S - T - R - I - K - E ! ! ! This word speaks Volumes !

[Crash Pad DCA]

In states where the teachers aren't unionized, scores like that for three years running would have seen the state stepping in, firing the administration, and replacing teachers where necessary.

http://voices.washin...eacher-uni.html

In the table below, using data from the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP), I present average scale scores for states that currently have binding teacher contracts and those that don’t. The averages are weighted by grade-level enrollment, and they include only public non-charter schools (since most charters in all states have no contracts).

Average 2009 NAEP Score By State Teacher Contract Laws
States with binding teacher contracts
4th grade: Math 240.0 Reading 220.7
8th grade: Math 282.1 Reading 263.7
States without binding teacher contracts
4th grade: Math 237.7 Reading 217.5
8th grade: Math 281.2 Reading 259.5

As the table shows, the states in which there are no teachers covered under binding agreements score lower than the states that have them. Moreover, even though they appear small, all but one of these (8th grade math) are rather large differences.

To give an idea of the size, I ranked each state (plus Washington D.C.) by order of its performance —its average score on each of the four NAEP exams – and then averaged the four ranks. The table below presents the average rank for the non-contract states.

Average Rank Across 4 NAEP Tests
Next to each state is its average rank
Virginia....... 16.6
Texas......... 27.3
N. Carolina.. 27.5
Georgia.......36.8
Arkansas.....38.9
S. Carolina...38.9
Arizona........43.3
Alabama......45.5
Louisiana.....47.8
Mississippi...48.6

Out of these 10 states, only one (Virginia) has an average rank above the median, while four are in the bottom 10, and seven are in the bottom 15. These data make it very clear that states without binding teacher contracts are not doing better, and the majority are actually among the lowest performers in the nation.

In contrast, nine of the 10 states with the highest average ranks are high coverage states, including Massachusetts, which has the highest average score on all four tests.

If anything, it seems that the presence of teacher contracts in a state has a positive effect on achievement.

Now, some may object to this conclusion. They might argue that I can’t possibly say that teacher contracts alone caused the higher scores in these states. They might say that there are dozens of other observed and unobserved factors that influence achievement, such as state laws, lack of resources, income, parents’ education, and curriculum, and that these factors are responsible for the lower scores in the 10
non-contract states.

My response: Exactly.

 

[Crash Pad DCA]

http://studentactivi...n-union-states/


...Back in 2000, three professors writing in the Harvard Educational Review did a statistical analysis of state SAT/ACT scores, controlling for factors like race, median income, and parental education. They found that the presence of teachers unions in a state did have a measurable and significant correlation with increased test scores — that going to school in a union state would, for instance, raise average SATs by about 50 points.

Two other findings leap out from the Harvard Educational Review study. First, they concluded that Southern states’ poor academic performance could be explained almost entirely by that region’s lack of unionization,even when you didn’t take socioeconomic differences into account.

And second, and to my mind far more interesting, they found that concrete improvements in the educational environment associated with teachers’ unions — lower class sizes, higher state spending on education, bigger teacher salaries — accounted for very little of the union/non-union variation. Teachers’ unions, in other words, don’t just help students by reducing class sizes or increasing educational spending. In their conclusion, they stated that
“other mechanism(s) (ie, better working conditions; greater worker autonomy, security, and dignity; improved administration; better training of teachers; greater levels of faculty professionalism) must be at work here.”

To sum up:

Yes, Wisconsin has great schools, with great outcomes. Yes, states without teachers’ unions lag behind. Yes, that lag persists even when you control for demographic variables. Yes, that difference seems to rest less on the quantifiable resources that unions fight to bring to the classroom than on the professionalism, positive working environment, and effective school administration that unions foster.

And yes, Virginia, (and Texas, Georgia, and North and South Carolina) unions do work.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Very nice facts! So now tell us why in the case of the Chicago we have one of the worst big city school systems?

 

[Crash Pad DCA]

Very nice facts! So now tell us why in the case of the Chicago we have one of the worst big city school systems?

http://www.nih.gov/n...10/nichd-25.htm

Improving mothers' literacy skills may be best way to boost children's achievement

Researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health concluded that programs to boost the academic achievement of children from low income neighborhoods might be more successful if they also provided adult literacy education to parents.

The researchers based this conclusion on their finding that a mother's reading skill is the greatest determinant of her children’s future academic success, outweighing other factors, such as neighborhood and family income.

The analysis, performed by Narayan Sastry, Ph.D., of the University of Michigan, and Anne R. Pebley, Ph.D., of the University of California, Los Angeles, examined data on more than 3,000 families.

The study, appearing in Demography, was supported by NIH's Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

"The findings indicate that programs to improve maternal literacy skills may provide an effective means to overcome the disparity in academic achievement between children in poor and affluent neighborhoods," said Rebecca Clark, Ph.D., chief of the Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the NIH institute that funded the study.

After mother's reading level, neighborhood income level was the largest determinant of children's academic achievement.

The researchers undertook the study to isolate factors contributing to the disparity in academic achievement that other studies have found between children in low income and affluent neighborhoods.

Sastry and Pebley's analysis was based on data collected between April 2000 and December 2001 as part of the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, an ongoing examination of families in 65 LA county communities. The information included the results of reading and math assessments of 2,350 children ages 3 to 17, their mothers' education level, census records of neighborhood income, and family income and assets. The participants in the study were representative of the larger Los Angeles community.

Sastry and Pebley noted that neighborhood income had the largest impact on achievement for children ages 8 to 17, who are at the middle and higher end of the age range. This is consistent with the idea that the environment outside the home becomes more important as children grow older, they said.

"This analysis gives us a chance to isolate the different factors that affect children’s achievement," Dr. Sastry said. "Policy measures to encourage mixed-income neighborhoods, improve early childhood education, and build mothers’ reading skills each could have positive effects on children’s achievement scores."

 

[Crash Pad DCA]

Very nice facts! So now tell us why in the case of the Chicago we have one of the worst big city school systems?

http://www.washingto...0650_story.html


There are very few things that education researchers say they know with absolute certainty, but virtually nobody disputes that socioeconomic status, cultural identity and the educational level of parents — especially mothers — are linked to the stubborn achievement gap between students of different races and ethnicities.

Children from poor families do worse than kids from middle-class and wealthy families; children do better if their mother has a college degree; and, overall, children of all ethnicities and races do better in schools with less than 25 percent of the student population coming from low-income families.

The issue of how much out-of-school influences affect how well a child does in school has become controversial in today’s education debate, with many reformers insisting that a great teacher can overcome much, if not all, of the outside factors.

Critics of this thinking say that research has shown that outside factors are generally more powerful than any teacher and that it is the exception rather than the rule that students facing myriad social issues can do well at school without any attention being given to remediate those problems.

http://www.apa.org/p...-education.aspx

http://www.mikemcmah...ationIncome.pdf

http://bfi.uchicago....006LeeBowen.pdf

 

[Crash Pad DCA]

http://www.sunjourna...nt-work/1250995

Teachers in Chicago went out on strike for the first time in 25 years...

The primary issues are not pay and benefits, as in most strikes, but Emmanuel’s efforts to open more charter schools and to tie teacher compensation and promotion tightly to student test scores.

In this he has the support of both the Bush and Obama administrations....

All this would be heartening if charter schools and student test performance were the magic keys to improving education but, alas, they are not. The evidence shows neither is clearly superior to any other way of organizing schools or evaluating teachers, and each has serious drawbacks when used widely.

The charter school question is easier. Though new to Maine, which approved its first two this year, charter schools have been operating for nearly 40 years in other states. The broadest, most objective study of charter schools came from Stanford University in 2009, covering 70 percent of existing charters. It found their performance disappointing – 17 percent of charters showed greater student achievement than their traditional public school counterparts, while 37 percent underperformed; the other 46 percent showed no significant difference.

While individual charter schools are often cited as success stories -– and there are some –- as an educational method it doesn’t inspire further investment of public dollars.

Things get more complicated with test scores. Yes, good teachers often do produce score gains for the students, but such gains are hard to sustain over time, since each class of students is quite different than its predecessors. The single biggest factor predicting student test performance is poverty, and scores will almost always be higher in suburban communities than the inner city.

Indeed, a good argument can be made that we should be sending the best, most highly paid teachers into the poorest neighborhoods, because that’s where they could make the biggest difference -– not that it will happen any time soon.

By the time you factor in all the variables and uncertainties, it’s clear that test scores are not nearly the objective, scientific data that some reformers would like them to be. Basing teacher contracts on them is not likely to produce better schools, and is likely to produce continuing turmoil.

We do know what actually produces good results in education, and rigorous testing regimens don’t work in schools any better than they would in most workplaces. Successful schools almost always have strong principals who are involved with students, combined with mentor relationships between experienced and novice teachers that build good classroom technique. Good schools have supportive, involved parents and stable, highly motivated staffs. None of these things are produced by teaching to the test.

You might think the big problem in public schools is that there’s too much “deadwood,” teachers ready for retirement who have already mentally checked out. That was the theory of new-wave superintendents in cities like New York and Washington, D.C., who argued that firing lots of teachers would improve school performance. It didn’t.

In fact, teaching is such a demanding job that 50 percent of first-year teachers have left the profession by the end of year five. This is a far higher burnout rate than among doctors, lawyers, accountants or most recognized professions. The teacher turnover dilemma parallels the odd debate about voter fraud -- a largely nonexistent problem in a nation where barely 60 percent of citizens vote, even in presidential election years.

American public schools in many ways do a remarkable job in dealing with a population that is extremely mobile and multi-lingual, and has high rates of poor, single-parent families. Schools have much room for improvement, of course, but they will get better through slow, patient building of parent support, staffing and funding – not through imposing the latest educational gimmick on unwilling educators.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

http://www.sunjourna...nt-work/1250995

Teachers in Chicago went out on strike for the first time in 25 years...

The primary issues are not pay and benefits

Maybe you should explain, in your own words, why 40% of Chicago Public School teachers send their kids to private schools. While you’re at it and again, in your own words, if pay and benefits are not the real issues behind this strike, why would they reject a 16% pay raise ($11,360 a year)?

I’m not against public education, but the fact that these teachers make enough (71K - 76K plus benefits) to send their kids to private schools shows that Chicago’s public teachers are aware of the serial failure within the system. It also shows that these teachers have zero confidence in their own respective school district. Why are the teachers going on strike? Aren’t the contentious measures they’re squabbling about aimed at enhancing accountability that will make their institutions of learning better for the students?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

if pay and benefits are not the real issues behind this strike, why would they reject a 16% pay raise ($11,360 a year)?

Hmm, let me take a stab at this one. Maybe it is because pay and benefits were not the issue they struck for?

And that 40% of their own kids sent to private school figure is tossed around yet I can not find any source from where that is derived.

 

[Crash Pad DCA]

if pay and benefits are not the real issues behind this strike, why would they reject a 16% pay raise ($11,360 a year)?

Hmm, let me take a stab at this one. Maybe it is because pay and benefits were not the issue they struck for?

And that 40% of their own kids sent to private school figure is tossed around yet I can not find any source from where that is derived.

ROTFLMAO...in my own words...

 

[cltrat]

what it seems to me is they want the good pay and benefits, but when it comes to being evaluated on job performance they have a problem with that

 

[Hello3B]

Fire all of them. Could the kis be any worse off?

 

[Crash Pad DCA]

what it seems to me is they want the good pay and benefits, but when it comes to being evaluated on job performance they have a problem with that

If all the research shows:
1. The greatest factor in student success is the education of the mother.
2. The second greatest factor in student success is the income level of the family.
3. AND even GREAT teaching cannot overcome the effect of No 1. and No 2. (at least not without strong parental involvement in the school)
THEN why would anyone in their right mind agree to be evaluated on "job performance" on something they can't control or effect even through their best efforts.

When Marriott started teaching English to its Spanish speaking employees to run the hotel business better through Sed de Saber ("Thirst for Knowledge") , a totally unexpected side effect occurred: student achievement scores went up in the schools where their Spanish speaking employee's children went.

Why? With English under their belt, the employees became more involved in teaching their children at home and they became more active in their children's schools (See factor No 1. above).

Parent education works to improve schools.
Testing and test scores do not!

Basing teacher's salaries and perfomance on test scores that will not improve unless No 1. and 2. improve, is unrealistic and unfair. Unless you expect the teacher to go home with the child to educate Mom (solves No 1.), and you expect the teacher to give the kid's famly a cut of their "high" salaries (puts a dent in No 2).

Teachers are not the problem.
Poverty and Parent Education is.

Stop blaming teachers and unions and start solving the problem!

Progressive (OMG did I use that word?!) school districts in (WARNING: code word coming) "underperforming" areas are looking at school as community "education centers" and are providing parent adult education (Factor No 1.) and job training (Factor No 2.) IN ADDITION to elementary education.

America needs more solutions and less BS.
Let's start getting the job done!

 

[Kev3188]

what it seems to me is they want the good pay and benefits, but when it comes to being evaluated on job performance they have a problem with that

Actually, they don't. They just object to the system Rahm wants to force on them.

Stop blaming teachers and unions and start solving the problem!

Stop bringing logic and common sense to the discussion, Crashpad!

Solving the problem would take actual hard work, and force society to have some uncomfortable discussions. 'Course for charter school advocates (like Rahm's largest donors) it'd also mean leaving a lot of $$$ on the table. Much easier to simply demonize the teachers and unions themselves.

My favorite protest sign so far: "There's the right way, and the Rahm way."

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Hmm, let me take a stab at this one. Maybe it is because pay and benefits were not the issue they struck for?

And that 40% of their own kids sent to private school figure is tossed around yet I can not find any source from where that is derived.

Hmmm, maybe you should just confess you don't have the answer why 40 46% of Chicago school teachers send their kids to private school. Since you're only as smart as your Teacher's union wants you to be, let me offer you a link to support my claim. It's a CNN link so you'll be a little more comfortable confronting the statements of a former U.S. secretary of education.

If you have a problem navigating the internet, just ask your Teacher's Union propaganda copy and paste specialist to help you out.

So, why do 46% of Chicago teachers send their kids to private schools? (Note: you want find the answer on any Teacher’s Union newsletters or websites).

 

[Knotbuyinit]

ROTFLMAO...in my own words...

I would be curious to know just how many children you have raised and placed through the public school system. Tech2101 hasn't raised any but feels obligated to tell those of us that have ( 6 kids for me and all with public education and college degrees) how we should grade the successs and failures of public education.

Keep laughing, the jokes on you.