The latest G2A Healthcare post went far afield, so I moved the "hold adults accountable" comments here. As is often the case, I stated that society should stop putting the wants of adults ahead of the needs of kids and I get energetic push back.
"Parents should be held accountable for ensuring their kids are fed, have good hygiene, they are prepared for Kindergarten, get to school, do their homework, etc. Seems pretty basic." G2A
"Parents should be held accountable for ensuring their kids are fed, have good hygiene, they are prepared for Kindergarten, get to school, do their homework, etc. Seems pretty basic. Sure, let's send them a statement at the end of every year.
We really need to get away from the idea that sniffing with disapproval at stuff is some sort of policy. I would love it if all parents prepared their kids for Kindergarten, made them do their homework, and if moms had milk and cookies waiting for the kids when they come home from school while wearing pearls. Some kids do have that environment but others don't and while I can't prove a causation between those factors and doing well in school, researchers just might find a correlation for that very thing." --Hiram
"I am not "sniffing with disapproval" I am proposing our society should do something to hold these unqualified and/or irresponsible adults accountable. Please note... No cookies, pearls, etc required...
"Parents should be held accountable for ensuring their kids are fed, have good hygiene, they are prepared for Kindergarten, get to school, do their homework, etc. Seems pretty basic." G2A
"I am not "sniffing with disapproval" I am proposing our society should do something to hold these unqualified and/or irresponsible adults accountable
I do tend to equate accounting with sniffing with disapproval. Well, I suppose we could spend millions in running people's families for them, but I just don't see much of a will to do that. Whining is much cheaper and much less intrusive. These days it's just so easy to hold parent's accountable for sending their kids to kindergarten, we can just send them a text, and all will better.
Why didn't anyone think of that before?" --Hiram
"our society should do something"
That language is almost ready for the legislature. Keep it up!" Sean
"Hi Guys,Now I have a lot of policy ideas for putting unlucky kids first. Unfortunately as noted many times, liberals are more concerned about the adults. (Public employees and Baby Makers) Oh well..." G2A
"Please demonstrate the causation between whacking teachers unions and student performance." Sean
"Unfortunately there is nothing I can write that would convince you.
However any employee group that fights performance measures is definitely not dedicated to the well being and success of their students.
But please feel free to keep defending these adults and denying the unlucky kids the best performing system." G2A
"Unfortunately there nothing I can write that would convince you."
I'm going to grade you down for effort, then.
"But please feel free to keep defending these adults and denying the unlucky kids the best performing system."
I'm not opposed to reform. I just don't think that the evidence shows that whacking teachers unions is the key to unlocking it."Sean
"Public schools are under attack because they are successful. For members of an anti-government party committed to the idea that government can never work, that is intolerable." --Hiram
Sean, I am okay with being graded... It is the Teachers and their Union that fight tooth and nail to not be graded or held accountable. This reminds me of an oldie but a goodie. G2A Test is Too Hard
"Hiram, If you consider these examples of success, please remind me not to ask you for your criteria again. Based on the MDE numbers, it looks like the Mpls and St Paul districts have a total of ~72,000 students... And proficiency scores of ~38%...
Here is a link to Wayzata and Minnetonka school district result for comparison.
Sean, Unfortunately the necessary reforms can not happen with the Union as it currently is.
Their focus is too maximize employee compensation, safety, control and job security. Please remember that is why they exist... They are an employee union, they exist to benefit employees.
They do not exist to help the unlucky kids, the country or the tax payers. If you disagree, please explain your rationale.
I keep hoping that someday the Union and Teachers will change their focus away from tenure, steps and lanes to performance and excellence, but I see no sign of this so far." G2A
"You're seriously comparing Minneapolis and St. Paul schools to Wayzata and Minnetonka? Without looking at the vast discrepancies in student population demographics?
"Unfortunately the necessary reforms can not happen with the Union as it currently is."
Your "reform" solely consists of whacking the union." Sean
Sean, Actually no I am not comparing Mpls/St Paul results to Wayzata/Mtka. Hiram wrote following and I am providing evidence of how incorrect he is.
"Public schools are under attack because they are successful. For members of an anti government party committed to the idea that government can never work, that is intolerable."
The unfortunate reality is that the public social services and education systems are failing millions of kids each year. Do you disagree?" G2A
39 comments:
FYI. On a related topic, there are still comments being entered at G2A MCAs and Analysis.
Sean,
As for my supposed dream of "whacking the Unions"...
I have no problem with the concept of Unions, history shows that they did great things for employee safety, manageable work weeks, etc.
What I dislike is what they have morphed into and what they seem to stand for? (ie especially the Public Employee Unions)
They seem to be obsessed with ensuring that older employees make more, they get to choose where they work, they get to work how they want and their jobs are more secure no matter the negative unintended consequences.
Now as an employee... Guaranteed raises, high job security, few performance requirements, protection from managers, freedom to speak out, etc sounds great!!!!
However as an advocate for the children in that system they sound terrible!!!
We vote for a School Board to run the District and ensure the children all learn. They hire a Superintendent who hopefully has the same goal in mind. Who then hires Administrators...
All the while the Education Unions, Laws they support and work contracts strive to tie the hands of the "Managers".
Again, as an employee that sounds great !!! Screw the bosses, we want the power and money!!!
However as an advocate for the children in that system, I want the Leadership to be able to change things quickly, move people to where their skills best fit, pay the best employees the most, set up bonus systems that reward results, demote/terminate poor performers, etc.
Unfortunately those are all things that the Unions seem to be against. Which makes sense as a said to Sean previously.
"Sean, Unfortunately the necessary reforms can not happen with the Union as it currently is.
Their focus is too maximize employee compensation, safety, control and job security. Please remember that is why they exist... They are an employee union, they exist to benefit employees.
They do not exist to help the unlucky kids, the country or the tax payers. If you disagree, please explain your rationale.
I keep hoping that someday the Union and Teachers will change their focus away from tenure, steps and lanes to performance and excellence, but I see no sign of this so far." G2A
Now as Parents and Concerned Citizens...
Do we want to enable our School Boards and Superintendent to succeed by giving them the authority they need to get the results all of the children deserve?
Or do we want to enable the Public Employees to stymie those efforts with tenure, steps, lanes, Last In First Out layoff processes, employment contracts, negotiations, grievance processes, etc, etc, etc?
It is an interesting question... Are we part of "Management" or "Employees"?
If you want to see one of the results of the Union rules... Look here
I hope they kept making real changes... But unfortunately Johnson quit, so I am not sure her changes were carried forward,
What makes the biggest difference in getting results / high achievement from more students is the quality / skills of the teachers. There may be some changes that could increase achievement a little. Mostly schools need to find ways to attract and keep high achieving people in the teaching profession. My school has a hard time filling teaching positions and even keeps struggling teachers because their job would be hard to fill. Without unions pay would be lower and teaching jobs would be even a less attractive career choice for high achievers.
Also, I don't think most people appreciate what a very challenging job it is to teach, which keeps getting more difficult as student demographics change.
Laurie,
Do you think the Boards and Administrators are trying to run an excellent district?
Or
Do you think they are trying to pinch pennies and run a District with high turnover and unqualified employees?
My point is that Unions are not required to ensure that good and great hard working Teachers are paid well. The job market takes care of this all by itself.
As for the Teacher's job getting harder, I agree that should be stopped... Remember where this started...
"Parents should be held accountable for ensuring their kids are fed, have good hygiene, they are prepared for Kindergarten, get to school, do their homework, etc." G2A
Unfortunately neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives seem to want to approach that issue... Both seem to think every human who has passed through puberty should be allowed to have as many kids as they want... Whether they have the money or capability to raise them well, or not...
my school is non union and we are not paid well. the job market is not taking care of this well at all. Also, as we are still on the list of bad schools I believe finding and keeping good teachers is a high priority for my principal, our superintendent, and our school board.
And as for your school's financial hardships, please remember that you have the Union and their politicians to thank for that.
THEY DO NOT WANT FAIR COMPETITION !!! A pseudo monopoly where they can control things supports their goals.
Remember... "Their focus is too maximize employee compensation, safety, control and job security. Please remember that is why they exist... They are an employee union, they exist to benefit their employees."
And your charter is their enemy!!!
Here is some interesting reading.
Ed MN Legislative Agenda
Ed MN Voucher Brief
Ed MN More Issue Briefs
Now please remember that my disagreeing with the priorities of the Union and/or some Teachers does not mean that I think they are BAD people...
They are simply human and trying maximize their compensation, control, job security, etc.
The choice we citizens need to make is who do we want controlling our schools, budgets, processes, staffing, etc? The Managers we voted for or the Employees who work there?
I have a hard time envisioning a successful current American company that runs with the employees having so much power. Most of them went bankrupt or changed radically for the better when they were faced with stiff competition.
And Lord knows the Liberal consumers bailed on GM, Ford and Chrysler... They didn't say, let's spend more on our less effective, less reliable, etc Union Made Cars to help those employees keep their high paying jobs and benefits.
So why do so many people who have willingly run screaming from American Union Made products insist so aggressively that unions are good for our schools and children?
"I am not "sniffing with disapproval" I am proposing our society should do something to hold these unqualified and/or irresponsible adults accountable
Calling mothers "baby makers" is pretty sniffy. They tend to be on the imperfect side, but I have a high opinion of Moms generally.
The notion that government, yes government, should engage in some sort of massive intrusion in the family life of Americans, insisting on universal "accountability" in some fashion or form is quite remarkable. The notion that only "qualified" people should enter family life leaves me something close to speechless.
--Hiram
"The notion that government, yes government, should engage in some sort of massive intrusion in the family life of Americans, insisting on universal "accountability" in some fashion or form is quite remarkable.The notion that only "qualified" people should enter family life leaves me something close to speechless."
It sounds like a dystopian nightmare.
Nowhere in John's complaints against teachers' unions do we see any accountability for the current situation laid on the school boards who have the responsibility to negotiate said contracts. If school boards want changes to those contracts now, they need to be negotiated as such.
"Now please remember that my disagreeing with the priorities of the Union and/or some Teachers does not mean that I think they are BAD people..."
You just said they care more about tying hands of administrators than educating kids, which pretty much runs contrary to the approach of every teacher I've ever met. If that's not implying they are bad people, I don't know what is.
Hiram,
I have a great deal of respect for Parents, Fathers and Mothers.
Unfortunately I think it takes more than engaging in poorly protected sex to make someone a Parent, Father or Mother.
I came up with the terms Baby Maker, Baby Mama and Babby Daddy to describe the people who can physically make a baby, and yet are incapable or unwilling to fulfill the challenging responsibilities of being a Parent, Mother and/or Father.
I am trying to be accurate, not insulting. Do have a better term to describe the difference?
Or do you truly believe that everyone who procreates has earned the title Parent, Father and/or Mother?
Unfortunately I think it takes more than engaging in poorly protected sex to make someone a Parent, Father or Mother.
That's true, I suppose, but then that's been true for a while now. I used to think sex was invented in 1973, but recently discovered evidence has convinced me otherwise.
As a general rule, it's the accurate insults that are most insulting. I think it is accurate to say that women make babies. It is simply disrespectful to characterize them in that way. I have nothing but respect and awe for all mothers, and that's equally the case for moms who for whatever reason, raise their kids in less than ideal conditions.
--Hiram
Sean,
Please note that the ED MN links I posted are where the Union works at the State level to tie the hands of local negotiators...
Let's get rid of all the State laws that constrain or over rule the local negotiations then we may have something better.
"I have nothing but respect and awe for all mothers" Hiram
Sorry I respect Mothers too much to give all women who bear children that respected title.
Lets see if this link to a search works
As for this...
"You just said they care more about tying hands of administrators than educating kids, which pretty much runs contrary to the approach of every teacher I've ever met. If that's not implying they are bad people, I don't know what is."
Remember my favorite saying. "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions."
Now from my perspective "bad people" have bad intentions. They do what they do with the intention to cause harm to somebody. In this case, "good people" do things for what they perceive to be good reasons and overlook the very real negative consequences.
Just because the Union and Teachers truly believe that giving themselves raises, more control, more job security, more monopolistic control, etc is good for students... It does not mean that it is...
Some simple examples assuming a fixed budget:
Older Teachers get paid much more... Means that Younger Teachers are paid much less...
All Teachers get paid more... Means that fewer Teachers can be hired...
Then we have that layoff question.
All tenured Teachers are protected from layoffs... Means that some great Teachers are laid off when enrollment declines. Some moderate to poor performers stay in the classroom.
All of the above are great for the employees... But maybe not so great for the students.
"Older Teachers get paid much more... Means that Younger Teachers are paid much less..."
Under your scenario, good teachers get paid more and not-as-good teachers get paid less. You've consistently said you're not interested in cutting teacher pay, so wouldn't this even out? Or, are you actually looking to spend less on teachers?
It's up to the district -- in the collective bargaining arrangement with its teachers -- to determine how best to compensate its teachers.
"All tenured Teachers are protected from layoffs."
No, not necessarily. It depends on the contract in the district. Which, again, comes back to the school board.
"Just because the Union and Teachers truly believe that giving themselves raises, more control, more job security, more monopolistic control, etc is good for students... It does not mean that it is..."
How do you explain that most of the top-performing states academically tend to have stronger teachers unions? Why haven't Southern states that have whacked the teachers unions supplanted states like Minnesota in the academic rankings?
As I noted above... "assuming a fixed budget" So I believe it would even out.
The current system rewards Teachers for getting degrees and staying in the same district. And gives them a lot of influence in choosing their school / students. (ie see MPS example where the expensive Teachers congregate in the easiest schools.)
A preferred system would reward Teachers for taking challenging positions and performing great.
As for Layoffs... That will be the case if the GOP and Dayton sign this law change... Until then tenured Teachers are pretty well locked in by State law.
As for the "Good Unions" and "Good Education" correlation. Maybe that will need to be it's own post.
My first guess is that the causation is very complicated.
G2A Education Factors
The question being what factors support strong Unions and good Parents? (ie wealthy state, good land, priorities of people who settled there, educated populace, etc)
Is the Union truly causing anything? I don't know.
Did that State's success far pre-date the Teacher's Unions?
Also, please remember that I think the Unions do accomplish some good things. The big question is do they accomplish more good or harm with their actions?
This is interesting... Teacher Union History
"1970s and 1980s: Striking breaks out across the country. Although it is illegal in Minnesota at the time, a 1970 strike by Minneapolis teachers over low salaries prompts the state to enact the Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations Act, which protects teachers’ ability to strike. Strikes also take place in Philadelphia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Chicago, over pay, medical benefits and contract demands. “The same issues were involved, same picketing, same closing of schools, all of that is identical” to the issues in the recent Chicago strike, said John P. Hancock, Jr., a lawyer in Detroit who represented school boards in two Michigan strikes during this time. “It was really awful.”
It is interesting that the MN Unions are so young for all the excitement they cause. And please note what they held strikes over... "pay, medical benefits and contract demands"
All the things we have been discussing.
It is interesting that the MN Unions are so young for all the excitement they cause.
That's because they provide a convenient villain for Republicans. The union movement in America has been dying ever since the PATCO strike and the results have not been pretty. Worker wages have stagnated for decades because they lack the bargaining power that strong unions gave them. Whole industries have risen up which are based entirely on the exploitation of cheap, non-unionized labor. And we see the results of these policies every day in the demoralization of working people, and in particular the reckless election of an utterly incompetent demagogue as president of the United States.
--Hiram
Hiram,
I know you like to blame the GOP and Business Owners for the downfall of the US Labor Unions, and you are correct that they were a factor.
Unfortunately the primary reason for the failure of the Unions is that the American Consumer will not voluntarily pay more just so the Union employees can be paid more.
And unfortunately the Unions have offered no value add for the customers to offset the extra cost they generate. As we have discussed above, they want more money and benefits for doing the same or less work with more rules/protections.
The only reason that the Public Employee Unions continue to thrive is that the government is a Monopoly in many ways. And many tax payers seem to be okay with paying extra taxes to ensure these Union employees get better pay and benefits than they normally would.
That is why I ask the question if citizens should relate more with Management or the Employees in this case?
Technically we are "management", we set the agenda, goals and pay for the work force. And the Union seeks to increase our costs, which results in us paying more in taxes. And every questionable work rule, strike, slow down, etc the Union introduces reduces our ability to achieve the goals at a reasonable cost.
And yet many people like Sean and yourself still seem to want to align yourself with the Union...
As for wage stagnation, please thank all our consumers who search for the best deal no matter where the product is made or the service is conducted.
And all the folks who are fine with us having 11 million illegal workers in the country.
If you want Americans to make more, Americans will need to be willing to pay more to entice businesses to bring more jobs back here. The current reward for companies that try to stay in the USA is bankruptcy in many cases.
I know you like to blame the GOP and Business Owners for the downfall of the US Labor Unions, and you are correct that they were a factor.
There are a lot of reasons for the downfall of labor. For one thing, the jobs that workers do have changed. For me, to blame the decline of manufacturing jobs on business leadership, would be like Trump blaming foreign competition. In both cases, there would be some truth in it, but also a massive oversimplification.
However, we do some strange things in our economy. We grossly overcompensate managers in ways that are harmful to other shareholders. We reward bankers who defraud shareholders and the public with golden parachutes valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We reward paper shuffling financial manipulators with wealth beyond the dreams of avarice for doing nothing substantive at all. We pay lots of CEO's not to show up for work. Our compensation practices for managers are comparable only to those we find in Russia, and as with Russia constitute and incredible and massive drag on our economic performance.
When I hear Republicans say they want to run government like a business, I am amazed to the extent that the practices they have in mind often represent business at it's worst. Most businesses fail, and very often, it's because of the practices Republicans want to incorporate into government, in particular, off the books accounting. For many years now, our country has maintained a remarkably sluggish performance, and the reasons are not hard to find.
--Hiram
I agree that there is waste in the Private sector, but that is people and organizations choosing to spend / invest their money. And if they spend their money unwisely too long, they or their company will fail.
Unfortunately with government we spend "other people's money" to pay people to shuffle papers, we pay people more than needed to fill positions, we pay for redundant departments / positions, we do not encourage efficiency / effectiveness gains, etc. And if we spend their/our money unwisely too long, our taxes just keep going up and the country becomes less competitive against the global market.
I agree that there is waste in the Private sector, but that is people and organizations choosing to spend / invest their money
Has a corporate CEO ever knocked at your door and asked for your vote at the next shareholder's meeting?
Do you get asked how to vote your shares by your employers' pension plan?
If you vote your shares against managment, has your position ever won?
The notion that business is more responsive than government just doesn't comport with reality.
And if you think the politicians you elect are spending someone else's money, I have some Florida swampland you might be interested in.
--Hiram
If I am unhappy with how a management team is using my investment I simply vote by selling the shares... That is why 401K's and IRA's are better than Pensions and Social Security...
Businesses respond to their customers and investors quite well.
We American Investors want earnings and the American consumer wants low prices...
Neither seems to very concerned with American jobs / pay as long as they get what they want.
So the companies do what they can to reduce costs... :-)
It would be interesting to see what would happen if citizens could ear mark their tax dollars by government department or goal... Just like I do when I buy and sell stocks.
"That is why 401K's and IRA's are better than Pensions and Social Security..."
So that's why more Americans are facing a retirement savings shortage today than before the introduction of 401ks?
Well if people lack the motivation and self discipline to save and invest consistently...
Then you are correct that having responsible adults forcefully take your money, invest it, decide how much you get back and when may be better for you.
Of course then again a lot of people lost their pensions when those responsible adults turned out to not be so responsible...
Please remember that unless our "responsible politicians" find some more money to fund SS & Medicare... Those payouts are going to be cut in about 14 years. Hopefully they don't decide to raid our 401K's and IRA's... :-)
Post a Comment