tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5458172893016186479.post1251768229360718503..comments2008-10-30T16:21:55.171-05:00Corey Bunje Bowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09764159604965707919noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5458172893016186479.post-66251500666866175572008-10-30T16:21:00.000-05:002008-10-30T16:21:00.000-05:00I've been impressed with what I've read about the book (and am trying to get it at the library), but ... the notion that one must prove teachers unions contribute to closing the achievement gap is a huge non-sequitur. The purpose of teachers unions is to improve conditions of employment. If that presents a barrier to closing the achievement gap, one would face a conflict of goods/evils --- and it would be fairly easy to choose kids. But closing the gap just isn't a union's job --- what one should expect is that the union won't get in the way.<BR/><BR/>Further, to infer from six schools that "no union" is a cause of having a gap-closing school (and therefore an attirubute that must be "replicated") seems a huge stretch --- more likely a product of attitudes brought to a study than of study itself. Not only is the sample size incredibly small, but most charter and private schools don't have unions and charters have been the site of many innovative schools. Thus the risk of confusing correlation with causation is high.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps one must "disempower" unionized teachers (should we also pay them especially poorly, I wonder?) to be decent to poor children, but that proposition is unattractive enough to call for better evidence and argument than Mr. Whitman's reply (at least) exhibited.<BR/><BR/>I'd also second the comment that schools that are rewarding to teachers may be less likely to ever become unionized (in other words, cause-and-effect, if it's there at all, may run in the opposite direction).<BR/><BR/>I'll withhold my final judgment till I read the book.WBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5458172893016186479.post-30528925757489247172008-08-17T10:13:00.000-05:002008-08-17T10:13:00.000-05:00I don't have a problem with your use of the word "paternalistic" and, even if I did, I think the label is less important than the actions you describe.<BR/><BR/>I probably should have said "contempt for" rather than "loathing of," as the latter was a bit strong. The fact that you make no attempt to mask your feelings was a compliment, but I stand by the assertion that there seems to be no love lost between you and at least three of the parties cited. Most of your discussion of Richard Rothstein is respectful -- I thought I had read one harsh passage, but can't seem to find it now (though I could cite examples regarding the other three).<BR/><BR/>I did not mean to imply that your findings were colored by the Fordham Institute, I simply wanted to point out that one would not expect Fordham to publish a book not generally in line with its ideological beliefs.<BR/><BR/>Generally speaking, I think the book is both valuable and thought-provoking, and intend to continue the discussion around the ideas presented in it into this next week.Corey Bunje Bowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09764159604965707919noreply@blogger.com