Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Chicago Teacher's StrikeFollow

#1 Sep 10 2012 at 5:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,032 posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/education/teacher-strike-begins-in-chicago-amid-signs-that-deal-isnt-close.html?_r=1&hp
The New York Times wrote:
CHICAGO — Teachers in the nation’s third-largest school district went on strike Monday morning after negotiations for a new contract collapsed, giving some 350,000 students an unexpected day off but leading to frustrations among parents and indications that a settlement may not be close.

Some random thoughts, in no particular order:
  • From what I've seen/read, the biggest wedge is some sort of teacher evaluation system that includes standardized test scores. The teachers claim that this is unfair, as factors outside of their control will bring down scores (e.g. poverty, single-parent homes, etc). The city claims that evaluations wouldn't be counted the first year, which would be used as a test run, and that they'd tweak them after the first year to be fair but effective.
  • Rahm addressed the media last night after the union announced that it would strike, and he was all "HULK SMASH!!1!one", which at least gives some hilarious context to the quote from union president Karen Lewis (the online article I found it in has since taken it down) which went something along the lines of "He's got a vision, and he's going to make it happen, and nobody is going to get in his way. If they do, he'll bully them and swear really loudly until he gets his way."
  • The Chicago Public School headquarters is about a block away from my office, and the rally has spread from the sidewalk in front of it in the morning to all of Clark St. (and part of Adams) by the time I left work. I wasn't all that shocked to see a few thousand people out in the streets, Chicago being a festering breeding ground for righteous bleeding hearts who are willing to demonstrate for just about any cause (in this case the "children"). What did surprise me were the number of teachers that had taken their kids to watch and support the protest. It rubs me the wrong way that the only parents whose daytime plans for their kids were unaffected by the teachers strike were the teachers themselves.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#2 Sep 10 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
I'm not sure in what direction that you intended this thread to go but...

1. I don't understand how poverty plays a part in the ability of a child to learn in an equal environment. Are they being compared to other schools with more money? Is the poverty in reference to the child's home or the school?

2. Standardized tests is already a necessary evil for students, there's absolutely no need to do the same for teachers. We should be working in a direction away from standardized tests....

Edited, Sep 11th 2012 2:01am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#3 Sep 10 2012 at 6:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,461 posts
Demea wrote:

  • From what I've seen/read, the biggest wedge is some sort of teacher evaluation system that includes standardized test scores. The teachers claim that this is unfair, as factors outside of their control will bring down scores (e.g. poverty, single-parent homes, etc). The city claims that evaluations wouldn't be counted the first year, which would be used as a test run, and that they'd tweak them after the first year to be fair but effective.


Haven't read much about it yet, but I can *almost* see the point here. I'm not clear on the details of this though. What exactly is tied to those scores? And is there really a "fair" way to deal with this at all? At the end of the day, you'd presumably like a system which rewards good results and penalizes bad ones. Is that fair to the teacher who get assigned to a really bad school? Nope. But I think the flip side of this is whether we should be more concerned about the teachers salaries (or whatever is affected) than about the fact that those schools are bad and the kids are failing (or their education is failing them I suppose).


I just think that for most people, the fact that so many students are failing is more of a problem than whether teachers might not get paid as much as they'd like because they're working in a school where kids are failing. We're really focusing on the wrong part of the problem IMO. Fix the failing schools and the issue with evaluations tied to those results kinda fixes itself, doesn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4 Sep 10 2012 at 6:05 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Quote:
Fix the failing schools and the issue with evaluations tied to those results kinda fixes itself, doesn't it?


That depends on how you define "fixing the failing schools". I think that's the problem. People have different views on what is the right solution. For example, student vouchers.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#5 Sep 10 2012 at 6:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Illinois unions are shooting themselves in the foot. Between the teachers union fight with Emanuel and the state union guys heckling and shouting down Quinn the other week right before the pension reform debate, they need a dose of reality. Some stuff needs to change and biting at the Democratic hand is a pretty stupid decision because the other hand isn't there to pet you.

Granted, in Illinois, the other hand is virtually nonexistent but the point remains that they're making enemies out of allies unnecessarily.

Edited, Sep 10th 2012 7:08pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Sep 10 2012 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,032 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not sure in what direction that you intended this thread to go but...

No agenda; I just wanted to see what the usual suspects had to say.

Quote:
1. I don't understand how poverty plays a part in the ability of a child to learn in an equal environment. Are they being compared to other schools with more money? Is the poverty in reference to the child's home or the school?

Here's what a quick Google Scholar search turned up: this study seems to show that poverty is correlated with lower performance in math and reading at young ages (5-8), but not for older kids. This paper seems to argue that the differences in test scores between black and white kids is largely explained by poverty (52%), with an additional 28% explained by "differences in home environment ".

I'm not sure of the mechanics of the teacher evaluation system. They weren't detailed in any articles I read, and considering the deal wasn't agreed upon, we probably won't see any details.

Quote:
2. Standardized tests is already a necessary evil for students, there's absolutely no need to do the same for teachers. We should be working in a direction away from standardized tests....

Edited, Sep 11th 2012 2:01am by Almalieque

They'd be using the students' test scores to evaluate the teachers, not testing the teachers. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#7 Sep 10 2012 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,461 posts
I'm sure they'll magically come to an agreement in no time though. As you said, they're both pretty much on the same "side" here. As I said earlier, I can kinda see the issue with the evaluations, but can't comment more directly until I learn more details. Other than that though, it seems almost like just the usual rattling of sabers. Can't be sure though. I'm sure you guys know more about the specifics.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Sep 10 2012 at 6:17 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,032 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Quote:
Fix the failing schools and the issue with evaluations tied to those results kinda fixes itself, doesn't it?


That depends on how you define "fixing the failing schools". I think that's the problem. People have different views on what is the right solution. For example, student vouchers.

You could also argue that fixing the evaluations, and getting rid of bum teachers, is the most important step in fixing failing schools.
Quote:
I just think that for most people, the fact that so many students are failing is more of a problem than whether teachers might not get paid as much as they'd like because they're working in a school where kids are failing.

"A Chicago Public Schools spokesperson said average pay for teachers, without benefits, is $76,000."
Not bad for 9 months of work!
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#9 Sep 10 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,461 posts
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Quote:
Fix the failing schools and the issue with evaluations tied to those results kinda fixes itself, doesn't it?


That depends on how you define "fixing the failing schools". I think that's the problem. People have different views on what is the right solution. For example, student vouchers.

You could also argue that fixing the evaluations, and getting rid of bum teachers, is the most important step in fixing failing schools.


But you need some kind of evaluation in order to determine who the bum teachers are. I don't agree that tying them directly/solely to standardized test scores is the best approach, but you have to have some means to make that determination. And then you have to have some sort of change to even allow you to "get rid of" those bum teachers. Unions tend to make that very hard to accomplish just by their nature and it's not hard to see how they'd resist any sort of change to the conditions under which members might be terminated.

Quote:
Quote:
I just think that for most people, the fact that so many students are failing is more of a problem than whether teachers might not get paid as much as they'd like because they're working in a school where kids are failing.

"A Chicago Public Schools spokesperson said average pay for teachers, without benefits, is $76,000."
Not bad for 9 months of work!


Yeah. Not exactly hurting. But that's an average. We can assume that the teacher in the poor district isn't getting paid as much as the teacher in the well to do one already, so there's some legitimate question about tying salary to test results (assuming that's the direction this is going). Honestly, I'd rather that the schools themselves perhaps have some budget areas tied to test scores (and other indicators as well), and then give those running the individual schools the authority to hire/fire as they wished in order to improve things. Create incentives for administrators to improve the outcomes for their students and maybe they will.


I just think that's what's lost in this whole discussion (as I mentioned earlier) is that regardless of what we think should be the impact of bad standardized test results on teachers, we can say that they have bad effects on the students. A student who can't pass those tests isn't likely to do very well in the work force later on. We should be more concerned with them than with the teachers IMO (and yes, I understand that one can be related to the other).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Sep 10 2012 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But that's an average. We can assume that the teacher in the poor district isn't getting paid as much as the teacher in the well to do one already

It's the Chicago Public Schools
Wiki wrote:
Chicago Public Schools, commonly abbreviated as CPS by local residents and politicians and officially classified as City of Chicago School District #299 for funding and districting reasons, is a large school district that manages over 600 public elementary and high schools in Chicago, Illinois. Chicago Public Schools is currently the third largest school district in the United States, with more than 400,000 students enrolled in the school district.

