Teacher Unions - Bad for Students?

[JonA]

Minnesota joins the (small) list of states struggling over the role of teacher unions and their impact on student achievement.

Lawsuit accuses Minnesota of protecting bad teachers at expense of students

Discuss.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

“It doesn’t matter to the out-of-state groups behind this suit that Minnesota is facing a teacher shortage, nor that high-needs schools are trying to attract more senior teachers, nor the growing body of research showing disparities in income, health and opportunity drive academic inequality — not employment practices,” Specht said.

So this isn't about teaching quality, but that the teachers are allowed to have a union.

 

[Malintent]

“It doesn’t matter to the out-of-state groups behind this suit that Minnesota is facing a teacher shortage, nor that high-needs schools are trying to attract more senior teachers, nor the growing body of research showing disparities in income, health and opportunity drive academic inequality — not employment practices,” Specht said.

So this isn't about teaching quality, but that the teachers are allowed to have a union.

I think you quoted a RESPONSE to the claim, not part of the claim.

This is about ensuring quality education... those that wish to protect the power of the union have responded with the claim you quoted... I think.

 

[laughing dog]

I am unaware of a definitive body of fact-driven empirical research that indicates a teacher's union reduces the quality of education.

The attack of teacher's unions in Minnesota began about 10 years or so from a disparate coalition of conservative anti-union activists, some community groups concerned with the achievement gap in schools, and some parents upset with negotiated layoff procedures. It is driven by memes, bile and anecdotes not data. The proposed remedies of eliminating tenure are ham-handed and broadbrush "solutions" to a complicated set of issues.

 

[KeepTalking]

So this isn't about teaching quality, but that the teachers are allowed to have a union.

I think you quoted a RESPONSE to the claim, not part of the claim.

It is part of the article, so why shouldn't it be part of the discussion of the article?

This is about ensuring quality education... those that wish to protect the power of the union have responded with the claim you quoted... I think.

That does not keep the claim from being relevant to the discussion.

 

[marc]

Funny how many of these organizations who want to get rid of 'bad teachers' are in favor of getting rid of teachers with a college degree in education, and replace them with a graduate from "Teach For America"'s 5 week course.

 

[dismal]

Being open-minded, I'm willing to entertain the idea that teachers' unions are not just bad for student's, just bad for taxpayers, But in reality I expect it's some of both.

I mean, what's the point of teachers' unions if it's not to keep bad teachers around and make acceptable teachers more expensive for taxpayers?

Those who claim teachers' unions aren't doing these things are practically calling them dues stealing crooks.

 

[JonA]

I think the unions need some controls.

If the unions would provide controls and some reasonable filters on who they do and do not defend, this might not be an issue.

At the same time I think crappy schools attract crappy teachers; the role of unions in that is probably negligible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Being open-minded, I'm willing to entertain the idea that teachers' unions are not just bad for student's, just bad for taxpayers, But in reality I expect it's some of both.

I mean, what's the point of teachers' unions if it's not to keep bad teachers around and make acceptable teachers more expensive for taxpayers?

Other than the power given to a trade in a large number of people able to bargain for reasonable pay and benefits? Granted, teachers make more than NFL players, so maybe you have a point.

Those who claim teachers' unions aren't doing these things are practically calling them dues stealing crooks.

So did you take a course in twisting and debating? Or is there a website that you take these arguments from?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think the unions need some controls.

If the unions would provide controls and some reasonable filters on who they do and do not defend, this might not be an issue.

Yes, controls to protect from the "bad teachers". I think it is important to protect America from vague problems with little to no backup to define them.

At the same time I think crappy schools attract crappy teachers; the role of unions in that is probably negligible.

Or maybe "crappy" schools have children from poorer backgrounds and the actual results of the students there may be better than they would have been because of the effort of the teachers.

In Akron, we have 4 or 5 elementary schools, the one that does the best... is where the affluent children attend. So are all the best teachers there or maybe the children there have better secondary education support at home, family, etc... and lack the other secondary, tertiary stresses that come with lower income and poverty?

 

[dismal]

Other than the power given to a trade in a large number of people able to bargain for reasonable pay and benefits? Granted, teachers make more than NFL players, so maybe you have a point.

Those who claim teachers' unions aren't doing these things are practically calling them dues stealing crooks.

So did you take a course in twisting and debating? Or is there a website that you take these arguments from?

I don't see where we disagree.

They they protect bad teachers and raise the cost of education to taxpayers.

 

[JonA]

Yes, controls to protect from the "bad teachers". I think it is important to protect America from vague problems with little to no backup to define them.

Then unions will fall. Not by my will. Not by yours. But by the will of the people.

At the same time I think crappy schools attract crappy teachers; the role of unions in that is probably negligible.

Or maybe "crappy" schools have children from poorer backgrounds and the actual results of the students there may be better than they would have been because of the effort of the teachers.

What the fuck do you think this thread is about?

Good schools get good teachers.
Crappy schools get crappy teachers.

This distribution of teachers probably has more to do with simple economics than it does with unions.

 

[Bronzeage]

I think the unions need some controls.

If the unions would provide controls and some reasonable filters on who they do and do not defend, this might not be an issue.

At the same time I think crappy schools attract crappy teachers; the role of unions in that is probably negligible.

Unions have controls. It's called the contract.

The Union Contract is negotiated by a group of adults who sit down at a table and work it out, line by line. The school board agrees to every single line. If there's a problem with the Union, look to the managers who agreed to the conditions.

Why would a school board administrator agree to a union contract that protects crappy union teachers? That doesn't make any sense.

The contract doesn't force administrators to leave crappy teachers in place. It does force them to explain why they want to move a teacher, and if they lie, there are consequences. The union contract doesn't protect crappy principals and higher managers. That's the School Board's job.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Then unions will fall. Not by my will. Not by yours. But by the will of the people.

Over what? People in general think public schools suck... except for the local one. That one is good.

At the same time I think crappy schools attract crappy teachers; the role of unions in that is probably negligible.

Or maybe "crappy" schools have children from poorer backgrounds and the actual results of the students there may be better than they would have been because of the effort of the teachers.

What the fuck do you think this thread is about?

Good schools get good teachers.
Crappy schools get crappy teachers.

Interesting. Because you didn't actually include any stats indicating as such. Rating teachers isn't easy. Take a dumb student, is a teacher a failure because the student isn't bright? What about a teacher that turns a D student into a C student? Still going to say that teacher sucks because it is a C and not an A? Please, enlighten me about these "bad teachers". Yes, there are probably a few bad ones, but it is being asserted that the bad teacher problem so endemic, it is suffocating schools, so it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate what the bad teachers are.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Other than the power given to a trade in a large number of people able to bargain for reasonable pay and benefits? Granted, teachers make more than NFL players, so maybe you have a point.
So did you take a course in twisting and debating? Or is there a website that you take these arguments from?

I don't see where we disagree.

They they protect bad teachers and raise the cost of education to taxpayers.

I'm just going to guess you a natural at spin. "Raise the cost of education to taxpayers"? Does it? Is cost the only thing that matters to you? That was rhetorical. Cost/Benefit is the key. And you do know that, but whether you are pragmatic enough to accept it as far as schools are concerned, I'm unaware of. You bring it up all the time, cost/benefit with regards to green energy.

 

[laughing dog]

Over what? People in general think public schools suck... except for the local one. That one is good.

Except that in Mn, there is growing will of more of the people that teacher unions are an impediment to improving the quality of education. Hence the lawsuit. Even the formerly liberal newspaper (the Minneapolis Star Tribune) routinely comes out with anti-teacher union OP-ED pieces. At some point, there will be critical mass here in Mn, and teacher unions will face a real crisis.

 

[Trausti]

Good schools get good teachers.
Crappy schools get crappy teachers.

This distribution of teachers probably has more to do with simple economics than it does with unions.

Or rather good schools have good students and crappy schools have crappy students. If you sent all of the students from the "bad" school to the "crappy" school, and vice versa, it's likely that the "crappy" school would become "good" and the "good" become "crappy." That teachers or their Union have any effect on this is a bit silly. Otherwise, those school districts where the Union has extracted the highest pay from taxpayers should be the best performing, right?

 

[dismal]

I don't see where we disagree.

They they protect bad teachers and raise the cost of education to taxpayers.

I'm just going to guess you a natural at spin. "Raise the cost of education to taxpayers"? Does it? Is cost the only thing that matters to you? That was rhetorical. Cost/Benefit is the key. And you do know that, but whether you are pragmatic enough to accept it as far as schools are concerned, I'm unaware of. You bring it up all the time, cost/benefit with regards to green energy.

You do understand that when unions cause higher wages to be paid tax payers pay those higher wages, right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the unions need some controls.

If the unions would provide controls and some reasonable filters on who they do and do not defend, this might not be an issue.

At the same time I think crappy schools attract crappy teachers; the role of unions in that is probably negligible.

I've run into a very bad teacher in a decent school. Last I knew she was moved to a different school where she was in a position to do even more damage.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Funny how many of these organizations who want to get rid of 'bad teachers' are in favor of getting rid of teachers with a college degree in education, and replace them with a graduate from "Teach For America"'s 5 week course.

^^^^
TRUTH!