Frustrated U-46 teachers send out a familiar message

They are split down the middle. Tired of elected policy-makers ignoring their concerns and making silence a response. Tired of their boss getting rich while they do all the work. And they don't even agree on why they were upset enough to send a message.

Might I be referring to the American public, weary of war, divisive partisan politics and inept government service, and tired of their pockets being rifled to support those who won't support themselves?

While that would be true enough, it's the rank and file of the nearly 2,500-member Elgin Teachers Association to which I refer. That members rejected the tentative labor deal already approved by the school board and recommended by union negotiators didn't come as much of a surprise, given union leadership had barely approved taking the three-year pact to a vote.

What was far harder to discern prior to the vote was the real source of the whispered grumbling. Complaints seemed to be all over the map, and standing alone, didn't seem enough to reject a deal that, financially, was a pretty good one. The 1,181-to-1,125 rejection even seems to support that contention.

Turns out the "no" votes were driven by a version of the malaise the rest of America is suffering, except that in this instance, a healthy 91 percent turned out to cast votes. They're tired of policy-makers who don't listen, who reward the wrong people and dump more work on the rest. They're sick of being ignored. So they smacked the school board and administration, and maybe even their union leaders, upside the head with their votes.

How do we know it was a message vote? Because one teacher who voted "no" told her union president that she'd vote "yes" the next time, but felt it necessary to express her frustration first. Some of the "no" voters were more than willing to say why, and their reasons, as they were prior to the vote, were all over the place.

Exclusion from the decision-making process. Class sizes. No Child Left Behind. Too much emphasis on tests. Lack of respect and trust. Uncertain raises in the second and third years. And, of course, Superintendent Connie Neale's lush deals compared with theirs.

Their frustration is understandable. Just about everyone in the district shares their disdain for the board turning Neale into the highest paid person doing nothing in Missouri while the rest of us suffer.

But the real question is where we go from here. There is little the district and the board can do in the here and now about No Child Left Behind. It's a federal program and appears here to stay, despite its obvious problems and the test emphasis that flows from it.

Surely, teacher input into decisions can be improved. Hard numbers can replace the CPI-tied ranges in the second and third year. And more teachers can be hired to address class-size issues. But those latter two involve more money, and I doubt beleaguered taxpayers are prepared to pay more overall than what's been offered, which going by the lack of complaint, has been judged fair by most.

Are teachers prepared to take a lesser percentage to have more certainty in years two and three ? Are they prepared to take less money in all three years to pay for more teachers? Anything else and I think they'll loose the wrath of taxpayers. Or having had the chance to vent and force the board to listen, can enough "no" votes be turned to "yes"?

If not, a whole new group, taxpayers, will be angry and more aggravated than they already are. And that's a place none of us really should want to go.