E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA dozen states are poised to pass significant education reforms this year, depending on the outcome of next week’s election. State-level candidates in many of them want to abolish teacher tenure and tie teacher evaluations to student tests. On the ground trying to make sure they win is a new organization, StudentsFirst, founded by former Washington D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee.
The group has infused cash and organizing into races in states such as California, Iowa and Michigan, where teachers unions have historically dominated politics and enshrined such policies as tenure and pay based on seniority in state law. StudentsFirst hopes to undercut unions’ power and remove many of the labor protections that unions support.
The 2012 election is the group’s first real test. In Missouri, another state on the brink of wide-scale changes in education, StudentsFirst has poured more than $100,000 into campaigns since the primaries and recruited more than 40,000 members to push for the election of 21 candidates it has endorsed. Nationwide, the group has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in primary and general elections.
Due to the reputation of its founder as a tough and unapologetic enemy of unions, StudentsFirst has the highest profile among a small number of similar groups, including Stand for Children and Democrats for Education Reform, that have emerged in the last few years to fight policies typically supported by unions. Most recently, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced he had formed a super PAC to back candidates that support, among other things, the education reforms he has pushed in New York, including expansion of school choice.
“Typically if you voted for school reform, you came under the wrath of the protectors of the status quo,” said Tim Melton, the StudentsFirst legislative director, referring to the unions. “[We’re a] new group that lets people know if they want to take some of those tough votes, someone’s going to stand with them.”
For years, the unions have dominated the political landscape on education. They are often major campaign donors and organizers for candidates that they endorse. The rise of outside groups eager to influence education policy corresponds with a growing number of candidates who are paying attention to the issue. In recent years, nearly every state in the country has passed some sort of significant education reform bill. They have changed curriculum standards, expanded charter schools or revamped teacher evaluations.
“When you look at education, it hasn’t been something that has been a political dynamo issue for candidates to run on,” Melton said. “You just now see in the last three years a major shift.”
More from The Hechinger Report
- Teachers unions in Ohio seek to elect educators to office
- Ed in the Election: Ballot initiatives could transform state education policies
- Days lost to hurricane put New Jersey schools to the test
StudentsFirst came to Missouri in January after being approached by both Democratic and Republican members of the state Legislature. It worked to get a charter school bill passed, but fell short on a bill that would reform Missouri’s teacher tenure law. The legislation would have extended the time before a teacher can receive tenure from five years to 10. It passed narrowly in the House, but failed in the Senate. Union officials say five years is more than enough time to weed out low-performing teachers.
StudentsFirst plans on returning to the issue after the election is over, and Melton is hopeful the numbers will be on his side this time. “It could be one or two members in a chamber that could make a significant difference,” Melton said.
The Missouri National Education Association (MNEA) and StudentsFirst have endorsed opposing candidates in eight races, including the race for lieutenant governor, and the same candidate in five. Chris Guinther, MNEA president, stressed that the union did not pay attention to the StudentsFirst endorsements. Her organization does its own independent selection process, she said.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
But she is unhappy about the presence of StudentsFirst in state politics. “I would hope the Missouri legislators are willing to listen to those who work in our public schools every day rather than someone who flies in from California,” she said. “Who in public education, who in service to our children doesn’t put students first?”
The Missouri Association of Teachers has found even less common ground with StudentsFirst. The union supports only one candidate that StudentsFirst also endorsed. In an open letter on its website, the association said the campaign of any candidate that takes StudentFirst money will be considered “anti-public education.”
Melton said he was unaware of the letter. “They represent their members, we represent the interest of students. I would hope that we can find [joint interest],” he said. “You can give them my phone number if they actually want to have a real conversation about that.”
Watch the Top Videos on NBCNews.com
Whether StudentsFirst will have the impact it’s hoping for, however, remains to be seen. Only 10 of 17 candidates the group endorsed in Missouri’s primary elections last spring won.
StudentsFirst could gain as much power as the unions, eventually, said Mike Antonucci, director of the Education Intelligence Agency, a group that monitors teachers unions. That won’t happen any time soon though, he said. The unions have a built-in organizational structure that others have yet to match.
Teachers' unions push to get educators elected
“It looks to me like StudentsFirst has money; they don’t have the organization,” said Antonucci. “If you’re going to compete with [the unions], you have to have both.”
Nov. 6 will provide the first clues as to whether StudentsFirst is likely to be a true player in state elections.
