OK, you're getting hostile and are arguing entirely with emotion now, so this may be my last response to you:
1. Teacher's unions endorse certain politicians.
2. Teacher's unions endorse certain policies that benefit the teacher's union (e.g. inefficient tenure).
3. Politicians implement said policies in order to stay in the teacher's union's good graces.
And as I already explained, innovation is NOT clearly better for students than the status quo. That's why it's innovation. But we will never know as long as the teacher's unions stand in the way and refuse to allow any experimentation whatsoever in our education system if it might pose a threat to the teacher's union. Regarding your other three points:Again, you have repeated your argument which is NOT a demonstration that your argument is correct. Again, please show what "education innovation" teacher's unions are opposed to, why they say they are against it, what their counter proposals are and why the "educational innovation" they oppose is better for students than their counter proposals.
"what education innovation teacher's unions are opposed to" - I already gave you three. Merit pay, online education, and charter schools.
"why they say they are against it" - The same reason they say they are against ANY innovation: zomg think of the children. In reality, they oppose these things because merit pay will pose a threat to the most mediocre teachers, and online education and charter schools operate outside the boundaries of the union entirely.
"what their counter proposals are" - They don't have any. In all three cases, their counter proposal is the status quo.
What demonstrable evidence that leads me to the conclusion that a group organized specifically for the benefit of teachers doesn't have STUDENTS' best interests at heart? Really? That's like asking me what demonstrable evidence there is that large corporations care more about making money for their shareholders than they do about helping the poor. Or like asking me what demonstrable evidence there is that an environmental activist group cares more about the environment than they do about gun control.I'm not interested in what you "buy" or what makes you "roll your eyes." That's your business. I'm interested in a demonstration that your arguments are correct. Please demonstrate the accuracy of your arguments. So far, you have merely repeated your beliefs without substantiation. I'm trying to understand what demonstrable evidence has lead you to the conclusions that you've come to.
I thought it would be pretty self-evident that a group that is paid for by members' dues of teachers - and whose leadership is elected by teachers - would care more about teachers than students or anyone else. No?
See above. Why WOULDN'T they act in their own self-interest? But here, I'll make this simple. You're right, I said 100% of the time they'll act in their own best interest. And I stand by that. So if you can find me one single example of a teacher's union advocating for an educational policy that would benefit the students, at the expense of the teacher's union itself, I will retract that claim and admit that I was wrong. It can be anything, from anywhere in the United States.Please demonstrate that "the teacher's unions will do what it thinks is in its OWN best interest at the expense of the students 100% of the time." Because you have invoked percentages, statistics will be necessary.
Teachers are not special. If they think they have an educational policy that can benefit society, they should have to convince the voters just like anyone else rather than strongarming elected officials to get their way. And if the voters are too stupid to see it the same way, then that's just too bad. This is not a dictatorship.In an ideal world that would be true, yes. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people refuse to demonstrate the veracity of their arguments and "roll their eyes" when others ask them for evidence.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse because you are fully aware that the facts are not on your side. "Why would they" is a perfectly valid question here; the fact that you have no answer is quite telling. Teacher's unions, like any other entity organized for a specific purpose and elected by its members, are going to advocate for that purpose. If they don't, the leadership will quickly find itself replaced by more pliant leadership.This is not a demonstration of how you know that "it's just a coincidence" and that the teacher's union doesn't genuinely want those things for students. Please demonstrate that. Asking "why would they" is NOT a demonstration. It is a deflective question.