 |
||||||||
|
12/21/2002 04:03:00 PM | Brad Plumer More on teacher strikes Worth repeating: in principle I agree with the right of workers to organize. I have no nostalgia for the days of turning Gatling Guns at strikers. Nor do I think teachers are evil for desiring better wages. And, believe it or not, I actually don't run a factory in Indonesia forcing 7 year old girls to make Nike Shoes for 25 cents a day. Strange but true. Anyways... it would be interesting to look at how unions have effected the quality of teaching. Do states with anti-strike laws produce better teachers? And if they do (or don't), does that mean anything? It seems to me that unions work primarily to the benefit of unskilled labor, precisely because those workers are so replaceable, and thus get bounced off the supply-demand curve real quickly. So why do teachers need to strike? Because their market value stinks? This is partly why I support privatizing education, at least in theory. Competition among schools (assuming it takes place) will raise the demand for teachers. A quality teacher is a highly skilled worker, and if schools are fighting for "customers", they'll pay far more for effective teachers. Schools don't compete right now, and have no real incentive to do everything in their power to seek out the best teachers around. So in theory, the good teachers make what they're worth, and the bad teachers get fired. In theory teachers don't need unions any more than consultants do. Obviously in practice privatizing education probably has major problems. Can this country produce enough good teachers to fill every school, or will the flow of teachers eventually create major imbalances among schools? Are skilled teachers the best solution to improving education, or do relatively simpler measures like reducing class size have more effect? If a school is run like a business, can we trust it to value quality teaching, or will we see a move towards emphasis on standardized testing, thus pushing teachers down into the "unskilled labor" end of the spectrum? Perhaps someone who's done the research (like Kumar) can weigh in on this... if he ever decides to show his face around here. :) perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.