Friday, February 25, 2011
Teaching Quality and Bargaining
For grade ended 4 March 2011. Why would be the back-end reasoning as to why the statistics bear out that the states with "no collective bargaining" have the lowest test scores? What will happen to teachers if these rights are abolished?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that the reason that states without collective bargaining have the lowest test scores because teachers are paid less in those states. One might argue that the schools in those states are paying teachers below equilibrium wage rates thus making it less attractive for teachers to go to those states. In states with collective bargaining wages are higher thus increasing competition among teaching jobs. If the right to collective bargaining is abolished we will see a decrease in competition for the teaching profession and a decrease in overall test scores. Smarter teachers like Ms. Meachum may leave their profession because of unfair wages.
ReplyDeleteIn states without collective bargaining, teachers have little motivation to go above and beyond in teaching their kids. Higher paid teachers work harder. The incentives to work, when one is not able to improve one's salaries are considerably lower.
ReplyDeleteStates without collective bargaining have lower test scores because teachers are paid less. With less pay, teachers are not motivated to work harder and teach more thoroughly. Instead, they worry about how they are going to keep the lights on at their homes. If these laws were to be abolished, there would be a decrease in the supply of teachers because of the decrease in the demand for a profession in teaching. This would then lead to less education due to the decrease in teachers. Classes will become larger and students will be less likely to learn more.
ReplyDeleteStates without collective bargaining have lower test scores because, as everyone said teachers are paid less. The teachers become unmotivated to teach in that state, because of the junk salary, and then teachers that cannot get a job in the states with collective bargaining get jobs in the states without. Mostly, bad teachers. If these rights are abolished, a lot of the teachers will either leave the country, retire, find a new profession(if they are still in college), and then the students will suffer.
ReplyDeleteBy removing these rights, states are essentially forcing out teachers. Many will not want to work in these states, or will choose not to become teachers at all, and will choose to work elsewhere. This is beyond the fact that without collective bargaining, wages will be significantly lower than in other states. Essentially, abolishing these right removes any incentive to become a teacher, so the teachers who remain were either bad to start with, become overwhelmed with excessive work for so little benefits, or simply become apathetic about their jobs.
ReplyDeleteStates without collective bargaining will have much lowers wages for teachers. This low pay would make anyone angry which is shown in the lower test scores. It makes the learning environment less productive when the teachers are worrying about how they are going to make it to the next pay check. Soon enough the teachers will leave those states to seek out higher pay in other states. The profession will begin to diminish because even the people who are passionate about teaching will have to look for other more profitable ventures to live off of. The students are the ones who will suffer and their education will be lacking.
ReplyDeleteStates are driving teachers away but removing these common rights. These states will begin to lose many teachers because no one will want to work there anymore, and they will try to find jobs in other areas. Another factor driving the teachers away would be the lower incomes because of the loss of collective bargaining. Since all of these teachers will begin to leave the students will ultimately be the ones affected by the loss of teachers.
ReplyDeleteStates that do not utilize collective bargaining have the lowest test scores because their teachers are paid low wages. Teachers have no motivation to work hard in order to ensure their students comprehend the school's curriculum. Although this is not the case for all teachers, many of them feel this way. Abolishment of these rights will most likely result in teachers moving to other states or pursuing careers with higher salaries.
ReplyDeleteStates who do not have collective bargaining have lower scores because the teachers are not incentivized (yes I made up a word). I mean, the love of teaching for teaching's sake can only get you so far. It is obvious that paying teachers more, not as a mandate from the state governments (and certainly not from the federal government), but through collective bargaining, will cause them to work harder, which will increase the supply of human capital in our country, which will give us higher productivity down the road.
ReplyDeleteStates without collective bargaining seem to correlate with low test scores. This is true because teachers who can't gain salary increases usually tend to perform at a lower level than those teachers who have more of an incentive to work hard because they make more.
ReplyDeleteTeachers employed in states without collective bargaining have little incentive to go beyond the required. Because of lower wages, teachers are less inclined to enhance their curriculum or dedicate extra hours after school to their students. States that have collective bargaining, in most cases, attract educators into their workforce that will become more productive than they would be if they taught in a state without collective bargaining.
ReplyDeleteWorkers, in general, can become unproductive and and lose motivatation if they are paid low wages for their labor. In short, employees respond to incentives. This concept can be applied to this situation. States that offer teachers positive incentives such as collective bargaining, will obviously have gains in education such as higher overall scores on ACT/SAT tests.
ReplyDeleteWith no collective bargaining, teachers are being paid below minimum wages, therefore, they're not motivated to enter the teaching profession and the current teachers are not motivated to do a good job. This resulted in lower ACT/SAT scores. With collective bargaining, teachers have incentives such as higher wages and protection from getting sued by students; hopefully, that would motivate them to perform a better job at teaching and raise the SAT/ACT scores.
ReplyDeletestates without collective bargaining have lower test scores because their is no motivation for the teachers to push the students harder if the they know that there pay will not reflect that extra work they put it.also this is going to have drastic effects on the teaching profession in the future because kids who want to be teachers will be deterred from the field when they realize how poor the pay is and the fact that no matter how hard they work there is no monetary compensation for their efforts.
ReplyDeleteStates without collective bargaining have much less job competition since the good teachers often go elsewhere to seek a higher pay. Those that are left aren't very competitive and, with such a low pay, have little incentive to put effort into their work.
ReplyDeleteStates that do not have collective bargaining have lower test scores because the teachers have lower wages and therefore have less of an incentive to teach students better. States who have collective bargaining have teachers who are paid higher wages and would then actually teach the students better and raise their test scores.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of collective bargaining in modern America has become not just class warfare, but a fundamental attack by multinational corporations on the people that they attempt to suppress. The individual's running the world's largest companies are not interested in educational markers or test scores. That said, the use of SAT/ACT scores as a correlative measure of the impact of collective bargaining is dubious at best. The SAT has been shown repeatedly to show bias toward white, English speaking Americans, while poverty can easily confound this statistical attempt (the bottom four states are also among the poorest in the country). That said, I still firmly believe that collective bargaining must be guaranteed because it serves as a check on the powers of the government, though it may be an un-capitalistic right.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that states without collective bargaining pay teachers lower salaries. With lower salaries, the motivation for teachers goes way down. This leads to less enthusiasm in classrooms, and overall, lower test scores. Teachers feel as if their low salaries are an excuse for them not to work harder. Abolishing these rights will surely lead to many teachers leaving their occupations and eventually, a shortage of teachers.
ReplyDeleteThe states without collective bargaining pay teachers a smaller salary. Thus, they have no external motivation to go above and beyond when they teach. Their salary amount will not change whether their students succeed or fail. Intelligent potential teachers would probably not go in the teaching profession due to this low pay. If these rights are abolished, then many teachers may quit and seek a higher paying occupation. There would be no more competition among teachers.
ReplyDelete