patrick.net

Did money corrupt Rhee's school reforms in D.C.?

An article in USA Today raises all kinds of suspicions about supposed gains by a Washington, D.C., public school that reformer superintendent Michelle Rhee staked a lot of capital on.

The other possible contributor if there had been rampant cheating is the extreme pressure on staff to perform for a superintendent that had the school under the floodlights. You don't want to disappoint when careers are on the line, and people do desperate things under pressure.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/03/does-money-corr.html

HousingWatcher says

“Many public sector workers here get double the salary of the average taxpayer.”
That is complete and utter nonsense:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/03/scott-brown/politifact-debut-brown-says-federal-jobs-pay-twice/

My example was about "here" -- Cook County, not the Federal government. In general, Federal employees make less than big city local employees. So I am guilty of being unspecific.

But non-military Federal employees aren't doing too bad, either.

I don't see how Cook County workers make that much. The website below lists all salaries. Let's see: A nurse makes $42,000. An Assistant public defender makes $49,000. A correction officer makes $54,000. A deputy sheriff makes $60,000. Not exactly outlandish salaries. I mean, $49,000 for a lawyer? BigLaw STARTS at $160,000!

http://www.cookemployees.com/employees/by-salary/from/40000/to/45000

We have a similar website here in NY that lists public employee salaries, and our pay is MUCH MICH higher. There are Long Island Rail Road conductors making over $75,000. So Cook County certainly does not have high salaries by any measure.

How about the pay of a US soldier vs. the pay of a Blackwater "soldier"? That would be a huge difference.

HousingWatcher says

don’t see how Cook County workers make that much. The website below lists all salaries. Let’s see: A nurse makes $42,000. An Assistant public defender makes $49,000. A correction officer makes $54,000. A deputy sheriff makes $60,000. Not exactly outlandish salaries. I mean, $49,000 for a lawyer? BigLaw STARTS at $160,000!

http://www.cookemployees.com/employees/by-salary/from/40000/to/45000

There's no distinction between full time and part time employees on that list. You will also find salaries listed from $400,000 to $450,000. Most of the highest paid workers are doctors and administrators are at the County Hospital.

Here's a different listing, but in alphabetical order. I think an alphabetical sampling will look more randomized. There are several selections, one of them is Cook County:

http://www.bettergov.org/watchdog/payroll_database.aspx

We have a similar website here in NY that lists public employee salaries, and our pay is MUCH MICH higher. There are Long Island Rail Road conductors making over $75,000. So Cook County certainly does not have high salaries by any measure.

Some of our teachers are paid quite well, although they are paid by the school districts, not the county:

http://www.championnews.net/article.php?sid=3042

Those are teacher salaries, not administrator salaries. Here's an old list of top administrator salaries:

http://www.illinoisloop.org/salary.html

The superintendent of my two school high school districts makes over $250,000. Teachers here start at 49K to 52K and the teacher average salary is $90,000.

MarkInSF says

Yeah, I pointed out a typical (not cherry picked) firefighter in SF makes $140K/yr, and retires with a pension approaching $100K in their mid 50’s which they will be paid another 20-30 years. (http://www.contracostatimes.com/public-employee-salaries-results)
And I asked for people to justify this compensation. Response?

There is no justification for this as firefighters spend most of their time sleeping awaiting next the next call. 75-90K at most I would say. IMHO.

"There’s no distinction between full time and part time employees on that list."

I've never heard of a part time correction officer or deputy sheriff, so I guarantee you they are working at least 40 hours a week.

"Most of the highest paid workers are doctors and administrators are at the County Hospital."

Well, I should hope doctors are the highest paid consdiering the huge amount of education and money it takes to become a doctor.

HousingWatcher says

“Yeah, I pointed out a typical (not cherry picked) firefighter in SF makes $140K/yr, and retires with a pension approaching $100K in their mid 50’s”
Do you have a source for that?

http://www.contracostatimes.com/public-employee-salaries-results

San Francisco, Department: Fire Department, Title :Firefighter

You can see the compensation of every worker.

Firefighters in SF, like in many cities are on a 3% x years served pensions

.....So it goes at San Francisco City Hall, where public-employee unions maintain considerable clout and claimed cost savings from labor agreements often end up smaller than advertised.

What it did: Amended the San Francisco City Charter to upgrade pension formulas for police and firefighters, allowing an employee who retires at 55 to receive up to 3 percent of his or her final salary for each year of service - up to a maximum pension of 90 percent of final salary.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=85037

HousingWatcher says

“There’s no distinction between full time and part time employees on that list.”

I’ve never heard of a part time correction officer or deputy sheriff, so I guarantee you they are working at least 40 hours a week.

“Most of the highest paid workers are doctors and administrators are at the County Hospital.”

Well, I should hope doctors are the highest paid consdiering the huge amount of education and money it takes to become a doctor.

My point was about Cook County employees, not just correction officers or deputy sheriffs, although the part-time Cook County deputies have been involved in several newsworthy scandals over the years.

The County does employ part-timers and the list does not distinguish between part-timers and full timers.

Silence. Yep. What I thought.

What? Scandals in Chicago? I am SHOCKED! Who could have seen that coming?

"even with our teachers whom have 3 mos off during the summer months"

Anyone who says this has never taught. It's a total pain in the ass, but at least the money sucks!

What state still has 3 months of summer vacation? We had that when I was a kid, but not these days. My niece's high school has 2 months off.

Jeb Bush was one backer of year-round schooling, and that seems to be the trend slowly but surely. Work harder, same pay or maybe less, and hey let's take away your benefits & job security. Who wouldn't die to become a teacher now? The opportunity to teach the same class 4 times a year instead of 3, for decades, wow that's a big draw. Let's drive down to minimum wage. Perhaps we can compensate by offering teachers fold-out cots for their classrooms so they have someplace to sleep, and let them eat the cafeteria leftovers.

How about we just forget about summer vacation, and slightly lengthen the winter one? After all, this nonsense about letting kids out for summer is a luxury we cannot afford. I think we should optimize around when the parents have the most time free to take care of them. Only give school holidays when there are coordinated work holidays.

And let's take away all seniority rights from teachers so that when they reach top pay we can replace them with cheaper labor! And on top of that, we can triple class sizes.

HousingWatcher says

And let’s take away all seniority rights from teachers so that when they reach top pay we can replace them with cheaper labor! And on top of that, we can triple class sizes.

No, what we are asking for is that the bottom 6% of the teachers are removed whether they have tenure or not. Today, we cannot even remove the bottom 6% of the low performers because they have tenure, even thought they have been proven to be LEMON teachers.

Vicente says

How about we just forget about summer vacation, and slightly lengthen the winter one? After all, this nonsense about letting kids out for summer is a luxury we cannot afford. I think we should optimize around when the parents have the most time free to take care of them. Only give school holidays when there are coordinated work holidays.

Now this makes sense.

CL says

“even with our teachers whom have 3 mos off during the summer months”
Anyone who says this has never taught. It’s a total pain in the ass, but at least the money sucks!

The days of making 60-75K per year with 3 mos of vacation should come to an end. Why is it that teachers should be treated differently than the remainder of the workforce when parents that work fulltime have no one at home with their children for 3 mos?

I say this respectfully.

"No, what we are asking for is that the bottom 6% of the teachers are removed whether they have tenure or not."

How do you know if a teacher is in the bottom 6% or the top 6%? What is your criteria Clarence? Test scores???

HousingWatcher says

“No, what we are asking for is that the bottom 6% of the teachers are removed whether they have tenure or not.”
How do you know if a teacher is in the bottom 6% or the top 6%? What is your criteria Clarence? Test scores???

No, do not advocate that we judge teachers on the performance of their students as the teachers in poorer neighborhoods would immediately be dismissed. We need to create a system of INDIVIDUAL and GROUP goals that weigh against their performance. Here are some alternatives:

1) Merit pay, in which individual teachers receive bonuses based on improvements in their performance.

2) Knowledge and skill-based pay, in which teachers earn permanent increases for acquiring new skills and applying those skills.

3) School-based performance pay, in which all professional staff in a school earn a bonus if students meet particular goals.

This creates a group goal, we do this at my job and if the group meets the goal we all get MEETS and EXCEEDS on our PA's.

I cannot vouch for the other alternative as I said because it would leave all teachers in the poor neighborhoods out in the cold.

4) Performance pay, in which teachers earn increases tied to improvements in students’ performance — typically measured by standardized tests or other criteria.

Clarence 13X says

No, do not advocate that we judge teachers on the performance of their students.....

Here is the funny thing I've noticed about teachers with regard to evaluation of teacher performance. Any suggestion proposed, they will show you a reason why it's not a good idea, (And most of the time I agree.)

But they they never come up with suggestions of their own. Not that I've seen anyway. You would think that they would be in the best position of all to know what a proper way is to evaluate teaching skills, or to improve the contribution they make toward the learning of their students. And yet all I see it them do is swat down ideas to come from others.

I have to say though, Clarence. I'm skeptical of increased pay as in incentive to better performance. Are you familiar with the candle problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Candle_Problem (Sam Glucksberg's version)

It's very much an unproven assumption that incentive pay actually leads to better performance. In fact in many fields (especially ones where creativity is involved), it's been demonstrated to have the opposite effect.

MarkInSF says

But they they never come up with suggestions of their own.

*snort* every teacher I know seems to have pretty strong ideas on the matter.

They are swatted aside as a matter of course by everyone concerned though. I mean only crazy people would let a bunch of self-interested parties for example give themselve raises. We would NEVER for example allow Congress to determine it's own pay & benefits amiright?

MarkInSF says

Here is the funny thing I’ve noticed about teachers with regard to evaluation of teacher performance. Any suggestion proposed, they will show you a reason why it’s not a good idea, (And most of the time I agree.)
But they they never come up with suggestions of their own.

Because they are self serving and refuse to do anything but whine. I say they should propose solutions.

MarkInSF says

I have to say though, Clarence. I’m skeptical of increased pay as in incentive to better performance. Are you familiar with the candle problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Candle_Problem (Sam Glucksberg’s version)

Yes, I am and also...true motivation comes from the feeling of giving back but to hold them accountable I think incentives are necessary if you dont pay people enough. Which most teachers believe they are not paid well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

MarkInSF says

Here is the funny thing I’ve noticed about teachers with regard to evaluation of teacher performance. Any suggestion proposed, they will show you a reason why it’s not a good idea, (And most of the time I agree.)

It's interesting that you follow this topic well enough to know.

But you have a point. Politicians and school board members ALWAYS suggest reforms that originate with teachers, except when it comes to evaluation. If only education evaluation could come from the teachers like everything else in education. Fricken teachers.

They're lazy and they don't care about their students.

If another teacher is incompetent, teachers will defend them to their dying breath. Why ? Because they are incompetent too, and they want that some protection should the focus ever be on their practice.

(APOCALYPSEFUCK ? Help me out here. They don't get it)

HousingWatcher says

I’ve never heard of a part time correction officer or deputy sheriff, so I guarantee you they are working at least 40 hours a week.

A leap of faith based on what you don't know.

http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/list/q-correctional+officer+part-time
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/list/q-deputy+sheriff+part-time

Now that you've heard of part time correctional officers and part time deputy sheriffs, are you going to guaranteed that they were all working UNDER 40 hours a week? That's just as logical as what you said.

Vicente says

Jeb Bush was one backer of year-round schooling, and that seems to be the trend slowly but surely. Work harder, same pay or maybe less, and hey let’s take away your benefits & job security. Who wouldn’t die to become a teacher now? The opportunity to teach the same class 4 times a year instead of 3, for decades, wow that’s a big draw. Let’s drive down to minimum wage. Perhaps we can compensate by offering teachers fold-out cots for their classrooms so they have someplace to sleep, and let them eat the cafeteria leftovers.

I have to work 4 times a year instead of 3, for decades. My job, salary, and benefits aren't protected by a union. Just like products and services, jobs have a market. By supporting teachers' unions, you're putting yourself on the side of the debate opposite from the interests of the taxpayers and the children.

HousingWatcher says

And let’s take away all seniority rights from teachers so that when they reach top pay we can replace them with cheaper labor!

In any normal job, two equivalent workers ought not have a pay difference of 40%. Experience is one thing, but seniority and tenure are bullshit. What that does and what you're advocating is keeping shitty teachers in and creating a barrier of entry for good teachers.

state says

ALL TEACHERS ARE INCOMPETENT, FIRE ALL THE TEACHERS

NOT ALL TEACHERS ARE INCOMPETENT, DON'T FIRE ANY OF THEM EVER

state says

marcus says

If another teacher is incompetent, teachers will defend them to their dying breath. Why ? Because they are incompetent too, and they want that some protection should the focus ever be on their practice.

ALL TEACHERS ARE INCOMPETENT, FIRE ALL THE TEACHERS, HOMESCHOOL FOR ALL, PRAISE JESUS

I think marcus had already done a great job of tearing that strawman to bits.

klarek says

By supporting teachers’ unions, you’re putting yourself on the side of the debate opposite from the interests of the taxpayers and the children.

Bzzzt. I'm on the side of the children (my rugrat) and the teachers. I am also a taxpayer so I'm on that side too.

Why do so many "right to work" states with no collective bargaining, score very poorly?

Why do many countries with strong teacher unions, seem to do better than the USA?

As even Michelle Ree said recently, it's plain to see that it's not the unions that are the problem with American education.

Vicente says

Bzzzt. I’m on the side of the children (my rugrat) and the teachers. I am also a taxpayer so I’m on that side too.

Teachers unions are antithetical to the interests of children and taxpayers. Just because you have a kid and pay taxes doesn't mean that you aren't supportive of a group that's against your interests.

Why do so many “right to work” states with no unions, score very poorly?

Is there a correlation between student scores and right to work states? I was unaware of this.

Vicente says

Why do many countries with strong teacher unions, seem to do better than the USA?

Many countries with teacher unions do worse than us as well. The difference is that those doing better - union or not - allow for parents to choose the schools their kids go to.

klarek says

Is there a correlation between student scores and right to work states? I was unaware of this.

Of the 10 non-union states, only Virginia squeaks above the average point for SAT/ACT & NAEP rankings. The Southern non-union states are all down in the basement. At this point critics typically fall back to "well it's a factor among many so...." but plainly the fact is the argument that unions are automatically destructive to education is easily disproven. If eliminating unions were the key to our future, it would have shown up in the states where it's had decades to prove itself. It hasn't. Florida and Tennesse do fairly well with collective bargaining, neighboring states without do poorly.

It may not be a popular comparison for me to make these days, but I point to gun laws. Like that, stance on unions are largely derived from emotion & bias, not logic and data and facts. The fact that something has been tried multiple times and not worked as promised, seems to be no deterrent whatever to it's adherents.

Vicente says

Of the 10 non-union states, only Virginia squeaks above the average point for SAT/ACT & NAEP rankings. The Southern non-union states are all down in the basement. At this point critics typically fall back to “well it’s a factor among many so….” but plainly the fact is the argument that unions are automatically destructive to education is easily disproven.

In other words, poor states yield poor performing students. There's no evidence of a positive correlation between unions and higher performing schools when controlled for income and school revenue.

Vicente says

It may not be a popular comparison for me to make these days, but I point to gun laws. Like that, stance on unions are largely derived from emotion & bias, not logic and data and facts. The fact that something has been tried multiple times and not worked as promised, seems to be no deterrent whatever to it’s adherents.

If you cared about logic and fact you would look at our schools' performance over time and the increased membership of teachers unions during that period.

Hey klarek, you still have not responded to my comments about Michelle Rhee that I wrote in response to your praise of her:

“You’re really going to bash Michelle Rhee? FFS, she’s the best thing to ever happen to DC schools.’

Are you being sarcastic klarek? Did you not read my thread about the erasure scandal in D.C.?? Michelle Rhee has a lot of explaining to do about her role in “ErasureGate”

http://patrick.net/?p=654291

HousingWatcher says

Hey klarek, you still have not responded to my comments about Michelle Rhee that I wrote in response to your praise of her:
“You’re really going to bash Michelle Rhee? FFS, she’s the best thing to ever happen to DC schools.’
Are you being sarcastic klarek? Did you not read my thread about the erasure scandal in D.C.?? Michelle Rhee has a lot of explaining to do about her role in “ErasureGate”
http://patrick.net/?p=654291

I didn't respond because there's nothing substantial linking her to this.

States without collective bargaining for teachers and their respective SAT/ ACT score ranks:

Wisconsin ranks 3rd in the nation in SAT scores, but with a participation rate of just 4%. On the ACT, with a much more representative partcipation rate of 69%, it was tied for 17th. In comparison...

* Virginia was 34th on the SAT with 67% participation, 13th on the ACT with 22% participation.
* Texas was 45th on the SAT with 53% participation, 33rd on the ACT with 33% participation.
* Georgia was 48th on the SAT with 74% participation, 34th on the ACT with 44% participation.
* North Carolina was 38th on the SAT with 63% participation, 20th on the ACT with 16% participation.
* South Carolina was 49th on the SAT with 66% participation, 44th on the ACT with 52% participation.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2011/02/5x8_-_22111.shtml

And for added measure, I decided to go beyond test scores and look at HS dropout rates:

South Carolina: 45% (see: http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/06/10/sc-high-school-dropout-rate-worsens/ )

Texas: 39% (see: http://politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/feb/05/bill-white/texas-has-43rd-best-graduation-rate-united-states/ )

klarek says

In other words, poor states yield poor performing students. There’s no evidence of a positive correlation between unions and higher performing schools when controlled for income and school revenue.

.....

If you cared about logic and fact you would look at our schools’ performance over time and the increased membership of teachers unions during that period.

So now "poor states" is the explanation? Is Unionized Tennessee a "rich state", and non-union Georgia clearly a "poor state"? And how did that suddenly become your #1 differentiator instead of unions? My education was obtained in Georgia public schools so I have firsthand experience there, and I don't recall perceiving that Georgia was remarkably poorer than neighboring Tennessee. Income figures for GA & TN are very close. Not sure about "school revenue" or how you consider that, but one chart I found showed per pupil TN spent less than GA.

Perhaps we should explore dairy production as a determinant factor :-D

You prove my point.

When the SIMPLE premise is disproven, adherents will fall back on other factors attempting to explain away the data. You've fallen into exactly that mental trap.

Clearly if being non-union were any sort of magic bullet, at least ONE of the 10 non-unions states would by now be scoring in the top quartile.

Next up, I predict resurrection of "rankings and scores are meaningless" which is LOL-worthy from the very sort of people who often propose that unions should be swept aside, so we can base promotions and firings on measurable success metrics like...err...um... rankings and scores.

Georgia: 23% (see: http://www.ajc.com/news/states-high-school-graduation-98075.html )

In contrast, the dropout rate in union friendly New Hamshire is .97%. Yes, that is .97% (see: http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Dropout+rate+drops+below+1%25&articleId=54544be6-8f60-4015-92e8-b5834f4a4529 )

And in New Jersey, where the teacher's union has run public education into the ground according to Chris Christie, the HS dropout rate is an astounding 1.7%

See: http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2011/02/school_dropout_rates_examined.html

Found this funny chart of graduation rates by state:

Hmmmm......

Too hot/boring equals dropouts?

I don't know, klarek. The stats above seem to cast very serious doubt on the notion that teacher unionization is a significant factor in quality of education.

"In other words, poor states yield poor performing students."

I don't know about that klarek. Is New Hampshire a rich state? Under your theory, California and New York should have the best graduation rates and best schools in the country since they are the richest states. But they do not.