LGP Education thread

[Rylan]

Teaching unions promote terrible teachers.

[Physical_Graffiti]

Evil? wow...

Completely.

1. They are the largest source of corruption in the country(i.e. campaign contributions)
2. They keep lousy teachers in work, ruining the education and future prospects of countless thousands of kids.

Lobbyists are awesome!

The AFT and NEA have huge lobbying firms, that is correct.

NRA ftl .

[MWB]

Teachers should not get tenure after 2 years. The teacher's union is the entire problem with education in this country. That and any moron can get certified to teach (and many do).

So I guess states that don't have teacher's unions have perfect schools. Good to know.

Obviously you need to pay a salary up to par with other professional fields to attract actual professionals out of engineering, law, etc, instead of the engineering and science drop outs that go into teaching now (with some exceptions obviously). That is apparently what Finland and the the elite private schools do. The great public schools like USC and Peters and Hampton have interview lists a mile long, so they can easily cherry pick the best teachers. I suspect the states without teachers unions do not generally attract the upper tier of teaching talent, nor can they pay for professionals.

So it's not the entire problem, but part of the problem. Yes, better pay would attract better candidates. However, your assumption that a good engineer, scientist, etc would make a good teacher is faulty. Knowing something doesn't mean you can effectively teach it. The "great" public schools will often attract the better teachers because of more money.... They also have more involved parents.

People with the "OMGZ, unions are awful" focus need to widen the scope a bit. Yes, unions do have a blame in this, but it's certainly not the biggest or most important change that needs to be made. Just an easy scapegoat for some so that changes that will actually make a difference can be overlooked.

[shmenguin]

Teaching unions promote terrible teachers.

politicians who govern education but know nothing about it promote terrible education

[Rylan]

Teaching unions promote terrible teachers.

politicians who govern education but know nothing about it promote terrible education

correct, teacher unions promote terrible teachers. same thing different words.

[shmenguin]

Teaching unions promote terrible teachers.

politicians who govern education but know nothing about it promote terrible education

correct, teacher unions promote terrible teachers. same thing different words.

self preservationist decision makers promote self-serving **** sandwiches that the american public has to eat

that's better

[Point Breeze Penguins]

Evil? wow...

Completely.

1. They are the largest source of corruption in the country(i.e. campaign contributions)
2. They keep lousy teachers in work, ruining the education and future prospects of countless thousands of kids.

Lobbyists are awesome!

The AFT and NEA have huge lobbying firms, that is correct.

NRA ftl .

What?

[Rylan]

lol

no need for unions if you are a competent teacher.

[Pavel Bure]

Good lord how these threads always end up on the same thing. LOL @ the union haters who would in turn love the unions if they were in a job that had them.

[shmenguin]

lol

no need for unions if you are a competent teacher.

yes and no.

in a vacuum, you're right, but educational decisions are made based on money as much as possible. many school boards and more importantly, state governments, would rather have cheap teachers than good teachers. if tenure didn't exist, older, more expensive teachers (even great ones) would be heavily at risk of being let go because they make (sometimes) almost twice as much as a recent college grad with no masters degree. the flip side is that unions protect bad teachers who mail it in after tenure, but i don't think that's as big a concern as ultimately alienating talented people from becoming teachers because the higher they achieve, the bigger target they could have on their back.

[Physical_Graffiti]

NRA ftl .

What?

Nuttin' brah.

[Point Breeze Penguins]

NRA ftl .

What?

Nuttin' brah.

[Rylan]

lol

no need for unions if you are a competent teacher.

yes and no.

in a vacuum, you're right, but educational decisions are made based on money as much as possible. many school boards and more importantly, state governments, would rather have cheap teachers than good teachers. if tenure didn't exist, older, more expensive teachers (even great ones) would be heavily at risk of being let go because they make (sometimes) almost twice as much as a recent college grad with no masters degree. the flip side is that unions protect bad teachers who mail it in after tenure, but i don't think that's as big a concern as ultimately alienating talented people from becoming teachers because the higher they achieve, the bigger target they could have on their back.

hmm fair enough. Tenure should take way longer to get. it should be an accomplishment not whatever the hell it is now.

[shmenguin]

lol

no need for unions if you are a competent teacher.

yes and no.

in a vacuum, you're right, but educational decisions are made based on money as much as possible. many school boards and more importantly, state governments, would rather have cheap teachers than good teachers. if tenure didn't exist, older, more expensive teachers (even great ones) would be heavily at risk of being let go because they make (sometimes) almost twice as much as a recent college grad with no masters degree. the flip side is that unions protect bad teachers who mail it in after tenure, but i don't think that's as big a concern as ultimately alienating talented people from becoming teachers because the higher they achieve, the bigger target they could have on their back.

hmm fair enough. Tenure should take way longer to get. it should be an accomplishment not whatever the hell it is now.

i think if you went from 3 years to 10-15, you'd end up with the same results. it's usually the dinosaurs in their 50's/60's who are abusing the system. the younger teachers still have professional pride.

[MWB]

lol :fist:

no need for unions if you are a competent teacher.

Under the current education system that is false.

[Rylan]

lol

no need for unions if you are a competent teacher.

yes and no.

in a vacuum, you're right, but educational decisions are made based on money as much as possible. many school boards and more importantly, state governments, would rather have cheap teachers than good teachers. if tenure didn't exist, older, more expensive teachers (even great ones) would be heavily at risk of being let go because they make (sometimes) almost twice as much as a recent college grad with no masters degree. the flip side is that unions protect bad teachers who mail it in after tenure, but i don't think that's as big a concern as ultimately alienating talented people from becoming teachers because the higher they achieve, the bigger target they could have on their back.

hmm fair enough. Tenure should take way longer to get. it should be an accomplishment not whatever the hell it is now.

i think if you went from 3 years to 10-15, you'd end up with the same results. it's usually the dinosaurs in their 50's/60's who are abusing the system. the younger teachers still have professional pride.

idk bout that. my worst teachers in high school were the new teachers. now my worst teachers in junior high were older, but then again i don't recall any teacher under the age of 35.

there needs to be a fair evaluation that will keep educators honest. too many times a teacher would be "evaluated" and everything would change for that class. its was BS.

[Physical_Graffiti]

NRA ftl .

What?

Nuttin' brah.

My thoughts exactly.

[AlexPKeaton]

So it's not the entire problem, but part of the problem. Yes, better pay would attract better candidates. However, your assumption that a good engineer, scientist, etc would make a good teacher is faulty. Knowing something doesn't mean you can effectively teach it. The "great" public schools will often attract the better teachers because of more money.... They also have more involved parents.

People with the "OMGZ, unions are awful" focus need to widen the scope a bit. Yes, unions do have a blame in this, but it's certainly not the biggest or most important change that needs to be made. Just an easy scapegoat for some so that changes that will actually make a difference can be overlooked.

I completely disagree with your first disagreement. Obviously a more intelligent person would make a better teacher. They would put that intellect towards teaching rather than towards something more intellectual. A dumb person has little intellect to apply to anything.

However I blame teaching unions 100% for everything education related in this country. I'm particularly fired up about this after watching Waiting for Superman this past weekend.

It is exactly parallel to the military industrial lobby, the wall-street lobby, etc., except that teachers unions donate to the democrats so somehow they are less evil than those people.

[Physical_Graffiti]

So it's not the entire problem, but part of the problem. Yes, better pay would attract better candidates. However, your assumption that a good engineer, scientist, etc would make a good teacher is faulty. Knowing something doesn't mean you can effectively teach it. The "great" public schools will often attract the better teachers because of more money.... They also have more involved parents.

People with the "OMGZ, unions are awful" focus need to widen the scope a bit. Yes, unions do have a blame in this, but it's certainly not the biggest or most important change that needs to be made. Just an easy scapegoat for some so that changes that will actually make a difference can be overlooked.

I completely disagree with your first disagreement. Obviously a more intelligent person would make a better teacher. They would put that intellect towards teaching rather than towards something more intellectual. A dumb person has little intellect to apply to anything.

Just because you may be smart, that doesn't mean you can teach or will be better teacher than another.

Define "dumb person": Everyone has strengths and weaknesses.

[AlexPKeaton]

So it's not the entire problem, but part of the problem. Yes, better pay would attract better candidates. However, your assumption that a good engineer, scientist, etc would make a good teacher is faulty. Knowing something doesn't mean you can effectively teach it. The "great" public schools will often attract the better teachers because of more money.... They also have more involved parents.

People with the "OMGZ, unions are awful" focus need to widen the scope a bit. Yes, unions do have a blame in this, but it's certainly not the biggest or most important change that needs to be made. Just an easy scapegoat for some so that changes that will actually make a difference can be overlooked.

I completely disagree with your first disagreement. Obviously a more intelligent person would make a better teacher. They would put that intellect towards teaching rather than towards something more intellectual. A dumb person has little intellect to apply to anything.

Just because you may be smart, that doesn't mean you can teach or will be better teacher than another.

Define "dumb person": Everyone has strengths and weaknesses.

I guess I should clarify what I mean by intelligence. I mean more overall eliteness. Go-getting type A people who don't party all through college. Nerds. Pre-med, science, math, and engineering students. The type of people who aspire to more than just going to the crappy local 13th grade college. Those are the type of people going into teaching in Finland. That is impossible in the US as long as unions are keeping starting salaries down in the gutter to justify the idiotic idea of tenure.

[MWB]

So it's not the entire problem, but part of the problem. Yes, better pay would attract better candidates. However, your assumption that a good engineer, scientist, etc would make a good teacher is faulty. Knowing something doesn't mean you can effectively teach it. The "great" public schools will often attract the better teachers because of more money.... They also have more involved parents.

People with the "OMGZ, unions are awful" focus need to widen the scope a bit. Yes, unions do have a blame in this, but it's certainly not the biggest or most important change that needs to be made. Just an easy scapegoat for some so that changes that will actually make a difference can be overlooked.

I completely disagree with your first disagreement. Obviously a more intelligent person would make a better teacher. They would put that intellect towards teaching rather than towards something more intellectual. A dumb person has little intellect to apply to anything.

However I blame teaching unions 100% for everything education related in this country. I'm particularly fired up about this after watching Waiting for Superman this past weekend.

It is exactly parallel to the military industrial lobby, the wall-street lobby, etc., except that teachers unions donate to the democrats so somehow they are less evil than those people.

Having all the intellect in the world is meaningless if you can't impart it to others. In some cases that may be something you can learn to do; in others, it's simply a matter of personality. You have to communicate, adapt, and listen. Using your line of thinking, the best coaches in sports would all be the best players... that's not the case though.

You seem to be viewing the union thing at least partly through partisan eyes... Many Reps view teacher's unions as awful and don't feel the same towards military and many Dems view the military lobby as awful and don't view teachers unions the same. It's not like everyone hates the military and loves education.

For all the bad press that teacher's unions get (some deserved), they do some good things. They do work with schools to try to improve the quality of education. It's not all about protecting "awful" teachers (and in some cases they're actually trying to protect good teachers).

[MWB]

I guess I should clarify what I mean by intelligence. I mean more overall eliteness. Go-getting type A people who don't party all through college. Nerds. Pre-med, science, math, and engineering students. The type of people who aspire to more than just going to the crappy local 13th grade college. Those are the type of people going into teaching in Finland. That is impossible in the US as long as unions are keeping starting salaries down in the gutter to justify the idiotic idea of tenure.

Those people are teaching in Finland because the people of Finland put a higher priority on it. People in general, in this country, don't. And how do you back up the statement that unions keep starting salaries in the gutter? Non-union states range from the middle to the low end of starting salaries.

[AlexPKeaton]

I guess I should clarify what I mean by intelligence. I mean more overall eliteness. Go-getting type A people who don't party all through college. Nerds. Pre-med, science, math, and engineering students. The type of people who aspire to more than just going to the crappy local 13th grade college. Those are the type of people going into teaching in Finland. That is impossible in the US as long as unions are keeping starting salaries down in the gutter to justify the idiotic idea of tenure.

Those people are teaching in Finland because the people of Finland put a higher priority on it. People in general, in this country, don't. And how do you back up the statement that unions keep starting salaries in the gutter? Non-union states range from the middle to the low end of starting salaries.

That statement is from the proposal by the superintendent of the DC area school who offered the union an optional deal in the contract where a teacher could willingly give up tenure but be allowed to receive merit pay and 6 figure salaries. The union didn't even allow a vote. This was all from Waiting for Superman which is what got me fired up about this. Normally I don't give a crap because my kids are going to private school anyway.

[tifosi77]

I completely disagree with your first disagreement. Obviously a more intelligent person would make a better teacher. They would put that intellect towards teaching rather than towards something more intellectual. A dumb person has little intellect to apply to anything.

However I blame teaching unions 100% for everything education related in this country. I'm particularly fired up about this after watching Waiting for Superman this past weekend.

It is exactly parallel to the military industrial lobby, the wall-street lobby, etc., except that teachers unions donate to the democrats so somehow they are less evil than those people.

For someone who fancies themselves as so smart, you have a strange habit of articulating (if that's the right word) some incredibly simplistic and lame-brained ideas.

Waiting for Superman is about as accurate a portrayal of the educational crisis in this country as the average Michael Moore 'documentary' is on its topic du jour. Which is to say hardly at all. But factual accuracy is not the role or purpose of a documentary film or documentarian; these films are propaganda pieces, pure and simple. They are the filmic equivalent of policy papers that start at the desired end point and build up supporting evidence (often of dubious quality) around that end and present the resulting compilation as a proof of concept.

[count2infinity]

I guess I should clarify what I mean by intelligence. I mean more overall eliteness. Go-getting type A people who don't party all through college. Nerds. Pre-med, science, math, and engineering students. The type of people who aspire to more than just going to the crappy local 13th grade college. Those are the type of people going into teaching in Finland. That is impossible in the US as long as unions are keeping starting salaries down in the gutter to justify the idiotic idea of tenure.

I am one of those people...I was in teaching because I wanted to teach, and I can tell you it was not the union that made me quit, it was much more than that.