THE PUBLIC MIND: ON ISSUES CONFRONTING EDUCATION, NAME-CALLING, FINGER-POINTING OBSTRUCT PURPOSE

To the Editor:

This letter is being written in response to your column on Sunday, March 1, which attacked MNEA and its educational goals. The article showed a lack of research into MNEA's position on several important issues.

The first issue dealt with MNEA's support for a standard's board, which would deal with teacher certification. For years, physicians, lawyers, and other professionals have had the right to set standards for those entering their field of expertise. Teachers, who are likewise professionals, should have the same control over their own field. ~That other profession would allow non-members to dictate the standards that their members should have to meet? You stated in the article that "we could balk at the cost of such a venture or the added bureaucracy it might ordain." There is no reason why a standards board, administered by teachers appointed by the Governor, would cost anymore or add to the present bureaucracy. Indeed, if implemented wisely it could actually reduce cost and inefficiency by taking some authority away from state government.

The second point raised in the article deals with what appears to be your major objection to MNEA "collective bargaining." Your column paints a picture of teachers with picket signs more interested in their own pay than the welfare of their students. If one would look past these hysterical images a clearer picture would be revealed. The first deals with the term "collective bargaining" itself. Collective bargaining does not mean "unionization," it is simply a process by which two sides, Administration and Professional Staff, sit down to discuss the major issues facing them. In an extreme case, if no agreement could be reached, a third party, or arbitrator, would be brought in to resolve the impasse. The two sides would agree to the third party's decision, no strike would result, and Administrators and Teachers would still work as a team towards the job of providing the best education possible for our children. Thirty-nine of the 50 states have a collective bargaining law. In those states, contrary to the image presented by the media, less than one percent of the teachers in the entire Nation have ever been involved in a work stoppage. The idea that "collective bargaining" in Missouri would bring about a rash of teacher strikes is simply ridiculous.

The third topic dealt with the proposed amendment to mandate that 33.3 percent of the state budget go to education. All major teacher organizations in Missouri have endorsed this plan. In regard to the money being spent on school bussing in St. Louis and Kansas City, many educators from both the metropolitan areas and out-state Missouri believe that money to pay for bussing should not be taken out of the education budget. Unfortunately the Legislature and the Governor have taken it upon themselves to do just that, thus reducing the money going to all schools. A solution to this matter lies with the Governor, General Assembly, and Federal Courts; in the meantime the children of Missouri should not be forced to suffer due to the shortsightedness of the budget process.

The next issue dealt with what the author believed to be MNEA's less than enthusiastic support for Proposition B. This proposal was defeated not by a lack of effort on the part of MNEA, or any other teacher's organization, it was defeated simply because it was bad legislation. When the authors of the proposal could not even explain what the terminology meant the people of Missouri did what common sense dictates; they voted no on the issue. It is unfortunate that education does not have the same "consensus coefficient" that the recent gas tax enjoyed. Perhaps if Missouri's youth were valued as highly as our roads and bridges a better alternative than Proposition B could have been presented to the people and won their support.

It is hoped that this letter has cleared up some of the misconceptions concerning MNEA. MNEA is the largest teacher's organization in the state and is affiliated with the largest teacher's association in the nation with over two million members. MNEA is not the extreme radical wing of the education establishment, it is the education establishment. In the future let us hope that the issues confronting education can be dealt with in a sane and rational manner. Name-calling and fingerpointing do not help anyone and distracts us from our main purpose the education of the next generation.

~~Kenneth E. Markin

Cape Girardeau

Editor's note: One point raised in this letter, and it is central to our suspicions about the MNEA, must be addressed.

The bulk of the revenue for elementary and secondary education comes from general revenue. The entire amount of desegregation funds paid by Missouri comes from general revenue. If the MNEA position is that school funding should be 33.3 percent of general revenue plus the 10 percent desegregation takes from general revenue, the state would be put in even more of a fiscal quandary. The Missouri treasury is not expandable on demand; there is a finite amount of money available for expenditure.

Where does the MNEA think the $408 million that will be spent on desegregation this year should come from? Do you eliminate most of the $451 million that general revenue contributes to social services? Do you do away with all the $388 million that goes for mental health?

Court-ordered desegregation costs are a huge drain on the state treasury. The MNEA can not dodge the issue. Again, we get back to the question posed in the March 1 editorial, and one we believe most outstate teachers would want answered before affiliating with the organization: Where does the MNEA stand on desegregation costs?