5 ms·

Funding may be a problem (it probably is in some states), but let's get rid of the teachers unions shenanigans. Let's make it easier to reward the good teacher

by ptero 9y ago

Funding may be a problem (it probably is in some states), but let's get rid of the teachers unions shenanigans. Let's make it easier to reward the good teachers and fire the bad ones. School choice (and the ability to take money to a private school) colud help. More charters would, too.

ianai 9y ago
This is counter to the point of funding them more. Unions exist to empower labor. Remove them and you diminish teachers. Regulating them or coming up with creative incentives for societal outcomes would help. Ie give a subsidy (or even an award) to unions for onboarding new teachers and retraining current teachers.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  Unions are one way to pay teachers more. It's possible to be in favor of paying teachers more and still be anti-teacher union. Disclaimer: My parents both taught in public schools their entire careers and their county was unionized. My parents seemed to hate the union on balance, but now I'll have to ask them... The shenanigans that I experienced first and second hand that were enabled and supported/defended by the union were appalling. Teachers teaching subjects they were unqualified for, teachers not showing up to work reliably being protected, a math teacher who literally replied that "the square root of 2 is irrational because it says so on page 79", etc. It was always "gimme more, more, more" and never seemed to be about the kids. If that experience is in any way indicative, I'm all for gutting the teachers' (and other similar) unions. I don't mind paying teachers more than we currently do (and paying the required taxes to enable that), but I'd like to see some accountability and improved results. The key question is how to judge that on a timeframe that is both fair to the kids and the measurement (a long timeframe) and to the teachers (who probably don't want to wait until kindergarten junior is 30 to be paid)
  - ianai 9y ago
    To propose gutting unions requires proposing a substitute. Unions are known to protect “incombants”. It is a very real problem with plenty of studies in the labor literature.
    - sokoloff 9y ago
      An alternative is "no union" obviously. It works for other government employees, active duty military for example, and I wouldn't think your average E-1 has any more negotiating leverage than an individual public school teacher. Military has IG; that could perhaps serve as a model to protect those employees in ways that they ought be protected but without the thuggish protectionist aspects that unions often fall to.
      - ianai 9y ago
        I’ve heard that those positions do not treat laborers in ways to be modeled as success. The best way to position a market is such that the parties involved naturally meet mutually beneficial outcomes. Ie incentivize away from abuses and toward goals.
        sokoloff 9y ago
        July 1 this year will mark 45 years of an all-volunteer armed forces (meaning no draft, not meaning that people are working without pay). It seems that the military is able to meet its demand for personnel without a union for the employees, so I'd say there's at least a lower limit on "meet mutually beneficial outcomes".
- michaelt 9y ago
  Unions exist to empower labor. In the airline industry, I've heard it claimed [1] that the unions currently in place are bad for junior employees, because of the way they're structured internally. In particular all the political power is held by long-serving pilots - so long-serving pilots earn $300,000 and are last to be laid off, while junior pilots earn $20,000 and are first to be laid off. In other words, pilots are simultaneously overpaid and underpaid - and the union simultaneously empowers and disempowers employees. I don't know how accurate that claim is - but in discussions about American teachers' salaries, I have noticed people seem unable to agree on whether teachers are well paid or not. [1] http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines.html http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines.html
StevePerkins 9y ago
Is it possible to get a cooly-detached, non-ideologically-charged, objective perspective on the purpose and pro's of charter schools? My conservative and libertarian friends talk this up all the time. However, my understanding is that the whole point is to disrupt the power of sinister teacher unions. Sort of an "Uber for schools", I guess. The thing is... there is no teacher union in my state (my conservative and libertarian friends stare blankly and blink when they learn this). Here in Georgia, the point of charter schools seems to be: (1) Shifting control of schools from the local board level to a state commission, overseen by the state legislature, and (2) Funneling revenue to a number of private (and sometimes for-profit) school management corporations, who shower lots of lobbying dollars on the state legislators in return. To me, it just feels like magic pixie dust. We think it's sinister to privatize our prisons, but doing the same thing to our kids is great because unions (which are already fake news in most parts of the country now). I'm honestly not even sure what their proponents see as being the point... if it's not ideological blind-faith, or a misguided quiet assumption that it will help restore racial segregation in schools.
- adpirz 9y ago
  Disclaimer: I've spent 5 years working for public charter schools that worked in low-income school districts. I'd encourage you to read this: https://mskellyenglish12.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/7/9/30792489/maritas_bargain.pdf https://mskellyenglish12.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/7/9/30792489... This talks about the first major charter network that primarily worked to serve low-income students for whom the achievement gap was large. The idea behind many of these schools is that the standard model, for one reason or another, is not serving these students properly and that adjustments have to be made. Those can take the form of extended school days, double blocks of reading (core to all learning), a focus on wellbeing, and many more. These particular networks are public and not-for-profit, but there are also charter schools that are for-profit as you mentioned. Generally speaking, "charter school" is an umbrella for any school that operates with a charter outside the standard public school, so it encompasses all sorts of models, but the KIPP-style school is one that has really taken off in the last 20 years in many low-income communities. There are also plenty of problems with KIPP and its brethren, but they have made progress in places many haven't.
- 9y ago

by ptero 9y ago

ianai 9y ago

This is counter to the point of funding them more. Unions exist to empower labor. Remove them and you diminish teachers. Regulating them or coming up with creative incentives for societal outcomes would help. Ie give a subsidy (or even an award) to unions for onboarding new teachers and retraining current teachers.

