Why the Taxpayer's League hates teachers

Here is a post I found on one of Project ABC's blogs I agree and disagree...I'll explain later.


Bill Marsh writes:

I find it laughable that the public schools in this state still do not have enough money. I suggest we first look at where we are spending the money rather than looking for new ways to tax.

First- how about requiring public school teacher to get their health care insurance through the same insurers the private sector? We currently pay over $20,000 per teacher for health care insurance through an affiliate of WEAC, whereas private sector employers typically pay less than $10,000 per employee for health care insurance.

Second- How about having public school teachers contribute to their own 401K's instead of providing them with a lavish, fully funded pension program that is nearly unheard of in the private sector?

Third, how about having public school teachers retire when they are 65 like the rest of us mere serf/citizens in the private sector? What makes teachers so special that they can retire after 30 years of service in a non-physical job?

Fourth, why not allow more school choice? School choice in Milwaukee costs approximately $6,000 per student against nearly double that in MPS. That is a huge savings to the taxpayers.

Fifth, why not legalize virtual schools (they were legal until last week). The users of these schools were very happy with them and they cost the taxpayers about $6,000 per student.

All of these proposals make sense to the taxpayers and the education consumers. But there is one big problem, the teacher unions and their lackeys at the democratic party don't want to give up the money and the ancillary campaign contributions.

Bill's first point is have public school teachers pay their own health insurance...or at least pay more by switching from WEA trust to private sector insurance carriers.

Secondly he states teachers should pay for their own 401 K plans, are you with me so far?

Thirdly he believes teachers should retire later on because they do not have to lift boxes all day...

Essentially what Mr. Marsh is suggesting is to take away all the incentives to the teaching profession and work the teachers that we have harder. Cute, cost effective, not a very smart move however. The benefit incentives are what draw our current and future educators to this profession and if we take that away you leave educators with a load of new expenses and smaller salaries than the typical private sector employee.

I'm sure I'd sign up for that deal!

His fourth point is to promote school choice, again cause it's cheaper. This typical "fiscal-conservative" approach is driven by the idea that competition breeds quality. I don't disagree with this idea the school districts should be looking into this option a little further.

And finally he states that we should legalize virtual schools, which is really interesting because I believe IQ Academies are still functional and serving student needs.

http://www.gotoiq.com/our-program/index.asp

So his gripe here is obviously with the WiVA vs. WEAC lawsuit...

And one thing he should realize is that online learning is not for everyone some selective disciplined students probably function well in the virtual environment, but others don't. We should not promote something as a "one size fits all" education merely because it is cheaper than traditional methods.

It's a shame that conservatives are swallowing the constant anti-union/educator rhetoric that they are being spoon fed by organizations such as the WTL and republican representatives.

So teachers have a better benefits package than you...too bad. They went to school to get their master's degrees and continue to renew their education to improve their teaching every couple years.

(As a side note I think that WEAC should stop compressing the salary schedule because time and experience must be observed while advancing teachers in pay, however...)

I don't see conservatives trying to cut our health care worker's benefits packages, I don't see our conservative friends trying to cap spending on any other profession public or private.

This is merely a case of the "have-nots" trying to turn anyone they can upon those that "have". Which is really a shame because people like Wigderson and Lufter (WTL) and Kramer, Lazich, Newcomer, and the others (Representatives) would have so much more credibility if they weren't so completely and unashamedly blinded by their own personal bias...