You have to admire these dedicated, selfless public servants. Turning down a 16% raise over the next 4 years. I guess the teachers didn't like the change in health insurance costs and the fact that they would be evaluated based, in part, on test scores.

There is no limit to the greed of a teachers union. I've been involved in 2 of these negotiations in my town, you would not believe the fear tactics the union uses. It's repugnant.

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

This is not good timing for a high-profile teachers strike. Public sentiment is starting to turn against these greedy, parasitic unions.

Chicago teachers to go on strike after talks with district fail | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/10/chicago-teachers-to-go-on-strike-after-talks-with-district-fail/#ixzz262AzWlVG)

When Calvin Coolidge was president, the Boston police threatened to go on strike. Coolidge fired every single one of them on the spot, saying famously that no one ever has the right to strike against public safety. It would be sweet if Chicago oficials did the same thing, on the basis that no one has the right to strike against the public good. God kows that in this economy, the city of Chicago would have zero trouble filling those positions.

I saw a striker holding a sign saying "On strike for better schools". Sorry, I must have missed it when they proved a correlation between teacher compensation and student performance.

....
I saw a striker holding a sign saying "On strike for better schools". Sorry, I must have missed it when they proved a correlation between teacher compensation and student performance.

Gotta love that weird logic. Kind of like saying "The more I get paid, the better your kids will learn!" :smash:

When the unions, regardless of which ones and which occupation, get to the point where they think that the city/state/world can't run without them, they need to be shown that it CAN and WILL without them!

Like Regan did with the air traffic cintrollers....fire all that striked and give their jobs to those that WANTED to work. They need to be reminded that no one is irreplaceable!

Well it's been established that if you are from Chicago and never really do any work, you can become president. So why not ?

They wouldn't include body armor language in the new contract

Let me see...this is the same Chicago that you guys have been bitching about because of violence...teachers haven't striked for 25 years...you have no clue what they make or when their last raise was....but they're in a union so they must be bad. Did you even read the story link?

"Union leaders and district officials were not far apart in their negotiations on compensation, Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis said. But other issues -- including potential changes to health benefits and a new teacher evaluation system based partly on students' standardized test scores -- remained unresolved, she said."

"Lewis said among the issues of concern was a new evaluation that she said would be unfair to teachers because it relied too heavily on students' standardized test scores and does not take into account external factors that affect performance, including poverty, violence and homelessness."

I'd love to see what some of you would do if put in a position where your job was on the line because you couldn't get through to some of these kids.

[QUOTE=sokinwet;958065
I'd love to see what some of you would do if put in a position where your job was on the line because you couldn't get through to some of these kids.[/QUOTE]

When I was young my job was on the line every day..seen people go every day....I was good enouh to stay till I opened my own company...some people that I hired on Monday were fired on that Friday....some lasted 30 years.....U get rid of the dead wood....can't do that with places of work that have tenure

Let me see...this is the same Chicago that you guys have been bitching about because of violence...teachers haven't striked for 25 years...you have no clue what they make or when their last raise was....but they're in a union so they must be bad. Did you even read the story link?

"Union leaders and district officials were not far apart in their negotiations on compensation, Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis said. But other issues -- including potential changes to health benefits and a new teacher evaluation system based partly on students' standardized test scores -- remained unresolved, she said."

"Lewis said among the issues of concern was a new evaluation that she said would be unfair to teachers because it relied too heavily on students' standardized test scores and does not take into account external factors that affect performance, including poverty, violence and homelessness."

I'd love to see what some of you would do if put in a position where your job was on the line because you couldn't get through to some of these kids.

"teachers haven't striked for 25 years..."

There is no justifiable reason for public schoolteachers to strike. not the way they are treated today...

"you have no clue what they make..."

I don't? Average salary is $74k in the city of Chicago, plus the usual benefits. That's a damn nice standard of living, when you factor in the benefits...I also know that no one in the private sector is guaranteed anything, let alone a 16% pay hike in 4 years...

Do YOU know what they make? Why do you assume we're all ignorant?

"I'd love to see what some of you would do if put in a position where your job was on the line because you couldn't get through to some of these kids..."

Ah, I see you were quite selective with what you posted. The story specifically said that test scores were ONE OF th efactors that would be used to evaluate teachers.

Guess what? If the teachers cannot get through to the students, then they cannot be effectiv eteachers, therefore why should the taxpayers break their backs to pay the property taxes to pay for ineffective teachers?

If you owned your own business, how long would you keep ineffective employes on the payroll? And keep in mind, these are expensive employees. we're not talking minimum wage here...

One thing I will say is putting teachers jobs on the line based on standardized testing is unfair. My wife works in an inner city school and some of the kids would bomb just to get the teachers fired, others could care less, some have only been in the US for a short time. If the parents at home do not value their childrens education the kids definitely wont. They are horrible. But there are those kids that make it worthwhile as well.

I tell her and I tell everyone I don't care what kind of BS she thinks she puts
Up with. She has a great job. You work half the year your bennies are outstanding, the pay is incredible. Think about 74k average in Chicago for a job really that is at most 8 hours a day for 180 days a year. Plus a great retirement package (which may disappear someday that is a discussion for another day)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I'd love to see what some of you would do if put in a position where your job was on the line because you couldn't get through to some of these kids."

you mean like salespeople that have no control over market conditions yet are compensated on commissions?

money managers who are compensated on returns yet have no control over the economy?

Project managers held to project deadlines yet do not own or control the resources?

I have sympathy for teachers, its a tough job buy many professions get compensated for delivering on things they cannot necessarly control. I have always gotten paid and raises based on my performance. Why is that ok for most and not for teachers? I guarantee it will allow the best to excel and the slackers to leave. Its win/win. Why are we afraid to suceed?

One thing I will say is putting teachers jobs on the line based on standardized testing is unfair. My wife works in an inner city school and some of the kids would bomb just to get the teachers fired, others could care less, some have only been in the US for a short time. If the parents at home do not value their childrens education the kids definitely wont. They are horrible. But there are those kids that make it worthwhile as well.

I]

then the teachers fails all of them, puts them on watch program and they should be removed from her data. They're the exception, not the rule.

some people that I hired on Monday were fired on that Friday....some lasted 30 years.....U get rid of the dead wood....can't do that with places of work that have tenure

Actually, schools can on Friday fire someone hired on Monday. They also can get rid of dead wood, even if that dead wood has tenure. Tenure does not mean one can't be fired. Common misconception. The strike is about teacher evaluation. Jim in CT's arch nemesis Dan Malloy helped enact a similar system in CT. The result is that the revolving doors in city schools will spin out of control, since there is no statistically valid way to judge the teachers performance via standardized tests.

JimCT....what a burden it must be to know more about everything than anybody.
And no....I don't think "everyone" is ignorant

"

I have always gotten paid and raises based on my performance. Why is that ok for most and not for teachers? I guarantee it will allow the best to excel and the slackers to leave. Its win/win. Why are we afraid to suceed?

Any idea what an accurate measure of teacher performance would be? Most teachers I know would be all in for raises based on performance, but it is very difficult to quantify performance. Standardized tests are not designed as a measure of teacher performance. It is kind of like measuring physicians based on the health of their patients. Some terrible physicians would look great and the best oncologists in the world could look terrible. The city schools can't keep teachers to begin with. A well meaning, but misguided system for judging performance won't help the kids or tax payers.

The inner cities being a mess like they are is all to be blamed on us
"Suburbanites"
We or our parents moved out of the cities for the suburbs for what we thought was a better life & schools for our kids.
But doing this we took our tax revenue with us to out "suburban" towns leaving the inner cities a mess :smash:
Ya, it's all our fault the cities are a #^&#^&#^&#^& hole full of dead beats on welfare, single mothers with who knows how many different fathers for all their kids (welfare dependents)
Ya, it's all our fault :rotf2:

The inner cities being a mess like they are is all to be blamed on us
"Suburbanites"
We or our parents moved out of the cities for the suburbs for what we thought was a better life & schools for our kids.
But doing this we took our tax revenue with us to out "suburban" towns leaving the inner cities a mess :smash:
Ya, it's all our fault the cities are a #^&#^&#^&#^& hole full of dead beats on welfare, single mothers with who knows how many different fathers for all their kids (welfare dependents)
Ya, it's all our fault :rotf2:

Who blamed the "suburbanites?"

"I'd love to see what some of you would do if put in a position where your job was on the line because you couldn't get through to some of these kids."

you mean like salespeople that have no control over market conditions yet are compensated on commissions?


Thank you................my job is sales. Hit the number or we will find someone else that will. Obviously there are outside factors that always need to be considered. If a pattern of poor performance is apparent, you are let go or put on a performance plan. Things don’t improve while on a performance plan, bye bye.

I think there is probably a reasonable way (even via standardized testing) that can gauge how effective a teacher is. There are kids who are naturals and test very well, there are kids who aren’t that test poorly. Then there is a whole bunch of average kids who test average, sort of like a bell curve.

I’m sure all of these PHD’s in our education system can figure out a way to measure how effective a teacher teaches to their students. If they can’t then we are in trouble.

Saying you can’t figure out a way to grade a teacher on performance is lame and asinine in my opinion. We can put someone into space but can’t rate how effective a teacher is? Come on boys…..

I remember just about every teacher I had, some were incredible, some sucked really, really bad. It was very easy to see

Saying you can’t figure out a way to grade a teacher on performance is lame and asinine in my opinion. We can put someone into space but can’t rate how effective a teacher is? Come on boys…..


Any ideas or you just think someone else should be able to figure it out? Let me know when you find one. I didn't say it can't be figured out, but so far it hasn't. Comparing student performance to sales is rather asinine in my opinion. The places where lousy teachers get to stay are the schools that don't have people in line to take the job. Good suburban school districts don't seem to be struggling for "good" teachers. The best Chicago teachers that haven't already, can head to the suburbs and test performance won't be an issue. How will that fix the problems in the city?

Any ideas or you just think someone else should be able to figure it out? Let me know when you find one. I didn't say it can't be figured out, but so far it hasn't. Comparing student performance to sales is rather asinine in my opinion. The places where lousy teachers get to stay are the schools that don't have people in line to take the job. Good suburban school districts don't seem to be struggling for "good" teachers. The best Chicago teachers that haven't already, can head to the suburbs and test performance won't be an issue. How will that fix the problems in the city?

The reason it hasn’t been figured out so far is that the Unions will not let it.

Here’s a thought, give a standardized test the first week of school for that year grade level. Teacher teaches class throughout the year for the grade level. Give that same exact standardized test at the end of the year and look at how the scores improve. Not every kid will learn and improve. Most kids (with a competent teacher will have learned and will show improvement). A teacher should not be fired for a few bad eggs. If scores overall don’t improve much from the first time around, something is wrong and needs to be looked at. If most kids show improvement, there probably isn’t in issue. If most kids show no improvement year over year with a teacher or two out of the whole bunch, there is a problem. I don’t think it’s that difficult to figure out. The reason it hasn’t been figured out is that the teachers union seems to have a vice grip on these things and do not want teachers to be rated.

The reason it hasn’t been figured out so far is that the Unions will not let it.

If scores overall don’t improve much from the first time around, something is wrong and needs to be looked at. If most kids show improvement, there probably isn’t in issue. If most kids show no improvement year over year with a teacher or two out of the whole bunch, there is a problem. .

Guess what? That kind of testing already exists. What it shows is that urban schools have less growth across the board. Schools with kids who come in to kindergarten not reading continue to do poorly throughout their education. Kids in suburban schools come in to kindergarten doing well and continue on that path. The data comes out the same way from school to school across the country. It might pick out an occasional teacher that is not teaching anything, but the administration will almost always know there is a problem with those teachers. Those teachers shouldnt get paid less and the others paid more, the poor teachers should get booted. That is what happens in schools that are able to attract candidates. It still doesn't fix the primary socioeconomic problems that lead to the differences in the cities vs. the suburbs.
The resistance of unions to it is that the people who are trying to implement it are politicians, not statisticians. People who have no idea about variables, correlations, etc. Simpleton politicians can think it sounds good, but it doesn't make it good or effective or beneficial to education. Teachers in the suburbs will appear great and teachers in the cities will appear lousy.

this is great...

"Chicago's teachers have the highest average salary in the country at $76,000/year and according to the Mayor's office, the financial side of the $400 Million deal is done. 4%/year raises have been agreed to, taking them to $88,900/year by 2016.

The Mayor's office stated that:

"The two remaining stumbling blocks involve re-hiring laid off teachers from schools that get shut down or shaken up and a new teacher evaluation process that the union says puts far too much weight on student test scores."

So while 404,000 students are missing school, the real issues are accountability and union job protection.

Chicago is not really different from Wisconsin, but while it is only 90 miles away, it is a universe away in its political realities. The city has seen the same economic straits as most large cities in the country and yet at a time when everyone else is cutting back and trying to get by, the Chicago Teacher's Union, who have already been financially sated, wants more control with less accountability.

This crystallizes two of the major issues we face. The terrible state of our K-12 educational system and our out of control public sector unions.

Chicago has a 50% drop out rate; better than Los Angeles at 70%, but still what should be an insult to every teacher in each district.

Whether it is for gross misconduct by teachers or for regular evaluations and student testing, the union expects to remain unaccountable. In Chicago, standardized test results are destroyed almost immediately after the tests are scored. They have it down in Chicago. No Atlanta scandals there.

And at a time when the average salary in Chicago is $47,000/year and the city is running massive deficits, the disparity between results, compensation, and accountability in the school district is growing even larger.

The issue is national. In California, the unions own the state government as well as most of the largest cities. Across the country states and municipalities are running huge deficits and there is a massive pension crisis.

And Chicago perfectly summarizes the issue. This was an insider deal to begin with and now the union is pressing its advantage. They play rough in Chicago. It's not about the kids. It is about continuing to rob the taxpayers blind and give them as little as possible in return.

It is interesting to note that back in the 1990's our president was at the forefront of educational reform in Chicago and to note the lack of progress since. The Annenberg Challenge spent hundreds of millions of dollars and in the words of its own final report in 2003 achieved almost nothing.

Mayor Richard M. Daly took control of the School District in 1995 and put Arne Duncan, now U.S. Secretary of Education in charge, to no effect.

One of the obligations of local government is education. It is obvious that Chicago's school district and its teachers are failing in this responsibility. Their answer is to blame the system but it is their system. They did build it."

"50% drop out rate"
Does is really make a difference if they even go back ?
Let them strike and never go back !
What is the drop out % in Boston ?







this is great...

"Chicago's teachers have the highest average salary in the country at $76,000/year and according to the Mayor's office, the financial side of the $400 Million deal is done. 4%/year raises have been agreed to, taking them to $88,900/year by 2016.

The Mayor's office stated that:

"The two remaining stumbling blocks involve re-hiring laid off teachers from schools that get shut down or shaken up and a new teacher evaluation process that the union says puts far too much weight on student test scores."

So while 404,000 students are missing school, the real issues are accountability and union job protection.

Chicago is not really different from Wisconsin, but while it is only 90 miles away, it is a universe away in its political realities. The city has seen the same economic straits as most large cities in the country and yet at a time when everyone else is cutting back and trying to get by, the Chicago Teacher's Union, who have already been financially sated, wants more control with less accountability.

This crystallizes two of the major issues we face. The terrible state of our K-12 educational system and our out of control public sector unions.

Chicago has a 50% drop out rate; better than Los Angeles at 70%, but still what should be an insult to every teacher in each district.

Whether it is for gross misconduct by teachers or for regular evaluations and student testing, the union expects to remain unaccountable. In Chicago, standardized test results are destroyed almost immediately after the tests are scored. They have it down in Chicago. No Atlanta scandals there.

And at a time when the average salary in Chicago is $47,000/year and the city is running massive deficits, the disparity between results, compensation, and accountability in the school district is growing even larger.

The issue is national. In California, the unions own the state government as well as most of the largest cities. Across the country states and municipalities are running huge deficits and there is a massive pension crisis.

And Chicago perfectly summarizes the issue. This was an insider deal to begin with and now the union is pressing its advantage. They play rough in Chicago. It's not about the kids. It is about continuing to rob the taxpayers blind and give them as little as possible in return.

It is interesting to note that back in the 1990's our president was at the forefront of educational reform in Chicago and to note the lack of progress since. The Annenberg Challenge spent hundreds of millions of dollars and in the words of its own final report in 2003 achieved almost nothing.

Mayor Richard M. Daly took control of the School District in 1995 and put Arne Duncan, now U.S. Secretary of Education in charge, to no effect.

One of the obligations of local government is education. It is obvious that Chicago's school district and its teachers are failing in this responsibility. Their answer is to blame the system but it is their system. They did build it."

Any idea what an accurate measure of teacher performance would be? Most teachers I know would be all in for raises based on performance, but it is very difficult to quantify performance. Standardized tests are not designed as a measure of teacher performance. It is kind of like measuring physicians based on the health of their patients. Some terrible physicians would look great and the best oncologists in the world could look terrible. The city schools can't keep teachers to begin with. A well meaning, but misguided system for judging performance won't help the kids or tax payers.

"Any idea what an accurate measure of teacher performance would be? "

That's a great question. In my opinion, evaluating teachers based solely on student improvement on test scores is unfair. What if the kid was up all night because his parents were fighting, and he bombs the test? That's not the teachers fault.

But obviously there's a way to differentiate the best teachers from the worst teachers. Hell, when I was 12 years old, I could tell you who was the best, and who was the worst.

It might be hard to distinguish between the 15th best teacher and the 16th best teacher, but it's not hard to identify the worst. The problem is, tenure makes it almost impossible to fire them. And very, very few teachers are willing to abandon the concept of tenure. They want their job guaranteed. And yuo cannot tell me that benefits the chikdren in any way, that only benefits the senior teachers.

"it is very difficult to quantify performance"

Agreed, I don't know that you can use a "statistic" to evaluate teachers. It should be based on evaluations by the principal, and feedback from parents, and even the students in some cases. The principals know which of their teachers are stellar, and which are dead weight.

"A well meaning, but misguided system for judging performance won't help the kids or tax payers"

Agreed 100%. If we reward teachers based on performance (and how could anyone be opposed to that), we need an accurate way of determining performance.

But evaluating teachers is not harder than evaluating anyone who works in any service type capacity. It's not all that hard. It may be hard to quantify as you said, but if you observe the teachers in their classrooms, you'll see clearly who is the best and who is the worst...

But to get to my original point, the teachers should not be striking over this. They serve the public, that's their sole purpose. I cannot imagine how disruptive this must be for the parents.

anecdotal teaching story...

my wife decided to go back to school and get another degree after our kids were born...she wanted to teach so she commuted part time an hour each way for several years to earn her degree...she graduated Summa Cum Laude with a stack of impressive recommendations from the schools that she student taught at and from her college instructors, she began applying to every opening within an hours commute and was unable to get interviews for permanent positions. She did daily subbing at various schools and had some long term sub jobs that produce more impressive letters of recommendation building her resume and continued to apply to openings but still not getting interviews for posted job interviews. After a couple of years of daily and long term subbing at various schools the end of summer was approaching and she was a little frustrated at the prospect of another school year spent subbing. She noticed an opening at a charter school and landed a job about a week before the beginning of the school year. It didn't pay a lot and the contracts were year to year but it was a job. She had a very succesful first year and was considered a model teacher, in her second year she was one of 4 teachers nominated for Teacher of the Year in the combined and enormous school district that her school is considered part of. There were two pretty attractive job openings posted this summer that she applied for, one happened to be a school system that she'd spent considerable time in during her student teaching and subbing days...she applied to both, never heard back from either except to read the reply notices that the jobs had been filled, in one case she had impressive letters of recommendation from both teachers and administrators within the schools system that she was applying to and could not get an interview. We would never suggest that she ought to get a job based on her resume because I'm sure the hiring is/was based on many factors, but you'd think she might have at least gotten an interview given her history. She had an experience at one particular school district where they put the long term sub applicants through a long interview process, she went though the process a couple of times for different openings because she really wanted to work and each time she came home upset and frustrated because she felt that the panel of interviewers were either rude or disinterested and that their decision was made well ahead of time, making the time that she invested to apply and drive to the interviews futile.

Schools with kids who come in to kindergarten not reading continue to do poorly throughout their education. Kids in suburban schools come in to kindergarten doing well and continue on that path. The data comes out the same way from school to school across the country.

The resistance of unions to it is that the people who are trying to implement it are politicians, not statisticians. People who have no idea about variables, correlations, etc. Simpleton politicians can think it sounds good, but it doesn't make it good or effective or beneficial to education. Teachers in the suburbs will appear great and teachers in the cities will appear lousy.

The part about kids coming into school not being able to read is sad and in many cases a direct correlation to parenting (or lack thereof). My wife and I make it a point to read as much as we can to our kids. My oldest daughter just entered Kindergarten and she can read extremely well for her age. It’s not due to the town we live but how we raise our kids and what we try to instill in them. That is another topic of discussion.

I think that if statisticians vs politicians were trying to implement this, Teachers Unions would still fight it to the end. My opinion and I hope I'm wrong.

Any idea what an accurate measure of teacher performance would be? Most teachers I know would be all in for raises based on performance, but it is very difficult to quantify performance. Standardized tests are not designed as a measure of teacher performance. It is kind of like measuring physicians based on the health of their patients. Some terrible physicians would look great and the best oncologists in the world could look terrible. The city schools can't keep teachers to begin with. A well meaning, but misguided system for judging performance won't help the kids or tax payers.

Sure -

1. Standardized tests - dont use average scores, use the median (the extremes high and low will drop off) and test begginning of the year and end of year. - 50% of rating
2. Parent rating - after all, teachers are our customers, we should have a say - rating questionairre - 25%
3. Evaluation - teachers should be evaluated by their superiors - 25%

There you go, not so hard.

Not making this another texas thing - but I can give you some thoughts. We left a good town in MA where we had decent schools. I rarely heard from my kids teachers. Texas schools started 2 weeks ago- do you know i get DAILY emails for both my kids teachers detailing what is going on in the class, weekly summaries of the work and other random updates. Thats about 8-10 emails A WEEK from my kids teachsers. Thats awesome and thats what great teachers do.

I believe teachers hands are tied by political correctness. Kids should take a reading and english test at the beginning of the year, if they fail - they should go to an 8 hr a day special class where ALL they do is learn to read and learn English. Why bother teaching anything else if they cant read or understand english? No one has the balls to implement something like this.

Shouldn't the students have an input as well....I'd like to get input from the students as well as the parents.

there are a lot of parents out there that assign blame to teachers for their kids not excelling....instead of the fact that it is their kid that is the problem. Guess what....little johnny isn't the second coming of Einstein.....

and their are plenty of parents that are completely oblivious to what their kid is doing in school....I'd bet thats a HUGE problem in the inner city schools.

[QUOTE=The Dad Fisherman;958184]Guess what....little johnny isn't the second coming of Einstein.....
QUOTE]

:rotf2:

You're right Dadf, but to me, here is the bottom line
There are 3 US industries that come to mind that have struggled and mostly failed
- automotive
- manufacturing
- School system

All 3 of these industries have historically been UNION shops. Its no coincidence that they have all struggled.
Do you think Apple computers would be as innovative as they are if they were a Union shop? Think about it.
Do you want your kids to go to an Apple computer type school or a General Motors type school? Its that simple

•Texas is #49 in verbal SAT scores in the nation (493) and #46 in average math SAT scores (502).
•Texas is #36 in the nation in high school graduation rates (68%).
•Texas is #33 in the nation in teacher salaries. Teacher salaries in Texas are not keeping pace with the national average. The gains realized from the last state-funded across-the-board pay raise authorized in 1999, which moved the ranking from 33 to as high as 26th in the nation, have disappeared over the last five years.
•Texas was the only state in the nation to cut average per pupil expenditures in fiscal year 2005, resulting in a ranking of #40 nationally; down from #25 in fiscal year 1999.
•Texas is #6 in the nation in student growth. The general student population in Texas public schools grew by 11.1% between school years 1999 and 2005, with the largest percent of growth seen among low income and minority children.
•Between school years 1999 and 2005, the number of central administrators employed by Texas public schools grew by 32.5%, overall staffing in public schools grew by 15.6%, while the number of teachers grew only 13.3%.

You're right Dadf, but to me, here is the bottom line
There are 3 US industries that come to mind that have struggled and mostly failed
- automotive
- manufacturing
- School system

All 3 of these industries have historically been UNION shops. Its no coincidence that they have all struggled.
Do you think Apple computers would be as innovative as they are if they were a Union shop? Think about it.
Do you want your kids to go to an Apple computer type school or a General Motors type school? Its that simple

I'm not arguing the fact that the Teachers shouldn't be graded on performance...I agree. All I said was that maybe we should also be listening to the students.

Did you ever have a teacher that lit a fire in you.....I know I did, and I bet every student has one...a lot of them might even have the same one...that should count for something.

•Texas is #49 in verbal SAT scores in the nation (493) and #46 in average math SAT scores (502).
•Texas is #36 in the nation in high school graduation rates (68%).
•Texas is #33 in the nation in teacher salaries. Teacher salaries in Texas are not keeping pace with the national average. The gains realized from the last state-funded across-the-board pay raise authorized in 1999, which moved the ranking from 33 to as high as 26th in the nation, have disappeared over the last five years.
•Texas was the only state in the nation to cut average per pupil expenditures in fiscal year 2005, resulting in a ranking of #40 nationally; down from #25 in fiscal year 1999.
•Texas is #6 in the nation in student growth. The general student population in Texas public schools grew by 11.1% between school years 1999 and 2005, with the largest percent of growth seen among low income and minority children.
•Between school years 1999 and 2005, the number of central administrators employed by Texas public schools grew by 32.5%, overall staffing in public schools grew by 15.6%, while the number of teachers grew only 13.3%.

Thanks. I guess I am just a stupid f'er. I guess my wife and I who are leaders in a major financial institution are just not up on things. I guess when we researched every school in our town and the neighboring towns and they are rated EXEMPLARY (the highest in the nation) that we where smoking crack.I guess when I am surronded by professional from across the counrty who decided to move to this area, included some incredibly affluent people, intellingent familes, who are invloved in the school district, we where all on drugs.. You do realize texas is about twice the size of Germany and many areas are dirt poor? But apparently you know more. Just curious, so you have kids in MA schools and then compared to Texas schools in the DFW area? Or are you just posting internet clips?

America?s Best High Schools 2012 - Newsweek and The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/america-s-best-high-schools.html)

I just quickly went through the top 50 and saw a lot of TX in there but only one from MA. I then sorted by state and compared TX to MA. Hmm, pretty interesting! Seems to be a ton of TX schools in the top 50, more than any other state? Wowl, I may be wrong though as I just sniffed 5 tubes of glue.

Jimmy - I don't know how Texas schools are funded...local property tax? I'm sure as "leaders in a major financial institution" you and your wife did your homework and picked a nice area and good school system. Facts are facts however and it doesn't take much research to find that overall Texas is at the bottom of the barrel. Thankfully I don't have kids in school anymore...my son was a National Honor Society HS graduate and went on to graduate with honors at UNH at a time when public school teachers weren't demonized. I would have said "as the manager of multi-million dollar housing developments" but I would have felt like a pompous ass.

Jimmy - I don't know how Texas schools are funded...local property tax? I'm sure as "leaders in a major financial institution" you and your wife did your homework and picked a nice area and good school system. Facts are facts however and it doesn't take much research to find that overall Texas is at the bottom of the barrel. Thankfully I don't have kids in school anymore...my son was a National Honor Society HS graduate and went on to graduate with honors at UNH at a time when public school teachers weren't demonized. I would have said "as the manager of multi-million dollar housing developments" but I would have felt like a pompous ass.

"Facts are facts however and it doesn't take much research to find that overall Texas is at the bottom of the barrel. "

You can't compare these statistics for TX to the same stats for other states. Texas has a huge number of Mexican immigrants, who will be disprortionately poor, and many who do not speak English. Of course TX will not stack up well to, say, Greenwich CT. If you are going to look at test scores or graduation rates, you need to adjust for the socioeconomic and demographic differences.

TX has very low taxes. Yet the TX debt-per-capita (1.2%) is lower than CT (7.9%), and people want to move to CT. CT has a shrinking population, TX does not.

You could argue that TX has an unfair advantage to other states because of the oil. But here in CT, even if they found a trillion barrels of oil underground, we wouldn't exploit it, no more than the liberals would embrace an economy based on clubbing baby seals.

at a time when public school teachers weren't demonized. .

Maybe public schoolteachers didn't deserve to be demonized at that time. Presently, as a group, they deserve to be called out for what they are...greedy folks who obviously care more about their own bottom line than they care about the children they claim to serve.

Want proof?

(1) Thanks to tenure, teachers with the most seniority (not the most talent) are the ones who keep their jobs. No way that helps their students. But teachers refuse to give up tenure. They don't want their jobs to be dependent upon their talent, they want guaranteed jobs regardless of skill.

(2) When towns face budget cuts, teachers will almost always choose layoffs over cutting benefits. Yet studies show that smaller class sizes are what benefit students, not fewer teachers with cadillac health plans and fat pensions. Teachers (and their unions) will almost always prefer a smaller number of teachers with fat benefits than more teachers (small classes) with reasonable benefits.

Sure -

1. Standardized tests - dont use average scores, use the median (the extremes high and low will drop off) and test begginning of the year and end of year. - 50% of rating
.

I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at. Are you comparing the teachers in one school? Are you comparing across schools; districts; a state? In Bridgeport middle schools, about 10% of students make goal in science. In Fairfield, about 85% of students make goal. You can't compare across districts and expect to still have teachers in the cities.
If you are comparing within schools, the make-up of the classes would have to be as close to identical as possible, which they almost never can be because of special ed staffing, etc. Even then, what are you measuring? Percent of students who make certain benchmarks? In MA and CT, the science tests, at least, cover three years of curriculum. So now you have to factor that in to the assessment. If the system is set up in a way allows for effective comparison, it is very likely that there will be a only a few outliers. But again, the admin will already know about those teachers in most cases and can already take steps to get rid of those teachers, even if they have tenure. What Jimmy pointed out is what CT is will have in one or two school years. I hope it works to push administrators to put the effort into getting rid of bad teachers. but I am pretty certain isn't going to take care of the gap between Bridgeport and Fairfield, or Worcester and Newton. That is the real challenge and no one knows how to address it in practice.

"Any idea what an accurate measure of teacher performance would be? "

That's a great question. In my opinion, evaluating teachers based solely on student improvement on test scores is unfair. What if the kid was up all night because his parents were fighting, and he bombs the test? That's not the teachers fault.

But obviously there's a way to differentiate the best teachers from the worst teachers. Hell, when I was 12 years old, I could tell you who was the best, and who was the worst.

It might be hard to distinguish between the 15th best teacher and the 16th best teacher, but it's not hard to identify the worst. The problem is, tenure makes it almost impossible to fire them. And very, very few teachers are willing to abandon the concept of tenure. They want their job guaranteed. And yuo cannot tell me that benefits the chikdren in any way, that only benefits the senior teachers.

"it is very difficult to quantify performance"

Agreed, I don't know that you can use a "statistic" to evaluate teachers. It should be based on evaluations by the principal, and feedback from parents, and even the students in some cases. The principals know which of their teachers are stellar, and which are dead weight.

"A well meaning, but misguided system for judging performance won't help the kids or tax payers"

Agreed 100%. If we reward teachers based on performance (and how could anyone be opposed to that), we need an accurate way of determining performance.

But evaluating teachers is not harder than evaluating anyone who works in any service type capacity. It's not all that hard. It may be hard to quantify as you said, but if you observe the teachers in their classrooms, you'll see clearly who is the best and who is the worst...

But to get to my original point, the teachers should not be striking over this. They serve the public, that's their sole purpose. I cannot imagine how disruptive this must be for the parents.

I believe I agree with everything Jim said in this post :buds:

Maybe public schoolteachers didn't deserve to be demonized at that time. Presently, as a group, they deserve to be called out for what they are...greedy folks who obviously care more about their own bottom line than they care about the children they claim to serve.

Want proof?

(1) Thanks to tenure, teachers with the most seniority (not the most talent) are the ones who keep their jobs. No way that helps their students. But teachers refuse to give up tenure. They don't want their jobs to be dependent upon their talent, they want guaranteed jobs regardless of skill.

(2) When towns face budget cuts, teachers will almost always choose layoffs over cutting benefits. Yet studies show that smaller class sizes are what benefit students, not fewer teachers with cadillac health plans and fat pensions. Teachers (and their unions) will almost always prefer a smaller number of teachers with fat benefits than more teachers (small classes) with reasonable benefits.

Oh someone must have hijacked his computer on that other post. Nevermind, he's back :rotf2:

Jimmy - I don't know how Texas schools are funded...local property tax? I'm sure as "leaders in a major financial institution" you and your wife did your homework and picked a nice area and good school system. Facts are facts however and it doesn't take much research to find that overall Texas is at the bottom of the barrel. Thankfully I don't have kids in school anymore...my son was a National Honor Society HS graduate and went on to graduate with honors at UNH at a time when public school teachers weren't demonized. I would have said "as the manager of multi-million dollar housing developments" but I would have felt like a pompous ass.

You replied to my positive note on Texas experience with a attack on Texas education which had nothing to do with my post. Bottom of the barrel is interesting, I guess you didn't read to top high school link I posted. As far as being a pompous ass, you president is the one that highlights I am in the top percent in this country and since I didn't inherit it, I guess I earned it, so yeah. I am more experienced and thus pompous. And I have lived in areas all over this country and know a lot. Something tells me you re a townie that lives about 5 miles from where our were brought up. I'd compare salaries but your defense of unions already tells me where you stand. Maybe when you are the builder or the financier of multi million dollar housing we can talk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh someone must have hijacked his computer on that other post. Nevermind, he's back :rotf2:

Zimmy, I'm trying to be kinder and gentler.

What in my post, exactly, was incorrect?

It is a fact that tenure guarantees jobs for teachers with seniority, rather than ability. That's what tenure is.

It is also a fact that kids do better with smaller class sizes, meaning more teachers. Yet teachers constantly choose layoffs over benefit reductions. In other words, teachers (and the unions) would rather see a small number of teachers with rich benefits, instead of more teachers with reasonable benefits. That necessarily results in fewer teachers, and that hurts the students.

How can you disagree with any of that?

Zimmy, I'm trying to be kinder and gentler.

What in my post, exactly, was incorrect?

It is a fact that tenure guarantees jobs for teachers with seniority, rather than ability. That's what tenure is.

It is also a fact that kids do better with smaller class sizes, meaning more teachers. Yet teachers constantly choose layoffs over benefit reductions. In other words, teachers (and the unions) would rather see a small number of teachers with rich benefits, instead of more teachers with reasonable benefits. That necessarily results in fewer teachers, and that hurts the students.

How can you disagree with any of that?

Tenure does not guarentee jobs. Tenure gives some additional protection to teachers who have it. It provides certain rights to reviews and hearings on performance, based on established good record. It prevents a new principal from coming into a school and firing a veteran teacher a month later because they don't like them. If the teacher is not performing, the administration starts the process. I agree that the process may be too slow and bureauocratic, but it does not guarentee jobs to people who don't perform. If the teacher performs appropriately, they are provided greater protection against layoffs compared to those with less seniority or without tenure.

The second item... could you identify one instance where teachers chose layoffs over benefit reductions? If you can, I will respond with all the examples of the antithesis that I have personally been part of.

Tenure does not guarentee jobs. Tenure gives some additional protection to teachers who have it. It provides certain rights to reviews and hearings on performance, based on established good record. It prevents a new principal from coming into a school and firing a veteran teacher a month later because they don't like them. If the teacher is not performing, the administration starts the process. I agree that the process may be too slow and bureauocratic, but it does not guarentee jobs to people who don't perform. If the teacher performs appropriately, they are provided greater protection against layoffs compared to those with less seniority or without tenure.

The second item... could you identify one instance where teachers chose layoffs over benefit reductions? If you can, I will respond with all the examples of the antithesis that I have personally been part of.

I served on the Board Of Ed for 2 terms in my town. Tenure makes it very, very difficult to fire teachers for incompetence.

Zimmy, every single time there are teacher layoffs, the layoffs are done to cut a certain dollar amount from the budget. Common sense tells us that you can achieve the same dollar savings by reducing benefits.

At the end of my second term on the Board Of Ed, we brought an actuarial consulting group in to look at some numbers. They concluded that if eliminated pensions and swithched to a 401(k) type plan, we could hire 11 additional teachers with the savings. The union rejected that almost unanimously...that was when I quit.

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7nfsqVBQUyUAqFBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1cGQxcGw 4BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDE1NV8yM TQ-/SIG=13q9fpr1k/EXP=1347492460/**http%3a//republicanherald.com/news/union-workers-choose-layoffs-over-hour-cut-1.429427%3ffirstComment=20

Chose from Jobs Teachers are laid off due to state budget cuts Salary Choose Jobs (http://choseajob.com/2011/06/09/despite-layoffs-no-deals-on-salary-or-benefit-cuts/)

"The Clark County teachers union said Monday it won’t agree to salary and benefit concessions even if it means teachers are laid off due to state budget cuts."

I'm not saying that teachers never, ever agree to pay cuts in order to save jobs. I'm saying it's the exception. Every town that gives its teachers pensions and cadillac health insurance, could hire more teachers if the benefits were more realistic. That irrefutably helps students.

In my entire life, I have heard exactly one public schoolteacher advocate for lower benefits and more teachers, becdause that would help the kids.

"tenure does not guarantee jobs".

It guarantees that when there are layoffs due to budget cuts, the non-tenured teachers go first. You cannot claim that helps kids...

Zimmy, google "teacher of the year laid off, and you will see several examples of non-tenured teachers being named teacher of the year in their district, only to be laid off to save the tenured teachers. In this case, you are letting go the best teachers who get paid less, and keeping the less qualified teachers who also make more. How does that help kids, exactly?

The concept of tenure is archaic.

How about paying their "Fair Share"?? Chicago average salary is $41+/- K, teachers average $71K... or is the fair share only for everyone else??

On Tenure, it was originally established to prevent administrators from firing educators based on their views, not to make it virtually impossible to fire incompetent teachers...

Well said Fishpart. Spot on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For my friend RIJimmy- I wasn't going to respond...figured I'd let your post speak for itself.....but then again:

"You replied to my positive note on Texas experience with (a) attack on Texas education which had nothing to do with my post."

Actually Jimmy I was responding to your attack on Chicago schools with your own limited personal experience in Texas...I merely pointed out the statistics. Believe them or not...I didn't make them up...really do hope your kids fare better than the average.

"Bottom of the barrel is interesting, I guess you didn't read (to) top high school link I posted."

Wrong again...as I said, glad you picked a "good" neighborhood. Fact is the rest of the state is just about as bad as it gets. Surprised you didn't note that in your extensive research?

"As far as being a pompous ass, (you) president is the one that highlights I am in the top percent in this country and since I didn't inherit it, I guess I earned it, so yeah(.); I am more experienced and thus pompous. "

I believe I said "I" would feel like a pompous ass....but since you claim the title. Here's what the dictionary says: Pompous:1. Characterized by an exaggerated show of dignity or self importance; 2. Bombastic or self-important in speech and manner. (let me know if you want the definition for bombastic) PS Do you guys have your own president in Texas? You do know your gov. lost in the primary?


"And I have lived in areas all over this country and know a lot."

See above definition.

" Something tells me you re a townie that lives about 5 miles from where (our) were brought up."

Almost right with this one! Next town over....gotta love a 10 minute commute and love the stability. All over the country huh? Trouble holding a job; military brat? Maybe you should have a union job with a little security!

"I'd compare salaries but your defense of unions already tells me where you stand."

I make quite a comfortable living thanks....worked my way up the ladder for 34 years and retire early on 11/13. Just in time for an election celebration I hope! Not union....sorry to disappoint you! PS I make it a point to try not to judge individuals by the size of their bank account....you might want to reconsider how you evaluate people...might just find out there are some good people out there who have different priorities in life!

"Maybe when you are the builder or the financier of multi million dollar housing we can talk."

Well..I usually don't like to blow my own horn....but just so you won't take me off your Christmas card list. I guess you misunderstood what I meant when I said "manage". What I am is a municipal planner with 34+ years experience. (My guess is your "have more experience statement" isn't quite correct. If you were claiming more experience than "x" and not "me", my apologies.) And no I don't build or finance these projects...hope that doesn't keep me out of the highbrow club! What I have done or "do do" if you prefer is design, administer and oversee programs for housing development. Latest projects...a school reuse project providing 63 units of housing for the elderly; a 20 unit family project; 94 units in an "expiring use" complex; a 9 unit SRO for vet's...and a bunch more including the latest which I'm especially proud of; the acquisition and rehab. of two single family homes that will be dedicated to vets of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts. A couple more before I go...designed and administered a revolving loan program that leveraged $150,000 in federal funds into a multi-million dollar home loan program that has assisted over 500 families bring sub-standard properties into code compliance and last but not least designed and ran a First Time Homebuyer program, in cooperation with Mass Housing Finance Agency, Mass Housing Partnership and local lenders to provide home financing for moderate income families that has put over 200 families in their 1st homes... and I might add sports a default/foreclosure rate well below current private market rates.

Excuse me for the corrections on your post; I know you financial sector types sometimes have problems with that left brain/right brain thing.

you didnt correct my posts, you gave me your opinion,. once again limited by your experience which is comprised of living in one area of the country and your ability to copy text from the internet.
As far as my living all over the country, sorry not a military brat. i grew up in a small home in a tiny town in CT with a proud blue collar democrat family. Same spot for 18 yrs. Once I graduated from a public college, the world was my oyster. Its something called "ambition". 100% on my own $ I have lived in Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles. Providence. I have been courted by many major companies and often convinced to move. Not for the $, but for the experience and enjoyment of all this great country has to offer.
As far as sterotyping me as a finance guy, I believe you do know I am a musician and I have played at the Whiskey in LA, clubs in Boston, and multiple jazz gigs at the Top of the Hub and Scullers in Boston. Does that make me a pompus musician, no it makes me an experienced one. I can honestly say that playing music over 30yrs, never playing in cover bands or wedding, etc. I have an informed musical opinion.
So pull your head out of your arse and look around. I referred you twice to a listing of the best high schools in the country and you have ignored the FACT that Texas has many of the best. Its a fact. The fact that texas as a whole may significantly lag the other states does not bother me given the size and diversity of texas. We have some of the richest spots in the country and some of the poorest. Its the equivalent of comaring a problem in RI with a problem in Brazil. The scope and scale varies greatly.
I dont judge people by the salaries, but I value the opinion of people based on their experience, positions, knowledge and often those are reflected in salaries. WHo would you listen to for a tax question a clerk at HR Block or a CPA?
Good luck to you, I am sure you are a nice guy. But the internet is a big place and eveybody's opinion is not created equal.
signed- a proud pompous ass

Well aren't you special! :love:

PS Don't doubt you're a good guitarist but you probably should have been a horn player....you seem to be very good at blowing your own horn!

Well aren't you special! :love:

PS Don't doubt you're a good guitarist but you probably should have been a horn player....you seem to be very good at blowing your own horn!

toot toot!

What is it about this forum that brings out the worst in people.

Can you guys please back off and relax please

What is it about this forum that brings out the worst in people.

Can you guys please back off and relax please

:love:

Truce....Jim let's agree to only respond to each other on the music/fishing forums as it appears that both of us like to get in the last punch.

Just for the record...a while back I suggested to JohnR that this forum should be removed as it denigrates what is an otherwise a pretty nice site.

Just for the record...a while back I suggested to JohnR that this forum should be removed as it denigrates what is an otherwise a pretty nice site.

see, I want to respond that this is another attempt by liberals to limit free speech and discussion but in the spirit of good will I wont. :jump1:

Go re-string your guitar!