• 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

ThePlayDrive said:
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."
Click to expand...

You and I have had this circle jerk before.

The teachers are never the only problem, but they are rarely exempt from the problem in its entirety.

When the district as a whole performs at the bottom of the U.S. rankings (out of several tens of thousands of districts) then everybody in that district is in some way accountable for those failings. Rewarding teachers who abandon students in the middle of the school year, systematically removing checks and balances that hold teachers accountable for the performance of their students, and systematically removing incentives for better educator performance will solve exactly zero of the problems that have led Chicago's schools to be such a dismal failure.

So in that sense, I guess both the union and those who conceded are equally to blame for these failings.

When the biggest concern of the union is destroy incentives and promoting baseless raises, it says a lot about what the teachers themselves concern themselves with. So who's advocating for the students here, really? Who's actually trying to advance their education and broaden their horizons? 'Cause near as I can tell, the students were an afterthought in these negotiations.

The teachers wanted more for themselves (when they're already the highest paid in the country). The city wanted more for themselves. Who actually spoke for the students here?
 
tessaesque said:
You and I have had this circle jerk before.

The teachers are never the only problem, but they are rarely exempt from the problem in its entirety.

When the district as a whole performs at the bottom of the U.S. rankings (out of several tens of thousands of districts) then everybody in that district is in some way accountable for those failings. Rewarding teachers who abandon students in the middle of the school year, systematically removing checks and balances that hold teachers accountable for the performance of their students, and systematically removing incentives for better educator performance will solve exactly zero of the problems that have led Chicago's schools to be such a dismal failure.

So in that sense, I guess both the union and those who conceded are equally to blame for these failings.

When the biggest concern of the union is destroy incentives and promoting baseless raises, it says a lot about what the teachers themselves concern themselves with. So who's advocating for the students here, really? Who's actually trying to advance their education and broaden their horizons? 'Cause near as I can tell, the students were an afterthought in these negotiations.
Click to expand...
Okay. So which positive (in your opinion) policies does the Chicago Teacher's Union oppose, what are its alternate proposals and what research supports the former over the latter?

The teachers wanted more for themselves (when they're already the highest paid in the country). The city wanted more for themselves. Who actually spoke for the students here?
Click to expand...
I already covered this. Unions can only legally negotiate for their members. Therefore, it is nonsensical to expect student centered policies in contract because it isn't legal to have them there. But there are places where teachers CAN speak for students other than in their schools and that's to the media (which many do), to legislators (which many do) and to board members at board meetings (which many do). You're basing all of your assumptions off of a contract that can't legally include student centered policies. That's illogical.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, you are a selfish, self-centered person who doesn't believe in doing anything for anyone else. But, you are right. The teachers are not concerned with the students or the taxpayers. Teachers certainly could bargain on behalf of the students but they have absolutely no interest. For union supporters the only problem with the schools is the damned students. Without them it could be a lovely job. I think having more teachers for music, art, and language would be lovely if students were already learning to read, write, and do basic math. The major benefit of these teachers will be to increase the income of the unions.

I am generalizing with the teachers who need the union. Some teachers are sincere, dedicated professionals who do care about students but are simply afraid to stand up to the union and their thugs.
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

And students who can sing and draw pictures but can't read, write, or do basic math benefit how exactly. As for the smaller classes, I'll believe it when I see it. And, why are you defending people who are extortionists and hold the children and their education hostage?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right, and what this shows beyond a doubt, is that unions don't play favorites like those on the right keep blathering.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

it was good for the union, and the teachers... not "everyone else"
 
This is sickening!
 
It's truly a shame. Although it's Chicago so I'm not surprised.
 
Thrilla said:
it was good for the union, and the teachers... not "everyone else"
Click to expand...
I actually consider more art, music, language, et al. teachers to be good for everyone else. Why don't you?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
What alternative do you propose?
Click to expand...

The CPS average should be going up in relation to city, state and national averages, in order for them to get any raise.
Right now, CPS schools are below average in all those categories.

Why should they get raises, when they're one of the highest paid nationally and below average on performance measures?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Why should they get raises, when they're one of the highest paid nationally and below average on performance measures?
Click to expand...
What research do you have that shows teachers are "below average on performance measures?"
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
U.S. Department of Education: 79% of Chicago 8th Graders Not Proficient in Reading | CNSNews.com

Only 21 Percent of Chicago Public School 8th Graders Are Proficient in Reading | CNSNews.com

CPS students improve in math and reading but still far behind peers - Chicago Tribune
Click to expand...
I am so genuinely happy that you actually provided some sources. Nobody ever does that anymore.

That said, what you've provided is evidence of a below average system. Teachers are a single part of that system. So, how have you isolated teacher performance and demonstrated that teachers, not other aspects of the system, are performing below average and therefore responsible for the system's performance?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I am so genuinely happy that you actually provided some sources. Nobody ever does that anymore.

That said, what you've provided is evidence of a below average system. Teachers are a single part of that system. So, how have you isolated teacher performance and demonstrated that teachers, not other aspects of the system, are performing below average and therefore responsible for the system's performance?
Click to expand...

Of course, but teachers are paid to teach, if students aren't learning, to at least make the national average, then they are part of the problem.
Giving them annual increases, when their pay is already far above national average, does not make sense.

Teachers are the primary method in which students learn in school, not the admins, not the school board, not the school building.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Of course, but teachers are paid to teach, if students aren't learning, to at least make the national average, then they are part of the problem.
Giving them annual increases, when their pay is already far above national average, does not make sense.

Teachers are the primary method in which students learn in school, not the admins, not the school board, not the school building.
Click to expand...
You're deflecting. How have you isolated teacher performance and demonstrated that teachers, not other aspects of the system, are performing below average and therefore responsible for the system's performance?

You've determined that the numbers you provided accurately measure teacher performance. I asking you to provide evidence for that claim.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
You're deflecting. How have you isolated teacher performance and demonstrated that teachers, not other aspects of the system, are performing below average and therefore responsible for the system's performance?

You've determined that the numbers you provided accurately measure teacher performance. I asking you to provide evidence for that claim.
Click to expand...

Not deflecting anything.
Teachers are the primary learning mechanism in schools, when school performance is below average, there is an undeniable connection.

You're trying to sprinkle in uncertainty in this, to cloud the results of performance.
If teachers are not primarily responsible for learning, then why do we pay them as much as we do?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not deflecting anything.
Teachers are the primary learning mechanism in schools, when school performance is below average, there is an undeniable connection.

You're trying to sprinkle in uncertainty in this, to cloud the results of performance.
If teachers are not primarily responsible for learning, then why do we pay them as much as we do?
Click to expand...
No, you made a claim that the numbers you provided were evidence that teachers are performing low. However, those numbers were the result of an entire system. Since teachers are single part of that system, their performance must be isolated in order to determine whether or not it is below average. Do you have research that has done that or do you believe that your hypothesis should be accepted without evidence?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
No, you made a claim that the numbers you provided were evidence that teachers are performing low. However, those numbers were the result of an entire system. Since teachers are single part of that system, their performance must be isolated in order to determine whether or not it is below average. Do you have research that has done that or do you believe that your hypothesis should be accepted without evidence?
Click to expand...

Teachers are a critical part of that system, a single and critical part of it.
Just like a heart is just one part of the body, if it fails, so does the rest of the body.

CPS teachers have less instruction time per year, yet are above national average in pay.
The performance of these schools is below average, for which students spend the majority of their time with, teachers.

Well trained and qualified teachers are a critical component of any school system.
Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness | Center for American Progress

If these teachers are not responsible for the results, then why are we paying them so much.
Clearly their effect is minimal and their pay should be reduced to reflect that.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Teachers are a critical part of that system, a single and critical part of it.
Just like a heart is just one part of the body, if it fails, so does the rest of the body.

CPS teachers have less instruction time per year, yet are above national average in pay.
The performance of these schools is below average, for which students spend the majority of their time with, teachers.

Well trained and qualified teachers are a critical component of any school system.
Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness | Center for American Progress

If these teachers are not responsible for the results, then why are we paying them so much.
Clearly their effect is minimal and their pay should be reduced to reflect that.
Click to expand...
I agree that teachers, specifically well trained and qualified teachers, are a critical part of a system. However, none of that demonstrates that Chicago teachers have below average performance. Since you haven't shown that Chicago teachers have below average performance and, instead, have only shown that the Chicago system is below average (understatement, really), I think it's reasonable for me to conclude that you don't have evidence and are instead assuming that your hypothesis is correct.

Look, I understand your perception. Teachers spend the most direct time with students in any education system. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that they are primarily responsible for the low performance of an education system. However, car salesmen spend the most direct time with buyers, realtors spend the most direct time with buyers, policemen spend the most direct time with citizens and so on. The auto industry failed, the housing industry crashed, crime in many places (including Chicago) is out of control and so on. In each of those cases, it is illogical to blame the entirety of the system's failure on the people with the most direct contact with the "consumer."

I'm sure your argument is self-evident to you, but that's because you have a certain perception of the system that I don't. You think "Chicago teachers spend a lot of time with students" so of course their performance is below average in such a low performing system. I think, "The Illinois and Chicago governments have implemented policies that significantly decrease teaching time, micromanage lessons plans and replace teaching time with 20-30 standardized tests a year (in addition to preparation for those tests in some places)." I think, "Many schools in low income neighborhoods don't even have science lab, computer classes, language, music, art and sufficient time in math, reading, etc." In a way, it's funny to me that teachers would be blamed when the system has decreased their teaching time.

The fact is that you're holding teachers responsible for something that you have failed to demonstrate they are responsible for. I'm going to leave this forum and be slightly annoyed with that and your expectation that I should just accept what you say without evidence, but I think that that kind of thinking is more problematic for you because you're the one basing condemnation on something for which you have no evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom