Pay cut for teachers v. quality of education (spring break, home)

[chicagocubs]

Originally Posted by anifani821

CHI - info is good, but not sure you convinced me that there is a correlation b/n student achievement and teacher pay. Also - explain more as to how this relates to GDP - you need to flesh that out. I would look for surveys on science and math achievement - comparing American students w/ other students. Not sure I can make the jump from teachers going to other states equating to high school drop out rates. Convince me.

You've got a paper! Just make it an A+ by adding some more language and citations.

Thanks, Ani. I think that "Rogerian" style (or whatever it is called) is the actual problem. I am afraid that I am so worried about straying from that style that I am not making an effective argument. Have sent a copy to the teacher as well for guidance.

But, your ideas are very good. Will pursue those and figure out how to integrate them using that style.

[LLN]

I think education reductions shoud be much more aggressive than just reducing teacher/administrator pay

One area where I have noted education is deficient is in economic decision making. Where an economist would ask what is best, many educators ask "Is it good?" Getting the best "thing" for the last dollar is seldom observed. This brings up complicated, but entirely necessary comparisons, of teachers vs smart boards, vs field trips, vs busing, vs band vs AP or enrichment courses. It is very very difficult to come to grips with what is the best and what is the "least" best dollar. An expedient way is to cut pay. A short cut, non-rigourous approach.

If you study either Gramm-Rudman or Prop 13 in California, or probably the ongoing debacle in CA, you will see that it is tempting, and quite rewarding, short term, to go after people. Both Ca and the Feb govt, did just that in the cases cited above. However, other expense areas, while perhaps more difficult to quanitify and without the immediate benefit of an RIF need to be explored as well.

Perhaps it is time to only do the essential in schools, leaving "essentials" up to the local/state authorities -- those with budgets to balance. This would be very painful, as many good, but not necessarily best programs would go by the wayside.

You might want to explore class size (the obvious) impact of reducing teachers with no reduction of students. I think there is significant research on that, and that data will apply regardless of the economic situation. As I recall, there is pretty good correlation between class size and learning.

Based on my premise that educators, in general, are not rigorous in asking "is this the best use of funds" but only "is this a good use of funds", it becomes very difficult to correlate inputs (money in) to outputs (you can decide which landmine you wish to insert) here, since you have such varying degrees of rigor surrounding the marginal dollar.

Finally, with the recession, at least in today's paper, scheduled to ease in late 2009, what are the plans for ramping back up, or are the "people" willing to have crowded classrooms and "underpaid" teachers, going forward.

One final point you might consider examining, is the very uneven manner in which the 10 hour furlough has been spread across the state. To many state workers, the furlough can be taken from May 1st through Dec 31, but teachers, due to their clasroom constituents, are only allowed a very limited number of days to be furloughed. While this will not impact the economit aspect of the furlough, considerable disgruntlement has been observed already..not at the furlough itself, but in the uneven and herky-jerky manner in which it has been or is still being implemented.

Good Luck

lln

[anifani821]

Originally Posted by chicagocubs

Thanks, Ani. I think that "Rogerian" style (or whatever it is called) is the actual problem. I am afraid that I am so worried about straying from that style that I am not making an effective argument. Have sent a copy to the teacher as well for guidance.

But, your ideas are very good. Will pursue those and figure out how to integrate them using that style.

It's a good paper, CHI. Just needs a little fleshing out to drive your point home!

You are learning something valuable, tho . . . if you publish in a peer journal, you will be using that style w/ citations, most likely. So it is a good thing to learn how to work with it. (APA style citations).

[FLtoNC]

Originally Posted by LLN

I personally don't see, have never seen, and will never see, ANY VALUE OF CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONNEL..with the posible exception of HR, and they, to quote a Navy Boatswain (boat-sun) Mate.."Aren't all that xxxx hot, either." All these curriculum and area specialists are just overpaid people that preferred an admin job to dealing with students. Cut'um all, matey!!!!

We are mostly all adults but I am astounded at the level of teacher cuts in relation to reductions at the Central Offices and NC DPI. I am thinking 100 to 1 is about right. I suppose the general public has no idea of the bloated central/district and state education staffs.

lln

Your blanket statement about cutting ALL central office personnel shows your ignorance. There have been reductions in positions at the central office. I agree that there is more room to cut jobs there, but to say to get rid of all them shows that your somewhat blind to what would happen without the support of these positions. Additionally, not all central office jobs are as high paying as you make it seem. Many are on the teacher pay scale doing administrative work, working long hours.

What some people fail to realize about teacher cuts is that most of the ones who are losing their jobs are those who don't pull their weight in the classroom. There are many excellent teachers out there, but there are also some who aren't doing anything to raise student achievement.

[Gumbo]

A little off topic, but I think the main problems with our schools is that our education model is outdated. Its a one-size-fits-all track for students. Need to recognize earlier those kids that want to pursue a college education and keep them in our high schools. If a kid has little interest in studying or pursuing a college education, the kid needs to be placed in a voc/tech school to learn a trade.

This weeds out those that don't care about getting a high school education and allows more opportunity for those that do. At the same time, those that opt out of high school can learn a valuable trade.

[marvinnative]

Originally Posted by Gumbo

A little off topic, but I think the main problems with our schools is that our education model is outdated. Its a one-size-fits-all track for students. Need to recognize earlier those kids that want to pursue a college education and keep them in our high schools. If a kid has little interest in studying or pursuing a college education, the kid needs to be placed in a voc/tech school to learn a trade.

This weeds out those that don't care about getting a high school education and allows more opportunity for those that do. At the same time, those that opt out of high school can learn a valuable trade.

Actually, there is not a "one-size-fits-all" track for students. There are a variety of tracks available to high school students these days. If you haven't had a student in high school in a while, you might like to peruse the high school course of study. Here is UCPS's version. If you go to Page 8, you can see the various tracks of study.

http://seced.ucps.k12.nc.us/document...9-10-FINAL.pdf

[marvinnative]

There is an editorial on the Viewpoint page of the Thursday, May 28, 2009, Enquirer Journal titled, "Shorten the School Calendar." (I'd post a link, but the Enquirer Journal requires you to subscribe to access it...)

Anyway, the writer (credited to the Daily Dispatch of Henderson) explores the idea of trimming the school calendar by five days. To get the 1,000 required hours of instruction, he proposes tacking 20 minutes to the end of each school day, going from a 5-1/2 hour day to a 6 hour day. He suggests that starting the school year later would save energy by leaving off the air conditioning, running buses fewer days, etc. He wraps it all up by saying rather than making education "cuts," we could save $$$ by just improving our efficiency.

I'm interested to hear from educators as to whether they think this would be a workable plan.

[Gumbo]

Originally Posted by marvinnative

Actually, there is not a "one-size-fits-all" track for students. There are a variety of tracks available to high school students these days. If you haven't had a student in high school in a while, you might like to peruse the high school course of study. Here is UCPS's version. If you go to Page 8, you can see the various tracks of study.

http://seced.ucps.k12.nc.us/document...9-10-FINAL.pdf

Thanks. That's actually much better than it was when I was in HS. I'd still recommend seperating those wanting to go to college from those that want to develop a trade.

[DrummerBoy]

Teachers have been riding the gravy train for a long time now: good pay and excellent benefits for a mere 8 months' work per year (I'm including all those obscure Holidays they have off, in addition to three months of summer, which, by the way, is ludicrous.) Why should teachers be spare from our attempt to trim government fat? We've been throwing money at education for a long time now, thinking (hoping?) it will help solve the myriad behavioral and cognitive ills which plague our kids, when of course the REAL problem lay at home, due to the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family. Teachers need a class called Reality 101. We need to trim their ranks so as to command quality. I've met too many lazy teachers who, when asked what the best part of their jobs are, smugly reply, "June, July and Ausust."

[LLN]

Originally Posted by DrummerBoy

Teachers have been riding the gravy train for a long time now: good pay and excellent benefits for a mere 8 months' work per year (I'm including all those obscure Holidays they have off, in addition to three months of summer, which, by the way, is ludicrous.)

DB: If teaching is such a good deal, I am sure you are taking advantage and riding the gravy train. By the way, where do you teach, if you do not mind sharing:


To address more intelligent posts: The school year could VERY EASILY be shortened for 95% of the children and staff by terming school after the End of Grade Tests for those that pass all tests. We have almost three weeks after the tests to try to teach to children who know it is all over.

EVERYBODY stays at school, all the expenses continue to accrue so that kids can be re mediated and retests can be given.

Here is an idea: Put all the remediation people in one school, have the teachers involved in remediation teach them, and have ALL the other folks go home and quit costing money. As measured by the state and every other God foresaken entity in existance, the EOG is what matters, the EOG is what tells if you are doing good or not, the EOG is king.

Like so much in education, the focus and in this case the expense is on a very small minority, those that need to retest. I am not saying punish the kids that did not pass, not at all. I am saying continue remediation and retesting, but term the year for those that pass.

PS...Terminating school after successfule EOG tests MIGHT just be a little incentive for those that take these tests to lightly. It just might.

lln