gaius already made this point, but I wanted to make it again as a comment rather than a reply to head in a different direction: Unions are the problem. When crappy educators rise through the ranks to become department heads based on literally nothing more than seniority and a union contract, the education system has failed.
As far as salary increases, what good would that do? Because of the unions, crappy teachers would recieve the same increase. Not only that, there would me MORE crappy teachers; $125k is definitely enough to attract people who don't want really want to teach. Good teachers teach for the same reason good programers program: it's what they love to do, it's what they were made to do, there is no other life. Money isn't everything. I'm not saying the rewards shouldn't match the benefit given by a good teacher, but again, the union prevents this.
A little less ideology and a little more clear thinking, please. You could certainly convince me that unions are a problem, but setting them up as the source of all badness is just your way of scoring points for your political/ideological team, rather than doing anything to contribute to the discussion.
So, onto your 2nd paragraph. How many "good" programmers are there, out of all programmers? One out of ten? (And that's being incredibly generous from my experience.) How well would these superstar volunteer for-the-love-of-it teachers do with 10x increased class sizes?
(And let's not forget all those who are thoroughly passionate about programming (/teaching) yet suck at it.)
I'd say that the largest concrete problem to me is our thoroughly anti-education culture.
And the largest meta-problem is that we have yet to discover a good way to measure the success of various approaches (and no shared philosophy, however small its kernel, as to what would even constitute success).
Otherwise, a laundry list:
- A problem: Inflexible bureaucratic structure/procedure permeating everything.
- A meta-problem: Debates about education always become proxies for ideological warfare. (C.f. your original reply, or the creationism push, or the "Culture Wars".)
- A problem: Parental non-involvement.
- A problem: Pushy, over-involved parents.
And on and on it would go, if I weren't supposed to be working right now. No wonder education here mostly sucks.
I think you're right about the fact that they're not the problem; I should have chosen my words more carefully. I also admit that I am by no means an expert on these issues. I do believe, however, that they are a problem, and in some places, a big problem. I believe that almost any organization that does not promote or reward based mostly on merit is flawed. I'll allow for character assessment in place of some merit, but not much else. I agree with you that this is ideology, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Also, of all the problems you listed, and the one I listed, I think if unions were found to be part of the problem, it would be one of the easier parts to fix.
I hope I'm not coming across hard-headed on this issue. This is something I deeply care about, and I am definitely open to other perspectives.
The problem with ideology is that it generates beliefs, convictions, and orthodoxies -- not hypotheses.
As an anecdote (and counter-example), I grew up in Wyoming, where there are no laws requiring union recognition, in a school district with no union or association at all, and my primary education was not exactly great. Downright poor, actually, especially when it specifically came to teacher quality.
Further, your alternative "promote or reward based mostly on merit" sounds nice, but unless we can define merit in a measurable way, and gain consensus on that definition, isn't it also mostly empty words?
And, even if we could clearly agree on a way of measuring merit, how well would that survive the morass of local politics that education operates within?
All of this isn't to disagree completely with you.
Rather, it is to say that things are rather messier than 'unions are bad'; education issues (in particular) aren't really amenable to bumper-sticker solutions.
I agree with you 100%. Correlation is not causation, I know, but look at every major organization that has unions: GM, The Ontario Government, The Toronto Transit Commission, our hospitals. The service is terrible, the quality average at best, and the money never ceases to drain from the public purse.
Why would we expect anything else from our unionized public schools? Why does it cost more than $10k per kid for a 10 month period just to educate them? For $1k per kid per month I could give 15 kids a way better education than they could get from a public system.
The reason I can't get a voucher for $10k is that the system is about social engineering, not education. If India can get their students doing calculus at grade 9 then we can too, our politicians just don't want us to. They would rather have conformist idiots than questioning geniuses.
Not all teachers' unions are created equal. Nor do they evolve equally. Your claims reminded me of Wikipedia's fantastic list of logical fallacies. Please refer to:
As far as salary increases, what good would that do? Because of the unions, crappy teachers would recieve the same increase. Not only that, there would me MORE crappy teachers; $125k is definitely enough to attract people who don't want really want to teach. Good teachers teach for the same reason good programers program: it's what they love to do, it's what they were made to do, there is no other life. Money isn't everything. I'm not saying the rewards shouldn't match the benefit given by a good teacher, but again, the union prevents this.