Chicago Teachers Union Gives 10-Day Strike Notice

Another Lurker said:

I mostly agree. However, in the Dim state that Uncle Joe is from, charter schools get to cherry pick their students. The rif-raf and slugs go to the public schools ... Of course the best and brightest will always out perform the slugs.

About firing the public school administrators ... you are 98.5% correct. The administrative PC crowd needs to go. The schools need what they lack. They lack REAL DISCIPLINE. The Catholic schools have it ... and it works fine for them.

A L

Click to expand...

Cherry-picking is a good thing. Give the kids who want to learn a chance.

MaggieD said:

In Chicago, the incentive is student loan forgiveness for X number of years spent teaching in inner-city schools. A good deal, if you ask me. BTW, there is no shortage of teachers in Chicago Public Schools even though they have, at best, a 60% high school graduation rate and schools that are little more than war zones.

Click to expand...

So you recognize that the Chicago Public Schools are war zones with lousy high school graduation rate. If it was me, if a "qualified" teacher was willing to work in these "war zones", I would greatly increase their salary. Cause like I said before, there's the tendency to hire those who are new to the profession or those who can't find a job anywhere else.

zstep18 said:

So, what's the incentive for a teacher in a low-income school? If there's no incentive, the types of teachers recruited at a low-income school are going to be those who are new to the profession or those who were unable to find a job anywhere else.

Click to expand...

and that will be different because.......???

cpwill said:

and that will be different because.......???

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that if you wanted to find qualified teachers who would be willing to work in low-income schools, you increase salaries and make it look more appealing? Apparently, that's wrong.

MaggieD said:

It's value is as the only true data base for Illinois teachers' salaries and pensions.

Click to expand...

Not true, I know people who've checked their own salary on there and it was reported as more than it was. Some of the data is, as expected, inaccurate.

Then, in that case, I will call it bias.

Click to expand...

/shrug

What are their counter-proposals? And why are they better than letting parents decide where to send their children to school? When CPS only graduates 50% or so of its students, something's got to happen. Fast. Whole generations of kids are being left behind.

Click to expand...

If you don't know what their counter proposals are, then you have no authority to say that their arguments against vouchers are illegitimate because you don't even know what their arguments are. Thank you for proving my point that your argument isn't based on an actual analysis of different ideas.

Get back to me when there's one in plavce.

Click to expand...

This irrelevant to the original comment I was responding to, so let's please stay on track.

Getting back to your original argument, you said that "if they wanted to help students, they would present an evaluation system." They did present an evaluation system which I linked you to. Do you now admit that they want to help students? If not, why have you changed your standards? Please do not deflect from these questions. They are a direct response to YOUR argument.

If that's the way you see it, I have no problem with that.

Click to expand...

It's not about how I see it. It's the way it is. You blame the union, but 90% of unionized teachers (thousands of teachers) support what the union is doing. If both the union and all those teachers support the same actions, then what's the difference between the two.

Teachers in five schools (IIR) agreed to work longer days last year having been given IPods as token appreciation for doing what private industry has done for the last 4 years -- work a little longer and harder. As you know, the union blasted and negated that agreement and threatened to sue the district. Those teachers (and, in fact, two in my family who are teachers) had no problem with it at all. But. The union couldn't stand their power being usurped. And, now, here we are.

Click to expand...

1. The Illinois Labor Relations Board determined that the practice you described was an unfair labor practice. It was actually CPS that was trying to divide teachers by practicing such tactics. Why are you defending unfair labor practices?
2. If 90% of unionized teachers (over 25,000 teachers) voted in favor of a strike with the union, then it's pretty clear the union has not divided them.

I agree with you.

Click to expand...

Okay.

Kandahar said:

OK, you're getting hostile and are arguing entirely with emotion now, so this may be my last response to you:

Click to expand...

Not at all.

I'm not really sure what kind of "demonstration" you are asking for here. I mean, are you seriously denying that special interest groups lobby the government for policies? I doubt this is what you had in mind in terms of a "demonstration" (I doubt you even KNOW what you had in mind), but I'll spell it out as best I can for you:

1. Teacher's unions endorse certain politicians.
2. Teacher's unions endorse certain policies that benefit the teacher's union (e.g. inefficient tenure).
3. Politicians implement said policies in order to stay in the teacher's union's good graces.

Click to expand...

I am asking for causation. You have still failed to show causation. Please demonstrate how "the low efficiency of tenure is the fault of unions and not of the government or other groups"? Please show the politicians and policies that unions have endorsed and how those policies have directly caused the low efficiency of tenure.

And as I already explained, innovation is NOT clearly better for students than the status quo. That's why it's innovation. But we will never know as long as the teacher's unions stand in the way and refuse to allow any experimentation whatsoever in our education system if it might pose a threat to the teacher's union. Regarding your other three points:

Click to expand...

1. What innovation have they stood in the way of and why are those apparently untested ideas are better than the tested ones the unions are in favor of?
2. Please show a pattern of unions standing in the way of "any experimentation that might post a threat to the union." In other words, show the experimentation you have in mind and show the words/behavior of the union in response to it that shows they only oppose it because it threatens the union.

"what education innovation teacher's unions are opposed to" - I already gave you three. Merit pay, online education, and charter schools.

"why they say they are against it" - The same reason they say they are against ANY innovation: zomg think of the children. In reality, they oppose these things because merit pay will pose a threat to the most mediocre teachers, and online education and charter schools operate outside the boundaries of the union entirely.

"what their counter proposals are" - They don't have any. In all three cases, their counter proposal is the status quo.

Click to expand...

1. Thank you. I was waiting on the second two.
2. Citations? Where is your evidence of this? You just keep restating it without evidence. That is what I mean by demonstration.
3. You just revealed your ignorance which is exactly what I suspected was the problem. They do have counter proposals. Now, what are those counter proposals and why are they worse than what you propose? (And don't give me the "but we haven't tested them yet" nonsense. Almost every "innovative" proposal in education has research to support or not support it, so if you don't think it does, you're just revealing your ignorance again.)

What demonstrable evidence that leads me to the conclusion that a group organized specifically for the benefit of teachers doesn't have STUDENTS' best interests at heart? Really? That's like asking me what demonstrable evidence there is that large corporations care more about making money for their shareholders than they do about helping the poor. Or like asking me what demonstrable evidence there is that an environmental activist group cares more about the environment than they do about gun control.

Click to expand...

Yes, please provide demonstrable evidence to support your unsubstantiated opinion.

I thought it would be pretty self-evident that a group that is paid for by members' dues of teachers - and whose leadership is elected by teachers - would care more about teachers than students or anyone else. No? :roll:

Click to expand...

Your original argument was not that they care more about teachers, but that they care only about teachers. Please demonstrate the latter. The "self-evident" defense doesn't even work for a high school paper, let alone adult "debates."

See above. Why WOULDN'T they act in their own self-interest? But here, I'll make this simple. You're right, I said 100% of the time they'll act in their own best interest. And I stand by that. So if you can find me one single example of a teacher's union advocating for an educational policy that would benefit the students, at the expense of the teacher's union itself, I will retract that claim and admit that I was wrong. It can be anything, from anywhere in the United States.

Click to expand...

I never said that they don't act in their self-interest. I questioned this argument, "the teacher's unions will do what it thinks is in its OWN best interest at the expense of the students 100% of the time." Please demonstrate the veracity of THAT argument.

Teachers are not special. If they think they have an educational policy that can benefit society, they should have to convince the voters just like anyone else rather than strongarming elected officials to get their way. And if the voters are too stupid to see it the same way, then that's just too bad. This is not a dictatorship.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant, emotional comment is irrelevant and emotional.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse because you are fully aware that the facts are not on your side. "Why would they" is a perfectly valid question here; the fact that you have no answer is quite telling. Teacher's unions, like any other entity organized for a specific purpose and elected by its members, are going to advocate for that purpose. If they don't, the leadership will quickly find itself replaced by more pliant leadership.

Click to expand...

At the beginning of this exchange, you made several arguments and provided no evidence or sources to substantiate them. I have repeatedly asked you to substantiate your claims by demonstrating their veracity with citations, statistics, research or other forms of evidence. You still yet to provide one single piece of evidence in either of those forms and instead have just argued that your claims are "self-evident" or mocked for not just accepting whatever you say. As a result, you have shown, unsurprisingly, that you are grossly uninformed and unable to support your own claims.

zstep18 said:

So you recognize that the Chicago Public Schools are war zones with lousy high school graduation rate. If it was me, if a "qualified" teacher was willing to work in these "war zones", I would greatly increase their salary. Cause like I said before, there's the tendency to hire those who are new to the profession or those who can't find a job anywhere else.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with a new teacher? You must not know too many. New teachers are highly motivated, dedicated young people who are chomping at the bit to make a difference. People don't go into teaching because they can't find a job anywhere else. The greater majority of them who go into teaching have had that as a career choice for years.

In the case of Chicago Public Schools, two teachers (shirt-tail family) took positions there for a couple of reasons. Not the least of which was that by working in them for "X number of years," their student loans were forgiven. They make great money . . . one started at $55,000/year. That's not bad for right out of college. Not sure about the other. It's not easy to a get a teaching job in CPS. There is no shortage of applicants.

MaggieD said:

What's wrong with a new teacher? You must not know too many. New teachers are highly motivated, dedicated young people who are chomping at the bit to make a difference. People don't go into teaching because they can't find a job anywhere else. The greater majority of them who go into teaching have had that as a career choice for years.

Click to expand...

I mean't teachers who are hired at low-income schools because they can't find a teaching job anywhere else.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I think we've mostly discovered that a students achievement is mostly related to their home situation.
So why are we extending schools hours and why should we pay teachers more, when the effects of both, at best, will be marginal.

Click to expand...

I think the reason for extending school hours, at least in the City of Chicago, has more to do with keeping students in a safe learning environment for longer periods of time. To me, it would make more sense to extend the school day to allow specifically for homework assignments rather than classroom time. Honestly, some of these kids have to navigate through virtual war zones to get to-and-from.

When 40-50% of Chicago Public Schools' students aren't graduating, an extra hour or two of classroom learning is hardly the answer from an academic standpoint. You're right about the cause, in my opinion.

A teacher or a union who says, "Pay us more and results will be better," is being disingenuous. Unless the answer is, "Fire them all, and hire some competent people." And that's not the answer.

MaggieD said:

Cherry-picking is a good thing. Give the kids who want to learn a chance.

Click to expand...

The problem is, what do you do with the students who don't want to learn? Shoot them?

zstep18 said:

So you recognize that the Chicago Public Schools are war zones with lousy high school graduation rate. If it was me, if a "qualified" teacher was willing to work in these "war zones", I would greatly increase their salary. Cause like I said before, there's the tendency to hire those who are new to the profession or those who can't find a job anywhere else.

Click to expand...

And you're just including teachers who are greedy in the mix. What you end up with are teachers who just don't care and just want a paycheck with very little demand that they be effective.

Cephus said:

The problem is, what do you do with the students who don't want to learn? Shoot them?

Click to expand...

how about giving them another option, something other than sitting in a classroom focused on a subject needed for college when they have no intentions of going to college
teach them skills. life skills. work skills. trade skills. business skills
and even then there will be a portion who resent having to be in any kind of class room; the ones who attend only because of their age they must, or because their family gets a bigger check because they are enrolled, or because it is their available social gathering place or because it is the market where they can best sell drugs. but what you have done is gotten them out of the academic class where they contributed little other than a major distraction

Cephus said:

And you're just including teachers who are greedy in the mix. What you end up with are teachers who just don't care and just want a paycheck with very little demand that they be effective.

Click to expand...

only recently, when it was found that teaching as an occupation was being shunned by the best and brightest because of its low pay, have teaching salaries become realistic. school funding was made available for those who would commit to teaching to repay the cost of their education
in short, teaching has not been the place where people who sought high salaries went in search of a career. they are wage earners, who will never make more than a middle class income. to pretend that teachers are in it for the money is laughable and betrays your ignorance of the state of the education system

Cephus said:

The problem is, what do you do with the students who don't want to learn? Shoot them?

Click to expand...

No. That's where the money gets spent. On more teachers and separate, perhaps boarding, facilities for these kids. Get them out of their neighborhoods. Give them one-on-one mentoring. Put them in an environment that, yes, isolates them -- but also gives them the attention, reward mechanisms and atta' boys that they need to succeed. I'd love to see just ONE pilot program like that. And I'd be willing to pay for it through higher taxes.

What we are doing is not working. We need some out-of-the-box ideas. And this is just one. The definition of insanity, as I'm sure you know, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. It's time for drastic changes. We are losing generations of kids with what we're doing now.

justabubba said:

how about giving them another option, something other than sitting in a classroom focused on a subject needed for college when they have no intentions of going to college
teach them skills. life skills. work skills. trade skills. business skills
and even then there will be a portion who resent having to be in any kind of class room; the ones who attend only because of their age they must, or because their family gets a bigger check because they are enrolled, or because it is their available social gathering place or because it is the market where they can best sell drugs. but what you have done is gotten them out of the academic class where they contributed little other than a major distraction

Click to expand...

But we're not talking about kids who don't want to follow a particular educational path, we're talking about kids who don't want to learn ANYTHING. No college. No trade. No nothing. They have zero interest in any kind of education, period. So what do you do with those?

MaggieD said:

No. That's where the money gets spent. On more teachers and separate, perhaps boarding, facilities for these kids. Get them out of their neighborhoods. Give them one-on-one mentoring. Put them in an environment that, yes, isolates them -- but also gives them the attention, reward mechanisms and atta' boys that they need to succeed. I'd love to see just ONE pilot program like that. And I'd be willing to pay for it through higher taxes.

Click to expand...

How are you going to force kids who don't want to go to get into that program? They've committed no crime.

What we are doing is not working. We need some out-of-the-box ideas. And this is just one. The definition of insanity, as I'm sure you know, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. It's time for drastic changes. We are losing generations of kids with what we're doing now.

Click to expand...

I agree it's not working, I agree the system needs to be changed, but to be honest, those changes cannot come from the school system, they need to come from larger society. Society cannot allow these dangerous sub-cultures to remain in power.

I just don't see that changing any time soon in our politically correct nation.

Cephus said:

How are you going to force kids who don't want to go to get into that program? They've committed no crime.

I agree it's not working, I agree the system needs to be changed, but to be honest, those changes cannot come from the school system, they need to come from larger society. Society cannot allow these dangerous sub-cultures to remain in power.

I just don't see that changing any time soon in our politically correct nation.

Click to expand...

I agree with you; I don't see them changing any time soon either.

As for "How do you do get the kids to go?" If they really don't want to go; if their parent(s) can't convince them this is in their best interests? If counselors can't convince them? If other students can't convince them? Then society must give up on them for the benefit of the others who do want to learn; who do want a safe place to go to school. We can't save everybody -- even as adults.

But I would also something to the mix, and that would be vocational training for some of these hard-core kids. A way to show them they can make a living outside of the drug culture they're probably already in -- or headed towards. We'd have to try everything to motivate these kids. And we just aren't doing that.

I see it on these boards. Those who are in teaching absolutely protect the status quo. "Prove it'll work," they say. "We need more money," they say. "We need to attract better teachers," they say. It's always about money. Spent on them and the status quo. We need to throw the status quo in the garbage can.

MaggieD said:

As for "How do you do get the kids to go?" If they really don't want to go; if their parent(s) can't convince them this is in their best interests? If counselors can't convince them? If other students can't convince them? Then society must give up on them for the benefit of the others who do want to learn; who do want a safe place to go to school. We can't save everybody -- even as adults.

Click to expand...

But the question is, what do you do with them? Take them out and shoot them? Or let them become a drain on society?

But I would also something to the mix, and that would be vocational training for some of these hard-core kids. A way to show them they can make a living outside of the drug culture they're probably already in -- or headed towards. We'd have to try everything to motivate these kids. And we just aren't doing that.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, it's a shame that we removed shop classes and vocational training from high schools, they need to be replaced. Once kinds graduate from high school, they should either go to college, go into an advanced vocational training program or go into a sponsorship program with an employer. Unfortunately, we're still left with a lot of kids who have no interest in any of that, they think the government is going to support them for life, either through welfare or prison.

Another Lurker said:

I mostly agree. However, in the Dim state that Uncle Joe is from, charter schools get to cherry pick their students. The rif-raf and slugs go to the public schools ... Of course the best and brightest will always out perform the slugs.

About firing the public school administrators ... you are 98.5% correct. The administrative PC crowd needs to go. The schools need what they lack. They lack REAL DISCIPLINE. The Catholic schools have it ... and it works fine for them.

A L

Click to expand...

The school is available to all and so desired 75% of attendance is selected by lottery. However, if any student refuses to so effort or is just a cut up, that student is bounced back to the regular school.

I've given a lot of thought to what is the MAIN difference for it - and what struck me is that teachers there only stay about 3 or 4 years, not decades. Its not that they quit teaching. Rather, they go back to college for PhDs OR move up to college instructions.

The teachers there are not just teachers, they also are students of their own subjects and once they've learned as much as they figure than can, they move on gain more knowledge. There students at the school also become teachers, in the sense they they do not just learn and regurgitate what they are told, they are given projects and studies they mostly select. In the results, the teacher learns from the students, as students learn from each other and teachers.

That is why they totally dominated science fair, from areas of psychology and science, to math and computers, sociology to astronomy, environment to economics. What the students are presenting is new knowledge they found, rather than reciting what is already known.

One practice they have is having the students go teach kids at lower grades the subject area the students is studying. Somehow, making a student a teacher of younger kids leads those students to want to learn and in a sense boast then to younger kids what they have learned. They also learn the challenges a teacher faces and being a trouble maker in class isn't really cool at all, its just stupid. Overall, most students quickly become proud of the knowledge they gained so want to learn more - developing pride in becoming knowledgeable instead of becoming cool by being a renegade.

A great teacher doesn't just teach. A great teacher also is a student of the subject areas the teacher is teaching. By making the students also explorers and teachers themselves too, education become both an individual and collective effort between the students and the teachers.

The status quo system of massive adminstrations and trying to dictate the lessons, goals and attitudes of each teacher as though the teacher is just a low level of bureaucratic machinery probably runs off most good teachers but is highly attractive to lazy ones. Even good ones may quickly give up "teaching" and instead just see it as a job they have to endure for the paycheck since they have little discretion anyway.

Finally, the charter school absolutely would NOT teach for the standardized tests. As a result and for other reasons, there is constant conflict with the home office. Probably the only reason the charter school still exists is that every parent or involved relative of a child that attended is militantly - VERY - of the school and as the school board and administration continues to cut its budget trying to shut it down without actually openly doing so, us parents and supporters have been picking up the slack by contributions including significant ones.

Cephus said:

But the question is, what do you do with them? Take them out and shoot them? Or let them become a drain on society?

Click to expand...

What are we doing with them now?

• Only 40% of black males graduate from high school.
• 69% of Black children in America cannot read at grade level in the 4th grade, compared with 29% among White children.
• One in three Black men between the ages of 20 and 29 years old is under correctional supervision or control.
• “In 2001, the chances of going to prison were highest among Black males (32.2%) and Hispanic males (17.2%) and lowest among White males (5.9%). The lifetime chances of going to prison among Black females (5.6%) were nearly as high as for White males. Hispanic females (2.2%) and White females (0.9%) had much lower chances of going to prison.”
• Blacks account for only 12% of the U.S. population but 44% of all prisoners in the United States are Black.
• In 2000, 65% of Black male high-school dropouts in their 20’s were jobless — that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By 2004, the share had grown to 72%, compared with 34% of White and 19% of Hispanic dropouts. Even when high-school graduates were included, half of Black men in their 20’s were jobless in 2004, up from 46% in 2000.
• In 2000, 65% of Black male high-school dropouts in their 20’s were jobless — that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By 2004, the share had grown to 72%, compared with 34% of White and 19% of Hispanic dropouts. Even when high-school graduates were included, half of Black men in their 20’s were jobless in 2004, up from 46% in 2000. (2003 statistics)
• The Black male homicide rate is seven times the White male rate.
• Black women are 18 times more likely to be raped than White women.

These statistics are appalling.

Statistics on African-American males - The Morehouse Male Initiative

Boo Radley said:

Overall, Charter schools perform no better than public schools. Also, they actually should perform better because most are selective, cutting losse any student who might bring down their scores. And still, overall, they perform no better. This should raise some doubts about them.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that assertion. If your proof is "standardized testing" I would discount that as a measure.

In fact, non-charter public schools starting throwing huge numbers of students into various "special educational needs" categories - thus removing them from the statistics of the school. Any student predicted to do poorly on the standardized state testing is determined to have some "learning disability" - thus their test scores are not counted. Charter schools can't do that, every student's results is counted.

The real measure of which works better is quite a few years down the road. Ten years later, which students more likely have successful economic and acceptable to him/her career lives?

MaggieD said:

What are we doing with them now?

• Only 40% of black males graduate from high school.
• 69% of Black children in America cannot read at grade level in the 4th grade, compared with 29% among White children.
• One in three Black men between the ages of 20 and 29 years old is under correctional supervision or control.
• “In 2001, the chances of going to prison were highest among Black males (32.2%) and Hispanic males (17.2%) and lowest among White males (5.9%). The lifetime chances of going to prison among Black females (5.6%) were nearly as high as for White males. Hispanic females (2.2%) and White females (0.9%) had much lower chances of going to prison.”
• Blacks account for only 12% of the U.S. population but 44% of all prisoners in the United States are Black.
• In 2000, 65% of Black male high-school dropouts in their 20’s were jobless — that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By 2004, the share had grown to 72%, compared with 34% of White and 19% of Hispanic dropouts. Even when high-school graduates were included, half of Black men in their 20’s were jobless in 2004, up from 46% in 2000.
• In 2000, 65% of Black male high-school dropouts in their 20’s were jobless — that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By 2004, the share had grown to 72%, compared with 34% of White and 19% of Hispanic dropouts. Even when high-school graduates were included, half of Black men in their 20’s were jobless in 2004, up from 46% in 2000. (2003 statistics)
• The Black male homicide rate is seven times the White male rate.
• Black women are 18 times more likely to be raped than White women.

These statistics are appalling.

Statistics on African-American males - The Morehouse Male Initiative

Click to expand...

We're putting them in prison or giving them welfare checks, of course. The whole point of this is to eliminate that as much as possible. So the question remains, what do we do with the kids who refuse an education when we know they're just going to be a drain on society?

Cephus said:

We're putting them in prison or giving them welfare checks, of course. The whole point of this is to eliminate that as much as possible. So the question remains, what do we do with the kids who refuse an education when we know they're just going to be a drain on society?

Click to expand...

I've already told you. You have some ideas? Mine is if every effort is made to get them out of public schools into boarding schools to give them one-on-one attention...if we've tried vocational education for these kids...we finally give up. We'll save a bunch. A bunch will be lost. Whatever happens, it will be better than it is today.

MaggieD said:

I've already told you. You have some ideas? Mine is if every effort is made to get them out of public schools into boarding schools to give them one-on-one attention...if we've tried vocational education for these kids...we finally give up. We'll save a bunch. A bunch will be lost. Whatever happens, it will be better than it is today.

Click to expand...

But I already pointed out the inherent problems with your plan, you can't take kids out of their homes just because you want to. However, even assuming that everything works, then what do you do with the ones who are lost?

MaggieD said:

I've already told you. You have some ideas? Mine is if every effort is made to get them out of public schools into boarding schools to give them one-on-one attention...if we've tried vocational education for these kids...we finally give up. We'll save a bunch. A bunch will be lost. Whatever happens, it will be better than it is today.

Click to expand...

Check this out

The SEED Foundation

The State Rep I work for tried to get them to come into Detroit and Michigan to set up some of their schools. During a phone call they told us that they would require at least $100,00 up front just to begin the work regardless if the school got off the ground or not. In the second year of the process, they would require between a quarter and a half million dollars to get the school okayed by the legislature. They made it quite clear that in addition to that money and full funding from the legislature, we would have to get endowments of massive amounts of money because the state grant covered less than half of the actual expenses.