If there is a deal to be done on trading security for pay, it must apply to all teachers. Letting under-performers keep security, while giving the rest the option of higher pay is a very bad deal for taxpayers. How many bozos are going to opt for the chance of getting fired? How many high-flyers will stick with current pay?

mike_91361, I agree with your excellent point. It's pretty obvious the good, hard-working teachers would opt for the merit pay. (which is reasonable because GOOD HARD-WORKING teachers are, in my opinion, underpaid.) It's pretty obvious the "not so good, not so hard-working" teachers are would opt for the tenure paid with guaranteed raises. It's hard to believe anyone in the teachers union would be against this proposal because it's win-win for them. This deal would pretty much guarantee the exact same teachers would continue to teach, regardless of how good or bad they are, except it would cost taxpayers more money.

The real divide is between younger teachers and older teachers who are afraid that is they lose their job in the few years before their pension vests. In many states if a teacher if fired after 24 years on the job they get nothing (even though they have made 24 years of retirement contributions) if they make it to 25 years they have a guaranteed pension that will pay them a significant percentage of their salary (usually starting around 60%) for life. You would have to be a moron to give up tenure if you are within shouting distance of having your pension vest.

Why give teachers a choice? Because we have to. There is no way to force them to take a new plan that makes them all give up tenure for no benefit. It's called a contract and both sides have to agree. My suggestion would be a new contract that allows current teachers to choose which plan to be on but makes all new teachers go on the merit pay system. That would phase out tenure but not rob teachers who have spent their careers sacrificing earning potential for job security.

It's pretty obvious the good, hard-working teachers would opt for the merit pay....It's pretty obvious the "not so good, not so hard-working" teachers are would opt for the tenure paid with guaranteed raises.

Dear dougcachet,

It's pretty obvious to me you're making unfair generalizations.

As a retired teacher, I know that not all teachers who would choose not to go to a harder school are are lazy or bad, especially if they are older. Each teacher has to ask him- or herself how good they are with discipline, which is more difficult in a harder school. Each teacher has to ask whether their family responsibilities would conflict with spending long hours on lesson plans. Each teacher has to ask just how much physical energy they have, how much stress they can take.

The best teachers in a school are often the young and/or unmarried teachers who have the time and energy to commit 125 percent to their job. Not every teacher, especially older and/or married-with-kids ones, can do that.

MaryAnn,

To me, to be a good, hard-working teacher you should be able to, among other things, be pretty good with discipline, be willing & able to put in a few extra hours when necessary and be able to handle the stress associated with teaching. Based on your post, it seems you feel differently.

The main point of my posting is that the proposed merit and tenure tracks wouldn't do anything to remove the bad teachers from teaching (because the bad teachers would just choose the tenure track.) Ironically, the "Cleaning House" titled article here was added just hours after my post and basically said what I'm stating here (by stating that removing bad teachers is at least as important as rewarding good teachers.) For the record, I don't think removing the bottom 25% of teachers every year or 2 is a good idea. But removing the bottom 25% of teachers once every 8 or 10 years -- not a bad idea -- although much easier said than done.