There are some good ideas on how to reform schools in the U.S. Schools definitely need to be reformed. One of the major problems with schools is the teachers union. The teachers union promotes longevity over quality. This is obviously why teachers get paid based mostly on number of years of service.
I agree with Jack Welch when he said last week, "The three most powerful unions in the U.S. are the Airlines, Autos, and Teachers. The worst industries in the country are the Airlines, Autos, and Schools." Coincidence, I think not. For example, he was saying when a school in the U.S. doesn't have a math teacher what do they do? They move an English teacher to Math, instead of doing what a normal business would do, in which it would pay more for Math teachers in order to attract qualified candidates. Schools need to be run more like businesses than the government. Maybe this would make U.S. schools more competitive. The U.S. spends near the top (in the top 3) per student on education, but has some of the worst test scores among developed countries. Students in the U.S. are at the top of the list in 4th grade, but near the bottom of the list in 10th grade. Why? Because the education system in this country is broken. Break the union and reform schools. Pay based on competence, not years of service.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
You're a bit of a broken record when it comes to unions aren't you? As someone who was raised by two public schoolteachers I can tell you that I would not have been able to attend the university I did were it not for the NEA fighting for teacher wages. Were teachers not allowed to unionize they would have still been making $13,000 a year like they were in the 70's.
On the other hand, my parents will be the first to tell you that they are frustrated that poor teachers in their own districts can't be fired b/c they are protected by the union. It makes all good teachers look bad and they don't like it.
But how would you propose schools measure teacher performance? Tests administered for 'No Child Left Behind' and others have teachers simply scrambling to teach the test. That is no way to promote independent thinking or learning. We've all taken tests we memorized facts for and forgot the next day. Is that what we want? A generation of students who can memorize facts for a test and forget it the next day?
Another positive to consider about teachers being protected by unions is they are allowed to teach without worrying about school politics, etc. As an example: my dad, has won teacher of the year in his building (voted by the students) over a dozen times and was also recognized as a teacher of the year for our side of Washington State, yet he doesn't get along with his Vice Principal. Were it up to the VP my dad would have been gone long ago at a great cost to his students and our community. And why? Because his boss is jealous of my dad's teaching ability and threatened by his popularity with the students. Without the NEA it's easier for administrators to wield an iron fist over their staff. If those same administrators happen to be weak and easily threatened leaders you will see a monumental decline it our public school system.
I disagree with your $13,000 a year comment. Perhaps you know how free markets work? If $13,000 is not enough for a teacher then I believe intelligent people will get other jobs. You would have no teachers left and you would have to pay higher wages. It is simply supply and demand. So you are wrong on this point.
Union workers have destroyed many companies and industries over the years. If unions were not formed, the workers would be more productive (there are many academic studies to confirm this) and be paid higher wages. The problem is sub-par workers are protected by the union and bring productivity of the group down. This is the same with the school system.
For example, Wal-mart is often accused of paying below market wages. Well the people who work at Wal-mart are not slaves, they can leave whenever they would like because they are at-will employees. So if they are so qualified they can go get another job. The problem is that most of these people think they should be paid higher wages, yet they cannot get anyone to pay them higher wages because they do not bring a skill-set to the table that demands higher wages. I can tell you that my current employer would not pay me my wage if they could replace my skill-set at 50% of the cost.
It would be too bad for the community if the Vice Principal fired your dad, but your dad could get a job at another school. If he is such a superior teacher then he would want this type of system because he would be paid more than his peers, which would be more than he makes now. I am assuming it is a free market system. The set back of the Vice Principal should be short-term because to my knowledge all schools have school boards who are elected to watch over the system. If the board is doing its job, this VP would be gone. Again, this is how the free market works.
Perhaps you can explain to me the reason why private schools get superior results (I assume you will agree, but again there are many academic papers that I believe prove this point) while paying their teachers less than public schools? Don't give me this BS that they have brighter, more driven students because many of these schools have the kid from K-12, so this argument doesn't hold water. Part of creating success is motivation and right now teachers have no reason to motivate their students.
I agree with you that there are some good teachers in public schools. I am a product of the public education system, but I can tell you that I had more teachers that should not have been teaching than teachers that should have been teaching.
In addition, I am not saying it is the right way but your argument about teaching to the test is incorrect because all teachers teach to the test to some extent. I am sure this was the case at the fine University you attended!
The spirit of this reform should not be to punish teachers or unions, rather it should be to reward high performing teachers which will then create more high performing teachers by way of incentive.
Part of this problem and part of the problem with teacher salaries (being so low in the 70s) is that government intervention during the LBJ era essentially pulled the rug out from private education alternatives such as the Catholic school system which used to be affordable to the masses. The intention may have been to strengthen the public schools but it did the reverse except in affluent areas. The public school system at large needs competition, which will breed higher performance from administrators and teachers alike and then compensation can be rewarded to those high performers. Studies have shown this to be effective.
Bulldog may sound like a broken record about unions, but it's time someone started listening. Bulldog, you are right.
It is proven that throwing money at the school system does not work so what is the next best thing to do? Barack Obama had it right at the 3rd debate - parents need to turn off the TV and work with their kids. Well, we know that isn't going to happen for the most part since both mommy and daddy have the excuse that they are exhausted when they get home from work, so now what? Recruit the best high school kids and explain the benefits of being a teacher. I wish someone would have sold me on making a decent salary working 3/4 of the week and 9 months per year and then retire after 30 years with full benefits and a phenomenal pension. That's a pretty good gig if you ask any intelligent individual. I think I’ll quit my job and do that. The fallacy that teachers do not make enough money, when compared to the rest of the working world, is exactly that – a fallacy. Why don’t more elite students pursue teaching?
Post a Comment