http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/chicago-teachers-union-leader-karen-lewis-pushed-back-won-article-1.1161008
QuoteKaren Lewis, who last week led 29,000 Chicago teachers on a school strike heard across the nation, has suddenly emerged as the new champion for millions of frustrated public school teachers.
Many of those teachers are sick and tired of being made into scapegoats by politicians and corporate honchos who never spent a single day in front of a classroom.
They are fed up with overcrowded classrooms in rundown buildings, with bureaucrats who keep hiring high-paid consultants despite huge budget deficits, with new state laws that tie teacher evaluation to their students' test scores, with the constant closing of neighborhood schools and the stampede to charter schools.
But most of all, they are furious at the lack of respect for them and their profession.
Until this week, no one — not even American Federation of Teachers chief Randi Weingarten — had found a way to turn back the tide of teacher bashing.
Then the feisty firebrand Lewis burst on the scene.
For a week, she went toe-to-toe against Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the former Obama White House chief-of-staff known for his short fuse, foul mouth and take-no-prisoners style.
And by any measure, Lewis came come out a winner.
The preliminary deal that emerged over the weekend — once it's approved by the rank and file this week — will restore respect for teachers nationwide.
Lewis came out of nowhere in 2010, after two decades as a top high school teacher, to lead an insurgent group that swept out the old Chicago Teachers Union leaders.
That old leadership had meekly gone along for nearly a decade with the agenda of Chicago's former public schools chief, Arne Duncan.
And once Duncan went to Washington as President Obama's Secretary of Education, his Chicago agenda became Obama's Race to the Top. Duncan used federal aid to states for more closures of low-performing schools, teacher layoffs, merit pay raises, charter schools, and more standardized tests.
It's the same agenda our own Mayor Bloomberg, a handful of billionaire philanthropists and many Republican leaders across America have been pursuing.
Lewis and her insurgent group vowed to challenge these so-called reforms head on. Once in command, she forged a close alliance with several Chicago parent groups whose members were equally furious at being excluded from educational decision-making.
Meanwhile, Mayor Emanuel showed Lewis' members complete disdain. He rescinded a 4% pay raise in the existing union contract. He sought to have 40% of teacher evaluations based on their students' test scores. And he vowed to close more schools without offering laid-off teachers a chance to be rehired.
Little wonder that Lewis won a huge mandate from her members for their first strike in 25 years.
Once the walkout began, Emanuel was forced to back down on some major items. He gave up his demand for merit pay. He agreed that least 50% of laid off teachers would be rehired when new positions became available, and to allow teachers to "follow their students" when schools closed.
Pupil test scores will still count for 30% of a teacher's evaluations, but teachers will have the right to appeal those evaluations.
Lewis even won new "anti-bullying" provisions against principals and supervisors, and new faculty diversity commitments to stem Chicago's disproportionate firings of black teachers in recent years.
The contract, moreover, calls for the school district to immediately hire more than 500 art, music, foreign language and gym teachers — welcome news to parents.
Which is why wherever public school teachers gathered last week, the strike in Chicago was the subject of conversation.
Finally, a group of teachers had stood up back against all that bashing.
If I were a teacher, I'd be pissed off about my career tied to the performance of the snot-nosed little shits that may or may not show up for class, or bother to do the work or read a book, too.
Teachers are the facilitators in these scenarios, not the performers. That resides with the students and their parents.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:59:46 AM
If I were a teacher, I'd be pissed off about my career tied to the performance of the snot-nosed little shits that may or may not show up for class, or bother to do the work or read a book, too.
Teachers are the facilitators in these scenarios, not the performers. That resides with the students and their parents.
:yes:
Of course, it's an American tradition to always blame somebody else who happens to have a pension for your precious little angels' underperformance when you can't be bothered to spend time with the little fucker yourself and make sure the little shit did his homework.
An amusing article that kind of reminds me of the old B5 episode "The Illusion of Truth."
There are elements of truth to the story: most "student progress" testing tests what is easy to test, not what would tell us real things about student progress. Tying teacher salaries into these kinds of tests just forces the "teach to the test" style of teaching that further blights progress, because it makes education even more artificial.
However, it is clear to me that the Chicago teachers' union, like most teachers unions nation-wide, is only paying lip service to the interests of the students, and instead is focused on making sure that marginal teachers don't lose their jobs when it is discovered how marginal they are. School boards, to be sure, are seldom if ever better; I'd guess many if not most school board members ran for school board as a springboard for higher elected office, not because they care about students.
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2012, 08:12:54 AM
However, it is clear to me that the Chicago teachers' union, like most teachers unions nation-wide, is only paying lip service to the interests of the students, and instead is focused on making sure that marginal teachers don't lose their jobs when it is discovered how marginal they are.
Yeah, I think that's the tough bit. Unfortunately the teaching to the test bit doesn't really help matters as far as actually helping students.
I do wonder find it curious though that they appear to use a formula to judge teachers evidenced by them arbitrarily changing the weight of student scores to 30%.
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2012, 08:12:54 AM
and instead is focused on making sure that marginal teachers don't lose their jobs when it is discovered how marginal they are.
I always find it interesting how teachers are labelled "marginal" when they're stuck dealing with marginal students in the marginal schools with the worst absenteeism rates in the shittiest neighborhoods in Chicago.
If more than 1 out of 3 students weren't in your class on any given day, I think you'd be "marginal" too, professor.
Yi is gonna be PISSED.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:24:18 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2012, 08:12:54 AM
and instead is focused on making sure that marginal teachers don't lose their jobs when it is discovered how marginal they are.
I always find it interesting how teachers are labelled "marginal" when they're stuck dealing with marginal students in the marginal schools with the worst absenteeism rates in the shittiest neighborhoods in Chicago.
If more than 1 out of 3 students weren't in your class on any given day, I think you'd be "marginal" too, professor.
Perhaps but there is also a fair number of teachers out there that just suck. I had plenty of them. Going on a cig/beer break several times a period is pretty marginal.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:59:46 AM
If I were a teacher, I'd be pissed off about my career tied to the performance of the snot-nosed little shits that may or may not show up for class, or bother to do the work or read a book, too.
Teachers are the facilitators in these scenarios, not the performers. That resides with the students and their parents.
The little shits wouldn't be such a problem if on top of that one did not have to deal with a horde of retarded helicopter parents who think that every time their little shit gets a grade below B, it must be the teacher's fault.
grumbler and Seeds are right. Teachers complain about just about everything, and to some extent they are right. Parents routinely blame them for their kids being disrespectful illterate tools while not enforcing any discipline or respect for education at home. But the teachers' unions often seem to be concerned about keeping jobs rather than keeping and promoting good performers.
Quote from: Martinus on September 17, 2012, 08:26:18 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:59:46 AM
If I were a teacher, I'd be pissed off about my career tied to the performance of the snot-nosed little shits that may or may not show up for class, or bother to do the work or read a book, too.
Teachers are the facilitators in these scenarios, not the performers. That resides with the students and their parents.
The little shits wouldn't be such a problem if on top of that one did not have to deal with a horde of retarded helicopter parents who think that every time their little shit gets a grade below B, it must be the teacher's fault.
That's pretty unlikely in the type of cases Seedy is talking about.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 08:25:23 AM
Perhaps but there is also a fair number of teachers out there that just suck. I had plenty of them. Going on a cig/beer break several times a period is pretty marginal.
There are other metrics available to address that; student performance isn't one of them. Classroom observation has really been tossed to the wayside since the 1970s.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:27:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 08:25:23 AM
Perhaps but there is also a fair number of teachers out there that just suck. I had plenty of them. Going on a cig/beer break several times a period is pretty marginal.
There are other metrics available to address that; student performance isn't one of them. Classroom observation has really been tossed to the wayside since the 1970s.
Who is going to pay the salaries for these observers? :P
Quote from: Martinus on September 17, 2012, 08:26:18 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:59:46 AM
If I were a teacher, I'd be pissed off about my career tied to the performance of the snot-nosed little shits that may or may not show up for class, or bother to do the work or read a book, too.
Teachers are the facilitators in these scenarios, not the performers. That resides with the students and their parents.
The little shits wouldn't be such a problem if on top of that one did not have to deal with a horde of retarded helicopter parents who think that every time their little shit gets a grade below B, it must be the teacher's fault.
:lol: Aren't too many hoverparents in the 'hood, Marti.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 08:27:57 AM
Who is going to pay the salaries for these observers? :P
You mean, back when we actually spent money on the education system?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 17, 2012, 08:26:41 AM
grumbler and Seeds are right. Teachers complain about just about everything, and to some extent they are right. Parents routinely blame them for their kids being disrespectful illterate tools while not enforcing any discipline or respect for education at home. But the teachers' unions often seem to be concerned about keeping jobs rather than keeping and promoting good performers.
Essentially, education is by large a shitty line of work for shitty people doing shitty job with shitty students. I think it will always be like that unless we find a better idea what to do with kids. As it is now, it is one of the most unusual and exceptional proposition in the free market economy - an attempt to provide a uniform level of service to an entire populace of certain age, notwithstanding their ability to pay or benefit from that service. In a sense, it is bound to fail, no?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:28:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 17, 2012, 08:26:18 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:59:46 AM
If I were a teacher, I'd be pissed off about my career tied to the performance of the snot-nosed little shits that may or may not show up for class, or bother to do the work or read a book, too.
Teachers are the facilitators in these scenarios, not the performers. That resides with the students and their parents.
The little shits wouldn't be such a problem if on top of that one did not have to deal with a horde of retarded helicopter parents who think that every time their little shit gets a grade below B, it must be the teacher's fault.
:lol: Aren't too many hoverparents in the 'hood, Marti.
Ok, I think it might be different here in Europe. I think it is much more common for working class, "salt of the earth", uneducated, rude parents to go to school and yell and children when their kids get into trouble here in Europe - that stereotype is frequently lampooned in British comedy, for example, and I think in Poland it is also quite common.
But yeah, I give you that these are not "helicopter parents", still.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:30:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 08:27:57 AM
Who is going to pay the salaries for these observers? :P
You mean, back when we actually spent money on the education system?
How conservative. :P
Anyway, the point stands - mentioning observers is pretty irrelevant in a situation when there isn't even enough money to pay the current crop of teachers. I also doubt that the same teachers railing against these tests would be happy to have someone show up and assess whether they should keep their jobs. :D
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 08:36:02 AM
How conservative. :P
Well, we can wait until later, when Hansy shows up to trot out the DC public school system as an example of OMG THEY GET MOR MONEY THAN ANYBODY.
QuoteAnyway, the point stands - mentioning observers is pretty irrelevant in a situation when there isn't even enough money to pay the current crop of teachers. I also doubt that the same teachers railing against these tests would be happy to have someone show up and assess whether they should keep their jobs. :D
All I'm saying is, there are better metrics to measure teacher performance than the test results of kids that aren't there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:46:16 AM
All I'm saying is, there are better metrics to measure teacher performance than the test results of kids that aren't there.
Well yes, I think we can agree on that.
Quote from: Martinus on September 17, 2012, 08:30:59 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 17, 2012, 08:26:41 AM
grumbler and Seeds are right. Teachers complain about just about everything, and to some extent they are right. Parents routinely blame them for their kids being disrespectful illterate tools while not enforcing any discipline or respect for education at home. But the teachers' unions often seem to be concerned about keeping jobs rather than keeping and promoting good performers.
Essentially, education is by large a shitty line of work for shitty people doing shitty job with shitty students. I think it will always be like that unless we find a better idea what to do with kids. As it is now, it is one of the most unusual and exceptional proposition in the free market economy - an attempt to provide a uniform level of service to an entire populace of certain age, notwithstanding their ability to pay or benefit from that service. In a sense, it is bound to fail, no?
I'd agree that putting the interested higher performing (or even just those with an interest in getting education) in the same pool as the drones and the crazies is a recipe for failure. A lot of systems make no differentiation between the two and as a result the teacher is a disciplinarian for the crazies rather than a good educator.
Testing gets a lot of abuse, but in some cases it makes sense: if you can't pass certain basic reading or math tests, you probably lack basic reading or math skills. I have two family members that have recently taught or are teaching at failing schools, and their students almost universally fail the state testing. I don't think that is because they are bad teachers; it is because in some cases the students are children of migrant workers that don't speak english and are gone half the year, or in other cases have been socially promoted and have made it into high school basically illiterate.
If I was in their boat, I wouldn't want my pay tied to a test that my students couldn't pass no matter what they did. But in these cases the problem isn't the test: the test is just shedding light on the problem that a bunch of kids are failing to obtain some basic skills.
If this Karen Lewis broad were my champion I think I'd have to seriously re-evaluate my career/life.
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2012, 09:02:14 AM
If this Karen Lewis broad were my champion I think I'd have to seriously re-evaluate my career/life.
I thought the same thing about Mitt Romney.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2012, 09:43:24 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2012, 09:02:14 AM
If this Karen Lewis broad were my champion I think I'd have to seriously re-evaluate my career/life.
I thought the same thing about Mitt Romney.
Really? Are you familiar with Karen Lewis??
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2012, 10:03:41 AM
Really? Are you familiar with Karen Lewis??
Let me guess, you're very well-versed in the subject of Karen Lewis ever since some retard blogs informed you a couple of days ago with everything you need to know about her.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 17, 2012, 08:56:42 AM
Testing gets a lot of abuse, but in some cases it makes sense: if you can't pass certain basic reading or math tests, you probably lack basic reading or math skills. I have two family members that have recently taught or are teaching at failing schools, and their students almost universally fail the state testing. I don't think that is because they are bad teachers; it is because in some cases the students are children of migrant workers that don't speak english and are gone half the year, or in other cases have been socially promoted and have made it into high school basically illiterate.
If I was in their boat, I wouldn't want my pay tied to a test that my students couldn't pass no matter what they did. But in these cases the problem isn't the test: the test is just shedding light on the problem that a bunch of kids are failing to obtain some basic skills.
I don't think we need tests to discover the problems of students who don't speak English, are gone half the year, or are illiterate.
The problem with testing isn't that it doesn't give decision-makers some valid info in the aggregate, it's that multiple-choice tests don't measure what we want to measure in students: things like analytical skills, creativity, and communications sills. It is possible to test for those things, but it is hard, so school authorities test for what is easy to test - which happens to be the ability to take these kinds of tests. That's an ability that students won't use much in real life.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 10:14:16 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2012, 10:03:41 AM
Really? Are you familiar with Karen Lewis??
Let me guess, you're very well-versed in the subject of Karen Lewis ever since some retard blogs informed you a couple of days ago with everything you need to know about her.
Eh, no. I watched a couple videos of her speaking.
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2012, 10:15:13 AM
That's an ability that students won't use much in real life.
Many of us don't use creativity or analytical thinking after school either. -_-
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2012, 10:15:13 AM
I don't think we need tests to discover the problems of students who don't speak English, are gone half the year, or are illiterate.
The problem with testing isn't that it doesn't give decision-makers some valid info in the aggregate, it's that multiple-choice tests don't measure what we want to measure in students: things like analytical skills, creativity, and communications sills. It is possible to test for those things, but it is hard, so school authorities test for what is easy to test - which happens to be the ability to take these kinds of tests. That's an ability that students won't use much in real life.
I think we want to develop the things you mention, but also the basic building blocks of reading and math. If mass standardized tests are only easy for the latter, I still think those tests have value and are an important assessment tool. They just can't be the only part of evaluating a student.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:30:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 08:27:57 AM
Who is going to pay the salaries for these observers? :P
You mean, back when we actually spent money on the education system?
We spend the money. Lots of it. It just doesn't get to the classroom.
It's pretty obvious if I multiply the publicized $-per-kid numbers in NV and multiply that by the number of kids in my Mom's class that the money isn't getting there. It's enough money to fill the class with good computers, pay my mom a hundred grand salary and make sure they've got every teaching aid they could want within reason, even when you factor out what you'd expect to be siphoned out for school lunches, the electric bill and extracurricular things.
I don't know why the guys who work in the huge administrative complex with marble floors and mahogany conference rooms can't figure out the budget. I'm sure their huge public relations department and top-flight lobbying team could be swapped for an accountant or two.
We've doubled the number of teachers since 1970 and only had an 8% increase in the size of the student body, we also spend more money per capita than we used to on education and more than many other countries that get far better educational results. The issue with our education system almost certainly isn't how much we spend.
Now, I don't know what the problem with our educational system is, but I find it hard to believe given our relative spending and hiring levels since 1970 (and lack of any material improvement since then) that it is that we aren't willing to spend enough money on the system.
Teacher's unions are almost always a blight, overly protective of blatantly bad teachers and basically pushing the ideology that teachers are supposed to be compensated like doctors or lawyers if you expect any good educational results.
But people just focusing on slashing teacher pay and benefits and coming up with BS standardized tests just to fire more teachers aren't really helping either. I'm not really sure that poorly performing teachers explain our educational problems. However as a government employee myself I think the best way to handle bad government employees is for them to have a supervisor that monitors their work performance and gives them periodic reviews. Enough consecutive poor reviews and you get shown the door.
This idea that there should be a standardized test to grade across the board teacher performance just seems bizarre to me. It seems to me it should be the job of a principal to judge teacher performance (or vice principals or department heads, depending on how large a school we're talking about.) That's how we do it at the Federal level for civil servants, their supervisor reviews them and puts them on an "improvement plan" if they are having problems.
No idea how true it is, but I always hear that principals can't really fire teachers very easily and the effort involved dissuades most from even attempting it. That's not totally dissimilar to the situation at the Federal level, firing someone is "work" and most people who are in management in the government would prefer not to do any of that. But I've made it my habit to do all the laborious paperwork required to get someone moving out the door, I've seen the consequences if you just let the detritus accumulate. It's one thing when you have a bad performer here or there, but if you don't get rid of the really bad cases they also tend to be the ones who stay in one position for the rest of their careers...so over a few years your whole department can be made up 100% of dead wood.
The thing is everyone knows who the really good teachers are in a school. As an example, recently there was a letter to the editor in our local paper complaining about the fact that an excellent teacher with long years of service had left the public school system to teach at a private school. As it happens he is now teaching socials to one of my boys. My son's comment about the teacher after the first few classes - "Best teacher ever, but its going to be hard to get an A". And my sons have had the priviledge of being taught be some very good teachers.
When my kids were in the public system there was a long list of teachers to avoid who had either burned out or who never had the ability to be a great teacher in the first place.
I dont know how to fix the problem but if I was in charge I would probably start with increasing the pay for teachers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2012, 11:42:34 AM
I dont know how to fix the problem but if I was in charge I would probably start with increasing the pay for teachers.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2012, 12:34:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2012, 11:42:34 AM
I dont know how to fix the problem but if I was in charge I would probably start with increasing the pay for teachers.
:lol:
Whenever I'm stumped by a problem, I throw money at it.
Yeah, I can see why your country is going downhill so fast.
Can't attact good teachers anymore - lets cut their salaries and make their life a living hell - yep that ought to do nicely.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 12:36:34 PM
Whenever I'm stumped by a problem, I throw money at it.
Throwing money at it, or slicing money from it, you still can't fix broken kids and broken parents.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 12:36:34 PM
Whenever I'm stumped by a problem, I throw money at it.
