86% of School Budget is Salary/Benefits?? (New York, Commack: attorney, private schools, live)

[llama8]

Originally Posted by 56 Fighter

Teachers deserve to be paid well (and are). What I think should be inacted is a "cap" on teacher pay (at say $110k after 20 years). That should be the trade-off for the tenure policy. Teachers should make a decent salary and I think if salaries were capped at a reasonable amount, the vast majority of people wouldn't have an issue with teacher compensation. It's the stories of the teachers that make crazy amounts of money doing swimming lessons that make people go crazy.

There is a cap on teacher salaries on almost every district contract. Once you hit 20 years, you can't make any more than $109,000 at my district (on the top step of credits).

[djdairyp]

Originally Posted by llama8

There is a cap on teacher salaries on almost every district contract. Once you hit 20 years, you can't make any more than $109,000 at my district (on the top step of credits).

This is true, there is a "salary cap" at most schools though some do give longevity payments.

I think people sometimes wrongly look at total compensation and apply it to the salary paid for teaching.

If a teacher chooses to coach 5 sports, do summer school, and run 10 activities ... they will have a massive boost to their salary ... maybe their listed salary could be on the order of $140,000 or so. But people will look at that and say ... hey look that teacher is getting paid 150k to teach, when in reality the salary for their base teaching duties is much less. The extra 30-40 k or so spent should be factored out because that money would have to be spent either way, whether it is spread out amongst 10 teachers to make salaries look lower or all given to one person really doesn't matter but most people don't consider this when looking at the top salaries.

That being said, some simply argue the base salary for teachers that do nothing extra is still to much ... they are entitled to their opinion, some agree with it some do not.

[I_Love_LI_but]

Originally Posted by llama8

There is a cap on teacher salaries on almost every district contract. Once you hit 20 years, you can't make any more than $109,000 at my district (on the top step of credits).

Looks like your district is losing out.

LI teachers getting hefty raises despite economy -- Newsday.com

Even in the face of a souring economy, many Long Island school districts have approved hefty raises for teachers that soon will push salaries to more than $140,000 a year for the highest earners.

Within three to four years, top pay for the most senior teachers will rise to $140,090 in the North Shore district, $142,900 in Cold Spring Harbor and $145,060 in Mount Sinai.

Central Islip's contract, signed five years ago, runs through the 2014-15 school year. By then, its top earners will be paid $173,840.

Look at the fun the administrators have with our tax money:

School official retires one day, is rehired the next -- Newsday.com

After retiring as an assistant school superintendent in Commack on Jan. 1 of this year, Ronald Grotsky could look forward to a generous public pension as a reward for his nearly 40 years of service - $100,682 a year.

His retirement was remarkably short-lived.

On Jan. 2, Grotsky returned to the same job in the same district at the same salary he was making the day before, $174,900 annually. Coupled with his pension, Grotsky was now earning $275,582, paid by state and local taxpayers. The only difference was essentially a clerical one - the district now classified him under the title "interim" assistant superintendent. He said the district did not interview any other candidates for the job before approving his interim status.

Some of these people should be drawn and quartered ...

[Huckleberry3911948]

whenever asked about accountability the knee jerk reaction is always underfunded.
voucher sooner the better.

[I_Love_LI_but]

Originally Posted by djdairyp

This is true, there is a "salary cap" at most schools though some do give longevity payments.

I think people sometimes wrongly look at total compensation and apply it to the salary paid for teaching.

If a teacher chooses to coach 5 sports, do summer school, and run 10 activities ... they will have a massive boost to their salary ... maybe their listed salary could be on the order of $140,000 or so. But people will look at that and say ... hey look that teacher is getting paid 150k to teach, when in reality the salary for their base teaching duties is much less. The extra 30-40 k or so spent should be factored out because that money would have to be spent either way, whether it is spread out amongst 10 teachers to make salaries look lower or all given to one person really doesn't matter but most people don't consider this when looking at the top salaries.

That being said, some simply argue the base salary for teachers that do nothing extra is still to much ... they are entitled to their opinion, some agree with it some do not.

