• 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!

Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?


  • Total voters
    64
No, I am saying that being qualified with the proper degrees and certifications makes one a better teacher than those that are not qualified with the proper degrees and certifications.
You said it, so you were wrong.

And you are still wrong. A degree does not make you a good teacher. People with no certificates can be much better teachers than teachers with degrees and certificates. Teaching is a skill, not something you can just learn from a book.

If you mean can I come up with a comment dumber than yours, the answer is no.
Except you completly ignored why your post is really dumb. And just made a dumb unorginal attack back.

Again, why is it so extreme getting a 4.5% wage increase for 5 years with a strong union. When Chicago teacher unions demanded 30% wage rise over one year. You are not thinking before you write. You are just making cheap attacks, or demanding proof for everything because you are completely incapable of defending your points.
 
No, I am saying that being qualified with the proper degrees and certifications makes one a better teacher than those that are not qualified with the proper degrees and certifications.

Sorry but I disagree with this. There are plenty of home schooled children that do just as well, if not better than public school children scholastically speaking. And those parents don't have a teaching degree. Hell, I'm a better teacher than my sons first grade teacher. She just tried to get him to learn reading by rote instead of actually figuring out how to sound out the words. I know this because I spent a day with him in his class watching how he was doing and how the teacher was teaching.
 
You said it, so you were wrong.

Typical Camlon logic.


Again, why is it so extreme getting a 4.5% wage increase for 5 years with a strong union. When Chicago teacher unions demanded 30% wage rise over one year. You are not thinking before you write. You are just making cheap attacks, or demanding proof for everything because you are completely incapable of defending your points.

I have not heard of a Chicago teacher union demanding a 30% wage rise over one year. Got a link?
 
Sorry but I disagree with this. There are plenty of home schooled children that do just as well, if not better than public school children scholastically speaking. And those parents don't have a teaching degree. Hell, I'm a better teacher than my sons first grade teacher. She just tried to get him to learn reading by rote instead of actually figuring out how to sound out the words. I know this because I spent a day with him in his class watching how he was doing and how the teacher was teaching.

Everybody has opinions. Thanks for sharing yours.
 
Typical Camlon logic.
What kind of logic? That you were wrong, even if you may like to change what you meant afterwards. Also, your change didn't make your statement correct.

Having a degree or a certificate do not make you a good teacher. Teaching is a skill.


I have not heard of a Chicago teacher union demanding a 30% wage rise over one year. Got a link?
I was a little wrong. It is over two years. Still, significantly more than 4.5%.

Blog: Chicago teachers union demanding 30% pay increase over two years
 
Do you have a source that is not a conservative blog, or did this not make the real news?
Just take a look at the links in the article. You gave me a liberal source, and expected me to read it. You should be able to stand a conservative source.

Also, when are you going to admit you were wrong. Or are you just going to pretend you never said it?
 
Just take a look at the links in the article. You gave me a liberal source, and expected me to read it. You should be able to stand a conservative source.

Also, when are you going to admit you were wrong. Or are you just going to pretend you never said it?

The Chicago Tribune says the 24% increase proposed by the teachers union there is to cover the expanded teaching day proposed by the City. It also notes that negotiations are ongoing so nothing has been decided at this point.

And what am I supposed to admit to being wrong about?
 
"A University of Illinois study, published in the American Journal of Education, found that public school students scored just as well in math as students attending private schools, when you compared students of similar ethnic and economic backgrounds. The study followed earlier research that showed public school students scored slightly better (though within the margin of error) than private school students in the same income and ethnic demographic.

One of the ways that many private schools portray themselves as superior options to public schools is by cherry-picking the students they admit. It's easy to show off students with high test scores and impressive academic achievements when you admit only the students who are inclined - through family support and personal initiative - to score and perform well.

What the University of Illinois research did is to make an apples-to-apples comparison which showed that similar students do just as well or better in a public school environment than in private schools.

I don't want to talk anyone out of attending a private school, if that's your choice and you can afford it. But I do want to talk you out of believing that you have to choose a private school, if you want the best for your children's education. Your child can get an excellent education in the public schools, just as millions of other are getting. The data proves it!


Many politicians, including education officials in the Obama administration, are pushing charter schools as a superior alternative to traditional public schools, which are accountable to the local community through elected school boards. Charter schools don't have to follow the same rules as public schools, and the idea is that greater freedom flexibility allows them to succeed.

Except that they don't. A Stanford University study found that students at charter schools were more likely to score worse than public schools students than they were to outperform those students - 37% percent of charter schools did worse than comparable public schools, while only 17% did better. The rest, 46%, scored the same.

So, if you are a parent who picks a charter school over a public school, you're more likely to end up worse off than going to your local public school than you are to end up in a better-performing school."

Why I send my children to public schools
 
Everybody has opinions. Thanks for sharing yours.

This isn't an opinion actually. This is fact.

1. In 1997, a study of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families was released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America." The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects. A significant finding when analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than students who have been homeschooled one year or less. The new homeschoolers were scoring on the average in the 59th percentile compared to students homeschooled the last two or more years who scored between 86th and 92nd percentile.

This was confirmed in another study by Dr. Lawrence Rudner of 20,760 homeschooled students which found the homeschoolers who have homeschooled all their school aged years had the highest academic achievement. This was especially apparent in the higher grades. ii This is a good encouragement to families catch the long-range vision and homeschool through high school.

Academic Statistics on Homeschooling

Some colleges search for homeschooled students, citing that homeschoolers tend to outperform many of their peers. The child that is homeschooled tends to have about a 3.46 GPA, or a B average, while the majority of publically educated students fall roughly at 2.54, which is a C average. Homeschooling statistics consistently reveal that homeschooled college students rate 15-30% higher than their cohorts.

Homeschooling Statistics Prove Homeschooling on the Rise

Also, the bit about my sons teacher...that is not opinion either. That is fact. Granted it's ancedotal and will no doubt be disgarded. But it is fact none the less.
 
This isn't an opinion actually. This is fact.



Academic Statistics on Homeschooling



Homeschooling Statistics Prove Homeschooling on the Rise

Also, the bit about my sons teacher...that is not opinion either. That is fact. Granted it's ancedotal and will no doubt be disgarded. But it is fact none the less.



And this proves what?

See the studies above I just referenced. Home schoolers, like private schools, do not have to accept every child in the nation, regardless of handicap, disability or socio-economic background.

If Public school teachers only had to teach their own children they would have better results than those without teaching credentials.
 
Last edited:
And this proves what?

See the studies above I just referenced. Home schoolers, like private schools, do not have to accept every child in the nation, regardless of handicap, disability or socio-economic background.

If Public school teachers only had to teach their own children they would have better results than those without teaching credentials.

Wish we had a "moving goal posts" emote. Because it would be perfect right here.
 
"A University of Illinois study, published in the American Journal of Education, found that public school students scored just as well in math as students attending private schools, when you compared students of similar ethnic and economic backgrounds. The study followed earlier research that showed public school students scored slightly better (though within the margin of error) than private school students in the same income and ethnic demographic.

Adjusting for ethnic and social background is BS anyway. As public schools in rich areas are going to be good schools, and public schools in poor areas are going to be bad schools. And most public schools are in bad areas. However, private schools in bad areas doesn't exist because poor people can not afford tuition fees.

To say it another way, there are a lot more good private schools than public schools.

The Chicago Tribune says the 24% increase proposed by the teachers union there is to cover the expanded teaching day proposed by the City. It also notes that negotiations are ongoing so nothing has been decided at this point.
They are also demanding significant reductions in class sizes which means less students to handle, and hence lower wage. Also, the reason they are increasing the workday is to get them in line with other teachers around the country. Hence, the expectations from the teacher union is crazy.

But that is beyond the point. The point is, it is not unreasonable to expect a strong teacher union to get wage increases of 4.5% per year.

And what am I supposed to admit to being wrong about?
That all teachers who have a degree and a certificate, are good teachers. That is incorrect, and I am still waiting for you to admit you were wrong. Is it difficult for you to admit you were wrong?
 
Wish we had a "moving goal posts" emote. Because it would be perfect right here.

Do mean because I don't ignore that teaching one child without handicaps, learning disability, and from a good socio-economic background is different than teaching a classroom of 30 that is all inclusive? Surely you jest!
 
Adjusting for ethnic and social background is BS anyway.

You just refuted that with your very own next two sentences.

As public schools in rich areas are going to be good schools, and public schools in poor areas are going to be bad schools. And most public schools are in bad areas. However, private schools in bad areas doesn't exist because poor people can not afford tuition fees.


To say it another way, there are a lot more good private schools than public schools.

Once again the data refutes your opinion, as I documented above:

"A Stanford University study found that students at charter schools were more likely to score worse than public schools students than they were to outperform those students - 37% percent of charter schools did worse than comparable public schools, while only 17% did better. The rest, 46%, scored the same."


They are also demanding significant reductions in class sizes which means less students to handle, and hence lower wage. Also, the reason they are increasing the workday is to get them in line with other teachers around the country. Hence, the expectations from the teacher union is crazy.

I think I will wait and see how the negotiations work out, instead of speculating as you are doing.

