Bill Ayers

[Thumbcrusher]

Originally Posted by Mr. White

If one district pays better than another, then teachers will start to catch on. All of a sudden said district looks a little more attractive to many of the teachers out there. Everyone will be applying to get the jobs that pay the best (including the best teachers). The district that pays the most will basically have their pick of any teachers they want. Naturally, they will choose to hire the best.

Once again, flawed logic. I would rather teach for a little bit less money if my cost of living is less and the quality of life is better. So, how does what you say make sense? Show ONE bit of proof to your ridiculous statement. It is totally a wrong assumption. Once again, laughable.

I personally know more than ten teachers off the top of my head that wouldn't go teach in Rock Island or Chicago no matter that the pay is higher than where they currently teach. No way, no how. IMO these same teachers are some of the best in the state. Why deal with traffic, a HUGE price of living increase, larger classrooms, higher crime rate, to go teach in a school that pays slightly more?

You and Tom are making ridiculous statements about higher teacher pay means better teachers.

[Downstate Dad]

Originally Posted by Thumbcrusher

Once again, flawed logic. I would rather teach for a little bit less money if my cost of living is less and the quality of life is better. So, how does what you say make sense? Show ONE bit of proof to your ridiculous statement. It is totally a wrong assumption. Once again, laughable.

Why do you have to be insulting in your reply? First, the general notion that people move to better paying jobs is not laughable. Second, the specific objections you raise (cost of living and quality of life) can be factored into the economic decision. There are cost of living indexes published for just this reason. (I'll deal with quality of life below.) So even if you think his analysis is incomplete, it doesn't make it laughable.

I personally know more than ten teachers off the top of my head that wouldn't go teach in Rock Island or Chicago no matter that the pay is higher than where they currently teach. No way, no how. IMO these same teachers are some of the best in the state. Why deal with traffic, a HUGE price of living increase, larger classrooms, higher crime rate, to go teach in a school that pays slightly more?

You and Tom are making ridiculous statements about higher teacher pay means better teachers.

Fine, but what about two school districts that are not Chicago and Rock Island? Don't they make those decisions based on the ordinary factors everyone else uses, like income and working conditions? And where did you come up with this "slightly" more argument? The differences in pay across Illinois are not "slight." Some suburban districts pay twice what rural districts pay. And believe me, many good teachers do move to the collar counties because of the pay difference.

You are probably misunderstanding that they are saying. They are not saying that the best way to measure a teacher's ability is just to look at his or her paycheck. They are saying that when you account for all other variables, or said another way, all other things being equal, the districts that pay more will have more applicants to choose from, and should have a more talented faculty.

There is a problem with their analysis, but it's completely different from the objection you raised. That problem is that there is no good way for a school personnel director to know which applicant is a good teacher and which is a bad teacher. We don't have any widespread metrics for evaluating teacher performance. Instead, we use surrogates, like whether they applicant has a master's degree and how many years they have taught. Let use your response as an example. You said you know ten teachers who are some of the best teachers in the state. What metric can you use to validate that claim? Student scores? But don't the parents have something to do with that? Principal evaluations? Sounds pretty subjective to me. Besides, a school is like any other employer: they will never give a bad recommendation to a future employer. Why? Because under current law, they would open themselves up to a lawsuit. Heck, down in Normal they gave a positive recommendation to a teacher that was fired for suspicion of abusing his students!

We need more research from folks like Bill Ayers and others if we are ever going to come up with objective measures for improving schools and teachers. Silencing them is about the last thing we need.

[Mr. White]

Originally Posted by Thumbcrusher

Once again, flawed logic. I would rather teach for a little bit less money if my cost of living is less and the quality of life is better. So, how does what you say make sense? Show ONE bit of proof to your ridiculous statement. It is totally a wrong assumption. Once again, laughable.

I personally know more than ten teachers off the top of my head that wouldn't go teach in Rock Island or Chicago no matter that the pay is higher than where they currently teach. No way, no how. IMO these same teachers are some of the best in the state. Why deal with traffic, a HUGE price of living increase, larger classrooms, higher crime rate, to go teach in a school that pays slightly more?

You and Tom are making ridiculous statements about higher teacher pay means better teachers.

My statement was not ridiculous. You chose to list a few examples. Well, if the offer does not look that attractive to them, then they won't apply, and I guess they do not fit the statement I made earlier.

That being said, the offer of higher pay will appeal to many people, including those that are just starting their careers. Higher paying districts will get the most applicants. When you get the most people competing for jobs, you can be picky. By being picky I mean they can hire the best applicants.

It's kind of like that old business principle, more competition typically (and I restate TYPICALLY) yields better results.

[restling]

Originally Posted by Mr. White

If one district pays better than another, then teachers will start to catch on. All of a sudden said district looks a little more attractive to many of the teachers out there. Everyone will be applying to get the jobs that pay the best (including the best teachers). The district that pays the most will basically have their pick of any teachers they want. Naturally, they will choose to hire the best.

How does a district know it is getting a good teacher. A good interview? Recomendation from a principle? I know plenty of circumstances where people get "good" reviews just to get them out of their district. It happens in all professions. My argument is more like the community college versus a private university. 2+2=4 no matter where you take the test. Just because a teacher is high paid doesn't make them good. What standards and scores are you basing this on?

There has to be some data somewhere to prove the point that higher paid teachers are smarter, and produce better students. Maybe it's not there, because if money was all it took then the Bears could have paid Cade McNown 10 million a year and he would have been the next Montana.

[Downstate Dad]

Originally Posted by restling

How does a district know it is getting a good teacher. A good interview? Recomendation from a principle? I know plenty of circumstances where people get "good" reviews just to get them out of their district. It happens in all professions. My argument is more like the community college versus a private university. 2+2=4 no matter where you take the test. Just because a teacher is high paid doesn't make them good. What standards and scores are you basing this on?

Kudos to restling. You found the basic problem. Maybe that's why we should let researchers like Ayers do their jobs instead of trying to demonize them for things unrelated to what they are doing today.

[Thumbcrusher]

Originally Posted by Downstate Dad

Why do you have to be insulting in your reply? First, the general notion that people move to better paying jobs is not laughable. Second, the specific objections you raise (cost of living and quality of life) can be factored into the economic decision. There are cost of living indexes published for just this reason. (I'll deal with quality of life below.) So even if you think his analysis is incomplete, it doesn't make it laughable.Fine, but what about two school districts that are not Chicago and Rock Island? Don't they make those decisions based on the ordinary factors everyone else uses, like income and working conditions? And where did you come up with this "slightly" more argument? The differences in pay across Illinois are not "slight." Some suburban districts pay twice what rural districts pay. And believe me, many good teachers do move to the collar counties because of the pay difference.

You are probably misunderstanding that they are saying. They are not saying that the best way to measure a teacher's ability is just to look at his or her paycheck. They are saying that when you account for all other variables, or said another way, all other things being equal, the districts that pay more will have more applicants to choose from, and should have a more talented faculty.

There is a problem with their analysis, but it's completely different from the objection you raised. That problem is that there is no good way for a school personnel director to know which applicant is a good teacher and which is a bad teacher. We don't have any widespread metrics for evaluating teacher performance. Instead, we use surrogates, like whether they applicant has a master's degree and how many years they have taught. Let use your response as an example. You said you know ten teachers who are some of the best teachers in the state. What metric can you use to validate that claim? Student scores? But don't the parents have something to do with that? Principal evaluations? Sounds pretty subjective to me. Besides, a school is like any other employer: they will never give a bad recommendation to a future employer. Why? Because under current law, they would open themselves up to a lawsuit. Heck, down in Normal they gave a positive recommendation to a teacher that was fired for suspicion of abusing his students!

We need more research from folks like Bill Ayers and others if we are ever going to come up with objective measures for improving schools and teachers. Silencing them is about the last thing we need.

See highlighted statement above please. Thats why I said, IMO. Which means in my opinion. I know there is no set metric that measures this. That is one reason why what is being said about teacher pay and quality is not true and couldn't be proven to be true. If you disagree with what I am saying, just say you disagree and I can accept that. Don't keep putting words in my mouth.

If you are insulted because I said your reasoning is laughable at best, then you are going to have to get over it. Usually when people make statements like this, they back them up with some sort of data or analysis. You or anybody else has yet to give ONE shred of evidence that what you say is true. I think when people spew out their opinions as a factual statement, they should show some sort of proof that it is true or be prepared for their opinion to be questioned. If its just an opinion, then it should be stated as much. I wouldn't have made one comment if these statements , started out with "In my opinion........" I wouldn't agree, but I also would know better than to argue against somebody's opinion. Its an opinion not a fact.

Also, it is my opinion, that I do not need any data from Bill Ayers. I will get my information elsewhere. I would rather see him silenced.

[Mr. White]

Originally Posted by restling

How does a district know it is getting a good teacher. A good interview? Recomendation from a principle? I know plenty of circumstances where people get "good" reviews just to get them out of their district. It happens in all professions. My argument is more like the community college versus a private university. 2+2=4 no matter where you take the test. Just because a teacher is high paid doesn't make them good. What standards and scores are you basing this on?

There has to be some data somewhere to prove the point that higher paid teachers are smarter, and produce better students. Maybe it's not there, because if money was all it took then the Bears could have paid Cade McNown 10 million a year and he would have been the next Montana.

All I'm saying is the money is going to attract the best candidates. Professional sports cannot really be compared because every player gets paid about what they're worth. Teachers get paid by the district, the district sets the pay scale and that's it. If one school district pays a lot, then they will get many more applicants than other school districts that are known for not paying as well.

In theory, through the application and interview process, they should be able to pick out the best candidate (or at least one of the best candidates). Yes, maybe there can be a good bulls***er that puts together a good application and interviews well. But a good interviewer should be able to pick out the B.S. and find the good qualities. I have a portfolio that I have been putting together with examples of my assignments and projects. I have a website that can be considered a "virtual learning environment". I have letters upon letters of recommendation coming from teachers and administrators whose opinions are highly respected. Some applicants may have all of these, but many do not. Do the portfolio, the website, and the letters show that I am a good teacher? No they do not. What they do show is that I am taking advantage of many different instructional tools, which is something the top teachers do. The administrators who hire people typically know what to look for, and when given many applicants to choose from, they can take their pick.

I did not mean to say, higher pay=better teachers, what I meant to say was higher pay=more applicants, which likely will include higher quality applicants. Then it is up to the administration to hire the best applicants.

[restling]

Originally Posted by Downstate Dad

Why do you have to be insulting in your reply? First, the general notion that people move to better paying jobs is not laughable. Second, the specific objections you raise (cost of living and quality of life) can be factored into the economic decision. There are cost of living indexes published for just this reason. (I'll deal with quality of life below.) So even if you think his analysis is incomplete, it doesn't make it laughable.Fine, but what about two school districts that are not Chicago and Rock Island? Don't they make those decisions based on the ordinary factors everyone else uses, like income and working conditions? And where did you come up with this "slightly" more argument? The differences in pay across Illinois are not "slight." Some suburban districts pay twice what rural districts pay. And believe me, many good teachers do move to the collar counties because of the pay difference.

You are probably misunderstanding that they are saying. They are not saying that the best way to measure a teacher's ability is just to look at his or her paycheck. They are saying that when you account for all other variables, or said another way, all other things being equal, the districts that pay more will have more applicants to choose from, and should have a more talented faculty.

There is a problem with their analysis, but it's completely different from the objection you raised. That problem is that there is no good way for a school personnel director to know which applicant is a good teacher and which is a bad teacher. We don't have any widespread metrics for evaluating teacher performance. Instead, we use surrogates, like whether they applicant has a master's degree and how many years they have taught. Let use your response as an example. You said you know ten teachers who are some of the best teachers in the state. What metric can you use to validate that claim? Student scores? But don't the parents have something to do with that? Principal evaluations? Sounds pretty subjective to me. Besides, a school is like any other employer: they will never give a bad recommendation to a future employer. Why? Because under current law, they would open themselves up to a lawsuit. Heck, down in Normal they gave a positive recommendation to a teacher that was fired for suspicion of abusing his students!

We need more research from folks like Bill Ayers and others if we are ever going to come up with objective measures for improving schools and teachers. Silencing them is about the last thing we need.

I honestly don't know what Ayers teaches, but I know he is friendly with Hugo Chavis, and his pal Obama has turned out to be quite the socialist. What we may learn from Ayers, is what not to do, I figure.

[restling]

Originally Posted by Mr. White

All I'm saying is the money is going to attract the best candidates. Professional sports cannot really be compared because every player gets paid about what they're worth. Teachers get paid by the district, the district sets the pay scale and that's it. If one school district pays a lot, then they will get many more applicants than other school districts that are known for not paying as well.

In theory, through the application and interview process, they should be able to pick out the best candidate (or at least one of the best candidates). Yes, maybe there can be a good bulls***er that puts together a good application and interviews well. But a good interviewer should be able to pick out the B.S. and find the good qualities. I have a portfolio that I have been putting together with examples of my assignments and projects. I have a website that can be considered a "virtual learning environment". I have letters upon letters of recommendation coming from teachers and administrators whose opinions are highly respected. Some applicants may have all of these, but many do not. Do the portfolio, the website, and the letters show that I am a good teacher? No they do not. What they do show is that I am taking advantage of many different instructional tools, which is something the top teachers do. The administrators who hire people typically know what to look for, and when given many applicants to choose from, they can take their pick.

I did not mean to say, higher pay=better teachers, what I meant to say was higher pay=more applicants, which likely will include higher quality applicants. Then it is up to the administration to hire the best applicants.

Not going to argue that first point at all, it makes sense.

As to your portfolio, teach the same things at the worst public school in inner Chicago, and see if you rconsidered a good teacher with the results you get.

To me it's like the chicken and the egg. What comes first? Being a teacher who is good, and then getting high paid, or getting a high wage, and then becoming a good teacher.

I'm looking for data that supports the statements that we are to continue to just throw money at districts because that will result in better kids. Districts are government operations, and everybody in the government knows if you throw out more money you care more, and get good results.

[Downstate Dad]

Originally Posted by restling

I'm looking for data that supports the statements that we are to continue to just throw money at districts because that will result in better kids. Districts are government operations, and everybody in the government knows if you throw out more money you care more, and get good results.

You complained about me putting words in your mouth. Who here ever said, "just throw money at districts because that will result in better kids"?