Well, aside from the fact that nobody but psychopaths would not care if poison were being served in restaurants, worrying about such things is still outside the remit of unions that represent restaurant workers, except inasmuch as the inevitable fallout will affect restaurant workers professionally. There are other organisations that exist to monitor food quality and protect customers’ interests, just as there are organisations that exist to monitor the quality of education and to protect pupils’ interests.

Someone upthread actually suggested that they wouldn’t respect teachers’ unions till they “proved” that educating kids was the highest item on the unions’ agendas. I’m saying that’s ridiculous: that has zero to do with with the purpose of teachers’ unions in the first place. Teachers’ unions exist to represent teachers’ interests, not students’. And that doesn’t mean that they don’t give a damn about the kids, it doesn’t make them Bad People, and it doesn’t make them irresponsible. All it means is that their focus is the teachers, and I really don’t see why other people are getting so bent out of shape at the thought of organisations that exist to make sure the rights of a specific professional group are taken into account. Why on earth would anyone interpret the existence of such an organisation as meaning that it and the teachers associated with it must not care about kids?

I would add this one:

6) Education–what and how students should be taught and assessed–is contested territory, and this contest is often, not always, but often enough, the (unacknowledged) subtext that drives conflict in and over the areas that Robert outlined in his comment.

Thus far it seems to me that everyone agrees:

1) Teaching is a profession that should pay its ordinary competent practitioner a living wage.

2) Schools where budgetary constraints are a serious problem have a difficult time giving teacher salaries a sufficiently high priority.

3) Individually, bad teachers exist and can cause significant problems for a child who falls into their orbit.

4) Teacher’s unions are effective at increasing teacher compensation, at a cost of making it more difficult to remove bad teachers.

5) Removing bad teachers is a problematic and tricky thing to do even in the absence of a union.

Any other universals?

Someone has to make the call on what our education will be. I’d rather the fox didn’t guard the henhouse.

Would you say the same thing about lawyers, doctors or any other profession in which it is the professionals themselves who define best practices, and who regulate themselves, etc? I do not deny that there is some difference between the situation of teachers and that of lawyers, etc. both in terms of how they are positioned relative to the populations they serve, the social good they do, their job security, how they are paid, the financial and other risks they assume as a result of being in business for themselves (when they are), etc. Nor do I think it is wrong to examine the role teachers unions play in the education process, in terms of how they protect teachers’ interests, how that function can make questions of accountability and other issues very complex and difficult to deal with (and, in some case, more difficult and complex than they ought to be; though I would also argue that such questions–once you examine education for what it is, a process that involves a good deal more than the simple transmission of knowledge–are always to some degree complex and difficult).

I do think, however, that discussion would be better served if we could distinguish between and among teaching as what teachers do, a profession, a set of profesional and professionalized skills and practices; the subjects that teachers teach (practices can be remarkably similar across classrooms with radically different content); who it is that actually determines the curriculum that teachers teach (it is not the union); who decides how, on what and how much money gets spent in a school (again, it is not the union, though the union of course has some influence over this); whose interests are served by the educational system (in addition to the students, it serves the interests of politcians, who love to make educaton, particularly teachers, a scapegoat; it serves the interests of teachers in that it is our source of livelihood; it serves the interests of parents in any number of ways; it serves the interests of employers, of our culture at large, and so on.)

I want to be clear about something: while I am pro-union, I am not blind to the problems that can arise: We had to have my son’s kindergarten class changed because his teacher decided, because she believed my wife and I coddled him too much, that it was her job to make “a man” out of him and so she picked on him to the point where he not only cried every day before he went to school (and this is kindergarten), but also developed a nervous tic in class. When I went to talk to the assistant principal, it was very clear to me that the problem with this teacher was long-standing and that the school administraton had, for whatever reason, decided against going up against the union in trying to remove the instructor. I am giving you the very short version of this story, but my point is that I have first-hand experience of the ways in which the process negotiated by the teacher’s union for the removal of tenure actually hurt students by allowing a teacher who should not longer have been in the classroom to remain there. I think the discussion of how to balance the needs of teachers as employees and the needs of students and the needs society has of our educational system is crucial; I don’t think that discussion can happen in a productive way, given the kinds of conflation that are both implicit and explicit in the kinds of statements I quoted above.

I don’t understand what this has to do with anything? Teacher’s unions don’t decide how money should best be spent on education. That is the job of school boards (even school boards that mandate teaching “intelligent design” aka creationism in science classes). Teachers’ unions advocate on behalf of teachers. Are those unions always right in their assertions of what benefits students the most? No, but neither are school boards (creationism, book banning, etc.). I just don’t see teachers’ unions as the major impediment to better public education.

WITH a teacher’s union, districts ALSO lose some or all of the ability to enact beneficial-to-students changes that are detrimental to teachers.

Any school district that loses ALL of the ability to enact beneficial-to-students changes that are detrimental to teachers (with or without a union) is run by incompetents and I would say that perhaps that administration is the largest impediment to a better run school. Any school district that complains about losing SOME of the ability to enact beneficial-to-students changes that are detrimental to teachers needs to learn the value of balancing the needs of students and teachers. I just don’t have a lot of sympathy.

Do you honestly believe that if teachers’ unions were outlawed that public education would be significantly and tangibly improved? Can you provide any evidence that that was the case before the advent of unions?

Yeah, actually. You do.

And maybe people who have a ghost of an idea how things actually work in schools and classrooms should decide about education — not people who clearly have no clue.

bradana Writes:
September 6th, 2007 at 11:01 am
…Without a teacher’s union, teachers lose the collective ability to push back against school boards that may have different priorities, priorities that aren’t always in line with how best to educate kids (Let’s build a new stadium and cut funding to art/science/music/books/whatever).

