RI Superintendent to Fire All Teachers

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

SteelyD,

I think there is a lot that is easy to agree upon. I also think it’s easy to blame teachers for systemic problems. While I agree that they deserve a “fair share” of the blame, the “share” has to be “fair.” I think too many blame teachers at a GREATLY disproportionate rate.

Where I think we really disagree is when we start thinking that all teaching is the same. Teaching at a school where stories like the one I shared above are common is very different than teaching at other places. Once this is agreed upon (I think we are close to agreeing on this now), then we have to ask questions like: How do we grade teacher performance? Should teachers at these schools be paid more?

It always struck me as strange that people would say things like, “These teachers get paid more than other school teachers in the district, yet there students commonly under-perform other schools! This shouldn’t be!” I’m not so sure it “shouldn’t be.” Often, these schools are extremely difficult to go into.

For another example: forever ago, I volunteered at an after-school program at a public charter school located in an “at risk” community. The set up was, for me, very interesting. Teachers DID get paid more. They also worked in unsafe neighborhood and specialized in teaching at risk children. For example, I remember a teacher showing me a blood trail from where someone had broken in the night before and cut himself. I watched domestic disputes and drug deals across the street. Some streets were literally littered with hunks of trash (e.g. broken refrigerators). At one point, two eleven year old students finished their schoolwork early and asked me if they could go play outside. I took them out and they started talking to me. The boy described how his father was a police officer who was shot in the back of the head at a traffic stop. … Now this school did get great results. But it took a completely different teaching philosophy that included a lot of liberty with discipline, had additional training, and paid the teachers a bonus. (As I understand it, that school has since been shut down.). Should these teachers be paid more? I think so. Would other teachers in the surrounding schools still have the motivation to go in and get results when they weren’t given the same liberty to deal with students?

Anyway, this little rant is over…

162

Gambit - I don’t disagree that teachers with specialized education (eg “specializing in at-risk children”) or that teachers who teach in dangerous or largely ‘at-risk communities’. Hell, treat it like ‘hazard pay’ for soldiers or LEO’s.

However, that doesn’t exclude them from being accountable for their results. Pay them more for their specialization, but hod them accountable for doing the job they said they can (and are getting paid) to do.

I get paid more than many in my field because I am a specialist. When I get asked to lead a project that I have specialty in, I’m expected to complete the job successfully. Guess what happens if I do not succeed in my specialty regularly?

I’m not seeing how the teachers unions are forwarding that line of thinking.

163

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Gambit - I don’t disagree that teachers with specialized education (eg “specializing in at-risk children”) or that teachers who teach in dangerous or largely ‘at-risk communities’. Hell, treat it like ‘hazard pay’ for soldiers or LEO’s.

However, that doesn’t exclude them from being accountable for their results. Pay them more for their specialization, but hod them accountable for doing the job they said they can (and are getting paid) to do.

I get paid more than many in my field because I am a specialist. When I get asked to lead a project that I have specialty in, I’m expected to complete the job successfully. Guess what happens if I do not succeed in my specialty regularly?

I’m not seeing how the teachers unions are forwarding that line of thinking.[/quote]

I’m not seeing how blaming teachers and saying they are “part of the problem” for simply working in education is forwarding that line of thinking. Is your wife “part of the problem?”

I’ll guarantee that all good teachers want to be paid more for their work. I’ll also guarantee that they’re afraid of being unfairly judged. We can’t be comparing apples and oranges. Working in the inner city or extreme rural areas cannot be fairly compared to, for example, working in a rich suburban district.

164

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Gambit - I don’t disagree that teachers with specialized education (eg “specializing in at-risk children”) or that teachers who teach in dangerous or largely ‘at-risk communities’. Hell, treat it like ‘hazard pay’ for soldiers or LEO’s.

However, that doesn’t exclude them from being accountable for their results. Pay them more for their specialization, but hod them accountable for doing the job they said they can (and are getting paid) to do.

I get paid more than many in my field because I am a specialist. When I get asked to lead a project that I have specialty in, I’m expected to complete the job successfully. Guess what happens if I do not succeed in my specialty regularly?

I’m not seeing how the teachers unions are forwarding that line of thinking.[/quote]

I’m not seeing how blaming teachers and saying they are “part of the problem” for simply working in education is forwarding that line of thinking. Is your wife “part of the problem?”

I’ll guarantee that all good teachers want to be paid more for their work. I’ll also guarantee that they’re afraid of being unfairly judged. We can’t be comparing apples and oranges. Working in the inner city or extreme rural areas cannot be fairly compared to, for example, working in a rich suburban district.

[/quote]

Well, no, my wife is not part of the problem. She left teaching to raise children and start her own (education) consulting business where private and public schools hire her to supplement their curricula (in her chosen specialty) for a fraction of what it costs to pay full-time, fully salary loaded teacher.

Let’s meditate a moment on what I just typed…

.
.
.
.

Besides, when she was a government employee, she abhorred the union.

165

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Dont hate the player, hate the game.
[/quote]
This was my point. My secondary point is that you can’t blame other players in the game (tax payers) for not being supportive of a competing team.
[/quote]

If those tax payers are also the voters that voted for all of this, why yes, I certainly can.

166

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And if this RI superintendent has her way, to hire non-union teachers – what, HH, do you oppose her being freely able to do this, or those prospective job applicants being freely able to apply for the job and without union thug interference? – the market rate she will have to pay will prove to be considerably higher than that for K-mart clerks.[/quote]

She’d be dropping that pay like the fist of an angry God. Times are so bad that you’d have professional people begging to teach for $8 an hour. Is THAT what you want, Bill, to pauperize a profession?

Without the unions, all she has to do is say: “Take it or leave it.” Teaching would be reduced to the status of a ‘coolie’.

Without having your own ‘team’ in the face of a virtual government-mandated monopoly, you are indeed reduced to being a coolie.

When there are vouchers, when schools function like businesses and wages are market-driven, THEN and only THEN would unions be superflous.

Of course, being anti-freedom, you guys actually like the current system. You bitch because teachers fought back against a monopoly and actually demanded a living wage. Tough fucking shit, totalitarians.

167

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

Unionized teachers are just perpetuating the system, so, indeed, they do deserve their ‘fair share’ of the blame.[/quote]

We’re progressing. And now we can start to have some agreement – teacher unions are not helpful relative to a free market educational system. If schools competed for teachers and if teachers got compensated for performance, then unions be damnned.

But until public education and its monopoly power are in the dustbin of history, teachers will unionize to protect themselves.

BTW – you DO realize that without the unions and with the public school monopoly, teachers would be making what K-Mart clerks make? How would you ‘love’ the quality of teaching THEN?
[/quote]

What about protecting bad teachers?
What about keeping pay down for good teachers?
What about apposing voucher systems?
What about donating and supporting candidates that perpetuate the gov’t monopoly?

Please explain how teachers unions are doing anything to break the gov’t monopoly on education and not exploiting it.
[/quote]

What are you talking about? They sprang up as a reaction to a monopoly. Its just like as if you formed a gang in your neighborhood to fight the gang in the neighborhood over. They’re BOTH GANGS.

Break the gang system. Break the idea that someone can form a gang and club you.

You gents want to break up a gang but leave the gov’t gang in place. That’s CRAZY.

168

Of course you are engaging in your usual pretending again.

You know perfectly well in the cases of many of the above posters, and perhaps all, that they want the government system broken as well, for example via school vouchers.

Which have not, in most areas, been passed because of enormous political opposition from whom? The teachers’ unions.

You’ve ducked the question every time and no doubt will again, but tell us why, if as you say the teachers’ unions are all about fighting the government monopoly, that they oppose vouchers which would have major effect in freeing up the market, allowing actual choice by parents?

169

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

I’ll guarantee that all good teachers want to be paid more for their work.

[/quote]

Well, no, my wife is not part of the problem. She left teaching to raise children and start her own (education) consulting business where private and public schools hire her to supplement their curricula (in her chosen specialty) for a fraction of what it costs to pay full-time, fully salary loaded teacher.

Let’s meditate a moment on what I just typed…

.
.
.
.

Besides, when she was a government employee, she abhorred the union.[/quote]

I’ve been “meditating” on why all the good teachers leave teaching for a long, long time now, especially from the inner-city schools. Part of this is the union… but a lot more of it is the public’s perception of, lack of respect for, and lack of valuation for teachers.

Read some of the name calling on this thread and meditate on that.

170

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

I’ll guarantee that all good teachers want to be paid more for their work.

[/quote]

Well, no, my wife is not part of the problem. She left teaching to raise children and start her own (education) consulting business where private and public schools hire her to supplement their curricula (in her chosen specialty) for a fraction of what it costs to pay full-time, fully salary loaded teacher.

Let’s meditate a moment on what I just typed…

.
.
.
.

Besides, when she was a government employee, she abhorred the union.[/quote]

I’ve been “meditating” on why all the good teachers leave teaching for a long, long time now, especially from the inner-city schools. Part of this is the union… but a lot more of it is the public’s perception of, lack of respect for, and lack of valuation for teachers.

Read some of the name calling on this thread and meditate on that. [/quote]

Generally, at least in my experience, when people have negative things to say about teachers, it’s in the context of the teachers union demands coupled with administration’s inability to cull out bad teachers (who are protected by the union).

Look, you get no argument from me that many (most?) inner-city (and don’t forget poor rural) schools are in shambles.

That’s not “The Public’s Perception of Teachers” fault. Let’s be real. There are lots of reasons, but that’s not one. When these communities STEP UP and TAKE their schools back from 1) the federal government and 2) the teacher’s unions (YEs, BOTH), and PARENTS DO SOMETHING instead of complaining, THEN you will see change.

Look, I’m not personally responsible for the shape inner-city schools are in. I’ve stepped up as a parent and sacrificed dollars and time for my kids. I ATTEND TOWN SCHOOL MEETINGS EVEN THOUGH MY KIDS DON’T GO THERE. You see, I still have a stake in the shape of my local public school because it’s my community. I don’t have the burden of having to be in front of the TV at 5:30 pm to watch Seinfeld re-runs-- I’m at the town meeting trying to make a difference. I’m not letting government schools raise my kids-- I’M TAKING RESPONSIBILITY.

Don’t blame people’s attitudes toward teachers as the failing of public education. Blame the communities for accepting the conditions they’ve allowed. On one hand, yes, it’s tragic, but on the other hand, I’m not seeing much in the way of people stepping up to the status quo on large scales. Why the HELL would I want bureaucrats in D.C. dictating how my children will be educated?

Of course, the obvious reply is “what about so-and-so who’s tragic story is such-and-such”.

171

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

things[/quote]

Since you have been (relatively) civil and seem willing to actually engage in this topic, I would like to continue. However, I don’t think I’ll have time to reply today. I’ll try to free up some time or come back to it soon.

One quick question though. What do you mean by “take back from the Federal Government?” The last I checked, schools receive about 10% of their funding from the federal government and the state/local governments set their own standards for and run just about everything in the school districts.

172

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

things[/quote]

Since you have been (relatively) civil and seem willing to actually engage in this topic, I would like to continue. However, I don’t think I’ll have time to reply today. I’ll try to free up some time or come back to it soon.

One quick question though. What do you mean by “take back from the Federal Government?” The last I checked, schools receive about 10% of their funding from the federal government and the state/local governments set their own standards for and run just about everything in the school districts.

[/quote]

I’ll be here all week, thankyouverymuch. Try the pork!..

Federal government mandates, performance, and regulations are tied to money. NCLB for instance. Why should states be burdened with that? 10% of a very large number is still a pretty big number-- and it comes with big, fat, chains attached.

I said ‘Federal’-- that could have easily been ‘state’ or generically ‘government’ as well.

re: civility – Look, I’m a moderator on my state’s largest political/media forum. The rules are clear about incivility, name calling, and vulgarity. I appreciate that. Unfortunately, this forum has a different decor. Let’s face it, some here aren’t able to ‘debate’ without degrading the discussion to the toilet.

This isn’t a bad forum, especially given that this is a bodybuilding website, although I have to wonder how many people in here (PWI) actually seriously workout.

173

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You gents want to break up a gang but leave the gov’t gang in place. That’s CRAZY.
[/quote]
No I don’t.

I don’t beleive teachers’ unions provide a net possitve contribution to education. Admitadly, I am on the outside looking in. I also live in an area with very good public schools. Protecting substandard teachers, limiting pay for good teachers, limiting the supply of industry experts entering teaching, and not supporting vouchers are all still unexcusable to me.

It wouldn’t be hard for them to support a few reforms and provide a net positive contribution, but they chose not to. They chose to support the gov’t monopoly you claim they combat.

174

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And if this RI superintendent has her way, to hire non-union teachers – what, HH, do you oppose her being freely able to do this, or those prospective job applicants being freely able to apply for the job and without union thug interference? – the market rate she will have to pay will prove to be considerably higher than that for K-mart clerks.[/quote]

She’d be dropping that pay like the fist of an angry God. Times are so bad that you’d have professional people begging to teach for $8 an hour. Is THAT what you want, Bill, to pauperize a profession?

Without the unions, all she has to do is say: “Take it or leave it.” Teaching would be reduced to the status of a ‘coolie’.

Without having your own ‘team’ in the face of a virtual government-mandated monopoly, you are indeed reduced to being a coolie.

When there are vouchers, when schools function like businesses and wages are market-driven, THEN and only THEN would unions be superflous.

Of course, being anti-freedom, you guys actually like the current system. You bitch because teachers fought back against a monopoly and actually demanded a living wage. Tough fucking shit, totalitarians.

[/quote]

IMO the voucher system would move money away from the Government School Monopoly and move it to the schools that want to actually pay attention to Education. The Vouchers would allow Parents to choose which school they want their children to go to. The better schools would start to increase revenue, which then draws the better teachers to the school and increases pay. I pay a hell of a lot more than $9,000 in all forms of taxes every year. I would like for my children to go to a school that is willing to help them get a good education.

The issue is the monopoly, but the teachers union was the first to jump on the no vouncher system because it pulls money away from the union.

175

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Of course you are engaging in your usual pretending again.

You know perfectly well in the cases of many of the above posters, and perhaps all, that they want the government system broken as well, for example via school vouchers.

Which have not, in most areas, been passed because of enormous political opposition from whom? The teachers’ unions.

You’ve ducked the question every time and no doubt will again, but tell us why, if as you say the teachers’ unions are all about fighting the government monopoly, that they oppose vouchers which would have major effect in freeing up the market, allowing actual choice by parents?
[/quote]

Because your gang is doing vouchers as union busting. When they give up the monopoly of gov’t mandated schools, then the unions will simply evolve away, like the UAW and Teamsters.

You have two gangs at each others’ throats. Why don’t you vote for politicians who want to do away with public education? Wait…because there are none. You want to cripple one gang and leave the other in place.

Your motives are obvious.

Other guys: About all the praise of private educators (of which I am one). The wages are only what little they are because we have a lot (a whole lot) who flee to the public schools so they can feed their families. If the salaries in public education fell to ‘coolie’ level, as you all want, guess what would happen in private education? All teachers would be working for K-Mart wages, pure and simple.

You guys honestly expect people to go to college and work for fucking peanuts, no pension, no health insurance, and be dedicated to teaching the children of those who treat them like suckers for working for such pay? Are you guys actually listening to what you say? Un-fucking-believable…

176

No (Tenured) Teacher Left Behind … thought this was prevalent to the conversation

177

Funny, these dirt poor private school teachers have a sense of responsibility and accountability toward those paying their wages, not entitlement.

More:

http://www.cato.org/featuredvids/index.php?vid=tooley

178

Well, to listen to HH, the teachers’ unions, or many politicians, the schools exist for the teachers and of course they most certainly are entitled.

179

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, to listen to HH, the teachers’ unions, or many politicians, the schools exist for the teachers and of course they most certainly are entitled.[/quote]

His argument is ridiculous and he knows it. Anyone who has read even the most basic economic text, or has a spec of common sense, knows that a virtual monopoly in one industry does not guarantee low wages. Even with loose terms like “monopoly” and “low wages” this is ridiculous. You would have to assume some pool of people could do nothing but teach. Public schools compete with the entire economy for resources. If wages are too low, no teachers.

The unions are already restricting the flow of talent into teaching. They insure those with the most talent will be paid no more than those with the least. I wonder what this does for the talent pool?

180

Perhaps HH believes that those that can, do; and those that can’t, teach. And thus they could not earn any significant income from anything else, resulting in his expected dog-wages being the market value were it not for the union.

There are in fact market forces driving wages where there is no teacher unionization. For example, why am I not a professor of organic chemistry at a community college? (I actually had teaching organic chemistry as a career goal when entering graduate school, but had not bothered to check to see what it paid.)

Because it paid, at that time anyway, only $5000/semester per class taught. Forget about it!

Obviously there are others who do the same. But there are also those that decide that that compensation suits them, and there are a sufficient number of these. There is a point at which the supply and demand curves intersect.

The price paid is the result of supply provided matching the amount demanded at the quality level demanded (which is quite good in this instance) at that price.

“But what about what’s fair???”