By Sen. Jim Banks
Indiana legislators have received thousands of letters and email messages from concerned teachers, principals and superintendents. Many are politically generated by special-interest groups. Most, though, are from dedicated educators whose passion for the classroom is made clear in every word.
Yet, I disagree with almost all of their conclusions.
As a new member of the legislature, it surprises me so many of these writers, some personal friends, believe I would leave them vulnerable to an unfair evaluation system developed and managed by state bureaucrats.
I am working every day to keep that from happening.
Many expressed a fear that I would “break” the teachers union and end mandatory public-sector collective bargaining.
Yes, that’s exactly what I would do. There’s no good reason for public-sector unions to exist — for teachers or for students.
“There never was a ‘labor problem’ in government for unions to solve,” writes Dr. Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor. “Government has always been a model — read generous — employer, lavishing good pay, the eight-hour day, fringe benefits and civil-service protections on its own.”
The unions support a dynamic that drive our best teachers out of the classroom while attracting the mediocre and the misplaced. They push up costs by increasing staffing levels. They oppose the use of budget-saving volunteers. They create a bureaucratic and inefficient workplace, discouraging bold innovation.
Again, the letters on my desk, heartfelt and sincere, offer no good reason for teachers unions to exist.
Educators in a dozen other states go to class everyday without any collective bargaining whatsoever. Twenty-two states have “right-to-work” laws that free workers from being forced to join a union or pay union dues.
Some argue that Indiana is being outpaced by those states.
“Unionism seems to coincide with poor state government management,” argues Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. “States with higher public-sector union shares tend to have higher levels of government debt. And the states with higher union shares do more poorly on grading by the Pew Center regarding the quality of public-sector management.”
The laws of economics cannot be suspended by decree. What some of my letter writers think of as their “rights” inevitably translate into fewer opportunities, lower pay, less job security and certainly less freedom for all teachers, especially the accomplished.
For taxpayers, collective bargaining adds an estimated eight percent to the cost of state government. And there are other apposite bits of information missing from the public discussion.
First, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 establishing a “right” to collective bargaining does not apply to teachers or any other workers in the public sector. There are so many legal, political and economic differences between public-sector unions and the private-sector model they shouldn’t be called “unions” at all.
And please know that Indiana’s Collective Bargaining Act was a political compromise, not an assertion of constitutional right. It was passed into law only a generation ago with the blessing of a Republican governor in exchange for property-tax reforms. Former Lt. Gov. John Mutz, then a state senator, played a key role in that decision. He now says it was one of the worst mistakes of his career.
The property-tax reforms were subsequently undermined but collective bargaining lived on. Its unintended consequences mount. Its disincentives are reaffirmed each session by Democrats and Republicans alike. We created a professional class of politician dependent on the teachers union, actively or passively, for their Statehouse employment.
Which brings me to my core objection. No, it is not because Indiana government is under financial stress. Indeed, I agree with the protestors that teachers should not be singled out in balancing a state budget.
Nor could I name a state superintendent who could command teachers to do a better job or do it more efficiently. Nor would I withhold full reward from those who now do it so successfully.
I object because public-sector unions corrupt our state government and the democratic process.
The Indiana State Teachers Union is allowed to use its statutory privilege as a political machine. It controls the full range of policy debate in Indianapolis. We would abide such power in no other privately controlled organization.
Dr. Charlie Rice, former dean of the Notre Dame Law School, explains it well:
“Mandatory collective bargaining for any employees of government involves multiple distortions of sound policy and practice. It confers on an unaccountable financially interested private entity — the certified union — a portion of the lawmaking authority of the state. In the process, the interests of the public employees are subordinate to the interests of a privileged union. This is compounded when the bargaining unit is the public school and the ‘products’ of the enterprise are not nuts and bolts but vulnerable school children.”
The writers of the letters on my desk should know that none of this necessarily means lowering education standards or even providing less money to public education — not a single dime less.
Rather, it means recognizing that no coherent rationale for public-sector bargaining has ever been offered.
It means allowing workers to freely choose whether they want to belong to a union and pay its dues as their sole bargaining agent.
It means moving the decision-making process away from the Statehouse or even the superintendent’s office and toward principals and teachers deciding what is best in their particular school buildings.
This week, a group of Indiana legislators heard Lisa Snell of Reason Foundation explain how all that is happening in Louisiana under Gov. Bobby Jindal. There, school funding can be attached to the student and not the administrative district. Individual teachers and principals are thereby freed to design curriculum to fit the needs of students. Such true systemic reform is happening other places throughout the nation.
I must tell you, though, it is not happening enough in Indiana. That is true even under measures proposed this session by my own political party. We have only begun to summon the courage to dip so much as a toe in the waters of reform.
This is true even as a Feb. 27 Rasmussen report found that although Americans generally believe public education is a good investment, 61 percent say public schools have become worse over the past decade. Another 17 percent say they are unsure whether it has gotten worse or better.
Think about that. Despite spending levels that threaten the financial solvency of so many states, and despite government’s full power to license, regulate, consolidate and monopolize, less than a quarter of Americans can say public schools have improved.
My disagreement with the letters on my desk carries with it the responsibility to change that — at least for Indiana.
The unions had their chance. They failed.
The author represents state Senate District 17, Columbia City.
Resources
Arthur Laffer, Stephen Moore and Jonathan Williams. “Rich State, Poor States: Alec-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index.” The American Legislative Exchange Council, April 7, 2010.
Chris Edwards. “Madison Protests: Unions Are Angry — But Wisconsin Should Go Even Further.” The Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 18, 2011.
Edwards. “Public-Sector Unions and the Rising Costs of Employee Compensation.” Cato Journal, winter 2010.
Scott Rasmussen. “Americans Agree That Public-School Quality Has Fallen.” The Rasmussen Reports, Feb. 27, 2011.
Charles E. Rice. “Fixing Public Schools.” The Indiana Policy Review, spring 2010.
Morgan Reynolds and Craig Ladwig. “Why Collective Bargaining Is no Bargain.” The Indiana Policy Review, winter 1991.
If you find this article informative? Consider donating any amount you choose.
No related posts.
Entries (RSS)
Kenley's bill just wants to limit bargaining to pay and benefits. Why not get rid of teachers' unions altogether? Well, for one thing Wendy and the FWCS board love the FWEA. And the Democrats took their ball and left the playground.
I know in my daughters school, we HAD a superintendent that was a real witch and worked hard to get rid of teachers that didn't agree with her, and we did loose some good teachers in the process. I think the educators of our children need some way of insulating them from bad administrators, but I do not think they need the union that they have.
Jim, could you expand on this to show how it works: "The unions support a dynamic that drive our best teachers out of the classroom while attracting the mediocre and the misplaced." My sister, a very conservative woman, is a member of the Fort Wayne union. She would be interested in your answer.
Would it be better for each of the few hundred teachers in Fort Wayne to bargain individually? Would that improve education? How? Are mediocre teachers the problem or mediocre managers?
Concerning this statement, "“States with higher public-sector union shares tend to have higher levels of government debt…." I read in the Wall Street Journal recently that Texas has a $3.5 billion deficit, but is a right-to-work state. Same with Florida, North Carolina ($4.6 billion deficit) and all the rest of the southern tier states.
If a lack of RTW is the cause of problems in the north what is the cause in the south where it exists?
Well spoken Mr Banks, I applaud your efforts and hope that we have the opportunity to put the students needs ahead of the unions. Lets bring Indiana to the top, not the mediocre middle!
Jim,
What I am thinking of is like a lot of small local governments.
The ruling board decides if they can afford to issue raises and then they do if they can.
Or their may be bonuses instead of raises if they believe there may be short falls in coming years.
But I do believe that the teachers need protection from over bearing administrators, or vengeful co-workers.
