<p>I also think spoons ideas would ONLY work if the unions were abolished.</p>
<p>socal,</p>
<p>I realize that change must be incremental, but I don’t see folks like Arnold addressing the needs in #1; until they do, I won’t be convinced of their commitment. As for driver’s reminder that most of my proposals are anathema to the teacher’s union, I know this and don’t particularly care. However, I do think that money is part of the issue. After all, in our culture, money and etohs are very much related, and we can’t exactly raise the standard for certification without raising starting salary and still attract the sort of people we want. If education were like law–with a three-year program required for certification (two devoted to mastery of subject, one to pedagogy) and starting slaraies averaging around 60-70K–I strongly suspect that teaching would become more exclusive, more revered, more attractive to the best and brightest. If so, wouldn’t a change in ethos follow? Probably, but even if it did, there are still major obstacles to hurdle. Driver, maybe 45% of parents in your district opt out of public school because they want to put their kids in environments where the social fallout that plagues public education is much less pronounced? And maybe teachers are willing to take less money to work in such environments?</p>
<p>I caught parts of a conversation on NPR today with teachers. One of the main gripes is that they now have to deal with many more “problem” students in each class that in prior days would be in special ed or otherwise segregated out. They say that 5 or 6 of these out of 25 basically saps their time and energy and the regular kids get the shortend. This may be one big advantage for the privates–far fewer problem kids.</p>
<p>Spoon, you can’t just raise salaries without first implementing reform. There is currently no justification for paying teachers a starting salary of 70K/year. I think Arnold’s propositions are going to be a good beginning.</p>
<p>socal,</p>
<p>I just want to know that raising salaries is part of the agenda, that the entire vision of reform is coherent. The problem is that I haven’t heard anything about it.</p>
<p>In non union school districts, salaries are not higher. </p>
<p>Arnold’s propositions will not pass, no on 74,75, and 76.</p>
<p>Vote no on Prop 74
The State of California will need 100,000 teachers in the next decade, this proposal will discourage teachers from teaching here, and may encourage districts to keep poor (lower paid teachers) past the current two year probation period.</p>
<p>Vote No on Prop 75</p>
<p>If teachers want to join or not join a union it is their choice. Most choose to join. Many participate in union activities. If they don’t like leadership decisions they can run their own candidates, if they don’t want to participate in the political donations, they can opt out. This is just an attempt to reduce the political effectivness of unions.</p>
<p>Without Unions, no one will be able to stand in the way of Corporate Greed, as represented by Arnold Swartzennegger, who spends more time begging money from the rich for his own publicity stunts, then he does helping the poor and working people of California.</p>
<p>When Greedy Corporations refuse people decent wages and benefits, who stands in their way…Unions…When the selfish want to deny children a decent education, health care, who comes to their aid…Unions.</p>
<p>VOTE No on Prop 76
This serves one purpose, to cut funding for children’s education…balance the budget on the backs of little school children…</p>
<p>The rich and the selfish say, “Please don’t may me pay a fair property tax, can’t we cut the education and health programs for the poor and school children. I need a home entertainment center for my upstairs bath…just take the money from the sick and the kids.”</p>
<p>Barrons it is a big difference, in DOD schools where the base commander can kick a family out of the school, behavior problems are greatly reduced. It only takes one severe behavior problem to suck up the energy in every class that he or she is in. Private schools also offer the parent involvement discriminator…kids with involved parents often have a better chance at success.</p>
<p>V O T E N O O N P R O P S 7 4 , 7 5 and 7 6</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps, but I dont think that was the ethos we were all hoping for;)</p>
<p>Spoon, you seem to be obsessed raising salaries. Are you a teacher or something? If our schools are failing, why should we raise any salaries? It just doesn’t make sense!</p>
<p>Mr. B, if teachers opt out they lose their liability insurance. The union also still keeps the money. The teachers unions dont trust their members enough to let the members decide how their political dollars go. In addition, the California Teachers Union is almost bankrupt from spending money on political issues. That doesnt leave much time or money to represent their members does it? Why are you against letting union members choose for themselves? </p>
<p>We need REAL reform in order for our schools to improve. </p>
<p>Vote YES on 74, 75, 76, and 77.</p>
<p>socal,</p>
<p>It made sense to you in post #20, when you agreed with my proposals, calling them “ideal.”</p>
<p>Yes, it does make sense to raise salaries AFTER reform and AFTER the unions are abolished and IF tenure is abolished. However, you seem to be wanting the salary increases as a first step, and that doesn’t make sense to me. Your proposals are ideal, but how realistic are they? I don’t know. I think you are putting way too much emphasis on salaries as a first step. I disagree with it in that context.</p>
<p>There’s an underlying assumption in all of these discussions, that public education should move in the direction of pay for performance, and that they do not practice that now.</p>
<p>Whether or not this assumption is accurate, a great problem is defining and measuring performance, be it by teacher, school, district or whatever. Because student performance tracks parental SES so closely, it has been devilishly difficult to figure out what works, separate from having the right genes and parents.</p>
<p>This is one of the major problems in all of th reform efforts, from NCLB to charter schools to pay for performance.</p>
<p>The salary questions seems to be a chicken and egg one. Should salaries be raised to attract a stronger cohort of teachers who would otherwise choose other careers (see the latest news about the widening math/science gap in today’s papers) or should salaries be raised after current teachers improve their performances?
And as newmassdad has suggested, how to measure improved performance? Even with the same teacher, same grade, there will be variations. For example, I once walked into a discussion among 3rd grade teachers at my son’s school; they were all discussing what to do about next year’s crop which they described as “challenging.” There were a couple of special ed students, but their main concern involved some rowdy kids. And unlike privte schools, they could not expel the kids. Sure enough, these kids were a real trial, not only to the teachers but to other students. Last year, I read a news item about some of these kids. They’d been arrested for drug trafficking and illegal possession of weapons.
I understand that CA schools are way overcrowded. A lot of the problems facing education in CA are beyond the control of teachers, in particular demographic growth and demographic change. Some CA teachers have told me how surprised they are that most of my son’s classes had 12-25 students (the classes are capped by law at 30). This overcrowding is due not only to a lack of space, and a growing student population, but also a shortage of teachers. In a shortage, you make do; you can’t be too choosy. So it is not surprising to me that many teachers are not qualified. It seems to me a vicious cycle.
Somebody remind me of the scandal involving the construction of a school on a site that turned out to be hazardous. If I recall correctly, it cost taxpayers a huge sum of money. Did teachers play a role in this debacle?</p>
<p>socal,</p>
<p>Please show me where I suggest raising salaries as a first step. As I said before, I recognize that reform must be incremental, but I am reluctant to support anyone who pushes #2 and #3 unless #1 is also part of their vision. And as far as I can tell, it’s not part of Arnold’s; if it were, I would vote for his proposition regarding tenure. As for the point that my proposals are ideal, well, yes, they are–because they need to be. Reforming public education is a massive undertaking, requiring, as driver points out, a change in ethos, and confronting, as marite says, profound social forces. It seems to me that any vision for school reform must be huge and wholesale, unburdened by our prejudices and predilections. For conservatives, this means confronting the fact that it will probably cost a lot of money; for liberals, it means facing the reality that unions can be obstacles to change. If we don’t have the courage to face these realities, nothing much will get done.</p>
<p>My apologies, socal. I think I know where you got the idea that I feel raising salaries should be first. When I numbered my proposals, I didn’t mean to imply that they had to implemented in the order listed. The numbers were meant only to differentiate the ideas, not to suggest a sequence of change.</p>
<p>There should be merit pay for achievement. In some corporations, job performance is based on a review where there are lists of criteria and the supervisor gives a point value to each item. Then the raise is based on the points. These types of reviews reward people for going above and beyond. The criteria can include attendance on time, professional appearance, positive attitude towards peers and students, coming up with innovative programs, participation in projects and activities that benefit students, etc. If you are just average, you get an average pay raise. If you excel, then your raise is greater. If you are a teacher and you come up with innovative programs, you could get rewarded. If you sit at your computer and dont teach, then you wouldnt get much of a raise. If teachers know their performance is being rated, that alone will help motivate otherwise mediocre teachers to step up to the plate. If teachers receive multiple parent complaints, that could go on their review with real consequences. Conversely, teachers who receive praise from students and parents would benefit. </p>
<p>The problem is complex, but you have to start somewhere. I think the current propositions are a step in the right direction.</p>
<p>I am aware teachers have to deal with disciplinary issues. In an ideal setting, I would like to suggest hiring more teacher’s aids who can manage the discipline so the teacher can concentrate on teaching. This would probably be more at the elementary level. As a parent volunteer over the years, I have helped in this area and it does make a difference. Sometimes giving a student a little one-on-one attention can calm the situation. Schools with minimal parent participation should be given priority budgeting for something like this.</p>
<p>“The criteria can include attendance on time, professional appearance, positive attitude towards peers and students, coming up with innovative programs, participation in projects and activities that benefit students, etc. If you are just average, you get an average pay raise.”</p>
<p>This is just so naive. I really wish posters would actually study issues before suggesting “solutions”. </p>
<p>In case socal05 does not know it, showing up on time and having a professional appearance are baseline requirements in most schools. What does the poster think would be done with the students if the teacher did not show up on time? </p>
<p>Innovate programs? With NCLB looming in the background? With parents breathing down one’s neck? With emphasis on basics? In fact, the pendulum is swinging the other way. Due to pressure for performance, many schools are removing any autonomy teachers had in the past. They are told what to teach, when, and how.</p>
<p>One of my greatest fears is that Newmassdad will consider one of my posts naive…or worse, that he might feel that I’ve not actually studied issues, as he has, before suggesting “solutions.” Nevertheless, courage…</p>
<p>A word on naivete: We moved to our little island of affluence about 15 years ago, when my oldest was entering 1st grade. We naively paid a great deal of attention to the public school district–I had attended a very fine public high school in NJ, and wanted the same sort of levelling, cross-cultural experience for my kids–no snooty private academies for us. We checked all the important stats–highest pay for teachers, highest spending per pupil, highest SAT scores, big libraries, computers, olympic swimming pool, etc. All there. Four years later, we were making the rounds of private schools, all of which had lower paid teachers and less robust facilities. We made the switch. My rough estimate of the cost to my family (two kids) since then is about $250K in pre-tax dollars–this in a town known for having one of the “best” public systems in the state, one of the “top 100” in the country. And, as I’ve said before, nearly half of my fellow citizens make the same choice. It’s been worth every penny.</p>
<p>So, if one were to study the issue as deeply as someone like, say, Newmassdad has, one might conclude that normal market forces aren’t at work when it comes to government-run, labor union-controlled education. Despite having paid well over $100K in public school taxes, families still feel it necessary to spend the equivalent of another college education for their children’s K-12 education. And the teachers work for 60% of what they could get in the public schools–without tenure–and with very low turnover. Something’s going on here that isn’t going to be solved by throwing more money at the problem–which, by the way, has existed long before the arrival of the convenient NCLB straw man. I’ve also noticed that a substantial number of our very well paid public school teachers also send their kids to private school. Seems so counter-intuitive. The article below addresses that issue.
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040922-122847-5968r.htm[/url]”>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040922-122847-5968r.htm</a></p>
<p>^^Correction^^</p>
<p>The $250K for private school was in after tax $. Only the $100K+ in public school taxes was pre-tax.</p>
<p>driver, </p>
<p>I agree that we shouldn’t throw money at a broken system, but what about an entirely new system, like the one I proposed earlier, or one of your own devising? Are you against increasing funding for education no matter what, or could you conceive of an attractive vision of reform that would, in fact, involve increasing our budget for schools? As I said earlier, the task of reforming education is massive and complex; by its very nature, I suspect, it will only be hindered by the sort of ideological entrenchment–on the left or the right–that limits our flexibility and, in some cases, keeps us from following through on the logic of our visions.</p>