First, the pay for performance part was a supplement to base pay.

And that is precisely the problem. How does AFT feel about paying a higher base salary out of the box to Math and Science teachers, and a lower one to Art and P.E. teachers (i.e. actually using the free market and the demand of a STEM bachelor's degree to reflect pay). That's my big issue with AFT's opposition to differentiated and merit pay systems.

I am all for rewarding teachers who do well (both using test scores and holisitc review patterns), however, we can't just give bonuses to the best teachers and bonuses to those in hard to staff subjects without lowering comparatively offsetting salaries of teachers whose subject areas are not in demand.

There is no reason in the 21st century to recruit beginning teachers in math and science with the same pay package as art and p.e. teachers. That defies all logic regarding supply and demand. You simply cannot get the best and brightest math and science majors to come, when you are telling them that their hard earned undergraduate degree is of the same value as someone who earned a degree in fine arts or phys. ed.

Apparently, the AFT agrees with you more than you know. Among the policies in the statement above was "placing new teachers in shortage fields (e.g., math and science) further up on the salary schedule;"

At the same time, you are right, we won't be advocating to have any of our members take a cut in their current pay because they are teaching a "worth-less" subject like civics or art, rather than a "worth-more" subject like math.

I think we need to lift the profession, but I'm under no illusions that we can do that with simply more of the same. And that might mean differentials for math teachers. It's not like such things don't already exist.

But the reason we need to lift the profession is in large part because base pay is too low. And making it even lower for some is not going to be part of any solution I support.

Once again, only showing your readers half-truths. While rebutting/dismantling all of your information would take more time than I have now, how about we just concentrate on the public vs. private school debate. Specifically, your decision to post the widely criticized and discredited NCES study. Here is a link to the Harvard study from the PEPG that came out less than a week after the NCES document, and completely discredits the original document. Take a look for yourselves: "On the Public-Private School Achievement Debate" at http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/research.htm

So, If private schools are achieving at statistically significant rates above public schools, and vouchers would help put students in need (both academically and socio-economically) in those environments, then you are right, its a bad idea. Helping children is not what we should be doing, instead we should continue citing dubious research and waging a PR campaign to save our monopoly on public education.

When you say Harvard, you mean Paul Peterson. I've already linked to Yglesias' article which -- if you read it -- says "No man alone is responsible for the state of misinformation on the subject, but if you had to pick one, Paul Peterson would be a good choice." Peterson is the man about whom Kim Metcalf, then of the evaluation center at Indiana University, wrote an Ed Week piece called "Advocacy in the Guise of Science." And Mathematica, Peterson's partner in his New York voucher research, had to issue a press release to the effect that his claims for the data from that project were premature.

And you probably think Richard Vedder is a great economist too.

Who are Yglesias and Metcalf to discredit Peterson. I'd take Jay Greene and Paul Peterson's CV's over those two any day. Just because their ideologies and research do not compute with the "more resources" crowd, doesn't mean they don't have really really ballsy credentials. Peterson is a tenured prof at Harvard who runs a huge center with a great CV... how can you just cite some journalist to weaken his creds...

"Mike" (above) has tried to comment twice more but wants to do so anonymously. We're not playing that game.

If you have so much to say, get your own blog.

By the way, your claim that Paul Peterson has a "ballsy" C.V. may be accurate -- if I can figure out how that term applies to a C.V.

But every single one of Paul Peterson's reviews of others' research magically uncovers an anti-private-school bias, whether it's RAND or the Lubienskis.

The day he finds a study -- there must be one out there -- with a pro-private-school bias is the day he deserves to be taken seriously.

I wasn't trying to be anonymous just was busy at work and trying to post quickly.

My point is how can you use some freelancer like Matt Yglesias or Some state-school professor to rebut Harvard professors just cuz you don't like their findings.

The end of the Empire is near!!!!! I see the crack in your defenses. In all subsequent AFT affiliated posts no one provided any actual linkable research to back up their claims. Only more personal attacks.

And, just because you personally don�t agree with Paul Peterson's findings, doesn't mean you can discredit him or them. Why don�t you discuss the methodology he used to determine his findings and your issues with it. Or, do you not understand statistical research?

Still, the real issue is this: No credible economist or political scientist has challenged the findings of the Llaudet and Peterson re-evaluation of the NCES study. Putting aside the obvious AFT anti-Peterson sentiment, Peterson found that private schools were achieving at rates superior to public schools, and that was the main point in my original post� Unless you consider Ed�s hypocritical decision to cite an organizations press release calling for caution when interpreting its findings. Ironic that no one at the AFT-blog decided to mention in the cited NCES report that the researchers couched all of their findings, and called for little to be read into their document. Concentrate on the data, not personal attacks.

I am not sure I want to be a part of a union who have officials that don't recoganize the value of art as well as math; those who are engineers, architects,designers, and film makers view art as more important than other subjects and would not except salaries less than others.

I disagree with Mike's response advocating market based salary scales for teachers in different disciplines. If we buy into the notion that educational programs should be funded differentially according to public perception of their relative value, we might as well go for vouchers to private schools that compete for enrollments.
Too much of what we are required to do in public education has nothing to do with making our schools more beneficial to students and society as a whole. Any decision to increase or decrease funding to one or another aspect of public education should be based on research, not political whim or public opinion.