I was amazed to read what I am going to consider, the direct quote of Mr. Dick in the article. "No, I knew this would happen all along, that they would never sit down and do any real negotiations." What? Are you kidding? The teacher's of this district are, as far as I can determine, the only one's who did any "negotiations" at all. The Union has brought the only compromise that I see. The board is banging the gong about a greedy Union who is "demanding" money that does not exist. However, the board implemented change over the last school year that violates a contract with the district that was negotiated and ratified by the board. It wasn't demanded Mr. Dick, it was negotiated. Then what...the board implements change without declaring financial urgency. The board directly imposed it's will for reductions and changes over the last year without following to proper due process...which in turn will be in litigation for years to come and cost substantial educational dollars. To what end? To the end that after acting autonomously, we still have, by the boards admissions, no money for education? With all your infinite wisdom, the cuts and changes made after the last contract have not yielded any fruit? The reason negotiations went nowhere is because that is what the board wanted. They have taken the responsibility of coming to a workable solution from the district employees that have to live and make this district function with whatever is to come, from those employees and placed that resposibility squarely in the hands of an attorney whose function is to be a blocking dummy. Why? So the board has the excuse to continue to impose it's own will randomly without ever having to accept accountability for the results. The Union has brought compromise. What has our district brought at this point other than deflection and news reel sound bites? Do your job or resign. We are here because of the decisions of this board, and no one else.

Years ago President Franklin Roosevelt called the idea of public sector unions "unthinkable and intolerable." Not long after, AFL-CIO President George Meany declared that it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government." They were both speaking to the morality of public servants making demands on taxpayers' earnings under the threat of withholding public services -- or as FDR put it, "looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it."

Eight Reasons Public School Teachers Aren't Underpaid

It's one thing to claim that nameless, faceless government bureaucrats are overpaid. It's quite another to argue, as Jason Richwine and Andrew Biggs of the Heritage Foundation recently have, that public school teachers are overpaid by more than 50 percent. This is real money, costing state and local governments over $100 billion annually. The study has generated significant, sometimes hysterical, pushback. But the conclusions still stand, and deliver important lessons regarding education financing and reform.

The claim that teachers are underpaid rests on a single isolated fact: that on average, public school teachers receive salaries about 19 percent less than private sector workers with bachelor's or master's degrees. But it's really not that simple. Here are eight reasons why.

1. All bachelor's degrees aren't the same. No one's surprised when a physics or finance major earns more than the person who studied medieval poetry, even if both graduate from the same college. Likewise, Education is widely held to be a less rigorous course of study, attracting below-average students but awarding the highest average GPAs of any college major. Easy grading both discourages hard work and makes it tough for schools to separate the good prospective teachers from the not-so-good ones. Prospective teachers enter college with SAT scores around the 40th percentile - meaning that about 60 percent of test-takers received higher scores - so it shouldn't be surprising if teachers' salaries after graduation salaries are around the 40th percentile as well.

2. That master's degree may not be worth much either. Many teachers have master's degrees but, as the Center for Educator Compensation Reform summarized the research, "The preponderance of evidence suggests that teachers who have completed graduate degrees are not significantly more effective at increasing student learning than those with no more than a bachelor's degree." In the private sector, you get paid more for a master's degree only if it signifies you'll be a more productive employee.

3. Teachers don't work unusually long hours. Teachers responded to studies by citing the long hours they work. But unlike studies that rely on teachers' shorter "contract hours," we used teachers' self-reported work hours - if they said they worked 60 hours, we assumed they did. But it's important to note that, based on these self-reported data as well as a detailed Bureau of Labor Statistics study, average public school teachers don't work unusually long hours - about 44 hours per week, the same as other college graduates.

4. Objective skills tests erase the teacher pay gap. Individuals' scores on standardized tests are good predictors of their future earnings, and research shows a correlation between teachers' test scores and student achievement. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth follows individuals over time and includes a wide range of variables, including participants' scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, which tests math and reading ability. When we analyze salaries while controlling for AFQT scores rather than paper educational credentials, the teacher salary gaps disappears: teachers are paid right around what their AFQT scores would predict.

5. Non-cognitive skills don't make up the difference. Test scores don't capture every important job skill, such as communications, organizational and interpersonal abilities. But these skills have broad market applications, so if they're undervalued in teaching then teachers who shift to other jobs should receive a pay increase. But they don't: using data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, we show that teachers moving to the private sector usually take a pay cut, while private workers who switch to teaching usually get a salary increase. This is the opposite of what the "underpaid teacher" theory would predict.

6. It's in the benefits. Teachers' salaries are about right, but their fringe benefits - in particular pensions, retiree health care and vacation time - are a lot more generous than the private sector, making their total benefits package worth roughly twice private levels. The average teacher makes around $55,000 in annual salary, but another $55,000 in present or future benefits.

7. They're not voting with their feet. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, asks: "If teachers are so overpaid, then why aren't more ‘1 percenters' banging down the doors to enter the teaching profession? Why do 50 percent of teachers leave the profession within three to five years...?" In fact, there's no shortage of people looking for teaching jobs. In 2000, for instance, colleges graduated almost 25 percent more Education majors than could find teaching jobs. Moreover, while many young teachers leave the profession, attrition rates drop more than half once teachers reach 10 years of service. Average public school teacher quit rates aren't dramatically different than other professions, and are only half those of private school teachers. These aren't signs that teaching jobs are considered undesirable.

8. Raising pay alone won't boost teacher quality. Economist Dale Ballou shows that better qualified teacher applicants - such as those from more competitive colleges, with higher GPAs, and specializing in subject areas such as math and science - are actually less likely to be hired than other applicants, probably because principals and superintendents are biased toward the traditional teacher education route. Ballou and Michael Podgursky show that raising pay without reforms would draw more applicants and keep older teachers from retiring, potentially lowering the quality of the teacher workforce.

Public school teachers are important and should be paid fairly. Despite conventional wisdom, their salaries are fair and their fringe benefits far outclass private sector jobs. And the overpayment of teachers isn't chicken-feed - it's a large portion of total education spending at a time when states and localities are strapped for cash. Once we acknowledge that underpaid teachers aren't the reason our education system performs poorly, we can start working on reforms that might actually put things right.

Stanford Professor: Big Labor is why years & $billions have failed to fix Education

VIDEO

Dr. Moe: “If you stand up for kids, you have to oppose this [collective bargaining] Schools get organized by the adults on the basis of interests and concerns that have nothing to do with kids. So, why would you expect that system to work?”

As teacher’s head back to the public feeding trough they call the bargaining table, it is a good time to reflect on why education is failing and continues to fail. Terry Moe, Chairman of the Political Science Department at Stanford, provides a dispassionate and extensively researched book, Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools, which should become a useful and effective tool for any passionate education reformers. Dr. Moe states and backs it up with 500 pages of text that teacher unions are the biggest impediment to permanent and effective education reform.

Dr. Moe’s research unquestionably shows that America’s children are risk because of their very own teachers’ allegiance to the NEA and AFT unions rather than education. And, until Big Labor’s influence over education is diminished, reform remains elusive.

In his presentation at the Concerned Educators Against Forced Unionism’s () 36th Annual Conference, Dr. Moe stated that his research concludes that it is impossible for any effective education reform to occur with teacher unions as partners in reform. He said that unions have been and will inherently remain the well-financed opposition to education reform. Professor Moe added that in our political system it is easier to block reform than to bring about reform, giving teachers unions an additional edge in preventing changes.

Professor Moe said that collective bargaining, the source of teacher union power, and teachers’ job interests, which collective bargaining enshrines, are inconsistent with reform. As long as teacher monopoly bargaining exists in public schools, effective educational reform is doomed to fail regardless of how many billions are poured into reform initiatives.

Therefore, the Gates Foundation and other education reformers would better use their public school educational reform grants and efforts to eliminate teacher union monopoly bargaining. Then, having eliminated the biggest roadblocks to education reform (i.e. NEA & AFT), real educational reformers could actually begin to create permanent and effective change for the children.

Professor Moe’s certain that until collective bargaining is eliminated, effective and permanent education improvements will remain untenable. And, he has the research to back up his claims.

Teachers Unions explained

As legendary New York teachers union leader Albert Shanker said, "When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children." If backward unsophisticated folks would just let the enlightened experts have their way, everything would be just fine.