Ran Erez, chairman of the Teachers’ Association threatens to strike on September the 1st.
So, what is the strike about this time? The current controversy surrounds the issue of employing teachers by personal contracts.
Erez and his counterpart Yaffa Ben David from the Israel Teachers’ Union (Histadrut Hamorim) tend to attribute the idea of personal contracts to the Kohelet Policy Forum, wasting no opportunity to smear it. This week Erez went so far as to send messages to all teachers warning of Kohelet’s activities which, according to him, “are destroying the education system”. Avital Ben Shlomo, Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Education and former Kohelet employee was sneeringly referred to by Ben David as [the cartoon character] “Mrs. Pepperpot” amid the call for her dismissal.
Putting aside for the moment both Ben Davids’ rich world of imagery and Erez’ intimidation campaign, let’s focus on the issue of teachers’ employment through personal contracts – whether or not it is an initiative that benefits students, can advance the education system, open up new opportunities for teachers and promote student welfare.
Credit for the idea of personal contracts actually goes to members of the Dovrat Commission, a public committee appointed by the Israeli government that submitted its recommendations in 2005, long before Kohelet Forum was even established.
In its comprehensive report, the Dovrat Commission recommended personal contracts, even prioritizing non-central districts in this regard. The committee recommended granting higher salaries for teachers working under personal contracts than their colleagues who were beholden to collective contracts. Such salaries would not be tied to seniority, and teachers employed by personal contract would not get tenure.
The model of flexible salaries via personal contracts incentivizes excellence in teaching. Personal contracts furthermore open the door to teachers who are only able to work fewer hours, alongside higher education studies or another profession, without having to go down the tortuous route of pay rise only through seniority.
As a matter of course, the ministries of finance and education allow teachers who so desire to continue their employment through collective public agreement, so that at no point are any teachers harmed.
Is it beneficial to students to be taught by teachers whose salary is determined by their expertise and teaching quality? Will personal contracts for higher salaries attract high-quality teachers? One needn’t be an expert to answer yes to both questions. Looking abroad on this issue demonstrates the fact: In 2011, the state of Wisconsin passed a law allowing schools to use a flexible salary model for teachers’ employment. Recent research has found that the districts in Wisconsin that chose to use this model attracted better teachers and improvement showed up in both the quality of teaching and the scholastic achievements that rose as a result of the release from collective agreements, being particularly striking among students from a low socio-economic background.
Why then, are the teachers’ organizations threatening a strike? Because unfortunately, the teachers’ organizations do not serve the teachers’ needs. Approximately 50% of young teachers prefer to be employed by personal contracts and they are likely the most talented among the new teachers cohort. The teachers’ organizations also do nothing for either the students or the education system, which is in acute need of teachers of excellence. Sadly, the teachers’ organization serves only itself, and fights to preserve its power over the education system and its primary lever of power, which it trots out regularly every August.
First published [Hebrew] in Israel Hayom
