Ahh...thats where my $10,000+ in taxes goes (Islip, Union: low income, house)

[DeadPool1998]

Originally Posted by tomonlineli

No, it's not! You want the best jobs to be in the private sector.

And I'm really getting worn down by the poor argument of "we attract the best teachers because we pay so much." This is not a good argument. Let me give you a little example of how this is bad.

Ok, you get up and go to Starbucks and find out that your Caramel whatsitcalled is now $14, up from $3.50. You flip out, you blatantly refuse to pay this price. It's the same drink, you claim that the higher price doesn't give you a better a drink. The manager comes out and explains to you that they are now paying the Baristas 90k a year and they had to raise the prices of the drinks. The manager claims that this allows them to hire the best baristas from all the land. You should feel honored since your drinnk was just made from someone with a PhD (From University of Pheonix). You refuse to pay it, but guess what? The Barista Union has a lobbyist group up in Albany that has made a deal requiring you to buy one drink each day.

This is exactly what has been happening with LI schools.

BTW, there is such thing as overeducation. It would be nice if we could hire custodians with PhDs and pay them 100k, but the level of output from a PhD custodian would never warrant highering someone of that level. The same idea goes for teachers. A grade school teacher with a PhD and 150k is OVERKILL.

You continuously resort to reductio ad absurdum, reducing things to a point of absurdity, in your efforts to construct a straw argument (an argument that is easier to pick off because you are too lazy to come equipped with any facts). Yet, you are oh-so worn down by the "poor argument."

Here's the thing. If you want to argue that salaries need to be reduced, you need to explain what the problem is. You need to indict the status quo by showing how people are harmed. Stating that teachers are paid too much is compelling, but not enough if you look at the cause. This perception of yours is relative to your pay, and as such is not a universal problem. It is a problem suffered by people with employers who fail to increase their pay despite the radical growth of GDP over the past 50 years.

Now, you evidently don't make as much as a teacher. As a result, you are angry. I understand that. This "problem" with them making more than you, however, has become more palpable with time as taxes have increased and their salaries have out-paced your own.

Problem here is that more people suffer with your solution than with the status quo. If the solution is to cut salaries, you will end up with a poorer school system. This is demonstrably the case because you can look at school systems with significantly lower pay, and the performance of students is profoundly worse. Now, you can argue until your are blue in the face that there is no causal link between teacher pay and student performance, but there is correlation. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that the two ARE NOT LINKED. That might mean showing instances in which salaries dropped and performance increased or stayed the same. I'll wait patiently for this good argument from you (considering you are tired of "poor" argument).

Though I have mentioned the following several times, you and your gang of burn-the-schools city-data thugs have ignored it completely. People in wealthy communities pay their teachers more. I don't know what community you live in, but I live in Northport. I want my teachers paid well, and I don't make as much as the average teacher (per your stats). But I know that people want to move into the Northport/East Northport district for the schools. Is it because of teacher pay? No. Is it because of the quality of the schools? Absolutely. I've lived here two years, and I moved here for the schools. I know two other families that planted themselves in the community because of the schools.

Now, you can retreat to your tired assertion that teacher pay and student performance aren't causal, but I want evidence substantiating that. I know you do to, considering how tired of poor argument you've grown.

[djdairyp]

Originally Posted by tomonlineli

No, it's not! You want the best jobs to be in the private sector.

And I'm really getting worn down by the poor argument of "we attract the best teachers because we pay so much." This is not a good argument. Let me give you a little example of how this is bad.

Ok, you get up and go to Starbucks and find out that your Caramel whatsitcalled is now $14, ...

Its not a bad argument, that's the way it works for other fields so why shouldn't it work that way for teachers, the best lawyers make the most money, the best doctors make the most money, the best architects make the most money. Contrary to some peoples beliefs, the best doctors are in the US. Our healthcare system is sometimes ranked lower than other nations due to the fact that many of the worst cases come to the us. Premature baby mortality rates, specialist services ... many of these things are higher risk cases and many people from other countries come to the us for specialist services of the best doctor, there are few that go from the us to else where and also reporting measures in other countries are different so the statstics are flawed. The doctors make a lot of money, and the best are attracted here.

