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.
Everyone keeps skating around the issue here and deflecting again and again. Yes corporations are bad...we got that..but since Unions are perceived as not as bad they should get a free pass or allowed to corrupt? Really? Let's stick to talking about Unions..and the abuses like the teacher getting paid to do nothing for 10 years.
The point: Does anyone believe that a teacher doing nothing getting paid for 10 years (and counting) $100K+ per year is ok? The answer is NO. Does anyone believe a system set up to create a teacher doing nothing getting paid for 10 years (and counting) $100K+ per year is ok? The answer is NO. Yet the Unions are working hard to ensure he stays there, every other abusive practice and exploitation stays as-is, and the system that created this remains unchanged by bribing (aka lobbying) our respresentatives, selling votes to politicians, and corrupting the process, essentially destroying the integrity of the education system. And that's just the teacher's union....you can say the same for just about every other public sector union.
THAT IS THE POINT HERE. And all the "what about the corporations" has nothing to do with this. We are not "envious" of him, we are not "anti-working person", what we are is identifying an egregious and entrenched problem, while the Union is fighting/bribing/deflecting to maintain it and every other egregious/abusive/expoitative practice.
Instead of saying "Yes this is a clearly a problem we need to address"..what is the response from Unions? "There is no problem"..."why do you hate working people"..."He deserves this"..."You should be concentrating on the horrible corporations/government/Mayor/anyone else they can deflect to"..."It's not our fault"...and excuse/lie after excuse/lie to keep the gravy train going at our expense. And that is why there is a backlash against Unions!!!!!
You forgot one of their FAVORITES: YOU are jealous and that's why you see a problem! YET, look at this:
Some residents argue that the town should be more businesslike, cutting other costs to offset the outlay for smaller classes. Peter P. Pulkkinen is one. A 40-year-old investment banker, he and his wife, Sarah, moved here in 2004 from the Upper East Side and their two oldest children are now in the first and third grades. He wants small classes for them. But rather than raise taxes, he would restrict teacher compensation— particularly their benefits.
...
“You want the taxes to be something these older people can pay,” the mayor said, “because when they sell, they sell to families with children, and the children cost more to educate than the taxes their parents pay.”
That reasoning resonates with David A. McBride, 75, who for 40 years has lived in a white colonial mansion with an imposing front entrance.
So, an investment banker and a mansion dweller are "jealous" of teachers?
NO, they know they're getting ripped off and they don't like it. The same as the middle class who are getting ripped off and have less extra money to spare.
So, an investment banker and a mansion dweller are "jealous" of teachers?
NO, they know they're getting ripped off and they don't like it. The same as the middle class who are getting ripped off and have less extra money to spare.
Or you just described to wealthy people who just want to pay less in taxes. The first guy had two kids and then states he wants them in smaller classes...so how does that happen? Well for starters more teachers need to be hired and paid properly (whatever the classification of middle class is for the city that the schools are in) and then enough classrooms are needed to handle smaller class sizes.
None of these two things happen for free. Well unless you are a Republican who seems to think that all the services that are needed can be provided by cutting taxes and paying people less.
So I wouldn't say anyone is jealous, I would just say the math doesn't add up.
Or you just described to wealthy people who just want to pay less in taxes. The first guy had two kids and then states he wants them in smaller classes...so how does that happen? Well for starters more teachers need to be hired and paid properly (whatever the classification of middle class is for the city that the schools are in) and then enough classrooms are needed to handle smaller class sizes.
None of these two things happen for free. Well unless you are a Republican who seems to think that all the services that are needed can be provided by cutting taxes and paying people less.
So I wouldn't say anyone is jealous, I would just say the math doesn't add up.
Riddle me this.
How come families pay TUITION above and beyond their property taxes for private schools YET ...
... the TEACHERS that teach in those schools do not get pensions like unionized public school teachers, get less benefits than unionized public school teachers and are paid considerably LESS than unionized public school teachers? Wouldn't you consider these teachers paid "IMPROPERLY" if you are with the union status quo? Yet families pay a lot of money to send their kids there ... even on LI where most of the schools are considered good. Even more "puzzling" ... the private schools have no trouble hiring and retaining qualified teachers in this area!
The unions have ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED THE COMPENSATION for public school teachers because they have a stranglehold on the hiring process and nobody can get hired as a public school teacher without being in the unions. They are no reflection of free market reality, which the rest of the world has to live by. Look at what is being done in the privates and that is what free market is. Interestingly enough, parents will pay more to send kids to these schools than keep their kids in the "free" public schools taught by unionized teachers.
So the big "warnings" are nothing but hot air:
1. If the teachers aren't unionized and overcompensated (according to market reality) the kids will get an inferior education. Nonsense. Kids get great educations taught by non-unionized teachers in private schools and parents are willing to dig considerable sums out of their bank accounts to pay for them to go there rather than use the "free" schools.
2. If the teachers aren't unionized and overcompensated (according to market reality) you will not be able to find any good teachers! Nonsense. Plenty of good non-unionized teachers in private schools and the private schools in this area have absolutely no trouble finding and retaining qualified teachers.
Your wet dream of de-uniozation is clearly crashed by reality.
Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:
South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th
So you didn't actually read my post? Without complete de-regulation of the education industry (aka, a true free market) the pockets of anti-collective bargaining school systems cannot be used as cases.
And you still didn't answer my question. Why should quality teachers be financially punished and mediocre teachers be financially rewarded?
Well, guys, don't let facts, get on the way of your ideology.
But the reality is clear; union-busting for teachers with the hopes of letting the 'invisible hand' regulate education has been tried in Republican states like the ones mentioned above.
How many quality teachers would feel compeled to work in a state that treats them like disposable fast-food workers?
The thruth is that those poor kids are receiving the worse quality of education in the country.
For me that's all I need to know about the de-uniozation for teachers to convince me that's not the way to do things.
Well, guys, don't let facts, get on the way of your ideology.
But the reality is clear; union-busting for teachers with the hopes of letting the 'invisible hand' regulate education has been tried in Republican states like the ones mentioned above.
How many quality teachers would feel compeled to work in a state that treats them like disposable fast-food workers?
The thruth is that those poor kids are receiving the worse quality of education in the country.
For me that's all I need to know about the de-uniozation for teachers to convince me that's not the way to do things.
I find it amazing that you think the market for teachers is different than it is for any other profession. Can you actually answer the question I posed? Why should we continue to reward mediocrity in teaching through collective bargaining?
How come families pay TUITION above and beyond their property taxes for private schools YET ...
... the TEACHERS that teach in those schools do not get pensions like unionized public school teachers, get less benefits than unionized public school teachers and are paid considerably LESS than unionized public school teachers? Wouldn't you consider these teachers paid "IMPROPERLY" if you are with the union status quo? Yet families pay a lot of money to send their kids there ... even on LI where most of the schools are considered good. Even more "puzzling" ... the private schools have no trouble hiring and retaining qualified teachers in this area!
Yes, I consider most private school teachers to be paid "improperly." Here are some of the reasons why they still show up at work:
1. "Qualification" in teaching usually refers to certifications, degrees, etc. Most private school teachers are not qualified to work in public schools, or at the very least, they are not required to pursue continuing education credits, etc. This is one big reason why private school jobs are attractive. In addition to this, the hiring process is usually less onerous and time-consuming. So, now Joe music-lover can go apply to a private school and become Joe music-teacher, whereas he might not bother with the hassle of pursuing a job in the public sector.
2. Private schools do tend to have smaller class sizes, less paperwork, less observations, less bs meetings to attend, etc. They can be selective in admissions. They can kick kids out. Teachers can avoid having to teach special ed kids, etc. All of this makes the average private school teaching job very different from the average public school job. It's usually seen as a less stressful and generally much easier job, but I don't think that's always the case (private schools can present a very different set of demands on a teacher), so I'll just say that many private school teachers would not work in the public sector no matter how much you paid them.
3. Generally speaking, you'll see two, three, four groups of educators in private schools: 1. People coming from old or oldish money, so they can afford to earn a private school teacher's salary. 2. People who have a spouse working in public schools or some better-paying industry, so they can afford to earn a private teacher's salary. 3. Young people who can get jobs at private schools without jumping through a bunch of hoops, but eventually leave after a few years to pursue an advanced degree, go public, or what-have-you. 4. Retired professors, public school educators, etc.
Now, why do parents pay so much in tuition so that the private school teachers can make so little? How is this seen as a quality education?
1. Private school teachers are not necessarily any "better" than, or even comparable to, public school teachers, but smaller class sizes, access to materials, and less insane liability concerns may make their jobs much easier, so they have more time to devote to individual students, plan interesting hands-on lessons, etc.
2. Many private schools operate on a particular philosophy, and this is what the parents are mainly interested in. At the secondary level, you also get kids who spazz out in public school, and get their parents to put them in an alternative setting that they find more suitable to their nature.
3. Private schools are more likely to hire the person with extensive credentials in their subject area than the person with extensive teacher training. If my upper-middle-class kid already knows how to sit still and study, then maybe I think having a world-class whateverthesubjectisist in their classroom is more important than having somebody who knows how to maintain classroom discipline and teach kids how to read the material. And again, back to the teachers' end of things, that struggling but well-regarded sculptor may not be interested in a public school gig.
4. At many private schools, you are paying for a full selection of elective courses, field trips, nice facilities, etc., not just teachers' salaries.
5. Unless they have very deep pockets, endowments, have owned their properties for 150 years, etc., private schools will almost always end up paying more per capita for their physical location, transportation, facility maintenance, etc.
6. Unless they have deep pockets, endowments, etc., private schools rely on tuition from paying customers to fund everything, which is quite difficult to do, which is why private school tuition is so high. Public schools are able to draw from the pool of taxpayers at large, so even people without kids in the public schools are helping cover the costs.
Finally, the most important thing, in my view:
I think people usually put their kids in private schools to get them into an environment where their classmates tend to have wealthier, better-educated parents. The simple fact that everyone chose to put their kids in the school, and most paid a pretty penny to do so, means that, on average, private school kids will be wealthier, better educated at home, and (sometimes) more likely to have parents who are more involved in their lives. At this point, you really don't have to work teachers very hard to produce acceptable results.
There are people on Long Island who see anyone making less than 200 g's as a member of the hoi polloi, so that's one motivation for sending their kids to private school. Also, some of the "best" public school systems in the country, like those on Long Island, are also run like little futuristic bureaucratic nightmares. Sure, my cousins got the three R's and then some at their Suffolk county elementary school, but they were also locked in the gymnasium watching movies after lunch every day when the school decided that letting them out for recess was too much of a liability. it was this sort of crap that drove my aunt and uncle to pursue private education.
Yes, I consider most private school teachers to be paid "improperly." Here are some of the reasons why they still show up at work:
1. "Qualification" in teaching usually refers to certifications, degrees, etc. Most private school teachers are not qualified to work in public schools, or at the very least, they are not required to pursue continuing education credits, etc. This is one big reason why private school jobs are attractive. In addition to this, the hiring process is usually less onerous and time-consuming. So, now Joe music-lover can go apply to a private school and become Joe music-teacher, whereas he might not bother with the hassle of pursuing a job in the public sector.
2. Private schools do tend to have smaller class sizes, less paperwork, less observations, less bs meetings to attend, etc. They can be selective in admissions. They can kick kids out. Teachers can avoid having to teach special ed kids, etc. All of this makes the average private school teaching job very different from the average public school job. It's usually seen as a less stressful and generally much easier job, but I don't think that's always the case (private schools can present a very different set of demands on a teacher), so I'll just say that many private school teachers would not work in the public sector no matter how much you paid them.
3. Generally speaking, you'll see two, three, four groups of educators in private schools: 1. People coming from old or oldish money, so they can afford to earn a private school teacher's salary. 2. People who have a spouse working in public schools or some better-paying industry, so they can afford to earn a private teacher's salary. 3. Young people who can get jobs at private schools without jumping through a bunch of hoops, but eventually leave after a few years to pursue an advanced degree, go public, or what-have-you. 4. Retired professors, public school educators, etc.
Now, why do parents pay so much in tuition so that the private school teachers can make so little? How is this seen as a quality education?
1. Private school teachers are not necessarily any "better" than, or even comparable to, public school teachers, but smaller class sizes, access to materials, and less insane liability concerns may make their jobs much easier, so they have more time to devote to individual students, plan interesting hands-on lessons, etc.
2. Many private schools operate on a particular philosophy, and this is what the parents are mainly interested in. At the secondary level, you also get kids who spazz out in public school, and get their parents to put them in an alternative setting that they find more suitable to their nature.
3. Private schools are more likely to hire the person with extensive credentials in their subject area than the person with extensive teacher training. If my upper-middle-class kid already knows how to sit still and study, then maybe I think having a world-class whateverthesubjectisist in their classroom is more important than having somebody who knows how to maintain classroom discipline and teach kids how to read the material. And again, back to the teachers' end of things, that struggling but well-regarded sculptor may not be interested in a public school gig.
4. At many private schools, you are paying for a full selection of elective courses, field trips, nice facilities, etc., not just teachers' salaries.
5. Unless they have very deep pockets, endowments, have owned their properties for 150 years, etc., private schools will almost always end up paying more per capita for their physical location, transportation, facility maintenance, etc.
6. Unless they have deep pockets, endowments, etc., private schools rely on tuition from paying customers to fund everything, which is quite difficult to do, which is why private school tuition is so high. Public schools are able to draw from the pool of taxpayers at large, so even people without kids in the public schools are helping cover the costs.
Finally, the most important thing, in my view:
I think people usually put their kids in private schools to get them into an environment where their classmates tend to have wealthier, better-educated parents. The simple fact that everyone chose to put their kids in the school, and most paid a pretty penny to do so, means that, on average, private school kids will be wealthier, better educated at home, and (sometimes) more likely to have parents who are more involved in their lives. At this point, you really don't have to work teachers very hard to produce acceptable results.
There are people on Long Island who see anyone making less than 200 g's as a member of the hoi polloi, so that's one motivation for sending their kids to private school. Also, some of the "best" public school systems in the country, like those on Long Island, are also run like little futuristic bureaucratic nightmares. Sure, my cousins got the three R's and then some at their Suffolk county elementary school, but they were also locked in the gymnasium watching movies after lunch every day when the school decided that letting them out for recess was too much of a liability. it was this sort of crap that drove my aunt and uncle to pursue private education.
Thank you for your post.
What do you think of teaching at parochial school vs. public school? (The private schools that are available to the non-wealthy.)
Your wet dream of de-uniozation is clearly crashed by reality.
Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:
South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th Virginia – 44th
This list is cherry-picked.
What are the ones that are 45th and 46th? I guess they are UNIONIZED!
So, out of the TRUE "bottom 5," 40% is UNIONIZED.
And what are the differences between the top schools' scores and the rest of the country? A huge difference or a matter of a few points?
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.
