Chicago schoolteachers go on strike

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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

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]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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=A0oG7...irstComment=20

Chose from Jobs Teachers are laid off due to state budget cuts Salary Choose Jobs

"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.

[Fishpart]

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...