The Blue Wall of Silence Is Starting to Crack

[rogue06]

I never suggested they did.

The unions represent the teachers. Teachers develop and/or respond to changes within the curricula as those develop. Over the last forty/fifty years there have been tremendous changes in teaching methods, styles, and topics The education system also has to take into account changes within the wider society.

If you really want to see the teacher's union philosophy summed up nice and neat, then the quote attributed to Albert Shanker, president of the United Federation of Teachers and then the American Federation of Teachers) for well over 30 years, says it all:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I'll start representing the interests of school children

Teacher's unions have been pretty upfront with the fact that they aren't there to improve education but rather to make union member's jobs easier.

[Cow Poke]

As in unions representing the teaching profession.

They don't represent the teaching profession - they protect teachers - good or bad.

Teaching is like child rearing it is prone to fads and gimmicks. Precisely like the new math you mention.

Oh come now I do not think you can lay all America's social ills at the door of "liberals".

The liberals have been in charge of public education for decades.
The liberals are supportive of the public school unions.
The public school unions give very generously to the liberal politicians.

So, yeah, it's the liberals, and you are showing your profound ignorance of the facts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You called them "teaching unions" --- they don't teach anybody.

As in unions representing the teaching profession.

Often against the will of the people, and against the wellbeing of the students.

In your opinion.

Because the Teachers Unions are more interested in social experimentation than actual education.

In your opinion.

They can't graduate students with basic concepts of math and science, but they can spend their time on all kinds of social issues that are none of their business.

Teaching is like child rearing it is prone to fads and gimmicks. Precisely like the new math you mention.

The liberals have controlled our public schools for decades, and our students who actually graduate are subpar for the world.

Oh come now I do not think you can lay all America's social ills at the door of "liberals".

[Cow Poke]

I never suggested they did.

You called them "teaching unions" --- they don't teach anybody.

The unions represent the teachers.

Often against the will of the people, and against the wellbeing of the students.

Teachers develop and/or respond to changes within the curricula as those develop.

Because the Teachers Unions are more interested in social experimentation than actual education. They can't graduate students with basic concepts of math and science, but they can spend their time on all kinds of social issues that are none of their business.

Over the last forty/fifty years there have been tremendous changes in teaching methods, styles, and topics The education system also has to take into account changes within the wider society.

You mean like the "new math" that fails miserably, and abandoning phonics for such nutty concepts as "it's not important how they spell or construct sentences as long as they try to communicate in their own way", or graduating students who have no concept whatsoever of actual geography, or how to manage a checkbook, or do basic math.....

The liberals have controlled our public schools for decades, and our students who actually graduate are subpar for the world.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

They represent teachers but most certainly do not represent teaching.

I never suggested they did.

The unions represent the teachers. Teachers develop and/or respond to changes within the curricula as those develop. Over the last forty/fifty years there have been tremendous changes in teaching methods, styles, and topics The education system also has to take into account changes within the wider society.

[Cow Poke]

Could you not find anything else to do? Read a book perhaps?

What I do with my time is none of your business.

As I understand it the unions in the US represent teachers.

The Teachers Unions represent teachers, correct - they are not "teaching unions" as they teach nobody.
Taxpayers pay the teachers, the teachers pay the unions, and the unions represent the teachers, often against the will of the people.
It's nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher, and when they are fired, they can just move to another school district and be bad teachers there, as well.

The various police unions presumably represent the police.

Now you're finally beginning to get it!

Yes, they represent the interests of the police who pay them to do so, and an unfortunate result of that is that bad cops are protected against the citizens that pay the salaries of the police.

It was obvious you didn't understand the role of the public sector unions at all. It's a whole different situation than private sector unions.

[rogue06]

Could you not find anything else to do? Read a book perhaps?



As I understand it the unions in the US represent teachers. The various police unions presumably represent the police.

They represent teachers but most certainly do not represent teaching. Far from it in fact. In fact the unions are currently fighting tooth-and-nail against teaching (unless it is the kids of illegal immigrants -- then they go during vacation and volunteer to teach them in person)

A couple decades ago someone did an expose on a conference held by the National Education Association (NEA) -- the largest and most influential teacher's union. They noted how that not a single one of the topics scheduled for discussion had anything whatsoever to do with teaching. But they did have things about organizing protests as well as boycotting Snapple because at the time they advertised on Rush Limbaugh's show.

This was a few years after then NEA president Keith Geiger said on Larry King's radio show, during a discussion about school choice, "we can't let kids escape from public schools." Interesting choice of words there. "Escape"

It reveals the teacher's union mindset -- they must keep education under lock and key, no matter how how bad it may be. And Geiger freely admitted it was bad. He said that inner city schools "are absolutely terrible -- they ought to be blown up." Still, it matters not. Children should not be allowed to "escape" from the very bad public schools they are attending. They need to be sacrificed to the teacher unions^[1]






1. Public school teachers are more than twice as likely to send their own children to a private school than a the general public. It's almost like they know something.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Don't be - it was boredom.

Could you not find anything else to do? Read a book perhaps?

Nobody said it was, but anybody with half a brain would value that over somebody who has ZERO experience, who doesn't even live here, and ignorantly thinks that "teachers unions" are "teaching unions".

As I understand it the unions in the US represent teachers. The various police unions presumably represent the police.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And yet it is universally perceived as being a far better indicator of competence and expertise than someone having absolutely no experience.

Is it?

[rogue06]

Nobody said it was, but anybody with half a brain would value that over somebody who has ZERO experience, who doesn't even live here, and ignorantly thinks that "teachers unions" are "teaching unions". Do you wrongly believe, also, that "police unions" are "policing unions"?

IIRC the Brits sometimes refer to them as "Teaching Unions" so that might be where she gets it from.

It's not just "some police" and it's not new. Good cops, seeing all this drastic change in the country, are seen a need to defend good cops.

Definitely nothing new as anyone familiar with the story of Frank Serpico can attest. Perhaps a better example is the evolution of the Los Angeles police from being thoroughly corrupt in the middle of the last century into a modern police force today.

[Cow Poke]

Oooh I am flattered. Three replies - you must be keen.

Don't be - it was boredom.

As previously noted longevity of tenure [even 50 years] is not automatic evidence of competence.

Nobody said it was, but anybody with half a brain would value that over somebody who has ZERO experience, who doesn't even live here, and ignorantly thinks that "teachers unions" are "teaching unions". Do you wrongly believe, also, that "police unions" are "policing unions"?

Now let us get back to the topic of my thread which is the possibility that some police are indicating a reluctance to stay silent and "close ranks"

It's not just "some police" and it's not new. Good cops, seeing all this drastic change in the country, are seen a need to defend good cops.

over inappropriate behaviour and/or corruption among their colleagues.

Inappropriate behavior which is very OFTEN excused and protected by Police Unions, and is certainly the case with regards to Chauvin.

Prattle on, however, full speed ahead!

[rogue06]

As previously noted longevity of tenure [even 50 years] is not automatic evidence of competence.

And yet it is universally perceived as being a far better indicator of competence and expertise than someone having absolutely no experience. Why do you think that is?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You mean my 50 years compared to your ZERO time?



The USA is WAY different than most other countries in the world in MAY respects.

Cops in the US, however, don't often have running battles with armed law-abiding citizens.

Well, first of all, that's a steaming pile of horsie poo --- I quite OFTEN engage in debate without "engage[ing] in an exchange without resorting to making pejorative remarks". I don't tolerate s very well, and you seem a tad hypersensitive to my dismissiveness. (I don't cutsy when I reply to you, by the way )

You, however, make a habit of arguing against, or criticizing a point, without actually addressing the issue. You're quite well known for that.



More dishonesty and ignorance on your part.

A) I have NOT attributed the problems to "the teaching unions"
2) They are not "teaching unions" -- that's absolute proof of your profound ignorance on this subject.

The "teaching unions" don't teach ANYBODY -- they represent the interests of teachers, who PAY them to do so, and do NOT represent any students.



Ah, so your asinine assumption that I blame the non-existent "teaching unions" leads you to believe that I have not considered other factors --- which I, indeed, HAVE.



I have started several threads on the problem with police unions. The "author" didn't bring them up just because they needed a higher word count.



Another steaming pile of horsie poo.



Well, my interlocutor has made bird-brained stupid and unsupportable statements showing her profound ignorance on the subject, and the mere fact that she endlessly prattles on in her ignorance doesn't make her profound ignorance any less profound.

If you actually wish to address the subject, then do so --- but if all you're going to do is whine and prattle - do so elsewhere.

I think this is the best proof yet that you know absolutely NOTHING about this situation.

Oooh I am flattered. Three replies - you must be keen.

As previously noted longevity of tenure [even 50 years] is not automatic evidence of competence.

Are you also an expert on the US education system, US social history, and developments in education over the past fifty years? All of which impact on the position [and power] of the teaching unions and their role in the education system with regard to their members.

From the glib remarks you have made, I suspect not.

Now let us get back to the topic of my thread which is the possibility that some police are indicating a reluctance to stay silent and "close ranks" over inappropriate behaviour and/or corruption among their colleagues.

[Cow Poke]

Attempting to attribute the problems in public school education to the teaching unions

I think this is the best proof yet that you know absolutely NOTHING about this situation.

[Cow Poke]

The inability to engage in an exchange without resorting to making pejorative remarks [and for at least one contributor on occasion abusive language] towards one's interlocutor is an attribute of several individuals here.

Well, first of all, that's a steaming pile of horsie poo --- I quite OFTEN engage in debate without "engage[ing] in an exchange without resorting to making pejorative remarks". I don't tolerate s very well, and you seem a tad hypersensitive to my dismissiveness. (I don't cutsy when I reply to you, by the way )

You, however, make a habit of arguing against, or criticizing a point, without actually addressing the issue. You're quite well known for that.

Attempting to attribute the problems in public school education to the teaching unions

More dishonesty and ignorance on your part.

A) I have NOT attributed the problems to "the teaching unions"
2) They are not "teaching unions" -- that's absolute proof of your profound ignorance on this subject.

The "teaching unions" don't teach ANYBODY -- they represent the interests of teachers, who PAY them to do so, and do NOT represent any students.

is clear indication you have not considered other factors that have occurred within US public education [and indeed US society] over the last forty years or so.

Ah, so your asinine assumption that I blame the non-existent "teaching unions" leads you to believe that I have not considered other factors --- which I, indeed, HAVE.

The author's comment on the power of the police unions is an observation upon the situation as they see it, nothing more. .

I have started several threads on the problem with police unions. The "author" didn't bring them up just because they needed a higher word count.

Pointing out that my interlocutor has made unsubstantiated remarks

Another steaming pile of horsie poo.

that they then wish to present is fact is a fallacy upon which I have often commented.

Well, my interlocutor has made bird-brained stupid and unsupportable statements showing her profound ignorance on the subject, and the mere fact that she endlessly prattles on in her ignorance doesn't make her profound ignorance any less profound.

If you actually wish to address the subject, then do so --- but if all you're going to do is whine and prattle - do so elsewhere.