About Me

Name:Waski_the_Squirrel
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Science for All Americans

Since long before I ever entered school, we have been treated to a steady stream of news about the problems in education. The common response has been to toss money into education. Although I wouldn't object to the ability to outfit my lab the way I want, this will not affect the education my students get. A lot of the reform is of very little practical value.

In the mid-eighties, a group of scientists, teachers of science (at all levels) and concerned citizens met under the auspices of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). They came together to answer a simple but profound question: what do our students need to know about science when they graduate high school. This is a focus on all students, not just the “smart” ones or future scientists.

They formed a group called Project 2061. Their first project was a book called Science for All Americans (SFAA). If you click on the title, you can read the book online for free.

This book and the other products this group produced are a real tool for science reform. It focused on specific essential topics. It them proceeded to develop them to illustrate the kind of understanding a graduate of our high schools should have. I read this book and had my eyes opened wide.

I have a degree in Physics, yet I understood a few things better after reading this book. I really had my eyes opened in the other sciences. I'd been teaching them and, I realized, doing so without any understanding. For example, I had once memorized all the details of photosynthesis. I thought I understood it. Thanks to this book, I finally realized where the dry mass of a plant comes from (hint: it's not the ground).

Our science textbooks are encyclopedic in coverage. The only way to cover everything in them is through memorization. By this means we come to believe (as I did with photosynthesis) that we understand. By limiting topics, we are able to actually understand topics and thereby come to a higher level of thinking.

Project 2061 is a valuable tool for helping science teachers focus on important topics. It does not discount the importance of other topics, but it does recognize that we cannot properly teach everything that is important. Instead, it emphasizes certain skills that can be built upon and branch into other topics. In addition, it recognizes how understanding should be developed from elementary school.

There are similar projects in other subject areas. There are also competing projects in science. The quality of these projects varies. In some cases, such as the NCTM standards in mathematics, they are quite controversial. I don't want to debate that today, but what I will say is that it's about time we start focusing on understanding rather than encyclopedic coverage. These tools will provide a starting point for doing that.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Story of Union Negotiations (part 1)

I want to describe how the union and the school board at one school have managed to create a really unpleasant teaching environment. I also want to talk about how I wound up being misquoted on the cover of two different major North Dakota newspapers. This is a long story, so to do it justice, I'm going to break it up over several days. I'm going to try to make Fridays a happy blog day, so I'll pick up this story again on Monday. Today, I'll summarize the legal side.

Before I get into that, I would like to give a shout out to flagwaver who wrote an interesting blog about the need to support teachers instead of tear them down. Though I largely agree, I think my story will show how the unions themselves have turned people against them.

In North Dakota, schools boards negotiate a contract with teachers. Most schools do this once every 2 years because our legislature meets every 2 years and they want an idea what Bismarck is going to do before they decide how to budget for contracts. Negotiations can get heated or even nasty, but usually the board and union come to some kind of agreement. North Dakota is that kind of a place.

If an agreement cannot be reached, one side or the other declares "impasse". This means they have asked for an outside committee to come in, hold a hearing, and make recommendations. After the committee issues its recommendations, the two sides have 20 days to accept or reject the recommendations.  If, after 20 days, a settlement is not reached, the committee publishes its findings in the local paper and assigns blame. This is where the process ends (but without a contract). The school board then has the power to simply impose a contract. Game over. Teachers are not allowed to strike, and I haven't heard of any other labor actions in the state.

If teachers don't like the imposed contract, they are, of course, free not to sign it. They will then need to find new employment. Very few are free enough to take this option.

A school at which I was recently employed has gone to impasse 4 times in the past 6 years. Three of those were right in a row. This school chose to bring in a one-line contract (which I described earlier). The union opposed it for reasons I described.

On Monday, I will pick up this story and get into the specifics. It may end up taking me until Tuesday or Wednesday. I may know the final ending by then. For Friday, I want to end the week with something happy and optimistic.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Unions and Negotiations

The labor unions (the NEA and the AFT) have a stranglehold on contract negotiations in most schools in our country. The negotiations are what is called "collective bargaining." This term should raise a red flag for every believer in the American way. "Collective" is a communist term: the group. The labor unions fight for the group, not the individual.

In some states, the union has actual held students hostage for group benefits. They do this by striking or refusing to work outside the contract day, or not writing recommendations. In some states, where union membership is forced, the union has actually punished teachers who operate outside the collective by crossing the picket line. With this power over individual members and over students, boards and parents cave in to collective demands.

North Dakota has some features of this system. However, North Dakota is a "right to work" state. I'm able to work without being forced to join the collective. Indeed, I have remained independent except for my first year when I was young and gullible. Teachers have tried to shame me into joining or scare me into joining. They shame me by saying that I get the benefits of the negotiated contract without putting anything in. They scare me by saying I have no protection from lawsuits or administrative harassment.

I respond by questioning how the collective benefits me (or, indeed, education). I have insurance both through my school and through the American Association of Educators . I have legal rights: the same ones union members have. I have been harassed by administrators. I figure that if it's bad enough, I can just take my Physics degree, my 4 science certifications, and my math certification, and find a school that appreciates me.

They cannot shame me because I reject the entire concept of a collective contract. Should I get the same pay as the woman down the hall who cannot control her classroom? Should I get the same pay as the elementary teacher?

