• 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!

90 Percent of Chicago Teachers Authorize Strike

Hicup said:
Beyond a teachers control, yes, however these metrics are not beyond control when structuring a pay scale.

Tim-
Click to expand...

So you are proposing basing a teacher's pay off factors over which the teacher has little to no control.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Teachers are salaried, Hicup.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but Don used a hourly pay rate example, which is not a fair way to measure the salary of teachers. If he's going to use a salary based measurment then there are other factors that go into a salary compensation package that must be included when trying to decide if the teachers are beiung paid less and working more. I agree that if one factors just the numbers it is an effective pay cut, BUT, it is not like the teachers are technically NOT making more or being compensated because as I've shown, they are actually being compensated for that extra 40 minutes they work.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Beyond a teachers control, yes, however these metrics are not beyond control when structuring a pay scale.

Tim-
Click to expand...

And why would you want to punish a teacher for something he/she cannot control?
 
Hicup said:
Exactly, but Don used a hourly pay rate example, which is not a fair way to measure the salary of teachers. If he's going to use a salary based measurment then there are other factors that go into a salary compensation package that must be included when trying to decide if the teachers are beiung paid less and working more. I agree that if one factors just the numbers it is an effective pay cut, BUT, it is not like the teachers are technically NOT making more or being compensated because as I've shown, they are actually being compensated for that extra 40 minutes they work.


Tim-
Click to expand...

You have to be delusional to think that making less per hour is not a pay cut. That is by definition a cut in pay.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
So you are proposing basing a teacher's pay off factors over which the teacher has little to no control.
Click to expand...

What kind of question is that? It works both ways doesn't it? If the child has a great home life, and interested parents the teachers job is also easier, and wouldn't it all work out in the wash? What I'm saying is that everyone knows that not all children have the most ideal home life and that this could be factored in to the compensation packages based on teacher performance. Documentation is a good way to provide auditable metrics. IN addition, we already know that all kids (on average) can learn. Charter schools have shown that to be true even of the most poorest among us, so that kids can't learn is nonesense, but do we pay our teachers based on how well their home life is, or how well they score on standard tests?

You can't have it both ways as I've shown that kids that do have good home environments are easier to teach, so it's a wash.

I mean then there are teachers who REALLY can't teach, and these one's need to go.


Tim-
 
Khayembii Communique said:
You have to be delusional to think that making less per hour is not a pay cut. That is by definition a cut in pay.
Click to expand...

What? They're making $20.40 per hour with Don's example? That is an increase not a decrease.

Tim-
 
And why would you want to punish a teacher for something he/she cannot control?
Click to expand...

Based on the above post, I guess so. :shock:

Hicup said:
What? They're making $20.40 per hour with Don's example? That is an increase not a decrease.
Click to expand...

If I pay you $1 for five widgets in one transaction, then $1.10 for six widgets in another, did the price of widgets go up or down?
 
Last edited:
Prof. Peabody said:
Fire them all and hire new ones.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because there are just mountains of equally qualified teachers waiting in the wings to take their place :roll:

Reminds me of the idiots who said "replace all the NBA players with college kids!" during the lockout.
 
Hicup said:
What kind of question is that? It works both ways doesn't it? If the child has a great home life, and interested parents the teachers job is also easier, and wouldn't it all work out in the wash? What I'm saying is that everyone knows that not all children have the most ideal home life and that this could be factored in to the compensation packages based on teacher performance. Documentation is a good way to provide auditable metrics. IN addition, we already know that all kids (on average) can learn. Charter schools have shown that to be true even of the most poorest among us, so that kids can't learn is nonesense, but do we pay our teachers based on how well their home life is, or how well they score on standard tests?

You can't have it both ways as I've shown that kids that do have good home environments are easier to teach, so it's a wash.

I mean then there are teachers who REALLY can't teach, and these one's need to go.

Tim-
Click to expand...

You mentioned "auditable metrics." By this do you mean measurement and assessment instruments?

