Here's what I don't understand from reading the Blade article:
Complicating the situation is an agreement to pay teachers a retroactive 1.48 percent pay raise for time worked since December, 2002, which totals about $11.7 million should any new tax levy be passed by voters.
The Toledo school board is divided over asking voters to support a new tax levy that would chiefly pay for salary increases and also address a predicted $12.7 million deficit for 2007-2008.
If I'm reading this correctly, does this mean that the 11.7 million dollars is in addition to the 12.7 million dollar deficit? If so then the reality is new levy would need to create 24.4 million dollars that first year?
posted by psyche777 at 01:58 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
Fisher and others have stressed the need for cuts, layoffs and closures. Hence, that predicted ~$13M deficit will be whittled down ... unless they get all Crazy-Like-Larry and decided to fund EVERYTHING from one or more levies. Also, that ~$11M "promise" can always be re-negotiated if you dangle a couple of million now. So, literally, the taxpayers could get fleeced only to the tune of a $4-8 million, depending upon conditions, and especially depending on who blinks first.
Myself, that "promise" is a load of shit and I have no intention of honoring it -- not that I even made such a stupid promise, anyway -- considering that Toledo is collapsing into an economic sinkhole that's only continuing to slump open wider, gobbling up more of the area's middle class. This is the message that we need to send Toledo's parasite classes (teachers, lawyers, politicians, etc.): "If WE don't get paid, YOU don't get paid."
I don't mean that a teacher should not expect to get paid, as fundamental compensation. I'm instead noting the amount of pay. Note well that a teacher can make $24K coming out of college perfectly fine for about 8 years as she pays off her college debts. "Perfectly fine" does NOT mean she gets her $180K condo. We The People are not responsible for her conspicuous consumption and other choices of foolish expenditure.
The same teacher can also work up to a median $32K, then top out at $48K at the height of her profession around here. Margins above those numbers are pure gifts as far as I'm concerned, and the time of largesse is obviously OVER. As a taxpayer, I'm not a fucking sheep just setting here to be shorn at will, baaa-ing furiously under the frenzied application of the tax shears as they assault me so severely that they start removing bloody coins of flesh. We Toledoans in general are now too poor to support such a lavish school system. TIME TO DOWNSIZE.
posted by GuestZero at 03:24 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
As a taxpayer, I think I've been 'shorn enough' with cig taxes (aren't they supposed to go to schools?). Not looking to start it up all again here, and I am well aware that my 'dots' don't necessarily connect or make sense logically - but since they used children to promote the smoking ban (and I am against ALL bans, not just cigs - it starts the slippery slope), and since tobacco taxes go to schools, and since they keep raising cig taxes to pay for the 'arts' and whatever else they can lay on the segment of society that is politically incorrect enough to get away with it - I won't ever vote for another school levy, or give to another charity again(outside of vet & firemans charities). Nuff said.
posted by starling02 at 03:47 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
First, $24,000 isn't very much money. In fact, it's a pittance.
The truth is that teachers in toledo are paid below the market rate. The suburbs and exurbs by and large pay more than TPS does.
If you don't pay market rates, you can no longer compete for top talent. Better teachers go elsewhere, and the quality of a TPS education erodes further. As this happens the quality of the workforce drops and the whole negative cycle reinforces itself even more.
This is simple, folks. If I'm a teacher fresh out of UT with the national average $20,000 in debt, why would I ever take a job at TPS for $24k if I can go to a suburb and start out at $30k?
The only people you'll get are the teachers that couldn't get hired elsewhere.
Everyone wants education on the cheap, but everyone also wants the best, most upstanding teachers for their child. Go ask any random 20 people what percentile they would want their childs teacher to fall into. You'll probably hear 90%, 80%, maybe 75%. Nobodys going to say "50%" or "40%" but if you base it on how much they want to pay for education, that's what $24,000 a year buys you.
It's almost cliche, but it's still true: Education is an investment. It's no an expense. And the idea that teachers should take it on the chin because the average Toledoan thinks that teachers are "parasites" is moronic.
People that suggest that teacher salaries should be frozen or reduced are living in an economic fantasy land.
posted by shaneh at 03:48 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
From the Blade article:
"An analysis by The Blade of teacher salaries in northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan, as well as Ohio's largest urban districts and some charter schools, shows the salary schedule for TPS teachers and paraprofessionals hasn't been increased in nearly five years.
At the same time, pay schedules at most suburban and rural districts, and even some of Ohio's other cash-strapped urban districts, have gone up since the 2003-04 school year. Among the state's large urban school systems, only Toledo Public and Cleveland Municipal teachers are operating under the same pay schedules in effect in September, 2004."
Note that they reference 'pay schedules' not 'pay.' As I'm sure y'all know, the schedules haven't changed, but teachers, and other union members, did get pay increases because they go up "steps" each year.
To be quite honest, I never really understood why it was necessary to continually move people up a step at the same time that they increase the pay for each step by the standard 2-4%.
In actuality, individuals who would get, say, a 5% increase because they're going from step 2 to step 3, end up getting an even greater pay increase because the 'step' is going up 3%.
posted by MaggieThurber at 05:45 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
shaneh - if you knew the starting and average salary of a teacher, and you wanted to earn more than that, why did you decide to teach?
We have four teachers in the family and none of them entered the field for the money.
However, I think our priorities are sorely out of whack...we should be paying the teachers more than the administrators. But then, I think we should pay teachers more than pro athletes, too. But that doesn't mean that I want to be taxed to pay for such salaries...I just want better financial decisions from our board and superintendent.
posted by MaggieThurber at 05:55 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
"... why would I ever take a job at TPS for $24k if I can go to a suburb and start out at $30k?"
Actually, you may be better off going to TPS than the burbs if you are fresh out of college. View this September 13, 2004 posting that pointed to a Blade story titled Teachers' pay varies widely by district.
"Toledo Public Schools pays $32,697 annually to a teacher straight out of college. The affluent Ottawa Hills school district offers a starting salary of $31,602 a year."
"College graduates who get a job teaching at a Catholic school will earn much less, said Jack Altenburger, superintendent of education for the Toledo Catholic Diocese. Catholic high schools in the metro Toledo area paid an average starting salary of $24,506 [in 2003]. On the elementary-school level, the average starting pay was $20,925."
"Nationally, the average salary for a teacher was $45,771. Ohio ranked 15th in the nation in average salary at $45,515. But the state ranked 27th for its average beginning teacher salary of $28,866. Michigan teachers on average took home nearly $10,000 more than their Ohio counterparts. The average teacher salary in that state was $54,020, which was the second-highest in the nation behind California."
I think the print edition of that Blade article contained a grid showing the salaries in four different categories for the school districts in our region. This data is not available for the web version of the article.
But from the article and/or grid, you would have seen something like this:
Bachelors degree and no experience:
- TPS pays $32,697
- Ottawa Hills pays $31,602
Bachelors degree and at least 27 years experience:
- TPS pays $55,577
- Ottawa Hills pays $53,091
Master's degree and no experience:
- I didn't post the numbers. All I said in that 2004 posting was: "With a Master's degree, the starting salaries between [TPS and Ottawa Hills] are about the same."
Master's degree and at least 27 years experience:
- TPS pays $60,595
- Ottawa Hills pays $70,788
Average salary for all teachers:
- TPS $45,968
- Ottawa Hills $60,621
So is it correct to say that on a percentage basis, Ottawa Hills has more experienced teachers with a Masters degree than TPS?
From an August 2005 posting by historymike:
"Intrepid's assessment is accurate in total expenses, where TPS is #2 behind Ottawa Hills. In per-pupil instructional expenses, TPS is in the middle of the pack, spending about $1,000 less per pupil than Ottawa Hills, but almost $1,600 more than Anthony Wayne."
Per-pupil spending, by district (FY04):
Ottawa Hills - $10,650
TPS- $10,279
Maumee - $10,047
Oregon - $9,278
Sylvania - $9, 043
Washington Local - $8,982
Springfield - $8,547
Anthony Wayne - $7,426
(Tuition at Toledo Central Catholic High School is about $7,000.)
Administrative costs per pupil (FY 04):
Ottawa Hills - $1,261
TPS- $1,176
Maumee - $1,152
Oregon - $851
Sylvania - $949
Washington Local - $1,076
Springfield - $860
Anthony Wayne - $988
Building costs per pupil (FY 04):
Ottawa Hills - $1,334
TPS- $1,817
Maumee - $1,646
Oregon - $2,048
Sylvania - $1,952
Washington Local - $1,679
Springfield - $1,668
Anthony Wayne - $1,572
Instruction costs per pupil (FY 04):
Ottawa Hills - $6,778
TPS- $5,727
Maumee - $6,147
Oregon - $5,284
Sylvania - $4,880
Washington Local - $5,204
Springfield - $5,131
Anthony Wayne - $4,153
posted by jr at 06:04 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
I agree with maggie that teachers should be paid more than administrators who never have to really do the hard work of teaching. I fully appreciate how hard teaching is, just based upon the crap I've seen them have to put up with between undiscipined bratty kids, and indifferent or overbearing parents. Just the idea of having to deal with 25 or more kids with attitudes and mouths to match, many on, or missing medication (I wonder how many kids really need the meds, and how many are just high energy).
posted by starling02 at 06:13 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
shaneh said: "First, $24,000 isn't very much money. In fact, it's a pittance."
Well, then, I live in privation, since that's largely my pittance you're bad-mouthing.
Did you even read what I wrote? The $24K example I used is called STARTING PAY, and America well ran on the idea that you must start out at such a modest sum, live in the same modesty, and built up your seniority in many ways (which earned you raises and savings).
$24K is a "pittance" only if you live like today's yuppie dipshit for whom no condo or SUV is expensive enough. Once again I must say that I feel no obligation whatsoever in providing easy condo ownership to the teachers in the school system I'm funding. In fact, for a starting school teacher, home ownership is a LUXURY and he should be ashamed in demanding (per salary demands) to participate in such a thing. If he wants to own a home, condo, or SUV, then I can only encourage him to SAVE MONEY. To save money you generally "do without" on whatever starting wage you receive. Instead of renting videos or going to theatres you take them out of the library -- or read a book. Instead of eating out like these yuppie shits do day after day, they can buy bulk foods and cook at home for 10-25% of the cost. Etc.
shaneh said: "If you don't pay market rates, you can no longer compete for top talent."
Staffing a school system is not a game of "compet[ing] for top talent". Your sentiment is only driving up the costs of teacher wages for no other reason than your fears of the ordinary.
shaneh said: "This is simple, folks. If I'm a teacher fresh out of UT with the national average $20,000 in debt, why would I ever take a job at TPS for $24k if I can go to a suburb and start out at $30k? The only people you'll get are the teachers that couldn't get hired elsewhere."
People work in the religious schools out of a love for it, considering their starting wages are even less than what I exampled. Also, if Toledo is poor (and it IS), then Toledo can only obtain what it can afford. If by your model (and a bad assumption at that) Toledo ends up with teachers who don't qualify elsewhere, then that's the ECONOMICALLY NATURAL outcome. I'm perfectly content with that ... as I am with a scratched DVD from the local library, a flaky TV that I got for free from a neighbor, and a car whose muffler has detached.
Someone's got to tell you that your gold-leaf tastes are an artificial result from a particularly stupid propaganda campaign on the part of the yuppie classes.
shaneh said: "People that suggest that teacher salaries should be frozen or reduced are living in an economic fantasy land."
What can we say to people like you who want them to continue being bidded upward when the society cannot afford to honor such payments? That's the real fantasy here. Teacher wages around Toledo are simply too high, considering the population who must pay them are progressively unable to afford to do so. The economic reality is that the wages must drop. If quality drops also, then there are other things we can do. Poor people tend to have time to spare (as opposed to the working poor, who work extra hours at low wages to try to buoy themselves back up into the middle class). Hence we can make use of citizen volunteers to provide for what quality drop our education system experiences.
Shaneh, there's a hard economic fact that you're not addressing here. As one member of the body politic I refuse to be overloaded with taxes to support public servants who live increasingly better lives than I do. The numbers of people like me are growing. The vote alone will put a stop to your overbuying processes.
Finally, somebody has to tell these teachers that if they really think they're being underpaid, even with a coming set of pay cuts, please note that once you enter the TPS you are generally going to receive a paycheck for the next 20+ years. Those of us (by Maggie's definition, the working poor) have no such advantage and we really have no idea if we're going to be employed next year. To be more succinct: shut your flapping yaps, you whiny babies, before you find out what a private sector job is REALLY like.
posted by GuestZero at 06:40 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
I still need a list of the job titles of all the administrators in the TPS. Can anyone help me obtain that? I asked for it from a grade-school teacher that I know, and she only laughed, paraphrasingly saying that it's 'impossible to obtain'. Help me audit the TPS!
posted by GuestZero at 06:42 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
The truth is that teachers in toledo are paid below the market rate. The suburbs and exurbs by and large pay more than TPS does.
If they are paid below the "market rate" then it must be pretty difficult to fill vacancies.
If you don't pay market rates, you can no longer compete for top talent. Better teachers go elsewhere, and the quality of a TPS education erodes further. As this happens the quality of the workforce drops and the whole negative cycle reinforces itself even more.
Just how do you identify "top talent?" ... Especially top talent just coming out of college and entering the job force for the very first time as a teacher. Teachers working on a collective bargaining agreement, with tenure, are paid equally under the same set of circumstances. When and where does talent come into play?
This is simple, folks. If I'm a teacher fresh out of UT with the national average $20,000 in debt, why would I ever take a job at TPS for $24k if I can go to a suburb and start out at $30k?
Why should you stay in Ohio when you can get $40,000 in California?
posted by YakRider at 08:09 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
$24K is a "pittance" only if you live like today's yuppie dipshit for whom no condo or SUV is expensive enough.
OK, let's see what $24k gets you:
Starting with $24,000
Minus taxes: $8,000 (1/3 of income)
Minus student loans: $2,700 ($225x12)
Minus rent: $4,740 ($395x12 for an apartment off of Crackton Ave.)
Minus utilities: $1,440 ($120 for electric, gas, water, phone)
Minus auto insurance: $1,000 (a new teacher is probably under 25)
Minus auto repair: $1,000
Minus gas: $1,000 (~$20 a week)
Minus food: $2,600 ($50 a week)
So far we're down to $1520, which is an extra $29 a week. Assuming the new teacher already has a car. For year 2-4, go through the expenses and raise them by 3% each year, but leave the salary at $24k. And we haven't even covered the cost of a new outfit every once in a while to look decent at work, laundry, grooming, copays, pension contributions, the cost of teaching aids that aren't covered by TPS, and any credit card debt from college. And if the teacher is supporting a kid, forget it.
Once again I must say that I feel no obligation whatsoever in providing easy condo ownership to the teachers in the school system I'm funding.
Who is getting a condo on $32k a year? Where are these secret, low cost condos located at? Point me towards the Realtor selling them, because I'm very interested interested.
please note that once you enter the TPS you are generally going to receive a paycheck for the next 20+ years.
And how many teachers were laid off last year? The year before? Being hired by TPS right now is just a temporary gig.
posted by thenick at 08:13 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
Why should you stay in Ohio when you can get $40,000 in California?
they could always look north. the state of michigan pays very well too.
teachers could use their 3 month summer vacation to decide whether a move like that makes sense.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 08:15 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
does toledo's peer review plan impact a teacher's compensation or is it simply a uniform scale? does merit ever factor into a teacher's salary?
posted by wholesaler1972 at 08:27 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
It's hard to believe that anyone actually believe that teachers are overpaid. I might be able to see my way to the position that Toledoans are unable to afford the levy, but teachers, in general, are underpaid considering the job we expect them to do. I agree that the local school systems (not just TPS) are doing an extremely poor job of educating our kids. But, there are plenty of excellent teachers in all of those systems, and they deserve to be paid in relation to their skills and duties. Those that are terrible deserve the same consideration-pay that is equal to their skills and duties.
And, please don't argue, again, that many people are underpaid. That does not mean that everyone should be underpaid.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 08:39 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
it's hard to believe people don't actually consider the fact teachers work only 9 months of the year. it's hard to believe their shorter work days aren't considered and how they often have much better benefit packages.
the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ National Compensation Survey found that teachers earn “more per hour than architects, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, statisticians, biological and life scientists, atmospheric and space scientists, registered nurses, physical therapists, university-level foreign language teachers, [and] librarians.” In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2004, the average pay per hour for all full-time workers in the “professional specialty and technical” category was $29.77, while public secondary school teachers earned $32.52 and elementary teachers $32.53—or about 10 percent more than the typical professional.
i'm not saying all teachers are overpaid. i am saying below-average and mediocre teachers are overpaid.
the fat in our public education system needs to be trimmed. the bureaucracy created by "administrators" and teachers union is harming our children and our city. burdening the taxpayers with yet another levy will do more harm than good. it will only push more middle class to the 'burbs, lowering the enrollment and tax base.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 10:26 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
Why should you stay in Ohio when you can get $40,000 in California?
---------------------------------------------
they could always look north. the state of michigan pays very well too.
teachers could use their 3 month summer vacation to decide whether a move like that makes sense.
Ouch!!! posted by wholesaler1972 at 08:15 P.M. EDT on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
---------------------------------------------
Post of the week.
posted by Darkseid at 11:54 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006 #
it's hard to believe people don't actually consider the fact teachers work only 9 months of the year. it's hard to believe their shorter work days aren't considered and how they often have much better benefit packages.
One of the part-time evening people that I work with is an art teacher. She's at work every morning by 7 a.m. and works until 3 p.m. at the school. She works for us three evenings a week for four hours per night.
7 a.m. to 3 p.m. is still an 8 hour day, with a 20 minute to half hour lunch. When she's not teaching an actual class, she's either monitoring a study hall or a lunch period. Once she's out of school, she has assignments to grade and lesson plans to work on. And this is an ART teacher. Subjects like math, science, history and English require even more time outside of the classroom.
Factor in extra-curricular activities (club advisers, coaches, etc.), phone calls and emails to parents with questions/concerns, and I don't understand how anyone thinks a teacher has shorter days than the rest of us.
As for the vacation in the summer, imagine how you feel on those days when your kids are driving you INSANE. Teachers are dealing with kids like that every single day - frequently more than one. I don't care how patient a person is with kids - there is a limit. That summer vacation, if they're lucky enough to not need a summer job, is absolutely necessary.
And now, they have it even worse, because if little Johnny's (or Jessica's) parent is one of those "My child can do no wrong" types (and if you're a parent, you for certain know at least one of those moms or dads), you're not only dealing with the child's behavior, but you're dealing with with parent criticizing everything you do. Add to that the stringent guidelines they have to follow for test preparation now and you're looking at one of the worst "middle management" positions that exists in the work force today.
I absolutely admire teachers for what they do on a daily basis. I have no problem admitting that I couldn't do it.
posted by valbee at 01:27 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
thenick said: “OK, let's see what $24k gets you [....]”
thenick, it must therefore be impossible for those starting teachers in the parochial schools to even eat, since their starting salaries are less than $24K (I hear about $20K). Funnily enough, I don't hear any news of them dropping like flies from malnutrition, and I don't believe I see them begging for spare change downtown.
Your facts and figures are still overblown. By your own estimations, nobody making $12/hr or less is capable of living a normal life in Toledo. Yet, thousands are getting by on $12/hr and less. How are THEY making it, thenick? Bank robbery? eBay sales? Panning for gold in the Muddy Maumee?
Like I said, it's a STARTING SALARY and it's modest. Yes, you might find it wise to live in your parents' basement for a few years, or live with roommates (as I did for most of my 7 years in Boston, where real estate is quite expensive in relative and absolute terms). Yes, having kids on such an income is absolutely foolish. Yes, having a car is very expensive at such pay scales and it will probably pay to take the bus and car-pool. Yes, too, it will pay to get married and be partially supported by your spouse's income. Etc.
In short, your expectations are STILL too large and you're just trying to argue for the privileges of a privileged class. But we taxpayers have to pay the bills. Those privileges are too expensive. They have to go.
Note particularly that I'm much more adamant about cutting the jobs of the legions of useless administrators in the TPS. Mags is right about that. If anyone deserves to be paid at all, it's the teacher OVER the administrator. If we can get rid of the administrators, then keeping teacher salaries at the current levels is much stronger selling point for me and any other fiscal conservative. But since we MUST cut costs, and administrators are NOT being dismissed in the numbers they should be, then teacher salaries are FAIR GAME.
thenick said: “For year 2-4, go through the expenses and raise them by 3% each year, but leave the salary at $24k.”
So ... "RAISES", compared to the pay cuts we're being commonly handed here in the private sector? Oooh, poor babies!
thenick said: “Who is getting a condo on $32k a year? Where are these secret, low cost condos located at? Point me towards the Realtor selling them, because I'm very interested interested.”
Catch a clue. Ever heard of the HOUSING BUBBLE? Mortgage loan orginators are pushing loans as extreme as they can achieve. If you make $32K a year, there's an MLO out there who will shoe-horn you into an "option ARM" for a condo that you'll have to struggle not to be foreclosed on.
I've seen MLOs tweak and cajole to accomplish the impossible that you are denying. It all depends on credit score, co-signers, and all the creative (read: borderline fraudulent) financing that the banks can dream up.
thenick said: “And how many teachers were laid off last year? The year before? Being hired by TPS right now is just a temporary gig.”
True, there have been layoffs and there are likely to be a few more, but those with seniority have the security I mentioned. Note well this is in stark contrast to what seniority gets you in the private sector -- namely, that you're targeted for a layoff or firing since you earned too many raises, have too many days of earned vacation, have too many years vesting in whatever company profit-sharing plan exists, etc. For the security offered by ANY school system, non-unionized and private-sector workers would LOVE to have the same "problems".
MoreThanRhetoric said: “And, please don't argue, again, that many people are underpaid. That does not mean that everyone should be underpaid.”
I can clearly argue that point if I'm footing the bill. I said it before well enough, sufficiently altered here to make my point:
"If *I* don't get paid, *YOU* don't get paid."
I'm not going to vote myself into the poorhouse further just to ensure the salary expectations of teachers.
Another poster here properly identified the logical problem: People earn more money in other areas ... yet, Toledo has a surplus of teachers. So the logic used by certain posters here is faulty. Dropping teacher salaries will likely only remove the surplus.
posted by GuestZero at 03:23 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
7 a.m. to 3 p.m. is still an 8 hour day, with a 20 minute to half hour lunch.
i honestly do not know the contract for toledo teachers. other contracts, though, require much less than a 8 hr workday. most require abot 6 1/2 hours with a "duty free" 50 minute lunch.
i'm sure your friend is not alone with her hours worked. what do you think about the teachers that arrive and leave with the students each day?
Once she's out of school, she has assignments to grade and lesson plans to work on.
teachers aren't in front of students the entire day. they are afforded the opportunity to do much of this while at school.
since i don't recall the source, i can't quote a piece i recently read. it stated the avg teacher spends 2 hrs/ week on school matters at home. i know this came from a self-reporting survey by teachers for the dept of education.
Factor in extra-curricular activities (club advisers, coaches, etc.), phone calls and emails to parents with questions/concerns, and I don't understand how anyone thinks a teacher has shorter days than the rest of us.
you need to understand the contracts the teachers have. these activities are generally rationed in very clear fashions. by the way, if he/ she is a coach, they get paid for it. they aren't doing it for the love of the game or kids.
That summer vacation, if they're lucky enough to not need a summer job, is absolutely necessary.
well, my job is very stressful as well. i'm going to tell my boss i need a quarter of the year off for my mental health.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 08:03 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
i'm not against individual teachers. i'm against their unions. they provide an inadequate product at a very high cost to the taxpayer. enough is enough. the only answer they come up with is "more money is needed".
these unions have entirely too much clout politically and it is clearly damaging our children, our city, and our country. they have the democratic party in their wallets and it shows.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 08:27 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
There was a thread on TPS Teacher Compensation I started Oct. 16th. There are links to an analysis we did on compensation and some other information. In fact, I can see from the Blade article that many of the issues brought up in the article were discussed in this thread.
The one point I get from this story is that TPS teachers have not had an increase in the salary schedule for 4 years, however, in comparisons to other local districts TPS fares well - some higher some lower and still makes the state average. What does that say about TPS teacher salaries 4 years ago?
I believe that teachers are among the most important people to our society and future. However, the world of economics defines supply and demand and what the market will bear. We can't pay teachers by taxing ourselves into the poor house - that would lead to an economic collapse for Toledo (maybe it is already under way). As to being competitive for the best teachers (I don't think teacher mobility after hire is that great), unless all those teachers that have been laid off have left the area, there should be a few teachers still looking for a job. And last time I checked local colleges are still graduating future teachers.
I'm a proponent of a merit based compensation system. Having said such a heresy, I know the devil is in the details and I don't want it based solely upon standardized tests. But I do think we could look at a value added approach as part of the criteria. Test students at the beginning of the year and again at the end and then evaluate on progress each student and class attains. Remember, I'm not suggesting this to be the only factor in determining merit increases.
posted by sflagg at 08:40 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
merit based compensation could include student test scores, parent feedback, peer/ principal review, and their education levels. if these people are smart enough to educate our kids, they should be able to devise a fair plan.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 08:51 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
I agree with MR. Flagg on this one point, at least, a merit based system would be better. That goes for any unionized workforce - if there is no real penalty for poor performance, there is no real incentive for excellence. However, that still does not address the fact that teachers - across the board - do not make what they are worth.
As for the laziness that some posters have implied-I have never known a teacher who worked less than 9 hours a day. In fact, most of them work closer to 9 1/2 or 10. They do receive work periods during the day, but that doesn't begin to account for the full amount of work they must review. Further, teachers do not "vacation" for the entire three months of the summer. There are times when new lesson plans must be created, they participate in continuing education, and many other activities.
Rather than cut the pay of teachers, let's go after police officers. They keep getting raises and stuff, they work for the government with job security, and they expect us to pay for all of it. Those arrogant bastards - why should they get paid such good wages just for providing services that we all expect to receive as part of a civilized society. And don't get me started on the firefighters...
Some things you have to pay for. If you can't afford the taxes, vote no for non-essentials. If you think the school system is misusing funds, PARTICIPATE in the process. Voting is not the end of your ability to affect the system. The bigger the opposition, the more likely they are to cause a change.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 09:56 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
Someone finally brought up benefits (thanks, Wholesaler). Check the list of holidays, vacation time, sick leave, health insurance and other perks that public school teachers receive in the city of Toledo, and then compare that list of benefits with the private sector positions at identical salaries. Tell me, oh enlightened one, just who is getting the best deal here?
Teachers in the public school system also enjoy job security that is virtually non-existent in the private sector, and a distinct lack of competition for individual positions. In fact, the lack of competition and the administration’s inability to fire individual instructors is something I’ve only found in companies with a certain amount of nepotism.
To be fair about this, I’d like to point out a few things. Teachers have no real way to discipline students since corporal punishment was discontinued. The threat of a lawsuit that the school system can’t afford to defend against prohibits control of students and control of lesson content. Parents do not support the teacher’s position (little wonder, given the quality). The schoolteacher is expected to teach little Johnny well enough so that Johnny can pass the ‘whatever’ exam, but the clue bus left three days ago and Johnny can’t find the bus stop. Substitute a class full of honor students, and any schoolteacher will look good. Put the same teacher in a remedial reading class full of urban gang members and see what happens.
My suggestions for possible solutions here are to reinstate corporal punishment, as administered by a disinterested third party who is skilled in martial arts and who has the authority to stay the execution. Have the State of Ohio finance all defense against lawsuits. Mandate via criminal law that parents must spend five hours at random intervals monitoring class along with their offspring, and that these same parents must show a concerned interest in their children’s education if the child is failing. Provide merit raises for schoolteachers who are able to raise the grade point average of failing or difficult students. Likewise, provide for demotions for those schoolteachers who fail to provide good service, as decided in part by the students and the parents of those students.
posted by madjack at 10:21 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
most of them work closer to 9 1/2 or 10.
just curious, rhetoric, where did you get this info?
if your implied laziness remarks was directed towards my posts, i never once said there were lazy and hope the comments didn't come off as such.
my comments are more of an indictment of the teachers unions and what they allow. it props up poor performance and doesn't reward real effort and achievement. it takes away any power from the principals and gives too much power to the union structure.
we're not talking about the manufacturing of cars or our garbage pick-up. we are talking about our children.
our kids pay the price as the teachers union tightens its choke hold on the public school system. if the AFT and NEA don't change their course, they can suffer the same consequences as the UAW (lose of power/ clout and members).
posted by wholesaler1972 at 10:54 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
I mentioned that it was teachers that I know - and I know quite a few. That's not a study by any means. But, studies can be skewed to any viewpoint the statistician wants to achieve.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 10:57 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
well, you may be a very good person with some quality people as friends/ acquaintances. your viewpoint could possibly be skewed as well because of your better company. it may not illustrate the whole picture or the entire pie.
lastly, i also have teachers as friends. some are very supportive of the unions; a couple are very critical of the machine.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 11:05 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
Why would anyone be a teacher at a starting rate of 24-32K? A financial analyst or IT analyst start at about 40K. I got my first job in IT in 1999 and was paid 30K (which was below average). Seven years later I make almost 3 times that.
BTW
All of the teachers I know who teach at the Catholic schools are all married and their husbands have good jobs. I'm sure that isn't the case of all of them, but the ones I know that is the case.
posted by SensorG at 11:09 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
our kids pay the price as the teachers union tightens its choke hold on the public school system
How does the teachers union affect how the ADMINISTRATION wastes tax payers money?
my comments are more of an indictment of the teachers unions and what they allow
Which is? Im not trying to pick a fight but a lot of people here jump at every chance to bash any union that comes up. So if you would explain to me (because i really dont know) how the teachers union operates i could get a better idea of what you're saying.
posted by tm at 11:10 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
thenick, it must therefore be impossible for those starting teachers in the parochial schools to even eat, since their starting salaries are less than $24K
I know three people who teach or have taught at Catholic schools. All were married.
thousands are getting by on $12/hr and less. How are THEY making it, thenick?
Probably by not paying $225 a month for their student loans.
In short, your expectations are STILL too large and you're just trying to argue for the privileges of a privileged class.
The "Privileged Class" makes $32k a year, lives in a one bedroom apartment, and drives a used car?
Catch a clue. Ever heard of the HOUSING BUBBLE? Mortgage loan orginators are pushing loans as extreme as they can achieve. If you make $32K a year, there's an MLO out there who will shoe-horn you into an "option ARM" for a condo that you'll have to struggle not to be foreclosed on.
So we're not talking about "easy condo ownership", we're talking about setting yourself up for financial ruin.
So ... "RAISES", compared to the pay cuts we're being commonly handed here in the private sector? Oooh, poor babies!
Go back and read what I wrote. And remember, new teachers salaries are frozen for the first four years of employment. No step raises, and with the agreement to wait for a new levy, no cost of living raises either.
A piece of advice: if your employer is cutting your pay, it's time to find a new job. Also, I'd highly suggest quitting without notice once you secure employment elsewhere.
True, there have been layoffs and there are likely to be a few more, but those with seniority have the security I mentioned.
Last I heard, there is no teacher in TPS with less than 7 years seniority. That means any teacher who started with TPS this century is no longer employed by them. So when you said "please note that once you enter the TPS you are generally going to receive a paycheck for the next 20+ years.", you were incorrect. Since 2000, once you get hired by TPS, you're going to be layed off eventually.
posted by thenick at 12:12 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
if you want a good example, this is from an abc news report.......
In New York City, it's "just about impossible" to fire a bad teacher, says Schools Chancellor Joel Klein. The new union contract offers some relief, but it's still about 200 pages of bureaucracy. "We tolerate mediocrity," said Klein, because "people get paid the same, whether they're outstanding, average or way below average."
Here's just one example from New York City: It took years to fire a teacher who sent sexually oriented e-mails to "Cutie 101," a 16-year-old student. Klein said, "He hasn't taught, but we have had to pay him, because that's what's required under the contract."
Only after six years of litigation were they able to fire him. In the meantime, they paid the teacher more than $300,000. Klein said he employs dozens of teachers who he's afraid to let near the kids, so he has them sit in what are called rubber rooms. This year he will spend $20 million dollars to warehouse teachers in five rubber rooms. It's an alternative to firing them. In the last four years, only two teachers out of 80,000 were fired for incompetence. Klein's office says the new contract will make it easier to get rid of sex offenders, but it will still be difficult to fire incompetent teachers.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 12:23 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
Wholesaler, thank you for the examples. I wasn't aware of stuff like that. Maybe im niave but i always figured thatif you screwed up or whatever that the union contract couldnt keep a person from being justifiably fired. I assumed that most of them were for un-just terminations.
posted by tm at 12:32 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
it can be frightening.
In the last four years, only two teachers out of 80,000 were fired for incompetence.
i wonder what what they had to do to get fired.
public education is in need of major changes. the monopoly that exists today must go away.
if you want examples of school choice, look at san francisco and/ or milwaukee. they went different routes with "choice", but, nonetheless, proved to be successful.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 12:55 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
GuestZero,
At the very least your rants are entertaining.
But I feel you're seriously misguided.
First, I want to clarify that I am not, in fact, a teacher. At least one person in this thread was under that impression.
Second, the average teacher is not working less than 40 hours a week. The idea that they can grade papers and create lesson plans in their 1 hour daily planning period is laughable. Go ask an actual teacher, don't just speculate. Perhaps more importantly, the ones that do work 40 hours or less a week are not the teachers that the parents WANT their kids to have.
Third, $24k is a pittance. Period.
I'm going to point out the obvious: You have a lot of aggression towards people that are economically better off than you.
Teachers are PROFESSIONALS. And like I said earlier, most parents would like the best teacher possible for their children. Now, look at the economic forces behind this.
What incentive does a bright young student have to go into teaching? For the same investment in money and time I could get a BA or BS in fields that would pay much more than a teaching job. So right there, there is no incentive for great minds (who could be great teachers) to enter the profession.
Instead, you're left with the people that have just always wanted to teach. Many surely are excellent students and incredibly smart, but the point is that there is undeniably competition between different career tracts for the best young students.
So now there's a whole ecosystem of teachers out there. Surely there are great ones and bad ones and average ones. This is obvious. They don't all possess the same talents.
Why would one of these teachers chose to make less money in TPS if they were offered a position in another local district? The teachers that can: those with the best student teaching references, the best transcripts, and those that graduated from the best schools, are going to be offered more money, period. This is the way supply and demand works. Good teachers are in short supply. Thus, their prices go up. If you want good teachers, you've gotta pay for them.
And you seem to compare the cathoic schools to TPS as if they were equals. This is not an apples to apples comparison. Teaching at a public school is a more difficult job. It demands a higher pay.
You know what? I pay a lot of taxes. A lot. And of course I would enjoy having more of my pay check but that's not how it works. I wouldn't be able to make the salary I do if it weren't for the infrastructure we've built as a society. And the next generation deserves that same chance.
You seem to think that because Toledo is a working-class town that we should have working-class teachers. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works. Teachers, by law, must be professionals. Do they deserve to make a professional wage in exchange for their personal investments in their education? You bet your ass they do.
Fourth, You're delusional if you think that teachers have some magic job security that we don't have in the private sector. I also think it's funny that you claimed that wages are shrinking in the private sector. As if we're all getting pay cuts while teachers get raises.
Finally,
You should consider re-taking your High School economics course. Businesses are looking for favorable tax conditions and an educated, abundant workforce.
If you think Toledo has economic problems now, what do you think would happen in 20 years if we cut teachers salaries to your desired levels? What would happen when many of our best teachers took jobs with neighboring districts?
That would affect TPS students. It would drive down the value of a TPS education. Fewer students would go on to college and the work force in toledo would stagnate even more than it (arguably) already has.
You complain about the economic state of our city. I agree about that. But the way to fix it is to pay MORE for education, not less. Spend more in our highschools. Spend more to subsidize the cost of higher education. Spend more to ensure that we have a talented, educated work force.
posted by shaneh at 12:57 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
And seriously, if you make $24k/yr how much state taxes are you actually paying?
You do realize that the life that you live wouldn't be possible without the infrastructure that taxes support?
And one more thing: Did you seriously just suggest in this thread that a young teacher should take the bus instead of owning a car?
Didn't you just rail against Tarta in another topic for being a "welfare supported" operation?
You've got some issues to work out, Guest. In the meantime, i'll be thanking my lucky stars that you're not the one calling the shots.
posted by shaneh at 01:06 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
shaneh - I disagree that the solution is to spend more money. We've continued to spend more money every year and that hasn't made the differences we're looking for. Besides - if we (as a community) are going to spend more money on public education, we're going to spend less money elsewhere because there's a limited budget in most households.
We need to stop thinking that more money equals better results.
posted by MaggieThurber at 04:42 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
Thank you maggie - we need more people saying that. and saying it louder!!
ShaNaNa's idea to fix a leaky bucket is to add water...
posted by billy at 04:58 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
You do realize that the life that you live wouldn't be possible without the infrastructure that taxes support?
Spoken like a true socialist.
posted by billy at 05:03 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
But the way to fix it is to pay MORE for education, not less. Spend more in our highschools.
i have an honest question. when is it enough? when do you say "money doesn't fix this"? at what point to do people say "time to do something different"?
here's some info from an earlier quoted abc news report.......
National graduation rates and achievement scores are flat, while spending on education has increased more than 100 percent since 1971. More money hasn't helped American kids.
those money numbers were adjusted for inflation. in other words, there is no correlation between more money and better schools.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 05:05 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
Second, the average teacher is not working less than 40 hours a week.
Cite your source. And, while you’re calculating that average, don’t forget to count the physical education instructors.
Third, $24k is a pittance. Period.
I’m glad you think so. Since I know you’re a good person at heart and wealthy where it counts most, why don’t you just even things out a little bit? Write poor old GZ a cheque each week so he can have a few extra bucks to kind of ease the burden of living in Toledo. Because, well, that’s what you’re asking GZ to do for the schoolteachers.
You know what? I pay a lot of taxes. A lot.
Translation: I’m wealthy. I’m smarter than you are, as evidenced by my wealth. Therefore, if you’ll just keep quiet and allow me to run things, you’ll be better off.
This might not be an accurate translation, but it serves to illustrate the tone of your opinion. Question: If you’re so wealthy, why are you living in Toledo during November?
Fourth, You’re delusional if you think that teachers have some magic job security that we don't have in the private sector.
You’re mistaken. Public school teachers have job security that workers in the private sector only dream about when they’re under the influence of a recreational substance. Let the administration try and discipline a schoolteacher, particularly a teacher belonging to a minority group, and watch what happens to the administrator and the school system. After the lawsuit is settled out of court, you’ll be lucky to keep the fillings in your back teeth.
Having been victimized by the public school system in Sylvania, Ohio and having watched several friends go through the same process in Toledo, I feel that I’m qualified to offer some small amount of criticism about public schools. I would be hard pressed to find one in ten schoolteachers that I’d hire to do anything, any job at all, in the private sector. Some are just plain incompetent human beings. Others have personality defects that would keep the individual out of any branch of the armed forces except for a suicide squad. A few belong in prison.
My neighbor, June (not her real name), was having trouble with her seven-year-old son recently. The boy’s grades dropped like a bowling ball tossed off the High Level Bridge and he was refusing to go to school. The problem turned out to be an abusive teacher’s aide, and I don’t mean slightly abusive, or a little out of line. I’m talking about serious abuse. When June asked the school principal to correct the situation, she was immediately informed that nothing could be done. June refused to accept this condition, and the principal finally, reluctantly, agreed to instruct the aide to have no further contact with the boy. The morning tantrums stopped and the grades went back up.
Finally,
You should consider re-taking your High School economics course. Businesses are looking for favorable tax conditions and an educated, abundant workforce.
That depends on the business. Many are not looking for well-educated, intelligent people. Industry that depends on unskilled labor seeks the opposite. Industry also seeks low utility rates, large amounts of fresh water, low pollution control, an absence of labor unions and a favorable political climate.
posted by madjack at 05:31 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
thenick said: "I know three people who teach or have taught at Catholic schools. All were married."
Well, there you go. I've said in the past that Toledo's poor economy practically forces people to marry in order to have a real household. It's a problem, but it affects anyone at such a "pittance". Naturally, my implied point is that I don't exclude teachers from such modest starting salaries.
thenick said: "Probably by not paying $225 a month for their student loans."
Disingenuous. Many people making such a "pittance" have various bills they are paying, one way or another: kids, cars, medical bills, stupid consumer spending, and yes - there are people making less than $32K who have degrees, so yes, they could well be paying student loans.
thenick said: "The "Privileged Class" makes $32k a year, lives in a one bedroom apartment, and drives a used car?"
Yes. They are privileged since (1) you want to pay them a good starting wage with respect to the poor laboring slobs who ultimately cover their paychecks, and (2) a 1BR apartment is a luxury compared to what I went through in my starting-wage years in the military (i.e. dorms) and in Boston (i.e. roommates). They are also privileged since any schmuck making 32 large can afford a leased car (which many do).
Recall well also that they are in a unionized labor force and that directly equates to privilege.
The REAL non-privileged class is myself. At the current rate, I'll never reach $32K a year. My wages in fact are likely to continue to be downgraded into the "living wage" class ($8-12/hr). I live in a 1BR apt, and I drive a completely shit car. And of course, I don't know if I'll be employed next month or next year and am unable to make plans like buying a new car, etc.
Of course, I could scale up the car or apt since I've got a Ph.D. in saving money. But I'm unusual. I'm not making the foolish mistake of not caring about vast employment uncertainty.
thenick said: "So we're not talking about "easy condo ownership", we're talking about setting yourself up for financial ruin."
I couldn't have said that better myself. Modern "home ownership" is financially stupid in the way that it's commonly and widely practiced. What else should I call it when you buy the most expensive item in your life, with little-to-no money down, for the longest possible period? In fact, what kind of moron pays 3 times the price over time for what should only cost the once? Oh, that's right: most any homeowner.
Easy condo ownership IS synonymous with financial ruin. It heartens me that one of you is starting to catch on.
Still, financial ruin or not, there's an MLO out there who will shoehorn that condo into your $32K/yr.
thenick said: "[N]ew teachers salaries are frozen for the first four years of employment. No step raises, and with the agreement to wait for a new levy, no cost of living raises either."
Mags has well related here how these "no raises" teachers are still earning "step" raises, albeit once qualified to receive them. So you make no point whatsoever. You're also dismissing that levy-anticipation "agreement" that the prior administration arranged. If that's an actual legal document, then a clear $11M of dammed raises will top the levee (he hee) sometime and deluge the teachers with more money. No COLA? Shit, a deferred COLA is still a delivered COLA, eventually.
So, you're breaking my heart, here. If we in the private sector were offered the same terms, we'd jump at the chance. A 4-yr freeze before I'd get various raises that have no relation to our job performance? AND a starting wage of $32K? AND a median wage of $48K? AND I can't commonly be fired just because the boss doesn't like me? Sign me the fuck up!
thenick said: "A piece of advice: if your employer is cutting your pay, it's time to find a new job."
A piece of advice in return: Go to your fucking window and note that Toledo lays about you, sprawled about the land like a vast blanket of economic suffering. It's easy by far to say "find a new job", but stupid by far to say it in a city whose employers are largely restaurants, quickie marts and payday loan sharks who pay for shit.
thenick said: "Last I heard, there is no teacher in TPS with less than 7 years seniority."
Fair enough, but you're still reaching the wrong conclusion, as usual. It could be that the TPS is in the same union-demise that many other unionized industries are experiencing. We don't really know and must watch this as a work in progress. As for attaining seniority, it's difficult wherever you are. I know temp teachers from the early 1990s who gave up "getting in" to the TPS in disgust. From their anecdotes, the TPS is more likely to be your career path if you wax Frannie's car, than anything else about your qualifications and achievements. Also, several cops I know are noting the increasing tendency for senior cops to remain in their positions instead of retiring. The cops are graying, too. So, what does all of that mean?
Well, it does mean that if you can get into the cops or the schools, then you generally have a career job, even now, and especially compared to us private-sector chumps who are facing a very real Perfect Storm that is likely to toss us overboard in one fiscal quarter or another. Like I said before, whatever you claim for the teachers is much better than what we're facing. Hell, I'm still getting paid, but that could change in a heartbeat -- I know one guy who's sitting on SEVEN paychecks from his so-called employer (which is doubly sad since he's the company's accountant). The assurance of current and future income is still overwhelmingly ensconced within the parasitical classes (teachers, fire, police, city workers, etc.). If they have it so bad, I'm wondering why they aren't having their own flights of workers.
Anyhoo, Flagg said it perfectly right, and it bears repeating:
"We can't pay teachers by taxing ourselves into the poor house - that would lead to an economic collapse for Toledo (maybe it is already under way)."
I can back that one up by stating that, in comparison to what we Working Joes are experiencing, the teachers, cops and other such privileged classes have it very, very good and they could stand to take a pay cut or two. Certainly I'm not going to vote more of my wallet to them. I'm in such serious trouble economically that it's foolish to even ask me. I'm not going to fall into the trap of being destitute during my "unemployable 50s". I need every dime. If some $32K staring teacher has to take a pay cut to $30K to assure those dimes for me, then I've got some news for them: it's time to plan for that pay cut.
posted by GuestZero at 05:55 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
I am a TPS teacher with 13 years experience who also resides within the district. In additon I have 3 children in the district. I also agree that our taxes are extremely high. I understand that asking already over taxed people to pay more isn't fair, but until the state of Ohio comes up with a fair way to support the schools, as our Supreme Court said they need to do, what is the alternative? I would not object to keeping the contract as is, but I do not think it is fair to promise a raise to a working force and then take it away during the next contract negotiations. I would also like to mention that my salary in comparison to other teachers is not a reflection of my teaching abilities. I LOVE my job and do my best, no matter the salary I am being paid. Remember that today's urban educator is not just another employee, as in the private sector. We are expected to be teacher, parent, nurse, couselor, morality guider, test prep. specialist, custodian and pay for all of the extras needed to do the job, without reimbursement. Thank you for all of the comments, both negative and positive, this is what makes this country the place I choose to live.
posted by marlos at 07:27 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
thanks for you comments marlo. i hope you post more on this subject.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 08:01 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
you want to pay them a good starting wage with respect to the poor laboring slobs who ultimately cover their paychecks
These "parasites" spend more hours of their waking day with kids than most parents do. How much is daycare for an elementary-aged kid?
a 1BR apartment is a luxury compared to what I went through in my starting-wage years in the military (i.e. dorms) and in Boston (i.e. roommates).
College students don't either live in dorms or shared housing?
The REAL non-privileged class is myself. At the current rate, I'll never reach $32K a year.
Sounds like you're still starting out. See my suggestions below. I'm not being an ass, I'm sincerely trying to help. I've been in your situation before, I know it blows.
Mags has well related here how these "no raises" teachers are still earning "step" raises, albeit once qualified to receive them. So you make no point whatsoever.
We were talking about starting salaries, not 20+ year veterans of TPS, and for four years new teachers don't get raises. The point is that during those four years, the new teachers expenses continue to rise while their spending power stays the same. By the fourth year, that $32k is more like $29k. If their annual wage is $24k, then by the end of those four years it's actually worth only $22k after inflation.
Shit, a deferred COLA is still a delivered COLA, eventually.
Unless you've been laid off.
If we in the private sector were offered the same terms, we'd jump at the chance. A 4-yr freeze before I'd get various raises that have no relation to our job performance? AND a starting wage of $32K? AND a median wage of $48K? AND I can't commonly be fired just because the boss doesn't like me? Sign me the fuck up!
Sure thing! Just graduate from college with good grades in courses pertaining to the subjects you intend to teach and good student teaching references, pass the required Praxis tests in the areas of study you intend to teach, then spend a year under Ohio's Entry-Year Teacher Program, pass a background check, and be approved by the Intern Board of Review of TPS, then you can have these benefits.
Oh, and every five years, you'll need to recertify by taking extra upper-level college classes. I might be wrong, but you'll have to pay for those yourself.
Go to your fucking window and note that Toledo lays about you, sprawled about the land like a vast blanket of economic suffering. It's easy by far to say "find a new job", but stupid by far to say it in a city whose employers are largely restaurants, quickie marts and payday loan sharks who pay for shit.
I must have missed the recent developments that prevent citizens from seeking better employment opportunities elsewhere. If this town is treating you like crap, why haven't you moved on? Unless you own property here, there's nothing tying you down. If I find a better job in another city, I'd move. What's keeping you here?
Look, if you are at the $8-12 per hour wage level, you more than qualify for a Pell Grant. The ~$4k grant will more than cover the $2,800 tuition at Owens, and there are several other grants that may be available as well. I know of several people who held down full time jobs and attended Owens, either at night or online.
Want to make sure you never have to worry about unemployment again? Enter Owens's nursing program. I've got a friend who graduated with an associates in nursing and was offered a position and a signing bonus with no experience other than what she got in the program. As long as you haven't intentionally killed a patient, being hired as a nurse is a slam dunk.
I know one guy who's sitting on SEVEN paychecks from his so-called employer
A former employer of mine still owes me $7k from 2001. In my experience, he'll see that money on the fifth of never.
If [teachers] have it so bad, I'm wondering why they aren't having their own flights of workers.
They're doing fine, but if you cut their wages by a quarter, they may start looking towards the suburbs. As any sane person who suffers the same pay cut would. If you made $8k more by driving a few extra miles to work, wouldn't you?
posted by thenick at 09:49 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006 #
thenick said: “College students don't either live in dorms or shared housing?”
Out of 10 years of shared living, I was a college student for 3. That left 7 years of being a young worker while still sharing a domicile.
thenick said: “Sounds like you're still starting out.”
At 39? With 20 years of experience? Oh, please. Of course, there's an alternate truth to your statements. We're seeing people being cast out of careers to the point that they are only able to hang on at the lowest tiers of their professions. In effect, they are being permanently relegated to what should be a temporary status. Permanent starters. Whose fault is that, again? Oh, yeah, that's right: the Capitalists ... who are more and more setting up ALL the terms of employment in the USA.
thenick said: “We were talking about starting salaries, not 20+ year veterans of TPS, and for four years new teachers don't get raises. The point is that during those four years, the new teachers expenses continue to rise while their spending power stays the same. By the fourth year, that $32k is more like $29k. If their annual wage is $24k, then by the end of those four years it's actually worth only $22k after inflation.”
I'd still jump to have these terms. Note also that everyone at those wages levels are subject to the same effects of price inflation. Really, what point are you trying to make here? That teachers are inherently worth more money? My point has always stood that a starting wage of $32K is very good ... compared to a society that has many other professions with lower starting wages and lesser career security. Again, the parochial teachers fare quite poorly to this $32K "standard" -- yet they continue preparing, get recruited, and work their way through their own parochial school systems.
Following logically, a "very good" starting wage could stand to be downsized in the case of an economic emergency. I judge that Toledo is indeed in that economic emergency. Hence, TPS teacher salaries are candidates for cuts. Note well that administrator positions should be first in line for the cuts ... but given that Toledo is a master-slave society, that's hardly going to happen to the degree that it should. The TPS will largely retain its army of administrators while continuing to hand out more pink slips to the subs, probationary teachers and even regular teachers. I've been given to understand that tenure has expired in the TPS, too. (In colleges across America, tenure is becoming progressively rare.) So, whatever happens, teachers will largely be victimized by the administrators.
thenick said: “Sure thing! Just graduate from college [blah blah blah]”
I don't subscribe to the unproven idea that you're worth more money if you're a college grad. Neither is it true that you suddenly need a degree to do the job you've always done. At least you're admitting what your bias is, now.
Still, it remains true that college grad or not, as a teacher your paycheck comes from the taxpayers. If the taxpayers are doing poorly, then you should expect to do poorly. It's farcical for you to expect to continue receiving COLAs, for instance, while we in the private sector are taking pay cuts on top of shouldering increased costs of gasoline, housing and energy. If it takes a few bitter failed levies to make this economic point crystal clear to you, then so be it.
Please note that I work with people with degrees who are in the same trap. Getting a college degree (and all the debt it tends to invoke) is the actual trap here.
thenick said: “If this town is treating you like crap, why haven't you moved on?”
As I expected, after asserting that you're not trying to "be an ass", you've certainly pulled some stinky turds straight out of the "Rightwingnut Playbook" ... notably, Ch.17: "Always, Always Blame the Worker for the Economy". You speak here as if you want Toledo to be fixed. How on Earth, then, does that jibe with cordially inviting people to leave? We can't create wealth around here if we leave! Get a clue.
I've little desire to leave an area that has enough wealth, still, to pay me for my products and services, and has more than enough demand ... yet refuses to make such investments. This is what happens when your society becomes full of wealth whores who are so busy worshipping money that they (in Tho. Jefferson's terms) "wake up slaves on the continent their fathers conquered". People are so busy working 1 to 3 jobs, pursuing MBAs, and/or tweaking their e*Trade accounts that they are literally not noticing that they are allowing a real economic royalty to form in America, Ohio and Toledo specifically.
The next Big Problem of Toledo is the incredible failure of most people to understand rational investment. My local group of friends and I have discussed this many times. Landlords around here particularly earn our ire, since those sick fucks are the stereotypical examples of what Toledo Capitalists think (wrongly) about how to manage an investment. Around here, they expect to pay next to nothing for property or other assets, to spend nothing on maintenance, and to reap a city-government-supported maximum profit for an extremely long time. Toledo is a prime breeding ground for slumlords.
Toledo is not unique for this kind of endless blood-from-stone squeezing. I used to live in Brookline, Massachusetts. Several long-term residents helped clue me in about all the empty storefronts that I saw along Brookline's bustling and prosperous streets. It was pointed out to me that many of the retail properties lining the major streets were in fact owned by very old Jewish consortiums. The culture of those consortiums demanded high rents at all times. Hence, even though they were surrounded by economic energy, ideas and affluence, storefronts could sit empty for many years since the consortiums never dropped their rent prices.
Toledo is a bit like that. The Capitalists around here literally strut about like Barons and Dukes, knowing full well that the local culture has collapsed into a master-slave form that has given them great (hence, excessive) power. Taxation was supposed to help stop this formation of a modern economic royalty ... but taxation is utterly perverted in Toledo. The middle class (including the small businessmen) bear too much of the burden of covering tax revenue, while the poor can rely on too much individual welfare and the rich can rely on absurd levels of corporate welfare.
Moving away from Toledo looks to be more necessary with each passing year. The master-slave state of local affairs grows worse. Perfectly valid work methods expire progressively since the Capital Princes around here indulge in "superqualification" of the workforce -- i.e. they add unnecessary job requirements, artificially, just to winnow down the workforce and to increase worker anxiety. This is how you convert free men into wage slaves.
This was not the case in Boston in the 1990s. I'm sure that had to do with the presence of real educated classes there, not the faux educated (intellectual posuers) who are so rife around here. And I'm quite certain it had to do with a certain Liberal bias to society there, instead of the nauseating fundie Conservative nonsense that rules the collective brain in Toledo. ("Darrr! That homosexual couple is affecting my OWN marriage! Stop them! Darrrrrr!")
My move away from Toledo is probably going to happen at any rate. I don't want it to happen since I can fit in here and set down roots as is my desire. I like to live near friends (instead of being largely 800 miles away from them) and don't mind the change of seasons. Since there's no natural reason why Toledo has to be so socially and economically poor (literally Medieval), I can only posit that change can be invoked from social and economic actions. It might well be a matter of unsupported faith, but I think that Toledo can change. It doesn't have to be an environment of corporate welfare queens, spendaholics, crazy-assed politicians, uncaring non-voters, fundie shouters, drunkpunks, and the most vicious Capitalists I've ever met in my life (and having come from Boston, that's sayin' somethin'). People with social consciousness and real education (and with far more patience than I can summon) can combine Toledo's elements to form a society and economy that works ... which means socially permissive, fiscally conservative, and with justice that is soundly administered.
Probably by the time that gunshots are heard nightly around the Toledo 'hoods, the Detroit Event Horizon will be reached, and then it will undoubtedly be time for me to go. I'm not about to drive around Toledo like my co-workers drive around Detroit -- cringing and awaiting a stray or directed gunshot. How 'bout you, thenick? What is your escape plan?
thenick said: “Want to make sure you never have to worry about unemployment again? Enter Owens's nursing program.”
There is no such thing as "never have to worry about unemployment", now. Around such an economic sinkhole as Toledo, the lack of a general prosperity is creating surges in employment populations. Hence, if nursing is one of the few viable professions around Toledo, it's guaranteed to become oversubscribed, hence removing all that security you so cavalierly laud.
And we must note that I'm good at what I do and don't want to do anything else. It's called a "career", there, thenick. Since I'm good and have modest salary demands ($15/hr is perfectly fine with me -- if only I can keep it that way, but since 2002 it's been falling), it's perfectly rational to expect that I can compete. However, as I've repeated many times before, Toledo is a master-slave socio-economy and you're more likely to get results by roofing a politician's home over anything you are or do otherwise.
thenick said: “They're doing fine, but if you cut their wages by a quarter, they may start looking towards the suburbs.”
A large fraction of TPS teachers already live in the 'burbs. At any rate, there's no shortage of teachers, and cutting their wages-in-place (being necessary from our growing economic emergency) tends to affect people like it's affected me: they largely just continue working at lower pay. A fraction leaves, but the bulk just stay. You might have also heard, thenick, that people prefer to live in their own homes in their own towns next to their family and friends. Nutty, eh?
Also at any rate, if Toledo's population flees to the 'burbs in enough numbers that similarly-fleeing teachers land jobs in those same 'burbs ... then what's the fucking problem? Toledo lost the population; the 'burbs gained it. Toledo lost the teachers; the 'burbs gained 'em. I just don't see a problem, here.
You could be angling on the well-debunked argument that somehow Toledo will end up with the dregs of the teachers. Well, even if true (note: it isn't; the "dregs argument" is a tiny effect in most cases) I'm still fine with that. If Toledo is unable to afford teachers, it will therefore get what it CAN afford. This is economically natural. After all, I don't expect steak when all I can afford is chicken.
And finally, and hardly least, if Toledo's poor remaining workers can't afford to pay starting teachers a $32K salary, then the starting salary WILL decrease. This is well in line with the hard economic argument that was used to cut my pay 3 times (and with yet another cut happening over Nov/Dec) since 2002. If a supply/demand (albeit somewhat bogus) argument applies to my wages, then I can only ask again WHY it doesn't apply to teachers?
posted by GuestZero at 06:24 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
So you think that the solution is to not spend more money. Well, what is your idea? Increase the performance of our public schools by cutting funding? Staying exactly the same?
The simple truth is that we have raised the bar higher and higher for teachers but we've refused to raise the pay.
You seem to think that teachers are just public servants that simply MUST do their best to educate and babysit your child even though their salary is minuscule compared to what their education is worth in the private sector.
You seem to lump teachers together with politicians. Sure, a CEO of a company makes $20MM a year and our President makes $400,000. And a the responsibilities of a city-councilmen for running the City would probably pay six-figures in the private sector but we pay $30,000. The thing is, there's a certain cachet that goes along with such jobs. There is no such cachet when you're a teacher.
If you think that what toledo needs is more factories and industrial jobs than I really disagree with you. First, in case you haven't noticed, those jobs aren't a growth-industry in the US anymore. There are few new plants and factories going-up and we're competing with every other area in the "rust belt" for the few that do.
The kind of jobs that would benefit toledo do desire a well-educated workforce. And the way to get there most certainly is not by CUTTING FUNDING for our schools.
I agree that throwing money at the problem alone will not fix it. Furthermore, I should have been more precise: We need to spend more money on TEACHERS not necessarily on EDUCATION.
The world we're living in is a lot more complex than it was in 1971. Students in Toledo Ohio, once in the workforce, will have to compete in a global market.
And with respect to Maggie Thurber, she lives in Point Place (if I remember correctly). The Point is blessed with an excellent elementary school of which I am an alumni. It's easy to take our district for granted based on what you see there. And many of those teachers are some of the best in TPS who specifically request to teach there. Ottawa River is an example of what a school can do with a competent and talented teaching staff.
And the way to attract more talented teachers is to compensate them to the level that their talents would demand from the private sector.
This notion that the teaching profession is somehow immune to the forces that shape the rest of the workforce is just naive.
Mountains of anecdotal and hard evidence prove that education is the silver bullet to poverty. The better educated, the better paid, the larger the tax base, the lesser the burden on each of us. On the flipside of that coin, you cut education, you have more poverty, more welfare, more crowded prisons and jails, more healthcare and childcare costs that the state and local governments are forced to pay for.
The conservatives here clearly have an "Every man on his own two fee" mentality but you seem unwilling to help these people get the one thing that they need to actually accomplish that: A quality education.
Your CHEAPNESS is what's causing the problems that you complain about the most.
And my point in saying that I pay a lot of taxes is simply to illustrate that I back-up my opinions with my wallet. I'm not simply telling you what you should be doing with YOUR money. And, in fact, many people here probably pay much more than I do. I am not WEALTHY by far. I did work my butt-off in school and I'm a freelance software developer. I'm self employed, I paid every cent of my own education, and I went to public schools. I can relate to many of the pressures that you're talking about.
posted by shaneh at 01:35 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
ShaneH Said:
You do realize that the life that you live wouldn't be possible without the infrastructure that taxes support?
Billy Said:
Spoken like a true socialist.
Can you seriously say that I am wrong? Unless you're living an Amish lifestyle, you're just being hypocritical.
Your trash goes in the same dump, your toilet flushes to the same place, your garbage is picked-up by the same crew, you drive on the same roads, your children are (or were or would be) educated in the same schools, your life is protected by the same police, and you tax rates are the same as the next guy.
Do you actually think our society would be better-off if that wasn't the case?
posted by shaneh at 01:42 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
Your CHEAPNESS is what's causing the problems that you complain about the most.
Well maybe the administrators should take the cuts out of their salary or perhaps rein in their spending. I dont think a levy will pass until the board can prove that they can be responsible with our money. I think, in my opinion, thats the real issue. Definalty teachers deserve to make more moeny, they are educating the future, but the board and administrators consume too much of the revenue.
What do they do every year? they say they have a deficit and they choose to close schools. well howabout we reduce the level of administrators we employ? i mean what is the possition of pupil performance for? is it REALLY needed. Thats not a duty that maybe the counselors could pick up? Things like that. I think if they start cutting the fat (which they wont) is when you will see people more likely to pass a levy.
posted by tm at 01:44 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
The simple truth is that we have raised the bar higher and higher for teachers but we've refused to raise the pay.
how has the bar been risen? are teachers and/ or administrators any more accountable than they were twenty years ago. it's an undeniable fact the funds the public school system has rec'd has increased dramatically. our public school system is just another bloated and failing govt program.
And the way to attract more talented teachers is to compensate them to the level that their talents would demand from the private sector.
what do you do with the "not-so-talented" teachers? are they let go? if they have seniority, they stay. they also go to any school they want, even ottawa river. the principal there will have very little to no say as to that "not-so-talented" teacher.
maybe the "not-so-talented" teacher ends up in a subpar school. congrats, kids, here's your lousy teacher...and your stuck with him/ her. what are you going to do about it?
posted by wholesaler1972 at 02:49 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
Well, what is your idea?
allow true school choice. the only families with real school choice are the ones with money. families w/o money are powerless. their zip code tells them what school their kids will be attending. school choice provides poor families with a voice and hope......and a choice.
make sure funding follows the students. blow up the centralized decision-making within public schools. allow principals to run their schools as they see fit. provide them with the power to influence the hiring and firing of teachers.
what we have now is a broken and bloated govt monopoly. the system has no true incentive to improve, especially since we continue to increase the fund levels while the product doesn't improve.
it's time for competition and innovation. failing schools improve and they will go away. this won't happen any time soon, though, because the AFT and NEA are the most powerful unions in this country. they have the democratic party as their puppet.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 03:05 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
Certainly schools can not operate without money. However, throwing more money at a problem without a plan including action items, deadlines, assignment of responsibility, establishment of benchmarks, accountability and oversight is like throwing chum to attract the sharks - it will be a feeding frenzy at the pubic trough and what will we get for it?
Before we ask for more money, let's ask some questions. What is an adequate or quality education? What should it cost to provide an adequate or quality education? What is adequate compensation for the job content, requirements and responsibilities of teachers? What is the list of spending priorities? Where does education (K-12 and post secondary) fall on this list of priorities? Given all the budget priorities, how much of our tax dollars can we spend on education? Obviously all of us could think of more questions, but the point is you should not throw money at a problem without agreement on the issues and actions. And I don’t think we should just trust our public officials to “know what is best for us”.
Before we spend more money, I believe TPS and our other public institutions and governmental agencies need to justify to us that the money is spent wisely. In addition, I believe we need to know how they evaluate their programs and employees. And I believe we need to know when they cut ineffective programs and how they reallocate these resources to programs that have promise.
I’ll pay my share of taxes, but I want these dollars to be used effectively!
posted by sflagg at 03:35 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
"how has the bar been risen? are teachers and/ or administrators any more accountable than they were twenty years ago."
We now require teachers to have a masters degree. There is a grandfather clause for existing teachers but even they must get a masters to prevent their seniority from being affected. There is a period after they get licensed where they must get a masters degree or they will not be able to have their license renewed. I'm not sure of the time limit they're given, but it is very do-able and very comfortable.
This, in addition to rising standards, greater emphasis on standardized testing, and other changes in requirements and culture have raised the bar for teachers.
This is simple logic folks: If you're a talented, intelligent personable type and your considering your options, what incentive is there for this person to pick teaching over, say, an MBA program that would give him earnings-power of thats larger by several orders of magnitude?
posted by shaneh at 04:09 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
If you're a talented, intelligent personable type and your considering your options, what incentive is there for this person to pick teaching over, say, an MBA program that would give him earnings-power of thats larger by several orders of magnitude?
You assume teachers get into it for the money. You assume wrong. Educate yourself on the subject.
posted by billy at 04:13 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
"what do you do with the "not-so-talented" teachers? are they let go? if they have seniority, they stay. they also go to any school they want, even ottawa river. the principal there will have very little to no say as to that "not-so-talented" teacher."
I do believe in the free market. Not across the board, but in many ways.
I believe that teachers should be paid a market rate and that they should be held accountable based on the standards set by their peers.
While I haven't researched it in detail, I'm not immediately opposed to stack-ranking teachers. Two consecutive years in the bottom 10% and you're fired. Rank and Yank, as this has affectionately been termed in the private sector isn't very polite, but it does send a message. I do think, as I said, that the most important part is that teachers are held accountable by their peers, not congress, or the school board, or the president.
posted by shaneh at 04:16 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
"You assume teachers get into it for the money. You assume wrong. Educate yourself on the subject. "
Actually, you made the assumption here.
I never suggested that "teachers get into it for the money."
I did suggest that there's a huge number of talented people that AVOID TEACHING because of the money. Go educate yourself on that.
Furthermore, once a person is already a teacher, how many would take a lower paying job in TPS "on principle" when they could make more in surrounding districts?
There's a difference between "not being in it for the money" and making common-sense decisions based on money.
If you're going to pay less you're going to have to offer something to compensate for that, just like my President and City Council examples.
posted by shaneh at 04:20 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
By the way, billy, good to see you on the internet. I see you're enjoying some of that Public Infrastructure that you eschewed yesterday.
posted by shaneh at 04:21 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
+1 for sflagg.
If you read any of my comments here they're not about necessarily paying more for education, but paying more to teachers.
I'd be happy with any number of solutions to this problem.
And this is another topic altogether--and I'm sure you conservatives will hate this even more--but I think our policies for higher education are moronic. I see no good reason that this country can't send every student to a 4 year college with no out-of-pocket tuition costs. Once again, folks: silver bullet.
The same party that insists that we couldn't possibly do this is the party that thinks that "defecits don't matter" and, of course, doesn't flinch about spending $80 Billion a year in Iraq.
For $80 Billion a year we could send nearly 13.5 Million students to college full time assuming a $250 credit hour. Personally, I'd be happy with just a little subsidization.
Interestingly enough, this fits with the Supply Side theory. Grow the tax base by making the right investments today.
posted by shaneh at 04:34 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
We now require teachers to have a masters degree.
this means little to me. having a masters doesn't make for better teachers. effort, concern, and good ole TLC make for good teachers. the degree isn't some sort of golden paper.
This, in addition to rising standards, greater emphasis on standardized testing, and other changes in requirements and culture have raised the bar for teachers.
other changes? such as? how many teachers have been fired in TPS because of poor testing?
culture? huh? again, such as? peer pressure? is "culture" weeding out the underperformers and promoting the better teachers?
to be honest, i'm not as familiar with TPS and this teachers union (TFT) as i am with other cities (having read alot on milwaukee, san fran, NYC). if i'm missing something regarding "culture", testing, and/ or other changes, please enlighten me.
i've honestly looked for info on the teachers' contract and other school matters, but have found little info. the only thing i found were highlights listed on the union's website. if someone can provide some guidance or sources, i would appreciate it greatly.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 05:06 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33293.html
here's an article that sheds more light on my feelings/ positions.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 05:09 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
I see no good reason that this country can't send every student to a 4 year college with no out-of-pocket tuition costs.
yet another entitlement/ wealth redistribution program. maybe we can look at this after health care becomes socialized.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 05:14 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
Out of 10 years of shared living, I was a college student for 3. That left 7 years of being a young worker while still sharing a domicile.
So because you weren't able to obtain a job that could pay for a 1 Bedroom in Boston, everyone should have a roommate?
I don't subscribe to the unproven idea that you're worth more money if you're a college grad. Neither is it true that you suddenly need a degree to do the job you've always done. At least you're admitting what your bias is, now.
A: It is proven that college graduates make more money over their lifetime than non-graduates. Both HeyHey and I gave you information about that in an earlier thread.
B: There are zero TPS teachers who have not graduated from college.
C: It's not my bias, it's the State's bias.
we in the private sector are taking pay cuts
What you talkin' bout, Willis? You're painting with an awfully big brush if you think everyone in the private sector is facing pay cuts like you are. Unless you're in manufacturing or work for an airline, the cuts you have experienced have been limited to your company only.
Getting a college degree (and all the debt it tends to invoke) is the actual trap here.
How is having your tuition covered by a Pell Grant a trap?
As I expected, after asserting that you're not trying to "be an ass", you've certainly pulled some stinky turds straight out of the "Rightwingnut Playbook" ... notably, Ch.17: "Always, Always Blame the Worker for the Economy". You speak here as if you want Toledo to be fixed. How on Earth, then, does that jibe with cordially inviting people to leave? We can't create wealth around here if we leave! Get a clue.
Welcome to reality after 11/9. We're all in competition. You, I, our neighbors, and soon another generation. The "Capitalists" don't owe us jack and are not out to blow money on make work projects just out of the kindness of their hearts. If that were true, the Marina District and new arena would both be completed by now.
You can't just sit in the figurative mud and expect that a job will come along that fits you. You need to improve your skills or prepare for the scrap heap of unemployable workers. Since you show no interest in learning new skills (at no cost to you I might add), enjoy that living wage.
The Capitalists around here literally strut about like Barons and Dukes
They literally strut around like Barons and Dukes? I must have missed all the Capitalists wearing their monocles and riding around in their 1911 Graf und Stift Rois De Blougne tourers.
Taxation was supposed to help stop this formation of a modern economic royalty ... but taxation is utterly perverted in Toledo.
Redistribution of wealth is decidedly not what taxation was intended for. If you honestly believe the purpose of taxes is to redistribute wealth, please show me examples of countries where that plan has worked.
Hence, if nursing is one of the few viable professions around Toledo, it's guaranteed to become oversubscribed, hence removing all that security you so cavalierly laud.
Except there is an entry barrier that prevents just anyone from filling those open positions, and not many people seem willing to spend the time and effort to get their certifications.
And we must note that I'm good at what I do and don't want to do anything else.
Then stop bitching about how you're being trampled by the man. I'm sure there were carriage makers who enjoyed their jobs, too. If your employer is cutting your wages, you're working for a dying company. Prepare for the day that you show up and the doors are locked. I've shown you a way, but if you don't grab that opportunity, I won't shed a tear when your employer shuts down.
If Toledo is unable to afford teachers, it will therefore get what it CAN afford.
With poor teachers, we get undereducated graduates, or no graduates at all, and the downward spiral continues.
If a supply/demand (albeit somewhat bogus) argument applies to my wages, then I can only ask again WHY it doesn't apply to teachers?
Because they signed a contract. Their wages are reevaluated every couple of years.
posted by thenick at 05:27 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
By the way, billy, good to see you on the internet. I see you're enjoying some of that Public Infrastructure that you eschewed yesterday.
Invented by Al Gore too, right Comrade?
posted by billy at 05:36 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
"this means little to me. having a masters doesn't make for better teachers. effort, concern, and good ole TLC make for good teachers. the degree isn't some sort of golden paper. "
You completely miss the point, once again.
According to a recent study: "Individuals who have earned a master’s degree have earnings estimates of $2.5 million" [over their career].
So you're asking that a person earn an education that, on average, the private sector has valued at 2.5MM over their career.
Assuming a career is 40 years, that's about $65,000 a year, every year.
I'm not expecting that teachers reach complete 1:1 parity with the private sector, but right now we're NOT EVEN CLOSE. Assuming that a teacher makes $25k their first year, and $60,000 in their fourth year, with a standard deviation each year in between, they would make $1.6 MM in their career. 0.64:1.
And that's the problem I'm talking about. We're not paying the market rate for the skills that teachers possess.
Come on, every indication is that you're a Republican/Conservative. You believe in Free Markets, don't you? Well, then embrace them. "The magic of the marketplace" says that a person with a teachers qualifications should be making an average of $65,000/yr over their career, when, by the same math I just did, teachers make an average of $42,000/yr over their career.
posted by shaneh at 05:39 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
"Invented by Al Gore too, right Comrade?"
The CW that conservatives are reluctant to change has at least rung true with their jokes.
And in all seriousness, Gore did more than any other elected official to secure the funding for the Arpanet project. So you've been using that tired old line for years and anyone in the know, knows that the joke was on you.
posted by shaneh at 05:41 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
So, shaneh, what does where I live have to do with anything??? Do you assume that because I live in the Point Place I've never been in any other school??? Never assume! Besides, what does that have to do with issue of a levy?
No one here has said that teachers are not valuable, or that they (as a group) are not appreciated enough - either in terms of verbally or through compensation. If given a choice, there are a lot of professions that I think should get paid more - mainly because they're doing jobs I don't want to do or jobs which I value highly. But just because I think such doesn't mean that I can afford it - as GZ so eloquently explained.
However, the issue is not whether or not teachers, alone, deserve pay increases. This is a bigger issue about the way our schools are run. This is about the fact that we spend more money in TPS than most other school systems in the county and the perception that we're not getting the results we'd like in terms of test scores, or other measurables. This is about kids graduating and still needing to take remedial classes in college because they didn't learn what they needed to learn while in high school. It's about many of the questions sflagg and wholesaler are asking - questions which our school board members should be asking, themselves.
Sadly, it appears that people feel the only way to intiate change is to send a loud message - and the defeat of a levy sends such a message...even though the system sometimes fails to hear. Since many believe that they're not heeded when they make suggestions for improvements, they will conclude that a 'no' vote on any levy will be something that can't be ignored.
The old addage applies - if you keep doing the things you've always done, you keep getting the things you always got.
posted by MaggieThurber at 05:42 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
Come on, every indication is that you're a Republican/Conservative. You believe in Free Markets, don't you? Well, then embrace them. "The magic of the marketplace" says that a person with a teachers qualifications should be making an average of $65,000/yr over their career, when, by the same math I just did, teachers make an average of $42,000/yr over their career.
Ouch!!! posted by shaneh at 05:39 P.M. EDT on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
Do you support the concept of school choice, shaneh? If you want to get paid market rates, do you also want to accept the issues that come along with a free market? If you let the market apply to schools, the good teachers will make what they're worth and the bad teachers won't have any students...
You can't have it both ways - have the protection of a monopoly while demanding the pay of a free market...
posted by MaggieThurber at 05:48 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
Let's put it another way:
The average income of a high-school graduate over their career is $1,250,000 in 1999 dollars.
If a teacher makes 1:1 parity with the private sector (compared to the 0.64:1 parity they make now), 2.5MM over his career, and if he educates 30 students a year for each of those 40 years, his salary comes to about $2,100 per student per year.
That just so happens to equal $25,000 per student for their 12 year compulsory education.
If he gets no higher education, society is still only paying $25k for his $1.25MM in career earnings.
If he pays 30% of those wages in taxes, we're collecting $375,000 in taxes in exchange for the $25,000 investment.
Let's say he drops out. That'll reduce his income by, on average, $250,000 over his career. The taxes on that additional amount come to $75,000, enough to pay for 12 years of education for 3 other students.
There is a return on this investment, folks. It helps the greater good, and it helps teachers to, who often have thankless jobs.
And these numbers are based on paying the teachers market rate!
posted by shaneh at 05:59 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
Maggie,
I didn't mean to imply that the extent of your TPS experience was with Ottawa River. Even if you'd never left the Point you'd still be exposed to the other fine schools in that feeder, like Leverette and Woodward.
My point is that you have first-hand experience of how valuable a good school, with excellent teachers (and, of course, some that aren't so excellent), can mean to a community.
And to answer your question about free markets, the answer is "it depends."
There's no way that schools could go completely 'free market.' It would need to be highly regulated and monitored. We're spending state tax dollars, we need to be sure that these schools are meeting requirements for curriculum, safety, etc.
And while I highly doubt that Charter Schools (or those by any other name) could deliver a much better product at a lower cost, I have no problems with letting them try.
But proponents of school choice need to understand and help compensate for the major transition period, which they're not at this time.
The TPS budget is in the red because of lower enrollment, due in large part to charter schools.
And here we are, blaming them for what amounts to gross mismanagement.
They built an organization to accomodate x students and now they have 0.8x and people on this board expect them to downsize overnight, it seems.
School districts need economies of scale. I find it hard to believe that hundreds of independent schools in a city would offer a quality and valuable product at the same or lower prices than we're paying now.
More likely, I think, is large corporations that own hundreds of schools.
And the thought of sending my (future) kids to schools run by a system that brought us Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, and the ilk doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. You?
posted by shaneh at 06:14 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
shaneh - fyi...I'm a Woodward grad. And Point Place Junior High was still in existence for me. But I've tutored in a central city elementary school and spent lots of time reading to kids in many schools.
