Last edited by Mach; 06-12-12 at 01:57 PM.
My point might not have been sufficiently clear. Let's say a business decides it's going to invest a sizable sum of money to allow it to produce a large quantity of Product X. However, in reality, only a few customers desire Product X. The firm will be forced to slash prices to unload its inventory, possibly losing money, and its investment would largely have left it with too much capacity for Product X. Those resources could have been better utilized for some other purpose.I believe this notion of needing broad agreement is exactly wrong. Private industry innovates and succeeds because it doesn't need broad agreement.
A similar dynamic applies to education. In the absence of broad agreement (this runs far beyond labor contracts) as to what constitutes a practice worthy of added compensation, extra compensation will likely prove to have been wasted money. In fact, broad public consensus would make it easier for schools to transcend existing barriers to rewarding performance.
I agree that it should be easier to replace bad teachers and better compensate effective ones. Translating that principle into working policy is not as easy as one would hope or desire, even as the need for improved educational outcomes is growing more urgent.What's worse, is all this evaluation is irrelevant if teachers cannot easily be fired, and if success doesn't result in higher pay/rewards.
In reading through the thread, and taking into consideration that the knee jerk reaction is to join most people's sentiment in firing the teachers, which is impossible to do because of onerous rule, and procedure, not to mention cost of doing such with just one teacher, not to mention thousands. I would say choose legislation that is more tailored like WI, and go after these automatic raises, and such to bring budgets in line.
Teaching is a hard job, and not everyone, or just anyone can do it. But, with that said, it is not conducive to have public sector employees unionized in the first place, because this is what you get. FDR spoke about the danger of allowing unionization in government, and warned against it.
If the move is toward firing anyone, it should be the trouble makers that stir this greedy, selfish pot, that is aimed at enriching their own paychecks at the expense of the children they say they want to help, but really couldn't care less about when it comes to going that extra step.
As for 'polls' where people agree with the teachers cause...theres only one 'poll' that counts. Thats the voter initiatives where citizens cast their ballots in favor or against paying higher taxes to PAY for those increases. Until that is the case and people are willing to put muscle behind their hustle, the 'polls' mean precisely jack ****.
Bloated salaries, entitlement attitude with the notion to maximize their bargaining position at the expense of the kids.
We the people on the other hand have gotten a sector that we entrust our kids education to, that is made up of largely self absorbed, self important, slackers that continually want more and more to turn out an ever worsening result.
"So the city wants to increase the amount of time the teachers work while implementing an effective pay freeze/cut (2% raise in nominal wages vs. 2%+ inflation). So in real terms workers wages will go down as their hours increase, and the teachers are the ones being greedy? "Originally Posted by j-mac
Also, FDR wasn't against public sector unions. And even if he was, what does that matter? Why do conservatives love bringing that up? I love how you bring that up all the time in these discussions yet attack him for being a welfare socialist in every other instance.
"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."
So, as an example. If the national average for graduating students in districts where the percentage of enrolled black students is 70% or higher and the expected graduation rate of those students is 65%, then this is a reasonable expectation to apply nationally. Similarily, the other 30% being white (As an example of course it wouldn't be this way but for illustration) students enrolled and say their graduation rate was 85% we could use that as a reasonable baseline for performance.
In a nutshell, bad parenting need not be an undefinable measurment because quite frankly it is, but the sample needs to cross many demographics, and should probably include the entire nation. If we're going to penalize or reward good and bad teachers we should damn well make sure we have our baseline scales correct, and in order to do that we need to control for every conceivable variable.
Call it the "America First in Education" initiative. Start taking numbers, or if we have them already, let's start putting the numbers to good use, and begin the way back for American education.
of course the unions will oppose it, but hey, it can be done.
Last edited by Hicup; 06-12-12 at 05:09 PM.
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher