Secret rightwing strategy to discredit teacher strikes

[Aristotle]

NOTE: I am not vouching for the opinions of this article. Just sharing it for discussion.

We have some serious teacher "strike" stuff happening in Kentucky right now, so articles like this are making the rounds.

Secret rightwing strategy to discredit teacher strikes

I have no idea how accurate this take is.

[Sier]

I'm not sure what opinion I've formed in regards to the teacher strikes yet.

The theory of free economy would state that if you're not happy with a job, find a different one. And if the job doesn't pay enough, don't pursue it in the first place. Additionally, if there are too few people to engage in a profession, the salary should naturally rise to compensate the labor shortage.

The average salary for a teacher in Arizona is $47000. Sure, that's not by any means an "Upper class" salary, but it's more than enough to raise a small family and get by. I've gotten by on far less.

If a school has a fixed budget, it can hire so many teachers. If the salary for the teachers is raised, fewer teachers may teach leading to extremely crowded classrooms. Overcrowded classrooms mean less quality of education.

So I do understand why many right wingers would participate in putting a halt to this as the option to combat it would be to either:
1. Raise Taxes
or
2. Decrease quality of education to compensate.

[Kirzad]

I'm not sure what opinion I've formed in regards to the teacher strikes yet.

The theory of free economy would state that if you're not happy with a job, find a different one. And if the job doesn't pay enough, don't pursue it in the first place. Additionally, if there are too few people to engage in a profession, the salary should naturally rise to compensate the labor shortage.

The average salary for a teacher in Arizona is $47000. Sure, that's not by any means an "Upper class" salary, but it's more than enough to raise a small family and get by. I've gotten by on far less.

If a school has a fixed budget, it can hire so many teachers. If the salary for the teachers is raised, fewer teachers may teach leading to extremely crowded classrooms. Overcrowded classrooms mean less quality of education.

So I do understand why many right wingers would participate in putting a halt to this as the option to combat it would be to either:
1. Raise Taxes
or
2. Decrease quality of education to compensate.

I think the best solution in the long-term would be to get rid of the Dept. of Education and privatize all schools. With government as the largest employer of teachers, you end up with problems like this, as well as all of the horribly mismanaged budgets and nigh-accountable other issues that arise when people can't realistically take their "business" elsewhere. I know it's not likely to happen with this strike, but I think teachers that don't like the conditions they have available to teach in should look towards redefining the scenario they find themselves. Look for outside investors that are willing to fund an alternative to the government run school. There's a lot of "but what about, but how could, but where would, but who" type responses to that. But education as it exists today is an archaic and, ultimately debilitating, institution that children are forced to endure - based on practices that have not changed in over one hundred of years. It won't be a smooth transition, but with as much going on with teachers of late, somebody needs to look into changing something, because the current system is not working.

[Xywalan]

The Law of Hammer basically says that "If you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". And in this particular example, privatization and Capitalism are hammers that are used to screw in a light bulb, sorry, I mean solve issues where the profit motif should not be there at all.

Capitalism, free market, competition, and corporate greed are useful tools in their own places. They are great for creating value, for creating better services, and up to some degree even scientific innovation. But here's the question: Do you think education is a "service" or is it a "right"? If you think education is a service then by all means, privatize it and free market the fuck out of it. But I don't think it is a service, I think it is a right which means treating it as a service will be an injustice to all those kids whose lives will be fucked up because their parents were not rich enough to afford a fancy school.

And about the article itself, I don't think it is at all controversial or even surprising. Rightwingers use all sorts of such dishonest tricks such as pretending that they care about low income families but only if that furthers their own agenda.

[Kirzad]

I think it is a right which means treating it as a service will be an injustice to all those kids whose lives will be fucked up because their parents were not rich enough to afford a fancy school.

Who said it had to be an expensive, fancy school? It could be a non-profit. Or a co-op. It could have any of a hundred different designs. However what you have said actually supports my argument - because we already KNOW that the average private school is "fancy", or rather it is competent, capable and worth the money invested in it as it produces quality results or the parents would not spend their money at that school.

Just to be technical, education is not a right. It is a service. I do agree however that a well educated population is better than an uneducated one - so I support education being available AND affordable for everyone. A change like this need not cost a dime more than we already pay in taxes towards education.

I don't have all of the answers - clearly NOBODY has the answers or we wouldn't be dealing with the ridiculous education system that we have now, that fails so many, including it's own teachers.

I just have some ideas and it won't be very long at all before ideas are going to start becoming reality, or the entire thing goes belly up.

[Halyanne]

The average salary for a teacher in Arizona is $47000. Sure, that's not by any means an "Upper class" salary, but it's more than enough to raise a small family and get by. I've gotten by on far less.

I think this is where people have a whacked out thinking. Teachers make far less for the AMOUNT of education they have to have to get a teaching job comparable to someone in a different profession with the same amount of education.

Teachers would like to have a comparable salary as their peers. Most teachers, I believe, have a Bachelors Degree as well as a Masters. What sort of salary does someone in a different profession with the same degrees?

Engineers: http://work.chron.com/much-engineer-...ear-28845.html

Finance: https://www.degreequery.com/salary-c...inance-degree/

Science degrees are also quite high.

Not everyone, obviously, makes this kind of money. There is at least a $30-50k difference.

Teachers just want to have a market related salary comparable to the amount of education they have to have to do their jobs.

[Sier]

I think this is where people have a whacked out thinking. Teachers make far less for the AMOUNT of education they have to have to get a teaching job comparable to someone in a different profession with the same amount of education.

