Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Crappy! Chart! Thursday! Simple Cons: "The Levy Goes Directly to the Classroom"

District Statement:

“$16.8 of the levy funds are committed to the new teacher’s contract – these dollars go directly to teachers (and therefore the classroom)”

Naked Actual Factual Facts!

$2.4 milllllllion bucks of the teacher’s contract – 5% of the entire supplemental levy and almost 15% of $16.8 million mentioned – will go to “implementing” the contract, which includes adding 3 jobs not in schools, but in… Central Administration.

Truthy SuperAnalysis™

Totally truthy until the dash! After the dash – a telltale sign of wavering levels of truthiness in SPS – the “facts” get a leetle less… factual.
If you buy that the whole teacher’s contract goes “directly” to teachers (and “therefore” the classroom), I have some timeshares near Hanford to sell you (priced to move!).


Dorothy Neville said...

You aren't even going to mention that $10M of the teachers contract is for salary increases. Raises and bonuses. I want to know why the district claims that goes to the classroom. I am thinking that a teacher, or the child of a teacher, might get new socks or even a sweater with that money, and they can be worn in the classroom. But if your child does not have a teacher for a parent, what are they going to get? The satisfaction of knowing their teacher has nicer socks?

Meg said...

Technically, the money for raises will be spent in classrooms - whether that actually benefits the students in the classrooms is open to argument. However, using such a technical interpretation of the truth, the district just slid through the Naked Actual Factual Facts! filter. It's a first version roll-out. Glitches in the con/fact detection and filtering process (on a smaller scale than the NSAP deployment) are to be expected.

Still, you raise a good point.

Dorothy Neville said...

Ah, yes of course. Salary to teachers is considered classroom spending. I guess I have debated SchoolsFirst! about this so many times that the leap I am taking is the "benefit the kids" leap. They claim the money will go to benefit kids. Period. End of statement.

The explanation of how a raise would benefit kids is that it would allow then to attract and retain better teachers. That's what they say.

Some people are raising all sorts of complicated questions about those pesky stipends for performance though. Sounds kinda complicated and not well spelled out how they are going to work. I will admit here I didn't read that part of the contract in detail.

peonypower said...

Not to mention why are teacher raises and merit pay- (because that is what those new ladder positions are) being paid for by a levy. Bad form on the part of the teachers union and bad form on the school board.