“Part of what we perceive to be their influence will actually be determined next Tuesday,” Guinther said, noting that her group was braced to have a tenure debate again. “I’m sure they’ll be back.”
This story,"New player in education jumps into state races," was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education-news outlet based at Teachers College, Columbia University.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Nanny charged in stabbing deaths of two children on New York's Upper West Side
- 'Couple more days' for fuel shortage, Bloomberg says; 'free gas' offer triggers rush
- Despite constant bloodshed, Mexico is ignored during White House race
- Capitol Christmas Tree en route to spruce up Washington holiday
- Freezing temps in Sandy areas; snow next along with nor'easter?
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
ummmm.... Sarah of...
By Sarah Butrymowicz, The Hechinger Report ....fame
the other day this was reported as
California, Illinois and Michigan...
not California, Iowa and Michigan.. typo perhaps? or just another "one of those fly overstates" comments? Iowa is a right to work state ya know and the teachers in this town of 50K don't support the "union". so why would they waste money here?
Before we jump on the "Crucify the Teacher Unions" bandwagon, lets look at the data---
The states with the strongest unions consistently have the highest scoring students.
Teachers have an incredibly selfless and challenging job. As we continue to demonize their profession and take away their benefits, we will have an even more difficult time luring the best and the brightest.
How foolish could we be?
thinking?
ever hear of chicago?
Oh please. Teachers are the most self-pitting group of people on this planet. While this varies from state to state, by-and-large, teachers have some of the top benefits and pay when you consider how LITTLE they actually work. Between holidays (including Christmas vacation, spring break, etc), in-service days, summers off, etc - their pay is far better than the average American. Yet, they whine insistently about how they have this thankless job.
The fact is, we spend more per student than any other developed nation by a mile If we spend MORE, why do we continue to get LESS?
The problem is HOW we spend our money - and the solution is not to spend MORE.
Teacher unions are one of the key problems with our education system.
StudentsFirst should be renamed: StudentsFirstUnion.
Name must have been taken right off a picket line poster.
Yep, trying to get the Unions into States Constitutions and now they want "Educational" legislatures to be able to formulate State laws. Oh, then there are the "Conservative Judges" on the bench they are trying to get replaced.
Sounds a bit like the tactic used by special interest groups on the beltway......"attack from the inside".
You know, if this were actually TRUE, which I don't believe for a moment, I'm thinking all those Walll Street money grabbers would just be lining up for teaching positions. You complain about teachers not being "good" teachers, then you want to pay them less than the babysitters they are expected to now become.
Remember the saying...you get what you pay for.
And as far as "how little they work"...why don't you go back to some of you teachers and find out exactly how much they "didn't work". I bet ALL of them will tell you that while an average school day might only be 6 or 7 hours, teachers are expected to be there well before the first student (to make sure the little bugger has a "babysitter" till school starts, and they are working nights and weekends correcting tests, coming up with class plans, shopping for school supplies the parents don't send with the students, attending continuing education classes, etc, etc.
What do you do for a living, what is your salary, and how many kids lives do you change every week being there for them?
And for the record...I am NOT a school teacher. I'm just somebody who is tired of seeing them slammed all over the place for doing a job that frankly, you couldn't pay me enough to do. I bet you couldn't be paid enough either.
Poor parenting is a much bigger problem than any Union. When the parents aren't even able to help with basic math skills, there is a problem. Parents need to be more involved in their kids education, even if it means they have to take some classes.
A bold and broad statement. Some proof might be in order.
Would be hard to prove. I know that one of the worst states for education is Mississippi, and it has the lowest average salary for it's teachers. West VA is similar. However a few of the other bad ones, Nevada and Arizona, are close to the national average.
On the flip side NJ has one of the more successful educational systems in the country, surprisingly enough, and is fairly union centric. Most of the Northeast in fact, and largely thru it's public schools.
genafan,
No, Wall Street is not looking to make its minions into teachers, the state universities actually produce a surplus each year. What Wall Street is interested in doing is owning charter school holding companies.
Charter schools in Indiana are allowed to force a $1 per year (no, not a typo -- $1) lease of any unused school property plus equipment. Then any enrolled students result in a $4500 capped voucher, with the parents providing any additional tuition required. But, the public school stands to lose as much as $8400 per year for that student. For now, most of the charter schools are local projects, usually centered around fundamental Christian churches or church consortiums. However, out-of-state groups are said to be interested if the vouchers were raised to $6000.
For-profit colleges taking advantage of student loan financing have already been accused of intentionally recruiting students that they know cannot succeed, or promoting curricula that will not result in the employment promised. At what point will we see for-profit secondary and primary school corporations operating hundreds or thousands of schools, taxing the parents twice - once at the county or state level and then through the excess tuition. At millions of potential students and as much as $7000 per student primary and $10000 per secondary student, these schools could be as lucrative as the for-profit colleges were before the federal government started cracking down. And like the colleges, success need last no longer thanthe easy profit requires.
Meanwhile, public schools are faced with increasing lower enrollments, meaning less funding. But without the ability to accept or reject students, which the charters have. If public schools are forced to over-consolidate or close, there will be no options for remaining students or the states. Privatization of public education a few thousand students at a time.
Just more of the radical Gestapo Republican tactics. They don't want anyone to have a voice, except for themselves. They can control all they want, but they'll never like the outcome. It's time to stand up to them and send them on down the road (maybe to China).
Corporate America paid for and bought by the greedy elite!!! Stand up to them, and vote against the person of their choice! Don't let their money take away your freedom!!
Vote Obama/Biden on Nov. 6, 2012!!!
Just another example of Gestapo Elections controlled by the wealthy elite money and the crooked Republicans/Tea Party. It would be beneath their dignity to win elections fairly by allowing all the people to have a voice in voting without discrimination, threats of losing their job, intimidating billboards, closing the polling booths, etc., etc. Congressional Republicans are just a bunch of obstructionist, good for nothing, argumentative, hypocritical, manipulative, never to blame, scum bag bums out to serve themselves and the 2% elite. After that, it's the hell with everyone else, esp. if they still have a voice. This tactic would just see more teaching of the tests? And then, why not throw out the Republican Obstructionists in Congress immediately, the J.A. CEO's, poor doctors, lousy attorneys, etc., etc. Now that just might clear up a lot of the problems right away.
spoken like a true union thug............
so they support the exact same con man.....er i mean "candidate".... yet the union feels the need to hurl threats? .. WHY? ....what logical intelligent reasoning went into this decision? and these people are TEACHERS ????
@ IA ScooterTramp: So the people who are responsible for teaching our nation's youth reading, writing, arithmetic, science, history, and MANNERS are considered "thugs" because they join together and demand fair pay and treatment?
Where did you get that idea?
wrong post bet ya ment to do that on post 2 huh......
but to answer who called the teachers thugs? when was the last time do you suppose this union rep ever seen a classroom... if ever?
as for "fair " pay...fair to whom? i am held accountable for my end product are they? True they have become no more then glorified babysitters far to often, when that's the case take it back to the parents where it belongs, not just throw money irregardless of outcome.
All standardized testing does is force teachers to teach for 1 test instead of a well rounded education, what about teachers that teach learning disabled children who do not always score as well on standardized tests. Should they be labelled inferior because their students don't score as well, this drives teachers that handle handicapped children from that type of teaching.
A school is not a production line and should not be treated as such.
@ thinking scientist
Give it up. Its no use. I have heard so much vitriol about teachers and their unions that I don't even listen anymore.
Luckily, I don't have to, since I am a tenured prof. And I even get the last laugh...teaching their kids that same sex marriage and women's rights are OK. Oh yeah...and evolution is real......and they have to pay me for teaching them the very ideals they hate....I LOVE my job.
@!$%# 'EM. Every single one......
excuse me there "prof" you do realise you just made the case for those "vitriol" people you mentioned don't you?
Get em' Doc! Like scooter, they don't learn.
He made your case by admitting to teaching your kids?
How terrible of him.
Just call the Republicans GHHRP (Gestapo, Heil, Hitler Republican Party) !!
Students first, is just a GOP propaganda push to kill teacher unions!!! They don't .and never have cared about education!!! The PEOPLE have a right to UNIONIZE; It is to give them a voice to employers that keep taking away and cutting pay and services. WE have a constitution and Republicans want to change it. BUT instead of VOTES, they just cut funds and propagate LIES!!! The Middle is the way, no right or left, the MIDDLE will make the FUTURE!!!! FREEDOM!!!!!
I'm sorry I must have missed it....where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to a union?
Students First is just that....put the students first and the union second. Should be no problem with that right since it's all about the kids? Just like those wonderful, nurturing "teachers" in Chicago who were so concerned about the students.
sailorlp
Eduction is not in the Constitution but, the right to UNION is in it and protected by it.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/education-and-the-constitution/
Yes the Constitution does give people a right to belong and have a union. Maybe you should research before posting what you don't know.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/12.html
The reason there has been no improvement in reading scores and other indices, along with a disgraceful drop-out rate of 56% who never make it to graduation, is the teachers’ union. Yes, there are cultural and economic factors, but in a decent school system, even poor children can learn. It should come as no surprise that the highest achievers academically nationwide are those who are home-schooled!
Ray----Perhaps you and many others should go and volunteer at a school. Help children learn to read. Keep in mind that many of the lower performing children have a history of being born addicted to substances, poor nutrition in the home for a variety of reasons not all drug related, poor health due to substandard living conditions again not all due to drug related issues.
Please do not be so judgmental until you have explored the situation. When you have hugged a child who was sobbing because that kiddo feels stupid because they are 10 and can't read a first grade book due to Dyslexia or work 15 hours getting paid for 8 or have to spend hundreds of your own dollars to provide pencils, paper, and snacks to kiddos too poor to get their own.
Ray you like everyone else that wants to blame the unions and obviously you haven't been in a school enviroment in some time. The biggest problem today is not unions or all of the bad teachers you and others would have us all believe exist. The biggest problem today is lack of parental involvement and support for the educators. I am not a teacher, but I worked in the shcool system for 22 years, have 4 daughters that all attended public schools and they were involved in all of the programs I and my wife could attend. Today teachers spend too much time trying to control rowdy students and when they send the offenders to the office for disipline and the parents called, the parents want to know why their child is being singled out. Are there bad teachers ? I am sure there are. Many parents see school as a place to send their child so they, the parents, can get on with their daily routine, not as a place to get an education. I know that some students show up for their first day in elementary school without being registered, they have no idea of their address, phone number or how to contact their parents. Parent need to demonstrate to their children that getting an educationl is important by being involved. Should there be a method to evaluate teachers, yes but it need to be based on their performance and not their student results of some testing program that has little to do with a practical education.
According to the pro-education reform documentary Waiting for ‘Superman,’ one out of every 57 doctors loses his or her license to practice medicine.
One out of every 97 lawyers loses their license to practice law.
In many major cities, only one out of 1000 teachers is fired for performance-related reasons. Why? Tenure.
Tenure is the practice of guaranteeing a teacher their job. Originally, this was a due process guarantee, something intended to work as a check against administrators capriciously firing teachers and replacing them with friends or family members. It was also designed to protect teachers who took political stands the community might disagree with. Tenure as we understand it today was first seen at the university level, where professors would work for years and publish many pieces of inspired academic work before being awarded what amounted to a job for life.
At the elementary and high school level, tenure has evolved from the original understanding of “due process” to the university-style “job for life.” In most states, teachers are awarded tenure after only a few years, at which time they become almost impossible to fire. The main function of these laws is to help bad teachers keep their jobs.
Most teachers absolutely deserve to keep their jobs and some have begun to speak out about the absurdity of teacher tenure, but it’s impossible to pretend that the number of firings actually reflects the number of bad teachers protected by tenure. As long as union leaders possess the legal ability to drag out termination proceedings for months or even years — during which time districts must continue paying teachers, substitute teachers to replace them, and lawyers to arbitrate the proceedings — the situation for students will not improve.
Even Al Shanker, the legendary former president of the American Federation of Teachers, admitted, “a lot of people who have been hired as teachers are basically not competent.”
Ray: In the real world, instead of the mythical world you have created, it is quite easy to fire incompetent teachers. Admittedly, it doesn't happen as often as it should, but that is more the fault of cowardly administrators and board members who aren't willing to take the necessary steps to effect policies that allow them to do just that.
Ray,
And yet a high percentage of teachers leave the profession at 5-10years, or less. Often to sell insurance, real estate, or to start a small business. Poor pay, rotten kids, angry parents and school administrations more concerned about test results than teaching. When the needs of business and the real world can be accomplished by standardized test results, that education will be adequate. But if business and life require learning, reasoning and problem solving skills; that education will be woefully lacking.
With regards to incompetent teachers, young ones are generally forced out, the older ones move into administration (principals). An extension of the old saw, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't teach anymore, boss teachers."
If they are going to remove unions and make teacher evaluations based on test scores they had better get rid of the Dept of Ed and let the teachers direct their own curriculums rather than failed programs being handed down from 3000 miles away.
NO Child Left Behind was mandated by a "C" student who bought a presidency.
And the Dept of Education was created by who is perceived as one of the worst Presidents ever. jimmy Carter
Sounds good to me. What other job are you not paid and promoted on performance? Why is there such a thing as tenure? And seniority has got to be the biggest motivation-killer I can think of.
Supreme Court. Job for life, can be senile, lying in a hospital bed on life support, can't be removed. Can make decisions affecting the lives of all Americans, but they don't have to live by the laws they pass.
NO ONE should have a job for life. No one. It is absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
What will happen is no child will receive less than a "C" on any turned in work. All lessons will reflect exactly (as much as possible) what is on standardized tests.
Our children will fall farther and farther behind the rest of the world in education.
The "New World Order" will become a necessity-----the Koch Bros win.
I work in education and see it happening now.
I agree with you. In japan after corporate and professional salaries, the teachers are the second highest paid. Teachers get respect, period. During my travels to Germany, France, Italy, and Turkey when a teacher walked in students stood up and said good morning, showing respect. Here we don't have respect for teachers since they don't make that much money. In over 30 years of technical management in commercial and government businesses, I see systematically poorer educated people in liberal arts and science/engineering come into the workforce; foreign educated students are much superior and we constantly can't find qualified technicians who are high school or college graduates who can take a tape and measure the length of a steel pipe! This is 0ne of the reasons why manufacturing jobs are going abroad: better educated and trained workforce is available outside of the US. We talk about standards we really don't have nationwide standards or curriculum to teach. A high school graduate in one state does not match in education to a high school from another state. We need reform however, I am not sure exactly what it should be. Should we emulate foreign countries' education system, ask/get parent involvement, get rid of grade inflation that happened after Vietnam War / Civil Rights demos in the '60s, and flunk kids who did not meet standards and have them repeat the class, etc.
Also, in the '60s many students went into teaching in order get a military deferment and ending up with people who don't want to be teachers leading to poor teachers and eventually poorly educated students.
The basic problem, as I see it, with the demise of unions, is that they the form America's financial and intellectual underpinning for the middle class. The loss of the unions would mean Industry would no longer need go pay workers a living wage. Workers would be completely at the mercy of Wall Street, which has no mercy, just profits.
Too, pay by merit, which I advocated some years back, would be inherently unfair to good teachers who happened to be placed in charge of classes of students from poor neighborhoods who don't have the intellectual care most upper class families are able to provide.
The solution, as I see it, would never be allowed in this country. It would be to ensure that teachers are highly qualified, and highly paid, especially in Head Start programs that take in kids as young as toddlers, and focus on bringing them up to intellectual speed such that when they enter the first grade, they have the mental tools with which to easily acclimate.
As it stands now, as conservatives cheer Wall Street CEOs walking away with billion$ in bonuses, saying that they have to offer such extravagance in order to attract the best and the brightest, but refuse to do the same with teachers who are in charge of their children's minds. Teachers should be hired on the bases of competitive merit in their fields of study, but payed handsomely.
Not true. You assume an absolute rating scale, while it would be more appropriate to use something relative. If your class had a 50% graduation rate last year and this year it's 60%, then you're doing well. If it drops to 40%, then you need to be replaced. If it remains at 50%, then it's time to look at other ways to help you raise your score, but not necessarily fire you.
"Pay by merit" can take many different forms.
AG, I don't think you read my whole post. With your "solution," even good teachers who teach mostly disadvantaged children would all be fired, leaving no one to teach them anything. Hire teachers by merit, but pay them very well and take into account the type of student the teacher has to teach.
You probably read my post, but didn't understand it. There's no reason you can't rate teachers on merit regardless of the quality of their students. You simply need to use a relative scale instead of an absolute one; grade on the curve, as it were. Merit is the only way to tell if your teacher is worth anything.
Paying them a fortune doesn't give you performance, as I think the Chicago teachers have demonstrated very well. They're the second-highest paid teachers in the country and have the worst graduation record. I don't know how they were hired, but I think we can all agree they're doing a poor job.
Of course we don't know how they are hired. But if its like the districts I know, if the "teacher" has a degree and is still breathing, he is hired. I suspect it's that way in Chicago as well. This starts off wrong. Were the kids to be placed in a good academic and social setting at a very young age--when they are still malleable--I suspect many would do far better than they do now. I agree with you on merit pay, but the focus should not be only on the teachers or grading by the curve. I said be sure teachers are HIGHLY qualified in their fields, and you do that by competitive testing. You attract the Best and the brightest by starting them off with very good pay. Do you disagree that higher standards of hiring and high pay would attract the best and brightest?
Yes, I agree they should be paid well (very well), but you made it sound like using merit to judge their performance was unfair. I'm all for good pay, but I also think the union tenants of tenure and seniority are very destructive influences on the system and need to go. If you aren't going to promote on seniority as they do now, then you need to use merit.
Keep in mind, most of the best and the brightest making millions in Wall Street are sending their children to private schools, not public schools. Hence their kids get much better education......
Kids in private schools are from well off families, not the poverty ridden areas where they were raised. Private schools can pick and choose whom they will keep. If a student preforms poorly or is disruptive, they can kick them out or simply not accept them the next year.
Men and women don't go into teaching for the money as in other professions. That a teacher can't earn as much as the family doctor, the lawyer, the engineer or scientist is disgraceful. Teachers virtually take the vow of poverty in most school districts and can't earn a living without a second job in the family until they've worked at least five years.
A school district should be able to assist an ineffective teacher and improve his skills in five years or remove him. Tenure is the only lifeline a teacher has for security in this low-paying profession for which he has invested much time and money obtaining the required education and skills. Teachers don't have the kinds of perks that law enforcement, medicine, and other professions often illegally enjoy. They too often have to provide their own teaching materials and supplies because of citizen school boards and state legislatures that don't know what goes into educating children.
These groups who are poking their noses and dollars into usurping education even further are a disgrace and a menace. American education used to be somewhat of a model for developing nations. Politics has deteriorated the American work ethic, learning, and morals.
I understand some of the frustration, I've seen teachers who were mailing it in but were able to stay in their jobs because of tenure. The problem is the unions have helped to raise the pay and benefits to a job that still is drastically underpaid. I'm the son and husband of a teacher, so I've seen the job first hand my whole life. The hours, work, and lack of pay and respect that come with the job are still a big problem. The burn out rate on those who enter the profession is staggering. The question is, how do you curb the power of the unions while increasing the pay and benefits to a level equal with the work (there is still a big gap in that regard). I don't think that can be done.
Tenure is bad. Some teachers are more effective than others - yet the union frowns on giving the best teachers extra pay for excellence. They even frown on paying lousy teachers less. They snarl at the idea of ever firing a teacher. Public school teachers typically get tenure once they've taught for about 3 years. After that, the union and civil service protection make it just about impossible to fire them. They basically have a job for life.
The agenda has nothing to do with the student and everything to do with attacking the middle class by reducing the quality of education.
If your state reduces the security, benefits and compensation for teachers- and the next state over doesn't- who do you think will attract the best and the brightest?
Examine the statistics: states with the strongest teacher's unions are those who consistently deliver better test scores.
Yes- there are always people who abuse the system- but the benefits clearly outweigh the liabilities.
I'd imagine those educating the kids of the rich make a lot more than those teaching the average American student- yet there's remarkably little political hand-wringing over that and other disparities.
One would be that teachers’ unions are somehow intrinsically damaging to the education system. That is, it is simply the nature of these unions that they will, of necessity, cause trouble. Interestingly enough, some critics of capitalism make similar claims about corporations and other business: they must, by their very nature, be exploitative and harmful.
The idea that organizations such as unions and corporations are inherently harmful is certainly an interesting idea and one that would be well worth investigating in more detail. However, it seems unlikely that teachers organizing into unions must, of necessity, create harm to the education system. To support this, I offer two arguments.
First, there is the example of Finland. It has a unionized education system that is, in fact, excellent. As such, if unions were of necessity a bane to education, then Finland should be doing badly rather than well. Of course, it could be argued that Finland is an unusual exception. This takes me to my second argument.
Second, if unions are a significant cause of educational woes (as some critics claim) in the United States and elsewhere, then one would expect to see correlation between the presence of unions and such woes. To use the obvious analogy, if a toxin causes disease, one would expect to see more cases of the disease in areas where to toxin concentration is higher. Interestingly enough, educational quality in the United States does not seem to correlate with the presence or absence of unions, but rather with other factors. In the case of K-12 public education, the quality and problems seem to match quite closely the poverty or wealth of the school and the community. That is, “poor” schools tend to have far more problems than “rich” schools. As such, it would seem that it is not primarily a matter of unions (after all, rich and poor schools alike are unionized) but rather other factors.
America’s teachers unions — particularly the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers — are the most organized and powerful voices in education politics. These unions continue to block reforms needed to improve our nation’s schools by putting their focus on teachers rather than on the students they teach.
Our education system is in desperate need of reform and it’s time we stop letting teachers unions stand in the way.
There are many that feel if the word Union is associated with any group then it is inherently bad and wasteful. I was never part of a union but I can see the reason for there existence beyond some extreme position they are guaranteeing poor performance and laziness. Teachers are some of the hardest working people in our country and do a job others seem to think is easy. I wonder how many people who bash Teachers and there unions do anything that involves working with a group of children consistently over time. When you have had the experience of working with large groups of children from a variety of backgrounds you get and appreciation for the challenges teachers face educating children. All jobs seem easy to do when you are a spectator. Flipping hamburgers at McDonald's may seem easy but do the job for a week and you might learn how hard it actually is with the systems they must follow to ensure proper service. A great show is the Undercover Boss many of the Bosses have learned how hard their employees work and how much they care about the jobs they are doing. Many of you would be served by volunteering in a school for a week since you are the Boss of our school systems and see what actually happens daily and what our Awesome Teachers Face in preparing children for the future!!
Whether you agree or disagree with my comments I am proud and glad you are my fellow citizens and we are all Americans!!
A 2011 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll found that while three out of four Americans have trust and confidence in public school teachers, 47 percent of respondents believed unions had hurt “the quality of public school education in the United States.”
Let me see what points are being made here. Fifty/Sixty years ago teacher were so highly respected and compensated that they were forced (yes forced) to form unions in order to demand some respect and decent pay rates. Did they go to far, probably. But remember people, they DID NOT form unions because things were far to good for them. These are people who went to college and obtained an education, things that the "right" think are not necessary and a waste of time. My mother, an registered nurse, was in the same boat. A four year degree and worked most of her life earning minimum wage. She attained a decent wage because of a UNION. Unions do go to far and loose sight of who they are serving and what their purpose is BUT they were forced into this position by organizations who abused them. Think people, think!
Homosexual propagandist Kevin Jennings Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education .
Jennings’s position is now used to produce and disseminate pro-homosexual propaganda to America’s public schools.
Granted, homosexual propaganda in our schools has become common place, but the appointment of Jennings ensures that for the first time ever, the Federal government will be funding and promoting homosexual propaganda on a large scale basis. This nomination makes clear that President Obama believes America’s public school children should be exposed to deviant sexual lifestyles having nothing to do with academics.
<eye roll>
Nothing like walking into a discussion about education reform and spouting some bigotry that has nothing to do with the article or the rest of the discussion.
OK, now go away, take your meds, and let the adults continue our discussion.
One the surface, tying teachers pay to student performance sounds flawlessly sensible. But what about the teachers who are given the lower-level students because they're excellent at handling them and getting them to perform? They're still not going to perform as well as academic-level kids, but those wanting to tie their pay to performance do NOT want to include the level of student they're teaching. So teachers like me, who are "in with the administration," occasionally have a drink after school with the principal, coach sports (teachers willing to do that are cherished), get the gifted kids, get the all 1's in our ratings, and would get higher pay based on student performance. Meanwhile the guy who can teach the lower level kids gets screwed.
Additionally, if you and I are teachers of the same chemistry course, I do most of the planning. I arrange the guest speakers for all classes. I arrange for the local nuclear power plant to bring in radioactive samples and direct labs. I spend money on materials when the school runs out of them and share with colleagues. But if I get the lower-kids (who tend to get grouped together because those taking geometry tend to have the same period for chemistry, those taking pre-calculus a different period, etc.) and my kids do more poorly, how much do you think I'm going to do for other teachers the following year?
There's a tremendous amount of sharing that goes on among teachers in terms of lesson plans and personal materials. Merit pay will kill that.
And Michelle Rhee, who wasn't a teacher for long before she became D.C. Schools Superintendant and who was backed by millions of dollars donated by an anonymous source, still couldn't hang on to her D.C. job NOT because of "union protectionism" but because she was destroying teaching.
We know what life is like with no labor unions.Take a look at Mexico.Labor was like that here before unions.Labor unions raised the standard of living for the working class in 20th century America to the highest level on the planet.We need to work to improve public education yes,but we have unions for a very good reason.Breaking unions never seems to work out for the public interest,only "special interests"
Mexican economy is the way it is because the government likes it that way.
For the economy to improve the people would become more educated and sophisticated, and if that happens they will not tolerate the status quo of the Mexican elite that has dominated Mexico for centuries... patron and peon.
The only way for the wealthy Mexicans to stay in power is for the caste system to continue to exist as it is now.
Reminds me when in 1990 I was attending a marketing/engineering meeting in Detroit, a very senior GM executive was asked what he thought of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'll never forget his response: 'We don't have to be nice to workers anymore! Wake up America!
The Mexican economy is not the point here, but if there were unions there the standard of living for mexican workers would be improved.
I have heard so much vitriol about teachers and their unions that I don't even listen anymore.
Luckily, I don't have to listen or care, since I am a tenured prof.
And I even get the last laugh...teaching their kids that same sex marriage and women's rights are OK......and evolution is real......
And they have to pay me for teaching the very ideals they hate.
Man, I LOVE my job.
@!$%# 'EM. Every single one......
Doc, it is people like you that give professors a bad name. Your job is to teach your students HOW to think, not WHAT to think.
Being a tenured professor (you don't say of what) doesn't make you a teacher.
And while this pile of so-called reforms is heaped on top of the last pile of so-called reforms, few, if any, of which really worked; your children and grandchildren will suffer. Use all the buzz words you like, the bottom line is that the anti-education, anti-union, anti-public worker, anti-pension, pro conservative crowd is all over this. They will not be happy until teachers can be fired with no notice, when the kids spend their entire day be tested and evaluated, but not learning anything, and when our international standing in education falls even further than it already has.
I am not a teacher, you could not pay me enough. Nor are any members of my family. But my kids got good educations (the public school kid had a better education than the catholic school kid) and are now gainfully employed in successful professions. Nt sure my grandchildren will have the same outcome. Their teachers are simply world weary and tired of being the whipping boy for every imagined evil in society.
WOW! read the article below....It says 3 things
(1) no coverup but we are not going to allow the ONLY newsmedia reporting the event to be at the press conference (to ask questions),WHAT THE HELL!
(2)The SECOND drone took off from Sigonell, Italy (the same base the C130 gun ships are at...(The Adm says "they could not have gotten there in time...the second drone disproves that crap)
(3) while the "2" drones were unarmed, there were other drones closer than the second that WERE armed(looking for weapons..I think American lives would have been deemed more impt at the crucial moments being discussed) more important. It is again unbelievable that the Obama team thinks we are all that stupid. when the truth keeps slapping the American public in the face.
Every person that enters the military takes an oath to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, not a president, not a political party. Contrary to all the MSNBC, MSN, NBC (Obama caimpaigne hdg, not ABC, CBS, garbage that they have been putting on the air and on the internet, AMERICANS DIED, OBAMA LIED!
Thursday, the CIA excluded Fox News from a briefing for a small group of reporters in which they provided a timeline from the night of the attack in which they explain that at 5:15 a.m. (7 hrs and 28 minutes after the attack on the consulate began) five mortars are fired at the annex, three of them striking the roof and killing Woods and Doherty.
The CIA told the Washington Post's David Ignatius that "the rooftop defenders never 'laser the mortars' as has been reported," a reference to an earlier Fox News report. The CIA added the "defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire."
The U.S. military says that two unarmed Predators were overhead Benghazi that night and providing one stream of video back to Washington beginning at 11:11 p.m. (1 hr and 24 minutes) after the attack began.
U.S. military sources say that the second Predator was not armed even though it took off from Sigonella Air Base in Sicily after the attack began to provide back up to the first Predator which was at the end of its orbit and running low on fuel. US commanders say that in reference to the drones positioned at Sigonella: "Not all aircraft are armed. Ours are not."
According to military sources, Libyan authorities have not given the U.S. military permission to fly armed drones over populated areas like Benghazi. However, for some time the unmanned aerial drones that have been watching Libya's chemical weapons sites did have permission to be armed.
Read more: #ixzz2BGQL3BUc
LOL You cons crack me up!
Ahhh, yes of course. The unarmed predators over Benghazi. It all ties back to education reform.
If you were an idealistic young person interested in public service instead of making a bundle, would you go to college for five years just to join a profession where you don't make much money and where the public seems bent on "reforms" that would interfere with your integrity and pay you even less?