It is official we have moved and sold our home in Illinois. We will no longer be updating this BLOG. We will continue to update our CRAFT website
and our Croydon CRAFT BLOG.
Good luck to Harvard residents fighting future referenda our home has been sold to school teachers, future fights may be tough.
We suggest the following sites for future reference.
Family Taxpayers Network
Illinois Policy Institute
Spontaneous Solutions
Heartland Institute
<$BlogItemTitle$> Education Intelligence Agency
Townhall.com
Sunday, April 01, 2007
It is official we have moved and sold our home in Illinois.
Posted by
Cathy Peschke with occasional posts by Jim Peschke
at
6:23 PM
1 comments
Links to this post
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
We will not be posting March 22 - March 30
We will not be posting March 22 - March 30. We suggest the following sites in the mean time.
The Family Taxpayers Network
Education Intelligence Agency
Education Matters
The Family Taxpayers Network
Education Intelligence Agency
Education Matters
Posted by
Cathy Peschke with occasional posts by Jim Peschke
at
1:42 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
House panel vote today on school tax swap plan?
The income tax increase is one step closer to passing.
House panel vote today on school tax swap plan?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
By Phil Kadner
Source: Daily Southtown
Searching for signs of life in the state Legislature can be like interpreting Da Vinci's "Last Supper."
Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, a master political artist, may be whispering important secrets about school funding into the ears of key committee members today.
Then again, he may merely be creating an illusion.
The Illinois House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations -- Elementary and Secondary Education
is expected to hold a public hearing today on House Bill 750.
This is a measure that would change the way public schools are funded by increasing the state income tax
from 3 percent to 5 percent while providing property tax relief to homeowners.
There are some other tax and tax relief components to the plan as well, but this stuff is confusing enough
without getting into all the details.
I mean, sponsors of this bill are calling it the Education and Fiscal Responsibility Act. If you like
that title, you can find the details for yourself online.
The important thing here, I think, is that Madigan is allowing the bill to be heard by a House committee.
Last year, the speaker refused to take the measure seriously.
Even while the measure, sponsored by state Sen. James Meeks (D-Chicago) was passing out of a Senate
committee, Madigan's staff was laughing at its chances of ever getting a hearing in the House.
Turns out they were right.
Senate President Emil Jones (D-Chicago), who had boasted of supporting school funding reform and a tax
hike, refused to let the measure onto the floor for a vote of the full Senate.
Well, things have changed in a year.
Now Jones is supporting Gov. Rod Blagojevich's school funding plan, which includes a new gross receipts tax
on businesses.
State Rep. David Miller (D-Calumet City), the sponsor of HB 750 in the House, is delighted Madigan has
decided to allow a public hearing on his bill.
Miller even expects the committee to vote on the measure today.
Since Democrats control the House and Madigan controls the Democrats, he likely wouldn't embarrass Miller by
allowing a vote that would result in the bill's defeat.
If there is a vote, it's because Madigan wants the bill pushed out of committee.
And the timing suggests Madigan wants an alternative to the governor's gross receipts tax.
"I don't think the speaker has any position on the gross receipts tax at this point," said Steve Brown,
Madigan's spokesman.
"He just doesn't know enough about it. All we have are speeches and press releases.
"The speaker needs to know what the plan would actually do, the details, before he takes a position."
But the speaker is allowing HB 750 to be called for a vote. So something in his position has changed since
last year.
"It's a new year," Brown said. "It's obviously time to discuss this issue now."
It also is possible that Madigan is seeking leverage in negotiations with Blagojevich and Jones.
Whatever the case, Madigan may now be the last and best hope for the so-called tax swap proposal.
Jones has said that as far as he's concerned the measure is in the Senate's "Hospice Committee.'
When I asked Meeks about that, he said, "I reminded the Senate president that hospice is not for the dead,
but for the living. My bill is still alive."
Looking at the political picture in Illinois is like studying one of Seurat's paintings at the Art
Institute.
At a certain distance, the image has clarity.
But the closer you look, the more obvious it becomes that you're just looking at a jumble of dots on
canvass.
The governor has vowed to veto any bill that includes a tax increase.
The governor has proposed a gross receipts tax that's going to result in higher prices for consumers, but he
claims that's a tax on big business, not consumers.
In the meantime, Mayor Richard Daley, who has said he wants the Legislature to pass school funding reform
this year, has yet to take a position on either of the bills.
He did ardently defend businessmen, ripping the governor for calling them "fat cats."
"You have to be optimistic," Miller said.
"House Bill 750 has been assigned to committee. I expect a committee vote (today).
"That's more than we've gotten in the past."
Will Madigan be there?
"I don't know, but his top legal guy will be running the meeting," Miller said. "That's significant."
You know, it must be because when I looked at the "Last Supper" again, there was Madigan's guy whispering in someone's ear.
House panel vote today on school tax swap plan?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
By Phil Kadner
Source: Daily Southtown
Searching for signs of life in the state Legislature can be like interpreting Da Vinci's "Last Supper."
Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, a master political artist, may be whispering important secrets about school funding into the ears of key committee members today.
Then again, he may merely be creating an illusion.
The Illinois House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations -- Elementary and Secondary Education
is expected to hold a public hearing today on House Bill 750.
This is a measure that would change the way public schools are funded by increasing the state income tax
from 3 percent to 5 percent while providing property tax relief to homeowners.
There are some other tax and tax relief components to the plan as well, but this stuff is confusing enough
without getting into all the details.
I mean, sponsors of this bill are calling it the Education and Fiscal Responsibility Act. If you like
that title, you can find the details for yourself online.
The important thing here, I think, is that Madigan is allowing the bill to be heard by a House committee.
Last year, the speaker refused to take the measure seriously.
Even while the measure, sponsored by state Sen. James Meeks (D-Chicago) was passing out of a Senate
committee, Madigan's staff was laughing at its chances of ever getting a hearing in the House.
Turns out they were right.
Senate President Emil Jones (D-Chicago), who had boasted of supporting school funding reform and a tax
hike, refused to let the measure onto the floor for a vote of the full Senate.
Well, things have changed in a year.
Now Jones is supporting Gov. Rod Blagojevich's school funding plan, which includes a new gross receipts tax
on businesses.
State Rep. David Miller (D-Calumet City), the sponsor of HB 750 in the House, is delighted Madigan has
decided to allow a public hearing on his bill.
Miller even expects the committee to vote on the measure today.
Since Democrats control the House and Madigan controls the Democrats, he likely wouldn't embarrass Miller by
allowing a vote that would result in the bill's defeat.
If there is a vote, it's because Madigan wants the bill pushed out of committee.
And the timing suggests Madigan wants an alternative to the governor's gross receipts tax.
"I don't think the speaker has any position on the gross receipts tax at this point," said Steve Brown,
Madigan's spokesman.
"He just doesn't know enough about it. All we have are speeches and press releases.
"The speaker needs to know what the plan would actually do, the details, before he takes a position."
But the speaker is allowing HB 750 to be called for a vote. So something in his position has changed since
last year.
"It's a new year," Brown said. "It's obviously time to discuss this issue now."
It also is possible that Madigan is seeking leverage in negotiations with Blagojevich and Jones.
Whatever the case, Madigan may now be the last and best hope for the so-called tax swap proposal.
Jones has said that as far as he's concerned the measure is in the Senate's "Hospice Committee.'
When I asked Meeks about that, he said, "I reminded the Senate president that hospice is not for the dead,
but for the living. My bill is still alive."
Looking at the political picture in Illinois is like studying one of Seurat's paintings at the Art
Institute.
At a certain distance, the image has clarity.
But the closer you look, the more obvious it becomes that you're just looking at a jumble of dots on
canvass.
The governor has vowed to veto any bill that includes a tax increase.
The governor has proposed a gross receipts tax that's going to result in higher prices for consumers, but he
claims that's a tax on big business, not consumers.
In the meantime, Mayor Richard Daley, who has said he wants the Legislature to pass school funding reform
this year, has yet to take a position on either of the bills.
He did ardently defend businessmen, ripping the governor for calling them "fat cats."
"You have to be optimistic," Miller said.
"House Bill 750 has been assigned to committee. I expect a committee vote (today).
"That's more than we've gotten in the past."
Will Madigan be there?
"I don't know, but his top legal guy will be running the meeting," Miller said. "That's significant."
You know, it must be because when I looked at the "Last Supper" again, there was Madigan's guy whispering in someone's ear.
Posted by
Cathy Peschke with occasional posts by Jim Peschke
at
1:35 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Labels:
HB 750,
Income redistribution,
No Child Left Behind
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Ten ways to cut school spending
The following letter to the editor appeared in the Daily Herald.
Daily Herald Letter to the editor -- 3/18/07
Ten ways to cut school spending
Gov. Rod Blagojevich wants a new “value-added” tax on Illinois businesses to support more education spending.
