Perhaps some of you good folks can help me to understand something that has been puzzling me for the last 3 weeks. Gov. Walker has insisted that he will not negotiate on collective bargaining rights, even though public employees have agreed to financial concessions - basically pay cuts to cover health insurance and pension contributions. Walker has repeatedly said that he must give local authorities “the tools” they need to deal with the massive cuts being proposed in his new biennial state budget.
I’m not trying to be snarky here, but what exactly do you think he means by “tools?”
My wife and I are public school teachers in Wisconsin, so I understand some of the implications for education. Massive cuts (close to $1 billion) are being asked from K-12 programs.
My best guesses:
Class sizes will go up. But this is not something teachers have been able to bargain on in the past. No new “tool” needed.
There will be layoffs due to budget constraints. Again, we have never had any say in this. No new “tool” needed.
Teaching assistants will become almost non-existent. No new “tool” needed.
Special education departments will be cut and more students will be mainstreamed into regular classes. Teacher’s don’t bargain over this. Special education is driven entirely be state and federal mandates. No new “tool” needed.
Some districts (about 35%) apparently have bargained for exclusive us of certain health care systems - mainly WEA Trust. This kind of thing could be removed from bargaining, and it wouldn’t cause much of a fuss.
The only thing that teachers would still be able to bargain for is wages, so it doesn't look like local school boards could drastically cut salaries further. Maybe I'm being naive here...
Ratcheting things up a bit:
Those perceived to be poor teachers will be replaced in much greater numbers. But this doesn’t have a budgetary impact.
Health insurance benefits will be reduced. Higher deductibles, less coverage, less choice. Will that save a ton of money? Maybe?
Teachers will lose planning and grading periods. This would save some money. It’s a lousy educational idea (many, if no most, teachers work one-on-one with students during planning periods, lunch hours, etc.), but it would save money.
I guess I’m answering my own question.
But I still feel I must be missing something. Or is this just purely political posturing, masking the true intent of simply destroying progressive-leaning organizations?
What do you think?