Steve Jobs Blames Education Problems on Teacher Unions

Parents Forum
201

<p>lovetocamp:</p>

<p>I completely agree with you regarding teaching in English. Many if not most of the parents of ESL students agree as well. The most sure way to success in this country for first/second gens is to understand the language well so they can perform well in school and compete with others in school and in the business world. I would never dream of moving to another country where I planned to establish a permanent home and raise my kids and not have them learn or be taught in the native language. I know there are challenges in accomplishing it but many have done so to their success. </p>

<p>A Japanese colleague of mine here for a year assignment enrolled his kid in the public school here. The kid started in around 1st or 2nd grade. One day while playing tennis with this colleague and his family I spoke to his kid (in English) and he responded back in perfect English. He was able to come up to speed very quickly in school with the language since he'd only been here for about a year or two at that time. His father actually had no idea his kid understood English so well since the father only spoke Japanese in the home.</p>

202

<p>
[quote]
Mathmom, a top-notch teaching program is hardly "nonsense.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wasn't talking about top notch teaching programs - I'm sure they exist, but the reality is that MANY teaching programs are nonsense. I'm just quoting what the headmistress of our school said in any event.Well that and my mother who went back and got her degree when I was in jr high. I remember her complaining that many of the courses she took getting at her education degree at American University were nonsense. I have great respect for many probably most teachers. That doesn't mean there aren't lots of lousy programs or lousy students out there. Unfortunately it doesn't take too many bad apples to do great damage.</p>

<p>I really am mostly on your side. I certainly don't think that deunionizing teachers would help much at all. In fact from what I hear from people whose kids are in districts without unions schools by and large are worse.</p>

203

<p>
[quote]
So xiggi, you of the awful newsarticles.....and all pumped up!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sorry, I've no interest in trying to decipher your post, but I didn't want you to think I ignored it.</p>

204

<p>Regarding 200 and 201, do you folks not understand that in many areas and many schools non-native speakers are NOT being taught in their languages of origin, at all? But quite the opposite? However, as I mentioned twice now in earlier posts on this thread, they spend far more time at home than at school, and three guesses what they speak at home? </p>

<p>In one of my roles I assist homeschoolers. The parents are required to fill out a home language survey, indicating language at birth, language most spoken in the home, etc. Do you think they do not lie? They lie through their teeth! And it so obvious, because the children cannot communicate with me or any other teacher or administrator in English -- whether they've been here for 14 months or 14 years. Nor can they communicate when they're in the classroom with me; they cannot understand assignments delivered in English, nor assignments written on the board in English. So, they turn to classmates, who tend also to use Spanish as their primary language, and the classmate translates it into Spanish. We're talkin' critical mass here: when there's a majority language among a core gorup, with zero incentive to learn the language of the host country (as I've said 3 times now), English fluency takes a back seat. Nor are these students always the children of recent immigrants: sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes the parents are a mixed couple, but Spanish continues to be the language in the home. </p>

<p>I'm not just altruistic, ucla_dad; I'm also capable of doing jobs outside of education, & have. Three times it's been suggested that I become an attorney, once a physician, several times a professor. I've had more than one career in my life, as I think babar or someone else referred to. I don't know about altruism; I would call it more commitment. There is clearly this persistent myth that "Those who can't [do], teach." Not really. To enjoy teaching you have to be able to do it really well, or you'll end up like the desperado case I alluded to earlier in the thread, who unprofessionally abandoned her class mid-year -- the first time I've ever witnessed that being allowed to happen without sanctions in my entire career. (Obviously I've been lucky or clever enough to find more professional environments than that.)</p>

<p>"I certainly don't think that deunionizing teachers would help much at all. In fact from what I hear from people whose kids are in districts without unions schools by and large are worse."</p>

<p>^^One more astounding generalization.</p>

205

<p>My point is pretty simple. pulling articles about a teacher or anyone for that matter doing something awful is just that awful. People of ALL occupations do something awful everyday. It is unfair to throw that kind of stuff out there to prove your arguement as I am sure there are people in your field who have done terrible things. Should we look? </p>

<p>I didn't realize there were 2.9 million teachers out there in public schools. After reading these posts one begins to think every educator is suspect, lazy and just a union thug. Maybe a few are, I don't know. However, I will not disrupt the vast majority that do a good job in less than ideal situations everyday. Good teachers belong to unions too, not just bad. Good teachers want the protections a union brings them. They have eyes. They can see.</p>

206

<p>"Good teachers belong to unions too, not just bad."</p>

<p>Opie! Why do bad teachers need protection?! Why do they <em>deserve</em> protection?</p>

<p>Employees of all fields need legitimate avenues for grievance, legitimate standards for review, hearing procedures, etc. But those features can be provided without unions, as can benefit packages.</p>

207

<p>epiphany:</p>

<p>I agree with your points on ESL students. I know that they're not all taught in their native language but there is a push from some sides to do just that which I think is a mistake. Without the will to learn and support from home to learn there's little chance they will learn. </p>

<p>Regarding my other post about those entering the teaching profession - it was very much a generalization as I disclaimed and there are many teachers who could do many other things. Think about my generalization though and I'm sure you've known a number of people who fit that description. I was mostly responding to the statement that the highly paid 'high-tech' workers and low paid teachers expended about the same level of work or rigor in college although maybe I read more into the post than was there.</p>

208

<p>
[quote]
"I certainly don't think that deunionizing teachers would help much at all. In fact from what I hear from people whose kids are in districts without unions schools by and large are worse."</p>

<p>^^One more astounding generalization.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Gee, I thought "from what I hear" made it kinda clear. I don't have the statistics for it, but I've been around internet boards for 12 years and that's the impression I've picked up. </p>

<p>Who has better schools, CT with over 80% unionization or Mississippi with around 4%? I know perfectly well that correlation is not causation. I could just as easily argue that most inner city schools are bad because of high unionization rates. I just don't think unions are the biggest problem with American schools. That's not to say I think they are an overwhelming force for good either.</p>

209

<p>"Opie! Why do bad teachers need protection?! Why do they <em>deserve</em> protection?"</p>

<p>You've missed my point E.
Sometimes the only thing that makes a teacher "bad" is an opinion.</p>

<p>Or not starting a school board members child on the basketball team, or turning down an inappropriate advance, or failing to buy into bad management ideas. That's what a union protects too. It protects good teachers labeled bad, because they've rubbed someone the wrong way. </p>

<p>That's what I meant by they have "eyes" and they can "see". They see one day a principal told "no" by a teacher to protect the students in her classroom, then they see that teacher somehow become a lesser teacher and then other "issues" arise and a couple minutes late in the morning becomes an issue.... and so on. </p>

<p>Good teachers are not so naive to think someone in admin will not come after them at some point in time. </p>

<p>I know of very good teachers whom committed the utlimate sin...they got old and moved up the payscale... suddenly become "problem" teachers. When if the truth be told, they don't fit the budget. You can't tell the public that, so you "invent" problems. </p>

<p>As I said many moons ago, the day those in charge can be fair and honest everyday, unions will disappear. </p>

<p>The union is not there to protect bad teachers, it's there to protect the good ones. </p>

<p>I live in a district that suffered good teacher flight awhile back because of poor admin. I've seen good teachers labeled bad, for political reasons, for sports reasons and affairs. </p>

<p>Some are truly bad and need to leave the profession or be retrained, but not all the "bad" educators are really bad. Some are just labeled by those who have a different agenda... than the kids. </p>

<p>Do you understand where I'm coming from. I can't support a solution that sweeps away protections for good teachers just cause they don't need protection..today. tomorrow's a different story.</p>

210

<p>"Employees of all fields need legitimate avenues for grievance, legitimate standards for review, hearing procedures, etc. But those features can be provided without unions, as can benefit packages"</p>

<p>Need is not "have". I really like you and this will probably make you dislike me but..... This idea works in your mind because in your mind everyone will be fair and play by the rules. Your personal values can make a system like this work. However, how does the real world work? Close to your ideals or far from it? </p>

<p>The private sector is full of dishonest people screwing honest ones. Recourse can take years. You ask union teachers to give up unions to cull the worst, yet offer no protection from the wims of others who happen to be in power for the momment.</p>

<p>Good people can get justice, but for me, as an example, justice came in 2006 for a illegal act committed against me in 1995. My crime? My employer realized they couldn't pay my and thousands of others retirement contract they created. So we were systematically let go as the rules of the game changed monthly, till they could "legitimately" let me go. The only problem was it really wasn't legit. However, it took 11 years to be found right, sort of. They settled after all that time to avoid publicity. </p>

<p>That's the current world's solution to problems...years of litigation. While I recognize your ideas, I also see the flaw... it is solely dependent on honesty and fairness. I consider myself to be an honest and fair man. I doubt I could get many here to agree.</p>

211

<p>"I know perfectly well that correlation is not causation." </p>

<p>Exactly. I can guarantee that the difference in product between CT and Mississippi cannot be reduced to unions. Home environment? Parental educational level? History of excellent schools? Come now, you know better than that.</p>

<p>"I just don't think unions are the biggest problem with American schools."</p>

<p>Nor do I. However, any system desperately needing revision, fresh blood, possibly radical reform -- phrases none of which are strong enough -- is not aided by forces designed to resist change. This is my major issue with the unions; I have other issues with their lack of professionalism & their protection of substandard teachers. Image in the sense of integrity is important for earning public support, let alone respect: teacher unions are mostly embarrassing in this regard. (Speaking only for myself)</p>

212

<p>ucla_dad,</p>

<p>It's probably lucky that I haven't run into nearly the proportion of average or below-average individuals in teaching to the degree that some of you describe. If I encountered such a heavy level of mediocrity, I assure you I would be outta there, & fast. I'm not denying that there must be an impression there, one that I do not often meet with. Perhaps I just protect myself, a lot.</p>

<p>What I <em>have</em> seen, though, are lots of people who do not understand that they do not belong in teaching. It is not only the training & theoretical education that are important, and those are. (The content, the quality, the standards of that.) It is that teaching is both a composite of learned or learnable skills and (more importantly, in my view) a gift and an art. You either have the gift, or you don't. It is an orientation & impulse that carries with it a natural comfort with every facet of education & those needing to be served by it. It is a drive. That fits the bill much better than "altruism" does. If I were just altruistic I'd be out serving homeless people, let's face it. I do this for my inner drive & satisfaction & fascination & challenge with the process. Those who don't love the process & the challenge, don't belong. I do it because I have a reverence (sounds corny, I know) for imparting ideas & the passion to learn & the excitement when one sees one can learn. I really do believe that A Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Waste. (I know, hopelessly idealistic.) But I also believe that I have a mind myself worth sharing, a self-respect for my own brain that I believe is "contagious" to students. I have very high standards. (Also contagious.)</p>

<p>What I see are teachers who don't understand why they have no particular control over a class -- while I can step into their class & expect compliance by my behavior. I don't even know if it's because they're "stupid." They just are not particularly suited to a classroom role or any educator's role.</p>

213

<p>
[quote]
My point is pretty simple. pulling articles about a teacher or anyone for that matter doing something awful is just that awful. People of ALL occupations do something awful everyday. It is unfair to throw that kind of stuff out there to prove your arguement as I am sure there are people in your field who have done terrible things. Should we look? </p>

<p>I didn't realize there were 2.9 million teachers out there in public schools. After reading these posts one begins to think every educator is suspect, lazy and just a union thug.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now that I get the point, allow me to answer:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The point of posting that series of articles was not to make TEACHERS look bad. The quoted article that dates from 1994 was describing how hard and expensive it was THEN to fire one of the bad apples. Has anything changed? What did they call those rooms in New York where they house the teachers who cannot be in contact with students? Did Weingarten get rid of them when she made up with Bloomberg? FWIW, could you consider the subject and title of this thread before decreeing the posting of a relevant article "awful"? Out of context? Unfair? </p></li>
<li><p>You are entitled to your views of what unions should represent. Others may decide to look at a few facts before forming their opinions. I posted a series of articles lifted from the website of one of them. I could have posted many more that describe their stated agenda and their modus operandi. I could have discussed the formidable variance between the political distribution of their membership and the destination of their political lobbying expenditures. Does this democratic and representative body really represents ALL its membership? Do members have any say in how their treasure chest is spent? How does the average salary paid to employees at NEA compare to the average salary of their members? No matter how you slice it, it pays a lot better to work for the NEA than to be facing a group of students in a classroom. Something that has not escaped the wonderful Weaver or Weingarten who have not seen the inside of a REAL classroom in decades and had to play games to maintain their credentials. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>However, none of this would matter IF this group would be interested in making our schools better and drop their staunch opposition to ANY idea that may break up their hegemony. In the meantime, we simply will have to trust that the former union boss who said he'd care for students the day they pay dues wasn't kidding. And that is where the unions lose me: I care about my peers and the system; they care about themselves and only themselves. At least the former boss did not have the hypocrisy of pretending the unions to be something they aren't. In the meantime, we can witness a system that has made no progress whatsoever and is regressing when compared to other countries. Blaming the unions for our dismal secondary system is utterly unfair. However, we can blame them for their irrational and arrogant opposition to any meaningful dialogue. Failing our youngsters is one thing; refusing to seek alternatives is another. </p>

<ol>
<li>Have I made the point that every educator is suspect or is an union thug? Did I not write about the clear difference between the teachers and their ... leadership?</li>
</ol>

214

<p>Opie what grade do you teach?</p>

215

<p>What you said did not make me dislike you, Opie.:)</p>

<p>You're right. I haven't gotten so far into the discussion of this aspect as to draw up an alternative to teacher labor unions, but what I envision is, yes, an enforceable set of protections of basic (not extraordinary) teacher's rights, articulated & supported by a professional body. I'm not envisioning that this would be automatic, but rather deliberate & constructed. However, such a body would not be there to protect every teacher employee by virtue of association. It would be there to create & enforce high standards, not the lowest possible standard. Employees who could not meet a professional standard would not be protected, excused, defended -- although they would be heard & respected & possibly offered short time frames in which to meet high standards.</p>

<p>You see, I don't think it's just salary that attracts true excellence, although salary is important as a symbol of excellence. I not only think -- I know from experience -- that excellence attracts others to itself. The deadwood would be gone within a couple of years, & more vibrant, capable people would be encouraged to enter & to stay.</p>

216

<p>"Opie what grade do you teach?"</p>

<p>I don't. And even worse... I don't belong to a union either. :) </p>

<p>I am married to a teacher, a good one. Dumbest thing she ever did was marry me along time ago. </p>

<p>I also have been heavily involved in the community with the city and school district on several large projects involving youth. I have known 5 supers, alot of prinicpals, mayors, department heads and yes alot of teachers. </p>

<p>I've seen very good people at every level. I've also seen very BAD people at every level. I've also seen very good people get caught in bad situations even though their intentions were good. </p>

<p>I call it the ripple effect. A good idea at one point on the map spreads out and several bad things happen as a result of a good idea. Or at least what seems to be a good idea. They aren't thought through. </p>

<p>My point through this exercise is leave the good people alone while you try and fix the poor educators. Think of a better way to get your goal instead of nuking what many good teachers feel strongly about, their union. It wouldn't be there if they didn't want it.</p>

<p>I agree with epihf that there should be a way to evaluate within the peer group that ensures fair and honest evaluations. Problem teachers need to be reviewed in the clearest possible light to ensure fair treatment. Could training help? If it takes a couple times to fix the problem before giving up..fine. </p>

<p>Too many people feel firing is so easy to do and are flip about it. Me, I've had to do it, it's not fun, you don't feel better about things. I've worked with people who enjoy it a bit too much. To me, firing is a sign of poor hiring. I want to be sure that it is the only thing to do after everything else has been tried. When I fire somebody, I've failed somewhere along the line. I should share some of that responsibility. </p>

<p>So there, guys have at it.</p>

217

<p>"he deadwood would be gone within a couple of years, & more vibrant, capable people would be encouraged to enter & to stay. "</p>

<p>And if we could only do that with legislators, school boards, supers and prinicpals...I'd be right there with ya. :) </p>

<p>What we have is alot of imperfections trying to point out the imperfections of educators, hoping no one will notice the man behind the curtain. </p>

<p>I am involved in the healthcare industry. It's exactly the same thing. All you gotta do is ask one part of the circle and they'll you what's wrong with everybody else...;)</p>

218

<p>"Did I not write about the clear difference between the teachers and their ... leadership?"</p>

<p>xiggi, </p>

<p>Where I live the union "leadership" is teachers. They get voted in by their peers and keep the same pay they have as a teacher serve a term or two and go back to the classroom or in some cases retire. The union board of directors is made up of teachers who meet on union issues on their own time.
They are men and women who work with kids all day and work for the memberships several evenings a month. These board members for some reason also happen to be some of the best teachers in our district. Several of them have helped my kids get full rides. </p>

<p>So these ARE teachers, good ones, not union thugs. They aren't a sterotype, they are good quality educators who also want the same things any normal person does. </p>

<p>So I guess this is why you lose me. Here the teachers don't retire from teaching and become union goons. They still teach and do a good job. Maybe it's just different where you live. Here, the union people work their butts off for the membership and still work for the kids too. So I guess we'll not agree because our environments might be different.</p>

219

<p>No question, Opie. Such an association would cover principals as well. (Any certified person working within the profession, as well as those not yet certified but holding those positions.) Same for supers.</p>

<p>As for school boards, overall these are unreliable because there are also no standards for those: some are great, some truly horrible. Many people on boards have zero educational experience, but are using it for a political stepping stone to other local office. Again, the whole system needs revising. The school board, for better or for worse, is often at odds with the schools, with the legislatures, and/or with the community.</p>

<p>Some States, like ours, have term limits for legislators, which is a step. (Has its pluses and minuses.)</p>

<p>I won't speak for Xiggi, but I know what <em>I</em> meant by leadership: I mean the absence of the qualty, not a segment (role) of union members! I mean moral leadership; I mean courage -- you know, all those qualities we expect genuine leaders to have?</p>

220

<p>I find it rather ironic that Steve Jobs would pick on teachers. While I do believe that teachers careers should be based on merit, I also think that corporate CEOs are paid vast sums of money mostly without regard to performance. I also think that all of their speechifying about education problems is a ploy to hide the real reason that they are outsourcing jobs overseas, workers are cheap there. American kids are smart and are choosing to not study engineering because engineering unemployment is high and not likely to decrease soon. I work for a large successful high-tech company and know that we are shipping jobs overseas not because their engineers are better, but because they are cheaper. We are chasing a wild goose if we think that "fixing" the edsucation system will prevent outsourcing of American jobs.</p>