patrick.net

klarek says

By supporting teachers’ unions, you’re putting yourself on the side of the debate opposite from the interests of the taxpayers and the children.

Bzzzt. I'm on the side of the children (my rugrat) and the teachers. I am also a taxpayer so I'm on that side too.

Why do so many "right to work" states with no collective bargaining, score very poorly?

Why do many countries with strong teacher unions, seem to do better than the USA?

As even Michelle Ree said recently, it's plain to see that it's not the unions that are the problem with American education.

Vicente says

Bzzzt. I’m on the side of the children (my rugrat) and the teachers. I am also a taxpayer so I’m on that side too.

Teachers unions are antithetical to the interests of children and taxpayers. Just because you have a kid and pay taxes doesn't mean that you aren't supportive of a group that's against your interests.

Why do so many “right to work” states with no unions, score very poorly?

Is there a correlation between student scores and right to work states? I was unaware of this.

Vicente says

Why do many countries with strong teacher unions, seem to do better than the USA?

Many countries with teacher unions do worse than us as well. The difference is that those doing better - union or not - allow for parents to choose the schools their kids go to.

klarek says

Is there a correlation between student scores and right to work states? I was unaware of this.

Of the 10 non-union states, only Virginia squeaks above the average point for SAT/ACT & NAEP rankings. The Southern non-union states are all down in the basement. At this point critics typically fall back to "well it's a factor among many so...." but plainly the fact is the argument that unions are automatically destructive to education is easily disproven. If eliminating unions were the key to our future, it would have shown up in the states where it's had decades to prove itself. It hasn't. Florida and Tennesse do fairly well with collective bargaining, neighboring states without do poorly.

It may not be a popular comparison for me to make these days, but I point to gun laws. Like that, stance on unions are largely derived from emotion & bias, not logic and data and facts. The fact that something has been tried multiple times and not worked as promised, seems to be no deterrent whatever to it's adherents.

Vicente says

Of the 10 non-union states, only Virginia squeaks above the average point for SAT/ACT & NAEP rankings. The Southern non-union states are all down in the basement. At this point critics typically fall back to “well it’s a factor among many so….” but plainly the fact is the argument that unions are automatically destructive to education is easily disproven.

In other words, poor states yield poor performing students. There's no evidence of a positive correlation between unions and higher performing schools when controlled for income and school revenue.

Vicente says

It may not be a popular comparison for me to make these days, but I point to gun laws. Like that, stance on unions are largely derived from emotion & bias, not logic and data and facts. The fact that something has been tried multiple times and not worked as promised, seems to be no deterrent whatever to it’s adherents.

If you cared about logic and fact you would look at our schools' performance over time and the increased membership of teachers unions during that period.

Hey klarek, you still have not responded to my comments about Michelle Rhee that I wrote in response to your praise of her:

“You’re really going to bash Michelle Rhee? FFS, she’s the best thing to ever happen to DC schools.’

Are you being sarcastic klarek? Did you not read my thread about the erasure scandal in D.C.?? Michelle Rhee has a lot of explaining to do about her role in “ErasureGate”

http://patrick.net/?p=654291

HousingWatcher says

Hey klarek, you still have not responded to my comments about Michelle Rhee that I wrote in response to your praise of her:
“You’re really going to bash Michelle Rhee? FFS, she’s the best thing to ever happen to DC schools.’
Are you being sarcastic klarek? Did you not read my thread about the erasure scandal in D.C.?? Michelle Rhee has a lot of explaining to do about her role in “ErasureGate”
http://patrick.net/?p=654291

I didn't respond because there's nothing substantial linking her to this.

States without collective bargaining for teachers and their respective SAT/ ACT score ranks:

Wisconsin ranks 3rd in the nation in SAT scores, but with a participation rate of just 4%. On the ACT, with a much more representative partcipation rate of 69%, it was tied for 17th. In comparison...

* Virginia was 34th on the SAT with 67% participation, 13th on the ACT with 22% participation.
* Texas was 45th on the SAT with 53% participation, 33rd on the ACT with 33% participation.
* Georgia was 48th on the SAT with 74% participation, 34th on the ACT with 44% participation.
* North Carolina was 38th on the SAT with 63% participation, 20th on the ACT with 16% participation.
* South Carolina was 49th on the SAT with 66% participation, 44th on the ACT with 52% participation.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2011/02/5x8_-_22111.shtml

And for added measure, I decided to go beyond test scores and look at HS dropout rates:

South Carolina: 45% (see: http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/06/10/sc-high-school-dropout-rate-worsens/ )

Texas: 39% (see: http://politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/feb/05/bill-white/texas-has-43rd-best-graduation-rate-united-states/ )

klarek says

In other words, poor states yield poor performing students. There’s no evidence of a positive correlation between unions and higher performing schools when controlled for income and school revenue.

.....

If you cared about logic and fact you would look at our schools’ performance over time and the increased membership of teachers unions during that period.

So now "poor states" is the explanation? Is Unionized Tennessee a "rich state", and non-union Georgia clearly a "poor state"? And how did that suddenly become your #1 differentiator instead of unions? My education was obtained in Georgia public schools so I have firsthand experience there, and I don't recall perceiving that Georgia was remarkably poorer than neighboring Tennessee. Income figures for GA & TN are very close. Not sure about "school revenue" or how you consider that, but one chart I found showed per pupil TN spent less than GA.

Perhaps we should explore dairy production as a determinant factor :-D

You prove my point.

When the SIMPLE premise is disproven, adherents will fall back on other factors attempting to explain away the data. You've fallen into exactly that mental trap.

Clearly if being non-union were any sort of magic bullet, at least ONE of the 10 non-unions states would by now be scoring in the top quartile.

Next up, I predict resurrection of "rankings and scores are meaningless" which is LOL-worthy from the very sort of people who often propose that unions should be swept aside, so we can base promotions and firings on measurable success metrics like...err...um... rankings and scores.

Georgia: 23% (see: http://www.ajc.com/news/states-high-school-graduation-98075.html )

In contrast, the dropout rate in union friendly New Hamshire is .97%. Yes, that is .97% (see: http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Dropout+rate+drops+below+1%25&articleId=54544be6-8f60-4015-92e8-b5834f4a4529 )

And in New Jersey, where the teacher's union has run public education into the ground according to Chris Christie, the HS dropout rate is an astounding 1.7%

See: http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2011/02/school_dropout_rates_examined.html

Found this funny chart of graduation rates by state:

Hmmmm......

Too hot/boring equals dropouts?

I don't know, klarek. The stats above seem to cast very serious doubt on the notion that teacher unionization is a significant factor in quality of education.

"In other words, poor states yield poor performing students."

I don't know about that klarek. Is New Hampshire a rich state? Under your theory, California and New York should have the best graduation rates and best schools in the country since they are the richest states. But they do not.

HousingWatcher says

Is New Hampshire a rich state? Under your theory, California and New York should have the best graduation rates and best schools in the country since they are the richest states. But they do not.

I'm obviously talking about per capita income.

MarkInSF says

The stats above seem to cast very serious doubt on the notion that teacher unionization is a significant factor in quality of education.

If bad doctors and lawyers were able to keep their jobs at the same rate that bad teachers were able to keep theirs, do you think that would improve their industries and aggregate performance?

klarek says

If bad doctors and lawyers were able to keep their jobs at the same rate that bad teachers were able to keep theirs, do you think that would improve their industries and aggregate performance?

So, in other words, forget all the statistics and numbers. Instead let's play a what if game. That is definitely more convincing.

tatupu70 says

So, in other words, forget all the statistics and numbers. Instead let’s play a what if game. That is definitely more convincing.

Not at all. In fact the point was that there's no stronger correlation between forced union membership and performance than there is of income and performance. The apparent statistical irrelevance aside, I was asking how a tenured system could improve the quality of education (while making the removal of underperforming teachers almost impossible). That's not a what-if, I just compared it to other professions where bad elements are more easily removed.

So, in other words, you want to forget all real-world comparisons?

klarek says

Not at all. In fact the point was that there’s no stronger correlation between forced union membership and performance than there is of income and performance. The apparent statistical irrelevance aside, I was asking how a tenured system could improve the quality of education (while making the removal of underperforming teachers almost impossible). That’s not a what-if, I just compared it to other professions where bad elements are more easily removed.
So, in other words, you want to forget all real-world comparisons?

Well, it's not quite that simple. Teachers aren't tenured immediately. They can still be fired for cause, even after getting tenured. If someone is a bad teacher, I would expect that they would be bad during their first two years and probably wouldn't get tenured.

Where it does screw things up is when layoffs are needed. The district can't lay off the teachers that it would like to--it has to lay off the least senior teachers.

Having said that--I do think Cook County resident is correct. The pay in Chicago area is ridiculous.

klarek says

If bad doctors and lawyers were able to keep their jobs at the same rate that bad teachers were able to keep theirs, do you think that would improve their industries and aggregate performance?

Your argument presupposes one is higher than the other. Which may not be the case.

How do we know the ratio of “bad teachers” versus “bad doctors and lawyers”? How do you measure “bad”? Bit of an apples and oranges problem there. For example I’d define “bad” in a lawyer as one who lost my case, you might pick some other metric. What’s a “bad teacher”, one who has poor GPA and reviews? My best teacher was a hardass that the faculty and students loathed, Mister Hand had nothing on this guy. But looking back he taught some needed lessons.

My current line of work is rife with bad programmers, sysadmin, and network guys who make bad decisions and frustrating mistakes. Despite being almost universally non-union and in an industry supposedly cutthroat about success some of these boobs have quite long careers, they even get made into managers. Dilbert is actually not that funny to me, seems too much like a workplace documentary.

tatupu70 says

Well, it’s not quite that simple. Teachers aren’t tenured immediately. They can still be fired for cause, even after getting tenured. If someone is a bad teacher, I would expect that they would be bad during their first two years and probably wouldn’t get tenured.

Tenure isn't immediate, but can only take a couple of years. It's not like the "bad" teachers don't know that they need to reach that milestone to be free and clear to slack off or not care. From there, fewer than 1 in 1000 tenured teachers are fired annually, usually following a very lengthy roundabout of appeals, etc. No other profession has such a high yield of low performance, let alone the latency involved in removing those elements.

tatupu70 says

Where it does screw things up is when layoffs are needed. The district can’t lay off the teachers that it would like to–it has to lay off the least senior teachers.

Agreed, it's completely unfair and financially inefficient. They have to lay off more non-senior teachers than they would senior ones. Teacher layoffs should never happen though. Demand isn't very volatile in their field. Problem is that the schools staffs can become very bloated very quickly. Again, roles created that are not easily removed because of unionization. It's a big clusterfuck.

tatupu70 says

Having said that–I do think Cook County resident is correct. The pay in Chicago area is ridiculous.

On a whole teachers are probably not overpaid, but certain case studies are jaw-dropping. Union effectiveness in raping taxpayers isn't consistent. Like real estate, it varies by location.

Vicente says

Your argument presupposes one is higher than the other. Which may not be the case.

My argument presupposes that other industries have a fair or unfair system where the people who cannot deliver or act in ways that are unethical or illegal are removed from the system (all lawyer jokes notwithstanding). Your argument presupposes that there's no such thing as a bad teacher since all measures of judging their performance are unfair.

Nothing of the sort. All systems have SOME means of achieving desired results.

Example, do we REALLY care that we have some bad soldiers? Generally speaking no, not as long as the units kill people and mostly blow up the shit they are supposed to. Is the primary military criteria 100% super-soldier, or is it "do what we tell you, and don't get filmed doing anything ugly"? Largely speaking Americans do NOT care if it costs a million dollars to blow up a few huts and oh yeah there's some "collateral damage", as long as the overall mission seems moving along. Yeah this guy's a chronic screwup and there was that "incident", but let's keep him on you know we need to fill the ranks..... What if I told you there were 30% "bad soldiers" by some metric, and 20% "bad teachers" by some other metric. Which one matters more?

The corporate world more closely resembles Dilbert than a cutthroat jungle. It is a myth that the right "bad people" are just naturally excised. Worked at Oracle, saw idiotic mistakes let pass. Have friends in banking software, and if you knew about the incompetence and mistakes that are let slide unless a customer protests, you would keep your money in jars buried in the yard.

Vicente says

What if I told you there were 30% “bad soldiers” by some metric, and 20% “bad teachers” by some other metric. Which one matters more?

A bad soldier is one that cannot perform his duty. They will either make his life miserable until he becomes functional/reliable, move him to a position more suited towards his deficiencies, or discharge him. A really bad soldier is one whose actions or inability to act put his fellow soldiers' lives in danger. Again, they are dealt with and don't hide behind a union's protection.

So your comparison doesn't mean anything since one side of the equation is virtually immune to punitive or corrective actions, like the child-molesting priest that gets sent to another parish after too many touchy incidents.

klarek says

Vicente says

What if I told you there were 30% “bad soldiers” by some metric, and 20% “bad teachers” by some other metric. Which one matters more?

A bad soldier is one that cannot perform his duty. They will either make his life miserable until he becomes functional/reliable, move him to a position more suited towards his deficiencies, or discharge him. A really bad soldier is one whose actions or inability to act put his fellow soldiers’ lives in danger. Again, they are dealt with and don’t hide behind a union’s protection.
So your comparison doesn’t mean anything since one side of the equation is virtually immune to punitive or corrective actions, like the child-molesting priest that gets sent to another parish after too many touchy incidents.

There's not as much difference as you think.

The military protects it's own unless they become dangerous or an embarrassment. A recruit who fails boot camp is not immediately release as UNSUITABLE NEXT they are sent back until they pass. Well unless you are caught being gay and then efficiency doesn't matter you are fired. By the military example we should make extreme effort at keeping teacher training updated, at identify weak ones and scheduling extra attention to fix their problems, not immediately fire them.

One of my old friends Paul spent most of his career as a drill sergeant and a surprising amount of his memories seem to revolve around all the troops he had to spend extra attention on working around their deficiencies and helping them become effective enough to pass. The military from his perspective was decidedly not "you either are Sgt. Rock or you're out".

Vicente says

By the military example we should make extreme effort at keeping teacher training updated, at identify weak ones and scheduling extra attention to fix their problems, not immediately fire them.

No, the military discharges people all the time.

So what's the military discharge rate for "bad soldiers"? Curious how to ferret that out. Not medical or "enlistment over" but the ones who've at least made it through one enlistment and later get booted as non-performing losers.

The typist is over-paid and her raises were huge. Her attitude is typical of government employees, not just union employees. Everyone knows it's a gravy train. I live in California and know whereof I speak.

"No, the military discharges people all the time."

Yeah, for being GAY! Except for being gay or committing a war crime, it is quite difficult to get dishonorably discharged. I know someone who was in the Navy and got dead drunk. He got written up, but he certainly did not get discharged over it.

Vicente says

Found this funny chart of graduation rates by state:

Hmmmm……
Too hot/boring equals dropouts?
“Eagles are dandified vultures” - Teddy Roosevelt

Nice chart.

I still believe that a student's success in school depends more on his own motivation and background, rather than how much the teacher is paid and how easy it is to fire that teacher.

Soooo.....

My first guess it the northern states have better economic and social support systems for low income families.

Vicente says

klarek says

By supporting teachers’ unions, you’re putting yourself on the side of the debate opposite from the interests of the taxpayers and the children.

Bzzzt. I’m on the side of the children (my rugrat) and the teachers. I am also a taxpayer so I’m on that side too.
Why do so many “right to work” states with no collective bargaining, score very poorly?
Why do many countries with strong teacher unions, seem to do better than the USA?
As even Michelle Ree said recently, it’s plain to see that it’s not the unions that are the problem with American education.
“Eagles are dandified vultures” - Teddy Roosevelt

Its poor parenting and poor teachers....in that order.

kimboslice says

The typist is over-paid and her raises were huge. Her attitude is typical of government employees, not just union employees. Everyone knows it’s a gravy train. I live in California and know whereof I speak.

Exactly slice!!!!

Cook County resident says

Nice chart.
I still believe that a student’s success in school depends more on his own motivation and background, rather than how much the teacher is paid and how easy it is to fire that teacher.

If a students parents teach them to be a thug then they grow to be a thug, if the parents reinforce the importance of educaiton through active participation in their childs life then they take on these same traits while in school

Students are taking their personal cultures into the classroom which is why the USA has such a hard time with education due to the multi-cultural influence we have here. If you go to China, Spain, or Japan it is pretty much one culture which creates an environment where you focus on one single type of student.

Here in the USA we have students that latch on to the stupidity of many cultures:

Thugs
Non-English Speakers
Hip Hop
Trailer Park
KKK

In addition to the culture we have to deal with high levels of mental illness that lower scores as well.