I knwo you think if you make enough breaks you'll confuse who you're speaking to, but you need to back and read. Unions don't teach.
That is correct. They are, in fact,
bad for teaching.
In the same sense that law that protect the innocent in our justice system sometimes helps the guilty, a poor teach can be protected in a limited baises. However, there is a process everywhere. So, your complaint really holds no water.
That is incorrect because the two are not comparable. With respect to the law our highest value is to protect the rights of the accused. We are willing to accept that some guilty go free in order to minimize the possibility that the innocent will be punished. In our public school system, however, our highest value is
not the employment or the careers of teachers -
it is the education of children. If we discovered tomorrow that our children could be better educated if we stuck them all in front of computers with automated teaching that followed their individual cognitive development, and that this could be accomplished for a moderate price, the correct solution would be to let the vast majority of our teachers go and replace them with the automated system. That would be horrible for teachers, to be sure. But it would be what is best for our students, and we have a public education system to benefit our
students, not our teachers. The tendency to swap those two priorities is the main driver behind the damage wrecked by teachers unions - they seek first foremost and mostly what is best for
teachers. That, after all, is their job.
MAny workers have no protection. On that you are right. People do get unfairly fired. I suppose you're suggesting this is better than have a process in place to make sure a firing is justified?
yes. Especially when the process you have put into place is so throttled with regulation and waiting and trouble and effort and cost that it is in effect a protective mechanism for
horrible teachers who shouldn't be allowed anywhere
near students. Claiming to be putting into place a system that keeps teachers who show good performance from getting fired unfairly, the unions have generally succeeded in putting into place a system that keeps teachers who show poor performance from getting fired period.
Are you seriously arguing it doesn't happen?
I am telling you it
does. That's the story behind this entire thread. Union rules force us to fire
good teachers in order to keep
senior teachers, regardless of their quality.
However, this is the type of thing your side does. Fine an example, which really represents a small number, and tries to make it seem like a huge problem.
The quality of people that we attract to and then retain within public education is indeed a problem. We need some of our
best, and instead we are attracting our
mediocre, and once they get into the system we aren't
promoting our best, we are promoting our
older.
So where do you want the protection? Risk keeping a few bad apples to protect the good, or sacrifice some good to amke sure get the bad faster? Both numbers are likely small. And good and bad is likely not as clear as you think.
The priority is that students receive quality teachers. Ergo, the system should be designed to weight in favor of removing poor teachers, with the acknowledgement and acceptance that sometimes this means good teachers will fall through the cracks.
You're showing your lack of understanding of what is said again. Reread and try again.
:roll:
Doesn't change my response. I maintian you don't understand the issue.
I maintain you didn't read carefully enough, responded foolishly, are now trying to wriggle out of it.
Effect on students? If you're using standardized test scores for that, you are getting misinformation plain and simple.
Somehow I
knew that was the
only part of that you would pull out. But no, as I have explained dozens of times to you, the system is not so simple as "standardized test scores".
Sounds like yet one more misunderstanding on your part.
The last time we discussed this, as I recall, you proposed the ridiculous notion that student achievement had nothing to do with teacher quality. It was almost as bad as your earlier claim that the government of North Korea had no impact on its' economy as far as detachment-from-reality.
