Why teachers need more pay

[Andylusion]

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.

So I agree, different school systems have varying fiscal situations.

However, total compensation is on average, much higher than just the salary. By most estimates, almost 33% higher. A teacher earning $60K, is actually collecting $90K in compensation.

Public School Teachers Are Paid More Than Commonly Reported

But even then, I think sometimes the budgets are obscuring the costs. For example, just for fun I punched up Columbus Public School budget report. On the 3rd page of school funds, at the bottom of the report, I found a line item for $45 Million dollars, paid directly to the pension system. That in itself wasn't too surprising, except that the funding wasn't from the general school funds, but rather a bond levy. So the city sold bonds, to pay the pension system. But bonds.... have to be paid back.

So essentially they used a credit card to pay off their student loan.

This of course isn't listed as a cost of school system, because it was "income" from the bonds.

But more than that, I see a number of expensive waste in the system. This is the short list of obvious examples.

$2 Million for college credit programs. Why? Private schools don't do that, and the students take placement tests that allow them to skip classes they don't need.
$2 Million for retention of legal services.
$1 Million for formative assessment program.
$1.2 Million for college advisers. Colleges already have full time college advisers on staff. Let the students go to them.
$1.5 Million for YMCA Truancy Centers.
$4.7 Million for "reading adoption program". I'm sorry... I was told I had to read books and give reports on them. I never had a special program to get me to adopt reading.

And I could go on to the 'at-risk' programs for students, which if they worked at all, then we should have the least risky students in the world.

Point is, there are many many programs that essentially proclaim to do what.... the school system should be doing anyway.

So I think his basic point is correct. We are spending millions on millions, on things that are not salaries or on schools.

 

[anotherlife]

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.

Why would you get a cost of living increase? Working people don't get a cost of living increase. They get just outsourced.

 

[anotherlife]

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.

What is 403B? I thought it was 401k.

 

[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?

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.

I am consistent.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

So I agree, different school systems have varying fiscal situations.

However, total compensation is on average, much higher than just the salary. By most estimates, almost 33% higher. A teacher earning $60K, is actually collecting $90K in compensation.

Public School Teachers Are Paid More Than Commonly Reported

But even then, I think sometimes the budgets are obscuring the costs. For example, just for fun I punched up Columbus Public School budget report. On the 3rd page of school funds, at the bottom of the report, I found a line item for $45 Million dollars, paid directly to the pension system. That in itself wasn't too surprising, except that the funding wasn't from the general school funds, but rather a bond levy. So the city sold bonds, to pay the pension system. But bonds.... have to be paid back.

So essentially they used a credit card to pay off their student loan.

This of course isn't listed as a cost of school system, because it was "income" from the bonds.

But more than that, I see a number of expensive waste in the system. This is the short list of obvious examples.

$2 Million for college credit programs. Why? Private schools don't do that, and the students take placement tests that allow them to skip classes they don't need.
$2 Million for retention of legal services.
$1 Million for formative assessment program.
$1.2 Million for college advisers. Colleges already have full time college advisers on staff. Let the students go to them.
$1.5 Million for YMCA Truancy Centers.
$4.7 Million for "reading adoption program". I'm sorry... I was told I had to read books and give reports on them. I never had a special program to get me to adopt reading.

And I could go on to the 'at-risk' programs for students, which if they worked at all, then we should have the least risky students in the world.

Point is, there are many many programs that essentially proclaim to do what.... the school system should be doing anyway.

So I think his basic point is correct. We are spending millions on millions, on things that are not salaries or on schools.

They need that money to protect themselves from being sued by idiots.

I find your logic lacking in everything you post. $1 million is just 10 people using the compensation figures you chose to use. My school district's budget in Florida was $6 billion! You are arguing about chump change because you don't see the need. It is there, whether you like it or not!

 

[Andylusion]

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.

So I agree, different school systems have varying fiscal situations.

However, total compensation is on average, much higher than just the salary. By most estimates, almost 33% higher. A teacher earning $60K, is actually collecting $90K in compensation.

Public School Teachers Are Paid More Than Commonly Reported

But even then, I think sometimes the budgets are obscuring the costs. For example, just for fun I punched up Columbus Public School budget report. On the 3rd page of school funds, at the bottom of the report, I found a line item for $45 Million dollars, paid directly to the pension system. That in itself wasn't too surprising, except that the funding wasn't from the general school funds, but rather a bond levy. So the city sold bonds, to pay the pension system. But bonds.... have to be paid back.

So essentially they used a credit card to pay off their student loan.

This of course isn't listed as a cost of school system, because it was "income" from the bonds.

But more than that, I see a number of expensive waste in the system. This is the short list of obvious examples.

$2 Million for college credit programs. Why? Private schools don't do that, and the students take placement tests that allow them to skip classes they don't need.
$2 Million for retention of legal services.
$1 Million for formative assessment program.
$1.2 Million for college advisers. Colleges already have full time college advisers on staff. Let the students go to them.
$1.5 Million for YMCA Truancy Centers.
$4.7 Million for "reading adoption program". I'm sorry... I was told I had to read books and give reports on them. I never had a special program to get me to adopt reading.

And I could go on to the 'at-risk' programs for students, which if they worked at all, then we should have the least risky students in the world.

Point is, there are many many programs that essentially proclaim to do what.... the school system should be doing anyway.

So I think his basic point is correct. We are spending millions on millions, on things that are not salaries or on schools.

They need that money to protect themselves from being sued by idiots.

I find your logic lacking in everything you post. $1 million is just 10 people using the compensation figures you chose to use. My school district's budget in Florida was $6 billion! You are arguing about chump change because you don't see the need. It is there, whether you like it or not!

You said you found my logic lacking..... but fail to give an example.

You said according to my numbers, that was only 10 people. I'm assuming you meant my example that a teacher earning $60K is actually getting $90K in compensation.

But you missed the point. That point was, that is insane. Teachers are way over compensated in benefits. Benefits shouldn't cost 33% more than the base salary. In any private market system, you would almost never see that, unless the company was some insanely profitable business.

Additionally that $60K was an example. An entry level teacher, starting off their first year, would likely only be paid $30K. By that token $10 Million should cover the hiring of almost 20 to 25 new teachers.

And then lastly, $10 Million was only the few things that I pulled out of the budget. This wasn't an exhausted University study of where school funding goes. I just punched up the local school budget, and ran through a few line items. I didn't do a research project on it.

Meaning what you see here, is simply what a college fail out loser poster on the internet found, with a few minutes of searching.

Without any doubt, any real in depth study of where all the money is going, would find hundreds of examples of money going to non-educational purposes.

So I don't think my logic is lacking at all. If you wish to convince me, feel free. I'll consider anything you have to offer.

For example, you mention the law suits being the reason they need to spend $2 Million dollars on retaining legal help.

Ok... but then why do none of the private schools need such help? Why are they able to educate students without millions in legal services?
The cynical side of me, says that the politicians have friends in legal profession, and found a great "deal" on legal services with the school district.

The practical side of me, says that simply being a government run system, makes them a target for law suits because people know the government will want to settle fast to avoid negative publicity at re-election time.

Regardless, this alone makes the case for moving towards a private school system over a public one.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

So I agree, different school systems have varying fiscal situations.

However, total compensation is on average, much higher than just the salary. By most estimates, almost 33% higher. A teacher earning $60K, is actually collecting $90K in compensation.

Public School Teachers Are Paid More Than Commonly Reported

But even then, I think sometimes the budgets are obscuring the costs. For example, just for fun I punched up Columbus Public School budget report. On the 3rd page of school funds, at the bottom of the report, I found a line item for $45 Million dollars, paid directly to the pension system. That in itself wasn't too surprising, except that the funding wasn't from the general school funds, but rather a bond levy. So the city sold bonds, to pay the pension system. But bonds.... have to be paid back.

So essentially they used a credit card to pay off their student loan.

This of course isn't listed as a cost of school system, because it was "income" from the bonds.

But more than that, I see a number of expensive waste in the system. This is the short list of obvious examples.

$2 Million for college credit programs. Why? Private schools don't do that, and the students take placement tests that allow them to skip classes they don't need.
$2 Million for retention of legal services.
$1 Million for formative assessment program.
$1.2 Million for college advisers. Colleges already have full time college advisers on staff. Let the students go to them.
$1.5 Million for YMCA Truancy Centers.
$4.7 Million for "reading adoption program". I'm sorry... I was told I had to read books and give reports on them. I never had a special program to get me to adopt reading.

And I could go on to the 'at-risk' programs for students, which if they worked at all, then we should have the least risky students in the world.

Point is, there are many many programs that essentially proclaim to do what.... the school system should be doing anyway.

So I think his basic point is correct. We are spending millions on millions, on things that are not salaries or on schools.

They need that money to protect themselves from being sued by idiots.

I find your logic lacking in everything you post. $1 million is just 10 people using the compensation figures you chose to use. My school district's budget in Florida was $6 billion! You are arguing about chump change because you don't see the need. It is there, whether you like it or not!

You said you found my logic lacking..... but fail to give an example.

You said according to my numbers, that was only 10 people. I'm assuming you meant my example that a teacher earning $60K is actually getting $90K in compensation.

But you missed the point. That point was, that is insane. Teachers are way over compensated in benefits. Benefits shouldn't cost 33% more than the base salary. In any private market system, you would almost never see that, unless the company was some insanely profitable business.

Additionally that $60K was an example. An entry level teacher, starting off their first year, would likely only be paid $30K. By that token $10 Million should cover the hiring of almost 20 to 25 new teachers.

And then lastly, $10 Million was only the few things that I pulled out of the budget. This wasn't an exhausted University study of where school funding goes. I just punched up the local school budget, and ran through a few line items. I didn't do a research project on it.

Meaning what you see here, is simply what a college fail out loser poster on the internet found, with a few minutes of searching.

Without any doubt, any real in depth study of where all the money is going, would find hundreds of examples of money going to non-educational purposes.

So I don't think my logic is lacking at all. If you wish to convince me, feel free. I'll consider anything you have to offer.

For example, you mention the law suits being the reason they need to spend $2 Million dollars on retaining legal help.

Ok... but then why do none of the private schools need such help? Why are they able to educate students without millions in legal services?
The cynical side of me, says that the politicians have friends in legal profession, and found a great "deal" on legal services with the school district.

The practical side of me, says that simply being a government run system, makes them a target for law suits because people know the government will want to settle fast to avoid negative publicity at re-election time.

Regardless, this alone makes the case for moving towards a private school system over a public one.

You can't find where I said I found your logic lacking, but you quoted it! What a dumbass!

In regards to private schools, look at the numbers. Most private schools deal with a few thousand students at best. My school district in Florida had 127,000 students. Catch a clue!

That $30,000 teacher comes with benefits too! Your numbers are just something you pulled out of your ass, because I worked 21 years and never made more than $55,000 in salary, and our benefits were less than $700 a month, and had to move to a "poor" state to get that because Florida is one of the worst states in the US as far as paying teachers. I would really like to know what type of benefits you are talking about because I received a paycheck with all of that listed. None of what you claimed is true in the vast majority of districts in this nation.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

What is 403B? I thought it was 401k.

403B is the 401K for government workers. It's a little different, but essentially the same thing.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

So I agree, different school systems have varying fiscal situations.

However, total compensation is on average, much higher than just the salary. By most estimates, almost 33% higher. A teacher earning $60K, is actually collecting $90K in compensation.

Public School Teachers Are Paid More Than Commonly Reported

But even then, I think sometimes the budgets are obscuring the costs. For example, just for fun I punched up Columbus Public School budget report. On the 3rd page of school funds, at the bottom of the report, I found a line item for $45 Million dollars, paid directly to the pension system. That in itself wasn't too surprising, except that the funding wasn't from the general school funds, but rather a bond levy. So the city sold bonds, to pay the pension system. But bonds.... have to be paid back.

So essentially they used a credit card to pay off their student loan.

This of course isn't listed as a cost of school system, because it was "income" from the bonds.

But more than that, I see a number of expensive waste in the system. This is the short list of obvious examples.

$2 Million for college credit programs. Why? Private schools don't do that, and the students take placement tests that allow them to skip classes they don't need.
$2 Million for retention of legal services.
$1 Million for formative assessment program.
$1.2 Million for college advisers. Colleges already have full time college advisers on staff. Let the students go to them.
$1.5 Million for YMCA Truancy Centers.
$4.7 Million for "reading adoption program". I'm sorry... I was told I had to read books and give reports on them. I never had a special program to get me to adopt reading.

And I could go on to the 'at-risk' programs for students, which if they worked at all, then we should have the least risky students in the world.

Point is, there are many many programs that essentially proclaim to do what.... the school system should be doing anyway.

So I think his basic point is correct. We are spending millions on millions, on things that are not salaries or on schools.

They need that money to protect themselves from being sued by idiots.

I find your logic lacking in everything you post. $1 million is just 10 people using the compensation figures you chose to use. My school district's budget in Florida was $6 billion! You are arguing about chump change because you don't see the need. It is there, whether you like it or not!

You said you found my logic lacking..... but fail to give an example.

You said according to my numbers, that was only 10 people. I'm assuming you meant my example that a teacher earning $60K is actually getting $90K in compensation.

But you missed the point. That point was, that is insane. Teachers are way over compensated in benefits. Benefits shouldn't cost 33% more than the base salary. In any private market system, you would almost never see that, unless the company was some insanely profitable business.

Additionally that $60K was an example. An entry level teacher, starting off their first year, would likely only be paid $30K. By that token $10 Million should cover the hiring of almost 20 to 25 new teachers.

And then lastly, $10 Million was only the few things that I pulled out of the budget. This wasn't an exhausted University study of where school funding goes. I just punched up the local school budget, and ran through a few line items. I didn't do a research project on it.

Meaning what you see here, is simply what a college fail out loser poster on the internet found, with a few minutes of searching.

Without any doubt, any real in depth study of where all the money is going, would find hundreds of examples of money going to non-educational purposes.

So I don't think my logic is lacking at all. If you wish to convince me, feel free. I'll consider anything you have to offer.

For example, you mention the law suits being the reason they need to spend $2 Million dollars on retaining legal help.

Ok... but then why do none of the private schools need such help? Why are they able to educate students without millions in legal services?
The cynical side of me, says that the politicians have friends in legal profession, and found a great "deal" on legal services with the school district.

The practical side of me, says that simply being a government run system, makes them a target for law suits because people know the government will want to settle fast to avoid negative publicity at re-election time.

Regardless, this alone makes the case for moving towards a private school system over a public one.

You can't find where I said I found your logic lacking, but you quoted it! What a dumbass!

In regards to private schools, look at the numbers. Most private schools deal with a few thousand students at best. My school district in Florida had 127,000 students. Catch a clue!

That $30,000 teacher comes with benefits too! Your numbers are just something you pulled out of your ass, because I worked 21 years and never made more than $55,000 in salary, and our benefits were less than $700 a month, and had to move to a "poor" state to get that because Florida is one of the worst states in the US as far as paying teachers. I would really like to know what type of benefits you are talking about because I received a paycheck with all of that listed. None of what you claimed is true in the vast majority of districts in this nation.

You said:

You can't find where I said I found your logic lacking, but you quoted it! What a dumbass!​

I said:

You said you found my logic lacking..... but fail to give an example.​

That didn't seem a difficult sentence to understand.

Private schools are dealing with only a few thousand...... because the public schools take most of the students, because due to taxes, parents either can't afford, or choose to not afford private schools.

I don't think that matters that much, because in the end, it's a similar number of students per teacher. For example, my high school that I went to, has a 16 : 1 student teacher ratio. Average class sizes are under 20.

Similarly, private schools typically have between 15 and 20 students, and yet they greatly out perform the school I went to.

Therefore, if the number of students an individual teacher has to deal with is similar, why are education outcomes so different?

Both of my parents were public school teachers. My father made over $100K a year. My mother was close behind. Of course they were both exceptional.

Obviously, each state, and each local school district has their own pay scale and systems. My parents have a net worth over a million dollars today, and aside from living a modest life, and being wise with their investments in stock, and property... the amount of money they earned was entirely from their public school teacher wages.

I can't answer for you. And you getting upset is ridiculous. Why are you mad? About what?

Look.... there is a problem in our school system. You can't possibly deny that. Our system is the most expensive system in the world, and yet our students come out in the middle of the pack on average. I had a guy that couldn't use a calculator by 11th grade.

So I'm not here to "attack teachers". Or tell everyone who taught that they suck. That isn't my point.

My only beef with teachers generally, and the teachers unions, is that I don't seem to hear any solutions.

Much like you on this thread. I'm not 'against' you. I want a solution. Right now I see that private schools do the exact same thing as public schools, except they do them better, much better, for lower cost, a much lower cost.

And I'm saying... there must be something to this. There has to be a reason. Now if you have a solution, that does not involve having the most expensive educational system in the world, collecting even more money.... then lets hear it.

I will be more than happy to entertain any ideas you have.

Now, if we were spending as much as Croatia, Poland, or Spain per student... then I would be completely happy with the education outcomes, verses the cost.

But the fact some of those countries spend almost half as much as we do per student, and they are getting the same or better results... suggests we have problem.

Most schools place students in what are called remedial courses in math or English before they can move on to a full load of college-level, credit-bearing courses – a process that is a financial drain on not only students, but also colleges and taxpayers, costing up to an estimated $7 billion a year.
A lesson in a remedial English course at Baltimore City Community College, focused on teaching students how to combine sentences in a variety of ways to prepare them for writing in college-level classes. Photo: Sarah Butrymowicz

Data from 911 two- and four-year colleges revealed that 96 percent of schools enrolled students who required remediation in the 2014-15 academic year, the most comprehensive recent numbers. At least 209 schools placed more than half of incoming students in at least one remedial course.​

Most colleges enroll students who aren’t prepared for higher education

Blowing $7 billion, on educating people who have a high school diploma, on high school level work.

Something is wrong. Period. What is your solution? I'll listen?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Okay, so I hope everyone can follow me here. I am going to write about how much teachers should be paid, but not from my own perspective. I believe teachers deserve high pay for a multitude of reasons, I just want to clarify that. But let's, for a second, assume I am the kind of person who says "Teachers jobs are easy, they get summers off, they're just glorified babysitters" and the work we all know teachers need to take home doesn't count.

Let's assume we pay teachers less than what I was paid to babysit in high school. So give them...$4/hour. Let's only pay them for the hours they are in school - let's say 6.5 hours a day. That brings their daily pay to $26.

But teachers don't only teach one student. Let's say the teacher teaches 30 students. Every parent should pay $26 a day for their child to be "babysat" and at thirty students that comes out to $780/day.

Now, 5 day school week brings that to $3,900 a week.
Or, if you want to figure in days, let's say they work 180 days a year (meaning no paid vacations) $780/day for 180 days = $140,000.

The average teacher salary tends to hover between $50,000 - $60,000. So, on the high end of that spectrum, let's figure out how much teachers make per hour per child:
$60,000/180 days = $333.33/day. $333.33 per day/30 students = $11.11 per student per day. Figure in the 6.5 hours and that's $1.71 per hour per student.



So teachers get paid more than they do on average, even in my fictional scenario, where we pay teachers less per hour per child than the average babysitter, and don't pay them for any of the additional work they need to do outside of school hours, and give them no vacation pay.

the MAIN rerason they need a lot more pay is they got a much tougher job than these pampered spoiled rich brats in pro sports who get MILLIONS just for playing a little boys game.thats bullshit.

 

[Andylusion]

Okay, so I hope everyone can follow me here. I am going to write about how much teachers should be paid, but not from my own perspective. I believe teachers deserve high pay for a multitude of reasons, I just want to clarify that. But let's, for a second, assume I am the kind of person who says "Teachers jobs are easy, they get summers off, they're just glorified babysitters" and the work we all know teachers need to take home doesn't count.

Let's assume we pay teachers less than what I was paid to babysit in high school. So give them...$4/hour. Let's only pay them for the hours they are in school - let's say 6.5 hours a day. That brings their daily pay to $26.

But teachers don't only teach one student. Let's say the teacher teaches 30 students. Every parent should pay $26 a day for their child to be "babysat" and at thirty students that comes out to $780/day.

Now, 5 day school week brings that to $3,900 a week.
Or, if you want to figure in days, let's say they work 180 days a year (meaning no paid vacations) $780/day for 180 days = $140,000.

The average teacher salary tends to hover between $50,000 - $60,000. So, on the high end of that spectrum, let's figure out how much teachers make per hour per child:
$60,000/180 days = $333.33/day. $333.33 per day/30 students = $11.11 per student per day. Figure in the 6.5 hours and that's $1.71 per hour per student.



So teachers get paid more than they do on average, even in my fictional scenario, where we pay teachers less per hour per child than the average babysitter, and don't pay them for any of the additional work they need to do outside of school hours, and give them no vacation pay.

the MAIN rerason they need a lot more pay is they got a much tougher job than these pampered spoiled rich brats in pro sports who get MILLIONS just for playing a little boys game.thats bullshit.

Pretty sure most of the people who get paid millions for playing games, come from public schools.

In fact, quite a few of the private schools I know of, don't even have sports teams.

 

[initforme]

When are one of you going to mention that alot of low performing schools have alot of kids with so much baggage they struggle to just to get by and their homelives are a wreck. Add to that they see zero value in education. Then you want them to score high on tests they will not prepare for because they dont put in any effort. So you blame the teacher for this. Until YOU fix the broken family nothing is going to change. Did you ever consider many kids dont want to learn and they know darn well nobody can force them too. How are you going to fix this? Ok send them to private schools. Then watch those test score averages. Then watch those private school parents go wild wanting troublesome students removed. Whats the fix?

 

[Unkotare]

Okay, so I hope everyone can follow me here. I am going to write about how much teachers should be paid, but not from my own perspective. I believe teachers deserve high pay for a multitude of reasons, I just want to clarify that. But let's, for a second, assume I am the kind of person who says "Teachers jobs are easy, they get summers off, they're just glorified babysitters" and the work we all know teachers need to take home doesn't count.

Let's assume we pay teachers less than what I was paid to babysit in high school. So give them...$4/hour. Let's only pay them for the hours they are in school - let's say 6.5 hours a day. That brings their daily pay to $26.

But teachers don't only teach one student. Let's say the teacher teaches 30 students. Every parent should pay $26 a day for their child to be "babysat" and at thirty students that comes out to $780/day.

Now, 5 day school week brings that to $3,900 a week.
Or, if you want to figure in days, let's say they work 180 days a year (meaning no paid vacations) $780/day for 180 days = $140,000.

The average teacher salary tends to hover between $50,000 - $60,000. So, on the high end of that spectrum, let's figure out how much teachers make per hour per child:
$60,000/180 days = $333.33/day. $333.33 per day/30 students = $11.11 per student per day. Figure in the 6.5 hours and that's $1.71 per hour per student.



So teachers get paid more than they do on average, even in my fictional scenario, where we pay teachers less per hour per child than the average babysitter, and don't pay them for any of the additional work they need to do outside of school hours, and give them no vacation pay.

the MAIN rerason they need a lot more pay is they got a much tougher job than these pampered spoiled rich brats in pro sports who get MILLIONS just for playing a little boys game.thats bullshit.

Pretty sure most of the people who get paid millions for playing games, come from public schools.

In fact, quite a few of the private schools I know of, don't even have sports teams.

Name five.

 

[Unkotare]

Okay, so I hope everyone can follow me here. I am going to write about how much teachers should be paid, but not from my own perspective. I believe teachers deserve high pay for a multitude of reasons, I just want to clarify that. But let's, for a second, assume I am the kind of person who says "Teachers jobs are easy, they get summers off, they're just glorified babysitters" and the work we all know teachers need to take home doesn't count.

Let's assume we pay teachers less than what I was paid to babysit in high school. So give them...$4/hour. Let's only pay them for the hours they are in school - let's say 6.5 hours a day. That brings their daily pay to $26.

But teachers don't only teach one student. Let's say the teacher teaches 30 students. Every parent should pay $26 a day for their child to be "babysat" and at thirty students that comes out to $780/day.

Now, 5 day school week brings that to $3,900 a week.
Or, if you want to figure in days, let's say they work 180 days a year (meaning no paid vacations) $780/day for 180 days = $140,000.

The average teacher salary tends to hover between $50,000 - $60,000. So, on the high end of that spectrum, let's figure out how much teachers make per hour per child:
$60,000/180 days = $333.33/day. $333.33 per day/30 students = $11.11 per student per day. Figure in the 6.5 hours and that's $1.71 per hour per student.



So teachers get paid more than they do on average, even in my fictional scenario, where we pay teachers less per hour per child than the average babysitter, and don't pay them for any of the additional work they need to do outside of school hours, and give them no vacation pay.

the MAIN rerason they need a lot more pay is they got a much tougher job than these pampered spoiled rich brats in pro sports who get MILLIONS just for playing a little boys game.thats bullshit.

That’s just stupid. When 50,000 people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars a pop to watch me teach, and overpay for shirts with my name on them I’m quite certain my pay will increase astronomically.

Pointless comparison

 

[Andylusion]

When are one of you going to mention that alot of low performing schools have alot of kids with so much baggage they struggle to just to get by and their homelives are a wreck. Add to that they see zero value in education. Then you want them to score high on tests they will not prepare for because they dont put in any effort. So you blame the teacher for this. Until YOU fix the broken family nothing is going to change. Did you ever consider many kids dont want to learn and they know darn well nobody can force them too. How are you going to fix this? Ok send them to private schools. Then watch those test score averages. Then watch those private school parents go wild wanting troublesome students removed. Whats the fix?

Where do you see me blaming teachers for this?

Again... my problem with teachers and teachers unions is that they defend the system that isn't working, and their typical default answer is "more money". That's my problem with teachers and teachers unions.

If you read my previous post, my mother had an issue with a child exactly like you described, and that child made her life a living hell. There was nothing she could do for such a student. Nothing. And not only was the student making her life miserable, but the kid was making it hard for other kids to learn anything, because my mother was dealing with her out of control behavior.

The solution was to have her removed. The city actually changed the district lines, and had the section 8 housing she was from, moved to Columbus public, so her and the other students like her, were sent to their schools instead of the school my mother taught at.

The key difference between that system and a private school, is that the problem can be dealt with quicker, and with less damage. But the idea you can somehow force kids to learn is crazy. You can't force kids to learn. The only thing you can do, is banish them. For a private school, that means expulsion. For a public school, it means sending them to the office every single day, and eventually redrawing the district lines. Which of course only works one you have a few students from a specific problem area.

The private school system is better, because the only one affected is the person refusing to learn. In the public system, you send everyone from an particular area to another school district, when it is likely some kids from there were actually really good kids doing their best, but because the school doesn't want to get sued by bad parents, they can't just expel the bad kids.

The problem here is that left-wingers do not want a solution that has the most good for the most people. Instead they want the magic "everyone succeeds" solution. But there is no such solution.

In Finland, problem students are sent to a special school for losers. That of course is my non-politically correct title, but it is a school for children who can't, or who refuse to keep up with their peers, or have 'behavior problems' (aka losers). They are separated from quality students.

Why? Because problem students are like infections. If you don't cut the infection out, it spreads. The only way to have "No child left behind" is to lower the standards so no kids have to learn.

And FYI..... I lived this first hand.

 

[initforme]

I agree with you on alot. However where I live teachers went 6 years in a wage freeze. They recently finally got a little bump. They don't ask for anything but a fair wage. And since I served on the school board i saw the bargaining process work nicely. Now what to do with highly disruptive kids when law says they must be included in the regular classroom?

 

[Unkotare]

When are one of you going to mention that alot of low performing schools have alot of kids with so much baggage they struggle to just to get by and their homelives are a wreck. Add to that they see zero value in education. Then you want them to score high on tests they will not prepare for because they dont put in any effort. So you blame the teacher for this. Until YOU fix the broken family nothing is going to change. Did you ever consider many kids dont want to learn and they know darn well nobody can force them too. How are you going to fix this? Ok send them to private schools. Then watch those test score averages. Then watch those private school parents go wild wanting troublesome students removed. Whats the fix?

Where do you see me blaming teachers for this?

Again... my problem with teachers and teachers unions is that they defend the system that isn't working, and their typical default answer is "more money". That's my problem with teachers and teachers unions.

If you read my previous post, my mother had an issue with a child exactly like you described, and that child made her life a living hell. There was nothing she could do for such a student. Nothing. And not only was the student making her life miserable, but the kid was making it hard for other kids to learn anything, because my mother was dealing with her out of control behavior.

The solution was to have her removed. The city actually changed the district lines, and had the section 8 housing she was from, moved to Columbus public, so her and the other students like her, were sent to their schools instead of the school my mother taught at.

The key difference between that system and a private school, is that the problem can be dealt with quicker, and with less damage. But the idea you can somehow force kids to learn is crazy. You can't force kids to learn. The only thing you can do, is banish them. For a private school, that means expulsion. For a public school, it means sending them to the office every single day, and eventually redrawing the district lines. Which of course only works one you have a few students from a specific problem area.

The private school system is better, because the only one affected is the person refusing to learn. In the public system, you send everyone from an particular area to another school district, when it is likely some kids from there were actually really good kids doing their best, but because the school doesn't want to get sued by bad parents, they can't just expel the bad kids.

The problem here is that left-wingers do not want a solution that has the most good for the most people. Instead they want the magic "everyone succeeds" solution. But there is no such solution.

In Finland, problem students are sent to a special school for losers. That of course is my non-politically correct title, but it is a school for children who can't, or who refuse to keep up with their peers, or have 'behavior problems' (aka losers). They are separated from quality students.

Why? Because problem students are like infections. If you don't cut the infection out, it spreads. The only way to have "No child left behind" is to lower the standards so no kids have to learn.

And FYI..... I lived this first hand.

Good luck getting the compulsory education law in your state overturned.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

So I agree, different school systems have varying fiscal situations.

However, total compensation is on average, much higher than just the salary. By most estimates, almost 33% higher. A teacher earning $60K, is actually collecting $90K in compensation.

Public School Teachers Are Paid More Than Commonly Reported

But even then, I think sometimes the budgets are obscuring the costs. For example, just for fun I punched up Columbus Public School budget report. On the 3rd page of school funds, at the bottom of the report, I found a line item for $45 Million dollars, paid directly to the pension system. That in itself wasn't too surprising, except that the funding wasn't from the general school funds, but rather a bond levy. So the city sold bonds, to pay the pension system. But bonds.... have to be paid back.

So essentially they used a credit card to pay off their student loan.

This of course isn't listed as a cost of school system, because it was "income" from the bonds.

But more than that, I see a number of expensive waste in the system. This is the short list of obvious examples.

$2 Million for college credit programs. Why? Private schools don't do that, and the students take placement tests that allow them to skip classes they don't need.
$2 Million for retention of legal services.
$1 Million for formative assessment program.
$1.2 Million for college advisers. Colleges already have full time college advisers on staff. Let the students go to them.
$1.5 Million for YMCA Truancy Centers.
$4.7 Million for "reading adoption program". I'm sorry... I was told I had to read books and give reports on them. I never had a special program to get me to adopt reading.

And I could go on to the 'at-risk' programs for students, which if they worked at all, then we should have the least risky students in the world.

Point is, there are many many programs that essentially proclaim to do what.... the school system should be doing anyway.

So I think his basic point is correct. We are spending millions on millions, on things that are not salaries or on schools.

They need that money to protect themselves from being sued by idiots.

I find your logic lacking in everything you post. $1 million is just 10 people using the compensation figures you chose to use. My school district's budget in Florida was $6 billion! You are arguing about chump change because you don't see the need. It is there, whether you like it or not!

You said you found my logic lacking..... but fail to give an example.

You said according to my numbers, that was only 10 people. I'm assuming you meant my example that a teacher earning $60K is actually getting $90K in compensation.

But you missed the point. That point was, that is insane. Teachers are way over compensated in benefits. Benefits shouldn't cost 33% more than the base salary. In any private market system, you would almost never see that, unless the company was some insanely profitable business.

Additionally that $60K was an example. An entry level teacher, starting off their first year, would likely only be paid $30K. By that token $10 Million should cover the hiring of almost 20 to 25 new teachers.

And then lastly, $10 Million was only the few things that I pulled out of the budget. This wasn't an exhausted University study of where school funding goes. I just punched up the local school budget, and ran through a few line items. I didn't do a research project on it.

Meaning what you see here, is simply what a college fail out loser poster on the internet found, with a few minutes of searching.

Without any doubt, any real in depth study of where all the money is going, would find hundreds of examples of money going to non-educational purposes.

So I don't think my logic is lacking at all. If you wish to convince me, feel free. I'll consider anything you have to offer.

For example, you mention the law suits being the reason they need to spend $2 Million dollars on retaining legal help.

Ok... but then why do none of the private schools need such help? Why are they able to educate students without millions in legal services?
The cynical side of me, says that the politicians have friends in legal profession, and found a great "deal" on legal services with the school district.

The practical side of me, says that simply being a government run system, makes them a target for law suits because people know the government will want to settle fast to avoid negative publicity at re-election time.

Regardless, this alone makes the case for moving towards a private school system over a public one.

You can't find where I said I found your logic lacking, but you quoted it! What a dumbass!

In regards to private schools, look at the numbers. Most private schools deal with a few thousand students at best. My school district in Florida had 127,000 students. Catch a clue!

That $30,000 teacher comes with benefits too! Your numbers are just something you pulled out of your ass, because I worked 21 years and never made more than $55,000 in salary, and our benefits were less than $700 a month, and had to move to a "poor" state to get that because Florida is one of the worst states in the US as far as paying teachers. I would really like to know what type of benefits you are talking about because I received a paycheck with all of that listed. None of what you claimed is true in the vast majority of districts in this nation.

You said:

You can't find where I said I found your logic lacking, but you quoted it! What a dumbass!​

I said:

You said you found my logic lacking..... but fail to give an example.​

That didn't seem a difficult sentence to understand.

Private schools are dealing with only a few thousand...... because the public schools take most of the students, because due to taxes, parents either can't afford, or choose to not afford private schools.

I don't think that matters that much, because in the end, it's a similar number of students per teacher. For example, my high school that I went to, has a 16 : 1 student teacher ratio. Average class sizes are under 20.

Similarly, private schools typically have between 15 and 20 students, and yet they greatly out perform the school I went to.

Therefore, if the number of students an individual teacher has to deal with is similar, why are education outcomes so different?

Both of my parents were public school teachers. My father made over $100K a year. My mother was close behind. Of course they were both exceptional.

Obviously, each state, and each local school district has their own pay scale and systems. My parents have a net worth over a million dollars today, and aside from living a modest life, and being wise with their investments in stock, and property... the amount of money they earned was entirely from their public school teacher wages.

I can't answer for you. And you getting upset is ridiculous. Why are you mad? About what?

Look.... there is a problem in our school system. You can't possibly deny that. Our system is the most expensive system in the world, and yet our students come out in the middle of the pack on average. I had a guy that couldn't use a calculator by 11th grade.

So I'm not here to "attack teachers". Or tell everyone who taught that they suck. That isn't my point.

My only beef with teachers generally, and the teachers unions, is that I don't seem to hear any solutions.

Much like you on this thread. I'm not 'against' you. I want a solution. Right now I see that private schools do the exact same thing as public schools, except they do them better, much better, for lower cost, a much lower cost.

And I'm saying... there must be something to this. There has to be a reason. Now if you have a solution, that does not involve having the most expensive educational system in the world, collecting even more money.... then lets hear it.

I will be more than happy to entertain any ideas you have.

View attachment 237078

Now, if we were spending as much as Croatia, Poland, or Spain per student... then I would be completely happy with the education outcomes, verses the cost.

But the fact some of those countries spend almost half as much as we do per student, and they are getting the same or better results... suggests we have problem.

Most schools place students in what are called remedial courses in math or English before they can move on to a full load of college-level, credit-bearing courses – a process that is a financial drain on not only students, but also colleges and taxpayers, costing up to an estimated $7 billion a year.
A lesson in a remedial English course at Baltimore City Community College, focused on teaching students how to combine sentences in a variety of ways to prepare them for writing in college-level classes. Photo: Sarah Butrymowicz

Data from 911 two- and four-year colleges revealed that 96 percent of schools enrolled students who required remediation in the 2014-15 academic year, the most comprehensive recent numbers. At least 209 schools placed more than half of incoming students in at least one remedial course.​

Most colleges enroll students who aren’t prepared for higher education

Blowing $7 billion, on educating people who have a high school diploma, on high school level work.

Something is wrong. Period. What is your solution? I'll listen?

My solution would be to educate assholes like you who never listen to the facts presented and prefer to go with the talking points of people who live to bash education.

I have seen everything you posted before and it all bullshit. The facts are facts, but the reasoning behind those facts is where you lose your way.

The reason our education sucks today can be easily explained. The causes are immigration of both the legal and illegal kind, as well as the inability of minorities to grasp the English language.

Those nice stats showing how the US ranks compared to the world are the worst kind of joke, and you fall for it because you do not understand the truth behind the numbers.

A few years ago, one of the schools that were tested was an inner city school in Baltimore with a population that was 100% both poor and black. How well do you think they compared to students in Singapore that legally can be beaten by their teachers for poor academic performance and were from the upper class of society?

I once taught in an inner city middle school that was boys only. Our class size was limited to 20 by law, but that didn't keep anyone from turning a blind eye when we had 22-24 in the class. It also didn't help that our attendance zone included government subsidized housing that provided Catholic Charities the opportunity to house refugees from all over the world.Imagine what it was like teaching world history to a class of up to 24 students when approximately half did not speak the first word of English, nor read or write in ANY language. we had one group that our district tried for two years to hire a translator for us to be able to communicate with the kids and parents. Throw in students who basically hated each other. I had black African students who could not stand to be in the same room as black American students because they felt American blacks were impure and culturally ignorant. I had Cubans who hated Puerto Ricans, Puerto Ricans who hated Mexicans, and Mexicans that hated Cubans! We had Muslims out the wazoo and a few Jews fleeing persecution in their home country sitting next to the children of their oppressors that had also moved to the US.

Guess how many White Anglo-Saxon Protestants were in my classroom on a daily basis? One, and that was yours truly! Technically that is also not correct as I am one-fourth Native American.

I was not a teacher in that classroom but the Ringmaster of a three-ring circus for almost 3 years. I could not stand going to work each day. The third year, about a month before school was out, my principal screamed at my ass for about 15 minutes because I dared yell at a student to put down the desk he was threatening to drop on another student's head! If I hadn't needed the money, I would have drop kicked that asshole and walked out! I made it the few remaining weeks and when he told me my contract was not being renewed, I said, "Thank you!" for the best gift he could have given me.

Those are just some of the challenges that teachers face daily, but I know you have probably never seen or heard of that type of environment. I taught my ass off for all the good it did. I would wager that maybe 5 or less out of my 140 students per year will ever graduate from high school.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Okay, so I hope everyone can follow me here. I am going to write about how much teachers should be paid, but not from my own perspective. I believe teachers deserve high pay for a multitude of reasons, I just want to clarify that. But let's, for a second, assume I am the kind of person who says "Teachers jobs are easy, they get summers off, they're just glorified babysitters" and the work we all know teachers need to take home doesn't count.

Let's assume we pay teachers less than what I was paid to babysit in high school. So give them...$4/hour. Let's only pay them for the hours they are in school - let's say 6.5 hours a day. That brings their daily pay to $26.

But teachers don't only teach one student. Let's say the teacher teaches 30 students. Every parent should pay $26 a day for their child to be "babysat" and at thirty students that comes out to $780/day.

Now, 5 day school week brings that to $3,900 a week.
Or, if you want to figure in days, let's say they work 180 days a year (meaning no paid vacations) $780/day for 180 days = $140,000.

The average teacher salary tends to hover between $50,000 - $60,000. So, on the high end of that spectrum, let's figure out how much teachers make per hour per child:
$60,000/180 days = $333.33/day. $333.33 per day/30 students = $11.11 per student per day. Figure in the 6.5 hours and that's $1.71 per hour per student.



So teachers get paid more than they do on average, even in my fictional scenario, where we pay teachers less per hour per child than the average babysitter, and don't pay them for any of the additional work they need to do outside of school hours, and give them no vacation pay.

the MAIN rerason they need a lot more pay is they got a much tougher job than these pampered spoiled rich brats in pro sports who get MILLIONS just for playing a little boys game.thats bullshit.

Pretty sure most of the people who get paid millions for playing games, come from public schools.

In fact, quite a few of the private schools I know of, don't even have sports teams.

Oh, you are such an ignorant piece of crap!

Check out who wins the state championships in football and basketball in any number of states. Chances are they private schools who magically have scholarships for athletes attending public school to suddenly decide that private school was where their heart (and athletic skills) belonged!

 

[Aponi]

Okay, so I hope everyone can follow me here. I am going to write about how much teachers should be paid, but not from my own perspective. I believe teachers deserve high pay for a multitude of reasons, I just want to clarify that. But let's, for a second, assume I am the kind of person who says "Teachers jobs are easy, they get summers off, they're just glorified babysitters" and the work we all know teachers need to take home doesn't count.

Let's assume we pay teachers less than what I was paid to babysit in high school. So give them...$4/hour. Let's only pay them for the hours they are in school - let's say 6.5 hours a day. That brings their daily pay to $26.

But teachers don't only teach one student. Let's say the teacher teaches 30 students. Every parent should pay $26 a day for their child to be "babysat" and at thirty students that comes out to $780/day.

Now, 5 day school week brings that to $3,900 a week.
Or, if you want to figure in days, let's say they work 180 days a year (meaning no paid vacations) $780/day for 180 days = $140,000.

The average teacher salary tends to hover between $50,000 - $60,000. So, on the high end of that spectrum, let's figure out how much teachers make per hour per child:
$60,000/180 days = $333.33/day. $333.33 per day/30 students = $11.11 per student per day. Figure in the 6.5 hours and that's $1.71 per hour per student.



So teachers get paid more than they do on average, even in my fictional scenario, where we pay teachers less per hour per child than the average babysitter, and don't pay them for any of the additional work they need to do outside of school hours, and give them no vacation pay.