Education in this country

mdaudioguy

steveinaz wrote: »

Parents BACK the schools, schools BACK the parents. Your children aren't entitled to a say in the matter--sorry.

Who's going to teach some of the parents to be parents? I hear them complaining and saying emphatically that they know best, but then I see what they let their children get away with - and what their children get away with that they don't know about. Quite a few parents I've run across are just plain incompetent.

codyc1ark

[QUOTE=steveinaz;1539891- Discipline. Period. Needs to be re-established and ENFORCED. No cell phones. No ipods. No electronic device that isn't directly connected with your education. Not saying they can't have one--just that it will be shut off during classroom hours. We didn't need one, and neither do you[\QUOTE]

My mother was a teacher for 32 years. She taught, was a play director, school newspaper, honors teacher, yearbook, head of the local library board, and many more. I grew up with this in small town Iowa, I feel like _I_ have it pegged!!!

Steven is right, discipline. But it seems like a lot of people here blame the 'system' or the 'teachers'. Its neither of them in my opinion. Its the parents, its our society. Parents blame the school and teachers for anything that goes bad. I can't tell you how many times my mother has been blamed for a kid failing her class. It wasn't because she failed the student, it was because the student did not come to class or do their homework. We can blame the government, teachers, schools, administrators.

Whatever.

It comes down to parents, make sure your kid can read by the time they enter kindergarten, make sure your kid reads and is involved from there, and stay with them. If they waiver, do what you must to keep them in line, if your going to have a child, that is more important then your spouse, your job, your life, anything. THE only people we can blame for our education in America is parents, for being lazy about education.

If your kid is not doing well, you need to be talking to the school about what you can be doing to make it better. Not saying to the school 'You ain't teachin' my kid right!'. Let's get involved, lets man up and take responsibility for this. We can't blame anyone except for ourselves.

sucks2beme

Teach the test? Go to a North Texas school, and every year around TAKS
testing time, they spend two weeks prepping them to pass the test.
Yes, that's how they get the ratings. My kids were disgusted.
So was I, but that's the way it is. Growing up in Iowa many decades ago,
the prep for the Iowa tests of basic skills consisted of making sure every
student had two sharpened #2 pencils, and to fill in the little circles fully.
Texas once looked at the Iowa tests, and decided they were too tough a
standard to use! My favorite, inclusion. My son told me of a kid that just
banged his head on the desk all day for the semester. He was so glad the
day they moved him to a different classroom. There's a good learning environment
for you. All so some parent could feel good.

The best thing I remember about school? ERA reading labs.
They used them in second and third grade to speed reading and
test comprehension. That's what clicked with me. A tool that works.

tonyb

mdaudioguy wrote: »

Who's going to teach some of the parents to be parents? I hear them complaining and saying emphatically that they know best, but then I see what they let their children get away with - and what their children get away with that they don't know about. Quite a few parents I've run across are just plain incompetent.

True, some use school as just a babysitting service too. I'll bet once they have to pay for it, then maybe they would take interest in it.

tonyb

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166011983939364.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Good article, asks why unions don't violate anti trust laws. Exemptions were given along time ago.

dorourke07

Schools teach to the test because that's how we pay them. Federal dollars are given to the state based on the state's scores. If you want your state to get the money your kids need to pass the test. This is the "no child left behind" program.

Also, I think we are throwing too many numbers around here that have no backing. "teachers don't pay anything for health care" or "charter schools are cheaper". Neither is entirely true and I think most people would be very offended if their job was spoken of in this manner. I know the teachers in Ohio are on a 20% copay plan and I know the Charter schools in Toledo are using Federal grants.

sucks2beme

DSkip wrote: »

Inclusion is a great idea, but I think it is generally misunderstood. I doubt it hindered any learning as much as you would think. The general population learns to deal with the adversity. In one or two schools I've been in, I have seen it where students barely able to function be included in regular classrooms. That bothered me some. However, the students in the room were very understanding and really only paid attention to that student when he/she was out of control. It was really something great to experience.

Inclusion done right usually has an aide paired with the included student. That student is the aides sole responsibility in all aspects and should remove the student if the behavior becomes too disruptive to the learning environment. It just depends on where the teacher/aide place that threshold.

My wife went over to check it out. It was all that and more.
Stupid squared.

tonyb

It's different around the country, no doubt. In DC, they did away with federal grants to charter schools, competition for the unions.
Look, if a charter school can produce better results, lets say for 7 g's per pupil, would that not be a system to look into ? Considering your basic public school costs around 9 g's on up per pupil, and thats with even those with no kids in the system paying. Charter schools for the most part are user pay, only those useing the school pay for it. Alot of times with no assistance from government. If you remove the opportunity to even try a different system, then the results will never change.

