- This topic has 49 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 21, 2012 at 3:03 AM #751646September 21, 2012 at 7:07 AM #751648EconProfParticipant
[quote=CA renter][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.[/quote]
No, actually, good teachers much prefer the private school/voucher/non-unionized teaching environment. In fact, private schools generally pay far less than the unionized public schools, and have vastly higher productivity. Of course, the weak teachers and time-servers prefer the unionized public schools with tenure protections because it is practically impossible for them to be fired.
Can any teachers–public or private–weigh in here with what they’ve experienced?September 21, 2012 at 7:24 AM #751651CoronitaParticipantI don’t know. But considering I’m sending my kids to what is arguably one of the “better” public schools…even then, I wonder how bad it must be at other schools that are at the middle to bottom of the ranking… I mean, what I find interesting now is how much emphasis is placed on passing standardized tests.
At least where my kid is at, they teach concepts and generally there is a huge teacher/parent involvement. But I can see where in some places, administrators would get hung up in just teaching to “score a good standardized test result”, but not really teach.
I guess in america, what is is more apparent now…What you put in to your kids education in terms of $$$$ and personal time is what you get out.. The world is different these days.September 21, 2012 at 9:03 AM #751656allParticipant[quote=jstoesz]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]
That’s easy – just move to the area served by the desired school or send your kid to a private school.
Accept that you are not paying for your kids’ education through your taxes. You are funding the public education system and since you have children you have the option of consuming the service. If you had no children you’d still have to pay the same taxes.
September 21, 2012 at 9:50 AM #751659anParticipant[quote=CA renter]It might be better to combine test scores with in-class observations and (perhaps) parent and student input.[/quote]
I totally agree with this too. I would never suggest test scores being the only measurement. Maybe, we can have students and parents input, principal input, AND possibly a camera in the classroom as proof, on whether the teachers are really doing their job or not. Maybe limit the camera to the classrooms where the teachers think they’re unfairly judged.September 21, 2012 at 10:27 AM #751661HobieParticipantTake a look at Ratemyteachers . com to see why very little weight should be put on student reviews.
September 21, 2012 at 10:31 AM #751662sdduuuudeParticipant[quote=flu]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. [/quote]
I think a voucher system would help here. Let the parents decide. Give them X dollars to spend where they like on the school and teachers of their choice and let the power of millions of people making small decisions go to work. Power to the people, baby !
September 21, 2012 at 10:38 AM #751663sdduuuudeParticipant[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]
Why couldn’t we allow the schools choose whether to hire union or non-union teachers ?
September 21, 2012 at 11:36 AM #751666NotCrankyParticipantTeachers should get paid more to teach in crappy areas.
September 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM #751676EconProfParticipant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]It might be better to combine test scores with in-class observations and (perhaps) parent and student input.[/quote]
I totally agree with this too. I would never suggest test scores being the only measurement. Maybe, we can have students and parents input, principal input, AND possibly a camera in the classroom as proof, on whether the teachers are really doing their job or not. Maybe limit the camera to the classrooms where the teachers think they’re unfairly judged.[/quote]
Advocates of reform agree…student progress should be only part of the evaluation and pay/promotion system. No one suggest it should be the sole determinant. But the teachers unions say it should have absolutely no weight because it is impossible to accurately measure progress. What they really want to do is protect the poor teachers.
I believe where student learning is part of the evaluation, it is only 25% to 50% of the process.September 21, 2012 at 4:49 PM #751683EconProfParticipant[quote=Blogstar]Teachers should get paid more to teach in crappy areas.[/quote]
Right. And that’s the exact opposite of what happens now. With union seniority rules, the more experienced teachers get their pick of schools. With few exceptions, they gravitate toward the wealthier neighborhoods where teaching is easier and students and their parents more involved and supportive.
Beginning teachers are sent to the poorest neighborhoods where they are the least able to handle the disciplinary problems. No wonder they burn out quickly.
This also means that when a district must cut teachers due to declining enrollments (like now, with students opting for private or charter schools, or families fleeing the state), union rules force the last hired to be laid off. This disporportionately hits the inner city school faculty. The result, in San Diego, was for some poorer neighborhood schools to get all the layoff notices while richer neighborhoods kept theirs teachers.
