The Washington Education Association has put out a radio ad in an attempt to ding Dino Rossi.
Funny thing, they refer to a Rossi budget, rather than a Rossi-Locke-Chopp-Reardon budget. Because along with Dino Rossi as Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair, the temporary suspension of spending mandates in I-728 and I-732 also had the support of Governor Locke (D) and his Priorities of Government innovations. Likewise, the move was supported by House Speaker Frank Chopp (D) as well as then Rossi budget ally and current Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon (D).
Evidently the WEA has some lingering hostility with a number of Democrats who made a rational fiscal decision in a time of budgetary crisis. They're just selectively forgetting to mention that now.
Two other lessons:
1) This is a clear example of the perils of passing spending via initiative without providing a funding source to support such expenses when times get tough.
2) The Governor's race is obviously tight if Democratic interest groups are hitting a blue state, Republican candidate in February.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 27, 2008 09:28 PM | Email ThisWhat makes me sick is the WEA has no reason whatsoever to fear a Dino Rossi administration. Their leaders are simply Democrat activist hacks using hard-working teacher dues as their private campaign fund.
It would serve them right if they were banned from the Governor's office for the next eight years.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 27, 2008 09:28 PMThe Republicans need to strongly rally behind Dino and address the issues. That's the only way they will have a chance.
If the Republicans can't take the Governor's Mansion this year, then I doubt if they ever can.
Time for everyone to find their nuts.
Oh, Yeah...
The Democrats in Wa carry the nuts of the Republicans in a sack.
Posted by: Independent Voter on February 27, 2008 09:43 PMUnfortunately for Washington teachers -- who make $3,000 below the national average -- Gregoire and the Democratic legislature have basically dumped on the teachers. The 3.6% Rossi pay cut wasn't restored in the 2005 budget, the 2006 supplement budget, or the 2007 budget -- not one penny of it.
Right now, the 2008 supplemental budget is under consideration. The House has approved a mere 1.0% restoration of the Rossi pay cut, while the Senate has not restored a penny of it. The supplemental budget now goes to House-Senate negotiations, which will likely result in something between 0.0% and 1.0% restoration towards the 3.6% Rossi pay cut.
Rossi's pay cut in 2003 actually had some political defensibility -- and Rossi defended it well enough to come within 129 votes of winning in November 2004. The state did have a budget crisis when the 2003 budget was being formulated, and cuts had to be made somewhere.
By contrast, Gregoire's failure to restore the Rossi pay cuts for the last four years in a row don't have much defensibility at all. The state budget has been very healthy under Gregoire. The legislature has passed a number of measures to enhance state government revenues. Existing state programs have been expanded, and many beneficial new state programs have been established.
The teachers are basically getting the shaft, because Gregoire and the Democrats figure they can get away with it. The Republicans are rabid enemies of the WEA and public education. If most Republicans had their way, the WEA would be eviscerated and teacher pay would be cut further.
If the Republican candidate for Governor could run on a rational platform, instead of a wingnut platform, and embrace the issue of increasing teacher pay and educational funding, Gregoire would be pretty vulnerable indeed. Instead, Rossi will advocate putting the screw to teachers even more than Gregoire's benign neglect has done, and he will lose by a noticeable margin this time around.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 27, 2008 09:59 PMAs for the topic at hand; shouldn't the WEA keep its powder dry with these attack ads? After all, Dino is still the only gubernatorial candidate running. Whoever decides to run for the Democrats could be worse...
Pubic Education ? Hmmm...
Posted by: dutch on February 27, 2008 10:15 PM... was eliminated from the 2003-05 budget by the Republican legislature ...
The legislature was not Republican: the House was controlled by Chopp and the Democrats.
The Republicans are rabid enemies of the WEA and public education.
Another lie. Republicans are overwhelmingly strong supporters of public education.
If most Republicans had their way, the WEA would be eviscerated and teacher pay would be cut further.
Also a lie. Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to cutting teacher pay (and, in fact, pay was not cut, so a "further" cut is not possible anyway).
Granted, many Republicans dislike the WEA, but that is because we believe the WEA is HARMFUL to public education. It is our desire to see public education flourish that drives us to oppose the WEA.
Posted by: pudge on February 27, 2008 10:56 PMI will add, though, is that if I could do it all over, it would be as a teacher and the nice salaries. One family member is in 6 digits now, including bennies and excluding retirement.
Summers off, Xmas vacation, mid-winter breaks, spring break and all holidays off. Man, am I ever jealous. Oh, and I don't even have to teach the kids how to do long division and in my science class, I can brainwash the kids about global warming.
Posted by: swatter on February 28, 2008 06:22 AM"My daughter asked me for a $100 a week allowance. I gave her $2.
She ran around the neighborhood telling the neighbors I cut her allowance $98 a week."
It's a perfect explanation of the lame thinking!
WEA: "Waaa! You gave us a smaller increase than we asked for, so that's a cut!"
Posted by: Cryptometaphor on February 28, 2008 08:57 AMThe Locke budget cuts were more than made up and now we continue to fall further in the hole with the COLA increases being augmented with health insurance increases on a yearly basis.
Posted by: Doug on February 28, 2008 09:30 AMI think that with the mood in Washington state right now, the best possible thing Rossi could do would be to call out the WEA in the most aggressive possible terms. (It's not like the WEA is going to be on his side no matter what he does anyway.)
Take 180-185 workdays, divide by less than 8 hours of work per day (often less than 7), and you will find that top of pay scale teachers make more per hour than their school principals who work 260 days per year.
Here are hourly rates of pay for teachers for hours worked:
Top of pay scale teacher at 70k per year = roughly $55/hr
First year teacher at 30K per year = roughtly $23/hr
To put this pay into perspective, the average employee earning 30k per year at 5 days per week, 8 hrs per day for 48 weeks per year (4 weeks of paid vacation) is earning less than $15 per hour.
If teachers worked year round like most people (48 weeks of 40 hr weeks, 4 wks paid vacation) they would be earning approximately $106K and $45,500 per year, respectively.
I'd say $45k per year for someone fresh out of college is pretty good, wouldn't you? Anybody here willing to take a 1/3 pay cut if your employer allowed you to take all school vacations off with your kids and still keep your hourly rate of pay for the days you did go to work? Bet a bunch of people would go for it.
If anything, teachers are overpaid. Especially since most of them whine that parents share in the responsibility for student learning, and blame the parents and socio-economic status of those kids when the kids aren't learning how to read or do math.
Dino's response on You Tube.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 28, 2008 02:55 PMDude quit the lies.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 28, 2008 03:28 PMI have to correct you, too, I'm afraid, Eric. Speaker Chopp voted no on SB 6059, the bill amending I-732. He voted yes, however, on the final budget, which reflected that amendment.
For the record:
SB 6059
Teachers' cost-of-living
Senate vote on 3rd Reading & Final Passage
4/16/2003
Yeas: 27 Nays: 22 Absent: 0 Excused: 0
Voting Yea: Senators Benton, Brandland, Deccio, Esser, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, McCaslin, Morton, Mulliken, Oke, Parlette, Rasmussen, Rossi, Schmidt, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Stevens, Swecker, West, and Zarelli
Voting Nay: Senators Brown, Carlson, Doumit, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, Poulsen, Prentice, Reardon, Regala, Roach, Sheldon, B., Shin, Spanel, Thibaudeau, and Winsley
Absent:
Excused:
2003 First Special Session
Passed Senate, 6/4/03.
SB 6059
Teachers' cost-of-living
Senate vote on 3rd Reading & Final Passage
6/4/2003
Yeas: 26 Nays: 20 Absent: 1 Excused: 2
Voting Yea: Senators Benton, Brandland, Deccio, Esser, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hargrove, Hewitt, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, McCaslin, Morton, Mulliken, Oke, Parlette, Rasmussen, Rossi, Schmidt, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Stevens, Swecker, Winsley, and Zarelli
Voting Nay: Senators Brown, Carlson, Doumit, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Haugen, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, Prentice, Reardon, Regala, Sheldon, B., Shin, Spanel, and Thibaudeau
Absent: Senator Poulsen
Excused: Senators Roach and West
Passed House, 6/9/03
http://aor.leg.wa.lcl/rollcall/rollcall.aspx?bienid=17&legnum=6059
SB 6059
Teachers' cost-of-living
House vote on Final Passage
6/9/2003
Yeas: 59 Nays: 33 Absent: 0 Excused: 6
Voting Yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Buck, Chandler, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Cox, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Dickerson, Dunshee, Edwards, Eickmeyer, Fromhold, Grant, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kessler, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, McDermott, McIntire, McMorris, Mielke, Morris, Newhouse, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Rockefeller, Santos, Schindler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Skinner, Sommers, Sump, Tom, Wallace, Wood, and Woods
Voting Nay: Representatives Armstrong, Blake, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chase, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Delvin, Ericksen, Flannigan, Haigh, Hudgins, Kenney, Kirby, McCoy, McDonald, McMahan, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Murray, Nixon, O'Brien, Romero, Ruderman, Simpson, G., Sullivan, Upthegrove, Veloria, and Mr. Speaker Chopp
Absent:
Excused: Representatives Boldt, Gombosky, Mastin, Roach, Schoesler, and Talcott
Democrats Voting Yes: Berkey, Clibborn, Cody, Darneille, Dickerson, Dunshee, Edwards, Eickmeyer, Fromhold, Grant, Hatfield, Hunt, Hunter, Kagi, Kessler, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, McDermott, McIntire, Morris, Pettigrew, Quall, Rockefeller, Santos, Schual-Berke, Sommers, Wallace, Wood.
Republicans Voting Yes: Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Bailey, Benson, Buck, Chandler Clements, Cox, Crouse, DeBolt, Hankins, Hinkle, Holmquist, Jarrett, Kristiansen, McMorris, Mielke, Newhouse, Orcutt, Pearson, Pflug, Priest, Schindler, Sehlin, Shabro, Skinner, Sump, Tom, Woods.
Democrats Voting No: Blake, Chase, Conway, Cooper, Flannigan, Haigh, Hudgins, Kenney, Kirby, McCoy, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Murray, O'Brien, Romero, Ruderman, Simpson, Sullivan, Upthegrove, Veloria, Chopp.
Republicans Voting No: Armstrong, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Condotta, Delvin, Ericksen, McDonald, McMahan, Nixon.
Not Voting: Boldt, Gombosky, Mastin, Roach, Schoesler, Talcott.
Signed into law by Governor Locke, 6/10/03.
That's fine. My comments were referring to the overall budget, not individual votes on the separate components prior to its final passage. Breaking out such votes is a much more convoluted exercise, given the horse trading that goes at at times...as you know.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 28, 2008 08:40 PMThree of our neighbors are elementary school teachers and are good friends of ours. They tell us they can not talk about the union because they could get in trouble. The retired teacher who use to leave next door said the union was like a mafia and she just learned to keep her head down and do what she could for the kids.
1. Jim--You say they donated "donated over 90% of their political donations to the one party that is in charge" like that's a bad thing. What sense would it make to put money into a losing candidate from the minority?
2. "They want one teacher to every 16 kids." Citation, please. The bill the WEA was pushing this session, HB2458, called for 17:1 in K-3. I've never heard your 16:1 ratio before.
3. "I pointed out that when I went to school it was around 35 kids to one teacher and it worked." Really? All of the kids--ALL of the kids--attained a high education and went on to graduate from high school? Because that's what is being asked today. The demands are higher than they were even when I started a scant 10 years ago--trying to compare education pre-NCLB to post is an exercise in futility.
4. Using Texas as an example of anything in education, whether it's salary or quality, is foolish.
5. "the state passed it where any state union gets tax payer money to cover the negotiation costs." Are you talking about Washington here? Because I'm the lead negotiator for my school district, and I'm sure as hell not getting any money. What law do you think you're talking about here?
6. Up to School Smarm @15: Show me how many teacher's unions have less than a 7 hour day in their contract. If you can find more than 2, congratulations.
It's good that you guys have Pope around here to expose you to truth.
Posted by: Ryan on February 29, 2008 04:26 PM1) Who was the major bankroller of the liberal WA state supreme court justice campaigns last go around? Yeah, why on God's green earth should the WEA be allowed to finance Supreme Court justices.
2) 17:1, 16:1 - don't you see the problem? Mandated the ratio with the way we teach won't help. They need to have 30:1 during art and social studies and 9:1 during reading at the K-3 level. At the 4-6 level 35:1 during art, PE, music, etc, and 9:1 during Math and Reading. But guess what, you can't get the teachers to willingly give up 'their' kids. All that can be done with the financing they have, but the districts can't force it onto the unions - they have contracts saying they can't be over 20 kids in a class and they'll fight if they have 35 kids for one hour of the day.
As for 7 hour days, that's not the norm, I think the average must be about 7.5 to 7.75 hour days in the contracts. However his salary figures fail to calculate in benefits, and this state is near the top as far as benefit value for the teachers. That is why the WEA compares teachers salaries and not salaries plus benefits.
I'll remind you again, Ryan, the WEA owns the Puget Sound democrats in the legislature, they have double-dipped the inflationary aspects of healthcare for quite some time and it has more than made up for Locke's pay freeze. Just three years of that double dipping would have paid for all-day kindergarten for all schools forever.
Since the Republicans had control in '84, this state's teacher salary plus benefits has went from the bottom 3rd to the top 7 in the country, while class sizes went from the top 15 to the bottom 10.
It is union negotiators like yourself who once behind closed doors in negotiations tell the districts to just give you more money and forget about your public outcry of smaller class sizes.
Posted by: Doug on February 29, 2008 07:36 PMI won't defend the WEA for putting money into the Supreme Court election, but I wouldn't defend anyone for putting money there--the Court more than any other office in the state should be entirely publicly financed. I'll also note that the builders have put money into those same races, so this is a problem that crosses the spectrum.
As to your class size argument, you've got to remember that how kids are placed is a district (management) prerogative. The problems with what you propose:
1) The social studies testing is starting to come on-line via classroom based assessments (CBAs) that OSPI has put together. Music and PE are also shortly down the pipeline. 5 years ago you certainly could have short-sheeted those subjets to benefit reading and math, but the blowback on the "narrowing curriculum" in the last year means that the pendulum is swinging again.
2) I also throw in my own experiences here to say that you're wrong. I teach first grade, and we do the old-style Walk to Read where the highest kids who need more challenge go to one room and the lowest kids who need more help go to another. That high teacher has about 28 to 30 kids, which is over the contractual class size, but it works because those kids are easy to teach, and that's the agreement the teachers have made with one another. You made a generalization, but it's not true everywhere.
3) The other problem with "giving up their kids" is a matter of parent expectation; in K-6 the paradigm has long been a teacher who spends their day with one group of kids and knows all that they do. You and I both know that this isn't the best way, but when conference time comes the parents still expect me to be able to tell them how their kids are doing in all areas of the curriculum. If someone else is teaching them reading and someone else is teaching them math and someone else is teaching them social studies, it's not doable.
We can manage that by changing what parents expect, and by making sure that the teachers use common assessments that they can all talk about (that's how my team manages it), but it's not an overnight process, and it can be shot to hell if one person changes.
For salaries plus benefits, I'll refer you to the Education Intelligence Agency, a union watchdog group, which did a 2003 study that showed Washington as #22 in the nation when both aspects of compensation were considered:
http://www.eiaonline.com/statistics/table10.pdf
...and I'll add that as more TRS 1 people retire, that rating will only get worse, because TRS 3 doesn't compare at all.
I don't have the economic background to follow your double-dipping argument to its conclusion, but I've got an awfully hard time believing that universal full-day kindergarten (with its $100 million dollar price tag) could have been paid for in the last three years with a percentage of the I-732 COLA. This year the COLA price tag was $32 million; what percentage of that would you attribute to health costs?
Then there's the "WEA owns the legislature" argument. Governor Gregoire's budget didn't have the COLA restoration in it. The Senate budget didn't have the COLA restoration in it. The House budget did, but only by trading away full-day kindergarten expansion. This year's other main priority, the K-3 class size bill, didn't get any traction. Last year's priority, gainsharing on the TRS plans, was lost. If we're the owners, we're certainly getting owned more than we should.
And as for the union negotiator snark at the end, even a critic like Rick Hess acknowledges that that contracts always have two signatures on them--the union and the district. Every time you hear of stupid contract language, understand that someone with a doctorate probably was on the other side of the table. Know too that class size is one of the hardest fought items at the table, and one that membership wants the most--any union ignores class size at their own peril.
Thank you for the discussion.
Posted by: Ryan on March 1, 2008 10:00 AM