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.
Teachers do not make $160,000.00. After 30 years, you might tell a college student, some teachers in the highest paying districts have earned as much as $135,000.00 Not sure how impressive that number is - given the 30 year caveat. Let's not insult teachers by comparing them to lawyers.
There were two teachers in Central Islip alone that made over $200,000. It was a thread on here about a year ago. Yes, it takes decades to get that high, but the fact that this level of income is attainable is unbelievable.
First, I'm not criticizing the district. You are flat out wrong with that comment.
Second, to qualify your statement with "school systems perform at the level of the Nassau district" is setting up any comparison for failure, and you know that. Not many school districts perform at the level of East Williston and surely even less, if any, have endured teacher pay cuts. So by qualifying your statement in that way, you've virtually eliminated all school systems on which to base the policy decision. That's what I call being intellectually dishonest.
Third, you didn't place the burden on those proposing change, you gave 2 choices (status quo vs. performance improvement). That's unproductive and unrealistic. How you can expect a pay cut to lead to increased performance? And if pay has such a strong and direct correlation to performance as your posts indicate, why not pay teachers $15 million a year? I think you know the answer to that question.
Lastly, I never said I advocated cutting teacher pay. I do believe that it's an option that should be considered. Syosset teachers gave back pay increases - according to you the metrics of quality will diminish. We shall see. Plenty of other school districts had teacher union concessions, 0% raises (Roslyn last year) and last I checked the Roslyn School District is still doing very well. I can't wait to see Syosset School District performance metrics next year.
1) Don't prove that your pay cuts improve performance. Show some reason to believe that a pay cut won't harm performance. If you can't, then what is the benefit?
2) I'm not asking you to pick a district that is identical to East Williston. Pick one that is similar. This will allow us to reason from analogy.
3) Reducing pay is a proposal to change the status quo. As noted, I'm fine with you being able to demonstrate that lowering pay has no negative effect on performance.
I think we've agreed on the parameters for a valuable discussion. I look forward to what you have to share.
I suggest noting that the admission that the East Williston district has few parallels is quite an admission in a discussion about slashing pay. But go ahead. It's your argument.
1) Don't prove that your pay cuts improve performance. Show some reason to believe that a pay cut won't harm performance. If you can't, then what is the benefit?
2) I'm not asking you to pick a district that is identical to East Williston. Pick one that is similar. This will allow us to reason from analogy.
3) Reducing pay is a proposal to change the status quo. As noted, I'm fine with you being able to demonstrate that lowering pay has no negative effect on performance.
I think we've agreed on the parameters for a valuable discussion. I look forward to what you have to share.
I suggest noting that the admission that the East Williston district has few parallels is quite an admission in a discussion about slashing pay. But go ahead. It's your argument.
I'm not here to debate you. I simply pointed out your ridiculous assertion that only 2 choices exist and brought in a 3rd option. Go look up the Roslyn stats from last year and compare to this year. The Roslyn teachers gave up their raises last year. That school district should be comparable to EW.
I have no issue with how much teachers are paid. The only problem I see is that the money doesn't pay for the quality that we think we deserve. If a person going to college knew s/he could make $160k as a teacher, teaching, lawyering, and doctoring would be more equally competitive. Unfortunately, there are too few mechanisms for getting rid of bad teachers in order to open up spots for the promising ones. Still, that doesn't mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I'd rather keep the status quo until someone demonstrates that cutting teacher pay will enhance performance.
I think you are right on Dead, if the high salaries were creating strong results then we could justify the high taxes on Long Island. Unfortunately, when you compare average LI school expenditures/graduate rates to comparable income areas of the United States you come out with some very sobering mediocrity. We are not getting what we are paying for, and that is bad business. We, as a community, have been convinced that pumping money into schools is a great investment. Unfortunately, many other variables effect the quality of schools other then how much money you put in them.
My school district paid $25,000 per student last year. I would think we would get more out of our money if we cut that budget by $10,000/student and put $5,000 into an account for the student's parents to use on tutor and private instruction. Let them put the other money in a savings account bearing interest so the kid could afford college and have a down payment on a house so he can stay on Long Island.
I'm not here to debate you. I simply pointed out your ridiculous assertion that only 2 choices exist and brought in a 3rd option. Go look up the Roslyn stats from last year and compare to this year. The Roslyn teachers gave up their raises last year. That school district should be comparable to EW.
Your model for effecting public policy is interesting. You point your finger at a shiny thing and say, "Hey, look at that!" When someone says, "What should be do about it?" you shrug and say, "I don't have to prove anything, but golly, it seems like you are awful interested. Go find our your own self."
There were two teachers in Central Islip alone that made over $200,000. It was a thread on here about a year ago. Yes, it takes decades to get that high, but the fact that this level of income is attainable is unbelievable.
Highly unusual (they each earned over 50,000.00 in coaching and summer school activities) and I would agree that it takes about 30 years to get to the highest points on district salary scales (about $ 130,000.00). Your article indicates average salary (at 15 years or so) to be in the mid-eighties.
I think you are right on Dead, if the high salaries were creating strong results then we could justify the high taxes on Long Island. Unfortunately, when you compare average LI school expenditures/graduate rates to comparable income areas of the United States you come out with some very sobering mediocrity. We are not getting what we are paying for, and that is bad business. We, as a community, have been convinced that pumping money into schools is a great investment. Unfortunately, many other variables effect the quality of schools other then how much money you put in them.
My school district paid $25,000 per student last year. I would think we would get more out of our money if we cut that budget by $10,000/student and put $5,000 into an account for the student's parents to use on tutor and private instruction. Let them put the other money in a savings account bearing interest so the kid could afford college and have a down payment on a house so he can stay on Long Island.
Can you give examples? Please draw comparisons and please account for the cost of living.
Your model for effecting public policy is interesting. You point your finger at a shiny thing and say, "Hey, look at that!" When someone says, "What should be do about it?" you shrug and say, "I don't have to prove anything, but golly, it seems like you are awful interested. Go find our your own self."
Golly gee, why don't you go back and read my initial post. I'm not looking to affect public policy, I'm correcting your error. You said we have two options, I listed a third. Get it now? I'm not looking to debate whether the third option is the way to go, but I am correcting your intellectual dishonesty since you omitted same performance less cost as a viable option.
Highly unusual (they each earned over 50,000.00 in coaching and summer school activities) and I would agree that it takes about 30 years to get to the highest points on district salary scales (about $ 130,000.00). Your article indicates average salary (at 15 years or so) to be in the mid-eighties.
I know, if I remember correctly one earned $60,000 as the varsity swim coach or some non-sense.
That is for a neighborhood where the median household income is $57,252 per the 2000 census, which means it probably went down from there. The school has a graduation rate of 60% vs state average of 76%. Expenditures for students, $23,288 per student vs. state average of $16,387. Those are some stark facts right there. They paid 142% more in expenditures per student and had a graduation rate that was 26% lower.
I'm sorry, but the taxpayers of CI should be asking to get their money back.
Can you give examples? Please draw comparisons and please account for the cost of living.
I just did in my above post Dead, and used Central Islip as an example.
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.
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.
Make an argument.
