The Economist's Bias Against Teach Unions: One Article at a Time

In September of this year, teachers in Chicago went on strike.  Now, of course, the news media jumped all over the story in its usual bigoted fashion.  You may think that "bigot" is an awful strong word to use, but I wanted to use stronger terminology.  Bigot may be a strong term, however, what exactly would you call using deluded logic to vilify a group of people?  Here is the article from the Economist.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/09/teachers-strike-chicago

Here are the Economists arguments in a nutshell, using the book, Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago as a blunt object by which to beat teacher's unions over the head.  The irony here is that the University of Chicago, a private University, which costs much more than any public institution does, is the owner of the book through the Urban Education Institute.
These are the five pillars of an effective school according to one study published by the Urban Education Institute: effective school leadership, collaborative teachers with committed staff and professional development, parent-community ties, a student-centered and safe learning climate with high expectations, and ambitious and demanding instruction.

1. Effective School Leadership, the Economists says that since teachers oppose their hiring and firing at will, they do not support effective school leadership.  This argument is absurd to say the least.  First of all, "Effective School Leadership" is just another vague term that can mean almost anything to anyone.  Here is the problem, where is the leadership in acting like a petty dictator?  And if hiring and firing teachers at will and for whatever reason makes for good teachers than expelling students at will without due process must be just as effective.  In other words, if school leaders can effectively judge teachers based on their professional opinion, then why don't teachers get to judge students in the same manner?  
2. The Economist also doesn't like the concept of teacher pay and lay-offs being based on experience.  The media and the Economist refer to experience as seniority and at times "tenure", of course, ignoring the research that says that teaching, like many professions -- doctor, lawyer, musician -- is experientially based.  
1. Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. 
3. The topic of teacher evaluations is another issue the Economist covers by stating, "But the bottom line is that the union doesn't like any serious teacher evaluation and wants to delay it for as long as possible. Yet teacher evaluations linked to pay are coming; it is a national tidal wave."\  This is not only a complete fabrication, but it also has no basis in reality.  Any "serious" teacher evaluation should be able to have science behind it.  Assessments are rated based on their reliability and validity, yet not a single teacher evaluation exists that is scientific proven to be a reliable  and valid indicator of teacher performance, which means what the Economist is selling is nothing short of snake oil that does nothing.  And the Economists second argument is that it is a national tidal wave whether you like it or not, which is no argument at all, but rather, the use of mob rule.
4. Finally, there is the argument that since Chicago students are academically poor, it must be the fault of the teacher.  This is perhaps most bigoted and deluded of all the arguments.  The irony is that when minorities themselves blame the government, conservatives fall over themselves talking about personal responsibility and pulling yourself up by your boot straps, yet if that blame can be leveled at liberal unions, then it is perfectly acceptable.  
5. You will also notice that the Economist article along with many of the news media articles, don't actually quote any unions or union members.  One need only look to American Educator Magazine, published by the AFT as an example of what unions are doing to improve education. 

If the Economist really wants to truly help children and not just bash unions, it should try using some facts and evidence to support what it believes to be true.  What lesson do you teach children when you use illogical and deluded beliefs to support the vilification of a group of people?

Visual Instructional Tip #1

Visual Instructional Tip:  Don't forget that the level of complexity and fidelity of the diagrams, images, slides, or illustrations you are creating should be matched to the academic level of the student.  If you are creating PowerPoint Slides, for example, use black and white line art for novices and photographs for advanced students.  

Why?  Advanced students can handle the complexity and fidelity of a photograph because they will have some idea already of what they are looking at, and in the end, they will be able to filter the important from the unimportant because of their pre-existing knowledge.   Novices, on the other hand, will find themselves overwhelmed by the amount of information in a photograph.