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.
They arent all good teachers... Before you go saying that the teachers do not need the finger pointed at them... Show me the results.. We pay some of the highest school taxes in the nation... We should be in the top school districts in the nation going by your logic
And without those teachers, there would be other teachers.... The teachers make the same argument as the police as the administrators as the sanitation department blah blah blah.... Its for our kids, its to protect you, you want to live in garbage? --- wake up... the intelligent ones just shut their mouths because they know they got it good... The stupid ones fight back... see below
When will it end....
Someone posted a WSJ article with police salary figures.... The comment by the representative of the PBA I believe was that we should pay higher rates because we are wealthier county...... Some people should not be allowed to speak, but it says volumes of how they actually think.
You're right tumm, if it's all about the kids, saftey, or service then shouldn't all of the teachers, police, and administrators cut their salaries by half so we could hire two of them. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty certain two teachers at 50k/year can teach just as well as one teacher at 100k/year. But, alas, it's not about the students. They are just a shield that the unions put up to protect themselves with. Using children to push your special interests, they should be ashamed of themselves.
It is now an open secret that school districts have padded their administrative payrolls over the past 15 years and created needless and overpaid non-teaching positions. And this is at the same time as computers have streamlined and simplified administrative operations. Any taxpayer that does not demand an immmediate elimination of all these 'new' positions and a consolidating of the 'legacy' positions is letting the board and superintendent rip off taxpayers. Any administrative position eliminated saves taxpayer money each and every year. The first and easiest target for real cost-savings are the bloated and duplicative district administrative payrolls. Issues of county-wide district consolidations, elementary and secondary class size adjustments, limits of extracurriculars, bussing costs, and teacher pay come later. Somehow this simple and obvious construct gets lost in the misdirected teacher bashing and civil service compensation bruhaha.
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 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.
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.
So in your mind, there are 2 options:
1) Keep status quo
2) Cut pay only if it enhances performance
What about option 3: get the same performance for less cost?
Give reason to believe teachers will produce the same result in the context of receiving pay reductions and I'll consider it. Because this is a deliberative matter, I'd much rather guess on the side of enhancing instruction than reducing my tax burden.
Give reason to believe teachers will produce the same result in the context of receiving pay reductions and I'll consider it. Because this is a deliberative matter, I'd much rather guess on the side of enhancing instruction than reducing my tax burden.
It's occuring in many school districts across the nation. I'm not advocating for cuts in teacher pay but to take the position of "show me it enhances performance" is ignorant and unproductive.
It's occuring in many school districts across the nation. I'm not advocating for cuts in teacher pay but to take the position of "show me it enhances performance" is ignorant and unproductive.
First, show me where school systems perform at the level of the Nassau district you are criticizing at less pay following a pay cut. Use any measure you want to demonstrate performance equity or enhancement. It could be scores, dropout rates, placement, scholarships. You name it.
Second, placing the burden of proof on those advocating change is neither ignorant nor unproductive. It prevents bad public policy. I KNOW what i have in the status quo. We can, however, only SPECULATE about the consequences of proposed policy. As such, the bar is set pretty high for those who want to change the present system.
Third, I'm willing to bet that people in this forum would have agreed that teh gym teacher were paid to much if you had substituted in $150, $140, $130, $120, $110, $100, $90, $80, $70, $60, or $50 thousand per year. Getting this group to agree in principle that public employees should be paid less is a no brainer. How much less should this person be paid? Once you determine the percentage of cut, then apply that to your research. Where in the US has a school district imposed cute of 1%, 5%, 10%, 30% and maintained morale and performance? I'm curious. I'm sure you wouldn't reduce pay capriciously. I'm certain you've thought this through carefully because you wouldn't want to be "ignorant or unproductive."
I look forward to the outcome of your research. Or, if the request is too daunting, just fire back with something snarky!
First, show me where school systems perform at the level of the Nassau district you are criticizing at less pay following a pay cut. Use any measure you want to demonstrate performance equity or enhancement. It could be scores, dropout rates, placement, scholarships. You name it.
Second, placing the burden of proof on those advocating change is neither ignorant nor unproductive. It prevents bad public policy. I KNOW what i have in the status quo. We can, however, only SPECULATE about the consequences of proposed policy. As such, the bar is set pretty high for those who want to change the present system.
Third, I'm willing to bet that people in this forum would have agreed that teh gym teacher were paid to much if you had substituted in $150, $140, $130, $120, $110, $100, $90, $80, $70, $60, or $50 thousand per year. Getting this group to agree in principle that public employees should be paid less is a no brainer. How much less should this person be paid? Once you determine the percentage of cut, then apply that to your research. Where in the US has a school district imposed cute of 1%, 5%, 10%, 30% and maintained morale and performance? I'm curious. I'm sure you wouldn't reduce pay capriciously. I'm certain you've thought this through carefully because you wouldn't want to be "ignorant or unproductive."
I look forward to the outcome of your research. Or, if the request is too daunting, just fire back with something snarky!
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.
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.
Show me it can be done.
