It’s always entertaining to watch the mighty pens of the New York Post editorial staff twist and turn around an issue when the plain truth is too much for them to bear [and, for that matter, to bare].
The latest episode is the Post editorial ‘Zap The Cap’ which denounces – hold on to your seats, boys and girls – the UFT and Randi Weingarten for the fact that the cap on the number of charter schools in New York State remains in place.
Let us leave to the side the Post’s editorial sortie into the prose style of Dr. Seuss, as some of us always saw this as an inevitable rhetorical turn, given the limited repertoire of its barely post-adolescent editorial writers and the fact that it pitches its newspaper to a third grade reading level.
What is interesting here, as in most Post editorials, is what is not said. Specifically, the Post dances around the facts in this Daily News article, which appeared less than a week before the Post editorial. What is now on the record is the fact that Randi indicated the UFT’s willingness to consider an increase in the cap on the number of charter schools. The only condition for UFT support is that the law also be amended to ensure that teachers in charter schools who wanted to be represented by a union could do so without hindrance, by certifying a union as the collective bargaining agent once it is verified that a majority of the teachers have signed union membership cards.
But for those, both in the Post editorial offices and at Tweed, who see charter schools as a way to create non-union schools rather than schools of excellence, the idea that teachers in charter schools would have the free choice to unionize is anathema. Better that the number of charter schools be frozen than there be more unionized charter schools.
Choice, it would appear, is good for everyone but teachers who want a union.
[As devotees of the historical record, we can’t let this moment pass without also pointing out that the Post once again plays fast and loose with the facts in its editorial. It asserts that low-performing public schools are not closed down. We don’t know where they live, but in New York City over the last five years, no less than seventeen different high schools deemed to be low-performing have been closed down or are currently in the process of phasing out. And the Post misrepresents the academic performance of charter schools in New York State as superior to that of regular district schools. We have dissected that particular falsehood at some length, here and here.]
NY Post: Choice Is Great — Except For Teachers Who Want A Union
-
Don't miss
45 Comments:
1 institutional memory
· Nov 4, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Post Recommends Creation of Charter School
I have inside information that the Post is planning an editorial in which they recommend the creation of a new charter school to be jointly run by Walmart and the Manhattan Institute.
It will feature separate and unequal pay scales for male and female teachers; mandatory off-the-clock overtime; a daily 15-minute unpaid break in lieu of preps; and a “trusty teacher,” who is required to report on his colleagues’ work habits.
The new school, to be known as the Checker Finn Charter School, will have as its motto “Everyday Low Wages.”
2 bloglo
· Nov 4, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Choice is at the Post good for everyone but ANYONE who wants a union.
If you want proof of the Post’s anti-union sentiment, you have only to go back to 1993, when Rupert Murdoch regained control of the Post, which would probably have gone belly-up had Rupert not wanted to regain the mouthpiece he lost in 1988 because of the law prohibiting the same entity from owning a TV station and newspaper in the same city. (After his News Corp. took over what is now Fox 5, he was forced to sell the Post.)
When he got it back (thanks to Mario Cuomo and Al D’Amato, among others), none of the unions (editorial, printers, pressmen, machinests, delivery drivers, etc.) had contracts. He offered contracts with salary increases to every union but the Newspaper Guild, which represented editorial and some advertising staff. The thinking was that he could put out a scaled-down version of the newspaper without Guild workers, but needed the other union workers to do the type-setting and delivery. He froze out the Guild, which left that union no recourse other than work without a contract or go on strike. After a one-week strike, which failed when the other union workers crossed the picket line (their new contract had no-strike clauses), Guild workers were forced to re-apply for their jobs. Guild editorial and advertising staff was hired slowly to keep the number of union workers under the 50-percent threshold which would have automatically made the Guild their bargaining agent. The Post hired what amounted to scabs, including the likes of former NY-1 reporter Jeff Simmons and Carl Campanile, to fill out the staff. Guild members were hired back at a reduced hourly pay scale and had to work more hours (sound familiar?). The other unions have remained but have zero leverage and will simply die out as automation eliminates their jobs. And that includes the drivers, thanks to the Internet.
Throughout the UFT’s 2+-year contract fight, the Post’s anti-UFT articles made me wonder whether Rupert was trying to encourage Bloomberg to try to rid the DOE of the UFT the way he was able to dispose of the Newspaper Guild.
3 NYC Educator
· Nov 4, 2005 at 5:12 pm
I resent this attack on the NY Post. It’s a fine publication, and it supported our fine contract, which the writer of this piece urged us to pass.
Without the NY Post, how would we have gotten teachers back into the lunchroom? How would we have gotten them to come to work in August? How would we have killed that awful UFT transfer plan that enabled teachers to work wherever they liked? How would we have gotten those lazy, worthless high school teachers to teach a sixth class?
I, for one, am sick and tired of the ingratitude shown by teachers. They should be glad the NY Post rallied to their support when they needed a contract.
I have no doubt the Post will support the next contract as well, and I eagerly await the new educational enhancements it will bring.
Shame on you all for disparaging Rupert Murdoch! There never was a finer, or more patriotic American.
4 northbrooklyn
· Nov 4, 2005 at 5:37 pm
I thought he was an Aussie.
5 fed up speechteacher
· Nov 4, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Um..in light of the recent contract ratification, isn’t it obvious that teachers do not want, or do not care about a union??
6 institutional memory
· Nov 4, 2005 at 6:42 pm
Anti-labor sentiment has been rampant in this country for three decades, but we’ve been almost immune here, mostly due to a strong union.
Talk to teachers in Chicago, or L.A., or Philly … they’re amazed that we have it so good.
Urban teachers elsewhere in the U.S. would be very, very glad to have our contract.
Sorry to burst your “oh, woe is me” bubble.
7 redhog
· Nov 4, 2005 at 6:46 pm
It’s not only a “woe is me bubble”; it’s a “woe as me babble!”
8 redhog
· Nov 4, 2005 at 6:51 pm
The New York Post is delivered to my school and teachers get a free copy. I had that rag on my desk, but before a kid could see today’s prominent porno-related feature near page 1. I quickly closed it, as I didn’t want to be called to the Office of Special Investigations for being reported reading a copy of Murdoch’s Smut Gazette. Heck, maybe I deserve it for touching that acidic rot.
9 fed up speechteacher
· Nov 4, 2005 at 7:07 pm
just stating the obvious
10 institutional memory
· Nov 4, 2005 at 7:11 pm
fed up:
Please tell me what “obvious” you’re stating. Do you deny the facts I’ve just presented?
Or is this just a case of “My mind is made up; don’t bother me with the facts.”
You have the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
11 NYC Educator
· Nov 4, 2005 at 8:07 pm
Talk to teachers in Great Neck, or Uniondale, or Baldwin … they’re amazed that we have it so bad.
Suburban teachers elsewhere in the U.S. would be very, very disappointed to have our contract.
Sorry to burst your “oh, we’re so lucky” bubble. Or “babble” to quote the soon-to-retire Redhog.
And don’t forget, during boom times, we still get the same crap contracts, and the same song and dance about how “It’s the best we could do.”
It’s time to find someone who could do better.
12 Chaz
· Nov 4, 2005 at 8:10 pm
Redhog,
Lucky for you none of your students saw the NY Post’s porno because you would have been charged with sexual misconduct, showing students sexual material. The OSI would most surely find probable cause and you would have received a 90-day unpaid suspension.
By the way now that the contract is approved, I assume this wonderful part of the contract started today.
13 redhog
· Nov 4, 2005 at 8:22 pm
Hey, NYC Educator: Who says I’m going to retire soon? I’ll stay on the job til Karl Rove is indicted.
14 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Nov 4, 2005 at 8:39 pm
Why do teachers dignify the Post by buying it? The Times may have its flaws but it can so expand ones ken, in a multiplicity of areas. What don’t we boycott the Post? Why not target their advertisers? Certainly don’t read it.
15 BronxTeacher
· Nov 4, 2005 at 9:53 pm
Dam right Shouldhavegone. . . the Post is insulting to the intelligence of anyone but a third-grader. Shun it, and the hell with the Daily News too. They hate us, for some ungodly reason.
Why are we SO BAD at promoting ourselves? My god.
I laugh when I see the quotes in all the newspapers: “the powerful teacher’s union. . . “–WHERE? WHERE IS IT?
16 mrirwin121
· Nov 4, 2005 at 9:57 pm
The Post has a great business and sports section, but i guess that these two areas of interst, mean nothing to the average teacher. Such a shame…. you’re already reading it…enjoy the good parts.
17 HS_ teacher
· Nov 4, 2005 at 11:27 pm
Ah our in-house political operative, NYC Educator is getting ready for another election campaign. “It’s time to find someone who could do better.” I would be willing to listen to suggestions perhaps in 2007 the YEAR of the campaign. Right now, in 2005, perhaps we should focus more on new contract enforcement, doing what we must do politically Nov 8 and beyond, and rebuild and mobilize our union after so many venomous comments in the past few months. I believe some of it was attempted on this blog before:
http://edwize.org/newer-teachers-unite#comments.
18 institutional memory
· Nov 4, 2005 at 11:46 pm
NYC Educator’s lack of understanding that we’re an URBAN school system, without the suburbs’ ability to vote on school taxes, is appalling. We aren’t in a position to be compared to Great Neck. Your grasp of basic economics amazes me.
A viable comparison would be to Albany, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, or Yonkers. Compare apples to apples, not apples to kiwis or apples to passion fruit.
Try backing your arguments with facts, rather than emotion. And, frankly, lighten up … your negative energy is becoming all-encompassing.
19 R. Skibins
· Nov 5, 2005 at 12:46 am
I thought that Rochester teachers earn MORE than the outlying suburbs…
20 NYC Educator
· Nov 5, 2005 at 7:54 am
Institutional Memory’s lack of understanding that the UFT’s explicit goal is competition with SUBURBAN school systems is appalling.
He conveniently ignores the fact that, despite the tax system, we once were the highest paid teachers in the area, and under Unity’s sterling leadership, we’ve become the lowest.
He also fails to note the cost of living, and particularly housing in most other cities, which pales compared to that of New York.
Not only that, but Baldwin and Uniondale are far from the economic level of Great Neck, and they still pay their teachers far more than NYC. So does Roosevelt, in fact.
Under the leadership of Unity, we finally work as many hours as our suburban counterparts. We finally have lunch patrol, like they do. And we even teach one more class than they do.
Institutional Memory’s defense of teachers moving backward is preceisely why we need new, imaginative leadership to fight, rather than lay down, for us.
He might as well be working for the mayor.
21 no_slappz
· Nov 5, 2005 at 8:05 am
What’s everybody afraid of? Competition? Serving the customer? Measuring the quality of the product?
Virtually every repsondent to this message board has twisted the question of “choice” for students and parents into a labor issue. Nothing more conclusively indicts the union for the crime of self-servive than this wailing.
Providing services or manufacturing goods means giving the customers what they want — not what you want to give them. What makes educational choice for parents and kids any different? Private schools compete for students. Colleges compete for students. What’s different about the NYC public school system?
Why the angst over charter schools? Or the number of charter schools? A few of the fearful derided them with comparisons to Wal-Mart and its wage issues. Interesting. Wal-Mart makes two demand on its suppliers: they must meet volume demands, and they must meet quality standards. For that the suppliers are well compensated.
Nevertheless, the fearful here have equated their roles as teachers with the Wal-Mart employees who stock the shelves and operate the cash registers. No one more accurately compared teachers to Wal-Mart’s suppliers — one of the company’s most important assets.
Why the dim view of the market value for teachers?
22 NYC Educator
· Nov 5, 2005 at 9:43 am
Redhog,
Sorry I missed your comment. I recall you telling me this was your last year. Sorry if I was mistaken.
While I disagree with you about the contract, I’m sure you’re a great teacher. So while neither I nor NYC’s kids actually favor the notion of your retirement, I certainly hope Karl extends the minimal courtesy of giving you the option ASAP.
It’s the least he could do.
23 institutional memory
· Nov 5, 2005 at 2:22 pm
I mangled my response to NYC Educator. It should have read:
NYC Educator,
Thanks for the job recommendation. May I use you as a reference if I apply for work with Mayor Mike? ;>)
My reply is to quote the latest entry in your creative and high-spirited blog:
“The Chancellor and the tabloids whine endlessly about awful teachers. Remarkably, there are many good, even great teachers working here.
“The bad ones, though, almost defy description. None would be hired in suburban schools. Many would not be hired in fast food joints.”
(The full text may be read at nyceducator.blogspot.com/)
Not too compelling an argument for paying city teachers equitably with their suburban counterparts, is it? Until we succeed on counseling our lesser colleagues into other lines of work (and I fear you’ve soured Mickey D’s on them), we’re in a dicey bargaining position.
Regrettably, the bottom line is that almost nowhere are urban teachers paid equitably with their suburban counterparts. And, it is an undeniable fact that New York city teachers remain among the highest-paid urban teachers in the U.S.
24 NYC Educator
· Nov 5, 2005 at 2:42 pm
I’m afraid you misunderstand me.
I absolutely believe, as does Diane Ravitch, as does CFE, in their suit, as does Randi Weingarten, that paying teachers equitably is an essential component in teacher quality.
As a parent, I also believe that teaching is a very important job. Like the UFT, I think there should be higher standards for those with whom we entrust the care and education of our children.
“…it is an undeniable fact that New York city teachers remain among the highest-paid urban teachers in the U.S.”
It is another undeniable fact that you can live in Detroit or Buffalo for far less than in NY. That’s the basis for the UFT’s contention that we should be compared with the suburbs.
Thank you for reading my blog. And if you get that job with Mayor Mike, definitely hold out for more than a teacher’s salary!
25 Persam1197
· Nov 5, 2005 at 5:23 pm
No_slappz,
You are kidding, right? If not, let’s look at your argument.
1. “What’s everybody afraid of? Competition? Serving the customer? Measuring the quality of the product?” My friend, what competition? We are mandated to serve children that private schools would never serve. We are doing God’s work with these special needs children. On a level playing field, every school would have level one and two kids in every classroom. When Loyola, the Anglo-American School, Horace Mann, etc. compete for at-risk kids, then let’s talk.
2. Labor and “choice” are intrinsically linked. We serve the working class and working poor of NYC. Every year, we have farewell parties for our colleagues who transfer to the suburbs. No school can weather the loss of experienced and uniquely qualified personnel and perform at optimum. We have a serious retention problem in NYC and thousands are doing a lot more than “wailing”; they’re leaving in droves. Bronx Science, Stuyvesant, IS383, etc. are successful because they have high levels of teacher retention. A stable labor environment is a major factor in the success of a school. The NYS School Report Cards provide information on teacher retention. As a parent, the stability of the teaching staff is a huge issue for me. A revolving door staffing problem is a signal for me to send my kid somewhere else.
3. Charter Schools. If the problem with schools are the cumbersome administrative requirements of the Central Dept. of Ed, then free ALL schools from the red tape and allow them to operate independently. The fact that Klein/Bloomberg want to open charter schools that they can’t control is very telling. Also consider that charters are private entities using public monies. There is a finite amount of money, so creating more charters means reducing funding for our existing schools. Remember we’re still waiting for the CFE monies (the original litigant was in 4th grade and is now in college!). I would never work in a charter school because transfers become problematic as do pensions and benefits.
4. “Market value for teachers.” The only “dim view” is from the city. We are the lowest paid school district in the
metropolitan area. The new contract is not even a COLA. We’re fighting tooth and nail to break $90,000 while our suburban brothers and sisters are now fighting to pass $128,000. Our salaries in 2007 will be on par to the suburbs in 2001. What market value are you referring to? Should we be compared to teachers in Utah who earn less but can purchase a home for a fraction of New York’s prices?
With all due respect, your comments show a stunning lack of erudition.
26 NYC Educator
· Nov 5, 2005 at 6:23 pm
I’m sorry–I aplogize in advance, for going completely off topic, but whatever your positions are on anything, you really have to see Freddy Ferrer’s new ad:
http://images1.istandfor.com/images/FE/chain182siteType8/site141/client/buddies.mov
27 Bklynteacher
· Nov 5, 2005 at 9:05 pm
Thanks for a good laugh, NYC Educator, something I haven’t done since I heard this contract passed.
28 no_slappz
· Nov 6, 2005 at 8:25 am
Persam, sorry, but it’s you who sees things only from the view of a unionist worried more about a paycheck than facts.
1) While it’s true the NYC school system must serve all levels of students, it’s not true that private schools don’t. There are many private schools serving LD kids. Churchill, York, etc. This list is probably longer than you know. They do excellent work. And these schools do compete for students. But apparently you didn’t know that.
NYC public schools are stuck with kids who are truly out of control. Well, those kids need the right setting too. But that’s not a classroom where more willing students meet. However, I think racial politics stands between this problem and a solution.
2) Labor and choice may share a link, but nothing you wrote identified it. You claim city schools have a teacher retention problem. Hey, wake up . A key component of a competitive economy is the free movement of labor. First, as you well know, there are not enough teaching positions in the NY suburbs to accomodate all the teachers who would love to jump into them. Second, your existing employer is not obligated to match the pay of other regions. Why? Because enough people line up for teaching jobs in NYC — at current pay levels — to fill the ranks, with the exception of math and science teachers.
In a competitive setting, an employer would raise compensation for the hard-to-find employees — the math and science teachers. But the union does not permit pay differentials. That is an incontestably clear sign of putting the union concern for everyone’s paychecks ahead of the education needs of kids.
You moan about farewell parties. Every business holds them. So what?
People leave every business eventually. Some employees stay for years, others for months. This observation is meaningless. More important is the reason you gave: better pay and better working conditions in the elsewhere. Gee, like no one ever sought greener grass in private industry, or in other government jobs.
Retention is not the problem. Hiring is the problem. Every teacher I know severely cricizes the overall quality of teachers in the system. Doesn’t this mean something? There are many requirements for becoming a certified, llicensed teacher that serve only to discourage many people who would raise the quality of the teaching corps in NYC.
Certification itself is beyond silly. I went to engineering school — no education courses, ever. But I passed the LAST, ATS-W and the Math Content Exams by simply buying a review book for each test and studying — for a very short time.
Acquiring a private-sector job rarely requires an extensive application process or months and months of shooting documents back and forth. But the hiring process for teaching is so onerous that many people who would excel at teaching put their talents to work elsewhere because more aggressive employers put them to work quickly. It’s not the paycheck, it’s the bureaucracy.
You mentioned your concern about turnover as a concern for you as a parent. Face it, the turnover is a function of the working conditions, not the paycheck. Teachers stick around Stuyvesant because the work environment is good. The work environment is a function of the nature of the kids.
You are dreaming if you think higher paychecks for teachers will change the character of kids entering the NYC school system. The good and bad will keep coming.
I am a parent of school-age children as well. And my kids would never attend a troubled school. Fortunately, they are in gifted programs, which, I hope you understand, exist, in part, to keep families from fleeing to the suburbs. Remarkably, though, you want level 1 and level 2 kids in every class. That’s a presciption for educational failure.
3) Charter schools, well you revealed yourself here. You would never work in a charter school due to issues of transfers and pensions. So you fault the charter concept for selfish reasons. Your argument is a non-sequitur. While I completely agree with your desire to meet your employment needs, your personal concerns have nothing to do with the merits of charter schools.
As for that old canard about charter schools consuming public funds, this is another empty argument. I want the portion of my tax money headed for educational spending to get better results than the NYC public school system currently produces. There is effectively no Research & Development money spent by the public school system. Existing programs do work well for smart kids and those who are not as smart but willing to do some work. But there’s a huge segment that fail in the exising structure. Whatever it is they need, they’re not getting it.
As I noted earlier, there are many schools in NYC for Learning Disabled kids. They are private, which means they are expensive. Churchill, meanwhile, is government funded. Tuition at these schools is close to the Special Education per-student expenditures of the public school system. Parents of kids at these schools are convinced the schools have done wonders for their kids. Of course we can’t conduct a double-blind test to confirm their beliefs, but you don’t hear any grumbling from them about the results. Unlike results at public schools.
But with your focus on your personal concerns, you’ve forgotten to weigh the meaning of educational results.
Furthermore, creating charter schools with public money does not drain the public system of a dime. Charter schools don’t create students and teachers. They both come from the existing population. Thus, students who attend charter schools are taken from the public school population. The reduction in the public school population reduces the overhead to serve that group. Therefore, when teachers leave for the suburbs, or quit teaching, fewer need replacing. If the bookkeepping were honest, the appearance of charter schools would lead to a small reduction in overall education spending. But no reduction in the overall number of teachers or students. In fact, the emergence of charter schools is likely to lead to an increase in the total number of teachers.
Meanwhile, private schools do enjoy certain tax advantages due to their non-profit status. Like it or not, this is a government subsidy. So the existence of private schools also cuts into available public funds. Does this bother you?
Moreover, private colleges receive vast amounts of tuition money in the form of grants handed to students — in other words, vouchers. There are a number of private colleges in NYC that serve the low-income market. The students are almost 100% funded at tax-payer expense. Does that bother you?
4) Market value for teachers. If the pay scale is better in the suburbs, send over your resume and get a job in a nice town where the average homeowner pays $10,000 a year in property taxes. There are plenty of towns on Long Island and Westchester where homeowners cough up $20,000 a year in property taxes. When you can squeeze that much out of NYC, you might see wages matching the suburbs. Given existing property tax bills, paychecks for city teachers look pretty good. But then you have to add in the school revenue derived from the NY City income tax to balance the books.
Only a person with an inflexible union mindset would believe that all employers must match the pay of the highest paying entity.
The Campaign for Fiscal Equity is a sorry joke. The taxpayers of New York State are not going to cough up several billion dollars because Judge DeGrasse says so.
The School Construction Authority is the place to look for paycheck money. There is easily a billion dollars a year that disappears to fraud perpetrated by that organization.
29 nycparent
· Nov 6, 2005 at 8:44 am
Bravo no_slappz! It’s time to wake up and smell the collective coffee.
30 madmatt151
· Nov 6, 2005 at 11:00 am
I hate to agree with no slappz, but he(or she) makes a few points that we all know or believe to be true. I don’t understand why the union is so against differetn levels of pay for different teacher. I am not talking about merit pay, which is a term that has been so demonized. I am a CTE teacher who has a considerable amount of skills from my experience in the workforce before I became a teacher. I brought with me a large amount of knowledge which in my opinion should be compensated. Myself and many of my colleagues do believe that a brand new teacher straight out of college with no experience shouldn’t be making as much as a person who was an engineer for 10 years or a research assitant etc.
Also, I have said this so many times to so many people, the union made a grave mistake trying to compare us to the out lying suburbs. They had good intentions I beliee, trying to get our pay as high, but these people have totally different working condition than us. There are fewer of them, with not much job security. Being hired in these districts is not s imple process requiring teacher to *GASP* wear a suit to an interview and actually impress the principal or local superintendant. They also can be fired for ANY reason especially if a parent does not like them. The politics in these small communities would make the NYC beuracracy look like child’s play. I understand our union was trying to use these suburbs as a comparative point for our salaries, but it kind of blew up in their faces ie longer hours.
I also know that most of you know teachers that you laugh at or think they should not be working at all. Personally it disgusts me that while myself and MANY of my colleagues work hard, show a good example of great teachers, there are a selct few who are lazy, dirty and overall poor examples to our students of what a working person should be, let alonme a teacher! These people are whom the public sees and judges us by. One story and then I will be quiet. The other night I was at a bar getting dinner and I heard these two “gentlemen” at the other side of the bar from me talking. They were the crudest, loudest and most obnoxious people I have even seen, and I had a feeling of where I was located (a big school nearby) that they might be coaches maybe or unfortuantely teachers. They proceeded to spout racists comments, unintelligent and nasty stories about their students, coworkers and others in the building. They kept looking to me for affirmation, and all I did is grimace at them. All this was in earshot of everyone in the place and I was embarrasedfor them. If I was a parent in that neighborhood, how confident would I be to send my child to that school. I know this is an isolated incident and NOT the norm, but it shows that how we carry ourselves and present ourselves is important. It is time for us to wake up and smell the coffee. Just my $.02, sorry vent over now.
31 Persam1197
· Nov 6, 2005 at 11:07 am
No_slappz,
I almost wish you were right about some of your criticisms, however, as teachers in the trenches, we see the system intimately in ways folks on the outside (this includes Bloomberg, Klein, educrats, and you) cannot/will not understand.
1. As for CFE ruling, how can educational equity be a “sorry joke?” Why do our children deserve less resources and quality than others based on their addresses? The governor believes that an 8th grade education is sufficient and budgets accordingly. Judge DeGrasse is correct as is the higher court that upheld the decision. The only “joke” I see are the people who would deny children the education they need.
2. The School Construction Authority has had problems without a doubt. You get credit for this one.
3. I didn’t say that there were no schools for at risk children. However, they are not competing for our children. You have to either be a well-connected parent to manipulate the system in your favor to get services (paid for by the NYC DOE) at private institutions or have people who know the system advocate for you. These schools still cream for the kids who serve their interests and can let go of kids they no longer wish to serve. We can’t and don’t do that.
4. You’re truly off the mark with labor and choice. I myself as well as many other teachers have had offers outside the NYC system. I personally made a decision to stay on several occasions because of the relationships I have with my kids and their parents. The same for my AP. Effective teachers are in short supply, in fact the problems with education on a national level has exacerbated the shortage. The reason there are alternative certification schemes out there is that not enough college students believe that teaching is a viable career to invest huge sums of time and money for such little compensation. Those who are career teachers (10+ years) are relatively rare now. In NYC, more than half of the teaching corps have five years or less and we already know that over 50% will leave the profession. This isn’t the “free market.” This is insanity. Can you imagine 50% of doctors leaving the profession after 5 years? Your contention that people are lining up for teaching jobs is not accurate. Many of these people are not certified and are transitory. The Teach for America corps asks for a two year committment (while these recent college grads figure out what they really want to do. The teaching Fellows program is not a bad one, however, many of these people quickly realize that they cannot live on the entry level pay of the DOE and leave as well. We see this every year.
It takes a minimum of 5 years to know what you are doing in a classroom. Look at the NYS school report cards and you will see how the better schools retain experienced teachers.
5. “Pay differentials.” We are all teachers working hard to educate our kids. I’m an English teacher with a pile of written work to grade. Why is my work worth less than a science teacher? Should I take a pay cut because I teach music rather than algebra?
I’ll stop here for now, however, the real issue is whether or not the state will honor its committment to educating our kids. We all know that NYC was the highest paying school district and now is the lowest. The courts have reaffirmed this and the lack of stability in many schools is a direct result of education not being a priority.
I’m proud to be a teacher, a parent, and a UFT member. You see us as inflexible unionists and we see ourselves as the true advocates of our children. I stay because I believe the fight is worth it!
32 Ian
· Nov 6, 2005 at 11:41 am
no_slappz
You can’t have this conversation without acknowledging what the CFE ruling reveal. The CFE ruling proves that over the last twenty plus years NYC schools have been under funded by the State Legislature to the tune of almost six billion dollars. Part of the issues there are questions of race, and political clout that the suburbs and northern New York have had over that time period. It’s also meant that the legislature could pump in millions of dollars into those districts to which NYC has never had access. While NYC city class sizes have grown, those other districts class sizes have shrunk.
A large part of the only draw that charter schools have had is that they are able to provide smaller class sizes. Imagine if the state legislature hadn’t funded those schools at the expense of city schools, NYC would have those smaller class sizes. I hope that means you’re also an activist for smaller classes in NYC.
As this post points out, and as I firmly believe Charter Schools aren’t widely effective. Part of the reason is the gospel of privatization just doesn’t work as effectively as you’d like to believe it does. Teaching kids reading, writing, arithmetic, history, etc.. cannot be forced into a factory model.
I don’t speak for Persam, but I would be offended if you questioned why I believed in the union. It has nothing to do with a paycheck. It’s cliché, but I didn’t start teaching so I could make a wall st. salary. If we’re going to make assumptions about why we hold the views we hold, one could assume just as easily that you may be a Charter School CEO, hoping to cash in on public monies. It would be wrong to make that assumption, but it’s one that you feel comfortable making about Persam.
33 Chaz
· Nov 6, 2005 at 7:53 pm
A work in a large high school and have seen an influx of students from disbanding large schools outside the school’s usual area. These students are causing more problems in my school than our usual incoming students. Is there anything the UFT is doing about this?? I remember when it happened to Norman Thomas and nothing was done.
Is it true that the only real difference between Charter schools, small schools, and the rest of the public schools is that the first two have lower class sizes? If this is true then why aren’t we demanding equal treatment?
I hope somebody knows the answers?
34 no_slappz
· Nov 7, 2005 at 12:50 am
To Persam1197 and others who responded to my post: You all wrote about your own well being and personal concerns without once mentioning the outcomes of the NYC public school experience for students. If, in total, NYC public schools were producing a high percentage of high quality graduates, the argument for funding larger paychecks for teachers would meet a lot less resistance.
First, however, it’s worth noting that I support everyone’s desire for more pay.
It happens that my paycheck also comes from the Department of Education. I don’t have years of teaching experience, but I’ve been teaching. Prior to teaching, I was on Wall Street.
1) Persam, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity is a sorry joke, as I stated previously. Here’s why: In a nutshell, the argument boils down to the belief that the NYC public school system was shortchanged by the state by more than $5 billion dollars.
If the NYC DOE was shortchanged, does that mean that over the years of underfunding teachers adjusted to the decreased funding by deliberately working less intensely?
Or does it mean that if there was no funding shortfall NYC educational results would have been much better than the record shows?
Most important – how much educational improvement would result from raising NYC DOE expenditures. You’re asking for $5.6 billion for past underfunding and a new higher amount in the future. What will the taxpayers – from the entire state – get in return for this funding?
Here’s your answer – and you know it’s true: NOTHING.
The $5.6 billion of funding will, of course, never have an impact on the kids who were in the school system over the years of purported underfunding but have since left or graduated. The contested funds intended for future expenditures will also have no effect on students. Why? A little history will answer that question: Because the dramatic increases in NYC school expenditures over the last 30 years have been accompanied by declining student success.
If you think paychecks should be higher, offer some evidence that higher paychecks lead to better student results.
You may be aware of the experiment undertaken in Kansas City about a decade ago. The city coughed up an enormous amount of money to upgrade its school system – new buildings, new everything. The works. Guess what? No scholastic improvement!
There is no link between more money and better academic performance. However, there is a rather obvious link between more funding and higher paychecks. Sorry to say, but higher paychecks have not benefited students one bit. Moreover, if paychecks were doubled, would teachers work twice as hard? No, and you know it. Everyone has his own energy level and his own approach to work. The elements of a person’s nature don’t change in the face of higher pay.
Meanwhile, how much work do you think it would take to bring NYC scholastic performance back to where it was in the best days of NYC public education?
Let’s face facts. The student body has changed over the years. When my brother-in-law graduated from Stuyvesant – 1970 – the student body there was 50% Jewish, 40% other whites, and 10% everybody else. Today, it’s 50% Asian, 40% white and 10% everybody else. The good students are very impressive. And there appears to be a significant number of them. But there appears to be an even larger number of terrible students.
Paychecks will have no impact on the nature and quality of students entering the NYC school system.
2) The School Construction Authority is a corrupt entity. The corporate world would have long ago put an end any activities like those occurring every day in that segment of the school system. I’ve noticed some posters here like to whip out the names of Enron and Worldcom as though they define the corporate world. There are, of course, bad boys in the corporate world. When they are discovered, their misbehavior is addressed. And the bad boys always endure a flogging for their misbehavior. Stockholders of public companies go berserk and slap lawsuits on those bad boys until they’re nearly crushed under the weight of the paper.
When was the last time anyone from the SCA was arrested or charged or indicted or tried or convicted of anything? Nabbing the miscreants in that hive is a rarity. Yet at least a billion dollars a year disappears into a rathole of fraud and other forms of fiscal abuse. And this thievery has been underway for decades.
It wouldn’t hurt to look closely into the school custodians and their racket. The custodians I know essentially hold jobs that almost qualify as no-shows. However, I will say that the schools I’ve worked in have been relatively clean. Horribly ugly, perhaps, but relatively clean.
3) Persam, with respect to private schools for Learning Disabled kids, you claimed that parents must be well connected to acquire NYC DOE funding. Where did you hear that? There are a number of attorneys who specialize in prying funds out of the DOE to cover tuition for kids at the various LD schools in the city. Those attorneys do good work and they often get full tuition payments out of the DOE’s hide. Those payments are nothing less than vouchers. They work. Winston, York, Bay Ridge Academy are among those schools on the receiving end. Meanwhile, one of the most desirable schools is Churchill, which is fully funded by NY State. Thus, for parents of kids accepted by Churchill, there’s no need to write another check for education.
Persam, first you made the false claim that the private LD schools don’t compete for kids, then you claimed they only sought the higher performing kids. That sounds like competition to me. But you lastly delivered the flimsy argument that the public schools can’t and wouldn’t seek only to serve only the higher performing LD kids. In other words, that’s your rationalization for the ineffectiveness of the public school Special Ed program.
The teachers in the Special Ed LD private schools are not better paid than public school teachers. Yet parents beg the schools to accept their kids. Tell me why concerned parents are so desperate to pull their kids out of the public school special ed programs and place them in private schools. What are these schools doing that NYC public schools are not?
4) Labor and Choice. Wow. You turned down an offer to teach in the suburbs. Well, that pretty much wraps things up. You decided to remain a NYC teacher. In other words, you have accepted the limitations of the job in NYC. Since you turned down higher pay and better working conditions in the suburbs, you’ve pretty much nullified your workplace demands. You’ve admitted your priority was to remain in the city working with those to whom you are attached. Okay. Case closed. No one owes you an extra dime.
As I previously mentioned, the problem is not teacher retention, it’s teacher hiring. There is no reason for structuring the profession according to your views. If lots of people want to take a shot at teaching and spend five years or less in the classroom, so what? You have no evidence that teachers who leave the classroom in five years have served their students poorly.
Also, as I previously mentioned, good students usually find jobs in less time than it takes the DOE to process an application. Therefore, if a recent college grad has applied for a teaching license, he may well find himself pondering other job offers while his paperwork is slowly cranked through the DOE machinery. Meanwhile, there are many teaching-type positions in the corporate world. In those settings you are never mistreated by your students. One teacher friend of mine left the classroom to become a marketing person for IBM. The company hired many teachers into sales and marketing because they were skilled at group presentations.
As far as your conclusions about teacher retention at the “better schools” goes, well, teacher retention is better because the students are better. In other words, the psychic rewards for the teachers are better at schools where most of the students care about their educations. The teachers like their feelings of success, so they stay, even though they’d like better pay. The real answer to your prayers is better students.
Regarding the Teaching Fellows program, well, based on the numbers I’ve seen, it’s a failure. For the Fellows themselves, the program is a great resume builder. And don’t think they don’t know it. The forward thinkers among the Fellows recognize the value of being chosen for what seems to be an elite program. No matter how they follow their time as a Fellow, it will add some spark to their resumes. Sure, a handful will stick around for five years or more, but the majority will move on to other endeavors before that milestone.
5) Pay differentials. Paychecks vary because demand for workers’ skills varies. Supply and demand. The entire NYC school system lacks math and science teachers. I’ve noticed plenty of openings for English teachers too, but the big hole forms in those subjects where the private sector offers the most alternatives. That’s math and science. Sure, English teachers can grab some of those paying writing jobs, but as most writers will tell you, they support their writing habit with a paycheck gig elsewhere. Teaching, for instance.
You measured your value as an English teaching with respect to the value of an algebra teacher. This is a totally false bit of logic. However, in response to your rhetorical question, yes, the algebra teacher should receive a higher paycheck. Here’s why: you are paid the standard wage for teaching. You teach English. The current pay structure is sufficient to attract almost enough English teachers to meet demand. Case closed. However, because the current pay structure is not sufficient to attract enough math teachers, kids are simply getting along without them. However, I’ve dealt with a number of principals who are staffing math classes with teachers certified in other subjects. Is that any way to run an operation? No. If it takes a big offer to attract a math teacher to Lafayette High School, the principal should have the power to offer the convincing sum. Of course, in a closed, non-competitive system, it wouldn’t take long before principals were corrupted by promises of kickbacks for offers of high pay, even for gym teachers.
I will close by stating that I believe teachers work hard and raising pay is an important issue. However, union leadership and union members are going down the wrong road in search of higher compensation.
35 no_slappz
· Nov 7, 2005 at 1:24 am
Ian, your post made very little sense. Nevertheless, I’ll respond as best I can.
Your claim that the Campaign for Fiscal Equity ruling revealed anything but the utter ignorance of Leland Degrasse is baseless. As I mentioned to the previous poster, by claiming the purported underfunding accounts for the declining academic performance of NYC students begs the question of how much money is needed to bring NYC graduation rates and scholastic achievement rates to suburban levels.
Interestingly, some here say it would be unfair to expect the city public school system to match suburban results. Oh. I see. In other words, those posters have concluded that city kids are dumber and less capable than suburban kids, so rather than educate them, we’ll spend more money to babysit them while accepting dismal academic performance. Yeah, that’s a great reason to spend more to get less.
Ian, don’t overlook the fact that the union wants to reduce class size for two reasons – first, because it will very likely improve results, at least among less studious kids; and second, because it will increase the number of teachers in the public school system. Reducing class size is, therefore, not driven entirely by altruistic concerns for kids. It is also a job creation device. However, if class size is reduced and more teachers are needed to staff all the smaller classes, the need for more math and science teachers will accelerate. When that happens, the cry will go out again to raise everyone’s pay so that compensation reaches a level that will attract the elusive math and science teachers.
Can you see the union has created an artificial labor shortage by prohibiting pay differentials? Can you see the union is using this artificial labor shortage as an argument to raise the pay of every teacher, not just those who are hard to find?
As far as questioning your devotion to the union, well, I don’t have to. You’ve made your reasons clear. Moreover, you’ve made a false comparison between teaching and Wall Street. Like suburban teaching jobs, positions on Wall Street are not going begging. The big paychecks go to guys who are on the ball and able to produce the desired results. With respect to your willingness to assume I am a charter school CEO, well, feel free to assume anything you like. I don’t mind. However, I am not a charter school CEO, though I do support spending public money to fund them.
36 HS_ teacher
· Nov 8, 2005 at 12:25 am
New Allegiances
At tonight’s Executive Board, Jeff Kaufman proclaimed that if he saw “improprieties” in the contract vote, he would “go straight to David Andreatta [of the NY Post]”. Randi asked if he wouldn’t come to her to tell her. Oh, sure he would do that too.
Very nice. Obviously he doesn’t care about correcting wrongs, fighting for injustices, or whatever other allegedly noble principle he may claim. He would rather smear the union’s name and run to the labor-friendly, education newspaper the NY Post. Why should he bring it to the attention of anyone that might correct it? That would only not give him something to complain about. Another fine example of a personal political agenda trying to divide a union.
For more highlights of the Exec. Board go to
http://edwize.org/a-grave-injustice-to-the-uft-tradition-of-union-democracy#comments
37 Persam1197
· Nov 12, 2005 at 8:02 am
I’ve been bogged down with student papers, so I have not had the opportunity to address your points, No-slappz.
Obviously, we are on totally different ends of the political spectrum and I doubt that there’s any middle ground between us. If I read you correctly, you would place education even further into the free market system of capitalism, the same market that has produced many of our societal ills including a compromised environment, corporate greed, and a political system rife with corruption.
Education today is a product of this free market system and it is producing exactly what it was designed to do. The higher functioning kids will get through the system and take their places professionally. The lower functioning ones will take their place in manufacturing, service and retail. Unfortunately, many of these jobs no longer exist here and those that do are under severe corporate pressure to work harder for less pay and benefits. The unions that you deride have made the American dream possible for all. As they weaken, corporate interests has shifted the balance of labor and investors to the the latter at the expense of the former. Even Wal-Mart admits that its own employees can’t afford its own products. We have the same forces at work in our educational systems. Our last contract emphasizes that point.
Education is not a priority even with tag slogans like “Children First” and “No Child Left Behind.” We as a society are not investing sufficient resources to educating all of our kids as noted by Diane Ravitch. The fact that you and others would argue about the DeGrasse decision is incomprehensible. The math is clear: we are getting short-changed by the billions.
You feel that teachers should get paid according to need rather than get paid collectively as professionals. I should receive lower compensation because a math teacher supposedly has more value in the market place. In actuality, we are all TEACHERS with expertise in specific disciplines. No other school district pays by supply and demand, not even Scarsdale with its $128,000 salary. My school district in Rockland County pays $110,000. Obviously, many communities feel that education is a priority and are willing to make the investment. There are no pay schemes, no merit pay inducements, no nothing but fair compensation for the skills of teachers. When our contract here in NYC matures in 2007, we will have arrived at the 2001 pay scale of our neighbors. We in NYC have decided not to make the educational investment necessary to make “Children First.”
I totally disagree with your position. You do have the right to believe what you believe even though the research the UFT(and experts such as Diane Ravitch) has provided evidence to the contrary. If you are indeed a newer educator, I would love to see your opinions in a few years as you work through the system and see first-hand what capitalism has wrought.
38 Bklynteacher
· Nov 12, 2005 at 10:12 am
I think the old adage:
“You get what you pay for” sums it up pretty well…
39 no_slappz
· Nov 12, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Persam1197,
You claimed we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Speak for yourself. You may be a left-wing radical, though that’s hardly consistent with life in Rockland County, but I am certainly not a right-winger.
Why the attempt to tarnish the extraordinary benefits derived from free markets when those benefits pay your salary?
You claimed the free market is “the same market that has produced many of our societal ills including a compromised environment, corporate greed, and a political system rife with corruption.”
Greed? Please. The Seven Sins were well known to the Ancient Greeks who had never heard of a corporation.
A political system rife with corruption? Again, please. Compared to what? Cuba, North Korea, all African nations, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia or every other monarchy or dictatorship in the world’s history?
Our democracy, though imperfect, has created more wealth and opportunity for more people than any nation in history. And in your book, that’s bad?
As an English teacher you’ve probably read Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” and some amount of social protest literature from the 1930s and so on. Maybe you’ve even assigned the reading of those myths. It’s way off the mark, as any rational economist can tell you.
Meanwhile, you’ve identified yourself as one of those believe in the ex-post-facto nature of environmental laws. The laws that are legislated after the fact to extract fines from large companies.
There is no human endeavor that does not touch the environment. Every activity has an environmental cost, even operating a school. But without drilling, cutting, paving, building, machining, and burning, we’d be Luddites, and that’s not for me.
You claim that high functioning kids will succeed in a free-market education world, but low-functioning students will land in manufacturing, service and retail.
What’s wrong with that? Nothing, obviously. But you claim those jobs are disappearing. Only an English teacher could make that claim when unemployment is near historic lows.
Are you just learning that capitalism both creates and destroys jobs? Furthermore, do you understand that moving jobs offshore leads to the creation of other jobs here?
How, you are probably asking. A couple of ways. Those foreigners are buying more goods exported from the US. It’s a two-way street. US companies aren’t sending jobs to Haiti because the workforce there is uneducated and unproductive. US companies are sending work to India, a major trading partner of the US. Meanwhile, when Apple outsources the manufacturing of iPods to China, you can be sure the Chinese manufacturer is paid about 10 bucks per iPod, leaving the other 200 bucks (or whatever the current price may be) for US-based Apple employees as well as the stockholders. What’s wrong with that? For instance, the guy in the US who sells the Apple product earns more than the laborer in China.
Why is labor more important than other components of bringing a product to market? The wage paid to the laborer, no matter where he lives, reduces the amount paid to another worker in the chain, such as the salesperson, the engineer, the accountant and so on.
Moreover, it’s nothing less than condescending and elitist to suggest the lower functioning kids will “take their place” in manufacturing… Frankly, my friends who went into construction have done remarkably well. To become millionaires they learned all they needed to know in shop class.
As far as unions and the American dream go, well, unions once gave workers protection from tough managments. But that era of business disappeared long ago. You might want to read the obituary of Peter Drucker who died a couple of days ago. You’re probably a New York Times reader. I’m sure the Times will devote a lot of space to him and how he changed corporate management.
Anyway, you might have noticed that in every industry — cars, steel, shipping, etc. — where unions applied excessive wage pressure, the industries changed dramatically. South Korea became a huge exporter of steel. Japan sent us cars and the NYC docks became Chelsea Piers and other recreation areas. In other words, unions killed the geese that had been laying golden eggs.
As for WalMart, if you believe it’s employees can’t afford its products, are you suggesting the employees are living in homeless shelters and eating in soup kitchens?
Anyway, because we live in a global economy, whether teachers care to admit it or not, it means this: we no longer enjoy the economic buffer of oceans on either side of the country. Because manufacturing, transportation, shipping and communications are spectacular, the business leaders of the world can locate their operations at optimum points.
Meanwhile, agriculture, construction, medicine, journalism, advertising, military, entertainment, government (federal, state and local), finance, insurance, energy, utilities, aircraft, travel and education, and a long list of other industries, will remain almost exclusively domestic activities.
There’s no shortage of places to look for a job. Even US car production is around 14-15 million vehicles a year.
You came out with a whopper when you stated “Education is not a priority even with tag slogans like “Children First” and “No Child Left Behind.””
New York City will spend over $13 billion on education this year — a third of the city’s budget. And you say education isn’t a priority. If that’s not, what is?
You mentioned corruption, but overlooked the School Construction Authority and its outright theft of probably a billion dollars a year. As I’ve mentioned previously, if you want a raise, demand an end to the criminal activity in the SCA. That would free a billion dollars for teacher pay.
As for DeGrasse and his kookiness, you claim: “The math is clear: we are getting short-changed by the billions.”
Your argumentative style seems patterned on that of other teachers who interchange a couple of terms: students and teachers.
If you really believe STUDENTS were “shortchanged” in past years, wouldn’t you argue it is the students who are entitled to the $5.6 billion windfall? You, as a teacher, collected your salary and accured pension benefits. You weren’t “shortchanged” a bit. But you argue that taxpayers from the entire state should reach into their pockets and hand over $5.6 billion. To whom? You?
Should current teachers receive a windfall for producing subpar results over the years of the “shortfall”?
Weren’t students supposedly the losers? If THEY suffered from the “shortfall” why should YOU, or any other teacher, receive a check?
The students should receive checks if they were harmed. Not you.
Answer this: how will spending more money on education in NYC improve the results?
The education budget has risen every year. Results have not. Hence, more money does not equal better educational outcomes. Can you explain this? Are you willing to explain this unsettling reality?
What would be the cost of improving student performance to the previous peak for NYC public schools?
As for compensation, you’ve structured your argument improperly, though you did put your own interests ahead of the students’.
The question about pay has nothing to do with your self worth or personal concerns. The question of pay addressed the issue of running a successful education system.
If the NYC school system attracts enough
English teachers with the current pay stucture, then it has correctly assessed the market for English teachers.
However, if the NYC school system were not able to attract enough English teachers at current pay levels, the DOE would have a problem — as it does with math teachers.
There aren’t enough to go around. What does this mean? It means kids have English teachers, but they don’t have math teachers.
Apparently in your educational world kids without math teachers aren’t deprived of anything — like a shot at engineering school.
In your world only teachers are shortchanged. Your paycheck trumps the basic educational needs of students. Your paycheck outweighs the critical issue of deliving instruction in an area where way too many American kids are seriously deficient. Yeah, the kids have English teachers, but they don’t have math teachers, and it’s all because teachers insist in a uniform pay scale. How much time will pass until you realize this strategy doesn’t work?
Meanwhile, I guess you live in Rockland and work in NYC. Does that mean you wouldn’t send your kids to NYC public schools?
By the way, do you understand the link between property taxes and the money available for school spending? My house in Brooklyn is worth about $750,000 and my property taxes are about $3,000. What would I pay if my house were dropped into your neighborhood? $9,000?
Lastly, capitalism is not what has brought NYC education to its current state. Or, putting it another way, only because of the benefits of capitalism is there $13 billion a year to toss into the educational well.
While I fully support more pay for everyone, the money for education must come from someone’s pocket. Since spending more money does not improve educational outcomes, it’s unlikely property owners will support any increases for schools.
If you want more money, clean up the corruption in the school janitor business, the school construction authority and eliminate the ridiculous rules for gaining teacher certification.
The union has created an artificial labor shortage of math and science teachers by sticking to a uniform pay scale. It doesn’t work. Try something else.
Put the kids first. Do they deserve math teachers? Is it the right of parents to expect the system to hire enough math teachers? Or is your demand for pay parity more important? We know. Your concerns first. Kids second.
40 Persam1197
· Nov 16, 2005 at 6:04 am
My friend, I understand what you believe in, however, Dickens put in perspective with the concept of the “surplus population.” In your world the free market system rights all wrongs. In my world, the one I am working in, people get left out and that’s part of what makes capitalism work. Our educational system was not designed to educate all. Even in the NYC system there is educational apartheid. Certain kids get into talented and gifted programs that are models to die for. Most kids get left out of it. Certain schools with a certain population and class get enriched programs and others get crap. It all depends on where you live and who you’re connected with. That’s your free market at work. Even in the glory days of the 1950’s, only 50% of students graduated from high school, but that was ok because the market absorbed their unskilled labor.
You want to assess a particular value to particular types of teachers. Why is it that we have great programs in NYC and NYS that appoints great teachers without your concept of supply and demand? Obviously, working conditions and money.
Again, Scarsdale has no problem hiring math teachers or any other teachers of varying disciplines. Is this a coincidence? Bronx High School for Science has no problem attracting math teachers, is this a coincidence? I maintain that we are all teachers working to serve our kids. No teacher is worth more than another based on discipline alone. Your reasoning is faulty when you erroneously postulate our teachers and the UFT as self-serving. Your reasoning is even more profoundly faulty when you call Judge DeGrasse’s ruling “kooky.” If New York sends the state tax dollars and gets shortchanged in educational funding, how is correcting a most basic wrong “kooky?” You really lose me here.
The UFT has not created any shortage of math and science teachers. It is a system overall that devalues the work of education as a whole. In fact, there’s no public system extant in the country that buys into your plan to reward some at the expense of others.
You have every right to believe what you believe, and perhaps in some way you are correct. But I deal with the kids and families that you claim deserve better as do most of our colleagues. Anyway, back to my lesson planning…
41 Edwize » WHO’S AFRAID OF TEACHER VOICE? CHARTER SCHOOLS AND UNION ORGANIZING
· Nov 17, 2005 at 11:17 pm
[…] You could drive a fleet of non-union trucks through that hole, which ALF and Jackson Lewis will gladly defend in court. THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – CHARTER SCHOOL – ALF CONNECTION As offensive as it is, neither the Jackson Lewis pamphlet nor the Jackson Lewis presentations were unforeseen: no one expects that the leopard will change his spots. What was remarkable, however, was who appeared on the other panel at […]
42 no_slappz
· Nov 18, 2005 at 12:33 pm
Persam1197, do you reread what you write, or do you respond reflexively, misusing terms all the way through?
The NYC school system is most definitely and absolutely NOT a free-market capitalistic enterprise. In fact, you clearly don’t know what a free market is if you think the closed and centrally-run school system is an example. It has far more in common with the politburo fully staffed with apparatchiks.
However, with respect to its shortcomings, you are correct – people are left out; enriched programs are not found everywhere in the system; etc. Of course there are many more than you mentioned.
You have described exactly the problems that result from the ABSENCE of free markets. Meanwhile, leaving people out, as you absurdly claim, does not make capitalism work. We live in a humane society that spends billions and billions of dollars attempting to help those you claim are left out, but we simply cannot take unlimited amounts of capital from productive activities and hand that capital over to unproductive endeavors.
Moreover, the one element every capitalistic economy needs is more productive people. The door is always open, never closed.
If there is “educational apartheid” – a rather overloaded expression because the practice of apartheid involves government-sanctioned murder – it is the product of a closed system just like the apartheid of South Africa. Clearly freedom is absent when apartheid is present. Since life within the NYC public school system results from the intersection of two forces – government (NY State and DOE) and union power – free market influences are nonexistent within the system.
However, the system is not entirely immune from external free-market forces. The school system is a ponderous bureaucracy operating alongside the free market system. Thus, teachers have employment alternatives. They can teach in non-public-school settings, or leave teaching for the multitude of alternatives available to them. People who choose life in the school system bureaucracy do so with their eyes open, but apparently with minds somewhat closed.
You probably entered the public school system as an idealist, but reality turned you into a cynic.
Moreover, citing Dickens only shows how out of touch you are with the times. We live in a different world, though you can be sure poverty, ignorance and self-destruction will never be overcome, no matter how much tax revenue is devoted to education and social programs. Because these maladies are perennial, we have no choice but to set limits on what we spend to tackle them, otherwise, the wealth of the entire nation would be depleted in a failing bid to overcome human weakness.
My kids have attended both private and public schools. They are now in public schools and they are in gifted programs, having scored high enough on competitive exams to gain admission. However, this closed unfree-market system has been corrupted. I can tell you there are a few children in my kids’ gifted classes who slipped in because their parents were able to peddle some influence.
The gifted programs are not quite the meritocracies the school system claims. However, I give them high marks overall. Then, of course, there are administrators who don’t believe in gifted programs and are working toward eliminating them. Diana Lam comes to mind. Fortunately Klein dumped her. Gloria Buckery is another.
Next you recall the 1950s as the glory days. Again, a different world. Perhaps only 50% graduated from high school in those days. But not to enter a world where unskilled labor paid high wages. People developed or obtained skills. Typing, building, repairing, selling, machine operating, policing, firefighting, etc. Many skills.
Despite your socialist claims to the contrary, teachers of different subjects have different values in the market place. The major shortage of math and science teachers proves the point beyond any question. However, you seem to favor limits on choice at every turn. You would limit or deprive students of math teachers rather than recognize economic reality.
You want to ensure that many kids pass through school without math teachers because boosting paychecks violates your union standards of thinking. Putting it another way, you put your financial interests ahead of the educational needs of students. What a guy.
You don’t recognize, or won’t admit to recognizing a labor shortage/pay squeeze when it’s staring in your face. Okay, perhaps the UFT didn’t create a labor shortage. But the union is currently exploiting the existing shortage to the fullest.
If teachers really cared about kids, they’d support higher pay for hard-to-find teachers. Some current teachers might even choose to re-certify in those higher-paying subjects, thereby benefiting themselves and the students in a single shot. But that’s too much free-market thinking, I guess.
However, you can be sure those well-paid Scarsdale teachers wouldn’t rush into the city to fill those empty math positions even if they were offered a raise. Why? Working conditions. Not so much the physical plant, but the students themselves. Too many behavior issues.
You also claimed there are great academic programs and teachers in NYS and NYC, and your further claim they succeed outside the influence of “supply and demand”.
Your conclusion is totally false. In fact, the existence of good teachers and programs only proves the point. It is possible to achieve success with existing staff and facilities and compensation. If part of the system can succeed, what’s holding back the unsuccessful segment?
Moreover, is it even a mark of failure to have a large percentage of students scoring in the two bottom quartiles on state and city exams? Low-performing students are likely to have many problems rooted in issues beyond the classroom that head off academic success. Or maybe some of those students arrived in school knowing absolutely nothing and learned enough to reach the second quartile. On a relative basis, that’s actually an impressive gain.
Meanwhile, you raise an interesting point when you state that “no teacher is worth more than another based on discipline alone”. In other words, some teachers are better teachers than others. So you do discriminate. You recognize teaching quality as a defining characteristic.
How do you know this? Can this assessment be quantified?
Since you think some teachers are better than others, do you believe poorer teachers deserve the same compensation as better teachers? Why?
Let’s face it. No one believes teachers are like assembly line workers. Each operates independently in a classroom. Therefore, the individuality of the teacher has an impact on student success or lack of it. Of course the baggage students bring with them may outweigh the influence of the most talented educator.
Every NYC teacher I know claims a large minority of fellow teachers are incompetent. Those I know claim a quarter to a third of all teachers stink.
Can this be true? If it is true, why should taxpayers shell out more when the existing system fosters incompetence?
Based on your view that teachers are not equal, which is consistent with the views of every teacher I’ve ever met, why will educational results improve by paying all teachers more?
Back to Scarsdale and Bronx Science, and why not throw in Stuyvesant and another Westchester or Connecticut suburban school system of your choice. There is no coincidence when it comes to no teacher shortages. Those schools and school systems enjoy better students. But as previously mentioned, the suburban towns are wealthier. The homeowners cough up much more property taxes per capita, and suburban families are more disciplined. Not many suburban kids are thugs, despite their affection for urban culture. There’s no suburban school I know of where a police presence is a good idea. There’s also no suburban school system subjected to the criminality of the NYC School Construction Authority, though Roslyn did have a little problem last year. Therefore, in the suburbs it’s possible to direct more money into educating rather than down ratholes. In other words, there’s more money for classroom teachers.
Degrasse is a nut. Answer this: Where would the initial $5.6 billion go? If anyone was harmed by a shortfall, it was the students. If anyone should receive the arrearage, it is the students. Yet I’m sure you don’t advocate a plan to send each of them a check.
However, I’m sure you won’t respond to that question because you couldn’t consider yourself an honest person if you believe the money should find its way into the paychecks of people you think are poor teachers.
Do you know that tax-payments in the US economy are not a zero-sum game? Some states and municipalities are net contributors while others are net collectors. Because NYC is home to a lot of wealthy people, the city is a net contributor to state and federal coffers. You can be sure some of the money sent from Scarsdale to Albany did not return to the town. It went into the pot for poorer towns around the state. Should Scarsdale get a rebate too?
That aside, how would an increase in spending improve the NYC public school system? And what percentage of improvement should be expected from each extra tax dollar?
Until you – the collective you of the UFT – can answer these questions, taxpayers will fight any move for more cash.
43 jd2718
· Nov 19, 2005 at 11:42 am
Noselappz,
no one here can stop you from hating unions and public education, or for worshipping the unfettered “free” market and the supposed virtues of competition. But why here?
We are teachers, union members, supporters of public eduaction. We support constraining the market. All of us support some sense of “social justice.”
If you were offering informed commentary it would be one thing. But this isn’t commentary. You are arguing against our existence. Clogging this blog with pages and pages of this crap is rude, disrespectful, and ugly. You don’t belong here.
44 no_slappz
· Nov 19, 2005 at 1:16 pm
jd2718, exactly what did I write that is untrue, rude, disrespectful or ugly?
Rather than respond to issues that affect the state of public education in NYC, you choose the ad hominem route of response, which suggests you can’t articulate your positions on school system issues in a rational and compelling manner.
45 no_slappz
· Nov 19, 2005 at 1:30 pm
jd2718, two questions for you:
Exactly what do you mean by “We support constraining the market”?
And: “All of us support some sense of social justice”?