Score another point for my native land, Canada. A recent NYT article cites a study soon to be published in The New York University Law Review where its authors coded and analyzed the provisions of 729 constitutions adopted by 188 countries from 1946 to 2006, and they considered 237 variables regarding various rights and ways to enforce them.
From the article:
The new study also suggests that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart.
The Canadian Charter is both more expansive and less absolute. It guarantees equal rights for women and disabled people, allows affirmative action and requires that those arrested be informed of their rights. On the other hand, it balances those rights against “such reasonable limits” as “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Canada has long been in the shadow of its big American brother and has long deserved its moment in the sun. I’m glad the country is finally getting it. As someone who has experienced life in a number of cities across both Canada and the U.S. over the past 15 years, there are a number of benefits to Canada that you simply can’t find in the U.S., and they should be recognized. In a lot of ways, Canada has done well.
This doesn’t mean, however, that Canadians should start gloating while America is down. I’ve always viewed the two countries as partners in a global economy. Canada does the heavy lifting in some areas, America does it in others. Much of what America has wouldn’t exist without Canada, and vice versa.
I see this time as one where Canada and America can enjoy a new, more respective partnership where both countries gain from each others’ experience. Canada needs to loosen the government grip in a lot of areas, whereas America needs to tighten it. For instance:
Banking: Canadian banks should be adopting some American policies around small business and return lending decisions back to bank managers. They should be more incentivized through a free market, like American banks are, to give second chances to the poor, the struggling, and entrepreneurs in their community. The Canadian financial system fails miserably in this area which causes it to both lose talent to the U.S. and stifle growth. Of course on the other hand, the U.S. financial sector could learn a thing or two from Canada about lending reserves and regulatory partnerships between government and the banking industry.
Health care: both countries both need to adopt more of the other country’s style of health care into their system, and stop worrying about “looking” like the other country. It’s not about appearances, it’s about people and their health. America’s got a great system in a lot of ways (ex: 3x more MRI’s per capita), Canada in other ways. The “best” system is found between the two.
Gun control: I’m a firm believer that a sane, law-abiding person should have the right to own a firearm, and defend themselves with one. I have yet to see the argument, however, as to why I need a bazooka or a 30-round automatic rifle to do so. The only arguments I’ve really heard on this point are “slippery slope” arguments, but I think it’s an illegitimate one. Canada, on the one hand, needs to loosen up and not give criminals more freedom than law-abiding citizens when it comes to firearms. America, on the other hand, needs to really look at why someone needs to walk down an Arizona sidewalk with an AR-15.
Education: This goes into another rant, but suffice it to say that America was supposed to have an education system second to none. It doesn’t. In fact, overall it’s probably 30 or 40th down the list where Canada’s is 7th or 8th (consider PISA Math and Science scores). If you watch documentaries like “The Cartel” and “Waiting for Superman” you see why this is true, and more importantly, why this has happened. Two words: Teacher’s Unions.
Canadian public schools, by and large, are excellent. PISA math and science scores are just one metric, but let’s look at another metric which doesn’t seemed to get measured, which is safety – especially in more impoverished areas. I’d like to find a study that shows how many Canadian vs. American schools have metal detectors in them.
I’m sure Canada’s standing in terms of education can be attributed in part to the taxes it collects. I also think it has to do with Canada’s relationship with the teacher’s unions, and the power that the unions are allowed to wield in the interest of their members vs. the kids.
Bottom line for me is this:
1) I’m glad Canada is continuing to get its moment in the sun, as I’ve said before. It’s a great place to live, work, and invest, and many Americans would benefit by learning (or better yet, experiencing) how things are truly done up north.
2) I’ve always appreciated America – and always will – for the degree to which it grants freedom. Unlike any other country (including Canada), America puts the highest degree of faith in individuals and their ability to choose. It grants people the most freedom by granting them the most responsibility, and with that, grants people from all countries the greatest opportunity to make the most of their lives compared to any other country in the world. This is why I have been proud to call it “home” in many respects.
3) Where America has screwed up, I believe, is in assuming that everyone was deserving of that freedom. Let’s face fact – there’s people who don’t deserve it because they deliberately cause harm to others, and there’s people who don’t deserve it because they deliberately cause harm to themselves (like with Stated Income Declared Value Mortgages).
Education of the masses is what makes the difference here. Freedom only leads to great things when its powered by an enlightened and progressive mind, not an ignorant and regressive one. In that respect, I think both Canada and the U.S. need to get better on educating each other regarding the strengths of both our systems if either country has any hope of competing with other countries over the next 20 years.
I’m not sure why they consider the US constitution “less expansive”. The Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution protects unenumerated rights. When the the US Bill of Rights was first proposed, some people were against it because they thought that the enumeration (listing) of certain rights would mean that rights not listed would be up for elimination by the government. The US founding fathers explicitly recognized that they couldn’t possibly list all rights people had, and hence proposed and passed the Ninth Amendment specifically to ensure that unenumerated rights were just as protected as enumerated rights.
Here are some enumerated rights:
The right to retain US citizenship until you renounce it; the right to vote subject to limits to ensure equal weight with other voters and to prevent fraud; the right to free association; the right to a presumption of innocence; the right to homeschool your own children or send them to private school (subject to minimum standards); the right to convicted on the grounds of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the right to equal protection from both states and the federal government; the right to travel and within the US; the right to privacy; the right to control your own reproduction; the right to marry a consenting adult; and lots of others rights (I can provide a list of court cases covering the rights I mentioned, if you like).
None of the above rights are mentioned anywhere in the constitution. And yet most of those rights are enjoyed by those in the US and are completely uncontroversial. The only are (and you probably saw this coming) are the final three I explicitly mentioned. Those cover hot-button issues like same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, and sexual liberty. Several socon wingnut types (such as the blog of a frequent commenter here) say (something like) “there is no right to same-sex marriage in the constitution”. Such people who rail against judges “inventing” a right not listed in the constitution are hopelessly incoherent and completely full of shit unless they also rail against every other unenumerated right (like those I listed). One cannot arbitrarily reject one unenumerated right but accept (or even hypocritically take advantage of) other ones. One must reject all unenumerated rights. Such a person would have appalling beliefs but at least they’d be consistent and coherent. Similarly, one cannot rail against “peunumbral reasoning” concerning sex, while at the same time not railing against the penumbral reasoning that (for example) allows you to send your kids to private school.
Several of the works of the legal scholar Randy Barnett make the same point about the Ninth Amendment, as does part of his book, Restoring the Lost Constitution. It’s part of what he terms “a presumption of liberty”.
BTW, Section 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms serves the same purpose regarding unenumerated rights.
And speaking of education, what do you think of the situation in Finland? It education index (a component of HDI) is one of the highest in the world. I’m not fully aware of the details, but If I remember correctly, one requires a masters to be able to teach, and there are no private schools.
Actually, I was wrong about part of Finland. I’ve just become aware there are private schools there, though they can’t charge tuition and must follow the same standards and rules as public schools there. Therefore, I stand corrected on that part.
And that should be “Here are some unenumerated rights:” in the second paragraph of my first comment.
Hi Rob – I apologize for the late reply. Usually I get a “heads up” from WordPress that a comment’s been posted and I didn’t on yours.
Re: Finland, I had kept hearing that it was ranked tops but hadn’t drilled down much into it. Amongst the many resources and articles on the web, I found these two stood out:
http://bertmaes.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/why-is-education-in-finland-that-good-10-reform-principles-behind-the-success/
http://titleonederland.blogs.thompson.com/2011/10/06/all-hail-finland/
A lot of directions we can go with this topic. At the risk of sounding super-simplistic, I’d offer one thing I think needs to be “removed” from the American education system is the narcissism it promotes as a reflection of the popular and ‘pc” culture (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-12-20/narcissism-self-esteem-innovation/52121940/1). I know of this personally as I work in educational outreach programs where people won’t get taught by others from within their same community because of the “pecking order”. Or, they won’t take education from someone who looks like they work for “The Man”. Sounds ridiculous but totally true.
The thing I think should be added is a greater link to entrepreneurship and innovation than appears to exist today, as Kingsland talks about in his article. In short, I think America is great because it is America – a country and culture all on its own, so I believe it should assimilate rather than adopt any other country’s solution in almost every respect.
As for the Constitution, not sure if you’re offering debate points there or educational ones? I’m learning more and more about the philosophical and ideological origins of America as I go. To your point, I’m not sure why they consider it “less expansive” either, especially with what you offer to support your point.
I guess more to my own point is that the Founding Fathers were so brilliant compared to the quality of legislator that we seem to have today. It struck me that perhaps they had more faith in the direction of the culture of their newfound world than many of its citizens would later deserve.
The links on Finland are interesting. Thank you.
Speaking of self-esteem, I read somewhere (sorry, I don’t remember where) that when someone’s self-esteem is artificially inflated and then comes, so to speak, crashing down, they are more likely to bully others, apparently to make themselves feel better. Hence, ending (or at least cutting back) on the lifting up of self-esteem would decrease bullying, and improve education this way too.
There’s a few good references on that. I’m reading “The Narcissism Epidemic” right now which isn’t a well-written book in my opinion, but informative nonetheless. Touches on both education and society as a whole.
As well, there’s a great TED talk on “choices” that I’ll try and find for you if you haven’t seen it already. Can’t think of the title of it off the top of my head. Finland links – you’re welcome.
Two words: Teacher’s Unions.
Two words: False Consciousness.
A neat example of the promotion of FC during the superbowl.
You’re trying to dilute the argument. I don’t care if there’s 50 anti-union commercials during a Superbowl – protesting any anti-union position is another matter.
The comment I made was regarding education, and your point has nothing to do with the “rubber rooms”, the lack of firing of bad teachers, and the poor overall scores that these US schools have. There are better ways through charter schools and who’s doing the most to block them? Teacher’s Unions. Who’s doing the most against merit pay? Teacher’s Unions. Both documentaries have done a great job of debunking the Unions’ objections to these progressive methods that have been praised by everyone BUT unions – wonder why. Have you even watched the documentaries? Even Obama’s going after them for their protectionism, hypocrisy, and stupidity.
Now in fairness, State Education Boards are as much of a problem. 50 administrative positions assigned when only 10 are needed, that sort of thing, but I suppose here we could enter in your blanket defense of all things government. I appreciate the comment, but what are you really trying to say?
the lack of firing of bad teachers, and the poor overall scores that these US schools have.
No, nothing to do with socioeconomic conditions at all, let us place this all squarely on those darn teachers.
I propose that we also have a lack of firing of irresponsible CEO’s and corporate mangers who managed to destroy and pillage a good deal of the American economy. And these people are the ones who have come through the trials and rigours of the “free-market” and emerged as leaders.
This is a thought experiment, but lets not get to far ahead of ourselves with the whole ‘if only we could fire the bad teachers’ trope. Bad teachers happen whether there are unions or not. Incompetence is not the sole domain of the unionized worker, as much as sometimes you make that out to be.
There are better ways through charter schools and who’s doing the most to block them? Teacher’s Unions. Who’s doing the most against merit pay? Teacher’s Unions.
So did you want a public or private educational system? Good education for the wealthy and shite for the rest. Charter schools are the doorway to that particular scenario.
Merit pay, based on what evaluation? Kids who pass? Kids who get good scores on standardized exams? So how much pay do teachers get in schools located in disadvantaged areas? A sliding scale of some sort? How would one determine what is adequate compensation never mind meritorious performance, based on what metric?
The issue of Merit pay for teachers is a complex one that cannot be superficially labelled ‘a good idea’ and haphazardly applied. There are many nuances and exceptions that might make the idea a bad one for education as whole, as mentioned above.
You’re trying to dilute the argument.
I’m trying to widen the perspective and get across the idea that many people have vested interest in destroying unions in general and that is bad for workers and people. Evenutally it translates into that is bad for business as unions are an important part of most productive economies.
“No, nothing to do with socioeconomic conditions at all, let us place this all squarely on those darn teachers.
Nowhere did I say that – you’re just cherry-picking to try and fit your view.
I’m placing a lot of the blame on the mindset and practices of the American Teachers Unions (i.e. not the teachers themselves) and they rightly deserve it. Of course there are other factors, one of which being the socioeconomic one as you mention. Here’s the thing, though – Johnny needs a good teacher and good school TODAY, not 5, 10, 50 years from now once the 100 year crusade of “end poverty” brings about a 1% incremental result. From the perspective of immediate, measurable results – in this case, students’ marks – pulling out the weeds (which the unions actively and purposely prevent) is a far more effective real-time strategy to improving the quality of teachers than waiting around 100 years for poverty conditions to change.
“I propose that we also have a lack of firing of irresponsible CEO’s and corporate mangers who managed to destroy and pillage a good deal of the American economy.”
I agree, however the same kind of nepotism and favoritism plagues many of the top Fortune 500 as it does the federal and state bureaucracies of the education system and the large unions which a truly “free(er) market” would correct. At least in the “free” market, however, bad employees can get fired. How do you propose bad teachers get fired other than how they’re fired now, or are you saying that it’s perfectly fine?
“And these people are the ones who have come through the trials and rigours of the “free-market” and emerged as leaders.”
If you’re being sarcastic about the term “free market”, then I think you’re right. If not, and you believe a free market has actually existed in America for the past 50 years, I think you’re blinded by the “I’ve neer run a business before” loony rhetoric of the “fair share” left and don’t know what you’re saying.
Regardless, I think I’m agreeing with you that these captains of industry would likely not have fared so well in the $hit systems the kids in these documentaries are faced with. The SYSTEM has to be improved, and it’s a chicken and the egg thing with many factors being involved. Poverty is one, racism is another, bureaucracy is a third, politics is a fourth, Teacher’s Unions are fifth. What you’re saying is lets leave three of those clear alone and go only after the remaining two, which is exactly what the Teacher’s Union says. I say that’s totally wrong, and the results these school systems are getting totally back that up.
“This is a thought experiment, but lets not get to far ahead of ourselves with the whole ‘if only we could fire the bad teachers’ trope” Again, have you even seen the documentaries? Answer that first, please, because you’re totally missing the scope of this in thinking that’s what I’ve said. Here I’m hardly saying “ONLY”.
“Bad teachers happen whether there are unions or not. Incompetence is not the sole domain of the unionized worker, as much as sometimes you make that out to be.”
Bad teachers and bad workers are both PROTECTED and PROMOTED by unions, plain and simple. Unions are a place for them to hide, which you fully support, and I’m sure you believe they support a full wage while they’re hiding as well, since they “deserve” one.
Face fact and admit that the “free” market, through competition, does a far better job of removing the bad employees from the system – competition that by definition the unions eliminate. Not once have you ever attacked unions for not being better at separating the good employees from bad ones – even where kids are concerned – and quite frankly I think your ideology prevents you from doing so. With that, we’re just supposed to allow that deflection and focus on some larger, more obscure, but yet seemingly more guilt-appeasing perspective of the problem? Let’s just save the ozone layer before worrying about the kids, since if there’s no ozone layer then they’ll all burn to a crip anyways?
I’m not calling for the abolition of teacher’s unions – I stated that they’re a huge reason why the education system suffers. One of the complaints against a voucher program by the Teacher’s Union is that it supposedly “pulls resources away from the public school system”. This claim has been thoroughly debunked by those both within and outside the system, as both those documentaries show. Plus, what’s more wasteful? Opening up a new charter school that gives immediately high-quality education to kids who can’t afford it, or leaving 10, 50, 100 bad teachers in a system with full salary and benefits for years on end in rubber rooms where they’re not even teaching!? The only reason those rubber rooms exist is because your beloved unions put them there, therefore they’re the only ones to blame for them.
Just as corporations’ reach has gone too far in many instances, so has government’s and so has the union’s, yet you can only bring yourself to admit to only one of those three. Why is that? Surely not the result of a “rational” view.
So did you want a public or private educational system? Good education for the wealthy and shite for the rest. Charter schools are the doorway to that particular scenario.
You’re subscribing to the same faulty “slippery slope” argument that many Americans are guilty of in other areas. We many charter schools in Alberta – did the public education system go all to hell? No. We have private clinics. Did the public clinics go all to hell? No. The fact is that students in the American public system, by way of voucher programs and more charter schools (two things which the American Teachers Unions are entirely opposed to), are getting better education by better teachers RIGHT NOW, and it’s not waiting for people to “all get along” or buy the world a Coke or some 10 year research project for that to happen. Again, watch the documentaries (it’s obvious now that you haven’t). The charter school and voucher system is working, it’s just exposing the corruption and incompetence amongst the Teacher’s Union brass and the bloated bureaucracies they’re in lock-step with, and they’re scared stiff of that coming to light.
“Merit pay, based on what evaluation? Kids who pass? Kids who get good scores on standardized exams? So how much pay do teachers get in schools located in disadvantaged areas? A sliding scale of some sort? How would one determine what is adequate compensation never mind meritorious performance, based on what metric?”
Let’s at least get the discussion on the table. The Teacher’s Unions won’t even discuss it or let it get put to vote for reasons that these documentaries clearly go into.
“…the issue of Merit pay for teachers is a complex one that cannot be superficially labelled ‘a good idea’ and haphazardly applied. There are many nuances and exceptions that might make the idea a bad one for education as whole, as mentioned above.”
Since you can do it in ANY organization, I’m quite certain a system can be introduced that covers the majority quite well and leaves the nuances and exceptions to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Union-lovers can’t understand that, however, because they hate math and can’t comprehend anything that doesn’t paint with a wide brush.
I agree that it shouldn’t be based upon grades alone. I also agree that we need to be careful on how “good performance” is measured, but the place for both sides to agree on is to get the discussion on the table. When it is on the table, I don’t think the metrics to determine teacher success or failure in a classroom will be that much of a mystery, and I think there can be a number of incetives and measures that can automatically give teachers greater options for pay just as there is with doctors, lawyers, and other professions where serious people issues are concerned.
For starters, I think there’s a lot of bureaucratic waste that can be eliminated on the front end and have that money go towards good teachers on the back end. What counters that, however, is that unions refuse to allow teachers to receive it. Heaven forbid an individual teacher, or teachers at a crappier school, are able to negotiate better wages and working conditions for themselves. Their union forbids it, and why? For absolutely stupid and bull$hit reasons.
I’m trying to widen the perspective and get across the idea that many people have vested interest in destroying unions in general and that is bad for workers and people.
My biggest problem with unions is no secret – they have created a castle for themselves in which they hide and protect their bad and the lazy, I also dislike that the union elites get paid while their workers get strike pay, and that union efforts can actually close a business down out of sheer ignorance and short-sightedness while their execs continue to get paid and yet their members are out of work.
I don’t wish to see them all “gone”, however, just having less power than they currently have in areas where their power has grown too great. Boeing, for example, should have the right to build a plant anywhere in America that it chooses to, and each state should have the ability to compete for where that plant was built. No union should be able to get in the way of that and worse – have the government’s backing to do so. Where is it right that teachers, as another example, don’t get to vote on a proposal to increase their pay based upon merit rather than just seniority?
“Evenutally it translates into that is bad for business as unions are an important part of most productive economies.
”
I don’t buy that argument at all. The fact is a company can run perfectly fine without unionized employees, whereas unions can’t exist without a company. That’s of course, the “they’re essential” argument which you’re not explicitly making, but even to the “they’re important” argument, they show zero increase in terms of the quality of product produced that either the company or the consumer receives, so how can they actually be good for business? Show me one business where a union has improved their performance or competitiveness by ways other than through extortion and thuggery against that union’s competitors. Talk to a trade union member about what tactics unions take against other unions, or even their own members, for that matter.
Credit where it’s due – Unions did do well to improve worker’s rights and working conditions and there’s many examples of that throughout history as business evolved out of the Taylorism-style of business. To say they’ve ever been actually “good” for business, though, especially in the last 50 years, is another story.
“Arb – No, nothing to do with socioeconomic conditions at all, let us place this all squarely on those darn teachers.
Vern – Nowhere did I say that – you’re just cherry-picking to try and fit your view.”
That is correct, you do not mention either of the two points. Ignoring relevant social economic facts when it comes to schools and teachers is problematic to say the least. Teaching lies on the intersection of several roles in the community that directly effect teacher/student/school performance.
Harping on the fact that bad teachers exist, as they would exist in any system without consider the relevant factors usually leads to a flawed or incomplete analysis.
Hi Arb – lots of replies to respond to.
Going to try and summarize them here:
1) I think you’ll find from people on my side of the issue that it’s not whether or not bad teachers exist, it’s how long they’re allowed to continue to exist.
2) We can go in circles on the “unions are good/bad” argument. My point here is that it’s too general. One could make the argument that businesses are good/bad in the same fashion. There are situations where I think unions are helpful, and in some circumstances, necessary from a practical point of view where we’re talking about perishable resources and outcomes. Example: here in Vegas – I cannot see people in the service industry surviving without a union here because of the nature of the industry and the people in it. I don’t agree with the union in theory, but in reality there are instances where they’re still necessary.
3) Back to the schools argument. Why I don’t rest everything on mass studies is because they neglect the details which, as the saying goes, is where the devil is. It’s been proven that more money to school systems doesn’t improve the quality of education, so we can’t just simply say “schools need more money”. We have to look more granular within the system. The joke administrative positions, the nepotism, the excessive salaries – people make the same argument against large corporations and yet for some reason when people make this argument against public school systems, they cry “union busting”. This goes beyond what the union “stands for”, this has to do with what the union actually does on a case-by-case basis with a) teachers who could earn more but can’t because of the union, and b) teachers who shouldn’t still have a job but still do because of the union.
4) Charter schools good vs. bad. A Wikipedia search shows studies going either way. I think the questions are a) who’s conducting the study, b) what metrics are they using, and c) why the unions are so adamantly opposed to them.
5) I still wholeheartedly believe that the American teachers unions need reform. Look at how ridiculous the process is to separate a bad teacher, as described in either of those documentaries I’ve mentioned. The fact that “rubber rooms” exist is an indefensible and absolute joke. Just because one believes in the principle/spirit of unions doesn’t mean the unions deserve a free pass, yet this is what I find many on the left willing to give out of fear that a union will be “busted”. How about simply “reformed”? I bet teachers themselves would have a ton of ways to improve them.
Think this covers a lot of it – I’ll go through the others and check.
Vern – I agree, however the same kind of nepotism and favoritism plagues many of the top Fortune 500 as it does the federal and state bureaucracies of the education system and the large unions which a truly “free(er) market” would correct. At least in the “free” market, however, bad employees can get fired. How do you propose bad teachers get fired other than how they’re fired now, or are you saying that it’s perfectly fine?
Already there is the problem of what I think to be a flawed assumption. That is that a free(er) maker is going to lead to better results when it comes to weeding out bad teachers. I’m going to base my argument on a few assumptions:
1. High pay and job security would attract good teachers.
2. High pay for teachers is generally not the casein the US.
3. Removing the job security aspect, as the pay aspect is already questionable would remove much of the incentive, economic or otherwise, to be a teacher.
4. Less viable candidates would enter the profession, as good candidates would find other more suitable professions, and as a result the overall quality of teaching goes down.
5. Win?
One could argue that with the ‘bad apples’ gone, there would be more funding available for raising the rate of pay. However, as noted in other arguments, the free(er) market does not eliminate poor employee quality.
Vern – I agree, however the same kind of nepotism and favoritism plagues many of the top Fortune 500 as it does the federal and state bureaucracies of the education system and the large unions
So then is adding the element of additional job insecurity going to address the problem of bad teachers? I’m thinking that making the profession less attractive to potential candidates will not improve the teaching quality students receive, but rather, have the opposite effect.
The SYSTEM has to be improved, and it’s a chicken and the egg thing with many factors being involved. Poverty is one, racism is another, bureaucracy is a third, politics is a fourth, Teacher’s Unions are fifth. What you’re saying is lets leave three of those clear alone and go only after the remaining two, which is exactly what the Teacher’s Union says. I say that’s totally wrong, and the results these school systems are getting totally back that up.
Please consider the following. Not everything in a documentary can be considered true or without its own particular bias. Otherwise Vern, as a viewer of The Corporation, I would expect you to be currently holding a few different points of view.
I think a lot of went on in the documentary “Waiting for Superman” happens to reflect your own preferences and ways of thinking and thus became more of a highly rated resource than perhaps it should have been. Confirmation bias is a basic human psychological feature to all of us, and we should attempt to guard against it.
Thanks for the link. No information on who they are or references for their claims, but I take it in nonetheless. I also found this article on the Nation which seems to be far more substantiated.
http://www.thenation.com/article/154986/grading-waiting-superman
This, however, still doesn’t change my view that the teachers unions are too big and bureaucratic to be as effective as they could be, and pushing for smaller class sizes and more money on the one hand while preventing bad teachers from getting fired or supporting “rubber rooms” on the other is still 2 steps forward and 10 steps back in my opinion.
“Arb – So did you want a public or private educational system? Good education for the wealthy and shite for the rest. Charter schools are the doorway to that particular scenario.”
Vern – You’re subscribing to the same faulty “slippery slope” argument that many Americans are guilty of in other areas.
The problem is that chart schools are not fixing the problem.
Please refer to the executive summary from the US Department of Education’s Study titled “The Evaluation of Charter School Impacts” on pg .17 that I quote this from the executive summary:
Vern – The charter school and voucher system is working, it’s just exposing the corruption and incompetence amongst the Teacher’s Union brass and the bloated bureaucracies they’re in lock-step with, and they’re scared stiff of that coming to light.
Bolding in the following quote is by me.
“The evidence analyzing student achievement in charter schools clearly shows that they perform overwhelmingly at about the same level or worse than public schools. While charter school performance mirrors public school performance in about 40% of cases, they serve far less vulnerable and needy students. Charter schools serve fewer children with special needs, fewer children who receive ELL services, and fewer children who receive free lunch compared with their neighboring public school. Further, charter schools enroll students by lottery, do not have to take students during the school year, and can dismiss students at will. Charter schools are nothing short of a tool in the re-segregation of our public school system, further sorting and separating children, and straining and dividing already under resourced neighborhoods. Only 1 in 5 charter is successful.”
Vern – The charter school and voucher system is working,
Remember that confirmation bias form the earlier post? I’m thinking the whole voucher system and free market of schools must integrate nicely with your world view. “Works nicely with ones worldview ” is not the same as “works in empirical reality”. Because even the lightly researched facts (The Effect of Charter Schools on Non-Charter Students: An Instrumental Variables Approach. pg 24 of 41) contradict what you posit as the truth of the matter.
“clearly shows that they perform overwhelmingly at about the same level or worse than public schools.” Um, that’s based on a teacher’s union study (one that says it supports charter schools on one hand, and yet acts against them in a number of ways on the other hand).
Then there’s this study about schools in New Orleans a half page down from the one you’re talking about:
“When evaluating New Orleans’ schools against the 200 point index called the State Performance Index (SPI), 19 of the 20 highest performing non-selective schools were charter schools. Charter schools affiliated with charter management organizations such as KIPP tended to perform better than stand-alone schools.”
This tells me that in some cases they’re working, and in some cases not. Two choices then, either leave things to status quo, or dig deeper to get at the underlying problem. I think we agree on part of it – poverty, but again I offer this: why not have the kids who can afford it in charter schools, lottery for a few kids who can’t, set a target to remove 50% of the bad apples and dead weight in the system (teacher level and admin level), and then invest those savings back into these communities? I don’t see how our solutions in mind differ, except that you seem to feel unions should be given a free pass on all they do?
Charter schools affiliated with charter management organizations such as KIPP tended to perform better than stand-alone schools.”
This tells me that in some cases they’re working, and in some cases not.
The question on the efficacy of charter schools is not particularly settled one way of the other. I’ll agree with you here, that it is still very much up in the air, but not panacea or anathema sides with vested interest make it out to be.
I don’t see how our solutions in mind differ, except that you seem to feel unions should be given a free pass on all they do?
I think the Teachers Union is necessary the same way I think that the Bar is necessary for lawyers. Saying that, it would be nice if we could reconfigure the TU to be more accountable and responsible so our profession could be looked on with a little more respect (in general).
Although I’m not sure copying the Lawyer model is the way to go to earn respectability.. :>
“I think the Teachers Union is necessary the same way I think that the Bar is necessary for lawyers. Saying that, it would be nice if we could reconfigure the TU to be more accountable and responsible so our profession could be looked on with a little more respect (in general).”
Where democracy fails, perhaps? I thought Union brass were voted for?
“Although I’m not sure copying the Lawyer model is the way to go to earn respectability.”
In some respects I think they’re already copying that model! Lawyers get criticized for charging exorbitant amounts of money for their time and for defending criminals. Time: NJ teachers union demanding 3x pay for overtime, defending criminals: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/6372403/Dozens-of-teachers-with-criminal-convictions-allowed-to-remain-in-classroom.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nyc_fire_proof_school_crooks_hEVEp3JWvGuP0oGwPRhCDP (Note: please tell me society’s more evolved than the comments posted to that article!)
http://teachersunionexposed.com/protecting.cfm
Note the defense that: “the NYDOE is responsible for upholding the Code and all teachers must have ‘due process’”. This is what drives me nuts about politics and it’s the classic bureaucracy equation: something bad/stupid happens, it gets politicized, bureaucrats overreact to correct it, and cause something even more bad/stupid as a result. If that wasn’t bad enough, they then now have to cover their political asses, so they defend their “solution” by deflecting to the old problem and completely disregarding the new problem. In the case of the NY article, “No longer can administrators just fire on a whim without cause”, yet they dodge the fact that it takes 500+ days to let someone go. it shouldn’t take even 50 days.
Happens everywhere. I remember Elanor Caplan doing the same with the guy who tried to blow up LAX that came through Canada with a bogus passport. W5 asked her why it was so easy to get a fake one under her watch and have it for years, and all she could say was, “It’s not like that any more, it’s not like that any more.” Unbelievable.
Back to teaching – you’re right, some of the actions give your profession a bad name. Worse, you’re tainted by what goes on in other districts that local teachers have nothing to do with. Oh well – life was never meant to be fair.
Arb – …the issue of Merit pay for teachers is a complex one that cannot be superficially labelled ‘a good idea’ and haphazardly applied. There are many nuances and exceptions that might make the idea a bad one for education as whole, as mentioned above.”
Vern – Since you can do it in ANY organization, I’m quite certain a system can be introduced that covers the majority quite well and leaves the nuances and exceptions to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Ah, so we need more add more bureaucracy to the situation and that will streamline and make things better. Maybe you should start the Teacher evaluation bureau, you’ll need to train the people on how to evaluate teachers, curricular specialists for each state, heck even each district to see if they are teaching what they teaching what they are supposed to be, sections for early childhood,elementary, Junior high, and High school evaluators, not to mention a whole department for dealing with counter-claims and disputes over evaluations (oh and some not cheap lawyers because in the litigious US, teachers will sue over wrongful dismissal).
Now as a proponent of small government Vern I really am surprised to see you endorse such a position.
Union-lovers can’t understand that, however, because they hate math and can’t comprehend anything that doesn’t paint with a wide brush.
My words up there specifically related to the problems of attempting to “paint with a large brush” – note the mention of complexity and nuance. Plus, teachers are already evaluated on a regular schedule by their Principal’s. Painting entire professional fields with the “large brush” of free-market dogma also seems a touch on the negligent side.
Making insulting generalizations rarely furthers useful debate.
“Ah, so we need more add more b/ureaucracy to the situation and that will streamline and make things better”
See, this is that “wide brush” I’m talking about, Arb, that you took offense to. Management, leadership, and efficiency always involves SOME sort of bureaucracy (which is why a truly “free market” doesn’t really exist). Where there’s real metrics involved there’s always administration, reporting, and management of those metrics. The most efficient businesses will have some level of bureaucracy, yet you’re saying that by acknowledging this I’m now pro-bureaucracy (using that “wide brush” I’m talking about) and going against my expressed views on the issue? Hardly. I’ve made the point often that “fair share” liberals hate math and efficiency because somewhere down the line they equate it with the pain of job loss and the pain of mediocrity, so they avoid it.
When I talk about “hating math”, here’s what I mean: not once in our discussion have you pulled stats on bureaucratic inefficiency. I found this:
em>”In the Chicago School District, over 3,000 employees work in the central and district offices just to perform administrative tasks. This compares strikingly to the 36 administrators assigned by the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago to serve one-third as many pupils.” (Saving 99% of the salary and pension costs).
” Furthermore, between 1976 and 1986 student enrollment in the Chicago Public Schools dropped by 18 percent and the number of classroom teachers fell eight percent. However, the number of employees assigned to the central and district offices rose by 47 percent.” Source: Herbert J. Walberg, et al., We Can Rescue Our Children (Chicago: URF Educational Foundation and Green Hill Publishers, 1988)
Both documentaries criticize this “top heavy” aspect the education system greatly, but even without their criticism, the math looks ridiculous. Assume $50,000 per administrative employee and you’ve got hundreds of millions if not billions in waste there.
I’m willing to be mistaken on the “overwhelming” success of charter schools. I’m also willing to concede (and do agree) that government needs to be involved in schools and we can’t trust basic education entirely to the free market – a point I make in my original post praising Canada and criticizing the US for not supporting education as much as it supports ‘freedom’.
I lament teachers unions for their hiding and protection of bad teachers and their “rubber rooms” which reek of waste. All these positions have to do with math and more specifically, efficiency in both the short and long-term. Unions breed inefficiency. Bureaucracy breeds inefficiency – anywhere where there isn’t the threat of scarce resources breeds inefficiency. You’re saying unions shouldn’t have ANY threat of competition? Schools shouldn’t have any competition? Same for teachers?
If upper management increased by 47% while they were laying off 8% of the workforce in a company, and there were 3,000 upper managers in a company where only 36 were needed, you’d surely be through the roof on it, especially if that company was under-performing. Anyone goes after that sort of inefficiency in the public sector, however, and they get painted with that wide brush that they must be “against teachers” or “union busting”. Look at your initial reply, and even in later replies, you seemingly turn a blind eye to the inefficiency and waste that goes on. While poverty takes generations to correct, this waste (hundreds of millions, or even billions) could be eliminated within a single governmental term and yet there we’re being accused of being “anti-government” or “free market apologists”.
Granted, I’ve been guilty of my labels and biases – which is why you now see me referring to ‘fair share liberals” in my comments.
Hardly. I’ve made the point often that “fair share” liberals hate math and efficiency because somewhere down the line they equate it with the pain of job loss and the pain of mediocrity, so they avoid it.
I should have been more clear. Adding another layer of bureaucracy (a teacher wage/performance branch), would seem to be antithetical to much of what you’re arguing. The problem would be in the efficiency area as a evaluative board would be duplicating the evaluations teachers receive (at least in Canada) as a regular part of employment.
Both documentaries criticize this “top heavy” aspect the education system greatly, but even without their criticism, the math looks ridiculous. Assume $50,000 per administrative employee and you’ve got hundreds of millions if not billions in waste there.
I’m with you there Vern, if there are jobs that are unnecessary and because of someone loafing around in an under working underachieving admin support position I don’t get a EA because of ‘not enough room in the budget’ then indeed I am mad as hell about bureaucracy inefficiencies.
Bureaucracy breeds inefficiency – anywhere where there isn’t the threat of scarce resources breeds inefficiency. You’re saying unions shouldn’t have ANY threat of competition? Schools shouldn’t have any competition? Same for teachers?
Living with your back to the wall and facing economic ruin is not a way for anyone to live. Living in the First World has allowed us to move away from the absolute “work or die” paradigm that has been the norm for most of human history. This is not an argument for becoming a slacker, but there has to be a reasonable compromise between being worked to death and living in the lap of carefree work- luxury on someone else’s dime.
While poverty takes generations to correct, this waste (hundreds of millions, or even billions) could be eliminated within a single governmental term and yet there we’re being accused of being “anti-government” or “free market apologists”.
Determining what efficiency is and who is doing it would be a big job. It should be done though I do agree with you, but through reeducation and retraining so we don’t make unemployment worse that it already is.
“I should have been more clear. Adding another layer of bureaucracy (a teacher wage/performance branch), would seem to be antithetical to much of what you’re arguing. The problem would be in the efficiency area as a evaluative board would be duplicating the evaluations teachers receive (at least in Canada) as a regular part of employment.
“another layer” is the operative phrase here, I think. It seems like there’s a ton of layers we could remove which involve the wrong tasks and metrics in order to actually add a layer that involves more of the right ones. I’m sure it’s not a 1:1 proposition, but imagine if we could even add one new TA/EA for every, say, 5 administrators that aren’t needed, or 10? The documentaries also talk about shrinking administrative regions which duplicates jobs, buildings, maintenance costs, etc. etc. etc. which I think is a very valid point. It’s not just people costs that are duplicated, but plant costs as well.
RE: competition, even in a First World country, there’s such thing as healthy competition. Teachers trade lower pay for job security, so I don’t think we eliminate that altogether because it’s an essential service. Cops and nurses need those assurances as well. However, I’m certain we can safely remove the “even if I’m horrible and should never have been a teacher, I still get a raise” incentive.
Arb – “Evenutally it translates into that is bad for business as unions are an important part of most productive economies.
”
Vern – I don’t buy that argument at all. The fact is a company can run perfectly fine without unionized employees, whereas unions can’t exist without a company.
Yes, but society suffers when there is a lack of union organizations. You don’t have “buy” into the argument at all. The fact of the matter is that unions promote more equality, more social mobility and thus a better society.
I quote the above in hopes you’ll read the whole article, as it will informative if you wish to further understand where I’m coming from, also it will increase your heart rate – cardio for ya!
That’s of course, the “they’re essential” argument which you’re not explicitly making, but even to the “they’re important” argument, they show zero increase in terms of the quality of product produced that either the company or the consumer receives, so how can they actually be good for business?
Creating a society that is more egalitarian makes said society more productive, healthy and more economically sound. So, you advocate what’s good for business must be good for society. This is a faulty assumption.
I argue in the opposite direction, what is good for society is good for business. Wealth redistribution, unionization, progressive taxation all make a society more equal, and that benefits the entire society.
Show me one business where a union has improved their performance or competitiveness by ways other than through extortion and thuggery against that union’s competitors. Talk to a trade union member about what tactics unions take against other unions, or even their own members, for that matter.
This is the part of the conversation where you tell me statistics do not mean anything, and that the studies cited are irrelevant, and that your personal experience in “real world” trumps all these grand ivory tower fantasies I spin out of thin air.
Being on the wrong end of the union stick must be frustrating and I agree you must see a lot of the ugly side of Unions and what they do. However, on the whole, it has been shown they have a net positive effect on society and industry, no matter how much you disbelieve it, it remains a factual statement.
Credit where it’s due…
Thanks Vern, for hosting a forum where we can discuss our often differing points of view. I blame my loquaciousness on the fact I finished by blogging for the week yesterday, working a holiday with internet access and coffee.
Hope you have a good family day, and I’m sure we’ll be discussing things a bit more in the future :>
“Loquaciousness”? I just thought you were being chatty! Remind me never to challenge you to a Scrabble game.
You’re very welcome, Arb! (Your forum is much better than mine, btw!) I know we disagree strongly on some points based upon our respective professions and, if you will, our “fields of vision” but what I find interesting is what we do agree on in spite of that. Despite of my occasional venom (haha!) your alternative points of view are always appreciated and moreso, enlightening.
What I also find interesting is that “out here” we likely seem very adversarial on the theory vs. practical thing and yet ironically, I’m working with academia almost daily now teaching guess what – theory! and telling businesses to “smarten up” and read more. With that, I’m hardly against research, theories, and studies (especially when we’re part of the people doing the research!).
In my field I find an interesting challenge between the two – taking the macro social research and applying it effectively to micro business (financial & economic) situations, and likewise, taking the micro of what we do and applying it outwards in a macro sense.
It makes for interesting work – one the one hand I show my academic counterparts what wasn’t being measured and how it can make all the difference (ex: issues around race are just one example), yet on the other hand, they make me well aware of the challenges in “bottling” and duplicating it. How do we measure it to test and prove that our situation isn’t an anomaly so it can have far more broad application? Example: I use strategies and tactics with learners which break down their mental resistance to training and their own limiting beliefs about growth and improvement, yet I assess which tactics to use based largely on “intuition” at this point, which is really just glorified pattern recognition. My success rate crushes what the “top down”, apparently research-driven strategies produce in terms of results, and thankfully I’m reasonably decent at breaking down the elements of the “pattern” I see, but there’s so many intangibles and variables, how do we reproduce the results so it’s not just our group receiving the benefits?
Enter in the “fair share” people. First, we didn’t invite a certain university department into the discussion and now they’re causing grief by deliberately slowing things down and blocking access to resources that we need. Second, another group is insisting that they validate the work which is actually them just wanting their name on the study when it goes up to the government level and are implying that if they don’t get it, they’ll actually make efforts to sabotage it. Third, many don’t seem to care that the people we’re working with need help now, at their pace, not ours or the university’s, and that they’re not lab rats. Fourth, we’ve already done similar work in other cities with success but instead this “our pompous feelings got hurt” group wants to scrap the whole thing and start fresh so it can be “theirs”. Rest assured none of this is in some report.
So suffice it to say, when you see me lash out against academia it’s my own issues (triggering) based on current experiences and I’m lashing out at that, not you, and not science or rigorous research.
My “enemies” in these discussions are rarely ever people, but rather living, breathing ignorance, nepotism/cronyism/favoritism, and inefficiency which I see in bureaucracies of all kinds, be they public sector or private. Unless someone’s crossing my line of insulting our soldiers, that’s otherwise what my harshest criticisms, rants, and “vents” are usually reserved for, not friendly instructors from the U of A.
“Yes, but society suffers when there is a lack of union organizations. You don’t have “buy” into the argument at all. The fact of the matter is that unions promote more equality, more social mobility and thus a better society.”
It still leaves the question open as to whether they are necessary, and whether they should be granted such overreaching powers that many of them have.
I won’t rehash that argument here. I’ll instead add this, that here’s what I’d like to see as far as reforms:
1) private sector unions that were limited to a single company beyond a certain number of employees (i.e. members from competing companies couldn’t be part of the same union).
2) removal of the “all or nothing” union membership (ex:. teachers who chose not to be represented by the union would not be forced to be, and therefore able to negotiate their own pay.)
3) When union workers go on strike, union leaders get the same strike pay for the same duration that the striking employees do.
4) That the mediation process for termination under CBA’s mirrors that of the private sector. Believe me, from experience it’s hard enough to terminate a bad employee in the private sector as it is!