Highest Paid Teachers Reject 16% Raise - Go on Strike.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES,

Despite the fact that you've already had it pointed out to you that pay isn't the issue they're striking over, you continue to harp on the fact that they make $76K per year. Why?

Because it is part of what they are striking over. They didn't agree to the financial terms. Among the remaining issues are "benefits," as well as "raises based on experience level," among other things. Pay remains an issue -- compensation and benefits as a whole remain issues. So, now that that has been pointed out to you, do we have to ignore the pay issues?

And, it is important to point out that they are highly paid when their reasons for striking are pay, benefits, "job security" (which they also already have to a much higher degree than most other employees in other industries) and "performance appraisals" (which are already far more regulated and objective than most other employees in other industries) -- it makes it all the more ludicrous that they are striking against the public interest in this manner.

[Gerald McGrew]

CES,

No, salary isn't really what they're striking over at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/educa ... wanted=all

Union leaders say there continues to be an array of differences, including benefits, raises based on experience level, the lack of air-conditioning in classrooms and training days for teachers.

Teacher evaluations, however, appear to be the most contentious issue.

So there's no need to keep harping on how much they make. Specifically, the issue is...

In an interview on Tuesday, Carol Caref, head of research and teacher evaluation for the union, said that members would be willing to accept an evaluation system that was implemented earlier this year throughout the district, which bases 25 percent of a teacher’s rating on a measure of “student growth.”

Only part of that measure however, is based on state standardized tests; other portions are based on student performance on other tests developed by teachers in the district.

But Ms. Caref said that public schools officials insist on having the “student growth” portion of evaluations increase to 40 percent of a teacher’s rating in the fifth year of the contract.

Now, if I were a teacher in an inner city public school, I certainly wouldn't want 40% of my rating based on "growth" of students, many of whom have absolutely no interest in education, and come from households that have the same problem.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES,

No, salary isn't really what they're striking over at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/educa ... wanted=all

Union leaders say there continues to be an array of differences, including benefits, raises based on experience level, the lack of air-conditioning in classrooms and training days for teachers.

Teacher evaluations, however, appear to be the most contentious issue.

So there's no need to keep harping on how much they make. Specifically, the issue is...

Here is what I typed:

Because it is part of what they are striking over. They didn't agree to the financial terms. Among the remaining issues are "benefits," as well as "raises based on experience level," among other things. Pay remains an issue -- compensation and benefits as a whole remain issues. So, now that that has been pointed out to you, do we have to ignore the pay issues?

My quoted language "benefits" and "raises based on experience level" are from the same article you cited. Pay remains an issue. Compensation and benefits remain issues.

It doesn't matter that you or they say that other issues are more important issues. They are still among the issues to be resolved.

In an interview on Tuesday, Carol Caref, head of research and teacher evaluation for the union, said that members would be willing to accept an evaluation system that was implemented earlier this year throughout the district, which bases 25 percent of a teacher’s rating on a measure of “student growth.”

Only part of that measure however, is based on state standardized tests; other portions are based on student performance on other tests developed by teachers in the district.

But Ms. Caref said that public schools officials insist on having the “student growth” portion of evaluations increase to 40 percent of a teacher’s rating in the fifth year of the contract.

Now, if I were a teacher in an inner city public school, I certainly wouldn't want 40% of my rating based on "growth" of students, many of whom have absolutely no interest in education, and come from households that have the same problem.

That is only one of the outstanding issues. They are willing to accept that evaluation system, sure, but agreement on that evaluation system would not settle the strike. They also have to agree on the other outstanding issues, including but not limited to "benefits" and "raises based on experience level," among other things.

[Coito ergo sum]

Speaking to reporters in Chicago today, Chicago Mayor Emanuel asserted that President Obama has already backed him up in against striking teachers, because many of his proposed reforms were taken directly from the President's "Race to the Top" education incentives.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/rahm-the- ... E-ZaY2PXOV

[Gerald McGrew]

CES,

The point is, there's no need to keep repeating "they make $76k per year", as you did in almost every post in this thread (it almost sounds as if you're a bit resentful). They're not striking because they think $76k per year isn't enough; they're striking over other issues.

[JimC]

Victorian teachers are asking for 30% over 3 years, and have already had one strike...

The State government has offered a 2.5% rise for one year...

No doubt, after much argy-bargy, we shall meet in the middle somewhere..

[Coito ergo sum]

CES,

The point is, there's no need to keep repeating "they make $76k per year", as you did in almost every post in this thread (it almost sounds as if you're a bit resentful). They're not striking because they think $76k per year isn't enough; they're striking over other issues.

You write your posts, I'll write mine. What I wrote was responsive to the people I responded to. I did not just merely repeat for no reason the same thing over and over. My posts were explanations, and the $76k per year -- among other things that I wrote - was relevant to the point we were discussing.

I don't care if it sounds resentful to you, or what it sounds like to you. Well, except that I meant it more "scornfully" than anything else, because they don't warrant that kind of pay. They are overcompensated. IMO.

They aren't just striking over other issues. They are also striking over issues involving their compensation. Just because there are other issues doesn't mean they aren't also striking for the compensation issues.

[Gerald McGrew]

Hilarious. Parsing to a whole new level.

[JimC]

Hilarious. Parsing to a whole new level.

I've seen CES parse threads to within an inch of their lives - then parse some more!

[A Hermit]

If those numbers are even close to true, and they rejected a 16% raise over 4 years, fire every last one of the fuckers.

The numbers are misleading; "averages" are not the same as means, for example, I'm betting if you took the mean salary for a teacher in Chicago it would e a lot less than 70,000 (and a lot less than someoen in a another profession with similar educational requirements). Also that 16% is actually 4% in each of the next four years and is mostly due to the fact that teachers in Chicago have been asked to increase their work day by 20% (one of the reasons Chicago's students do poorly is that Chicago has one of the shortest school terms in the country) and are seeing cuts to their benefits.

I don't understand why people get angry about other people making a decent wage.

And that's not the sticking point in the negotiations; the big issues are things like class size, crumbling infrastructure, the waste of time and resources on pointless rounds of standardized testing,

They aren't worth it. Bring in people who are hungry to work and do a job. I bet you can get motivated people for 1/2 of what they're paying now.

My wife's a teacher, and the most dedicated, hardest working person I know. I don't think you have any idea how much work teachers do, or why they do it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hilarious. Parsing to a whole new level.

Dude -- you're the one that is parsing:

Me: All the issues we've cited/listed are on the table, including but not limited to compensation

You: I don't view compensation as the most important issue they are striking over, therefore, I don't think anyone should mention it.

[Coito ergo sum]

If those numbers are even close to true, and they rejected a 16% raise over 4 years, fire every last one of the fuckers.

The numbers are misleading; "averages" are not the same as means, for example, I'm betting if you took the mean salary for a teacher in Chicago it would e a lot less than 70,000 (and a lot less than someoen in a another profession with similar educational requirements). Also that 16% is actually 4% in each of the next four years and is mostly due to the fact that teachers in Chicago have been asked to increase their work day by 20% (one of the reasons Chicago's students do poorly is that Chicago has one of the shortest school terms in the country) and are seeing cuts to their benefits.

Teachers get 2+ months in the summer off, so it stands to reason that they would make less money because of that. They also get more holidays and vacations than most everyone else.

I don't understand why people get angry about other people making a decent wage.

I don't mind them making a decent wage. I mind them striking when they are making well above average, on average, and have plentiful benefits, good working conditions, reasonable hours, summers off, and bountiful holidays and sick time. When someone strikes under those circumstances, harming the educations of the children they are called upon to teach, blocking traffic and disrupting the lives of hundreds of thousands of families, I don't side with them.

And that's not the sticking point in the negotiations; the big issues are things like class size, crumbling infrastructure, the waste of time and resources on pointless rounds of standardized testing,

Not true. They didn't accept the raise either. Those issues are on the table.

They aren't worth it. Bring in people who are hungry to work and do a job. I bet you can get motivated people for 1/2 of what they're paying now.

My wife's a teacher, and the most dedicated, hardest working person I know. I don't think you have any idea how much work teachers do, or why they do it.

it's not her dedication I question. It's the fact that there are plenty of people who can do just as good a job as teachers overall are doing now, and for much less money. Our kids are graduating high school grossly uneducated. All props to your wife for her dedication, but if she's succeeding with her kids, then she's the exception, not the rule.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43397386/ns ... FB5NY2ubp5

http://www.examiner.com/article/shockin ... don-t-know

[Coito ergo sum]

A top sticking point? Pay increases to compensate teachers for working a longer school day. But just how do teachers’ salaries here compare to teachers’ salaries across the country?

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/ ... hers-make/

Pay increases are a "top sticking point."

[Tyrannical]

Teachers do have a point when it comes to evaluations based on student performance since you can only do so much with the unwilling or less bright.
I guess the silver lining is that since the students weren't learning much anyways, at least we aren't paying for their ignorance while the strike is going on.

[Gerald McGrew]

I wonder just how much people feel a school teacher who has a masters degree and 5-10 years experience should make? Waiter/waitress type wages? Minimum wage?

Or are we trying to have it both ways, i.e. saying "education is a priority" but refusing to pay for it?