Teacher's Unions

Prompt: Last week we spent some time looking at the rise of the NEA as a political operation and its impact on education policy in the Carter administration. I’d be interested in seeing you write about your perceptions of teachers’ unions. What do you know about them? What have you learned about teachers’ unions as you have read other blog posts or read the news outside of class? How does what you read this week reinforce or rebut what you already know about teachers’ unions?

I must admit I know a limited amount about teacher's unions. I think I understand the basic criticisms, as well as the benefits to having them. Teacher's unions, like all other unions are designed to protect those they serve. They are responsible for negotiating on behalf of teachers, and often advocate for things like higher salaries, greater benefits, and job security. I'd like to say that teacher's unions are responsible for teacher tenure, but I'm not a hundred percent on that. I'd know that they do negotiate against teacher firings.

The case against teacher unions is relatively simple. They have only their own interests at heart, and because of this, they block attention from the students. They make it nearly impossible to fire teachers without "just cause" which seams to be a purposefully vague term in favor of teachers, because, at least where I come from, you'd have to be Walter White to get fired. Teacher's unions also aren't always beneficial to all teachers, teachers that are exceptional have the limitation of group negotiations rather than individual ones, so they can pay for poor district or school performance even if there's is solid.

That all being said, teacher's unions defend the rights of teachers from all of the exaggerated forms of what was previously mentioned. They try to protect teachers from being unreasonably fired based on, say for example a test score. Also negotiating as a group is a lot more effective than negotiating as an individual, especially if the group has the power to perform a deadly strike.

Also, you should know I've seen "Waiting for Superman" so, I'm kind of an expert. (jokes)

My experience, or knowledge of unions comes from what I've learned from the readings, in the movie, and the fact that I frequently discuss education policy with one of my old high school teacher who is now a close friend.

I know that Rhee isn't a fan, especially as an advocate for testing as a parameter to measure teachers by. My high school teacher isn't their biggest fan either, thinks they're a necessary evil, but he's of the type that would be fine without them.

As far as the NEA goes and the readings, I think it's interesting that the origins of the NEA weren't necessarily political, but it certainly became that way. I think that unions should probably be smaller, I don't think one organization promoting a vast amount of teachers is necessarily a good idea, because I think the interests of teachers in different locations is different.

My opinion? Well, first, stop asking rhetorical questions in a blog post. Secondly, it's hard to say, I don't know that much about them, but if what I do know is true, I think they're a necessary evil that should probably be a bit smaller. I am of the type that believes that teaching should be a coveted position, and not a fallback as it is for some. I'd love for them to be compensated as if they were doctors, but also understand that because we require so many, and it is a state job (requiring taxes to pay for) it's always hard to make it that way. If you look at it in timeline form, teachers become more and more important as time goes on. We used to be one room school houses, with non-required attendance, now were schools of thousands rotating between multiple teachers with specific fields and grade level teaching skills. So it doesn't make sense to me that a job that's increased in importance only gets raises essentially with the rate of inflation.