Demiurge

98Badger wrote: »

If you have been watching things unfold, you will see the unions have agreed to paying more for health care and pensions. This is no longer about balancing the budget. Notice the police and firefighter unions are exempt from the budget bill. I wonder which candidate they supported? Breaking the unions is a political move to ensure a certain party remains in power. As for the comment about public employees continuing to get wage and benefit increases that is not exactly correct. Many/most have taken pay freezes or been forced to take furlough days without pay. I'm not sure how that equates to wage and benefit increases. The way I see it, the system is corrupt on both sides. It's about either party gaining/maintaining political power. Unfortunately, we seem to be moving more in the direction of "money talks".

In terms of changing education, I do think many of the posts make excellent points. The system does need to be adjusted. Unfortunately, the changes that will have the greatest effect are cultural and the most difficult to implement. The newst generation seems to have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement and a lack of motivation. Until that changes, I seriously doubt any attempts at fixing the system will be effective. Let's raise the bar instead of lowering it.

:rolleyes:

Money talks? No ****.

What do you think has been going on with the public sector unions since they were founded? They fund the campaigns in Wisconsin to the tune of 20% to the Democrats. That's just the public sector unions. In exchange for the political donations, the Democrats carry water for the unions. Don't think they do? Why are they all hiding out in Illinois and Iowa? So the public can see the bill? We've had 3 weeks to debate the damn thing now. Its been seen. Furthermore, union member have zero say about being in a union or their money being funneled to liberals if they want to be a state worker in Wisconsin.

Where I'm from they call that extortion and bribery.

They don't give a damn about the taxpayers, nor do they give a damn about your average union member. If they did, the 14 pussies would be in Madison doing their damn job instead of camping out in other states (which is illegal).

Its about balancing the budget and its about neutering the public sector unions, which have no business existing. Its a conflict of interest of the highest order and its going to change. The **** fit being thrown by Obama's OFA thugs and union goons has NOTHING to do with the modest request for healthcare and pension contributions for state workers and everything to do with giving the people of Wisconsin their voice back. To choose whether they want to be in a union and to choose where their money goes. Why don't you want the people of Wisconsin to have that sensible choice? Should I get to tell you where you can spend your money if you work for the state? Of course not.

Here's the salary of the nut ball who was screaming at reporters in Madison last week:



95K per year at 80% full-time employment and working 9 months out of the year.

These people aren't living in the real world. Let me guess, you're a union member.

nooshinjohn

What the hell is a fusion course in social studies??? I thought that would be either a music course or some science stuff that I would barely understand.

tonyb

DSkip wrote: »

This isn't to argue your point, but to introduce something to think about for the average parent.

The price per student can be misleading too. Take three students in a given district: one in a 3 year old school, one in a 30 year old school, and one in a 90 year old school. Who gets the better education, given all prices per student are identical? Maintenance of buildings gets rolled into the average, so it can be somewhat misleading when you look at identical budgets for these schools. The newer school will be able to afford so many luxuries with the same money that the others wont. Students in the 90 year old school will have an extreme cut in the true education cost per student, and nothing can be done about it. Most times, these are historical sites that are protected by historical socieities.

...and as a historical site, your open to a stream of federal grants that charters aren't. Overall costs are a part of the budget,sure, and those vary from state to state, communities,counties,and so on. Your example, holds some validity, but a new school also has to pay for the building rather an older one thats been paid for. Kinda a wash there, new school with a mortgage and little maintenance, old school paid for,higher maintenance. Plus I have been in many older schools and I will say that upkeep is not on the priority list.
Lots of good arguements in this thread, but in general what I am hearing is reasons why we can't do better. We can, if you have the will to start with a blank sheet of paper instead of trying to bandaid a broken system.

tonyb

Well, some districts, just 2 years gets you tenure. A concept started at universities.
Again, you can't pay a teacher more because of union rules. You should be able to pay a certain skill set, just like in private industry. Charter schools have the leway to do just that.
Look at it like this, since I am in the construction field,I'll use it as an example.
You hire a carpenter at 25 bucks an hour. You expect a certain skill level for top dollar, as an employer. You have a guy who's skill set is 15 bucks an hour, but the union says nope,you have to pay 25 bucks an hour. As an employer, you have to have the better workers compensate for the lower skilled worker instead of being able to adjust his pay accordingly.
The taxpayer is the employer, the teacher is the employee.
The taxpayer has no input as to wage and benefits they must pay, or any expectation of accountability. Think in your own work place, if you could demand a level of pay and benefits,without worry of termination, and your employer had no say in it. Sounds fair eh ? It is a collusion between union leaders and law makers. In the article I quoted earlier from the WSJ, the author gives the example of imagining all the airlines getting together to fix prices on flights. You have to pay if you want to fly,right ? We have anti trust laws to remedy that situation from occuring....except for unions.
Regardless of which side you fall on in this, the relationship between taxpayer monies and public unions is a confrontational one.
I've said in many threads over the years that money corrupts, and to change things,you have to change the flow of the money or cut it off. We see it on wall street, government, unions, foreign policy, corporations, and so on. What makes anyone think the situation in Wisconsin is any different ? Who's the loser ? The kids of coarse. This whole thing is about the adults, not a word about the kids. The head of the NEA even admits to it. He said they don't care about kids,schools, only about union dues and power. Another one said when the kids start paying union dues, the union will represent them. What more do you need to see that this needs to change ? If anything for the sake of public education for our kids,and our country as a whole. Maybe a better comparison is to look what unions have done to France. Can't happen here huh....one look at Wisconsin is all you need.

tonyb

See what you started Steve,damn you.:biggrin:

mrbigbluelight

DSkip wrote: »

Sigh.

1. A teacher's union is stupid. Plain and simple. You are a public servant, not a laborer.

Yes, and as a teacher ( a public servant ) you should, as Gov. Christie points out, " ... they feel rewarded by the progress their 'children' make, they feel challenged by the moment of teaching a child a new concept that they know that they're going to be able to use for the rest of their lives, and that they get a great sense of satisfaction out of that."

Absolutely.
Your rewards shouldn't come in any form of monetary renumeration !
No, you should feel 'rewarded' by the progress your 'children' make.
If you're a teacher, and don't feel that way entirely, than ..... well ..... then ... I don't know. I'm beginning to have doubts about you.

Seems to me that you're a little more concerned with your own biological children at home, and their needs (food, shelter, clothes, medical care).
You need to think of other children first, like .... my kids. We allow you the opportunity to experience the great challenge of teaching my kids (who have zero morals, attention span, respect for anything, manners, or goals because I'm too busy making money). We generously allow you to experience a great sense of satisfaction from that and yet you still have these outdated, outlandish ideas such as being able to join with your fellow teachers and bargain collectively as a group !

Ideas that are, well .... rather socialist, if I dare say !!
Not like MY ideas which are red-blooded and true American !!
It's true !! Can't you see my American Flag lapel pin !!

:rolleyes:

cokewithvanilla

Teaching should be done online..

Done, all problems solved. We can pay the smartest people in the world millions per year to teach our kids, because a handful of teachers can lecture to the entire population. We won't have these stupid arguments about unions and pay because there will be less than 100 teachers for k-12 in the entire US

With the extra money the states have from getting rid of the school systems, we will have enough money to send out the proper books and materials the students will need.


:biggrin:

agfrost

tonyb wrote: »

Please explain to me why most charter schools excell,even in poor counties,inner cities, at less costs than public schools ?

*had to edit to fit post length*

I'm in the union, but I'm in the business of teaching because I want to teach. I'm also from a family of teachers (Mom and Dad, about 7 or 8 aunts and uncles, and my wife.) I most certainly am a union employee (no choice there), but I rarely think about this fact. I have a job that I like, and I get to do what I want to do, which is teach kids and make them more ready for college and beyond.

Your questions (and posts you've made in other threads) make it clear that you've thought about these issues more than I ever have, and more than I ever care to. I'll try to answer your questions, but up front I'll say I haven't ever considered some of them. I'm a member of the union, but I've no doubt that many others, yourself included, have given more thought to the teachers union than I have. I suspect my attempts at answering your questions won't be as illuminating as you might be hoping; you'd get meatier answers if I were more active in the union/knowledgeable about my own union affairs (or what it's like for "everyone else" in the workforce), or if I were more opinionated--It's just not my nature to hold & voice strong opinions. So this'll be pretty lukewarm.

Are you happy with the way the system is set up to incorporate change,and if not,do you feel your hands are tied, and if so,by who ?
I'm not sure what type of change that you're referring to here. Please let me know what you're getting at, and I'll be better able to answer.

Since non union taxpayers are contributing to your benefits and pay, should they not have a say as to what that should encompass ?
This is one of the commonly trotted out questions; I don't have an extreme viewpoint on this. I recognize that fiscal responsibility commensurate with current economic realities is needed; I also recognize that there is a significant population that would be more than happy if zero of their tax dollars went towards paying teachers/supporting schools. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about this, but exactly how would you like your voice to be heard, so that you can "have your say?" In an income-generating business, it's obvious that benefits and pay are related to the profitability of the corporation; how are these decisions made for schools, where there are no profits, but the "business" is (hopefully) seen universally as a necessary public service? I don't want to knock door-to-door at every area taxpayer's house to negotiate my salary and benefit needs; so I guess I'm glad that my representatives (the union) are doing the negotiations with the school district's representatives (the school board). Correct me if you know that I'm wrong, but salary and benefits are negotiated locally at the district level, it's only retirement benefits that are done at the statewide level. Now, do school board members truly represent their constituents? This question is much like that asked of politicians, and I suspect that there's a very muddled answer.

