If you can stand conversing with irritating posters who spout false equivalencies.

Originally Posted by chiwii We're in a recession. Benefits are being cut, facilities are being closed, and people lose their jobs. Why should teachers be immune to the effects of the recession?

Because of their importance to society and our future.

It's already largely a thankless job that's hard to attract the best and brightest to, when they have so many other career options they can pursue.

If there aren't perks like stronger job security, less risk during recessions etc., even fewer of the best and brightest will choose to become teachers rather than businessmen, lawyers, engineers etc.

Originally Posted by Clak Not to mention that juries are usually well behaved, not throwing shit at each other or trying to choke each other to death. Any with the patience to deal with kids deserves whatever pay they're able to negotiate IMO. If it's more than XYZ profession makes, fine. If you can wrangle a classroom full of kids 5 days a week and not kill one of them, you deserve the best.

A big problem with allowing civil servants to unionize and negotiate pay and benefits is that school boards and local governments will agree to higher and higher pay and benefits to keep the unions supporting them in elections.

Retirement benefits are an especially large problem, because the politicians can agree to great pensions, the citizens generally have no idea, and the reality of the pension obligations won't be revealed for years. Then, the new school boards and local governments have to clean up the budget mess left behind.

I'm not totally against unions for public employees, but I do expect them to be reasonable. And, I don't think they should be able to strike.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 The main issue I have with pensions is companies (and their current employees) shouldn't foot the bill for retired employees. I much prefer a 401k type system with a generous match/employer contribution combined with employee contribution. The school system then is still contributing a lot toward retirement, but aren't stuck with an ongoing bill when someone retires in their 50's after 30 years and lives to 100. I had a choice between a state pension plan and a 401k type plan (357b or something like that) with my job and opted for the latter. I want more control of my money, and I don't plan on staying in this state long term anyway. The 401k type plan is pretty generous here as well. I have to contribute 5% (going up to 6% next year) of my salary to it each paycheck, state contributes 9.24% of my salary each check. Can't complain, been here for 3 years and last I looked my retirment account was around $35k already. K-12 teachers should get a similar retirement package to that IMO.

I don't completely disagree with you philosophically, but we don't live in a perfect world with adequate social safety nets especially in the area of healthcare, which you know, takes a larger chunk of your money as you get older. Not to mention that the nature of investing pension funds has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. With education loans being the next bubble to burst without stronger financial regulation, it's only a matter of time until we see something like 2008 again with people losing half their retirement.

I'm leaving a lot of detail out investing and bubbles, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Originally Posted by chiwii The CPS teachers are already making a living wage. We're in a recession. Benefits are being cut, facilities are being closed, and people lose their jobs. Why should teachers be immune to the effects of the recession?

Because being in a recession has nothing to do with how many students need to be educated.

I think that it's ruthless for civil servants to go on strike. We're not talking about workers that need food stamps because they make so little, don't have health insurance, work in dangerous conditions that management refuses to address, etc. These teachers make great wages compared to the citizens of their city and compared to other teachers in the US, they have a great pension plan, and most have very secure jobs. Despite this, they're on strike, depriving kids of an education because they want more money and more job security with less oversight .

You sure about all that stuff? The public education system is becoming more and more privatized every year. In Chicago, and many other cities, private/public charter schools are popping up like weeds that close down schools in vulnerable districts. mykevermin can probably go a lot deeper into this than I can. The job security you talk about simply doesn't exist in this environment. How secure is the job when the entire school is being closed and replaced with a for-profit charter school funded with tax dollars? Unions are bypassed, tax dollars are being siphoned out of the system, and educational outcomes are inflated and over-hyped because charter schools aren't required to try and educate all of their students? A big part of CTU demands were in regards to school closings, moving away from high-stakes testing, and funding more arts-related programs. I mean shit, in what world is closing a school a GOOD idea when problems should never be allow to get so bad to make it look like one?

Originally Posted by Clak If you can stand conversing with irritating posters who spout false equivalencies.

Is that directed at me? I'm not saying that ANY of those comparisons are completely valid, just that anyone can claim that any profession 'deserves the best' depending on their own skills, abilities, preferences, and biases.

There are some people who would find my job mind-numbing and terrible but would love nothing more than to spend the day with a batch of unruly kids.

Originally Posted by dohdough I don't completely disagree with you philosophically, but we don't live in a perfect world with adequate social safety nets especially in the area of healthcare, which you know, takes a larger chunk of your money as you get older. Not to mention that the nature of investing pension funds has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. With education loans being the next bubble to burst without stronger financial regulation, it's only a matter of time until we see something like 2008 again with people losing half their retirement. I'm leaving a lot of detail out investing and bubbles, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Oh I agree. We need a full on health care system for all etc. for sure.

But we'll always differ on a lot of this as I'm a bit more on the personal responsibility side of things when it comes to this stuff. Plus I view retirement as a luxury. If you don't invest wisely (or have bad luck) you work until you're not longer physically able to do so. Though again our safety net for the truly disabled should be stronger.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 Oh I agree. We need a full on health care system for all etc. for sure. But we'll always differ on a lot of this as I'm a bit more on the personal responsibility side of things when it comes to this stuff. Plus I view retirement as a luxury. If you don't invest wisely (or have bad luck) you work until you're not longer physically able to do so. Though again our safety net for the truly disabled should be stronger.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm saying that people should just stop contributing to the pot and just sit around rotting and that everyone is "entitled" to a rest, but that there's actually a very pragmatic economically based reason to encourage retirement and that's to make room for new ones. Older workers not retiring has a very real effect on depressing wages and stifling job opportunites/advancement that we're seeing in this economic climate.

I might be the so far on the left that I refuse to write with my right hand, but I'm still not that dogmatic.

Oh for sure.

But I'm not convinced pensions are the way to do that. As long as someone makes smart investment decisions there 401k should leave them at least as well off as most pensions--with potential to be better off.

And it doesn't even require being very active or informed about it. Just put it in a re-balancing mutual fund that's getting adjusted quarterly to minimized losses and maximize gains, and in a fund that gets less risky the closer you get to your retirement date. That should give most people who work at least 30 years plenty to retire on, especially with social security (if the program is saved and kept around) on top of that.

With the bonus that current workers aren't being hurt by companies/the public sector being strained paying pensions of retirees who are living longer and longer and exhausting pension funds.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 Because of their importance to society and our future. It's already largely a thankless job that's hard to attract the best and brightest to, when they have so many other career options they can pursue. If there aren't perks like stronger job security, less risk during recessions etc., even fewer of the best and brightest will choose to become teachers rather than businessmen, lawyers, engineers etc.

ummm if 80% of the students fail reading and math it does not seem they are attracting the best and brightest people to become teachers

any other job if 80% of your products fail you would have your ass FIRED

Originally Posted by slidecage ummm if 80% of the students fail reading and math it does not seem they are attracting the best and brightest people to become teachers any other job if 80% of your products fail you would have your ass FIRED

That's a horrible analogy. All students don't learn exactly the same way or at the same pace. If the education system was actually focused on educating students and not turn school into tax-payer funded daycare/memorization factories, we'd have different results.

I know I know...slidecage...

On top of that, he's using that argument to say we don't attract the best and brightest to teaching.

Which is the point! We need to value education more, pay teachers more, give the job lots of perks etc. so we get more of the best and brightest so outcomes are better.

So even if his inane analogy wasn't full of shit, it still doesn't support his arguments against investing in education.

Originally Posted by yourlefthand Is that directed at me? I'm not saying that ANY of those comparisons are completely valid, just that anyone can claim that any profession 'deserves the best' depending on their own skills, abilities, preferences, and biases. There are some people who would find my job mind-numbing and terrible but would love nothing more than to spend the day with a batch of unruly kids.

1. The why did you use them if you know they aren't valid?
2. No offense to what you do, but you aren't as important to our society. This coming from someone who studied and works in IT, we aren't as important to the future of society as those who TEACH the future citizens of our society. My job is mind numbing, and it drives me crazy sometimes, but while I do feel underpaid (hell, who doesn't really?), I still don't think I deserve a great deal more because my job simply isn't as important to society at large. We don't have to worry about information technology if most of the population can't read.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by dohdough That's a horrible analogy. All students don't learn exactly the same way or at the same pace. If the education system was actually focused on educating students and not turn school into tax-payer funded daycare/memorization factories, we'd have different results. I know I know...slidecage...

I'm going to take advantage of the fact that he's posting in this thread and just say folks, if slidecage isn't proof that we need to attract better teachers, I don't know who is.

Originally Posted by Clak 1. The why did you use them if you know they aren't valid? 2. No offense to what you do, but you aren't as important to our society. This coming from someone who studied and works in IT, we aren't as important to the future of society as those who TEACH the future citizens of our society. My job is mind numbing, and it drives me crazy sometimes, but while I do feel underpaid (hell, who doesn't really?), I still don't think I deserve a great deal more because my job simply isn't as important to society at large. We don't have to worry about information technology if most of the population can't read.

Because it illustrates that your argument about how much teachers should be paid is invalid.

Teaching children may or may not be as important as what you or I do. During the course of your work you may eventually invent something that will revolutionize teaching, or healthcare, or whatever. A poor teacher can actually reduce the future possibilities for hundreds or thousands of students.

I am not sure that higher pay and benefits will do enough to attract the best and brightest. No matter how much you pay someone, if they don't have a passion for teaching kids they probably won't be very good at it. I guess the real solution in my mind is to teach people to value education so much that they are passionate about teaching. I'm not sure how we do that, though.

The problem is that a lot of good teachers do leave because of low pay, the seniority system (not getting rewarded while crappy older teachers do) etc.

Wish I had numbers at hand, but read something recently that talked about this. About how high attrition rates were for young teachers with solid ratings--both in terms of leaving city schools for higher paying districts, and just getting fed up and leaving public education all together.

We're an extreme capitalist society. We'll never have enough people who sacrifice earnings because they love teaching to solve our education gap with the rest of the world (not implying that teachers are solely or mainly to blame for that). In our society, money drives everything.

If we're going to get more of the best and brightest to teach, they have to be attracted by the salary, benefits and perks of the job (security if they're good, flexible schedule in the 3 summer months etc.). Otherwise most people will opt for higher paying professions. It won't solve the problem, but it will help.

Originally Posted by yourlefthand Because it illustrates that your argument about how much teachers should be paid is invalid.

You used invalid comparisons to show that my argument is invalid?

Here we go again, folks.

The aversion to being evaluated based on student performance seems to imply that the environment of the classroom is not as important as the nature of their students as they get them in their classes.

Okay, fair enough. But it does downgrade the importance of teachers as related to the success of students, and it might be more worthwhile to spend scarce public funds on other things that could help students achieve greater success or just give the money back to taxpayers if nothing seems to work. In this sense, $70k a year seems more than reasonable. After all, no matter how good these teachers are, and we don't know for sure because they oppose merit-based proposals, students will fail for other reasons.

In other words, teachers are implying students need to be better prepared before they enter the classroom. Probably true, but this would belie arguments that they are so important that they need to be paid more.

In any case, I would give them 48 hours to get back to work or they would be fired, as in the Reagan video that is making the rounds. Throwing more money at the problem probably is not going to fix it.



Destroying the teachers unions would also help. These are the same kind of people who ran Jaime Escalante out of the LA public school system.

It doesn't belie anything.

To make up an example for illustrative purposes:

An outstanding 8th grade teacher gets a student who's at the 5th grade level and busts ass and gets them up to the 7th grade level by the end of the year.

A poor or mediocre 8th grade teacher gets a student who's at the 5th grade level and busts ass and gets them up to the 6th grade level by the end of the year.

Based on evaluations by standardized tests, both teachers would have simply failed in that case as the student wasn't up to 8th grade level by year's end. When the first teacher clearly did a much better job.

We need a better evaluation system that judges teacher's based on how much students improve from a beginning of the year (or end of the prior year) baseline by the end of the year they teach them. That's the mark of an effective teacher.

You can't expect teachers to work miracles and get students who are grade levels behind by the time they get to them up to speed in 9 months.

If there was that type of fair evaluation system for teaching effectiveness, I think a lot fewer teachers would be adverse to the idea. Unions would still be an issue, as they never like to give up anything that could lead to people losing jobs.

Clearly, teachers who teach early grades should be the most important to evaluate so that students do not fall behind once they get to eighth grade.

Standardized tests should not be the sole factor in teacher evaluations, but they should be a factor. Test taking is a fact of life when you want to get licensed to practice in a certain industry, and until it's changed, you need to have SAT/ACT/GRE test taking skills if you want to go to college.

Written tests are also important, but they are more difficult to grade. Would teachers be willing to accept evaluations based on how well students communicate ideas and concepts, no matter what those ideas are? Scantron tests appear in lower division college classes, but all but disappear once you get to the upper division classes.

Or we could stop this flawed notion that every high school student is going to college and track some students into vocational career paths by the middle of high school.

Originally Posted by Clak You used invalid comparisons to show that my argument is invalid? Here we go again, folks.

You stated that teachers should earn a lot of money simply because they do a job that you don't want to or couldn't do. I gave several examples that illustrate that that is not a valid argument.

There are plenty of reasons why teachers should be well paid. That simply isn't one of them.