UT opinion article on SB 1021 and Prop 30

[CA renter]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter]

[quote=ocrenter]NPR had a segment in 2012 where an experiement was done in a struggling school district. They gave bonuses to all of the teachers at the beginning of the year, if the teachers do not meet certain academic criteria, the bonuses would have to be returned. This is compared to teachers that were promised bonuses if the same acadmeic criteria was met. The result showed if the bonuses had to be returned, the students ended up doing much better.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/19/161370443/do-scores-go-up-when-teachers-return-bonuses

So the question is would unions actually say yes to something like this???[/quote]

[/quote]

To say the least, Michelle Rhee’s time in DC was controversial. Needless to say, you have some strong feelings about the lady.

Did you at least get a chance to look at the NPR piece on performance based bonuses that need to be returned if certain goals are not met?

Obviously we are all eager to see positive changes with the schools. So please don’t minimize the problem (by saying bad teachers are rare and far-between). I didn’t bring up anything controversial. Just a simple research that showed an effective tool at improving academic performance.

As a die-hard union supporter, is that something the union would say yes to?[/quote]

Sorry, OCR, my response there was to AN. I neglected to directly answer your question. Let me first include some more information, after which I will address your point.

I have very strong feelings about Michelle Rhee because she is one of the most powerful tools of the privatization movement — a movement that is NOT designed to help students, but rather to shift all of that education money toward corporations where owners/shareholders will make millions while teachers work as “at will” employees for $10/hr with no labor rights. Look to Ms. Rhee’s long series of failures for proof of that. Her B.A. is in government, and her M.A. is in public policy — she is a corporate-friendly, profit-seeking politician/corporate tool; she is not an educator, nor is she an advocate for students. If she really cared about the students, she would be in the classroom collaborating with very experienced teachers in an attempt to find ways that genuinely help many different types of students.

So, I ask you: How is someone with three years of educational experience — and much of that very controversial, as she would have been a failure by many measures — suddenly thrust into the political and media spotlight as someone who holds the answer to all our educational ills? The answer is that she is a tool being used by millionaires and billionaires who see the billions in educational funding as an untapped source of revenues for their private corporations. They have to get the buy-in of the public, though, in order to shift these funds to private entities like publicly-funded private schools (charters and vouchers), and test developers, and publishers, and “expert” consultants (often with little/no real educational experience, like Michelle Rhee), and curriculum developers, etc. Enter Michelle Rhee and Waiting for “Superman.”

Quite frankly, these corporate-backed “school reformers” who most often have absolutely NO educational experience (and some don’t even have children of their own, much less a total lack of educational experience!) should not be given a voice at all. Why are we not hearing more from REAL, properly credentialed teachers with 20-30 years of experience in the classroom? If anyone could give us an answer to our problems, they could. Where is their voice in the media?

Here’s an article on some of the money behind the privatization movement in education, and there are even more millionaires and billionaires that I’m aware of who aren’t listed.

Supersized dollars drive ‘Waiting for Superman’ agenda

—————

Now, to answer your question, what we do not know about the bonus clawback story is what was happening in the classroom and/or test site that made these gains happen in the first place. Were the students and/or teachers cheating? One would think that desperate teachers who had already spent that money would certainly be more inclined to cheat than those who would get bonuses after the fact. Were other subjects dropped so that the teachers could “teach to the test,” instead? Were they drilling students, day after day, on their math facts instead of teaching literature, social sciences, art, or even math that is not being specifically tested?

We would have to know the details in order to determine if this would really work or not.

Ask any teacher about the main influence on a student’s (and their school’s) success, and they will all tell you that the parents are the ones who determine success. Look at the neighborhood and/or demographics of any successful school, and you will almost always see the same pattern: kids with well-educated, involved parents (this does NOT mean that they micro-manage the teachers, BTW) who are often from upper-middle to upper-class backgrounds.

If you want to see children succeed, then you MUST address the issue of bad parenting. This ranges from parents who refuse to back teachers when their children misbehave, to parents who are doing drugs and/or abuse or neglect their children entirely. This is the most important and most influential thing we can do to improve student outcomes.

[CA renter]

Just a little blurb about one of the “philanthropists” behind the privatization movement. Made his living from “working hard” trading at Enron (made his largest bonus just before they collapsed), and then his own hedge fund. This is what he would like to see:

——-

Arnold has funded various politically-oriented 501(c)4 organizations, including Engage Rhode Island.[34] Many of the these organizations advocate pension fund reform, encourage state and local governments to reduce benefits to workers and to invest assets in riskier investments such as hedge funds.[35] Some have criticized his efforts, saying that hedge fund managers, such as himself, collect generous sums in fees for managing the funds, while the workers are left with reduced pensions.[36][37][38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Arnold

————–

Like I’ve said numerous times before, these anti-union “reformers” are NOT taxpayer advocates, nor are they advocating “for the children” when they push for their reforms. They are very wealthy, greedy capitalists who are looking for new ways to extract even more money from taxpayers and Joe Sixpack…as if our current income/wealth inequality problems (caused by many of these same people and the policies they’ve advocated for over the years) weren’t bad enough.

If you follow the money back through all of these “reform” organizations, you’ll see a very long list of people just like him…and Doug Manchester…and Eli Broad…and Bill Gates…

[CA renter]

[quote=joec]Am I one of the few people who feel all this is sorta futile? I was reading the UT this morning and an article was saying that only like 30% or so graduating high school even meet college or basic UC minimum requirements to attend.

I think the main problem is when a child is young, you can “force” them to study, work hard, etc…and turn things around…

Once they hit their teens, if their home and friend environment aren’t up to snuff to stress the importance of school/academics/education/future/jobs, you are pretty much fighting a losing battle if they aren’t worried about what college to go to, but what food to eat or if they should join this or that gang…etc…

or if they should “hook up” and sleep with that boy, etc…

All these cases are sorta loss causes IMO and until you change the desire of the kid who wants to get out of his dump, or at least have more positive role models that they “can” get out, I think the large majority will fail. Seems like a waste almost to even send them to school…maybe teach them a trade/craft, etc…instead.

From what I’ve seen, only Sports and Music/entertainment/movies seems to really get the slum kids out and even then, after they play or get famous, they lose most of their money as well…

For the few who show genuine interest, I agree that more should be done since they’re the ones who can get out of their bad hood, but a lot of kids (at least from what you read), seem do the school thing up to high school because that’s just where their friends are and what is required of society, but once they hit 18, they’re pretty much completely worthless to society in terms of productivity. Maybe just pay them to not attend since it’s a waste of money anyways.

I think the downside of private schools is that a lot more kids are probably hard core so if you’re trying to get into Harvard or Stanford, they probably won’t accept that many from your smaller private school and just 1 or 2 top kids.

This kid will be going to Harvard or Stanford I read…(his choice)…
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/student-wins-100-000-siemens-prize-pandemic-flu-research-project-f2D11729123

and he goes to a public school I believe (Canyon Crest)…[/quote]

You’re not the only one, and that’s one of the reasons why many teachers get burned out. There is only so much you can do with a student who is hell-bent on not learning, yet teachers will always get the blame for any of these failures.

[CA renter]

In addition to the Arnolds, mentioned above, here’s another one of the backers of “Teach for America,” from which Michelle Rhee came:

———–

While the WSJ doesn’t include in its story that it was a Walton Family funded group whom facilitated the relationship, it reports on the curious contact between a billionaire hedge funder and the Connecticut State Board of Education to prompt the private takeover of Bridgeport schools.

Dating back as far as January, emails referencing a state takeover of the Bridgeport public school system were exchanged between the Bridgeport Schools
Superintendent John Ramos, the state board of education head Allan Taylor,Coleman, and Meghan Lowney, who according to tax forms was an independent contractor for the $134 million family foundation of Sue and Steve Mandel, the founder of Lone Pine Capital in Greenwich. The emails also mention Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch’s involvement in the matter, though he was not included on any of the emails reviewed

Lowney was introduced to state school board chairman Allan Taylor over email by Alex Johnston, founder of education reform advocacy group Conncan.

In an email to Taylor on Jan. 11, Lowney stated that her bosses, billionaire philanthropists Steve and Sue Mandel, were “focused on education reform” and helping “Bridgeport get going with meaningful school change.” She said the foundation had joined with other education funders to revise Bridgeport’s education charter and establish mayoral control of the schools. million family foundation of Sue and Steve Mandel, the founder of Lone Pine Capital in Greenwich. The emails also mention Bridgeport
Mayor Bill Finch’s involvement in the matter, though he was not included on any of the emails reviewed.

“We are very hopeful that the State Board would agree to intervene and appoint a Special Master,” wrote Lowney to the state board chairman in April. “Should the State Department of Education act to intervene, there is excellent
private partnership to be activated.”

http://bobsidlethoughtsandmusings.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/wall-street-journal-reports-on-hedge-fund-managers-back-channel-effort-to-takeover-connecticut-school-district/

[CA renter]

And another hedge fund backer of TFA and education “reform”:

———-

Julian H. Robertson Jr. KNZM (born June 25, 1932)[1] is an American former hedge fund manager. Now retired, Robertson invests directly in other hedge funds, most run by former employees of Robertson’s defunct hedge fund company.

He was born in Salisbury, North Carolina in the United States. Robertson founded the investment firm Tiger Management Corp., one of the earliest hedge funds. Robertson is credited with turning $8 million in start-up capital in 1980 into over $22 billion in the late 1990s, though that was followed by a fast downward spiral of investor withdrawals that ended with the fund closing in 2000.

In 1993, his compensation and share of Tiger’s gain exceeded $300 million. His 2003 estimated net worth was over $400 million, and in March 2011 it was estimated by Forbes at $2.3 billion.[2] Robertson said in 2008 that he shorted subprime securities and made money through credit default swaps.[3] The following year, according to Forbes, Robertson’s return on his $200 million personal trading account was 150 percent.[2]

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

—————–

Now, I ask you, do you really believe these hedge fund guys (and many other corporate leaders) are honestly funding the anti-union/anti-teacher reform movement out of the kindness of their hearts? If so, then I have a bridge to sell you.

[an]

CAR, if I understand you correctly, the status quo is just fine. Correct? Do you think there’s no need for change?

As for Michelle Rhee, like her or not, agree with her or not, I don’t care. At least she’s trying to implement change. If you think it’s wrong solution, what’s your solution (this is assuming you think there is a problem)?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
Only an idiot would give up tenure for something as problem-plagued and prone to administrator abuse as that. And she didn’t double the salaries of everyone who opted out of tenure, only offered to give them merit pay/bonuses “up to” $130K in exchange for giving up tenure. [/quote]
Oh really? Then why not let it up for a vote and let the teachers show how stupid and out of step Michelle Rhee is. If only an idiot would take Michelle Rhee’s proposal, then if there is a vote, no one would vote for it, so there’s nothing to worry about.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]CAR, if I understand you correctly, the status quo is just fine. Correct? Do you think there’s no need for change?

As for Michelle Rhee, like her or not, agree with her or not, I don’t care. At least she’s trying to implement change. If you think it’s wrong solution, what’s your solution (this is assuming you think there is a problem)?[/quote]

There is no “status quo” in education, AN. Things are constantly changing from year to year. As of right now, students have more choices and options than they have ever had. If their parents don’t like it, they are free to enroll their kids in private schools (as you do), or homeschool them (as we do). Everyone is different, so there is no singular “right way” to teach, nor is there a simple prescription for what ails our education system; if there were, we would have seen it by now.

But since you’ve asked for my opinion on a solution, I think that we need to put a greater emphasis on parenting and the parents’ responsibility to set the tone for their child’s education. I would also add that students who do not want to learn or who are emotionally unstable (violent, severe behavioral problems, etc.) should be culled from the general student population and sent to schools where parents are literally forced to physically get involved with their child’s learning environment (sitting in class, if need be), and where the schools legally have more leeway to deal with these students. If the parents don’t like it, I think parents should be legally mandated to teach their children at home. Behavioral problems are one of the leading causes of classroom/learning disruptions and teacher burnout.

We also need to be able to extend the school day for students who are not willing/able to learn (even for students who DO want to learn…I just like extended days, as ending the school day at 2:30 p.m. is ridiculous on so many levels, IMO).

Just doing those two things would go a long way toward improving education in our country, IMO.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]There is no “status quo” in education, AN. Things are constantly changing from year to year. As of right now, students have more choices and options than they have ever had. If their parents don’t like it, they are free to enroll their kids in private schools (as you do), or homeschool them (as we do). Everyone is different, so there is no singular “right way” to teach, nor is there a simple prescription for what ails our education system; if there were, we would have seen it by now.

But since you’ve asked for my opinion on a solution, I think that we need to put a greater emphasis on parenting and the parents’ responsibility to set the tone for their child’s education. I would also add that students who do not want to learn or who are emotionally unstable (violent, severe behavioral problems, etc.) should be culled from the general student population and sent to schools where parents are literally forced to physically get involved with their child’s learning environment (sitting in class, if need be), and where the schools legally have more leeway to deal with these students. If the parents don’t like it, I think parents should be legally mandated to teach their children at home. Behavioral problems are one of the leading causes of classroom/learning disruptions and teacher burnout.

We also need to be able to extend the school day for students who are not willing/able to learn (even for students who DO want to learn…I just like extended days, as ending the school day at 2:30 p.m. is ridiculous on so many levels, IMO).

Just doing those two things would go a long way toward improving education in our country, IMO.[/quote]When I say status quo, I mean have it be what it is today. So, yes, there is a status quo. Status quo means no real fundamental change.

I agree with parents involvement, but that’s like squeezing blood from a rock. If they already don’t care, what make you think you can force them to care? This is along similar line of outlawing divorce and making one parent stay at home to educate their kids and be involve in their kids’ education. Idealistic, but not reality.

I agree with your solution of segregation based on ability (kinda like what we do w/ our higher education system). But again, how can you suggest something like this but not agree with voucher? This is like the “voucher” for the bad kids. I.E. separating the good kids from bad kids.

As for longer school days, do you think the teachers’ union would even consider this? Some how, I highly doubt it. I’m totally for longer school days, so we agree there.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]
Only an idiot would give up tenure for something as problem-plagued and prone to administrator abuse as that. And she didn’t double the salaries of everyone who opted out of tenure, only offered to give them merit pay/bonuses “up to” $130K in exchange for giving up tenure. [/quote]
Oh really? Then why not let it up for a vote and let the teachers show how stupid and out of step Michelle Rhee is. If only an idiot would take Michelle Rhee’s proposal, then if there is a vote, no one would vote for it, so there’s nothing to worry about.[/quote]

The teachers DID oppose it.

[an]

[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=CA renter]
Only an idiot would give up tenure for something as problem-plagued and prone to administrator abuse as that. And she didn’t double the salaries of everyone who opted out of tenure, only offered to give them merit pay/bonuses “up to” $130K in exchange for giving up tenure. [/quote]
Oh really? Then why not let it up for a vote and let the teachers show how stupid and out of step Michelle Rhee is. If only an idiot would take Michelle Rhee’s proposal, then if there is a vote, no one would vote for it, so there’s nothing to worry about.[/quote]
The teachers DID oppose it.[/quote]Was it through a vote? I thought the teachers’ union didn’t let it come to a vote?

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]When I say status quo, I mean have it be what it is today. So, yes, there is a status quo. Status quo means no real fundamental change.

I agree with parents involvement, but that’s like squeezing blood from a rock. If they already don’t care, what make you think you can force them to care? This is along similar line of outlawing divorce and making one parent stay at home to educate their kids and be involve in their kids’ education. Idealistic, but not reality.

I agree with your solution of segregation based on ability (kinda like what we do w/ our higher education system). But again, how can you suggest something like this but not agree with voucher? This is like the “voucher” for the bad kids. I.E. separating the good kids from bad kids.

As for longer school days, do you think the teachers’ union would even consider this? Some how, I highly doubt it. I’m totally for longer school days, so we agree there.[/quote]

Trust me, there is no “status quo” where education is concerned. It changes from year to year, and decade to decade. There have been some very dramatic shifts over the past couple of decades, most of which I like, such as charter schools and magnet schools (but I only advocate for publicly funding PUBLIC charters), open enrollment, site-based control, etc.

As for parent involvement, there have been a few cases where parents were *legally* mandated to attend their child’s school with their child. I think this needs to happen on a much wider scale, especially if the parents are unwilling to help their child and/or back the teachers in the classroom. There are too many parents who insist that their precious little Johnny or Susie is perfect, and any problems that might arise are the fault of the teacher, other students, or the system as a whole. Those parents need to be dragged in, with handcuffs if need be, so that they can be a part of the solution.

Where the longer days are concerned, I would make it voluntary for both students and teachers unless the students are performing so poorly that it necessitates their attending the longer days. IMO, it should be site-based, with some schools offering longer days, while others have a more “traditional” schedule. Teachers would be paid for the extra hours, and they would have to opt in. I think a sufficient number of teachers would be willing to put in the longer days, especially those who are childless. Personally, I would have loved to have longer days as I always felt that we were really hitting our stride in class as the end of the school day was approaching. I think students also need to learn how to work/focus for longer periods of time, and an extended schedule would allow them the opportunity to really get into some lessons and spend as much time as necessary to master the subject.

