On Unions:

I've been hearing a lot of anti-union talk in the past few weeks; specifically teacher unions. I expect this stuff from people I already know are Conservative, and from FOX News, Bill O' Reilly and Glen Beck. It's disheartening to hear if from people who I used to think we more open-minded than to blindly accept what popular media opinion is.

The big issues people seem to have with unions are that they are so strong that bad teachers never get fired, and that everything is determined by how long you've had your job. There is support for teachers who have taught for many years, and unions do grant protection to employees, but almost any teacher will tell you unions are not as bullet-proof as the public would like to believe.

Yes, there are probably some bad teachers who stick around because of tenure, but why is that all the fault of unions? I personally know teachers who are bad at their jobs. Did a union hire them? Did a union grant them tenure? No, to both questions.

Why are we never placing blame on administration? Administrators are responsible for hiring and firing (or forcing out) teachers, and they can beat union support in removing teachers.

Can administration get past seniority? Yes. They can pink-slip every teacher and then choose who to hire back the following year. It's happening in Rhode Island as we speak, and it will likely happen in Wisconsin soon.

Should administrators have to take this much interest in hiring and firing? Yes.

Do many administrators turn a blind-eye and claim that the unions are too strong to remove teachers? Absolutely!

Why, again, is it the unions fault for bad teachers to continue to teach? Anyone can get fired. In Any industry.
Any teacher can get fired/forced-out. Any teacher...

Are teacher unions self-serving? Yes, if only because teachers unions work to stay alive, to keep quality teachers in the classroom. I can't stand when a co-worker makes me look bad. It's a universal feeling that I'm sure even corporate executives and Wall Street brokers have: That guy is making us all look bad.

It is not advantageous for unions to protect or support bad teachers, but neither is it to let teachers fend for themselves without collectively bargaining. Look at North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia and Texas. No union bargaining=poor student performance. Do we really think we'll get good teachers when there is low pay, no benefits and no promise for a living wage increase?

Charter schools survive on paying this way (union-free) and the attrition rate is much higher than public schools. (KIPP Charter schools are revered as some of the best in the country. Their teachers last an average of three years, then move into different careers. Their teacher core is also mostly "Americorps" or "Teach For America" students who usually do not have teaching licenses.) Is this what we want our education model to be? Get your feet wet in the teaching world, burn out after three years and move to a better paying career? Not me. I would like my children to be taught by people who choose to spend their lives teaching, rather than someone who hasn't even learned how to manage a classroom by the time they leave the industry.

Unions do matter. Unions do give us better teachers. Unions are not the enemy.

(the image is my 8th Grade Phys. Ed. teacher/Education Minnesota President; Tom Dooher)