joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
NOTE: I inserted '(#)' into your post JeffBC, just to keep your whole post accurate, but wished add/explain my thoughts in an orderly manner.
quote:
ORIGINAL: JeffBC
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
It really is that simple. Put more money into education, hire better quality teachers, more up-to-date books and materials, and house it all in modernized schools; you'll get some pretty impressive results.
But your hatred of unions on this and other threads shows you'll throw fact and reason out the window to make your argument.
(1)
I think Phydeaux is half correct and so are you. My interactions with our (well respected) school district were... how shall I say... less than positive. My impression after two or three interactions is that not a one of them would have survived 3 months at my corporation. They lacked basic work ethic and caring. They were putting in their time and punching the clock. Throwing money at that would simply be giving welfare to people undeserving.
(2) The idea I keep toying with is increasing the pay scales dramatically... including a non-trivial performance based part. That way, the school could have been competing for talent against the corporation. Then I'd measure the teachers with similar standards as I do my employees and I'd can the ones who failed to measure up (which would be automatically about 1:10 every year -- grading on a curve). Because I was paying so well I could afford to attract talent that is better than that 10% I canned so my pool of teachers gets progressively better.
(3) Show me a principle and some teachers that can take on the really tough cases and I'm inclined to pay out those performance incentives in yachts.... just as corporations do. I think we need to can the unions... or at least muzzle them. But in and of itself that isn't enough. Nor is paying more. I'd like a really competitive incentive based system. The word "tenure" should be stricken from the english language.
(1) :
Phydeaux is making an attack on unions itself as the problem for why this woman's kid was not learning anything. Even though the article does not mention unions at all. We all know this as a 'knee-jerk' reaction to hearing something in the news. That we hear 'A' concept and assume 'B' must be 100% at fault for it; even if 'B' is never even mentioned in the news. The reason that kid was not learning could be for a few thousand possible reasons. What if the kid actually has some sort of learning disability however minor? That has been shown in study after study to affect long term learning. It takes an experience childhood psychologist to diagnosis the issue, not an elementary school teacher. The two professions require very different skill sets. However, a well-trained teacher may learn some childhood psychology to detect and analyze the general problem a child might be exhibiting an pass that observation onto the parent(s) and school psychologist.
Yes, elementary school teachers would not do well in other professions, nor last very long. How many full-time accountants could handle 5th grade science? How many NFL players could teach 2nd grade English? Maybe some of them can. But its the skills, the attitude, knowledge, and simply desire to do such a role. I'm a very tall individual. Because I am not athletic-minded, I would not do well in the NBA. I can sink 'em from half court, dunk the ball and last for at least half the game before being sent off to the hospital for shredding my kneecaps.
An I really hate to say it, but paying teachers a salary/wage they can not just 'get by' on, but grow helps in the long run. If you were to cut the pay on your employees by half; how many of them would give you 100% effort like they do now? How many of them would be tempted to form a union and demand their wages be increased? How fast would you be fired for allowing conditions to deteriorate to that level by your superiors?
(2) :
How does one accurately measure an educator's performance? The number of kids that pass and go up to the next grade level? Ability for kids to pass a certain number of state-wide tests? How do you measure how well the art or music teacher are doing? How do you measure how well kids are learning English when the adults typically use 'elite-speak' and 'short-hand' on their smartphones to text others? Do you penalize the P.E. teacher if the kids can not run 200 yards in so many seconds? An do kids all learn everything at the same rate, depth, and level? You have this silly notion that 'one-size-fits-all'; an that's not how young humans learn. Your going to penalize educators for your lack of knowledge on the human development and condition? How would you like it if those same educators set draconian standards by which you must succeed at within your company?
(3):
The unions are not the problem! They exist because its easy to undermine the individual. How much legal and financial power does any one person in your company have when up against the resources at the disposal of your company as a whole? Its 'scale of economies'. Teachers, being in a position of knowledge, understand this. They also learn history. So banding together, like ancient humans did to fight predators and build life for themselves, is not bad or evil in its own right. It becomes bad when those teachers demand raises when the local economy is in a recession or depression. Of course that's often the result of paying those teachers a law salary to begin with in the first place!
You want to set the bar for educators to perform at? Set the wage up to meet that requirement. Most school systems want the bar set as high as possible while paying educators one tenth the salary for performance to run at. Congressmen are given $174,000 in pay in a year. This latest session of Congress pass just 15 bills when it typically passes 190-260 bills in a year. Where is all the out-rage by those against unions in the educational industry? Not even a whisper! If educators were failing as bad as Congress, you and Phyeaux might have a point.
But the conditions in the less 'impressive' parts of D.C. from an economic viewpoint are as many people would call 'the slums'. So if money coming into the educational level is very low; is expecting educators to perform like they were being paid $70-110K/year based on reality or fantasy? An its not just the educators, but the conditions of the schools themselves. Are they up-to-date? Is the food in the café good and healthy for young, growing bodies? Do the schools have good P.E. classes and equipment to help those young, growing bodies grow muscles and height? Are the material and equipment within those schools up-to-date? Yes, this all costs money. These are the young American citizens of 10-15 years from now.
If Phydeaux's understanding of The Theory of Climate Change over on another thread is any indication of how America is teaching kids (and adults) about science; its fair to say that forcing educators to join unions because their pay keeps getting cut to near poverty levels does NOT help this country's long term financial, technical, or medical future(s).
|
Getting it Right: School Choice - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread