Conventional wisdom is that politicians who support merit pay for teachers aren’t supported by teachers’ unions. But even after bringing up the issue recently at the National Education Association convention, Sen. Barack Obama is escaping that fate — so far. It helps that Obama frames it as about setting “professional standards” for teachers. Said Reg Weaver, NEA president: “Any time you hear the word merit pay, many of us in the profession, an antenna goes up. Because the way merit pay has been used it has been abused; it has done nothing to enhance student learning. It seems every so often a lawmaker brings it up, but no one has brought it up like Obama has. He said he wants to do it with us, not to us.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Pro-con on Obama’s China visit
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
68 Comments
WE EDITORS:
WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED?
Another prop for Obama.
When are we going to start seeing the threads about his stance on abortion?
When are we going to see anything other than how well he or hilary is doing?
When are you going to give us fair blog coverage on the Presidential candidates?
Do I really need to go through the past 100 blogs on on the candidates and count how many are about abortion and the Repuublicans vs the ones talking about how well Obama or Hilary are doing?
Come on already.
I’m all for merit pay for any job on top of regular raises for cost of living.
Nothing that chaps my rear end more than to find someone who works less hard than I makes as much (or more) than I.
I was thinking about getting my teacher’s certification so I could be the ultimate insider and find out the real truth. Joking – well maybe not. :)
I suppose it would depend on how merit raises are given in the State of Kansas. In most occupations, a merit raise is measured by the employees “report card” evaluation, their involvement in “extra” volunteer duties and whether the “Boss” likes them or not. :)
If one offends the sensibilities of the Principal or Superintendent I could imagine that merit raises might not be in the cards.
On the other hand, the teacher that is a favorite of said Principal or Superintendent but does not really perform any better than teachers in similar disciplines would show that favoritism exists in the Merit system.
Not knowing how it exactly works in the State of Kansas, I have my suspicions that merit raises are given to squeaky wheels, the head teacher’s pet and for activists.
But that would be a guess.
There is no true “merit pay” in Kansas schools.
Q,
Well, there it is then.
Pure SOCIALISTS do not allow for merit pay.
Everyone, doctors, fast-food workers, lawyers, teachers, garbage men, ALL get paid the SAME under Obama’s SOCIALISM plan for America.
It doesn’t matter how hard you work or how smart you are, or what job you have, the Government is there to make sure we are all EQUAL.
If you work hard and actually EARN a lot of money, THAT cannot be allowed! The Government will come in and take away your hard-earned money and give it to the poor and the lazy, lest the poor and lazy starve from their own inabilities.
And when you are in the back pocket of the NEA, you do whatever they say!
Anything, to BUY a few million votes.
Teachers are easy, they will even vote for the DEVIL if promised huge NON-MERIT UNEARNED pay increases.
They will especially vote for a SOCIALIST.
They would even vote for a COMMUNIST (and maybe they will) if promised enough unearned money.
lhg, unlike you socialist haven’t been able to compete in free market amerika. They have not found their niche in the gentle loving arms of profit driven corporate society. Unlike us true rightous amerikans,the lower forms of life in the socialist gene pool which solely exist to steal our oxygen cannot comprehend that we the capitalist imperialist peoples are Gods chosen ones.
“Obama’s SOCIALISM plan for America”
I have not heard of that plan and would like to learn more. Can you provide me links to information about that plan?
lhg must think he/she is the only person that is so burdened by having to pay for all the little socialists running around.
I am middle income and I have learned that it is the middle class that pays for the poor AND the rich. The rich could not survive without the middle class but they sure are doing their best to get rid of us. What will your rich class do when the middle class is gone lhg? And don’t say they will actually go out and work for themselves because that is laughable at best.
What is rich Fred? $X
What is middle class? $Y
“Do I really need to go through the past 100 blogs on on the candidates and count how many are about abortion and the Repuublicans vs the ones talking about how well Obama or Hilary are doing?Come on already.Posted by: Nathan | July 20, 2007 at 01:06 AM ”
Could it be that the WEBlog reports on what people are talking about? What are Kansas Republicans interested in – abortion and war
LHG
Funny you should ask:
According to Rage’s excellent article on the Open Thread:
The top 1 percent makes about 325,000 a year. The top 10 percent makes about 100,000 a year.
I don’t know if those figures are for households or for individuals.
Anyway, that would be a good starting point.
It’s my perception that for people in the Wichita area, if you were a household of two, and you pulled down a quarter million together a year, that would be the minimum amount to be considered “rich.”
It’s also complicated by net worth. Some one who makes a lot might not be terribly rich if they are carrying huge debt–like a newly minted MD setting up a practice.
On the other hand, the quiet lady next door who never earned more than 40 K a year might be very well off if her house and car are paid off and she’s invested aggressively over the years.
My house is paid off and I’ve invested aggressively since the early 1980s. :)
So, $325,000+ per year is rich.
$100,000 to $324,000 is middle class?
Probably be better to look at median income ranges. May have time later to look it up.
Brian,
So where are all the threads about a Democratic Candidates stance on abortion and the war?
WE EDITORS: A small sampling of the last posts in the Presidential Race category over the past few months.
What you will see is an obvious trend of
-no real critical things about the Democratic Candidates
-no critical view on their stance on abortion
-when you do prop a Republican it is often critical too
-most blogs about the Democrats are what I would call “fluff” pieces which don’t really do anything.
Look for yourself:
The past Presidential Race Titles Broken Down:
Republican indifferent:
Kansans voting for Brownback with their moneyBut will prayer be enough?Phelps will not be endorsing ThompsonLittle GOP appetite for enlarging candidate poolWill Brownback score in South Carolina?Romney wins the first GOP debate?
Both Republican Critical and Prop:
Vice President Fred?Iowa getting to know BrownbackRomney gracious in accepting Brownback apologyIf anybody wants Brownback, check IowaBrownback got the messageThompson ready to runNewt not a happy GOP-erIs Ron Paul crazy or the last true conservative?Is Fred Thompson really the GOP savior?
Republican Prop:
Romney breaks out where it countsCredit McCain for stand against tortureGiuliani rides to debate victory on Sept. 11Mitt rhymes with rich, sort ofBrownback becomes honorary Girl Scout
Republican Critical:
GOP growing more unsatisfied with candidate choicesNo perfect men among GOP candidatesBrownback-Schiavo ticket a success?Giuliani has foes among firefightersMore wheels coming off McCain Straight Talk ExpressWill story dog Romney?Bumpy riding on the Straight Talk ExpressTaking aim at Thompson’s resumeGiuliani now willing to blame ClintonBrownback immigration vote on Tuesday not a promiseCandidates by day, comedy fodder by nightHow would Rudy keeps his commitments?GOP candidates for God, not gay troopsGOP presidential wannabes tough on BushOn abortion, Giuliani v. God?Evolution question is complicated, Brownback saysMore accurately Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Iowa?Debate a setback for Brownback?Brownback increasingly good for laughsNot even the best in the second tier?Will Fred be pro-life enough?
Democratic Candidate Prop:
Obama takes on teacher merit payHow about some Obama Girl mud wrestling?Maybe Bill should try holding his breathObama funds matter more than pollsClinton has company up frontClinton and Obama emerged strongerJust do not ask Hillary to sing itWhich came first, the campaign contribution or the shift in power?Obama got carried away on tornado death toll
Democratic Candidate Both Critical and Prop:
Velvet just isn’t Hillary’s style
Both Parties:
Not a lot of faith in faith of candidatesBeing Mr. Resume not enoughBrownback and Obama on same teamOnly millionaires need apply?Experience has its limits among 2008 Big SixMore than policy to candidates
WE EDITORS:
So seriously? Some of my classifications might be off, I was not to detailed.
But look at that!
Not one thing about the Democratic Presidential Candidates on abortion.
Yet you keep telling us about the GOP candidates and abortion.
I seriously don’t think I could find you saying one bad thing about the Democratic Candidates without also proping them up to.
So when are you going to start giving us fair coverage in this blog.
At this rate you might as well merge with the DU and then you will be surrounded with all the nut jobs your little Band Width hearts can desire…
Oh boo hoo. Go post on FOX “News” blog. It’d be a great echo chamber for you.
Nathan, two words: OPEN THREAD
Start your own debate about whatever you feel needs talked about.
Nathan, how exactly do you define what is critical or not?If an undisputed fact is presented that is negative about a person, is that being critical?
Socialists! Communists!
Man, that’s really getting OLD!
Most of the poor in America are the working poor, being exploited by the rich to line their own pockets.
This wouldn’t be an issue if there wasn’t so much corporate greed. Pay people what they’re worth, and wages actually based on the work they do and the performance of that work. That’s not socialism.
P_Mom, the left is towards socialism. Redistribution of wealth and all.
If you are not being paid enough for the job you do, either re-negotiate for a higher rate, or quit and find a job that pays better.
If these working poor would all quit their underpaying jobs, then I guess no one would do them – ergo, the company would have to pay a higher rate.
Go figure.
Nah, Sol, the same would be filled by illegal aliens. /sarcasm
“If you are not being paid enough for the job you do, either re-negotiate for a higher rate, or quit and find a job that pays better.If these working poor would all quit their underpaying jobs, then I guess no one would do them – ergo, the company would have to pay a higher rate.Go figure.Posted by: SolDevVB | July 20, 2007 at 01:17 PM”
So labor unions would be preferable to ’socialism’?
Oh, oh, Brian, now you’ve gone and done it for sure. (Battening down the hatches)
good thing I put my thinkin cap on
(and duct tape and plastic over the doors and windows of my trailer)
Yes, labor unions are preferable to SOCIALISM!
Labor unions do fit into a market based economy.
The unions fill a need, raising salaries and benefits for employees. The market will regulate how high the salaries get. Companies will go broke when unions push to hard – and work will move out of the country. Yet a balance can be attained in most cases.
In SOCIALISM, the GOVERNMENT will decide who gets paid what. Is that what y’all want? You trust the government that much?
Isn’t it a Government by the people for the people? Set up with checks and balances? And appeals and due process?
The labor union arguement is driven and controlled only by the economic principle of supply and demand.
Besides, there will always be a measure of socialism in a ‘civilized’ society. It cannot be avoided.
There is a difference between feeding people to keep them from starving and giving people a free ride for life.
You can now ride for free in the good ole USA.
Socialists! Communists!Man, that’s really getting OLD!
Ya darn right it’s getting old, at least for those on the PAYING side of the equation!
“You can now ride for free in the good ole USA.Posted by: Max | July 20, 2007 at 04:51 PM”
You may ride, but it will be bumpy, dusty and not very comfortable. You cannot “ride for free” above the poverty line.
How high above the poverty line do you want to ride for free?
“Labor unions do fit into a market based economy.
Posted by: Max | July 20, 2007 at 04:14 PM”
That is funny, since labor unions (as we chiefly know them now) came about to fight against the growing strength of the capitalists.
How about the median income level for a family of 4 in KS ($64K in 2003)?Can that be done?
Still, unions use a legal approach to attempt to restrict the supply of labor, thus driving up the price if the union is successful.
The unions approach fails if the company goes bankrupt, hires scabs, or moves the business elsewhere.
And failures are often seen, thus the balance of trade today as many jobs have moved overseas.
Now to argue that unions are responsible for the economic prosperity is quite a stretch, given the low rate of union membership today.
$64,000 for NOT working!?
You are the one that said it is possible to ride for free. Tell me how that can be accomplished. If $64K is not possible, at what level can someone “ride for free”?
http://www.cyberhomes.com/neighborhooddetails.aspx?zip=67217&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1&bhcp=1
interesting site gives alot of info on neighborhoods economic condition and such. here is 67217
You said: “You may ride, but it will be bumpy, dusty and not very comfortable. You cannot “ride for free” above the poverty line.”
Beggars can’t be choosers. And even a Capitalist society cannot (and does not) allow the poor to starve to death.
Neither should they live at the same level of comfort and convenience as working people.
Can you LIVE on $10,000 of welfare? Yup.
Like Crocidile Dundee said when he was cooking the beast over the fire: “You can live on it, but it takes like shit.”
What is the incentive for work when you have everything you need and want for free?
Labor unions work counter to capitalism and market equilibrium.
I certainly would not think someone ‘living’ on $10k per year has everything they want and need. That is just barely scraping by. Someone in that situation with a means to do so would have every incentive to get out of that situation.
You characterise it like someone ‘riding for free’ (presumably welfare) is living well, high on the hog, as some might say. That is a gross exaggeration of the facts. Yes, they are being supported by the government. No, they are not getting paid well by the government and living some sort of luxurious life.
“And even a Capitalist society cannot (and does not) allow the poor to starve to death.”
Then that society is no longer purely capitalist.
“Labor unions work counter to capitalism and market equilibrium.
Posted by: KSGolfnut | July 20, 2007 at 05:21 PM ”
I think labor unions, as the collective voice of employees expressing their desire for more pay, benefits, or whatever, are a direct part of a capitalist economy. They fit integrally into the supply/demand curve of labor economics.
Au contraire, brian.
Labor unions benefit the substandard worker only. Everyone else in the equation is affected adversely.
KSGolfnut,I don’t know what I said that your are contrairing. I am not an advocate of unions (they have served their purpose and are now mainly an abuse)
However, what they are (employees banding together for a common purpose) is indeed a part of capitalism and labor economics.
Whether they are good or bad does not negate the fact that they are a part of capitalism.
KSGOLFNUT, you bring up a good point which was sort of mentioned by LHG.
That is, the Teacher’s Union doesn’t like merit promotion because it means they have to compete for salary that would be based on competence. They would rather do as you pointed out spread the benefit of the “pay pot” to everyone, thusly socialization of the salary.
Yeah the lazy working poor can afford to just up and quit their jobs. Gosh you neocons are SO smart.
brian,I misunderstood your first comment. I agree that labor unions are a part of the economic equation.
I would categorize them as “influences that result in a loss of efficiency.”
Contrary to GolfNut wisdom, there are data suggesting that unionized work forces are more productive than their non-unionized counterparts.
This author considers why this might be the case:
http://www.economist.com/debate/freeexchange/2007/02/do_unions_increase_productivit.cfm
This guy seems to conclude that teachers unions don’t improve productivity, however.
I’ve probably read over 5000 articles in the Economist over the past 10 years, and I can almost guarantee that for every possible labor union issue, there are multiple whitepapers with “compelling arguments” for (and againt) the union.
Davis, there is also data suggesting that Miss Cleo truly IS a psychic.
Bow down to the all knowing, all rich, dual degreed Golftesticle’s knowledge.
(for old time’s sake).
The standard interpretion of a monopoly is that fewer units will be sold, but at a higher price. So that means there a fewer jobs, but at higher wages. I think the Economist writer almost said that.
That’s good if you happen to be one of the union workers with a job, I guess.
As far as teachers go, the inion is not so much an impedement to productivity, it is one of the major causes for the disaster this is public schooling in America.
>>As far as teachers go, the inion is not so much an impedement to productivity, it is one of the major causes for the disaster this is public schooling in America.————-Agreed.
Another cause: lack of parental involvement.
Mommy, you really need to get off welfare.
They teach me in school that if you educate yourself and work hard, you can pay your own way in life.
Rhonda Holman = Obama Girl.
I think Obama must have secretly told the NEA to disregard what he says about ‘merit pay’.
Obama is generally irrelevant anyway. Hill is going to win the nomination, and she’ll lose the general election by 10 pts.
Count on it.
But there’s one person who can stop her — Al Gore.
There’s no question that he’s electable. Hell, he got 600 thousand more votes than Bush the last time he ran . . .
Max–
So why do YOU work?
The fact that you work instead of “live off welfare” is because you know damn well that welfare is no life.
Besides, there’s all kinds of restrictions and limitations since Clinton signed the reform act ten years ago.
Oh, and for every dollar you spend in income tax, 51 cents goes to the military (and that DOES NOT include Iraq) and 8 cents goes to “welfare.”
Most “welfare” btw goes to children.
Surely, Max doesn’t want kids starving and going naked in the richest country in the world, does he?
>>Hell, he got 600 thousand more votes than Bush the last time he ran . . .——————–
*grin*
I love how that fact annoys the libs to no end. They’ll still be talking about it 20 yrs from now.
Why do I work Capn? Because it’s ingrained in me. It’s the way I was raised. To do otherwise is stealing from those who do work.
Each of us are born unto this Earth and on the day we are born, the Earth owes us nothing.
What is the justification for our existence if we cannot support ourselves?
And I never advocated starving people to death and having them go naked thru the streets.
>>Hell, he got 600 thousand more votes than Bush the last time he ran . . .——————–
*grin*
I love how that fact annoys the libs to no end. They’ll still be talking about it 20 yrs from now.
Posted by: KSGolfnut | July 21, 2007 at 08:08 AM
I guess the loser of the popular vote being appointed is only fitting for the the beginning of the worst presidency EVER. 2001-2009……………the years of NATIONAL DISGRACE!
Wouldn’t you rather take pot-shots at the NEA since education is what is thread is supposed to be about?
Everyone knew and has known that electoral college determines the out come of the election.
Stop whining Dems.
There is no whining her, just stating facts:
Bush lost the popular vote and most likely (history will sort it out) the electoral vote.
Bush is the worst president, EVER.
2001-2009 will forever be known as the years of national disgrace.
Naw, that’s the way Democrats paint it Apophis.
The Dems complain about losing their liberty. When asked what liberties they have lost as American citizens I never get an answer.
The Dems complain about the economy, however it is the most robust economy in the history of the U.S. There are too many jobs in the U.S. now and not enough people to fill them!!!
More people die in automobile accidents in four mouths in the U.S. than have died in Iraq/Afghanistan in four years. Yet, all we hear from the Dems are how horrible the death toll is. Yes, it is horrible but to use those deaths as political talking points is even more horrible.
Bush has sent hundreds of millions of dollars to fight AIDs in Africa and other countries. Hardly a peep out of MSM.
The worst Natural Disaster in U.S. History devastates the Gulf Coast and all we hear about are the losers in New Orleans who live in a city below sea level with antique levees between them and the Gulf waters. We hear nothing from the MSM about the successes and re-building in Alabama and Mississippi and other parts of Louisiana.
Eight U.S. attorneys get fired for political reasons (it’s allowed you know) and all we hear from the MSM and the party of Whiners about how some great injustice was done.It’s okay to fire 50 or more at a time, but 8…oh my!
The news reporting from Iraq consists of some bunkered MSM news types hiding in Baghdad telling us how the war is going. This is like some reporters hiding out in the New York Times office and reporting on Kansas without ever crossing the front door threshold.
All we hear from the Dems are complaints and whining, not-one-positive-statement-about-anything.People do tire of negativity 24/7 and will not tolerate it. They will show their disapproval of all that negativity at the polls.
You know, if there was no War in Iraq, the Dems would have nothing to offer. They have spent all their political capital on their interpretation of so-called failures in Iraq. It appears the surge is working and the Iraqi army is standing up to the challenge.
Now what will the Dems do? Oh yes, the impeachment thing.
Go ahead and try that and see how many Democratic Congressman will be looking for jobs in 2008.
I would think the Dems have a far stronger case for a legitimate impeachment of the bush/cheney regime than the repubs had to impeach Clinton over a BJ.