Keukasmallies Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 If the Wisconsin Teachers Association was to decertify, a la NFLPA, individual teachers could bargain with their current districts. Oh wait, that would mean that the good teachers who are meeting district objectives would be retained and those teachers who aren't achieving would not be retained. Forget that decertifying idea, recognizing excellence is foreign to the whole union thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 If the Wisconsin Teachers Association was to decertify, a la NFLPA, individual teachers could bargain with their current districts. Oh wait, that would mean that the good teachers who are meeting district objectives would be retained and those teachers who aren't achieving would not be retained. Forget that decertifying idea, recognizing excellence is foreign to the whole union thing. Is a teacher's ability the sole reason for their students either succeeding or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Is a teacher's ability the sole reason for their students either succeeding or not? No. Is there any job in the world in which the sole reason for 'success' depends on one individual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Is a teacher's ability the sole reason for their students either succeeding or not? For a student to succeed? No. But for students to succeed? Pretty much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 No. Is there any job in the world in which the sole reason for 'success' depends on one individual? Yeah. Football. Quarterback. Learned that from this very board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) For a student to succeed? No. But for students to succeed? Pretty much. I'd say a below-average teacher is more likely to "succeed" in a good school district, one that is in a better community with more parental involvement, than good teacher is in a bad school district. We've had this discussion before. Privatizing education puts certain children at even more of a disadvantage through no fault of their own. I think it comes down to what you value, which in the conservative view is reward for an individual's ability to succeed in a capitalist system - the ability to play "the game", if you will. I value capitalism too, but realize that educating future generations is more important to the success of our nation than adhering to individual rewards for individual achievements. If you really value better teachers, then make the job attractive enough so that more capable people will choose a career in education over one in private industry, where they can obviously make more money if they have the "tools" to do so. Of course, you don't value better teachers - you just don't like unions. Edited March 12, 2011 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Yeah. Football. Quarterback. Learned that from this very board. Ha! Nice job, sir... well played. I'd say a below-average teacher is more likely to "succeed" in a good school district, one that is in a better community with more parental involvement, than good teacher is in a bad school district. No one in their right mind would define 'success' as some sort of absolute number on a test, and compare those scores across school districts. Stop it with this nonsense. Discuss this or don't, but don't be intentionally obtuse. If you really value better teachers, then make the job attractive enough so that more capable people will choose a career in education over one in private industry, where they can obviously make more money if they have the "tools" to do so. Of course, you don't value better teachers - you just don't like unions. I do and I think that's EXACTLY what we should do. We could make teaching a highly competitive career with tremendous pay and benefits to those teachers who do the best job. If there is anyone in society that should be making well into the six figures it would be an excellent teacher. Unfortunately, we seem to be going the other way. We'll all be worse off for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 No one in their right mind would define 'success' as some sort of absolute number on a test, and compare those scores across school districts. Stop it with this nonsense. Discuss this or don't, but don't be intentionally obtuse. That's exactly what I'm arguing against. Not every teaching situation has the same opportunity for success. I do and I think that's EXACTLY what we should do. We could make teaching a highly competitive career with tremendous pay and benefits to those teachers who do the best job. If there is anyone in society that should be making well into the six figures it would be an excellent teacher. Unfortunately, we seem to be going the other way. We'll all be worse off for it. Better teachers will not produce higher profits for the schools. Capitalism cannot be applied to all situations. Every student should be given a reasonably equal opportunity to succeed. They do not choose the situation they are born into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 That's exactly what I'm arguing against. Not every teaching situation has the same opportunity for success. Better teachers will not produce higher profits for the schools. Capitalism cannot be applied to all situations. Every student should be given a reasonably equal opportunity to succeed. They do not choose the situation they are born into. Depends upon what you deem "profits" to mean. Most public school funding in my state is derived by directly taxing the real estate in the community. Higher taxes we're told equate to better schools. Better schools equate to a more desirable community to live in. A more desirable community equates to higher home values. Higher home values produce greater tax revenues for... the school system. I think the recent demonization of public employee unions is a bit misguided. The people aren't the problem per se. What is at risk is the public's lack of funding for certain non-compensation related benefits, like health care and retirement costs. I think public employee's pay should be comparable to compensation that is offered in the private sector and I do believe that they have caught up with and in many cases exceeded those levels in recent years. What hasn't been properly addressed is the unfunded liabilities taxpayers have in regards to the public sector's benefits packages. Those represent the potential for cataclysmic economic disaster for the country - community by community, state by state, nationwide. It's not sustainable. Coming soon to a community near you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Depends upon what you deem "profits" to mean. Most public school funding in my state is derived by directly taxing the real estate in the community. Higher taxes we're told equate to better schools. Better schools equate to a more desirable community to live in. A more desirable community equates to higher home values. Higher home values produce greater tax revenues for... the school system. I think the recent demonization of public employee unions is a bit misguided. The people aren't the problem per se. What is at risk is the public's lack of funding for certain non-compensation related benefits, like health care and retirement costs. I think public employee's pay should be comparable to compensation that is offered in the private sector and I do believe that they have caught up with and in many cases exceeded those levels in recent years. What hasn't been properly addressed is the unfunded liabilities taxpayers have in regards to the public sector's benefits packages. Those represent the potential for cataclysmic economic disaster for the country - community by community, state by state, nationwide. It's not sustainable. Coming soon to a community near you. Nice post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 That's exactly what I'm arguing against. Not every teaching situation has the same opportunity for success. Yes it does. For some reason, you are under the impression that 'success' means the exact same thing for every classroom everywhere. Better teachers will not produce higher profits for the schools. Capitalism cannot be applied to all situations. Since schools don't have 'profits', I don't know what you're talking about. Who's talking about capitalism? I'm referring to people responding to incentives. Do you agree or disagree that people respond (sometimes to the detriment of society, for sure) to incentives? Every student should be given a reasonably equal opportunity to succeed. They do not choose the situation they are born into. What an odd thing to say... do you suppose there is anyone, anywhere who would disagree with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Yes it does. For some reason, you are under the impression that 'success' means the exact same thing for every classroom everywhere. That's what Chef was implying. Since schools don't have 'profits', I don't know what you're talking about. Who's talking about capitalism? I'm referring to people responding to incentives. Do you agree or disagree that people respond (sometimes to the detriment of society, for sure) to incentives? There are plenty of folks here who would advocate just about everything being privatized. What an odd thing to say... do you suppose there is anyone, anywhere who would disagree with this? Not when it's put that way - which is the point of putting it that way. There are plenty here who advocate policies which would move us away from this concept. I'm not sure why you're trying to pick a fight with me. You haven't said anything yet that I disagree with. Try reading the thread again from the beginning... Edited March 12, 2011 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 That's what Chef was implying. There are plenty of folks here who would advocate just about everything being privatized. Not when it's put that way - which is the point of putting it that way. There are plenty here who advocate policies which would move us away from this concept.I'm not sure why you're trying to pick a fight with me. You haven't said anything yet that I disagree with. Try reading the thread again from the beginning... Who? What policies would they advocate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Who? What policies would they advocate? Privatization of almost everything, including the education system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Damn, the straw men are certainly taking a beating here today. Making a broad assumption that privatizing the educational system without explanation is equivalent to saying stuff is good. Privatizing the school system with a voucher program would likely have a very positive effect. It would give parents more choice, make them more invested in the process, and give the schools some say in who they choose to take, which would eliminate a lot of the problems that a few bad apples cause for the rest of the school. It makes libs scared because it has scary words like "privatization" and breaks the illusion of certainty (which is particularly curious in this case when so many schools are failing miserably under current conditions). My theory is that libs are just afraid of change unless it is accompanied by jingoistic slogans and patronizing paternalism. The biggest problem with teachers unions is that they're all for the teachers with no regard whatsoever for the students who get routinely **** on by the corrupt system with a monopolized labor market in that field. The teachers union is the epitome of the kind of corporation that gets rich at the expense of the poor and the children, the two people we're told we should sacrifice everything to protect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) I have been in education for 16 years and I belong to a teacher's union. While I appreciate many things a union does for me, I think it keeps bad teachers employed and, as mentioned above, ends up hurting students in the long run. If anything, the union evens the playing field so all teachers are treated the same, meaning teachers I have worked with who are basically jokes in the classroom, do absolutely nothing extra-curricularly in the school get the exact pay as I do (I coach football then basketball, am at the school helping for every tournament, etc.). It is frustrating, to say the least. Unionized or not, there has to be a level of competence met, but it is virtually impossible to get a teacher fired in our District. I know Geno will say my opinion doesn't matter because I am Canadian (an argument that has long grown old), but truth is, it is an issue that transcends borders. We are falling behind...quickly...and doing things the same old way just doesn't cut it anymore. If anything, the teaching profession should be under closer scrutiny than many professions because it correlates directly to our future. Edited March 13, 2011 by Marauder24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I have been in education for 16 years and I belong to a teacher's union. While I appreciate many things a union does for me, I think it keeps bad teachers employed and, as mentioned above, ends up hurting students in the long run. If anything, the union evens the playing field so all teachers are treated the same, meaning teachers I have worked with who are basically jokes in the classroom, do absolutely nothing extra-curricularly in the school get the exact pay as I do (I coach football then basketball, am at the school helping for every tournament, etc.). It is frustrating, to say the least. Unionized or not, there has to be a level of competence met, but it is virtually impossible to get a teacher fired in our District. I know Geno will say my opinion doesn't matter because I am Canadian (an argument that has long grown old), but truth is, it is an issue that transcends borders. We are falling behind...quickly...and doing things the same old way just doesn't cut it anymore. If anything, the teaching profession should be under closer scrutiny than many professions because it correlates directly to our future. Your opinion doesn't matter because you are Canadian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Your opinion doesn't matter because you are Canadian. Not bad, even for a bleeding heart liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Your opinion doesn't matter because you are Canadian. You really know how to make yourself superfluous, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 You really know how to make yourself superfluous, don't you? I'm mostly interested in entertaining myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts