Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Teacher Contract Discussion Thread
The "Making Schools Better" thread that has been allowed to drop down the page.I have added this cover from the Chicago Tribune Magazine in honor of frequent commentator 4Piggybanks2.
I thought by now all the teachers' contracts would be agreed upon, but the big one--District 300--is still outstanding. The school board has broken off negotiations. (See story Oct. 24th). So, I'm keeping this on top for a while longer.
Here are some Huntley School District 158 numbers passed out before the Huntley school board vote.
Comments:
"Huntley" D158 contract -
Even as its ACT scores went down,
even as it is trying to recover from numerous, painful financial "surprises",
even as it's records (the ones that aren't "missing") will probably be scrutinized in two different forensic audts - one for payroll and one for ($) millions in Site and Construction,
and even as it is drafting a letter asking federal folks to take a look see -
Board majority members who were on watch (or not watching?)when all these things were evolving have decided that MANDATORY yearly raises and benefits outside of what private sector people get - somehow makes sense.
Two of my questions would be (1)whether or not those board members have any commons sense and (2) their actions no longer beg the question of "What are they thinking?" but "How soon can they be thrown off the board?"
Even as its ACT scores went down,
even as it is trying to recover from numerous, painful financial "surprises",
even as it's records (the ones that aren't "missing") will probably be scrutinized in two different forensic audts - one for payroll and one for ($) millions in Site and Construction,
and even as it is drafting a letter asking federal folks to take a look see -
Board majority members who were on watch (or not watching?)when all these things were evolving have decided that MANDATORY yearly raises and benefits outside of what private sector people get - somehow makes sense.
Two of my questions would be (1)whether or not those board members have any commons sense and (2) their actions no longer beg the question of "What are they thinking?" but "How soon can they be thrown off the board?"
EXCERPTs***: (re D158)
Quagliano said. "Philosophically, I didn't support the level of increases."
Yet he voted for the contract anyway?
--------------
(CFO Hall) "In 2007-08, he said, the surplus is forecast at $100,000 for a $63.7 million budget."
Less than a sneeze worth of rainy day money MIGHT be there (in a district that can't accurately count its big yellow buses, gets nothing in writing about the true cost of cameras to be installed, and vastly overspends what the board allowed for auditing, etc.) and yet financial whiz Quagliano voted for it anyway.
-------------------
Five out of five people I've talked to will now NOT vote for ANY referendum and have lost all trust in Quagliano. Being a respected "number guy" has now been replaced by fury that he took the easy road of supporting a bad majority plan instead of fighting for taxpayers and their kids. They said he rolled over. I say he's out-of-touch with people and how so man households are struggling with THEIR limited "numbers".
That makes 6 votes forever changed.
***
http://www.nwherald.com/MainSection/360723056516372.php, Friday, August 25, 2006, "D-158 OKs new teachers' contract", By TOM MUSICK
Quagliano said. "Philosophically, I didn't support the level of increases."
Yet he voted for the contract anyway?
--------------
(CFO Hall) "In 2007-08, he said, the surplus is forecast at $100,000 for a $63.7 million budget."
Less than a sneeze worth of rainy day money MIGHT be there (in a district that can't accurately count its big yellow buses, gets nothing in writing about the true cost of cameras to be installed, and vastly overspends what the board allowed for auditing, etc.) and yet financial whiz Quagliano voted for it anyway.
-------------------
Five out of five people I've talked to will now NOT vote for ANY referendum and have lost all trust in Quagliano. Being a respected "number guy" has now been replaced by fury that he took the easy road of supporting a bad majority plan instead of fighting for taxpayers and their kids. They said he rolled over. I say he's out-of-touch with people and how so man households are struggling with THEIR limited "numbers".
That makes 6 votes forever changed.
***
http://www.nwherald.com/MainSection/360723056516372.php, Friday, August 25, 2006, "D-158 OKs new teachers' contract", By TOM MUSICK
D158 and D300 teachers contracts will illustrate dramatically how local school boards are out manned, out gunned, out maneuvered and out negotiated by the union. They don’t stand a chance.
IEA\NEA has two sets of resources it makes available to a local to help them throughout a contract term prepare for the next negotiation.
First there is the “political” arm – there is PAC money and directed union local contributions such as we have seen for both school board elections and referendum. This money goes with a strong “we expect to collect on demand” message. And what school board candidate does not get the message? Look at the school boards we have, without campaign donations, who could afford out of their own pockets to run? And if they can afford it, expect the union to oppose them, because they will expect them to be anti union, against increased tax “outside trouble makers” as we have seen them labeled this last year.
The second resource is professional negotiating resources at the regional level (sits between the local and the IEA). Trained in both IEA and NEA negotiating techniques, experienced in multiple engagements each year, this individual is a formidable foe.
What does the district have on it’s side? A school board member would have to serve at least four years to even see two contract negotiations. It’s superintendent and other administrators only get experience once every three years at most.
Fair fight? I think not. Solution?
IEA\NEA has two sets of resources it makes available to a local to help them throughout a contract term prepare for the next negotiation.
First there is the “political” arm – there is PAC money and directed union local contributions such as we have seen for both school board elections and referendum. This money goes with a strong “we expect to collect on demand” message. And what school board candidate does not get the message? Look at the school boards we have, without campaign donations, who could afford out of their own pockets to run? And if they can afford it, expect the union to oppose them, because they will expect them to be anti union, against increased tax “outside trouble makers” as we have seen them labeled this last year.
The second resource is professional negotiating resources at the regional level (sits between the local and the IEA). Trained in both IEA and NEA negotiating techniques, experienced in multiple engagements each year, this individual is a formidable foe.
What does the district have on it’s side? A school board member would have to serve at least four years to even see two contract negotiations. It’s superintendent and other administrators only get experience once every three years at most.
Fair fight? I think not. Solution?
Morning 4piggybanks2
Of course he voted for it. He owes the majority his seat and especially early on, he will perform payback.
I note with interest that the board held it's second session while most citizens had to be at work and yet at a time the teachers did not! When there was opposition in the room, they could not step up and vote. But in the calm of the morning, with no dissenting support, D158 taxpayer’s money went sailing from the board’s dais across the room to the teacher’s pocket... how wonderful!
Of course he voted for it. He owes the majority his seat and especially early on, he will perform payback.
I note with interest that the board held it's second session while most citizens had to be at work and yet at a time the teachers did not! When there was opposition in the room, they could not step up and vote. But in the calm of the morning, with no dissenting support, D158 taxpayer’s money went sailing from the board’s dais across the room to the teacher’s pocket... how wonderful!
IF the Board can do a financial review between the other night and Thursday am, why wasn't this done last week and before the agenda vote the other night?
If the other night, Skala and others did not know any budget impacts and ramifications, how did they all become 'informed' overnight? where are the details to support the budget claims? who is going to continue to watch to see what the cost ends up actually being?
Seems the Board has a pattern of saying that they did not understand the finances and what they were presented. And the story goes on and on and on..
What did Skala say in response to the NWHerald editorial and how the expenditures do not square with the community?
And did I read this right that HR said that the Board approved 7.5% or more from the last contract and now this continues?
Comparing to other districts sometimes is apples and oranges, since the other districts do not have our deficits, our tax increases, our new buildings to work in, or .....
someone help us, our Board does not even listen to the editorial to respond to...
If the other night, Skala and others did not know any budget impacts and ramifications, how did they all become 'informed' overnight? where are the details to support the budget claims? who is going to continue to watch to see what the cost ends up actually being?
Seems the Board has a pattern of saying that they did not understand the finances and what they were presented. And the story goes on and on and on..
What did Skala say in response to the NWHerald editorial and how the expenditures do not square with the community?
And did I read this right that HR said that the Board approved 7.5% or more from the last contract and now this continues?
Comparing to other districts sometimes is apples and oranges, since the other districts do not have our deficits, our tax increases, our new buildings to work in, or .....
someone help us, our Board does not even listen to the editorial to respond to...
Another observation regarding monelson and the time of the Board meeting. This was scheduled for convenience of the adults, board to avoid pressure and teachers. This was not scheduled for transparency and disclosure to the taxpayers.
Re: Board members being outmanned and outgunned
In D158 and as is with many school boards - if the school board is already stacked with board members who are tied to the school industry or unions - the authorizing of a contract that insults the tax payers is almost a sure thing.
One minute a district says it has no money - zip - zero - nada. The next minute, hey, yah we can afford raises, bonuses, extra benefits, etc. for teachers AND underperforming administrators.
School board members and administrators often do a very good imitation of the swiveling head demon in the Exorcist and multipersonality Sybils.
In D158 and as is with many school boards - if the school board is already stacked with board members who are tied to the school industry or unions - the authorizing of a contract that insults the tax payers is almost a sure thing.
One minute a district says it has no money - zip - zero - nada. The next minute, hey, yah we can afford raises, bonuses, extra benefits, etc. for teachers AND underperforming administrators.
School board members and administrators often do a very good imitation of the swiveling head demon in the Exorcist and multipersonality Sybils.
Teachers have to be paid extra to work a full day - boy I wish I could get paid an extra $6M+ per year to work through my lunch hour- oh wait... most days I do work through my lunch hour and what do I get for it - I get my work done which means I get to keep my job. Maybe I get better reviews for having higher productivity than my co-workers. If I'm lucky that translates into a raise from my employer.
Teachers need planning periods I'm told. To grade papers? Do lesson plans?... Guess what, I bet if you questioned people in corporate America earning comparable salaries (when broken down by a per hour worked basis) a large percentage of those people bring work home. After their kids are fed and in bed, after all the household chores are done, they sit down at their home computer and put in a couple of hours from home.
I don't get a better raise because I have been with the company longer. I get reviewed every year. Am I hitting my goals? Am I getting the job done? Am I an asset to my company?
I respect teachers. It is one of the most important jobs someone can commit themselves to. I firmly believe good teachers should recieve an excellent compensation package. When they get results they should get good raises. I don't agree with a system where what you make is based solely on years experience + education.
Teachers need planning periods I'm told. To grade papers? Do lesson plans?... Guess what, I bet if you questioned people in corporate America earning comparable salaries (when broken down by a per hour worked basis) a large percentage of those people bring work home. After their kids are fed and in bed, after all the household chores are done, they sit down at their home computer and put in a couple of hours from home.
I don't get a better raise because I have been with the company longer. I get reviewed every year. Am I hitting my goals? Am I getting the job done? Am I an asset to my company?
I respect teachers. It is one of the most important jobs someone can commit themselves to. I firmly believe good teachers should recieve an excellent compensation package. When they get results they should get good raises. I don't agree with a system where what you make is based solely on years experience + education.
Don't be confused by the following as I think these raises are way out of line, but can you really blame the teachers for trying to get paid as much as they can? Is teacher pay really our issue here?
Or is it irresponsible school boards? School Boards, that as my friend 4Piggybanks2 so eloquently calls "stacked with board members who are tied to the school industry or unions".
For months we have discussed a myriad of issues and this raise and the one coming in D300 epitomizes them. It always comes back to a form of government (the school board) that is staffed by a mix of well-intentioned amateurs and former educators with their predisposed bias towards the teachers union. They all are local amateur politicians who are often there because of the first campaign of their lives. And who was one of the groups that befriended them with needed funds to help them win? The union….
They have as their support the institution of the supervisor, trained in the same education industry ideas, sympathetic to the union and usually a rank ammeter when it comes to business administration. His or her staff has the same background and experiences.
And who is there to lend their support to these amateurs? Well all the architects, builders, teachers unions,etc. They can supply them with data to support their conclusions that the sky is falling and taxes must be raised to build more schools to hold the sky up. Proposals to meet any available funding, and make the administrator’s job of supporting the school board easier.
School districts and their school boards have out lived their ability to function well. The question is, what will we replace them with?
Remember, the teachers cannot raise their own pay, it take a school board to raise the funds and hand it to them. And when they do it beyond what is fiscally responsible, that’s when we all get angry. But should we be angry at the teachers…..
Or is it irresponsible school boards? School Boards, that as my friend 4Piggybanks2 so eloquently calls "stacked with board members who are tied to the school industry or unions".
For months we have discussed a myriad of issues and this raise and the one coming in D300 epitomizes them. It always comes back to a form of government (the school board) that is staffed by a mix of well-intentioned amateurs and former educators with their predisposed bias towards the teachers union. They all are local amateur politicians who are often there because of the first campaign of their lives. And who was one of the groups that befriended them with needed funds to help them win? The union….
They have as their support the institution of the supervisor, trained in the same education industry ideas, sympathetic to the union and usually a rank ammeter when it comes to business administration. His or her staff has the same background and experiences.
And who is there to lend their support to these amateurs? Well all the architects, builders, teachers unions,etc. They can supply them with data to support their conclusions that the sky is falling and taxes must be raised to build more schools to hold the sky up. Proposals to meet any available funding, and make the administrator’s job of supporting the school board easier.
School districts and their school boards have out lived their ability to function well. The question is, what will we replace them with?
Remember, the teachers cannot raise their own pay, it take a school board to raise the funds and hand it to them. And when they do it beyond what is fiscally responsible, that’s when we all get angry. But should we be angry at the teachers…..
Re: (my wording) “Can we blame the teachers for asking for as much as they can get?” and school industry contracts for administrators and teachers.
School employees carry the word “entitlement” to an extreme. And constantly hearing about how THEY work hard inside and outside the building is getting pretty old. So is the idea that they are “special’ above the rest of us who somehow keep THEIR world running. It is my belief that many (not all) of THEM think they are above us and not a part of us except to when it’s time to back their checks.
Locally, “Do teachers unions wield too much power?”, Northwest Herald, Feb. 6, 2005, by Eric R. Olson, ………
EXCERPT (comments attributed to
"Tom George, a teacher and former president of the teachers union at Huntley District 158".)
In 16 years as a teacher, George said, he has earned a master's degree and has 45 semester hours toward a doctorate. - "If I was working in a commercial field, I think I would earn much more money than I do teaching," he said. - But money is not his motivation, George said. - "I don't believe people teach because of salaries," he said. "People teach because they want to help kids learn."
END OF EXCERPT
My comment: Teachers chose their profession while knowing the public is limited in its ability to pay for all their wants. And the public stuggles to make do with far less. If things are so rosy in the private sector – please go there. The unemployment lines contain many people looking for juicy jobs. Ridiculous tenure keeps BAD, overpaid, teachers in contact with our children too. The public pays for a lot of tuition that goes toward degrees that have NOTHING to do with the classes being taught.
School employees carry the word “entitlement” to an extreme. And constantly hearing about how THEY work hard inside and outside the building is getting pretty old. So is the idea that they are “special’ above the rest of us who somehow keep THEIR world running. It is my belief that many (not all) of THEM think they are above us and not a part of us except to when it’s time to back their checks.
Locally, “Do teachers unions wield too much power?”, Northwest Herald, Feb. 6, 2005, by Eric R. Olson, ………
EXCERPT (comments attributed to
"Tom George, a teacher and former president of the teachers union at Huntley District 158".)
In 16 years as a teacher, George said, he has earned a master's degree and has 45 semester hours toward a doctorate. - "If I was working in a commercial field, I think I would earn much more money than I do teaching," he said. - But money is not his motivation, George said. - "I don't believe people teach because of salaries," he said. "People teach because they want to help kids learn."
END OF EXCERPT
My comment: Teachers chose their profession while knowing the public is limited in its ability to pay for all their wants. And the public stuggles to make do with far less. If things are so rosy in the private sector – please go there. The unemployment lines contain many people looking for juicy jobs. Ridiculous tenure keeps BAD, overpaid, teachers in contact with our children too. The public pays for a lot of tuition that goes toward degrees that have NOTHING to do with the classes being taught.
Contract "Walls" -
1. The “Never really graduated and never will.” theory of educators.
A friend recently pointed out that the vast majority of administrators and teachers are clueless about what the private sector world of employment and competition is all about. These folks LIKE school, its familiar surroundings, the idea that if they all hang together they must be pretty smart, or whatever. Besides protecting their own pockets, they’re protecting their “home”…….at taxpayers expense.
@. In the private sector, “Mommie” isn’t going to have much influence on the boss as to what your pay, hours and benefits will be. The boss makes the decision based on your performance, what the job in question is worth to him/her, and what the company can afford to pay without going bankrupt.
In the school world - educators and unions KNOW they can pull the heartstrings and have mobs of screaming, crying parents show up to demand the end of a strike - at ANY financial cost.
With schools, we trustingly turn our children over to people who want us to think of them as parent substitutes. Frankly, I’d rather they lean more heavily on being excellent teachers and step back from some of the over involvement in the warm fuzzy areas. Parents (heavily on the Mom side) do not think of teachers as teachers/employees who should do their jobs. They have been encouraged to believe that teachers are their friends and family. It is also a way to keep graduated people tied back to the comfort of school and easier times.
Ultimately, this gets in the way of change that is needed to make education better. Maybe one day, the parents who can’t find enough money to make their kids a PB&J sandwich will force that relationship separation.
Emotion must be balanced with thought and reality or we tend to leap off the cliff. Businesses do not survive or turn out a better product without making wise or corrective financial choices.
1. The “Never really graduated and never will.” theory of educators.
A friend recently pointed out that the vast majority of administrators and teachers are clueless about what the private sector world of employment and competition is all about. These folks LIKE school, its familiar surroundings, the idea that if they all hang together they must be pretty smart, or whatever. Besides protecting their own pockets, they’re protecting their “home”…….at taxpayers expense.
@. In the private sector, “Mommie” isn’t going to have much influence on the boss as to what your pay, hours and benefits will be. The boss makes the decision based on your performance, what the job in question is worth to him/her, and what the company can afford to pay without going bankrupt.
In the school world - educators and unions KNOW they can pull the heartstrings and have mobs of screaming, crying parents show up to demand the end of a strike - at ANY financial cost.
With schools, we trustingly turn our children over to people who want us to think of them as parent substitutes. Frankly, I’d rather they lean more heavily on being excellent teachers and step back from some of the over involvement in the warm fuzzy areas. Parents (heavily on the Mom side) do not think of teachers as teachers/employees who should do their jobs. They have been encouraged to believe that teachers are their friends and family. It is also a way to keep graduated people tied back to the comfort of school and easier times.
Ultimately, this gets in the way of change that is needed to make education better. Maybe one day, the parents who can’t find enough money to make their kids a PB&J sandwich will force that relationship separation.
Emotion must be balanced with thought and reality or we tend to leap off the cliff. Businesses do not survive or turn out a better product without making wise or corrective financial choices.
I thought this discussion would be limited to D158 and D300 teacher contracts and that I would have very little to add to the discussion since I don't live in that area. But if this thread will be about making schools better...
RE: George said. - "I don't believe people teach because of salaries," he said. "People teach because they want to help kids learn."
No offense to Mr. George, maybe that is why he went into teaching -- but I personally know a number of teachers that have told me that they went into teaching specifically due to the three months off over the summer and guaranteed jobs and benefits (and I'm very sure that they are quite happy with the large salary increases and smaller class sizes enacted recently). Three months off to water ski, softball,... and eventually to stay home or vacation with the kids.
What other job will: 1) give a 22 year old college graduate three months off over the summer,
2) give a 26 year old with only 4 years of experience a guaranteed job for life (due to tenure), 3) allow a 27 year old with tenure to retain his job no matter how badly he performs his job, 4) allows a 53 year old a series of 20% salary increases in order to increase his after-retirement pension, 5)allows a 55 year old to retire with full benefits and a pension far exceeding the maximum social security benefit, 6)allows a 56 year old to continue working at the same job part-time earning half of his salary at retirement while still paying the full pension and allow the retiree to move to another state and earn a full salary while drawing a full pension and eventually earning another pension from the other state?
RE: George said. - "I don't believe people teach because of salaries," he said. "People teach because they want to help kids learn."
No offense to Mr. George, maybe that is why he went into teaching -- but I personally know a number of teachers that have told me that they went into teaching specifically due to the three months off over the summer and guaranteed jobs and benefits (and I'm very sure that they are quite happy with the large salary increases and smaller class sizes enacted recently). Three months off to water ski, softball,... and eventually to stay home or vacation with the kids.
What other job will: 1) give a 22 year old college graduate three months off over the summer,
2) give a 26 year old with only 4 years of experience a guaranteed job for life (due to tenure), 3) allow a 27 year old with tenure to retain his job no matter how badly he performs his job, 4) allows a 53 year old a series of 20% salary increases in order to increase his after-retirement pension, 5)allows a 55 year old to retire with full benefits and a pension far exceeding the maximum social security benefit, 6)allows a 56 year old to continue working at the same job part-time earning half of his salary at retirement while still paying the full pension and allow the retiree to move to another state and earn a full salary while drawing a full pension and eventually earning another pension from the other state?
Monelson
RE: School districts and their school boards have out lived their ability to function well. The question is, what will we replace them with?
I'm glad that you have reached this conclusion about school boards. I have some ideas about how I'd like to replace them, but I'd like to know what you'd like to replace them with.
RE: School districts and their school boards have out lived their ability to function well. The question is, what will we replace them with?
I'm glad that you have reached this conclusion about school boards. I have some ideas about how I'd like to replace them, but I'd like to know what you'd like to replace them with.
Re: Teachers' Contracts
If contract negotiations consitently come down to the wire just a short time before school starts, is it really a coincidence in timing?
Suggestion: pull the plug on teachers' strikes in Illinois - holding kids hostage to get your way in a contract is disgusting.
Strike talk is also a clever way for school boards to take the heat off of themselves when they don't stand their ground against bad deals.
Sometimes I wonder if there is a fill in the blanks form where the "script" is prepared long before the contract is signed.
Such and such date - one side makes a stink, another date the other side grumbles, etc. and so on.
With everything already predetermined and the negotiations just for public show.........
It happens with regular board "work" - why would contracts be any different with a loaded board.
If contract negotiations consitently come down to the wire just a short time before school starts, is it really a coincidence in timing?
Suggestion: pull the plug on teachers' strikes in Illinois - holding kids hostage to get your way in a contract is disgusting.
Strike talk is also a clever way for school boards to take the heat off of themselves when they don't stand their ground against bad deals.
Sometimes I wonder if there is a fill in the blanks form where the "script" is prepared long before the contract is signed.
Such and such date - one side makes a stink, another date the other side grumbles, etc. and so on.
With everything already predetermined and the negotiations just for public show.........
It happens with regular board "work" - why would contracts be any different with a loaded board.
Vern -
Buried deep in the "Making Schools Better" thread my views have been articulated. But it's quite simple. Here’s the cliffs notes version:
Eliminate school the existing school districts and school boards. Establish boards of directors for each school and run them independently.
The state would be responsible for setting standards (teachers, what a fifth grader should know, etc).
Have the state establish a GSA like schedule for schools to use to buy off (mass purchasing, best price approach) with the option to purchase locally.
Use local resources to outsource what schools are not good at - human resources, data processing, etc.
Eliminate attendance boundries.
Set and collect funding at the state level, so many dollars per student (let’s call it their scholarship money). This figure would include transportation dollars to the school closets to them (if they choose a school farther away, they will bear the burden of the additional transport). Let students take their scholarships and find the school of their choice.
Allow parents to home school and encourage the development of support systems for home schooling (grants to get them started).
Establish a internet based education resources capacity to support all levels and methods of education – support systems for school administration, resources for teachers and even a pc based learning capacity.
Results – the education resources and methods to match what you believe is right for your child – if you believe in home school – have at it, it you have special needs kids – connect them with learning centers properly funded to address them (I realize these facilities will need extra resources), if you like the traditional school – find one and send your kid there. If you like year round, find one and send your child there.
How does this deal with the teachers union? Negotiate that contract at the state level. One contract, every three years, tied to funding resources. Hire seasoned negotiators. Eliminate the way IEA\NEA moves from district to district, taking what they got from one district and demanding that, plus something else at the next, and then taking that to the next district and asking for more. All the time telling the local school boards that if they don’t include what they got from the last district, they will not be competitive in hiring teachers.
Buried deep in the "Making Schools Better" thread my views have been articulated. But it's quite simple. Here’s the cliffs notes version:
Eliminate school the existing school districts and school boards. Establish boards of directors for each school and run them independently.
The state would be responsible for setting standards (teachers, what a fifth grader should know, etc).
Have the state establish a GSA like schedule for schools to use to buy off (mass purchasing, best price approach) with the option to purchase locally.
Use local resources to outsource what schools are not good at - human resources, data processing, etc.
Eliminate attendance boundries.
Set and collect funding at the state level, so many dollars per student (let’s call it their scholarship money). This figure would include transportation dollars to the school closets to them (if they choose a school farther away, they will bear the burden of the additional transport). Let students take their scholarships and find the school of their choice.
Allow parents to home school and encourage the development of support systems for home schooling (grants to get them started).
Establish a internet based education resources capacity to support all levels and methods of education – support systems for school administration, resources for teachers and even a pc based learning capacity.
Results – the education resources and methods to match what you believe is right for your child – if you believe in home school – have at it, it you have special needs kids – connect them with learning centers properly funded to address them (I realize these facilities will need extra resources), if you like the traditional school – find one and send your kid there. If you like year round, find one and send your child there.
How does this deal with the teachers union? Negotiate that contract at the state level. One contract, every three years, tied to funding resources. Hire seasoned negotiators. Eliminate the way IEA\NEA moves from district to district, taking what they got from one district and demanding that, plus something else at the next, and then taking that to the next district and asking for more. All the time telling the local school boards that if they don’t include what they got from the last district, they will not be competitive in hiring teachers.
4Piggybanks2
Not only does striking hold the kids hostage, it holds the parents, who must arrange for day care, hostage also.
On the surface, your idea of taking away the ability to strike sounds good, but it has at least two problems.
The first is that it would probably not stand up in court. The only entities that are prevented from striking by law and judicial review are those whose strikes would directly affect public safety and welfare. The President can step in and halt strikes at transportation facilities (airlines, trains, dock workers) because it will stop the flow of commerce. When we had the air controller’s strike, we did not ban their strike, we just replaced them.
The second is more interesting.. Teachers usually strike only after their contracts have expired. They are actually are choosing not to work without a contract, a practice that is normal in business. We normally don’t sell something to someone without a an agreement of what is being purchased in exchange for what compensation. How do we write a law telling them they have to work without a contract without diminishing our own rights?
Your first issue is the one that needs to be corrected. Let’s set the law up saying an agreement has to be reached by the deadline for the school budget is due (novel idea, tied the contract to the budget?). Let’s set heavy individual fines on the union management and the individuals of the school board to reach an agreement by that date. What do you think?
Not only does striking hold the kids hostage, it holds the parents, who must arrange for day care, hostage also.
On the surface, your idea of taking away the ability to strike sounds good, but it has at least two problems.
The first is that it would probably not stand up in court. The only entities that are prevented from striking by law and judicial review are those whose strikes would directly affect public safety and welfare. The President can step in and halt strikes at transportation facilities (airlines, trains, dock workers) because it will stop the flow of commerce. When we had the air controller’s strike, we did not ban their strike, we just replaced them.
The second is more interesting.. Teachers usually strike only after their contracts have expired. They are actually are choosing not to work without a contract, a practice that is normal in business. We normally don’t sell something to someone without a an agreement of what is being purchased in exchange for what compensation. How do we write a law telling them they have to work without a contract without diminishing our own rights?
Your first issue is the one that needs to be corrected. Let’s set the law up saying an agreement has to be reached by the deadline for the school budget is due (novel idea, tied the contract to the budget?). Let’s set heavy individual fines on the union management and the individuals of the school board to reach an agreement by that date. What do you think?
Monelson
"Whether by statute or by court ruling, 38 states do not recognize the right of public school employees to strike" . . . . Education Policy Center, April 2004
Illinois is one of the few states that allow teachers to strike. Taking away the right to strike would stand up in court.
As far as imposing a deadline and fines after the deadline -- it always seems that the teachers get the better end of the deal the closer it comes to the deadline. The local school district has more to lose. Will you get qualified volunteer school board members by threatening to make them financially accountable if the union doesn't agree with the contract by a certain arbitrary date?
"Whether by statute or by court ruling, 38 states do not recognize the right of public school employees to strike" . . . . Education Policy Center, April 2004
Illinois is one of the few states that allow teachers to strike. Taking away the right to strike would stand up in court.
As far as imposing a deadline and fines after the deadline -- it always seems that the teachers get the better end of the deal the closer it comes to the deadline. The local school district has more to lose. Will you get qualified volunteer school board members by threatening to make them financially accountable if the union doesn't agree with the contract by a certain arbitrary date?
Vern -
A strike is a job actionwhere a contract exists. In most of the cases , the witholding of services ocurrs after the contract has expired. It is not persay a strike. No one can be forced to perform a service withotu a contract (it's called slavery).
You missed that distinction. It's only a strike when there is a valid contract. After it expires, it's not a strike.
As for your concern about getting quality school board members if they face the possibility of fines, how could you get less qualified ones? You asked me what I wanted to do with school boards, I gave it - get rid of them.
Now instead of nit picking my answers to 24piggybanks2 and quoting statistics that don't matter, why don't you tell me what your"I have some ideas about how I'd like to replace them" is.
A strike is a job actionwhere a contract exists. In most of the cases , the witholding of services ocurrs after the contract has expired. It is not persay a strike. No one can be forced to perform a service withotu a contract (it's called slavery).
You missed that distinction. It's only a strike when there is a valid contract. After it expires, it's not a strike.
As for your concern about getting quality school board members if they face the possibility of fines, how could you get less qualified ones? You asked me what I wanted to do with school boards, I gave it - get rid of them.
Now instead of nit picking my answers to 24piggybanks2 and quoting statistics that don't matter, why don't you tell me what your"I have some ideas about how I'd like to replace them" is.
Monelson
I think I know what a teacher strike is. Teacher strikes are illegal in most states, Illinois is one of the few states that allow teachers to strike. Most teacher strikes occur when the teachers' contract has expired. Look at some of the teacher strikes around the country (Detroit, Gary,...) they all occur when the negotiations have broken down after the old contract has expired.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060828/SCHOOLS/608280363
Excerpt:
Detroit's teachers union and school officials are clashing on the terms of a new contract for its 9,500 teachers and staff, which expired June 30.
(snip)
School officials were hopeful Sunday that most teachers would choose not to participate in an illegal strike.
"We know there are many teachers out there who plan to come to work," Coleman said. "We will welcome them, and they will be paid."
Striking by public employees is illegal in Michigan, and teachers can be fined a day's wages for each day they don't report to school, and the union $5,000 per day.
End of Excerpt.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060826/NEWS02/608260449
Excerpt:
GARY, Ind. — School officials broke off contract talks yesterday with teachers who have been on strike for five days, saying the work stoppage was illegal.
"Indiana law is very clear there is a specific statute that says Indiana teachers cannot strike," lawyer Gilbert King Jr., the lead negotiator for Gary Community School Corp., said in a news release.
(snip)
Teachers, who have not had a contract since December 2004, last staged a strike in 1984.
End of Excerpt.
Teachers, police officers and firefighters are considered vital government employees and are not allowed to strike (walk off the job when school is scheduled) in many states.
It is definitely not slavery, it just means that the previous contract is still in effect until they agree to a new one.
Strike is a simple word used by most people and media that means what you call "withholding services." Your definitions are totally correct in the business world, but schools and teachers are not businesses.
When something you write is not true, I'm sorry that you consider it to be nitpicking.
As far as school boards, I would love to see them abolished -- but they are the system we are stuck with right now. The elected boards may be terrible now, but if you start fining volunteers for the union dragging its feet to get a better deal -- you will get even worse results than we get now.
I think I know what a teacher strike is. Teacher strikes are illegal in most states, Illinois is one of the few states that allow teachers to strike. Most teacher strikes occur when the teachers' contract has expired. Look at some of the teacher strikes around the country (Detroit, Gary,...) they all occur when the negotiations have broken down after the old contract has expired.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060828/SCHOOLS/608280363
Excerpt:
Detroit's teachers union and school officials are clashing on the terms of a new contract for its 9,500 teachers and staff, which expired June 30.
(snip)
School officials were hopeful Sunday that most teachers would choose not to participate in an illegal strike.
"We know there are many teachers out there who plan to come to work," Coleman said. "We will welcome them, and they will be paid."
Striking by public employees is illegal in Michigan, and teachers can be fined a day's wages for each day they don't report to school, and the union $5,000 per day.
End of Excerpt.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060826/NEWS02/608260449
Excerpt:
GARY, Ind. — School officials broke off contract talks yesterday with teachers who have been on strike for five days, saying the work stoppage was illegal.
"Indiana law is very clear there is a specific statute that says Indiana teachers cannot strike," lawyer Gilbert King Jr., the lead negotiator for Gary Community School Corp., said in a news release.
(snip)
Teachers, who have not had a contract since December 2004, last staged a strike in 1984.
End of Excerpt.
Teachers, police officers and firefighters are considered vital government employees and are not allowed to strike (walk off the job when school is scheduled) in many states.
It is definitely not slavery, it just means that the previous contract is still in effect until they agree to a new one.
Strike is a simple word used by most people and media that means what you call "withholding services." Your definitions are totally correct in the business world, but schools and teachers are not businesses.
When something you write is not true, I'm sorry that you consider it to be nitpicking.
As far as school boards, I would love to see them abolished -- but they are the system we are stuck with right now. The elected boards may be terrible now, but if you start fining volunteers for the union dragging its feet to get a better deal -- you will get even worse results than we get now.
Re: Contracts, school boards, media, ISBE, IASB, Reg. supt. etc.
With regard to who should be "watching" the school districts and truly representing residents - I never thought of school boards as existing let alone DOING something. My life wasn't in that world then.
I had the naive idea that the Illinois State Board of Education had the wand AND the hammer and was out there protecting us from incompetence, mismanagement, personal agendas and flat out lies.
Naive was soon replaced by "How dumb are you?" and when you say it to yourself - the effect is tripled.
The ISBE folks have told me they're really only interested in FEDERAL MONEY and all other money is a local issue. Huh? So if a district is monkeying around the ISBE expects exactly WHO to look at it?
School Boards that might be involved?
The local State's Atty. who says - Yo - bring me the proof and MAYBE I'll investigate it?
The local Regional Supt. who is unreachable after first welcoming the submission of detailed complaints/comments?
The IASB that seems to exist for itself and wouldn't want to make waves either?
The LUDA people?
The outside auditors who can send management letter after management letter over years - and never get major problems taken care of by the school board or administrators or only tells one side about the problems?
So - who should be on a school board? 1. Anyone BUT a person tied to the school industry. 2. Someone who has ZERO financial interest. 3. People who know that they will have only ONE year in a term (Period!) and they WILL be held publicly accountable and sometimes financially accountable for OBVIOUS baloney. Surely our residents contain a few good champions that are respected community wide no matter what field they're in.
My other dream is that Newspapers will stop treating the system with kid gloves. Fine - do the good news puff pieces- but when it comes to the nitty gritty news of the business - let the chips fall where they may. Didn't "we" learn anything after the charity scandals and the child abuse in the church? Coverup anyone? And the media enabled it.
Media needs to grow an ink spine - if a district lies - use the word LIE. If a district is doing a forensic audit don't mellow it to a special audit - use FORENSIC.
If an administrator's or teachers'contract is a pile of cow chips - spread the word.
THAT is called taking the high road instead of being another "team player" who sells out the kids and the residents.
With regard to who should be "watching" the school districts and truly representing residents - I never thought of school boards as existing let alone DOING something. My life wasn't in that world then.
I had the naive idea that the Illinois State Board of Education had the wand AND the hammer and was out there protecting us from incompetence, mismanagement, personal agendas and flat out lies.
Naive was soon replaced by "How dumb are you?" and when you say it to yourself - the effect is tripled.
The ISBE folks have told me they're really only interested in FEDERAL MONEY and all other money is a local issue. Huh? So if a district is monkeying around the ISBE expects exactly WHO to look at it?
School Boards that might be involved?
The local State's Atty. who says - Yo - bring me the proof and MAYBE I'll investigate it?
The local Regional Supt. who is unreachable after first welcoming the submission of detailed complaints/comments?
The IASB that seems to exist for itself and wouldn't want to make waves either?
The LUDA people?
The outside auditors who can send management letter after management letter over years - and never get major problems taken care of by the school board or administrators or only tells one side about the problems?
So - who should be on a school board? 1. Anyone BUT a person tied to the school industry. 2. Someone who has ZERO financial interest. 3. People who know that they will have only ONE year in a term (Period!) and they WILL be held publicly accountable and sometimes financially accountable for OBVIOUS baloney. Surely our residents contain a few good champions that are respected community wide no matter what field they're in.
My other dream is that Newspapers will stop treating the system with kid gloves. Fine - do the good news puff pieces- but when it comes to the nitty gritty news of the business - let the chips fall where they may. Didn't "we" learn anything after the charity scandals and the child abuse in the church? Coverup anyone? And the media enabled it.
Media needs to grow an ink spine - if a district lies - use the word LIE. If a district is doing a forensic audit don't mellow it to a special audit - use FORENSIC.
If an administrator's or teachers'contract is a pile of cow chips - spread the word.
THAT is called taking the high road instead of being another "team player" who sells out the kids and the residents.
Monelson
On your school plan idea, we agree much more than we disagree. I don’t know how you would legally dissolve all of the districts in Illinois. I would:
1) Abolish the school districts’ ability to tax property. Then enact a state-wide property tax of up to 3.5% (According to the ISBE's ILEARN website's 2005 spending stats, the state's 2003 EAV was almost $362 billion and 3.5% property tax rate would raise $12.6 billion. Most people would see property taxes drop since the statewide unit district average rate is 4.4155% and schools now get a little less than $12.6 billion in local funding, this includes registration fees so that schools in Illinois would indeed be free as the constitution states – if you wish to keep school registration fees, the tax rate could be lowered to 3.15%). The state would still pay the general state aid, other state funding (special education funding) and distribute federal funding as they do now (only to students, not districts). All of the money is split between all of the students in the state at a certain per pupil rate (special education and low-income students at higher rates and adjusted for cost of living in the area). Students would be allowed to spend their funding at ANY accredited school. Cap property taxes at the 3.5% rate (or 3.15%), as houses appreciate in value, funding per student will increase
2) Allow the creation of an unlimited number of new independent (private, religious, for-profit schools run by businesses like Sylvan, K12,… or teachers/administrators tired of the regulations of the public schools) schools to compete for students and their funding (if the current system is preferred, parents will leave their children in the public school system). All accredited schools (religious and private schools included) would administer ISAT testing to ensure that schools are doing an adequate job. Parents will receive test scores, in order to be able to make an informed decision about which school is best for their children.
