To the Editor:

I want to comment on Chester E. Finn, Jr.’s indecent use of the late Albert Shanker to malign the teacher-union movement that he virtually created and loved [Letters from Readers, March, on Mr. Finn’s review of The Teacher Unions by Myron Lieberman, November 1997].

Al would undoubtedly be as unmoved by Mr. Finn’s saccharine “missing” of his counsel on education and foreign-policy issues as he was by Mr. Finn’s occasional support of his positions when he was alive. As a deeply principled man, Al was suspicious of so-called democrats whose support of democratic institutions and political participation was highly selective. As critical as he often was of the labor movement and public education, these were the two bedrock democratic institutions to which he devoted his career. His support for them was unshakable, while Mr. Finn’s is nonexistent.

Al was also wise to Mr. Finn’s habit of pretending that Al’s fight against totalitarianism and isolationism, his positions on improving the quality of schools and teaching, and on teacher-union reform were merely his personal perspectives rather than the policies and active work of the American Federation of Teachers. (What a feat that would have been! Al, like all AFT presidents, faced election every two years. Whom does Mr. Finn represent or answer to?)

So let the record be clear: the AFT, under Al Shanker’s leadership and now mine, continues to be the leading activist for standards-based education reform and the professionalization of teaching in this nation. We also continue to be unabashed advocates of traditional trade-union concerns, such as decent salaries and working conditions and due process for our members. We continue to push for nontraditional, “break-the-mold” union practices, such as taking greater responsibility for ensuring that only first-rate teachers are hired and promoted and that incompetent teachers are helped or, failing that, removed. And let me remind Mr. Finn and others who are impatient with our progress, we do not run the schools; management does, and there is a dearth of smart partners on that side.

Mr. Finn is right on one score. We will continue to be obstacles to the radical reforms he seeks, such as vouchers, the destruction of workers’ rights, and an end to our rightful participation in the political process. If that makes us a “menace,” so be it.

Sandra Feldman
President, American
Federation of Teachers
Washington, D.C.

_____________

Chester E. Finn, Jr. writes:

Sandra Feldman is nothing if not feisty. Testy, even. The odd thing about her ringing pronouncements concerning the AFT’s singular role in American education is that she is at present negotiating a merger with the National Education Association (NEA) in which the AFT will inevitably be submerged. Odds are good that within a year or two Sandra Feldman will resurface as senior vice president of a single, vast national teachers’ union, one that will—at best—retain a smidgen of interest in the non-bread-and-butter issues to which the late Albert Shanker devoted a lot of attention and to which he directed a goodly portion of the AFT’s resources.

Al fought quotas while the NEA imposed them. Al criticized bilingual education while the NEA promoted it. Al saw the dangers of multiculturalism to the assimilationist mission of the public schools while the NEA pushed for more of it. Al supported teacher testing in California (and elsewhere) while the NEA fought it in court. Al insisted that student tests should have consequences (such as determining whether a person can get admitted to college) while the NEA joined the anti-testing crusade. What will the new NEA/AFT do on these and kindred issues?

As with many larger-than-life figures, Shanker’s legacy will doubtless be the stuff of many arguments and countless efforts will be made to shape his place in history to various ends and interests. Will his ideas survive the Feldman-led merger? Probably not.

Sandra Feldman thinks she knows what Al Shanker thought of me. But she cannot possibly know what I thought of him, which was, of course, what I said in the reply that prompted her comments. I liked him. I respected him. On many matters I trusted him and took his advice to heart. I often disagreed with him, too. He once trounced me worse in a debate (on vouchers) than anyone before or since. But there were numerous domains in which we collaborated. At Al’s invitation, for example, I worked on a project called “education for democracy,” drafting a statement of purpose and then carrying our message to (unionized) teachers in the newly free nations of Eastern Europe. We also worked together on national standards and assessment. We served together on various task forces and panels, and participated in innumerable seminars.

Sandra Feldman is not known for her interest in high standards and teacher testing, nor for her readiness to criticize the fads and trends that so distort American education. Too bad, for those were Shanker’s hallmark issues.

She may control her union—at least for a little while longer. But she does not own Al Shanker’s legacy. It is bigger than she is. And a little piece of it belongs to me.

_____________