Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Teacher's unions (hard to fire teachers, poor quality) Certainly you can quantify this poor quality and show it's due to unions and not, say, lack of resources? > Transit unions (mandating 2 drivers per subway car, crazy benefits, etc) 2 drivers per subway car sounds like (at least with old tech) a good thing for everyone's safety. > Auto industry fighting EVs. Sounds like this was more the companies themselves, bu…
Anecdotally, if increasing resources improved outcomes, California would have fantastic education results, as would every purely economic intervention in low-median-income school districts. Teachers may be underpaid on a time/effort basis compared to other jobs, but paying them more doesn’t actually improve outcomes. I am no expert—not even a parent—but my understanding is that curriculum choice and implementation ar…
- adequately paid and educated teachers
- small classroom sizes
- available support for special needs kids
If all of these are in place, are the bad outcomes explainable by poorer socioeconomic factors? And are there any forced learning policies like standardized tests that promote rote memorization?
It just seems so far fetched that a teacher's union would single handedly sabotage the whole education system. Even if they push for a certain kind of teaching, it would simply not tank the whole ship, so to speak.
(I know I'm talking slightly past your points, but I'm mostly interested in the point of how much does the union actually affect the learning outcomes, all the other factors considered)