Arizona budget passes; cuts total $1.1 billion (Tucson, Flagstaff: public schools, university, voucher)

[NAU Alumni]

Originally Posted by odinloki1

I don't think making people with low incomes pay increased tuition rates is the better solution, do you? How much of the tuition did the state pay? How much do they pay now?

I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what percentage the Arizona taxpayers paid for my tuitition. What I can tell you is that I worked every Summer and also took two semesters off to work. I am a firm believer that if something is important to you then you should be willing to work for it. This builds character. I don't have a problem giving back to society and helping the new generation. As a matter of fact, I have a substantial portion in my will set aside for the NAU College of Engineering. I am not saying this to impress anybody here. I could care less. It's a personal thing. Anyway, back on topic, I do have a problem with those in the new generation that expect everything to be handed to them as they waste their life away playing x-box.

I am also not against public education, But, if Private/Charter schools can prove to be more efficient with better results, then that's the option I'll choose. 60 Minutes did piece on DC parents putting their kids into a "lotto" system trying to get their children into charter schools. You should see the look on the parents that failed to get their kids accepted. They obviously were distressed with the thought of having keep their kids in the failed public school system.

So;
Yes, education is important.
And, sinking more money into a failed public system is not the answer.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by odinloki1

Then think about the causes of problems, not the outcomes. if a kid doesn't go to school, or goes then doesn't do the homework because the parents don't do their job (or the parents are not home because they're working), do you really think private schools will do better?

All I know is that discipline standards are usually higher in the private schools. But while it's true that there will always be slackers no matter what kind of education system there is, at least us childless people wouldn't be stuck flipping the bill for everyone else's kids ... especially the public schools which are always substandard, and always seem to be lacking money no matter how many funds are allocated to them.

Originally Posted by odinloki1

Then think about private schools, smaller class sizes, and teachers that work for minimum wage. You're at least gonna need more teachers.

Teachers' salaries are pathetically low in the public schools as it is (especially considering what all they have to contend with). If they were all shifted to the private sector, they could have the opportunity to compete for better wages. See, it's all about competition ... and that's how education should be: competitive, privatized, and managed like a regular business. Furthermore, if the education system was privatized, schools could compete with each other for better results. It wouldn't be all about grabbing tax money and worrying about not having enough for books, etc. like it is now.

Originally Posted by odinloki1

Then throw in all of the problem kids of public schools (which, most private schools have less of). How many teachers will take a nice big paycut, to teach the same problem kids?

What do you mean pay cut??? Teachers often earn more in the private sector than in the public sector. And if they see the opportunity to transfer to a school that offers better wages, they would be free to do so. They wouldn't be under the glass ceiling that many of the current districts have.

Originally Posted by odinloki1

Fans of privatization never really think about why private schools might work. They just see the word PRIVATE and see some better success rates and think it must be the magic of privatization. I attended private school and public, my wife and I have both taught in public. Public schools can succeed, if parents do their job.

But many parents AREN'T doing their job. Therefore, with education paid for by public tax money, and parents getting a free ride for the most part when they send their kids off to school, they often use the system like free daycare. If schools were privatized, the public (especially the property owners) would have this enormous tax burden lifted from them, and the parents with kids in school would be paying the tuition for THEIR children, not for everyone else's. And think about this: if parents were made to pay for their own kids' schooling, they would likely take more of interest in their education. Money talks, and hitting them in the wallet would be a step in the right direction.

Originally Posted by odinloki1

Find the cause then fix the problem.

The cause is gross mis management of the schools, taxpayers being forced to subsidize this enormous money pit, and continuous poor results in the end regardless of how much money is thrown into the education system. The fix would be to privatize the schools. Consider how much easier it would have been for the state to balance the budget if education was not a part of the equation. As I said before, nearly 50% of the state budget is allocated to public education. That's a huge amount of public money being taken from us and put into a system that simply doesn't work anymore.

The solution to this (and other issues) is not more government intervention, but less. PRIVATIZE, PRIVATIZE, PRIVATIZE!!!

[miamiman]

Throwing money at a situation doesn't solve anything. Many school-age children in this country do not respect public education at all. Whether it's children disrupting class, not doing their homework, tearing up school-issued textbooks, complaining at the workload a teacher gives them, vandalizing parts of the school, feigning illness to stay out of school, parents skipping PTA meetings because they don't want to miss their favorite TV show, or even their families taking them on vacation during school days, Americans just do not care. Why should taxpayers who do not have school age children (like me) want to support children who do not want to be in school in the first place? It makes absolutely no sense.

People need to stop putting so much pressure on the government to provide children with a decent education and need to star putting pressure on the parents for some accountability. Do you think schools in India and Japan have problems with parents distancing themselves from their child's education? Doubtful.

If you want your child to get a decent education in this country, it should be up to YOU to make sure that it happens. If that means enrolling your children in private school or homeschooling them, so be it. Stop relying on MY tax dollars for YOUR child's education.

[whitem3]

Originally Posted by miamiman

If you want your child to get a decent education in this country, it should be up to YOU to make sure that it happens.

I agree 100%. It's totally up to the child and parents to be motivated to get the education needed to prosper in our society. No amount of money thrown into the system is going to educate your child if he or she is not interested in applying themselves and learning.

[Grannysroost]

Throwing more money into something that has been broken is pertinent, but I think before the education issue is dealt with, we have local and state government as a whole to fix first.....not looking good

[observer53]

Originally Posted by rambrush

Has anyone actually read the document? In there they will be taking 2.75% from our paychecks PLUS another 5% on top of that PLUS furlough days? How many employers can do that and retain employees? We will never get that money back and that will affect retirement benefits. This pay reduction will take upwards of $1.50 per hour reduction in pay. BUT we MAY get to keep our job. How is the moral of the employees going to be after losing that much income?

Not that I want to interrupt the pages of back and forth on the retiree/school tax etc. issue, but I'll get back to this actual budget question.

I can't find the actual document to read it, but if the pay cuts/furloughs go into effect, (and I don't see the 5 percent in the articles on what was proposed, just the 2.75 percent performance pay and the furlough days) for people who are low on the pay scale to start with, it's going to hurt a lot, especially if they have families. I'm relieved not to be in that position, but i know too many who are.

Retirement benefits effect? Employees who could have retired but were continuing to work to qualify for a higher benefit level or some other good reason (like that they LIKE working) will retire BEFORE this kicks in. My agency lost a few long time employees when they first started talking furloughs last spring in the last budget year, because of the impact the furloughs would ultimately have on their retirement benefits if they had planned on retiring in the next three years. I suspect I could lose three of my coworkers who are in that position now, if they decide to go now rather than see their pensions cut. And, there will be no replacing them, for who knows how long. There are clerical staff in my office in a similar position, and I can see one of them (who can already do the work of three with a smile) leaving. We are already down clerical positions, it's a good thing several of us do our own typing. But, that is not what we are paid to do.

All that said, it's ALL better than layoffs, and that's a fact.

[Grannysroost]

Originally Posted by observer53

Not that I want to interrupt the pages of back and forth on the retiree/school tax etc. issue, but I'll get back to this actual budget question.

I can't find the actual document to read it, but if the pay cuts/furloughs go into effect, (and I don't see the 5 percent in the articles on what was proposed, just the 2.75 percent performance pay and the furlough days) for people who are low on the pay scale to start with, it's going to hurt a lot, especially if they have families. I'm relieved not to be in that position, but i know too many who are.

Retirement benefits effect? Employees who could have retired but were continuing to work to qualify for a higher benefit level or some other good reason (like that they LIKE working) will retire BEFORE this kicks in. My agency lost a few long time employees when they first started talking furloughs last spring in the last budget year, because of the impact the furloughs would ultimately have on their retirement benefits if they had planned on retiring in the next three years. I suspect I could lose three of my coworkers who are in that position now, if they decide to go now rather than see their pensions cut. And, there will be no replacing them, for who knows how long. There are clerical staff in my office in a similar position, and I can see one of them (who can already do the work of three with a smile) leaving. We are already down clerical positions, it's a good thing several of us do our own typing. But, that is not what we are paid to do.

All that said, it's ALL better than layoffs, and that's a fact.

So Observer53, how will this whole thing affect your job and what you do and time constraints to get the job done with ...with all these people gone...It can't be good...

[observer53]

Well, GR, I guess we will have to wait and see what actually transpires. Until then, we just keep our heads down and keep working.

[olegk]

Originally Posted by aliveandwellinSA

and who pays for this


The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Arizonans: Executive Summary

So.. Solution is simple. Kick out illigals from school and we get at least 60% increase of investement per student.

[observer53]

According to the director of my agency (who was literally in my office this morning), the withdrawal of the authorization for performance pay, plus the furlough days, amounts to 5.1 percent total, which is what they were talking about to start with. No one knows yet when that part goes into effect, etc. In my mind, setting it up that way rather than just taking a flat 5 or 5.1 percent out of every paycheck lessens the blow a bit for the same ultimate result, but everyone affected will see it differently.