• 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!

Success! Here’s What the Chicago Teachers Get

Bravo. Like I said; Rham Emanuel got his head handed to him.

don't think that is very true
The new contract includes the following:

-A 3% pay increase the first year, with a 2% increase every year thereafter
rahm unilaterally rescinded an authorized 4% pay hike. this only restored 3/4 of it
-Phasing out performance-related pay, or “merit pay”
this is a no-win for teachers, management, students and the taxpayers
teachers now have no financial motivation to perform above a fully acceptable level
offering bonus money is one of the best, most effective ways for management to elevate employee performance. for a tiny fraction of the employee's annual salary, you can incentivize the teacher to perform at a superior level, at very nominal cost
-Hiring 600 teachers in the areas of art, music, world languages, etc.
how is hiring more teachers, which were needed by the school system, found to be a bad thing
-Up to $250 reimbursement of school supplies
every teacher will now receive an extra $250 if they show their receipts. some teachers have been doing this without renumeration. now some of the other teachers will buy stuff for themselves and will tender the receipts for restitution and pocket the money. this works out well for all teachers, the honest and the corrupt. guess this is what happened to the performance money
-Only 30% of student test scores will be factored into teacher evaluations
nothing tells us whether the scores will be adjusted for student circumstances beyond the teacher's control, whether they will be based on individual student growth or whether they will be raw data by class. will be interested to hear how that shook out
-Laid-off teachers receive hiring-priority for charter school position openings
can't see why this would humble rahm

this looks like nothing other than the compromise which results when labor and management sit down and engage in good faith bargaining. everyone wins; no one loses
 
don't think that is very true

rahm unilaterally rescinded an authorized 4% pay hike. this only restored 3/4 of it

this is a no-win for teachers, management, students and the taxpayers
teachers now have no financial motivation to perform above a fully acceptable level
offering bonus money is one of the best, most effective ways for management to elevate employee performance. for a tiny fraction of the employee's annual salary, you can incentivize the teacher to perform at a superior level, at very nominal cost

how is hiring more teachers, which were needed by the school system, found to be a bad thing

every teacher will now receive an extra $250 if they show their receipts. some teachers have been doing this without renumeration. now some of the other teachers will buy stuff for themselves and will tender the receipts for restitution and pocket the money. this works out well for all teachers, the honest and the corrupt. guess this is what happened to the performance money

nothing tells us whether the scores will be adjusted for student circumstances beyond the teacher's control, whether they will be based on individual student growth or whether they will be raw data by class. will be interested to hear how that shook out
can't see why this would humble rahm

this looks like nothing other than the compromise which results when labor and management sit down and engage in good faith bargaining. everyone wins; no one loses

Uh, no. The contract ensures a 7% raise over 3 years with a guaranteed 3% additionally for a fourth year. That’s 10% and that is very good.

Teachers do not need to employ greed to their jobs: that’s not how collective bargaining works. So that idea is out the window.

Hiring more teachers to lesson the load and offer more classes in the arts was part of the deal to begin with. It’s a win for everyone particularly the students.

Teachers all over are having to buy supplies without any reimbursement so this contract now means that they’ll get part of their money back. And the district will not pay for personal items, so that’s just BS.

I know from experience that there is always 30% in most any school that is up for grabs so to speak. So keeping in the 30 percentile is much more accurate and realistic.

Rham thought he could come out swinging and run over the teachers: that didn’t happen. The teachers got more of what they wanted than not and they set a god example for the rest of the country. So Rham Emanuel did get his head handed to him.
 
Uh, no. The contract ensures a 7% raise over 3 years with a guaranteed 3% additionally for a fourth year. That’s 10% and that is very good.
by my math, getting 3% after losing 4% means they recovered only 75% of their loss
now if my arithmetic is wrong for the first year, please identify the error

for the out years, what annual raises were the teachers receiving under the existing contract?
only by knowing what they would have alternatively received will we be able to know factually whether this contract improved their compensation for the out years. but unless you can prove my math wrong, it is absolutely a fact that the teachers lost ground in year one of the contract - financially, anyway

Teachers do not need to employ greed to their jobs: that’s not how collective bargaining works. So that idea is out the window.
but we know the teachers employed collective bargaining to get this contract approved. you are arguing against fact. which means you lose the argument

Hiring more teachers to lesson the load and offer more classes in the arts was part of the deal to begin with. It’s a win for everyone particularly the students.
then tell us how that results in rahm having his head handed to him

Teachers all over are having to buy supplies without any reimbursement so this contract now means that they’ll get part of their money back.
and for the teachers - and there are many - my wife spent tons buying students' supplies for her art classes. so, for the honest, supportive teachers, this is a welcome change. but i would speculate that the ed administration will now reduce the amount of supplies available from their warehouse, causing the teachers to have to dip into the $250 for a large portion of what was previously supplied

And the district will not pay for personal items, so that’s just BS.
you think that teacher with a receipt for toner cartridges for their class will necessarily have to use that cartridge for the class instead of using it at home for their family's purposes? that would be a naive proposition. now, that would not have been the intended outcome, but that will be the practice for the corrupt employees

I know from experience that there is always 30% in most any school that is up for grabs so to speak. So keeping in the 30 percentile is much more accurate and realistic.
good. i look forward to your offering something more substantial to defend your argument that 30% is the norm, given your intimate experience with the subject matter. i look forward to seeing your cites

Rham thought he could come out swinging and run over the teachers: that didn’t happen.
let's see, he got to keep 1/4 of their annual raise for this year
he was able to retain student scores as a portion of the teachers' performance appraisal system
and he got teachers back in the class room after a long week off .... probably by extending the school year end by the equivalent number of days
so, tell us what rahm lost

The teachers got more of what they wanted than not and they set a god example for the rest of the country. So Rham Emanuel did get his head handed to him.
let's see. the teachers had to strike to get some of what they were seeking
to return to work they gave up 1/4 of their annual increase for this year
they accepted having student performance included in their performance appraisals
they lost performance pay
and you say they won and rahm lost
so much for your credibility
 
don't think that is very true

rahm unilaterally rescinded an authorized 4% pay hike. this only restored 3/4 of it

this is a no-win for teachers, management, students and the taxpayers
teachers now have no financial motivation to perform above a fully acceptable level
offering bonus money is one of the best, most effective ways for management to elevate employee performance. for a tiny fraction of the employee's annual salary, you can incentivize the teacher to perform at a superior level, at very nominal cost

how is hiring more teachers, which were needed by the school system, found to be a bad thing

every teacher will now receive an extra $250 if they show their receipts. some teachers have been doing this without renumeration. now some of the other teachers will buy stuff for themselves and will tender the receipts for restitution and pocket the money. this works out well for all teachers, the honest and the corrupt. guess this is what happened to the performance money

nothing tells us whether the scores will be adjusted for student circumstances beyond the teacher's control, whether they will be based on individual student growth or whether they will be raw data by class. will be interested to hear how that shook out
can't see why this would humble rahm

this looks like nothing other than the compromise which results when labor and management sit down and engage in good faith bargaining. everyone wins; no one loses

This aspect of unions as well as tenure are the most problematic in my opinion. Unions tend to breed an attitude of "don't work too hard, you are showing me up". The merit pay system just makes too many people "uncomfortable" with their own efforts and worth.
 
And the students get, oh, never mind. How foolish of me. They get the same as they've been getting.
 
This is defiantly a win for the union and the school system of Chicago.
 
the union/teachers won big...which was inevitable...

I wonder where the city is going to come up with the money to cover this win?
 
665 million bucks in the hole... and now 75 million more bucks added to that number.
...and at the end of the day, no increase in academic standards, and no/little accountability for performance... for the highest paid teachers in the land.
 
665 million bucks in the hole... and now 75 million more bucks added to that number.
...and at the end of the day, no increase in academic standards, and no/little accountability for performance... for the highest paid teachers in the land.

