<p>"She quit after 1 year saying the students were exceedingly rude and disruptive and their parents felt “their kids could do no wrong”.** Ended up teaching at an academically reputable private school where they had no compunctions about expelling students for the same types of rude disruptive behaviors. "</p>
<p>My son’s private school expelled a kid after he was heard screaming at his mother to “eff off” in the parking lot. </p>
<p>They expelled another kid two months before graduation when they found pot in his locker (they’d heard a rumor someone had alcohol so did a search.) He had to finish out the year at a public school. </p>
<p>After that incident they called all the seniors in and basically begged them not to do anything stupid that would force them to be kicked out. </p>
<p>They also graduate six weeks early (right after AP exams are over) to lesson the chance of stupid behavior by kids who have nothing but time on their hands.</p>
<p>Private schools do have a noticeable advantage from a teacher’s point of view in that every student is there because either the student or parent or both want the student to be there, and the private school can more easily expel students who disrupt the learning environment. So a teacher may be willing to accept lower pay to teach in a private school compared to a typical (i.e. not magnet or otherwise elite) public school.</p>
<p>While not perfect, I’d have to say they do more good than harm. Taxpayers aren’t going to cough up more money for higher (or even adequate) teacher pay of thier own accord. At least in my area (which is VERY politically conservative), the anti-tax lobby is so vociferous, we’re lucky we still have public parks and pools becuase they don’t break even. </p>
<p>Unions help with salary and benefits. I’ve also seen employees protected by the unions. One school wanted to assign an aide, who also happened to be an RN with an active license, to a student with severe physical and developmental disabilities so that the aide could “nurse” the student. The district would pay her like an aide and save the nurse salary. THe employee didn’t want to provide nursing care in the school. Union stepped in. Public school employees often find themselves in sticky situations with students because public schools have to accept every student. I’m glad something is there to protect them. </p>
<p>Do unions sometimes protect bad employees? Yes. </p>
<p>Parochial schools are great, and there’s no shortage of people willing to work there, probably because there’s no shortage of teachers looking for work. Public schools pay better and new teachers will jump ship readily for that salary, especially if they are the primary wage earners in the family. We have no independant private schools, so I can’t speak to that.</p>
<p>I am more than willing to make the argument for a trial run on non-union public schools in MA…let’s check back in with each other in 10 years.</p>
<p>And frankly, if student demographics don’t matter then ALL MA schools would have the same high scoring results…regardless of inner city and SES.</p>
<p>Part of the reason why unions are not held in high regard have to do with the spectacular cases of corruption or criminal behavior which, unfortunately reflect on all. Also, the political activism and financing can be very, very off putting. Someone here (I don’t remember who) said once that unions are the biggest champions of the worst of their members and are often at odds with the best.</p>
<p>If you learned tomorrow that you couldn’t be fired from your job how would that change your attitude? Improving working conditions and stopping thug business owners from pillaging the workers is a great thing, but unions are more concerned with doing the same thing to the owners now instead of stopping when they reached a happy medium.</p>
<p>Companies where it is hard or expensive to fire people usually have a very rigorous interview process to ensure that they avoid candidates that would probably wind up getting fired if they could.</p>
<p>Intereresting how that line is culled from a post about using valid arguments. If by now you do not know what a ridiculous canard that cherrypicking line is, you will never know. I am sure that your location provides you plenty of knowledge of the real life cherrypicking, but when it comes to the selection process in charter schools, you really should invest some time researching the issues, or drop the thick blinders of deliberate ignorance.</p>
<p>I am not holding my bated breath on that last part. Easier to quote directly from the union propaganda when looking for soundbites. How hard is it to find a couple of videos showing the agony of the kids who did not make it when the results of the lottery are announced? </p>
<p>And, for the record, I am no supporter of the charter schools, which I consider a poisoned gift from the Al Shanker days.</p>
<p>Overt cherry picking, probably not. But they start out uneven, because, even with a lottery, the lottery is only among students whose parents are motivated to aim for the alternative. So by default, all the students whose parents are least motivated remain in the regular public school.</p>
<p>Additionally, many charters do not have provision for special ed or ESL students, so those by default also go only to the regular public.</p>
<p>and then, there is a washing out of low-performing students (sometimes entire classes), so those students go, natch, back to the regular public.</p>
<p>That ends up with the result of cherry-picking, under another guise.</p>
<p>Different argument altogether, Zoosermom. The fact that some teachers complement their income through additional work during the breaks does not change the fact that this should NOT be on the table. A full year employment at a reasonable wage should make those extra “gigs” both impossible and not needed. </p>
<p>Our education system should be an all-year affair, especially considering how many students are hopelessly behind. Our schools should be community centers that are are open around the clock. And that requires the presence of employees and not only the janitors and cleaning ladies.</p>
It’s not a gig. There are programs in which the actual teachers teach their actual students their actual material. There are pilot programs in various places.</p>
<p>I know those points from previous discussions. And you are correct in that some parents leave the public schools because of motivation to improve how they fared previously. However, the other side of the coin that many “disgruntled” families who seek greener pastures have children that exhibited plenty of issues, ranging from behavorial and social to academic. The lifting of the “creme de la creme” is hardly supported by universal evidence.</p>
<p>Regarding the special services, there is a lingering issue of reimbursements for facilities. And it is equally untrue that all public schools have to offer all services, or that those are covered by the same basic budgets. All in all, we have unfair comparisons between the two systems. </p>
<p>Lastly, charters come in various shapes and flavors. Some originate from well-off circles. Others are simply different versions of the abject poverty around them.</p>
<p>Well, your examples might be exactly what I … advocate. Teachers should be paid to provide year-long services, and adjustments are needed. This is not an issue of having a yearly salary divided by 12 or 9 or 10. It is about paying teachers as professionals, respecting them for the professional they are, and expecting them to deliver accordingly. </p>
<p>We are rapidly developing a world full of contradictions, as we live in 24/7 connected world but cling to a system of education that is based on an agrarian model of centuries past. </p>
<p>And, as a last fyi, changing this model should NOT cost a whole lot of money as the changes could be introduced with the … new waves of teachers. You know, the crop that is currently way underpaid and unappreciated. Increasing their salaries by 20 percent could be balanced by making the planned retirement of the older guard more attractive.</p>
<p>Absolutely agree about all-year school. It would improve so many situations, but for most districts there is no money (a closed building is a cheap building, for the most part) to stay open, and no public support. As it is, in my primary building parents are constantly removing their children from school for all sorts travel, and then being irate to discover that said child has missed instruction. Well, d’uh. I can’t begin to imagine the absenteeism. But it would be nice to try, nationwide. </p>
<p>And for the record, my district has one break in the spring, of 3days. One of which is inservice. But we are in agreement that if teachers want to be considered professionals, they will need to come around to a professional schedule that encompasses more hours and days.</p>
Teachers in my state (MA) are not required to have anything beyond a Bachelors and a teaching certificate AFAIK, but the way the contracts are written, they are heavily incented financially to get advanced degrees. A Masters, for example, can be worth an extra $10K/year or more.</p>
<p>Starting pay for a Bachelors right out of college in my town is in the mid-40’s. Top pay for a department chair with a doctorate can be $110K+, for 182.5 days of work/year of 7.5 hour days, which includes 5 professional development days/year and 4 hours of prep time during the work day every week.</p>
<p>And then there’s this, which I think is no longer legal: “A teacher who submits a resignation for purposes of retirement will have his or her base salary increased by ten per cent (10%) for the period between the date the notification is received in the Superintendents office and the effective date of the resignation provided”.</p>
<p>It’s good for up to three years, which will boost their pensions by 10% in addition to giving them a lot of extra money for nothing.</p>
<p>"…of work/year of 7.5 hour days, which includes 5 professional development days/year and 4 hours of prep time during the work day every week."</p>
<p>Wow, most teachers I know would be thrilled to get as much as 45min of plan time/day! Clearly, MA must be the place to work as a teacher, since I don’t know anywhere else where a teacher can work only 7.5 hrs/day during the school year. I would say most average a bare minimum of 9-10! But then again, that’s without 4 hours of plan time…</p>
<p>Coming in late to the discussion but I would say the answer is no different in any other Union vs. non union argument. If you believe a construction job can be completed better and faster (you mean it has to be done timely?) by non union workers than union workers the answer is probably going to be the same for teachers. And obviously those who beleive the opposite are going to beleive the same. </p>
<p>The usefulness of all unions is coming to an end in this country and the battle over paying for the pensions for union workers especially those in the public sector is already here.</p>