A few words about teachers' contracts

I'd like to speak for a moment on teachers' contracts in general, on my own behalf and not on behalf of the board.

Teacher contracts are an emotional subject, especially when - not if, because they always do - negotiations extend beyond the life of the current contract.  To me, the angst is caused by a simple paradox that sets up unnecessary conflict: Are teachers professionals, as they demand to be recognized, or are they blue-collar workers in need of the protection of collective bargaining, much like steelworkers or coal miners? Professionals tend to be paid for results, not punching a clock, and are capable of working through temporary periods of challenge without overly complaining about their "morale" all the time.

Yet we rightfully would not trust our children's education to unskilled laborers either, and we all respect teachers for their professionalism and dedication to enriching the lives of our children and society.

So which are they - professionals or laborers?  We tend to give them protected status as both - professionals who may alternately vacillate between both roles as suits their needs at the time.  That's not a judgment, it's a fact of life that school boards, parents and children contend with.

Which brings me to some simple observations from having negotiated at least 3 teacher contracts as a board member (but not the current one in Wharton):

First, you should know that no teacher in the state of New Jersey has ever worked without a contract.  When a contract expires, its protections remain in place indefinitely. Otherwise, why wouldn't a Machiavellian school board simply cut salaries across the board to save money?  It never has happened, and never will.  When a teacher or NJEA rep complains that they are working without a contract, please let them know you are better informed than that.

Secondly, imagine a table with both sides - board and union - sitting across from each other.  In the middle of the table is a written contract, and two pens.  Either side may sign the contract first.  Somehow, the teachers' association is always able to convince the gullible that it's naturally the board that is refusing to sign.

Third, a little known secret - local union leadership serves itself first, the rest of membership last, and tends to keep them in the dark throughout negotiations.  Can't tell you how many times teachers will come to board members or administrators wanting to know "what's really going?" on in negotiations.  And I have actually participated in negotiations where the board would not concede a union demand because it would only benefit some teachers, to the detriment to others.  Enough said on that.

Finally, the length of the negotiations is not an indication of the board's support or respect for teachers!  It's not personal, it's strictly business.  That's the way, unfortunately, the process works.

OK, if this falls into the hands of any Wharton teachers please know I have not been in any way involved in these negotiations, and don't have any knowledge or insights into those negotiations.  I am only sharing from previous experience.

And yes, I am writing with this week's board meeting in mind.  I bristle at and resent any implications by anyone - employed by the district, or in the public - that the Wharton Board of Ed does not support or respect our teachers.  Any implications to that effect are ignorant and self-serving.

I would be happy to get your thoughts, but won't be able to address anything Wharton-specific.  PaulOU2@msn.com