I've read several articles on the Madison standoff. The general idea is that Republican Governor Scott Walker is demanding wage and benefit cuts and an end to the union's collective bargaining rights. As of this writing, the union bosses have given in to the cuts, but are holding out on the right to bargain collectively. Pro-union legislators have fled Madison in order to block a quorum of votes in the Senate. Schools have been closed, and there are physicians on the streets writing sick notes to excuse the absences of any teachers who might otherwise face disciplinary action. It is absolute lunacy.
Admittedly, my instinct is to side with Governor Walker, only because his propositions would supposedly translate to lower taxes for people who have no dealings with the public schools. But if I'm to be honest, the only groups I can sympathize with are the kids who are missing school and their parents. Everyone else is looking out for himself, and is using some sort of political mechanism to get what he wants. When government is embedded into the fabric of people's jobs and lives like this, clashes like those in Madison become inevitable. But take away the fiery rhetoric of both sides, and the only thing left is an embarrassing public political battle like any other.
The solution is not to curtail benefits or preserve collective bargaining, or anything else that either side in Madison (or Columbus or Trenton any other state capital) is fighting for. The solution is the privatization of education. By that, I do not mean setting up a voucher system or instituting charter schools with permission of the state or any other solution typically offered by politicians and pundits. I mean the total separation of school and state, where the government has no control over anything from salaries to certifications to curricula. This should done from preschool through the highest levels of post-graduate education.
Why? Because teaching is basically a government job, and everything about a public school is, at some level, regulated by government- including what is taught, who's allowed to teach, and how the workers are compensated. It's all funded by taxpayers, and the people calling the shots need only cater to enough voters to win the next election to stay in power. The only way to combat this type of political machinery is either to have it legally dismantled or to unionize against it. Unfortunately, we've taken the latter path, and so have transformed American education into a struggle between governments and organized labor. It is now a game of force against force, of strikes and budget crises, demands and concessions, protests, propaganda, and all other manner of poison fruit that hangs from the tree of politics.
Taking sides in a Wrong Versus Wrong battle is a waste of time. If we're to make any progress as a nation, we need markets in education. We need things like pay, faculty, staff, and curricula determined not by politicians, but by what people want. We do not need government dictates or corporate sponsorship to unions or taxpayer funds to create good schools. What we do need is a radical departure from the status quo; the liberty to experiment with education how we please in an environment unfettered to the greatest extent possible by government red tape. To talk of anything else is to ignore the root of the problem and as such will guarantee repeats of the Madison spectacle in the future.
The ideal transition from government control to private control would likely take decades, but it would be worth it to the generations of children that can be free of today's educational paradigms. Even though it's far beyond today's horizon, it's worthy of public debate- much more so than who should blink first in the contest between state governments and teacher unions. Our children deserve better.
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Last Night's Education Payoff
When the recession hit, the administration where I work (private school) confronted the whole staff and warned that we may be getting pay cuts- either those, or layoffs. It wasn't because someone messed up and ran the school into the ground financially, and it wasn't a result of mismanagement on our part. It was the result of forces beyond our control, and it was very simple: We're in trouble and if the money's not there, this is what will happen. No running to the government for favors. It's called living in reality.
Last night, a bankrupt Senate that can't balance a checkbook gave $26 billion to state governments that also can't balance a checkbook, $10 billion of which went for "teacher retention." Where did the money come from? They did what they always do; they kicked the can down the road. The money is supposedly coming from closing some corporate tax loophole and will, it is said, be paid back over ten years. This is called living in a fantasy, and it should bother a whole lot of people.
It is true that the money will prevent teacher layoffs, but that's only because public school wages do not operate in a market. They're mandated by contract between unions and government. This is where the corruption starts. The politicians join the unions in maintaining the Three Great Fictions: that American education is the best in the world, that student performance is a function of how much money is thrown at it, and that we would all be doomed without a government monopoly over the school system.
The Politicians
The primary skill of a politician is to get elected, and the primary skill of an incumbent is to get reelected. They like to have blocs of people they can count on for votes, so they steer money towards schools. It's a nice exchange; votes for money. Last night's bill was nothing more than a political bribe.
The Unions
The primary goal of the unions is their own survival. They get politicians votes in exchange for tax money, which they use to lavish teachers with good pay and unbelievable benefits. If the money stops coming, however, the house of cards collapses. To make sure that doesn't happen, they can get always get more funding in one of two ways: 1) Threatening politicians to withdraw their support for upcoming elections, and 2) selling the public their fake sob story about how, without wage hikes, the kids will suffer. Union bosses also get to look like the heroes when they distribute the cash to the teachers.
The Teachers
The teachers are the pawns in the unions' political game, and many of them know it. The ones who don't, however, seem to be under the impression that the union looks out for their best interests, and are happy to sell their vote for pay hikes. Those same teachers are the ones who believe their compensation is unfair. But the politics of union negotiations keeps teacher compensation above market (whether they recognize it or not), and many teachers will raise hell at the slightest hint of their earnings possibly getting pared back to something more in touch with fiscal reality.
The Public
In spite of how increased spending has produced little more than higher taxes and test scores that have been flatlining for the last forty years, somehow the public still believes The Three Fictions. There's probably nothing for which the average taxpayer is willing to open his wallet than education. There's almost no recognition of the fact that teaching is a highly political job and the fact that the public school system is little more than a perpetual motion machine of politics. The students graduate knowing exactly what the government wants them to know.
So what happens when the federal government, which has no idea whatsoever about how to deal with its own problems, showers the states with billions of dollars? If history is any indication, test scores will remain unaffected, the political grip on the system will be once more tightened, and taxes will go up (that bit about getting the money by closing a corporate tax loophole is an illusion- when taxes on businesses go up, the businesses simply raise their prices accordingly and we pay for it anyway). But the money will come from somewhere- if not from the municipalities, then from the state. If not from the state, then from the feds. If not from from the feds, then people start losing reelection. And nobody wants that.
Much of this sickens me. I'm angry at the democrats for passing the bill, I'm angry at the republicans for faking their outrage over something they would have favored if Bush were in the White House, and I'm angry that the people being taken advantage of have no idea what's going on and probably wouldn't believe it no matter how clearly it were spelled out to them. It bothers me when the bad guys win.
The solution is to dispel The Three Fictions and shake our faith in the government's ability to serve our interests through education. Hopefully, at least some of us will remember the true cost of last night's bill/payoff come November.
Last night, a bankrupt Senate that can't balance a checkbook gave $26 billion to state governments that also can't balance a checkbook, $10 billion of which went for "teacher retention." Where did the money come from? They did what they always do; they kicked the can down the road. The money is supposedly coming from closing some corporate tax loophole and will, it is said, be paid back over ten years. This is called living in a fantasy, and it should bother a whole lot of people.
It is true that the money will prevent teacher layoffs, but that's only because public school wages do not operate in a market. They're mandated by contract between unions and government. This is where the corruption starts. The politicians join the unions in maintaining the Three Great Fictions: that American education is the best in the world, that student performance is a function of how much money is thrown at it, and that we would all be doomed without a government monopoly over the school system.
The Politicians
The primary skill of a politician is to get elected, and the primary skill of an incumbent is to get reelected. They like to have blocs of people they can count on for votes, so they steer money towards schools. It's a nice exchange; votes for money. Last night's bill was nothing more than a political bribe.
The Unions
The primary goal of the unions is their own survival. They get politicians votes in exchange for tax money, which they use to lavish teachers with good pay and unbelievable benefits. If the money stops coming, however, the house of cards collapses. To make sure that doesn't happen, they can get always get more funding in one of two ways: 1) Threatening politicians to withdraw their support for upcoming elections, and 2) selling the public their fake sob story about how, without wage hikes, the kids will suffer. Union bosses also get to look like the heroes when they distribute the cash to the teachers.
The Teachers
The teachers are the pawns in the unions' political game, and many of them know it. The ones who don't, however, seem to be under the impression that the union looks out for their best interests, and are happy to sell their vote for pay hikes. Those same teachers are the ones who believe their compensation is unfair. But the politics of union negotiations keeps teacher compensation above market (whether they recognize it or not), and many teachers will raise hell at the slightest hint of their earnings possibly getting pared back to something more in touch with fiscal reality.
The Public
In spite of how increased spending has produced little more than higher taxes and test scores that have been flatlining for the last forty years, somehow the public still believes The Three Fictions. There's probably nothing for which the average taxpayer is willing to open his wallet than education. There's almost no recognition of the fact that teaching is a highly political job and the fact that the public school system is little more than a perpetual motion machine of politics. The students graduate knowing exactly what the government wants them to know.
So what happens when the federal government, which has no idea whatsoever about how to deal with its own problems, showers the states with billions of dollars? If history is any indication, test scores will remain unaffected, the political grip on the system will be once more tightened, and taxes will go up (that bit about getting the money by closing a corporate tax loophole is an illusion- when taxes on businesses go up, the businesses simply raise their prices accordingly and we pay for it anyway). But the money will come from somewhere- if not from the municipalities, then from the state. If not from the state, then from the feds. If not from from the feds, then people start losing reelection. And nobody wants that.
Much of this sickens me. I'm angry at the democrats for passing the bill, I'm angry at the republicans for faking their outrage over something they would have favored if Bush were in the White House, and I'm angry that the people being taken advantage of have no idea what's going on and probably wouldn't believe it no matter how clearly it were spelled out to them. It bothers me when the bad guys win.
The solution is to dispel The Three Fictions and shake our faith in the government's ability to serve our interests through education. Hopefully, at least some of us will remember the true cost of last night's bill/payoff come November.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Christie and the Schools
Ask a hundred people how they think a school should be run, and you’re likely to get a hundred different answers. Some parents want more counselors, some want a greater nursing staff, some want particular sports, some want co-curricular activities, some want salary cuts. Everyone assigns a different priority to all these things. Whatever gets cut, no matter how much, people are going to complain.
Parents pay taxes; they want what’s best for their kids; and (so far as I know) they’re more or less forced to send their kids to their local school. They want to milk it, and I don’t blame them. As long as they’re only paying a fraction of the cost involved in putting their kids through school, it’s understandable. I’m sure every parent would like to see her child’s school stuffed with well-educated and well-paid staff, and activities of every kind. Don’t we all?
Well, maybe not all of us. A taxpaying non-parent’s priorities are probably more like “getting my taxes lowered” than “paying for other people’s kids’ government schooling.” I know I’d rather keep the 40% of my property tax than fork it over to the government to be disposed of politically in the school system. Maybe it’s harsh, but it’s true. Public-educated kids are caught in a political crossfire between government, taxpayers, and unions. Everyone has a stake in getting what they want (everyone wants lower taxes; politicians want reelection; unions want power) and we all have to use political means to get it. It’s an unending political tug of war, and the primary casualties are the very people the system is supposed to work for: parents, students, and teachers.
The other week, I attended a board of education meeting. The board announced budget cuts and cutbacks on nursing staff and counseling staff. Many parents were angry over these things, and called for administrative cuts. There was a lot of yelling, finger-pointing, a few speeches, and little good news. It was like a highlight reel of everything that’s wrong with public education.
Since parents believe their children are entitled to an education the government believes it is its job to provide it (two very flawed premises, by the way), any mention of privatizing/deregulating education isn’t even on the table. But the governor wants to address a budget deficit. Wonderful. Since market solutions are unimaginable to most people, the popular alternatives are to [continue to] tax the rich or to cut funding to schools. For anyone who wants less government, the answer is obvious.
I don’t have any faith in the education bureaucracy being able to redistribute their remaining funding in a way that pleases everybody (as I said, everyone involved has her own idea of how it should be), so there will definitely be many losers after it’s all said and done, and the schools will suffer for it. All the more reason to remove the government from education completely. As a parent, do you really want your kid’s education to be so vulnerable to political waves like this? Should every public teacher in the state have to quake in her boots every time some politician sneezes?
No, but that’s the way it is. The problem here is not that Chris Christie is cutting school funding, it’s that some politician has the power to cut the funds to begin with. Put any special interest group in place of parents and the NJEA, and that group would vilify the governor and decry the cuts just as much (or to whatever extent its political power permitted). Wouldn’t you?
Even though I’m tacitly in Christie’s corner on this one, I recognize that that’s only because his position (so far) leans in the direction of less government, and that’s all I’m interested in. That's an important point. See, though I don’t think I should even have to be bothered with any of it, I still feel I have a stake in the outcome. Politics has a way of doing just that- taking people who ordinarily wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) give a damn and roping them in, forcing them to fight for the least offensive political exploitation of their money, time, and labor; things that shouldn’t be anyone else's to begin with. In fact, the more I hear about this battle, the more I think that neither Chris Christie nor the NJEA are any worse than the other. Maybe the budget cuts are neither good nor bad. Maybe they’re just political maneuvers like anything else, no matter how they’re portrayed to the public by the two warring sides.
The point is that this whole seemingly unsolvable mess is a natural and predictable consequence of the government’s presence in the field. Private school teachers (and parents, and students), on the other hand, are totally insulated from all this political warring. They look upon this and shake their heads, wondering why anyone would want to put up with that kind of garbage.
Then, they turn around and quietly return to work. The rest of the education establishment should be so lucky.
Parents pay taxes; they want what’s best for their kids; and (so far as I know) they’re more or less forced to send their kids to their local school. They want to milk it, and I don’t blame them. As long as they’re only paying a fraction of the cost involved in putting their kids through school, it’s understandable. I’m sure every parent would like to see her child’s school stuffed with well-educated and well-paid staff, and activities of every kind. Don’t we all?
