|

02-06-2009, 09:26 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
991 posts, read 663,938 times
Reputation: 79
|
|
|
There are certain conditions under which "new" books end up having to be pulped, because they're obsolete or the district is required to replace them. But, I don't think that's really teacher waste.
|
|

02-06-2009, 10:28 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
386 posts, read 164,804 times
Reputation: 84
|
|
Precisely
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexisT
There are certain conditions under which "new" books end up having to be pulped, because they're obsolete or the district is required to replace them. But, I don't think that's really teacher waste.
|
People have this idea that efficiency outweighs a rational and professional approach to a profession. You have committees established to develop and improve curriculum. But LongIslandMike thinks that using the books till they are tattered outweighs the reasoned judgment of professionals working in committee.
Don't people get tired of hearing the same arguments get retread year after year?
I still haven't heard anyone say a word linking consolidation to enhanced instruction.
|
|

02-06-2009, 04:27 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
398 posts, read 270,671 times
Reputation: 53
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by longislandmike
ANYONE have ANY stories of "waste" by teachers, school districts ?
I "heard" that teachers are instructed to destroy books and materials, at the end of EVERY YEAR or school session, so the school district has to buy ALL NEW materials, so the school district has to USE UP the money allocated for same !
It would be nice share ANY other stories, to illustrate brazen, school waste !
|
Really???? Which school is that??? I work in a public school and we are not even allowed to throw out textbooks that have broken into 3 pieces. Everything needs to be accounted for. (And I am in a pretty wealthy district) Budgets only allow for new books every 10+ years.
Are you sure that story is true or is it one of those rumors that people who know nothing about teaching like to spread??
|
|

02-06-2009, 07:54 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
1,058 posts, read 964,619 times
Reputation: 162
|
|
the benefits outweigh the negatives
[quote=DeadPool1998;7347168]1) Your first point is crazy. Most of our teachers are women, and many of them are mothers with children in the system. The thought that teachers would see an advantage in being transferred across Suffolk County is an assertion from someone who knows nearly nothing about the system.
I never said anything about forced transfers, but rather giving teachers the option to transfer if they wanted to.
|
|

02-06-2009, 08:02 PM
|
|
Sarcasm mode:ON
Status:
""Whatever""
(set 12 days ago)
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In my house
1,054 posts, read 408,214 times
Reputation: 145
|
|
|
For crying out loud, all they gotta do is implement the income based school tax and there'll be alot less complaining. Not "no" complaining, but alot less.
|
|

02-06-2009, 08:10 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
991 posts, read 663,938 times
Reputation: 79
|
|
|
And that's LI's problem in a nutshell: resistance to change, and somehow the perception that there's justice in a property tax based system.
The problem with an income based tax would be that it would be just as distortionary if it were implemented on a district-by-district basis, and if it were implemented as a standard rate countywide and disbursed proportional to enrollment, everyone would whine that it took local control away from budgeting and prevented local taxpayers from paying more for extras. There's a certain amount of merit to this argument--Prop 13 in CA, which shifted the burden of financing from property tax to the general pool, did a lot of bad things to schools and now parents are nickel-and-dimed to death for everything beyond basics (pay-to-play and fundraising), so the rich kids still get more than the poor ones. To some extent, though, this is because all the purse strings are in Sacramento.
|
|

02-06-2009, 08:15 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
1,058 posts, read 964,619 times
Reputation: 162
|
|
The money has to be controlled by the county, not the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexisT
And that's LI's problem in a nutshell: resistance to change, and somehow the perception that there's justice in a property tax based system.
The problem with an income based tax would be that it would be just as distortionary if it were implemented on a district-by-district basis, and if it were implemented as a standard rate countywide and disbursed proportional to enrollment, everyone would whine that it took local control away from budgeting and prevented local taxpayers from paying more for extras. There's a certain amount of merit to this argument--Prop 13 in CA, which shifted the burden of financing from property tax to the general pool, did a lot of bad things to schools and now parents are nickel-and-dimed to death for everything beyond basics (pay-to-play and fundraising), so the rich kids still get more than the poor ones. To some extent, though, this is because all the purse strings are in Sacramento.
|
The only fair tax would be a progressive income tax levied on all county residents. The monies would be collected by the county and then redisbursed back to the schools on an equal per pupil spending criteria.
|
|

02-06-2009, 08:27 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
1,717 posts, read 613,404 times
Reputation: 268
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbres
The only fair tax would be a progressive income tax levied on all county residents. The monies would be collected by the county and then redisbursed back to the schools on an equal per pupil spending criteria.
|
The only issue I have with that is some districts do need extra $$ to deal with the various economic issues a district may have. Things along the lines of head start type programs, free & reduced lunches and stuff of that nature I think should not be counted in the per pupil spending in a district if your going to do something like that. If its going to remain based off property taxes than it should be an equal based tax rate countywide, the fact that some districts have double and in some cases more than double the tax rate of others is insane.
|
|

02-06-2009, 08:29 PM
|
|
Sarcasm mode:ON
Status:
""Whatever""
(set 12 days ago)
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In my house
1,054 posts, read 408,214 times
Reputation: 145
|
|
I still get nickle and dimed to death. Every time I turn around I'm handing one of my kids a check for something or other at school, and I'm not talking about the bake sale 
|
|

02-06-2009, 09:17 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
991 posts, read 663,938 times
Reputation: 79
|
|
|
You can't simply have equal per pupil spending, because of special education, LEP students, etc. It would have to be weighted, at the very least, and take account of student needs. A kid in a low-ratio class costs 2 or 3 times as much to educate as a kid in mainstream education.
The issue of local priorities is a very real one, and I'm not sure it has an easy answer. On the one hand, it's not fair that Great Neck can outspend Roosevelt because they can afford to raise more money. On the other hand, it's not really fair to hold one set back in the name of equality... and you have to draw the line on what you'll pay for, somewhere.
Hotkarl, my friends in CA have told me some pretty hair raising stories about what they're asked to pay for. The arts and music programs in many schools are entirely parent-funded; in others, parents are paying for smaller class sizes.
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
|
|