The real effect of teachers union contracts

[proud2BlibKansan]

By Matthew Di Carlo

For years, some people have been determined to blame teachers’ unions for all that ails public education in America. This issue has been around a long time (see here and here), but, given the tenor of the current debate, it seems to bear rehashing. According to this view, teachers unions negatively affect student achievement primarily through the mechanism of the collective bargaining agreement, or contract. These contracts are thought to include “harmful” provisions, such as seniority-based layoffs and unified salary schedules that give raises based on experience and education rather than performance.

But a fairly large proportion of public school teachers are not covered under legally binding contracts. In fact, there are some 10 states in which there are virtually no legally binding K-12 teacher contracts at all (there are none in AL, AZ, GA, MS, NC, SC, TX, and VA; there is only one district with a contract in LA, and two in AR). Districts in a few of these states have entered into what are called “meet and confer” agreements about salary, benefits, and other working conditions, but administrators have the right to break these agreements at will. For all intents and purposes, these states are largely free of many of the alleged “negative union effects.”

Here’s a simple proposition: If teacher union contracts are the main problem, then we should expect to see at least somewhat higher achievement outcomes in the 10 states where there are basically no binding contracts.

So, let’s take a quick look at how states with no contracts compare with the states that have them.

Average 2009 NAEP Score By State Teacher Contract Laws

States with binding teacher contracts
4th grade: Math 240.0 Reading 220.7
8th grade: Math 282.1 Reading 263.7

States without binding teacher contracts
4th grade: Math 237.7 Reading 217.5
8th grade: Math 281.2 Reading 259.5


more . . . http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/how-states-with-no-teacher-uni.html

[Starry Messenger]

1. That's a keeper of a link.

I had heard about this correlation, I'm glad to see someone put this together.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. We had leadership training today

And at one point, we were working in groups and we had to identify barriers to student achievement. And the administrator in my group, who was a very active union member when she was a teacher, wrote down "union contracts". I must have given her a look because she said "I'm sorry, I know that upsets YOU but we all know it's true." I said "No, it's not and I have research to prove it isn't."

Everyone else in our group asked me about this research. The admin said nothing. I just forwarded this to the group, and included the admin. :)

She had told me earlier she had seen WFS and was appalled by the union tactics that kept us from doing our jobs. I told her we must have seen two different movies cause I don't remember that part. :eyes:

[Starry Messenger]

6. Good lord, she really said that?

How do these gullible people make it to administrative positions? "The movie told me it is true!".

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Yep. She's a trip.

I've known her for years. And she is actually a great admin. One of our few good ones. I normally don't mind her.

But she is a republican :)

Need I say more? LOL

[Dinger]

42. Yes It Is

And I'll pass it along.

[Sancho]

2. Excellent!!!

:dem:

[Hissyspit]

3. kick nt

[The Philosopher]

5. What?

People perform better when they aren't harassed? Imagine that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. It's not about teachers' performance

It's about student performance.

[The Philosopher]

10. Um

Are you saying: 1) that teachers are irrelevant; 2) that anti-union activists don't use the argument that poor teacher performance hurts student performance and is being protected by Unions?

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. No

[xchrom]

9. Recommend

[wtmusic]

11. Simple, yet faulty proposition.

No-contract states also have 3.6% more people living in poverty.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104529.html

[Gabi Hayes]

13. but all you charter pushers say it's the TEACHERS' fault, the UNIONS' fault.

Poverty is not the issue; it's those damn teachers, just like the movie says.

what happened to all those threads where poverty is derided as any sort of contributory factor?

gee, am I painting with a broad brush, you say?


that's what all you deformers do, constantly

which is it, then?

teachers or poverty?

what, you say? that's presenting a fallacious, spurious alternative

welcome to your side of the argument

[wtmusic]

15. Charter pusher?

I defy you to find a thread where I've pushed charters, Ms. Broad Brush... :eyes:

[LooseWilly]

17. You don't think there's a correlation?

:rofl:

[wtmusic]

18. Of course.

OP just has (obviously) chosen the wrong one. :rofl:

[LooseWilly]

20. Um, didn't you post that no-contract states are poorer?

Maybe you need to rebrain. Why do you think no contract states are poorer? The poverty tooth fairy? :eyes:

[wtmusic]

21. Don't pat yourself on the back too hard

No contract states, which are all right-to-work states by law, have all fared better since Taft-Hartley than the national average.

Since 1969 Mississippi, the poorest state in the union, has seen its poverty decline by 40%, while the national average has only declined 4%.

[LooseWilly]

22. Pardon, are you saying you approve of Taft-Hartley and its effects?

Wow, pretty bold for a "Democrat". Don't get too rash, Mr. "Liberal". For your next act will you be defending the McCarran Act?

