• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teacher of the year is laid off.

Which one is that?

Ten states have not outlawed unions. Zero have. Unions have federal and constitutional protections. What you may be thinking is that in a handful of states collective bargaining for public employees is not required and in some it was never made legal. The exception of course being Wisconsin which was the first to make it legal and then the first to retract it. Back in the day collective bargaining for public employees was considered taboo for many reasons. I'd suggest you look up what FDR had to say about it.

However, there are still public unions. You are looking at a policy (incorrectly interpreted as usual) and then stating that all public employes of those states are not in unions. That's false. And the point you made about right to work states is beyond silly. It has no influence in the subject.
 
Last edited:
That is correct. They are, in fact, bad for teaching.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



:roll:



I maintain you didn't read carefully enough, responded foolishly, are now trying to wriggle out of it.



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".



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.

How do you determine objectively which teachers are effective and which are not?
 

Only five states do not allow collective bargaining for educators, effectively banning teachers unions. Those states and their SAT/ACT rankings are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th

North Carolina – 49th

Georgia – 48th

Texas – 47th

Virginia – 44th


Read more: The Five States Where Teachers Unions Are Illegal Have The Lowest Test Scores In America* - Business Insider

We can argue the semantics if you want. Or you can pretend. :coffeepap
 
Ten states have not outlawed unions. Zero have. Unions have federal and constitutional protections. What you may be thinking is that in a handful of states collective bargaining for public employees is not required and in some it was never made legal. The exception of course being Wisconsin which was the first to make it legal and then the first to retract it. Back in the day collective bargaining for public employees was considered taboo for many reasons. I'd suggest you look up what FDR had to say about it.

However, there are still public unions. You are looking at a policy (incorrectly interpreted as usual) and then stating that all public employes of those states are not in unions. That's false. And the point you made about right to work states is beyond silly. It has no influence in the subject.

See above.
 
:roll: still seeking to divert into this only and one point?

:roll:

And doesn't carry over for the reasons I mentioned. The priority for an educational system is the students, not the employees.

No one disagrees. How, the priority for unions is the people they represent. Most know the difference and understand it. I doubt anyone wants to hurt students, but that doesn't change looking out for the best interests of the people you represent. You incorrectly assume you can't do oen without hurting the other.



for individuals absolutely; which is why you use large data sets to average filter out outliers in order to allow you to determine trends.

That doesn't help it. It really doesn't. There are too many variables. Some entire districts face much more problems than others. There is no level playing field. In one school, minimal improvement would be major. In another, it would be menaingless. YOu cannot in any way judge the teacher trhough the results of standardized testing, especially where the student has no stake.

I didn't skip over it at all. In fact, I specifically stated in response to your question:

No, I don't think you did. You spoke about unions. I spoke about private sector and non unions teacher. You skipped it.



Which does not address what I asked.


Perhaps you can defend a system which is set up to protect bad and mediocre teachers as superior? What prioritization does that flow from?

There is no such system with that as a goal. The goal is to protect good teachers, just as the goal with US laws are to protect the innocent. That some benefit, unintentionally, is the cost of that protection. Remove it, and you still ahve the risk of a bad teacher being kept and a good teacher being fired but with no protection or process to assure anything.
 
Only five states do not allow collective bargaining for educators, effectively banning teachers unions. Those states and their SAT/ACT rankings are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th

North Carolina – 49th

Georgia – 48th

Texas – 47th

Virginia – 44th


Read more: The Five States Where Teachers Unions Are Illegal Have The Lowest Test Scores In America* - Business Insider

We can argue the semantics if you want. Or you can pretend. :coffeepap
Why do you repost debunked arguments from other threads?

As I stated before, those data are from 1999. And those states have seen significant improvement since 1999.
 
Why do you repost debunked arguments from other threads?

As I stated before, those data are from 1999. And those states have seen significant improvement since 1999.

You're still missing point. ANd I told you that there. No where am I suing this to say anything about the scores. This is the relevant part: effectively banning teachers unions.

NOw, if you need me to highlight, explain, draw a diagram, whatever, just let me know. But do try to get what is actually being argued.
 
You're still missing point. ANd I told you that there. No where am I suing this to say anything about the scores. This is the relevant part: effectively banning teachers unions.

NOw, if you need me to highlight, explain, draw a diagram, whatever, just let me know. But do try to get what is actually being argued.

If it has nothing to do with the test scores, why do you mention them?

For me it seems like you are making this point
- Test scores in states who ban collective bargaining for teachers is low.
= banning collective bargaining for teachers is bad.

If that isn't your point, then please explain.
 
Same way everyone else determines that. Results.

Results on the standardized test? On writing samples? math samples? reading inventories? What? So far, the bureaucrats seem focused only on standardized test results, the poorest way of measuring student progress we have.

