Education in this country

sucks2beme

Pay really doesn't have any relationship to performance in teaching.
Anyone who tells you different is full of it. Given where budgets are going,
they are going to slip. Beating up unions is pretty popular around here.
It's not the main problem in education. The problem is the student
most of the time. The subjects and goals of each class are already mapped
at a higher level. Yes, some teachers do a better or worse job. But in the end,
a student that reads, and commits to the subject is going to do well.
If not, blaming the teacher is the norm. Until we take a more pressured
approach to learning, nothing changes. If half as much effort was put
toward students performing as they do football performance, you'd see big
gains. Go back to hard grading, and fail a lot of students. That is damned
unpopular, yet it's the only way to increase performance. If a high school
football player was treated like a student, they'd get winded running a
100 yards. And the coaches would half to cut it back to 50 yards.
Yes a portion of students are going to go down in flames. Get used to it.
But as long as classes are paced for dolts, nothing will change.

Demiurge

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

What statute was violated?

Wisconsin State Constitution:

Article IV, S28

Oath of office. Section 28. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices to the best of their ability.

Statute:

946.12 Misconduct in public office. Any public officer or public employee who does any of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:

946.12(1)

(1) Intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the officer's or employee's office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or

The reason they don't have the cowards extradited from the states they or hiding in or having them arrested in state is because an activist judge can then strike down whatever they pass as being in violation of the state constitution. Why? There's no precedent for senators in this state doing what these weenies did. There's a law, but no enforcement mechanism.

Now, I'm sure you don't care since you have no skin in this fight, but that's why.

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

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.

Your blue light is a bit dim and is giving off anything but wisdom, I see. Let me try to help you out.

Simply applying for and receiving a job as a government worker entitles that person to lavish benefits and pay as a condition of their employment. These conditions were 'negotiated' by unions who fund the campaigns of politicians through the underhanded mechanism of taking money from the public workers through forced unionization as a condition of employment, regardless of ideology, and funneling it to said campaigns (Democrats). If you don't see what's wrong with that, you're beyond help.

The benefits have nothing to do with working harder (A stupid philosophy, by the way. One should work smarter, not harder). Such benefit packages simply do not exist in the private sector. You can find exceptions to the rule like with most things, but everyone knows that the public sector is completely out of touch with how things work in the real world where markets don't just go up.

Furthermore, the private sector gives people unlimited potential. The public sector is limited by the tax revenue to pay for state services, which includes paying state employees. The current rates are unsustainable and a modest request will keep state workers working (none of them will quit when this stuff passes, by the way. Hmm, wonder why!?). The bad workers need to go and the good workers need to be embraced. Pay should be performance based.

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

Yes.

Fantastic insight, 10 watt.

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

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

Something should be done about any state employee who isn't doing a good job.

steveinaz

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.

Good question, I'm a federal worker (Dept of Defense), and our annual COLA (cost of living allowance) increases have been eliminated for the next 2 years, and that will likely be extended to 5 years--do have any idea what that does to my retirement planning? Our COLA increases have been some of the lowest for the last 7 years (Bush wasn't kind to fed workers either), There is also talk now of stopping within-grade step increases, and on-the-spot cash awards for exemplary performance, and a possibility of us paying a higher percentage of our healthcare benefit.

Have our Senators or Congressman taken any cuts? HELL NO. Like usual, the little guy takes the hit, so they can stand on the podium and puff their chest out while they proclaim "We have cut our own budget"..."WE" my ****.

Fed workers don't have collective bargaining rights, since Jimmy Carter eliminated them. And that's fine; I feel I get paid a fair wage, and there's no doubt the federal benefits are good. I don't mind taking the hit on COLA either, as long as the revenue saved isn't now wasted on liberal hand-outs.

Federal worker benefits (GS, WG, WM) don't come anywhere near resembling elected offical benefits--I think many people assume our benefits are the same--not even close.

Demiurge

Most private sector businesses don't have cost of living increases. Why can't I get guaranteed cost of living increases for simply being employed by someone? Perhaps its because we don't have an endless tax base to screw with, even in hard times.

Government tax revenues go down we either go into debt and continue the gravy train, raise taxes (and fees), raid essential public funds (such as roads, etc.), or....do the responsible thing and cut back wage and benefits for public workers. I know, that hardly ever happens. That only happens in the private sector where running budget deficits means having your doors shut and all of your employees lose their jobs.

tonyb

Curious, since we have some teachers responding in this thread. How do you,as a teacher,propose your pay be based on ? Your position? Education ? Years of service? Performance ? Also, who should decide this ? I hear alot of whineing,but no answers.
Your education, as someone stated earlier, does allow you to make a fair wage,but does not gaurantee it.
As a school district, you have to operate within a budget, yes ? As a state, you also have to operate within a budget, yes? Any normal buisness has to also or they'd be out of buisness. Your state is just saying that it can no longer gaurantee wage and benefit packages that continue to rise year after year. Any normal buisness could not sustain that without making cuts. Basic economic principles. However, when the state is told they have to pay for certain packages in healthcare benefits that far exceed the norm in the private sector, is where the trouble begins. That falls under their collective bargaining agreements, hence the attack on that. From what I understand, roughly 12% of the country is in a union. Does that make the other 88% chopped liver ? The other 88% is just saying they are tired of paying for the 12% who enjoy better pay and benefits than they do. Not hard to understand, for if the tables where turned,you'd feel the same way. The original position of public unions was they worked for less pay than their private sector counterparts,but had job security and a pension. Now, they had far exceeded what the private sector offers. The fight comes in when you give someone something and then want to take some of it away. Same fight will be had with entitlements, on a national level. A wise person once told me as a youngster that there are no gaurantees in life, while true, some expect it,even demand it, but it can not be sustained for any length of time.

steveinaz

COLA increases have never been a promised benefit (the percentage floats every year, dependant upon the approved budget)--but the Government uses them as such to attract better talent from the private sector. May I remind everyone, you too can be a Federal worker--if you think the benefits are so great--just apply. Just like you can be a brain surgeon as well, if you like that lifestyle. People shouldn't be penalized because they made a smart choice. Most GS workers don't make as much as the private sector in raw dollars, so the Governement loads us up on benefits to offset--just like the military branches.

steveinaz

Here's some reality, this is what I do, and what I get paid:

GS-2001-11 (General Supply Specialist)

I manage an 8,000 sq ft warehouse, that accounts for and stores network/computer equipment for DOA and DOD communications projects, worldwide. On any given day, I have over $6.5 million in assets in the warehouse that I am fully financially responsible for. If it goes missing, I buy it--at 100% replacement cost. We ship over $8.5 million a year (average over 10 years) though in 2006, we shipped over $16 million. I'm an accountable officer, to be more precise a Stock Record Officer. I have 1 assistant, a GS-9 who performs much of the same that I do. I establshed and authored our internal and external SOP's, created 5 databases from the ground up to manage everything effectively, and accurately--not to mention the audit trail archive these databases provide. I can tell you where every box of screws has gone, since 1997. I make all the priority designations, how projects will be handled (we have 27 currently contracted projects), maintain our DA funded shipping budget, and the general layout of the warehouse. Every item that enters this warehouse is given a unique document number, so the audit trail can be maintained; and I can ensure that Uncle Sam received everything he paid for, for each contract purchase. These items are then temp loaned to engineers for configuration, then shipped out per the project managers disposition orders.

The above is simply the "tip" of the iceberg. Keep in mind, I have 29 years of federal service. 29 years of institutional knowledge.

I make a whopping $59,000 a year.

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote: »

COLA increases have never been a promised benefit (the percentage floats every year, dependant upon the approved budget)--but the Government uses them as such to attract better talent from the private sector. May I remind everyone, you too can be a Federal worker--if you think the benefits are so great--just apply. Just like you can be a brain surgeon as well, if you like that lifestyle. People shouldn't be penalized because they made a smart choice. Most GS workers don't make as much as the private sector in raw dollars, so the Governement loads us up on benefits to offset--just like the military branches.

The government doesn't have to worry about closing its doors. They're not basing lavish benefits off anything but a whim. If I did that here, I'd have to let people go. Eventually, I'd have to go out of business. That's a consequence of irresponsibility in the private sector.

What's the consequences of irresponsibility in the public sector? None.

They print more money, go into debt, raise taxes, etc. Anything but deal with the problem.

You can say they use this, that, and the other to attract talent -- and that's fine, but at some point its too much. I don't see you complaining you're not fairly compensated for what you do, and most don't, but many of your counterparts do.

The suggestion that we all can become federal/state employees is obviously flawed. There are only so many positions available and bloating government further isn't my idea of being a responsible citizen.

Controlling my own hours, the kind of work I do, not being part of a union (state) and having no limits to my success are the reasons I chose not to go into public employment, among other things.

Those who did make that choice, I applaud them. Public employees are great. That does not mean they ought be shielded from our economy going down, as they are now. That does not mean they ought to be shielded from piss poor performance.

Right now the government is mostly about bodies, not results. Our government should be running as lean as possible. If they don't offer pay and benefits that will get people to work for them, they'll have to raise them. The problem is that they've never stopped raising them even when they can't afford to continue doing so.

jinjuku

cnh wrote: »

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!

Summed up: Asses in Classes = $$. Parents are ultimately responsible for their children's education. End of story.

What you need to make sure is that the school has programming to meet your childs need set. Plenty of AP and College level programming if your kid is so inclined. I have a nephew that is already attending 2 classes at Kent State and he is a Junior in HS. In his senior year he may only be in HS for 1/2 year and then to Kent full time for his undergrad.

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote: »

I make a whopping $59,000 a year.

Please post your complete benefit package, including pension, sick days, etc.

You absolutely cannot omit that, because they're huge.

