On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:19:58 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

~~ snippage

Tom, do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
skill or commitment to the job deserve the same pay increase every year?
Should the bad teachers get the same increase as the good ones? Should the
bad teachers be protected by the union so they keep their jobs?

This is a interesting subject and one that can take up terabytes of
bandwidth if the discussion turns - um - difficult. :)

Let's start with the first comment - to wit:" do you believe that all
teachers in a school district, regardless of skill or commitment to
the job deserve the same pay increase every year?

You have to separate this question into two because the first is
totally different than the second.

How do you judge commitment? Is it hours after school doing
additional extra help? Committing to a non-paying coaching or
mentoring position? How about Union commitment - doing all the dirty
work in the organizational trenches so that teachers aren't beat to
hell by administration's and Board of Educations? Is bringing home
reams of papers to correct on a weekend commitment or a function of
the job? Are you in it for yourself or in it for the thrill of
teaching kids?

It's a subjective value and nothing that can be objectively valued.
Is a gym teacher who does his/her job competently who has little or no
out of school commitments or homework assignments less committed to
teaching than a language arts teacher with tons of papers to read and
correct?

Let's move to the second two - this is where the rubber meets the
road. To wit: Should the bad teachers get the same increase as the
good ones?

First, you have to define the objective goals. How does one define
acceptable, or outstanding, teaching? How do you define the skill set
needed to acceptably teach a mixed classroom? How do you define a
"bad" teacher?

The simple answer is testing, but that is also a false value. A
teacher with all high level learners will do much better on a standard
test than a teacher of equal skill who has a mixed class of special
education mainstreamers and middle skill level learners. Or a teacher
with a mix of high, middle, low and Speds.

How do you judge the relative value of a Language Arts teacher vs a
Math or Science teacher - is one more worthy of money than another?
Is one easier to teach than the other?

Then there is a whole matter of seniority - it costs more for teachers
with long term skill sets. Are these more valuable teachers than
those who are first timers? How do you define it?

If you find the answers to these questions, I know somebody who would
really like to talk to you. :)

In the end, they all got the same pay increase and the bad teachers
continued to do a bad job teaching the students.

Is that what the union is all about?

No - or at least it shouldn't be. Unions should be about making sure
the field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of.

Later,

Tom