The Observation Deck

Ellen Cormier wrote:When did AT&T go out of business? I thought they were broken up by the government due to antitrust laws. I would hardly call that going out of business. What ever happened to antitrust laws? They used to be how we solved "too big to fail" problems instead of giving government handouts to ginormous companies.

They never went out of business, but it's less dramatic than saying they did. They were broken up, then the pieces all sort of oozed back together like the blob until one of the baby blobs bought the mama and reformed the old AT&T. So it's still around, it never disappeared or went out of business.

Anyway, what's up with sb5. They've been awful quiet about it. Anything new?

It's being debated in the house. I believe our Republican overlords in the house, you know the ones who yell about government getting in our lives yet have no problem telling others how they should live it, are just trying to buy some time to let the issue cool down before they pass something.

Bryan said:

It's being debated in the house. I believe our Republican overlords in the house, you know the ones who yell about government getting in our lives yet have no problem telling others how they should live it,

Uh--- these being the same "less government" Republicans who voted to further restrict a woman's right to choose thereby having government further control our lives?

Stan Austin

Stan Austin wrote:
Uh--- these being the same "less government" Republicans who voted to further restrict a woman's right to choose thereby having government further control our lives?

Stan Austin

Uh outlawing abortion is about jobs which is #1...um yeah, that's it.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:That's completely an opinion however, one with which I heartily disagree. A well rounded liberal arts-based education for any major is important in giving someone a broader outlook, increasing creativity, and cultural open mindedness.

The world would be an awfully boring place if it were run simply by engineers, accountants, and MBAs with backgrounds and education only in the their given field. I'd also dare say much of the creativity that has allowed us to solve many technical and business problems may also not have happened without a liberal arts education.

Now the problem is that our education system for K-12 is failing to actually teach the basics to a large number of kids before just pushing them forward. So where college English should be about much higher topics, they're forced to teach kids basic grammar because people entering college cannot write. History courses miss their college-level work because they have to dumb it down to cover what the kids should have learned in high school.

Liberal arts education is very important, especially at the college level. Equating that with "the basics" is not fair since the fault lies with primary and secondary education in this country, not the college.

Lambasting Liberal Arts is like me saying that business degrees and MBAs are like the fast food of higher ed and that's an opinion actually shared by a lot of people that I also don't think is fair.

I could not agree with you more. One of the reasons that I currently attend a liberal arts school is because of the wide array of educational opportunities that it affords. They advise even the math majors to try to take classes in unrelated fields and if they can't to read and be knowledgeable in other areas outside of your specialty. True, you do not need advanced skills in english if you intend to spend your working life as a chemist, but it would never be looked down upon if you were to have a vibrant academic background. Being well read leads to a person being more accessible in conversations and socializing and can often allow you better opportunities for advancement and networking.

To limit yourself to one field and disregard the others as not useful is a little narrow minded. As I said before, advanced skills outside of your field are not needed, but wouldn't it be nice to participate and communicate in a variety of subjects? It helps you to learn from others and be a more active participant in the community.

With that being said, no, I agree that the standards across the country for primary and secondary education are too lax. I do not think it is the fault of any one party, and I certainly would not blame teachers or students, but I think that the goals and priorities of our educational system need to be thoroughly reviewed. Why would our country and its citizens not want to strive to have a general population that is well read and well educated independent of a college degree? And this goes for all kinds of schooling, public, private, etc.

And I think that this SB5 is just another symptom of the general educational malaise at least in the state of Ohio. Clearly the priorities are not what they need to be. Instead of trying to cut money from education we should be thinking of ways to use the money we have in a better way to educate our students. If anything, it is like cutting funding to the future generation.

Ellen Cormier wrote:When did AT&T go out of business? I thought they were broken up by the government due to antitrust laws.

AT & T sold itself to SBC in 2005 after 20 consecutive quarters of declining revenue. AT&T couldn’t compete in a deregulated market. SBC made the AT&T name its own.

Sean Wheeler wrote:Bill, could you please explain, using reality as a basis, what argument you have that supports your insistence that Lakewood teachers do not work enough? I've gone over this with you time and time again and you seem to just shrug off my daily experience in favor of your warped vision of what goes on.

I think that given the level of salary and benefits the people of Lakewood provide to Lakewood teachers those teachers should work an 8 hour day, 40 hour week and 46 week work year and that those hours should be worked in the schools, properly supervised and properly supported.

Anyway, where is your entrepreneurial spirit? Lakewood spends about $12,700 per student which means we spend $1,714,500.47 dollars on those 135 students not including the cost of the new school buildings. I think that is a lot of money
Let’s try a little thought experiment.

Sean Wheeler and five of his friends are given that $1,714.500.47 and given responsibility to educate 135 students. You and your five friends are paid $100,000 each per year for pay and benefits. How would you spend the other $1,114,500?

Here is a short article on education from the Christian Science Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the ... er-quality

It’s time to drag the public school bureaucracy into the 20th century.

How crazy is our system? The Cleveland Schools spend nearly $15,000 per student, gets new buildings paid for by the State and yet the Plain Dealer reports that the newly announced budget cuts mean the schools can’t buy text books. $15,000 per student and you can’t buy text books?

As for the 8 hour workday and 40 hour week, it seems like you don't have an answer. So I'll ask again, what proof do you have that we're NOT working those hours? Is there anything that you can put out here that could dissuade me from my lived experience? Because if there are missing hours in my life spent relaxing and milking the system with a Mai-tai in my hand, I'd love to know more about them.

Sean Wheeler wrote:As for the 8 hour workday and 40 hour week, it seems like you don't have an answer. So I'll ask again, what proof do you have that we're NOT working those hours?

I believe you work all the hours you say you work.

In that case you should have no objections to the 8 hour day, 40 hour week, 46 week year being part of the teachers contract with the board and that those hours be worked on school grounds properly supervised and properly supported. To support the needs of the modern family the work schedules should be 7 AM to 4 PM, 8 AM to 5 PM and 9 AM to 6 PM.

Too many people in the education bureaucracy are Grecian Vase Painters:


http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... -painters/

The money quote:


“After the palaces had fallen, vase-painters went on for a couple of generations reproducing, without much conviction, imitations of the style to which men were accustomed,” A.R. Burn tells us:

"This is the length of time it usually takes for a people, after a far-reaching social change, to get habits which are no longer relevant thoroughly out of their system; for the first generation of survivors are still people brought up under the old order, and the second generation are people brought up by people who were brought up under the old order. This is one reason why a century, a period of about three generations, so often seems to have a distinctive character. In the third generation, vase-painters at Athens and perhaps elsewhere had at last lost the feeling that the decadent sub-Mycenaean was in some way the “right” style, and a fresh start is made with proto-geometric, the folk art of a vigorous and talented people."

It's time Lakewood schools entered the 20th Century. I hope it doesn't take 100 years.

In a way, I'll actually have to agree with Bill. (I know, I actually just said that )

I won't agree with his assertion that teachers need to be told to work 8 hour days, because I know they do. Both my sister and my cousin are teachers. I know how hard they work personally. Saying they need to be contractually obligated to work 8 hour days under supervision at the school is not only condescending, but it shows a distinct lack of understanding at what or how the teacher actually does their job.

But...

I do think Bill makes a good point in the fact that maybe the school hours or year needs to be rethought given the realities of the modern day and mounting evidence that year-round school or extended school days provide better results.

Maybe it is time to rethink the pattern of education created and last significantly modified about 100 - 150 years ago when we all had farms and needed the kids home to till the fields.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:I won't agree with (Bill’s) assertion that teachers need to be told to work 8 hour days….

Bryan that is not what Bill said. Bill said….

Bill Call wrote:(If teachers work all the hours they say they) should have no objections to the 8 hour day, 40 hour week, 46 week year being part of the teachers contract with the board….

Can you (or Sean) explain why the LTA insists that a lesser workday be part of the master agreement, if in fact “NOT ONE SINGLE” Lakewood teacher (according to Sean) confines themselves to the contracted workday?

Bill went on to say that “those hours (should) be worked on school grounds properly supervised and properly supported….” That seems reasonable to me, as support services, supplies, students, etc. needed to work most effectively would likely be at school and probably not at home or at Starbucks. Work tends to be done more efficiently at the workplace.

Tim Liston wrote:

Bryan Schwegler wrote:I won't agree with (Bill’s) assertion that teachers need to be told to work 8 hour days….

Bryan that is not what Bill said. Bill said….

Bill Call wrote:(If teachers work all the hours they say they) should have no objections to the 8 hour day, 40 hour week, 46 week year being part of the teachers contract with the board….

Can you (or Sean) explain why the LTA insists that a lesser workday be part of the master agreement, if in fact “NOT ONE SINGLE” Lakewood teacher (according to Sean) confines themselves to the contracted workday?

How is this any different than saying they have to be told to work 8 hours on school grounds? I don't feel it's necessary to dictate how a teacher works. Results are more important than how.

Bill went on to say that “those hours (should) be worked on school grounds properly supervised and properly supported….” That seems reasonable to me, as support services, supplies, students, etc. needed to work most effectively would likely be at school and probably not at home or at Starbucks. Work tends to be done more efficiently at the workplace.

This is where there is a fundamental misunderstanding on how a teacher works. Not sure why it matters if grading is done sitting in a cubby at the school or at a Starbucks or in their home? Who cares as long as grading is done?

Also, you must not be aware that most school districts now require teachers to interact with students, parents, and others via email, often with a dictated 24-hour SLA for response. So are you saying they should only be allowed or able to respond to email while at school during the 8-hour forced school day? How does being at the building make their reply any more valid than doing it while at home in the evening or on the weekend at the Root Cafe?

While I appreciate the desire to hold accountability, the way you are choosing to try to get that accountability doesn't reflect the realities of the job nor the realities of the actual employment marketplace out there today.

I should add, I'm not saying teachers shouldn't do an 8-hour work day, but it's how you would dictate that is what I have an issue with. The way Bill is proposing is way too inflexible for the realities of the job.

It shouldn't be 8-hour days, it should be 40-hour work weeks. It shouldn't specify location, because that's not realistic. It should specify results, number of classes, and expected outcomes.

The contract should also remove step increases, longevity and all other arbitrary pay scales not linked to performance. Every other profession has figured out how to reward based on performance. There are a lot of smart people in education, I'm sure they can figure it out. If they can't, we've got bigger problems in our education system than just how they get paid.

Tenure and longevity should not be the primary determining factor in raises or who get's laid off first. Performance and skill should be primary, longevity can be a secondary factor. Again, every other profession has figured this out.

Building a prison in a contract to enforce where work gets done doesn't solve the root of the problem. Doing that focuses on the wrong issue.

So everyone seems to agree, or at least not have a problem with the school year being rethought.

So how is that a problem with teachers? That sounds more like an institutional problem that people are blaming on teachers. Even though they have no control over it.

Perhaps we should ask why our country as a whole seems so stuck on the seasonal school calendar. Why don't we have year round school with periodic breaks of two weeks or one week?

That to me sounds more like what people on this thread are asking for.

I don't get why teachers seem to get all the blame for bad planning. They end up as much a victim of this outdated system as everyone else.

Thealexa Becker wrote:So everyone seems to agree, or at least not have a problem with the school year being rethought.

So how is that a problem with teachers? That sounds more like an institutional problem that people are blaming on teachers. Even though they have no control over it.
...

I don't get why teachers seem to get all the blame for bad planning. They end up as much a victim of this outdated system as everyone else.

But does the Teacher's Union back the change to rethink the school year? That's the question.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:

Thealexa Becker wrote:So everyone seems to agree, or at least not have a problem with the school year being rethought.

So how is that a problem with teachers? That sounds more like an institutional problem that people are blaming on teachers. Even though they have no control over it.
...

I don't get why teachers seem to get all the blame for bad planning. They end up as much a victim of this outdated system as everyone else.

But does the Teacher's Union back the change to rethink the school year? That's the question.

Which is probably the larger issue here, which I feel is more a systemic issue and not one that is fairly blamed on individual teachers. Too often I feel there is a tendancy to take out the frustrations with an inefficient system on one person, not on the bigger problem.

Thealexa Becker wrote:Which is probably the larger issue here, which I feel is more a systemic issue and not one that is fairly blamed on individual teachers. Too often I feel there is a tendancy to take out the frustrations with an inefficient system on one person, not on the bigger problem.

Oh I don't disagree. But the issue is that the teacher's control the Teacher's Union. Voters can't change the Union's stance, the administration can't change the Union's stance, only the teachers can do that.

So if the Union is the primary force blocking necessary change in the educational system and people are getting frustrated with the policies of the Union to hold teachers accountable, only the teachers can force the Union to make changes.

So either teachers agree with the public, in which case they need to let the Union know to make some changes, or they don't agree or don't care what the public thinks and are happy hiding behind the Union.

Ultimately, teachers are responsible for the action and position of their Union and the fallout that means in the view of the general public.