OT: How one School District got rid of the Greedy Teachers Union

[CA renter]

As for pricey private schools outperforming public schools:

Academic League

The Bishop’s Academic League team participates in the Northern division of the City League. Recent results include winning the Northern Division championships in 2011 and 2013. The Bishop’s School has lost, though, both city championships to La Jolla High School in 2011 and Madison High School in 2013. The team also competes in NAQT tournaments throughout the year, finishing 2013 with an invitation to the National Finals of NAQT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bishop%27s_School_%28La_Jolla%29

………..

FWIW, here are the results of the Academic Decathalon. It’s open to all public and private high schools. We’d need to know the ratio of public-to-private schools to get an accurate picture of representation at top levels, but I do know that many prestigious private schools compete in this competition. Look at who the winners are, check the history over the years, and you’ll see that public schools are at the top in almost every single event over the years:

http://academicdecathlon.org/scores/county2013.pdf

Other years and more information:

http://academicdecathlon.org/scores.htm

[CA renter]

[Sorry for the formatting on this, and I’m too tired to fix it right now. Please click link to see original research. -CAR]

However, new results from a study of a large,
comprehensive dataset on US student achievement
seriously challenge assumptions
of private school superiority
overall, and find substantial
differences between different t
ypes of private schools. Ba
sed on the 2003 National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics ex
am, this analysis compares achievement in
public, charter, and different type
s of private schools. When co
mpared with other subjects (like
reading, for instance), math is more heavily in
fluenced by school than home experiences, so
studying math achievement provides
clearer insights into the rela
tive performance of different
types of schools. The 2003 NAEP samples are ove
r ten times larger than
in any previous NAEP
administration, providing achievement and student,
teacher, and administrator survey data on
over 190,000 4
th
graders (up from 13,855 in 2000) in
7485 schools, and more than 153,000 8
th
graders (up from 15,930 in 2000) in 6092 schools.
Earlier studies of charter schools based on
these data were disputed because researchers ha
d to rely on a web tool that did not allow for
simultaneous analysis of multiple student- and school
-level variables. This new analysis of the
complete raw data employs advanced statistica
l techniques (hierarchical
linear modeling) to
study the relationship between school type and
mathematics achievement while controlling for
demographic differences in the pop
ulations served by the schools.
Major Findings
Without controlling for student background differe
nces, private schools scored higher than non-
charter public schools, as would be expected.
However, this study examines these patterns
further, determining whether they are due simp
ly to the fact that
higher proportions of
disadvantaged students are enrolled
in public schools, and the exte
nt to which the gaps persist
3
after controlling for potential student- and
school-level confounding variables, including
measures of socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity,
gender, disability, limited English proficiency,
and school location.
Overall, the study demonstrates th
at demographic differences between
students in public and private
schools more than account for the relatively high raw scores of
private schools. Indeed, after controlling for these differences, the presumably advantageous
“private school effect” disappears, and even reverses in most cases.

-page 2

http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP111.pdf

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
Those are just the “official” special ed students. There are many other students who require extensive resources: low SES students, ESL students, students with major behavioral issues (many of whom should be classified as special ed), etc.

In many public schools, these types of students make up 80-90%+ of the student population. Then, you also have the high student turnover rate in many schools, where over half of your class turns over by the end of the year, and they are replaced by students from other schools or from other countries (oftentimes, they haven’t even attended much school because they come from small villages where children are expected to help their families with farm or other types of work).
[/quote]

WTF? We are talking about SDUSD. Where are the small villages that feed kids into SDUSD? It just sad that people in the system of providing public education seem to have only 1 way to fix the problem. Throw more money at it. Give the current teachers raises and that will improve education. Like somehow the current existing teachers will suddenly improve if their paycheck goes up 10%. That somehow promoting some teachers into Assistance Vice Principal roles and hiring more new fresh colleges graduates into the teaching roles will fix everything that’s wrong with our schools. That spending money on iPads when you haven’t even addressed how they are going to be used to improve education is somehow going to improve education. Any charter or private school that out performs the public sector is somehow cheating because they only deal with the good students. Of course the bottom line is if you want your child to be educated your going to have to do it being a parent.

If the situation is really how you describe where it’s just too hard to educate kids because of the reasons you listed then maybe we shouldn’t be providing public education. It a waste of money because we don’t get anything out of it. Let the kids parent pay for their day care and we can provide education to kids that want to be there.

[CA renter]

I worked in LA, not San Diego, but I can assure you that San Diego’s poorest schools see similar problems to what I’m describing. The “small villages” are usually in Latin American countries. The students come in mid-year as their families move across the border. Where I taught in L.A., over 90% of our students were Spanish speaking, almost 100% were very poor, and many of them immigrated when they were already school-aged, but had never had never been inside a classroom, or had only attended off-and-on over the years. In many cases, their parents had only 3-5 years’ worth of education. As a teacher, you not only have to teach the children, but you have to teach the parents how to teach the children at home, usually with very limited resources (no books at home…ZERO!).

BTW, where did I say we need to throw extra money at it? For one thing, I HATE the fact that school districts wasted money on the iPad debacle. That was a very stupid move, and just one example of how **private companies** are entrenched in the public education world, sucking up precious and scarce resources, while providing little to no benefit to the students.

I DO believe that smaller class sizes help. No, I know that it helps — I’ve been in classrooms both before and after class size reduction went into effect. It’s one of the many reasons we homeschool our kids…can’t get any smaller than that! 😉

As for teacher raises, raises aren’t particularly necessary given the current economic problems, but I do favor cost-of-living increases. Raises would be nice from time to time in order to reward good teachers (I have no problem with merit pay above a baseline salary). The truth is that teaching has a very high attrition rate, and it would be nice to be able to retain some of the better teachers.

“Ingersoll extrapolated and then later confirmed that anywhere between 40 and 50 percent of teachers will leave the classroom within their first five years (that includes the nine and a half percent that leave before the end of their first year.) Certainly, all professions have turnover, and some shuffling out the door is good for bringing in young blood and fresh faces. But, turnover in teaching is about four percent higher than other professions.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-do-teachers-quit/280699/

————–

As to your assertion that we get nothing out of our public education system, nothing could be further from the truth. Can you imagine what things would be like if we didn’t educate these kids? While we might not be able to get them to a Harvard-level education, they (and we, as a society) are still far, far better off because of the education that we do provide.

[scaredyclassic]

It would be strange to have a society with compulsory schooling laws and no public education.

Public schools are about social control and indoctrination. They are worth the price.

[CA renter]

[quote=6packscaredy]

Public schools are about social control and indoctrination. [/quote]

Truth.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
As for teacher raises, raises aren’t particularly necessary given the current economic problems, but I do favor cost-of-living increases. Raises would be nice from time to time in order to reward good teachers (I have no problem with merit pay above a baseline salary). The truth is that teaching has a very high attrition rate, and it would be nice to be able to retain some of the better teachers.

“Ingersoll extrapolated and then later confirmed that anywhere between 40 and 50 percent of teachers will leave the classroom within their first five years (that includes the nine and a half percent that leave before the end of their first year.) Certainly, all professions have turnover, and some shuffling out the door is good for bringing in young blood and fresh faces. But, turnover in teaching is about four percent higher than other professions.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-do-teachers-quit/280699/
[/quote]

I’m sure the attrition rates are high in the first five years. Many teachers didn’t know what they were getting themselves into and at that point they don’t have any significant vested benefits they’re losing by quitting. It’s when you make it to 7-10 years that there’s a significant carrot in the terms of retirement benefits that means you’ll probably stay even if you don’t like what your doing anymore. It’s probably why we end up with so much mid management staff like assistant vice principles and other administrative staff working as “special” coordinators.

