I have to admit, I haven’t written too much about the breakdown in negotiations between the Teacher’s Union (AEA) and the School District mostly because it was all just so messy and frustrating that to dig deeper would just end up giving me an ulcer. Plus, there are people that I genuinely respect on both sides of the debate so it was tough to take “sides” in the whole mess.
It was with that frame of mind that I watched Tuesday night’s School Board meeting, which I really wish was online (hint hint). Even though the issue of the negotiations was not on the agenda, some teachers opted to talk about the issue during public comment and I have to say that as someone who really didn’t have a strong opinion either way, some of the teachers that spoke that night didn’t do the union any favors with message they presented.
While I understand that there is a certain adversarial level when it comes to negotiations and bargaining, there was a palpable disdain and anger that some of the speakers had for the administrators and School Board. And a certain level of disrespect levied toward the School Board, but most particularly the Superintendent. This culminated in the presentation of a stocking full of coal to the Superintendent which I imagined that in concept seemed symbolic and a worthwhile message of protest, but in fact came off a like a public slap in the face.
There was a reference in a lot of the public comment about feeling disrespected by the District, but when that stocking got passed to the Superintendent, apparently it was forgotten that the Superintendent — as much as the teachers might disagree with her actions — is also someone that deserves a modicum of respect as well. And that night, she didn’t get much of it.
While I definitely sympathize with AEA and given how much I have heard about how teachers feel “disrespected” by the District, I think these concerns need to be better articulated. Right now, what I heard from some of the individual teachers the other night was, “The District has $17 million in reserves, they should spend it all on salaries!” Which I don’t think many school supporters would say is necessarily a good idea. If there is something more — other than the money thing which is a big deal of course — then the District should be taking a closer look and attempt to heal whatever wound is there that makes the teachers feel this way.
I think everyone should take a step back and realize what is important here and what is at stake. Bickering between the teachers union and the school district isn’t going to make the learning environment any better for kids. It’s not going to make teachers better teachers and it’s not going to make schools a better place to learn. Let me also just point out that school opponents are practically creaming themselves with glee, because they don’t need to do anything to prove how terrible the schools and teachers are; the district is tearing itself apart from within. It really is time for the adults to be adults and attempt to work out these negotiations without all the added shenanigans like singing during the negotiations process outside or stockings full of coal. Do it for the children.
Watch the November 8Th School Board Meeting.
I can See why John P worked two jobs to get his kids out of Alameda. The communication Skills displayed by the Teachers trying to get their point across was Sad Pathetic and Sickening.
Comment by John — December 16, 2011 @ 7:36 am
Here is a transcript of a message delivered at the Tuesday BOE meeting by two parents who represented a number of parents who worked on Measure A.
As active, informed parents in the Alameda Unified School District, we are watching the deteriorating negotiations between the AEA and AUSD with increasing concern.
All of us are active volunteers in our children’s classrooms and schools, as well as in the district at large. Many of us are friends with and/or collaborate with district employees, including teachers, staff, and administrators.
All of us supported Measure A and celebrated the profound unity on which the campaign was built. We also celebrated our community’s clear commitment to our teachers, administrators, and, most importantly, the children of Alameda that was expressed in the more than two-thirds vote in favor of Measure A last March.
Yet we fear the increasingly adversarial tone of negotiations now threatens to destroy that unity – and with it our children’s education, our school communities, and the long-term stability of the district.
Because of this, we’d like to offer a few guiding principles to which we’d like to see both parties adhere as they move forward:
1. We value the work AUSD teachers do. We also value the work of our administrators. We ask both sides to similarly value each others’ contributions and conduct themselves respectfully and professionally. Please — especially — stop the personal attacks and inflammatory language in public.
2. We recognize teachers are underpaid. We also are cognizant the state budget is putting severe pressure on the state’s public schools. We ask the district to look for ways to compensate our teachers fairly within the confines of a fiscally responsible budget plan.
3. We believe our teachers and our administrators share common interests. Please come to the bargaining table with a sincere desire to listen to each other, discover those common interests, and find mutually beneficial solutions, rather than taking adversarial positions.
4. Please keep talk of the negotiations out of all classrooms — from kindergarten through 12th grade.
5. Given that some students are aware of what’s happening, we ask that you model professionalism, leadership, and conflict-resolution skills , so they can learn constructive ways of handling disagreements.
6. We ask that you not ask the parents to choose sides – we support our teachers and we respect our administrators. We are concerned with the health of the entire district and would like student welfare to be kept at the forefront of any discussion of programs or funding.
7. We ask that all discussions of AUSD’s budget be based on objective, accurate, and current data.
We also would like to see members of the Board of Education model leadership and professionalism on this volatile issue. You are charged with making the best decisions for our children and for the district as a whole ; your voice is our voice, the voice of the community. As such, we want to see you bringing the two sides together, rather than pushing them farther apart or falling prey to the existing divisiveness.
Comment by Mike McMahon — December 16, 2011 @ 7:57 am
I remember a time when there was true collaboration among the administration, the teachers and the community. Those days are no longer here. There have always been union activist teachers who were strident, but they were in the minority . Today there is a pervasive feeling that there is no collaboration and teachers are left out of the decision making process, on issues which they probably know best, Even the moderate teachers (probably the majority) are as concerned with the district’s (and its supporters) portrayal of them as greedy, ignoring the willingness to take less and work harder that they have shown over the years. We are dealing with an administration whose leadership style is top down–decisions are made by some in the district office and passed down to the “lower echelons” . This is new to Alameda, and the board has a responsibility to take a look at this issue. Is this the way we want the district to be run? . The protest over the superintendents raise and benefits is symptomatic of the anomie and should be addressed in terms of that feeling.
Comment by Barbara Kahn — December 16, 2011 @ 8:23 am
Barbara, I think it’s unfair to say that district supporters are characterizing the teachers as greedy.
The parents with whom I’ve spoken respect BOTH the administration and the teachers and would like to see the two sides work it out — for the sake of the entire district.
To say that those who support the district automatically don’t support the teachers creates a black and white, “you’re either with us or against us” culture. I think the situation is more complex — and parental perception more sophisticated — than that.
Comment by Susan Davis — December 16, 2011 @ 9:31 am
Barbara, I have never — not once — heard any supporter of the district accuse the teachers of being greedy. Critics, yes. Supporters, no. Real supporters of the district want the teachers to be able to get a raise as long as the raise can be done in a fiscally prudent way. I think that if the teachers would try to get past the hyperbole and try to work with the administration (instead of attempting to humiliate and bully them), they would realize that the administration probably wants to be able to give the teachers fiscally prudent raises too.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — December 16, 2011 @ 9:47 am
Here are two important “themes” from that discussion and my opinions about them:
1. Teachers are feeling disrespected. A lot. Something has gone very wrong with the District’s ability to find ways to recognize and appreciate teachers, privately and publicly, and no, not always with cash or benefits, but those should be considered.
2. The teacher’s union needs some good advice on formulating a more sophisticated approach to making public statements. They can grouse all they want privately, but when they are in negotiations and need the public’s support, some of what they had to say fell way short of the mark in terms of making them appear to be as professional and engaged as teachers as we know they are. Perception is everything during negotiations.
We need to work hard on getting rid of the “us vs them” on both sides. It is toxic and unhelpful. Both the administration and the teachers have the same ultimate goal – to insure our kids get a great education in the public schools. Why not start with that, and lay all the cards on the table and work out the “how do we get to our goal?”, as in interest based, rather than adversarial bargaining? There is no enemy here except for the anger, frustration and disrespect which is breaking down the ability of both sides to work for the common good.
Comment by Kate Quick.ze — December 16, 2011 @ 10:24 am
The School Board brought this on by the stunningly stupid move of upping Vital’s pay and benefits. Vital had the chance to turn the extras down but chose not to. That was the turning point. Whatever justification they had, it is forever lost. I voted for A and had to sell gold jewelry to pay my property tax this year. I suspect I’m not alone. Teachers and taxpayers struggle while the district puffs itself up. Vital is lucky there was only coal in that stocking.
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 16, 2011 @ 10:25 am
I support the teachers but their AEA representatives need to dial back on the rhetoric and inflammatory gestures (the lump of coal is just silly, sorry!). I want the teachers to get a raise but they also need to realize that many, many parents in the community haven’t seen raises in years, in fact they have had to put up with cuts and furloughs and layoffs as well. The teachers are not the only ones suffering in this economy; we’re all in this boat together.
That said I wish the superintendent had the grace (and the political acumen) to either decline or defer her raise as a goodwill gesture– or heck, just agree to contribute a portion of her salary to cover her own healthcare. That she didn’t suggests a tone-deafness to the times most of us are living in.
Comment by Kristen — December 16, 2011 @ 10:25 am
Yeah those darn protestors in the Occupy movement portesting against the record divide between the haves and have nots and those whiny college students out there getting gouged for mercurial tuition increases should just tone it down too before we decided to pepper gas them again. Don’t they know there is no tradition of protest in the United States, and that people aren’t supposed to exercise their First Amendment rights? Geez!
The teachers haven’t changed. They did last year what they have always done- voluntarily contributed 8 salary days to the District in hard times, and worked hard for Measure A. it is the District and School Board which has changed. Tell me one gesture they have made which would illustrate cooperation with the teachers?
As Kate says, “Something has gone very wrong with the District’s ability to recognize and appreciate teachers.”. There was a reason 70 veteran teachers jumped at the chance of a buyout last year…deteriorating working conditions, higher class sizes, inexperienced administrators, skyrocketing health care costs, and no pay raises. Teachers have stayed “for the love of the game” but the impasse which the District caused is the catalyst. The divisive negotiating strategy pursued by the District has caused this eruption.
Comment by Really? — December 16, 2011 @ 10:53 am
Really, Really?? Do you really think that denigrating the district in public is in the long term best interest of the teachers or in the long term best interest of the kids? Do you really think that trying to shame the administration sets a good example for our kids or casts the teachers in a good light? Is bullying really OK with you? Do you really think that the community is going to rally around our schools in the future as they have in the past when some teachers are telling everyone how awful the district is? And do you really think that what the district has done is equivalent to college kids being pepper sprayed? Really?
Wouldn’t it really be better to tone down the rhetoric and try to work with the administration?
Comment by Oh the Irony! — December 16, 2011 @ 11:41 am
Like most parents (I’m not one) I have friends on both sides. Some are teachers, some AUSD administrators, and some are even school board members.
Measure A saved a lot of teachers’ jobs and that’s why I worked for it. But it APPEARS to me (and I’m not as well informed as some on this) that now the teachers feel “entitled” to more raises that AUSD feels it may not be able to afford, given the state’s disastrous financial state and AUSD’s own precariousness.
OTOH, I agree that Vital’s raise and health benefits–even if her health care was only brought up to the same level as the teachers. proportionally–also APPEARS to be a “tone deaf” move, including her acceptance of it, even IF it was deserved.
The parents’ comments quoted by Mike McMahon are dead on. Now may not be the time to afford the kinds of well-deserved raises our teachers are asking for, unfortunately. Measure A prevented the potential mass layoffs that none of us wanted, but I’m not sure we can afford much more–yet. Times are still extremely tight, and I agree that we all need to keep cooperating until conditions improve economically, which–sad to say–may be a few years away. (FYI: in 2010 our business grossed about 10% of what an entry-level AUSD teacher was paid. I do understand low income quite well…)
If the teachers have a remedy for the world’s disastrous macroeconomic situation I’m all ears, but the problems we all face are much, much bigger than Alameda, California, or even the United States. Until the larger situation changes, though, we’ll *all* survive better by cooperating and sharing reduced resources instead of fighting each other.
Comment by Jon Spangler — December 16, 2011 @ 12:09 pm
Let’s be clear – it’s not the district that’s under fire, it’s its administrators. The fear that any criticism leveled at any aspect of AUSD will result in voters turning their backs on the students is absurd. While the Board, by it’s actions, lost the opportunity to reassure voters that their faith in A was justified, Alamedans still want quality public education. Admitting mistakes were made and taking steps to correct them is the only way the administration can hope to restore confidence.
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 16, 2011 @ 12:28 pm
#3. “I remember a time when there was true collaboration among the administration, the teachers and the community.”
Just wondering exactly when this was? As I recall when I was elected in 2002, the teachers felt even worse about that administration (Alan Nishino).
By the way, that true collaboration directly contributed to the current compensation structure for teachers. It was the administration and teachers of a time long ago that agreed to trade wage increases for a cap on medical benefits. It was past administrators and teachers that placed Alameda teachers at the bottom quartile of compensation compared to neighboring school districts.
Comment by Mike McMahon — December 16, 2011 @ 12:32 pm
Admitting that other people made mistakes doesn’t quite cut it. Nice try, though.
