Subscribe to our Blog
It’s for the good of the unions
I am currently reading a very interesting book, The Problem of Union Power, and I will be reviewing it soon, but I thought I would share with you an interesting section (pp. 21-22) on why the teachers’ unions pretend that their activities are for the good of the kids - when that it patently false. If you doubt this, consider for a moment the unions’ determination to keep bad teachers in the classroom. The author is a Stanford professor of political science who specializes in political institutions.
“In the grander scheme of things, it should hardly come as a surprise that union leaders are special interest advocates and that the teachers unions are special interest organizations. The same is true of all unions. And in the private sector, the unions themselves are quite transparent about it. What’s to hide? The United Auto Workers pushes hard to secure good wages and benefits for employees on the auto assembly lines, and it doesn’t pretend to be concerned, first and foremost, with the welfare of the millions of consumers who buy cars. The Retail Clerks Union is concerned about the wages, benefits, and job protections of supermarket cashiers, not about the welfare of the consumers who buy food. Unions are special interest advocates. They know it, and everybody knows it.
“The teachers’ unions, however, are in the public sector. And in the public sector the rules of the game are different than in the private sector. The unions still have incentives to be special interest advocates for their members. But as organizations of employees who work for government, they are heavily dependent on the political process and thus on gaining democratic support for what they do and want. So to behave wisely in this institutional setting, they have incentives to convince the voting public that they are not self-interested, but in fact are fundamentally concerned about children and quality education - and that whatever they do to promote their own interests is actually good for children and schools too.
“In the realm of politics, this camouflaging of special interests is quite normal. The teachers unions have incentives to do it. But so do all political interest groups, whether their interests are in guns or pharmaceuticals or telecommunications or agriculture. The drill is a familiar one: they all claim that the policies they favor are in the public interest, and they all routinely provide arguments (backed by cherry-picked evidence) about how ordinary Americans will be better off as a result. This is simply how the game of politics is played. The reality is that these arguments often have little or no bearing on why they take the policy positions they do. They know where they stand from the outset, because their stands are dictated by their interests. The arguments they make are simply tools for achieving those interests, and are chosen to try to convince other people to take the same stands. By and large, they often say anything that works. So as any sophisticated observer knows, it is best not to take what interest group leaders say at face value. To understand politics, we need to focus on what these groups do. And the way to explain what they do is to pay close attention to their interests.
“All of this applies across the board to the teachers unions. When they argue, for example, that charter schools should be opposed because of their poor academic performance, they may or not be saying something accurate about the actual performance of charter schools. The more important fact is that this is not why they oppose charter schools in the first place. They oppose them because charters give kids alternatives to the regular public schools - allowing them to leave and threatening the jobs of unionized teachers. In the democratic arena, it obviously wouldn’t go over well for them to simply say that. So their challenge, for this educational issue and all others, is to look around for arguments - any arguments - that might convince voters and potential allies to support their predetermined position. The themes, accordingly, are all about what’s good for children and schools. Their special interests are carefully hidden inside a public interest package. That’s how the game is played.”
The themes, accordingly, are all about what’s good for children and schools. Their special interests are carefully hidden inside a public interest package. That’s how the game is played.”
One sees it especially in special education, and how the the teachers’ union brass states that SE is of a special concern for them to the public, when in reality, SE concerns and the advancements being made in cognitive and learning science, threatens the status-quo of teaching training in the teachers’ colleges, the certification process, and pedagogy. Not a thing any teacher union leader would state to the public, so their self-serving interests are carefully hidden within the material that is presented to the public.
Such as the 2011 Election Agenda for EFTO.
“More Resources for Special Needs Students –
Expand opportunities for all students to reach their learning and development potential by providing greater support for students with identified special needs and students who are English language learners.”
http://www.etfo.ca/Publications/PositionPapers/Documents/Building Better Schools - An Education Agenda for the 2011 Provincial Election.pdf
The statement is smoothing to parents’ ears, and puts the parents at ease that the union would like to see more support for SE children. What is hidden behind this type of statement, is to prevent educational supports that threatens to put in question the current knowledge, training, and pedagogy in reading, writing and numeracy of teachers,
On page 16 of the above link, the statement is made on the type of supports: “To support teachers to successfully integrate special needs students into regular classrooms, it is important to provide additional professional support. There must be greater access at the school level to educational assistants, counsellors, and child and youth workers.”
This is the common response of teachers’ unions, and neatly bypasses and ignores the teaching methodology, instruction, curriculum of the SE students, in relationship to the core fundamentals of reading,writing and numeracy.
It plays out in different ways in the IEP meetings, parent-teacher interviews, to informal conversations between educators and parents. It is how the union messages, and other parts of the education system, reinforces the messages, values, goals and agenda to have parents/children to serve their best interests, and to act against their own best interests.
About 5 years ago, I ran into a series of articles written by parents who were lawyers, that more or less telling parents that we have to learn to play the game or the dance of the public education system, and how to effectively stopped the dance of the public education system in its tracks. It is done using the many strategies and methods of lawyers. Much like the book called, The Problem of Union Power is calling for, “So as any sophisticated observer knows, it is best not to take what interest group leaders say at face value. To understand politics, we need to focus on what these groups do. And the way to explain what they do is to pay close attention to their interests.”
It would be of interest to hear what strategies and methods are suggested to combat union power, especially public sector unions. The series of articles that I read 5 years ago, I adopted many of the same strategies and methods, that led to more successful outcomes in terms of goals of having the school to addressed the reading, writing, and numeracy of my child. Or at the very least, a stalemate as in chess.