Peter at MinnPost does a good job with With a few exceptions, Minnesota governor’s race shows stark differences on education
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2018
(325)
-
▼
September
(29)
- More MN Schools Need Help
- Where is G2A (ie John)
- Full Service Community Schools
- GOP Disaster
- Yes281 Everyone Benefits
- China Interference in US Election
- GOP Supporting ACA Protections?
- Trump's Delusion on Display
- What is Civilized?
- GOP in Favor
- The System is Working
- Federal Spend and Revenue
- Arguments Make You Smarter
- You Are Fired
- The Korean Meeting
- Trump's 5 Assaults on Democracy
- Trump: The Kidney Stone
- Kerry Meets with Iran Personnel
- What is Wrong with Work Requirements
- And We Wonder Why Our Schools Struggle
- What's in Your Wallet?
- The Problem with Tariffs
- Trump vs Obama
- Guy in the Plaid Shirt...
- Johnson vs Walz
- Trump Says: Your Fault if I get Impeached
- Can Karin Housley Win?
- Thoughts from the Adults in White House
- Trump Never Ceases to Amaze
-
▼
September
(29)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
37 comments:
just discussing this "Johnson said he wants to change the mindset in St. Paul that more money is the answer to problems in schools" with my mom.
It is a very standard GOP position that more money doesn't make a difference in raising achievement. At my school, it would make a small difference.
We have one title 1 teacher to provide small group reading and math support for students in six different classes in grades 4-6. With another teacher at this level we could serve twice as many students. Would our test scores go up? In my estimation, they would go up slightly. To get our test scores to go up significantly would take a lot of money, like maybe doubling our budget. A better use for some of the money would be to get our students in a high qualiity preschool before they arrive in our kindergarten classrooms.
One last comment to refute the more $ doesn't make a difference argument is we don't know how much lower the results would be if we spent less money. To get the kinds of gains we want is going to take a lot more money than we are currently spending.
I do agree that Parent/Early Ed is how we close the achievement gap.
Haven't you heard the old management mantra... "We must work smarter, not harder."
I think Johnson and other Conservatives are just trying to challenge Public education's belief that "they are not part of the problem".
Currently it seems their belief is that "our system is optimal" and therefore improvement can only occur if more money is given to them. Therefore they are unwilling to consider:
- different compensation policies
- different organizational methods
- etc
Their only answer is "we may close the gap if you give us more money... No guarantees though..."
I have hope that as education software keeps get better that it will be part of the solution in raising achievement for at least some of the kids below level.
"different compensation policies"
This is code for "pay teachers less". (Because you've already said you're not going to spend more.)
Sean,
Now that I totally disagree with... I have posted on how to improve the compensation policies many times.
Here are a couple good ones.
Paygrades and Tenure Stress
Teacher Compensation 2011 I should update this sometime. Here are the current RDale docs.
In summary, the current compensation systems reward:
- staying in the same district
- getting degrees
It allows the highest paid teachers to migrate to the easiest school(s) in the district. While sending the cheapest teachers to the most challenging schools.
The current compensation systems do not reward:
- teachers who take on positions at challenging schools
- teachers who bust their butt and get results
The current compensation system is about taking care of the older Teachers...
I think Jeff and I want a compensation system that is about helping the kids who need it most.
"Now that I totally disagree with... I have posted on how to improve the compensation policies many times."
Sure, but the whole idea (as you admit in one of those threads under my questioning) is status quo levels (or less) in aggregate teacher salaries. You're proposing a redistribution of those salaries, so some teachers receive more (and others receive less).
Nowhere in any of your proposals do I see you suggesting we should be paying more (in aggregate) for teachers. Your whole point in busting the union is that you think many teachers are making too much.
"I think Jeff and I want a compensation system that is about helping the kids who need it most."
Here's the problem. You can find states that have the sort of compensation system you desire, but they produce worse results than our system does. What *evidence* is there -- other than your dogma -- that changing compensation systems has a real-world impact on student performance?
But it certainly is not code for "pay teachers less"...
Actually my goal for "busting the union" is because their focus is not aligned with closing the achievement gap or making the most effective use of tax dollars.
I would happily pay more for public education if they actually delivered "No Child Left Behind"... (well except the cognitively limited special ed kids)
Can you think of one leading competitive market leading innovative industry where the professional employees are unionized, paid and protected like our education system employees?
Some interesting links
Tenure Pro / Con
Why Teachers Leave
Ed MN 2018 Leg Priorities
There are a few things for the kids, but mostly it is about:
- grow the union membership / power
- increase spending
- keep non-Union teachers out of the state
"Can you think of one leading competitive market leading innovative industry where the professional employees are unionized, paid and protected like our education system employees?"
WHOOSH is the sound of you ducking my question.
Your question is interesting, because conservatives like to claim that it's organized labor that makes American companies noncompetitive. Yet, Japan's car companies are largely unionized. South Korea's are, too (heck, Hyundai has faced strikes seven straight years!). So too in Germany.
So it's not unions in and of themselves that make the difference. It's a combination of many factors.
But all conservatives here are really interested in is busting the union, because of the fact that unions tend to support Democrats. (It's why Scott Walker exempted police and fire fighters from his Wisconsin union-busting, since they tend to be ones that sometimes support GOP politicians). Stopping teacher's unions hasn't fixed the achievement gap anywhere, which is why my question above got ducked. How teachers are compensated is not the issue that is holding back classroom achievement.
Personally I think the Japanese and Korean Unions are a very different animal.
American vs Japanese Unions.
And it seems Unions face similar problems in Japan also.
As for ducking your question... I find the topic hard to address because most "Teacher School Effectiveness" studies / comparisons are not very trustable. There are just SO MANY confounding factors.
I mean are North Mpls Public School results terrible because of:
- the unions
- the poverty
- the teachers
- the parents
- the many languages
- the special needs
- the community / peers
Which of these factors make some Charters have better results?
So just saying Minnesota schools are "better" than Mississippi schools because of the Union strength seems unsupportable.
"So just saying Minnesota schools are "better" than Mississippi schools because of the Union strength seems unsupportable."
I didn't say that. What I did say is that there's nothing that folks can point to that making the sole change of busting the unions -- in and of itself -- has a major impact on student performance. The reason conservatives are in favor of busting the unions is because it fits with their dogma, not because it's tied with results.
Well we know that if the older Teachers are paid well and protected...
For any given budget we can afford fewer Teachers, which means class sizes are bigger. Does this impact the students?
When a district shrinks in the number of students / funding, seniority not performance determines who is let go. Does this impact the students?
When a school board is elected and a new Superintendent is hired. They have little power to change the personnel who are working within the organization, especially the most entrenched senior teachers. Does this impact the students?
I will be posting about this soon. My employer just reorganized our organization again which meant that a quite a few capable smart people are now unemployed. Having been one of those people before I have thoughts to share.
In summary though... We hire Sr Executives / Superintendents to achieve results. If we truly want those goals met, we need to give them the authority to ensure their work force is aligned and working towards those same goals in the same way.
Now if our goal is to ensure all kids attain a certain academic proficiency... Unions, work rules, tenure, rigidity, steps/lanes pay scales, etc are not the answer. Oh well. The unlucky kids will continue to suffer.
Just curious...
Do you think your citizen chosen School Board and Superintendent want their schools and children to fail?
I have usually found them to be pro-children, pro-teacher, pro-school, etc...
And yet the Liberal mantra is that Unions are needed to help our kids... When in reality they are there to help older or less capable Teachers... I mean the really capable energetic Teachers will thrive in any system.
"Well we know that if the older Teachers are paid well and protected...
For any given budget we can afford fewer Teachers, which means class sizes are bigger."
You're saying the quiet part loud. Thank you for making my point for me. Your rhetoric points towards having cheap, young, disposable teachers.
"When a district shrinks in the number of students / funding, seniority not performance determines who is let go. "
LIFO is no longer state law, effective next year. Hold your school board accountable going forward.
My points continues to stand despite your various strawmen:
1.) how teachers are compensated is not the issue that is holding back classroom achievement. And you still can't point to any data that shows otherwise.
and
2.) As you have just emphasized above, the reason conservatives are in favor of busting the unions is because it fits with their dogma.
You are absolutely correct:
I support cutting the wages, job security and benefits of "over compensated" teachers... Be they old, middle aged or young.
Then I would ensure those were moved to "under compensated" teachers. Be they old, middle aged or young.
I believe that correctly compensating someone depends on the challenge level of their position and how well they perform in that position. NOT the Teacher's age.
Same question I always ask... Do you really pay a roofer, accountant, nurse, etc twice as much because they are old?
If they are doing a moderate job at high pay, do you keep them doing your roof, books, etc?
And remember that we truly are talking double the pay for doing the same exact job.
Only because the person took classes and got older.
It is still one classroom of kids and no real rating on how effective or ineffective they are. And no adjustment for having a more challenging class or doing better than average...
My points continue to stand despite your various strawmen:
1.) how teachers are compensated is not the issue that is holding back classroom achievement. And you still can't point to any data that shows otherwise.
and
2.) As you have just emphasized above, the reason conservatives are in favor of busting the unions is because it fits with their dogma.
Dogma defined
1
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets ·pedagogical dogma
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 :
a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
So is this your dogma:
The correct value of a teacher can be determined by looking at 2 pieces of data...
1. Years working as a teacher in the district
2. Number of degrees received
Because that for the most part is the union position.
"The correct value of a teacher can be determined by looking at 2 pieces of data."
No, that's not what I've said. What I've said, over and over again, is "how teachers are compensated is not the issue that is holding back classroom achievement".
We can talk about what the optimal compensation model for teachers is -- BUT, that's almost entirely a separate conversation from how do we improve performance of public schools.
Prove this statement.
"how teachers are compensated is not the issue that is holding back classroom achievement".
And consider my questions as you do.
For any given budget we can afford fewer Teachers, which means class sizes are bigger. Does this impact the students?
When a district shrinks in the number of students / funding, seniority not performance determines who is let go. Does this impact the students?
When a school board is elected and a new Superintendent is hired. They have little power to change the personnel who are working within the organization, especially the most entrenched senior teachers. Does this impact the students?
"Prove this statement."
Districts with compensation model you prefer aren't seeing significant improvements in their results. Some charter schools produce great results, but most don't. That's an indication that their success (or failure) is based on other factors than teacher compensation models.
"For any given budget we can afford fewer Teachers, which means class sizes are bigger. Does this impact the students?"
We could pay teachers minimum wage, hire a whole of them, and reduce class sizes immensely. Would we get better results?
I would suggest that your frame -- that there are lots of overpaid teachers -- is nonsense.
"When a school board is elected and a new Superintendent is hired. They have little power to change the personnel who are working within the organization, especially the most entrenched senior teachers. Does this impact the students?"
That assumes that "most entrenched senior teachers" are the problem. Again, that's where I think your frame is, again, based on dogma. What you're advocating is going to result in cheap, young, disposable teachers. Is that going to be better? I don't think so.
Please remember that charters do not get the same funding as status quo schools. And I don't think you proved anything...
"how teachers are compensated is not the issue that is holding back classroom achievement".
I don't want young cheap disposable teachers. I just don't think a teacher doing the same job, with the same number of kids, etc should be making twice as much with little concern as to their performance justifying the extra expense.
Ooh... You have gray hair, we should pay you twice as much... Really?
I know 5 year experienced teachers that far outperformed some of their older peers. I think they should be paid appropriately to their performance, not their amount of gray hair.
"Please remember that charters do not get the same funding as status quo schools. "
It's amazing how you conservatives want it both ways. You say we shouldn't keep dumping money into public schools because money's not everything, then complain we can't say anything bad about poor-performing charters because they don't get the same amount of funding.
"I don't want young cheap disposable teachers."
Maybe you don't, but I'm saying that's what your policies are going to result in.
"And I don't think you proved anything..."
You haven't provided a single point of data or evidence that indicates that whacking unions -- in and of itself -- raises student performance.
Please remember that I don’t care if we lower, raise or keep funding the same as long as it is used effectively.
Paying more for gray hair is not logical to me.
"I just don't think a teacher doing the same job, with the same number of kids, etc should be making twice as much..."
So you don't think experience is worth a penny. Got it.
Moose
Experience is worth more if:
- it enables better results
- it enables one to take on more challenging responsibilities
Similar kids, class and results. Not worth paying more.
I am not paid more because of my age.
I am paid more because my experience enables me to manage more projects of greater complexity at the same time.
"Please remember that I don’t care if we lower, raise or keep funding the same as long as it is used effectively."
Dude, I've read all the threads you linked to on your own freakin' blog. NONE of them talk about increasing funding. Heck, in one thread, you even told me that "lowering the salary and benefits for teachers while increasing their workload and stress" would somehow improve the teacher talent pool.
Of course it may improve the talent pool.
Do you really think you are going to attract high performing workaholics like me if I have to wait 10+ years to achieve a higher income in that work place?
If you want high performing employees you need to reward them now. Not 20 years from now.
The current system attracts caring people, people who want their Summers off, people who want job security, etc...
Type A personalities need not apply...
Post a Comment