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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.