is to a school. This job was also a good reminder that I did not want to be a math teacher.

2. Remote Rural North Dakota School
This job came as a shock. I remember driving into the town and going down Main Street and wondering when I'd get to the town. Nevertheless, this was a nice town. I learned that elderly widows adopt single bachelors as surrogate sons.

I was also shocked to be teaching 6 different science courses. The first year, none of them were in my major (Physics). I really learned time management as well as a lot about science. I also discovered the importance of organization. The lab was a horrible mess when I arrived.

Along the way, I learned to grow a backbone. Parents and administrators like high standards, except when it affects them. A lab accident that nearly blinded me also reminded me of the importance of lab safety.

3. Rural North Dakota School (not so remote)
Having developed confidence as a teacher, I realized that the remote town offered me very little opportunity for growth. I accepted a new position in a slightly larger school, but in which I continued the same sort of job.

At this school I learned the importance of curriculum standards. Instead of focusing on the textbook, I learned to focus on standards. Along the way, I discovered Linux (how to set it up in a classroom), Blackboard (an e-learning program), and finally bought my own computer.

I also learned how easy it was to "kill myself" teaching. Further along, I bought my first house and, 1 year later, began thinking of my future beyond the next few years. This school would not last. It was running out of kids. The final kick in the pants came from a threat of a lawsuit from another teacher who felt I should teach out of a textbook.

4. Small Town North Dakota School
I moved on to the school that has provided fodder for many of my blogs. This one would stay open. I got to teach Math and Science, and I got to give up the life sciences and junior high. Oddly, I had some misgivings about this school and even turned down the job a few times. The threat of the lawsuit came when they called me a few months later to re-offer the job.

I suppose I went in with a bad attitude, but I kept telling myself the job would be what I wanted it to be. At this school, I learned the vital importance of staff morale. I also learned how ugly a school can be when teachers and administrators do not trust each other.

On a good note, I had an excellent principal who was organized, set high standards, and was a strong disciplinarian. I grew by realizing that administrators, while still "the boss", are not the enemy. I had a professional friendly relationship with that principal that continues now even though we've both left this school.

I also learned how to teach in a larger school. Large class sizes require totally different techniques than small classes

5. Small Town North Dakota School at the Edge of the Earth
I'm starting this job with a positive attitude and without the chip on my shoulder about administrators. It's too soon to find out whether these administrators are good, bad, or average, but I'm willing to let them show me.

I've been impressed most by the way this school makes its new teachers feel like they are actually wanted. There have been several events special for new teachers. A lot of it was review for me, but I appreciate the effort very much. I wish something like this had been done when I started working at the beginning of my career.

Before I start my blog, I want to make a scheduling announcement. I will be moving on Tuesday. At my new place I don't have Internet (or electricity for that matter). I hope that I will have these things before the week is out, but I may be taking a week off from blogging. I'm moving away from the school that gave me fodder for all of my previous union blogs.

I skipped last Thursday because I was selling a house (in another town) and completing some paperwork in Minot to get highly qualified status. I had a conversation that reminded me of the role unions have played in the lack of respect accorded to schools and teachers today, especially from conservatives.

I spoke with an administrator at the college who was a former teacher. Naturally, he asked me why I was switching schools after one year - especially to go to one that is so remote. I described the situation to him. He then said that the problem with education in North Dakota is that the unions are not powerful enough. He said that was why the pay was so low for teachers.

I noted that I'd like better pay, but I don't like the idea of holding kids hostage. He went on to describe a month-long strike he had been in. He also said that the schools where he had worked fought every year.

The problem with this fighting is that it makes teachers look bad. The more they complain about low wages, the worse they look in other ways. The union has given teachers a false reputation as an unprofessional group that is selfish, unconcerned with kids, and lazy.

A perfect example of this can be found in the comments for Jonah Goldberg's Welfare Kings on Tractors article. I commented on the article. "PearlGirl" read that I was a teacher and exploded in wrath. What's interesting is that, had she actually read my response, she would have seen that we agreed.

I've had parents tell me during conferences that if I was actually any good, I'd have picked a career where I could make some money. Thank-you union! All that whining about salaries has convinced some parents that only someone desperate for a job would put up with such conditions.

The strikes, the work "slow-downs" and harassing, nasty tactics have convinced many that teachers aren't interested in their kids. The right-wing media have helped to whip conservatives into a lather about teachers. Read Ann Coulter's book, Godless, for a whole chapter of such whipping.

What is sad is that many people take such articles and books to represent all teachers rather than a powerful, vocal, very small minority. Most teachers are opposed to or ignorant of union politics. Many join just for the insurance, because their friends are in it, or because they live in a state that requires it.

In my new school, I'll be facing the union again. Once again, I'll be one of the few teachers who isn't part of it. Once again, some teachers will hold it against me that I don't join. This school isn't fighting like the one I've just left. However, the people of that town are already well poisoned against teachers.

Although it's not as dramatic as the politics the unions get into, what I've described here is the real harm unions have done. Parents think I'm out to brainwash their child and that I don't care about anything but myself. They think I'm too incompetent to get a "real job." That is all before I ever teach their child. Thank-you unions.

I didn't post yesterday because I was busy selling my house in another town. I stopped to visit old friends while I was there and it reminded me what a great place it was to live and teach.

The town itself was a town of 500-600 people. It boasted a healthy Main Street (for a town that size), a small hospital, and its own school. While I was there, the school boasted about 200 students K-12. While I was there, I was the entire science department. I taught every single science class for grades 7-12.

It was an idyllic life, sort of like a Norman Rockwell in reality. I won't pretend there were no problems or that I was completely happy there. I will say that a lot of what I experienced there was from an idealized America of the past.

Teaching in a school like that is a lot of work. I taught for 6 periods (out of a total of 7). That was 6 different courses I had to prepare for: setting up labs, correcting, planning, sharing equipment, and writing materials. It is a full day, especially fresh out of college. I'd been taught to be a Physics teacher and suddenly was teaching everything.

This was a good experience. I learned time management. I'd have never survived without those skills. I also gained a wonderful picture of the way students develop, how their skills build, and how the different sciences connect to one another. After a few years, that paid great dividends in my teaching skills.

I very much enjoyed watching my students grow up year after year. I got to know them first as 12-year-old kids and could watch them become young adults. In the process, I got to know their families, taught their brothers and sisters. If I'd stayed long enough I also would have gotten the chance to teach their children.

There are times I've asked myself why I left that world to teach in larger schools. One reason was that I got to teach Physics every year in a larger school. In the small school, I only taught it every other year. Another reason was that these small schools are a dying breed.

The dark side of these schools is a trait of North Dakota. We are running out of kids. Families are smaller and young people have been convinced that to stay in a small town is a mark of failure. They tend not to come back. Even in most of the larger schools, the enrollment is dropping. As it drops, the money dries up and eventually, the school is forced to shut its doors.

That school had once boasted an enrollment of nearly 500 students. Within 10 years, it is projected to have about 100 students. It won't be able to keep its doors open.

My new school (not the one with the nasty union fighting) has about 450 students. By most standards, that's a very small school. To me, it's large. It recently absorbed a school of about 70 students through a process called consolidation. This created a district of nearly 1000 square miles. Of course, like all schools, the enrollment is dropping. In about 10 years, it is projected to have 325 students.

My job is safe at this school. No matter how much the enrollment drops, it covers such an enormous area that it cannot realistically consolidate with a neighbor. In fact, all of the neighbors are a great deal smaller, so they are more likely to come to my school. If trends continue, this will be one of those small schools that I love so much, but without the drawback of having too much future.

The demographic trend is one I want to analyze, but I'm trying to keep my Friday blogs uplifting. The picture I've tried to paint here is of a way of life that still exists. I maintain a website in which I've photographed these schools. Many of these small schools inhabit very old, beautiful buildings. They never had the money to build new. It's a great way of life and I'm glad I had the opportunity to live in it.

On Thursday I'm making the journey to Minot (a 150 mile round trip) all with the goal of being highly qualified to teach math. This year I've spent nearly $1000 on becoming highly qualified.

So what does it mean? I need to show that I have the content knowledge to teach the classes I teach: Physics, Chemistry, Earth Science, Biology, and Math. This is all thanks to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law.

I went to college and received a degree in Physics. According to NCLB, I'm highly qualified to teach only Physics. That's a problem in North Dakota. Only a handful of schools in the state need a full time Physics teacher (those would be Bismarck, Fargo, Minot, and Grand Forks). Since those wouldn't work for me, I needed certification in other areas.

My first job involved teaching 6 different science and math classes. Under the old law, I was able to do this. Now my job options could be very limited. To become "highly qualified" to teach the other classes, I have several options. I can take tests, get a major, or do something called a portfolio.

For Physics, I had the major. For the other 3 sciences, I chose to take the tests at about $100 a pop. For the math, I was almost set. I'd taken a lot of math for my major, and took some math electives. Right now, I'm close to a master's in math. I had to spend about $700 for the one class I hadn't yet taken: math methods. This gave me a math major. I'm going to Minot to take care of the paperwork on this.

I didn't really enjoy going through all of this, but I understand the need for it. There are a lot of teachers out there who are teaching and do not understand what they're teaching. I had a math teacher like that for 2 years in a row.

After having been through the process, I can say that a teacher who cannot handle either of these options really should not be teaching that subject.  Realistically, teaching skills are important, but a teacher who does not know the subject could have a great classroom that accomplishes nothing.

Of course, all the subject knowledge in the world means nothing if the teacher cannot teach. Although it isn't used to its full potential, the apparatus is already in place for evaluating classroom skills: student teaching.

I have been the teacher without the subject knowledge. I have never liked Biology. During my first year of teaching, I clung desperately to my Biology book. I made many embarrassing mistakes. Fortunately for my future students, I made the effort to learn. After 5 years of teaching Biology, I think I finally did a good job.

The love of the subject still isn't there. I'd sooner teach any of the physical sciences. However, I'm able to accurately communicate the subject and I have enough subject knowledge that I can handle questions and applications.

I shouldn't have been allowed to teach Biology during those first 5 years. I also don't think I'd have passed the test. Approximately 80 students missed out in those 5 years because their teacher wasn't good enough. The story is the same all over. In many schools, of course, it's the physical sciences where students miss out. I know a woman who "dreads" her Physics class. She hates the subject.

Yesterday, I summarized the negotiations process at my former school. I summarized the role of both the union and the board, and I believe I was fair. I want to analyze what happened.

The problem I see is that the board's proposal was not serious. It was a negotiating tactic. At every school I've worked for the board usually proposes no raise (or a very small one) and the teachers asks for something ridiculously high. After a few meetings they settle on something both sides can accept.

The union likes this process. It ensures that the board never tries anything controversial (like merit pay) and that the board doesn't try trading one thing for another. It reinforces the status quo. The board likes it too because the ending is predictable. They never have to give away too much and can raise taxes to cover it, all while casting the blame on the teachers.

The school I  worked in took advantage of some quirks of North Dakota law to push in a very controversial reform: the one-line salary schedule. The union could be relied upon to cast the teachers as the villains, despite the chicanery the board was also pulling. It worked wonderfully this year. The board hired a lawyer to negotiate, made a proposal that was insulting, and the union declared impasse after one meeting.

Although the union made a valiant attempt to make it public that the board was proposing a pay cut and to say they were saving the school money on paying the lawyer for negotiations, they looked like the cause of the problem. The board hammered home 3 points:
1.they hired a lawyer because the union already had lawyers (the board is all noble amateurs)
2.after one meeting, the union has no idea whether negotiations will work out or not and is declaring impasse only in a spirit of obstruction
3.the teachers had no alternative proposal (by which they mean a better one-line)

The union has, of course, accomplished its goal. Teachers who might reconsider union membership tell me that in the climate of that school they wouldn't dare be without union protection. The board and union do not trust each other. This wraps the teachers more tightly in the union embrace, keeps the board from working with the union, and ensures it will be worse next year. It's not intentional, but all of this ensures that the two sides will not work together for the benefit of the school.

I wonder about the other schools where the negotiations are even nastier. How do they work together after a strike? How do they work together after the union uses intimidation tactics? How do they work together when the union plays legal games with negotiations?

Of course, they don't. The results are obvious all over this country. If teachers and board can work together for the good of the school, they will create a good school. If they fight, they create the problems we see. Teachers undermine anything that comes from the board and the board undermines anything that comes from the teachers. This is akin to the class warfare that the communists foment.

There are alternatives. Over time I'll explore some of them. For now, I've found it rather cathartic to get my opinions out. I'm beginning this year at a new school. It has a union and once again I'm not going to join. The difference is that the administration at this school wants to work with its teachers and is well aware of what happens if they can't work together. My former school now needs to find a teacher who can teach math and science - in July. I won't claim I'm anything special,  but I will claim that I'm not the only teacher who is bailing out of this sinking ship.

North Dakota is a special place. Things which could be violently contentious in other places are handled quite civilly here. It is in this context that I am relating this story. Consider the poison injected into a school in this story. That is my point, and I speak from a sheltered part of America.

I worked for 1 year in the school described in this story. I had a really bad feeling about taking the job. Why I took it anyway might be a subject of a future blog. I knew the history and was hired in April 2005 without a contract. I finally received a contract in December 2005. I had already been working since August. The delay was due to the process I just described and a mistake the board made: voting on contract issues during executive session. Naturally, the union jumped on this.

What is so disturbing is the way the contract situation infected the school. It was a school with many problems that were simply being ignored. Teacher conversations and meetings were contentious and related to contracts, not to teaching or to solving these problems. Teachers did not trust the administration and board and saw only conspiracy and scorn at any attempt the board and administration made to "reach out." This was stirred up by the negotiating committee.

I won't hold the other side blameless. They certainly encouraged this view. Despite requests from teachers, board meetings were changed so that they were held during school (and teachers could not attend). Promises were made (such as a meeting of teachers and board to air views) and broken. Meanings were twisted or intentionally misunderstood. The most egregious act was when the board promised a final meeting to resolve differences and then voted to impose contracts during an executive session. This is illegal in North Dakota and the school board received notice of this from the state.

For whatever reason, this school negotiates contracts every year, so the process started up almost immediately following the imposed contracts. The necessary preliminary paper work was filed. A ground-rules meeting was held. Then a single meeting and then the union declared impasse.

The hearing was held in June. Both sides read arguments. The teachers complained that the board will not listen to any alternatives to the one-line and had not solved the equity issue. The board complained that the teachers had not offered any suggestions (to improve the one-line) and said that the contract is equitable. The teachers complained that the board's latest offer was actually all "taking things away", including salary. The board said that the teachers did not allow the negotiations to go on for enough meetings. Both sides accused each other of lying and of bad faith.

There was a public comment session. A teacher spoke against the one-line, two former board members spoke in favor of the one-line, and then I spoke. I stated that coming to the school had been a mistake and I wanted out. I was tired of the horrible morale. I said that after this many times it should be obvious that what they're doing isn't working and both sides were to blame. A few others followed me with similar comments. I wound up being somewhat quoted in two major state newspapers and getting some hate-mail.

A recommendation was issued, but I'm still waiting to see if both sides accept it. It recommends a continuation of the one-line, but that adjustments be made for inflation and that returning teachers receive a yearly increment. It did not include the "taking things away" that the board had proposed.

I'll analyze what happened in my next post.