Teachers’ unions like to drape themselves with the mantle of protectors of childrens’ interests, but quite the opposite is true. The unions seek to divert scarce education funding from the children themselves to unionized teachers and their unions’ administration.
The unions attempt to defend their actions by claiming that their interests and the interests of the children are one and the same, that better salary and benefits for teachers means better teachers and smaller class sizes. Again, quite the opposite is true. Better salaries, obtained by unions, do not attract better teachers. They might, but the unions’ primary role, other than collective bargaining, is gate-keeping. They keep new teachers out of the system to protect those who are already in the union. A talented, energetic young teacher has to work very hard and/or be very lucky (or well-connected) to get a position. And once in the system, that teacher has to resist the incentives to slack off in a system that does very little to encourage performance.
That’s theory. Now, a study by the Associated Press reportedly confirms it:
The AP discovered school systems without teachers’ collective bargaining rights performed slightly better than those with negotiated contracts. Thirty-eight school districts don’t have collective bargaining rights, and the AP found those systems averaged a higher percentage of students who earned proficient or advanced scores.
Unfortunately, that’s all the article says. Hopefully we’ll hear more about this study in the future.
(Via Instapundit.)
Internet Scofflaw 