Consider also that the way we fund public schools via local property taxes is fundamentally inequitable and racist, and contributes to the ongoing problems with the education system including the fact that the schools most in need of funding are the ones that can't get it.
Yes the whole way we do basic funding for schools on a local level is a big reason for the wildly unequal levels of funding/school performance. The schools in the poorer areas get less funding and therefore perform poorer and around and around. This really should be done on a state wise basis or federal basis.
State level would be ok, if States start to actually collect taxes.
Therein does lie the problem - it's hard enough to get people to fund education; imagine asking suburban parents to fund those schools, too.
I don't have much to add as I'm catching up with the thread but a few pages back spool gave an example of each teacher having a class of twenty or so kids and I literally laughed out loud. A shirt derisive bark of laughter sure, but I think it still counts. I haven't seen a class size of less than 30 since the early nineties, and last I checked they were closer to forty than thirty.
My son's second grade class has 25 students, and that's the largest class he's ever been in. I think it was 22 for kindergarten and 23 last year for first grade. That's at our local public school. They don't have any larger classes that I am aware of.
Consider also that the way we fund public schools via local property taxes is fundamentally inequitable and racist, and contributes to the ongoing problems with the education system including the fact that the schools most in need of funding are the ones that can't get it.
Yes the whole way we do basic funding for schools on a local level is a big reason for the wildly unequal levels of funding/school performance. The schools in the poorer areas get less funding and therefore perform poorer and around and around. This really should be done on a state wise basis or federal basis.
State level would be ok, if States start to actually collect taxes.
The last time the federal government went hard into funding and directing state-level education was the Cold War. Federal education (as well as public health efforts), in general, date back to WWI, when the feds were horrified that the majority of the people they tried to recruit in some regions were too poorly educated, impoverished, and malnourished to be conscripted.
So, barring major cultural change, you can expect the next major federal education effort to overlap Washington again realizing that its citizens are too poor and ignorant to fight a modern war.
I don't have much to add as I'm catching up with the thread but a few pages back spool gave an example of each teacher having a class of twenty or so kids and I literally laughed out loud. A shirt derisive bark of laughter sure, but I think it still counts. I haven't seen a class size of less than 30 since the early nineties, and last I checked they were closer to forty than thirty.
My son's second grade class has 25 students, and that's the largest class he's ever been in. I think it was 22 for kindergarten and 23 last year for first grade. That's at our local public school. They don't have any larger classes that I am aware of.
Elementary schools tend to have smaller class size rations (and paid teachers aides) because of the nature of kids that age. Generally, the class sizes and number of teachers drops, with the teacher/student ratio going from 1/18 to 1/27 in high school in my state.
That's also skewed by local funding, which provides bonuses, salaries for teachers, and support for smaller class sizes.
That's from 2011, but finding good data from reputable sources is more difficult than I'd like in the time I have.
"In 2000, Chicago district-wide average high-school class size was reported at 17.9., which was larger than 68 percent of the 504 school districts in Illinois that have high schools. Chicago is now at 25.1 students per class at the high school level. Over 10 years Chicago has gone from the 68th percentile in high school class size to the 99th percentile."
Obviously, a lot changed in 10 years for Chicago, and it has likely gone up even further since then. As of 2011 though, 25.1 students per high school class in Chicago put it in the 99th percentile for the state as far as class size at the high school level. A city with all kinds of budget problems and a terrible history of poor support for schools in predominantly African-American neighborhoods. In a state that is well known for its budget problems.
That's from 2011, but finding good data from reputable sources is more difficult than I'd like in the time I have.
"In 2000, Chicago district-wide average high-school class size was reported at 17.9., which was larger than 68 percent of the 504 school districts in Illinois that have high schools. Chicago is now at 25.1 students per class at the high school level. Over 10 years Chicago has gone from the 68th percentile in high school class size to the 99th percentile."
Obviously, a lot changed in 10 years for Chicago, and it has likely gone up even further since then. As of 2011 though, 25.1 students per high school class in Chicago put it in the 99th percentile for the state as far as class size at the high school level. A city with all kinds of budget problems and a terrible history of poor support for schools in predominantly African-American neighborhoods. In a state that is well known for its budget problems.
