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.
Look where your hard earned money is going......to the union coffers in the form of free benefits and HC for life.
I think you're right about it, just look at the above statistic.
Nice of CNS to decide what is acceptable and what is not. But basic is average/expected and acceptable (it may not be ideal in a world of perfectness).
It is also interesting that while they mentioned the cost per student, most of the time, these days has little to do with teachers, and more with bringing technology to the school districts and classroom.
But overall, reading scores nationally only increased for grade 8 in a couple of states and stayed the same in 38.
Less than 7% of Wisconsin students take the SAT. The ACT is much more popular, just like in most of the Midwest, with Wisconsin ranking 13th. Participation rate is 67% of students for the ACT.
Wisconsin ACT scores still aren't bad. In fact it beats all the states that do not allow collective bargaining hands down in both ACT and SAT. (SC, VA, NC, GA, TX) Even thought those states often have lower participation rates.
Wisconsin ACT scores still aren't bad. In fact it beats all the states that do not allow collective bargain hands down in both ACT and SAT. (SC, VA, NC, GA, TX) Even thought those states often have lower participation rates.
Collective bargaining has nothing to do with educating. The union represent the teachers, not the students nor the school.
Collective bargaining has nothing to do with educating. The union represent the teachers, not the students nor the school.
The OPs premise was to argue sarcastically that test results in Wisconsin suggest that teachers are not overpaid, or lazy as has been claimed on other thread in CD and elsewhere. In theory if they were lazy relative to teachers who were not allowed collective bargaining, or the aegis of a union then their pupils should not perform better due to the mal-instruction of 'lazy' teachers. The implicit argument being that unionized working conditions attract better teachers, which in turn improves the quality of education.
Of course rightwingers will bring out mitigating factors such as % participation, which in Wisconsin is higher then most if not all non-collective bargaining states yet it still does better.
Of course there is then the question of race this can be addressed by instead of using Wisconsin, using California. California, a racial diverse state, also beats the non-collective bargaining states hands down it is only slightly behind NC in ACT with only 15% NC participation and ahead of all 5 states except Virginia, which it was behind by a slim margin, in SAT scores.
Edit: removed link about low reading levels because Sanrene already posted to it.
Nice try though, Savoir Faire, trying to make it look like the public bloodsuckers out there (a.k.a. government workers) somehow deserve their 1950's-style benefits.
Fire them all and put people in the classroom that have actual degrees in something besides teaching -- a worthless degree for anything past the 5th grade.
Edit: removed link about low reading levels because Sanrene already posted to it.
Nice try though, Savoir Faire, trying to make it look like the public bloodsuckers out there (a.k.a. government workers) somehow deserve their 1950's-style benefits. Fire them all and put people in the classroom that have actual degrees in something besides teaching -- a worthless degree for anything past the 5th grade.
There are a lot of failed charter schools that did just that.
The OPs premise was to argue sarcastically that test results in Wisconsin suggest that teachers are not overpaid, or lazy as has been claimed on other thread in CD and elsewhere. In theory if they were lazy relative to teachers who were not allowed collective bargaining, or the aegis of a union then their pupils should not perform better due to the mal-instruction of 'lazy' teachers. The implicit argument being that unionized working conditions attract better teachers, which in turn improves the quality of education.
Of course rightwingers will bring out mitigating factors such as % participation, which in Wisconsin is higher then most if not all non-collective bargaining states yet it still does better.
Of course there is then the question of race this can be addressed by instead of using Wisconsin, using California. California, a racial diverse state, also beats the non-collective bargaining states hands down it is only slightly behind NC in ACT with only 15% NC participation and ahead of all 5 states except Virginia, which it was behind by a slim margin, in SAT scores.
Why don't you post a list of collective vs. non-collective states for reference? And why withhold the fact that in some states, the SAT is the preferred test, while in others, the ACT is preferred? In SAT-dominate states, there is very little if any specific preparation for the ACT and vice versa.
Or, in the case that a very very small minority of students participate in tests opposite of state-wide trends, they are typically the cream of the crop so to speak? From your own link, states with the best SAT scores all have ridiculously low participation rates. Same for the top performing ACT states. Yet, as we increase the participation rate, scores tend to suck. Notice the first state down the list with more than 50% participation is ranked 25th.
The only way to compare is to ignore states with less than 40% or so participation one way or the other. If you don't, it produces a bias in the study and skews the results.
Also your attempt at racial comparison is weak, Mississippi is a diverse state, has nearly 100% ACT participation but has the lowest scores.
Last edited by Frankie117; 02-22-2011 at 04:32 PM..
Why don't you post a list of collective vs. non-collective states for reference? And why withhold the fact that in some states, the SAT is the preferred test, while in others, the ACT is preferred? In SAT-dominate states, there is very little if any specific preparation for the ACT and vice versa.
Or, in the case that a very very small minority of students participate in tests opposite of state-wide trends, they are typically the cream of the crop so to speak? From your own link, states with the best SAT scores all have ridiculously low participation rates. Same for the top performing ACT states. Yet, as we increase the participation rate, scores tend to suck. Notice the first state down the list with more than 50% participation is ranked 25th.
The only way to compare is to ignore states with less than 40% or so participation one way or the other. If you don't, it produces a bias in the study and skews the results.
Also your attempt at racial comparison is weak, Mississippi is a diverse state, has nearly 100% ACT participation but has the lowest scores.
VA, NC, SC, GA, and TX are the states that forbid collective bargaining for state employees. My point is that relative to the other 45 states those that forbid collective bargaining are all clustered near the bottom.
I also did not withold any information, the states you posted on ACT were sufficient...I simply added SAT stats...Also the 5 states that ban collective bargaining have low participation in ACT. My attempt at racial comparison was simply to answer how more traditionally non-white states compare to eachother.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 02-22-2011 at 06:54 PM..
It is a known fact that MPS is a troubled system. Unfortunately, the majority of the kids that go there come from lower income homes, broken homes, homes where the parents/parent just don't care what their kids do. The teachers can only do so much if they don't have the support of the parents or family. MPS now has a new superintendent, I can only hope that he will work wonders & fix the problem. I don't know how but there's got to be something.
Considering that 67% of WI students have college aspirations, this is testimony to the great job teachers there are doing.
In WI, taking the test is not mandatory and not paid for by the state.
So what? Even IF that is true (which I DOUBT), the teachers are no better than private employees, who pay far, FAR more into their retirement and healthcare pensions.
Why are teachers so special? I realize they educate our young but parents do that far more so than teachers, at least in most homes.
What IS your point?
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.
