Education, politics, and anything else that catches my attention.
Wow, where to start on this one. As a statistician, I am appalled at their blatant misuse of statistics.First, by saying that the average salary declined 1% in constant dollars, you are taking into effect the inflation rate. By saying 'while inflation increased 31.4%' they are implying a 1 to 1 comparison. One would be led to believe the actual difference is 32.4%. It is not. If the salary declined 1% in constant dollars, that implies the salary lagged by inflation by 1%. It should have been stated that salary increased 30.4% while inflation increase 31.4%, a 1% difference.26 states and the District had real declines. OK, then 24 states had real increases. About 50-50. Sounds about normal to me. Inflation is the average rate things are going up. Everything can't increase faster than inflation or the inflation rate would be that much higher. Hello.In paragraph four, they mention the average raise in salary was 3.1% compared to inflation of 4.3% for the last year. Well, if teachers lost 1.2% last year alone but 1% over the last decade, that means they are .2% ahead of inflation for the previous nine years. Hmmm...staying ahead of inflation is a good thing isn't it? One bad year as their statistics are saying isn't so bad.
Steve, this is politics. Facts are immaterial in relation to success so a lie that serves is better then a truth that doesn't.Mike Antonucci is just riffing on the NEA's trying to position itself as a poor, beleaguered David against the Goliath of the, well, general unfairness of the world that means teachers aren't paid as well as basketball players.It's unfortunate that this is only a posture since it means the NEA still feels that they're powerful enough that they need to try to camouflage themselves as the underdog, some of their recent defeats notwithstanding.
Post a Comment