Ping: All teachers or those going to school to be a teacher

[BuffaloHuskey]

First off, I am not a teacher, nor do I have much interest in becoming a teacher. What I want to know is if you feel the teacher's unions are bringing down the quality of educators? I ask this because I feel that in a professional environment such as education, I feel that it is not really necessary to have a union. Most states require teachers to have a Masters degree to teach, so it is reasonable that most teachers are "fairly" well educated. What other professions which require a bachelors degree or masters degree have unions. I would think that it would be very discouraging to not be compensated or recognized for the hard work that is put in, while others snooze on their job. I don't care what anyone says, every one is a little bit competitive with their co-workers and likes to be recognized for it. I know most teachers do not get into it for the paycheck, but don't you think you should get more comp for putting in more effort. Why let the old farts who typically are the union reps get away with not putting in the effort you do but yet get more comp. Why would you not want a career structure like the rest of your educated professional peers? Someone please help me understand this.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by BuffaloHuskey

First off, I am not a teacher, nor do I have much interest in becoming a teacher. What I want to know is if you feel the teacher's unions are bringing down the quality of educators? I ask this because I feel that in a professional environment such as education, I feel that it is not really necessary to have a union. Most states require teachers to have a Masters degree to teach, so it is reasonable that most teachers are "fairly" well educated. What other professions which require a bachelors degree or masters degree have unions. I would think that it would be very discouraging to not be compensated or recognized for the hard work that is put in, while others snooze on their job. I don't care what anyone says, every one is a little bit competitive with their co-workers and likes to be recognized for it. I know most teachers do not get into it for the paycheck, but don't you think you should get more comp for putting in more effort. Why let the old farts who typically are the union reps get away with not putting in the effort you do but yet get more comp. Why would you not want a career structure like the rest of your educated professional peers? Someone please help me understand this.

I am a teacher, agree with everything you posted, and am not pro-union at all. I look at it sort of like a fraternity. The older teachers figure they have put 20+ years into the system so why change it when they are now getting the spoils. (Similiar to fraternties where the pledges life sucks but I had to do it sort of mentality) I do however think that you give local school boards (who are very political) a little too much credit about how they would fairly compensate teachers. Without a union, the public could elect officials who promise to keep costs at a minimum regardless of how well their schools are performing. (Especially in districts where most of the voting public doesn't have any kids in the schools) These districts may go to shit very fast. And you can counter that people would care about property values, but I think you give the general public far too much long term credit in thinking that way. But a simple answer to your question is that most of the really good teachers join unions more out of pressure than belief in the union itself.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by BuffaloHuskey

First off, I am not a teacher, nor do I have much interest in becoming a teacher. What I want to know is if you feel the teacher's unions are bringing down the quality of educators?

yep

also...

-Anna Kournikova is hot
-Wayne Gretzky was a good hockey player
-David Ortiz is clutch
-water is wet

[JW]

Originally Posted by BuffaloHuskey

First off, I am not a teacher, nor do I have much interest in becoming a teacher. What I want to know is if you feel the teacher's unions are bringing down the quality of educators? I ask this because I feel that in a professional environment such as education, I feel that it is not really necessary to have a union. Most states require teachers to have a Masters degree to teach, so it is reasonable that most teachers are "fairly" well educated. What other professions which require a bachelors degree or masters degree have unions. I would think that it would be very discouraging to not be compensated or recognized for the hard work that is put in, while others snooze on their job. I don't care what anyone says, every one is a little bit competitive with their co-workers and likes to be recognized for it. I know most teachers do not get into it for the paycheck, but don't you think you should get more comp for putting in more effort. Why let the old farts who typically are the union reps get away with not putting in the effort you do but yet get more comp. Why would you not want a career structure like the rest of your educated professional peers? Someone please help me understand this.

I've been a teacher for some time and agree in general. One thing to remember is that teacher unions are stronger in some states than in others, and even within states some districts will have strong unions and others will not. I believe one of the biggest problems with education unions, particularly the NEA, is its support of poor educational theories and practices.

[Godzilla Blitz]

Been teaching in high schools in the mornings for a number of years now. I'm both pro- and anti-union.

Personally, I'd like to see some form of merit-pay to get at some of the issues you mention. However, I've yet to see someone come up with a simple merit-based salary model that is fair. Merit-based pay in education opens up a huge argument over what is a "quality teacher", and setting up an understandable, straightforward system that works is extraordinarily difficult.

[wishbone]

I support good unions in any industry. I don't know what the breakdown of good to bad unions is but good unions are a win-win for people in general.

A good union should not:
- protect every employee from being let go but should prevent management from letting go of people for the wrong reasons
- have high overhead/administrative costs
- have career leadership
- require members to pay exorbitant dues
- abandon members during a strike

There a lot of other things but these are the ones that I have remembered the most from various union activity around here.

[BuffaloHuskey]

Originally Posted by Godzilla Blitz

Personally, I'd like to see some form of merit-pay to get at some of the issues you mention. However, I've yet to see someone come up with a simple merit-based salary model that is fair. Merit-based pay in education opens up a huge argument over what is a "quality teacher", and setting up an understandable, straightforward system that works is extraordinarily difficult.

Shouldn't a principal/vice principal be able to evaluate his teachers just like when they get evaluated to determine if they are going to grant the person tenure. I understand that it is not exactly apples to apples, but I get evaluated semi-annually by my superiors and my comp is based on my evaluation, I would think they could do the same thing at a school.