There's Something Happening Here

What it is ain't exactly clear, but it's just possible that Big Education and their big unions may have finally jumped the shark.

At the Federal level, the Obama Administration continues to make them nervous with Race to the Top, with its talk of measurement, teacher evaluation, alternative licensing, and a general no more excuses attitude.  At the State level, Governor Pawlenty wants the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul to take over their failing districts.  And he continues to push for Q-Comp, a merit pay program however watered down it may be.

And now at the local level, leaders are talking of getting rid of 12th grade, maybe even 11th.  Courageous Superintendents like Washington D.C's Michelle Rhee are bending and breaking rules.  But this news from Rhode Island (via Hot Air) really should get Tom Dooher's attention.  Things haven't been going his Education Minnesota way for some time, watching Welfare become the new top lobbying power at the Capitol.

Central Falls is a tiny burg a few miles inland from Providence, Rhode Island.  It's school district comprises about 100 staff serving about 800 students.  Or it did.  When the teachers there refused to work an extra 25 minutes and do some tutoring, Superintendent Frances Gallo fired the whole lot of them.

“We have a graduation rate of 48 percent. I have 19-year-olds in classes with 14-year-olds. It’s the middle of the school year and 50 percent of the students at the high school are failing all of their classes,” Gallo said.

It's a town that has seen better days, now with a median income of just $ 22,000 per year having to support teachers making over $ 70,000 a year, part time, with Cadillac benefits don't forget.  Nearly 2/3 of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch and the majority are Hispanic. It's a challenging environment, no question.  And no question, the teachers wanted no part of that challenge.  They got their wish.

I've seen this sort of thing here in Minnesota, in fact.  The Robbinsdale Area Schools shortened the 2007-2008 school year for some students rather than have those teachers stay an extra day to move back from temporary facilities during construction.   As I put it then:

The District begs the community for volunteers, for time, and for money, to support education, and the community responds. The Board acknowledges thousands of dollars of donations every session and praises the time spent by the many volunteers at the schools and on various committees. But when it's time for the administration and/or staff to volunteer just a little extra, to quote Minnesota Senator Taryl Clark: "No, no, no!"

I was actually taken aside by a member of former Superintendent Mack's cabinet for this, pressing me twice for some sort of apology that I refused to give.  Talk about clueless.  Or elitist.

The private sector has lost millions of jobs, the pubic sector a tiny fraction of that.  The parents have seen few pay raises and many pay cuts, but the teachers continue to get raises one way or another.  Our defined contribution 401k plans are shrinking, while their defined benefit retirement plans are held harmless.

Wise educators who want more support from their communities should first be careful about provoking this widening "us and them" divide.

Comments

[The Big Stink]

The pension and benefits packages of the teachers, along with the unions have forced the taxpayer into a corner. We can't throw any more money at them, yet money is what they insist upon. The system will only change when the unions strike and the taxpayers refuse to blink....

Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth....MPR and WCCO will declare the world is coming to an end. The question is whether the taxpayers have gotten smart enough to figure out the act.

Then, and only then, can we talk about tax credits and vouchers.

[J. Ewing]

Here's a solution that ought to satisfy everybody, if you just do the math. Right now the average school district in Minnesota spend something like $9000 per student. If you have 20 students in the class, that's $180,000 per classroom of which 80%, supposedly, goes to the teacher. If the teacher is making only $70,000, who is pocketing the other $70,000?? And if we went up to 22 students per class, could we pay the teacher $88,000 per year?

I think the challenge to the public schools is to defend their cost structure, and there are two ways to do it. One way is to simply start cutting the amount of state aid to schools and see how effective they can become in tough times. The other, more effective and less primal-scream-inducing method is to simply open the schools to full competition by offering every parent a full voucher good at any school -- the "universal" voucher.

[anonymous]

Speed, I think your point is interesting and worth some consideration.

J, I think your riff on it is ridiculous. There are many, many teachers and teaching staff who don't fit into your equation. Aside from the very earliest elementary years, students have multiple subject teachers--and even the very youngest often have some sort of teaching assistant to help work with two dozen kids of varying abilities. Some special needs kids have student to staff ratios closer to 1:1 than 1:22. (and those ratios are often legally mandated, so no complaints about district waste there).

I think it's likely an oversimplification to distill it down into simplistic numbers, but I'd be genuinely interested to see what those numbers would say. But real numbers, not ones you invent out of whole cloth.

[The Big Stink]

Anon: If you look at your own comments, JE is right! You're saying financing is misleading because of government mandates, regulations, requirements and other redundancies which simply don't exist in most private schools. Don't blame us for pointing out the inconsistencies, blame the education cartel for creating so many layers of compliance. They have written the rules to the game so that no one else can play!!! Like I stated earlier, public education will only reform when their failure becomes so painfully apparent even they can't hide. Until then, they will continue to hide behind the children.

If I could get half of what it costs to put my kids through the public system in the form of a credit or voucher, I would jump at it. So would a lot of other people - which is precisely why the idea will never gain traction as long as the teachers OWN the legislature.

[anonymous]

Stink--You know what? My kid's cheap, too! Yay!

But the autistic kid down the street doesn't suddenly become different when he has a voucher in his hand. He still needs a MUCH different ratio than my kid. Ditto the EBD/Asperger's kid a block over. Your generalizations are exasperating. Of COURSE we can educate the easy kids more cheaply. Which just makes the special needs kids that much more expensive, because of the law of averages.

And, fyi, the mandates and legislation regarding special ed didn't come from teachers unions. It was grass roots pressure from families. And you'd better believe privates and charters will be held to ADA regulations and those same families will expect to be accommodated. So you can start to look at this situation realistically or continue to insist that it will all change one fine day.

[The Big Stink]

Did I say "do away with public schools?" That's where everyone gets in a tizzy. No one is suggesting doing away with them - simply open them up for competition.

Do you think the private marketplace would develop a school for Asperger's Syndrome or any other condition if it were incented to? Yes! When you say families demand these considerations from schools, you're right. And, the families of private school students make demands as well. It's just they don't always get what they demand in the free market.

See, in a free market, you can take your money and leave if they don't provide the services that suit you. Disabilities? Private schools deal with them all the time!

[Give2Attain]

BS,
Same old questions:

- How do you vary the voucher amount per kid based on their specific situation/need?

- How do you make every school accept that voucher for that kid? (ie no cherry picking and leaving the publics with the pits)

- How do you prevent parents from pocketing a portion of the cash, and sending little Billy to a questionable school?

- etc, etc, etc?

I agree that vouchers sound real good until you get into the details. Then the holes show up.

I still think kids would need to be evaluated and assigned a unique voucher amount. Then they could walk into any school of their choosing and be taught for that amount.

The efficient / productive schools would make money and others would suffer. Now how do we convince Blake, Provident, etc to take these vouchers and kids?

Back to Speeds point,
I always wonder when I hear that RAS has <12,000 students and ~2,000 employees. Though I understand most of it, however it does seem like there may be some extra heads... Or at least a better explaination or justification for soooooo many employees...

[The Big Stink]

Let the market sort it out. Or, you can keep doing the same thing we're doing now and let the education cartel sort it out. How's that working?

In a few years, you're going to be begging for options. But, remember, private schools cannot be forced to adhere to all the layers of rules. You've got to let private schools decide who they'll take - or you lose the freedom to experiment. If they agree to handle "behavioral or medical situations" they should be compensated accordingly. However, if they choose not to do so, we can't make them - otherwise, we'll just have public schools with private owners. If your kid can find no reasonable accommodations, then put them in the public school!

Will that make public schools worse? No - it will make them compete!! The first thing they will have to jettison will be the mind-numbingly unsustainable pension and benefits packages they give to their people.

[J. Ewing]

"- How do you vary the voucher amount per kid based on their specific situation/need?"

Are you trying to tell me that the public schools do not KNOW what each "Individual Instruction Plan" COSTS right now? How would you justify that kid getting $50,000/yr in state aid, while my kid and 9 others get only $5000 each? For that matter, how do you justify the kid in Minneapolis getting $12,000 a year and the kid in Rosseau getting only $6000?

"- How do you make every school accept that voucher for that kid? (ie no cherry picking and leaving the publics with the pits)."

You don't "Make" every school do anything, and that's the beauty of the free market system. Get rid of those regulations that don't help for EVERYBODY, and let the free market sort it out-- gradually, maybe-- but free nonetheless. Kids with behaviorial problems will cost their parents something extra, to incentivize schools to accept these problems, or else the parents will "incentivize" the kids to stop being behavioral problems. Special needs the same way-- We'll find some special needs don't warrant the extra cost now built in, and "regular" schools will take them for the voucher. More special needs may end up in schools which have alternate revenue streams to augment the voucher, or the voucher might be supplemented by state aid to the handicapped, or the parent might have to provide more care rather than having the child in school all day. It's not heartless, but recognition of the reality, and acknowledging that the current one-size-fits-all public ed system doesn't work for everybody, either. Let them serve who they will serve, and no other.

"- How do you prevent parents from pocketing a portion of the cash, and sending little Billy to a questionable school?"

I don't. I TRUST that parents want the best for their kids and, given the means, will find a school which is NOT questionable, an option currently NOT available to them. Vouchers would in fact vastly improve the exact problem you raise.

[anonymous]

Your blithe insistance that the free market will sort it out is just where you and I fundamentally disagree.

If we're talking about something like lawn care, by all means, 100% capitalist. But our kids can't be our economic experiment. The best practices in education, not economics, need to be our guide. Our future as a nation is threatened by the baby boom tsunami of retirees, and we *must* have a well educated workforce ready to go. This is no time for politics to trump research and best practices.

I truly wish we (not just you and I, but our very different perspectives in general) could have a real conversation about this. But every.single.time this subject comes (or any othe subject, really) up it's like a mantra.

From what I have learned, the free market/voucher experiment in Milwaukee has mixed results at best, and no nation with privatized education has ever had long term success, to my knowledge. Conversely,other nations that are focusing on well-funded, well-researched excellence from a federal level (look at Finland--I think there are things both of us could appreciate there) are eating our lunch on education.

Hypothetical: if for some reason vouchers just can't happen, what else do you think will truly improve the educational system. Not make it cheaper, make it better? I'm genuinely interested. You go first, and I'll play along, too.

[Give2Attain]

Anon,
I like your style.... Please give yourself a name so we can keep track... Even if you only sign it at the end of your post. Thanks
John

[The Big Stink]

Anon: You don't have to worry. Your DFL party would never allow - never allow - vouchers to even pass through their lips. They owe everything they are to the teacher's unions and the teacher's unions have a stranglehold on education. We speak only hypothetically because monopolies don't compete, they crush their opponents. You can sleep tonight. The cartel will make certain no child gains an unfair advantage - that all are provided the same chance at mediocrity.

[Give2Attain]

BS,
Why so tense, we already have a free market with regard to education. There is not one law that forces parents to use the public education system. There is no monopoly, just a cost/funding advantage.

I mean if parent's are as dedicated to their kid's schooling, and as responsible as J and yourself imply, I am certain they could find a way to afford a private school education if they saw the benefit.

Therefore I conclude that most people are very satisfied with most of the Public Education system. Since they are still sending their kids, and not enrolling them elsewhere.

Or are they selfishly hoarding their money at the expense of their child's future??? Maybe that plasma TV, big house or cabin is more important than Billy's education after all.

It is an interesting perspective.

[anonymous]

Stink--I'm trying here. I'm truly trying. I'm interested in your opinion (you too, J)and having conversations and looking for solutions. You don't owe me a discussion, but if you're not interested in talking about the complexity of the problems and the multifaceted solutions/compromises/opinions, it's not worth it to keep trying to coax out a dialogue.

Give--thanks. I'm the same anon who lurks around here and your board, and we've had words occasionally, but I'm trying harder lately to seek to understand as well as be understood, as they say.

Annie.

[The Big Stink]

I have never been able to afford a private school education for my kids. And, I didn't want to work 60 hours/week to do so - and then, never see my kids. Your assessment we have a free market in education is talking points from the education cartel. You parrot the Left. Everytime we ask for competition, they say 'well, what about charter schools, home schooling and private schools?' Parents, the Left always argue, have a choice - if they're rich enough! Fact: Public education is a monopoly. Period. End of debate. If they were an oil company you would be the first to picket their offices. But, because public education is so noble, you seem to be willing to ignore they own 85% of the market. By any real definition that's a monopoly and it ought to be broken up.

Why is public education the exception to the rule?

[anonymous]

So it's really that simple?

A--end the unions.
B--issue vouchers.

Those two things will fix education in the US? "Period. End of debate."?

Annie

[The Big Stink]

You missed the point, Annie. Education is a monopoly. Breaking up the unions is the result of breaking the monopoly. Vouchers are one of the ways you break the monopoly. I could care less if a union gets broken up. What I care about is public monies being used efficiently.
If teacher's can get a better-than-average contract in the private sector, then that signals me that they're providing value.

Can you argue teacher's are providing a value-added service in light of the current economics? Can you argue fiscal discipline is being practiced in public schools? Then, why are so many gnashing their teeth at the black hole the money is being dumped into?

[J. Ewing]

"Your blithe insistance that the free market will sort it out is just where you and I fundamentally disagree.

If we're talking about something like lawn care, by all means, 100% capitalist. But our kids can't be our economic experiment."

I guess you could say we have irreconcilable differences. That difference is that I trust parents to do what is best for their children and you do not. I even trust YOU when you say that, if RAS cannot serve your needs, you will move [to a "better" school district]. Yes, we have school choice today, because those with the means can buy a house in a "better" district. Why do we prohibit those of limited means, who may need the education even more, from exercising that same choice? I think it's immoral that we do not.

We're not talking about some experiment, here. There are charter schools, home schools, parochial schools and private schools all over the country. We have voucher programs in several places. All of these "competitors" to the public schools do as well as the public schools, and in some cases are vastly superior. Many foreign nations, the ones kicking our talis in academic achievement, Belgium for example, are completely vouchered in that "the money follows the child." This whole conversation is, in my estimation, backwards. The question should not be whether competition will improve the schools, but why we should forbid parents from trying a competitive school. That is, we won't allow them to select something better, but neither will we listen when they tell us that their public school is failing. Again, it's immoral. If we're really interested in competing with worldwide competition, we have to be willing to allow competition in education.

[Give2Attain]

First, I would not picket a monopoly... I would buy stock.

Second, the public system is not a monopoly. It is more of an oligarchy.

Third, blame the free loaders for my hesitancy. I trust 80% of the parents. Its the 20% that concern me.

Fourth, I am pretty sure the Liberal Left finds me as frustrating as the Conservative Right...

Finally, speaking of parrots. What do BS and J. have in common with the far right conservatives... The good news is they will never be frustrated with you.

PS. Hi Annie, Say hi if we run into each other again.

[J. Ewing]

"Third, blame the free loaders for my hesitancy. I trust 80% of the parents. Its the 20% that concern me."

And who made you the arbiter of which parents should have the right to a better education for their children? Who made ANYONE the arbiter?

"Second, the public system is not a monopoly. It is more of an oligarchy."

Call it whatever you want, but when competition is stifled, we get shoddy products at excessive prices. If we were talking lawncare products, I wouldn't be so concerned, but it's our children, and our future. Do you really want that job run through the political patronage system?
[Side note: you mean "oligopoly"-- market control by a few-- not "oligarchy," which is total political control by a few elites. Hmmm, maybe you're right.]

"First, I would not picket a monopoly... I would buy stock."

Ah, but do you enjoy being FORCED to buy stock, never receiving a dividend, and being forced to sacrifice your first-(and second-, third-, etc.-)born as well? Do you believe the average North Junior High parent feels the same way?

[anonymous]

I'm interested in the Belgium model you mention, J. I've looked around a bit and can't find anything about Belgium, but I see them in use in Chile (probably not a system we should replicate), Ireland (which appears to be semi-public in how it's administered), and Sweden. Are there others? Some countries have funding based on the number of students enrolled, but that seems to be similar to what we have here, with open enrollment. Is that how you see it?

If anyone is interested, here's what I found a thought-provoking read on the Finland model I mentioned. I read this over a year ago and it's been rolling around in my head since then. For your consideration: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/comments/article/20081123/OPINION01/811230315/An-academic-star--Finland%5C-s-focus-on-education-translates-into-top-achievement/&s=d

And my suggestion for discussion still stands. Aside from vouchers, what would substantively improve public education in the US?

Annie

[Give2Attain]

J, Thanks for the correction. The word sounded wrong when I wrote it and I should have known better. However, you are right that both may apply in this situation.

The reality is that we live in a nation of rules that are meant to protect us from ourselves and each other. A man from Russia was shocked when he visited and I explained to him all the laws we had. (ie speed limits, tax law, education laws, abortion limits, gambling, adult entertainment, prostitution, drugs, etc, etc, etc) He had believed that a land of freedom meant a land without laws. I explained that strangely the laws gave us freedom in some areas by ensuring others were controlled at times. This of course made no sense to him.

I guess my point is that by choosing to live in this society, we have accepted and given approval for our elected representatives to be arbiters in many issues, including this one. And we have accepted that only by changing them can we change the system and laws.

The alternative of moving to a somewhat lawless country and returning to the rule of the gun does not appeal to me personally. Though I guess we would have lots of personal freedom and responsibility. (ie until someone with a bigger gun showed up)

And remember no one is forcing anyone to buy stock. It is advantageous, yet many folks of modest means that I know have found some way to put their kids in Private school or have chosen the home school option. Typically they are religious conservatives where the wife stays home.

[Give2Attain]

Annie,
Excellent link !!! Seems like something in there should apply. Though I'll beat J and BS to the punch line. The union will never allow it...

[The Big Stink]

Again, nothing changes until the voters concede the system is irrevocably broken. Whether or not education is dysfunctional isn't the debate. The debate is whether the legislature will continue to provide cover for the incompetency of the empire they have created.

[anonymous]

Stink, seriously.

Can we *please* talk without the virtual arm waving? I just do not accept that there is exactly one fix, and it's a program that's very nearly unproven, and we should implement it universally and then sit back and relax because it will all work out.

It's a complex, nuanced problem that encompasses poverty, geography, language and culture, standards and measurement, technology, and changing geopolitics. It will take many parents, teachers, administrators, and engaged citizens to address the problem.

I'm beginning to doubt that you really care about education all that much. You consistently refuse to talk about anything that's not loaded with fury and rhetoric.

There are a few people stubbornly tied to the status quo. There are a few like you entrenched in the one-solution camp. And there are the vast majority of us who want to make real, research-backed, substantive change based on best practices and pedagogy.

Annie

Oh, and do you have any reaction to the Finland model? If we could implement it here, with similar results, would you support it?