7 ms·

I would be a lot more sympathetic to teachers if their pay system wasn't seniority based, or if it wasn't so hard to fire teachers.

by davatk 15y ago

BudVVeezer 15y ago
Teachers generally have yearly contracts. It's not hard to fire them.
- lsiclait 15y ago
  false. in the united states, as a result of the teachers' unions, it is very difficult to fire a teacher. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/05/why-we-must-fire-bad-teachers.html http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/05/why-we-must-fire-bad-teac...
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    You're both half-right. due to the state and county segmentation of education, union influence and educational job security varies widely. In places like New York, unions are very powerful and dismissals are difficult. In some places, it's far easier. Likewise, some places have very high academic standards, and in other places creationism is considered a valid element in science currricula. Academic quality is not strongly correlated to unions' bargaining ability, as far as I can tell.
Vivtek 15y ago
Dude, their pay system is seniority based because otherwise they'd never get a raise at all.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Eliezer 15y ago
...neither of the problems you cite is actually any individual teacher's fault.
- chc 15y ago
  I don't think that's relevant to what he's saying. He appears to be claiming that teachers have a pretty sweet deal already, such that any hardships they encounter are already balanced by the perks.
earl 15y ago
But they essentially have to be. First, teachers outside of pretty narrow bounds will never be more productive. It takes one teacher to teach 20 students. In 10 years it will take one teacher to teach 20 students. Thus there is no productivity growth while, if you want people to be teachers, you have to eventually pay them more. So assume you don't have a hard time firing teachers; I just found a cute way to save a whole lot of money! Fire everybody with more than 10 years experience, ie all your high salaried employees. Second, I don't think you'll possibly get good employees without strong unionization. Who would be stupid enough to teach without a union contract? Real people want to do things like own homes, put down roots, start families, and have some job security; that's enormously risky in an area with monopsony employer(s). I'm a software engineer, so there are dozens to thousands of employers in reasonably sized cities, whereas there are typically only one public school district and perhaps a handful of private schools. That's a lot more risk for the employee, since if I have a personality conflict with my boss, there are plenty of other buyers of software engineering. What happens to a teacher if he or she has a conflict with his or her principal? It's not like there are tons of employers around, and if the answer is that employee is just sol, don't expect smart hardworking people with choices to become teachers.
- natrius 15y ago
  For some time, I've lamented the negative effects that the government's effective monopoly over primary education has had on our system. Eliminating choice eliminates the natural incentive to improve that results from consumers choosing better alternatives. I found the monopsony problem you've pointed out on the employment end of the system quite insightful. Entering an industry with a limited number of employers generally isn't a great idea. However, there's a simpler solution to the problem than more unionization, which in practice requires non-voluntary membership to be effective. I think we'd all be better off if the government continued to fund education for those who can't afford it, but stopped actually running the schools themselves. I don't understand why voucher proposals find such limited support.
  - yequalsx 15y ago
    Who is going to build a school in a poor neighborhood then? Who is going to transport the child to the good school? When the slots to the best schools are filled by children of wealthy parents then what? We would end up with a worse two-tiered system than what we have now.
caterping 15y ago
> or if it wasn't so hard to fire teachers. It takes a few years to get tenure. Also, note that teachers sign an employment contract for each year they teach. This means that the administration has 3 chances to simply not renew a new teacher's contract if they don't like them. So, it's only difficult to fire teachers after you've had them working for you for a few years. And even then, the district can make your life miserable without firing you. They can have someone from the central office sit in and observe you every day. They can give you a lousy schedule, give you too many preps, move you between crummy rooms, or a number of other things to get you to leave.

I would be a lot more sympathetic to teachers if their pay system wasn't seniority based, or if it wasn't so hard to fire teachers.

by davatk 15y ago

I would be a lot more sympathetic to teachers if their pay system wasn't seniority based, or if it wasn't so hard to fire teachers.

BudVVeezer 15y ago

Teachers generally have yearly contracts. It's not hard to fire them.

lsiclait 15y ago
false. in the united states, as a result of the teachers' unions, it is very difficult to fire a teacher. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/05/why-we-must-fire-bad-teachers.html http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/05/why-we-must-fire-bad-teac...
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  You're both half-right. due to the state and county segmentation of education, union influence and educational job security varies widely. In places like New York, unions are very powerful and dismissals are difficult. In some places, it's far easier. Likewise, some places have very high academic standards, and in other places creationism is considered a valid element in science currricula. Academic quality is not strongly correlated to unions' bargaining ability, as far as I can tell.

Vivtek 15y ago

Dude, their pay system is seniority based because otherwise they'd never get a raise at all.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Eliezer 15y ago

...neither of the problems you cite is actually any individual teacher's fault.

chc 15y ago
I don't think that's relevant to what he's saying. He appears to be claiming that teachers have a pretty sweet deal already, such that any hardships they encounter are already balanced by the perks.

earl 15y ago

But they essentially have to be. First, teachers outside of pretty narrow bounds will never be more productive. It takes one teacher to teach 20 students. In 10 years it will take one teacher to teach 20 students. Thus there is no productivity growth while, if you want people to be teachers, you have to eventually pay them more. So assume you don't have a hard time firing teachers; I just found a cute way to save a whole lot of money! Fire everybody with more than 10 years experience, ie all your high salaried employees. Second, I don't think you'll possibly get good employees without strong unionization. Who would be stupid enough to teach without a union contract? Real people want to do things like own homes, put down roots, start families, and have some job security; that's enormously risky in an area with monopsony employer(s). I'm a software engineer, so there are dozens to thousands of employers in reasonably sized cities, whereas there are typically only one public school district and perhaps a handful of private schools. That's a lot more risk for the employee, since if I have a personality conflict with my boss, there are plenty of other buyers of software engineering. What happens to a teacher if he or she has a conflict with his or her principal? It's not like there are tons of employers around, and if the answer is that employee is just sol, don't expect smart hardworking people with choices to become teachers.

natrius 15y ago
For some time, I've lamented the negative effects that the government's effective monopoly over primary education has had on our system. Eliminating choice eliminates the natural incentive to improve that results from consumers choosing better alternatives. I found the monopsony problem you've pointed out on the employment end of the system quite insightful. Entering an industry with a limited number of employers generally isn't a great idea. However, there's a simpler solution to the problem than more unionization, which in practice requires non-voluntary membership to be effective. I think we'd all be better off if the government continued to fund education for those who can't afford it, but stopped actually running the schools themselves. I don't understand why voucher proposals find such limited support.
- yequalsx 15y ago
  Who is going to build a school in a poor neighborhood then? Who is going to transport the child to the good school? When the slots to the best schools are filled by children of wealthy parents then what? We would end up with a worse two-tiered system than what we have now.

caterping 15y ago

> or if it wasn't so hard to fire teachers. It takes a few years to get tenure. Also, note that teachers sign an employment contract for each year they teach. This means that the administration has 3 chances to simply not renew a new teacher's contract if they don't like them. So, it's only difficult to fire teachers after you've had them working for you for a few years. And even then, the district can make your life miserable without firing you. They can have someone from the central office sit in and observe you every day. They can give you a lousy schedule, give you too many preps, move you between crummy rooms, or a number of other things to get you to leave.