I won't fall into the trap of saying one of us has a harder job. I would be lost with little kids. However, I will say there have been times when I was the only candidate for the job, and every year schools go begging for science and math teachers. Elementary teachers are much easier to find. Shouldn't I be paid for bringing my skills since they are a lot less common?

What about the first grade teacher who pushes all of her students to read far above grade level? Shouldn't she be paid more? Instead, the other teachers harass her for making them look bad. What about the nice old man across the hall who takes new teachers under his wing and helps them learn to control a classroom and teach?

I could go on and on with examples of the inequity of a system that pays the collective, not the individual. The only financial rewards I get are for longevity and for education.

Tomorrow I will look at how the union has helped ruin the environment in a school at which I'm no longer employed. I will also delve a little into the quirks of North Dakota's contract negotiations process. On Friday I want to take a break and explore something good in education.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The One-line Salary Schedule

Suppose a school believes it is having trouble attracting new teachers. It concludes that the problem is a low starting salary. It would seem that raising the starting salary is the solution. However, as I discussed yesterday, this is expensive because it forces the school to give raises to every single teacher.

Somehow this school needs to raise the salary for new teachers (the base) while not affecting the salaries of the other teachers. This is the essence of the one-line salary schedule. It consists of a single line with a base salary and then various lanes based on education. There is also a yearly increment which is added to the base when the teacher was hired. This is negotiated separately from the base.

Mr. Smitty is hired at $20,000. The yearly increment is $500, so next year, he makes $20,500. Meanwhile, the base has changed and  Miss Hartford is hired at $21,000, with less experience than Mr. Smitty. The numbers are invented, but the situation is real. I worked with these two teachers. The next year, Mr. Smitty makes $21,000 and Miss Hartford makes $21,500.

It gets worse. Suppose the school decides it cannot afford such a large increment, or any increment at all. Meanwhile, they bump up the base again to attract new teachers. They know that the more senior teachers are attached to the community. They will grumble, but stay.

All of this is real. Fortunately, the school saw the problem with paying a new teacher more than an experienced teacher and put language into the contract to rectify that. Now, if the right teacher is hired, you might get an exceptional raise. In the example above, the hiring of Miss Hartford at $21,000 bumped Mr. Smitty up to $21,500. He got a $1000 raise just because the school hired Miss Hartford. If she hadn't been hired, he would still be at $20,500.

One-line is just a way to attract the new teachers, but it's not a way to keep experienced teachers.

I know I promised to talk about the union. Tomorrow I will get into the nasty role the union played in this process. I should also note that none of this happened in the school where I am currently employed. I'll get into that too!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

High Starting Salaries Bad for Teachers

Most of us would agree that to attract good teachers, we must pay them well. After this, opinion diverges. I've had a front-row seat to this over the past year. I am a public school teacher in a school that has gone to impasse 4 times in the past 6 years over contract negotiations. There are many facets to this issue that I plan to explore.

Many schools are making the mistake of trying to attract new teachers with high starting salaries (called the base salary). This is a mistake because once a school sets a high base, it is difficult to continue to give raises beyond this. This problem was analyzed well by the Dallas Morning News.

Quite simply, why would I stay at a school if my salary won't improve? Experience matters a lot. I figure that my first two years of teaching can be essentially written off. It wasn't until my 5th year that I started to think I was actually contributing.

The typical teacher contract recognizes the value of experience and education with a salary schedule which has lanes of increasing salary on the x-axis for education and steadily increasing salary down the y-axis as years of experience increase. All of this is typically calculated from the base salary.

This presents the problem. To increase teacher pay, the base must increase. However, this causes a huge expense for the school. On the other hand, a low base may not attract new teachers. How can they resolve this dilemma?

This type of salary schedule limits schools in their hiring, but receives enthusiastic union support. There are several alternatives out there: one-line salary schedules, merit pay, signing bonuses, and others. Over the next few weeks I'll look at some of these alternatives and the scary rÙle that the union can sometimes play as salary is negotiated.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Introduction

I've successfully signed up as a blogger. It's very late at night (I can't sleep) and scientists say that lack of sleep causes us to react similarly to when we are inebriated. This means that I'm essentially drunk, but without the benefit of alcohol. I'll introduce myself with this post because I'm not thinking coherently enough to write the post I'd planned to write.

This blog will cover education issues. Some of them will have a very North Dakota focus (since that's my home). However, North Dakota is dealing with issues many states are dealing with. At times, I will look at other issues outside education. My interests are quite wide. I especially enjoy science, personal finance, and social/family issues. I'm quite busy (and blogs are new to me), so I will probably post only once a week.

I am a teacher in rural North Dakota. I've taught in 4 different schools (including 1 in Pennsylvania) of sizes ranging from 160 students up to about 2400 students (that's K-12). My current school has about 450 students.

I have a BS in Physics and I'm close to a master's degree in mathematics education. Because of the quirks of rural North Dakota, I've taught every single field of science as well as several math courses. My introduction to teaching was actually as a full time math teacher.

I approach education from a very conservative, Christian, anti-union perspective. In fact, my first post was going to be anti-union.

Tomorrow, when I've slept (I hope), I will start making regular posts every few days.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »