<p>Years ago, some states disallowed union involvement of ‘public servants’–ie: firefighters, police and teachers, perhaps to avoid the possibility of a strike. Not sure if that’s still the case. Are teacher’s unions everywhere? </p>
<p>I’m not interested in starting a controversial thread, but fear it may be inevitable, given the topic. </p>
<p>The underlying question is this: Are schools in non-union states in better shape? Seems so many hold teacher’s unions (at least in part) responsible for the sad state of affairs in our public schools. This article made me wonder if this kind of animosity toward educators, primarily because of teacher’s unions, is nationwide. I’m all for getting rid of ineffectual teachers, but charter schools seem to drain the tax base for already-struggling public schools and are allowed to play by a different set of rules at the same time. Seems getting rid of the bad eggs lies with the strength of the administration. Can we conclude that in those areas where there are no unions, there are no ineffectual teachers? I seriously doubt the truth of that premise…</p>
<p>While she does seem to do some good work, it appears Michelle Rhee is also in the self-promotion business. Political goals for her, perhaps??</p>
<p>Well, if you look at the lists for the top states for ACT/SAT/PSAT scores, almost all of the top 20+ states are union states. It’s hard to compare educational quality across the states but at least with the college entrance tests, the kids are all taking the same test at the same times. It is also a fallacy that tenured teachers can not be dismissed. </p>
<p>Also, part of what unions do is protect the jobs of teachers. I know of several people that feel one of the Spanish teachers at our school is a bad teacher because he is too hard of a grader. Personally, we were thrilled when our son had him last year. About 80% of his students test into at least junior level Spanish classes in college—and people think he is a “bad” teacher. It’s instances like this that unions are needed.</p>
You also can’t compare without looking at demographics. Texas and Michigan’s results, for example, look very different when demographics are considered.</p>
<p>In the two states I mentioned, if you factor in language and diversity, the numbers look very different than they do if you take the pecentages without looking further. Texas and Michigan are often compared, but the number of non-English speakers in Texas dwarves the number in Michigan, which is a unionized state. When the population of Texas students that is demographically comparable to the Michigan students is isolated, Texas actually does a better job.</p>
<p>The 5 states that do not have teachers unions rank in the bottom 6 for ACT/SAT scores. Now, maybe TX is an oddity there ranking 47th and maybe the ESL is an issue, but explain the rest of the states…also, this compares college bound students for the most part. I find it hard to believe, and maybe I am wrong, that there are that many ESL students in Texas that are college bound students that are skewing the results so much. Also, the ACT is required by all juniors in MI. Not sure if that is the case in TX though.</p>
<p>No statistics to cite here at hand, but here in Wisconsin, we tend to have some of the highest ACT/SAT scores in the country. Which is why some of us are protesting the dismantling of the unions that have worked very well to keep our educational system effective.</p>
<p>Well you can find your own report! I posted the data that I referenced. I’m not going to speak for you. You posted an opinion piece, so perhaps you have data?</p>
In what specific sense do you consider the changes to be “dismantling” the unions? (My daughter is a teacher and a union member, so I’m asking to receive an answer, not as a way of making a point. I really would like your thoughts.</p>
<p>zoo-I did post a link with information based on what I stated-when comparing ACT/SAT scores across the nation, the states with unions perform better than those without…</p>
<p>SteveMA, please don’t abbreviate my name to zoo. It’s a small nitpicky thing, but it bothers me. (And I will be very careful to be more respectful of abbreviating yours.) Thank you very much.</p>
<p>The article you posted doesn’t address demographic issues, so it’s hard to tell without the actual data how my point comes into play.</p>
<p>You are comparing 4th grade scores to high school ACT/SAT scores. It’s comparing apples to elephants. Also, why should you exclude various demographics? They are what they are and part of the job of these teachers is to teach these kids to not only do math but speak English effectively. If between 4th grade and 12th grade the teachers in Texas can’t do that, they aren’t being effective teachers overall.</p>
<p>I could care less if you abbreviate my name…</p>
<p>Wisconsin’s participation rate is only 5% on the SAT.</p>
<p>It seems hard to compare states on SAT/ACT because of the big variance in participation rates. It seems that a lot of the northern states do well on SATs but the top 19 or so have very low participation rates.</p>
<p>BTW, completely agree on demographic issues. In NH, we have pretty good results with a fairly low tax burden (no income or sales taxes). We have low crime issues and it’s a well-educated state (percentage of adults with college degrees - 3rd in the country). I think that average incomes are pretty good and we have a 5.2% unemployment rate.</p>
<p>And the northeast states have low participation in the ACT–does it really make a difference? All of the NE states are union as well except VA but that doesn’t really count as a NE state.</p>