Getting Less for Less

October 20, 2009

Hawaii decided to fix their budget shortfall by eliminating 17 days from this school year in exchange for an 8 percent reduction in teacher salaries.  That means Hawaii public school kids will spend 163 days in school compared to about 180 for most kids nationwide.

Eighty-one percent of all teachers approved the deal, which leaves “teacher vacation, nine paid holidays and six teacher planning days … untouched.”  Teacher benefits, including pension and health benefits also remain unchanged. In addition, “[t]he new agreement also guarantees no layoffs for two years and postpones the implementation of random drug testing for teachers.”  

So, teachers work 9.4% fewer days for 8% less pay, full benefits and two more years of guaranteed employment.  It’s not a bad deal… as long as you are a teacher.  Kids will be shortchanged, parents have to scramble for daycare, and the state gives away more than it gets in savings.

The only risk for the teacher union in doing this is that we might discover that student achievement is unaffected by 17 fewer days of school.  If that’s the case why not cut 34 days of school for 16% less pay?  Or maybe get rid of it altogether.


The Unions Have Lost Nick Kristoff

October 15, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Read it and weep K-12 reactionaries.

P.S.

Somewhere, John Rawls is smiling.


Our Tax Dollars Paying for Penuchle

October 5, 2009

(Guest post by Jonathan Butcher)

Boy, does this sound familiar!  Apparently, the U.S. Post Service shells out $1 million every week to “pay thousands of employees to sit in empty rooms and do nothing.”  Mail volume has slid 12.6% compared to last year, and the Post Office simply can’t find enough to do to keep postal workers busy.  “So they sit — some for a few hours, others for entire shifts…They spend their days holed up in rooms — conference rooms, break rooms, occasionally 12-foot-by-8-foot storage closets…”  Funny, this reminds me of grad school (without the free food).

The employees can’t be fired due to union rules, of course.  Not only that, but workers at slower post offices can’t even be reassigned to busier locations.

Why does this sound familiar?  Because teacher union rules in New York City created something remarkably similar.  As The New Yorker pointed out recently (and noted on jaypgreene.com here) , teachers unions have some 600 teachers in the city sit in “rubber rooms,” playing cards, chatting, or fighting over folding chairs.  These teachers get their summers off and are getting paid their full salary (in some cases upwards of $100,000 a year).

Unlike the postal workers, the issue with these teachers in a holding pattern is that they are under investigation for misconduct or incompetence.  But the fact remains that unions in both cases make it virtually impossible to fire anyone, the knights of the folding chairs still get paid a full salary, and they are all doing absolutely nothing for months on end.

Our tax money, funding penuchle games for federal and state employees everywhere.

(HT: Carpe Diem)


Over There (But Not Over Here)

September 21, 2009

Several years ago I was part of a delegation sent by the U.S. Department of Education to a conference in China on private education.  The U.S. Dept of Ed believed that encouraging the expansion of private education in China would help promote democracy.  Apparently, they thought private schools were good for democratic values over there, but not over here. 

I was reminded of that experience while reading a recent New York Times article about severe problems with education in South Africa.  The piece states:

Despite sharp increases in education spending since apartheid ended, South African children consistently score at or near rock bottom on international achievement tests, even measured against far poorer African countries. This bodes ill for South Africa’s ability to compete in a globalized economy, or to fill its yawning demand for skilled workers. And the wrenching achievement gap between black and white students persists.

Sound familiar?

And what does the NYT tell us is a central part of the problem:

The teachers’ union too often protected its members at the expense of pupils, critics say. “We have the highest level of teacher unionization in the world, but their focus is on rights, not responsibilities,” Mamphela Ramphele, former vice chancellor of the University of Cape Town, said in a recent speech.

I see.  Teacher unions over there = bad, while over here = good.  Sometimes you have to get people outside of their vested set of domestic interests to see how they really think the world works.


LAUSD “Reform” Not What It Seems

September 17, 2009

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

This morning Pajamas Media carries my column on the much-ballyhooed plan to put the management of up to 250 LAUSD schools up for bid. Back when the city school board was voting on the policy, it was sold as though it were a school choice plan – but the devil was in the details:

Earlier that day, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, stood outside the school district’s offices and told 2,000 charter school parents and other supporters that “we’re here today to stand up for our children.” Standing under a banner reading “Parent Revolution,” the name of an organization backed by charter organizers, he said: “I am pro-union but I am pro-parent as well. If workers have rights, then parents ought to have rights too.”

For good measure, he added: “This school board understands that parents are going to have a voice.”

So somehow, people got the crazy idea from all this that the reform in question involved school choice and empowering parents. “We are here to support parents’ ability to make choices,” said one parent attending the rally.

That parent got the wrong idea. The policy before the school board that day had nothing to do with school choice. It only said that contracts to manage schools could be bid out to non-profits. And bidding out the management of public schools without changing the underlying dynamic of the system has always proven to be a recipe for failure in the past.

Sure enough, when the first draft of the bidding rules came out recently, it contained a provision designed to ensure that the schools in question will not become schools of choice.

Improving public schools by bidding out the management contract is like trying to improve a baseball team with an incompetent owner by changing the team manager. As long as you have the wrong guy in the head office, you won’t get real change because no matter how good the management is, it always has to answer to the dunce at the top. To turn the team around, you need a change of ownership, not a change of management.

The same goes for schools. Right now, the government monopoly owns all public schools. Nothing major will change until we get new owners — namely parents, via school choice.

Matt was right to tout this as a slap in the face to the unions and an admission that the union-dominated status quo is catastrophic. It’s also further confirmation (if further confirmation were needed) that much of the left is turning against the unions. But that’s about where the good news ends.


Steven Brill on the Rubber Rooms

August 31, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Steven Brill brings the pain in a fantastic new article on NYC rubber rooms. Money quote:

“Randi Weingarten would protect a dead body in the classroom. That is her job.”

 

OUCH!


Greg on Voucher PR Gains in PJM

August 4, 2009

Greg has long been arguing that rhetoric matters.  In a column in Pajamas Media today he notes the shift in the political rhetoric and tactics from voucher opponents.  Here’s a highlight:

Because the unions have lost the fight for public opinion, both at large and within the Democratic Party. And they know they’ve lost it. And they’ve apparently decided that they’re OK with that. So they’re just not even bothering to pretend to care about kids anymore.

Let’s not indulge in naïve optimism. Having lost the public relations battle may in some ways makes the teachers’ unions more dangerous, not less. America’s last education labor reporter, Mike Antonucci, offers a sobering observation:

The public perception battle is over, and the teachers’ unions have lost. But will it have any effect on Congress and state legislatures? The NRA, tobacco companies, PETA, the ACLU and Big Oil all have negative public images they can’t shed, yet they are still effective in getting their way. What if NEA and AFT stop caring what other people think?

On the other hand, there is a key difference between the teachers’ unions and the other groups Antonucci mentions here, and that gives us considerable grounds for hope. All of those groups have retained power in spite of their bad public images either because (for the NRA, tobacco, and oil) what they really represent is the desires of consumers who want their products and mostly just want to be left alone and aren’t trying to mess around with other people’s lives; or else because (for PETA and the ACLU) they care very intensely about a narrow set of issues that most Americans just don’t care much about.

The teachers’ unions, by contrast, are fattening themselves by destroying the lives of America’s children. That’s just not in the same ballpark.

Update: Link corrected.


A Slam Dunk from Mickey Kaus

July 23, 2009

Slam dunk

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Kausfiles:

“I would like to see Dems apply Orszag’s logic — that all Medicare expenses can obviously, without sacrifice, be cut to the level of the cheapest provider — to the school system.”


Detroit Public Schools Consider Bankrupcy

July 22, 2009

 

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

An enormous experiment in school choice is going on in Michigan, and it doesn’t receive a fraction of the attention it deserves. The Detroit Public Schools- perhaps the most dysfunctional of the nation’s large urban districts- has been bleeding students and is now actually considering seeking bankruptcy protection.

The Wall Street Journal lays it out:

DPS’s enrollment — which largely determines its allotment of state funding — is about half what it was in 2001, as suburban districts and charter schools have siphoned off tens of thousands of students. By this fall, DPS will have 172 schools open and more than 100 vacant. Meanwhile, the high-school-graduation rate is 58%; coupled with the enrollment losses, only about one-quarter of students who start high school in the district graduate from it in four years, according to outside estimates.

But DPS’s problems go beyond the type that sank GM and Chrysler. Wide-scale corruption has depleted district coffers, which held a $103.6 million surplus as recently as 2002. In June, Mr. Bobb’s new team of forensic accountants found DPS paychecks going to 257 “ghost” employees who have yet to be accounted for. A separate Federal Bureau of Investigation probe in May led to the indictment of a former payroll manager and another former employee on charges of bilking the district out of about $400,000 over four years.

Given the longterm academic results of DPS, shrinking it in half in 8 years should be considered a humanitarian triumph. Don’t cry for the people working for DPS- all that money has shifted to schools where parents would rather have their children. Instead- celebrate for the students.

In the late 1990s, state lawmakers abolished the Detroit school board and appointed a CEO. I recall that person studied the situation for a few months and concluded that not a single business function of the district worked as it should. Contractors were being paid for work they didn’t do. The reported high school dropout rate was around 75%.

The inescapable conclusion: DPS was a money trough for adults that might occasionally educate a student here and there, but only by accident.

Further- bankruptcy could be very much in the best interest of the students in the district. It would allow administrators to modify union contracts and perhaps, gasp, make it feasible to let teachers go for academic failure or professional misconduct. Perhaps even reward teachers for outstanding work.

An interesting set of dynamics led to this point. In 1999, I coauthored a study for the Mackinac Center exploring the dynamics of public school choice. I interviewed a number of inner-ring suburban superintendents, some of whom were quite candid with me.

The basic story is that initially, the suburbs were not interested in participating in open enrollment competition for students. One superintendent, when I asked him why his district didn’t participate, replied “I think the feeling around here is that we’ve got a pretty good thing going, and we want to keep the unwashed masses out.”

As the charter schools got into the act, however, it compelled some of the school districts to defect and begin accepting open enrollment transfers. This had a snowball effect- now districts were losing students to both charter schools and school districts. This motivated them to accept transfers themselves.

As more districts opened their doors to transfers, and more charter schools continued to open, the biggest opportunitity gains were realized by students in Detroit.


Question for Leo: Why is the Citizen’s Civil Rights Commission on your case?

July 16, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

I’m just starting to read the Citizen Commission on Civil Right’s report National Teacher Unions and the Struggle Over Education Reform, but I’ve already found a wonderful quote:

While teachers’ unions are legitimately concerned with securing fair and unbiased treatment at the hands of management, these concerns have often been translated into fierce opposition to reforms designed to hold schools and their faculties accountable for how their students perform.

This resistance has posed a barrier to improving educational opportunity for the most disadvantaged students and closing the performance gap between them and their more advantaged peers. It has also led to calcified systems in which talented people are deterred from applying or staying as teachers because they believe their skills will not be recognized or rewarded.

Hmmm…does this statement have more than a faint echo of this? I predicted that the political marriage between progressives and education unions would come under increasing strain, and this report is the latest signal.

Question for Leo: how does it feel pretending to be a “progressive” when you are actually a part of the most reactionary force in American politics?