Loading ...
There were tears in the hall again today. No, I don’t mean a child was crying. It was a teacher.
Many teachers have been laid off from their positions for next year. It is a hard time in the year already. It’s the time when we teachers have to say good-bye to the kids we’ve come to know and love, and for some of us, it’s time to say good-bye to the profession that we have extensively trained to do, and one that we feel is meaningful and important.
Unlike the business world, our customers have not disappeared. They need us more than ever. Many more kids take home food for the weekends. Many more kids come to school with learning delays and unstable situations at home. Our schools need to ramp up, but instead we are under attack.
I hear all the talk about how we need to change the system. Meanwhile, the funding is held hostage—no one wants to pay for the children. It’s funny, because in houses across the country and world, kids bring in no income and yet families will go to great sacrifices for their children. But as a society, we can’t seem to do that for the education of our children. We teachers generate no money and yet we “feed” children. We feed them knowledge, feed their self-esteem, and in doing so, we feed society. Yet, society is starving us.
We’ve all heard the talk about how teachers’ unions protect bad teachers. This talk is generating the lowest morale in the profession since I started 20 years ago. It is true there are downtrodden teachers with no time for self-reflection, and there are teachers with outdated practices, but there are very few truly poor teachers. The very idea that a bad teacher could invoke such ire speaks to the very importance of teachers. No one ever talks about the bad mail carrier or the bad fry cook. Ironically, we’ve refused to adequately fund our future based on the very idea that there are a few bad teachers, thus ensuring that there will be more ineffective teachers.
There’s a lot of talk about bills in the Oregon legislature that can transform education in Oregon—bills about mandating Oregon history lessons, appointing the state superintendent, requiring full day Kindergarten and a myriad of other ideas. These are merely icing on a crumbling cake. I admire their attempts, and some of the ideas I would jump on—but not now. With the current anti-tax mindset in this country, times are going to be very tough on educators across the country for years to come. We will be in survival mode only. We will have little time, energy and certainly no money for trying new strategies. Some feel that this crisis will force change, but I think it will only generate a bunker mentality. The increase in our teaching load will mean many extra hours planning differentiated lessons, grading, and merely trying to manage more kids in a class.
How do I know? I started teaching in California about 15 years after the implementation of Prop 13, a property tax cap similar to Oregon’s Measure 5. It is approximately 20 years after Measure 5, and I see the shrinking funding dooming the public schools in this state just as it dismantled a stellar system in California.
Teaching in California, I had 36 kids in my 5th grade. I had no prep period. I did yard duty at recess. We had no music program and no PE teacher. It was bare bones. I saw quality educators who worried about results and who pushed themselves hard to be great educators leave the profession. I predict that it will happen here. Increases in class sizes combined with the stress of making sure that every kid makes benchmark will be too much for truly dedicated teachers.
Any legislative or reform talk that does not first address a means in which to adequately fund education is a waste of breath. Put the kids and teachers first, and then we can truly work together to provide quality education for every child in Oregon.
Ruth, I think your comments are interesting. In our district the teachers (union) have negotiated for the maximum number of layoffs to protect the compensation increases for the remaining teachers. There were teacher letters to the union, there were teacher letters to the district saying that they disagreed with the union stance. In the end the negotiated contract will cost the district more than $2 million more than the previous year and there will be layoffs in all categories. The students are the losers for this additional compensation. There will be shorter school years, larger class sizes and more deferred maintenance.
Oregon has historically supported K-12 education very well. Even at this time Oregon’s ranking for per pupil K-12 spending (27th) is considerably above the affluence (30th) of our citizens. This has been the case for the last two decades.
We are on a diverging path for education support. Personnel costs continue to increase while available revenue is relatively stagnant. Until Oregon finds ways to increase revenue in the private sector we will not find satisfying solutions in education.
An additional comment about Measure 5. It seems like everyone in Oregon education has received the memo to make Measure 5 the bogeyman. Is there an implied suggestion by the education community that we need to increase property taxes? There is a real struggle for a significant part of the population to hold onto their homes now. An increase in property tax would exacerbate this problem.
One additional comment about the Measure 5 hype is that Oregon has spent more per pupil on K-12 education than our more affluent neighbor (Washington) in EVERY year since the passage of Measure 5. Oregon teachers have been compensated more than Washington teachers in EVERY year since the passage of Measure 5.
Ruth, you have given so much “food for thought”.
1) You said, “we’ve refused to adequately fund our future based on the very idea that there are a few bad teachers…”. I have never heard that reason from anyone.
2) You said, “no one wants to pay for the children”. I don’t think that is true, but it sounds good. Each decade in Oregon and the U.S. we have paid considerably more than the previous decade. The problem is our public sector has branched out and has taken on more responsibilities in society.
3) You said, “Put the kids and teachers first,…”. Perhaps we should abbreviate that to “put the kids first”.
4) You said, “Increases in class sizes combined with the stress of making sure that every kid makes benchmark will be too much for truly dedicated teachers.”
In our district that was the trade off in negotiations. The trade off was more teachers and refuse compensation increases OR fewer teachers (larger class sizes and more stress) in exchange for maximum protection of compensation levels.
5) The public sector employer obligations for PERS are decimating public sector/district budgets across Oregon. This is a problem recognized by almost everyone. It has festered for two decades. Yet, the education establishment/teachers has/have railed against Measure 5, but has been noticeably silent for the last two decades concerning this problem with PERS. To the contrary, the education participants/unions have supported every increase of these obligations which are obviously detrimental “for the kids”. The numbers are staggering in their negative influence on Oregon education.
What I really wanted to get across to everyone is the negative effect of unstable funding. When Measure 5 was enacted, with it went the understanding that a sales tax would be implemented to stabilize possible funding fluctuations. I understand that no one wants to pay more in taxes, but our system in Oregon doesn’t help education reform when districts cannot count on a stable amount of funding. Programs that are started one year can simply disappear the next. This is demoralizing to all involved. I also think that in order to have highly qualified teachers, which is what research shows is the best bang for the buck, there needs to be competitive pay and secure retirement packages. Quality teachers are what is best for kids and that’s why I stand by, “Put kids and teachers first.”
I think you will find that Oregon is not much different than most states and historically we have done better than most states funding K-12.
You said, “I also think that in order to have highly qualified teachers, which is what research shows is the best bang for the buck, there needs to be competitive pay and secure retirement packages.”
Oregon has both “competitive pay and secure retirement packages”. Oregon has compensated teachers considerably higher than the median state in every year since Measure 5 and has one of the most generous retirement packages for teachers in the U.S. That is commendable for a state generally considered in the lower half of states for affluence.
It is difficult/impossible to have stable funding for education when revenues to the state vary widely from year to year. The teachers in our district have historically negotiated for the spending down of carryover assets which creates instability. We have always had unstable funding in about every sector of public and private employers. Many, perhaps most, families have unstable funding, especially in difficult economic times.
Ruth,
While I found your post interesting, what if I were to tell you that the dollars we spend on education has precious little to do with “education success?” I know that there are truly schools that are “under-funded” but the reality is that we have spent increasing numbers of dollars over the past 40 years, yet have had little school improvement to show for it. There’s a bigger problem that no one really wants to address — that of HOW the money is being utilized and that has a direct impact on teachers, too.
The reality is that we are losing an inordinate amount of time (which translates also to $$) on dealing with disruptive and unproductive classrooms. When studies show that, on average, 20/30/40% or more of teachers’ time is spent managing classroom behavior and discipline, this results in a loss of hundreds of billions of dollars to the education system nationwide EACH year. Imagine if we could (and we can) put even half of that back into the education system. We wouldn’t HAVE to layoff so many teachers, and frankly, significantly fewer teachers would bail out of teaching, too.
In my blog I examine many of these issues, but you might be particularly interested in this analysis: http://socialsmarts.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/raising-the-quality-of-education-doesnt-require-more-dollars/
I also have just recently released a research paper on the topic of the impact of inadequate social skills development on classroon productivity: http://www.socialsmarts.com/improving_classroom_efficiency.cfm
I welcome you to visit either or both links and share your views.
- Corinne Gregory
http://www.corinnegregory.com
http://www.socialsmarts.com
Dear Kona,
What is your profession and how would you and your colleagues feel about a nationwide movement to reduce your pay, reduce your health benefits, limit your retirement benefits and at the same time increase your work load by 25-35% Oh yes…and then determine your future pay and job security based solely on the results of your clients’ lifestyles, families and decisions?
The problem IS systemic…and complicated. How schools are funded is the issue. A tax cap will not resolve that….Nor will reducing teacher salaries and benefits, high-stakes testing,nor increased state mandates. I appreciate your analytical mind, but please remember that education is not about data analysis. It is about the hearts, minds and souls of the country and its future.
This is an interesting comment in Susan Nielsen’s piece in the Oregonian (06-05-2011). Over the last two decades, teachers and educational unions have been actively supporting all of these PERS measures that have thrown economic roadblocks in front of K-12 education. There has been a concerted effort to maximize benefits despite the negative influence on Oregon K-12 education. Why would anyone be surprised that Oregon has among the largest class sizes of all states and among the shortest school years of all states?
“Oregon districts will be forced to spend an additional $400 million on state and local pension contributions in the next biennium, according to PERS. That’s more than double the current obligation — and the number doesn’t actually include all projected retirement costs.
It’s the equivalent of a $400 million cut to the classroom, and it’s helping trigger all of those painful layoffs and lost days. Yet the conversations about PERS remain mostly tentative.”
Laurie, thank you for your comments and questions.
1) You asked, “how would you and your colleagues feel about a nationwide movement to reduce your pay, reduce your health benefits, limit your retirement benefits and at the same time increase your work load by 25-35%”.
I have teachers in my immediate family and many in my extended family. I am not sure I understand your straw-man question. It doesn’t appear relevant.
2) You added, “then determine your future pay and job security based solely on the results of your clients’ lifestyles, families and decisions?”.
That situation happens routinely in almost every phase of our economy. Customer’s ability to pay greatly (perhaps entirely) affects “lifestyles, families and decisions” in both the public sector and private sector operations.
3) You said, “please remember that education is not about data analysis”.
That comment is surprising. From a personal viewpoint I would have to disagree. From my first grade until my last college experience, education was about “data analysis”. I would also comfortably suggest that education is very much about “data analysis”. The best suggestion I have is that more quantitative analysis needs to take place. Often in education, the emphasis is on qualitative analysis with some disregard for strict quantitative analysis. We then discover economic problems too late.
Kona, the three questions you address are all relevant. Teachers are under attack in a nationwide movement. You need to do more reading if you don’t get this. Using a standardized testing system which doesn’t fit anyone’s classroom or students as a means of evaluation isn’t used in hardly any phase of the economy let alone routinely. And education is not about taking generalized data (which is what is in question here) and responding to it. It is about responding to the children themselves. The best teachers I know believe this.
Fine, if you want to say that money is not the problem. I can agree with that under a lot of circumstances. But you are missing how the schools really work and the problems we have created in our educational system by the reform movement and our approach to educating poor kids in the last ten or twenty years and what it is really like to teach in those schools.
Thanks Steve,
I apologize that I can’t follow your line of thought in your first paragraph. I understand the positions concerning standardized testing. I didn’t realize that was part of this discussion.
You said, “Fine, if you want to say that money is not the problem”.
I certainly don’t want to say that money is not the problem. I have continually said that money is a problem and more importantly, it is important how the money is allocated. Oregon has done a very poor job in the allocation of education revenue.
You said, “But you are missing how the schools really work and the problems we have created in our educational system by the reform movement and our approach to educating poor kids in the last ten or twenty years and what it is really like to teach in those schools.”
I would be very interested if you could fill me in on what I am “missing”. I am more than a casual observer.