Michael Maiello's picture

    In Defense of Teacher's Unions

    By Michael Maiello on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 11:22am | Politics

    Frank Bruni wrote a pretty good column today about a new, anti-teacher's union movie coming out, starring Maggie Gyllenhaal called "Won't Back Down," about a mother who stands up to the entrenched interests who run her failing local school district.  Bruni also writes about the growing rift between Democrats and teachers unions and the growing public upset at unionized teachers.  Bruni doesn't wind up anti-union, but his sympathies are definitely strained.

    It's understandable.  We'd be asking too much from luck for the interests of public school teachers to be magically aligned with public school students.  There will always be conflicts in that relationship.

    This is, of course, inherent in any working relationship.  It's great for Apple that Foxconn can keep its workers in dormitories, to be roused at a moment's notice to make a new touch screen.  In some ways, I'm sure parents would love it if teachers don't get to go home until Johnny can pass AP calculus.  But that's a cruddy way to expect professionals to work, isn't it?

    The big knock on teacher's unions is that they don't put the kids first.  This is a ridiculous request to make.  They are teacher's unions.  They should darned well be putting the interests of teachers first.  That's why they exist.  These unions have to put the interests of teachers first because nobody else will.

    But, say the critics, the teachers insulate themselves from being judged by results.  And what are the results?  The measurable abilities of their students.  Accepting that there are good and bad teachers out there, we should also accept that this isn't so easy to measure and that there's a lot outside of the teacher's control.  Family life and the ambitions of the student count for a lot.  You can't look at my high school transcripts and say that my English teachers in high school were not better than my math teachers based on my grades.  I liked English more and I worked at it.  That's totally outside of the teacher's control.  When teachers say that you'll have to find some other way to judge them, I sympathize.

    Seniority and tenure issues are most criticized.  The notion here is that bright, young teachers with great new ideas are being kept out by entrenched laggards who have managed to not get fired.  To the extent that happens, it should be curbed.  But I think that people forget that seniority and tenure rules do exist from some good reasons.  One is that it protects honest teachers from being blamed by influential when children fail.  There are other related issues of academic freedom.  Tenure gives a longtime teacher some cover to say, "No, I'm not going to teach 'Intelligent Design,' as science."

    Finally, not all, or even most, long-time teachers are mediocre people who can't do anything else for a living.  People who stick with jobs for decades tend to do it because they are good at their jobs.  It's years of positive reinforcement that keeps them on the job.  Seniority rules help insure that these people are fairly paid and rewarded for a job they do well.  The young firebrand with new ideas who shakes up the system and makes it better provides for a gripping fable.  But it ignores the more mundane story of professionals who devote their lives to a craft and get better at it all of the time.  I'd say that both stories and their opposites are probably to be found in nature.

    There's a kind of goofy notion out there that people who go into teaching, along with other public sector workers, are not supposed to look out for their financial interests.  If I go and work for a bank, nobody will bat an eye if I say that my goal is to make as much money as possible and that if I spend the next year pulling late nights on various deals that I expect it to be recognized at bonus time.  If I go teach high school English instead, I'll also be expected to coach a sports team and be the faculty advisor on the student paper and I'm supposed to do this not for money but because I love kids.

    In short, what the public wants from its teachers (and firefighters, and police officers, by the way) is a high level of idealism that we can exploit in order to get services on the cheap.  I hope it's not unfair to evoke 9/11 here, but it seems to me that the City of New York and the country at large was quite grateful to those police and firefighters who had the courage and devotion to mission that they ran into the collapsing towers to rescue people.  What we did not show them was the foresight and pre-crisis generosity of supplying them with the very best communications equipment.

    These unions exist because the public, like any employers, wants to get its services for the least amount of money possible.  Somebody has to represent the other side of that deal.

    Blaming teachers for the intellectual failures of the American public is just too easy.  Nobody wants to blame their own kid or themselves.  At 37, I've been struggling to learn math and pre-calculus that I should have mastered by now, and would have mastered if I'd paid more attention 20 years ago.  No teacher is at fault there.  No teenager is a perfect judge of what to prioritize.

    We should also not lose sight of the reality that most teachers face, which is that it isn't exactly a high paying profession. 

