Does anyone know whats next?......

[spectrumc01]

*The hypothetical : Wisconsin governor wins, there is no more teachers union.

1st : In a class of 50 students - 5 receive A's / 5 receive B's / 10 receive C's / 10 receive D's / 20 fail completely. This says A's are possible because it was proven it could be done, the failures failed because they did not apply themselves, not because of the teacher. So how does removing the teachers union solve children appling themselves?

2nd: No more teachers union, how does this effect class sizes?

3rd : No more teachers union, how does this effect the state standardized tests?

4th : No more teachers union, how does this get parents more involved in their childrens education?

5th : No more teachers union, how does this automatically provide better teachers?

6th : No more teachers union, how does this balance the whole state budget?

7th : If the teachers union is removed and things don't improve then did we get rid of it for nothing? and does anyone know what the harm caused from such a removal would be?

These are thing we need to think about and have answers for before we start shouting down the teachers union. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

I don't believe getting rid of the teachers union will solve anthing, perhaps a modification of the teachers union would be more appropriate.

 

[Leweman]

What exists right now shouldnt be the standard. Its not good. Needs to be improvements. Will this improve things? Pry not. Will letting the union get their way improve things? Pry not.

 

[Leweman]

Also they arent getting rid of the teachers union so I dont know why you say that

 

[spectrumc01]

Getting rid of collective bargaining effectivly removes all power from the union, essentially killing it.

 

[CoolBreeze]

Not all unions, just public sector unions. Private sector unions such as in the coal and steel industries will still be able to steal their companies blind while bargaining them out of existance.

 

[tstat87]

The one question I can answer is the class size question. Besides the budget question we really wouldn't know for sure how getting rid of a union would affect some of these things. Such as the parents getting involved? The only way to find that out would be if it was happening. However, to address the class size issue. If teacher unions were no longer around, class sizes would definitely increase. Obviously. Unions require that classrooms have caps and that good student-teacher ratios be kept to keep classes small to "better learning". However, it has been proven that small class sizes are only beneficial in K-3 reading classes. We would be able to get rid of some ineffective teachers and make teachers actually begin to teach. And before anyone says that I wouldn't know if teachers are actually teaching or not should know I am in high school and I see everyday how teachers are lazy. There are the select few who are the exception but in general teachers would just as soon give us a crossword then assign us a paper. Why? Because they would have to read them and grade it. If there were no unions then the best teachers would teach and the ineffective would get fired. I think it is a bit ridiculous when my school has 5 classes of freshman english and 2 classes of honors freshman english.. there are only about 110 people in the freshman class. With 3 different teachers teaching the classes.Sorry about going off there, it's just something that has always bugged me, teachers being lazy.

I don't think the teacher unions should be eliminated but I do think they should be modified. Make it easier to terminate employment for horrible teachers, get rid of tenure at the high school level it is ineffective, and keep the class size limits but raise them perhaps? I don't see why teachers shouldn't be able to teach 30 kids per class. Yet they complain when they hit 20.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

*The hypothetical : Wisconsin governor wins, there is no more teachers union.

1st : In a class of 50 students - 5 receive A's / 5 receive B's / 10 receive C's / 10 receive D's / 20 fail completely. This says A's are possible because it was proven it could be done, the failures failed because they did not apply themselves, not because of the teacher. So how does removing the teachers union solve children appling themselves?

How is that worse than now? Everyone passes,, but no one learns anything?

By the way, a statistical bell curve would have 5 get As, 10 get Bs 20 Cs, 10 Ds, and 5 Fs. maybe you should have paid more attention in that first class, unions label, education you got.

2nd: No more teachers union, how does this effect class sizes?

Class sizes are mandated by federal law, not unions.

3rd : No more teachers union, how does this effect the state standardized tests?

Maybe some of those private school teachers will switch over and boost them up.

4th : No more teachers union, how does this get parents more involved in their childrens education?

How have the unions done that?

5th : No more teachers union, how does this automatically provide better teachers?

It doesn't, but it does make it easier to fire the bad ones.

6th : No more teachers union, how does this balance the whole state budget?

One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

7th : If the teachers union is removed and things don't improve then did we get rid of it for nothing? and does anyone know what the harm caused from such a removal would be?

Things will improve because we will be spending less money, even if we end up with the same shitty product.

These are thing we need to think about and have answers for before we start shouting down the teachers union. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

I don't believe getting rid of the teachers union will solve anthing, perhaps a modification of the teachers union would be more appropriate.

These are things intelligent people have already thought about. I would discuss them with you, but this post demonstrates that you are neither intelligent, nor capable of thinking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Getting rid of collective bargaining effectivly removes all power from the union, essentially killing it.

Federal workers have 0 collective bargaining power, yet they exist. Can you explain that?

 

[bodecea]

*The hypothetical : Wisconsin governor wins, there is no more teachers union.

1st : In a class of 50 students - 5 receive A's / 5 receive B's / 10 receive C's / 10 receive D's / 20 fail completely. This says A's are possible because it was proven it could be done, the failures failed because they did not apply themselves, not because of the teacher. So how does removing the teachers union solve children appling themselves?

How is that worse than now? Everyone passes,, but no one learns anything?

By the way, a statistical bell curve would have 5 get As, 10 get Bs 20 Cs, 10 Ds, and 5 Fs. maybe you should have paid more attention in that first class, unions label, education you got.

2nd: No more teachers union, how does this effect class sizes?

Class sizes are mandated by federal law, not unions.

Maybe some of those private school teachers will switch over and boost them up.



How have the unions done that?



It doesn't, but it does make it easier to fire the bad ones.



One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

7th : If the teachers union is removed and things don't improve then did we get rid of it for nothing? and does anyone know what the harm caused from such a removal would be?

Things will improve because we will be spending less money, even if we end up with the same shitty product.

These are thing we need to think about and have answers for before we start shouting down the teachers union. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

I don't believe getting rid of the teachers union will solve anthing, perhaps a modification of the teachers union would be more appropriate.

These are things intelligent people have already thought about. I would discuss them with you, but this post demonstrates that you are neither intelligent, nor capable of thinking.

Simply not true.

 

[JBeukema]

Not all unions, just public sector unions.

Actually... just the ones who supported the opposition in the last election

 

[R.D.]

Class sizes are mandated by federal law, not unions.


Simply not true.

A Descriptive Evaluation of the Federal Class-Size Reduction Program

 

[psikeyhackr]

When Patrick Koch of Parma, Ohio was a second grader, his parents bought him an expensive new encyclopedia. His mother and father quickly forgot the cost when Patrick liked the new books and began to read them with enthusiasm. After a few sessions poring over his new learning tool, Patrick announced one morning to his parents that he was not going to school. He felt he could learn more by staying at home and reading his encyclopedia than by attending classes. Naturally his parents rejected this innovative plan of learning, and the youngster headed into the classroom. His parents weren't unduly conservative. Rarely would parents trust their child's education to a novel experiment like this. They would fear that instead of helping him, it might hinder his education.

The school board in Indian River County in Florida confronted the problems of keeping "at-risk" students in regular classes with a new solution. A new use of computers was suggested: remove these students from regular classrooms and let the machines teach them. Since teachers didn't relish the difficulties involved in trying to teach these students, it was an opportunity to try something new without arousing opposition from teachers. After considering the options, the school board authorized the establishment of a program using computers. It started in the Vero Beach High School in 1987. School authorities put the "at-risk" students into a separate section where teaching was done, not by teachers, but by computers. Teachers in these classes became facilitators of learning.

Only sixty-six percent of successful graduates can pass the GED with the Florida requirements after twelve normal years of learning in school. The "at-risk" students had been markedly behind when they entered the program. Now the school demanded that they not only equal other graduates, but that they do better than one-third of them. If they failed, their quest of a diploma had also failed. Odds against these students passing the GED were enormous. No one unfamiliar with the power of computers could have given them much chance to graduate.

When the tests were given and scored, questions about the effectiveness of this novel way of teaching vanished. Computers had effectively overcome those oppressive negative odds. Eighty-five percent of these students taught by computers pass the GED with the Florida requirements on their first attempt.

Bennett & Computerized Education <-- LINK

That was 1987 before Intel even introduced the 486 processor and we NEVER hear about that. Would you expect teachers unions to shout about it from the rooftops?

But what kind of computers were they and what software was on them. I haven't found that.

But why can't parents network today and get started with computer education for their kids regardless of what is happening in the schools.

This device can play videos off the Internet or from an SD Card plugged into the slot.



Here are math videos:



PatrickJMT Math Videos <-- LINK

Quit worrying about the schools and the teachers and focus on educating the kids. I bet most teachers are more concerned about their paychecks than anybody's kids. I bought a book written by a man who told me he was a high school English teacher. While I was reading it I found grammatical errors so I started highlighting them so he could correct them. But it got to be so many I decided not to tell him because he might get pissed off. If he wanted to embarrass himself far be it from me to get in the way.

We really have not figured out what to do with these computers and I bet most teachers are afraid of what can probably be done with them. I am not interested in firing teachers I just think we need to develop a whole new style of teaching to incorporate them. I think the lecture paradigm is mostly obsolete but the teachers want to keep operating that way. The system should be more exploratory and the kids should have access to the teachers for specific questions. Let the computers do the lecturing with videos and the teachers can monitor what videos they have covered and randomly ask questions to see if they are understood.

psik

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

*The hypothetical : Wisconsin governor wins, there is no more teachers union.

1st : In a class of 50 students - 5 receive A's / 5 receive B's / 10 receive C's / 10 receive D's / 20 fail completely. This says A's are possible because it was proven it could be done, the failures failed because they did not apply themselves, not because of the teacher. So how does removing the teachers union solve children appling themselves?

How is that worse than now? Everyone passes,, but no one learns anything?

By the way, a statistical bell curve would have 5 get As, 10 get Bs 20 Cs, 10 Ds, and 5 Fs. maybe you should have paid more attention in that first class, unions label, education you got.



Class sizes are mandated by federal law, not unions.

Maybe some of those private school teachers will switch over and boost them up.



How have the unions done that?



It doesn't, but it does make it easier to fire the bad ones.



One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.



Things will improve because we will be spending less money, even if we end up with the same shitty product.

These are thing we need to think about and have answers for before we start shouting down the teachers union. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

I don't believe getting rid of the teachers union will solve anthing, perhaps a modification of the teachers union would be more appropriate.

These are things intelligent people have already thought about. I would discuss them with you, but this post demonstrates that you are neither intelligent, nor capable of thinking.

Simply not true.

His post was bang on, so of course you thnk its wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

*The hypothetical : Wisconsin governor wins, there is no more teachers union.

1st : In a class of 50 students - 5 receive A's / 5 receive B's / 10 receive C's / 10 receive D's / 20 fail completely. This says A's are possible because it was proven it could be done, the failures failed because they did not apply themselves, not because of the teacher. So how does removing the teachers union solve children appling themselves?

How is that worse than now? Everyone passes,, but no one learns anything?

By the way, a statistical bell curve would have 5 get As, 10 get Bs 20 Cs, 10 Ds, and 5 Fs. maybe you should have paid more attention in that first class, unions label, education you got.



Class sizes are mandated by federal law, not unions.

Maybe some of those private school teachers will switch over and boost them up.



How have the unions done that?



It doesn't, but it does make it easier to fire the bad ones.



One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.



Things will improve because we will be spending less money, even if we end up with the same shitty product.

These are thing we need to think about and have answers for before we start shouting down the teachers union. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

I don't believe getting rid of the teachers union will solve anthing, perhaps a modification of the teachers union would be more appropriate.

These are things intelligent people have already thought about. I would discuss them with you, but this post demonstrates that you are neither intelligent, nor capable of thinking.

Simply not true.

Simply true.

In an effort to stem the tide of falling public school test scores, states and school districts across the country have spent millions to fund costly mandates that dictate the maximum number of students per classroom. In some cases, such as in Florida, these mandates have been dictated by nothing short of a constitutional amendment. This has led to the broad acceptance of specific student/teacher ratios—typically around 20:1—as some magical formula, like the Golden Mean.
Critics of these mandated ratios often point out that there is little evidence that smaller class sizes work. The most recent, a new study by Matthew M. Chingos, a research fellow at Harvard University’s Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG), found that Florida’s mandated class size reductions had no discernible impact on student achievement.

The Numbers Game: Why Class Size Mandates Miss the Point : Education Next

 

[llumina]

No I don't think that anyone know "what will be next?" .

 

[eots]

*The hypothetical : Wisconsin governor wins, there is no more teachers union.

1st : In a class of 50 students - 5 receive A's / 5 receive B's / 10 receive C's / 10 receive D's / 20 fail completely. This says A's are possible because it was proven it could be done, the failures failed because they did not apply themselves, not because of the teacher. So how does removing the teachers union solve children appling themselves?

2nd: No more teachers union, how does this effect class sizes?

3rd : No more teachers union, how does this effect the state standardized tests?

4th : No more teachers union, how does this get parents more involved in their childrens education?

5th : No more teachers union, how does this automatically provide better teachers?

6th : No more teachers union, how does this balance the whole state budget?

7th : If the teachers union is removed and things don't improve then did we get rid of it for nothing? and does anyone know what the harm caused from such a removal would be?

These are thing we need to think about and have answers for before we start shouting down the teachers union. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

I don't believe getting rid of the teachers union will solve anthing, perhaps a modification of the teachers union would be more appropriate.

... If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.

 

[AllieBaba]

When Patrick Koch of Parma, Ohio was a second grader, his parents bought him an expensive new encyclopedia. His mother and father quickly forgot the cost when Patrick liked the new books and began to read them with enthusiasm. After a few sessions poring over his new learning tool, Patrick announced one morning to his parents that he was not going to school. He felt he could learn more by staying at home and reading his encyclopedia than by attending classes. Naturally his parents rejected this innovative plan of learning, and the youngster headed into the classroom. His parents weren't unduly conservative. Rarely would parents trust their child's education to a novel experiment like this. They would fear that instead of helping him, it might hinder his education.

The school board in Indian River County in Florida confronted the problems of keeping "at-risk" students in regular classes with a new solution. A new use of computers was suggested: remove these students from regular classrooms and let the machines teach them. Since teachers didn't relish the difficulties involved in trying to teach these students, it was an opportunity to try something new without arousing opposition from teachers. After considering the options, the school board authorized the establishment of a program using computers. It started in the Vero Beach High School in 1987. School authorities put the "at-risk" students into a separate section where teaching was done, not by teachers, but by computers. Teachers in these classes became facilitators of learning.

Only sixty-six percent of successful graduates can pass the GED with the Florida requirements after twelve normal years of learning in school. The "at-risk" students had been markedly behind when they entered the program. Now the school demanded that they not only equal other graduates, but that they do better than one-third of them. If they failed, their quest of a diploma had also failed. Odds against these students passing the GED were enormous. No one unfamiliar with the power of computers could have given them much chance to graduate.

When the tests were given and scored, questions about the effectiveness of this novel way of teaching vanished. Computers had effectively overcome those oppressive negative odds. Eighty-five percent of these students taught by computers pass the GED with the Florida requirements on their first attempt.

Bennett & Computerized Education <-- LINK

That was 1987 before Intel even introduced the 486 processor and we NEVER hear about that. Would you expect teachers unions to shout about it from the rooftops?

But what kind of computers were they and what software was on them. I haven't found that.

But why can't parents network today and get started with computer education for their kids regardless of what is happening in the schools.

This device can play videos off the Internet or from an SD Card plugged into the slot.



Here are math videos:



PatrickJMT Math Videos <-- LINK

Quit worrying about the schools and the teachers and focus on educating the kids. I bet most teachers are more concerned about their paychecks than anybody's kids. I bought a book written by a man who told me he was a high school English teacher. While I was reading it I found grammatical errors so I started highlighting them so he could correct them. But it got to be so many I decided not to tell him because he might get pissed off. If he wanted to embarrass himself far be it from me to get in the way.

We really have not figured out what to do with these computers and I bet most teachers are afraid of what can probably be done with them. I am not interested in firing teachers I just think we need to develop a whole new style of teaching to incorporate them. I think the lecture paradigm is mostly obsolete but the teachers want to keep operating that way. The system should be more exploratory and the kids should have access to the teachers for specific questions. Let the computers do the lecturing with videos and the teachers can monitor what videos they have covered and randomly ask questions to see if they are understood.

psik

Parents can and will successfully increase the quality of their kids' education ONCE THE UNION PIGS are out of the way. I think there will be some very big changes.

Licensing requirements are going to change in order to allow WI to hire new teachers based on their skill set, rather than their education. In other words, someone with a masters in English will be able to teach high school or junior high English, despite the fact they didn't do 4 years at a teacher's college to learn how to TEACH without actually having to learn the subjects they teach.

They will allow teachers from other states to teach without having to first comply with silly state regs that mean nothing and exist only to protect the workers in that state from being ousted by someone better qualified from out of state.

There will be increased volunteerism to fill the initial gaps left by the teachers who deserted ship. And the gaps won't be there long..there are a lot of lean, young teachers nationwide who already have their bags packed.

The rest of the states are going to follow suit, and we are going to see a huge leap in the quality of kids' education.

 

[spectrumc01]

Here it is... the start to solving our problem of education.

The first step would be to get parents involved more in their childrens education, and to do that we should provide a tax incentive. A state tax credit, to be determined by the state in question, should be given to the parents, per child. The size of the credit is determined by the grades of the student, report card verification would be required.

The second step would be to centralize community schools by dividing them up into school zones. For example, one high school per county. The reason for one high school is because we need to convert highschools into boarding schools with closed campus status for security reasons, i.e. gangs, drugs. Students, parents, faculty, and relatives are the only ones allowed on campus.

The third step would be to modify the curiculum. We need to recognize that not every student is going to go to college and therefore a trade school curiculum is needed. This should be included so our students can prepare themselves for every eventuality and opportunity.

The fourth step is to modify the teaching requirements. The teachers own educational achievements should reflect their own teaching position. For example a first grade math teacher should not need a masters degree in mathmatics nor should the district pay for such a degree if it is not needed for that position. This is not to say that the teacher in question could not acquire the degree on their own.

The last step is to modify the financial compensation. Teachers and administrators who pay for their own education should be rewarded by receiving total employment freedom, i.e. work where ever they want. Teachers and administrators who had the state pay for their education will be placed where they are needed most within the educational system until their loans are paid off. A shift of responsibilities needs to take place within payment structure. The school districts will no longer be required to financialy pay for pensions, or healthcare. The districts would pay the teachers more money and it would be up to the teachers union to privide pensions and health care to their members. This would give the district more control over their budget, and allow the union to better take care of it's members by deciding how to fund their own healthcare and pensions through dues. It will also allow the worker to decide if they want in the union or not.

This or something like it should be at least be looked at IMO. Spending more money is not the solution to our education problems, nor is breaking the teachers union. It's time for the two extreme sides of our political system to shut up for awhile.