[wtmusic]

23. If you're implying that I disapprove of poverty, that would be correct.

And I can assume you approve? :shrug:

[LooseWilly]

24. I'm implying you are anti-union.

Why don't you post more links from your favorite website? The Center for Union Facts, you know. Lou Dobbs' go-to union website? :hi:

[wtmusic]

25. I'm anti-union-monopoly, if you want to get specific.

Unions are not unlike corporations when they get too powerful. Ironic, but they're perfectly capable of exploitation like their capitalist brethren.

They have no problem with running an industry into the ground at the expense of everyone in their state. It happened to me (member, Local 47 AFM) in California; it happened to everyone in Michigan.

Now teachers unions are running the American educational system into the ground at the expense of America's children. Because of their dogged and unreasonable grip on tenure, they're singlehandedly responsible for the ultimately-disastrous charter movement and the mass clusterfuck which has become American education.

[LooseWilly]

26. Oh and I'm sure you must have links on the connection

of teacher tenure to charter schools. Please do share with the class. And please do include information debunking the link between higher education results and union states. This should be special. BTW, genius, there are several teacher unions, so your "monopoly" gripe? Totally without grounds and uneducated. :hi:

[wtmusic]

29. Here's your link.

Parents are fed up with not being able to fire truly rotten teachers. Teachers which have already been convicted of child molestation are on the payroll in NYC, as is a teacher who taunted a student to kill himself in LA. In that specific case, it was due solely to the actions of UTLA - the Unified Teachers of Los Angeles - the only union with which the Los Angeles Unified School District has a contract. Hence, "monopoly".

OP has never established a link between higher education results and union states, so I have nothing to debunk. I can spout that northern latitudes are correlated with higher test scores and be equally correct and equally silly.

Correlation does not equal causation.

[LooseWilly]

33. *yawn*

No link, just as I thought. You pulled your "facts" out of your glutes. Too chicken to post your old favorites? Maybe you'd better start posting some facts, to bolster the illusion that you possess intellectual integrity.

[wtmusic]

34. Ad hominems - the refuge of the ignorant.

You waste my time...ignored. :hi:

[LooseWilly]

35. Bwahaha!

Aw, I hurted your fee-fees. Too bad. I knew you didn't have the links to prove your BS. :hug:

[Starry Messenger]

39. Oh wow, the old Center for Union Facts guy?

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/draft-lou-dobbs-validates-right-wing-fr

Do you know that right winger Justin Wilson from there signed up here to harass me after this poster used this website as a source? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=219&topic_id=24848&mesg_id=24970 I'm sure it's just a coincidence. :sarcasm:

[U4ikLefty]

36. I'm anti-union-monopoly? Where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah that's right....wing.

[wtmusic]

37. Open your eyes.

There are plenty of Democrats/Progressives/Liberals that are waking up to the notion that many (not all) labor unions have become corporations in disguise.

You in the club? Here are some great benefits, and reasons why you really don't have to work any more. You see, we OWN this place. :thumbsup:

Not in the club, are you? Instead of a pat on the back here's my bootheel...now back to work.

[U4ikLefty]

38. keep digging

this is fun

[Hannah Bell]

30. poverty doesn't matter. only teachers matter, preferably superman teachers who can overcome

poverty and all else.

i'm really surprised, wtmusic, to see you, of all people, using the excuse of poverty for the poor performance of teachers in no-contract states.

don't you believe in our children?

[Joe Fields]

14. those are mostly(not all) the poorest states in the nation.

so what does that mean?

not much!

[JackRiddler]

16. I say it means that poverty, lack of unions and bad education systems go together.

[Joe Fields]

27. just poverty and bad education systems.

I would argue that (in the case of education unions are not the students best friend.

They look after their own.

[Hannah Bell]

32. yes, you would.

[LooseWilly]

19. It means that anti-union states are more prone to poverty.

That's what that means. When workers organize, wages are higher. I kinda thought that was Democrat 101.

[Joe Fields]

28. Are you arguing for higher teacher wages or better education?

As we have seen over the years the two definitely do not go hand in hand.

[LooseWilly]

31. Um, did you not read the OP?

You must have been quite the difficult student. Usually reading material for the class is required for participation in the conversation. Let's break this down into 5 year old terms you might be able to digest: Union=higher wages=higher scores in states with unions. Is that easy enough yet sweetie? :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. LOL!!

[greatsociety]

44. To everyone making the (valid) correlation/causation point about poverty in the non-contract states

Did you read the last two paragraphs of the post? Isn't that the whole point, or am I missing something?

[maryf]

40. K&Rnt

[JackRiddler]

43. k&r

[AngryAmish]

45. Dr. Popper shakes head, walks away thinking his life was a failure...