Where Do the Unions Go from Here?
While the teachers unions are hardly new to criticism, they've recently caught flak from some unlikely sources. Überliberal Eric Alterman recently took a swipe (:09 - "I don't like the teachers union, but I like every other union"), and really dropped the hammer here. Mickey Kaus then took the baton: "Why does the pro-teachers' union blog read like something a General Motors executive might have written in, say, 1985? Our cars are as good as any in the world! The critics all have evil motives!" And then, of course, it was all downhill from there.
If notable liberals like Alterman and Kaus are joining the chorus, I'd say it's a sign that the nation's biggest organized labor organizations are fast wearing out their welcome. But while I look to the day when union clout becomes good and humbled, this school choice supporter doesn't think an irrelevant union is necessarily a good thing. As this guest blogger during Mike's vacation last year pointed out, teachers need a safety net in our litigious society. And merely being a good teacher won't necessarily protect one from a heavy-handed administrator, as illustrated by the firing of a beloved English teacher from a charter school by the alleged union-busting school founder last June.
But the operative word is good teachers. One way the unions can start rehabilitating their image is to begin visibly and aggressively supporting policies that support good teachers, even if--especially if--those policies come at the expense of their incompetent colleagues. I'd really like to see the union embrace tenure reform, but if this post from Edwize is any indication ("tenure is a line in the sand for us"), that's out of the question.
So how about merit pay? In nearly every other sector of our society, rewarding superior job performance is a fact of life. Given recent experiences in Little Rock, where teachers agreed in advance to the compensation formula, merit pay could easily be pitched as a win-win for schools and teachers, especially if struggling students are seen as an opportunity rather than a burden. And we've seen the unrest that can result when, as in Houston, teachers had no input in the design of the program, so the union could easily portray itself--accurately--as a partner in improving the process.
Alterman himself said he's fed up watching the teachers' unions oppose common-sense reforms. If the unions want to improve their public standing--not to mention mend fences with people like Alterman, who should be their natural allies--embracing merit pay wouldn't be a bad way to go.
So, you're saying that the teacher's unions are a good thing, they just have to ignore their reason for existence to rehabilitate their image?
They aren't called *teacher's* unions because they exist to serve anything other then the interests of teachers. All teachers not just the good ones. Before you go prescribing palliatives for the tarnished image of teacher's unions you might want to touch base with the people who benefit from the existence of those unions. See how they feel about the union getting into the business of support good teachers, even if--especially if--those policies come at the expense of their incompetent colleagues. It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that when you pay for protection you want protection, not protection contingent upon meeting high standards of performance.
I'm no friend of unions but they exist for a reason and a negligent flip of the hand won't make that reason go away. Since unions are aggregated selfishness the only reliable way to get unions to come out in favor of changes that'll improve public education is if those changes also benefit teachers materially.
Yeah, you'll get the occasional local that's more accommodating and cooperative then most. You can also find the occasional lion that'll lie down with a lamb but the smart money doesn't bet on it as a widespread phenomenon.
Alterman is wrong. The unions aren't standing in the way of common-sense reforms. The unions are exercising common sense by seeing to the concerns of the people whose interests they exist to serve. It's the nature of unions and if Mr. Alterman wants to see some other outcome then it's the structure of public education that has to change, not the unions. But Mr. Alterman obviously isn't interested in systemic changes since he expects teachers to solve the problems of public education by being as high-minded and evolved as he sees himself and to act in something other then their own best interests.
Perhaps Mr. Alterman could lead by example. I won't hold my breath waiting.
Posted by
allen |
February 21, 2007 8:24 AM
As a teacher I'll state categorically that state and national unions are a serious impediment to improving education as a whole.
They shouldn't be. In fact, they shouldn't be dealing with education reform at all. They should be focusing *only* on the pay, benefits, and working conditions of their members, and leave education policy--and all left-wing ideas and organizations the unions support--to others.
Posted by
Darren |
February 22, 2007 5:19 PM
Allen critisizes Mr. Alterman for expecting "teachers to solve the problems of public education by being as high-minded and evolved as he sees himself and to act in something other then their own best interests."
Would anyone put their lives in the hands of a doctor who put his own best interests above the health and well-being of his patients? Who would hire an attorney who made it clear he would put his clients' interests below his own?
Accepting teachers who put their own interests above those of the children they are hired to teach is tantamount to child abuse.
Posted by
Jim Stegall |
February 25, 2007 6:11 PM
I hate to burst your bubble Jim but most doctors aren't named Schweitzer and most lawyers, well, let's just leave it at "most lawyers". Since I've never noticed halos floating above teacher's heads I can only assume that they have the same feet of clay as the rest of us.
It's a testament to the human ability to rationalize that anyone would find an insult in the observation that teachers aren't better then everyone else.
Can I get an "amen" for rationalization?
What I have noticed about teachers is that they have kids of their own, some of whom need braces on their teeth. They have homes which generally come with a mortgage. They own cars that need periodic maintenance and all that costs money and that's what teachers get for teaching.
Since teachers, like all parents, don't want their kids to go without the braces they need, etc. they want to get paid, the more the better. That's not a criticism although you're free to take it that way, it's an observation.
Oh, and ease up on the coffee. A teacher who expects to get paid for doing their job isn't a child abuser, they're an employee. Maybe you have some qualms about getting paid for doing a job but I assure you you're in the minority.
Posted by
allen |
February 25, 2007 8:02 PM
Post a Comment