Scranton Teachers' Strike (Harrisburg, Old Forge: unemployment, neighborhood, elementary schools)

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by formerdrunkenSP

This is why I am in favor of school vouchers.

In my view, vouchers usually violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

The Establishment Clause prevents a state from enacting laws that have the purpose or effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. The Court in Zelman held that Government programs that directly provide aid to religious schools are unconstitutional, but government programs that neutrally provide benefits to a broad class of citizens defined without reference to religion do not violate the Establishment Clause. Vouchers, in a word. Students under the voucher plan upheld in that case could attend either a private religious or a private secular school, but what happened there was that 96% of students who took vouchers left a public school for a private religious school.

So they effectively outsourced public school education to the Catholic Church, and the conservative court *wrongly* said that was okay. Justice Souter in the dissent had the best line when he said that you can’t violate the constitution to solve problems you’re having with a school system.

I agree.

Think of all private religious schools in this area and I would have *no doubt* that under a voucher plan we too would be outsourcing public school education to the Catholic Church.

[formerdrunkenSP]

Originally Posted by The Commish

In my view, vouchers usually violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

The Establishment Clause prevents a state from enacting laws that have the purpose or effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. The Court in Zelman held that Government programs that directly provide aid to religious schools are unconstitutional, but government programs that neutrally provide benefits to a broad class of citizens defined without reference to religion do not violate the Establishment Clause. Vouchers, in a word. Students under the voucher plan upheld in that case could attend either a private religious or a private secular school, but what happened there was that 96% of students who took vouchers left a public school for a private religious school.

So they effectively outsourced public school education to the Catholic Church, and the conservative court *wrongly* said that was okay. Justice Souter in the dissent had the best line when he said that you can’t violate the constitution to solve problems you’re having with a school system.

I agree.

Think of all private religious schools in this area and I would have *no doubt* that under a voucher plan we too would be outsourcing public school education to the Catholic Church.

Vochers do not necessarily equate to "church" schools. Problem is that currently private religious based schools are the only alternative to public schools. The Catholic schools in this area can't hold a candle to some of the public schools as far as the quality of education. If more charter schools (secular) were allowed to get started, then vochers would make sense.

Two of my children attend Scranton Prep and although the school is affliated with the Jesuits, there are students who go there that are non-Catholic. Wyoming Seminary, which is Protestant based is very diverse in the religious aspects of their students.

I'm for Vochers, problem is by the time it happens, the kids will be in College.

[ScranBarre]

CHS89, the issue here isn't as to whether or not teachers in general are being compensated fairly as opposed to their peers employed in the private sector. On the contrary it is referencing the very large disparity between what a typical teacher in the Scranton School District can expect to earn as opposed to what their colleagues in suburban districts do. Do you realize that $22,000 per year as a starting salary for a college-educated professional is more or less an insult? I earn only a few thousand dollars less than that per year now working at an unskilled retail sales job, and I don't even have a degree (yet).

I'm actually surprised to see that Dan and I are more or less on the same page here. You get what you pay for. Money motivates people, whether we'd like to admit that or not. If the Scranton School District happens to land a very gifted educator at, per se, the John J. Audubon Elementary School in the Upper Hill and offers him or her a starting salary of $22,000 only to lose that professional once he or she realizes that they could earn $32,000 at Pittston Area, $40,000 at Abington Heights, etc., then whose fault is this? Scranton is an inner-city school district with a very high population of impoverished students, as well as those who have English as a second language. It's not the cake walk of being a teacher at Abington Heights where the largest challenge is breaking up a sissy fight between two jocks arguing over who has the better BMW purchased for them by "mommy and daddy." If anything I'm surprised to see that out of the state's largest cities the Scranton School District continues to rank right up near the top of the pack when you consider how poorly-compensated these educators truly are. That's something as tax payers you all ought to be grateful for; even though these teachers are unhappy with their contracts they are still loyal to their students---your children.

I'm much more motivated to excel at my current position earning $11/hr. than I was at my former position earning $6.50/hr. Since I'm being compensated rather well, I appreciate the fact that my employer cares enough about me to invest so much in me, hence why I feel the need to reciprocate the generosity with a suitable return on their investment in me. A teacher in Scranton who earns $20,000 less per year than their colleagues is likely going to be bitter and less motivated to invest the extra time and effort necessary into creating an enriching learning environment.

Perhaps I'm just biased since a sibling of mine happens to be a local public high school teacher, but I truly don't believe for one second that people in NEPA fully appreciate what teachers do for society. They do much, much more than "just work 180 days, collect a pay check, sponge off the tax payers' teats, and high-tail it home at the end of the day before the kids are even on the bus." When I was in high school I nearly committed suicide over the inability for me to accept my sexual orientation, and if it weren't for the intervention of several very astute teachers who noticed my unusual disinterest in class and my slipping grades I might have just been the last person to have jumped off of the Freedom Bridge in Chinchilla before the safety improvements were implemented. Teachers play a much more vital role in the lives of children than some may think---they are well-versed in human psychology and can often perceive things in others that even you as parents may overlook. Begrudging them simply because "they make more money than I do" is mere foolishness. If you wanted those same "cushy" perks and benefits that teachers supposedly earn, then you likewise should have "walked the walk" and invested the time, money, and effort to obtain a degree. As a CPA who eventually wants to work as a controller I can easily command a salary in the $80,000-$90,000 range locally in the future. I'd feel no problem paying a decent portion of my salary towards making sure that the leaders charged with enriching my childrens' minds were well compensated.

I never understood the unparalleled local disdain for public school teachers. Were you all abused in high school or something?

[CHS89]

"Many" ≠ "Most"

Semantics. I'll concede "some."

Then perhaps the teachers should pursue jobs in the outlying districts if the compensation package in Scranton is so crippling and insulting.

Do they deserve a raise? Sure.

Do I feel that my school aged child should be used as leverage in order to gain it? Absolutely not.

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by CHS89

Then perhaps the teachers should pursue jobs in the outlying districts if the compensation package in Scranton is so crippling and insulting.

Do they deserve a raise? Sure.

Do I feel that my school aged child should be used as leverage in order to gain it? Absolutely not.

Your child will get his or her 180 days of school.

Strikes don't change that.

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by The Commish

Your child will get his or her 180 days of school.

Strikes don't change that.

In 1997 Pittston Area's teachers went on strike for a very, very long period of time. At the time I thought it was "neat" to see my hometown being the top story of the local news everyday, but then came the time to "pay the piper." I had to go to school on Thanksgiving Day, with the "peace offering" for us being that the cafeteria served turkey and mashed potatoes in order to "compensate" us for being away from our families. I went to church on Christmas Eve after being at school earlier in the day and receiving homework to be due when we came back the day after Christmas. I currently work in retail and often also work on these very same holidays. The difference between now and then of course is that at age 21 I don't mind being away from my family for such special events. At age 11 I did.

I support the teachers here, but I hope for the sake of humanity that the school board that you Scrantonians elected is wise enough to negotiate fairly and expediently so that your children also don't have to attend school on every day except for Christmas Day and Memorial Day. Perhaps the laws have changed since 1997 (The Commish may know more about that), but I didn't at all appreciate being expected to do classwork when my relatives across the river at Wyoming Area were watching the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade and shoveling sweet potatoes and stuffing into their mouths. Needless to say truancy was a HUGE issue that school year, as most of my friends took the equivalent of a couple of weeks off in order to enjoy their holidays.

[CHS89]

Originally Posted by The Commish

Your child will get his or her 180 days of school.

Strikes don't change that.

From September to June, or from October to July?

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by CHS89

Then perhaps the teachers should pursue jobs in the outlying districts if the compensation package in Scranton is so crippling and insulting.

The best salaries attract the best candidates. Always keep that in mind. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Often times the ticket out of poverty is gaining an appreciation for education. Scranton is now over 20% impoverished. Want to reverse this startling trend? Place more emphasis upon your public schools so that they'll breed a new generation interested in furthering their educations to trade schools, community colleges, or four-year institutions in order to make themselves more marketable for more lucrative career opportunities---not "jobs."

[CHS89]

Here's a thought. Negotiate it so that future contracts run from July 1 to June 30. At that point, let them strike all they're legally entitled to if they're are unsatisfied with their contracts. They'll have almost two and a half months to hammer out a deal. Then they can be back in the classroom in September when the education process is scheduled to resume and can stop taking it out on the children and their families.

Sound reasonable?

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by CHS89

Here's a thought. Negotiate it so that future contracts run from July 1 to June 30. At that point, let them strike all they're legally entitled to if they're are unsatisfied with their contracts. They'll have almost two and a half months to hammer out a deal. Then they can be back in the classroom in September when the education process is scheduled to resume and can stop taking it out on the children and their families.

Sound reasonable?

Very reasonable indeed. I believe the fiscal year for public school districts actually ends on June 30 anyways, does it not?