Public Employees should not be vilified

[Cold_Zero]

Holy Crap, I think this is the first time I have ever agreed with President Obama on:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02 ... -vilified/

My family has been watching the Indiana proceedings very closely as it affect the majority of our family. The Governor and his lap dog the superintendent of Public Instruction keep trashing teachers in the news media. Latest slam:
http://www.wthr.com/story/14134059/indi ... ions-elite

I also keep telling other teachers that I ran into this weekend that it really doesn’t matter if you are in the union or not (you don’t have to join in the state of Indiana), the Republicans are gunning for you. I think that the best thing we can do, for those of us that are non teachers is to publicly thank our teachers and schools for the good work they do. I am sure some people will hop on this post and throw down comments that public schools are bad here, there and everywhere. I thought about this concept Saturday morning. ‘Failing public schools’ is very similar to the concept of ‘bad politicians.’ Everyone thinks everyone else’s is bad or failing, but they don’t/won’t get rid of their own. It is only a perceived problem in someone else’s district. See, in Indiana the politicians and the news media beats up on the largest school district(s) in the state, namely Indianapolis Public Schools. But when it comes down to it, the Charter schools have more (according to the IDOE) failing schools in the bottom 30 schools than the public schools. And when you people are asked to name a failing school, they almost exclusively point to IPS. I think we need to dismiss the political rhetoric, support our local schools and teachers and do right by the students.
bud

[stebo0728]

Public schools aren't failing. They are working exactly as intended. They educate people just enough to make good working class citizens out of them. Our swelling industrial complex of a nation needed labor, public schools has taken care of that for us.

I dont vilify teachers, I vilify people who happen to be in the teaching profession, but belong on the paper route, but just because they collectively bargain and have their unions push their weight around, they keep their jobs. I think teachers, good teachers, are paid far too little. The good ones should be paid more, and the lousy ones should be shown the door.

BUT - here is where things get hairy. We have a public sector group involved here, and thats what is important. Not that they are teachers, not that they are educating children, those are all emotional plays designed to confuse the issue. Public sector employees should not have collective bargaining rights, end of story. I dont need to know that they are teachers in this particular case, it doesnt matter. Public sector collective bargaining is bargaining against the tax payers. Furthermore, since the government has endless lines of credit, they get an unfair advantage already against private sector competition, as private sector cant operate continually at a loss. Public sector can bargain for better pay, where deficits already exist, and get them. Sorry but I hate unionization alltogether, but they really are at their worst in the public sector.

[Cold_Zero]

Kind of ironic that you mention teacher pay.
The Indiana legislation will no longer pay teachers for the extra degrees or certification they earn through continuing education.
Only 33% of their pay can be derrived from their years of experience.
Teachers will be paid a merit increase based off their performance review.
Here is the kicker -> Fellow teachers, who are striving for the same merit pay increase funds, can rate teacher performance of the teacher. (Tell me there is no conflict of interest).
Contractors can be hired to administer teacher performance reviews.
Administrators will be rated in a fashion that will peanlize them for not having enough teachers that are rated 'ineffective' or 'needs improvement.'

I dont know about you, but I want a highly educated , experienced workforce teaching my child.
It should be pointed out that current legislation making relating to Charter Schools only allow for up to %50 of teachers to be certified to teach. Fail!

[stebo0728]

First, be sure you are detaching yourself from the emotion aspects of the discussion. Im not saying you havent, but just be sure you have.

Not all private sector institutions pay for continuing education. I would wager most dont. I know some do, but not sure what the breakdown is. If you can find a company willing to, thats awesome, but then I dont consider it a responsibility of the employer to HAVE to do this, and as far as the public sector goes, its probably best we (the taxpayers) dont.

