The Ethics of Self-Selecting Positions in Teaching

When I came across this dialogue between a union official and a superintendent, I expected I would side with the superintendent. I dislike unions, and I think the fact that the teachers in the hardest districts tend to be starting teachers with the least leverage is a misallocation of skill. But, this superintendent comes across as a technocratic dictator. By contrast, the local union official sounds quite reasonable. Of course its always easy to sound reasonable when your opponent is unreasonable. The union official confined himself to the obvious facts that teachers are not compelled to teach. There is a much freer flow out of teaching (the ability to find other jobs) than there is into teaching (where arbitrary liscensure and too many hurdles keep out qualified people) so any threat to teachers will tend to create a brain drain. A proper solution to this problem must be market based. The problem is, there is very little market in the public school system. If poor schools have the most undisciplined students, the poorest physical plant, the fewest resources, and mariginal or negative pay incentives, why would any rational person choose to do it? What makes this problem so intractable is that these schools have the quality of being resource sinks. This means that the only controllable aspect is teacher pay.

I hold a principle that any challenging job requires rotation off the front. This is effective for soldiers, desirable for surgeons, police, and teachers. Hard duty should not be a life sentence or a punishment for being successful.