In article >,
"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> >
> > Massive teacher layoffs are predicted. Who's going to teach the kids?
> > If money is cut by 5%, then more than 5% of the teachers need to be laid
> > off, because it's strictly by seniority, and the teachers who get laid
> > off are way down on the salary scale.
>
> One of the problems is the teacher's union. They could get rid of the right
> 5% and never miss them. Every school system has some useless drones;
> unfortunately they usually have to go by seniority and get rid of some good
> teachers too.

Can't argue with that. There were abuses in the past, and now we're
stuck with something that works poorly. It used to be that when which
political party was in office changed, so did every government employee,
down to the guy that sold you stamps in the post office. That was bad,
so now they have tenure. It used to be when the boss's niece needed a
job, room would be made for her, by getting rid of a competent but
non-related employee. That can't happen anymore. But now, once an
employee passes their probationary period, it's hard to get rid of them,
even if their work quality has dropped off.

> In any budget crisis, they first threaten to get rid of teachers.

My wife is on a school board for a K-6 (kindergarden through sixth
grade) district. Most of the budget goes to teacher salaries. There's
nowhere else to cut.

> Next is to
> eliminate sports.

No sports in K-6, but there are PE teachers at some schools. It's up to
the school PTA. If they choose to spend their money on PE teachers,
then the school has a PE teacher. No government money.

> Both cause some outrage but I'm not willing to have my
> taxes increased so your kid can play football.

I'm not a big sports fan, but some kids get a lot out of that. Most of
the sports coaches in high school are teachers who have a full time
teaching position, and get a little extra money for spending a lot of
hours coaching.

> You rarely hear that they
> are going to lay off some useless school administration staff.

My wife's district has 5 schools, over 2000 students and less than 100
teachers (that includes reading and speech teachers). There are five
principals, one business manager and the superintendent. Probably one
principal will be eliminated. Who else could go? Which one of those 7
administrators is useless? And yes, there are no other administrators.

> If
> teachers were allowed to discipline the students it would be a big help too.

State law. Only someone with an administrative credential can
discipline a child. And what can they do? Suspend the kid? That's
about it. Send them home to watch tv and play video games. For a
serious offense, they can be expelled. That requires a school board
vote and a minimum of three lawyers. After a kid is expelled, the
district is still required to educate the kid! The county runs special
schools for expelled kids. It costs the district US$20,000 per kid per
year.

> I went to a school with 50 kids in a class and we were made to sit quietly
> and pay attention.

Let me guess. Catholic? If you misbehaved, there would be a call to
your parents. If they weren't actually threatened with going to Hell,
still, life would not be good for them. And the school always had the
punishment of last resort. They could just kick you out. They were not
obligated to keep you. The public schools are required to educate their
students, they can't get rid of them.

> How many kids are in a typical classroom today?

California still has class size reduction, although the rules changed
yesterday. CSR only applies to K-3, at most, so 4-6 runs 30-32 at my
wife's district.

> How
> many have a teacher's assistant too?

Not many. There used to be a tiny bit of money, but once the districts
cut all funding for library help (there are no *librarians* in the K-6
schools I've seen), that money got diverted to keep the libraries open.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA