Wrong. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/president-we-need-more-teachers-reality-yoohoo-im-right-over-here-hellooo/
I agree with you in principle. The problem comes in when you look at the practicality of it. Where are we going to get the extra money? In many places, property values have been dropping, thus eroding the tax base. At the same time, goods and services are getting more expensive. It is a recipe for disaster. It is possible to shift money from things like athletics, theater and other extracirricular activities. That comes with its own problems. One thing we do know is that there is no more money. Things must change or these states will go broke. There is already a movement afoot to change the law to allow states to file for bankruptcy protection. That would have ripple effects throughout the bond markets. Not good. All of that being said, I am all for having better teachers. I believe that if you want to teach chemistry, you should be required to have a degree in chemistry. Having teachers that have not fully mastered their subject is, IMO, a large part of why we are getting our asses kicked in education, particularly in math and science.
I would love for us to spend more on public education, but not in a system where performance is currently so low and terminating people for low performance is so hard. Give the system a major overhaul that reflects the current times and i would fully support a massive increase in spending on it.
Again in most states there are thousands of teachers being laid off each year. That happens in other fields too, but it is hardly job security. Their pensions help compensate for the their below market salary.
Simply spending money isn't going to make the difference. Spending more money on the right things will make a huge difference. Having more and better training for teachers should be number one. Having more teachers to reduce class size should be number 2. Integrating technology is a huge cost but an important investment to make and should be number 3. Having additional support staff to help the teachers free up time to devote on lesson development, planning, and less time with copies, hunting down supplies, and all of that should be number 4. Focus the increase in educational spending in the right areas and you will see results.
Much of the issue with public employee compensation seems to be the pension benefits. Like with Social Security and Medicare, it seems a big part what's going on is that governments made "defined benefits"-type promises based on a lower life-expectancy calculation (and lower medical cost inflation calculation) than turned out to be the reality. This may be a legacy of the fact that those benefits were structured at a time when life expectancy was lower or may be caused by short-sighted legislatures/officials who tried to reduce current financial burdens (like salary) by trading them for burdens in the future. It's not a just a teacher issue. Mayor Bloomberg in New York is wrestling with the police and fireman's unions over pension benefits as well. He's not, as far as I know, politicizing the issue like Walker has done and is not facing the kind of massive protests that we are seeing in Madison. New York had a fiscal problem, and a fiscal solution is being discussed-- heatedly, too, but without the WI-like circus. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/02/09/pension-fight-heats-up-between-bloomberg-unions/ The nation, of course, has to deal with social security and medicare shorfalls in the coming years. In any case, we can debate pension and other benefits issues. We can also debate the merits of unions in either private or public sector. However, what Walker does in WI is not helpful to a productive discussion/debate and is not solving any problems.
Are there localities and states where teachers are not unionized? How do these schools perform compared to those in places like NY, Chicago and Wisconsin?
Those are great points. The Wisconsin unions have said they agree to the financial terms that Walker is asking for. Personally I wouldn't support these protests if this was about the unions staying with the status quo of their pay and benefits package. What is raising the ire the unions and those supporting them isn't so much that their benefits are being cut is that doing away with collective bargaining.
Losing their jobs for poor performance is one thing, but that isn't the only area of job security. STate budget shortfalls are causing thousands and thousands of teachers to be laid off. For the record CEO's run companies that lose huge chunks of money and yet are given millions of dollars in bonuses and stock options. They don't lose their jobs either, and if they do they are given huge severance packages.
And companies that continually pay bad employees too much go out of business. This is how the private sector works, not the public sector.
Apparently that doesn't apply to Wall Street. Also just to add to the LA Clippers, Detroit Lions and NY Knicks.
'A union member, a CEO, and a member of the Tea Party are sitting at table. In the middle of the table there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, looks at the Tea Partier and says,"Look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie.' thanks Mike!
I would love for us to devote more of our GDP to CEO compensation, but not in a system where performance is currently so low and terminating people for low performance is so hard.
