anyone think the only way teachers unions can work

[freepcrusher]

is if the school in question meets state benchmarks? My view is this - teachers unions should only be allowed in schools that meet state benchmarks because if schools that don't meet state benchmarks are allowed to have teachers to unionize - then it allows them to stuff the school with more bad students - which will lead to a need for more $$$ and to hire more teaching assistants, which will create a self-reinforcing mechanism to hire more and more people to unionize.

An example is in this 20 minute speech: http://hlmenckenclub.org/hlmc-audio/2014-bob-weissberg-the-left-and-education

[Xing]

The problem with this is that if schools which are struggling cannot offer their teachers union membership, very few people will even want to work there, which would pretty much doom those schools to complete failure. I agree that it's a problem when schools that aren't meeting benchmarks are allowed to just proceed the way that they always do without some change in policy or administration, but I don't think getting rid of unions for those teachers is the way to go.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't think that punishing schools that do poorly by further stripping them of resources and incentives to work in them somehow makes them better schools, no. (Also "stuff the school with more bad students" wtf. Do you understand what the point of public education is?)

[Antonio the Sixth]

The "benchmarks" in question tend to be utterly arbitrary and destroy the real purpose of what school should be, so this is a terrible idea.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I don't think that punishing schools that do poorly by further stripping them of resources and incentives to work in them somehow makes them better schools, no. (Also "stuff the school with more bad students" wtf. Do you understand what the point of public education is?)