• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 teachers union lobbyists teach for a day to qualify for hefty pensions

As a member of a teacher's union, I have mixed feelings about them. They do provide some useful functions, like advocating for good working conditions and providing for work-related legal defenses for teachers... but I hate that my (required) dues pay for campaigns. I can't believe how many Hillary maillers I effectively mailed to myself in the 08 dem primary. I was a registered republican (Ron Paul libertarian insurgent) at the time and couldn't vote for her if I wanted to.

These two cheats don't have much to do with any of that... they're just greedy swindlers, and that's not a political position, just a character flaw. I hope their pensions get thrown out because of the obvious gaming of the system.
 
haymarket said:
And just how does a really extreme, rare and terribly out of the ordinary bad example from two people say anything that is relevant to classroom teachers and the unions who represent them around the nation?
Click to expand...

The OP didn't generalized or represent this as a union issue around the nation --- your comment is a strawman fallacy. It's meant to show how 2 very dispicable people gamed the system due to a loophole left by the State of Illinois. I doubt even you would defend such actions, but I could be wrong.

pbrauer said:
You do know the right likes to generalize when it serves their purpose.
Click to expand...

Good thing that's not happening, but pretending it is happening is what you're attempting to do, for partisan purposes only I would guess.
 
Iron River said:
If the home schoolers unionized could they get in on this state retirement scam?

Why not?
Click to expand...

Of course not. They are not part of the public school system which would be required to get in on the public school teacher retirement.
 
Unions don't need or recognize any stinking requirements. With a good union the home school teachers might get a gig at one of the public schools for a few days like these punks did and "viola" they get state retirement.
 
Iron River said:
Unions don't need or recognize any stinking requirements. With a good union the home school teachers might get a gig at one of the public schools for a few days like these punks did and "viola" they get state retirement.
Click to expand...

This is rather pointless. Homeschool is private and unassociated with any of the public school system dynamics. They are not required to get licenses either. They can make their own union, but it would be relatively useless as you aren't competing for jobs or such in a homeschool setting.
 
If home school teachers were to strike they would be hurting our national level of smartism more than public teachers do when they strike.

Instead of the kids staying home during a public teacher strike if the home school teachers strike the public schools would have to deal with the kids as the home school teachers marched around the local library.
 
Iron River said:
If home school teachers were to strike they would be hurting our national level of smartism more than public teachers do when they strike.

Instead of the kids staying home during a public teacher strike if the home school teachers strike the public schools would have to deal with the kids as the home school teachers marched around the local library.
Click to expand...

Do you have a point?
 
j-mac said:
My only objection with Wiki on subjects like this are that anyone can alter the information, which leaves open to agenda what is on there.

But anecdotally I do know that here in SC, a charter close to the public school with the same demographic boasts a 90% grad rate, and a 75% move on to higher ed, while the public HS in proximity has a 47% grad rate, with only 30% moving on to higher ed.

Seems on its face when teachers are held to preform rather than relying on tenure to be employed, they teach better.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I just heard very similar statistics given about the schools in D.C. on John Stossel's show last night, given by a college student who went to school there.
 
Study: On average, charter schools do no better than public schools


Middle-school students who were selected by lottery to attend charter schools performed no better than their peers who lost out in the lottery and attended nearby public schools, according to a study funded by the federal government and released Tuesday.

This is the first large-scale randomized study to be conducted across multiple states, and it lends some fuel to those who say there is little evidence to back the drive for more charters

Study: On average, charter schools do no better than public schools - CSMonitor.com

But for all their support and cultural cachet, the majority of the 5,000 or so charter schools nationwide appear to be no better, and in many cases worse, than local public schools when measured by achievement on standardized tests, according to experts citing years of research.

Challenges in Replicating Charter School Success - NYTimes.com


The Cartel maintains that we must not only create more charter schools, but provide vouchers so that children can flee incompetent public schools and attend private schools. There, we are led to believe, teachers will be caring and highly skilled (unlike the lazy dullards in public schools); the schools will have high expectations and test scores will soar; and all children will succeed academically, regardless of their circumstances. The Lottery echoes the main story line of Waiting for “Superman”: it is about children who are desperate to avoid the New York City public schools and eager to win a spot in a shiny new charter school in Harlem.

For many people, these arguments require a willing suspension of disbelief. Most Americans graduated from public schools, and most went from school to college or the workplace without thinking that their school had limited their life chances. There was a time—which now seems distant—when most people assumed that students’ performance in school was largely determined by their own efforts and by the circumstances and support of their family, not by their teachers. There were good teachers and mediocre teachers, even bad teachers, but in the end, most public schools offered ample opportunity for education to those willing to pursue it. 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.

