The facts behind the teacher strikes

This spring has been marked by a remarkable phenomenon: the first statewide teacher strikes in recent memory. The strikes have been greeted with glowing press coverage and a remarkable degree of public support. After starting in West Virginia, things spread to Kentucky, Oklahoma, and most recently to Arizona and Colorado. Given all the claims and confusion surrounding these developments, it’s worth taking a moment to explain what’s going on, why both teachers and taxpayers have valid complaints, and how understanding all this can help point the way forward.

First off, the teachers have a legitimate concern. Teacher pay is mediocre for college-educated professionals, and has fallen over time. Teacher pay declined by two percent in real terms (after adjusting for inflation) between 1992 and 2014. According to data tracked by the National Education Association (NEA), in 2016–2017, the most recent year for which data are available, average teacher pay nationally was $59,660. In the states where teachers have walked out, average pay is generally substantially lower than that. For instance, Kentucky’s teachers rank 29th nationally at $52,338; Arizona’s teachers 44th at $47,403; West Virginia’s 49th, at $45,555; and Oklahoma’s 50th, at $45,292.

Second, the notion that stingy taxpayers are to blame for stagnant teacher pay is hard to credit — despite frenzied media coverage suggesting just that. Now, it’s wholly true that Arizona has modestly cut school spending over the past decade and that Oklahoma’s per-pupil spending is flat over that same span, but the notion that taxpayers are defunding schools is just wrong. Indeed, in the two-plus decades between 1992 and 2014, even as teacher salaries declined across the land by two percent, inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending actually grew by 27 percent. In Kentucky and West Virginia, over that same period, teacher pay fell by three percent even as real per-pupil spending increased by more than 35 percent. In Oklahoma, over that same stretch, a 26-percent increase in real per-pupil spending translated only into a four-percent salary boost for teachers. As Grant Addison and I have noted in the case of West Virginia, “If teacher salaries had simply increased at the same rate as per-pupil spending, teacher salaries would have increased more than $17,000 since 1992 — to an average of more than $63,000 today.”

Third, teachers have raced to defend two of the big culprits responsible for their stagnant pay: costly employee benefits packages and added ranks of non-instructional staff. Even as teachers are frustrated by their take-home pay, their total compensation is a lot higher than many realize. That’s because teacher retirement and health-care benefits are far more generous than those of the taxpayers who pay for them. As former Obama-administration official Chad Aldeman has observed, “While the average civilian employee receives $1.78 for retirement benefits per hour of work, public school teachers receive $6.22 per hour in retirement compensation.” Between 2003 and 2014, even as teacher salaries declined, per-teacher average benefits spending increased from $14,000 to $21,000 — much of which goes to paying down pension debt rather than benefits for current teachers. In the case of Kentucky, where teachers have been fighting pension reform, Aldeman has calculated that if the state wasn’t forced to spend vast sums paying down pension debt, teacher salaries would be $11,400 higher today. There’s a big disconnect; taxpayers see dollars flowing out of their wallets, but current teachers don’t see those funds showing up in their paychecks.

Meanwhile, as organizations add employees, it becomes harder to pay them all well. Yet, in West Virginia, while student enrollment fell by 12 percent between 1992 and 2014, the number of non-teaching staff actually grew by ten percent. The story is similar in other strike states: In Kentucky, over that same stretch, enrollment grew by seven percent while the non-teaching workforce grew at nearly six times that rate — by a remarkable 41 percent. And Oklahoma saw a 17-percent growth in enrollment accompanied by a 36-percent increase in non-teaching staff. Nationally, while student enrollment grew 20 percent over that period, non-teaching staff grew by 47 percent. While some of these hires can represent a good investment, many represent little more than administrative bloat — and their sheer numbers soak up dollars that could otherwise fund teacher pay.

While it’s not unreasonable to argue that we should have increased school spending in recent years more than we have, it’s a mistake to blame stagnant teacher pay on a lack of taxpayer support. If teachers want sustainable pay increases and more than stopgap Band-Aids, school spending needs to be tackled in a way that addresses the concerns of teachers, taxpayers, and students. The contours of such a deal aren’t that hard to see, though they’re far tougher to enact.

