If it looks anything like government and union-run public schools, not good.
For example, Chicago public school teachers get paid more than any other school system in the US (from $60k for a new teacher to $114k for the most experienced) and the schools have some of, if not the worst educational outcomes: in 2019, 1 in 4 7th graders could not read at grade level
CPS teachers are not in fact paid more than every other school system; NYC and LA pay more on average, and if you adjust for cost of living, Cleveland is a better deal. Meanwhile: the big sticking points with the CPS unions --- of which I am not a fan --- are class size and support staff, which are not pocket-lining issues for the teachers.
The CPS unions have made lots of things negotiating positions in the last few years, from school nurses and social workers to veteran teacher pay scales and disciplinary rights. Classifying their position one way or another is impossible.
If anything the CTU has been doing everything in their power to make sure the real problem, pensions, is never on the bargaining table. They are argument #1 against public employee unions if only because they are so obviously hosing their current members on behalf of their previous and soon to be previous members.
That said your broader point still stands, there is nothing strange about their compensation or outcomes when compared to peer organizations.
Problems in educating young children often begin with the family at home, who don't care, won't participate in discipline, and raise a hue and cry every time a teacher wants a better life for the child.
Children aren’t a blank slate when they get into school. Genetics, parenting, and culture all have an effect.
That said, the fact that teachers that make tenure basically can’t get fired for lack of performance is ridiculous. Imagine if you just had to be a good little coder for a few years, and after that as long as you put any amount of effort in at all you wouldn’t lose your job.
I certainly had teachers growing up that were terrible at their jobs. I also had some that were pretty good. Most were mediocre to the point where I don’t think they’d stay employed in a regular non-union type job. At the very least they wouldn’t be getting performance raises.
the fact that teachers that make tenure basically can’t get fired for lack of performance is ridiculous
Had a friend who worked in one of the worst performing public schools in our city. According to him the main problem was that you simply couldn't keep good teachers no matter what you offered. Half the new teachers they hired didn't make it past the first year. Had they started firing teachers who underperformed on top of that they wouldn't have enough teachers left to keep the doors open.
edit: not disagreeing with the idea that tenure for teachers is a bad idea, just that I don't think that is the primary problem in these worst cases.
For many people, it's a choice to work. We're part of a very close knit church in which there is a wide range of incomes and everyone makes it work. That's because the moms (it's usually the moms who are not working although there are a few dads) make it a point to actually organize the community. That means lots of shared activities; lots of shared child care; shared meals; etc. Unfortunately, when you stop doing the work of community, everything becomes more expensive. That's the ultimate reason why day care et al is so expensive. It's not just that you have to pay others to watch your children; it's that you have to pay one set of people to watch your children, then another set to cook your food, then another set to be part of a community, etc.
As a case in point, my daughters attend a free mom's preschool (a few times a week) instead of us paying thousands of dollars. We haven't bought much clothes or furniture for them because there are endless amounts of hand-me-downs.
Unfortunately, as a whole, American civil institutions (and really worldwide) have declined. It's not just churches or marriage that has seen record reductions in membership. It's actually not even a crisis in religion that we're witnessing although many want to castigate it as that.
Rather, all social groups are in decline, whether that be the small social group of marriage, or the large social group of the extended family, or the even wider social group of a community club. Bowling clubs, fraternal organizations, athletic clubs, etc are all in decline.
I know that corporate-sponsored media would have you believe your work acquaintances are your family and your one true source of friends, but it's just not the case, and if you drink that kool-aid, ultimately it's you and your children who lose.
No, it's just that child care doesn't turn off at a set time like most jobs do. Your schedule might be 6am-8pm, with multiple periods in the early morning while you're up.
I say this as a person who has been both a full time programmer and a full time care giver. Being the care giver was far more frazzling and non stop compared to my job. I found it far easier to pursue personal interests when I was working full-time compared to parenting full-time. Pretty much my only time without a kid in my life would be late at night, and even then you need to stay in the house to watch them, and you may be too tired and sleep deprived to actually be able to pursue an interest if it is pursuable in your own home.
As a father who works and husband to a stay at home wife, my work also never stops. After I do my full work day, I come home and... take care of the kids.
My wife is a homemaker (and soon to be mother) -- and trust me, she's got a much bigger personal life than I do. I'm not nearly as good at socializing as she is, and it shows. A job is definitely not required for a personal life.
I agree it isn't required, but providing full-time child care prevents you from doing a lot of things. If you consider "personal life" to be "socializing with other moms", then yes you can have a personal life. But that is not everyone's dream of a personal life.
What the woman gets is nothing but a personal life. It's not necessarily a problem if she has married well, they plan well for her financial comfort after he is gone and they remain together "until death do us part."
It's primarily a problem if they divorce and now she needs to somehow launch a career from scratch. Those years spent raising kids don't tend to readily translate to a good resume and high salary.
There are a whole slew of activities that you cannot do if you're providing full-time childcare, especially for, say, under 5 year olds who aren't in school yet.
There are a whole slew of activities you can not do when working a full time job, either.
But in any case, when you have children, you are choosing the family life. Which means some things will no longer be an option. But that is true for every decision we make in life.
There is no way to have everything in life, even through the magic of taxation and government "universal" programs.
You can say the same thing about working full-time at any job. But you want to list a few for me so we can actually discuss this instead of you just dismissing my opinion as if 'nuh-uh' is a meaningful rebuttal?
Well, I've done both, and I've found parenting harder. I guess that's just my take.
Were you raising children or just "homemaking", which doesn't necessarily imply childcare?
You really can't think of any activities/interest people pursue that you can't do while toting a 2 year old with you? That's something I didn't think would require enumerating.
My sister (a new mom) is loving the community Mom's groups bring to her life. She admitted to me that if it wasn't for the FANGA money, she prefers to be a stay-at-home mom.
My wife is a mom full time by choice - and because we can afford ot. She goes to play dates, she gives yoga lessons, is part of a bookclub, etc.
Tired of the old "no life for the caregiver" trope. If I had a choice, between slaving away to enrich y rich CEO or take care of my kids my choice would be easy.
Nope, just the opposite. I don't like the concept of making work friends and keep a strict separation between the two. I was talking about the ability for the "primary caretaker" to pursue their own interests, many of which are precluded by the act of fulltime childcare
Unless one is pursuing one's own interests on company time, I don't see how being the parent with a career makes it any easier to pursue personal interests.
Oh man... my wife and her friends see each other practically every day with the kids. They practically live together half the time. Whereas I see my friends (her friend's husbands usually) like once a week / maybe twice if i'm lucky.
I have no idea where this idea has come from that stay at home moms are stuck at home. Most of the time they are out chatting, eating lunch at each other's houses, or doing something fun together
It’s because people at work typically aren’t out and about during the day seeing moms going out and socializing with other moms. They’re stuck at work. These moms live rich fulfilling lives.
I see "personal life" as much larger than "childcare with friends". Can your wife go mountain biking? Can she attend a lecture that coincides with nap time? Can she delve into a tough book?
Friends and family can help watch the kids- taking a bit of personal time is important too.
Those things are all easier to do as a stay at home parent than if both parents are working, because then you end up dedicating all of your non-work hours to family, chores and errands anyway.
This seems a silly question. During the workday, neither spouse can go mountain biking. Outside of the workday both spouses can go mountain biking. This is true whether one or both spouses are wage-earners.
Humorously, cycling with a child safety seat was absolutely something I did on a mountain bike while I was a full-time mom with small kids. I did it until I was like 8 months pregnant with my second child and my belly was too big for me to get on a mountain bike with child seat attached.
On the weekends, yes. My wife and I went skiing almost every weekend. Sometimes we take our daughters. Sometimes other family watched the kids. It's not a fair comparison, because I never go skiing during work. Although, my wife has discussed going skiing / camping with some of the moms during the weekdays when the kids are a bit older. So that's another win for moms I guess.
Anecdotally it feels that there are growing subsets of people in this country who view the traditional nuclear family as something that must be dismantled as part of the "old system". I imagine it'd be quite difficult to push that notion nowadays.
At one point, I was bombarded by this topic. Reddit, NPR, Twitter, every single voice left leaning voice was beating this drum.
Why? We didn’t accomplish universal healthcare, women’s rights are under attack, climate change is unaddressed, nazis are growing in boldness and volume.
We, in the left, have failed in most of our latest crusades (certainly the ones in my life) because the regressive powers are entrenched and organized. Is this really the time to change focus again??
The problem is you think the left isn't full of regressive powers.
You, in the left, have failed because you're guilty of what you claim others are doing and do so while calling anyone you disagree with "nazi's" and "racists". making those "slurs" worth less than the promises you're failing to kill us all with.
If you think nazi and racist is a slur, and not a label, you’re a moron. There’s people waving nazi flags and saying racist things towards Jews, Asians, African Americans, and others, what should we call these people?
For example, Chicago public school teachers get paid more than any other school system in the US (from $60k for a new teacher to $114k for the most experienced) and the schools have some of, if not the worst educational outcomes: in 2019, 1 in 4 7th graders could not read at grade level