CTU is Going on Strike

[StrangeSox]

Multiple media outlets are reporting significant progress made last night, both sides hopeful that it could end today or tomorrow.

 

http://www.wbez.org/news/economy/school%E2...ss-talks-102395

Edited September 13, 2012 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Sadly, his point is valid. That's the mentality of a lot of teachers. They b**** and moan and you'd think they were putting in 12 hour days, when in reality they're doing what normal people do on a daily basis, but it's a culture shock since they've been sitting on their asses for 2.5 straight months.

 

Not in my experience. I know a few professional teachers, and frankly, they work more hours than I do, all things considered. At least during the school year. And I certainly didn't see much laziness from the teachers I had growing up, especially in high school.

 

He also said a first-year teacher, so it's probably someone who's been in college for the last four years.

 

That's more likely what is going on there.

 

Multiple media outlets are reporting significant progress made last night, both sides hopeful that it could end today or tomorrow.

 

Good.

 

[Y2HH]

Not in my experience. I know a few professional teachers, and frankly, they work more hours than I do, all things considered. At least during the school year. And I certainly didn't see much laziness from the teachers I had growing up, especially in high school.

 

I've known and know a few teachers too and found the exact opposite, even during the school year.

[NorthSideSox72]

I've known and know a few teachers too and found the exact opposite, even during the school year.

I was thinking about this.. part of the reason we are seeing different things is just sample size. If we all know a few teachers, we will inevitably have different experiences.

 

But I also think this is partly a function of where they teach. I went through some very highly considered schools as a kid, and it may not be a good sample of the whole.

 

[farmteam]

But I also think this is partly a function of where they teach. I went through some very highly considered schools as a kid, and it may not be a good sample of the whole.

I was going to point this out about your earlier post. You and I were very, very lucky in where we went to high school.

Edited September 13, 2012 by farmteam

[Y2HH]

I was thinking about this.. part of the reason we are seeing different things is just sample size. If we all know a few teachers, we will inevitably have different experiences.

 

But I also think this is partly a function of where they teach. I went through some very highly considered schools as a kid, and it may not be a good sample of the whole.

 

This is most likely true...

 

I think the bottom line about the CPS system is that...well...it's bad. It's poorly run from the top down. And not necessarily because of the teachers or students, but because of the sheer number of corrupt individuals they have in administrative positions throughout.

 

It seems like we fire the head of CPS once a year now...amongst others...yet it never gets better. That points to a systemic problem with the way the system is operated...not who's running it. Unless, that is, we just keep hiring really bad people to do a job they are incapable of doing because they know the right people/are connected...which in Chicago, is of high probability.

[Y2HH]

I was going to point this out about your earlier post. You and I were very, very lucky in where we went to high school.

 

I went to Bogan High School of all places...and I didn't see a problem with teachers back then, either...I saw a problem with students that were raised to simply...not care are education.

[southsider2k5]

I was thinking about this.. part of the reason we are seeing different things is just sample size. If we all know a few teachers, we will inevitably have different experiences.

 

But I also think this is partly a function of where they teach. I went through some very highly considered schools as a kid, and it may not be a good sample of the whole.

 

I have a lot of experience with the other end of the spectrum. The school system I went through, my wife teaches in, and I even spent two months teaching in, is always near the bottom of the ratings. We have a 70%ish poverty rating for kids in our system, with a few schools basically at 100%. Over the years I have seen some really, really bad teachers. There are a lot of good ones as well. The problem is there is no real way to move the ones who are good and young, and replace them for the ones who are old and bad. Young and bad is still fairly easy to get rid of. They don't last long. The problem is when they make it through those first few years, and then burnout sets in, along with the reality that changing professions at that point would be pretty stupid.

 

I've seen it from the unions angle, the teachers angle, the administrative angle, and even the school boards angle. Now I am even learning the parents angle.

 

This nations educational system needs tons of work, to say the least. I was happy to see Indiana take an honest shot at balancing out the districts funding issues, but even that only goes so far. Parents are by far and away the biggest factor here, both good and bad.

 

Perfect example. I know someone who uses corporal punishment out of anger on a regular (probably 2-3 times per day) basis. Whether it is a solid smack in the mouth, or a spanking, it happens. The soon to be 5 year old, goes to Pre-K, and low and behold hits other kids. Common sense tells us that the kid sees hitting as a way to show anger, as it happens to him regularly, right? Nope. It is the teachers fault for showing favoritism. The scary thing is that this household is fairly stable compared to many in the district. There is a good chunk (not a majority, but a sizable minority) of the school system where the kids are literally going to school for no other reason than a couple of free meals.

 

Now take these backgrounds and wheel them into a single school, or school system even. Who wants to teach here? The good teachers are most likely not going to feel that their efforts are worth the headaches. In this situations, money doesn't make that big of a difference. I have seen it first hand. Funding only makes minimal difference, especially once you have exited the critical early years where you can capture a kid and rescue them from the cycle of failure. Once they have hit middle school, and still can't read, it is too late. Yet our federal school system tells us we still need to treat them as an expected college student, until at least 16 years old.

 

Standardized testing is the stupidest way to evaluation teachers in the history of the world, for this exact reason. It assumes all kids are equal, when they aren't. The only common sense way to approach evaluations is by in-building administration. The people who know and appreciate all of the local conditions and information are the ones who are most qualified to evaluate staff. It is also the exact reason the movement of school decision making from the local levels to state and federal ones, has been such a failure. It doesn't address the needs of a specific community. It has no idea about Michigan City Indiana.

 

And final thought, of all of the worst employees in the world to protect, why teachers? If teachers are as important as they say they are, isn't it all of the more important that the bad ones get weeded out, whether it takes two or twenty years? With the window between success and failure being so small now, why let a bad teacher affect possibly generations of kids, just because they have put in their time? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

I probably should stop ranting now.

 

[G&T]

The average CPS teacher scored a 19 on their ACT.

 

Something is suspicious about that. Are they zeroing people who didn't take the test? Can you get into college with an ACT in the teens?

[Y2HH]

Something is suspicious about that. Are they zeroing people who didn't take the test? Can you get into college with an ACT in the teens?

 

18 is average, so I'm sure.

[StrangeSox]

Part of the problem is who defines what's good and what's bad? (from digby, towards bottom)

 

I keep hearing about how difficult it is to fire "bad" teachers and they should be able to get rid of tenure and union guarantees so the kids don't suffer. I wonder how many people understand that "bad" is in the eye of the beholder?

 

Let me tell you about my brother-in-law, a highly educated high school English and Drama teacher who teaches in Alaska. He assigned a book of Native Alaskan tales to senior students which included a vaguely sexual allegory. This is a school district with a a substantial subculture of conservative evangelicals, many of whom are extremely active in the district and have a slight majority on the school board. One of the parents complained. My brother-in-law went through months of harassment and nearly lost his job. It was the union that saved him.

 

You see, what you think of as bad teachers -- lazy, uninterested, whatever -- is not necessarily what other people think of as bad teachers. They want to be able to fire my brother-in-law with no recourse because he assigned a book that offended them. And I'd imagine some would like to fire a teacher who teaches evolution or Shakespeare too without having to deal with all that difficulty that a union requires. This was why academics and teachers fought for tenure in the first place.

[Y2HH]

Part of the problem is who defines what's good and what's bad? (from digby, towards bottom)

 

I think this can be said for any job. The issue is, with other jobs, people DO define what's good/bad. And you deal with it.

 

If all of your students always suck in the classes you teach, but these same students perform better in others, it's probably you.

 

I don't get why people think it's so hard to judge a teachers performance. Take all of the students they teach, and take the average scores. Now take those SAME students scores from other teachers...are they higher/lower or the same? That's a pretty damn easy way to figure it out.

 

I've had good teachers in the past, and bad ones. It's not that the bad ones are stupid...they simply don't know how to teach what they know.

[Soxbadger]

Part of the problem is who defines what's good and what's bad? (from digby, towards bottom)

 

No that isnt really part of the problem because I dont believe reasonable people would agree with this. And if they were firing teachers for this reason and then the union struck, I would strongly support them.

 

You are acting like its impossible to ever tell good or bad. So should they just never be rated? Because how can I tell what a good or bad teacher is?!

 

That seems like a pretty big insult to good teachers.

[Soxbadger]

I think this can be said for any job. The issue is, with other jobs, people DO define what's good/bad. And you deal with it.

 

If all of your students always suck in the classes you teach, but these same students perform better in others, it's probably you.

 

I don't get why people think it's so hard to judge a teachers performance. Take all of the students they teach, and take the average scores. Now take those SAME students scores from other teachers...are they higher/lower or the same? That's a pretty damn easy way to figure it out.

 

I've had good teachers in the past, and bad ones. It's not that the bad ones are stupid...they simply don't know how to teach what they know.

 

Its not necessarily that simple.

 

Just because I can get an A in any history/writing class without even opening a book, doesnt mean I can get an A in a calc class with the same preparation. That really isnt the teacher, thats just me being me.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Y2HH]

Its not necessarily that simple.

 

Just because I can get an A in any history/writing class without even opening a book, doesnt mean I can get an A in a calc class with the same preparation. That really isnt the teacher, thats just badger being badger.

 

And life is unfair, too.

 

Do what private schools and colleges do to evaluate performance... It's pretty simple. But do it. Oh, wait, we can't. We have s***ty outdated and useless unions defending s***ty teachers in a s***ty school system churning out useless citizens.

[Soxbadger]

I agree.

 

I mean its funny that standardized tests are so bad to evaluate teachers, but good to evaluate students?

 

[StrangeSox]

I think this can be said for any job. The issue is, with other jobs, people DO define what's good/bad. And you deal with it.

 

For most other jobs, that's not exactly that same level of public interaction on topics as important to people as the ones education touch.

 

If all of your students always suck in the classes you teach, but these same students perform better in others, it's probably you.

 

I don't get why people think it's so hard to judge a teachers performance. Take all of the students they teach, and take the average scores. Now take those SAME students scores from other teachers...are they higher/lower or the same? That's a pretty damn easy way to figure it out.

