7 ms·

As others have said this is a ploy to allow the school district to get rid of bad union teachers and I think that's a good thing. People need to start realize

As others have said this is a ploy to allow the school district to get rid of bad union teachers and I think that's a good thing. People need to start realize this isn't a union issue it's a PUBLIC union issue and the public unions have become a problem. Public unions have not proven themselves in the same way as private unions have. Private unions were (and in some cases still are) a good tool to protect employees against corporate greed run a muck. But as we've seen with our over spending governments the inclination of the government is to be overly generous with people like teachers and that's now being abused. This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. FDR is still the most liberal president we've ever had and even he said public unions were "unthinkable and intolerable". The head of the AFL-CIO was against public unions in the 50s. (Facts taken from the New York Times: http://tinyurl.com/47u53dq http://tinyurl.com/47u53dq) Here's the exact FDR quote... "[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable." Isn't that exactly what's happening right now? Look at this quote from the article... "This is a quasi-legal power grab,” said Richard Larkin, a teacher at Classical High School. “You want to pick and choose teachers. Well, we will not be bullied." Isn't picking and choosing teachers exactly what has to be done in order to keep good teachers and get rid of bad ones? How out of control do you have to be when you don't acknowledge the fact that the school should be able to pick which teachers it thinks are best?

kenjackson 16y ago
As others have said this is a ploy to allow the school district to get rid of bad union teachers and I think that's a good thing. It's probably not. They probably have no idea who the bad teachers are. It's most likley an attempt to get rid of the most senior teachers, regardless of ability. And political -- an attempt to kill organizations that tend to be Democratic (this would be equivalent to trying to dismantle fundamentalist churches, as their Republican leaning). Everyone looks to Finland as this great example of how education should be done, yet it looks nothing like what is being done here. And Finland is 100% teacher's unions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-higgins/why-do-the-education-refo_1_b_775087.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-higgins/why-do-the-educ...
- uvdiv 16y ago
  And political -- an attempt to kill organizations that tend to be Democratic (this would be equivalent to trying to dismantle fundamentalist churches, as their Republican leaning). I'm sure that would be an issue if fundamentalist churches were funded with public taxes and compulsory to attend.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    Churches do get preferential tax treatment. But the problem with fundamentalist churches isn't in their existence, but rather their beliefs. The opposite is the problem that the right has with unions. They aren't against teachers per se, but they're against labor having any power -- regardless of what the profession is (and the fact that its public/private labor is a red herring).
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      The right is against workers having the power to quit their job and find a better one? I was completely unaware of this. Could you tell me when the Republicans stopped being abolitionists?
      - kenjackson 16y ago
        The right is against workers having the power to quit their job and find a better one? I was completely unaware of this. As am I.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > And political -- an attempt to kill organizations that tend to be Democratic (this would be equivalent to trying to dismantle fundamentalist churches, as their Republican leaning). Whoa, this just sunk in with me. I guess it's commonly accepted that most teacher's unions lean Democrat, but I never considered that the people educating children are fundamentally partisan. That's... kind of scary. Hell, you equate with them as the equivalent of the most fanatic members of the right. That really can't be good that the kids are being educated by fanatic partisans, if your analysis here is correct.
ffumarola 16y ago
"is to be overly generous with people like teachers" That seems to be the talking point nowadays. But, having a lot of family and friends that are teachers, just isn't true from what I know. I'm not sure where you think the abuse is coming in (benefits, pay?) Most teachers salaries max out quite low compared to what could be made in private industry. And even their benefits aren't that much better than private industry, if at all. I have paid less for health benefits for the past 4 years in various jobs (for companies both small and large) and I always had better benefits than my sister, aunt, g/f, etc. Schools should absolutely be able to pick teachers that are both good and bad. But a blanket firing shows a complete lack of respect and lack of commitment to fixing a problem.
- jpiasetz 16y ago
  Do the PV calculation of their pension. Most of them are doing better then you think. Rhode Island's pension were guaranteed 3%. http://www.projo.com/news/content/pension_cuts_01-16-09_TOCVSQB_v28.450c3fd.html http://www.projo.com/news/content/pension_cuts_01-16-09_TOCV...
  - ffumarola 16y ago
    Sure, which is why they are willing to accept less money. If the government wants, they can do as companies have done (at least one of past employers did): End pensions going forward, everyone currently employed is grandfathered in, new employees get 401k with a match, new employees have a different salary step system that maxes out higher. You're not arguing with someone who thinks the system is amazing as it is... it needs changes. But the teachers aren't the villains and they aren't living a life of grandeur.
    - TomOfTTB 16y ago
      This is the average salary and vacation time for a RI teacher... Average Salary: $64,130(elementary), $60640(secondary) Weeks of Vacation per Year: 15 (source: http://tinyurl.com/5dhgl8 http://tinyurl.com/5dhgl8) That's pretty good by today's standards. That's a salary of $1,733 PER WEEK that they work. I wouldn't consider a salary like that "accepting less money"
ryanto 16y ago
I absolutely understand the need to choose good teachers over bad teachers. However, how much will the teachers' salary play into the selection process? I would imagine a teacher with 20 years experience gets paid quite more than a teacher with five years experience. Serious question, does salary go into consideration when rehiring or is it solely based on teaching skill?
- damoncali 16y ago
  Unfortunatly, teachers are not exempt from the basics of economics. If salary isn't considered, they're doing it wrong. The job of the government is to maximize the educational output with the resources they have available. If that great (or crappy, for that matter) teacher costs too much, and the money is better spent elsewhere, so be it.
techsupporter 16y ago
"Public unions have not proven themselves in the same way as private unions have. Private unions were (and in some cases still are) a good tool to protect employees against corporate greed run a muck." Though the article deals with teachers, your quote makes me wonder: If public sector unions are a bad deal, why are police and fire department employee unions exempt from being targeted? Where I live (Texas), these employees have both civil service rules and a union (so they are arguably double-protected) while other public employees--except teachers--have neither and are at-will employed. I have seen no hint that police and fire should have their union representation or civil service requirements eliminated; the exact opposite is stated in places like Wisconsin and Ohio.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  If public sector unions are a bad deal, why are police and fire department employee unions exempt from being targeted? Actually police and firefighters are also being targeted. But there's just a lot fewer of them. Remember that there are more teachers in the US than any other profession. For example, see: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/02/police_and_fire_unions_say_the.html http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/02/police_and_f... This really isn't about good or bad teachers. The whole myth of the giant population of bad US teachers exists to push the agenda to break up unions. The reason? Unions weaken the right and strengthen the left. The right has been trying to kill unions for a long time, but it hasn't been until the rise of minority district charter schools where they've been able to make a strong push that bad overpaid teachers are the problem. The one question I've been asking everyone in my district is to point out the bad teachers. No one will tell me who they are, or how it is decided. I asked do the bad have warning, will they be given time to shapen up and feedback on their issues? Apparently no. These sorts of things make me a tad suspicious.
  - glenra 16y ago
    > The one question I've been asking everyone in my district is to point out the bad teachers. No one will tell me who they are, or how it is decided. Have you asked the kids? They probably know. There were bad teachers in my high school; pretty much everybody knew who they were. One was so senile he routinely forgot what assignments he'd given or what he was saying.
mirkules 16y ago
Absolutely agree. I was appalled when I saw the article about not being able to fire teachers and instead putting them into "rubber rooms": http://www.theblaze.com/stories/disgraced-teacher-enjoys-well-paid-13th-year-in-rubber-room-after-sexually-molesting-6th-grade-student/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/disgraced-teacher-enjoys-wel... http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2008/05/04/2008-05-04_teachers_in_trouble_spending_years_in_ru.html http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2008/05/04/200... And then you have really good teachers who wanted to teach for free but wasn't allowed to (they finally, wisely relented) because of some dumb technicality: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/29/local/la-me-lopez29-2009nov29 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/29/local/la-me-lopez29-... (p.s. yes, he was my middle school teacher, and he is an AWESOME teacher) The future of the education system is grim, and only by drastic measures can a difference be made. A question: I don't quite understand why the teachers seem to think that a layoff is better than a firing? Does it affect their tenure/experience, or something like that?
- ahoyhere 16y ago
  Your examples don't make sense because they are not set in Providence. There's no indication that "rubber rooms" are a problem in Providence, either. The rest (and OP) is just supposition as to motives which remain unknown.
  - mirkules 16y ago
    I didn't say that rubber rooms are a problem in Providence. I'm saying that examples like those in New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere are indicative of the state of public education as a whole. I'm saying that I support almost any means necessary for public education reform, the Providence case being one of them.
fleitz 16y ago
I agree with you on the points that we should be able to select the best teachers for our schools, however, I think most of that is rhetoric designed to distract from the fact that it's a budgetary issue. Selecting the best teachers and best schools requires school choice, not bureaucrats deciding for us who is best and who is not. School choice, vouchers and real reforms are no where near this debate. The debate is framed in this language to obtain popular support. It's a budgetary issue, remove the ethos and pathos and you'll find at the core of the issue a budgetary one. The council needs to eliminate $40 million dollars, one way to do this is to ensure all your teachers have no seniority and thus are all at the bottom of the pay scale. Layoffs will just remove the lowest paid employees so they all must be fired and then rehired to ensure that their previous seniority isn't factored into the calculations. A $40 million dollar deficit spread across 1926 teachers is $20,000 per teacher per year, you're not going to negotiate that kind of drop. Anyone want to bet that the avg. teacher salary minus the base teacher salary in Providence is about $20,000? However, a cold numbers based story like that wouldn't play well to the public so you need something else like selecting the 'best' teachers, and you can be sure that if the board was given the option that the 'best' would become the 'cheapest', especially in an uncompetitive market such as public schooling (aka. state sponsored daycare). I'm a big fan of real school choice, but this just seems like a way for the school district to lawyer their way out of an agreement, and obtain popular support by couching the argument in terms that are not on the table. If it's about letting the best teachers rise to the top, the school board should fire all the teachers, and provide vouchers for parents to use in obtaining their children's education. This is about firing a bunch of people and rehiring the same people at a lower price.

kenjackson 16y ago

As others have said this is a ploy to allow the school district to get rid of bad union teachers and I think that's a good thing. It's probably not. They probably have no idea who the bad teachers are. It's most likley an attempt to get rid of the most senior teachers, regardless of ability. And political -- an attempt to kill organizations that tend to be Democratic (this would be equivalent to trying to dismantle fundamentalist churches, as their Republican leaning). Everyone looks to Finland as this great example of how education should be done, yet it looks nothing like what is being done here. And Finland is 100% teacher's unions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-higgins/why-do-the-education-refo_1_b_775087.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-higgins/why-do-the-educ...

uvdiv 16y ago
And political -- an attempt to kill organizations that tend to be Democratic (this would be equivalent to trying to dismantle fundamentalist churches, as their Republican leaning). I'm sure that would be an issue if fundamentalist churches were funded with public taxes and compulsory to attend.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Churches do get preferential tax treatment. But the problem with fundamentalist churches isn't in their existence, but rather their beliefs. The opposite is the problem that the right has with unions. They aren't against teachers per se, but they're against labor having any power -- regardless of what the profession is (and the fact that its public/private labor is a red herring).
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    The right is against workers having the power to quit their job and find a better one? I was completely unaware of this. Could you tell me when the Republicans stopped being abolitionists?
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      The right is against workers having the power to quit their job and find a better one? I was completely unaware of this. As am I.
lionhearted 16y ago
> And political -- an attempt to kill organizations that tend to be Democratic (this would be equivalent to trying to dismantle fundamentalist churches, as their Republican leaning). Whoa, this just sunk in with me. I guess it's commonly accepted that most teacher's unions lean Democrat, but I never considered that the people educating children are fundamentally partisan. That's... kind of scary. Hell, you equate with them as the equivalent of the most fanatic members of the right. That really can't be good that the kids are being educated by fanatic partisans, if your analysis here is correct.

ffumarola 16y ago

"is to be overly generous with people like teachers" That seems to be the talking point nowadays. But, having a lot of family and friends that are teachers, just isn't true from what I know. I'm not sure where you think the abuse is coming in (benefits, pay?) Most teachers salaries max out quite low compared to what could be made in private industry. And even their benefits aren't that much better than private industry, if at all. I have paid less for health benefits for the past 4 years in various jobs (for companies both small and large) and I always had better benefits than my sister, aunt, g/f, etc. Schools should absolutely be able to pick teachers that are both good and bad. But a blanket firing shows a complete lack of respect and lack of commitment to fixing a problem.

jpiasetz 16y ago
Do the PV calculation of their pension. Most of them are doing better then you think. Rhode Island's pension were guaranteed 3%. http://www.projo.com/news/content/pension_cuts_01-16-09_TOCVSQB_v28.450c3fd.html http://www.projo.com/news/content/pension_cuts_01-16-09_TOCV...
- ffumarola 16y ago
  Sure, which is why they are willing to accept less money. If the government wants, they can do as companies have done (at least one of past employers did): End pensions going forward, everyone currently employed is grandfathered in, new employees get 401k with a match, new employees have a different salary step system that maxes out higher. You're not arguing with someone who thinks the system is amazing as it is... it needs changes. But the teachers aren't the villains and they aren't living a life of grandeur.
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    This is the average salary and vacation time for a RI teacher... Average Salary: $64,130(elementary), $60640(secondary) Weeks of Vacation per Year: 15 (source: http://tinyurl.com/5dhgl8 http://tinyurl.com/5dhgl8) That's pretty good by today's standards. That's a salary of $1,733 PER WEEK that they work. I wouldn't consider a salary like that "accepting less money"

ryanto 16y ago

I absolutely understand the need to choose good teachers over bad teachers. However, how much will the teachers' salary play into the selection process? I would imagine a teacher with 20 years experience gets paid quite more than a teacher with five years experience. Serious question, does salary go into consideration when rehiring or is it solely based on teaching skill?

damoncali 16y ago
Unfortunatly, teachers are not exempt from the basics of economics. If salary isn't considered, they're doing it wrong. The job of the government is to maximize the educational output with the resources they have available. If that great (or crappy, for that matter) teacher costs too much, and the money is better spent elsewhere, so be it.

techsupporter 16y ago

"Public unions have not proven themselves in the same way as private unions have. Private unions were (and in some cases still are) a good tool to protect employees against corporate greed run a muck." Though the article deals with teachers, your quote makes me wonder: If public sector unions are a bad deal, why are police and fire department employee unions exempt from being targeted? Where I live (Texas), these employees have both civil service rules and a union (so they are arguably double-protected) while other public employees--except teachers--have neither and are at-will employed. I have seen no hint that police and fire should have their union representation or civil service requirements eliminated; the exact opposite is stated in places like Wisconsin and Ohio.

kenjackson 16y ago
If public sector unions are a bad deal, why are police and fire department employee unions exempt from being targeted? Actually police and firefighters are also being targeted. But there's just a lot fewer of them. Remember that there are more teachers in the US than any other profession. For example, see: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/02/police_and_fire_unions_say_the.html http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/02/police_and_f... This really isn't about good or bad teachers. The whole myth of the giant population of bad US teachers exists to push the agenda to break up unions. The reason? Unions weaken the right and strengthen the left. The right has been trying to kill unions for a long time, but it hasn't been until the rise of minority district charter schools where they've been able to make a strong push that bad overpaid teachers are the problem. The one question I've been asking everyone in my district is to point out the bad teachers. No one will tell me who they are, or how it is decided. I asked do the bad have warning, will they be given time to shapen up and feedback on their issues? Apparently no. These sorts of things make me a tad suspicious.
- glenra 16y ago
  > The one question I've been asking everyone in my district is to point out the bad teachers. No one will tell me who they are, or how it is decided. Have you asked the kids? They probably know. There were bad teachers in my high school; pretty much everybody knew who they were. One was so senile he routinely forgot what assignments he'd given or what he was saying.

mirkules 16y ago

Absolutely agree. I was appalled when I saw the article about not being able to fire teachers and instead putting them into "rubber rooms": http://www.theblaze.com/stories/disgraced-teacher-enjoys-well-paid-13th-year-in-rubber-room-after-sexually-molesting-6th-grade-student/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/disgraced-teacher-enjoys-wel... http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2008/05/04/2008-05-04_teachers_in_trouble_spending_years_in_ru.html http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2008/05/04/200... And then you have really good teachers who wanted to teach for free but wasn't allowed to (they finally, wisely relented) because of some dumb technicality: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/29/local/la-me-lopez29-2009nov29 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/29/local/la-me-lopez29-... (p.s. yes, he was my middle school teacher, and he is an AWESOME teacher) The future of the education system is grim, and only by drastic measures can a difference be made. A question: I don't quite understand why the teachers seem to think that a layoff is better than a firing? Does it affect their tenure/experience, or something like that?

ahoyhere 16y ago
Your examples don't make sense because they are not set in Providence. There's no indication that "rubber rooms" are a problem in Providence, either. The rest (and OP) is just supposition as to motives which remain unknown.
- mirkules 16y ago
  I didn't say that rubber rooms are a problem in Providence. I'm saying that examples like those in New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere are indicative of the state of public education as a whole. I'm saying that I support almost any means necessary for public education reform, the Providence case being one of them.

fleitz 16y ago

I agree with you on the points that we should be able to select the best teachers for our schools, however, I think most of that is rhetoric designed to distract from the fact that it's a budgetary issue. Selecting the best teachers and best schools requires school choice, not bureaucrats deciding for us who is best and who is not. School choice, vouchers and real reforms are no where near this debate. The debate is framed in this language to obtain popular support. It's a budgetary issue, remove the ethos and pathos and you'll find at the core of the issue a budgetary one. The council needs to eliminate $40 million dollars, one way to do this is to ensure all your teachers have no seniority and thus are all at the bottom of the pay scale. Layoffs will just remove the lowest paid employees so they all must be fired and then rehired to ensure that their previous seniority isn't factored into the calculations. A $40 million dollar deficit spread across 1926 teachers is $20,000 per teacher per year, you're not going to negotiate that kind of drop. Anyone want to bet that the avg. teacher salary minus the base teacher salary in Providence is about $20,000? However, a cold numbers based story like that wouldn't play well to the public so you need something else like selecting the 'best' teachers, and you can be sure that if the board was given the option that the 'best' would become the 'cheapest', especially in an uncompetitive market such as public schooling (aka. state sponsored daycare). I'm a big fan of real school choice, but this just seems like a way for the school district to lawyer their way out of an agreement, and obtain popular support by couching the argument in terms that are not on the table. If it's about letting the best teachers rise to the top, the school board should fire all the teachers, and provide vouchers for parents to use in obtaining their children's education. This is about firing a bunch of people and rehiring the same people at a lower price.