Chicago schoolteachers go on strike

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

•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?

[RIJIMMY]

America?s Best High Schools 2012 - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

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.

[sokinwet]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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

[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

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

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

[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...

[Bronko]

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

[sokinwet]

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.

[RIJIMMY]

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

[sokinwet]

Well aren't you special!

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!

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

Well aren't you special!

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!

[The Dad Fisherman]

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

Can you guys please back off and relax please

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

Can you guys please back off and relax please

[sokinwet]

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.

[sokinwet]

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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

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.

[sokinwet]

Go re-string your guitar!