I'm met very few teachers who don't disrespect about 1/2 of what the education establishment tries to inculcate in them, and I agree there's a lot of "same-o, same-o" (remember, I'm not in education per se, I work in an academic department). Have you ever done a summer with a National Writing Project affiliate?Speaking as a teacher, we already go to seminars about once a year, and usually these seminars are a waste of my time. It's just a rehash of the information that we already know: "we need to motivate our kids", "we need to come up with more creative lesson plans", "we need to incorporate technology in our lessons", all of these things we already know.
Unions are probably worst in situations where the labor market is very fluid--where people can move in and out of jobs easily. Unions are most advantageous where workers and employers benefit from long-term, stable labor relations. In general, teachers want to be employed at one school for a long period of time. The best teaching gig is one where you can spend 25 years at one school or district and become a kind of local institution, where the students you had earlier in your career have children who come into your classroom late in your career. Most people who teach (and certainly the best teachers) are in it for the kind of validation that only comes with long-term commitments--the money is less important.I'm against the teachers union. They advocate for candidates I don't support. They push for closed shops that force people to give a hefty contribution each month out of their paycheck, whether they like it or not. They only advocate for the lowest of the low and blow hot air for the rest.
Teachers unions also fight mightily against alternatives to public education. Unions use intimidation tactics. They currently are pushing to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections, thus giving them access to who and who does not support them.
They basically behave like mobsters, demanding protection money for their 'services'.
Union reps are elected, no?My mom said the union reps in her school district are also the two worst teachers.
Ironic?
Union reps are elected, no?
Only if you think education should be a priority for our country.
Why are teachers' unions good if you think education should be a priority? How do teachers' unions benefit our education system?
Recently with this economic crisis my university attempted to balance the budget on the backs of their teachers (among others); the teachers' union was able to prevent this.
And why is it a good thing for the education system that your university was unable to balance its budget in the way that it felt was the most efficient?
That's one explanation (and maybe its the right one). But neither of us really knows the quality of these two teachers' work--you heard it from someone else and we heard it from you. That's double hearsay--not particularly good evidence of anything.I owe you an answer on this. My guess is that they are.
My other guess is that these two teachers are the only ones who want to run the local teacher's union because they need it.
Without it, they would be fired.
That's one explanation (and maybe its the right one). But neither of us really knows the quality of these two teachers' work--you heard it from someone else and we heard it from you. That's double hearsay--not particularly good evidence of anything.
On the other hand, we do know that the positions are elected, so the teachers in this school trusted these two people to handle those responsibilities.
If they really were incompetent, sounds like the teachers in that school (including the person reporting this information to you) didn't value their union very much. That says more than anything.
One thing is for sure, whoever told you this could have remedied the situation by running for the office herself.
Probably not. If you look at the things schools are doing in order to reform schools (standardized curricula that take lesson planning out of the hands of teachers, for example), they generally take the opportunity to BE good out of the hands of classroom teachers.
No they don't, that is decided by the state (if it is a public school).
I don't wish to cast aspersions at your mother, but I'd note that when we feel strongly about something, those feelings tend to color our impressions. This is true for all humans. And our assumptions usually are poor supports for an argument. After all, we tend to come to the same conclusions we are predisposed to believe. If I think an organization is full of "bullies," then I'll tend to believe that anyone associated with that organization is a bully, and I'll think other bad stuff about them too. The problem comes when I then use my impressions of those people as a justification for my original impressions. This is what I suspect may be happening in this case. We must all guard against this kind of circular reasoning. Without other corroboration, this kind of "evidence" is a questionable contribution to a debate.Well, it came from my mother. I don't know why she would lie to me. It's a small school district with less than 30 teachers.
Like I said, I would assume that it's the poorest teachers that value the unions because they know the union protects their job.
The incompetents love the union. My mother, on the other hand, doesn't think much of it.
Mom would never be a union rep because according to her the union is "full of bullies that could care less about education".
Why are teachers' unions good if you think education should be a priority? How do teachers' unions benefit our education system?
Are Teacher Unions a good thing?
As in:
What benefits, if any, do they provide for schools?
What problems, if any, do they cause for schools?
How is it unethical? I can see why striking (particularly strikes against public safety) might be considered unethical, but collective bargaining of any kind?Government unions are practically never good.
It's completely unethical.
How is it unethical? I can see why striking (particularly strikes against public safety) might be considered unethical, but collective bargaining of any kind?
I'm not sure how your reasoning works here. Are you saying that a worker has no right to negotiate with his employer if that employer is government? Everyone has the opportunity to "boost their job benefits." Why should government workers be different?They already had representation in government, now they have double representation that can boost their job benefits at the expense of everyone else without merit.
I'm not sure how your reasoning works here. Are you saying that a worker has no right to negotiate with his employer if that employer is government? Everyone has the opportunity to "boost their job benefits." Why should government workers be different?
They already have an avenue to do this, their employer is already under their control to some extent, they can vote.
Essentially they are allowed to do more than just lobby for better benefits, they can lobby to get laws changed to benefit their industry at large.
Yes, you're right, but if you don't know what I'm talking about, chances are you haven't been near a public school in an economically challenged area recently. This is a fairly recent trend I'm citing, but it's going on many places. In my opinion, it's ruining K-12 education--and it's a response to regimes like No Child Left Behind.
I don't doubt you're right, but those charter schools (and I mean publicly funded charters) have to qualify for approval by local school boards, so those boards have control over their pools of students, etc. If other schools suffer in the ways you've suggested, its the fault of local boards.
Please forgive me if, in my earlier post, I implied you hadn't been around schools recently. I hadn't seen this post when I said that. I'm a teacher educator (I work in an academic department with undergrads before they go into teacher training programs but I teach methods courses as well as content courses) and the situation I described is the one most of my students enter in our local schools. I teach them a lot of stuff that they then aren't allowed to practice in local schools. I tell them that "the half-life of an idea in American education is about five years" but this trend does not seem to be abating.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?