Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I misunderstood, I'm sorry. But why pair the two then?
I can't say that unions are providing a low quality education. But the impact of unions on the quality of education is certainly worth looking at.
A lot of people in this thread say that unions are not the problem. And I'm not saying that they are. But we can't say for sure whether they are or not. We need to look into it.
I can't say that unions are providing a low quality education. But the impact of unions on the quality of education is certainly worth looking at.
A lot of people in this thread say that unions are not the problem. And I'm not saying that they are. But we can't say for sure whether they are or not. We need to look into it.
Being from a family of teachers and having many friends who are teachers I can definitely say that unions are not the problem. They are there for the benefit of teachers and no one else. Unions have nothing to do with how kids are taught and the curriculum they follow. States have requirements. They are in control of their schools. Teachers in my state hate all the rules because they have to teach their kids to pass these assessment tests instead of teaching them the fundamentals of reading, writing and math. If the majority of the kids don't pass then it looks bad on the teacher. But no one takes into account the dynamics of the class. My daughter teaches Kindergarten and a quarter of them do not speak English and of course they can't pass these tests. So on paper, my daughter looks like a bad teacher.
Why would anyone blame unions for the quality of education when it's the states fault.
teachers' unions always oppose merit pay. If merit pay were implented the quality of the teachers would rise. this is just one example of how unions are part of the problem.
Merit pay doesn't work in the Corporate sector and it won't work in the education sector. The problems have been analyzed many times, but people do not want to look at the research.
Few people realize that merit pay schemes have been tried again and again since the 1920s.
Belief in them waxes and wanes, but the results have never been robust............Bottom line: Merit pay made no difference. Teachers were working as hard as they knew how, whether for a bonus or not.
Every day, executives make decisions about pay, and they do so in a landscape that's shifting. As more and more companies base less of their compensation on straight salary and look to other financial options, managers are bombarded with advice about the best approaches to take. Unfortunately, much of that advice is wrong. Indeed, much of the conventional wisdom and public discussion about pay today is misleading, incorrect, or both.
We show theoretically and empirically that Pay-for-Performance, like many management fashions, has not achieved its intended aim. Our research focuses on previous empirical studies that examine the relation between variable executive pay and firm performance on various different dates. Our results indicate that a variable CEO income contributes very little to the increase of the firm’s performance, and that CEO salary and firm performance are not linked. The example of Pay-for-Performance shows that in the long run, many management fashions do not solve the problems that they promise to solve.
Last edited by toobusytoday; 02-17-2013 at 06:27 AM..
Reason: Link and SNIPPET please (three sentences)
Merit pay for teachers is not a new idea. Researchers trace its origins back to England in the 1860s, although earlier accounts extend as far back as 1710. After a 30 year try, British
schools abandoned merit pay by 1900 due to cheating scandals, cramming, the growing
influence of the testing bureaucracy, and the extent to which teacher concern about
financial awards and punishment were warping the educational system.3
Last edited by toobusytoday; 02-17-2013 at 06:28 AM..
Being from a family of teachers and having many friends who are teachers I can definitely say that unions are not the problem. They are there for the benefit of teachers and no one else. Unions have nothing to do with how kids are taught and the curriculum they follow. States have requirements. They are in control of their schools. Teachers in my state hate all the rules because they have to teach their kids to pass these assessment tests instead of teaching them the fundamentals of reading, writing and math. If the majority of the kids don't pass then it looks bad on the teacher. But no one takes into account the dynamics of the class. My daughter teaches Kindergarten and a quarter of them do not speak English and of course they can't pass these tests. So on paper, my daughter looks like a bad teacher.
Why would anyone blame unions for the quality of education when it's the states fault.
You can most certainly say that but it would be a merit-less statement based on your observation. Unless you've conducted a formal study in which the results have been peer-reviewed, you cannot really make an accurate statement about the relationship between unions and education. The other problem with what you said (which is a larger concern given that you are in the education field) is that you're applying inductive reasoning. Just being a teacher and knowing a bunch of teachers does not provide you qualify you to conclude this about education across the nation.
However, you are probably qualified to answer the OP and say that it's not obvious.
You can most certainly say that but it would be a merit-less statement based on your observation. Unless you've conducted a formal study in which the results have been peer-reviewed, you cannot really make an accurate statement about the relationship between unions and education. The other problem with what you said (which is a larger concern given that you are in the education field) is that you're applying inductive reasoning. Just being a teacher and knowing a bunch of teachers does not provide you qualify you to conclude this about education across the nation.
However, you are probably qualified to answer the OP and say that it's not obvious.
I agree. It's not obvious. And asking faculty or the state will not get you the real answer.
You can most certainly say that but it would be a merit-less statement based on your observation. Unless you've conducted a formal study in which the results have been peer-reviewed, you cannot really make an accurate statement about the relationship between unions and education. The other problem with what you said (which is a larger concern given that you are in the education field) is that you're applying inductive reasoning. Just being a teacher and knowing a bunch of teachers does not provide you qualify you to conclude this about education across the nation.
However, you are probably qualified to answer the OP and say that it's not obvious.
Are you in the education field. If you are then you know exactly what I'm saying and would agree. If not then of course you have no idea. I don't pretend to be an authority in all states, I can only talk about my own state. Unions have nothing to do with education, they are there to represent teachers and that is all. And yes that is an accurate statement.
It amazes me how some blame unions for poor education. Honestly, I blame the parents
teachers' unions always oppose merit pay. If merit pay were implented the quality of the teachers would rise. this is just one example of how unions are part of the problem.
Funny, the Missouri NEA strongly supports merit pay; of course, they are not a recognized union in Missouri since most districts are not allowed to unionize here.
Explain this... if merit pay does not exist because of teachers unions, then why is there not a single merit pay district in any state where teachers are not allowed to collectively bargain?
And how come every single pure merit pay district in existence (all one of them) is in an extremely wealthy and extremely high housing cost district?
teachers' unions always oppose merit pay. If merit pay were implented the quality of the teachers would rise. this is just one example of how unions are part of the problem.
Not true. There is merit pay in a district close to mine. The teachers are finding that their ratings are going down dramatically. Teachers that for 10+ years have always been rated highly by the same administration! Why? Because the district doesn't want to PAY merit pay. They want to keep the payouts to almost nothing to save money for other things that the district needs more, like paper, copiers, etc...
When discussing merit pay, one must ask, how do you compare teachers? What are the benchmarks on which they will be evaluated?
This isn't baseball, where if I have a batting average of .310 I get a raise, or even accounting where if I can get through an IRS audit without any issues I get a bonus. In both of those cases I would be evaluated on my personal work, not whether a kid cares enough to actually answer the correct answer on a test instead of bubbling in words that spell FU.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
