Education and Teacher Unions

[packsaddle]

Dueling cartoons? Is that what we've come to?

H'mmm...might explain the current educational status of the American people....

 

Anyway, we covered a lot of this ground a few years back in another related thread. I remember it because Beavah accused me of making him look like a 'liberal'...nice.

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=166911#id_166911

 

In this thread I outlined what is the perfect approach to education. It doesn't eliminate unions but it does address many of the problems that unions seem to be accused of causing or aggravating.

....back to Mickey Mouse....

 

Edited to correctly spell the name of the mouse.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[83Eagle]

See what I get for not searching back 4+ years in the forums? :-)

 

 

[Lisabob]

Maybe some of you have heard the recent press coverage about the Detroit Public Schools? They are under emergency financial management (with good reason).

 

They are hundreds of millions of dollars in debt with no foreseeable way out, even after making years and years of very difficult cuts to everything from extracurriculars (got rid of arts/music programs) to closing neighborhood schools to cutting workforce to pay & benefits give-backs. At this point they're borrowing money just to meet payroll. Although it has obviously been rancorous at times, the teacher's union has consistently worked with the school system to try to soften the blows on the kids and get the district back on solid footing (if that is even possible).

 

So here is the emergency manager's final plan: he put together two options. One allows the school district to basically declare bankruptcy and emerge with a new balance sheet. This is obviously drastic, but then DPS is in dire straits. The other plan is to close HALF of the remaining schools in the district, eliminate school busing entirely, and increase class sizes at the remaining schools to an average of 60 students/class.

 

Even the emergency manager himself admits that the latter plan would be "catastrophic" and "draconian." And this for a city where, until recently, the 4-year high school graduation rate was under 25% (it is up to 62% this year, whoopee, but some of that is about playing numbers games, too) and in a district that routinely ranks dead last among major urban districts nationwide in math, science, and literacy scores.

 

The state legislature told him NO to the former, and GET MOVING on the latter.

 

Now I ask you: does anybody really think that's going to work? And will it be the teachers' faults when it doesn't? Will it be the union's fault? (Frankly, I continue to be amazed that anyone is actually willing to teach there under these conditions, and maybe we should be thanking these teachers for their service and sacrifice, instead of blaming them.)

 

Would you accept 60 kids per class, no money for supplies, no busing, no art, music, phys ed, or tech classes, or anything else remotely like that in YOUR kid's school?

 

We could, of course, blame those kids who remain or just write them off as collateral damage in a larger ideological war about who gets more tax cuts (oh wait, I think we've already pretty much done that).

 

You can blame unions, which is easier, or you can look at the larger picture, which is harder.

[OldGreyEagle]

OK, why is it like this? What happended to put the schools in debt?

[SR540Beaver]

Lisa,

 

Just out of curiousity, when the workers voted to unionize at your university, did it eventually result in tuition increases to cover the union demands?

[Lisabob]

No. Our wages are already so low that it only takes about 3 students per class to pay our salaries for teaching that class. (seriously - I'm not exaggerating). Median salary for my union is in the low 30s and that's for full time employment.

 

Now tuitions have increased in the last 10 years, just as they have at nearly every single public university in the country, but that's largely because we have gone from a situation where our public university was funded 75% by the state and 25% by tuition, to a situation where state funding now accounts for less than 25% of our "public" university budget and is projected to drop yet again for this year and the foreseeable future. It raises challenging questions about what it means to call us a "public" university these days. A poor economy hurts student enrollment & retention (and our bottom line), and inflation & rising energy costs also need to be factored in. Despite this, the University has been able to keep annual tuition increases under 10% in most years, and in a couple of years the increases were actually under 2%. Unfortunately, we are still probably out of reach for some families. Annual tuition for an in-state resident is about $8000.

 

I wanted to add:

 

While there have been improvements in salary for instructors in my union (hey we moved from below-poverty-line wages to slightly above poverty line wages), most of what we've gained as a result of unionization has been in the area of working conditions, input, and processes for dealing with problems. As I think I posted elsewhere, prior to our contract we weren't given offices, library privileges, school IDs or email accounts, computers to use, etc. We had no way to formally address problems that might occur due to mismanagement (ie, no grievance process). We also had no evaluation process to see whether we were doing our jobs well, poorly, or at all.

 

Today we have a grievance process that tends to result in avoiding many problems and resolving many others (though not always, and of course we don't always get what we think we should - but it is a mutually agreed upon process w/ the administration and that's important by itself). We have a formal eval process and people know how they'll be evaluated, so they can meet the benchmarks (and that allows for people who miss the marks to be placed on improvement plans or even gotten rid of). We have access to the tools we need to do our jobs (email, computers, office equipment, offices, library).

 

So a lot of what we've gained came in non-monetary terms, and that's just as important to most of us as the salary increases.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

[Lisabob]

OGE - why is it like this in Detroit? I can't really answer that in short form and I'm not sure I could adequately answer it in longer form either, to be honest. Too many factors.

 

A few causes:

 

*Long-term decline in state population, particularly in Detroit, leads to a reduced tax base

*Higher than average unemployment (has been around 12-16% for the last 6 years in MI, and regularly tops 20% in Detroit, specifically)

*Historical over-reliance on one industry (auto), leading to severe structural budget & policy problems at the state level

*White flight and middle class flight out of Detroit since the 1950s

*Screwed up state budget priorities for a LONG time

*Lower taxes in MI today than in the Reagan era, leaving a state with fewer resources to spread around

*In the 1990s, a new school funding scheme that doesn't rely on local property taxes, and that would seem to have leveled the playing field between richer and poorer districts, but in actuality hamstrung everybody and put education funds at the disposal of state politicians for redirection elsewhere

*Severe term limits at the state level, leading to a fresh crop of "what's in it for me" short-term-gain politicians every 4-6 years, just about when the "old" ones were starting to figure out how to do their jobs.

*Chronic mismanagement, corruption, and fraud in the Detroit system

*Structural poverty concentrated in our inner cities, with all the attendant social problems that make education much more difficult

*new federal education mandates that come with a lot of strings, but no money, attached

*policy changes at the federal level that push more and more costs and services back onto the states, thus exacerbating state budget challenges and forcing states to raid whatever funds they can find, including slashing education funding

*an extreme anti-tax attitude among the public where people care more about the extra $3.50/week in their pockets than about whether their state has a functional public education (or public health) system

 

 

And on, and on. Frankly, the Detroit school system is a mess and I'm not sure it can be saved in its present form. (I've said that for years, and I believe that about much of our public schooling system, not just Detroit.) But I also don't think it is right to simply blame the teachers, their union, or the kids who are stuck in these awful schools for these problems. Much too simplistic.

 

It is probably clear from the above (in case anybody here didn't already know this) that I wasn't too happy with some Bush era ideology about reducing taxes and ending government responsibility when it comes to providing public services. I will say this for Bush,though. At one point early in his presidency he talked about the "soft bigotry of low expectations" when it comes to schooling. And I think he also got that right. There are way too many folks who just write off these kids in failed public school systems, assuming they either can't or don't want to learn. In my experience teaching a lot of the "survivors" of these school systems, that is simply not the case.

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

Districts that have been mismanaged as badly as Detroit I reckon deserve to fail. I don't think yeh can ever save 'em. Isn't this like da third time Detroit has been in receivership (or emergency state financial management or whatever yeh call it)? Or am I thinkin' of Cleveland?

 

That's a management thing more than a teacher thing, eh? I'm sure Detroit gets more money per pupil than most in Lisabob's state, and that da teachers get lots more than she does as a college instructor. It's not a money thing, it's a management thing.

 

Public education means yeh have to have a public (i.e. elected) board, eh? No taxation without representation and all that. The thing of it is, as close as I can tell by watching 'em, yeh never want your school district run by elected officials. First, da sort of people who get elected to such boards typically don't have experience running any sort of business, let alone a multi-million-dollar one. Second, they don't tend to be at all competent in da business of education. All that is made worse when yeh have an undereducated electorate, like yeh do in Detroit. Then yeh get corruption as well. Wasn't it the Detroit board that took the Cancun junket at $10K each the week before they were thrown out the last time the district went into receivership?

 

To my mind, that's da core of the problem. That's why it should all be privatized. Public money for universal vouchers. We invest in education, but we let da parents decide the best place for their kid, and we let educators create and run da schools. No one-size-fits-all, no union-gets-to-elect-their-boss, no griping-parents-get-to-fire-the-superintendent, no excessive regulation or management by elected nitwits. Just educators doin' what they do best, parents doin' what they do best, and the public making an investment in the kid rather than the delivery system.

 

At da same time, of course, that has to be a real investment, eh? We can't have our college teachers being paid wages barely above da poverty line either, leastways not if we're goin' to remain a first world country and be able to compete in the world economy. Yeh don't think there's a college instructor anywhere in Korea or China or Japan or India that is making anything other than top dollar and being treated with da utmost respect, do yeh? And here we have a state payin' college teachers poverty wages? No wonder Michigan's economy is in the tank. Yeh can't make an economy run on a population that isn't well educated. That's an investment yeh have to make. If yeh don't, yeh better hope they're really, really, really good at pickin' tomatoes.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

I can easily read the pain in Lisa's message. I understand what is at its roots. I think comparatively I am in a much better situation. At this institution, state funds cover about 17% of the budget. Nevertheless, the legislature wields their control as if they fund 100% of the budget. I wish the administration could find a way to terminate all state support and go totally private...and offer the Cheney admonition to the legislature.

There are other similarities but Lisa's plight is worse by far. And I think this is because of the factors related to Michigan's economy that have been mentioned already. As far as I know, there is no union presence here. There ARE abuses (underpaid instructors, for example) but overall conditions are not bad. I was offered a fair salary and after working with the feds, the life of university faculty is much better. While I was with the federal government, my office was a 25 year old mobile office trailer with leaky roof and faulty HVAC. I had a $million per year lab housed in third world conditions (by the way, that's about the norm for the South, one of the reasons I feel quite at home when I travel to the third world).

One difference though, between me and Lisa, when I took this position I was offered tenure with the position. I declined on principle because I don't support the tenure system, at least what it has become. Nevertheless, I have no concern about being at risk as long as I am competitive (plus my heir apparent just took a position at another institution - under this funding environment there is little likelihood of a new hire - or heir). When I fail to perform I SHOULD be replaced.

 

My concerns are less aimed at personal status and more at the future of our young people. The students at this institution are as good as any I have ever seen. I often feel humbled by their sincerity and willingness to work hard in my courses. Yet I also see that this and other institutions are doing what we used to call 'eating the seed corn'. This level of austerity is already taking a toll (witness my success and the loss of heir apparent). The reliance on part-time, temporary, and fewer and fewer support staff is going to undermine the long-term viability and quality of research and instruction. In time, this and many other institutions will decline and I think that this country may hand over pre-eminence in higher education to other world regions...in which forward-looking governments are increasing their investment in the future rather than divesting.

 

But...being a biologist, I also understand that this is as it should be. Entities which are less able to compete OUGHT to decline and be out-competed. As goes education, so goes the country. This is what we have chosen. So be it. I'll continue to devote myself to the students but I am not optimistic about the future of education. At this time, the nation is so economically handicapped, even another 'Sputnik' would be unlikely to change our course.

[Lisabob]

Just to be clear, I love my job, I intend to keep my job, and I'm arrogant enough to feel quite comfortable saying in public that I think I'm good at my job. I wasn't trying to cry crocodile tears in any of my previous posts.

 

I just don't understand why many people who are currently attacking teacher unions automatically assume that all union members are making buckets of money and living so far beyond the standards of everybody else. The only reasonable answer I can come up with is that many people are not familiar with the reality on the ground that many teachers (at whatever level) face. Hey, we're trying to stay in the middle class, too, you know?

 

(And by the way I keep hearing about the fabulous pensions we union members all enjoy. Just so you know, not all unions have pensions and in MI, defined pension plans for new university instructors were ended in the mid-90s. Only people who were already in the system at that point got to keep them. The rest of us have 403b's that are no different than the 401k anybody can open up. Woo hoo.)

 

 

[John-in-KC]

The current teaching salary scale in the district I live:

http://www.parkhill.k12.mo.us/Salary%20Schedules/Teacher%20Salary%20Schedule%202010-11.pdf

Thank the Good Lord for Missouri's open salary laws.

 

 

Range: Bachelor's, first year: 37.2K

 

MUST HAVE a Masters by 10th year if teacher wishes to progress to career on a scale.

 

Masters only (no hours beyond): 41.3K-61.7K

 

Doctorate: 51.2K - 77.5K

[nolesrule]

Reminds me of the the editorial comment in our paper last week where the person wrote in to say the teachers should just shut up because they only have to work 185 days a year and 6 hours a day.

 

My mom has been a public elementary school teacher her entire career. I just had to laugh at that in a saracstic sort of way.

[packsaddle]

So true, nolesrule. My mother was a K-12 teacher as well, 1st grade. She had 20 years into the career when I graduated college and my low-paying tech position in industry paid more than she got, even with a local supplement. Anyone who thinks they don't more than earn their pay should take a few weeks in the trenches. Most people have no concept, but then, I explained all that in the old thread. Most people really just want something for nothing or for very little. We mouth the words about 'performance' but the truth is, we mostly just don't want to pay for what we get.

[Stosh]

It is interesting how everyone kinda dances around the issue of public-sector unions i.e. teachers, police, firefighters, etc. and puts them into the same category as private-sector unions, Teamsters, UAW, etc. They are two different animals and it has nothing to do with merit, class sizes, parents helping out, kids' literacy, etc. etc.

 

Let's look at it this way. Education and Teachers Unions -- okay which one. Public schools or private schools? In private schools, I'm all for it. Go for as much as you can get, or at least as much as the market can bear without causing the school to fold due to over payroll/benefit expense. There's a natural limit there that for the welfare of the school, one doesn't push it too far.

 

However in the public-sector, the sky's the limit. Just pass all the increases on to the taxpayers, go for broke! Taxpayers' pockets are deeper than even insurance companies when it comes to going for it.

 

And so in the end, non-elected union officials are setting the pay level of the taxpayers and not the elected representatives, those who are elected by the electorate who assign responsibility for that process. I didn't vote these union officials in and I don't want their hands in my pockets. It's bad enough the politicians have their hands in my pockets and I haven't got enough pockets anymore for just everyone. I vote for elected officials to do the work, not pass that responsibility off to union officials to dictate.

 

This is why FDR and George Meany both were adamantly opposed to private-sector unions of any sort. I'm in their camp. I'm 100% for private-sector unions and 100% against public-sector unions. Those that can't see the difference aren't really looking at the situation honestly and in depth. It's hard to see the truth when people are tossing images of teary-eyed first graders into the fray. Add a sigh and you have the complete picture. Nothing worse than seeing our heroic police and fire-fighters walking away from their sworn responsibility because of some perceived financial threat. George Meany said it best when he identified private-sector unions as being impossible to maintain.

 

I walked strike picket lines for months on end many times in my lifetime, paid a lot of union dues along the way, too, but I wouldn't cross the street to help out a public-sector union, knowing what I know. The greatest champion of unions in the 20th century had it right! FDR wouldn't last 15 seconds in a public opinion poll of today!

 

Your mileage may vary,

 

Stosh

[acco40]

Sorry for the long post, but you hit a nerve.

 

A few facts about the Detroit public school system and public education in Michigan in general. We have a new governor, a self-proclaimed nerd, who is trying to maintain fiscal responsibility and many oxes are being gored, rice bowls emptied and sacred cows killed.

 

I've lived in many areas and southeast Michigan has the worst racial relations that I've ever witnessed. As such, the city/suburban schism is huge. It has gotten so bad that the city area (square footage if you will) is huge compared to the population it serves. At one point, the city consisted of 1.8 million folks. Now, it has lost over 1 million and still declining fast. The "new" news is black residents of Southfield complaining about the black residents of Detroit coming to their city and defacing public parks, lowering property values, etc. Detroit city services are spread over a huge area, are non-responsive (garbage, police, fire, public education) and Detroit taxes and insurace rates are extremely high. Yet, everyone blames everyone else. Right now, the popular "solution" is to move folks (condense the population into one area) and start urban farms!

 

Case in point:

 

1) The city of Detroit turned down a $200 million gift to revitalize its schools in 2004. Bob Thompson, a road builder, wanted to give the bulk of his fortune to local education to help schools graduate 90 percent of their students and send 90 percent of those graduates on to college. Instead of grabbing the money and doing a happy dance, Detroiters, as is their custom, wailed about a suburban outsider taking away their schools and stealing their children. Then Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (currently spending time in federal prison) told Thompson to just drop off the check and let Detroit Public Schools decide how to spend it.

 

2) Enter Robert Bobb - got to love "Bob Bobb" - as the emergency financial manager for DPS since March 2, 2009. He had a one year appointment but it was extended. He's trying to change the system for the better but he's fighting a lot of graft, corruption, etc. There's lots of money to be made for some to keep things the same.

 

3) The state legislature is debating a new law that would give state-appointed emergency financial managers unprecedented new powers - including the power to void union contracts and dismiss elected officials (i.e. school board members). Unions and elected local officials are stepping up protests. A rally is planned Tuesday at the state Capitol, led by the Michigan AFL-CIO, to specifically target the emergency financial manager legislation that the Senate could vote on this week.

 

4) Cash-strapped Detroit Public Schools paid dearly to attract investors to buy $231 million in one-year notes in the municipal-bond market Thursday.

 

The district sold its debt through the Michigan Finance Authority in two parts: $120 million of bills due in February 2012 yielded 6.45%, while $111 million of bills due in March 2012 yielded 6.65%.

 

Those yields far exceeded those of top-rated, tax-free munis maturing in one year. The yield on a triple-A rated 2012 note is just 0.38%, according to a widely watched index from Thomson Reuters Municipal Market Data.

 

5) With Detroit's public school district facing a $327 million budget deficit, the state-appointed Emergency Financial Manager has proposed closing half the district's schools and putting up to 60 kids in a classroom. Nobody likes it but it is living within one's means.

 

6) 34 schools across Michigan, 32 of them in metro Detroit, showed test score gains over a one-year period that experts say are statistically improbable.

 

7) It's a widely held assumption that teachers don't earn much money. Fortunately for prospective educators, that assumption often doesn't hold water. The real salary situation is much more complex and subject to a great deal of geographic variation. Michigan teacher salaries, for example, averaged $57,958 in 2009-2010, according to the National Education Association, about $2,500 more than the national average but about $13,000 less than the highest-paid teachers, in New York State.

 

In order to truly evaluate Michigan teacher salary data, however, it's important to consider the cost of living. And on that measurement, Michigan teachers do quite well: median monthly housing costs for homeowners are 12 percent lower than the national average. So, about 5% more pay than average and a standard of living that is 12% less than average. Hmmm, not bad.

 

Not only that, but Michigan teachers are eligible for competitive retirement benefits, including pension plans and health insurance through the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System.(i.e. they contribute $0 to their pension and health insurance - something that some are trying to stop. Also, pension income is not taxed in Michigan!) Add to that the fact that teachers enjoy famously long vacations, and suddenly the compensation for being a teacher looks very attractive indeed.

 

Fringe benefits and cost of living aren't the only factors affecting Michigan teacher salaries, though. What grade level you teach can also have an effect on your earnings. The annual 2009 average for kindergarten teachers, for example, was $50,500; for special education teachers at that level, the annual salary was $56,830. Secondary school teachers in Michigan earned an average of $52,110.

 

Salaries also vary quite a bit depending on where you live, reflecting cost-of-living differences. Here is a sampling of Michigan teacher salaries at the secondary school level in five major metropolitan areas:

Ann Arbor: $57,320

Detroit: $48,580

Grand Rapids: $50,750

Lansing/East Lansing: $53,250

Warren: $58,800(This message has been edited by acco40)