Stop Demonizing New Jersey's Teachers!

I take issue with... (0.00 / 0)

blasting the NJEA, (and by extention all teachers in NJ)

I don't beleive I've met a teacher I didn't like. But the union leadership really makes it hard not to resent the system they have set up.

In addition, there is little or no evidence 'merit pay' works because it hasn't been allowed in what... 30-40 years?

And what's this about fully funding professional development opportunities? I hope you are not suggesting we fund master's degrees for teachers only to see those same teachers use those degrees to demand higher salaries.

Those master degrees should be investments teachers make on their own behalf.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 21:19:13 PM UTC

We're a likable bunch... (4.00 / 2)

thanks, William.

Merit pay programs have in fact been introduced in many school systems around the US and in other countries. In fact, there are some models out there that have been embraced by teacher unions. The problem with the NJ Race to the Top proposal is that it uses student test scores as the determining factor, as opposed to what we believe would be more accurate measures of teacher quality and improvement such as professional development, implementing best-practice strategies in the classroom and observation reports.

In regards to your other question, I did not mean MA degrees (though I don't think there's anything wrong with having tuition paid by districts if they REQUIRE an MA degree, as ours does.)  What I was referring to is the 100 hours of professional development NCLB requires of all teachers every five years outside of their school duties. The state wants us to learn certain strategies or technologies (and why not), but has left it up to districts to provide that  training. In order to save money, many districts attempt to provide their own training, and it often becomes a bit of a joke. Providing a dedicated funding source for training teachers in these desired methods and technologies is a much better bet in improving teacher proficiency than the proposed merit pay, in which you may get a few extra bucks if your particular students do well on a test.

---

by: Helios @ Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 22:07:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thank you... (0.00 / 0)

for your informed response... as I said... I have issue with the union, but i've never met a teacher I didn't like. Yourself included.

My question to you would be, the union certainly hasn't pushed any set of metrics for merit pay, it's always opposed. COrrectly if I'm wrong, but when president Obama spoke of it in Philadelphia (with out mentioning any metric whatsoever) on the campaign trial, he was villified by the union. Am I mischaracterizing the union's poistion here?

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 16:19:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for asking (4.00 / 1)

In fact, William, you are not correctly informed. Arne Duncan (Obama's Education Secretary) actually came to the NEA's national convention in San Diego last year in which we had a lively discussion of merit pay.

The biggest area of disagreement is how the plan would be structured and what role student test scores would play in the evaluation of teachers.

To see the NEA's stand - and where we support some merit pay programs, visit here:

http://www.nea.org/home/36780.htm

---

by: Helios @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 18:11:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

See... (4.00 / 1)

I have a problem with that premise. Basically, you are paying based on the teacher's test scores or achievements, which I think have little bearing on their ability to reach students or enthusiasm in the classroom.

Unfortunately, the only true objective measure of knowledge imparted is test scores. Now I totally agree with Thurman in that test scores don't account for a multitude of environmental factors that influence learning. That said, it would be my guess that in any school, the teachers themselves know which of the staff share a genuine passion for the profession, and which are just going through the motions. All I'm saying if I'd prefer a way to reward those who demonstrate that passion. And to me, passing a test or achieving that next degree doesn't automatically equate to passion in the classroom...

I don't have a good answer, but I'm not satisifed with the status quo either. I understand reservations and problems using student test scores, but I think in conjuction with other metrics, a merit pay system can produce increased performance.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:32:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A few comments (0.00 / 0)

First - before I get into it - I have the utmost respect for what teachers do, and my children have been blessed with some excellent teachers.

1.  You talk about paying for MA degrees if the district requires it - why?  The district, I would think, also requires an undergraduate degree - should it pay for that too?  A law firm requires a law degree to be a lawyer - should they pay for that?  I agree with the other poster - your education should be your investment in your career to enable higher future income.  If the district pays for it, then you shouldn't get an increase for getting the degree.

2.  I find the concept of tenure and pay for seniority to be obscene.  This is likely what is meant when people argue for merit pay.  Why should a teacher get higher pay for having been there for 20 years if they are a mediocre teacher?  Why shouldn't a teacher be held accountable for poor performance?  Why should high performing teachers be let go in tough times so that mediocre teachers with more seniority can be kept?  Why does the union protect the worst teachers at the expense of the best?  It is a drive towards the median.  In your efforts for what you believe is fairness, you underpay the best teachers and overpay the worst.  It's a travesty.

I'd much prefer a system that uses student test scores as a measure of performance than one that assumes seniority and performance are correlated.  

---

by: Bardy @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 20:57:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well (4.00 / 2)

I don't know of any employer that doesn't pay employees, on some basis, for seniority.  The idea that someone just off of the street would make the same as someone who has twenty years worth of experience strikes me as a bit odd.  Yeah, education is important, but so is experience.  Trust me, you probably don't want to take a class with a first-semester teacher (with all due respect, my junior colleagues often struggle quite a bit early on).

As far as performance goes...exactly how do we measure teacher performance?  

The union's job is to protect all teachers.  That's why they collect from all teachers.  

The "travesty" is the same you get in all occupations.  My brother is a journeyman pipefitter, and when he works, he makes the same as all other journeyman pipefitters (with adjustments for seniority, actually).  When my insurance company pays my doctor, they pay him a flat negotiated rate.  He doesn't get more because I think he's a good doctor or because I didn't die this year.  He gets the going rate.  When you call a plumber to clear a drain, you pay the going rate for the repair...not some oddball merit rate for being a really good drain clearer.

So why would the teaching profession be any differently?

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 21:29:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ummm. most comanies pay more for off the street (0.00 / 0)

I work in the private sector.  The joke is the newest people often command the highest salaries as they can get "market pay" while those around for a while just get the 3% a year barring any promotions.

Most private firms pay based on the volume / quality of work you provide, not your age.  Senior people make more because they can deliver a lot more.  The skillset grows over time.  I have frequently made more than people with 10 to 20 years more experience.  My company didn't care they just looked at what I did and the effort I put into bettering myself to get that promotion / raise when others just coast along, performing but not improving.

If you are telling me someone can educate kids twice as better because they have 20 years in then fine, pay based on senorty alone.  But if an average teacher with 2 years can teach as well as an average teacher with 20, why should the 20 year earn more just because of age?

Sorry to sound contrary but in the private sector where there is merit pay if you want to make more you need to show your value add.  Kind of hard to do that with teachers since we have to hope all kids are educated to the same levels.  That said, if there are under performers or ones who are outstanding they should be compensated accordingly.

And I agree with many here.  Love the teacher, HATE the union.  Yes you can do both.  And I know quite a few teachers who resent being forced to join and disagree with the leadership.  And yes I know teachers who love the union.

Bottom line is that SOMETHING has to change, and the union has their hands in too many pockets to be objective.  If they can affford to advertise during
Eagles games on 94.1, they can afford things like paying for the benefits and retirement like private unions do.

 

---

by: AreYouWithMe? @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 00:32:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I spent quite a lot of time (4.00 / 1)

in the private sector.  I've never seen someone off the street with no experience get hired for more money that someone who has twenty years of experience.    I guess you could argue that different industries do things differently.  

But, even if your example, I would argue that you're trying to argue apples to oranges.  I'm wondering what marketable skills a brand new teacher brings into a classroom that a veteran teacher doesn't have.  I don't really see much there.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 01:14:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not just about 1st year teachers (0.00 / 0)

Are you telling me that all 30-yr teachers are better than all teachers with 5 years experience?  If not, why shouldn't the best teachers get the best percentage raises or bonuses while the rest get a lower amount?

I work in the private sector - if my department has a raise budget that needs to average 3%, I'd rather use that to give my best performers more even if it means some get little or no raise.  If you pay your best people a lower raise because you want everybody to get the same percentage, then you are not rewarding merit, and you risk losing your best performers to other company's (or districts)

Experience should certainly be a factor in evaluating performance - as should test scores, in-class evaluation, etc.

---

by: Bardy @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:40:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In fact... (4.00 / 1)

teachers do not all get the same percentage salary increase year after year. Salary guides for teachers are based on years of experience and education level. In fact, once you're at the top of the guide, your annual increase is usually much less than 1%.

---

by: Helios @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 10:22:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you telling me (4.00 / 1)

that you can, with anything close to 100% accuracy, tell which teachers "deserve" a higher raise?  In case you missed it, not all students come into a classroom with anything close to similar abilities.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 22:59:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nor do they have the same support at home (4.00 / 2)

Even within a geographically small district, kids go home to a wide range of parental support environments. Some parents are involved in their children's lives, others much less so. Why should any teacher be penalized for having a disproportionate number of kids who simply are not getting the attention they need at home? It happens and anyone who thinks it doesn't is kidding himself and anyone who thinks it's all up to the teacher obviously doesn't understand the critical role parents have.

---

by: Alex @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 23:30:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So if the system isn't perfect (0.00 / 0)

it's better to just give everybody the same?  Why should anybody work hard to excel if excellence gets you the same raise as the next guy?

If a manager can't tell who the best performers are, then they aren't very good managers.

---

by: Bardy @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 03:30:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kids are not products... (4.00 / 4)

or services and education is a public good, not a profit-making enterprise. If you want to make the private sector the model for public education, then it seems to me you don't really support public education - a system that Progressives established and fought for over many generations.

And I know quite a few teachers who resent being forced to join and disagree with the leadership.  And yes I know teachers who love the union

Nobody is forced to join our union. Every member is a voluntary member. Of course I know fellow teachers who dislike the union and some even who voted for Christie.  What's the point? The vast majority of teachers do support and are proud of our union. If you vilify the organization that fights for our rights, promotes quality education and represents our profession than you are throwing shade on teachers, too.

If they can affford to advertise during
Eagles games on 94.1, they can afford things like paying for the benefits and retirement like private unions do.

Again, look at the misinformation. Teachers do and have always paid into their pension fund!  In fact, we agreed to a 10% increase in our premiums in 2006 in exchange for state promises to meet its pension obligations. It's the state that has not kept its end of the bargain.

I also want to remind everybody that political activity (like the ads you mention) is NOT paid for with dues money from members. NJEA has a separate political action fund, to which members donate voluntarily. If the teachers don't support the union, than we could not afford such advertising.

I appreciate all this back and forth. I see how many falsehoods and mischaracterizations seem to be so easily accepted. I'm happy to help counteract these with the truth.

---

by: Helios @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 01:19:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I respectfully disagree (0.00 / 0)

that people aren't forced to join the union. I'm not going to get into the weeds on this, but even my mother who was a damn lunch aide was told she had to join the teachers' union or couldn't be employed at a school.

I'm pro-union but not a huge NJEA fan. Having been in school not so long ago, I remember teachers who were almost criminally incompetent who couldn't be fired because they were tenured. The joke was that you'd have to be videotaped stabbing one of your students to actually be fired.

---

by: Jason Smith @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 05:51:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jason, I think you're mistaken (4.00 / 1)

Everyone has to make the mandatory union contribution, but not everyone has to join the union.  Joining the union means you pay union dues, which are slightly higher than the mandatory union contribution.  

If your mother was actually required to join the union, then she had a major lawsuit she could have (still could?) file as that is illegal.

Best,
pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 15:13:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seniority and Pay for Performance (0.00 / 0)

Does not mean that if the 1st year employee has a great year, he/she jumps the pay of the 20-yr employee.  It means that if this occurs, the top performer might get a higher PERCENTAGE raise than the lower performer.  

If experience is important (which I don't doubt) then the performance of the more senior teacher should be higher and their evaluation (using whatever methodology you choose) should back that.  However, don't try to tell me that every 3-yr teacher is NJ is a great teacher.

PS - your insurance company pays the doctor the rate THAT doctor negotiated with the insurer.  A better doctor will demand a higher reimbursement or won't be part of the network.  If you think every doctor gets paid the same from your insurer, you are mistaken.  

---

by: Bardy @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:30:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good laugh (4.00 / 2)

PS - your insurance company pays the doctor the rate THAT doctor negotiated with the insurer.  A better doctor will demand a higher reimbursement or won't be part of the network.  If you think every doctor gets paid the same from your insurer, you are mistaken.  

Actually, for an HMO, the insurer sets the rates and the doctors can take it or not.  For example:

Local 56 attorney Robert F. O'Brien said the HMOs unilaterally set
prices they pay doctors for specific services, with some doctors losing
money yet unable to negotiate with powerful HMOs.

And don't think this is a problem in only one place.  Here's another:

For Dr. Clement Barone, a radiologist on the Upper East Side, the final straw came when Blue Cross Blue Shield told him it was cutting reimbursements for mammograms to $42 each. (He charges $200.) He dropped the plan, and said he might stop accepting all managed care soon.

You really think an insurance company sits down across the table from several million doctors on an individual basis?

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 23:07:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You obviously didn't get my point (0.00 / 0)

No - I don't believe they negotiate individually with each doctor.  However, if you ever want to see the top doctor in a field, you will likely find that they aren't "in network" for any insurance plan.

Doctors join networks for access to patients.  The best doctors do not need that and can dictate their own terms.  

Dr. Barone - in your example - chose not to be part of BC/BS when his rate got cut.  Dr. Barone obviously feels it's not worth treating BC/BS patients at that price.  Is this a good thing for BC/BS members who would prefer to use Dr. Barone?

---

by: Bardy @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 03:35:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who says (4.00 / 1)

that Dr. Barone is better than any other doctor?  Admit it - the entire fallacy at the core of your thinking has been exposed.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 22:52:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obscene? (4.00 / 2)

Thanks for your comment, Bardy. Allow me to disagree:

1.  You talk about paying for MA degrees if the district requires it - why?  The district, I would think, also requires an undergraduate degree - should it pay for that too?  A law firm requires a law degree to be a lawyer - should they pay for that?

Lawyers are required to have a law degree and pass a bar exam to be licensed to practice law. Teachers are required to have a BA, pass certification tests, student teach and serve one year provisionally before being licensed. Those are the base qualifications for both professions - requirements of the state. If districts want a Masters level workforce, they can either only hire teachers with a Masters degree or ask that their staff work towards a Masters degree. If a law firm required its lawyers to pursue a degree beyond their law degree, why shouldn't the firm pay for  it? Anyway, even with the Masters level increase, a teacher's salary still lags far behind a lawyer's.

In any event, are you saying that this should not be negotiated between the employees and their district? I thought progressive New Jerseyeans supported collective bargaining?

2.  I find the concept of tenure and pay for seniority to be obscene...Why does the union protect the worst teachers at the expense of the best?

Why do you so easily dismiss job experience as making a more qualified teacher? If I were getting my heart operated on, I'd want the surgeon with the most experience. Ask most NJ parents and they would say they prefer their kids have the more experienced teachers. Your characterization of our senior teachers is wrong and insulting.

I'd much prefer a system that uses student test scores as a measure of performance than one that assumes seniority and performance are correlated.

I would argue that experience is a much better judge of teacher quality than student test scores in any given year, but I also provided the link above to show how the union is in fact interested in exploring alternative pay schemes with districts around the country. Maybe you didn't get a chance to read it?

Bottom line: New Jersey teachers are a dedicated bunch of undervalued, highly-educated and highly-qualified workers. Our union is a professional organization that works tirelessly to improve teacher proficiency, to support efforts at true education reform and to promote the teaching profession.

Look at the facts and not the hearsay or mischaracterizations.

---

by: Helios @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 21:42:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know this is NJ and not NYC (0.00 / 0)

but how can a union defend the NY "rubber rooms" where teachers can sit for years and get paid for doing nothing?

Are you telling me that protecting the worst teachers in NYC is a better use of limited funds than spending it on the teachers who ARE teaching and the school programs?

---

by: Bardy @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:50:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here we go again... (4.00 / 2)

Why are we so quick to embrace right-wing spin that uses outrageous examples to justify dismantling progressive reforms like tenure (as you allude to here)?

Think about welfare reform: according to the right wing, all welfare recipients were single moms living high off the hog with 15 kids and wearing designer jeans. So, the right uses it as a justification to end welfare.

Are there abuses in any system? Sure. Should that be an excuse to take away hard earned rights that protect people, the vast majority of which are doing their jobs admirably? I disagree.

Tenure is not an iron-clad guaranee of a job for life. There are post-tenure reviews and evaluations and any district is free to bring a tenure case against a teacher they believe is not fulfilling his/her obligations. The so-called "rubber rooms", where NYC dumps tenured teachers that administrators believe should not be in the classroom is more a result of laziness and ineptitude on the part of the NYC administration, who for some reason find it easier to keep paying people than document why these teachers should be let go and pursue those cases.

---

by: Helios @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 10:15:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Since I'm in the education biz (4.00 / 2)

I have to say that I support the theory of merit pay.  However, the practice of merit pay leaves me feeling a bit queezy.  Exactly how do we determine which teachers are actually doing a better job than someone else?  It's the million dollar question that every other part of the questions hinges upon.

Mr. Manahan scoffs at the idea that a single test score would be utilized.  So...multiple test scores?  Student grades?  Honestly, what do we use?

We can't even agree on what a student should know to be passed on to the next grade.  Now we're supposed to determine which teachers help student get to these undefined goals more than other teachers?

Now add into the mix the indisputable problem that some schools are not adequately stocked with learning materials.  Add into the mix that a community where the majority of parents have graduate degrees is going to be a very different environment than a community where the majority of parents have a high school education.  Teachers do not control this...how would a merit system deal with this fairly?

I think it is also true that teachers do get a decent paycheck in this state (which isn't true in many other places).  Are they overpaid?  Well, if so, then it is the fault of the school boards, which are elected by the people, who negotiate contracts with the teachers.  

Beyond that, the "horror" stories we have heard that are used to illustrate how overpaid educators are generally includes statistics from administrators, as well.  New Jersey's 566 school districts pay super-intendants more than $56 million a year.  I'm not saying a school can get by without a decent administration, but I don't think we need to have as many as all that.  

There is a real need for pension and benefit reform.  Perhaps secondary and elementary education need a single state-wide agency to deal with negotiations on the matter, such as higher education uses.  Perhaps not.  But so long as some school districts do not feel the full cost of their decisions, they'll push them off on others and then donor schools have to compete on unfair territory while picking up someone else's costs.  

I also have to wonder at the wisdom of tenure in primary and secondary education.  In higher education, the purpose of tenure is that it allows for the potential to criticize the administration without fear of reprisal.  But, again, even as I believe tenure needs reform, I don't think it is wise to simply do away with it all together.

I guess I'll stop now, because if I don't, this will be a manifesto.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 21:21:56 PM UTC

So if the performance metrics (0.00 / 0)

are not PERFECT, we shouldn't use a merit system?  Somehow, most companies in this country have a performance appraisal process - usually one that combines measurable performance and subjective evaluation.  From this, companies determine their raises and bonuses.  That system isn't perfect either - but it is still better than simply saying everybody gets a flat 3%.

I'd be willing to venture a bet that if I asked my children's school principal who the best 5 and worst 5 teachers in his school are - he'd be able to answer it without a struggle.  Why not reward those top 5.

---

by: Bardy @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:48:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Flat 3% (4.00 / 1)

I'm not sure where you're getting this. Not all teachers get a flat 3% or whatever. More senior teachers, in fact, bump up against caps.

---

by: Alex @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 12:41:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey.... (0.00 / 0)

as long as we are going back and forth on this... I have a real question...

Is it true that when the union negotiates for a 4.5% average wage increase, (Ie. last years total salary expense increased by 4.5%)... is it true that the union leadership determines how that increase is distributed?

Is the disctrict allowed any input?

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 16:33:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clarification (4.00 / 1)

The total amount of the wage bill would increase by whatever x%, but the increase is applied to the salary guide that is negotiated between the union and the employer. Individual pay is determined by what range and step you are on the salary guide (usually based on education level and years on the job). Some people might get greater than x% and others less. Teachers on the top step usually get a very small increase (less than 1%).

The salary guide is part of the contract, so of course the district has input and must to agree to it as with everything else.

Does that help?

---

by: Helios @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 19:32:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not always (4.00 / 1)

In Newark, when we get a new contract the where the big jumps in the step scale change from contract to contract.

---

by: Dvd Avins @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 00:03:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's in the contract (4.00 / 1)

Theoretically, the district has at least as much say as the union. But sometimes the district is a lot more concerned with the total amount than how it gets distributed and leaves that part of the contract language to the union.

---

by: Dvd Avins @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 00:01:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

that's what I was hoping for... (0.00 / 0)

that's really the only thing that make sense...

Someone on 101.5 (who did sound informed) didn't make the link between the contract and the raise and made it sound like the union leadership got to spend the money as they saw fit...

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 00:56:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Most companies doen't have elected bosses (4.00 / 1)

The real purpose behind tenure, seldom thought about now but a big issue until we had tenure protection, is the avoidance of teachers being retained on the basis of electioneering for school board candidates. IMO, if we do away with tenure, we have to Hatch all teachers, which would be a shame.

---

by: Dvd Avins @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 00:06:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh and as I should have said (4.00 / 1)

In conjunction with what I just said: It's easy for administrators to assign students to teachers that will make particular teachers look good or bad. That happens a little now and would happen a lot more with merit pay. Take away tenure and add merit pay at the same time and you bring back Boss Hague.

---

by: Dvd Avins @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 00:09:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

On the other hand (0.00 / 0)

we can maintain the status quo and never attempt anything that represents change.  Just keep pouring more money/student into the system for no tangible improvement in the end result.

How do we explain the performance gap (on average - not an absolute) between charters and ordinary public schools in NYC?

---

by: Bardy @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 03:40:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Charters are selective (4.00 / 1)

When you require parent involvement and you can expel the most troublesome students, you will have better averages.

I'm not against change per se. I just wish the changes proposed weren't a combination of change for change sake along with grinding someone's axe. When you actually look at most any currently fashionable reforms, I think they do far more harm than good. Starting with the emphasis standardized tests. Those measure a particular way of displaying a substantial fraction of what students should be learning. But that method of performance is not applicable to anything other than the tests themselves and there are many skills that are not measured at all.

---

by: Dvd Avins @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 03:58:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Selection bias (4.00 / 1)

How do we explain the performance gap (on average - not an absolute) between charters and ordinary public schools in NYC?

One gets to cherry pick the kids they'll teach, the other is open to all students and offers services to everyone.

---

by: Alex @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 12:24:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

AFT Convention (0.00 / 0)

/joke

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 22:25:37 PM UTC

You forgot... (4.00 / 1)

to show us eating the little children :-)

---

by: Helios @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 01:01:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Damn (0.00 / 0)

it's my teachers' fault!

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 01:10:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

When that idiot Reagan took over CA schools with his anti-tax (4.00 / 3)

crap, they were number one in the nation.

They are currently number 46 in the nation.

Right now NJ is number 4.

We have, of course, a Republican governor, and if there is one thing Republicans hate, it's an educated electorate.

Look for an Alabama kind of rating here.

---

by: NNadir @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 03:13:52 AM UTC

We've seen it before (4.00 / 1)

It's a story that keeps repeating itself: a Republican executive full of bluster combined with a cowed and feckless Democratic legislative caucus results in bills that hurt the middle class, undercut the provision of public goods, shifts the balance of economic power towards the wealthy, while not addressing fundamental problems.

---

by: Alex @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 12:39:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Education leads to people (0.00 / 0)

thinking for themselves. People who think for themselves are less likely to blindly follow a leader. (Of either party)

---

by: RustyBuckets @ Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:41:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I remember a story several years ago on one of the Philly TV stations (4.00 / 3)

about a teachers strike in NJ.  They were interviewing a mom who was the parent of one of the affected children who summed up the attitude toward teachers in a nutshell.  She said, "If the school board gives those teacher's everything they want they will be..be..be.. making as much as my husband"  In the minds of many people, teaching will always be a subordinate semi-profession and not a real job equal to the types of jobs that their "husbands" have and they don't really deserve to be treated as people with a real professional position in society.  When I hear about people decrying the so-called "arrogance" of the NJEA, I often think of that woman and try to imagine the strong positions that have to be taken by teacher's unions to overcome the second class societal status that a significant segment of the population feels they deserve.  

---

by: FormerBureaucrat @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 18:23:27 PM UTC

Right. (4.00 / 3)

Because for a long time teachers were "supposed to be" women, and they should take what we give them and shut up.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 18:31:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And of course... (4.00 / 1)

we are forbidden from striking now and apparently can have our collective bargaining agreements opened up and revised without our participation or consent.

I do think that's a great observation FormerBureaucrat. Teaching, as a profession, is not really taken as seriously as others, despite the fact that it requires a great deal of rigor to enter the profession and a very strong skill set.

---

by: Helios @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 19:36:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly what I see (4.00 / 1)

I talk often about teaching with my coworkers in the Fortune 500 corporate empire where I work. Most of these colleagues of mine, who are quick to repeat the distortions we've seen in the press and here, make up to twice as much as most of the teachers I know while working half the hours and not having to face the many requirements and restrictions teachers face. After clarifying all this, I often ask my coworkers if they still think teaching is so attractive. They always answer no.

---

by: Alex @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 21:17:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly (4.00 / 1)

if teaching is such a sweet deal, why are we still not able to find enough teachers?  Why isn't there a waiting list for people leaving other professions to get in on the easy money?

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 22:55:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know a few... (0.00 / 0)

that can't find jobs. But i think that is more due to they are picky with which districts they would work in...

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 18:21:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well (4.00 / 1)

that would lead one to believe that, just maybe, it isn't such a cushy job across the board.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 00:40:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]