Washington Teachers' Day of Inaction

If the Washington state legislature handles this properly, then the Washington teachers’ union will, for a change, have done the taxpayers a big favor. In what is ironically misnamed a “day of action,” the equally ironically misnamed Washington Education Association is calling for a one day strike on January 14, 2003 to protest looming budget cuts to school programs. Only George Orwell and a teachers’ union would dare describe taking the day off from work as “a day of action.”
What should be done in reaction is that the legislature should cut school budgets by the half percent or so that this one-day of closed schools would have cost the taxpayers, had the schools remained in session. That would not entirely close the $2 billion dollar budget shortfall that looms over the Washington State government. But every little bit should help.
And what little education that the pupils will miss during this one day of action could easily be made up by canceling a couple of pep rallies and sensitivity or consciousness-raising assemblies. Schools manage to squander an awful lot of time that could be better spent focusing on reading, writing and arithmetic. That too little time is spent on these mundane disciplines is clearly revealed from the astronomically high rate of unsatisfactory Washington Assessment of Student Learning scores that Washington’s pupils post each year.
Teachers, naturally, say that they only have the best interests of their pupils at heart and their day of action is meant to protect their education. It sounds better than saying, “I demamd more money.” The union asks that local school administrators cancel school that day, even though doing so would violate laws in some cases and contractual obligations in others. But who cares? These are teachers! And the teachers’ union has a proud history of flouting the law.
If teachers really wanted to prove their sincere commitment to their pupils, they would sacrifice one of their holidays or their so-called in service days and use that for their day of action. It’s instructive that they wish to have their pupils and their parents absorb the sacrifice for an additional day, off so that teachers can engage in what might be more properly called “a day of inaction.” In just 6 more days teachers already get the day off for Martin Luther King Day. The Washington State School Directors Association suggested that teachers use that day to raise hell and demand more money. But, remarkable in a remarkable exhibition of chutzpah, the union declared that it would not use that day because it would be disrespectful to the memory of Dr. King. If only the teachers’ union were as respectful of the people who pay their salaries.
Most galling is the transfer of blame that this day of inaction implies. The day of inaction suggests that the responsibility for the state’s budget crisis is somebody’s fault. And probably it is the fault of a lot of people, including the taxpayers who consider themselves overtaxed. But, if the teachers want a full accounting of who is really to blame for the state being in such a budgetary mess, they should begin by taking a good, long look at themselves.
The teachers and their union will never admit it, but a significant contributor to the state’s funding difficulties originates from their own greed and laziness. Two years ago, the teachers’ union pushed through initiatives 728 and 732. These initiatives simultaneously raised teachers’ pay, guaranteed them future pay raises, and reduced their workload. Wouldn’t you like to get a deal like that? From a budget writer’s perspective, these initiatives ensured that, each budget cycle, teachers would be served an ever larger portion of the pie, and that everyone else would receive an ever smaller slice.
The Legislature cannot be blamed if they try to find some money in school budgets to keep other state programs afloat. And the teachers are supremely arrogant if they think that their exalted stature should confer special exemptions from the budget knife.
Teachers are among those in our society who are treated with such solicitude that they believe themselves exempt from conventions that apply to mere mortals. If only they would treat their profession with the respect they demand of us.