The real story here is not the Gov's plan, the real story is about what a non player he is!!

Dem leadership in the leg didn't even know the Gov was going to introduce the plan, let alone what's in it. Its the most critical pressing policy issue in our state and he doesn't get involved until the house is empty. I've heard of a "do nothing congress" this is the first "do nothing gov" I've ever heard of.

Pathetic, we need a strong opponent to take him on in the primary!

The plan does not leave enough room for flexibility. It is very late (where has he been?). He is only following the lead of Minnis, whose program has been blasted by most unions and Democrats. The biggest problem in sustained, adequate funding is not the amount, but how it is allocated. The real problem is the evolution of compensation of K-12 employees. There are only seven states in which K-12 employees are compensated higher than Oregon(Chalkboard Project 2005). This amounts to over $300 million per year (and 5,000 teachers) in costs above comparable states. Ironically, many of these states have higher academic results than Oregon. It (the high compensation) is the limiting factor in Oregon K-12 education.

Oregon was ranked 25th in affluence ("per capita income") in 1990. Oregon's ranking in 2004 is now 36th. It has been a steady deterioration for the last 15 years. During that time K-12 compensation for individual employees has increased to our now lofty levels. There is now no other state with as high of divergence between K-12 individual compensation and "per capita income". These are the economic forces he should be addressing. These are the forces affecting Oregon at this time. It is the reason why Oregon is struggling with short school years, 4th largest student/teacher ratio, curtailed programs, laid-off teachers, poor graduation rates and 49th worst attendance rate in the U.S.

Ya no mistake forgetting this insertion by Kulongoski. 51 or 61, he thinks he's floating above but his task is to lead, not kibbitz. He's a non-player.

The Gov. proposes and the Legislature disposes. Some people seem to forget, it has been half a year now, that the Governor started the session off with a budget. It was balanced based upon what was known then about projected revenue. In the ensuing months, that budget has been shredded. The Republican House wants to set in stone that lower number, 51% of Income tax only for K-12 schools. It isn't acceptable to the Democrats in the Senate.

So, I don't think it is correct or even fair to say that the Governor has come in late. He has come in with a new plan because the Legislature appears deadlocked, and they are failing to "dispose" with the business of Oregon. By adding the term "General Fund" to the formula instead of the amount from "income tax" he has given the Senate and the House room to reach a face saving compromise - hopefully one that will benefit Oregon's school children.

Saying that the Governor has "come in late" with this plan is like saying that the guy who was first out of the gate at the horse race wasn't even in the race. How odd!

Gee, Pam, your comment is spoken like someone who hasn't spent a single minute in a modern school. Perhaps you drop a kid off to the education warehouse, but if you spent time volunteering in schools or talking with educators, your world view on the subject might be a little bit broader.

God forbid you would spend some time teaching - you'd find out what a really "part time" job it is. Consider the schedule of one of my closest friends: Up at 5:30 to excercise and eat. To school by 7:00 am to prepare for the coming school day. Class from about 8:00 to 2:00 or 3:00. Get ready to coach girls JV soccer until 6:00 or 7:00 (not a game day). Get home about 7:00 or 8:00 pm. Gee, who's making dinner? A few minutes to talk to the wife maybe about her day? 9:00 to ??? Grading homework assignments and papers. Go to bed and repeat. Maybe I'll mow the lawn this weekend.

Fast forward to summer... Gee, that pesky continuing requirement for my license. Should I take a class at my own expense to keep my license? Oh, by the way, my pay ran out when the school year ended (should I have had the district equal it out over the entire year?) Maybe if I'm lucky, the wife and I can go camping for two weeks.

What's that? Summer's over?

Kari, Do you have any idea how much teacher pay & benefits in Portland (or Oregon) have raised compared to inflation?

been raised

Thank you LG. Pam reminds me of someone I once knew who complained that teachers only worked from 8-3. Then he married someone with a school aged child and sent me a letter about a 7:15 AM parent teacher conference.

Seems to me the people who complain most about teachers are those who don't know any teachers. A friend of mine was working multiple jobs and had a 6th grader who was having some trouble in school. My friend knew the 6th grade teacher on a first name basis as they talked on the phone every week. But you never hear such stories from the anti-tax/anti-union, "teachers are lazy and overpaid" crowd. One wonders if Pam is required to maintain a license to work, or if Pam knows the problems with the TSPC bureaucracy which make teachers cringe when renewal comes around.

Kari asks, "What happened since then? Where did that public sentiment go?" It slowly disappeared when collective bargaining became the temple of worship for education. When money, influence and power became the primary mover for education. If you don't know it, K-12 education in Oregon is not "about the children". Oregon's very high individual employee compensation is robbing from the children of Oregon about $500 million per year (and 6,000 teachers) when compared to many states (which are still in the upper half for individual teacher compensation). From the Oregonian (July 10, 2005), the average 30 year retiree from Oregon receives 107 percent of ending salary, while the 30 year retire in Washington receives 60 percent. This amounts to billions of dollars difference which is extracted from the education of Oregon's children. Salaries are also lower in Washington as well as most other states (NEA, 2005). And yes, I still get into the classroom periodically.

This is for Pam, above.

Anyone who thinks teaching is a part-time job has never taught and probably didn't do so well in school (just a guess). Educated people understand how hard teachers work and how valuable they are to society.

But it's easy being in the Peanut Gallery, huh Pamster? Say hi to W for me, he thought teachers weren't all that and his grades proved it! In Iraq. Today. In London. A few days ago.

Kari askes why so many Oregonians have a negative attitude about education/teachers, and Bailie answers collective bargaining.

Kari - good question. Bailie - you have listened to the Lars Larson propaganda machine too much.

As someone who grew up in the 50's and 60's, who has had a teacher in every generation except mine including my mother and son, and as someone with the family history of being in Oregon for over 100 years including seven teachers; I know a little about this.

The public attitude shifted with Measure 5 in 1990. Measure 5 was all about the unfair burden of property tax. According to the sponsors, elderly people were being taxed out of their homes due to the way property taxes worked then. Prior to Measure 5, and later Measure 50; your property taxes were determined based upon the real market value of your home, times whatever your jurisdictions' tax rate was (somewhere between 15 and 35 dollars per thousand of property value). Places like Lake Oswego had great schools, great police and fire departments, etc. because the people voted to tax themselves at higher rates per thousand of property value. Voters in Portland/metro area basically forced the rest of the State into Measure 5. Most of rural Oregon saw Measure 5 as a loss of local control. We were so right!

Well, Measure 5 shifted things around. After phasing in, it capped property tax for schools at 10 dollars per thousand, and capped taxes for local government at 5 dollars per thousand. Exceptions for bonds exist. That 10 per thousand then went to the State, and income tax made up the balance to pay for schools. Lake Oswego still got their high rate at first, while other school districts that had been getting less still got less. Since the State was now paying, local control having been taken away, equalization happened over a period of years. Some districts had new revenue and others lost revenue - hence the start of the problems in Portland in particular.

Then the Lars Larson types started complaining that we were still paying too much in taxes. Never mind that Measure 5 was a tax cut. Never mind that Measure 50 made sure that property taxes will not keep up with inflation (e.g. a back-handed tax reduction). Somehow, there was waste in State government, and since Education was now the State's biggest bill, there must be waste in the School systems. Behind every claim of government waste, there is always some place where a little money actually gets wasted. Never mind that business also wastes money on things that don't work, can't work, or are just plain stupid. If government wastes money, the Lars Larson type mentality is that it is proof of the need to lower taxes. So, we have proceeded in the recent legislative sessions to give away tax deductions for business so that they get tax breaks for things like exercise rooms for employees or paid parking for employees (one can argue whether that is wasteful or not, but if State employees got it, then Lars would call it wasteful). The propaganda machine then keeps hammering away at government waste, and educational expenses.

The Government retirement program, PERS, used to be an average/typical retirement system. Then one session (1983??) the Republicans voted to not give raises to State employees for two years, but to instead guarantee a higher minimum return on their retirement accounts. The problems with PERS were then started. Now the Lars propaganda type machine spits that out like it was the Democrats that did it! Again, wasteful government.

So, are teacher salaries too high? Not in my opinion. As a self-employed person, I was able to take the classes and do my apprentice period to get into my line of work in a two year period. After being into my current line of work for a total of four years, I earned as much as a 20-year teacher with a Master's degree. Now in my 12th year in my second profession, I earn two to three times as much as a teacher, and I don't have all the extra duties a teacher has. There is a ceiling in education, the sacrifice that no matter how good and creative you are, as long as you are a classroom teacher you accept that there is a top level you can get to - no more. In the business world, when you get better and better, you get paid more and more. Teacher's paid to much? Not hardly! Only when someone like Lars twists the numbers around do we get to this theory of overpayment. Does a teacher make more than the average worker? Of course, teachers in Oregon have to have 5 years of college to start. Should someone who has invested $50,000+ on their education be paid minimum wage! Of course not. And as was previously noted, teachers at their own expense are required to have continuing education.

So, Bailie, I hope that in the future you think things through, do a little research, and put things in proper perspective. Learn not to accept the Lars Larson mentality - he is merely a propaganda machine spitting out half truths.

Kari - There was a switch from anti-tax to anti-expense in the public's mind. It was a clever way to hide the fact that the tax-cuts in Measure 5 and other places didn't help Oregon, they hurt Oregon. This perpetual blame game from the right wing serves to distract from the fact that their lame theories of government are not working.

The Lars Larson et al formula is easy to see: When tax cuts don't generate more income (magically) and when government reduces services due to tax cuts -- then there must be waste in government. Therefore government must be cut yet again to reduce the waste. Then when services are reduced, it must be that those leading government are lying to us, somehow there is more waste to be reveiled, and services are withheld to punish the public. Therefore, all bureaucrats are evil people, and the elected officials that protect them are evil too. Their motivation is to make lots of money at taxpayers expense, another form of waste. and so on and so on.

-- It is a corrupt line of thinking from top to bottom. But once you buy into this hypnotic thing, even a little, you too become a Lars clone thinking, "if only we could just cut a little waste, there would be plenty of money". The general public have been hoodwinked by this nonesense because it gets repeated by so many voices. It's not just Lars, we see it in the Oregonian, we see it on TV, its everywhere - and its wrong.

I agree with Steve, but also anyone who has an older relative or friend who taught (or knew a teacher) before modern collective bargaining should listen to some of the stories. Back in the Depression, sometimes teachers taught for free for awhile to get experience--is that what those who blame collective bargaining want? Why would anyone enter teaching in that situation? Are these critics willing to volunteer in a local school, or are they afraid the reality would threaten their ideology? Schools can always use volunteers.

The people who oppose collective bargaining and government regulations should be asked if they want to go back 100 years. Prior to the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire, those "do not lock this door during business hours" signs didn't exist--if an owner wanted to lock you in the factory during working hours, it was your tough luck if a fire started and you couldn't get out.

Hey! Person who opposes collective bargaining! Do you get at least half an hour for lunch at work? Where do you think that right came from if not from collective bargaining? As I recall, as recently as 40 years ago teachers were not guaranteed half an hour for lunch away from the kids--that came from collective bargaining. Are all teachers supposed to have the stamina to stay with the class all day without a break? Would you stay with a group of young people all day without a break? Or are teachers just a favorite whipping boy whose work you would never condescend to do because your work is more important?

I had a teaching assistant job right out of college a little more than 30 years ago, in a school with outdoor corridors. It was a big deal when the principal allowed women teachers to wear pants suits in the winter instead of a dress code that literally required dresses (or tops and skirts) for women.

The bill which consolidated school districts into K-12 was controversial in many ways. But it got rid of the dictatorial Supt/Principal system in small elementary schools. In that same school where I worked my first job out of college, there was a wonderful young teacher in his first year. He would go out of his way to help kids, including staying in the room during recess (rather than going on a coffee break) to help kids with their work. But he had a personality clash with the Supt/Principal who didn't want to renew his contract. The school board meeting was split--parents who wanted the young teacher to remain because he was the best teacher their kids ever had, and parents who sided with the Supt/Principal. And the School Board basically said "Well, we do whatever Bob tells us to do". So much for the idea that School Boards hire, fire, and supervise administrators. The teacher left for another district where he stayed for decades. What good did that do the small school district? Or doesn't that matter because it is all about proving a political point?

As long as there are unexamined administrators whose pay package, work performance, and job description are never questioned, there will be waste in school systems. But that isn't what the Lars types want to talk about. What they say is that when there is collective bargaining, the union side is always wasteful and the management side gets paid what they deserve. But both sides are public employees. And if administrators mishandle an abusive employee or don't level with the public about budget numbers, why is that the fault of unionized teachers? If the general public in a town is unhappy because administrators were given a larger raise than teachers who worked days without pay during a budget crisis, does that make the Lars/ anti-collective bargaining folks happy because the administrators earn their salaries but teachers are lazy? By what evidence? Do the local residents have the right to decide if the administrators deserve the larger pay raises, or do Lars et. al have the right to make that decision for them? Or don't they think that far?

My aunt was a teacher in a major Midwestern city who retired in 1967. She taught biology and dealt with students who had low reading levels. She earned a Masters degree in biology and did lots of work outside of school. And her kids helped around the house from the time she went back to teaching once her kids were old enough. Her daughter just retired from teaching (in a private school in her last job--for many years they moved around because of her husband's job re-assignments), and her granddaughter is a school psychologist who sometimes takes family leave, and who is also married to someone who has moved a few times due to work changes. So don't tell me that teachers are lazy and wasteful unless you also tell me which school you have visited recently and exactly what you saw with your own eyes. At one point my aunt got a transfer out of the school where she had been teaching, and a week later a student stabbed one of the teachers. But of course, the real evil in school is collective bargaining? Give me a break!

I couldn't find it online, but the Statesman-Journal print edition has a page where the print opinion pieces by local young adults under 25. Today's was by a high school graduate who is tired of hearing that teachers are lazy, because that was not her experience. An 18 year old can vote. Calling someone like this writer a dupe of the teachers union for saying she had good teachers in high school (as some of the anti-union folks have done) isn't likely to get this young voter to back the anti-tax, anti-union movement. A new generation is coming of age, and the old arguments from the 1990s aren't going to convince those who say "I never saw you in my school, what makes you think you have the right to tell me what I saw with my own eyes?".

LT, Interesting comments. 1) I don't listen to Lars as you wrongfully suggest. 2) I have done my homework on this subject and I am confident that I have pinpointed the problem of adequately funding Oregon K-12 education. 3) I, also, have a history of educators in my family and at present two immediate members of my family work within our school district. 4) I also, still get into the class room on occasion to lead classes. What is relevant about the above, not much.

It is the very high individual compensation of Oregon K-12 employees that is the stifling factor in sustained adequate funding for Oregon education. Why should Oregon K-12 employees receive the 8th highest compensation (Chalkboard Project, 2005) in the U.S.? It is a (the)problem. The academic results don't match. It(the very high compensation) is the reason why Oregon is struggling with incomplete school years, 4th highest student/teacher ratio, poor graduation rates, next to the lowest attendance, laid-off teachers and the list goes on. It can easily be quantified that it is a $300 to $800 million problem per year. It also translates into Oregons' inability to hire an additional 5,000 to 8,000 teachers. In PERS alone, the extra costs are in the Billions above almost all compared states. In salaries, there are only 12 states which compensate higher than Oregon. Unfortunately, PERS, S.S. and Medicare are all indexed to salaries. The turning point for Oregon is that in 1990, Oregon was ranked 25th in affluence ("per capita income"). This ranking has now eroded to our present ranking of 36th in "per capita income".

You mention Measure 5. For the 13 years subsequent to the passage, Oregon funded K-12 education (per student spending) better than Washington, California, Idaho and the U.S. average state in EVERY year.("Comprehensive Analysis of K-12 Education Finance in Oregon", ECONorthwest,Table 3-2, pg 3-3). Measure 5 perhaps can be blamed for some things, but funding of Oregon K-12 is not one of those things (as you would like).

I hope you had a chance to read Betsy's article in the Oregonian yesterday (July 10,2005). While it concentrated mainly on benefits, it did point out the excessive compensation on individual K-12 employees in Oregon as a limiting factor for the expansion of education in Oregon. I would hope that this would be alarming for you. It is not a Democrat vs. Republican problem. It is not a liberal vs. conservative problem. It is a problem for the children and future of Oregon. The status quo in Oregon is failing miserably. More funding to enhance the status quo is not the answer. The allocation of funding has evolved into an unsustainable situation.

LT, Who made this statement, "Should someone who has invested $50,000+ on their education be paid minimum wage!"? Certainly wasn't me. Are you saying you defend the situation that the average 30 year K-12 employee has received 107 percent (and increasing every year) of their ending salary? This (along with other unusually high compensation) results into instant millionaires (for the average teacher living a normal life span) at the expense of Oregon not having an additional 5,000 teachers in our system. It is the children and future of Oregon which loses. Are you against changing this situation? What changes would you support? Or are you satisfied that this mess should continue into the future? The question also is, "why should Oregon teachers/K-12 employees receive so much more compensation than most all of the other states? There certainly isn't a direct correlation between this high compensation and academic performance. Most measures of Oregon academic success put us in the middle of the pack.

Ted Kulongoski can demand that the school appropriations bill be split up, one part for ongoing school costs, and the other part the PERS costs associated with past work.

Once it is split he can veto the portion covering both unsound pension plan design and investment losses. If the legislature fails to split the school appropriations bill, he can veto it until the legislature does the split, so he can veto the PERS line items.

The legislature, with the help of the newspaper folks, like to claim that they have no power to affect how local schools spend their money. The local schools like to claim that it is the state, and the PERB, that force them to pay more to PERS.

They all point to some theoretical notion that the Oregon Supreme Court is the bad guy, on PERS, and that the government has no choice but to pay money to PERS. There is one Oregon constitutional requirement and that is that the employees must cough up 6 percent of salaries toward PERS, but that is known at the time each employee gets their paycheck and is wholly independent of the "employer contributions" that are demanded in later years to cover for the pension costs for prior work.

I say that an actuarially sound pension plan would have zero "employer contributions," otherwise it is actuarially unsound . . . by definition.

So, if the court will supposedly require the payment of money to PERS then let it be the court that says so, not some politician. Veto, or strike out the line in, the school appropriations bill that corresponds to PERS expenses paid by the government rather than being derived direct from the employees. Treat PERS as the "independent" agency it was designed to be, just as if the Oregon Education Association were the trustee, the voluntary trustee, of the savings of the teachers and for which the state would clearly have no obligation to immunize the trustee for falling down on the job.

If the money is in dispute it can be placed into the hands of the Oregon Investment Council for investment. This is exactly where it would go anyway, via PERS and then on to the OIC. The only difference is that the disputed dollars would likely be invested more conservatively . . . while the court responds to the PERS-beneficiary demands to compel the government to deliver the money to them. There would simply be two different accounts, and no great catastrophe will befall the state by temporarily holding the money in one account versus another pending the conclusion of the PERS-beneficiary demands. The politicians keep claiming presumed liability, so let's just see where the chips would fall.

Bailie -

You seem to have LT and I confused. LT is in Salem, I'm over here in the center of Oregon, Crook County. While we might have had some similar comments, we are different people with different minds.

You complain that I exaggerated about the pay of teachers, as I rhetorically asked if you wanted people who had paid $50,000+ for their education to be paid the minimum wage. Interestingly, in annualized income, beginning teachers with a Master's degree are paid about double the minimum wage. Top end teachers in the best paid school districts have a maximum wage equal to about 6 times the minimum wage. As I commented on before, one problem is that teachers by virture of being public employees agree to have an upper limit to their income - but in the business world, the more experienced and better at our work we become, we can earn more money without limit.

I completely disagree that teacher pay is out of line. If you compared the education and experience required to teach with equal or similar education and experience in the business world, you will find that teachers are paid less than their business world equals. It is only when you start manipulating numbers - using averages that throw in people on minimum wage who haven't finished High School, that you come up with a statistic that would somehow show teachers making above average pay. That is incorrect apples/oranges analysis.

Public policy ought to be based upon the public good. Please tell me how paying teachers less money serves the public good? Do we want less qualified people to teach in the increasingly large classrooms of Oregon? Do we want to train our teachers here, and then have them move away to get higher salaries elsewhere?

Social progress is made by the process of elevation. To make progress in education, to prepare a work force needed to meet our future needs, we need to elevate the performance of the students. To get to this end we need teachers that are well motivated, and cared for. Do you expect teachers to perform best if they are treated like a Walmart employee and make less money?

There is no doubt that teachers are paid better and treated better than they were 90 years ago. Back then when my great-aunt Lucile and her cousin Alma were teachers on the Siuslaw River, they had to walk a mile to their one room schools houses from where they shared lodgings at the Richardson Ranch - one east on the rail tracks a mile, and one west on the rail tracks a mile. They were paid enough to live on, and little more. But being women, they were expected to only teach a few years until they found husbands, and then once married give up teaching.

-- Bailie, do you want to return to those sorts of "good old days" where teaching was so lowly paid as to barely cover shared lodgings and available for a workforce that had to leave the profession once married? How far back in time do you want us to travel? Should we go back to the early 1960's when the car my Grade School Principal could afford was an Edsel, and when my mother as a half time teacher in Portland wondered if her after tax income was enough to offset the cost of her travel, her clothing and child care for my brother and I? In 1960 she literally wondered if she wasn't "giving it away" on the wages paid.

It is awfully easy to toss out these blanket statements about teacher's being paid too much. Bailie - if you don't listen to Lars, then you have adopted his positions.

"Public policy ought to be based upon the public good. Please tell me how paying teachers less money serves the public good? Do we want less qualified people to teach in the increasingly large classrooms of Oregon? Do we want to train our teachers here, and then have them move away to get higher salaries elsewhere?"

This is such a wrong characterization of Bailie's argument. His whole point has to do with public good, and that paying too few teachers too much for too little classroom days is at the heart of Oregon's education short-circuit. A state with below-average income is paying and benefitting teachers near the top, and in terms of retirement -- well over it.

Sorry, Steve, but your arguments fall mostly to rhetoric, including the ever-popular "guilt by association" of repeatedly citing or accusing of listening to Lars. Sheer logical fallacy; all technique but no argument.

The bad old days vs. new too-good ones also comprise the fallacy of "false dilemma." (If you need it drawn out, those are not the only options.) Bailie is discussing in good faith and fair argument.

I guess the lines are drawn and will stay drawn, but I also would speculate the piece in yesterday's Oregonian (paper which has carried enormous amounts of water for teachers & schools) will catch a little sincere public interest and concern.

The question also is, "why should Oregon teachers/K-12 employees receive so much more compensation than most all of the other states? There certainly isn't a direct correlation between this high compensation and academic performance. Most measures of Oregon academic success put us in the middle of the pack.

One measure of merit is National Merit Scholarships. Is your contention that those scholarships go to students of teachers paid less than teachers in schools which did not produce those scholars, or hasn't that been measured? Are you talking about standardized test scores? Are you speaking as someone who always had high standardized test scores and think those are the only measure of learning? Or, like some people, did you test above grade in one subject and below grade in another at some time in your life?

For the record, I was a certified substitute teacher for 15 years. I couldn't afford to renew my certificate last time around (not enough work, "retired" teachers on the sub list, etc.) so I let it lapse --don't tell me all teachers are rolling in dough.

What is your source for "so much more compensation than most all of the other states"? If Portland teachers earn more than small town teachers, isn't that fair given the cost of rent and other expenses? When I was in college, there were openings in 2 different districts in different parts of the state (not Oregon) with salary $1,000 apart. But with the cost of living, both districts essentially paid the same. Do your statistics cover that situation?

As far as "most measures" does that mean looking at statistics but not looking at real life situations? I once took a class (one I paid for out of my own pocket to renew my certificate) about educational statistics taught by a statistics professor. We were taught how to look at statistics and see what was true and what was a stretch or misleading. For instance, do "most measures" use the mean, the median, or the mode? The answer to that question could make a lot of difference.

A niece teaches in Colorado, and from what I have heard of her experiences, teachers are respected more in Colorado than in Oregon. Besides public school, I also subbed in a Catholic school where lower pay was made up for by respect for teachers. I preferred to work in small town schools where the teachers were respected than in the large bureaucratic districts.

I think the first step to reforming the situation is to shine the microscope which has been aimed at teachers all these years at administrators, esp. those who work directly below a Supt. in a central office in a city school district (small towns are different).

The second step should be requiring all critics to visit more than one actual school rather than talking to us about "most measures". If a student who speaks English as a second language, or a student with a handicap moves into a small district unprepared to deal with such a student, how is that district supposed to deal with that situation? By law they must provide needed services, but what if there is no one on staff with the needed background and no money to hire anyone new?

Or don't "most measures" deal with that level of detail?

One more thing. Imagine Joan started school in 1999 and Sam started school in 2000. There are tests which measure Joan's progress from one year to the next (or all of Joan's class--assuming none move away). There are tests which match the results of Joan's class against the results of Sam's class--as if kids are widgets. I respect the results of tests measuring Joan (or her classmates if the class is relatively constant) from year to year and comparing. But many measures I have seen have matched Joan's results with Sam's results (not looking at the same kids over time). I think those are about as reliable as comparing the 2005 legislature with the 1995 legislature--not the same people, different times, etc. This is why critiques should be sharper than "most measures" in order to be taken seriously.

I've got news for the bailies and pammys of the world... not only did teachers work for free in the 19th century... they worked for free in the year 2003... in Portland, Oregon... for TWO WEEKS to keep schools open past May 15.

3,300 PPS teachers say you are welcome!

p.s. been teaching more than 10 years, to thousands of children... never seen a bailie or a pam in any school, anywhere, anytime, in the state of Oregon. But, maybe you are telling the truth. Maybe.

Steve, Thank you for the name clarification. You ask, "Please tell me how paying teachers less money serves the public good?"

That answer is very easy if you are interested in Oregon K-12 education ("for the children"). First let me say that I am speaking specifically about Oregon K-12 employees, from administration through classified. Teachers grab the center of attention mainly because of the shear numbers involved. The unacceptable (in my mind) status quo is characterized by school districts struggling for complete years, the 4th highest student/teacher ratio in the U.S., poor graduation rates, the next-to-worst attendance in U.S., curtailed programs, very average academic results and dismissed teachers. This condition results from, "Salaries and benefits measured per full-time equivalent staff member are high relative to other states."("The Condition of K-12 Education in Oregon", Chalkboard Project, ECONorthwest, January 2005,pg ix.). This is easily quantified when compared to other states (using 2005 NEA data). In the case of New Hampshire (randomly picked because it is ranked 25th in teacher salaries), Oregon compensates K-12 teachers $360 million more than the teachers in New Hampshire (measured per individual average teacher). This equates to 6,800 more teachers which would be available for hire in Oregon with the difference in compensation. Oregon would have complete school years and smaller classes in addition. The academic results for New Hampshire students are considerably better than the results in Oregon. If all employees were included, the comparison would be considerably more dramatic.

The statistics are very consistent. I have used the data presented by AFT (American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO)("Survey and Analysis of Teacher Salary Trends) to illustrate the same outcome, considering "AFT Interstate cost-of-living index". The comparison with New Hampshire was only one example. To make the point more clear, Oregon could freeze teacher salaries for five consecutive years and still be in the upper half of states for paying teacher salaries of individual employees. Again, this would be a much more dramatic comparison if Oregons' #1 ranking for benefits were also included.

I will concede that in 1932 (or you pick the year) teacher compensation was low. The evolution of compensation in the last 20 years is the concern. I don't think you realize it, but there is a problem for K-12 funding in Oregon. The problem is solely because of high individual K-12 compensation. I do realize that you have trouble accepting the data presented by the NEA, AFT, ECONorthwest, the Chalkboard Project, OSBA and ODE. So let me ask you, what data would you prefer me to use? I will work with you.

You say, "I completely disagree that teacher pay is out of line." OK, why should Oregon K-12 teachers compensation be the 8th highest in the U.S.? Make your case why it is better to have 29,000 very highly compensated teachers (with the corresponding high student/teacher ratio), than it is to have 35,000 Oregon teachers, complete school years, complete programs, higher graduation rates, most likely better attendance rates and most likely better academic results. Remembering we would still be compensating in the upper half of all states.

Question:

Which cost our schools more since 1990?

Measure 5 or the increases in pay and benefits packages for teachers piled on top of wasteful reforms (CIMCAM)the union did nothing about.

The OEA (teachers union) didn't exist before 1973.

It wouldn't appear to be a modern miracle now would it?

Well I suppose those retired at 54 with full pay disagree.

There is a lot of rhetoric flying around but most of it is caused by the false notion that anything less than the lavish benefits somehow dooms teachers to poverty. Having a teacher in the family and knowing many I can't escape the reality that they are dedicatied enough to stay the course with a moderated benefits package and better classroom funding.

steve S,

What would be wrong with straight pay?

The PERS beast is a blended political thing that merges, politically, the interest of PERS beneficiaries with that of the Wall Street Party that wants to siphon off local dollars for distribution among speculators in paper. The fraction of that speculation that finds its way back to the teachers remains just a fraction. The bulk stuff, the wholesale pork belly, is still Wall Street.

When was the last time a pension trustee, for either a public or private investment trust, invested in a little corner Korean grocery store? Chances are much higher that they played like they were from Drexel Burnham Lambert and engaged in leveraged buyouts (as with the KK&R buyout of Fred Meyers that was funded by the Oregon Investment Council).

A sound pension plan that is pay-as-you-go does NOT afford the opportunity to play big-man-on-campus with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. Our State Treasurer, as with past State Treasurers, DO NOT want a sound pension plan. They want a below-market-rate source of deposits in their investment trust . . . but without the accountability of an independant investment trust (by virtue of being able to fully transfer the risk of losses to the public).

Just picture Mike Milken serving as a State Treasurer, in a dual capacity with Drexel Burnham Lambert. The only thing modern is the refinement of propaganda . . where Betsy Hammond at the Oregonian actually thinks she is doing a public service . . . the picture of Mr. and Mrs. Cuda lounging by a pool hits the mark about as well as describing a coin by a side view that fails to reveal the head or the tail. Teddy Boy can put an end to the charade.

See Drexel Burnham Lambert: A Ten-Year Retrospective.

Drexel was forced to buy the bonds of insolvent and failing companies which depleted their capital and eventually bankrupted the company. Finally, junk bonds during the 1980s were seen as a type of "turbo-debt", as a license to steal and with underlying pyramid schemes which would embarrass even the famous con-artist Charles Ponzi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drexel_Burnham_Lambert

Yeah, that sounds like the drive by trustees of public employee trusts accross the country in their last best hope for obtaining higher returns in a lower interest rate environment . . . buying junk bonds that are sold instead as "private equity investments" or "alternative investments" and to do so outside of the public view . . . in secret. The California legislature wants to legalize secrecy for such public trustee investments via SB 439. (Search here for SB 439.)

Our legislature has exempted the nice folks that sit on the Oregon Investment Council and the Public Employees Retirement Board from all liability for any investment decision for any reason whatsoever.

I ask again . . . What would be wrong with straight pay?

AND . . . who does the governor serve by not moving toward straight pay?

Ron asked, ---"AND . . . who does the governor serve by not moving toward straight pay?"---

I don't know. He should ask his education advisor & staffer James Sager. The prior president of the OEA.

If Mannix or Saxton refused to use their veto pen (theoretically) on appropriations that go to the investment trust (for gambling) rather than to schools would that be the NEA's fault?

TRENTON � The New Jersey Education Association today filed suit in State Superior Court against the State Treasurer and State Legislature, calling for the State to meet its obligation to cover an unfunded liability of more than $484 million in the Teachers Pension and Annuity Fund (TPAF). Filed on behalf of several active and retired TPAF members, the suit charges the State violated the pension law enacted in 1997, which requires both the State and the employees to increase funding to the pension system when the State's actuary determines there is an unfunded liability.

December 9, 2003 NJEA files suit to restore state pension funding http://www.njea.org/PressRoom/release_120903.asp

So . . . who's water is the NEA carrying?

In Oregon the community of professionals and investment bankers and such got to do it in the back rooms of the halls of our so-called open government rather than in open court.

Ted split the graft down the middle on the PERS modifications, matched by the bonding of supposed liability. The Republicans, in Oregon, would likely do the same. In Oregon, there is judicial precedent that restricts the ability of the "independent" PERS (and the PERS beneficiaries) from compelling the legislature to cover for the investment losses by PERS and the OIC.

So, when a Republican would withhold the use of the veto pen on the PERS-based appropriations, those that clearly could not be compelled, who's water would they be carrying? The OEA's or that of the investment bankers? Mutual graft just seems so much more effective . . . in this real life version of the Prisoners Dilemma where the absence of graft is just no fun at all for either of the leading beneficiaries.

I ask again . . . What would be wrong with straight pay? What problem would be solved by offering only straight pay?

How do you define "straight pay"?

Bailie -

Some people who use statistics remind me of someone pounding a square peg in a round hole. You can play with the pieces all you like but they just don't fit. Much of what you quote are individual studies, lines from studies, etc., pulled out and put back into an order that doesn't fit. I won't go into that now, because, frankly, your numbers are irrelevant.

Even if your numbers were properly presented, your point is meaningless. In your comparison with New Hampshire (Oregon has 2.5 times the population) we might get the 6,800 more teachers you claim if we paid them all less, but what kind of teacher would we get? If the minimum wage were cut in half, then every employer could hire twice as many employees. But does that make sense?

Compensation is about fairly nurturing those who provide goods and services. It is a reflection of our societies' value of various jobs and professions.

With 120 hours of education and two years being an assistant to an appraiser, if I do 4 appraisals a week (not nearly full time work), I can earn 2.5 times more than a beginning teacher with 5 years of education. So Bailie - a values question (no pun intended from this real estate appraiser): Does getting your house valued for refinance or a purchase represent something that in broad strokes is worth 2.5 times that of educating your children (to briefly use statistics like you do)?

Numbers aside, compensation for teachers or other government employees is a “values” question. Do we value these public servants equal to, less than, or more than other positions in the private sector? Teachers, no matter what they are paid in New Hampshire, in Oregon are paid less than people with similar education /experience in the private sector. As I have stated before, that is only part of the truth. The rest is that public servants like teachers agree to have a ceiling on what they can make. There is no profit motive to their work. If they do more, are more innovative and creative - they will not make any more money.

In part the “values” question is answered by the recent history of compensation of teachers in Oregon as well as current practice. Teacher compensation is set district by district in Oregon by elected School Board members representing their community values. Prior to Measure 5, each school district passed levies that funded their schools. If teachers were perceived to be paid too much, the levies would be voted down - it rarely happened. It is the same today, only the budget comes from the State. Every district in Oregon has the ability to freeze wages, negotiate lower wages, or pay whatever their community works out. The people of Oregon, through the hundreds of School Board members we elect VALUE teachers, and pay them what they are now getting.

The current compensation is a democratic reflection of how we value teachers.

One of the big fears of much of rural Oregon when Measure 5 passed was that we would lose local control of our schools. This is why Measure 5 did not pass in almost all of rural Oregon. Now, Bailie and others are proving this point. They would take away local control of teacher compensation, and mandate from the State lower wages and benefits.

So Bailie, are you against local control of government services? Are you willing to go against the values expressed by Oregon voters in their election of School Boards, their history of passing levies for their schools, and the long history in Oregon of increasing support for our schools, our educators, and their students?

Or are you just a number manipulator with an anti-tax / anti-teacher bias?

Steve, It is too bad that you can't understand (or chose not to understand) statistics. These are very conclusive from almost any vantage. I also earned considerably more than teachers. I also had a full time business and hired many teachers. It is a comparison of apples -to-oranges. Teachers have zero risk of capital. I had 100 percent risk of capital. I had to pay my on health insurance for my family and provide for my own retirement. All of this is not relevant to the comparison of Oregon K-12 compensation to other states.

Using New Hampshire was only an example (as I said), it could have been Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa or many others. All of which have academic results superior to Oregon. My purpose is illustrate that these other states do not have short school years, poor graduation rates, high student/teacher ratios etc. as does Oregon. The reason is that through their wisdom (or luck), they found it important to have more teachers rather than a relatively few very high paid teachers. We could hire 6,000 more teachers for use in K-3, have complete school years and smaller classes and still be in the upper half of the states for individual compensation. What has been noted is that higher teacher compensation doesn't produce correspondingly high academic results. In fact the lowest paid teachers are from North and South Dakota and their academic results dwarf Oregon.

You say, " If teachers were perceived to be paid too much, the levies would be voted down". They are being voted down. Can you remember Measures 28 and 30. Both of those were promoted as education measures and were soundly addressed even though they were outspent 15 to 1 buy the education unions.

Measure 5: The only problem I have with Measure 5 is that there has been a perpetuation of false information (of lower K-12 funding). As I previously noted, spending (per pupil) on K-12 education surpassed the national average, Washington, California and Idaho in every year for 13 years following passage. I am not discussing local control, that is a separate issue. Our School District was solidly in favor of Measure 5 (and later "equalization") and it passed handily.

I am not against increasing support for our schools. I am against the present method of allocation of spending. It isn't working and the primary reason is high individual compensation.

You ask, "Or are you just a number manipulator with an anti-tax / anti-teacher bias?" That question illustrates that you haven't been reading my posts. I am not anti-tax. In fact I have never mentioned anything that would suggest it (that I can remember). I am not anti-teacher. That does not have anything to do with this discussion. I have continually advocated the hiring of as many as 6,000 additional teachers, which coincides with the desires represented by most in education.

I realize this is difficult for you, since you say you don't understand numbers. You will be comforted that a person considered the leading education researcher in the Northwest has fully endorsed this data.

Good points, Steve.

Another point I want to make, and it relates to this: I've got news for the bailies and pammys of the world... not only did teachers work for free in the 19th century... they worked for free in the year 2003... in Portland, Oregon... for TWO WEEKS to keep schools open past May 15. 3,300 PPS teachers say you are welcome!

Teachers worked days for free in Salem (administrators didn't) and the whole community was so up in arms at the school board giving administrators a larger raise than teachers that the end result is tonight a majority of the school board is being sworn in--it will be interesting to see election of officers with a majority of new school board members. I have a suggestion for what another comment called "bailies and pammys of the world". Run for office! Kim Thatcher ran as the candidate from Measure 30. A year ago, she didn't understand that public employees fill out tax returns like everyone else. Since her district is near Salem, when she said at a forum "only businesses pay taxes" a public employee walked up to her afterwards and asked "Are you saying that as a public employee I don't fill out a tax return every year?". That was the beginning of a long road which might be called The Education of Kim Thatcher. Rep. Thatcher has a woman on her staff who is more polite and more informative than some of the other Republican House staffers. Rep. Thatcher was part of the rebellion forcing Speaker Minnis to remove the Portland tax part of the Speaker's Plan before it passed. Reports are that Rep. Thatcher actually listens to people--not what the public would have expected during her campaign. In a recent Statesman-Journal article, Rep. Thatcher said the legislature was more complex than she had thought. Wouldn't be the first elected official to discover politics (dealing with people as well as with legislation) is complex!

All those of you who blog about statistics, try something new. Turn off the computer and go out and talk to real people. Get involved in grass roots politics, or run for office yourself. If people agree with your statistical arguments, you could get elected like Thatcher did. OR, you could discover that people you speak with reject your statistical analysis. You will learn the meaning of the phrase "getting an earful" from those who disagree. And as much as you believe in your ideas, you won't win any votes by saying "You're supposed to believe in me and my ideas!". Saxton did not win the Gov. primary with the PERS = ENRON commercials because voters chose someone else. Even if you think those were the greatest commercials you have seen in your life, they didn't elect anyone or change any legislation. What is wrong with the attitude that Results Matter? Or are you folks just ideologues who don't want to try to sell your theories in the "Marketplace of ideas"?

I realize this is difficult for you, since you say you don't understand numbers. You will be comforted that a person considered the leading education researcher in the Northwest has fully endorsed this data. OK, give us that person's name. Or does that person not want to be publicly identified with your statement?

LT

You ask, "OK, give us that person's name. Or does that person not want to be publicly identified with your statement?"

I thought you might ask and I can not tell you who it is. It was a series of personal emails and that's that. He is just too involved with OEA, OSBA and ODE to throw out his personal feelings on a blog. One of his direct quotes was, "your analysis is right on the mark, and we have described the issue to policymakers at OSBA and more recent work with the Chalkboard Project." Just disregard the statement if it troubles you.

I don't run for office, mainly because I don't have time or desire. I have spoken with Rep. Thatcher and think she has a great future if she decides to continue. I also spoke at length with her predecessor, Vic Backlund about this material. It was interesting that he suggested the legislature did not have the power to make the necessary changes with a Democrat Governor. It was that simple.

You know, Bailie is good.

Bailie gives us incomplete statistics, unsupported conclusion, sites lot of studies, make grandiose statements, twists around others words and deliberately misquotes them, mixes up who says what laying out a mist of confusion, and then concludes by saying that he/she doesn't support the points of view he/she has endorsed. Whew!

On top of that, Bailie throws in "big lies" along with the small distortions. Measure 30 for example was not an election to lower the wages of teachers! Good god!

A couple months ago, Pat Ryan had someone going back and forth like this on another thread on Blue Oregon. I admired Pat's final comment, so I will copy it.

"Put a fork in it, I'm done with this turkey"

You can "stick a fork in it". You obviously don't have much to say when you resort to personal slights and no substance. You don't like or understand statistics so the discussion has no value for you. That's fine. You obviously are a proponent of the status quo, sobeit.

Forgot to answer one of your questions.

You ask, "In your comparison with New Hampshire (Oregon has 2.5 times the population) we might get the 6,800 more teachers you claim if we paid them all less, but what kind of teacher would we get?"

If we got the same quality as New Hampshire, we would be doing fine. The graduation rate is higher in New Hampshire (even though they have higher requirements). Their scores on the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress)tests are considerably higher (in math and reading) than Oregon at all grade levels tested (4th, 8th and 10th grades). Their dropout rates and attendance rates also are much better than Oregon.

Important in all of this is Oregon public education has been dominated and controlled by people who just can't tell the truth. The politicization of our public school system, driven by the teachers union, OEA, and their allies at COSA, OSBA, ODE, and OBC has led to continued public deception for years. The problem with the soaring benefits costs didn't sneak up on the State. It has been perpetrated for years by the same folks who tell us Oregon SAT scores are "tops" in the country. Not only is that not true, (we are 25th) but our edge over the National average has been continually slipping over the last 10 years.

Along with other lies about our school reform CIMCAM and it's effectiveness and worth, or lack there of, the ODE has become an instrument of perpetual crisis and misinformation.

Prepare for another year of lies about our SAT scores usually reported in late August.

Remember that we have people running our school system who believe the best way to run our schools and help our students is to lie about them and to them.

"I realize this is difficult for you, since you say you don't understand numbers. You will be comforted that a person considered the leading education researcher in the Northwest has fully endorsed this data."

'OK, give us that person's name. Or does that person not want to be publicly identified with your statement?'

The latter quote was a challenge to bailie. I am familiar with the threats of blackballing as well as personal and property violence against teachers who worked in various Oregon districts (Sandy was a recent one.) during strikes. I am not surprised that bailie's friend prefers anonymity.

On this string I have seen bailie attacked personally, and his considerable arsenal of statistics responded to with bombast and innuendo. Thus far his detractors have been unable to respond with any substance.

NAEP test results:

http://www.ripolicyanalysis.org/PublicEducation.html

Some of the best performing states have the lowest K-12 compensation, it is interesting. Of course there are variables such as cost-of-living which are accounted for in other studies.

It is great to see the Oregonian editorial board (7-17) come out so strong for the reformation of K-12 finance in Oregon. It is necessary to get Oregon on the right track again. Voter confidence will not return until something substantial changes. Oregon cannot afford to pay the 8th highest K-12 employee compensation at the expense of hiring 5,000 more teachers and having complete school years and programs.

This is one of the best responses to the Oregonian article by Sen. Doug Whitsett (District 28).

"The Oregonian is emphasizing the budget problem our State faces due to unsustainable public employee salaries and benefits. The articles highlight two married teachers who have retired after 30 years of employment at age 54. This couple receives 107% of their ending salary as retirement benefits in addition to full health benefits until age 65. This year’s retirement stipend for this couple will amount to more than $115,000. It will be adjusted for inflation as long as they shall live. Assuming 4% inflation and an 82 year life span, this couple’s retirement stipends will exceed 5 ½ million dollars. When we consider that more than 55,000 people work for the K-12 education system we can begin to grasp the enormity of the obligation that our current PERS system has imposed on our future.

Nobody can fairly claim that this is the sole cause of Oregon’s budget woes. However, it is equally ridiculous to claim that demonstrated facts constitute an attack on teachers. If the recipients of these benefits packages want to argue that they are deserved, I challenge them to make their case. I have seen the numbers and current spending on benefits is not sustainable. If we are to create a real solution for our school funding crisis, employee benefits spending is one of the areas that must “give.”

Regards,

Doug