O-Trap;686419 wrote:Here's a fun one.

A place called Teacher Portal ranked them from most comfortable to least comfortable by using a combination of starting salary, average salary, and cost of living. Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia are all in the top half. Georgia is THIRD, Texas is SEVENTH, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, and Virgina are 23rd, 24th, and 25th respectively.

Ohio is 6th, for what it's worth.

Similarly, you have the dark brown states (AZ, UT, WY, CO, MO, AR, LA, MS, AL, KY, WV), where seven of the eleven fit in the top half (lowest being W. Va at 40th).

So, here's where we are so far:

STATES THAT PROHIBIT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING:
Top half of most comfortable livings: 5 (100%)
Bottom half of most comfortable livings: 0 (0%)

STATES THAT MAKE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OPTIONAL:
Top half of most comfortable livings: 7 (64%)
Bottom half of most comfortable livings: 4 (36%)

STATES THAT REQUIRE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING:
Top half of most comfortable livings: 13 (38%)
Bottom half of most comfortable livings: 21 (62%)

Link: http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

The break-even on these would be 2.5 in each half for the states that ban collective bargaining, 5.5 in each half for the states that permit it, and 17 in each half for the states that mandate it. If those criteria were met, then each category would have 50% in the top half and 50% in the bottom half. However, the only category with more states in the bottom half than in the top half is the one that requires collective bargaining.

Moreover, notice that the bottom 20% (#41-50) all require collective bargaining.

Naturally, more goes into pay than just union influence (number of tax payers, economic climate of the state, etc), but I do think this can show that if the money is there ... if the money to pay the teachers exists in a district where you have to do your own bargaining ... it WILL be used to pay teachers competitive wages, given the cost of living in the area. That's essentially what I have been saying all along. If a public school sets itself apart, educationally, then parents will move into the area, bringing their tax dollars with them. The more taxpayers in your area, the more money will exist to pay the teachers, administration, etc. BOTH parties win if the school can set itself apart from an educational standpoint, and competitive compensation packages will tend to do that: bring in aggressive, hungry teachers with experience.

BoatShoes;686106 wrote:

i just noticed that this chart misspelled permissible seems odd for an official chart

1th;689639 wrote:i just noticed that this chart misspelled permissible seems odd for an official chart

Hahaha, nice catch.

dwccrew;689671 wrote:Hahaha, nice catch.

What the hell? How did Fab and I miss that?

O-Trap;690024 wrote:What the hell? How did Fab and I miss that?

I'll be honest, I didn't even look closely at that chart.

Fab4Runner;690040 wrote:I'll be honest, I didn't even look closely at that chart.

Apparently, neither did I!

So the teachers could, you know, propose what they'd consider fair metrics for evaluating their performance.

I Wear Pants;690583 wrote:So the teachers could, you know, propose what they'd consider fair metrics for evaluating their performance.

Precisely why I said last night that this is good for the teachers. It puts the ball in their court. It lets them define the terms of their own value and success.

ccrunner609;690628 wrote:because that is almost impossible. You can have 30+ kids in your class, you have kids of all levels. Honor students, IEP students, socially promoted students, move ins that arent on your curriculum etc......the variables to base an evaluation are tremendous that cant be planned for.

What you are asking for is an education where teachers teach to their evaluation or teach to the test. Not a good environment. How about we pay store clerks on how much product the customer buys. How about the Kohls cashiers and the Kroger bag boys rely on how much you buy in the store for their pay. If they have a bad week or month they get paid less.

If it is almost impossible, how do colleges do it? I'm assuming you are teacher, thus you have at least a Bachelor's degree. How do you think your college instructors were evaluated and compensated?

O-Trap;690591 wrote:Precisely why I said last night that this is good for the teachers. It puts the ball in their court. It lets them define the terms of their own value and success.

I like the idea of merit pay, but I don't like the idea of each individual teacher negotiating their own cause. I'd rather see merit pay negotiated collectively, then evaluated individually.

ernest_t_bass;690703 wrote:I like the idea of merit pay, but I don't like the idea of each individual teacher negotiating their own cause. I'd rather see merit pay negotiated collectively, then evaluated individually.

This makes no sense.

ccrunner609;690718 wrote:its because you are stupid. It makes perfect sense.

Can you explain it more in detail then? You talk a a big game CC, but you're just a teacher. Remember that.

If you bothered to read the rest of this thread you will see there are several ideas that include, but are not limited to, test scores, parent and student evaluations, peer evaluations, admin evaluations, etc. It does not have to be all about test scores. There are many professions out there that cannot be evaluated with numbers only and they manage to get raises, cuts, freezes just fine.

Just because no system has been defined does not mean it is not possible to come up with one that is fair and works.

ccrunner609;690717 wrote:I dont know how colleges do it, I dont know if they even do it. But you cant compare a teacher that is teaching 1st graders in Cleveland public schools to a professor at Miami University. Both teachers but worlds apart.

Can we compare a teacher that is teaching 1st graders in Cleveland public schools to one teaching 2nd graders?

Is public school K-12 teaching the only profession that is completely immune to review and market forces?

Fab4Runner;690729 wrote:If you bothered to read the rest of this thread you will see there are several ideas that include, but are not limited to, test scores, parent and student evaluations, peer evaluations, admin evaluations, etc. It does not have to be all about test scores. There are many professions out there that cannot be evaluated with numbers only and they manage to get raises, cuts, freezes just fine.

Just because no system has been defined does not mean it is not possible to come up with one that is fair and works.

