Can you be specific, Eduwonk Andy?
Eduwonk returned from a week’s vacation to find our complaint in Gadfly that he was a bit too generous with his praise for AFT heir apparent Randi Weingarten. Specifically, we wondered why he would say that “most of the things that the teachers’ unions want are in the interest of kids.” His response?
Ummm...because it’s true? This debate is too often framed by absolutists arguing that teachers unions are always at odds with what’s good for kids or, conversely, that they never are and the interest of teachers and students are the same. Lots of things that teachers’ unions want are good for kids, too. But some are not...
OK, we’re listening, can you name even a handful of the “lots of things” that unions want that are good for kids, too? We’ll concede, when it comes to the AFT, that it seeks a common core curriculum, which would certainly be good for the kiddos. What else?
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Isn’t Randi from NY? Andy might want to explain this recent and quite correct post by his comrade, Kevin Carey:
“The Times is reporting that, at the behest of the teachers unions, last-minute language was snuck into the New York State budget providing that “teacher[s] shall not be granted or denied tenure based on student performance data.”
There’s really not much one can add to that; it’s hard to imagine a more unambiguous declaration of the union’s total disregard for student learning when its members’ jobs are at stake.”
April 15th, 2008 at 10:54 am
It’s grossly preposterous to make the wild claim that “a common core curriculum ... would certainly be good for the kiddos.” A GOOD curriculum is beneficial, but there isn’t a shred of evidence that a common national curriculum would provide that. In fact, the overwhelming evidence, as seen by efforts in 49 of the states, is that a top-down standards-setting scheme is easily hijacked by the fuzzies, and is twisted away from substance and towards constructivist platitudes. Top-down standards have been tested, tried and have been found to fail. End of story.
Kevin Killion
Exec Dir, Illinois Loop
April 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am
If they are always called “kids,” you—the parent—must be a goat ? ?( ( Probably an old goat.)
Why not give that word “kids” a rest.? A reasonable rest-period might be 20 or even 25 years.
Let the next generation decide whether they are goats who have kids.
They might have enough self-respect not to refer to their children that way.