Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I simply chose the 1 county for the sake of simplicity but even the number of allocated teachers should change because duplication of courses can be reduced.
What is the avg size of a classroom where you are? If assuming it's the same as it is here (25-28), I see no way to reduce teachers by any meaningful amount. You take away programs, those kids still have to go to some other classroom. You can't simply reduce teacher count if student count is the same. And once again the crux of the cost is cost per teacher. It's funny we always hear "cost per student" isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrpepelepeu
If you lower salaries for teachers and cops you're averaging downwards. If you use STAR to help those who struggle to pay property taxes you're averaging upwards.
Also my impression is that a household making $300k and more, will always be able to afford vacations or a better car, regardless their property taxes.
So in summary you're saying:
- Let's go ahead and punish high earners twice, once with even higher taxes, then again by receiving even less back in STAR, because they can afford it. Nevermind the fact that they most likely worked hard to get as high as they did without the help of unions. Not everyone is a bank CEO who twiddles their thumbs all day to make their worth.
- Let's go ahead and keep paying teachers more than twice what the going rate is, because - union. And then almost as much in benefits when everyone else actually pays into their benefits, because - union. Nothing wrong with making the public do this, so you won't address it.
You never answered this one either - would your wife quit if she got dropped to $80k with ordinary contribution to benefits?
You never answered this one either - would your wife quit if she got dropped to $80k with ordinary contribution to benefits?
Pretty sad that you think it’s A-Ok to cut someone’s compensation by 10s of thousands of dollars. I’m sure you’d jump up and cheer if your company slashed your earnings by 40%
.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,095,590 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovi8
What is the avg size of a classroom where you are? If assuming it's the same as it is here (25-28), I see no way to reduce teachers by any meaningful amount. You take away programs, those kids still have to go to some other classroom. You can't simply reduce teacher count if student count is the same. And once again the crux of the cost is cost per teacher. It's funny we always hear "cost per student" isn't it?
You view every class as being 1 teacher=X Students its not, As I stated beyond the core subjects each district is supporting Special Education Obligations that are duplicated and not fully manned, none core courses that are duplicated and buildings that may not be fully utilize can be combined. If an Autism Specialist can work with up to 20 students and their current district only has 3 at that school then your spending a lot for an under utilized resource and that's just 1 example.
Your cost per student is through the roof and that's because of the unions but no one will address that and NY especially LI will remain the only place that believes 50 school districts in 1 county is more cost efficient...
So in summary you're saying:
- Let's go ahead and punish high earners twice, once with even higher taxes, then again by receiving even less back in STAR, because they can afford it. Nevermind the fact that they most likely worked hard to get as high as they did without the help of unions. Not everyone is a bank CEO who twiddles their thumbs all day to make their worth.
Yes, but I wouldn't use the word punish. They were not supposed to get STAR in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovi8
You never answered this one either - would your wife quit if she got dropped to $80k with ordinary contribution to benefits?
And no tenure? We probably wouldn't stay on long island. We can have a better lifestyle elsewhere.
You view every class as being 1 teacher=X Students its not, As I stated beyond the core subjects each district is supporting Special Education Obligations that are duplicated and not fully manned, none core courses that are duplicated and buildings that may not be fully utilize can be combined. If an Autism Specialist can work with up to 20 students and their current district only has 3 at that school then your spending a lot for an under utilized resource and that's just 1 example.
Your cost per student is through the roof and that's because of the unions but no one will address that and NY especially LI will remain the only place that believes 50 school districts in 1 county is more cost efficient...
Probably because it does not involve a serious reduction in teacher jobs, I haven't heard the unions speak against school consolidation. On the other hand, central office types (a very high percentage of whom would lose their jobs and BTW are not in a union) seem dead set against it.
Last edited by Quick Commenter; 01-31-2019 at 06:08 PM..
Probably because it does not involve a serious reduction in teacher jobs, I haven't heard the unions speak against school consolidation. On the other hand, central office types (a very high percentage of whom would lose their jobs and BTW are not in a union) seem dead set against it.
Nice try to deflect blame from the teachers to central office. Let us debunk:
1. Most of the central office are union.
2. Teachers are in multiple unions (NYSUT, local XYZ Congress of Teachers, ABC Teachers Association, etc).
3. Multiple unions in the district across the board (monitors, clerical, nurses, custodial, teachers, admins, etc).
4. Unions, as always are the first to decry any change and denounce consolidation. Consolidation has been a prominent thing since the turn of the century. NYS had over 10,000 districts 100 years ago. Now at 650 or so. The impetus is usually rural areas with limited tax resources and declining enrollments. Consolidation was important to maximize state aid in these places. They couldn't afford to turn on the heat, let alone pay teachers. The state could only heat one building, not two. That's rural economics and poverty. OUR problems are of runaway taxes to meet union power. Problems of OUR OWN MAKING.
On LI, NYSED will always see us as a cash cow - affluent area where people don't mind paying. Unless we revolt against the tax system or continuously vote down budgets, nothing will change...and those things WILL bring near term pain people have low tolerance for including layoffs, reductions in services, potential home price drops, etc...and layoffs on LI upset the ponzi scheme of self-reliance ("we have to pay them more because it costs so much more to live here"...yadda yadda).
So no way NYS looks to consolidate LI districts, except for the few that have financial challenges or declining enrollments and even those usually get shunned by their neighboring districts (their unions, primarily) unless NYSED greases them with buckets of increased state aid.
Not sure why consolidation keeps coming up as some fix it all. Purchasing is already done mostly by state and coop contracts so nothing to save there. Salaries, pensions and benefits also contractual. The real savings would be a few million in Superintendents and Assistant Principals. Not really enough to make it a viable reform. A 1% concession from NYSUT blows that out of the water and causes next to zero harm to a tenured employee. That not good enough? They can pony up 30% to cover medical insurance increases like everyone in the private sector has to.
The bottom line is the compensation pendulum has swung too far in the favor of the teachers so what was traditionally a "fair wage with excellent benefits" is now a high wage with excellent benefits and zero accountability. That system ONLY serves the unionized and crushes the homeowner, who is the boy with the finger in the tax base dyke, trying to hold back a tsunami, 2% at a time!
Nothing funnier than LI teacher's sphincters going tighter than a snare drum when talk of Kentucky or LA teacher strikes are brought up. SOLIDARITY! Until they compare compensation....then the LI teacher shuts their yap...or doesn't, because the arrogance/entitlement runs deep.
Last edited by monstermagnet; 02-01-2019 at 10:08 AM..
It's understood that the highest paid folks (by far) in the various school district central offices are the superintendents and the various and numerous (and highly paid) assistant superintendents. It is also understood (by almost everyone) that they are not union members. Since they would be the first to lose their jobs in a county-wide consolidation (wherein one central office replaces the 50 central offices) it is no wonder they are dead set against it.
It is also true that county-wide consolidation is not taken seriously as a cost-cutter - so that is a second reason why it is highly unlikely. Add those two reasons to the usual parochial reasons against combining school districts (race, class, etc.) and one has a virtual non-starter here on Long Island.
While obviously highly frustrating to at least one person, the tax-cap has knee-capped those who once urged 'no' votes on school budgets - the passing rates and margins have reached record highs the past few years with no signs of abating. Voters don't seem to find it outrageous that professional staff might earn 100K+ this century here on Long island. Of course, will always be a person or two who nevertheless argues for consolidation, salary reductions, budget rejections, etc. here on citi-data. That's OK.
Last edited by Quick Commenter; 02-01-2019 at 01:37 PM..
While obviously highly frustrating to at least one person, the tax-cap has knee-capped those who once urged 'no' votes on school budgets - the passing rates and margins have reached record highs the past few years with no signs of abating. Voters don't seem to find it outrageous that professional staff might earn 100K+ this century here on Long island.
Oh they find it plenty outrageous. They vote yes NOT because they support the salaries, they vote yes because they understand that the increases are due to mandated, contractual obligations they can't do a damn thing about so why cut their own noses to spite their faces by voting down the budget. It's a conditional surrender. "Stay within the 2% and we'll pass your budget."
Teachers also support filling their classrooms with illegals, raising taxes for everyone.
Yeah, that's what they do.
What sad talk radio bubble does someone live in to believe something like this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