On average, what class room size would be appropriate for the average teacher, give or take, pupils per class?
No easy answers to your questions. What are your goals: optimal education, or optimal cost savings? In my high school, we've had a significant reduction in staff over the last couple of years due to budget concerns, and our classrooms are more full than ever. I teach in a laboratory classroom that has lab space for 24 students; that used to be the max number I'd see. This year I've got 32 in my classes--it works OK for lecture/discussion, but gives me nightmares about labs. There are too many bodies, and I don't do all the labs I'd like to due to the overcrowding. If I'm letting my kids walk around with beakers of strong acids or bases, there's a lawsuit just waiting to happen. Next year our class sizes will be even larger. Not a lot of possibilities for tightening the pursestrings any further than currently planned.

Elementary is another story, albeit one I'm less familiar with. I'm sure there's a "magic number" of students beyond which students simply won't be getting the outcome they would in a smaller classroom. That's another district-level issue: how do you walk the line, find the balance?

Do you feel at any time you are pressured to pass students that in your opinion, don't deserve to move on to the next grade ?
I'm somewhat lucky in that I don't teach a class that most students need to graduate high school. Many students take my subject, but ones in danger of not graduating will likely never walk through my classroom doors. That said, there is pressure to pass students. My former boss had some undefined (to teachers" threshold percent where, if you had more than that percent of students getting D's and E's, you had to go into a meeting to explain why this was the case. This in spite of what was often pretty obvious reasons: The kid was absent/truant 25 days this semester, or never turned in one lick of work all year long, etc. I assume that teachers who teach classes that are required for graduation feel the pressure more than I. Again, elementary school is another can of worms with which I am unfamiliar.

Are you afraid of any retribution from your union if you speak up in oposition to any of their policies or practices ? Hasn't come up in my experience. My experience with the union isn' t that they're bullying teachers, trying to keep us toeing some party line. I suppose that could be going on somewhere, but to me it sounds like a fiction novel.

Do you devote any additional time either before or after school to kids struggling to cut it ? Yes. I'm not even aware of what my contractually obligated hours are; I'm at school early, I'm usually one of the last to leave in the evenings (I've curtailed a bit: before marriage, in school daily until 8pm, after marriage, till 5 or 6 pm; after kids, til 5 on days I don't pick them up). I'm often online discussing homework on my wikispace page between the hours of 7 and 10 pm. I offer to have review sessions on Saturday mornings, particularly as the big spring exams come close. I "give up" my planning and lunch periods to work with students who need help.

Do you feel, as a taxpayer, that you should have to pay for services you don't receive ?
I'm just one person, but I personally will never have a problem paying taxes for the educational system. I can't explain how highly I value education, and that's not just true for my own education. Or my children's. Or the neighbors-who-I-like's children. Of all your questions, this is really the only one that strikes at a nerve with me (and this is not directed at you, but at a sentiment that I know darn well is out there). I believe strongly in doing things for the good of the community, and education is not an area that people should be arguing "I'm not using those services." I don't get how one can, in one moment, gripe about 'kids today,' or how our country is losing out to other countries, or how we ain't what we used to be; and then in the next breath say "I don't want to pay to educate other people's kids." But that's just me. Back to your question: is the service valuable? If you honestly answer yes, then you're kind of duty bound to support it. Money for firemen, policemen, and schools isn't generated by those professions themselves. They are supported by the taxpayer. Actually, this is one of the largest segments of your local taxes, yes? But that money isn't coming from elsewhere. Public schools don't have the option of charging $7K per student, so it's got to be tax revenue that pays the bills. That's one of the reasons for education being so out front in the news: Times are tough, money is tight, states are having budget issues and a monstrous hunk of their budgets go toward education, social services, and the like. So what's the most likely area to cut? I'd be happy to share with you and the world if I had the answer, but sadly I do not.

By that I mean as a homeowner,no kids.

Well, that's not me. But I didn't have an issue with my tax burden before I had kids, and that's for the reasons stated above, not just because I'm a teacher. I'll repeat, I just don't get the "I don't have kids, I shouldn't be paying for schools." In my eye (My mom would say "Mark this with an O for opinion"), those taxes are just the cost of doing business if you live in a state with state taxes.

I don't know how satisfying my answers are, but I spent a sh*tload of time typing 'em up so no complaining!

Please explain to me why most charter schools excell,even in poor counties,inner cities, at less costs than public schools ?

Have you got a link showing the success of charter schools? My impression is that they have been struggling, but I'm not following closely. There are interests that desperately would like to see charter schools succeed, and those who'd desperately love to see them fail. I'm sure articles showing both are out there.

dorourke07

Its interesting how the discussion is framed (nationally). This is not an arguement about where the public sectors benefits and pay went, its about taking those benefits away from others too. Its not about the contracts that board members and CEO's negociate for them themselves but why everyone else cannot have a contract. We seem very focused on punishing the unions but what about the other side of the negociation, what were our rep's thinking when they agreed to this in the first place.

Demiurge

dorourke07 wrote: »

Its interesting how the discussion is framed (nationally). This is not an arguement about where the public sectors benefits and pay went, its about taking those benefits away from others too. Its not about the contracts that board members and CEO's negociate for them themselves but why everyone else cannot have a contract. We seem very focused on punishing the unions but what about the other side of the negociation, what were our rep's thinking when they agreed to this in the first place.

Huh?

steveinaz

treitz3 wrote: »

Steve....no love? I asked you a question.

My bad, I had to go back and find the question. The topic is in the limelight lately, so I thought I'd comment about it.

steveinaz

tonyb wrote: »

True, some use school as just a babysitting service too. I'll bet once they have to pay for it, then maybe they would take interest in it.

Absolutely. In my own opinion, I feel 40% of the problem lies with parents who want school to teach their kids manners, discipline, how to tie their shoes, read, everything--this is a parental responsibility.

BTW, my daughter-in-law is a teacher, and a VERY good one. She constantly shares horror stories about the idiot principal who couldn't care less about the students--and the complaining parents. She has had parents actually tell her what they want their kid taught! She reminds them there is a standard outline that is followed. She heads the PTA, and says rarely does a single parent show.

Her kids, my grandchildren--could all read at the age of 3; and as would be expected, they all do very well in school. Guess what? No video games allowed when they were younger, no internet---and no, none of them have a cell phone. Now that they are 8, 10, and 12, she has now allowed them to get a Wii, which is very limited in use, and is in the den where she can monitor what they are doing. All games are pre-approved by Mommy--no exceptions. They have never been allowed to watch "adult" themed TV--at all, and their TV is seriously limited as well, she sends them outside to PLAY.

tonyb

All of you who have kids in college, or have put them through higher education, you paid a pretty good buck for those years,yes ? Did you not pay close attention to your kids progress, pay attention to if your kid was even showing up to class ?
Why ??
Because it's your money, you worked your **** off for it and don't want to see it wasted. If your not paying for your kids education, are you motivated to have concern over how the public money is spent ? Here in Ill., our system collects for schools by your real estate taxes. So if you don't own real estate, your kids get a free ride public education. If you own real estate, and want to send your kid to a private school, you pay for both. If you have no kids and own real estate, say your retired, you still pay for public schools.
Thats fair.
The collective bargaining end of this is whats really being protested. Not the quality of education, the schools. I support a groups right to collective bargain,but also support the other sides right to say NO. When it comes to public unions, the public,as in your leaders, should have the right to fire any who strike and don't show up for work. Much like Reagan did to the air traffic controllers. But the system is rigged in favor of politicians and unions. Another example is the Davis-Bacon act of 1931, yep 80 years ago,while racist in it's own right, won't get into that now, states that all construction projects with federal money in it,or in part, must pay the prevailing wage. What is the prevailing wage ? The union prevailing wage. So again, you have a pool of taxpayer money, funding union jobs, for union members who pay dues, then gets recycled back to elect politicians that are sitting on the other side of the negotiating table. Could you do this in your work place ? Imagine giving bribes to the head of HR in a company you are negotiating with for a salary and benefits package.
These lucrative contracts between states and local public unions just are not sustainable anymore. The long term unfunded pension liability alone is staggering. The answer to most unions and legislators is to raise taxes, take more of what you have,for them. The people of Wisconsin have stood up and said enough is enough, stop. Along with many other states on this merry-go-round. Thus the push back by unions. Nobody is trying to kick anyone down into the bowels of poverty,as some would have you believe. But common sense must prevail. You can't have a real discussion or negotiation if one side is rigged.
As a side note, Just want to point out that after the Arizona shooting of a congress woman, the call for civility in rhetoric by all,from both sides,including the prez, to see it tossed out the window so fast, with nothing being said in the press or our leaders, says volumes.

dorourke07

Demiurge wrote: »

Huh?

Why are we so focused on taking away the benefits. I have watched my benefits get cut every year the last 10 years in the private sector. Why isn't our debate on how to get benefits back into the private sector? Is our end goal to have everyone make $7.00 an hour and have no benefits?

Demiurge

dorourke07 wrote: »

Why are we so focused on taking away the benefits. I have watched my benefits get cut every year the last 10 years in the private sector. Why isn't our debate on how to get benefits back into the private sector? Is our end goal to have everyone make $7.00 an hour and have no benefits?

Nobody is proposing taking away the benefits, but if they are -- so what? Economies don't just go up, they also go down. In bad times, pay gets cut, hours get cut, benefits get slashed -- all to cover shortfalls and lost profits and in order not to cut jobs. That's what happens. Businesses have the power in employment when there is mass unemployment because the talent pool is deep.

When the economy is great, you can demand things of employers who are competing for talent from a shallow pool. Variables thrown out, if company ABC doesn't offer as good of pay and benefits of company DEF, what do you think is likely to happen? Company ABC will lose out on the employee they want to company DEF, or they'll have to match or surpass the offering of company DEF to lure that employee to them.

We're asking for state workers to pay a portion of their health care and kick in to their pension. In Wisconsin, the teacher's union has its own health insurance company. No other companies are allowed to compete and provide health care for the teachers other than WEA Trust. What good does that do the taxpayer?

They can sell a $30,000 policy that an independent insurance company could sell for $18,000 and funnel the $12,000 difference to fund union propaganda and fund the campaigns of the politicians who will carry water for them.

I have NO problem with businesses, unions, or any other entity having the ability to finance campaigns to whatever tune they wish. However, in the case of state workers, the workers themselves have no say in where their union dues are shuffled off to. That's bull ****.

With states on the verge of bankruptcy due to overspending, both on services and on labor, such as rich health are coverage, and sweetheart pensions, we can't afford it. That's why there are requests for state workers to share in the suffering of the private sector employee and employer.

Did you know that when state workers in Wisconsin retire, they can cash in their banked sick days from their entire career in public service? If you racked up 140 sick days in 20 years of public service, you will be issued a check for all of those days, in full, at that years salary. If you were making $20K/YR. when hired and $80K/YR. at retirement, you'll get your sick pay at the $80K/YR. rate.

Ever heard of such a thing in the private sector? No? Know why? Because most businesses can't afford such a perk without going out of business.

Pycroft

I have read a lot, but not all responses to this thread. When I have time later I will finish. A few thoughts. I think many of you are off base and know not what you talk about.

Education is different than the business world - period. You cannot measure efficiency in education. You can subjectively see it, but not measure it. Measuring whether a teacher is doing a good job based on how well students of theirs do on tests is like measuring how good of a doctor someone is by the percentage of people who come in obese. By measuring teachers in this way, it is not taking into account so many things - background, disabilities, lack of parental support, financial circumstances, etc. Also, is public education going to turn into simply Math and Language Arts? There are no tests for Social Studies/History, Science (There is a test, and they test on it, but it doesn't count toward the AYP), Art, Music, Foreign Language, etc. If you are measuring a worker, you are measuring how well they are doing compared to a standard set by the company. The government has set an unrealistic standard with No Child Left Behind. It's like saying to a factory worker, "I want you to be able to put 1 million tops on the bottle today". You reply, "I was only able to do 4,000 yesterday). "Well then, you can do 8,000 tomorrow, 15,000 the next day, 30,000 the next day, and after a month, you can do a million. If you fail along the way, you are fired". If I was working in a factory, I would just quit.

Regarding vouchers, I think it's funny when people taught private education and the voucher system. If a school is 'failing' we will allow those students in the failing school to attend a successful school, and all is well. First off, private schools can remove students who are not doing well, and it's obvious if the parents have the money and dedication to send their children there, they probably are hiring private tutors, reading with them at home, etc. If you take a student who is unsuccessful in a school, and move them to a school that is successful, and you don't fix the issues with the student, they will just be moving the problems to a differnt place. I firmly believe that education STARTS and ENDS at home. Parents must be actively involved in their child's education, read to them and with them, discuss and help with homework where they are able, make them accountable for their success and failures.

Regarding education of old and new, hardly anything has changed in the last 50 years in education. We get up, take a bus to school, have a bell that rings to send us to the next classes, have teachers lecture to us about something, and if we retain in, we are successful and so is the teacher. The system is antiquated, it needs to be addressed. The change can only begin from the top down. Maybe school days should be longer. Perhaps no summer break where students have almost 3 months to forget everything. Perhaps instead, longer breaks throughout the year to break it up. 2 weeks at christmas. Two weeks for spring break. Two weeks during the summer. Throw in a few long weekends here and there, but somethign more consistent.

Educational philosophy has changed a lot. The methods are advancing, and the understanding of how children learn and the best methods to teach them are much better now than they have ever been. Technology has advanced in so many ways that should be helping the situation. The fact is, teachers can't go home with the children...they aren't responsible for them once they leave the classroom (Usually for 40-60 minutes a day), and then they are off on their own. For those of us with students in the Middle School years. Do your children or the children that you know have the same work ethic that we did when we were younger? Do they have the same accountability? I find many students that age care more about XBoxing and Facebooking than they should.

Can teachers do better? Sure. Can schools do better? Sure. I think the blame starts with parents.

James

tonyb

Your right James, parents have to be involved, at home and at school. The whole buisness plan of schools needs to change with the number one priority being the kids, not the adults.
I do disagree on the ability to measure a good teacher/bad teacher. It may be subjective,but heck, in the real world,your pay is also subjective by a boss who may or may not like you for whatever reason. You have to have the fortitude to change what is broken, and not cower to outside pressures. I would bet if you started with a blank sheet, had teachers,parents, involved in the building of a learning process, you would see incredible change in the final out come.
The quality of the education is not even a sticking point, it's about money, and the ability to stick up the tax payer in the future. Have you guys paid any attention to MS. Rhee who was in charge of the D.C schools ? She fought the same battles. Came up with a plan to raise teachers salary well into the 6 figure range, if only the union would let her dump the teachers that were not so good. The union nixed that idea. She wound up leaving as the system has no intention of benefiting the kids or the good teachers.
Some even home school their kids, given no choice in a failing system, many parents these days do it while still paying for public schools. Some cities even have initiatives to do away with home schooling. Why do you think that is ? The battle is not with the teachers, but with the unions and their puppets in government. Giving the teachers a choice to be in a union or not, and giveing the taxpayer some relief seems logical to me.

98Badger

Demiurge wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Money talks? No ****.

What do you think has been going on with the public sector unions since they were founded? They fund the campaigns in Wisconsin to the tune of 20% to the Democrats. That's just the public sector unions. In exchange for the political donations, the Democrats carry water for the unions. Don't think they do? Why are they all hiding out in Illinois and Iowa? So the public can see the bill? We've had 3 weeks to debate the damn thing now. Its been seen. Furthermore, union member have zero say about being in a union or their money being funneled to liberals if they want to be a state worker in Wisconsin.

Where I'm from they call that extortion and bribery.

They don't give a damn about the taxpayers, nor do they give a damn about your average union member. If they did, the 14 pussies would be in Madison doing their damn job instead of camping out in other states (which is illegal).

Its about balancing the budget and its about neutering the public sector unions, which have no business existing. Its a conflict of interest of the highest order and its going to change. The **** fit being thrown by Obama's OFA thugs and union goons has NOTHING to do with the modest request for healthcare and pension contributions for state workers and everything to do with giving the people of Wisconsin their voice back. To choose whether they want to be in a union and to choose where their money goes. Why don't you want the people of Wisconsin to have that sensible choice? Should I get to tell you where you can spend your money if you work for the state? Of course not.

These people aren't living in the real world. Let me guess, you're a union member.

Yes, unions make campaign contributions. Are you saying they shouldn't? If so, then businesses shouldn't be able to either. Very few politicians on either side of the fence care about the average person they represent. I never said they did.

You are entitiled to your opinion about the bill being about a balanced budget. If that were really the case, it would have passed already. By the way, if you look, you will see Walker put a provision that gives him a raise if the budget passes. Why isn't there a provision asking our elected officials pay more for their health insurance and pension? They get medical insurance and pension for life after a single term.

Apparently you don't want your tax dollars going to public workers. Well, I didn't want my tax dollars bailing out private sector big business, but I didn't have a say in that either. If I have to support big business, I expect the same in return. Yes, I am a public employee. I never tried to hide that. So sorry that I think years of education and hard work should allow me to make a fair living. :rolleyes:

Bottom line is this is going to have a huge negative impact on education and the middle class.

Pycroft

I would be very curious, if people are so in favor of grading teachers or rating teachers and increasing pay for 'good' teachers..how do you figure it out. That is such the current term. Pay the good teachers, and get rid of the bad. What are the qualifications of the 'good' and 'bad'? I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to come up with. Again, people are trying to measure education like a business. Let's have a discussion about it and put up your ideas.

James

cnh

Public Schools are NOT my domain. I teach at the college level. But about 50 percent of the students I teach come from those 'wealthy' private schools' boys and girls. And I can tell you that they are, as a WHOLE, no 'better' educated than many of my public school kids (and I don't want to hear any 'debate' about this because I've taught hundreds if not thousands of these individuals). Why? Because Exeter and P.A.Andover, etc. are MONEY making institutions that cater to the parents who can 'afford' to send their kids there. They are NOT going to fail a student who is goofing off or having too much fun. Many of these kids are so 'entitled' because they are private-schoolers that they are 'far' more difficult to teach because they want 'you' to acknowledge their 'privilege', entitlement even when it is UNWARRANTED. If I had a 'dime' for every prep school kid I've taught who was just 'average', I'd be a rich man! It's a game, a profit making one and I'm not 'impressed' with it! Now there are some good kids who come out of almost ANY environment. A lot of that is self-motivation. When I was in college I learned a lot from a teacher who every student thought was 'incompetent' and couldn't teach--I read the books, I thought, I asked questions. There were a LOT Of things to learn in the syllabus?? I used to tell my 'privileged' classmates to stop whining and DO THE WORK!

You can 'learn' something from almost anyone, if 'you' want to!

When I turned 14 I realized that my parents could NEVER afford to send me to a good college so I resolved, on my own, to make sure that I graduated at the very top of my class and I received a full scholarship to a snotty liberal arts college then went on to the Ivy Leagues for grad school?

The questions lie in what WILL motivate the student. And I'm still working on the answer. What James says above also applies to college. Individual students and professors come in all varieties. Some combinations work, others don't and even those that do ONE semester might not the next!

cnh

Demiurge

98Badger wrote: »

Yes, unions make campaign contributions. Are you saying they shouldn't? If so, then businesses shouldn't be able to either.

If you've read this thread, you'd know I hadn't. The point you missed is that the campaign contributions are bilked from the state workers, many of whom do not share your liberal philosophy. Put the shoe on the other foot and tell me what you'd think.

98Badger wrote: »

Very few politicians on either side of the fence care about the average person they represent. I never said they did.

Fortunately we finally have a governor who does.

98Badger wrote: »

You are entitiled to your opinion about the bill being about a balanced budget. If that were really the case, it would have passed already.

If the 14 Democrat weenies were participating in the democratic process rather than hiding out in other states, illegally (you failed to address that), the bill would already be passed.

98Badger wrote: »

By the way, if you look, you will see Walker put a provision that gives him a raise if the budget passes.

The same Walker who cut his own salary as Milwaukee County Exec? Sorry if I don't take your word for it. Source, please.

98Badger wrote: »

Why isn't there a provision asking our elected officials pay more for their health insurance and pension? They get medical insurance and pension for life after a single term.

If you propose such a measure, I'll support it. There are 30,000+ state workers being asked to make these modest contributions to their own health care and retirement to deal with the budget shortfall caused by such sweetheart deals.

What's your solution? Raise more taxes? Raid the transportation fund again? Raid the tobacco settlement fund again?

Bandaids don't fix broken legs.

98Badger wrote: »

Apparently you don't want your tax dollars going to public workers.

Curious comment, since I've never said that nor insinuated it. To eliminate all doubt -- we need state workers. I applaud the vast majority of them who show up to work and don't ****.

98Badger wrote: »

Well, I didn't want my tax dollars bailing out private sector big business, but I didn't have a say in that either.

You'll have to point me to the bill Scott Walker signed that bailed out private sector big business.

He did do this.

Perhaps you're against a strong tax base being built here rather than businesses fleeing the state and workers taking off for Florida and non-tax **** upon retirement.

98Badger wrote: »

If I have to support big business, I expect the same in return. Yes, I am a public employee. I never tried to hide that. So sorry that I think years of education and hard work should allow me to make a fair living. :rolleyes:

I don't know what you're ranting about. Who is trying to take away your ability to make a 'fair living' by asking you to make modest contributions to your health care coverage and pension?

Perhaps I can't get attuned to your mentality because I am living in the real world where I'm not getting a fat GUARANTEED pension, a cadillac health care plan, and cost of living increases each year. That I can't bank my sick days for 40 years and retire with a big fat check at my retiring year salary rate for all of those sick days.

98Badger wrote: »

Bottom line is this is going to have a huge negative impact on education and the middle class.

I suppose Scott Walker's proposal in his budget to lift the caps on the voucher program and allowing any inner city kid, regardless of income level, to go to a private school instead of the rancid sewer known as MPS, is a bad thing for education.

With all the money we throw at education and the piss poor results we get by rewarding crap teachers and shunning the good ones, I'm all for shaking things up.

Enjoy the ride, because Walker won.

mrbigbluelight

Demiurge wrote: »

If you've read this thread, you'd know I hadn't. The point you missed is that the campaign contributions are bilked from the state workers, many of whom do not share your liberal philosophy.

And for those who don't share that philosphy, they can opt out of paying full share and pay a lesser amount (approximately 80 %).
They reap the benefits, they should share in the costs incurred in receiving those benefits.

Demiurge wrote:

If the 14 Democrat weenies were participating in the democratic process rather than hiding out in other states, illegally (you failed to address that), the bill would already be passed.

What statute was violated ?

demiurge wrote:

Perhaps I can't get attuned to your mentality because I am living in the real world where I'm not getting a fat GUARANTEED pension, a cadillac health care plan, and cost of living increases each year. That I can't bank my sick days for 40 years and retire with a big fat check at my retiring year salary rate for all of those sick days.

Well, then heed these words of wisdom, my friend:

"I will work harder" (Boxer, from "Animal Farm")
"I will work harder" (Jurgis, from "The Jungle")

See, if you weren't just so ..... almost hate to say this .... lazy, perhaps you'd have those things.
But you can't just wish them into your basket, you have to work hard. Or harder.

demiurge wrote:

I suppose Scott Walker's proposal in his budget to lift the caps on the voucher program and allowing any inner city kid, regardless of income level, to go to a private school instead of the rancid sewer known as MPS, is a bad thing for education.

Yes.

Demiurge wrote:

With all the money we throw at education and the piss poor results we get by rewarding crap teachers and shunning the good ones, I'm all for shaking things up.

Me too ! Was kind of wondering, though: should we do anything about administrators ?