[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The state is purchasing a service (teaching). It is in the states interest to fill that service by providing the best value for the taxpayers. Why would the state purposely put themselves at a disadvantage in doing so? Your entire argument is that the state should give the side they are purchasing the service from an advantage out of the kindness of their heart.

It has nothing to do with the kindness of their hearts. It has everything to do with the fact that the actions of the State of Wisconsin do not happen in a vacuum. Wisconsin can strip bargaining rights from teachers, but it cannot inhibit their mobility - and especially not the mobility of the best teachers. They will be in demand anywhere they choose to go. The ones who get stuck holding the bill are the ones that, allegedly, the state should most be seeking to get rid of. The ones who will roll over and take it are the ones who don't have the same options.

The state should be seeking to maximize the utility of tax dollars spent, but that is not the same thing as "spend the least amount possible" on whatever it happens to be. I already illustrated upthread one area where trying to skimp ultimately cost the state more than the savings it thought it realized. A drought of quality teachers is not something you can just hire a construction firm to work overtime for six weeks to fix.

You want to get the best bang for your buck, but that is not the same thing as 'spend the absolute minimum necessary to do the job.'

And teachers do have the ultimate bargaining power. They can choose not to work as a teacher in that state. And if the state feels they can't bring in the talent they want, they can raise the salaries and benefits till they reach their goal. This is something the taxpayers should be deciding with their vote.

You just made my point. The teachers who are in demand can leave, and will leave. The ones left behind will be of inferior quality, and the state's education system will suffer. The damage may not be immediately noticeable. But it will be cumulative. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say it's a generational fix. If those of us who oppose(d) Act 10 are correct and this is bad for Wisconsin's educational system, you cannot fix this overnight. This is the ultimate in high-stakes poker with the state's educational system. Giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they really believe this will improve the educational system, Walker and the GOP are betting big that these changes won't have the negative impact opponents of Act 10 believe. There's no soft landing here. Either Walker et al are right, and 20 years from now they get to say "we told you so," or they're wrong, and repairing the damage will take a generation or more. "Throwing money at" the schools at some point down the road won't repair the loss of quality teachers the state has had in the interim, or the decision by students entering college not to enter the teaching profession because of the state's adversarial attitude towards teachers. This is not as simple as "push a button, get a response."

But in the meantime, yes, the best teachers can, and will, seek other opportunities. Maybe those will be in states that value education. Maybe those opportunities will be in other countries. And once you lose them, you're not getting them back. It's the same on the national level with science funding. If you cut funding, scientists will go where the funding is, and that's a generational loss.

What metric is that? You're still #2 in ACT test scores. Been at #2 for years with no signs of dropping (you're even up a little from last year!). So where are you seeing this drop?

I compared the NEA's most recent ranking data with that available the year Walker took office. In 2011, the ranking data available had 952,000 school-aged children in Wisconsin. and about 872,000 enrolled in public schools. 66,603 students graduated from Wisconsin public high schools. If you divide 872k by 13 (K-12), you get about 67,070 students who would be expected to be of age to graduate. You can't assume even distribution across all grades, but we're simplifying here. That's about a 99% graduation rate.

The most recent data from the NEA has 967k school-aged children in Wisconsin. Public school enrollment was about 874k, or essentially static despite the growth in the school-age population (Governor Walker and his allies in the Legislature have been pushing for vouchers for religious and charter education, and while I don't have data as to how popular that's been, that is one possible explanation for why public school enrollment has remained effectively flat despite population growth).

The number of public high school graduates? 60,687. If you divide 874k by 13, you get ~67,230 students you would expect to be high school seniors.

ACT scores are the ultimate in self-selected samples. There are various ACT exams applied throughout high school in Wisconsin, but the scores reported for the averages are generally going to be those scores from the exams taken by prospective college students. Thus, that's not the best example of a healthy educational system. The kids who are going to college are going to take the ACT or SAT regardless, and so you would expect scores to remain reasonably high in that subset. Kids who drop out or who otherwise are not on a graduation track don't necessarily take those exams. If there is greater distress there, it won't show up in ACT scores.

15,000 additional school-age children in Wisconsin, so this (probably) isn't a case of the most recent senior year just being a blip in birthrates. 17 years ago would be 1998, when the economy was still strong. That's not a candidate for a year when parents would go "gosh, we can't afford to have children."

This probably isn't a case of this year's senior class being 10% smaller in size than four years ago. If anything, any reduction in graduating class sizes would come from children born since 2008, who haven't yet matriculated high enough to where we would expect to see a drop in the number of eligible high school seniors. But we HAVE seen a 9% drop in the number of eligible high school seniors who actually graduated. There could be any number of factors in play here, and they may be interlocking, but that number speaks much more loudly to me about the health of Wisconsin's educational system than ACT scores remaining static.

The average teacher salary in Wisconsin was right around $55,000 a year. That was 19th or 21st in the country depending on who's estimates you go with. That doesn't account for the average of $23,000 in benefits that are also included in their compensation package. That's $78,000 in compensation for your average teacher in the state of Wisconsin. And remember, Wisconsin has a lower cost of living than most states making that money stretch even more.

Please let me know where the part-time retail jobs are that are offering up compensation packages in the $78,000 a year range.

This is why I asked you to define your terms. "Average" is misleading, because it will account for teachers in places like Madison and Milwaukee, where the cost of living is higher.

That includes administrators, who are paid somewhat better than regular teachers; that includes experienced teachers, who will not necessarily be reflective of the "usual" experience in a district; and even if they're getting $23k in benefits universally (benefits presumably being one area we might expect some level of equality of experience), there are districts in Wisconsin where total compensation is around $50k once you add those $23k in benefits. That's...about what you'd expect in terms of take-home from full-time retail work.

Anecdotally, the offered pay I've seen for teacher openings in Ashwaubenon, when made public, has been in the $19,000/year range for new teachers. How long do they have to teach to get from $19k to the total compensation package of $78k you cite? Good question.

I'm also not arguing that the state should nickel and dime teachers. I'm simply saying that neutering the union is a benefit for the state and it's taxpayers. It eliminates and obstacle and increases their flexibility. Sucks if you're a union employee, but not if you're a taxpayer. Walker represents the taxpayer.

Union employees don't also pay taxes? Their taxes are somehow less equal than the taxes non-public employees pay?

Is this where I should point out that exempting the first responders from the affected public employee unions affected by Act 10 could be considered a 14th Amendment issue?