Opponents of true educational reform (the teachers' unions and their left wing allies) seem to have only one form of weapon - straw men. You would think that in the course of earning all those Masters degrees and PhD's, these folks would have learned that "the straw man" is a classic fallacy.
Wednesday's Daily Times provides an editorial that infers proponents of merit pay want to base such a proposal on raw test scores. STRAW MAN. Proponents of merit pay for teachers want OBJECTIVE criteria for the award of merit pay. One common proposal is to use IMPROVEMENT in test scores as one measure. There is a big difference.
As the Daily Times notes with its clever burlap and silk analogy, merit pay based on test scores would not be fair:
Eric Luedtke over at Free State Politics builds another STRAW MAN. Luedtke claims that I argue:
True to leftist form. Sorry, Eric - PROGRESSIVE. It's still a rose by any other name.
First I specifically claim that reform needs to INCLUDE merit pay, abolition of tenure and school choice (not exclusive to charter schools). As for calling the NEA and the MSTA socialist, I make no apologies there. The NEA has pursued a decidedly leftist agenda for as long as I can remember. As Mark Newgent so ably points out, labeling the NEA as leftist - if not Marxist - is accurate.
During the course of its history the NEA has called for using the public schools to dismantle our free market economy and for the social engineering of our children. The organization has been an apologist for Communist spies, saboteurs and agitators. They have argued that teachers who lie, both about their credentials and their teaching content, are OK as long as they are pursuing a "politically correct" (read leftist) agenda. In other words, the ends justify the means if you are promoting a leftist agenda.
Personally, I have no problem with the NEA being a left-wing, if not Communist, organization. I just want them to stand up and admit what they are. This is the root of Luedtke's STRAW MAN of "calling names".
People like Luedtke realize that the vast majority of Americans will not tolerate their children being indoctrinated by a bunch of Marxists. If the NEA, and their affiliates confessed to their true ideology, the school choice movement would grow 100 fold - overnight.
Of course we can't have any of that. The NEA is the nation's largest labor union. They are also one of the largest contributors to "progressive" candidates like Barack Hussein Obama.
We should also note that, while Luedtke and his fellow travelers in the NEA and MSTA decry the abolition of tenure they don't make a credible effort in defending it. Tenure in public education is nothing more than civil service protection which protects bad teachers and administrators. It's not about academic freedom. There is no academic freedom in public education, nor should there be. Universities have gone so far off the reservation that their arguments for academic freedom are fast losing support.
They also seem loathe to discuss school choice. Why? Despite every effort to undermine school choice, parents still flock to it at every opportunity. The NEA and their satellites cite studies and claim that school choice is not effective. If that is so, why do so many parents want their children in charter schools or wish to receive vouchers?
Teachers of the world UNITE! Stand up. Tell America what your union's true agenda is. Don't build little straw men.
A Special Thanks to Mark Newgent for his well researched and written piece regarding Eric Luedtke's piece in FSP.
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Wednesday's Daily Times provides an editorial that infers proponents of merit pay want to base such a proposal on raw test scores. STRAW MAN. Proponents of merit pay for teachers want OBJECTIVE criteria for the award of merit pay. One common proposal is to use IMPROVEMENT in test scores as one measure. There is a big difference.
As the Daily Times notes with its clever burlap and silk analogy, merit pay based on test scores would not be fair:
It (merit pay based on raw test scores) sounds plausible. But it isn't, not if it's tied to test scores -- and especially not if it's calculated by comparing one class's test scores to another. That would be like comparing the work of two seamstresses, one of whom is handed a bolt of burlap and the other, a bolt of fine silk. Each is told to make a dress; compensation will beHowever, if a teacher increases the test scores of a failing class by 20% then we can infer that this teacher has done an excellent job - even if the class's overall performance is below average.
based on which dress is more attractive. Assuming similar experience and sewing ability, in nearly every such instance the teacher who was handed the bolt of silk will receive the higher compensation. How could burlap ever compete with silk?
Eric Luedtke over at Free State Politics builds another STRAW MAN. Luedtke claims that I argue:
...a few quick things (merit pay, ending teacher tenure, charter schools) will magically fix education, and calling teachers unions socialist. Because calling the other side names makes you right.
True to leftist form. Sorry, Eric - PROGRESSIVE. It's still a rose by any other name.
First I specifically claim that reform needs to INCLUDE merit pay, abolition of tenure and school choice (not exclusive to charter schools). As for calling the NEA and the MSTA socialist, I make no apologies there. The NEA has pursued a decidedly leftist agenda for as long as I can remember. As Mark Newgent so ably points out, labeling the NEA as leftist - if not Marxist - is accurate.
During the course of its history the NEA has called for using the public schools to dismantle our free market economy and for the social engineering of our children. The organization has been an apologist for Communist spies, saboteurs and agitators. They have argued that teachers who lie, both about their credentials and their teaching content, are OK as long as they are pursuing a "politically correct" (read leftist) agenda. In other words, the ends justify the means if you are promoting a leftist agenda.
Personally, I have no problem with the NEA being a left-wing, if not Communist, organization. I just want them to stand up and admit what they are. This is the root of Luedtke's STRAW MAN of "calling names".
People like Luedtke realize that the vast majority of Americans will not tolerate their children being indoctrinated by a bunch of Marxists. If the NEA, and their affiliates confessed to their true ideology, the school choice movement would grow 100 fold - overnight.
Of course we can't have any of that. The NEA is the nation's largest labor union. They are also one of the largest contributors to "progressive" candidates like Barack Hussein Obama.
We should also note that, while Luedtke and his fellow travelers in the NEA and MSTA decry the abolition of tenure they don't make a credible effort in defending it. Tenure in public education is nothing more than civil service protection which protects bad teachers and administrators. It's not about academic freedom. There is no academic freedom in public education, nor should there be. Universities have gone so far off the reservation that their arguments for academic freedom are fast losing support.
They also seem loathe to discuss school choice. Why? Despite every effort to undermine school choice, parents still flock to it at every opportunity. The NEA and their satellites cite studies and claim that school choice is not effective. If that is so, why do so many parents want their children in charter schools or wish to receive vouchers?
Teachers of the world UNITE! Stand up. Tell America what your union's true agenda is. Don't build little straw men.
A Special Thanks to Mark Newgent for his well researched and written piece regarding Eric Luedtke's piece in FSP.
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
12 comments:
It seems this blog is going to continue chipping away at teachers' rights, especially tenure. In an earlier post G.A. Harrison accurately explained tenure as a way to protect university faculty conducting controversial research from dismissal by politically appointed regents. Obviously, this is not the case with most public school teachers.
Unfortunately, tenure is being portrayed as some holy grail preventing horrible teachers from being dismissed. In Maryland, tenure is awarded for teachers who successfully navigate a 2 year probationary period in a county school system during which they can be let go without cause or explanation. Tenure simply means the school system must follow "due process" to remove faculty. This hardly means a teacher cannot be fired. It means administrators must document a teacher's failings. That is hardly impossible. It requires documentation and a hearing. Tenure as described repeatedly on this blog is a red herring for teacher bashing.
As for school choice, it has merits! The English state schools allow children to choose based on their academic specialties (students also leave school at 16). Unfortunately, I think school choice in the U.S. is a right-wing ploy to resegregate many of our nation's school systems. If it weren't for such poor schools in the south (where teachers' unions are so weak), we wouldn't have a federal department of education. The northeast (where teachers' unions are strong) doesn't require national oversight. The union's are not the reason for success. Instead, they are the product of state's placing incredible resources into their schools--including well-credentialed, well-compensated teachers who demand the best.
-A WCPS teacher
This is an amusing piece. It decries the use of the straw man argument, and then goes on to make all its points by claiming that the NEA is leftist, communist, socialist, Marxist,... using (you guessed it), straw man arguments.
As for the ideas of merit pay, non-tenure, charter schools,... These are just bad ideas, not worth pursuing. Let's looks at the best education systems in the world. How about South Korea. They have an incredible system. Do you think they bother with merit pay? tenure? charter schools? No. They're focused on high power magnet schools and all girl schools.
The bottom line is that the NEA is made up of thinking EDUCATED people who actually know more about successful education than its critics. And, of course, educated people tend to lean to the left. Education is the foundation of the liberal viewpoint, just as dogma (religious or otherwise) is the foundation of conservativism.
Our first commenter, an obviously well meaning individual, believes that the current tenure system is fair. Unfortunately, just because it is theoretically possible to fire a bad teacher or administrator doesn't mean that it is practical. Why should any public employee be given MORE protection from poor performance than the taxpayers who work in the private sector receive?
As for our second commenter - POINT MADE! -
This individual who claims to be so well educated either can't grasp a written argument, or simply refuses to do so. The point of this particular post's further discussion of the NEA and MSTA was in response to FSP's straw man of saying - "Name Calling" - while refusing to discuss the merits. This writer attempts the same thing.
Why? We can only speculate, but it probably has something to do with the fact that the NEA has a long history of leftist activity and apologizing for Marxists (as evidenced by some of the links).
As for the claim that the self-identified liberal educators know more about this than their critics, let's explore that for a moment. The NEA doesn't want objective measurement of children learning because it's "teaching to the test". They want the taxpayer to provide more money, because this seems to be the answer to everything. Yet, what school system spends more money per pupil than anyplace? The DC public schools. Is this were you would want your children to learn?
That's right folks. We need to continue to throw money at a problem where the people charged with solving the problem have no accountability, don't want their progress objectively measured, and claim that if we only keep giving them money all will be well.
Yet, Johnny still can't read.
"As for our second commenter - POINT MADE! -
This individual who claims to be so well educated either can't grasp a written argument, or simply refuses to do so. The point of this particular post's further discussion of the NEA and MSTA was in response to FSP's straw man of saying - "Name Calling" - while refusing to discuss the merits. This writer attempts the same thing."
Sorry g.a.harrison. This is 2:24
1. I never claimed to be educated.
2. I called no one names. I said ideas were bad.
3. I made no straw man argument, since I presented no straw man. I only pointed out one.
4. I did discuss merit (briefly - see the part about Korea).
5. I am not part of any public school system, so your speculation is off base.
"They want the taxpayer to provide more money, because this seems to be the answer to everything. Yet, what school system spends more money per pupil than anyplace? The DC public schools..."
This is an interesting comment. We certainly know what too little money will do for education...
You do know, there's a reason the Fairfax County and Montgomery County have two of the best education systems in the US. Both are top five.
The fact that DC schools spend way too much (loads of corruption) is just another STRAW DOG ARGUMENT.
Let's start with Fairfax and MoCo schools. Money is not the driving factor. Money is a by-product of a wealthier, better educated populace that values quality education. There are too many urban school districts that disprove the notion that money is the primary factor in providing a good education.
As for your other arguments -
Again, you seem unable to grasp a written argument. WORDS HAVE MEANING!
True, you never claimed to be well educated, you inferred it through your ridiculous spiel about liberals being better educated.
You did not address any issue with your comment about Korea, because you did not made a declarative statement. Does South Korea have merit pay? tenure? school choice? I don't know. You didn't say.
If you will note, I never stated that YOU called anyone "names". I referred to the straw man built by Eric Luedtke over at FSP.
Your first paragraph is a straw man, albeit a poor one. You may not agree, but I'll continue to assert the superiority of my rhetorical and logical skills (and yes, my arrogance).
I never claimed that YOU worked or were affiliated with any public school system.
In the end, this argument is pointless. Why? Anyone who asserts that liberals are educated, thinking people and that dogma is the foundation of conservatism is not worthy of honest debate.
There are liberals who are educated, thinking, yet misguided people. There are others who merely parrot liberal dogma.
There are SELF-IDENTIFIED conservatives who parrot right wing dogma. However the basis of our uniquely American conservatism, as personified by Goldwater and Reagan, is THINKING. We believe that success is achieved through hard work and self-improvement (including education). These are made possible by the free market and our God-given (not government-granted) liberty. We believe in making our own decisions.
Liberals, evidently like you, believe in government solutions. Therefore education serves as a tool of indoctrination rather than one of self-improvement.
"Education is the foundation of the liberal viewpoint, just as dogma (religious or otherwise) is the foundation of conservativism."
Ha ha! This is awesome and true, not for everyone, only the extreme right.
G.A. says "They want the taxpayer to provide more money"
When you consider the percentage we spend on the military vs. the percentage we spend on educating our citizens...thats really a no brainer. Maybe a better educated military and citizenry(including the President) is what we need instead of more nukes. Im sure we have enough. Maybe they could find the 1000 or so the have lost.
Anyway, its time to come up with a new saying besides "classic fallacy." It really makes you sound like a pompus (fill in the blank).
Yes, and this is why your beloved NEA wants a "Peace Academy"? I'm a pacifist and I don't support that kind of leftist hogwash!
It's good to see that the "Blame America" crowd has a few adherents alive and well in our neck of the woods.
BTW -
It's easy being pompous with people who seem incapable of making a logical, coherent argument.
"It seems this blog is going to continue chipping away at teachers' rights, especially tenure."
I agree, but you have to wonder why. Is it basically economic? or do these "conservatives" really believe that these changes will result in more of the kids from Salisbury getting into good colleges?
I see these suggested policy changes as being terribly damaging, and presented with malice aforethought.
Charter schools and school choice? Are these just code words for segregation and racism? I have seen nothing to lead me to believe that there is anything noble in these ideas.
Teacher tenure and merit pay? Are these purely anti-union knee jerk responses to an obviously liberal profession where participants are already poorly paid and to a large extent disenfranchised.
What's totally lacking in all of these "proposals" is any sense of what's best for the student... any indication of looking at what's working elsewhere and copying that.
All we need now is the intelligent design people to start squawking and the dogma parade will be complete.
Merit pay is another ploy by the government to try to fix our educational system. I agree that there are teachers who do not belong in a classroom- I have seen it first hand, as I'm a teacher. I am very fortunate to teach at a school where parents are active, the kids are polite, and the school atmosphere is condusive to learning. Merit pay in my school would be a great idea. Our test scores are some of the best around year after year. But how about the many excellent teachers who work in schools that don't have the support that we have at our school? Many of these kids are hungry, parents could care less about education and education is not a priority. So you penalize these good educators because the test scores don't rise like my school's? I think not. That is not equitable. Merit pay is an incentive to boost scores, but with the unlevel playing fields that exist in many schools, it can't be implemented.
Can someone please explain "merit pay"? Just from the name it sounds like something that should already exist. If you do well at your job, you make more money. Thats the way it works at my job and most other jobs I know of. You know? Work hard, do well, get a raise. Does that not happen for teachers?
It's good to see that the "Blame America" crowd has a few adherents alive and well in our neck of the woods.
You need to clarify your latest spin. Are you saying America is not responsible for the school system in our country? You seem to be blaming someone in the original post. If not your fellow Americans, then who?
So... you saw that other people are using 'straw man' tactics against you, and then you call people 'Marxists'
Okay, then I think it's fair game to call you a 'Fascist' for using that 'straw man' attack.
Post a Comment