I outlined very specific problems with unions that have very direct impacts on education quality. You didn't denounce any of them.

Name 3 teachers that went beyond and above line of duty. That worked overtime without asking for extra payment. Ask those that took extra effort to engage parents, to help their children.

Now name 3 cases where teachers have done less or even committed a crime.


Why do serial killers have three names? So they don't get mistaken in media.

Media determines your perception. If all you know about teachers is a handful of popular media cases, it's because that is what sells ads.

So unless you can compare numbers of good vs. bad, you might as well generalize that *all* teachers are corrupt.

Do you care to respond to them or continue down a sourceless path[/quote]

Sourceless path?

My history teacher. The most amazing person. The way he knew how to tell stories. It was decades ago, but he described the battle of Thermopylae more vividly than 300 did. And on weekends, he'd be leading mountaineering club. I wasn't part of it, but those that were spoke legendary stories of what all went on. And when grading, he'd open a dialog with you and in the end ask for class to vote on grade. He saw a kid not listening, walked to him and saw he was drawing a comic. He went out and organized a school-wide publishing of that comic.

He was unionized and (communist) party member.

And you know what - that is what majority of teachers are like.

I feel sorry that you instead prefer to judge entire profession based on a few media hyped stories that media uses for story-du-jour.
[/quote]

Ah, this is the point where all teachers are heroes who slave away 80+ hours a week. I had three memorable teachers in my life. The dozens of others are either mediocre, or downright bad. This is the same trend with every single profession, the vast majority of people are mediocre by definition. A few are great, and some are bad. Lets stop pretending that teachers are any different and that they are all effective.

The main problem with teachers unions (and unions in general) is they push everyone towards the bottom end of the awesome scale. There is no external incentive to be a great teacher, and there is no external incentive to not be a shitty teacher. It doesn't matter what sort of teacher you are, you basically can't get fired, and your pay is always equivalent.

Ah, this is the point where all teachers are heroes who slave away 80+ hours a week.

No it isn't.

It's about negative generalization. People love to focus on negative. You're much more comfortable with labeling all teachers as less than competent based on a few that are bad, rather than label all as more than competent based on few that are good.

The main problem with teachers unions (and unions in general) is they push everyone towards the bottom end of the awesome scale.[/quote]

Again, negative reinforcement.

What if teacher unions push everyone towards the top end of the awesome scale? Why is such formulation unacceptable?

Because both are equally likely. Want numbers - Finland. Those that want links, go google. All unionized.

Then, read this (note the author) on why "average" is a fallacy by itself, hopefully managing to get more out of the writing than merely "it's all corruption". Average metrics are what caused more harm over long term than anything else.

Unions are not a factor, not the cause, not the effect. It's the commercialization of schools and measuring everything by grades that is causing problems. Schools are grade factories, not learning institutions.

The main problem with teachers unions (and unions in general) is they push everyone towards the bottom end of the awesome scale.

Again, negative reinforcement.

What if teacher unions push everyone towards the top end of the awesome scale? Why is such formulation unacceptable?[/quote]

Teachers unions could push everyone towards the top end of the awesome scale. They can do that by getting rid of lousy teachers, and fighting for more pay for the exception teachers. That is not what they do. They ensure as many teachers keep a job as possible, regardless of quality, and they fight to make sure no teachers receive special recognition for being awesome. That is not how you encourage people to be better.

Because both are equally likely. Want numbers - Finland. Those that want links, go google. All unionized.[/quote]

Bullshit. Union A != Union B. Take a look at the practices of unions in Finland and those of the USA and you will find dramatic differences. If the NEA and AFT worked like the unions in Finland, we likely wouldn't be in the lousy position we are now.

A different role for teachers unions

Then, read this (note the author) on why "average" is a fallacy by itself, hopefully managing to get more out of the writing than merely "it's all corruption". Average metrics are what caused more harm over long term than anything else.

Unions are not a factor, not the cause, not the effect. It's the commercialization of schools and measuring everything by grades that is causing problems. Schools are grade factories, not learning institutions.[/quote]

He's talking about the problems of text books and touches on some of the corruption there. Why would he rant about unions? The absence of unions in that article in no way means that US teachers unions do not have a severe negative impact on the quality of education in the USA. Hell, he mentions several times that these subjects are being taught by people who don't know what they are talking about. That hardly supports your teacher superstar theory.

Teachers unions could push everyone towards the top end of the awesome scale. They can do that by getting rid of lousy teachers, and fighting for more pay for the exception teachers. That is not what they do. They ensure as many teachers keep a job as possible, regardless of quality, and they fight to make sure no teachers receive special recognition for being awesome. That is not how you encourage people to be better.

First concern for most people, including teachers is life. That includes being able to raise a family and not have survival in mind day to day.

Schools are measured on success. Which means grades. School wants to reduce number of poor teachers. They analyze student success and select those with lowest grade average.

Fearing the prospect of unemployment, these teachers turn to unions. Unions act, teachers remain employed.

Did you notice the fallacy? Good vs. bad is the grade distribution in their class - grades are not representative of good or bad teaching. Good teachers are likely to give lower grades.

Base employment on grades and teachers will be forced to maximize them. Unions act to absorb this risk. But it's not unions that are cause of the harm - it's the flawed definition of good vs. bad teacher.

Bullshit. Union A != Union B.[/quote]
So it's not about unions?

Because for past few posts, everyone seemed to agree that it's unions that are the cause.

If not, what's it about? A specific policy? Which one? Why does one country have such a policy while other does not, despite both being unions?

Finland, so it appears, requires Master's degree for all teachers. Maybe that is the difference.

Take a look at the practices of unions in Finland and those of the USA and you will find dramatic differences.[/quote]

Which is what I'm saying. It's not unions.
And it's not about teachers either.

Instead of ranting "evil unions bad teachers", why not go beyond News at 11 newsflash format and focus on causes and source. Unions/teachers are the very last part, causes are completely elsewhere.

It's about particular instances which must be analyzed on case-per-case basis, instead of generalizing. Hence the article I linked:

He's talking about the problems of text books and touches on some of the corruption there.[/quote]
If possible, read beyond the "it's all corruption"

His point is about grading. Textbooks are graded as average of votes.

A book that wasn't printed gets higher grades than one that was.

It applies elsewhere in life. People with no stance will be graded higher than those with opinions.

Apply this to teaching. As long as grades are used to determine good or bad teachers, those with least impact will be rated highest.

Grades are counter-productive when talking about learning, but they are used to direct learning process. But if they are the be-all-end-all metric, they will destroy the educational system, since they are not conductive of learning.


Which is why talking about good/bad teachers beyond the most superficial impression (aka presentation) isn't productive. A pleasant, approachable teacher will appear friendly, but it says nothing of their teaching abilities.


The cause/effect approach is distinctive difference between Eastern and Western cultures. West traditionally favored dealing with symptoms, traditional Chinese medicine studied causes and prevention of those. Modern medicine is good reflection of that. Pharma industry is focused on treating symptoms (pain killers, anti-depressants, viagra), instead of preventing causes. It's a reflection of human nature - we all want quick fixes while not working hard at preventing stuff far away. And the symptom-centric approach has proven to be more effective, even though it's worse in long run (tragedy of the commons).

so it's not about unions?

Because for past few posts, everyone seemed to agree that it's unions that are the cause.

I said in my first post, if you read it completely, that the problem isn't the concept of a teacher's union, it is what American teacher's unions are doing. They openly defend child molesters and teachers who physically and repeatedly beat children in court. They are many times larger and many times better funded than the districts they have to negotiate with. Their CEOs get paid more than Warren Buffet. They make it more costly to fire teachers that don't teach (literally not teaching), with VIDEO EVIDENCE, than it is to pay them their full salary to sit in a room.

I would rather them be forced to disband and start over with rules in place that keep them in check than try to fix something that's so obviously broken in the first place.

Hell, the fact that we have national organizations comprised of every teacher across multiple states negotiating with individual school districts is ridiculous in the first place. It's illegal for a company to hold that much power, but when a union does it suddenly we should all run down to the capital building and cheer them on.

Certainly you can find the fact that the AFT and NEA combine to contribute more money to politics than any organization in the United States troubling. Teacher's unions spend 3 times more on campaign ads than every other organization COMBINED.

Apply this to teaching. As long as grades are used to determine good or bad teachers, those with least impact will be rated highest.
[/quote]
You can rate teachers on a scale that both includes grades and the rate at which grades increase. If you get a bunch of kids who were behind, getting them caught up is just as measurable as getting them ahead. Rates of change are easy to see in test scores.

I said in my first post, if you read it completely, that the problem isn't the concept of a teacher's union, it is what American teacher's unions are doing. They openly defend child molesters and teachers who physically and repeatedly beat children in court.

Child molestation is the holy grail of US media. It's amazing how much attention it gets. It's not a problem elsewhere. So either US population really is suffering from epidemic proportions of such abuse, or media is blowing it out of proportion.

The way I see it: Were those offenders convicted in court of law? If yes and they didn't serve time or were punished, that's the failure of the legal system. If not, then they are innocent.

Alternative is scary, it's witch hunt and lynching of people shown innocent in court of law. Or, teacher unions have control over legal system (c'mon).

They are many times larger and many times better funded than the districts they have to negotiate with. Their CEOs get paid more than Warren Buffet.[/quote]
Which is not bad in itself. When negotiating, you need power. Money buys power. Nobody listens to poor parties.

They make it more costly to fire teachers that don't teach (literally not teaching), with VIDEO EVIDENCE, than it is to pay them their full salary to sit in a room.[/quote]

Unfortunately, all I can say here is that until you will have to deal with management, you won't understand why things like that occur.

That too is red herring. If I show you someone who is being paid but not doing their job, everyone will agree to fire them to save $25,000 per year.

Now look at economic implications.

Tens of thousands of people are protected by unions which ensure at least minimal career protection. They know that instead of getting fired on the spot, they will be either given a severance or be held in a job for a year or so. These tens of thousands of people can structure their life differently than those hired at-will. They will take loans, start their family earlier, they will be less financially prudent and not fear homelesness due to illness or economic downturn. Someone working at-will will instead be cautions with a loan, will want X reserve in bank, will delay family and will always need to plan for losing everything.

When these two trade-offs are weighted at large scale (such as across ranges discussed here), they are measurable. A knee-jerk reaction has far reaching consequences in this case.


And again, you're willing to burn down a system that offers such long-term protection because of a handful of people who found themselves in the cracks of the system.

Being aware of that is important because these techniques are taught at management schools. it's 2000 years old principle - divide et impera. Bring out scapegoats to build your case, use that to mask true motives, push through your real agenda. It works. It's practiced, taught and trained daily as part of PR. For people in the know there are analysis and metrics, containing distilled "push buttons" based on demographics, which allow custom tailored interaction to optimize one's agenda.

It's just science of PR. Private parties want unions out so they can fully commercialize these institutions for their own gain. None of this has anything to do with teaching or benefit of children. Government subsidized and mandatory schooling is just such an amazing cash cow that people have been over it for decades (read the article on textbook publishing costs).

All of these "OMIGOD VIDEO" evidence is just part of publicity push and general publicity-oriented actions. Not just for unions, but for most others things as well. And it's not Illuminati conspiracy, just stuff taught in PR and MBA courses, 101 stuff. The good ones at least. Social media has just made many things simpler, since one no longer needs to go through media gatekeepers.

Techniques like these are applied by all industries.

Child molestation is the holy grail of US media. It's amazing how much attention it gets. It's not a problem elsewhere. So either US population really is suffering from epidemic proportions of such abuse, or media is blowing it out of proportion.

what is this? Child molestation by teachers isn't a problem elsewhere?

The way I see it: Were those offenders convicted in court of law? If yes and they didn't serve time or were punished, that's the failure of the legal system. If not, then they are innocent.
[/quote]
Florida publishes all of the results and reasons for their investigations into teachers. I've yet to see someone who lost their license.

edit: If you couldn't tell I didn't read the rest of your post because I can't take you seriously saying that child molestation by teachers in primary school isn't grounds for firing them.

[quote name='Antheus' timestamp='1328319851' post='4909398']
Child molestation is the holy grail of US media. It's amazing how much attention it gets. It's not a problem elsewhere. So either US population really is suffering from epidemic proportions of such abuse, or media is blowing it out of proportion.

what is this? Child molestation by teachers isn't a problem elsewhere?

The way I see it: Were those offenders convicted in court of law? If yes and they didn't serve time or were punished, that's the failure of the legal system. If not, then they are innocent.
[/quote]
Florida publishes all of the results and reasons for their investigations into teachers. I've yet to see someone who lost their license.

edit: this includes teachers throwing students into walls, "flipping students over desks", showing up to work drunk/high, drinking at work, looking up porn at work, playing video games while a student forces another student to give them oral sex in the classroom, falling asleep because you are drunk while teaching kindergarten, and the list goes on.

Just face it dude, in this case you just have no idea wtf you are talking about. The more you argue the more idiotic you look.
[/quote]

Whatever...
I think Steve de facto is the epicest of all the epicly epic trolls of all time and deserves a special place in the epic hall of fame. Whatever topic he brings up, it doesn't end before at least 4 pages of epicly epic discussion. And I'm out and drunk so good night y'all.