ExiledInIllinois Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 The idiot clown is still hanging around? You have nothing, again. You must be talking about yourself... They backed up their argument w/facts... It is you that can't rebuttal. Why is Tomato Can wrong? They showed you the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 You are truly a tomato can. I know, I know. A few of us have posted facts in regards to this teachers strike and exposed the fallacious arguments yourself a few others have been clinging to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 I know, I know. A few of us have posted facts in regards to this teachers strike and exposed the fallacious arguments yourself a few others have been clinging to. What do you expect? All they cling to is their same old tired stereotypes and generalizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 What do you expect? All they cling to is their same old tired stereotypes and generalizations. + 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) Link please. Otherwise..................this is also untrue. . According to a release from the union, the tentative deal would be a three-year contract, with an option for a fourth year. Both sides would have to agree to the fourth year of the deal. In the first year, teachers would get a 3 percent raise. In the second and third year of the deals, they would get a 2 percent raise. If the sides agree to a fourth year, teacher raises would be 3 percent that year. http://www.cbsnews.c...eachers-strike/ Read and weep! Now lets see your link that all I have posted is unture! Edited September 18, 2012 by tomato can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 According to a release from the union, the tentative deal would be a three-year contract, with an option for a fourth year. Both sides would have to agree to the fourth year of the deal. In the first year, teachers would get a 3 percent raise. In the second and third year of the deals, they would get a 2 percent raise. If the sides agree to a fourth year, teacher raises would be 3 percent that year. http://www.cbsnews.c...eachers-strike/ Read and weep! Now lets see your link that all I have posted is unture! That's new. A week ago, the union was bitching about getting only 4%, though it wasn't the major sticking point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Haven't people been reading? In order to get some issues (classroon conditions) addressed, they had to make the strike about pay. 2011 The Labor Relations Act makes it illegal to strike unless it is about pay and benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Haven't people been reading? In order to get some issues (classroon conditions) addressed, they had to make the strike about pay. 2011 The Labor Relations Act makes it illegal to strike unless it is about pay and benefits. i don't know guys. i listened to an npr piece on the way into work today and the folks they interviewed seemed positively militant. there was even a guy from the wisconsin unions there talking about a line in the sand and this being an attempt to change unions forever or to privatize education. last i knew, private education was legal and often produced superior results with lower paid personnel( i know the student pool in each group has alot to do with this but still). obviously we need public schools but we need good results at competitive costs. and all the while they're holding little kids educations hostage. even worse, some of the teachers interviewed were inarticulate and just plain dumb sounding. it's hard for me to work up much sympathy or even to not become annoyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Haven't people been reading? In order to get some issues (classroon conditions) addressed, they had to make the strike about pay. 2011 The Labor Relations Act makes it illegal to strike unless it is about pay and benefits. So, they subverted the process in order to go on strike? Weren't they asking for a 29% raise? Doesn't the district spend higher than the average per student than most large cities? Don't the teachers average a much higher salary than teachers in most large cities? Isn't the student's academic performance below average? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 i don't know guys. i listened to an npr piece on the way into work today and the folks they interviewed seemed positively militant. there was even a guy from the wisconsin unions there talking about a line in the sand and this being an attempt to change unions forever or to privatize education. last i knew, private education was legal and often produced superior results with lower paid personnel( i know the student pool in each group has alot to do with this but still). obviously we need public schools but we need good results at competitive costs. and all the while they're holding little kids educations hostage. even worse, some of the teachers interviewed were inarticulate and just plain dumb sounding. it's hard for me to work up much sympathy or even to not become annoyed. Very good response BD Those who are pushing the idea that the teachers had to strike in order to help the school conditions are incorrect. Chicago Teachers: All About Avoiding Accountability Lindsey Burke FTA: The system of teacher evaluation used in many school districts relies heavily on classroom observations. It rarely counts student achievement on state tests as part of a teacher’s overall evaluation. This model, as the New York Times editorial board notes, consists of “cursory classroom visits by principals who declare nearly every teacher good, or at least competent, even in failing schools where few if any children meet basic educational standards.” This is an incredibly unfair system for children, who, year after year, are needlessly subjected to ineffective teachers, causing them to lose years of potential learning gains. As noted by Eric Hanushek, one of the first researchers to measure teacher effectiveness on student achievement gains, “A good teacher can get 1.5 years of learning growth; a bad teacher gets 0.5 years of learning growth. If you get a few bad teachers in a row, a student’s life is altered dramatically.” Moreover, it’s incredibly unfair for teachers. The existing system, effectively blind to teacher performance, compensates teachers based on years in the classroom, not effectiveness. The best teachers aren’t noticed; the worst are protected. Yet the unions, who claim to represent the interests of both students and teachers, are using Chicago children as political pawns in their quest to fortify the status quo and ensure nothing threatens their entrenched power. The union was offered (in the most recent framework, currently under consideration) a 10 percent pay raise over the next four years, continued “step increases” based not on merit but on time served in the system, more than 500 new art and P.E. teachers hired by the district, and the creation of a “hiring pool” where any laid-off teacher would have first dibs on any job openings within the district. They rejected that offer. Meanwhile, 350,000 schoolchildren wait, idle. The main sticking points: teacher evaluations, the length of the school day, and what to do about under-performing teachers. Those picketing in the streets in Chicago — the teachers, who earn on average, $76,000 per year, and after 30 years in the classroom, receive an annual payment of $77,400 for life, courtesy of the Illinois taxpayer — want to continue receiving this compensation. Moreover, they want it without the accountability that is so badly needed. That level of compensation, in a district that faces a $1 billion deficit, certainly merits accountability. Teacher evaluations should be based in part on student performance on tests, using a value-added model that takes extraneous factors such as socioeconomic status into account. Those models should be based on growth: Has a teacher imparted a year’s worth on learning in a year’s time, or better yet, a year-and-a-half’s worth of learning in a year’s time? Other factors, such as principal and parent evaluations and observations, should also play a part. Effective teachers should be well-compensated; ineffective teachers should find another profession. The Chicago Teachers Union will continue to oppose any such reform, but can hopefully reach an agreement over the next 48 hours, to ensure students — already painfully behind in the Chicago Public School System — can return to school. But don’t hold your breath. As union head Karen Lewis said on Sunday: “Our members are not happy. They want to know if there is anything more they can get.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 So, they subverted the process in order to go on strike? Weren't they asking for a 29% raise? Doesn't the district spend higher than the average per student than most large cities? Don't the teachers average a much higher salary than teachers in most large cities? Isn't the student's academic performance below average? 29% over four years, or something like that. Cumulative over a period of time, at any rate. i don't know guys. i listened to an npr piece on the way into work today and the folks they interviewed seemed positively militant. Entirely consistent with AFT. Effective teachers should be well-compensated; ineffective teachers should find another profession. The Chicago Teachers Union will continue to oppose any such reform, Also entirely consistent with AFT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) Try me. I'm guessing they're only tenuously based in reality, which is the real reason most of us won't like them. Ha! Well, since it'd be generous to say the anti-teacher camp's positions are "tenuously based in reality," I'm not sure we have any common ground from which to start. First of all, most schools are seriously underfunded and the funds that are allocated for schools are grossly misused. As I alluded earlier, there are too many administrators who do little more than create/manipulate data to serve political/PR purposes. There needs to be more teachers and support staff hired. There are a number of reasons for this but keeping class sizes reasonable is a major one. In elementary schools, there should be an aide in every classroom to deal with non-academic issues and allow the teacher to teach. For example, on any given day, I might lose a few minutes of instruction time due to classroom management (read: discipline). Every minute is precious, so having someone to pull a disruptive student in the hall or otherwise occupy that student allows the rest of the class to stay on task. As it stands now, I do the jobs that FOUR to SIX people would do in a fully funded private school district (hell, even an decently funded suburban district). I used to work at a private school that had a much better ratio of staff to student. The environment was great, but I made so little money, if that was all I could look hope to earn, I’d choose another career. The salaries are almost insulting considering the amount parents pay in tuition- at least where I was working. I don't think it is in the children's best interest to drive away the best and the brightest that are considering becoming teachers. Second, again to what I earlier alluded, almost certainly the number one problem has nothing to do with the education system itself, but with poverty. While there would be overlap in services provided by the schools, I'd expand a variety of social programs to help the disadvantaged. The economy sucks and has for a long time, especially for the working and unemployed poor. It isn't enough to say, "Go get a job!" There aren't any. So yeah, raise taxes, and/or drastically reallocate what those taxes are funding. Maybe the second point isn’t "grounded in reality" in the sense that the US would need a cultural shift; Less about “me,” and more about “us.” For the most part, I agree with the Green Party’s stance on Welfare and social programs in general. Here is a link to that part of their platform: http://www.gp.org/co...ice.php#1001034 I hope it is not too much to ask, but if any of you are going to reply to the points about social programs, please read the short blurb on Welfare contained in that link and let us know to what part of it you specifically object. Or we could always start another thread on that since we could be getting away from the original topic. Edited September 18, 2012 by uncle flap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Ha! Well, since it'd be generous to say the anti-teacher camp's positions are "tenuously based in reality," I'm not sure we have any common ground from which to start. Anti-union is NOT anti-teacher. I see no reason to continue reading from there, considering you've made my point viz. "tenuously based in reality" already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) Anti-union is NOT anti-teacher. I see no reason to continue reading from there, considering you've made my point viz. "tenuously based in reality" already. The reality is, as a practical matter, anti-union = anti-teacher. Semantics aside, without the protections (and perks, if you must) collective bargaining provide, being a teacher would be a dead-end, undesirable job, especially when compared to the amount of money and time invested to obtain the necessary qualifications. So like I said in that post that you didn't bother to read, "I don't think it is in the children's best interest to drive away the best and the brightest that are considering becoming teachers." But you're certainly not anti-union pro-teacher anti-child right? Talk about a tenuous grip on reality! :lol: I'd also like to add despite directly replying to you, I had those using terms like "money grubbing pricks" in mind when I wrote anti-teacher. It's duly noted that you did not use terms like that, but my point remains valid. Edited September 18, 2012 by uncle flap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) The reality is, as a practical matter, anti-union = anti-teacher. No actually, that's not the reality at all. It's just the talking point that enough ignorant people need to swallow to allow unions to stay in business. Only someone completely disingenuous or grossly ignorant would suggest that killing labor unions would drive away the best teachers. I’m sure all those eager, bright-eyed 22 year old teachers walk into that classroom on their first day just dreaming about the "protections" afforded them by the union. Yeah, ok. Teacher pay without unions would follow the same free market rules as everything else. The best school systems would pay top dollar to attract and retain the best teachers and drive up the prices for everyone. Edited September 18, 2012 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 free market rules as everything else. LoL... Good one! "as everything else." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Strike is over, back to school tomorrow. See Scott Walker, you can meet people in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Take government funding out of school. Require people to pay for their schooling for their children. Make it a for profit operation. You'll see lots of changes. Change number one? People have less !@#$ing kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Take government funding out of school. Require people to pay for their schooling for their children. Make it a for profit operation. You'll see lots of changes. Change number one? People have less !@#$ing kids. Totally wrong... You will see more people have children, ignorance breeds ignorance... They will pump out a litter so as in the hope one makes it big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 LoL... Good one! "as everything else." Obviously I was refering to salaries, but you're right. I should have included "...until some government crook decides to stick his snout in the process under the laughable guise of 'leveling the playing field' or some other such nonsense." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts