I agree with you almost completely. Teachers should absolutely be able to negotiate a contract based on their merit, etc... and I agree that in the downtimes they shouldn't be forced to take less money, etc... That happens rarely and the only time I ever really hear about it is from a major union settlement (i.e. UAW).
One thing I do believe is that if the demand is gone completely (or if the teacher is incompetent) you should be able to fire them and not just be forced to reassign them (without 2-3 years of paperwork... seriously). Now in all fairness most normal and sane employers will do their best to try and "repurpose" an employee before being forced to let them go but I don't like the fact that the union, once again, complete hamstrings the employer.
Thanks for the discussion. It's an interesting topic and fortunately I think it will have to be addressed soon, along with the entire educational problem. I'm hoping and working to make it better for my kids, I know that.
I think you are missing a key point of my argument. You are confusing "need" with "worth", monetarily speaking. Of course we "need" PE teachers, I just question their "worth" compared to other fields. Also, I am not advocating firing them and did not say that. I just really struggle with the fact that teachers cannot get paid according to their quality since the union will not allow that. It makes no sense to me.
I literally have at least 50% of my closest friends and family who are either teachers or administrators. Some are very good at their jobs and some literally do it so they can coach and have their summers off. So, take a guess how the "good" teachers feel about those who just want to have their summers off but still make the same amount of money as they do. Not very good. It really starts to weigh in on why they are working so hard. There are no incentives or decentives (is that a word?).
Why do economic principles apply to the "under supply" problem with math and science teachers but not to the "over supply" of other types of teachers?
Please explain why the NEA not allowing teachers to be paid differently according to their field is a bad thing. What that logic tells me is that all teachers are the same except for years experience and educational experience (math, science, PE, health... all interchangeable). Doesn't that make the case for them being looked at like "milk bottles"? Unfortunately I think the NEA is a major problem with our education system.
Just because I don't agree with your logic doesn't mean my attitude is "destructive". I also never said "don't" once in my post. You seem to have inferred that somehow.
You are correct... I did not offer a solution nor do I think I can. I do believe that if you want better, more qualified math and science teachers you must pay more or provide other incentives to attract them. That's just a fact of the capitalistic marketplace. I have no problem with that but you must then be able to apply the same principles to the other side of the coin otherwise it doesn't work.
Honest question. Why is it wrong to pay a math teacher teaching AP Calculus more money than a PE teacher teaching badminton if they both have the same years of experience and years of education?
If there's a supply problem with math and science teachers then economics would say pay more and the supply should increase over time. What about the over supply then of some types of teachers (i.e. PE teachers)? Do we get to apply the same logic to that field and pay them less? No, because the NEA (teachers union) won't let us. The NEA essentially says that a teacher is a teacher is a teacher... no matter if one is an AP Physics teacher and the other teaches general PE.
Honestly, I don't know of many professional careers that don't require us to "work" after work. I'm in the IT field and my wife is a HS math teacher. She currently makes as much money yearly as I do with a 9 month contract. She does work at home just like the rest of us do too, but from mid-June to late August there's not much going on with lesson planning.
Also, I know plenty of teachers who don't bring work home with them. Most are PE teachers. Seriously, if we want to raise the pay for math & science teachers just take it from the teachers who roll out the volleyballs 3-4 times a day and blow a whistle. PE in school is generally pathetic anymore and in it's current state could be taught (supervised) by a $9 hr temp employee.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you almost completely. Teachers should absolutely be able to negotiate a contract based on their merit, etc... and I agree that in the downtimes they shouldn't be forced to take less money, etc... That happens rarely and the only time I ever really hear about it is from a major union settlement (i.e. UAW).
One thing I do believe is that if the demand is gone completely (or if the teacher is incompetent) you should be able to fire them and not just be forced to reassign them (without 2-3 years of paperwork... seriously). Now in all fairness most normal and sane employers will do their best to try and "repurpose" an employee before being forced to let them go but I don't like the fact that the union, once again, complete hamstrings the employer.
Thanks for the discussion. It's an interesting topic and fortunately I think it will have to be addressed soon, along with the entire educational problem. I'm hoping and working to make it better for my kids, I know that.
I think you are missing a key point of my argument. You are confusing "need" with "worth", monetarily speaking. Of course we "need" PE teachers, I just question their "worth" compared to other fields. Also, I am not advocating firing them and did not say that. I just really struggle with the fact that teachers cannot get paid according to their quality since the union will not allow that. It makes no sense to me.
I literally have at least 50% of my closest friends and family who are either teachers or administrators. Some are very good at their jobs and some literally do it so they can coach and have their summers off. So, take a guess how the "good" teachers feel about those who just want to have their summers off but still make the same amount of money as they do. Not very good. It really starts to weigh in on why they are working so hard. There are no incentives or decentives (is that a word?).
Why do economic principles apply to the "under supply" problem with math and science teachers but not to the "over supply" of other types of teachers?
Please explain why the NEA not allowing teachers to be paid differently according to their field is a bad thing. What that logic tells me is that all teachers are the same except for years experience and educational experience (math, science, PE, health... all interchangeable). Doesn't that make the case for them being looked at like "milk bottles"? Unfortunately I think the NEA is a major problem with our education system.
Just because I don't agree with your logic doesn't mean my attitude is "destructive". I also never said "don't" once in my post. You seem to have inferred that somehow.
You are correct... I did not offer a solution nor do I think I can. I do believe that if you want better, more qualified math and science teachers you must pay more or provide other incentives to attract them. That's just a fact of the capitalistic marketplace. I have no problem with that but you must then be able to apply the same principles to the other side of the coin otherwise it doesn't work.
Honest question. Why is it wrong to pay a math teacher teaching AP Calculus more money than a PE teacher teaching badminton if they both have the same years of experience and years of education?
If there's a supply problem with math and science teachers then economics would say pay more and the supply should increase over time. What about the over supply then of some types of teachers (i.e. PE teachers)? Do we get to apply the same logic to that field and pay them less? No, because the NEA (teachers union) won't let us. The NEA essentially says that a teacher is a teacher is a teacher... no matter if one is an AP Physics teacher and the other teaches general PE.
Honestly, I don't know of many professional careers that don't require us to "work" after work. I'm in the IT field and my wife is a HS math teacher. She currently makes as much money yearly as I do with a 9 month contract. She does work at home just like the rest of us do too, but from mid-June to late August there's not much going on with lesson planning.
Also, I know plenty of teachers who don't bring work home with them. Most are PE teachers. Seriously, if we want to raise the pay for math & science teachers just take it from the teachers who roll out the volleyballs 3-4 times a day and blow a whistle. PE in school is generally pathetic anymore and in it's current state could be taught (supervised) by a $9 hr temp employee.