The Rot starts at the head

The historical illiteracy of Wisconsin teachers Supposedly, if you listen to progressives, we need more money for education.  Show me one study that equates spending lots of money equates with a good education.  It is a good political slogan. “we will increase spending on education, if you elect me and we will have better educational performance”.  Hmmmmmmmm.  The big picture.  Money has nothing to do with it.  My proposition, is that you have to prove your contention, that if we keep pouring money into schools, paying teachers more, providing the schools  more amenities, will  result in better educational performance.  We need to pay more to teachers so you may say.  So they can strike when you ask them to begin making a contribution to their own pensions, then going on strike or calling in sick, and then taking their students with them without the approval of the student’s parents, students who have no idea why they are out of class, and calling people Nazis, that is caring about providing a better education?  We live with the catchword phrases that make us feel better and believe that what makes us feel good is true. Now let me ask me.  I go to work everyday to a job I cannot stand.  I do the best I can.  Now it seems intuitive to think that if you give me more money, I’ll do a better  job.  Is that true?  No. Now that seems counter intuitive.  Yet, a reward is for the job well done, not for a job that I will do a better job in the future. If I am rewarded, will I do a better job?  Probably not, if I am doing the best I can. What will make me do better is the fear of losing my job.  More money is not an incentive.  How many people sit at their desks and say to themselves, “well if my employer paid me more,I would do better job”? Throwing money to improve something does not do anything other  than increase costs.  Now, as  rule, I would say reward people for what they do, and do not expect more.  Excellence is there from the beginning, and if the excellent person wants more money, they will go somewhere else.  Sure they want to be rewarded for good  performance, and they may do some things to perform better for a little bit more, but the reward does not mean better performance in the future. It’s more like, keep it up. If you want to keep the person, then you keep saying keep it up. If I am not worthy, then don’t keep me in your employ.  To think that teachers will perform better, if you give them the house, is foolishness.  Merit pay is for merit , not for future merit. What has happened in the school system has been the infusion of Unions.  Now as progressive  you might say, well unions were formed as a response to abusive employers.  I would acknowledge that, and I think unions do and did serve a purpose  as a counter to that. That was then, this is now. Unions no longer believe in rewarding merit, or protecting it’s members, they believe only in the union.  and pay for the sake of being there to reward the union fat cats who now make salaries akin to the corporate bosses they so despise.   Whether or not a teacher is meritorious of a reward, the reward is the reason for being a teacher.  Paying them more will not increase their performance.  It may incentivize the number of people who want to be teachers, but it will not increase the number of good teachers.  Good  teachers teach because they want to, good nurses nurse because they want to, Preachers preach because they want to.  If they went into the profession for the money, I would not  hire them and you would not want them teaching your children.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: