This article discusses the nationwide craze of education funding "adequacy" lawsuits, like the one just filed by Washington educators:
Wyoming plaintiffs ... have so far doubled Wyoming's per-pupil spending, elevating it from $5,971 in 1996-97 to an estimated $12,422 for 2006-07 Beginning teacher salaries, for those with master's degrees, rose in constant dollars from $24,402 in 1997 to $32,451 in 2004 ... The average student-teacher ratio declined from 15 to 1 in 1993 to 13 to 1 in 2003. In spite of dramatic increases in spending, Wyoming student achievement levels in math ... have either been stagnant or droppedThe Seattle Perpetually-Inadequate applauds the Washington lawsuit:
The state is defying its own constitution by refusing to fund public education at anywhere close to levels adequate to meet the needs of all students.The P-I has never said how much funding it thinks would be "adequate". Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 16, 2007 05:00 PM | Email This
The answer of course is how much money to you have? If you keep any for yourself you are selfish and depriving the children so cough it up and no one gets hurt.
/channeling the WEA
Posted by: JCM on January 16, 2007 05:27 PMWouldn't it be nice if they could show some results once in a while before they cry for more money. Nah, they've found a better way. Sue!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 16, 2007 05:27 PMThe prospect of a political battle of this sort is why they prefer to go to court. If they can get a court decision in their favor, they need not engage in such political battles.
Note that they cannot get what they want from politics even when their party controls both the executive and legislative branches. There just isn't enough money to satisfy every demand for government spending. So, they want to circumvent the legislature via the courts.
This is so clearly a political question that is unsuited for judicial decision, it's too bad we don't have a judiciary that will simply say so.
Posted by: Micajah on January 16, 2007 05:55 PMMore.
(Duh!)
So, what we hear from the WEA, et. al., is that the teachers are all capable of giving the kids a great education - they just need more money to unlock that potential?
You want private sector pay? Get a private sector job.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 16, 2007 06:43 PMCarolyn Hoxby has an excellent article "Would Competition Change the Characteristics of Teachers?" She concludes the answer is yes because:
1. Parents are consumers and given a choice away
from a monopoly, most would choose schools that actually educate their children.
2. Schools that parents don't choose would go out of business.
3. Schools of education would be forced to train teachers and principles who can survive in a delegulated environment. Part of the curriculum would be the idea that you could lose your job.
4. Right now, people in the education sector are trained in a regulated monopoly environment.
Competiton is scary, because like the private sector there are no guarantees.
Their request will always be to "fully fund" education, whatever that means, but it can easily be translated as more.
The left has give us wonderful examples of doublespeak:
Fully Fund = Spend more
Invest = Spend more
Contributions = More taxes
but, will that only mean educators (my taxes) will pay if lost? so, my right pocket sues my left pocket, in essence.
what a deal! and all brought to you by your edu-cracy & unions. public sector copying the private sector with all those EEOC, ADA and a host of other diversity/discrim. lawsuits against one's employer.
why work? just sue. bounty and a legal lotto for all! oh--it's for the children...all this effort and resources in courts will filter down to a kid's desk, right?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 17, 2007 04:45 AMI wonder, in dollars adjusted for inflation, how the per pupil spending (as if it made any difference) then compares to what it is now. Guess? It's now much higher in real dollars. But is that enough? Nooooooooo.... never enough according to the usual suspects.
Posted by: Larry on January 17, 2007 08:54 AMThis paper by the insightful and prolific Marguerite Roza analyzes eight common provisions in teacher contracts, showing how each contributes to overall education spending. For example, experience-based pay accounts for about 10 percent of the more than $500 billion America spends on K-12 education annually. Salary increases linked to educational credentials (e.g., a master's degree) and class size limitations each account for about 2 percent. The other contract provisions account for smaller percentages--sick, personal, and professional-development days; teachers aides; and excess health and retirement benefits (above those provided in other professions) each tally between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of total spending. Of course, even 1 percent of $500 billion is a big number, which brings us to the report's fundamental assertion. We spend billions on teacher perks with little or no evidence that the money is spent wisely, or wouldn't be better used to recruit stronger teachers, reward the best teachers, or target resources to the neediest students. This paper is best read as a national overview; it doesn't dig into specific examples or variations between states or districts. But it poses key issues. Have we made optimal tradeoffs in our public-education budgets or are they simply haphazard accumulations of myriad decisions made in years past? You already know the answer. But the unions don't want to hear it. The Washington Post caught Antonia Cortese of the AFT saying that the report was "on thin ice for its sweeping ... and often inaccurate" assertions. Reg Weaver of the NEA could only repeat his favorite mantra when asked about the report: "fully fund public education." One hopes more substantive discussions are occurring somewhere. One can be confident that Dr. Roza will keep raising such issues and for that we are grateful. The report is online here.
http://www.educationsector.org/research/research_show.htm?doc_id=436576
by Eric Osberg
Posted by: WVH on January 18, 2007 11:26 PM