Teacher Unions - Bad for Students?

[whichphilosophy]

Unions are the only thing that moved working people from misery. Took children out of the workforce and created the middle class. Capitalism didn't do any of that. Unions within a capitalist system did. And capitalists in the United States were unusually violent in response to people joining together to increase their bargaining power.

People with power like it when there are many helpless individuals to exploit. They really love the sycophants to their illegitimate power as well.

A union is a way for working people to become less helpless.

When human nature changes they will become unnecessary.

And no union protects bad workers.

They protect workers from outside claims with no objective evidence to support them. They protect the basic rights of workers. Some people don't like this.

Like in this case.

None of that has anything to do with the topic of whether teachers' unions are bad for students.

Obviously teachers' unions are good for teachers.

As the Russians say, when a fish goes rotten it starts, from the head. While there are good and bad teachers, there are also poor teaching models and frequently a huge lack of resources in some areas, thus making it difficult to teach well. Teachers unions also have a right to protect their employees (thus saving lawyer fees) when there is a claim of unfair targeting or dismissal.

With large movements of people entering the USA faster than it can cope, there are areas where teaching resources cannot meet the local needs. It's very easy to assume the teachers are the problem.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Unions are the only thing that moved working people from misery. Took children out of the workforce and created the middle class. Capitalism didn't do any of that. Unions within a capitalist system did. And capitalists in the United States were unusually violent in response to people joining together to increase their bargaining power.

People with power like it when there are many helpless individuals to exploit. They really love the sycophants to their illegitimate power as well.

A union is a way for working people to become less helpless.

When human nature changes they will become unnecessary.

And no union protects bad workers.

They protect workers from outside claims with no objective evidence to support them. They protect the basic rights of workers. Some people don't like this.

Like in this case.

None of that has anything to do with the topic of whether teachers' unions are bad for students.

Obviously teachers' unions are good for teachers.

There is nothing to say that teachers' unions are bad for students. A lack of manpower resources in some parts of the USA has nothing to do with the existence of unions. Rich executives will have lawyers; teachers will have unions as they cannot afford such luxuries.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Unions are the only thing that moved working people from misery. Took children out of the workforce and created the middle class. Capitalism didn't do any of that. Unions within a capitalist system did. And capitalists in the United States were unusually violent in response to people joining together to increase their bargaining power.

People with power like it when there are many helpless individuals to exploit. They really love the sycophants to their illegitimate power as well.

A union is a way for working people to become less helpless.

When human nature changes they will become unnecessary.

And no union protects bad workers.

They protect workers from outside claims with no objective evidence to support them. They protect the basic rights of workers. Some people don't like this.

Like in this case.

Higher pay caused an economic boom. Money which once remained with the few by way of investments and lavish living, began to circulate more throughout the economy creating more jobs in housing products, foods, holidays, hairdressers, restaurants, home ownership and a whole host of things that were once not possible.

 

[JonA]

None of that has anything to do with the topic of whether teachers' unions are bad for students.

Obviously teachers' unions are good for teachers.

There is nothing to say that teachers' unions are bad for students.

And so far the evidence I've seen presents a similar picture.

I'm gonna look tomorrow and see if the people bringing these lawsuits have any particular examples of unions protecting bad teachers with numbers showing underperforming students as a result.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There is nothing to say that teachers' unions are bad for students.

And so far the evidence I've seen presents a similar picture.

I'm gonna look tomorrow and see if the people bringing these lawsuits have any particular examples of unions protecting bad teachers with numbers showing underperforming students as a result.

Duh. What planet do you live on? Unions are about seniority, not merit. Last in, first out is the way unions work. So these cases have merit because they say this practice is not the best thing for the students, just like it's not the best thing for companies. Everybody certainly knows that or should.

The problem with evaluating teachers on a merit basis is who does the evaluating. Local school boards? That's a fucking joke. Seniority is cheap, easy and convenient and is why it's used to get rid of teachers. It's a compromise that works.

 

[JonA]

And so far the evidence I've seen presents a similar picture.

I'm gonna look tomorrow and see if the people bringing these lawsuits have any particular examples of unions protecting bad teachers with numbers showing underperforming students as a result.

Duh. What planet do you live on? Unions are about seniority, not merit. Last in, first out is the way unions work. So these cases have merit because they say this practice is not the best thing for the students, just like it's not the best thing for companies. Everybody certainly knows that or should.

That the system doesn't prioritize student educational outcomes doesn't necessarily mean it is bad for students - though admittedly if student outcomes aren't the priority, any excellence in that area is clearly coincidental.

It is also possible that the current system provides the best outcomes possible and those bringing the lawsuits should have to demonstrate a reasonable alternative that both provides better outcomes and precludes the unions.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Duh. What planet do you live on? Unions are about seniority, not merit. Last in, first out is the way unions work. So these cases have merit because they say this practice is not the best thing for the students, just like it's not the best thing for companies. Everybody certainly knows that or should.

That the system doesn't prioritize student educational outcomes doesn't necessarily mean it is bad for students - though admittedly if student outcomes aren't the priority, any excellence in that area is clearly coincidental.

It is also possible that the current system provides the best outcomes possible and those bringing the lawsuits should have to demonstrate a reasonable alternative that both provides better outcomes and precludes the unions.

I agree. And I agree that student outcomes should always be the priority. But it is certainly possible to have good teachers with bad student outcomes because there are talented teachers and there are talented students. Classrooms are like teams. If you stack them with talented students and talented teachers you will get better results than if you stack them with talented teachers and mediocre students, or vice versa. That's the issue. Academic talent is no different than athletic talent, but we should obviously strive in the direction of academics.

 

[whichphilosophy]

And so far the evidence I've seen presents a similar picture.

I'm gonna look tomorrow and see if the people bringing these lawsuits have any particular examples of unions protecting bad teachers with numbers showing underperforming students as a result.

Duh. What planet do you live on? Unions are about seniority, not merit. Last in, first out is the way unions work. So these cases have merit because they say this practice is not the best thing for the students, just like it's not the best thing for companies. Everybody certainly knows that or should.

The problem with evaluating teachers on a merit basis is who does the evaluating. Local school boards? That's a fucking joke. Seniority is cheap, easy and convenient and is why it's used to get rid of teachers. It's a compromise that works.

Correct; evaluating is a very difficult task (as in many other professions). The system of evaluation is sometimes under evaluation.

Just for the record Albert Shanker who served as president of the American Federation of Teachers advocated competency tests for teachers, payment merit scales and more tougher tests for high school graduates.
There is a biography of him here.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/24/n...ader-who-transformed-teachers-union-dies.html

Whether it is doing the right thing the AFT is committed (at least on paper) to improving public education standards in the USA. here
http://www.nea.org/home/11204.htm

The NEA is however opposed to Merit pay and is also found in WIKI.

 

[SimpleDon]

Without question the education of a child in a public school has become more expensive because of the high administrative overhead of education. There are 50 state departments of education and more than 13,000 school districts all of which have pretty much the same problems and which pretty much come to the same conclusions about how to solve the problems. It is terribly inefficient and done to maintain the myth of local control. For each dollar that the public schools in the US collect in taxes the average school district spends only 55 to 60 cents in the classroom, including teachers salaries. The rest goes to administration and other non-educational expenses.

The parochial school model is much lower cost and more efficient, pared down to only what is needed, the schools themselves and a single source of curriculum, funding and oversight.

Public schools look poor compared to charter, private and parochial schools because public schools have to fill in for many of society's shortcomings, they have to run their own transit systems, to help to feed the poor, to be day care centers, to enforce criminal law, to provide support for the disabled, and to provide surrogate parenting, among others. All things that private, parochial and charter schools don't have to provide.

Public schools have to shoulder almost all of society's efforts to advance the poor, another job that is costly and that the schools shouldn't have to bear alone, especially since our backwards system of school financing provides the schools that have to do this with the least amount of funding to do the hardest job.

 

[JonA]

Without question the education of a child in a public school has become more expensive because of the high administrative overhead of education. There are 50 state departments of education and more than 13,000 school districts all of which have pretty much the same problems and which pretty much come to the same conclusions about how to solve the problems. It is terribly inefficient and done to maintain the myth of local control.

The drastic differences between schools sometimes only a town apart tells me this is no myth.

Public schools look poor compared to charter, private and parochial schools because public schools have to fill in for many of society's shortcomings, they have to run their own transit systems, to help to feed the poor, to be day care centers, to enforce criminal law, to provide support for the disabled, and to provide surrogate parenting, among others.

In short, they're public.

Public schools have to shoulder almost all of society's efforts to advance the poor, another job that is costly and that the schools shouldn't have to bear alone, especially since our backwards system of school financing provides the schools that have to do this with the least amount of funding to do the hardest job.

The way we fund public schools really is pathetic.