"Fog days"?  I mustve missed those when I was in school ;)

 

I agree that it should not be a high burnout field.  But I do acknowledge that it does happen, especially to those "change the world" types who quickly find out that teaching at some inner city school isn't quite as rewarding as Hollywood makes it out to be.

 

Also, one should not assume that just because class is not in session, that teachers are not working.  Out of classroom work, if the teacher is doing his or her job correctly, should be significant.  There are also a lot of days that students have off where teachers do not.  They don't get the same vacations that students do.  Some districts also require extra-curricular participation.

While the discussion of the value of teachers is interesting, isn't there a more appropriate thread for it?

Possibly ... one could start a number of threads on this topic.  However, unless you think that the public's perception of the public workers' unions themselves is immaterial to how the votes on SB5 will shake out, it works here, too.  (It's true that there has been a disproportionate amount of focus on teachers' unions here as opposed to all public workers' unions, though, since very little has been said about police and fire unions.)  Also, nothing against Kasich's support for Cleveland to land a superhero movie, but SB 5 is the biggest political fight for the administration at the moment.  I've heard next to nothing about JobsOhio--I don't even know how the residency-requirement issue with Kvamme has played out in the past couple of weeks.

Teacher burnout...  wow.  Summers off ought to make up for that.  Ditto for spring break, fall break, Christmas break, fog days, snow days, sick days, President's Day, MLK Day, Day after Thanksgiving....

 

Every profession is prone to some level of "burnout".  I suppose it's possible with teaching but I can think of about a dozen other professions with higher rates of burnout and stress levels.  Before anyone asks, I have taught in the class room also and I would rate those days as much less stressful than my current field.  As to teaching to test standards, we all have to be measured by some "bottom line" whether it's a test score, a performance rating, a deadline, or a monetary value.  How we get there is usually up to the individual.

 

Bingo, bingo, bingo, bingo. Burnout, my ass. Once you've worked 120 days on with no break, then we can talk burnout. There are plenty of jobs that are much tougher (worse pay, worse hours, no benefits, more competition, more advanced work, etc.). Obviously, voters have had it with the whining of the public sector. That's why Kasich won. Voters are mad as hell in Ohio, and they're ready to cut back the public education system. I'm just not sure if Kasich's methods are the right ones.

 

Most of them leave after realizing they can't do anything, especially in the higher grades, and they become so disillusioned that it might just as well be burnout.

 

Disillusionment and burnout are two very different things. Teachers get weekends off and have more vacation than anyone in the private sector, thus time to recharge the batteries (or drink away the sorrows of the job). Disillusionment happens to anyone in any business who thinks they're going to walk in and change the way things are done. It takes decades to do that.

 

Kasich is taking public school teachers down because it's politically popular to do so (he is America's most hardcore libertarian/Fox news pundit, made no bones about it, and won). Private sector workers have no mercy left in them. They're the ones backing up Kasich on this particular issue. They cannot afford any more of their tax dollars going towards education. They've watched their jobs and benefits go to hell in a handbasket while the public sector has maintained higher levels of pay with great health insurance. Kasich's political goals are only possible after the backs of private sector workers have been broken. And boy, have they been broken like never before...in 2008, we entered the Robber Baron 2.0 era. This time, it's on taxpayer-funded steroids. It's basically an era of out-of-control healthcare and college tuition hikes designed to enslave the entire nation in debt. And the genius of it is that taxpayers subsidize most of it. Taking down the last of the unions is the final piece of the puzzle.

 

One of the reasons for teacher burnout is that state and federal legislators keep putting more restrictions on the teaching profession that result in teaching to the test, which inhibits the creativity of individual teachers. And creativity is essential because there is no standardized way to teach kids. Kids learn in different ways. What works for one does not work for another. So while teachers have all these restrictions, everybody is looking over their shoulders and badmouthing them and calling them lazy and incompetent and trying to make their stressful lives more miserable by taking their rights and cutting their pay.

 

No doubt standardized testing is destroying America. In the real world (i.e. private sector), there is no standardized testing other than money.

Teachers do get a lot of breaks like the ones that you have mentioned. Plus they get out of work relatively early. And with scantrons it has become even easier to grade the tests. The lazy ones even give credit for just doing the homework so that they dont have to take the time to grade it. I think the way that a lot of teachers teach, it can be one of the least stressful, most relaxed job. And I know they might not get as much time time off as the students do but they still get more then a regular profession. And they get paid pretty decent for the time they put in. Now this is not the case for every teacher but it is for a lot.

Does my friend who teahes 5 days out of the week, grades papers at night, and waits tables on the weekends to make ends meet for her and her two daughters qualify for your burnout status?

^She's obviously not smart with her money (having two kids, what was she thinking?!). Does the private sector college grad with an entry-level job at 22k, no health insurance, no pension, no protections, and a constant need to work at the restaurant to survive also qualify for burnout? There is no doubt the real private sector is tougher than the public sector. It's raw. There are no bailouts and no stimulus funding. The classic illustration of this is private school teacher versus public school teacher. Public school teachers outearn their private sector counterparts by more than 10k in this country. And that's before you factor in all the benefits. And let's not forget some public school teachers can double-dip. And honestly, it's pretty tough to argue that public schools are superior to private schools (as a whole).

 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_075.asp

 

Hey, she shouldn't have had kids if she couldn't afford it. It's the core libertarian/Tea Party line. This is America. You've got to pull yourselves up by your bootstraps. :wink: In the idealized world that was unleashed last November, nobody (who is poor) gets any help from anybody. The rich will get richer. The poor will get poorer. The American people want a system of raw competition. That's why we had this libertarian revolution over the past decade. Most people still believe that the rich are rich through hard work and bootstraps. Poor people are poor because they are lazy. It's so wrong, but enough voters think it is so right. Kasich represents this to the fullest. He is a "self-made business man" according to the news media.

Does my friend who teahes 5 days out of the week, grades papers at night, and waits tables on the weekends to make ends meet for her and her two daughters qualify for your burnout status?

 

You're right everyone forgets about the prep time, grading papers, working school events, etc....Teachers put in WAY more time than you hermans think. 

Someone once told me that for 1 person to acheve the "American dream".... at least 10 have to fail

^That is increasingly correct, and people vote for it too.

Yeah seriously, I know this is getting a bit off-topic, but teaching is not just an 8-5 job (and no, teachers don't go home at 3:00). They also have the additional work of grading papers and preparing lessons during the evenings and weekends.  That summer break is filled with seminars, school board meetings, curriculum development, continuing education, maintaining accreditation, and a whole host of random stuff.  Summer may not be full-time, but it's no cake walk.  Considering how much "homework" teachers are required to do during the school year (not all tests can be multiple-choice, and there's homework, papers, reports, labs, etc. to grade too), having a few months to recharge is hardly a perk, it's needed to maintain sanity. 

 

It's not unlike people complaining about all those lazy construction workers.  They're just standing around, why aren't they working?  Never mind that they might need to wait for something to get fixed before they can proceed, or that the concrete truck might be late, or they need the piping to be finished before they can backfill, etc.  It's simply hard work too.  You try being on your feet all day in the hot sun or cold winds.  That alone is difficult enough, just standing around, let alone actually carrying things, digging, or operating equipment.  We're very quick to point out how difficult our own job is and to admonish others for being lazy.  Nevertheless, they'd look at us and think the exact same thing. 

Teachers do get a lot of breaks like the ones that you have mentioned. Plus they get out of work relatively early. And with scantrons it has become even easier to grade the tests. The lazy ones even give credit for just doing the homework so that they dont have to take the time to grade it. I think the way that a lot of teachers teach, it can be one of the least stressful, most relaxed job. And I know they might not get as much time time off as the students do but they still get more then a regular profession. And they get paid pretty decent for the time they put in. Now this is not the case for every teacher but it is for a lot.

 

No teacher worth a $h!t would rely on scantrons for assessment, and no principal that allows that to happen is worth one either. Same goes for the state standardized test, a glorified scantron. 

The issue is not the job of teaching itself. The issue is private sector versus public sector. Public school teachers make way more money than private school teachers, not to mention have vastly superior benefits. Libertarians are pro-private sector.

 

The goal of Kasich and his supporters is to bring down public school wages to private school wages. It's that simple. You will never see a Republican again who supports paying public school teachers more money than private school teachers. Kasich sees destroying the public unions as the quickest way to do this. We had many situations over the past two years where people shot down school levies in mass, and instead of teachers taking a 25% pay cut to match the private schools, they got bailed out by federal money. Teachers aren't going to strike. There are no jobs for them if they do. Hence why you have to do this stuff at a time of high unemployment. Kasich and his friends have been waiting nearly 30 years for this. The timing is just right to take down collective bargaining due to the lack of jobs in Ohio. This was all planned years in advance.

 

People need to understand that Kasich is not attacking teachers, he's attacking public school teachers because they make more money than their private sector counterparts.

^ Still though Scantrons are becoming more and more popular. Instead of having to grade all the multiple choice questions and true and false questions on tests, the teacher can just feed it through a machine to save time which makes sense.

Teacher burnout...  wow.  Summers off ought to make up for that.  Ditto for spring break, fall break, Christmas break, fog days, snow days, sick days, President's Day, MLK Day, Day after Thanksgiving....

 

Every profession is prone to some level of "burnout".  I suppose it's possible with teaching but I can think of about a dozen other professions with higher rates of burnout and stress levels.  Before anyone asks, I have taught in the class room also and I would rate those days as much less stressful than my current field.  As to teaching to test standards, we all have to be measured by some "bottom line" whether it's a test score, a performance rating, a deadline, or a monetary value.  How we get there is usually up to the individual. 

 

 

 

You left out bathroom break, which 3rd grade teachers don't get until they find somebody to cover for them, which is hard because the other adults in the building are busy teaching kids. There's actually a medical condition known to some doctors as "teachers' bladder."

 

You also left out lunch break -- again, which 3rd graders don't really get because they're on lunchroom duty or playground duty or gobbling a quick sandwich from home while they tutor kids.

 

And those summer breaks don't go that far because teachers are still working a week after school lets out and, officially, a week before school starts -- but most start going in two weeks ahead of time. That's after 10 or 12 hour days throughout the school year, plus grading and lesson plans on weekends, answering calls and e-mails from parents, going to school special events many evenings, etc.

 

I know other jobs are hard, too. But I'm sick of constant teacher bashing from people who have no idea what goes into teaching.

I hope that is not his goal, C-Dawg.  Private school teachers make less for a reason.  Their job is waaaaay less stressful.  If public school pay goes down, you can bet that private school pay will mirror that decrease.  We could end up in a never ending downward spiral.  Private schools know their teachers will take less pay, albeit being more qualified quite possibly, then their public school counterparts to avoid the stress.

 

Kasich is taking public school teachers down because it's politically popular to do so (he is America's most hardcore libertarian/Fox news pundit, made no bones about it, and won). Private sector workers have no mercy left in them. They're the ones backing up Kasich.

 

Yes, you're right. The private sector workers are falling right in line with the Republican strategy of driving a wedge through the working class -- castigating the benefits of public sector workers so the non-unionized workers forget that the real problem is how underpaid they are compared to their millionaire bosses. I don't understand why private-sector backers of Kasich/Walker/et al are so infused with enmity toward public-sector workers while giving a pass to the Wall Street fatcats (like Kasich) who created the financial mess that Kasich is now making worse.

Yeah seriously, I know this is getting a bit off-topic, but teaching is not just an 8-5 job (and no, teachers don't go home at 3:00). They also have the additional work of grading papers and preparing lessons during the evenings and weekends.  That summer break is filled with seminars, school board meetings, curriculum development, continuing education, maintaining accreditation, and a whole host of random stuff.  Summer may not be full-time, but it's no cake walk.  Considering how much "homework" teachers are required to do during the school year (not all tests can be multiple-choice, and there's homework, papers, reports, labs, etc. to grade too), having a few months to recharge is hardly a perk, it's needed to maintain sanity. 

 

It's not unlike people complaining about all those lazy construction workers.  They're just standing around, why aren't they working?  Never mind that they might need to wait for something to get fixed before they can proceed, or that the concrete truck might be late, or they need the piping to be finished before they can backfill, etc.  It's simply hard work too.  You try being on your feet all day in the hot sun or cold winds.  That alone is difficult enough, just standing around, let alone actually carrying things, digging, or operating equipment.  We're very quick to point out how difficult our own job is and to admonish others for being lazy.  Nevertheless, they'd look at us and think the exact same thing. 

 

This. It's always hard for me to believe people actually think what they say when they talk about all the breaks and short work days teachers have.

Yes, you're right. The private sector workers are falling right in line with the Republican strategy of driving a wedge through the working class -- castigating the benefits of public sector workers so the non-unionized workers forget that the real problem is how underpaid they are compared to their millionaire bosses

 

Yes! That is the real issue. What's funny too is how mum guys like Kasich are on the Wall Street bailouts. "Oh, I'll take public sector money for myself and banker friends, but everyone else can go to hell."

 

They have no desire to help anyone but themselves. That's the core of their ideology. And honestly, the majority of voters agree with them. We've gone back to the era of robber barons. It won't change until people wake up and fight.

I hope that is not his goal, C-Dawg.  Private school teachers make less for a reason.  Their job is waaaaay less stressful.  If public school pay goes down, you can bet that private school pay will mirror that decrease.  We could end up in a never ending downward spiral.  Private schools know their teachers will take less pay, albeit being more qualified quite possibly, then their public school counterparts to avoid the stress.

 

The toughest teaching jobs are the ones in the slums or impoverished rural areas. Most of those jobs are with public schools. Kasich's methods might be more "take down urban public schools."

Yes! That is the real issue. What's funny too is how mum guys like Kasich are on the Wall Street bailouts. "Oh, I'll take public sector money for myself and banker friends, but everyone else can go to hell."

 

They have no desire to help anyone but themselves. That's the core of their ideology. And honestly, the majority of voters agree with them. We've gone back to the era of robber barons. It won't change until people wake up and fight.

 

That might be a part of the issue, or to those who's union rights are being attacked, it's the WHOLE issue.  But if you try and see it from another standpoint, you'll see that Ohio is getting it's butt handed to it by other states.  States which are more competitive for starting & owning a business, raising a family, retiring....  so many other states are more competitive than Ohio in terms of services offered, incentives available, or lower overall tax rate.  Kasich & other Republicans attacking unions might be singlehandedly trying to take out their opposing political base, but it might also have the effect of making Ohio more competitive. 

That might be a part of the issue, or to those who's union rights are being attacked, it's the WHOLE issue.  But if you try and see it from another standpoint, you'll see that Ohio is getting it's butt handed to it by other states.  States which are more competitive for starting & owning a business, raising a family, retiring....  so many other states are more competitive than Ohio in terms of services offered, incentives available, or lower overall tax rate.  Kasich & other Republicans attacking unions might be singlehandedly trying to take out their opposing political base, but it might also have the effect of making Ohio more competitive.

Well first you'd have to define "competitive".  Then we'd have to assess whether or not, given the definition, Ohio meets the standard.  Finally we'd have to figure out if being competitive is the proper goal.

 

But even if Ohio isn't competitive given however the word is defined, since we live in a nation where there is minimal cost to the free movement of labor and capital (same language and currency, for example) is there any detriment to Ohio choosing to be uncompetitive for anyone other than owners of Ohio real estate?  Why worry about collective action in Ohio at all and instead move your business or person to a more competitive state?

Could it be that those other states (like in the sunbelt) that offer more "incentives, rebates, lower taxes, etc." are actually farther behind the game?  It's like they're not as deep into the hole of the growth ponzi scheme that has characterized our economy for the past 60 years or so.  When all is said and done, which I admit could still be decades away, they'll be facing the same problems that states like Ohio are dealing with now.  Those incentives have to be paid for somehow, and it'll come back to bite them in the ass.  The difference is that while we'll hopefully have figured out a solution by then, they'll be in denial that there's a problem and will try to keep the good times rolling.  At the same time, I doubt they'll have built up the assets that earlier developed northern states did with the riches they had.  Think about Cincinnati for instance.  It's rare enough for a city this small to have so many great assets like fantastic museums, symphonies, Fortune 500 companies, parks, etc., yet even huge sunbelt cities can't compare.  They're putting all their riches into highway interchanges and further sprawl.

 

In a way, this parallels the city/suburb divide.  Growth in the sunbelt is akin to growth in the suburbs.  While they both offer lower taxes, newer infrastructure, less red tape, and an "everybody else is doing it" sort of cachet, it's a temporary and unsustainable pattern.  Once the infrastructure ages and the place is no longer hip, once the real costs of that growth come to the surface, the newness and low taxes that drew people there evaporate.  This is true for inner ring suburbs as well, and as we're seeing, they're becoming some of the hardest hit areas.  The ones that do survive are the ones that offer assets beyond newness and low taxes.  Older cities can't ride the wave of newness, and they're not being subsidized anymore, so the costs of living and doing business there are less distorted.  They also have a much more resilient development pattern that's going to make them a bigger asset as resource scarcity becomes more acute.   

 

The flight to the suburbs, to the south, or to third world countries is a race to the bottom, where price is the only consideration.  Unfortunately, that's a race that nobody wins in the long run, and it leaves a huge amount of losers in its wake.  Forces beyond our control are starting to dictate which places have a future and which ones don't.  Ohio is certainly hurting, but it's positioned well as far as resources and location.  Those other states that are kicking Ohio's butt are doing so by leveraging themselves in such a risky manner that if they fail they just might envy the rust belt. 

But if you try and see it from another standpoint, you'll see that Ohio is getting it's butt handed to it by other states.  States which are more competitive for starting & owning a business, raising a family, retiring....  so many other states are more competitive than Ohio in terms of services offered, incentives available, or lower overall tax rate.  Kasich & other Republicans attacking unions might be singlehandedly trying to take out their opposing political base, but it might also have the effect of making Ohio more competitive.

 

True, we are getting our asses kicked. I just hope we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Plenty of other competitive states have destroyed their quality of life and don't have a sustainability plan. I'm talking sprawlholes like North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, etc. Does anyone think Phoenix, Vegas, and Charlotte are going to be nice places to live in the future? I want Ohio to be like Seattle or Portland, not Phoenix or Charlotte.

That might be a part of the issue, or to those who's union rights are being attacked, it's the WHOLE issue.  But if you try and see it from another standpoint, you'll see that Ohio is getting it's butt handed to it by other states.  States which are more competitive for starting & owning a business, raising a family, retiring....  so many other states are more competitive than Ohio in terms of services offered, incentives available, or lower overall tax rate.  Kasich & other Republicans attacking unions might be singlehandedly trying to take out their opposing political base, but it might also have the effect of making Ohio more competitive. 

 

If other states are more competitive than Ohio because they offer better services, how will Ohio compete by cutting those services and castigating those who perform them? Is any business going to locate in Ohio if the governor spends so much time and energy bashing the school system and the teachers?

That might be a part of the issue, or to those who's union rights are being attacked, it's the WHOLE issue.  But if you try and see it from another standpoint, you'll see that Ohio is getting it's butt handed to it by other states.  States which are more competitive for starting & owning a business, raising a family, retiring....  so many other states are more competitive than Ohio in terms of services offered, incentives available, or lower overall tax rate.  Kasich & other Republicans attacking unions might be singlehandedly trying to take out their opposing political base, but it might also have the effect of making Ohio more competitive. 

 

If other states are more competitive than Ohio because they offer better services, how will Ohio compete by cutting those services and castigating those who perform them? Is any business going to locate in Ohio if the governor spends so much time and energy bashing the school system and the teachers?

 

I know this is a rhetorical question, but I think the answer is "yes."  Moreover, I think that many businesses, like many people, understand the difference between bashing teaching as a profession and bashing the teachers unions and the lower tail of the bell curve of the profession (the deadweight that remains in the profession solely because it is protected by tenure and other firing restrictions insisted upon by unions).  Likewise, as between the two options, I'm sure that many businesses are grateful to see that the administration's first thought is to attack personnel costs, not to raise taxes.

Seniority is not a factor for 'firings'.... if the school board has just cause to fire you, you get fired.  Simple as that.  Same goes for police, fire, EMS, etc. 

 

The issues are getting muddled.

 

Also keep in mind that Senate Bill 5 does not repeal Ch 124 of the RC and the protections afforded therein.  Therefore, if getting rid of the old folks... I mean deadweight.... is your goal, you are going to be disappointed.

 

Question - why are higher education instructors being spared from this attack on the middle class?

Seniority is not a factor for 'firings'.... if the school board has just cause to fire you, you get fired.  Simple as that.  Same goes for police, fire, EMS, etc. 

 

The issues are getting muddled.

 

Also keep in mind that Senate Bill 5 does not repeal Ch 124 of the RC and the protections afforded therein.  Therefore, if getting rid of the old folks... I mean deadweight.... is your goal, you are going to be disappointed.

While we might all support firing non-performers and under performers, lets be honest it doesn't really happen. I agree that SB5 doesn't address this issue, but don't pretend that it's not an issue.

