Chicago Teacher's StrikeFollow

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/education/teacher-strike-begins-in-chicago-amid-signs-that-deal-isnt-close.html?_r=1&hp

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.

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?

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

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.

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.



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).

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?

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 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.

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

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.

Edit: nevermind, reading is hard for me.

Damn you, public schools! I am proof of your failure!

Edited, Sep 10th 2012 9:49pm by Demea

The problem will be the teachers will drill how to pass the test and the test only.

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?

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