Great article

[Rob's House]

You are really thick.

[pBills]

I didn't say they currently make executive pay, but it seems you think they deserve as much. I have yet to hear you explain why it is teachers (who as a whole have among the lowest SATs of any collective field of graduates) should start off right out of college at $50k+ and pull six figures after 20 yrs and get a 35 yr vacation at taxpayer expense after only 25 yrs of work.

 

And as far as what I do, I manually masturbate caged animals for artificial insemination. It's important to have a job that makes a difference.

 

 

I never said that they deserve as much as an executive. Most executives I know make a HELL of a lot more than $80-$100k after 25 years of service. So, to be clear.. I believe that a teacher averaging anywhere between $80-$100k per year in their top three earning years is not that bad.

 

I would hate to tell you that most graduates with a bachelors degree earn a decent wage... around $45 - $50k. Also, earning anywhere from a 3% - 5% raise per year is normal. So after 25 years of service, one would expect that they would be making good money. Does longevity not account for anything? A 35 yr vacation? Seriously? If they are paying into their pension, just like you would be paying into your 401(k), are they not allowed to retire after 25 years? What's next, do we demand that teachers start at $25k per year, work for 30 years in the hopes that they end up making only $50k-$60k when they are ready to retire? You keep forgetting that teachers into their pensions, just like you pay into a 401(k).

 

I guess you are not taking into account that they will receive a reduced Social Security benefits earned from previous jobs. Something you receive full value on. What about teachers in many states don't receive SS on top of their pensions.

 

So let me ask you... what should a teachers starting salary be with Bachelors Degree? Masters Degree? If their salary was capped, what would that amount be? If their pensions were taken away, should the State offer a 401(k) program? What about OT for working nights and weekends? Reimbursement for supplies (average ranges anywhere from $395 - $950) that they buy for their classes?

 

Since we're talking about Public Service Employees... should be lower the starting salaries for attorneys, firemen, police, engineers, etc?

[Rob's House]

 

So let me ask you... what should a teachers starting salary be with Bachelors Degree? Masters Degree? If their salary was capped, what would that amount be? If their pensions were taken away, should the State offer a 401(k) program? What about OT for working nights and weekends? Reimbursement for supplies (average ranges anywhere from $395 - $950) that they buy for their classes?

 

Since we're talking about Public Service Employees... should be lower the starting salaries for attorneys, firemen, police, engineers, etc?

I think the pay is fine how it is in most municipalities that I am familiar with.

[Magox]

How is accountability completely placed at the feet of the teacher? Students work ethic and support at home are not included in this?

Of course it is, but the fact is that many teachers teach only because they couldnt get jobs in other fields. If you go to the public school system and you get your average ALgebra teacher you'll find that his or her degree wasn't even in math, so they basically just go to teaching because they couldnt cut it in another field. Then you get the Unions to protect these people no matter poor they are at their job, all while they negotiate for better pay and benefits.

 

So what are we left with? Speaking facts here, we are left with ridiculously high benefits and a rapidly declining quality of test scoring.

[DC Tom]

I would hate to tell you that most graduates with a bachelors degree earn a decent wage... around $45 - $50k.

 

You're !@#$ing insane.

[birdog1960]

I don't think anybody is trying to take away anything teachers currently receive, outside of some sweet pension deals in specific municipalities that have budget problems. It's just that a lot of us reject the idea that teachers for some unspecified reason are supposed to make executive pay for doing what is essentially a monkey's job (yes, a relative handful make a different in a child's life; out of apx 50 public school teachers I can probabyly count those that made an impact on one hand.)

 

Teaching, for many, is the equivalent of table waiting for people who went to college. A relatively easy job that anyone with a teaching cert can get. Don't really have any skills and are limited by a mediocre intellect, but want to make above median salary with a five day work week, great benefits, and more vacation than anyone with a full time job ever conceived of (and still be able to gain the sympathy of millions of morons everytime you decide to nail yourself to the cross)? Then become a teacher.

No. there are plenty of fine educators in this country but there are some very bad ones also. this is true even in private schools although, in general, I believe the quality is higher despite lower salaries and benefits. you really seem to have a problem with formal education of any kind. did someone hit your knuckles too hard with a ruler or dislike and downgrade some of your ideas?

 

and ocinn, there you go again. rather than supporting a highly controversial reform effort don't you think it would be easier to say, open a weight loss center or pain clinic, if the bottom line was the highest priority?

