Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Chicago public school teachers on strike


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#91 kill3r7

kill3r7

    MiNd ThE GaP

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 03:37 AM

What are some public sector areas that should receive the earliest cuts?


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

#92 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 03:39 AM

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 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?

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 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?

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.

#93 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 03:39 AM

The military comes to mind. Cut the fucken 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.

#94 kill3r7

kill3r7

    MiNd ThE GaP

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 03:42 AM

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.

#95 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 12 September 2012 - 03:49 AM

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.

Edited by dmaul1114, 12 September 2012 - 04:12 AM.


#96 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 04:05 AM

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

#97 chiwii

chiwii

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 04:26 AM

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.


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.


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!)?

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.

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.


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.

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?

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.

Edited by chiwii, 12 September 2012 - 04:37 AM.


#98 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 12 September 2012 - 04:41 AM

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 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.

#99 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 04:56 AM

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?

#100 chiwii

chiwii

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 05:25 AM

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.


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.

Edited by chiwii, 12 September 2012 - 05:47 AM.


#101 chiwii

chiwii

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 05:42 AM

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?


I actually did google that earlier, but I didn't see anything interesting.

What worker protections are you advocating?

I didn't suggest that unions should be eliminated. I don't think that public workers unions should be able to strike.

Most unions are able to negotiate without ever resorting to a strike. Some cities forbid certain workers from striking. I think that teachers in NYC aren't allowed to strike, yet they manage to negotiate with the school system.

#102 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:12 AM

http://www.pbs.org/w...ws/katzman.html

The interview with the head of Princeton Review isn't interesting?

And NYC isn't facing the levels of privatization as Chicago. What's happening is anything but a simple contract renegotiation. No group strikes for the Fuck of it or merely an extra $3-4k a year. The fact that most unions don't resort to a strike should tell you something and its the exact opposite of what you think it is.

#103 chiwii

chiwii

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:42 AM

http://www.pbs.org/w...ws/katzman.html

The interview with the head of Princeton Review isn't interesting?

And NYC isn't facing the levels of privatization as Chicago. What's happening is anything but a simple contract renegotiation. No group strikes for the Fuck of it or merely an extra $3-4k a year. The fact that most unions don't resort to a strike should tell you something and its the exact opposite of what you think it is.


Thanks for the link. I didn't see it when I looked through the first dozen or so results.

I'm just taking the union president's words at face value - the two main issues right now are teacher evaluations and recall policies for laid-off teachers. There seems to be much more emphasis on evaluations today. There hasn't really been any mention of charter schools or privatization.

#104 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 09:52 AM

There is very little correlation between school funding performance. Throwing more money at the problem and doubling teacher salaries won't increase student performance that much. There is the graph I posted earlier and this story.

http://www.npr.org/2...students-behind

On Jan. 1, the Missouri state school board revoked the Kansas City district's accreditation. The district met just three of the 14 standards established by the state, falling short of minimum proficiency standards for math, English and science, as well as attendance and graduation rates.

...

By the mid-1980s, Kansas City had a few good public schools in mostly white, middle-class neighborhoods, and some badly performing schools in poor, minority neighborhoods. In 1985, a federal district judge took control of the district and ordered that nearly $2 billion be spent to bus students and integrate and improve the schools.

The district went on a binge, building 15 new schools, shrinking class sizes, raising teacher salaries — even adding an Olympic-size swimming pool, a robotics lab and a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary — to try to bring middle-class families back.

A more detailed article on what happened in Kansas City: http://www.claremont...icle_detail.asp

An Oakland school has had good but early results with official segregation by gender and de facto segregation by race (of course, they don't call it that when it clearly is). There seems to be some cognitive dissonance there, but whatever it takes to close the black-white achievement gap. I hope it works.

As far as unions go, I agree that public employee unions should not strike, and that no person be forced or otherwise intimidated to join a union. These teachers should be fired within 48 hours if they do not return to work. Teacher unions have enormous power in state politics, especially in my state. What happens in Chicago will reverberate throughout the nation. I hope Rahm Emanuel does the right thing and does his best to weaken the influence of teachers unions and introduces competition and accountability into the school system. He must also understand the destructive nature of bloated administrations as well.