All that staff is likely veteran teachers that didn’t really want to be the in classroom anymore but didn’t want to give up the promise of a good retirement. I don’t blame the employees for acting in that manner. It makes perfect sense, but it isn’t a situation that provides an optimum use of our tax dollars to educate children.

[EconProf]

It is well established that teacher attrition in the first five years is high, but we must be careful in asking why. I know that one reason for some is the stultifying, unionized environment that the brightest and most dedicated new teachers find themselves in. They may have gone into teaching anxious to motivate and inspire, and find they are lumped in with tenured deadwood that are merely putting in their time toward a nice pension.
The sad fact that tenure protects the incompetent as well as the competent is why the teacher corps has such a sullied reputation. The really best and brightest teachers really don’t particularly like their unions. In a meritocracy, they would be paid much more, and the deadwood would be driven out if they did not improve. So high teacher attrition in the first few years may be eliminating some of the very best potential talent.

[Anonymous]

How do we measure merit in this hypothetical meritocracy?

[CA renter]

[quote=EconProf]It is well established that teacher attrition in the first five years is high, but we must be careful in asking why. I know that one reason for some is the stultifying, unionized environment that the brightest and most dedicated new teachers find themselves in. They may have gone into teaching anxious to motivate and inspire, and find they are lumped in with tenured deadwood that are merely putting in their time toward a nice pension.
The sad fact that tenure protects the incompetent as well as the competent is why the teacher corps has such a sullied reputation. The really best and brightest teachers really don’t particularly like their unions. In a meritocracy, they would be paid much more, and the deadwood would be driven out if they did not improve. So high teacher attrition in the first few years may be eliminating some of the very best potential talent.[/quote]

I’ve never heard any teacher mention the union as the reason for leaving. Never.

Non-union positions have an even higher attrition rate.

Read the link above for a clue about why they leave. This article is 100% accurate regarding the reasons behind the high attrition rate based on everything I’ve seen in real life (it includes the reasons I’ve left, too). You don’t need to speculate about some imaginary anti-union nonsense, just read and research for yourself.

[CDMA ENG]

THE ALL MIGHTY OZ HAS SPOKEN!

[CA renter]

[quote=CDMA ENG]THE ALL MIGHTY OZ HAS SPOKEN![/quote]

How much experience or knowledge do you have about this topic, CE? How much research have you done? Or do you just like to publicly opine about things (and state them as fact, in too many cases) and expect nobody to call you out on your BS.

I’ll never argue with you about cell phone technology (or math, or robots, etc.), and I certainly wouldn’t imply that I know more than you do about those topics. Not sure why a STEM degree makes you think you know more than everybody else about all kinds of other topics…even things in which you have NO experience or knowledge, and the people you’re arguing with have both the education and experience that you don’t have.

Your arguments always manifest themselves in imbecilic and juvenile personal attacks. When presented with facts that dispute what you’re saying, you never come back with your own data or research findings in order to counter another person’s claims. You just try to use labels and other nonsense in some lame attempt to discredit those with whom you cannot debate based on facts and logic.

Show us some research or data that shows how unions are what cause the high attrition rate in the teaching profession.

We’re all waiting…

[EconProf]

Now that the unions have come to dominate the teaching profession there is less incentive to be a better teacher, since one’s pay will not likely change. “Step” increases, where teachers get an automatic 2 or 3 percent raise every year just for serving their time, are common for the first five or ten years of teaching. Both the unions and school district administrators want to dodge the touchy subject of evaluating teaching quality and the progress of the teacher’s students in determining pay and promotions. As a result, good teachers get about the same pay as bad teachers, a situation less likely to prevail in the private sector. Incentives matter! Vouchers, private schools, and charter schools are more likely to resemble the private sector in this regard, which is why parents are increasingly demanding them.

[scaredyclassic]

I am not sure what a good teacher is.

Most things we learn ourselves.

[scaredyclassic]

No one can teach you the law. You must learn the law yourself.

I suppose a good teacher directs you toward better questions to think about.

[Author]

Posts