I'll have to dig something up. Can't recall now where I first read it. Suffice to say, there was a huge drop in revenue for police forces and the federal bureau of narcotics and they needed something to fill the coffers and keep people on the payroll, which is why in the 30's you see this tremendous push and massive propaganda campaign to demonize pot. Other interests were party to it (cotton, Rx, etc.) obviously, but this was at least one driving force.
Very true. I think autonomy is key, and yes in many ways unions help provide the cover needed. So yay unions! My argument is that unions can also stand in the way of good reforms. They can stand in the way of bad reforms or petty parents or stupid bureaucrats too. So it's a mixed bag.
Of course, BlaiseP knows *exactly* which side of the debate I come down on based on this assessment of unions as a mixed bag, so...
@BlaiseP - besides this, you're just yanking one straw man after another and tossing them into the wind, lighting them on fire, and calling it an argument.
Do you even know, are you even sure you know, what my *actual* positions are or are you just responding to what you think they are? I'm pretty sure I'm not blaming the unions for everything, and I'm 100% I never blamed teachers for everything. I'm also very, very certain that I've argued against many reforms and reform fads. That does not mean this is a black and white debate though. And you muddy up the waters and dispense with clarity when you shout so much.
I think it depends. My aunt was the head of the Oregon teachers union for years. She's obviously very pro-union. Most would say that teachers need to be the driving force of reform, and I would generally agree with that. The reason I distrust unions is that I distrust too much uniformity in general. I think many teachers do, too. I want teachers to have lots more autonomy, but I think there is a strong case to be made that this does not match up all that well with keeping on doing the same things we've always done, the same pay scale we've always had, the same tenure rules we've always known, etc.
Good grief, dude. Unions protect bad teachers. It's their job. They protect all members, including bad ones, which is why rubber rooms sprung up around NYC recently.
Also, I agree with the financing argument. We do need to more equitably finance our schools. And I agree that many reforms are bad, but that can also be an excuse to prevent reforms that are needed.
So whatever. Sound and fury, Blaise, sound and fury.
That is just enormous amounts of bullshit, BlaiseP. I have not "come down against teachers' unions" I have grown more skeptical of them. Heaven forbid we should be skeptical of powerful institutions! We must be blaming the teachers!
I'm sure teachers, if they could, would do a fine job reforming our education system. Something is stopping them from doing this - but let's not ask why.
Now toss out another personal anecdote that somehow, tangentially, bulwarks whatever point it is you're trying to make. Interview teachers? I've had my own teachers. My father and many of my relatives were teachers or are still. I come from a family of teachers or academics at education schools. I'm still trying to figure out what on earth it is you're trying to say oh so dramatically...
Uhm yeah, teachers are the most critical in-class factor and the vast majority of them are trying really hard. Does this mean we just ignore the various institutional problems with the educational establishment? Is tackling edu-reform somehow incompatible or mutually exclusive with poverty and problems at home? Beyond the long rambling declarations, what do you propose? Just to talk to teachers?
Yeah, sure, but "solving poverty" is a lot like "solving education". It's not at all clear how to do it. For instance, the really poor urban areas are filled with people who already qualify for Medicaid and yet still have terrible access to healthcare. Universal healthcare won't benefit them, but we still need to get them better healthcare. A state-based solution to this has already been tried, now we need something *else* on top of that. Poverty is a deeply complicated problem and it's more complicated here because of our racial and cultural diversity, our population and geography, etc.
I'd say human frailty and the inherent flaws of human institutions. This is hardly partisan, but rather the result of human nature, politics, and all the rest.
I'm not sure what to make of this, Freddie. My position here is simple. I want to maximize the options available to the most people possible, and where powerful institutions play a role it's important to critique them and remain as skeptical as possible to them. Unions in this country have taken a serious hit, and largely due to pernicious laws. But the teachers unions are the opposite, representing millions of members. They are a powerful political faction in this debate. I'm not sure we can honestly discuss education policy while leaving them unexamined.
Essentially, it's hard for me to criticize the reformers for bringing too much money and power and influence to the table, and then ignore the money power and influence of the educational establishment. It's also hard for me to look at the poor urban schools and decide that the only way to fix them is to fix poverty first. We have been attempting to fix poverty for ages and it hasn't worked. We'd better throw whatever we have at the problem, then, including school reform. If poor people in NYC urban schools *want* more choices, what right do we have to tell them they should prefer their neighborhood schools?
In any case, my entire point here is that I need to be less partisan and more skeptical of *all sides*. Are the reformers right? On some issues, maybe, but on many issues certainly not. Even where they are right they are often far too optimistic. But the forces of the status quo are also wrong on issues (and right on issues) and the whole mess is simply not cut and dry. I'm trying to offer more balance to my critique, not shift courses entirely.
Yes, a moderate Republican party truly concerned with issues of poverty and education would be great. Ironically, it is actually in the education debate that I see some of the best Republican ideas and some of the more social-justice-oriented Republican policies.
Honestly, there are no good answers which is why I say we need to experiment and innovate. KIPP schools have done a remarkable job with kids from impoverished backgrounds. Obviously other steps also need to be taken. Parents need to be educated. Jobs need to come to poor areas. Literacy rates need to rise. Lots of chick and egg stuff. That is no excuse to throw our hands in the air though.
Unions consistently oppose merit pay, charter schools, changes to tenure, seniority rules, LIFO, different salary schedules, a shift to portable retirement accounts, vouchers for low income students, alternative certification, accountability measures, etc. etc. etc.
I defended them for a while, but more and more I can't do that. We have a ridiculous school system built around a different economy, largely broken out into decent schools for the suburbanites and lousy schools for the poor inner city kids. Unions entrench this by allowing senior teachers to move to the good schools, or by shuffling bad teachers (or brand new teachers) into poor schools.
I don't like high-stakes testing. Neither do unions. I'm quite open to school choice, vouchers for low-income students, new compensation schemes, an end to tenure (at least in its current shape) and unions oppose all those reforms.
@Jaybird: In many instances, this does appear to be the case. This does not mean reformers are on the side of angels either, of course. But between the one side and the other, a whole lot of students are paying a high price.
I'm not sure how measurable it is, but the reason we're talking about teachers' unions all the time is that they represent a huge political and economic force, for both good and ill, in these debates. There is no way around the elephant in the room.
The key for me, Jaybird, is getting it right. I would make the trade - get rid of tenure, unions, etc. while backing off of the focus on testing. Use a normal administration-based evaluation process which includes testing and other on-the-job factors. Break ties with seniority.
Good point, though teachers are routinely laid off by changes in administration regardless. And what do you do about a system like Detroit? I can see how the unions in Wisconsin were essentially a waste of time to go after - good test scores, reasonable bargaining partners in the union, etc. But Detroit represents an entirely different set of problems, and public sector workers are a big part of the problems there. (As are public officials, bureaucrats and politicians both).
Every institution fights for its survival, including unions. Reform/change threaten institutions, including unions. As I've said, unions resist some reforms that I disapprove of, do you deny they resist these reforms?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Limits of Knowledge in the Education Debate”
I'll have to dig something up. Can't recall now where I first read it. Suffice to say, there was a huge drop in revenue for police forces and the federal bureau of narcotics and they needed something to fill the coffers and keep people on the payroll, which is why in the 30's you see this tremendous push and massive propaganda campaign to demonize pot. Other interests were party to it (cotton, Rx, etc.) obviously, but this was at least one driving force.
"
Very true. I think autonomy is key, and yes in many ways unions help provide the cover needed. So yay unions! My argument is that unions can also stand in the way of good reforms. They can stand in the way of bad reforms or petty parents or stupid bureaucrats too. So it's a mixed bag.
Of course, BlaiseP knows *exactly* which side of the debate I come down on based on this assessment of unions as a mixed bag, so...
"
You have a very one-sided take on all of this BlaiseP. It's interesting, but it's not very useful.
"
Sort of like priests.
"
@BlaiseP - besides this, you're just yanking one straw man after another and tossing them into the wind, lighting them on fire, and calling it an argument.
Do you even know, are you even sure you know, what my *actual* positions are or are you just responding to what you think they are? I'm pretty sure I'm not blaming the unions for everything, and I'm 100% I never blamed teachers for everything. I'm also very, very certain that I've argued against many reforms and reform fads. That does not mean this is a black and white debate though. And you muddy up the waters and dispense with clarity when you shout so much.
"
I think it depends. My aunt was the head of the Oregon teachers union for years. She's obviously very pro-union. Most would say that teachers need to be the driving force of reform, and I would generally agree with that. The reason I distrust unions is that I distrust too much uniformity in general. I think many teachers do, too. I want teachers to have lots more autonomy, but I think there is a strong case to be made that this does not match up all that well with keeping on doing the same things we've always done, the same pay scale we've always had, the same tenure rules we've always known, etc.
"
Good grief, dude. Unions protect bad teachers. It's their job. They protect all members, including bad ones, which is why rubber rooms sprung up around NYC recently.
Also, I agree with the financing argument. We do need to more equitably finance our schools. And I agree that many reforms are bad, but that can also be an excuse to prevent reforms that are needed.
So whatever. Sound and fury, Blaise, sound and fury.
"
That is just enormous amounts of bullshit, BlaiseP. I have not "come down against teachers' unions" I have grown more skeptical of them. Heaven forbid we should be skeptical of powerful institutions! We must be blaming the teachers!
I'm sure teachers, if they could, would do a fine job reforming our education system. Something is stopping them from doing this - but let's not ask why.
Now toss out another personal anecdote that somehow, tangentially, bulwarks whatever point it is you're trying to make. Interview teachers? I've had my own teachers. My father and many of my relatives were teachers or are still. I come from a family of teachers or academics at education schools. I'm still trying to figure out what on earth it is you're trying to say oh so dramatically...
"
And so we enter the chicken-and-egg territory I mentioned earlier. Fixing education could go a long way toward fixing poverty.
"
Uhm yeah, teachers are the most critical in-class factor and the vast majority of them are trying really hard. Does this mean we just ignore the various institutional problems with the educational establishment? Is tackling edu-reform somehow incompatible or mutually exclusive with poverty and problems at home? Beyond the long rambling declarations, what do you propose? Just to talk to teachers?
"
Yeah, sure, but "solving poverty" is a lot like "solving education". It's not at all clear how to do it. For instance, the really poor urban areas are filled with people who already qualify for Medicaid and yet still have terrible access to healthcare. Universal healthcare won't benefit them, but we still need to get them better healthcare. A state-based solution to this has already been tried, now we need something *else* on top of that. Poverty is a deeply complicated problem and it's more complicated here because of our racial and cultural diversity, our population and geography, etc.
"
Actually I believe I misunderstood Freddie's comment.
"
Freddie - here is my latest attempt to explain myself" since apparently everyone is assuming that I have simply "flipped" on the education debate.
"
I'd say human frailty and the inherent flaws of human institutions. This is hardly partisan, but rather the result of human nature, politics, and all the rest.
"
I'm not sure what to make of this, Freddie. My position here is simple. I want to maximize the options available to the most people possible, and where powerful institutions play a role it's important to critique them and remain as skeptical as possible to them. Unions in this country have taken a serious hit, and largely due to pernicious laws. But the teachers unions are the opposite, representing millions of members. They are a powerful political faction in this debate. I'm not sure we can honestly discuss education policy while leaving them unexamined.
Essentially, it's hard for me to criticize the reformers for bringing too much money and power and influence to the table, and then ignore the money power and influence of the educational establishment. It's also hard for me to look at the poor urban schools and decide that the only way to fix them is to fix poverty first. We have been attempting to fix poverty for ages and it hasn't worked. We'd better throw whatever we have at the problem, then, including school reform. If poor people in NYC urban schools *want* more choices, what right do we have to tell them they should prefer their neighborhood schools?
In any case, my entire point here is that I need to be less partisan and more skeptical of *all sides*. Are the reformers right? On some issues, maybe, but on many issues certainly not. Even where they are right they are often far too optimistic. But the forces of the status quo are also wrong on issues (and right on issues) and the whole mess is simply not cut and dry. I'm trying to offer more balance to my critique, not shift courses entirely.
"
Yes, a moderate Republican party truly concerned with issues of poverty and education would be great. Ironically, it is actually in the education debate that I see some of the best Republican ideas and some of the more social-justice-oriented Republican policies.
"
Honestly, there are no good answers which is why I say we need to experiment and innovate. KIPP schools have done a remarkable job with kids from impoverished backgrounds. Obviously other steps also need to be taken. Parents need to be educated. Jobs need to come to poor areas. Literacy rates need to rise. Lots of chick and egg stuff. That is no excuse to throw our hands in the air though.
On “Beyond Unions”
Pretty weak tea, Chris.
"
Unions consistently oppose merit pay, charter schools, changes to tenure, seniority rules, LIFO, different salary schedules, a shift to portable retirement accounts, vouchers for low income students, alternative certification, accountability measures, etc. etc. etc.
I defended them for a while, but more and more I can't do that. We have a ridiculous school system built around a different economy, largely broken out into decent schools for the suburbanites and lousy schools for the poor inner city kids. Unions entrench this by allowing senior teachers to move to the good schools, or by shuffling bad teachers (or brand new teachers) into poor schools.
"
I don't like high-stakes testing. Neither do unions. I'm quite open to school choice, vouchers for low-income students, new compensation schemes, an end to tenure (at least in its current shape) and unions oppose all those reforms.
"
@Jaybird: In many instances, this does appear to be the case. This does not mean reformers are on the side of angels either, of course. But between the one side and the other, a whole lot of students are paying a high price.
"
I'm not sure how measurable it is, but the reason we're talking about teachers' unions all the time is that they represent a huge political and economic force, for both good and ill, in these debates. There is no way around the elephant in the room.
"
The key for me, Jaybird, is getting it right. I would make the trade - get rid of tenure, unions, etc. while backing off of the focus on testing. Use a normal administration-based evaluation process which includes testing and other on-the-job factors. Break ties with seniority.
"
Good point, though teachers are routinely laid off by changes in administration regardless. And what do you do about a system like Detroit? I can see how the unions in Wisconsin were essentially a waste of time to go after - good test scores, reasonable bargaining partners in the union, etc. But Detroit represents an entirely different set of problems, and public sector workers are a big part of the problems there. (As are public officials, bureaucrats and politicians both).
"
Every institution fights for its survival, including unions. Reform/change threaten institutions, including unions. As I've said, unions resist some reforms that I disapprove of, do you deny they resist these reforms?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.