🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov24.162633.23011@dcdwest.uucp> huang@dcdwest.uucp (William Huang) writes:
>In article <1992Nov24.063223.20405@netcom.com> fred_s@netcom.com (Fredrick Scott) writes:
>>
>>
>>And what "competency tests" do those wonderful private schools out there
>>administer?
>
>Private schools have something much more effective than a competency test.
>Its call "peer review."  You see, without the union, bad teachers in
>private schools are simply asked to leave.  Private schools cannot afford
>to keep bad teachers.
>
>> I don't know why exactly teacher's unions oppose such tests 
>
>Teacher's unions are concerned with job security and teacher salaries,
>not the affairs of the pupil.  Therefore, the opinion of the
>union is not necessarily the opinion of educators.  This is a common...

You're very much out of line, here, presuming to speak for the union.  Your's
is a critic's point of view and highly unfair in the absense of someone who
can state their position for them.

Alternatively, I could advance a number of "devil's advocate" kinds of
reasons as to why the defenders of private education *really* try to B.S.
the public about it's advantages.  Let's try to hold off on the accusations
concerning ulterior motivations until there's someone around (in person) to
accuse, shall we?

>>but if I were a teacher, I might be insulted by them and be somewhat
>>sceptical of the so-called "great success" to which you refer.
>
>They are effective in weeding out the very bad teachers.

You are advancing a "fact" in the absense of proof, here.  I'm not saying, one
way or another that there are or aren't, just suggesting that a public school
teacher's union AND it's members might not agree.

>The questions are simple enought, I think, that any competent teacher can at
>least study to pass the tests, although most teacher can pass without any
>preparation.

I'm also trying to suggest that that may not be the point.  Teachers are bound
to feel that they've completed a university degree program and get in lot of
ongoing professional training and thus, ought not to be subjected to the
indignity of constant testing just to make sure they still know what 2+2
equals or how to conjugate a verb, in view of the fact that other professionals
are not subject to this.

>>Private companies do not feel the need to regularly test their engineers,
>>executives, accountants, and other professionals on subjects such people are
>>expected to know to do their jobs competantly.  So why don't you take a clue
>>from those who advocate the wisdom of the private sector - if such tests
>>were an econmical and cost-effective way of insuring the quality of your
>>personnel, everyone would use 'em.  But somehow, noone else seems to...

>Good doctors, lawyers, engineers, and good ___anything else____ need only be
>tested once.  After that, peer review and the market takes over.  Similarly
>a good teacher will not require continued testing because their skills will
>improve each year.  However, there are teachers who don't care, and cannot
>be desciplined because of a strong teacher's union.  For this reason, I
>support continued testing.  Not every year (this is a nuisance) but perhaps
>once every five years.  And I support the idea of waiving the testing
>requirements for teachers who continue to take professional development
>courses.

It sounds to me that what you're grousing about is not the competancy of
teachers slipping but the inability to fire teachers who are protected by
unions.  I suspect that you will find many of the same problems in any
private school which bargains with a teacher's union.  I share some of your
concerns but I see the difficulty as being with unions, not the public
school system.  I'm not sure how to deal with that (make it public policy to
adopt a tougher bargaining stance with unions?  politically difficult...)
but I will say one thing about your distinction between the viewpoints of
the teachers and your unions:  It's a free country - if teachers were all of
that detached from the viewpoint represented, they could always change
leadership or even vote to decertify their union.  I think teachers feel that
the union has their interests at heart.

Fred