It's hard not to appreciate the reasons why teachers today are unionized. The profession was grossly underpaid for years and teachers were bullied by local school boards. My mother used to tell me how she was the first woman teacher at Lake Quinault in Washington State to be allowed to keep her job after getting married.
But that was in the 1930's and this is now. The problems are different. It is no longer true that highly intelligent women are closed out of so many professions that teaching may be the only available career choice. It is no longer true that skill in mathematics creates few opportunities in the private sector.
The competition for talent is tremendous and the public deserves compensation plans that attract good teachers and which retain the best of them. This doesn't happen. Education graduates do not tend to be top students and the ones who are still teaching after five years tend to be weaker than the ones who give up it up.
It's not hard to see why. The strategy flies in the face of everything that the private sector has learned about recruitment and motivation. No public school administrator in Oregon is allowed to offer more for a candidate with talent than another offering mediocrity. Nothing can be done to compensate a teacher for excellent performance. Almost nothing can be done to remove a teacher for substandard performance. Truly awful performance usually isn't enough; it has to involve something illegal.
The competition for talent varies from specialty to specialty but schools are forbidden by their union contracts from recognizing this simple fact. There is no minimum standard of competence. To be a teacher, you merely complete enough classes without actually failing. Really learning the material is not required. Oregon requires a person to pass a state examination before becoming a hairdresser, but you can teach algebra with nothing but a transcript.
Most of these problems are caused by local teacher contracts. It's going to be nearly impossible to effect reform district by district. It may not be possible at the state level either, but the prospects there are a lot better.
But that was in the 1930's and this is now. The problems are different. It is no longer true that highly intelligent women are closed out of so many professions that teaching may be the only available career choice. It is no longer true that skill in mathematics creates few opportunities in the private sector.
The competition for talent is tremendous and the public deserves compensation plans that attract good teachers and which retain the best of them. This doesn't happen. Education graduates do not tend to be top students and the ones who are still teaching after five years tend to be weaker than the ones who give up it up.
It's not hard to see why. The strategy flies in the face of everything that the private sector has learned about recruitment and motivation. No public school administrator in Oregon is allowed to offer more for a candidate with talent than another offering mediocrity. Nothing can be done to compensate a teacher for excellent performance. Almost nothing can be done to remove a teacher for substandard performance. Truly awful performance usually isn't enough; it has to involve something illegal.
The competition for talent varies from specialty to specialty but schools are forbidden by their union contracts from recognizing this simple fact. There is no minimum standard of competence. To be a teacher, you merely complete enough classes without actually failing. Really learning the material is not required. Oregon requires a person to pass a state examination before becoming a hairdresser, but you can teach algebra with nothing but a transcript.
Most of these problems are caused by local teacher contracts. It's going to be nearly impossible to effect reform district by district. It may not be possible at the state level either, but the prospects there are a lot better.
posted by Rob Spooner at 8:23 AM
0 comments