I agree with you that experience workforce is best for teaching our children, but thats a bit of a pipe dream. Theres an age old notion of:

"Those who cant do, teach. And those who cant teach, administrate"

Im all for having the right people teaching the right things, rather than just generic educators. Imagine actual mechanics teaching shop class, actual mathematicians teaching calculus, actual artists teaching art, so on and so on. But sadly, anyone who can actually do these things, well, the DO them, and profit from doing them. We rely on second rate ability to teach. Thats not intended as a slight on teachers, its just how it is. Sure there is some segment of teachers who are specialized and have decided, philanthropically, to teach rather than continue DOing, but thats a small segment. We need to set policies, if we are hell bent on public education, that incentivize professionals to teach. For one thing, stop requiring anyone and everyone who teaches to have these mundane teaching degrees. Require a small, inexpensive course that gives the basics of how to interact with adolescants, and leave the rest to the individual.

[AppleBonker]

But sadly, anyone who can actually do these things, well, the DO them, and profit from doing them. We rely on second rate ability to teach. Thats not intended as a slight on teachers, its just how it is. Sure there is some segment of teachers who are specialized and have decided, philanthropically, to teach rather than continue DOing, but thats a small segment

You make a lot of sweeping generalizations. It's pretty impressive. I'd love to see any data that supports all of your claims. Then, just maybe, you might get people to agree with your ridiculous world-views.

[stebo0728]

And if you could work in a chemist lab making 60 bucks or better an hour, would you decide to teach chemistry for 18 bucks an hour?

[bigbadberry3]

And if you could work in a chemist lab making 60 bucks or better an hour, would you decide to teach chemistry for 18 bucks an hour?

I just received my bachelors in physics and math (2010). Oh and I got a minor in secondary education because after doing research for a year because I found it was boring and didn't see it being ENJOYABLE to do for the rest of my life. Just because we don't doesn't mean we can't.

[AppleBonker]

Ludicrous statement once again. Where do you know of chemist positions that pay that much? They exist, but in that salary range you are going to be looking at potential employees with doctorate-levels of eduction. Your mindset is wrong. A comparable education level would likely go into teaching college-level courses. And, I would argue, make a comparable salary. In fact, my high school chemistry teacher (Master's degree only, I believe) was quite possibly making in the $80k/year range. While I can't make the polar opposite generalization of yours (cause that would be hypocritical, no?), I can tell you that the vast majority of my high school teachers go into teaching because they WANTED to. NOT because they couldn't "cut it" in industry. It may be too small a dataset to extrapolate, but I'd like to see anything supporting your claim.

[Cold_Zero]

First, be sure you are detaching yourself from the emotion aspects of the discussion. Im not saying you havent, but just be sure you have.

Oh you ought to see my sister, my Aunt (a Fox News parrot) grabbed the bull (my sister) by the horns and didn’t like the ride. I think the Governor of our great state needs to be worried about my father. Not only can the man make his argument, but can do it calm, cool and collect. My father fought BRAC initiatives while he was in the Army and use to these types of things. While I may be invested in this topic, please be assured, I was reading straight from SB1 and summarized it up.

Not all private sector institutions pay for continuing education. I would wager most dont. I know some do, but not sure what the breakdown is. If you can find a company willing to, thats awesome, but then I dont consider it a responsibility of the employer to HAVE to do this, and as far as the public sector goes, its probably best we (the taxpayers) dont.

But yet most public education institutions do pay for degrees earned and advancements in education, like Post Secondary Education. Futhermore, while a degree in CS may not yield a whole hell of a lot in the IT world, certain degrees and (especially) certifications do translate into better paying IT jobs. I work for a corporation that offers 100% tuition re-imbursement, just as an FYI. I think more times than not, it is a desired in the private sector, especially the corporate world. Also, our church pays its called workers more for their degrees. Our Pastor went back to school to get his masters in Sacred Theology to supplement his Masters in Divinity and he now make more! Though in my opinion teachers and preachers are the two most important occupations in society.

I agree with you that experience workforce is best for teaching our children, but thats a bit of a pipe dream. Theres an age old notion of:

"Those who cant do, teach. And those who cant teach, administrate"

You have the adage wrong. It is ‘Those who can, do; those can’t, teach.’ In my opinion, this is 100% s***. I have donated my time at my wife’s school, a perk (that my work pays for me to donate time to local education), I have to say I could not teach. There is a big difference between mastering content of a subject and being able to teach it. I tried my hand at teaching Sunday school and I have to say, it is the most exhausting hour endeavor I take part in. It has been my experience that those who cannot either going to management or politics.

Im all for having the right people teaching the right things, rather than just generic educators. Imagine actual mechanics teaching shop class, actual mathematicians teaching calculus, actual artists teaching art, so on and so on. But sadly, anyone who can actually do these things, well, the DO them, and profit from doing them. We rely on second rate ability to teach. Thats not intended as a slight on teachers, its just how it is. Sure there is some segment of teachers who are specialized and have decided, philanthropically, to teach rather than continue DOing, but thats a small segment. We need to set policies, if we are hell bent on public education, that incentivize professionals to teach. For one thing, stop requiring anyone and everyone who teaches to have these mundane teaching degrees. Require a small, inexpensive course that gives the basics of how to interact with adolescants, and leave the rest to the individual.

Unfortunately, the Republicans in our great state either have the notion that anyone can teach or you can just apply business principals to primary education to make it succeed. They suspended the substitute teaching and teaching requirements a few years ago to attract people from the private sector into teaching (Please note you have to still get your teaching license down the road.) So far nearly 99% of teachers are classically trained teachers and we have failing (literally they are closing them down) charter schools. My wife knows one thing, when a parent get’s upset with the school she works at and threatens to go to the charter school down the block, the children are always back the next year. *shrug*

[IBCoupe]

Public schools aren't failing. They are working exactly as intended. They educate people just enough to make good working class citizens out of them. Our swelling industrial complex of a nation needed labor, public schools has taken care of that for us.

We all know, Stebo, that were they to educate them any more, you'd be in front of the line to say that we're robbing too much from the rich to give too much to the poor.

I dont vilify teachers, I vilify people who happen to be in the teaching profession, but belong on the paper route, but just because they collectively bargain and have their unions push their weight around, they keep their jobs. I think teachers, good teachers, are paid far too little. The good ones should be paid more, and the lousy ones should be shown the door.

Got a list of names, Stebo, or are you only berating people you theorize to exist?

BUT - here is where things get hairy. We have a public sector group involved here, and thats what is important. Not that they are teachers, not that they are educating children, those are all emotional plays designed to confuse the issue. Public sector employees should not have collective bargaining rights, end of story. I dont need to know that they are teachers in this particular case, it doesnt matter. Public sector collective bargaining is bargaining against the tax payers. Furthermore, since the government has endless lines of credit, they get an unfair advantage already against private sector competition, as private sector cant operate continually at a loss. Public sector can bargain for better pay, where deficits already exist, and get them. Sorry but I hate unionization alltogether, but they really are at their worst in the public sector.

Public sector workers can try to bargain, Stebo, but it takes two to tango. Employers in the public and private sector are not powerless, and they're not helpless victims.

[IBCoupe]

And if you could work in a chemist lab making 60 bucks or better an hour, would you decide to teach chemistry for 18 bucks an hour?

This is what I don't get about arguments for "merit pay;" as if teachers are in it for the money, and that they'd work harder to educate children if only you'd pay them more.

[bigbadberry3]

To be fair, in time, many teachers can break the 100k mark annually. Again, I justify this by some simple math

Average cost per hour to babysit a kid (without teaching them anything) 8 dollars
Average class size changes by region but I'll go with the one i'm familiar with of 25 students
Teachers will teach 5 hours a day and prep for 2 (nonpaid)
Average school year in days 180

So 8x25= 200 per hour (of teaching)
200x5=1000 a day
1000x180= 180,000 a year

[stebo0728]

And if you could work in a chemist lab making 60 bucks or better an hour, would you decide to teach chemistry for 18 bucks an hour?

This is what I don't get about arguments for "merit pay;" as if teachers are in it for the money, and that they'd work harder to educate children if only you'd pay them more.

You miss the point, the people actually able to DO, are looking out for #1, as we all do. So paying less, attracts the mediocre, those who cant do as well NOT teaching. Now its true a teacher is going to sacrifice SOME. Back to my question, would you give up $60 an hour for $18? Well, you wont make $60 teaching, theres no way we could pay that much, but we could pay more than we are.

And again, stop requiring everyone to have complete teaching degrees to teach. If I did decide to teach chemistry, coming from a chem lab background, another thing stopping me is not wanting to have to take all the education required just to teach. Just give me some short courses on how to deal with kids, whatever minor child psych stuff I may need, and let me get to crackin'.

[bigbadberry3]

You miss the point, the people actually able to DO, are looking out for #1, as we all do. So paying less, attracts the mediocre, those who cant do as well NOT teaching. Now its true a teacher is going to sacrifice SOME. Back to my question, would you give up $60 an hour for $18? Well, you wont make $60 teaching, theres no way we could pay that much, but we could pay more than we are.
.

Just cause the pay is better doesn't mean the job is any better. There's no direct correlation there. But I would agree that some teaching classes are worthless because it never is as clean cut in your classroom.

[stebo0728]

Its not about job quality. The job is the job, regardless of pay. The pay dictates WHO will do the job. Pay more, get better DOers, pay less, get mediocre DOers.

[bigbadberry3]

There is absolutely no proof of that, pure generalization. Generic drugs (to keep with your chemist theme) do the same as their more expensive name brand drugs but cost less.

[stebo0728]

There is absolutely no proof of that, pure generalization. Generic drugs (to keep with your chemist theme) do the same as their more expensive name brand drugs but cost less.

They are the same exact chemicals, made by a company who is NOT still paying for research. Not a good comparison. Quality educators aren't made of the exact same stuff as mundane educators.

[bigbadberry3]

If you're going to offer the exact same job for two levels of pay, of course people will take the higher paying job. But what you can't do is compare apples to oranges like a chemist to a chemistry teacher although they both possess the same level of education.

[IBCoupe]

And the kind of person who wants to go spend hours of their day with a room-full of children might just be doing it for reasons completely not related to pay. You'd have to pay me a s***-ton of money to stare at a petri dish all day, but if I felt like I had the patience to teach children, I'd do it in a heartbeat, just to actually see the difference you're making. The only thing I'd look for from the teaching gig was enough money not to starve.

You've gone way off the deep end on this one, Stebo. Pure microeconomics doesn't explain why teachers teach, at least not in the context of the silly dichotomy you've established.

You might be right, Stebo, in that there are additional qualities separating quality educators from mundane educators, but I guarantee you, that quality is not the promise of a higher paycheck.

[Cold_Zero]

And again, stop requiring everyone to have complete teaching degrees to teach. If I did decide to teach chemistry, coming from a chem lab background, another thing stopping me is not wanting to have to take all the education required just to teach. Just give me some short courses on how to deal with kids, whatever minor child psych stuff I may need, and let me get to crackin'.

50% of teachers in Indiana leave within 5 years of starting. It seems to indicate that people that can't hack it (teaching) leave and those who can stay. At least in our state, you could go back to school (while teaching) and take core teaching classes so that you can teach.

[audtatious]

Teachers should be paid based upon education level, continuation of education level, school/student satisfaction, and testing (teacher and students). They should have a minimum upper-level degree in their field before they can teach on their own. They should NOT be protected from failure as Unions tend to do in some instances (what, in the last decade there have only been 17/10000 teachers released due to poor performance in New Jersey..either Jersey has some awesome teachers or the Union has a huge negative impact on the environment by keeping crappy teachers stuck on the payroll and teaching our kids).

We need to strive to have the best teaching kids or we are doomed to failure. I have no issue paying for good teachers.

Finland's system should be viewed as a success story and portions of it should be emulated here.

[stebo0728]

Which parts more specifically Aud?

[Encryptshun]

Here's what happens without collective bargaining: public servants have no voice, there is no clear path toward ensuring that their salaries and benefits align with the private sector and they leave to go to more lucrative positions elsewhere. Thus ensuring that only bottom-of-the barrel individuals are responsible for being cops, firefighters, EMTs, teachers, and civil engineers.

Collective bargaining offers hope and enables the public sector base to be more engaged and committed to long-term fidelity to their chosen profession. The actual cost to taxpayers for this is negligible compared to the overwhelming amount of waste that's considered perfectly acceptable by administrations on both sides of the aisle and never brought up as a potential cut.

This is an attack on the Democratic party's funding stream, pure and simple. The corrupt Republicans get their kickbacks from big business, the corrupt Democrats get theirs from unions. Why the "little guy" who is trying to put food on the table is getting raked through the muck is really beyond me and is just another indication that this whole country has gone bat-sh*t crazy.

[audtatious]

Which parts more specifically Aud?

Where people are held responsible, where standards and results are higher than peoples feelings, where pay and position is based on merit/knowledge/success.

in general....

[stebo0728]

Are you sure you meant Finland?

I only perused, but Wiki seemed to paint a different picture of Finland education. More strict government control of ALL education. Of course again, I just perused it.

[audtatious]

http://bertmaes.wordpress.com/2010/02/2 ... e-success/

Parts is parts. We, as a nation, need to look across the globe to see what is or is not working and build a workable US system that fits within any confines of our Constitution. These last decades the solution has been to simply throw money at it and blame parents while parents blame the teachers and school systems while everyone pays more for less.

Is Finlands exact system perfect for us? Nope. They are successful and we should look at what they are doing to see how we can use what they have learned to provide a better system here.

[C-Kwik]

Teachers should be paid based upon education level, continuation of education level, school/student satisfaction, and testing (teacher and students). They should have a minimum upper-level degree in their field before they can teach on their own. They should NOT be protected from failure as Unions tend to do in some instances (what, in the last decade there have only been 17/10000 teachers released due to poor performance in New Jersey..either Jersey has some awesome teachers or the Union has a huge negative impact on the environment by keeping crappy teachers stuck on the payroll and teaching our kids).

We need to strive to have the best teaching kids or we are doomed to failure. I have no issue paying for good teachers.

Finland's system should be viewed as a success story and portions of it should be emulated here.

Just a couple of quick thoughts. While merit based pay is desirable, its not necessarily realistic. Consider that teachers do not share the same subject material and in many cases don't even get the same cross section of students (in terms of performance). Example, my sister teaches Geometry at a high school. One of her classes is significantly lower performing than her others. Why? Because that time period conflicts with a class that the higher performing kids tend to take. She's a part time instructor and not the only Geometry teacher so it might have an effect on her performance ratings vs a full-time teacher that has a full time schedule and can normalize such a discrepancy easier. Such problems also occur comparing different schools. Some areas don't have as many students who try hard. Perhaps locations where trying to get an education might be socially less acceptable to peers. But when funding is tied to standardized test scores, it tends to be a bit like trying to run on a treadmill that is going too fast. Not to mention that more and more, teachers are concerned much more with how to help their kids get more answers right on a standardized test than to actually learn the material.

[audtatious]

Be it as it may, something needs to change. I understand what you are saying and I surely don't disagree. IF we had people who are really interested in making the finest education system possible calling the shots then I think a proper direction could be achieved. It will take years to work out all the kinks. I feel in certain areas that the Unions are impacting the decision making.

Sure, Unions seem to be doing a lot for some of the teachers themselves in NY and other areas by keeping the lower-performing teachers on salary. That's great for those union members but IT'S NOT good for the community nor kids being taught. The teachers who bust azz and do a good job with their kids should be pissed. I wonder how those teachers would feel if their child is having to take a class and be taught by other teachers that are known to suck and simply are still teaching because of their union?

It's simply down to hard decision making and we don't have people who are willing to stick their neck out to make those choices. We are screwed.