Chicago public school teachers on strike

[quote name='camoor']I hear you dmaul and I'm more sympathetic then I used to be, but I still think that teacher's unions give unions a bad name. They are overpowered and don't serve the interests of the students or even the best teachers. They are easy pickins for folks who want to privatize the entire system.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I noted in my first post that unions need to give up more, have less strong tenure etc. But that has to come with better evaluation systems etc. so teachers aren't getting fired for factors they can't control (i.e. kids not hitting test scores as there students were a few grade levels behind when they got them).


[quote name='Clak']Hmm, I remember at my old school instructors actually evaluated each other as well. Guess it varies, good to know those surveys had at least some impact. I figured they were pointless because students would down rate an instructors evaluation on the basis that the class was "too hard".[/QUOTE]

Of course it will very by university/college. Research universities are huge (so too many instructors to have peer evaluations regularly) and don't place a lot of emphasis on teaching so it's just not a priority.

Smaller universities, and teaching focused colleges will be more likely to do more rigorous evaluation of teachers as that's their main goal.

At research universities the main goal for faculty is publishing research and brining in research grants (as universities skim a ton off the top of these).


[quote name='Javery']I certainly don't hate teachers - I just don't like the union and their sense of entitlement. I'd be all for every teacher in NJ getting a huge raise (20%? 30%? 50%?) if they disbanded the union and did away with tenure and the pension and $0 healthcare plans.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. Honestly, tenure isn't really needed for teaching jobs IMO as long as there is some other protection for academic freedom so say schools in the south aren't firing people for teaching evolution or any other controversial topics that fit the curriculum.

That protection is needed, but there needs to be a way to weed out ineffective teachers.

At the college level, the same is pretty much true--though the protections of academic freedom are more important. Curriculum isn't as set (lots of elective courses on whatever a professor's interests are) and knowledge generation requires people to be able to pursue their own research agendas and not be punished if their area is controversial or out of the mainstream in their field.

But even there, as I said before, there needs to be a way to weed out the do nothings who get tenure or promotion to full professor and just waste resources as they stop being productive. At a research university that can be done by just requiring minimum standards of productivity to keep tenure at each 5 year review.

I suppose the same can be done for teaching universities and k-12 of requiring continued demonstration of teaching effectiveness to keep tenure. But again that's trickier as its harder to quantify teaching effectiveness. Where as research it's just publishing enough in decent journals, applying for and getting grants etc. which can be quantified.


As for the other issues. I agree on pensions. Pensions are just a bad idea IMO, and should be replaced by 401k type plans with a generous match. Health care I'm indifferent on. Giving them 0 or low premiums is a way to help compensate for salaries often being lower than many could get in private sector jobs.

[quote name='yourlefthand']I don't think that teaching is an easy job, but there are lots of jobs that aren't easy. The relative difficulty of a job is not the only issue that determines how much the job is "worth".[/QUOTE]

A big problem in the world today (and pretty much always) is job wages don't reflect the importance of the job to society.

Teachers are incredibly important to society as they have a huge collective influence on the future as they're training the future generations. Yet the highest paying jobs go to things like investment bankers, litigation lawyers, entertainers, athletes etc.

Now I'm not saying teachers should be millionaires, but they should be getting paid more like prosecutors, civil engineers and other key personnel in the public sector at the very least. And with that we should raise education standards for being a teacher (since those other positions often have more than just college degrees). Require a Master's degree that's focused on HOW to teach, to back up the college education that should give them the subject area knowledge in the areas they will teach.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I agree. I noted in my first post that unions need to give up more, have less strong tenure etc. But that has to come with better evaluation systems etc. so teachers aren't getting fired for factors they can't control (i.e. kids not hitting test scores as there students were a few grade levels behind when they got them).[/QUOTE]

I agree. I find the whole topic very frustrating because education is currently a big mess and it in the scene it seems that there are very few players who don't have an ideological axe to grind.

After a certain age I think the kids should either be given an education or vocational training. Policy keeps trying to force all of the kids into a general learning curriculum, let's face facts that some kids were born to be plumbers or electrical engineers.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
A big problem in the world today (and pretty much always) is job wages don't reflect the importance of the job to society.

Teachers are incredibly important to society as they have a huge collective influence on the future as they're training the future generations. Yet the highest paying jobs go to things like investment bankers, litigation lawyers, entertainers, athletes etc.

Now I'm not saying teachers should be millionaires, but they should be getting paid more like prosecutors, civil engineers and other key personnel in the public sector at the very least. And with that we should raise education standards for being a teacher (since those other positions often have more than just college degrees). Require a Master's degree that's focused on HOW to teach, to back up the college education that should give them the subject area knowledge in the areas they will teach.[/QUOTE]

I disagree that teachers should be paid the same as prosecutors and civil engineers. The education and skills required for a teacher are nowhere near those required to be a lawyer or engineer. I'm not just talking about the degree requirements. I'm talking about the specific knowledge that needs to be understood and put into practice.

I also disagree that teachers should need a Master's degree. Some of my best teachers were a few years out of college, with only a Bachelor's degree. I'm not convinced that additional teaching education does much. It seems like the best teachers just have a good combination of knowledge and enthusiasm about their subject, dedication to their job, and a natural talent for interacting with their students.
 
Because pay is also a measure of one's worth to society. Which if you look at the highest paid folks in the country, yeah....
 
[quote name='slidecage']I love how they said children are overweight and fat YET they are opening up the schools for breakfast and lunch... and they go if they didnt the wouldnt have anything to eat... like they never had food all summer

and also love how they are on tv now saying ALL OF THESE KIDS Have nowhere to go WHERE THE HELL DID THEY GO ALL SUMMER THEN

sick of people playing the fucking race card as well .....

heard on tv that all of the black students cant go to school cause of the strike but this does not affect white students cause they go to charter schools ..... ummmm at least here that is 80% the other way...[/QUOTE]


Some of these children are in disadvantaged neighborhoods and the best quality Breakfast and lunch they get is at school. Schools have done alot all over the country to address the nutrition of the students frankly far more than parents. Let me add it's alot more expensive to eat healthy than you think. As far as where the kids are going now. They probably had care givers that were paid in the summer. During school they are not needed and you can't just drop your kid off when needed alot of times there is a wait list or it's full during this time of year. You realize that the parents that have this issue are hard working people right? And here is some reality , African-American students are more likely to be in the public school system as opposed to say private/charter schools. No race card it is what it is.
 
[quote name='chiwii']This might be true, but is it acceptable?

Most of us are appalled when a business owner or corporation ruthlessly tries to make as money as possible, with no regard for the workers, the environment, etc. Why is it acceptable for a teacher's union to ruthlessly try to get as much money for its members, with no regard for the students, the school system's budget, or the taxpayers?[/QUOTE]
Maybe because the system doesn't allow for them to get even a living wage otherwise? And even WITH union protections, their benefits are constantly on the chopping block because the first budget cuts will almost always go towards education funding of which teachers are a big part of? No amount of union arm-twisting(lolz) can keep a school open or a program funded if city hall is looking to shut it down. Teachers unions also have a history of making lots of concessions and aren't even as close to being as ruthless as you characterize them to be.

[quote name='Javery']I certainly don't hate teachers - I just don't like the union and their sense of entitlement. I'd be all for every teacher in NJ getting a huge raise (20%? 30%? 50%?) if they disbanded the union and did away with tenure and the pension and $0 healthcare plans.[/QUOTE]Pensions are also funded through employee contributions and are mandatory in many states. As for healthcare, it should be free to everyone anyways. Not to mention that the private sector used to have benefits that beat the shit out of what the public sector is giving today and started cutting them down even as business was booming. Having that crab mentality only helps capital stomp on labor.

And would you be happier about healthcare costing them $0(I'd like a source for that one) if there was UHC?
 
[quote name='chiwii']
I also disagree that teachers should need a Master's degree. Some of my best teachers were a few years out of college, with only a Bachelor's degree. I'm not convinced that additional teaching education does much. It seems like the best teachers just have a good combination of knowledge and enthusiasm about their subject, dedication to their job, and a natural talent for interacting with their students.[/QUOTE]

While that's true, there clearly aren't enough people who are just naturals at it.

If not a master's degree, then much more of a BA/BS in education needs to be focused on how to teach. Why I say master's, is I worry that will eat up to many credit hours at the undergraduate level and they will thus suffer in terms of gaining the expertise they need in the topic areas they'll teach.

As for the first part that I didn't quote, I don't think teachers need any less skill or knowlege than lawyers.

Lawyers are memorizing knowledge in their area of law, and have to have the oral and presentation skills to present that to people who don't understand it (clients and juries).

Teachers have to have knowledge in their topic areas, and the oral and presentation skills (and other teaching methods) to present that to people who don't understand it (students).

Engineers, doctors etc., fair point. That's more specialized knowledge and skill sets required than teaching or legal work.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Pensions are also funded through employee contributions and are mandatory in many states. [/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Maybe because the system doesn't allow for them to get even a living wage otherwise? And even WITH union protections, their benefits are constantly on the chopping block because the first budget cuts will almost always go towards education funding of which teachers are a big part of? No amount of union arm-twisting(lolz) can keep a school open or a program funded if city hall is looking to shut it down. Teachers unions also have a history of making lots of concessions and aren't even as close to being as ruthless as you characterize them to be.

[/QUOTE]

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?

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.
 
[quote name='Clak'] If you can wrangle a classroom full of kids 5 days a week and not kill one of them, you deserve the best.[/QUOTE]

Once again, that argument can apply to any profession.

If you can load garbage bags all day without passing out or throwing up, you deserve the best.
If you can hit a 98MPH fastball, you deserve the best.
If you can optimize the flow of tcp/ip packets through the routers and find the problems with the BGP config, you deserve the best.
If you can serve demanding patrons with a smile, keep their drinks refilled, and not complain when they grab your ass, you deserve the best.


Some jobs pay more than others. Is that right or fair? Maybe not, but there's no way to make outcomes OR opportunities completely equitable.
 
[quote name='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?
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[quote name='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?[/quote]
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 .
Click to expand...
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?
 
[quote name='Clak']If you can stand conversing with irritating posters who spout false equivalencies.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.:lol:
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]


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
 
[quote name='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[/QUOTE]
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...:lol:
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='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...:lol:[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']Because it illustrates that your argument about how much teachers should be paid is invalid.

[/QUOTE]
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.

pbNIw.jpg


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.
 
[quote name='Clak']You used invalid comparisons to show that my argument is invalid?

Here we go again, folks.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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 fucking 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 fucking 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 fuck should i work when these )*)*#$%#%# just sit on their asses fucking anything and everyone and getting everything for free...
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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 fucking 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 fucking 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 fuck should i work when these )*)*#$%#%# just sit on their asses fucking anything and everyone and getting everything for free...[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
Click to expand...
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 fucking 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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

Several invalid examples by your own admission. I'm through here.
 
[quote name='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?
[/QUOTE]

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.


[quote name='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 fucking 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?

[/QUOTE]
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?

[quote name='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.
[/QUOTE]

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.


[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='chiwii']How can school districts and states continue to fund schools and teachers at the same level when tax revenues are dropping?
[/quote]

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.
Click to expand...

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.

[quote name='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?
[/QUOTE]


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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]


Which public sector areas should receive the earliest cuts?
 
[quote name='ID2006']What are some public sector areas that should receive the earliest cuts?[/QUOTE]

The military comes to mind. Cut the fucken military spending in half and bring everyone back home. That should do it.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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?
Click to expand...
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 fucking 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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
School systems don't work that way and 4% is not fucking generous. If the average salary is $75k for 9 months/39 weeks of work, that translates to $10 whole fucking 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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']The military comes to mind. Cut the fucken military budget in half and bring everyone back home. That should do it.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Which public sector areas should receive the earliest cuts?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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
 
[quote name='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.
[/QUOTE]

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.


[quote name='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 fucking unreasonable.
[/QUOTE]

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!)?

[quote name='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.
[/QUOTE]
The point is that Chicago isn't a high-income, high-cost city, like NYC.

[quote name='dohdough']
School systems don't work that way and 4% is not fucking generous. If the average salary is $75k for 9 months/39 weeks of work, that translates to $10 whole fucking 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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='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.
[/QUOTE]

Nothing, then?

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='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.
[/QUOTE]

This is one of those things where people who've never taught just need to shut the fuck 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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top