PDA

View Full Version : Economics Wisconsin teachers' salaries =$89,500 a year


googlegoogle
02-19-2011, 01:11 AM
in Salary and benefits.

:doh!:

Mr. Flopnuts
02-19-2011, 01:27 AM
GMAFB. I searched the first alphabetical county, and first teacher alphabetically listed in that county and his salary was 31K. Fringe benefits of 14K. I'm not going to go through and do some real research, but I KNEW that the first name I came across would show that stat to be complete and utter bullshit. The problem with SO MANY republicans is they always, ALWAYS pick the very worst fucking examples of excess spending. Keep protecting the fuckers that enslave you and will make sure you NEVER reach their status. They really thank you for it. And by thank you, I mean they fuck you in your assholes.

http://www.postcrescent.com/article/99999999/APC0110/80221166/DataMine-Search-Wisconsin-teacher-salaries?appSession=946202531729646&RecordID=519204&PageID=3&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=1&CPIsortType=&CPIorderBy=

Mr. Flopnuts
02-19-2011, 01:34 AM
GMAFB. I searched the first alphabetical county, and first teacher alphabetically listed in that county and his salary was 31K. Fringe benefits of 14K. I'm not going to go through and do some real research, but I KNEW that the first name I came across would show that stat to be complete and utter bullshit. The problem with SO MANY republicans is they always, ALWAYS pick the very worst fucking examples of excess spending. Keep protecting the fuckers that enslave you and will make sure you NEVER reach their status. They really thank you for it. And by thank you, I mean they fuck you in your assholes.

http://www.postcrescent.com/article/99999999/APC0110/80221166/DataMine-Search-Wisconsin-teacher-salaries?appSession=946202531729646&RecordID=519204&PageID=3&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=1&CPIsortType=&CPIorderBy=

tl;dr?

The deck is stacked, and people are too stupid to know they'll always lose.

googlegoogle
02-19-2011, 01:53 AM
GMAFB. I searched the first alphabetical county, and first teacher alphabetically listed in that county and his salary was 31K. Fringe benefits of 14K. I'm not going to go through and do some real research, but I KNEW that the first name I came across would show that stat to be complete and utter bullshit. The problem with SO MANY republicans is they always, ALWAYS pick the very worst ****ing examples of excess spending. Keep protecting the ****ers that enslave you and will make sure you NEVER reach their status. They really thank you for it. And by thank you, I mean they **** you in your assholes.

http://www.postcrescent.com/article/99999999/APC0110/80221166/DataMine-Search-Wisconsin-teacher-salaries?appSession=946202531729646&RecordID=519204&PageID=3&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=1&CPIsortType=&CPIorderBy=


Do you know what benefits are? obviously not.

great website with info. http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/17/watch-wisconsin-part-iv-the-salary-info-big-labor-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

How about 100k a year in salary and benefits.
http://maciverinstitute.com/2010/03/average-mps-teacher-compensation-tops-100kyear/

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9x2N4bDmzdc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

CrazyPhuD
02-19-2011, 01:59 AM
Actually it may not be that far off. I looked at milwaukee county(i.e. I expect to be the biggest but metro may actually pay the teachers more). Just looking at 5-7 on the first page I saw a number near 90-100K and I think the lowest was 60Kish. Now alot o the number in some cases was fringe benefits and it's hard to say what that was. But factor in counting a few high salary principles as teachers, it wouldn't surprise me to see just the average teacher salaries + benefits > 70K.

Now does that mean anything? Hard to say depends upon what the benefits are and how they are counted. If they counted fringe benefits in everyone's salary then the number could be significantl higher than you get paid in salary. I expect a large portion of the 'fringe' is pension but who knows.

RubberSponge
02-19-2011, 05:00 AM
Maybe I'm not understanding the thread title. It states that these figures are of teachers salaries. Upon a quick search I can't quite seem to find anything that points to these being only teachers salaries. I'm going to say that these figures aren't just what the avg. teachers salary is, but are what the entire Wisconsin public school system is. Every Adminstrator, business manager, guidance counselor and all other support staff are included. Which in turn raises the figure. It simple deception that prays on the easily led. We could go into every sector of employment, private or public and find numbers like this all day long. How would you feel if the President of the company you work for salary is lumped in together with yours? Oh, you say, you make 35K per yr, with 15K in benefits. Your company president makes 150K per yr with 40K in benefits and incentives. Let's lump these together. 190k + 50K =240K per yr. Divide that and the avg. workers salary plus benefits for blanketyblank company is 120K or so a year. Sorry but that is just too much for you IT fellas. You must give up your shorts until I feel you are recieving a salary you deserve.

I'm not going to say that there aren't people that aren't overpaid in the education system in Wisconsin. But you find that everywhere. I'm positive each one of us could find a handful of people hired by our employers who are overpaid. I am probably one myself.

But what I find troubling is that there are some very intelligent people so easily led astray with such blantant deception like this.

NewChief
02-19-2011, 05:46 AM
But what I find troubling is that there are some very intelligent people so easily led astray with such blantant deception like this.

People believe what they want to be true (on both sides of the aisle).

Sadly (and this is one of the things I hate about DC and politics in general), people cynically want others to believe what they know to be false in hopes of gaining support for their side.

chiefsnorth
02-19-2011, 07:28 AM
This is not complicated. Total compensation. Salary plus the cost of benefits - the cost to the state of employing the average teacher. When you account for salary, benefits, retirement, they are dishing out $90k per year for each, on average.

I can't help but recall that this is around the same compensation as the average UAW worker was getting as of a couple of years ago.

In WI teachers can retire at 57, and the pension fund is underfunded just for teacher by about $10 billion. But.. Y'know... I'm sure it is just all about beating up on "working families"...

KILLER_CLOWN
02-19-2011, 09:16 AM
According to some we should just get rid of teachers or pay them slave labor, it's not like they are of any importance anyways. 90k is the new 40k.

WV
02-19-2011, 09:26 AM
Obviously we don't have many teachers in here and this thread is stupid.

It's so freaking annoying when the focus of "waste" or what our benevolent leaders are willing to "cut" is things like Federal Employee's pay or perhaps Teachers salaries. These things don't amount to a hill of beans in the overall picture and it's hilarious the lemmings that latch on to hot button topics like this.

chiefsnorth
02-19-2011, 09:33 AM
Obviously we don't have many teachers in here and this thread is stupid.

It's so freaking annoying when the focus of "waste" or what our benevolent leaders are willing to "cut" is things like Federal Employee's pay or perhaps Teachers salaries. These things don't amount to a hill of beans in the overall picture and it's hilarious the lemmings that latch on to hot button topics like this.

As stated above, the state pension fund is $10 BILLION underfunded, just for teachers. Not including all the other state pensioners. So you feel that $10 billion is just so many peanuts to a state government?

Chief Henry
02-19-2011, 09:46 AM
As stated above, the state pension fund is $10 BILLION underfunded, just for teachers. Not including all the other state pensioners. So you feel that $10 billion is just so many peanuts to a state government?

:shake:

alnorth
02-19-2011, 09:47 AM
Obviously we don't have many teachers in here and this thread is stupid.

It's so freaking annoying when the focus of "waste" or what our benevolent leaders are willing to "cut" is things like Federal Employee's pay or perhaps Teachers salaries. These things don't amount to a hill of beans in the overall picture and it's hilarious the lemmings that latch on to hot button topics like this.

:spock:

uhh, yeah. You are pretty much dead-ass wrong.

The mythical "waste" some clueless people keep babbling about is what doesn't amount to a hill of beans except in some isolated weird cases. (e.g. city of Bell, CA) School is a huge part of every state and/or city budget, and over 80% of school budgets is teacher compensation. After schools, a lot of the rest is police, firefighter, and government employee compensation.

If that cant be touched, then among what's left is non-discretionary stuff and debt service that cant be cut. Once you get past that, if you have a huge multi-billion dollar deficit the only way you are going to close that gap is either big tax increases, horrific cuts in government services to poor people, or concessions from government employees.

Many employees in the private sector have to pay 1/4 or 1/3 of their health insurance. Many of them no longer get an employer match. In that environment, when the taxpayers cant afford to give more, when the poor need help more than ever, the states cant really borrow much more money, and when government employees often have to pay little or nothing for great health insurance plans and pensions, there really is only one option.

alnorth
02-19-2011, 09:51 AM
As stated above, the state pension fund is $10 BILLION underfunded, just for teachers. Not including all the other state pensioners. So you feel that $10 billion is just so many peanuts to a state government?

Sounds similar to California. Their government pension funds are somewhere between a quarter and a third of a trillion dollars underfunded. This in spite of the fact that they have some of the highest taxes in the country. That state is going to be a train wreck soon.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 09:51 AM
Wow, there's a lot of faith-based denial in this thread.

alnorth
02-19-2011, 09:58 AM
I also like the stories coming out of New York and all the screaming about that governor lately. Eventually when the situation gets dire enough, it stops being about politics anymore, its just simple math. There's no choice, there's a reason why both democratic and republican governors from New York to New Jersey to Wisconsin are taking out the hatchet and chasing after the unions.

It will happen in CA soon too. California's newly-elected Democrat governor is trying to spare teachers by getting a tax increase on the ballot, but the voters in CA shot it down by a whopping 2 to 1 margin less than two years ago. He's already warned that if he either cant get the tax increase on the ballot or the voters vote no again, then he'll have no choice but to chase after teacher salaries and benefits to close a $25B hole.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 10:02 AM
Why don't you post the salaries of similarly educated (BA; MA, preferred) and trained private sector employee salaries with benefits? :shrug:

I'll tell you why...because it would expose your ignorance. Oh, yeah...and don't pull the " and they only work 7 hours a day, for 8 months a year" bullshit, because most work about 9.5 hour days on average (with prep and grading) for at least 10 months (around 205 days a year with mandatory on-going training and new technology certification, etc.)

So let's do the math, (about 1948 hours) $90K including benefits works out to about $46.20 per hour (including benefits) for an experienced college educated professional. Think long and hard about that.

Many mechanics at the garage, high school dropouts on automobile assembly lines, and salesmen in corporate America without college degrees and other training make much, much more. So just crawl back into your pathetic life, and shut the hell up....because you don't have the slightest friggin' clue what you are talking about.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 10:09 AM
The frustrated greed and seething envy oozes from nearly every Kotter post.

Chief Henry
02-19-2011, 10:23 AM
Why don't you post the salaries of similarly educated (BA; MA, preferred) and trained private sector employee salaries with benefits? :shrug:

I'll tell you why...because it would expose your ignorance. Oh, yeah...and don't pull the " and they only work 7 hours a day, for 8 months a year" bullshit, because most work about 9.5 hour days on average (with prep and grading) for at least 10 months (around 205 days a year with mandatory on-going training and new technology certification, etc.)

So let's do the math, (about 1948 hours) $90K including benefits works out to about $46.20 per hour (including benefits) for an experienced college educated professional. Think long and hard about that.

Many mechanics at the garage, high school dropouts on automobile assembly lines, and salesmen in corporate America without college degrees and other training make much, much more. So just crawl back into your pathetic life, and shut the hell up....because you don't have the slightest friggin' clue what you are talking about.



It must suck that you picked the wrong profession. Remember, the tax payers pay your salary
and they vote.

alnorth
02-19-2011, 10:23 AM
Why don't you post the salaries of similarly educated (BA; MA, preferred) and trained private sector employee salaries with benefits? :shrug:

I have a problem with free or nearly-free terrific health care while many other people have to select plans with higher deductibles and copays because thats what they can afford. On top of that, many of these teacher and government pensions are the envy of the country. Some states were wiser than others (thankfully, Iowa's public pensions are not wildly generous and they are only slightly underfunded) but those pension obligations are going to break a lot of states who made promises they couldn't keep because it was good politics to do so.

There's not many options, perhaps just 3. We could drastically cut medicaid and other assistance to poor people. (some states may have to do that anyway on top of going after the unions because their finances are just that screwed up) Is that the alternative we really want? You could try to raise taxes, but I think the answer to that is going to be a big emphatic no. They couldn't even get californians to vote for a 2-year temporary tax increase a couple years ago.

There's nothing else left to cut. You might say that if the taxpayers aren't willing to pay more then they will get the government they deserve. Well, fine, let them have the government they can afford because the government they have now is just too expensive in many states. I really doubt many teachers are going to go anywhere anyway because their benefits now are pretty good, they have been sheltered from the economic downturn, and the sacrifice that is being asked is really not that big.

ClevelandBronco
02-19-2011, 10:30 AM
It must suck that you picked the wrong profession. Remember, the tax payers pay your salary
and they vote.

Please. Engineering is a profession. Medicine. Law.

Teaching is a government job. Most public school teachers are the chick in the orange vest that waves cars through the cone zone where no one seems to be doing any actual work.

Dave Lane
02-19-2011, 10:36 AM
Wasn't the outrage about Autoworkers getting $125k a republican dream a few years ago? Look at all these $100k jobs things must be good.

ClevelandBronco
02-19-2011, 10:40 AM
Look at all these $100k jobs things must be good.

In English, por favor.

ClevelandBronco
02-19-2011, 10:41 AM
Wait. I got it. You just skipped a period.

vailpass
02-19-2011, 10:51 AM
1. If that is salary and benefits combined that is not a high figure
2. Educators deserve to be compsensated on a level commensurate with the social value of the service they provide.
3. A society that doesn't provide compensation incentive to attract the best educators is a society on it's way down.

ClevelandBronco
02-19-2011, 10:58 AM
1. If that is salary and benefits combined that is not a high figure.
2. Educators deserve to be compsensated on a level commensurate with the social value of the service they provide.
3. A society that doesn't provide compensation incentive to attract the best educators is a society on it's way down.

We know that you're dependent on a teacher's salary.

WV
02-19-2011, 11:04 AM
:spock:


Many employees in the private sector have to pay 1/4 or 1/3 of their health insurance. Many of them no longer get an employer match. In that environment, when the taxpayers cant afford to give more, when the poor need help more than ever, the states cant really borrow much more money, and when government employees often have to pay little or nothing for great health insurance plans and pensions, there really is only one option.

Ummm....now your the one who is wrong. Study up on your "great" Government insurance and pensions and then get back to me. The days of a guaranteed pensions is over, it's now "401K" based like soo many others. And save your great insurance plan BS for the postal workers. It's people like you that lump them all together that are the one's misinformed.

chiefsnorth
02-19-2011, 11:06 AM
1. If that is salary and benefits combined that is not a high figure
2. Educators deserve to be compsensated on a level commensurate with the social value of the service they provide.
3. A society that doesn't provide compensation incentive to attract the best educators is a society on it's way down.

Jobs pay based on how rare the skillset is. Supply and demand.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 11:15 AM
1. If that is salary and benefits combined that is not a high figure
2. Educators deserve to be compsensated on a level commensurate with the social value of the service they provide.
3. A society that doesn't provide compensation incentive to attract the best educators is a society on it's way down.

Teaching has never been a highly compensated job, even when our country was inarguably on it's way up. I'd bet that we are currently at the pinnacle of teaching compensation in our country's history and our kids are falling behind those of the rest of the world.

JimBaker488
02-19-2011, 11:18 AM
Please. Engineering is a profession. Medicine. Law.


Realtors. Now there's a group of real professionals.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 11:19 AM
Ummm....now your the one who is wrong. Study up on your "great" Government insurance and pensions and then get back to me. The days of a guaranteed pensions is over, it's now "401K" based like soo many others. And save your great insurance plan BS for the postal workers. It's people like you that lump them all together that are the one's misinformed.

I think you're wrong about this. Defined benefit plans are being phased out in many places, including the public sector, but they aren't gone yet. Let me know if you have evidence that Wisconsin teachers have a pension that doesn't include at least a component that is based on defined benefit.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 11:25 AM
1. If that is salary and benefits combined that is not a high figure
2. Educators deserve to be compsensated on a level commensurate with the social value of the service they provide.
3. A society that doesn't provide compensation incentive to attract the best educators is a society on it's way down.

Thanks for a bit of common sense...albeit from an unexpected source. Heh. ;)_

vailpass
02-19-2011, 11:25 AM
We know that you're dependent on a teacher's salary.

???
If by dependent you mean paying tuition for my three kids then sure, I'm dependent.

vailpass
02-19-2011, 11:28 AM
Teaching has never been a highly compensated job, even when our country was inarguably on it's way up. I'd bet that we are currently at the pinnacle of teaching compensation in our country's history and our kids are falling behind those of the rest of the world.

Yes. Not because our teachers are any less qualified than they were 50 years ago but because our parental involvement and family status are so radically less supportive of academics as a whole.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 11:29 AM
Teaching has never been a highly compensated job, even when our country was inarguably on it's way up. I'd bet that we are currently at the pinnacle of teaching compensation in our country's history and our kids are falling behind those of the rest of the world.

The absolute ignorance and seething contempt oozes from nearly every pattty post (about education, teachers, and schooling anyway)

I'm guessing some elementary school marm cracked your knuckles pretty often and hard, or some coach sat your butt on the bench...and you still are holding a grudge.

:shake:

vailpass
02-19-2011, 11:30 AM
Jobs pay based on how rare the skillset is. Supply and demand.

Failure to accurately assess the worth of qualified educators does not diminish that worth nor would it fill the irreversible void created by their absence.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 11:30 AM
Yes. Not because our teachers are any less qualified than they were 50 years ago but because our parents and family status is so radically less suportive of academics as a whole.

Truth.

THIS.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 11:33 AM
I think you're wrong about this. Defined benefit plans are being phased out in many places, including the public sector, but they aren't gone yet. Let me know if you have evidence that Wisconsin teachers have a pension that doesn't include at least a component that is based on defined benefit.

Check how many teachers are STILL in "defined benefits" plans, and get back to us. It ain't what you think it is, that's for sure. Something like, what, 32-34 states are right-to-work....teachers and government employees in those states (like mine) don't have "defined benefits" plans, and haven't since the early 80s.

WV
02-19-2011, 11:34 AM
I think you're wrong about this. Defined benefit plans are being phased out in many places, including the public sector, but they aren't gone yet. Let me know if you have evidence that Wisconsin teachers have a pension that doesn't include at least a component that is based on defined benefit.

I was referring to his comments as to Federal Government Employees and while I don't have evidence regarding Wisconsin teachers, I can attest to WV teachers because recently they had to buy back into the "old" system that is more dependent on defined benefits. They had a 401K system in place that was horrible, but to switch back to the old they had to buy back into it to fund it.
It's the lumping together and indiscriminate cutting because it looks good on paper that pisses me off.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 11:37 AM
Yes. Not because our teachers are any less qualified than they were 50 years ago but because our parental involvement and family status are so radically less supportive of academics as a whole.

In other words, paying more for teachers isn't really the solution.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 11:38 AM
Check how many teachers are STILL in "defined benefits" plans, and get back to us. It ain't what you think it is, that's for sure. Something like, what, 32-34 states are right-to-work....teachers and government employees in those states (like mine) don't have "defined benefits" plans, and haven't since the early 80s.

We're talking about Wisconsin here. Let me know if you find that they have no defined benefit fringe.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 11:40 AM
I was referring to his comments as to Federal Government Employees and while I don't have evidence regarding Wisconsin teachers, I can attest to WV teachers because recently they had to buy back into the "old" system that is more dependent on defined benefits. They had a 401K system in place that was horrible, but to switch back to the old they had to buy back into it to fund it.
It's the lumping together and indiscriminate cutting because it looks good on paper that pisses me off.

OK. I think alnorth was speaking generically and not specifically about Federal Government Employees. To the extent that his comments don't apply to a specific group of public employees, I think they can be ignored. I think they do apply to the teachers in Wisconsin though.

vailpass
02-19-2011, 11:43 AM
In other words, paying more for teachers isn't really the solution.

No silver bullet here.

The shortfall in parental involvement might be partially compensated for by increased excellence in both educators and educator resources.

Maybe an examination of how government education dollars are allocated and distributed is in order.

One surety is that reducing the incentive for as critical a component in our children's education as the teacher is a ticket to failure.

Jaric
02-19-2011, 11:49 AM
So basically they're in line with other professions that require less educational investment and are far less important to society?

Sorry, paying teachers 89,500 when you factor in benefits isn't getting me outraged.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 11:50 AM
No silver bullet here.

The shortfall in parental involvement might be partially compensated for by increased excellence in both educators and educator resources.

Maybe an examination of how government education dollars are allocated and distributed is in order.

One surety is that reducing the incentive for as critical a component in our children's education as the teacher is a ticket to failure.

Teachers don't need a union and allowing them to have one is bad public policy. Teachers don't need compensation that is greater than their private sector comparables. We need good teachers and we need to be able to retain them, but we also need to be able to get rid of the ones that are wasting our kids' time. More local control and less union power is my prescription for success. If the locals want to pay the teachers like pro athletes, I'm OK with that as long as they aren't using cash redistributed from another school district to do it with.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 11:51 AM
So basically they're in line with other professions that require less educational investment and are far less important to society?

Sorry, paying teachers 89,500 when you factor in benefits isn't getting me outraged.

I don't think that's been established. But what has been established is that they are being paid more than the state of Wisconsin can afford.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 11:54 AM
In other words, paying more for teachers isn't really the solution.

I've never, ever said more pay is the only solution. It's very complicated.

In high performing districts, like ours, unfortunately we are at the mercy of taxpayers...because they already get plenty of bang for their buck. On the other hand, there are trade-offs that make staying here worthwhile...at least presently.

In failing districts, more money has been tried...and depending on how the money is invested, there have been varying results. Demographics, family structure and support, poverty and crime rates, and local culture are some of the variables that make analysis of "what works" very difficult.

More money can attract better teachers to struggling schools and that can help, but there's no guarantee. Younger teachers can be lured for short stints....before burn-out drives them to the suburbs, or out of the profession. Unfortunately, highly qualified good veteran teachers understand the difficulties of urban districts....and the trade-off often simply is not worth it.

So, no patty...money isn't the only answer. However, if you think we can continue to cut teacher salaries and drive good teachers out of the profession (make no mistake, we are approaching that point--maybe not with us vets, but especially bright and capable young teachers) and it not have a significant impact on the quality of education, I think you are sorely mistaken---especially given the growing teacher shortage this country faces with the retirement of the boomers coming.

You and I have our differences, but you are a reasonably level headed guy most of the time. How can you, honestly, say that ruining public education in this country will not have serious long term effects for our nation's future? And, make no mistake, that's what will happen....I'm watching bright young kids that would make fine teachers either say, "heck, no way!" or they leave the profession quickly.

Public Ed has it's problems to be sure; over-paying teachers simply is not one of them.

Jaric
02-19-2011, 11:55 AM
I don't think that's been established. But what has been established is that they are being paid more than the state of Wisconsin can afford.

Ok, that's one thing. But it seems like some people are trying to paint the picture that Teachers are just being greedy here when I don't really think that's the case. It's possible to talk about these things without having to demonize the other side.

I also have a hard time believing that it's teacher salaries that got WI into this situation in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong on that but that doesn't seem like a logical conclusion to me.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 12:00 PM
We're talking about Wisconsin here. Let me know if you find that they have no defined benefit fringe.

In this thread, of course we are...but you and others like you refuse to concede making that important distinction when talking about education and teacher salaries, in general, across the country. That sort of conflation and disingenuousness is what is most frustrating to those of us in the profession...not the bogeyman of greed and envy you guys attribute it to.

It takes real balls to even suggest for a moment that any educator in the country is motivated by greed or envy. It would be laughable, were it not such complete and utter bull-crap.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 12:00 PM
Ok, that's one thing. But it seems like some people are trying to paint the picture that Teachers are just being greedy here when I don't really think that's the case. It's possible to talk about these things without having to demonize the other side.

I also have a hard time believing that it's teacher salaries that got WI into this situation in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong on that but that doesn't seem like a logical conclusion to me.

It's not the salaries, it's the benefits that cause the long term problems.

FTR, the only teachers I'm accusing of being greedy are those who are protesting in Wisconsin instead of reporting for class and Mr. Kotter.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 12:04 PM
In this thread, of course we are...but you and others like you refuse to concede making that important distinction when talking about education and teacher salaries, in general, across the country. That sort of conflation and disingenuousness is what is most frustrating to those of us in the profession...not the bogeyman of greed and envy you guys attribute it to. It takes real balls to even suggest for a moment that any educator in the country is motivated by greed or envy. It's laughable, were it not complete and utter bull-crap.

Your populist hysteria about fat cats and your moaning about how you might be forced to leave teaching for greener pastures if you're asked to share in the same sacrifice that many private sector people are currently experiences are what pulls the greed and envy card out of me.

Stop accusing people in a higher tax bracket than you of greed for accepting their market based compensation and acknowledge that your choice of teaching as an occupation indicates that the compensation you already receive is completely fair relative to those fat cats and I won't be as inclined to consider you greedy.

Jaric
02-19-2011, 12:05 PM
It's not the salaries, it's the benefits that cause the long term problems.

FTR, the only teachers I'm accusing of being greedy are those who are protesting in Wisconsin instead of reporting for class and Mr. Kotter.

Sorry I should have just said compensation, as I wasn't meaning to separate salary and benefits. My fault for being unclear.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 12:08 PM
Sorry I should have just said compensation, as I wasn't meaning to separate salary and benefits. My fault for being unclear.

:thumb:

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 12:11 PM
Your populist hysteria about fat cats and your moaning about how you might be forced to leave teaching for greener pastures if you're asked to share in the same sacrifice that many private sector people are currently experiences are what pulls the greed and envy card out of me.

Stop accusing people in a higher tax bracket than you of greed for accepting their market based compensation and acknowledge that your choice of teaching as an occupation indicates that the compensation you already receive is completely fair relative to those fat cats and I won't be as inclined to consider you greedy.

OK. Fair enough. I admit, my frustration can make me ugly at times. FTR though, you also seem to ignore that we already have made significant sacrifices.

In reciprocal fashion, how about you stop pretending that greed, and a flawed market-based system manipulated through lobbying and extortion of the same politicians you demagogue for pandering to unions....does not also waste tax dollars and disproportionately benefit a privileged elite class?

Deal? :)

patteeu
02-19-2011, 12:12 PM
OK. Fair enough. I admit, my frustration can make me ugly at times.

In reciprocal fashion, how about you stop pretending that greed, and a flawed market-based system manipulated through lobbying and extortion of the same politicians you demagogue for pandering to unions....does not also waste tax dollars and disproportionately benefit a privileged elite class?

Deal? :)

That post sounds like you said "OK, but no."

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 12:18 PM
That post sounds like you said "OK, but no."

No, I'm saying OK...but giving you an opportunity to acknowledge a truth which your posting seems too often to ignore: the ugly side and excesses of the current system that enables the privileged elite to abuse the system also.

I don't think that's asking for a lot, though.

Deal? :)

EDIT: to previous post....

FTR though, you also seem to ignore that teachers in SD have already have made significant sacrifices.

WV
02-19-2011, 12:24 PM
Teachers as a profession are underpaid across the board, so I tend to get irritated when they are attacked solely based on salary or perceived benefits. My wife is a dedicated teacher and her students are lucky to have her.....me on the other hand would be in prison if forced to teach.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 12:37 PM
Teachers as a profession are underpaid across the board, so I tend to get irritated when they are attacked solely based on salary or perceived benefits. My wife is a dedicated teacher and her students are lucky to have her.....me on the other hand would be in prison if forced to teach.

I may regret posting this, but here goes...

As a teacher, I do think that we are somewhat under-paid compared to comparable private sector careers with commensurate education and training. However, that said...every career choice involves trade-offs that are a part of the calculus of one's career decision. While salaries are low, generally, benefits do off-set that somewhat (although not as much as many seem to think.) Likewise, teaching is akin to medicine, law, and the clergy for many of us, it's almost a "calling" so-to-speak. Thus, most of us truly enjoy what we do, and find a sense of reward that cannot be gained from managing a Walmart, or selling real estate. Two full months plus of vacation are nice (although, over-rated considering training and continuing ed) and a schedule that mirrors your childrens', makes for a family friendly calendars. Finally, the ability to pretty easily pick where you want to work (if you are a decent teacher,) allows you to geographically choose where you want to live more easily than many other professions. All, of course, which reinfoces patty and CB's jaded view of the profession.

However, the contempt and disparagement of the profession coupled with declining benefits and salaries (in real dollars adjusted for inflation) will make it very difficult to replace the boomers that are retiring. Even in our district, that quality of applicants and new teachers, simply put, is not what it was even 5-10 years ago. Current trends will only exasperate that trend I'm afraid, and the quality of education cannot help but suffer as a result. At some point, we will simply be hiring babysitters instead of real teachers.

Americans may have to find out the hard way, you get what you pay for; and if we don't continue to invest in education as a priority (as, generally, we have done) then our kids and grandchildren will pay a price.

TIED5573
02-19-2011, 12:38 PM
GMAFB. I searched the first alphabetical county, and first teacher alphabetically listed in that county and his salary was 31K. Fringe benefits of 14K. I'm not going to go through and do some real research, but I KNEW that the first name I came across would show that stat to be complete and utter bullshit. The problem with SO MANY republicans is they always, ALWAYS pick the very worst ****ing examples of excess spending. Keep protecting the ****ers that enslave you and will make sure you NEVER reach their status. They really thank you for it. And by thank you, I mean they **** you in your assholes.

http://www.postcrescent.com/article/99999999/APC0110/80221166/DataMine-Search-Wisconsin-teacher-salaries?appSession=946202531729646&RecordID=519204&PageID=3&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=1&CPIsortType=&CPIorderBy=

AMEN, BRO!

ClevelandBronco
02-19-2011, 12:46 PM
???
If by dependent you mean paying tuition for my three kids then sure, I'm dependent.

By dependent, I mean that either you or your wife are/is/were/was a teacher, unless I have the wrong guy. If I'm remembering incorrectly, simply disregard the comment. You'd be wrong for reasons that wouldn't include greed.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 01:01 PM
Teachers as a profession are underpaid across the board, so I tend to get irritated when they are attacked solely based on salary or perceived benefits. My wife is a dedicated teacher and her students are lucky to have her.....me on the other hand would be in prison if forced to teach.

No they aren't. Kotter has made it clear that he took his job because of the compensation package and that he hasn't yet gotten to the point where that compensation package isn't worth it anymore.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 01:02 PM
I may regret posting this, but here goes...

As a teacher, I do think that we are somewhat under-paid compared to comparable private sector careers with commensurate education and training. However, that said...every career choice involves trade-offs that are a part of the calculus of one's career decision. While salaries are low, generally, benefits do off-set that somewhat (although not as much as many seem to think.) Likewise, teaching is akin to medicine, law, and the clergy for many of us, it's almost a "calling" so-to-speak. Thus, most of us truly enjoy what we do, and find a sense of reward that cannot be gained from managing a Walmart, or selling real estate. Two full months plus of vacation are nice (although, over-rated considering training and continuing ed) and a schedule that mirrors your childrens', makes for a family friendly calendars. Finally, the ability to pretty easily pick where you want to work (if you are a decent teacher,) allows you to geographically choose where you want to live more easily than many other professions. All, of course, which reinfoces patty and CB's jaded view of the profession.

However, the contempt and disparagement of the profession coupled with declining benefits and salaries (in real dollars adjusted for inflation) will make it very difficult to replace the boomers that are retiring. Even in our district, that quality of applicants and new teachers, simply put, is not what it was even 5-10 years ago. Current trends will only exasperate that trend I'm afraid, and the quality of education cannot help but suffer as a result. At some point, we will simply be hiring babysitters instead of real teachers.

Americans may have to find out the hard way, you get what you pay for; and if we don't continue to invest in education as a priority (as, generally, we have done) then our kids and grandchildren will pay a price.

There are too many applicants for each open job. Don't tell me we're going to have a hard time finding teachers any time soon.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 01:03 PM
No, I'm saying OK...but giving you an opportunity to acknowledge a truth which your posting seems too often to ignore: the ugly side and excesses of the current system that enables the privileged elite to abuse the system also.

I don't think that's asking for a lot, though.

Deal? :)

EDIT: to previous post....

FTR though, you also seem to ignore that teachers in SD have already have made significant sacrifices.

As long as you insist on clinging to your envy of the "privileged elite", there can be no deal.

alnorth
02-19-2011, 01:09 PM
Ummm....now your the one who is wrong. Study up on your "great" Government insurance and pensions and then get back to me. The days of a guaranteed pensions is over, it's now "401K" based like soo many others. And save your great insurance plan BS for the postal workers. It's people like you that lump them all together that are the one's misinformed.

So your response is "no, government employees don't have pensions"? You have no idea what you are talking about.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 01:09 PM
There are too many applicants for each open job. Don't tell me we're going to have a hard time finding teachers any time soon.

In many districts across the country, it's already happening; I don't know how you can seriously suggest otherwise.

Honestly patty, applications for particular openings are not the same thing as the national number of applicants for all openings. Jobs in many districts are being filled with people who are given provisional and/or temporary certification (fwiw, which I don't have a problem with, as long as there is reasonable criteria--and no, union insistence on "official" certification is assinine.)

In some areas, there are plenty of people, presently, applying. However, nationwide this is a growing shortage of qualified teachers. Research it yourself; you'll see pretty quickly that it is true.

WV
02-19-2011, 01:10 PM
So your response is "no, government employees don't have pensions"? You have no idea what you are talking about.

Read again and try understanding this time.

alnorth
02-19-2011, 01:11 PM
I was referring to his comments as to Federal Government Employees

I sure as hell was not talking about the feds. In fact, I was quite specific about saying that these pensions are going to break several states foolish enough to promise them.

WV
02-19-2011, 01:11 PM
No they aren't. Kotter has made it clear that he took his job because of the compensation package and that he hasn't yet gotten to the point where that compensation package isn't worth it anymore.

I'm not going to convince you otherwise so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 01:11 PM
As long as you insist on clinging to your envy of the "privileged elite", there can be no deal.

OK, how about: I'll dispense with privileged elite, if you'll dispense with looters...as applied to middle class working folks struggling with sky-rocketing healthcare and college costs?

Deal? :)

alnorth
02-19-2011, 01:14 PM
Read again and try understanding this time.

I read fine. You are the one who invented my "federal pension" argument out of thin air when we are talking about states.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 01:18 PM
No they aren't. Kotter has made it clear that he took his job because of the compensation package and that he hasn't yet gotten to the point where that compensation package isn't worth it anymore.

I don't pretend to speak for the high and increasing numbers of teachers leaving the profession, as I can only speak for myself. I will say this though, if I had known at age 30 what I know now...I may have made a different choice. I certainly will NOT be encouraging my children to teach, given the fiscal constraints that are being imposed on the profession.

This is a trend that will harm the future of public education, which I suspect is just fine and dandy for many folks who are able to send their own kids elsewhere--a choice the vast majority of Americans does not realistically have.

WV
02-19-2011, 01:19 PM
I sure as hell was not talking about the feds. In fact, I was quite specific about saying that these pensions are going to break several states foolish enough to promise them.

You were a little ambiguous using terms like Teacher and Government pensions seemly flipping between State and Federal Governments. Either way I don't agree with you and don't think you are correct. We use my wife's insurance and I can assure you it isn't free or close to it. As a matter of fact with each and every raise she's received in her 12 year career in teaching her insurance has risen and all but nullified it.

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2011, 01:19 PM
So your response is "no, government employees don't have pensions"? You have no idea what you are talking about.

He's from west virginia...which means 3 things:

He's lived in a holler at some point
He sleeps with his sister
Which is also his mother
:p

alnorth
02-19-2011, 01:20 PM
Interesting development today.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_a05349be-3be1-11e0-b0a1-001cc4c002e0.html

The Wisconsin public employee unions have basically said they will concede to every single one of the governor's demands, they just don't want to lose collective bargaining rights for benefits. Presumably they could then save face and claim they "won". I guess they could also try to negotiate better benefits again in the future if the economy recovers and the state brings in plenty of money.

There's still a chance that they are lying I guess and if you read the fine print perhaps their counteroffer will turn out to be very significantly different, but in that situation it could be tough for the governor to stand firm on this since he'd be getting essentially everything he wants financially. I still believe government employee unions should not exist for reasons we don't need to rehash again, but if the stories are true then I guess its not about the money anymore, and its just an attack on the union.

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2011, 01:20 PM
I don't pretend to speak for the high and increasing numbers of teachers leaving the profession, as I can only speak for myself. I will say this though, if I had known at age 30 what I know now...I may have made a different choice. I certainly will NOT be encouraging my children to teach, given the fiscal constraints that are being imposed on the profession.

This is a trend that will harm the future of public education, which I suspect is just fine and dandy for many folks who are able to send their own kids elsewhere--a choice the vast majority of Americans does not realistically have.

I don't think teaching should be a career.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 01:21 PM
So, what some of you are really saying is that teachers are over-paid at $45-50 per hour...including benefits? (the math was presented in post #17 of this thread)

Really? :hmmm:

Seriously? :spock:

Sannyasi
02-19-2011, 01:23 PM
I have a problem with free or nearly-free terrific health care while many other people have to select plans with higher deductibles and copays because thats what they can afford. On top of that, many of these teacher and government pensions are the envy of the country. Some states were wiser than others (thankfully, Iowa's public pensions are not wildly generous and they are only slightly underfunded) but those pension obligations are going to break a lot of states who made promises they couldn't keep because it was good politics to do so.

There's not many options, perhaps just 3. We could drastically cut medicaid and other assistance to poor people. (some states may have to do that anyway on top of going after the unions because their finances are just that screwed up) Is that the alternative we really want? You could try to raise taxes, but I think the answer to that is going to be a big emphatic no. They couldn't even get californians to vote for a 2-year temporary tax increase a couple years ago.

There's nothing else left to cut. You might say that if the taxpayers aren't willing to pay more then they will get the government they deserve. Well, fine, let them have the government they can afford because the government they have now is just too expensive in many states. I really doubt many teachers are going to go anywhere anyway because their benefits now are pretty good, they have been sheltered from the economic downturn, and the sacrifice that is being asked is really not that big.

Not going to quibble too much with your post, but teachers have not been sheltered from the economic downturn at all. We've had to let go of several teachers just in our relatively small district to be able to keep up with the budget cuts.

alnorth
02-19-2011, 01:23 PM
Either way I don't agree with you and don't think you are correct.

In what way am I not correct? You think state employee pensions don't exist and/or they are not a problem? Here's just one example out of Stanford.

California Pensions are hundreds of billions in the red. (http://www.stanford.edu/group/knowledgebase/cgi-bin/2010/06/10/california-state-pension-funds-going-broke-stanford-study-finds/)

Chiefshrink
02-19-2011, 01:23 PM
This whole Wisconsin fiasco is just growing the Tea Party every day this goes on. Keep it up I say and let these Lib Marxists keep exposing more and more everyday who they really are as the "elitist entitled sponges" that they are. Something for nothing is what "unions" are all about, PERIOD! SEIU,ACORN, NEA F'm all!!

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 01:23 PM
I don't think teaching should be a career.

So, what would replace it? Seriously. :shrug:

alnorth
02-19-2011, 01:26 PM
I don't think teaching should be a career.

Its easy to demonize a group you disagree with politically, but lets not get carried away. Teachers are important, and in a perfect world it would be nice if we could pay them more. However, monetarily they don't bring in any sort of income, they are paid by taxpayers, and that pay is limited by what we can afford. If we can't afford to pay them as well as a similarly-educated person with an MBA, thats just tough.

It would also be nice to figure out a way to reward achievers and punish failing teachers in an objective way that removes the unfair difference in getting smart rich kids or struggling poor kids (maybe an added-value method like in the recent LA Times study), but sometimes that is difficult to discuss because unions generally prefer just straight seniority.

WV
02-19-2011, 01:27 PM
Interesting development today.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_a05349be-3be1-11e0-b0a1-001cc4c002e0.html

I still believe government employee unions should not exist for reasons we don't need to rehash again, but if the stories are true then I guess its not about the money anymore, and its just an attack on the union.
There's something we can agree on....State or Federal or whatever, I'm not in favor of Unions.

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2011, 01:31 PM
Allowing them to continue to CB leaves the door open for them to extort more money later.

Interesting development today.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_a05349be-3be1-11e0-b0a1-001cc4c002e0.html

The Wisconsin public employee unions have basically said they will concede to every single one of the governor's demands, they just don't want to lose collective bargaining rights for benefits. Presumably they could then save face and claim they "won". I guess they could also try to negotiate better benefits again in the future if the economy recovers and the state brings in plenty of money.

There's still a chance that they are lying I guess and if you read the fine print perhaps their counteroffer will turn out to be very significantly different, but in that situation it could be tough for the governor to stand firm on this since he'd be getting essentially everything he wants financially. I still believe government employee unions should not exist for reasons we don't need to rehash again, but if the stories are true then I guess its not about the money anymore, and its just an attack on the union.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 01:38 PM
...

It would also be nice to figure out a way to reward achievers and punish failing teachers in an objective way that removes the unfair difference in getting smart rich kids or struggling poor kids, but sometimes that is difficult to discuss because unions generally prefer just straight seniority.


As a teacher, philosophically I agree with this post; in reality, an easy and fair way of implementing it would be incredibly difficult. Unions knee-jerk reaction to such talk is counter-productive and politically stupid, though--another symptom of why I refuse to join their ranks. Seniority should play no bigger role than in the private sector, and merit and effectiveness should be the criteria for rewards.

The difficulty is...how do you measure different teachers, in wildly different circumstances and demographics and completely different subjects and curriculum...in a way that would be reasonably valid? The anwer is...you can't. Not with all the variables, and frankly standardized testing, by itself, is probably one of the worst ways to try to do it--as NCLB has proven.

The other thing to think about, is what would introducing that sort of competition and incentive into teaching lead to? Teachers are at their best, when they collaborate and cooperate with colleagues to make them more effective in the classroom. Merit pay and other similar ideas would undermine entirely that very important part of teaching. Everyone would be out for themselves.

Then, of course, there is the entire "we can't determine the quality of our raw materials" and be selective about who our "customers" are the way that private sector "businesses" can....so how can we possibly measure one school and it's teachers and students against schools that may even be similar, but have a myriad of variables that can influence achievement....let alone comparing suburban schools, for example, against inner city schools.

In any sort of comparing of schools and achievements, establishing a fair and consistent basis for comparison becomes extremely difficult. I'm not saying we can't do it, it's simply that no one has yet figured it out. The moment someone does, they will be very rich indeed.

Sannyasi
02-19-2011, 01:39 PM
Its easy to demonize a group you disagree with politically, but lets not get carried away. Teachers are important, and in a perfect world it would be nice if we could pay them more. However, monetarily they don't bring in any sort of income, they are paid by taxpayers, and that pay is limited by what we can afford. If we can't afford to pay them as well as a similarly-educated person with an MBA, thats just tough.

It would also be nice to figure out a way to reward achievers and punish failing teachers in an objective way that removes the unfair difference in getting smart rich kids or struggling poor kids (maybe an added-value method like in the recent LA Times study), but sometimes that is difficult to discuss because unions generally prefer just straight seniority.

Taxpayers are perfectly entitled to come to this decision. But then we can't decide to complain when the teaching profession only attracts the bottom of the barrel. You can't say we need higher quality teachers, and then in the same breath propose that we pay them less. That just isn't the way things work. In our society, as compared to other countries, teachers are not treated as professionals, nor paid as professionals. How can anyone be surprised when they don't produce professional results?

And yeah, the teaching unions have become far too complacent. They are more concerned with their own well being than what is best for the children. They are a large part of the problem, and confronting them will be a large part of the solution.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 01:41 PM
Allowing them to continue to CB leaves the door open for them to extort more money later.

How about dispensing with binding arbitration then, rather than refusing a place at the table to even discuss and negotiate in a non-binding fashion...as is the situation in most states. That seems to be a more reasonable compromise, if this is something the state is going to insist upon. Even with that though, certainly you can understand why the employees here would fight that.

alnorth
02-19-2011, 02:02 PM
As a teacher, philosophically I agree with this post; in reality, an easy and fair way of implementing it would be incredibly difficult. Unions knee-jerk reaction to such talk is counter-productive and politically stupid, though--another symptom of why I refuse to join their ranks. Seniority should play no bigger role than in the private sector, and merit and effectiveness should be the criteria for rewards.

The difficulty is...how do you measure different teachers, in wildly different circumstances and demographics and completely different subjects and curriculum...in a way that would be reasonably valid? The anwer is...you can't. Not with all the variables, and frankly standardized testing, by itself, is probably one of the worst ways to try to do it--as NCLB has proven.

The other thing to think about, is what would introducing that sort of competition and incentive into teaching lead to? Teachers are at their best, when they collaborate and cooperate with colleagues to make them more effective in the classroom. Merit pay and other similar ideas would undermine entirely that very important part of teaching. Everyone would be out for themselves.

Then, of course, there is the entire "we can't determine the quality of our raw materials" and be selective about who our "customers" are the way that private sector "businesses" can....so how can we possibly measure one school and it's teachers and students against schools that may even be similar, but have a myriad of variables that can influence achievement....let alone comparing suburban schools, for example, against inner city schools.

In any sort of comparing of schools and achievements, establishing a fair and consistent basis for comparison becomes extremely difficult. I'm not saying we can't do it, it's simply that no one has yet figured it out. The moment someone does, they will be very rich indeed.

I do think the LA Times value-added approach came reasonably close to identifying good and bad teachers. For those not familiar with it, you basically test all kids at the end of every year. If the kids coming into your class tested very poorly last year, we shouldn't expect them to be above average after you get your one year with them, but we'd at least hope they would either improve or at least not worsen. If a teacher gets a bunch of 90th percentile brains and sends them out testing a bit above average at about 70%, that teacher shouldn't automatically get kudos for having above-average kids if they may have harmed them. This neatly gets rid of a lot of economic and cultural differences. We're not comparing your inner-city class to a bunch of white kids in the suburb, we're just comparing those kids to themselves a year ago.

My biggest concern with that method is the top edge. What if by the luck of the draw you do get a bunch of kids who happened to test at 90% last year? What should we expect out of you, to get them to the 99th percentile? That might be exceptionally hard to do. It may even be very hard just to maintain that score, and perhaps that teacher did something right even if they leave the class testing at 85%.

This sort of approach might be good for identifying the extremes in teaching, a guy who takes a dull 30%-er class and sends them out at 65 or 70% obviously did something right, and if a teacher takes a 80% class and sends them out at 35%, then some sort of disaster happened. Its a little trickier to identify good and bad teachers in sort of the middle cases where you test in and out at about 50%.

RINGLEADER
02-19-2011, 02:09 PM
Teachers should be paid well. But it shouldn't be up to the unions to determine that definition.

Usually when you circumvent the market forces you are typically are rewarded with bankruptcy, poor performance, and less productivity because the normal succeed or die requirements are removed from the equation. This is no difference.

If these teachers don't want to work in WI then they should go to a state that can afford their demands and let the market correct itself with teachers that are every bit as capable and willing to work for half as much on average.

RINGLEADER
02-19-2011, 02:13 PM
How about dispensing with binding arbitration then, rather than refusing a place at the table to even discuss and negotiate in a non-binding fashion...as is the situation in most states. That seems to be a more reasonable compromise, if this is something the state is going to insist upon. Even with that though, certainly you can understand why the employees here would fight that.

Because the more the unions lose their bargaining power the more fiscal sanity is restored to the process. It's not just the teachers unions and, frankly, I think the union bosses know they've been out-of-control pigs negotiating pay for things like the time it takes a prison guard to walk from his car to his job.

The practical effect of this is that the unions will be busted and the normal operational costs will fall dramatically. It's a fact. Sure, some teachers will be upset and some may even quit, but so what? Others will be more than happy to take their place. In the long run shouldn't we have more concern for the needs of the many, over the needs of the few (or whatever it was that Spock said)?

cdcox
02-19-2011, 02:22 PM
I teach at a state-supported university.

About 1/3 of our income comes from state tax payers and about 1/3 from tuition, and about 1/3 from grants, contracts, and gifts.

We have many more applications than we can admit. In a normal business, we could raise our prices (tuition) until the number of qualified applicants dropped to equal the capacity of the school. We aren't allowed to do that. I don't think it would be a great idea because some very capable students would not be able to afford to be educated, and we would lose much of the potential of those individuals to society. I just wanted to point out that there are some very real differences between the public and private sectors.

Now about benefits. My retirement plan costs my employer exactly 10% of my salary. There is no legacy cost to the state. My goal is to retire no later than age 67. I might not make that goal.

I contribute about 25% of the cost to my health care plan. It has copays of about $25 per doctor's visit and anywhere from $5 to $75 or more for prescriptions. My family has a lot of health care expenses and it is not unusual for us to run up $5K per year of out-of-pocket costs not paid by our insurance. In general, we are paying more for fewer health care benefits than we received 5 years ago.

My 12 month salary is similar to what I would get in the public sector given my education and experience level. But I only get paid for 9 months. If I want to get paid my other three months I need to have research contracts. But even if I don't have research funding during the summer, I'll be at the office almost every day.

I work 60+ hours per week during the school year. Sometimes a lot more. I work 40 to 50 hours per week during the summer. Most of my colleagues in my department do the same.

We haven't had any cost of living or merit-based pay raises in 4 years. In many states, university employees have received pay cuts.

I realize I am very fortunate to have my job. My job is much more secure than most peoples. I realize I'm free to go out into the private sector any time I want. I'm not really complaining about my situation. But painting workers in the public sector with too broad of a brush, pretty much ticks me off. In some places public workers may be fat cats. But I can definitely say that my pay and benefits are not out of line compared to the private sector. I'm also not insulated from normal economic realities, other than job security, which I admit is a very huge benefit that I am very thankful for.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 02:37 PM
I do think the LA Times value-added approach came reasonably close to identifying good and bad teachers. For those not familiar with it, you basically test all kids at the end of every year. If the kids coming into your class tested very poorly last year, we shouldn't expect them to be above average after you get your one year with them, but we'd at least hope they would either improve or at least not worsen. If a teacher gets a bunch of 90th percentile brains and sends them out testing a bit above average at about 70%, that teacher shouldn't automatically get kudos for having above-average kids if they may have harmed them. This neatly gets rid of a lot of economic and cultural differences. We're not comparing your inner-city class to a bunch of white kids in the suburb, we're just comparing those kids to themselves a year ago.

My biggest concern with that method is the top edge. What if by the luck of the draw you do get a bunch of kids who happened to test at 90% last year? What should we expect out of you, to get them to the 99th percentile? That might be exceptionally hard to do. It may even be very hard just to maintain that score, and perhaps that teacher did something right even if they leave the class testing at 85%.

This sort of approach might be good for identifying the extremes in teaching, a guy who takes a dull 30%-er class and sends them out at 65 or 70% obviously did something right, and if a teacher takes a 80% class and sends them out at 35%, then some sort of disaster happened. Its a little trickier to identify good and bad teachers in sort of the middle cases where you test in and out at about 50%.

I'm vaguely familiar...it sounds like a good start, for schools in very tough areas perhaps. On the other hand, the dilemma you concede (to identify good and bad teachers in sort of the middle cases ) is one that would make this approach difficult to implement in many parts of the country. The bottom-line is teaching is an art, not a science. It's more akin to gymnastics or even boxing where "winning" can be very subjective, depending on the judging.

And what about undermining cooperation and collaberation in the profession? Don't you agree that could lead to an unhealthy sort of competition?

pr_capone
02-19-2011, 02:50 PM
I have a problem with free or nearly-free terrific health care while many other people have to select plans with higher deductibles and copays because thats what they can afford.

Are you fist ****ing me??

Terrific health care??? Death Row inmates get better health care coverage than what teachers do... at least in this school district.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 02:54 PM
cdcox, thanks for your voice of reason. As usual. :thumb:


Because the more the unions lose their bargaining power the more fiscal sanity is restored to the process. It's not just the teachers unions and, frankly, I think the union bosses know they've been out-of-control pigs negotiating pay for things like the time it takes a prison guard to walk from his car to his job.

The practical effect of this is that the unions will be busted and the normal operational costs will fall dramatically. It's a fact. Sure, some teachers will be upset and some may even quit, but so what? Others will be more than happy to take their place. In the long run shouldn't we have more concern for the needs of the many, over the needs of the few (or whatever it was that Spock said)?

You know, I don't disagree unions have been strong arm thugs at times in history, and I don't agree with their tactics often. However, I don't recall you having much to say when greed and excesses of the free market exploit and harm average workers.

If you think filling the pending teacher shortage with qualified people, amid more pay cuts and decreasing benefits will be easy when boomers retire...you are misguided and misinformed. Many districts across the country are already struggling to do so.

Maybe you'll answer the question no one else seems willing to address:

What some of you are really saying is that teachers are over-paid at $45-50 per hour...including benefits? (the math was presented in post #17 of this thread)

Really? :hmmm:

Seriously? :spock:

Chiefshrink
02-19-2011, 02:55 PM
How do you get rid of bad teachers with the Union involved? ala NEA

RNR
02-19-2011, 03:00 PM
I have nothing against teachers. That said I work in aircraft and was forced to take a pay cut (which I later got back) because the company fell on hard times. Guess what your company is the gov and it has fell on hard times. Take a pay cut or find another job. I don't care what type of babble you want to give for the reason for the hardship...YOU chose to work for them and for whatever reason they are broke. Sorry about your luck the tax tit is dry~

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 03:01 PM
How do you get rid of bad teachers with the Union involved? ala NEA

Have administrators do their job. Document and detail deficiencies with due process, and remove. The process works, but administrators don't have the patience and courage to do it as they should. It's really that simple.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 03:09 PM
Teachers employers can no longer afford to pay them what they are making...for whatever reasons. Take a pay cut or find another job...it is really that simple~

OK. We have done that already, in most parts of the country. We have in our state. What do we do when they come back again, as they already are doing? Just bend over?

And, then, what about the quality of schools after the cuts drive many good teachers out, and replace them with inexperienced and/or poor teachers who are nothing more than baby-sitters?

Will you then complain about how much more crappy your schools are...and pretend to not know why it's happening? I'm betting, yeah...you'll be in that group, given your apparent disregard for quality of education. Maybe I'm wrong, though. So, are you gonna be one of those hypocrits that complain, then?

EDIT: I see with your Edit, you realize you were being more than a bit unfair. Fair enough.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 03:16 PM
Wisconsin school districts should be reviewing video of the protestors and any teacher who called in sick and then showed up to protest should be out of a job (if not immediately then at the end of the school year). They are easily replaceable.

RNR
02-19-2011, 03:20 PM
OK. We have done that already, in most parts of the country. We have in our state. What do we do when they come back again, as they already are doing? Just bend over?

And, then, what about the quality of schools after the cuts drive many good teachers out, and replace them with inexperienced and/or poor teachers who are nothing more than baby-sitters?

Will you then complain about how much more crappy your schools are...and pretend to not know why it's happening? I'm betting, yeah...you'll be in that group, given your apparent disregard for quality of education. Maybe I'm wrong, though. So, are you gonna be one of those hypocrits that complain, then?

EDIT: I see with your Edit, you realize you were being more than a bit unfair. Fair enough.
The reason for the edit is because I responded to a post about bad teachers. That is a whole different subject that needs to be addressed along with quality of education :rolleyes:. As far as the pay cuts as I have said the tax tit is dry for whatever reasons. If teachers don't like having their pay dictated by what their employer can afford or is willing to pay they need to find another job. Welcome to EVERYONE elses world...you know us who work in the private sector...and pay the wages they draw~

vailpass
02-19-2011, 04:03 PM
Teachers don't need a union and allowing them to have one is bad public policy. Teachers don't need compensation that is greater than their private sector comparables. We need good teachers and we need to be able to retain them, but we also need to be able to get rid of the ones that are wasting our kids' time. More local control and less union power is my prescription for success. If the locals want to pay the teachers like pro athletes, I'm OK with that as long as they aren't using cash redistributed from another school district to do it with.

I support WI eliminating the state worker's union 100%. I'm not in favor of the union, I'm in favor of US students receiving the education they need to compete and win in the world marketplace.

vailpass
02-19-2011, 04:06 PM
By dependent, I mean that either you or your wife are/is/were/was a teacher, unless I have the wrong guy. If I'm remembering incorrectly, simply disregard the comment. You'd be wrong for reasons that wouldn't include greed.

Thanks for the compliment but neither I nor my wife have ever been teachers. Your irritional dislike for educators is clouding your memory.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2011, 04:22 PM
If you think filling the pending teacher shortage with qualified people, amid more pay cuts and decreasing benefits will be easy when boomers retire...you are misguided and misinformed. Many districts across the country are already struggling to do so.

Maybe you'll answer the question no one else seems willing to address:

What some of you are really saying is that teachers are over-paid at $45-50 per hour...including benefits? (the math was presented in post #17 of this thread)

Really? :hmmm:

Seriously? :spock:

Adjuncts only get about $34 per hour at a private college here. Probably it's higher up north. That's only for classroom time, not prep work, consulting with students or administrative work. BTW teaching would be a great part time job for a retired boomer; or for mothers, as it's been for me, when doing adjunct teaching. Just have more of them do a few course periods a day or several times a week depending on the schedule. I would love a job like that.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2011, 04:26 PM
Taxpayers are perfectly entitled to come to this decision. But then we can't decide to complain when the teaching profession only attracts the bottom of the barrel. You can't say we need higher quality teachers, and then in the same breath propose that we pay them less. That just isn't the way things work. In our society, as compared to other countries, teachers are not treated as professionals, nor paid as professionals. How can anyone be surprised when they don't produce professional results?

And yeah, the teaching unions have become far too complacent. They are more concerned with their own well being than what is best for the children. They are a large part of the problem, and confronting them will be a large part of the solution.

Then why do some private schools do a better job with less pay and benefits but heaps of dedication?

patteeu
02-19-2011, 04:54 PM
I support WI eliminating the state worker's union 100%. I'm not in favor of the union, I'm in favor of US students receiving the education they need to compete and win in the world marketplace.

There's no difference between us on these particular issues then.

RNR
02-19-2011, 04:57 PM
Then why do some private schools do a better job with less pay and benefits but heaps of dedication?

In the state I live in I read the average cost per head in public schools is $14k to 16k. Private schools on ther hand average $4 to 6k per head. One gives top notch education for $10k per head less the other performs not near as well and costs $10k more~

RINGLEADER
02-19-2011, 06:19 PM
Maybe you'll answer the question no one else seems willing to address:

What some of you are really saying is that teachers are over-paid at $45-50 per hour...including benefits? (the math was presented in post #17 of this thread)

Really? :hmmm:

Seriously? :spock:


I think teachers are worth exactly what the market says they're worth. Just because a union says that they're worth more doesn't make it so. Same applies for a lot of the other benefits that the unions were able to get during good times. Unfortunately, and this seems to be news to these idiots in Madison, there is no money to pay for these benefits and taxing the rest of society to cover the shortfalls really isn't a smart fiscal strategy for the rest of the citizenry, nor is it smart for those the unions is supposed to be representing.

And you can use the fat cats as villains all you want. Doesn't bother me. The two aren't related and the unions know it.

rrl308
02-19-2011, 08:42 PM
:popcorn:

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2011, 08:51 PM
So, what would replace it? Seriously. :shrug:

it depends. For example, would I rather learn business from a person that has actually done it, or some dipshit hiding at a school because he couldn't hack it in the real world?

Jenson71
02-19-2011, 10:31 PM
I don't think teaching should be a career.

Why not?

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2011, 10:31 PM
Then why do some private schools do a better job with less pay and benefits but heaps of dedication?

And, generally, higher socio-economic conditions, two-parent families, and more home support...but, generally, much less support and back-up at home than public school kids. But, hey, let's ignore that whole dynamic, please? Yeah.

:rolleyes:

cdcox
02-19-2011, 10:39 PM
it depends. For example, would I rather learn business from a person that has actually done it, or some dipshit hiding at a school because he couldn't hack it in the real world?

Then why don't you pull your kids out of school and send them to hang out with a business person that is just sitting there waiting to welcome your undeducated children into his/her business?

Jenson71
02-19-2011, 10:43 PM
Then why don't you pull your kids out of school and send them to hang out with a business person that is just sitting there waiting to welcome your undeducated children into his/her business?

LMAO

suzzer99
02-20-2011, 09:52 AM
I do think the LA Times value-added approach came reasonably close to identifying good and bad teachers. For those not familiar with it, you basically test all kids at the end of every year. If the kids coming into your class tested very poorly last year, we shouldn't expect them to be above average after you get your one year with them, but we'd at least hope they would either improve or at least not worsen. If a teacher gets a bunch of 90th percentile brains and sends them out testing a bit above average at about 70%, that teacher shouldn't automatically get kudos for having above-average kids if they may have harmed them. This neatly gets rid of a lot of economic and cultural differences. We're not comparing your inner-city class to a bunch of white kids in the suburb, we're just comparing those kids to themselves a year ago.

My biggest concern with that method is the top edge. What if by the luck of the draw you do get a bunch of kids who happened to test at 90% last year? What should we expect out of you, to get them to the 99th percentile? That might be exceptionally hard to do. It may even be very hard just to maintain that score, and perhaps that teacher did something right even if they leave the class testing at 85%.

This sort of approach might be good for identifying the extremes in teaching, a guy who takes a dull 30%-er class and sends them out at 65 or 70% obviously did something right, and if a teacher takes a 80% class and sends them out at 35%, then some sort of disaster happened. Its a little trickier to identify good and bad teachers in sort of the middle cases where you test in and out at about 50%.

Haven't there been problems in the past with this kind of approach, where teachers ended up spending a good deal of the school year coaching the kids to do well on the tests?

suzzer99
02-20-2011, 09:59 AM
cdcox, thanks for your voice of reason. As usual. :thumb:

You know, I don't disagree unions have been strong arm thugs at times in history, and I don't agree with their tactics often. However, I don't recall you having much to say when greed and excesses of the free market exploit and harm average workers.

If you think filling the pending teacher shortage with qualified people, amid more pay cuts and decreasing benefits will be easy when boomers retire...you are misguided and misinformed. Many districts across the country are already struggling to do so.

Maybe you'll answer the question no one else seems willing to address:

What some of you are really saying is that teachers are over-paid at $45-50 per hour...including benefits? (the math was presented in post #17 of this thread)

Really? :hmmm:

Seriously? :spock:

I do think it's interesting that this thread and the other WI thread get 100s of replies, while the thread about the corrupt SEC<->Wall St. Revolving door stealing or destroying $$ trillions of wealth, gets basically ignored.

The Mad Crapper
02-20-2011, 10:07 AM
The recession hit over two years ago; it's finally caught up with the public sector. Like the guys you all voted for says "time to get some skin in the game" and "share the sacrifice".

And why is B.O.'s Organizing for America providing tactical support for the union? Isn't that a conflict of interest?

vailpass
02-20-2011, 10:11 AM
I do think it's interesting that this thread and the other WI thread get 100s of replies, while the thread about the corrupt SEC<->Wall St. Revolving door stealing or destroying $$ trillions of wealth, gets basically ignored.

I'm speculating obviously but could it have something to do with the fact that every single poster has direct experience with teachers and state services whereas to most the SEC and the Street are more concept than reality?

The Mad Crapper
02-20-2011, 10:33 AM
I do think it's interesting that this thread and the other WI thread get 100s of replies, while the thread about the corrupt SEC<->Wall St. Revolving door stealing or destroying $$ trillions of wealth, gets basically ignored.

I've started plenty of threads about the grand heist the federal government and wall st pulled off and got away with.

Other than maybe one or two responses calling me names, they go nowhere.

I'm sure if Bush was still president it would be a different story.

RNR
02-20-2011, 10:35 AM
I've started plenty of threads about the grand heist the federal government and wall st pulled off and got away with.

Other than maybe one or two responses calling me names, they go nowhere.

I'm sure if Bush was still president it would be a different story.

Barry talks tough about them but he and the dems have been their biggest allies~

The Mad Crapper
02-20-2011, 10:41 AM
Barry talks tough about them but he and the dems have been their biggest allies~

Barry doesn't care if they are stealing or who they are stealing from, just as long as his beak gets wet.

gblowfish
02-20-2011, 10:52 AM
Teachers should make twice that much.

RNR
02-20-2011, 10:52 AM
Barry doesn't care if they are stealing or who they are stealing from, just as long as his beak gets wet.

When flags were raised before the melt down the dems as a whole shouted to the rafters all was well leave them alone~

RNR
02-20-2011, 10:59 AM
Teachers should make twice that much.

I am not anti teacher but states are past broke. The auto industry fought unions until past broke they got bailed out and the workers had to take pay cuts and reduced benefits. The teachers now face the same thing...and nobody is going to bail out the government...the tax tit is dry~

Mr. Kotter
02-20-2011, 11:12 AM
I am not anti teacher but states are past broke. The auto industry fought unions until past broke they got bailed out and the workers had to take pay cuts and reduced benefits. The teachers now face the same thing...and nobody is going to bail out the government...the tax tit is dry~

:hmmm:

RNR
02-20-2011, 11:18 AM
:hmmm:

So you are saying tax me more so you can get a raise? What a shock you are willing to take more from me to get more for yourself. That is ignoring the fact states are BROKE~

Mr. Kotter
02-20-2011, 11:27 AM
So you are saying tax me more so you can get a raise? What a shock you are willing to take more from me to get more for yourself. That is ignoring the fact states are BROKE~

48th out of 65 industrialized nations in tax burden...in tax rate as a % of GNP.

:hmmm:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/tax_burden_country_ranks_2009.html

Seems to me all those tax cuts we've seen in most states across the nation during the last 10-20 years may be the real culprit to this manufactured crises.

Of course, that was the reactionary right's goal all along; to keep cutting taxes and keep cutting taxes to the point of creating the financial crisis we, now, have...and, then, they could demand the cuts in services and funding they have been planning all along.

Frankly, though, too many Americans are too lazy to have noticed.

teedubya
02-20-2011, 11:32 AM
The shit is about to hit the fan, it's very clear. There is lots of money though... Look at how much been printed in the past year+.

http://survivingglobalrecession.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/infation-scale1.jpg

Too bad it's going to be nearly worthless soon.

This story goes way beyond teachers not getting paid, or them striking, or unions...

This whole economy is a house of cards... and it's doing this.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/commission/images/house-of-cards.jpg

suzzer99
02-20-2011, 12:01 PM
I've started plenty of threads about the grand heist the federal government and wall st pulled off and got away with.

Other than maybe one or two responses calling me names, they go nowhere.

I'm sure if Bush was still president it would be a different story.

Maybe it's because the grand heist is truly a bi-partisan effort - born of Greenspan and continuing through every administration since Reagan. They keep us pitted against each other over stuff like teacher's unions, immigration, flag burning and gay marriage, while we ignore our impending serfdom.

/tin foil hat rant that could be fairly accurate

RNR
02-20-2011, 12:17 PM
48th out of 65 industrialized nations in tax burden...in tax rate as a % of GNP.

:hmmm:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/tax_burden_country_ranks_2009.html

Seems to me all those tax cuts we've seen in most states across the nation during the last 10-20 years may be the real culprit to this manufactured crises.

Of course, that was the reactionary right's goal all along; to keep cutting taxes and keep cutting taxes to the point of creating the financial crisis we, now, have...and, then, they could demand the cuts in services and funding they have been planning all along.

Frankly, though, too many Americans are too lazy to have noticed.

I could argue all day why we are broke and we would most likely agree on alot of it. That said we are and if the teachers dont like it they need to find another job~

The Mad Crapper
02-20-2011, 12:22 PM
What Do You Get When You Cross a Pig With a Leech?

I don't know, but whatever it is, it has been teaching our kids.

patteeu
02-20-2011, 12:31 PM
What Do You Get When You Cross a Pig With a Leech?

I don't know, but whatever it is, it has been teaching our kids.

LMAO

gblowfish
02-20-2011, 12:40 PM
What Do You Get When You Cross a Pig With a Leech?

I don't know, but whatever it is, it has been teaching our kids.

I hope your intent in making this statement is to win the douche contest.

The Mad Crapper
02-20-2011, 12:44 PM
I hope your intent in making this statement is to win the douche contest.

I didn't even win my region.

mlyonsd
02-20-2011, 12:49 PM
Of course, that was the reactionary right's goal all along; to keep cutting taxes and keep cutting taxes to the point of creating the financial crisis we, now, have...

So you're saying if we would have kept higher tax rates the financial crisis wouldn't have happened?

patteeu
02-20-2011, 12:54 PM
So you're saying if we would have kept higher tax rates the financial crisis wouldn't have happened?

Everyone else would be out of work, but self-consumed teachers, like Mr. Kotter, would still be anticipating early retirement on a generous pension and double dipping.

mlyonsd
02-20-2011, 01:01 PM
Everyone else would be out of work, but self-consumed teachers, like Mr. Kotter, would still be anticipating early retirement on a generous pension and double dipping.

I don't know if he's self-consumed seeing as he plans on working until he's dead. My real reason for asking the question is that I'm concerned he might teach economics.

Mr. Kotter
02-20-2011, 01:35 PM
So you're saying if we would have kept higher tax rates the financial crisis wouldn't have happened?

Of course not.

However, if you think for a minute that lower taxes....to a point, now, where we rank 48th out of industrialized nations (% of income paid in taxes as a % of GNP,) still leaves us "over-taxed" then you're crazy.

The whole idea (promoted by tea party types and their reactionary right allies) that we can't raise modest targeted taxes to keep higher priority programs fully-funded is a complete joke, given our present total tax burden.

Mr. Kotter
02-20-2011, 01:41 PM
Everyone else would be out of work, but self-consumed teachers, like Mr. Kotter, would still be anticipating early retirement on a generous pension and double dipping.

Says the guy who, it seems, thinks that a $45 per hour (total compensation--including benefits-- wage) for teachers is too much, but is willing to defend windfall and record profits and continued "bonuses" for CEOs and business excecutives....amid a recession, for the rest of us.

(See how this time, I didn't say something like "Says a guy who continues to be a codependent groupie and water-carrying bitch for privileged elites?" See, I'm trying. Really.)

teedubya
02-20-2011, 01:54 PM
I tend to agree that teachers need more money, as what they do is very important to the future of our industrialized nation's continued economic dominance. We need to educate our students well. The problem is there is little to no funding for it, as little importance has been placed on it. Defense budgets and "security" are waaay more important, apparently.

However, in other countries, such as China, a college education costs a couple grand a year, in the US, it's 20k or so a year.

In 1953, Sen. Lister Hill of Alabama promoted legislation that would federalize offshore resources, including oil, in order to raise revenue for the government. The money would go to increase funding for education.

We could have preemptively prepared for this decades ago, when offshore oil profits were going to be used for education, but Prescott Bush and lobbyists fought against Hill's legislation to be privatized and taxed for education... and ended winning and then awarded 4 offshore drilling spots to Zapata Oil, which was ran by GHW Bush and Hugh Leitke. Pennsylvania Oil and Zapata ended up merging and creating Pennzoil. Leitke became CEO of Pennzoil... Bush eventually became head of CIA.

So, in a sense, the lack of money for education is essentially "Bush's" fault. Just not the one we typically blame. :-) http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/081400a2.html

Now, 58 years later, we have slipped behind in education

http://www.geographic.org/country_ranks/educational_score_performance_country_ranks_2009_oecd.html

33rd in Educational Score Performance... and middle of the road when it comes to IQ. http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

For whatever reason, education has NEVER been a priority here in America. It would seem that those "in charge" prefer to have dumbed down sheep citizens as they are easier to manipulate and control.

patteeu
02-20-2011, 02:30 PM
Says the guy who, it seems, thinks that a $45 per hour (total compensation--including benefits-- wage) for teachers is too much, but is willing to defend windfall and record profits and continued "bonuses" for CEOs and business excecutives....amid a recession, for the rest of us.

(See how this time, I didn't say something like "Says a guy who continues to be a codependent groupie and water-carrying bitch for privileged elites?" See, I'm trying. Really.)

If teachers can individually negotiate a better compensation package the way corporate executives do then I think they're worth that better compensation package the way corporate executives are. If the deals they have collectively bargained are bankrupting their states, then I don't think they're worth it. It's really that simple.

I don't have a problem with people/companies who find a way to make a profit during a recession.

patteeu
02-20-2011, 02:33 PM
I tend to agree that teachers need more money, as what they do is very important to the future of our industrialized nation's continued economic dominance. We need to educate our students well. The problem is there is little to no funding for it, as little importance has been placed on it. Defense budgets and "security" are waaay more important, apparently.

However, in other countries, such as China, a college education costs a couple grand a year, in the US, it's 20k or so a year.

In 1953, Sen. Lister Hill of Alabama promoted legislation that would federalize offshore resources, including oil, in order to raise revenue for the government. The money would go to increase funding for education.

We could have preemptively prepared for this decades ago, when offshore oil profits were going to be used for education, but Prescott Bush and lobbyists fought against Hill's legislation to be privatized and taxed for education... and ended winning and then awarded 4 offshore drilling spots to Zapata Oil, which was ran by GHW Bush and Hugh Leitke. Pennsylvania Oil and Zapata ended up merging and creating Pennzoil. Leitke became CEO of Pennzoil... Bush eventually became head of CIA.

So, in a sense, the lack of money for education is essentially "Bush's" fault. Just not the one we typically blame. :-) http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/081400a2.html

Now, 58 years later, we have slipped behind in education

http://www.geographic.org/country_ranks/educational_score_performance_country_ranks_2009_oecd.html

33rd in Educational Score Performance... and middle of the road when it comes to IQ. http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

For whatever reason, education has NEVER been a priority here in America. It would seem that those "in charge" prefer to have dumbed down sheep citizens as they are easier to manipulate and control.

One of the big reasons that tuition has risen so much faster than inflation is because government already got involved in making college more affordable with grants and subsidized loans. Your solution would exacerbate the problem, IMO.

mlyonsd
02-20-2011, 02:59 PM
Of course not.

However, if you think for a minute that lower taxes....to a point, now, where we rank 48th out of industrialized nations (% of income paid in taxes as a % of GNP,) still leaves us "over-taxed" then you're crazy.

I've aways stated we're not over taxed, in fact I've said I'd pay more in taxes if it were done fairly. A progressive tax has doomed us for failure when we all don't pull the same weight.

The whole idea (promoted by tea party types and their reactionary right allies) that we can't raise modest targeted taxes to keep higher priority programs fully-funded is a complete joke, given our present total tax burden.

See right here is when you show your true skin as a government employee. You have no problem with raising taxes in our current economy to fund a 'give me my shit' mentality while our jobs and economy are failing. Not because we're taxed too little but because we can't compete in a global economy while all the time spending like we're drunk in Paris.

(I did look at your link but you can't cherry pick a certain stat just to suit your position)

Bewbies
02-20-2011, 03:53 PM
One of the big reasons that tuition has risen so much faster than inflation is because government already got involved in making college more affordable with grants and subsidized loans. Your solution would exacerbate the problem, IMO.

This is very true. Pell Grants came along and didn't make college more affordable, they raised the price of tuition. Easy student loans didn't make college more affordable, they raised the price of tuition.

A person used to be able to work and pay their own way through school. No help from their parents, the gov't, or scholarship. That's not possible today.

Mr. Kotter
02-20-2011, 04:32 PM
...

See right here is when you show your true skin as a government employee. You have no problem with raising taxes in our current economy to fund a 'give me my shit' mentality while our jobs and economy are failing...

If we had NOT taken cuts to education over the past 5-6 years in the educational funding formula, along with wage freezes for the past 2-3 years....you might have a point, and cuts now would be more palatable. However, to say we have not already sacrificed, significantly, displays a lack of understanding of the sacrifices we have already made, at least in our state.

You notice, while I've argued for better teacher pay overall, I've not said much in this forum or elsewhere about the sacrifices we thus far made--because, you are right....given the current economic climate, we all have to do our part. The thing is, we already have.

Modest targeted tax cuts (recovering a portion of the 30% property tax cut, a limited half cent sales tax, or whatever) to maintain our services that have ALREADY been cut, isn't asking too much. Hopefully the people of our state will get a chance to step up.

The Mad Crapper
02-20-2011, 04:38 PM
higher priority programs

ie The Leviathan-sized parasite that is the public employee unions.

cdcox
02-20-2011, 04:44 PM
This post pretty much ignores the difference between taxes and funding at the state and federal level, rather it addresses the stupidity of our national collective thinking.

Things like infrastructure, education, and investment in science are our economy's seed corn. To say we can't afford those things it is like eating out seed corn. In the long run, defunding these things undermines our long-term competitiveness and doesn't make a big enough budget impact to come close to solving the problem. We could send them all to zero and still be drowning in debt.

Meanwhile, everyone is ignoring the things that really do make a difference from a budget perspective. Overseas military spending. Entitlements such as Medicare/Mediciad, SSI. These things demand attention in a thoughtful way over a period of months. A government shutdown doesn't do anything except score political points.

Our leadership is absolute shit and we all fall for it.

Mr. Kotter
02-20-2011, 04:46 PM
ie The Leviathan-sized parasite that is the public employee unions.

In this case, teachers. So, more accurately, our children and grandchildren; and our nation's future.

But, what the heck...what harm could cuts do. I mean, we can get rid of these over-paid looters and slugs, and maybe we can replace them with over-paid baby-sitters that we hope aren't child-molesters and drug addicts...because, well gosh, we don't have the resources to do proper background checks.

:eek: Oh, wait, that's already been happening in some districts around the country, in part, because of budget cuts. Hopefully it won't happen in your neighborhood, though.

The Mad Crapper
02-20-2011, 04:50 PM
In this case, teachers. So, more accurately, our children and grandchildren; and our nation's future.

Oh, it's "for the children". ROFL

What, the national debt?

banyon
02-20-2011, 04:51 PM
In this case, teachers. So, more accurately, our children and grandchildren; and our nation's future.

But, what the heck...what harm could cuts do. I mean, we can get rid of these over-paid looters and slugs, and maybe we can replace them with over-paid baby-sitters that we hope aren't child-molesters and drug addicts...because, well gosh, we don't have the resources to do proper background checks.

:eek: Oh, wait, that's already been happening in some districts around the country, in part, because of budget cuts. Hopefully it won't happen in your neighborhood, though.

The logical conclusion of this "cost-savings" cut model is that we will wind up with teachers the quality of the people who now work in nursing homes.

patteeu
02-20-2011, 04:52 PM
If we had NOT taken cuts to education over the past 5-6 years in the educational funding formula, along with wage freezes for the past 2-3 years....you might have a point, and cuts now would be more palatable. However, to say we have not already sacrificed, significantly, displays a lack of understanding of the sacrifices we have already made, at least in our state.

You notice, while I've argued for better teacher pay overall, I've not said much in this forum or elsewhere about the sacrifices we thus far made--because, you are right....given the current economic climate, we all have to do our part. The thing is, we already have.

Modest targeted tax cuts (recovering a portion of the 30% property tax cut, a limited half cent sales tax, or whatever) to maintain our services that have ALREADY been cut, isn't asking too much. Hopefully the people of our state will get a chance to step up.

What you've done already hasn't been enough. I'll let you know when the economy is on the right track again. Maybe if you hadn't voted for Hopenchange, the ship would be righted again already, but you did and it isn't. A big part of that porkulus went to keeping public employees on the payroll, btw, so you've* already gotten yours.

----------------
* I don't know that you were one of the public employees benefitted, I'm just talking about public employees in general. If you're not a party of a union, you may well have missed out on Obama's handout.

The Mad Crapper
02-20-2011, 05:00 PM
Eliminating public employees collective bargaining is the primary critical step towards the restoring fiscal sanity for state budgets.

mlyonsd
02-20-2011, 05:09 PM
The logical conclusion of this "cost-savings" cut model is that we will wind up with teachers the quality of the people who now work in nursing homes.The people living in nursing homes could give Kotter a boot in his ass and teach him the true meaning of what it means to be American.

Of course then oldandslow would come along and neuter my argument.

mlyonsd
02-20-2011, 05:29 PM
If we had NOT taken cuts to education over the past 5-6 years in the educational funding formula, along with wage freezes for the past 2-3 years....you might have a point, and cuts now would be more palatable. However, to say we have not already sacrificed, significantly, displays a lack of understanding of the sacrifices we have already made, at least in our state.

You notice, while I've argued for better teacher pay overall, I've not said much in this forum or elsewhere about the sacrifices we thus far made--because, you are right....given the current economic climate, we all have to do our part. The thing is, we already have.

Modest targeted tax cuts (recovering a portion of the 30% property tax cut, a limited half cent sales tax, or whatever) to maintain our services that have ALREADY been cut, isn't asking too much. Hopefully the people of our state will get a chance to step up.

Where the **** did I suggest teachers hadn't made any sacrifices?

But to be clear.... Since you have chosen a career path where the benefits you provide are measured by bleeding edge students in the market place that continue to out measure the rest of the world your profession should be held accountable.

By that I mean if you're not producing you should not be void of what you call less education spending.

The Mad Crapper
02-20-2011, 05:47 PM
The people living in nursing homes could give Kotter a boot in his ass and teach him the true meaning of what it means to be American.

The people living in nursing homes are eating dogfood thanks to republicans./banyon off

‘If you’re a family trying to cut back, you might skip going out to dinner, or you might put off a vacation.’

mlyonsd
02-20-2011, 05:49 PM
The people living in nursing homes are eating dogfood thanks to republicans./banyon off

‘If you’re a family trying to cut back, you might skip going out to dinner, or you might put off a vacation.’ I agree with your second point. I don't with your first though. banyon is a lib I agree with most of the time.

The Mad Crapper
02-20-2011, 05:57 PM
I agree with your second point. I don't with your first though. banyon is a lib I agree with most of the time.

A lack of jobs, a huge deficit, yet he continues to defend the empty rhetoric and ineptitude displayed by the current administration.

mlyonsd
02-20-2011, 06:00 PM
A lack of jobs, a huge deficit, yet he continues to defend the empty rhetoric and ineptitude displayed by the current administration.

He understands the problem with a global economy. I'm with him on that. More with him then Bush/Cheney.

patteeu
02-20-2011, 06:02 PM
He understands the problem with a global economy. I'm with him on that. More with him then Bush/Cheney.

You're dead to me.

:p

RJ
02-20-2011, 07:29 PM
I don't think teaching should be a career.

Why not?

Mr. Kotter
02-20-2011, 08:20 PM
The logical conclusion of this "cost-savings" cut model is that we will wind up with teachers the quality of the people who now work in nursing homes.

Come on, banyon--be fair. They (nursing assistants--LPNs, and such) administer morphine and qualudes as well as those over-paid trained nursing professionals used to do....I mean, just drug 'em and let 'em die.

Who really gives a flyin' fugg??? Afterall, we ARE saving taxpayer dollars. Just so Uncle Cleotis can go to Vegas twice this year, ya know. That's mighty damn important, and all. No disrespect, of course...just sayin'.

:hmmm:

RNR
02-21-2011, 08:18 AM
This post pretty much ignores the difference between taxes and funding at the state and federal level, rather it addresses the stupidity of our national collective thinking.

Things like infrastructure, education, and investment in science are our economy's seed corn. To say we can't afford those things it is like eating out seed corn. In the long run, defunding these things undermines our long-term competitiveness and doesn't make a big enough budget impact to come close to solving the problem. We could send them all to zero and still be drowning in debt.

Meanwhile, everyone is ignoring the things that really do make a difference from a budget perspective. Overseas military spending. Entitlements such as Medicare/Mediciad, SSI. These things demand attention in a thoughtful way over a period of months. A government shutdown doesn't do anything except score political points.

Our leadership is absolute shit and we all fall for it.

Too good of post to just get burried~

HonestChieffan
02-21-2011, 08:27 AM
It amazes me that asking Wisconsin teachers to pay into their own retirement at under 6percent, and to contribute under 13 percent to hc is seen as some horrific assault upon the poor government worker. No one has proposed paupers, salary reductions, or any such thing.

This country has no ability to focus on reality.

patteeu
02-21-2011, 08:30 AM
It amazes me that asking Wisconsin teachers to pay into their own retirement at under 6percent, and to contribute under 13 percent to hc is seen as some horrific assault upon the poor government worker. No one has proposed paupers, salary reductions, or any such thing.

This country has no ability to focus on reality.

This.

jiveturkey
02-21-2011, 08:34 AM
This.
And that

:thumb:

Chief Henry
02-21-2011, 09:09 AM
And that

:thumb:



QFT....I had to pile on:D

BucEyedPea
02-21-2011, 09:28 AM
Too good of post to just get burried~

I still say you don't need govt to fund science....and we're better off if they don't. Science needs to be free from politics. I'd say the same for education but that is a state level decision.

gblowfish
02-21-2011, 10:13 AM
STATEMENT FROM GREEN BAY PACKER CHARLES WOODSON IN SUPPORT OF WORKING FAMILIES IN WISCONSIN


Last week I was proud when many of my current and former teammates announced their support for the working families fighting for their rights in Wisconsin. Today I am honored to join with them.

Thousands of dedicated Wisconsin public workers provide vital services for Wisconsin citizens. They are the teachers, nurses and child care workers who take care of us and our families. These hard working people are under an unprecedented attack to take away their basic rights to have a voice and collectively bargain at work.

It is an honor for me to play for the Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers and be a part of the Green Bay and Wisconsin communities. I am also honored as a member of the NFL Players Association to stand together with working families of Wisconsin and organized labor in their fight against this attempt to hurt them by targeting unions. I hope those leading the attack will sit down with Wisconsin's public workers and discuss the problems Wisconsin faces, so that together they can truly move Wisconsin forward.


--Charles Woodson, Green Bay Packers cornerback and one of the team’s elected representatives to the players union

BucEyedPea
02-21-2011, 10:14 AM
STATEMENT FROM GREEN BAY PACKER CHARLES WOODSON IN SUPPORT OF WORKING FAMILIES IN WISCONSIN


Last week I was proud when many of my current and former teammates announced their support for the working families fighting for their rights in Wisconsin. Today I am honored to join with them.

Thousands of dedicated Wisconsin public workers provide vital services for Wisconsin citizens. They are the teachers, nurses and child care workers who take care of us and our families. These hard working people are under an unprecedented attack to take away their basic rights to have a voice and collectively bargain at work.

It is an honor for me to play for the Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers and be a part of the Green Bay and Wisconsin communities. I am also honored as a member of the NFL Players Association to stand together with working families of Wisconsin and organized labor in their fight against this attempt to hurt them by targeting unions. I hope those leading the attack will sit down with Wisconsin's public workers and discuss the problems Wisconsin faces, so that together they can truly move Wisconsin forward.


--Charles Woodson, Green Bay Packers cornerback and one of the team’s elected representatives to the players union

Who cares what some dumb jock and unionist thinks? It's just more of the same mentality speaking here. Businesses provide goods and services for the citizens too. It takes money to deliver them as well.

patteeu
02-21-2011, 11:02 AM
STATEMENT FROM GREEN BAY PACKER CHARLES WOODSON IN SUPPORT OF WORKING FAMILIES IN WISCONSIN


Last week I was proud when many of my current and former teammates announced their support for the working families fighting for their rights in Wisconsin. Today I am honored to join with them.

Thousands of dedicated Wisconsin public workers provide vital services for Wisconsin citizens. They are the teachers, nurses and child care workers who take care of us and our families. These hard working people are under an unprecedented attack to take away their basic rights to have a voice and collectively bargain at work.

It is an honor for me to play for the Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers and be a part of the Green Bay and Wisconsin communities. I am also honored as a member of the NFL Players Association to stand together with working families of Wisconsin and organized labor in their fight against this attempt to hurt them by targeting unions. I hope those leading the attack will sit down with Wisconsin's public workers and discuss the problems Wisconsin faces, so that together they can truly move Wisconsin forward.


--Charles Woodson, Green Bay Packers cornerback and one of the team’s elected representatives to the players union

Once a Raider, always an idiot.

The Mad Crapper
02-21-2011, 12:07 PM
I still say you don't need govt to fund science....and we're better off if they don't. Science needs to be free from politics. I'd say the same for education but that is a state level decision.

Remember how John Kerry used Chris Reeves and said that he could have been cured of paralysis if only Bush spent federal dollars on embryonic stem cell research? Well, it's two years now since B.O. lifted the ban and I'm shocked to report that there still is no cure for paralysis. Of course, progs don't want to talk about that.

cdcox
02-21-2011, 07:43 PM
It amazes me that asking Wisconsin teachers to pay into their own retirement at under 6percent, and to contribute under 13 percent to hc is seen as some horrific assault upon the poor government worker. No one has proposed paupers, salary reductions, or any such thing.

This country has no ability to focus on reality.

The workers have pretty much conceded on these issues. They recognize they are going to have to take a hit. The issue is that the governor is intent on busting the union.

HonestChieffan
02-21-2011, 07:47 PM
The workers have pretty much conceded on these issues. They recognize they are going to have to take a hit. The issue is that the governor is intent on busting the union.


Pure bullshit . Can you point to any proposal to "bust the union"? You people just repeat the crap fed you in sound bites and protest signs.

cdcox
02-21-2011, 09:12 PM
Pure bullshit . Can you point to any proposal to "bust the union"? You people just repeat the crap fed you in sound bites and protest signs.

Ok, I'll change "bust the union" to "eliminating many collective bargaining rights". You can look at any news story on the situation (including Fox News) and that is exactly what the rub is over. The unions have already conceded the changes in benefits, but don't want to surrender collective bargaining rights. The governor insists on that.

RJ
02-21-2011, 09:15 PM
Pure bullshit . Can you point to any proposal to "bust the union"? You people just repeat the crap fed you in sound bites and protest signs.

I'm not an expert on unions, having never been in one and such, but I think if you eliminate collective bargaining rights you have in effect "busted" a union.

googlegoogle
02-21-2011, 09:47 PM
STATEMENT FROM GREEN BAY PACKER CHARLES WOODSON IN SUPPORT OF WORKING FAMILIES IN WISCONSIN


Last week I was proud when many of my current and former teammates announced their support for the working families fighting for their rights in Wisconsin. Today I am honored to join with them.

Thousands of dedicated Wisconsin public workers provide vital services for Wisconsin citizens. They are the teachers, nurses and child care workers who take care of us and our families. These hard working people are under an unprecedented attack to take away their basic rights to have a voice and collectively bargain at work.

It is an honor for me to play for the Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers and be a part of the Green Bay and Wisconsin communities. I am also honored as a member of the NFL Players Association to stand together with working families of Wisconsin and organized labor in their fight against this attempt to hurt them by targeting unions. I hope those leading the attack will sit down with Wisconsin's public workers and discuss the problems Wisconsin faces, so that together they can truly move Wisconsin forward.


--Charles Woodson, Green Bay Packers cornerback and one of the team’s elected representatives to the players union

Good they can pay their Health care benefits. The NFL players are rich. Pay up. Don't you want to share with your brothers?

googlegoogle
02-21-2011, 09:50 PM
I tend to agree that teachers need more money, as what they do is very important to the future of our industrialized nation's continued economic dominance. We need to educate our students well. The problem is there is little to no funding for it, as little importance has been placed on it. Defense budgets and "security" are waaay more important, apparently.

However, in other countries, such as China, a college education costs a couple grand a year, in the US, it's 20k or so a year.

In 1953, Sen. Lister Hill of Alabama promoted legislation that would federalize offshore resources, including oil, in order to raise revenue for the government. The money would go to increase funding for education.

We could have preemptively prepared for this decades ago, when offshore oil profits were going to be used for education, but Prescott Bush and lobbyists fought against Hill's legislation to be privatized and taxed for education... and ended winning and then awarded 4 offshore drilling spots to Zapata Oil, which was ran by GHW Bush and Hugh Leitke. Pennsylvania Oil and Zapata ended up merging and creating Pennzoil. Leitke became CEO of Pennzoil... Bush eventually became head of CIA.

So, in a sense, the lack of money for education is essentially "Bush's" fault. Just not the one we typically blame. :-) http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/081400a2.html

Now, 58 years later, we have slipped behind in education

http://www.geographic.org/country_ranks/educational_score_performance_country_ranks_2009_oecd.html

33rd in Educational Score Performance... and middle of the road when it comes to IQ. http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

For whatever reason, education has NEVER been a priority here in America. It would seem that those "in charge" prefer to have dumbed down sheep citizens as they are easier to manipulate and control.

bullshit :shake:

googlegoogle
02-21-2011, 09:50 PM
Teachers should make twice that much.

Bullshit

banyon
02-21-2011, 10:39 PM
Remember how John Kerry used Chris Reeves and said that he could have been cured of paralysis if only Bush spent federal dollars on embryonic stem cell research? Well, it's two years now since B.O. lifted the ban and I'm shocked to report that there still is no cure for paralysis. Of course, progs don't want to talk about that.

I don't remember that. Perhaps you could remind me by giving us the quote in context?

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 05:19 AM
Ok, I'll change "bust the union" to "eliminating many collective bargaining rights". You can look at any news story on the situation (including Fox News) and that is exactly what the rub is over. The unions have already conceded the changes in benefits, but don't want to surrender collective bargaining rights. The governor insists on that.

There is no natural unalienable right to "collective bargaining rights." These are a politically granted right which means it can be rightfully taken away politically. I also heard on Fox news that cb was going to still be allowed for wages though.

The Mad Crapper
02-22-2011, 05:26 AM
I don't remember that. Perhaps you could remind me by giving us the quote in context?

You don't remember the 2004 presidential elections? You don't remember Michael J. Fox shaking extra hard?

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 05:34 AM
You don't remember the 2004 presidential elections? You don't remember Michael J. Fox shaking extra hard?

That requires a link for him as well. You can't do anything from your own memory of from watching tv here. Banyon thinks he's in a court of law and not on an MB.

The Mad Crapper
02-22-2011, 05:40 AM
That requires a link for him as well. You can't do anything from your own memory of from watching tv here. Banyon thinks he's in a court of law and not on an MB.

I know. It's the same crap he pulled "obama never said the stimulus would prevent unemployment from going over 8%". :rolleyes: He thinks he's clever.

HonestChieffan
02-22-2011, 08:49 AM
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/two-thirds-wisconsin-public-school-8th-g


Spending does not yield better performance. Government unions stand for "close enough" mentality and avaunt pay for performance. Mediocrity as an art form.