When critics of teachers’ unions want to strike a blow against unions, they throw around something that they claim was said by the late Albert Shanker:
‘When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of children.’ ”
Albert Shanker was the brilliant and much-admired and very outspoken president of the American Federation of Teachers; he died in 1997.
Joel Klein, former NYC chancellor who now sells education technology for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, quoted this line in an article in The Atlantic Monthly, and Mitt Romney quoted it when he unveiled his education policy package.
The problem is that no one knows for sure if Albert Shanker actually said these words.
Various efforts to trace the origins of this line have failed to discover whether Shanker ever said it.
It appeared in a small newspaper in Mississippi. Rightwing outlets love to cite it.
But no one can authenticate that Albert Shanker ever said it.
So we can expect that rightwing opponents of teachers’ right to bargain collectively will continue to cite this as fact rather than fancy.
As it happened, I knew Al Shanker very well. The best representation of his beliefs was the sign that New York City teachers carried when they protested or went on strike: “Teachers Want What Children Need.”
Next time someone rails against the unions, remember that teachers’ working conditions are children’s learning conditions.
Diane
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I don’t see your problem, Diane. Small newspapers in Mississippi are sooo reliable.
So, in other words, this is a bogus quote that someone made up to ridicule Shanker. It’s false.
Shouldn’t we call it that, clearly?
P.S. Seeing the story in the Post reminded me of trying to track down a quote from Ronald Reagan on the success of non-union working places, way back in the day (1976). As it happened, Reagan visited Utah (where I was working), and I got a chance to sit down with his speech writers. I asked them about the quote, and the source of the figures. It took some time, but one of them finally handed me a citation to a magazine article (Readers Digest is what I remember, but time has faded the clarity for me). After the event I wandered into the library at Brigham Young University and found the periodical, and the article. It was under Reagan’s name, a self-citation.
You know, they won’t let me do that on Wikipedia.
Unless someone comes up with a good citation on that claimed Shanker quote, let’s call it bogus.
For years I’ve believed and said, “If a teacher is happy in their school and work environment, the kids will be happy, too!” Attitudes are contagious! The attitude of Mitt Romney is one I don’t like!
Well, I appreciate that you (Dr. Ravitch) always seek to verify sources. It doesn’t surprise me that many politicians do not though. It also doesn’t surprise me (only saddens me) that people often believe what is quoted whether it’s verifiable or not. It would make me a little sad if we would ever find out that Al Shanker articulated his thoughts in this way, but on the other hand, i really don’t see why it’s such a horrible thing for a teachers union to have as it’s main (or only) function- the protection of teachers’ rights and benefits. After all it’s a labor union, not a advocacy group for children. And truly, the parents and the teachers (not a union) should be the ones advocating for children. What’s the saddest of all is that when we do advocate, (as in the case of eliminating high stakes testing driven curriculums) NO one appears to be listening- Not our state legislators, not our state superintendents of public instruction, not our Education Secretary. Seriously, HOW LOUD DO WE HAVE TO SHOUT? and how many reputable facts do we have to present and how much legitimate research has to be cited before anyone in power grows a conscience and decides it’s time to turn all of this “deform” around? Thank you so much for continuing to stand up even when it’s discouraging!
“Teachers Want What Children Need.”…perfect!
Lots more money and no responsibility for performance! Abolish tenure!
Who cares who said what? This “philosophizing around quotes” is bad philosophy. Logic, reason, and a dash of evidence is what matters around any discussion.
Personally, I would love to see teachers lose tenureship and put the students and parents before their own salary and job security, you know, because “it’s all about the children,” right? Right…
M Liston, Your logic fails me completely. If as a teacher , my living wage and my security goes away, I can assure you that you and your child will be the last thing on my mind. Instead I’ll be exhausted from working that 3rd job and instead I’ll be worrying my head off about how I’m going to put dinner on the table for my own children or how I’m going to keep my marriage together and my sanity. And more realistically, I’m going to seek employment in a field that assures me a standard of living. Do you seriously expect educated and trained people to gamble on their familys’ livelihoods? Because gambling is what we’ll be doing everyday with VAM methods of evaluation and merit pay. No, Thank you to that!
M. Liston, thanks for saying it like it really is and not like those teachers that supposedly care. Now most teachers do care about the education of the children but the union leadership and administrative levels of the public school system is where most of the money goes and NOT to the classroom where it belongs. Furthermore, parents need to have ‘choice’ in where their child is educated and not be forced into the failing neighborhood school and yet the union leadership, Democrat party and current administration reject choice and help for students in failing schools. Soon after Obama got info office he shut down the highly successful charter schools in D.C. for inner city kids. Their party prefers ‘dependents’ and ‘indoctrination’ and don’t you dare leave the plantation.
Ms. Pastore and I’m sure others think they have a right to collectively bargain; they don’t and they shouldn’t; it’s the ‘peoples money’. To collectively bargain in a ‘publicly’ funded organization is akin to having uninvited guest in your home dividing up your belongings while they’ve put you in the closet and if they don’t get their way, they go on an illegal strike against you. It’s quite basic, the two parties are government and public teachers union…both publicly, i.e. taxpayer funded. Ms. Pastore, how would you like it if your neighbors came over to your home and saw that you had more than they did so they helped themselves and even got upset when you protested? If you’re sane, you would be upset but by your comments putting yourself first before those that pay your wages puts you on the side of the takers; selfish individuals. I don’t fault teachers for wanting fair wages but you need to take a look at the financial weight at the top of your union and school administrative levels instead of holding the taxpayers hostage just because you don’t get your way and have a tantrum in the process.
Entering into public service is not the same thing as indentured service, and in a nation of free peoples, should be kept as far away from slavery as is humanly possible. How well do you think your house will be protected by firemen who understand that you think their services are like theft? How well do you think your safety will be protected by police, you health protected by PHS, your water’s potability protected by the water department, and your child protected by her kindergarten teacher, when they all understand you think they are thieves?
On the other side, as you make obvious, there are those who are elected or appointed to positions of great power who don’t have the sense the gods gave chickens when it comes to leading a team, who abuse even public service workers. How in the world can we protect those who offer to lay down their lives to protect you, from such abuse?
If corruption plagues a union, take the story to the local DA. Clean it up. But don’t put your children in danger just because you’re too lazy to use the tools of a democratic republic. “Citizen” has duties, as well as privileges. Depriving public workers of basic rights is neither a privilege nor a duty of a citizen.
Looks like Stockholm syndrome is alive and well in America.
Forced to pay the salaries of those you do not wish to pay, and would rather use your money elsewhere? Forced to support a mind-numbing institution modeled after old Prussian military academies? Children forced into such environments for twelve years of their developing lives? Diagnosed with a “mental disorder” and medicated if the child does not shut up, comply, sit down in a boring classroom, and act like a “good little student”? And on and on and on?
Surely, these people in government and in public education have our best interests at heart. Surely, they support voluntarism and free choice, and ownership of private property (income, home, body).
Ah, Stockholm syndrome. The best mind game to play with yourself when you’re surrounded by bullies and thugs.
Bizarre comment.
You should find other employment, you knew what the pay was before you took the job, sounds like your having a tantrum.
So, Cindi, a young teacher ‘wannabe’ is clueless as to a financial outcome of the chosen profession? If you can’t teach, get out of the classroom.
Hello? The fact that we can’t prove Shanker said this does NOT prove he didn’t. Absence of evidence evidence of absence, right?
So you think that Shanker would today support non-union schools? A strange position to impute to a national union leader.
I said precisely what I said, not more or less. It’s unclear to me which of my 22 words suggests that. It seems to me I’m not the one doing the imputing…
I saw the reports on that Shanker comment on tv and I wasn’t in Mississippi, I was in my living room in San Mateo Ca. watching a San Francisco news station.
The words are out of character for Shanker. Shanker wrote a lot, and the archives at AFT contain almost everything he wrote. Much of what he wrote was published in a weekly commentary in the New York Times, and is relatively easy to find.
Consequently, the claim that Shanker said it, contrary to his lifelong position, is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be credible. No one can find where Shanker said it.
It’s a bogus quote, attributed to Albert Shanker.
His widow said that if he did say it – which he probably didn’t – he might have been jokingly pretending to be an anti-unionist’s stereotype of a teacher’s union member – you know, \”I don’t give a _ about kids.\” But context is something that’s really hard for people to understand. He said it, he didn’t say it, is about as much as people can grasp – and not much of that either – which is why quoting out of context is so effective. Ex post facto explanations, corrections, even expressions of faux regret for the” mistake,\” these don\’t register with the public. Thus zombie quotations live on and continue to eat our brains.
It’s not funny though. It offends me to the core that this quote is attributed to Shanker, such a committed, intelligent and honorable human being.
“Teacher working conditions are student learning conditions” is arguable, I don’t think you can make that a total equivalence. Is there any research that proves whether improving working conditions and getting better salaries and benefits for teachers really helps students?
I don’t care if this man really said this quote or not, the idea behind it is something to at least consider. Are unions really there to help the kids, or are the interests of their paying members perhaps more immiediately important to them?
The point really isn’t if Al Shanker said it or not, is it? That seems to be splitting hairs.
The question really is, do you agree with the statement (that Al Shanker did or didn’t make)? It certainly SOUNDS like something ANY true-believing Unionista would say. And Al Shanker was indeed a true beleiver.
Who do the teachers unions represent during collective bargaining? Their dues paying membership, or the students?
“But no one can authenticate that Albert Shanker ever said it.”
That strikes me as a lazy evasion not a denial.
When was the alleged statement first cited? That should be easier to establish. You seem really sure of those citations. And if any were made before 1997, did Shankar ever deny he said it?