Teachers' unions don't oppose reform that would actually help them do their jobs better. They oppose politically popular (but shortsighted and counterproductive) cookie-cutter testing for "assessment." There are very good reasons for their position on this issue that have nothing to do with preserving job security for incompetent tenured deadwood.

Here in Oregon, our last ballot had a measure (written by a professional perennial wingnut) to prohibit bilingual education, because after all, isn't "total immersion" the best way to learn English? Except that there's good research to show that this just ain't so, no matter how common-sensical it might seem to the average Joe Voter.

Happily, the forces of light prevailed, and the measure was defeated. But the lesson here is that teachers--represented by the teachers' unions--know a lot more about how to assess learning outcomes than voters or politicians. Mickey Kaus is spreading misinformation by smearing the teachers' unions for "opposing reform." Too bad so much of his audience is primed to listen to him.

The teachers' unions are not advocates for students or for education. They are advocates for the professional interests of teachers. There is a very large difference there. It is a testament to the their abilities that they have so many people convinced of their altruism. That belief also happens to be foolish.

Generations of immigrants' children learned to be primary English speakers because they HAD to. It never occurred to their parents that anyone was going to teach them in their own native languages.For one thing, there were just too many native languages.

Look at Michael Corleone. He heard Italian at home and English at school, and he was perfectly bilingual. Of course, he was also a murdering thug,but he could order murders in two languages.

So you're surprised that a teacher's union doesn't advocate for students who (gasp) aren't part of the union? Say it ain't so! A teachers union, while not necessarily altruistic, is in some respects in the interests of students. Higher pay for teachers means more talented people will become teachers (in theory) and in this way the children benefit.

In terms of teachers using unions to convince people of their altruism, I think this is an exageration, if not an outright fabrication.

Higher pay for teachers means more talented people will become teachers (in theory) and in this way the children benefit.

No, not even in theory is this correct. The point of the union is to guarantee the benefits and compensation regardless of performance. More talented people can't necessarily come in because there is no procedure put in place to allow the more qualified-people in over less-qualified people. Any such procedure put in place would surely provoke a teacher-strike (pushed for by the under-qualified teachers of course).

Note that I believe teachers are under-paid, but paying them more under the current system won't and can't get more talented teachers.

I would be willing to bet that the average 12-year old chinese student would now score HIGHER than the average american high-school teacher on a standardized math exam. Of course, the dumbed-down teachers would shout about how the test wasn't fair and wasn't necessary and that you shouldn't punish teachers for not having the education levels needed to actually teach.

I would be willing to bet that the average 12-year old chinese student would now score HIGHER than the average american high-school teacher on a standardized math exam.

If you are talking about the showpiece schools that are presented to the west, perhaps. but not for the rest.

<link>

<link>

pxtot:

Here in Oregon, our last ballot had a measure (written by a professional perennial wingnut) to prohibit bilingual education, because after all, isn't "total immersion" the best way to learn English? Except that there's good research to show that this just ain't so, no matter how common-sensical it might seem to the average Joe Voter.

Ironicaly, in CA some of the strongest opponents of bilingual education were parents of the kids being educated that way since they understood that the single most important thing for their children to learn is English itself as that is the most important part of assimilation and future success for the kids. Non-bilingual ed probably makes it harder for the students to learn other topics, but as far as learning the language itself it seems logical that immersion (especially at younger ages) is the way to go, particularly for children of families where english isn't spoken in the home.

The catch-22 on the pay issue is that if teachers were paid commensurate with their value to society, you'd get lots of unenthusiastic teachers who are just in it for the paycheck (and since enthusiasm is tough to quantify on paper, EEO laws may well inadvertently prevent it from bieng a criteria for employment).

I agree that good teachers deserve much more money than they get, but the UIC of low pay is that it ensures more people getting into the career out of passion for the job, which is an important factor in eventual performance (although the inertia in underperforming districts does appear to have a crushing effect on some of this, and by most accounts leads to high turnover), and the problems which diminish that passion in the "bad" districts/systems seem unlikely to be alleviated by higher pay.

So the more we value a professoin, the less we should pay them?

I'll bet you got that one from FoxNews.

Philadelphia Steve:

So the more we value a professoin, the less we should pay them?

I'll bet you got that one from FoxNews.

If they've said it on FNC, I wouldn't know (it amazes me how often I'm told by strangers on this board what my media habits are, and how universally incorrect those assersions are). Outside of channel surfing on unfamiliar cable systems or waiting rooms where I have no choice, my exposure to that channel's broadcasts is limited to the occasional clip on failblog. I applaud you for the courage to believe that no mentally functional human being could concieve of a thought which you dissaprove of merely by observation of facts and application of logic, though.

Since you seem interested in being an expert in my personal habits, some actual facts on the subject might benefit you; I tend to get my news from the AP/Reuters feeds on yahoo augmented by this site and a couple others I follow mostly for financial news and commentary (primarily minyanville), I also watch real Time with Bill Maher frequently when it's on but that's about it for TV news from any source.

I wasn't saying there should be an inverse relationship between importance and compensation (although as long as athletes and actors are paid more than ER doctors and teachers, it seems to be out of my comtrol). What I'm saying is that there is a danger in assuming higher pay means better teachers since motivation and passion for the job is such an important part of doing it well. Do you honestly believe that having a clockwatcher who's just gotten into teaching for the paycheck in front of a classroom would lead to effective education?

I agree wholeheartedly that teachers aren't paid what they're worth, although there's nobobdy teaching today who didn't know what the pay situation was before choosing to pursue that career. My point is that there is a benefit to having teachers who are motivated to pursue the job depite the pay as opposed to because of it; I'm not saying that absolutely justifies the low pay, but it is a fact of life that is worthy of consideration.

I could swear I once heard someone say something about libs being better at comprehending and processing nuance, whoever it was must not spend much time on forums like this one.....

Your response is detailed and straightforward. While I do not agree with what appears to be "poor pay makes more dedicated teachers" premise of your comment, I also do want teachers to be in the field because they want to be there

However.

It is axiomatic among Conservatives that private schools are always better than public schools. and I have yet to see a Conservative commentator who does not give the complete impression that he/she would shut down 100% of public schools in a heartbeat, given half a chance.

And one method of doing that is to starve the schools, demonize teachers as unionized bums and make every attempt possible to encourage people to take their children out of public schools to weaken support.

Your comment about maintaining low pay for teachers gave every impression, to be, of being another part of that campaign.

I'll leave the sweeping generalizations to the ideologues and non-critical thinkers, since the reality is that the quality of public schools (as well as availability of private schools) varies drasticly from district to district and state to state. There's probably a similar degree of variability between private schools in terms of quality of education provided. Some anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that the individual capabilities and talents of the administrators and teachers at a particular school is one of the most important factors for the success or failure of attemts to rescue schools which are/have been failing.

There are definitely places where most or all of the nearby private schools are better (or are nearly universally considered to be better) than the public school districts. Los Angeles would be a good example of this (I've heard studies purporting that even teachers in the LAUSD chose to send their own children to private schools at a rate of 70%), and from most reports Washington DC is another (although I have no personal familiarity or insight there). Conversely the public schools in Montana and Colorado where I went through grades 2-12 were generally pretty good, complete with regular standardized testing before it was "cool" (and in MT, there tended to be only one private school per county at most and all of the ones I know of were run by churches).

As far as maintaining teacher pay, I just want to clarify that none of my commets were ever meant as an affirmative endorsement of maintaining low pay, just an acknowledgement that there is a dliemma to be found in the issue (to which I'm not even pretending to have the answer), which is why I first and foremost referred to it as a "catch-22".

I wouldn't even suggest that the root of any problem lies with teachers' unions, although the unions as organizations do mre often than not publicly oppose and lobby against any attempt at fixing schools/districts which do have problems except for increasing teacher pay and general school funding. The other thing about the unions is that (as with many unions in many fields) they have frequently embraced the idea that part of their purpose is to protect the job security of the least competent among their ranks (I've personally witnessed this effect in the aerospace industry and heard first-hand accounts from the auto industry, so it's in no way singular to teachers).

I do personally think that much of the real root of the problem has more to do with the culture within the education system (especially the "self-esteem" crap) and less to do with the policies at work. When schools are banning "tag" at recess and prohibiting teachers from grading papers with red ink because of the potential "emotional trauma" which can be caused by such activites, I'd be willing to bet that the real problem is in the mindset of whoever is making such decisions and why they're listened to and less with budget issues or whether/how standardized testing is being done.