[EPI welcomes
reader
feedback.]
The Myth of "Participation"
One of the longstanding shibboleths in education is the
value ascribed to "participation." For example, teacher
unions justified collective bargaining by asserting that
parties affected by decisions should participate in the
decision-making process; that is, teachers who are affected
by managerial decisions should participate in the
decision-making process.
Obviously, the teacher unions did not and do not apply
this principle to decisions they make. For instance, teacher
bargaining resolves such issues as when teachers must show
up to work, when they can leave after regular classes, and
how many evening meetings with parents they are required to
attend. All such decisions affect parents, yet parents are
not invited or allowed to attend union meetings or
bargaining sessions where union positions on these matters
are adopted. It is sometimes alleged that parent
participation occurs, or is supposed to occur, as the school
district negotiators decide their position on the teacher
work day, but clearly, this does not happen very often. The
fact that the school district as well as the union take
parental wishes into account, or say that they do, is not
equivalent to parent participation in the decision-making
process. Whenever A represents B without B's participation
or even knowledge, there is a significant possibility that A
will act opportunistically.
The benefits of participation are a major theme of
educational administration. Supposedly, the more teacher
participation in administrative decisions, the more
"democratic" the administration. The thought that the more
school employees decide certain matters reduces
participation by citizens rarely ever seems to cross the
minds of supporters of collective bargaining. This is
evident from the process and results of teacher bargaining.
The contracts are negotiated without participation by
affected parties, such as taxpayers, parents, and
businessmen. As soon as the union ratifies the contract, the
school boards hold a meeting as soon as possible thereafter,
to ratify the contract before community groups can study it
carefully and possibly object. Then, after the union has
ratified and the school board is about to ratify, others may
find out what is in the contract that affects everyone.
There is seldom time, however, to analyze the proposed
contract carefully or to mount community opposition to it --
the very reason why school boards ratify promptly after
union ratification. In short, the process is
anti-participatory from beginning to end. Nonetheless, it is
hailed as the epitome of "participation."
We need not seek very far for the explanation. Groups
that advocate "participation" typically do so to justify
their own participation; once getting it, they are not
interested in enlarging the circle of decision makers.
Whatever may be said about participation by others in
collective bargaining, we can agree that it affects
teachers. Nonetheless, low attendance at teacher union
meetings is the rule, not the exception, and this is true of
union meetings generally. Some unions have gone so far as to
fine members who do not attend union meetings, but whatever
the remedy, non-participation in union affairs, in education
or in other fields, is the general rule.
Quite often, union critics point to low turnout at union
meetings as evidence of union boss control, but this is a
questionable criticism. Only two or three percent of the
electorate vote in school board elections when these
elections are held at times different from general
elections. Frequently, every effort is made to get citizens
to vote, regardless of their information or interest in
voting. Like clockwork, the pundits lament the fact, just as
they lament low turnout at union meetings.
Voter participation is usually much higher than the
percentages mentioned by the media. Their percentages are
usually based on the number of eligible voters, but the
names of individuals who have moved or died are not
typically dropped from lists of eligible voters. Failing to
keep the lists up to date results in substantial
underestimates of voter participation in elections. In any
case, we can observe many situations in which citizens do
not participate in decisions that affect them.
The reason for nonparticipation is often that it is not
worth the time and trouble. Ideologues glorify participation
and criticize decision making processes characterized by
little or no participation. Such criticisms are justified in
some cases, but not in others in which potential
participants do not take advantage of opportunities to
participate.
In the early 1970s, I was a professor at the City
University of New York when it hired a new president.
Inasmuch as everyone was interested in his views but
information about him was hard to come by, I purchased a
copy of his doctoral dissertation on microfilm.
The dissertation was about Arkansas colleges that
received Ford Foundation grants to establish a fifth year
teacher education program -- four years for a major in a
teaching field and a fifth year devoted largely to student
teaching. Prior to the grant, the faculty had made a big
deal about its participation in formulating policies on
teacher education. Faced with the prospect of receiving
substantial foundation support for a program in which the
faculty did not participate in drafting, the faculty opted
for the money, not the participation.
The outcome illustrates a pervasive point about
participation. When faculty do not get their way, they
allege that there has been inadequate participation, and as
long as they do not get what they want, there is never
enough participation. If they get what they want, they could
not care less about the lack of participation.
|
Building a Competitive Education
Industry
