Countdown to April 29 to PERMANENTLY close M. R. Reiter. Ask the board to see the 6 point plan.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

BCCT Mailbag

Here's a letter today from the BCCT taking a general look at "failed" education in Bucks County. This reads a lot like some of the opinions advanced by the stop the school NSNs. There's a lot of kvetching, but what's the plan? If I went to my boss with a lot of complaints but no plan, I'd be laughed out of his office and told, "Come back when you think you have a way to deal with it. Leaving a dead cat at my door doesn't help anything." The writer is stating facts, but to what end?

What about "failed"? Just the fact that you're reading this means the system succeeded. Can things be better? Absolutely. Does the American school system have all the answers? Absolutely not. Do we need to be more serious about our schools? That's a given. Take a look at the prime time TV lineup and the rest of the BCCT or any other newspaper to see what is important to Americans--living vicariously through others in scripted "reality" shows and maintaining the conspicuous consumerist lifestyle.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves ...


GUEST OPINION
Elect only those willing to reform a failed school system
By JOSEPH J. RYAN

Using data from the U.S. Department of Labor on household median earnings, Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder found “weekly pay for public school teachers in 2001 was about the same (within 10 percent) as for accountants, biological and life scientists, registered nurses, and editors and reporters.” Of seven professions Vedder compared, the only ones with higher weekly pay than teachers were lawyers and judges.

Vedder also found public school teachers and administrators receive a benefit agreement worth 26 percent of salary, a questionable determination. In Bristol Township, the benefit package is 33 percent of salary compared with average private sector benefit arrangements at 17 percent. The most conspicuous financial mistreatment of taxpayers is teachers’ excessive salaries, abuse of sick leave and disproportionate subsidization of their health care coverage and pension plan.

According to the Inquirer’s annual report on public schools, the top teacher salary in Bensalem in 2006-2007 was $96,593; Bristol Borough, $84,710; Bristol Township, $85,427; Centennial, $97,309; Central Bucks, $94,010; Council Rock, $98,548; Morrisville, $86,731; Neshaminy, $93,356; New Hope, $97,349; and Pennsbury, $90,782. Applying a 33 percent benefit cost to the top salary at Neshaminy, the total compensation was $124,163 or $3,104 per week. Using the original SAT scoring system, the combined 2006-2007 SAT score in Neshaminy was 911, 69 points below the 1963 national “average.”

In 1988, I witnessed the fiscally irresponsible Bristol Township school board’s decision to boost educator salaries in the district by 47.2 percent over five years, an increase of 9.4 percent per year while the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) held at 3.5 percent. This is an example of how educator salaries in this county have reached an unwarranted, disproportionate level compared to student academic achievement.

A glaring inconsistency with educator salaries and benefits is the educational background of many public school educators. Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, who has a master’s degree in education from Harvard, assessed teacher candidates: “Undergraduate education majors typically have lower SAT and ACT scores than other students, and those teachers who have the lowest scores are the most likely to remain in the profession.”

The name, the National Education Association, is a misnomer. The intent is to give the organization a professional connotation similar to that of the American Medical Association, while in fact, it is a trade union comparable to the Teamsters or the United Auto Workers. The NEA masquerades as a professional body intent on raising the quality of education, while resisting every attempt at public education reform.

Jeanne Allen, president of the Center for Public Education Reform said: “It used to be whatever teacher unions said went, but no more; they may be wealthy, but they are no longer impervious to attack.” For instance, teacher unions in both Hartford Conn., and Wilkinsburg, Pa., lost their fight to stop private firms from taking over the city schools.

A major contributing factor to student underachievement is automatic promotion. Currently, no matter how poorly a student performs, it is considered unfair to have the student repeat the year. Repeating the year is considered harmful to a student’s sense of self-worth. It is incomprehensible how a student can be intellectually self-satisfied if deficient in the basics. Yet another detrimental practice is guaranteed graduation. Regardless of performance, students can be sure they will graduate at the prescribed time.

Seventy-eight percent of America’s colleges and universities have initiated remedial study in reading, writing, or math, says Diane Ravitch, research professor at New York University. “It is fairly shocking, or should be, that 39 percent of all freshmen take a remedial course, particularly reading, when they enter advanced study.”

William J. Bennett, former U. S. secretary of education, has said, “In looking at the National Education Association you are looking at the absolute heart and soul of the Democratic Party.” Taxpayers should take Bennett’s statement literally. Both organizations reciprocate in electing Democratic Party candidates and resisting any attempt to reform a failed public education system.

Source: Peter Brimelow, “The Worm in the Apple”.
Joseph J. Ryan, Levittown, is a U.S. Marine Corps retiree, and former employee of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

7 comments:

Jon said...

How much do you want to bet that William J. Bennett would approve of this article?

Ken said...

It is an interesting opinion, and you (STS) make a valid point that there is a lot of complainning without a lot of solution. (Unless, of course, you infer the top two solutions this author seems to be making: Break up the union, and don't elect Democrats.)

In reading this opinion, I find some commonality with my personal thoughts. But I also take great exception in much of what is written, particularly in how the author has arrived at his opinion and his write-off of anything good in public education.

The author's first paragraph makes a reasoned analysis of salaries, and groups teachers with like professionals. (To what point, I don't know, nothing wrong here, unless he wishes to apply guilt by association, likening teachers to *gasp* LAWYERS.)

Then, in his second paragraph, after putting apples with apples, as it were, he compares benefit packages, and ranks teacher benefits at 26% and everyone else at 17%. Suddenly he is comparing apples to every other fruit in the fruit stand. The average private sector benefit percentage must be skewed by day laborers, bartenders and waitresses, grocery clerks, self employed handymen, etc. etc. This is a highly unfair comparrison. Try reporting on the average benefit percentage of the seven professional groups identified in the first paragraph.

Taking a right turn, the author (ignoring his own quote of 26%) applies the worst case scenario of Bristol Townships 33% to Neshaminy salaries as an argument. BAD LOGIC! (You get a D for the report.)

The author then goes on to berate the inequitable rise in salaries against the slower increase in student achievement. To some extent I agree with the author. Student performance is a partial reflection of the level of teaching done. However, I have yet to see a valid rubric showing how we can set salary levels based soley upon student achievement, particularly in light of the fact that there are so many additional factors that weigh in on student achievement; factors such as Administrative support, curriculum development, physical learning environment, parental and community support. When a reasonable means of evaluating the impact of all of these on student achievement is found, then I will support tying teacher salary into achievemnt. But be forewarned, when this happens, communities who's student achievement goes through the roof had best be prepared to pay those teachers proportionately!

Fredrick Hess' assesment is a throw-away and anecdotal at best.

The author's acknowledgement of automatic promotion and guarenteed graduation as contributors to under-achievement is spot on! In addition, the rules for participation in extra-curricular activities in many schools are far too lax and often ignored.

However, in all three cases, the current practices not only impact student achievement, but also the overall bottom line budget. Does the author realize that funding for public education in Pennsylvania is required for residents until the age of 21? That means a student can fail a grade for up to 4 times before we are no longer required to educate him/her. Imagine what that would do to the per pupil cost of education. Better to invest in pre-K and full day kindergarten than carry a 12th grader for five years.

More aggregious, in my opinion, is the common rule that a student can fail up to one class per term and still be a football player/cheerleader/swimmer/prom committee planner/choir member, etc.

Returning to the guest opinion: The author's closing paragraphs extend the problem outward, again, without answer. In citing higher education's remedial programs he over-looks three very important issues that this points to.

1.) The problem is national, not local. Address the problem at a national level!

2.) Higher education is apparently dredging for money if it's enrollment criteria is not screening out applicants who need remedial study.

3.) The citation does not blame public education. Unless there is supporting evidence, this problem exists also in private, parochial and home-schooled education as well. (Another D for pointing fingers without substantiation!)

And finally, while I respect William Bennett and much of his writings, to lay blame on a political party is a red herring. Things have not improved under eight years of Republican leadership (nationally), nor are they likely to change locally just because Republicans control school boards or state education agencies. This problem is non-partisan in both cause and effect.

Anonymous said...

The teachers' unions are certainly a big part of the problem. In any union shop, there is an adversarial situation by default. The unions fight for every advantage they can wring out of the employer. That is their job. Unfortunately, in this case, the kids are the bargaining chip, and with the "Think of the children" mentality, good sense is often thrown out the window in order to keep things moving along. If a teacher receives a bad evaluation, you can bet that the union will file a grievance, regardless of the validity of the evaluation. This leads to apathy in management. Every action they take will be countered by a union action. Once a concession is granted, it is almost impossible to take it back, regardless of the situation. So we now have guaranteed salary increases, fully funded benefits and retirement plans, extra funds for any activities outside the prep and classroom, and work rules designed to shield the teachers from any actions detrimental to their continued promotion, regardless of their performance. While the for-profit world struggles to balance their employee benefits with the market forces, the educational world is immunized by the ability to keep adding to the next contract while never conceding a single issue. Attempts to rein this in are met by strikes, and we all know how they are eventually settled, with the union membership getting their way, and getting paid for all the time they were on strike and not working. Once Pandora's box has been opened, it is impossible to stuff the contents back in, and we as taxpayers will continue to pay. Our only say in the process is electing the School Directors, but once they are seated, we again lose the control. The School Directors are hemmed in on all sides by teachers, parents, kids, citizens and the many rules, laws contracts and ever increasing unfunded mandates, not to mention the facilities needs, extra-curricular costs and the pressure to do what is demanded by all of the above. The point that the system is broken and needs to be rebuilt is valid. If we don't, it will just continue to get worse. Who has the intestinal fortitude to step up and break the cycle? Not one party or another, it will take the citizens to stand up and demand it from their elected leaders, loudly and continually until they act or are replaced with people who will, and this needs to start at the federal level. It's not a partisan issue, but one that affects us all. Public education needs to continue to be a centerpiece of our society, so we need to find ways to make it work.

Ken said...

If we agree that "organized Labor", as a machine that only cares about the benefits gained for its members, is a major contributing factor to skyrocketing costs, you still have to consider that this is not the ONLY problem plaguing public education. I would even go so far as to say it is not the MAJOR problem (even though I will concede that it is the most visible and easily criticized one).

Putting contracts and guaranteed salary increases and benefits packages aside, why don't we acknowledge those teachers (which I maintain are in the majority, not the minority) who go above and beyond to ensure quality education? We look at the problems and blame the whole. In my years of experience in Morrisville I could name many teachers that throw their life into their job, and deserve more respect from the taxpayer than they get.

As I said before, another major stumbling block to success is the impact of administrative support (and I include the school board in this). Each time the superintendant or principle turns over, the educational direction changes. Curriculum re-writes, courses dropped, programs of study changed. How can teachers maintain a clear, consistent forward momentum with all of this upheaval? Add to this State and Federal mandates that are great for show but have nothing relative to do with student achievement and I can see why unions dig in.

As for school directors, many times they actually make gains on teachers unions, but the taxpayer doesn't hear about it. Why? Because if the school board went around bragging about how they got this concession or reduced that cost to the district, the unions would come after them crying. I am aware of at least one time when major changes were made in benefits packages (much to the teacher's ire) which were not published for that very reason, yet saved the taxpayers many thousands of dollars. Additionally, I would look to the early retirement incentives offered by past boards. These encouraged higher paid teachers to leave early, thus saving the district more money than was spent in the corresponding salary increases. You have to look at the over-all picture, not just the bottom line of the salary table. A good bargaining committee will make balanced gains for the district, even though what you might only hear about are salary raises.

If we elect the people who are best able to balance all aspects of running a school district, not just those who promise tax savings, then we don't lose control. Ever.

Jon said...

Good stuff, borows and anonymous! We need more of this kind of reasoned discourse.

Anonymous said...

Borows, I concur that the union isn't what's ruining the education of the children. I also agree that most of the teachers are good employees who work hard. Why would they be any different than anyone in any other field? However, taking that same statement further, why should they, as a class of employees, be treated any differently than any other employees in different fields? Most of us are evaluated, and our prospering and promotion is contingent upon performance evaluations. Employer paid healthcare is a thing of the past for just about everyone, and yet every negotiation seems to hang up on trying to get the teachers' union to pay a share of the premiums. I also don't think the teachers' unions ever really think of the kids when in negotiations. Curriculum isn't a stumbling block to an agreement, but setting the class load for a teacher often is. They want less, the school wants more.

Back to your argument about the support, supers, principals and directors, causing major shifts in the teachers' jobs. I agree. It's a broken system that needs to be fixed, and it can't happen at the local level. There are too many state and federal barriers in the way. NCLB, with all its faults, changed education in one fell swoop. Like it or not, (and I don't), it's an example of the federal government making a change that made a difference (Whether a good or bad one is a big argument!). I am also critical of the early retirement plans. These create a bigger drain on an already bloated PSERs system. Why we still have these left-overs of a bygone era is a testament to the power of the unions. The rest of us are in 401Ks, IRAs, Roths and 403bs. Why do teachers and state employees still get the benefit of a pension? Who else do you know who gets paid for unused sick time? Who else gets a 12 month salary for a 9 month job? I don't begrudge the teachers a good living, but it should be commensurate with the rest of the community.

Now, if you want to discuss why kids don't learn, don't look at the schools, look at the families. It all starts at home.

Ken said...

"Now, if you want to discuss why kids don't learn, don't look at the schools, look at the families. It all starts at home.
"


AMEN!