Throwing money at it, or slicing money from it, you still can't fix broken kids and broken parents.
Disagree. I'd just give those broken people more monies.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 12:42:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 12:36:34 PM
Whenever I'm stumped by a problem, I throw money at it.
Throwing money at it, or slicing money from it, you still can't fix broken kids and broken parents.
Disagree. I'd just give those broken people more monies.
That's from another budget, not the DOE.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 12:42:52 PM
Disagree. I'd just give those broken people more monies.
Especially if some of that money gets funneled to Democrat candidates.
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2012, 12:54:11 PM
Especially if some of that money gets funneled to Democrat candidates.
WHELP YOU GOT US THERE MAN
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2012, 12:39:45 PM
Yeah, I can see why your country is going downhill so fast.
Can't attact good teachers anymore - lets cut their salaries and make their life a living hell - yep that ought to do nicely.
But based on my research we don't spend less than other countries, we actually spend a lot more than many other countries that do much better on all the international education metrics (which can probably be debated on their merits by some.) For example Finland is usually up near the top educationally (hard to believe based on my personal internet interactions with Finns), and they actually spend less than the United States, here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120425355065601997.html) is an interesting WSJ piece comparing the U.S. to Finland:
QuoteWhat Makes Finnish Kids So Smart?
Finland's teens score extraordinarily high on an international test. American educators are trying to figure out why.
By ELLEN GAMERMAN
Helsinki, Finland
High-school students here rarely get more than a half-hour of homework a night. They have no school uniforms, no honor societies, no valedictorians, no tardy bells and no classes for the gifted. There is little standardized testing, few parents agonize over college and kids don't start school until age 7.
Yet by one international measure, Finnish teenagers are among the smartest in the world. They earned some of the top scores by 15-year-old students who were tested in 57 countries. American teens finished among the world's C students even as U.S. educators piled on more homework, standards and rules. Finnish youth, like their U.S. counterparts, also waste hours online. They dye their hair, love sarcasm and listen to rap and heavy metal. But by ninth grade they're way ahead in math, science and reading -- on track to keeping Finns among the world's most productive workers.
The Finns won attention with their performances in triennial tests sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group funded by 30 countries that monitors social and economic trends. In the most recent test, which focused on science, Finland's students placed first in science and near the top in math and reading, according to results released late last year. An unofficial tally of Finland's combined scores puts it in first place overall, says Andreas Schleicher, who directs the OECD's test, known as the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA. The U.S. placed in the middle of the pack in math and science; its reading scores were tossed because of a glitch. About 400,000 students around the world answered multiple-choice questions and essays on the test that measured critical thinking and the application of knowledge. A typical subject: Discuss the artistic value of graffiti.
The academic prowess of Finland's students has lured educators from more than 50 countries in recent years to learn the country's secret, including an official from the U.S. Department of Education. What they find is simple but not easy: well-trained teachers and responsible children. Early on, kids do a lot without adults hovering. And teachers create lessons to fit their students. "We don't have oil or other riches. Knowledge is the thing Finnish people have," says Hannele Frantsi, a school principal.
Visitors and teacher trainees can peek at how it's done from a viewing balcony perched over a classroom at the Norssi School in Jyväskylä, a city in central Finland. What they see is a relaxed, back-to-basics approach. The school, which is a model campus, has no sports teams, marching bands or prom.
Trailing 15-year-old Fanny Salo at Norssi gives a glimpse of the no-frills curriculum. Fanny is a bubbly ninth-grader who loves "Gossip Girl" books, the TV show "Desperate Housewives" and digging through the clothing racks at H&M stores with her friends.
Fanny earns straight A's, and with no gifted classes she sometimes doodles in her journal while waiting for others to catch up. She often helps lagging classmates. "It's fun to have time to relax a little in the middle of class," Fanny says. Finnish educators believe they get better overall results by concentrating on weaker students rather than by pushing gifted students ahead of everyone else. The idea is that bright students can help average ones without harming their own progress.
At lunch, Fanny and her friends leave campus to buy salmiakki, a salty licorice. They return for physics, where class starts when everyone quiets down. Teachers and students address each other by first names. About the only classroom rules are no cellphones, no iPods and no hats.
Fanny's more rebellious classmates dye their blond hair black or sport pink dreadlocks. Others wear tank tops and stilettos to look tough in the chilly climate. Tanning lotions are popular in one clique. Teens sift by style, including "fruittari," or preppies; "hoppari," or hip-hop, or the confounding "fruittari-hoppari," which fuses both. Ask an obvious question and you may hear "KVG," short for "Check it on Google, you idiot." Heavy-metal fans listen to Nightwish, a Finnish band, and teens socialize online at irc-galleria.net.
The Norssi School is run like a teaching hospital, with about 800 teacher trainees each year. Graduate students work with kids while instructors evaluate from the sidelines. Teachers must hold master's degrees, and the profession is highly competitive: More than 40 people may apply for a single job. Their salaries are similar to those of U.S. teachers, but they generally have more freedom.
Finnish teachers pick books and customize lessons as they shape students to national standards. "In most countries, education feels like a car factory. In Finland, the teachers are the entrepreneurs," says Mr. Schleicher, of the Paris-based OECD, which began the international student test in 2000.
One explanation for the Finns' success is their love of reading. Parents of newborns receive a government-paid gift pack that includes a picture book. Some libraries are attached to shopping malls, and a book bus travels to more remote neighborhoods like a Good Humor truck.
Finland shares its language with no other country, and even the most popular English-language books are translated here long after they are first published. Many children struggled to read the last Harry Potter book in English because they feared they would hear about the ending before it arrived in Finnish. Movies and TV shows have Finnish subtitles instead of dubbing. One college student says she became a fast reader as a child because she was hooked on the 1990s show "Beverly Hills, 90210."
In November, a U.S. delegation visited, hoping to learn how Scandinavian educators used technology. Officials from the Education Department, the National Education Association and the American Association of School Librarians saw Finnish teachers with chalkboards instead of whiteboards, and lessons shown on overhead projectors instead of PowerPoint. Keith Krueger was less impressed by the technology than by the good teaching he saw. "You kind of wonder how could our country get to that?" says Mr. Krueger, CEO of the Consortium for School Networking, an association of school technology officers that organized the trip.
Finnish high-school senior Elina Lamponen saw the differences firsthand. She spent a year at Colon High School in Colon, Mich., where strict rules didn't translate into tougher lessons or dedicated students, Ms. Lamponen says. She would ask students whether they did their homework. They would reply: " 'Nah. So what'd you do last night?'" she recalls. History tests were often multiple choice. The rare essay question, she says, allowed very little space in which to write. In-class projects were largely "glue this to the poster for an hour," she says. Her Finnish high school forced Ms. Lamponen, a spiky-haired 19-year-old, to repeat the year when she returned.
Lloyd Kirby, superintendent of Colon Community Schools in southern Michigan, says foreign students are told to ask for extra work if they find classes too easy. He says he is trying to make his schools more rigorous by asking parents to demand more from their children.
Despite the apparent simplicity of Finnish education, it would be tough to replicate in the U.S. With a largely homogeneous population, teachers have few students who don't speak Finnish. In the U.S., about 8% of students are learning English, according to the Education Department. There are fewer disparities in education and income levels among Finns. Finland separates students for the last three years of high school based on grades; 53% go to high school and the rest enter vocational school. (All 15-year-old students took the PISA test.) Finland has a high-school dropout rate of about 4% -- or 10% at vocational schools -- compared with roughly 25% in the U.S., according to their respective education departments.
Another difference is financial. Each school year, the U.S. spends an average of $8,700 per student, while the Finns spend $7,500. Finland's high-tax government provides roughly equal per-pupil funding, unlike the disparities between Beverly Hills public schools, for example, and schools in poorer districts. The gap between Finland's best- and worst-performing schools was the smallest of any country in the PISA testing. The U.S. ranks about average.
Finnish students have little angstata -- or teen angst -- about getting into the best university, and no worries about paying for it. College is free. There is competition for college based on academic specialties -- medical school, for instance. But even the best universities don't have the elite status of a Harvard.
Taking away the competition of getting into the "right schools" allows Finnish children to enjoy a less-pressured childhood. While many U.S. parents worry about enrolling their toddlers in academically oriented preschools, the Finns don't begin school until age 7, a year later than most U.S. first-graders.
Once school starts, the Finns are more self-reliant. While some U.S. parents fuss over accompanying their children to and from school, and arrange every play date and outing, young Finns do much more on their own. At the Ymmersta School in a nearby Helsinki suburb, some first-grade students trudge to school through a stand of evergreens in near darkness. At lunch, they pick out their own meals, which all schools give free, and carry the trays to lunch tables. There is no Internet filter in the school library. They can walk in their socks during class, but at home even the very young are expected to lace up their own skates or put on their own skis.
The Finns enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, but they, too, worry about falling behind in the shifting global economy. They rely on electronics and telecommunications companies, such as Finnish cellphone giant Nokia, along with forest-products and mining industries for jobs. Some educators say Finland needs to fast-track its brightest students the way the U.S. does, with gifted programs aimed at producing more go-getters. Parents also are getting pushier about special attention for their children, says Tapio Erma, principal of the suburban Olari School. "We are more and more aware of American-style parents," he says.
Mr. Erma's school is a showcase campus. Last summer, at a conference in Peru, he spoke about adopting Finnish teaching methods. During a recent afternoon in one of his school's advanced math courses, a high-school boy fell asleep at his desk. The teacher didn't disturb him, instead calling on others. While napping in class isn't condoned, Mr. Erma says, "We just have to accept the fact that they're kids and they're learning how to live."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 12:40:08 PM
Throwing money at it, or slicing money from it, you still can't fix broken kids and broken parents.
If the problem were only broken kids with broken parents, the US would be a hell of a lot better off than it is. Those kinds of kids are the smallest part of the problem. The bigger part is that students are graduating and going on (generally to college) without the communications or analytical skills needed to succeed in college or life. partly this is due to bureaucracies that don't reward teaching things not easily tested, part is due to reluctance on the part of teachers to adopt teaching methods that allow kids to analyze and communicate, and part is on the parents who don't seem to care if Johnny or Suzie is really learning anything worthwhile.
That's why I don't teach in public schools anymore.
Of course one thing to consider is environment. Most Finnish kids grow up in relative comfort in the same sort of environment. The United States has a lot of kids that grow up rich and middle class, but also a lot of kids that grow up poor with bad parents or overworked single parents who are unable to be involved. The wealthiest public school districts in the United States tend to far outperform the poor ones, and some of the poorest districts actually receive more money per student because of state and federal funds targeted at those areas. But no amount of money is going to make the parents in D.C. as involved in their kids educations as the parents in Reston, and for that reason relative spending levels probably aren't a good indicator of anything.
QuoteFinnish high-school senior Elina Lamponen saw the differences firsthand. She spent a year at Colon High School in Colon, Mich., where strict rules didn't translate into tougher lessons or dedicated students, Ms. Lamponen says. She would ask students whether they did their homework. They would reply: " 'Nah. So what'd you do last night?'" she recalls. History tests were often multiple choice. The rare essay question, she says, allowed very little space in which to write. In-class projects were largely "glue this to the poster for an hour," she says. Her Finnish high school forced Ms. Lamponen, a spiky-haired 19-year-old, to repeat the year when she returned.
lol, that's fucked up, man. Exchange education in the US so fubar'd, made her redo it at home. Nuff said.
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2012, 01:03:09 PM
The bigger part is that students are graduating and going on (generally to college) without the communications or analytical skills needed to succeed in college or life. partly this is due to bureaucracies that don't reward teaching things not easily tested, part is due to reluctance on the part of teachers to adopt teaching methods that allow kids to analyze and communicate, and part is on the parents who don't seem to care if Johnny or Suzie is really learning anything worthwhile.
That's why I don't teach in public schools anymore.
But the crush to squeeze X amount of edumacation to meet testing standings in a 50 minute period can't help with the analysis and communication skills. There's simply not enough hours in the learning day, despite attempts to increase it or go with a year-round curriculum.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 17, 2012, 01:00:40 PM
Quote
The school, which is a model campus, has no sports teams, marching bands or prom.
I wonder how much of it is this right here. Schools in this country seem to be expected to be a social institution rather than an educational one.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 01:08:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2012, 01:03:09 PM
The bigger part is that students are graduating and going on (generally to college) without the communications or analytical skills needed to succeed in college or life. partly this is due to bureaucracies that don't reward teaching things not easily tested, part is due to reluctance on the part of teachers to adopt teaching methods that allow kids to analyze and communicate, and part is on the parents who don't seem to care if Johnny or Suzie is really learning anything worthwhile.
That's why I don't teach in public schools anymore.
But the crush to squeeze X amount of edumacation to meet testing standings in a 50 minute period can't help with the analysis and communication skills. There's simply not enough hours in the learning day, despite attempts to increase it or go with a year-round curriculum.
Part of it is this:
Quote
High-school students here rarely get more than a half-hour of homework a night.
There's a sign of grumbler's "on the part of teachers to adopt teaching methods that allow kids to analyze and communicate" point right there. If the kids are spending tons of time on homework, that's sure sign that reluctance is there. Most of the teachers teaching in the US now came though education college being taught these methods and they suck.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 17, 2012, 01:00:40 PM
But based on my research we don't spend less than other countries, we actually spend a lot more than many other countries that do much better on all the international education metrics (which can probably be debated on their merits by some.) For example Finland is usually up near the top educationally (hard to believe based on my personal internet interactions with Finns), and they actually spend less than the United States, here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120425355065601997.html) is an interesting WSJ piece comparing the U.S. to Finland:
The US might spend more then Finland on a per student basis but that spending does not go to the teachers.
Here is an article referencing the most recent OECD report on teacher salaries.
http://www.mlive.com/education/index.ssf/2011/08/international_study_american_t.html
QuoteAmericans ranked 22nd among participating countries, with teachers earning less than 60 percent of the average pay for full-time college-educated workers. In many other countries, teachers earn between 80 percent and 100 percent of the college-educated average, he wrote.
Spain, New Zealand and Germany were at the top, while Italy, Slovenia, Hungary, Iceland and the Czech Republic were below the United States.
Finland, the apparent new benchmark for all things education, was ranked fifth.
I just realized who Karen Lewis reminds me of-- it's that large women with a slightly southern accent on that Onion "First Responders" panel. But unfortunately her act is real :mellow:
I think economic equality goes a long way with such things, as it does with most social ills. Eliminating fail cases benefits the society a lot more than maximizing potential of the over-achievers.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 03:18:47 PM
I think economic equality goes a long way with such things, as it does with most social ills. Eliminating fail cases benefits the society a lot more than maximizing potential of the over-achievers.
Honestly, I think you're wrong on both counts. The first is a case of correlation not causation. Being poor doesn't make kids do badly in school. Having shitty parents makes a kid more likely to be poor and also do badly in school. The second is a matter which cannot be divorced from subjectivity, but I'd always err on the side of maximizing potential whenever possible. That cannot be an absolute, however.
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2012, 10:18:41 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 10:14:16 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2012, 10:03:41 AM
Really? Are you familiar with Karen Lewis??
Let me guess, you're very well-versed in the subject of Karen Lewis ever since some retard blogs informed you a couple of days ago with everything you need to know about her.
Eh, no. I watched a couple videos of her speaking.
Oooh, were they doctored videos like from that Breitbart site?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2012, 04:29:43 PM
Oooh, were they doctored videos like from that Breitbart site?
And you ask me why I say you're fixated on Breitbart :rolleyes:
No, Raz. They were actually from local Chicago news sites. Believe me, this gal doesn't need any doctoring to appear outrageous.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2012, 12:39:45 PM
Yeah, I can see why your country is going downhill so fast.
Can't attact good teachers anymore - lets cut their salaries and make their life a living hell - yep that ought to do nicely.
There are plenty of good teachers.
The problem is that we also attract many bad teachers. And keep them.
That alone will make good teachers leave or become disillusioned, regardless of pay. This theme of 'A' players vs 'C', 'D', 'F' players applies to any organization or business.
It would be a reasonable proposition to increase teacher salaries in order to attract better people to the profession. The problem though is that proposal is never linked to tossing out all the current teachers.
As to measuring performance based on test results, my understanding is that those systems look at year-on-year improvements, not gross scores. I don't see the problem there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2012, 05:07:15 PM
It would be a reasonable proposition to increase teacher salaries in order to attract better people to the profession. The problem though is that proposal is never linked to tossing out all the current teachers.
As to measuring performance based on test results, my understanding is that those systems look at year-on-year improvements, not gross scores. I don't see the problem there.
I dunno - I know lots of people who would love to be teachers, but are having trouble finding a job.
Sounds like on the supply / demand curve, supply is outstripping demand. Hard to argue we need to raise their salaries.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2012, 05:07:15 PM
As to measuring performance based on test results, my understanding is that those systems look at year-on-year improvements, not gross scores. I don't see the problem there.
Perhaps if scores were driven strictly by teacher effort.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2012, 05:08:29 PM
I dunno - I know lots of people who would love to be teachers, but are having trouble finding a job.
Sounds like on the supply / demand curve, supply is outstripping demand. Hard to argue we need to raise their salaries.
But here a big part of that is funding. I mean even when I was in school we had a shortage of teachers because there was a shortage on how many the school system could afford.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 05:10:16 PM
Perhaps if scores were driven strictly by teacher effort.
Perhaps if the average change in scores were determined largely by teacher effort, with some additional noise in the system that is randomly distributed.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 17, 2012, 04:26:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 03:18:47 PM
I think economic equality goes a long way with such things, as it does with most social ills. Eliminating fail cases benefits the society a lot more than maximizing potential of the over-achievers.
Honestly, I think you're wrong on both counts. The first is a case of correlation not causation. Being poor doesn't make kids do badly in school. Having shitty parents makes a kid more likely to be poor and also do badly in school. The second is a matter which cannot be divorced from subjectivity, but I'd always err on the side of maximizing potential whenever possible. That cannot be an absolute, however.
Regarding the second point, there is strength in depth. A society in which majority of their members contribute can advance just as quickly, or maybe even quicker, than a society that advances on the backs of few great men at the costs of being dragged down by its underclass. Scandinavians seem to punch far above their weight in pretty much every endeavor when you think about how sparsely populated Scandinavia is.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2012, 05:12:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 05:10:16 PM
Perhaps if scores were driven strictly by teacher effort.
Perhaps if the average change in scores were determined largely by teacher effort, with some additional noise in the system that is randomly distributed.
I don't see how that clarification helps - as in I think my point still stands that it still isn't really fair. Even a gifted teacher can't lift up a completely uninspired student body.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2012, 02:58:10 PMThe US might spend more then Finland on a per student basis but that spending does not go to the teachers.
And I would agree that is a concern if there is any evidence that issues like pay relative to other college graduates, and pay relative to teachers in other countries had a clear impact on education. In age past I might plot the data out but I just can't be bothered now. However looking at your chart and then looking at this report on science, reading, and math scores in the OECD, found here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading), I come to the following conclusions:
1. Spain is ranked #1 in the OECD in terms of teacher salary relative to other college graduates. Spain ranks 26th in the OECD World Education Rankings for 2010.
2. Germany is ranked #3 in the OECD in terms of teacher salary relative to other college graduates. Germany ranks 16th overall in the OECD World Education Rankings for 2010.
3. Sweden ranks 6th in teacher pay but 15th in overall OECD World Education Rankings.
4. Norway is 9th in OECD educational performance, but is either 18th or 22nd in pay ratings. (Note in your PDF Norway is strangely listed twice in the teacher salary relative to college degreed persons graph...I've also noticed OECD member Canada is absent from that graph so perhaps a typo occurred.)
But obviously you'd have to actually sit down and demonstrate how much correlation there even is, but it's obviously not a 1-to-1.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 17, 2012, 07:47:28 PM
Germany ranks 16th overall in the OECD World Education Rankings for 2010.
I would've lost money on that bet.
I hope these clowns remain on strike for a month. They had no reason to go on strike. Bunch of babies. Among the highest paid teachers in any big city. They don't want evaluations, too bad. They need to be accountable just like any other worker. They're out there in red shirts, flying a red and black revolution flag, spouting the evils of capitalism. And these clowns are teaching school kids?!
Quote from: KRonn on September 17, 2012, 08:43:41 PM
I hope these clowns remain on strike for a month. They had no reason to go on strike. Bunch of babies. Among the highest paid teachers in any big city. They don't want evaluations, too bad. They need to be accountable just like any other worker. They're out there in red shirts, flying a red and black revolution flag, spouting the evils of capitalism. And these clowns are teaching school kids?!
Meh, they had every reason to go on strike, Pat Buchanan.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:48:08 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 17, 2012, 08:43:41 PM
I hope these clowns remain on strike for a month. They had no reason to go on strike. Bunch of babies. Among the highest paid teachers in any big city. They don't want evaluations, too bad. They need to be accountable just like any other worker. They're out there in red shirts, flying a red and black revolution flag, spouting the evils of capitalism. And these clowns are teaching school kids?!
Meh, they had every reason to go on strike, Pat Buchanan.
No reason, more like spoiled and haven't gotten with the times that are changing. Teacher evals, a slightly longer school day which may school systems are trying to do. And they wanted large pay increases, on top of their already high pay by comparison. No, they just show more of why the teacher unions are becoming more and more disliked.
Teachers need to be destroyed.
ok Neil
Quote from: KRonn on September 17, 2012, 08:58:43 PM
No reason, more like spoiled and haven't gotten with the times that are changing. Teacher evals,
Yes, the teacher evaluations. There's no reason to have them at 40%, when 30% is good enough for the rest of the state of Illinois. And there's nothing wrong with requesting a review process when it's your job on the line.
Quotea slightly longer school day which may school systems are trying to do.
Not an unusual grievance when it comes to extending the 40 hour work week. Commensurate pay.
QuoteAnd they wanted large pay increases, on top of their already high pay by comparison.
A pay increase over 3 years, staggered at 3%, 2% and 2% respectively, isn't outrageous, considering the pay freeze they've already had. And their salaries are relatively high, because Chicago is expensive.
QuoteNo, they just show more of why the teacher unions are becoming more and more disliked.
Yes, demanding that text books actually be available for the first day of class is a true barometer of how far towards socialism teachers' unions have brought us.
You're a douchebag. Should thank a teacher for that somewhere.
Interesting how nobody's bitching about the Chicago PD's bill for overtime this year clocking in at over $29 million over budget, though.
Douchebag eh? Hey, I understand that you as a Democrat will support the over bearing, incestuous relationship of Dems and Dem supported public sector unions, especially the powerful teacher's unions. Huge cash cow for your party, and a rather despicable system, as you'd surely realize if the same were going on for the Repubs.
Teacher unions aren't there for the working guy. I and other taxpayers are the little guy, paying the freight for teacher unions so they can get better benefits and pay than those paying the freight. Add in the incestuous relationship with a political party and there you have the anger and dislike as more and more people wake up.
Quote from: KRonn on September 17, 2012, 09:26:23 PM
Douchebag eh? Hey, I understand that you as a Democrat will support the over bearing, incestuous relationship of Dems and Dem supported public sector unions, especially the powerful teacher's unions. Huge cash cow for your party, and a rather despicable system, as you'd surely realize if the same were going on for the Repubs.
Teacher unions aren't there for the working guy. I and other taxpayers are the little guy, paying the freight for teacher unions so they can get better benefits and pay than those paying the freight. Add in the incestuous relationship with a political party and there you have the anger and dislike as more and more people wake up.
:lol: You used "incestuous" twice.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 09:24:48 PM
Interesting how nobody's bitching about the Chicago PD's bill for overtime this year clocking in at over $29 million over budget, though.
Hmm, I didn't know about that. Why do they need so much overtime? So what if cops miss a gang shooting scene or two, another one is just around the corner.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 09:28:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 09:24:48 PM
Interesting how nobody's bitching about the Chicago PD's bill for overtime this year clocking in at over $29 million over budget, though.
Hmm, I didn't know about that. Why do they need so much overtime? So what if cops miss a gang shooting scene or two, another one is just around the corner.
$15 Million for the NATO conference, and $14 million requested in July for the rest of the year "to reduce crime".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 09:27:48 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 17, 2012, 09:26:23 PM
Douchebag eh? Hey, I understand that you as a Democrat will support the over bearing, incestuous relationship of Dems and Dem supported public sector unions, especially the powerful teacher's unions. Huge cash cow for your party, and a rather despicable system, as you'd surely realize if the same were going on for the Repubs.
Teacher unions aren't there for the working guy. I and other taxpayers are the little guy, paying the freight for teacher unions so they can get better benefits and pay than those paying the freight. Add in the incestuous relationship with a political party and there you have the anger and dislike as more and more people wake up.
:lol: You used "incestuous" twice.
Silly me. ;)
Oh no! Someone is actually making a living off my tax dollars for doing work! God Forbid.
In a related note, some interesting developments from today's Torygraph:
QuoteGCSEs axed: True test to restore faith in exam system
Michael Gove declared the end of more than two decades of "dumbing down" yesterday with the biggest overhaul of the examinations system in a generation.
In the Coalition's most ambitious education reforms to date, the Education Secretary announced that exams sat at the age of 16 would be redrawn to drive up standards and prevent schools "teaching to the test".
GCSEs will be scrapped in favour of new English Baccalaureate Certificates (EBaccs) focusing on traditional academic disciplines such as English, maths and science, Mr Gove said.
He added that the reforms would represent the end of an "exam system that has narrowed the curriculum, forced idealistic professionals to teach to the test and encouraged heads to offer children the softest possible options".
"It is time for the race to the bottom to end," said the Education Secretary. "It is time to tackle grade inflation and dumbing down. It is time to raise aspirations, restore rigour to our examinations and equip children for the 21st century."
According to a consultation document published yesterday, GCSEs, which were introduced by the Tories in 1988, will be scrapped in favour of EBaccs in core subjects. New courses in English, maths and science will be introduced in 2015, with exams taken in 2017, before syllabuses in foreign languages, history and geography are adopted 12 months later.
A new "suite" of qualifications will be created for other subjects such as art, religious studies and design and technology, although they will not retain the GCSE or EBacc title. It was also announced that:
• Competition between exam boards, which has helped create a "race to the bottom", will be abandoned in favour of a system in which subjects are set by just one provider. The move follows a Daily Telegraph investigation into exam board standards last year.
• The Government will outline the minimum standards that must be covered in each discipline, but the exact specifications will be left to exam boards working with universities and learned societies.
• League tables will be scrapped in their current form to focus on traditional subjects and stop schools promoting "soft subjects".
• Exams will be required to cover the full breadth of knowledge in each subject — and provide unpredictable questions — to end "teaching to the test".
• Combined science courses covering biology, chemistry and physics may be scrapped in favour of three separate subjects for all pupils.
• Controlled assessment, coursework-style projects sat under supervision, which is currently worth half the marks in some subjects, is likely to be ended.
• Subjects will be assessed almost wholly through end-of-course exams.
• Exam aids such as calculators, periodic tables and source materials may be restricted to "allow students the best opportunities to demonstrate their true abilities and competence".
Original drafts of Mr Gove's plans suggested that bright pupils would sit exams in the style of O-levels while less able peers sat CSE qualifications, but in a concession to the Liberal Democrats, this has been removed from the plans. It is proposed that all pupils will sit EBaccs.
Pupils who fail to sit exams at 16 will get a "statement of achievement" outlining their strengths and weaknesses. They will also be given the chance to take exams later at 17 or 18.
The proposals were criticised by teaching unions and Labour, who claimed they would fail to meet the needs of the modern world. Stephen Twigg, the shadow education secretary, said the plan "doesn't reflect the needs of society and the modern economy".
"We need to face the challenges of the 21st century," he said. "I don't accept that we achieve that by returning to the system abolished as out-of-date in the 1980s."
Chris Keates, the general secretary of the NASUWT teachers' union, said: "The proposals are entirely driven by political ideology rather than a genuine desire to reform the examination system in the best interests of children."
Baron Baker of Dorking, the former Conservative education secretary and the architect of GCSEs, suggested that the reform failed to recognise the importance of work-based vocational qualifications. "It's vital that schools provide education which develops practical skills as well as subject knowledge. This has to include opportunities to learn by doing," he said.
But the changes were backed by business leaders. "The Government is right to focus on delivering rigorous assessment in our school system, which is part of raising achievement," said Neil Carberry, of the Confederation of British Industry.
Unanswered questions: Gaps in the syllabus that ministers have failed to cover
The reforms fail to cover subjects such as art, music, PE religious studies and design and technology. These do not come under the English Baccalaureate but they will also no longer be called GCSEs. What will happen to these subjects? And how will the Government maintain standards?
Ministers appear to suggest that the GCSE A* to G grading system fails to properly differentiate between pupils. Exam boards will "propose new and different grading structures". How will this look?
The consultation document raises questions over the shape of the curriculum for 14 to 16 year-olds. Exam boards running single subjects will be expected to draw up syllabuses with universities and learned bodies, but what safeguards will be in place? And how will ministers guarantee access to a core curriculum?
The Government wants to do away with coursework assessment. But not all subjects can be tailored in this way. What happens with subjects such as art, PE and drama that are unsuited to the exam hall?
League tables have been criticised for promoting "teaching to the test" and soft subjects. But most parents are in favour of national rankings. How will ministers tread the line between accountability while avoiding the damaging effects of the existing system of league tables?
GCSEs are sat in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. But the new exams are proposed for England. Will this lead to a two-tier system?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:51:36 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 17, 2012, 07:47:28 PM
Germany ranks 16th overall in the OECD World Education Rankings for 2010.
I would've lost money on that bet.
I was actually shocked by the U.S. ranking on the OECD list for 2010...not sure if they've released a newer one yet. Shocked mainly that we were like...middle of the pack. Everything I usually read about our educational rankings is that we're like apocalyptic fail.
I will say this, the note about the Finnish girl having to basically take an extra year because she studied in the U.S. is pretty typical. Through the Lions Club I've known a lot of kids that come to the U.S. for a year from Thailand, Vietnam, Germany, Japan etc...you'd think maybe the third world shitholes like Vietnam our educational system might be okay, but the Vietnamese girls that a friend of mine had as exchange students basically said the senior year courses at our school were equivalent to what you'd take at age 12/13 in Vietnam and that they'd basically have to take a whole year of missed school when they went back. So not sure how that jives with us being just "average" on the OECD list.
Something I've heard said about a lot of Asian countries (and that term is so broad as to be almost stupid to talk about, but you know what I mean) focus heavily on rote-memorization, extreme cramming and "teaching to the test", which results in really good generic academic performance but which is actually much worse than the U.S. at creating rounded individuals who can actually be decision makers and such in life.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 17, 2012, 10:00:03 PM
Something I've heard said about a lot of Asian countries (and that term is so broad as to be almost stupid to talk about, but you know what I mean) focus heavily on rote-memorization, extreme cramming and "teaching to the test", which results in really good generic academic performance but which is actually much worse than the U.S. at creating rounded individuals who can actually be decision makers and such in life.
I can believe that; saw that at Hopkins. More advanced degrees you could shake a stick at, but can't open a damned door. Throwing trays of mouse brains worth more than you and I at each other in a snit.
Strike's over. CTU voted 98% to 2% to return to classrooms tomorrow.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 17, 2012, 10:00:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:51:36 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 17, 2012, 07:47:28 PM
Germany ranks 16th overall in the OECD World Education Rankings for 2010.
I would've lost money on that bet.
Something I've heard said about a lot of Asian countries (and that term is so broad as to be almost stupid to talk about, but you know what I mean) focus heavily on rote-memorization, extreme cramming and "teaching to the test", which results in really good generic academic performance but which is actually much worse than the U.S. at creating rounded individuals who can actually be decision makers and such in life.
Generally true - in countries like China and Korea, huge emphasis is placed on tests, especially the college entrance exam. If you don't do well on them and get into one of the top 3 universities (in Korea) or a top university or get party membership (in China), you're a failure. Students spend long hours cramming and studying for those exams, and as a result are really good at memorization and test-taking, but not so good at creativity or critical thinking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 05:45:06 PM
Strike's over. CTU voted 98% to 2% to return to classrooms tomorrow.
Damn. Was like the Germans vs. Soviets :(
Some interesting info from The Economist:
Chicago teachers have recieved raises averaging 7%/year for the last eight years. Rahm-man's proposal that led to the strike was for 16% more over the next four years.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 05:47:08 PM
Some interesting info from The Economist:
Chicago teachers have recieved raises averaging 7%/year for the last eight years. Rahm-man's proposal that led to the strike was for 16% more over the next four years.
Poorly-performing leeches that need to be destroyed.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 22, 2012, 05:49:20 PM
Poorly-performing leeches that need to be destroyed.
Hard working middle class Americans who deserve your solidarity against the fat cats and millionaires.
Huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 05:47:08 PM
Some interesting info from The Economist:
Chicago teachers have recieved raises averaging 7%/year for the last eight years. Rahm-man's proposal that led to the strike was for 16% more over the next four years.
Well, being teachers they were probably only making minimum wage to begin with and will somehow still be making far below the average income when its over.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 22, 2012, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 05:47:08 PM
Some interesting info from The Economist:
Chicago teachers have recieved raises averaging 7%/year for the last eight years. Rahm-man's proposal that led to the strike was for 16% more over the next four years.
Well, being teachers they were probably only making minimum wage to begin with and will somehow still be making far below the average income when its over.
Their current average salary is $76,000/yr + benefits + summer vacation + shortest school day in the country + lifetime healthcare/pension + tenure
Quote from: Phillip V on September 22, 2012, 06:28:46 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 22, 2012, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 05:47:08 PM
Some interesting info from The Economist:
Chicago teachers have recieved raises averaging 7%/year for the last eight years. Rahm-man's proposal that led to the strike was for 16% more over the next four years.
Well, being teachers they were probably only making minimum wage to begin with and will somehow still be making far below the average income when its over.
Their current average salary is $76,000/yr + benefits + summer vacation + shortest school day in the country + lifetime healthcare/pension + tenure
Yeah, but they have to work long hours into the night, and come in hours early, and then because they make so little usually have to find second and even third jobs during the summer to offset the poor benefits and pay from the school system.
One way I like to judge the reasonableness of the pay level is by the existence of long lines to get the job, or overly restrictive qualifications needed to get the job. That's how you can confidently tell that pretty much every NYC public employee union is extorting the living juices out of the city. Has this been observed in Chicago with regard to teachers?
Quote from: Phillip V on September 22, 2012, 06:28:46 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 22, 2012, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 05:47:08 PM
Some interesting info from The Economist:
Chicago teachers have recieved raises averaging 7%/year for the last eight years. Rahm-man's proposal that led to the strike was for 16% more over the next four years.
Well, being teachers they were probably only making minimum wage to begin with and will somehow still be making far below the average income when its over.
Their current average salary is $76,000/yr + benefits + summer vacation + shortest school day in the country + lifetime healthcare/pension + tenure
Those bastards! Why aren't they in poverty?!?!?!
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 22, 2012, 06:32:53 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 22, 2012, 06:28:46 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 22, 2012, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 05:47:08 PM
Some interesting info from The Economist:
Chicago teachers have recieved raises averaging 7%/year for the last eight years. Rahm-man's proposal that led to the strike was for 16% more over the next four years.
Well, being teachers they were probably only making minimum wage to begin with and will somehow still be making far below the average income when its over.
Their current average salary is $76,000/yr + benefits + summer vacation + shortest school day in the country + lifetime healthcare/pension + tenure
Yeah, but they have to work long hours into the night, and come in hours early, and then because they make so little usually have to find second and even third jobs during the summer to offset the poor benefits and pay from the school system.
76k is low pay? And so what on the long hours? Many jobs are like that.
Quote from: garbon on September 22, 2012, 10:38:14 PM
76k is low pay?
I always like plunking around with the cost of living calculators online.
76K for Columbus, Ohio? Yeah it rocks. Chicago? Meh.
47% of Americans wish their salary was that low.
Quote from: HVC on September 22, 2012, 10:47:36 PM
47% of Americans wish their salary was that low.
Teachers make so much bling they can apparently sit in on fundraisers in Boca Raton, but I still don't see Languishites climbing over one another to become public school teachers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 10:48:27 PM
I always like plunking around with the cost of living calculators online.
76K for Columbus, Ohio? Yeah it rocks. Chicago? Meh.
What does your cost of living calculator say about 76K in Southside Chicago?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 10:52:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 10:48:27 PM
I always like plunking around with the cost of living calculators online.
76K for Columbus, Ohio? Yeah it rocks. Chicago? Meh.
What does your cost of living calculator say about 76K in Southside Chicago?
Why?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 10:50:21 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 22, 2012, 10:47:36 PM
47% of Americans wish their salary was that low.
Teachers make so much bling they can apparently sit in on fundraisers in Boca Raton, but I still don't see Languishites climbing over one another to become public school teachers.
if I knew they made that much I would have. Working 8 months a year and after a few years no chance of getting fired unless I nail a student? Score!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 10:52:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 10:48:27 PM
I always like plunking around with the cost of living calculators online.
76K for Columbus, Ohio? Yeah it rocks. Chicago? Meh.
What does your cost of living calculator say about 76K in Southside Chicago?
That it's not worth moving to Chicago for.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 22, 2012, 10:56:01 PM
Why?
Why does Seedy's calculator say whatever it says about living on 76K in Southside Chicago? I give up. :unsure:
Also keep in mind that one income does not a typical household income make.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 10:56:59 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 10:52:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 10:48:27 PM
I always like plunking around with the cost of living calculators online.
76K for Columbus, Ohio? Yeah it rocks. Chicago? Meh.
What does your cost of living calculator say about 76K in Southside Chicago?
That it's not worth moving to Chicago for.
You'd do well in Salt Lake City
Quote from: HVC on September 22, 2012, 10:56:37 PM
if I knew they made that much I would have. Working 8 months a year and after a few years no chance of vesting fired unless I nail a student? Score!
I think you'd be a little to busy bobbing and weaving to nail students there.
QuoteCPS officials said there were 854 reported attacks against teachers and school employees in the last school year, with 180 resulting in injury.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 11:03:14 PM
Also keep in mind that one income does not a typical household income make.
Teachers should get paid less if they're married. Gotcha.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 11:05:00 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 22, 2012, 10:56:37 PM
if I knew they made that much I would have. Working 8 months a year and after a few years no chance of vesting fired unless I nail a student? Score!
I think you'd be a little to busy bobbing and weaving to nail students there.
QuoteCPS officials said there were 854 reported attacks against teachers and school employees in the last school year, with 180 resulting in injury.
pfft, I work as an accountant in manufacturing. I've seen a guy go after a manger with I oversized wrench. Tiny bopper rage ain't nothing. Well, you guys got the whole gun thing. But I'd be a canadian teacher. Passive aggression Is our weapon of choice :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 11:03:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 22, 2012, 10:56:01 PM
Why?
Why does Seedy's calculator say whatever it says about living on 76K in Southside Chicago? I give up. :unsure:
Also keep in mind that one income does not a typical household income make.
No, why do you ask?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 10:48:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 22, 2012, 10:38:14 PM
76k is low pay?
I always like plunking around with the cost of living calculators online.
76K for Columbus, Ohio? Yeah it rocks. Chicago? Meh.
That's 76k for part of a year / still a hell of a lot better than what many Chicagoans and New Yorkers make.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 22, 2012, 11:09:37 PM
No, why do you ask?
To make the point that while Chicago may have a high cost of living, there is considerable variability within the city limits, and considerable variability between the expensive parts of the city and its suburbs.
I've got a question for you and Seedy: do you even admit the existence of the concept of overpaying public employees? Can you concieve of a teachers' salary that even you would agree is too much?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2012, 11:17:57 AM
I've got a question for you and Seedy: do you even admit the existence of the concept of overpaying public employees?
Yes; they're called City Managers, Superintendents and other non-elected, politically appointed civic leadership positions. Overpaid for what they do.
QuoteCan you concieve of a teachers' salary that even you would agree is too much?
Yes, but they teach at private schools, so really can't bitch about that.
But since you're of the opinion that public school teachers should be paid for shit, this discussion is moot, so don't fucking worry about what I fucking think.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2012, 11:17:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 22, 2012, 11:09:37 PM
No, why do you ask?
To make the point that while Chicago may have a high cost of living, there is considerable variability within the city limits, and considerable variability between the expensive parts of the city and its suburbs.
So? Are you saying that teacher's pay should reflect the average of the people in the area? Should a teacher be payed more to teach wealthy students?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 23, 2012, 11:29:18 AM
But since you're of the opinion that public school teachers should be paid for shit, this discussion is moot, so don't fucking worry about what I fucking think.
:lol: You've amply demonstrated what you think.
Raz on the other hand had the presence of mind to duck the question altogether. :cheers:
Public employees are paid from government revenue. If the government revenue is not sufficient to cover certain salary demands by public sector unions (cancers that both FDR and Jimmy Carter railed against--this isn't just country club Republicans like me that think public sector unions are abominations against mankind) then government must raise revenue to meet salary demands. What is government to do when the people who vote refuse to elect politicians that will raise taxes (as that is the source of all government revenue)?
I don't exactly see what guys like Emmanuel are supposed to do when any hike in taxes is, in this political environment, career suicide and there just simply isn't enough money. Go into debt to give teachers raises? A private company does not give company-wide raises when it is in the deep red, at least not if they want to remain a going concern.
Raz is an unbearable asshat, but when he makes the point about "why should I be upset that someone is making a living off my tax dollars?" it reveals a good point (about his own stupidity): namely that people like CdM and Raz operate in a world of extremes. There is actually a middle ground between "teacher pay that isn't fit live on" and "teacher pay that is too high relative to the difficult of the job and the revenue available to pay for it."
I also think CdM is wrong on private teacher pay. I don't have national figures but local teachers I know that went private actually tell me they do not earn more than their public school counterparts nor are their benefits as good. Most of them did it because the work environment is far better, the type of teaching they are allowed to do is far more enjoyable, and because the school can be selective in who it admits the kids they deal with are a lot better to work with than inner city youths.
Government isn't a business, and really shouldn't be compared to one.
Swedish teacher's union want crazy huge raises. Even though schools have displayed decreasing productivity for decades.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2012, 02:47:24 PM
Government isn't a business, and really shouldn't be compared to one.
Sure it should be, in areas where they are comparable. Just like a business it's fine for government to run a certain amount of debt perpetually. But just like a business, when your debt gets so high that it looks like at some point down the road just financing the debt will make it impossible to actually do what you're supposed to as a entity (be it a government or business) then that is a serious problem.
This is especially true of city governments as they can't even inflate their way out of debt.
Plus, there is nothing about "government not being a business" that would mandate we pay teachers more than the area's median salary, or that we pay teachers regardless of the impact on the government's books.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 23, 2012, 03:06:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2012, 02:47:24 PM
Government isn't a business, and really shouldn't be compared to one.
Sure it should be, in areas where they are comparable. Just like a business it's fine for government to run a certain amount of debt perpetually. But just like a business, when your debt gets so high that it looks like at some point down the road just financing the debt will make it impossible to actually do what you're supposed to as a entity (be it a government or business) then that is a serious problem.
This is especially true of city governments as they can't even inflate their way out of debt.
The point of business, is to make a profit. That's not the reason why we have government. This core difference in mission is why they really can't be compared.
Pension Fund Is Running DryThe Chicago Teachers’ Pension Fund is paying out more than $1 billion a year — much more than it has been taking in — and experts say the fund could collapse within a few years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/business/teachers-pension-a-big-issue-for-chicago.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/business/teachers-pension-a-big-issue-for-chicago.html)
Quote
What many Chicago residents may not realize is that their school district also has been paying $130 million a year to cover most of the pension contributions required of the teachers, a practice known as a “pickup,” which became a flash point last year in the collective bargaining battle in Wisconsin. Wisconsin’s public workers have agreed to make their own contributions, as a concession.
Officials in Chicago know they have a pension problem, even though it was not front and center in the strike. Mayor Rahm Emanuel focused on trying to improve the quality of public education, with a longer school day and more meaningful teacher evaluations. The Chicago Teachers’ Union, meanwhile, was intent on reinstating a 4 percent pay increase, and protecting those who are laid off when failing schools are closed.
Mr. Emanuel has made it clear that he wants to address teachers’ pensions, too. Earlier this year, he tried to curb at least some of Chicago’s ballooning costs by seeking to raise retirement ages, increase employee contributions and trim the 3 percent yearly pension increases that the city’s retirees now receive. He called those increases “the single greatest threat to the retirement security of city employees,” because they drain money from pension funds very quickly.
...
“In the State Constitution of Illinois, it says that once you receive a pension, it can never be changed to be lower,” said Claire J. Murray, who retired in 2002 at age 59 with a pension of about $42,000 a year.
...
Pension fund documents say the teachers continuously made their share of the contributions, 9 percent of each paycheck. But in fact, the teachers have been putting in just 2 percent of their pay, while the school district has been making up the rest of what is called the “employee contribution” every year. The practice began under an agreement reached in the early 1980s that was supposed to reduce future pay raises, keep money in the fund and take advantage of a federal tax break.
Such pickups were not widely known until Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin began his push to make public employees pay more for their benefits and to bar them from bargaining for anything other than base pay. Wisconsin law calls for public workers and their employers to split the cost of pension contributions, but in practice, state and local governments were picking up almost all of the employees’ share.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F09%2F20%2Fus%2FPENSION%2FPENSION-articleLarge.jpg&hash=48b5b42c1e9f004f5f888723d76e6363fce06e25)
The Old Gray Lady sides with the Democratic establishment over the teachers' unions. :ph34r:
Employee contributions to pensions are a non-issue, just like the fact that half of SS taxes are paid by employer. This is literally an Econ 101 fact. Demanding higher employee contributions is nothing more than a concealed pay cut. The totality of contributions to salary and benefits makes up the total employee pay package. This is all a matter of framing.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 23, 2012, 02:42:03 PM
I also think CdM is wrong on private teacher pay. I don't have national figures but local teachers I know that went private actually tell me they do not earn more than their public school counterparts nor are their benefits as good. Most of them did it because the work environment is far better, the type of teaching they are allowed to do is far more enjoyable, and because the school can be selective in who it admits the kids they deal with are a lot better to work with than inner city youths.
Meh, on average they probably don't, since a substantial number of private schools are in faith-based organizations; my sister taught for the Friends, but they're a little Quaker squirrelly anyway. Pay was twitchy, but the benefits were boffo, though. Couldn't stand the atmosphere.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 23, 2012, 03:38:59 PM
Pension Fund Is Running Dry
The Chicago Teachers' Pension Fund is paying out more than $1 billion a year — much more than it has been taking in — and experts say the fund could collapse within a few years
Good, then everybody will be happy.
Personally, I really don't care; I have no kids, don't plan on having any kids. Otto and Ed and a select few may have the means to send their progeny off to private school, so good for them; the rest of you mutts can send your unaborted snot-nosed mongoloids to a public school system nobody wants to fund along with the rest of the zip code's mouthbreathers. Because "teachers make too much". Wait until they don't, and see the shit that profession really attracts. Look at the South.
Most of it'll be privatized in 25 to 35 years anyway, with the same basic problems. Cities can then send their education budgets straight over to the police overtime budget.
So much for the concept of national public school education system. Everybody for themselves, just like everything else. :yeah:
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2012, 04:22:38 PM
Employee contributions to pensions are a non-issue, just like the fact that half of SS taxes are paid by employer. This is literally an Econ 101 fact. Demanding higher employee contributions is nothing more than a concealed pay cut. The totality of contributions to salary and benefits makes up the total employee pay package. This is all a matter of framing.
Can't disagree, but I wonder why you're talking about pay cuts when the article just posted was talking *reducing* employee contributions to pensions, hence raising their take home pay and their overall compensation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 23, 2012, 04:50:26 PM
Most of it'll be privatized in 25 to 35 years anyway, with the same basic problems.
The most basic problem--the ability of teachers' unions to bribe their legislatures for more pay--would then no longer exist.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 23, 2012, 04:50:26 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 23, 2012, 03:38:59 PM
Pension Fund Is Running Dry
The Chicago Teachers' Pension Fund is paying out more than $1 billion a year — much more than it has been taking in — and experts say the fund could collapse within a few years
Good, then everybody will be happy.
Personally, I really don't care; I have no kids, don't plan on having any kids. Otto and Ed and a select few may have the means to send their progeny off to private school, so good for them; the rest of you mutts can send your unaborted snot-nosed mongoloids to a public school system nobody wants to fund along with the rest of the zip code's mouthbreathers. Because "teachers make too much". Wait until they don't, and see the shit that profession really attracts. Look at the South.
Most of it'll be privatized in 25 to 35 years anyway, with the same basic problems. Cities can then send their education budgets straight over to the police overtime budget.
So much for the concept of national public school education system. Everybody for themselves, just like everything else. :yeah:
Public school system already sucks. Thus, my kids will be homeschooled. They should be able to meet all the requirements of a high school diploma between the ages of 14-16, then go off and do whatever they want. :showoff:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2012, 04:53:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2012, 04:22:38 PM
Employee contributions to pensions are a non-issue, just like the fact that half of SS taxes are paid by employer. This is literally an Econ 101 fact. Demanding higher employee contributions is nothing more than a concealed pay cut. The totality of contributions to salary and benefits makes up the total employee pay package. This is all a matter of framing.
Can't disagree, but I wonder why you're talking about pay cuts when the article just posted was talking *reducing* employee contributions to pensions, hence raising their take home pay and their overall compensation.
I was reacting to the argument in general, and in particular reference to Walker's BS. The direction of the effect is immaterial if the argument is bunk. I'm not taking a position here, I'm just shooting down an intelligently dishonest argument that forms the core of the article.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2012, 05:08:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 23, 2012, 04:50:26 PM
Most of it'll be privatized in 25 to 35 years anyway, with the same basic problems.
The most basic problem--the ability of teachers' unions to bribe their legislatures for more pay--would then no longer exist.
I'm sure you're looking forward to your anti-union orgasm with great anticipation.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 23, 2012, 05:11:51 PM
Public school system already sucks. Thus, my kids will be homeschooled. They should be able to meet all the requirements of a high school diploma between the ages of 14-16, then go off and do whatever they want. :showoff:
Good, more developmentally arrested monkeys running around. Be sure to call Timmay for the textbooks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 23, 2012, 05:13:23 PM
I'm sure you're looking forward to your anti-union orgasm with great anticipation.
If this thread goes on for another two or three pages your posts are going to be 100% content-free.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2012, 05:23:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 23, 2012, 05:13:23 PM
I'm sure you're looking forward to your anti-union orgasm with great anticipation.
If this thread goes on for another two or three pages your posts are going to be 100% content-free.
You come up with bullshit like "the most basic problem of public education is the ability of teachers' unions to bribe their legislatures for more pay", you get bullshit right back.
:hmm: That is a pretty bullshit thing to say. I'd say the most basic problem with education is the pervasive anti-intellectualism in our society. Unfortunately, the people taking aim at teachers' unions are also the people doing the most they can to advance that problem further.
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2012, 05:29:05 PM
:hmm: That is a pretty bullshit thing to say. I'd say the most basic problem with education is the pervasive anti-intellectualism in our society. Unfortunately, the people taking aim at teachers' unions are also the people doing the most they can to advance that problem further.
That's a harsh thing to say about Rahm Emmanuel and Andrew Cuomo. :lol:
I don't think the Teacher Union in Missouri can strike. It's pretty toothless. So I suppose the most basic problem with public education doesn't exist in Missouri! Hooray! Wait why does Missouri seem to consistently rank poorly on National test scores and the like?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2012, 05:33:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2012, 05:29:05 PM
:hmm: That is a pretty bullshit thing to say. I'd say the most basic problem with education is the pervasive anti-intellectualism in our society. Unfortunately, the people taking aim at teachers' unions are also the people doing the most they can to advance that problem further.
That's a harsh thing to say about Rahm Emmanuel and Andrew Cuomo. :lol:
Again, so what? :huh: I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2012, 05:29:05 PM
:hmm: That is a pretty bullshit thing to say. I'd say the most basic problem with education is the pervasive anti-intellectualism in our society.
Precisely. Teachers are anti-intellectual.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 23, 2012, 05:51:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2012, 05:29:05 PM
:hmm: That is a pretty bullshit thing to say. I'd say the most basic problem with education is the pervasive anti-intellectualism in our society.
Precisely. Teachers are anti-intellectual.
Be quiet when adults are talking.
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2012, 05:45:47 PM
Again, so what? :huh: I'm not sure where you're going with this.
That's great. If you think *anyone* who dares take on a teachers' union is on the side of anti-intellectualism, more power to you. If current trends (particularly budget trends) continue that will sooner or later be every prince of the Democratic party.
Re Seedy's comment on most basic problem: I thought, since we were having the discussion about CTU contract negotiations, that the "basic problem" was that of public education financing. In that subject there is no doubt the feedback loop from teachers' unions to Democratic state governments is the basic problem. If you want to change the subject to the failures of the American public education system, then it's no longer as clear that the power of unions to influence their own compensation is "the basic problem." But it's also not very clear how union demands are helping the cause of quality education. More easy to see how they're not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 23, 2012, 04:50:26 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 23, 2012, 03:38:59 PM
Pension Fund Is Running Dry
The Chicago Teachers' Pension Fund is paying out more than $1 billion a year — much more than it has been taking in — and experts say the fund could collapse within a few years
Good, then everybody will be happy.
Personally, I really don't care; I have no kids, don't plan on having any kids. Otto and Ed and a select few may have the means to send their progeny off to private school, so good for them; the rest of you mutts can send your unaborted snot-nosed mongoloids to a public school system nobody wants to fund along with the rest of the zip code's mouthbreathers. Because "teachers make too much". Wait until they don't, and see the shit that profession really attracts. Look at the South.
Most of it'll be privatized in 25 to 35 years anyway, with the same basic problems. Cities can then send their education budgets straight over to the police overtime budget.
So much for the concept of national public school education system. Everybody for themselves, just like everything else. :yeah:
President Obama should enroll his daughters in public school now to show his support. :)
Quote from: Phillip V on September 25, 2012, 06:40:44 PM
President Obama should enroll his daughters in public school now to show his support. :)
Exigent security reasons.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2012, 08:39:32 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 25, 2012, 06:40:44 PM
President Obama should enroll his daughters in public school now to show his support. :)
Exigent security reasons.
And that's before you take into account the fact that they're the president's daughters.
I think Jimmy C sent Amy to public school, but a swanky public school in upper Northwest, not Ragnorak High.
Quote from: KRonn on September 17, 2012, 09:26:23 PM
Douchebag eh? Hey, I understand that you as a Democrat will support the over bearing, incestuous relationship of Dems and Dem supported public sector unions, especially the powerful teacher's unions. Huge cash cow for your party, and a rather despicable system, as you'd surely realize if the same were going on for the Repubs.
The teachers unions clearly fail at politics. They should have an incestuous relationship with both parties like Wall Street and big business do.
Quote from: Valmy on September 26, 2012, 09:15:46 AM
Quote from: KRonn on September 17, 2012, 09:26:23 PM
Douchebag eh? Hey, I understand that you as a Democrat will support the over bearing, incestuous relationship of Dems and Dem supported public sector unions, especially the powerful teacher's unions. Huge cash cow for your party, and a rather despicable system, as you'd surely realize if the same were going on for the Repubs.
The teachers unions clearly fail at politics. They should have an incestuous relationship with both parties like Wall Street and big business do.
I don't see why not. The two parties often have incestuous relations with each other, why not with their financial backers too. It can be one big money orgy.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 26, 2012, 09:37:16 AM
I don't see why not. The two parties often have incestuous relations with each other, why not with their financial backers too. It can be one big money orgy.
I never get invited to money orgies. :(
Have you tried just showing up? :P
Quote from: HVC on September 26, 2012, 10:10:54 AM
Have you tried just showing up? :P
Let me know when and where one is scheduled, and maybe I will. :P
Quote from: Malthus on September 26, 2012, 10:13:02 AM
Quote from: HVC on September 26, 2012, 10:10:54 AM
Have you tried just showing up? :P
Let me know when and where one is scheduled, and maybe I will. :P
Malthus is Jewish, so the best he could do at a money orgy is itemized deductions. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 26, 2012, 10:16:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 26, 2012, 10:13:02 AM
Quote from: HVC on September 26, 2012, 10:10:54 AM
Have you tried just showing up? :P
Let me know when and where one is scheduled, and maybe I will. :P
Malthus is Jewish, so the best he could do at a money orgy is itemized deductions. :P
I'd have thought being a Jew would have been a positive
advantage in being invited to a money orgy. Cabals and all that. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on September 26, 2012, 10:27:59 AM
I'd have thought being a Jew would have been a positive advantage in being invited to a money orgy. Cabals and all that. ;)
Cabals, yes. Being cheap at money orgies, not so much. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 26, 2012, 10:28:50 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 26, 2012, 10:27:59 AM
I'd have thought being a Jew would have been a positive advantage in being invited to a money orgy. Cabals and all that. ;)
Cabals, yes. Being cheap at money orgies, not so much. :P
I think you misunderstand the point of a money orgy. :D This ain't no potlatch you know.