And I'll apologize in advance, because while I'm usually a master of nuance and thoughtful opposition, some people and their ideas call for a pithier response.
 |
| This guy. Serioously. |
Some folks have suggested that one sign of the low level of teacher pay in Arizona is the number of teachers who have a second job. But here comes Arizona House GOP Leader John Allen to explain what's really going on:
“They’re making it out as if anybody who has a second job is struggling. That’s not why many people take a second job,” Allen said. “They want to increase their lifestyles. They want to improve themselves. They want to pay for a boat. They want a bigger house. They work hard to provide themselves with a better lifestyle. Not everyone who takes a second job does it because they’re borderline poverty.”
Yessireebob-- Arizona teachers are picking up those extra jobs so they can afford that boat, the summer home in the Hamptons, that second BMW. In no way are they working a second job for non-luxuries like food and clothing for their families. Thank you, John Allen, for clarifying that.
Who is this guy? John Allen has been in Arizona politics, on and off, since 2001. This is actually his third term-- in his third district. He's been a fan of Empowerment Scholarships (yet another way to put lipstick on the school voucher pig) and he was, notably, one of the GOP legislators who sued Republican Governor Jan Brewer in order to roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA. Because making health care available to more poor residents of Arizona would be a Bad Thing.
He's been on the English-only side of language debates about education in Arizona (just immerse them furriners in English all the time, and they'll learn to speak Merican right and proper). He's received a regular 82% rating from Americans for Prosperity, the Koch Brothers special political agitation group, and a big fat 100% from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a group that pretends to be a lobbying organization for small business, but has been financed with some big dark money. And he wants you to know that he wrote a bill to use the National Guard to close the border. He's a member of the Scottsdale Bible Church. His profession (most Arizona legislators have one) is a dealer in collector cars. So yes. This guy is a conservative Tea Party used car dealer.
This whole discussion was part of a debate about SB1042, a bill that would let anyone with “expertise in a content area or subject matter" teach, complete with waiver of the competency test. Basically, superintendents would be free to hire anyone they felt like teaching.
Arizona Capital Times gave Allen a chance to walk back his boat comment, but it appears he wasn't all that interested in doing so.
When our reporter noted that teachers, who often start with salaries in the $30,000 range, probably aren’t taking second jobs to buy boats, Allen replied that many people choose to be teachers knowing the pay situation and that they’ll have to take a second job to make ends meet.
So, teachers knew the pay would suck and they'd need a second job. What are they bitching about? And also, why aren't more teachers coming to work in Arizona? And won't it make it so much more attractive to know that they'll be working side by side with fake teachers who just kind of wandered in off the street, because if there's anything more awesome than doing a hard jobk for peanuts, it's doing your job for peanuts and then doing somebody else's job, too.
I do not teach in Arizona (and I can't imagine I ever will). I don't have family or friends there. So I think I can bring a completely unbiased and disinterested eye to this situation. But as I said-- some positions just call for a clear, direct, graceless response. So believe me-- there's nothing personal when I offer this message, though I think I speak for many Arizona teachers when I say--
Dear John Allen. Bite me.
Arizona's Governor Ducey is in on this as well.
ReplyDeleteDucey argues: don't increase pay, or improve job conditions; just lower the qualifying standards --- and the concurrent quality --- of teachers ... and hey, we'll all be just fine.
Crisis ended.
I'm sure this must be comforting to the parents of students attending traditional public schools in Arizona.
"Gov. Doug Ducey cites Arizona's teacher shortage to defend loosened training standard, as the proposed SB 1042 would open up the teaching profession to anyone who has 'expertise in a content area or subject matter.' ”
BUT who have ZERO UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, STUDENT TEACHER TRAINING, OR ANY APPRENTICESHIP WHATSOEVER.
And Peter, you're right. Whether it's Teach for America Corps Members, or untrained folks walking in off the street, the veterans in the building spend a lot of time and energy helping out and answering questions, which is detrimental to a teacher's own students. The veterans are doing what is essentially free mentoring to these folks... because the John Allen's and Governor Ducey's count on and exploit those veteran teachers' devotion to helping students above all.
http://tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/ducey-cites-arizona-s-teacher-shortage-to-defend-lowered-training/article_1d013eca-ed2d-58ca-b190-fea0f96b171a.html
Meanwhile, a writer over at EdWeek chimes in, citing another corporate-funded "study", of course, that argues against raising teacher salaries, as doing so will have no impact on the teacher shortage problem:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2017/04/post_4.html
I guess all those masses of teachers who are quitting over low salaries, and all those college students who are opting not to choose teaching as a career in large part because of low pay ... well, they should all be ignored.
I spoke to someone in Personnel at LAUSD, and he said after the two large raises won by teacher --- 12.5% in early 2001, and 10% in mid 2015 --- the the number of teacher applications went through the roof, flooding the recruiting office. These raises were/are on top of the district already/still providing full health benefits, with not one penny deducted from the salary.
Data from the interviews held for prospective teachers showed that ... yeah ... the huge raises, and full benefits played a large role in motivating these teachers to come to LAUSD, some moving from out-of-state, or even across the country, and paying for California Credential training out of pocket, just to work in LAUSD.
Regarding the first raise, after it was implemented in February 2001, the number of positions held by un-credentialed substitutes --- a few thousand, if memory serves --- went down to nothing within six months.
I guess that Ed Week would say the raise had nothing to do with that. (Oh, and the corporate reform LAUSD Board Members both argued and voted against the raise, per their corporate masters' marching orders.
However, those same folks were not above taking credit for the drop in positions held by uncredentialed teachers. Caprice Young even touted that in her unsuccessful re-election campaign. "No more uncredentialed teachers while I was in office." Yeah, NO THANKS TO YOU, SISTER. If you'd had your way, that propitious development never would have happened.
Superintendent John Deasy also fought against a raise. It took him leaving to finally get the 2015 raise.
After the 2015 raise, a significant number of new teachers those joining the district came from the charter school sector.
I remember conversations with many of them, as they described their working conditions, immediately prior, in a privatized, non-union environment. It was like talking to shell-shocked refugees who'd just escaped from North Korea, or from the old Communist block countries and the old Soviet Union.
"It (working at a corporate charter school) was pure Hell," said one mid-twenties female.
"You have no idea how much better the professional environment is over in LAUSD --- the respect, the collegiality, the ability to just simply teach."
I asked one, "Did they make you work hard?"
"No, that has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING. For me at least, the hard work had NOTHING to do with it. I've always worked hard at everything I've ever done. It was the abusive, controlling, and condescending treatment that was dished out. You weren't a professional. You were a slave or a fast food worker being belittled by boss who, by the way, had no experience or training in teaching or working in a school.
"It was like being in an abusive relationship with a spouse or significant other. You were always being yelled at, or told how much you were messing up ... in front of others, the students, the parents, other teachers.... and you didn't dare talk back. ... and always the threat of being fired, or not getting a contract to return was thrown in your face. You had to take it because you had no damn choice.")
Meanwhile, an article at EdWeek chimes in, citing another corporate-funded "study", of course, that argues against raising teacher salaries, as doing so will have no impact on the teacher shortage problem:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2017/04/post_4.html
I guess all those masses of teachers who are quitting over low salaries, and all those college students who are opting not to choose teaching as a career in large part because of low pay ... well, they should all be ignored.
I spoke to someone in Personnel at LAUSD, and he said after the two large raises won by teacher --- 12.5% in early 2001, and 10% in mid 2015 --- the the number of teacher applications went through the roof, flooding the recruiting office. These raises were/are on top of the district already/still providing full health benefits, with not one penny deducted from the salary.
Data from the interviews held for prospective teachers showed that ... yeah ... the huge raises, and full benefits played a large role in motivating these teachers to come to LAUSD, some moving from out-of-state, or even across the country, and paying for California Credential training out of pocket, just to work in LAUSD.
Regarding the first raise, after it was implemented in February 2001, the number of positions held by un-credentialed substitutes --- a few thousand, if memory serves --- went down to nothing within six months.
I guess that Ed Week would say the raise had nothing to do with that. (Oh, and the corporate reform LAUSD Board Members both argued and voted against the raise, per their corporate masters' marching orders.
However, those same folks were not above taking credit for the drop in positions held by uncredentialed teachers. Caprice Young even touted that in her unsuccessful re-election campaign. "No more uncredentialed teachers while I was in office." Yeah, NO THANKS TO YOU, SISTER. If you'd had your way, that propitious development never would have happened.
Superintendent John Deasy also fought against a raise. It took him leaving to finally get the 2015 raise.
After the 2015 raise, a significant number of new teachers those joining the district came from the charter school sector.
I remember conversations with many of them, as they described their working conditions, immediately prior, in a privatized, non-union environment. It was like talking to shell-shocked refugees who'd just escaped from North Korea, or from the old Communist block countries and the old Soviet Union.
"It (working at a corporate charter school) was pure Hell," said one mid-twenties female.
"You have no idea how much better the professional environment is over in LAUSD --- the respect, the collegiality, the ability to just simply teach."
I asked one, "Did they make you work hard?"
"No, that has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING. For me at least, the hard work had NOTHING to do with it. I've always worked hard at everything I've ever done. It was the abusive, controlling, and condescending treatment that was dished out. You weren't a professional. You were a slave or a fast food worker being belittled by boss who, by the way, had no experience or training in teaching or working in a school.
"It was like being in an abusive relationship with a spouse or significant other. You were always being yelled at, or told how much you were messing up ... in front of others, the students, the parents, other teachers.... and you didn't dare talk back. ... and always the threat of being fired, or not getting a contract to return was thrown in your face. You had to take it because you had no damn choice.")
Arizona's stark and irresistible grandeur holds no comparison to the man-made shambles of the educational system. When I started teaching in Arizona in 2007, I financed my classroom right down to the pencils and paper. That was before the budgets were cut by more than 25%. Previously, I had worked for many years in an upscale Maine school district. Imagine the contrast--decent pay, robust staff development, each student with a school issued laptop from 7th grade up and excellent support services from tech professionals, custodial staff, classroom assistants and secretarial services. Even the bus drivers were inserviced about how to work with behavior problems in transportation. Imagine the shock. For half the winter, my room was unseated (Nortern Arizona) and second semester all custodial services were cut with teachers taking turns cleaning the bathrooms. With 32 years of experience, a masters degree plus 45 additional graduate level specialized training in computers and leadership, I started in rural Arizona at just over $40,000. And I had a hard negotiation to get to that level.
ReplyDeleteNow I write the stories because someone from the inside should speak out.
Thank you, Peter Greene for naming the sharks. Boat, indeed!