Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• stlouiedipalma

  Here's a good example of collective bargaining working for the good of the community, right there in good old Ohio.
  
  http://www.the-review.com/news/article/5019825
• CenterBHSFan

  

  georgemc80;744985 wrote:Most companies do provide protection to their employees. Once past the probationary period, companies must meet many criteria prior to terminating an employee. HR departments and legal departments want to make sure that employees have been told of their weaknesses, a plan to make it better has been put in place (with a time table), and the employee understands the consequences. This is the model of successful business that many companies use. I don't see that it is wrong that the same type of model is in place for the public sector.
  
  BTW, it is not an automatic protection. A teacher in Texas can have up to (3) 1 year probationary contracts with the same district. Basically, they can be let go at any time without cause or justification. (although many districts will try to develop these teacher's weaknesses, much like the money corporations spend in training an employee)

  Thank you for answering, without getting distracted or going off on some other tangent. I agree with your reasoning to a large extent, believe it or not.
  Also, this is actually a good argument for public employees to work in an environment WITHOUT unions also!
• Al Bundy

  CenterBHSFan;744855 wrote:But why do public employees need protection (of what you're referring to) automatically? Why should they be protected in ways that other non-public employees do not get?
  
  I, and others, have asked that question MANY times, yet no one bothers to give an honest answer or when they do try, it's such a runaround type of thing that branches off into other discussions.
  You're my last hope of ever giving an honest, reasonable and fair answer that sticks to just the question and just the answer.

  
  I am not currently in a union, but I used to be in a union when I was teaching full time. I currently work for myself and teach as an adjunct at a couple of colleges when the schedules align. As far as the union, I think there are certain issues that have to be collectively bargained, especially in large districts when talking about k-12 teachers. Each teacher can't negotiate issues such as prep time and maximum class size wthtout creating all kinds of problems in the master schedule for the school.
• BRF

  

  Al Bundy;745259 wrote: Each teacher can't negotiate issues such as prep time and maximum class wihtout creating all kinds of problems in the master schedule for the school.

  
  Ah, yes, the Master Schedule...in which some carry the heavy load, and others get the light load. See....I'm not TOTALLY for our union.
• georgemc80

  again the state would have to legislate prep time. As far as the master schedule, you teach what you are told to teach. That's why they are administrators.
  
  I laugh at what you call large districts. I work in a medium sized district with 9000 employees.
  
  The argument without collective bargaining comes down to what the state is going to legislate. In a way the state is your union.
• Al Bundy

  georgemc80;745509 wrote:again the state would have to legislate prep time. As far as the master schedule, you teach what you are told to teach. That's why they are administrators.
  
  I laugh at what you call large districts. I work in a medium sized district with 9000 employees.
  
  The argument without collective bargaining comes down to what the state is going to legislate. In a way the state is your union.

  
  I think those issues are best handled at the local level. The local districts best know the needs of their students. I know your state does it more at a state level, but many of these issues aren't best handled by people not familar with a particular area. The quality of education in Texas is very poor when compared to most other states.
• O-Trap

  

  Al Bundy;745571 wrote:The quality of education in Texas is very poor when compared to most other states.

  Purely out of curiosity, what's the metric you're using for this?
• Al Bundy

  O-Trap;745591 wrote:Purely out of curiosity, what's the metric you're using for this?

  Texas scores well below most states in terms of ACT and SAT score. Forty-eight of the 50 states are going to common core standards, but Texas is not adopting common core standards because they do not feel that their students can perform up to the standards.
  
  http://www.act.org/news/data/10/states.html
  http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/2010-sat-scores-by-state
• georgemc80

  How have the local districts done so far?
  
  
  Texas scores are skewed by their population. As teachers we teach everyone in the district, legal, illegal, language proficient, no habla ingles...everyone. Ohio doesn't have an immigration population that are tested. Texas is so immense that common core really doesn't make sense. Funny thing is that adopting common core, when Texas is the number one state involved with textbook writing. Ohio doesn't have an immigration population that are tested. I will take my sons and daughters of NASA engineers against anyone in the country.
• wkfan

  georgemc80;746125 wrote:How have the local districts done so far?
  
  
  Texas scores are skewed by their population. As teachers we teach everyone in the district, legal, illegal, language proficient, no habla ingles...everyone. Ohio doesn't have an immigration population that are tested. Texas is so immense that common core really doesn't make sense. Funny thing is that adopting common core, when Texas is the number one state involved with textbook writing. Ohio doesn't have an immigration population that are tested. I will take my sons and daughters of NASA engineers against anyone in the country.

  Not sure exactly what you mean by 'not tested'. Although we don't have the immigration issues that Texas does....but, at least here in Central Ohio we have had an influx of Somolian, Mexican, Asian and Indian (dot, not feather) students...even in the most affluent of districts...that are required to be educated and tested. They count on the individual teacher statistics, building statistics and district statistics in all catagories.
• Gblock

  georgemc80;746125 wrote:How have the local districts done so far?
  
  
  Texas scores are skewed by their population. As teachers we teach everyone in the district, legal, illegal, language proficient, no habla ingles...everyone. Ohio doesn't have an immigration population that are tested. Texas is so immense that common core really doesn't make sense. Funny thing is that adopting common core, when Texas is the number one state involved with textbook writing. Ohio doesn't have an immigration population that are tested. I will take my sons and daughters of NASA engineers against anyone in the country.

  We have a significant population of Somalians (sp?) in Columbus
• georgemc80

  so you are saying you have an influx of Indian students. From my experience, that is one of the hardest working sub-pops you can have in your classroom. I know Texas' scores are not as high as other states. But you have to take into account that Texas has a larger student population than most states have total population. So standardized test scores are skewed.
  
  Again there is nothing that my 14 national merit scholars can't accomplish.
• wkfan

  georgemc80;746394 wrote:so you are saying you have an influx of Indian students. From my experience, that is one of the hardest working sub-pops you can have in your classroom. I know Texas' scores are not as high as other states. But you have to take into account that Texas has a larger student population than most states have total population. So standardized test scores are skewed.
  
  Again there is nothing that my 14 national merit scholars can't accomplish.

  Not from our experience.....girls are hard working for the most part.
  
  Boys, especially first born boys....not so much.
• Al Bundy

  georgemc80;746125 wrote:
  
  
  Texas is so immense that common core really doesn't make sense.

  
  Texas is not as immense as the 48 states that have adopted or are in the process of adopting common core. What is in the common core in math and English that would apply to 48 other states, but not Texas?
• georgemc80

  wkfan;746869 wrote:Not from our experience.....girls are hard working for the most part.
  
  Boys, especially first born boys....not so much.

  Well, Houston suburbs just may well draw the best and brightest. Maybe they don't feel welcome. My community is very diverse and there is acceptance. ALL of my Indian students always pass the AP exam and test very well.
  
  I can't defend Texas' standardized scores. They are what they are. Immigration is the only thing I can say would have to be the reason. You would have to see it to understand the scale of immigration in just Houston alone. Not being from Texas originally, I would say that Texas doesn't want to go common core because that would be untexan. You have to experience it to understand. Not saying it is right, just saying its an explanation.
  
  Say what you want though, the textbooks that are being used by the common core states align with Texas standards and objectives.
  
  Back on topic, the State legislates things like minimum planning time, standards and objectives, and human resource policies. Local districts can make most of the decisions that affect their students. For example, the district where I work is the only district not laying off teachers in the Houston metropolitan area. That is because they made sound local fiscal decisions. My career has been better without collective bargaining than it ever was with.
• Al Bundy

  georgemc80;746991 wrote: That is because they made sound local fiscal decisions.

  I agree that many places in Texas have made sound fiscal decision. The problem comes with balancing academic success vs. financial decisions. For example, it is cheaper to have large numbers of students in fewer schools because it is cheaper to maintain. However, most research shows that high schools under 1000 students perform much higher than high schools over 1000. Ohio needs to find a better balance between cost and effective schools. I just have concerns that some people have a desire to base every decision on strictly dollars instead of looking at the total picture.
• georgemc80

  Though I do agree that I prefer smaller schools, When you have 4 million people in a Metropolitan area small schools are an impossibility. High schools in Houston range from 1500 to 5000 students. Of course the larger the district, the more tax dollars and the most opportunity.
• O-Trap

  

  Al Bundy;747068 wrote:I agree that many places in Texas have made sound fiscal decision. The problem comes with balancing academic success vs. financial decisions. For example, it is cheaper to have large numbers of students in fewer schools because it is cheaper to maintain. However, most research shows that high schools under 1000 students perform much higher than high schools over 1000. Ohio needs to find a better balance between cost and effective schools. I just have concerns that some people have a desire to base every decision on strictly dollars instead of looking at the total picture.

  The two are not opposed in the long-term. Only seeminly in the short term.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Ohio has way too many districts for its size. In my hometown, for instance, there are four school systems serving a community of about 12,000. One is a very small parochial school, but the other three range in size from about 100 to 135 per class (freshman, soph., etc.) While that allows more opportunities in some ways for the kids, it's extremely wasteful at the top (superintendent, administrative salaries).
  
  Also, each school district is too small to really offer a range of advanced course work for those kids who want it.
• BRF

  

  Writerbuckeye;747179 wrote:Ohio has way too many districts for its size. In my hometown, for instance, there are four school systems serving a community of about 12,000. One is a very small parochial school, but the other three range in size from about 100 to 135 per class (freshman, soph., etc.) While that allows more opportunities in some ways for the kids, it's extremely wasteful at the top (superintendent, administrative salaries).
  
  Also, each school district is too small to really offer a range of advanced course work for those kids who want it.

  
  I actually agree with you on this one.
  
  I amazed that you live in a place that has 12,000 people and 3 public school systems. What is the name of this place? It has to be some kind of "yuppy" suburb..........with most of the people being younger than you with children......and you being one of the minority old sob's trying to tell everybody how it is or should be.
• stlouiedipalma

  I still believe that you can consolidate several school districts into one huge district. Then you use teleconferencing to teach students from each building at once. You can reduce the number of teachers and staff and save a bundle of money.
• georgemc80

  Why not just eliminate social studies and have every student take their courses online in a virtual school?
  Then you can hire paraprofessionals that make $10/hour to watch 50+ students in a computer lab.
  
  
  Education is not formulas and and facts, it's connections. Connections that help students relate to both the teacher, subject and their classmates. Education is school spirit built by the culture of the building. Education is not meant to be a completion activity.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  BRF;747438 wrote:I actually agree with you on this one.
  
  I amazed that you live in a place that has 12,000 people and 3 public school systems. What is the name of this place? It has to be some kind of "yuppy" suburb..........with most of the people being younger than you with children......and you being one of the minority old sob's trying to tell everybody how it is or should be.

  
  You're so cute when you try to be nasty.
• BRF

  

  Writerbuckeye;747761 wrote:You're so cute when you try to be nasty.

  
  TY
  
  Hey, I liked that last post by george, by George!
• KnightRyder

  

  what it boils down to is one side is gettin their tails kick at the bargaining table and they dont like it. instead of doing a better job at negoiating they just want to eliminate the process.