Make no mistake, the teachers unions exist for the benefit adults, not children. And the union policies most hurt poor children more than rich children despite their lofty rhetoric.September 21, 2012 at 11:48 PM #751692paramountParticipant[quote=sdduuuude]
I think a voucher system would help here. Let the parents decide. Give them X dollars to spend where they like on the school and teachers of their choice and let the power of millions of people making small decisions go to work. Power to the people, baby ![/quote]
Exactly. Choice is good.
Unfortunately vouchers are a long shot primarily because tax payers have very little representation; in many states the vast majority of politicians represent public employee unions and not the tax payers.
September 22, 2012 at 12:32 AM #751695CA renterParticipant[quote=paramount][quote=sdduuuude]
I think a voucher system would help here. Let the parents decide. Give them X dollars to spend where they like on the school and teachers of their choice and let the power of millions of people making small decisions go to work. Power to the people, baby ![/quote]
Exactly. Choice is good.
Unfortunately vouchers are a long shot primarily because tax payers have very little representation; in many states the vast majority of politicians represent public employee unions and not the tax payers.[/quote]
If parents feel so strongly about it, they can easily send their kids to private schools or they can homeschool. There is no need to subsidize private, for-profit schools with taxpayer money.
September 22, 2012 at 12:52 AM #751694CA renterParticipant[quote=EconProf][quote=CA renter][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.[/quote]
No, actually, good teachers much prefer the private school/voucher/non-unionized teaching environment. In fact, private schools generally pay far less than the unionized public schools, and have vastly higher productivity. Of course, the weak teachers and time-servers prefer the unionized public schools with tenure protections because it is practically impossible for them to be fired.
Can any teachers–public or private–weigh in here with what they’ve experienced?[/quote]No, absolutely not. Most “good” teachers, if they work at private schools, do so because they are trying to get the experience necessary to be hired by a public school district.
I’m a former teacher (worked mostly in public schools, but briefly in a private school), come from a teaching family (dad, grandfather, etc.), and have a disproportionate number of friends and relatives in the teaching profession — both public and private. Never once have I heard anyone say that they worked in a private school because they didn’t like unions. Either they work there because they’re religious and want to work in a religious school, or they are trying to get experience for their resume to submit to a public school district, or they are just looking at it as a temporary situation so not willing to put in the extra work required to be a public school teacher (maybe waiting to have kids and become a SAHM), but never once has anyone mentioned working in a private school because they dislike unions.
There is no question that public schools have much higher standards for their teachers than the vast majority of private schools, both with respect to experience and education. I’ve worked at both, and there is no comparison. Public schools have much higher standards for their teachers, but they also have to deal with all of the kids that private schools will not accept (indigent; serverely disabled, developmentally delayed or emotionally disturbed; significant behavioral problems; drug problems, etc.).
Just an example, but the private school I attended (one of the top schools in the nation at the time) only accepted kids with above-average I.Q.s and had a ZERO tolerance policy WRT behavioral problems. This is not at all unusual among top private schools. If a student so much as had a disrespectful tone toward a teacher, they would never be seen again. Literally, gone in a day. It’s easy to see how they had such high scores when they only had to deal with kids who were disciplined, respectful, and highly intelligent… with very supportive parents who were willing to spend a pretty hefty sum for their kids’ education (the parents had to sign contracts where they agreed to hold their kids accountable for their educational progress and their behavior).
You cannot compare private schools with public schools; they couldn’t be more different, and it has nothing at all to do with the “quality” or skill set of the teachers.
September 22, 2012 at 9:47 AM #751709EconProfParticipantCA Renter: Your experience certainly differs from mine about the preference of teachers for private vs. public schools. But your anecdotes outnumber mine, so I’ll give you that. Other Piggs who are/were teachers are encouraged to weigh in.
Unions like to claim that private schools only look good because they “cherry pick” from the pool of students. Of course that would skew the results.
However, fair-minded research can correct for that by eliminating outliers. Some private schools, especially inner-city Catholic, take all comers and are much-preferred by poor, single-parent black families, who may be able to afford only a small portion of the tuition but give volunteer time to the school plus get private donor assistance. All this happens for about one-half to two-thirds the cost per student per year compared to the taxpayer-supported school. That kind of productivity is what so embarasses the public school system and encourages the private/voucher/choice movement. BTW, the increasing number of parents who send their kids to private schools should be applauded by parents who don’t, because they subtract government expenses while still paying taxes for public schools. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.