A Union Problem
Megan McArdle gets at a very important reason why teachers unions are, from a libertarian perspective, especially perfidious, or for from a liberal perspective, uniquely perfidious. It’s because they’ve become the primary advocate on behalf of “schools.” But “schools” – or the education establishment – don’t need someone advocating for them, kids do:
So the schools have a gigantic, powerful bargaining bloc. Who doesn’t have a bargaining bloc? The kids.
Of course, the customers of corporations don’t bargain with unions either–but they have the right of exit, which is what prevents the unions (or their corporate bosses) from turning them upside down and shaking them until the last nickel falls out of their pockets. Unsurprisingly, the schools in this country that function worst are the ones where the kids have no realistic ability to exit. So for whom are those schools run? The teacher’s unions, the principal’s unions, the janitor’s unions, the friends and relations of people with seats on the school board. The children have the least powerful voice. Which is why, as far as I can tell, every single thing that is proposed by any of these groups “for the children” has the primary side effect of employing more teachers/janitors/principals, paying same more, or making their jobs more pleasant.
Look, we’re not going to be able to eliminate the teachers unions. They are too important to the Democratic party at the state and local levels. So what we need is some sort of reformist counterweight to union power. Unlike a typical situation with a corporation, where management and labor are necessarily at loggerheads and customers can always buy products from someone else, kids are basically locked in the public school system. And I don’t expect teachers unions to advocate on behalf of kids, but then someone has to.
Clearly, education wonks can’t make up the numbers necessary to push unions and local governments on reform in urban areas. Sometimes, like in DC and New York, ambitious government officials can advocate on behalf of the kids, but that’s hardly an entrenched, constantly-pushing-for reform interest group. So I guess the best hope would be mobilizing black voters against the unions. This would be difficult, because schools are pretty big employers of people living in cities, but if Adrian Fenty and Michelle Rhee can just hammer home the message that the unions are intrinsically opposed to good education for their kids, then maybe there can finally be a block that’s constantly advocating for the kids.
This message was easier to promote in the late 60s, when there actually was a huge clash between black parents and mostly white teachers unions. That was, of course, the infamous Ocean Hill – Brownsville strike, which centered on whether there should be “local control” of schools or not. It famously pit the unions vs the locals, and has since been seen (probably incorrectly) as a seminal moment in American liberalism. Today, the conflict really ought not be about “local control” (which is really just a conservative ploy to prevent meaningful education reform), but it would be nice if unions could feel constant heat from parents. Countervailing power is supposed to be good, right?
One of the reasons schools in wealthy areas are so good is because the parents are tireless advocates for making them better. Where I grew up, Piedmont, not only are the parents personally involved in their children’s education, but the quality of the schools is basically the only civic issue that anyone cares about. For more on the weirdness of Piedmont public schools, check out this nicely detailed Quick and the Ed post.
