Assigned Reading

I understand the gravity of Rhode Island’s financial woes. And I realize that dramatic change in the way we do business is necessary to restore our financial well-being. So much of our tax dollars now go directly to salaries and benefits of state and municipal employees. I think about this often as I drive over roads in miserable condition or pass by decaying school buildings. In the 20th century we invested in the infrastructure of our cities and our country, and in the 21st century we cannot even afford to maintain them, never mind modernize or expand.

It is difficult, however, not to think of my own financial future. I did not become a school teacher for the pay, or the benefits, or even the summer vacations. I became a teacher because I love working with kids, and the satisfaction that comes with seeing and helping kids grow. I’ve been teaching long enough to now know former students as adults. It is amazing to see their successes, and who they have become: professionals, parents, soldiers, citizens. Each provides further evidence that, professionally, I chose the right path.

I cannot, and will not, teach forever. Like everyone else, there will come a time when retirement will be the best option. I have contributed nine percent of my income each year towards a state pension that will enable me to retire when the time was right.

And so, as we discuss pension reform in Rhode Island, I have, literally, a vested interest. I understand that our current pension system is unsustainable. Changes must be made to protect the financial condition of the state and its taxpayers. For too long the pension system was abused, with people retiring too early and buying years in the system they did not earn. Unfortunately I will have to pay for these abuses. I wonder if my fellow teachers, and state employees, realize the union brethren that came before us were the abusers, and that we will suffer because of it.

It is crucial everyone understand one thing: I do not pay into the Social Security system.

Teachers in my community, and several others, contribute to the pension system instead of Social Security. We protect these pensions like it is all we got, because it is.

We need to discuss pension reform. But we should be cautious and deliberate, and understand people’s lives depend on it. I hear some of my fellow conservatives talk about pension reform as union punishment. The unions deserve to be taken to the woodshed. However, the teachers who have invested a significant portion of their income over the years also deserve a fair and reasonable retirement.

I had great hopes for General Treasurer Frank Caprio. He seems a reasonable man, both politically and financially. I thought Caprio would develop a compromise that protects the financial condition of the state while fairly treating teachers and state employees. Today’s opinion piece by the treasurer suggests otherwise. In it he touts what he has done, but not much of what he will do as governor. Despite the columns’s title, “Time for public pension reform in R.I.,” Caprio offers only this as to reform:

As a member of the House Pension Commission, I also advanced a proposal that Rhode Island move to a hybrid plan modeled after the federal government’s retirement plan. This plan would reduce future pension benefits by half, add a cost-effective 401(k)-style plan, and save the state billions of dollars over the next 20 years. This solution is a pivotal part of my platform for governor.

More words are spent defending himself against criticisms from the state Republican chairman than addressing pension reform. I found nothing about pension reform on his campaign website. A two-page plan on the General Treasurer site is more confusing than informative, and lacks any significant detail.

Mr. Caprio and all the candidates for governor must outline in detail their plans for state pension reform. And they must do so in language that all Rhode Islanders can understand. Union leaders must be open-minded and considerate when discussing these reforms. And taxpayers must understand, whether they like it or not, they have committed to these employees a fair and reasonable retirement pension.

I fear the worst, but hope for compromise. My future certainly depends upon it.

The failure of the Stanford New Schools‘ charter is significant to the school reform debate. Expected to establish a model for educating low-income minorities, the East Palo Alto Academy instead ranked in the bottom five percent of schools in the state. The school board denied a charter renewal, and the elementary school will close at the end of this school year. The high school must find a sponsor other than Stanford if it hopes to remain open.

The most well-known name associated with the school is Linda Darling-Hammond, a Stanford professor and one of the most progressive of reformers. Darling-Hammond had been considered a short-list choice for Secretary of Education before President Obama named Arne Duncan.

Joanne Jacobs, in her Pajamas Media column, outlines the school’s focus on social, rather than academic, development. Stanford’s original partner, Aspire, now runs its own school, East Palo Alto Charter. This school serves kids from the same community and with the same demographics, yet has been successful and ranks above the state average. The difference? Aspire claims to focus on academics above all else.

The need to address students’ social concerns should not be dismissed outright because of this one school’s failure. But the differences between the results of these two schools is revealing, and deserves further study.

One thing appears to be true. Theories promoted by the smartest thinkers at the most important universities don’t always translate into best practice. Even if it’s Stanford.

Decisions like this one made by a Georgia middle school principal are what damage the reputation of public schools. Freshly out of prison and needing to do community service, rapper T.I. made an appearance at an assembly at Woodland Middle School in Henry County.

Still on probation for attempting to illegally purchase firearms, T.I. urged the students to stay in school and study. Undoubtedly the kids were thrilled to see such a celebrity, and perhaps his message will resonate.

But the real issue is that parents were not informed that a convicted felon, still on probation, would be a visitor to their children’s school. One parent, through e-mail, complained to the principal, and said he would have preferred an option; he didn’t believe his daughter should have attended the assembly.

Rather than attempt to show understanding for the parent’s concerns, or to consider making changes for future assemblies, the principal offered this snarky response:

I thought about asking a guy who snorted cocaine and got arrested for DUI when he was 30 to come and speak to our kids, but President George W. Bush was not available.

Not only was this principal, Dr. Terry Oatts, condescending to the parent, but incredibly disrespectful to the former president. This principal’s judgment certainly comes in to question.

The principal got to meet T.I., and introduce his celebrity “friend” to the student body. One wonders if, amongst all the incredible role models that could address students, this is why Dr. Oatts invited the musician.

Public schools do need to change the way they address behavioral concerns in the classrooms. The singular approach of positive reinforcement does not, alone, solve many behavioral issues. Most teachers would agree that behaviorally-challenged students take significant time away from instruction, to the detriment of those well-mannered students ready to learn.

But this is not the solution.

In an era when students talk back to teachers, skip class and wear ever-more-risque clothing to school, one central Texas city has hit upon a deceptively simple solution: Bring back the paddle.

The in-school suspension model is effective. Alternative placement for more severe behavioral concerns is also necessary. Both require additional staff, and therefore cost money. It’s a tough order in these economic times. But it’s far better than hitting kids.

Photos from the Rhode Island Tea Party at the State House in Providence:

It’s not often that I find myself on the same side as our state’s teachers unions. But their efforts to kill a statewide 15% health insurance contribution for teachers were correct, even if their motives were not.

I think teachers, and any other employee, should contribute to the cost of health insurance. When something is free, there are no incentives to use it wisely. And with the excessive costs of healthcare and insurance, it’s unreasonable to expect taxpayers to foot the entire bill for educators and other public employees.

But I believe in small government, and local decision-making. While the healthcare contribution is reasonable, the power grab by the state government is not. If we allow the state to usurp local control even on an issue that seems just, we lose the small government argument.

Contracts are negotiated by local councils and school committees, and municipal taxpayers pay the bills. They should take a stand and demand greater health insurance contributions from teachers and municipal employees.

The state should worry about its own business, like fixing our decaying road and bridges, as an example.

Arlene Violet, in her latest Valley Breeze opinion piece, bemoans Rhode Island’s loss of federal RTTT funds. And while there may be several reasons our state came up short, Violet heaps the most significant blame on the teachers unions. It is true that the winning states had the support of all, or nearly all, the teachers unions. Delaware boasted 100% approval, and Tennessee 97%. Rhode Island, in comparison, had support from just 5% of the union affiliations.

Judging by past performance, one can conclude that it remains an open question if the local unions will reload their rifles again and shoot themselves in the metatarsus. If they do all their protestations of how much they care about the children it will be greeted by a chorus of well-deserved boos.

Will unions be more cooperative for the next round of fund allocation? I doubt it. And the “well-deserve boos” will get louder.

Rhode Island’s unions show no signs of any progressive thinking. They remain mired in a collective bargaining model that has quickly become antiquated. Union leaders tried the old give-and-take with an East Providence that literally had nothing to give. When the union walked away and allowed the contract to expire, the city unilaterally cut salaries and increased health insurance contributions. And the courts, which traditionally have been sympathetic to labor, gave the city a first round victory.

In Central Falls, union leaders balked at extra work to improve a seriously failing high school. Using federal law as its authority, the city fired every teacher at the high school. As the end of the school year approaches, teachers will have to grovel to keep their jobs, extra work and all.

It should be clear to everyone that the days of high spending, labor-centric policy are over. The limits have been reached, even surpassed, and the unions will need to prioritize if they hope to have any influence at all. Unions should compromise on minor issues, like a seven hour work day or a few extra days during the summer months, and focus on the major ones. The call for pension reform is real, and undoubtedly on the horizon. For the many teachers who pay nearly a tenth of their income into the system, and have no social security to rely on, pension changes are frightening.

Unions must reserve some influence, and reputation, to advocate for teachers when it matters most.