Ratification of Agreement Between the Irvine Unified School District and the Cal

[bones]

[.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

just like anything else, it comes down to supply/demand. they dont get paid more because there are plenty of replacements. that is how people are paid. they dont get paid based on the value they contribute to society. i get paid what i do because i have a certain set of skills that make a nightmare.. damn, im always trying to use the Taken quote.  i get paid what i do because i have a ceratain skill set that is not in abundance out there. while most people would say what i do is not nearly as important as what a teacher does that is irrelevent when it comes to what you get paid. if you can easily be replaced you will earn less money, if you are not easily replaceable you will earn more money.

It's not just about supply and demand...it's about attracting talent to the profession.  A person interested in teaching but can make more money in another profession.  This is how high-skilled profession attract talent.

It doesn't make any sense to pay "a little as possible" for teachers.

you dont need that much talent to teach K-12, like NSR said, the good teachers are the passionate ones who do it because they enjoy it, they are not in it for the money.

That is absolute wrong.  What talent does it take to teach college students?  Many professors are terrible teachers and do nothing more than regurgitate academic knowledge.

Teaching K-6 kids take skill sets that are completely than those for 7-8th graders and High schoolers. 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

just like anything else, it comes down to supply/demand. they dont get paid more because there are plenty of replacements. that is how people are paid. they dont get paid based on the value they contribute to society. i get paid what i do because i have a certain set of skills that make a nightmare.. damn, im always trying to use the Taken quote.  i get paid what i do because i have a ceratain skill set that is not in abundance out there. while most people would say what i do is not nearly as important as what a teacher does that is irrelevent when it comes to what you get paid. if you can easily be replaced you will earn less money, if you are not easily replaceable you will earn more money.

It's not just about supply and demand...it's about attracting talent to the profession.  A person interested in teaching but can make more money in another profession.  This is how high-skilled profession attract talent.

It doesn't make any sense to pay "a little as possible" for teachers.

Passion is what makes teachers great.

Money doesn't create passion, it does attract a lot of people that want the money though.  Unfortunately, Government employees tend to become problems when they're in it for the money.  Just like any other sector, except, you don't really get a lot of choices in dealing with them.

Of course...but financial interest is also important.  Doctors choose to do specialized medicine because it pays a lot more than being a GP.  Lawyers choose to work for law firms and corporations rather than public interest because the money is a lot better.

I am not saying that money is a panacea but it helps.  In Taiwan, teachers are seen as a vital part of society and even the title of being a teacher is seen as an honorific. 

Yea, but the doctors who also choose to do specialized medicine are usually the cream of the crop.  There's a bigger demand for them (fewer training programs than GPs, etc, so low supply) so they get paid more.  This goes back to the supply/demand point that qwerty brought up.  Why are there so many teachers?  Because in all honestly, it doesn't take a lot to become a teacher.  If you can't get into a state teaching credential program, you can go to the University of Phoenix's of the world and become a teacher that way.  Those places take anyone.

There is a bigger demand for them because that's how hospitals make money...it creates an incentive to focus on specialized services.  Specialists have certain skill sets but that does not mean that they would make good GPs (which calls for completely different skill sets). 

The earning difference between the two are not nearly as drastic in other nations. 
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-doctors-in-other-countries-make/

 

[qwerty]

just like anything else, it comes down to supply/demand. they dont get paid more because there are plenty of replacements. that is how people are paid. they dont get paid based on the value they contribute to society. i get paid what i do because i have a certain set of skills that make a nightmare.. damn, im always trying to use the Taken quote.  i get paid what i do because i have a ceratain skill set that is not in abundance out there. while most people would say what i do is not nearly as important as what a teacher does that is irrelevent when it comes to what you get paid. if you can easily be replaced you will earn less money, if you are not easily replaceable you will earn more money.

It's not just about supply and demand...it's about attracting talent to the profession.  A person interested in teaching but can make more money in another profession.  This is how high-skilled profession attract talent.

It doesn't make any sense to pay "a little as possible" for teachers.

you dont need that much talent to teach K-12, like NSR said, the good teachers are the passionate ones who do it because they enjoy it, they are not in it for the money.

That is absolute wrong.  What talent does it take to teach college students?  Many professors are terrible teachers and do nothing more than regurgitate academic knowledge.

Teaching K-6 kids take skill sets that are completely than those for 7-8th graders and High schoolers. 

the skill sets may be different but its an easy skillset. like bones said, there are so many teachers because its easy to become one. it doesnt take much talent to become a professor either.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

just like anything else, it comes down to supply/demand. they dont get paid more because there are plenty of replacements. that is how people are paid. they dont get paid based on the value they contribute to society. i get paid what i do because i have a certain set of skills that make a nightmare.. damn, im always trying to use the Taken quote.  i get paid what i do because i have a ceratain skill set that is not in abundance out there. while most people would say what i do is not nearly as important as what a teacher does that is irrelevent when it comes to what you get paid. if you can easily be replaced you will earn less money, if you are not easily replaceable you will earn more money.

It's not just about supply and demand...it's about attracting talent to the profession.  A person interested in teaching but can make more money in another profession.  This is how high-skilled profession attract talent.

It doesn't make any sense to pay "a little as possible" for teachers.

you dont need that much talent to teach K-12, like NSR said, the good teachers are the passionate ones who do it because they enjoy it, they are not in it for the money.

That is absolute wrong.  What talent does it take to teach college students?  Many professors are terrible teachers and do nothing more than regurgitate academic knowledge.

Teaching K-6 kids take skill sets that are completely than those for 7-8th graders and High schoolers. 

the skill sets may be different but its an easy skillset. like bones said, there are so many teachers because its easy to become one. it doesnt take much talent to become a professor either.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[qwerty]

If you are a high achieving worker, what is your union doing for you that allows you to be compensated beyond what your free-riding peers are making?

is that even possible? having a high achieving worker in a union? sounds oxymoron'ish to me.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

That's part of the problem with public sector (and governments), no reliable system to match compensation with performance.

Should a 3-year teacher with passion and drive make as much as a 10-year who is just doing the minimum? Sure. But their pay schedules prevent that.

Goes back to my whole government inefficiency "theory" (since some don't think private is any more efficient).

Government inefficiency does not mean any particular group of or individual employees are inefficient. 

I don't care for seniority very much but it is also a part of the benefit perks of being a teacher.  It's similar to tenureship for professors.

This is exactly the reason why unions are terrible - they protect the bottom 20% of workers who would be fired, and do not incentivize the top 20% of workers who perform above their peers.  Federal workers are unionized as are most government employees at the state and local level. 

Tenure is another idiotic idea... so a professor who "works" for a school can now basically mail it in every day until they can collect their pension while their grad students do all the real work.  All because they have "earned" it by recycling the same lessons from the textbook they wrote over the last 20 years?

It should be pay for performance across the board.  If you are awful at your job, you should not be able to be paid what your peers are making.

People think that you can legislate behavior... but there's a segment of the population that will always try to game the system to take advantage of whatever opportunity they can. 

There are folks who genuinely go to work every day and try to do the right thing and make a difference.  However, those folks are diminished by the number of folks who realize that they can free ride and get paid the same amount due to their union protecting them.  If you are a high achieving worker, what is your union doing for you that allows you to be compensated beyond what your free-riding peers are making?

Unions are necessary for certain industries but not others...and are less and less relevant in a modern age where mental skills are more important/relevant than manual labor.

How do you gauge the "success" of a teacher?  Is it testing?  Is it the joy of the students?  How do you equalize the various factors influencing the learning process that are outside of the control of a teacher?  How do you compare a teacher in Irvine versus a teacher in Compton?

 

[nosuchreality]

Unions are necessary for certain industries but not others...and are less and less relevant in a modern age where mental skills are more important/relevant than manual labor.

How do you gauge the "success" of a teacher?  Is it testing?  Is it the joy of the students?  How do you equalize the various factors influencing the learning process that are outside of the control of a teacher?  How do you compare a teacher in Irvine versus a teacher in Compton?

Easy, the people of the district elect a school board.

The school board hires a superintended of the district.

The superintendent hires and confirms the principals of the schools, aligns the plan to the school board, reviews the principals performance and terminates employment as appropriate.

The principals are given power to align the curriculum to the school board and superintendent, and confirm and review the performance of the teachers and terminates employment as appropriate.

The teachers align to the principals plan and teach their students, they do well, the students do well, the principal is happy, the parents are happy, the superintendent is happy and the school board is happy.

The parents are happy, they reconfirm the school board.
The parents are unhappy, they confirm a new school board, that establishes new goals, clarifies goals or just makes corrections to the team.