Pensions in Wisconsin are based on your three highest years salary when you retire.

This was just a random teacher who was running his mouth in Madison a couple weeks ago. When you don't include his benefits he makes $1.5K less than you do.

He makes $95K in pay and benefits. He works 80% full time, and only 9 months a year. That's $169K in wage and benefits if he were a true full time worker 12 months a year. Teachers starting out usually make far less, but still get great benefits, including their guaranteed pension (not subject to the fall of the stock market -- taxpayers must make up the difference).

You're in what is still a pretty elite class if you're pulling in around $100K a year in a pay and benefits in this country in the private sector.



If we can pay public workers that well -- awesome. When the private sector takes a hit, so should you.

sucks2beme

Once again, pay scales may be flawed, but down here in Tejas, the problem
isn't teacher's pay. It's all the other stuff. Staff and overhead costs raise like
crazy. Should I also mention how many DISD(dallas school) managers have
been jailed in recent years? And countless others should of been.
I'm out in the burbs, but I still see all sorts of crap happening that runs
up costs. No classroom space? No lunchroom space? Solution: built big
honkin new football stadiums. Outsource food and maintenance-big savings?
No, seems it's much more expensive. Schools have become a new way for people
in charge to get rich. Control contracts, and you have the perfect cash cow.

Demiurge

jinjuku wrote: »

Summed up: Asses in Classes = $$. Parents are ultimately responsible for their children's education. End of story.

What you need to make sure is that the school has programming to meet your childs need set. Plenty of AP and College level programming if your kid is so inclined. I have a nephew that is already attending 2 classes at Kent State and he is a Junior in HS. In his senior year he may only be in HS for 1/2 year and then to Kent full time for his undergrad.

Almost all of my property taxes go to fund the schools in my city and I don't have any kids. What am I getting for my money but dumber kids year in and year out? Its the fault of the parents? Not in most cases, but in some, absolutely. Parents absolutely need to play a role in the education of their children, but when they're sitting in those classrooms for 6-8 hours a day, the parents can't be there to monitor what is or isn't being taught. Teachers have a great responsibility and many fail. I feel the worst for all the good teachers out there who are hamstrung by their unions and the kids who would benefit from more teachers like them. I had a some great teachers, but I can count them on one hand.

End of story? Not in the least. You can't teach a kid who doesn't want to learn, and teachers should have the ability to get disruptive kids out of their classrooms so they can teach better and willing students can learn better. On the flip side, what recourse does any parent have of getting rid of a crappy teacher? The school board? They're beholden to the unions.

Its no wonder why kids who come from families that can't afford private school, but get to go through voucher programs that highlight the dismal failure that are public schools (in general), succeed.

They have parents who care and teachers who care. There are consequences for failure.

Demiurge

sucks2beme wrote: »

Once again, pay scales may be flawed, but down here in Tejas, the problem
isn't teacher's pay. It's all the other stuff. Staff and overhead costs raise like
crazy. Should I also mention how many DISD(dallas school) managers have
been jailed in recent years? And countless others should of been.
I'm out in the burbs, but I still see all sorts of crap happening that runs
up costs. No classroom space? No lunchroom space? Solution: built big
honkin new football stadiums. Outsource food and maintenance-big savings?
No, seems it's much more expensive. Schools have become a new way for people
in charge to get rich. Control contracts, and you have the perfect cash cow.

The people who run these organizations don't care about the general welfare of their members. All the protests here have nothing to do with the modest request for pension and health care contributions and everything to do with the drastic cut in salary all of the union heads will have to take to cover all the shortfalls.

The administrators are just as greasy, but they're also union members.

To put some of this into perspective, the Green Bay Packers practiced in a high school facility in TX prior to the Super Bowl.

nooshinjohn

jinjuku wrote: »

Summed up: Asses in Classes = $$. Parents are ultimately responsible for their children's education. End of story.

This statement could not be further from the truth. It is not the parent that says teach my kid all about the quor'an(happening in Oakland and now in Texas) or that telling little Johnie he gets full credit for wrong answers in math class simply because he "tried really hard". These are descisions made by administrators and school boards, not parents. Try opposing a new curriculum or changes that are made to a current program. I am willing to bet if your views are not shared by the board, you will be shouted down and branded with whatever lable that want to hang on you. Educators on the fringe see themselves as superior to the "masses". In their idiology, the goal of an education is to "make a boy as completely different from his father as possible". I don't recall who it was that said this, but it was said during the beginnings of the progressive era, sometime in the early 1900's

I think most parents send their kids to school thinking that they wil be given a better quality education than what they received in school. I know I would expect that. Rather, kids today are expected to learn an agenda and little else. My children will never see the inside of a public school, and if the voucher system was ever fully set up in this country, you would be shocked by just how empty those classrooms would be. Parents would move their kids in a heartbeat to a better school. The current tax system that we all pay into dumps money into public education, where kids receive indoctrination, not education. Sadly most Americans cannot afford to send their children to private schools and MOST would if they had that chance.

I know teachers that would walk in a heartbeat because they too are sick of teaching eight year olds that it's ok to be "different" (****) This happened to my sisters kids in guess where...WISCONSIN!


Most parents DO care... most teachers DO care. It is those that are beholden to the agenda that do not. Education should be about the a persuit of the truth, and the TRUTH has no agenda.

Pycroft

I hate when people bring salaries into this. I have a teacher friend who lives and works in AZ. He makes far less than me, but the economy is different. If you're taking a teacher working in Wisconsin and comparing him or her to a private sector employee in AZ, that's a problem. You should look at teacher salaries in the same county. Also, I'd like to see how much educational background you have compared to a teacher. I know, speaking for myself, I make far less than an equally educated private sector employee. Throwing out numbers without knowledge is dangerous and causes people to make assumptions and generalizations that simply aren't true.

Here is me in a nut-shell. I went to a four-year college and gradated with my Bachelor's degree in education. I've worked for 10 years in the public school system. While working I spent my summer's going to a very competitive school and earning my Master's Degree in education. I work approximately 50 hours per week, every week, and work over the summer for at least a month on bettering myself as a teacher. This includes attending week long classes, seminars, teaching without pay for 2 weeks to earn hours toward my professional development activities that is required by my state. I would average the yearly days I work per year to be around 220 - 186 of them I get paid for, the others I do not. Figuring someone in the private sector works 5 days per week every week without vacation, that's 52 weeks x 5 = 260 days. I don't know of many that work every week without vacation - usually 2 weeks per year if I'm not mistaken? When you think of it that way, it makes the "You only work 9 months of the year" silly. It's not 'that' much less than the typical worker. Plus, I work 50+ hours per week. And that's not counting time 'grading tests' and similar arguments. I arrive at work each day 45 minutes early to work with students without pay. I work 5 days a week after school with students, 1 hour per day without pay, rehearsing with students and working toward community activities such as concerts, etc. etc. Then, if you wanted to add in the phone calls to parents, after school meetings regarding students, trip planning, fundraising, etc. that I do. Now, many of the things I do are expected by parents. I knwo of no other occupation that it's expected you do things outside of the typical work day without pay. Most jobs in the private sector will pay overtime, or give you a salary that's much greater than a typical teacher.

This was not to rant or whine. Just to give some insight. I'm a teacher that is not a complainer about what I do, but it hurts when people make generalizations about 'You only work 9 months a year' and 'You're overpaid'. My salary is 53,000 a year, and that is in NJ, where the economy is much different than other places. The cost of living is MUCH higher than many places I've seen down South (N. Carolina for instance where my mother and father live) or out west (Ohio, where a good friend lives). A friend in the private sector, with less education, less experience, who is an accountant makes about 80k a year without bonuses. He laughs when he calls and I'm still at work, and he's home drinking a beer. I pay into my health insurance, and I pay into my pension. That's not saying that the health care and pension I have are worthless. I think they are great, but it's also a fallacy that no teachers pay into that. It's the individual school district and bargaining units that decide that. Personally, I'd rather not have a pension, and get a 401k where the company will match how much I put in up to 8,000 dollars a year like my friend has. That's a sweet deal.

Just wanted to give you some apples to apples comparisons.

BTW, I posted yesterday that I would love to hear suggestions from people about how you would determine which teacher was 'good' and 'bad'....'deserving of a raise' or 'deserving to be fired' etc. I think it's impossible, and I wonder, since I've gotten no responses in almost a day, if there are no ideas?

James

nooshinjohn

Pycroft wrote: »

BTW, I posted yesterday that I would love to hear suggestions from people about how you would determine which teacher was 'good' and 'bad'....'deserving of a raise' or 'deserving to be fired' etc. I think it's impossible, and I wonder, since I've gotten no responses in almost a day, if there are no ideas?

James

Educators that teach agendas instead of facts should be fired. Professors that have distain for or outright hatred of this Nation, our founders or our founding documents, those that teach our kids that America is the "oppressor of the world" should also be fired. School administrators that demand kids learn anything more than what they need to become successful in the world need to be voted out, fired, or otherwise dismissed. Those that stand up and simply teach the truth, the good, bad and otherwise are the ones I want teaching my kids. Those that INSPIRE a child to create, to grow beyond their potential should be rewarded.

Being a teacher is a noble calling. The time has come for teachers to be just that.

Demiurge

Pycroft wrote: »

I hate when people bring salaries into this. I have a teacher friend who lives and works in AZ. He makes far less than me, but the economy is different. If you're taking a teacher working in Wisconsin and comparing him or her to a private sector employee in AZ, that's a problem. You should look at teacher salaries in the same county. Also, I'd like to see how much educational background you have compared to a teacher. I know, speaking for myself, I make far less than an equally educated private sector employee. Throwing out numbers without knowledge is dangerous and causes people to make assumptions and generalizations that simply aren't true.

Here is me in a nut-shell. I went to a four-year college and gradated with my Bachelor's degree in education. I've worked for 10 years in the public school system. While working I spent my summer's going to a very competitive school and earning my Master's Degree in education. I work approximately 50 hours per week, every week, and work over the summer for at least a month on bettering myself as a teacher. This includes attending week long classes, seminars, teaching without pay for 2 weeks to earn hours toward my professional development activities that is required by my state. I would average the yearly days I work per year to be around 220 - 186 of them I get paid for, the others I do not. Figuring someone in the private sector works 5 days per week every week without vacation, that's 52 weeks x 5 = 260 days. I don't know of many that work every week without vacation - usually 2 weeks per year if I'm not mistaken? When you think of it that way, it makes the "You only work 9 months of the year" silly. It's not 'that' much less than the typical worker. Plus, I work 50+ hours per week. And that's not counting time 'grading tests' and similar arguments. I arrive at work each day 45 minutes early to work with students without pay. I work 5 days a week after school with students, 1 hour per day without pay, rehearsing with students and working toward community activities such as concerts, etc. etc. Then, if you wanted to add in the phone calls to parents, after school meetings regarding students, trip planning, fundraising, etc. that I do. Now, many of the things I do are expected by parents. I knwo of no other occupation that it's expected you do things outside of the typical work day without pay. Most jobs in the private sector will pay overtime, or give you a salary that's much greater than a typical teacher.

This was not to rant or whine. Just to give some insight. I'm a teacher that is not a complainer about what I do, but it hurts when people make generalizations about 'You only work 9 months a year' and 'You're overpaid'. My salary is 53,000 a year, and that is in NJ, where the economy is much different than other places. The cost of living is MUCH higher than many places I've seen down South (N. Carolina for instance where my mother and father live) or out west (Ohio, where a good friend lives). A friend in the private sector, with less education, less experience, who is an accountant makes about 80k a year without bonuses. He laughs when he calls and I'm still at work, and he's home drinking a beer. I pay into my health insurance, and I pay into my pension. That's not saying that the health care and pension I have are worthless. I think they are great, but it's also a fallacy that no teachers pay into that. It's the individual school district and bargaining units that decide that. Personally, I'd rather not have a pension, and get a 401k where the company will match how much I put in up to 8,000 dollars a year like my friend has. That's a sweet deal.

Just wanted to give you some apples to apples comparisons.

BTW, I posted yesterday that I would love to hear suggestions from people about how you would determine which teacher was 'good' and 'bad'....'deserving of a raise' or 'deserving to be fired' etc. I think it's impossible, and I wonder, since I've gotten no responses in almost a day, if there are no ideas?

James

So...you put in extra effort and time and you're annoyed with those who suggest paying some of your lavish pension and health care yourself in a down economy (yes, I realize I'm speaking with regard to the situation in my state, not yours)?

I'd be annoyed with the system that allows people like you to not make the more than the lazy **** who scrapes by at the bare minimum effort or below (and basically can't/won't be fired unless he/she is molesting the kids).

You earned it. They didn't.

You'll notice in just about every response I have stated that public workers are needed. In addition to taking decreases in pay (not even on the table here) and benefits, the ability to get rid of poor teachers and reward good teachers needs to be exercised.

The mechanism that's in place are the school boards, elected representatives of the people (at least here). The problem with the school boards are that they carry water for the unions. Any school board member that steps outside of the union box is facing election challenges funded by the full strength and power of the unions they ticked off.

I know a number of very good teachers and their anger is directed correctly. They're not fooled by the union bosses telling them what they need to do and are logical, rational, independent thinkers. The problem is with the teacher's unions at the core, who have corrupted the system to be about money instead of education.

If you're going to pull in $95K per year in salary and benefits, you better have something to show for it. If you do -- so be it. The facts bear out that we, the taxpayers, are not getting much for our money. That's not the fault of the great teachers.

Put yourself in the shoes of others. Its a great way of understanding all the arguments. With my feet in the shoes of a teacher, I'm outraged at the piss poor teachers, administrators, unions, and overall system -- not my fellow taxpayer.

steveinaz

Demiurge wrote: »

Please post your complete benefit package, including pension, sick days, etc. .

Bennies:

- 26 paid leave days/year (because I'm over 15 yrs fed service)(you can only "bank" a max of 240hrs, the rest is use or lose annually)
- 13 paid sick days (see above)---these can be banked, but they are use or lose at retirement (stupid right? Kinda encourages people to be sick huh?) (FERS retirement system employees). CSRS retirees could actually cash-out their sick leave, but CSRS is no longer used. FWIW, I use about 3 sick days a year. Sick leave can be used for medical appointments during duty hours.
- Uncle Sam pays about 65% of my healthcare, I pay 35%
- I pay part of my pension, albeit not much, high 3 years averaged for retirement pay calculation--the actual percentage of base pay depends on years of service/age at retirement. the absolute minimum is 56yrs old, 30yrs federal service, to not take a "hit" on your pension. Additional years pay more (the exact figure I don't know).
- I'm allowed participation in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP, our 401k), with a 100% gov match on the first 5% contribution. Selecting how it is invested is up to the employee by choosing from a number of funds.

cnh

I believe that what James is doing is the 'expected' norm. And that everyone should be doing this.

Accountability is a good thing of course. But James is also right? HOW are you going to 'determine' who is a 'good' teacher and who is not?

WHO will determine that? Who should wield the power?

Administrators....many of whom are just as questionable as some of their 'worst' teachers?

How about a distant group of state legislators who know almost 'nothing' about 'education'?

Fellow teachers? Nah....that would involve the 'nasty' union--ooooh the horror.....the horror.

How about a Governor who does not like unions? Or one that does? lol

I grant you that the history of unions in the U.S. is both good and bad. In my parents' generation they helped millions of people move to the suburbs, get better education for their children, and send them on to college and better jobs, etc. But some, many, were also 'corrupt' existing for their own purposes and taking advantage of their members. Nothing is black or white.

I have also seen large corporations (personal information/example) who had their UNION bosses on THEIR payroll and would take them to Atlantic City and wine and dine them to get HUGE concessions before contract negotiations even as their men knew nothing about this? They were basically selling their own members out.

Like ANY bureaucracy, once it gets to a certain size, some people WILL ABUSE it. That includes Gov't, Unions, Banks, and Corporations, and both the Democratic and Republican parties, etc. And we have seen 'corruption' at all levels. Now the answer is to eliminate ALL unions. Or one of the answers.

Well, go ahead...see if that cost cutting--minimal as it will be, will help the U.S. compete internationally with countries that can afford to pay 160 dollars a month to their average worker with no benefits? Seems to me this country does not understand the global arena of competition very well. Even if you put teachers below the poverty line you're still going to be running 'deficits' and having HIGH unemployment for years and years and years to come.

So I don't understand all the anger. When my son was going to the public school system here, I had ABSOLUTELY no problem with my real estate taxes going up to support that system--I would have gladly paid even more than what was necessary. And every year we did that, our son, who was a member of the Science Olympiad team, won the State finals and went on to compete in the Nationals? Nonetheless, A LOT of people complained about THAT very program and their taxes till it turned my stomach. It's like 'we don't want to pay for 'anything'. Even when it works?

Of course the response to the above will be to take each statement and 'qualify' it and then present an 'exception'. I wasn't born 'yesterday'. There is a wonderful article by William Golding that demonstrates how any adolescent can nay say. And there has been a lot 'no' of late.

But what I hear is a lot of George Harrison above.....'All through the day...I, me, mine, I, me, mine, I, me, mine...'

As a final note. I see incompetent 'people' in EVERY profession, in every job, private or public. I see the lazy and the stupid and the unmotivated. The average American worker hates their job, in fact? To single out teachers for this is NOT realistic. Look around you, what do 'you see? Perhaps we live in two different Americas. But I don't see the BEST people in the jobs that I have to deal with in my day to day life?

cnh

steveinaz

Oh and BTW, before my "assistant" position was in-sourced to be a GS position, I had contractors working for me (private sector). My contract assistant made $78,000/yr--and at that time, I was making around $42k. Can you guess why we in-sourced and changed the position to GS?

At any rate, I'm getting way off topic--but I thought it was important for people to really understand what us "extremely overpaid federal service people" really do make. And at GS-11, I'm fairly high in the salary bracket. Most of our perks are in the form of benefits--and the problem with that is, they can go away at any time. Uncle Sugar makes no promises.

sucks2beme

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Educators that teach agendas instead of facts should be fired. Professors that have distain for or outright hatred of this Nation, our founders or our founding documents, those that teach our kids that America is the "oppressor of the world" should also be fired. School administrators that demand kids learn anything more than what they need to become successful in the world need to be voted out, fired, or otherwise dismissed. Those that stand up and simply teach the truth, the good, bad and otherwise are the ones I want teaching my kids. Those that INSPIRE a child to create, to grow beyond their potential should be rewarded.

Being a teacher is a noble calling. The time has come for teachers to be just that.

The state sets these standards, not teachers, not local school officials.
So who you gonna fire?

Pycroft

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Educators that teach agendas instead of facts should be fired. Professors that have distain for or outright hatred of this Nation, our founders or our founding documents, those that teach our kids that America is the "oppressor of the world" should also be fired. School administrators that demand kids learn anything more than what they need to become successful in the world need to be voted out, fired, or otherwise dismissed. Those that stand up and simply teach the truth, the good, bad and otherwise are the ones I want teaching my kids. Those that INSPIRE a child to create, to grow beyond their potential should be rewarded.

Being a teacher is a noble calling. The time has come for teachers to be just that.

John,

I'm curious to hear what happened and what experiences you've had with teachers not doing the above (teaching facts, teachers that have distain, etc.).

Even if you go by that criteria - how do you judge it? Do you have some state moderator sit in each classroom in the USA and watch teachers every day to determine? Who determines what kids "need to become successful"? How do you measure if someone is "inspring"? Again, when people on the top government levels talk about merit based pay, who is the judge and what are the criteria?

FYI, I think if you had a teacher who just taught facts, you can just give a kid a book and let him or her read it for facts. What about teachers who teach arts? Are they not important?

James

Pycroft

I'd be annoyed with the system that allows people like you to not make the more than the lazy **** who scrapes by at the bare minimum effort or below (and basically can't/won't be fired unless he/she is molesting the kids).

You'll notice in just about every response I have stated that public workers are needed. In addition to taking decreases in pay (not even on the table here) and benefits, the ability to get rid of poor teachers and reward good teachers needs to be exercised.

Again...to my point...who decides? What's the criteria? How do we measure? I hypothesize that you cannot tell? It's subjective. Education isn't something that can be measured by tests, or otherwise. If there was a way to fairly tell whether a teacher was a "good teacher" and reward them, I'm all for it. I feel that I am a good teacher, but I'm sure there are times in a classroom where I may look like an idiot. I'm sure there are people who others may see as "Bad teachers" and you may stop in and every child is engaged in the learning activity.

James

Demiurge

Pycroft wrote: »

Again...to my point...who decides? What's the criteria? How do we measure? I hypothesize that you cannot tell? It's subjective. Education isn't something that can be measured by tests, or otherwise. If there was a way to fairly tell whether a teacher was a "good teacher" and reward them, I'm all for it. I feel that I am a good teacher, but I'm sure there are times in a classroom where I may look like an idiot. I'm sure there are people who others may see as "Bad teachers" and you may stop in and every child is engaged in the learning activity.

James

I addressed just that in my last post. That's why school boards are for. They're elected (in my community) by the people. Will the make mistakes? Absolutely, but it allows people to use their brains to make judgments instead of brainless blanket standards. The school boards are flawed because of the unions. I'd completely restructure the school boards.

steveinaz

A legitimate evaluation scheme could be implemented, and I think part of it should involve a "peer" evaluation from all other teachers in the school. As Demi said, inject some common sense, and real-world indicators of good performance. The hard part is getting "raters" to be brutally honest in their assessments, have all criteria qualified with concrete evidence, numbers.

Peer evaluations are KEY. People act differently around management, than they do around their peers--in most cases. Peer evals can really bring out what the person is all about. These type of evals are used in some military leadership classes, and all comments are kept anonymous. It's easy to tell when a bad comment is simply a "personal problem" from a single person---when the vast majority of comments are positive. Raters would simply throw-out comments that look blantantly unsubstantiated.

What are some key things a good teacher should reflect? (possible rating criteria)

- Charisma
- Subject knowledge/competence
- How well do they identify struggling students, and address them
- Effective/innovative teaching methods that have concrete results
- Presentation of material in such a way that it is easily understood
- Does the teacher provide remedial teaching for those struggling
- Are tests well written and applicable to the importance of key points in the class
- Is the "big picture" of the subject conveyed in a way that is understood

cnh

steveinaz wrote: »

A legitimate evaluation scheme could be implemented, and I think part of it should involve a "peer" evaluation from all other teachers in the school. As Demi said, inject some common sense, and real-world indicators of good performance. The hard part is getting "raters" to be brutally honest in their assessments, have all criteria qualified with concrete evidence, numbers.

Peer evaluations are KEY. People act differently around management, than they do around their peers--in most cases. Peer evals can really bring out what the person is all about. These type of evals are used in some military leadership classes, and all comments are kept anonymous. It's easy to tell when a bad comment is simply a "personal problem" from a single person---when the vast majority of comments are positive. Raters would simply throw-out comments that look blantantly unsubstantiated.

We use a system like this at the elite college level for tenure. The ratings include student evaluations for 'every' class, peer reviews of several classes, since we are professors--publications are IMPORTANT--as are professional presentations and associations, and finally we include 'service to the college community--various committees that we serve on. Student Evals would be 'more difficult to include at the public school level because students are not as equipped to 'judge' a class or teacher. Even at the college level they often turn things into a 'popularity' contest?

Now, I'm not going to say that this system does not have problems. Far from it. But it works to an extent?

And even after one secures tenure. Promotion and merit pay increases are still tied to some of these factors. Of course one problem that this system produces is a 'conformist' and 'sycophantic' faculty because everyone is so 'worried' about their job. As a result. People play it 'safe' and have 'safe' ideas. Which, to be honest, are not the most challenging of ideas.

If we took John's perspective above we'd be engaged in some kind of 'witch-hunt' to find the real 'Patriots' versus the people who might actually get you to think outside the box.

cnh

steveinaz

By peer eval I mean teachers evaluating teachers--students would not be involved AT ALL.

steveinaz

cnh wrote: »

Of course one problem that this system produces is a 'conformist' and 'sycophantic' faculty because everyone is so 'worried' about their job. As a result. People play it 'safe' and have 'safe' ideas. Which, to be honest, are not the most challenging of ideas.

While it seems to be micromanagement to an extent--unfortunately that is exactly what we will need until senior school staff are comfortable enough with individual teaching methods. It should be a case-by-case (or teacher-by-teacher) basis as to how much "artistic license" is permitted. Your teachers that have displayed a "gift" for the art would naturally be given far more slack, as long as basic standards are met.

Think "Joe Clark"

Our schools also need to get rid of alot of the useless electives; ie underwater basket weaving, time wasting 101, etc. Just like the auto makers, we need to scale back on offering a gazillion different models---and get back to the basics.

To come up with an effective plan, you first need to prioritize your objectives.

1. Struggling students. They should be priority 1. The successful don't need much help.
2. Establishing good core subject outlines that truly educate--get to the "meat" of the subject
3. Maintain discipline. Discipline=security, security means children can focus on the work
4. Make the classes interesting, no one likes to be bored
5. Have strict school policies and enforce them---ALL the time.
6. Have assistance readily available to those who need it
7. Get 110% behind your good teachers, fire the poor ones, and force bad parents to comply
8. Reward the successful, innovative, and original
9. In senior high, there needs to be a financial management REQUIRED course

In my senior high (STL Missouri) we had 3 courses that had to be passed to graduate (on top of your required credits) they were:

1. The U.S. Constitution
2. American Literature
3. Advanced Composition (which of course required Composition I as a prereq)

Pycroft

Demiurge wrote: »

I addressed just that in my last post. That's why school boards are for. They're elected (in my community) by the people. Will the make mistakes? Absolutely, but it allows people to use their brains to make judgments instead of brainless blanket standards. The school boards are flawed because of the unions. I'd completely restructure the school boards.

You think school boards should decide what teacher's are "good" and what teachers are "bad" and decide on hiring and firing. Most school board members have NO background in education, most have other full time jobs they must attend to, and it's usually hard enough to get them to show up to meetings once a month let alone let them in classrooms to judge the merits of the education the students are getting. How would you restructure the school board? What should their purpose be? Also, how are school boards flawed because of unions? I think it may be a better statement that unions make the buerocracy (Not sure if that's spelled correctly) of a school difficult in every way, which also complicates school boards. I'm not sure unions have direct contact with school boards except during negotiations where the school's union members that are on the negotiations team meet with the school board and superintendant in order to figure out contracts. If you think that board members just give in to the union demands, you are wrong. I've seen first hand it's a long, difficult process, usually ending in a mediator making recommendations and lots of give and take.

James

Pycroft

steveinaz wrote: »

A legitimate evaluation scheme could be implemented, and I think part of it should involve a "peer" evaluation from all other teachers in the school. As Demi said, inject some common sense, and real-world indicators of good performance. The hard part is getting "raters" to be brutally honest in their assessments, have all criteria qualified with concrete evidence, numbers.

Peer evaluations are KEY. People act differently around management, than they do around their peers--in most cases. Peer evals can really bring out what the person is all about. These type of evals are used in some military leadership classes, and all comments are kept anonymous. It's easy to tell when a bad comment is simply a "personal problem" from a single person---when the vast majority of comments are positive. Raters would simply throw-out comments that look blantantly unsubstantiated.

What are some key things a good teacher should reflect? (possible rating criteria)

- Charisma
- Subject knowledge/competence
- How well do they identify struggling students, and address them
- Effective/innovative teaching methods that have concrete results
- Presentation of material in such a way that it is easily understood
- Does the teacher provide remedial teaching for those struggling
- Are tests well written and applicable to the importance of key points in the class
- Is the "big picture" of the subject conveyed in a way that is understood

Steve,

I would wonder if a factory worker would like other workers determining whether he or she would lose his job. I think that's unreasonable, but if there was perhaps not a priciple, but rather a supervisor that oversaw the teacher and had content knowledge of the subject matter, that would be a start. How many times would be a fair evaluation? I also agree with many of the things that you put down that would make a good teacher. From the other perspective, how do you measure charisma? How do you really measure any of the things you listed. Again, all subjective. You may think that it's cut and dry, either they do or they don't. I think if someone sat in your classroom every day for a month, it would be easy to determine. As it sits, teachers are evaluated 3 times per year with an official evaluation, and of course there are many numerous other things that are observed throughout the school year (For instance, for me, administrators always view concerts and saw involvment of students, they saw me interact with students while waiting for parent pick-up, they saw how I interacted with colleagues at in-service meetings, they have an evaluation at the end of the year based on yoru professional development, etc.). Now we're getting into, how much makes it okay? Does a teacher have to be evaluated 20 times per year? Then you're hiring many new full-time faculty just to observe teachers. All decent points though!

James