If you break it down to fit what you want it to line up to of course it describes a realistic picture. I've spent time in schools and I haven't met one teacher who strolls in at 8:30 and leaves at the bell; even the less than great teachers. There would be no way to begin let alone complete the job.
teachers strike?
- Thread starter red
- Start date
Another way to look at it is that this is a salary position. How the teacher uses their time is their professional judgement. They are there from start and end of school day. As long as they teach the curriculum, alert parents of issues and look out for the kids' well being that it.If you break it down to fit what you want it to line up to of course it describes a realistic picture. I've spent time in schools and I haven't met one teacher who strolls in at 8:30 and leaves at the bell; even the less than great teachers. There would be no way to begin let alone complete the job.
I think myself an anyone who has an office job and salary has at point throughout the day done stuff other than work.
Of course a salaried employee encounters that. It even happens in wage paid jobs. However, most of the nay-sayers have not taken that into account.Another way to look at it is that this is a salary position. How the teacher uses their time is their professional judgement. They are there from start and end of school day. As long as they teach the curriculum, alert parents of issues and look out for the kids' well being that it.
I think myself an anyone who has an office job and salary has at point throughout the day done stuff other than work.
So you are telling me that the Alberta Advisory Council on Teacher Supply and Demand (yes, they are even called that) believes that the law of supply and demand has been suspended? Ummm...... I think you need to rethink that claim.Not only 'can I', but I will...
http://education.alberta.ca/media/354979/committeereport.pdf
In the meantime you can also tell me what you think an Alberta report has to do with the oversupply in Ontario?
Too lazy to read the Table on Contents?? Try page 9. It's not so much as the theory (as you simply put it) but to ensure balance by recruiting and retainning teachers. Not simply firing the expensive one for cheaper alternatives (which you suggest).So you are telling me that the Alberta Advisory Council on Teacher Supply and Demand (yes, they are even called that) believes that the law of supply and demand has been suspended? Ummm...... I think you need to rethink that claim.
In the meantime you can also tell me what you think an Alberta report has to do with the oversupply in Ontario?
Find me something that backs what you say.
What on page 9 ("Attraction and Retention Strategies") in this ten year old report did you think was interesting? I read all of page nine. I saw nothing on page nine that indicated the law of supply and demand did not apply to teachers. In fact, the whole purpose of the entire report is to look at aggregate supply and demand and figure out what is going to happen.Too lazy to read the Table on Contents?? Try page 9.
(Well we should way what WAS going to happen--the report is ten years old now.)
The point of the report is that to attract new and keep current teachers is to make the job attractive to the best applicants. Your idea is to make it less attractive to the current ones, higher the currently unemployed ones (if they still want the job), and ultimately make it less attractive over time. Thankfully you are not the Education Minister anywhere.What on page 9 ("Attraction and Retention Strategies") in this ten year old report did you think was interesting? I read all of page nine. I saw nothing on page nine that indicated the law of supply and demand did not apply to teachers. In fact, the whole purpose of the entire report is to look at aggregate supply and demand and figure out what is going to happen.
(Well we should way what WAS going to happen--the report is ten years old now.)
If the boards have filled the system with a bunch of lazy teachers, then your gripe is with the board and union, not the teachers.
Given the oversupply of teachers, that situation has changed. There is not such a strong need to retain teachers, as there is an oversupply...The point of the report is that to attract new and keep current teachers is to make the job attractive to the best applicants. Your idea is to make it less attractive to the current ones, higher the currently unemployed ones (if they still want the job), and ultimately make it less attractive over time. Thankfully you are not the Education Minister anywhere.
If the boards have filled the system with a bunch of lazy teachers, then your gripe is with the board and union, not the teachers.
If the situation were different, if there were an under-supply, then I would agree with the suggestions they have for the sorts of things that need to be done for retention. I have employees too that I manage and I agree that a lot of things that people stick around for are not base salary issues. However, from an employer point of view, it doesn't matter whether you offer a benefit (like training, vacation, etc.) or base salary--it's ultimately viewed as total compensation. Total compensation needs to be reduced, whether it comes from salaries themselves, or from rolling back other benefits.
So you'd rather just replace them all with cheaper in-experienced 'gambles'? Like I said before, teachers are not widgets. If you were to say replace the bad ones with surplus, I'd agree but not all.Given the oversupply of teachers, that situation has changed. There is not such a strong need to retain teachers, as there is an oversupply...