Instead we have a system where the police investigate a teacher for months, collect evidence and after say the third classroom incident, collect the body fluid evidence to charge him with feeding his you know what to blindfolded elementary students and the union protects him and the school can't really fire him.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

That's part of the problem with public sector (and governments), no reliable system to match compensation with performance.

Should a 3-year teacher with passion and drive make as much as a 10-year who is just doing the minimum? Sure. But their pay schedules prevent that.

Goes back to my whole government inefficiency "theory" (since some don't think private is any more efficient).

Government inefficiency does not mean any particular group of or individual employees are inefficient. 

I don't care for seniority very much but it is also a part of the benefit perks of being a teacher.  It's similar to tenureship for professors.

I think you misunderstood me.

I'm not saying that teachers are inefficient, I'm saying the system that determines their compensation is. It rewards them by tenure (which should factor in) but it should also focus on performance.

And, if the gov/public sector was not so inefficient with public funding, they could probably pay the teachers more, but instead, it goes to the bureaucrats, the admins... that's what I'm taking about.

But like others have said, excellent teachers aren't usually in it for just the money. It's the same for disaster volunteers, social workers, charity staff... those people deserve to be compensated to but that's not what motivates them.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Unions are necessary for certain industries but not others...and are less and less relevant in a modern age where mental skills are more important/relevant than manual labor.

How do you gauge the "success" of a teacher?  Is it testing?  Is it the joy of the students?  How do you equalize the various factors influencing the learning process that are outside of the control of a teacher?  How do you compare a teacher in Irvine versus a teacher in Compton?

Easy, the people of the district elect a school board.

The school board hires a superintended of the district.

The superintendent hires and confirms the principals of the schools, aligns the plan to the school board, reviews the principals performance and terminates employment as appropriate.

The principals are given power to align the curriculum to the school board and superintendent, and confirm and review the performance of the teachers and terminates employment as appropriate.

The teachers align to the principals plan and teach their students, they do well, the students do well, the principal is happy, the parents are happy, the superintendent is happy and the school board is happy.

The parents are happy, they reconfirm the school board.
The parents are unhappy, they confirm a new school board, that establishes new goals, clarifies goals or just makes corrections to the team.

Instead we have a system where the police investigate a teacher for months, collect evidence and after say the third classroom incident, collect the body fluid evidence to charge him with feeding his you know what to blindfolded elementary students and the union protects him and the school can't really fire him.

1)  This would create an unbelievable amount of power to the principal and create huge issues of personality conflicts.  It also causes an adversary dynamic between teachers and principals.

2)  How do you judge performance? 

This was basically what Michelle Rhee did in DC and it created huge problems and little evidence of success. 

Frontline did a great job of documenting Rhee's tenure at DC
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/education-of-michelle-rhee/

 

[Irvinecommuter]

That's part of the problem with public sector (and governments), no reliable system to match compensation with performance.

Should a 3-year teacher with passion and drive make as much as a 10-year who is just doing the minimum? Sure. But their pay schedules prevent that.

Goes back to my whole government inefficiency "theory" (since some don't think private is any more efficient).

Government inefficiency does not mean any particular group of or individual employees are inefficient. 

I don't care for seniority very much but it is also a part of the benefit perks of being a teacher.  It's similar to tenureship for professors.

I think you misunderstood me.

I'm not saying that teachers are inefficient, I'm saying the system that determines their compensation is. It rewards them by tenure (which should factor in) but it should also focus on performance.

And, if the gov/public sector was not so inefficient with public funding, they could probably pay the teachers more, but instead, it goes to the bureaucrats, the admins... that's what I'm taking about.

But like others have said, excellent teachers aren't usually in it for just the money. It's the same for disaster volunteers, social workers, charity staff... those people deserve to be compensated to but that's not what motivates them.

I was just talking about teachers.  There is a popular view to blame teachers in this country (as evident by some in this discussion)...that unions just protect those who are inept and that teachers are part of the problem.

I agree that excellent teachers aren't in it for the money but money helps.  Candidates who could be great teachers may elect to do something else because they just can't justify the financial aspect.  Again, many lawyers and doctors choose to specialize because they have financial debt that they must deal with coming out of school that would preclude them from doing more "noble" position. 

I personally would love to work at a non-profit or for a cause but can't because I have student loans to pay and a family to support.

 

[nosuchreality]

1)  This would create an unbelievable amount of power to the principal and create huge issues of personality conflicts.  It also causes an adversary dynamic between teachers and principals.

2)  How do you judge performance? 

This was basically what Michelle Rhee did in DC and it created huge problems and little evidence of success. 

Frontline did a great job of documenting Rhee's tenure at DC
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/education-of-michelle-rhee/

Oh the horror that they could actually be fired.

You're trotting out the same roadblocks the union has used to kill all innovation for decades, a whine for black and white measurements devoid of any possible subjective influence.  A need for tangible measures of intangible factors.  How do measure a teacher that has lost their passion and is going through the motions?  Like any other job, it's pretty self evident when you observe them.

It's unrealistic and anyone that has manage people knows that a subjective interpretation is often accurate and the intangible factors are far more important anyway.

We need to return control to the local level and trust the people we put in positions of power to execute it wisely.  When they don't we replace them.  Instead we continue to codify greater and greater bureaucracy to control and measure and define success. 

In the end, the teacher in the classroom and the parents behind students determine how well those students succeed.  Everything else is just getting in the way.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

1)  This would create an unbelievable amount of power to the principal and create huge issues of personality conflicts.  It also causes an adversary dynamic between teachers and principals.

2)  How do you judge performance? 

This was basically what Michelle Rhee did in DC and it created huge problems and little evidence of success. 

Frontline did a great job of documenting Rhee's tenure at DC
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/education-of-michelle-rhee/

Oh the horror that they could actually be fired.

You're trotting out the same roadblocks the union has used to kill all innovation for decades, a whine for black and white measurements devoid of any possible subjective influence.  A need for tangible measures of intangible factors.  How do measure a teacher that has lost their passion and is going through the motions?  Like any other job, it's pretty self evident when you observe them.

It's unrealistic and anyone that has manage people knows that a subjective interpretation is often accurate and the intangible factors are far more important anyway.

We need to return control to the local level and trust the people we put in positions of power to execute it wisely.  When they don't we replace them.  Instead we continue to codify greater and greater bureaucracy to control and measure and define success. 

In the end, the teacher in the classroom and the parents behind students determine how well those students succeed.  Everything else is just getting in the way.

No...they are legitimate questions.  Principal/teacher interaction are tricky...good principals are helpful while bad one are detrimental to the learning process.  What do you do when a bad principal starts firing teachers because s/he doesn't like them.  What do teachers do with a bad principal? 

Still haven't answered the question about how you gauge performance? 

Again...watch the frontline special...what you proposed actually happened...results were not great.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Still no answer about how that salary gets figured out.

I would probably take a 25% pay cut if I could get the whole summer off.

 

[nosuchreality]

No...they are legitimate questions.  Principal/teacher interaction are tricky...good principals are helpful while bad one are detrimental to the learning process.  What do you do when a bad principal starts firing teachers because s/he doesn't like them.  What do teachers do with a bad principal? 

Still haven't answered the question about how you gauge performance? 

Again...watch the frontline special...what you proposed actually happened...results were not great.

They talk to the superintendent. Just like any other employee in a private business.  If the principal starts to alienate and destroy his team, he gets replaced.    In private industry, team chemistry is recognized as being vitally important.  If the teachers can't get along with the principal who is charged with making the school a success, then one of them needs to go.  It is that simple.

You're making the classic government worker mistake, playing not to make a mistake as opposed playing to win.

Rhee is a polarizing character and many efforts she attempted were stymied as much as possible and reverse as soon as possible.

How do we know when it isn't working?

Hmmm, let me think, LAUSD, graduation rate 66%.  Q.E.D.

 

[qwerty]

Again, many lawyers and doctors choose to specialize because they have financial debt that they must deal with coming out of school that would preclude them from doing more "noble" position. 

I personally would love to work at a non-profit or for a cause but can't because I have student loans to pay and a family to support.

but you know this going in. anyone going to into law or medicine knows they will be in tremendous amounts of debt; if you dont like the debt do something else. no one forced you to have a family to support or buy an overpriced house in irvine to make a payment on. you made these choices for yourself and you whine about not being able to go work at a non-profit. you should have planned better so you could have worked at the non-profit. 

maybe you should have used your intellect and gotten into finance where you dont need to drown yourself in debt and can make more than many lawyers.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Again, many lawyers and doctors choose to specialize because they have financial debt that they must deal with coming out of school that would preclude them from doing more "noble" position. 

I personally would love to work at a non-profit or for a cause but can't because I have student loans to pay and a family to support.

but you know this going in. anyone going to into law or medicine knows they will be in tremendous amounts of debt; if you dont like the debt do something else. no one forced you to have a family to support or buy an overpriced house in irvine to make a payment on. you made these choices for yourself and you whine about not being able to go work at a non-profit. you should have planned better so you could have worked at the non-profit. 

maybe you should have used your intellect and gotten into finance where you dont need to drown yourself in debt and can make more than many lawyers.

You kinda of have it backwards...I didn't buy the house in Irvine or have a family because I wanted work a law firm.  I work at a law firm because I wanted a house in Irvine and a family.  That's exactly the point, I couldn't afford to buy a house in Irvine or have a family working non-profit...so while I had the desire and will to work there, I couldn't because of the financial constraints.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

No...they are legitimate questions.  Principal/teacher interaction are tricky...good principals are helpful while bad one are detrimental to the learning process.  What do you do when a bad principal starts firing teachers because s/he doesn't like them.  What do teachers do with a bad principal? 

Still haven't answered the question about how you gauge performance? 

Again...watch the frontline special...what you proposed actually happened...results were not great.

They talk to the superintendent. Just like any other employee in a private business.  If the principal starts to alienate and destroy his team, he gets replaced.    In private industry, team chemistry is recognized as being vitally important.  If the teachers can't get along with the principal who is charged with making the school a success, then one of them needs to go.  It is that simple.

You're making the classic government worker mistake, playing not to make a mistake as opposed playing to win.

Rhee is a polarizing character and many efforts she attempted were stymied as much as possible and reverse as soon as possible.

How do we know when it isn't working?

Hmmm, let me think, LAUSD, graduation rate 66%.  Q.E.D.

But how do we know who the bad apple is?  You will then get a constant fight between teachers and principals.  And also, what is the gauge of performance.  In private industries, there is generally an objective standard to measures by whether it be sales goals, billable hours, sales generated etc....those measures generally determine whether someone keeps or loses his/her job. 

If you are talking about observations, how do we gauge effectiveness of teacher...how do you account for the variableness of students year over year?  How much observation time to you do? 

also high school graduation has a lot more to do with non-academic factors then teachers.  Teachers can't teach students that are not present. 

The issue isn't whether to "go for the win" or "not to lose"...it's that teaching is an unique trade.  The fruits of teaching do not manifest themselves in tangible manner.  Also, there are very few jobs whether the "effectiveness" of your work is hugely influenced by the factors completely out of your control.  Furthermore, it is difficult to quantify why one teacher is successful while another is not. 

 

 

[qwerty]

Again, many lawyers and doctors choose to specialize because they have financial debt that they must deal with coming out of school that would preclude them from doing more "noble" position. 

I personally would love to work at a non-profit or for a cause but can't because I have student loans to pay and a family to support.

but you know this going in. anyone going to into law or medicine knows they will be in tremendous amounts of debt; if you dont like the debt do something else. no one forced you to have a family to support or buy an overpriced house in irvine to make a payment on. you made these choices for yourself and you whine about not being able to go work at a non-profit. you should have planned better so you could have worked at the non-profit. 

maybe you should have used your intellect and gotten into finance where you dont need to drown yourself in debt and can make more than many lawyers.

You kinda of have it backwards...I didn't buy the house in Irvine or have a family because I wanted work a law firm.  I work at a law firm because I wanted a house in Irvine and a family.  That's exactly the point, I couldn't afford to buy a house in Irvine or have a family working non-profit...so while I had the desire and will to work there, I couldn't because of the financial constraints.

that is perfectly fine. you chose money over fulfillment. as a capitalistic society we cant just arbitrarily determine which jobs are more meaningful to society and determine that those jobs will get paid 6 figures, especially when the taxpayers are footing the bill. supply and demand rules. you have a bunch of people wanting to be teachers so they will get paid accordingly.

 

[qwerty]

i would love to work at the San Diego zoo, but i know it doesnt pay much, so im a CPA, that allows me to live the lifestyle i want. besides, there are diminishing returns for great minds to work at zoo (im not calling myself a great mind by the way), school, other government jobs, etc.