Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<It shouldn't be about pay and benefits when you enter the teaching profession. It shouldn't be about time off in the summer, Christmas and Easter. It should be about the students. >> I don't understand this attitude at all. Are you suggesting that teachers should do their jobs for free? That they shouldn't be concerned about their, or their families, well being? Seriously, would you do your job for free? Or in miserable conditions? If the answer is no, then why would you expect teachers to do the same?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Where did I ever say they should do they're jobs for free? No they should get paid and they should be compensated. But that's not why people, or at least the people I know got into teaching. And being a good teacher, just doesn't mean school starts at 7 ends at 3 and you get there at 6:58 and leave at 3:01. It means that maybe you're there a bit earlier to have the class ready, or you meet you're students coming off the bus. It means you stay after for some tutoring, coaching. I'll give another example, my sister's school they'll have some afterschool activities for the kids at times, maybe a dance, movie night, carnival. She and about the same six or seven other teachers always volunteer. I asked why that is, she said because nobody else volunteers.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Where did I ever say they should do they're jobs for free? No they should get paid and they should be compensated. But that's not why people, or at least the people I know got into teaching. >> Yes, but you implied that they should only worry about the children, and not about their own compensation packages. While that's a nice thought, it's not really practical in reality. People aren't going to be able to do this work unless they are fairly compensated for their time. Obviously there are arguments to be made for or against what constitutes fair compensation - that's what the Unions are there for. To make sure that teachers are given fair pay and a safe and productive work environment. Without them, teacher's would end up in the same race to the bottom that we're seeing in other industries. How would that help our students? Don't we have a responsibility, as a society, to make sure that those people responsible for making sure the next generation of citizens is well educated and able to function in our society are well compensated for their important work? Considering that NONE of us would be where we are today without teachers, I don't understand why they don't demand even more? Frankly, they deserve it!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox DD is making a straw argument against the teachers union in terms of what they should or should not be doing with their spare time as full-time educators. Go ahead and use the same argument for the police and firefighters union, DD. Tell me how they should care about citizens first and their pay and pensions second. Tell me how police officers and firefighters should be volunteering to help their communities in their spare time, and that they shouldn't be so concerned with their compensation packages. Funny how you're only attacking the teachers union, and not the law enforcement or firefighter unions, especially since those unions got to retain their collective bargaining rights. That's why the judge ruled against Walker and his flying monkeys in the state legislature. The unions that were in the bag for the Republicans -- law enforcement and firefighters -- were exempt from the new law. That goes against the 14th Amendment and equal protection, which is clearly unconstitutional. I seem to recall that DD's relatives in the teaching profession are predominately Republican supporters. That would clearly explain why they don't like their union.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Considering that NONE of us would be where we are today without teachers, I don't understand why they don't demand even more? Frankly, they deserve it!>> Absolutely! (And thanks to you, Redhead, for your dedication.) It's a very difficult job! I worked as a teacher's assistant in special ed as part of my university financial aid. I seriously considered becoming a special ed educator, but decided to take advantage of my computer background and skills, and become a curriculum developer. It was my job to meet and work with educators from all across the country, to make their jobs easier by delivering content to their students in an engaging format. I also took my computer background and worked in the for-profit standardized testing industry for several years, until I could no longer stomach the corporate slime of profit whores who didn't care if the tests were grossly unfair to special needs students or those who weren't raised in upper middle class Euro-centric households. I've seen and heard first hand accounts of what teachers have to contend with daily, who aren't working in predominately white suburban middle class and upper middle class neighborhoods. My heart goes out to ANY educator who deliberately chooses to stay in districts like Chicago's and do what's best for their students. I cannot offer enough respect and admiration to these individuals.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead Thanks for the support and respect you all show for teachers. In order to get through teaching, you occasionally need a little bit of crack. This will be my crack for the week. If anyone really wants to understand what scares teachers the most, it was summed up in a previous post: "Is a teacher with a classroom full of upper middle class students who get good grades a "better teacher" than one who teaches kids who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and who don't do well on standardized tests?" Good teachers don't mind being evaluated. But it all depends on the evaluation. If teachers are judged solely based on their students' standardized test scores, and those scores are looked at with zero context, then good teachers will be penalized just for having low-level skills, no matter how far he takes them. And what will happen is what teachers have been screaming about for decades concerning tying teacher pay to student performance alone - good teachers will head for the wealthy schools in order to feed their families, and poor schools will get by with burned-out teachers who just need the job. Wanna destroy public education? There's your recipe.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead *** then good teachers will be penalized just for having STUDENTS WITH low-level skills Sorry. That's ind of important...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If teachers are judged solely based on their students' standardized test scores, and those scores are looked at with zero context, then good teachers will be penalized just for having low-level skills, no matter how far he takes them.<< This, this, a thousand times THIS!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I see your "this" and raise you... <And what will happen is what teachers have been screaming about for decades concerning tying teacher pay to student performance alone - good teachers will head for the wealthy schools in order to feed their families, and poor schools will get by with burned-out teachers who just need the job. Wanna destroy public education? There's your recipe. > THIS! 10,000 times this.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<What do you do, on a volunteer basis, for your employer, DDMAN?>> I'm actually a United Way rep for my department. I read once a month to a class at my sister's school. I won't have a chance to to do it this year, but I've coached football with a friend, for urban kids. Anything else?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<I seem to recall that DD's relatives in the teaching profession are predominately Republican supporters. That would clearly explain why they don't like their union.>> Actually far from it. Here's my feelings about unions. I don't feel that you should be forced to join a union. If you you do, then terrific, I see nothing wrong with that. I think that should be an option for you as an employee. There is a union where I work. I don't belong. Many of my colleagues do. There's no animosty between us as co-workers, in fact it's never brought up.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<DD is making a straw argument against the teachers union in terms of what they should or should not be doing with their spare time as full-time educators.>> Well sorry, but most of the teachers I know do use their spare time to for the extracurricular activities.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda DDMAN, There may not be any animosity now, but if the union were to call a strike, there will be. As someone who was in your same situation regarding unions years ago, trust me on this. That being said, the only time I've joined unions was when I had no choice. Though I do believe in them in theory, in practice today, most need major overhauls.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Of course I agree that most need an overhaul. But let me ask. And anyone can answer, should you be required to join a union public or private? Yes or no?
Originally Posted By queenbee DDMAN, all of items you listed do not benefit your employer but benefit the organizations who you choose to volunteer your time to. I asked what part of your job do you perform without pay?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 None. But if you're a teacher you actually do get paid for things like lunch duty or coaching. Recess isn't covered, but bus duty is in afternoon, if the busses are late. And if I were a teacher, I'd due lunch duty every day. They get paid an extra 150 a week, in fact you'd be a moron not to take the extra duty.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda DDMAN, this I will say as someone who was non union and went through a strike. The only power in unions is when everyone is unionized. If some workers are non union there is no reason for the company to settle with the union. That's exactly what happened in the strike I went through.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Yes, that is what happened when I was at the University of Minnesota. I was in a professional and supervisory class and we were not unionized, But clerical employees were and they went out on strike. There were enough supervisory and non-union clerical employees to keep the University running, and the University simply waited until the striking employees would lose the University contribution to health benefits after being off the payroll for a month. Those benefits currently cost over $650 a month for single coverage if the employee pays the entire group premium. Shortly before the benefit payments would have ended, the striking workers settled for the SAME package the University originally offered. They went close to a month without salary and accomplished absolutely nothing.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Well, I guess they did accomplish ONE thing. They showed the University Administration that the union was nothing but a paper tiger, and probably resulted in less beneficial contract offers from then on.