Teachers would like to have a comparable salary as their peers. Most teachers, I believe, have a Bachelors Degree as well as a Masters. What sort of salary does someone in a different profession with the same degrees?

Engineers: http://work.chron.com/much-engineer-...ear-28845.html

Finance: https://www.degreequery.com/salary-c...inance-degree/

Science degrees are also quite high.

Not everyone, obviously, makes this kind of money. There is at least a $30-50k difference.

Teachers just want to have a market related salary comparable to the amount of education they have to have to do their jobs.

I believe all my teachers throughout high school (save maybe 1) had only a bachelors. The bachelors could be attained for roughly 4 years of college @ $6,000/YR, which is the current tuition last I checked.

Not everyone is cut out for an engineering degree. Some choose teaching as a viable alternative. There are certainly more cost-effective choices in college, but I would definitely not consider a degree in education to be a waste, at least not for a $24,000 investment.

[Kirzad]

I think this is where people have a whacked out thinking. Teachers make far less for the AMOUNT of education they have to have to get a teaching job comparable to someone in a different profession with the same amount of education.

Teachers would like to have a comparable salary as their peers. Most teachers, I believe, have a Bachelors Degree as well as a Masters. What sort of salary does someone in a different profession with the same degrees?

Engineers: http://work.chron.com/much-engineer-...ear-28845.html

Finance: https://www.degreequery.com/salary-c...inance-degree/

Science degrees are also quite high.

Not everyone, obviously, makes this kind of money. There is at least a $30-50k difference.

Teachers just want to have a market related salary comparable to the amount of education they have to have to do their jobs.

Now look at people with Bachelors/Masters degrees in History, Art, Literature, or the other not-exceptionally-profitable majors.

I mean, it's a running gag on the internet (and other places) that having a degree in English qualifies you to be a barista at Starbucks.

Teachers KNOW going in what their salary is going to be. I've heard it countless times that people who go into teaching don't do so for the money. They know teachers are underpaid. Now, if they get promised a 5% raise, and they are not given that 5% raise, then they have every right to demand, via protest if necessary, what they were promised, so don't think I am against their strike. But almost all of us have had jobs that we know don't pay as much, but we enjoyed. And most of us have had jobs we didn't enjoy, but paid well.

Citing that an engineer gets paid more than a teacher (unless that teacher is a grad school engineering professor) is just comparing Apples to Elephants.

[Rosuav]

But here's the question: Do you think education is a "service" or is it a "right"? If you think education is a service then by all means, privatize it and free market the fuck out of it. But I don't think it is a service, I think it is a right which means treating it as a service will be an injustice to all those kids whose lives will be fucked up because their parents were not rich enough to afford a fancy school.

Education is a service. Someone is doing work for someone else's benefit.

You might claim that *information* is a right, but having someone spend time to teach you that information is most definitely not a right, any more than a taxi service is a right. You have the right to go there on your own, but you can't demand that someone else take you there.

[Xywalan]

Education is a service. Someone is doing work for someone else's benefit.

Just to be technical, education is not a right. It is a service.

Education is delivered as a "service" in the sense that it is intangible. So let me elaborate: Do you see Education (1) prominently an economic service, OR (2) as right for every individual that is then delivered through a service?

(1) When you see something prominently an economic service, then there is no problem with using the hammer of Free Market on it. Let's say learning to dance Salsa becomes super hot and millions of people try to learn it, then thousands of people decide to be Salsa teachers but then the interest dies out, the Salsa teachers end up getting shitty pays. In this case, I'm fine with saying, "Well find another job, it's a free market."

(2) But when you see something as a right, then treating it like an economic commodity is wrong. We all agree that having a fair trial is a right but now let me treat it like a commodity: As an example, let's say we allow private companies to handle everything that is to do with selecting judges and the jury. Let's say they cannot balatantly cheat and that there are some loosely enforced regulations; judges have to be judges and juries should not have heard of you. But let's assume they handle it the same way airlines handle passengers: they create different classes of privilege "First class", "Business", and "Economy". The more money you pump into their coffers, the faster your case moves, and more effort they put into making sure that your trial is fair. In fact, if you pump in the highest level of money, perhaps they can search the entire country for the most sympathetic people to serve as your jury. Some private "fair trial" companies will end up doing a very good job, their sophisticated algorithms for measuring "Jury sympathy" will be able to predict how a certain person will react to your trial while keeping the person "technically impartial towards your case". So they will outperform the rest and their customers will get better stacked juries. They become famous and successful and naturally they charge higher rates while others don't do well and their customers end up getting shitty trials where the customers are unjustly sent to jail for a while. Well, I suppose it was their fault to go with a shitty company.

It is clear that the above notion of "justice system" is what we can call "extremely corrupt and disgusting". Why? I think because we know better to not treat everything as if they are economic commodities: Justice and a fair trial are supposed to be things that are available to every human being regardless of their gender, race, or economic status. We don't have the same feeling towards the actual airline companies. We don't think everyone should fly in seats of same size so when airline companies separate people into different fair classes, we do not have a problem with that. We understand it prominently an economic service when the First class passengers get constantly pampered by the flight attendance, there is no problem there.

And now we can look back at education. If you think education is not a right and it is prominently an ecomonic service, then you will have no problem with any amount of inequality in education caused by differences in the economic status of the parents of the kids involved. However, I think most people don't actually find it palatable to offer poor kids very poor education while the rich kids get the top-notch education based on a factor that is entirely out of the control of the kids. I think most people understand that being "born rich" is not a merit and being "born poor" is not a fault and that it is unfair to have the lottery of birth impact one's life so much. We think of education as a way to give people opportunity to able to succeed if they put effort into it.