Exactly what do you mean by “We support constraining the market”?

And: “All of us support some sense of social justice”?

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

“You get what you pay for” sums it up pretty well…

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.

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