LOL @ Chicago, striking teachers

[K1052]

Right in time for the election, no doubt . . . . how convenient

Yea because all those union teachers are right on the cusp of voting Republican.🙄

This is strictly Rahm's deal and means less than nothing to the national election.

 

[monovillage]

Yea because all those union teachers are right on the cusp of voting Republican.🙄

This is strictly Rahm's deal and means less than nothing to the national election.

It's a huge negative to unions and teachers that the Obama campaign really doesn't want to see this close to the election. This subject will resonate in every swing state in the country. Not really important in Illinois, but in Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, Nevada etc. it's a big issue.

 

[K1052]

It's a huge negative to unions and teachers that the Obama campaign really doesn't want to see this close to the election. This subject will resonate in every swing state in the country. Not really important in Illinois, but in Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, Nevada etc. it's a big issue.

I want some of what you're smoking.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yea because all those union teachers are right on the cusp of voting Republican.🙄

This is strictly Rahm's deal and means less than nothing to the national election.

This isn't about them. It's about Republicans hammering away on a message that Union members paid $76k are out striking for $100k. The rich getting richer off tax payer dollars.

What's the prominent theme of this topic? Money. Everyone is doing their best to paint the issue that way. High paid folks going on strike looks terrible, and if it becomes a national narrative that Dems are running wild with tax payer money - then it won't look good to the fence sitters and it may sway their vote.

 

[K1052]

This isn't about them. It's about Republicans hammering away on a message that Union members paid $76k are out striking for $100k. The rich getting richer off tax payer dollars.

What's the prominent theme of this topic? Money. Everyone is doing their best to paint the issue that way. High paid folks going on strike looks terrible, and if it becomes a national narrative that Dems are running wild with tax payer money - then it won't look good to the fence sitters and it may sway their vote.

Unions being held to the fire for more performance (debatable on the metrics uses), more working time, and greater flexibility by the schools to hire by Obama's former chief of staff is a sign of Democrats running wild with taxpayer money. The intellectual twists required to reach that conclusion boggle the mind.

 

[Nintendesert]

Born and raised in Chicago. First off, that's an average which means exactly shit. Second off, that's not exactly a lot of money for Chicago.

I am generally not a fan of unions and am not defending these teachers but discrediting them based on their salary being too high is foolish, because it's not.

I dunno, 76k for 8 months of work seems pretty fucking good to me.

 

[werepossum]

Garbage. It's not "nearly impossible to fire a teacher." We can see cases left and right where teachers are fired very rapidly. What tenure guarantees teachers is due process: you cannot be fired without good cause. The only way an incompetent teacher gets tenure in the first place is if the principal & superintendent of the schools completely drops the ball.

Teachers don't mind being evaluated on student performance. What they want is a reasonable & fair way to evaluate this. There was a case in NYC of a teacher evaluated on her performance. She did incredibly poorly - one of the worst math teachers in NY based on their rubric. Her 8th graders had previously been in the 99th percentile. Following the 8th grade specific test, the students dropped to the 89th percentile. That was one of the biggest class drops. Was she ineffective? Not by any stretch of the imagination. She did not "teach to the test" for the state 8th grade test. The students did quite well on that test, though they missed some minutiae that in the grand scheme of things are irrelevant toward further success in mathematics. What her 8th graders did was prepare for the 9th grade exam (Integrated Algebra) - they were advanced. A significant percentage of her class aced the exam. I don't personally know any teachers who get more than a couple percent of their students to get a perfect score on that exam. Her class was among the very best in the entire state on the 9th grade exam, but her performance was poor, because the kids did poorly on the 8th grade exam.

You might be thinking, "yeah, but what idiot wouldn't *realize* that her students were advanced and did so well on the 9th grade exam." The problem is, these rules have to be written down. It's pretty hard to craft a policy that has to be followed to the letter, yet also completely applies common sense.

Think about this for a second. If a teacher knows they are being strictly evaluated based on their students' performance, and ranked against other teachers, what do you think they're going to do? They're going to teach to the test.

So, here, we have you, the public, saying that teachers need to do a better job, they need to do more than just teach to the test. And at the same time, rig the system so that any teacher who goes outside teaching to the test is penalized. The teacher's union has thought this through; hence the objections.

Sounds like that teacher did "teach to the test" - just the wrong test. Had she been doing her job, her students would have known the material they were supposedly mastering. The boogieman of "teaching to the test" is all too often just a cover for incompetence. And incompetent teachers get tenure all the time - it's very hard to find a teacher with enough experience to have tenure who does not have tenure and wants it.

I can see two possible honest advantages in teachers' unions. First, without some sort of protection it's entirely possible for a superintendent or even a principle to move one teacher out in favor of a relative, lover or political supporter. Second, while I am 100% in favor of testing teachers and holding them accountable, I remember one teacher in a local failing school saying (more or less) "These kids come into 8th grade not able to read and you're going to evaluate me on how well I teach them chemistry?" A union can in theory prevent this kind of no-win situation.

Unfortunately, while teachers' unions should take a cue from trade unions and establish programs to train up new and sub-par teachers, instead like every public union they simply concentrate on getting the most money for providing the least amount of value. We need to first test the teachers to make sure they are competent in their fields, then devise practical means of testing the knowledge they impart. Since ideally the teachers would not know the test questions and the test would cover the actual material supposedly being taught, "teaching to the test" should mean doing your damned job.

 

[QuantumPion]

I can see two possible honest advantages in teachers' unions. First, without some sort of protection it's entirely possible for a superintendent or even a principle to move one teacher out in favor of a relative, lover or political supporter.

Ruh? They don't do that already? If anything, teachers unions make it harder to get rid of corruption and malfeasance.

Second, while I am 100% in favor of testing teachers and holding them accountable, I remember one teacher in a local failing school saying (more or less) "These kids come into 8th grade not able to read and you're going to evaluate me on how well I teach them chemistry?" A union can in theory prevent this kind of no-win situation.

No-win situation for whom? The teacher? Or the kids whom are passed from class and grade to the next while still being functionally illiterate? The solution shouldn't be to give the teacher an "A for effort". Passing the buck is how we get in this situation to begin with.

"teaching to the test" should mean doing your damned job.

Well, the bare minimum anyway.

 

[OutHouse]

Born and raised in Chicago. First off, that's an average which means exactly shit. Second off, that's not exactly a lot of money for Chicago.

I am generally not a fan of unions and am not defending these teachers but discrediting them based on their salary being too high is foolish, because it's not.

boo-hoo. they chose teaching as a career, they choose to teach in Chicago. teaching is not a get rich job and there are plenty of people in Chicago who would love to get paid 76K and bennies a year.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by boochi
The average teacher in Chicago makes around $76,000 + benefits and they want a 30% pay increase over two years. Fuck them.

Born and raised in Chicago.

that's not exactly a lot of money for Chicago.

Tell me about it. I should go into teaching here and make 25K$ more.

 

[RFE]

Originally Posted by boochi
The average teacher in Chicago makes around $76,000 + benefits and they want a 30% pay increase over two years. Fuck them.




Tell me about it. I should go into teaching here and make 25K$ more.

That would be the only difference, "just" $25K? You also work eight months/yr, have a generous pension, plus Cadillac medical and dental?! You must be rich.

 

[Jaskalas]

Unions being held to the fire for more performance (debatable on the metrics uses), more working time, and greater flexibility by the schools to hire by Obama's former chief of staff is a sign of Democrats running wild with taxpayer money. The intellectual twists required to reach that conclusion boggle the mind.

When the story is spun as them wanting 6 figures, yes.

 

[Pneumothorax]

That would be the only difference, "just" $25K? You also work eight months/yr, have a generous pension, plus Cadillac medical and dental?! You must be rich.

In order for the private sector to get the same fat pensions these public sector thugs get would amount to 25-30% of their annual income going into their 401K as we know that we're NOT making the 6-7% over the lifetime of our 401K's that these pensions are claiming to be making.

 

[waggy]

Getting ready for a test is called studying. Studying is called learning.

yeah but that's not what is happening. they are teaching the kids a TEST 1. How to take it, and just the information ON it. not flat out knowledge.

CPS offered the teachers 16% salary increases over four years, plus incentives for better performance. The teachers weren't asked to take on the extra hours without compensation.

and they turned it down..oh and they weren't offered that 16% at first either.

 

[Joepublic2]

The problem with public sector unions is that the public is effectively their employer but the public has no real way to negotiate with them, and the public/employer also has a much weaker bargaining position as the government doesn't have to turn a profit to continue operation.

You mistakenly attribute the rise in productivity and standard of living of workers due to the innovations of the industrial revolution to the organized labor movement. I don't blame you though, since simple logic and basic economics are not taught in schools any more, replaced now with political slogans and taglines.

I guess they didn't teach history at all when you went to school.

Oh certainly, unions have increased wages and reduced work hours...for themselves - the ~10% of the unionized labor force, but at the expense of the 90% whom are not. But the existence of unions is not the reason for the prosperity we have today. Unions did not invent the middle class or the weekend. The increases in productivity brought by freedom, laissez-faire capitalism, and the industrial revolution did.

Wrong. Unions produce upwards pressure on wages for all workers, union and non-union because it strengthens ALL labor's bargaining position ("Well, I have an offer from the union shop down the street paying 3$ more an hour than you are." etc).

Organized labor IS A PART of laissez-faire capitalism. Individuals have every right to exercise their freedom of assembly to create a stronger bargaining position with regards to their professional endeavors. Well, at least in states where big government hasn't attacked free commerce like it has in right-to-work states.

my boss forces me to work additional hours for the same pay. so fuck the unions. bunch of over paid entitlement minded babies. get to work you fucking pieces of shit or find a different job!

Lol sounds like you need a union! Or, as you say, find a different job.

 

[LumbergTech]

Sounds like that teacher did "teach to the test" - just the wrong test. Had she been doing her job, her students would have known the material they were supposedly mastering. The boogieman of "teaching to the test" is all too often just a cover for incompetence.

Do you have any basis for saying this? I'm interested in where you are getting your info.

 

[Exterous]

I dunno, 76k for 8 months of work seems pretty fucking good to me.

*shrug* An independent arbitrator that both the school and union agreed to said it was unfair. While I don't think the report is out there yet I think its safe to assume the arbitrator had significantly more information available than we do here.

The city had already agreed to 4%. Then they changed it to 2% with a bunch of other requirements. They then offered 16% with those requirements. Seems like they don't care about the money - they just want the other stipulations in there. Why else go from 4% to 2% to 16%?* Why even change the raise levels if you were ok paying 4x the originally agreed to amount unless you had some ulterior motive?

* Otherwise it just sounds like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ9EJIvi8PU

 

[DrPizza]

Education is not about remembering how to do specific problems that will be used on specific tests, but general and enough knowledge to tackle all problems of that kind. So saying they failed those tests because they prepared for a different test is stupid, when they should already have the knowledge from a teacher how to tackle those problems, and any problems they may come across.

I looks like my explanation wasn't clear enough for you. The kids didn't know some of the minutiae. That is, trivial things that have nothing to do with future skills in math. You're right - education is NOT about remembering how to do specific problems. However, the rest of your statement doesn't necessarily follow. First of all, I didn't say the kids failed. They still managed to score at the 89th percentile. That is, her class did better than 89% of all 8th grade classes in the state - on material that they didn't specifically learn. But, because they "slipped from 99th percentile to 89th percentile", as a result of the rules for evaluation, the teacher was rated as ineffective. Let's put it another way; I'll use a bit of hyperbole. Imagine a teacher takes 8th graders and extends their learning at an accelerated rate until the entire class gets a 5 on the Calculus BC exam, while in 8th grade. But, because one day, they had to stop learning and take some state exam, they didn't ace that exam, because, just how many regular polyhedra are there? How do you calculate the square root of 20 to 4 significant digits by hand? (Never mind that they could just write a MacLaurin series to find it - the person correcting the test will likely have no clue what they were doing & would score it with a zero.)

If you think that general skills will solve *any* problem, then perhaps you have never been challenged yourself.

 

[DrPizza]

Sounds like that teacher did "teach to the test" - just the wrong test. Had she been doing her job, her students would have known the material they were supposedly mastering. The boogieman of "teaching to the test" is all too often just a cover for incompetence. And incompetent teachers get tenure all the time - it's very hard to find a teacher with enough experience to have tenure who does not have tenure and wants it.

*sigh* another product of bad teachers. I'll repeat myself. The kids were *advanced.* They were in 8th grade, but they were taking the 9th grade curriculum. The way the rules were written though, the teacher was rated on how the kids did on the 8th grade exam. Basically, "okay, kids, we have to waste a day so you can take a test that means nothing to you, but is how they're going to rate me." The kids were in 8th grade, but the COURSE they were taking was Integrated Algebra I. The teacher absolutely did her job - her job was to teach THAT curriculum. BUT, the rating system judges her performance based on how every 8th grade student in the state does on the 8th grade assessment. And, I'll point out again - her students did INCREDIBLY well on the 9th grade assessment - scores that most teachers can only dream of.

She could have taught those kids all of Algebra, Geometry, Algebra II, Pre-Calculus, and had the kids take the Calculus BC exam at the end of 8th grade - and because they couldn't answer what would amount to a handful of 8th grade trivia questions out of the many questions, she would automatically be rated as ineffective; thems the rules.

We need to first test the teachers to make sure they are competent in their fields

THEY ALREADY DO. Not that I personally consider the tests that rigorous, but there are national & state tests specifically of subject matter that the teachers must pass in order to be certified to teach those subjects.




Lastly, you bring up a great point - teacher training programs. Guess what - you decide you're going to evaluate teachers based on the performance of their students on a high stakes test at the end of the year. I already mentioned "teaching to the test" - which you oddly seem to favor. BUT, do you realize that now, a lot of good teachers who have mentored student teachers are NOT going to take a chance on student teachers?? Who is going to say, "sure, I'll have a student teacher have the responsibility of teaching my class for 1 1/2 months. And, of course, if the student teacher does a horrible job, *I'M* the one who is going to be penalized." (Yes, there are student teachers out there who have no clue what they're doing and we don't know why they went into teaching in the first place.)

 

[spidey07]

Tax payers held hostage is what were seeing.

Fire them all and replace with people that want to work for incredible wages and benefits.

Pull a Reagan on their lazy ass.

 

[waggy]

*shrug* An independent arbitrator that both the school and union agreed to said it was unfair. While I don't think the report is out there yet I think its safe to assume the arbitrator had significantly more information available than we do here.

The city had already agreed to 4%. Then they changed it to 2% with a bunch of other requirements. They then offered 16% with those requirements. Seems like they don't care about the money - they just want the other stipulations in there. Why else go from 4% to 2% to 16%?* Why even change the raise levels if you were ok paying 4x the originally agreed to amount unless you had some ulterior motive?

* Otherwise it just sounds like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ9EJIvi8PU

it's Chicago. they don't fucking care about the money.

they will fuck over the rest of the state to do it.

 

[Lithium381]

it's Chicago. they don't fucking care about the money.

they will fuck over the rest of the state to do it.

second only to california in living the liberal dream!

 

[monovillage]

second only to california in living the liberal dream!

Would you like a side of high speed rail with that ?

 

[diesbudt]

yeah but that's not what is happening. they are teaching the kids a TEST 1. How to take it, and just the information ON it. not flat out knowledge.

This. This is a major problem for many students today going into college. Many College professors do not teach to the test. Especially my Engineering professors I had. We learned in class the background and usefulness of the mechanics of the world around us, the way to differentiate theoretical math problems from variables or other math problems. And maybe do a simple example or 2. While any Homework, or just practice questions in a book or online included much harder questions that required the UNDERSTANDING of what was learned in class to complete. Not anything similar to sample questions. (sure some might have been, but many were not and got really hard. Damn you distillation columns in series...)

Then exams were those types of questions. Not like a sample question, or what would be on a test, but how to manipulate the knowledge learned throughout the class. Then, you would have to retain that knowledge going into the next class as it was to build on it and get more specific, from a general basis or it would branch off into a side study.

 

[K1052]

it's Chicago. they don't fucking care about the money.

they will fuck over the rest of the state to do it.

Raises are going to total an average 16% increase, phased in 2% and 3% bumps over the coming years to compensate for longer school days. This is a result of the independent arbitration that said the teachers should get a 15%-20% immediate increase and eventually up to 35%. Both the Union and CPS rejected that since it's totally unworkable. The union is prepared to barter away a lot of the increase for other stuff they want.

I half suspect this strike plays into Rahm's hands to weaken the union and open the way for more charter schools, a centerpiece of his education plan.