[jonottawa]

I'm trying very hard to have any sympathy for these folks. FWIU they're the highest paid teachers in the country and they're getting a huge pay raise and they're going on strike anyway because they've got certain performance standards to live up to and are expected to put in a full day's work?

Am I missing something? Is there a pro-teachers person in here who can maybe clarify things for me?

[Phil]

Personally I'm enjoying Rahm's tantrums.

[kenberg]

I just heard of it today and it is difficult to form any specific opinion.

CNN, at http://www.cnn.com/2...rike/index.html
says the average teacher salary is about 75K. My guess is that if parents saw their kids thriving in school, few would begrudge the teachers their salaries. I know nothing about the Chi schools but it is hardly a secret that most urban schools are a disaster.

We have someone doing some construction work at our house. He gets paid well. He does a good job. We are happy and if we need more work we will call him again. I don't think many urban parents have such nice feelings about the schools their kids go to.

OTOH, I would not want to work at the generic urban school. Not for 75K, not for a 100K.

So there is trouble.

[mike777]

yes they make around 100K or more including benefits.

One big problem is there is a 3 billion dollar deficit over the next 3 years, they have been offered 16% raise over 4 years. No one has really said where the heck this money will come from.

One big issue is testing and more merit pay and less pay based on seniority.


Rob Heselton, a teacher at Jones College Prep for 12 years, said the important issues for him are "not as much salary" as class size, extra days and hours added to the school calendar this year and the way Emanuel handled those issues. "It was just the fact that it was forced on us," he said. "I don't want to be out here at all, but it's definitely worth fighting for."

Average teacher pay is $76,000 a year. The school system has a $665 million budget deficit. Teachers voted in June to authorize a strike if a new agreement could not be reached.

http://www.usatoday....ears/57720772/1

--


In Chicago, union President Karen Lewis suggested the city's proposal could put thousands of teachers' careers at risk because the evaluation system relies too heavily on standardized test scores and does not take into account such factors as poverty, violence and homelessness.

Teachers "have no control over those scores," said union coordinator John Kugler

[Bbradley62]

jonottawa, on 2012-September-10, 19:11, said:

I'm trying very hard to have any sympathy for these folks. FWIU they're the highest paid teachers in the country and they're getting a huge pay raise and they're going on strike anyway because they've got certain performance standards to live up to and are expected to put in a full day's work?

Am I missing something? Is there a pro-teachers person in here who can maybe clarify things for me?

I am not on the teachers' side here, but can probably clarify for you anyway. First, that "huge pay raise" you refer to is 16% over 4 years. Since we don't have any idea what inflation will be like 2-4 years from now, I don't think I'd call that "huge".

Second, it appears that the primary sticking point is the idea of evaluating teachers based on their students' standardized test scores. The union, like all teachers' unions nationwide, says this is not an appropriate way to evaluate teachers. They are concerned that up to 15% of teachers could lose their jobs when these test scores indicate that they are ineffective.

[Cthulhu D]

Bbradley62, on 2012-September-10, 21:07, said:

I am not on the teachers' side here, but can probably clarify for you anyway. First, that "huge pay raise" you refer to is 16% over 4 years. Since we don't have any idea what inflation will be like 2-4 years from now, I don't think I'd call that "huge".

Indeed, isn't this just marginally above long term inflation? like, 0.5%. Half a percentage point a year in real terms is pretty small actually.

Quote

Second, it appears that the primary sticking point is the idea of evaluating teachers based on their students' standardized test scores. The union, like all teachers' unions nationwide, says this is not an appropriate way to evaluate teachers. They are concerned that up to 15% of teachers could lose their jobs when these test scores indicate that they are ineffective.

This is just designed to punish teachers who teach in poor areas. The biggest determinant of standardised testing scores is the background of the parents. Teachers don't have any control over this, so why measure them on something they cannot control?

As Mike777 points out, those teachers are the most underpaid already.

[Bbradley62]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-September-10, 21:26, said:

As Mike777 points out, those teachers are the most underpaid already.

I've now read Mike777's post three times, and I cannot find where he suggests that anyone is underpaid.

[awm]

This explains some of the reasoning.

Complaints include:

(1) An increase in the length of the school day amounting to a 20% increase in hours without additional compensation.
(2) Teacher evaluation based on student tests which are not designed to evaluate teacher performance, and do not compensate for student poverty levels.
(3) Lack of funding to repair school buildings and provide textbooks for students.
(4) Cuts to classes like art, music, and PE.
(5) An emphasis on charter schools rather than funding the public school system.
(6) A recent law making it almost impossible for teachers to strike (requiring 75% of teachers to vote to strike, not 75% of votes).
(7) A general view that the city is not negotiating in good faith.

This strike has something like 98% approval from the Chicago teachers union -- pretty startlingly high.

[Bbradley62]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-September-10, 21:26, said:

The biggest determinant of standardised testing scores is the background of the parents. Teachers don't have any control over this, so why measure them on something they cannot control?

Clearly, I haven't read the actual proposal by the City, but I would presume that they would be attempting to evaluate teachers based on students' score improvements from one year to the next, not based on absolute values. The question is (should be): "do your students know more at the end of the school year than they knew at the end of the previous school year?", not "do your students test as well as the kids in the rich part of town?". Teachers should be held accountable for seeing that their students make some progress over the course of the school year.

[Cthulhu D]

Bbradley62, on 2012-September-10, 21:54, said:

Clearly, I haven't read the actual proposal by the City, but I would presume that they would be attempting to evaluate teachers based on students' score improvements from one year to the next, not based on absolute values. The question is (should be): "do your students know more at the end of the school year than they knew at the end of the previous school year?", not "do your students test as well as the kids in the rich part of town?". Teachers should be held accountable for seeing that their students make some progress over the course of the school year.

Yeah, except this is almost entirely predicated on the parents as well - the environment the kid spends the summer holidays in effects retention. If you test a school kid at the end of the school year, that kid goes backwards between 2-3 and 8 months by the start of the next year, predicted by socio-economic status.

You need to test multiple times in a school year to get meaningful results. Of course, the actual tests as proposed don't even control for socio-economic status of the kids, so it's obvious that Chicago is just trying to ***** the teachers.

[Bbradley62]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-September-10, 22:01, said:

You need to test multiple times in a school year to get meaningful results.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Cthulhu D, on 2012-September-10, 22:01, said:

Of course, the actual tests as proposed don't even control for socio-economic status of the kids,

You don't have to control for anything if all you're doing is comparing each kid to the however-many-months-earlier version of himself, not trying to compare him to a kid with different circumstances.

Cthulhu D, on 2012-September-10, 22:01, said:

so it's obvious that Chicago is just trying to ***** the teachers.

That's just plain nonsense. Chicago needs those teachers who are competent to continue teaching in its public schools; those who are not need to go, and Chicago needs a reasonable way of differentiating, which the union doesn't seem to want to allow.

[Cthulhu D]

Bbradley62, on 2012-September-10, 22:23, said:

That's just plain nonsense. Chicago needs those teachers who are competent to continue teaching in its public schools; those who are not need to go, and Chicago needs a reasonable way of differentiating, which the union doesn't seem to want to allow.

From my reading they are not proposing multiple tests a year or socio economic controls. What other explanation is there? As it stands, the proposal is 'if you teach poor black kids, you are going to get fired, have fun!'

I'd be on strike too.

[Bbradley62]

There is simply the explanation that each student is expected to "know more" at the end of the year than he knew at the end of the previous year, without regard to comparing him to anyone else. Alternatively, the measurements can be done within each school; if a teacher's students make noticeably less progress during the year than all the other teachers' students (at the same school), that teacher can reasonably be deemed to have failed to educate his students. Any attempt to distinguish between good teachers and bad teachers is better than the union's apparent position that there are no bad teachers.

[mike777]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-September-10, 22:29, said:

From my reading they are not proposing multiple tests a year or socio economic controls. What other explanation is there? As it stands, the proposal is 'if you teach poor black kids, you are going to get fired, have fun!'

I'd be on strike too.

As a graduate of the Chicago public school system, and given my mom was a teacher in Chicago, it does seem wierd that they want to fire all the teachers of black students but Ok. Not sure why they target only blacks and not other races. They face a 3 billion dollar deficit.

I suppose they could just raise taxes by 3billion over the next 3 years but that is still on a budget that fires all those teachers.

It is just weird that Chicago it planning on spending 3 billion bucks they dont have and yet they still wont repair schools, buy textbooks....that money just maintains the current status quo.

[mike777]

http://www.trulia.co...mentary_School/

btw my old school has 8 students for each full time teacher.

I just checked the other school I went to has ten students for each full time teacher.
This school was 100 years old when I went there. I notice they tore it down and built a new building.

--

Now if we only give them 10-11k per student that barely covers the teachers cost right now let alone for being underpaid at roughly 100K including benefits.

Note there is no money left over for the buildings, desks, textbooks, air cond, etc.

