Capt. Al Haynes sorta OT.

Margy Natalie wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:


One other big problem is the non-meritocracy of government/school systems.
Pay is based on years of service and so-called education credits. In the
"real" world pay is based on performance, merit, etc.

Yes, that is my biggest beef with the teaching system at present. And
the fact that it is unionized. I don't believe that "professional" and
"union" go together, but then many pilots are union also...



I'm in a "right to work" State so Union doesn't mean anything. The real reason
teachers don't have a merit system is they discovered it was detrimental to the
students. Right now if I write a lesson that really clicks and works great I
make copies and give it to all the other teachers. We help each other out to
give the best to our kids. Under merit pay (which many districts had for a
while) teachers would keep their best lessons to themselves so they could be in
the top 5% to get the raise. It didn't work. Another problem is how to score
teachers to rank them.

We have the same problem in private industry, but there are ways to
mitigate it and I still believe that pay for performance is critical to
achieving high performance. You could have merit pay based on the
performance of an entire grade or school (somewhat analagous to profit
sharing at a corporation). You can also base merit pay and promotions
on how much a teacher helps and mentors other teachers. This is an
explicit promotion requirement for technical professionals at my
company. If you are keeping the goods to yourself, you'll not get
promoted. No system is perfect, but I've worked in both environments,
and I'll take a merit/performance based compensation system any day.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote

You could have merit pay based on the
performance of an entire grade or school (somewhat analagous to profit
sharing at a corporation).

Matt

So you want to base teacher performance on student achievement? What is the
incentive for the students to pay attention to what is being taught, learn,
and do well on the test? There is none, for most students, at present.
They are only there because the law says they must be there.

Have you ever watched some students take a standardized test, when there is
nothing in it for them? They go A,B,C,D,A,B,C,D. Don't laugh, I have seen
it, more than a few times. This is how you want merit pay to work? I don't
think so.

I welcome good answers to the problem. Problem is, no one seems to have
any.
--
Jim in NC

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
We have the same problem in private industry, but there are ways to
mitigate it and I still believe that pay for performance is critical to
achieving high performance. You could have merit pay based on the
performance of an entire grade or school (somewhat analagous to profit
sharing at a corporation). You can also base merit pay and promotions
on how much a teacher helps and mentors other teachers. This is an
explicit promotion requirement for technical professionals at my
company. If you are keeping the goods to yourself, you'll not get
promoted. No system is perfect, but I've worked in both environments,
and I'll take a merit/performance based compensation system any day.

Correct; no system is perfect; OTOH, a system that has no incentives, or
worse, negative incentive, is doomed to failure. Public schools are a prime
example of negative incentives.

Richard Hertz wrote:

Most teachers I know are out the door long before then.

Also, most other salaried professionals work longer hours than teachers for
no extra pay either, so the gripes about extra take-home work falls on
uncaring ears.

The point is that there are a lot of bitter conservatives who seems to
thikn that teachers have some kind of sweetheart deal, and they often
cite "170 days a week, 6 hours a day." Margy's point is that teachers
work OT and extra time just like everyone else, and their deal is not as
sweet as some would portray it.

I oppose all those government gravy pensions. (Military/combat service
excluded)

Government pensions are good because government work pays less. The
good pensions are the compensation for working for less.

My company used to be like that too -- we were paid below market rates
but the generous pension was held out as an incentive. It's no
different -- well it is because over the last five years the company has
gutted the pension plan but you get the idea.


One other big problem is the non-meritocracy of government/school systems.
Pay is based on years of service and so-called education credits. In the
"real" world pay is based on performance, merit, etc.

uh-oh, better call the airlines.

"TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message
...

they often cite "170 days a week..."

Damn, I thought I did a lot of overtime.

Paul

Paul Sengupta wrote:

"TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message
...


they often cite "170 days a week..."


Damn, I thought I did a lot of overtime.


YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT !!

"TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message
...
Paul Sengupta wrote:

"TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message
...


they often cite "170 days a week..."

Even that is not accurate, when stated correctly. In NC, we have students
for 180 days, with 20 more added for planning and training.
--
Jim in NC--
Jim in NC

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
Richard Hertz wrote:

Most teachers I know are out the door long before then.

Also, most other salaried professionals work longer hours than
teachers for
no extra pay either, so the gripes about extra take-home work falls on
uncaring ears.


The point is that there are a lot of bitter conservatives who seems to
thikn that teachers have some kind of sweetheart deal, and they often
cite "170 days a week, 6 hours a day." Margy's point is that teachers
work OT and extra time just like everyone else, and their deal is not as
sweet as some would portray it.

That's a dumb statement. I am quite conservative (NRA Life member no
less), am I am one of the folks defending teachers here ... except for
the union/tenure aspect. I don't agree with that.


Matt

Government pensions are good because government work pays less. The
good pensions are the compensation for working for less.

Dunno what government jobs YOU are looking at -- but around here, the
Gubmint jobs pay substantially MORE than their private sector equivalents.

Just one example: A secretary at the University of Iowa can easily clear
$40K per year -- AND have the best health care and retirement I've ever
seen, anywhere.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Government pensions are good because government work pays less. The
good pensions are the compensation for working for less.


Dunno what government jobs YOU are looking at -- but around here, the
Gubmint jobs pay substantially MORE than their private sector equivalents.

Just one example: A secretary at the University of Iowa can easily clear
$40K per year -- AND have the best health care and retirement I've ever
seen, anywhere.

Well around here software engineers for the state don't get squat
compared to private industry. Neither do engineers working at any
level of government, actually.