Further, the starbucks argument is bad because you are comparing a good. Teaching is a service and education is a fundamental right. People will pay more for excellent services period. If one were to get a plastic surgeon, would they find the least expensive one and go with them, probably not.

There are not many Phd's in elementary school or secondary either. There is a limit to the education argument. Certainly requiring a masters and passing exams is better than not requiring it which most other states dont and they end up with less qualified teachers. And a persons college education is not a measure of highering the best teachers either, nor is it a measure of attracting the best teacher. It is part of the equation, but most new hires on long island are experienced teachers. They have proven track records, proven results, good references, excellent demonstration lessons and can show they performed well in their prior schools. Some incompetents might slip thorough, but overall the teacher hires are excellent.

Most would agree LI schools are better than NYC schools, and many other schools systems for that matter. There is no real evidence either way that salary does or does not contribute to this, but we do know that the salaries are better and the education is better so it suggests a correlation, and a general feeling of human nature is that when you start making cuts to salary people will go where they can try to recoup some losses or at least balance them out by cost of living adjustment. The average salary for teachers in the united states is a little over 50k. LI education is excellent compared to the nation and the cost of living here is astronomically higher than the average place in the nation, so moving up to an average of 80k is not so outlandish and is necessary. When adjusted for cost of living, the long island teacher is not making so much more than other teachers.

[NHP Guy]

The proposed budget for the Herricks SD (where I live) is increasing 1.75% for the 2009-2010 school year, with the total budget going from $92.2m to $93.8m. The proposed budget has "no cuts to staff and student services". The rather modest overall increase is being attributed to "smart fiscal management" and "drops in health insurance premiums and employee retirement benefits contributions". The district has also "froze all departments at their current levels and limited any new items on the budget to very few". Herricks states that a number of other districts are proposing similarly modest increases, but are making cuts in programs and staff to get there. They go on to say that many other districts are proposing large budget increases. When you look at Herricks' performance vs. their cost per student the budget seems quite reasonable, especially compared to many other districts in Nassau.

That is the good news.

If you dig deeper though, overall salaries are increasing 3.7% year over year with instructional (teacher) salaries increasing 3.6%. Of the total proposed district budget of $93.8m, salaries make up $57.6m (~61.4%) with teacher salaries comprising $50.2m (~53.5% of the total SD budget) of the $57.6m salary total. The classification of Instruction-Teacher-Regular is in for a 4.65% increase from $27.4m to $28.7m. The proposed budget for O&M related salary (admin & support, custodians & maintenance staff, etc.) budget is in for a whopping 5.7% (moving from $4.354m to $4.602m - I'm guessing O.T. pay plays a large part of that increase, but I'm by no means sure of that at all). The salaries for those in the student transportation area also are projected to increase by 5.7% (moving from $1.229m to $1.299m).

In times like these, especially when we're talking about deflationary concerns as opposed to inflation, it's my position that most if not all of these salaries should be frozen at 2008-09 levels. I work for the state (non-union) and we had no increases this year of any kind, though our union counterparts did get their prescribed increases of roughly 3%, which again I disagree with entirely. To make matters worse, we were also strong-armed into handing over $550 million to NYS in order to close the large budget deficits that we're expected to see over the next several years. The bottom line is that everybody is suffering out there to one degree or another and I just think with prices falling and the economy in major trouble, that it is borderline unconscionable to have these proposed salary increases at this time.

[TomMoser]

Originally Posted by NHP Guy

In times like these, especially when we're talking about deflationary concerns as opposed to inflation, it's my position that most if not all of these salaries should be frozen at 2008-09 levels. I work for the state (non-union) and we had no increases this year of any kind, though our union counterparts did get their prescribed increases of roughly 3%, which again I disagree with entirely. To make matters worse, we were also strong-armed into handing over $550 million to NYS in order to close the large budget deficits that we're expected to see over the next several years. The bottom line is that everybody is suffering out there to one degree or another and I just think with prices falling and the economy in major trouble, that it is borderline unconscionable to have these proposed salary increases at this time.

This is an example of how non-union workers are exploited. Rather than bemoaning the benefits accruing to those who are in a union, perhaps you should look into organizing. You can say anything that you want about the teachers and their unions, but the fact is, that is why they exist: to do the best for their membership that they can, not to serve any public purpose. In my opinion, the biggest fault with the teachers unions on LI is that they are too aligned with management. They should keep their focus on serving their members.

[NHP Guy]

Originally Posted by TomMoser

This is an example of how non-union workers are exploited. Rather than bemoaning the benefits accruing to those who are in a union, perhaps you should look into organizing. You can say anything that you want about the teachers and their unions, but the fact is, that is why they exist: to do the best for their membership that they can, not to serve any public purpose. In my opinion, the biggest fault with the teachers unions on LI is that they are too aligned with management. They should keep their focus on serving their members.

This gets to the fundamental question of the pluses and minuses of unions in our modern society and economy. Am I a little peeved that no raises are coming my way this year, you bet, but it's not the first time that has happened in my career and looking at the big picture, I understand it and actually agree with the rationale, despite the backdrop of my company being a revenue maker unlike most other public entities. With that said, in my opinion the alternative view I presented stands on far firmer ground during these very difficult times when most people are suffering in some form or another. In my opinion, this type of stuff makes unions look like they are completely out of touch with the harsh realities that are taking place all around them.

[Transpl]

Originally Posted by TomMoser

This is an example of how non-union workers are exploited. Rather than bemoaning the benefits accruing to those who are in a union, perhaps you should look into organizing. You can say anything that you want about the teachers and their unions, but the fact is, that is why they exist: to do the best for their membership that they can, not to serve any public purpose. In my opinion, the biggest fault with the teachers unions on LI is that they are too aligned with management. They should keep their focus on serving their members.

You nailed it, thats why unions are a cancer. They exists only to serve its members, with no interest in the public good. A parasite that could care less about the health of its host. Yours is a typical Union attitude, playing the fiddle as Rome burned.

[tomonlineli]

"You continuously resort to reductio ad absurdum, reducing things to a point of absurdity, in your efforts to construct a straw argument (an argument that is easier to pick off because you are too lazy to come equipped with any facts). Yet, you are oh-so worn down by the "poor argument."

You are correct, I resort to breaking down others arguments to point out the absurdity of their arguments. Come equipped with facts? I see no facts in your argument. Check out my prior posts, I've added a lot of facts that prove my many points. You should be careful of throwing stones while in your house of glass.

Here's the thing. If you want to argue that salaries need to be reduced, you need to explain what the problem is. You need to indict the status quo by showing how people are harmed. Stating that teachers are paid too much is compelling, but not enough if you look at the cause. This perception of yours is relative to your pay, and as such is not a universal problem. It is a problem suffered by people with employers who fail to increase their pay despite the radical growth of GDP over the past 50 years.

No, no! Here's the thing. This is a forum, not a dissertation. BTW, indict is "to make a formal accusation," it makes no sense in your sentence. Nor does this paragraph follow a very logical or linear argument. You're kind of all over the place. I'll just chalk it up to you trying to write on a higher educational level than you've achieved (very common of forums).

Now, you evidently don't make as much as a teacher. As a result, you are angry. I understand that. This "problem" with them making more than you, however, has become more palpable with time as taxes have increased and their salaries have out-paced your own.

What's that old proverb about "ASS-U-ME-ING." I actually do very well for myself if you must know, much better than how well a teacher does. I'm highly educated and very successful. You are correct that teachers probably make a higher "salary" than me, it's probably a factor of me being a business owner. My gripe with the overpayment of teachers is that being paid well should be a factor of risk and productivity. Not of unionism and lobbying.

Problem here is that more people suffer with your solution than with the status quo. If the solution is to cut salaries, you will end up with a poorer school system. This is demonstrably the case because you can look at school systems with significantly lower pay, and the performance of students is profoundly worse. Now, you can argue until your are blue in the face that there is no causal link between teacher pay and student performance, but there is correlation. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that the two ARE NOT LINKED. That might mean showing instances in which salaries dropped and performance increased or stayed the same. I'll wait patiently for this good argument from you (considering you are tired of "poor" argument).

It's funny that you claim that I should support all my data, but you provide no statistical support of your own. You just claim it to be true, so we should take your word for it? If you want statistical data then on another post I provided statistical data based on state median salaries of teachers and graduation rates. Again, why am I the one that has to prove anything? Can you actually form a counter argument, or are you just able to criticize people on a very shallow level.

Though I have mentioned the following several times, you and your gang of burn-the-schools city-data thugs have ignored it completely. People in wealthy communities pay their teachers more. I don't know what community you live in, but I live in Northport. I want my teachers paid well, and I don't make as much as the average teacher (per your stats). But I know that people want to move into the Northport/East Northport district for the schools. Is it because of teacher pay? No. Is it because of the quality of the schools? Absolutely. I've lived here two years, and I moved here for the schools. I know two other families that planted themselves in the community because of the schools.

Now your calling me a thug. This is hilarious. It's wonderful that you chose an area based on school data and the perceived quality of education in a school system. However, your two years of experience does a great deal to explain your very shallow understanding of LI/NY politics and the environment with which we live in.

Now, you can retreat to your tired assertion that teacher pay and student performance aren't causal, but I want evidence substantiating that. I know you do to, considering how tired of poor argument you've grown.

You want evidence. OK.

An Examination of Teacher Salary and Student Performance.

Let me summarize it for you by focusing on one sentence

Though the resulting correlations did not show statistical significance, the general trend was a negative relationship. This implies that the better the teachers' salaries relative to other salaries in the area, the worse the students' performance.

So, based on the statistical evidence provided by a nine state study at best teachers salaries have nothing to do with students performance. However, at best it means that higher salaries are a moderate indicator of poorer performance for students. It works with the argument that higher teachers salaries force schools to provide less teachers, and more teachers is a clear indicator of better education.

NOW YOU PROVE THAT TEACHERS SALARIES DO IN FACT PROVIDE STUDENTS WITH A BETTER EDUCATION.

[djdairyp]

Originally Posted by tomonlineli

You want evidence. OK.

An Examination of Teacher Salary and Student Performance.

Let me summarize it for you by focusing on one sentence



So, based on the statistical evidence provided by a nine state study at best teachers salaries have nothing to do with students performance. However, at best it means that higher salaries are a moderate indicator of poorer performance for students. It works with the argument that higher teachers salaries force schools to provide less teachers, and more teachers is a clear indicator of better education.

NOW YOU PROVE THAT TEACHERS SALARIES DO IN FACT PROVIDE STUDENTS WITH A BETTER EDUCATION.

Statistical analysis is misleading. I still contend there is no proof either way and this whole argument is merely academic. It depends on what one study bases it on over another, there are simply too many factors, including differences in geographic regions that make results difficult compare and differences in how data is collected and what it means.

Search and you can find the opposite result
====================
Do Higher Salaries Buy Better Teachers?

The only significant relationship between salaries and student achievement holds (implausibly) for existing experienced teachers and not for new hires or for probationary teachers.



<<< Long island teachers, generally experienced teachers are hired in the higher performing districts >>>


Experimenting with teacher compensation: innovations piloted in districts include skills-based salary schedules, school performance awards and incentives for tougher assignments | School Administrator | Find Articles at BNET

Many states and urban districts see low salary levels as one aspect of the teacher quality problem. For example, Arkansas, California, Iowa, New Mexico and North Carolina concluded that teacher shortages and a decline in overall teacher quality were due at least in part to salary levels that had not kept up with the market.
=====================


The jury is still on on whether "increasing" salary increases performance, but one thing seems to have some significance is that in areas where teachers are paid well, there are generally a large percentage of high performing students there

[TubaFish]

Originally Posted by DeadPool1998

Here's the thing. If you want to argue that salaries need to be reduced, you need to explain what the problem is. You need to indict the status quo by showing how people are harmed. Stating that teachers are paid too much is compelling, but not enough if you look at the cause. This perception of yours is relative to your pay, and as such is not a universal problem. It is a problem suffered by people with employers who fail to increase their pay despite the radical growth of GDP over the past 50 years.

Here's an argument for you. High teacher salaries lead to an egregious tax burden on property owners. Only a small minority of wage-earners can afford to pay $10K-plus in local taxes each year on top of a huge mortgage and other necessary expenses. Such people are completely priced out of the area and move to places like VA and NC (and then come on this forum to whine). There are two problems with this mass exodus.
1) The working-class filght reduces diversity (both ethnic and economic) in the area.
2) This completely stifles the growth of business/manufacturing on LI. Companies will not move to areas where there isn't a pool of people willing to work for working-class wages. And if they had to pay everyone $60K-plus so that they could afford the crazy taxes (among other expenses) around here, many companies could not stay afloat.

