January 26, 2005
The Teachers’ Union: Good, but only in Moderation
When clamoring for government benefits, it is crucial to fight for your constituents. The AARP, of course, is fighting for increased Social Security and Medicare benefits. The AFL-CIO is fighting for stronger union protections. The NRA fights for the rights of gun owners, NOW fights for the rights of women, and the NAACP fights for the rights of minorities.
It would follow, of course, that the NEA, the National Education Association, would fight for the rights of the constituents of education: students and parents. And that, of course, is what they would prefer we all believe. When it comes to government, however, one rule is much more important than the above: always look out for number one.
To the NEA, their constituents are not students or parents. Their constituents are educators, school administrators, principals, etc. The values that they fight for may or may not be in the interest of students, but as Terry Moe says in a recent editorial, they are *always* are in the interests of educators:
As the unions put their distinctive stamp on the nation’s schools, the objectives they pursue are reflections of their own interests, which are often incompatible with what is best for children, schools, and society. This presents an obvious problem—and a serious one—for a nation that wants to improve the quality of its education system.
I have argued before about things such as school choice, and for a greater accountability in our school system. I have often thought that there needs to be accountability in the home as well as in the school, and that parents need to take responsibility for ensuring that their kids are educated. One of my hopes for vouchers is that vouchers will empower parents with the means to battle the school, while placing the responsibility on the parent to exercise that power. It forces accountability on the parent, who then has the power to force accountability on the school
However, every ounce of energy the teacher unions have is against accountability in the school system. On the local, state, and national level, the unions have created a system where teachers are not rewarded based on merit nor punished for incompetence. A system where perpetuating the system and ensuring employment of teachers takes precedence over educating our children.
I am in no way against unions, but unions typically operate in a competitive environment. In business, the wishes of management act as a constant check on the power of unions. It may not mean that management or the union win every battle, but that collective bargaining gives a balance between the power of management and the union. The only way this is possible is because the management and the union are necessarily locked in combat. In the educational system, this is not the case:
The teacher unions bargain with school boards, which play the role of management. As the above discussion implies, however, school boards cannot be expected to behave like the managers of private firms in resisting union demands. School boards face little competition and needn’t worry that they will lose business by agreeing to union demands that raise costs, promote
inefficiencies, or lower school performance. The kids and the tax money will still be there. In addition, school boards are composed of elected officials, whose incentives are explicitly political and less tied to efficiency and costs than those of private managers. Moreover, the unions, by participating in local elections, are in a position to determine who the management will be, and to give it incentives to bargain sympathetically—a stunning advantage that, for
private-sector unions, would be a dream come true.
In this environment, there is no check on union power. The result of one-sided control is our current educational system. We need to understand the politics and roots of the situation allowing the unions to prosper if we are going to check their power. The teacher’s union certainly can play a beneficial and important role in our educational system, but only if they are forced into the traditional role of a union. When the union plays both sides of the field, they’ll always get what they want. And our students will suffer for it.
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