[Rob's House]

No. there are plenty of fine educators in this country but there are some very bad ones also. this is true even in private schools although, in general, I believe the quality is higher despite lower salaries and benefits. you really seem to have a problem with formal education of any kind. did someone hit your knuckles too hard with a ruler or dislike and downgrade some of your ideas?

 

and ocinn, there you go again. rather than supporting a highly controversial reform effort don't you think it would be easier to say, open a weight loss center or pain clinic, if the bottom line was the highest priority?

Uhh, I have a B.S., a paralegal certificate, and I just enrolled in a 3 year law school program, but yeah.

 

I actually have some level of agreement with you on this issue (which scares me). My mother is a teacher and a very good one at that. I have no problem with merit pay, and giving more to quality teachers who put in the time and effort. I do have a problem with the idea that the average teacher in this country is grossly underpaid.

 

I don't reserve it just to teachers. I roll my eyes when people I work with complain about being underpaid. Sure I'd like to make more, but I feel I'm fairly compensated for what I do.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Rob's House

[birdog1960]

Uhh, I have a B.S., a paralegal certificate, and I just enrolled in a 3 year law school program,

best of luck. it would probably be wise to not refer to any of your professors as pointy headed liberals...

[pBills]

best of luck. it would probably be wise to not refer to any of your professors as pointy headed liberals...

 

 

 

HAHAHAHA!!!

[Rob's House]

best of luck. it would probably be wise to not refer to any of your professors as pointy headed liberals...

Thanks, and I won't. Some of them just aren't in a place where they're ready to face it yet.

[DC Tom]

best of luck. it would probably be wise to not refer to any of your professors as pointy headed liberals...

 

Why on earth not? I'm sure they're already aware.

[OCinBuffalo]

Anyone can attempt to change their job. You make it sound like it's the easiest thing to do in this market. You don't like it... quit and put your resume in for a job with 300+ people.

It's easy for some of us.

 

You know, those of who did the job in school, did the job in college, worked hard in our entry level jobs and put ourselves in the position where it is now "easy". Oh, and we chose professions that actually are useful to society. So, we had to make a lot of choices, all good ones, and follow through on them. You might even say: we earned it.

 

Note: this doesn't just mean white collar people. Try finding a properly trained and solid welder or plumber that's out of work and/or has a hard time changing jobs. Want to know why those guys aren't in the union? Because the last thing they want is to be treated "the same as everybody else", when clearly, they are not.

How are you judging their performance? How much of overall performance based on the student working/studying hard? How much is based on home life and parenting? Not saying all teachers are great, but if teachers give the means, after a while isn't it on the student with help from parents to push forward?

Let me get you a clue: I rarely think in terms of one department or set of people. I do enterprise, which means when I am talking about changing things, I am looking at the whole system, and then I am talking about the entire system if I am saying anything. As such, the entire system is clearly not producing results. The Education enterprise is failing. Enterprise means everybody, and everybody means everybody. I think that should be clear enough.

 

With that said, and any time you have a clear enterprise-level failure: you don't start trying to single out any one group, and you don't let anybody else do it either...if you want to be successful. It is rare indeed for one group to be the sole cause for enterprise-wide failure. In fact I have never seen it, and only heard about it once, and I have been doing this for long enough, and my list of clients you know is long enough, to make that significant.

 

Rather, the first place to start is with the enterprise's model itself. Given all the known factors and constraints, is this model capable of producing results? In this instance, we are talking about the DOE-led model of taxing $ to DC, and then having them redistribute it via a grant system and/or legislation.

 

Has that model been successful? No. Will that model ever be successful? We have no evidence of that. Instead, we have gallons of evidence that says it is inherently flawed.

 

Before we start talking about the various groups: teachers, parents, kids, suppliers, insurance/lawyers, district tax payers, etc., we need to focus on the top level model, because if that is likely to fail, then it will drag everything else down with it. Why? Because via (questionable to bad) legislation, all the various groups are now directly or indirectly dependent on the DOE. The first principle of a good modeling is: try to remove as many dependencies as possible. The DOE model is based on the polar opposite of that principle, and therefore, it is doomed to fail.

 

So, the DOE model design fails, both inherently and as a matter of undeniable practical experience. The DOE model is predicated on these dependencies, and they are inherent to the entire thing, so mere modification of it doesn't work either.

 

Therefore, the first thing to do is: get a new enterprise model. If that means getting rid of the DOE in favor of state control, so be it. If we are constrained by having to have a DOE, then it needs to be completely reorganized, and given a new mission.

 

We cannot accept one, or many, band aids on the arterial cut on out educational enterprise, and we can't just keep pumping more blood(money) into the patient. We need major surgery, it's as simple as that.

Edited April 27, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

and ocinn, there you go again. rather than supporting a highly controversial reform effort don't you think it would be easier to say, open a weight loss center or pain clinic, if the bottom line was the highest priority?

I am directly contributing to the opening of multiple ergy care centers in NYC. The aim is to free up emergency rooms and provide relatively cheaper care to those without insurance. We are doing it as a non-profit, and we are not making a cent. Does that count?

 

Of course it does, but I don't expect you to give me any credit for it.

 

Moreover, you do realize that I left extreme cushiness in the corporate world, and an opportunity to be a partner at a well known firm....

....to come work in your miserable industry with far too many people that give North Korean dictators a run for their money on the buffoonery scale, right?

 

I don't have a problem with nurses, therapists, dietitians, techs, etc., and they seem to love me. Nope, my problem is with the supposed "leadership" in health care, and their grip on the false assertion that they have a clue how to manage, despite failure after failure.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

It's easy for some of us.

 

You know, those of who did the job in school, did the job in college, worked hard in our entry level jobs and put ourselves in the position where it is now "easy". Oh, and we chose professions that actually are useful to society. So, we had to make a lot of choices, all good ones, and follow through on them. You might even say: we earned it.

 

Note: this doesn't just mean white collar people. Try finding a properly trained and solid welder or plumber that's out of work and/or has a hard time changing jobs. Want to know why those guys aren't in the union? Because the last thing they want is to be treated "the same as everybody else", when clearly, they are not.

 

Let me get you a clue: I rarely think in terms of one department or set of people. I do enterprise, which means when I am talking about changing things, I am looking at the whole system, and then I am talking about the entire system if I am saying anything. As such, the entire system is clearly not producing results. The Education enterprise is failing. Enterprise means everybody, and everybody means everybody. I think that should be clear enough.

 

With that said, and any time you have a clear enterprise-level failure: you don't start trying to single out any one group, and you don't let anybody else do it either...if you want to be successful. It is rare indeed for one group to be the sole cause for enterprise-wide failure. In fact I have never seen it, and only heard about it once, and I have been doing this for long enough, and my list of clients you know is long enough, to make that significant.

 

Rather, the first place to start is with the enterprise's model itself. Given all the known factors and constraints, is this model capable of producing results? In this instance, we are talking about the DOE-led model of taxing $ to DC, and then having them redistribute it via a grant system and/or legislation.

 

Has that model been successful? No. Will that model ever be successful? We have no evidence of that. Instead, we have gallons of evidence that says it is inherently flawed.

 

Before we start talking about the various groups: teachers, parents, kids, suppliers, insurance/lawyers, district tax payers, etc., we need to focus on the top level model, because if that is likely to fail, then it will drag everything else down with it. Why? Because via (questionable to bad) legislation, all the various groups are now directly or indirectly dependent on the DOE. The first principle of a good modeling is: try to remove as many dependencies as possible. The DOE model is based on the polar opposite of that principle, and therefore, it is doomed to fail.

 

So, the DOE model design fails, both inherently and as a matter of undeniable practical experience. The DOE model is predicated on these dependencies, and they are inherent to the entire thing, so mere modification of it doesn't work either.

 

Therefore, the first thing to do is: get a new enterprise model. If that means getting rid of the DOE in favor of state control, so be it. If we are constrained by having to have a DOE, then it needs to be completely reorganized, and given a new mission.

 

We cannot accept one, or many, band aids on the arterial cut on out educational enterprise, and we can't just keep pumping more blood(money) into the patient. We need major surgery, it's as simple as that.

 

 

here's the problem. the article and many subsequent arguments deals with the emotional side of the issue, not the financial side of it. it's a real heart tugger, actually, since apparently the only class of citizens who were thought unkindly by other citizens are those poor souls listed here. on an emotional level, if, say a beloved uncle was featured in this article, i could surely see myself feeling badly for him that he took it all so personally. on the other hand, i'd be hard-pressed not to do a quick internet search and be (not at all) surprised to find that a low-end cost to the taxpayers for the family featured is around $1.7 million. it's likely quite a bit higher, but i used some annuity numbers readily available. Assuming they've accumulated a modest $40,000 in savings thus far, and stash away roughly 10% of their combined gross income and earn 5% or so over the next few years, figure another $250,000 or so is available to fund their retirement, and maybe they are looking at a nest egg of around $2,000,000. i'm going to tell you, if you wrote an article about an attorney who had guaranteed net assets of $1.7m and another couple hundred thousand in other assets-----there wouldn't be many tears shed for him. he might be a real nice guy too. never mind he might have had $100,000 invested in education and another couple hundred thousand in business development costs that resulted in his windfall, that's largely irrelevant in an emotional argument. oh, and let's not forget that when our friends retire at 55 with the $2m nest egg, they likely go out and get another job to stick it out with us other poor schulbs working to 65.

 

so, while not the Rockefeller's, these folks don't qualify as skid row bums either. i'm not ever against working people, i'm one of them, but this heartstring b-s and those who sop it up irritate me. if everyone loves everyone else so much, why not agree to take half the pension value and give the rest back to someone else in society that needs it more than you?

 

i'll stipulate the following:

firemen are great people by and large.

librarians are too.

 

what does that have to do with anything?

 

i like the way you laid out your thoughts, oc. thanks for that.

[OCinBuffalo]

here's the problem. the article and many subsequent arguments deals with the emotional side of the issue, not the financial side of it. it's a real heart tugger, actually, since apparently the only class of citizens who were thought unkindly by other citizens are those poor souls listed here. on an emotional level, if, say a beloved uncle was featured in this article, i could surely see myself feeling badly for him that he took it all so personally. on the other hand, i'd be hard-pressed not to do a quick internet search and be (not at all) surprised to find that a low-end cost to the taxpayers for the family featured is around $1.7 million. it's likely quite a bit higher, but i used some annuity numbers readily available. Assuming they've accumulated a modest $40,000 in savings thus far, and stash away roughly 10% of their combined gross income and earn 5% or so over the next few years, figure another $250,000 or so is available to fund their retirement, and maybe they are looking at a nest egg of around $2,000,000. i'm going to tell you, if you wrote an article about an attorney who had guaranteed net assets of $1.7m and another couple hundred thousand in other assets-----there wouldn't be many tears shed for him. he might be a real nice guy too. never mind he might have had $100,000 invested in education and another couple hundred thousand in business development costs that resulted in his windfall, that's largely irrelevant in an emotional argument. oh, and let's not forget that when our friends retire at 55 with the $2m nest egg, they likely go out and get another job to stick it out with us other poor schulbs working to 65.

 

so, while not the Rockefeller's, these folks don't qualify as skid row bums either. i'm not ever against working people, i'm one of them, but this heartstring b-s and those who sop it up irritate me. if everyone loves everyone else so much, why not agree to take half the pension value and give the rest back to someone else in society that needs it more than you?

 

i'll stipulate the following:

firemen are great people by and large.

librarians are too.

 

what does that have to do with anything?

 

i like the way you laid out your thoughts, oc. thanks for that.

You're welcome, and I appreciate you taking the time to read them.

 

Sometimes it takes more than a few sentences to properly address a question like: "what is your measurement methodology?".

Far too many here are logically challenged and/or suffer from A.D.D. It's nice to know not everybody has that problem.

 

Moving on, most of these problems occur because idiots want to create a scale, with accountability on one end, and compassion on the other, making it a zero sum equation, i.e. if you want more compassion, then you have to give up on accountability, etc.

 

Clearly you can have both, and neither, at the same time. Government getting involved in the problem usually means neither. The people who create that scale that way are idiots, by definition.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

You're welcome, and I appreciate you taking the time to read them.

 

Sometimes it takes more than a few sentences to properly address a question like: "what is your measurement methodology?".

Far too many here are logically challenged and/or suffer from A.D.D. It's nice to know not everybody has that problem.

 

Moving on, most of these problems occur because idiots want to create a scale, with accountability on one end, and compassion on the other, making it a zero sum equation, i.e. if you want more compassion, then you have to give up on accountability, etc.Clearly you can have both, and neither, at the same time. Government getting involved in the problem usually means neither. The people who create that scale that way are idiots, by definition.

 

 

i can almost handle dealing with those who "create" that scale as you put it. by and large they have skin in the game, and stand to gain by the policies established. time and again we see that power corrupts. sometimes the corruption is obvious, sometimes much less so. i understand the guy looking forward to collecting his pension after 30 years of service and really don't have an issue with that. but let's be realistic, those that established the pension game here (and let's recognize it wasn't a librarian or fireman) knew, or should have known the ramifications of the system. being a natural cynic, my assumption is they didn't really give a **** and got what they could regardless of the cost. look at the abuses of the pension system reported almost daily. but, i expect that of them--they are liars, cheats and frauds (or morons). unchecked, they did what people do.

 

my problem is with the people looking at it thereafter and only seeing one side of the story. you want to look at the emotional side of things? fine, just balance it with the cost. and when it becomes unsustainable, renegotiate the deal for the greater good.