Snarky aside: I agree that incompetent teachers need to go; the pity is that the students who don't want to be there and who are disruptive and interfere with others' learning need to go too. :lol:
 
Hicup said:
Exactly, but Don used a hourly pay rate example, which is not a fair way to measure the salary of teachers.
Click to expand...

The hourly scale was used only to illustrate the point that an effective wage cut had been proposed. Whenever the change in wages < change in work time, one is dealing with an effective wage cut. The use of hours merely illustrated that principle.

Compensation can and should be based on factors not limited to work time. What those factors should be extend beyond the point of whether or not there was an effective wage cut.
 
Last edited:
Samhain said:
You are correct. With the high income tax rates Illinois has, and the highest sales tax in the nation in Chicago itself, it would be difficult to lure any prospective teachers to the area.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps maybe teaching at private institutions and wealthy suburban public schools is a more attractive option for most teachers. Maybe. Just maybe.
 
Hicup said:
IN addition, we already know that all kids (on average) can learn.
Click to expand...

Yes, in ideal home, parenting, and school situations you are correct. However, not every student has those ideal situations, so learning is varied greatly.

Hicup said:
Charter schools have shown that to be true even of the most poorest among us, so that kids can't learn is nonesense, but do we pay our teachers based on how well their home life is, or how well they score on standard tests?
Click to expand...

But does basing their salary on how well or poor their students do on a test an accurate reflection of the teachers ability?

Hicup said:
I mean then there are teachers who REALLY can't teach, and these one's need to go.


Tim-
Click to expand...

True, but I don't think standardized testing should be the "be all end all" metric for basing teacher's salaries.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
Based on the above post, I guess so. :shock:



If I pay you $1 for five widgets in one transaction, then $1.10 for six widgets in another, did the price of widgets go up or down?
Click to expand...

The price went up, however, that's not what happened here, but nice try.

using your logic if the price of widgets was $0.20 cents each yesterday but are now $0.204 today, did the price go up or down? :) The teachers charged the city $0.20 cents yesterday for work, now they are going to get $0.204 cents for their services.. See how it works?

Tim-
 
The price went up
Click to expand...

The price of widgets went down, actually. I don't know why you are having trouble with a concept I learned in like first grade. And yes, this is exactly what happened: the price of labor (wages) went down.

Also I don't know why you keep going back to your example which is not relevant whatsoever as the increase in pay was not commensurate with the increase in the working day and inflation.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Yes, in ideal home, parenting, and school situations you are correct. However, not every student has those ideal situations, so learning is varied greatly.
Click to expand...

But isn't the reverse also true?



But does basing their salary on how well or poor their students do on a test an accurate reflection of the teachers ability?
Click to expand...

Why not? Do you have a better idea?



True, but I don't think standardized testing should be the "be all end all" metric for basing teacher's salaries.
Click to expand...

Ok, so how about graduating students? I'm open to ideas but this nonesense about forever increasing teachers compensation for nothing other than being part of the teachers club is silly. It doesn't work, hasn't every worked, and our kids have been suffering for 50 years because of this system.


Tim-
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The price of widgets went down, actually. I don't know why you are having trouble with a concept I learned in like first grade. And yes, this is exactly what happened: the price of labor (wages) went down.

Also I don't know why you keep going back to your example which is not relevant whatsoever as the increase in pay was not commensurate with the increase in the working day.
Click to expand...

Sorry yes it went down, that's what I meant, trying to keep up here and work at the same time.. Honest mistake. But my example still holds true based on an hourly illustration, NOT salaried.


Tim-
 
But my example still holds true based on an hourly illustration, NOT salaried.
Click to expand...

But again, teachers are salaried. Pay increases are salary increases, not hourly. So your example doesn't hold, and Don's does.
 
The Man said:
Actually, that is realistic.
Click to expand...

It's about as realistic as the FAA's contention that they could restore their Air Traffic Control staff to normal levels within two years after the 1981 PATCO strike, which resulted in 11,000+ federal Air Traffic Controllers being fired. It ended up taking ten years for the FAA to restore staffing levels to normal.
 
wow if the teachers went on strike, got fired and then some rehired I guess that would fix the pension and tenure problems. Maybe all schools should strike for a week or so!
 
MaggieD said:
Right now, City of Chicago teachers are given raises based on "steps and lanes" -- steps being 'another year in front of the blackboard' and lanes being more hours towards an advanced degree. We don't need advanced degrees. We need teachers who can teach. All the knowledge in the world -- all the degrees we have to offer -- mean nothing if we can't teach kids to read and write.
Click to expand...

I so agree. But one assessment measurement is "professional development," so the teachers don't have much choice if they want to advance in their careers.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The hourly scale was used only to illustrate the point that an effective wage cut had been proposed. Whenever the change in wages < change in work time, one is dealing with an effective wage cut. The use of hours merely illustrated that principle.

Compensation can and should be based on factors not limited to work time. What those factors should be extend beyond the point of whether or not there was an effective wage cut.
Click to expand...



I guess the fair way to approach this would be to take the average YEARLY salary and cross it against the increase in hours worked.

Using your example:

Average salary = $51,000 yearly
Increase of 2% = $52,122 yearly an increase of $1,122.
Increase in hours worked proposed was 40 minutes per work day X 260 days of actual in school work (Roughly does vary across the nation) = 174 hours (Rounding up) extra hours worked.
$51,000 / 365 = $139.72 per each day of the year regardless of whether they're actually in school working.
$139.72 / 7 = $19.96 per hour.
$52,122 / 365 = $142.80 per day worked.
$142.80 / 7.7 = $18.54 per hour worked.

Conclusion effective pay rate decreases per hour worked. However, if the 2% increase is tied to the effective hourly rate of the teachers then the salary would be more than $51,122 as noted above. I did not read how the 2% increase was factored in. If factored into the hourly rate, then obviously the salary would increase and this whole conversation is moot.

Agreed?


Tim-
 
Last edited:
if the 2% increase is tied to the effective hourly rate of the teachers
Click to expand...

Nominal pay increases on salaried individuals are not rendered at an hourly rate; the 2% pay increase is a 2% increase in the nominal salary. I don't know why you're having such a hard time understanding this.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Nominal pay increases on salaried individuals are not rendered at an hourly rate; the 2% pay increase is a 2% increase in the nominal salary. I don't know why you're having such a hard time understanding this.
Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time with it because Don was incorrect with his numbers, the math looks a lot different when you factor in the actual school day which is 5 hour and 45 minutes.

Chicago public school students have the shortest school day — 5 hours and 45 minutes — among the nation's 50 largest districts, according to a 2007 report from the National Council on Teacher Quality — part of the reason Emanuel moved to lengthen it.
Click to expand...

The pay rate decrease gets even larger.

That said, I would still tie pay to performance and NOT all teachers are alike and thus not all deserving of one show fits all pay scale. Just like not all students are alike, neither are their teachers.


Tim-
 
Khayembii Communique said:
But again, teachers are salaried. Pay increases are salary increases, not hourly. So your example doesn't hold, and Don's does.
Click to expand...

And because they are salaried, you can't monitor their time, because if you did, then you can be easily sued to force overtime pay.

Because teachers are salaried, it doesn't matter how long or short their work day, or work year in this case, is. They are salaried employees, therefore they will work however long is required to perform their job tasks. Fair Labor Standards Act.
 
Last edited:
Samhain said:
And because they are salaried, you can't monitor their time, because if you did, then you can be easily sued to force overtime pay.

Because teachers are salaried, it doesn't matter how long or short their work day, or work year in this case, is. They are salaried employees, therefore they will work however long is required to perform their job tasks. Fair Labor Standards Act.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I was going to go there next, but apparently it is ok to the CTU that they continue to work a 5.45 minute work day while their school district continues to be one of the worst performing in the nation. Oh, and on top of that we also want a 24% pay increase coz we're just so great at being mediocre..


Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom