In a recent interview with the PBS Newshour, Van Roekel made it very clear that he did not like the idea of good teachers being paid more money for good results. In his mind, teachers (using the traditional salary schedule) should be paid based on the practice, and the results should not be incorporated into salary decisions. Notice I didn't say test scores, I said results. So, in Van Roekel's mind, a teacher that manages to get a teenager that can't write to create a paragraph's worth of prose is just as valuable as the teacher that sits at his/her desk and shows films every day.
Collectivized education anyone?
Here's the transcript:
JOHN MERROW (PBS): But some teachers are better than others. They are. I mean, there's plenty of evidence showing that some teachers actually deliver real performance gains, and some don't. Should those teachers who deliver those performance gains make more money than the ones who don't? It's a yes-or-no question.So teachers that get the job done in an exemplary fashion shouldn't be rewarded? Actual output doesn't matter, only the practice?
DENNIS VAN ROEKEL: Not only -- not based just on that factor, no.
Ok Dennis, so does that mean that you're going to give that quarter million salary back to the union members that you basically steal from? Since you are "practicing" right along with us, does that mean that you'll dump that $250,000 base salary and $100,000 worth of benefits, and jump on the good old salary schedule?
Didn't think so.
Once again I'll state my position that unions have an important place in the labor/management realm of teaching, but if you don't think that teacher's unions are part of the problem in educating children, you are fooling yourself. From the hypocritical talk of the NEA president, to engaging in the willful destruction of the education system in Ukiah by our local union, the situation is becoming more and more disturbing by the day.