2.Salary averaging is hurting the low performing schools.

3.Veteran teachers remain well paid, it’s the young teachers being thrown under the bus in multiple ways that is hurting our kids.

These articles cover a lot of ground on these issues, that we could learn from.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002138717_turnover03m.html

http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/124013_seattleschools29.html

As for spending by state, for decades after Prop. 13 we have been grouped in the bottom tier with poor Southern and Western states (after decades of being in the top 10). We have ranged from the mid-20s to the high-40s in the actually ranking. The NE states at the top — New York, New Jersey, Conn., Mass. — spend 40%-60% more per student the California. This is a significant difference, even though money is clearly not the only key to educational success.

In a 2004 Census report, we DID spend more than Montana — $400 more. (Factor in the cost of living here compared to Montana, and you can see that we are spending LESS in real dollars.) New York, meanwhile, spent a whopping $4,000 more than us, and District of Columbia spent almost $6,000 more per student.

In 2007-08, we were ranked 41st in state K-12 spending, $1,400 less than the national average — even though our teacher salaries are $13,000 higher than the national average (accounting for high cost of living). The result is large class sizes and limited resources generally.

Compare this to our ranking in terms of per capita income — ninth highest in the nation.

Arizona, which is complaining so bitterly about having to educate immigrant children spends the LEAST per student.

Note that the OAKLAND teacher salary average is right at the national average, $13,000 below the California average.

http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_FAQ_cacompares.html

Federal Education Policy is everywhere in Public School District Policy. Right down to the reporting requirements. No Child Left Behind, you know.

Do you claim we spend insufficient $$ per kid? How do we compare to, say, Montana?

Nextset, education is the area the state’s have had the MOST independence (because the fund it) and the most variation.

Let me tell you, when our New York and New Jersey relatives come out, they are shocked at California’s treatment of public education. Back there, the middle class all use the public school system, and they the per student funding is wayyyyy higher than ours. We are with the Georgia’s of the world (since you mentioned Atlanta) and have been since Prop. 13.

In fact, it is only when our dopey leaders fall over themselves to “Race to the Top” or “Leave No Child Behind” just to get some table scraps from the Federal Budget (and please their corporate donors) that they even come under the purview of federal mandates on education.

Ohhhhh, I get it — you’re talking about desegregation. You’re mad about Brown v. Board of Education? That at least makes sense.

Simply put, you are obsessed with “bumping preference.” (I think you said you had a friend bumped who then couldn’t find a job? Or was that somebody else? If so, get over it: The jobs are out there, your friend’s a flake.) Yet, this is a small issue in the scheme of things, in terms of the endemic problems of competently staffing OUSD.

Also, you seem to be implying that this bumping process means a union is helping a teacher move from OUSD to, say, a “wealthy enclave” like Piedmont. But these are different districts! In fact, if you didn’t have seniority, the flight of the best teachers, young and old, from OUSD to the suburbs would be HASTENED — currently, many districts only allow the transfer of five years of seniority, so once folks are here long enough they are actually disincentivized to move.

Furthermore, your logic is faulty in another way: You say young teachers are better — yet are upset that older teachers are “bumped” to the wealthier schools. Huh? In fact, if teachers were as powerful and self-interested as you are implying, the wealthier neighborhood schools would be staffed by the elderly survivors you are claiming are by definition crappy, while all the idealistic young teachers would be remaking the flatland schools into wonderlands.

Unfortunately for your black-and-white analysis, the reality is wayyy more complicated. There ARE many older, experienced teachers who rock and there ARE many youngsters who, while certainly more vibrant and attractive than us curmudgeons, don’t yet have the experience and classroom “authoriteh” to make things really work.

Seniority systems are not ideal. Neither is “at will” employment in a system which can not accurately evaluate its employees and has horrendous turnover at the administrative levels. Can you give me a creative compromise?

I haven’t figured out yet how to fit this into my “one issue”.

Try this: In the Brave New World, you will live within the occupational, social and economic class you were born into, subject to downward mobility for mental illness and failure to behave to the level you were born into. The public schools will no longer serve to educate the masses to a common standard, education will be completely different depending on the class you were raised as. Alphas will be born Alphas, live as Alphas and generally remain so. Betas will be born Betas, go to Beta Schools, work in Beta occupations and probably get creamated in Beta funeral service companies. The various groups and sub groups will not even speak directly to each other and only associate with like.

They will even have separate washrooms and shop in different stores. Like Wal*Mart & Costco for example. Using different Banks and Credit Cards, driving different model cars, and living in different worlds.

And when you read this thread – think of this. Betas will be taught by “teachers” who only “teach” Betas. Alphas will have their own teachers who will not teach any Betas. If a young teacher of Alphas somehow winds up in a Beta school system – he will not fit in and he will leave/get rejected.

Does any of this sound familiar?

And this all started with the trashing of the public schools in the 1960s.

All the things we are writing about here on this blog are also going on in the other education blogs – such as Atlanta’s. The deterioration here mirrors what is going on in the other urban areas of the country. The decline is directly tied to federal education policy, policy which is in excess of federal enumerated powers. We would do well to delete federal authority and influence in education and let all the states go their own ways. At least the whole country’s education system wouldn’t go down at the same time.

Brave New World!

I realize I am missing something here. Can you explain in more detail how the union is responsible for creating turnover at low-income schools?

I understand the “protecting bad teachers” accusation which is of course true to a large extent because unions try to protect all members based on the contract. But this is a new one, blaming unions for driving teachers out of struggling school.

Please explain it.