We should be copying the methods of one of the greatest American high school teachers who ever lived.

Jaime Escalante, the brilliant public school teacher immortalized in the 1988 film, "Stand and Deliver," died this week at the age of 79. With the help of a few dedicated colleagues at Garfield High in East Los Angeles, he shattered the myth that poor inner-city kids couldn't handle advanced math. At the peak of its success, Garfield produced more students who passed Advanced Placement calculus than Beverly Hills High.

In any other field, his methods would have been widely copied. Instead, Escalante's success was resented. And while the teachers union contract limited class sizes to 35, Escalante could not bring himself to turn students away, packing 50 or more into a room and still helping them to excel. This weakened the union's bargaining position, so it complained.

By 1990, Escalante was stripped of his chairmanship of the math department he'd painstakingly built up over a decade. Exasperated, he left in 1991, eventually returning to his native Bolivia. Garfield's math program went into a decline from which it has never recovered. The best tribute America can offer Jaime Escalante is to understand why our education system destroyed rather than amplified his success—and then fix it.



#105 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:17 PM

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.


It's not unreasonable. But most would have already been working way more than 40 hour weeks even on the old 5 hour class time schedule. So if they're going to up that to 6.5 a pay increase is warranted.

They aren't going to have less meetings and other administrative stuff to deal with as a result, I'd assume with that much extra time they're getting an extra class, so they have more grading.

Are you just going to sit by and take it if your work hours get upped permanently with no pay raise? Probably not. You'd be looking for another job. And we have to be careful of that with teachers as we don't want to drive the good ones to other professions, or out of inner cities to the suburbs etc. Both of which happen far too often already.

Teachers aren't saints. There needs to be more accountability in the system etc. But we need to get rid of stereotypes of it being an easy job with short hours and summers off as that's just not the case.

Edited by dmaul1114, 12 September 2012 - 01:32 PM.


#106 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:24 PM

Something else I think we've all forgotten, not all school systems have summers off, some go year round.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#107 yourlefthand

yourlefthand

    Daddy Gamer

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:32 PM

It seems you're making a lot of assumptions. Most articles I have seen indicate that a lot of the longerbday will go to longer recesses and lunches.

Teachers working long hours doesn't necessarily indicate a need for higher pay. Some of them work long hoursnbecause they love what they do. Some do it because they are inefficient.

Teaching I'd not an easy job and should be well-compensated, but I am still unconvinced that just paying more is going to attract better teachers.

#108 yourlefthand

yourlefthand

    Daddy Gamer

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:44 PM

Something else I think we've all forgotten, not all school systems have summers off, some go year round.


How many days do they go to school as compared to a more traditional school?

#109 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:47 PM

Teaching I'd not an easy job and should be well-compensated, but I am still unconvinced that just paying more is going to attract better teachers.


It's a relative thing. What do they get paid in a certain area vs other people with 4 year degrees? Some places its enough that it's an attractive career option, others its not.

It's also relative across districts in an area. You aren't going to get many great teachers to stay in the inner city school districts if they can get a job that pays more in the suburbs and have better students and fewer hassles to deal with.

Throwing money at the problem won't solve our education problems by any means as it's a broad failure of society from everything from broken homes, parents not carrying and a general devaluing of education and a growing anti-intellectualism movement. But finding ways to get more of the best and brightest to choose the profession and stick with it is one necessary part of the solution. And that means making sure they have salaries competitive with other 4-year degree requiring careers in the given area.

#110 yourlefthand

yourlefthand

    Daddy Gamer

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:53 PM

It's a relative thing. What do they get paid in a certain area vs other people with 4 year degrees? Some places its enough that it's an attractive career option, others its not.

It's also relative across districts in an area. You aren't going to get many great teachers to stay in the inner city school districts if they can get a job that pays more in the suburbs and have better students and fewer hassles to deal with.

Throwing money at the problem won't solve our education problems by any means as it's a broad failure of society from everything from broken homes, parents not carrying and a general devaluing of education and a growing anti-intellectualism movement. But finding ways to get more of the best and brightest to choose the profession and stick with it is one necessary part of the solution. And that means making sure they have salaries competitive with other 4-year degree requiring careers in the given area.


Fine. I think that we can all agree that the best and the brightest should be able to make more. What do we pay the average and the poor teachers?

#111 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:54 PM

In the health care thread, the conversation commonly went to the subject of how much the US spends on health care vs. the rest of the world and what the results (quality of care, etc.) are vs. the rest of the world.

If we apply that same criteria to our school system (cost vs. results), where does that leave us?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#112 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 12 September 2012 - 02:00 PM

Fine. I think that we can all agree that the best and the brightest should be able to make more. What do we pay the average and the poor teachers?


As said above, it would vary by area like any profession. It just needs to be high enough so that it's competitive with other jobs that require a college degree in an area, for the hours of work required. And we should make sure all school districts in an area (especially inner city and suburban) pay the same so we don't have the best teachers concentrating in the wealthier white areas like now.

To the last point, raises should be based on merit rather than seniority--and that's something unions need to give on. That way people have financial incentive to work hard and do a good job, rather than just wait out their time for seniority based raises.

And hopefully that will drive some poor teachers out as they get frustrated from not getting raises. Unlike now when lots of young teachers quit as they see older teachers who don't work as hard or do as well getting bigger raises due to seniority.

Edited by dmaul1114, 12 September 2012 - 03:14 PM.


#113 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 02:46 PM

In the health care thread, the conversation commonly went to the subject of how much the US spends on health care vs. the rest of the world and what the results (quality of care, etc.) are vs. the rest of the world.

If we apply that same criteria to our school system (cost vs. results), where does that leave us?


I think that's hard to tell because:
a) other countries have different education goals
b) some other countries purposely fudge results

Think about an industrialized nation that is more socialist. They don't pretend that every student has the mental aptitude to goto college, instead they start slotting kids into vocational tracks based on tests from an early age.

America tends to focus on the best and the brightest, other nations focus on all levels equally. I know that socialist educational systems sometimes fall prey to the "tall poppy" syndrome, where the smartest kid in the class continually gets cut down until he learns to hide his intelligence so he doesn't stand out. However they are better at giving all kids a practical education.

Also - in many countries education is more tied up in politics (even moreso then here). Therefore there is as much propaganda as truth in the results you read. On the whole America is much more honest about how our public education is serving the interests of the kids, when you compare us to the rest of the world.

#114 chiwii

chiwii

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 05:02 PM

http://www.pbs.org/w...ws/katzman.html

The interview with the head of Princeton Review isn't interesting?


I read the interview, and he argues that the SAT is bullshit because of the trick questions that have little to do with the material that the student already learned in school or with the material they would learn in college. I agree with him on the SAT.

But, he doesn't extend that critisism to all standardized tests. He specifically mentions the AP tests as good tests, and he does think there is a need for well-written tests, so that students from different schools can be compared. It sounds like he would support the use of well-written tests to determine if students can move up a grade or graduate.

It's not unreasonable. But most would have already been working way more than 40 hour weeks even on the old 5 hour class time schedule. So if they're going to up that to 6.5 a pay increase is warranted.

They aren't going to have less meetings and other administrative stuff to deal with as a result, I'd assume with that much extra time they're getting an extra class, so they have more grading.

Are you just going to sit by and take it if your work hours get upped permanently with no pay raise? Probably not. You'd be looking for another job. And we have to be careful of that with teachers as we don't want to drive the good ones to other professions, or out of inner cities to the suburbs etc. Both of which happen far too often already.

Teachers aren't saints. There needs to be more accountability in the system etc. But we need to get rid of stereotypes of it being an easy job with short hours and summers off as that's just not the case.


If 5 hours of class-time was originally too low, imo, it's appropriate to adjust the number of required hours without a corresponding increase in pay.

I guess I just disagree with the idea of accepting the current state of everything as "correct" and adjusting from there. For instance, you said earlier in the thread that, when budgets are tight, governments should not touch police, fire, and ems, and that education should be the last department to experience cuts. So, I guess you feel that police, fire, ems, and education have all been funded appropriately.

What if they haven't? What if previous government officials had allowed these departments to become ridiculously bloated, consuming more resources than required by the city? Wouldn't it be appropriate make cuts to bloated departments, regardless of the specific service they provide?


As said above, it would vary by area like any profession. It just needs to be high enough so that it's competitive with other jobs that require a college degree in an area, for the hours of work required. And we should make sure all school districts in an area (especially inner city and suburban) pay the same so we don't have the best teachers concentrating in the wealthier white areas like now.

To the last point, raises should be based on merit rather than seniority--and that's something unions need to give on. That way people have financial incentive to work hard and do a good job, rather than just wait out their time for seniority based raises.

And hopefully that will drive some poor teachers out as they get frustrated from not getting raises. Unlike now when lots of young teachers quit as they see older teachers who don't work as hard or do as well getting bigger raises due to seniority.


I totally agree that raises should be based on merit rather than the just years worked. Even if you got a union to agree to merit based raises, though, you still would have to deal with the massive issue of teacher evaluations.

#115 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 05:11 PM

In the health care thread, the conversation commonly went to the subject of how much the US spends on health care vs. the rest of the world and what the results (quality of care, etc.) are vs. the rest of the world.

If we apply that same criteria to our school system (cost vs. results), where does that leave us?



I agree with you on a lot of points but most countries DO "leave children behind" and to be honest I'm all for it.

We we can't funnel willing kids into vocational schools/programs at an early(ier) age is beyond me.

My highschool used to have a very good tech and forestry program (I live in Maine afterall) but they were forced to shut it down because it was considered "frivelous" spending and the thought was that the money should be pumped back into math and english departments so that those students in the tech classes would score better on their MEA's (Maine Educational Assessements)

#116 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:37 PM

If 5 hours of class-time was originally too low, imo, it's appropriate to adjust the number of required hours without a corresponding increase in pay.


But who's to say it was too short? Maybe it was optimal in trams of keeping fatigue down and teacher performance up and this is just th city trying to get more work from the same people for the same pay?

I couldn't imagine teaching for even 5 hours in a day, much less more than that five days a week. I teach for 2.5 hours two days a week and I'm pretty wiped after my second class either day.

So I have nothing by put admiration for our teaching faculty who are teaching 4 or 5 courses a week instead of two. Much less for K-12 who are doing more involved teaching with five or six periods five days a week. If we're going to ask them to do more, we should pay them more.

Edited by dmaul1114, 12 September 2012 - 08:25 PM.


#117 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 08:29 PM

But but, plenty of people do more work and don't get paid more, so why should teachers?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#118 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 12 September 2012 - 08:36 PM

But but, plenty of people do more work and don't get paid more, so why should teachers?


Because we need the good teachers to stay (especially in city schools) vs. leaving the field or going to suburban districts etc.

So really it's no different. If you ask someone to work more for no pay increase, they're going to explore other job options unless they're in no job town and stuck there for family reasons etc.

Teaching already has a super high attrition rate (something I read aid around 50% quit by their third year) and is an incredibly important job to society. As such its one we need to incentize to get talented young people to choose the career and to stay in it. Asking them to work longer for no more pay isn't counter to that.

#119 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 08:43 PM

Yeah that was asked in sarcasm, I know why. It's just that's been the standard response it seems.

btw, don't think I've said this, but my fiance actually has a degree in elementary education and has no desire to actually teach because of many of the things discussed here.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#120 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 12 September 2012 - 09:04 PM

Long day (including teaching!) so my sarcasm detector is broken.

And yeah, I know people in the same boat, as well as those who have quit after a couple years for reasons outlined here. Too much time spent on non-teaching stuff requiring long hours on nights and weekends to do a decent job in the classroom, annoyances at crappy old teachers getting all the perks, pay and summer/holiday flexibility not worth all the hassles and so on.