ARROGANT TEACHERS

Posted by: bluezone

ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 08:52 AM

the chicago teachers wanted a 30% pay increase and now they are on strike

let them all go and hire new ones with a less generous pay/benefits package

the reason the student performance is so low is the teachers are greedy
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 10:10 AM

come on Bluezone.....their doing it for the kids!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 10:27 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
come on Bluezone.....their doing it for the kids!


will they be teaching the kids while they are on strike?

the list of 'demands' by the teachers shows their arrogance
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 10:44 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
come on Bluezone.....their doing it for the kids!



the teachers must be grumpy from those 2 months of paid summer vacation they get every year...
Posted by: Rascal

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 10:49 AM

And I find it hard to go back to work on monday morning...

Imagine how the poor teachers feel after 10 weeks off.
Posted by: Cuzi Sedso

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 10:50 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
the chicago teachers wanted a 30% pay increase and now they are on strike

let them all go and hire new ones with a less generous pay/benefits package

the reason the student performance is so low is the teachers are greedy
You've never explained why lowering teacher pay and benefits will result in higher student performance. You just continue to blow hot air and offer no proof or documentation to support your specious reasoning, and come across as a grumpy, ignorant individual who didn't fare well in public school. Could it be that your unresolved anger against teachers is really due to your own failure?
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 11:08 AM


Spot on.

Bz cannot explain his reasoning -- for the obvious reasons you described.
Posted by:

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 11:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan

Spot on.

Bz cannot explain his reasoning -- for the obvious reasons you described.

BZ, is like the rest of the country! BZ is sick and tired of throwing money drown a rat hole and not getting any payback.
Posted by: cwjga

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 12:18 PM

I love it when Democrats fight Democrats. Just waiting for them to blame it on Republicans.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 12:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Cuzi Sedso
Originally Posted By: bluezone
the chicago teachers wanted a 30% pay increase and now they are on strike

let them all go and hire new ones with a less generous pay/benefits package

the reason the student performance is so low is the teachers are greedy
You've never explained why lowering teacher pay and benefits will result in higher student performance. You just continue to blow hot air and offer no proof or documentation to support your specious reasoning, and come across as a grumpy, ignorant individual who didn't fare well in public school. Could it be that your unresolved anger against teachers is really due to your own failure?



the question is how do bloated wages and benefits result in higher student performance?......for example....NY leads the way in expenditures per student yet we are not #1 in America in everything that matters except for school taxes paid....your argument that if you spend more you get better results is an old one, that no longer has any footing except in the eyes of the teachers unions.....


http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/NEA_Rankings_And_Estimates_FINAL_20120209.pdf

there's 129 pages...but all the info you need is there.
Posted by:

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 01:32 PM

Originally Posted By: cwjga
I love it when Democrats fight Democrats. Just waiting for them to blame it on Republicans.

The teachers strike in Chicago is a snow job.
Obama is going to step-in and smooth it out with the teachers and get them back to work. It will look like the teaches caved on their demands and Obama and the screwball Mayor won a battle. The whole thing is phoney, its a show to make Obama look like a hero.
Posted by: Cuzi Sedso

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 01:49 PM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Cuzi Sedso
Originally Posted By: bluezone
the chicago teachers wanted a 30% pay increase and now they are on strike
let them all go and hire new ones with a less generous pay/benefits package
the reason the student performance is so low is the teachers are greedy
You've never explained why lowering teacher pay and benefits will result in higher student performance. You just continue to blow hot air and offer no proof or documentation to support your specious reasoning, and come across as a grumpy, ignorant individual who didn't fare well in public school. Could it be that your unresolved anger against teachers is really due to your own failure?

the question is how do bloated wages and benefits result in higher student performance?......for example....NY leads the way in expenditures per student yet we are not #1 in America in everything that matters except for school taxes paid....your argument that if you spend more you get better results is an old one, that no longer has any footing except in the eyes of the teachers unions.....

http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/NEA_Rankings_And_Estimates_FINAL_20120209.pdf

there's 129 pages...but all the info you need is there.

"your argument that if you spend more you get better results is an old one...."
I'm not making that argument at all -- I'm just trying to get an answer to Bluezone's unsupported statement that "the reason the student performance is so low is the teachers are greedy." BZ has posited that the solution lies in cutting teacher pay and benefits. I'm simply asking for some supporting evidence for that outlandish proposition.
Posted by: Zealot

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 02:10 PM

Pay is not the reason these teachers are on strike; they have already come to terms on that issue. One of the reasons that they are on strike is because of the districts requirement for a new teacher evaluation system whereby 40% of their evaluation will be linked to their students standardized test scores.

The following link show that 79% of Chicago public school 8th graders are not proficient in reading while 80% of them are not proficient in math. in addition, more than half of CPS students don't graduate. Seems to me a better evaluation system is called for with these stats.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-depar...ficient-reading

This data combined with the fact that these teachers are some of the highest paid teachers in the country, avg $76,000 annual salary. Obviously there is not link between teacher pay and teacher competence.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/how-much-do-chicago-public-school-teachers-make/
Posted by:

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 02:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Cuzi Sedso
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Cuzi Sedso
Originally Posted By: bluezone
the chicago teachers wanted a 30% pay increase and now they are on strike
let them all go and hire new ones with a less generous pay/benefits package
the reason the student performance is so low is the teachers are greedy
You've never explained why lowering teacher pay and benefits will result in higher student performance. You just continue to blow hot air and offer no proof or documentation to support your specious reasoning, and come across as a grumpy, ignorant individual who didn't fare well in public school. Could it be that your unresolved anger against teachers is really due to your own failure?

the question is how do bloated wages and benefits result in higher student performance?......for example....NY leads the way in expenditures per student yet we are not #1 in America in everything that matters except for school taxes paid....your argument that if you spend more you get better results is an old one, that no longer has any footing except in the eyes of the teachers unions.....

http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/NEA_Rankings_And_Estimates_FINAL_20120209.pdf

there's 129 pages...but all the info you need is there.

"your argument that if you spend more you get better results is an old one...."
I'm not making that argument at all -- I'm just trying to get an answer to Bluezone's unsupported statement that "the reason the student performance is so low is the teachers are greedy." BZ has posited that the solution lies in cutting teacher pay and benefits. I'm simply asking for some supporting evidence for that outlandish proposition.
Is someone suffering from some kind of narcissistic personality disorder?
Posted by: Cuzi Sedso

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 03:10 PM

Yeah, I think his name is Harley
Posted by: Rascal

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 03:11 PM

Yeah it's called GREED!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 05:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Rascal
And I find it hard to go back to work on monday morning...

Imagine how the poor teachers feel after 10 weeks off.



they will probably ask for a new contract with 2 more additional months of paid 'vacation'

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 05:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Cuzi Sedso
You've never explained why lowering teacher pay and benefits will result in higher student performance.


their pay and benefits far outpace the rest of those working a full 12 months so are the students performance getting better or worse?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 05:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Teonan

Bz cannot explain his reasoning -- for the obvious reasons you described.


the teachers wanted a 30% pay increase with job security
they do not get both

they should be thankful they even have a job with overly generous benefits

(remember it is about the kids)

a parent was interviewed and blamed the teachers as the teachers did not have to go on strike while they were still working out a deal
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 05:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Chicago Jesus
BZ, is like the rest of the country! BZ is sick and tired of throwing money drown a rat hole and not getting any payback.


correct
let all the teachers go
there will be long lines to fill the jobs at lower pay/ benefits that will help the taxpayers
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 05:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Zealot
The following link show that 79% of Chicago public school 8th graders are not proficient in reading while 80% of them are not proficient in math. in addition, more than half of CPS students don't graduate. Seems to me a better evaluation system is called for with these stats.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-depar...ficient-reading

This data combined with the fact that these teachers are some of the highest paid teachers in the country, avg $76,000 annual salary. Obviously there is not link between teacher pay and teacher competence.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/how-much-do-chicago-public-school-teachers-make/


some of the worst performing schools and the teachers want better pay and benefits

how can they say that with a straight face?
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 05:51 PM

Of course you'd advocate crossing a picket line.

No surprise there.

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 05:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Zealot
The following link show that 79% of Chicago public school 8th graders are not proficient in reading while 80% of them are not proficient in math. in addition, more than half of CPS students don't graduate.


let the teachers stay on strike all year
the students can learn better with homeschooling
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 05:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
Of course you'd advocate crossing a picket line.


the teachers do not appreciate the fact that they have a well paying job then let them stay on strike

it was their choice to walk

look at the gradution rate...
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 06:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
Of course you'd advocate crossing a picket line.

No surprise there.


Hey Teo! Teachers are the cause of society's ills; didn't you know that? I even heard on the radio today that murders have risen in Chicago in the last few months due to the strike---which didn't even start until today. Don't believe the media. They are owned by the same cretins who are trying to make millions and millions off the system.

I am not surprised by the media coverage that makes it a point not to air parents that are supporting this strike. And the majority of parents do support it because it calls for better conditions in the schools. The news is quick to say that Chicago is the "murder capital of the US". Try teaching under those conditions. The union turned down a pay raise in order to fight for realistic evaluations--one that measures progress not test scores.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 06:10 PM

Originally Posted By: twocats
The union turned down a pay raise in order to fight for realistic evaluations


the 30% raise that they wanted?

their pay should be cut by 30%
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 06:11 PM



Only a fool would think students don't bring their lives into the classroom.

Try teaching or learning in a virtual war zone.

Fools like Bz are living in a bubble.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 06:14 PM

Originally Posted By: twocats
Teachers are the cause of society's ills


another teachers excuse

should you be planning your lesson plans for tomorrow?

ooooh why bother you will still get paid even if all your students fail....

remember it is about the students teachers
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 06:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Teonan


Only a fool would think students don't bring their lives into the classroom.


another teachers excuse

then cut the teachers pay and benefits if there is not hope for the students
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 06:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Teonan

Try teaching or learning in a virtual war zone.


another teachers excuse

do all the teachers on strike have bullet proof jackets?
they chose to walk...
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 06:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Teonan


Only a fool would think students don't bring their lives into the classroom.

Try teaching or learning in a virtual war zone.

Fools like Bz are living in a bubble.


A bubble? I thought it was an ignorezone because all I keep seeing is

***You are ignoring this user.***
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 06:31 PM

Originally Posted By: twocats
***You are ignoring this user.***


That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 06:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
in a virtual war zone.


and what causes it to be a war zone?
Posted by:

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/12 06:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Teonan


Only a fool would think students don't bring their lives into the classroom.

Try teaching or learning in a virtual war zone.

Fools like Bz are living in a bubble.
Look where you live yours!
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/12 11:36 AM

it's kind of funny to watch this going on in "O's" hometown, under the care of his boy Rahm......this is a state with a $44 billion deficit where teachers make on average before benefits $74,000....they only pay 3% of their health care benefits....were offered a 16% increase in wages over 4 years and that wasn't good enough....all the while this being the same group where only 15% of the 4th. graders and 21% of the 8th. graders are proficient in reading....they should certainly be on strike.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/12 05:18 PM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
it's kind of funny to watch this going on in "O's" hometown, under the care of his boy Rahm......this is a state with a $44 billion deficit where teachers make on average before benefits $74,000....they only pay 3% of their health care benefits....were offered a 16% increase in wages over 4 years and that wasn't good enough....all the while this being the same group where only 15% of the 4th. graders and 21% of the 8th. graders are proficient in reading....they should certainly be on strike.



PURE ARROGANCE by the teachers
let them all go....
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/12 05:22 PM

40% of the chicago teachers send their kids to private school
wonder if they insist on the teacher evaluations for the teachers in the private school?

funny that the teachers came up with their own evalutions and they still do not want it


they do not want teacher evaluations then cut their pay by 50%
they want job security then cut the remaining 50% fo their pay

let them volunteer if they want job security

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/12 05:25 PM

show us any other employer that would keep an employee with a job performance of 15%

never mind giving them a raise....

let them walk
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/12 05:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Chicago Jesus
Originally Posted By: Teonan


Only a fool would think students don't bring their lives into the classroom.

Try teaching or learning in a virtual war zone.

Fools like Bz are living in a bubble.
Look where you live yours!


she can not decide as she rides the fence
Posted by:

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/12 05:41 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
show us any other employer that would keep an employee with a job performance of 15%

never mind giving them a raise....

let them walk


Seneca County Sheriff Department!
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/12 07:43 PM


Bz suffers from gender disorientation, making it's opinions on other issues a moot point.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/12 05:56 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
show us any other employer that would keep an employee with a job performance of 15%

never mind giving them a raise....

let them walk



If Rahm truly had a set he'd throw this group of slacking failures out on their cans and start over fresh....all their numbers point to failure and they dare ask for more with security....but it is nice to watch the Dems. and their precious public sector unions throw their tantrums:)
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/12 07:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
Bz suffers from gender disorientation, making it's opinions on other issues a moot point.


are you a doctor?

should you be getting your lesson planned for tomorrow rather then posting on here at all hours of the day?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/12 07:22 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
If Rahm truly had a set he'd throw this group of slacking failures out on their cans and start over fresh....all their numbers point to failure and they dare ask for more with security


they have to ask for security because when the teacher evaluations go into effect many will see the door

it is for the children
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/12 07:34 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Teonan
Bz suffers from gender disorientation, making it's opinions on other issues a moot point.


are you a doctor?

should you be getting your lesson planned for tomorrow rather then posting on here at all hours of the day?



Not a doctor. Any layman can easily diagnose your issues homie.

Lesson plans are developed by teachers, of which I am not.


Wrong on both counts - so typically Bz.

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/12 07:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
Not a doctor.


that would mean you work
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/12 07:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
Lesson plans are developed by teachers


must be why the school system is in such poor shape

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/12 07:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan

Bz suffers from gender disorientation, making it's opinions on other issues a moot point.


Originally Posted By: Ayuveda
Deflection... the oldest game in the book
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/12 08:37 AM


Improper use of the deflection card homie. It was appropriate response. Your attention disorder is obviously acting up again.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/12 08:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
Your attention disorder is obviously acting up again.


Originally Posted By: Ayuveda
Deflection... the oldest game in the book


are you a doctor now?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/13/12 08:10 AM

Quote:
America Has Too Many Teachers
Public-school employees have doubled in 40 years while student enrollment has increased by only 8.5%—and academic results have stagnated.


cut the teaching staff in half and taxpayers will have more money to spend to create more jobs
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/15/12 07:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
Lesson plans are developed by teachers, of which I am not.


so do you approve the 15% performance?
will you send your child to the chicago school?
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/16/12 07:34 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Teonan
Lesson plans are developed by teachers, of which I am not.


so do you approve the 15% performance?
will you send your child to the chicago school?



well Teonan?......still waiting on the deflection from you!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/16/12 10:02 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Teonan
Lesson plans are developed by teachers, of which I am not.


so do you approve the 15% performance?
will you send your child to the chicago school?


well Teonan?......still waiting on the deflection from you!


well teonan?

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/16/12 10:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan

war zone.


so the teachers will get WHAT THEY WANT
the children will have a higher failure rate
and the war zone will get even worse

ain't you glad you supported the arrogant greedy teachers?

must be better to have a child shot and killed every day than to have the teachers 'evaluated' and improve the graduation rate...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/16/12 10:14 AM

better give the teachers the rest of the year off

they 'worked' more in the last week than they do all year long in the classroom...
Posted by:

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/16/12 10:35 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
better give the teachers the rest of the year off

they 'worked' more in the last week than they do all year long in the classroom...
Teachers want you to believe they have it the worst working condition on the planet.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/16/12 03:16 PM

the only job on the planet where you do not get a yearly evaluation

the more greedy the teachers get the worse the students perform

before teachers unions the students did very well

just the opposite today

Posted by: past tense

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/16/12 03:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Zealot
Pay is not the reason these teachers are on strike; they have already come to terms on that issue. One of the reasons that they are on strike is because of the districts requirement for a new teacher evaluation system whereby 40% of their evaluation will be linked to their students standardized test scores.

The following link show that 79% of Chicago public school 8th graders are not proficient in reading while 80% of them are not proficient in math. in addition, more than half of CPS students don't graduate. Seems to me a better evaluation system is called for with these stats.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-depar...ficient-reading

This data combined with the fact that these teachers are some of the highest paid teachers in the country, avg $76,000 annual salary. Obviously there is not link between teacher pay and teacher competence.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/how-much-do-chicago-public-school-teachers-make/


Zealot, at least you grasp what the issue is about (eval, not money) and can demonstrate that you can compose a sentence. It's difficult to watch people rail against teachers in incoherent English.

I'm not necessarily against teacher evaluations, but I asked my mom--a retired speech therapist--why evaluations are unpopular among teachers. We talked at length about the issue, and one point I had to concede to her was her statement that, "Not all teachers start with the same raw material." For example, one year she had three students with Down's Syndrome; how can a system tie a special ed teacher's performance to evaluations/student progress in that situation? Not that kids with developmental disabilities can't learn, but it throws a wrench into a standardized evaluation system. It seemed a fair point to me, especially when you consider the opposite end of the spectrum, i.e. AP or gifted classes, where teachers have classes full of students who are already higher performers.

I think the issue isn't as simple as "no evaluations" as it is about how to make the evaluation system equitable for the teachers and who they teach. (Never mind urban vs. rural, socioeconomic differences, etc.) To control for variables, I guess, is what my mom was trying to get at.

And then there is who is doing the evaluating. Ever have a boss who just hated your guts, and wouldn't be fair to you no matter what?

It's pretty fascinating. I don't think either of the extreme positions--all teachers are greedy money-sucking lazy vacation seekers vs. teachers are perfect saints who do it all For the Kids--do much to help further the discussion. Obviously most teachers teach because they like it, and obviously there are bad apples.

I'd work in a coal mine, I think, before I worked in a room full of kids all day.
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/16/12 03:46 PM

We have always had lengthy evaluations. The CTU issue is about standardized tests as 50%(?) of evaluation (I think it's 40% here in NY). Your mom is right. I only work with the most struggling students, with many special ed. and English Language Learners as students. All of our students are tested in the beginning of the year and I get the lowest 20-24. I usually get a third to grade level by mid-year, then I get the next lowest students. How can it be ok to compare my students to those in gifted or even regular classrooms?

I'm not worried about it for myself. I work hard, constantly improve, do my best, and get great evaluations/observations by my principal. She told us that this year that the state made it numerically impossible for anyone to get the highest rating anymore. I think 98.5% or higher of your students must be 'on grade level.'. In a class of 22, that means no one can be below. Crazy.
Posted by: past tense

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/16/12 03:46 PM

And I do have to say, looking back on my own educational experiences, I was fortunate to have some exceptional teachers. But the keys to my success in school--from kindergarten right through graduate school--were family & self-motivation. I think I benefited from having a mother who was a teacher in many ways, as well, in that she instilled in me an appreciation for education for its own sake (i.e. learning is just good for you, no matter what).

I couldn't have got through graduate school, working 2-3 jobs and commuting to Rochester, without parents who cooked me meals and left them on my doorstep (my neighbor/landlady did that for me, too), let me do my laundry at their house (or just did it for me!) so I could study or write, and who just generally encouraged me. Teachers get a lot of blame, but a lot of these kids do not have a support system that encourages academic success.
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/16/12 04:09 PM

PS. I'm definitely not a saint!

Posted by: Here's Johnny

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/16/12 05:09 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Chicago Jesus
BZ, is like the rest of the country! BZ is sick and tired of throwing money drown a rat hole and not getting any payback.


correct
let all the teachers go
there will be long lines to fill the jobs at lower pay/ benefits that will help the taxpayers


You get what you pay for. If you haven't done the job then you have no clue. It isn't like you think it seems. But teachers have a target on their backs and it is easy to find fault when one is unaware of what it takes to do the job well.
Posted by: Spanky

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/16/12 07:24 PM

Oh, cry me a river. You chose to take the job, no one forced you.The complaint of 22 students being to much, shame on you, my classes were all 30 to 32 students and we had a 95% grad. rate.We did not have computers or any other eguipment to help. But we had teachers who gave us the tools to do our best we could. We could all read ,write in script, Etc. Etc. No marking on a curve, if you failed, you stayed back till you got it right.
Posted by: past tense

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/16/12 07:34 PM

I think in addition to students not having enough parental support, teachers also suffer from a similar lack of parental support. A child's attitude toward education and learning starts and ends at home; if one's parents don't value education, teaching, or learning, it's difficult to inspire the children in the classroom.

I think if my parents spent a significant amount of time bashing teachers and/or education, it would have been reflected in my behavior and, in turn, my grades.

