How many californian's are fed up with this pant load from Arnie
 

SmileWavy

Every polician needs an individual or group to be the scapegoat. It takes the focus off the real issues.

Education is the last unreformed place in America. Talk to anyone in any other walk of life and how things have changed over the past 25 years. Does anyone do their job the same way they did just a few years ago. Times, they are a-changing fellows...

My $0.02 - pay teachers more. But bring benifits down to the same level as equally paid white collar professionals. I mean really, who gets 50% of their paycheck and full benifits for life after retirement? No wonder starting salaries are so low..

mikester, agree totally. I taught 7-8 for three years and everything you say is the way it is.

Arnold: the white knight who will turn into an ugly frog. Hopefully before Sen Hatch tries to get an amendment to let Arnold run for President.

As the husband of a teacher, I couldn't agree more. My wife was a remedial reading teacher and couldn't make any progress with some of the students because their parents would not reinforce her classroom work at home.

I'm not a big fan of throwing unlimited funds at education either, but maybe it would be best to kill most of the special programs and put the money back into the basic classroom?

The way I see it, when a student is doing poorly, it is a teacher's fault maybe 1/3 of the time. The other 2/3 of the time, it is the parents' fault.

Hum yes starting salaries are low and so are ending saleries. I would be making less than half if I had stayed a teacher. So 1/2/ of 1/2 is 1/4 and that is darn poor.
Starting salaries are poor, because that is what society is willing to pay and what teachers are willing to accept. Usually because the teacher is the second wage earner.

Everyone accepts that teachers do this more for the love of teaching than for the money. I remember Jerry Brown saying how I was being paid well becasue of the psychic dollars I was getting as a teacher. You know I just couldn't pay my taxes in psychic dollars.

I don't see how you can pin this on Arnold. My wife is a teacher (college prof) and I have done contracting with the CA state dept. of education in the finance area.

My view is that it's not the teachers, but the laberynthine funding model and totally incomprehensible "accountability measures" like No Child Left Behind that are keeping anything from changing. Oh, and the teacher's unions.

Categorical funding - state revenues get divied up into a bunch of categorical programs, some big, some small. Some are for things like "Special Education Programs," which most, if not all, see the benefit of. Others are for things like "promotion of understanding of the Floridian White Owl in K-8 economically depressed schools," which is a waste of money, pure and simple. Arnold is trying to consolidate a bunch of these programs into large pots of money that can be allocated at the superintendent (district) level. Good idea, no? I think it is. The unions don't. It might disrupt the balance of power. Education lobbyists would lose out big time.

Accountability - No Child Left Behind funding is determined on a district level, based on the district's previous-year performance. This is a national (not state) program. Does this make sense? How do schools improve over one year? They don't. There are fluctuations as cohorts of kids move through the system, and schools are rewarded/penalized because of it. This should be changed, but it's not Arnold's program.

Per-pupil funding - over $10,000 per child, per year. Is more money the answer? (EDIT - took out incorrect ranking information).

Bureaucracy - The state superintendent of education (Jack O'Connell) is an elected officer, which makes the Dept. Of Ed a non-consititional office (meaning that the Gov. can't just impose his will on it). BUT, the State school board, to which the supe reports, is appointed by...the Governor. Does this make sense? Infighting is the biggest output here.

Unions - Anytime you even think about trying to fire an incompetent teacher, the union will sue. This is a blanket policy without regard to the merits of the individual case. It's just standard operating procedure, because precedent is everything in these actions. Does this make sense?

The system's screwed up, no doubt about it. But I don't think you can lay it all at Arnold's feet. These are complicated problems, and I was only involved in the money side of things.

The scapegoat excuse doesn't work. Why would the Gov scapegoat the most powerful organized labor union in the state, knowing full well that he has no direct control over the school system? My view is that he really does want to make changes, but he is becoming mired in the system and flailing around. Good intentions, unmanageable state.

Sorry this is long and not spellchecked.

I recall that California is near the bottom in expenditure. I'll have to go dig that information up.

We are not blaming Arnold for any of this. But he is using the teachers as a scapegoat, and that is what is wrong. He billed himself as the fixer, but he is more like the villifier. Point at the teachers, and say that they are the problem. Disgusting.

Arnie in going after the Teachers is really going after the Union...

Teachers in themselves are not to blame...a teacher has to fight the parents and the school administration/bureaucracy....after awhile even the best teachers burn out and just start collecting their paychecks...

I agree, it has become too personal (both toward the teachers and toward the Governor. The Legislature, well, it's open season on them for a good reason :D). Like tabs says, the Gov. is going after the union, not the teachers personally.

The union affords a lot of protections to teachers, and I don't want to get into a debate about whether unionization is good or bad here. But the unions, in holding this power, also oppose any changes to the system that many (most) would see as progress. Their first priority, by definition, is not the kids, it's protecting their constituents.

Load of Bull # 1

"teachers are teaching more students"

Fact, it is shrinking and has been for decades

Number of students per teacher in public schools, 1955-2001


1955
26.9

1960
25.8

1965
24.7

1970
22.3

1971
22.3

1972
21.7

1973
21.3

1974
20.8

1975
20.4

1976
20.2

1977
19.7

1978
19.3

1979
19.1

1980
18.7

1981
18.8

1982
18.6

1983
18.4

1984
18.1

1985
17.9

1986
17.7

1987
17.6

1988
17.3

1989
17.2

1990
17.2

1991
17.3

1992
17.4

1993
17.4

1994
17.3

1995
17.3

1996
17.1

1997
16.8

1998
16.4

1999
16.1

2000
16.0

2001
15.1

Here's California.

California
1994 24.0
1995 24.0
1996 22.9
1997 21.6
1998 21.0
1999 21.0

That's exactly right.

Average daily teacher workload
1971 - 134 students taught per day (public secondary schools)



1996 - 97 students taught per day (public secondary schools)



National Education Association (1/29/03)

The "average" california teacher makes about $55k per year and they start around $35k per year.

Not huge money I agree but it's more than I make:)

SP: You are making pretty good money - and your talents and work have got you there. Compare teachers to lets say someone working in an insurance company office. The pay scales are comparable - and the benifits (including retirement) are not..

As for starting salaries, I dated a new NYC teacher, and she was brought in at low pay. Lower than reasonable. According to her this is - the union is controlled by the older teachers and that who who they look out for. The city cannot pay the retirement packages, healthcare bills AND pay decent starting salaries. (Not to mention pay differentials between physics and gym teachers..) The younger teachers realize change is coming, and they resent the older ones..

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship?

Supe:

Add this into the mix: Throwing more money at a problem without determining the root cause of the problem is folly.

Ask why charter schools and some private schools, with much lower per capita expenditures, have higher GPS and graduation rates.

Of course, the "public school system" must provide opportunities for the learning disabled and other disadvantaged groups, but even when these are taken out of the mix, one fact emerges: Kids attend charter and private schools because, in the main, the parents of these kids are most likely to be involved in the education process. My kids went, at my expense, to a private school. When they went off to college, they were amazed to find that the first year was quite easy since most of the subject matter had been covered in highschool!!

The key is not how much money is spent per student, but how effectively this money is spent.

Another point that should be brought up....

On top of the salaries teachers get a benefit package that would make a Teamster blush.

len, you don't live in CA, and I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but they don't match up with my local schools. So your point is that we should make classes bigger like they used to be so education will get better?