Teacher Unions - Bad for Students?

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm just going to guess you a natural at spin. "Raise the cost of education to taxpayers"? Does it? Is cost the only thing that matters to you? That was rhetorical. Cost/Benefit is the key. And you do know that, but whether you are pragmatic enough to accept it as far as schools are concerned, I'm unaware of. You bring it up all the time, cost/benefit with regards to green energy.

You do understand that when unions cause higher wages to be paid tax payers pay those higher wages, right?

You mean higher wages that attract better talent?

- - - Updated - - -

Funny how many of these organizations who want to get rid of 'bad teachers' are in favor of getting rid of teachers with a college degree in education, and replace them with a graduate from "Teach For America"'s 5 week course.

^^^^
TRUTH!

It is one of the last untouched bastions of for profit dollars... the public school system.

 

[dismal]

You do understand that when unions cause higher wages to be paid tax payers pay those higher wages, right?

You mean higher wages that attract better talent?

They might if there were competition for jobs based on talent.

But where there is a union that actively resists measuring who does and doesn't have talent and paying/punishing based on that it doesn't seem likely.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If it were made fully s transparent, I see little justifiable purpose for teacher's unions. Educating our children is an issue politicians run on. Politicians are legislators. They can put legislation in place regarding teacher pay etc. If they do not do so, they can be voted out. So unlike for profit companies (unless it is a private school), I don't see why the will and priorities of the populace can't regulate this without a union need. I think the same of most other government worker unions. They key now lacking is full transparency and accountability. Make sure the voters know who voted to screw over teachers etc, from a trustworthy government source available to all. And the opponents can run on that.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You mean higher wages that attract better talent?

They might if there were competition for jobs based on talent.

There is a lot of competition in areas that pay a living wage.

But where there is a union that actively resists measuring who does and doesn't have talent and paying/punishing based on that it doesn't seem likely.

Which union is this you speak of?

 

[ronburgundy]

Being open-minded, I'm willing to entertain the idea that teachers' unions are not just bad for student's, just bad for taxpayers, But in reality I expect it's some of both.

I mean, what's the point of teachers' unions if it's not to keep bad teachers around and make acceptable teachers more expensive for taxpayers?

Those who claim teachers' unions aren't doing these things are practically calling them dues stealing crooks.

hmmmm... That sure don't smell like open-mindedness. Smells like boiler-plate right wing dogma that fails to consider the complex realities of the situation.

Teacher unions exist to represent the shared interests of teachers. It is not actually in the interests of most teachers to keep the worst teachers from getting fired. The rest of the teachers are the ones forced to deal with the poorly taught students of prior bad teachers, plus be harmed by the indirect effects bad teacher have on how teachers are viewed, paid, and typical irrational over-reactions to standardize test scores being lower than other countries.
I am not saying that many unions don't protect bad workers at the expense of the majority (I am actually open minded), just that it is silly to argue that doing so is an inherent function for which Unions would exist.

What is in most teachers interests is not being fired without good cause. Thus, putting procedures in place that require the demonstration of good cause makes sense. Most clearly warranted firings should be able to fulfill those requirements. Yes, it means that when a principles thinks a teacher is bad but has no evidence to show it is more than personal bias, they can't just fire them. Sometimes the principles "gut" will be right and a lousey teacher stays in the classroom.

Another teacher interest is in students being treated fairly and being prepared to learn when they are in their class. Teachers tend to like it when their kids have some interest and ability to show learning from the instruction. It makes teachers feel all warm and fuzzy inside. So, they want their Union to fight for things to ensure more kids feel safe at school, are fed, have learning resources, and in fact, were already taught the info they need to benefit from the next level of instruction. That makes teachers jobs much more rewarding and effective.

Again, I am not saying all teacher Unions focus on these issues like they should, just pointing out the obvious functions that Union would be created for and could be used to improve.

As for the poor taxpayers, the lousy teachers are almost entirely their fault. They are the result of the lousy pay many taxpayers demand teachers get combined with the way taxpayers shit on teachers every chance they get, hampering teachers ability to do their jobs, and thus eliminating sufficient incentive that most people who would make great teachers would have to get into the field. They are the cause of the massive shortage of teachers in most states which makes schools unable to fire bad teachers because their would be no one to replace them.

 

[Axulus]

In Akron, we have 4 or 5 elementary schools, the one that does the best... is where the affluent children attend. So are all the best teachers there or maybe the children there have better secondary education support at home, family, etc... and lack the other secondary, tertiary stresses that come with lower income and poverty?

Also better genetics. Something like 40%-60% of intelligence and other traits that are conducive to doing well in education are heritable. Such traits are also correlated with affluence.

 

[JonA]

I think the unions need some controls.

If the unions would provide controls and some reasonable filters on who they do and do not defend, this might not be an issue.