Well, maybe not all of us. A taxpaying non-parent’s priorities are probably more like “getting my taxes lowered” than “paying for other people’s kids’ government schooling.” I know I’d rather keep the 40% of my property tax than fork it over to the government to be disposed of politically in the school system. Maybe it’s harsh, but it’s true. Public-educated kids are caught in a political crossfire between government, taxpayers, and unions. Everyone has a stake in getting what they want (everyone wants lower taxes; politicians want reelection; unions want power) and we all have to use political means to get it. It’s an unending political tug of war, and the primary casualties are the very people the system is supposed to work for: parents, students, and teachers.
The other week, I attended a board of education meeting. The board announced budget cuts and cutbacks on nursing staff and counseling staff. Many parents were angry over these things, and called for administrative cuts. There was a lot of yelling, finger-pointing, a few speeches, and little good news. It was like a highlight reel of everything that’s wrong with public education.
Since parents believe their children are entitled to an education the government believes it is its job to provide it (two very flawed premises, by the way), any mention of privatizing/deregulating education isn’t even on the table. But the governor wants to address a budget deficit. Wonderful. Since market solutions are unimaginable to most people, the popular alternatives are to [continue to] tax the rich or to cut funding to schools. For anyone who wants less government, the answer is obvious.
I don’t have any faith in the education bureaucracy being able to redistribute their remaining funding in a way that pleases everybody (as I said, everyone involved has her own idea of how it should be), so there will definitely be many losers after it’s all said and done, and the schools will suffer for it. All the more reason to remove the government from education completely. As a parent, do you really want your kid’s education to be so vulnerable to political waves like this? Should every public teacher in the state have to quake in her boots every time some politician sneezes?
No, but that’s the way it is. The problem here is not that Chris Christie is cutting school funding, it’s that some politician has the power to cut the funds to begin with. Put any special interest group in place of parents and the NJEA, and that group would vilify the governor and decry the cuts just as much (or to whatever extent its political power permitted). Wouldn’t you?
Even though I’m tacitly in Christie’s corner on this one, I recognize that that’s only because his position (so far) leans in the direction of less government, and that’s all I’m interested in. That's an important point. See, though I don’t think I should even have to be bothered with any of it, I still feel I have a stake in the outcome. Politics has a way of doing just that- taking people who ordinarily wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) give a damn and roping them in, forcing them to fight for the least offensive political exploitation of their money, time, and labor; things that shouldn’t be anyone else's to begin with. In fact, the more I hear about this battle, the more I think that neither Chris Christie nor the NJEA are any worse than the other. Maybe the budget cuts are neither good nor bad. Maybe they’re just political maneuvers like anything else, no matter how they’re portrayed to the public by the two warring sides.
The point is that this whole seemingly unsolvable mess is a natural and predictable consequence of the government’s presence in the field. Private school teachers (and parents, and students), on the other hand, are totally insulated from all this political warring. They look upon this and shake their heads, wondering why anyone would want to put up with that kind of garbage.
Then, they turn around and quietly return to work. The rest of the education establishment should be so lucky.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Pay Them What They're Worth
Background Information: I am a teacher at a relatively affluent private high school. I am not tenured (tenure isn’t offered to us), and I don’t belong to a union. I have a private retirement account. I do not hold an education degree, nor do I hold any state certification. This is my seventh year as a teacher, and my seventh at my current school. My pay is immaterial, because every dollar I get has been paid to me along a chain of people who gave it up willingly (as opposed to through taxation).
I take the position that the government should not be in the business of education. Everyone who works in the federal Department of Education should lose his job, and any real estate currently held by the federal DOE should be sold off to the public. I don’t think many people would even notice the change. Then, the people can begin to reclaim their power over education from the state government, just as the states reclaimed it from the federal government. I can see this taking a long time to accomplish, but it’s a goal worth pursuing.
Teacher Pay
Many people claim teachers are grossly overpaid, and many teachers believe that they’re grossly underpaid. Teaching has many more variables than the average job: teacher ability, years of experience, education level, number of classes, number of courses, types of courses, number of students, types of students, etc.. A teacher’s salary should depend on all of these things, some of which are pretty subjective. It is impossible for any political institution to give it this kind of tailored approach. Teachers are paid closest to what they’re worth in the private sector- where salaries are determined by a market, rather than politics.
Every single thing about our public schools is politicized, A to Z. Be it teacher salaries, when to get tenure, how many hours to work, issues with merit-based pay, pensions, shutting down “failing schools”, the curriculum, what courses to include, who gets the best parking spot, you name it. This is because public education is a government job (I once had a public school teacher brag about this to me). Because everybody’s taxes are on the line, everybody wants things their way. Frustrated by trying to cater to everyone, it should be no surprise that only a few people involved really have their needs met.
With regards to how much a teacher should make, I have a better question: who should decide how much they make? Should it be the relatively small group of people who own and operate the school on their own terms (whose customers are willing to pay for)? Or should it be the government? Teachers throwing a coup over a pay freeze is a natural consequence of government-run education. The politics of education necessitates having a teacher’s union as a way to mitigate political maltreatment and favoritism. They’re combating the force of government with their own force. Now, the government is again trying to respond with force. This is the way politics and power games work. Who knows what the next move will be?
Of course, that’s not how it works in the real world. In the real world, when the boss tells you your pay is getting frozen, you either accept it or you quit and find a better position. You can’t get together with your buddies to force everybody to play the game the way you want it played. It’s sad to see educators reduced to just another special interest group fighting for its piece of the government’s power. They’re likely to say (and truly believe) they’re fighting for what’s fair, but the truth is that without some sort of reference point, nobody in this situation can say what is and isn’t fair. If all that stood in the way of a pay hike for me was threatening a strike or a little lobbying, I could probably fool myself into thinking I was fighting for fairness, too. But being outside the system, I know better.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any of this leading to a discussion of the real problem: how to release American education from an endless political tug-of-war. This soap opera will continue and all we’ll have to show for it in the end will be higher taxes. The argument for less government in education should be championed by every teacher who knows she's worth her compensation (and more). It is the only way to ensure that good teachers get paid what they're worth. Is is also the only way to destroy the black hole for taxpayer money that is a bad teacher's tenure and pension.
I take the position that the government should not be in the business of education. Everyone who works in the federal Department of Education should lose his job, and any real estate currently held by the federal DOE should be sold off to the public. I don’t think many people would even notice the change. Then, the people can begin to reclaim their power over education from the state government, just as the states reclaimed it from the federal government. I can see this taking a long time to accomplish, but it’s a goal worth pursuing.
Teacher Pay
Many people claim teachers are grossly overpaid, and many teachers believe that they’re grossly underpaid. Teaching has many more variables than the average job: teacher ability, years of experience, education level, number of classes, number of courses, types of courses, number of students, types of students, etc.. A teacher’s salary should depend on all of these things, some of which are pretty subjective. It is impossible for any political institution to give it this kind of tailored approach. Teachers are paid closest to what they’re worth in the private sector- where salaries are determined by a market, rather than politics.
Every single thing about our public schools is politicized, A to Z. Be it teacher salaries, when to get tenure, how many hours to work, issues with merit-based pay, pensions, shutting down “failing schools”, the curriculum, what courses to include, who gets the best parking spot, you name it. This is because public education is a government job (I once had a public school teacher brag about this to me). Because everybody’s taxes are on the line, everybody wants things their way. Frustrated by trying to cater to everyone, it should be no surprise that only a few people involved really have their needs met.
With regards to how much a teacher should make, I have a better question: who should decide how much they make? Should it be the relatively small group of people who own and operate the school on their own terms (whose customers are willing to pay for)? Or should it be the government? Teachers throwing a coup over a pay freeze is a natural consequence of government-run education. The politics of education necessitates having a teacher’s union as a way to mitigate political maltreatment and favoritism. They’re combating the force of government with their own force. Now, the government is again trying to respond with force. This is the way politics and power games work. Who knows what the next move will be?
Of course, that’s not how it works in the real world. In the real world, when the boss tells you your pay is getting frozen, you either accept it or you quit and find a better position. You can’t get together with your buddies to force everybody to play the game the way you want it played. It’s sad to see educators reduced to just another special interest group fighting for its piece of the government’s power. They’re likely to say (and truly believe) they’re fighting for what’s fair, but the truth is that without some sort of reference point, nobody in this situation can say what is and isn’t fair. If all that stood in the way of a pay hike for me was threatening a strike or a little lobbying, I could probably fool myself into thinking I was fighting for fairness, too. But being outside the system, I know better.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any of this leading to a discussion of the real problem: how to release American education from an endless political tug-of-war. This soap opera will continue and all we’ll have to show for it in the end will be higher taxes. The argument for less government in education should be championed by every teacher who knows she's worth her compensation (and more). It is the only way to ensure that good teachers get paid what they're worth. Is is also the only way to destroy the black hole for taxpayer money that is a bad teacher's tenure and pension.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)