out:
"The line you heard most vociferously from the teachers` union," Christie says, "was that this was the greatest assault on public instruction in the story of New Jersey." Here the fleshy governor lumbers a few steps toward the hearing and lowers his part for effect. "Now, do you genuinely mean that your baby is now stressed out and unable to determine because they acknowledge that their poor teacher has to pay 1 percent of their pay for their health care benefits? Have any of your children arrive home - any of them - and said, `Mom.` " Pause. " `Dad.` " Another pause. " `Please. Stop the madness.` "
By this period the interview is start to titter, but Christie remains steadfastly somber in his use as the beseeching student. "`Just pay for my teacher`s health benefits,` " he pleads, "`and I`ll get A`s, I swear. But I simply cannot make the stress that`s being presented by a 1 percent contribution to health benefits.`" As the gang breaks into appreciative guffaws, Christie waits a theatrical moment, then slams his charge home. "Now, you`re all laughing, right?" he says. "But this is the crap I own to hear."
Sure, the rhetoric from the teacher`s union is hyperbolic here. And it is surely unlikely that students come home complaining about their teacher`s increased healthcare costs. But the fact that children don`t come home to their parents and kick about certain policies that are enacted is insufficient evidence to think that the policy has no negative implications. I doubt second graders went home in distress about excessive use of leverage at Lehman brothers, or the proliferation of sub-prime mortgages. It is impossible that those students would have raised a peep when the glass-steagal act (which mandated a separation between investment banking and normal banking) was repealed. Yet in all of these cases, it is at least arguable that the things in question had negative effects for the economy.
Granted, Christie most probable means this at least partially in jest (one hopes). So let`s consider his implicit assumption that restraining or reducing teacher compensation doesn`t constitute an assault on education, and that it really will not feature a demonstrable effect on educational outcomes. This is difficult to believe, particularly for challenging rural and inner-city school environments. These are schools where the bet are highest because of achievement gaps between poor minorities and wealthier whites. Putting effective teachers in the schoolroom would be a solution.
Indeed, Los Angeles found that providing top-quartile teachers as opposed to bottom-quartile teachers for 4 days in a row would actually eliminate the achievement gap.
Of course, kids in challenging schools are not probably to get these teachers. One way to draw such teachers would be to provide better compensation including strong benefits. When pay is frozen and benefits slashed, teachers who already feel like they have challenging jobs might look elsewhere for employment, especially if they make other skills or credentials. Perhaps the biggest risk is that gifted young people thought of careers will opt not to become teachers when they see that compensation (already low relative to other professions) will go still lower. That raises the very real possibility that High School students in certain parts of the state might go house to their parents saying "Our school couldn`t get a certified physics teacher. It looks like I won`t be capable to admit that sort this year."
In short, I think Christie`s assessment of his proposed actions on education deserve a more serious and less slapstick treatment.
