

Teachers unions are not the reason many schools suck - rtaycher
http://www.slate.com/id/2285650

======
shou4577
I think a lot of people have problems with teachers unions because they think
of teaching like any other job. It's not - here are the important differences:

Pay raises. It's a fantastic idea for a company to increase the pay of
individuals based on performance. If individuals do well, the company does
well and makes more money, and can therefore afford to pay the employees more,
so this reward system is great.

In schools, there is no profit. So if teachers do better, their students
perform better, and the teachers should get paid more. But they don't, since
this has not brought any more money into the school. In fact, if schools are
doing well they are less likely to have their budgets increased, since people
will see no need to increase the budget of something that is functioning well.

This fixed-budget kind of thing is the root of the difference between the
education system and private enterprise. In a business, if you are not making
enough money (that is, if you have a spending problem), you cut back on
things: often you may lay off employees. You will have fewer employees now,
but since your business isn't doing well you probably have less work to do, so
it can even out. Or, if it doesn't even out, your business closes down.

Neither of these is true of education. Except for rare cases, it is
unthinkable to close down a school. Obviously closing would bad for students
and education in general, so it is avoided.

More importantly, workload doesn't flex as easily in schools. That is, if you
run into budget problems and have to cut teachers, the other teachers must
work harder to pick up their slack, since the student body population remains
unchanged. Thus it is in the interest of both the teachers and the students to
keep budgetary layoffs to an absolute minimum.

So what do you do with a tight budget? Who knows? Removing teachers decreases
the effectiveness of education severely. So does the numerous other things
I've seen schools do - stop providing textbooks, make the quality of food go
down, shorten the school day, remove planning time of teachers, stop giving
teachers their own offices, stop plowing the parking lot, etc. In other words,
make schools suck in every way possible.

I don't have a good solution for this, beyond the obvious "spend more on
education". Personally, I think this is our best bet, but that money would
have to come from somewhere else, and people are not willing to pay more taxes
for it.

~~~
rtaycher
Having it not come from taxes seems like a bad idea(at least on a large scale)
since besides a tiny bit of charity the most likely source is fund-raisers
which will mostly fund the richest schools and not the poorest schools that
need the money the most.

------
dpatru
Unions are based on the idea that fungible "workers" need to unite against
"management" to avoid being replaced with workers who will accept lower
compensation. The primary interest of unions is to preserve for their members
jobs that pay above-market compensation.

The presence of teachers' unions means that teachers see teaching as an
industrial factory job in a mature field where no more innovation is possible.
Students in such a world are the products of the factory. They come into the
school system at 5 years of age as unprocessed raw material and they exit 12
years later as high-school graduates, ready to take on a job.

This whole mindset is wrong. The industrial-factory model of schools should be
abolished. People, whether young (students) or old (teachers), are not
fungible. They should not be viewed as factors in factory. They are not.

~~~
panarky
This is a politically charged issue about union-busting that's not
particularly relevant for HN.

And since the article written by a political operative [1, 2], it's no
surprise that he either avoids the main issue or fails to support his
arguments with much evidence.

[1] [http://tcf.org/about/fellows/richard-d.-kahlenberg-senior-
fe...](http://tcf.org/about/fellows/richard-d.-kahlenberg-senior-fellow)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_Foundation>

------
nhebb
I think this is a bit of a straw man. I haven't met anyone that believes that
teachers unions are _the_ problem. Schools face many problems, and the
inability of school districts to fire lousy performers is just one of them.
Teenage pregnancy is fast rising as one of the major problems in urban school
districts, but I don't foresee any politicians campaigning on a "kids these
days need to stop fucking" platform.

~~~
dpatru
Once a person can reproduce, that person should be able to live independently
and support himself/herself. The current educational system keeps fifteen-
year-old men and women couped up together in a "school" and treats them as
children, giving them no real responsibility and no chance to be independent.
The problem is not that teenagers are fulfilling their biological purpose and
starting families. The problem is that teenagers are forced to remain in a
state of infantilism and not encouraged to take on adult responsibilities.

------
js2
For those who haven't seen it:

[http://www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Reports/SSO/Worlds_School_...](http://www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Reports/SSO/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf)

 _The experiences of these top school systems suggests that three things
matter most: 1) getting the right people to become teachers, 2) developing
them into effective instructors and, 3) ensuring that the system is able to
deliver the best possible instruction for every child._

~~~
cheez
Well then, the solution is obviously to throw more money at the problem!

In the US, you spend $20K per student.

I think part of the solution in the US is to tear down the whole system, go
local and market-based.

~~~
krschultz
Where did you pull that number? I went to high school in the state with the
absolute highest spending per student (New Jersey) in one of the school
districts that spent so much money per student we lost all state funding
because the local taxes were paying so much, and we only were spending $8-9k
per student.

~~~
cheez
I believe New York now admits to spending about $17K, which is not $20K (which
I heard on TV last night).

On average, it seems that it was around $10K 5 years ago. This would be a
respectable amount _IF_ the results, on average, were good. But they are not.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
Single page: <http://www.slate.com/id/2285650/pagenum/all/#p2>

------
iskander
"Chancellor Joel Klein terminated only three teachers for incompetence between
2008 and 2010."

This seems dishonest given how hard he tried-- only to be thwarted by a union
which always closes ranks.

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill)
[http://gothamist.com/2011/01/30/joel_klein_easier_to_prosecu...](http://gothamist.com/2011/01/30/joel_klein_easier_to_prosecute_a_ki.php)

------
marknutter
Let's not forget that Rhee was only at it for 3 years. The kind of reform
she's aiming for will probably take decades to implement.

~~~
2arrs2ells
Additionally, I think Rhee saw herself as the "Bad Cop" that DC needed to make
the unpopular decisions, shake things up, and pave the way for a "Good Cop"^
to come in and build the system up in a more positive way. Rhee certainly
wanted to stay longer than she did - but she had to know that she couldn't
keep alienating folks and keep her job.

^Kaya Henderson, the interim chancellor, may very well be this "Good Cop."

------
hsmyers
If you examine a school in terms of those who teach and those who don't
excluding service personnel then you should quickly be able to understand who
catches the money when they 'throw money' at the problem. In the long ago,
even the principle taught classes--- same boat, everybody rows. Now the less
useful (useless?) level of bureaucracy begins well down from the top of your
typical school and extends all of the way up. Since demonization has already
been going on for years, instead of attending to the real problem, Union
busting (note that no one calls it that) is being pushed as the necessary
silver bullet without regard to other problems (maybe even the real
problem...) Now that many school systems can't afford textbooks (at least not
one per student) removing teachers doesn't seem like a useful addition to the
solution set.

------
TomOfTTB
The only real evidence they present is the Stanford study that found charter
schools don't perform better than regular public schools. So their argument is
that unions can't be the problem because charter schools don't have them and
are doing just as bad. But that's a straw man.

Charter schools allow for better management they don't guarantee it. So in the
first few decades of a charter school system there will be a lot of bad ideas
and a lot of good ideas. But the bad ideas will throw off the average.

But the bottom line is at least the well managed charter schools can take
steps to correct problems where as regular public schools can't because of
union rules. Which is why some Charter schools do dramatically better.

~~~
krschultz
You can't say that is _why_ they do better. _Maybe_ that is why they do
better.

In my experience with charter schools (tech magnet schools in NYC, Delware
charter schools) entry is competitive. Of course charter schools will do
better if their students start out smarter.

And in other cases, it is at least elective. If your parents care enough about
your education to sign you up for a charter school, aren't you already more
likely to do well in school than the kids with parents who don't care that
much?

------
dreamux
I'm slightly biased here because I will almost certainly never need a union to
protect my job or interests (I'm well educated, with in-demand skills, and I'm
mobile). But it really bothers me how unions produce such inefficiencies in
specific industries. Teachers and autoworkers being the biggest have crippled
the ability of their respective industries to innovate and compete globally.
While this may protect the livelihood of current workers, it hinders the
ability of future workers to compete and earn a living. Like national debt its
one generation fucking over the next...

PS - I'm young and pissed with the general recklessness of baby boomers.

~~~
rjbond3rd
Poor engineering in the auto industry was not caused by unions. The unions are
basically assemblers -- how does the assembly line create engineering
problems? I have no love for unions but what you say is way off-base.

Anyway, if you want to look at excessive compensation and benefits in the auto
industry, look a little higher.

And at any rate, they only got what they negotiated, so if you want to blame
anyone, blame management for poor negotiating, poor planning and just
generally screwing up.

Finally, if unions ruined the auto industry, why is Ford doing well relative
to GM and Chrysler? I drive a foreign car at the moment, but my next car will
be a Ford because they did not take bailout money, and they make excellent,
reliable cars (nowadays).

~~~
dreamux
I agree with you and @jrwoodruff that management also deserves blame; their
focus on short term metrics stops them from negotiating reasonable contracts
(if they don't strike this quarter I get my bonus, etc.)

As for the assemblers preventing innovation, its much harder to pump cash into
R&D when your assembly costs are twice that of your competition.

And as for ford doing well _relative_ to GM and Crysler, you're basically
saying they're doing good compared to bankruptcy. I like ford (especially
their current lineup), but they've fallen a long way from their massive
dominance of a few decades back.

To be clear, I agree with you (this reply seems a little ranty), the entire
auto industry is a mess; a large part of these inefficiencies I feel comes out
of dealing with unions - and I see the same things happening with teachers.

~~~
rjbond3rd
I hear you.

But to put your last statement another way, a large part of these
inefficiencies comes out of _having to create unions in the first place, to
counter the abusive employment practices of management._

I think it's a two-way street. Auto unions are corrupt now, but they were
obviously created as a reaction to some pretty bad behavior from management.

The worst, most unnecessary, most counter-productive unions, in my limited
experience, are at universities :)

------
ryandvm
An honest question: Why do highly skilled professionals like teachers require
union representation whereas computer professionals do not?

~~~
a688
An honest question: Why do computer professionals not exercise their rights to
prevent abuse (unfair firings, increased work hours without compensation,
demeaning bosses) like some teachers?

Edit: Also where do you get "require" from. Not all teachers belong to a
union? Did you read the article at all?

~~~
viggity
If I were to be abused by my workplace, I'd vote with my feet and leave.

I'd rather work in a system where the quality of my work determines my wages
and not my seniority or how many masters degrees I've obtained.

I'd rather work in a system that doesn't strong arm my employer into paying
benefits they can't afford. I don't know about you, but I'm not worried about
my 401k being there in 40 years, but I'd be really scared if I had a municipal
pension.

~~~
zarify
I feel I should speak up about this one as a teacher (admittedly Australian
however) and a supporter of teachers unions.

Let's assume we are in a performance based pay system. How do we measure
performance? Is it average student grades? If so, then do we pay teachers who
work in affluent areas more because every effort is afforded the students
(tutoring etc)? Do we pay teachers who choose to work in more challenging
schools less (and more likely have lower grades but possibly greater impact on
students' lives with their successes)?

What do we do with teachers hand picking elite classes to improve their
perceived performance? It already happens even without performance pay? Or it
could just be the luck of the draw. Sometimes I end up with difficult student
groups simply because of a timetabling issue. Less pay?

There are other metrics for teacher performance that have been proposed, and
all the ones I have heard have been very flawed.

Just to touch on the abuse bit at the start, if there was one employer in your
town (as there effectively is in many rural areas when it comes to schools),
should you relocate because of abuse you have received? (or indeed at all? Who
doesn't deserve to feel safe from abuse in their workplace?)

~~~
yummyfajitas
This is a solved problem. The solution is Value Added Modeling. This has been
known for many years, but unfortunately it doesn't fit within a soundbite.

You build a statistical predictor of student performance, then you pay
teachers proportional to Actual Performance - Predicted Performance.

If teachers pick elite classes to improve their performance, the bar is
raised. If their class has a predicted score of 80%, then the teacher needs an
actual score of 90% to get a bonus. Conversely, if you get a class of low
quality students, the predicted score might be 20%. To get the bonus, you need
to achieve 30%.

The only incentives you have are hand pick classes of students that you can
improve. If you are great at moving students from the 50'th percentile to the
60'th percentile, but suck with other student groups, your incentive is to get
a class of students in the 50'th percentile.

~~~
zarify
It's hard to argue with the logic of that approach. Classrooms aren't always
logical places though. Consider factors like student movement between classes,
courses and programs designed to move students to the workforce rather than
complete school, parental pressure on students and teachers to place students
into unrealistic pathways, and so on.

