How does the PA school system rank? (Allentown, York: crime, transfer)

[Time2Moov]

Originally Posted by xanadu

People should be concerned about bad teachers - and they do exist. I remember my HS physics teacher who I think actually drained knowledge out of my brain.

However, Time2moov and other union-bashers should realize that without the union teachers would still be paid $14,000/year just like in the 80's and the only people who would suffer the stresses of teaching for that salary are - no offense ladies - young girls just out of college waiting to get married, and old retired women looking to supplement their Social Security.

With all the sophisticated knowledge in math/science that is required today, do we really want to go back to the time when teachers were glorified babysitters? Some still are, but not NEARLY as many as when I was in school! I'm impressed by how professional most teachers are these days.

Something to think about.

1. I'm not a union basher. They have their place within organizations that have a better system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, the public school system aint' it.

2. Agreed. Some teachers are MUCH better than they were back when I was a kid. Of course there are good ones and bad ones. I'm just saying we can't afford bad teachers in the system any more than we can afford rogue cops patrolling a beat, or incompetent doctors performing surgery.

3. Well of course they would be making $14,000 a year. The school DISTRICTS are really not all that accountable for their results. Part of that cocktail napkin privatization plan I mentioned should have included more accountability for the districts. More funding for better results. Naturally if the union were removed, there would have to be a reason for school districts to pay competitively. This would foster salary growth for those that met or exceeded the mark. Those that didnt would be making peanuts, and ushered out the door. The way it should be.

[xanadu]

Originally Posted by Time2Moov

Naturally if the union were removed, there would have to be a reason for school districts to pay competitively. This would foster salary growth for those that met or exceeded the mark. Those that didnt would be making peanuts, and ushered out the door. The way it should be.

One of the things I like about teaching is that all teachers share ideas with each other, how to connect with students, learning strategies, etc. If you got rid of the union and put teachers in competition with each other for limited payroll funds, all of that would stop overnight. Yes, some teachers would be more motivated, but all that useful sharing and insight over how to help this student or that would cease. That would be a disaster.

I'm not going to tell the new science guy down the hall how to teach Jenny so she doesn't get bored if his improved performance is going to take my rent money. New teachers would sink without support from their more established colleagues.

[Time2Moov]

Originally Posted by xanadu

One of the things I like about teaching is that all teachers share ideas with each other, how to connect with students, learning strategies, etc. If you got rid of the union and put teachers in competition with each other for limited payroll funds, all of that would stop overnight. Yes, some teachers would be more motivated, but all that useful sharing and insight over how to help this student or that would cease. That would be a disaster.

I'm not going to tell the new science guy down the hall how to teach Jenny so she doesn't get bored if his improved performance is going to take my rent money. New teachers would sink without support from their more established colleagues.

I can tell you that at my company, we are rated not only on individual performance, but how well we team with others. Your argument is invalid only because there are proven ways to safeguard against that sort of behavior. I don't know if you ever really worked in the corporate world, but what you see in movies about the rampant backstabbing is entirely untrue. Those types never really succeed only because they are usually found out and laid off at some point. Competition is what corporations want. However, sabotage is another thing. If you DON'T help someone else in the company do their job better, that is seen the same way sabotaging their job is. Either way it costs the company money, and it is absolutely not tolerated. If I ever found one of my reports omitting material information in order to sabotage a fellow employee, they would be terminated immediately and escorted out of the building.

Not to bash govt workers, but I have a few childhood friends working for state and local governments. That is actually the kind of behavior you would see THERE sooner than the corporate world.


.and as far as the "limited payroll funds" thing goes. That is precisely why I would rather see privatization. There is PLENTY of money to go around, it just goes around to the wrong places right now. If school districts were suddenly required to do SOX reporting, the jails would be FULL.

[xanadu]

Originally Posted by Time2Moov

I don't know if you ever really worked in the corporate world, but what you see in movies about the rampant backstabbing is entirely untrue. Those types never really succeed only because they are usually found out and laid off at some point.

Actually, I have worked in the corporate world and one of the reasons i'm a teacher now was the backstabbing, refusal of anyone to help you, etc. And I have friends that are still in the corp. world and that's all they complain about.

So maybe it's a "grass is greener" thing, who knows.

More importantly, I don't know how you think "Privitization" is magically going to make more money appear. Unless you only want the rich to be educated, the population is still going to have to be taxed, and now you won't only be paying for services but for the school corp's profit margin as well.

Your scheme reminds me of when the government briefly privatized the operations at some National Parks and ended up paying more for worse service. Why? Because corps need to make a profit - governments don't.

I'm all for rooting out government corruption - there is a lot of it. But corp. corruption is just as bad if not worse. My sister-in-law works for a privatized "rescue the homeless" group and her bosses steal from the government left and right.

[Time2Moov]

Originally Posted by xanadu

Actually, I have worked in the corporate world and one of the reasons i'm a teacher now was the backstabbing, refusal of anyone to help you, etc. And I have friends that are still in the corp. world and that's all they complain about.

So maybe it's a "grass is greener" thing, who knows.

More importantly, I don't know how you think "Privitization" is magically going to make more money appear. Unless you only want the rich to be educated, the population is still going to have to be taxed, and now you won't only be paying for services but for the school corp's profit margin as well.

Your scheme reminds me of when the government briefly privatized the operations at some National Parks and ended up paying more for worse service. Why? Because corps need to make a profit - governments don't.

I'm all for rooting out government corruption - there is a lot of it. But corp. corruption is just as bad if not worse. My sister-in-law works for a privatized "rescue the homeless" group and her bosses steal from the government left and right.

Thats why the privatization could only be done with public companies. Public companies, unlike their privately held companies, are subject to much more scrutiny. Then there is the salaries. Lets say you have 50 teachers in a school. The majority of them have the same tenure, say 30. All of them have a similar salary. Under privatization, that would change.

Lets say all 30 teachers were making $60,000 a year at that tenure level. That would change to a pay range, with better teachers on the higher end, worse teachers on the lower end. So now we have a pay range of $47,000 to $60,000.

Instead of 30 teachers making $60k (1.8 million), you would have the following.

5 - $60k
7 - $57k
7 - $55K
6 - $51K
5 - $47K

Total is now $1,625,000 - a savings of $175,000 which equates to about 10%

All of these numbers would have to depend on performance. The bar being set by the top tier. As the top tier gets better, all teachers must follow suit in order to just maintain their salary. If they fail to progress, they are passed over for raises. If they fail to progress too many times, they are ultimately let go.

Then we move on to middle management positions like principals. They would be rated against their peers as well. The better performing schools ultimately mean more dollars for the principal.

This is not a new concept at all, and it can be done, probably with less money than we are spending now. It certainly isn't something I can plan out in a forum post, but the general idea is tried and true.

Above all, if we were to start contracting to private but publicly held management companies, the selection would have to be democratic. The same way investors make decisions via a proxy vote, taxpayers should be able to decide which management company handles their district. This would help avoid corruption, because we all know that when we privatize, and THE GOVERNMENT selects the private company, kickbacks are sure to follow.

Of course, NONE of this would ever happen. It's just not profitable enough for those with the power to MAKE it happen.

[xanadu]

Originally Posted by Time2Moov

Lets say all 30 teachers were making $60,000 a year at that tenure level. That would change to a pay range, with better teachers on the higher end, worse teachers on the lower end. So now we have a pay range of $47,000 to $60,000.

Instead of 30 teachers making $60k (1.8 million), you would have the following.

5 - $60k
7 - $57k
7 - $55K
6 - $51K
5 - $47K

Total is now $1,625,000 - a savings of $175,000 which equates to about 10%

Buddy, the average teacher salary in PA is the same as your bottom rung! The average teacher in PA does not make $60K - only in a few very wealthy philly sububs is that true.

For 30 teachers, an average of $47K/year translates into about $1.4 million payroll. In your scheme, you haven't saved money over the average, you've spent an additional $250,000. Face it, to get the performance you want out of teachers, by your own admission from the salary table above you would have to pay them on the high end of private-sector wages.

You're right though, that "ain't happening" because of those in power - but it's not some shadowy "they" who's in power, it's the taxpayers who would balk at your price tag.

Accounting 101

[Time2Moov]

Originally Posted by xanadu

Buddy, the average teacher salary in PA is the same as your bottom rung! The average teacher in PA does not make $60K - only in a few very wealthy philly sububs is that true.

For 30 teachers, an average of $47K/year translates into about $1.4 million payroll. In your scheme, you haven't saved money over the average, you've spent an additional $250,000. Face it, to get the performance you want out of teachers, by your own admission from the salary table above you would have to pay them on the high end of private-sector wages.

You're right though, that "ain't happening" because of those in power - but it's not some shadowy "they" who's in power, it's the taxpayers who would balk at your price tag.

Accounting 101

Those numbers are hypothetical. Focus on the percentages. Naturally different regions are higher or lower depending on cost of living.


....and there is a "they". Taxpayers haven't had any power since 2 days after taxes were created. The problem is not just the money management, its the people managing the money. People are already screaming for vouchers for private school beacause they hate the public school system and the way the districts are managed. This is what I call selective privatization. It's only a matter of time before we go that way completely, but its not happening tomorrow. There are way too many layers of corrupt officials to contend with that will fight it to the death, as well as the unions, and the employees themselves. Nobody in the current system wants to move to a system where money is no longer wasted, and the employees are expected to produce consistently. There is your "they".

[xanadu]

Originally Posted by Time2Moov

Those numbers are hypothetical. Focus on the percentages. Naturally different regions are higher or lower depending on cost of living.

I've enjoyed debating with you because you've given specifics of your plan. Unfortunately your last response is pure vagueness. I'm sorry to say I don't know what you mean. My numbers are exact, as were yours - until now.

If I do focus on the percentages I see you propose a 16% increase in school spending on teacher salaries, plus privatization, which would mean companies that would demand a profit margin well above the 5-6% they can get from T-bills. In other words, you're looking at a 22-25% increase in school budgets at least, and that's not counting the incentive bonuses for administrators that you also propose.

In addition, you haven't addressed how you're going to maintain a trustful, co-operative environment if teachers are all competing against each other and management is now a private company trying to keep costs down while faced with a yearly fixed (and multiyear unpredictable) inflow of government funds. Believe me, there'd be pressure to lowball teacher performance evals to protect that allmighty profit margin.

Talk to anyone who works in the now largely privatized social work field and you might change your mind about wanting to sell off our public schools to the highest bidder.

As for efficiency if you've ever interacted with the Customer Service department of a large corporation you'll know that private-sector efficiency can often be a myth. For example, the most well-run hospital chain in America is the VA, not a private company. Why? No need to make a profit, advertize or worry about screwing the competitors.

These problems I've listed are the reason so many charter schools have failed even in Republican-run states where union pressure is nil. Does the name Edison Schools ring a bell? Research it - publicly traded school company, was given control of some Philly schools. Result? Disaster.

It's been my experience that sometimes the backstabbers in the private sector are caught - but more often, they're promoted. I don't want them running my school or any other. Teachers and parents alike would revolt and rightfully so. I hardly trust these corporate sharks to make my coffee in the morning - I'd never trust them with my kids.

[Time2Moov]

Originally Posted by xanadu

I've enjoyed debating with you because you've given specifics of your plan. Unfortunately your last response is pure vagueness. I'm sorry to say I don't know what you mean. My numbers are exact, as were yours - until now.

If I do focus on the percentages I see you propose a 16% increase in school spending on teacher salaries, plus privatization, which would mean companies that would demand a profit margin well above the 5-6% they can get from T-bills. In other words, you're looking at a 22-25% increase in school budgets at least, and that's not counting the incentive bonuses for administrators that you also propose.

In addition, you haven't addressed how you're going to maintain a trustful, co-operative environment if teachers are all competing against each other and management is now a private company trying to keep costs down while faced with a yearly fixed (and multiyear unpredictable) inflow of government funds. Believe me, there'd be pressure to lowball teacher performance evals to protect that allmighty profit margin.

Talk to anyone who works in the now largely privatized social work field and you might change your mind about wanting to sell off our public schools to the highest bidder.

As for efficiency if you've ever interacted with the Customer Service department of a large corporation you'll know that private-sector efficiency can often be a myth. For example, the most well-run hospital chain in America is the VA, not a private company. Why? No need to make a profit, advertize or worry about screwing the competitors.

These problems I've listed are the reason so many charter schools have failed even in Republican-run states where union pressure is nil. Does the name Edison Schools ring a bell? Research it - publicly traded school company, was given control of some Philly schools. Result? Disaster.

It's been my experience that sometimes the backstabbers in the private sector are caught - but more often, they're promoted. I don't want them running my school or any other. Teachers and parents alike would revolt and rightfully so. I hardly trust these corporate sharks to make my coffee in the morning - I'd never trust them with my kids.

I'm lost here. I gave you a hypothetical current average salary of $60k, times a group of 30 teachers = 1.8mm

Now the average salary becomes the top of the pay scale. Folks are no longer paid based on how well they imitate the furniture. Everything is on merit. I showed you a pay scale that would REDUCE expenses by $175,000, and at the same time reward better performance. Now is a perfect time to ask a sarcastic question, but you seem nice so I'll behave (are you a math teacher?)

As far as maintaining a cooperative environment. You'd be surprised what people will do when the threat of being able to lose there job is hanging over their head. They will also do wonders when their next pay raise actually depends on their performance, and not just existence.

I actually never heard of the Philly disaster, but I've seen bad companies succeed and great companies fail. It's all about the management.
Let me guess, the "publicly traded school" was run by former school administration staff? That would make my point for me.
I'll have to research it. It would be the definition of insanity if that is the case.

Anyway, I'm feeling better now! I hate to disappear but I'm no longer convalescing, and thats about the only time I hit these forums. I may stop in tomorrow, but otherwise.....

See ya'll next Flu

[xanadu]

Originally Posted by Time2Moov

I'm lost here. I gave you a hypothetical current average salary of $60k, times a group of 30 teachers = 1.8mm

This is known as a strawman. You gave me a hypothetical that rarely exists. Your budget is a cost-cutting one only compared to a very unusual, ultra-rich district's budget.

Originally Posted by Time2Moov

Now the average salary becomes the top of the pay scale.

Except it was never a real average salary to begin with. It was $13K higher than the real average salary.

Originally Posted by Time2Moov

I showed you a pay scale that would REDUCE expenses by $175,000, and at the same time reward better performance. Now is a perfect time to ask a sarcastic question, but you seem nice so I'll behave (are you a math teacher?)

If I told you the average salary for a plumber was $60K and I could hire one for $50K, you'd say that was a bargain. But if the average salary for a plumber
was only $40K, then that's not a bargain, it's a pay raise. You are advocating a pay raise without admitting it, because you start with an "average" salary that's nowhere near the real average!

Originally Posted by Time2Moov

As far as maintaining a cooperative environment. You'd be surprised what people will do when the threat of being able to lose there job is hanging over their head.

Yeah, they'll quit, get so sick from stress they end up in the hospital (happened to a very dear friend of mine on three occasions - an she is not a weak woman!), or, most of the time, try to make everyone else look bad so they can keep their jobs.

Or, if it's a school environment, they'll help the kids cheat on the test.

Originally Posted by Time2Moov

Anyway, I'm feeling better now! I hate to disappear but I'm no longer convalescing, and thats about the only time I hit these forums. I may stop in tomorrow, but otherwise.....

See ya'll next Flu

I'd hate to think you'd give me the last word!