Wisconsin School District Turns $400,000 Deficit Into $1.5 Million Surplus

Union curbs rescue a Wisconsin school district shows that getting rid of the collective bargaining for teachers has been a boon for at least one school district in Wisconsin.

In the past, Kaukauna's agreement with the teachers union required the school district to purchase health insurance coverage from something called WEA Trust -- a company created by the Wisconsin teachers union. "It was in the collective bargaining agreement that we could only negotiate with them," says Arnoldussen. "Well, you know what happens when you can only negotiate with one vendor." This year, WEA Trust told Kaukauna that it would face a significant increase in premiums.

Now, the collective bargaining agreement is gone, and the school district is free to shop around for coverage. And all of a sudden, WEA Trust has changed its position. "With these changes, the schools could go out for bids, and lo and behold, WEA Trust said, 'We can match the lowest bid,'" says Republican state Rep. Jim Steineke, who represents the area and supports the Walker changes. At least for the moment, Kaukauna is staying with WEA Trust, but saving substantial amounts of money.Union curbs rescue a Wisconsin school district

It appears that the union was making tons of money off of taxpayers due to being the only one allowed to offer health insurance to the teachers. No wonder the teachers union was so up in arms over the loss of collective bargaining rights for teachers, they were standing to loose all that free money.

There is also other benefits, having teachers work a full day and work week means that cIass sizes are shrinking.

perhaps if actual bargaining was happening this wouldn't have happened.

It's sad that even this article won't persuade people in the right direction. I am pretty sure it is one of the primary concepts of macroeconomics that a free market without government influence produces the greatest economic efficiency.

watch as the quality of teachers in that states drops dramatically.

watch as the quality of teachers in that states drops dramatically.

CaveJohnson1

watch as the quality of teachers in that states drops dramatically.

CaveJohnson1

By having money to reward teachers for hard work?

watch as the quality of teachers in that states drops dramatically.

CaveJohnson1

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

watch as the quality of teachers in that states drops dramatically.

DroidPhysX

perhaps if actual bargaining was happening this wouldn't have happened.

Serraph105

That's the thing, unions do not want to bargain, especially if it fills their coffers.

I was a member of the student council at my high school once and attended many meetings down at City Hall with the local education authorities over funding cuts two years ago. The union refused to budge on anything! The union man there refused to even talk about rescinding raises for the next year, even though the superintendent and all of her cronies accepted a 3% pay cut for the next academic year.

Since then, I have concluded that the death of America's education system can be tied mostly to corrupt unions who blackmail public officials (through elections) into bankrupting the state's coffers for their own benefits. And who suffers? The taxpayers and the children being served.

If it were up to me, the rights of teachers' unions everywhere would be curtailed significantly.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

perhaps if actual bargaining was happening this wouldn't have happened.

WhiteKnight77

That's the thing, unions do not want to bargain, especially if it fills their coffers.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

perhaps if actual bargaining was happening this wouldn't have happened.

Serraph105

That's the thing, unions do not want to bargain, especially if it fills their coffers.

The_Capitalist's replybacks up what I and the linked article was saying.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

watch as the quality of teachers in that states drops dramatically.

CaveJohnson1

There's more teachers than teacher jobs available...obviously a lot of people want to be teachers.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] How? :?SpartanMSU

There's more teachers than teacher jobs available...obviously a lot of people want to be teachers.

Right? I hear about people who majored in education at my university going out West to find jobs. And Teach for America isn't exactly easy to get into either.

Educational training in this country is a joke. It's for the kids who want to major in something "real," like engineering or business, but do not want to put in a similar level of effort. The average GPA over at the school of education at my university is a 3.6. Compared with a university-wide average of 3.2.

Aside from pretty much destroy unions that bargin with public money (which is an outrage) we need to increase our education budget. I always hear about more spending for healthcare, for medicare, for welfare, for social security, all of which don't help our nations future at any measurable length compared to that of education.

If I heard that welfare and social security spending was going to be shifted into education along with a small tax increase, I would be much less opposed to it than expanding benifits to people.

We need to increase our education so we don't have to increase benifits to future generations.

Aside from pretty much destroy unions that bargin with public money (which is an outrage) we need to increase our education budget. I always hear about more spending for healthcare, for medicare, for welfare, for social security, all of which don't help our nations future at any measurable length compared to that of education.

If I heard that welfare and social security spending was going to be shifted into education along with a small tax increase, I would be much less opposed to it than expanding benifits to people.

We need to increase our education so we don't have to increase benifits to future generations.

Wasdie

I disagree completely.

Once we curtail the unions, we will have much more money to spend on education.

It's sad that even this article won't persuade people in the right direction. I am pretty sure it is one of the primary concepts of macroeconomics that a free market without government influence produces the greatest economic efficiency.

cgi15

It's sad that even this article won't persuade people in the right direction. I am pretty sure it is one of the primary concepts of macroeconomics that a free market without government influence produces the greatest economic efficiency.

cgi15

through child labor?

[QUOTE="cgi15"]

It's sad that even this article won't persuade people in the right direction. I am pretty sure it is one of the primary concepts of macroeconomics that a free market without government influence produces the greatest economic efficiency.

-Sun_Tzu-

watch as the quality of teachers in that states drops dramatically.

CaveJohnson1

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Aside from pretty much destroy unions that bargin with public money (which is an outrage) we need to increase our education budget. I always hear about more spending for healthcare, for medicare, for welfare, for social security, all of which don't help our nations future at any measurable length compared to that of education.

If I heard that welfare and social security spending was going to be shifted into education along with a small tax increase, I would be much less opposed to it than expanding benifits to people.

We need to increase our education so we don't have to increase benifits to future generations.

airshocker

I disagree completely.

Once we curtail the unions, we will have much more money to spend on education.

What are you disagreeing with? He agrees with you on this...

Isn't Wisconsin where the government shut down for a while? If so, I'm assuming this is a result of what's been taking place there. It's nice of them to give WEA Trust another chance, but if they do something like this again, I wouldn't do business with them any longer.BranKetra

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Isn't Wisconsin where the government shut down for a while? If so, I'm assuming this is a result of what's been taking place there. It's nice of them to give WEA Trust another chance, but if they do something like this again, I wouldn't do business with them any longer.Chutebox

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="cgi15"]

It's sad that even this article won't persuade people in the right direction. I am pretty sure it is one of the primary concepts of macroeconomics that a free market without government influence produces the greatest economic efficiency.

cgi15

What are you disagreeing with? He agrees with you on this...

chessmaster1989

It didn't read like that to me, but I could be wrong. If I am, sorry Wasdie. :)

Link [quote="Linked Article"] When Anschutz started the Examiner in its current format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico.com, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz's instructions were explicit - he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee." The Examiner's conservative writers include Byron York (National Review), Michael Barone (American Enterprise Institute, Fox News), and David Freddoso (National Review, author of The Case Against Barack Obama). Conservative blogger Matthew Sheffield is in charge of the Examiner's web site.nocoolnamejim

What about the Wall Street Journal? Oh, To Be a Teacher in Wisconsin How can fringe benefits cost nearly as much as a worker's salary? Answer: collective bargaining shows what a teacher was getting before collective bargaining was removed.

The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.

•Social Security and Medicare. The employer cost is 7.65% of wages, the same as in the private sector.

•State Pension. Teachers belong to the Wisconsin state pension plan. That plan requires a 6.8% employer contribution and 6.2% from the employee. However, according to the collective-bargaining agreement in place since 1996, the district pays the employees' share as well, for a total of 13%.

•Teachers' Supplemental Pension. In addition to the state pension, Milwaukee public-school teachers receive an additional pension under a 1982 collective-bargaining agreement. The district contributes an additional 4.2% of teacher salaries to cover this second pension. Teachers contribute nothing.

•CIassfied Pension. Most other school employees belong to the city's pension system instead of the state plan. The city plan is less expensive but here, too, according to the collective-bargaining agreement, the district pays the employees' 5.5% share.
Overall, for teachers and other employees, the district's contributions for pensions and Social Security total 22.6 cents for each dollar of salary. The corresponding figure for private industry is 13.4 cents.

The divergence is greater yet for health insurance:

•Health care for current employees. Under the current collective- bargaining agreements, the school district pays the entire premium for medical and vision benefits, and over half the cost of dental coverage. These plans are extremely expensive.

This is partly because of Wisconsin's unique arrangement under which the teachers union is the sponsor of the group health-insurance plans. Not surprisingly, benefits are generous. The district's contributions for health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages. For private-sector workers nationwide, the average is 10.7%.

•Health insurance for retirees. This benefit is rarely offered any more in private companies, and it can be quite costly. This is especially the case for teachers in many states, because the eligibility rules of their pension plans often induce them to retire in their 50s, and Medicare does not kick in until age 65. Milwaukee's plan covers the entire premium in effect at retirement, and retirees cover only the growth in premiums after they retire.

As is commonly the case, the school district's retiree health plan has not been prefunded. It has been pay-as-you-go. This has been a disaster waiting to happen, as retirees grow in number and live longer, and active employment shrinks in districts such as Milwaukee.

Overall, the school district's contributions to health insurance for employees and retirees total about 50.9 cents on top of every dollar paid in wages. Together with pension and Social Security contributions, plus a few small items, one can see how the total cost of fringe benefits reaches 74.2%.WSJ

Teachers in Wisconsin were living fat off of taxpayers and still are, even with the packages they still have, but at least they are paying more into it than before.

Aside from pretty much destroy unions that bargin with public money (which is an outrage) we need to increase our education budget. I always hear about more spending for healthcare, for medicare, for welfare, for social security, all of which don't help our nations future at any measurable length compared to that of education.

If I heard that welfare and social security spending was going to be shifted into education along with a small tax increase, I would be much less opposed to it than expanding benifits to people.

We need to increase our education so we don't have to increase benifits to future generations.

Wasdie

This is where I disagree on increasing funding for education. Education is vital for our country but throwing money at it won't solve anything. The best way is to allow the states and local governments to handle education themselves and allow them to set the standards and how the money should be spent. More money doesn't equal a better education. It's how the money is spent and used that equals a better education for all.

We can learn a thing or two from various European countries who spend less but have an excellent rate of education. The reason is how it's applied. For example, tax payer money does go to the schools but the parents pick the schools they want their child(s) to go to.

It's sad that even this article won't persuade people in the right direction. I am pretty sure it is one of the primary concepts of macroeconomics that a free market without government influence produces the greatest economic efficiency.

cgi15

[QUOTE="cgi15"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Actually that is not one of the primary concepts of macroeconomics. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

watch as the quality of teachers in that states drops dramatically.

Wasdie

By having money to reward teachers for hard work?

Class performance is not the same as teacher performance.

Good for Wisconsin. While I support what unions are supposed to be on paper, this is an example of them taking advantage of their position. I hope teachers are still going to be able to earn a decent living wage even though they have limited bargaining rights.

That being said, the same abuse is possible of the state government and politicians. As they get more powerful theyWILL abuse the little guy.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="cgi15"]

Maybe we have taken differentcourses with different focuses, and I am not trying to turn this into a "you are wrong, I am right" argument, but one of the main concepts I took out ofmy coursethat deregulation increased economic efficiency, and that having less government influence created a state closer to perfect competition which also increased efficiency. Do you not agree with this or do you not think this is a macro related concept?

mattbbpl

laissez faire also assumes that the consumers make the best decisions based on logic from the perfect information that they're given, which we can pretty much throw out the window.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

watch as the quality of teachers in that states drops dramatically.

hakanakumono

By having money to reward teachers for hard work?

Class performance is not the same as teacher performance.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

By having money to reward teachers for hard work?

Chutebox

Class performance is not the same as teacher performance.

Education in general seems to be a very complicated mess, even for countries that do "well" like Japan; the performance of children is influenced by many factors and honestly addressing our education system probably isn't politically viable.

[QUOTE="Chutebox"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Class performance is not the same as teacher performance.

hakanakumono

Education in general seems to be a very complicated mess, even for countries that do "well" like Japan; the performance of children is influenced by many factors and honestly addressing our education system probably isn't politically viable.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Aside from pretty much destroy unions that bargin with public money (which is an outrage) we need to increase our education budget. I always hear about more spending for healthcare, for medicare, for welfare, for social security, all of which don't help our nations future at any measurable length compared to that of education.

If I heard that welfare and social security spending was going to be shifted into education along with a small tax increase, I would be much less opposed to it than expanding benifits to people.

We need to increase our education so we don't have to increase benifits to future generations.

leviathan91

This is where I disagree on increasing funding for education. Education is vital for our country but throwing money at it won't solve anything. The best way is to allow the states and local governments to handle education themselves and allow them to set the standards and how the money should be spent. More money doesn't equal a better education. It's how the money is spent and used that equals a better education for all.

We can learn a thing or two from various European countries who spend less but have an excellent rate of education. The reason is how it's applied. For example, tax payer money does go to the schools but the parents pick the schools they want their child(s) to go to.

The problem is when state and local governments are allowed to completely set their own standards we will have things such as school districts, or even entire states, throwing out proven science in favor of teaching things such as creationism. Some states and districts are attempting this already. Some national standards are necessary.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="Chutebox"] Yet we punish schools for bad class performance on standardized testing.Chutebox

Education in general seems to be a very complicated mess, even for countries that do "well" like Japan; the performance of children is influenced by many factors and honestly addressing our education system probably isn't politically viable.

I don't know if we have it backwards. I just think that there are many circumstances at play here and trying to employ one solution isn't going to solve many of the problems that plague schools. If there wasn't standardized testing, maybe we'd be seeing less accountable schools. It's hard to say.

perhaps if actual bargaining was happening this wouldn't have happened.

Serraph105

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

watch as the quality of teachers in that states drops dramatically.

DroidPhysX

It remains to be seen how this affects the quality of teachers long-term and the effects on the children on these schools.

The potential problem is that Wisconsin would start favoring the hiring of cheaper, inferior, less qualified teachers over more qualified teachers who deserve higher salaries.

Then, you have to consider - if you're sending your kid to one of these schools, do you want them being taught by someone who's just showing up to collect a check (aka a daytime babysitter)? Or do you want someone who seriously dedicates their lives and even their own money to teach kids?

Teachers might start passing kids who shouldn't be passed just to keep their own jobs, since you're switching to a "Reward" type of salary system.

Just something to consider.

"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wage possible." - Henry Ford

but the way people talk aroundhere you would expect it to be "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the worst quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the lowest wage possible."

that is what you get when you have a bunch of brain washed stooges asserting their untested theories on their interpretations of a market they have never laid a hand on.

It remains to be seen how this affects the quality of teachers long-term and the effects on the children on these schools.

The potential problem is that Wisconsin would start favoring the hiring of cheaper, inferior, less qualified teachers over more qualified teachers who deserve higher salaries.

Then, you have to consider - if you're sending your kid to one of these schools, do you want them being taught by someone who's just showing up to collect a check (aka a daytime babysitter)? Or do you want someone who seriously dedicates their lives and even their own money to teach kids?

Teachers might start passing kids who shouldn't be passed just to keep their own jobs, since you're switching to a "Reward" type of salary system.

Just something to consider.

Netherscourge

Well a teacher must pass certification before being allowed to even teach. This certification must be renewed every few years. At the least all teachers are on the level that the state has determined to be the minimum to teach. Your argument of teachers just showing up to get paid is actually one of the reasons why we are trying to get rid of the unions. Without the unions bad teachers cannot slack off and can be fired much quicker for doing a poor job. This will make teachers work harder to keep their jobs (like everybody else in the world) AND they will be able to get paid more. These public unions protected teachers against everything while halting wage advances and trying to put them all on some equal payscale which completely discourages teachers doing a good job.

If anything schools can now start using wages to be insentives for better teachers to applie to a district. Also without the unions sucking up massive amounts of the states money, we should see more of that going straight into the school systems and not into the pockets of the union leaders.

As said before in this thread, the public unions are impossible to work with. Only AFTER they realized they weren't going to keep their powers did they start saying they were ready to negotiate. It was way to late, the damage has been done. We need a better system. I know people think that unions amazing for the teachers but if you would have that kind of union control in a private sector business it would have gone under decades ago.

While I don't agree with the budget cuts that the education system gets, I also think the money can be managed way better than it is. This is only the first step into improving our education systems. While many people think it's an attack on families and an attack on the education system, it's actually paving the foundation for something that can be much more effective and efficent. It will just take time.

Well, one benefit of a union is that teachers are less likely to pass a kid who needs more help onto another teacher at a higher grade level to let them "deal with it".

In a union atmopsphere, there's less of a job loss threat with failing kids - not because THEY are bad kids or bad teachers, but because the kids need more help.

I know it sounds strange, but in many cases failing a kid is GOOD for them - it allows them to catch up. If you introduce a reward-style system, where success is based on kids passing and being promoted every year, then a teacher may pass the kid with a "C" just to maintain their own personal "success" quota and then the next year, the teacher who gets that kid is gonna have real issues with them. That teacher will wind up getting fired because how can you teach Geometry to a kid who can't handle basic Algebra, which he supposedly "passed" the year before?

I understand the Anti-Union debate. But the other side of the arguement is just as feasible.

Instead of teachers united with each other, it'll become a indiviudal competition with each other for higher pay and in the end, the kids will suffer.

Competition amongst teachers is not a good thing IMO. I think in the end, it's better that they are united so that they can focus on the kids and not have to worry about keeping their own jobs or maintaining some quota or whatever standard the state will expect from them.

In any other career, competition is good. But when it comes to teachers and educating our kids, I would be more careful about it.

And yes, I agree there are individuals both pro-Union and anti-Union who will just milk the system for whatever they can get. But they do not reflect the majority of teachers.

Well, one benefit of a union is that teachers are less likely to pass a kid who needs more help onto another teacher at a higher grade level to let them "deal with it".

In a union atmopsphere, there's less of a job loss threat with failing kids - not because THEY are bad kids or bad teachers, but because the kids need more help.

I know it sounds strange, but in many cases failing a kid is GOOD for them - it allows them to catch up. If you introduce a reward-style system, where success is based on kids passing and being promoted every year, then a teacher may pass the kid with a "C" just to maintain their own personal "success" quota and then the next year, the teacher who gets that kid is gonna have real issues with them. That teacher will wind up getting fired because how can you teach Geometry to a kid who can't handle basic Algebra, which he supposedly "passed" the year before?

I understand the Anti-Union debate. But the other side of the arguement is just as feasible.

Instead of teachers united with each other, it'll become a indiviudal competition with each other for higher pay and in the end, the kids will suffer.

Competition amongst teachers is not a good thing IMO. I think in the end, it's better that they are united so that they can focus on the kids and not have to worry about keeping their own jobs or maintaining some quota or whatever standard the state will expect from them.

In any other career, competition is good. But when it comes to teachers and educating our kids, I would be more careful about it.

And yes, I agree there are individuals both pro-Union and anti-Union who will just milk the system for whatever they can get. But they do not reflect the majority of teachers.

Netherscourge

There is a difference between a failing kid and a bad teacher and it's really obvious. Just because a larger group of kids is failing doesn't mean it's the teachers fault. Usually there are outside circumstances that the administration can easily see. This isn't about passing or failing kids, this is about giving the highest quality of education possible. If that means some kids must be failed that is what is going to happen. You won't see teachers artificially inflating their passed numbers because as soon as those kids to a higher level it will be blatantly obvious that the kids are not ready for it becuase of a slacking teacher.

Teachers won't be competeing like you think. It won't be a cut-throat business situation. In fact in the working world, that kind of mentaility is fading away fast because it's so counterproductive. The most successful employees are ones who do an amazing quality job, are easy to work with, and have excellent communication and teambuilding skills. Same will apply for the teachers. You'll see teachers who help other teachers to better the quality of education get more rewards than a teacher who undercuts another to get a promotion. You wouldn't measure a teachers success on how many students they can pass or how much work they can do themselves, you would measure their positive influence on every part of the school.

You're argument completely ignores modern business practices, modern communication skills, and modern work ethics. This isn't the 1800s and this isn't some movie. The real world is far different than what the media portrays in TV, movies, and even on the news.

It remains to be seen how this affects the quality of teachers long-term and the effects on the children on these schools.

The potential problem is that Wisconsin would start favoring the hiring of cheaper, inferior, less qualified teachers over more qualified teachers who deserve higher salaries.

Then, you have to consider - if you're sending your kid to one of these schools, do you want them being taught by someone who's just showing up to collect a check (aka a daytime babysitter)? Or do you want someone who seriously dedicates their lives and even their own money to teach kids?

Teachers might start passing kids who shouldn't be passed just to keep their own jobs, since you're switching to a "Reward" type of salary system.

Just something to consider.

Netherscourge

It's not a question of if this will happen but when. America already has one of the worst education systems in the 1st world, and with this 'cheaper is better' approach it will only get worse.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

Well, one benefit of a union is that teachers are less likely to pass a kid who needs more help onto another teacher at a higher grade level to let them "deal with it".

In a union atmopsphere, there's less of a job loss threat with failing kids - not because THEY are bad kids or bad teachers, but because the kids need more help.

I know it sounds strange, but in many cases failing a kid is GOOD for them - it allows them to catch up. If you introduce a reward-style system, where success is based on kids passing and being promoted every year, then a teacher may pass the kid with a "C" just to maintain their own personal "success" quota and then the next year, the teacher who gets that kid is gonna have real issues with them. That teacher will wind up getting fired because how can you teach Geometry to a kid who can't handle basic Algebra, which he supposedly "passed" the year before?

I understand the Anti-Union debate. But the other side of the arguement is just as feasible.

Instead of teachers united with each other, it'll become a indiviudal competition with each other for higher pay and in the end, the kids will suffer.

Competition amongst teachers is not a good thing IMO. I think in the end, it's better that they are united so that they can focus on the kids and not have to worry about keeping their own jobs or maintaining some quota or whatever standard the state will expect from them.

In any other career, competition is good. But when it comes to teachers and educating our kids, I would be more careful about it.

And yes, I agree there are individuals both pro-Union and anti-Union who will just milk the system for whatever they can get. But they do not reflect the majority of teachers.

Wasdie

There is a difference between a failing kid and a bad teacher and it's really obvious. Just because a larger group of kids is failing doesn't mean it's the teachers fault. Usually there are outside circumstances that the administration can easily see. This isn't about passing or failing kids, this is about giving the highest quality of education possible. If that means some kids must be failed that is what is going to happen. You won't see teachers artificially inflating their passed numbers because as soon as those kids to a higher level it will be blatantly obvious that the kids are not ready for it becuase of a slacking teacher.

Teachers won't be competeing like you think. It won't be a cut-throat business situation. In fact in the working world, that kind of mentaility is fading away fast because it's so counterproductive. The most successful employees are ones who do an amazing quality job, are easy to work with, and have excellent communication and teambuilding skills. Same will apply for the teachers. You'll see teachers who help other teachers to better the quality of education get more rewards than a teacher who undercuts another to get a promotion. You wouldn't measure a teachers success on how many students they can pass or how much work they can do themselves, you would measure their positive influence on every part of the school.

You're argument completely ignores modern business practices, modern communication skills, and modern work ethics. This isn't the 1800s and this isn't some movie. The real world is far different than what the media portrays in TV, movies, and even on the news.

It's not ignoring it though - because teaching is NOT a business.

It's a service. And typical business models will not work in a system where you are trying to educate individual students.

If you put teachers in a position where they have to juggle the needs of a student versus their own job security, you're going to wind up with an even lousier education system than what we already have.

It's not ignoring it though - because teaching is NOT a business.

It's a service. And typical business models will not work in a system where you are trying to educate individual students.

If you put teachers in a position where they have to juggle the needs of a student versus their own job security, you're going to wind up with an even lousier education system than what we already have.

Netherscourge

The service industry would disagree with that statement. Also why are private schools so successful in churning out intelligent and well rounded students? It can't be because the teachers must compete to stay there can it? It also can't be that the private schools have to manage their budgets much better knowing that if they do a poor job they will lose tons of students.

There are way to many real world examples here to prove your arguments are flawed.