NationStates

It seems all but certain that the teachers of Los Angeles will strike on January 10th. Negotiations have broken down so much that United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), the union, will not even talk to the district, LAUSD. The union wants to have the district dump its $1.9 billion reserves into more nurses, librarians, counselors, make smaller class sizes, and to "fully fund" the schools. They are also wanting to expand special, early, adult, and bilingual education in the district. UTLA also wants lower amounts of testing, stronger parent and teacher influence within the individual school, and to make public schools equal to the charter schools in the district.
https://www.utla.net/news/utla-announce ... trike-date

The LAUSD has already hired 400 substitutes to try to keep students learning in the event of a strike.
http://www.dailynews.com/lausd-hires-hu ... -to-strike

All of this, while Oakland could also strike next month.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/12/26 ... le-strike/

Also the fact that education funding is being pushed for massive increases at the state level.
https://calmatters.org/articles/los-ang ... ike-lausd/

Farnhamia wrote:And what is one supposed to discuss?

People can discuss their overall opinions on the strike.

Republicanana wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:And what is one supposed to discuss?

People can discuss their overall opinions on the strike.

I agree with papa mod here, can you elaborate on the OP so I know more on what I'm supposedly discussing?

Unithonia wrote:

Republicanana wrote:
People can discuss their overall opinions on the strike.

I agree with papa mod here, can you elaborate on the OP so I know more on what I'm supposedly discussing?

I am going to take a wild shot in the dark and guess that we're meant to discuss a teacher's strike that is occuring in LA on January 10th.

I could be wrong though.

Aclion wrote:

Unithonia wrote:I agree with papa mod here, can you elaborate on the OP so I know more on what I'm supposedly discussing?

I am going to take a wild shot in the dark and guess that we're meant to discuss a teacher's strike that is occuring in LA on January 10th.

I could be wrong though.

The OP is confusing, he includes 2 other things. What am I discussing? Oakland? Education funding? LA?

Unithonia wrote:

Republicanana wrote:
People can discuss their overall opinions on the strike.

I agree with papa mod here, can you elaborate on the OP so I know more on what I'm supposedly discussing?

The OP is that teachers in LA are about to go on strike on Jan. 10 on the issues above. Both sides are even at the table at this point. The discussion can be over the issues of the strike, and how the strike could affect other possible strikes down the road.

Republicanana wrote:It seems all but certain that the teachers of Los Angeles will strike on January 10th. Negotiations have broken down so much that United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), the union, will not even talk to the district, LAUSD. The union wants to have the district dump its $1.9 billion reserves into more nurses, librarians, counselors, make smaller class sizes, and to "fully fund" the schools. They are also wanting to expand special, early, adult, and bilingual education in the district. UTLA also wants lower amounts of testing, stronger parent and teacher influence within the individual school, and to make public schools equal to the charter schools in the district.
https://www.utla.net/news/utla-announce ... trike-date

The LAUSD has already hired 400 substitutes to try to keep students learning in the event of a strike.
http://www.dailynews.com/lausd-hires-hu ... -to-strike

All of this, while Oakland could also strike next month.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/12/26 ... le-strike/

Also the fact that education funding is being pushed for massive increases at the state level.
https://calmatters.org/articles/los-ang ... ike-lausd/

Administrators vs teachers - fight, fight, fight! It's like when your PE teacher kicks the butt of your vice principal, proverbially speaking. This'll be interesting. Rooting for teachers.

Shofercia wrote:Administrators vs teachers - fight, fight, fight! It's like when your PE teacher kicks the butt of your vice principal, proverbially speaking. This'll be interesting. Rooting for teachers.

Why? In my experience pre-university teachers are at best useless both as educators and as human beings.

Purpelia wrote:

Shofercia wrote:Administrators vs teachers - fight, fight, fight! It's like when your PE teacher kicks the butt of your vice principal, proverbially speaking. This'll be interesting. Rooting for teachers.

Why? In my experience pre-university teachers are at best useless both as educators and as human beings.

Tell us how you really feel.

Telconi wrote:

Purpelia wrote:Why? In my experience pre-university teachers are at best useless both as educators and as human beings.

Tell us how you really feel.

I already did.

Purpelia wrote:

Shofercia wrote:Administrators vs teachers - fight, fight, fight! It's like when your PE teacher kicks the butt of your vice principal, proverbially speaking. This'll be interesting. Rooting for teachers.

Why? In my experience pre-university teachers are at best useless both as educators and as human beings.

In my experience the exact opposite is true.

Geneviev wrote:

Purpelia wrote:Why? In my experience pre-university teachers are at best useless both as educators and as human beings.

In my experience the exact opposite is true.

I guess it has to be school specific. But that just further proves the point that one can't just side with the teachers by default. And sadly I don't see a way to accurately gauge their human to scum ratio with what little data we have.

Purpelia wrote:

Geneviev wrote:In my experience the exact opposite is true.

I guess it has to be school specific. But that just further proves the point that one can't just side with the teachers by default. And sadly I don't see a way to accurately gauge their human to scum ratio with what little data we have.

Even if not all teachers are good, what they want is going to be much better for students. I don't know what it's like in LAUSD but some of the classes in my school have more than 90 students and fixing things like that would be better for everyone.

Purpelia wrote:

Geneviev wrote:In my experience the exact opposite is true.

I guess it has to be school specific. But that just further proves the point that one can't just side with the teachers by default. And sadly I don't see a way to accurately gauge their human to scum ratio with what little data we have.

You can side with the teachers on the basis that such a ratio exists. After all, the city of Los Angeles is 100% scum.

Purpelia wrote:

Shofercia wrote:Administrators vs teachers - fight, fight, fight! It's like when your PE teacher kicks the butt of your vice principal, proverbially speaking. This'll be interesting. Rooting for teachers.

Why? In my experience pre-university teachers are at best useless both as educators and as human beings.

From my experience studying the issue in college, teachers tended to be more beneficial to students than administrators. Also, I take it that you went to one of the poorer schools, right?

Purpelia wrote:

Geneviev wrote:In my experience the exact opposite is true.

I guess it has to be school specific. But that just further proves the point that one can't just side with the teachers by default. And sadly I don't see a way to accurately gauge their human to scum ratio with what little data we have.

But it's not just teachers, it's teachers vs administrators. Were the administrators at your school more or less useful than teachers?

The majority of the time, I find that teacher demands for increased pay are unjustified. I'd acknowledge that teachers buying their students school supplies, is an unreasonable expectation. It should be parents buying school supplies. And for the parents that're too poor, the government should perhaps pick up the tab for those people- if those people are sterilized or prohibited from having more children beyond 3.

There should be no increased pay for teachers, unless they're being paid way below what the market will bear for a given locale.

Saiwania wrote:The majority of the time, I find that teacher demands for increased pay are unjustified. I'd acknowledge that teachers buying their students school supplies, is an unreasonable expectation. It should be parents buying school supplies. And for the parents that're too poor, the government should perhaps pick up the tab for those people- if those people are sterilized or prohibited from having more children beyond 3.

There should be no increased pay for teachers, unless they're being paid way below what the market will bear for a given locale.

The problem is that the majority of teachers are underpaid, which is one of the reasons why public education blows. If I can make $60k a year teaching, or $120k a year doing something else, guess what I'll choose to do...

Shofercia wrote:From my experience studying the issue in college, teachers tended to be more beneficial to students than administrators. Also, I take it that you went to one of the poorer schools, right?

I am not even from your country. Our educational system is completely different from yours to the point that there is little comparison. I just happen to have a bad experience with low education in general and thus carry a lifelong distrust for teachers.

Still, think about this whole thing for a moment. Is a teachers strike not the most paradoxical thing you ever heard? Strikes are supposed to work by making your employer suffer lost profits until he decides it's cheaper to just give in. But who are the teachers hurting here? Their employer is the state. They don't gain or lose money if the teachers don't work. If anything, they save money for running costs such as electricity and heating.

So who is it that is harmed? The children that don't get education. The parents that can't rely on schools to keep their children imprisoned whilst they work. And ultimately society as a whole as those children will grow up without the education they need.

Is that the behavior of good people or selfish scum?

Purpelia wrote:

Shofercia wrote:From my experience studying the issue in college, teachers tended to be more beneficial to students than administrators. Also, I take it that you went to one of the poorer schools, right?

