Teacher pensions are underfunded too

by desertjim

Lucy Klocksin wrote eloquently last weeek about the lack of adequate public school funding from the state. I would like to point out that there is a continuing lack of funding for another aspect of public education. In Illinois, the legislature has chronically underfunded the Chicago and downstate teacher retirement funds.

In March, the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) sued the state of Illinois, charging that the state had failed to fund Chicago teacher pensions at the same level as the downstate Teacher Retirement System (TRS). Although Chicago teachers constitute 20% of the state’s public school teachers, Chicago received only 5% of the state’s teacher pension funding. Meeting funding requirements cost CPS an additional $131 million (taken from operating funds).

The downstate teacher pension system fares little better.The current unfunded state liability for its five retirement systems was $42 billion at the start of the last legislative session. In 2006, the state had $31 billion in accounts to pay $51 billion in projected pensions. Recent borrowing from the pension funds to cover other state expenses has not imporved the situation. Currently, the state has 63% of the money needed to pay public pensions (nationwide the average is 85%).

It took generations for Illinois legislators to fall so far behind in funding teacher pensions. Teachers need to be aware of the situation, and keep track of legislative actions in the future.

Labels:

Carnival of Education - see resources section

Labels:

Public School Funding

by Lucy Klocksin - Golden Apple Fellow

The inequities in school funding in Illinois have haunted me for years. I taught for several years on the north shore and also sent my own children to these well funded schools.  For the past 15 years I have taught in the Chicago Public Schools.  The differences in what the children of the poor and children of the wealthy are offered in their schools makes me shudder.

All schools are held to the same standards but are expected to meet those standards with dramatically different resources available to them. People are forever explaining to me that “throwing more money at city schools isn’t going to improve them.” No one from a poorly funded school has EVER told me that more money wouldn’t help their school. 80% of students in my city school come from low income homes while my old school in the suburbs had no low income students.  More than a third of my current students are Limited English Proficient (LEP) while my old school had an LEP population of about 1%. Still the school that doesn’t have poor or LEP children gets about $10,000 per child per year more money to teach those children.

Illinois legislation needs to be altered dramatically and new ways of funding schools have to be found.  While this problem exists in virtually every state, Illinois’ funding inequities are the worst in the nation. Not surprisingly, we also have an achievement gap second to none.  While the average state picks up 50% of school expenses, our state pays about 30% (Metropolitan Planning Council, 2006).

It’s no secret that children in well funded schools do better than children in poor schools. That doesn’t happen because those children are all smarter!  Well funded schools can attract the best teachers, buy the best equipment, build state of the art buildings and do whatever is needed to help children learn to their fullest potential. I’m glad I got the best for my children but I won’t rest easy until the good education my children got is standard for everybody’s children. 

I haven’t done a lot of ranting about school funding recently but I heard some sad news this week that got me thinking.  Sharon Voliva died this week. She began fighting for more equitable school funding decades ago, when her children were small. She probably fought that battle harder and longer than anyone in our state.  She organized statewide rallies, she talked with legislators, `she started a wonderful organization called Better Funding for Better Schools. She dedicated her life to this cause. Now her grandchildren feel the bite of inequitably funded schools in Illinois. Without Sharon’s selfless determination and wisdom I wonder if this problem ever will be resolved.  Is anyone else out there as angry as I am or is there something I am missing that makes it okay to treat children so unfairly?

Labels:

What is the purpose of public education?

by desertjim

The NY Times recently interviewed Randi Weingarten, the probable next president of the American Federation of Teachers, who wants to replace NCLB’s standardized testing with a vision of public schools as community centers.

Ms. Weingarten imagined in the interview. “A federal law that promoted community schools — schools that serve the neediest children by bringing together under one roof all the services and activities they and their families need?” She would like a federal education law, “...that promoted community schools — schools that serve the neediest children by bringing together under one roof all the services and activities they and their families need...Schools that include dental, medical and counseling clinics.”

Public schools historically had a much narrower mission - to create educated citizens. My parents immigrated as children from German occupied Poland before WWI. They were both taught to read and speak English in the Chicago Public Schools. Society saw that as sufficient and it seemed to be; my immigrant father eventually ran his own business. The four children in our family were also educated in the Chicago public schools in the 1940s and 50s. Three of us earned college degrees (two on partial scholarships the third using military benefits) based on our solid public school educations. The public schools of the first half of the 20th century seem to have served us all very well.

Now, at the start of the 21st century, we are looking for ways to reform, upgrade and “make more relevant” our public schools. Perhaps even turn them into the community centers suggested by Randi Weingarten. 

In a commentary on his blog Going to the Mat, Matt Johnston questions the effectiveness of such an approach. Johnston points out that ever since the “War on Poverty” we have been asking schools to provide more and more social services to the students.  “We ask schools to provide psychological services, counseling, and other non-educational services under the rubric of ‘it will help the student learn.’” I think this all ties in to a June post on this site in which a teacher stated his opinion that he is not a social worker.

Is it realistic to expect such expansion from schools and teacehrs that are already stretched thin just trying to teach reading, math and the other traditonal school subjects? Can (or should) our public schools become all things to all people?

Labels:

Carnival of Education - see resources section

Labels:

Teacher preparation

by desertjim

Last week I asked what the priorities should be for federal aid to education. The first priority that came out of that discussion was the need to upgrade the teaching profession and improve teacher training. This gives me a new question for this week. Cool - this is just like my favorite kind of inquiry driven science class.

The various paths to the classroom all seem to produce not only excellent but also average and sub-par teachers. How are we to decide which method is best? A recent article (cited in the Carnival of Education this week) speaks very disparagingly of the short-term alternative certification route offered by Teach for America. Yet a June 25, 2008 article in the Chicago Tribune (Chicago schools make gains in hiring better grade of teachers) includes the hiring of 1,200 alternatively certified teachers as one factor in improving teacher quality.

That same Tribune article says that teacher quality in Chicago Public Schools is improving. This improvement was measured by checking scores on the ACT, the Illinois Basic Skills Test and by performance in college. (I know - there needs to be another discussion about whether those criteria actually tell us anything about teacher quality - maybe next week.)

What is the best way to increase the quality of teachers in the public schools? Are teachers best prepared by becoming subject matter experts first and then taking courses in pedagogy? Should the philosophy of education or courses on classroom management be stressed? Are the relatively short alternative certification programs a better way to develop excellent teachers than the “normal” route taught in what used to be called Normal schools?

So, a new question for our readers - what is the best way to improve teacher quality?

Labels:

Carnival of Education

Perhaps the best part of this week’s Carnival of Education is the introduction. All of us who have had to sit through interminable inservice meetings will identify with the author’s attitude. Beyond that though, there are some excellent links. Check out an interesting take on our special education students at this site. 

Education Notes Online submitted an essay on types of teacher training that might be of special interest to those of us who have been involved in alternative certification programs. At HorseSense and Nonsense you can find an ongoing discussion on what does or doesn’t constitute teacher insubordination.

All-in-all, another interesting conglomeration of educational topics, all gathered together in one tiny piece of the blogosphere.

Labels:

Poll on school effectiveness

By desertjim

The poll shows that education ranks behind the economy and gas prices as the top issue for Americans. However, the participants said that the quality of the education system has a big impact on the economy.

In addition to responding that the schools are not getting students ready for “real-life”, the poll indicates that the public feels the current stress on testing is a waste of time. I think most educators would agree with the public on that one.

Labels:

Federal education policy

by desertjim

Here in the high desert of southern New Mexico it is becoming apparent that the coming election will usher in big political change. Change that may approach the level of 1932 when FDR was elected and fostered the New Deal. This trend seems to surpass the desire for change that elected Ronald Reagan and the Republicans to power in 1980.

If this year turns out to bring a major political change to America, we as educators need to be able to articulate how we want the new Congress and administration to approach public education. Clearly NCLB, the last major education policy change, was a disaster. Public schools have been forced to teach to standardized high-stakes tests and shortchange actual education.

What should be the federal government’s role in public education?

I have my own biases. I think federal aid to education should go predominantly toward funding districts which adopt research supported programs. For example, studies clearly show that inquiry science education and early childhood programs like Headstart are effective.

Perhaps you have other priorities. Should the government concentrate on mandates like Title IX or the ADA rules on special education? Should the nation return to programs like the Eisenhower funding that paid for teacher training and adoption of exemplary curricula? Perhaps the National Science Foundation summer workshops for teachers should be reinstated. Would block grants to states be the simplest approach?

I would like to hear other opinions on this issue. What do you think must be done to improve public education using federal dollars? What priorities will you present to your congressional representatives when the education bill comes up for renewal? 

Labels:

Carnival of Education

This week’s Carnival of Education at An (aspiring) Educator’s Blog features last week’s TEN post on Academic Capital among many others. A few I found particularly interesting:

Bill Ferriter at The Tempered Radical wonders,

How can we, as educators, come to grips with the idea of a job well done, when “a job well done” inevitably includes failures in the form of children who we just didn’t wouldn’t decided not to couldn’t reach?

Lorem Ipsum wonders, with tongue in cheek, what would happen if we decided to solve the school budget crunch and silence the critics of teachers by just getting rid of all the teachers.

Firing teachers would solve so many problems.  No more problems with kids being given too much homework, no more problems with kids being taught evolution, no more problems with “unfairness” in general.

Right on the Left Coast shares a story of a teacher who taught a book despite being specifically forbidden to teach it and got suspended. Do you agree with his conclusion?

[I]t may not be smart for schools or districts to keep particular books out of classrooms, but it is legal. And since we teachers are public employees and not private contractors, we follow the instructions that are laid out by the elected school boards and implemented through the school administration. I’m sorry this teacher lost her job over this, but she defied specific instructions about curriculum.

Labels:

Read more in the archives»