Why Liberals Oppose School Choice

[Mike Griffith]

The liberal arguments against school choice are so awful and so unreasonable that one wonders how any sensible, honest person could make them. It doesn't take long to figure out that liberals oppose vouchers and other school-choice proposals because they want to maintain as much state control over education as possible and because they want to protect the teachers' unions.

This is why liberals pushed to shut down the very successful and extremely popular D.C. voucher program, even though the program was saving taxpayers money and providing a better education in the process. This is why liberals turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the massive and ever-growing evidence that homeschooling is a wonderful, successful form of education. Shamefully, liberals are waging an increasingly vicious war against homeschooling. This is why so many liberals can't even support such a commonsense proposal as merit pay (such a program might call attention to all the lazy, incompetent public school teachers--and we can't have that).

Some liberals will grudgingly go along with public school choice programs, where parents can choose from various public schools. Yet many liberals don't even like this level of choice. Some liberals have even fought against magnet and charter schools, because such schools imply by their very existence that standard public schools are inefficient and unpopular with parents.

[WorldWatcher]

The liberal arguments against school choice are so awful and so unreasonable that one wonders how any sensible, honest person could make them. It doesn't take long to figure out that liberals oppose vouchers and other school-choice proposals because they want to maintain as much state control over education as possible and because they want to protect the teachers' unions.

This is why liberals pushed to shut down the very successful and extremely popular D.C. voucher program, even though the program was saving taxpayers money and providing a better education in the process. This is why liberals turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the massive and ever-growing evidence that homeschooling is a wonderful, successful form of education. Shamefully, liberals are waging an increasingly vicious war against homeschooling. This is why so many liberals can't even support such a commonsense proposal as merit pay (such a program might call attention to all the lazy, incompetent public school teachers--and we can't have that).

Some liberals will grudgingly go along with public school choice programs, where parents can choose from various public schools. Yet many liberals don't even like this level of choice. Some liberals have even fought against magnet and charter schools, because such schools imply by their very existence that standard public schools are inefficient and unpopular with parents.


Very Successful?.......Student testing scores did not change.


Saved taxpayers money?.......Specifically how as the public schools still had to maintain the infrastructure to support those students (in addition to the vouchers) in case the child got booted from private school and had to return to their guaranteed slot in a public school.


How many of those students were really, REALLY, expensive disabled students?



The DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 established the first federally funded private school voucher program in the United States, providing scholarships of up to $7,500 for low-income residents of the District of Columbia to send their children to local participating private schools. The law also mandated that the Department conduct an independent, rigorous evaluation of what is now called the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), to assess the impact of the program on academic achievement, school safety, and other outcomes. The impact evaluation is a randomized controlled trial that compares outcomes of eligible public school applicants randomly assigned to receive or not receive a scholarship through a series of lotteries.

The third-year report, Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After One Year, contains the following key findings:

* No evidence of a statistically significant difference in test scores between students who were offered an OSP scholarship and students who were not offered a scholarship.
* The program had a consistently positive impact on parent satisfaction and their perceptions of school safety.
* Students who were offered OSP scholarships did not report being more satisfied with school or feeling safer in school than those without access to scholarships.
* This same pattern of findings holds when the analysis is conducted to determine the impact of using a scholarship rather than being offered a scholarship, taking into account the approximately 20 percent of students who were offered but chose not to use their scholarships the first year.


http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20074009/



>>>>

[See It Clearly]

The liberal arguments against school choice are so awful and so unreasonable that one wonders how any sensible, honest person could make them. It doesn't take long to figure out that liberals oppose vouchers and other school-choice proposals because they want to maintain as much state control over education as possible and because they want to protect the teachers' unions.

This is why liberals pushed to shut down the very successful and extremely popular D.C. voucher program, even though the program was saving taxpayers money and providing a better education in the process. This is why liberals turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the massive and ever-growing evidence that homeschooling is a wonderful, successful form of education. Shamefully, liberals are waging an increasingly vicious war against homeschooling. This is why so many liberals can't even support such a commonsense proposal as merit pay (such a program might call attention to all the lazy, incompetent public school teachers--and we can't have that).

Some liberals will grudgingly go along with public school choice programs, where parents can choose from various public schools. Yet many liberals don't even like this level of choice. Some liberals have even fought against magnet and charter schools, because such schools imply by their very existence that standard public schools are inefficient and unpopular with parents.

Two words...Teacher's Union

[WorldWatcher]

Two words...Teacher's Union


In some cases I agree with you.



Luckily I live in Virginia, and while I can't speak for other states, Virginia being a right-to-work state helps. Teacher Unions have "0" to do with curriculum and contract negotiations (well as a matter of fact there are no contract negotiations as the contracts are spelled out in State Code). The only thing the union does around here is provide some liability insurance and legal representation in the event of a lawsuit.




>>>>

[Mike Griffith]

In some cases I agree with you.

Luckily I live in Virginia, and while I can't speak for other states, Virginia being a right-to-work state helps. Teacher Unions have "0" to do with curriculum and contract negotiations (well as a matter of fact there are no contract negotiations as the contracts are spelled out in State Code). The only thing the union does around here is provide some liability insurance and legal representation in the event of a lawsuit.

I live in Virginia too, but don't have any kids going to school here since they're now all over 18. We moved to Virginia a couple years ago.

I hope, hope, hope to high heaven that Virginians have enough sense to elect Bob McDonnell governor over the loser that the Democrats are nominating (it'll either be Brian Moran or Terry McAuliffe), both of whom are tax-and-spend liberals . The frontrunner, McAuliffe, has said, with a straight face (and in writing, no less), that "there is no more room to cut" the state budget! Eee-gads, since the Dems took control of the governor's mansion, state spending has gone up over 70%--but, nah, we can't cut another dime!

If Virginians are dumb enough to elect Moran or McAuliffe, they'll deserve what they get.

[rebel1776]

Saved taxpayers money?.......Specifically how as the public schools still had to maintain the infrastructure to support those students (in addition to the vouchers) in case the child got booted from private school and had to return to their guaranteed slot in a public school.




This is a great point. If parents were given the choice of where to send their children, then the public schools could likely downsize or diminish altogether. More money would filter into private schools, who would be forced to be more competitive or lose students. Capitalism works great when people let it.

Public schools are not economically efficient. I have one of those really, REALLY expensive disabled kids and I can pay for a private education for $5500 a year. The public school states that it is paying $18,000 a year to educate him. And they are doing a pitifully poor job. Tell me what's wrong with this picture.

[pubschteacher]

You mean like all those "liberals" in Utah?

Utah is one of the nation's most conservative states and was targeted by national voucher advocates as a state likely to be receptive to a voucher program. Voucher groups, primarily funded by the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune and the founder of Amway, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars helping to elect pro-voucher candidates to the Utah Legislature.



More than 60 percent of voters were rejecting vouchers, with about 95 percent of the precincts reporting, according to unofficial results. The referendum failed in every county, including the conservative bastion of Utah County.


And before we hear the same old tired excuse.....


Voucher Referendum Spending Tops $7 Million

Last Update: 10/30/2007 6:40 pm

Supporters of the nation’s broadest private school voucher program have spent more than $3.8 million to ensure the program survives a Nov. 6 vote while the nation’s teachers’ unions have poured in more than $3.2 million to kill it. Voucher groups, primarily funded by the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune and the founder of Amway, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars helping to elect pro-voucher candidates to the Utah Legislature.

Your opinion is a minority one. Sorry

PDK Gallup 2008

TABLE 12. Using the A, B, C, D, and FAIL scale again,
what grade would you give the school your oldest
child attends?
’ 08 ’07 ’06 ’05 ’04
% % % % %
A & B 72 67 64 69 70
A 30 19 26 31 24
B 42 48 38 38 46
C 14 24 24 21 16
D 5 5 5 6 8
Fail 4 3 4 4 4
Don’t know 5 1 3 0 2


TABLE 11. Students are often given the grades of A,
B, C, D, and FAIL to denote the quality of their work.
Suppose the public schools themselves in your
community were graded in the same way. What
grade would you give the public schools here — A,
B, C, D, or FAIL?
’08 ’07 ’06 ’05 ’04
% % % % %
A & B 46 45 49 48 47
A 12 9 13 12 13
B 34 36 36 36 34
C 30 34 32 29 33
D 11 14 9 9 10
Fail 5 5 5 5 4
Don’t know 8 2 5 9 6

A very small percentage of Americans seem to think public schools are failing or are even below average.

[PhantomPholly]

In some cases I agree with you.



Luckily I live in Virginia, and while I can't speak for other states, Virginia being a right-to-work state helps. Teacher Unions have "0" to do with curriculum and contract negotiations (well as a matter of fact there are no contract negotiations as the contracts are spelled out in State Code). The only thing the union does around here is provide some liability insurance and legal representation in the event of a lawsuit.




>>>>

Perhaps the teachers' union in Virginia is only a "professional organization."

Is membership mandatory for public school teachers?

[WorldWatcher]

Perhaps the teachers' union in Virginia is only a "professional organization."

Is membership mandatory for public school teachers?



No.



>>>>

[pubschteacher]

Perhaps the teachers' union in Virginia is only a "professional organization."

Is membership mandatory for public school teachers?

In Colorado, membership is voluntary. Is there a state with mandatory membership for teachers?

[chris13]

In Colorado, membership is voluntary. Is there a state with mandatory membership for teachers?

Probably not, but it's like being an NFL player an not joining the NFLPA.
That player would be ostracized for not joining the union and yet still reaping the benefits.

Most states are "right to work" states, meaning that union membership cannot be forced. But there are some places (in the Northeast and Midwest) that have what are called "closed shops." In those places, if you're not a union member, you cannot be hired.

I don't think they can do that with teachers, since they are government employees, and no government shop is allowed to be a closed shop.

[Apatriot]

The liberal arguments against school choice are so awful and so unreasonable that one wonders how any sensible, honest person could make them. It doesn't take long to figure out that liberals oppose vouchers and other school-choice proposals because they want to maintain as much state control over education as possible and because they want to protect the teachers' unions.

Nope, it's because of logic. (I'm a conservative, and I'm wholly against vouchers, although I do support within district school choice). Let's say we institute a universal voucher system TODAY, that is based on average costs per student in the district. Lets also assume that we have the same mix of current public/private school students as exists nationwide (roughly 90% public/10% private) and for ease, assume homeschooling students won't change. For ease of calculation, let's assume that we have 10,000 school aged students in the district, and that it costs $10,000 a year to educate a single student. Also, let's assume special ed doesn't exist. First of all, we have to figure out our voucher amounts. The school district currently has 9,000 students. It's budget per student is $10,000. That means that currently they spend $90,000,000. OK, now vouchers come in. Since we are adding that 10% of the school aged population, the vouchers will be for $90,000,000 divided by 10,000, or $9,000 per student. That means first of all, if things remain the same (the current public school students stay at public schools), the public schools will lose about $9,000,000 to the private schools. Now, their budget is $81,000,000 for 9,000 students. They are worse than they were before. The private schools, however, are doing so much better now. We have basically worsened the situation for the public school students. Now, they will go to private schools. The problem is that 1) most private (the non-religious kind) were designed to exclude, hence they will all raise their tuition, probably by about $8k a year. After all that is still saving their parents $1K from what they were paying. 2) private schools, if possible, try to have a waiting list, so that their schools are at close to 100% occupancy at all times. They won't be able to take all of the public schools students if they wanted to (which they don't). Looking at that simple math, why in the world would public school teachers want vouchers? All it does is screw them over.

This is why liberals pushed to shut down the very successful and extremely popular D.C. voucher program, even though the program was saving taxpayers money and providing a better education in the process. This is why liberals turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the massive and ever-growing evidence that homeschooling is a wonderful, successful form of education. Shamefully, liberals are waging an increasingly vicious war against homeschooling. This is why so many liberals can't even support such a commonsense proposal as merit pay (such a program might call attention to all the lazy, incompetent public school teachers--and we can't have that).

Actually, the DC voucher system is different from what I proposed. It is not universal, but is aimed at the students at particularly bad schools. I actually am in favor of limited vouchers.

Some liberals will grudgingly go along with public school choice programs, where parents can choose from various public schools. Yet many liberals don't even like this level of choice. Some liberals have even fought against magnet and charter schools, because such schools imply by their very existence that standard public schools are inefficient and unpopular with parents.

Well, I'm all for them. They allow students to choose schools that match their personalities/interests.

Please show where liberals have fought against magnet schools? I don't doubt they've fought charter schools, but that's a different issue.

[Apatriot]

Probably not, but it's like being an NFL player an not joining the NFLPA.
That player would be ostracized for not joining the union and yet still reaping the benefits.

I've taught in 3 different systems in 2 states. This is not true. I've never known non-union teachers to be ostracized in any way.

Most states are "right to work" states, meaning that union membership cannot be forced. But there are some places (in the Northeast and Midwest) that have what are called "closed shops." In those places, if you're not a union member, you cannot be hired.

I don't think they can due that with teachers, since they are government employees, and no government shop is allowed to be a closed shop.

[WorldWatcher]

Nope, it's because of logic. (I'm a conservative, and I'm wholly against vouchers, although I do support within district school choice). Let's say we institute a universal voucher system TODAY, that is based on average costs per student in the district. Lets also assume that we have the same mix of current public/private school students as exists nationwide (roughly 90% public/10% private) and for ease, assume homeschooling students won't change. For ease of calculation, let's assume that we have 10,000 school aged students in the district, and that it costs $10,000 a year to educate a single student. Also, let's assume special ed doesn't exist. First of all, we have to figure out our voucher amounts. The school district currently has 9,000 students. It's budget per student is $10,000. That means that currently they spend $90,000,000. OK, now vouchers come in. Since we are adding that 10% of the school aged population, the vouchers will be for $90,000,000 divided by 10,000, or $9,000 per student. That means first of all, if things remain the same (the current public school students stay at public schools), the public schools will lose about $9,000,000 to the private schools. Now, their budget is $81,000,000 for 9,000 students. They are worse than they were before. The private schools, however, are doing so much better now. We have basically worsened the situation for the public school students. Now, they will go to private schools. The problem is that 1) most private (the non-religious kind) were designed to exclude, hence they will all raise their tuition, probably by about $8k a year. After all that is still saving their parents $1K from what they were paying. 2) private schools, if possible, try to have a waiting list, so that their schools are at close to 100% occupancy at all times. They won't be able to take all of the public schools students if they wanted to (which they don't). Looking at that simple math, why in the world would public school teachers want vouchers? All it does is screw them over.


One thing you forgot in your calculations is that most states (by state law) are required to maintain infrastructure to support the student population. So that is a cost the public school continue to have to assume even though some students may not be attending those schools. They may not have to have the staff immediately on hand, but typically they would be maintaining excess fixed assets (i.e. school buildings) whether the students are there or not.



>>>>

[PhantomPholly]

In Colorado, membership is voluntary. Is there a state with mandatory membership for teachers?

Two people have said union membership is not mandatory, yet I have gotten the distinct impression over the years that non-union public school teachers are as scarce as hen's teeth.

Now that poses an interesting question, because mathematically it approaches certainty that not every teacher supports unions. Too, I have never personally heard of a shop which supports both union and non-union workers for very long.

So, the question is, what pressure are the Unions bringing to bear to non-union teachers to join?

As I have pointed out before, unions cannot logically add value to the end product or business solution - therefore at best they are a benign parasite. At their worst they are extortion rackets akin to the mob. Even with that harsh criticism, however, I will not stoop to blaming the failure of voucher programs entirely on the teachers' unions. It lies instead in the tacit alliance of the unions and the politicians (one group providing votes, the other "protection" for their monopoly). This is evidenced by the fact that so many of the Voucher program laws are written in a way virtually guaranteed to "poison the well," rather than making it simple, open, and available to everyone.

Politicians will not surrender an inch of power unless completely overwhelmed. In military terms, we are fighting an entrenched enemy - and certain success in those circumstances generally calls for a MINIMUM of 3:1 odds. Thus, the legal battle in Utah (Colorado? I am forgetful) that PubschoolTeacher likes to point to where the pro-voucher group failed to unseat the teacher's union was doomed from the start, for their spending did not even approach 2:1.

Sadly, each and every battle with government follows this same rough rule, and so we will likely go bankrupt before real reform (both economic and educational) are considered.

The good news? Thanks to multi-trillion dollar deficit spending each year, the date for economic meltdown in the U.S. is rapidly approaching. So long as we can avoid dictatorship as the outcome of that virtually inescapable event, we may finally get some real reform implemented.

Which, of course, won't likely last more than a generation...

:(

[WorldWatcher]

Two people have said union membership is not mandatory, yet I have gotten the distinct impression over the years that non-union public school teachers are as scarce as hen's teeth.


Well you are free to carry an opinion, but I can say for sure it is not a requirement to be in the union (in my school district). As a matter of fact (in my school system) it's not really a big deal because the NEA/AFT has little to no power because they have 0, zero, zip, nadda, zilch to do with employment contracts.


Now that poses an interesting question, because mathematically it approaches certainty that not every teacher supports unions. Too, I have never personally heard of a shop which supports both union and non-union workers for very long.


Seem as if you are confusing union "shops" in the private sector with voluntary unions in the public sector.

They can be two very different animals between private and public and between different states.


So, the question is, what pressure are the Unions bringing to bear to non-union teachers to join?


Around here? None.


The main reason most people around here join the union is for (a) cheap liability insurance, and (b) legal representation "insurance" in the event of a law suit or wrongful termination claim.


BTW - we regularly terminate teachers for (a) poor performance, or (b) "for cause" and have very rarely lost a case when a teacher has challenged it.



>>>>

[chris13]

BTW - we regularly terminate teachers for (a) poor performance, or (b) "for cause" and have very rarely lost a case when a teacher has challenged it.

Well, that is a refreshing change from what I've seen in most states.
But remember, you live in a Commonwealth, and the laws are drawn up differently than your average state.

[pubschteacher]

Two people have said union membership is not mandatory, yet I have gotten the distinct impression over the years that non-union public school teachers are as scarce as hen's teeth.

I checked my local district and about 1 in 5 in a non union member. I joined primarily because I thought since the local association was doing the collective bargaining that I should support that. I have tried to drop my national membership, but unfortunately, it is a package deal. You join the local, you get membership in the state and national.

Now that poses an interesting question, because mathematically it approaches certainty that not every teacher supports unions. Too, I have never personally heard of a shop which supports both union and non-union workers for very long.

Again, just my district, but I wasn't a member of the association until after my fifth year of teaching. I have colleagues who never joined the association, once just retired after 32 years, never joined, never felt pressured to join.

So, the question is, what pressure are the Unions bringing to bear to non-union teachers to join?

You get a letter from the association each year asking you to join in my district.


Politicians will not surrender an inch of power unless completely overwhelmed. In military terms, we are fighting an entrenched enemy - and certain success in those circumstances generally calls for a MINIMUM of 3:1 odds. Thus, the legal battle in Utah (Colorado? I am forgetful) that PubschoolTeacher likes to point to where the pro-voucher group failed to unseat the teacher's union was doomed from the start, for their spending did not even approach 2:1.

Could you cite your source for the 3 to 1 odds?

[Mike Griffith]

One thing you forgot in your calculations is that most states (by state law) are required to maintain infrastructure to support the student population. So that is a cost the public school continue to have to assume even though some students may not be attending those schools. They may not have to have the staff immediately on hand, but typically they would be maintaining excess fixed assets (i.e. school buildings) whether the students are there or not.

Which is one more reason to stop throwing money at public schools and to invest our education tax dollars in schools that aren't required to incur such unreasonable overhead costs.

[rebel1776]

One thing you forgot in your calculations is that most states (by state law) are required to maintain infrastructure to support the student population. So that is a cost the public school continue to have to assume even though some students may not be attending those schools. They may not have to have the staff immediately on hand, but typically they would be maintaining excess fixed assets (i.e. school buildings) whether the students are there or not.



>>>>

What you are saying doesn't hold water. If there is a decrease in the population then the same problems would arise. The public school system and its budget needs to expand and contract with the need. I was born a generation after the baby boom. When I was growing up, there were ten elementary schools that shut down because there were not enough students to fill them. The school district consolidated the schools and leased the extra buildings to private parochial schools, that had previously been operating out of church basements. The parochial schools were glad to have the facilities and the school district generated revenue from buildings that they couldn't use.

Giving people choices is ALWAYS a good idea.

[WorldWatcher]

What you are saying doesn't hold water. If there is a decrease in the population then the same problems would arise. The public school system and its budget needs to expand and contract with the need. I was born a generation after the baby boom. When I was growing up, there were ten elementary schools that shut down because there were not enough students to fill them. The school district consolidated the schools and leased the extra buildings to private parochial schools, that had previously been operating out of church basements. The parochial schools were glad to have the facilities and the school district generated revenue from buildings that they couldn't use.

Giving people choices is ALWAYS a good idea.



Sure it holds water if you understand the ways that schools must function under the laws that exist in various states.


The fundamental difference between a public school and a private school is that - by law - public schools cannot turn away students, private schools can.


Let's say there is a school district with 100,000 students in the district. 15,000 go to private schools and 85,000 go to public schools. **IF** there is a downturn in the economy and a majority of those parents in private schools can no longer afford private school then they simply have to pull them private schools and return them to the public schools. The public schools cannot refuse to take those students in. They either have to integrate them into existing facilities or lease extra space (usually more expensive trailers).


If you don't think it works this way, feel free to cite the law in any State that says the State is exempt from providing an education by simply stating "we don't have the room". I'd like to see that law.


As an example here is the section from the Virginia Constitution...

Section 1. Public schools of high quality to be maintained.

The General Assembly shall provide for a system of free public elementary and secondary schools for all children of school age throughout the Commonwealth, and shall seek to ensure that an educational program of high quality is established and continually maintained.


Notice that is says that the state must maintain schools for all children.


>>>>

[rebel1776]

Sure it holds water if you understand the ways that schools must function under the laws that exist in various states.


The fundamental difference between a public school and a private school is that - by law - public schools cannot turn away students, private schools can.


Let's say there is a school district with 100,000 students in the district. 15,000 go to private schools and 85,000 go to public schools. **IF** there is a downturn in the economy and a majority of those parents in private schools can no longer afford private school then they simply have to pull them private schools and return them to the public schools. The public schools cannot refuse to take those students in. They either have to integrate them into existing facilities or lease extra space (usually more expensive trailers).


If you don't think it works this way, feel free to cite the law in any State that says the State is exempt from providing an education by simply stating "we don't have the room". I'd like to see that law.


As an example here is the section from the Virginia Constitution...
Section 1. Public schools of high quality to be maintained.

The General Assembly shall provide for a system of free public elementary and secondary schools for all children of school age throughout the Commonwealth, and shall seek to ensure that an educational program of high quality is established and continually maintained.
Notice that is says that the state must maintain schools for all children.


>>>>

So, let's say hypothetically, your district has 30,000 school age children. At 1 teacher for every 30 children, it must employ 1000 teacher. Now lets say that 15000 of those children go to private school. Are you saying that 500 teachers will be paid to do nothing? I know that they will probably reduce class size but I think you get my point.

If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt your information, then it seems that the public school system needs a complete overhall, starting with a cut in teacher salaries and an addition of retention bonuses for keeping students in your classes, as opposed to private schools. Offer a better product at a lower price and people will buy it. Unfortunately the public school system charges your more and gives you less. It takes the money first and if you don't like or can't use the product, you have to pay for it anyway. Very frustrating.

[PhantomPholly]

Well you are free to carry an opinion, but I can say for sure it is not a requirement to be in the union (in my school district). As a matter of fact (in my school system) it's not really a big deal because the NEA/AFT has little to no power because they have 0, zero, zip, nadda, zilch to do with employment contracts.

Seem as if you are confusing union "shops" in the private sector with voluntary unions in the public sector.

They can be two very different animals between private and public and between different states.

Around here? None.

The main reason most people around here join the union is for (a) cheap liability insurance, and (b) legal representation "insurance" in the event of a law suit or wrongful termination claim.


BTW - we regularly terminate teachers for (a) poor performance, or (b) "for cause" and have very rarely lost a case when a teacher has challenged it.

>>>>

Sounds like the Teacher's Union in Virginia is more akin to a Professional Association than an actual Union. I have no objection to Associations, as they do not meddle with the free market and they do actually provide value to their only customers, their members.

[WorldWatcher]

So, let's say hypothetically, your district has 30,000 school age children. At 1 teacher for every 30 children, it must employ 1000 teacher. Now lets say that 15000 of those children go to private school. Are you saying that 500 teachers will be paid to do nothing? I know that they will probably reduce class size but I think you get my point.


Not at all, I've clearly been talking about fixed assets.


Teachers are not fixed asset, they are employees.


I work in HR for a school system, we work off projections of student populations in the long range and actual enrollment in the here and now. We have been going through a lull in student populations only slightly offset by construction within the district. The end result is that the population has been decreasing. As such we've taken steps to reduce the number of teachers employed (mostly through attrition). However projections that the completion of some major housing projects and birth cycle changes show that the student population will begin rising again starting with the 2012-2013 school year and will continue to increase (slowly) for the next 5-10 years.


If we have a sudden influx of students, it is actually easier to hire more teachers (lead time is normally 30-60 days depending on grade level or specialty) compared to 3-5 years from design, approval, and construction of a new school. In addition we often have retired teachers that are more then happy to return to the classroom on a temporary basis.


If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt your information, then it seems that the public school system needs a complete overhall, starting with a cut in teacher salaries and an addition of retention bonuses for keeping students in your classes, as opposed to private schools. Offer a better product at a lower price and people will buy it. Unfortunately the public school system charges your more and gives you less. It takes the money first and if you don't like or can't use the product, you have to pay for it anyway. Very frustrating.



So let me get this straight, you want to cut the pay of teachers who are typically teaching the poorest children because their parents don't give a **** and let them drop out of school as soon as they can, while at the same time giving bonuses to teachers in more affluent areas such as suburban schools where the parents actually give a rats ass and make sure their children get an education.


Wow.



>>>>

[rebel1776]

Not at all, I've clearly been talking about fixed assets.

Sorry. My mistake. However, if this is the case then what I said before about leasing out surplus facilities would be viable. If they dole out short term leases, they can still bring in revenue for assets that would otherwise be unused.



So let me get this straight, you want to cut the pay of teachers who are typically teaching the poorest children because their parents don't give a **** and let them drop out of school as soon as they can, while at the same time giving bonuses to teachers in more affluent areas such as suburban schools where the parents actually give a rats ass and make sure their children get an education.



Not at all. Those in poorer neighborhoods with parents that don't care would not seek out alternative education and thus the retention in these schools would likely be higher, at least into the middle grades. Parents in suburban neighborhoods tend to fall in to the "keep up with the Jones's" attitude. Those districts in higher income neighborhoods would have more competition with the private institutions and the teachers there would have to work harder to keep their classrooms filled.

You are looking at this as a punishment for the teachers. It's not. It's a way to reward the good ones and encourage them to create an environment that rivals any private school. I happen to have nothing against teachers. I think there are many that work very hard and truly love working with children. I also think there are many teachers that have been in a classroom too long or should never have been in one to begin with. They've been tainted by time and bureacracy and would benefit everyone if they found a different line of work, but they don't. Why? Because they have tenure, union benefits and a captive audience. They have absolutely no incentive to improve their own abilities or those of their students. This is a way to identify those who should go into another field of work and attract teachers who are competent, creative and dynamic. Also you forget one of the primary rules of capitalism. Those teachers that excel will be sought after and able to command a higher salary as well as bonuses.

It's utopian. I understand that, but the system as it is now doesn't work. You can quote test scores at me all day long but until you give me a viable reason why a private school can give my child a better education, with smaller classrooms and more individual attention for half the cost, then I will continue to believe that the public school system is failing.

[RWReaganfan]

Sorry. My mistake. However, if this is the case then what I said before about leasing out surplus facilities would be viable. If they dole out short term leases, they can still bring in revenue for assets that would otherwise be unused.


Not at all. Those in poorer neighborhoods with parents that don't care would not seek out alternative education and thus the retention in these schools would likely be higher, at least into the middle grades. Parents in suburban neighborhoods tend to fall in to the "keep up with the Jones's" attitude. Those districts in higher income neighborhoods would have more competition with the private institutions and the teachers there would have to work harder to keep their classrooms filled.

You are looking at this as a punishment for the teachers. It's not. It's a way to reward the good ones and encourage them to create an environment that rivals any private school. I happen to have nothing against teachers. I think there are many that work very hard and truly love working with children. I also think there are many teachers that have been in a classroom too long or should never have been in one to begin with. They've been tainted by time and bureacracy and would benefit everyone if they found a different line of work, but they don't. Why? Because they have tenure, union benefits and a captive audience. They have absolutely no incentive to improve their own abilities or those of their students. This is a way to identify those who should go into another field of work and attract teachers who are competent, creative and dynamic. Also you forget one of the primary rules of capitalism. Those teachers that excel will be sought after and able to command a higher salary as well as bonuses.

It's utopian. I understand that, but the system as it is now doesn't work. You can quote test scores at me all day long but until you give me a viable reason why a private school can give my child a better education, with smaller classrooms and more individual attention for half the cost, then I will continue to believe that the public school system is failing.

Hopefully I can say this without sounding rude, but you really should educate yourself regarding education. This so-called "competition" that conservatives like to throw out when discussing the topic is a fantasy. I am about as conservative politically as you can get, but I also have a Master's degree in Educational Leadership.

Private schools do not give children a "better education", but it appears to be better because they can select their student populations. Private schools often have larger classroom sizes than public schools, so that argument does not fly either.

To be as concise as possible, what most people propose when they talk about competition is two completely different classes of education. One for the poor kids whose parents do not have the financial resources or involement in their child's education and one for all of the rest.

Schools are not failing as much as our society is failing. My two older children graduated from the high school where I taught. The school was graded as a "C" school by the state, but I know they did not get a "C" level of education. The kid sleeping in the desk right next to them, whose parents have no involvement with thier education, just brings my kid's "A" education down to a "C" with their "F" performance.

I teach in an inner city middle school where the population in my classes looks like a meeting of the UN General Assembly. I have students from Mexico, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Vietnam, Nepal, and many other countries. However, we do the work and make the best efforts we can.

I would also suggest that you stop using the term "tenure" until you learn the real meaning. Most conservatives think that "tenure" means you cannot be fired, which is untrue.

In regards to testing, did you ever wonder why most private schools do not take the same tests as public schools? They do not want their dirty little secret revealed. Private school kids do no better on standardized tests than their public school counterparts. they want your money and if you found out the quality is not there, you might just save yourself the money by pulling your child and letting your taxes pay for their education.

[rebel1776]

Hopefully I can say this without sounding rude, but you really should educate yourself regarding education. This so-called "competition" that conservatives like to throw out when discussing the topic is a fantasy. I am about as conservative politically as you can get, but I also have a Master's degree in Educational Leadership.

I will concede that I do not know the ins and outs of the public school system as well as someone who works in it. I do recognize an inefficient system when I see it and believe me I have had enough experience with both public and private school systems to see it. I respect your education, however you cannot rule out what has never been tried. It is too easy for people in a system to mock an untried idea as fantasy because breaking years of tradition appears too daunting.

Private schools do not give children a "better education", but it appears to be better because they can select their student populations. Private schools often have larger classroom sizes than public schools, so that argument does not fly either.

I would like to see some statistics on that. Since private schools are not obliged to take all the students that apply, they can maintain smaller classes. Here on Long Island, the average public school class size is 32 children per teacher. That excludes inclusion classes which are alotted one aid. In the private schools, the class sizes are averaging half that. If the private schools where you are have larger classes than the public schools then that should be telling you volumes.

To be as concise as possible, what most people propose when they talk about competition is two completely different classes of education. One for the poor kids whose parents do not have the financial resources or involement in their child's education and one for all of the rest.

I did think of that. At the risk of sounding heartless, I don't know why I should have to pay to educate a child whose parents are not involved in their child's education. The government mandates the resources for all children to be educated. What type of education they get is dependent upon the parents as well as the teachers. You claim that society is failing. It is failing because people expect to get the same job, education, house ect. without having to put the work in for it.

In regards to testing, did you ever wonder why most private schools do not take the same tests as public schools? They do not want their dirty little secret revealed. Private school kids do no better on standardized tests than their public school counterparts. they want your money and if you found out the quality is not there, you might just save yourself the money by pulling your child and letting your taxes pay for their education.

Standardized test scores are not my concern nor do they tell the whole picture. You yourself admitted that the failings of one child can paint a very skewed portrait of reality. Any involved parent knows whether their tuition money is being well spent by looking at the quality of the education their child receives. I have seen several small parochial schools that do not have the same funding or resources as the public schools yet they are teaching Latin starting 4th grade so the children can learn the etymology of words. They teach through reading the classics, not the literary fast food I see my son bringing home from public school. These are differences in curriculum that make a difference in teaching kids how to think. Many public schools have forgotten how to do that. It's easier to teach them what to think.

[RWReaganfan]

I respect your education, however you cannot rule out what has never been tried. It is too easy for people in a system to mock an untried idea as fantasy because breaking years of tradition appears too daunting.

What makes you think that it has never been tried? Vouchers and similar initiatives have proven to be no better than the current system.
I would like to see some statistics on that. Since private schools are not obliged to take all the students that apply, they can maintain smaller classes. Here on Long Island, the average public school class size is 32 children per teacher. That excludes inclusion classes which are alotted one aid. In the private schools, the class sizes are averaging half that. If the private schools where you are have larger classes than the public schools then that should be telling you volumes.

Like you said, I would like to see some statistics on that. What you see in your local community is not what happens everywhere in this country. My classes are capped at 20 students. In my former state of Florida, class sizes are capped and the local Catholic schools have classrooms overflowing with kids because they cannot keep tuition low and hire enough teachers to lower the numbers.


I did think of that. At the risk of sounding heartless, I don't know why I should have to pay to educate a child whose parents are not involved in their child's education. The government mandates the resources for all children to be educated. What type of education they get is dependent upon the parents as well as the teachers. You claim that society is failing. It is failing because people expect to get the same job, education, house ect. without having to put the work in for it.

By your comments, you seem to place the blame entirely on the schools, as though we had absolute control over every aspect of a child's life. You disregard the fact that a child does not choose their parents. My parents understood the value of an education because neither made it past 7th grade during the Great Depression. I have have many students who litearlly have nothing and a home life that would make you cringe, but they come to school and work their hearts out because they know it is their ticket out of poverty. You seem to support damning them to poverty because of their parents.

Standardized test scores are not my concern nor do they tell the whole picture. You yourself admitted that the failings of one child can paint a very skewed portrait of reality. Any involved parent knows whether their tuition money is being well spent by looking at the quality of the education their child receives. I have seen several small parochial schools that do not have the same funding or resources as the public schools yet they are teaching Latin starting 4th grade so the children can learn the etymology of words. They teach through reading the classics, not the literary fast food I see my son bringing home from public school. These are differences in curriculum that make a difference in teaching kids how to think. Many public schools have forgotten how to do that. It's easier to teach them what to think.

Most parents have no idea of the quality of education their child is receiving. All they see are report cards, when they find the time to remember to ask to see them.

In regards to the classics, I disagree completely. I suffered through many "classics" that are completely worthless, but I read them anyway. Today's kids do not need yet another reason to turn away from books. Many kids enjoy the classics, but reading them should be by choice and not a requirement.

Your comments about teaching them what to think instead of how to think cannot be further from the truth. I teach math, so I spend a great deal of time teaching kids how to solve problems. I do not teach them what to think, but the thought processes to arrive at the correct answer. When I taught social studies, I taught facts, without any political agenda. Many times I have heard people complain about the content of social studies textbooks, but I find it strange that I was never asked to teach from any of the texts that came into question.

The biggest problem I see is that critics of education paint with a broad brush. They see a news item about Massachusetts promoting homosexuality and think that is nationwide. Unfortunately, most of the time, the "agenda' does not exist outside a particular school or very small district.

Thank you for a respectful conversation and I hope I have given you some new things to consider.

[pubschteacher]

I happen to have nothing against teachers. I think there are many that work very hard and truly love working with children. I also think there are many teachers that have been in a classroom too long or should never have been in one to begin with. They've been tainted by time and bureacracy and would benefit everyone if they found a different line of work, but they don't.

I'm curious how many of the 3.2 million of us you actually know that you can make these statements? I'm betting it is a very tiny sample.

Why? Because they have tenure, union benefits and a captive audience. They have absolutely no incentive to improve their own abilities or those of their students. This is a way to identify those who should go into another field of work and attract teachers who are competent, creative and dynamic. Also you forget one of the primary rules of capitalism. Those teachers that excel will be sought after and able to command a higher salary as well as bonuses.

I have another question. When you go to work each day, do you go with the intention of doing the least amount of work possible? Do you make an effort, not to make an effort? Do you have any pride in the work you do?
What makes you think that teachers have no motivation to do a good job each day?

It's utopian. I understand that, but the system as it is now doesn't work. You can quote test scores at me all day long but until you give me a viable reason why a private school can give my child a better education, with smaller classrooms and more individual attention for half the cost, then I will continue to believe that the public school system is failing.

He gave you one, private schools pick and choose. Take a look at the percentage of special education students that attend public schools.

[rebel1776]

I respectfully concede and offer my apologies. I spoke to a friend today whose mother has been a private school teacher in Apalachia for 30 years. I was promptly corrected on the plight of public school teachers in other parts of the country. While I was basing my opinion on what I have experienced here, I was told that the New York Metro area is a different animal than the rest of nation. I was informed before my son started middle school that he would have to be picked up promptly because the teachers union would not allow the teachers to work more than 15 minutes after the buses left before going into overtime. I found that astounding!


Most parents have no idea of the quality of education their child is receiving. All they see are report cards, when they find the time to remember to ask to see them.

Then I am the exception. Within the first week of school, my son's teacher is informed that his father and I do not expect the teacher to take sole responsibility for his education. We are a team. I know precisely what my son is doing and request weekly updates from my son's teacher on his grades and behavior so they can be corrected immediately. I have developed behavior modification plans to help his father and I address poor behavior immediately and reward him for good behavior. In some cases this is well received. In some cases, we were still treated as the enemy.


In regards to the classics, I disagree completely. I suffered through many "classics" that are completely worthless, but I read them anyway. Today's kids do not need yet another reason to turn away from books. Many kids enjoy the classics, but reading them should be by choice and not a requirement.

Here we will disagree. While you are a math teacher, I am a writer. Children cannot know the benefits of great literature unless they are exposed to it. My son is in sixth grade and has read anything in school more substantial than Judy Blume.

Your comments about teaching them what to think instead of how to think cannot be further from the truth. I teach math, so I spend a great deal of time teaching kids how to solve problems. I do not teach them what to think, but the thought processes to arrive at the correct answer. When I taught social studies, I taught facts, without any political agenda. Many times I have heard people complain about the content of social studies textbooks, but I find it strange that I was never asked to teach from any of the texts that came into question.

Math is not something that can be politicized. It is linear and based on logic. I would like to know where you're from. I cannot tell you how often I have to correct facts that my son has read in his textbooks. That is not including the social/political propaganda that I have combat.

The biggest problem I see is that critics of education paint with a broad brush. They see a news item about Massachusetts promoting homosexuality and think that is nationwide. Unfortunately, most of the time, the "agenda' does not exist outside a particular school or very small district.

Or the Northeast. Again, I concede your point and apologize.

Thank you for a respectful conversation and I hope I have given you some new things to consider. [/quote]

Yes. It looks like it's time to move.

[RWReaganfan]

I respectfully concede and offer my apologies. I spoke to a friend today whose mother has been a private school teacher in Apalachia for 30 years. I was promptly corrected on the plight of public school teachers in other parts of the country. While I was basing my opinion on what I have experienced here, I was told that the New York Metro area is a different animal than the rest of nation. I was informed before my son started middle school that he would have to be picked up promptly because the teachers union would not allow the teachers to work more than 15 minutes after the buses left before going into overtime. I found that astounding!


[/COLOR]

Then I am the exception. Within the first week of school, my son's teacher is informed that his father and I do not expect the teacher to take sole responsibility for his education. We are a team. I know precisely what my son is doing and request weekly updates from my son's teacher on his grades and behavior so they can be corrected immediately. I have developed behavior modification plans to help his father and I address poor behavior immediately and reward him for good behavior. In some cases this is well received. In some cases, we were still treated as the enemy.


In regards to the classics, I disagree completely. I suffered through many "classics" that are completely worthless, but I read them anyway. Today's kids do not need yet another reason to turn away from books. Many kids enjoy the classics, but reading them should be by choice and not a requirement.

Here we will disagree. While you are a math teacher, I am a writer. Children cannot know the benefits of great literature unless they are exposed to it. My son is in sixth grade and has read anything in school more substantial than Judy Blume.

Your comments about teaching them what to think instead of how to think cannot be further from the truth. I teach math, so I spend a great deal of time teaching kids how to solve problems. I do not teach them what to think, but the thought processes to arrive at the correct answer. When I taught social studies, I taught facts, without any political agenda. Many times I have heard people complain about the content of social studies textbooks, but I find it strange that I was never asked to teach from any of the texts that came into question.

Math is not something that can be politicized. It is linear and based on logic. I would like to know where you're from. I cannot tell you how often I have to correct facts that my son has read in his textbooks. That is not including the social/political propaganda that I have combat.

The biggest problem I see is that critics of education paint with a broad brush. They see a news item about Massachusetts promoting homosexuality and think that is nationwide. Unfortunately, most of the time, the "agenda' does not exist outside a particular school or very small district.

Or the Northeast. Again, I concede your point and apologize.

Thank you for a respectful conversation and I hope I have given you some new things to consider.

Yes. It looks like it's time to move.[/QUOTE]

Overtime? I think that is probably a misnomer. Teachers usually NEVER get overtime despite the fact that we work extended hours. We were, however, paid our hourly rate for staying three hours late for two days to make up parent teacher conference days that we lost to an ice storm last winter. That is the first time I have had that happen in 13 years. Perhaps if you put yourself in their shoes and realize that we have lives also. That teacher forced to watch YOUR child because you were late may be paying a penalty for not picking THEIR child up from their preschool/babysitter.

On the topic of literature, I think children should be exposed to the "classics", but I cannot think of a single advantage that I received from struggling through Don Quixote. I love to read and have read a number of great works, but I believe that literature is extremely over-rated in its value to anyone not intending to go to college. So many children turn off to books because they are forced into Shakespeare and The Illiad far too early to even begin to understand it.

Moving sounds like an excellent idea. My children have attended schools in Alabama, Florida, Virginia, Rhode Island and Kentucky, and I have never had a problem. One qualifier on the Rhode Island school was that all of the students were Navy dependents as the school served base housing. They seemed to have escaped the influence of the other northeastern schools.

Have a great evening!

[Apatriot]

Two people have said union membership is not mandatory, yet I have gotten the distinct impression over the years that non-union public school teachers are as scarce as hen's teeth.

Now that poses an interesting question, because mathematically it approaches certainty that not every teacher supports unions. Too, I have never personally heard of a shop which supports both union and non-union workers for very long.

So, the question is, what pressure are the Unions bringing to bear to non-union teachers to join?


Basic sales techniques. Most teachers that I knew in the Union did it for the liability insurance and the lawyers to back it up. I was a science teacher. it would have been foolish of me to teach a science lab without insurance.

Teacher's unions aren't your run of the mill unions. Most don't have a right to strike. Heck, many don't even have a right to collectively bargain. Most teachers view the "unions" more as professional associations than as true unions. (yes,there are exceptions)

[PhantomPholly]

Basic sales techniques. Most teachers that I knew in the Union did it for the liability insurance and the lawyers to back it up. I was a science teacher. it would have been foolish of me to teach a science lab without insurance.

So, the government is not providing health insurance to teachers? Interesting.

Teacher's unions aren't your run of the mill unions. Most don't have a right to strike. Heck, many don't even have a right to collectively bargain. Most teachers view the "unions" more as professional associations than as true unions. (yes,there are exceptions)

Based on everything I've heard on these forums and other places, I think that depends upon the State.

[Apatriot]

It's utopian. I understand that, but the system as it is now doesn't work. You can quote test scores at me all day long but until you give me a viable reason why a private school can give my child a better education, with smaller classrooms and more individual attention for half the cost, then I will continue to believe that the public school system is failing.


Unless the private school is a religious private school, the above is false--non-religious private schools cost MORE than public schools. Most religious schools are subsidized by their churches, making comparison of costs almost meaningless.

http://www.capenet.org/facts.html

Tuition
Average Private School Tuition: 2003-04
All Levels Elementary Secondary K-12 Schools

All Schools $6.600 $5,049 $8,412 $8,302
Catholic $4,254 $3,533 $6,046 $5,801
Other Religious $5,839 $5,398 $9,537 $5,748
Non-Sectarian $13,419 $12,169 $17,413 $13,112
Source: Table 56 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_056.asp?referrer=list), Digest of Education Statistics 2007, National Center for Education Statistics.
2003-2004, public schools cost $8310 a student. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

[Apatriot]

So, the government is not providing health insurance to teachers? Interesting.

Read for comprehension. I said liability insurance, not health insurance. Liability insurance means that if a student sues the teacher, the insurance will protect the teacher.



Based on everything I've heard on these forums and other places, I think that depends upon the State.

That is why I prefaced everything with many, some, most, etc.

My experience has been in the Southeast. I've taught in public schools in 2 states, and my wife works in a public school in a 3rd state. Teachers aren't allowed legally to strike in all three of those state. ONly in FL (of the 3 states mentioned) does the union collectively bargain.

[Chucky]

On that "unions in Virginia" discussion:

I have friends in the Charlottesville/Fluvana County area who teach and reluctantly joined the union. Reluctantly because they have serious disagreements with just about everything the union does, but they joined because it makes their health insurance way more affordable. That is, the non-union cost of the same insurance is more than the union price plus union dues.

[WorldWatcher]

On that "unions in Virginia" discussion:

I have friends in the Charlottesville/Fluvana County area who teach and reluctantly joined the union. Reluctantly because they have serious disagreements with just about everything the union does, but they joined because it makes their health insurance way more affordable. That is, the non-union cost of the same insurance is more than the union price plus union dues.


Could you provide a little clarification. What does being in the union have to do with health insurance? Typically, by law if an employer offers health insurance to full time employees then it must be made available to all full time employees. Union status has nothing to do with it.


Maybe you are confusing health insurance with liability insurance in case a family sues the teacher directly (instead of the school system).



>>>>

[Chucky]

Could you provide a little clarification. What does being in the union have to do with health insurance? Typically, by law if an employer offers health insurance to full time employees then it must be made available to all full time employees. Union status has nothing to do with it.

...Nope, no confusion. I don't have the exact figures, but as I explained it, it's just simple math: the health insurance's non-union rate is greater than the sum of the union member rate plus union dues, by a lot (meaning enough that my friends could not afford health insurance without joining the union).

That is, the insurance is available to everyone, just at a lower rate if you happen to be in the union.

A similar thing is true in the Federal Government: there are a variety of health insurance options, but the rate you pay varies by (a) self vs. self and family, (b) level of coverage, and (c) a reduced rate if you're in the Postal Workers union.

[WorldWatcher]

Nope, no confusion. I don't have the exact figures, but as I explained it, it's just simple math: the health insurance's non-union rate is greater than the sum of the union member rate plus union dues, by a lot (meaning enough that my friends could not afford health insurance without joining the union).

That is, the insurance is available to everyone, just at a lower rate if you happen to be in the union.





So you have School System A which offers health insurance to it's employees.


Teacher A is in the Union and pays $500 per month.

Teacher B is not in the Union and pays $750 per month.



I doubt that occurs, please link to any school systems in the United States benefit page which shows they charge differently depending on if you are in the Union or not.


A similar thing is true in the Federal Government: there are a variety of health insurance options, but the rate you pay varies by (a) self vs. self and family, (b) level of coverage, and (c) a reduced rate if you're in the Postal Workers union.


Again, please post a link showing that the rate for Postal Workers employed by the USPS is different for Union v. Non-Union workers.



>>>>

[Chucky]

So you have School System A which offers health insurance to it's employees.


Teacher A is in the Union and pays $500 per month.

Teacher B is not in the Union and pays $750 per month.

I doubt that occurs, please link to any school systems in the United States benefit page which shows they charge differently depending on if you are in the Union or not.

Again, please post a link showing that the rate for Postal Workers employed by the USPS is different for Union v. Non-Union workers.
Doubt all you want - them's the facts. How about YOU look up school system insurance rates?

But just to show you that I'm not the one blowing smoke, HERE'S (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2009/brochures/71-005.pdf)the link to OPM's official 2009 Blue Cross - Blue Shield benefit plan brochure. The last page shows the rates. Using Standard Option, Self Only as an example: bi-weekly premium share paid by an employee is $70.18 for Non-Postal; $46.39 for Postal. You'll note the explanation on the page "Postal rates apply to career Postal Service employees". If you delve into it, one attains that "career Postal Service" status by simply joining the union and paying dues.

[WorldWatcher]

Doubt all you want - them's the facts.


Well if it's a fact, then you should have no difficulty showing us where teachers are charged different health insurance rates depending on if they are in a union or not.


How about YOU look up school system insurance rates?

OK,

Here is the link to a School System Benefit Costs -->> http://www.sbo.hampton.k12.va.us/departments/hr/benefits/08-09SumBen.pdf


Notice where the costs are listed on Page 2 that there is only one column for employee and no differentiation between Union and Non-union.



But just to show you that I'm not the one blowing smoke, HERE'S (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2009/brochures/71-005.pdf)the link to OPM's official 2009 Blue Cross - Blue Shield benefit plan brochure. The last page shows the rates. Using Standard Option, Self Only as an example: bi-weekly premium share paid by an employee is $70.18 for Non-Postal; $46.39 for Postal. You'll note the explanation on the page "Postal rates apply to career Postal Service employees". If you delve into it, one attains that "career Postal Service" status by simply joining the union and paying dues.



Checked your link, the word "Union" isn't in there once.

I also checked "The Guide to Federal Employees Health Benefits Plans For United States Postal Service Employees" -->> http://www.opm.gov/insure/archive/04/guides/70-2.pdf


Again no mention of having to be in a Union. The only place the word "union" appears is in the name of one of the health plan providers.



Now are most long career employees in a Union, maybe, maybe not never denied it. You are the one though that has said that employeers charge different rates if you are in a union or not. You have yet to show one shred of evidence to support that. As a matter of fact the one link you've provided doesn't say anything about unions.



>>>>

[Chucky]

...If you delve into it, one attains that "career Postal Service" status by simply joining the union and paying dues.
That's about as clear as I can put it....

[WorldWatcher]

That's about as clear as I can put it....


Yep, pretty clear, you made statements, reiterated it and claimed it was a fact.


A "fact" you have failed to support.


It was your claim, you support it.




I provided a link to the USPS Benefits Guide and it says squat about having to be in the Union.

You have failed to show any school system (let along most) that charges different health insurance rates for union or non-union members.




I think we're about done here.



>>>>

[Chucky]

....

You have failed to show any school system (let along most) that charges different health insurance rates for union or non-union members.

....
"Let alone most"? Where'd you get that from? I just cited the example of my friends in Virginia.

Oh well. Yep. I guess we're done.

[WorldWatcher]

"Let alone most"? Where'd you get that from? I just cited the example of my friends in Virginia.


You said: "That is, the insurance is available to everyone, just at a lower rate if you happen to be in the union."


When you make something applicable to "Everyone", then it sounds like common practice, hence the "let alone most".


Oh well. Yep. I guess we're done.


OK, been fun.



>>>>

[Chucky]

You said: "That is, the insurance is available to everyone, just at a lower rate if you happen to be in the union."


When you make something applicable to "Everyone", then it sounds like common practice, hence the "let alone most".

Which, in context, obviously refers to their specific case in Virginia, not "the entire United States".

g'night

[PhantomPholly]

Read for comprehension. I said liability insurance, not health insurance. Liability insurance means that if a student sues the teacher, the insurance will protect the teacher.

Ah, I comprehend now - yet another arrogant liberal. What a surprise. Thank you for correcting me...


:))

[Apatriot]

Ah, I comprehend now - yet another arrogant liberal. What a surprise. Thank you for correcting me...


:))


Well, actually, I'm an arrogant conservative.....