5 ms·

If you value education, why does your state have unions that force pay based on seniority and not outcome?

by jvmfjvfjvf 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
aaronyarborough 4y ago
How is outcome measured?
- netfl0 4y ago
  Recidivism.
- hammock 4y ago
  School choice via vouchers, etc would allow parents to decide for themselves how outcome is measured Edit: why the downvotes? If you are uncertain of or unamenable to the way outcomes are measured, vouchers are a reasonable solution that puts the power in your hands
  - kube-system 4y ago
    There’s a significant race and religion component to school choice.
    - hammock 4y ago
      What do you mean?
      - kube-system 4y ago
        2/3 of private schools are religious. And many private schools were literally founded as a response to brown vs board. Parents are not choosing schools based on academic success alone. An extremely significant part of how parents choose schools is based on the social groups they want their kids associating with. 99% of the academic success of private schools is attributable to their ability to exclude poorly performing students, not some magical pedagogical secret. It’s the same exact reason why homes of equivalent quality in two different districts of the same school system may have 2x or 3x price differentials. Because parents pay hundreds of thousands so their kid doesn’t sit next to a kid with parents who can’t afford the same.
        ticviking 4y ago
        No they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars so they don't have to deal with the school refusing to take action on bullying or disruptive behavior. If schools are unwilling or unable to provide a stable learning environment then parents move on. There has been a lot of ink spilled on exactly why this is, including the racial and religious issues you allude to, but the brute fact is that in many communities families flee or switch to religious school because their children suffer violence at the hands of their fellow students.
        kube-system 4y ago
        It's the same thing, phrased two different ways. There's not some magical action any school administrator can take to make poorly raised kids behave. Especially in an understaffed school. You can make them leave the school, which removes the problem temporarily, but then what? Truancy is already a problem, expelling more kids is not going to fix the problem. The US already has one of the largest criminal underclasses on the planet. Fixing a classroom by ignoring tough situations just kicks the can down the road. Your kid will have a nice classroom experience, and when they graduate, they'll be robbed by the kid they didn't have to sit by. IMO this entire problem was caused by segregating our schools to begin with. The problem of misbehaving kids isn't going to be fixed by giving them free vacation on the streets. They need to see with their own eyes that their behavior isn't acceptable, and that means putting them in environments where they are outsiders. Kids are a product of their social environment, full stop.
- aisengard 4y ago
  Well, if you get to teach a lot of well-off kids who have a lot of extra support at home and you can siphon off the undesirables onto others, you get good marks when most of them inevitably "succeed". If you have to teach the kids who need help, you get poor marks when some of them inevitably fail.
purple_ferret 4y ago
NJ schools are consistently ranked best in the nation[0], so it seems like outcomes are 'good enough' even if that's true [0]https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education
ecopoesis 4y ago
The state doesn't have unions, the teachers do. The state negotiates with the union and then the teachers vote to approve the agreed on contract. If the teachers don't like the contract the union has negotiated, they can vote against it. If the union leadership continues to negotiate unacceptable contracts, the teachers can vote their union leadership out.
mattbuilds 4y ago
I don't like this argument at all. You are trying to enforce excess rules and micromanagements on teachers. I live in an area where teachers are paid well, and know a lot of educator who have been at it for 20+ years. Guess what, most them aren't trying to game the system. They care about their students and doing a good job. Sure some people might just try to coast, but it's not the majority. By trying to punish this minority, you end up hurting everyone. Teaching jobs don't exist in a vacuum, and the reason to have pay based on seniority is simple. If you want competent people to go into the profession from the start, they need to know they have a steady and worthwhile career. If you can provide that, like NJ does, (and where I live in NY does) then you might actually get good teachers. If instead you make it unappealing and difficult because of uncertainty, you will only get people who are incompetent and have no other options.
ddulaney 4y ago
I'm not going to defend New Jersey's teacher unions specifically. However, pay based on outcome is really hard to get right, especially for something like teaching. What is the outcome? Well, what we really want is adults who can contribute to society. But that's too hard to measure and would take too long, so we need a proxy. Anything to do with tests is tough: not only do you have to (somehow -- this isn't a solved problem) calibrate for the students themselves to suss out what the teacher's contribution is, but there's immense pressure to teach to the test and prep for the test specifically, even at the expense of actual education. Not nothing, but imperfect. Other measures suffer from the same basic problem: any measure that becomes a goal ceases to be a useful measure because people optimize for that. So what's an alternative? Maybe it's to make teaching a respected, well-paid profession where you have stability and advancement. One good way of doing that is by having clear seniority-based pay, not because it reflects how good at the job you are, but because that attracts teachers who are serious about making it a career and establishes it as a mainstream, lucrative profession. But I don't know. This stuff is all extremely hard, and I don't think anywhere has figured it all out.
gjulianm 4y ago
Measuring "outcome" in education is very hard, specially when deciding pay, as it creates perverse incentives. For example, teachers optimizing for test results instead of actual education, disadvantaged classes getting less attention (because results will be worse so it will affect teacher's evaluation)... Evaluating teachers based on outcome is something that sounds good at first but it's plagued with problems no matter how you try to do it.
kshahkshah 4y ago
You bring up a real issue, but we can value education and have an imperfect implementation at the same time though.

If you value education, why does your state have unions that force pay based on seniority and not outcome?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

aaronyarborough 4y ago

How is outcome measured?

netfl0 4y ago
Recidivism.
hammock 4y ago
School choice via vouchers, etc would allow parents to decide for themselves how outcome is measured Edit: why the downvotes? If you are uncertain of or unamenable to the way outcomes are measured, vouchers are a reasonable solution that puts the power in your hands
- kube-system 4y ago
  There’s a significant race and religion component to school choice.
  - hammock 4y ago
    What do you mean?
    - kube-system 4y ago
      2/3 of private schools are religious. And many private schools were literally founded as a response to brown vs board. Parents are not choosing schools based on academic success alone. An extremely significant part of how parents choose schools is based on the social groups they want their kids associating with. 99% of the academic success of private schools is attributable to their ability to exclude poorly performing students, not some magical pedagogical secret. It’s the same exact reason why homes of equivalent quality in two different districts of the same school system may have 2x or 3x price differentials. Because parents pay hundreds of thousands so their kid doesn’t sit next to a kid with parents who can’t afford the same.
      - ticviking 4y ago
        No they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars so they don't have to deal with the school refusing to take action on bullying or disruptive behavior. If schools are unwilling or unable to provide a stable learning environment then parents move on. There has been a lot of ink spilled on exactly why this is, including the racial and religious issues you allude to, but the brute fact is that in many communities families flee or switch to religious school because their children suffer violence at the hands of their fellow students.
        kube-system 4y ago
        It's the same thing, phrased two different ways. There's not some magical action any school administrator can take to make poorly raised kids behave. Especially in an understaffed school. You can make them leave the school, which removes the problem temporarily, but then what? Truancy is already a problem, expelling more kids is not going to fix the problem. The US already has one of the largest criminal underclasses on the planet. Fixing a classroom by ignoring tough situations just kicks the can down the road. Your kid will have a nice classroom experience, and when they graduate, they'll be robbed by the kid they didn't have to sit by. IMO this entire problem was caused by segregating our schools to begin with. The problem of misbehaving kids isn't going to be fixed by giving them free vacation on the streets. They need to see with their own eyes that their behavior isn't acceptable, and that means putting them in environments where they are outsiders. Kids are a product of their social environment, full stop.
aisengard 4y ago
Well, if you get to teach a lot of well-off kids who have a lot of extra support at home and you can siphon off the undesirables onto others, you get good marks when most of them inevitably "succeed". If you have to teach the kids who need help, you get poor marks when some of them inevitably fail.

purple_ferret 4y ago

NJ schools are consistently ranked best in the nation[0], so it seems like outcomes are 'good enough' even if that's true [0]https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education

ecopoesis 4y ago

The state doesn't have unions, the teachers do. The state negotiates with the union and then the teachers vote to approve the agreed on contract. If the teachers don't like the contract the union has negotiated, they can vote against it. If the union leadership continues to negotiate unacceptable contracts, the teachers can vote their union leadership out.

mattbuilds 4y ago

I don't like this argument at all. You are trying to enforce excess rules and micromanagements on teachers. I live in an area where teachers are paid well, and know a lot of educator who have been at it for 20+ years. Guess what, most them aren't trying to game the system. They care about their students and doing a good job. Sure some people might just try to coast, but it's not the majority. By trying to punish this minority, you end up hurting everyone. Teaching jobs don't exist in a vacuum, and the reason to have pay based on seniority is simple. If you want competent people to go into the profession from the start, they need to know they have a steady and worthwhile career. If you can provide that, like NJ does, (and where I live in NY does) then you might actually get good teachers. If instead you make it unappealing and difficult because of uncertainty, you will only get people who are incompetent and have no other options.

ddulaney 4y ago

I'm not going to defend New Jersey's teacher unions specifically. However, pay based on outcome is really hard to get right, especially for something like teaching. What is the outcome? Well, what we really want is adults who can contribute to society. But that's too hard to measure and would take too long, so we need a proxy. Anything to do with tests is tough: not only do you have to (somehow -- this isn't a solved problem) calibrate for the students themselves to suss out what the teacher's contribution is, but there's immense pressure to teach to the test and prep for the test specifically, even at the expense of actual education. Not nothing, but imperfect. Other measures suffer from the same basic problem: any measure that becomes a goal ceases to be a useful measure because people optimize for that. So what's an alternative? Maybe it's to make teaching a respected, well-paid profession where you have stability and advancement. One good way of doing that is by having clear seniority-based pay, not because it reflects how good at the job you are, but because that attracts teachers who are serious about making it a career and establishes it as a mainstream, lucrative profession. But I don't know. This stuff is all extremely hard, and I don't think anywhere has figured it all out.

gjulianm 4y ago

Measuring "outcome" in education is very hard, specially when deciding pay, as it creates perverse incentives. For example, teachers optimizing for test results instead of actual education, disadvantaged classes getting less attention (because results will be worse so it will affect teacher's evaluation)... Evaluating teachers based on outcome is something that sounds good at first but it's plagued with problems no matter how you try to do it.

kshahkshah 4y ago

You bring up a real issue, but we can value education and have an imperfect implementation at the same time though.