I was attempting to provide some perspective on what education is like without powerful teacher unions. As an example of the impotence of teacher unions in the state where I taught: I know of a teacher with 25+ years’s experience whose contract was not renewed, i.e., fired, when his performance diminished. Basically because he was absent too much to take care of his off-hours business, though he was still competent inside the classroom. His accumulated sick time paid for his absences, but the school still got rid of him.

In this state, principals have the power to get rid of low-performing but experienced teachers, and they do. As they should. Unfortunately, excellent teachers with experience are also quitting like flies, with a net loss to the education system, because they are tired of putting up with the BS.

I am not denying that powerful teacher unions tend to create more problems than they solve. From my first posting: “Yes, incompetent teachers should be fired.” My point is that even without powerful teacher unions, education in America is still beset with problems. Big time.

Go and write 500 words to refute me. Be my guest.

It is impossible for human beings to conduct useful policies so far away from the problem centers. This was as true in war as it was true in government. However, the power, stability, prosperity, and generally welfare of the US has deluded people, and I speak of not politicians exclusively, that they can generate the Right Path for people and regions hundreds of miles away from their center of operations.

As Colin Powell, Americans want government benefits. Not because they need government benefits, but because they have been taught that this is the only Right Path to success. For someone far away to tell you what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. They learned this from corporate practices. They learned this in schools, gangs, and the hierarchies of political Leftism and Democrat party politics. They learned this from studying WWII, the fake history version of it from Democrats, and how FDR did such a great job through “unifying” the nation in war time via nationalization and what not.

The only time they ever didn’t learn or rather learned something that was potentially contradictory to this mishmash of brainwashing was when they learned about Hitler and the American Revolution. Both were examples of what people shouldn’t do just because the majority were doing it. The American Revolution because most Americans were British Loyalists. The Nazis because most Germans just went along with Hitler cause he promised a better tomorrow, free of debt and full of glory.

But, these lessons have been somewhat de-emphasized and countered by the “Dead White Male” school of thought and the “Hitler was a right wing Republican” school of thought. So far, people now, more or less, believe that Obama cannot be wrong, because statist and national extremes are only a problem for Right Wing people. This is the result of denial, displacement, and projection. The three unholy trinities of Leftism in terms of how they deal with problems in the real world.

Look at the deeper cause. The problem here is that if the school does not assure that the student is not bringing in _any_ medication, the school then is subject to lawsuit if the student with the medication gives it and thereby causes harm to any other student. Or even if the student does him/herself harm. Now why should that be? The student and/or the student’s parents should be the party held liable, if harm is done. But in fact, we know that the “deeper pocket” factor comes into play. If there is _any_ way of possibly shuffling off responsibility from the student to the abrogation of responsibility by the school, that is what will be done. The school will be held responsible, and the payment will be made to the harmed individual by the public even though it was by an individual action. That’s insane, but that’s what we’ve come to. The school, by doing the strip search, is merely protecting itself. Do I think it’s wrong? Yes – but we’ve allowed the legal profession to abuse common sense by permitting huge settlements on individuals who simply are unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions.

How can that be changed?

First you have to adequately explore the nature of unions, teachers included, in order to accurately witness what the problem truly is and why certain solutions are proposed.

Until then, your perspective is inconsistent when you juxtapose teacher unions, which you did not give focus on, to administration and teacher working environments, which you have given focus on. Almost inevitably, the juxtaposition of two different hemispheres, one which was given an imbalanced criteria or priority over the other, cannot provide true or accurate sense of the whole sphere.

It does not inherently provide benefit to the situational awareness of the whole, the whole problem as well as the whole solution, by de-focusing attention on one part and giving it to another. This does not actually reinforce the truth of one thing over another, nor does it in actuality make some things less important than others. This is an artificial imbalance, because it doesn’t happen naturally. People make it happen. It is so both because people do not inherently and automatically see the whole and it is artificial because it is through the actions of people’s desires, and not certain coincidences or happenstances.

1) Continually changing testing and curriculum requirements.

The teachers unions have made their complaints about such things as No Child Left Behind. Of course, the consequences of that is not that politicians, like Kennedy, will now start listening more to teachers. The consequences are that politicians and legislaturalists will listen more to unions, which speak for the teachers as their more or less de facto political representatives.

Anyone who believes that teacher unions are the main problem facing American education and the teaching profession is hopelessly naïve. Let me repeat:hopelessly naïve.

You have not addressed why teacher unions are even a problem, let alone the main problem: such has not been decided nor even discussed. I see no analysis of the connections so far on your part, except in so far as a reaction to the connections made by others. Thus, as a consequence, I do not see the point in being needlessly aggressive and zealous in advocating for one incomplete and small sample of the American education system at the disadvantage of other views. The stipulation that this is a mutually exclusive logic chain, is one I do not find persuasive on the provided material, Gringo. Additionally, such a sample size cannot provide an accurate view of the whole. However, even though a small sample does not cover the whole population, it may have its own particular merits. Again, I am not convinced on the merits of your argument, Gringo, that there is a mutually exclusive, either-or, proposition at work on these subjects.

To a degree they are responding to outside pressure.

But you cannot even see, let alone discuss, what these outside pressures are without analyzing the connections between unions, teachers, politicians, and federal vs state educational requirements. Not to mention social side-effects. The fact that you proceed to take an extreme position regarding unions does not, in retrospect, create any true moderate preparation for such discussions.

While Y sees the union etc. resulting in lack of incentive for older teachers to keep their noses to the grindstone, to improve etc., the reality is rather that older teachers leave the profession early because they are tired of putting up with the S#$%. Most of the teachers I had as a child were 40-year teachers. The 40-year man/woman has become a relic in the teaching profession. IMHO, the problem is not getting rid of deadwood older teachers, but of providing greater incentives for teachers to remain.

I already addressed the union impact on incentives for teachers in the education system. This does not bear repeating in my view.

The problem, in so far as the education system has a problem and not simply a fundamental need to be destroyed and replaced by something new, is the entire slew of behavioral modifying factors which lead to destructive and self-destructive behavior rather than institutionalized productivity or reforms or self-improvement or flexibility in the Western sense of professional flexibility and self-improvement (quality assurance).

In so far as administraters and principals come from the common human resource stock that is the beginner educator, what decides who becomes administraters, principals, or union bosses tends to be, again, the political institution, which is contributed in part by unions. This is a self-reinforcing circle, and you cannot describe the entire circle by minimizing the impact of any disparate part in the circle.

In so far as education board members, politicians, union bosses, and teachers are important to education, they are important only in so far as they relate to each other in the system and how that system is processed, manipulated, and reformed with respective to its intended goal of teaching children what they need to learn.

IMHO, the problem is not getting rid of deadwood older teachers, but of providing greater incentives for teachers to remain.

Categorically speaking, the incentives for bad teachers to be shuffled around and to then be promoted to administrater (in which they will then have more power, if less direct influence on the students) or union bosses (in which they will then have more power and more influence) already exist. In so far as incentives for teachers do not exist, this only applies to professional teachers and the good ones at that. So in conclusion, incentives exist as a general broad category, that is not the problem. What type of behavior is promoted, however, that is a singularly different aspect than the one addressed in the bolded quote subject.

Many parents now see their role as defenders of their children versus the schools.

This does not surprise me in a culture which rewards political corruption and political identity philosophies which allows a select group to exploit those with less power or advantages.

This inevitably creates a balkanization of identity and professional circles, in so far as people who will not pull together will pull against each other, simply for self-survival if nothing else.

Given that the schools are funded by federal dollars, teachers become, in effect, federal employees. However, most parents do not have direct power or influence over the federal government. At best, individuals can have indirect influences, but those are not like the influence we have over our light switch. We cannot turn it on or off as we please, even if we factor in the power company’s in providing power to the lights. Even with that stipulation, the control over one’s lights still manifestly greatly outmasses the influence an individual has on the federal level. Thus, in the vacuum of not being able to directly influence the federal level, the natural target becomes teachers or administrators or school board members.

However, that is not the whole story. The chain of causality does not start there nor does it end there. There are many other disparate parts to it.

For those who would state that schools should be brought to task for such disciplinary insanities as strip searching a 13 year old girl for aspirin,a legal case recently in the news, etc, my reply is : you have a point.

But what is this point, Gringo? One should not generalize in terms of agreement at the sacrifice of precision and clarity. For example, the fundamental aspects of the situation, if not discussed, can be agreed with in what fashion?

Who shall bring these schools to task? And to what effect and to what degree should teacher’s unions protect teachers who reported the student? And to what effect and to what degree should political Educational board members be immune from prosecution or law suits and to what effect and to what degree should adminstrators be affected in this regard?

It is not enough, in the end, to say there is a problem and the solution is to apply a general philosophy irrespective of the specifics of the situation. And yet, the only way to find out the specifics of the situation is to explore the various possibilities and avenues. However, this exploration cannot take place if people close their minds to alternative views, simply on the justification that they think the alternatives do not spell out the whole picture and then start to describe explorers as “naive” simply because the alternative or additional views does not cover the entire picture or does not cover the particular part of the picture a person thinks most important.

Re: your question about the doctor’s and lawyer’s associations….

Yes.

If a doctor commits medical malpractice at the level of his patient being awarded a multi-million dollar award, maybe s/he shouldn’t be practicing medicine. On the other hand, personally, I’d be in favor of all medical malpractice suits being heard by a jury or board made up of doctors. I’m not sure most jurors are qualified to evaluate medical situations. Actually, I am sure. They’re not.

Agreed also on lawyers. Not sure how to work that one – but while I know there are ethics boards, I suspect politics is a major factor in determining who has violated the ethics standards. There is no way to check up on either judges or lawyers on how they rate, the cases they’ve tried – or heard – at least, as far as I know.

Without getting to all the details, my son married a woman with three children. He wanted to adopt them. They had no idea how to select a lawyer, so took a family lawyer that advertised locally. The lawyer agreed to handle all three adoptions for $5000 (made up number). Father had not been involved the girls lives for some time, although he had sent occasional gifts and money. By the particular State’s requirements, the lawyer should have simply petitioned for adoption and everything would have been smooth as silk. Cost would have been the agree upon amount. Lawyer, however, contacted the father and requested a signature that would have meant that he gave up his rights as a father. He objected. The notification was questionable – that is, one portion of the law could be read that it was required, one portion indicated that it was not. However, by notifying the father, the lawyer assured that there would be a court case – meaning another $10,000 or so in expenses. Needless to say, we’re now almost at the end of year 2, the girls are still not adopted, and the expenses are well into the $20k level. They switched lawyers and immediately saw a difference in the quality of work and – perhaps more importantly – the level of contact and information supplied to them about what was going on.

Should they sue the first lawyer for the additional cost of the original error? was the first lawyer incompetent? Personally, I doubt they’ll sue, but I think someone should consider the competence factor. Valid or not? I don’t know. But I’d feel a whole lot better if I knew that _someone_ who _did_ know could investigate complaints and remove licensing from incompetent or unethical lawyers.

And that there wasn’t a political factor involved – though I suspect I’ll have to wait till the afterlife for that particular requirement.

There are – obviously – complicating factors which influence each of the three legs and which serve to either support or reduce the effectiveness of that leg. I agree with Gringo that parents are frequently the problem. I agree with Mike that discipline in the school is most often at the heart of the problem, and that parents are a definite factor in that problem. I agree that changing demands can be a problem, and that problem is one of complications set by either the State or Federal government. I would also add that any one of the three can cause a problem by getting lawyers involved. Our very small school had an annual budget of some $12,000 or so just for legal advice – no actual problems. Goal was to avoid problems so that legal expenses wouldn’t be higher. We had some disabled children who had to attend other school districts because we didn’t have the staff to supply the required conditions – that usually ran about $50,000 per year. We received about $5000 per child from the State per year. Parents of disabled children – either physical or emotional – are usually very assertive about getting their special needs addressed. In a small school, that can seriously impact the budget.

We need to remember that the public school system in America developed on a local basis. Parents joined together to hire teachers for their children. The involvement of the State is relatively recent, and of the Federal Government, even more so. I question whether the Feds should have _any_ function in schools whatsoever. If it devolves on the local parents to maintain control, then they would either accept the responsibility or their children wouldn’t be well educated. Personally, I’m in favor of complete local control, although the availability of national tests against which parents and administration can measure results is a good thing. It’s the job of the parents to educate their child, not that of the State. The unions are a problem, but they’re not the whole problem. On that, we agree, but they make it more difficult to address the entire problem. And boards – the parent’s union, theoretically – can become a problem as well. They are often the first stepping stone for the politically ambitious – but the populace can get rid of them if they’re not doing their job. Once things get to the State level, or heaven help us – the Federal level – the local populace is just about powerless.

As for the problems schools face with constantly shifting dictates from the States, I agree with that too. Local school boards, which actually deal with the principal and teachers, and can hear first hand how proposed changes will affect them, ought to have much more power than the states. The states function in a perfect vacuum, bowing to each political wind, and maintaining a state of perpetual chaos. As a member of a school committee to which the teachers report, I see how frustrated they are by the ever changing demands from on high, many of which have little to do with class quality and everything to do with politics.

I think vouchers are one of the answers, since it brings the parents much closer to the educational decisions the schools make. As it is, teachers committed to teaching want to teach in private schools. There may be no unions, but there are also so many fewer of the structural problems Gringo describes. If the public schools could expand, not only students, but also teachers would have a larger marketplace from which to choose.

One point regarding lack of institutional support from Principals and Assistant principals regarding discipline. To a degree they are responding to outside pressure.

One cultural change in the last half-century is that many parents are less likely to support schools disciplining their children. I can provide anecdotes to show that this transcends race and class. You can be as likely to see this in white affluent parents as in poor minority parents. Many parents now see their role as defenders of their children versus the schools. Previously, if the school informed parents that their children were misbehaving, there would be a draconian response from parents. “You’re doing WHAT? You are grounded for a month. Start scrubbing those floors.” Or stronger.

Principals and Assistant Principals are under marching orders to provide more “inclusion” in classes. IOW, Special Ed students are mainstreamed, instead of in separate classes. But as these Special Ed students require more attention from teachers regarding instruction and/or discipline, this makes it more difficult in the classroom.

For those who would state that schools should be brought to task for such disciplinary insanities as strip searching a 13 year old girl for aspirin,a legal case recently in the news, etc, my reply is : you have a point. I would similarly respond to those who would point out that there is a tendency to over label children as Special Ed, so in that sense those so mislabeled should be included in the classroom. No simple answers.

Growing up, I attended public school for three years, then private Catholic school for three years, then private Catholic again for three, then public schools again for four. The quality of the teachers and the curriculum may have been better in the Catholic schools, but I don’t remember that being the case.

What I do remember being different between Catholic and public school is the quality of the environment, particular as it related to discipline. There was simply no way, no way AT ALL, that disruptions would have been allowed in the Catholic schools’ classrooms. Classes were orderly, halls and lockers were orderly, even lunch was orderly. Bad behavior of any sort within the school was simply not tolerated. And there were some tough bad apples in those junior high classrooms! But they “acted out” only before school and on the playground.

I do not recall any dramatic difference among the quality of the teachers’ instruction, however. Perhaps there were small differences in the day by day accumulation that – as with compound interest – in the end raised the quality tremendously. When I returned to public school for the last time for 9th Grade, I seemed far ahead of most of my classmates. Why?

I choose two reasons.

1. Self-selection. Parents at the Catholic school were paying a lot of money for their kids to be educated. Parents shelling out money simply on the average cared more. I grew up in a lower-middle class suburb, so this cost was significant to the parents. The entire school, from top to bottom, was focused on a stable learning environment. A disciplined and ordered “culture” existed that was utterly self-reinforcing; that was not the case at the public schools.

2. Free public education inevitably devolves to a culture of warehousing and bureaucracy. This is related to #1, in that the focus on the purpose of the schools just was different. Everyone simply cared less, and the focus and stability were lacking. Based on my years teaching in high school, and my interaction with those parents, the quality of most of the teachers was good enough. The parents would have welcomed enthusiastically a strongly disciplined environment, too! But I would say there was a huge decline in institutional reinforcement of order and discipline. We – as teachers – knew that support from the Principals, especially the Assistants, would be lacking, if we attempted to institute procedures enforcing discipline and order to a degree lacking throughout the rest of the school. No focus and no support for a quality environment.

You can blame the nature of free education itself, I think. You get what you pay for. That attitude settled into the entire bureaucracy, and certainly the primary immediate blame for bad culture goes to those in charge: The Unions and the Principals, neither of whom seemed to have any interest in a quality environment for the education of the children. The devolved culture permeated everything, and therefore I think, everyone.

I get the impression that a number of the posters here have the impression that if we got rid of or seriously weakened the teacher unions, that affairs in education would greatly improve. Perhaps they would.

The difference in perspective is that I taught in a state with weak teacher unions, where principals were given much autonomy in dealing with teachers. IMHO: even if you get rid of the teacher unions, which is essentially the state of affairs where I taught, there are many problems facing American education and the teaching profession. Anyone who believes that teacher unions are the main problem facing American education and the teaching profession is hopelessly naïve. Let me repeat:hopelessly naïve. Here is an incomplete, stream-of-consciousness laundry list.

1) Continually changing testing and curriculum requirements. If it’s not one thing, it’s another. At the same time, standards are necessary. Nonetheless, given the haphazard manner in which such requirements are handed down from on high, it is definitely a stressor. While Ed schools are an easy and deserving target of scorn regarding the educational fad of the year, the legislatures and government bureaucracies definitely add fuel to the fire.
2) There is neither enough support nor incentive given for teachers to teach in difficult schools, though there have been various moves in that direction. The result is that all things being equal, competent teachers tend to gravitate towards more affluent schools. If you are going to be paid the same, why put up with the added stress etc. of teaching in a difficult school? Fifty hours a week in an easy school sure beats 60-70 hours in a difficult school, lemma tell ya.
3) There is not sufficient support given for beginning teachers. Example: in the two years I taught, each year I was informed I would have a mentor teacher. First year: not at all, though there was an informal process going on of sorts. Second year: my mentor quit in October to take a job at a computer company.
4) Overworked and underappreciated. The reason my mentor quit: the gung-ho Superintendent, who kept hopping Obama-like to a larger district every two years or so, informed staff in a “pep talk” that any of them could be let go. While that may have been the case, and in that state that essentially was the case, my mentor was a hard-working accomplished award-winning teacher and didn’t appreciate being talked down to that way. So she left. When the Superintendent asked her for her reason for resigning, she informed him.
5) Deterioration of the American family and consequence for education: already discussed. Ditto discipline.
6) Given the demands put on teachers, most decide that it isn’t worth a career and leave for another profession. Consider time: where 60 hour weeks are often the norm. See above. While Y sees the union etc. resulting in lack of incentive for older teachers to keep their noses to the grindstone, to improve etc., the reality is rather that older teachers leave the profession early because they are tired of putting up with the S#$%. Most of the teachers I had as a child were 40-year teachers. The 40-year man/woman has become a relic in the teaching profession. IMHO, the problem is not getting rid of deadwood older teachers, but of providing greater incentives for teachers to remain. Recall that half of beginning teachers leave the profession in five years.

A number of female teachers with children informed me that the time demands on teaching – recall 60 hours- made it very difficult to combine a family with teaching.

7) Etc.

For those who complain about the dull ignoramuses that populate the schools that teach their children, I have three suggestions. First, make sure your town doesn’t hire such people. Second, don’t keep them employed in your district. Third, raise the level by going into the teaching profession. Or if you are retired, substitute. Otherwise, your complaints are but empty sneers.