patrick.net

FortWayne says

Schools don't compete with each other the same, nor publicly funded

Point was that seniority system does not breed inferior pilots or teachers. It's simply an accepted method for doing things in a fair, orderly way.

@marquismark

Excellent comment.

marquismark says

It's simply an accepted method for doing things in a fair, orderly way.

the results speak for themselves.

If the union system works, we dont have a educational gap or spending problem and a high number of kids are graduation with excellent results. so why are we looking for foreigner workers ?

marquismark says

If we continue to denigrate public education we will have vouchers, a bunch of rich CEOs and horribly undeserved children (you think it's bad now, just wait until corporate America starts squeezing profits and cutting corners with your kids). They'll have a pre-school to prison pipeline. A non-stop money machine.

What you are referring to are non-profits. They have no CEOs, shareholders, dividends or such. And whats wrong with cutting corners as that is common practice in real personal and business life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen

Kaizen, Japanese for "improvement", or "change for the better" refers to philosophy or practices that focus upon continuous improvement of processes in manufacturing, engineering, and business management. It has been applied in healthcare, psychotherapy, life-coaching, government, banking, and other industries.

bdrasin says

foxmannumber1 says

marcus says

But when I have remedial or lower track Math classes I'm never satisfied with the job I do (I'm not saying that I'm simply not satisfied with the test results - I'm literally not satisfied with my performance with these groups).

Would you agree that black people are dumb and antisocial?

*sigh*

It was a serious question with no malintent. I would like to know a teacher's opinion on racial intelligence as they are usually exposed to many different races in a learning environment.

thomaswong.1986 says

If the union system works, we dont have a educational gap or spending problem and a high number of kids are graduation with excellent results. so why are we looking for foreigner workers ?

Well, it doesn't seem to have worked in your case, I'll give you that. In addition to not following the gist of my argument, I think your logic is highly faulty. You're concluding that because many kids are behind it must be the fault of the unions. That's a real leap and only marginally, at best, supportable. Again, 95% percent of teachers are fine. Union or no.

I was educated in public schools (and universities) with union teachers and I think I'm able to function and produce well. By your logic, that would mean that unions DO work.

Or am I a lone miracle?

I agree that the process for getting rid of clearly incompetent teachers needs to be streamlined. I can tell you that none of my fellow teachers support leaving the few bad ones in classes. But, to simply blame unions for all of America's educational woes is reactionary and ridiculous...in my publicly educated experience.

marquismark says

FortWayne says

Schools don't compete with each other the same, nor publicly funded

Point was that seniority system does not breed inferior pilots or teachers. It's simply an accepted method for doing things in a fair, orderly way.

Well yes, it's a bad combination in the education industrial complex.

FortWayne says

Point was that seniority system does not breed inferior pilots or teachers. It's simply an accepted method for doing things in a fair, orderly way.

Well yes, it's a bad combination in the education industrial complex.

Do you think just saying that makes your point compelling? Why don't you support your assertion with some facts, a comparison or something, anything. We're trying to have a discussion and all you have injected is unsupported statements.

marquismark says

FortWayne says

Schools don't compete with each other the same, nor publicly funded

Point was that seniority system does not breed inferior pilots or teachers. It's simply an accepted method for doing things in a fair, orderly way.

Orderly yes...fair...far from it. The best teachers should be kept in the event of layoffs, not the longest tenured.

Holy cow, it's not just me, there's a trend going on to make it easier to remove bad teachers. This is from the front of today's NY Times website, near the top:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/nyregion/nearly-half-of-new-york-city-teachers-are-denied-tenure-in-2012.html

"Many New York City Teachers Denied Tenure in Policy Shift"

Goes both ways. I WAS in a professional union, my brother was not, but he works in an industry that has fear of unions. In fear of being unionized his company had moved his salary up 15k in the four years my salary has been frozen. He gets bonuses, gifts, all kinds of neat little kickbacks you'll never find in a union shop. BUT, they work him hard.

Ruki says

How can liberals support these teacher's unions?

It's because the unions support Democrat political candidate with lavish campaign fund contributions.

If you really want to fix public education, stop tenuring parents.

The qualifications are absurdly low. Ego, excess alcohol, incompetent condom use -- they should be barriers to the gig. Instead, they are often the base criteria.

Don't feed the kids properly? Burn them with cigarettes? Beat them as if you're in a bar fight? You can do all three and not permanently lose this job. And if you spoil them rotten, no one will ever interfere. You'll be the parent who gets an untenured, demanding teacher fired for not giving your pampered brat an easy A.

Reform unions. Don't eliminate them. Teachers are already at the mercy of incompetent parents. Principals with no backbone will kowtow to the parents and destroy good teachers.

I'm sad to see Patrick falling for this simplistic view of public education.

Oh no. I just read the Patrick comment about parents' voting on teacher pay.

Dumbest thing I have ever read here. Parents are the biggest problem with schools. They are not, and never will be, the solution.

Patrick I know some NYC teachers. I attended Bronx high school of science with one who left to become an ironworker. He was denied tenure and he was a good teacher. Principles are now denying tenure purely because it's the flavor of the week. Good teachers are being denied because they need the stats. The entire system is incredibly broken. And it is not the unions who are at fault.

It's pretty disappointing to see the comments on this thread, starting with Patrick's. I'm usually a big fan.

Public education and its success/failure is much more complicated than just blaming/praising unions. It starts with the school board.

I have served the last 6 years on the local school board. I am not an educator; hardly. I'm a technology entrepreneur in the Bay Area with an MBA who previously spent time in corporate America.

Yes, there are things that suck about teachers' unions. The fact that it is difficult to fire teachers is hard to understand. Also, unions tend to eat their young. We offered our union the choice of furlough days or larger class sizes during the budget shortfalls. They chose larger class sizes, even though they knew it would hurt kids and we would have to fire the younger, untenured teachers, all to protect their STRS retirement packages. We dug our heels in and forced them to take furlough days.

The problem though with a movie like "Waiting for Superman" is it examines unions under a microscope, but doesn't even mention the ineptitude of many school boards and administrators. In my opinion, a good/bad school board and the administrators they hire can make/break a school district.

Many school boards have retired teachers, or worse, PTA moms-types who have never managed anyone, don't have P and L experience, are temperamental (or worse, lunatics), and have poor judgment. They hire incompetent Superintendents that are just wasting time, trying to spike their salaries for retirement benefits, and are wasting taxpayer dollars. I've even heard about school board members that burst into church songs in the middle of school board meetings and the superintendent joins them in chorus.

School boards wield enormous power. They control budgets that can be hundred of millions, if not a billion, dollars. They hire/fire the people to carry out their vision. They either back, or stab in the back, any administrator that is willing to go to the mat to fire incompetent teachers. (And yes...you can fire teachers. We just fired one this week.)

School districts have to abide by the terms of their contracts with unions, but many administrators don't evaluate their teachers and principals every year, and don't keep up with the paperwork.

This leads to the problems you see in the movie.

Unions can have good or bad leadership. The best run airline is Southwest. They have unions and happy employees. Why are they good? Their management, which is smart, does smart things like hedging fuel prices and standardizing airplanes to save money on maintenance.

There are good and bad school districts. All have unions. The best school districts have excellent management and school boards. The bad ones have poor management and school boards. Nearly without exception. Want to know why many countries do better than us? They dont have local school boards, but well paid, competent administrators, that make decisions.

I challenge all of you to look deeper. Yes, unions are an obstacle, but managerial incompetence, in my experience, is a much bigger problem.

Ruki says

Bluetooth says

Public education and its success/failure is much more complicated than just blaming/praising unions. It starts with the school board.

Uh...no. Because schools w/o the damn unions do better. Even the ones that don't do as well as they should still do better when the unions are not involved.

Give HRHMedia access to patrick.net...and he'll masturbate with it.

So, basically every private school, which doesn't have unions, is better than every public school, which does have unions? Seriously? How much do you really understand about education beyond the usual talking points on unions?

I can point to about 6 public high schools in my area alone that run circles around the private schools in the area.

Teachers' unions demand tenure for pretty much every teacher that can breathe, and are implacably opposed to differentiating teacher quality. This imposes two enormous harms on the public:

1. Bad teachers are not allowed to be fired for being bad teachers, ever.
2. Good teachers are not allowed to be paid better for good teaching, ever.

What do you think the role of a labor union should be? Traditionally, its job has been to be an advocate for its members, to protect their rights, and to fight for the best working conditions possible. So do you think unions should take on a different role now, instead becoming the arbiter of who is or isn't good enough to deserve his/her job?

I hear this meme all the time now that "bad" teachers should be fired (or paid less) and that "good" teachers should be paid more. I'm curious what your criteria are for deciding who is a "good" teacher and who is a "bad" teacher, and who gets to make this judgment.

The only criteria I have heard mentioned is test scores. The obvious problem with this, and I have heard many good teachers complain about it, is that students are simply being drilled on the test material, and aren't really getting an education. They are just being trained to provide the correct response in a very limited situation, like monkeys at a circus. Do we really want to raise a generation of people who are only adept at regurgitating a few specific facts, but have no independent thinking/reasoning skills?

Perhaps even worse is that such a system is patently unfair to teachers. I did some teaching when I was younger, and WITHOUT FAIL, children in higher socio-economic areas do better academically than children in lower socio-economic areas. You tend to do poorly on tests when you didn't eat breakfast because your mom was out buying crack. Hiring/firing teachers by test scores alone amounts to punishing those who work in inner-city schools and rewarding those who work in affluent suburbs. Yes, we all saw "Stand and Deliver", but the fact is that judging a teacher in the ghetto against a teacher in the rich neighborhood with the same test scores is like testing 2 people's driving skills by racing a Hyundai against a Lamborghini.

So yes, it's very easy to criticize teachers and the teacher's union, and everybody seems to be doing it these days, but I want to know what YOUR plan is. Who decides who gets fired? Who decides how much money they make? What is it based on? How would you keep politics out of the decision process? Should we do away with tenure? What happens when the school principal makes a pass at the attractive English teacher, is spurned, and then fires her? No tenure = you can fire anyone whenever you feel like it, whether you have a good reason or not. THAT'S WHY TENURE EXISTS. Right now, with all the teacher bashing that's going on, I shudder to think what would happen to teachers if they didn't have a union to protect their jobs.

Ruki says

Bluetooth says

Public education and its success/failure is much more complicated than just blaming/praising unions. It starts with the school board.

Uh...no. Because schools w/o the damn unions do better. Even the ones that don't do as well as they should still do better when the unions are not involved.

Give HRHMedia access to patrick.net...and he'll masturbate with it.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Private schools usually have fresher paint on the walls than public schools. Therefore, paint causes academic excellence?

Molly K says

I'm sad to see Patrick falling for this simplistic view of public education.

Hey, do you know how much time, effort, and money was spent by neoliberal think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, and the Cato Institute, to come up with and disseminate this anti-teacher, anti-union view of public education? It was anything but simple.

futuresmc says

Hey, do you know how much time, effort, and money was spent by neoliberal think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, and the Cato Institute, to come up with and disseminate this anti-teacher, anti-union view of public education? It was anything but simple.

True, so simple isn't the right word. But it is true that usually Patrick isn't the kind of simpleton that falls for propaganda so easily, without doing any homework what so ever. At least I don't think so.

In the future that many republicans want, government funded education will be history. One of the first steps is changing the system so that working for a private school is as good or better deal for teachers than working for a public school. If being a public school teacher is way harder, and yet pays less, with no job security, public education will be easy to kill.

Destroying teachers unions is the key step to destroying public education as we know it.

marcus says

If being a public school teacher is way harder, and yet pays less, with no job security, public education will be easy to kill.

As it stands now, being a public school teacher is way harder than teaching in a private school, but it usually pays better, and there is some job security, but not nearly what people think.

The system is changing in many places, but not in an entirely good way to where teachers are evaluated more on test score improvement than ever before. Teachers aren't trusted as they once were.

(this next quote is from way earlier in thread)

marcus says

I have posted this many times before.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/?pagination=false

Read Diane Ravitch if you want a balanced view. She worked for GWB and was at one time an advocate for the charterization of schools. But she's very smart and eventually turned 180 degrees.

The annual Gallup poll about education shows that Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the quality of the nation’s schools, but 77 percent of public school parents award their own child’s public school a grade of A or B, the highest level of approval since the question was first asked in 1985.

THat quote is from the above link, an artivcle Patrick should read if he's open to criticism of "waiting for superman."

Does anyone have any idea how many REALLY good public schools there are ?

How can perception of public education in general be based on the worst performing inner city schools which are an extremely small fraction of all public schools?

Schools and teachers are by and large all always trying to do better, regardless of pressure from politicians and right wing think tanks.

woppa says

Ruki... you're a fucking idiot. I can't even waste my time.

I opened another browser to see what he said, and my last post was in part a response, but I have him on ignore. He's a troll and takes pride in being a troll.

Ruki says

Homeboy says

Correlation does not equal causation.

There was not analysis by correlation. There was analysis elimination over a huge sample.

I love how you schills for the teacher's unions demonstrate your incompetence to even teach basic logic skills even on here.

Homeboy says

Private schools usually have fresher paint on the walls than public schools. Therefore, paint causes academic excellence?

No, because that bullshit is an obvious red herring. Try better.

Then by all means share your methodology with us. I assumed you were talking about the fact that public school teachers are represented by unions, while private school teachers are not. But you seem to be saying you have done some sort of large scale controlled study of union vs. non-union teachers within the public school system. I'm not sure how that's possible, but I'm sure you will enlighten us, what with your vast knowledge of logic skills.

Oh, and Simpson's cartoons don't constitute evidence.

Ruki says

[Simpsons cartoons constitute evidence] when it comes to teacher's unions.

Libtard! Libtard! Libtard! So many Libtards!

O.K., I'm beginning to see your problem. Maybe you need to be quiet now and let the grown ups talk, m'kay?

One solution would be to eliminate "compulsory" public education.

No, I'm not talking about eliminating public education.

Public education should be *available* to those who want to learn, but not *mandatory*.

There are too many low-lifes who don't value education. They just make it miserable for the people who DO value education.

marcus says

As it stands now, being a public school teacher is way harder than teaching in a private school, but it usually pays better, and there is some job security, but not nearly what people think.

Pretty much but I think there has to be some said about the differences in private. If a school is religious it kinda has no real standards. I've talked to some administrators and because it is religious they don't ask for teachers licenses or to have their students pass state tests! Um...if someone wants to be religious that's fine but why the heck do religious schools still exist? I'm sure they can teach someone to be a better Christian, Jew, Moslem etc but that doesn't really translate into anything else

Private school certainly have the luxury of not admitting students either by standards or by charging fees but there's some holes. Some schools to woo teachers offer free tuition to students of teachers. As such there is no incentive for them to perform as they might be given this free to them and they would see it as such. So if you are a teacher and see half the classroom filled with these students it might as well be a public school then.I don't see any real correlation between higher spending on students and grades, I'm sure in some cases it can be needed for capital projects and maintenance..I mean if there's holes in the roof and it is leaking that is one thing. But giving ipads and laptops might not totally solve matters either.

The problem is that there are many students there who simply don't want to learn. Also, they come from backgrounds where education was never emphasized sufficiently. Blaming teachers uniions for this is disingenuous and straight up 1984 doublespeak when the true motivation of the "critics" is simply to break the unions because it goes with their political dogma. In regards to these "students", the issue is that you can bring horse to water, but you can't make it drink. This problem can only be solved by the households of these students adoptiing a different value system, but this is a difficult cancer to eradicate. In fact, in best case scenario, we are looking at a process which can at best be accomplished in 4 generations, at best!

dublin hillz says

The problem is that there are many students there who simply don't want to learn. Also, they come from backgrounds where education was never emphasized sufficiently.

dublin hillz says

In regards to these "students", the issue is that you can bring horse to water, but you can't make it drink. This problem can only be solved by the households of these students adoptiing a different value system, but this is a difficult cancer to eradicate. In fact, in best case scenario, we are looking at a process which can at best be accomplished in 4 generations, at best!

Exactly.

Ruki says

It's not my problem you are trolling by basically asking someone to prove that the sky is blue and then asking an equally ridiculous question right after that.

Oh, I see. You want to be able to make ridiculous claims like "Schools without the damn unions do better", but you don't want to have to back up your claims with any sort of evidence. Sorry I asked you to "prove that the sky is blue" - LOL. I should have realized it was beyond your abilities, since you obviously get all your news from "The Simpsons". Apparently you don't realize it's a fictional cartoon that frequently uses exaggeration and sarcasm for humor.

Maybe you need to find some sort of hard core right wing forum where nobody will question your angry rants. I'm sure there's got to be plenty of those around.

dublin hillz says

In fact, in best case scenario, we are looking at a process which can at best be accomplished in 4 generations, at best!

I see many instances of it happening in less than two generations.But I agree with most of what you're saying here.

Homeboy says

Oh, I see. You want to be able to make ridiculous claims like "Schools without the damn unions do better", but you don't want to have to back up your claims with any sort of evidence. Sorry I asked you to "prove that the sky is blue" - LOL. I should have realized it was beyond your abilities, since you obviously get all your news from "The Simpsons". Apparently you don't realize it's a fictional cartoon that frequently uses exaggeration and sarcasm for humor.

Maybe you need to find some sort of hard core right wing forum where nobody will question your angry rants. I'm sure there's got to be plenty of those around.

In all due respect to what manner and what extent can it be argued that a union would help the students or the teachers?

Let's be honest here if you wanted to unionize a place and help employees by all means look at a walmart or mcdonalds.

If a place has good pay and bennies then there's no reason for a union to take it over. However, would a union really make thing that good for itself? If you operate a closed shop that makes it a monopoly and encourages private and charter schools. If you have a open shop then what teacher would join the union if they don't have to?

Unions generally work when there is little competition (i.e. no private/charter schools) and no other labor solution (unions don't compete with each other creating no bidding processes for contracts), that's the real issue with them today.

mdovell says

In all due respect to what manner and what extent can it be argued that a union would help the students or the teachers?

Let's be honest here if you wanted to unionize a place and help employees by all means look at a walmart or mcdonalds.

If a place has good pay and bennies then there's no reason for a union to take it over. However, would a union really make thing that good for itself? If you operate a closed shop that makes it a monopoly and encourages private and charter schools. If you have a open shop then what teacher would join the union if they don't have to?

Unions generally work when there is little competition (i.e. no private/charter schools) and no other labor solution (unions don't compete with each other creating no bidding processes for contracts), that's the real issue with them today.

Sorry, but this is completely non-responsive to what I wrote. I asked Ruki to back up his statement that "schools without the damn unions do better". A very simple request, actually. If you make a claim, you ought to have some sort of reason for believing it is true, that can be demonstrated to others. Your response is just gibberish.

Patrick, CA voters will have a chance to go after "what feeds the beast" in the Nov. election by voting for Prop 32. Former Democratic CA senate majority leader Gloria Romero is leading the charge for Democrats for Education Reform.
"If we don't deal with how the beast is fed, and what maintains that, and what gives it status and opportunity to run roughshod over the educational lives and futures of six million kids in California, then shame on us," she says. "It's do or die. And I've talked to a lot of Democrats," many of whom have been supportive in private. But "they are just afraid to come out" publicly for it.

Ms. Romero has thrown her support behind a ballot initiative this fall (Prop. 32) that would bar unions from withholding money from worker paychecks to finance political activities. Unions could still deduct agency-shop fees, which go strictly toward collective bargaining and administrative expenses, but they'd have to ask their members to contribute to the unions' political action committees—just like any other political-advocacy group.

This is not what it seems. She says, yes the union can still deduct fees for non political activity. But what she doesn't explain is that without any ability to lobby the government, in time the teachers unions will be completely destroyed as will public education. This is the real goal of the Koch brothers and others.

Sad that the general public may be unable to think this through, and what the consequences would be.

Gee, does that mean that teachers can't bribe, lobby, extort and pressure politicians directly? Instead they will have to appeal to a majority of the voters on the basis of merit?

Bribing and lobbying are so much more efficient to get what they want disproportionate and at odds to public interest.

This is a tragedy of epic proportions. Poor teachers, lets build them a palace on a gorgeous coral atoll in the Pacific where they can party and weep.

Ceffer says

Bribing and lobbying are so much more efficient to get what they want disproportionate and at odds to public interest.

Are you talking about Exxon, Chevron, BP, farmers, the Military industrial complex, the Wall Street and the Banks, or was it the super powerful teachers unions ?

There's some things teachers unions fight for that I don't agree with, but forgive me, are there just too damn many entities out there supporting politicians on the Left ?"

Who is going to support their continued existence if not the unions themselves. As for the majority of voters being influenced on merit ? Sorry, but I've seen how easy it is to turn the public against teachers. Even otherwise intelligent people easily become a drooling boobs on the subject. THe lazy fuckers with their easy job. Off at 3:00pm with no worries and summers off to boot. Fuck the teachers. Why not just say teachers suck instead of the teachers union sucks. It's the same statement.

I guess now that corporations are people, able to donate infinite amounts to their candidates, it makes sense to take down the unions even further.

I think I see your reasoning.

The teachers are pawns and ciphers in an ever increasingly bizarre game of politics, funding, crooked spending and union control.

The school system is becoming the perfect government bureaucracy, it consumes assets, demands increasing and accelerating tax tribute, protects itself as a totally detached, self feeding and self serving constituency, while abdicating the goals and purposes for which it was originally intended.

Time to start over.