But that is beyond the point. The point is, it is not unreasonable to expect a strong teacher union to get wage increases of 4.5% per year.

I agree that would be ideal, but that depends on the negotiations.

That all teachers who have a degree and a certificate, are good teachers.

I never said that, and those few bad apples need to be weeded out. What I said was that a properly qualified teacher with the necessary degrees and certifications was better than a teacher without the necessary degrees and certifications.
 
You just refuted that with your very own next two sentences.

Once again the data refutes your opinion, as I documented above:

"A Stanford University study found that students at charter schools were more likely to score worse than public schools students than they were to outperform those students - 37% percent of charter schools did worse than comparable public schools, while only 17% did better. The rest, 46%, scored the same."
Now you don't want to adjust for socio-economic conditions. Also, charter schools are not the same as private schools, and I am a little bit skeptical of the test. However, I am not planning to make this a debate about charter schools.

Adjusting for social economic conditions is often BS. It does say that public schools in a rich area perform equally well to a rich private schools. However, it does not say that private schools are not better than public schools. Which they are, or else parents would just send their kids to a public school. No need to pay a lot of money for an inferior or equal education.

The point that I have been making has not been a political point like the one you are trying to make. I am just stating a fact, that private schools teachers tend to be better than public schools teachers. While you stated it was the other way around, which is an incorrect statement based on your faulty thinking that a degree or a certificate make a teacher good.

I agree that would be ideal, but that depends on the negotiations.
So, 4.5% would be ideal. But seeing teacher compensation for some teachers increase from 120K to 150K in five years is wild imagination. I have feeling you may struggle a little with maths, and memory.

I never said that, and those few bad apples need to be weeded out. What I said was that a properly qualified teacher with the necessary degrees and certifications was better than a teacher without the necessary degrees and certifications.
No, you didn't. You said all teachers who have a degree are good teachers. And please don't ask me to show you where you said it again. One time is enough.

Also, your change didn't make it correct. No, not all teachers with a degree and certifications are better than those without. Teaching is a skill.
 
Last edited:
Adjusting for social economic conditions is often BS.

Thanks for your opinion which disagrees with your earlier opinion:

As public schools in rich areas are going to be good schools, and public schools in poor areas are going to be bad schools. And most public schools are in bad areas. However, private schools in bad areas doesn't exist because poor people can not afford tuition fees.

Dude, you just described there in your own words the effect of socio-economic conditions, and very well I might add. And of course there are hundreds of studies that show the same thing.



The point that I have been making has not been a political point like the one you are trying to make. I am just stating a fact, that private schools teachers tend to be better than public schools teachers.

The facts show they are less qualified, and when scores are analyzed with comparable students they mostly do worse. And I've posted a reference to the Stanford Study that proves it.
 
You have requirements that the board of directors be elected exclusively by the owners instead of some seats going to the employees
Wow! Imagine that. Allowing the owners of a company to direct it. Oh the humanity!
 
generally speaking, when you are fighting the government over rights, you are demanding they do not violate those rights.
we possess tons and tons of rights ... rights the government does not always deem fit to recognize or protect... but hteir recognition or protection in no way diminishes the fact that we possess them.

If you do not actually have the right to exercise - then you DO NOT HAVE IT. Period.

The people only have rights because enough of them forced the government to recognize that right and accept it in law and in practice.
 
Thanks for your opinion which disagrees with your earlier opinion:
No it doesn't.

Dude, you just described there in your own words the effect of socio-economic conditions, and very well I might add. And of course there are hundreds of studies that show the same thing.

The facts show they are less qualified, and when scores are analyzed with comparable students they mostly do worse. And I've posted a reference to the Stanford Study that proves it.
Here it is obvious you do not understand my point. You first agree with my point that schools in rich areas are better than schools in poor areas. And you have agreed with me that most private schools are in good areas.

Hence, you are have proven yourself wrong. Private schools are better than public schools.


Edit: I am still waiting for you to admit you were wrong that all teachers with degrees are good teachers. I am not going let you go just because you stop responding. Why is it so difficult for you to admit you were wrong?
 
Last edited:
Private schools are better than public schools.

Is this a rule?

Does it always hold true?

Does it hold true for all children?

Does it hold true for all types of private schools over all types of public schools?

Does this hold true in all areas of education regardless of subject matter?

I would love to see the data providing the answers to these questions.
 
Is this a rule?

Does it always hold true?

Does it hold true for all children?

Does it hold true for all types of private schools over all types of public schools?

Does this hold true in all areas of education regardless of subject matter?

I would love to see the data providing the answers to these questions.

It is a general statement, not an absolute statement. So
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. Depends on how you define it
 
Back
Top Bottom