The Problem With Public Schools-Teacher's Unions (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

The NEA: "The major purpose of our association is not the education of children, rather it is, or ought to be the extension and/or preservation of our members' rights."

 

[RightOfCenter]

Link please

 

[aquapub]

Link please

http://www.unionfacts.com/

 

[RightOfCenter]

http://www.unionfacts.com/

Alright, thanks for the anti-union website, and yes I actually do think most unions are ridiculous, but I was actually hoping for the teachers union website...nevermind found it myself.

 

[RightOfCenter]

The NEA: "The major purpose of our association is not the education of children, rather it is, or ought to be the extension and/or preservation of our members' rights."

October 19, 1981 Oregon Education Association Bulletin
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/QP/QP0502-4.htm
There's a source for you aqua.

I agree that teacher's unions probably aren't in the best interest of the students, but as a future educator I want the best possible salary, benefits, and job security that I can get, and a union is the best way to do it. Without a union teachers pay would be worse than it already is, and teachers want to educate children, but not at the expense of their own families. Not that people who go into education as a career are looking for a huge wage, just enough to make four or more years of school worth it. I really don't think teachers unions are the worst thing about public schools, without the unions the teachers would be worse and fewer than they already are.

 

[Patrickt]

Let's see. Unions care first about the union and secondly about teachers. Teachers care about salaries, benefits, and job security for themselves and their peers. Administrators care about themselves and the school district.

Who cares about students? Some teachers and some parents. That's it.

 

[Paladin]

...Who cares about students? Some teachers and some parents. That's it.

I have to tell you, most teachers care for their students. At least at my school. I love teaching, it is an absolute blast!
My union (the NEA and ISEA) will also represent teachers who aren't members. In Iowa, congress is the most detrimental to teaching. This year I will get the biggest salary increase I have had in 5 years. 1.9%. I've been teaching for 12 years, and I am still way below the national average. If it wasn't for the NEA, I would still make less than $30k a year.
ted

 

[RightOfCenter]

Let's see. Unions care first about the union and secondly about teachers. Teachers care about salaries, benefits, and job security for themselves and their peers. Administrators care about themselves and the school district.

Who cares about students? Some teachers and some parents. That's it.

Do you think people are going into teaching for the money? Of course not, anyone who is a teacher cares about young people and the future of America, but they also want to be able to provide for a family.

 

[Mr. D]

Contrary to the popular myths put out by anti union websites, teachers unions are very much concerned with the needs of students. What you miss in the equation is that schools will not attract the best people into education unless the job of teaching is well paid, there is academic freedom, and there is "Due Process" to protect jobs. A school could offer teaching jobs based on who would work the cheapest and with the least benefits and protections! You send your kids there, not me!

Teachers are forced out of the profession everyday for poor preformance (most resign). Teacher's unions don't want to be saddled with poor teachers! Teachers in unions have kids in school too! They hate having the profession drug down by poor teachers. Unions often tell them in private to shape up or ship out! The union gives poor teachers the due process they deserve, not blind support for poor teaching!

Teacher's Unions are about due process and good working conditions, not protecting lazy or bad teachers. I was a higher up in a teacher's union for over 25 years "and I approve this message!" :2wave:

 

[Patrickt]

Paladin: "I love teaching, it is an absolute blast!" If that's true and I have absolutely no reason to think it isn't then I would say you are probably an excellent teacher. I would also say you probably care about your students.

RightofCenter: "Do you think people are going into teaching for the money? Of course not, anyone who is a teacher cares about young people and the future of America, but they also want to be able to provide for a family." I would say the motivation for going in to teaching varies with the person. I have known some teachers who obviously did care about the children and their education and I thought they were great. Unfortunately, I've met others who went into teaching for other reasons. I would also suggest that teacher pay is not a secret that one learns only when they get into teaching.

Mr.D: "I was a higher up in a teacher's union for over 25 years "and I approve this message!" I agree with that statement. The rest of it is the statement of a union rep. I especially like the part about talking to poor teachers being talked to in private. Then, the union saves their job. I learned about academic freedom when my son's seventh-grade history teacher told him the Holocaust never happened.

But you all agreed that the union is about higher salaries and protecting teachers. I agree, that's what the union is about.

 

[Mr. D]

Mr.D: "I was a higher up in a teacher's union for over 25 years "and I approve this message!" I agree with that statement. The rest of it is the statement of a union rep. I especially like the part about talking to poor teachers being talked to in private. Then, the union saves their job. I learned about academic freedom when my son's seventh-grade history teacher told him the Holocaust never happened.

(1.) Unions can only see that due process is afforded a tenured teacher when being fired. If an administrator has documented bad acts or poor teaching, teachers can and are pushed out of the system by resignation or firing. To deny that is just anti teacher propaganda!

(2.) ASSUMING that a teacher actually taught that, the teacher was an idiot! So what's your point? If you find an idiot in education all teachers are idiots! Which profession is idiot proof? Very often when I've looked into such charges a teacher may have posed the question for research or discussion and a group of torch carriers went nuts! If he did teach that as fact, he's a poor history teacher who is offering a minority opinion as fact! Have you heard of Creationism being taught as fact? It happens! Teachers are imperfect people like you and I!

 

[Patrickt]

You have made your position with the union quite clear. It is also clear that anyone or anything that disagrees with you is defined as anti-union propoganda.

Question: How many school administrators are either present or past union members? Would that result in any bias?

I believe most teachers do care about most of the children. The union, not at all except an occasional sop for publicity. There have been teachers who have gone above and beyond the strict limits of the contract to help kids. Can you show me any example of the union praising or commending teachers for this?

 

[RightOfCenter]

Question: How many school administrators are either present or past union members? Would that result in any bias?

Nearly all I'd expect, since most administrators started out as teachers. Maybe, but again, most teachers go into the profession for the children, they simply want job protection from students who dislike them and may slander them and people in the community that may resent them and a wage that reflects the four years of school that they had to go to to get the job.

[/QUOTE]I believe most teachers do care about most of the children. The union, not at all except an occasional sop for publicity. There have been teachers who have gone above and beyond the strict limits of the contract to help kids. Can you show me any example of the union praising or commending teachers for this?[/QUOTE]
The union is teachers! If most teachers care about youngsters then most of the union cares about youngsters. It's tough to go above and beyond the contract conditions of the job, what should they do, go to the child's home and tutor them? On a completely unrelated note, are you a teacher? I think I remember you saying that in another thread but I may be wrong.

 

[Patrickt]

"The union is teachers! If most teachers care about youngsters then most of the union cares about youngsters."

And, the government is the people? The union is an organization run by people who are interested in power and money. If you look at some of the lawsuit being filed by union members against the union, you can see the unions' priorities.

"It's tough to go above and beyond the contract conditions of the job, what should they do, go to the child's home and tutor them?"

I couldn't find a link but a few years ago some young teachers, in Illinois, I believe, had an hour or so of remedial classes for students. They volunteered, the students volunteered--or were sent by the parents--and the school allowed the facilities to be used. The union? They filed an injunction to stop the classes.

"On a completely unrelated note, are you a teacher? I think I remember you saying that in another thread but I may be wrong."

I'm not a teacher. I am retired and I was a police officer.

 

[BodiSatva]

I am sick of people trashing teachers and teachers unions.

What would those people say about janitors and their union? That they only care about the money and not if the floor that they mop has a "Wet floor" sign or not and if a person falls that they would get hurt. I am sure that no janitor wants to see a person get hurt, much less as a result of careless work.

Unions are about the members...first and foremost.
Teachers care about kids, but want to make the best wages possible...WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT! Idiots... :roll:

Originally Posted by Patrickt
Who cares about students? Some teachers and some parents. That's it.

Almost every teacher and almost every parent would be closer to true...some?

 

[Mr. D]

I couldn't find a link but a few years ago some young teachers, in Illinois, I believe, had an hour or so of remedial classes for students. They volunteered, the students volunteered--or were sent by the parents--and the school allowed the facilities to be used. The union? They filed an injunction to stop the classes.

I bet if that issue was researched there was more to it than meets the eye! I doubt that any union would get an injunction to stop extra help for kids. What was probably at issue is the school district was using a well meaning teacher to teach a class that should have been provided by the school district during the regular school day.

I'm a credentialed teacher. If I offer to teach six classes for free for a school district I'm taking food out of the mouth of another teacher and lowering the standards for all teachers. I also can't offer to work for less money to get a job away from another teacher. Now, if I offer to help kids after school with homework, or during school with a paid teacher in a classroom that would be welcomed! That's the issue! Trust teachers and their unions a little!

 

[BWG]

Teachers are told what and how to teach by the administration. Teachers have to follow 'lesson plans' and document that they have done so. Said documentation must be done either by 'squeezing it in' or after hours, for which there is no overtime pay. Grading papers, preparing report cards also are done on the fly or after hours, still with no overtime pay. Sometimes skipping lunch, because both parents work and lunch time is the only time parents can get away from their jobs. Teachers very often buy school supplies for students who either forgot them or quite simply couldn't afford them. No reimbursement. Teachers 'decorate' their rooms with educational materials with a small stipend, not nearly enough to cover the expense. And you're constantly defending yourself to administration and parents because it's never 'little Johnny's' fault. Multiply that by the number of students.

The only other job that I can think of, that requires a four year degree, and pays less, is a social worker. It says something about our society that pays entertainers millions, yet the people that mold the minds of our children are paid peanuts and we bitch about that.

 

[Patrickt]

Two things are obvious. One is that there isn't much interest in this topic. The other is that teachers seem to feel that the schools are doing a good job and the union is just dandy.

 

[BWG]

Two things are obvious. One is that there isn't much interest in this topic.

Sadly, about as much as there is interest in our government (i.e. voter turnout).

The other is that teachers seem to feel that the schools are doing a good job

Not true. The ones I know, and since my spouse is a retired teacher and my daughter-in-law is one, I know quite a few. They are constantly griping about how they are told they must do their job by management. I'm speaking in very general terms here on purpose, because their complaints about 'the system' are many and varied, but most are centered around how their hands are tied and they are expected to do other bureaucratic duties that take them away from actual teaching.

and the union is just dandy.

Versus being at the whim and mercy of varied personalities of Administration, yes. Like any other organization it's not perfect.

 

[dthmstr254]

Ok, let me say two or three things on this topic.

1. One of the reasons teachers stop caring is that the combination of being strapped for money, disrespectful students, and uncooperative bosses stresses them out and they are unable to cope and still care for the children. The stress causes them to fall into a routine that is unable to adapt to the individual needs of the children, and thus, the children get poor grades.

Teachers don't make enough money as it is. They go to college for four years (five if they take an education major), and they don't get paid too much more than twelve an hour. A person goes to school for 3-4 years majoring in Sign Language Interpretation, and works as the interpreter in their class, and gets paid upwards of 20 an hour.

Uncooperative bosses cause teachers who do not get assistants to wind up leaning on others in the class. If they happen to have an interpreter for a deaf child (or children), they have the interpreter running around instead of the terp being able to do his job. This SHOULD NOT EVER, EVER happen. The interpreter is there to allow communication for the hearing person. It may seem as if it is for the deaf person, but a deafie, in the event that there is no terp, can use paper. The terp always needs to be where the deafie and the terp can communicate. The problem is, this happens all too often.

2. This is my political part. While I have no problem with unions, I have problems with the way the teacher's union is doing education now. The first lesson children learned in the newly refurbished schools in Jacksonville, FL was that there is no such thing as private property. This isn't jjust happening in Jax. It is happening in schools across the country. I can say confidently that 75% or more children in the US will be told at the first day of school that they need to bring all the stuff they brought to school (notebooks, paper, pens, etc.) to the front of the class and mass it all together. "From their abundance will we fill other's needs." This is all taught to "teach" fairness. It isn't fair that the parents who work for a living and buy the children all they need to have more than the children whose parents don't work, and sit back on welfare payments. I am not saying that this is all people, but the majority of schooling students' parents are in these two categories. This is why I give a big hats off to the parents here who decide to use private or homeschooling options. You guys are going to turn out the engines of change for tomorrow. So far, today's public school system turns out people who can't read above a 6th grade reading level.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

(Hey, dthmstr. No, I'm not stalking you )
Most of my opinions on teacher unions have already been stated, but I will say this: the idea that the problem with public school today is the union, is ridiculous. Even if the teacher's unions were concerned solely with money and power (which they aren't), and even if teachers were paid exorbitant salaries (which we REALLY aren't), it still would not change the fact that schools are ineffective for two main reasons: one, education has become a steppoing stone for political gain, and so the schools are torn into pieces by politicians trying to prove one point or another, and two, students do not believe that public school education is useful. That belief comes from many polaces: from the aforementioned politicians, from parents, from the media, etc., etc., etc. One place it does not come from is the teacher's union.

 

[dthmstr254]

(Hey, dthmstr. No, I'm not stalking you )
Most of my opinions on teacher unions have already been stated, but I will say this: the idea that the problem with public school today is the union, is ridiculous. Even if the teacher's unions were concerned solely with money and power (which they aren't), and even if teachers were paid exorbitant salaries (which we REALLY aren't), it still would not change the fact that schools are ineffective for two main reasons: one, education has become a steppoing stone for political gain, and so the schools are torn into pieces by politicians trying to prove one point or another, and two, students do not believe that public school education is useful. That belief comes from many polaces: from the aforementioned politicians, from parents, from the media, etc., etc., etc. One place it does not come from is the teacher's union.

The last thing that came from the teacher's union is the teaching against private property.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

The last thing that came from the teacher's union is the teaching against private property.

First, I've never heard of this, so though I am not an elementary school teacher, I feel justified in questioning your "75% of schools" figure. Secondly, if this is being done, it is almost certainly happening so that the teachers can supply the children who are too poor to afford their own supplies with the materials necessary to learn. There is an easy fix for that: deal with the funding problems in schools, in whatever way you think appropriate -- raise taxes, audit school spending, reduce administration, or, if you prefer, fire teachers. Or, on a more personal level, go spend $50 on pencils and give them to a local school.
It isn't the best solution, but saying it is an attack on the concept of private property is blatant hyperbole. Tell me, do the teachers also make the children strip and share clothing? Do they refuse to call children by name, preferring "Comrade?"
Trust me: the teachers union can give me all the guidance they want, it doesn't mean I will follow any of their suggestions. My administration has never given me any suggestions of the sorts of things I should teach, or discuss, in class, apart from asking teachers to refrain from cursing, discussing sensitive issues such as birth control and abortion, and other non-offensive guidelines. I have never had a political position of any kind required of me.
Unless you count confiscation of weapons and controlled substances an attack on personal freedoms?

 

[dthmstr254]

First, I've never heard of this, so though I am not an elementary school teacher, I feel justified in questioning your "75% of schools" figure. Secondly, if this is being done, it is almost certainly happening so that the teachers can supply the children who are too poor to afford their own supplies with the materials necessary to learn. There is an easy fix for that: deal with the funding problems in schools, in whatever way you think appropriate -- raise taxes, audit school spending, reduce administration, or, if you prefer, fire teachers. Or, on a more personal level, go spend $50 on pencils and give them to a local school.
It isn't the best solution, but saying it is an attack on the concept of private property is blatant hyperbole. Tell me, do the teachers also make the children strip and share clothing? Do they refuse to call children by name, preferring "Comrade?"
Trust me: the teachers union can give me all the guidance they want, it doesn't mean I will follow any of their suggestions. My administration has never given me any suggestions of the sorts of things I should teach, or discuss, in class, apart from asking teachers to refrain from cursing, discussing sensitive issues such as birth control and abortion, and other non-offensive guidelines. I have never had a political position of any kind required of me.
Unless you count confiscation of weapons and controlled substances an attack on personal freedoms?

I say the money given to the union ADMINISTRATORS (not the teachers), and use it to buy the school supplies. It is not the responsibility of either the child or the parents of said child to provide the other children with school supplies. You know what happens when they do this? When the supplies run low, the more powerful children will get the supplies, because "It isn't yours, its everybody's" That is not fair. What is fair is that the money paying the beurocrats in the union (not the teachers) should be used to pay for school supplies. As for the weapons part, that is off topic, but I say that without a license, guns should be taken, and all controlled substances should be confiscated.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I say the money given to the union ADMINISTRATORS (not the teachers), and use it to buy the school supplies.

The money given to the union administrators does not come from the school budget, it comes from union dues paid by the teachers. The union members get to decide how that money should be spent, whether it is best spent on people who try to protect teachers, or on pencils for kids whose parents, or rather whose community, is too cheap to buy them pencils. I for one think teachers give enough of their time, effort, and often their money, without having to buy basic supplies. They are our students, but they are not our children.

It is not the responsibility of either the child or the parents of said child to provide the other children with school supplies. You know what happens when they do this? When the supplies run low, the more powerful children will get the supplies, because "It isn't yours, its everybody's" That is not fair.

Do you really think the teacher in this hypothetical classroom says, "Okay, you need a pencil. First one there gets as many pencils as they want!" Or that a teacher who sees a kid bullying other kids for pencils won't stop him? Or that school children will actually fight each other for pencils? What school did you go to, that these seem realistic scenarios to you?

What is fair is that the money paying the beurocrats in the union (not the teachers) should be used to pay for school supplies. As for the weapons part, that is off topic, but I say that without a license, guns should be taken, and all controlled substances should be confiscated.

The weapons comment was only intended as an example of your argument that teachers are trying to eliminate private property; I am required to confiscate weapons and drugs, etc., and report the kids who possess them. Isn't that a violation of private property, in your view?
And why is it fair that people whose job is to represent the best interest of teachers should lose money so that kids can have pencils? Isn't it fair that everyone in the community, all of whom stand to benefit from well-educated children in that community, should pony up a couple of bucks for supplies? I don't believe that education money is spent perfectly, but the the holes are not the union officials salaries, since, as I said, their money comes from teachers, not from the budget. More to the point, the union officials don't work for the schools. Why don't you take money from those damn overpaid janitors? Like we need our floors mopped! Hah! Greedy scum.