I am asking for causation. You have still failed to show causation. Please demonstrate how "the low efficiency of tenure is the fault of unions and not of the government or other groups"? Please show the politicians and policies that unions have endorsed and how those policies have directly caused the low efficiency of tenure.I'm not really sure what kind of "demonstration" you are asking for here. I mean, are you seriously denying that special interest groups lobby the government for policies? I doubt this is what you had in mind in terms of a "demonstration" (I doubt you even KNOW what you had in mind), but I'll spell it out as best I can for 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.
1. What innovation have they stood in the way of and why are those apparently untested ideas are better than the tested ones the unions are in favor of?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:
2. Please show a pattern of unions standing in the way of "any experimentation that might post a threat to the union." In other words, show the experimentation you have in mind and show the words/behavior of the union in response to it that shows they only oppose it because it threatens the union.
1. Thank you. I was waiting on the second two."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.
2. Citations? Where is your evidence of this? You just keep restating it without evidence. That is what I mean by demonstration.
3. You just revealed your ignorance which is exactly what I suspected was the problem. They do have counter proposals. Now, what are those counter proposals and why are they worse than what you propose? (And don't give me the "but we haven't tested them yet" nonsense. Almost every "innovative" proposal in education has research to support or not support it, so if you don't think it does, you're just revealing your ignorance again.)
Yes, please provide demonstrable evidence to support your unsubstantiated opinion.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.
Your original argument was not that they care more about teachers, but that they care only about teachers. Please demonstrate the latter. The "self-evident" defense doesn't even work for a high school paper, let alone adult "debates."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?
I never said that they don't act in their self-interest. I questioned this argument, "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." Please demonstrate the veracity of THAT argument.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.
Irrelevant, emotional comment is irrelevant and emotional.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.
At the beginning of this exchange, you made several arguments and provided no evidence or sources to substantiate them. I have repeatedly asked you to substantiate your claims by demonstrating their veracity with citations, statistics, research or other forms of evidence. You still yet to provide one single piece of evidence in either of those forms and instead have just argued that your claims are "self-evident" or mocked for not just accepting whatever you say. As a result, you have shown, unsurprisingly, that you are grossly uninformed and unable to support your own claims.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.