Just a few thoughts and rhetorical questions in response to the actions of protesting teachers in Madison.
Before I go on, let me state for the record that I think there are many great teachers out there. Unfortunately for them they choose to collectivize and they cannot be rewarded for excellence and are just judged as part of a whole. I would love it if we could remove the unions so we could pay great teachers a ton of money as a reward for excellence. I would gladly pay a premium in taxes for great performance in the schools manned by excellent professionals.
- Teachers and their unions are upset that they will have to pay more for their health care. These same people fully support Obamacare, which they claim will lower insurance costs for everyone. So if insurance will be so much cheaper, why are they so upset?
- Teachers consistently make the argument that the evidence that US kids are behind most of the world where education is concerned is due to the fact that they aren’t paid ENOUGH? So they believe that demonstrated failure in their jobs means they should be paid MORE? Isn’ t that like giving the Lombardi trophy to the worst team in the NFL?
- Teachers like to tell everyone that they are “all about the kids”. Well, that is only when they aren’t busy being all about their pay, their insurance, their pension, their hours, their union, Democrat candidates, protests, sick outs and tenure. Other than that, they are all about the kids.
- Teachers complain that they are all lumped together when the issues of education are discussed, and this is unfair. But they also choose to collectivize. Seems to me that they need to either end the union so they cannot be lumped together, or realize that collectivization means you are no longer treated as an individual, even if you are excellent.
- Teachers constantly claim that they are taxpayers, too. How is it that a person that is paid with 100% tax dollars could be considered a tax payer? They are not tax payers, they are tax consumers. They just give the government a small refund every year. Only people who don’t get paid with tax dollars are truly tax payers.
- If teachers unions are so essential to quality education, why is it that non-unionized private school kids and home schooled kids are demonstrated to be more successfully educated no matter how you measure it? Seems like the unions are responsible for the LACK of quality education, doesn’t it?
- If teaching is such a demanding and difficult profession, how is it possible that “untrained” moms and dads all over the nation are out performing “trained professionals”? Is it just an incredible run of luck?
- If teaching is a professional endeavour, why is it that empirical data never seems to matter when it comes to evaluating results? Isn’t that a lot like NASA not noticing or caring when rocket after rocket blows up on the pad, and then claiming that they are the best rocket scientists in the world and demanding more pay?
- Teachers claim that the poor test results are due not to poor work on their part, but to faulty tests. Using the NASA analogy, that’s like the rocket scientist blaming an exploding rocket on the camera filming the launch.
- Union teachers argue that they are underpaid, but non-union teachers make significantly less and do a better job, based on student performance. Doesn’t that mean the opposite of what unions always say? Aren’t they both over paid and under performing?
- Teachers always seem to blame failure to achieve results on lack of parental involvement, but get really angry when parents decide to demand better results, or expect poor performers to get fired or take a pay cut. Which is it? Are parents not involved enough, or involved too much? Make up your minds, please.
- If teachers complain that parents are not involved enough, doesn’t that mean that teaching is not really that hard, and that it relies almost as much on the actions of untrained people as it does “trained professionals”?
- If teaching is so difficult, how did we ever get teachers in the first place? Wouldn’t we still be banging rocks together to make fire, since without trained unionized teachers, we can’t learn anything?
- How is it possible that Laura Ingles Wilder could teach a class of kids at all grade levels simultaneously without the internet, computer tests, and teachers editions with all the answers and still wrote a bunch of books in her spare time, but today’s teachers cannot exist without a teachers aide, a class size of roughly 4 kids, 1 in-service day per week and teacher’s conventions 4 times per year? Was she some sort of alien or super human?