The "Let's Get Glenda Ritz At All Cost" campaign that preoccupies the attention of insincere politicians at our Indiana State House who are more interested in doing the bidding of the education profiteers stuffing money in their pockets than improving education in this state has reached hysterical proportions. This week brought the successful passage of legislation in the House to remove Ritz, the state's elected superintendent of education, as chairman of the state's board of education and a concerted effort led by Gov. Mike Pence to further discredit Ritz over the revamped ISTEP standardized test.
Fortunately, at least one reporter took the time to examine the latest dust up over ISTEP to make the case that people pointing the fingers at Ritz were at least partially to blame. Ritz made the new testing requirements available last summer, but Gov. Pence and others waited until this week to complain the test was too long. The Indianapolis Star's Tom LoBianco notes the new test is based on standards written by Pence's staff to replace the Common Core testing standards rejected by Pence and state lawmakers. The state has a multi-million dollar contract with McGraw-Hill, which administers the test and which officials kept on for another year despite last year's testing problems. It was state lawmakers rejection of the Common Core standards that necessitated the need for a new test.
The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette reports that Gov. Pence has hired a $2,000 a day Michigan consultant to come up with recommendations for shortening the new ISTEP examination, yet a further move on his part to encroach on the statutory obligations of the elected state school superintendent. Pence wants the testing time cut from an estimated 12 hours, which is conducted over several days, to just 6 hours. DOE officials blame the new testing standards backed by Pence and federal education requirements for the longer test. DOE press secretary Daniel Altman complained that Pence waited more than six months to complain about the new test after his state board members were informed last summer. "For the governor to claim that he only recently learned of this, to be honest it's either politically malicious or it's a serious sign of staff incompetence," Altman said.
13 comments:
We read of yet another Mike Pence failure for the State of Indiana herein and all I can do is shake my head in despair. It makes zero sense to me (a Republican voter) that anyone- ANYONE- can believe Mike Pence is presidential candidate material let alone that he is cut from gubernatorial-capable cloth. As much as I adhere to the great thinker Mark Levin I am fully baffled why Levin holds the thought that Mike Pence is actually POTUS quality.
And once again Mike Pence is proof positive of the Peter Principle that employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence."
Due to Pence's demonstrated incompetence and lack of effective managerial ability, it is my firm conviction that the Indiana Governors' Office is where the small-statured faux-conservative will be stopped for future promotion.
Just like Democrat Evan Bayh, Pence sure seems to be warming a seat for which he is not all that capable and for which he has little passion... in the hopes of failing up to higher office... and a higher paycheck with larger bennies. Just like Evan and Susan.
To be fair, Ritz has no desire to improve education in the state, either. She's merely installed to look after the teachers' unions and to ensure nothing interferes with the guaranteed paychecks to union members or the lush perks that come with state teaching jobs.
Neither do the Republicans want to see any real education occur. They merely want to crack the union monopoly so their friends can start to receive government money.
Education does not improve until students are no longer required to be taught by Education majors.
Anon 9:26,
Let's talk a bit about those "lush perks that come with state teaching jobs," shall we?
First, review: http://www.nctq.org/docs/Indianapolis_11-12_Salary_Schedule.pdf
Granted, this is a few years old, but please note that a teacher with a Doctorate and 25 years' experience maxes out at about $75,000/year. Just as a quick reference, a first-year associate at nearly any law firm in town makes approximately $75,000/year. A first-year attorney at the IURC makes approximately $60.000/year.
I suspect you are in the camp that believes that we should not raise taxes on billionaires either, yes?
While we're at it, "union monopoly" simply demonstrates your ignorance. There is absolutely NO requirement that ANY teachers in Indiana belong to a union. NONE. Get your facts straight.
Finally, your last point: "Education does not improve until students are no longer required to be taught by Education majors."
Let's take that a step further: "Engineering in this state does not improve until it is no longer required to be performed by Engineering majors."
"Medicine will not improve until patients are no longer required to be treated by Med School graduates."
"Accounting will not improve..."
Ah, forget it.
"Granted, this is a few years old, but please note that a teacher with a Doctorate and 25 years' experience maxes out at about $75,000/year."
A so-called "Doctor" of Education should consider himself fortunate to make that salary, especially with the gold-plated benefits and perks.
"a first-year associate at nearly any law firm in town makes approximately $75,000/year. A first-year attorney at the IURC makes approximately $60.000/year."
And? There are very few first-year associates hired at any firm or the IURC. Most attorneys struggle to find any job. Further, a private company can pay whatever it wants. If you want more than $75K, knock on Park Tudor's door.
"While we're at it, "union monopoly" simply demonstrates your ignorance. There is absolutely NO requirement that ANY teachers in Indiana belong to a union. NONE. Get your facts straight."
You're a nitwit and a liar. There is a requirement that every teacher have an Education degree. I'd really tell you how I think of you, but Gary might not print it.
"Engineering in this state does not improve until it is no longer required to be performed by Engineering majors."
Were Engineering capable of being performed by anyone with a modicum of general education, I'd agree with you.
"Medicine will not improve until patients are no longer required to be treated by Med School graduates."
Were Medicine capable of being performed by anyone with a modicum of general education, I'd agree with you. Note that Nurse Practitioners, prescribing Psychologists and Pharmacists all intrude a bit on the practice of medicine.
"Accounting will not improve until books are no longer required to be kept by Accounting graduates"
Were Accounting capable of being performed by anyone with a modicum of general education, I'd agree with you. Oh, wait. QuickBooks and bookkeepers have already really shrunk the market and need for Accountants.
Teachers, however, still have that monopoly.
"Ah, forget it."
Yeah, you lost. Run away.
Oh for crying out loud here we go again with the baseless liberal non-fact complaint that billionaires and millionaires do not pay their fair share. Barak Obama (worth more than $10 Million) and fake American Indian Sen. Elizabeth Warren (worth a stunning $14 Million) to name only two far left liberals who are very wealthy should read the following facts:
First, there aren't enough billionaires and millionaires on the entire planet Earth to cover the huge US budget debts and US budget deficits [debt and deficit are not the same] career Democrat and Republican politicians have run up over the decades.
Second, and perhaps most important, the top 10% pay far more taxes than our hypocrite politicians and their liberal cheerleaders would have you believe.
Third, the top 10% includes far less millionaires and billionaires and more of people like you and me.
CNN Money (2013) reports "Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in the United States.
What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all..."
US News and World (2012) writes that "Upper-middle-class workers typically have post-graduate degrees and work at high-level, white-collar positions. Household income for these workers is often above $100,000. According to the Census bureau, upper-middle-class, or professional class workers, earn enough to be in the top one-third of American incomes.
The next income level is what is commonly called the "5 percent," or the percentage of Americans who make more than $150,000 annually. At the top of the economic ladder is the so-called "1 percent," or households that earn more than $250,000 annually..."
US News and World in the same 2012 report noted that forty-seven per cent of all Americans pay no tax at all."
Keep in mind it was the liberal Democrats who defined down the terms of what actually comprises a billionaire and a millionaire (it's true, go look it up); remember the liberal Democrats who set that arbitrary limit of $250,000 annual income to define poor and wealthy?
The United States now penalizes self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and personal hard work through a tax code that now rewards the non-paying.
No doubt the emotionally-based non-critically thinking liberals will come up with something to deflect attention to the above facts... like... "b-b-b- but what about George Bush!?!"
Hey TableTopJoe...
I am willing to bet that the average taxpayer bearing the burden for paying all those salaries nowhere near maxes out at $75,000 annually and nowhere near receives any of the types of benefits going along with your examples.
It is the taxpayer who pays these salaries who is never represented at the bargaining table.
Well said, TableTopJoe...well said.
"Just as a quick reference, a first-year associate at nearly any law firm in town makes approximately $75,000/year."
TableTopJoe, I've been an attorney for 25 years plus and have spent a lot of time in the job market looking for employment. The notion that the average first year associate makes $75,000 "at nearly any law firm in town" is a joke. You're just repeating law school employment stats that are manufactured out of thin air to get people to go to law school.
A new associate at a law firm would be lucky to make $35,000 a year without any meaningful benefits. (They actually brag about paid parking.) Many law firms have gone to commission only.
By the way, most government attorney jobs, like IURC attorney, pay more than the private sector.
More like m-istep.
Mr. Ogden,
I'm well aware that you are an attorney. Check with the following firms for their first-year salaries:
Barnes & Thornburg
Ice Miller
Faegre Baker Daniels
Bingham Greenbaum
Frost Brown Todd
Church Church Hittle & Antrem
They meet or exceed the $75,000/year mark. Perhaps your $35,000/year figure comes from speaking with prosecutors, deputy attorneys general, or public defenders. What do all of those jobs have in common? Uhhhhh.
And as to your IURC comment, go and ask the General Counsel at the IURC or OUCC whether they make more than the attorneys on the other side of the rate cases. I think you and I both know how that turns out.
As to ANON 12:53, are you asserting that teachers' unions do not bargain with anyone representing the taxpayer? Like the school board, who is elected by the taxpayer? Or the Superintendent, who is hired by and serves at the pleasure of the school board? If the school board doesn't represent its own constituents, I think your beef is with either the school board or the voters, who by the way get the privilege of "collectively bargaining" with the teachers they hire.
Funny that.
75k a year? Not a bad deal for 9 months work plus every weekend off and every major and minor bs holiday too. Cheap health insurance, tenure, and no accountability for poor performance.(the union sees to that) If you feel like your being screwed by being a teacher, cop, garbage man or whatever then get into another line of work and quit bitching.
TableTopJoe, take a look at what you said originally. You said "a first year associate at nearly every law firm in town" makes $75,,000 dollars a year.Then you cite a list of not even 1% of the firms and just about an exhaustive list of the only firms in town paying $75, 000 to new associates. Most new associates make nowhere near $75, 000. You simply don't know what the job market is for attorneys. Those government attorney jobs you suggest are low paying, are actually good paying jobs with benefits and that are highly sought after. A $60,000 salary for a new attorney at the IURC is an extremely good salary, far more than most new and even many experienced attorneys are making.
"I'm well aware that you are an attorney. Check with the following firms for their first-year salaries:
Barnes & Thornburg
Ice Miller
Faegre Baker Daniels
Bingham Greenbaum
Frost Brown Todd
Church Church Hittle & Antrem"
What an inane comment. There are four law schools in the state, and several more that border the state. Those firms do not necessarily hire, every year, and when they do hire, it's only a very small amount of law school graduates. Most law school graduates are looking at hard times after law school.
If you come from a wealthy family with wealthy friends and are able to use your influence to land the wealthy as clients, you have a good chance of getting hired at a good firm, regardless of your grades, while the real lawyering will be done by throwaway lawyers buried in the firm.
Lawyers face miserable career options, compared to teachers who are looking at a gold-plated life of ease.
Post a Comment