On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:49:27 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
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.

OK. Fair enough

New questions so I understand where you are coming from on these 2 points:

1. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
skills deserve the same pay increase every year?

Wrong question again. It is assumed that any teacher performing at any
grade level has the skills to teach. In CT, a skills test must be
passed to obtain a teaching position.

But to be straight forward, if you equate skill to years taught, then
yes - two year teachers should be paid the same - thirty year teachers
should be paid the same.

2. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
commitment, deserve the same pay increase every year?

How do you judge commitment?

It is self evident to the principal who runs the school. Talk to your wife.
She will confirm this.

Heh - I just showed it to her and she still is laughing.

What if you have an administrator who is biased towards, oh say,
younger teachers? Or male teachers over female teachers? Or having
affairs with one or the other? Or believes that participation in
mandatory "after school events" such as group mountain climbing, bike
riding and other participatory sports are essential to the proper
running of a school?

How about an administrator who, in the throes of divorce, makes
improper advances towards staff members and threatens unsatisfactory
evaluations?

You mean those kind of administrators?

Commitment to the job is evident during my job appraisals and always has
been.

Really? Gee - never has been in my career. I did my job because I
got paid to do my job. I got paid to be the best engineer I could be.
I was never, EVER, committed to any company for anything other than
doing my job. No extras unless I was paid for them. If I committed
extra hours to a project, it was pretty much because I was interested
in the problem - not because I was committed to anything.

I did work my years of eighty hour weeks and it damn near killed me.
But it sure as hell wasn't because I was committed to the damn company
- it was because I was being paid a lot of money to get things done.

Is it hours after school doing additional extra help?

I do not understand your question. If you mean does *x* amount of after
hours work equate to one being a good teacher, the answer is obviously "no".
See my example below of a football coach.

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?

Union commitment? Bzzzzzz. No credit. Self satisfying. Self gratifying.

So attending a meeting in which a teacher is falsely accused of
mistreating a student and scripting the event is not important? Or
helping straighten out three consequitive payroll FUBARs isn't
important? Or filing harassment charges against an administrator who
made sexually suggestive remarks to a subordinate?

It's the same type of commitment ON TOP OF being a competent teacher.

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?

I guess you missed my point. And I thought your wife was a teacher.

I didn't miss your point - I understood it very well. And you didn't
answer the question - what is commitment - how do you measure it?

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?

Nope. I can cite an elementary school gym teacher who was totally committed
to his job. My wife knew it as did the principal.

So can I and he works less than any other teacher in the school
because he just doesn't have the time to do anything other than what
he is contracted to do during his working hours. He has a wife with
rapid advance MS and is trying to hold a family of three together
along with huge medical bills and a mortgage. Works his day job and
two evening jobs to keep afloat.

I'd call that commitment - wouldn't you?

By the way, this was the same teacher who was called up and
reprimanded for leaving five minutes early by an administrator who
felt that male teachers weren't worth squat. He was defended by the
Union President and won the grievance.

This aunt's rocket science Tom...so stop trying to make it that.

You are certainly right - it's not rocket science and it sure as hell
isn't my aunt's rocket science. (Sorry - couldn't resist).

It goes much beyond the mathematical certainty of science and enters
into the realm of humanity - feelings, frailty and emotion -
misunderstandings and failures to communicate. All those things that
you can't objectively measure and are entirely subjective.

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?

Again the answer is quite evident.

A *bad* teacher? One who skates by. One who gives little concern over her
students performance. One who leaves at the bell and does not *punch* in
again till the next school day.

Should that person *deserve* the union negotiated pay increase as the
committed and skilled teachers? I say no. Are you saying yes?

I'm saying that you can't differentiate that way because it's entirely
subjective. Is a teacher who works hard at teaching, tries their
best, puts in tons of hours but is, to put it delicately, a poor
teacher that obtains less than optimal results worth more than a
teacher who just presents material, tests for it and obtains superior
results?

How do you judge who is worth more? Are you saying that in your
criteria the former is worth more than the later?

If your wife was a teacher perhaps you can also ask her.

Insulting me is not rational discussion.

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.

A good teacher cannot be defined by testing. It is a start however.

How can it be a start if you can't define it objectively?

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.

We agree.

Unions should be about making sure
the field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of.

Actually unions are not needed in the teaching profession, amongst others.

If we use your definition however (Unions should be about making sure the
field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of.) then I guess the
teachers union is falling flat on it's face. ;-)

I disagree - in terms of personnel matters, contract legalities,
health insurance benefits, Unions have great merit. Our local here
has done great things for both kids, teachers AND, believe it or not,
Administrators who, in one instance that I personally know about,
benefitted from Union representation in a particularly difficult
parent/teacher kerfuffle.

I am not anti-Union - I believe that they have a place in the worker's
world.

I do believe that Unions have lost their way and it's time for a
different approach to Labor problems in the US.

Later,

Tom