A national expert asks: Have unions stymied education reform?
Teachers unions, as unions should do, have acted in the best interests of their members, a new book argues. That has meant blocking significant reform and overriding the needs of students. One solution: computerized learning.
Courtesy of Washington Education Association
The thesis of Stanford University political science professor Terry Moe’s critique of teachers unions, Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools (Brookings, 2011), is simple and blunt:
- “The teachers unions have more influence on the public schools than any other group in American society” – more than school boards, state legislators, the federal government or parents.
- As unions properly do, they represent the employment interests of their members – job security (seniority, tenure), working conditions and benefits.
- The power of the teachers unions in serving their members' interests has largely – but not exclusively – determined how the public schools are organized and how they operate.
- Teachers unions use their power – often through Democratic state and federal legislators – to block public school reforms that threaten their members interests. Thus rapid change in the K-12 system is unlikely, though outside forces may weaken the unions over time.
Power accrues to the teachers unions in two ways. One is through collective bargaining with school districts. The other is the exercise of political power at the local school board, state, and federal levels, made possible by the unions’ huge membership. The National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have more than four million members between them, many of whom can be mobilized to work on political campaigns. Their dues finance lobbying.
Though both unions had existed for decades (the NEA primarily a professional association dominated by administrators), the evolution toward the teachers unionism we see today began about 1960 as states passed laws allowing teacher (and other public sector union) collective bargaining. That was the key to the teachers unions growth and increasing power. (Ironically, teachers unions grew while most of the rest of American labor was losing membership.)
More than anything else, it’s for collective bargaining that teachers support their unions. Moreover, as Moe takes pains to show, quoting a number of surveys (there are 89 pages of footnotes for the 406 page text), the unions are doing what the vast majority of their members want: representing their employment interests through collective bargaining.
Nor do teachers see this as a problem for the schools. “They firmly believe, moreover, that collective bargaining has benign consequences for schools and children, and thus that the familiar union mantra – what’s good for teachers is good for kids – is true. (Almost 80 percent of teachers are in unions and 65 percent have collective bargaining rights; some states mostly in the South don’t allow collective bargaining.)
Union political power is well understood. Moe reminds us that teachers unions can and do play a large role in school board elections, sometimes backing candidates from among their own active or retired membership. At the state and national levels, as organizations that can mobilize tens of thousands of volunteers, they exercise considerable power within the Democratic Party. This gives them the power to block education reform legislation deemed not in their members interests. And that, says Moe, is what happens time after time because it’s easier to block legislation at any level than initiate reform legislation that might improve schools. Advantage unions.
Moe’s thesis, his exhaustive demonstration of teacher support for unions, and his analysis of the political power of teachers unions provides little or no obvious encouragement for education reformers. In fact Moe uses New York and Washington, D.C., where Joel Klein and Michele Rhee “became rock stars” for challenging the unions and winning “important victories on seniority, performance pay, and teacher evaluations,” as a cautionary tale.
“They were victories that took many agonizing years of perpetual struggle to achieve," Moe explains. "They were also incredibly expensive because ‘reform’ is really a process in which the unions hold a near veto and only agree to make work rule changes if they receive enormous financial incentives for doing it.” In the end, the two districts may not be able to sustain the costs, and many work rules remain unchanged. Michele Rhee has already left her D.C. job, following a mayoral campaign in which the teachers union played a role in defeating the man who hired her— former mayor Adrian Fenty.
Further, Moe is hugely skeptical of “reform unionism,” support for which is widespread among Democrats and liberals who want to find ways to reform schools with union cooperation. In this view, teachers unions would take a cooperative approach to school governance, “swear off onerous work rules that get in the way of effective organization,” and “actively promote teacher quality and stop protecting bad teachers.” Almost rhetorically Moe asks, "Why would the unions ever agree to this?”
Moe’s negative analysis of reform unionism and the reforms bought in New York and Washington arises from his view that, in a rational world, school districts should not have to pay teachers for changing work rules that are transparently antithetical to the operation of effective schools.
But the world is not rational and his critique of reform unionism and the liberals and Democrats who support it leaves little room for incremental change. What should district leaders, parents and school reformers do if not pursue every opportunity, including bargaining with teachers unions, to improve their schools?
After all, isn’t that the only game in town?
For example, Seattle Public Schools contract with the Seattle Education Association weakened seniority beginning in the late 1990s and allows principals to hire some teachers without regard to seniority. (This provision does not apply when the district is laying off teachers, as shrinking budgets have required for the last several years.) The district’s new contract, signed last summer, sets the two sides on a path that should include some measure of student performance within a system of more thorough teacher evaluations.
In contrast, Moe looks for a future more assuredly pleasing to school reformers, when teachers unions will have less power. He offers two reasons for this. One is the gathering strength of the school reform movement itself and, importantly, its inclusion of charter schools, which will be mostly non-union. There is also the rising pressure to link at least some part of teacher pay to student performance. Both of these trends are reinforced by the federal Race to the Top grant program promoted by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and President Obama, which Moe sees as positive.
The other change Moe bets on is the increasing use of educational technology. That is, computer programmed and provided instruction. You can almost see Bill Gates cheering him on. This change, which Moe views as inevitable, will have the dual effect of increasing student access to information (course content) and reducing the need for teachers, shrinking the teacher workforce and thereby reducing union power.
One ends up skeptical, if not disappointed, that after constructing a powerful indictment of teachers unions’ influence on public schools, Moe can’t offer a ringing call to action. He does, however, call for a clearer vision of what teachers union power means. This is what drives him:
“The simple fact – and it is indeed a straightforward fact – is that teachers unions are not in the business of representing the interests of children. They are unions. They represent the job-related interests of their members, and these interests are simply not the same as the interests of children.”
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 6:46 a.m. Inappropriate
Terry Moe!?! Dick, this guy is the poster boy for school vouchers and privatization of public schools. He has this bizarre idea that technology will save U.S. schools. But, you've got to let him speak for himself. Also, note he sees technology as the pathway to breaking teacher unions.
Here's Mr. Moe in all his glory:
"...in the final analysis, what technology requires is a substitution of technology for human labor. Computers will do a lot of what teachers do now." Jumping forward in his chair, he lights up: "Technology is cheap. Labor is really expensive. Education has always been very labor intensive, so if our education system can substitute technology for labor and still provide kids with high quality education, then great!" (http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/74736)
In essence, teachers are database managers and technology wonks in Mr. Moe's world vision. And, it's technology that will finally crush the odious unions. I can see it now...some data administrator in Uttar Pradesh logging on with Skype to a million eager learners all sitting at their monitors ready to learn U.S. History.
In his own words: "What is happening is that you have a lot of smart people in the education technology business saying, ‘ok how can we create a computer program that teaches U.S. history to fourth graders or math to second graders in a way that will hold their interest, motivate them, and get them excited about learning?’ It’s not a question of just teaching the material, but of making it engaging and fun. How do you keep kids interested? The answer may be video games. It may involve more visuals, more action, brighter and different colors. Compare that to 30 kids sitting in a classroom for forty minutes watching a teacher at the chalkboard." (http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/74736)
Feh!
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 7:53 a.m. Inappropriate
Okay, let's say that the teachers' unions are the greatest impediment to "Education Reform" (whatever that means). So why haven't we seen great strides forward in education reform and student achievement in the states without teacher unions? Why, instead, do we see that student performance is stronger in the states with teacher unions? In Finland, the nation lauded for their student achievement, the teachers' union is very strong.
The data simply does not support the hypothesis. This is pure ideology and not worth our consideration.
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 7:54 a.m. Inappropriate
"Teachers unions, as unions should do, have acted in the best interests of their members, a new book argues."
Exactly why the American people should outlaw public employee unions. Unions function by nurturing a hostile relationship between labor and management/ownership. The taxpayers, management and owners of our public institutions, do not need, nor should we tolerate, hostilities from our public SERVANTS.
For a good primer on public employee unions: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2009/09/07/history-of-public-employee-unions/
Private unions, yes.
Public unions, no.
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 10:07 a.m. Inappropriate
"Unions function by nurturing a hostile relationship between labor and management/ownership"
Actually you have this backwards, unions exist because of the hostile relationship between management and workers. At companies where management treat workers as part of the team no unions exist.
As far as computers teaching students to replace in person teachers? Well I can see it as a back up, or second source of information to watch a lecture on tape but since you can't ask a video a question it won't replace the human teacher.
The guy sounds more like the "music man" or a person selling a school district the "need" to buy computers and an education programs for the students than someone who has even a iota of evidence that it works.
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 10:21 a.m. Inappropriate
That used to be the case, Gary. No longer. Employer hostilities have, largely, been REGULATED out of existence. The unions, one could argue, have - in that respect - done their job and should now retire. Their ongoing activisms aren't strengthening the workplace; rather they are frustrating it and driving much of it overseas.
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 10:57 a.m. Inappropriate
Seattle's much-vaunted new collective bargaining agreement requires administrators seeking to remove weak teachers (teachers whose students have shown low growth over the last two years) to conduct two 30-minute observations, monthly conferences, consultations over use of $500 of the improvement fund, and develop "Support Plans" for these teachers. This adds a completely new procedural obstacle to removing weak teachers, above and beyond the already onerous statutory process for removing teachers who are placed on probation. See page 105 of the CBA: http://www.seattlewea.org/static_content/cbacert.pdf.
Seattle's reform leaders could learn from these latest collective bargaining negotiations that these agreements should govern for no more than one year, not three years, that school district leaders will capitulate to the union at the last minute to avoid a strike and the union knows this, that the complexity of the collective bargaining agreement serves union lawyers and union purposes, and that the interests of parents and students are not represented in these negotiations.
So far, Seattle's reformers celebrate the minimal steps forward taken in this latest agreement, and avoid talking about the real steps backward that have just been imposed by the union with the collusion of the district. Unfortunately, in doing so they provide an example of the accuracy of Terry Moe's contention that reform unionism does not work.
Many school districts in the Puget Sound area are negotiating new collective bargaining agreements this summer. To the parents of the children in these districts: read the agreement for yourself and don't accept descriptions from any party about what is in the agreement.
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 11:26 a.m. Inappropriate
I think it's funny when folks say that the laws that govern and regulate the private sector should also apply to the public sector. But then these same folks want to make an exception for public sector labor laws.
The fact that someone works for a government entity (other than those enlisted or commissioned in the military) do not surrender any of their rights - nor should they. That includes their right to organize and bargain collectively.
Workers do not surrender all of their rights or their dignity when they accept employment. Teachers are not servants; they are professionals deserving of respect, a living wage, a safe working environment, and protection from abuses.
Their union has no responsibility to anyone but the membership. Attempts to villify the union for not pursuing other missions are absurd. Let's remember that the union is made up of the teachers. Those who villify the union are trying to villify the teachers. The teachers' motives include a strong altruistic element.
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 11:32 a.m. Inappropriate
Tell you what, BlueLight. You stay out of a union and go without union protections. The rest of us who believe that unions still provide benefits for workers will continue to be union members when possible.
Don't presume that the wonderful working conditions you enjoy (whether thanks to government regulation or market forces) are universal.
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 2:24 p.m. Inappropriate
We need good teachers in our schools. They have a tough job. They should be paid well. I doubt most people have a beef with unions when they bargain for fair wages, benefits, and workplace protections. That's why they exist in the first place.
I think where folks lose enthusiasm for unions is when they protect employees who do not do passing work, whether it's teachers who stop trying, or airplane inspectors that fall sleep inside an airplane wing that they were checking.
I've got good, fair-minded friends who teach in the Seattle public schools, and they have mixed feelings about their union. Here's a couple of anectdotes that speak to their frustrations and the status quo in SPS:
1) Recent budget cuts at one school meant strong teachers with many years of teaching in SPS were at risk of losing their jobs while weak teachers with even more SPS years would stay on. The principal had little say in the matter. Sounds bad for the kids to me.
2) A janitor at another school barely does his job. Principals have tried for years to get this guy to take better care of the school, to no avail. Teachers have given up that anything can be done about it and I guess now it's kind of a running joke there.
In the two examples above, my friends pointed out that the rules gave the principals little real control over some of the most critical decisions any business manager is paid to make: who you retain and promote, and who you let go. That sounds like a serious problem, and I rarely if ever hear any union advocates address that kind of issue.
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 2:37 p.m. Inappropriate
As I learned during my own years covering education issues, there are three primary obstacles to transforming the postmodern intellectual wasteland of U.S. public schools back into a realm approaching academic fruitfulness.
These are (1)-the colleges of education (notorious for offering the easiest majors on campus); (2)-teacher certification requirements (by which the Ruling Class – politicians and their tycoon financiers – reduce schooling to the lowest common denominator of induced ignorance); and (3)-levy-based school funding (which – especially now given the irremediable death of the American Dream – grants increasing authority to the rabble-rousers who denounce public education as welfare).
Meanwhile, precisely as coolpapa notes, the fact the worst public schools in the nation are in the venomously anti-union South unquestionably rebuts the (definitively hate-mongering) indictment of teacher unions as the perpetrator of Moron Nation's epic betrayal of its non-aristocratic children.
Indeed unions are among our last remaining defense against the purpose behind induced ignorance: the conditioning of future workers to maximum submissiveness.
Thus this newest union-busting offensive should be viewed in its true class-struggle context: yet another manifestation of the Ruling Class war against the few remaining vestiges of the (overthrown) American experiment in constitutional democracy.
By blaming unionized teachers for failed schools, Mr. Moe is implicitly attacking the entire concept of public education. He thereby furthers the social-Darwinist policies that tacitly decree only the (politically trustworthy) children of the capitalist aristocracy are entitled to genuine learning.
While none of Mr. Moe's eloquent demagogueries surprise me – such outbursts are everyday occurrences in the historical drift toward absolute capitalist tyranny (whether in Germany of the 1930s or the United States of today) – I am shocked and saddened by Mr. Lilly's apparent complicity.
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 3:19 p.m. Inappropriate
So apparently, when Terry Moe says “teachers unions are not in the business of representing the interests of children. They are unions. They represent the job-related interests of their members, and these interests are simply not the same as the interests of children.” he is saying that teachers are in it only for the money, and have no desire to serve.
Whereas Bill Gates, who only wants to, in Lilly's words, "increase student access to information," apparently is not in it for the money, and doesn't stand to make billions of dollars selling instructional software to schools and replacing all those money-grubbing, mercenary teachers and their damn unions.
Well, what Moe (and presumably Lilly) call "reform," I put in the same class of credibility as the e-mail I got yesterday from a Prince Wellington Olobaji, from Nigeria, who promised me $100,000 in negotiable Nigerian oil stock if I would just give him a little hand transferring some money from one bank account to another, and put up $5,000 of my own as a gesture of good faith.
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 5:01 p.m. Inappropriate
I don't think Mr. Lilly necessarily subscribes to Mr. Moe's perspective. I think he is just faithfully reporting it here.
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 5:11 p.m. Inappropriate
I love Mr Bliss's predictable Marxist rants about the "Ruling Class." The only variable in his frequent posts is which words he chooses to capitalize.
The union advocates never answer the basic question --- why are unions at all acceptable, as a matter of public policy, in the public sector? Their ability to use their members' dues to elect the people against whom they negotiate (ie, the politicians), makes the politicians beholden to them, at the expense of the non-union taxpayers. How can this be good public policy for the general public? (I'm not talking about private sector unions here.)
Let's ask another question --- can anybody argue with a straight face that the students get better educations because of the presence of a teachers union? If so, please present the data that support the argument.
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 5:38 p.m. Inappropriate
PJS;
We can argue as has already been done in these comments that non union schools preform poorer than union schools.
Your question is the same one people use when they cannot substantiate their arguments. Put another way: can you prove you do not beat your spouse or partner? of course you can't, not being able to prove the negative does not mean that you do.
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 7:04 p.m. Inappropriate
In the highly successful Finnish model of education and schools, which Coolpapa mentions (and with which Americans are not even remotely familiar enough), the teacher union is very strong. Note that Finnish schools are the best in the world by most measures.
What makes you angry after reading up on Finland's model is that American teacher unions have to spend all this time and money fighting for basic benefits (like health insurance and retirement plans) and against misguided educational policy (like standards testing), all while the Finnish teacher union has the freedom to focus on the practice of the profession of teaching per se.
People really owe it to our kids to look more at the Finnish model and emulate it, but instead Americans often choose to do the opposite of what Finland does, and our results are consistently (and predictably) worse.
Posted Thu, Jul 7, 7:52 p.m. Inappropriate
Honestly, this piece is enough to make a person cry. Look, people, who changed your lives when you were young? Who gave you a sense of value and respect as a person and an intellect? Who helped you discover what you loved in education and where you wanted to go to find the life you needed for happiness? You all know it was a teacher or a coach. They patted you on the back, said "good job" and kept you engaged and on track for success. It is the human element of caring and concern for the children that makes a great educator. Would any of you have traded your personal life changing teacher for a computer monitor? How many of you when you have a personal crisis at the age of twenty-five went back to that special person for advice and support?
The unions protect the fragile relationship that encourages great teaching, and the proposal in the book under analysis here has no sense at all of what teaching is. One of the local non-union high schools at the end of the 2010 fired a large number of its longest serving and BEST teachers. They did it because they wanted to clear the decks for an arbitrary administration. They got away with it because there was no union to demand procedure or process for such things. Unions are essential for education excellence. Given the massive incompetence and corruption in the Seattle schools over the past years, can you imagine what the system would be like without the union protecting the teachers AND THE STUDENTS Would you like SPS to have free reign? No. You wouldn't.
Posted Fri, Jul 8, 12:41 a.m. Inappropriate
The education debate these days always seems to be one of ideology rather than constructive dialogue on how best to address the needs of students. Those seeking reform on both the right and the left propose solutions that are wedded more often than not to their own ideology rather than based in an unbiased evaluation of what works or what doesn't work in a school.
If one has a personally philosophy that is Libertarian/Conservative, the proposals inevitable invoke using market mechanisms. First course of action is always to get rid of the unions because unions create inefficiencies and distortions in how markets should work. The next course of action is to introduce competition--competition between schools and competition between teachers. Bring high performing private industry executives into administration and base decisions on metrics. And innovate, always innovate. Technology is the key to saving the schools.
And if one has a personally philosophy that is Progressive, the proposals inevitably involve addressing social issues that keep kids from learning. So we need to introduce programs like Head Start and all day kindergarten to address children that don't have nurturing environments. Unions are important because they keep administrators from treating teachers unfairly and rewarding favorites. They make sure that there is consensus and everyone has a voice before moving forward on courses of action.
If this is how the debate is to be framed, the clashes will be inevitable because it doesn't account for how schools work and who teachers are. A Type A personality, results-focused business executive is not going to be successful in a Type B personality learning environment. I know that this is a bit of a generalization but it seems to make sense to me.
So here are some definitions -
Type A individual as ambitious, aggressive, business-like, controlling, highly competitive, impatient, preoccupied with his or her status, time-conscious, and tightly-wound.
Type B personalities are generally patient, relaxed, easy-going, and at times lacking an overriding sense of urgency.
(souce: wikipedia)
So which traits do you remember in your teachers--Type A or Type B? Which traits do you see in workings of a school's PTSA meeting? (Here's a hint...we all can't be Type A's.)
So when the argument is made by Dick Lilly and Bill Gates and others that the solution is more technology in the schools, I immediately think "There's the Type A personalities again." Computers may work for some kids. But they come at a cost. Technology is expensive in that it needs to be replaced every five years or so; it requires overhead in system administrators and tech support. And you need to provide a lot of them to make a difference. And I'm just a tad skeptical because the studies supporting their adoption seem to originate from the Type A reformers. I also have the opinion that the one thing kids don't need more of these days is more screen time.
Now compare that with a little more low tech (and low cost) method of learning. My oldest daughter participated in Seattle School District Team Read program that partners middle school and high school students as tutors with elementary students that are having difficulty reading. If one believes the statistics, the program is effective at improving outcomes.
From the Team Read web site (http://teamread.org):
"Program Evaluation Results for 2008-2009 School Year
-- 67% of 2nd graders and 32% of 3rd graders were reading at/above or approaching grade level
-- 50% of 2nd graders and 44% of 3rd graders gained greater than 1.5 grade levels in reading
-- 95% of the parents of 2nd & 3rd graders and 90% of their teachers reported increased reading skills as a result of participation in Team Read
-- 81% of 2nd & 3rd graders said that reading was more fun since joining Team Read
96% of Team Read's 2nd and 3rd graders were students of color
52% of student readers were English Language Learners (ELL)
83% were eligible for free or reduced lunch"
It seems like this is a program that works on so many different levels. The student being tutored has personal one-on-one instruction that is paced at their learning speed. There is immediate feedback and correction. The older student that is coaching learns as well on how to motivate others and to problem solve to keep their student focused on task. And at least in the Seattle Public schools, the program seems to get kids of different socio-economic backgrounds together. And that's a good thing and I don't see any way that you could put a metric on that.
It seems to me that this discussion of education reform is entirely the same as the current American political dialogue with entrenched positions and unwillingness to compromise. I would much prefer a more engaged and constructive approach. So maybe the Type A's seeking reform are going to need to realize that they are working with Type B's (It certainly seems like Susan Enfield had to learn this the hard way in how she handled Martin Floe firing at Ingraham.)
Posted Fri, Jul 8, 9:08 a.m. Inappropriate
@Pythagoras:
It's always great to see the data on success from programs such as Team Read. But these statistics also suggest an important question. Why doesn't the school district -- any school district -- build into its instructional program the kind of extra help that Team Read proves works for the students of color, ELLs and FRLs? Except in unusual cases, districts don't. Considering just elementary grades reading, districts teach the group (class) regardless of individual need (satisfied to raise average scores but not caring enough that individual kids don't reach the threshold of competency), passing kids on to the next grade whether they can read well or not, and that's what leaves everyone frustrated and casting about for magical solutions.
(Please re-read my earlier pieces in Crosscut on K-3 reading.)
Dick Lilly
Posted Fri, Jul 8, 9:20 a.m. Inappropriate
I am not a part of the Education Reform movement as it has been defined (anti-union, anti-teacher, anti-public), but neither am a I an advocate for the status quo. I see great potential for the use of technology in schools, but I also see great potential for folks to get it wrong.
Here's how it can be done right: Use the computer-based instruction for teaching and practising basic skills. Use the computers to allow students to work at their own individual skill level while improving those skills. THEN, use the time when the students are together and together with the teacher to focus on higher level cognitive skills and to collaborate on projects. Use the computers for what they do exceptionally well (skill-building and individualized instruction) and use the teachers for what they do exceptionally well (asking open-ended questions and pursuing the answers).
Posted Fri, Jul 8, 11:10 a.m. Inappropriate
Spike asked: "Look, people, who changed your lives when you were young? Who gave you a sense of value and respect as a person and an intellect? Who helped you discover what you loved in education and where you wanted to go to find the life you needed for happiness? You all know it was a teacher or a coach."
Actually, in my case, it was my parents. Not that I didn't have good teachers and coaches. And I suspect I was luckier than most. And my parents were both educators: my father a professor of linguistics and foreign language, my mother a clinical professor of medicine. That having been said, aren't we asking too much of our educational system if we expect them to provide all of the above in lieu of the parents? I hope it's in addition to the parents.
"Would any of you have traded your personal life changing teacher for a computer monitor? How many of you when you have a personal crisis at the age of twenty-five went back to that special person for advice and support?"
Now, this is interesting. I don't like the idea of replacing teachers with computers at all. And my personal crisis at the age of 25 was in fact losing both my parents. But if it had been something else, and they'd been around, I'd have gone to them. The idea of going to one of my high school teachers would never even have crossed my mind.
Am I living in an alternate reality, or do people really depend on their teachers that much, as opposed to their parents and other family elders?
Posted Fri, Jul 8, 11:43 a.m. Inappropriate
Spike gives teachers more credit than is their due and broader responsibility than they should be burdened with.
The Team Read example brings up a good point. Those programs work. I know they work, I volunteered 3 times a week for 10 years in classroom learning centers. We volunteers did it because we cared, because we were good at it, and because, selfishly, we hoped our child would have 20 minutes of one-on-one with the teacher because of it. If you were to give 20 kids in a class 20 minutes of individual attention a week, that is 7 hour of instruction time. There isn't that kind of extra time in a teacher's schedule.
I'm not convinced the teacher's union or the classified employee's union are 100% supportive of volunteers in the classroom. I liken it to how some fire department empires feel about volunteer fire departments. They don't like them.
Posted Fri, Jul 8, 12:46 p.m. Inappropriate
Seattlelifer --- I think you are mistaking correlation for causation.
The best performing schools are non-union --- they are private schools.
I'm not trying to suggest that the lack of unions in private schools is the reason that they are better than unionized public schools. For the same reason, you can't argue that the lack of unions in schools in the south is the reason that they perform more poorly than unionized schools elsewhere. It is simply correlation, and not causation.
I note that nobody answered my other question as to why public sector unions are OK as a matter of public policy.
Posted Fri, Jul 8, 11:39 p.m. Inappropriate
PJS, I've always wondered why government employees have unions. Isn't that double protection? If government is for the people, of the people, by the people, where is the need for a union? To make sure I don't screw myself over?
So, no, it's not OK. It's a lazy, ignorant populace and a complicit press. Let me dumb down here a little and try to get down to speed.
Posted Tue, Jul 12, 1:21 p.m. Inappropriate
Government employees have unions for exactly the same reasons that private sector employees have unions. So they can bargain collectively for wages, benefits, and working conditions. Why is that so hard to understand?
And jade, if the government is by, for, and of the people then you don't need any protection from it either, do you? So you don't need the Bill of Rights or the Constitution to protect you from any potential government abuses. I don't trust the government as much as you - or, more to the point, I don't trust government bureaucrats as much as you apparently do.
Posted Tue, Jul 12, 1:26 p.m. Inappropriate
PJS, in case it wasn't clear enough before: public sector unions are OK as a matter of public policy because government workers are vulnerable to the same abuses as private sector workers and need the same protections.
There is no reason that a government boss should be any different from a corporate boss. They both have the same potential for abuse.
In fact, a corporate worker who contributes to shareholder profit might actually have more protection than a public sector employee who does not generate financial benefit for his or her employer. Schools are not profit-driven so they get no economic benefit from having good, experienced teachers over having bad, inexperienced teachers. And, since the inexperienced teachers earn less, the financial incentive for the District is to have frequently replaced novice teachers - Teach for America for everybody!
Posted Tue, Jul 12, 9:14 p.m. Inappropriate
Coolpapa, your argument makes no economic sense.
A private corporation, trying to maximize profits, certainly has a short-term incentive to keep wages low and employee hours long. At some level, there is a zero-sum game between profits for shareholders and employee compensation.
In a government, there are no profits. There is no incentive for the government to do anything other than provide its citizens with the best possible value for their tax dollars. Citizens should demand nothing less.
Unions in the public sector offer opportunities for abuse that are not present in the private sector. Union dues are spent to support political candidates. This causes the election of politicians who are beholden to the unions --- and who therefore enact policies that advance the union agenda at the expense of the general citizenry. There is no arms-length negotiation. This is bad. How can you argue that this dynamic is good for the citizens?
This dynamic of abuse does not exist in the private sector, where there are true, arms-length negotiations.
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 10:14 a.m. Inappropriate
If I understand PJS' perspective correctly - and I may have it wrong - we should allow the government to exploit public sector workers because we, the taxpaying public, will benefit from it. In the interest of lowering our taxes, we should allow government workers to be exposed to all kinds of employer abuses.
The fear is that public sector workers' unions will dominate the political debate and elections.
Let me make myself clear. All workers are entitled to the right to organize. All workers should have protection from abuses. People do not surrender their rights when they accept employment in the pubilc sector.
Moroever, the fear that public sector unions will dominate the political debate and elections has not been realized. On the contrary, the special interest that dominates the debate and the cash that feeds campaigns has been multinational corporations. Where is the concern for their influence?
The theft of people's rights cannot be justified and the fear of politically powerful public sector unions is unwarranted.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.