[billw55]

I have a hard time accepting claims that teachers are underpaid. I sure don't make $75,000 per year, and I work substantially more days per year than they do. And the benefits, wow, dirt cheap pensions and healthcare, and so much more. And on top of all that, they have (for the time being, anyway) lifetime guaranteed jobs at high pay with no risk of layoff, company closing, etc.

I also don't accept once a year standardized tests as a teacher quality indicator. There are random and systematic confounders. For any given teacher, these scores will fluctuate, more or less randomly. There is real risk of sometimes penalizing (or even firing) good teachers who hit an unlucky dip, or rewarding bad ones who hit a lucky peak. Furthermore, administrators have their personal whims when class placement comes around. Principals will sometimes place all/most of the "bad" kids in the classes of teachers they don't like, or the "good" ones in classes of teachers who run their errands or otherwise kiss their butts. These teachers will get punished/rewarded for their test scores? meh.

I wish I knew the solution but I don't.

[hrothgar]

Quote

I have a hard time accepting claims that teachers are underpaid. I sure don't make $75,000 per year, and I work substantially more days per year than they do. And the benefits, wow, dirt cheap pensions and healthcare, and so much more.

Couple comments about teacher's pay:

1. The hours SUCK. My mother was a high school teacher for a couple decades. She was typically busy with lesson plans, grading, and the like far into the evening. Yes, the summer vacations and school vacations are nice. However, the hours she worked during the school year were ridiculous. (This coming from someone who is used to "start up culture" in the tech industry.

2. The pay sucks... Teacher's need to invest significant time and money into their qualifications. (When I was growing up, most of my public school teacher's had at least a master's degree).

[mike777]

billw55, on 2012-September-11, 07:03, said:

I have a hard time accepting claims that teachers are underpaid. I sure don't make $75,000 per year, and I work substantially more days per year than they do. And the benefits, wow, dirt cheap pensions and healthcare, and so much more. And on top of all that, they have (for the time being, anyway) lifetime guaranteed jobs at high pay with no risk of layoff, company closing, etc.

I also don't accept once a year standardized tests as a teacher quality indicator. There are random and systematic confounders. For any given teacher, these scores will fluctuate, more or less randomly. There is real risk of sometimes penalizing (or even firing) good teachers who hit an unlucky dip, or rewarding bad ones who hit a lucky peak. Furthermore, administrators have their personal whims when class placement comes around. Principals will sometimes place all/most of the "bad" kids in the classes of teachers they don't like, or the "good" ones in classes of teachers who run their errands or otherwise kiss their butts. These teachers will get punished/rewarded for their test scores? meh.

I wish I knew the solution but I don't.

I think the debate is over should there be more competition or free market options or should the solution come from more government central control.


Reuters) - Chicago teachers walking picket lines on Monday, in a strike that has closed schools across the city, are taking on not just their combative mayor but a powerful education reform movement that is transforming public schools across the United States.

The new vision, championed by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who used to run Chicago's schools, calls for a laser focus on standardized tests meant to gauge student skills in reading, writing and math. Teachers who fail to raise student scores may be fired. Schools that fail to boost scores may be shut down.

And the monopoly that the public sector once held on public schools will be broken with a proliferation of charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately run - and typically non-union.

To reformers, both Democrats and Republicans, these changes offer the best hope for improving dismal urban schools. Many teachers, however, see the new policies as a brazen attempt to shift public resources into private hands, to break the power of teachers unions, and to reduce the teaching profession to test preparation.

In Chicago, last-minute contract talks broke down not over pay, but over the reform agenda, both sides said Sunday. The union would not agree to Emanuel's proposal that teacher evaluations be based in large measure on student test scores.

http://news.yahoo.co...-162522907.html

[billw55]

mike777, on 2012-September-11, 07:58, said:

I think the debate is over should there be more competition or free market options or should the solution come from more government central control.

There already is free market competition in Chicago: Catholic schools. As I understand, those that can afford it almost universally choose this over the public schools. Those that cannot, go to public. This fact has not averted the current situation.

Is there something else you mean by "competition" or "free market options"?

[mike777]

billw55, on 2012-September-11, 08:04, said:

There already is free market competition in Chicago: Catholic schools. As I understand, those that can afford it almost universally choose this over the public schools. Those that cannot, go to public. This fact has not averted the current situation.

Is there something else you mean by "competition" or "free market options"?

Yes, but good point, see the rest of my post. BTW I dont think the charter schools are on strike, so at least some students are not affected.

Many teachers sent their own children to non public schools. The median income for non teachers in Chicago is around 45k btw.

yes, they are trying to increase the options, and at the very least as other posters have pointed out this is an attack against the Chicago Teachers union power.