Imagine the National Football League in an alternate reality. Each player's salary is based on how long he's been in the league. It's about tenure, not talent. The same scale is used for every player, no matter whether he's an All-Pro quarterback or the last man on the roster. For every year a player's been in this NFL, he gets a bump in pay. The only difference between Tom Brady and the worst player in the league is a few years of step increases. And if a player makes it through his third season, he can never be cut from the roster until he chooses to retire, except in the most extreme cases of misconduct.

Let's face the truth about this alternate reality: The on-field product would steadily decline. Why bother playing harder or better and risk getting hurt?

No matter how much money was poured into the league, it wouldn't get better. In fact, in many ways the disincentive to play harder or to try to stand out would be even stronger with more money.

Of course, a few wild-eyed reformers might suggest the whole system was broken and needed revamping to reward better results, but the players union would refuse to budge and then demonize the reform advocates: "They hate football. They hate the players. They hate the fans." The only thing that might get done would be building bigger, more expensive stadiums and installing more state-of-the-art technology. But that just wouldn't help.

If you haven't figured it out yet, the NFL in this alternate reality is the real -life American public education system. Teachers' salaries have no relation to whether teachers are actually good at their job—excellence isn't rewarded, and neither is extra effort. Pay is almost solely determined by how many years they've been teaching. That's it. After a teacher earns tenure, which is often essentially automatic, firing him or her becomes almost impossible, no matter how bad the performance might be. And if you criticize the system, you're demonized for hating teachers and not believing in our nation's children.

Inflation-adjusted spending per student in the United States has nearly tripled since 1970. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, we spend more per student than any nation except Switzerland, with only middling results to show for it.

Over the past 20 years, we've been told that a big part of the problem is crumbling schools—that with new buildings and computers in every classroom, everything would improve. But even though spending on facilities and equipment has more than doubled since 1989 (again adjusted for inflation), we're still not seeing results, and officials assume the answer is that we haven't spent enough.

These same misguided beliefs are front and center in President Obama's jobs plan, which includes billions for "public school modernization." The popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. We've been spending billions of dollars on school modernization for decades, and I suspect we could keep on doing it until the end of the world, without much in the way of academic results. The only beneficiaries are the teachers unions.

Some reformers, including Bill Gates, are finally catching on that our federally centralized, union-created system provides no incentive for better performance. If anything, it penalizes those who work hard because they spend time, energy and their own money to help students, only to get the same check each month as the worst teacher in the district (or an even smaller one, if that teacher has been there longer). Is it any surprise, then, that so many good teachers burn out or become disenchanted?

Perhaps no other sector of American society so demonstrates the failure of government spending and interference. We've destroyed individual initiative, individual innovation and personal achievement, and marginalized anyone willing to point it out. As one of my coaches used to say, "You don't get vast results with half-vast efforts!"

The results we're looking for are students learning, so we need to reward great teachers who show they can make that happen—and get rid of bad teachers who don't get the job done. It's what we do in every other profession: If you're good, you get rewarded, and if you're not, then you look for other work. It's fine to look for ways to improve the measuring tools, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Our rigid, top-down, union-dictated system isn't working. If results are the objective, then we need to loosen the reins, giving teachers the ability to fulfill their responsibilities to students to the best of their abilities, not to the letter of the union contract and federal standards

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

I totally agree with Tarkenton. That guy may be one of the most intelligent post-NFL guys areound. (Most of the others have dimentia and other mental ailments, but that is another issue). But alas, Obama knows all, sees all, and, regulates all.

Some will argue that the NFL is only motivated by profit, but the motivaion for profit is driven by asuccessful and decent product.

The schools have become a fraud where spoils for teachers exceed actual quality output.

If public school was run like the NFL, the vast majority of Americans would be uneducated because they would never make the team.

Tarkenton = Great QB. Stupid as a thought leader.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If public school was run like the NFL, the vast
> majority of Americans would be uneducated because
> they would never make the team.
>
> Tarkenton = Great QB. Stupid as a thought leader.

Do you even know who the team is in this comparison?

read it again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If public school was run like the NFL, the vast
> > majority of Americans would be uneducated
> because
> > they would never make the team.
> >
> > Tarkenton = Great QB. Stupid as a thought
> leader.
>
> Do you even know who the team is in this
> comparison?


Yes, teachers.

By the way. Tarkenton does realize NFL players were paid shit until the Union came along, right?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Exactly why education needs to be privatised.

Teachers are often worhless dead weight who have gamed the system to get cushy jobs.

Why has teacher pay risen and student acheivement stagnated?

Teaching is a job for the wives of men who really work, not for faggy men who milked out their college years and couldn't survive if they had to work in private enterprise.

Why we let public employee douchebags unionize and bleed our system dry is beyond me.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> read it again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > If public school was run like the NFL, the
> vast
> > > majority of Americans would be uneducated
> > because
> > > they would never make the team.
> > >
> > > Tarkenton = Great QB. Stupid as a thought
> > leader.
> >
> > Do you even know who the team is in this
> > comparison?
>
>
> Yes, teachers.

Who wouldn't make the team then? Are you saying that if teachers could earn more by being successful teachers, none could make the team?

> By the way. Tarkenton does realize NFL players
> were paid shit until the Union came along, right?

NFLPA doesn't require teams to keep shitty players around. Dan Snyder does.

Today, on terrible irrelevant analogy theater: this.

You know, I don't disagree that public schools need reform, and that unions may even be contributors to the difficulty of change to that system, but this is really, really dumb.

read it again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >
> > Yes, teachers.
>
> Who wouldn't make the team then? Are you saying
> that if teachers could earn more by being
> successful teachers, none could make the team?
>

The only way to implement a free market pay scale that would have some teachers making multiple times what other teachers make would involve having far fewer teachers in total (it's not like governments are going to start spending even more on education). Thus, you would have a lot of uneducated Americans out there.

> > By the way. Tarkenton does realize NFL players
> > were paid shit until the Union came along,
> right?
>
> NFLPA doesn't require teams to keep shitty players
> around. Dan Snyder does.


School districts don't hire shitty school teachers because they want to. They hire shitty school teachers because they have slots they need filled. Even if school districts could offer $100K a year to the best and brightest, there are simply too many slots to be filled to ensure the most qualified candidates in every position. Much of the problem with teachers have to do with logistics and administration.

This is one reason why private schools often actually pay their teachers LESS than what public schools do. If you eliminated the unions, you wouldn't have the NFL effect Tarkenton describes. You would have the Wal-Mart effect.

As for NFLPA, Tom Brady would not have been able to make what he makes if the NFL had had its way. It was Unions that forced free agency, not the "free market."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

The NFL is essentially a cartel. They split revenues among their franchisees and their labor union. They dominate the network broadcasts and absorbed their competition (AFL, USFL) to maintain their dominance. If we public schools like the NFL, there would be no private schools.

Give him credit for this much. He nailed this point.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> excellence isn't rewarded, and
> neither is extra effort.

However the same could be said for much of the American industrial system and American sports system. (Show me a good quarterback and there is usually a great offensive line in front of him. Yet quite often that quarterback is making almost as much if not more than the entire offensive line combined.) If we really compensated people based on performance there are a great many executives and ball players whose pay would be much lower than it is, and there would be many at the middle and lower echelons of sports, education, government and industry whose pay would be higher. We don't live in a meritocracy though.

> Inflation-adjusted spending per student in the
> United States has nearly tripled since 1970.

I wonder what these numbers would look like if you adjusted them for increased costs associated with educating the gifted, the mentally challenged, physically disabled and students with limited English proficiency, increased costs of construction and technology that are now required parts of the educational curriculum and in 1970 was unheard of. In 1970 our educational system was largely geared to educating Joe Average. If you were gifted you might get to skip a grade or two and if you were lucky you might be able to take 3 or 4 AP classes in high school. If you couldn't keep up with the average kids you might get parked with the "slow" class until you dropped out, and we had never heard of ESOL.

>
> Over the past 20 years, we've been told that a big
> part of the problem is crumbling schools—that
> with new buildings and computers in every
> classroom, everything would improve. But even
> though spending on facilities and equipment has
> more than doubled since 1989 (again adjusted for
> inflation), we're still not seeing results, and
> officials assume the answer is that we haven't
> spent enough.

In 1970 many of the schools WERE relatively new, and "modern technology" in those days was air conditioning that many schools still did not have, TVs and a PA system. As a result the old "New Deal" schools were able to offer almost exactly the same education as more recent additions. I also suspect that even adjusted for inflation contruction dollars don't buy as much today at they did in 1989.
>
> These same misguided beliefs are front and center
> in President Obama's jobs plan, which includes
> billions for "public school modernization." The
> popular definition of insanity is doing the same
> thing over and over, expecting different results.
> We've been spending billions of dollars on school
> modernization for decades, and I suspect we could
> keep on doing it until the end of the world,
> without much in the way of academic results. The
> only beneficiaries are the teachers unions.

Hardly. Much of that billions that is being spent isn't making it to teachers. Much of it isn't even making it down to the individual schools. Also what does make it into the classroom quite often ends up going for things that don't really address the problems that give rise to poor performance in the schools.

> Some reformers, including Bill Gates, are finally
> catching on that our federally centralized,
> union-created system provides no incentive for
> better performance.

Isn't this the same Bill Gates who is telling the rich that they need to donate much of their money and time to charities?

> The results we're looking for are students
> learning, so we need to reward great teachers who
> show they can make that happen—and get rid of
> bad teachers who don't get the job done. It's what
> we do in every other profession: If you're good,
> you get rewarded, and if you're not, then you look
> for other work.

These points don't reflect how well a child does in one particular grade quite often is as much or more a reflection of the effort put in to educting that child in prior grades and at home. With "good material" a teacher can produce good results immediately. With material of more varied and lower quality it is going to take a longer period of time to see the results. So how do you handicap an evaluation system to reflect the caliber of students coming into the classroom each year, and how do you properly credit a teacher for results that may take a couple of years to manifest themselves?

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Give him credit for this much. He nailed this
> point.
>


And what point would that be? That there are no terrible NFL teams because of the way they do compensation? That teams aren't mismanaged and players don't perform below expectations?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Jack Pardee would still coach the Skins.

Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russell would still be starters.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jack Pardee would still coach the Skins.
>
> Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russell would still be
> starters.


Tarkenton's point is that the NFL provides a superior system. The fact is you have great players and you have shitty players, just like you have great teachers and shitty teachers. Some teams are great while others perennially suck. Just like some schools are great while others suck. And the fact is, the Chargers and Raiders are still out the money they paid to Leaf and Russell. Are you saying schools should pay top dollar to teachers who fail?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
>Are you saying schools should pay top
> dollar to teachers who fail?

I don't know the specifics about SD and Oaklands stadiums and who paid for them (another topic) but I am pretty sure it is not taxpayers shelling out for these two bust QB's.

The public and how they want to spend their entertainment dollar dictates what happens in the NFL.

Teachers unions have created a wall that protects all but the worst of teachers,

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I don't know the specifics about SD and Oaklands
> stadiums and who paid for them (another topic) but
> I am pretty sure it is not taxpayers shelling out
> for these two bust QB's.
>

But it would be in the case of teachers. We had strictly private education in the 1800s. Most Americans were illiterate as a result.

> The public and how they want to spend their
> entertainment dollar dictates what happens in the
> NFL.
>

And even at that you have sucky players making shitloads of money. You don't think Albert Haynesworth was worth $40 million, do you? Yet it happened despite the NFL's flawless, free-enterprise-based system.

> Teachers unions have created a wall that protects
> all but the worst of teachers,

There are certainly instances where that has happened. However, Tarkenton's comparison is still stupid and his approach would still result in many of the same problems you blame on teachers and their unions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

The point is, it is Dan Snyders, Al Davis et al money that is squandered on the players that go bust.

All but the worst NFL matchups are still pretty watchable, therefore- it can be argued it is a sucfcessful and profitable product that people want.


People want the unions out of teaching, no one here is talking about "eliminating public education".

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

I read the first entry and it is a compelling argument. However, the analogy is flawed.

It is based on the assumption that there is an endless pool of talent available, which in the case of the NFL is pretty much true. The talent required is fairly easily measured.

The eternal problem in education is how do you decide what makes an excellent teacher? You'd think the teacher at TJHSST should/would be the highest paid, because their students achieve at a much higher rate than any other school. Does that make those teachers better? Not really. I would submit if you took the entire teaching staff at say some underachieving school like Mt. Vernon and switched them, en masse, with the teachers at Langley, the students' achievement would probably change very little.

So, who gets to decide which teachers deserve stellar salaries? There are threads on this board that illustrate the incompetence of local school administrators as well as the central administration. Would you want any of them to decide what your compensation should be? I certainly wouldn't.

I always felt that one way would be to test all your students at the beginning and the end of the year, then measure progress made. However, what if you teach in a school with a highly transient population? Or, using the example above, TJHSST doesn't have the same issues with transiency, LD, ESL, ED, etc, etc, etc.

And, finally, even the worst player with lowest salary is still making somewhere around 10 times what a teacher makes.

Most teachers are lazy overpaid union employees milking it 9 months a year on the the taxpayers dime. We need to get the unions out of there so we can go in and start making the needed cuts and getting rid of all the deadweight.

ex-teacher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read the first entry and it is a compelling
> argument. However, the analogy is flawed.
>
> It is based on the assumption that there is an
> endless pool of talent available, which in the
> case of the NFL is pretty much true. The talent
> required is fairly easily measured.
>
> The eternal problem in education is how do you
> decide what makes an excellent teacher? You'd
> think the teacher at TJHSST should/would be the
> highest paid, because their students achieve at a
> much higher rate than any other school. Does that
> make those teachers better? Not really. I would
> submit if you took the entire teaching staff at
> say some underachieving school like Mt. Vernon and
> switched them, en masse, with the teachers at
> Langley, the students' achievement would probably
> change very little.
>
> So, who gets to decide which teachers deserve
> stellar salaries? There are threads on this board
> that illustrate the incompetence of local school
> administrators as well as the central
> administration. Would you want any of them to
> decide what your compensation should be? I
> certainly wouldn't.
>
> I always felt that one way would be to test all
> your students at the beginning and the end of the
> year, then measure progress made. However, what
> if you teach in a school with a highly transient
> population? Or, using the example above, TJHSST
> doesn't have the same issues with transiency, LD,
> ESL, ED, etc, etc, etc.
>
> And, finally, even the worst player with lowest
> salary is still making somewhere around 10 times
> what a teacher makes.

Thr problem is people like youa and people like me are tired of the excuses. There isn't anymore time for standardized tests. Even then there are well documented cases of teachers literally giving students the answers.

I thought teachers are supposed to be a group of highly nobel individuals who didn't get into teaching because of the money? However, whenever there is strike its always over benefits or pay. Even when their pay overly dissporportionate to average income of the local tax payers.

Stop acting like teaching is so hard, its not. After college all i heard from friends was "If i can't make it in the real world, i'll just go teach high school".

After college all i heard from friends was "If i can't make it in the real world, i'll just go to law school".

A lot of the other countries require entrance exams for secondary schools. It puts the onus for learning back on the students and the parents.

ex-teacher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read the first entry and it is a compelling
> argument. However, the analogy is flawed.

Actually, it is quite apt in that it reveals the root cause as educational socialism.

> It is based on the assumption that there is an
> endless pool of talent available, which in the
> case of the NFL is pretty much true. The talent
> required is fairly easily measured.

When there are shortages, the lacking goods and services increase in price to attract marginal entrants to the market.

>
> The eternal problem in education is how do you
> decide what makes an excellent teacher?

That is for the market to decide.

> You'd
> think the teacher at TJHSST should/would be the
> highest paid, because their students achieve at a
> much higher rate than any other school.

The highest-paid teacher would be paid because he attracted the highest bid.

> Does that
> make those teachers better? Not really. I would
> submit if you took the entire teaching staff at
> say some underachieving school like Mt. Vernon and
> switched them, en masse, with the teachers at
> Langley, the students' achievement would probably
> change very little.

Given that neither party has any incentive to perform, I would concede that argument.

>
> So, who gets to decide which teachers deserve
> stellar salaries?

Under my proposal, the free market

> There are threads on this board
> that illustrate the incompetence of local school
> administrators as well as the central
> administration.

Central planning has a funny way of doing that.

> Would you want any of them to
> decide what your compensation should be? I
> certainly wouldn't.

Nor do I.

>
> I always felt that one way would be to test all
> your students at the beginning and the end of the
> year, then measure progress made. However, what
> if you teach in a school with a highly transient
> population? Or, using the example above, TJHSST
> doesn't have the same issues with transiency, LD,
> ESL, ED, etc, etc, etc.

How well the student is being educated is something for the parent to decide.

>
> And, finally, even the worst player with lowest
> salary is still making somewhere around 10 times
> what a teacher makes.

I don't care.