Recently, I was attacked by a Facebook commenter for commenting on/questioning the demands of teachers and their unions. My credentials were demanded, my concerns belittled, and the commenter clearly wanted everyone to get the message that if one is not a teacher, one has no business commenting on their contract negotiations. To put it lightly, I disagree. Why should teachers have any say with regard to the size of their classrooms, how many meetings they will take annually, number of teachers per school and hours of school operation? Aren’t these are issues for the community, via the school board, to decide, not the employees?
When you're hired by a company, you don't try to dictate to the CEO how much of a workload you'll accept, how many co-workers you'll require, which days and hours the business should be open, and how your performance will be evaluated, as you'd be fired rather quickly. This is relevant because teachers and their unions continually demand more money and better benefits "to be competitive with the private sector". If teachers don't like the conditions, the workload, the hours and the compensation package, they can go work somewhere else...just like they do in the private sector.
Teacher compensation packages and decreased workload demands are one of the most significant causes of the increased cost of education [unnecessary special education classifications and mis-spent special education funds would be another]. It is absolutely vital that we develop systems of evaluation that will accurately identify poor teachers to weed out, mediocre teachers to mentor, re-train or prod, good teachers to be praised and outstanding teachers to be rewarded and selected for mentorship. Those who remain should be fairly compensated at a level sustainable for the community.
I'll simplify this: We need effective teachers that we can afford. We don't even come close to having that.
I am a licensed professional. I am a parent. In both the public and the private sector, I've worked with, treated and taught children from households of a wide range of incomes, including those residing in poverty-stricken homes, those with disabilities, and those who don't speak a word of English. And, most importantly, I'm a community member and an American citizen, because I am one of the multitudes that are forced to pay far too much for bad teachers in a system that simply does not work, which is all that really matters. In short, I--along with every other American citizen--am more than qualified to comment on the working conditions and compensation packages of public school teachers. And, far from being wrong, it's our duty to take part in the discussion.
Perhaps it's more important to point out what I am NOT. I am NOT a sheep. I am NOT going to be fleeced into accepting a grossly overinflated compensation package [packed with fringe benefits that we are not supposed to notice, nor discuss]--encompassing both horrible and excellent public-sector teachers--that lacks any meaningful method of evaluation to determine whether or not their individual skills are actually WORTH their weight in silver [annually!], far exceeds "equality with the private sector" [which is what we are supposed to believe they want], and allows teachers to dictate the terms of their employment to those who employ them--the taxpayers. I am NOT going to feel guilty for pointing out the numerous flaws in the assertions of the teachers' unions. I am NOT going to regurgitate the ideas and positions of others instead of gathering the facts, thinking for myself and developing my own, informed opinion. I am NOT going to allow the teachers' unions, teachers, politicians, sheep-le or you to try to make me or anyone else feel bad for doing exactly what American citizens, and ANY citizen should do when there is a problem: take action. And I am NOT going to allow you to imply that only teachers should be allowed to express their opinions on public teachers' compensation, benefits, workload and performance evaluations without explaining why that position is ludicrous.
It's ludicrous because we, the taxpayers, pay for public education. It's ludicrous because we, the taxpayers, have no choice BUT to pay for public education. It's ludicrous because taxpayers vote on school budgets, which include teacher compensation and benefits; how are we to know if we will receive acceptable delivery of the services we are being asked to pay for without an effective evaluation method? It's ludicrous because those are our children that they are educating; without knowing the efficacy of public school teachers, how are we to know whether or not we should pursue other education options? It's ludicrous because those who do the paying do not need a degree in education to determine whether or not they place the same value on the services they receive as the value placed on those services by those who deliver them. It's ludicrous because common sense is the only requirement to understand that expecting to receive a full year's salary plus excellent benefit package plus significant fringe benefits plus choosing the hours one works plus choosing the amount of work one will perform PLUS refusing to be evaluated in any meaningful way PLUS refusing to allow those who have to pay for the whole thing to question any portion of it, or to even take part in the discussion at all, IS, in fact, LUDICROUS.
This takes "writing your own ticket" to a level previously unachieved by any in the private sector, with the exception of one very specific group. You may recognize them; in fact, you should. The group consists of politicians--also beneficiaries of a grossly overinflated salary/compensation package, packed full of incredibly valuable fringe benefits that we are not supposed to notice or discuss; excessive vacations, breaks, holidays, evenings and weekends off; free, excellent healthcare; low-contribution pension system; etc.; paid for by the taxpayers, who do not have a choice in terms, nor in whether or not to pay for it--and former politicians [who receive cushy "jobs" with outstanding compensation packages for doing very little, if any, actual work--most of the time, they are not even required to show up] which is not evaluated by anyone, in exchange for the "favors" they handled for special interests while in office.
The teachers' unions and teachers do not want employment terms competitive to the private sector; they want employment terms equal to those of Congress.
Again, to be clear: I have nothing against teachers. I simply want them to be effective and affordable, and that does not happen when the unions are permitted to dictate the complete terms of their employment to those who employ and pay them.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Farleftside
MeatMonkey
Dr William Lee
Dennis Loo
Mike Lucier
Dan O'Mahony
Salon.com
Comments
If you're "liberal left", then I'd really hate to see "conservative right."
I support linking base and maximum teacher pay to percentages of the average household income in that locale; merit bonuses for outstanding teachers; mentorship and training programs for teachers who aren't meeting expectations; eliminating standardized testing, at least as a part of performance evaluations.
http://oligarchfringe.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-having-two-sectors-in-society.html
Linking teacher pay to household income in the district is about the worst thing I can imagine, in terms of fair compensation for teachers and quality of education for students. It sets up a serious class divide (worse than it is now), with the wealthiest districts attracting the best teachers and therefore getting the best education, further perpetuating the extant class divide.
From the blog post: "When you're hired by a company, you don't try to dictate to the CEO how much of a workload you'll accept, how many co-workers you'll require, which days and hours the business should be open, and how your performance will be evaluated, as you'd be fired rather quickly."
You're right, you don't, because we have an extremely dysfunctional economic system. The fact that we don't doesn't mean that we SHOULDN'T. We're not even discussing the private sector, so the comparison is specious anyway.
I agree that we need better methods of evaluating performance, and probably a more dynamic structure that can better-cater to students of different ability levels in different areas.
This bit, though, is absurd: "...plus choosing the hours one works plus choosing the amount of work one will perform PLUS refusing to be evaluated in any meaningful way PLUS refusing to allow those who have to pay for the whole thing to question any portion of it, or to even take part in the discussion at all, IS, in fact, LUDICROUS."
That would be absurd, but that's not the case for any teachers I know. While your teachers' union in NY might be stronger than the one here (well, we don't even have them any more, really) in WI, I seriously doubt it's actually that strong. Like everywhere, districts in New York have standard school days and teachers have to put in hours outside of that in order to do their jobs - that's not really choosing one's hours or the amount of work one does. As for evaluation criteria, we'd have to talk specifics to see if we agree on what "any meaningful way" entails. I'm also quite certain you have numerous fora for discussion of these issues, like this blog, school board meetings, newspapers, direct contact with the union, voting, protest venues, etc. What else would you want, exactly? The fact that you're proposing bad ideas that people dismiss (not universally, in your case, but the pay grade by district income is just awful) doesn't mean you don't have a part in the discussion.
"It's ludicrous because we, the taxpayers, pay for public education. It's ludicrous because we, the taxpayers, have no choice BUT to pay for public education."
"Taxpayer" is a meaningless term: everyone pays taxes in some form or other, including the teachers themselves. The fact that you don't have a choice about whether to pay taxes or what they fund is a good thing: if I had my way, we wouldn't have a military or police forces, an FCC, any corporate subsidies, FDIC insurance, The Fed, and a whole host of other public programs a lot of people think are really good ideas. That's sort of the point: we all agree to chip in for things most people feel benefit most of us or all of us collectively.
Here's the crux of the issue: "Again, to be clear: I have nothing against teachers. I simply want them to be effective and affordable..."
You want to get something really valuable without having to pay for it. You want the most valuable professionals, the ones whose work makes all the other work done by everyone else possible, to have their compensation and working conditions subject to the whims of a hostile and exploitative majority. You want serfs or slaves. Tough shit: that's not going to fly.
John J.-- I'll check that post and get back to you.
John H.--I agree that linking pay to average household income isn't the best idea, but it's a way to ensure that our teachers earn at least enough to support themselves in the area they're working in, without breaking the bank. Maybe a residency requirement tacked on?
The discussion from which this post evolved was about teachers wanting comparable compensation to the private sector; that's why I mentioned it. Sorry if that wasn't clear; I guess I was remembering too much from the original discussion and didn't realize it should be outlined here so that people would understand.
In the discussion, the teachers' unions were indeed attempting to dictate which hours the school could be open, how many classes each teacher would have to teach daily, how many teachers total the district would have to employ, how many meetings each teacher could be made to attend [in the article, the union had tried to have it limited to three meetings a year, which just isn't feasible in most districts]. The union in question--and the person who posted the article that led to the discussion--was of the opinion that only teachers should comment on teacher compensation. As I stated in the post, the person who posted the article began demanding my qualifications, as if I needed any to comment. That person not only hated my point of view, but was insistent that I didn't have the right to comment at all unless I, too, was a teacher.
It's patently unfair to suggest that I want "slaves" or "serfs". Teachers are important, but not so important that the elderly or the poor or the middle class living on the edge of financial ruin should lose their house because they were unable to afford to pay the exorbitant property taxes necessary to compensate teachers in the manner the unions demand.
I want just what I stated. Effective, affordable teachers. The nearly $12K per student that NYS spends on average [it's around $10K per student in my small district; around 1200 students with a budget of over $12 million] is not affordable, nor is it sustainable in a community where the average HOUSEHOLD income is around $40K.
I believe in collective bargaining for teachers. I guess I just believe that educating our kids needs to be a cooperative effort. The teachers need to teach effectively, the district needs to spend our money wisely, and the community needs to pay as much as it can without killing itself. That's not happening in many areas of NYS, including mine. It doesn't help that there's not really an effective remedy when districts violate law. It doesn't help that the community [including parents] need to belong to a nationally recognized organization, or must jump through other hoops, before they are given a seat at the table to offer opinions on teacher evaluation methods. It doesn't help that we have virtually NO say when it comes to teacher compensation, and we're left to the mercies of the school board, whose members are not often poor.
I guess I'm just tired of the excuses we are fed here in NYS. Particularly in my district, if the teachers can't pay their bills, it's because they are living far beyond their means, not because they don't get paid enough. They contribute next to nothing to their retirement and health insurance, and this is in an area where health insurance can easily total 25% or more of one's salary. We never truly own our own property, because if we fail to pay the ever-increasing property tax [that funds schools], it will be taken from us. I think everyone SHOULD pay for public education. I just want us to get what we pay for [we don't], and I don't think that teachers should prosper at the expense of those who can least afford to pay.
A friend recently opined to me that a lot of the problem is not with the unions but with the people negotiating with them (which makes it all the more important that parents and citizens watch over them). In fact, I think if you simply couldn't make an agreement with them that lasted longer than 5-10 years, it would keep someone today from negotiating away the bargaining position of future legislators, as I think there is a good reason for nearterm stability and also a good reason not to tie the government's hands too far out. (Pensions, which are inherently long term, could be handled by buying into a separate legal entity independent from the government, which is pretty much the situation all 401K's and IRA's are in. This would avoid the pitfall you noted in your Social Security post about how the government might otherwise borrow against the pension fund. That's illegal in business, I'm pretty sure.)
While I'm on the subject of pet peaves I have with the unions, by the way, I might as well just say that unions need to decide whether they're going to police their own membership or whether the outside is going to. But they can't both protect all members from scrutiny and then not do the scrutiny themselves. Bad teachers end up protected by the system, and that loses confidence in the system. I don't care of the union wants to handle it among themselves, but I care that they not create a barrier to accountability happening at all. Accountability is either their absolute responsibility or else is the right of outsiders to impose; having it any other way is not acceptable (to me).