Can you elaborate? The general negative sentiment towards teachers is confusing to me.
It seems you trust them enough to take a very major part in raising your child, but not enough to make a decision about what’s best? I’d like you to elaborate because this view makes it seem like parents view teachers as nannies (who, by the way, should also have a say in whether they want to get exposed to a virus or take it home to their own family).
No good parent just "trusts" teachers to raise their children. Good parents are constantly involved: keeping tabs on schoolwork, helping and encouraging their child, meeting with teachers and administrators, volunteering, and sometimes getting their child moved from one class to another when the teacher is bad.
Unions represent the teachers' interests, not the students'. Not only that, but there's more than sufficient evidence that remote learning harms kids, especially the poor or otherwise disadvantaged. At the end of the day, you have to weigh potential risks, which for kids COVID is a very small (though still real) risk.
It is especially hard on parents whose jobs don't allow working remotely- retail, manufacturing, etc. Why should teachers be exempt when parents are not?
If we had European style unions, more might be inclined to agree. American unions are substantially less effective (in both outcomes and usage of dues), and their declining enrollment shows.
Not sure what in GP you think is negative towards teachers. Sounds like you probably don’t have kids of your own.
As a parent and tax payer I’d like to have my child taught in a school by competent people. Not via Zoom by someone who can’t understand that the risks are unbelievably low and kids are being damaged by missing out on school.
GP is a fairly standard anti union stance against teachers.
And, honestly, your post seems further in that direction. That is, you are furthering the narrative that many teachers are not competent, since they "can't understand the risks.". If they are that incompetent, why are they still teaching?
We've arrived in a weird situation where we pay so little to teachers and yet require a high level of education, that we aren't attracting our best & brightest to the profession. I've still met some great teachers, but I've met a lot of glorified babysitters. It's infuriating.
Salary isn't based on which degrees you have, it's based on what job you're doing. It's inane to compare a computer programmer's salary to a teacher's salary.
That aside, 68k is perfectly reasonable for a job with fantastic security, summers off, lots of vacation time where you get to work with children. Also, when I started working as a programmer, my salary was ~72k which is not much more and I had no trouble living off it. Of course the ceiling is higher for me but that's the market's doing.
This comes at the expense of having absolutely no flexibility during the school year and usually plenty of long days & weekends, and summer has things like professional development / continuing education keeping it from being a long work-free block.
It’s not bad but it’s not a compensation game changer. One other thing to remember: for a teacher, being out sick is almost as much work as a normal day. The tempo of a school year means that a lot of people need a couple weeks to unwind at the end of the year.
that only partially addresses one half of the comment though. additionally, “summers off” is a fairly common red herring that’s just designed to distract from the primary argument. this has nothing to do with time off or tenure so please stop trying to distract.
IMHO, for starters, we should be subsidizing essential workers*. Indexed to cost of living.
If salary isn't over a threshold, relative to their workplace, they're eligible for subsidized housing (in a mixed-income development) and food.
That we have necessary people unable to live in the communities they serve is insane. And if we're not going to address it from the salary side, at least we can do something from the expense side.
* Where "essential worker" means any job fulfilling a social function in the local community. Teacher, nurse, police officer, firefighter etc.
I'm not sure this works. Basically, sets up dire stakes to maintain a job for as long as you can, and makes perverse incentives on the auditing of the system.
Cards on the table, I'm very keen on some sort of UBI. I also have doubts on much of the reporting I've seen surrounding it.
I further think this needs a way to both double down in access and advancement for those with access, while further increasing funding and effort for those that don't. Main belief is that success affords more and more. Such that you want to double down in success, but you also need to use more of that success to lift up everyone.
the primary argument against school choice/voucher systems is that it would implicitly recreate segregation across races and classes. there are counter arguments to this line of thinking, but that’s what i’ve heard as the primary argument against choice
Right, that argument is what I meant by places without capital. If you don't have the wealth to get your kids to a good school, what do you do? And, as a nation, are we ok with the current predominant answer?
These unions have set up a system where it takes 5 or 6 years to fire a bad teacher in LA and SF. How does that benefit children? And you act like parents have much of a choice.
In my state, Washington, the teachers union got teachers to the front of the line for vaccines, right behind healthcare workers. We were told it was to get schools back open. Once they were all vaccinated, they decided not to re-open schools.
Same thing is CA. Teachers were one of the first to be vaccinated (while resisting any vaccine mandate), yet immediately put up roadblocks to reopening.
this is a false dichotomy and reeks of political rhetoric. it’s honestly both. teachers desire a safe working environment for themselves AND want to do the best they can to educate students under the circumstances.
It’s not a false dichotomy if you just look at the union’s actions.
How does opposing a vaccine mandate help students? The answer is it doesn’t, its just the union flexing its politics muscle by using the mandate as a bargaining chip.
we’re not debating vaccine mandate efficacy, we’re debating you implication that teachers aren’t in it for the students. you’re being intellectually dishonest.
It seems you trust them enough to take a very major part in raising your child, but not enough to make a decision about what’s best? I’d like you to elaborate because this view makes it seem like parents view teachers as nannies (who, by the way, should also have a say in whether they want to get exposed to a virus or take it home to their own family).