Quote:
Originally posted by tabs
The Teachers Union and State Employees Union don't want the reforms the Govenator wants. They are the largest political contributors to the Demoratic Party. Thay are using their power to stymie the Govenator.
|
So what gets better with these "education reform" props?
Arnold killed AB 996 basically because it did not improve a process already in place. It only added a financial burden on a group of people. Now that makes sense.
So what does his Prop 75 really do? All government employees may join the union or not. Each non-union member may object to the spending of fees collected from him for political purposes and then those fees cannot be used for political purposes. Union members can not opt out from the use of these fees in the same way. They have joined the union, so their method of dissent is by vote on the usage of the fees.
Prop 75 will require written consent each year from union members and non-union members for use of fess for political purposes. This will incur costs for consent forms and record keeping. So it adds costs, really does nothing for non-union members, and gives the option to union members to withhold fees if they don’t like the political decisions reached by consent of the majority of members.
So does this mean I can get Republican support for withholding of some of my taxes because I objected to this war we are in?
I especially like the description found on the CA GOP site.
“Prop. 75 PAYCHECK PROTECTION
Gives workers a choice in how their money is spent and stops public employee unions from automatically deducting money from workers paychecks”. What a load!
And Republicans are for less government intrusion and less taxes. This is more government intrusion resulting in increased government costs, potentially offset by revenues from fines, fees-taxes.
Good ole Republican hypocrisy at work.
How about Prop74?
First, it changes the probationary period for teachers from two to five years. Why would five years make anything better? The majority of states are at the two-three year range. Five years would put us with only two other states. The legislative analyst suggests that a school district could save money by using teachers for five years, and then replace them with new teachers at reduced cost. Eventually, you have no experienced tenured teachers, a constant hiring of new teachers, and reduced overall costs.
That makes education better? I don’t think so. I want experienced tenured teachers. I wanted all my children to have the benefit of the older experienced tenured teachers my oldest had.
Secondly, prop 74, makes minor adjustments to the process of firing teachers for poor performance. It removes a 90 day period currently given to employees to improve their performance. It eliminates the need to provide as much initial documentation identifying specific instances of unsatisfactory performance (beyond that included in bi-annual evaluations).
The effect of these changes would be to reduce requirements in the initial stages of the dismissal.
So there is some small fiscal benefit up front, which may be countered by increased appeals costs, etc.
Bottom line, I don’t see a real benefit. And I find it disingenuous for supporters of this prop to say “principals need the ability to remove non-performing teachers from the classroom”. BS! The process is already there.