But "bad" teachers pay the same in union dues as "good" teachers.
Why would the union care if a "bad" teacher was replaced with a "good" teacher? In fact, if they pay the same in dues, but the "good" teacher is less likely to need representation, the "greedy" union would make more money on a "good" teacher, right?
But, uh... er...
This has been another "Deep Reformy Thought."
(All praise to thinker in the comments, from whom I totally stole this!)
In his tenure/payscale reform proposal, Christie claims to be getting to "the root of the problem" in our "failed system." If 2285 schools are passing, and 200 are failing, how can tenure and an experienced/advanced degree based payscale be the root of the problem when all districts use the same tenure rules and same basic payscale structure?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you can say that better...