question about teachers union and public schools

Is that true of all private schools? I seem to recall there was a problem with charter schools (not the same I know but still) where students were told to stay home instead of taking exams, which made those charter schools look better than public schools. Though I would say the reason is simple, the students were probably always going to do well if given a good education due to the right socio economic conditions to allow for them to do their job.

 

You’re banned. How are you still posting?

 

I served my sentence!!

 

Yeah but it says you’re still banned lol. Did one of the mods forget to pay the electric bill or something?

 

Well, if we are in agreement as to how the mechanics of how unions are supposed to work, then what precisely is it that you are complaining about? You certainly seem to be trying to argue both sides of this issue and not being very effective at either.

 

that is my contention. the private schools with better results tend to be catholic (many teachers live communally and take vows of poverty) and military academies (teachers tend to be double dipping military retirees.) we are not talking about those though, or the elite private schools of the upper class.
the "right wing's idea is "choice", meaning these 3rd rate charter schools that jindal stuck my state with..

Charter-Schools-Louisiana-Report_web3.pdf (populardemocracy.org)

Underinvestment in Oversight Leaves Louisiana’s Charter Schools Vulnerable to Financial Fraud and Academic Failures

As the state has insufficiently resourced financial oversight, it has failed to create a structure that provides struggling schools and their students with a pathway to academic success. While underinvesting in the dissemination and implementation of successful strategies to lift academically struggling schools up, state lawmakers have continued to invest in both charter expansion and conversions of public schools to charters. Coupled with an unwillingness to help failing schools succeed, the rapid growth of charters has failed Louisiana children, families and taxpayers. Since 2005, approximately $700 million in public tax dollars have been spent on charter schools that currently have not achieved a C or better on the state’s grading system.

 

I most certainly do not imagine that all private schools perform better than all public schools, but I think it is safe to say that on the whole private performs much better than public according to standardized measures.

I am fair minded. I would also totally agree that parents who pay for their kids education probably stress education in the home, and by in large private schools on the whole deal with a more motivated set of students which would tend to get better standardized results.

With that being said, with private schools superior results, it is truly hard to conclude that the quality of education has suffered as a result of the lack of the teachers union involvement. The union is not really about students, anymore than the UAW is about making quality cars. The teachers union is about its own self preservation.

 

Why would it be illegal? In the private sector, there are non-union shops. What's the difference?

You are most likely right, but they could cease from hiring any more union teachers and, as they retire or quit, get the union out slowly.

 

Public schools in wealthy communities with high real estate taxes to support them hire the cream of the crop in teachers because they have the taxes to support them.

 

You always seem so angry.

Oh well, I guess I will have to recap our entire conversation in order to disprove these bogus conclusions.

69 first said..."Members of teachers unions are just like all Americans they can vote for whom ever they wish. If they feel the Democrats basically are more in line with their aims and expectations then they'll vote Democrat, if not they'll vote Republican."


To which I replied..."Like with virtually all unions, the membership can vote for whomever they like, but their dues fund Democrats."

Thats when you jumped in and said..."Well, considering the responses already on this thread, can you blame them?"


To which I replied..."Blame unions as an institution? No, I completely understand why they support Democrats. They are in bed together. The union membership?.....not so much, and in most unions the political split is more even than you might imagine. I suspect that a Republican supporting union member must not be thrilled with their dues going toward electing Democrats however."

To which YOU said..."Then it's incumbent upon those union members to actively participate in their unions, no?"

I replied with..."I fail to see why belonging to a union makes it incumbent upon their members to do anything other than pay their dues.

Regardless, what is your point?"

To which you replied "Unions represent their members. If any member is not happy with the direction their union is heading it is incumbent upon them to change that direction by garnering support from its other members. In other words, it is a democratic process. You either participate or just accept it.

Do you understand now?"


I replied with..."I understood from the beginning as far as why Unions support Democrats.

Do I now understand the point you were trying to make after you have given it more clarification? I suppose I see what you are conveying, but I do not believe that is the last word on the topic. Far from it.

