JANUARY 2007
As we consistently
remind our students, stereotyping is wrong. Taking the attributes of
some
members of a particular group, then creating a fixed image of
all
members of that group based on these few examples has long been recognized as
the root of prejudice and intolerance. Nuanced observation soon yields to
simplistic and often misleading overgeneralization. Bad action soon follows
bad thought.
As educators, combating
such mental laziness, and the injustice that often accompanies it, is one of
our prime responsibilities. Yet, one of the troubling ironies of our current
circumstances is that, as teachers lead the fight against stereotyping, we
increasingly find ourselves one of its most frequent victims. This phenomenon
is becoming ever more evident, both nationally and locally.
While each May’s school
budget votes give rise to the predictable slew of letters to the editor,
decrying the greed and sloth of the teachers’ unions, with teacher-bashing
“exposés” aired on national networks and a record number of districts at
loggerheads with their teachers’ unions, the trickle of criticism has become a
torrent.
What is most troubling
about such criticism, though, is not so much its existence, as its source.
For increasingly, school administrators themselves have joined the
anti-teacher chorus, and have begun to propagate many of the negative
stereotypes once voiced only by disgruntled seniors citizens and anti-tax
zealots.
Unlike their elderly or
stingy compatriots, however, administrators express their disdain for teachers
more implicitly than explicitly. Instead of flatly stating that teachers are
unmotivated loafers who lack the professionalism to do what is best for
students, they simply impose mandates that are animated by such disregard.
How else does one explain mandatory “staff development” or the additional
obligations the District is currently seeking to impose? Whether they intend
to or not, the District administration is making a very clear statement by
advocating such policies, i.e. “We must compel you because we can’t trust
you”. And, of course, they feel completely justified in taking this position
because of the stereotypical image of teachers they have developed. In the
collective mind of our administration, the average teacher is a money-grubbing
slacker, seeking to milk the District of valuable resources. Their role, as
they see it, is to thwart our schemes, as they exercise their “fiduciary
responsibility” to the community.
To a certain extent, of
course, one has to forgive the administration for operating with a stereotype
in mind. After all, the collective nature of our contractual relationship
essentially requires them to develop policies with a “typical” teacher in
mind, as all policies apply to all teachers. What is far less understandable,
however, is the particular stereotype they have developed. For while Garden
City, like every other organization, undoubtedly does have a small handful of
teachers who conform to their negative stereotype, the overwhelming majority
do not. In fact, one of the most striking characteristics of our membership,
commented on by virtually everyone familiar with other districts, is the
unstinting professionalism and commitment of our teachers.
So, if the District is
going to stereotype its teachers, then it should at least develop a stereotype
that accurately reflects who we are. To look at the passionate and dedicated
professionals who make up the GCTA and see only malingerers denigrates us all,
and ultimately leads to ill-conceived restrictions like those upon which our
contract negations have foundered.