That is averaging all of the chicago district which is kinda a bad way of doing it imo but from that same article
Marquette Elementary School, 6550 S. Richmond: 1st, 2nd grade, 5th and 6th grade classes with more than 30 students each, and, some with upwards of 35
Columbia Explorers School, 4520 S. Kedzie: Kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, 6th and 8th grade classes with more than 30 students each, one 8th grade room has 35 students
Edwards Elementary School, 4815 S. Karlov: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 8th grade classes with more than 30 students each
Gresham Elementary School, 8524 S. Green: Kindergarten class with 43 students; more than 30 students in some 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th and 8th grade classrooms.
Nathan Hale, 6140 S. Melvina: 1st, 2nd,3rd and 7th grade classrooms with more than 30 students each
Dixon Elementary School, 8306 S. St. Lawrence: 6th and 7th grade classes with more than 30 students each; a 4th grade classroom has 38 students
Byrne Elementary School, 5329 S. Oak Park: 5th, 6th, 7th grade classrooms with more than 30 students each
Addams Elementary School, 10810 S. Avenue H: 3rd grade classes with more than 30 students each
Jordan Elementary, 7414 N. Wolcott: 2nd, 4th and 7th grade classes with more than 30 students each
Cardenas Elementary School, 2345 S. Millard: Kindergarten classes with nearly 35 students in each class
Consider also that the way we fund public schools via local property taxes is fundamentally inequitable and racist, and contributes to the ongoing problems with the education system including the fact that the schools most in need of funding are the ones that can't get it.
Yes the whole way we do basic funding for schools on a local level is a big reason for the wildly unequal levels of funding/school performance. The schools in the poorer areas get less funding and therefore perform poorer and around and around. This really should be done on a state wise basis or federal basis.
State level would be ok, if States start to actually collect taxes.
Therein does lie the problem - it's hard enough to get people to fund education; imagine asking suburban parents to fund those schools, too.
Big surprise, the problem is greed and racism.
More even than abortion it was probably school desregation that created the modern right.
+1
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
That's from 2011, but finding good data from reputable sources is more difficult than I'd like in the time I have.
"In 2000, Chicago district-wide average high-school class size was reported at 17.9., which was larger than 68 percent of the 504 school districts in Illinois that have high schools. Chicago is now at 25.1 students per class at the high school level. Over 10 years Chicago has gone from the 68th percentile in high school class size to the 99th percentile."
Obviously, a lot changed in 10 years for Chicago, and it has likely gone up even further since then. As of 2011 though, 25.1 students per high school class in Chicago put it in the 99th percentile for the state as far as class size at the high school level. A city with all kinds of budget problems and a terrible history of poor support for schools in predominantly African-American neighborhoods. In a state that is well known for its budget problems.
That is averaging all of the chicago district which is kinda a bad way of doing it imo but from that same article
Marquette Elementary School, 6550 S. Richmond: 1st, 2nd grade, 5th and 6th grade classes with more than 30 students each, and, some with upwards of 35
Columbia Explorers School, 4520 S. Kedzie: Kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, 6th and 8th grade classes with more than 30 students each, one 8th grade room has 35 students
Edwards Elementary School, 4815 S. Karlov: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 8th grade classes with more than 30 students each
Gresham Elementary School, 8524 S. Green: Kindergarten class with 43 students; more than 30 students in some 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th and 8th grade classrooms.
Nathan Hale, 6140 S. Melvina: 1st, 2nd,3rd and 7th grade classrooms with more than 30 students each
Dixon Elementary School, 8306 S. St. Lawrence: 6th and 7th grade classes with more than 30 students each; a 4th grade classroom has 38 students
Byrne Elementary School, 5329 S. Oak Park: 5th, 6th, 7th grade classrooms with more than 30 students each
Addams Elementary School, 10810 S. Avenue H: 3rd grade classes with more than 30 students each
Jordan Elementary, 7414 N. Wolcott: 2nd, 4th and 7th grade classes with more than 30 students each
Cardenas Elementary School, 2345 S. Millard: Kindergarten classes with nearly 35 students in each class
Yes, and? I'm responding to the notion that class sizes less than 30-40 are laughable and a thing of the past. Data for Illinois indicates that generally isn't true. Pointing out the outliers isn't much of an argument.
That's from 2011, but finding good data from reputable sources is more difficult than I'd like in the time I have.
"In 2000, Chicago district-wide average high-school class size was reported at 17.9., which was larger than 68 percent of the 504 school districts in Illinois that have high schools. Chicago is now at 25.1 students per class at the high school level. Over 10 years Chicago has gone from the 68th percentile in high school class size to the 99th percentile."
