<p>@GMT - private companies do not rely on taxpayers to fund them. At least where I live, taxpayers have to vote to fund the schools and the results are often not good for the schools. Therefore, if a school district is in desperate need of $, then there is absolutely an incentive to lay off a 20 yr veteran with a Masters, earning $80K and hire someone fresh out of college that will earn only $40K. </p>
<p>As for tenure, I don’t know too many places any more where it is automatic after 2 years. In fact, the trend seems to be leaving teachers on year-to-year contracts and often teachers do not know until August whether or not they will have a job that school year. That’s not a good situation for anyone, and does not help to increase job satisfaction.</p>
<p>^^this is true for our district as well. Scores of veteran teachers are encouraged to retire early in order to make the budget work, which isn’t the end of the world but it isn’t necessarily sound educational planning, either. Nobody in our district is eligible for tenure within 10 years of employment here, and at 8 years the review process begins in earnest, continuing through until 10. And even tenured teachers have annual reviews and recommendations. I agree that it’s a fairly antiquated notion, but as has been said, teachers are unusually vulnerable to the vicissitudes of angry parents and students who want someone to pay for Jr’s inability to get into Yale, pass a test, or have a nice day at school.</p>
<p>@greenbutton, the rest of us are subject to the vissitudes of bad bosses, angry customers, economic slumps, industry competition. So what makes public school teachers so particularly needy for tenure? Like I said earlier, my kid’s schools have non-union teachers and everything works fine.</p>
<p>I don’t think they are, but I don’t think it’s such a giant problem that it’s worth investigating at the expense of other issues. My kids’ schools have union teachers, and everything works fine there, too Down the street at the local charter, the state is investigating the firing of many staff (who weren’t certified teachers , but that’s not illegal here) for not making mandatory contributions to the owners’ favorite charity. Point being, sometimes a union could be a good thing. Sometimes not. I can take 'em or leave 'em.</p>
<p>If teachers’ unions are so bad, why does WalMart get a stinkeye for not allowing employees to unionize? Why is it okay to be a plumber in a union, or a contractor with union employees, but teachers are lazy bad guys?</p>
<p>@GMT, it’s great that things are working at your kid’s school. But, I have two relatives who teach in a non-union state and they have not had pay raises for several years…in wealthy counties. This communicates a huge lack of respect for what these teachers do. They both are desperately trying to figure out what they can do to get out of the teaching profession, because morale among the teachers is so poor and they are completely burned out - one of them after only teaching for 5 yrs. Meanwhile, police officers and firefighters got raises. Ask yourself if you want people who feel disillusioned and unhappy with their jobs teaching your children?</p>
<p>My daughter is a teacher, so from that perspective, I think the thing that makes teachers’ unions unique is that their are children in the middle of the union and the employer. The unions do and should exist for the benefit of the members who pay their dues, but sometimes the benefit of the union members comes at the expense of the students. It’s tough and complicated. Except for the straight-out criminals and thugs, the teachers and parents are not bad guys, just trying to do a lot of different things at the same time.</p>
<p>It can work either way, as most things do, but having read some of the bulletins and missives sent to teachers, man…, whew, I wish everyone could read those. Talk about insisting that they do NOT go that extra mile. </p>
<p>I am a teacher’s child, one who would have been a top teacher. My father was so gifted that way, but back then, it just didn’t pay enough for him to raise his family. Looking at the worker abuses in many of the industries that are not unionized, I can understand why there is a place for unions. The well being of employees and their ability to make a living wage is absolutely not in the priorities of business,as a rule.</p>
<p>Where I live, the teachers’ union has an almost complete stranglehold on local politics. They even send out a “report card” recommending who to vote for in local elections, and call it the red apple A+ ballot. That should be illegal. </p>
<p>OTOH, the elected school board that is voting to defund the schools in suburban upstate NY should also be illegal.</p>
<p>there’s a reason why so many unionized teachers send their OWN kids to private (non-union) schools. If being unionized = better, then that would not be the case.</p>
<p>One might think that without unions and without tenure, charter schools (which, in the main, underperform union schools) might have greater likelihood to improve over time. As it turns out, this is false as well.</p>
<p>So we have lots of data (rather than just a series of anecdotes) on the question being asked.</p>
<p>“there’s a reason why so many unionized teachers send their OWN kids to private (non-union) schools. If being unionized = better, then that would not be the case.”</p>
<p>How many? What percentage? Do you have any data?</p>
<p>I don’t think the lack of a pay raise in the last couple of year indicates a lack of respect; that comment is almost astonishing. Are these teachers unaware of our economic struggles over the last couple of years? </p>
<p>If teachers are disillusioned and burned-out, then they should leave the profession and find something more fulfilling. A burned-out teacher is probably not a good teacher.</p>
<p>Funding education is primarily about the students, and secondarily about the teachers. If the voters are happy with how things are, then there is no reason to allocate more funds to teachers.</p>
<p>Unions in some states (Texas is an example I believe) are completely powerless by law. There is no collective bargaining. Teachers find out at the end of each year whether or not they will have a job the following fall and their contracts are only on a yearly basis. Their teachers do not have the benefit of tenure.</p>
<p>I don’t think comparing charter schools to unionized schools to parochial schools to day schools to boarding schools does much good. </p>
<p>It doesn’t solve any problems.</p>
<p>I don’t the think unions are the “problem” anymore than I “buy” the idea that parents are the problem when learning isn’t happening in a classroom. The “problem” is the focus on so many things other than school in the public schools.</p>
<ol>
<li> diet</li>
<li> zero tolerance</li>
<li> social justice</li>
<li> social work</li>
<li> family problems</li>
<li> sex education</li>
<li> drugs and alcohol issues</li>
<li> endless standardized testing</li>
<li> finally, teaching.</li>
</ol>
<p>etc…</p>
<p>It’s too many things. Nobody can do well if their focus is off of the main mission. We have more headlines about what kids are allowed to wear to school and what they eat in the cafeteria than we do about teaching. </p>
<p>The only issue I have with unions is when they take up fights that are stupid just to prove they can win a fight, as if their only reason for being is to fight.</p>
<p>My only real objection to teacher unions is the inability to fire bad teachers. My kids have had some very good teachers in public schools, but also a couple of breathtakingly bad ones. Everyone knows who the bad ones are; the principal admits he has no authority to fire them unless they do something egregious, so they have been at the school for decades.</p>
<p>I think really bad teachers in core subjects can have devastating, life-long negative impacts on children. The two teachers I am thinking of taught Geometry and US History.</p>
<p>In our state, unfortunately, the union protects the weak and incompetent members to the detriment of the rest of its members, students and public. It does help negotiate contracts, but have seen too many bad teachers staunchly defended by unions even when they caused all the kids to cry every day in their classes. </p>
<p>In our state as well, most of my friends and family members send their kids to private schools, where there are no unions and no tenure. There are a few bad teachers there, but on the whole the quality is much better. My friends and relatives who teach start their kids in private school as early as K (or as soon as they can get their kids admitted). We switched our kids to private school for HS and saw a BIG increase in the quality of education and teacher quality and dedication.</p>
<p>I agree that bad teachers can have long lasting effects on kids and leave big gaps in their education. Our D to this day has trouble with math because so many of her teachers didn’t like it and didn’t teach it well. S became very reticent to speak to teachers and participate in class after his 7th grade GT social studies teacher decided she would ignore him for two years after he asked a question she couldn’t answer. He finally overcame it after we transferred him to a private school where intellectual curiousity was encouraged.</p>
Down the street at the local charter, the state is investigating the firing of many staff (who weren’t certified teachers , but that’s not illegal here) for not making mandatory contributions to the owners’ favorite charity. Point being, sometimes a union could be a good thing. Sometimes not. I can take 'em or leave 'em.</p>