Before I move my engineering business to another state to escape this onerous tax, here’s my “Top 10 Ways To Cut Education Spending.”
1) Eliminate teachers’ pensions. Pensions don’t exist in the private sector. Why can’t teachers have a 401(k) or Keough plan?
2) Cut teachers’ salaries. A friend just retired after serving as the “weight room” teacher for a local high school. He was nothing more than a glorified personal trainer, but with his Ph.D. in education, he earned more than $110,000 per year.
3) Raise the retirement age to 65. That same friend worked 30 years and retired with an annual pension of about $80,000 per year plus cost of living adjustments. The pension is guaranteed until the day he dies, and he’s only 56.
4) Stop the “advanced degree” scam. The main reason teachers get advanced degrees is to get a salary increase. If you were qualified to teach with only a bachelor’s degree, you don’t need an advanced degree.
5) Eliminate AP classes. If you want college credit, go to college.
6) Don’t start all-day kindergarten. We already have all day kindergarten. It’s called first grade.
7) Increase class size. When I was in school, the average class size was 30-35 pupils.
8) Eliminate teacher’s aides. Why do teachers need aides? You’re the teacher, so teach!
9) Cut health care expenditures. In the private sector, employees pay a greater share of their health insurance and so should teachers.
10) Take computers out of grade school. Just like calculators did not improve math competence, computers do not improve penmanship, language or writing skills. Software spell- and grammar-check features do not teach anything.
At the last Democratic National Convention, one-third of the delegates were teachers. The governor’s plan is nothing more than a political payoff to the teachers union — his biggest constituency — and we shouldn’t have to pay for his votes. And you wonder why Democrats keep asking for more education spending.
John Schadl
Arlington Heights
Daily Herald Letter to the editor -- 3/18/07
Ten ways to cut school spending
Gov. Rod Blagojevich wants a new “value-added” tax on Illinois businesses to support more education spending.
Before I move my engineering business to another state to escape this onerous tax, here’s my “Top 10 Ways To Cut Education Spending.”
1) Eliminate teachers’ pensions. Pensions don’t exist in the private sector. Why can’t teachers have a 401(k) or Keough plan?
2) Cut teachers’ salaries. A friend just retired after serving as the “weight room” teacher for a local high school. He was nothing more than a glorified personal trainer, but with his Ph.D. in education, he earned more than $110,000 per year.
3) Raise the retirement age to 65. That same friend worked 30 years and retired with an annual pension of about $80,000 per year plus cost of living adjustments. The pension is guaranteed until the day he dies, and he’s only 56.
4) Stop the “advanced degree” scam. The main reason teachers get advanced degrees is to get a salary increase. If you were qualified to teach with only a bachelor’s degree, you don’t need an advanced degree.
5) Eliminate AP classes. If you want college credit, go to college.
6) Don’t start all-day kindergarten. We already have all day kindergarten. It’s called first grade.
7) Increase class size. When I was in school, the average class size was 30-35 pupils.
8) Eliminate teacher’s aides. Why do teachers need aides? You’re the teacher, so teach!
9) Cut health care expenditures. In the private sector, employees pay a greater share of their health insurance and so should teachers.
10) Take computers out of grade school. Just like calculators did not improve math competence, computers do not improve penmanship, language or writing skills. Software spell- and grammar-check features do not teach anything.
At the last Democratic National Convention, one-third of the delegates were teachers. The governor’s plan is nothing more than a political payoff to the teachers union — his biggest constituency — and we shouldn’t have to pay for his votes. And you wonder why Democrats keep asking for more education spending.
John Schadl
Arlington Heights
Posted by
Cathy Peschke with occasional posts by Jim Peschke
at
10:01 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Fight or pack up
The following letter to the editor appeared in the Northwest Herald.
Fight or pack up
To the Editor:
Gov. Rod Blagojevich is pushing the largest expansion of state government in Illinois history.
And he’s doing it in classic Blagojevich style, with vague bold strokes. He has no detailed plan for this massive proposal, just a partisan speech, a news release, and a new straw man, the Illinois businessman.
The gloves are off now, it’s his second term. His budget address sounds like a declaration of war against Illinois businesses. Blagojevich wants free health care, piles of money for overdue bills, and another $10 billion for education. And instead of real working people (i.e. union labor), he’s going to make you pay for it.
But Blagojevich isn’t raising taxes, he’s just expanding them – expanding them to everything you do with a gross receipts tax. The average voter won’t understand economic ramifications of the all-inclusive taxes and the multiplier effect, but should understand that Illinois is the eighth-worst state to do business in, and it’s about to get much worse. The most aggravating part of all this is putting more good money down that bottomless pit in Springfield.
This is a fight-or-flight situation. Stop Blagojevich or start researching new state residency requirements.
Drew Veeneman
Elgin
Gross receipts taxes are extremely destructive for a state's economy for more information we refer you to the The really gross ‘Gross Receipts really Tax’ article by the Illinois Policy Institute.
Fight or pack up
To the Editor:
Gov. Rod Blagojevich is pushing the largest expansion of state government in Illinois history.
And he’s doing it in classic Blagojevich style, with vague bold strokes. He has no detailed plan for this massive proposal, just a partisan speech, a news release, and a new straw man, the Illinois businessman.
The gloves are off now, it’s his second term. His budget address sounds like a declaration of war against Illinois businesses. Blagojevich wants free health care, piles of money for overdue bills, and another $10 billion for education. And instead of real working people (i.e. union labor), he’s going to make you pay for it.
But Blagojevich isn’t raising taxes, he’s just expanding them – expanding them to everything you do with a gross receipts tax. The average voter won’t understand economic ramifications of the all-inclusive taxes and the multiplier effect, but should understand that Illinois is the eighth-worst state to do business in, and it’s about to get much worse. The most aggravating part of all this is putting more good money down that bottomless pit in Springfield.
This is a fight-or-flight situation. Stop Blagojevich or start researching new state residency requirements.
Drew Veeneman
Elgin
Gross receipts taxes are extremely destructive for a state's economy for more information we refer you to the The really gross ‘Gross Receipts really Tax’ article by the Illinois Policy Institute.
Posted by
Cathy Peschke with occasional posts by Jim Peschke
at
8:43 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Saturday, March 17, 2007
How Taxes Work
The following piece is self explanitory and came from the Maine Public Policy Institute.
How Taxes Work
by T. Davies
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on - it does make you think!! Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner.
The bill for al ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59. That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language, a tax cut). "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, but he (pointing to the tenth man), got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man.
"Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner. So the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, the nine men discovered -- a little late -- what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straight-forward logic!
How Taxes Work
by T. Davies
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on - it does make you think!! Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner.
The bill for al ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59. That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language, a tax cut). "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, but he (pointing to the tenth man), got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man.
"Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner. So the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, the nine men discovered -- a little late -- what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straight-forward logic!
Posted by
Cathy Peschke with occasional posts by Jim Peschke
at
9:52 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Labels:
Taxes
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Improving public schools
The following piece appeared in the Washington Times. No further commentary is needed.
Improving public schools
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By David White
March 12, 2007
Steve Jobs, the co-founder and CEO of Apple, just lost any friends he had in the executive offices of the nation's teacher unions. Speaking recently at an education reform conference in Austin, Mr. Jobs blamed the unionization of America's public schools for much of what's wrong with today's public education system.
"What kind of person could you get to run a small business," he asked, comparing school principals to CEOs, "if you told them that when they came in they couldn't get rid of people that they thought weren't any good?" Unfortunately for America's schoolchildren, Mr. Jobs' criticisms are just scraping the surface.
Across America, there are more than 3 million public-school teachers. Organized through the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers -- the nation's two largest labor unions -- they wield enormous political influence and aren't afraid to use it. Much of this power comes through the dues that union leaders deduct from teachers' paychecks, supposedly to improve the working conditions of the teachers they represent. In California, for example, the state teachers' association represents 340,000 workers and collects more than $150 million each year in mandatory dues.
But in reality, the unions often promote an agenda that doesn't reflect the interests of their members. Performance-based pay for teachers is a prime example of how the unions work directly against their members' own best interests. In inner-city schools, the best teachers often leave after just a year or two for better salaries, nicer neighborhoods and less stressful work. Merit pay, however, makes it possible for these schools to retain effective teachers by paying them more. But the unions usually fight tooth and nail against such measures.
By standing against proven reform, the union agenda also harms the nation's schoolchildren.
Using member dues, unions regularly lobby against efforts to allow students trapped in underperforming schools to transfer to better schools by using vouchers. Never mind the fact that study after study has demonstrated that voucher systems boost student achievement in both public and private schools, regardless of socioeconomic background.
Further, when using their collective-bargaining powers, teacher-union leaders often rely on tough, confrontational tactics to win concessions from local school boards. Across the country, they've negotiated generous taxpayer subsidies and other unfair benefits.
In cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Philadelphia, a teacher who decides against joining the local union is required by contract to pay a fee to that union.
Most large school districts also offer paid leave for teachers to conduct union business. For example, San Diego's contract gives union members an "unlimited number of workdays per fiscal year of leave to use for association business." And in Providence, teachers selected by their union to serve as delegates to any AFL-CIO meeting are eligible for five paid days of leave. This places a double cost burden on schools. In addition to paying the absent teachers their full salary, many districts are also responsible for finding and paying substitute teachers.
Shockingly, in some cities, teachers on paid leave can be hired as substitute teachers without terminating their leave. In other words, a teacher could take time off but continue working as a substitute teacher collecting two paychecks, at the same time, from the same school. In many districts, schools must give unions free use of equipment like copy machines, telephones and computers. Some districts are even contractually obligated to provide union presidents with free office space and time at faculty meetings.
Further, if city and state governments simply eliminated the taxpayer subsidies that are being used to support union activities each year, they could channel that money back to providing a high-quality education to every student, using the funds to raise teacher pay to attract the best and brightest.
Steve Jobs has started an important conversation about the impact of America's teachers unions. Those who seek to improve the quality of our nation's public schools -- parents, teachers and local school-board members -- would be wise to take part.
David White is an adjunct scholar at the Lexington Institute.
Improving public schools
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By David White
March 12, 2007
Steve Jobs, the co-founder and CEO of Apple, just lost any friends he had in the executive offices of the nation's teacher unions. Speaking recently at an education reform conference in Austin, Mr. Jobs blamed the unionization of America's public schools for much of what's wrong with today's public education system.
"What kind of person could you get to run a small business," he asked, comparing school principals to CEOs, "if you told them that when they came in they couldn't get rid of people that they thought weren't any good?" Unfortunately for America's schoolchildren, Mr. Jobs' criticisms are just scraping the surface.
Across America, there are more than 3 million public-school teachers. Organized through the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers -- the nation's two largest labor unions -- they wield enormous political influence and aren't afraid to use it. Much of this power comes through the dues that union leaders deduct from teachers' paychecks, supposedly to improve the working conditions of the teachers they represent. In California, for example, the state teachers' association represents 340,000 workers and collects more than $150 million each year in mandatory dues.
But in reality, the unions often promote an agenda that doesn't reflect the interests of their members. Performance-based pay for teachers is a prime example of how the unions work directly against their members' own best interests. In inner-city schools, the best teachers often leave after just a year or two for better salaries, nicer neighborhoods and less stressful work. Merit pay, however, makes it possible for these schools to retain effective teachers by paying them more. But the unions usually fight tooth and nail against such measures.
By standing against proven reform, the union agenda also harms the nation's schoolchildren.
Using member dues, unions regularly lobby against efforts to allow students trapped in underperforming schools to transfer to better schools by using vouchers. Never mind the fact that study after study has demonstrated that voucher systems boost student achievement in both public and private schools, regardless of socioeconomic background.
Further, when using their collective-bargaining powers, teacher-union leaders often rely on tough, confrontational tactics to win concessions from local school boards. Across the country, they've negotiated generous taxpayer subsidies and other unfair benefits.
In cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Philadelphia, a teacher who decides against joining the local union is required by contract to pay a fee to that union.
Most large school districts also offer paid leave for teachers to conduct union business. For example, San Diego's contract gives union members an "unlimited number of workdays per fiscal year of leave to use for association business." And in Providence, teachers selected by their union to serve as delegates to any AFL-CIO meeting are eligible for five paid days of leave. This places a double cost burden on schools. In addition to paying the absent teachers their full salary, many districts are also responsible for finding and paying substitute teachers.
Shockingly, in some cities, teachers on paid leave can be hired as substitute teachers without terminating their leave. In other words, a teacher could take time off but continue working as a substitute teacher collecting two paychecks, at the same time, from the same school. In many districts, schools must give unions free use of equipment like copy machines, telephones and computers. Some districts are even contractually obligated to provide union presidents with free office space and time at faculty meetings.
Further, if city and state governments simply eliminated the taxpayer subsidies that are being used to support union activities each year, they could channel that money back to providing a high-quality education to every student, using the funds to raise teacher pay to attract the best and brightest.
Steve Jobs has started an important conversation about the impact of America's teachers unions. Those who seek to improve the quality of our nation's public schools -- parents, teachers and local school-board members -- would be wise to take part.
David White is an adjunct scholar at the Lexington Institute.
Posted by
Cathy Peschke with occasional posts by Jim Peschke
at
5:46 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Teachers Unions Behind Group To Take Away School Choice From Utahns.
If you are not a regular reader of the Education Intelligence Agency you should be. This is some of the great stuff you are missing.
Utahns for Public Schools = NEA UniServ. With the passage of a statewide voucher program into law in Utah, opponents have decided to gather signatures for a referendum that would first suspend, then overturn the law. The main group is working under the banner Utahns for Public Schools. An alert EIA reader noticed something unusual about the organization. Upon deeper investigation, the roots of Utahns for Public Schools are beginning to show.
On its website, the coalition describes itself as "a group of parents, teachers, and others interested in the quality of education provided to Utah children." This sounds a lot better to the general public and the press than "a group of employees and officers of the Utah Education Association and the Utah PTA."
The organization lists 128 names as county contacts for people interested in signing or distributing the petition against the voucher law. The 128 names are of 50 individuals, almost all of whom can be identified by very specific job titles.
Of the 50 people, 13 are UniServ directors employed by the Utah Education Association, whose pay is subsidized by grants from the National Education Association. Another 12 contacts are elected officers or representatives of the Utah Education Association and its local affiliates, and another 14 contacts are regional directors of the Utah PTA. The jobs of the other 11 contacts could not be immediately determined.
Quote of the Week. "A 4% increase in teachers across the state is not particularly large, even amidst declining student enrollment." – Vermont-NEA Angelo J. Dorta. (March 2007 Vermont-NEA Today)
The Michigan Teacher Glut
"There are thousands and thousands of teachers without job opportunities in Michigan," says Michigan State Superintendent of Public Instruction Mike Flanagan.
Except when it comes to applying for federal supplemental loans for critical teacher shortage areas. Then the state of Michigan has a long, long list of openings for teachers.
Or is it indeed a glut? They are turning away candidates at the teacher colleges in Ontario, Canada, and part of the reason is the oversupply of teachers from "border schools" - that is, teacher colleges in Buffalo and other American cities.
"It's simple supply and demand," said a Canadian official.
Not so simple for some.
For more great information from the Education Intelligence Agency click here.
Utahns for Public Schools = NEA UniServ. With the passage of a statewide voucher program into law in Utah, opponents have decided to gather signatures for a referendum that would first suspend, then overturn the law. The main group is working under the banner Utahns for Public Schools. An alert EIA reader noticed something unusual about the organization. Upon deeper investigation, the roots of Utahns for Public Schools are beginning to show.
On its website, the coalition describes itself as "a group of parents, teachers, and others interested in the quality of education provided to Utah children." This sounds a lot better to the general public and the press than "a group of employees and officers of the Utah Education Association and the Utah PTA."
The organization lists 128 names as county contacts for people interested in signing or distributing the petition against the voucher law. The 128 names are of 50 individuals, almost all of whom can be identified by very specific job titles.
Of the 50 people, 13 are UniServ directors employed by the Utah Education Association, whose pay is subsidized by grants from the National Education Association. Another 12 contacts are elected officers or representatives of the Utah Education Association and its local affiliates, and another 14 contacts are regional directors of the Utah PTA. The jobs of the other 11 contacts could not be immediately determined.
Quote of the Week. "A 4% increase in teachers across the state is not particularly large, even amidst declining student enrollment." – Vermont-NEA Angelo J. Dorta. (March 2007 Vermont-NEA Today)
The Michigan Teacher Glut
"There are thousands and thousands of teachers without job opportunities in Michigan," says Michigan State Superintendent of Public Instruction Mike Flanagan.
Except when it comes to applying for federal supplemental loans for critical teacher shortage areas. Then the state of Michigan has a long, long list of openings for teachers.
Or is it indeed a glut? They are turning away candidates at the teacher colleges in Ontario, Canada, and part of the reason is the oversupply of teachers from "border schools" - that is, teacher colleges in Buffalo and other American cities.
"It's simple supply and demand," said a Canadian official.
Not so simple for some.
For more great information from the Education Intelligence Agency click here.
Posted by
Cathy Peschke with occasional posts by Jim Peschke
at
5:22 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Labels:
Educrats gone bad,
School Choice,
Teachers' unions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)