EDU 303 Computers and Technology in Education

I don't think it's right for teachers to have to pay and have their pay raises taken away. We say that education is so important so why would we pass a bill that treats teachers so poorly? Not only are teachers rights and freedom being taken away but also firefighters, police, etc. Why would we want to pass a bill like this that takes things away from our local "heroes?"

Is 15% really that much to pay for health care coverage? And is this treating public employees unfairly? I'm not really sure that it's safe to say the treatment is poor. After all, teachers will still be allowed to teach their students. Maybe the important question to look at here is, what's the worth of education to the American society? What's the worth of public employees to the American society? Is this an issue of under appreciation, and if so, how can we possibly improve the population's view of public workers? I forget, many times, how dangerous the jobs of police and firefighters are. Before college, I never even valued or recognized the importance of teachers. Being taken for granted and under-appreciated cannot necessarily be connected to lower pay and benefits, though. I think teachers should still be expected, regardless of this situation, to give their students the greatest education that they possibly can. And if we're talking about heroes, think about superheroes: don't they all have alternative and hidden identities? Are they paid for what they do, or do they do it for the benefit of positive change? People need to make a living, but people need to live for each other, as well. And if you're still being recognized and paid for a position, isn't that what really matters?

Two views to this is that we are punishing teachers and local heroes, other say that the treatment isn't necessarily poor but rather just a different perspective.

I find it unfair for public workers to pay at least 15% of their heath care just to lower that expense for local and state governments. Teachers will be paid depending on how well their students do on standardized testing. What happens if you have students who are differently abled in your classroom? What if there are students included in your section that you don't even teach? How can you be held accountable for the scores of students who you don't even teach? How can we be paid depending on student test scores when not all students are good test takers? I think a test/assessment does not show everything that a child has learned. I feel this is unfair to teachers. Yes, there are other aspects to deciding on pay but this is a huge part of it.

I completely agree that the practice of assessments is an unfair way to evaluate teacher performance. The only problem is, how can their performances be evaluated? I'm glad that we're making an effort to evaluate teachers, particularly because I questioned the ability of many of my teachers throughout primary and secondary school. How can they be tested on their content knowledge and their effectiveness as teachers? And is it really fair for some teachers to have tenure? I had this teacher in high school that was absolutely terrible, and in no way deserved her position. She did not have respect of her students, she didn't respect her students, and we took nothing away from any of her classes. She did not teach. I don't think it's fair to automatically shut down an effort to evaluate teachers, because teachers do need to be evaluated. I don't think this is a career for everyone, and I don't think just anyone should be allowed to teach. Let's remember what's best for the students - high quality education, and thus, engaging teachers. And couldn't these evaluations motivate teachers to strive for excellence? If they work harder to produce higher test scores, students will have learned more, and teachers will earn the pay they deserve. Perhaps this is something to think about.

Most future teachers find it unfair to figure health care benefits based on student's standardized tests but also do not know how else to assess teachers to judge their performance.

I think that teachers should still have the right to strike, freedom of speech and negotiating pay, hours, etc. Does this bill change your mind about wanting to be a teacher? Does it make you worried about becoming a teacher?

It is worrisome, yes. However, there will always be political disputes concerning any public job. I worry about becoming a teacher, but for a lot more reasons than the right to strike and negotiate. But there are so many more aspects to the job, aren't there? What if we worried more about the actual content, the students in our classrooms, and our effectiveness as leaders and collaborators in the classroom? Perhaps we, as future teachers, should invest less in the political game, and more into our own teaching abilities. Shouldn't people who are going into this field realize that it's a self-sacrificing job, and that ultimately, they should be focused on the education their students?

In conclusion, all jobs have worries and disputes. This should not change a teacher's mind about their career choice. If it does, then they probably do not have the dispositions needed to be a teacher.

I agree iwth Hays' statement saying this bill is going to cause our students to suffer as well because we are taking away the rights teachers so the quality of education will be lower. How can we expect teachers to teach with everything they have when they are expected to pay more for benefits, not be able to negotiate, and have a lower pay?

It's important, I think, to keep in mind that Hays is a teacher, so his opinion is heavily biased. It is not a fact that teachers cannot teach with lower benefits and wages. Is it fair for us to parallel ability and compensation? If every teacher did every job with an effort that matches his or her salary, where would we be? You ask how can we expect teachers to teach when they have to pay more benefits, have restrained negotiations, and decreased salary. My question is, how can we not expect teachers to teach? If teachers really have a calling, as Hays says, then shouldn't their jobs be to do the best for the students with what they have? Shouldn't this be a career about sacrifice for the benefit of educating children? Perhaps the lost of benefits and salaries is disconcerting, but should it reflect the teacher's ability to teach?

Taking perspectives from current teachers may not be qualitive information. Bias is often involved because they do not want to change their ways even if it is for the best.

Are there other ways instead of striking that teachers can fight for their rights?

Yes, there are many ways of negotiating. However, let's keep in mind what teachers are and are not allowed to negotiate. This annotation says teachers can negotiate salaries, hours, and terms and conditions... All of that seems kind of vague doesn't it? What qualifies as "terms and conditions?" And even if there are other ways of negotiating, why shouldn't teachers be allowed to strike if they are advocates of their students? Keep in mind, this effects all public employees, not just those in the classroom. How will the loss of freedoms, explicitly stated in the First Amendment, be fair to these workers?

Teachers cannot negotiate rights or strike.