Money for inspectors, not teachers

Two from today’s Strib illustrate a problem with priorities: Minneapolis gets real ‘picky’ about housing codes
Minneapolis terminates 305 teachers. So we have the funds for an inspector to give you a tag if your grass is too high, but again are annually laying off (and rehiring) teachers.
A good teacher would presumably be able to get a better deal than getting laid off each summer with no guarantee of rehire the following year, so we drive our best young teachers (without the seniority) out by policies like this (and my libertarian friends would say the probelm is we have public school in general, which may be true but even if public schools are second best to a free market in private schools, it doesn’t mean we should manage them badly). If they are laid off because they are not competent, then they shouldn’t be recalled under any circumstance, but this seems like an inability to manage staffing or anticipate demographics.

One thought on “Money for inspectors, not teachers

  1. I recently received a “nuisance violation” warning that my “conoe” (canoe) was illegally stored in my driveway behind my house. It was out of the way, up against my fence, where it has been stored for almost four years. Why it suddenly became a nuisance last week boggles the mind. I moved it inside my yard fence – if that doesn’t satisfy the busy bodies at City Hall, I guess I’ll have to sell it, or rent a slip down at the marina.
    Anyway, I couldn’t help but note in the article you cited what I would consider a dubious correlation-causation relationship, when Don Samuels made the link between neglected properties and crime. I thought it was just Republicans who used this tactic, but I guess innumeracy cuts across party lines.


Comments are closed.