 

What scores? What are you measuring? How sure are you that you're accurately and precisely measuring what you think you are? Does it make sense to compare language arts scores to math scores? That doesn't seem like a particularly good way to evaluate teachers to me.

 

[Y2HH]

For most other jobs, that's not exactly that same level of public interaction on topics as important to people as the ones education touch.

 

 

 

What scores? What are you measuring? How sure are you that you're accurately and precisely measuring what you think you are? Does it make sense to compare language arts scores to math scores? That doesn't seem like a particularly good way to evaluate teachers to me.

 

Then don't be a teacher.

[southsider2k5]

Part of the problem is who defines what's good and what's bad? (from digby, towards bottom)

 

Except I can go through pretty much every single department in my HS, and tell you who the underperformed teachers are. And it isn't because of sex classes. It is because they are under performing their peers by a large margin. Getting rid of them is a two years process, if they can be touched at all. In a school system with limited funds, they can only afford to pursue the most egregious idiot teachers, such as the strength coach who talked about getting high with his students and players, while in the classroom. Simply failing the students isn't good enough of a reason to devote resources to being replaced. One teacher ranked last for close to 10 straight years in their department in both classroom GPA, and in standardized testing scores for their subject, and even classroom attendance levels, teaching a basic, state required, subject taught by multiple other teachers, making it able to do some basic comparisons internally. This teacher finally retired two years ago. The entire school system knew this was an awful teacher. Years back the principal tried going through the 2 year process to get rid of them. The head of the union had to defend them, knowing they shouldn't be, and privately admitting as much. They kept their job, and nothing changed, including another five years of being the worst in the school.

[StrangeSox]

No that isnt really part of the problem because I dont believe reasonable people would agree with this. And if they were firing teachers for this reason and then the union struck, I would strongly support them.

 

You are acting like its impossible to ever tell good or bad. So should they just never be rated? Because how can I tell what a good or bad teacher is?!

 

That seems like a pretty big insult to good teachers.

 

I'm not acting like it's impossible to evaluate teachers. I'm saying that there is no universal definition of "good" and "bad." Those definitions will fluctuate from family to family and community to community and administrator to administrator. So when we hear about how hard it is to fire "bad" teachers, I want to know on what criteria are they being judged.

 

edit: which doesn't mean that it should be difficult to fire incompetent, ineffective teachers. But I wouldn't support an administrator-by-administrator definition. Objective, meaningful standards are what is needed and most school districts are attempting to move towards that. They need to remain flexible and open, however, to changes in criteria if they are found to be lacking.

Edited September 13, 2012 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

I agree.

 

I mean its funny that standardized tests are so bad to evaluate teachers, but good to evaluate students?

 

 

It really isn't.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, standardized tests are kinda good for evaluating some things but not good for evaluating other things. There's nothing really funny or ironic about that.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, standardized tests are kinda good for evaluating some things but not good for evaluating other things. There's nothing really funny or ironic about that.

 

Most of all, it doesn't do anything to help you for the real world. How many professions have standardized answers, which are accepted by all companies? Why is that a needed standard?

 

It is a waste of resources dedicated to bureaucrats being able to say they are "doing something" about education.

[StrangeSox]

Most of all, it doesn't do anything to help you for the real world. How many professions have standardized answers, which are accepted by all companies? Why is that a needed standard?

 

It is a waste of resources dedicated to bureaucrats being able to say they are "doing something" about education.

 

They're moving to computer-based grading of standardized test essays. Not that the current 1-minute-per-essay review isn't terrible, but this is going to be even worse. The test-grading companies love it though!

 

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/07/154452475/co...not-always-well

Edited September 13, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

I'm not acting like it's impossible to evaluate teachers. I'm saying that there is no universal definition of "good" and "bad." Those definitions will fluctuate from family to family and community to community and administrator to administrator. So when we hear about how hard it is to fire "bad" teachers, I want to know on what criteria are they being judged.

 

edit: which doesn't mean that it should be difficult to fire incompetent, ineffective teachers. But I wouldn't support an administrator-by-administrator definition. Objective, meaningful standards are what is needed and most school districts are attempting to move towards that. They need to remain flexible and open, however, to changes in criteria if they are found to be lacking.

 

Well so far the criteria that has been proposed is based on merit, not based on what books they have prescribed.

 

So Im just not sure how this is relevant to the current strike. I havent seen a big fuss about teachers being fired for teaching certain topics.

 

Yeah, standardized tests are kinda good for evaluating some things but not good for evaluating other things. There's nothing really funny or ironic about that.

 

You dont think there is something funny about kids entire life's being changed by how they score on the ACT/SAT, and yet everyone agrees standardized tests arent a good way to evaluate?

 

That to me is very funny, because it shows that the only true objective way (a standardized test), isnt okay, and the subjective ways (opinion) are also not okay.

 

So really there is no good way to judge anyone. Which is fine, but that goes back to "life isnt fair" so sometimes we judge people unfairly. It sucks, but it happens to all of us. So really why are teachers different?