Teacher Union Not Happy? Cry Me a River

[Unions Were Good]

Teacher groups are not happy in San Mateo. SMUHS district teachers recently had a vote of no-confidence in their superintendent. Apparently a trustee was a recipient of a death threat one year because of no pay increase.

I think rank in file would make a stronger point if their salary scales were made public. Make their pension plans public, too. Show folks how poverty-stricken our poor, poor teachers are.

They never will. Know why? When folks see that a BS-level degreed teacher can make $ 80,000 working for a total of only NINE MONTHS a year, the public will not be so sympathetic.

Or when folks realize that these same teachers can retire much earlier than we do and receive more monies at age 55 with their generous union pension than we could at age 67 with our mandatory Social Security (public employees are not mandated to participate in SS - why? It stinks).

Perhaps folks who were laid off in the private sector won't have much sympathy to folks who expect automatic increases regardless of merit.

Nope folks. These are realities your local teacher's groups don't want publicized. They'd rather blame administration for all the budget woes. If I'm mistaken...somebody, anybody please clarify by disclosing ALL the facts about our district's Number One expenditure: Teacher salaries and pensions.

More perspective: Understand that most property tax payers earn less money than what most teachers earn for their "full time" jobs. Pro-rate whatever salary over 12 months and you'll see what I mean.

[wilburt]

From what I can see, most public high school teachers in San Mateo County are more interested in their pay packages and benefits than in the students they are teaching. The low achievement levels of the students they teach show this. To add insult to injury, they use the students as their pawns to achieve their political and financial objectives.

Most of these loud mouth, obnoxious unionized teachers should be fired so that teachers who put their students first can be hired.

[Marko]

Maybe the parents in SM county are the problem...overscheduled, economically strapped, permissive and afraid to say "no" to their own kids...hmmm, sound familiar?

But hey, much easier to demonize THE UNION...

EDIT. Give this a read, folks

Bay Area kids seriously depressed, study says
Jackie Burrell, MEDIANEWS

Drugs, gangs and chatrooms may make flashy headlines, but what parents really worry about is much less sexy. It's their children's happiness, their soaring stress levels and creeping, debilitating depression.

According to a new Bay Area parent poll, a quarter of Bay Area children ages 9 to 17 may be clinically depressed, but only a fraction are getting help. And two-thirds of teens are moderately to highly stressed out and academic pressure is largely to blame, parents told researchers.

"It's not that I don't worry about Internet predators or one of my kids getting snatched on the street," said Beth Coyle, a Concord mother of five. "But the stuff that keeps me awake at night is when there are issues at school or problems with (their) friends. It's the stuff that's happening right now."

Children's health experts are calling the just-released report by the Lucile Packard Foundation a call to arms, because emotionally healthy children don't just lead happier lives, they make healthier choices about their education, sexual behavior, drug and alcohol use, and the future.

"Emotional health is the crux of a child's well-being," said foundation spokesman Andy Krackov.

In short, happy, healthy kids don't make those scary headlines, and none of this surprises registered nurse Rona Renner, who hosts a call-in radio show, "Childhood Matters," for parents.

When Renner's radio show tackles topics related to emotional health, the phones ring off the hook.

"We live in a stressed-out society and children are the little canaries in the mine shaft," said Renner. "If (parents) are worried about their children's medical health, they go to a doctor. If they're worried about their children's emotional health, they don't know what to do."

That's the big question.

According to federal estimates, at least one out of every 10 children may have emotional problems severe enough to seriously impact their relationships with friends and family and disrupt their performance at school.

But Bay Area parents, when asked whether their children were depressed, seem to push that number even higher. And Renner is particularly troubled by the Latino statistics -- 33 percent of Latino parents worried that their children were clinically depressed.

Every parent frets. It goes with the territory. But the survey raised serious questions about children's well-being, issues the Packard Foundation hopes will prompt concern among policy makers and spark discussion in households across the Bay Area.

A quarter of the 1,800 parents polled last summer worried about their children's weight. Forty percent of the single mothers said their household income was insufficient to feed, clothe and shelter their children.

But stress levels topped the chart for the second year in a row, said Krackov.

Just over a quarter of preschoolers and kindergartners experience moderate to very high stress levels on a daily basis, their parents said. And stress is omnipresent for two-thirds of the teens.

Parents overwhelmingly cited academic pressure -- school work, homework and the drive to excel -- as the driving force. Coyle, the Concord mom, agreed. She was a teacher for 13 years before starting a family. A decade later, she's back in the classroom as a substitute teacher and the change is startling.

"I've seen a shift in the academic pressure on kids and I don't think it's good," Coyle said. "How do we deal with that? I think we teach the STAR test, instead of teaching the children. I don't think that teachers mean for that to happen, but it does."

Stanford University lecturer and student stress expert Denise Clark Pope has seen the same shift. One Silicon Valley elementary school, for example, sends its youngest students to mandatory summer school if they're not reading proficiently by the end of kindergarten.

"We know that's not developmentally appropriate," she said. "We're seeing more headaches, more stomach aches, more 'I don't want to go to school. I'm worried about a test.'"

And the grade pressure and college competition is fierce, she said, for older students.

"Parents often feel powerless," said Pope. "They feel the amount of homework, the grades to get into college are out of their control. But you can absolutely control your child's extra-curricular load and their in-school load as well."

Over the next two months, high school students and their parents will be charting academic loads for the coming year. Take a hard look, said Pope, and re-think the decision to take three Advanced Placement classes and go out for football.

"Look at what the child is excited and passionate about," she said. "Look at the sleep needs. Teenagers need nine and a half hours of sleep a night and most of them are getting seven or under."

Pope's "SOS: Stressed-Out Students Project" works with parents and schools -- most recently at Miramonte, Acalanes and Carondolet high schools -- to lower campus stress levels. And some things are changing. The Acalanes district, for example, just announced it was changing its semester finals schedule. The intense two-hour exams will start an hour later each day, so students can sleep a little more. Superintendent Jim Negri told parents the move was designed "to alleviate student fatigue and stress."

But it's not just school. The competitive sports, music lessons and extra-curricular clubs that are supposed to provide enrichment and exercise are stressing out a third of the kids, according to the study. Bay Area parents were concerned about the stress, but more than half -- 54 percent -- said their children still had the "right amount" of unscheduled time. Another quarter felt their kids had more than enough.

But Coyle believes down time and family time are critical for kids. The Concord family dines together five or six nights a week, and her children -- 12-year-old twins Allison and Chris, and 9-year-old triplets Matthew, Megan and Sarah study together every afternoon, with Coyle nearby in case they need help.

They do scouts. One's a violinist. One's a thespian. And they all play some kind of sport, but Coyle tries to limit athletics to one team per kid per year. Summers are spent playing, not swimming laps.

"I think it's good to not have every minute planned," she said. "I'm real big on getting outside and playing with friends -- down time when they can do what they want, ride their bike, play golf. And I think the way we help our kids most is by spending time with them."

That's key, said Renner. Ask a child point blank how it's going and he's likely to brush it off with a curt "fine." Kids, particularly middle school students, don't want anyone to know things are not okay, said Renner. But important information emerges when you're "talking," not "Having a Talk."

The one "greatest intervention" said Renner and a score more experts, is dining as a family. There's nothing magic about the cuisine or the dinner hour -- breakfast works too. It's the regularly scheduled togetherness that does the trick.

The Packard survey weighs parent perceptions of their children's feelings, said Renner, but now it's time to found out what children really think. Start with your own.

[Roscoe_Beedle]

And don't believe any of it. Special Interest physchiatric groups wanting to put the kids on the couch for $$

But unfortunately, the public schools will fall all over themselves catering to childfren's "mental health issues". And once again we will have a load of kids who can't read properly.

Best thing to do: Put your kid in private school.

[Marko]

It's all connected, RB...self-esteem and self-image and overall happiness are building blocks, the academic stuff comes after that.

You think it's a conspiracy by psych groups? Come on...you dismiss years of research and work by a legit foundation with "oh, that's a conspiracy!"

And private schools are one option, but they have their own challenges with unhappy kids...there is no magic answer, other than parents perhaps addressing real lacks their kids have, and that is perhaps a bit intimidating for parents because often they think this shows their weaknesses...and also, the work demands that some schools put on their kids? Wow, truly frightening, especially on kids that are uncomfy in their own skin...

A balance of work demands and personal growth has to be struck from the lowest grades on up...

[Roscoe_Beedle]

I raised my kids, I know this stuff. And I know BS when I see it.

Telling kids they have a problem only convinces these kids they do. I never said this was a conspiracy, read my earlier comments. But it is a play to gain funding for mental health "experts".

This whole article of yours is a testament to the Weak leading the Impressionable. Kids are quite resisilient by nature. If everytime some kid feels tired or overwhelmed you run them into a psychologoist's office you'll end up with weak minded adults unable to cope with anything.

Take it from someone who went through public schools and sent my kids through public schools. This is all typical crap from eggheads in upper management.

[Marko]

You raised your kids, and know this stuff...so the concerns of 1,800 parents should vanish?

No one is telling the kids they have a problem, but a survey of 1,800 parents shows that many parents think there are problems...but we should ignore this based on your experiences?

You make some pretty broad statements, about this being a play to gain funding for "experts", about running kids into pysch's offices "everytime (sic)" they feel tired or overwhelmed, about eggheads in upper management...polemic statements indeed, but I guess you have the right to your opinion and to stir it up...meanwhile, is it just possible these 1,800 surveyed parents' concerns are accurate?

Maybe you have some parenting advice for them? Let's you and I start a buisiness, "Roscoe's Tips for Successful Parenting"....seems like your obvious skills and tough-love leadership is really needed at this trying time!

[Roscoe_Beedle]

The one "greatest intervention" said Renner and a score more experts, is dining as a family. There's nothing magic about the cuisine or the dinner hour -- breakfast works too. It's the regularly scheduled togetherness that does the trick.

There's your answer. Call it tough love but it works many times better than mental health experts flocking around children. Even they admit it in this article.

I've seen these type of 'surveys" before. They prove nothing and are usually slanted. The schools are there to teach. Best they keep to that mission.

[Unions Were Good]

Children's mental health IS important. Just seems to me it should have been on a separate and new thread.

Easier to blame the union? Not really blaming. Just publicizing things they will never publicize themselves and run contrary to the benefit our kids.

Heck, union leaders have three overriding goals: #1 Increase Membership -(and ensure a job for the union leaders) I agree that having smaller classrooms are a benefit - but let's not kid ourselves, the teacher's union pushed for this so there would be more teachers. That it was beneficial to our kids is only a coincidence. # 2 Goal: Retention (or avoid losing members - thus tenure). A distant #3 Goal is to enhance benefits and pay...but that's really only because of #1 and #2. If teachers would achieve even higher wages without the union - the union would not be needed. So the union has to keep the pedal to the floor to avoid getting voted out. It's not just greed - it's self preservation for union leaders.

Teachers have nothing to complain about with their pro-rated salary and tenured positions. In a market economy they could always seek more elsewhere. Plenty of folks would step up to replace them. But the veterans won't leave. They prefer to strike or threaten one for even more pay, benefits, blah, blah.

And guess who loses out when they do that? And next time they do strike, keep this thought in mind: The teacher's union are not prioritizing kids, only themselves.

[Aion]

that most of these "mental health experts" have a hard-on for getting as many kids on prescription drugs, to make than more "manageable" and "adjusted" as possible.

[Mica]

Teacher groups are not happy in San Mateo. SMUHS district teachers recently had a vote of no-confidence in their superintendent. Apparently a trustee was a recipient of a death threat one year because of no pay increase.

I think rank in file would make a stronger point if their salary scales were made public. Make their pension plans public, too. Show folks how poverty-stricken our poor, poor teachers are.

They never will. Know why? When folks see that a BS-level degreed teacher can make $ 80,000 working for a total of only NINE MONTHS a year, the public will not be so sympathetic.

Or when folks realize that these same teachers can retire much earlier than we do and receive more monies at age 55 with their generous union pension than we could at age 67 with our mandatory Social Security (public employees are not mandated to participate in SS - why? It stinks).

Perhaps folks who were laid off in the private sector won't have much sympathy to folks who expect automatic increases regardless of merit.

Nope folks. These are realities your local teacher's groups don't want publicized. They'd rather blame administration for all the budget woes. If I'm mistaken...somebody, anybody please clarify by disclosing ALL the facts about our district's Number One expenditure: Teacher salaries and pensions.

More perspective: Understand that most property tax payers earn less money than what most teachers earn for their "full time" jobs. Pro-rate whatever salary over 12 months and you'll see what I mean.

This poster sounds like a sour apple. Here's why:

1. The poster says teachers make $80,000 annually working nine months a year. A portion of that statement may be true; some may make $80,000 a year after working 20-25 years for the same district. What's wrong with that? Engineers, accountants and mid level managers who have equal education make more. But as for working nine months a year - hardly! It's more like 10 months, and within that 10 months, teachers tend to work 60 hour work weeks. (I, as a teacher in Sacramento County, do.) Teaching is extremely intense.

2. The poster complains that teachers don't have to participate in Social Security. Yes, that's true, but why should I or any other teacher participate when we won't be able to collect? I am a mid career level teacher, and I worked in the private enterprise system for 13 years. I won't be able to collect more than 20% of my Social Security earnings, because I have CAL STRS. As for CAL STRS, I pay 8 percent annually into the pension system.

3. Of course teacher salaries and pensions are any district's No. 1 expenditure. That's because education is a people business, and teachers have the greatest number of positions in any district, as they should have, since they are the ones teaching the kids.

4. Most of these automatic increases in a teacher's salary have to do with the fact that teachers' salaries start out much lower than similarly educated college graduates. Mine was $29K in 1998. But after 15 years, increases generally stop (except for cost of living increases to help their salaries stay pace with inflation) and don't increase until longevity raises kick in (at 25 years).

5. Instead of griping about teacher pensions vs. private sector pensions and trying to cut the former to equal the latter, fight harder for private sector pensions.

I used to work as a newspaper reporter and used to think I had a stressful job until I became a teacher. Then I learned what stress really was. Try teaching about 150 teenagers, some of whom are violent and disaffected, others disrespectful and spoiled, to care about reading and writing. It's a constant struggle to keep today's teens engaged in their studies, when all they want to do is sleep, play video games, surf on their My Space accounts or skateboard. During the school year, I work 6-7 days a week, and I also teach summer school.

This poster should walk a mile in my shoes before he or she complains.

[Roscoe_Beedle]

You carefully sidestepped the premise of Merit pay. You also carefully avoided any reference to incompetent teahers. Both are alarming valid arguments.

And the stress argument is ridiculous. Most of the workforce is not employed as teachers. Yet stress is prevalent throughout. Why raise it only for teachers? To further an argument? You could only do that if stress was not so universally a part of everyone's daily work experience.

Having been involved closely with my children's education I can state without reservation that teachers have a great gig. When I hear these arguments that they are not well paid or deserve so much more I can only say what everyone else generally lives with: Get another job. Other "professional job types have to actually produce something tangible to reach high level of pay. Yet the teacher's unions resist all calls for performance based evaluation and dismissal.