I feel compelled to respond as I have been involved with a teachers' union to some extent, albeit as an outsider, and have also studied education.
leadership of the teachers' unions are very, very change adverse [sic]. They are first and foremost a union and trade organization that exists to protect jobs and the status quo. Anything that threatens that status quo is usually immediately dismissed.
Teachers' unions, like any organization or interest group, are at once agents of change and agents of conservativism. Which side of the line they fall on fully depends on the issue at hand and the will of their members. It is interesting to note that unlike organizations with typical top-down mandates for decision making (governments, corporations), teachers' unions like many other unions tend to vote referendum-style on current issues in a democratic way. Such votes are sourced from teachers who actually have the practical in-the-field experience within current era systems, not the "Why don't you do it my way? [but I have little to no experience with the issue at hand, except for my own kids Alice & Bob]" general public.
the idea that teachers should be evaluated based on student outcomes is like kryptonite to union leadership.
You understand that the primary purpose of a union as with many commercially engaged interest groups is to collectively bargain, though they also perform other functions such as information sharing and legal defense. The notion of constantly evaluating teachers based upon student outcomes is clearly difficult to justify to such a group, because it is basically targeting removing the capacity for teachers to collectively bargain. The assumption behind this assertion is that large scale, standardized, test-based assessments are a valid and useful way to validate teacher performance, which itself is based upon the assumption that they are useful to validate student performance. These assertions are certainly being questioned (some would say demolished) in today's pedagogical research literature.
a strange aversion to letting anyone other than state-certified teachers do any teaching
As well as a venue for basic learning, schools are significantly a tool of the state for communicating normalized perspectives on the nation, the environment, and other areas. As such, most states have some restrictions on replacements for these organs by private parties. Some of these are based on valid concerns (children locked at home exposed to weird perspectives), some are probably not (eg. learning from people from non-pedagogical backgrounds). This is the state's resistance, not teachers' resistance.
I can't imagine that most teachers or teachers' unions would support the notion that parents (who in any sane case clearly teach far more to their children than schools ever can!) should neglect to teach their own kids in favour of the state.
leadership of the teachers' unions are very, very change adverse [sic]. They are first and foremost a union and trade organization that exists to protect jobs and the status quo. Anything that threatens that status quo is usually immediately dismissed.
Teachers' unions, like any organization or interest group, are at once agents of change and agents of conservativism. Which side of the line they fall on fully depends on the issue at hand and the will of their members. It is interesting to note that unlike organizations with typical top-down mandates for decision making (governments, corporations), teachers' unions like many other unions tend to vote referendum-style on current issues in a democratic way. Such votes are sourced from teachers who actually have the practical in-the-field experience within current era systems, not the "Why don't you do it my way? [but I have little to no experience with the issue at hand, except for my own kids Alice & Bob]" general public.
the idea that teachers should be evaluated based on student outcomes is like kryptonite to union leadership.
You understand that the primary purpose of a union as with many commercially engaged interest groups is to collectively bargain, though they also perform other functions such as information sharing and legal defense. The notion of constantly evaluating teachers based upon student outcomes is clearly difficult to justify to such a group, because it is basically targeting removing the capacity for teachers to collectively bargain. The assumption behind this assertion is that large scale, standardized, test-based assessments are a valid and useful way to validate teacher performance, which itself is based upon the assumption that they are useful to validate student performance. These assertions are certainly being questioned (some would say demolished) in today's pedagogical research literature.
a strange aversion to letting anyone other than state-certified teachers do any teaching
As well as a venue for basic learning, schools are significantly a tool of the state for communicating normalized perspectives on the nation, the environment, and other areas. As such, most states have some restrictions on replacements for these organs by private parties. Some of these are based on valid concerns (children locked at home exposed to weird perspectives), some are probably not (eg. learning from people from non-pedagogical backgrounds). This is the state's resistance, not teachers' resistance.
I can't imagine that most teachers or teachers' unions would support the notion that parents (who in any sane case clearly teach far more to their children than schools ever can!) should neglect to teach their own kids in favour of the state.