The deal has to change. The people can't afford the promises politicians have made. You're free to contribute any or all of your salary to the Wisconsin treasury if you wish.
And once again, you've hit upon the salient issue: The two people negotiating were on the same side of the table. The policitians that negotiated that deal and the teachers' union were in bed together.
I was going to point this out yet again, but MARIS seems incapable of understanding the absurdity of public unions "negotiating" with the very Democratic majorities to which they give millions of dollars in donations. Now that the GOP is in the WI majority, and with a GOP governor, the bribes to the Dems are worthless as a negotiating chip. Luckily, it appears that the majority of the private sector is waking up to this scam, and putting an end to it.
Walker from this morning talks about collective bargaining. [video=youtube;KgOmpIR7Uns]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgOmpIR7Uns&feature=player_embedded[/video]
Some interesting analysis of the impact of unions on teaching: http://studentactivism.net/2011/02/...s-wisconsin-out-ranking-the-non-union-states/ There's much more there if you want to read. Pretty interesting stuff. There was also a really interesting interview last night on Charlie Rose with Wendy Kopp: http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/6389 She pointed out that only around 1% of teachers in both union and non-union states ever get fired. And that studies show union organization boosts teacher salaries only about 6-7%. So it's not like if we eviscerate teachers unions it'll suddenly make our public education system better or drastically cheaper. Her bigger point, which I really get, is that it takes leadership within the school to really turn things around. A smart, hard-driving leader running the school has been the one recurring theme found in pretty much every public or private school success story. So maybe rather than focusing on union/non-union stuff and how easy or not easy it is to fire a bad teacher, we focus on how we build that leadership talent in the schools. I don't think it happens by expanding union rights, but I also don't think it happens by portraying teachers as parasites and leeches.
So my question to you would be--do we need to make the school leadership positions (principal, superintendant, other?) more desirable, or better clarify what type of person/focus should fill those roles, or do we need better oversight of those positions, or what else should change to drive toward that goal of building leadership talent in schools? Personally, I have no idea; I'm just curious what you think.
I don't believe that the actually salaries are the biggest problem, although that 6-7% is what is being asked for here, so that actually is a pretty significant difference. The biggest problem and disparity is the guaranteed PERs and benefits that put the incredible costs on the state.
Well, I don't have any special wisdom on this topic. My gut always told me to way overpay the teachers and eliminate/underpay admin positions whenever possible. But this Kopp lady says the research doesn't in anyway support my gut. She comes with the same mindset I approach most things: 1. Ignore your gut instincts 2. Benchmark performers within the system, and also the system itself against other systems in other countries/markets/etc 3. Establish which ones perform the highest at whatever goal you want to achieve 4. Use those high performers as models to improve the overall system It's a great business strategy and a great personal growth strategy. And it's the same strategy I'd apply to health care, immigration, and pretty much every other public policy. She seems to say you start by attracting the highest quality administrators (principals, etc) to the schools, empower them, put up some basic metrics (which we have thanks to No Child Left Behind), and get out of their way. That's what's been proven to work. I'm for that.
Walter Russell Mead weighs in. Are you an optimist or a pessimist? http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/02/22/race-to-the-bottom/
Say, Mook, but that sounds like a good ol' fashioned private sector business. Hire great management and they'll find the people to make their vision succeed.
for me, the most fascinating part was the "benchmarks" and "metrics" part. I'm a program manager myself, and look at those pretty steadily. The question for me becomes, how do you benchmark it? Do you go lowest common denominator (teaching until the last child "gets it") or do you teach to challenge the superstars, and have kids repeat grades if required? Should teachers be penalized for having students fail, or awarded for having high achievers? Should the students factor into the teacher's grade at all? Should salary be tied to the students' ability to pass standardized tests? Should there BE standardized tests? I'm of the opinion that many children in grammar school are talented, eager to learn and totally unchallenged. I was one of the lucky ones who went to a school for a couple of years where high achievers were noted and challenged separately. I didn't go to math class in 3rd grade. I was sent to a TAG class with kids of various grades to work team problems and more challenging coursework. My sister-in-law tries to teach 1st graders who have truancy rates of almost 30% (she works in a low-income district and sometimes her kids just don't show up)...it's tough to have everyone ready to read when you have to slow down to make sure a child who's out that often isn't left behind.
Now let's compare the salaries of private sector management with public sector management. Hmm, I wonder why we aren't getting great managers in school administration. barfo
Compare it. The only decent part of being in private sector management, in my experience, was that I received a greater contribution from the company into my 401k. I actually made less money in management than my best sales reps made in a year. Part of the reason I now work for myself. Anyhow, I'd like to see your stats. Let's compare a principal with 20 teachers under him to a sales manager with 20 reps. Benefits/pension/longetivity in position included, please.
That's typical, good sales reps usually make lots of money. Why would a sales manager be the appropriate comparison??? Let's compare school leadership to CEO's of similar sized organizations. barfo
Example: Portland public schools. Budget of $637 million, 6800 employees, superintendent makes $190K. Show me a top job of similar scale in the private sector that pays that little. barfo
Really? How much does the average teacher make vs. the average clerical worker? What about their benefits?
