Teachers back off GRT bill
Friday, Apr 20, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
This was my top story yesterday in the Capitol Fax. No hat tip, of course, but that’s expected….
The 1 million-strong Illinois AFL-CIO has backed off its support of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s $7 billion tax plan for education and health care because of a flap over charter schools.
The labor organization had been poised to lobby for the tax plan, but it switched its position to “neutral” after learning of a provision that would double the number of charter schools allowed in Illinois, said spokeswoman Beth Spencer.
Concerns were raised by an affiliate, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, which opposes an expansion of charter schools. Spencer said that if one affiliate is opposed to the governor’s plan, the organization as a whole must be neutral until concerns are resolved.
Gail Purkey, a spokeswoman for the Illinois Federation of Teachers, would not discuss the situation other than say, “We’re talking to legislators and working on it.”
The teachers will almost certainly find a way to compromise. They want that money. But the labor move has most definitely hurt any momentum that the GRT supporters were hoping to build.
Meanwhile…
Also, Thursday, Jones’ office released data showing the impact of the governor’s plan around the state. Chicago-area school districts outside of Cook County would see a 28 percent increase over the current year in the state’s main education programs, including the per-pupil state aid and special education — the largest increase in the state.
The data also show how grants for $1 billion in property tax relief would be distributed. The south Cook County area represented by Sen. James Meeks (D-Chicago) would get $47.5 million — more than any other Senate district.
Meeks has been pushing an alternative plan to the gross-receipts tax.
- hmmmm - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 8:27 am:
You know that old saying - don’t look a gift horse in the mouth?
- To Bad, So Sad - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 8:49 am:
Finally! An orgaanization with some onions!
- It's 5 O'clock somewhere - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 9:33 am:
Where can I obtain a copy of the data that Jones released?
- Number 8 - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 9:59 am:
At the end of the day, labor will be behind this. This is a no story.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 10:09 am:
Blagojevich is still working an old dodge - look at what you can get if you give me $8 Billion dollars!
Schools magically transformed!
The lame walks!
The dead rise up from their graves!
We will be showered in unbelievable riches!
Just give me that $8 Billion - OK?
Still not sold?
The Cubs will win the World Series if my plan passes!
But first - give me $8 Billion!
Businesses will boom!
Highways will become dreamways!
Cars will run on water!
I - just - need - that - $8 Billion!
- Bill - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 10:39 am:
Now it is up to Meeks to answer the same question that he has been asking downstate school superintendents and their legislators for the last several years. How can you vote against all that money for your students and constituents?
- cermak_rd - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 10:46 am:
I don’t know why the AFT is so danged opposed to Charters. It’s not like huge numbers of children attend them. It’s a tiny fraction of the whole number of CPS children. And I think it makes them look bad when they don’t care about the parent’s choice in where their child attends school. The Charters in Chicago don’t seem to do any worse (though there’s a paucity of data due to the newness of a lot of them) at educating the children and some parents choose them due to security concerns or they prefer a more disciplined environment for their children. What’s wrong with choices?
- Ghost - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 11:07 am:
An interesting indication from charter schools is that they are operating well, and in demand, but cost less to run. Some do better then public schools and some match the public schools in results.
The state run education system is bloated with costs, expenses and employees outside of the schools. But the real problem, tenure. I do want to see more money in education. I would like to see us pump up teachers salaries much higher. The children are our future. we should seek to have them educated by our best and brightest to properly grow the resource of intelligience and creativity. BUT with increased salaraies its time to dump tenure. At will employment for all.
- cermak_rd - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 11:13 am:
I don’t really see tenure as being all that important. In order to get tenure a teacher has to teach for 3 years and be rated by a principal as competent. If there are incompetent teachers, blame the principals.
- Team Sleep - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 11:37 am:
Charters are the way to go. I wish I would’ve had a charter school close to me when I was a kid. Our school district was run by incompetent boobs who had no idea how great our teachers were and how smart our kids could be. The budget was bloated with nonsense and the administration was too top-heavy. And to me, that’s the problem. School administrations are a boondoggle in many areas and it’s semi-offensive that a super in a rich district can clear $250K+. It’s also tough to support the IFT and IEA when they just turn around and give their money to Emil Jones and Blago and then demand more money for “education”. Sorry, I’m not buying it. Call me skeptical and cynical but that’s a problem.
- Cassandra - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 11:39 am:
If we have to have tenure, why not make it harder to get. I wonder how many Illinois public school teachers were actually denied tenure annually in recent years. Might be hard to find out overall Illinois numbers, but it’s a good question to ask one’s local school district.
How about doubling it to six years, requiring a competitive (not a 99.9 percent pass) test, and requiring a not just the prinicipal but two outside experts as well to approve the tenure plus a member of the community.
Given the extraordinary amount of cronyism that goes on in most Illinois schools, I’m not surprised that the quality of teachers is so low overall. Whichever tax system is implemented (if either) we should be doing some hard bargaining to
get the teachers unions, ever averse to quality education, to agree to major reforms before they get their hands on the money. Will this happen?
Probably not.
- Gene Parmesan - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 1:07 pm:
Can someone please explain to me why teachers need tenure? Seriously, I have tried and I can’t think of one good reason.
“If there are incompetent teachers, blame the principals.” — You gotta be kidding me. The principals have to make a decision on a teacher’s employment for the rest of their careers (in some cases) after seeing them for only 3 years? What other position has tenure like this? It’s nearly impossible to fire a teacher if they haven’t physically or sexually assaulted a student. Don’t blame the principals, they’re hands are tied.
Interesting that Steve Jobs, in his speech to Stanford last month, said the #1 problem in education are the Teacher’s Unions.
- Team Sleep - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 2:30 pm:
Gene, you bring up an interesting point. Don’t forget, too, that school boards are usually tasked with the firing of teachers. If a teacher is in tight with a member, the chances if him or her being fired is minimal. If anything the principals or supes are the ones who usually take the fall for poor performance and disciplinary reasons.
- cermak_rd - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 2:36 pm:
Teacher’s unions are the problem in that they stand in the way of choice for those parents that want choice.
Tenure, again, isn’t that big of a deal. Do you personally know any teachers that don’t teach well and have been in the profession for more than 5 years? That really are lazy? I haven’t met any yet. Teachers who get burned out on teaching tend to leave the profession, not stay. Teachers who are awful from day 1 should be terminated and can easily be terminated, but aren’t always because:
1. Too many principals rate their teachers without ever stepping a foot in a classroom to see how the teacher is actually teaching. For these principals, if the teacher has got classroom management down (so they don’t send too many kids to the principals office), then that’s OK and so some incompetent teachers game the system. But it’s still, ultimately, the principal’s fault because she should have been observing the teacher. Also, tenure isn’t a magic way of getting out of ever being fired. It only allows a due cause element to creep in. If the teacher has been rated poorly for 2 years running, I believe, tenure or no tenure he can be fired.
and 2. Too many schools have a hard time just filling slots. In that case, a lukewarm teacher is viewed as better than no teacher or a string of subs.
- Gene Parmesan - Friday, Apr 20, 07 @ 3:00 pm:
Cermak, unfortunately, I know a number of lousy teachers that can’t be fired due to tenure.
You’re right, the burnt-out teachers do tend to leave. It’s the teachers that aren’t burnt out and suck that I’m worried about. Think about it, how many teachers that stink are going to leave a job where they can’t be fired, get great benefits, salary increases based on service and not merit, and 3 months off every summer. You don’t have to be real bright to stay in that position and just keep collecting a check.
Are there principals that don’t do their job in protecting bad teachers from tenure? Sure. But principals should be able to evaluate their employees over the ENTIRE course of their careers, not just the first 3 years. I guess what I’m getting at is that administrators have a whole lot of trouble getting rid of older teachers who aren’t doing their jobs.
As to schools having a difficult time filling slots (particularly in math, science, and foreign language), this is a great reason to not have tenure. If school districts are forced to keep lousy teachers bc they are better than “no teacher or a string of subs” then they should hardly be offering these jokers tenure.