Sure it is an issue.  But that is not because of some power the unions are taking away from the school boards.  Every single CBA has a very strong management rights clause.  What the gen pop doesn't understand is that not every firing is justified and a lot of times management does not do a good job of hididng that fact.  That is where the unions come in and, if it happened to you, you would be more than happy to have your union rep defend you against a boss who is trying to carry out some personal vendetta or showing patronage/chronyism to his/her brown-nosers.

While we might all support firing non-performers and under performers, lets be honest it doesn't really happen. I agree that SB5 doesn't address this issue, but don't pretend that it's not an issue.

 

Looks like some teachers unions are getting the message that people want to see reform.

 

"Responding to criticism that tenure gives even poor teachers a job for life, Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, announced a plan Thursday to overhaul how teachers are evaluated and dismissed. In her plan, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, addresses criticism of tenure. It would give tenured teachers who are rated unsatisfactory by their principals a maximum of one school year to improve. If they did not, they could be fired within 100 days."

 

"The issue has erupted recently, with many districts anticipating layoffs because of slashed budgets. Mayors including Michael R. Bloomberg of New York and Cory A. Booker of Newark have attacked seniority laws, which require that teacher dismissals be based on length of experience rather than on competency."

 

Looks like there are laws in place to protect "senior" members in some of the larger teacher unions.

 

The questions they are asking now is who would be responsible for evaluations and improvement plans. The school administrators or the unions?

 

Looks like at least some positive reform may be comming due to the recent budget issues and public-union criticism.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/education/25teacher.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question - why are higher education instructors being spared from this attack on the middle class?

 

For the purposes of this thread, it's because they're generally not unionized.

 

For the purposes of a separate discussion on tenure reform, that's a more complicated question.

Once again, let's not confuse a firing with a layoff.  Seniority only comes into play in the latter situation.  In a firing, someone is being axed because they are doing a poor job.  I support the ability of management to make those decisions for cause.  In a layoff, however, someone has to be let go for (usually) economic reasons and seniority certainly should be the main factor IMO.

Sure it is an issue.  But that is not because of some power the unions are taking away from the school boards.  Every single CBA has a very strong management rights clause.  What the gen pop doesn't understand is that not every firing is justified and a lot of times management does not do a good job of hididng that fact.  That is where the unions come in and, if it happened to you, you would be more than happy to have your union rep defend you against a boss who is trying to carry out some personal vendetta or showing patronage/chronyism to his/her brown-nosers.

 

I think the "gen pop" may understand more than you give them credit for.  The issues here are that (a) genuinely good teachers (or cops, or firefighters) who really are fired just because of some kind of personal vendetta with a single manager should be able to find another job, especially once the labor market is loosened; and (b) just as not every firing is justified, not every lack of a firing is justified, either, and every job held by a seniority-protected middling performer is a job lost out on by a recent graduate that might be both better and less expensive.

 

The issue is which set of problems you'd rather deal with.  I'd rather deal with a few ill-advised firings than far too many ill-advised retentions.

For a year my wife taught 3rd grade at a public charter in Slavic Village.  I'm not the biggest fan of unions, but what she and the other young teachers experienced in their work environment was deplorable.

 

-She usually had no breaks during the day.

 

-Parent would come in and say things like "my kid don't need school he's a ball player" or "I wish I never had my daughter."

 

-Kids that desperately wanted to learn but had to be sent home because there was nobody to bathe them or provide clean clothes.

 

-Desks and chairs being thrown on a daily basis.

 

-Break up physical altercations between parents and other peoples children. 

 

-Kids who were abused or abandoned and non stop phone calls and meetings with child services.

 

-When she got home she did lesson plans until around 10pm because she loved her students and wanted them to learn.

 

By May she just couldn't handle it anymore.  She had to take time off. Years later she is now teaching again at a much much better run public charter in Lorain.  Really, to see her and teachers like her trying to succeed under those conditions in Slavic Village was really brutal.  Anyhow, my point is not to cry about it, but just wanted to give my 2 cents on the matter of teacher burnout.

 

p.s. Almost forgot, the much touted and talked about Christmas bonus turned out to be a canned ham from the millionaire CEO of the company.  So funny, they touted this "bonus" in her job interview and through November, like it would be a thousand dollars! Surprise lol.

 

Teacher burnout...  wow.  Summers off ought to make up for that.  Ditto for spring break, fall break, Christmas break, fog days, snow days, sick days, President's Day, MLK Day, Day after Thanksgiving....

 

Every profession is prone to some level of "burnout".  I suppose it's possible with teaching but I can think of about a dozen other professions with higher rates of burnout and stress levels.  Before anyone asks, I have taught in the class room also and I would rate those days as much less stressful than my current field.  As to teaching to test standards, we all have to be measured by some "bottom line" whether it's a test score, a performance rating, a deadline, or a monetary value.  How we get there is usually up to the individual. 

 

 

Once again, let's not confuse a firing with a layoff.  Seniority only comes into play in the latter situation.  In a firing, someone is being axed because they are doing a poor job.  I support the ability of management to make those decisions for cause.  In a layoff, however, someone has to be let go for (usually) economic reasons and seniority certainly should be the main factor IMO.

 

I actually disagree there.  I think it should always be the worst performers that are let go first, regardless of the reason for doing so (economic or performance).  The problem is that it is difficult to objectively judge who is the worst performer without politics and cronyism and back-door deals and favors coming into play.

 

And if "economic purposes" are meant to be the only gain in a layoff, shouldn't people with the most seniority be let go first.  (This is why I'm against using "economics" as the basis for who gets laid off, and the only other logical criterion is performance.  Least seniority is just the easy way out/good ol' boy system way of not having to accurately assess performance.  Of course, I don't have a better solution, though. :) )

While I am reluctant to support the teachers union, or other unions in general, there is at least one thing they do that's very valuable to the profession.  They protect teachers from out-of-control parents who want that teacher fired for doing their job.  The teacher who gives their kid a low grade for bad performance, or sends them to detention for misbehaving.  Heaven forbid! 

 

Discipline and grade inflation are huge problems because teachers fear that any one parent could sweep in and destroy their career because THEIR child is the smartest and most well-behaved little snowflake in the school.  This is exactly the kind of thing unions are there for, and you could argue that they're not effective enough in this case because it's still a very big problem.  Nevertheless, this is also something the general population wants eliminated, because they're the ones who want to get said teachers fired in the first place. 

JamJeff, you would run into age discrimination issues by just cutting the most senoir employees.  That is federal law and somrthing Kasich can't do anything about.

 

Gramarye, so you are suggesting "at will" status for our civil servants?  Good luck with that, says the SCOTUS....

Collective bargaining reform must avoid overreach

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110301/EDIT02/103020307/Collective-bargaining-reform-must-avoid-overreach?odyssey=mod

 

For most, the question's not whether public sector collective bargaining law needs reform; it's how best to do it. The 1983 Ohio law creating it hasn't been materially revised in 27 years. Dire fiscal straits alone compel us to seek reform now.

 

Senate Bill 5, as proposed by its lone sponsor, went well beyond what Wisconsin's governor is doing in the Badger State. SB 5 restricts police and fire bargaining; Wisconsin does not. SB 5 mandates all employees to pay 20 percent of healthcare costs; Wisconsin's bill asks only 12.6 percent. Wisconsin's bill asks public employees to pay 5% of salary towards their pension; Ohio law already imposes far greater requirements on public employees. SB 5 bars collective bargaining by state and university employees (provisions from which the sponsor is apparently retreating); I ask how repeal equates to reform.

The unions want to compromise.  Even before SB5, they were already making concessions.  The Republicans at the statehouse, however, have apparently taken a cue from their DC counterparts in the HCR debate in that it is either "my way or the highway"

JamJeff, you would run into age discrimination issues by just cutting the most senoir employees.  That is federal law and somrthing Kasich can't do anything about.

 

I know, I was just saying that (in theory) that would make the most (purely) economic sense, but I don't think it is a good idea (both in fairness and in the interest of preserving the quality of education).

The issue is which set of problems you'd rather deal with.  I'd rather deal with a few ill-advised firings than far too many ill-advised retentions.

 

But that's pure speculation that there would be less ill-advised firings than there are currently ill-advised retentions.

I'd rather deal with a few ill-advised firings than far too many ill-advised retentions.

 

I totally disagree here and think you have it flipped.  I'd rather we have more ill-advised retentions than ill-advised firings.  It's like the death penalty scenario... I'd rather set ten guilty men free than kill one innocent man. 

 

I don't know the specific difficulties in firing teachers, but I have heard stories that it can be nearly impossible for tenured staff.  If that's the case then we need to make it easier for our school principals to fire those teachers that don't perform.

^^And it is pure speculation as to which category there are "too many" and which there are "a few"

 

^easy... don't give them "tenure"...... there is no law that requires the granting of tenure.  If a teacher has it, it is the result of the school board's actions/decisions, not state law.  State law only addresses senoirity, which is different than tenure.  The whole purpose of tenure is to ensure job security.  It is an earned, not granted, status.

Once again, let's not confuse a firing with a layoff.  Seniority only comes into play in the latter situation.  In a firing, someone is being axed because they are doing a poor job.  I support the ability of management to make those decisions for cause.  In a layoff, however, someone has to be let go for (usually) economic reasons and seniority certainly should be the main factor IMO.

 

Regarding changes to the "last in, first out" policy that teacher unions use for layoffs. While seniority should be a factor, I would say it shouldnt be the 'main' factor. Having this safety net policy in place only breeds mediocracy within the ranks of older/tenured teachers. What reason do they have to improve, or do anything over absolute minimum if they know their job is safe if layoffs occur?

 

We need to keep the best and brightest teachers - as this is one of the most important jobs right now and our public educational system is seriously lacking. We cant afford to be laying off bright young teachers.

 

Without this safety net, I feel our entire public education system is to benefit. The worst performing teachers are the ones to go, while those who perform the best can rest assured that their job is safe, no matter how long they have been teaching. Budgets are hurting, there will be layoffs - lets make sure we are keeping the good teachers, not just complying with a seniority law that needs to go.

How about we figure out a way to not have to do the layoffs in the first place?  The last thing we need is less teachers, whether they be old, young, whatever...

How about we figure out a way to not have to do the layoffs in the first place?  The last thing we need is less teachers, whether they be old, young, whatever...

 

We'd all like that ... but we'd also like that without tax rates continuing to go up and up and up.

I'd rather deal with a few ill-advised firings than far too many ill-advised retentions.

I totally disagree here and think you have it flipped.  I'd rather we have more ill-advised retentions than ill-advised firings.  It's like the death penalty scenario... I'd rather set ten guilty men free than kill one innocent man.

 

I don't think that it's a good comparison to the death penalty scenario.  If Hilliard were to fire a good teacher for no good reason, that teacher could get another job in Dublin, UA, GH, Columbus Public, South-Western, Marysville, wherever.  The consequences can be mitigated.  If we execute an innocent person, that's sort of game over.

You think other districts would jump at the chance to hire a 55 yr old teacher who has a termination on his/her record?  I don't know about that.  I do know that if you are fired as a cop, you probably want to start looking for a new profession because no other dept is going to touch you with a 10 foot pole.

 

And as long as the private sector keeps inceasing the price of goods and services, your taxes will continue to go up.  The private sector, where the public sector has to shop, is outpacing inflation.  Cities need concrete, they need steel, they need salt, they need cars.  Amazing how people thinks this doesn't cost $

 

You think other districts would jump at the chance to hire a 55 yr old teacher who has a termination on his/her record?  I don't know about that.  I do know that if you are fired as a cop, you probably want to start looking for a new profession because no other dept is going to touch you with a 10 foot pole.

 

That's because right now a cop or a teacher has to practically break the law before they can get fired...

You think other districts would jump at the chance to hire a 55 yr old teacher who has a termination on his/her record?  I don't know about that.  I do know that if you are fired as a cop, you probably want to start looking for a new profession because no other dept is going to touch you with a 10 foot pole.

 

And as long as the private sector keeps inceasing the price of goods and services, your taxes will continue to go up.  The private sector, where the public sector has to shop, is outpacing inflation.  Cities need concrete, they need steel, they need salt, they need cars.  Amazing how people thinks this doesn't cost $

 

 

If terminations are based largely on "performance", then no - I would not expect anyone to hire that 55 year old teacher because she would have been fired for being a poor performer. This is the real world, and we cant afford to pay people who cannot do their job well. And we definitely cant afford to keep these teachers over their productive counterparts, just because they may have trouble finding teaching work. Its simple - do you job well, and you wont be the one going.

 

People get fired and laid off everyday for various reasons. You have to think whats best for the children and education system. Not whats best for that 55 year old teacher who fell to the back of the pack at her school or district.

 

I'm not saying seniority shouldnt play 'any' part, experience counts, but it certainly shouldnt be the seniority systems that unions are using today.