I was shocked when the New York Times exposed the abuses by Long Island Railroad employees of their disability benefits, as well as provisions of its labor contracts that no sane company would accept . Now, perhaps less surprisingly, the New York Post reveals egregious time and leave abuse, allowing some individual employees to rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime for hours they didn’t work. While some of the workers were able to retire before facing disciplinary action and recoupment of the stolen funds, the taxpayers who subsidize the railroad — already victimized by the railroad’s paying the crooked employees for hours not worked — will continue to pay their crookedly inflated pensions. If the abuse can’t be stopped (I give Governor Cuomo credit for trying to stop it, albeit belatedly), a big step toward curbing it would be to disallow overtime hours to be part of pension calculations.
Republicans claim excess government spending hobbles the economy and fosters dependence. Lower taxes will stimulate the economy and benefit everyone. Democrats claim that investment in the public sector will raise all boats, and those in the educational establishment are always claiming under funding. Both, it appears, are wrong.
This story shows that, as of a few years ago, New York maintained its standing as first in the nation — by a large margin — in per capita school spending. While some argue that the spending is not evenly distributed, per capita spending in the New York City is even higher. Results are nowhere near the top. By most measures, New York ranks mid-pack among the states, or even below. How, then, can education in New York be under funded? I would like to see a direct response from one or more of the teachers’ unions or their lobbying arm, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity.
This story, among many others, details how the tax cutting experiment in Kansas failed so badly to stimulate the economy, and in doing so, hurt the most vulnerable, that the legislature there repealed it and overrode the Governor’s veto. No comment from the Koch brothers or any other conservative think tank.
What do these stories have in common? They both prove that conventional wisdom of whatever ideological bent is likely wrong. Simple solutions simply don’t work to solve complicated problems. They prove that we need to hear less from special interests on each side of the aisle and more from moderate, thoughtful people who will seek to apply tailored, empirically based solutions to societal problems, and not continue policies that have proven to be ineffective.
This recent column in the New York Times summarizes some studies on charters, and sheds some interesting light. Apparently, the charters that do the best (and not all even do well) are those that stress the basics — longer days, more support for teachers and students and imposition of high standards.
Aside from reflecting what appears to me to be common sense, these values contrast with those present in many conventional public schools, where shorter work days and more insulation from accountability are the goals of the teachers, as expressed through collective bargaining and political action (many individual teachers put in extra time and strive for excellence, even after achieving tenure). While I understand teachers’ perceived need for some job protections, and while I believe most tenure “abuses” are caused by management that does not terminate probationary teachers who are unlikely to be successful, there still is a disconnect between the positions of advocates of traditional education and those of the best, successful charters.
If competition produces better results for all, and if charters are to fulfill their original mission as laboratories in which successful teaching methods can be developed and tested, both systems need support.
PEF, one of the leading state-worker unions, is constantly berating the State for contracting out work that it claims should be performed better and at lower costs by its members. Here’s a Times Union item that reports the union representing some PEF legal workers has complained that PEF is contracting out some of their work. Especially ironic is that the contract employees will be representing full dues-paying PEF members, while PEF’s own employees will be representing agency shop payers who have opted out of union membership, a group about which it presumably cares less.
This little item in the Albany Times Union (the longer story linked to in the item is behind the paper’s pay wall) about the burden of rising pension costs is unusual only because of the employer — NYSUT, the teachers’ union. NYSUT’s own management is clearly aware of the burdensome costs of benefits for its own employees, and its officers appear to be willing to take a cut while they negotiate similar cuts with their employees’ union.
Of course, NYSUT’s role as bargaining representative for its members is different from its role as an employer, and it is charged by law to represent its members’ interests. In playing that role in contract negotiations, I don’t think NYSUT would be receptive to the concept of givebacks by its members.
What I suspect I won’t see is any of the school districts asking for the kind of givebacks NYSUT appears to believe warranted with respect to its employees (and leading the way by imposing them on their own staff). One reason for public employee unions’ great success has been the lack of aggressive counter parties representing the taxpayers in contract negotiations, though I am sure the School Boards’ Association would argue to the contrary. There are many reasons for this: the understandable urge (especially when spending other peoples’ money) to show appreciation for the good work teachers do, the large financial and political clout of the unions, and the fact that the better the deal for teachers, the better the deal for management, who must of course, be paid more than the rank and file in the trenches. Of course, in a competitive market for teachers, salary and benefits must be competitive, but smart management would make sure they were regardless of union pressure.
Recently, a caller to one of our local public broadcasting stations expressed the dilemma of wanting to support local public education but wanting to remain in his house, which was becoming increasingly less affordable due to rising school taxes, among other things. The moderator pooh-poohed him with the usual response — “nothing’s too good for our kids.”
Like that caller, I see both sides, and I certainly don’t want to return to the days of exploitation of teachers. However, I wonder who is representing this taxpayer, and how strongly. Only when both sides have equal bargaining power can a reasonable balance of interests be struck.
I am not a big fan of Michael Mulgrew, the president of the New York City teachers’ union. Although I think most teachers and, by extension, their union, want to do the best they can for their profession and for their students, the union often takes positions that are contrary to those goals, albeit in the interests of at least some of their members, and cynically couches it in terms of what’s good for “our kids.” How perpetuating a hyper due-process tenure system that protects incompetent teachers or worse. and how negotiating a contract that cuts classroom instruction time are good for kids is beyond me. Yet here is Mulgrew, in a piece in the New York Daily News, making a lot of sense and taking a moderate, thoughtful stand on the testing issue. Of course, what he doesn’t address is what happens when, under the evaluation system he proposes, a teacher still does not produce results. But this column is a step in the right direction.
Education, like health care, is one of our most intractable problems. We spend more and get less than other states and countries, and it’s hard to pinpoint why. The teachers blame lack of parental support, poverty and other social ills. Others blame the teachers, especially as represented by their unions, and the tenure system, which they claim concentrate inordinately on protecting bad and ineffective teachers. At the center of this debate is so-called “high stakes” testing, which teachers claim is being used to punish them for conditions beyond their control and which, they further claim, requires them to “teach to the test” and to take valuable time from higher-level pedagogy. Those favoring testing believe it can be used to establish before and after scores that can measure a teacher’s “value added” effectiveness and therefore can differentiate between more and less effective teachers.
I hope we all can agree that public school teachers in general deserve our respect. They do not get to choose their students who, especially in high needs districts, can present challenges to keeping order and conveying information that most of us would not know how to deal with effectively. Most are dedicated, and spend time beyond the contractually mandated minimum and money from their own pockets buying supplies they feel are needed but the school district doesn’t. As in any profession or occupation, there is a small number of bad actors, and it is on those that most of the controversy centers. But all teachers, and particularly those who face the challenge of teaching high needs students, fear that factors beyond their control may be used to jeopardize their job security and otherwise “punish” them.
I come down in support of testing, if done intelligently, and if the results are used correctly. As one who was a manager for much of my career, I heartily subscribe to the adage “you can’t manage what you don’t measure.” Testing, if valid, provides some information needed to effectively manage schools and teachers. It does not provide all the information needed to effectively manage schools and teachers — such as the reasons for the results it reports — but it does provide an objective snapshot of how well a teacher or school is performing based on objective standards. It is common sense that an average class score in the South Bronx that may be lower than an average class score in Scarsdale does not mean the teacher in the South Bronx is ineffective or that the Scarsdale teacher is a star performer. But it does show where improvement is needed. How that improvement is to be achieved, and whether substandard teaching is responsible to any degree for poor test results, must be determined by more nuanced, subjective measures. Having test scores represent half a teacher’s evaluation score recognizes its role and importance, and seems to me reasonable.
A Daily News column by Erroll Louis raises two very good additional points about testing. One is that the interests of parents and teachers on this issue are not completely the same. Some parents resent the time spent “teaching to the test” and to administering the tests, which they may feel could better be spent on other educational activities. Though the teachers agree, the difference between the concerns of parents and teachers is that the “high stakes” of test scores are used only to evaluate teachers. Students’ test scores do not impact their grades, though perhaps a test score indicating a lack of basic understanding of reading or math should trump a passing grade in those subjects. The other point Louis raises is that testing, like it or not, is a fact of life in this society, and performing satisfactorily on tests is necessary for admission to institutions of higher learning and many trades and professions. In other words, teaching to the test may impart a practical life skill.
While I am sympathetic to a limited point with teachers who feel bad test scores will be used unfairly against them, that sympathy is tempered by two factors: first, no occupation has stronger legal and contractual job protection, union representation or political clout. Second, it seems pretty clear to me that teachers do not have a better answer for improving schools. In a state that spends 70% above the national per-pupil average, throwing more money at the problem cannot be the answer, especially in a labor intensive enterprise like teaching, where most additional resources will go to increasing teacher compensation or administrative overhead. $20,000 per child should be more than enough to provide a clean, safe school environment, necessary supplies and equipment and reasonable class size. If it isn’t, administrators are not doing their jobs. Blaming conditions outside the schools for poor student performance, if taken to its logical extreme, is really an argument that providing public education, at least in high-needs areas, is an exercise in futility. Since teachers cannot make a meaningful difference, why bother at all?
I am not an expert on education, but I think it’s hard to argue with success, as demonstrated by the better, more successful charter schools. What they do is not magic. A lot of it boils down to time on task, meaning more school days per year and more hours per school day. I was shocked to read that the most recent New York City teachers’ contract actually decreased classroom time (in exchange for an increase in parent-teacher contact time). I also understand that the mere fact that charters are populated by students whose parents entered lotteries is a form of pre-selection that indicates better home support for those students, but I’m not sure how much of the performance difference between the better charters and public schools can be accounted for by that difference, and studies suggest that such factors are not statistically significant. No question, improving out-of-school social services can improve students’ academic performance, as programs like the Harlem Children’s Zone have demonstrated. But the public schools can and should do better, even though some face difficult challenges. Using valid tests in an intelligent way to establish a baseline from which progress can be measured with reasonable accuracy is a necessary first step toward that goal.