Bill 115 is a nuisance to students, and Whats Going to happen?

[AntoxicatedDevil78]

lol, yesterday after school, the School parking lot was enpty!

[md]

Think about what that really means: teaches do a lot more at school then they are paid to do, and yet the government still wants to cut teachers (measly) salaries.

If you want your extra curricular activities back then support the teachers, or find someone else to run them.

[mirhagk]

please, PLEASE actually read the law, people refuse to read the law, and instead rely on hearsay in order to determine what is changing:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2665&detailPage=bills_detail_the_bill

The biggest complaint by the union is that teachers can no longer have a lawful strike. Before you freak out and shout some crap about killing democracy take some time to understand what that means.

A lawful strike is when the union denies employees the right to work. Employees are nearly forced to go on strike, even when many employees would rather continue working. This is no longer allowed.

An unlawful strike is a strike that legally cannot be endorsed by the union. Basically teachers can still strike, but it's illegal to organize it (the teacher themself can do it, because it's the same as just not showing up to work)

If the union forces teachers to strike, the only person who comes out a winner is the union. Teachers either don't get paid, or get paid tiny wages to help out with the strike. Students entirely miss sections of their education, which could permanently screw over their education (many students suffered years later in studies when they missed early prerequisites. This is especially true for math). The government wastes a lot of money dealing with the strike, and ends up overpaying teachers yet again if it's successful, and otherwise just taking a bunch of crap and losing a lot of money to fighting the strike and negotiation.

Now before people jump all over me and say how dare I say teachers are overpaid, I am not talking overpaid in the sense that they don't work as hard, or get paid more than others. I am talking overpaid in the strictly economic sense, as in supply of teachers vs demand for teachers. Teacher jobs are EXTREMELY had to get (and even harder to lose, but that's a different story) because of the number of students getting their teaching degree. The free market wage for teachers would be much less than it already is (it might even be close to minimum wage). The only reason teachers aren't earning the free market wage is because teaching is NOT a free market. The union has artificially inflated the wage by forcing teachers to strike with them, and putting the government in a very awkward place because they either pay more than the market demands they should, or they fail to provide education for children.

The bill will not "kill democracy", the bill will actually allow both parties to negotiate equally. The concept of making teachers an essential service is by saying education is an essential service. Teachers who oppose the bill are basically saying that they aren't an essential service, and education can be just cancelled or put off willy-nilly.

Basically the only decision to be made is whether education is essential or not. Everything else is just cascading decisions from that decision (if the government has to provide education, teacher's can't collective refuse to work, which means teachers can be fired for not showing up to work, which means that the wages should be closer to the market price, which means....).

So when you decide when you support it, just ask whether or not education is essential. Can the government just cancel is for a few months, no big deal?

[[Gandalf]]

Unions were created for a reason. Employees were getting screwed over (even more) massively before they existed. Not every teacher might agree with the actions of their union, but it is only through the union that they have leverage.

[mirhagk]

It depends on the definition of screwed over. The simple fact is that there is a free market wage which is the "fair" wage in the economic sense. It makes it so that you don't have more people trying to become teachers than teacher jobs opening up. The current wage is not fair, it gives favour to the existing teachers, and to the new grads who can't get a job, they get screwed over. A fair wage would be a wage where the employer can't get someone else who is willing to work for less, and the employees can't work somewhere else for more.

If the teacher is being paid $20/hour for instance, and someone else is willing to work for $15, is it fair that that other person can't have a job, because the employer can't pay someone $15. Of course not. Unions don't make things fair, they make things beneficial for workers.

[md]

mirhagk @ 2012-12-11, 2:14 pm wrote:

please, PLEASE actually read the law, people refuse to read the law, and instead rely on hearsay in order to determine what is changing:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2665&detailPage=bills_detail_the_bill

Good luck with that, the law is written such that you'd need to sit and cross reference a variety of other laws and be *very* familiar with legalese in order to understand. A much better bet is to read the many legal opinions which have been written about it by both sides and try and draw some conclusions. That or study law.

mirhagk @ 2012-12-11, 2:14 pm wrote:

The biggest complaint by the union is that teachers can no longer have a lawful strike. Before you freak out and shout some crap about killing democracy take some time to understand what that means.

A lawful strike is when the union denies employees the right to work. Employees are nearly forced to go on strike, even when many employees would rather continue working. This is no longer allowed.

A lawful strike is when the union organizes a strike of all union members after having received a mandate to do so by a vote of those same union members. Much like in first-past-the-post elections not everyone gets what they want.

mirhagk @ 2012-12-11, 2:14 pm wrote:

An unlawful strike is a strike that legally cannot be endorsed by the union. Basically teachers can still strike, but it's illegal to organize it (the teacher themself can do it, because it's the same as just not showing up to work)

Mostly correct, an unlawful strike is a strike where the union and it's members either have a contract or are barred by striking by a court order. In that case the union and it's members may be charged and fined for striking unlawfully. The union management might even be charged and face fines (possibly jail time, I am unsure of the specifics of labour relation law) even if they tell their members not to strike and the members strike anyway.

mirhagk @ 2012-12-11, 2:14 pm wrote:

If the union forces teachers to strike, the only person who comes out a winner is the union. Teachers either don't get paid, or get paid tiny wages to help out with the strike. Students entirely miss sections of their education, which could permanently screw over their education (many students suffered years later in studies when they missed early prerequisites. This is especially true for math). The government wastes a lot of money dealing with the strike, and ends up overpaying teachers yet again if it's successful, and otherwise just taking a bunch of crap and losing a lot of money to fighting the strike and negotiation.

When a union strikes it is because the members of that union want to strike in order to cause a disruption in order to try and force a quicker settlement that conforms to their demands. While on strike members get strike pay which is paid by the union from previously collected dues, investments, etc. In the case of teacher strikes students may indeed suffer, this does indeed suck if you are a student but the correct response is not to blame the striking side but to blame both sides for not negotiating. In the case of most strikes it is in fact management which is being stubborn and refusing to negotiate. Strikes are an action of last resort since it does effect so many people, including union members. In the case of the current teachers dispute the government is attempting to impose it's own terms on the teachers without negotiation.

I also see that you are repeating that you feel that teachers are overpaid. As long as we're talking about overly generalized non-cited opinions here's mine. I am not a teacher but I count many as personal friends. Let me assure you that they put in a lot more effort then what you might see as as student. Most volunteer for extra curricular activities, work hard to ensure that struggling students receive extra help outside of class hours, and spend countless hours marking assignments and tests with meaningful feedback so that you as a student can learn from your mistakes. Never mind all of the lesson planning they do, and outside learning they do in order to stay current on new teaching techniques and course material in order to ensure that students get the best possible learning experience.

mirhagk @ 2012-12-11, 2:14 pm wrote:

Now before people jump all over me and say how dare I say teachers are overpaid, I am not talking overpaid in the sense that they don't work as hard, or get paid more than others. I am talking overpaid in the strictly economic sense, as in supply of teachers vs demand for teachers. Teacher jobs are EXTREMELY had to get (and even harder to lose, but that's a different story) because of the number of students getting their teaching degree. The free market wage for teachers would be much less than it already is (it might even be close to minimum wage). The only reason teachers aren't earning the free market wage is because teaching is NOT a free market. The union has artificially inflated the wage by forcing teachers to strike with them, and putting the government in a very awkward place because they either pay more than the market demands they should, or they fail to provide education for children.

One could make the argument that we should be striving to hire only the best teachers to teach our students, seeing as in many cases teachers will spend more time with a student over the course of a school year then the student's own parents. I would argue that this is a case where we don't want to leave the hiring of teachers to the free market, since the free market inevitably leads to the hiring of the worst teachers at the lowest price. As stated before, the union cannot force it's members to strike against the majority will of it's members. The teachers voted to strike, the government is in a hard position because it refuses to negotiate in an open and transparent manner and is instead trying to dictate terms.

mirhagk @ 2012-12-11, 2:14 pm wrote:

The bill will not "kill democracy", the bill will actually allow both parties to negotiate equally. The concept of making teachers an essential service is by saying education is an essential service. Teachers who oppose the bill are basically saying that they aren't an essential service, and education can be just cancelled or put off willy-nilly.

Just the opposite, this bill will prevent teachers from striking lawfully, or, makes it illegal to strike. This law doesn't turn schools into an essential service, it removes the one bargaining chip that teachers have in negotiations and makes any negotiations impossible. That's union busting pure and simple. Education is a not an essential service because parents are perfectly capable of home-schooling or paying to send their students to a private school. Yes, it would have a dramatic effect on the lives of students and parents but no one would die; some might simply have to work harder. Lives depend on the fact that emergency services are available, this makes them essential. Inconvenience is the only thing a teacher's strike might cause.

mirhagk @ 2012-12-11, 2:14 pm wrote:

Basically the only decision to be made is whether education is essential or not. Everything else is just cascading decisions from that decision (if the government has to provide education, teacher's can't collective refuse to work, which means teachers can be fired for not showing up to work, which means that the wages should be closer to the market price, which means....).

So when you decide when you support it, just ask whether or not education is essential. Can the government just cancel is for a few months, no big deal?

No, the issue is whether Canadian's in non-essential areas of the economy have the right to strike. The answer as given by the Supreme Court of Canada is yes. Anyone arguing that teachers provide an essential service are arguing a laughably untenable position and should be mocked deservedly for it. You have the right to educate yourself, you do not have the right to force others to educate you.

You might also want to look at wages in sectors which are deemed essential. You'll find that wages are generally higher then they would be if those service areas were allowed to strike.

As for the current round of labour relations, at some point the union will strike. Then the government is going to either charge the union and have Bill 115 thrown out by a court (IRC it's already being challenged). Once that happens it's back to the negotiation table. The government is limited by the economic effects that the strike has on students and families, the union by the limited resolve and funding it can provide to striking teachers. Both will work towards ensuring that teachers get a fair contract and neither side will get everything they want, exactly what good negotiation should do. If you don't want to suffer from any repercussions resulting from any strike then you should focus on getting both sides to negotiate. As the teachers union has already indicated it's willingness perhaps you should look at the true source of the problem: the government.

[md]

mirhagk @ 2012-12-11, 2:32 pm wrote:

It depends on the definition of screwed over. The simple fact is that there is a free market wage which is the "fair" wage in the economic sense. It makes it so that you don't have more people trying to become teachers than teacher jobs opening up. The current wage is not fair, it gives favour to the existing teachers, and to the new grads who can't get a job, they get screwed over. A fair wage would be a wage where the employer can't get someone else who is willing to work for less, and the employees can't work somewhere else for more.

There is no such thing as a free market. A market can only exist where there is an equal balance of power between both negotiating parties and both know all of the relevant information. I challenge you to identify a single free market in the world where such conditions exist.

mirhagk @ 2012-12-11, 2:32 pm wrote:

If the teacher is being paid $20/hour for instance, and someone else is willing to work for $15, is it fair that that other person can't have a job, because the employer can't pay someone $15. Of course not. Unions don't make things fair, they make things beneficial for workers.

Of course unions work to ensure benefits for workers that's the whole point of a union. I'm not sure I understand your example since it doesn't make any sense. If a unionised shop offers a position at $20 an hour and get's two applications (one from someone who would work for $15 and one from someone who would work for $20) then the business gets to choose who to hire and gets the best candidate available. If a non-unionised shop offers the same position at $15 it'll get only a single application and will not get the benefit of choosing the best candidate.

Now, since the business posted the job clearly they are going to be making more then $20/h off of the labour of the new employee. If the value gained by the company is $30/h then in the case of the unionised shop the employee will be making a larger share of his true earnings. This is good for the employee. The employee in the non-unionised shop will make less of his true earnings; which is clearly bad for the employee.

Only in the case that the value of a new hire is less then the cost of hiring someone will a potential job not be advertised. That's the case independent of having a unionised shop or not. The union simply raises the percentage of an employee's true earnings to be ore beneficial to the employee.

[AntoxicatedDevil78]

Just saying, it's going to effect the next generation

[mirhagk]

md take an introductory course in economics please. Free market is what would ensure we hire the best teachers, not unionized teachers. Teachers cannot lose their jobs, it's pretty much impossible (teachers that commit crimes can still keep their jobs in many instances, this is certainly not true elsewhere).

When was the last time you remember a teacher losing their job for poor performance? I remember a teacher at my school that would literally yell at students and call them names, put them down, and not teach anything (she actually yelled a lecture at us about how important it was to remain calm). Does she still work there? Of course, will she continue to until she retires? Yes.

A truly free market doesn't exist, yes. But there are many examples of jobs that have much more freedom in their ability to hire and fire. Everything is based on seniority (when it's been shown time and time again seniority has very little to do with skill). If the union didn't exist, the schools could evaluate teachers and get better teachers in the instance where one is doing poorly.

Since you clearly misunderstood my example, I'll try one again. We have 3 teachers, Billy, Bob and John. Let's simplify things by saying that you can evaluate a teacher by giving them an identical class and looking at the resulting mark at the end. With this identical class Billy would be get the class average to 80, Bob to 70 and John to 70. John and Bob are equally skilled. Billy requires $25 to work, Bob requires $20 and John requires $15 (John doesn't have as much student debt, or is more passionate at working at the school, or w/e). The school gets enough funding to spend $20 on a teacher for a class on average.

In a unionized market, where pays are completely standardized, and seniority is all that matters (assuming all 3 have the same level of education), Bob and John would be hired for $20 each, John would be estatic because he's getting $5 than he needs or wanted. Billy can't be afforded so he is not hired. Now you have 2 classes with teachers that get the classes 70.

In a more free market, where pays are based on skill, and the only important factor is getting the based education for the amount of money they have, the school would likely hire Billy and John, for an average of $20 each, but now they get an overall average of 75 instead of 70.

I don't know if you realize it, but schools are actually non-profit. If teachers earn less money, that doesn't mean someone makes more money off of them. That means lower costs, so more money for smaller class sizes, more technology and computer labs. Better buildings. The list goes on.

Unions screw over students just as much as the screw over the government (which results in everyone being screwed over). Many cases they screw over a lot of teachers as well. They help themselves first, then maybe the teachers, and last of all the students.

I personally would like to see more people get educated. We're in a sad state where very few students learn anything. Some schools have less than half the students pass the literacy test the first try, that is grade 4 english. Teachers don't need to work at all in order to get paid, they only need to have seniority. We need to get standardized testing, and start evaluating teachers. It's a sad place when principals legally can't evaluate teachers (they need to give notice before they can sit in on lectures, and they can only do that a certain number of times a year. Even if they could, they can't do anything about it).

This problem is everywhere, and it needs to change. Bill Gates is actively supporting the change to actually put students first:
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_unplugged.html (widely regarded as one of the best TED talks ever given, the 2nd half is what pertains to teaching)

EDIT: Also about my example earlier, Billy would most likely then go to work at a private school where they actually cared about getting students a good education. There are many that believe schools should all be private, or that private schools should indeed be better, but I believe that children shouldn't suffer just because their parents screwed up (which is why I support any socialism around children, like free dental care and healthcare etc).

[Dan]

mirhagk @ 12th December 2012, 11:16 am wrote:

md take an introductory course in economics please. Free market is what would ensure we hire the best teachers, not unionized teachers. Teachers cannot lose their jobs, it's pretty much impossible (teachers that commit crimes can still keep their jobs in many instances, this is certainly not true elsewhere).

When was the last time you remember a teacher losing their job for poor performance? I remember a teacher at my school that would literally yell at students and call them names, put them down, and not teach anything (she actually yelled a lecture at us about how important it was to remain calm). Does she still work there? Of course, will she continue to until she retires? Yes.

This is blatantly untrue. I get a copy of "professionally speaking" the Ontario College of Teachers's magazine thanks to my wife being a teacher. This magazine has a section where they detail the dispensary hearings for teachers in Ontario and I have yet to see an issue where some one did not just get fired but banned from holding membership. The OCT is very strict about the actions of it's members including there activities outside of school. They might even be the most strict professional college in Ontario.

Also it's not up to the union to make decisions about disciplining it's members, that's the OCT, school boards and in extreme cases the courts job. If anything, it is far to easy to get in trouble as a teacher, all it takes is one student to lie about you abusing them to get your OCT membership revoked for life and unable to ever teach again.

Quote:

A truly free market doesn't exist, yes. But there are many examples of jobs that have much more freedom in their ability to hire and fire. Everything is based on seniority (when it's been shown time and time again seniority has very little to do with skill). If the union didn't exist, the schools could evaluate teachers and get better teachers in the instance where one is doing poorly.

I think everyone should be entitled to job security if they have put in enough time with an organization. Just because your not the most skilled employee does not mean you should be let go as soon as a new hire comes around. Rules about seniority make sense in most cases, give employees some level of job security (so long as they do there job with in acceptable parameters) and stop unfair layoffs before an employee is about to retire.

Quote:

In a unionized market, where pays are completely standardized, and seniority is all that matters (assuming all 3 have the same level of education), Bob and John would be hired for $20 each, John would be estatic because he's getting $5 than he needs or wanted. Billy can't be afforded so he is not hired. Now you have 2 classes with teachers that get the classes 70.

This keeps things fair. You don't have any bullshit about having to negotiate to get a fair salary. Everyone knows everyone elses salary and they know what they have to do to get to the next salary bracket. There is no playing favorites or politics involved.

Also you kind of just skip over the importance of there level of education in terms of salary. Seniority is not the only factor that determines a teachers salary. The more educated they are (e.g. masters, ph.d, etc) and the more additional qualifications they have the more money they will make. This is how teachers with more "skill" are paid more well keeping things fair.

Quote:

I don't know if you realize it, but schools are actually non-profit. If teachers earn less money, that doesn't mean someone makes more money off of them. That means lower costs, so more money for smaller class sizes, more technology and computer labs. Better buildings. The list goes on.

You could make that argument for cutting or reducing the pay of any kind of public employee/program. There is no reason the government could not make more logical cuts to save money. For example right now Ontario basically funds two school systems, the public and the catholic, if they merged the two into one public system they would save tones on administrative fees and fix a long standing human rights issue.

Quote:

Unions screw over students just as much as the screw over the government (which results in everyone being screwed over). Many cases they screw over a lot of teachers as well. They help themselves first, then maybe the teachers, and last of all the students.

I could just as easily say underpaying teachers screws over students just as much as well as screwing over teachers. Teachers are highly educated workers that need both a bachelors degree and a education degree. It's as much work as getting a bachelors in business and an MBA.

Also I have to agree with MD, you don't seem to understand the point of unions or how they work. The union is the teachers not some odd third party. The teachers vote for who is on the governing body, and the polices and actions they take. Every member of the union gets a vote. I remember when my wife got her voting package for the teachers union she is part of, it was several pages long and covered almost all of the big issues the union was dealing with at the time. It is not some group of shadowy villains trying to get rich quick which you seem to make them out to be. And of course they help teachers first, thats there job, to be on the side of the teachers and negotiate on their behalf. It's the OCT, school board, and goverments job to be on the other side of the negotiation and put the students first.

Quote:

I personally would like to see more people get educated. We're in a sad state where very few students learn anything. Some schools have less than half the students pass the literacy test the first try, that is grade 4 english. Teachers don't need to work at all in order to get paid, they only need to have seniority. We need to get standardized testing, and start evaluating teachers. It's a sad place when principals legally can't evaluate teachers (they need to give notice before they can sit in on lectures, and they can only do that a certain number of times a year. Even if they could, they can't do anything about it).

I have no idea where you got the idea that the grade 10 literacy test is 4th grade English. Full literacy is normally defined as being past the 7th or 8th grade reading levels.

Also your "less than half the students pass" statistic is very deceptive (even if you just mean there might be a signal high school for which it is true). The overall stats say that over 80% of students pass each year. And this year had 82% pass (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1210581--ontario-grade-10-eqao-literacy-test-scores-drop-slightly). I included a chart here for you to see for your self:


More standardized testing is a horrible idea as it just forces teachers to teach to the test and uses up a crazy amount of time and money. I know when I was in high school, the days spent preparing for the literacy test where the worst in terms of educational value and painfully boring. I can't imagine how bad it would be if standardized tests where used as an evaluation method for teachers and a regular thing.

[mirhagk]

I did some some schools, and it's the stats for delta specifically that I was referring to (I've seen a couple others as well).

82% is still sad. And I don't think we need more EQAU style tests, which I agree is useless. The reason it's useless however is that it means next to nothing, and doesn't test the course material (I may have been exaggerating with grade 4 English, but even grade 7 or 8 level English has very little to do with what they are being taught in grade 10. I actually don't remember the teacher going over the literacy test for more than a single day, it was the EQAO that was a full week).

High school pass rates are nearly useless, because clearly teachers are passing students that don't know the material (if the student is in grade 10 and fails a grade 7 English test, then clearly 3 teachers passed a student that shouldn't have passed)

I would like to see tests that actually test knowledge, and that aren't subjective. An 80% in Westmount should mean the same as an 80% in Delta.

I know that the teaching salary is based off both seniority and level of education. That is one of my biggest problems with the union (since that's the major reason why it's like that). Job security is one thing, but having a teacher automatically earn more just because they didn't break any laws is just poor planning. There is literally no incentive to try harder, just work for more years. Also what do you need to teach grade 12 biology? Grade 12 biology + knowing how to teach. Having your doctorate doesn't make you a better teacher (teachers often times end up teaching things that aren't in their field of study anyways).

The whole idea of capitalism is that motivation is required in order to have people try hard. This has been shown to be true, with minor socialism just helping out those who were unlucky. Pure on communism is treating everyone identical no matter what they do, and it's been shown to be not very effective. Essentially the market for teachers is a communist market, except they also build in some favoritism for those who've been there longer.

Job security can be enabled without a union. I don't have a union in my workplace, and no one has any fear of new hires taking their places. In fact they are all excited about new hires, which get paid less, and promote the old ones to higher positions. The union signs a contract for the job security, a teacher could do the same thing.

I do have to agree with you that funding for catholic schools should be cut. Any religious school should be considered the same, and should be a private school. Ideally they'd just fund public schools, and get good teachers in public schools.

[Dan]

mirhagk @ 12th December 2012, 3:30 pm wrote:

I did some some schools, and it's the stats for delta specifically that I was referring to (I've seen a couple others as well).

Do you mean the Delta Alternative Senior School in Toronto? They have a 94% to 100% pass rate. Or do you mean Delta Secondary School in the Hamilton-Wentworth District? They have not got below 50% either (at least since 2008 where the data i have goes back to).

mirhagk wrote:

82% is still sad.

Considering it includes English as a second language and special education students it's not that bad. And almost 1/2 of the students that don't succeeded on the first try, do on there second attempt.

mirhagk wrote:

And I don't think we need more EQAU style tests, which I agree is useless. The reason it's useless however is that it means next to nothing, and doesn't test the course material (I may have been exaggerating with grade 4 English, but even grade 7 or 8 level English has very little to do with what they are being taught in grade 10. I actually don't remember the teacher going over the literacy test for more than a single day, it was the EQAO that was a full week).

So you are for standardized test, but just not the ones you don't like?

The point is to test for literacy not grade 10 English content (which would be silly since the students have not completed the course yet). But i do agree it is useless, like almost all standardized tests.

mirhagk wrote:

High school pass rates are nearly useless, because clearly teachers are passing students that don't know the material (if the student is in grade 10 and fails a grade 7 English test, then clearly 3 teachers passed a student that shouldn't have passed)

Pushing students through the system has more to do with the administration and parents then it does teachers. For example the case of the teacher that got suspended for giving 0s (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2012/05/31/edmonton-teacher-zeros-sheppard.html). The school administration and school board want high pass/graduation rates as it is used as a metric to judge there performance. If you start using standardized tests for the same kind of thing (yet another meaningless metric) you are going to have teachers pushed to focus solely on passing the test and not real teaching.

mirhagk wrote:

I know that the teaching salary is based off both seniority and level of education. That is one of my biggest problems with the union (since that's the major reason why it's like that). Job security is one thing, but having a teacher automatically earn more just because they didn't break any laws is just poor planning.

Why should I not make more if I have more experience and been working for the organization longer? Also as I stated before, seniority is only part of the calculation.

mirhagk wrote:

There is literally no incentive to try harder, just work for more years. Also what do you need to teach grade 12 biology? Grade 12 biology + knowing how to teach. Having your doctorate doesn't make you a better teacher (teachers often times end up teaching things that aren't in their field of study anyways).

I don't think you understand how additional qualifications work. The educational component of the salary calculation does include there degrees, however a big part of it is additional qualifications. Additional qualifications are courses teacher take as they are teaching which teach "professional knowledge" (e.g. content about teaching and educational instruction methods) and play a big part in what teachers are qualified to teach. The more work a teacher puts in to doing additional qualifications, the more they will make and the more courses they will be able to teach (which allows them to get better assignments and an easier time finding jobs).

You are totally off about the qualifications for teaching biology as well. You need a bachelor's degree, an education degree, a secondary qualification, and science teachable qualification (which requires a set amount of credits in university science courses) and a specific qualification for biology (which requires a set amount of credits in university biology courses). The only teachers that should be able to teach biology with just grade 12 bio and the regular teaching requirements for OCT membership are occasional teachers (i.e. subs).

mirhagk wrote:

The whole idea of capitalism is that motivation is required in order to have people try hard. This has been shown to be true, with minor socialism just helping out those who were unlucky. Pure on communism is treating everyone identical no matter what they do, and it's been shown to be not very effective. Essentially the market for teachers is a communist market, except they also build in some favoritism for those who've been there longer.

I see nothing wrong with socialism. Assuming some one does there job, I see no reason why they should not be treated equally to every one else who does there job to the degree they are expected. If you are only trying hard for monetary reasons I think you might need to rethink your life. My guess would be that the best teachers are not the best teachers because they want a pay check but because they genuinely believe in what they are doing and enjoy it.

mirhagk wrote:

Job security can be enabled without a union. I don't have a union in my workplace, and no one has any fear of new hires taking their places. In fact they are all excited about new hires, which get paid less, and promote the old ones to higher positions. The union signs a contract for the job security, a teacher could do the same thing.

I fail to see how you have any job security at all. Your company could have a bad year and need to do layoffs and you could be one of the first to go rather then the new guy as you cost more. You also have no guarantee you will ever get a raise or promotion or that you will get one before the new guy (assuming you both are equally skilled and do equal amount of work).

The union just negotiates the contract for all teachers so they have bargaining power and leverage that they would not on there own. Unions also ensure that everyone has the same contract, keeping everything fair.

[Dan]

I just wanted to add to the topic that Canadian education system ranks 2nd among all OECD countries (http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/education.aspx). So I have a very hard time buying that our educators are doing a bad job or are somehow undeserving of the small amount of befits and salary they get.

Modeling the US system of education and union busting seems crazy when they are 16/17 on the same list. If anything we should be trying to copy Finland.

[mirhagk]

@Dan I didn't mean by the school board's requirement you only need grade 12 bio, I meant by a realistic requirement. Learning to teach is really the only education that should batter, a doctorate in biology shouldn't count for anything for a biology teacher. Glad to hear they at least focus on teaching courses for increases and not just degrees.

You also are contradicting yourself, you said the best teachers are likely the ones who don't care about money, yet this entire thing is about ensuring teachers get paid more than the market demands they should (this is about the right to strike, which is about the right to blackmail your employer into paying everyone more).

If seniority is to be rewarded, it should be because seniority helps you become better. Some jobs that is certainly true, and at my job if someone new came in it'd take a long time to get up to speed, and they wouldn't have any knowledge of legacy systems, so there's a good reason why senior staff are kept around (I'm not senior staff, and I am the first one to go if we have any more trouble. We've actually been in the paper for a while now commenting on how rough of a shape the company's been in, and they are still hiring new staff, both students and otherwise. The first to go are those new staff.

I am NOT proposing modelling the US system, the US has the same problems that canada has, where teachers can't loose their job because they aren't good, and it's not skill based, but a formula based on seniority and degree. The TED talk I posted above talks about the US, which has the exact same problem (and worse because the private schools in the states have more sense, and offer much better education than public schools).

And my apologies about delta, it was 54% passed, my bad. http://www.hwdsb.on.ca/schools/assessment/osslt/delta.pdf I want to point out though that among applied english students board wide the success rate was only 48% in the entire province (page 16). Academic student got 93% (which I still count as low, but it's much more understandable).

Also to note is page 5, which shows the breakdown. ESL students account for 0% of delta, 1% of the board and 2% of the province. That's not really that high, and special needs is less than 15%, which while significant is clearly not the major factor.

Also even if you're the best in your class doesn't mean you shouldn't be better. Just because the US is worse than us doesn't mean it's okay for us. If we had that attitude throughout history we wouldn't even be talking right now.

[Dan]

I was going to write up a long post about how your clearly strawmanning my argument, how silly it is use a TED talk as a citation, and that there are doctorate and masters degrees in education but it's not like this debate would resolve it's self as we are just talking past each other at this point.