On 12 Aug 2011 00:34:11 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 11 Aug 2011 21:28:03 GMT, Han wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
news:SJydnYu18ccL2tnTnZ2dnUVZ5oCdnZ2d@giganews. com:

So not putting in a full day is OK??? Wish I could come in late and
leave early and have the summer off. How about making all teachers
more productive by putting in a full day and letting all of them
keep their jobs.

When I see my daughter and SIL come home from a day's teaaching, I can
clearly see they put in a whole day's work. Maybe there are those who
just pretend to work, but I believe most are doing right.

They don't *have* to. The private sector doesn't have the silly
concept of "tenure". If you don't perform, you're out!

There are arguments in favor of tenure, but it should also be performance
dependent, IMO.

NO good ones, at least for primary and secondary grades. College, *maybe*.

Yes, they may have the summer off. They don't get paid then, or at
least thay have the choice to get paid full pay during school, and
nothing during the summer, or to have it spread out.

They *do* get paid, whether they get paid over nine months or twelve,
they get paid a salary. They can (and often do) work a second job.
In some states they're also eligible for unemployment.

As Leon pointed out, there is something to be said for letting them
budget themselves, so the summer without income can be lived through, so
to speak. Also, letting them pay you in 12 monthly portions gives them
an interest-free loan, something I am against on principle. OTOH, i can
see the ease of budgeting with the 12 monthly payments.

That's a personal thing. The point is, they're paid a salary for work done.
If you want to call their salary $50K (or whatever)/9 or $50K/12 is
irrelevant.

My SIL is a bridge fanatic,
so he is earning extra money in the summer playing professional
bridge. No idea how that works exactly, but hopefully he brings in
enough so I don't really have to supplement them.

You?

Obviously I don't have to, but seeing them struggle is no fun either.
Besides the granddaughters deserve to be helped, they're so good people.

Aren't they making $80K? Let them live!

Yes, times are tough, for everyone. That's when you want teaching
to be done well, and you should be willing to pay for that.

We are paying for that! We are not gettin g what we are paying for.

In some cases, indeed you're not getting what you pay for. That's not
acceptable, and work rules need to change. In other cases, teachers
are NOT rewarded enough for their work.

Bring on the pay-for-performance, competition between schools, and
dump tenure. You can't just pay more, though.

I always remember the Latin teacher fulminating in our high school class
as the stupedest bunch he'd ever had. That's what he said and I think he
meant it. Some kids adored him, I hated him. But the point is that some
years a teacher may be dealt a bunch of "stupid" kids. Come evaluation
time, does that mean he should be demoted because that bunch of kids
underperformed?

Yes. ...if you call not making a "bonus" a demotion. If I'm working for a
stupid boss or get stupid requirements, you bet it affects my pay.

Maybe competition between schools in academic subjects
could be more emphasized. Although, depending on what the parents do
with the info, it is sufficiently known which schools do better. People
will go live in those districts.

So I'll mark you down as being in favor of a permanent underclass.