     

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Can education be improved?

    I can relate to the primary and secondary educators, who have to inculcate the desire to learn; in our young, who only want to play.

    I think many people object to the higher education leaders.

    In today’s modern age, some of this tenure business, reminds me of buggy whip manufacturer,s trying to keep their jobs.

    Or another example; When the railroad industry and unions clashed over the need for a fireman, who used to shovel the coal  or the need to have a caboose.  

    Kids don’t have the desire to learn, so they must be forced to apply themselves.

    But in the case of mature individuals, where learning is the ticket for self- interest, we don’t need the multitude of Professors.

    As can easily be seen, by this one example found at  

    http://www.khanacademy.org/

    As adults, maybe all we need is more tutors, not expensive professors?  

    clep.collegeboard.org/

    Average College Course: $700 You do the Math.

    Could taxes be reduced or reapplied, to better serve the needs of the people, rather than defending sacred cows? 

    The people are hungry.


    by Resistance on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 1:24pm

    Kids don’t have the desire to learn, so they must be forced to apply themselves.

    That is just plain wrong.  

    They may not want to learn what you want them to learn when and how you are prepared to teach but they like to learn.  The problem, as you note, is in the present education model.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 2:11pm

    You're correct; in order to avoid an absolute, I should have said some kids .

    Like myself

    I hated school when I was younger, especially math and particularly algebra

    It wasn't till I was out of school for a while and then I read the "Last Whole Earth Catalog",  did I appreciate, the taking in of knowledge.

    Took Community College algebra where it was fun and I aced it.

    As a kid, If it wasn't fun, it was boring.


    by Resistance on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 5:20pm

    At 37, I've been struggling to learn math and pre-calculus that I should have mastered by now, and would have mastered if I'd paid more attention 20 years ago.  No teacher is at fault there.  No teenager is a perfect judge of what to prioritize.

    This reminded me of how when I was exploring all the new college courses coming online how I wished there were more high school or even lower level courses available.  I am sure there are many, many people besides you and me that would enjoy and benefit from them.  Plus, now with the Common Core, we may even discover what all we should know.


    by EmmaZahn on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 2:19pm

    Thanks for the Common Core link.  I look forward to being humbled by what I don't know.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 4:26pm

    Well, this place humbled me: Khan Academy


    by wabby on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 5:31pm

    I believe this site is one of the best online tutoring tools. 

    No matter what skill level.


    by Resistance on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 7:12pm

    I'm really happy by how into self improvement our contributors are.  I'm in!  Thanks for the intro.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 7:17pm

    If you're looking for a concise volume on precalculus mathematics, check this book out.  I gave my last copy to a friend, but you can pick it up in hardcover for about $6 at Barnes & Noble.  Just got another copy yesterday.  Probably should have gotten a few.


    by DF on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 1:06pm

    Thanks, DF.  My book is on its way.  The Internet provides many more resources when you tell it what you don't know rather than what you do.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 1:17pm

    I concur that Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell is excellent. The exercises are interesting and build skills quickly. 


    by moat on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 5:06pm

    >>There's a kind of goofy notion out there that people who go into teaching, along with other public sector workers, are not supposed to look out for their financial interests<<

    That's the theory behind paying high benefits versus salary.

     

    >>We should also not lose sight of the reality that most teachers face, which is that it isn't exactly a high paying profession.<<

    Average salary + benefits in Milwaukee is $100,000/ year, maybe that is not "high paying" for New York.

    Unions depend on an us vs. them attitude.  There is no problem that cannot be resolved in the absence of teacher's unions. 


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 6:26pm

    Your point about benefits versus salary is interesting, though you have to acknowledge that many of the benefits of public employment (healthcare and pension) are under attack now.  The lower salary for better benefits deal is a bit meaningless if it is going to be renegotiated later.

    But, also... take-home pay matters.  You either have the money to meet your needs and desires or you don't.

    The idea that average salary plus benefits might reach six figures is a red herring. That is likely true in a great many private sector jobs, too.  It doesn't mean much when the bills come in every month.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 6:41pm

    >>The lower salary for better benefits deal is a bit meaningless if it is going to be renegotiated later.<<

    Historically arbirtration lawyers have negotiated upward.  Only in the last few years has the realization come that most benefit packages are simply unsustainable.  Unions would rather see job cuts than re-negotiate benefits.

    >>The idea that average salary plus benefits might reach six figures is a red herring. That is likely true in a great many private sector jobs, too.  It doesn't mean much when the bills come in every month.<<

    It's not a red herring to the taxpayer.

    The difference is the private sector worker receives compensation based on performance rather than seniority and contributes significantly more to his/her own benefits. 


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 9:26pm

    When times were good most people wouldn't consider taking a State Government job. Sure the benefits were good and all, but the pay didn't compare to the private sector.

    The employee decided to forego instant gratification, for long time security.

    Now when times are tough, the State wants to do away with 'Covered Positions" they don't want to honor the contract, they made with employees.

    Now the new hires, will have no protection against nepotism, or managers who give low scores to the employees, affecting their pay raises.

    Or worse yet, at 25 years you can retire, but the State will get rid of you at 20 years.  Good luck finding work at 60 years of age.


    by Resistance on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 9:41pm

     

    >>Now when times are tough, the State wants to do away with 'Covered Positions" they don't want to honor the contract, they made with employees.<<

    The root of the problem has been that the politicians whose careers were funded by teacher's union made promises that went well beyond their terms in office.  There are three solutions:

    1. Raise taxes

    2. Renegotiate contracts asking teachers to contribute a little bit to their own health care and/or pensions. 

    3. Layoffs to reduce payroll cost

    Unions will always vote for #1 and if they can't get that, they'll choose #3 and throw workers under the bus. Advocates for #1 should not be surprised at its rejection by the general populace given that: a) many of them haven't had a raise in years, or b) they disagree with paying more money for the same or worse results, or c) many resent the union-politician alliance that caused the mess in the first place and vote out the politicians proposing to fix the problem on their backs.  

    However you feel about it, the money is gone or going.  Many municipalities are in dire financial shape.  Hard times have simply peeled by the covers to reveal the problems that have been there all along. 

    >>Now the new hires, will have no protection against nepotism, or managers who give low scores to the employees, affecting their pay raises.<<

    This is standard union rhetoric; it is absolutely necessary for the union to depict a divided world of management and workers.  Union participation outside of government and schools is on the decline precisely because class-based thinking no longer applies in, pardon the phrase, the real world.  Competent employees are desirable.  Competent teachers are desirable but teacher compensation is not based on merit. 

     


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 4:10am

    It wouldn't surprise me if the whole union/management conflict was now settled by forces hostile to labor.

    The World Financial Collapse

    Banks and their allies bailed out .......... "Sorry workers we are broke"

    Short term pain for corporations..... destruction of unions.

    Geithner Plan


    by Resistance on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 6:38am

    I was born in Milwaukee and lived there for 29 years thereafter until the early 80's, still have lots of family there.

    I think you need to realize that Milwaukee teacher salaries relative to the pay for other employment in the area is not the norm across the nation..

    Actually, I think that everyone who gets involved in talking about this topic needs to learn that the simple truth is: teacher's salaries vary greatly across the nation!  That it's not true that all public school teachers are poorly paid, and it's not true that all public school teachers are well paid!

    Since before I left Milwaukee, I've heard even liberal family members complain that teachers in Milwaukee are paid very well and are not getting good results, to this day. And in the middle of that, a brother in Milwaukee started doing teaching work for the parochial schools  in Milwaukee at their much lower rate, without certification. Through doing that (he is happy with what he is paid for what he does, he gets benefits like health insurance, and it allows him a lot of flexihility to work at other things,) he has met a lot of public school teachers, even seriously dated some for years.. He's also a liberal on most issues. But on this one thing he agrees: Milwaukee public school teachers are paid a lot for what they are required to do; that compared to other work, it's a sort of gravy job, if boring after a time, especially if it's grade school..

    Ok so, after hearing all of this for years, I finally decided to really check it out for myself by doing some research on the net. I found discussion forums for teachers where certified teachers or about-to-be-certified teachers discuss who pays what where for what qualifications with what benefits.. And they frankly discuss with others, and advise each other, whether they should consider getting certified somewhere else where the pay is better, cost of living higher/lower, quality of life higher/lower for their own preferences, etc. What I found out was that in some places they are paid very well relative to other jobs, in other places they are at the bottom of the totem pole and aching to move to where the pay is better, etc..

    So now I tend to greatly discount the opinions of anyone who starts out arguing on this topic that teachers are paid too much or teachers are paid too little. Because I am pretty damn sure that both are true across this country, and everything inbetween..

     


    by artappraiser on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 10:43pm

    From what I can see, teachers in Milwaukee start out at about 35k.  This does not seem to be a lot of money.  With two Master's degrees and 16 years of experience they can get to 72k.  This does not seem like a lot of money.  In fact, with no education and about 5 years of experience I was making just a little less than that in the private sector. 


    by Lucas (not verified) on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 12:31pm

    Not to turn your post into a thread about teaching without teachers but reading about this was so exciting I wished I was six again and not sixty something:

     

    The intelligent textbook that helps students learn - tech - 07 August 2012 - New Scientist: 

    Earlier this year, the team recruited 72 first-year students from De Anza College in Cupertino, California, to put the system to the test. Students were given either the full Inquire system, the Inquire system with the query function switched off, or a paper copy of Campbell Biology. They were then asked to spend 60 minutes reading a section of the book, 90 minutes on homework problems, and to take a 20-minute-long quiz.

    Students who used the full Inquire system scored a grade better on the quiz, on average, than the other groups. "When we did our assessment, we didn't see any Ds or Fs, which we did see in the control groups," says Debbie Frazier, a high school biology teacher who works on the project. "Our students could use Inquire as a tool and ask it questions that they might be embarrassed to ask a teacher in person because it makes them feel stupid."


    by EmmaZahn on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 6:31pm

    You're not twisting the thread at all, Emma.  This era of opportunity for self-teaching is unprecedented and useful. 


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 7:03pm

    .


    by Resistance on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 10:15pm

    Hey Destor. I'm always a bit frustrated by the union dichotomy that advocates of both sides often try to force people into--that one must support teachers' unions and everything they stand for, or one must oppose unions and everything they stand for.

    I support the existence teacher's unions for the same reason I support the existence of any union. Workers need a voice. But that doesn't mean that I have to support everything the workers fight for.

    I support unions when they fight for job safety, fair wages, and basic job security. But tenure offers a degree of job security seldom found in other lines of work. If there were a good reason why schoolteachers needed that extra protection, I might support tenure, but I've never heard such a reason, and I don't hear it here either.

    How many teachers have been fired from public schools for refusing to teach intelligent--or even threatened? I reckon it's zero, since it's illegal to teach intelligent design in public schools. No tenure required to sue a school for that. How many other potential victims of academic non-freedom are out there? Do we have any data at all?

    And why do schoolteachers need academic freedom in the first place? Tenure was designed to protect professors from being fired for publishing controversial ideas. How many schoolteachers publish controversial ideas that would get them fired?

    As for being unfairly blamed, well heck, anyone can be unfairly blamed and fired. Why do teachers need more protection than any other worker?

    According to the NYT, tenure is being phased out across the country. I say good riddance. I think that the unions will survive the loss and be better for it.

     


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 8:32pm

    Genghis, I agree that tenure is somewhat of a misnomer.  Call it seniority.  The thing is, tenured teachers can and should be disciplined, and they sometimes are.  Tenure is not a job guarantee; it just requires cause for termination.   The fact that Boards of Education are often incompetent and unable to provide cause in a due process context is often, but not not always, the case, but I think it's really plugged into the equation.

    By the way, my son, who leaves tomorrow for a year in Mexico on a Fulbright, is doing Teach for America in Newark when he returns.   Couldn't be prouder of the little varmint.  We need more good kids like my boy going into what should be considered more of an honored profession.


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 8:51pm

    The thing is, tenured teachers can and should be disciplined, and they sometimes are.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10004533.html?tag=page


    by Resistance on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 9:52pm

    Bruce, tenure is more significant than seniority precisely because it requires cause for termination. ​In principle, demanding that administrators show cause sounds reasonable enough. But in practice, the time and effort required to show cause means that only the worst of the worst are terminated--and then only after considerable delay. Hence the notorious rubber rooms of NYC.

    It should never be easy to fire people. Reasons should be required, and severance should be paid, as with any job. But firing people should not be so difficult that underperforming employees are allowed to continue at their jobs, particularly at the expense of other other employees who are better. Once again, I don't see why teachers should enjoy stronger protection from termination than any other employee.

    PS I would add that even seniority itself is problematic when rigidly applied. I've known great teachers who were laid off because of the automatic last-in-first-out approach to cut-backs. That's just a shame, imo.

    PPS Mazel tov to your son! You're right to be proud.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 12:22am

    Thanks for your good wishes Genghis.  I've got a couple of comments.  First, seniority when rigidly applied can be a problem in teaching as well as in other professions or crafts. But I'm just not sure how rigidly seniority really is applied in the teaching profession and how less rigid such application is than say 20 years ago.  And I'm not saying that seniority cannot be better refined so as to favor quality (assuming that it can really be defined and identified).  But seniority, I submit respectfully, is not something that was won for American workers without reason.  Longevity for an employer, even a school district, should mean something, and hopefully you can agree with that fundamental premise.  

    Second, as to "for cause" terminations, I don't understand that you believe this to be a problem per se, but rather in how "for cause" has been determined in places like NYC.  But the rubber rooms are gone now and their existence was the fault of all sides in what should not be such a complex situation, i.e. you want to fire a teacher, you have a hearing before an arbitrator, and the decision of the arbitrator is final and binding.  I'm not sure Randi Weingarten, who is quoted in the Bruni piece destor discusses, disagrees.  In short, my question is whether and to what extent the tenure issue has become a "red herring" basis to attack teacher's unions.  I think, if Weingarten is to be believed, the AFT wants to be part of the solution and not just stick it's head in the sand.

    Which brings me to my main point, and that is to what extent is there any empirical evidence, real evidence, that strong teacher's unions have impeded reform and ultimately improvements in education.  All one need do is look to the myriad states and localities around the country where there are no unions, or where there are at best weak unions.  Taking into account the relative income levels of school districts across the country, are the schools with no unions or weak unions really performing better than the unionized schools?  I don't know the answer to that question.

    I am certainly not sticking up for everything teacher's unions do.  I have first-hand knowledge of many things I disagree with, such as resistance to non-profit involvement in certain needy districts.  But I do believe we need to be exceedingly careful in this climate, this macro climate, to not simply point to teacher's union as the principal source of problems in the American educational system.  And the reality is, I submit, that this movie that destor is writing about appears to be, all things equal, something other than flattering to teacher's unions, will be construed I submit sans the nuance and will only reinforce that unions are ruining education.  And I'm not sure that that is at all fair; in fact I don't believe that it is fair at all.

     

     


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 5:47pm

    Hey Bruce, my knowledge of the empirical situation is admittedly quite limited and anecdotal. If tenure does not create a significant burden for administrators, then I will allow that it's a red herring. I do note, however, that while the physical rubber rooms may be gone, there is apparently still a backlog of teacher termination cases in NYC, and the defendants are still assigned non-teaching duties while they wait: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/nyregion/08schools.html. Keep in mind that these only include the teachers whose alleged infractions are so egregious that they're not permitted to teach while they await arbitration.

    And that's really the nub of the issue. If you require arbitration--with lawyers--to terminate someone, that seems to me like an undue burden. It would seem on its face to make it very difficult to administrators to improve school performance, and I don't understand why teachers are afforded the luxury of such protection when so many other professions do not have it.

    As for the movie, I may disapprove of teacher tenure, but I don't support exploiting it to demonize unions.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 9:48pm

    You make excellent points that I don't think have been studied.

    Is seniority really dragging down teacher, school, and student performance?

    Are union rules and activity really responsible for poor performance?

    The assumption seems to be that union rules have allowed an overwhelming number of bad teachers to stay in their jobs and kept out an overwhelming number of good teachers out of the industry.

    I use "overwhelming" to mean capable of dragging down American education as a whole to the depths where it is or where people claim it is.

    Doesn't make sense to me. First, as you point out, the right to work states don't seem to be doing all that well in the education department.

    Second, there are bad apples in every profession and most of them don't have unions. Do we have more bad teachers than poor performing lawyers, doctors, or accountants? Do all the bad lawyers, doctors, and accountants cause us to decry the poor state of lawyering, doctoring, and accounting in this country?

    Or are other factors at work? Like the fact that teachers, to be successful themselves, have to inspire 25 immature human beings to "learn." Lawyers don't have it easy, but at least they don't have numbers like that to deal with.

    Lawyers get paid even when they lose the case. Doctors get paid even when the patient doesn't get better. Shouldn't teachers get paid even when kids don't learn?


    by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 08/21/2012 - 11:51am

    Peter, I think I agree with everything you've written.  And I'm really not opposed to the concept of recognizing quality, and I understand that there can be tension between such recognition and union rules, but these are the types of tensions that we need to deal with without throwing the baby out with the bath water.


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 08/22/2012 - 1:49am

    Hugs and good wishes to the younger bslev!  And, also, our thanks!


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 2:02am

    Hugs and good wishes to the younger bslev!  And, also, our thanks!


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 2:03am

    Thanks Destor.  He's on his way right now.  Won't see him 'til xmas.


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 4:03pm

    Frank Bruni wrote a pretty good column

    I admired his article, too, destor, before I saw your own; I thought it really stood out from the usual on topic.  Actually, I didn't notice the author on first read, just the article, and I had to check if  you were referring to the same!

    A sub-heading in the print edition basically summed up what he was trying to say well: We need to have a better dialogue about public education. It seems the "Won't Back Down" movie inspired him to do a "let's stand back and look at this thing that's been going on now for a couple decades, what really has been going on" Maybe, hopefully, it will do that for others, too, as incendiary as the movie might be.

    Some of my own elaboration inspired by things he gets at in the piece, things I think that need to be not just acknowledged by the pro-teachers-union side but the need to be addressed in new ways, or the decades long anger at them from a large part of the public is going to continue:

    1) Teachers are still considered professionals by much of the public, regardless of pay scale. The public still sees a divide between professional work and other kinds of work, with different responsibilities and different ethics. Back in the day when private unions were still strong, few bothered to bitch about them forming strong unions, because it was like saying they were more on the side of the working man than with management. But that didn't mean people thought they were the same kind of worker as most private union members. They were still thought of more like doctors and lawyers and accountants, and they are now. Now comes the time when private unions are no longer such a big deal, It becomes more glaring to people who still see teaching as a profession, that they are trying to play both sides of the street: both a poor worker that needs protection, and a professional.

    How Bruni describes it, the movie gets it: what would most people say , how would most people feel, if they were told they couldn't fire their doctor or lawyer if his/her services were getting lousy results? If they were told they just had to keep using the same doctor or lawyer even if they were unhappy with them?

    2) A large part of the public still thinks about teachers like FDR did about Federal employees: they are public servants whose pay, benefits and job protections are set by representatives of the public in a democratic process.(click on the 2nd letter at this link for his statements And that if their employers are the public taxpayers, and not private entities, that they should be able to join any group/union they want, but not be able to collective bargain, and not be able to strike, because it's simply not the same kind of employer/employee situation.

    I think that in an era when private unions are not strong, it is folly to think that public employees, especially professionals, will get sympathy for protecting seniority over merit.  Professionals sell themselves on the quality of their work, or at least the illlustion of it, always have.

    Perhaps this will change when more doctors get salaries and work for "the man" and form unions. I believe that's coming some day, past my time mebbe, but it's coming. cheeky In the meantime, I don't see them ever changing the sympathy percentage until they decide whether they want to be depicted as professionals who are responsible for the results of their work or simple poor working slobs who have no control over the way their work gets done without a union.


    by artappraiser on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 9:58pm

    simple poor working slobs who have no control over the way their work gets done.

    Does the highly paid administrator micro manage?


    by Resistance on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 10:00pm

    I have seen many many articles over the years from the teachers p.o.v. that complain that's it all about the Principals, local Education Administration,  and the School Boards, and that if they could just be freed from the horror of the same in their locale, they could do a bang-up job. But that would mean they would be willing to be hired and fired like pioneer towns did with schoolmarms..

    That reminds me; one thing I think that Bruni importantly points out is that implicit in many pro-teachers-union arguments is that they can equally represent the interests of both the students and the teachers, that their interests are one and the same. The problem with that argument is that the student and his parents are actually the real employer! They are also the employer of the Principals, and the School Board is elected (usually, in most locales) by the parents to represent them, and their interests.

     


    by artappraiser on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 10:20pm

    P S This is a good representatiive argument of how I think many still think about public sector unions; arguing why they should not be treated the same as private sector unions.


    by artappraiser on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 10:07pm

    Mostly a good article. It matches much that I've been thinking about public sector unions. Its hard to have fair negotiations when you can vote the other side out of office. This gives the union a vastly unfair advantage. Yet without unions the public sector worker has no power to bargain collectively. Teacher unions have done much good especially when the vast majority of teachers were women at a time when there were few professions open to women, get married, become a nurse, teacher, or secretary. I don't know what the solution to this dilemma is.

    I do have a problem with this from the article:

    In practice, of course, the history of the American labor movement is far too replete with mob involvement, thuggery, intimidation, political machinations, and a host of other abuses to give one much confidence in translating theory into practice.

    A rather typical conservative viewpoint that looks at union abuses out of the context of the time. What about the thuggery, intimidation, political machinations and the host of other abuses by the industries? Unions were fighting for the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining at a time when they had no political protections. Local, state, and federal power as well as private security forces were often used to end strikes, often violently. Organizers were murdered, union members were threatened, beaten, and fired with no legal recourse. The history of the union movement is a history of a war or at the least a long series of battles and people died on both sides, though much more often by far it was the union members and their families that died or were beaten. So if Bainbridge is going to be disparaging unions over their abuses he should at least acknowledge the vastly greater abuses of the industries they fought against.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 11:05pm

    The other side on the negotiating board (the School Board) can simply fire the teachers too.  Nobody seems to think this gives them an unfair advantage, yet Teachers who represent about 2% of the population (not a significant voting bloc) are seen as wielding control over school boards who they negotiate with?  Seems like a pretty delusional world view.


    by Lucas (not verified) on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 12:37pm

    I've argued endlessly with friends and foes alike about teachers' unions and teachers' pay and all the surrounding issues. The argument seems to boil down to two points:

    • Teachers unions protect bad teachers and kick out good teachers.

    • As a result, education in America is bad and our children isn't learning despite all the money we is spending.

    Sometimes, the argument is elided to say: Unions have ruined American education.

    What I've yet to read (and I may just have missed it) is any reason to believe that these two, intuitively plausible statements are true.

    • First, there are good people and bad in ANY profession. Are there more bad teachers than, say, bad lawyers? If not, then the union hypothesis would need some tweaking.

    • However many bad teachers there are--and critics are quick to say that they aren't piling on teachers, but only the unions--does it make sense to think that these bad apples have single-handedly ruined all of American education? Are responsible for our bad test scores vis a vis other countries?

    • You rightly touch on the difficulty of ACCURATELY assessing a teacher's ability, especially by reference to his students' scores. How much of a student's scores are due to his previous teachers? Should we measure absolute attainment or percentage improvement? Could ANY teacher have turned a young Destor (or Peter) into a math hound...or at least someone who got As?

    So many factors would seem to enter into how well a student performs and how much he improves. Teachers who teach AP classes would seem to have it easy. Those kids teach themselves. Teachers with kids who dislike or are indifferent to school have a much tougher job.

    In fact, I would venture that a different skill set is required for the former than the latter? It's almost like they are doing different jobs.

    • My wife, who is a newly minted teacher and a second career switcher pointed out to me that one reason bad teachers don't get fired is...there aren't a whole lot of people clamoring to take their places. Why is this?

    Yes, the pay can be decent (though not so much at the beginning) depending on where you teach--but is often not very good. And you do have your summers off-- though these are often taken up with getting higher degrees and further training.

    But I suspect that the ultimate obstacle for many people is...the kids. Having to deal with 100-125 kids every day...get them interested...get them to do things...many of whom may well have no interest in what you're saying or trying to do.

    In most jobs, you have to work and get along with at least a few people. These people tend to be adults whose remuneration also depends on their getting along well with you.

    But when you're a teacher, you may be facing 100-125 different kids a day who are going through a more or less rocky maturation process and who couldn't care less whether YOU do well or not. Some will be motivated, but many will not be. And some number of them will be disruptive and make your job that much harder.

    Some folks LOVE this. But many can't handle it or don't want to handle it. So when you fire a poor performing teacher, you may not be able to him so easily, especially if his job is going to be getting young Destors and Peters interested in math.

    When I look at all these other issues, the role of teachers unions in the success of the overall educational project strikes me as quite small.



     


    by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 6:19pm

    You've touched on several issues Des, two of our children went to public school, eldest to a private Irish Christian Brothers HS, each have great advantages each have drawbacks.

    The one and only time I had to deal with a teacher who had overstepped their boundaries, happened during a parent-teacher conference, where our daughters math teacher in Jr. High, actually said to my husband during her conference, that she would never make it to college, she couldn't do math, he just went over-the-deep end. Our daughter was in 7th grade, so I think she was 13 or around there. It was all my husband could do to remain calm. Everyone in this house is pretty good at math, and my husband is an Engineer, he lives and breathes math.  He was pissed though, and had a few words with the teacher, but when I got home from work, well I am the trouble maker, so I crafted my letter to the Superintendent of school, the Principal of the Jr High, the School board, the Union head, I made sure to be heard, we had a huge meeting and we worked stuff out in that meeting. We got a letter of apology an assurance he wasn't going to scar another child with that type of behavior. I even suggested he might have been in the field too long and that while I was sympathetic to that, once it happens it's best to move on, rather than try to destroy a kids self esteem. And that teacher got clobbered, by everyone, immediately, so I don't believe that the system just supports every ass-wipe out there. Oh and later on when our daughter was in high school of course she took pre-calc and ap calc, but was a math tutor as all our children were while they were in high school.  You definitely have to be a squeaky wheel to be heard though.

    As a former community college educator, I'll say this, and this goes for the public school system, when  you are dealing with people who don't get a good meal before they arrive at school, their chances of learning greatly deteriorate. Our problems are much more complex, in that we lack a basic social system where we make sure all children eat and are housed and are clothed. When your kid gets to school you'll see two things taking place, you have parents who are very involved,  they take time  off work to come to school, they volunteer, they support every effort their child ever makes to do anything. Well you have varying degrees of parents as well, all the way to the child who from the time they are in first grade, they get themselves up, dressed, and somehow to school. You see them as teenagers in the dead of winter, with a light jacket and shorts and old shoes with holes in them, and they are just trying to get that diploma, but they are also trying to get to the one meal guaranteed they get a day, and teachers have to deal with all of that, every single level. We will never be Finland. Sorry.

    Good luck in your pursuit of mathematics, calculus is not nearly as important as understanding basic statistics!!! Hahaha. One of the best ways to study math is to head to your local community college, and let them test you to assess your skill level, knowing where you have holes in your knowledge is important to improving.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 9:42pm

    Ha!  Stats is a big problem for me.  Also, symbolic logic.  I have managed to poet my way through life, but it's not enough anymore, not with Lil Destor around.  If I can't succeed in my current attempts, asking one of the many community colleges in NYC for help is my next step.

    I want to save this comment because I know it has a lot of useful advice for when Lil Destor gets older.

    Man, that kid is going to smack me for calling him "Lil Destor" some day...


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 08/21/2012 - 12:39am

    Excellent post, Destor. And I'm coming late to a long thread, but I'd like to add something different to the conversation:

    Almost everyone involved, and the self-described reformers most of all agree that teachers are the most important variable in student success. (This is quite likely not true, but everyone agrees that it is.) Therefore, the proposal is always:

    to reduce the rewards for professional teachers.

    That's it. Getting caught up in this or that detail or proposal misses the big point. It is always an attempt to get better quality work from skilled workers by reducing their autonomy and cutting their compensation. Always.

    Is there any reason to believe that you can get better or more inspired results from skilled workers in this way?

     


    by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 08/22/2012 - 1:01am

    Latest Comments