Public vs. Private Schools for people living in Montgomery County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I give up; you win. Any change that the teachers' union disfavors must be a terrible change for the education system. Any change that has a negative impact on compensation for any teachers, even if it increases compensation for other teachers, will hurt all children. Are you happy now?

Warning: You are single-handedly turning me into an activist for school reform.

Who has said that here?

The point is merely that one should not assume that something is a good thing, just because the teachers' unions oppose it (or a bad thing because the teachers' unions support it). Maybe the teachers' unions oppose it out of their own self-interest (and representing teachers' interests is the whole purpose of teachers' unions). Or maybe the teachers' unions oppose it because it's a bad idea. Or maybe both at the same time!

Also, there are multiple posters here, so nobody is single-handedly doing anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I give up; you win. Any change that the teachers' union disfavors must be a terrible change for the education system. Any change that has a negative impact on compensation for any teachers, even if it increases compensation for other teachers, will hurt all children. Are you happy now?

Warning: You are single-handedly turning me into an activist for school reform.

I'm shaking in my boots from fear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Warning: You are single-handedly turning me into an activist for school reform.

I'm shaking in my boots from fear.

*sigh* If you think the goal is to scare you, then you totally miss the point.

[Anonymous]

I don't see what is so wrong about using charter schools to test some of these ideas. Maybe we'll find that no one other than union certified teachers can teach worth a darn and the whole problem is that we don't pay the union certified teachers enough. I'd like to test it though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see what is so wrong about using charter schools to test some of these ideas. Maybe we'll find that no one other than union certified teachers can teach worth a darn and the whole problem is that we don't pay the union certified teachers enough. I'd like to test it though.

What is a union certified teacher?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti-reform people posting here seem to be "the party of NO." No reform can possibly work in their view. Makes me think their deeper agenda is shielding jobs, not improving the system.

You cannot improve education by hurting teachers. That is a fact. Unfortunately it is a fact that a lot of these "reform" ideas don't seem to recognize. If you want a good public education system, you must have well-trained, professional, well-paid, career teachers with decent working conditions.

See, I just don't think that underlined statement is necessarily true. Here are just a few quick examples:

1. If we limit teachers' pension plans, that hurts some teachers because they have smaller pensions. But it puts more money into the school system for hiring more teachers, which improves education.

2. If we change the tenure rules to make it easier to fire bad teachers, that hurts some teachers who get fired. But their positions will be filled by other teachers who are better, so it improves education.

3. If we hire a small group of retirees who have demonstrated they can teach effectively, and are willing to work for smaller salaries, we can replace some # of teachers and have more money for the school system to spend on education. That hurts some teachers (those who were replaced), but it improves education.

Just because a proposal may mean some teachers lose their jobs, or otherwise might "hurt teachers," does not mean it's bad for education. That's simply how the free market works. Employers (here the school district) need to try to get the best workers they can for the best price. At present, it seems many school districts are not trying to get the best price with regard to teachers.

While your retiree as teacher plan is sweet, please show me a large group who would enthusiastically go into the low SES, high behavior problem schools. Especially for those people without any background in education and as a result have underdeveloped classroom management skills. It takes years of relationship building to get through to a lot of those kids for them to get to a place to be ready to learn when you're fighting the effects of poverty. Retirees will surely be highly motivated to do that for very little money.

Or was your plan to have the retirees just go into high SES schools with few behavior problems? Because we all know that reform is needed very badly in those schools.

lol. Show me a large group of retirees who would enthusiastically go into "any" school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti-reform people posting here seem to be "the party of NO." No reform can possibly work in their view. Makes me think their deeper agenda is shielding jobs, not improving the system.

You cannot improve education by hurting teachers. That is a fact. Unfortunately it is a fact that a lot of these "reform" ideas don't seem to recognize. If you want a good public education system, you must have well-trained, professional, well-paid, career teachers with decent working conditions.

See, I just don't think that underlined statement is necessarily true. Here are just a few quick examples:

1. If we limit teachers' pension plans, that hurts some teachers because they have smaller pensions. But it puts more money into the school system for hiring more teachers, which improves education.

2. If we change the tenure rules to make it easier to fire bad teachers, that hurts some teachers who get fired. But their positions will be filled by other teachers who are better, so it improves education.

3. If we hire a small group of retirees who have demonstrated they can teach effectively, and are willing to work for smaller salaries, we can replace some # of teachers and have more money for the school system to spend on education. That hurts some teachers (those who were replaced), but it improves education.

Just because a proposal may mean some teachers lose their jobs, or otherwise might "hurt teachers," does not mean it's bad for education. That's simply how the free market works. Employers (here the school district) need to try to get the best workers they can for the best price. At present, it seems many school districts are not trying to get the best price with regard to teachers.

The free market has no place in public schools. Public schools are socialism. The system is to serve a public interest, not make a profit.

[Anonymous]

I give up; you win. Any change that the teachers' union disfavors must be a terrible change for the education system. Any change that has a negative impact on compensation for any teachers, even if it increases compensation for other teachers, will hurt all children. Are you happy now?

Warning: You are single-handedly turning me into an activist for school reform.

Funny. MCPS turned me into a Republican. After 3 years, we threw in the towel and our experience has really changed how we view education in politics and funding. There is so much waste in MCPS. Teachers and staff have no accountability and no one really cares anyway. Its really a big cluster %$%$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti-reform people posting here seem to be "the party of NO." No reform can possibly work in their view. Makes me think their deeper agenda is shielding jobs, not improving the system.

You cannot improve education by hurting teachers. That is a fact. Unfortunately it is a fact that a lot of these "reform" ideas don't seem to recognize. If you want a good public education system, you must have well-trained, professional, well-paid, career teachers with decent working conditions.

See, I just don't think that underlined statement is necessarily true. Here are just a few quick examples:

1. If we limit teachers' pension plans, that hurts some teachers because they have smaller pensions. But it puts more money into the school system for hiring more teachers, which improves education.

2. If we change the tenure rules to make it easier to fire bad teachers, that hurts some teachers who get fired. But their positions will be filled by other teachers who are better, so it improves education.

3. If we hire a small group of retirees who have demonstrated they can teach effectively, and are willing to work for smaller salaries, we can replace some # of teachers and have more money for the school system to spend on education. That hurts some teachers (those who were replaced), but it improves education.

Just because a proposal may mean some teachers lose their jobs, or otherwise might "hurt teachers," does not mean it's bad for education. That's simply how the free market works. Employers (here the school district) need to try to get the best workers they can for the best price. At present, it seems many school districts are not trying to get the best price with regard to teachers.

The free market has no place in public schools. Public schools are socialism. The system is to serve a public interest, not make a profit.

I do see some limited public interest in allowing public school teachers to retire at 55 and protecting the job security of teachers regardless of performance, but I think there is a greater public interest in providing for the best possible public school system. If experimenting with charter schools or second career professionals might help, I'm all for it. Students first, teachers second.

[Anonymous]

wbez.org: The Big Sort

Someone posted this article in another thread. Chicago high schools are sorting kids by ability.

Maybe if Montgomery County grouped all the high ability children into schools with strong teachers there wouldn't be so much griping about teacher benefits.