You're right just get rid of the teacher's unions. All they do is protect pedophiles and bad teachers. The politicians have all the answers. They have the public interest at heart. After all, haven't the politicians don't such a good job of solving other problems in the good old USA?
Things will be a lot better if we turn the clock back to the nineteenth century when teachers were not unionized in any part of the country. That way the local school boards could reimpose more reasonable, common sense terms of tenure upon teachers such as the following from a Massachusetts town around the turn of the (twentieth) century(when primary teaching was almost exclusively for women):
1. Do not get married.
2. Do not leave town any time without permission of the school board.
3. Do not keep company with men.
4. Be home between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m.
5. Do not loiter downtown in ice cream stores,
6. Do not smoke.
7. Do not get into a carriage with any man except your father or brother.
8. Do not dress in bright colors.
9. Do not dye your hair.
10. Do not wear any dress more than two inches above the ankle.
(Source: Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States, NY, 1st Harper Perrenial, 1995, p. 330)
Before we rush to destroy what is left of the supposedly omnipotent teacher's unions we should remember that rules like these are part of the reason they came into existence. As late as the 1950s teachers in Indiana were expected to resign immediately upon becoming pregnant. In some ways, Hong Kong schools are even more backward. A female teacher was recently awarded compensation by a local court for being forced to wear a dress for many years.
You repeat the nauseating bromide that teacher's unions are the principal obstacle to needed educational reform in the United States. I disagree. Our national spending priorities are the major obstacle. We spend far more on destruction and killing than we do on education.
Right-wing zealots have had their hearts set on destroying teacher's unions and even the entire system of public education for decades. With the recent financial crisis and state budget shortfalls they really have a golden opportunity to push their philistine agenda. Throughout the country, states have been laying off teachers left and right. In many jurisdictions, decisions about who to lay off have are not based on professional considerations; they are made to ensure that young teachers are let go before they are granted tenure.
Furthermore, in many parts of the country, most teachers are not unionized. This is especially the case in the South. However, if unions were primarily to blame for poor academic achievement wouldn't parts of the country with lower union density show at least slightly better results. Why are academic results worse in the South, then? Obviously, one would rightly respond, it's not that simple. The causal link between exam results and union density is very complicated. At that point the union busters are left with nothing but bare accusation and anecdotal evidence to support their spurious contention that teacher's unions are the principal cause of student failure.