Comments on: Education fixes, straight from the students

By: Kwodwo Moore

Kwodwo Moore — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:20:46 +0000

@Edward “Swarovski” James

I get the eerie feeling you were at the table, that’s almost exactly what I said on Thursday.

By: CarolineSF

CarolineSF — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:09:37 +0000

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/how-states-with-no-teacher-uni.html

By: J.R.

J.R. — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:51:52 +0000

Caroline,
We have been drinking snake oil for the last 3-4-5 decades, only in the last decade and a half have we even begun to do anything about poor performance.

By: J.R.

J.R. — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:49:37 +0000

Caroline,
California has one of the strongest teachers unions in the country therefore should we not have the best students…… not even close. As a matter of fact we have two of the worst districts in the US in this state(LAUSD & OUSD). There is absolutely no correlation at all. You will find good districts in so called bad states, and bad districts in good states. The parents, teachers and students matter. The unions only matter to their members. The taxpayers are finally taking notice.

By: CarolineSF

CarolineSF — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:39:22 +0000

That’s not the point I was making, J.R., so you’re refuting something I wasn’t saying. (That’s another discussion.)

You’re free to criticize unions, but you can’t claim that teachers’ unions lead to low achievement.

That’s because the correlation between non-union/weak union states and low achievement, and the correlation between strongly unionized states and high achievement, conclusively disproves that claim.

I would respond that if the U.S. had a social safety net and a culture of combating and reducing child poverty, our educational system wouldn’t face such challenges, and no one would ever have heard of the current brand of fad-pushing, snake-oil-peddling pseudo-reformers.

By: J.R.

J.R. — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:57:01 +0000

Caroline,
You are just going to have to deal with the consequences of your position(as wrong as it is). The unions will never change and insist on quality not longevity on their own, so the taxpayers will do it for them. If the teachers and their unions had done their jobs properly and educated the children beyond “functional illiteracy”(and of course there are many exceptions)no one would have ever heard of reformers.

By: CarolineSF

CarolineSF — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:25:22 +0000

J.R., strongly unionized states INDISPUTABLY correlate with high achievement, and nonunion states INDISPUTABLY correlate with low achievement. That is a rock-solid correlation that is beyond argument.

Correlation doesn’t equal causation (this is where you are confused), so I acknowledge that strongly unionized states don’t necessarily CAUSE high achievement. In fact, more likely the correlation is with lower poverty and higher statewide education levels.

However, that correlation conclusively discredits the so-called-”reformers’” efforts to blame teachers’ unions and teachers’ job security for low achievement. It disproves the link that is so often falsely and maliciously claimed to exist.

By: J.R.

J.R. — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:08:30 +0000

Cranky,
There is no convincing a dyed in the wool unionist that unions have (in and of themselves) anything to do with student performance, but are are vehicle to take care of the needs of its members at the exclusion of all else.Example: It makes as much sense as saying the majority of low scoring states are in the south, therefore the heat makes people stupid. That lack of causation should be obvious to anyone. The real proof here is the actual results over time, and the record speaks for itself(not good).

By: Cranky Teacher

Cranky Teacher — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:53:28 +0000

You feel better, but you didn’t make your case.

By: J.R.

J.R. — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:01:00 +0000

I am so flabbergasted that I forgot my question mark.

“You are actually attempting to correlate union membership with high achievement”?

There, now I feel better.