In a previous post, I argued that the main cost driver in education is that school officials take minimum advantage of cost saving opportunities and maximum advantage of excuses. Well, there is no excuse that is more often used than the No Child Left Behind law.
Recently, a federal Court of Appeals panel revived the NCLB lawsuit being participated in by some Vermont school officials. Make no mistake. The attacks coming from Vermont school officials have nothing to do with partisan politics. The lawsuit is useful to school officials trying to gain national fame. And it is even more useful in protecting their budgets. By planting the seed in local voters' minds that NCLB is to blame for excessive school spending, local officials are let off the hook and the federal government gets the blame. The school officials know better. The average voter does not.
The Addison Independent reported on the NCLB lawsuit and quoted an administrator bemoaning the NCLB testing requirements, saying that it "can take up to two full weeks out of the school year." The statement would be misleading without the word "full." With it ... well, schools that take the two weeks for testing are doing it in small chunks, so the rest of the day can be devoted to other activities.
And, for the record, there were state-mandated tests before the advent of the dreaded NCLB. Somehow, the schools survived.
The main cost drivers in education are health care, energy costs, and other types of insurance that schools need to carry. Do you really think that teacher's salaries, books, pencils, and paste go up at several times the rate of inflation every year?? The only deduction that comes out of my paycheck that's more than *tripled* in the last 10+ years is the cost that I pay for health care premiums. You don't think that NCLB is a huge, unfunded, federal mandate?? If so, you're the only one I know that thinks that then.
Thanx for letting us know that you think VT voters are stupid BTW. I'll remember that the next time I read anything on this site...
Posted by: Mister Guy | January 18, 2008 at 06:30 PM
Well, Mr. G, energy costs went down from 2001 to 2004, and yet education costs went up 18 percent. And, yeah, health insurance is expensive. Hyperinflationary even, as you alluded. If we didn't employ so many people, we wouldn't have to spend so much on it.
Are the voters stupid? No, I don't think so. In fact, I am very much betting on their capacity to critically think. That's why I keep writing about this stuff.
Posted by: Curtis Hier | January 18, 2008 at 08:51 PM
How about if we actually *fix* the way that we pay for health care in this state (which is obviously broken) then and actually save some money? All of that 18% I bet can be accounted for by health care premiums, and I betcha you know that.
"The school officials know better. The average voter does not."
Your words speak for themselves about how you feel about voters. The voters of VT don't need your Republican-hack explanations IMO.
Posted by: Mister Guy | January 19, 2008 at 01:48 AM
"Hack" would indicate that I don't think for myself. If that were true, I'd still be a union member.
"Fixing" could mean many things. Most likely it would mean a cost shift rather than a cost savings.
The reason why the health insurance savings from having fewer employees makes more economic sense is because we need to reverse the trend of public sector growth and private sector shrinkage.
I know that's not appealing to those who prefer the dangerous economic populism that Alan Greenspan recently wrote about. I'm concerned that our Governor may be becoming such an economic populist. That's yet another indication that I'm not really just a party hack.
Posted by: Curtis Hier | January 19, 2008 at 09:43 AM
Anti-union? More evidence that you're a Republican-hack...the truth hurts sometimes. :)
Fixing health care obviously means solving the cost shift that already goes on and which drives a huge amount of the meteoric rise in the cost of health care in this country. Anyone that doesn't think that there's a huge amount of savings in terms of efficiency in the way that we currently pay for health care in this country hasn't been paying attention very well. Just ask your local health care provider if they like the crazy way that we pay for it now.
Greenspan...the same guy that hyped ARMs and gave us the current housing meltdown.
Our current Governor is very, very "slick"...he's goes with the political winds mostly, which is why he keeps getting re-elected IMO.
Posted by: Mister Guy | January 19, 2008 at 06:03 PM
I'm not sure how someone who takes the Democratic Party line on everything from cost drivers of education to Greenspan to Douglas, can call me a party hack.
For ten years I didn't follow the party line on the teachers' union. I came to my own conclusions based on my own experience with it. In fact, I disagree with many Republicans who think the union protects bad teachers. Actually, it does a crappy job protecting teachers -- sometimes good teachers who are victimized by incompetent administrators.
Health care is expensive mostly because the demand for it has gone way up. Economics 101.
Voters aren't stupid. They are lay people who have no reason to learn the jargon of the education establishment. So I try to explain the myths the establishment perpetuates as best I can.
That you, Mr. Guy, gave the standard line about the cost drivers of education leads me to believe that you are either an education establishment member or you are a hard-core Democrat (or Progressive). Which one is it?
Posted by: Curtis Hier | January 19, 2008 at 07:39 PM
The biggest problem in education is parents - literally. Too many people in Vermont and nationally who have no business procreating are having kids. And usually not just one or two kids, unfortunately. But that's a problem with no public policy solution that I can see.
Why are teachers in Vermont contributing only 10-15% towards their health care premiums? That's incredibly generous as compared to the private sector.
Incompetent administrators exist, no doubt, but incompetent and lazy teachers are a bigger problem, and one that is virtually impossible to deal with, thanks to unionization. Why anyone on the public payroll should be allowed to unionize has always baffled me.
Where I live, in Poultney, teachers no longer supervise recess. They got recess off as a perk in lieu of a little more money in their paychecks. I don't blame the school committee for trying to save a few dollars, but teachers should be out there working during recess time. Misbehavior that wouldn't occur if a teacher were present takes place, and the aides who are charged with supervising recess wind up disciplining entire classes and restricting privleges to the detriment of the good kids. A small thing, perhaps, but kids need a break in their day, too, and they often aren't getting it, at least in Poultney, because the teachers are gone from the schoolyard.
Workforce is always going to be the biggest cost driver of any enterprise. But I don't advocate increasing class sizes or cutting teaching positions; administrative and support costs should be looked at first. Consolidation is an overriding need. Unfortunately, it's also a nonstarter with Vermonters.
Teaching used to be a vocation; now it's just another job. Thanks to unions, it's a darn good job, at least by Vermont standards. But a good deal for teachers comes at the expense of our kids and the overburdened taxpayer. Why teachers shouldn't be paying at least 20-25% of their health care premium, for example, is beyond me. Even 20-25% is a sweetheart deal compared to most of the private sector.
Posted by: Jon Harrison | January 19, 2008 at 09:30 PM
Denying the reality that health care costs is one of the primary reasons that education costs in this state are skyrocketing *is* the GOP line. The former House GOP whip from southern VT (I forget his name...he was some fat guy - no offense) tried using that line over and over again. It's not true, and I suspect that you know that.
Ask your local health care provider why costs are so high before you spout off about economics like you know what you're talking about. The people of this country are not "consuming" too much health care...they are just being ripped off in the process of paying for it. We spend twice what most other countries do on health care mostly because of the profit motive in our health care industry from health insurance providers. We reward those companies who deny people health care, which is ludicrous. We don't need you to "de-mystify" anything thank-you-very-much.
Go ahead and deny that Greenspan didn't push ARMs really, really hard over the last 10+ years...deny reality there too.
I'm a life-long Democrat and the son of a teacher...and proud of it. Who said that the teacher's unions don't always have the best ideas out there? Now let's see *you* wear your biases on your sleeve Mr. Hier...you GOP-hack.
Posted by: Mister Guy | January 20, 2008 at 01:17 AM
Jon,
Your comments are very thoughtful. I agree with much of what you say, but not quite everything. I guess this is evidence that we are not simply party hacks, but independent thinkers.
I agree completely that I think we should look at administrative costs first. One could say I'm biased here, except I am the senior person in my department and would never get cut.
As to what the unions do for weak teachers: Well, the seniority system I just referred to can be a problem. Sometimes it's superior teachers that get cut. It was basically a system insisted on by unions.
VTNEA lobbied for the laws that give teachers general protection from being fired with no cause. There is no doubt the union is a powerful lobbying force.
But I give the union a C- for its ability to fight and win arbitration cases on behalf of individual teachers. I won't get into details, but that's been the experience of many of my colleagues.
As far as insurance goes, I look at it this way: If by increasing the money I have to pay out of each check to insurance, it means I actually take a net pay cut, then I'll have to look for another job. My living expenses are going up. My heating bills are ridicuous. I know other people are in the same boat. I'm not going to whine about it, because people don't like whiny teachers. I have skills. I can leave the profession -- easily. You may not miss me, but the profession would not be well-served to have all the people leave who are skilled and can leave.
I really think we can save some costs by not having as many as 11,000 non-teaching school employees in Vermont, the vast majority of whom get insurance benefits.
Finally, you are right about Poultney. No extra duties for them, apparently. We FH teachers shake our heads in disbelief at that.
Posted by: Curtis Hier | January 20, 2008 at 07:19 AM
I would like to tell Mr. G. that ad hominem attacks don't advance your argument. If it makes you feel better to demean your interlocutors, fine, but the tone means your point of view will not be taken seriously, even if it contains some grains of insight.
Curtis, I don't dispute what you say. We certainly don't want good people leaving the profession. But on health care premiums specifically, I can't help but see 80-85% coverage by the employer as a sweetheart deal. In the private sector, virtually no one is getting more than 75% from the employer, and in many cases it's 50%. To leave your profession because your share of your health care premium is going to rise to the private sector level seems extreme. Moving to the private sector isn't likely to get you a better health plan. Teaching remains one of the best employment opportunities in Vermont. Of course, if we could establish a real economy in this state, then perhaps we wouldn't need to argue (quibble?) over such things.
Teacher's unions are and will remain anathema to me. They do nothing positive for students or the community as a whole. The benefits teachers derive from union membership are far outweighed by the burdens unionization places upon the rest of us. But I want to stress that I'm not blaming teachers for our problems in education. I have a child in public school here in Poultney, and I see how difficult teaching can be. There are, obviously, both outstanding and mediocre teachers. But our problems in education start in the home. Teachers are too often asked to be surrogate parents, a role they should not have to play. And then of course there's the problem of interference by the federal government. But that's a debate for another day.
Posted by: Jon Harrison | January 20, 2008 at 08:37 AM
Why is the private sector contributing so little to their employee's health care premiums??
"Why anyone on the public payroll should be allowed to unionize has always baffled me."
The people that work in the public sector are just that...they are people just like you and me. They have the same rights as everyone else...to unionize and the like. The effort to take away union rights from teachers in this state is another GOP (Kurt Wright) idea that is just designed to weaken the strength of teacher's bargaining units.
Class sizes need to be reasonable, but I agree that sometimes in VT they are too low. It's only natural to gradually raise class sizes over time as kids progress thru the grade structure of schools.
I finally went over to your website Mr. Hier. Ah, you and Wendy Wilton...the VT darling of FOX "News". You must be two peas in a Republican-pod down there in Rutland county. Your "voters needs to vote more to approve school spending" efforts (along the with Gov. Jimmy D's same ideas) are merely veiled attempts at defeating more and more school budgets through more and more arbitrary votes. In your world, it should only take one vote to cut something from a budget and at least two or three votes to increase a budget. Your efforts will do absolutely *nothing* to curb school spending...they'll just increase the amount of money that's spent on voting.
"One could say I'm biased here, except I am the senior person in my department and would never get cut."
Since your job is secure, cut everyone else...nice. You must be one of those "compassionate conservatives" I keep hearing about.
What frustrates me the most about this entire site and the GOP-hacks that post here is that none of them are honest about who they are and what they represent. If this site is actually "non-partisan", then I'm Elvis reincarnated. :)
Posted by: Mister Guy | January 20, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Wow. Another rant. Keep 'em coming, Mr. G. Folks on this site just love a good rant.
And we just love ad hominem attacks too. Wendy, the "darling of Fox"? So because she urged O'Reilly to NOT boycott Vermont, she doesn't have an ounce of credibility?
YOU, under a pseudonym, say we're not honest about who we are?
We'll just increase the cost of voting? So we should just give into school officials blackmailing us? Reminds me of the BFP story in August of Milton school officials warning that it had cost $10,000 to have three votes on their budgets. What's that in a $21 million budget?
Can't you do better than that?
Posted by: Curtis Hier | January 20, 2008 at 01:15 PM
I don't know about anyone else who participates on this site, but I certainly don't claim to be nonpartisan. I'm a libertarian conservative. I wanted Chuck Hagel to run for president. On the other hand, I think Senator Obama is by far the most interesting candidate in the '08 race. But I'm not sure that I could vote for him.
The Democratic Party in this state is so far left it boggles my mind. And I'm originally from Massachusetts. It's not that I object to the ideology per se. Rather, it's that the fruits of this ideology are taking this state and its people down the road to perdition. By 2030 the population here will consist of wealthy retirees, welfare recipients, and public sector employees. The latter won't be receiving paychecks anymore, however, because the tax base will have disappeared.
Public sector employees have the right, legally, to unionize. I simply wish they didn't have that right. When I have no choice but to contribute to your pay and benefits with my tax dollars (as opposed to the private sector, where I may choose to patronize your employer or not), then I don't see why you should be in a union. Alas, however, I don't think teacher's unions are going away anytime soon.
Now it's time to get our Patriots party together and watch the game. For me at least this topic's been exhausted.
Posted by: Jon Harrison | January 20, 2008 at 01:48 PM
Still not willing to admit your obvious biases I see Mr. Hier...don't be afraid...we won't hurt you. :) You know *exactly* what your fellow Republican buddy Wendy said on FOX...lol...
Who's "blackmailing" anybody? Try coming up with some new rhetoric instead of digging up what you said 2 months ago. It's always the same ole same ole from you. It's a good thing for you nobody reads this entire website.
Posted by: Mister Guy | January 20, 2008 at 02:41 PM
There is a saying from ancient Greek poetry that, "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." I think of myself as more of a hedgehog than a fox. My rhetoric is consistent. And I've stayed on message.
Everyone has biases. Mine are not secret. We tend to universalize our experiences, I guess. John Rawls says we should consider what is just from "behind a veil of ignorance." I don't know anyone who really does that.
That being said, I believe that we can't continue our current trend of public sector growth and private sector shrinkage -- even though I'm employed by the public sector.
I'd really like to debate the merits of private-versus-public sector growth, instead of debating motives. Would anybody like to do that?
Posted by: Curtis Hier | January 21, 2008 at 06:05 AM
Your rhetoric is consistently pro-Republican, and the problem is that you won't admit it. The other problem is that I've seen more than a few posts on this website from you that say the exact same thing in virtually the *exact same language"...that means you're a broken record Mr. Hier. Suggestion: Come up with some new ways to describe your ideas...whatever they are.
I realize that being a member of the GOP in this state can be very frustrating. My friends who are Republicans tell me this all the time. But it's not a crime to be a member of the GOP, and you shouldn't be ashamed of it. You would get more respect from me (and others I would suspect) and you would sound more credible if you just admitted the truth. Running away from it solves nothing IMO. Simply pointing out the truth is not an "ad hominem attack" either. You have thicker skin than that I suspect. ;)
The fact that the state of VT and IBM are the two biggest employers in VT is not sustainable. It's just a matter of time before IBM pulls out of here no matter how much we pander to them IMO.
Posted by: Mister Guy | January 21, 2008 at 06:41 PM