CA: Los Angeles Times flunks their ABCs again
Time to flag down another embarrassing union bashing Los Angeles Times' editorial called The ABCs of School Reform.
First thing to notice is a serious problem with logic: paragraphs two and paragraphs three contradict each other.
The study by the nonprofit New Teacher Project found that teacher contracts place seniority over what's best for students, especially by favoring longtime teachers for desired teaching slots over newer teachers who might be better for the job. That's true even if the more senior teacher is needed in another school.The LAT argue, based on their noncritical writeup of the New Teacher Project's grand new report, experienced teachers get first dibs on the the 'best' placements due to the (big bad) unions. This is horribly unfair. Why? Because, take careful note, 'newer teachers might be better' than teachers longer in the field.
Poor and minority students have long borne the brunt of these rules, because teachers often want jobs in more affluent communities. Though disadvantaged students need more educational support, they end up with the least experienced teachers.Wait, suddenly the newer teachers are a bad thing? Hoooold on. Didn't the LAT just say newer teachers may be better for the job? Which means, if you follow that line, the less desirable schools get better teachers, right???? Doesn't that mean the (big bad) teachers union is doing a good thing, by making less experienced teachers stay at the less desirable schools?
I think this is just another example of the true intent of the Los Angeles Times' corporate agenda: bash the teachers' union any which way possible even if their argument isn't logical. I think the real gist of the LAT corporate agenda is charter schools, any which way possible. This is why we never see positive articles about the success of public schools in LA, only a myriad of glowing articles about charter schools, authored by Jean Merl and her cohorts, at the LAT.
Second problem: the Los Angeles Times' wholesale swallowing of the New Teacher Project report, which sparked this editorial.
In their noncritical writeup in the main section of the paper, two obvious things.
One: LAT drops the ball in offering no critical analysis of the report by the New Teacher Project. Considering their bias, this may have been deliberate.
Two: LAT drops the ball in providing readers a more critical look at the organization producing the report, the New Teacher Project.
The Los Angeles Times, in their eagerness to bash the teachers' union, publishes an exceedingly misleading editorial about 'school reform'.
For the record: just call me one exceedingly ticked off parent with a child in public school. I am not associated with any union.