The most recent data I have seen is that union members as a whole vote Democrat by something in the neighborhood of a 60-40 type margin. With that being the case, trying to rally the membership to get a majority to support leaders that would donate money to Republicans as opposed to Democrats seems like an exercise in futility. We all know that is not going to happen, but what HAS been happening is an ever growing DECLINE in union membership.

While you say it is the memberships responsibility to change it from within( which I contend would be a waste of time), no doubt many have opted to simply quit the union, not join the union in an open shop, or not support a vote to turn into a union shop in the first place. Such decisions are EQUALLY within their rights. It is like getting bad service in a restaurant. It is not incumbant upon me to improve their quality control, nor is it realistic. I simply register my vote by not returning. This is what is happening with unions and is undeniably one of the many reasons why union membership has seen such a shockingly rapid decline."


This is when you went off the rails into non strawman territory and you said..."And what is wrong with them wanting to use their skills at a non-union private school?

It just seems to me that you are highlighting one of the main components of modern-day conservative dissonance, which is subjugating the will of the majority to that of the minority."

Trying to keep you focused I said..."Where have I said there is a problem with a Conservative teacher going to a private school? I have not said nor implied any such thing. In fact, a Conservative teacher should absolutely go to a private school. That would actually be precisely what I would suggest to such a person. I have no problem with that whatsoever (Think about my statement of walking out of a restaurant with bad service)

I have also said not one thing about "subjugating the will of the majority to that of the minority" or anything that could even possibly be construed as such, but it seems like you wished that I had since you are trying desperately to put those words into my mouth. It appears that you would rather argue against the voices in your head rather than what I actually say.

Sincerely, I am more than happy to defend anything that I say, but I am growing tired of arguing against your false characterizations of my positions. Lets let each other speak for our own positions rather than incorrectly paraphrasing the other persons meaning, shall we?"

Which brings us to the current post where you said "Well, if we are in agreement as to how the mechanics of how unions are supposed to work, then what precisely is it that you are complaining about? You certainly seem to be trying to argue both sides of this issue and not being very effective at either."


-What am I complaining about? Do you mean my first post when I responded to 61? I am not so sure I call that a complaint as much as it is a statement of fact which is that regardless of their varying political affiliations as he mentioned, their union dues go to Democrats. That statement of fact adds a bit more color to the picture of the concept of union members and their varying political desires. I suppose you could call it a complaint, but certainly not much of one. My tone and tenor was certainly very matter of fact like. To see your words it sounds as if I were ranting and raving about it, and as evidence by my one sentence polite response, one can easily see that I am not ranting about it or making a big deal out of it even remotely. If anyone is making a big deal out of it, I would say that is you now when acting as if I have registered some enormous complaint.

-In light of the above, how exactly are you alleging that am I trying to argue both sides of the issue? Both sides of what issue? The above does not reveal this claim. Do you mean the issue in your head that you were hoping that I would argue? Please be specific, what issue am I arguing both sides of? How would I possibly be effective at arguing both sides of an issue when I havent the foggiest idea what those two sides are?


I hate overly pedantic discussion such as this, but you are one of those people tha consistently mistates the record as if you are trying to convince someone that jumped into a conversation late and you are hoping to make it sound like you have been making great points left and right, when in reality you have done no such thing. Your entire contribution to this conversation has been argumentative over literally nothing and you trying to twist my words and then you arguing against that twisting of my words. Putting it all into one place merely helps to illustrate just how foolish your bogus claims are.

 

So basically this is a reply to my post, without actually replying to what I said?

Would you care to reply to what I said?

 

How the heck you figure that "I am angry" is beyond me. Sounds like projection or frustration on your part. I'm just trying to figure out what it is you're objecting to...or are you telling me you're not objecting to anything? This is just you typing away for no good reason?

If your contention is that Unions tend to give money to Democrats more than Republicans because Democrats' ideas are more in line with their union goals, I agree, but you're the one that keeps bringing up the issue of conservatives in these unions. Why?

 

Not something apparent. For instance Baltimore.

 

The only union demand that would improve education is smaller classes, thus, hiring more teachers.

I attented K-8 Private, 9 - 12 Public

 

That’s fair. I don’t know the numbers myself but I went to a public school and it was one of the best in the state. Meanwhile one of the worst in the state was nay 10 miles away. So for me I tend to focus on the conditions that make someone a good student or a bad student. If you have some numbers you want me to look at let me know and I will look at them.

 

There are many public schools that have a history of elitisim/excellence. Also, many schools have gone downhill because their Supt hired the wrong Principal.

 

It is your overall tone and tenor that always seems to come across as angry. This includes things like saying "This is you typing away for no good reason" in this very post. Having only really read your posts over time that have been directed at me, I figured I would click on your profile to find another example of you spewing anger, and it didnt take long at all to find almost countless quotes of you spewing venom and hate toward basically anyone that dare have an opinion that differs from you. Here are just the first few that I bothered to cut and paste...

-"Lol...your whole premise is wrong and the thread is a fail"....

-"your post is stupidity...I'm actually kind of surprised to see you posting such crap. I'll learn to lower my expectations from you"...

-"With such absurd and mindboggling ridiculous statement, how can anyone take you seriously?"...

-"Here it is on the 2nd page of posts, and the responses to the OP are pathetic.All the respondents have absolutely no clue to offer a viable alternative or they are so misinformed, or selfish, to not give a coherent possible solution. No wonder this country is effed up!"



The above is "how I figure that you are so angry". It is not projection, or frustration as you are trying to bogusly pretend. Rather, it is simple observation. It is part and parcel of how you choose to conduct yourself everyday that you come to this board. The characterization that you come across as angry is undeniable. When you say that why you would be called angry is beyond you, that shows that you are either entirely dishonest, or that you have incredibly poor self awareness. Either way, you come across as extremely angry. You may as well own it.

As evidenced by my prior restating of the totality of our conversation, I gave a polite one sentence reply to another poster whom mentioned voting habits of union members and in response I correctly pointed out that regardless of their political beliefs, their dues go toward electing Democrats. There was nothing angry in my response. There wasnt even anything to disagree with in my response. Beyond that one sentence reply, the only thing I have said on the subject was in direct response to you discussing the subject.

Does that help you to understand why I keep discussing it?

 

I agree.

 

Yes. Are you finally getting the message?

why do public employees need a union? The people negotiating the contracts with them have no stake in the game, none. So why should they care about how much they give away. Do you know that in both NYC and LA there are teachers who aren’t allowed to be near students because they’re sexual perverts? The go to the school in the morning and surf the internet all day and get their full pay. Happy now?

 

You sure as hell have a lot of time on your hands, but no problem. You go off on your merry way, and I'll go off on my own.

You might want to consider another hobby than posting on a Political Forum. It doesn't seem like you have a robust handle on dealing with criticism. My 2¢ for what it's worth.

 

I am not looking for a pedantic recitation of statistics. My point is simply that it is not all that logical to pretend like private teachers are inferior, in light of the reality that as a whole private schools far outperform public as a whole. I dont think there is anything all that controversial in that statement.

 

I am sorry. I know that looking into a proverbial mirror of seeing all of your hate filled posts can be difficult when what you see is so truly ugly.

LOL......these would be more perfect examples of you spewing hatred and coming across as angry. It is almost as if you cannot help yourself. I suspect there is much more of a backstory here. I feel bad for you. Can I help?

 

I think there is controversy in that statement and I want you to prove that claim.

 

But unions are cool donating in mass?

 

"Private school students generally perform higher than their public school counterparts on standardized achievement tests. As with earlier results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), private school students performed higher than public school students on the NAEP: 2000 tests.Apr 5, 2019"
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/public-school-vs-private-school


"In grades 4 and 8 for both reading and mathematics, students in private schools achieved at higher levels than students in public schools. The average difference in school means ranged from almost 8 points for grade 4 mathematics, to about 18 points for grade 8 reading. The average differences were all statistically significant."
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.aspx