And then, there are the factors outside of the control of the school. Are all the best teachers in schools that have the most involved parents?

Actually, teaching a child of educated parents to read is very easy. Often, they can read before the school even starts formal instruction. Children of inner city single moms, children of migrant farm workers, children of illegal aliens, children with learning disabilities all pose more of a problem.

An excellent teacher is one that can take children I've described and teach them to read by the end of second grade or so. That's too late for them to perform on the standardized test, even if they wanted to perform on the standardized test.
 
If it has nothing to do with the test scores, why do you mention them?

For me it seems like you are making this point
- Test scores in states who ban collective bargaining for teachers is low.
= banning collective bargaining for teachers is bad.

If that isn't your point, then please explain.

I think in context my point is easy to follow. I link the spot where the "effectively banning teachers unions" informtion is written and where it lists the states. We are talking about number of public unions and their power, not test scores. When reading something, context matters.
 
Results on the standardized test? On writing samples? math samples? reading inventories? What? So far, the bureaucrats seem focused only on standardized test results, the poorest way of measuring student progress we have.

And then, there are the factors outside of the control of the school. Are all the best teachers in schools that have the most involved parents?

Actually, teaching a child of educated parents to read is very easy. Often, they can read before the school even starts formal instruction. Children of inner city single moms, children of migrant farm workers, children of illegal aliens, children with learning disabilities all pose more of a problem.

An excellent teacher is one that can take children I've described and teach them to read by the end of second grade or so. That's too late for them to perform on the standardized test, even if they wanted to perform on the standardized test.

What I've seen of state legislators working on education reform has been a bit scary (what they don't know). I wonder why more teachers are not having input?
 
I think in context my point is easy to follow. I link the spot where the "effectively banning teachers unions" informtion is written and where it lists the states. We are talking about number of public unions and their power, not test scores. When reading something, context matters.

Then why are you mentioning the test scores at all?
 
What I've seen of state legislators working on education reform has been a bit scary (what they don't know). I wonder why more teachers are not having input?


Because teachers understand the real world of educating children. The legislators don't want reality to interfere with their carefully crafted bull(bleep!) "reforms".
 
Then why are you mentioning the test scores at all?

Did you read what I just wrote?

I think in context my point is easy to follow. I link the spot where the "effectively banning teachers unions" information is written and where it lists the states. We are talking about number of public unions and their power, not test scores. When reading something, context matters.
 
I read what you wrote, and it does not seem to answer my question.

Can you please explain, and include more than one sentence?

That makes non sense. I used the sentence that addressed the point. I'm not sure why you can't understand this. Does it say other things? Sure. But as I know there is a context to the discussion, I assume most are able to see the part that fits. I rarely run into someone who can't seem to grasp it. And frankly, some who say they don't are just trying to skit the issue.

You, however, seem to honestly not get it. Like I said, this is rare. The clear, straight as an arrow answer has been given.
 
That makes non sense. I used the sentence that addressed the point. I'm not sure why you can't understand this. Does it say other things? Sure. But as I know there is a context to the discussion, I assume most are able to see the part that fits. I rarely run into someone who can't seem to grasp it. And frankly, some who say they don't are just trying to skit the issue.

You, however, seem to honestly not get it. Like I said, this is rare. The clear, straight as an arrow answer has been given.

Instead of insulting me and others on the forum.

Why don't you explain why you are including the test scores at all?
 
Instead of insulting me and others on the forum.

Why don't you explain why you are including the test scores at all?

I'm not trying to insult you, but I have explained. What am I suppose to say when you don't understand? :shrug:
 
Why would Unions want to come up with honest teacher evaluations? That would allow them to actually be individualy evaluated, decreasing the power of the union.
Why did we ever give these simpletons that much power?
 
I'm not trying to insult you, but I have explained. What am I suppose to say when you don't understand? :shrug:

You gave me one sentence that seems to say "Oh.. I am just copying whatever my link says", which doesn't really answer the question.

Rephrase it so we know what you are talking about. Communication is a two way street.
 
You gave me one sentence that seems to say "Oh.. I am just copying whatever my link says", which doesn't really answer the question.

Rephrase it so we know what you are talking about. Communication is a two way street.

Yeah, as the sentence tells you it was on point and why it was on point. This is not hard to follow. And as a two way street, I have to what it is you don't follow. I highlighted the pertinent part, explain that the rest came with the sentence, and that I wanted the listing of states. What could you not understand?
 
Only five states do not allow collective bargaining for educators, effectively banning teachers unions. Those states and their SAT/ACT rankings are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th

North Carolina – 49th

Georgia – 48th

Texas – 47th

Virginia – 44th


Read more: The Five States Where Teachers Unions Are Illegal Have The Lowest Test Scores In America* - Business Insider

We can argue the semantics if you want. Or you can pretend. :coffeepap

See above.

