It's not that I doubt Mike Antonucci, but I wanted to see these for myself at NEA's own web site. I went to look but could not find them at all. Mike was kind enough to send me the link (NEA doesn't make this information easy to find)--and sure enough, there the damning statements are, just like he said they were:
I recommend reading the original, and then read EIA's commentary and explanation. Seriously. Because you have to wonder how an organization that fancies itself comprised of professionals can make this statement:Resolution F-9 (Salaries and Other Compensation) has three paragraphs related to pay beyond the traditional salary schedule. One includes support for additional salary for national certification. The other two read:
“The Association opposes providing additional compensation to attract and/or retain education employees in hard-to-recruit positions.”
and
“The Association further believes that performance pay schedules, such as merit pay or any other system of compensation based on an evaluation of an education employee’s performance, are inappropriate.”
Resolution F-10 provides additional details.
“The National Education Association is opposed to the use of merit pay or performance pay compensation systems.”
“Any additional compensation beyond a single salary schedule must not be based on education employee evaluation, student performance, or attendance.”
Let me get this straight. If you are good at your job, you should get paid more. Conversely, if you suck you should not reap the rewards. I'm willing to live by that standard.
ReplyDeleteThe NEA doesn't fancy "itself comprised of professionals". The NEA is a sales organization such as QVC but part of its sales pitch involves the claim to being a professional association.
ReplyDeleteWhat the NEA sells is labor and it does so only where in an artificial monopoly atmosphere.
That monopoly was created and is maintained under force of law so it's best not to draw too much attention to the fact. Hence the specious claim to being a professional organization.
Fortunately for the NEA not too many people see a union as a monopoly but it's best to maintain a facade when all it is is a facade.
The head of NEA was on C-Span's Washington Journal this morning. He talked about being opposed to merit pay or differientiated pay for different skill sets -- i.e. math vs english teachers. He said there would be chaos if teachers with skills harder to find (math, science, foreign language, etc.) were paid more than say English or social studies teachers. What a pity if this is true...
ReplyDeleteEducation needs to invite in to its supposed hallow grounds those from other fields that would love to teach, have the knowledge and the skills and PAY them well. I believe education and educators will be all the better for this...
Why is a competitive salary bad for education? It is good for every other field...
Because public education is, effectively, a monopoly and to those who benefit from a monopoly any sort of competition is anathema.
ReplyDeleteConsider, if a good teacher were paid commensurate with their skills what need would they have for the NEA? Also, a simple wage structure is easier to negotiate and administer.
What if we made the argument, using the same "logic" that all students should get the same grade?
ReplyDelete