Unions have had enormous power over this for way too long, and it has led to overemphasis on preserving high pay for the oldest teachers based merely on longevity, and sacrificing newer teachers in order to achieve it whenever necessary. That's just straight bad policy, but it's what unions demand, and it has led to these conditions.
The teacher unions didn't invent tenure, despite widespread beliefs to the contrary. Tenure evolved in the 19th century as one of the few perks available to people who were paid low wages, had classes of 70 or 80 or more, and endured terrible working conditions.
In 19th century New York City once a teacher was hired, she had lifetime tenure in that school, but only in that school. In fact, she could teach in the same school until she retired—without a pension or health benefits—or died.
Male teachers (regardless of where they taught, though almost all were in high schools) were paid more than female teachers, on the assumption that they had a family to support and women did not.
Mary Murphy started teaching in the Brooklyn schools in 1891. Ten years later, in 1901, she got married. That was a mistake. When she got married, the Board of Education charged her with gross misconduct and fired her. Female teachers were not allowed to marry.
Then there was Bridget Pexitto, a veteran teacher of 18 years in the Bronx. She took advantage of the new right to get married without losing her job. But then she got pregnant. That was a mistake. The Board of Education fired her on charges of "gross negligence by being absent to have a baby." Not only that, the Board ordered the superintendent of schools to discover whether there were any other pregnant teachers in the city's schools. He somehow did a visual inspection of the city's teachers and found 14 of them, and they were promptly suspended from teaching.
This is just a handful of stories from one city but make no mistake, they are repeated throughout the country in our history.
Marriage penalties were quite nearly universal around the country for female teachers prior to unions.
Shall we talk about the "Palmer Raids" of the 1920's? They weren't just directed at immigrants, they were also designed to sweep up unionists.
Getting distracted by the semantics involved in my alias isn't a good argument. Your avatar is an evil looking bunny. Who cares? Completely irrelevant to the issue.
Totally relevant. Your alias isn't SEMANTICS, it identifies precisely what you believe.
You ARE a Neo-Malthusian, and what you believe is the kind of tripe that led to people behaving as if they were characters in a Dickens novel...because it WAS the Dickens era from whence your value platform first emerged.
Claiming I am distracted by your handle is nothing more than the Great and Powerful Oz demanding that we "pay NO attention to that man behind the curtain!!"
You're being absolutely true to form.
And there are many more reasons WHY teachers unions were created in the first place.
We can have a conversation about how to make unions a little more responsive but as long as you continue to place the blame for ALL the troubles on the existence of teacher unions, you are continuing to peddle the lies peddled during the Palmer era.
It will not go well for you or your kind. Unions are crushed right now, but they will resurge.
The more you try to crush worker's rights, the stronger unions will be when they come back.
No matter what laws are passed, no matter how draconian the punishments are, no matter how cult-like the dogma becomes, unions are here forever.
And you can't stop what's coming.
You may as well run outside and yell at a thunderstorm.
