Unions vs Tories

[fellowtraveller]

This also lends support to the idea of publishing project plans and monitoring results.

How many civil servants would that take, exactly?

Teachers and Principals haven't been in the same union for quite some time in Ontario

They are in AQlberta.

It does not matter much if they are nominally in separate unions anyway, education is an industry and principals have nothing to gain by acting as managers should act. The constant refrain from teachers/principals is that education ia a collaborative affair and performance of the teachers cannot be assessed by outsiders. Load of wank, innit?

[Bonam]

1. Of course you have not found that to be the case. That would go against your argument . The most popular teachers I ever had were the laid back teachers who didn't actually try to teach, they just entertained students and gave easy marks. The least popular teachers are the ones that actually try to teach students something, because they have higher expectations and don't give A's to everyone. Remember, we are talking about high school students. The maturity level to understand that a B earned is more valuable than an A written on paper isn't there.

This is your unsubstantiated opinion. I've seen quite the contrary. When students from a lax teacher get to a provincial exam (a standardized province-wide test) and realize they haven't learned anything all year, they realize that the teacher wasn't so good after all. The best teachers are those that are able to turn normally dry subjects into something interesting, that can make math and science seem exciting to most students, etc. These teachers are consistently praised by students even if they have to work relatively hard in their classes. I certainly saw that in high school.

2. Ok. Even then, should teachers be punished for a bad year of students? Anyone who knows a teacher, knows that there are cycles of good years and bad years.

Who says the results have to be considered on an annual basis? They can be averaged over several years, if needed.

3. When trying to cut costs it may seem reasonable to pay a few million on observers to go from school to school observing teachers. Here's the problem. Even a lazy teacher can prepare an awesome, one off lesson, to impress the observers. The mere presence of the observer would also impact the student behaviour (arguably in a positive way). Even then, the potential gain is only a few thousand here or there off the teacher. In addition, teaching styles vary and different teaching styles appeal to different students. The observer would have to be very open in their interpretation of quality learning if the varied learning environment that conservatives argue doesn't exist, is to continue existing. An observer would be paid 90-100k as an experienced education professional, maybe even more!. Lets say a high school has 90 teachers. 4 periods a day to observe (the observer needs a lunch too . 90/4 = 22.5 days per school. Isn't it like 727 high schools in Ontario? (Fraser institute) 184 school days in Ontario subtracting exam days where observation would be meaningless.

1. The teacher and students don't have to know that the observer is there. A camera filming the teacher can be installed in classrooms, and whether it is recording or not would not be known to the people in the classroom. Care would be taken so that only the teacher is captured on camera (either visually or audibly), thus not infringing on the privacy of students.

2. Observers can observe 8 classes per work day, or more if they only observe part of each class. Also, not all teachers have to be evaluated every year. It would be enough to do it once every two years, for example. This would cut the cost of your estimate in 4, to just $2 million, well worth it if it improves the quality of our education system.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

This is your unsubstantiated opinion. I've seen quite the contrary. When students from a lax teacher get to a provincial exam (a standardized province-wide test) and realize they haven't learned anything all year, they realize that the teacher wasn't so good after all. The best teachers are those that are able to turn normally dry subjects into something interesting, that can make math and science seem exciting to most students, etc. These teachers are consistently praised by students even if they have to work relatively hard in their classes. I certainly saw that in high school.

1. The teacher and students don't have to know that the observer is there. A camera filming the teacher can be installed in classrooms, and whether it is recording or not would not be known to the people in the classroom. Care would be taken so that only the teacher is captured on camera (either visually or audibly), thus not infringing on the privacy of students.

2. Observers can observe 8 classes per work day, or more if they only observe part of each class. Also, not all teachers have to be evaluated every year. It would be enough to do it once every two years, for example. This would cut the cost of your estimate in 4, to just $2 million, well worth it if it improves the quality of our education system.

1. Don't you find it ironic that you are using your unsubstantiated opinion to counter? I know enough teachers and am young enough to remember the reality of high school students. For instance, teacher A gives student B a mark of 90% in grade 10 Academic Math. Student B moves on to grade 11 university level math and earns a 68%. Parents are enraged and Teacher C gets labelled a bad teacher. The reality, Teacher A was too easy on students and didn't challenge them with problem solving questions. Oh, and standardized testing doesn't occur every year.

2. Yes. Very Orwellian. I'm sure parents will be all for this 1984'esque system, especially since their children will be inevitably caught on camera. Infact, lets install cameras at everyone's workstation in every work environment. I'm sure you'd be for this. Now here's the problem in education, most teachers move around the room and are not fixated in one position. I guess this really shows that you have no concept of teaching. Maybe leave it to people who understand the realities in education?

[Pliny]

If the private sector is not able to grow then the public sector must shrink. There is no other sustainable solution.

This is the crux of the problem. Government has created financial obligations and liabilities that must be met. A shrinking private sector is intolerable to government and/or those with future contractual obligations. Only the private sector is flexible enough to tolerate a shrinking economy. It does it by reducing costs or going out of business - or...the latest innovation, if it is "too big to fail" perhaps getting bailed out by government. What does "too big to fail" mean? It means that government needs the revenues generated directly and indirectly by the industry and can look good by saving jobs and related businesses that are threatened due to incompetent, greedy CEOs who contribute to or can even be considered the direct cause of these economic downturns and market failures.

In any respect, a shrinking economy cannot be tolerated by government. Even though it sees the global problems of the world as over-population and resource depletion, it must, in order to meet it's social/economic obligations and liabilities, maintain it's revenues and it's authority by encouraging growth and development. It has solved a shortage of workers by immigration (in the States some of it illegal and ignored for decades)and a policy of multi-culturalism that encourages the migration of labour to pick up declining population growth which, if continued, would mean an inability to meet it's financial obligations.

On the front of population growth, development or resource use it has to promote growth, exponential growth, to remain sustainable, that is, in order to maintain it's revenues, it's size and it's power. It schizophrenically acts to curtail population growth, development and resource use by controlling the economy but can only cut it's own throat in the process. Accountability is not any harsher than a loss of voter support and the next round of political problem solvers that hang onto their power like a union hangs on to a contractual coffee break.

The individual and the community is better equipped to handle economic hardship for themselves than is a national government. A national government in order to sustain itself must further squeeze an economy. It does it by attempting to increase it's revenues, tax increases (sometimes tax decreases work) or borrowing, the debt to be paid by a later generation, if it is ever paid, often it is not, and interest payments on the debt and increased debt are the inheritance of the future generations.

Somehow people are in mortal fear of a smaller government. The wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few, the disadvantaged will suffer, the rich get richer and the poor poorer, crime will be rampant, health care and education will disappear, our infrastructure will fall apart, foreigners will impose themselves upon us, anarchy will reign.

Well, I think of the example of Ron Paul defending his stance on the legalization of drugs. His audience was mostly aghast at the thought but when asked by Mr. Paul, "If heroin were made legal how many of you would rush out and buy some?", not one replied in the affirmative. Government is the rock we are so used to living under that the thought of it being moved instills us with fear. We are really only afraid of ourselves.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Pliny