Accredited schools would be able to use whichever educational system with whichever school calendar they chose, as long as students learn and parents agree. If parents disagree, they will take their students and funding to another school. Some schools will pay teachers more for quality, other schools will have other priorities. Some schools will form partnerships with businesses allowing students to intern one day per week like the Jesuit school in Chicago (http://spirit-breathing.blogspot.com/2006/08/schools-etc.html).
If parents in Lake Forest really think that Rondout Elementary School District is worth the $23,799 per student, they will pay for it – but seniors and people without children will not be forced to pay for it.
3) Schools that are fiscally prudent and academically successful will see more students bringing more money into their system, while schools that are fiscally wasteful and academically failing will see students and money leaving their system. If the public school system is efficient (Central District 51, St. Rose, Aviston,…) they will have nothing to fear from the competition.
4) If schools charge less than the amount the student has to spend (I doubt this happens often, schools will charge the full allowance and place extra money in a rainy day account to pay for repairs, new schools, teacher raises,…), the excess money would be placed in an educational trust fund that the student could use for higher education (any accredited college or technical school). If the student drops out and does not complete high school or does not go on to higher education that money is rolled into a fund to help needy students pay for college.
Illinois schools received about $20 billion in total funding with an average daily attendance of 1.8 million students -- or a little more than $10,000 per student. Operational expenses averaged $9,099 per student which leaves $1000 per student (the rainy day account cited above) to pay for new schools, debt services, ...
I can see a million reasons that this system would be better than the current system -- and I can see a great many problems that would need to be fixed.
Gotta go.
On your school plan idea, we agree much more than we disagree. I don’t know how you would legally dissolve all of the districts in Illinois. I would:
1) Abolish the school districts’ ability to tax property. Then enact a state-wide property tax of up to 3.5% (According to the ISBE's ILEARN website's 2005 spending stats, the state's 2003 EAV was almost $362 billion and 3.5% property tax rate would raise $12.6 billion. Most people would see property taxes drop since the statewide unit district average rate is 4.4155% and schools now get a little less than $12.6 billion in local funding, this includes registration fees so that schools in Illinois would indeed be free as the constitution states – if you wish to keep school registration fees, the tax rate could be lowered to 3.15%). The state would still pay the general state aid, other state funding (special education funding) and distribute federal funding as they do now (only to students, not districts). All of the money is split between all of the students in the state at a certain per pupil rate (special education and low-income students at higher rates and adjusted for cost of living in the area). Students would be allowed to spend their funding at ANY accredited school. Cap property taxes at the 3.5% rate (or 3.15%), as houses appreciate in value, funding per student will increase
2) Allow the creation of an unlimited number of new independent (private, religious, for-profit schools run by businesses like Sylvan, K12,… or teachers/administrators tired of the regulations of the public schools) schools to compete for students and their funding (if the current system is preferred, parents will leave their children in the public school system). All accredited schools (religious and private schools included) would administer ISAT testing to ensure that schools are doing an adequate job. Parents will receive test scores, in order to be able to make an informed decision about which school is best for their children.
Accredited schools would be able to use whichever educational system with whichever school calendar they chose, as long as students learn and parents agree. If parents disagree, they will take their students and funding to another school. Some schools will pay teachers more for quality, other schools will have other priorities. Some schools will form partnerships with businesses allowing students to intern one day per week like the Jesuit school in Chicago (http://spirit-breathing.blogspot.com/2006/08/schools-etc.html).
If parents in Lake Forest really think that Rondout Elementary School District is worth the $23,799 per student, they will pay for it – but seniors and people without children will not be forced to pay for it.
3) Schools that are fiscally prudent and academically successful will see more students bringing more money into their system, while schools that are fiscally wasteful and academically failing will see students and money leaving their system. If the public school system is efficient (Central District 51, St. Rose, Aviston,…) they will have nothing to fear from the competition.
4) If schools charge less than the amount the student has to spend (I doubt this happens often, schools will charge the full allowance and place extra money in a rainy day account to pay for repairs, new schools, teacher raises,…), the excess money would be placed in an educational trust fund that the student could use for higher education (any accredited college or technical school). If the student drops out and does not complete high school or does not go on to higher education that money is rolled into a fund to help needy students pay for college.
Illinois schools received about $20 billion in total funding with an average daily attendance of 1.8 million students -- or a little more than $10,000 per student. Operational expenses averaged $9,099 per student which leaves $1000 per student (the rainy day account cited above) to pay for new schools, debt services, ...
I can see a million reasons that this system would be better than the current system -- and I can see a great many problems that would need to be fixed.
Gotta go.
I like the "flat tax" idea, but do you really want to turn things over to the state like that? We DO live in Illinois after all. The Algonquin, Marengo, Huntley area schools have a lot of room for improvement academically. But if the state of Illinois set all the standards, without any local authority to set higher standards, local schools would be forever condemned to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.
Another MAJOR plus of local control of the schools, is again, the fact that this is Illinois. Most of what I read on this website seems to be pretty conservative. How many of you writing about giving such authority to the state are prepared for the onslaught of the ultra left-wing agenda that would go along with it?
Another MAJOR plus of local control of the schools, is again, the fact that this is Illinois. Most of what I read on this website seems to be pretty conservative. How many of you writing about giving such authority to the state are prepared for the onslaught of the ultra left-wing agenda that would go along with it?
To RWR1:
It sounds like under Vern's plan the state would basically be the tax collector. Education money would follow the student. Parents (via school choice) would dictate curriculum, scheduling, teaching philosophies, etc.
To Vern:
I have read all 500+ posts in the "Making Schools Better" thread and while most of the ideas you expressed here were covered - your presentation of the fixed tax + school choice approach to education reform in this thread was great! It was easy to understand and summarized the main points well. Is there any group/coalition that is actively lobbying this idea? I'd love to join a group that is taking action on this plan & is working towards a successful implemenation!
To bring it back to the teacher contract discussion thread... how would your plan address this issue? Merit pay? Tenure?
It sounds like under Vern's plan the state would basically be the tax collector. Education money would follow the student. Parents (via school choice) would dictate curriculum, scheduling, teaching philosophies, etc.
To Vern:
I have read all 500+ posts in the "Making Schools Better" thread and while most of the ideas you expressed here were covered - your presentation of the fixed tax + school choice approach to education reform in this thread was great! It was easy to understand and summarized the main points well. Is there any group/coalition that is actively lobbying this idea? I'd love to join a group that is taking action on this plan & is working towards a successful implemenation!
To bring it back to the teacher contract discussion thread... how would your plan address this issue? Merit pay? Tenure?
Bystander
Thank you for your kind words. I don't know of any organization lobbying this plan, I just thought of the flat tax a few days ago.
As far as teacher salaries, it seems to me that the market would dictate. If the school spends too much on teachers/administrators then they will not have enough money for other priorities and they risk parents getting upset and taking their children to other schools. I'm sure that most (if not all) schools would eliminate tenure, and would search for the best available teachers. Schools may discover that raising class sizes and hiring exceptional teachers may be the best educational method.
RWR1
I agree with your point that this IS Illinois and having the state collecting the money is a scarey thought. I'm not devious enough to know what left wing agenda would go with it.
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, you could still have school boards (I just want to abolish their ability to tax) if you want them but they would have to live within the district's means or alienate parents and lose students and funding. My personal opinion is that the school would best be run by a principal instead of a school board, especially if the principal had some vested interest in seeing the school succeed. The school can always set higher standards than the state. I believe that the schools would have more local control, the parents would make the ultimate decisions by spending the money at the school of their choice. Home school parents may even join together to form a school of their own and have total control.
The school wouldn't be able to raise taxes, and there would need to be some restrictions placed on schools borrowing money or selling bonds (but the banks will probably be restrictive enough if the district can't just pull the money out of thin air by raising taxes).
I'd never really formulated a plan until yesterday. I don't know all of the answers.
But if my local catholic high school can educate students while charging $3400 tuition per student (2 children in family $5900 tuition, if more than 3 children in family $6000 tuition). If Illinois enacted a school choice plan that gave an average of $8,000 to $10,000 per student -- don't you think the catholic church would create more schools?
Thank you for your kind words. I don't know of any organization lobbying this plan, I just thought of the flat tax a few days ago.
As far as teacher salaries, it seems to me that the market would dictate. If the school spends too much on teachers/administrators then they will not have enough money for other priorities and they risk parents getting upset and taking their children to other schools. I'm sure that most (if not all) schools would eliminate tenure, and would search for the best available teachers. Schools may discover that raising class sizes and hiring exceptional teachers may be the best educational method.
RWR1
I agree with your point that this IS Illinois and having the state collecting the money is a scarey thought. I'm not devious enough to know what left wing agenda would go with it.
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, you could still have school boards (I just want to abolish their ability to tax) if you want them but they would have to live within the district's means or alienate parents and lose students and funding. My personal opinion is that the school would best be run by a principal instead of a school board, especially if the principal had some vested interest in seeing the school succeed. The school can always set higher standards than the state. I believe that the schools would have more local control, the parents would make the ultimate decisions by spending the money at the school of their choice. Home school parents may even join together to form a school of their own and have total control.
The school wouldn't be able to raise taxes, and there would need to be some restrictions placed on schools borrowing money or selling bonds (but the banks will probably be restrictive enough if the district can't just pull the money out of thin air by raising taxes).
I'd never really formulated a plan until yesterday. I don't know all of the answers.
But if my local catholic high school can educate students while charging $3400 tuition per student (2 children in family $5900 tuition, if more than 3 children in family $6000 tuition). If Illinois enacted a school choice plan that gave an average of $8,000 to $10,000 per student -- don't you think the catholic church would create more schools?
Vern -
Just a comment. Your "flat tax" isn't flat. It's a % of property values that rise. It actually is a regressive tax, that rather than placing the burden of funding schools on those that use them most, places it on those who happen to won property. (There is no correlation between use of schools and property ownership). It would continue our current practice of taxing fixed income individuals (especially the elderly) with an ever-increasing tax.
Maybe we should look to some other index for tax assessment. A new sales tax? An additional income tax? Something that moves the tax burden away from the elderly.
Your concept also only addresses funding. It does not address some core issue:
To high a % of our school spending is on support and administration (50% in some districts).
The ability of the Unions to brow beat local boards.
The school industry suppliers, who have cozy relationships with district administrators.
One of the real problems with the D300 referendums was its focus on funding. They believed all you had to do to solve the districts woes was correct the state funding problems (tax cap, when new housing pays taxes, etc). While these were a great deal of the problem, a bigger one was inappropriate spending. What do you think should be done to control it?
Just a comment. Your "flat tax" isn't flat. It's a % of property values that rise. It actually is a regressive tax, that rather than placing the burden of funding schools on those that use them most, places it on those who happen to won property. (There is no correlation between use of schools and property ownership). It would continue our current practice of taxing fixed income individuals (especially the elderly) with an ever-increasing tax.
Maybe we should look to some other index for tax assessment. A new sales tax? An additional income tax? Something that moves the tax burden away from the elderly.
Your concept also only addresses funding. It does not address some core issue:
To high a % of our school spending is on support and administration (50% in some districts).
The ability of the Unions to brow beat local boards.
The school industry suppliers, who have cozy relationships with district administrators.
One of the real problems with the D300 referendums was its focus on funding. They believed all you had to do to solve the districts woes was correct the state funding problems (tax cap, when new housing pays taxes, etc). While these were a great deal of the problem, a bigger one was inappropriate spending. What do you think should be done to control it?
Vern -
Your comments about Catholic education bring up some interesting ideas –
First, you know well they don’t educate your children for that amount of money; it’s something significantly higher, paid for by a tax on the parish you are from and some money from the diocese. But they do spend way less than most public schools. That’s because of the differences between them and public education. But there is merit in those differences.
So what are the differences?
Catholic schools operate without a District Administration. Lowers cost by a significant amount.
They are managed at the individual school level.
Most Catholic schools don’t have teachers unions, tenure or large raises in pay as you get to retirement.
They don’t provide busing – it’s provided by private sources.
They focus on delivering education to a target audience, they make it clear that if that’s not the education format you are looking for, then find someplace else. Not a one size fits all mentality of public education.
There are other differences, but these give insight into what I think are the key fundamental cost weaknesses of public education. We should look to these points as cornerstones to any real change in our current system.
Your comments about Catholic education bring up some interesting ideas –
First, you know well they don’t educate your children for that amount of money; it’s something significantly higher, paid for by a tax on the parish you are from and some money from the diocese. But they do spend way less than most public schools. That’s because of the differences between them and public education. But there is merit in those differences.
So what are the differences?
Catholic schools operate without a District Administration. Lowers cost by a significant amount.
They are managed at the individual school level.
Most Catholic schools don’t have teachers unions, tenure or large raises in pay as you get to retirement.
They don’t provide busing – it’s provided by private sources.
They focus on delivering education to a target audience, they make it clear that if that’s not the education format you are looking for, then find someplace else. Not a one size fits all mentality of public education.
There are other differences, but these give insight into what I think are the key fundamental cost weaknesses of public education. We should look to these points as cornerstones to any real change in our current system.
Re: Catholic schools versus public schools
Without diving into the funding commentary, here's an observation made decades ago.
Kids in Catholic schools usually learned more. At least that's how it used to be.
When you had a life path that bounced you around in 5 to 7 grade schools - some Catholic and some Public, being double promoted in public school wasn't unheard of if you came from a Catholic school....even the poorest Catholic school.
If the educational comparison is the same or near the same - Catholic schools do something incredibly right. Why are public schools not doing whatever would help our kids - even if its educational roots are in the Catholic system?
Without diving into the funding commentary, here's an observation made decades ago.
Kids in Catholic schools usually learned more. At least that's how it used to be.
When you had a life path that bounced you around in 5 to 7 grade schools - some Catholic and some Public, being double promoted in public school wasn't unheard of if you came from a Catholic school....even the poorest Catholic school.
If the educational comparison is the same or near the same - Catholic schools do something incredibly right. Why are public schools not doing whatever would help our kids - even if its educational roots are in the Catholic system?
Monelson
Even you have to admit that it is less regressive than the current system. The tax rate would remain at 3.5% just as the state's income tax has remained at 3% for the last how many years. Unfortunately the people that use the schools are often the ones that are least able to afford to pay for those services. Is it right that suburban homeowners pay a lower rate than citizens in poor districts like East St. Louis? Why should property taxes be assessed at 7% in East St. Louis and less than half of that in suburban areas?
I hate property taxes as much as the next person, but property taxes have remained relatively stable throughout economic booms and busts (plus businesses pay a larger percentage of property taxes than they do income taxes). If you go to entirely sales or income taxes what happens to school funding when the economy goes into recession? If school officials complain about funding not currently increasing fast enough, what will they say when total school funding actually declines for the first time in over 20 years?
I wholeheartedly admit that my local catholic high school spends more than $3400 per student. Actually they spend $6300 and fundraise people to death (bingo, raffles, carnivals, they even had a bean bag toss contest for adults with a $200 entry fee). I'm sure that some parents would be willing to pay the $6300 if they didn't have to put up with the fundraisers. But the district still spends far less than the local public schools.
The problem with the D300 focusing on funding is that they have a monopoly upon the students in the area. If you don't send your child to D300, you still send the money to them whether or not you use their services. By focusing on funding, they draw the public's eyes away from the spending side of the ledger. If they could not count on raising taxes and getting a steady stream of students mandated to attend their schools, they would have to look at the spending. The market would dictate, the efficient and academically successful schools would survive while the inefficient schools struggling academically would close. The only reason that schools spending 50% on administration are still open is because they are a monopoly and can get away with it.
If the funding follows the students, more people will be able to afford to send their children to private schools. Then public schools would have to cut the overhead spending in order to survive or find parents and students that are willing to pay for the increased overhead expenses.
If property taxes are capped at 3.5% and schools in Illinois were actually free as the constitution states, then schools that could not do without the increased overhead costs would have no alternative but to charge tuition (or charge registration fees -- whichever they choose it amounts to the same thing).
If you are a parent and have a choice between spending your student's voucher and paying money out of yout pocket at the public school -- or spending your student's voucher at a private school and possibly placing money into a trust fund to help pay for college -- which one would you choose?
Even you have to admit that it is less regressive than the current system. The tax rate would remain at 3.5% just as the state's income tax has remained at 3% for the last how many years. Unfortunately the people that use the schools are often the ones that are least able to afford to pay for those services. Is it right that suburban homeowners pay a lower rate than citizens in poor districts like East St. Louis? Why should property taxes be assessed at 7% in East St. Louis and less than half of that in suburban areas?
I hate property taxes as much as the next person, but property taxes have remained relatively stable throughout economic booms and busts (plus businesses pay a larger percentage of property taxes than they do income taxes). If you go to entirely sales or income taxes what happens to school funding when the economy goes into recession? If school officials complain about funding not currently increasing fast enough, what will they say when total school funding actually declines for the first time in over 20 years?
I wholeheartedly admit that my local catholic high school spends more than $3400 per student. Actually they spend $6300 and fundraise people to death (bingo, raffles, carnivals, they even had a bean bag toss contest for adults with a $200 entry fee). I'm sure that some parents would be willing to pay the $6300 if they didn't have to put up with the fundraisers. But the district still spends far less than the local public schools.
The problem with the D300 focusing on funding is that they have a monopoly upon the students in the area. If you don't send your child to D300, you still send the money to them whether or not you use their services. By focusing on funding, they draw the public's eyes away from the spending side of the ledger. If they could not count on raising taxes and getting a steady stream of students mandated to attend their schools, they would have to look at the spending. The market would dictate, the efficient and academically successful schools would survive while the inefficient schools struggling academically would close. The only reason that schools spending 50% on administration are still open is because they are a monopoly and can get away with it.
If the funding follows the students, more people will be able to afford to send their children to private schools. Then public schools would have to cut the overhead spending in order to survive or find parents and students that are willing to pay for the increased overhead expenses.
If property taxes are capped at 3.5% and schools in Illinois were actually free as the constitution states, then schools that could not do without the increased overhead costs would have no alternative but to charge tuition (or charge registration fees -- whichever they choose it amounts to the same thing).
If you are a parent and have a choice between spending your student's voucher and paying money out of yout pocket at the public school -- or spending your student's voucher at a private school and possibly placing money into a trust fund to help pay for college -- which one would you choose?
Monelson
RE: They focus on delivering education to a target audience, they make it clear that if that’s not the education format you are looking for, then find someplace else. Not a one size fits all mentality of public education.
One question, why is the "one size fits all mentality of public education" the best method? I think high schools should be more specialized.
If I wanted to become a doctor, I wouldn't go to a technical school. If I wanted to be a welder, I wouldn't go to a college prep school. We send severly disabled special education students to specialized schools. That is hardly one size fits all.
RE: They focus on delivering education to a target audience, they make it clear that if that’s not the education format you are looking for, then find someplace else. Not a one size fits all mentality of public education.
One question, why is the "one size fits all mentality of public education" the best method? I think high schools should be more specialized.
If I wanted to become a doctor, I wouldn't go to a technical school. If I wanted to be a welder, I wouldn't go to a college prep school. We send severly disabled special education students to specialized schools. That is hardly one size fits all.
Speaking of contracts -
I'm really tired of the baloney about having to supposedly stay competitive with regard to the salaries so that districts don't have to hire from the bottom of the barrel. Districts want everyone to believe that somewhere there is an island of lost "slug" teachers waiting to leap into classrooms. Well, if that's the case, why are those "slugs" in the system at all? Who is protecting them from being bounced out of "Dodge" - oh, right, it's the union and the school industry. Are they keeping them around to collect union dues and so they have "slugs" to use as leverage? What a concept!
In the meantime, we overload our staff costs with some highly paid teachers who are simply not good at their job but want to hang around and get more bucks for more degrees and an early retirement.
And this is supposed to be FOR our children.
I'm really tired of the baloney about having to supposedly stay competitive with regard to the salaries so that districts don't have to hire from the bottom of the barrel. Districts want everyone to believe that somewhere there is an island of lost "slug" teachers waiting to leap into classrooms. Well, if that's the case, why are those "slugs" in the system at all? Who is protecting them from being bounced out of "Dodge" - oh, right, it's the union and the school industry. Are they keeping them around to collect union dues and so they have "slugs" to use as leverage? What a concept!
In the meantime, we overload our staff costs with some highly paid teachers who are simply not good at their job but want to hang around and get more bucks for more degrees and an early retirement.
And this is supposed to be FOR our children.
RE: Tuesday, August 29, 2006,
"Nippersink D-2 expects to trim deficit", Northwest Herald, Jillian Compton, http://www.nwherald.com/CommunitySection/other/325739268126085.php
Any Nippersinkers (or anyone else) out there who'd like to comment on this piece? In one paragraph it talks about being concerned for taxpayers and only being able to afford what it can afford. In another it talks about trimming the ed fund deficit
Further down
EXCERPT
The spending plan also includes a 1.4 percent step increase and a 2 percent raise for teachers in the education fund, as stipulated in their contract. Meanwhile, returning principals and assistant principals are expected to receive a 3.4 percent raise.
END OF EXCERPT
Do you think this is a good deal or do you think that raises should be frozen, etc., etc.?
"Nippersink D-2 expects to trim deficit", Northwest Herald, Jillian Compton, http://www.nwherald.com/CommunitySection/other/325739268126085.php
Any Nippersinkers (or anyone else) out there who'd like to comment on this piece? In one paragraph it talks about being concerned for taxpayers and only being able to afford what it can afford. In another it talks about trimming the ed fund deficit
Further down
EXCERPT
The spending plan also includes a 1.4 percent step increase and a 2 percent raise for teachers in the education fund, as stipulated in their contract. Meanwhile, returning principals and assistant principals are expected to receive a 3.4 percent raise.
END OF EXCERPT
Do you think this is a good deal or do you think that raises should be frozen, etc., etc.?
Vern -
re:One question, why is the "one size fits all mentality of public education" the best method?
try re reading what I said. I did not say it was. I said it wasn't
re:One question, why is the "one size fits all mentality of public education" the best method?
try re reading what I said. I did not say it was. I said it wasn't
rwr1
interesting opinion.
But not a universal truth.
First, while I am a devote person, I doubt faith actually improves learning.
I have also had childeren in parochial schools that have no higher discipline, standards or expectation that have produced better results than I am seeing in D300.
Now if you told me that the faith aspect increased the caring level of the teachers, I might buy into that.
The real difference I have witnessed is how the schools operate locally, not dictated by a district. This allows the teachers to teach more and in a more creative way.
interesting opinion.
But not a universal truth.
First, while I am a devote person, I doubt faith actually improves learning.
I have also had childeren in parochial schools that have no higher discipline, standards or expectation that have produced better results than I am seeing in D300.
Now if you told me that the faith aspect increased the caring level of the teachers, I might buy into that.
The real difference I have witnessed is how the schools operate locally, not dictated by a district. This allows the teachers to teach more and in a more creative way.
Vern -
You make a good point about income and sales tax (but by the way, take a closer look, total revenue does not actually decrease year over year, it just fails to increase as anticipated. Which is a problem for politicians who committ to multi year expamnding programs.).
You make a good point about income and sales tax (but by the way, take a closer look, total revenue does not actually decrease year over year, it just fails to increase as anticipated. Which is a problem for politicians who committ to multi year expamnding programs.).
Monelson
My apologies, I did misread the intention of your statement regarding "one size fits all mentality of public schools."
While income and sales tax revenues do increase over time -- the point I was trying to make was that income and sales tax revenues can decline from one year to the next. Look at the Illinois Department of Revenue Annual Report of Collections and Disbursements from Fy2002.
http://tax.illinois.gov/publications/AnnualReport/2002/pub1.pdf
On page 12 of the report, you will see that between FY2001 and FY2002 income taxes paid to the state declined by almost $1 billion while sales taxes increased by about $250 million -- total taxes(income tax, sales tax, excise tax, motor fuel taxes, gaming taxes and other miscellaneous taxes) collected by the state actually declined by over $800 million.
If schools were funded entirely by sales and income taxes, when revenues fell (during a recession), the state would have little choice but to cut school spending in order to meet its other obligations (Medicaid, All-Kids, highway funding,...).
Of course this year, sales and income taxes have increased dramatically. But could any increase be large enough (in school official's minds) to make up for the harm done in the year that revenues declined?
Nevertheless, you are correct, it is a problem for the taxpayers when politicians commit to multi-year expanding programs.
My apologies, I did misread the intention of your statement regarding "one size fits all mentality of public schools."
While income and sales tax revenues do increase over time -- the point I was trying to make was that income and sales tax revenues can decline from one year to the next. Look at the Illinois Department of Revenue Annual Report of Collections and Disbursements from Fy2002.
http://tax.illinois.gov/publications/AnnualReport/2002/pub1.pdf
On page 12 of the report, you will see that between FY2001 and FY2002 income taxes paid to the state declined by almost $1 billion while sales taxes increased by about $250 million -- total taxes(income tax, sales tax, excise tax, motor fuel taxes, gaming taxes and other miscellaneous taxes) collected by the state actually declined by over $800 million.