No vouchers because they divert money and resources away from some of the neediest students and can also put the whole public educational system at risk by creating more volatile funding changes from year to year as students move back and forth between public and private schools. In order to make the larger system work, you need to know how resources will be allocated over the long run. Also, too much room for corporate corruption, as some of my links above can attest.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=CA renter]
Only an idiot would give up tenure for something as problem-plagued and prone to administrator abuse as that. And she didn’t double the salaries of everyone who opted out of tenure, only offered to give them merit pay/bonuses “up to” $130K in exchange for giving up tenure. [/quote]
Oh really? Then why not let it up for a vote and let the teachers show how stupid and out of step Michelle Rhee is. If only an idiot would take Michelle Rhee’s proposal, then if there is a vote, no one would vote for it, so there’s nothing to worry about.[/quote]
The teachers DID oppose it.[/quote]Was it through a vote? I thought the teachers’ union didn’t let it come to a vote?[/quote]

In general, the union represents what the majority of teachers want. I cannot speak to the DC situation specifically, but when I belonged to a union, we always had a say in which direction the union would take.

Don’t know if the teachers had an official vote, but they were NOT in favor of losing tenure, even if they could get bonuses for performance. It didn’t matter, though, because Rhee unilaterally imposed her will on the teachers and eliminated tenure.

….

Mr. Parker [former president of the DC teacher’s union who, oddly enough, started working for Rhee’s new anti-union/pro-privatization lobbying organization…have to wonder what went on there! -CAR] said he had kept an open mind about Ms. Rhee’s proposals, which would raise star teachers’ salaries to $130,000, with bonuses, by 2010, and the two went together before several mass gatherings of teachers in July to explain them. But an August poll commissioned by the union found that teachers opposed Ms. Rhee’s proposal by three to one.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]
I did bring honest data. Please link your source so we can dissect it more. The public school number you’ve posted probably includes some major infrastructure and interest on bond payments, among many other indirect costs. [/quote]

Those would be the real costs. What you brought is a school talking point.

If I buy a bunch of stuff on a credit card and then pay interest on the credit card, that’s all the cost of getting the stuff.

That’s how the government and schools are hiding their spending. Bonds, “infrastructure”, etc. It’s all the REAL spending that is being done on schools and in many districts, it’s being going on for decades.

The number he brings is the same way I reached the LAUSD number, and the same way you get to the fact that California doesn’t spend $100B a year at a state level, we’ve been spending over $200B

You go look up ALL the money being spent in the four different budget presentations.

You’ve lost all credibility with me since you can’t admit that the Union IS part of the problem. In LAUSD they managed to get a contract that the termination is so biased and so difficult that the administration just puts probelm, and by problem we mean things like molesting students, in a non-teaching, non-working office cube and pays them out until retirement because in the end, It’s less expensive.

That is a problem and creates a completely unaccountable environment. Why not, maybe it has to do ith the 3 person panel of peers, one picked by the union, one by the teacher, and one by administration.

Yep, no road block to reality there.

[livinincali]

Here is the latest SDUSD complete budget I could find.

http://www.sandi.net/cms/lib/CA01001235/Centricity/Domain/13/budgetbooks/SD-Unified_Budget_Overview_2011-12_FINAL.pdf

On page 9 they say total enrollment including charter school in 131,541. It also says non charter enrollment is 117,249.

On page 35 you can see the breakdown of expenses excluding charters so it’s probably more accurate to compare expenses to 117K students.
The 3 major ones being.
Certified Salaries 516 million
Classified Salaries 218 million
Employee Benefits 311 million <- This is the invisible killer. Employees don't see it on their paycheck as an amount but it's increased from 276 million in 2007-2008 even with fewer staff. Everything else has decreased. Total expenditures on page 38 are 1.11 billion. So it seems pretty accurate to say 1,111,000,000/117,000 ~ 10K spending per kid. On page 36 you can see the number of positions by type. Basically 5000 classroom teachers and then about another 2500 employees related to special education. That is only 7500 of a total staff of 12,848. So there's quite of bit of not in the classroom staff in the budget.

[Author]

Posts