As to your GDP argument, how delightfully liberal. The reason the GDP has grown over the past 50 years is because people had ideas as to products and services that would be successful in the marketplace and then created businesses to implement those ideas. For argument's sake, the software and technology that Microsoft introduces continually revolutionize the PC industry. Microsoft has been very successful as a result. Now who should stand to gain from the company's growing profits: Bill Gates - who came up with the ideas - or the peon manufacturing computers on an assemply line? BILL GATES!!! He came up with the million-dollar ideas. The guy on the assembly lines keeps doing the same job, only one day he might be manufacturing a Windows 2000 computer and the next day a Windows 3000. The peon hasn't done anything to merit a raise, but Bill Gates has. Now take this scenario and apply to the vast majority of successful American businesses that have contributed to GDP growth.

Originally Posted by DeadPool1998

Though I have mentioned the following several times, you and your gang of burn-the-schools city-data thugs have ignored it completely. People in wealthy communities pay their teachers more. I don't know what community you live in, but I live in Northport. I want my teachers paid well, and I don't make as much as the average teacher (per your stats). But I know that people want to move into the Northport/East Northport district for the schools. Is it because of teacher pay? No. Is it because of the quality of the schools? Absolutely. I've lived here two years, and I moved here for the schools. I know two other families that planted themselves in the community because of the schools.

In this statement, you've described a perfectly acceptable alternative hypothesis to your "high pay=high quality education " theory. If people cared enough about their children's education to move to a new town because of it, that speaks to the quality of parent they are. Such parents are likely to be very involved in their children's lives and give their children more opportunities (above and beyond an over-priced education) than the typical student in a working-class shool district that does not score as highly in school rankings. While this does not prove that these childrens' success is not due to highly-paid teachers, it does introduce a possible mitigating factor that would need to be disproven by you - or anyone else - before we conclude that an extremely expensive education is the reason for student success. It seems entirely likely that teachers are the illegitimate recipients of financial rewards that parents should instead be giving to themselves for the academic success of their own children.

Originally Posted by NHP Guy

This gets to the fundamental question of the pluses and minuses of unions in our modern society and economy. Am I a little peeved that no raises are coming my way this year, you bet, but it's not the first time that has happened in my career and looking at the big picture, I understand it and actually agree with the rationale, despite the backdrop of my company being a revenue maker unlike most other public entities. With that said, in my opinion the alternative view I presented stands on far firmer ground during these very difficult times when most people are suffering in some form or another. In my opinion, this type of stuff makes unions look like they are completely out of touch with the harsh realities that are taking place all around them.

I agree with your sentiment, NHP Guy. Why is it that teachers have come to expect at least a 3% raise each year? What is it that teachers have done that private-sector employees have not done during the course of the year to merit that raise? What, are we supposed to pay teachers more just because they have survived another year and have a pulse? Why are their services worth more next year than they are this year? Don't give me the "inflation" BS, because the problem with arguing this is that the teachers' employers (the tax-payers) are not posting increased profits each year. It is helpful to look at the government as a company of sorts in this situation. No "company" is going to pay its employees more when it is not seeing increased revenue. Why should teachers escape this trend. All you pro-teacher posters out there please answer this question for me.
Please don't use the "it's the middle-class fighting the middle-class" argument that has come up so frequently on this thread and that the answer is employers paying their workers more money (Like I mentioned above, the private sector employed middle-class doesn't really deserve raises).

[TomMoser]

Originally Posted by Transpl

You nailed it, thats why unions are a cancer. They exists only to serve its members, with no interest in the public good. A parasite that could care less about the health of its host. Yours is a typical Union attitude, playing the fiddle as Rome burned.

Actually, I believe in free market capitalism. I am obviously not a union member, being a self-employed real estate broker.

The point that I was making is that it is not the job of unions to serve a public good. It is their job to do the best for their members as possible. I also do not believe that it is the job of corporations to serve the public good. It is their job to do the best for their shareholders as possible.

The only organization out there that has an obligation to act in the public good is the government, and they have done a woefull job of it.