Talk:American Federation of Teachers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Organized Labour Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments.
  • The discussion of the Federacian de Maestros (FMPR) was one-sided (it did not cover AFT's charges or views, the views of the U.S. district court, the views of previous FMPR presidents who supported AFT, etc.) and inaccurate (whether most members knew of the AFT affiliation is irrelevant, as most union members' connection are to the local union, as it should be; the actual delinking of AFT and FMPR occurred after AFT pulled FMPR's charter, not because the decertification vote was validated). Additionally, most unions suffer decertifications. They are not usually noteworthy unless otherwise discussed, which the section on FMPR did not do. Tim1965 19:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Many of the links--such as the Mike Antonnucci link, the Information Please link (which was a circular link, as InfoPlease merely uses Wikipedia as its source), etc.--were not useful, unbalanced and/or inaccurate. And external link should not provide more information; that information should be in the article itself. An external link should link to the person or organization discussed, or to a site which discusses the topic in far more depth or technical detail that is appropriate for a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. These links did not, IMHO. Tim1965 19:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Campaign for Children's Health/Shared governance statement

Is it necessary to add a whole section on the Campaign for Children's Health? AFT participates in many such campaigns. Why does this one get notice? And why should any of them be mentioned? If AFT's involvement is somehow notable (rather than being "just another campaign", or because the campaign has achieved a major accomplishment -- akin to winning collective bargaining or was a union-wide mobilization like "Lessons for Life"), then shouldn't that be noted? Otherwise, I would remove this section. This is an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement for everything AFT does.

Is the notice about the shared governance statement also necessary? AFT, its executive council, and its PPCs issue policy statements, resolutions, reports, etc., all the time. If all of them were to be included, this wouldn't be an encyclopedia article but rather the AFT Web site. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to create a subsection describing each AFT PPC or division, and putting a link to the higher ed article there? If the governance statement is somehow path-breaking, has achieved something notable, or is highly controversial (akin to AFT's support for gay rights several years ago, when NEA had rescinded its statement after being criticized by Concerned Women for America), maybe it should go it. But it should be linked to the "story" of the article rather than just hanging out there, in the middle. Tim1965 19:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the statement on shared governance is particularly relevant to labor, and relevant informative content on the organization. The Campaign for Children's health is unobtrusive, I read it, found it interesting and followed the link. --Kenneth M Burke 01:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Lots of things the AFT puts out are relevant to labor, relevant to the organizaton, and important to higher education. But that's beside the point. Why this one statement? Why not all the AFT's resolutions and policy statements on higher ed through the years? Why not all the work they've done for Campus Equity Week? Why this one statement, not others? Ditto for the CCC bit. Why not AFT's school nurse diabetes campaign, "Every Child Needs A School Nurse" legislative effort, or its Lessons For Life program from the 1990s (which was far bigger than any of these things)? Unobtrusive or not, interesting or not, neither belong. - Tim1965 18:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I believe it is of their first statements on the subject (but certainly it would be interesting to delve into the history of it with the AFT). It is an important topic and one that a number of organizations are concerned with both domestic and abroad. The article itself is leans so much toward a labor emphasis, I think it balances the article and emphasizes an aspect of higher educational organization important to labor unionizing in universities. Maybe more about policy statements in general could also be added to the article. I think it is unobtrusive and relevant information. Does it bother you that much?--Kenneth M Burke 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I would argue this one statement isn't important. AFT Higher Ed's efforts on tenure, adjunct faculty, pay, and budgeting for higher ed are, I'd argue, more important than this lone policy statement and have a longer history of support (including staff, resources, budget, local involvement, etc.).
I would also point out that AFT has provided no budget, no staff, and no resources to the CCC campaign. It's a sign-on campaign, and AFT signed on. (CCC will be lucky if AFT covers the campaign in "Healthwire", "American Teacher" or "PSRP Reporter".)
AFT has done so much else that's important -- it's NCLB effort, it's New Orleans reconstruction project...heck, their Web site today features their new (unbranded) report on higher ed "faculty bias" studies. That's the organization's focus, I'd argue.
Perhaps the higher ed statement is important for other reasons (such as to higher ed policy makers). If so, then perhaps a separate article should be written on governance in higher education, and the details provided there (in context, with other policy positions from other unions and organizations).
I worry that WP articles on unions will become mere advertisements for every little tiny thing the union does—whether it's important or not. Businesses, unions, authors, filmmakers: They all (and others) have tended to bloat up WP articles with self-promoting "stuff." I fail to see any evidence that either the higher ed statement or the CCC campaign are important to AFT, that AFT has taken action on them, or that anyone else outside the organization (or this talk page) thinks this is important. So yeah, it bothers me that much. - Tim1965 00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, and maybe many of those important details can be worked into the article itself (all the issues discussed in relation to higher education fall under the umbrella of governance). Beyond this, I simply feel that providing the information and creating connections between articles is important. It provides a convenient and useful collaborative bridge for learning. I have shortened it and hope that it can be worked into the article in some way, but am not so stubborn that I cannot see another point of view if your really think it should be deleted. Thanks for the dialogue. --Kenneth M Burke 06:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early History and Creation

To have a section on the early history of the AFT and then speak of its creation later on in the article is redundant and inefficient to the economy of the article. The article should concern itself with the reorganization of these sections.--Kenneth M Burke 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Could you be more specific? I don't see this. The article does talk about the founding of the AFT. Then there's a subsection on the founding of its largest local, the UFT—an act fundamentally important to the growth of the union, the stabilization of its finances, the vaulting of Al Shanker to the presidency, the rise of militancy within the union, etc. (The UFT article itself should be much bigger and detailed, I agree. And there's no Ocean Hill-Brownsville strike, no Newark strike, etc.) Then the article shifts back to the growth of the union beyond the UFT founding. Of course, I'm not the "keeper of the article," either. I just worked there for 10 years and know a lot about it, so I contributed heavily. - Tim1965 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand, the relationship between the UFT and AFT might be confusing to readers. By no means do I mean to intrude into your work in any way. I can offer suggestions if you like. It seems to me that the introduction to the article is good, and the early history is good, but I think most of the growth could be improved upon by clarifying the UFT and subsequent history. Many of the details seem to be random facts. Perhaps the article could be reworked by reorganizing the major ideas and working some of the details into a timeline. I believe this could be done in four steps.
  1. Briefly introducing some of the history of the UFT into the early history.
  2. Deleting the section on political and civil rights activities to say something more concrete about their activities with the creation of the UFT (maybe opening up the opportunity to discuss important policies).
  3. Provide a coherent transition into the strike and expansion from the creation of the UFT.
  4. Taking all the random dates in the history and making a comprehensive timeline to leave a coherent article.

I would be more than happy to work with you on the article. I am an agreeable individual and easy to get along with. I'll look around Wikipedia for some creative timelines.--Kenneth M Burke 06:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)



the AFT has long been one of the more active unions in foreign policy in the united states; it'd be worth someone with some background in that topic adding this to the page.

[edit] Assessmnent comments

I did a quick assessmnent in the comments section as per MrMacMan's request. G'luck. Haus42 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)