A definite difference
Diane Ravitch, Fordham board member and peerless education commenter, writes:
I find myself getting really annoyed when people rage against the teachers’ unions, because they are the organized voice of most of the people who work in schools. The same people who vilify the teachers’ unions never complain about the influence of businesses or foundations, both of which try to steer the public schools by the power of the purse.
It all comes down to whether schools should serve adults or children. Business interests are aligned with producing schools that serve children—they want well-educated students who will eventually become well-educated workers. (It’s true, though, that business-minded school reformers sometimes forget about the importance of curriculum and instruction.) On the other hand, the interests of teachers’ unions directly compete in oh-so-many obvious ways with the interests of students. Furthermore, unions may technically be “the organized voices of most of the people who work in schools,” but they hardly represent the interests of all teachers—especially disadvantaged by union policies are young teachers and good teachers.
What business mostly wants: results-based education, standards, accountability, innovative management, choice, educational markets. What unions mostly want: more money, more teachers (smaller classes), less testing, less focus on educational outcomes. Oversimplification? Slightly (it is a blog post, after all). But mostly true.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I think we need to be careful about painting with such a broad brush. Business interests can also care about siphoning off public dollars for personal or shareholder gain. Do I assume that’s what motivates people in the private sector with an interest in education? No. But neither do I assume that unions do not want schools that serve children.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
And don’t forget that for teachers, the union often represents the only defense that they have against unreasonable administrators and principals, and sometimes even parents and abusive students. As the husband of a teacher, there have been two or three instances in my wife’s career where the union was her saving grace.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:20 am
First - grouping “the unions” into one lump does not work. ABCTE worked very closely with the Missouri State Teachers Association and meet regularly with AFT to get input as we move our education reform effort forward. Only the NEA will not work or meet with us.
Second - I do not fault any union for trying to get more for their members. That is why they exist. What I get annoyed with is that they try to portray their work as helping education - even when getting more for their members directly works against a better education students.
If they would stick to getting better working conditions - and much safer conditions - for teachers, higher pay and benefits I think people would respect them more and support their efforts in many ways.