• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Not many teachers get credit for working above and beyond thier duties.

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ninjahedge said:
No, it isn't wrong.

You do not move one person from the edge of the balanced platform before the other. Your "solutions" are very short sighted and one sided.

Things are not changing for the worse (at least in an employment situation).

By "better" you mean educational value? Again, that brings us back to parent participation and a wise spending of funds outside salaries (like not giving computers to a school whose major problem is early parenthood. A day care center would work much better than buying computers for a school that really does not use them... Patterson and Newark NJ come to mind).
Click to expand...

Yes it is. It's not a balanced platform; unions stand in the way of every meaningful change schools want to make. They can hold up the entire process. Your "solutions" are very short-sighted and one-sided.

Things are not changing for the better... which needs to happen.

By "better" I mean everything. Funding, parental involvement, all of it. Thankfully, Walker fixed a big part of the funding problem for us in WI.
 
Last edited:
zsdersw said:
Being in public school administration (IT), my sense of it is that many of the teachers who complain about their pay do so because they don't get recognized often for the many breakthroughs with their students that they have on a daily basis.

I think we need a better system for recognizing and rewarding good teachers and all that they do and, conversely, punishing bad teachers. Unions are the disease, and a merit-based system is the cure.
Click to expand...

I agree. This right here is the real crux of the problem and the issues of great teachers not being recognized is a symptom.

The manner in which the education system has been steered by school teachers own unions in this nation inherently ends up ignoring the efforts of superior teachers and indirectly rewards mediocre teachers by preventing and suppressing any consequences or competition based on on performance for said mediocre teacher or a clearly superior teacher.

In other words talented teachers are reaping the side effects of their unions own efforts to suppress all performance and competition based rewards and punishments for the work that they do in and out of the classroom.

Their unions basically have painted all teachers as being "equal" when it comes to job performance and any attempt to reward a "great teachers" or an attempt to deal with "bad teachers" with tenure has been pretty much removed from the system itself. Thus any attempts for a teacher to produce superior results and be recognized for it is treated no different then those who produce mediocre results and would rather be ignored.
 
Last edited:
Ducati, that is not 100%.

the problem is, the only protection that teachers have from politics are the Unions. that same protection hinders development, but without it you will get the same "old boy network" you get in modern business.

that simply does not work in a socialist system like Education.

If you could find a way to rate teachers WITHOUT having reviews given by biased bosses or by standardized testing (which has shackled the teaching ability in NJ now that so many rudimentary requirements are now forced at certain stages), then I would agree.

But everyone just keeps insisting that all you have to do is "reward good teachers" and does not give a solid example of where this could be protected from abuse through political or administrative manipulation.

(Give a small woman an unruly group of 9th graders for basic science and you can site her for an "inordinate amount" of disciplinary actions. A friend of mine had that. Kids would come up to her and STEAL HER STUFF, but she could not send them to the office because she had sent too many and the parents complained...).

So before you remove the circuit breaker, make sure all your appliances are working and your wiring is good, otherwise you are just looking for someone to start a fire.
 
Ninjahedge said:
Ducati, that is not 100%.

the problem is, the only protection that teachers have from politics are the Unions. that same protection hinders development, but without it you will get the same "old boy network" you get in modern business.

that simply does not work in a socialist system like Education.

If you could find a way to rate teachers WITHOUT having reviews given by biased bosses or by standardized testing (which has shackled the teaching ability in NJ now that so many rudimentary requirements are now forced at certain stages), then I would agree.

But everyone just keeps insisting that all you have to do is "reward good teachers" and does not give a solid example of where this could be protected from abuse through political or administrative manipulation.

(Give a small woman an unruly group of 9th graders for basic science and you can site her for an "inordinate amount" of disciplinary actions. A friend of mine had that. Kids would come up to her and STEAL HER STUFF, but she could not send them to the office because she had sent too many and the parents complained...).

So before you remove the circuit breaker, make sure all your appliances are working and your wiring is good, otherwise you are just looking for someone to start a fire.
Click to expand...

I'm highlighting the actual problem not passing judgement on teachers themselves. The problem is that their union has neutered any ability for them to rise above those who are mediocre or average at best. This was done by their union removing any incentive for competition and thus eliminating any rewards for being a superior teacher in their place of work. In essence this is the price they are paying for in exchange for a position with near bullet proof job security and good benefits once they have become a tenured teacher. This is especially true in relation to what a private school teachers are faced with or any other person in the private sector may have to endure and deal with at a private firm. So for them to complain about it is pretty moot IMHO because it appears to me at least that they to have want their cake ( job security and good benefits) and eat it (complain about the lack of rewards in such a system) the same time.
 
Last edited:
I understand, but to use another analogy, you cannot remove the shield protecting the teachers because you say it is too heavy for them to move without first stopping the arrows.
 
Ninjahedge said:
I understand, but to use another analogy, you cannot remove the shield protecting the teachers because you say it is too heavy for them to move without first stopping the arrows.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a choice without consequences.

If teachers want more recognition in the form of higher wage compensation then it means accepting performance based reviews. Which means basically accepting that not all teachers are equal in terms of performance and restructuring the nature of what being a tenured teacher entails in terms of job competition from newer teachers entering the workplace and being able to produce qualify results.
 
zsdersw said:
Wrong. Non-union schools can (and do) save money by being able to cut salaries/benefits much easier than union schools.
Click to expand...

Really? Because the math shows they are not saving anything:

Michigan:

Public schools
Income per pupil: 8964
Discretionary spending: 7713
Percent spent on personnel: 70%
.7*7713 = $5399.1

Charter Schools
Income per pupil: 8671
Discretionary spending: 7517
Percent spent on personnel: 70%
.7*7517 = $5261.9

So...a whopping 2.5% difference. Now if we factor in the fact that they use only 95% of the teaching staff the difference is completely negligable

So - pray tell - where are the cost savings? Shouldn't one of the largest and best funded concentrations of charter schools in the country have some sort of cost savings associated with it if the financial issue is a clear cut as you claim?
 
Last edited:
zsdersw said:
Union contracts tie districts' hands. They could adapt to these conditions easier without contract-mandated pay increases. That's why they're the most significant cause of the financial portion of the state's education problems.
Click to expand...

Does that mean you are finally giving up your absurd claim some states educational financial problems are "at most, entirely the unions' fault"?
 
Exterous said:
Really? Because the math shows they are not saving anything:

Michigan:

Public schools
Income per pupil: 8964
Discretionary spending: 7713
Percent spent on personnel: 70%
.7*7713 = $5399.1

Charter Schools
Income per pupil: 8671
Discretionary spending: 7517
Percent spent on personnel: 70%
.7*7517 = $5261.9

So...a whopping 2.5% difference. Now if we factor in the fact that they use only 95% of the teaching staff the difference is completely negligable

So - pray tell - where are the cost savings? Shouldn't one of the largest and best funded concentrations of charter schools in the country have some sort of cost savings associated with it if the financial issue is a clear cut as you claim?
Click to expand...

http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/22/are-public-school-teachers-ove
 
Unfortunately ZS, so is yours.


I have seen many complaints, but no fully formed solutions. Unions are the boogey men that have come to the fore front like civil lawsuits as the reason so much money evaporates into thin air, but neither is the true cause.
 
zsdersw said:
No, and no it is not an absurd claim.
Click to expand...

So prove it! Perhaps you just don't understand what 'proof' means but nothing that you have posted anywhere in this thread proves your claim. Nothing.

Or maybe its that you just don't understand what an absolute is so you use them in places where they clearly aren't valid. Entirely means 100%. No other considerations. Are you honestly telling me that there is an entire state where 100% of the educational financial issues are caused by unions? That higher unemployment, lower tax income, declining enrollment, declining property values, energy cost increases, technology cost increases, has not negativley affected the schools financial situations in any way shape or form?
 
Last edited:
zsdersw said:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/22/are-public-school-teachers-ove
Click to expand...

Now that leads to some interesting data. Does absolutely nothing to refute the math showing that the state with one of the largest charter school concentrations saw no dicernable financial benefit what so ever from being non-union

It does beg the question - what leads to this apparent disparity of information though? I did some digging around in the sources of the two studies and found some interesting statistics that may help explain the differences:
1. The national average of For-Profit schools is 33% yet Michigans is at 80%
2. Michigan is one of the few states that funds charter schools to a comparable level to public schools. The average charter school only receives about 80% of the funding while in Michigan they receive 94%
3. Perhaps most telling is that Michigan is one of only six states that requires charter schools provide detailed revenue and expenditure information and have it publically available. To quote:
Miron and Urschel (2010), for example, were unable to locate comparable finance data for charters and districts for 60% of the charter schools nationwide.
Click to expand...
Apparently the Charter Schools in Action: Renewing Public Education by Princeton had similar problems
4. The NCES gets a significant amount of its charter school data from surveys submitted to teachers and schools instead of official financial records (as there is no legal requirement to provide that information)

The participation rate for the Michigan study is 100% and drawn from official state records. I cannot find a breakdown of official vs opinionated information from the NCES study or what the participation rate is

Now - without that information I can't tell how much is related to poor/under reporting of costs vs other differences

It seems like it might be the 'for profit' difference but why would a higher concentration of 'for profit' cause the schools to spend more on personnel (I would think they would spend less so they could profit more)

Perhaps the teachers are paid less but support and administration makes up the difference in cost? Even then the administration would have to be vastly more bloated to keep the exenditures at the same 70% of public schools

This leads me to think its an under/poor reporting issue but I have no proof of that
 
Last edited:
If I'm a parent sending my kid to a charter school to get a better education than at a public school, paying charter school rates, why would I expect the charter school to get the worst teachers that will cost the least? That somehow does not make sense...
 
chucky2 said:
If I'm a parent sending my kid to a charter school to get a better education than at a public school, paying charter school rates, why would I expect the charter school to get the worst teachers that will cost the least? That somehow does not make sense...
Click to expand...

Depends on the district.

Look at the "public" HS in Ridgewood, NJ:

15.jpg


I know, looks are not everything, but Bergen County has some VERY good school districts that beat the CRAP out of private schools nation-wide.

Partially because of funding, partially because of additional tutoring, partially because the parents GIVE A DAMN, and partially because of the actual quality of education provided as a STANDARD.

More than unions, it is PARENTS that make the difference in a school district. Districts like Newark and Patterson, who (you will have to check me on this) spend MORE PER CAPITA on students are getting trounced by these other districts where education matters.

Pointing an accusatory finger at unions for the countries problems is blind.


That is not saying they (meaning ALL unions) are not a contributing factor, but simply calling for their elimination and siting the decline in school performance as their sole responsibility is just a political shell and shill game.
 
Exterous said:
So prove it! Perhaps you just don't understand what 'proof' means but nothing that you have posted anywhere in this thread proves your claim. Nothing.

Or maybe its that you just don't understand what an absolute is so you use them in places where they clearly aren't valid. Entirely means 100%. No other considerations. Are you honestly telling me that there is an entire state where 100% of the educational financial issues are caused by unions? That higher unemployment, lower tax income, declining enrollment, declining property values, energy cost increases, technology cost increases, has not negativley affected the schools financial situations in any way shape or form?
Click to expand...

I have no need to prove anything to you. I also have no need to convince you of anything. You can believe whatever wrong things you want to believe.

I'll continue to believe what I know, from experience, to be true.
 
It's surprising just how stagnant the flow of information tends to be in a school. In an ideal educational environment, you would have teachers regularly discuss and share their teaching plans and their assessment of how to best deal with particular students and situations, without fear of reprisal or being assessed as a poor teacher.

But nowadays, teachers are afraid to share what's on their mind and their teaching techniques with one another because they fear being judged or want to beat the competition, and be on the fast track to becoming the principal. Part of it has to do with the general "conservative" nature of education, which always moves one or two pace slower than the rest of society and the lack of pressure on teachers to improve their performance.

However, it also has to do with the way the system tries to force higher-quality education through competition and individual accountability, rather than cooperation. While competition and individual accountability can indeed lead to better education, they also tend to lead to a breakdown of communication between teachers and prevent the formation of a community of learning, which is crucial for a successful educational environment. It's depressing seeing how teachers are increasingly having difficulty trusting one another, and try to protect themselves in the changing times by putting themselves in a protective bubble, just minding their own interests, and not those of the students.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top