If the situation were different, if there were an under-supply, then I would agree with the suggestions they have for the sorts of things that need to be done for retention.
I am saying there are too many teachers looking for work and not enough jobs, and therefore total compensation should be reduced. People generally don't accept a reduction in salary so this will come in the form of reduced benefits and a freeze on base salary, so that inflation knocks it back over a few years.So you'd rather just replace them all with cheaper in-experienced 'gambles'? Like I said before, teachers are not widgets. If you were to say replace the bad ones with surplus, I'd agree but not all.
Given the tight labour market teachers aren't going to quit, there aren't other jobs for them to take in their field--a lot of them are already unemployed and unable to find jobs!
While it's all well and good to say how wonderful it is to overpay people, it is not well and good when the Province is running a massive deficit. The government has an obligation to get the best return on taxpayer dollar that it can.
And one page back you suggested using to on welfare. I know that that encompasses alot, but you don't think that the it would make better sense reforming that (to eliminate the abusers) is better than going after the salaries of your children's teachers; who contribute as taxpayers.I am saying there are too many teachers looking for work and not enough jobs, and therefore total compensation should be reduced. People generally don't accept a reduction in salary so this will come in the form of reduced benefits and a freeze on base salary, so that inflation knocks it back over a few years.
Given the tight labour market teachers aren't going to quit, there aren't other jobs for them to take in their field--a lot of them are already unemployed and unable to find jobs!
While it's all well and good to say how wonderful it is to overpay people, it is not well and good when the Province is running a massive deficit. The government has an obligation to get the best return on taxpayer dollar that it can.
It is not an either/or proposition. The government needs to save money in every area. There isn't any justification for over-paying public servants. Even if you were to persuade me that some other area of government spending was a bigger problem that would simply make me say both should be done.And one page back you suggested using to on welfare. I know that that encompasses alot, but you don't think that the it would make better sense reforming that (to eliminate the abusers) is better than going after the salaries of your children's teachers; who contribute as taxpayers.
Don't agree. Unless something show that a well educated populance isn't key to a healthy economy (and Ontario's system ranks high globally) those who are responsible for creating tomorrow's leaders (as civil servants) should be retained at reasonable (not simply affordable) costs.It is not an either/or proposition. The government needs to save money in every area. There isn't any justification for over-paying public servants. Even if you were to persuade me that some other area of government spending was a bigger problem that would simply make me say both should be done.
Overpaying teachers isn't the way to achieve that. Take the money we are overpaying on teachers and instead use it to fund more spots in colleges and universities if that is what you really want.Don't agree. Unless something show that a well educated populance isn't key to a healthy economy (and Ontario's system ranks high globally) those who are responsible for creating tomorrow's leaders (as civil servants) should be retained at reasonable (not simply affordable) costs.
How will they succeed there when they have been taught by less experienced/motivated teachers? If you think elementary/highschool teachers are under bad/overpaid to teach; what do you think about people teaching who are not really qualified to do so? I can tell you a ton about profs who know their stuff, but can't teach. That's auother thread though.Overpaying teachers isn't the way to achieve that. Take the money we are overpaying on teachers and instead use it to fund more spots in colleges and universities if that is what you really want.
They already are......... so why are they planning on striking?To summarize...
I'm all for teachers making a comfortable living (even a little more than comfortable). Not rich, but good. Why should't they?
Because their right to collective bargaining is being threatened (the so-called Putting Students First Act. The thread got away from it being the central issue years ago.They already are......... so why are they planning on striking?
There are two separate problems here that both need fixing.How will they succeed there when they have been taught by less experienced/motivated teachers? If you think elementary/highschool teachers are under bad/overpaid to teach; what do you think about people teaching who are not really qualified to do so? I can tell you a ton about profs who know their stuff, but can't teach. That's auother thread though.
First seniority provisions need to be removed from all public service contacts so that merit rather than years of service is considered in staffing decisions.
Second, the overpayment needs to be corrected. I flat out do not believe we are getting better education by overpaying.
Well it's all very well to exploit the students as a bargaining chip for a principal but if they had been willing to bargain with the knowledge that they are very well paid they wouldn't be in this position would they?Because their right to collective bargaining is being threatened (the so-called Putting Students First Act. The thread got away from it being the central issue years ago.