SOURCE 






Congress: On September 26, the Committee on the Education and the Workforce, chaired by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), held a hearing to examine First Amendment rights on college campuses

“All of education, but especially postsecondary institutions, have a duty to develop students’ problem-solving skills. By encouraging students to engage in civil discourse and challenge their own perceptions, they sharpen their analytical skills so that they are prepared to lead the workforce once they graduate,” said Chairwoman Foxx in her opening statement. “But many institutions are taking deliberate steps to curb speech, and are thus extinguishing students’ critical thinking at a vital stage in their professional — yes, professional — development.”

The First Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens’ individual liberties, chief among them the freedom of speech.  However, freedom of speech on university campuses has increasingly come under partisan attack.

“Somewhere over the past two decades, the land of the free has become the home of the easily offended,” Ken Paulson, dean of the College of Media and Entertainment at Middle Tennessee State University, told members. 

Paulson continued, “You can’t shout down a speaker if you truly understand how diversity of opinions have bolstered our democracy. You can’t censor students or their media if you understand what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the first generation of Americans meant by freedom of the press. You can’t try to zone protests off your campus if you appreciate the value of petition and assembly.”

In fact, Joseph Cohn, the Legislative and Policy Director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), testified that these very rights are being trampled at postsecondary institutions across the country.

“Far too many universities—about one in ten, according to our most recent survey—have ‘free speech zones,’ which limit rallies, demonstrations, distribution of literature, petition circulation, and speeches to small and/or out-of-the-way parts of campus,” Cohn said. “Some schools even require students to inform university administrators in advance that they intend to engage in expressive activity, even going so far as to require university permission for such activities.”

When Zachary Wood was a student at Williams College, he presided over the student group “Uncomfortable Learning” that aimed to confront inflammatory topics head-on. However, when Wood invited a provocative speaker to campus with the intent of challenging the speaker’s rhetoric, the Williams College president shut the event down.

Wood testified to members, “I believe a college education should challenge students to grapple with unsettling ideas. I believe America’s colleges should foster critical thinking, exemplify the pursuit of knowledge, and help prepare students to contribute meaningfully to society. I believe a college campus should be conducive to challenging conversations about pressing issues of our time.”

Campus free speech is not a partisan issue. In a 2018 Gallup survey, the majority of college students reported they believe that speech is being stifled on campus. Upholding students’ First Amendment rights is critical to our democracy, and the Committee on Education and the Workforce will continue to examine the evolving postsecondary education landscape and ensure that students’ freedoms and individual liberties on campus are upheld.

SOURCE 






Brighton University slammed over Sex Workers’ Outreach Project stall

A SCANDAL has engulfed a UK university after it was accused of encouraging students to turn to prostitution to pay their bills.

The furore started when Brighton University in southern England hosted it’s annual fair for new undergraduate students.

The fair featured stalls representing a number of student groups as well as other external organisations, including the Sex Workers’ Outreach Project Sussex (SWOP).

During the event, SWOP distributed condoms, lubricant and flyers to students — as well as handing out underwear prizes — and also provided advice on how to get into sex work.

And in several tweets promoting the group’s attendance at the fair, it posted: “1 in 6 students does sex work or thinks about turning to sex work. We can help.”

It also tweeted: “If you’re topping up your fees with sex work, or struggling to balance work and studies, or want to talk and don’t know where to go... we’re here for you. We respect your autonomy, privacy and confidentiality.”

The group describes itself as “a discreet and confidential trans inclusive service for women working in the sex industry who live or work in Sussex.”

Included in the information were tips on “safer escorting”, including: “If you don’t have anyone to look out for you, fake it! “Make your punter think that someone else knows where you are. “Pretend to make a call... to make it look like you are confirming your arrival... put men’s shoes or clothes out.”

Since the festival, the university has been slammed for allowing the group to promote itself to students, with some accusing the campus of promoting and normalising sex work.

Law reform group Justice for Women co-founder Julie Bindel said the stall was “beyond disgraceful”. “It makes me so angry that the sex trade’s become normalised and pimped to women as though it is a harmless and respectable way to earn a living,” Ms Bindel posted on Twitter. Other social media users described the stall as “disgusting”, “appalling” and “sad”.

As the outrage unfolded, SWOP defended it’s position on Twitter, posting: “SWOP have never idealised sex work. However, we understand why students may turn to sex work, and navigating the legal precariousness as well as potential danger mean that students are extra vulnerable and we will help.”

But a University of Brighton spokesman told The Guardian it would launch an investigation into the incident. He said the institution “does not promote sex work to its students”.

SOURCE