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 16, 2011 @ 12:51 pm
Actually, “Really?”, I have no reservations against protesting. I wish there was more of it; things have gotten to a point in this country where I’m surprised how complacent people still are. Maybe all the junk food we collectively consume (McDonald’s, FOX News) has softened our brains and made us corporate-compliant to the extreme. I have participated in many a protest and will do so in the future. But comparing the Occupy movement, and the defenseless students who were protesting peacefully when they were pepper sprayed, with AUSD-AEA negotiations, sorta jumps the shark for me. I have kids in the district, so yes, I have skin in the game. I am well aware of teacher sacrifices, esp. last year with the unpaid furlough days. But having been laid off; having close relatives lose their jobs, their homes; and having to tighten our food budget so that I occasionally skip lunch so that my kids can have theirs; well, I say, at least you still have your jobs, teachers, even though you are being paid less. Plus, if you have tenure, you enjoy a rare security most don’t have. I come from a union family and support unions all the way. I have teachers in my family. I just cringe at the cheap stunts, as I do believe in the long run it costs them popular support.
Comment by Kristen — December 16, 2011 @ 1:39 pm
Kristen. When someone like you has to skip lunch so their children can eat, and teachers receive no raises plus they take furlough days to help save jobs, I cringe at the fact our superintendent took a pay raise, and our elected board saw fit to give it to her.
Comment by John P. — December 16, 2011 @ 2:27 pm
I have said before and I will re-state, Ms. Vital made a big mistake in demanding and accepting full medical coverage at the time teachers were foregoing raises, having to pay proportionally large amounts for their health care, doing furlough days, etc. She could have been a heroine; now she is a center of controversy and ill will. All she needed to do was to graciously thank the Board for their wanting to reward her and then say “I cannot accept this until the District is more able to fairly compensate the teachers by restoring some of the salary cuts and improve their benefit packages. Unfortunately, there is not enough money to do that now, so it is inappropriate for me to take additional compensation when those I lead are not able to be compensated as well.”
Everyone would now be saying “Wow! This is a woman of great principles and a true leader.” It is not too late to do it, Kirsten. It would go a long way toward eventual healing and reconciliation, which would be a good thing for the kids.
And, the teachers would be seen in a far better light and garner more community support if they were able to put aside their anger in public and show more dignity and professionalism in their public dialogue with the Superintendent and the Board.
Comment by Kate Quick.ze — December 16, 2011 @ 2:48 pm
ding ding! thank you Kate Quick!
Comment by Jack B. — December 16, 2011 @ 3:07 pm
17. Where is the ‘Like’ button? I wholeheartedly agree with you. Then, she wouldn’t have had to receive a stocking full of coal at Tuesday’s Board meeting.
Comment by Not. A. Alamedan — December 16, 2011 @ 3:08 pm
Denise alot of people are sacricing to pay their taxes.and just meet their obligations.
The mindset like the teachers led to austerity policies to save the debt-laden country .
(Reuters) – Greece published guidelines on Tuesday to protect its austerity-hit citizens from being ripped off by pawn shops buying their family gold and silver.
Greeks, particularly civil servants, have seen their incomes drop by as much as third as a result of EU/IMF-imposed austerity policies to save the debt-laden country from default.
The consumer protection agency issued the unusual notice as new pawn shops spring up across Athens to meet demand for instant cash in Greece’s contracting economy. But crisis-hit families may be getting a poor deal from unscrupulous traders.
“We urge consumers to weigh their objects at home,” a statement from the agency said. “Fliers and advertising material promising particularly high prices should be treated with caution.”
Fliers for pawn shops are stuck on car windscreens and in telephone booths across the capital. One poster at a bus stand reads: “In Gold We Trust.”
Consumers should seek independent valuations of their family silver, check gold prices and compare pawn shop offers for jewelry before deciding to sell, the agency warned.
Comment by John — December 16, 2011 @ 3:20 pm
Kinda sad when this is our growth industry
Pawn shops reports record growth
NEW YORK — Pawn shops are beckoning from the shadows.
At a time when banks have shut their doors on those with bad credit, a growing number of borrowers are pawning their jewelry, electronics and other valuables to make ends meet.
Consumer advocates say the development is concerning because the interest rates on loans from pawn shops can be as high as 20 percent a month. But pawn shop operators say they provide a critical lifeline to a group with few other options
Although the vast majority pawn shops are independently owned, the latest quarterly profits at the three publicly traded pawn store operators reflect the growth the industry is enjoying. Cash America International Inc., Ezcorp Inc. and First Cash Financial Services Inc. each reported net incomes that were up at least 25 percent from a year ago, helped by rising demand for loans.
That shift toward the mainstream is also the spin behind Pawngo.com, which launched this summer with funding from the founders of Groupon. The site is targeting a more middle-class customer base and has made about $3 million in loans since June. Founder Todd Hillis says the average loan amount is $2,000.
Comment by John — December 16, 2011 @ 3:27 pm
Mike my point exactly Historically Alameda teachers are not militant –in the 1970′s there were two unions representing teachers the aft and the nea by law there was a vote and only one would represent all teachers. SF chose the AFT It was a foregone conclusion that Alameda would overwhelmingly choose the more conservative less militant Nea.. I had a friend on the board and we wondered why the teachers did not bargain for benefits over salary. There have always been activist militant teachers –passing out flyers at shopping centers giving the home phone numbers of school board members but this was a small minority In my memory there has not been a time in spite of problems with the administration that the non-militant not active union teachers have been so dispirited.
Comment by Barbara Kahn — December 16, 2011 @ 3:32 pm
Kate, sounds like a good solution to the problem!
Comment by Karen Bey — December 16, 2011 @ 3:34 pm
They say that on Wall Street, a popular response to the question of what will happen when the customers realize they’ve been had is to shrug and say IBG, YBG. It stands for “I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone.” I’m afraid some of our elected and appointed officials ascribe to this as well.
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 16, 2011 @ 3:42 pm
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
Albert Einstein
Comment by John — December 16, 2011 @ 4:00 pm
John – I believe that the teachers call for raises is the result of neither greed nor blindness to today’s fiscal realities but a knee-jerk reaction to the board’s move to up Vital’s compensation. The fault for the current state of disharmony falls squarely at their feet. I give them an F in both leadership and political savvy. (BTW – I recommend Goldfellow.com for selling gold. They give a good return and have excellent customer service. Hold on to the silver until the market for that improves
.)
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 16, 2011 @ 4:08 pm
John – I believe it is neither greed nor blindness to the current fiscal reality that prompted the call for salary increases. It was a knee-jerk reaction to the bad example set by the school board’s upping Vital’s compensation. The blame for the current unrest lies squarely at their feet. I give them an F in both leadership and political savvy.
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 16, 2011 @ 4:13 pm
Call it what you like Denise.
It’s all I know its not about the Students and their needs. They have been getting less and less and look at how much Total Compensation has increased for last 10-15 years for the Administrators and teachers.
Everything is so out of balance.
When a Taxpayer has to put his kids in Private School because the Schools can’t manage their control of students and their classes it’s a frkn travesty.
Looking at the Teachers behavoir and actions… it looks like some kids have trained them well.
Comment by John — December 16, 2011 @ 5:44 pm
I guess this is the year that it is OK for me to give that one crappy teacher my kid has a bag of coal for the holidays. Oh, and I better do it in front of the whole class!
Comment by Really - not cool — December 16, 2011 @ 10:59 pm
What did the school district get when they gave Mastick Senior Center to the City of Alameda?
Why did the school district close three elementary schools while building an elementary school?
It is not an operating income issue, it is a mismanagement of assets issue. Privatizing public wealth.
No incumbent should be re-elected. Local. State. National.
Comment by Patrick Lynch — December 16, 2011 @ 11:26 pm
The Alameda Unfied School District received six acres of land in Bayport area and 12 acres on Alameda Point as part of the 2000 land swap between the City and the District.
In order to improve operating effiency, one elementary school serves the community of the three smaller elementary schools that were closed. The school district did not sell the schools that were closed. Longfellow and Woodstock are fully utilized. The old Miller school site was given back to Federal government when it became to expensive to run due to infrastructure issues.
Comment by Mike McMahon — December 17, 2011 @ 9:39 am
13 “By the way, that true collaboration directly contributed to the current compensation structure for teachers. It was the administration and teachers of a time long ago that agreed to trade wage increases for a cap on medical benefits. It was past administrators and teachers that placed Alameda teachers at the bottom quartile of compensation compared to neighboring school districts.”
Mike. Are you saying teachers chose that and were happy about it? We moved here in ’91 and didn’t get up to speed on the district until we had kids in school for a while (’95). My neighbor came to me and asked me to go to BOE to support a raise for Chaconas to keep him from going to Marin for more money, which it did. I think the salary went from north of $100k to around $120K . Anyway, over time I learned through a variety of people including former teacher from Oakland Tech who knew Dennis as principal there, that he was widely liked and disliked, by many not considered to be a great people person, but he was very dedicated to education and was physically present all over the district, not making teachers paranoid by having observers sit in their class day after day, but being seen anywhere in the district on any given day.
Anyway, about collaboration, it’s my understanding that Dennis brought all the innovations we felt made the district so great when we came here, like developmental program at Paden and academies at Wood, and Arthur Andersen also gave seed money to start the original Learning Center as an in district project. We had kids in early elementary and it did seem that teachers were very enthusiastic about being given those opportunities, like teaching mixed K-1 class of 20 where K kids left at noon and they could teach concentrate on teaching ten first graders to read in the afternoon. Simply unimaginable now. But the down side as it was told by teachers who eventually threatened to strike, is that Chaconas did all that on the teacher’s backs by not giving them raises for a long period. I guess we can’t have it both ways, especially in this economy. Poor Mr. Chaconas walked into the lion’s den when he got his supposed dream job at Oakland. He showed up at the wrong time, but if criticism of his inability to balance programs with budgets was valid , Oakland at that time was about the worst place he could have gone. And as to his people skills, he and Jerry were oil and water.
Anyway Mike, that’s the history as I’ve come to learn about it and it doesn’t strike me that teachers were clearly saying, “we love it here so much we don’t mind a below average pay scale”. Also, if it was collaboration environment which made them more malleable, that condition has obviously changed. Are you referring to another period even further back?
As an after thought, it’s interesting to compare teacher and administration compensation in last two decades. Administration has about doubled. When spouse left six figure income as law partner to teach about 14 years ago , entry level salary in AUSD was in upper $30K range and is now $42K.
Comment by M.I. — December 17, 2011 @ 9:53 am
#30. Very short-sighted, Patrick. Each incumbent needs to be evaluated in light of what he/she has done in office and in light of what the challengers are all about. The “throw the bums out” idea is a lazy and short-sighted approach to being effective in the ballot booth. Go to the forums; read the materials in the voter’s pamphlet and on-line (the League’s SmartVoter.org web site posts a lot of information about candidates and propositions so there is no reason not to be fully prepared.) Sometimes it is best to retain an office holder, even if they have not agreed with your positions 100%; sometimes it is wise to vote for another, better candidate. I look for people who have a broad base of community support; people who are active contributors to the community; people who do their homework and are known for meeting their committments. Balanced, thoughtful people are more likely to represent the majority well than one-issue or one-solution fits all candidates.
For those who advocate term limits, I say “Every time we step into a ballot booth we exercise our right to term limits. Especially if we have done our homework and studied the issues and the candidates well before we vote.” Just to vote for or against someone on a “He/she must be o.k. because he/she got elected before”, or ” throw the bums out.” is not an intelligent and effective way to vote.
Comment by Kate Quick.ze — December 17, 2011 @ 11:28 am
Church Lady has it all figured out Patrick. Hard to Believe the City and State our Broke due to our Pension Liabilties.
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/reports/Report31110.pdf
Special interests spend staggering amounts of money on candidates, ballot measures and lobbying to influence the outcome of governmental decisions in California.
The reality in politics is that money talks. Sometimes money shouts. If it didn’t, special interests simply would not spend so much money trying to influence public policy and elections. They know that the more money they spend on behalf of a candidate or in support of or opposition to a ballot measure, the greater the chance of success. In California, special interests have very deep pockets.
This report, “Big Money Talks,” examines California’s Top 15 spending special interest groups over the last ten years. Their combined expenditures totaled more than $1 billion.
Of the 15 identified groups, six are corporations, three are Indian tribes, two are labor unions and four are business associations.
This report leaves little doubt where the vortex of political power lies in this state. The numbers tell the story. And there is no end in sight to the spending binge by special interests.
The conclusion is inescapable: A handful of special interests have a disproportionate amount of
influence on California elections and public policy.
California Teacher’s Assocation # 1
California Teachers As socation
Total Spending: $211,849,298
The California Teachers Association (CTA) is California’s largest union representing
public school teachers. It is the state affiliate of the National Education Association.
The chart below shows the amount of money spent by the California Teachers Association/
Association for Better Citizenship, the California Teachers Association Issues PAC
and the California committee of the National Education Association to influence California
voters and public officials.
Ballot Measures $144,116,835
Candidates $16,716,386
Political Parties $6,613,834
Other Campaign Committees $5,885,936
TOTAL SPENT INFLUENCE VOTERS $173,332,991
TOTAL SPENT LOBBYING OFFICIALS $38,516,307
GRAND TOTAL SPENT $211,849,298
Highlights of California Teachers Association spending:
* The biggest expenditure, $26,366,491, was made to oppose Proposition 38 on
the 2000 ballot. The measure sought to enact a school voucher system in California.
It was defeated 29.4% to 70.6%.
#2
California State Council of
Service Employees
Total Spending: $107,467,272
The California State Council of Service Employees has members throughout California.
It is an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union.
The chart below shows the amount of money spent by the California State Council of
Service Employees Political Committee, California State Council of Service Employees
Issues Committee, California State Council of Service Employees Small Contributor
Committee and Service Employees International Union Political Education and Action
Fund to influence California voters and public officials.
Ballot Measures $50,292,790
Candidates $18,786,136
Political Parties $4,731,395
Other Campaign Committees $8,049,102
TOTAL SPENT INFLUENCE VOTERS $81,859,423
TOTAL SPENT LOBBYING OFFICIALS $25,607,849
GRAND TOTAL SPENT $107,467,272
Highlights of California State Council of Service Employees spending:
* Ranked first among the identified interest groups in candidate support or opposition
– spending a total of $18,786,136.
Comment by John — December 17, 2011 @ 1:16 pm
In Alameda, the median income was $48,945 annually for people with a graduate or professional degree — http://alameda.patch.com/articles/alameda-above-state-county-levels-in-educational-attainment
The teachers work 70% of the year and Average around 61,000 .If they worked year round it would equal to about 80,000 +.
With salary ,pensions and benefits probably totals around 90k average. If you worked year round that is around 120K..
But on average the teachers Total Compensation with salary , benefits and retirement about 450-500 a day. Not bad for working 175 days a year.
I would love to pay them alot more.But in this envirement with the condition of the economy and the City and State 450-500 a day not bad.
Comment by John — December 17, 2011 @ 1:23 pm
One thing I can say for Mike is that he continually comes on this site and tries to give us information about the district and what he is doing as an elected official. I really appreciate that whether I agree with him or not. Mike thanks for answering Patrick Lynch s comments on post #30. see how easy it is to communicate. John I’m a simple person, the more you print the less I read. Really smart people can make their point in a very few words. The more you print the less I trust your comments, you are very good at pushing your point , but for some reason I don’t trust the way you make your points. You sound like a person who is on the side of the one percent. You continually attack teachers, is this all their fault?. I know a lot of teachers and they just plain don’t have any money. I do understand that all public employees have pensions that are not sustainable, did they steal them or did our elected officials give them these gifts in trade for votes. My guess is that if we start electing people who will not sell us out for a vote we could probably start to fix this problem. Anyway John, please try to make your points so that a simple person like me is not offend by your comments. Like our teachers told us, be concise and to the point. After all you were educated at Alameda High
Comment by John P. — December 17, 2011 @ 3:24 pm
“My guess is that if we start electing people who will not sell us out for a vote we could probably start to fix this problem. ”
Exactly
“You sound like a person who is on the side of the one percent. ”
I “m not taking any sides . If I was it would be representing the Students who have got raw deal. The money being spent on them directly percentage wise has dwindled substantially.
Parents are having to spend more money personlly to educate their kids.
You continually attack teachers, is this all their fault?.
I think they get a fair wage. 400-450 a day total compensation on average is fair in this economy.
I would love to pay them more but think they are fairly compensated.
We have some great teachers in Alameda.
Measure A was not about the Students. Most of the Money is going directly into the pockets of Administrators and Teachers..
I very Simple also John. But don’t like being mislead and lied to.
Comment by John — December 17, 2011 @ 5:30 pm
Chick the comments, August 18, 1920 the end of the noble experiment.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 17, 2011 @ 7:00 pm
per my last:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=980CE0DC1F31E03ABC4052DFBE66838B639EDE
Comment by Jack Richard — December 18, 2011 @ 9:48 am
The history of past events that occurred in District is always subject to who presents them. All I know is at the end of Chaconas’ tenure, teachers were very unhappy, District fianances were in shambles and once the dot com bubble burst, the District ability to compensate teachers has been serverely restricted ever since.
Comment by Mike McMahon — December 18, 2011 @ 10:44 am
40. Mike I still don’t get the import of your comment. Where you saying that back in period of supposed collaboration teachers willingly made compromise which limits them today? If so are you implying that teachers should be more collaborative again in the same vein in order to help district through a tough stretch? I think teachers feel like actually agreeing to furlough plan as a strategy was pretty collaborative. My point would be that Chaconas administration for all it’s strengths and weaknesses probably fostered a more collaborative environment, at least with regard to education reform and innovative methods. It’s not fair to either side to compare too much because the economic environment has truly gotten extreme.
Comment by M.I. — December 18, 2011 @ 10:52 am
The pension issue was looming before the shit really hit the fan in 2008, but in fact state pensions were about 98% able to meet their obligations until early in this decade. The current financial conundrum is real and the clock can’t be turned back, but the blame constantly gets put in the wrong place. The state has no money and we have to cope with that. But the whole situation has truly been a product of Bush and 1% systematically plundering wealth of this country, not the welfare state extending beyond it’s means. If the Republicans had worked with Hillary Clinton to embrace a national health care system and we taxed the 1% ( which back then was only concentrated to about 3%) to pay for it, all that pressure would be taken off local municipalities and school districts. Republicans keep squawking about how you can tax the mythical job creators, but they are being taxed at historically low rates and where are the jobs? Mortgage pirates stole the fire from the economy and it’s rippling across the planet. Yes Greek situation was out of balance but Germany, through A LOT of regulation, has maintained many industries which have been able to compete even with Chinese, but it is the sudden and massive economic dislocation caused by plunder of wealthy that has put world economy at risk over night, and threatens to drag stronger systems like Germany down.
The situation now has to be dealt with locally which may mean a lot of austerity, but in the big picture it’s really short sighted to blame workers like teachers as the cause. Majority of school budget is spent on compensating teachers because teaching is labor intensive and even with recent administrative raises, our administrative cost per student is comparatively low. NOTHING is terribly wrong there. Just because there are people who have to sell jewelry or skip lunch doesn’t mean teacher compensation should be scaled to lowest common denominators, at least not before some really credible attempt to resolved the discepancies between district and union claims. Enough with the race to the bottom.
Comment by M.I. — December 18, 2011 @ 11:29 am
42
Is this some of the ‘modern history’ your wife is teaching you and those fertile ‘occupy’ brains?
Comment by Jack Richard — December 18, 2011 @ 3:15 pm
Mike
The Tech Bubble Crashed in 2001. The tech market was down over 80% by August 2001 .Millions were out of work and many companies had closed their doors….CALSTRS had lost billions. How much has Administrators and Teacher Total compensation increased since August 2001.
Comment by John — December 18, 2011 @ 3:25 pm
42
OCCUPY HISTORY:
“But the whole situation has truly been a product of Bush and 1% systematically plundering wealth of this country,…”
the tired old true history:
“In 1999 then California Governor Gray Davis signed into law a bill that represented the largest issuance of non-voter-approved debt in the state’s history. The bill SB 400 granted billions of dollars in retroactive pension boosts to state employees, allowing retirements as young as age 50 with lifetime pensions of up to 90% of final year salaries. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System sold the pension boost to the state legislature by promising that “no increase over current employer contributions is needed for these benefit improvements” and that Calpers would “remain fully funded.” They also claimed that enhanced pensions would not cost taxpayers “a dime” because investment bets would cover the expense.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315404575250822189252384.html
Comment by Jack Richard — December 18, 2011 @ 4:02 pm
Jack no fair using Math and putting two and two together.
Comment by John — December 18, 2011 @ 4:16 pm
I know John, like Kristen says in #15, “Maybe all the junk food we collectively consume (McDonald’s, FOX News) has softened our brains and made us corporate-compliant to the extreme.”
It must be all that junk food I’m occupying that makes me extremely corporate-compliant with facts. On the other hand, if that’s her logic, perhaps she’d better not skip too many more lunches.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 18, 2011 @ 4:27 pm
We have over 70 in the AUSD Total Compensation Between 100K and 250K and the Majority of Teachers Total Compensation Between 70K-100K.
I think we really need to bring music back to the Schools Administrators and Teachers
http://30.media.tumblr.com/EiG4DEBVenvq4meyY17CxWJ6o1_400.jpg
Comment by John — December 18, 2011 @ 4:30 pm
Spangler’s juxtaposition:
#11 It’s my turn
“I do not think that the sky is falling as much or as fast as you and others would have us believe: the northern California/Bay Area economy is rebounding faster than the rest of the state and faster than much of the nation,…”
#6 Respect yourself
“…but the problems we all face are much, much bigger than Alameda, California, or even the United States.”
Reality’s juxtaposition:
“The June funded ratio, which measures assets to liabilities. is only 74% for CalPERS even using a high-rate of return assumption for its investments. Assume a 6.2% return, and the funded ratio drops to 58%. On the same basis, the funded status is 60% for CalSTRS and 72% for UCRP.
The total unfunded liability for all three systems is close to $300 billion at a 6.2% rate of return; assume a 7.75% return and the shortfall is still $142.6 billion, “or nearly $12,000 per California household.” Using a low-risk discount rate, and the total unfunded liability balloons to $498 billion.
The reports contends it is “highly unlikely” the funds can invest their way out of the issue; to do that, CalPERS would have to average 12.5% a year for 16 years.
Every day California delays major reform — screw the legal obstacles — costs $3.4 million.
Would you sleep soundly with these odds?”
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-17/news/30528046_1_calstrs-calpers-investment-returns#ixzz1gw67BXkB
Comment by Jack Richard — December 18, 2011 @ 4:47 pm
Jack those Guys and Gals at Stanford Eat Fast food. WTFDTK
We spend 200 Mil to Buy our politicians and Ballot Measure to fool the public.. Don’t ruin the story.
Comment by John — December 18, 2011 @ 5:01 pm
Calpers and Calsters can put in all in Greek Bonds and can make all their money back.
Who says it hard to get huge returns.
Comment by John — December 18, 2011 @ 5:09 pm
Jack…… Don’t confuse Jon Spangler with Jon Corzine..Look alikes don’t count
Jon Corzine’s Booms & Busts
Comment by John — December 18, 2011 @ 5:19 pm
#31 Well-informed School Board Member
The school district received the (10 acre) land where the (Benzene Plume) Sinsies Housing was built and it is unfortunate that AUSD would be in the property title to this lot . The property was too contaminated to receive state funding for constructing an elementary school. As a result a private corporation stole from the school district and provided a smaller property (9 acre) that is now over crowded. This is the same corporation that sued the school district to reduce developer fees because the school district did not need more classrooms. The school district also got some property that is largely underwater and subject tideland trust. The other property contains the only sign at Alameda Point saying it is(was) a hazardous waste storage property.It really is the stupid. How can you defend privatizing a million dollars of school district assets!
Comment by Patrick Lynch — December 19, 2011 @ 1:20 am
Local papers recently contained three seemingly immiscible and incongruous articles.
One warned of escalating tension between the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) and its teachers; another reported that the majority of California State University (CSU) freshmen were unprepared for college Math; and a third was a profusion of recycled accolades and cant edu-babble spouted by the Superintendent’s chief apologists: the venerable Ron Mooney and Margie Sherrat.
Given the employment opportunities for administratively tainted teachers, few educators have the temerity to wade into this discussion.
The Constitution may guarantee freedom of the Press and free speech, yet nowhere does it require us to exercise it, nor protect us from the repercussions of doing so.
When I find myself shying away from my irreverent keyboard and putting my security blanket ahead of free speech, I am reminded of the civic courage of Mario Savio, Boris Yeltsin and that lone cyclist at Tiananmen Square: Wang Weilin a.k.a. “Tank Man” who was summarily disappeared by the secret police.
The good news blended in with the usual blandishments was that the reduction in state funding—which AUSD has been bracing for—will only amount to $113,000.
Were the Superintendent to toss her bonus—not her pay raise and additional perks—back into the AUSD cookie jar, the effective shortfall could be reduced to $98,000: below the six figures AUSD pays many in its larded phalanx of lawyers, educrats and apparatchiks.
Reading the Board Mavens’ report re “Keeping Alameda’s Schools Strong” it is hard to reconcile the anesthetizing panegyrics with Cal State East Bay’s claim that 73 percent of this year’s freshmen were not ready for college math.”
Quoting Claudia Quezada, the Early Assessment Program (EAP) Coordinator for California State University, “In 2010 . . . of the 138 juniors at Encinal High who participated in the math portion of the EAP, 43 showed they needed more college preparation.”
And what about the juniors who did not participate in the EAP; how much math were they equipped with?
As a math teacher, I can speculate on the dismal math statistics.
My sense is that there exists a pernicious “win, win, win, win” situation that stymies meaningful math cognitive development and reduces the little math achievement evidenced to merely a memory function.
Imagine a teacher who ladles out high grades irrespective of math mastery.
Ostensibly, the student wins, the parent wins, the principal who does not hear from grousing, enabling parents wins and the teacher who basks in job security wins.
Now picture a teacher who goads students to ascend Bloom’s Taxonomy beyond rote and into such terra incognita as adaptive reasoning, strategic competence, conceptual understanding, productive disposition, procedural fluency, synthesis, application and metacognition.
Risky stuff!
Not to invoke a forced dichotomy, but math education has two options: avoid risk and ensure functional failure, or take constructive risks and risk failure.
UCSF Professor Bruce Alberta, former head of the National Academy of Sciences recently reminded educators that “failure is a way of growing wiser” and “rote learning teaches nothing.”
Ever wonder why teachers give quizzes on Friday?
Could it be that they expect the memorized learning to evaporate by Monday?
What do you remember from high school math?
Can you recite or apply the law of sines, the quadratic formula or the law of cosines?
Knowing a rigorous and challenging math curriculum involves risk and will lead to parental complaints, one curmudgeonly math teacher was strategically assigned Pre-Calculus classes “in hopes of getting (him) to receive complaints from parents . . . and . . . be written up multiple times possibly leading to one of those 30, 45, or 90-day warnings and . . . the firing process, regardless of tenure or satisfactory evaluations.”
With teachers prudently hunkering down, cautiously lowering the rigor bar and skulking toward mediocrity, is there any wonder that math and its ancillary critical thinking skills are flat lined or declining?
In a state that survives on its entrepreneurial and critically thinking skills, should we crimping our life line by intimidating our math teachers?
What happened to AP Computer Science at Encinal?
If it is not AUSD that will provide replacements for Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Andrew Grove and Gordon Moore then what district will?
Why are we abrogating our responsibility to help staff the high tech culture of California?
Jeffrey R Smith
Math Teacher at Encinal High
Comment by Jeffrey R Smith — December 19, 2011 @ 12:34 pm
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/how-to-write-clear-sentences.aspx
I’m just saying.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — December 19, 2011 @ 1:13 pm
I just discovered that #54 is much more comprehensible if translated into Pirate English — No need to thank me. Really.
Local “Ye Scurvy Dog!” papers recently contained three seemingly immiscible an’ incongruous articles.
One “Blast My Onion Breath!” warned o’ escalat’n tension b’tween th’ Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) an’ its teachers; ‘nother reported that th’ majority o’ California State University (CSU) freshmen were unprepared fer college Math; an’ a third be a profusion o’ recycled accolades an’ cant edu-babble spouted by th’ Superintendent’s chief apologists: th’ venerable Ron Mooney an’ Margie Sherrat.
Given “Heave Ho!” th’ employment opportunities fer administratively tainted teachers, few educators have th’ temerity t’ wade into this discussion. Th’ “Blistering Barnacles!” Constitution may guarantee freedom o’ th’ Skewer an’ free “For Mates!” speech, yet nowhere does it require us t’ exercise it, nor protect us from th’ repercussions o’ do’n so.
When I find myself blunderbustingly shy’n away from me irreverent keyboard an’ putt’n me security “blanket” blanket ech, I be reminded o’ th’ civic courage o’ Mario Savio, Boris Yeltsin an’ that lone cyclist at Tiananmen Square: Wang Weilin a.k.a. “Tank Man” who be summarily disappeared by th’ secret police.
Th’ lustily good news blended in wi’ th’ usual blandishments be that th’ reduction in state funding—which AUSD has b’n brac’n for—will only amount t’ $113,000.
Were “Tha Old Sea Dog!” th’ Superintendent t’ toss her bonus—not her pay raise an’ additional perks—back into th’ AUSD cookie jar, th’ effective shortfall could be reduced t’ $98,000: below th’ six figures AUSD pays many in its larded phalanx o’ lawyers, educrats an’ apparatchiks.
Read’n “Gar, Where can I find a bottle o’rum?” th’ Board Mavens’ report re “Keep’n Alameda’s Schools Strong” it be blitheringly hard t’ reconcile th’ anesthetiz’n panegyrics wi’ Cal State East Bay’s claim that 73 percent o’ this year’s freshmen were nay ready fer college math.”
Quot’n Claudia Quezada, th’ Early Assessment Program (EAP) Coordinator fer California State University, “In 2010 . . . o’ th’ 138 juniors at Encinal High who participated in th’ math portion o’ th’ EAP, 43 showed they needed more college preparation.”
An’ what bout th’ juniors who did nay participate in th’ EAP; how much math were they equipped with?
As a math teacher, I can speculate on th’ dismal math statistics.
Me “Nancy-Pants!” sense be that thar exists a pernicious “win, win, win, win” situation that stymies meaningful math cognitive development an’ reduces th’ blunderbustingly little math achievement evirely a memory function.
Imagine “Smoke ‘em if yew got ‘em, matey!” a teacher who ladles out high grades irrespective o’ math mastery.
Ostensibly, “Ye Ugly Old Barnacle!” th’ student wins, th’ parent wins, th’ principal who does nay hear from grous’n, enabl’n parents wins an’ th’ teacher who basks in job security “blanket” wins.
Now “Stab That Waster!” picture a teacher who goads students t’ ascend Bloom’s Taxonomy beyond rote an’ into such terra incognita as adaptive reason’n, strategic competence, conceptual understand’n, productive disposition, procedural fluency, synthesis, application an’ metacognition. Risky “Walk Yon Plank An Be Quick About It!” stuff!
Nay t’ invoke a forced dichotomy, but math education has two options: avoid risk an’ ensure functional failure, or take constructive risks an’ risk failure.
UCSF Professor Bruce Alberta, former head o’ th’ National Academy o’ Sciences recently reminded educators that “failure be a way o’ grow’n wiser” an’ “rote learn’n teaches noth’n.”
E’er wonder why teachers give quizzes on Friday?
Could it be that they expect th’ memorized learn’n t’ evaporate by Monday?
What do ye reakon from high school math?
Can ye recite or apply th’ law o’ sines, th’ quadratic formula or th’ law o’ cosines?
Know’n a rigorous an’ challeng’n math curriculum involves risk an’ will lead t’ parental complaints, one curmudgeonly math teacher be strategically assigned Pre-Calculus classes “in hopes o’ gett’n (him) t’ receive complaints from parents . . . an’ . . . be written aloft multiple times possibly lead’n t’ one o’ those 30, 45, or 90-day warnings an’ . . . th’ fir’n process, regardless o’ tenure or satisfactory evaluations.”
Wi’ teachers prudently hunker’n down, cautiously lower’n th’ rigor bar an’ skulk’n toward mediocrity, be thar any wonder that math an’ its ancillary critical think’n skills be unseaworthily flat lined or declining?
In a state that survives on its entrepreneurial an’ critically think’n skills, should we crimp’n our life line by intimidat’n our math teachers?
What happened t’ AP Computer Science at Encinal?
If it be nay AUSD that will provide replacements fer Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Andrew Grove an’ Gordon Moore then what district will?
Why be we abrogat’n our responsibility t’ help staff th’ high tech culture o’ California?
Jeffrey R Smith
Math Teacher at Encinal High
Comment by Oh the Irony! — December 19, 2011 @ 2:38 pm
Question:
“If it is not AUSD that will provide replacements for Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Andrew Grove and Gordon Moore then what district will?”