That doesn't reflect the facts. Wasn't the Central Islip teacher recently featured in Newsday running activities and teaching swimming in summer school making more like $230K rather than $150K? The supposed cap of $173,840 in his district will not be in effect until the 2014-15 school year.

Apparently the "caps" are only for regular salary and the teachers can earn more by doing more. We're not completely stupid on here.

[djdairyp]

Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but

On Jan. 2, Grotsky returned to the same job in the same district at the same salary he was making the day before, $174,900 annually. Coupled with his pension, Grotsky was now earning $275,582, paid by state and local taxpayers. The only difference was essentially a clerical one - the district now classified him under the title "interim" assistant superintendent. He said the district did not interview any other candidates for the job before approving his interim status.

Some of these people should be drawn and quartered ...

This is exactly what I am taking about. This expenditure is a given, if they higher a new asst. superintendent to replace this guy or girl, the amount of money going out would potentially be higher or at least similar because they have to pay this new guys salary plus his benefits and pension contribution for him. It actually saves money having this one person get it rather than having him take his pension and not be working and having another person on staff. Possibly the district could higher a super at a lower wage, but as far as I know there is actually not a large supply of candidates that meet the qualifications and most of them elicit high salaries coming in as well.

Granted, you may still think the salaries themselves are too high, but to single out certain people and gasp, while understandable, from a strictly cost based analysis may be misplaced.

[AlexisT]

He was making just under 200K I think, and his base was about 140--mainly through 40 years seniority.

The caps don't include extra pay for coaching--they only apply to the salary schedule.

[djdairyp]

Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but

That doesn't reflect the facts. Wasn't the Central Islip teacher recently featured in Newsday running activities and teaching swimming in summer school making more like $230K rather than $150K? The supposed cap of $173,840 in his district will not be in effect until the 2014-15 school year.

Apparently the "caps" are only for regular salary and the teachers can earn more by doing more. We're not completely stupid on here.

You are missing my point, I am using made up numbers not referencing that specific person ... the exact details of his specific compensation isn't what I am talking about, I am making a general point.

The point I am making is that these extra positions have to be filled by someone, whether they are hired outside of the district or given to 10 teachers or given to 1 teacher, the expenditure is the same but peoples reactions to them when one person fills the needs of all these extra positions is misplaced and sometimes misinterpreted as well.

[DeadPool1998]

Originally Posted by thepokerdepot

Please correct me if I'm wrong,..I hope I am.
I came acroos this link NewYorkSchools.com.
If you press the link, you will see the expenses for Bellmore-Merrick.
Then go to tab and press "expenditure data"

Am I reading this correctly? 86% of the Budget goes to Benefits/Wages?
Other Schools are about the same. Please corrext me If I'm wrong

I was checking on Westbury School dostrict also and it's up there as well,..The budget amount matches the amount of budget on record. I know the Westbury Super makes over 300k. While Merrick's Super makes 270k plus and just agreed on a contract for 4years for 3.5% per year for Teachers and I think 5% a year increase for the Super.

86% isn't bad unless you know what the ideal percentage is. What should it be?

[I_Love_LI_but]

Originally Posted by djdairyp

This is exactly what I am taking about. This expenditure is a given, if they higher a new asst. superintendent to replace this guy or girl, the amount of money going out would potentially be higher or at least similar because they have to pay this new guys salary plus his benefits and pension contribution for him. It actually saves money having this one person get it rather than having him take his pension and not be working and having another person on staff. Possibly the district could higher a super at a lower wage, but as far as I know there is actually not a large supply of candidates that meet the qualifications and most of them elicit high salaries coming in as well.

Granted, you may still think the salaries themselves are too high, but to single out certain people and gasp, while understandable, from a strictly cost based analysis may be misplaced.

What happens in the real world for the rest of the wage slaves is that once you retire you are RETIRED, not collecting a pension and a salary for doing the same job. And in the real world we don't have pensions anymore anyway. We have to fund our own retirements with 401k plans, of which it is entirely VOLUNTARY for our employers to contribute anything to.

We would find it more honest and above-board for another candidate to be hired than to pay this double dipper TWICE for the same job. Thanks for nothing, pal! If he can still work, why did he retire? Just to shove his head further into the taxpayer's trough.