In my opinion, they've destroyed public education. But............I'm all ears and my mind is open. Who can defend these pools of mediocrity?
Teacher's Unions: WTF? Who can justify them?
- Thread starter Herkmeister
- Start date
How's about you start with how they destroyed public education. Generally you start with facts.
Generally, yes. So let's start with this:
It is no coincidence that the thirty-year decline in U.S. K–12 education and the simultaneous surge in education spending began at the same time the modern teacher unions were created. Today, the National Education Association has nearly three million members. Its agenda is not to provide better teaching in schools; it is to provide more money and benefits for teachers -- and, above all, for itself.
It is no coincidence that the thirty-year decline in U.S. K–12 education and the simultaneous surge in education spending began at the same time the modern teacher unions were created. Today, the National Education Association has nearly three million members. Its agenda is not to provide better teaching in schools; it is to provide more money and benefits for teachers -- and, above all, for itself.
Last edited:
You got that from Brimelow' "The Worm in the Apple," right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that your thing, you come into HROT, read some obscure passage and then pretend - you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some guys, embarrass some others?
Given that there's been no "decline in U.S. K-12 education" you're beginning your rant with a faulty premise. Try again.
It's so much more complicated than just blaming the unions. Think about why they were neccesary in the first place... Would you trust a school board to be fair? It's really 2 very American problems that has made our educational system dysfunctional -
Both sides are greedy and "want to win" every collective bargaining agreement. If there's a winner and a loser the system loses every time (either we're paying to much or to little). The folks at the bargaining table also don't seem to be our best and brightest.
We've also been lazy and demonstrated a TOTAL lack of accountability. Large groups of Americans without good leaders do not creatively solve problems. It leads to short-term solutions based on prior practices.
Both sides are greedy and "want to win" every collective bargaining agreement. If there's a winner and a loser the system loses every time (either we're paying to much or to little). The folks at the bargaining table also don't seem to be our best and brightest.
We've also been lazy and demonstrated a TOTAL lack of accountability. Large groups of Americans without good leaders do not creatively solve problems. It leads to short-term solutions based on prior practices.
Public employee unions should be illegal.
Taxpayers pay the teachers who then pay union dues?
Begone, union parasites.
Taxpayers pay the teachers who then pay union dues?
Begone, union parasites.
Why are they there? Because if they were not school districts would screw teachers as much as possible. There are downsides to unions for sure, but they would not get decent pay or benefits without them.
I've always felt public employees had the biggest need of unions. While there is plenty of mismanagement in private industry, there is at least an incentive to find the right balance between keeping costs down while offering high enough pay to attract the best people. If a manager isn't able to maintain competent staff it will make him look bad.
Teachers are hired by elected officials -- whose decisions are far more likely to be based on politics rather than on logic, and are the last people I'd want to have my employment depend upon.
Struggling by the part of your post that teachers are hired by elected officials.
I don't mind local teachers unionizing for legitimate reasons, but a national org just takes away from really helping the local schools.
Sure they would. Voters demand good schools, which necessitates good teachers.
Obviously, a private school would do things better than government, but if the school board sucks, voters will throw them out and elect better board members.
Taxpayers pay teachers, who then donate to churches?
By this logic teachers should not have pensions or health care or a place to eat their lunch or vacations or cars or homes or comfortable shoes. None of those "provide better teaching in schools." We should get rid of them and they are undoubtedly responsible for the problems of modern education.
Why are unions required to have an "agenda of providing better teaching"? They do that through other vehicles - like education. This argument is like saying your co-workers shouldn't have a bowling league because it doesn't make the assembly line work better. It's not supposed to; it has a different purpose.
Oh, by the way, it probably IS a coincidence - assuming what you said is even true.
Which elected officials do teacher hiring?
This may be like the CC from the post yesterday for me.
I assumed he was just referring to governments setting the budgets and such for public schools - not actual hands-on hiring.
Taxpayers pay for teachers to do a service. That is where your concern ends. How a teacher spends his or her money is not your concern.
Amazing how being able to not allow certain students can improve the results a school gets. It will really suck to be a student with a disability or a poor student in your world.
No... teachers do not voluntarily spend their own money on union dues. In many states, they're required to do so. There's even a Supreme Court case getting ready to be heard on this.
http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/opinion/2016/01/19/dues-process-teachers/78996156/
School boards must approve hires, ultimately elected officials have the last say in the matter.
The thing is, Illinois is listed as one of those states where contributions are "required". At my school, nobody is forced to join the union. Dues are only taken out for union members.
Second, whether they are in a union or not, collective bargaining has a cost. Since nonunion members benefit from the union's work they need to contribute to those costs. Which, btw, are the only things those fees are used for. And before you jump to conspiracy theories about these dues being used for something else, provide some evidence.
Don't worry though. You'll get your wish and the Supreme Court is going to smash unions for you. Union busting states are already having teacher shortage problems. What are you going to do when suburban schools can't even fill their need for teachers because no one wants to do it?
How is that a strawman argument? Are you saying private schools don't get to choose who is allowed at their school?
You're seriously suggesting that the disabled kids will suffer if we don't have freaking teachers' unions? LOL, give me a break, please.
Teachers' unions constantly tell their "members" how horrible they're being treated. THAT JUST HAS TO BE GREAT FOR THE KIDS.
Has there been a 30 year decline of US k-12 education? I'd need to see the work on that answer. Because its often the case that the total US result including special ed kids are compared to other nations preparatory school results. I also think people are biased about their personal education such that whatever they received 30 years ago was great because they are obviously so smart, but whatever is happening now must be crap because everyone else is obviously so stupid.
Actually, yes. Churches get tax exemptions. The taxes nevertheless get paid. Meaning that the rest of us pay extra taxes to cover the Churches' share of taxes.
The argument is the basis of your love affair with the magic of private schools would evaporate if they were forced to take all students.
There will always be people willing to do it because there's a never-ending stream of women who want to "work with kids" when making their career choices.
If "nobody wanted to do it" then salaries would increase. "Nobody wanting to do it" is really what teachers need if they want more pay.
Because.... supply and demand is a law that cannot be broken. Teachers' pay is kept down because there are too many people who want to be teachers.
Typically clueless. Private schools and semi-privatized public schools tend to get away with cherry picking the better students. Most of us have no trouble following that thought process to its logical conclusion.
wtf are you talking about? I wasn't saying anything about teacher's unions. I was saying that the biggest reason private schools often outperform public schools is because they don't have to spend money on special ed or other students with disabilities. Nothing about teacher unions there.
Although, if it weren't for teacher unions then many of the benefits that students with disabilities (not disabled...they are two different things) have today would not exist. Things like IEP's and specialized resource classes for them. It's not a coincidence that these programs did not exist before teacher unions. So yes, they would suffer without teacher unions.
Have you ever seen a case where a teacher hire was turned down by the school board?
You are correct on what you posted I have just not seen or heard of it ever happening. My wife has taught in Arizona, Nevada, California, and Texas and has never heard of a new hire being turned down.
It's a red herring. There are many private schools that specialize in education for disabled students.
http://www.masters-in-special-education.com/50-best-private-special-needs-schools/
WTF are YOU going on about? I never said anything about private schools "outperforming" public schools except for the fact that the private sector does everything better than the government does.
As for claiming that only public schools provide education for special needs children, see the link to the "50 Best Private Special Needs Schools" I posted above.
That's not what is happening. There are multiple cases in many states of teacher education programs not being able to fill their classes. There is a lot of evidence to show that you are wrong and it is directly related to how they are treated.
Hell, it just doesn't make any sense to spend 100k and 4+ years getting trained just to go out and make 35k a year. That alone is keeping people from entering the field, certainly the best and brightest that the field should be attracting.
