Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
of course not, that's why union people hate charter schools, never mind if the kids are doing better or not versus NYC operated schools - that's a secondary consideration don't you know
Yes, that's what I was leading to BlackJones. Just needed some confirmation. Charter schools which are non-unionized are not only competition but a direct THREAT to the teacher's union in the public school system, hence why the teacher's union are going all out to destroy the charter schools.
If the charter school model succeeds and/or keeps succeeding, the trend and demand for more Charter schools in the city may rise, diminishing the need for public school which are ran by the unions. Less demand for public schools equals less demand for unionized teachers which equals less UNION DUE $$$ for the union bosses.
With the teacher's union, It's NEVER been about the kids, its been about themselves, money and power. So don't fool yourself when you hear the teacher's union throw in the statement about we are trying to help the children...it's all BULLSH**!
So now, the teacher's union want to charge Charter schools rent for being in the same building as the public school. Yeah ok. The ultimate goal for the teacher's union is to create a financial hardship on the charter schools by charging them high rents with the hopes of them "going out of business".
Brings new meaning to the words "Union Thugs".
Bloomberg wasn't having it, and rightfully so. De Blasio on the other hand is sleeping in the same bed as the unions and may allow for the destruction of the charter school system in NYC. Smh!!!!!
As it happens, the best school districts in the country are taught be union teachers. Or would you say that the congestion and air pollution in NYC makes the unionized teachers in the city more incapable than their peers elsewhere?
Yes, that's what I was leading to BlackJones. Just needed some confirmation. Charter schools which are non-unionized are not only competition but a direct THREAT to the teacher's union in the public school system, hence why the teacher's union are going all out to destroy the charter schools.
If the charter school model succeeds and/or keeps succeeding, the trend and demand for more Charter schools in the city may rise, diminishing the need for public school which are ran by the unions. Less demand for public schools equals less demand for unionized teachers which equals less UNION DUE $$$ for the union bosses.
With the teacher's union, It's NEVER been about the kids, its been about themselves, money and power. So don't fool yourself when you hear the teacher's union throw in the statement about we are trying to help the children...it's all BULLSH**!
So now, the teacher's union want to charge Charter schools rent for being in the same building as the public school. Yeah ok. The ultimate goal for the teacher's union is to create a financial hardship on the charter schools by charging them high rents with the hopes of them "going out of business".
Brings new meaning to the words "Union Thugs".
Bloomberg wasn't having it, and rightfully so. De Blasio on the other hand is sleeping in the same bed as the unions and may allow for the destruction of the charter school system in NYC. Smh!!!!!
You really should get over yourself. Most teachers are very much concerned about the kids and want nothing more than to educate them well. Putting our kids through NYC schools we found a grand total of TWO teachers who basically were so screwed up they shouldn't have been teaching. Just two. The rest ranged from adequate to amazing, and judging by our discussions with other parents I don't think our experience was unusual. Yeah, there are always a few slugs. But you'll find a few slugs in every profession.
But most of your vitriol is toward the teachers union, I presume. Unions exist to pretect jobs and workers and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You sound as if you're probably too young to remember the days when teachers were at the total mercy of their principals and districts. When they were horribly paid. When evaluations were personal and arbitrary. When teachers -- mostly women in the 50s and 60s -- were sexually hararrased and professionally denigrated, with few having the chance to become principals or high-level adminsitrators. It was defintely a man's world then.
But teachers have not forgotten those days existed and don't want to see them back. That's why they support their union. They can't do their job to the best of their ability if they fear that the bad old days are coming back. Unions exist to make sure they don't, and any teacher who feels sure of that on her own can go teach in a non-unionized charter.
NO union is perfect. But on the whole they make life better for most workers and in a land of stagnating middle-class jobs we need more unions, not less, and in many more fields beside teaching. Instead of being hostile to a union, I submit you might start pressing your own employer for better wages, benefits, treatment, and opportunities. Of course if you are (or were) a corprorate lawyer, Wall St dealmaker, or small business owner yourself, your hostility to organized labor is probably a given, isn't it?
Hahaha...I had to laugh about your post. You say unions exist to protect jobs and workers....which workers??? Certainly not the teachers who work in charter schools. Because the teacher's union is going all out trying to destroy charter schools and add un-unionized charter school teachers to the unemployment line. They're just looking out for their own interest. It's clear as day. The "helping the kids" has no matter in the situation. For the unions its all about money and power and then the kids. In that order.
The teacher's union if successful will increase the NYC unemployment rate because it is not in the teacher union's best interest to have charter schools who employ non-unionized teachers. If charter school teachers were unionized, we wouldn't be discussing this matter. Everything would be all gravy!
of course not, that's why union people hate charter schools, never mind if the kids are doing better or not versus NYC operated schools - that's a secondary consideration don't you know
They have the chance to do better. Aside from having less SPED and ELLs, once selected by the lottery, the parents have to agree to their terms, which often include longer hours and more prep. If they don't, or if they're disruptive, they're simply removed from the school and placed back into regular public schools. Regular public schools do not have that option---no matter how awful the student is, he/she WILL be placed in a school somewhere.
Charter schools hire new grads for teaching positions. Once they get some time in if they want to continue teaching these young teachers are quickly hired by public schools. Not just in NYC either. This is happening throughout the country.
Its almost like an apprenticeship. If they still want to teach after experiencing teaching in a charter then the public schools hire them since have shown that they really want to teach.
I know a few of these young teachers and the only way they could get into the public system was by
starting out in the charters. None of them would have stayed in the charter system. These are young people whose goal was to teach. Charter is a dead end for teachers. They only worked the charters until they could get into the public schools.
Charter schools hire new grads for teaching positions. Once they get some time in if they want to continue teaching these young teachers are quickly hired by public schools. Not just in NYC either. This is happening throughout the country.
Its almost like an apprenticeship. If they still want to teach after experiencing teaching in a charter then the public schools hire them since have shown that they really want to teach.
I know a few of these young teachers and the only way they could get into the public system was by
starting out in the charters. None of them would have stayed in the charter system. These are young people whose goal was to teach. Charter is a dead end for teachers. They only worked the charters until they could get into the public schools.
That is very interesting. So would it be fair to say that for teachers, charter schools are not attractive at all?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
