From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:08:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.072134@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>>However, it is necessary to take their [teacher's unions] arguments with 
>>a grain of salt,
>>because of their vested interest...

>Nonsense.  Why should their arguments have *less* value when they have
>*more* knowledge of the subject than most of the rest of us?

Because they have a vested interest in the public schools.

>It is necessary to examine their arguments, to see whether they are based
>on sound reasoning.

Unfortunately, unless you are an expert in education (and sometimes even
then), a completely incorrect line of reasoning may _seem_ sound.
Unless you think the voters should have no say in the matter, and leave
the subject to "experts", I don't think this method will work.

>>...(just as, for example, a policemen's
>>union's views on civilian police review boards need to be taken with
>>a grain of salt.)

>Yeah, why should it matter to whom, and how, the police are accountable?
>Who are they to have a say in how their jobs are controlled.  (For the
>record, I think civilian review boards are overdue, esp. in places like
>Denver.  But it's not something to be set up without listening carefully to
>the police.)

>It's really a slap in the face to say "you're involved in this issue, so
>we're not going to listen to you."

I never said you should ignore their views altogether. Just that they
should be taken with a grain of salt (e.g. giving their opinions on
the subject slightly less weight, because of their biases, in the
same way you would give their opinions slightly more weight because of
their greater familiarity with the subject.)

>>However, the teachers in question are (for the most part) currently
>>employed by the public schools, and might not _want_ to shift to 
>>private schools. Further, they might not be _able_ to: Teacher's
>>unions have historically been strong opponents of merit-based pay
>>increases...

>It's not clear what they'd stand to lose, if private schools are so much
>better than public schools.  And if the union won't represent them in
>private schools, so what?

Private schools are (apparently) much better for educating the students.
This doesn't imply it is a better place for the teachers to work (or,
for that matter, a better place for the students to socialize.)

In fact, private schools make much stronger demands on a teacher's
competency than public schools, and it isn't clear that many
(possibly most) of the teachers in public schools _could_ simply
transfer to work in private schools.

>Frank, you stopped just short of an important concern:  How do the state-
>ments of a teachers' union relate to what the teachers themselves feel?
>After all, some unions are notorious for having their own political agendas
>which have little to do with benefitting their members.  Is this a problem
>with the teachers' union?

I have no information on this subject. However, professional "educators"
(as opposed to teachers) generally have the sort of political biases that
would make them opposed to vouchers (e.g. for reasons other than the 
quality of education), and I suspect such persons are quite influential
in teacher's unions.

>I'd expect that most teachers are fairly concerned with
>doing The Right Thing, simply because there aren't a lot of good reasons to
>take a (public school) teaching job if you don't really believe in what
>you're doing.

Such teachers are, unfortunately, a minority. The reasons for teaching in
public schools are often the same as for working for any other government
agency: Job security, institutional acceptance of mediocracy, etc...
The fact that working conditions and pay is much worse in public
schools than in private ones, certainly imples _some_ reason for a 
teacher working in a public school. But more often than not, this is
because the teacher good enough for a private school to hire, not because
of noble goals.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics