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.
I believe the sticking/sticky point of the Chicago teacher's strike is the new evaluation system they want to integrate. 40% of your evaluation will be based on your student's test performance on annual standardized tests, and those teachers who don't "make the cut-off" will be fired immediately.
80% of the student body in the Chicago city school system qualifies for free/reduced lunch. Adding all of the other issues that are typical of large inner city schools (necessary supplies, remedial programs, attendance issues, safe buildings, large teacher turnover, large class sizes, transient population~) along with the expectations for every student passing some standardized test....
I'd strike too. I cannot make students care. The first time I proctored the ACT/MME tests, I had a student in my room who came in, bubbled one answer and then went to sleep. How is that a reflection on any of the teachers he had? He didn't even try.
I've said it before. The problem with these tests is the person taking it doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome when you're talking about lower performing students. They don't care. They're not going to college. They're not in the running for scholarships. Why should they bother? When you judge teachers and schools by these results you are, mistakenly, assuming that the student tried. They don't all try. It's high time we attached graduating to these tests. The students won't take them seriously until there is something on the line for them. Higher performing kids have something on the line. Lower performing kids don't and they know it.
Last year I taught the lower level chem classes and the fact the number of kids I taught who didn't get a passing score went up on my PR. That's one of the reasons I didn't get an effective rating. The previous year, the one being compared to, I taught only college prep chemistry. Of course my non passing percentage went up. It is STUPID to attach student test performance on these tests to my PR. Now if you want to write an exit exam for my class...one students must pass to pass the class, we can talk. Any testing reflected on my PR should be of the material taught in my class not material taught over several years and the students have to have a vested interest in passing the test and THEN the scores should be compared to their previous years scores. If the student has always scored low, their low score isn't a reflection on me.
I believe the sticking/sticky point of the Chicago teacher's strike is the new evaluation system they want to integrate. 40% of your evaluation will be based on your student's test performance on annual standardized tests, and those teachers who don't "make the cut-off" will be fired immediately.
80% of the student body in the Chicago city school system qualifies for free/reduced lunch. Adding all of the other issues that are typical of large inner city schools (necessary supplies, remedial programs, attendance issues, safe buildings, large teacher turnover, large class sizes, transient population~) along with the expectations for every student passing some standardized test....
RTT also requires that teachers be evaluated based on student scores. I don't know if RTT specifies a percentage though. I know NYC had implemented 40% but the union sued and NYC has asked DC for a one year waiver to work things out.
Illinois had their RTT application rejected. The have a one year freeze instead on the NCLB AYP mandate.
There's no getting away from this though...the trend is to evaluate teachers based on their students scores.
When I read this when it first came out I wondered who in their right mind would go teach in a low performing school.
Yes, fire them all for demanding decent class sizes, and adequate pay increases! How dare they!
On a serious note, I'm not sure of your educational background, but it amazes me that so many people are quick to state 76K is a lot of money. You have no idea what those teachers have to deal with each day. If it's so easy, why aren't more people opting to pursue teaching in Chicago's Public School System?
That is my question. On another thread I even offered to help people with the certification process so that they too could get overpaid for working hardly any hours, which is what I have done for years when people have the nerve to make that comment to my face. Funny thing, no one on that thread took me up on my offer and I have only had a few do it in the past. Only one lasted more than a year. It is amazing how in a good economy schools can't get enough teachers to man the classrooms but let the economy go south and all of the sudden teaching is this dream job and all teachers are spoiled. And of course, any idiot could do it. But those grousing people don't seem interested in teaching themselves. Most of them say they couldn't deal with the kids or they don't have the patience. Bingo! I wouldn't mind getting paid like a doctor but 1) I didn't go to med school, and 2) you have to touch bodily fluids. So I just keep my mouth shut about their pay.
The main issues in the teacher strike. Okay. Now, we all have known, of completely off the wall, horrible teachers, who maintained employment long after they should have been put out to pasture. I worked with a teacher, who was completely inept. She had no clue about the new technology for SPED, she was really out to lunch on so many levels. I had to "Cherry Pick" her student load, to make sure no "hot" parents were on her list, because it would have been too much work for me to deal with the crisis it would have caused. She needed to be gone. She was on psycho-tropic medication, she was crazy, always missing days, her paperwork was a mess. Well, her evaluation, was done, fairly, and it was bad. Really bad. She went to the union, and had the whole thing wiped away.
So, I am sorry, but on that score, with that teacher as an example, I agree, bad teachers need to be gone, and there needs to be an easier method to get rid of them. I never had fear of being evaluated. Even on a really bad day, with kids screaming, banging their heads against the wall, I was a good teacher. And it was evident. So, I am not with the union on that one.
The main issues in the teacher strike. Okay. Now, we all have known, of completely off the wall, horrible teachers, who maintained employment long after they should have been put out to pasture. I worked with a teacher, who was completely inept. She had no clue about the new technology for SPED, she was really out to lunch on so many levels. I had to "Cherry Pick" her student load, to make sure no "hot" parents were on her list, because it would have been too much work for me to deal with the crisis it would have caused. She needed to be gone. She was on psycho-tropic medication, she was crazy, always missing days, her paperwork was a mess. Well, her evaluation, was done, fairly, and it was bad. Really bad. She went to the union, and had the whole thing wiped away.
So, I am sorry, but on that score, with that teacher as an example, I agree, bad teachers need to be gone, and there needs to be an easier method to get rid of them. I never had fear of being evaluated. Even on a really bad day, with kids screaming, banging their heads against the wall, I was a good teacher. And it was evident. So, I am not with the union on that one.
My sister is a teacher and she says the same things all the time. She knows of at least 3 teachers in her school that really don't deserve to have jobs, yet the union protects them from being fired.
I'm supportive of teachers; it is a job that I do not want. I also agree with the poster who said that when the students have no vested interest in how they perform on standardized tests then they don't care how they do on them. To me, it seems like a simple enough thing to fix; require the student to score at a certain level in order to progress to the next grade/graduate. That gives the student (and hopefully their parents) a reason to care. If the students don't care about the tests then I agree that it isn't fair to judge the teachers on them. At the same time, part of teaching is being a motivator and getting the students to care when they don't. I don't know too many people who really care about doing long division; calculators have been around for decades and everyone knows it, yet somehow teachers motivate students to learn it anyway.
I don't think this strike is getting the teachers all that much sympathy. I'm certainly not feeling to sympathetic with my $11,000 tax bill on a house that I cannot give away... I don't think the unions really help good teachers; they seem to do much more for bad teachers than good ones.
I read that their school day is one of the shortest in the nation at 5.5 hours. My students are in school for 6 hours and 40 minutes (a 7.5 hour teacher contract). I understand the Chicago board wants to lengthen the day, but I'm not sure by how much. I would expect to be compensated for an extended contract. With the extended day, I read the union was offered a 45 minute duty free lunch period (15 min. longer than ours), and a daily 60 min. prep period (I have at least 35 min. daily).
...
I don't know what the Chicago union considers to be "large class sizes". We have elementary math classes this year as large as 35. Many classes are around 30.
5.5 hrs is their instructional hours. Their duty day is 9 hours. The proposal is to increase their instructional hours to 7.5 hrs and their duty day to 10.5 or 11 hrs. They also have a 4 hr per week evening/weekend duty assignment (e.g. timing football games, monitoring activity security, etc.). That would bring their contract hours up over 2300 hours.
In 2010 they increased the average class size for elementary schools to 35, 37 in 2011, and 42 in 2012. High schools can go even higher. There is no hard cap on class sizes for Chicago.
Chicago education is in the red for $700 million this year and projected to be over $1 billion in the red next year.
I just don't see how the teachers will get what they want.
I don't think the unions really help good teachers; they seem to do much more for bad teachers than good ones.
I am with you on that one. I belonged to the union, for the benefits as a collective, that I had health benefits, excellent ones, better than I do now...but, I don't agree with protecting bad teachers. Sink or swim. Good teachers rise to the top. Bad ones, need to be gone.
5.5 hrs is their instructional hours. Their duty day is 9 hours. The proposal is to increase their instructional hours to 7.5 hrs and their duty day to 10.5 or 11 hrs. They also have a 4 hr per week evening/weekend duty assignment (e.g. timing football games, monitoring activity security, etc.). That would bring their contract hours up over 2300 hours.
In 2010 they increased the average class size for elementary schools to 35, 37 in 2011, and 42 in 2012. High schools can go even higher. There is no hard cap on class sizes for Chicago.
Thanks. I could not find that info. A 9 hour contract day is long. I'm surprised then that the instructional day is only 5.5 hours.
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.
It is STUPID to attach student test performance on these tests to my PR. Now if you want to write an exit exam for my class...one students must pass to pass the class, we can talk. Any testing reflected on my PR should be of the material taught in my class not material taught over several years and the students have to have a vested interest in passing the test and THEN the scores should be compared to their previous years scores. If the student has always scored low, their low score isn't a reflection on me.