And of course standardization has resulted in a decline in quality. I did well because my teachers were creative and inventive, and cared about the whys and hows of my learning. There was a great TED talk on how the lack of creativity in education is what is failing students in the classroom. I have to go look that up.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/18/12 08:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Here's Johnny
]You get what you pay for. If you haven't done the job then you have no clue. It isn't like you think it seems. But teachers have a target on their backs and it is easy to find fault when one is unaware of what it takes to do the job well.


are the taxpayers getting their moneys worth?
obviously not

350,000 students
29,000 teachers

350,000 / 29,000 = 12 students per class

cut the teachers back to 11,000 for 30 students per class

$1,350,000,000 saved per year in salary alone

A large amount of money saved not only in salary but healthcare and pension costs

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/18/12 08:24 AM

Originally Posted By: past tense
And I do have to say, looking back on my own educational experiences, I was fortunate to have some exceptional teachers. But the keys to my success in school--from kindergarten right through graduate school--were family & self-motivation.


then there is no reason to call them 'TEACH'ers

pay then as child care assistances

$8 per hour and no healthcare or pension
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/18/12 08:33 AM

Originally Posted By: past tense
I think if my parents spent a significant amount of time bashing teachers and/or education, it would have been reflected in my behavior and, in turn, my grades.


you 'bash' everyone else...
did you learn that from your parents?
Posted by: past tense

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/18/12 08:43 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: past tense
And I do have to say, looking back on my own educational experiences, I was fortunate to have some exceptional teachers. But the keys to my success in school--from kindergarten right through graduate school--were family & self-motivation.


then there is no reason to call them 'TEACH'ers


All of my teachers taught. They earned their title. All of my teachers inspired me, guided me, took an interest in me as a whole person. They certainly earned the title. Mrs. Winthrop, Mrs. Sinicropi, Mrs. Rutz, Mrs. Blahoe, Mrs. Balsley, Mrs. Beadnell--I don't think I would remember every single one of my primary teachers from kindergarten through fifth grade if they hadn't made a positive impact on my life. Then after that Mr. Prosser, Mrs. Parker, Mr. Logan, Mr. Lohr, Mr. Wagner, Mr. Foster, Mrs. Foster, Mrs. Krueger, Mrs. Osterhout, Mr. Ferrara, Ms. Kaczyka (I'm definitely not spelling that right), Mr. Gable, Coach Henry, Mr. Gee--and that's just off the top of my head, and just my first 12 years. College & grad school is another host of excellent educators.

Their efforts would not have been as effective without what I learned at home. It's not impossible to get the most out of your education without a supportive family who respects and values an education, but it's certainly much easier to do so when your parents value education for its own sake, and instill in you a healthy respect for teachers and education, which mine did.
Posted by: past tense

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/18/12 08:43 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: past tense
I think if my parents spent a significant amount of time bashing teachers and/or education, it would have been reflected in my behavior and, in turn, my grades.


you 'bash' everyone else...
did you learn that from your parents?


All of my comments on this thread have been constructive. Attempts to goad me by insulting my parents are a weird way of trying to make your point.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/18/12 08:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Here's Johnny
But teachers have a target on their backs


and how many days does it take them to read the new conditions of the contract?

they need to get back to work...

remember it is about the kids overpaid teachers
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/18/12 08:51 AM

Originally Posted By: past tense
All of my comments on this thread have been constructive.


are you admitting you 'bash' others on other threads?

Originally Posted By: past tense
It's difficult to watch people rail against teachers in incoherent English.


was the above comment constructive?
Posted by: past tense

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/18/12 08:53 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: past tense
All of my comments on this thread have been constructive.


are you admitting you 'bash' others on other threads?

Originally Posted By: past tense
It's difficult to watch people rail against teachers in incoherent English.


was the above comment constructive?


I'm saying I engage in just as much BS as anyone else, including you, on this forum.

And yes, it was constructive. It's very difficult to watch posters who clearly have no grasp of the written English language--or, at least, no interest in displaying that they do--rail against education and/or teachers. It's quite a fair point, actually.

Do you have any thoughts on my post about how to level the playing field for teachers vis-a-vis evaluations? Or anything substantive at all? If not, we're done engaging.
Posted by: Festus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/18/12 08:59 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: past tense
I think if my parents spent a significant amount of time bashing teachers and/or education, it would have been reflected in my behavior and, in turn, my grades.


you 'bash' everyone else...
did you learn that from your parents?


She's mild compared to what her Father would do to an idiot such as yourself.
Posted by: past tense

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/18/12 09:00 AM

#1 Life Lesson from Pops: "Don't forget: People are morons. No matter how dumb you expect them to be, halve that."

I'm paraphrasing, but that's about right. \:\)
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/18/12 09:00 AM

Originally Posted By: past tense
Originally Posted By: past tense
It's difficult to watch people rail against teachers in incoherent English.

And yes, it was constructive.


so people without your 'IQ' should not be allowed to vote for or against the school budget?
Posted by: past tense

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/18/12 09:02 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: past tense
Originally Posted By: past tense
It's difficult to watch people rail against teachers in incoherent English.

And yes, it was constructive.


so people without your 'IQ' should not be allowed to vote for or against the shool budget?


I see you are dedicated to playing the same old parsing game. You're flailing about. I never said anything about voting, in 'shool' elections, or otherwise.

Have a good day, bz. Good to see you again.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/18/12 09:14 AM

Originally Posted By: past tense
I never said anything about voting, in 'shool' elections, or otherwise.


Originally Posted By: past tense
It's difficult to watch people rail against teachers in incoherent English


It's difficult to read as people rail against teachers in incoherent English

how about all those with an 'IQ' below yours no longer have to pay school taxes?

Posted by: BrumWife

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/18/12 10:04 AM

I'm not sure how it is set up in Chicago but most teachers are not "paid" during summer. They are paid for 10 months that can spread out over 12. Advantage Credit Union in Rochester actually started as a CU for the schools and one of the main products was a plan to put away part of each pay check to cover those unpaid months.

Now the benefits percentage does bother me. Only in the public sector do people pay in so little for their health care. I pay close to 47% for mine with my employer paying the rest.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/19/12 02:05 PM

Quote:
how about all those with an 'IQ' below yours no longer have to pay school taxes?


Hey! That's discriminatory!
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/19/12 02:21 PM

Quote:
40% of the chicago teachers send their kids to private school


Compared to 12% of USAians, as a whole. I've also heard that the average Chicago teacher makes $76K, the highest in the nation, while the average Chicago family makes $47K.

Many Chicago teachers are smart enough to not subject their own kids to their failed system, but they are in favor of shoveling yet more stolen tax $ at their union.

Try this: If private sector unions are a protection against the depredations of "evil capitalists", then what is the purpose of public sector unions? To protect against the much-abused, heavily burdened, and protesting "evil and ignorantly short-sighted" tax slaves? To protect against the attempt at even a bit of economy, and rare good sense, by the evil government which government school teachers are part of?

[img]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREt01wzE4C9N12fQthNx8K9S0esuDsEHHlqCbknb86KwL9_btz[/img]
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 09:08 AM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
Quote:
how about all those with an 'IQ' below yours no longer have to pay school taxes?


Hey! That's discriminatory!


pt must be wealthy with an IQ so high

she should be honored to pay ;\)

time to eliminate the star program
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 09:14 AM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
Quote:
40% of the chicago teachers send their kids to private school


I've also heard that the average Chicago teacher makes $76K, the highest in the nation, while the average Chicago family makes $47K.



the chicago teachers salary is even higher as their school day is shorter

the chicago teachers 'work' about 1.5 months less than other teachers
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 09:22 AM

karen lewis (ctu president) was asked by a news reporter why they should be paid the highest when the graduation rate is so poor

guess what she said?

EXCUSES

the news reporter asked her why the graduation rate was so poor

guess what she said?

MORE EXCUSES

the news reporter asked her why she was against a longer school day

guess what she said?

EVEN MORE EXCUSES


one must feel sorry for the kids

Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 09:29 AM

Quote:
pt must be wealthy with an IQ so high

she should be honored to pay ;\)


I wasn't thinking about her.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 09:36 AM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
I've also heard that the average Chicago teacher makes $76K, the highest in the nation, while the average Chicago family makes $47K.


what are the odds that the 'family' will be getting a generous pension or full healthcare when they 'retire' with little to no contribtuon from themselves


the $2,000 per hour teacher...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 10:31 AM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
I wasn't thinking about her.


(got it)

very few do... \:\(
Posted by: past tense

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 10:34 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: VM Smith
I wasn't thinking about her.


(got it)

very few do... \:\(


But you obviously do, quite a bit.

Nice to see you're still obsessed after all this time.

Ta, darling.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 10:53 AM

you should be a teacher

you fit the title of the thread
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 10:59 AM

Originally Posted By: past tense
But you obviously do, quite a bit.


incorrect
yet again
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 11:05 AM

Originally Posted By: past tense

Nice to see you're still obsessed after all this time.


Originally Posted By: past tense
It's difficult to watch people rail against teachers in incoherent English.


the chikago studants are back in skool todae
Posted by: past tense

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 11:11 AM

You're right. Three replies in a row directed at me. That's a healthy amount of attention from someone who claims not to care.

You're very normal. You're very normal. You're very normal.
Posted by: I did it!

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 11:20 AM

Originally Posted By: past tense
You're right. Three replies in a row directed at me. That's a healthy amount of attention from someone who claims not to care.

You're very normal. You're very normal. You're very normal.



So she starting on PT. Must be taking a break on the American Indians,now that's a good thing. But pushing PT's buttons is not a good thing at all. I know. Peace to all.
Benny
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 11:20 AM

Originally Posted By: past tense
Ta, darling.


if you were only more like vm the world would be a happier place
Posted by: past tense

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 11:22 AM

Okay, now try not to reply again.

Go.
Posted by: past tense

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 11:23 AM

Originally Posted By: I did it!
Originally Posted By: past tense
You're right. Three replies in a row directed at me. That's a healthy amount of attention from someone who claims not to care.

You're very normal. You're very normal. You're very normal.



So she starting on PT. Must be taking a break on the American Indians,now that's a good thing. But pushing PT's buttons is not a good thing at all. I know. Peace to all.
Benny


No buttons, no worries. Watching bz spin out is good for the soul.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 11:27 AM

teachers need to take a large cut in pay
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 11:28 AM

Originally Posted By: I did it!
So she starting on PT.


read thru the thread
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 11:30 AM

teachers pensions need to be converted to a 401k retirement system where they pay far more into their retirement
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 11:32 AM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
I've also heard that the average Chicago teacher makes $76K, the highest in the nation, while the average Chicago family makes $47K.



the teachers pay should be inline with the local area
cut the teachers pay to $47k for their family
no healthcare and no pensions

see how they live on that
Posted by: I did it!

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 11:35 AM

Must be you had a lot of bad school days?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 11:35 AM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
Try this: If private sector unions are a protection against the depredations of "evil capitalists", then what is the purpose of public sector unions? To protect against the much-abused, heavily burdened, and protesting "evil and ignorantly short-sighted" tax slaves? To protect against the attempt at even a bit of economy, and rare good sense, by the evil government which government school teachers are part of?


public workers do not need unions that cover the entire state
their union should only apply to their district even though they do not even need a union as they are the most protected/secure worker in the economy
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/20/12 11:42 AM

• New York's Exploding Pension Costs - The Empire Center for New ...



... tax-funded annual contributions to the New York State Teachers ... inflation of future pension payments, and the permanent elimination of employee contributions for Tier …
http://www.empirecenter.org/Special-Reports/2010/12/pensionexplosion...




New York's Exploding Pension Costs
Complete report in PDF format
December 07, 2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Public pension costs in New York are mushrooming—just when taxpayers can least afford it. Over the next five years, tax-funded annual contributions to the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System (NYSTRS) will more than quadruple, while contributions to the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS) will more than double, according to estimates presented in this report. New York City’s budgeted pension costs, which already have increased tenfold in the past decade, will rise by at least 20 percent more in the next three years, according to the city’s financial plan projections.
NYSTRS and NYSLRS are “fully funded” by government actuarial standards, but we estimate they have combined funding shortfalls of $120 billion when their liabilities are measured using private-sector accounting rules. Based on a similar alternative standard, New York City’s pension funds had unfunded liabilities of $76 billion as of mid-2008—before their net asset values plunged in the wake of the financial crisis.

The run-up in pension costs threatens to divert scarce resources from essential public services during a time of extreme fiscal and economic stress for every level of government. New York needs to enact fundamental pension reform to permanently eliminate the risks and unpredictability inherent in the traditional pension system.

INTRODUCTION

In November 2003, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research issued a report de-scribing New York State’s public pension system as “a ticking fiscal time bomb.”

The bomb is now exploding—and New Yorkers will be coping with the fallout for years to come.

New York’s state and local taxpayers support three public pension funds encompassing eight different retirement systems—five covering different groups of New York City employees, and three covering employees of the state, local governments, school districts and public authorities outside the city. Between 2007 and 2009, these funds lost a collective total of more than $109 billion, or 29 percent of their combined assets. Two of the three funds ended their 2010 fiscal years with asset values below fiscal 2000 levels; the third has barely grown in the past decade.

Meanwhile, the number of pension fund retirees and other beneficiaries has risen 20 percent and total pension benefit payments have doubled in the past 10 years. Tax-payers will now have to make up for the resulting pension fund shortfalls.

This report forecasts pension funding trends for the New York State and Local Re-tirement Systems (NYSLRS) and the New York State Teachers Retirement System (NYSTRS), which cover nearly every public employee outside New York City. It also summarizes official reports of funded status and projected costs over the next three years for the New York City Retirement Systems. Assuming the pension systems all hit their rate-of-return targets:

• Taxpayer contributions to NYSTRS could more than quadruple, rising from about $900 million as of 2010-11 to about $4.5 billion by 2015-16. The projected increase is equivalent to 18 percent of current school property tax levies.
• State and local employer contributions to NYSLRS will more than double over the next five years, adding nearly $4 billion to annual taxpayer costs even if most opt to convert a portion of their higher pension bills into IOUs that won’t be paid off until the 2020s.
• New York City’s budgeted pension contributions, which already have in-creased by more than 500 percent ($5.8 billion) in the last decade, are projected to increase at least 20 percent more, or $1.4 billion, in the next three years.

Pension costs would be even higher if New York’s state and local retirement funds were not calculating pension contributions based on permissive government accounting standards, which allow them to understate their true liabilities.

While New York’s two state pension systems officially are deemed “fully funded,” we estimate that NYSLRS is $71 billion short of what it will need to fund its pension obligations, and that NYSTRS has a funding shortfall of $49 billion, based on valuation standards applied to corporate pension funds.

The need for reform

The record-breaking investment returns of the 1980s and ‘90s lulled New York’s elected leaders into a false sense of complacency. State and local payrolls were expanded and retirement benefits were enhanced under the assumption that pension costs would remain near historic lows. The downturn of 2000-03 and its impact on pension costs should have come as a wake-up call to state officials. Instead, they responded with pension funding gimmicks and minimal “reforms.”

In the short run, assuming the state Constitution is interpreted as allowing no change in benefits for current workers, there is no financially responsible way to avoid the coming increases in pensions costs. However, state and local officials in New York can seek to contain the damage by reducing headcount where appropriate, and by exploring ways of saving money on employee compensation, including wage increases and health insurance benefits. A statewide public-sector salary freeze—which the Legislature has the power to impose, according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Empire Center1 —could help minimize the extent to which rising pension costs force service cutbacks, layoffs or tax hikes. But these will just be bandages covering a more fundamental problem.

The lesson is clear: the traditional pension system exposes taxpayers to intolerable levels of financial risk and volatility. New York’s existing defined-benefit (DB) public pension plans need to be closed to new members, once and for all. They should be replaced either by defined-contribution (DC) plans modeled on the 401(k) accounts that most private workers rely for their own retirement, or by “hybrid” plans, combining elements of DB and DC plans, that cap benefits and require employees to share in some of the financial risks of retirement planning.

This is not just a matter of financial necessity but of basic fairness to current and future taxpayers—the vast majority of whom will never receive anything approaching the costly, guaranteed benefits available to public employees.

1. PENSION FUNDING TRENDS


New York’s 1.3 million state and local government employees belong to defined-benefit (DB) pension plans, which guarantee a stream of post-retirement income based on peak average salaries and career duration. Pension (and disability) benefits are financed by large investment pools, which in turn are replenished by tax-funded employer contributions. Some public employees, depending on their hiring date and “tier” membership, also contribute a small share of their own salaries to pension funds (see Appendix).

While employee contributions (where required) are fixed or capped, contributions by employers fluctuate, based on actuarial assumptions. The rate of return on pension fund assets is the key determinant of pension costs to taxpayers. Since the mid-1980s, when pension funds began allocating more of their assets to stock investments, those rate of return assumptions have ranged from 7.5 percent to 8.75 percent; for most of the last 10 years, New York’s public pension plans have assumed their investments would yield an average annual return of 8 percent.





During the historic bull market of the 1980s and ‘90s, investment gains easily exceeded expectations, averaging in the double digits. The result, as shown in Figure 1: tax-funded employer contributions tumbled in the three state pension plans covering employees outside New York City. By 2000, employer contribution rates for members of these plans essentially had dropped to zero.2

Government workers shared in the market windfall. The state Legislature repeatedly increased pension benefits for targeted groups of employees during the 1990s. Those enhancements were topped off in 2000 by the state Legislature’s approval of cost-of-living adjustments in all public pensions, automatic partial indexing to inflation of future pension payments, and the permanent elimination of employee contributions for Tier 3 and 4 retirement system members who had been on the payroll for at least 10 years.3 Lawmakers essentially sold these changes to the public as a free lunch, assuming the stock market boom would continue indefinitely.

In fact, as elected officials should have recognized, the minimal employer contribution rates of 1990s were a historical anomaly. “Normal” contribution rates—assuming a hypothetical steady state of asset returns meeting investment targets—would have ranged from 11 to 12 percent for most non-uniformed state and local employees, including teachers, to nearly 20 percent for most police and firefighters in NYSLRS.

The decade that followed the enactment of the major pension sweeteners was characterized by extremely volatile—and ultimately stagnant—investment returns. Asset values dropped sharply between 2000 and 2002, recovered over the next five years, and then dropped sharply after 2007.

Despite the recent stock market recovery, the net assets of the New York City pension funds and the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System (NYSTRS) as of 2010 were still below 2000 levels, while the net assets of the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS) were up just 4 percent on the decade.* Meanwhile, total benefit payments doubled between 2000 and 2010. The year-by-year trends for the period are shown in Figure 2.





* NYSLERS includes both the State and Local Employee Retirement System and the Police and Fire Retirement System.

The combination of falling asset prices and rising benefit outlays meant the pension funds were developing huge shortfalls. Meanwhile, employee contributions into the state pension funds actually decreased during this period, as a growing number of Tier 3 and 4 members reached the 10-year seniority mark.4 Taxpayers were left to pick up the slack, as shown in Figure 3. In 2000, tax-funded employer contributions to New York’s pension funds totaled just under $1 billion. By 2010, they had risen to a combined $17.3 billion for the state and New York City systems.

But this was just the beginning of the pension explosion.





2. THE WRONG KIND OF “BOOM”

How hard will taxpayers be hit by New York’s coming pension explosion? To answer that question, we have projected employer contribution rates for NYSLRS and NYSTRS for each of the next five years. These projections are based on assumptions about future events, particularly the performance of fund assets, but also growth in employee headcount and salaries.

These projections represent our best effort to replicate the funds’ contribution rate calculations under the Aggregate Funding Method used by the pension system actuaries. Because the funds do not make public their expected streams of future cash flows, we must make assumptions about the path of changes in certain figures that form a part of those calculations, particularly the present value of the salaries that currently active employees are expected to earn. However, we believe that these projections represent a good estimate based on publicly available data, and can provide state and local governments with useful guidance about the path of pension costs in future years.

We projected contributions in three scenarios: “Base,” in which the pension systems hit their current investment targets (7.5 percent for NYSLRS, 8.0 percent for NYSTRS); “High Returns,” defined as 11 percent per year; and “Low Returns,” de-fined as 5 percent per year. We also estimated tax-funded contributions to NYSLRS over the next five years assuming that local employers opt to join the state in cap-ping pension contributions and amortizing excess amounts for a 10-year period.




Pension “mitigation”: Cap and owe

Under a new law backed by Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and approved as part of the 2011-12 state budget,5 the state government’s fiscal 2010-11 pension contribution rates will be capped at “graded rates” of 9.5 percent for the ERS members and 17.5 percent for PFRS members, instead of the billed rates of 11.9 percent and 18.2 percent, respectively.

Starting in fiscal 2011-12, the contribution rates used to calculate the state’s pension bill will be allowed to increase by only one percentage point a year, starting at this year’s capped level. Billed contributions above that amount in any given year can be spread, or amortized, over 10 years, payable to the pension fund at a rate pegged to interest on taxable bonds, generally in the neighborhood of 5 percent. As part of the deal, the minimum contribution level is permanently fixed at 4 percent. Local governments have been given the option of joining this “rate mitigation program,” and many are already choosing to do so.

Delayed payments will be counted as liabilities on employer balance sheets, and as receivable “assets” of the pension fund. The comptroller has strongly taken issue with any suggestion that this program is tantamount to borrowing from the pension fund. Semantics aside, however, there is no denying that the cap on pension payments simply transfers liabilities into the future—well into the 2020s, at a minimum. Assuming all local government employers amortize a portion of what they will owe the pension fund, and assuming the funds’ asset returns hit their 7.5 percent target, we estimate a total of $11 billion in state and local pension payments will be deferred over the next five years—stretching these costs into the middle of the next decade.

In any event, even employers choosing to amortize will experience a doubling of ERS contributions and a near doubling in total PFRS contributions over the next five years. If asset returns are high enough to drive down rates quickly after a few years, those employers will continue paying higher rates for a longer period. School districts paying into the NYSTRS, which has no amortization option, will see their contributions quadruple even under our rosiest scenario for asset returns over the next five years.

The impact of the projected base rates on total contribution amounts is depicted in Figure 4. The $3.6 billion rise in teacher pension contributions (from about $900 mil-lion in 2010-11 to $4.5 billion in 2015-16) equates to 18 percent of 2010-11 school tax levies, or an average increase of nearly 3.5 percent a year. This is well above the annual property tax growth that would be allowed under a 2 percent tax cap proposed by Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo.



The Big Apple’s bomb

Virtually all New York City employees (and some employees of the city Transit Authority) belong to one of five different municipal pension systems. The systems have different funding and contribution levels while pooling their assets in a common city pension trust fund.

The financing of these pension plans is arcane and complex compared to those of NYSLRS and NYSTRS. Crucial pension fund financial data for the 2009 and 2010 fiscal years has not yet been published, and the city Office of Management and Budget (OMB) uses an opaque process to generate the city’s official pension cost estimates.

The city’s pension contribution averaged about $1.4 billion during the late 1990s and dipped as low as $615 million in 2000. By 2010, the contribution had risen to an all-time high of $6.6 billion—and it’s still climbing. OMB’s official financial plan estimates of pension obligations are depicted in Figure 5.




These figures, which show the pension contribution growing from $7 billion in 2011 to $8.4 billion in fiscal 2014, reflect changes made by OMB in its November budget modifications in anticipation of a forthcoming revision of actuarial assumptions. Given the steep losses sustained by city pension funds in 2007-2009 (as shown in Figure 2 on page 4) and the underfunded status of the pension plans even before the downturn, the pension contribution is likely to grow significantly after fiscal 2014.

Measuring pension fund assets and liabilities

Parties obligated to pay an amount at some future date need to know the size of that obligation in today’s dollars, which will tell them how much money to set aside. That sum can be smaller than the principal amount due because it can earn interest until the due date. If, for example, you owe $10,000 in ten years, and your savings account offers an interest rate of 3 percent, you would need to set aside only $7,441 today. In this example, you have assessed your future obligations using a 3 percent “discount rate”—the rate at which the principal due is discounted over a given period of time to produce the loan’s net present value.

The discount rate applied to future obligations is a crucial determinant of a pension system’s necessary funding levels: the lower the rate, the larger the contributions required to maintain “fully funded” status, meaning the assets are sufficient to cover all promised pension benefits.

Private pension plans must discount liabilities based on what’s known as a “market” rate—typically, the interest paid on bonds issued by financially solid corporations. This is often much lower than the plans’ projected returns, but it reflects what the money would be earning if invested in lower-risk assets, matching the low risk tolerance of future retirees who are counting on their promised pensions.

Public funds, however, are allowed to discount their long-term liabilities based on the targeted annual rate of return on their assets—i.e., what they hope to earn from investments in a basket of assets dominated by stocks, which offer a chance of higher returns in exchange for higher risk of losses.


Until recently, all of New York’s public pension funds had pegged their target rates at 8 percent, like most other public systems around the country. In 2010, Comptroller DiNapoli, acting as sole trustee of the New York State & Local Employee Retirement System, adopted new actuarial guidelines reducing the target rate for state pension funds to 7.5 percent, along with other changes in actuarial assumptions concerning career duration, salaries and life expectancy. These are all factored into the system’s employer contribution rates going forward. The New York State Teachers’ Retirement System (overseen by a separate board of trustees) and the New York City pension funds will also be considering changes to their rate of return assumptions in 2011.

While most public pension managers continue to resist the idea, many independent actuaries and financial economists agree that the net present value of risk-free public pension promises should be calculated on the basis of low-risk market interest rates. Using this approach, for example, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute has estimated that state pensions across the country are underfunded by $3 trillion, or six times the officially reported under-funding estimates as of 2008.6 This estimate doesn't even take into account the impact of the 2008 market downturn on pension fund asset values.

Indeed, sharp drops in asset values cause pension plans' financial statements to become even more misleading. When a pension plan underperforms its targeted in-vestment returns, it does not recognize the loss immediately; instead, it “smooths" recognition of the loss over a period of years, usually five. This means that most pension plans will not have fully recognized the stock market declines of 2008 and 2009 until 2014. For example, while ERS held assets with a market value of $94 billion as of March 31, 2009, it reported an actuarial asset value of $126 billion on that date—and that $126 billion figure underpins the plan's claim that it is 101 percent funded.

In this report, we also present “market value” funding data for New York’s state and local pension funds, in addition to the more-commonly discussed actuarial funding basis. For the statewide pension funds, we calculated our market value funding calculations by using the most recent available data on market value of assets from the funds’ Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. In the case of NYSLRS, the data are for March 31, 2009; for NYSTRS, the data are current as of June 30, 2009.7

We also adjusted the estimated pension liabilities to a “market value liability” calculation by using a discount rate based on high-quality corporate bonds, provided by Mercer Consulting as of September 2010. As is the standard practice for public sector pension funds, these funds’ actuarial liabilities are calculated by discounting future payments to a present value using discount rate equal to the funds’ expected rate of return: 7.5 percent for ERS and PFRS, and 8 percent for TRS. Our adjusted discount rate is approximately 5 percent, varying slightly depending on the funds’ mix of active and retired participants. This lower discount rate reflects the typical practice for private-sector pension plans, with a discount rate based on the risk experienced by pension beneficiaries.

For the New York City pension systems, market valuation measures are already included in official financial reports, so we simply reproduce those along with our estimates for the state funds, based on their latest published financial data, in Table 2. It should be noted that the city’s actuarial and market-based data in the table are for fiscal 2008, and do not reflect the fund’s losses in 2009.





As of their reporting dates in 2009 (March 31 for New York State ERS and PFRS, and June 30 for NYSTRS), each of the state systems reported an actuarial funding ratio of slightly more than 100 percent. But recalculating these figures on a market value basis shows a much worse funding situation: TRS was just 60 percent funded, PFRS 58 percent, and ERS 56 percent. The discrepancy has two sources: sharp stock market declines in late 2008 and early 2009 meant that the market value of these plans' assets was far below their actuarial value. And changing to a market value discount rate significantly increases the plans' measured liabilities.

