by David Safier
Ever since Reagan, the conservative mantra has been: First, starve government; Then, use lack of funding to kill social programs and weaken public sector unions.
"It's not that we want to do terrible things to poor people. We promise we won't shred the safety net. It's just that we don't have the money for these expensive programs. . . . Oops, we just shredded the safety net. We didn't mean to, but, well, it couldn't be helped. That's the way things go sometimes."
An economic disaster is a conservative's golden moment. Revenues dry up, and you really don't have enough money to fund social programs. It's the perfect excuse to shrink essential services, staff and salaries. And damage public sector unions.
So here we are, faced with huge cuts in education funding, meaning teacher layoffs nationwide. We have no choice, conservatives tell us. We can't afford all that money for education. And really, all we need to do is cut the top heavy school administrations (Did you know there's an "almost 1-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio"?) . . . . What's that? They're laying off teachers instead of cutting administrators? They made the wrong choice. They decided to maintain their huge administrative bureaucracy. There's nothing I can do.
Now look at that. The unions are making us get rid of our brightest young teachers instead of getting rid of some of that old, tenured deadwood.
See, the unions push this ridiculous notion that teachers who have been around for some time have a right to job security. So when we have to lay off teachers, we're forced to lay off these bright, shining young faces, the future of education.
Oh, and the unions hate poor children!
Since there are more young teachers in poverty schools, that means the layoffs will hit those schools and their students the hardest. And all because the unions won't let us lay off older teachers.
Oh, and the unions want larger class sizes!
Because we have to lay off one-and-a-half young teachers to keep a tenured teacher with a higher salary.
So if the unions would just let us fire old teachers, we could have more teachers — all those bright, young faces! — less disruption in poverty schools and lower class sizes.
The logic is inescapable as long as schools are being cut to the bone.
Unions should have seen this movement against seniority coming down the tracks long before the economic downturn. They should have admitted there is justification for culling out the least competent among older teachers and figured out a fair and just way to accomplish it by working together with school districts. But they didn't, to their discredit. And now, the unions are stuck taking the untenable position that we have to protect some teachers who shouldn't be protected and fire others who should stay. They're playing defense 24/7.
The fact is, for any number of very good reasons, the tenure system is a vital part of maintaining a quality public education system. It needs some modification, but the right wing wants to kill seniority completely, and teachers' unions along with it.
I just saw a Daily Show interview with a guy from the American Enterprise Institute. He said he doesn't mind private sector unions so much, but public sector unions are an economic disaster. Going after teachers' unions and other public sector unions is a fight conservatives have been waging for decades. And they're doing their best to use the downturn to break the back of the unions and further a non-union, privatization agenda.
Anyone who thinks the following is a reasonable question — Should we fire a bunch of older teachers instead of firing younger teachers? — is playing into the conservative agenda. If you agree with their agenda, play along. If you don't, be on your guard. Be aware of the way the questions are being framed, and the long term downside to what looks like a reasonable short term solution.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lezli wrote:
“Private sector Unions and Public Sector Unions pensions that are breaking the budgets year after year to the point its not about educating our kids, its about protecting the Teachers Unions that are failing our Kids and our Schools”
Please, somebody explain to me how these disparate ideas are connected, how one idea or proposition relates to another, or how one things leads to another. Connect the dots, please, because I can’t.
It was a strenuous exercise to make any sense of the above rant. Nonetheless, I’ll try to examine and analyze the above assertions, to see if they make any sense and thus deserve any respect.
First, teacher unions pensions don’t appear to be “breaking the budget.” Part of the teacher’s salary gets put into the State Retirement System, that money gets invested and disbursed to retirees. It seems to be a self-contained, self-sustaining, closed system that doesn’t cost taxpayers any money or break anybody’s budget.
Second,
“not about educating our kids, its about protecting the Teachers Unions”
I don’t know what this means. Do you mean somehow, someway, teachers show up to work at school at 7 in the morning and don’t actually teach kids, but spend their time rallying and protesting out on the streets or out on the playground, and fighting the powers-that-be like some sort of hippie protest back in the 1968? To think that any principal in existence would let teachers neglect their jobs in such a fashion and still collect their paycheck is to believe mice chase cats.
Third,
” the Teachers Unions that are failing our Kids and our Schools”
Evidence doesn’t support this assertion. Test scores are up, graduation rates are up, dropout rates are lower, more minorities are scoring well on state tests, SAT’s and more are attending college. No matter what criterion used to measure, public schools, students and their union teachers are doing a better job than ever before. Better than the 90’s, better than the 80’s, better than the 70’s.
You know what is not better, Lezli? Teacher pay. $31,000 a year for a teacher with a Master’s Degree in Marana? After 6 years experience, it’s $34,000. Lezli, that number is 10 grand below the median wage in Arizona. It’s not even competitive with a night manager’s salary at Applebees. Unions exist, in part, to help teachers negotiate higher salaries. It’s the American Way, Lezli. And it has historically served our working people and our middle class well.
I just dissected and analyzed a small part of your rant above, Lezli, and here is your score according to the state of Arizona’s six-trait writing standards rubric:
IDEAS: “2” – Your assertions are factually incorrect, unsupported, lacking any insight or connections, and betray overused, stale clichés often heard elsewhere.
ORGANIZATION: “2” – Lacks a clear organizing principle or easily discernible pattern. Does not help the reader understand main ideas.
SENTENCE FLUENCY: “4” – Fairly repetitive patterns, but is easy to read aloud and flows fairly smoothly.
VOICE: “5” – Strong, active voice that shows a lot of personality and effectively engages the reader.
WORD CHOICE: “3” – Relies too much on stale, over-used expressions that don’t enhance or clarify meaning, e.g., “Liberal Progressive Crap” and “have there heads up there butts and better wake up!” Occasional use of good, active, energizing verbs, e.g., “spout,” but these good moments are few and far between
CONVENTIONS: “4”- Needs minor editing, like an apostrophe in “its” when you mean “it is” and the incorrect use of “to” when you meant “too,” but correct capitalization and end of sentence punctuation makes this piece easy to read without any real distractions.
Just so you know, Lezli, good union teachers in middle schools and high schools teach kids how to write well enough to score straight “4’s” or even “5’s” all day long. In July, look at various districts’ AIMS scores and see how well our kids are scoring on AIMS writing tests.
Good schools, good teachers, good students, good unions. All day long, Lezli.