And still, far less expensive than the subsidies we pay farmers to grow corn and then throw it away.
 
And still, far less expensive than the subsidies we pay farmers to grow corn and then throw it away.

alright then...

I guess the city of Chicago should stop paying it's farmers to grow corn.

well, I guess the city needs to get some corn farms first, though :lol:
 
Teachers win. Children and taxpayers lose, again.

those poor students now get taught by art and music and PE teachers, which would not have been the circumstance except for the teachers' union insistence. how damaging to those children

and they were further hurt by having smaller numbers in their class rooms

and those taxpayers. why the hell are they electing officials who would compromise on things like pay for teachers' additional time on the clock
 
Uh, no. The contract ensures a 7% raise over 3 years with a guaranteed 3% additionally for a fourth year. That’s 10% and that is very good.

Teachers do not need to employ greed to their jobs: that’s not how collective bargaining works. So that idea is out the window.

Hiring more teachers to lesson the load and offer more classes in the arts was part of the deal to begin with. It’s a win for everyone particularly the students.

Teachers all over are having to buy supplies without any reimbursement so this contract now means that they’ll get part of their money back. And the district will not pay for personal items, so that’s just BS.

I know from experience that there is always 30% in most any school that is up for grabs so to speak. So keeping in the 30 percentile is much more accurate and realistic.

Rham thought he could come out swinging and run over the teachers: that didn’t happen. The teachers got more of what they wanted than not and they set a god example for the rest of the country. So Rham Emanuel did get his head handed to him.
Exactly correct. It's funny because here in Chicago, Rahm has ads running where he tries to save face by essentially claiming he got what he wanted out of the strike, when he didn't. Bad for Rahm and his ego, good for everyone else.
 
-A 3% pay increase the first year, with a 2% increase every year thereafter

Not the worst concession, but automatic pay increases don't really sit well with me on principle.


-Phasing out performance-related pay, or “merit pay”

Completely disagree with this. Why the hell shouldn't your pay be based on your performance. If you have two teachers, one of whom comes in early, tutors their students, and works avidly to help them learn and one of whom who puts in no extra time and offers no extra help, the first should earn more than the second, regardless of tenure.


-Hiring 600 teachers in the areas of art, music, world languages, etc.

No problem with this. Studies indicate that emphasis on these areas can promote better performance in students.


-Up to $250 reimbursement of school supplies

I'm surprised this wasn't already happening. Most districts here already offer $300 for every educator who isn't considered "auxiliary".


-Only 30% of student test scores will be factored into teacher evaluations

What?! Who determines which 30%? Why do the other 70% not count? This is asinine and blatantly counterproductive.


-Laid-off teachers receive hiring-priority for charter school position openings

In theory this sounds reasonable, but if teachers are laid off based on performance/results, why should under performing teachers be given priority.


Lastly, it doesn't really seem to me like much of that list has anything at all to do with making education better for the students. The additional arts teachers, sure. Maybe the supplies...but the rest of it seems like a means of sweeping struggling children under the rug and blatantly ignoring lackluster educators that negatively impact student success.
 
And the students get, oh, never mind. How foolish of me. They get the same as they've been getting.
This is a dumb comment for three reasons:

1. The students get more art/music/language teachers according to the deal.
2. Workers/teachers have concerns that are independent of consumers/students.
3. Teachers can't bargain on behalf of students. They can only bargain only legally behalf of themselves.

In other words, this constant attempt by people to scoff at teachers for fighting for themselves is ridiculous and it's funny because most of the people who do the scoffing aren't doing anything themselves to help students and are so ignorant that they don't even realize that the plan they're criticizing actually HELPS students - so they should really just shut the **** up.
 
What?! Who determines which 30%? Why do the other 70% not count? This is asinine and blatantly counterproductive.
The article phrased that poorly. It's not that 30% of test scores will be counted; it's that test scores will be 30% of the evaluation.

In theory this sounds reasonable, but if teachers are laid off based on performance/results, why should under performing teachers be given priority.
That stipulation is primarily based off the huge economic and school "turnaround" layoffs that have happened in the city that didn't have anything to do with performance. Chicago closed down and "turned around" a lot of schools and then hired a bunch of new teachers instead of any of the ones that were laid off so the union wanted to ensure that veterans were the first choice. This, in my opinion, is actually a good thing because Chicago has implemented a lot of horrible policies that younger teachers are more likely to go along with. Older teachers who were teaching when the "achievement gap" was smaller than ever are less likely to go along with that nonsense.

Lastly, it doesn't really seem to me like much of that list has anything at all to do with making education better for the students. The additional arts teachers, sure. Maybe the supplies...but the rest of it seems like a means of sweeping struggling children under the rug and blatantly ignoring lackluster educators that negatively impact student success.
Teachers are only legally allowed to bargain on behalf of themselves. They can't bargain on behalf of the students, so why would you expect student centered things to be on that list? It's not legal. It's like saying, "I went to the butcher and I didn't see any lettuce." Of course you didn't.

And this notion about "ignoring lackluster educators" is a myth. I suspect you think that rejecting merit pay is evidence of that, but the fact is that many schools have been incredibly successful without merit pay so that's obviously not the problem. There also isn't conclusive evidence that merit pay has any positive effect at all. I, quite frankly, think that you and the other harsh critics should familiarize themselves more with what Chicago teachers and their union actually think instead of just decided that they're "sweeping struggling children under the rug." That's an uninformed position.
 
The article phrased that poorly. It's not that 30% of test scores will be counted; it's that test scores will be 30% of the evaluation.


That stipulation is primarily based off the huge economic and school "turnaround" layoffs that have happened in the city that didn't have anything to do with performance. Chicago closed down and "turned around" a lot of schools and then hired a bunch of new teachers instead of any of the ones that were laid off so the union wanted to ensure that veterans were the first choice. This, in my opinion, is actually a good thing because Chicago has implemented a lot of horrible policies that younger teachers are more likely to go along with. Older teachers who were teaching when the "achievement gap" was smaller than ever are less likely to go along with that nonsense.


Teachers are only legally allowed to bargain on behalf of themselves. They can't bargain on behalf of the students, so why would you expect student centered things to be on that list? It's not legal. It's like saying, "I went to the butcher and I didn't see any lettuce." Of course you didn't.

And this notion about "ignoring lackluster educators" is a myth. I suspect you think that rejecting merit pay is evidence of that, but the fact is that many schools have been incredibly successful without merit pay so that's obviously not the problem. There also isn't conclusive evidence that merit pay has any positive effect at all. I, quite frankly, think that you and the other harsh critics should familiarize themselves more with what Chicago teachers and their union actually think instead of just decided that they're "sweeping struggling children under the rug." That's an uninformed position.

I think it's hard to say that schools are "incredibly successful" when U.S. test scores continue to fall against those of most competitive countries.

Further, the Chicago area school system returns some of the worst results in the country.

Whatever the union "actually thinks", they aren't returning adequate results to justify being the highest paid educators in the country.
 
I think it's hard to say that schools are "incredibly successful" when U.S. test scores continue to fall against those of most competitive countries.

Further, the Chicago area school system returns some of the worst results in the country.

Whatever the union "actually thinks", they aren't returning adequate results to justify being the highest paid educators in the country.
1. I didn't say all schools, I said "many schools" and it is a fact that many schools have been and are successful without merit pay. In fact, when you take out schools in poverty, our scores are much more competitive with other countries. This makes it pretty obvious that merit pay isn't the issue. Merit pay and "bad teachers" are a distraction from the actual problems and it's a shame that people with good intentions focus on them.

2. Why is that?

3. What do you mean? I surely hope you aren't blaming teachers for the failure of an entire system. And if you aren't, then I would hope you have some research that isolates Chicago teacher performance and demonstrates its "inadequacy."
 
Back
Top Bottom