"State budget gap estimate grows by $96 million" to $2.7 billion:
The additional $96 million expense is mostly due to higher-than-expected costs at K-12 schools, according to Victor Moore, budget director for Gov. Chris Gregoire.But it's not experience as such, never mind teacher quality, that they're paying up for. It's nothing more than seniority, which is protected in union contracts.As school districts have laid off teachers, they've tended to cut younger teachers while retaining more experienced ones who get higher pay, Moore said.
Again, the problem with government education is not a lack of ample funding. It's that the people who work in government education insist on making stupid use of the more than ample funds which the taxpayers have already given them.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 10, 2010 08:38 PM | Email ThisThey have a word for this... extortion.
Posted by: ducttape2 on February 10, 2010 10:15 PMAnd how can there be increased costs, if there have indeed been layoffs? Is Moore really so obtuse that he wouldn't know going into his projections which teachers would lose their positions?
Posted by: Ryan on February 10, 2010 11:18 PMDoesn't the union represent the desires of its members?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 10, 2010 11:19 PMSo tell us, Bruce, who do we elect to make decisions on these issues, the 'people in government' or the Union tools that dictate to the government like some mafia-style protection racket? I'm cutting off the funding supply to the beast. I'm voting no on every damn school levy that comes down the pike until the WEA gets its house in order. Standing on the corner intersection along my commute home, waving to elicit honks for my support, won't change that attitude as long as their current attitude is that they're entitled to the contents of my wallet year after year.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 11, 2010 05:52 AMTwo are in Eastern Washington, but two are here. The ones in Western Washington are always, and I mean always, whining about how much they make. After 20 years plus teaching each, they are in the 80k per year range, including bennies, if you believe lbloom's numbers.
When I mention I read how much they are making, they stutter and stammer and say it is the young teachers who need more money. Then, they change the subject after I mention they go into the profession with open eyes.
And they are all looking at good pensions in a couple of years after their kids get through college.
Posted by: swatter on February 11, 2010 07:52 AMIf we ever want to have a successful school system and teachers ever want high pay and the respect of those in private white collar fields such as doctors, lawyers and engineers, the unions have to go.
It's only through a private system focused strictly on merit that a true market is able to develop that vigorously rewards competence. Teachers should have to compete to teach our children. And the cream of that teaching crop should rise to the management of schools just as it does in the software industry. We could have lean, efficiently run schools, where finite resources go to the "product" of excellent education.
But never as long as unions protect incompetence.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 11, 2010 11:21 AMWhat is ample funding?
Teacher pay?
Principal pay?
Superintendent pay?
$$ per student?
$$ per classroom?
Fixed % of state budget, say minimum of 51%?
Even if we raised all of the above, would we see a dramatic (not incremental) improvement in student achievement? Graduation rates? Test scores compared to the US and the rest of the world?
If we dramatically raised the funding, how long before we would see the results? a year, five years? Ten years? Thirty years?
How will we know when we get there? How will we know when we're even getting close?
A classroom with thirty students at $10,000 a kid would be $300,000 a school year for that classroom. Is that enough to guarantee a high percentage of successful students?
What is ample?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 11, 2010 01:18 PMWell, if the union is reflecting the attitude of the members (as a whole), then the problem is the attitude of the rank-and-file, something we probably both agree is wrong.
But there is a pretty simple solution:
Immediately fire any Government employee who strikes. Simple, direct. You go on strike you immediately lose your job. No pay, no benefits, you go out into the pool. IF your job is then opened for rehiring you are just one of the others, no special treatment for that position.
It's actually existing Federal and State law, just that our current leaders are too weak to uphold law. You strike, you earn a Government paycheck? You're fired - effective immediately. Tough.
But to get back to the basic point, if the union truly is representing the will of a majority of its members, then we have a serious problem. The people in the union are seriously whacked in what they think - seniority should not count towards retaining your job. Tenure should be banned. NO ONE is guaranteed a job, and your retention and/or any raises should be based ONLY on performance.
If, as you suggest, the majority of union members believe they can strike and should keep tenure, positions based on seniority, etc. then we have a pretty sad state of affairs; I guess pride in one's work no longer exists.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 11, 2010 03:13 PMYou are 100% correct; with $10,000 per student there is more than enough funds for education; ample, I would say. Consider that private schools in Seattle - such as the Giddens school for elementary students, which maintains a 10:1 student:teacher ratio - do it for that much (tuition is $14,000 per year, but 34% of the student body receives an average of $8,000 in financial aid, meaning that the actual "cost" per student is $11,000) and they do not have the advantages of tax-free status that the Government gets.
Most private schools - once you factor in the financial aid offered to lower income students - come in around $10,000 to $12,000 per student. If private industry can do it for that much, then Government - with its free costs of facilities and maintenance (levies cover those, not tuition) - should be able to provide for less.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 11, 2010 03:23 PMAs mentioned, current funding is at $12k per student, per year in WA. If I could just take that money and put it towards a private education, that would allow me to send a kid to the best private school in Tacoma. And there are plenty of other great private schools for half that per year.
Meanwhile, we just had to vote to keep funding the schools with levies just to keep the lights on, because Queen Christine is too busy squandering state money on tribes and unions to cover all the costs of education, even at $12K per student, per year.
And this is what Obama thinks he is doing well on. Let's take a look at the rest of the economy, unemployment, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. And they said Bush was a bad leader.
It's also because teachers are retiring at a much lower rate than usual. That's attributable to the bad economy. Retirement savings have not recovered from the investment losses of the last few years, other job prospects are fewer, and people are sticking around longer than they ordinarily would. That makes the teaching staff we have to pay for through state formula allocations more expensive.
Posted by: stu on February 11, 2010 09:48 PMIt was unexpected because it's never happened before, even in previous recessions and bad budget times. It is off the charts. An increase in staff mix was anticipated, and assumed in the governor's budget. No one anticipated this big an increase.
That's your answer, Pudge.
Posted by: ram on February 12, 2010 01:25 PMJust like when they hit the accelerator on their Prius, a typical liberal just sits there fascinated when magic happens at the capitol and out comes free gub'mint dollars.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 12, 2010 04:41 PM"You are 100% correct; with $10,000 per student there is more than enough funds for education; ample, I would say. Consider that private schools in Seattle - such as the Giddens school for elementary students, which maintains a 10:1 student:teacher ratio - do it for that much (tuition is $14,000 per year, but 34% of the student body receives an average of $8,000 in financial aid, meaning that the actual "cost" per student is $11,000) and they do not have the advantages of tax-free status that the Government gets.
"
Giddens school is $14,000 per year with an average financial aid grant of $8000. Furthermore, reviewing that site turns up Heritage Christian at $6,090, Renton Christian at $5,440, Sacred Heart at %5,542 and many, many more well under $10,000 per student.
I did not choose Giddens because of politics but simply as one of dozens of examples - non-religious at that - where the average tuition spent was equal to or less than what the State spends per student.
Fundamentally, private schools provide an equal or better education for less money, and usually with higher costs (levies are not available for facilities maintenance, for example).
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 16, 2010 10:27 PM