Loading ...
As a former East County educator, I struggled watching the rancor between districts and unions in Reynolds, Parkrose, and Gresham-Barlow this past spring during teacher contract negotiations. Having friends on both sides, it was challenging to see each district struggle to balance competing demands. Hopefully, in all three cases, the beginning of this year will afford enough respite to focus attention on academic tasks and rebuilding frayed relationships.
Yet, I think Oregon districts are going to continue to see flare-ups when it comes to teacher contract negotiations, partly because of the still stagnant economy, but also because of several other factors:
a) Short period of time between contract negotiations: Since negotiating the contract is no one’s day job, the sides often protract the discussions long past the expiration of the previous contract. With most districts operating under a three-year scheme, what this does in effect is stagger contract negotiations right on top of the other. There is scant time for any hostility to cool or for teacher-district relationships to be aided by collaborative ventures. I have been prompted, having seen this scenario played out a few times, to wonder why the state and districts don’t work to change contract lengths (recognizing this is not a small task) to avoid this scenario.
b) The use of “playbooks”: This past summer, when a superintendent and union president (separately) visited my classes, they each decried the other’s use of a “playbook” when bargaining. I can certainly understand the desire for having an operative strategy when starting negotiations, but in East County, bargaining was so guided by playbooks that months would pass with no movement by either side to move talks forward. Yet, in the end, the various districts sorted out their issues through thoughtful compromise. Arguably, any hostility could have been avoided had they arrived at that stage far earlier by not being led by a “general” strategy.
c) Ideological rhetoric: In almost every case, it seemed like issues not really part of the disputes were popping up and the teacher contract negotiations were becoming proxy fights. I do not believe that school board members should be working to “smash” unions, as that commentary only serves to aggravate tension and belies a purpose not designed to maximize academic results (but win a partisan battle). Likewise, for all my empathy for teachers, I think sometimes their PR strategy leaves a lot to be desired. Many of the struggling community members I spoke to simply didn’t understand how a job that provides a living wage and (excellent) benefits would have reason to strike.
Yet, even with these, the major issue in Oregon is that:
d) The state’s funding structure almost invites this: Ken Bucchi, a human resources director in the Oregon Trail School District, wrote one of the more thoughtful Op-Eds in The Oregonian last year about what’s sustaining the problem and what could be done to fix it. While I think that Mr. Bucchi’s proposal would need to be hashed out more than his Op-Ed space would allow, I would really like to see the state pursue ideas like Bucchi’s (it would have been great to see this done last year). Otherwise, we will continue to see these labor conflagrations that are ultimately damaging to our communities and the academic future of our students.
Thank you Shawn for another thought provoking piece. I have reduced the negotiation problems you describe to unions negotiating almost exclusively for the financial and working condition improvement of their membership (that is what unions do). School Boards are negotiating for the enhancement of the student experience. These two negotiating positions are in direct conflict with each other. The result is the promotion by the unions of the adversarial relationship, which is inherently negative.
Oregon has suffered during the last three decades by having a very strong unionized educational workforce which has been politically reinforced. The result has created a state with the shortest school year, among the largest class sizes and a backlog of deferred maintenance. At the same time, Oregon has hired fewer teachers at considerably higher compensation than most states. Oregon, which is in the lower half of states for affluence, has not been able to compensate teachers at the demanded high rate AND employee enough teachers to facilitate a better student experience.
Now, Oregon is in the economic bind (PERS and high compensation) that is coming full circle to bite those newly hired employees. This is the unanticipated result of the bargaining in previous decades. This situation was carefully locked in by the unions and now the “squeeze” is ironclad.
The negotiating situation will be getting more difficult. The required PERS obligations for districts will quite a hurdle. The numbers are huge, especially when payroll costs are about 80 percent of a district’s budget.