Obviously, a lot changed in 10 years for Chicago, and it has likely gone up even further since then. As of 2011 though, 25.1 students per high school class in Chicago put it in the 99th percentile for the state as far as class size at the high school level. A city with all kinds of budget problems and a terrible history of poor support for schools in predominantly African-American neighborhoods. In a state that is well known for its budget problems.
That is averaging all of the chicago district which is kinda a bad way of doing it imo but from that same article
Marquette Elementary School, 6550 S. Richmond: 1st, 2nd grade, 5th and 6th grade classes with more than 30 students each, and, some with upwards of 35
Columbia Explorers School, 4520 S. Kedzie: Kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, 6th and 8th grade classes with more than 30 students each, one 8th grade room has 35 students
Edwards Elementary School, 4815 S. Karlov: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 8th grade classes with more than 30 students each
Gresham Elementary School, 8524 S. Green: Kindergarten class with 43 students; more than 30 students in some 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th and 8th grade classrooms.
Nathan Hale, 6140 S. Melvina: 1st, 2nd,3rd and 7th grade classrooms with more than 30 students each
Dixon Elementary School, 8306 S. St. Lawrence: 6th and 7th grade classes with more than 30 students each; a 4th grade classroom has 38 students
Byrne Elementary School, 5329 S. Oak Park: 5th, 6th, 7th grade classrooms with more than 30 students each
Addams Elementary School, 10810 S. Avenue H: 3rd grade classes with more than 30 students each
Jordan Elementary, 7414 N. Wolcott: 2nd, 4th and 7th grade classes with more than 30 students each
Cardenas Elementary School, 2345 S. Millard: Kindergarten classes with nearly 35 students in each class
Yes, and? I'm responding to the notion that class sizes less than 30-40 are laughable and a thing of the past. Data for Illinois indicates that generally isn't true. Pointing out the outliers isn't much of an argument.
Using averages is a bad way to go about presenting data where outliers are common. What does the bottom end look like? I've heard from most teachers that 30 is the norm now. I mostly am around Middle/High school teachers though. Also unless there are hard numbers per classroom to actually see there is a vested interest to skew numbers in averages and the like from school boards to manipulate parents into wanting to come to their school.
Guys, this is a very civil discussion but it doesn't seem to have much to do with unions.
We're talking about the economic basis for a series of wildcat strikes across the country. There are no unions involved because they are illegal for many of the strikers, but the fact that teachers are going on strike anyway is indicative that, at some point, labor activism finds a way when there is no other choice.
Guys, this is a very civil discussion but it doesn't seem to have much to do with unions.
We're talking about the economic basis for a series of wildcat strikes across the country. There are no unions involved because they are illegal for many of the strikers, but the fact that teachers are going on strike anyway is indicative that, at some point, labor activism finds a way when there is no other choice.
The discussion has not been limited to that, imo.
A thread on education in America would be a better place for this wider discussion, if anyone wants to make it!
Forgive my relative ignorance on this- what are the factors contributing to more labor action/strikes in the past couple years?
Tipping point of capital taking too much for too long/lower unemployment finally breaking through wage stickiness/a resurgent left-labor partnership/capital’s judicial wins reducing union participation leading to more dramatic action/etc?
I guess it means something that this is all mostly public unions striking...
There are a lot of theories on this - women are leading a lot of the organizing, which has to do with demand for labor in feminized sectors such as teaching, nursing, and home health aids increasing in contrast with other sectors like manufacturing. I also attribute it to a generation without Red Scare propaganda or a strong socialist boogeyman abroad that has experienced first-hand the failure of capitalism to deliver on what was promised in exchange for the grave concessions - 'yes, you'll work hard and your boss will take your surplus value, but you'll have a family and a house and nice consumer goods etc etc'. I don't know that there's a real sense of class consciousness, but folks have long felt that 'They' are fucking 'Us' over and the attempts to scapegoat immigrants, minorities, overseas manufacturing, welfare queens, etc etc are falling on increasingly-deaf ears as people have more access to more compelling narratives which make them question the social order as dictated by the ruling class.
Its not so complex as that. It's a purely capitalist answer, the pay and working conditions of teachers has now fallen to such a low level, that the ability to generate strike action and the damage from that action is now so great that the IMMEDIATE consequences of a strike cost more than giving the teachers a raise.
So, when 1000 teachers go on strike demanding $1000 raises and enough pencils, the immediate cost to the economy in terms of missed wages by parents is immediately greater than the cost of giving the teachers the raise. This is because there are no additional teachers willing to work for the money currently being offered, so classes cannot be covered by just hiring new teachers.
Before class sizes grew so large, and so many parents worked long hours, and wages fell so low, teacher strikes and low pay for teachers only cost money in the long term. As in, if Jimmy misses two weeks of school, then Jimmy's average wages through his life will be 0.02% lower. But now, they can win immediately because Achmeds dad has to take a vacation day, and so does Jims, and Mallory's and 32 other kids and so one day of strikes costs the state 4 days of the state median wage in taxes. Can't shuffle the kids to other classes, or bring in scabs, because the other classes are full, and there's noone who will take the job.
You can 'win' against strikes when people are affected only by long term consequences, you can't when you immediately start losing.
Software in general could use unions, video games are just the most notorious part of it. (Granted there's also more to them than just the coding, but)
Software in general could use unions, video games are just the most notorious part of it. (Granted there's also more to them than just the coding, but)
Everyone needs unions. Unions (governed by the European model, rather than the US one) are a collaborative element of good corporate governance which represent workers and also assist management in getting the best out of their workers. Well run unions, and the worker representation on boards which come from them, INCREASE corporate profits by facilitating good communication between contributors and management.
Unions in the US were made competitive with corporate governance precisely to prevent them from working well.
Software in general could use unions, video games are just the most notorious part of it. (Granted there's also more to them than just the coding, but)
Everyone needs unions. Unions (governed by the European model, rather than the US one) are a collaborative element of good corporate governance which represent workers and also assist management in getting the best out of their workers. Well run unions, and the worker representation on boards which come from them, INCREASE corporate profits by facilitating good communication between contributors and management.
Unions in the US were made competitive with corporate governance precisely to prevent them from working well.
The German model I think might be the ideal form of collaboration between labor and capital
Software in general could use unions, video games are just the most notorious part of it. (Granted there's also more to them than just the coding, but)
Everyone needs unions. Unions (governed by the European model, rather than the US one) are a collaborative element of good corporate governance which represent workers and also assist management in getting the best out of their workers. Well run unions, and the worker representation on boards which come from them, INCREASE corporate profits by facilitating good communication between contributors and management.
Unions in the US were made competitive with corporate governance precisely to prevent them from working well.
The German model I think might be the ideal form of collaboration between labor and capital
My experience with German unions in a multinational German-based company was that they made the German division slower, less nimble, more redundant, more bureaucratic, and less willing to take proactive measures than Americans, and also they shunted layoffs and cost-cutting to the more productive and more highly skilled American divisions.
Software in general could use unions, video games are just the most notorious part of it. (Granted there's also more to them than just the coding, but)
Everyone needs unions. Unions (governed by the European model, rather than the US one) are a collaborative element of good corporate governance which represent workers and also assist management in getting the best out of their workers. Well run unions, and the worker representation on boards which come from them, INCREASE corporate profits by facilitating good communication between contributors and management.
Unions in the US were made competitive with corporate governance precisely to prevent them from working well.
The German model I think might be the ideal form of collaboration between labor and capital
My experience with German unions in a multinational German-based company was that they made the German division slower, less nimble, more redundant, more bureaucratic, and less willing to take proactive measures than Americans, and also they shunted layoffs and cost-cutting to the more productive and more highly skilled American divisions.
What I'm reading here is that a german company wasn't consumed with chasing the almighty dollar in an effort to have the most, and that they cared more for their german workforce than other parts of the multinational business by laying off and cost-cutting non-german departments.
Other than the fact that you aren't part of that german workforce, how is that a bad thing? Would you be upset with Ford if they closed an overseas plant in order to keep an american plant working if it meant they only made a profit of $8billion instead of $9billion?
I mean, end of the day I don't blame them for a fuck you got ours attitude. It sure did suck to work alongside them sometimes though.
Edit: corporate culture was not great there in a lot of ways, it's unfair to lay it all at the feet of German unions. I'm just saying, if that's the model it ain't super inspiring.
spool32 on
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I've been of that opinion for years. There are damned good reasons why there are unions for writers and whatnot, largely because the rich assholes running media companies just adore shitting on the people who actually make content in order to make some extra money. I
Software in general could use unions, video games are just the most notorious part of it. (Granted there's also more to them than just the coding, but)
Everyone needs unions. Unions (governed by the European model, rather than the US one) are a collaborative element of good corporate governance which represent workers and also assist management in getting the best out of their workers. Well run unions, and the worker representation on boards which come from them, INCREASE corporate profits by facilitating good communication between contributors and management.
Unions in the US were made competitive with corporate governance precisely to prevent them from working well.
The German model I think might be the ideal form of collaboration between labor and capital
My experience with German unions in a multinational German-based company was that they made the German division slower, less nimble, more redundant, more bureaucratic, and less willing to take proactive measures than Americans, and also they shunted layoffs and cost-cutting to the more productive and more highly skilled American divisions.
What I'm reading here is that a german company wasn't consumed with chasing the almighty dollar in an effort to have the most, and that they cared more for their german workforce than other parts of the multinational business by laying off and cost-cutting non-german departments.
Other than the fact that you aren't part of that german workforce, how is that a bad thing? Would you be upset with Ford if they closed an overseas plant in order to keep an american plant working if it meant they only made a profit of $8billion instead of $9billion?
It also reads to me that the American side needed a proper union to protect it from potentially predatory/unfair practices. Without the leverage of union-backed negotiation, the American workers were simply easier targets, and the company decided to take the shortcut of laying them off instead of negotiating with the union on the German side.
With a proper union, the American workers would've have been just as protected and the company would have been forced to use layoffs only when actually needed instead of just whenever trying to pump profits for shareholders.
I say this as somebody who just left a Swiss company that habitually protected the European workers and shit all over the US workers on a regular and ongoing basis. Without protection like that from unions, companies will shit on employees if they can get away with it. More inflexibility and bureaucracy comes with unions, yes, but considering it's all just business, not the military or government, then nobody is going to die because the company took a month instead of a day to implement a rule change. Having some extra committees to deal with is a far, far better option than working for companies that can fire you immediately with zero actual need and zero justification.
If you want another pro-union take after the Activision Layoff Massacre, WoW content creators Taliesen and Evitel have you covered.
More mature than the hottakes (though with some humor) since it starts by pointing out that these are real people that lost their jobs and they getting screwed so Kotick and Co. can have more money isn't a chance to make a point about how you don't like something on a videogame.
EDIT: On software development, there's a quote from Michael O. Church, that has denounced the sickness of Silicon Valley corporate culture for years:
Most of the anti-union sentiment in software engineering comes from people under 30 who haven’t yet realized that (a) they might develop disabilities, (b) they might have a sick wife, parent, or child someday, and (c) they’ll probably get sick of working till 9:00pm on someone else’s project once they realize that “someone else” has no reciprocal interest in their careers, education, or advancement.
Executives are always quick to brag about your work. It’s the talk of every industry corner office and boardroom. They pay tribute to the games that capture our imaginations and seem to defy economic gravity. They talk up the latest innovations in virtual reality and celebrate record-smashing releases, as your creations reach unparalleled new heights.
My question is this: what have you gotten in return? While you’re putting in crunch time, your bosses are ringing the opening bell on Wall Street. While you’re creating some of the most groundbreaking products of our time, they’re pocketing billions. While you’re fighting through exhaustion and putting your soul into a game, Bobby Kotick and Andrew Wilson are toasting to “their” success.
They get rich. They get notoriety. They get to be crowned visionaries and regarded as pioneers.
What do you get?
Outrageous hours and inadequate paychecks. Stressful, toxic work conditions that push you to your physical and mental limits. The fear that asking for better means risking your dream job.
We’ve heard the painful stories of those willing to come forward, including one developer who visited the emergency room three times before taking off from work. Developers at Rockstar Games recently shared stories of crunch time that lasted for months and even years in order to satisfy outrageous demands from management, delivering a game that banked their bosses $725 million in its first three days.
Executives are always quick to brag about your work. It’s the talk of every industry corner office and boardroom. They pay tribute to the games that capture our imaginations and seem to defy economic gravity. They talk up the latest innovations in virtual reality and celebrate record-smashing releases, as your creations reach unparalleled new heights.
My question is this: what have you gotten in return? While you’re putting in crunch time, your bosses are ringing the opening bell on Wall Street. While you’re creating some of the most groundbreaking products of our time, they’re pocketing billions. While you’re fighting through exhaustion and putting your soul into a game, Bobby Kotick and Andrew Wilson are toasting to “their” success.
They get rich. They get notoriety. They get to be crowned visionaries and regarded as pioneers.
What do you get?
Outrageous hours and inadequate paychecks. Stressful, toxic work conditions that push you to your physical and mental limits. The fear that asking for better means risking your dream job.
We’ve heard the painful stories of those willing to come forward, including one developer who visited the emergency room three times before taking off from work. Developers at Rockstar Games recently shared stories of crunch time that lasted for months and even years in order to satisfy outrageous demands from management, delivering a game that banked their bosses $725 million in its first three days.
So West Virginia teachers, who’s 55 strong strike last year set off a series of similar teacher strikes are about to go on strike again tomorrow
Basically the legislature passed something to give them a raise but snuck in less than appealing items:
An early version would, among other things, link teacher raises and funding for the health-care system for state employees to things such as increasing class sizes, denying pay during future strikes, support for charter schools, and a program to use public money for private and religious-school education.
Some of that has been removed, but the bill still allows for an increase in charter schools and education savings accounts to attend private school
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Oakland, California's teachers will go on strike Thursday (February 21st). Basically, they want the same thing the LA teachers wanted and got after striking - pay raises, smaller class sizes, and more support staff like nurses and counselors. The LA teachers were told it was impossible before, and then when they went on strike what do you know suddenly it's very possible.
I am still waiting to hear about our last negotiating session. But our contract is up at the end of the school year. I am new to the district but I have been told they have not gotten a raise in many years. Area just passed a bond issue to get more funding and hopefully a lot of that goes to us. Hopefully the clear leverage we have means we just get the better contract without strife.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Oakland, California's teachers will go on strike Thursday (February 21st). Basically, they want the same thing the LA teachers wanted and got after striking - pay raises, smaller class sizes, and more support staff like nurses and counselors. The LA teachers were told it was impossible before, and then when they went on strike what do you know suddenly it's very possible.
Who knew that the people who we pay a pittance to take care of our children all day while we go to work to make money and whatnot had power over us! Who could have predicted that these sort of demands would occur!
So West Virginia teachers, who’s 55 strong strike last year set off a series of similar teacher strikes are about to go on strike again tomorrow
Basically the legislature passed something to give them a raise but snuck in less than appealing items:
An early version would, among other things, link teacher raises and funding for the health-care system for state employees to things such as increasing class sizes, denying pay during future strikes, support for charter schools, and a program to use public money for private and religious-school education.
Some of that has been removed, but the bill still allows for an increase in charter schools and education savings accounts to attend private school
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Striking is coming back outside of teaching too. GE locomotive workers in Pennsylvania are going on strike for the first time in fifty years. First major strike in manufacturing in three years, too. The company was trying to impose mandatory overtime and lower wages for new hires so the union is fighting back.
Looks like teachers in KY are back to it, since the legislature decided to fuck around with them some more ('cause they didn't get the message the first time).
Another sick-out, this time Jefferson County Schools (which I believe contains Louisville, KY) have closed for today because they weren't going to have enough staff.
(Mandy is a reporter for the Courier & Journal [Louisville newspaper])
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited February 2019
Having watched the KY teachers' sick-outs last time, I'm pessimistic. There are a few people in leadership of KY 120 United, especially Nema Brewer, who did a lot to de-mobilize teachers last time, driving energy into weirdly fractured sub-groups on Facebook and deleting comments from teachers calling for organizing or striking before ultimately pushing an defeatist, electoral line, 'show them in November'.
There's a weird division in some industries within unions that amounts to active sabotage. Especially in the public sector with recent court rulings almost encouraging it.
Having watched the KY teachers' sick-outs last time, I'm pessimistic. There are a few people in leadership of KY 120 United, especially Nema Brewer, who did a lot to de-mobilize teachers last time, driving energy into weirdly fractured sub-groups on Facebook and deleting comments from teachers calling for organizing or striking before ultimately pushing an defeatist, electoral line, 'show them in November'.
On the other hand people are smart enough to know when someone they elected is immediately in their way or working for management even.
People like that can find themselves marginalized.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
The AAUP Advocacy chapter for Miami University in Ohio has some interesting insights about one of the ways in which collegiate sports sucks funding from schools
Miami is spending big bucks buying tickets to Redhawks football games to make it look like attendance is a lot higher than it is.
This is because of an NCAA rule that attendance must be at 15,000 in order for a college team to remain eligible for big-time college football.
According to the Athletics Dept, the university purchased 59,000 tickets for the 2017 football season, at a cost of $790,000 (we don’t have 2018). Apparently Miami isn't the only school that does this, and NCAA does permit the practice). We got the below data from a reporter who submitted a FOIA request to get the below data from Miami:
---
Here is the attendance information for Miami football for 2016 and 2017 (home games).
Scanned attendance is the number of people in the stadium
Announced Attendance is the number of tickets sold, including those the university basically buys from itself. You see that it is usually around 10,000 tickets per game.
2016
9/10 Eastern Illinois Actual Scanned 2845. Announced 17,369
9/17 Western KY. Scanned 3525. Announced 19, 822
10/1 Ohio U. Scanned 9688. Announced 22, 212
10/15 Kent State. Scanned 2695. Announced 15, 160
11/4 Central Michigan Scanned 3924. Announced 14, 270
11/22 Ball State Scanned 4253. Announced 13, 284
2017
9/9 Austin Peay. Scanned 5624. Announced 15, 960
9/16 UC. Scanned 13, 006. Announced 21, 811
10/7 Bowling Green. Scanned 9899. Announced 22, 428.
10/21 Buffalo Scanned 3438. Announced 13, 803
11/7 Akron. Scanned 1787. Announced 12,, 813
11/15 Eastern Mich. Scanned 1828. Announced 11, 851.
2018 figures are not audited yet, but they will be similar.
NCAA requires an average paid (announced) attendance of 15,000 per year (over a two-year period) in order for a college football program to qualify for what is now called FBS (football bowl subdivision), formerly Division 1-A.[.quote]
Posts
Big surprise, the problem is greed and racism.
My son's second grade class has 25 students, and that's the largest class he's ever been in. I think it was 22 for kindergarten and 23 last year for first grade. That's at our local public school. They don't have any larger classes that I am aware of.
The last time the federal government went hard into funding and directing state-level education was the Cold War. Federal education (as well as public health efforts), in general, date back to WWI, when the feds were horrified that the majority of the people they tried to recruit in some regions were too poorly educated, impoverished, and malnourished to be conscripted.
So, barring major cultural change, you can expect the next major federal education effort to overlap Washington again realizing that its citizens are too poor and ignorant to fight a modern war.
Elementary schools tend to have smaller class size rations (and paid teachers aides) because of the nature of kids that age. Generally, the class sizes and number of teachers drops, with the teacher/student ratio going from 1/18 to 1/27 in high school in my state.
That's also skewed by local funding, which provides bonuses, salaries for teachers, and support for smaller class sizes.
And also figuring out the revenue stream for public sector work is the key to solving education reform
That's from 2011, but finding good data from reputable sources is more difficult than I'd like in the time I have.
"In 2000, Chicago district-wide average high-school class size was reported at 17.9., which was larger than 68 percent of the 504 school districts in Illinois that have high schools. Chicago is now at 25.1 students per class at the high school level. Over 10 years Chicago has gone from the 68th percentile in high school class size to the 99th percentile."
Obviously, a lot changed in 10 years for Chicago, and it has likely gone up even further since then. As of 2011 though, 25.1 students per high school class in Chicago put it in the 99th percentile for the state as far as class size at the high school level. A city with all kinds of budget problems and a terrible history of poor support for schools in predominantly African-American neighborhoods. In a state that is well known for its budget problems.
That is averaging all of the chicago district which is kinda a bad way of doing it imo but from that same article
More even than abortion it was probably school desregation that created the modern right.
Yes, and? I'm responding to the notion that class sizes less than 30-40 are laughable and a thing of the past. Data for Illinois indicates that generally isn't true. Pointing out the outliers isn't much of an argument.
Using averages is a bad way to go about presenting data where outliers are common. What does the bottom end look like? I've heard from most teachers that 30 is the norm now. I mostly am around Middle/High school teachers though. Also unless there are hard numbers per classroom to actually see there is a vested interest to skew numbers in averages and the like from school boards to manipulate parents into wanting to come to their school.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
We're talking about the economic basis for a series of wildcat strikes across the country. There are no unions involved because they are illegal for many of the strikers, but the fact that teachers are going on strike anyway is indicative that, at some point, labor activism finds a way when there is no other choice.
The discussion has not been limited to that, imo.
A thread on education in America would be a better place for this wider discussion, if anyone wants to make it!
Its not so complex as that. It's a purely capitalist answer, the pay and working conditions of teachers has now fallen to such a low level, that the ability to generate strike action and the damage from that action is now so great that the IMMEDIATE consequences of a strike cost more than giving the teachers a raise.
So, when 1000 teachers go on strike demanding $1000 raises and enough pencils, the immediate cost to the economy in terms of missed wages by parents is immediately greater than the cost of giving the teachers the raise. This is because there are no additional teachers willing to work for the money currently being offered, so classes cannot be covered by just hiring new teachers.
Before class sizes grew so large, and so many parents worked long hours, and wages fell so low, teacher strikes and low pay for teachers only cost money in the long term. As in, if Jimmy misses two weeks of school, then Jimmy's average wages through his life will be 0.02% lower. But now, they can win immediately because Achmeds dad has to take a vacation day, and so does Jims, and Mallory's and 32 other kids and so one day of strikes costs the state 4 days of the state median wage in taxes. Can't shuffle the kids to other classes, or bring in scabs, because the other classes are full, and there's noone who will take the job.
You can 'win' against strikes when people are affected only by long term consequences, you can't when you immediately start losing.
Software in general could use unions, video games are just the most notorious part of it. (Granted there's also more to them than just the coding, but)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Everyone needs unions. Unions (governed by the European model, rather than the US one) are a collaborative element of good corporate governance which represent workers and also assist management in getting the best out of their workers. Well run unions, and the worker representation on boards which come from them, INCREASE corporate profits by facilitating good communication between contributors and management.
Unions in the US were made competitive with corporate governance precisely to prevent them from working well.
The German model I think might be the ideal form of collaboration between labor and capital
My experience with German unions in a multinational German-based company was that they made the German division slower, less nimble, more redundant, more bureaucratic, and less willing to take proactive measures than Americans, and also they shunted layoffs and cost-cutting to the more productive and more highly skilled American divisions.
What I'm reading here is that a german company wasn't consumed with chasing the almighty dollar in an effort to have the most, and that they cared more for their german workforce than other parts of the multinational business by laying off and cost-cutting non-german departments.
Other than the fact that you aren't part of that german workforce, how is that a bad thing? Would you be upset with Ford if they closed an overseas plant in order to keep an american plant working if it meant they only made a profit of $8billion instead of $9billion?
Edit: corporate culture was not great there in a lot of ways, it's unfair to lay it all at the feet of German unions. I'm just saying, if that's the model it ain't super inspiring.
I've been of that opinion for years. There are damned good reasons why there are unions for writers and whatnot, largely because the rich assholes running media companies just adore shitting on the people who actually make content in order to make some extra money. I
It also reads to me that the American side needed a proper union to protect it from potentially predatory/unfair practices. Without the leverage of union-backed negotiation, the American workers were simply easier targets, and the company decided to take the shortcut of laying them off instead of negotiating with the union on the German side.
With a proper union, the American workers would've have been just as protected and the company would have been forced to use layoffs only when actually needed instead of just whenever trying to pump profits for shareholders.
I say this as somebody who just left a Swiss company that habitually protected the European workers and shit all over the US workers on a regular and ongoing basis. Without protection like that from unions, companies will shit on employees if they can get away with it. More inflexibility and bureaucracy comes with unions, yes, but considering it's all just business, not the military or government, then nobody is going to die because the company took a month instead of a day to implement a rule change. Having some extra committees to deal with is a far, far better option than working for companies that can fire you immediately with zero actual need and zero justification.
More mature than the hottakes (though with some humor) since it starts by pointing out that these are real people that lost their jobs and they getting screwed so Kotick and Co. can have more money isn't a chance to make a point about how you don't like something on a videogame.
EDIT: On software development, there's a quote from Michael O. Church, that has denounced the sickness of Silicon Valley corporate culture for years:
This, but for the entire economy.
Basically the legislature passed something to give them a raise but snuck in less than appealing items:
Some of that has been removed, but the bill still allows for an increase in charter schools and education savings accounts to attend private school
https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/union-reps-statewide-wv-teacher-service-personnel-strike-to-begin/article_55c47a01-46f4-5d56-917a-15f9913b4cd6.html
Who knew that the people who we pay a pittance to take care of our children all day while we go to work to make money and whatnot had power over us! Who could have predicted that these sort of demands would occur!
Unions are good and I wish I was in one
And the teachers win:
Eric Blanc is a teacher and journalist.
Another sick-out, this time Jefferson County Schools (which I believe contains Louisville, KY) have closed for today because they weren't going to have enough staff.
(Mandy is a reporter for the Courier & Journal [Louisville newspaper])
On the other hand people are smart enough to know when someone they elected is immediately in their way or working for management even.
People like that can find themselves marginalized.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
MWO: Adamski