5 ms·

Blaming America's dismal education system on teachers unions is a tired and hollow argument. Mr. Adams would do well to consider the chronic underfunding, push

Blaming America's dismal education system on teachers unions is a tired and hollow argument. Mr. Adams would do well to consider the chronic underfunding, push toward standardization at all costs, and political interference that directly challenges science education. Are unions good for a small, agile company? No. Are they necessary for monolithic employers? Probably. The U.S. government employs 2 million civilians. (ref:http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm) Withouts CBAs, etc, this likely would not work particularly well. Having a organizational structure that completely changes its goals, direction, and attitude towards employees every four years probably doesn't help much.

vitolds 16y ago
Since goals change every 4 years and that is a major problem, let's just privatize the whole thing.
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  Because the chief goal of educating children should be profit.
  - vitolds 16y ago
    Because the profit component makes any system more efficient.
    - techdmn 16y ago
      At making a profit.
      - vitolds 16y ago
        and at providing the service.
    - crpatino 16y ago
      Only if all of the following conditions are met: 1. There are multiple options for the customer. 2. The customer is able to accurately asses the quality of different offerings. 3. The cost to switch providers is negligible. Otherwise, you will either get a monopoly or a lemon market.
      - vitolds 16y ago
        1. at least in the urban areas, there are always just as many schools to choose form as grocery stores (so check) 2. easy, just select schools with good graduation, low crime etc. - just as people are selecting good schools now by relocating to a different(better) neighborhood. (check) 3. people switch schools all the time just as they switch jobs, granted you may have difficulties to do it in mid semester but this is not a serious obstacle. (check) So, all the conditions are met, can we open the market to competition now?
JoachimSchipper 16y ago
I'm not sure that his main argument - "education is a vital national interest" (or "national defense issue") - supports union-busting over increased funding and the like. After all, while the US has no military union, it does spend a lot of money on the military. (Whether the individual grunt is underpaid or not has very little to do with the effectiveness of the organization as a whole, and the US defense system is quite effective, despite its problems.)
gyardley 16y ago
Instead of calling an argument tired and hollow, why don't you explain why the argument is tired and hollow? I'm not trying to score some cheap political points off you - I'd love a response that makes me think a bit, because when I hear someone say 'teachers unions are bad for education', my gut reaction is 'well, that's obvious', since any system where pay is based on seniority and poor-performers are difficult to fire has got to create perverse incentives. What am I missing?
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  I'll preface this by saying that I am no fan of unions, although I recognize their utility in some sectors and will go so far as to say that they have done an incredible amount of historic good for the middle class. Blaming teachers for failing educational standards has long been a tactic of those who wish to see public education marginalized. What they fail to point out, however, is that those countries with the best education systems also have strong teachers unions. I'm not implying causality between the two, merely correlation. It's certainly true that the structure of a union is not one that tends to reward or punish based upon performance, but those who hold unions to be the downfall of any organization place far too much weight on the idea of monetary incentives. Take Microsoft, for instance. Here's a company that has tried to implement performance-based monetary incentives, and, by most accounts, failed widely. It's not that people aren't incentivized by money, but rather that those who are really good at what they do care much more about their impact than their paycheque. They care more about doing something great and earning the respect of peers they respect than a 5%/year raise. The education system in America is shameful, something that it seems almost everyone can agree on. The fact is, however, teacher unions are by no means the major culprit. As I said earlier, chronic severe underfunding and a drive toward standardization that values passing meaningless tests over education is the true culprit. As a member of HN, I think I can go out on a limb and say you're either fairly technical, entrepreneurial, or both. Let me ask you: would you want to work for a failing organization that had a terrible product, didn't invest enough in development, and had ridiculous rules governing what qualified as success? The trouble with finding great teachers who take charge of their students' education is not the union, it's the system itself. The union may play a role in that, but it's simply not a primary one.
- 16y ago
melling 16y ago
If you have seen the movie "Waiting for Superman" you'll understand why the union is taking some of the blame. They certainly make a case for it being part of the problem. Also, would it be possible to provide some evidence for your claims about education? It might help us have a better discussion.
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  Waiting for Superman has been criticized for its somewhat less-than-honest depiction of reality. Take a look at this piece from a professor of education at USF: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-ayers-/an-inconvenient-superman-_b_716420.html?view=print http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-ayers-/an-inconvenient-su... Some more reading: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0924/Waiting-for-Superman-A-simplistic-view-of-education-reform http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0924/Waiting-for... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/09/how-did-davis-guggenheim-become-the-right-wings-favorite-liberal-filmmaker-.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/09/how-... http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-09-22/film/ignoring-the-inconvenient-truths-in-waiting-for-superman/ http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-09-22/film/ignoring-the-inc...
protomyth 16y ago
I think the "chronic underfunding" is just as much a canard. $10K per non-special ed student should go a lot farther than it does.

