<p>I was going to paste -Allmusic-'s post 484 into my reply, but I would have had to paste 100% of it in. (It was all accurate.)</p>
<p>I think, btw, that much of the widely differing perspectives on union protection & on the degrees of competence vs. incompetence, diligence vs. laziness (wide diff's of opinion by parents as one group, wide diff's of opinion by teachers as another -- including for <em>each</em> of the groups the full range of the spectrum) -- is caused by one's location (not just state, but school, district, city). If one teaches in a high-academic-need, socially & economically impacted area, nonperforming teachers will be the exception. Even setting aside "union protection" (which again, often doesn't exist in charter situations), these teachers are often the cream of the dedicated. Clearly they are not in it for some glam working conditions, easy results, scantron-based "teaching", or racing out to the parking lot at 3. (I don't know which State this last refers to, btw: credentialed teachers in my State have always been required by law to put in after-school hours or equivalent before-school hours. A principal who allows a bare 8:15- 3 presence daily is an incompetent or dishonest <em>principal</em>. He or she is charged with noticing such things & correcting or removing such unprofessionalism. But that wouldn't occur to teacher-bashers to notice or understand. And it can be just as hard to fire a public-school principal as a public-school teacher. </p>
<p>Teachers in "academic war-zones" --for want of a better phrase -- are there out of commitment. Some are there because they are fairly new to teaching, and find the less glam jobs open. They often bring a freshness and zeal to the classroom, reinforced by their youth. (A recent Yale grad I know comes to mind, a new hire at one of these schools. Another that comes to mind is a more-experienced talented private middle school math teacher we know who turned down glam jobs teaching in the "rich" white hills, to teach in the poor non-white flatlands where he was desperately needed.) I actually have met middle class parents who are in-the-know about the quality & dedication of such teachers in such schools, and have made decisions to move their kids to these schools despite the economic environments -- recognizing the better overall quality of teacher there.</p>
<p>In schools very different from these, one will find a range of teaching -- from the lazy to virtual workaholics, from gifted to average to embarrassing. However, if you think that unions are the cause of such ranges in quality, think again. With 12 years as a private K-8 parent, & with similar experiences of friends as a reference point, the range of quality in my daughters' NON-UNION private school was as great, over that 12-yr period, as the collective reported experiences of all parents on CC about their various PUBLIC, UNION-PROTECTED schools. And it was only barely (almost imperceptibly) "easier" to fire the bad ones at the private. It required years of lobbying on the part of parents (after frequent, multiple, meetings & pleas with 3 different principals over several yrs' time). Two reasons for the length of time:<br>
(1) Overwhelmed principal, performing both academic & administrative oversight, in a school with large classroom sizes. The position called for 1.5 or 2 positions, which was budgetarily impossible within a system (diocesan) controlled by finite funds. So ultimately, one reason that bad teachers were not fired sooner rather than later, was money. A second administrator would probably have noticed.
(2) Any teacher who is employed within a system (public school teachers + any teacher within a privately operating system, such as a Catholic diocese) has "protections" by virtue of that system, with or without a union. (No unions in Catholic schools, yet there is protection.) </p>
<p>Therefore, a greater likelihood of finding a more uniformly capable teaching staff is to look to private, secular systems not "controlled" or operating within a system. (No union, no private system such as "chain" schools, no quasi-governmental apparatus such as a religious diocese, etc.) Do you realize what a small percentage of these there are among all K-12 schools, nationally? And the reason for that small percentage? Money! Now, they're filled to capacity & overflowing, in my State. But to build new ones to meet the real demand, also requires money. Entrepreneurs usually choose more lucrative & "easier" money than building & operating a school, which is a non-profit category & labor-intensive. Even a generously compensated Head of School cannot make, hour for hour, what an entrepreneur can make in a for-profit business.</p>
<p>Moreover, even such private schools are limited by their own internal politics & administrative decisions. My daughter's private secular <em>highschool</em> has hired, & has retained, teachers incapable of teaching the subject matter. This is an incredibly wealthy school, with a parent body among the wealthiest in the nation. Further (more importantly!), this rich school is afflicted with the same disease as my daughters' more budget-conscious Catholic school, heretofore not mentioned: extremely bad, or merely insufficient, curriculum in one or more subject areas. In the rich school, it's 1 core + 2 non-core areas; in the other school it was 3 core areas + 2 non-core areas. Great teachers at rich school have been limited in their results by extremely bad curricula; great + terrible teachers at the other school have similarly been limited. Those curriculum limitations have directly influenced TEST SCORES (and I can prove that), as well as private high school admissions dependent on such test scores, and college admissions dependent on test scores.</p>
<p>Bottom line:
The only teaching model where a direct pay-for-performance standard is feasible is a completely autonomous model: teachers acting as independent agents, each choosing his or her own curriculum, hired by and accountable to only the parent who hires him or her. No "system." No dependency on the decisions of others for materials, priorities, methodology. No structure within which to have to operate. Free agents. There's a name for these: private tutors (but also not associated with a "company" or system!). The rich, landed class of early American days hired such people, for their children. They expected results, and they got them.</p>
<p>This is why a voucher system will not work in the way that some parents expect dramatic improvements. Unless all teachers become free agents, independent of the governmental regulations which AllMusic and I and others have described, independent of school "systems," whether private or public, independent of material decisions made by others, results will continue to be dependent on a variety of factors removed from the bare competency of any teacher. You would have to get the gov't to agree to pay a stipend to each such free-agent teacher, redeemed by any family.</p>
<p>A better way to ensure, or at least, promote, excellence in results is for parents (light bulb!) to play their roles as independent free agents. (What a concept!) You act as such a free agent in the way that you supplement, enrich, and monitor your children's work, in all subjects. This is the only control you have, or at least the best control you have. Stop worrying about whether you can control the unions, the districts, the boards, the principal, the diocese. (You can't.) In or out of that system, you, the parent, can make a difference. This is clearer to those parents who've made a decision even to temporarily homeschool a child through a public charter homeschool: the success of the student is directly dependent on the available resources & chosen dedication of the parent. The more enterprising the parent, the better the results. If the parent returns the child to a site school later, the child continues to gain because of the learned experience of the parent in taking educational initiative. </p>
<p>Find the least burdened, most competent "system" (and it will be a system, even microcosmically) that you can afford, and do not expect one-for-one results. You will "pay" extra in the labor you personally provide or the paid outside labor you provide, to supplement, correct, & enrich. I know I'm mostly Preaching to the Choir here, but there are still educated parents that expect way too much in direct results from specific teachers (even the best ones): unrealistic results. In rich homes, poor homes, middle class homes -- more education & opportunity for education, occurs in the home, through the home, than outside. Do the math; add up the hours.</p>
<p>I went to fabulous, fabulous public schools. 90% of my teachers were fantastic. I did extremely well there, and my college admissions results also showed that. But did all or even most of my classmates do equally well? Of course not. It depended on their <em>parents</em> -- the intellectual genes, and the priorities. We knew what the priorities were in our household, and it wasn't expensive vacations, electronic gadgets, or cars. It was education, first; everything else was sacrificed to that. And this was a very different era: an era of homogeneity in the public schools, an era of well-funded schools with all the extras, an era of respected, non-unionized teachers. <em>Still</em>, the parents made the difference.</p>