Welcome!

Thanks for stopping by! If you like what you read, tell your friends! If you don't like what you read, tell your enemies! Either way, please post a comment, even if it's just to tell us how much we suck! (We're really needy!) You can even follow us @JasonBerner! Or don't! See if we care!







Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Stop Bashing Teachers (Part II)

(Continued from November 30, 2009)

To take things one step further, the NEA, with its focus on collective bargaining and pay equity and all those "unimportant" things, actually facilitates education: The union allows teachers to focus on educating children by freeing teachers somewhat from concerns over labor issues.

We grow weary of the perennial conservative war-cry that teachers' unions--as opposed to poverty, overcrowding, inequitable funding streams, unfunded and ever-increasing mandates, etc., etc., etc.--are the primary cause of our educational system's shortcomings. Conservative critics claim that the NEA and its ilk are interested only in perpetuating power for its own sake. They claim that the purpose of the union is to protect the weak and unqualified at the expense of the helpless schoolchildren.

Realize, though, that these critics are not so much opposed to teachers unions as they are to unions period. A typical complaint is that unions, whether of teachers or teamsters, are a drain on the economy, a barrier to corporate efficiency. They're right, of course. If corporations don't have to worry about protecting workers' rights and providing living wages and ensuring safe working conditions, they will operate more efficiently (i.e., get more output per unit of input). See under: Bangladeshi sweatshops.

The logic goes something like this: What's good for General Motors--OK, bad example. What's good for, um, Nike is good for America; therefore, what's BAD for Nike must be bad for America; whereas unions are bad for Nike, they are also bad for America; thus, unions are bad for schoolchildren.

The number of faulty premises defies belief.

Let's assume for the moment that the majority of teachers' union members are NOT sub-standard teachers. We have no statistics at hand to prove this, but we will ask you to accept the premise if only under the reasonable (we think) assumption that the majority of members of any profession--particularly any profession that people CHOOSE to pursue (like teaching)--are at least COMPETENT. We must then ask what is the REAL reason that people are so opposed to teachers' unions?

(TO BE CONTINUED)

1 comment:

  1. I'm glad I waited to read these postings all together because I might have had another stint in the hospital. This time with a stroke.

    ReplyDelete