Answer:
Beijing No.4 High School (Chinese: 北京市第四中学, pinyin China
Comment by Jack Richard — December 19, 2011 @ 2:40 pm
Jeff great insights.
But honesty will not be tolerated.
Comment by John — December 19, 2011 @ 3:27 pm
populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
Cardinal Caraffa
Comment by Jeffrey R Smith — December 19, 2011 @ 4:04 pm
Worse prose than John, more egocentric than Dennis Green. That is quite the two-for, Mr. Smith.
Comment by Tapan Venäläiset — December 19, 2011 @ 4:12 pm
Coming from Tapan who has brought NOTHING to the party ..WFC..LOL
Comment by John — December 19, 2011 @ 4:19 pm
59
In golf terms you would call it ” Sandbagging or Sandbagger”
Sandbaggers are, at base, cheaters and hustlers. Golfers who are found out to be sandbaggers are often ostracized and always looked down upon.
A sandbagger is considered by many to be the lowest form of life .
Comment by John — December 19, 2011 @ 5:13 pm
Highly recommended, Tapan! Be sure and ask for plenty of sour cream!
Karhunpaistia, gruusialaista teesiirappia ja karamellisoituja valkosipulinkynsiä
Comment by Jack Richard — December 19, 2011 @ 5:52 pm
The final deal to locate Ruby Bridges school in the center of the Bayport property was a reasonable deal for all parties, the city, school district, and developer. By moving two separate parcels of land and combining them into one large parcel, the community has a centrally located school/park facility that is a more efficient use of land space.
By the way, the school district won its lawsuit with the developer and received over a million dollars in developers fees.
Comment by Mike McMahon — December 20, 2011 @ 8:53 am
64. and 53. before I don’t recall media reports that the developer was suing on the basis the school did or did not need more classrooms. What I thought I read was that the City raised it’s sq foot tax after Catellus had engaged in a contract and Catellus sued to be taxed at the original rate and won. Am I completely fabricating this and making shit up? While I’m reaching back into the cob webs I also seem to recall the lower rate being about $2.80 a foot and the higher rate about $4.15 or maybe more. Has anybody done an addition of over 500 sq feet of conditioned space and been taxed by school district lately?
Comment by M.I. — December 20, 2011 @ 6:31 pm
You are not imagining things Mark. Yes the developer sued the District to be assessed at the lower rate. Developer fees are complex. Shorthanded version is a district can charge higher rates if a set of formulas are met (including classroom space) and they have to submit annually. My recollection is that the District stopped submitting requests for higher level developer fees around 2007. As a resutls development is being charged level one fee developer fees.
As for our other conversation, my point was that the teachers at the bargaining table negotiated away their medical benenfits in order to receive higher salaries. Typically, union reps at the table are older and want salary increases in order to receive higher retirement payouts.
Comment by Mike McMahon — December 21, 2011 @ 8:02 am
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/04/3602
Comment by M.I. — December 24, 2011 @ 12:52 pm
Thanks for posting that ‘Common Dreams’ link and these gems within, Mark.
*Teacher unions are widely seen as disastrous for education.
*Apple’s Steve Jobs declared at an education reform conference: “I believe that what’s wrong with our schools in this nation is that they have become unionized in the worst possible way.”
* Teacher union power did come with a downside: some union contracts have made it virtually impossible to fire incompetent teachers;
*Shanker was widely seen as the single strongest backer of the standards and accountability movement, ….Of course, too many teacher unions have failed to follow Shanker’s lead on those important issues and have put their own interests before those of kids.
*As Shanker himself once observed, “conservatives want to kill us because essentially we form the strongest liberal base in the country…
Comment by Jack Richard — December 24, 2011 @ 2:27 pm
I’m not impressed with Steve Job’s opinion of teachers unions Jack, and why should I or anyone be impressed? He seems to have been one of the dot com millionaires who thought his own success made him an expert on anything he thought about, when in fact he was just a human who didn’t know that much because it requires study. Gates had his great theory about small schools and bought himself a few with his great funding machine and low and behold, they sucked.
Comment by M.I. — December 25, 2011 @ 9:20 am
Hey, you posted what you now criticize. All I did was copy your post and feed it back to you. Frankly, I don’t give a hoot about Jobs (in both senses), Gates, Shanker, unions or rolling tumbling stones’ opinion. But this blog would be rather boring without you so stick to it.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 25, 2011 @ 10:31 am
So, merry something or other…
http://retrodoll.tumblr.com/post/14659325588/jeanjeanie61-definitely-a-christmas-favorite
Comment by Jack Richard — December 25, 2011 @ 10:38 am
I am sending my best hopes for both sides finding a way to come to terms in 2012. I guess as the often dubbed “Church Lady” I should say I am praying hard for that, too. Happy New Year to all of Lauren’s blog followers and best wishes for a happy, healthy and prosperous year to come.
BTW, Ash Jones hit me with a broom he was purchasing at Lucky’s this morning, quite accidently, and we had a good laugh about it. So, that may be a harbinger of peaceful coexistence for 2012. He and I rarely see eye-to-eye on most issues.
Comment by Kate Quick.ze — January 1, 2012 @ 10:02 pm
Ash, quite accidentally, hits the church lady…
Comment by Jack Richard — January 2, 2012 @ 8:43 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/education/18rand.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/education/big-pay-days-in-washington-dc-schools-merit-system.html
Comment by M.I. — January 2, 2012 @ 10:21 am
Mark, I suspect the reason nothing changed in your first NY school link was because the bonus program was done collectively instead of individually. But, of course, that’s the only way the Union would sign off on the program so it was doomed from the onset.
The second link doesn’t give enough information (unless you’re part of the school system) to judge why the program is judged effective. Sounds like it was designed with individuals in mind instead of the collective. One interesting point is that the DC school district eliminated bonus pay for advanced degrees. Said advanced degrees don’t equate with better teaching.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 2, 2012 @ 11:12 am
Thanks for the Links Mark. I just read them from another Blog you just posted them on. Unfortunately my responses to Jon Spangler and you on The Patch dont get posted.
Here is some Advice given to Business People in Dealing with Recessions and downturns. I wonder if this mindset could be applied to the Teachers situation.
You remind yourself this is not something to be gotten through. It is the final exam of Character.
Dedicate yourself to making the absolute best of what you have now.
You Volunteer to do More.
You may work for less; and, If So you adapt to the untoward circumstances with a smile.
You behave kindly, but you don’t sugarcoat or hide the truth.
You become a paragon of Personal Accountability.
Comment by John — January 2, 2012 @ 2:32 pm
Jack Great ..LOL
Church Lady Thanks for your Prayers.
Comment by John — January 2, 2012 @ 3:06 pm