ed like all the other teachers in thendistrict. Parents, however, couldnchoose to enroll their children in, ornwithdraw them from, the teachers’nclass, and the teachers’ compensationnwould reflect those changes. Walkernleft all other options open. The teachersncould, if they wanted, use part ofntheir budget to pay aides or specialistsnin music, art, and phys. ed. Theyncould buy materials from the district ornelsewhere. They could, in short,nspend their budget as they thoughtnappropriate.nIt would be logical for the teachers’nunions to turn handsprings over such anproposal, which removes any arbitrarynceiling in teachers’ pay, increasesnteachers’ professional prestige, andngenerally advances the concept of givingnteachers the freedom to do whatnthey’re supposed to do best. But becausenthe teachers’ unions objected tonit, the brave experiment in NorthnBranch never took place during then1985-86 school year. Eventually thenschool board (which had liked Walker’snplan) and the union compromisednon a more traditional two-year versionnduring 1986-87 and 1987-88. Onenmajor change, an important deviahonnfrom the original private-practice concept,nwas that the teachers were notnallowed to profit monetarily by increasednclass size and smart budgetndecisions; they simply receive the district’snusual salary for their level, andntheir budget is decreased by a likenamount. According to Ruth AnnenOlson, the unions’ objection to SuperintendentnWalker’s proposal was notnthat the three teachers might make lessnthan other teachers at their level butnthat they might make more.nThe National Education Associationn(NEA), whose 8,000 membersnmake it the nation’s largest teachers’nunion, meets every year, and they metnthis July. Unworldly parents mightnexpect that they spent their four daysnin Los Angeles discussing how to increasenteacher responsibility, pensions,nand classroom success, since NEAnPresident Mary Hatwood Futrell hasnsworn to use the NEA to help elect anDemocratic “pro-education” presidentnafter she boots Reagan the antiabortionnchild-hater out of office.nBut no. Concerned above all withnchildren, the group voted to endorsendistribution of contraceptives at schoolnhealth clinics after a Raleigh, NorthnCarolina, elementary teacher declared,n”Information does not causenpregnancy. Lack of information causesnpregnancy.” (These people know anrevolutionary scientific breakthroughnwhen they hear one.) A social studiesnand Spanish teacher from Lehi, Utah,nreminded them that as educators theynwere “trained to dispense knowledge,nnot contraceptives” and added thatn”teen pregnancy goes up where clinicsnexist”; he was booed.nHis testimony, however, did serve tonremind the group that they were therento talk about education, for Heaven’snsake, so the logical next step was tonvote for AIDS education courses; specifically,nthe material should includeninformation about “abstinence andnmedically accepted protective devices.”nThe 8,000 teachers then voted tonfight the Supreme Court nominationnof Robert Bork; “He’s a compulsorynpregnancy man . . . too conservativenon race, women’s rights, and reproductivenfreedom,” one teacher told thenremaining 7,999, and apparently theynbelieved her. Another vote fought thenmove to make English the officialnlanguage of the United States. Thennthese elementary and high schoolnteachers wrapped up their 125th annualnconvention by rejecting a wackonresolution to support U.S. economicnreconstruction aid to the Communistngovernment in Nicaragua (it was nearnthe end and they were weary; the votenwas obviously a mistake) and voting tonoppose laws requiring school buses tonhave seat belts. Exhausted, the groupnleft it to the nine-member ExecutivenCommittee to decide whether to endorsena gay rights march in Washington.n]ane Greer was briefly a card-carryingnNEA member but pleads the ignorancenof youth.nLetter From Albionnby Andrei NavrozovnThe Craft of ArtnIf in political and social terms thendiminishing role of the aristocracy innEurope was, in the historian’s view,ninevitable, in cultural terms its dissipa­nnntion was not really felt until the turn ofnthe century. Indeed, the intellectualnhistory of our time is a record ofncareless exploitation and ruthless expropriationnof what had once been annaristocratic preserve, with the consequencenthat it has become increasinglyndifficult to draw the property line betweennthe high and the low. The booknI have before me is a fascinating easenstudy of the universal cultural enfranchisementnwitnessed by our century, anglimpse of the social processes bynwhich high culture was cut off from itsnaristocratic past and made to fill thengrowing demands of common consumption.nIt is a life of Salvador Dali,nby Meryle Secrest.nWhile still a child in the home ofnhis kind, middle-class parents in anprovincial Spanish town, SalvadornDali grasped the fact that bad behavior,nwhen it is presented as eccentricitynand even remotely connected with art,nis not only tolerated but richly rewarded.nBetween temper tantrums, thenyoung artist sported “an ermine capen. . . and a matching gold crown studdednwith topazes.” “Before long,” observesnMiss Secrest, “it became a kindnof deadly game, which he played withnincreasing skill.”nThe world at large was no less receptive,nand by the time Dali hadnemerged from his indulgent family’sncocoon into the macrocosm of Paris innthe 1920’s, it must have been obviousnto him that the game in question wasnbeing played throughout Europe by anvast number of artistically inclinednmen and women. While some hadntalent and others only ambition, allnshared a fondness for the game ofnepater le bourgeois. A 1929 photographnshows Dali, then 25, with TristannTsara, Paul Eluard, Rene Crevel, andnAndre Breton, his newly found intellectualnmilieu. That year, the film UnnChien Andalou, on which he collaboratednwith Luis Bunuel, depicted thenslashing of a human eye with a razor.nThat same year, Dali exhibited a picturenwith the scrawled words “Parfois jencrache par plaisir sur le portrait de manmere” (“Sometimes I spit with pleasurenon my mother’s portrait”).nIt is not surprising that among hisncontemporaries in Paris Dali becamenknown as “the most important literarynpainter,” the title awarded him bynDavid Gascoyne in 1934. It was DalinDECEMBER 19871 53n