I am not even from your country. Our educational system is completely different from yours to the point that there is little comparison. I just happen to have a bad experience with low education in general and thus carry a lifelong distrust for teachers.

Still, think about this whole thing for a moment. Is a teachers strike not the most paradoxical thing you ever heard? Strikes are supposed to work by making your employer suffer lost profits until he decides it's cheaper to just give in. But who are the teachers hurting here? Their employer is the state. They don't gain or lose money if the teachers don't work. If anything, they save money for running costs such as electricity and heating.

So who is it that is harmed? The children that don't get education. The parents that can't rely on schools to keep their children imprisoned whilst they work. And ultimately society as a whole as those children will grow up without the education they need.

Is that the behavior of good people or selfish scum?

I live in the US. Are you not from the US? I went to college in the US too. What they're talking about, is $1.9 billion, which is a hefty sum. The administrators want that to go to their retirement. The teachers want to be able to have more services for the students. What's more valuable, a service for a student, or an administrator being able to retire at 55 and earn $75k for doing nothing? A temporary work stoppage won't hurt the students as much as continuing the status quo will.

Shofercia wrote:I live in the US. Are you not from the US?

Yes. Shocking enough there are other countries on the planet. And I happen to live in one of them.

Shofercia wrote:The teachers want to be able to have more services for the students. What's more valuable, a service for a student, or an administrator being able to retire at 55 and earn $75k for doing nothing? A temporary work stoppage won't hurt the students as much as continuing the status quo will.

Let's be real. The teachers just want more money for them self. That's what teachers always strike about anywhere on the planet. They don't care about the students any more than they need to in order to keep their job.

Purpelia wrote:

Shofercia wrote:I live in the US. Are you not from the US?

Yes. Shocking enough there are other countries on the planet.

Really?



Anyways, this is a US thread, specific to California. Whatever the people think of teachers here, administrators are usually worse.

Shofercia wrote:The problem is that the majority of teachers are underpaid, which is one of the reasons why public education blows. If I can make $60k a year teaching, or $120k a year doing something else, guess what I'll choose to do...

I say let it happen. So be it. If there is a supply shortage of K-12 teachers, then there is actual leverage to increase pay for those teachers. The city has to raise more taxes or change the budget of who gets what or people simply move away if no good education is to be found there.

Tons of K-12 teachers don't spend their entire life doing that anyways. They do it for a while before moving onto a University position that is more lucrative or publish textbooks or whatever it is that academics do.

Saiwania wrote:

Shofercia wrote:The problem is that the majority of teachers are underpaid, which is one of the reasons why public education blows. If I can make $60k a year teaching, or $120k a year doing something else, guess what I'll choose to do...

I say let it happen. So be it. If there is a supply shortage of K-12 teachers, then there is actual leverage to increase pay for those teachers. The city has to raise more taxes or change the budget of who gets what or people simply move away if no good education is to be found there.

Tons of K-12 teachers don't spend their entire life doing that anyways. They do it for a while before moving onto a University position that is more lucrative or publish textbooks or whatever it is that academics do.

The problem is quality, not quantity. When you're paying a median salary, you're getting median quality workers, meaning that median quality workers are educating the future generation. That means that Americans entering the collegiate system are less equipped to succeed than foreigners entering the collegiate system, and because America is Capitalist, the employers usually hire the most able people for the job. See the problem?

Shofercia wrote:

Saiwania wrote:
I say let it happen. So be it. If there is a supply shortage of K-12 teachers, then there is actual leverage to increase pay for those teachers. The city has to raise more taxes or change the budget of who gets what or people simply move away if no good education is to be found there.

Tons of K-12 teachers don't spend their entire life doing that anyways. They do it for a while before moving onto a University position that is more lucrative or publish textbooks or whatever it is that academics do.

The problem is quality, not quantity. When you're paying a median salary, you're getting median quality workers, meaning that median quality workers are educating the future generation. That means that Americans entering the collegiate system are less equipped to succeed than foreigners entering the collegiate system, and because America is Capitalist, the employers usually hire the most able people for the job. See the problem?

The problem being the median gets worse and worse every generation with it being harder and harder to get good jobs as a result.