Lookit, if teachers unions were the main culprit, then education outcomes in right-to-work states (the South, mostly) would be significantly higher than states where teachers unions exist. This is not the case. The problem is one of attitudes (both familial and institutional) and one of teaching talent (the students who enroll in Schools of Education are below the median for GPA and SAT scores for universities that offer education degrees).
Attitudes are hard to explain; Friday Night Lights (the book) examines but doesn't explain. The quality of teaching stock is explainable, but no one likes the explanation - the opening of the workforce to women has taken a lot of high-quality women out of the classroom and into the previously male-dominated workforce. All those great women doctors, lawyers, managers, engineers, architects, and so on would have been teachers 50 years ago.
I don't have a good answer, but Waiting for Superman's demonization of Randi Weingarten and the unions is a terribly small portion of the problem. Boogeymen are easy to hate; it's harder to point the finger at ourselves.
Why would you believe that right to work states would not have teachers unions? It's true that a right to work state will probably not have unions the workers don't want, but that isn't the same thing.
Every state has public sector employee unions. The UAW is also in most right-to-work states. But the vast majority of employees (public and private) are not members of those unions and I'm positive that teacher contracts in RTW states are not collectively bargained.
I'm not inclined to brush aside the union issue as you do, but you do make a good point about the increased competition from other professions.
Perhaps less-skilled entrants to the profession are more vocally supportive of a union than those who are confident in their individual ability to excel. Even in right-to-work states, that would create selective social pressure which would make entry to the profession less attractive to those with a competitive mindset. An old friend of mine who tried teaching elementary (in CA) for 3-4 years before leaving in frustration said she was willing to tolerate the pay and pecking order that was in place, but it was the attitudes of the older teachers which she really struggled with.
Even in right-to-work states, public sector jobs (like teachers) may practically require union membership, and the conditions of work are largely dictated by union negotiating/political influence.
Lookit, if teachers unions were the main culprit, then education outcomes in right-to-work states (the South, mostly) would be significantly higher than states where teachers unions exist. This is not the case. The problem is one of attitudes (both familial and institutional) and one of teaching talent (the students who enroll in Schools of Education are below the median for GPA and SAT scores for universities that offer education degrees).
Attitudes are hard to explain; Friday Night Lights (the book) examines but doesn't explain. The quality of teaching stock is explainable, but no one likes the explanation - the opening of the workforce to women has taken a lot of high-quality women out of the classroom and into the previously male-dominated workforce. All those great women doctors, lawyers, managers, engineers, architects, and so on would have been teachers 50 years ago.
I don't have a good answer, but Waiting for Superman's demonization of Randi Weingarten and the unions is a terribly small portion of the problem. Boogeymen are easy to hate; it's harder to point the finger at ourselves.