In response to:

Revealed: The Newest, Secret Tactic by the American Federation of Teachers to Get You to Cough Up More Cash

mcarlson96 Wrote: Sep 23, 2012 9:57 AM
The thing we need to realize is hat schools are too large. If there is a large school district you need a union to represent the teachers. If there were hundreds (perhaps thousands) of school districts in Chicago, then each school could be run by parental participation, not get lost in the Bureaucracy. If the many small districts competed for teachers with wages and benefits, then there would be no need for a union as each person becomes a contractor to a small unit. It is time to bust the large school districts up. Let each school vote and let each parents control ones own child's education. If people can vote with their feet individuals get the best, or worst depending on each person's own preferences.
wiseone Wrote: Sep 23, 2012 10:57 AM
Disagree completely. Teachers aren't unionized because there are so many of them. They are unionized because it's the only way they can be paid more than their true economic worth; by creating a false monopoly on the labor of education.

Anyone who has earned a passing grade in Economic 101 knows that the true economic value of any competent employee is equal to what it will cost to replace him if he leaves. In the case of teaching there has been an abundance of teachers since WWII because so many college students who couldn't cut it in more competitive fields changed their majors to education. This was exacerbated in the 60s when Education majors were the last students who were able to obtain Draft deferments.
wiseone Wrote: Sep 23, 2012 11:02 AM
Teachers only 'need' a union because what they do is NOT that difficult and there are way more people who are qualified to do it than there are jobs available.

This last is also why the NEA and the AFT strive to make it more difficult to get a teaching job by adding 'paper' qualifications to the requirements; requirements that can be waived with remarkable ease when the right union member 'needs' a job.
Drifter33 Wrote: Sep 23, 2012 11:19 AM
The education "industry" deals in a form of currency not used in general society. (I use quotations because I'm hard-pressed to identify another labor segment with less of a sense of "industry" than education...).

That currency is the "college degree". The more you have of those, the more you are "worth" to the broken system. Degrees are to be collected like baseball cards--and it seems that an "educator" (that's what they call themselves) never has enough of them.

Talent matters not. Degrees matter a great deal. The "standards" of employment require degrees--not talent, or even know-how. If you have the "right" degree, you're employable.

When it takes a Master's Degree to teach a 3rd grader, we have a problem.
wiseone Wrote: Sep 23, 2012 11:31 AM
It takes a doctoral degree to be an elementary school principal.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Sep 23, 2012 10:08 AM
Interesting idea. Only, there does not exist a "need" for a union under any circumstances. The market can determine pay for teachers just as it does for any other profession. Even if the school system were a countrywide monopoly, it could not pay less than the market rate for teachers or there would simply not be enough teachers available to do the job. This is how the market for labor has always worked - and there's no question it does - in the real world.

Kevlar wrote: Lots of us owe our love of numbers to our Public School Education.

40 percent is the drop-out rate for Chicago Public School Children

40 percent is how many Chicago Public School Teachers won’t send their kids to any public school…not even in Suburbia

40 percent of Chicago Public School 8th Graders rated “basic” and 36 percent rated “below basic” so nearly 80% were not proficient in reading

40 thousand dollars – average household income of Chicago Tax Payers ----- well over 100 thousand is the average household income of Chicago Public School Teachers


Related Tags: Teachers