And TPS's budget isn't in the red strictly because of lower enrollment. They're in the red because of numerous bad budget decisions - the primary one being that they spend more than they take in. Which means that costs need to be cut. Plain and simple.
What's not so simple is WHERE to make those cuts. It's so much easier to just keep going back to the taxpayers and asking for more money. The hard part is spending lots of time with the budget, evaluating what is REQUIRED versus what is WANTED and then prioritizing the needs. As I've said before, the first cuts should come from administration...
But, I don't believe that you necessarily need economies of scale in a school district. And I do believe that competition results in lower prices and better products. Monopolies do not.
posted by MaggieThurber at 06:51 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
But, I don't believe that you necessarily need economies of scale in a school district.
Ok, one question: If this were true, why are charter schools still relying on TPS for transportation?
posted by shaneh at 07:11 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
We're not paying the market rate for the skills that teachers possess.
and
And these numbers are based on paying the teachers market rate!
free markets and supply/ demand are working properly.
what you seem to be doing is trying to set market rates based off of other professions,education levels, and what you think you are worth. markets should determine value, not unions.
Come on, every indication is that you're a Republican/Conservative.
according to this site's recent "quiz" thread, i fall in between libertarian and conservative. regardless, i don't consider myself to be a republican; i think of myself as a libertarian (aka classic liberal).
posted by wholesaler1972 at 08:10 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
what you seem to be doing is trying to set market rates based off of other professions,education levels, and what you think you are worth.
When you go grocery shopping, do you expect every item to be priced depending on its calorie content?
posted by thenick at 08:54 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
When you buy a car, are you going to pay for the upgrades the present owner indulged, or are you going to pay fair market value, as is?
posted by BrianInFlorida at 08:59 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
When you go grocery shopping, do you expect every item to be priced depending on its calorie content?
aagghh, no. when i go shopping, i buy things because of overall value. if i don't feel like the item(s) present good value or worth, i don't buy or participate.
the power of choice.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 09:04 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
shaneh - note the word "necessarily" in that quote...
And since TARTA has a levy and the school has a levy, we go back to the taxpayers who are subsidizing said transportation...
posted by MaggieThurber at 09:16 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
aagghh, no. when i go shopping, i buy things because of overall value. if i don't feel like the item(s) present good value or worth, i don't buy or participate.
Since rice is a great value nutrition-wise, do you only buy rice? Or do you buy the best value in each category?
When you buy a car, are you going to pay for the upgrades the present owner indulged, or are you going to pay fair market value, as is?
The upgrades affect the fair market value. A Honda Accord with the power package and automatic transition is going to sell for more than a barebones Accord.
posted by thenick at 09:57 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
thenick, what is your point?
Since rice is a great value nutrition-wise, do you only buy rice? Or do you buy the best value in each category?
no, i buy whatever i choose. i may purchase the cheapest item or i may occasionally by a very quality and expensive item.
our public school provides neither "value". its quality tends to be that of the cheap item, but its price tag is that of the expensive.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 10:07 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
Chris Myers - Just poked a bit around Ideas for TPS...Very interesting - great job!
posted by wombat at 11:17 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
Although elements of a free market do apply to schools, public education is not a free market. Can't be. Not if it has to provide a service to all families who wish for their children to participate in it. They're a servant to too many masters with competing goals to allow free market to reign.
Wholesaler - you're right, a master's degree is just a piece of paper. But it does represent a significant amount of commitment on a teacher's part to gain further knowledge, skills, pedagogical awareness, and hopefully attitudes that do make an impact on professional practice. Effort, concern, TLC DO feed into good teaching as well, but do not denigrate the significant amounts of professional development teachers have to go through to retain certificaiton and the type of impact it can make on their practice. It is more than most professions have to do. And hopefully they put it to good use.
Teachers/administrators are more accountable for their jobs in today's climate, (as an aggregate, really, not so much individually) - implementation of legislation such as No Child Left Behind and the Early Childhood and Secondary Education Act in the '90's have raised the stakes for producing bare minimum standards for education. Up until NCLB, whether you love it or hate it, there were states that didn't have some organized form of standards to indicate how their own school systems were doing.
posted by wombat at 11:57 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006 #
Up to now, I've tried to be relatively polite about this. That time is over.
I'm willing to literally kill off the school system in order to destroy the members of the privileged classes that feed off it like leeches. (Sure, I'd kill a lawn to get rid of a weed. Just try me.) The rule of our society is that you need to work for your daily bread. No one actually revoked that rule.
Note well that the useless administrators should be first in line to get the chop. Unfortunately, we're unable to fire these people since the system itself makes the administrators the ones who decide who gets fired. Predictably, they fire large numbers of teachers and other workers, rather than themselves.
So, each election, when I see a school levy, I vote NO. This is the only real message I can send to a class so insulated and privileged that they can pass clear through from hiring to retirement without ever worrying that their failures will affect their compensation.
This will only continue until the school system is either destroyed or becomes sensitive to our economic needs.
We working class are utterly fucking assaulted by endless lines of privileged classes who bleat the same line of self-serving and propagandistic reasoning:
"Pay our bloated salaries since we're of more value than you."
Well, that's just a bunch of bullshit and I know that value begins with MY LABOR. So, in the next election, I'll hit that NO button and then we'll see where the value really resides, punks. Do you really want to play push-shove? I'm better at it.
My ideal vision of the future is that each year the TPS Superintendent has to knock on each door of Toledo's residents, holding out his hat, looking for a donation in order to keep the schools open. That's where such an elite deserves to end up -- begging like a dog. The money just came too easily in the past from a population that was literally no smarter than performing dogs. A monster was created.
Rarely for me, I'm now through arguing with elitist pricks on this thread. A friend just called me tonight, looking to borrow to meet her mortgage payment. I told her no. The privileged classes don't even understand what's going on in Toledo, with things like this. So, I'll see you fuckers at the polls. The propaganda machine is running at the usual 110% around here and a Detroit-style end is coming for Toledo. As in Detroit, tactical police teams will be attending BOE meetings soon enough. Most of you cheerleaders deserve that. Good day.
posted by GuestZero at 05:16 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
wombat said: "Although elements of a free market do apply to schools, public education is not a free market. Can't be. Not if it has to provide a service to all families who wish for their children to participate in it. They're a servant to too many masters with competing goals to allow free market to reign."
I'm intrigued by this - can you please elaborate?
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:22 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
Although elements of a free market do apply to schools, public education is not a free market. Can't be.
why not? in areas where choice and competition have been allowed, kids have prospered. give families more say when it comes to their kids education. additionally, public schools show improvement once choice is introduced. that's because of the good ole american competition and innovation.
this is a summary from a harvard school choice study.....
School choice and school competition:
Evidence from the United States
Caroline M. Hoxby*
Summary
The most frequently asked questions about school choice are: Do
public schools respond constructively to competition induced by
school choice, by raising their own productivity? Does students’
achievement rise when they attend voucher or charter schools? Do
voucher and charter schools end up with a selection of the better stu-
dents (“cream-skim”)? I review the evidence on these questions from
the United States, relying primarily on recent policy experiments. Pub-
lic schools do respond constructively to competition, by raising their
achievement and productivity. The best studies on this question ex-
amine the introduction of choice programs that have been sufficiently
large and long-lived to produce competition. Students’ achievement
generally does rise when they attend voucher or charter schools. The
best studies on this question use, as a control group, students who are
randomized out of choice programs. Not only do currently enacted
voucher and charter school programs not cream-skim; they dispro-
portionately attract students who were performing badly in their regu-
lar public schools. This confirms what theory predicts: there are no
general results on the sorting consequences of school choice. The sort-
ing consequences of a school choice plan depend strongly on its de-
sign.
for more info, http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/hoxby_2.pdf
beware...the report is 67 pages long.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 08:44 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
SHANEH
I really didn't want to butt into this very informative conversation but I have one burning question and one answer.
Burning Question:
When did Leverette and Woodward become "fine schools" or were you speaking from the past? Woodward is on the Ed Choice program, which means that the school (three years in a row) is performing so lowly that the students can receive a voucher to attend a private school.
Answer:
Transportation is provided to all public school students depending on how far they live from the school and if the student is special ed or not. TPS does not provide the transportation to charter schools because they are charter schools. Transportation is provided because charter schools are public schools and public schools are provided transportation.
posted by purnhrt at 09:23 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
thenick, what is your point?
The point is that comparisons between professions can't be done objectively. The only quantitative data available that can be compared is a salary level. All other comparisons are subjective. Ask an octogenarian and they might tell you that doctors are much more valuable than teachers. Ask a mother with three kids in public schools and she might tell you that teachers should be paid more than doctors. Ask GZ and he'll give you a longwinded and profanity-laced tirade about how both doctors and teachers are parasites. Do you see what I'm getting at?
posted by thenick at 10:48 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
yes, and i agree with you. there's been posts, though, that have said just what you're mentioning. you can't compare apples to oranges.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 11:38 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
And while I highly doubt that Charter Schools (or those by any other name) could deliver a much better product at a lower cost,
with all due respect, you obviously haven't looked into this. whether it's a voucher program (such as in milwaukee, cleveland, NYC, wash DC) or a public school choice (san fran), it saves public funds. per another report.....
“According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average private school tuition, including the most elite academies, is $4,689. At the same time, the average per-pupil spending in public schools is $8,830. For every child in public school that receives a voucher worth 60% of the average public school cost, or $5,298, the state saves $3,532."
and how much per student do we spend? $10,000+?
The TPS budget is in the red because of lower enrollment, due in large part to charter schools.
tps is in trouble because lower enrollment AND their lack of understanding with debits and credits.
furthermore, lower enrollment can be attributed to disgruntled and dissatisfied parents. have you ever heard of "5 and gone" or "5 and done"?
husband and wife have kids. they remain in the city for the first 5 yrs, generally due to lower taxes. once the child is ready for school, the parents put a "for sale" sign in the front yard.
this is an approach that is very, very common with toledo's middle class. these are the only people who have school "choice". it involves two options: moving out of toledo or sending kids to private school.
the lower enrollment is largely based on the lesser educational product, not because of charter schools.
if you want to improve toledo, improve its schools....and any improvement would not involve status quo.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 12:18 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
"When did Leverette and Woodward become "fine schools"
I was being sarcastic.
posted by shaneh at 12:53 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
As my (probable) final post in this thread, I want to create a succint summary of my view:
The best way to get better schools is to get better teachers. The best way to attract better teachers, is to not impose an economic penalty on the profession.
There are a lot of ambitious, intelligent, gifted people who would perhaps consider a teaching career if they wouldn't have to sacrifice to do so.
posted by shaneh at 12:58 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
Oops.. one more post:
GuestZero Said:
"$24K is a "pittance" only if you live like today's yuppie dipshit"
GuestZero Said:
"I'm now through arguing with elitist pricks on this thread"
GuestZero Said:
"Do you really want to play push-shove? I'm better at it. "
GuestZero, you have some issues you need to work out.
If you were smart about this, you would realize that the best way to aleviate the welfare state would be to give every man the ability to stand on his own two feet. That is, give every man a high-quality education.
But...
"I don't subscribe to the unproven idea that you're worth more money if you're a college grad."
And this is the problem. Here's what I see: a middled aged man who is fed-up with working his butt off to make ends meet. That sounds a lot like my dad.
I'm inferring from your comments that you never went to college. Perhaps your a little bitter about that.
Your solution is to lash out at those that did.
The "privledged class" wasn't born that way. Some were, but most the ranks in the middle class (the middle-middle and upper-middle especailly) just put their nose to the grindstone, held down a full time job and a full-time class load, and now enjoy the fruits of their labor.
"I don't subscribe to the unproven idea that you're worth more money if you're a college grad."
And you don't think this has a little to do with yourself not being one?
Not that I mean to make this personal, but you sure did.
Education is the silver bullet to poverty. You want lower taxes? Then lets lower poverty.
"So, I'll see you fuckers at the polls."
I'm thankful that toledo is largely democratic and largely sympathetic to the social programs that local, state and federal governments have put in place. Including public schools.
Your rants tell the story of a man who has long been in the minority and is pissed off about it.
posted by shaneh at 01:30 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
"And while I highly doubt that Charter Schools (or those by any other name) could deliver a much better product at a lower cost"
Wholesaler,
I was speaking of a situation where the "public school monopoly" is eliminated and education is handled exclusively by charter schools.
What's really happening with charter schools is the parents that care, pull out their child and put him in a charter school.
All those students who don't have engaged parents are left going to the same public school. This has the effect of making the public schools look (and perform) worse, and making the charter schools look and perform better.
My evidence of this is anecdotal but it is in sound judgment. Think of the parents of kids who don't discipline them, who don't participate in the education, who don't care about their grades or their truancy or their behavior, who suffer from, at worst, drug addiction or alcoholism, and at best complete indifference. Do you think those parents are out there pulling their kids out of public school and sending them to the School for the Arts?
If public schools were abolished and a freemarket system was left to take its place, I stand by my claim that it couldn't do any better than public schools could do with some improvements, including, as I've been railing for, a better teaching staff.
posted by shaneh at 01:43 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
My evidence of this is anecdotal but it is in sound judgment.
i'm sure glad you're not the one calling the shots with your "anecdotal" evidence. before you shut down thoughts of school choice, i challenge you to take a serious look into what happened with milwaukee, san fran, and NYC. your responses indicate you haven't done that. this "look" could provide you with something more than anecdotal evidence.
What's really happening with charter schools is the parents that care, pull out their child and put him in a charter school.
so the public school is left with the troubled and poor kids? that's simply not the case. look at that harvard study.
If public schools were abolished and a freemarket system was left to take its place, I stand by my claim that it couldn't do any better than public schools could do with some improvements
because of real world examples, you would be proven wrong. sorry to be so blunt, but there is plenty of real evidence to back school choice. if it weren't for the almighty teachers unions and public schools' leeching bureaucracy, we would already be on the path to better education.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 02:32 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
because of real world examples, you would be proven wrong.
Just for the record, exactly how many non-TPS sponsored charter schools are outperforming their TPS counterparts?
I ask this because last time I checked, it was one. All the others performed lower on state testing than TPS schools did.
posted by thenick at 03:56 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
"because of real world examples, you would be proven wrong. sorry to be so blunt, but there is plenty of real evidence to back school choice."
Did you not read what I wrote or did you just chose to ignore it?
The very beginning of the quote that you attempted to refute was "If public schools were abolished."
Tell me this: In what city in the US have public schools been abolished and replaced by a free-market privatized system?
posted by shaneh at 04:36 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
By the way, Wholesaler.
I enjoy the way you cherry-pick.
You didn't comment on this:
"Think of the parents of kids who don't discipline them, who don't participate in the education, who don't care about their grades or their truancy or their behavior, who suffer from, at worst, drug addiction or alcoholism, and at best complete indifference. Do you think those parents are out there pulling their kids out of public school and sending them to the School for the Arts?"
Your retort was:
" so the public school is left with the troubled and poor kids? that's simply not the case. look at that harvard study. "
But you're being misleading here. I read the report during my lunch break today.
The specific conclusions about what they term "cream-skinning" are:
"The numbers in the district column
mean that a charter school student is 2.28 times as likely to be
black and 1.12 times as likely to be poor than a randomly drawn student
from his district."
This makes sense: The biggest impetus to leave a public school would be on those that currently attend the worst inner-city/urban schools.
HOWEVER, this doesn't BEGIN to address the issue I mentioned. Specifically, How involved is the parent in their childs education?
Many teachers and school officials have said that parental involvement is the most important contibutor to a childs success in the classroom.
Just because a kid is poor and/or black doesn't mean that their parents are any less involved than rich and/or white kids.
posted by shaneh at 04:52 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
Another question which that study left me with was: Why do students, on average, do better in a charter school than in their public school?
Aside from the factors they listed, I wondered this:
If my hypothesis that the most apathetic parents kept their kids in public schools, what behavioral and "peer pressure" effect are these kids having on their peers in the public schools?
This is just a correlation and not a causation, but it's a 'rotten apple' situation. You remove the good apples from the bucket with the rotten apples, and the good apples perform better.
Which would re-enforce my theory that once all these kids are back in the same bucket (that is, an entirely privatized school system) that the charter schools couldn't perform any better than the public schools could perform with a little reform.
posted by shaneh at 05:01 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
Careful, shaneh, or A/C will sic Bob the angry flower on you...
:)
posted by MaggieThurber at 06:54 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006 #
wombat said: Although elements of a free market do apply to schools, public education is not a free market. Can't be. Not if it has to provide a service to all families who wish for their children to participate in it. They're a servant to too many masters with competing goals to allow free market to reign.
Hi Maggie - here're my thoughts. I admit, they're pretty loosely formed right now, just something I'm thinking about.
1) Elements of setting salary to attract and retain teachers are definitely affected by market forces, I'd say. Places that are growing like weeds, such as Clark County in Nevada for example, have to offer excellent compensation and bonuses to attract a continual stream of teacher out to Las Vegas. School choice is having an interesting impact on making schools re-think how they think about their clients - they are no longer foregone conclusions that they will be there! Yeah!
2) School vouchers - blah! On the surface I didn't find much problem with them, but the challenge is that you are providing money that pulls out of the public education system, leaving it with fewer resources to provide special services to students. But the special services students are the ones who can't be admitted into many of the private schools since they are allowed to discriminate. The effects can be crippling.
3) My true thought is that what holds schools back is an archaic view of what teaching, learning, and schools look like. If you think about a classroom and class, the images you call up are pretty much valid for what edu ation has looked like for over a hundred years, based on a model the arose out of the Industrial Revolution. Schools were formed on our burgeoning view of the factory model, as ways to standardize and deliver education. As poorly educated country-folk and, honestly, uneducated former-slaves were now moving into cities to take on these new roles in factories, schools were formed like this to try and quickly acclimate them to their new surroundings and ways of life, to prepare for work in industry. As our knowledge of how people learn has changed qualitatively, astronomically, over the years, our changes in schooling amount to only superficial changes. What industries are out there that have changed less in the past 100 years? Not many, if any. Why do we need distinct classes of physics, chemistry, history, etc., and why do all of the kids need to take relatively the same amounts of each in a homogenization of experience? Why chunked in these artificial blocks of time, to be moved from one to another in an endless barrage of overload? Why is schooling based on a typical industrial age day, a regular 9-to-5 day (besides logistical reasons), when students can learn at nearly anytime in today's day and age? The momentum of current education keeps it from truly reinventing itself into something that is better suited for today's world, today's students, and today's understanding of teaching and learning.
OK, so maybe it has to be blown up in order to be fixed - wholesaler, you have me thinking hard - thanks. Sorry, Maggie, I didn't answer your question too well ~ perhaps I'm more trying on some ideas right now. But thanks for listening, er, reading!
posted by wombat at 12:18 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 02, 2006 #
Also maggie, public schools can't be a free market because the Ohio Constitution says so.
posted by junta330 at 01:20 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 02, 2006 #
why do people on this site use the term "free markets"? most people call it "school choice"
junta, very curious here....what does the state constitution say about this? i wonder because cleveland's voucher program has withstood a state and a US supreme court challenge.
Just for the record, exactly how many non-TPS sponsored charter schools are outperforming their TPS counterparts?
thenick, i think we have 4 "A" rated charter schools in our area. many have subpar proficiency ratings.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 03:55 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 02, 2006 #
You didn't comment on this:
"Think of the parents of kids who don't discipline them, who don't participate in the education, who don't care about their grades or their truancy or their behavior, who suffer from, at worst, drug addiction or alcoholism, and at best complete indifference. Do you think those parents are out there pulling their kids out of public school and sending them to the School for the Arts?"
shane, i didn't comment for two reasons: (a) you are beginning to bore me and (b) what does that have to do with providing parents choice?
in fact, it would help the kids of those "not-so-good" parents. that's because choice improves existing school systems. those existing schools improve because competition forces it. that child simply would have a better school to go to. milwaukee and NYC have already shown this. the harvard study highlights this as well.
Tell me this: In what city in the US have public schools been abolished and replaced by a free-market privatized system?
there haven't been any cities to do that...not in this country. your point is....? also, we're not talking about a "privatized" system. that's the opponents' attempt at spin.
"The numbers in the district column
mean that a charter school student is 2.28 times as likely to be
black and 1.12 times as likely to be poor than a randomly drawn student
from his district."
This makes sense: The biggest impetus to leave a public school would be on those that currently attend the worst inner-city/urban schools.
what a horrible idea!! we empower the poor, intercity family with a choice. if they're not happy with tps, they would have other options. absolutely dreadful
HOWEVER, this doesn't BEGIN to address the issue I mentioned. Specifically, How involved is the parent in their childs education?
how does this have anything to do with school choice?
posted by wholesaler1972 at 04:28 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 02, 2006 #
here is the final paragraph from the havard study.....
One decade’s experience of school choice has, however, allowed
us to learn a good deal. Evidence from these first-generation school
choice programs has answered simple questions like whether stu-
dents’ achievement improves when they attend choice schools (appar-
ently, yes, for the typical student eligible for choice programs now),
whether public schools can respond to competition constructively
(apparently, yes), and whether choice schools do cream-skimming
(no, for programs designed as existing choice programs are). These
answers should give us the confidence to design second-generation
programs that are larger, better financed, and more ambitious in tackling issues like compensatory funding and varying vouchers with student and school characteristics.
something else to ponder....
let's say the govt starts assigning what grocery store you can shop. they base it off of your zip code. that store knows you have to shop their location. what do you think happens to their service? will their produce be fresh? what will their prices be like? how will their store look? because they don't have to compete with others, this store will have no incentive to provide the best service/ product to the customer. it's really that simple.
look at real world examples. you don't have to be too old to remember the at&t monopoly days. service was lousy, prices were high, and it was basically illegal to have an answering machine hooked up to your phone line (consider to be a "foreign object"). things have changed, huh?
posted by wholesaler1972 at 04:47 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 02, 2006 #
from wombat...
On the surface I didn't find much problem with them, but the challenge is that you are providing money that pulls out of the public education system,
that depends on the program. some, like district of columbia, budget money for school choice outside of their existing public school funds. others have some money follow the student. i personally think money should follow. if not, where's the incentive in it for public schools?
leaving it with fewer resources to provide special services to students.
the special services students are the ones who can't be admitted into many of the private schools since they are allowed to discriminate.
are you talking about special needs, wombat? anyhow, voucher schools are not allowed to discriminate or disqualify students. voucher schools can't test or looking into the child's previous school records. it's done by lottery. if your kid's number is called, he can go to the school (regardless of his/ her past).
posted by wholesaler1972 at 05:01 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 02, 2006 #
it's late (or early)....i meant to say....
voucher schools can't test or go looking into the child's previous school records.
well, i woke up around 3:30 for no reason. time to see if i can get some sleep. i apologize for any other typo's.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 05:06 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 02, 2006 #
wombat - thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree that sometimes it appears the entire system needs to be scrapped so we can start all over. Other times, I don't know.
My father-in-law was a teacher, a school principle and a member of a school board. He's one of the original "outside the box" thinkers. I disagree with him often, but always leave a conversation more knowledgeable as a result.
Anyway, he's been looking at many of the issues you raised about how kids learn. In general, he's found that boys and girls learn differently (different speeds, different interests at different ages, etc.), and he believes that teenagers shouldn't start school at 7 a.m. because of the natural sleep patterns. He's also a firm believer in, for lack of a better term, cross-education: not restricting the learning of one subject to just that class, but crossing over the subjects in order to give a more realistic training for life after school. Whether preparing dinner or cleaning a house, you're using reading, science and math...it's not possible to do without the combination.
This is being done in some schools. When my nephew was young, his elementary school would pick a topic and one year it was the ocean. Everything the school did that year included the ocean...science experiments, math problems, history, reading...in all the grades. I remember at the time thinking how neat the idea was - showing kids how all the schooling they were getting applied to a single thing like the ocean.
I'm sure there are a lot of intriguing ideas about how to teach our kids. I hope, regardless of how we teach them, that we teach them how to LEARN, not just to memorize and recite - because that's a skill that will serve then well until the end.
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:51 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 02, 2006 #
Maggie,
I agree a lot with what you father has suggested about “cross-education”. There are two very important languages that young people have to master to be effective learners: mathematics and written/spoken language. Reading comprehension is a key factor to all learning including mathematics. You can not learn, especially on your own, unless you can read and interpret a language.
I have often thought that for the first several years of education you should concentrate on mathematics and language with a focus on reading comprehension. You could introduce all sorts of subjects such as history, science, etc. into the curriculum so that students see the relevance of learning a language and how it translates into opening up the world for them. I’m more for developing critical thinking skills than to think kids need to know a bunch o’ facts.
I think I would like your father. As you say, might not always agree with him but he would make me think. No better way to validate your opinions than having to defend them in a friendly discussion.
posted by sflagg at 11:45 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 02, 2006 #
Wombat, thanks for the kudo's on the http://www.ideasfortps.com site.
shaneh's point is teachers should get more money to attract better ones. I understand this point being I am making more than what I made would I have decided to take up teaching, which I am still certified to do until June or July of next year. But, what I don't agree with is the wholesale doling out of money to everyone regardless of who they are and how good they are.
Teaching might have been very attractive if I knew I could earn more money by working hard. If I knew merit pay was done or there was a way to get more money quickly, I would have worked hard to make more money now. For me, it is the forced salary schedule that was not attractive. I would have accepted a 32k entry salary if I knew I could double that in 5-6 years by working hard. Could it be there is enough money in the system right now to make it attractive but it is the old fashioned salary schedule that is doing damage?
I would say yes. The district and the union can change the rules on pay anytime and this would solve the problem immediately. More teachers would apply if they knew they could get more money by working hard.
What it will take is the will of the board, the community and the teacher union to accept that we need to allow those who want to earn more to earn more. Creating this type of a salary system will also do more to not allow bad teachers to hurt the system as much, because they would not be rewarded for being bad just because they went another year in the system.
For those of you interested, here is the current salary schedule for TPS teachers.
posted by chrismyers at 11:21 P.M. EST on Sat Dec 02, 2006 #
sflagg...father-in-law...he actually developed the D'Nealian handwriting system...
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:28 A.M. EST on Sun Dec 03, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
