Why teachers need more pay

[sealybobo]

If anything, the trend is toward colleges weighing the SAT or ACT less than in previous years. The GPA is right there on the transcript. Colleges look at it.

I specifically..... SPECIFICALLY ASKED.... if my GPA was required to gain entrance.

They said.... NO. What part of this, are you unable to understand?

The part where you lie over and over again.

Why would I lie about this? For what reason?

Grades pointless? Some colleges don't care about GPAs

Parents and their high school students are fascinated by the grade point average and what it means in college admissions, but the truth is that a number of colleges and universities are not all that interested.

Admissions officers at some of the nation's most selective colleges, who are now sending acceptance letters for their fall freshman classes, say they barely look at an applicant's GPA.

"It's meaningless," says Greg Roberts, admissions dean at the University of Virginia, ranked as the top public university in this year's 150 Best Value Colleges, published by The Princeton Review and based on academics and affordability.​

So now I have on the record, direct quotes from people who work at the admissions of major universities, saying the exact same thing.

I'll ask you again.... what am I lying about, and prove it.

As I said before, I specifically asked if the college I applied at, was looking at my GPA. They said directly "no". So now, YOU are the liar.

Why do you keep lying? You know I'm right, and I have the facts to prove it. Why are you lying to everyone on this forum, this entire thread? Does that stroke your ego to claim others are lying, when you are the one lying?

You are offering a lot in defense of your arguments. Unkotare isn’t contributing. To me it seems like he’s letting you do all the talking.

A man of few words.

Totally. Unkotare usually has more to offer than this. I'm wondering if some Bernie supporters hacked his account or something. All his done this thread is "you lie! you suck! wrong!". He's less interesting than the seagulls in Finding Nemo at this point.

I just put him on ignore. I won’t see his irrelevant comment that come with no explanation.

 

[Unkotare]

If anything, the trend is toward colleges weighing the SAT or ACT less than in previous years. The GPA is right there on the transcript. Colleges look at it.

...You got to be smart to graduate from a great college. ..

Wrong again. No surprise yet again you have no idea what you are talking about.

How so?

Most of the time you have to be smart to get into a great college. Once you are in college, the difficulty of work depends upon what courses you are willing to take and how hard you are willing to work. Kind of education you get at any major college or university will be roughly equivalent and will depend on you. The Ivy League’s do not require harder work from their students than most other universities. In fact, the IVs are the most notorious grade inflators because they want it to look like they only except the very best. You have to suck pretty hard to get a B at Harvard. However, getting into Harvard is very difficult under most circumstances. And, when you graduate the piece of paper with the name Harvard on it carries a great deal of value.

 

[Unkotare]

Colleges DO look at GPA, among all other criteria.

Yea and most will take someone with a 2.5 average.

And you must admit a private school B is an A at your public school right?

Quite the contrary.

 

[Flopper]

How do you know that most teachers don't teach because they "love kids and love teaching"? How do you know most do it simply for the paycheck?

Where are your stats or your surveys on this...or are you just making crap up?

Is there anything wrong with doing your job for nothing but your paycheck only? It may be easier if you also like your job, but you don't have to, you just have to do it and do it to an acceptable quality.

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what you mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions. By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes, it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states, district levies are capped by the state.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, there will be changes in school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

 

[sealybobo]

Is there anything wrong with doing your job for nothing but your paycheck only? It may be easier if you also like your job, but you don't have to, you just have to do it and do it to an acceptable quality.

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions.

By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states district levies are capped.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get's additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, thee will be changes school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

They worry about you passing these tests instead of preparing students for college.

Private schools get all their kids tested out of a year of college. They make their students study, a lot. So when they go off to college they know what to expect.

I didn’t have a lot of inspiring teachers in highschool. They were nice but yawn

 

[anotherlife]

Is there anything wrong with doing your job for nothing but your paycheck only? It may be easier if you also like your job, but you don't have to, you just have to do it and do it to an acceptable quality.

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what you mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions.

By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes, it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states, district levies are capped by the state.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, there will be changes in school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

This sounds nice on paper, but it is hard to imagine how you are not ending up like General Motors when you carry pension obligations year after year. In fact, some sarcastic remarks from Wall Street call American auto makers investment houses that by the way also make cars.

The big difference is that I can choose not to by a GM car if I don't want to sponsor their retirements. But I am not allowed to choose not to pay school district taxes. Therefore whilst it is already odd in auto circles, it is totally unethical in schools to burden people with their pensions.

Most school budgets confirm that teacher salaries are much less than pension payouts, both coming from taxpayers directly.

And your description of school accountability is only academic.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Is there anything wrong with doing your job for nothing but your paycheck only? It may be easier if you also like your job, but you don't have to, you just have to do it and do it to an acceptable quality.

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what you mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions. By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes, it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states, district levies are capped by the state.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, there will be changes in school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

Your information is a little confused. The rates of employee contribution vary, but in my state my retirement was funded 100% by yours truly! Those funds were to be invested and the amount of my retirement would be based on my contributions over my employment. The problem was that these funds were hijacked by Democrats in the legislature and governors to pay the state's bills and the retirement funds were never fully funded as they should have been.

I "retired" by resigning and pulling my funds out lump sum. Paying off my bills will net me about $700.00 per month in additional savings which is far in excess of what I would ever get from the state.

 

[sealybobo]

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what you mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions.

By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes, it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states, district levies are capped by the state.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, there will be changes in school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

This sounds nice on paper, but it is hard to imagine how you are not ending up like General Motors when you carry pension obligations year after year. In fact, some sarcastic remarks from Wall Street call American auto makers investment houses that by the way also make cars.

The big difference is that I can choose not to by a GM car if I don't want to sponsor their retirements. But I am not allowed to choose not to pay school district taxes. Therefore whilst it is already odd in auto circles, it is totally unethical in schools to burden people with their pensions.

Most school budgets confirm that teacher salaries are much less than pension payouts, both coming from taxpayers directly.

And your description of school accountability is only academic.

I think we all agree pensions are a horrible idea. Pay someone a days wage for a days work. Unions were brilliant to negotiate and win pensions for their union members but its unaffordable

But I also believe politicians shouldn’t get pensions after they retire either. Don’t take away teacher pensions and leave pensions for Paul Ryan and Nancy pelosi.

 

[Flopper]

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions.

By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states district levies are capped.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get's additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, thee will be changes school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

They worry about you passing these tests instead of preparing students for college.

Private schools get all their kids tested out of a year of college. They make their students study, a lot. So when they go off to college they know what to expect.

I didn’t have a lot of inspiring teachers in highschool. They were nice but yawn

I have 4 grand kids in high school today in 3 different states. What makes a huge difference in high school is being in advanced placement classes. AP classes are usually taught by better teachers but the big difference is about 90% of the class is college bound so you don't have as much disruption in class by kids that are just there because the law or their parents are forcing them to be there. Also there's a lot of homework, typically hours every night plus there are advanced topics taught that are not in standard classes.

 

[sealybobo]

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions.

By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states district levies are capped.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get's additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, thee will be changes school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

They worry about you passing these tests instead of preparing students for college.

Private schools get all their kids tested out of a year of college. They make their students study, a lot. So when they go off to college they know what to expect.

I didn’t have a lot of inspiring teachers in highschool. They were nice but yawn

I have 4 grand kids in high school today in 3 different states. What makes a huge difference in high school is being in advanced placement classes. AP classes are usually taught by better teachers but the big difference is about 90% of the class is college bound so you don't have as much disruption in class by kids that are just there because the law or their parents are forcing them to be there. Also there's a lot of homework, typically hours every night plus there are advanced topics taught that are not in standard classes.

I wasn’t AP material

 

[Flopper]

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions.

By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states district levies are capped.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get's additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, thee will be changes school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

They worry about you passing these tests instead of preparing students for college.

Private schools get all their kids tested out of a year of college. They make their students study, a lot. So when they go off to college they know what to expect.

I didn’t have a lot of inspiring teachers in highschool. They were nice but yawn

I have 4 grand kids in high school today in 3 different states. What makes a huge difference in high school is being in advanced placement classes. AP classes are usually taught by better teachers but the big difference is about 90% of the class is college bound so you don't have as much disruption in class by kids that are just there because the law or their parents are forcing them to be there. Also there's a lot of homework, typically hours every night plus there are advanced topics taught that are not in standard classes.

I wasn’t AP material

Neither was I but that was long before there were AP classes. People say schools don't give kids enough homework. That has not been my experience. My grand-kids work their ass off compared to what I did in high school

 

[Flopper]

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what you mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions. By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes, it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states, district levies are capped by the state.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, there will be changes in school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

Your information is a little confused. The rates of employee contribution vary, but in my state my retirement was funded 100% by yours truly! Those funds were to be invested and the amount of my retirement would be based on my contributions over my employment. The problem was that these funds were hijacked by Democrats in the legislature and governors to pay the state's bills and the retirement funds were never fully funded as they should have been.

I "retired" by resigning and pulling my funds out lump sum. Paying off my bills will net me about $700.00 per month in additional savings which is far in excess of what I would ever get from the state.

Interesting. I retired from a Florida school district to go into other work. I only had 15 years in the retirement system but did get a pension.

Here is the link I got the employer contributions to retirement from
Just How Expensive and Generous Are Teacher Pension Plans?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what you mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions. By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes, it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states, district levies are capped by the state.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, there will be changes in school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

Your information is a little confused. The rates of employee contribution vary, but in my state my retirement was funded 100% by yours truly! Those funds were to be invested and the amount of my retirement would be based on my contributions over my employment. The problem was that these funds were hijacked by Democrats in the legislature and governors to pay the state's bills and the retirement funds were never fully funded as they should have been.

I "retired" by resigning and pulling my funds out lump sum. Paying off my bills will net me about $700.00 per month in additional savings which is far in excess of what I would ever get from the state.

Interesting. I retired from a Florida school district to go into other work. I only had 15 years in the retirement system but did get a pension.

Here is the link I got the employer contributions to retirement from
Just How Expensive and Generous Are Teacher Pension Plans?

I retired from Florida and Kentucky. The way I (and you most likely) retired in Florida is no longer applicable as they changed it in the early 2000s.

 

[Flopper]

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what you mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions. By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes, it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states, district levies are capped by the state.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, there will be changes in school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

Your information is a little confused. The rates of employee contribution vary, but in my state my retirement was funded 100% by yours truly! Those funds were to be invested and the amount of my retirement would be based on my contributions over my employment. The problem was that these funds were hijacked by Democrats in the legislature and governors to pay the state's bills and the retirement funds were never fully funded as they should have been.

I "retired" by resigning and pulling my funds out lump sum. Paying off my bills will net me about $700.00 per month in additional savings which is far in excess of what I would ever get from the state.

Interesting. I retired from a Florida school district to go into other work. I only had 15 years in the retirement system but did get a pension.

Here is the link I got the employer contributions to retirement from
Just How Expensive and Generous Are Teacher Pension Plans?

I retired from Florida and Kentucky. The way I (and you most likely) retired in Florida is no longer applicable as they changed it in the early 2000s.

I retired from Florida in the 1990's. I understand they changed it some years later. However, I still get an FRS pension check from them monthly based on years of service time some factor times my final salary. I think they add a cost living increase every year since my check increases every July.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what you mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions. By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes, it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states, district levies are capped by the state.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, there will be changes in school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

Your information is a little confused. The rates of employee contribution vary, but in my state my retirement was funded 100% by yours truly! Those funds were to be invested and the amount of my retirement would be based on my contributions over my employment. The problem was that these funds were hijacked by Democrats in the legislature and governors to pay the state's bills and the retirement funds were never fully funded as they should have been.

I "retired" by resigning and pulling my funds out lump sum. Paying off my bills will net me about $700.00 per month in additional savings which is far in excess of what I would ever get from the state.

Interesting. I retired from a Florida school district to go into other work. I only had 15 years in the retirement system but did get a pension.

Here is the link I got the employer contributions to retirement from
Just How Expensive and Generous Are Teacher Pension Plans?

I retired from Florida and Kentucky. The way I (and you most likely) retired in Florida is no longer applicable as they changed it in the early 2000s.

I retired from Florida in the 1990's. I understand they changed it some years later. However, I still get an FRS pension check from them monthly based on years of service time some factor times my final salary. I think they add a cost living increase every year since my check increases every July.

That is the same for me, but I retired (officially) in 2016, but my employment ended in 2006. I stayed with the old option. The new plan is a self funded 401K type of retirement where the state never really touches the money after you direct the investments.

 

[Flopper]

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what you mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions.

By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes, it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states, district levies are capped by the state.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, there will be changes in school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

This sounds nice on paper, but it is hard to imagine how you are not ending up like General Motors when you carry pension obligations year after year. In fact, some sarcastic remarks from Wall Street call American auto makers investment houses that by the way also make cars.

The big difference is that I can choose not to by a GM car if I don't want to sponsor their retirements. But I am not allowed to choose not to pay school district taxes. Therefore whilst it is already odd in auto circles, it is totally unethical in schools to burden people with their pensions.

Most school budgets confirm that teacher salaries are much less than pension payouts, both coming from taxpayers directly.

And your description of school accountability is only academic.

I think we all agree pensions are a horrible idea. Pay someone a days wage for a days work. Unions were brilliant to negotiate and win pensions for their union members but its unaffordable

But I also believe politicians shouldn’t get pensions after they retire either. Don’t take away teacher pensions and leave pensions for Paul Ryan and Nancy pelosi.

Pensions today really don't make much sense since they seem to always require a number of years to be vested or you get nothing. Young people today change jobs often. A 403B is a much better alternative.

Pension plans were designed to encourage employee loyalty. That was in the days when employee loyalty was important. Today employers have little interest in keeping their employees to retirement. Most businesses don't seem to last more than 5 or 10 years.

 

[Unkotare]

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions.

By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states district levies are capped.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get's additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, thee will be changes school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

...

Private schools get all their kids tested out of a year of college. ...

Obviously wrong, AGAIN. Some people clearly know nothing about public or private school, but love to shoot their mouths off regardless.

 

[sealybobo]

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what you mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions. By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes, it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states, district levies are capped by the state.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, there will be changes in school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

Your information is a little confused. The rates of employee contribution vary, but in my state my retirement was funded 100% by yours truly! Those funds were to be invested and the amount of my retirement would be based on my contributions over my employment. The problem was that these funds were hijacked by Democrats in the legislature and governors to pay the state's bills and the retirement funds were never fully funded as they should have been.

I "retired" by resigning and pulling my funds out lump sum. Paying off my bills will net me about $700.00 per month in additional savings which is far in excess of what I would ever get from the state.

Interesting. I retired from a Florida school district to go into other work. I only had 15 years in the retirement system but did get a pension.

Here is the link I got the employer contributions to retirement from
Just How Expensive and Generous Are Teacher Pension Plans?

I retired from Florida and Kentucky. The way I (and you most likely) retired in Florida is no longer applicable as they changed it in the early 2000s.

Please explain to us how my sister in law bought years? Do you know anything about this? I’ll have to ask her again but she can’t stand teaching and can’t wait to retire even though she’ll never find another job that will pay her $70k. So she paid money so she can retire early, with a pension. Something like 7 years early.

I don’t think teachers today have this option today.

God I wish I would have went to ford right out of high school. Today I would have 31 years and I’d already be retired. Same if I was a teacher. Instead I’m 48 and I have to work till I’m 67. Teachers got it really fucking good.

 

[sealybobo]

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

I don't know what you mean when say 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions.

By far the greatest expense of schools is teacher salaries of which retirement is a part of their compensation. So yes, it does reach the schools. Employer contributions to teacher retirement varies widely by state. Texas is the lowest at about 4%. Utah is highest at about 20%.

Schools can not raise taxes, school districts can and they are responsible to the tax payer. In some states, district levies are capped by the state.

Also schools do have to perform. Schools with low standardize test scores are penalized today. This begins with a probationary period in which the school get additional help from the state or district. If the school does not improve, there will be changes in school administration, student transfers, and even school closure.

This sounds nice on paper, but it is hard to imagine how you are not ending up like General Motors when you carry pension obligations year after year. In fact, some sarcastic remarks from Wall Street call American auto makers investment houses that by the way also make cars.

The big difference is that I can choose not to by a GM car if I don't want to sponsor their retirements. But I am not allowed to choose not to pay school district taxes. Therefore whilst it is already odd in auto circles, it is totally unethical in schools to burden people with their pensions.

Most school budgets confirm that teacher salaries are much less than pension payouts, both coming from taxpayers directly.

And your description of school accountability is only academic.

I think we all agree pensions are a horrible idea. Pay someone a days wage for a days work. Unions were brilliant to negotiate and win pensions for their union members but its unaffordable

But I also believe politicians shouldn’t get pensions after they retire either. Don’t take away teacher pensions and leave pensions for Paul Ryan and Nancy pelosi.

Pensions today really don't make much sense since they seem to always require a number of years to be vested or you get nothing. Young people today change jobs often. A 403B is a much better alternative.

Pension plans were designed to encourage employee loyalty. That was in the days when employee loyalty was important. Today employers have little interest in keeping their employees to retirement. Most businesses don't seem to last more than 5 or 10 years.

I don’t think corporations like ford or schools had a problem with loyalty at all. I think they are unionized and the unions fought and won those pensions. Notice most non union places don’t give a fuck about loyalty? So I don’t think ford or your school would lose sleep if you or I left.

My brother is in hr. He told me pensions were a way to avoid giving a raise today. So the company or school promised future money, ie pensions. Kicking the can down the road. And today they realize they made a bad deal. They even offered people buy outs. My dad took his ford buy out. He did the math and he would have to live to 90 to have the pension make sense so he took the buyout.

 

[Andylusion]

Colleges DO look at GPA, among all other criteria.

Yea and most will take someone with a 2.5 average.

And you must admit a private school B is an A at your public school right?

Wrong, idiot.

Ignored. Bye Unkotare. If you have nothing to say, then you are just a burden to the forum. Nice knowing you.

See what I mean? Are you just realizing this about him?

Are you a conservative? He agrees with conservatives on most issues he knows nothing about but when it comes to his public education unionized tenured collective bargaining job he’s a total liberal. This may be why you think he usually adds more. He doesn’t. Not ever. You just may not be the one he’s frustrating.

He also derails the thread by making me call him out. Then I get banned. I will put him on ignore too.

Same with that snowflake lady teacher who put me on ignore. She can’t stand her own hypocrisy. She cries because I hope she loses her liberal benefits and entitlements but she votes for right to work legislation so she should have to worry about her job just like the rest of us.

I honestly had better discussions with him in the past. He must have lost his mind or something.