Dayton's Veto Message
“Throughout this session, I have heard passionate rhetoric from your members about the urgent need to close the achievement gap. This bill belies that rhetoric, and instead chooses to shortchange our youngest students for future tax cuts" DaytonThis from the guy who:
- Refuses any changes that would help to hold the Public School System, it's management and it's personnel accountable for being effective and efficient !!!
- Wants to close a gap by sending all 4 year olds to pre-school. Here is some simple logic: one closes a gap by focusing intensely on the children with the low performance. Focusing on everyone just increases the gap because the well supported kids make better use of the extra time.
"the $400 million wasn't enough given the state's nearly $2 billion surplus."When the next recession occurs, will he be saying that we should cut Universal Pre-K because we don't have the revenues? I don't think so...
By the way, I also think the GOP politicians are idiots for pursuing long term tax cuts because we have a short term windfall. How about short term tax relief, pay down bonds or spend it on our infrastructure.
Thoughts?
My rep, who is generally very good at making predictions, says a special session will result in Dayton getting part of what he wants. He sort of seems stubborn about it to me. From what I can tell he doesn't have that much public support for universal prek, but all the money sitting there unspent does stregthen his positions a little.
ReplyDeleteI am a little surprised that you didn't make a bigger rant about this, John.
I will strive to do better next time.
ReplyDeleteHere is what I left at this MP Post.
"As I understand it, the debate is really over universal versus targeted pre K. A lot of folks argue that given the fact that our resources are limited, we should target them toward the kids most in need. What Dayton wants to do is make such aid universal which, the argument goes, means a lot of money goes to kids who are doing just fine, and which therefore, will have little or no effect reducing inequity or the achievement gap. There are good and reasonable arguments on both sides of the question, and it's probably fair to say there are more sides than two to the question anyway." Hiram
"Again: This is an artificial problem because we know how to identify and assist children in need, we just don't do it. The system could cope with any child that enters Kindergarten, but we don't give it the necessary resources. Then we have this "argument" about equity and cost because we're trying to implement the only solutions small guvmint mentalities will allow. Obviously you would want to apportion resources to those that need them the most, but that's systemic approach that recognizes the public schools as an essential necessity. Any decent education system would serve those children as a matter of course, but we have powerful interests who don't actually care about having a decent education system, and they refuse to pay it.
We can't get the money to fix the system, so I think Dayton is trying to work it out by adding another component to the system and maybe getting the money for that." Paul
"The reality is that as more money is given to the system, those who are most capable and influential direct the money to what they think is the best place. The influential and capable are not the unlucky kids or their parents, they are the educational bureaucrats, personnel, unions and engaged middle/ upper class parents.
I mean the staffing of the Minneapolis schools show this very well, the schools with the luckiest students get the experienced / expensive teachers. In my district the money and attention flows to magnet schools and not to the poorest community schools. And I have never heard a teacher say that their compensation is acceptable, so they will keep negotiating for more compensation. And everyone wants to fund the arts, enrichment classes, sports, etc
All of these are normal human responses that will ensure extra money gets diverted.to those with the most influence, so until clear measureable goals and accountability measures are in place.... More money is not the solution." G2A
My latest response to Paul's latest tirade. Too long to duplicate the whole thing here.
ReplyDelete"better public education system is going to cost more than the one we have, that's just a fact" Paul
"You are sounding a lot like the person who believed "Everything that can be invented has been invented." The reality is that often quality and productivity can be improved while reducing costs, unfortunately this requires a willingness to change, improve, modernize, stop doing low value / high cost activities, etc.
Your limiting belief is interesting though. " G2A
Who are we kidding? The education system is positively awash in money, with statewide average teacher salaries exceeding $60,000 NOT including benefits. And administrative costs even higher, while we continue to care little about teacher effectiveness or productivity or, most especially, results. Maybe we don't really KNOW what works, but like Edison we know thousands of things that do not and we ought to quit doing those, at least.
ReplyDelete"...with statewide average teacher salaries exceeding $60,000 NOT including benefits."
ReplyDeleteHow much should a teacher make, jerry? What is the value of a person who teaches our children how to full, functioning members of our society?
me: 20 years of teaching salary <$60,000
ReplyDeletemy son's roommate: o years experience with a business degree salary >$60,000
What do you think teachers should be paid?
I'll try to answer that.
ReplyDelete"They should be paid whatever it costs to attract and retain qualified personnel who want to do that job in that work environment."
How much do you think they should be paid?
If we can get qualified Teachers who are willing to work for $45,000/9 months, what would be your rationale for paying them more?
Please remember if you pay them more, the kids get fewer Teachers in their school for the same budget. And if we raise the budget to keep the same number of Teachers at the higher wage, then the taxes on all citizens are increased to pay for it.
I find your responses on teacher pay incoherent. On one hand, you seem to be arguing that we're paying teachers too much. On the other, you frequently seem to be complaining that we have all sorts of lousy teachers that should be flushed, which would make the argument that we're not paying teachers enough to attract highly qualified candidates.
ReplyDeleteThen let me try to clarify, and I think I have been consistent over the years.
ReplyDeleteI think 3% to 5% of Teachers are "lousy teachers that should be flushed" immediately for the good of the students. That means that in a school with 50 Teachers, there are ~2...
I think the rest of the Teachers are distributed between marginal (~10%), good(~70%) and excellent(~15%).
Since compensation is set by years and degrees, not level of challenge or performance, it is high likely that we are paying poor, marginal and/or burnt out Teachers way too much. And we are paying good Techers too much, too little or just right. Finally we are likely paying excellent Teachers too little.
In my dream world, employees are paid competitively based on the market rate, the job reqts / responsibilities, the location, their capability / results, etc. It does not matter if they are 28, 38, 48 or 58 years old. It doesn't matter if they are male, female, black, white, healthy, handicapped, etc.
Did that help?
Same question I often ask, will you pay an older roofer twice as much just because they are older?
I would not. I pay more if they are higher quality, faster, nicer, cleaner, more prfessional, etc, but not just because they have been doing it longer.
As an add on: "attract highly qualified candidates"
ReplyDeleteMaking extremely highly effective personnel wait ~20 years to obtain the wage they should have been paid at 5 years is a big turn off to highly motivated driven people. Especially if they work next to a poor or burnt out employee with the same responsibilities who is paid twice as much just because they are old.
I personally would not do it, and I think many others bypass becoming Teachers for a similar reason.
I think we are paying teachers too much for what we ALLOW them to do, and too little for what they OUGHT to be doing. I think a high school teacher that can control and impart two years of learning, in one year, to a class of 40 should be classified a "master teacher," paid $100k, and in charge of helping 3-4 "apprentice teachers" to do as she does. First, though, we have to free teachers from rigid curricula guidelines and let them teach as needed, to individualize instruction as needed, and generally treat them as the professionals they are supposed to be-- given an objective and allowing them to figure out the details. Then you pay them according to how well they do.
ReplyDeleteWe've long paid teachers less because, historically, it was one of the few jobs that women could get, we paid women much less, and there were a lot of them competing for the job, which didn't require much of any "professional credential." We still have a lot of people wanting the job because it doesn't require all that much ability and you get paid pretty well regardless of how well you perform. I'm thinking of my example of Louisiana, who decided that prospective teachers should pass the same basic skills test as the students they were to teach. They had to repeal the requirement because something like 80% of their ed school graduates failed the test.
It's sort of a chicken-egg problem, isn't it? We pay too much for too little, so we keep getting less and less. If we upped the pay and tightened the requirement to GET that pay (that is, pay for performance) we might get more qualified candidates, (wash out those less so), fewer of them, and the salaries could go up to where they ought to be for a valued professional.