Or something to that effect, as Mark Rogers notes the arcane rules demanded by education unions that frustrate good education

And the [Washington] Post homes in on the absurdity of how principals must scheme to subvert the system to obtain the teachers they want and avoid getting stuck with undesirable ones:

One principal explained how he hid vacancies in order to hire a teacher he knew would perform well at his school: “You say to the HR staffing liaison, ‘I don’t anticipate that I will need another English teacher.’ At the same time, you have already identified the teacher you want for the position. You say to the teacher, ‘If you can hang in there and not start officially teaching until late September, but remain as a substitute until then, I will do everything to try to hire you.’

“Then, you call the liaison back when you know all of the excessed teachers have been placed someplace else, and say, ‘Oh, I actually do need someone.’ You say, ‘I have some rsums’ and pretend to just find someone for the slot even though I had them all along.”

Unfortunately this is only one example of the absurdity demanded to protect poorly performing teachers and enhance union power without consideration of the educational consequences. There are many more examples in the report on staffing rules in urban systems that can be found at eduwonk.com here. The summary of the report is here. Mark continues

Undaunted by evidence, the NEA response to the study could almost have been written before it was given to the Post:

Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association, said the report “is another smoke screen to blame so-called union rules for our society’s lack of commitment to all children.”

Tens of billions of dollars more can never improve a mentality like this. More money for education should come with wholesale reforms. 21st century schools require something more than 20th century union rules.

Smoke screens are so overrated. How is dictating which qualified individuals principals can hire be a needed and valued part of the educational system? And who does that benefit? Certainly it is not the children, and cannot be thought a wise use of the property tax revenues from parents whose children are in the system.

Can we privatize yet?