If schools were funded entirely by sales and income taxes, when revenues fell (during a recession), the state would have little choice but to cut school spending in order to meet its other obligations (Medicaid, All-Kids, highway funding,...).
Of course this year, sales and income taxes have increased dramatically. But could any increase be large enough (in school official's minds) to make up for the harm done in the year that revenues declined?
Nevertheless, you are correct, it is a problem for the taxpayers when politicians commit to multi-year expanding programs.
Vern
Ok so we have beat the taxes horse to death again, but if you really want to change education, you have to change the spending side. You have to break the union and the "educational establishment" (vendors) grip on the outflows. If not, you will just become thier slave (the kids use a different word) who toils daily looking for money to flow to them. Just like the school boatrds do now.
If we continue to have these organizations (school boards and district administration) negotiate with the union, we will continiously lose.
Unfortunately, without being able to start a ballot initiative of our own (like many other states allow), we are stuck trying to get Springfield to do this. And Springfieldis staffed by agents of the Union, both thier own and politiicians they have paid money to to represent thier interests.
Maybe the place to start is to get a citizens ballot initative passed.
Ok so we have beat the taxes horse to death again, but if you really want to change education, you have to change the spending side. You have to break the union and the "educational establishment" (vendors) grip on the outflows. If not, you will just become thier slave (the kids use a different word) who toils daily looking for money to flow to them. Just like the school boatrds do now.
If we continue to have these organizations (school boards and district administration) negotiate with the union, we will continiously lose.
Unfortunately, without being able to start a ballot initiative of our own (like many other states allow), we are stuck trying to get Springfield to do this. And Springfieldis staffed by agents of the Union, both thier own and politiicians they have paid money to to represent thier interests.
Maybe the place to start is to get a citizens ballot initative passed.
Re: "Warning mailed out to teachers, Health care at risk for strikers in Gary", By Lolly Bowean
Tribune staff reporter
Published August 30, 2006
-------------
Okay, so they are legally not supposed to strike but they did it anyway. And they get a warning notice that it could cost them their jobs.
Call me strange but, if most private workers refuse to return to work, the employer is looking for a replacement the next morning! No warnings. No pleases.
Granted this is a chunk of workers but the point is the same.
If Gary decides to replace them it should be swiftly. That's assuming other teachers will cross the line.
Maybe "it" will begin "here" (Gary) and educators won't be allowed to hold the kids they're "for" as hostages?
or
Gary will buckle and others won't cross the line - again.
Tribune staff reporter
Published August 30, 2006
-------------
Okay, so they are legally not supposed to strike but they did it anyway. And they get a warning notice that it could cost them their jobs.
Call me strange but, if most private workers refuse to return to work, the employer is looking for a replacement the next morning! No warnings. No pleases.
Granted this is a chunk of workers but the point is the same.
If Gary decides to replace them it should be swiftly. That's assuming other teachers will cross the line.
Maybe "it" will begin "here" (Gary) and educators won't be allowed to hold the kids they're "for" as hostages?
or
Gary will buckle and others won't cross the line - again.
Here's how the Detroit teacher union got around Michigan's law against public employees striking. I think strikes are also illegal in Kentucky, yet teachers strike there too. It's sounding like courts in some states aren't bothering to enforce these no strike laws.
From http://www.eiaonline.com/communique.htm (after Sep 4, this will be in the Aug 28 edition in the archives section of http://www.eiaonline.com). There are some links embedded in the story on the eiaonline web site.
2) The Detroit Teacher, Str--, Uh, Thing. Your local newspaper this morning probably contained the wire story that the Detroit Federation of Teachers voted to go on strike. But that's not entirely accurate. The union instead voted to go on "strike." The reason for the distinction is that public employee strikes are illegal in Michigan. "Strikes" are what happens when public employees don't show up for work and march around in picket lines outside their places of employment, despite the law.
If you think I'm making this up, have a look at this flyer. It was distributed to union members at Cobo Arena prior to the "strike" vote yesterday. Its title refers to a job action, and states quite clearly that public employee strikes are forbidden by state law. The rest of the flyer answers questions about "strikes," including one that reads, "The employee also has an opportunity to be heard and to challenge the employer's assertion that he or she was on 'strike.'"
This flyer lists the rules of conduct for the picket line. Item #19 reads, "The Union will provide picket signs; however, additional signs may be handmade. DO NOT USE THE WORD 'STRIKE' on any picket sign." (emphasis in original)
EIA has previously sermonized against no-strike laws, so there's no point in repeating that argument. It's a different matter to let the union claim the moral high ground while hiding behind a legalistic pretense to avoid the consequences of its actions.
From http://www.eiaonline.com/communique.htm (after Sep 4, this will be in the Aug 28 edition in the archives section of http://www.eiaonline.com). There are some links embedded in the story on the eiaonline web site.
2) The Detroit Teacher, Str--, Uh, Thing. Your local newspaper this morning probably contained the wire story that the Detroit Federation of Teachers voted to go on strike. But that's not entirely accurate. The union instead voted to go on "strike." The reason for the distinction is that public employee strikes are illegal in Michigan. "Strikes" are what happens when public employees don't show up for work and march around in picket lines outside their places of employment, despite the law.
If you think I'm making this up, have a look at this flyer. It was distributed to union members at Cobo Arena prior to the "strike" vote yesterday. Its title refers to a job action, and states quite clearly that public employee strikes are forbidden by state law. The rest of the flyer answers questions about "strikes," including one that reads, "The employee also has an opportunity to be heard and to challenge the employer's assertion that he or she was on 'strike.'"
This flyer lists the rules of conduct for the picket line. Item #19 reads, "The Union will provide picket signs; however, additional signs may be handmade. DO NOT USE THE WORD 'STRIKE' on any picket sign." (emphasis in original)
EIA has previously sermonized against no-strike laws, so there's no point in repeating that argument. It's a different matter to let the union claim the moral high ground while hiding behind a legalistic pretense to avoid the consequences of its actions.
Chris
You made an interesting comment - Courts wern't enforcing these laws.
Courts don't enforce laws, thats the police and prosecutors. They do seem reluctant to take these cases to court. Have you wondered why? I thinks it's because they believe any conviction will be overturned.
So don't blame the courts, they haven't had a chance to rule. And when they do, they will continue the premise we have followed for two hundered plus years, that an employee has the right to redress of grievances. The courts have held that only those employees directly related to public saftey, etc can be banned from striking.
What has bothered me here (and I am conservative to the point of almost being liberterian) is that taking job actions away from the union allows school boards like the one in Detriot to drag their feet on negotiations. Detriot has been working how long on the old contract. The Detriot schools owe it to thier employees to bargain in good faith. While we may not agree that what happens in these contracts is redressing greviances, it is in fact so.
This law let's the school boards avoid the though negotiations.
You made an interesting comment - Courts wern't enforcing these laws.
Courts don't enforce laws, thats the police and prosecutors. They do seem reluctant to take these cases to court. Have you wondered why? I thinks it's because they believe any conviction will be overturned.
So don't blame the courts, they haven't had a chance to rule. And when they do, they will continue the premise we have followed for two hundered plus years, that an employee has the right to redress of grievances. The courts have held that only those employees directly related to public saftey, etc can be banned from striking.
What has bothered me here (and I am conservative to the point of almost being liberterian) is that taking job actions away from the union allows school boards like the one in Detriot to drag their feet on negotiations. Detriot has been working how long on the old contract. The Detriot schools owe it to thier employees to bargain in good faith. While we may not agree that what happens in these contracts is redressing greviances, it is in fact so.
This law let's the school boards avoid the though negotiations.
4piggybanks2
You articulate something I have long wondered. Seems there has not been a job action amonst flight controllers since Ronnie decided to take them up on thier walk out and hire replacements. Although it may be painfull, wouldn't it be great if a school system did the same. Give the kids two months off and spend the time hiring replacements! Now the union will probably be recertified by the new employees, but you would get to start with a new contract, right?
You articulate something I have long wondered. Seems there has not been a job action amonst flight controllers since Ronnie decided to take them up on thier walk out and hire replacements. Although it may be painfull, wouldn't it be great if a school system did the same. Give the kids two months off and spend the time hiring replacements! Now the union will probably be recertified by the new employees, but you would get to start with a new contract, right?
Monelson
You said:
You make a good point about income and sales tax (but by the way, take a closer look, total revenue does not actually decrease year over year, it just fails to increase as anticipated.
I took a closer look and found that sales tax and income tax total revenues DO ACTUALLY DECREASE (or increase) with the economy. Proving the point I'd made in a previous post that property taxes are relatively stable, while sales and income taxes are not. (please note my last post was not a plan of action or intended in anyway to starve the school system of funding -- I did not intend to beat the funding horse to death.)
A ballot initiative? Remember this IS Illinois, just ask the protect marriage people how impossible it it to create a ballot initiative.
Looking at the spending side. As long as the public schools are a monopoly under teacher union control, I'm open to suggestion on ways to control spending, because I don't see anything meaningful.
If somehow (by some miracle), legislation could be enacted to allow private schools to compete on a level playing field with public schools, competing for the funding that each student would bring into the school -- the spending side would take care of itself. As private schools compete to provide the best education at the cost of the voucher, public schools would have to alter their spending in order to survive. Private schools would need a guarantee that once they open new schools, that their charter to receive the funding following each student will not be abolished except for gross malfeasance.
Maybe I'm being naive -- that the private schools will not be corrupted in the same way that the public schools have been corrupted by the teachers union, contractors, builders, architects,.... But competition works to lower prices. If some entrepeneur believes that he can provide a better education at a lower price, he should have that option.
You said:
You make a good point about income and sales tax (but by the way, take a closer look, total revenue does not actually decrease year over year, it just fails to increase as anticipated.
I took a closer look and found that sales tax and income tax total revenues DO ACTUALLY DECREASE (or increase) with the economy. Proving the point I'd made in a previous post that property taxes are relatively stable, while sales and income taxes are not. (please note my last post was not a plan of action or intended in anyway to starve the school system of funding -- I did not intend to beat the funding horse to death.)
A ballot initiative? Remember this IS Illinois, just ask the protect marriage people how impossible it it to create a ballot initiative.
Looking at the spending side. As long as the public schools are a monopoly under teacher union control, I'm open to suggestion on ways to control spending, because I don't see anything meaningful.
If somehow (by some miracle), legislation could be enacted to allow private schools to compete on a level playing field with public schools, competing for the funding that each student would bring into the school -- the spending side would take care of itself. As private schools compete to provide the best education at the cost of the voucher, public schools would have to alter their spending in order to survive. Private schools would need a guarantee that once they open new schools, that their charter to receive the funding following each student will not be abolished except for gross malfeasance.
Maybe I'm being naive -- that the private schools will not be corrupted in the same way that the public schools have been corrupted by the teachers union, contractors, builders, architects,.... But competition works to lower prices. If some entrepeneur believes that he can provide a better education at a lower price, he should have that option.
Detroit's teacher contract expired at the end of June 06. The Gary teachers contract expired in December 2004.
A law is only as good as it's enforcement. The courts in the state of Washington have ruled numerous times that teacher strikes are illegal. According to the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, "To our knowledge, school districts seeking injunctions to stop strikes have been successful in every case. "
http://www.effwa.org/highlighters/v12_n14.php
A law is only as good as it's enforcement. The courts in the state of Washington have ruled numerous times that teacher strikes are illegal. According to the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, "To our knowledge, school districts seeking injunctions to stop strikes have been successful in every case. "
http://www.effwa.org/highlighters/v12_n14.php
Don't the Detroit teachers also need to negotiate in good faith?
According to an 11/17/05 Chicago Tribune article, Michigan has the worst economy in the entire nation.
Excerpt:
By Barbara Rose
Tribune staff reporter
Published November 17, 2005
Median household income has fallen by 12 percent in Illinois since 1999. That represents a sharper loss than in any other state except for the 19 percent decline in Rust Belt Michigan, which has been battered by job losses in the auto sector."
End of Excerpt.
Detroit schools have seen an exodus of thousands of students away from the inner-city schools with failing academics to the suburban schools that are much more academically successful.
School funding for Detroit schools has plummeted as students leave for better schools. Funding follows the student in Michigan.
The Detroit school board has put forth an offer that freezes teacher salaries at the 2005-06 level and making teachers pay more for their insurance benefits (a 5.5% cut in pay and benefits) - the teachers are negotiating for a 5% pay raise and shorter school days. Which side is negotiating in reality and which is negotiating unrealistically?
Needless to say, successful suburban schools are increasing their revenues and I'm sure that teacher salaries are increasing there.
This will happen in Illinois if true "school choice" as outlined by Monelson's or my proposed school reform opinions should become a reality in Illinois.
Survival of the fittest, and the Detroit schools can not compete with the academically successful school districts. DETROIT SCHOOLS WILL HAVE TO ALTER THEIR SPENDING AND IMPROVE ACADEMICALLY IN ORDER TO SURVIVE.
According to an 11/17/05 Chicago Tribune article, Michigan has the worst economy in the entire nation.
Excerpt:
By Barbara Rose
Tribune staff reporter
Published November 17, 2005
Median household income has fallen by 12 percent in Illinois since 1999. That represents a sharper loss than in any other state except for the 19 percent decline in Rust Belt Michigan, which has been battered by job losses in the auto sector."
End of Excerpt.
Detroit schools have seen an exodus of thousands of students away from the inner-city schools with failing academics to the suburban schools that are much more academically successful.
School funding for Detroit schools has plummeted as students leave for better schools. Funding follows the student in Michigan.
The Detroit school board has put forth an offer that freezes teacher salaries at the 2005-06 level and making teachers pay more for their insurance benefits (a 5.5% cut in pay and benefits) - the teachers are negotiating for a 5% pay raise and shorter school days. Which side is negotiating in reality and which is negotiating unrealistically?
Needless to say, successful suburban schools are increasing their revenues and I'm sure that teacher salaries are increasing there.
This will happen in Illinois if true "school choice" as outlined by Monelson's or my proposed school reform opinions should become a reality in Illinois.
Survival of the fittest, and the Detroit schools can not compete with the academically successful school districts. DETROIT SCHOOLS WILL HAVE TO ALTER THEIR SPENDING AND IMPROVE ACADEMICALLY IN ORDER TO SURVIVE.
Media coverage of contracts misses "points" -
"District 158, teachers agree to two-year deal", BY KARI A. LEE, Aug. 31, 2006, Algonquin Countryside
Here's what my taxpayer's "eye" read from the quiet, ho hum title, piece -
4/2005 elected BOE member Shawn Green, police officer (not a financial expert)who was recently installed by his board majority friends to become board VP replacing recently hired board member Glen Stewart's VP position - states "They didn't get everything they wanted" ...and per the piece "the board didn't ask for much and both sides left the table satisfied with the agreement." Gee, gosh, golly, I'm glad residents' interests were "protected" by Mr. Green. Cough. I'm thinking we could have all saved time, not negotiated and just signed on the dotted line.
Quagliano voted YES but his "philosophy" about being uncomfortabe with the level of whatever - is missing from the piece.
There's no comparison to the lesser amounts being given out in OTHER Districts or whether or not it's fair to financially struggling, private sector residents.
There's no stink, let alone outrage, that Mike Skala didn't pull out of the picture until forced by recent public pressure to (at least) abstain from the final vote because of (at the least) appearance of impropriety since he's married to an in-district high school teacher who in the not too distant past was a building union representative.
There are a couple more comments that drew my attention, but, why bother?
If a paper or papers want to give the impression this was a good deal and that it was handled properly - and readers want to hide and let them get away with it and let District 158 continue as before, maybe "We" should be sucked dry financially by the School Industry and we can give guilt erasing graduation parties for our kids who aren't college ready.
It's certainly a lot EASIER ignoring things or only talking to our relatives than actually fighting for our kids.
The men and women who fought and died in our wars would probably think most of us as incredibly lazy cowards if we can't be bothered to fight THIS battle.......
Technology has removed our last excuse of not knowing.
"District 158, teachers agree to two-year deal", BY KARI A. LEE, Aug. 31, 2006, Algonquin Countryside
Here's what my taxpayer's "eye" read from the quiet, ho hum title, piece -
4/2005 elected BOE member Shawn Green, police officer (not a financial expert)who was recently installed by his board majority friends to become board VP replacing recently hired board member Glen Stewart's VP position - states "They didn't get everything they wanted" ...and per the piece "the board didn't ask for much and both sides left the table satisfied with the agreement." Gee, gosh, golly, I'm glad residents' interests were "protected" by Mr. Green. Cough. I'm thinking we could have all saved time, not negotiated and just signed on the dotted line.
Quagliano voted YES but his "philosophy" about being uncomfortabe with the level of whatever - is missing from the piece.
There's no comparison to the lesser amounts being given out in OTHER Districts or whether or not it's fair to financially struggling, private sector residents.
There's no stink, let alone outrage, that Mike Skala didn't pull out of the picture until forced by recent public pressure to (at least) abstain from the final vote because of (at the least) appearance of impropriety since he's married to an in-district high school teacher who in the not too distant past was a building union representative.
There are a couple more comments that drew my attention, but, why bother?
If a paper or papers want to give the impression this was a good deal and that it was handled properly - and readers want to hide and let them get away with it and let District 158 continue as before, maybe "We" should be sucked dry financially by the School Industry and we can give guilt erasing graduation parties for our kids who aren't college ready.
It's certainly a lot EASIER ignoring things or only talking to our relatives than actually fighting for our kids.
The men and women who fought and died in our wars would probably think most of us as incredibly lazy cowards if we can't be bothered to fight THIS battle.......
Technology has removed our last excuse of not knowing.
And I just heard that Stewart approved that the hs lunch keeps the change from the students on account. So I give my kid $20 on monday and the school keeps the money. Now I have to find more money to give my kid for other things through the week.
First, he changes the job duties and salary, gets appointed, doesn't staff transportation for all the calls, and now makes a decision to keep the $. I voted for the referendum, but now they are keeping more. this is not about the kids, this is about what is convenient for him and the board. What the heck??? How are these good decisions, so glad the Board majority wants business experience. Parents are left spending more again, and kids are without their allowance $.
Don't understand all of this.
First, he changes the job duties and salary, gets appointed, doesn't staff transportation for all the calls, and now makes a decision to keep the $. I voted for the referendum, but now they are keeping more. this is not about the kids, this is about what is convenient for him and the board. What the heck??? How are these good decisions, so glad the Board majority wants business experience. Parents are left spending more again, and kids are without their allowance $.
Don't understand all of this.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/SCHOOLS/608290345
Excerpt:
Marisa Schultz and Karen Bouffard / The Detroit News
DETROIT -- Detroit Public Schools officials fear the teacher strike that began Monday may exacerbate budget problems in the district, which already is projecting a 9,300-student decline this school year after last year's loss of nearly 11,000.
Knee-deep in debt, the district can't afford to lose more students to charter schools and neighboring districts, which costs Detroit about $7,450 per student in state funding.
End of Excerpt.
20,300 students at $7,450 per student means that Detroit Public Schools will receive about $150 million less in state revenues than they received just 2 years ago. The district has projected that 119,000 students will attend the district's 227 schools this year and will have a projected shortfall of $105 million for the 2006-07 budget -- if the strike lasts very long, they project that only 112,000 will attend which means laying off a number of teachers and losing even more funding creating a larger deficit. At the end of this school year, the district will be almost $400 million in debt.
The teachers' pay raise proposal would cost the district $175 million over three year -- money that it does not have. While auto workers unions and airline workers unions are giving back wages, retirement and health benefits in order to keep their jobs, why do teachers feel entitled to a pay raise and free health care coverage?
The teachers and school board began negotiating the contract in March and the contract expired this summer (June 30, 2006). The no strike law has not prevented the district from the tough negotiations, the ability to strike has allowed the teachers to avoid the tough negotiations. By striking and inflicting harm upon the students and their faimilies, the union expects thousands of parents to come to their side and demand that the school board cave in to their demands so that the students can go to school. The old negotiating ploys don't work as well, when parents are able to take their state funding vouchers and place their students in schools outside of the city.
I wonder how long the strike will go before some neighboring school system rents some buildings and accepts as many Detroit students as are willing to leave and then hires the best of Detroit's teachers to teach those students. If the strike lasts very long, there may not be a Detroit School District for the teachers to go back to.
Excerpt:
Marisa Schultz and Karen Bouffard / The Detroit News
DETROIT -- Detroit Public Schools officials fear the teacher strike that began Monday may exacerbate budget problems in the district, which already is projecting a 9,300-student decline this school year after last year's loss of nearly 11,000.
Knee-deep in debt, the district can't afford to lose more students to charter schools and neighboring districts, which costs Detroit about $7,450 per student in state funding.
End of Excerpt.
20,300 students at $7,450 per student means that Detroit Public Schools will receive about $150 million less in state revenues than they received just 2 years ago. The district has projected that 119,000 students will attend the district's 227 schools this year and will have a projected shortfall of $105 million for the 2006-07 budget -- if the strike lasts very long, they project that only 112,000 will attend which means laying off a number of teachers and losing even more funding creating a larger deficit. At the end of this school year, the district will be almost $400 million in debt.
The teachers' pay raise proposal would cost the district $175 million over three year -- money that it does not have. While auto workers unions and airline workers unions are giving back wages, retirement and health benefits in order to keep their jobs, why do teachers feel entitled to a pay raise and free health care coverage?
The teachers and school board began negotiating the contract in March and the contract expired this summer (June 30, 2006). The no strike law has not prevented the district from the tough negotiations, the ability to strike has allowed the teachers to avoid the tough negotiations. By striking and inflicting harm upon the students and their faimilies, the union expects thousands of parents to come to their side and demand that the school board cave in to their demands so that the students can go to school. The old negotiating ploys don't work as well, when parents are able to take their state funding vouchers and place their students in schools outside of the city.
I wonder how long the strike will go before some neighboring school system rents some buildings and accepts as many Detroit students as are willing to leave and then hires the best of Detroit's teachers to teach those students. If the strike lasts very long, there may not be a Detroit School District for the teachers to go back to.
4who - an excellent point.
I've never quite understood how taxpayers ended up being submissive to the employees they support.
It makes no sense that the "boss" is being told what the hours, salaries, benefits, and duties will be - or that even if their job performance isn't up to par, they simply refuse to be fired.
Maybe we slipped into a reverse Universe when I went to sleep a few decades ago.
All you OTHER little Rumpelstiltskins out there - SNAP OUT OF IT!
Your money and your children's money is on the line here - you have a right to protect yourself and demand better results.
I've never quite understood how taxpayers ended up being submissive to the employees they support.
It makes no sense that the "boss" is being told what the hours, salaries, benefits, and duties will be - or that even if their job performance isn't up to par, they simply refuse to be fired.
Maybe we slipped into a reverse Universe when I went to sleep a few decades ago.
All you OTHER little Rumpelstiltskins out there - SNAP OUT OF IT!
Your money and your children's money is on the line here - you have a right to protect yourself and demand better results.
I'm not aware of any Illinois district that conducts negotiations in open session. The teacher unions probably have a pretty good idea what would happen if they did. We actually broached the subject of negotiating in open session with our local teacher union and they had no interest.
Teachers show up en masse at our board meetings, especially those when something regarding their livelihood is being voted on. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for taxpayers.
Teachers show up en masse at our board meetings, especially those when something regarding their livelihood is being voted on. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for taxpayers.
The column referenced at the bottom of this comment refers to "Hallmark card images", and looks back on promises made but not kept, and public trust in those we elect.
While it has NOTHING to do with teachers (or administrators) contracts, or local district board members, or school unions, or school consultants, or developers who "plant" houses by the thousands and sell them with words glorifying a lackluster school district - it also has EVERYTHING to do with these things.
The "tie in" is the "lyin'".
I will probably never understand how some people sleep at night, cozy and content in the dance they do in their daily "games".
Integrity is an elusive commitment and not the easiest path to take. Those involved in the dark side of the tentacled world of education -who have forgotten what integrity means - are not fit to be called "teachers" or protectors of our American future.... because what they are teaching our children by their actions makes us all lesser people.
-----------------
Column below is worth reading just for it's own take on politics, and leniency for someone who made choices that were self-serving at great expense to others.......
"Ryan plays sympathy card for last hand", by John Kass, Published September 3, 2006
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0609030247sep03,1,2947791.column
While it has NOTHING to do with teachers (or administrators) contracts, or local district board members, or school unions, or school consultants, or developers who "plant" houses by the thousands and sell them with words glorifying a lackluster school district - it also has EVERYTHING to do with these things.
The "tie in" is the "lyin'".
I will probably never understand how some people sleep at night, cozy and content in the dance they do in their daily "games".
Integrity is an elusive commitment and not the easiest path to take. Those involved in the dark side of the tentacled world of education -who have forgotten what integrity means - are not fit to be called "teachers" or protectors of our American future.... because what they are teaching our children by their actions makes us all lesser people.
-----------------
Column below is worth reading just for it's own take on politics, and leniency for someone who made choices that were self-serving at great expense to others.......
"Ryan plays sympathy card for last hand", by John Kass, Published September 3, 2006
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0609030247sep03,1,2947791.column
Re: Contracts and ACT scores
While ACT scores are not the be all and end all that defines whether or not a district is doing a good job - they do carry considerable weight.
Should Administrators and teachers be retained year after year and be given raises and more benefits if the ACT scores are unacceptable and more than unacceptable when a district's demographics scream that the scores should be much higher?
Jumbling up all the scores in the state to reach some glorious or terrible average distorts what each District should or should NOT be crowing about. It is an apples to oranges comparison.
A community whose residents have a lot of financial challenges or whose residents personal histories have little college background is almost bound to be different from a community whose residents are better off financially and degrees are more common.
If ("Huntley") District 158 has darned nice demographics but its current ACT score of 20.3 is below state average and considerably below national average - what is the reality? If compared to a similar demographic community and 22.0 or higher is the norm for years, what is D158's "problem"?
We are told that there are many factors - population mobility, taxes, etc. However, then you have to look at communities that are so much MORE challenged but they manage to turn out a high percentage kids with well rounded educations and tickets to major colleges. So, what's D158's "problem" again?
How about this - long term board members who were not on the ball! (These are people with degrees who should have known better and demanded and worked for better. Their self-praise was hollow.) At the recent meeting it was stated by Larry Snow that (only considering this period) the math scores for 5 consecutive years were under 20.0. Principal Johnson disagreed, then turned to his records and concurred that Snow was absolutely right. The outspoken, elected in 2005 board member knew the numbers and the long term Principal didn't? These statistics have also been known to the long term board members - and this seems to be another case of them being asleep at the wheel and choosing to stay that way.
Then there are the administrators that they kept employed - also long term - who apparently weren't or aren't suited to the job.
Before outspoken board member Larry Snow came on board and others in the community loudly challenged the procedures, laxity and "protection" of underperformance - where were these administrators and board members as far as finding out what was working elsewhere and immediately implementing it in D158? Instead of trying to reinvent the education wheel - it would have made sense to aggressively seek out success, adapt it and go with those proven steps and tinker afterward.
At a recent meeting Principal Dave Johnson addressed the declining scores and mentioned the fact that the necessary curriculum wasn't in place and that the kids didn't know how to take the tests. Okay - so after all these years, why wasn't the curriculum in place and why weren't the kids taught the mechanics of facing these tests? Asst. Supt Awrey has also been around a long time - why weren't he and Mr. Johnson on top of things? These things were "secrets". (I heard about the mechanics of the test taking via cable, magazines and newspapers years ago and I'm not involved in the business of education.)
The circle takes the responsibility back to the long term board members and the people they retained and gave raises to year after year after year.
If parents aren't angry now, they should be. All the developers who have lauded D158 as being an excellent or exemplary District - apparently have a different idea than I do about a District with mediocre and declining ACTs , the District's pending forensic audits and other news headlines. If Excellent and Exemplary include those things as criteria - who is setting the standards?
"Buyer beware" probably applies to giant mortgages too. Does it surprise anyone that developers contribute to tax increase referendums or may even be backing the candidates for board who are always doing puff pieces about how great the district is?
Follow the money folks - not the overused "It's for the kids." advertising slogans.
Demand that the District shapes up and ships out those who created the messes.
The kids and residents deserve better.
While ACT scores are not the be all and end all that defines whether or not a district is doing a good job - they do carry considerable weight.
Should Administrators and teachers be retained year after year and be given raises and more benefits if the ACT scores are unacceptable and more than unacceptable when a district's demographics scream that the scores should be much higher?
Jumbling up all the scores in the state to reach some glorious or terrible average distorts what each District should or should NOT be crowing about. It is an apples to oranges comparison.
A community whose residents have a lot of financial challenges or whose residents personal histories have little college background is almost bound to be different from a community whose residents are better off financially and degrees are more common.
If ("Huntley") District 158 has darned nice demographics but its current ACT score of 20.3 is below state average and considerably below national average - what is the reality? If compared to a similar demographic community and 22.0 or higher is the norm for years, what is D158's "problem"?
We are told that there are many factors - population mobility, taxes, etc. However, then you have to look at communities that are so much MORE challenged but they manage to turn out a high percentage kids with well rounded educations and tickets to major colleges. So, what's D158's "problem" again?
How about this - long term board members who were not on the ball! (These are people with degrees who should have known better and demanded and worked for better. Their self-praise was hollow.) At the recent meeting it was stated by Larry Snow that (only considering this period) the math scores for 5 consecutive years were under 20.0. Principal Johnson disagreed, then turned to his records and concurred that Snow was absolutely right. The outspoken, elected in 2005 board member knew the numbers and the long term Principal didn't? These statistics have also been known to the long term board members - and this seems to be another case of them being asleep at the wheel and choosing to stay that way.
Then there are the administrators that they kept employed - also long term - who apparently weren't or aren't suited to the job.
Before outspoken board member Larry Snow came on board and others in the community loudly challenged the procedures, laxity and "protection" of underperformance - where were these administrators and board members as far as finding out what was working elsewhere and immediately implementing it in D158? Instead of trying to reinvent the education wheel - it would have made sense to aggressively seek out success, adapt it and go with those proven steps and tinker afterward.
At a recent meeting Principal Dave Johnson addressed the declining scores and mentioned the fact that the necessary curriculum wasn't in place and that the kids didn't know how to take the tests. Okay - so after all these years, why wasn't the curriculum in place and why weren't the kids taught the mechanics of facing these tests? Asst. Supt Awrey has also been around a long time - why weren't he and Mr. Johnson on top of things? These things were "secrets". (I heard about the mechanics of the test taking via cable, magazines and newspapers years ago and I'm not involved in the business of education.)
The circle takes the responsibility back to the long term board members and the people they retained and gave raises to year after year after year.
If parents aren't angry now, they should be. All the developers who have lauded D158 as being an excellent or exemplary District - apparently have a different idea than I do about a District with mediocre and declining ACTs , the District's pending forensic audits and other news headlines. If Excellent and Exemplary include those things as criteria - who is setting the standards?
"Buyer beware" probably applies to giant mortgages too. Does it surprise anyone that developers contribute to tax increase referendums or may even be backing the candidates for board who are always doing puff pieces about how great the district is?
Follow the money folks - not the overused "It's for the kids." advertising slogans.
Demand that the District shapes up and ships out those who created the messes.
The kids and residents deserve better.
Re: 24% is what the teachers want over 3 years? 9.25% is the offer. So - when does EVERY district demand to be paid like whatever eventually comes out of this deal? Here's the game and here's the blame. Will this only stop when everyone is homeless because they can't afford the taxes?
"800 teachers face District 15 board", By Jamie Francisco,
Published September 14, 2006 http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/content/education/chi-0609140229sep14,1,2830724.story?coll=chi-education-hed
Excerpt #1
The board has offered a 9.25 percent salary increase over three years, and teachers are seeking 24 percent over the same period, school board President Nancy Carlson said.
Excerpt #2
In response, teachers stood as Classroom Teachers Council President Jan Belzer read a statement on behalf of the union, contending that political agendas and personal motivations of the board have slowed progress in negotiations.
"We are asking for an agreement which honors the work we have done, the job we are doing and the people we are," Belzer said.
"800 teachers face District 15 board", By Jamie Francisco,
Published September 14, 2006 http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/content/education/chi-0609140229sep14,1,2830724.story?coll=chi-education-hed
Excerpt #1
The board has offered a 9.25 percent salary increase over three years, and teachers are seeking 24 percent over the same period, school board President Nancy Carlson said.
Excerpt #2
In response, teachers stood as Classroom Teachers Council President Jan Belzer read a statement on behalf of the union, contending that political agendas and personal motivations of the board have slowed progress in negotiations.
"We are asking for an agreement which honors the work we have done, the job we are doing and the people we are," Belzer said.
Re: Palatine 15 teachers and vote for strike intent. Will someone please discuss that the raises that the teachers are trying to blackmail the taxpayers with (watch how the union will try to spin the issue).
also please review how many taechers from 15 are already retiring at 100,000 plus annually, some at over 120,000. I do not think that this represents the community?
also please review how many taechers from 15 are already retiring at 100,000 plus annually, some at over 120,000. I do not think that this represents the community?
Re: (Palatine D15)
"Dist. 15 teachers open door to strike" ***
The title to this article is the perfect straight line lead to a taxpayer response of "and don't let the door hit you on the way out!"
Why? EXCERPT BELOW
"Among the issues still needing to be negotiated are salaries and health care benefits.
The district is currently offering a 9.25 percent salary increase to be spread out over the next three years, as well as additional increases related to retirement incentives, extra-curricular stipends and tuition reimbursement."
--------------------
Fill in the blanks and read between the lines taxpayers/struggling residents and children who are actually "The Littlest Taxpayers"!
This is obscenely out of hand and the next time you hear an educator or developer or consultants say "It's for the kids!" - laugh in their faces.......
Housing starts are falling.
House sales are stalling.
Private benefits are appalling.
Utility companies are "calling".
and School Industry demands are gauling!
My friends and I say the striking teachers should be permanently cut loose. There is enough room for them in the same unemployment lines private workers are standing in. Hire teachers who are just recently graduated, pay them a decent starting wage and NORMAL benefits. Maybe their new ideas and eagerness will translate into a workforce the public can afford AND respect. They won't be perfect but they'll probably be at least as good as bad teachers protected by tenure.
------------------------
***By Chad Brooks
Daily Herald, Posted Tuesday, September 19, 2006 http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=229269
"Dist. 15 teachers open door to strike" ***
The title to this article is the perfect straight line lead to a taxpayer response of "and don't let the door hit you on the way out!"
Why? EXCERPT BELOW
"Among the issues still needing to be negotiated are salaries and health care benefits.
The district is currently offering a 9.25 percent salary increase to be spread out over the next three years, as well as additional increases related to retirement incentives, extra-curricular stipends and tuition reimbursement."
--------------------
Fill in the blanks and read between the lines taxpayers/struggling residents and children who are actually "The Littlest Taxpayers"!
This is obscenely out of hand and the next time you hear an educator or developer or consultants say "It's for the kids!" - laugh in their faces.......
Housing starts are falling.
House sales are stalling.
Private benefits are appalling.
Utility companies are "calling".
and School Industry demands are gauling!
My friends and I say the striking teachers should be permanently cut loose. There is enough room for them in the same unemployment lines private workers are standing in. Hire teachers who are just recently graduated, pay them a decent starting wage and NORMAL benefits. Maybe their new ideas and eagerness will translate into a workforce the public can afford AND respect. They won't be perfect but they'll probably be at least as good as bad teachers protected by tenure.
------------------------
***By Chad Brooks
Daily Herald, Posted Tuesday, September 19, 2006 http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=229269
4Piggybanks2
Your idea of cutting teachers loose has major appeal - at least on several levels. Finding a district administrator who would do that is the biggest problem. Besides being in the pocket of what we all have come to call the school industry, most administrators would deem your idea impractical for the following reasons:
1) The ability for them to hire a couple hundered new teahcers and execute a ciriculum that year with all new teachers.
2) The union would just come in and get itself re-certified with the new teachers and start over again
3) demand the tenure clauses in the contracts be enforced
4) suggest that state and regional certification would be jeopardized by the lack of experienced teachers
But mostly, they would fear the repercusssions to them personally, which would include -
1) union lawsuits naming them as personal defendants
2) NLRB complaints and charges against them personally for unfair labor practices.
3) Invasion by IEA & NEA to halt this idea before it spreads. (Look at NEA's massive effortt to stop vouchers in Florida)
4) No chance of ever getting any support from the teachers unions in a future job search
Great idea, but who would sign up for that abuse? What would they have to personally gain?
Your idea of cutting teachers loose has major appeal - at least on several levels. Finding a district administrator who would do that is the biggest problem. Besides being in the pocket of what we all have come to call the school industry, most administrators would deem your idea impractical for the following reasons:
1) The ability for them to hire a couple hundered new teahcers and execute a ciriculum that year with all new teachers.
2) The union would just come in and get itself re-certified with the new teachers and start over again
3) demand the tenure clauses in the contracts be enforced
4) suggest that state and regional certification would be jeopardized by the lack of experienced teachers
But mostly, they would fear the repercusssions to them personally, which would include -
1) union lawsuits naming them as personal defendants
2) NLRB complaints and charges against them personally for unfair labor practices.
3) Invasion by IEA & NEA to halt this idea before it spreads. (Look at NEA's massive effortt to stop vouchers in Florida)
4) No chance of ever getting any support from the teachers unions in a future job search
Great idea, but who would sign up for that abuse? What would they have to personally gain?
Hi monelson,
You're right, many or all those things might/would happen. However, in my strange little way, it is my hope that one day very soon, people with financial backing and the respect of the public will also take a stand.
They will sue the teachers/administrators/union/consultants/board members/etc. and anyone else who wants to maintain this strike/tenure/underperforming/greedy status quo. It's probably not the correct process but maybe a class action suit on behalf of
You're right, many or all those things might/would happen. However, in my strange little way, it is my hope that one day very soon, people with financial backing and the respect of the public will also take a stand.
They will sue the teachers/administrators/union/consultants/board members/etc. and anyone else who wants to maintain this strike/tenure/underperforming/greedy status quo. It's probably not the correct process but maybe a class action suit on behalf of