<p>
</p>
<p>By this line of reasoning:
I think the Titanic should have had no life rafts rather than the too few that it had, because there were not enough seats to save everyone and disproportionately, it was the pushy “motivated” passengers who got into the rafts…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both the Massachusetts State Employee Retirement System, which covers most state employees, and the Massachusetts Teachers’ Retirement System, which covers public school teachers, let you get to 80%. I think most city and town plans do as well.</p>
<p>These days, retirement ages and contribution requirements have been ratcheted up to the point where they may be self-funding, although I don’t think too many are putting in 12% like for FICA.</p>
<p>[http://www.peabody-ma.gov/retirement/ChartGroup1.pdf‎[/url</a>]
<a href=“http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/hr/Retirementchart%20(2).pdf[/url]”>http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/hr/Retirementchart%20(2).pdf](<a href=“http://www.peabody-ma.gov/retirement/ChartGroup1.pdf]http://www.peabody-ma.gov/retirement/ChartGroup1.pdf[/url”>http://www.peabody-ma.gov/retirement/ChartGroup1.pdf)</a></p>
<p>
Ok, that link includes the statement “Nonetheless, when you look at the overall number, they figure that the federal government’s payroll is 16 percent higher than it would be if it paid its workers private sector scales.”</p>
<p>So sure there are differences between different groups and different jobs, but 16% higher overall is a lot.</p>
<p>Government pays low wage workers more than the private sector does. Government pays professionals less than the private sector does in many cases.</p>
<p>GMT-- the point is, first–you can’t compare the two systems. If you want to claim that charters are better because they have selected students, then fine. Just don’t compare the two populations, because they’re apples and oranges. there’s no way to know if charters themselves are better: we just know that (about a third of the time according to studies), the schools with more prepared, less disabled students who can be chucked out if they don’t toe the line, might do better than the schools who by law take everyone.</p>
<p>In other words, we know nothing.</p>
<p>@garland, what follows from your head-in-the-sand statement is: let’s not try anything because we can’t be sure if it works</p>
<p>@garland, what follows from your statement is: let’s not try anything because we can’t be sure if it works.</p>
<p>Thank goodness the science & medicine professions don’t have this mindset; otherwise, we’d still be getting around on horses and curing illnesses w blood-letting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not being a fan of charters, I won’t claim to be an expert on their operations. My understanding, however, is that do not have to claim to be tuition free, since they are obligated to be and that they cannot charge incremental tuition, even if parents would accept to pay extra. </p>
<p>I also believe that the per capita “contribution” from the public coffers is set at a lower limit that the cost per capita at the public schools, but never exceeds that avoided cost. The further limitation is that charters have to develop outside funding sources for fixed assets, and do not have the same abilities to raise money via bonds and public offerings. </p>
<p>As far as being profitable, I have no doubt that the charter movement has (and probably does) attract unsavory characters who found a way to make a quick buck, especially considering where some of the operators learned all their tricks. I do, however, believe that the “business” is not very profitable, unless one plays games or cut corners. </p>
<p>As far as I am concerned, charter schools are just the same donkeys, but adorned with different stripes. They remain part of the public school system, and not full fledged members to boot.</p>
<p>Compare test scores—union states versus scores from non-union states. Southern states, for example, that pay their teachers so poorly are predominately non-union states and many of their schools are horrible. </p>
<p>Who would want to be a teacher in those states? NOT the best and brightest graduates! </p>
<p>Teachers (in mostly union states) are finally making decent salaries, largely because of the unions… If we are going to have good teachers we have to pay them well. Nobody is going to volunteer to pay higher taxes, so unions become a necessary evil to advocate for their members and get the best available salaries, benefits, etc…</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Quoting a union leader statement tends to be a dangerous exercise; at least, if truth is important. As some here might know, that statement quoted above came from the mouth of Randi Weingarten. While true in a certain context, the conclusion is based on “some” correlation, and not necessarily causation. Yes, yes, I know that trite and often repeated line. However, if one can see the correlation (again for well chosen elements) one cannot conclude that union memberships and a strong CBA do CREATE better results. </p>
<p>And, as small tidbit, when Weingarten tried her hands at a unionized charter school, she … failed to increase the results. </p>
<p>Fwiw, here’s a more eloquent “appraisal” of the … half truth uttered by Weingarten to the now (thankfully) departed Amampour on This Week:</p>
<p>[PolitiFact</a> | Randi Weingarten says students in strong union states perform better academically](<a href=“http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/02/randi-weingarten/randi-weingarten-says-students-strong-union-states/]PolitiFact”>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/02/randi-weingarten/randi-weingarten-says-students-strong-union-states/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My issue with teacher’s unions is tenure. An k-12 teacher should not have a job for life after less than two years on the job. If you aren’t doing your job you should be let go. It happens in the private sector, it should happen in the schools. I’m sure many parents could give specific examples of poor teachers that the schools were stuck with because of tenure issues.</p>
<p>Charters seem to be working in MA. Or they are successfully cherry-picking:</p>
<p>
[Charter</a> School (Massachusetts) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_School_(Massachusetts)]Charter”>Charter School (Massachusetts) - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Someone please explain the rationale behind giving teachers tenure when other professions (engineers, doctors, lawyers) do just fine without tenure.</p>
<p>University professors have to undergo rigorous peer review to be awarded tenure, and many (if not most) don’t make the cut. For public school teachers, by contrast, if they simply breath and aren’t found to be child molestors in the first 2 years, they get tenure automatically.</p>
<p>This is a little old, but the issues still persist around here. Fairfax county VA and Montgomery county MD are very similar in many ways - high performing schools, wealthy, suburban, diverse, about the same size, etc., but taxes are significantly higher in Montgomery county largely due to the public worker unions which Virginia outlaws. </p>
<p>I have a friend who is a teacher in the county and I can’t tell you how far from reality her attitude is. “I haven’t received my scheduled pay raise for 2 years”. What? While everyone else is being downsized and grateful to still have a job? It’s really strange. And recently there was an article about a retired NBA player who became a school crossing guard in Montgomery county because he wanted the health benefits. He works 1 hour a day. If the article was correct, he makes more than $14000/year for that 1 hour/day which would average out to more than $50/hour if he worked 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, which he surely does not. </p>
<p>[A</a> tale of two counties](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/29/AR2010052903132.html]A”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/29/AR2010052903132.html)</p>
<p>I think it’s important to note that not all charter schools are the same. There are definitely states where charter schools are allowed to cherrypick in various ways, and states with stricter laws. There are also plenty of schools that have policies that might be within the letter of the law, but not within the spirit of providing access to everyone. </p>
<p>But there are also many charter schools who make it part of their mission to serve low income and at risk students. Charter school networks like KIPP, Uncommon, and Rocketship, and stand alone schools like the one in Harlem Children’s Zone, go out of their way to recruit and retain low income families. At the school where I work we’ve recruited from Head Start and housing projects. We form relationships with Child Protective Services, and agencies that serve homeless families, and encourage them to have their families apply. We have pursued grants and vouchers that let us provide free care before and afterschool, and during most school breaks to the majority of our kids.</p>
<p>In addition, in some jurisdictions the rules about suspensions, expulsions, special education and English Language Learners for charters are as tight as they are for public. I know the school where I teach we serve exactly the same percentage of students with IEPs as the traditional public schools, and more than twice as many English Language Learners. Our percentages of students receiving free and reduced meals are within 2 percentage points of each other. Despite having very similar demographics, we outperform the traditional public schools by 20% in reading and 34% in math.</p>
<p>I think that sometimes the accusations against charter schools become an excuse for traditional schools to not learn from high performing charters. Fortunately, in my jurisdiction this is changing. I’ve been to more and more workshops where I’m sitting next to traditional public school staff, sharing ideas, offering to trade staff members for observations, and learning from each other. </p>
<p>I’ll also say, that while my school doesn’t have a union, I think there are pros and cons to unions. While I appreciate our ability to move out teachers who aren’t performing, I also recognize that the fact that we offer living wages, and enough planning time for teachers to deliver high quality instruction is because the unions paved the way for these things.</p>
<p>I think the fact that they recruit from low income families is great, of course, but the fact is there’s lots of ways that low income families differ, even if their incomes are similar.</p>
<p>I think it’s great that so many extra resources go to the kids at HCZ; I wish everyone had those. The focus on asthma and other health concerns is crucial. When my H was a pediatrician in inner city Newark (before he quit that to become an evil HS teacher), he was clear that much of the problems of kids in the city was missed time in school, most often because of asthma. even when they were in school, they were often too miserable to concentrate.</p>
<p>A more healthy environment would go a long way to narrow the gap between low and non-low income students.</p>
<p>Garland, I think this </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>is of course true, but it can also become an excuse. </p>
<p>I’ll give you an example. We put a huge effort on parent involvement. Many of our parents initially come to us very hesitant to be involved in the school. Often they’ve had bad experiences at previous schools, or at the schools they attended growing up. But we’re tenacious about it. We start with home visits for every entering preschooler. We offer little incentives for parents to drop in a for a few moments, whether it’s the opportunity to use a computer for a job application, or a box of donuts in the parents’ center, or the offer of “I took the cutest picture of your son, why don’t you come in the classroom while I grab it for you”. When parent teacher conferences roll around our teachers call the parents they are worried about to offer them times, and then again to double check the times, and then later still to remind them. And when half the parents don’t show up for their assigned times, they call them again to offer new times. When they do come, we follow protocols for the meetings that have been shown to work. </p>
<p>And it works. Not right away, but over time. I can tell you about parents who almost never came to school for their first child, and by child number 4 or 5 make it to every conference (albeit maybe the 3rd time it’s scheduled) and the IEP meeting. I can tell you about parents we nearly drove away with CPS phone calls, who now volunteer in the classroom every week. </p>
<p>But sometimes when I speak to teachers from traditional public schools they tell me that none of their parents care, as evidenced by the fact that they can hang up a sign up sheet for conferences on their door without results. When I suggest follow up phone calls they tell me that’s not possible due to language barriers (note: sign up sheet is in English), and when I suggest they use our city’s free phone translation service, they don’t have time to figure it out. They tell me there’s not point in calling, and reminding, and making parent phone calls because their parents “just don’t care”. </p>
<p>Maybe their parents are different. I don’t know. But from where I stand it sure sounds like just one more excuse.</p>
<p>GMT - because in the case of those other professions, the market will protect the best. That isn’t necessarily true in the case of teachers.</p>
<p>People seek out the best doctors, so hospitals that employ them come out ahead, even if they are paying experienced surgeons more. You’re also less likely to get hit with malpractice suits if you keep the best people around. Similarly, in the business world, people are worth the money they are bringing into the company - there is a measurable bottom line.</p>
<p>It is different in the case of teachers. In the first place, educational goals and financial goals don’t always align: an expensive senior teacher might be a good teacher and a bad bargain in strict monetary accounting. More than that, while in the long term, kicking out expensive older teachers and replacing them with 20-somethings might be a mistake with a variety of repercussions - decline in the quality of education, obviously, but also decreased ability to attract the best teachers, increase in the number of students leaving the public schools, etc - in the short term, it can save money without causing any apparent ill effects. If you have a lousy surgeon, you could die. But frankly, as important as teachers are, I think most of us can attest to the fact that having a bad (or just not-as-good) teacher now and then, especially in the upper grades, isn’t going to radically change the course of a students future. Most classes, no matter how good, are not going to be life-changing, and good enough is usually just that. So parents aren’t going to revolt if 50 year old Mrs. Smith gets replaced with 35 year old Mrs. Jones, even if Mrs. Smith is the better teacher.</p>
<p>But ideally, schools shouldn’t be adequate, they should be excellent, and allowing individual districts to give into immediate financial pressures at the expense of educational integrity is a losing proposition. It isn’t fair to the individual kid who doesn’t get the experience he would have - even if what he gets is good enough to get him into a great college - and it isn’t fair to the many more kids who will lose out if public school teaching becomes a dead-end career.</p>
<p>That being said, it should be much easier to get rid of a bad teacher regardless of whether or not he has tenure.</p>
<p>[Education</a> Justice News - Charter School Achievement: Hype vs. Evidence](<a href=“http://www.educationjustice.org/newsletters/nlej_iss21_art5_detail_CharterSchoolAchievement.htm]Education”>http://www.educationjustice.org/newsletters/nlej_iss21_art5_detail_CharterSchoolAchievement.htm)</p>
<p>"The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found in a 2009 report that 17% of charter schools outperformed their public school equivalents, while 37% of charter schools performed worse than regular local schools, and the rest were about the same. A 2010 study by Mathematica Policy Research found that, on average, charter middle schools that held lotteries were neither more nor less successful than regular middle schools in improving student achievement, behavior, or school progress. Among the charter schools considered in the study, more had statistically significant negative effects on student achievement than statistically significant positive effects. These findings are echoed in a number of other studies.</p>
<p>Variations in Charter School Performance</p>
<p>While research tends to show that charters do not, on average, outperform public schools, these studies have found wide variation in charter quality.</p>
<p>Charter school performance may vary geographically. Studies by Caroline Hoxby and by the authors of the CREDO report both found that charter schools in the New York City tended to outperform public schools in the city, for example, while a 2009 study by the RAND Corporation found that charter middle schools appeared to be falling short of public middle schools in Chicago (in reading) and in Texas (in both reading and math)."</p>
<p>But the main point is that we now have evidence of the potential impact of operating without unions. Even in the first few years of operation, even with enthusiasm high, even with management fully committed, even with teachers potentially choosing lower pay and benefits, even with potential cherrypicking of students, and definite cherrypicking of teachers, even with potential or even requirements for parent involvement, the non-union schools just don’t outperform the union ones.</p>
<p>So we can say, on balance, and with some certainty, that unions do not result in lower quality education, and may be associated with higher quality ones.</p>
<p>(And I have no dog in this hunt; we are homeschoolers.)</p>
<p>@apprentice, u still haven’t made a case for why teachers need tenure. By your argument, private companies could replace expensive senior engineers with cheaper 20-somethings, but that’s not what I observe.</p>
<p>My kids’ private schools do not have unionized teachers, and some of these teachers have been teaching at that school for over 30 years.</p>
<p>You also haven’t justified why tenure should be automatic after 2 years. Even professors don’t get automatic tenure. Other gov’t workers don’t get tenure, and they are also not engaged in a profit-generating activity (e.g. EPA, diplomatic corp, military)</p>
<p>personally, I think the many rules that the teacher’s union has makes it way too hard to fire a teacher not doing their job.
this year my friend and I had tried to issue a formal complaint about a teacher.
due to the union regulations i had to get my parents to come or else my opinion would not be allowed. I felt that this was unfair because it was me who was sitting in that class, not my parents, and I felt that I should’ve had my voice heard. I don’t think whether or not my parents can come to a meeting should determine whether or not my voice should be heard.
Furthermore, the principal risked losing her job. And since there are no “principal unions” there is really nothing to protect her, and she is a good principal. It was the teacher that we had a problem.
Needless to say, the teacher was not fired. This person has honestly been challenged every year and she has not lost her job yet. She did not even change how she acted in class. This person even had the audacity to tell everyone in the class that she would never get fired because of tenure. This teacher is supposed to be our AP teacher. It is not that we had to suffer a year of poor teaching, but also the fact that we were supposed to do well on a test at the end of the year, which affects how colleges look at us. </p>
<p>Therefore, from my experience, I honestly don’t think that teacher unions improve the quality of education.</p>