SCHOOL FOR THOUGHT

A Cui Bono?

The teachers’ unions frequently justify their demands for things like smaller class sizes, more special education teachers and teacher’s aides, more professional and personal days, and higher salaries on the grounds that these things are good for the students. Of course - no doubt coincidentally - all of these things are good for the unions, in that they grow the unions’ membership, revenues, and clout. 

If we want to find out whether the teachers’ unions really have the students’ best interests at heart, we need to identify an initiative that would be good for the kids but bad for the unions - and then establish whether the unions support it. And we don’t need to go far to find a litmus test - namely, teacher-directed learning.

Teacher-directed learning, including systematic phonics and sequential math instruction, has overwhelmingly support in the research. As Time Magazine stated with reference to systematic phonics, “the evidence is so strong that if the subject under discussion were, say, mumps, there would be no discussion”. The consensus among mainstream researchers is that teacher-directed learning is beneficial to all students, but especially to disadvantaged students and boys.

Sadly, the use of teacher-directed learning is not supported by the teachers’ unions. It does not appear, for example, among the 15 most important issues identified by the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario. Interestingly, the widespread adoption of teacher-directed learning would reduce the unions’ basis for arguing in favour of things like smaller class sizes and more special education teachers - since students would be learning just fine without them. 

In some ways, the teachers’ unions may be actually taking student failure to the bank.