This is an interesting point. First of all, who is to say the the teachers are right? Someone has to make the call on what our education will be. I’d rather the fox didn’t guard the henhouse. I’ve rarely met a teacher who didn’t think their subject (or the actual teacher and their class) was among the most important. You don’t see the basket weaving teachers volunteering to leave the school so their salaries can be used to enhance math skills.

The concept that teachers always (or even “most of the time”) act with students’ interests in mind is a false assumption. Yes: because of the way that the education system works, their interests are OFTEN aligned. But sometimes their interests are diametrically opposed.

You don’t see teachers voluntarily leaving their jobs teaching English just because, say, they can’t actually teach English:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0831ellmonitor0831.html
And we have all probably read the various occasional news exposes of what happens when you start testing teachers–they often don’t pass the tests. I don’t, um, think that’s in the kids’ best interest in any way, shape, or form.

WITH a teacher’s union, districts ALSO lose some or all of the ability to enact beneficial-to-students changes that are detrimental to teachers.

Basically, it gets to this: who is best qualified to decide how money should best be spent on education? The teacher’s union seems to think it’s them. I propose that this entire board would take about a nanosecond to recognize the conflict of interest inherent in that suggestion, and that the only reason folks aren’t admitting it is because such recognition conflicts with their general pro-union stance.

There are, of course, a small minority of teachers who view disadvantaged children with disdain. They’re usually unhappy people, and they leave when they can.

I don’t accept that only wealthy

I remember as a kid going to the store or the mall or someplace in public and running across my mom’s students. They were usually shocked or embarassed to see her outside of school. She would often laugh and joke about how kids thought their teachers curled up in their filing cabinets at night and came out the next day to teach class, like she didn’t have a life outside of the classroom.

Teachers are not saints, they’re not some noble do-gooders out to sacrifice their own lives and livelihoods so kids have someplace to go for free every day while their parents go to work. Without a teacher’s union, teachers lose the collective ability to push back against school boards that may have different priorities, priorities that aren’t always in line with how best to educate kids (Let’s build a new stadium and cut funding to art/science/music/books/whatever).

Here’s an example of what could happen to teachers without a union, my mother went 8 years without a pay increase in the late 1970’s-early 1980’s and then another 6 years after that. Not a cost of living, not a merit increase. Nothing, nada. Think about that for a minute, especially people who want to criticize the quality of public school education. Without the union, teachers are either profoundly devoted public servants, the second income in a two income household, independently wealthy, or non-existent. Think about how long you would stay in job without any hope of making enough money to support yourself and/or family.

The competitive market for teachers exists between rich districts that can afford to pay competitive wages and benefits and poor districts who can’t. Leaving children out in the cold. But is that the fault of the way we fund public education? Is it the choices we make as a nation that dictate priorities? Or is the greedy teachers’ union that demands that teachers make a decent salary and benefits?

It’s also interesting to note that the negativity around teachers’ unions always comes up with an impending strike, when the prospect of not having a free place to park the kids comes up.

That’s bullshit, Joe. My mother’s teacher’s union does a lot more than that. She works in a disadvantaged district, and everyone, everyone, everyone works far more than the required hours to try to help the students. The union does NOT only concentrate on teacher salary.

But it’s true that there are too many factors beyond control of teachers, especially when dealing with areas with large numbers of disadvantaged kids. Do you really think the only reason disadvantaged kids are more likely to have less than ideal outcomes is that the schools and teachers aren’t good enough?

I don’t think the only reason disadvantaged kids are more likely to have less than ideal outcomes is that the schools and teachers aren’t good enough.

I do think that society would be better off over all if everyone that went to school K-12 ended up literate, numerate, and knowledgeable about history, biology, economics, civics and personal finance.

I think that the current system largely fails to accomplish that in disadvantaged areas. I think that the teachers union. (not teachers personally) does 2 things that hamper improvements.

1 They automatically reject any change that would not be worse for the union and it’s members. (this is perfectly rational position for them to take) e.g. charter schools. (not saying charter schools are the solution.)

2 They keep much of the local focus about new education spending on getting more money to the teacher. Partially by strong advocacy and partially by equating good teachers with the solution to all education problems.

The difference is other unions work for other people and if their product isn’t good I’ll go elsewhere.

So if you don’t like how your local fire department does its job, you switch to a competing fire department?

I see the union as a roadblock to education reform. I don’t think the existing model is working well for disadvantaged children. The unions answer seems to be the same every year. “Teachers are saints. Teachers are the answer. Hire more teachers and increase their pay. But don’t try to hold teachers accountable for the outcome because there are too many factors beyond their control.”

But it’s true that there are too many factors beyond control of teachers, especially when dealing with areas with large numbers of disadvantaged kids. Do you really think the only reason disadvantaged kids are more likely to have less than ideal outcomes is that the schools and teachers aren’t good enough?

I see the union as a roadblock to education reform. I don’t think the existing model is working well for disadvantaged children. The unions answer seems to be the same every year. “Teachers are saints. Teachers are the answer. Hire more teachers and increase their pay. But don’t try to hold teachers accountable for the outcome because there are too many factors beyond their control.”

Oh, and I think expecting teachers to perform their job as a form of charity is silly. It’s a job, they should get paid what they’re worth and what they’re worth should be defined by the market. imho

No. But we should require them to care whether or not they are serving poison to the customers.

Oh, come on: you honestly can’t see the difference between a teachers’ union whose priority is teachers’ rights and teachers themselves, many of whom actually do give a shit about their students? Teachers’ unions aren’t in charge of education, though they may care about it. Their responsibility is making sure teachers have representation regarding employment issues.

Should we require those unions who represent workers in the food service industries to care more about the quality of the meal that gets served to us in a restaurant than about the restaurant workers’ rights?