Unions under Attack...

[OaklandA's]

They're the friends of libertarian causes, and always have been. Some of those fall into the "liberal" side of the aisle.

Can you really claim that now, when they are overwhelmingly supporting conservative and right-wing politicians? The most libertarian members of Congress are probably Ron and Rand Paul, and the Koch's certainly don't support them. Politically, what libertarian candidates are they supporting? Because they made donations to over 200 conservative candidates in the 2010 elections.

[chancellor]

Can you really claim that now, when they are overwhelmingly supporting conservative and right-wing politicians? The most libertarian members of Congress are probably Ron and Rand Paul, and the Koch's certainly don't support them.

Huh? Both Kochs and KochPAC maxed out contributions to Rand Paul. Charles Koch contributed to Ron Paul's campaign, as did KochPAC, but it appears they did not max out.

Their soft money goes in part to clearly libertarian groups - FIRE, reason.com, and Cato Institute.

[OaklandA's]

Huh? Both Kochs and KochPAC maxed out contributions to Rand Paul. Charles Koch contributed to Ron Paul's campaign, as did KochPAC, but it appears they did not max out.

I was looking at this page from opensecrets.org, which shows that the Koch Industries donated an equal amount to Rand Paul and to Trey Grayson, his Republican opponent in the primaries. Grayson was the Republican establishment candidate, and not a Libertarian at all.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00236489

[chancellor]

Further to the Koch's libertarian interests, I'll just finish this by noting they gave $20 million to the ACLU for the battle against the Patriot Act, vastly greater than the sum of political donations in the last two election cycles. Reference: http://www.lasocialdiary.com/node/125921

[B-Fly]

Seeing how behind the rest of the world we are in Education, you'd think there'd be a push to catch up no matter the cost. You get what you pay for in pretty much everything so if you don't invest in the educators, how can you expect a well educated populace?

I really don't understand the backlash about this. Unions may not be perfect, but they at the very least, protect the American worker from becoming slave labor. Ask them to make concessions, but don't take away their bargaining power.

This post has it a bit backwards, GITH. Because we're falling behind in education even though we've been spending more and more, we have to at least be open to questioning the status quo. Meanwhile, the teachers unions have predominantly been fighting tooth and nail to retain the status quo. Do I believe that teacher tenure, seniority rights (including Last In/First Out), and lockstep pay are to blame for our nation's educational woes? No, it's not remotely that simple.

But if I were to advocate for investing more in educators by raising salaries, but at the same time tying those raises to significant reforms (e.g., pay incentives for teachers to take on the toughest assignments with the toughest kids, measuring teachers' value-add to student test scores and outcomes as one of multiple factors in performance evaluations, streamlining process for removal of bad teachers), I would have a very difficult time getting support from the unions.

So to suggest that because we're lagging behind other countries in education we should stop questioning teachers' unions...I can't follow you there.

[nots]

I think the teacher's union would gain a lot more traction fighting harder for the 30% or so of truly great teachers (benefits, raises etc) and throwing the 10% of the truly awful teachers under the bus, rather than fighting so hard to preserve the idea that all teachers are good. I guess it's their job to represent ALL teachers but I think their credibility takes a hit with that stance.

[PaleoMan]

I think the teacher's union would gain a lot more traction fighting harder for the 30% or so of truly great teachers (benefits, raises etc) and throwing the 10% of the truly awful teachers under the bus, rather than fighting so hard to preserve the idea that all teachers are good. I guess it's their job to represent ALL teachers but I think their credibility takes a hit with that stance.

But that's arguably 10% less dues. Less funds to funnel to their favorite politician. These days it's awfully hard to feel sympathy for the unions when they play the game just as nefariously as the corporations do.

[B-Fly]

But that's arguably 10% less dues. Less funds to funnel to their favorite politician. These days it's awfully hard to feel sympathy for the unions when they play the game just as nefariously as the corporations do.

It's not 10% less dues if you maintain the "union shop" and replace the poor-performing teachers with new teachers. I don't think any school district is looking to reduce the total number of teachers in their schools if they don't absolutely have to because of budget cuts. Arguably, if legitimately bad teachers could be removed regardless of seniority or salary, even assuming that most of your best teachers are your experienced teachers, you'd still likely end up with enough cost savings from the removal of those bad teachers to allow you to increase the total number of teachers hired into the system and thereby decrease class sizes without increasing costs. Particularly in this economic environment, school districts are getting a lot of great applications for every scarce teacher vacancy.

[OaklandA's]

It's not 10% less dues if you maintain the "union shop" and replace the poor-performing teachers with new teachers. I don't think any school district is looking to reduce the total number of teachers in their schools if they don't absolutely have to because of budget cuts. Arguably, if legitimately bad teachers could be removed regardless of seniority or salary, even assuming that most of your best teachers are your experienced teachers, you'd still likely end up with enough cost savings from the removal of those bad teachers to allow you to increase the total number of teachers hired into the system and thereby decrease class sizes without increasing costs. Particularly in this economic environment, school districts are getting a lot of great applications for every scarce teacher vacancy.

I agree completely. The "Union Dues" argument makes no sense if the idea is to get rid of the poor teachers and replace them with better ones. But the challenge is to find a fair and accurate way to identify which ones are the bad teachers. Until such a measure is found, I can understand why teachers' unions are opposed to simplistic analyses often based on just raw test scores.

[B-Fly]

I agree completely. The "Union Dues" argument makes no sense if the idea is to get rid of the poor teachers and replace them with better ones. But the challenge is to find a fair and accurate way to identify which ones are the bad teachers. Until such a measure is found, I can understand why teachers' unions are opposed to simplistic analyses often based on just raw test scores.

Absolutely, but instead of becoming partners in the development of effective and holistic teacher evaluation methods - that would include value-add test measures (rather than raw scores) as one factor among others - they dig in their heels and fight to retain tenure, last-in/first-out and lockstep pay, all while insisting that they're standing up for the best interests of the children. That's not to say that the politicians and school district superintendents pushing from the other side of the debate haven't themselves been guilty of refusing to consider the other side and offer practical compromise opportunities. As with everything, it becomes a polarized and politicized debate where the parties become increasingly hostile to one another, and it's ultimately the kids that suffer as a result of the adults' inability to make common cause toward positive reforms.

[billbuckner]

[GwynnInTheHall]

This post has it a bit backwards, GITH. Because we're falling behind in education even though we've been spending more and more, we have to at least be open to questioning the status quo. Meanwhile, the teachers unions have predominantly been fighting tooth and nail to retain the status quo. Do I believe that teacher tenure, seniority rights (including Last In/First Out), and lockstep pay are to blame for our nation's educational woes? No, it's not remotely that simple.

But if I were to advocate for investing more in educators by raising salaries, but at the same time tying those raises to significant reforms (e.g., pay incentives for teachers to take on the toughest assignments with the toughest kids, measuring teachers' value-add to student test scores and outcomes as one of multiple factors in performance evaluations, streamlining process for removal of bad teachers), I would have a very difficult time getting support from the unions.

So to suggest that because we're lagging behind other countries in education we should stop questioning teachers' unions...I can't follow you there.

I wasn't suggesting the Non Questioning approach, in fact I believe I said every organization has it's issues including Unions. I agree about the Tenure thing and would like to see some changes in how they evaluate and compensate our educators. I've also said in my previous posts that Unions might need to and have made, some concessions. BUT that the Collective bargaining process should not be touched.

My response about our lack of commitment to Education comes from how much we haven't spent on it--yes we're spending more on it now, but years of neglect have put us in what I believe is an Educational Affirmative Action situation. We may have to over pay for a while to get the good ones back into the system and out of the private sector.

Of course Unions are gonna fight any cuts, it's their purpose because until the day comes when those paying employees cut their profit margin or cut spending in other areas when it comes to Public Services and pay equitable wages, then we need the Unions.

[ShadeEagle]

But if I were to advocate for investing more in educators by raising salaries, but at the same time tying those raises to significant reforms (e.g., pay incentives for teachers to take on the toughest assignments with the toughest kids, measuring teachers' value-add to student test scores and outcomes as one of multiple factors in performance evaluations, streamlining process for removal of bad teachers), I would have a very difficult time getting support from the unions.

Incidentally, isn't this kind of what happened to Rhee with the DC schools? Admittedly, I wasn't as on it as I should've been, but her attempted overhaul seemed along these lines and wasn't received particularly well by teachers.

[OaklandA's]

Incidentally, isn't this kind of what happened to Rhee with the DC schools? Admittedly, I wasn't as on it as I should've been, but her attempted overhaul seemed along these lines and wasn't received particularly well by teachers.

Yes, Rhee and the DC Teachers Union eventually agreed on a contract which includes pay raises based on test score improvements. But there were lots of issues along the way - hundreds of teachers fired without proper justification or due process, money for salary raises coming from private donors rather than the government, etc.

[B-Fly]

Yes, Rhee and the DC Teachers Union eventually agreed on a contract which includes pay raises based on test score improvements. But there were lots of issues along the way - hundreds of teachers fired without proper justification or due process, money for salary raises coming from private donors rather than the government, etc.

I'm not sure one can say that the teachers were fired without proper justification or due process. They were let go pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement agreed to between Rhee and the union.

In 2008, she also sought to renegotiate how the school system compensates teachers. Rhee offered teachers the choice of: being paid up to $140,000 based on what she termed "student achievement"—but losing tenure; or, retaining tenure—but earning much smaller pay raises. This controversial move to end teacher tenure and promote "merit" pay was strongly contested by the teachers unions.[30]
In 2010, Rhee and the unions agreed on a new contract that offered 20% pay raises and bonuses of $20,000 to $30,000 for "strong student achievement," in exchange for weakened teachers' seniority protections and the end of teacher tenure for one year. Under this new agreement, Rhee fired 241 teachers, the vast majority of whom received poor evaluations, and put 737 additional school employees on notice.[31] Of the dismissed teachers, 76 were dismissed in accordance with the No Child Left Behind Act because they lacked proper teaching certification.[32] 26 other teachers were dismissed because their students had continually received low scores on the District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System.[32] Teachers were observed by administrators and outside professionals for five 30-minute sessions during the year, and the teachers' performance was rated during those sessions.[32] Teachers who received fewer than 175 out of 400 points were deemed ineffective and were dismissed.[32] Teachers who received between 175 and 249 points were deemed minimally effective and given a one-year warning to improve their performance.[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Rhee#cite_note-29