BP, I wonder if we would be in this fix if we had not done away with neighborhood schools and village high schools? I know neighborhood schools were a stabilizing force for their surrounding area and brought the parent in closer contact with the school, its administrators and activities. But, perhaps I am longing for a system that seems in the haze of retrospect as better than it was. The argument for consolidate schools is they can pay more for better teachers, and they can offer a fuller range of courses so more kids can reach their individual potential. I wonder.
Jim –
The problem with urban districts like FWCS, is that they are forced to educate kids that don't want to be educated, an impossible task, which most teachers will admit privately. But since thousands of people's livelyhood depends on doing the impossible, they have to perpetuate a system that doesn't work. Unions are a great tool in perpetuating the status quo.
I bought my last GM, UAW made car in 1978. A Pontiac Sunbird which was a piece of crap. I, along with many others exercised my freedom of choice and bought Japanese cars, eventually resulting the the collapse of GM. I have no choice about supporting failing government schools. I feel no moral obligation to serve as a teacher employment agency, any more than I did about "looking for the union label".
You know the history and philosophy behind universal education, EM, so what do you suggest be done with those who are uninspired or disinterested or drugged out?
The only thing I can say is that they don't fit in a one size fits all system of compulsory government schools. The system we have was developed in the late 1800's to fit the needs of industries which foresaw the need of a uniform, complacent workforce (Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Nelson Rockefeller were influential contributors to "education") and idealists who thought education should lead to a harmonius, uniform, manageable society. And under the conditions of that time their model was just the thing. The conditions have changed but modern compulsory schooling hasn't.
Changing "education" will ultimately require some radical changes that won't happen in my lifetime. The emergence of home schooling, which was unheard of in my younger days shows that an increasing number of nparents are rejecting the party line. But predictably the education establishment is attacking home schooling just like they attack charter schools.
An interesting aside is that last year the number of home schooled National Merit Scholarship semifinalists (1) was the same as that produced by FWCS. There were ten finalists in my graduating class at SSHS.
Public school students don't get to be tutored on a one-to-one basis or attend school at whatever time is their optimal learning time. Nobody in public schools is attacking home schools, they just said they shouldn't be allowed to play sports at a school they didn't want to attend.
Maybe you should let go of comparing your class at SSHS to now. It's a different world.
And your comment about a "one-size fits all" complusroy education? It's the state DOE that is forcing schools to teach a one-size fits all curriculum, not the teacher's union.
Mr. Banks, I read no solution in your letter. A lot more hot air! If you don't like what we have now, let's hear how you're going to make things better? Instead, you want to destroy what we have now. Why not try working with teachers and our unions to help solve some of the problems we are facing in Indiana. What you and your fellow republicians are trying to pass will only make our schools worse! If you really disagree with what they are trying to do STAND UP for what you think will work. Don't just go along with your fellow republican so that you'll get re-elected. That happens way to much already. It seems to me that is what all legistators are working for locally and nationally. Not how to tackle the tough problems or work things out together. It's our way or no way. That is why the democrats walked out, that's why problems don't get solved. My school system (FWCS) and union (FWEA) work on solutions, TOGETHER! It's not easy, no group gets to have everything their way, not everyone is happy when all is done, but they work together to find the BEST possible answer or solution. I'm sorry about ranting on, but I'm tired of people tearing down education.
My school system(FWCS) and union(FWEA) work on solutions, TOGETHER! It's not easy, no group gets to have everything their way, not everyone is happy when all is done, but they work together to find the BEST possible answer or solution. I'm sorry about ranting on, but I'm tired of people tearing down education. A job I chose to do to help our young people, not for the money(I made less than 20k as a beginning teacher), not for the summer off(I've worked every summer at another job to support my family) and not for the short hours(it's Sun night and I've been grading papers for 3 hours!). It's what I've been called to do. The people that I work with in my school building work extremely hard, get smacked in the face by everyone, but come back everyday to work even harder for the students that are in their classrooms. We need your help Mr. Banks, not your put downs or more hot air.
