| OCR Text |
Show 24 attitude.) Others say that the collective and the eventual a legitimate acceptance by the NEA of collective negotiations means the most radical to professionalize already mentioned. as for to belong is unheard of today. common course, one in NEA changes For example, the American Federation of Teachers was education definitely as represent change in NEA policy-making history. To be sure, there were other 1960's negotiations development (AFT), policy prior in the to the early days of the AFL-CIO affiliate, it to both the NEA and the AFT. This, of Lieberman states: It may surprise many teachers that the founders of the AFT did regard the AFT as a rival of the NEA. Nevertheless, this seems to have been the case. The AFT was founded by teachers who regarded the two organizations as complementary. They regarded the NEA as an agency to discuss problems of subject not matter and methods, whereas the AFT was viewed as the organiza tion which should represent teachers on such vocational issues as salaries and tenure. A few of the early leaders of the AFT were also prominent personalities in the NEA. It was not until 1919, when the rapid growth of the AFT threatened to attract large numbers of teachers away from the NEA, that the conflicting rather than the was complementary emphasized. 10 nature of the two Still, it does not appear that dual membership Some have thought that during the 1920's teachers began to realize that as salaries more the vocal. reasons 10MyrOn N. J.: concerned.11 for the growth they not clear. Lieberman, Education 1956), were Perhaps this are p. A. Engel, "Teacher of Law and Education 1 as a widespread. was seeming prosperity of the It is true that the NEA grew Prentice Hall, llRoss Journal were organizations is not keeping up as far why they began getting during the 1920's, but Ross Engel's Profession research (Englewood Cliffs, 369. Negotiation: History (July 1972): 487. and Comment," |