sokoloff 9y ago
Unions are one way to pay teachers more. It's possible to be in favor of paying teachers more and still be anti-teacher union. Disclaimer: My parents both taught in public schools their entire careers and their county was unionized. My parents seemed to hate the union on balance, but now I'll have to ask them... The shenanigans that I experienced first and second hand that were enabled and supported/defended by the union were appalling. Teachers teaching subjects they were unqualified for, teachers not showing up to work reliably being protected, a math teacher who literally replied that "the square root of 2 is irrational because it says so on page 79", etc. It was always "gimme more, more, more" and never seemed to be about the kids. If that experience is in any way indicative, I'm all for gutting the teachers' (and other similar) unions. I don't mind paying teachers more than we currently do (and paying the required taxes to enable that), but I'd like to see some accountability and improved results. The key question is how to judge that on a timeframe that is both fair to the kids and the measurement (a long timeframe) and to the teachers (who probably don't want to wait until kindergarten junior is 30 to be paid)
- ianai 9y ago
  To propose gutting unions requires proposing a substitute. Unions are known to protect “incombants”. It is a very real problem with plenty of studies in the labor literature.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    An alternative is "no union" obviously. It works for other government employees, active duty military for example, and I wouldn't think your average E-1 has any more negotiating leverage than an individual public school teacher. Military has IG; that could perhaps serve as a model to protect those employees in ways that they ought be protected but without the thuggish protectionist aspects that unions often fall to.
    - ianai 9y ago
      I’ve heard that those positions do not treat laborers in ways to be modeled as success. The best way to position a market is such that the parties involved naturally meet mutually beneficial outcomes. Ie incentivize away from abuses and toward goals.
      - sokoloff 9y ago
        July 1 this year will mark 45 years of an all-volunteer armed forces (meaning no draft, not meaning that people are working without pay). It seems that the military is able to meet its demand for personnel without a union for the employees, so I'd say there's at least a lower limit on "meet mutually beneficial outcomes".
michaelt 9y ago
Unions exist to empower labor. In the airline industry, I've heard it claimed [1] that the unions currently in place are bad for junior employees, because of the way they're structured internally. In particular all the political power is held by long-serving pilots - so long-serving pilots earn $300,000 and are last to be laid off, while junior pilots earn $20,000 and are first to be laid off. In other words, pilots are simultaneously overpaid and underpaid - and the union simultaneously empowers and disempowers employees. I don't know how accurate that claim is - but in discussions about American teachers' salaries, I have noticed people seem unable to agree on whether teachers are well paid or not. [1] http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines.html http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines.html

StevePerkins 9y ago

Is it possible to get a cooly-detached, non-ideologically-charged, objective perspective on the purpose and pro's of charter schools? My conservative and libertarian friends talk this up all the time. However, my understanding is that the whole point is to disrupt the power of sinister teacher unions. Sort of an "Uber for schools", I guess. The thing is... there is no teacher union in my state (my conservative and libertarian friends stare blankly and blink when they learn this). Here in Georgia, the point of charter schools seems to be: (1) Shifting control of schools from the local board level to a state commission, overseen by the state legislature, and (2) Funneling revenue to a number of private (and sometimes for-profit) school management corporations, who shower lots of lobbying dollars on the state legislators in return. To me, it just feels like magic pixie dust. We think it's sinister to privatize our prisons, but doing the same thing to our kids is great because unions (which are already fake news in most parts of the country now). I'm honestly not even sure what their proponents see as being the point... if it's not ideological blind-faith, or a misguided quiet assumption that it will help restore racial segregation in schools.

adpirz 9y ago
Disclaimer: I've spent 5 years working for public charter schools that worked in low-income school districts. I'd encourage you to read this: https://mskellyenglish12.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/7/9/30792489/maritas_bargain.pdf https://mskellyenglish12.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/7/9/30792489... This talks about the first major charter network that primarily worked to serve low-income students for whom the achievement gap was large. The idea behind many of these schools is that the standard model, for one reason or another, is not serving these students properly and that adjustments have to be made. Those can take the form of extended school days, double blocks of reading (core to all learning), a focus on wellbeing, and many more. These particular networks are public and not-for-profit, but there are also charter schools that are for-profit as you mentioned. Generally speaking, "charter school" is an umbrella for any school that operates with a charter outside the standard public school, so it encompasses all sorts of models, but the KIPP-style school is one that has really taken off in the last 20 years in many low-income communities. There are also plenty of problems with KIPP and its brethren, but they have made progress in places many haven't.
9y ago