End of collective bargaining/other anti-union measures plus reactions ...

How do these work exactly?

 

I just find that hard to believe, so I did a quick search on "countries with the highest education spending per child" to see where NZ ranked relative to the U.S. and the first link that came up was this one:

http://www.oclc.org/reports/escan/economic/educationlibraryspending.htm

It is a little old, but I would think it is still relatively accurate.

"Education spending per capita provides another lens to view worldwide education spending. Norway leads the group again with an estimated $2,850 per capita spent on education. The United States ranks second at approximately $1,780. The top five also include France, The Netherlands and Canada."

NZ is not mentioned, but it certainly seems like the U.S. is spending plenty, relative to the rest of the world

The next link

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007...n-spending-idUSN2438214220070524?feedType=RSS

shows that the spending certainly did not fall off over the years as the number was up $8,701 per pupil to educate its children in 2005.

"He said Washington, D.C., has among the highest spending in the country but its students have among the lowest scores on standardized tests, while some states like Montana with relatively low spending have fairly high performance on tests.

Loveless said two areas where education spending might make a difference were in teacher salaries and small class sizes for first graders. But overall, the relationship between spending on education and test performance was not strong, he said."

That quote helps support the point that cutting teachers salaries is counterproductive, but it also shows that money is not the be all and end all to education.

 

Wait, if I'm reading this correctly, groups are more irrational than individuals.

James Suroweicki wept.

I was wondering that myself....

 

Unlike CSEA or PEF or whatever union you are exposed to, teaching is different. For the most part, the bad teachers are gone within three years, before they receive tenure. It happens a lot more than you would believe. It helps eliminate the 'bad' teacher problem down the line. As for the bad teacher - when/if it comes time to fire them, it is not impossible, it is time consuming (and I would guess resource consuming). They are removed from classrooms and basically collect their paycheck for doing 'nothing' while their case is heard/reviewed. It doesn't poison the atmosphere, as the other teachers still have their own classrooms to be responsible for.

Here is the important reason for unions currently. The administration/School board has negotiated these contracts to create the pay scale. In these times of economic challenge, if allowed the simple solution is to get rid of all the teachers with the most seniority (paid the most). In some cases, get rid of one old teacher would keep two new teachers employed. (1) that is hardly fair, (2) it is hardly legal - these districts would be hit with age discrimination lawsuits left and right.

For the same reason that nearly every degreed NYS worker belongs to Public Employees Fed Union. Collective bargaining.

 

Mike, if you don't mind me asking, what district are you in? If you don't want to give the specific one, please indicate if you are in the City of Buffalo, one of the large suburban ones (one of the Williamsvilles, Amherst, Sweet Home, Frontier etc.) or one of the smaller districts or a rural district. Just curious to the structure of your district (a lot of the upstate districts are very similar across NYS).

 

At the risk of beung called a bigot or some such thing I will respond.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_pressure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

So a group that ranges across the teachers, parents, and the administrators should work well, but teachers dividing themselves into a Union certainly violates suggestion 1 and 3.

Getting all involved in an "us against them" mentality could be very dangerous.

 

I am in a large suburban district.

Although I would have to say that watching the Buffalo district is much more entertaining.

 

Well it has been a while since I was in school, but as I recall it was just the opposite. The school was dominated by old teachers who put in almost no effort to update their syllabus or do anything that would involve them having to put in any effort, and it was the good young ambitious teachers who would get frustrated and be gone after a few years.

Maybe that is not the case as much anymore, but from the complaining of my kids there still seem to be some teachers who really just don't seem to care.

I will admit that it would be a huge challenge to go from where we are now, to what I think would be a more optimal situation, but that does not mean we should not at least consider it.

See that is what I just don't get. I don't understand why working for the government means you automatically have to collectively bargain.

I just think collective bargaining is not really in the interst of either the employees or the employers over the long run. It leads to both lazy and stupid management and confrontational attitudes instead of cooperative attitudes.

I don't think human beings by nature have much of a "collective" mindset and we appreciate our individuality. I think harnessing that individuality for group good is a touchy situation, and it requires a large tip of the hat to that individuality and understanding that different people respond positively and negatively to different stimuli.

 

It's teh Commiez what done it!!!

 

The wages for the "best teachers" ( tutors of the top 1%) will be quite good I imagine.

Rome built an empire by not bothering to teach the slaves.Why are we trying?

 

No. But I think you can do a better job differntiating compensation between different teachers in order to attract better more motivated teachers.

On the overall wage level issue, it is probablty subject to regional differences, I think there are some areas of the country where overall the higher compensation is not necessary because there is an excess of teachers anyway but there are other areas where higher compensation is necessary to attract the required teachers.

 

And how is rural Arkansas supposed to fund the higher wages required to attract teachers under your plan?

 

They can all get homeschooled by the Duggars and then join the Army.

 

I'm finding that enough people quote him, so you still get a decent highlight reel. It's kind of like the NBA during the first half of the season: just watch ESPN. You'll see all the good stuff.

 

What's funny to me is that you could make an argument that Commies have more in common with Conservatives than Liberals.

Liberals fought for the power of the working man, usually at the expense of land owners and business owners. Conservatives fought for the power of the land owners and business owners...usually at the expense of the working man.

Communism? Protected the people in power, at the expense of the working man. Communism was a huge power grab away from both the Aristocracy AND the working class. But it DID protect those who are in power.

 

Sweet! Where do I get one?

(Of course, changing "hate" to "disagree with")

 

I think you are mixing together money and productivity and wages like they are all directly related.

I don't know what "more money for all" means. Inflation is the simpelest way to accomplish that but that certainly is not desireable goal.

I think productivity has definitely been increasing in this country. Increasing productivity means that there are more goods and services available for all which is of course a good thing. It would seem that would hold even more true in a field like education where all the extra productivity goes directly to the public in the form of better educated children and lower taxes.

You are correct that in the private market the increases in productivity can go to either the consumer, to labor, or to the owner. I would agree that the trick is to contually increase productivity while at the same trime striking the balance necessary to incentivize all those different groups. The private companies that strike that balance the best will be the ones that will be the most successful over the long run.

Today as a matter of public policy it is even more difficult because there is so much overlap between the groups. The guy who works in the local plant, not only buys what his plant produces, but he probably has a bunch of shares of stock in the company in his 401K.

 

How is that not a problem under current conditions?

I have suggested moving more funding to the state level from the local level, so that might help a little, you could also have some federal subsidies. I would also imagine the cost of living in rural areas is also much lower so those districts may be able to offer lower compensation if they can actually find people who enjoy the rural lifestyle.

 

Many people are throwing about various numbers "indicating" that union teachers do a better job than non-union teachers. We hear about the high average SAT score in Wisconsin and other similar states. The following article puts those numbers in perspective. I really suggest you read the whole thing, not very long. This guys gets deeper into the numbers and controls for variables.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/longhorns-17-badgers-1.html

 

Ummm. Yeah. He's real deep.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/02/stay-hungry-for-learning.html

Your Weekly Wildcat school lunch newsletter from President Barack Obama

Kids your age often ask me what’s the best part about being President. Is it riding in motorcades or Air Force One? Playing basketball with my Secret Service agents? I don’t know about the other presidents, but for me the best part is what I’m doing right now – writing your weekly school lunch menu. I take my constitutional duties as America’s School Nutritionist-in-Chief very seriously, and it’s important to me that all of you get the healthy meals you’ll need to grow up strong and start paying your fair share.

For America to remain competitive in the future, kids like you will need to shape up and cut out the sugary soft drinks and junk food like chips, pizza, and Tater Tots. But a healthy lunchtime can also be delicious – and fun-ucational! This week’s menu theme is “Friends Around the World.” Every day we’ll be taking a “food-venture” to a different country around the globe, so fasten your seatbelts and bring your appetite!

. . .

THURSDAY
Organic borscht, boiled fish, kvass

Strap in, cosmonauts! Thursday we hop in the time machine and travel back to those Fabulous Fifties - when your grandparents were “rocking and rolling” and “ducking and covering” under their school desks. Back then, they were caught by surprise when the Soviets (what we used to call Russia) launched Sputnik, the first space satellite. How did the Soviets leap to the lead in the space race? History tells us it was because the Soviets had brilliant and determined public servants who weren’t afraid to try “big things.”
. . .

FRIDAY
Classes canceled for scheduled teacher’s strike

Just because you’re at home doesn’t mean you can’t continue to eat a healthy lunch. Ask your parents to prepare a low-fat meal featuring plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables. And while you’re at it, remind them to support the new state bond issue to fund the teacher’s union pension plan. Unless they want you eating lunch at home next week too!​

​

I'm sure someone else will take this clown down on the numbers, but this guy's just a hack in his basement.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahaw...re-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-have-spuds.html

So, when in short, when he's able to say something that's not stupid about something easy like nutritions and kids, I'll take him seriously on economics.

 

You seem incapable of recognizing the satire/humor you quoted above. As to the actually page I referenced, (not what you quoted above), you offer no actual rebuttal of his analysis or of the government report he links and uses to make his comparisons. Unless he is actually lying about the numbers, please show me the fault in his analysis.

For those who did not read the article, the author, challenging a Paul Krugman assertion, compares various standardized test scores for student in Wis vs Texas within ethic groups (something Krugman neglected), thus controlling for the much larger minority population of Texas which pulls down its average. The numbers "show/suggest" than within each race/ethnicity that white, hispanic, and black students in Texas score slightly higher on those tests than their racial peers in Wisconsin.