(snip)

Some fact-checking is in order, and the place to start is with the film’s quiet acknowledgment that only one in five charter schools is able to get the “amazing results” that it celebrates. Nothing more is said about this astonishing statistic. It is drawn from a national study of charter schools by Stanford economist Margaret Raymond (the wife of Hanushek). Known as the CREDO study, it evaluated student progress on math tests in half the nation’s five thousand charter schools and concluded that 17 percent were superior to a matched traditional public school; 37 percent were worse than the public school; and the remaining 46 percent had academic gains no different from that of a similar public school. The proportion of charters that get amazing results is far smaller than 17 percent.Why did Davis Guggenheim pay no attention to the charter schools that are run by incompetent leaders or corporations mainly concerned to make money? Why propound to an unknowing public the myth that charter schools are the answer to our educational woes, when the filmmaker knows that there are twice as many failing charters as there are successful ones? Why not give an honest accounting?

The Myth of Charter Schools by Diane Ravitch | The New York Review of Books
 
Here's a key part from that first link:

...according to a study funded by the federal government and released Tuesday.
Click to expand...

They don't have a horse in that race now do they? lol
 
Grim17 said:
Here's a key part from that first link:



They don't have a horse in that race now do they? lol
Click to expand...

Nope - they do not. If you right wingers are to be believed, you have told us thousands of times how the federal government does NOT educate one child in America and has no schools of its own.
 
Boo Radley said:
Study: On average, charter schools do no better than public schools - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...

As prior discussions about unions and education in this country Boo, you tend to find articles, mainly from MSM sources that agree with you, and then cherry pick those articles to paint a picture that you want to see, not necessarily what is the truth of the matter. For instance from the first article of yours....

Such research includes a much-publicized study a year ago from the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). Several other, narrower studies – including one on New York City charters and a study that came out last week on charter schools operated by the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) – have showed positive outcomes for charters.

The result, say education researchers, is a heated debate but also a growing consensus that charters, like regular public schools, vary widely in their quality and that they are at their best when serving a more disadvantaged population.
Click to expand...

So at best according to this article the studies on comparison are mixed. But, if it is the children that this is about, then we have to look at why Charters are out preforming public schools in the areas with the most need.

The second article from the NYT says this:

The study concluded that charter students made better progress in math and English than their counterparts who ended up in traditional schools.
Click to expand...

Again showing that you only seem to pick out that which supports your agenda against charters.

And the third article reviewing a book is IMHO, a text book study in slanted publishing by the NYT. Granted it is only a book review, however since you cite it as some endeavor in fact, rather than what it actually is, which is an opinion designed to tear down the success of Charters that often operate on fractional budgets compared to their failing counterparts in the same circumstances.

It starts out with a premise, and conclusion, then proceeds to do the same thing you do Boo, which is set out to prove that conclusion ignoring the successes and touting how Charters are bad, rather than take a look at what succeeds in the Charter system and emulate it in the public system, all for the defense of Union teaching, bolstering my contention that public sector teaching positions are less about quality for the kids they teach, and more about protecting their own pensions, jobs, and conditions protected by the destructive forces within the Unions in the public sector.

So, nice try, but even Obama's Sec of Ed. sees the benefit of Charters, and is day by day moving toward implementing them....I get the distinct feeling that Teachers Unions, and alike in the public sectors days are numbered, and I say good riddance. Maybe at that point we can truly focus on education, instead of taking care of greedy adults that want to sluff through life on my dime.

Much like the two highlighted in the OP that game the system, they are not alone.

j-mac
 
Fubar said:
it's all about who u know.motorcades of black cars flying down american highways .....that brings back memories.
Click to expand...

Morning, unfortunately that is true within the education system today. And we need to ask why is that? All one has to do is look at the goals of the Union system in education across the country today, and not necessarily the stated goals, but those that are transparent and clear when we study their actions, and words. Unfortunately, the answer may not be too far removed from what you took opportunity to escape and come here for, seeing as today many Unions, especially in the public sector seem to share the same goals as many Marx based thought.

j-mac
 
hazlnut said:
A major American city with the some of the finest colleges and Universities in the country...? You mean that Chicago?
Click to expand...

And the one with a government that looks like it is run by organized crime, and cops who you're just better off not coming across.
 
j-mac said:
As prior discussions about unions and education in this country Boo, you tend to find articles, mainly from MSM sources that agree with you, and then cherry pick those articles to paint a picture that you want to see, not necessarily what is the truth of the matter. For instance from the first article of yours....
Click to expand...

Besides your pot to kettle issue, as I know the American non-thinker, The weekly Standard, and NRO in no way are cherry picked sources that merely say what you agree with, the fact is there is a documented study sourced and linked.


So at best according to this article the studies on comparison are mixed. But, if it is the children that this is about, then we have to look at why Charters are out preforming public schools in the areas with the most need.
Click to expand...

In which they cherry pick students. If public schools could do this, they would out perform as well. You're missing the point.

The second article from the NYT says this:
Click to expand...

Yes, I linked it. And I read all of it. Your quote is followed by this:

Ms. Hoxby’s study, released in September, followed by three months the much broader investigation by a Stanford colleague, at the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, which showed discouraging results for charters nationally.
Click to expand...

So, you go in, cherry pick a study that was limited, sought to specifically refute that success was based on their, charter schools, skiming the top of the student population, which they largely do, and ignore the larger, broader study? Was this because you sought to be objective, or because you want to cherry pick?

Again showing that you only seem to pick out that which supports your agenda against charters.

And the third article reviewing a book is IMHO, a text book study in slanted publishing by the NYT. Granted it is only a book review, however since you cite it as some endeavor in fact, rather than what it actually is, which is an opinion designed to tear down the success of Charters that often operate on fractional budgets compared to their failing counterparts in the same circumstances.

It starts out with a premise, and conclusion, then proceeds to do the same thing you do Boo, which is set out to prove that conclusion ignoring the successes and touting how Charters are bad, rather than take a look at what succeeds in the Charter system and emulate it in the public system, all for the defense of Union teaching, bolstering my contention that public sector teaching positions are less about quality for the kids they teach, and more about protecting their own pensions, jobs, and conditions protected by the destructive forces within the Unions in the public sector.

So, nice try, but even Obama's Sec of Ed. sees the benefit of Charters, and is day by day moving toward implementing them....I get the distinct feeling that Teachers Unions, and alike in the public sectors days are numbered, and I say good riddance. Maybe at that point we can truly focus on education, instead of taking care of greedy adults that want to sluff through life on my dime.

Much like the two highlighted in the OP that game the system, they are not alone.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Tghere's something to be said j for reading the entire article, all the articles linked, and synthesing the informtion to draw a conclusion. I sited only three articles, but there are more. You want to believe that charter schools are magic, but the research simply doesn't support that.

And further, I note you offered nothing other than a politiican says so. Fancy that. :coffeepap
 
Ikari said:
You can always homeschool.
Click to expand...

Sure, no problem, all you need is a spouse who makes at least 80K a year to support you all, and to get pats the government red tape to doing so. No big deal.
 
Ikari said:
And the one with a government that is run by organized crime, and cops who you're just better off not coming across.
Click to expand...


There....fixed that for you. These small typos can happen from time to time...
 
Boo Radley said:
Besides your pot to kettle issue, as I know the American non-thinker, The weekly Standard, and NRO in no way are cherry picked sources that merely say what you agree with, the fact is there is a documented study sourced and linked.
Click to expand...

Ok, Now since this is the fall back position of yours that you seem to have been using for years now when you can't have a rational discussion on the facts. I want you to document for me, when was the last time that I used any of the three sources you mention as anything other than opinion, and when I last used them period!

If you are not going to have an honest discussion on the topic, then don't respond. Thanks.

In which they cherry pick students. If public schools could do this, they would out perform as well. You're missing the point.
Click to expand...

I am not missing the point at all, please show me the methodology, and how your study starts out with a purely objective hypothesis and we can go from there. But so far all you are offering is a giant 'Nuh uh' as rebuttal, completely refusing to even consider other studies on the subject that disagree with your study's conclusions.

Yes, I linked it. And I read all of it.
Click to expand...

As did I Joe.

So, you go in, cherry pick a study that was limited, sought to specifically refute that success was based on their, charter schools, skiming the top of the student population, which they largely do, and ignore the larger, broader study? Was this because you sought to be objective, or because you want to cherry pick?
Click to expand...

No, and I don't think I am cherry picking, rather pointing out how it was your initial posting that chose to highlight only that which agreed with your defense of Unions in the public school systems.

Tghere's something to be said j for reading the entire article, all the articles linked, and synthesing the informtion to draw a conclusion. I sited only three articles, but there are more. You want to believe that charter schools are magic, but the research simply doesn't support that.
Click to expand...

So, if my opinion doesn't agree with yours on this subject, then it must be that either my academic pedigree, ability to comprehend, ability to read the entire pap you offer, or simply because of some other dishonest approach to the debate. No, it could never be that your words here offer little more than text book projection on your case that shine sunlight into your own thought processes concerning the subject.

And further, I note you offered nothing other than a politiican says so. Fancy that.
Click to expand...

That Politician is the guy you voted for in 2008, and likely will again next year...:lamo

Come on Joe, face it. Unions in the public sector have little to do with real education, and more about indoctrination, self preservation of the teacher, and generally poor quality education at the expense of the tax payer.

j-mac
 
KevinKohler said:
Sure, no problem, all you need is a spouse who makes at least 80K a year to support you all, and to get pats the government red tape to doing so. No big deal.
Click to expand...

No big deal, there's choice; right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom