Teacher Unions - Bad for Students?

[JonA]

Regarding tenure, teachers will get tenure after several years of proving themselves through evaluations. They will hardly be incompetent once tenured in ~3 years. After that time, they are required to continue their education every year. Deficits in evaluations will also be cause for them to improve through additional learning.

Except in crappy schools that can hardly get any teachers to begin with let alone good ones.

So, the unattributed image posted to this thread is relevant in that if the parents complained about the issue it would be recorded, put pressure on the teacher and their bosses, etc.

Sadly - whether that really comes from a teacher or not - it is representative of the level of education of many public school teachers, especially in lower grades.

As an aside, there is something even more important in that image than what the 'teacher' put in their response and it drives deep into the heart of the problem with Education degrees (in the U.S. at least) and how we educate or educators and, specifically, what we train them to consider important.

Can anyone point it out?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Sadly - whether that really comes from a teacher or not - it is representative of the level of education of many public school teachers, especially in lower grades.

Is it? Or is it just an unsupported meme? Because for years everyone has been bashing schools as a convenient target even though studies show schools overall have been getting progressively better over the last 30 years.

 

[JonA]

Sadly - whether that really comes from a teacher or not - it is representative of the level of education of many public school teachers, especially in lower grades.

Is it? Or is it just an unsupported meme?

Oh that picture may well be completely fabricated. But what it shows is not atypical of many elementary level teachers. We do not properly educate our educators, as such, there is no real intelligence test for people who want to be teachers at certain levels. And the requirement for everyone who teaches to have an education degree (instead of an actual education) keeps many bright people away from our schools.

And what's in those education degrees? Well, it's a frightening mess of nonsense that would make any intelligent person ill just to look at it let alone have to spend years 'learning' it.

studies show schools overall have been getting progressively better over the last 30 years.

Maybe they were just that awful to begin with ...

Or the yardstick against which they are being measured has been changing.

But if we could get to that other thing in the image... I think we could really start to get to the reasons why quality teachers are tough to come by and where real education has disappeared to.

 

[laughing dog]

Is it? Or is it just an unsupported meme?

Oh that picture may well be completely fabricated. But what it shows is not atypical of many elementary level teachers.

On what actual evidence do you base that opinion?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We do not properly educate our educators...

Well, that's not true.

..., as such, there is no real intelligence test for people who want to be teachers at certain levels.

Well, no, you have to become certified which involves testing for competence in your field. Then, when teaching later, you have to pass evaluations showing you know how to teach in a classroom.

And the requirement for everyone who teaches to have an education degree (instead of an actual education) keeps many bright people away from our schools.

Teaching requires knowing how to educate AND knowledge of the topics in question. Teachers are tested in both areas.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...there is no real intelligence test for people who want to be teachers at certain levels...

Just to add here...in Minnesota you have to take tests to become a teacher. The tests involve your basic competence in all areas as well as testing for educational knowledge. Licensure is divided by level so a test in higher math than elementary is required for those seeking that level of license. The way that levels are broken down for certification are determined by state because of states' rights.

 

[JonA]

Note to the objectors. I didn't say there was 'no test'; but that there was 'no real ... test'.

Can anyone tell me what scores are required for passing those tests and, most importantly, what is on them?

... a test in higher math than elementary is required for those seeking that level of license.

Yes; I've tried to be careful to indicate that my position mostly relates to the elementary level. If that wasn't always clear, that's my fault.

ETA: though the teaching program is pretty much identical for any grade level - k-12 licensure

 

[JonA]

Oh that picture may well be completely fabricated. But what it shows is not atypical of many elementary level teachers.

On what actual evidence do you base that opinion?

Experience - working with teachers and those who teach them.

But if we could deal with that image, a lot of things would get addressed. I honestly don't think there is anyone with even a basic understanding of the topic who could not have identified what is really so important about it. It just sticks out - in your face - ; but maybe that's only to people in the loop. I may have to just break down and point it out myself

 

[laughing dog]

Note to the objectors. I didn't say there was 'no test'; but that there was 'no real ... test'.

Can anyone tell me what scores are required for passing those tests and, most importantly, what is on them?

... a test in higher math than elementary is required for those seeking that level of license.

Yes; I've tried to be careful to indicate that my position mostly relates to the elementary level. If that wasn't always clear, that's my fault.

ETA: though the teaching program is pretty much identical for any grade level - k-12 licensure

What is driving your opinions concerning teacher education given your admitted lack of knowledge about the education of teachers or the teacher licensure procedure in Mn? This is a sincere question.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

[Quoting article]Regarding tenure, teachers will get tenure after several years of proving themselves through evaluations. They will hardly be incompetent once tenured in ~3 years. After that time, they are required to continue their education every year. Deficits in evaluations will also be cause for them to improve through additional learning.

Teachers can still end up being fired in the case of incompetence or abusive behavior. Parents can and do complain and the teachers feel the pressure from the local govt when that happens. Multiple complaints about a teacher will have an effect on their jobs.

Can be but the process is so hard they rarely are.

Here's an article that claims to have 6 reasons why teachers' unions are good for kids:
http://www.alternet.org/6-reasons-teachers-unions-are-good-kids

Alternet isn't a very credible source.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Note to the objectors. I didn't say there was 'no test'; but that there was 'no real ... test'.

Isn't that a no true Scotsman fallacy?

And then you go onto ask:

Can anyone tell me what scores are required for passing those tests and, most importantly, what is on them?

PDF:
http://education.state.mn.us/mdepro...ectionMethod=latestReleased&Rendition=primary

 

[SimpleDon]

Can be but the process is so hard they rarely are.

Here's an article that claims to have 6 reasons why teachers' unions are good for kids:
http://www.alternet.org/6-reasons-teachers-unions-are-good-kids

Alternet isn't a very credible source.

Which of the six reasons do you believe supports your belief that this source isn't credible?

I have objections to some of the author's points but I don't see anything that indicates that it is a hit piece.

 

[JonA]

Note to the objectors. I didn't say there was 'no test'; but that there was 'no real ... test'.

Isn't that a no true Scotsman fallacy?

No; that's more like a 'read what I wrote the first time around' non-fallacy.

A test in and of itself is meaningless. It's what's on the test that matters.

And then you go onto ask:

Can anyone tell me what scores are required for passing those tests and, most importantly, what is on them?

PDF:
http://education.state.mn.us/mdepro...ectionMethod=latestReleased&Rendition=primary

Yeah, those ACT scores make me shudder. Our poor children

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yeah, those ACT scores make me shudder. Our poor children

The math minimum is at a good threshold for an English teacher and the English-related scores are at a good threshold for a math teacher. Coupled with scoring later for areas of specialty or higher levels of learning, it isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

 

[arkirk]

Also better genetics. Something like 40%-60% of intelligence and other traits that are conducive to doing well in education are heritable. Such traits are also correlated with affluence.

Note the key word there, because such cognitive traits are causally impacted by the social, nutritional, and early educational benefits of affluence.
Kids who from birth get better fed, more positive stimulation from stay at home parents, less stressful environments due to money problems and crime, and go to better more costly day care, etc.., develop brains and basic skills that are better able to take advantage of future learning opportunities.

As for "genes", those genes include genes that have no direct impact on the brain, including genes for gender, skin color, attractiveness, and many other traits that only impact the development of intellect because of how social environments treat people differently based on such traits. IOW, the real proximal cause of much "genetic" influence is actually the environment.

Thanks for trying to straighten out Axulus' stiff eugenics idea. It probably won't help. We are really seeing all sorts of rather newly recognized causal factors in intelligence...like zica virus, nutrition, even physical exercise. We have such an uneven playing field for kids. It is one of the sorriest aspects of American life.

 

[untermensche]

Unions are the only thing that moved working people from misery. Took children out of the workforce and created the middle class. Capitalism didn't do any of that. Unions within a capitalist system did. And capitalists in the United States were unusually violent in response to people joining together to increase their bargaining power.

People with power like it when there are many helpless individuals to exploit. They really love the sycophants to their illegitimate power as well.

A union is a way for working people to become less helpless.

When human nature changes they will become unnecessary.

And no union protects bad workers.

They protect workers from outside claims with no objective evidence to support them. They protect the basic rights of workers. Some people don't like this.

Like in this case.

 

[JonA]

Unions are the only thing that moved working people from misery. Took children out of the workforce and created the middle class. Capitalism didn't do any of that. Unions within a capitalist system did. And capitalists in the United States were unusually violent in response to people joining together to increase their bargaining power.

People with power like it when there are many helpless individuals to exploit. They really love the sycophants to their illegitimate power as well.

A union is a way for working people to become less helpless.

When human nature changes they will become unnecessary.

And no union protects bad workers.

They protect workers from outside claims with no objective evidence to support them. They protect the basic rights of workers. Some people don't like this.

Like in this case.

None of that has anything to do with the topic of whether teachers' unions are bad for students.

Obviously teachers' unions are good for teachers.

 

[untermensche]

Unions are the only thing that moved working people from misery. Took children out of the workforce and created the middle class. Capitalism didn't do any of that. Unions within a capitalist system did. And capitalists in the United States were unusually violent in response to people joining together to increase their bargaining power.

People with power like it when there are many helpless individuals to exploit. They really love the sycophants to their illegitimate power as well.

A union is a way for working people to become less helpless.

When human nature changes they will become unnecessary.

And no union protects bad workers.

They protect workers from outside claims with no objective evidence to support them. They protect the basic rights of workers. Some people don't like this.

Like in this case.

None of that has anything to do with the topic of whether teachers' unions are bad for students.

Obviously teachers' unions are good for teachers.

It has a lot to do with claims of bad teachers without evidence to back it up.

Poor performance is not necessarily evidence of bad teaching.

 

[arkirk]

When you have administrators trying to get teachers as cheap as they can, it can only drive down the quality of teachers performance. They seem to like to pay them poorly then load them up with oversize classes where they have little chance of connecting for sure with all the students. Teachers' unions tend to deal with these issues too and the better they do, the better chance there is of a student doing better. The administrators lower the pay and then shake their finger and look down their noses at the staff that remains....There is no winning....EXCEPTING IF A UNION WINS.

 

[laughing dog]

Unions are the only thing that moved working people from misery. Took children out of the workforce and created the middle class. Capitalism didn't do any of that. Unions within a capitalist system did. And capitalists in the United States were unusually violent in response to people joining together to increase their bargaining power.

People with power like it when there are many helpless individuals to exploit. They really love the sycophants to their illegitimate power as well.

A union is a way for working people to become less helpless.

When human nature changes they will become unnecessary.

And no union protects bad workers.

They protect workers from outside claims with no objective evidence to support them. They protect the basic rights of workers. Some people don't like this.

Like in this case.

None of that has anything to do with the topic of whether teachers' unions are bad for students.

True. Just like none of your opinions about teacher quality have anything to do with whether teachers' unions are bad for students.

Obviously teachers' unions are good for teachers.

Which also has nothing to do with whether teachers' unions are bad for students.