>Both sides of this discussion are missing the point.
The NJEA exists to get the highest compensation/benefits and maximum number of days of with pay for its members that it can. That’s it! It doesn’t care about the students or the quality of education.
Now that we understand the NJEA’s purpose. The question is whether the $731 that a full-time teachers pays to the union each year ($98mm in NJ annually) achieves that goal. By the teachers’ own admission, the answer is “no”. Every teach on this blog has complained about being underpaid in comparison to the private sector. So, clearly the private sector non-union approach allows deserving professionals to earn higher levels of compensation. If I was a good teacher, I would be angry about having my earnings potential artificially capped, in exchange for minimum guarantees. I would be angry that other teachers, who are not as qualified or as effective as me, earn as much or more than I do. I would want the opportunity for my hard work provide a higher standard of living for my family.
From the taxpayer’s perspective, the current cost structure for public education and its source of funding is unsustainable. At the current rate in Ridgewood, we will see more and more service, programs, athletics and curricula cut to accommodate the NJEA’s negotiated terms and meet the budget. Eventually, this leads to uncertainty about the existence of some teachers’ very jobs. This is the opposite of what teachers want. Taxpayers want the best school systems for their children. That means the BEST teachers. In a free market environment, the best teachers will go where they are rewarded for their efforts and receive the best treatment. This would require school systems to compete with each other to attract the best talent. In other words, quality teachers could command the best benefits. There is no reason why the best teachers should not earn well over $100K a year.
There is a common ground here. And, the common ground does not require the abolition of the union. However, it does require that the terms of the discussion change. The nature of the workplace has evolved dramatically in the past 100 years.
Few, if any, employers can afford to cover the cost of their employees’ benefits without a substantial shared financial responsibility from the employee. Yet, it is as if the people, who support the NJEA’s current position, are ignoring the facts that come out of Washington every day on the healthcare debate. Costs have risen exponentially. It is unrealistic to expect the status quo to continue, without something breaking down. And, what is breaking down is the ability to fund our current level of education. So, teachers must begin to assume a greater financial responsibility for the cost of their benefits – across the board, not just with new teachers. I would argue that the majority of teachers’ union dues would be better spent to help cover the cost of their family benefits.
It is time for the NJEA and school boards to agree on merit based pay. Maximum pay scales must rise and guarantees on the other end must be removed. The incentive to earn more money as a result of superior work is a powerful motivation. So is the fear of unemployment or reduced compensation. It is possible to phase this in. But, the devil is in the details and it will be a difficult transformation. This is in the best interest of teacher, students and taxpayers, alike. It must be done to salvage education in NJ.
The reality is that tenure must be abolished to allow for these changed to work. Tenure serves no legitimate purpose toward meaningfully increasing a teacher’s earning potential, improving the quality of education or motivating a teacher. The natural tendency is for a teacher to view tenure as the “goal”. Tenure is not particularly difficult to attain and, once attained, there is no motivation not to “coast” to retirement.