I'd assume they're all paid on the same union scale.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Sep 10 2012 at 6:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,461 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But that's an average. We can assume that the teacher in the poor district isn't getting paid as much as the teacher in the well to do one already

It's the Chicago Public Schools
Wiki wrote:
Chicago Public Schools, commonly abbreviated as CPS by local residents and politicians and officially classified as City of Chicago School District #299 for funding and districting reasons, is a large school district that manages over 600 public elementary and high schools in Chicago, Illinois. Chicago Public Schools is currently the third largest school district in the United States, with more than 400,000 students enrolled in the school district.

I'd assume they're all paid on the same union scale.


So that's one school district? Are they the only district that these proposed rules apply to? Or just the one district that's on strike because of them (and whatever other stuff is going on)? If this is a broader change that they disagree with, then can just one district really fight against it? If it's a change just within their district (and their local union), then wouldn't the effect be a wash across the group itself? Or am I missing something?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Sep 10 2012 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Chicago School District is a single district that covers the entire city. They're all under the same contract. The public schools for the entire city are on strike in response to negotiations that began when Mayor Emanuel took office and proposed changes to the schools (longer days, longer school years, evaluations, etc).

You can get a really brief run down of the dispute here.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Sep 10 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Demea wrote:
Here's what a quick Google Scholar search turned up: this study seems to show that poverty is correlated with lower performance in math and reading at young ages (5-8), but not for older kids. This paper seems to argue that the differences in test scores between black and white kids is largely explained by poverty (52%), with an additional 28% explained by "differences in home environment ".


I've heard those studies before. That's why I was asking. Admittedly, I'm biased against statistics, but I'm not objectively buying that for a second. There might be some additional factors (i.e. stress) that connect poverty with low grades, but no direct correlation to poor performance. I'm not directing this at you, I'm just "typing out loud".

Demea wrote:
They'd be using the students' test scores to evaluate the teachers, not testing the teachers.


I know, that's what I meant. Those same tests are already a necessary evil for students, now they are going to equally affect the teachers. I would much rather prefer their evaluations on the teachers be them taking tests rather than the students. They should also be interactive tests, not just multiple choice tests. Exams that test their knowledge in their subject and how to interact with students.

We have to be honest with ourselves. Some students just don't care and simply don't try. That is at no fault of the teacher. Some children are just failures. They aren't doomed as such, but we shouldn't punish the teachers because of the students' failures.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#14 Sep 10 2012 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,032 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#15 Sep 10 2012 at 7:12 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Demea wrote:
You could also argue that fixing the evaluations, and getting rid of bum teachers, is the most important step in fixing failing schools.


Exactly. To me, that is a much better solution than student vouchers. Until people agree on the "best way" to "fix it", the solution will always be unknown and/or impractical.

Edited, Sep 11th 2012 3:14am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#16 Sep 10 2012 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,032 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Here's what a quick Google Scholar search turned up: this study seems to show that poverty is correlated with lower performance in math and reading at young ages (5-8), but not for older kids. This paper seems to argue that the differences in test scores between black and white kids is largely explained by poverty (52%), with an additional 28% explained by "differences in home environment ".


I've heard those studies before. That's why I was asking. Admittedly, I'm biased against statistics, but I'm not objectively buying that for a second. There might be some additional factors (i.e. stress) that connect poverty with low grades, but no direct correlation to poor performance. I'm not directing this at you, I'm just "typing out loud".

I've always been under the impression that "low grades" and "poor performance" were synonymous.

However, two words that I know mean different things are "correlation" and "causation." I assume you meant to use the latter, as those studies show pretty definitively that there is a direct (i.e. positive) correlation.

Quote:
Demea wrote:
They'd be using the students' test scores to evaluate the teachers, not testing the teachers.


I know, that's what I meant. Those same tests are already a necessary evil for students, now they are going to equally affect the teachers. I would much rather prefer their evaluations on the teachers be them taking tests rather than the students. They should also be interactive tests, not just multiple choice tests. Exams that test their knowledge in their subject and how to interact with students.

The goal of grade school isn't to increase the knowledge of the teachers, so I'm unsure why we'd really care about their encyclopedic knowledge of "Catcher in the Rye." Less formal evaluations are probably a good idea; it's always been my understanding that department heads were responsible for this type of "soft" evaluation.

Quote:
We have to be honest with ourselves. Some students just don't care and simply don't try. That is at no fault of the teacher. Some children are just failures. They aren't doomed as such, but we shouldn't punish the teachers because of the students' failures.

I'm fairly sure that the fine folks at Freakonomics wrote about this in one of their books. It's a valid criticism, but it doesn't completely discredit the idea that teacher compensation should be in some way tied to measurable outcomes, but rather forces us to be creative with the ways in which we define and measure those outcomes.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#17 Sep 10 2012 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,461 posts
Almalieque wrote:
We have to be honest with ourselves. Some students just don't care and simply don't try. That is at no fault of the teacher. Some children are just failures. They aren't doomed as such, but we shouldn't punish the teachers because of the students' failures.


It's a tricky issue, but we also have to consider the question of what someone is being paid for. I guess this is a larger philosophical question about labor in general, but I tend to be in the "you're being paid for the results of your labor" rather than the "you're being paid because you expended effort" camp. I know that it's not quite that simple, but at the end of the day, the owner of a factory isn't going to continue paying his workers if no one will buy the product that they are making. And while imperfect, standardized tests are a means by which we determine how educated the students are (the product we're making so to speak). That's a measure of the value of the education they have received in practical terms. We can talk about how important class sizes are, or computers, or school books, or drama club, etc, but ultimately the purpose of a school is to educate the students, presumably sufficiently enough to become productive successful members of society (or to at least be able to get and hold a job).


As I've suggested a couple times earlier in this thread, I think sometime we get so caught up in all the side issues of labor (compensation, work hours, pensions, etc) that we lose sight of the purpose of labor: To produce something of value. If the value of what is being produced is low, can we justify paying a high price for it? Obviously, this issue isn't as simple as a decision to close down a poorly performing restaurant or factory. We have made a decision to provide publicly funded education to our children. So we can't just say "sorry, you're not doing well enough, so you're all fired". However, I do think we need to keep the eye on the end goal here. The purpose of our education system isn't to provide good paying jobs to teachers. It's to teach the students. I really think that we forget that sometimes.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Sep 10 2012 at 8:16 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Demea wrote:

I've always been under the impression that "low grades" and "poor performance" were synonymous.


Yes, but "poor performance" and "poverty" aren't synonymous.

Demea wrote:

However, two words that I know mean different things are "correlation" and "causation." I assume you meant to use the latter, as those studies show pretty definitively that there is a direct (i.e. positive) correlation.


You are correct. I meant the latter.I was wrong.

Demea wrote:
The goal of grade school isn't to increase the knowledge of the teachers, so I'm unsure why we'd really care about their encyclopedic knowledge of "Catcher in the Rye." Less formal evaluations are probably a good idea; it's always been my understanding that department heads were responsible for this type of "soft" evaluation.


Because grade (k-12) teachers are more notorious for teaching out of the book in comparison to university professors who are actively engaged in their fields. Professors tend to be more up to date on what's going and more accurate with a better insight on how their field interacts within society. Young teachers fresh out of college have that insight, but then over the years, they tend to lose it, because there is no incentive.

Forcing teachers to stay on top of their fields, enhances their knowledge, which in return gives the students a better learning experience. A good professor only uses the textbook as a guide to what to teach what when.

Demea wrote:
I'm fairly sure that the fine folks at Freakonomics wrote about this in one of their books. It's a valid criticism, but it doesn't completely discredit the idea that teacher compensation should be in some way tied to measurable outcomes, but rather forces us to be creative with the ways in which we define and measure those outcomes.


That is true to a degree. Even at the college level, a classroom full of a failures results differently if the professor has tenure or not. A classroom of failures should be an indicator that something is wrong; however, the blame shouldn't automatically be put on the students. There should be an investigation to see what's going on. If the entire school is failing, then it's probably not the teacher. If you have honor roll and C students failing, then it's probably the teacher.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#19 Sep 10 2012 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,032 posts
Edit: nevermind, reading is hard for me.

**** you, public schools! I am proof of your failure! Smiley: mad

Edited, Sep 10th 2012 9:49pm by Demea
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#20 Sep 10 2012 at 8:50 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Gbaji wrote:
We have made a decision to provide publicly funded education to our children.

Gbaji wrote:
The purpose of our education system isn't to provide good paying jobs to teachers. It's to teach the students.



These are exactly right and the exact reasons why we must accept student failures to a degree. Our job is to educate, not to run a business, so therefore we can not apply business rules. If you're a CEO or a professional coach, then that might apply. We see it all of the time. A coach gets fired because he is given a team of losers. Is it fair? Ehhh.. As I hear all of the time in the military, "that's why you get paid the big bucks". The higher you get in a position, the less control you have, the more responsibility you have, but the more money you earn and credit you get when things go right. If you receive applaud and praise when stuff goes right, then you must also suffer the consequences when things go wrong.

Education isn't "optional" for kids. They go because they are forced to. So, it's not comparable to a business.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#21 Sep 10 2012 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
**
574 posts
The problem will be the teachers will drill how to pass the test and the test only.
____________________________
.
#22 Sep 10 2012 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts

You could also argue that fixing the evaluations, and getting rid of bum teachers, is the most important step in fixing failing schools.


Not effectively, you couldn't. Teachers aren't the problem. Teacher's unions aren't the problem. There are 100000 studies of non unionized charter schools free to fire teachers at will, they perform exactly the same as public schools in similar demographic areas. Parents education matters. Family socio economic status matters. Culture in the district matters. There's no "most important" step, and honestly it's arguable there is no "fixing" failing schools. Our town has very good public schools, regularly rated in the top 25 districts of the state, some years in the top 10. That's for Massachusetts, of course. I'd assume that easily would make them the top rated district in some **** backwater flyover state like Illinois. The town next to us has the worst schools in the state. The idea that it's the teachers from each district making the difference is ludicrous. Their kids walk past crack dealers on the way to school and have parents that dropped out in 9th grade. Our kids have parents with PhDs and have business cards with their parents contact information for play-dates (really, Hannah brought some home on her first day of 2nd grade). If the districts swapped teachers, not much would change. Well, our kids would learn more Spanish, probably.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#23 Sep 10 2012 at 10:00 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
It's a tricky issue, but we also have to consider the question of what someone is being paid for. I guess this is a larger philosophical question about labor in general, but I tend to be in the "you're being paid for the results of your labor" rather than the "you're being paid because you expended effort" camp.

Exactly, which is why you ply your trade on the open market competing against all comers secure in the knowledge that your skills and work of such high quality that you'll secure top dollar as opposed to coasting along at a grandfathered salary left over from a huge bubble largely due to inertia.

Oh wait, you meant OTHER people, right?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#24 Sep 11 2012 at 4:41 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
The problem will be the teachers will drill how to pass the test and the test only.


If you're in reference to me, only if you create that scenario. First, just because a teacher has to take a test, doesn't negate you equally being fired for having a classroom of failures in a non-failing environment. Second, if you make it to where teachers have a combination of classroom evaluations and varying study and teaching questions, the test becomes more difficult to study for without learning the material.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#25 Sep 11 2012 at 6:18 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
gbaji wrote:


As I've suggested a couple times earlier in this thread, I think sometime we get so caught up in all the side issues of labor (compensation, work hours, pensions, etc) that we lose sight of the purpose of labor: To produce something of value. If the value of what is being produced is low, can we justify paying a high price for it?
Then why provide the lead-eating, poorly nutrished, addicted in the womb, downs (or gay) babies an education at all?

Wouldn't it be a better bang for our educational buck if we spent it on those with a better chance at success?






Edited, Sep 11th 2012 2:21pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#26 Sep 11 2012 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Almalieque wrote:
RavennofTitan wrote:
The problem will be the teachers will drill how to pass the test and the test only.


If you're in reference to me, only if you create that scenario. First, just because a teacher has to take a test, doesn't negate you equally being fired for having a classroom of failures in a non-failing environment. Second, if you make it to where teachers have a combination of classroom evaluations and varying study and teaching questions, the test becomes more difficult to study for without learning the material.

Wake up you wise little owl. You're not even in the ball-park here.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#27 Sep 11 2012 at 6:51 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
Then why provide the lead-eating, poorly nutrished, addicted in the womb, downs (or gay) babies an education at all?

I'd assume its so I see less of them at the mall at noon.

Wouldn't it be a better bang for our educational buck if we spent it on those with a better chance at success?

Yes.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#28 Sep 11 2012 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Then why provide the lead-eating, poorly nutrished, addicted in the womb, downs (or gay) babies an education at all?

I'd assume its so I see less of them at the mall at noon.

Wouldn't it be a better bang for our educational buck if we spent it on those with a better chance at success?

Yes.

What are you doing at the mall at noon?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#29 Sep 11 2012 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
Walking?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Sep 11 2012 at 8:01 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
They did the same thing here in Ontario about 10-12 years ago, and it works fine. Essentially it really just allows school boards to target weaker schools and determine if it is.
A) A teacher problem
B) A funding problem

or if an across the board issue

C) a Curriculum problem.

Teachers had the same concerns here, but I can't think of any that lost there jobs because of it, granted some have been moved around but that is what the program is supposed to to ideally. Target the stronger teachers and put them with the weaker children. In order to best equalize the learning process for all children.

It has worked greatly in Ontario with Maths Sciences and Languages all increasing over the past decade. I think these teachers are just freaking out, because that is what teachers do when they are forced to actually teach kids.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#31 Sep 11 2012 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,563 posts

From a selfish standpoint, I'm glad this is being hashed out now rather than later, since I'm working on a degree for mathematics w/secondary education minor right now, and could potentially end up in the CPS.

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#32 Sep 11 2012 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts

What are you doing at the mall at noon?


Well, I'm a homemaker now, so you know, wandering around Neiman Marcus with an infant strapped to my chest like a suicide bomber with my cold dead eyes seeking the random thrill of forbidden love with a grizzled photographer from the big city.

Also, buying things.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#33 Sep 11 2012 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

What are you doing at the mall at noon?


Well, I'm a homemaker now, so you know, wandering around Neiman Marcus with an infant strapped to my chest like a suicide bomber with my cold dead eyes seeking the random thrill of forbidden love with a grizzled photographer from the big city.

Also, buying things.
Did you drool over the new Louboutin line?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#34 Sep 11 2012 at 2:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,461 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

You could also argue that fixing the evaluations, and getting rid of bum teachers, is the most important step in fixing failing schools.


Not effectively, you couldn't. Teachers aren't the problem. Teacher's unions aren't the problem. There are 100000 studies of non unionized charter schools free to fire teachers at will, they perform exactly the same as public schools in similar demographic areas.


That's debatable, but also irrelevant to the issue at hand. The students in that district do worse than those in other districts with similar demographics yet their teachers are paid significantly more. And they want a raise. So much so that they're going on strike to get it (yes, and other things). Surely you can see how this might just raise a few eyebrows?

Quote:
Parents education matters. Family socio economic status matters. Culture in the district matters. There's no "most important" step, and honestly it's arguable there is no "fixing" failing schools.


Also debatable. Well, I suppose the "it's arguable" part isn't, but the problem is that the left (which in case you missed it has pretty much dominated the local politics in Chicago for decades) refuses to engage in said argument. So while we could have an argument about methods to attempt to fix failing schools, we can't because your own political party refuses to even consider the possibility that there might just be a better way to do this.

I'll also point out that the same sorts of policies (yes, those evil "get people off welfare" policies) of the right might just also help alleviate some of the issues that make it so hard to have successful schools in poorer districts. Clearly the policies of the left have failed in this regard, so why not try some of the ideas that conservatives have? I just find is amusing that liberals insist that conservatives either don't have ideas, or that their ideas don't work, meanwhile basically throwing their hands up and claiming that it's impossible to fix problems using their own methods. Um... Why not give the right a try at bat here? Just a thought.

Quote:
Our town has very good public schools, regularly rated in the top 25 districts of the state, some years in the top 10. That's for Massachusetts, of course. I'd assume that easily would make them the top rated district in some sh*tty backwater flyover state like Illinois. The town next to us has the worst schools in the state. The idea that it's the teachers from each district making the difference is ludicrous.


All the difference? No. Part of it? Absolutely. The more relevant point is that your argument basically avoids the possibility that there might be *any* bad teachers anywhere. And IMO, if you deliberately avoid any methods to find them, then you'll get more of them over time. And guess what? They're going to tend to congregate in the poorer districts, since that's where their bad performance is less likely to be noticed. You're arguing for a feedback system that guarantees that education in poor districts will get worse over time.

Quote:
Their kids walk past crack dealers on the way to school and have parents that dropped out in 9th grade. Our kids have parents with PhDs and have business cards with their parents contact information for play-dates (really, Hannah brought some home on her first day of 2nd grade). If the districts swapped teachers, not much would change. Well, our kids would learn more Spanish, probably.


If they swapped teachers, it's almost certain that your district would immediately identify the 10-15% or so who suck and would shuffle them off somewhere else very quickly. I think you are incredibly naive if you don't think that the quality of teachers is better in a well to do district versus a poor one.

Edited, Sep 11th 2012 2:01pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Sep 11 2012 at 3:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,461 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's a tricky issue, but we also have to consider the question of what someone is being paid for. I guess this is a larger philosophical question about labor in general, but I tend to be in the "you're being paid for the results of your labor" rather than the "you're being paid because you expended effort" camp.

Exactly, which is why you ply your trade on the open market competing against all comers secure in the knowledge that your skills and work of such high quality that you'll secure top dollar as opposed to coasting along at a grandfathered salary left over from a huge bubble largely due to inertia.


Wait. Don't you basically sell snake oil to the government? Might want to take a gander in the mirror there skippy.

Quote:
Oh wait, you meant OTHER people, right?


But not you, right? Smiley: lol
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Sep 11 2012 at 4:01 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
643 posts
I'm sure everybody has seen this, or something similar, before.
Quote:
Are you sick of high paid teachers? Teachers’ hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year! It’s time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - baby sit! We can get that for less than minimum wage.


Teachers should only be paid less than minimum wage. They are nothing more than glorified babysitters. And we should pay them the same way.

That’s right. Let’s give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM
with 45 min. off for lunch and plan — that equals 6 1/2 hours).

Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children.

Now how many do they teach in day…maybe 30? So that’s $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day. However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.

LET’S SEE…. That’s $585 X 180= $105,300 peryear. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).

What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master’s degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children
X 180 days = $280,800 per year.

Wait a minute — there’s something wrong here! There sure is!



And it ain't teacher pay.

The average teacher’s salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student–a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your


Chicago teachers striking is nothing new. I was in the chicago school district up until we moved in the 6th grade, and I don't think there was a single year we actually started the school year on time.
#37 Sep 11 2012 at 4:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's been 25 years since the last CPS strike. That's new enough to make it news.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Sep 11 2012 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,032 posts
xantav wrote:
I'm sure everybody has seen this, or something similar, before.
Quote:
Are you sick of high paid teachers? Teachers’ hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year! It’s time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - baby sit! We can get that for less than minimum wage.


Teachers should only be paid less than minimum wage. They are nothing more than glorified babysitters. And we should pay them the same way.

That’s right. Let’s give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM
with 45 min. off for lunch and plan — that equals 6 1/2 hours).

Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children.

Now how many do they teach in day…maybe 30? So that’s $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day. However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.

LET’S SEE…. That’s $585 X 180= $105,300 peryear. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).

What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master’s degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children
X 180 days = $280,800 per year.

Wait a minute — there’s something wrong here! There sure is!



And it ain't teacher pay.

The average teacher’s salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student–a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your


Chicago teachers striking is nothing new. I was in the chicago school district up until we moved in the 6th grade, and I don't think there was a single year we actually started the school year on time.

Charter schools could probably educate those kids for $0.95 on the margin. Free market efficiency!

Also, this "analysis" is deceptive and misleading at best, outright retarded at worst.

Edited, Sep 11th 2012 6:21pm by Demea
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#39 Sep 11 2012 at 5:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,461 posts
xantav wrote:
I'm sure everybody has seen this, or something similar, before.
Quote:
Are you sick of high paid teachers? Teachers’ hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year! It’s time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - baby sit! We can get that for less than minimum wage.


Teachers should only be paid less than minimum wage. They are nothing more than glorified babysitters. And we should pay them the same way.

That’s right. Let’s give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM
with 45 min. off for lunch and plan — that equals 6 1/2 hours).

Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children.

Now how many do they teach in day…maybe 30? So that’s $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day. However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.

LET’S SEE…. That’s $585 X 180= $105,300 peryear. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).

What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master’s degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children
X 180 days = $280,800 per year.

Wait a minute — there’s something wrong here! There sure is!



And it ain't teacher pay.

The average teacher’s salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student–a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your


Chicago teachers striking is nothing new. I was in the chicago school district up until we moved in the 6th grade, and I don't think there was a single year we actually started the school year on time.



There are several stunningly obvious problems with that little diatribe you quoted. Can you spot them?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Sep 11 2012 at 5:44 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
xantav wrote:
I'm sure everybody has seen this, or something similar, before.
Quote:
Are you sick of high paid teachers? Teachers’ hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year! It’s time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - baby sit! We can get that for less than minimum wage.

Teachers should only be paid less than minimum wage. They are nothing more than glorified babysitters. And we should pay them the same way.

That’s right. Let’s give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM
with 45 min. off for lunch and plan — that equals 6 1/2 hours).

Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children.

Now how many do they teach in day…maybe 30? So that’s $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day. However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.

LET’S SEE…. That’s $585 X 180= $105,300 peryear. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).

What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master’s degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children
X 180 days = $280,800 per year.

Wait a minute — there’s something wrong here! There sure is!



And it ain't teacher pay.

The average teacher’s salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student–a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your


Chicago teachers striking is nothing new. I was in the chicago school district up until we moved in the 6th grade, and I don't think there was a single year we actually started the school year on time.



There are several stunningly obvious problems with that little diatribe you quoted. Can you spot them?


Can you?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#41 Sep 12 2012 at 3:22 AM Rating: Good
**
476 posts
Nothing on the union's demand for a 30% salary increase? I believe the city came back with a 16% increase counter, broken out at 4% per year for the next 4 years. Which was turned down along with the evaluation deal.

Kinda glad I went to a private school when I lived there. Go go catholic high schools! (>.>)
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Pack your own lunch and bring nothing but Pixie Stix and Pop Rocks and get your liberty on.
#43 Sep 12 2012 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
******
43,397 posts
klausneck wrote:
Go go catholic high schools! (>.>)
In hindsight, I could take it or leave it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#44 Sep 12 2012 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
I was listening to some program where they were talking to various parents whose kids missing school because of the striking teachers. I think they talked to four different mothers. Not a one of them mentioned an ounce of concern about loss of knowledge. Everyone of them complained about lack of child care and inconvenience. It was rather sad. If I was a Chicago teacher it probably would have made me cry.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#45 Sep 12 2012 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
******
43,397 posts
Elinda wrote:
Not a one of them mentioned an ounce of concern about loss of knowledge.
What loss? They'll just move the school year back, and cut some breaks out.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Sep 12 2012 at 8:45 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Not a one of them mentioned an ounce of concern about loss of knowledge.
What loss? They'll just move the school year back, and cut some breaks out.


This. Just like "snow days".. You will still get your 180 +/- days.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#47 Sep 12 2012 at 9:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
crazylegz1975 wrote:
We all know these unions have to make a move now. Who knows in a couple months whether or not they'll have a sympathetic president in the whitehouse.

There's that "small government" mindset Gbaji is always lecturing us about.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Sep 12 2012 at 10:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,913 posts
Aren't smaller entities easier to rape?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#49 Sep 12 2012 at 10:34 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
Not legitimately.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#50 Sep 12 2012 at 10:35 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
You can't rape the willing.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#51 Sep 12 2012 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,913 posts
Your lacking reply is taken as assent.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 36 All times are in CDT
BeanX, Demea, gbaji, Kastigir, Tasera, Timelordwho, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (29)