I suppose you could factor all that into the model, though I'd question the
feasibility of doing so.

I'd also argue that grades aren't the only important factor in schooling.
Building social skills, discipline, time management, helping to realize
goals... All ways in which good teachers can influence students, and only some
of them reflect in neat packages like test scores.

Edit: I'd like to clarify that in my previous post I mentioned getting more
difficult classes sometimes as the luck of the draw. I didn't mean low ability
classes. I meant classes with students with serious behavioral issues,
students with learning disabilities and so on. These will very often
negatively impact the learning outcomes of the entire class, and is something
you very rarely if ever have to deal with in top end classes.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Consider factors like student movement between classes, courses and programs
designed to move students to the workforce rather than complete school,
parental pressure on students and teachers to place students into unrealistic
pathways, and so on._

This would only matter in the event it did not average out over a teacher's
entire cohort of students. I.e., you would need to get a situation where all
the students who wanted to move into the workforce were taught by teacher A,
and all the students who wanted to complete school were taught by teacher B.

The law of large numbers helps here.

Also, this would only matter insofar as this factor is uncorrelated with the
things you do use as predictors - parental income, race, prior grades, etc. If
all the low income students want a job, and all the high income students want
to complete school, the predictor already incorporates this factor.

 _I meant classes with students with serious behavioral issues, students with
learning disabilities and so on. These will very often negatively impact the
learning outcomes of the entire class, and is something you very rarely if
ever have to deal with in top end classes._

If this factor is strongly correlated with income (as you suggest), the
predictor will already incorporate it.

------
yxhuvud
That peer review system that was mentioned seemed nice. I wonder about how
well it works.

~~~
2arrs2ells
Not sure, but more info on DC's (non-peer) eval system here:
[http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/In+the+Classroom/Ensuring+Teacher+Su...](http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/In+the+Classroom/Ensuring+Teacher+Success/IMPACT+\(Performance+Assessment\))

------
pjkundert
Yes, there exist schools whose suckage isn't due to teacher's unions.

------
yummyfajitas
tl;dr

Many schools suck because they are full of low quality students. Rhee made
some improvements, but no improvements to teachers can compensate for low
quality students.

~~~
2arrs2ells
That is a terrible summary of the article.

The author's actual point is "Michelle Rhee's war on teachers' unions was a
sideshow that distracted from the more important effort to give more low-
income students a chance to attend middle-class public schools."

~~~
yummyfajitas
And what is the difference between low income and middle class schools? There
are two significant ones - teacher quality and student quality.

If the difference is teacher quality, then Michelle Rhee's war on low quality
teachers was on point and exactly what was needed. The article disputes this.

Thus, it must be student quality.

~~~
2arrs2ells
The article doesn't actually dispute that the difference is teacher quality.
The article just claims that teacher quality can be improved without doing
battle with teacher unions. There's a nationwide struggle to get high quality
teachers into low income schools that I don't think anyone on either side of
the ed reform debate would deny.

Additionally, as a teacher in a low-income school, I'd argue very strongly
that you should replace "student quality" with "student attitudes." The latter
doesn't suggest that poor kids can't learn.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I don't agree that the article thinks teacher quality is the difference.

Here is what the article says about altering teacher quality:

 _Most education researchers, though, recognize that Rhee's simple vision of
heroic teachers saving American education is a fantasy..._

 _If the ability to fire bad teachers and pay great teachers more were the key
missing ingredient in education reform, why haven't charter schools, 88% of
which are nonunionized and have that flexibility, lit the education world on
fire?_

 _New York didn't get ahead by firing bad teachers._

On student quality:

 _Rhee knew that attracting more middle-class students of all races into
public schools would strengthen the schools for all students. In one
interview, she recounted Warren Buffett's advice to her that the nation's
education problems would be solved if private schools were made illegal and
students were randomly assigned._

 _In D.C., the goal of making all schools majority middle class is not
immediately possible, given that 63 percent of the city's students are low-
income, but Rhee could have made significant progress in many schools for
three reasons._

I won't replace "student quality" with "student attitudes" because I don't
know if the relevant factor is attitude.