This 1000x

The only reason teachers say a Merit based system won't or can't work is because it will likely pay them less than the bloated salaries/benefits package they get now. Period.

ccrunner609;690749 wrote:I might of missed these suggestions and gladly I did, they are ridiculously stupid. Student and parent evaluations? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. The Union contract is what protects of from this. When a teacher can be fired on mere accusations, we need protection. Education is way more political that most know.

Yeah you must HAVE missed them. That's a shame because there are some really good ideas. Clearly you don't know what the phrase "including, but not limited to". Not surprised.

sleeper;690705 wrote:This makes no sense.

LOL. How does that not make sense?

ccrunner609;690717 wrote:I dont know how colleges do it, I dont know if they even do it. But you cant compare a teacher that is teaching 1st graders in Cleveland public schools to a professor at Miami University. Both teachers but worlds apart.

They should be compared that same way an engineer at Mattel is compared to an engineer at Caterpillar or Boeing.

ernest_t_bass;690755 wrote:LOL. How does that not make sense?

You want to collectively bargain merit pay, then be individually evaluated. Why not just be individual evaluated and avoid paying union fees?

This bill makes teachers look bad, they are ill-equipped to negotiate for themselves like every other profession.

'Yeah you must HAVE missed them."

To quote Peter Griffin from Family Guy, this grinds my gears. I'm not normally a stickler for grammar but there are two that get to me, (i) "have"/"of" and (ii) "gone"/"went", and needless to say a combination of the two, as in "I could of went" -it reeks of Midwestern/Appalachian poor schooling. I learned this the hard way, I was on a movie date when I had a girl mention to me that I needed to work on it.

There is a happy ending, I took it to heart that the way I speak and present myself means a lot, and the girl married me 13 years later.

Manhattan Buckeye;690764 wrote:'Yeah you must HAVE missed them."

To quote Peter Griffin from Family Guy, this grinds my gears. I'm not normally a stickler for grammar but there are two that get to me, (i) "have"/"of" and (ii) "gone"/"went", and needless to say a combination of the two, as in "I could of went" -it reeks of Midwestern/Appalachian poor schooling. I learned this the hard way, I was on a movie date when I had a girl mention to me that I needed to work on it.

There is a happy ending, I took it to heart that the way I speak and present myself means a lot, and the girl married me 13 years later.

I never used to see the have/of thing (maybe I just wasn't paying attention) but it has been driving me insane lately.

sleeper;690762 wrote:You want to collectively bargain merit pay, then be individually evaluated. Why not just be individual evaluated and avoid paying union fees?

This bill makes teachers look bad, they are ill-equipped to negotiate for themselves like every other profession.

See, there you go again misinterpreting what I am saying, or reading too much into it. I see NO reason why people can't collectively bargain at the local level. There will be some union power, but not the full bloated union power of the OEA. The $710 I pay does not stay close to home. It actually pisses me off that it does not stay as close to home as it should. I'd like to have every teacher pay a fraction of that, just to fund a local chapter.

The power of collectively negotiating the terms is good, b/c it guarantees a base. "This is what you have to do to earn this..." Now, the individually negotiated evaluations is where you can show that you've earned it. You can't have every single individual negotiate their salary. You have to have a base. There is not enough man power to successfully do this... the way it NEEDS to be done. You'd have to have department heads (that would not be properly trained in doing so) involved along with admin, etc.

Bottom line... you need to collectively negotiate on a base.

ernest_t_bass;690703 wrote:I like the idea of merit pay, but I don't like the idea of each individual teacher negotiating their own cause. I'd rather see merit pay negotiated collectively, then evaluated individually.

The only problem with this is, the subject matter, classrooms, and student demographic can be so different among classes within even the same high school that it would be impractical to try to find one single set of metrics and tiers of achievement that transcended all classes.

How do you evaluate an art teacher and a calculus teacher using the same metrics? I'm not sure you can, which is why I think it's better for a teacher to make his or her own case based on what they've planned to do in the class and what they've done.

O-Trap;690867 wrote:The only problem with this is, the subject matter, classrooms, and student demographic can be so different among classes within even the same high school that it would be impractical to try to find one single set of metrics and tiers of achievement that transcended all classes.

How do you evaluate an art teacher and a calculus teacher using the same metrics? I'm not sure you can, which is why I think it's better for a teacher to make his or her own case based on what they've planned to do in the class and what they've done.

Are you devaluing the arts?

ccrunner609;690749 wrote:I might of missed these suggestions and gladly I did, they are ridiculously stupid. Student and parent evaluations? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. The Union contract is what protects of from this. When a teacher can be fired on mere accusations, we need protection. Education is way more political that most know.

First, I got a chuckle out of the bolded part, given that you were speaking to Fab.

Second, do you think you're the only one that works in a politically charged atmosphere? I work for a fundraising company for Conservative non-profit lobbyist organizations (I hate my job, but it's a job.), and half the causes we raise money for, everyone there knows I don't agree with. Plus, I'm basically the only one there who is known to be that way. Now, I hold my own when someone questions me, and I am diplomatic to the very best of my ability, but when your job is to raise funds for organizations trying to keep same-sex marriages illegal, and you believe same-sex marriages should be legal, what do you think your coworkers think of how we'll you'll do at running such a campaign?

And yet, I continue to negotiate myself. My part of the job isn't measured by dollars and cents, or hard data. It's measured by the perceived level of me understanding of what I'm doing. Somehow, we're not all making minimum wage with no benefits. Somehow, our employer put 2 and 2 together and realized he'd get better employees with better compensation packages. Better employees mean better clients. Better clients mean more money.

Same works for a school board. Better compensation means better employees. Better employees mean more parents bringing their children. More parents bring more taxes. More taxes means they have more money to work with.

If an employer tries to low-ball an employee in negotiations, they know not to offer an insulting amount, as it can end the negotiation prematurely.