“The employer rates for Oregon’s Public Employees Retirement System are going up 5 percentage points next year, bringing individual payments to 21 percent of payroll, on average, and those rates probably won’t drop, according to data presented at Tuesday’s PERS board meeting.” “School districts pay a higher rate; their average will be about 26 percent in 2013.”
http://www.rgj.com/article/J0/20120829/NEWS/308290045/Higher-PERS-costs-expected-Oregon-public-employers-next-year?odyssey=mod_sectionstories
Kona, you got it all wrong. Surveys have shown that compensation is NOT one of teachers’ top concerns. They are much more focused on issues of prep time (to plan lessons, to collaborate with their colleagues, etc.), class size, wrap-around services (counseling, etc.), elective programs (music, PE, etc.), autonomy/decision-making, and the problems stemming from an overemphasis on standardized testing. Sure, they’d like their salaries to keep up with cost of living increases too, but it’s laughable to paint public educators as self-interested and unreasonable, because as a general rule they are the epitomy of selflessness. Follow the Chicago teachers’ union strike for a great example of teachers fighting for a better education for their students.
In case you aren’t aware, there is a movement underway to attack public unions, not for the better of the country, but for the profits of privatizers and profiteers who wish to turn public schools into private charters, who wish to abolish unions in order to hire lower-wage workers. Your claim of a”very strong unionized educational workforce” couldn’t be further from reality. A quick study of the history of unions will show you that they are at an all-time low in terms of their power and influence. Are you getting your information from Fox “News?”
Public school educators do not live the life of luxury, nor does their pension provide for such a life. Pensions are simply one of the last bastions of a middle class life that the wealthy want to blame for the economic mess that THEY caused – you know, remember Wall Street?
There is absolutely no shortage of money in this country. Instead of taking down teachers and the middle class, go to where the money has increasingly concentrated over the last 30 years: big corporations and the very wealthy. Teachers are some of the most dedicated workers I know, passionate about what is best for their children. Anyone who cannot see that has clearly swallowed the corporate koolaid.
1) Stephen, I do not have it “all wrong”. Have you ever been involved in negotiations (which is the topic here)?
You said, “They are much more focused on issues of prep time (to plan lessons, to collaborate with their colleagues, etc.), class size, wrap-around services (counseling, etc.), elective programs (music, PE, etc.), autonomy/decision-making, and the problems stemming from an overemphasis on standardized testing.” That sounds great, but it is far from realistic. Most of the things you mentioned center around the economics of K-12 education, which in Oregon are (and have been) union controlled. How are we doing?
2) You said, “it’s laughable to paint public educators as self-interested and unreasonable”. Many/most are not, but they very seldom speak up against the union that represents/controls them which is “self-interested and (often) unreasonable”.
3) You said, “In case you aren’t aware, there is a movement underway to attack public unions,…”. There is very good reason and it is why unions in the U.S. are at historic lows as a percentage of the workforce.
4) You said, “Your claim of a”very strong unionized educational workforce” couldn’t be further from reality. A quick study of the history of unions will show you that they are at an all-time low in terms of their power and influence. Are you getting your information from Fox “News”.
You are mixing two sets of data. Yes, unions are at an “all-time low”, but that is not correct about educational unions (and you should know that). Your remark about “Fox news” is not necessary, but I never watch “Fox News”, do you?
5) You said, “Public school educators do not live the life of luxury, nor does their pension provide for such a life”. I don’t understand the relevance of that statement. But, over half receive more in retirement than they did while teaching, and that is not affordable for Oregon K-12. Oregon “public school educators” have been compensated considerably higher than those in most other states for the last three decades. That has left Oregon with the shortest school year, large class sizes and a backlog of deferred maintenance. If you haven’t noticed our K-12 educational ratings have been uninspiring by most measures.
6) You said, “There is absolutely no shortage of money in this country. Instead of taking down teachers and the middle class, go to where the money has increasingly concentrated over the last 30 years: big corporations and the very wealthy. Teachers are some of the most dedicated workers I know, passionate about what is best for their children. Anyone who cannot see that has clearly swallowed the corporate koolaid”.
Yes, many (perhaps most) teachers “are some of the most dedicated workers”. No argument there. It would be difficult for you to trap me into saying negative things about teachers. I have two in my immediate family and several in my extended family.
Kona,
I’ve worked as an educator in public schools for 17 years now. 1) The teachers’ unions have bargained away so much in their efforts to continue to have a “seat at the table” that they have made themselves practically irrelevant. So I really don’t get your claim that the “economics of k-12 education is union-controlled.” There was a day, last seen in the 1970s, when the teacher’s union had power and wasn’t afraid to yield it. Those days are long gone.
2) I will not defend the union when it comes to its desire to play the game of politics. Union strength comes from struggle and strike, not bargaining and negotiating. Luckily, not all educators are afraid to speak up. There were plenty speaking up at last year’s OEA representative assembly, and I am part of a group of educators that has formed to push the union to return to its roots.
3) The reason that unions are under attack is because historically they are one of the few forces that have stood up against the ruling class and corporate power. They are responsible for child labor laws, for worker safety regulations, for the weekend and the 40 hour work week, etc. The ruling class hates unions and has been successfully destroying them for years. Also, Republicans have specifically targeted them because unions have been one of the larger donors to the Democratic party (although with the supreme court ruling on Citizens United, they cannot compete with this year’s super pacs for either party).
4) I AM speaking of educational unions. They ARE weak. OEA is incredibly weak. When was the last time OEA pushed for a statewide strike for anything? A walkout? Either I’m not understanding you, or you are misguided to claim that OEA is some kind of juggernaut to be reckoned with.
5) Teacher compensation is not what has left the state of Oregon and its schools in financial despair. You can trace the funding crisis back to the (anti) tax measures starting with Measure 5 in the early 1990s all the way to the economic crash brought on by the Wall Street bankers if you really want to find the cause. Blaming teacher salaries is just ridiculous. Like I said, have you seen the houses that teacher live in and the cars they drive? C-mon! You have family members who are teachers. Think they’re overpaid?
1) You said, ” The teachers’ unions have bargained away so much in their efforts to continue to have a “seat at the table” that they have made themselves practically irrelevant”.
That would be terrific if true.
2) You said, “Union strength comes from struggle and strike”.
I agree and that is nothing but a negative for education because their primary concern is self serving.
3) Your historic point has little relevance to this discussion.
4) You said, ” I AM speaking of educational unions. They ARE weak. OEA is incredibly weak.”
Again, that would be terrific if true. We (in Oregon) are paying a dreadful price (large class sizes, short school years and backlog of deferred maintenance) for the past dominance of educational unions in Oregon.
You said, “When was the last time OEA pushed for a statewide strike for anything?”
That would surely be a death knell for OEA. They clearly realize the stupidity of a statewide strike when Oregon teachers have been among the highest compensated (only five states higher in 2000-2001) in the U.S.
5) You said, “Teacher compensation is not what has left the state of Oregon and its schools in financial despair.”
I agree that “teacher compensation has not left the state of Oregon in “financial despair”. The relatively high Oregon K-12 teacher compensation has made a major (perhaps the greatest) impact on the ability to hire more teachers, lengthen the school year and reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance. At present there would be very few teacher layoffs if PERS costs were not so demanding.
You said, “You can trace the funding crisis back to the (anti) tax measures starting with Measure 5 in the early 1990s.”
That is simply not true. Oregon has spent more per student than the more affluent Washington in every year since the passage of Measure 5.
Kona,
The root of the major problems with our public schools comes from the ruling class, not the working class. The ruling class wants schools to turn out obedient workers who feel no empowerment to improve their working conditions or make demands for fairness and justice. The ruling class doesn’t want to pay any tax. The ruling class wants to profit off of the public education budget, through investments in private charter schools, testing companies, national curriculum, and technology.
If you want to continue blaming the teachers’ union, that is, of course, your right. But the teachers’ union is 99% teachers, supported by a relatively small number of staff. When you attack our union, you attack us, and we’re done being your scapegoat. Wisconsin was just the beginning. Now, watch Chicago.
Perhaps the weakest part of your argument is that you separate teachers’ needs and students’ needs. Nothing could be further from the truth: A teacher who is fairly compensated and is provided adequate material resources and has ample time to prepare and collaborate with colleagues and has a reasonably small class size and who has support from counselors and elective programs like music will provide students with the quality education they deserve. That’s what teachers and their unions are fighting for. They aren’t fighting for a CEO’s salary.
What exactly are you proposing? A pay cut for us wealthy teachers? Many of us have already agreed to have our salaries frozen and our benefits cut. How about a cut to our luxury-providing retirement pension? Is that your solution? Do your family members know about this – the ones who are teachers?
Like most teachers I know, I have devoted my life, yes, my life, to helping young people reach their full potential. The fact that you want to blame my modest salary and benefits for the struggles of our public school system is just plain insulting.
You said, “… the teachers’ union is 99% teachers, supported by a relatively small number of staff. When you attack our union, you attack us.”
So, you are suggesting that teachers and teacher’s unions are synonymous? That would be a sad state of affairs.
You said (quite a sentence), “Nothing could be further from the truth: A teacher who is fairly compensated and is provided adequate material resources and has ample time to prepare and collaborate with colleagues and has a reasonably small class size and who has support from counselors and elective programs like music will provide students with the quality education they deserve.”
Hard to disagree with that, except “fairly compensated” is a sticking point. Is it “fairly compensated” when Oregon K-12 teachers are compensated considerably more than most teachers in the U.S. resulting in fewer teachers hired (large class sizes)and the shortest of school years?
You asked, “What exactly are you proposing?” I am proposing that pay scales be reduced (or frozen) rather than reducing seat time for students. I am proposing more teachers to reduce class sizes. Oregon could freeze compensation for four years and still the compensation would be higher than the median or average state. Unfortunately, Oregon is not an average state in affluence.
Not sure where you got your info on Oregon teachers being so well-compensated. We’re a little below the national average: http://www.ehow.com/info_8062537_average-teacher-salary-portland.html Instead, I would propose a slight raising of taxes on the wealthy (making over $250,000) instead of cutting into our modest income ($50,000). Teachers (including their union representation) have consistently been willing to negotiate their salaries in exchange for better conditions for their students. How about this time we go where the real money is instead of taking it out of teachers’ pockets again?
Also, I’m not sure where you get your information on unions. Students perform the worst in the handful of states where teachers are NOT unionized. And students perform best in nations where ALL of the teachers ARE unionized.
1) There is considerable data concerning Oregon’s high compensation going back more than two decades. That historic high compensation is the reason Oregon is having the K-12 economic problems presently. Most of the data I have is directly from NEA (National Education Association Research). In Oregon John Tapogna’s ECONorthwest has done an excellent job of pointing out Oregon’s situation:
“…, Oregon employs (2001-02) relatively few staff, which implies salaries and benefits per staff member are above average. Oregon’s salaries average $42,453 per full time staff member, which ranked 14th nationally. Benefit expenditures total $17,684 per full-time staff member, which ranked 1st nationally and is 11 percent higher than second-place Wisconsin. Taken together, expenditures on total compensation package average $60,137 per full-time employee, which ranked 8th nationally.”
2) You said, “Teachers (including their union representation) have consistently been willing to negotiate their salaries in exchange for better conditions for their students.”
The data does not back up your statement. The union negotiates for the welfare of membership (that’s what unions do). Everything else is secondary.
3) You said, “Also, I’m not sure where you get your information on unions. Students perform the worst in the handful of states where teachers are NOT unionized. And students perform best in nations where ALL of the teachers ARE unionized.”
That correlation does not create cause.
I’ve held off on responding because it appears that this has been an intriguing back and forth that hasn’t required me (not sure it entirely does yet, either). However, a few notes (mainly as I observe the Chicago Strike and muse about it).
Firstly, the Chicago does demonstrate that the educators actually weren’t hung up about salary and compensation (in fact, in Gresham, for a local comparison, this issue was resolved first, but it was the item that took up the most space in the Blogosphere). The major sticking point there, if all the articles I’m reading are correct (unless someone from Chicago wants to comment) is that they are stuck over teacher evaluation. If I’m right again, the unions are typically nervous that evaluation is going to be tied to a measure like state-testing and the union will have little control over that particular aspect of a teacher’s career. To be fair, that is an economic driver (hiring and firing, essentially), but it isn’t the same as how much someone is paid. This website often talks about how teacher evaluation is the new direction in reform conversations, and while I don’t speak for any group, it (and not compensation) is the typical battle line nowadays.
Now I can understand why the unions don’t want to let go of that. To respect Stephen’s perspective, the unions are as powerful as they once were, and I think the efforts against them (this is the historian in me speaking) are an effort to wipe them out for good. There’s a good article that was on CNN (good for the history, not saying I agree) by a professor from Fordham about how our number of strikes has radically diminished from their heyday in the 1970s http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/10/opinion/rhomberg-unions-strikes/
I thus have a hard time, Kona, believing that the unions are the threat they are often painted to be. Having spoken to both OEA and PAT members privately in the past year, I think they are often more at the whims of government and business than we want to accept, and they do become an easy scapegoat. I heard a great story about our Governor and his particular ability to get the unions in line. In earnest, if we ever have that elusive coffee (still available at CU) I’ll regale you with the details.
I could argue that the demise of the unions is the means by which groups that have a stake in privatizing education (turning into even more of a for-profit industry) can further capitalize. Diane Ravitch often hints as much in most of her writing. And, to respond to Kona’s first comment, I don’t believe that School Boards are as benevolent as you’re making them out to be. Many board members have agendas and are supported by local business leaders and foundations with similar agendas and the agenda is not always the good of all students. I will not subscribe to the class warfare rhetoric that Stephen is more inclined to include, but to be honest, I can see the framework of that argument there.
I do get worried, Stephen, by this notion that the unions need to return to their roots. In earnest, I think they need to be more nimble. I think they have been looped by the districts and school boards and agents. They have not been professionalized enough and people like Nancy Hungerford, Inc. have plotted out ways to thwart them that they should have seen coming. I have always been surprised that unions don’t organize their chips different, take to PR more professionally, and attack people (cough, Betsy Hammond) who consistently damage their brand (like in today’s Oregonian).
In any case, fascinating discussion, folks. I did not get to every comment finite details (sorry) but I’m happy to join in from here on out.
Thank you Shawn, I do appreciate diverse opinions. The basic questions I have are:
1) How do you (or anyone) think that Oregon ended up with the 3rd or 4th largest class sizes in the U.S.?
2) How did Oregon end up with the shortest school year of all states?
3) Why has Oregon hired fewer teachers (per student population) than almost all other states?
4) Why has Oregon had among the highest compensated K-12 teachers for the last two decades?
5) Why does Oregon have such a great backlog of deferred maintenance?
6) Why has the education community strongly protested every reform of PERS during the last three decades?
7) Why has the education community demanded increases in compensation schedules while laying off newly hired teachers (while being among the highest compensated in the U.S.)?
It is not because of Measure 5. Oregon has spent more per student than almost all of the states west of the Mississippi River during the last three decades. I doubt that school boards have made the collective calculated decision to create large class sizes, short school years and a backlog of deferred maintenance.
The Chicago School district is in terrible condition because it has yielded to past union demands and continues to rollover into unsustainable financial conditions.
“CPS faces a $665 million deficit. Its proposed budget calls for a 2 percent raise (it is now up to 4 percent) for teachers, but that figure could grow during contract talks with the teachers union. The proposed budget drains $432 million in reserves.”
“In a release, Moody’s said other reasons for the lowered rating included the uncertainty over the teachers contract and the end of a pension holiday in 2014 that will leave the district facing $338 million in back pension payments.”
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-10/news/ct-met-cps-bond-rating-20120710_1_bond-rating-administrative-officer-tim-cawley-general-obligation
What the Chicago Board of Education is offering: a deal that would increase salaries 16% over four years. The average teacher salary in Chicago was $74,839 for the 2011-12 school year, according to the district. The total salary increase would equal $380 million over four years. That includes “modified step increases that both reward experience and provides better incentives for mid-career teachers to help keep them serving in the Chicago Public School system,”
“Key issues separating Chicago Public Schools and the Chicago Teachers Union:
SALARIES AND BENEFITS. The district offered 16 percent increase over four years and “modified step increases that both reward experience and provide better incentives for mid-career teachers.” The union said it’s closer on pay but is still concerned about rising health care costs and other benefits. Teachers sought a substantial raise in the contract’s first year because of the longer day and want to keep raises for experience.
JOB SECURITY. The union has pushed for a system to recall teachers who have been laid off when new openings occur. This has become important because of rumors the district plans to close up to 100 schools in coming years. The district says teachers displaced by school closings will be eligible for a job at new schools if there is a vacancy — or may elect to take a three-month severance.
TEACHER EVALUATIONS. The union wants to lower how much student performance contributes to evaluations. CPS has said the new evaluation system, created in collaboration with teachers, was negotiated and settled in March under state law.
Chicago Tribune, September 10, 2012.
Kona,
Your questions are full of untruths. I’ve already debunked #4. And your claim about per student spending can also easily be debunked with a simple google search – I found this one from the conservative Oregonian’s Betsy Hammond (no friend of public schools) – “Oregon’s New Normal: School Spending Consistently Trails the National Average.”
I’ve enjoyed the debate. But, I think you’re convinced (by corporate media) that the causes of our public education crisis are teachers’ unions, pensions, and salaries (hard not to roll my eyes on that last one). Your solutions are hardly imaginative and do little to conceal their corporate bias: union-busting and further shrinking of the middle class ranks.
If the trend continues, soon enough you will have your wish. No unions, no pensions, no liveable wage teaching jobs. (Maybe Social Security and Medicare too?) Then, perhaps, it will be the immigrants? You’ll need someone else to blame, because schools will be in far worse condition than they are now.
Here is an article from non-corporate media about what the CTU is actually striking about: (By the way, union busters passed laws severely limiting what a union can call a strike for – CTU had to claim they were striking for compensation because it’s against the law for them to strike over class sizes or mental health services or elective programs).
http://truth-out.org/news/item/11497-chicago-teachers-strike-for-fair-contract-but-really-for-better-schools
One last thing: I will never give up fighting for students. It’s what teachers do everyday. And THAT’s why they go into teaching. Sometimes, that fight will take the form of a strike. And when that happens, don’t forget to honk and wave. Even if we are the union.
1) You said, ” I’ve already debunked #4.” No you didn’t, try again. Furthermore, you didn’t/couldn’t answer any of the questions.
2) Over the last three decades Oregon’s per student spending has been much higher than the national average. Among the states west of the Mississippi, Oregon has been considerably higher than most states.
3) What is “corporate media”? You are getting a little paranoid in your thoughts.
4) You said, “Your solutions are hardly imaginative and do little to conceal their corporate bias: union-busting and further shrinking of the middle class ranks.”
Again, just a little bit paranoid aren’t you?
5) You said, “If the trend continues, soon enough you will have your wish. No unions, no pensions, no liveable wage teaching jobs. (Maybe Social Security and Medicare too?)”
That is not my “wish” so you can forget that one.
6) You said, “One last thing: I will never give up fighting for students.”
That is fine. How is Oregon doing? Keep fighting.
7) You said, “Sometimes, that fight will take the form of a strike.”
It is unfortunate that Oregon is one of the few states that allows teachers to strike. Students are the losers in every teacher strike and that is not “fighting for students”.
Are you suggesting that corporate media is fair and balanced? Wow. http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/09/10/nyt-gives-emanuels-side-on-chicago-strike/
To claim that the answer to our public education funding problem is to cut teacher compensation is just plain near-sighted. Public sector workers had nothing to do with the economic collapse or the anti-tax measures that were passed in Oregon. Would you go after police and firefighters’ compensation too? After all, the state of Oregon is facing a financial crisis, not just the schools. Maybe you’d like to make a proposal to cut the salaries of gas station attendants so that we can lower the price of gasoline?
Kona, a strike is a beautiful thing. It’s social justice in action. It’s the power of people coming together to fight against the monied establishment. Remember the original Boston tea party? That was a strike. There is no better way to teach our young people about rising up against injustice than through our actions – actions speak louder than words. When the CTU strike is over, we’ll see what the students say.
Read this for an accurate accounting of the CTU strike: (Warning: this is not corporate media)
http://truth-out.org/news/item/11529-a-tale-of-two-chicagos-teachers-protest-unequal-system
1) What is “corporate media”?
2) You said, “To claim that the answer to our public education funding problem is to cut teacher compensation is just plain near-sighted.”
I have never made that claim. Where did that thought originate?
3) You said, “Public sector workers had nothing to do with the economic collapse or the anti-tax measures that were passed in Oregon.”
I agree and have never suggested that.
4) You asked, “Would you go after police and firefighters’ compensation too?”
Only if it were excessive and was causing lack of service and creating a situation where police and firefighters were being laid off because of the excessive compensation.
5) You said, “After all, the state of Oregon is facing a financial crisis, not just the schools.”
I agree and that is a primary problem with PERS. It was set up and revised by vested influence without consideration that there would be economic downturns.
6) You asked, “Maybe you’d like to make a proposal to cut the salaries of gas station attendants so that we can lower the price of gasoline?”
No, why would that enter into the discussion?
7) You said, “Kona, a strike is a beautiful thing.”
I am glad you are in a very small minority in feeling that way. I also would hope that you really aren’t a teacher, but just trying to play one on this forum.
There is a real problem with the union stance when they have a major disagreement with Democratic stalwart Mayor Rahm Emanuel. That pretty much says it all.
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_media
2) “I am proposing that pay scales be reduced (or frozen)…” – Kona 9/10/2012 6:13pm And by the way, a teacher’s pension is part of compensation, so you are definitely in favor of cutting our compensation.
3) You are suggesting that the funding solution lies in the realm of public sector workers’ compensation. In contrast, I am suggesting that we raise taxes on the rich. Whose income has been soaring the last 30 years? Who has the money right now? Public sector workers or investment bankers and CEOs? Income and wealth inequality haven’t been this high in the US since the early 1930s. The rich keep getting richer and the rest of us have stagnating wages.
4) Tax the rich.
5) Tax the rich.
6) A silly example, I admit. Just an attempt to illustrate your narrow focus.
7) Martin Luther King Jr. supported strikes. He was in the minority too. I’m for real.
8) There is a real problem with the Rahm Emanuel’s stance when Paul Ryan agrees with him. That pretty much says it all. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/paul-ryan-on-chicago-teachers-strike-we-stand-with-mayor-rahm-emanuel/
1) Thank you. What is your problem with corporations? There are over 70,000 just in Oregon. What form of business ownership would you prefer?
2) The whole sentence, ” I am proposing that pay scales be reduced (or frozen) rather than reducing seat time for students.”
Oregon has been increasing pay scales and reducing seat time. That is not sustainable. It becomes an issue since Oregon teachers have been among the highest compensated during the last three decades.
3) You said, “You are suggesting that the funding solution lies in the realm of public sector workers’ compensation.”
Only when it is excessive given the market conditions. Oregon K-12 teacher compensation has been individually excessive and is a primary reason why Oregon K-12 education is economically suffering. Teachers are being laid off because of the excesses of PERS.
You said, “I am suggesting that we raise taxes on the rich.” That has been tried for the last few years in Oregon and that didn’t solve the problem. There aren’t enough “rich people” in Oregon to fill the gap.
You continually try to expand this Oregon problem outside of Oregon. The economics of K-12 education is an Oregon problem.
4) You said, “Tax the rich”. It has been tried in Oregon, didn’t help enough.
5) ibid.
6) It is a narrow focus and well deserved.
7) I am glad you are in a very small minority in feeling that way. I also would hope that you really aren’t a teacher, but just trying to play one on this forum.
From your suggested “corporate media” website (good information):
“Mayor Emanuel is right today in saying that this teacher’s union strike is unnecessary and wrong. We know that Rahm is not going to support our campaign, but on this issue and this day we stand with Mayor Rahm Emanuel.”
The questions:
1) How do you (or anyone) think that Oregon ended up with the 3rd or 4th largest class sizes in the U.S.?
2) How did Oregon end up with the shortest school year of all states?
3) Why has Oregon hired fewer teachers (per student population) than almost all other states?
4) Why has Oregon had among the highest compensated K-12 teachers for the last two decades?
5) Why does Oregon have such a great backlog of deferred maintenance?
6) Why has the education community strongly protested every reform of PERS during the last three decades?
7) Why has the education community demanded increases in compensation schedules while laying off newly hired teachers (while being among the highest compensated in the U.S.)?
It is not because of Measure 5. Oregon has spent more per student than almost all of the states west of the Mississippi River during the last three decades. I doubt that school boards have made the collective calculated decision to create large class sizes, short school years and a backlog of deferred maintenance.