You are just all over the map. First you claim 10 states have outlawed teacher's unions. Then when proven wrong due to the clear inability to comprehend your sources you post a link using decade old data and once again fail to comprehend what you are reading.

First, let's stay up to date with our data and not pick and choose years where we don't have all of the information. Secondly, do you know the percentile those states are in terms of taking the SAT exams?

South Carolina: 13
North Carolina: 16
Georgia: 5
Texas: 20
Virginia: 12

These states take the SATs at a much higher rate than other states. People who take the SATs tend towards the top of the educational system. States like Wisconsin who up until this year had one of the strongest public unions in the nation only have a participation rate of 5% with the SATs. They are 44th in the nation. Missouri also scores at the top percentile in exam scores, where our fearless Layla_Z teaches and has no union and is underpaid. You can't look at that number though because only 5% of the students actually take the exams.

These numbers mean absolutely nothing without looking at the participation rates, demographics and socio-economic conditions. In fact, The College Board (where your stats comes from) tells you so. Otherwise a state like Maine (95% participation) would be rated at the bottom in terms of education when it is not the case at all. You really have a lot of learning to do. You haven't made a single intelligent argument yet. Everything you've posted thus far has been a failure to comprehend what you have read or a bait and switch.. just like this argument.

Boo Radley: Thirty-something percent of public school teachers are in a union!!!11!!
> No Boo, your figure includes public as well as private employees from all different professions, not just teachers.
Boo Radley: Well, 10 states outlaw teacher's unions!!111!!
> No Boo, no state outlaws teacher's unions. They have a right to form a union. Some states haven't made collectively bargaining a requirement though.
Boo Radley: States that don't have collective bargaining have the lowest test scores and therefore the lowest quality education!!!!11!!
> No Boo, they take the exams at a much higher rate thus the numbers are skewed from the inclusion of students in much lower percentiles.

This entire thread has been nothing short of an exercise in futility with you. Basic reading comprehension and fundamental understanding of logic and recognizing fallacies is completely lost on you.

For your edification, here are the actual numbers for you to look at.
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/SAT_Trends_Report_9_12_2011.pdf
I'm really posting this for other people, I know you don't have the intelligence to comprehend the information.
 
Last edited:
You are just all over the map. First you claim 10 states have outlawed teacher's unions. Then when proven wrong due to the clear inability to comprehend your sources you post a link using decade old data and once again fail to comprehend what you are reading.

First, let's stay up to date with our data and not pick and choose years where we don't have all of the information. Secondly, do you know the percentile those states are in terms of taking the SAT exams?

South Carolina: 13
North Carolina: 16
Georgia: 5
Texas: 20
Virginia: 12

These states take the SATs at a much higher rate than other states. People who take the SATs tend towards the top of the educational system. States like Wisconsin who up until this year had one of the strongest public unions in the nation only have a participation rate of 5% with the SATs. They are 44th in the nation. Missouri also scores at the top percentile in exam scores, where our fearless Layla_Z teaches and has no union and is underpaid. You can't look at that number though because only 5% of the students actually take the exams.

These numbers mean absolutely nothing without looking at the participation rates, demographics and socio-economic conditions. In fact, The College Board (where your stats comes from) tells you so. Otherwise a state like Maine (95% participation) would be rated at the bottom in terms of education when it is not the case at all. You really have a lot of learning to do. You haven't made a single intelligent argument yet. Everything you've posted thus far has been a failure to comprehend what you have read or a bait and switch.. just like this argument.

Boo Radley: Thirty-something percent of public school teachers are in a union!!!11!!
> No Boo, your figure includes public as well as private employees from all different professions, not just teachers.
Boo Radley: Well, 10 states outlaw teacher's unions!!111!!
> No Boo, no state outlaws teacher's unions. They have a right to form a union. Some states haven't made collectively bargaining a requirement though.
Boo Radley: States that don't have collective bargaining have the lowest test scores and therefore the lowest quality education!!!!11!!
> No Boo, they take the exams at a much higher rate thus the numbers are skewed from the inclusion of students in much lower percentiles.

This entire thread has been nothing short of an exercise in futility with you. Basic reading comprehension and fundamental understanding of logic and recognizing fallacies is completely lost on you.

For your edification, here are the actual numbers for you to look at.
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/SAT_Trends_Report_9_12_2011.pdf
I'm really posting this for other people, I know you don't have the intelligence to comprehend the information.

Follow. Yes, it was states and not ten. However, 23 states have right to work laws. The point had nothing to do with test scores, so let's not follow down that lane as the other poster did. The point is about how many people are in unions.
 
Back
Top Bottom