Originally Posted by Clak 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.

you can make fun of my typing skills or how i talk all you want but I can hold my held up and say at least

At least i pay my own ing way and not on welfare

Just on the news tonight love the lady in Chicago

quote i glad the schools are at least open so my children have something to eat

she has a 8 year old, a 6 year old and SHE IS EXPECTING ANOTHER KID



IF YOU CANT AFFORD 2 CHILDREN STOP HAVING ing KIDS


this is what is wrong with this country ... people on welfare Know if they keep having kids they will NEVER NEED A JOB and the goverment will GIVE THEM ALL THE CASH THEY EVER NEED


I take that back if Obama wins the white house in November for the 2nd time Im quitting my JOB come Jan 1 2013 and DEMANDING the government Pays for my housing and everything else i need

Why the should i work when these )*)*#$%#%# just sit on their asses ing anything and everyone and getting everything for free...

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.

How can school districts and states continue to fund schools and teachers at the same level when tax revenues are dropping?

Teaching is naturally more secure than law, engineering, etc., even without the union protections. Teachers are rarely let go in the middle of a semester, so they can feel secure through the semester. Their jobs can't be outsourced, and the majority of schools will stay open, despite the recession.

Oh, and they get summers off, lots of nice long breaks around the holidays, etc. That's a perk. Seriously, who hasn't been stuck at the office on a beautiful summer day and thought about how they could be at the beach, if only they had become a teacher.

Originally Posted by dohdough Because being in a recession has nothing to do with how many students need to be educated. 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?

Of course, you're right that the recession has nothing to do with the number of kids that need to be educated. But it certainly affects the tax revenue available to spend on educating the kids.

CPS says the average teacher salary is $76,000, the union says its $71,000. Based on the CPS data, they are the highest paid city public school teachers, earning more than even NYC teachers. If you use the union numbers, they're #2. So, compared to other teachers in the US, they seem to be doing fine.

According to the census, the average household income in Chicago is about $47,000. So, compared to the citizens in their city, they're doing well.

If these teachers are so concerned about funding for art-related programs, school closings, and lay-offs of fellow teachers, why are they still demanding a raise?

With "high-stakes testing", are you referring to the teacher evaluations where 25-40% of the evaluation is based on test results? It doesn't seem outrageous to me that a portion of a teacher's evaluation should be based on test results. Is the method of teacher evaluation really something that at teachers union should be able to strike over? It seems crazy to me that an entire city school district is shut down because the teachers don't like the way they're going to be evaluated.

Originally Posted by slidecage you can make fun of my typing skills or how i talk all you want but I can hold my held up and say at least At least i pay my own ing way and not on welfare Just on the news tonight love the lady in Chicago quote i glad the schools are at least open so my children have something to eat she has a 8 year old, a 6 year old and SHE IS EXPECTING ANOTHER KID IF YOU CANT AFFORD 2 CHILDREN STOP HAVING ing KIDS this is what is wrong with this country ... people on welfare Know if they keep having kids they will NEVER NEED A JOB and the goverment will GIVE THEM ALL THE CASH THEY EVER NEED I take that back if Obama wins the white house in November for the 2nd time Im quitting my JOB come Jan 1 2013 and DEMANDING the government Pays for my housing and everything else i need Why the should i work when these )*)*#$%#%# just sit on their asses ing anything and everyone and getting everything for free...

You clearly have some kind of paranoia/ego complex. I WORK SO GODDAMN HARD, WHY DO THESE PEOPLE GET FREE STUFF RADDA RADDA! Grow up, you sound like a broken record. Face it pal, the vast majority of people work (or atleast think they do) hard. It's true, there are people who abuse the system (at most for a few years since unemployment dries up and welfare covers food and not much else), but they are far and few between. Truth is, every major statistic on unemployment/welfare use shows people use it between jobs/careers or when the main provider has died suddenly and the family has to scramble to move on. Get past your boogieman perceptions and come into the 21st century.

Originally Posted by chiwii Of course, you're right that the recession has nothing to do with the number of kids that need to be educated. But it certainly affects the tax revenue available to spend on educating the kids.

So cutting wages, eliminating jobs, closing schools, increasing class sizes, and reducing/eliminating programs is somehow a better idea than raising taxes by 3% on people making more than $250k? Do you really think that there's so little money out there that we simply just can't afford to properly educate our populace?

CPS says the average teacher salary is $76,000, the union says its $71,000. Based on the CPS data, they are the highest paid city public school teachers, earning more than even NYC teachers. If you use the union numbers, they're #2. So, compared to other teachers in the US, they seem to be doing fine. According to the census, the average household income in Chicago is about $47,000. So, compared to the citizens in their city, they're doing well.

Do those numbers include benefits as well? And personally, I don't give a shit that they make more than the average household. I'm glad that they make that wage and the fact that the average household makes that little is a ing shame. Wages have been stagnating for decades and you think having a crab mentality somehow provides better outcomes? Maybe instead of saying why they have "so much;" we should be asking why we have so little. Some job security and a fair wage is something we should all be entitled to as a worker. Does $24k sound like a good wage to you?

If these teachers are so concerned about funding for art-related programs, school closings, and lay-offs of fellow teachers, why are they still demanding a raise?

Why the hell not? Are things getting cheaper? Are those raises going to cover new programs, keep schools open, and prevent lay-offs? Of course not because that would be stupid. Those things are systemic problems bigger than the teachers and the union that represents them.

With "high-stakes testing", are you referring to the teacher evaluations where 25-40% of the evaluation is based on test results? It doesn't seem outrageous to me that a portion of a teacher's evaluation should be based on test results. Is the method of teacher evaluation really something that at teachers union should be able to strike over? It seems crazy to me that an entire city school district is shut down because the teachers don't like the way they're going to be evaluated.

Of course it doesn't seem outrageous because you don't know shit about the education system in this country.

Lemme let you in on a little secret that CEEB keeps on the dl: THE SAT/ACT ARE TOTAL BULLSHIT.

If those tests are bullshit measures of aptitude, what does that say about requiring tests to move up a grade or even graduate? Is it then fair to tie those results to their employment?

Teachers and their unions are not the problem; the entire education system is.

Originally Posted by yourlefthand 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.

Several invalid examples by your own admission. I'm through here.

Originally Posted by dohdough So cutting wages, eliminating jobs, closing schools, increasing class sizes, and reducing/eliminating programs is somehow a better idea than raising taxes by 3% on people making more than $250k? Do you really think that there's so little money out there that we simply just can't afford to properly educate our populace?

Isn't the Chicago school district funded primarily with property taxes?

I agree that federal income taxes on the wealthiest should be raised, but that's not going to help the CPS budget anytime soon.

Originally Posted by dohdough Do those numbers include benefits as well? And personally, I don't give a shit that they make more than the average household. I'm glad that they make that wage and the fact that the average household makes that little is a ing shame. Wages have been stagnating for decades and you think having a crab mentality somehow provides better outcomes? Maybe instead of saying why they have "so much;" we should be asking why we have so little. Some job security and a fair wage is something we should all be entitled to as a worker. Does $24k sound like a good wage to you?

No, those numbers do not include benefits.

I agree that it's shame that the average household doesn't make more, but these are the households that fund the schools in the Chicago. Should property taxes be raised on the people of Chicago to fund the ever increasing salaries of the teachers? How will another tax increase affect the low and middle class in Chicago, who have already seen wages and property values decrease?

We can ask why workers wages are low, but, really, what can the teachers union, the school board, or the mayor of Chicago do about that?

Originally Posted by dohdough Why the hell not? Are things getting cheaper? Are those raises going to cover new programs, keep schools open, and prevent lay-offs? Of course not because that would be stupid. Those things are systemic problems bigger than the teachers and the union that represents them.

The budget won't allow the school district to continue operating as it has in the past, plus give the teachers relatively generous raises. Foregoing raises might not save everything, but they could keep some programs going, keep some schools open, and prevent some lay-offs.

Originally Posted by dohdough Of course it doesn't seem outrageous because you don't know shit about the education system in this country. Lemme let you in on a little secret that CEEB keeps on the dl: THE SAT/ACT ARE TOTAL BULLSHIT. If those tests are bullshit measures of aptitude, what does that say about requiring tests to move up a grade or even graduate? Is it then fair to tie those results to their employment? Teachers and their unions are not the problem; the entire education system is.

I don't know that it's factual to say that I don't know shit about the educational system, but whatever. What's your source for the secret that the SAT/ACT (and therefore all standarized tests) are bullshit?

The immediate problem is that the teachers are on strike, and kids in Chicago who depend on public schools aren't able to go to school. There are problems with the entire educational system, sure, but they aren't going to be solved in these contract negotiations.

Originally Posted by chiwii How can school districts and states continue to fund schools and teachers at the same level when tax revenues are dropping?

As dohdough noted...raise taxes on the wealthy.

Moreover, education should be one of the last areas of the public sector to get cuts when times get tougher, given it's importance to the future. Instead its one of the first areas to get cuts.

Oh, and they get summers off, lots of nice long breaks around the holidays, etc. That's a perk.

I'm not going to lie and say that summers aren't a perk for educators--be it K-12 or college. But the notion of "summers off" is BS. Only the completely worthless teachers and professors aren't working a lot over the summer. For teachers that's the time to update your knowledge, update course presentations, assignments exams etc. And time to prep any new courses. Shit they don't have to do when they're working 8 hour days of classes/meetings and grading shit nights and weekends. There are also meetings to attend over the summer usually.

For professors, you have that stuff, but it's also the major time to catch up on research work since you don't have the distraction of classes and administrative meetings etc. At least at a research university. At a teaching college most faculty are teaching summer courses for extra money (and even in my department a lot of my colleagues do--I don't like teaching enough, nor need the extra money enough, to teach in the summer personally).

That said, a lot of that stuff is on their own schedule, so it's easier to take trips etc. than it is when working a normal 9-5 jobs with a couple weeks of vacation a year. So it's still a perk. Just not the "summers off" BS people not familiar with what the careers are really like tout.

It's a nice perk--and one of the reasons I'm still in academia vs. having taken one of the higher paying private research jobs I've been offered, but teachers/professors hardly have summers off. And even that isn't much of a perk when you factor in that a 40 hour work week during the 9 month year is a rare thing for most teachers and professors.

Originally Posted by chiwii I don't know that it's factual to say that I don't know shit about the educational system, but whatever. What's your source for the secret that the SAT/ACT (and therefore all standarized tests) are bullshit?

I can't speak to those, but I can anecdotally speak to the GREs since I review graduate applications. There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of relationship between students with higher GREs being the best students in our MS or Ph D programs.

The one exception is those with higher scores on the quantitative section to tend to do better in our statistics courses. So it's more just that the rest of it just isn't particularly relevant to doing well in a social science graduate program. It just doesn't get at their ability to comprehend research, design and conduct their own research, write quality academic papers etc.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 And even that isn't much of a perk when you factor in that a 40 hour work week during the 9 month year is a rare thing for most teachers and professors.

It's not a common thing for ambitious people who aren't teachers to work well more than 40 hours a week year round.

I would even go so far as to say that many people who are working 40 hours or less are either public employees or in a union.

Originally Posted by yourlefthand It's not a common thing for ambitious people who aren't teachers to work well more than 40 hours a week year round. I would even go so far as to say that many people who are working 40 hours or less are either public employees or in a union.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. And some people work long hours for less than teachers, and others work long hours for far more than teachers make (lawyers, business execs, doctors) etc. But when talking perks, a lot people with college degrees (especially masters) are making more than teachers and working the same or lesser hours. So it's still a trade off of pay vs. more flexible summer schedule.

The issue is how do we get more people to take the trade off of flexibility, doing work that's meaningful for advancing society etc. instead of just chasing the most money they can make.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 Moreover, education should be one of the last areas of the public sector to get cuts when times get tougher, given it's importance to the future. Instead its one of the first areas to get cuts.

Which public sector areas should receive the earliest cuts?

Originally Posted by ID2006 What are some public sector areas that should receive the earliest cuts?

The military comes to mind. Cut the en military spending in half and bring everyone back home. That should do it.

Originally Posted by chiwii Isn't the Chicago school district funded primarily with property taxes? I agree that federal income taxes on the wealthiest should be raised, but that's not going to help the CPS budget anytime soon.

A city with the average household income of $46k can't support a school system the size of Chicago. Systems that large require state and federal funding.

No, those numbers do not include benefits. I agree that it's shame that the average household doesn't make more, but these are the households that fund the schools in the Chicago. Should property taxes be raised on the people of Chicago to fund the ever increasing salaries of the teachers? How will another tax increase affect the low and middle class in Chicago, who have already seen wages and property values decrease?

Families with the average household income of $46k are most likely not homeowners, so property value would be largely irrelevant at the level you're talking about. And as for "another tax increase," taxes are at a historical low and Obama has repeatedly renewed tax cuts for everyone.

If education is constantly seeing cuts, what makes you think that salaries are constantly increasing? "Ever increasing" my ass. If the school system wants to increase their classroom hours by 30%, I don't think that at 4% raise is ing unreasonable.

We can ask why workers wages are low, but, really, what can the teachers union, the school board, or the mayor of Chicago do about that?

Absolutely nothing and that's why your point about the average household income relative to the average teacher's salary is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I'm glad you managed to figure that out.

The budget won't allow the school district to continue operating as it has in the past, plus give the teachers relatively generous raises. Foregoing raises might not save everything, but they could keep some programs going, keep some schools open, and prevent some lay-offs.

School systems don't work that way and 4% is not ing generous. If the average salary is $75k for 9 months/39 weeks of work, that translates to $10 whole ing dollars FOR THE EXTRA 1.5 HOURS PER DAY. They're pretty much asking to have their lunch and coffee covered as well as the amount being LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE.

I don't know that it's factual to say that I don't know shit about the educational system, but whatever. What's your source for the secret that the SAT/ACT (and therefore all standarized tests) are bullshit?

If you're asking me for a source, then it's pretty goddamn accurate to say that you know next to nothing about the education system.

The immediate problem is that the teachers are on strike, and kids in Chicago who depend on public schools aren't able to go to school. There are problems with the entire educational system, sure, but they aren't going to be solved in these contract negotiations.

It won't fix the system, but it'll draw attention to it's issues. Too bad people would rather rabble-rouse about teachers and their extra $10 for another hour and a half than pay attention to the issues they're bringing up.

Originally Posted by kill3r7 The military comes to mind. Cut the en military budget in half and bring everyone back home. That should do it.

Is the military considered 'public sector'? I thought public sector had to deal with goods and trade. I agree that defense spending is a primary problem, but I believe this is more of a local issue, and I don't think a state or city has much control over defense spending.

Originally Posted by ID2006 Is the military considered 'public sector'? I thought public sector had to deal with goods and trade. I agree that defense spending is a primary problem, but I believe this is more of a local issue, and I don't think a state or city has much control over defense spending.

I was implying that we shouldn't cut anymore public sector jobs. The public sector has already shed about 680,000 jobs. It might be time to cut back on some other expenses. This money can be spread out across the country to help each state with their budgets. At the end of the day federal aid is king.

Originally Posted by ID2006 Which public sector areas should receive the earliest cuts?

First is just stopping any luxury spending. There have been teacher cuts in my city while they're still adding things to parks, putting in brick sidewalks etc. Granted, maybe some of that stuff got some private funding.

Wasteful spending on administration and support staff in every element should be next.
Administrators should get pay cuts and furlough days. Everyone can get buy with fewer secretaries and assistants.

Beyond that it gets tough, and there will be lots of tough calls. But after emergency services (fire, police, public hospitals/ems etc.), education should be the last thing to be touched.

We can't mortgage our future. All that's going to do is put us further behind other countries that invest more in education systems, and have tax systems to support doing so as they're not as dominated by the top 1% and can have higher tax rates on the upper middle class and above that we can ever get in place.

But really we just need to have higher federal taxes and do more efficient job of distributing that revenue to school districts that need it most--i.e. poor districts with small tax bases--so teachers have just as much financial incentive to work there as in the wealthy suburbs. That will also help with recessions as disadvantaged areas are always hit first and hardest as low wage jobs are the first to get cut in the private sector and the slowest to come back as companies learn they can get by with less by working people harder.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 But really we just need to have higher federal taxes and do more efficient job of distributing that revenue to school districts that need it most--i.e. poor districts with small tax bases so teachers have just as much financial incentive to work there as in the wealthy suburbs. That well also help with recessions as disadvantaged areas are always hit first and hardest as low wage jobs are the first to get cut in the private sector and the slowest to come back as companies learn they can get by with less by working people harder.

Bingo.

There was one state that eliminated district education funding being tied to local property taxes to be more evenly distributed throughout the state and surprise surprise...the districts that were historically under-performing and under-funded started to see big gains.

edit: google is no help finding which state...lolz

Originally Posted by dohdough A city with the average household income of $46k can't support a school system the size of Chicago. Systems that large require state and federal funding. Families with the average household income of $46k are most likely not homeowners, so property value would be largely irrelevant at the level you're talking about. And as for "another tax increase," taxes are at a historical low and Obama has repeatedly renewed tax cuts for everyone.

I was under the impression that CPS has increased their taxes by the maximum allowable amount, and that the state tax went up last year. I don't recall what the tax rates were for previous years, but I'm sure they didn't go down. The city sales tax did drop a little, though.

Originally Posted by dohdough If education is constantly seeing cuts, what makes you think that salaries are constantly increasing? "Ever increasing" my ass. If the school system wants to increase their classroom hours by 30%, I don't think that at 4% raise is ing unreasonable.

What makes me think that some teachers are getting raises? Their union contracts. I know that this isn't the case for every school system. I'm talking about the Chicago public schools.

What has the average raise been for American worker in the last year or so? 3%? Why do these teachers deserve a 4% raise? Are they doing a great job? Are test scores improving (haha!)?

Originally Posted by dohdough Absolutely nothing and that's why your point about the average household income relative to the average teacher's salary is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I'm glad you managed to figure that out.

The point is that Chicago isn't a high-income, high-cost city, like NYC.

Originally Posted by dohdough School systems don't work that way and 4% is not ing generous. If the average salary is $75k for 9 months/39 weeks of work, that translates to $10 whole ing dollars FOR THE EXTRA 1.5 HOURS PER DAY. They're pretty much asking to have their lunch and coffee covered as well as the amount being LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE.

What are you talking about, school districts don't work like that? That's the whole point of the contract negotiations. The union can do things such as offer pay freezes in exchange for a certain maximum class size, etc.

That extra 1.5 hours is from 5 hours to 6.5 hours of teaching. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a salaried professional to work at least 8 hours a day, which gives them a minimum of 1.5 hours per day for non-teaching activities. IMO, their former work conditions were a little ridiculous.

Originally Posted by dohdough If you're asking me for a source, then it's pretty goddamn accurate to say that you know next to nothing about the education system.

Nothing, then?

Originally Posted by dohdough It won't fix the system, but it'll draw attention to it's issues. Too bad people would rather rabble-rouse about teachers and their extra $10 for another hour and a half than pay attention to the issues they're bringing up.

And, in the end, the kids of Chicago will probably miss their first week of school.

EDIT - dd, in general, what do you think of public workers striking? I'm just curious, because you're obviously supportive of unions, but I know that you're also concerned about the poor, who would be disproportionately affected by public worker strikes. For instance, if public transportation workers went on strike, in many cities, the working poor wouldn't be able to get to work. The middle and upper classes would have usually have access to a car, so, while they might be annoyed, they could probably get to work. I'm just curious about your thoughts on that.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by chiwii That extra 1.5 hours is from 5 hours to 6.5 hours of teaching. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a salaried professional to work at least 8 hours a day, which gives them a minimum of 1.5 hours per day for non-teaching activities. IMO, their former work conditions were a little ridiculous.

This is one of those things where people who've never taught just need to shut the up.

People don't realize how much work goes into every hour of class room time. Or how much time is spent on grading shit and providing useful feedback. And that all this has to happen outside of the five 8-hour workdays as the non-class room time gets ate up by meetings, administrative tasks etc. If a teacher is lucky they're school gives them one free period to work on their class prep, grading etc.

There's also just so much bullshit that goes into it with administrative work, meetings in school, meetings with parents etc. I've had several friends that quit as they just didn't feel they could be good teachers and have any kind of life as so much of their work day time outside of class periods was wasted on bullshit that they had to slave away nights and weekends just to keep up with basic course prep and grading. Much less to try and go the extra mile and be creative and extra effective in teaching.

The problem is a lot of people are just bitter and hate their jobs and look at teachers and think they're just working 5-7 hour days nine months of the year when they don't understand the reality of the situation. Just a case of the grass is always greener.

And I'm not being defensive as I'm a college prof at a research university and have zero desire to ever be a K-12 teacher, and have no real gripes about my workload or salary. I like my work, spend a lot of time on it as I enjoy it and think it's meaningful, and think I'm fairly compensated for what I do and the stage of my career.

I just find it depressing how education is undervalued in our country when it's the future of our society, and how many people have such misguided opinions of the amount of work that goes into teaching--especially to be a good teacher, because they're miserable in their own careers and lives.

Googling "sat test is bullshit" too tough for you?

If we had better worker protections, strikes wouldn't be as big a deal. If you eliminate the strike, you eliminate one of the few tools labor has to keep capital in check. Labor laws and regulations are already being slowly rolled back or entirely circumvented by outsourcing even With unions. You think capital will just play nice by keeping current laws in place if unions are eliminated?

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 This is one of those things where people who've never taught just need to shut the up. People don't realize how much work goes into every hour of class room time. Or how much time is spent on grading shit and providing useful feedback. And that all this has to happen outside of the five 8-hour workdays as the non-class room time gets ate up by meetings, administrative tasks etc. If a teacher is lucky they're school gives them one free period to work on their class prep, grading etc. There's also just so much bullshit that goes into it with administrative work, meetings in school, meetings with parents etc. I've had several friends that quit as they just didn't feel they could be good teachers and have any kind of life as so much of their work day time outside of class periods was wasted on bullshit that they had to slave away nights and weekends just to keep up with basic course prep and grading. Much less to try and go the extra mile and be creative and extra effective in teaching. The problem is a lot of people are just bitter and hate their jobs and look at teachers and think they're just working 5-7 hour days nine months of the year when they don't understand the reality of the situation. Just a case of the grass is always greener. And I'm not being defensive as I'm a college prof at a research university and have zero desire to ever be a K-12 teacher, and have no real gripes about my workload or salary. I like my work, spend a lot of time on it as I enjoy it and think it's meaningful, and think I'm fairly compensated for what I do and the stage of my career. I just find it depressing how education is undervalued in our country when it's the future of our society, and how many people have such misguided opinions of the amount of work that goes into teaching--especially to be a good teacher, because they're miserable in their own careers and lives.

Are you referring to me? I'm not bitter or miserable. I don't think I undervalue education. I just don't think teachers are saints that can't be questioned.

No offense, but everyone knows many teachers. Among the ones I know, some work lots of hours, some don't. Some love their job, some tolerate it, some hated it and quit. Just like every job.

Everyone has to deal with meetings and admin work. Everyone. No one believes that teachers are immune from that.

So, what would be an appropriate work schedule for a teacher? How many hours of class time? 6.5 hours doesn't seem crazy to me.