You say that there is no evidence as to whether Teacher Unions and Collective Bargaining have improved education. The issue that I have with that comment is that if you look at the states according to the test scores that are held so dearly by the government the states that do not have collective bagaining (or a chance for the people that actually work with the children and know the children to have a voice) there test scores are at the bottom of the chart. I have been very frustrated by this whole issue because you can look at charts available on the DOE and find the support for Collective Bargaining right there. It is very disheartening when we show legislators charts from the DOE website that shows how it has helped and there response is "Where did you find that?"
Please do your research. You may think that it is about pay but coming from a teacher that makes 32,000 a year I can promise you it's not. I can concerned about my students. I am concerned about my children that are not yet old enough to go to school. You politicians take and take away from public education (I know you aren't this year, but last year left its mark) and then you wonder what is happening to education. I personally have seen not seen the horrible education that you claim is happening everywhere. When I look are my school I see fabulous teachers who are working their tails off for the students. I see a school that has 19 different languages that because we refused to be torn down by politicians that say we are not doing our job recieved our highest scores on ISTEP in over 10 years. I see a first grader that because of the caring staff at our school came from knowing no English to earning benchmark scores on her Dibels assessment. I see people that I can ask about any child in there class and they can tell me about how they are doing and what they are doing to help that child.
(continued) I see a principal that has taken on the responsibility of reading daily with one child because he doesn't get that support at home and an assistant principal that is following his lead with enthusiasm. I see several groups that meet weekly if not more often to discuss the students that are not making progress and how we can better meet their needs. And I see a chance for those same teachers to share what they know about students and how they learn when we have collective bargaining.
You repeatedly said that teachers do not have a choice, but I know several teachers within my own school that are not part of the union and do not pay dues. It is just another paper in the orientation packet, not a requirement.
I wanted to say that you quoted somebody that said that labor unions have never provided anything positive to the country. I really wish that you would research your American History. Unions are what ended a lot of ills in society. They brought about the eight hour work day. They brought about fair wages for employees. They brought about safe work environments. Those are just three of their contributions. I am sure you can borrow a high school history book to enlighten you to more. You may be an Angry White boy, but please do you research before you go insulting my line of work, my way of supporting my children, and my chance to have a say in what I know about how children learn.
Can't you see that teacher are more interested in the individual students than the government. To teachers these students have faces, backgrounds, strengths, weaknesses, and a true meaning. To the government they are a number. You may think that all unions are bad but please do your research. My union works hand and hand with teachers talking about their issues and working to make sure that the teacher (who really care about the kids) are heard.
Mr. Banks is young and ready to solve our problems. It would be better if he spent some time learning about the problems at ground level. He, unfortunately, has many ideas, just not much experience, and, apparently, not a very thorough background in history. Certainly, there are problems with our schools, and our society. If he is so sure of his plan let him propose it and present a ten-year plan indicating how he will restructure education in Indiana. So far, his proposals simply suggest tearing down without building up.
Could you briefy explain why after 40 years of increased funding for "education" and 40 years of the same policy the result has been a decrease in test scores and graduation rates?
At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that what we've been doing (throwing more and more money at it) hasn't done a damn bit of good to educate kids? Is it your contention what we have been doing for over 40 years has been a success?
What is amazing about public-education stats is that there are so many good teachers, considering the systemic disincentives. The calculus, though, is straightforward if you allow that some individuals are "called" to be teachers: The union rewards mediocre teachers who could not negotiate so good a deal for themselves while punishing those excellent teachers who could strike their own deal. The result is a gradual dumbing down of the teacher corps. Also, the Indiana Collective Bargaining Law is patterned after a union model found in the auto industry. It assumes that all teachers are interchangeable on line — an highly inappropriate model. In sum, the system is designed not to teach children but to hire adult cronies even as the occasional star teacher is found mixed in the bag.
You should know that a review of all teacher labor contracts signed by individual Indiana boards of education showed no marked difference even though theoretically each board could build its own little universe. You can thank the state Collective Bargaining Act for that fact.
You must read over the solution, i.e., weighted-student funding.
Mr. Cooper: Jim Banks is NOT downgrading teachers – just the unnecessary teacher's union. Just how have public employee unions contributed to bettering our public school system? I have been trying to help in FWCS classrooms for over three years – you know that! The "single-source" availability of teachers because of the union has been the main reason for the push for charter schools. As a taxpaying citizen, I am getting very tired of contributing to the liberal democrats through my taxes going to help pay your union dues!
(To those that do not know Mr. Cooper, he is a very fine example of the FWCS teachers that we are fortunate to have teaching our youg people in Fort Wayne!!!)
I am 58.You know our great great grandparents married very young 16 was not uncommon.Why?They were much more mature.School was a one room building First grade through eighth.First graders models were the eight graders.Great grandparents and grandparents lived under the same roof with the parents and kids.Everywhere you turned there was nurturing and maturity.Granted it wasn't the little house on the prairie but much more healthy than today. Maybe 50 60 kids in the whole school and one teacher.Today 30 kids in a class and 1000 kids about the same age in middle and high school emulating each other when not getting their clues from M-tv No social security no Obama care.We took care of ourselves and families.Since Roosevelt we have created a dependent class which the progressives use to get reelected.Resulting in the problems we have in public schools today.We can't go back to 1890 but we can't stay on the same path.Self reliance is what made us a great county.It will again if given a chance.
JB, 62 here and I agree with you on the old time schools, two points, especially: they were an integral part of a neighborhood, village or town; and kids from 6 to 14 were in the same room or building, meaning that they taught each other. Educators say that consolidated schools are better because the kids have a wider range of class offerings, including foreign languages, more math, more social studies. I am sure there is truth in that. I am also sure that with the internet there are greater opportunities on line than in proposed in the early pitches for consolidated school. It may also be that consolidated schools are also cheaper to operate per kid, hence the willingness of some to close Arcola High School, Monroeville, Ligonier and set up megaschools with a few thousand kids and all the problems that brings, as well as the advantages. I do not have a solution, it is not my area of expertise, but I can see something is wrong.
So you would be in favor of every parent pulling their kids out of government schools and educating them at home? Or putting them in charter schools if that's what they chose to do?. Please, don't insult my intelligence like Wendy and GiaGuinta and Brace do. I wasn't socially promoted through Harrison Hill into South Side
You're damn right times have changed. But thanks to the FWCS establishment and FWEA nothing else has changed to adapt to it.
Heather, Just because you say it, doesn't mean it's a fact. I see no where in this thread where AWB has commented at all so perhaps YOU should do some research as to who it is that you are commenting to.
I've been in a union, a union steward and a non union employee. I have worked on all sides. I quit being a steward when I saw the kind of people I was forced to defend.
Being a union member doesn't make any of those teachers better at their job. You aren't working for a private company, you are working for me and the time has come to say no. Here's my question for you….if it's so great being a member of the union, why do we need a law that requires an employee to be a union member? Wouldn't I just want to join that union?
Heather – What do the ills of society (do you mean the excesses of industrial barons?) at the turn of the century have to do with the situation in our govenment schools today? Do you know those same industrial barons were the biggest proponents of the system we have today? They spent more of their money influencing the course of compulsory education that the government did. They needed compliant workers for their industries and compliant comsumers for their products.
I don't understand a system where keeping one's job is not dependent upon performance. I don't understand a system where keeping one's job is dependent only upon tenure and the absence of felony convictions. I don't understand that every time they ask for more money so things will improve, and every time there is no improvement. I guess I don't understand because I'm a product of public education.
FWCS spends at least $500,000 on SES tutoring, which is one-on-one tutoring for 30 hours or more a school year. The SES tutoring is arranged at the will of the student and his/her family – when it is the best time for them, not the tutor.