vitolds 16y ago

Since goals change every 4 years and that is a major problem, let's just privatize the whole thing.

redthrowaway 16y ago
Because the chief goal of educating children should be profit.
- vitolds 16y ago
  Because the profit component makes any system more efficient.
  - techdmn 16y ago
    At making a profit.
    - vitolds 16y ago
      and at providing the service.
  - crpatino 16y ago
    Only if all of the following conditions are met: 1. There are multiple options for the customer. 2. The customer is able to accurately asses the quality of different offerings. 3. The cost to switch providers is negligible. Otherwise, you will either get a monopoly or a lemon market.
    - vitolds 16y ago
      1. at least in the urban areas, there are always just as many schools to choose form as grocery stores (so check) 2. easy, just select schools with good graduation, low crime etc. - just as people are selecting good schools now by relocating to a different(better) neighborhood. (check) 3. people switch schools all the time just as they switch jobs, granted you may have difficulties to do it in mid semester but this is not a serious obstacle. (check) So, all the conditions are met, can we open the market to competition now?

JoachimSchipper 16y ago

I'm not sure that his main argument - "education is a vital national interest" (or "national defense issue") - supports union-busting over increased funding and the like. After all, while the US has no military union, it does spend a lot of money on the military. (Whether the individual grunt is underpaid or not has very little to do with the effectiveness of the organization as a whole, and the US defense system is quite effective, despite its problems.)

gyardley 16y ago

Instead of calling an argument tired and hollow, why don't you explain why the argument is tired and hollow? I'm not trying to score some cheap political points off you - I'd love a response that makes me think a bit, because when I hear someone say 'teachers unions are bad for education', my gut reaction is 'well, that's obvious', since any system where pay is based on seniority and poor-performers are difficult to fire has got to create perverse incentives. What am I missing?

redthrowaway 16y ago
I'll preface this by saying that I am no fan of unions, although I recognize their utility in some sectors and will go so far as to say that they have done an incredible amount of historic good for the middle class. Blaming teachers for failing educational standards has long been a tactic of those who wish to see public education marginalized. What they fail to point out, however, is that those countries with the best education systems also have strong teachers unions. I'm not implying causality between the two, merely correlation. It's certainly true that the structure of a union is not one that tends to reward or punish based upon performance, but those who hold unions to be the downfall of any organization place far too much weight on the idea of monetary incentives. Take Microsoft, for instance. Here's a company that has tried to implement performance-based monetary incentives, and, by most accounts, failed widely. It's not that people aren't incentivized by money, but rather that those who are really good at what they do care much more about their impact than their paycheque. They care more about doing something great and earning the respect of peers they respect than a 5%/year raise. The education system in America is shameful, something that it seems almost everyone can agree on. The fact is, however, teacher unions are by no means the major culprit. As I said earlier, chronic severe underfunding and a drive toward standardization that values passing meaningless tests over education is the true culprit. As a member of HN, I think I can go out on a limb and say you're either fairly technical, entrepreneurial, or both. Let me ask you: would you want to work for a failing organization that had a terrible product, didn't invest enough in development, and had ridiculous rules governing what qualified as success? The trouble with finding great teachers who take charge of their students' education is not the union, it's the system itself. The union may play a role in that, but it's simply not a primary one.
16y ago

melling 16y ago

If you have seen the movie "Waiting for Superman" you'll understand why the union is taking some of the blame. They certainly make a case for it being part of the problem. Also, would it be possible to provide some evidence for your claims about education? It might help us have a better discussion.

redthrowaway 16y ago
Waiting for Superman has been criticized for its somewhat less-than-honest depiction of reality. Take a look at this piece from a professor of education at USF: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-ayers-/an-inconvenient-superman-_b_716420.html?view=print http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-ayers-/an-inconvenient-su... Some more reading: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0924/Waiting-for-Superman-A-simplistic-view-of-education-reform http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0924/Waiting-for... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/09/how-did-davis-guggenheim-become-the-right-wings-favorite-liberal-filmmaker-.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/09/how-... http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-09-22/film/ignoring-the-inconvenient-truths-in-waiting-for-superman/ http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-09-22/film/ignoring-the-inc...

protomyth 16y ago

I think the "chronic underfunding" is just as much a canard. $10K per non-special ed student should go a lot farther than it does.