in many instances, some incompetent is given that assignment. sometimes due to a relationship with the politician and other times because the politician does not appreciate the need for competency in that negotiator position
but notice, in neither instance is the union at fault because management selected an inferior negotiator to represent the employer's interests
we all benefit from sound unions. if you enjoy compensation at the minimum wage or higher, vacation and sick leave, a 40-hour work week, overtime compensation, family friendly employer practices, and safe work environments, then thank the unionTo reduce the power of public union is a good solution if you are not a hard-core liberal, because liberals benefit from having strong unions (at least in the short term).
or be a hypocrite and enjoy those benefits brought by the unions while simultaneously bashing unionization
you think it is good for America that workers are stripped of their ability to bargain collectively, where they have leverage they could not exhibit individually?However, it is good for America.
you would then likely falsely believe that whatever the employer does is going to be for the employees' benefit
notice that no wal mart stores are unionized
yet wal mart devastates the small businesses - mom and pop shops - in the communities in which it locates (university of iowa has done considerable research in this matter)
those low paid employees are often receiving welfare benefits from the communities in which they live and work. wal mart then extracts wealth and exports it out of those communities
that is the paradigm you advocate
please point out any post by any forum member in any thread within this forum where a forumite has ever advocated for a bad teacher to be allowed to continue to teachDo you think that bad teachers shouldn't be fired?
again, this is the fault of weak management. no union contract can prevent the termination of an incompetent teacher. they only define the process to be followed to fire such teachers. but that requires work and competence. things we do not often see exhibited by weak management
news flash. they don't. our community offers an annual $10,000 bonus to good teachers who agree to teach in the underperforming schools. very few teachers have taken that bonus. sometimes, working conditions are more important to teachers than money. especially if the school they are in has students who arrive ready, willing and able to learn. students who do not occupy their time with disciplinary issuesDo you think all teachers should earn the same, irrespective of their school and their work performance?
let's review work performance: read this Tying Teacher Salaries to Test Scores Doesn’t Work « Parents Across America
you will see studies at vanderbuilt, the NYC and chicago school systems indicate performance pay:
will not improve teaching or learning
will not attract strong teachers
will lead to more standardized testing and test prep
there are better ways to improve teacher effectivenes
... When Finland’s leaders sought to improve their students’ academic performance, they instituted measures that included reducing class size, boosting teachers’ salaries, and eliminating standardized testing. Teaching is now a highly sought after profession in Finland, and Finnish students top the world in academic performance.
If we want to make teaching a profession worth pursuing, we must pay all teachers a respectable professional wage—on par with professions that require comparable education and expertise – and provide them the tools they need to do their job – small classes, strong mentors, time for planning and collaboration, scope for their own creativity and help with addressing challenges such as poverty and homelessness.
Teachers should be evaluated by robust systems that use multiple measures, as well as parent and peer input, to identify their weaknesses, help them improve, and weed those unsuited to the job out of the profession. Concerned parents and community members should insist on fair, broad-based systems of evaluation, as well as on the other kinds of support that teachers need to succeed.on this we agreeWe should give them the market price,
don't think so. many states offer comity. and if one is certified in one state why does that certification not indicate the teacher is competent to teach in another... you might get a higher wage in another state, but it is really hard to become a teacher there.
the outcomes of texas schools suck. maybe not as bad as mississippi, but they totally suck. look at comparative performance stats for both tejas and wisconsinTexas has much lower wages (but better performance than Wisconsin when you compare racial groups) and teachers are not running for the hills.
as i noted above, that is insufficient attraction - at least at $10,000 annually the monetary incentive is found insufficient. besides, it is found that the good teachers, once at the weak schools, with the weak students, soon realize student test scores like their counterpart instructors at the weak schools. no positive change results. the students' (lack of) desire for an education has a huge influence on those outcomesTeachers at bad schools should get a higher wage than teachers at good schools to attract the better teachers to bad schools.
look at the top nations according to student test scores. in each of them the teacher is very respected and is well compensated compared to others with their credentialsIf the wage is based on the market, then it is in everyone's interest to make sure teachers have good teaching conditions. If you have better conditions, then you will attract more teachers.
in short, i agree. now i have to wonder if you would agree to do what is necessary to achieve parity with those other high performing nations
not at all. teacher unions are for what will be best for the teachers. you don't even believe unions are opposed to "good teaching conditions" that you advocate do you? of course you don't. so then you are wrong in saying that the teacher unions are opposed to all of your recommendations. you should expect union opposition only toward the ones which would be found ineffectiveProblem is, unions are against everything I mentioned.
there is no such thing as a rich teacher. unless the teacher got their money outside the school systemAmerica has a poverty rate of 14%, why should we spend more money on rich teachers when we could spend the money on reducing poverty? Or reducing the deficit?
if you want quality you must pay for it
that should be a lesson learned by adulthood. taking money away from the education system to cover other government expenses is beyond stupid
notice that the best student test scores are usually found in those states that have teacher unions. in those states which outlaw teacher unions, those test scores suck. kind of like those in texas