Christie does the right thing. (how much, lawyers, school districts)
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.
Good for him. The education funding equation seems to work like this. If your district receives 6% of its budget from the state you will now receive 1%. If your state receives 40% of its state budget from state, you will now receive 34%. Way to cut good start and its fair to boot. Cuts are needed right now and this is a fair start.
but what about the teachers that work less than 200 days a year, and get an awesome pention, and fabulous job security (which is very important in this market)? Cutting anything from the budget will hurt the kids since all the money given to the schools now is used wisely and not wasted at all.
I have no problem with teachers making $90K if they work 250 days (give them 15 days vacation, and no sick time like I get), no pension (like me), and no tenure (like me).
but what about the teachers that work less than 200 days a year, and get an awesome pention, and fabulous job security (which is very important in this market)? Cutting anything from the budget will hurt the kids since all the money given to the schools now is used wisely and not wasted at all.
I have no problem with teachers making $90K if they work 250 days (give them 15 days vacation, and no sick time like I get), no pension (like me), and no tenure (like me).
you must not have children!.. you need teachers.. teachers are the lowest paid out of all the professional jobs... such as lawyers doctors pharmacists.. and they are needed.. why shouldn't teachers get any benefits.. they have one of the hardest jobs you ever could imagine.. working with other peoples children is not a cake walk. .making sure they grow up to at least know basic skills is a tough job.. if you cut these things you're going to have a lot more teachers caring less about how your children learn...! and entry level start at 34,000 it takes them over 20 years to even reach 90,000 if ever.. what job do you have maybe you need to switch careers?
Good for him. The education funding equation seems to work like this. If your district receives 6% of its budget from the state you will now receive 1%. If your state receives 40% of its state budget from state, you will now receive 34%. Way to cut good start and its fair to boot. Cuts are needed right now and this is a fair start.
Don't look fair to me..school districts that were doing it right get punished the most with this idea.
From 6% to 1%..thats 85% decrease
Now those school districts that were doing it wrong in past get a slap on the wrists.
If those figures are true about the 5% reductions, regardless of non-Abbott versus Abbott districts, that will not engender any support from Christie's voting base. The Abbott Districts didn't vote him in: the suburbs did. The cuts, therefore, should have been proportional on a percentage basis, as Carlo suggests. In effect, the Abbotts probably should have received 85% of the cuts, and remaining districts received an 18% cut. Translated, it should have been for the non-Abbotts, 6% to 5%, and for the Abbotts, 40% to maybe 10 or even 5%. I wonder if there is legal precedent for him not be able to do the right thing. In any event, if I was an NJ resident in a non-Abbott district (i.e. Christie's base) then I would be extremely angered by these figures, and the percentages.
but what about the teachers that work less than 200 days a year, and get an awesome pention, and fabulous job security (which is very important in this market)? Cutting anything from the budget will hurt the kids since all the money given to the schools now is used wisely and not wasted at all.
I have no problem with teachers making $90K if they work 250 days (give them 15 days vacation, and no sick time like I get), no pension (like me), and no tenure (like me).
Sounds like you should be a teacher. If not that then you should have thought about your career before you chose it. All of the perks are clearly outlined before taking on a career. Why didnt you become a teacher? Thanks.
If those figures are true about the 5% reductions, regardless of non-Abbott versus Abbott districts, that will not engender any support from Christie's voting base. The Abbott Districts didn't vote him in: the suburbs did. The cuts, therefore, should have been proportional on a percentage basis, as Carlo suggests. In effect, the Abbotts probably should have received 85% of the cuts, and remaining districts received an 18% cut. Translated, it should have been for the non-Abbotts, 6% to 5%, and for the Abbotts, 40% to maybe 10 or even 5%. I wonder if there is legal precedent for him not be able to do the right thing. In any event, if I was an NJ resident in a non-Abbott district (i.e. Christie's base) then I would be extremely angered by these figures, and the percentages.
The numbers dont lie, too bad you don't agree with them. Maybe you can find someone else to vote for in 4 years. Best of luck.
you must not have children!.. you need teachers.. teachers are the lowest paid out of all the professional jobs... such as lawyers doctors pharmacists.. and they are needed.. why shouldn't teachers get any benefits.. they have one of the hardest jobs you ever could imagine.. ?
lol, is this a sarcastic post? You aren't really comparing a teacher's education and training to that of a lawyer, doctor, or pharmacist. Whether based on the length of schooling or intensity of the program, they are no where near comparable. I could never go through that much schooling to be a doctor, but I could be a teacher in a heartbeat.
And hardest job you could imagine? I feel like an idiot now, this must have been sarcasm, you got me.
lol, is this a sarcastic post? You aren't really comparing a teacher's education and training to that of a lawyer, doctor, or pharmacist. Whether based on the length of schooling or intensity of the program, they are no where near comparable. I could never go through that much schooling to be a doctor, but I could be a teacher in a heartbeat.
And hardest job you could imagine? I feel like an idiot now, this must have been sarcasm, you got me.
Last I checked teachers,doctors,lawyers and pharmacist are not in the same tax bracket. Try spending 1 day in a classroom before you judge what is challenging it or not. Just a little side note I was a pharmacist tech in college and lets not act as if pharmacist are geniuses. I filled all of the rx and the pharmacist just checked them. Hardly genius work if you ask me. How much do they start at? 124k? Wow, Nice.
If those figures are true about the 5% reductions, regardless of non-Abbott versus Abbott districts, that will not engender any support from Christie's voting base. The Abbott Districts didn't vote him in: the suburbs did. The cuts, therefore, should have been proportional on a percentage basis, as Carlo suggests. In effect, the Abbotts probably should have received 85% of the cuts, and remaining districts received an 18% cut. Translated, it should have been for the non-Abbotts, 6% to 5%, and for the Abbotts, 40% to maybe 10 or even 5%. I wonder if there is legal precedent for him not be able to do the right thing. In any event, if I was an NJ resident in a non-Abbott district (i.e. Christie's base) then I would be extremely angered by these figures, and the percentages.
It would be nice but he will be butting heads with Supreme Court rulings on this Abbott fiasco. Link provided doesn't go into enough detail but you can get the jist:
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.