At the same time I think crappy schools attract crappy teachers; the role of unions in that is probably negligible.

Unions have controls. It's called the contract.

The Union Contract is negotiated by a group of adults who sit down at a table and work it out, line by line. The school board agrees to every single line. If there's a problem with the Union, look to the managers who agreed to the conditions.

Why would a school board administrator agree to a union contract that protects crappy union teachers? That doesn't make any sense.

The contract doesn't force administrators to leave crappy teachers in place. It does force them to explain why they want to move a teacher, and if they lie, there are consequences. The union contract doesn't protect crappy principals and higher managers. That's the School Board's job.

That's not where the trouble comes in. The trouble is when the schools hire a teacher who turns out to be a dud. Unable to outright fire them, they get passed around from grade level to grade level and subject matter to subject matter as the school desperately searches for an area in which that teacher isn't completely useless.

Some of the lawsuits have alleged that those teachers ultimately end up teaching in already bad schools (where the competent teachers do not want to, and do not have to, work) and those schools are often dominated by poor and/or minority students - a discrimination of sorts.

 

[ronburgundy]

If it were made fully s transparent, I see little justifiable purpose for teacher's unions. Educating our children is an issue politicians run on. Politicians are legislators. They can put legislation in place regarding teacher pay etc. If they do not do so, they can be voted out. So unlike for profit companies (unless it is a private school), I don't see why the will and priorities of the populace can't regulate this without a union need. I think the same of most other government worker unions. They key now lacking is full transparency and accountability. Make sure the voters know who voted to screw over teachers etc, from a trustworthy government source available to all. And the opponents can run on that.

Because the populace are logically inconsistent moronic ideologues, that's why. That want their kids to get the best education possible and pay nothing for it. They have a vested interest is ignoring all reality and placing blame for less than ideal education only on factors that won't cost them more money. Heck, the most creative one's invent some real ripe nonsense that actually blames less than ideal education on spending too much money for it.

As flawed as they are, teachers as a group have more sincere concern for education quality than most parents, taxpayers, and than all politicians. Teachers also have more relevant knowledge than all those groups about what will and won't improve education. The group that would be most useful to give more influence are researchers who study factors that impact learning outcomes. That is slowly happening more and more but there is resistance among teachers. Teachers biggest flaw is simply that they are too much like parents, taxpayers, and politicians in letting ideological assumptions get in the way of change. It would also help if we paid new teachers enough to raise the training requirements, require bachelors in cognitive-learning science areas prior to teacher-training, like most European countries do. This would facilitate the collaboration between teachers and educational researchers.

 

[dismal]

Being open-minded, I'm willing to entertain the idea that teachers' unions are not just bad for student's, just bad for taxpayers, But in reality I expect it's some of both.

I mean, what's the point of teachers' unions if it's not to keep bad teachers around and make acceptable teachers more expensive for taxpayers?

Those who claim teachers' unions aren't doing these things are practically calling them dues stealing crooks.

hmmmm... That sure don't smell like open-mindedness. Smells like boiler-plate right wing dogma that fails to consider the complex realities of the situation.

Teacher unions exist to represent the shared interests of teachers. It is not actually in the interests of most teachers to keep the worst teachers from getting fired. The rest of the teachers are the ones forced to deal with the poorly taught students of prior bad teachers, plus be harmed by the indirect effects bad teacher have on how teachers are viewed, paid, and typical irrational over-reactions to standardize test scores being lower than other countries.
I am not saying that many unions don't protect bad workers at the expense of the majority (I am actually open minded), just that it is silly to argue that doing so is an inherent function for which Unions would exist.

What is in most teachers interests is not being fired without good cause. Thus, putting procedures in place that require the demonstration of good cause makes sense. Most clearly warranted firings should be able to fulfill those requirements. Yes, it means that when a principles thinks a teacher is bad but has no evidence to show it is more than personal bias, they can't just fire them. Sometimes the principles "gut" will be right and a lousey teacher stays in the classroom.

Another teacher interest is in students being treated fairly and being prepared to learn when they are in their class. Teachers tend to like it when their kids have some interest and ability to show learning from the instruction. It makes teachers feel all warm and fuzzy inside. So, they want their Union to fight for things to ensure more kids feel safe at school, are fed, have learning resources, and in fact, were already taught the info they need to benefit from the next level of instruction. That makes teachers jobs much more rewarding and effective.

Again, I am not saying all teacher Unions focus on these issues like they should, just pointing out the obvious functions that Union would be created for and could be used to improve.

As for the poor taxpayers, the lousy teachers are almost entirely their fault. They are the result of the lousy pay many taxpayers demand teachers get combined with the way taxpayers shit on teachers every chance they get, hampering teachers ability to do their jobs, and thus eliminating sufficient incentive that most people who would make great teachers would have to get into the field. They are the cause of the massive shortage of teachers in most states which makes schools unable to fire bad teachers because their would be no one to replace them.

You do understand that taxpayers pay for teachers salaries right?

So, let's start with the world where the taxpayers and their democratic representatives through a process to allocate the great fruits of democracy (eagle cry) determine that they wish to pay $X for teachers of the quality they feel suits the principles and foundations of the democracy best.

Now, the union bosses come along and say "not so fast buddy, you've got to pay $X+1000 if you want these teachers" doesn't it seem pretty clear the union has a) thwarted the will of the people acting with noble democratic principles (eagle cry); b) cost the taxpayers money.

 

[ronburgundy]

In Akron, we have 4 or 5 elementary schools, the one that does the best... is where the affluent children attend. So are all the best teachers there or maybe the children there have better secondary education support at home, family, etc... and lack the other secondary, tertiary stresses that come with lower income and poverty?

Also better genetics. Something like 40%-60% of intelligence and other traits that are conducive to doing well in education are heritable. Such traits are also correlated with affluence.

Note the key word there, because such cognitive traits are causally impacted by the social, nutritional, and early educational benefits of affluence.
Kids who from birth get better fed, more positive stimulation from stay at home parents, less stressful environments due to money problems and crime, and go to better more costly day care, etc.., develop brains and basic skills that are better able to take advantage of future learning opportunities.

As for "genes", those genes include genes that have no direct impact on the brain, including genes for gender, skin color, attractiveness, and many other traits that only impact the development of intellect because of how social environments treat people differently based on such traits. IOW, the real proximal cause of much "genetic" influence is actually the environment.

 

[Derec]

Funny how many of these organizations who want to get rid of 'bad teachers' are in favor of getting rid of teachers with a college degree in education, and replace them with a graduate from "Teach For America"'s 5 week course.

Education degrees are usually bottom of the barrel when it comes to expertise in their supposed field of expertise. I'd much have somebody with a real BS degree in say Math or Science etc. and a minor in education, or an outside program. I suspect this idiot teacher has a BS in Education.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

This is the way it is trending here.

 

[Sarpedon]

Now, the union bosses come along and say "not so fast buddy, you've got to pay $X+1000 if you want these teachers" doesn't it seem pretty clear the union has a) thwarted the will of the people acting with noble democratic principles (eagle cry); b) cost the taxpayers money.

Aren't you against eminent domain? Why should certain people be forced to put aside their individual economic interests in favor of public interests but not others? Unions are collectives of individuals working together to further their own individual interests through collective action. If the taxpayers decided to tax you more to reduce their own tax burden, would you agree? It seems you are very selectively in favor of state power to deprive people of money and property, when it is happening to someone you don't like.

 

[Trausti]

Note the key word there, because such cognitive traits are causally impacted by the social, nutritional, and early educational benefits of affluence.
Kids who from birth get better fed, more positive stimulation from stay at home parents, less stressful environments due to money problems and crime, and go to better more costly day care, etc.., develop brains and basic skills that are better able to take advantage of future learning opportunities.

As for "genes", those genes include genes that have no direct impact on the brain, including genes for gender, skin color, attractiveness, and many other traits that only impact the development of intellect because of how social environments treat people differently based on such traits. IOW, the real proximal cause of much "genetic" influence is actually the environment.

????????

Our results indicate that individual differences in educational achievement are just as strong at the end of compulsory education at age 16 as they are in the earlier school years. Heritability is substantial not only for the core subjects of English (52%), mathematics (55%) and science (58%), but also for the (usually optional) humanities subjects in our dataset (42%). We discuss below the implications of finding that GCSE scores are highly heritable.

Also important is the finding that shared environment accounts for much less variance than does genetics. On average, genetics accounts for almost twice as much of the variance of GCSE scores (53%) as does shared environment (30%), even though shared environmental influences include all family, neighbourhood, and school influences that are shared by members of twin pairs growing up together and attending the same school. In addition, estimates of shared environment are also similar across subjects: English (31%), mathematics (26%), science (24%), and the humanities (32%).

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080341#s1

 

[dismal]

Now, the union bosses come along and say "not so fast buddy, you've got to pay $X+1000 if you want these teachers" doesn't it seem pretty clear the union has a) thwarted the will of the people acting with noble democratic principles (eagle cry); b) cost the taxpayers money.

Aren't you against eminent domain? Why should certain people be forced to put aside their individual economic interests in favor of public interests but not others? Unions are collectives of individuals working together to further their own individual interests through collective action. If the taxpayers decided to tax you more to reduce their own tax burden, would you agree? It seems you are very selectively in favor of state power to deprive people of money and property, when it is happening to someone you don't like.

I didn't make any comment about what should be. Just what is. I agree that teachers have a right to try to attempt to maximize their own economic interests at the expense of taxpayers. But then again taxpayers have the right to pass laws outlawing teachers' unions to maximize theirs.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Aren't you against eminent domain? Why should certain people be forced to put aside their individual economic interests in favor of public interests but not others? Unions are collectives of individuals working together to further their own individual interests through collective action. If the taxpayers decided to tax you more to reduce their own tax burden, would you agree? It seems you are very selectively in favor of state power to deprive people of money and property, when it is happening to someone you don't like.

I didn't make any comment about what should be. Just what is. I agree that teachers have a right to try to attempt to maximize their own economic interests at the expense of taxpayers. But then again taxpayers have the right to pass laws outlawing teachers' unions to maximize theirs.

Taxpayers pass laws? I thought elected officials did.

 

[Sarpedon]

I didn't make any comment about what should be. Just what is. I agree that teachers have a right to try to attempt to maximize their own economic interests at the expense of taxpayers. But then again taxpayers have the right to pass laws outlawing teachers' unions to maximize theirs.

Or they could recognize that teachers are also taxpayers performing a useful service, and negotiate a compromise solution, rather than attempting to force the issue by passing unconstitutional laws (freedom of association and assembly being a constitutional right under the 1st amendment, and other rights not specifically named protected by the 9th)

Conservatives do their best to stoke hostility and conflict between these groups, divide and rule is their motto. Your persistent pretending that the unions are something other than the teachers themselves shows that you've fallen for that lie.

 

[dismal]

I didn't make any comment about what should be. Just what is. I agree that teachers have a right to try to attempt to maximize their own economic interests at the expense of taxpayers. But then again taxpayers have the right to pass laws outlawing teachers' unions to maximize theirs.

Or they could recognize that teachers are also taxpayers performing a useful service, and negotiate a compromise solution, rather than attempting to force the issue by passing unconstitutional laws (freedom of association and assembly being a constitutional right under the 1st amendment, and other rights not specifically named protected by the 9th)

Conservatives do their best to stoke hostility and conflict between these groups, divide and rule is their motto. Your persistent pretending that the unions are something other than the teachers themselves shows that you've fallen for that lie.

There is no right to form a public sector union in the first amendment. Teachers can associate with whomever they like, but the government can enthusiastically reject their demands and fire them if they want for doing it too. That's what free association means.

 

[ronburgundy]

????????

Our results indicate that individual differences in educational achievement are just as strong at the end of compulsory education at age 16 as they are in the earlier school years. Heritability is substantial not only for the core subjects of English (52%), mathematics (55%) and science (58%), but also for the (usually optional) humanities subjects in our dataset (42%). We discuss below the implications of finding that GCSE scores are highly heritable.

Also important is the finding that shared environment accounts for much less variance than does genetics. On average, genetics accounts for almost twice as much of the variance of GCSE scores (53%) as does shared environment (30%), even though shared environmental influences include all family, neighbourhood, and school influences that are shared by members of twin pairs growing up together and attending the same school. In addition, estimates of shared environment are also similar across subjects: English (31%), mathematics (26%), science (24%), and the humanities (32%).

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080341#s1

Your confusion indicated by your quesiton marks is that you don't actually know what "heritability" means or how genes work, or how they interact with and often depend upon variable environment factors the mediate their effects

You think heritability means that genes directly cause 50% of variance on IQ tests. It doesn't mean anything like that.

Imagine you have gene's for black skin and then having your bigoted community treat you like shit for it in countless ways that then impede your brain and intellectual development. That all gets counted as "heritability" is such studies because the genes for black skin was a causal trigger in how your environment treated you. It means nothing more than that any aspect of a persons genetic code that via some unknown causal pathway mediated by any countless number of factors in their environment eventually winds up as an impact on the observed behavioral outcome.

 

[Sarpedon]

There is no right to form a public sector union in the first amendment. Teachers can associate with whomever they like, but the government can enthusiastically reject their demands and fire them if they want for doing it too. That's what free association means

Correct, and if they do, the entire union can go on strike, which is the whole point of a union. What you seem to want is to make it a crime for one worker to refuse to work if another worker is treated unfairly. You can 'ban' employees from unionizing, but that means having to fire literally everyone who is willing to join the union. That's essentially what you are advocating. It would be a battle of nerves, with poor families suffering the most. And that is of course what conservatives really want. American Conservatism has become little more than a psycopathic hatred of the poor, with no opportunity to exploit, insult or injure them neglected.

Also, keep in mind that union members are also voters, and active ones at that. You can't ban people from voting against politicians who try to prevent them from organizing. But you are fine with big corporations lobbying lawmakers, aren't you? But when actual voters do it, it is somehow undemocratic?