well, considering they striked for 7 days, effectively, for this year…they now only need to work an extra 3 days for 4% raise. They should have just striked for 10 days straight, then it would have left them in the same boat as last year and gotten the 4% raise… Fail….

In all seriousness, I think one of the reasons for strike was the decision to base evaluation of teachers on how well the students do academically. Which I have to disagree with that approach. You have a teacher stuck with a bunch of kids that aren’t high achievers, it’s not their fault. Evaluating effectiveness of a teacher is kinda subjective and a tough one, so I can understand why teachers would have such a big issue with such rules.

The teachers unions say that job evaluations cannot be fair because too many other factors affect the achievement level of their students. If a teacher gets stuck with a class of poor students, they would be penalized. That is a red herring.
Fair evaluations would measure PROGRESS over the course of the year the teacher has an impact.
A teacher ending the year with a class of students with average test scores, when they started the year with low test scores should get the highest salaries.

I think too much emphasis is placed on teacher responsibility and very little is emphasized on parent responsibility.

Teachers are a tool to help your kids learn. Parents who choose not to be involved directly in their kids education or who themselves don’t take personal responsibility to make sure they help their kids learn/understand really have no one else to blame but themselves.

Teaching to just pass a standardized test (as we sort of do now in CA) does nothing but just breeds people who know how to take tests (but not necessarily know how to apply what they learn). I don’t think there shouldn’t be some standard, but more more it appears more more emphasis is placed on how to pass tests….

[quote=flu]
Teachers are a tool to help your kids learn. Parents who choose not to be involved directly in their kids education or who themselves don’t take personal responsibility to make sure they help their kids learn/understand really have no one else to blame but themselves.
[/quote]

So Flu, I basically agree, however that begs two questions.

The first, what are we going to do with the unfortunate children whose parents, don’t, can’t or are too busy trying to put food on the table to do anything?

Second, if the parents are the primary reason for success or failure, why are cities like Chicago paying their teachers an average of $76,000/yr.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-chicago-schools-costbre88i1fp-20120919,0,5583155.story

I agree, Paramount, especially about voting yes on Prop. 32.
Its main result would be to end compulsory public employee union donations, which fund political advertisements the union members may not agree with. The fact is that many teachers and other union members do not agree with the political stand of their unions, yet are forced to pay for candidates and views they personally oppose.

I think the solution is a step or two back…

The problem most people see is a lack of accountability with Teachers. We could extend this problem to say their is a lack of accountability with schools (districts, administrators, teachers, etc.)

The solution to this problem is school choice. If parents can choose where their kids go to school, their is no need to for all of these fancy statistical metrics. Some would be helpful in supplying families accurate knowledge of their schools, but not to the same level we have today.

If we open up school districts monopoly on kids, where they go to school, how they are taught, when they are taught etc. All of these problems will be self regulating.

Sure some parents wont give a crap where their kids go to school, but the schools they attend will naturally be bettered by all the new accountability infused into the education system.

[quote=EconProf]I agree, Paramount, especially about voting yes on Prop. 32.
Its main result would be to end compulsory public employee union donations, which fund political advertisements the union members may not agree with. The fact is that many teachers and other union members do not agree with the political stand of their unions, yet are forced to pay for candidates and views they personally oppose.[/quote]

Those who prefer to work in a union-free environment are free to do so all day long. They can work at private schools if they don’t want to pay union dues. What’s funny is that they don’t go there. Nope, they gravitate toward the superior jobs that are (surprise!) made better because of unions.

More “something for nothing” mentality where the deadbeats want something (pay, benefits, working conditions, etc.) that somebody else is paying for (via union dues).

As for getting union money out of politics…I’m all for it, but only if ALL money (and bribes of all kinds) is taken out of politics. No money from “associations” (no different from unions)…no AMA, no NAR, no corporate lobbyists of any kind, no environmental lobbyists, no immigrant lobbyists…nothing. NO money in politics — and no promises of jobs or other positions of power in the private sector.

If capital gets a seat at the table, labor will have a seat at the table. Otherwise, no deal.