Updated liability estimates

In the year following the last official actuarial reporting date, asset values rebounded somewhat. We estimate the New York State ERS and PFRS were 65 percent and 69 percent funded, respectively, using a market rate standard as of March 31, 2010. The market-rate unfunded liabilities for these two systems came to $71 billion, including $61.8 billion for ERS and $9.5 billion for PFRS, according to our calculations. NYSTRS was approximately 61 percent funded as of June 30, 2010, with a shortfall of $49.2 billion. Thus, the combined shortfall for the two systems came to $120 billion, while the official estimate of the shortfall in the city funds, measured on a market basis, came to $76 billion as of June 30, 2008.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/21/12 09:19 AM

1/3 of NY schools will be out of money in 2 years
another 1/3 will be out of money in 7 years
the final 1/3 will be out of money in 14 years

the contracts will be opened and severe cuts made
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/21/12 10:44 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
1/3 of NY schools will be out of money in 2 years
another 1/3 will be out of money in 7 years
the final 1/3 will be out of money in 14 years

the contracts will be opened and severe cuts made



so make the cuts now and kill these bloodsucking unions....it's about time we started over.
Posted by: Cuzi Sedso

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/21/12 10:59 AM

Start over with what -- you and Bluezone as teachers working for minimum wage and no benefits?
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/21/12 11:14 AM

With students eligible for school lunch programs mopping hallway floors no doubt.

Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/21/12 12:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Cuzi Sedso
Start over with what -- you and Bluezone as teachers working for minimum wage and no benefits?



that's not what I said....I've gotten used to working for a living in the real world .....there seems to be quite a few college grads ready to step in....get rid of tenure, get a true eval.system in place and get wages, benefits and retirements in line with what the taxpayer can afford....I know this whole affordability thing is a strange concept to you on the left but if you haven't noticed, the whole socialist thing is failing because your running out of other peoples money to spend!
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/21/12 12:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
With students eligible for school lunch programs mopping hallway floors no doubt.




I'm sure the teachers with poor evals. could fill the mop detail.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/29/12 10:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Cuzi Sedso
Start over with what -- you and Bluezone as teachers working for minimum wage and no benefits?


when a ny school runs out of money what do you think wil happen next?

control board to open the contract...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/29/12 10:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
With students eligible for school lunch programs mopping hallway floors no doubt.


you are the one supporting the vicious cycle



poor performing protected teachers > poor performing students > high failure/dropout rate of students > teachers demanding higher raises without performance > back to poor performing protected teachers


tell us about the new movie 'won't back down'?

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/29/12 10:55 AM

teachers union to sue NYS over 2% tax cap

must be they want a higher pay raise and even better benefits
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TAXPAYER - 09/29/12 11:00 AM

Arrogant taxpayer with nothing more to do than bash teachers.

Don't pay your school taxes. Walk the talk crybaby.
Posted by:

Re: ARROGANT Teonan - 09/29/12 12:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
Arrogant taxpayer with nothing more to do than bash teachers.

Don't pay your school taxes. Walk the talk crybaby.




How ever you want to look at it, the tax payer is getting robbed!
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TAXPAYERS - 09/29/12 12:22 PM


Feel you're getting robbed homie?

'Stand your Ground.' Be a tax-resister. Fight it in court. Go to jail for your convictions.

Guess you would need to grow a pair first.
Posted by: FL1 Mod 3

Re: ARROGANT TAXPAYERS - 09/29/12 12:32 PM

"There you go again..."
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TAXPAYERS - 09/29/12 12:37 PM


A thousand pardons.

Too nice of day. I stand corrected.

Thank you!
Posted by: cwjga

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/29/12 02:24 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
teachers union to sue NYS over 2% tax cap

must be they want a higher pay raise and even better benefits

THere is no 2% tax cap. For geneva it is about 2.5%, for Canadaigua it is about 4.5%

The rich get richer the poor get screwed.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/01/12 06:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
Arrogant taxpayer with nothing more to do than bash teachers.

Don't pay your school taxes. Walk the talk crybaby.


is the teachers union not going to sue NYS over the cap?
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/01/12 11:45 PM

[/quote]
There is no 2% tax cap. For Geneva it is about 2.5%, for Canadaigua it is about 4.5%

The rich get richer the poor get screwed. [/quote]

Because the two per cent tax cap is a myth.
Explaining the confusing tax cap law is going to be up to the school districts and their boards of education, With pressure from the public to have a complete picture, districts could be on the defensive to explain a situation they did not create. It is another example of Prince Marios political deception.

Why the 2 per cent tax cap is not really a 2 per cent tax cap

The formula
It is about as simple as an IRS tax worksheet, but here is the formula for calculating a school districts cap:

1. Start with the prior years tax levy.

2. Multiply it by the tax base growth factor. (This is a number, provided by the Department of Taxation and Finance, that represents new brick and mortar construction that adds value to the tax base. For example, a new housing development would increase the number.)

3. Add any payments in lieu of taxes received during the prior year.

4. Subtract the taxes levied for exemptions during prior year for contributions to retirement plans.

5. The number left is the adjusted prior year tax levy.

6. Multiply the allowable levy growth factor.

7. Subtract (PILOTs) receivable in the coming year.

8. The number left is the tax levy limit.

Glossary

Tax levy: The total amount of money collected through property taxes. This is what is capped by state law.

Tax rate: Usually expressed in dollars per $1,000 of the value of a property. Districts calculate this number by dividing the tax levy by the total value of property. Put another way: (Tax Levy divided by Assessed Value) x 1,000 = Tax Rate.

Why is my tax increase different?

A district may decide to raise its tax levy 3 percent, but that does not mean your tax bill will go up 3 percent. It could go up the same, more or less. Why?

What you pay in property taxes is determined by the value of your property and the tax rate. That change in what you pay is often different than the tax levy increase because of a number of factors, including your propertys assessed value, the towns equalization rate and the value of property within the town along with its share of the districts tax levy.

Lost the above link, but here is another.

http://www.empirecenter.org/Special-Reports/2011/11/proptaxcapguide113011.cfm


Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TAXPAYER - 10/02/12 06:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
Arrogant taxpayer with nothing more to do than bash teachers.

Don't pay your school taxes. Walk the talk crybaby.



it wont matter......in 14 years most districts will be broke and then these thieving public sector teachers unions will be gone, which will then open the door for districts to get back in line with revenue that's available to them.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TAXPAYERS - 10/02/12 06:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan

Feel you're getting robbed homie?

'Stand your Ground.' Be a tax-resister. Fight it in court. Go to jail for your convictions.

Guess you would need to grow a pair first.


boy you liberals are so easy to send over the edge....showing everyone what your true colors are!



Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/02/12 10:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Because the two per cent tax cap is a myth.


is it a myth that teachers pay and benefits continue to climb upwards while the student performance declines?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/05/12 09:36 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats



is that the teachers lunchroom?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/11/12 08:39 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats
We have always had lengthy evaluations.


is your school still on the NYS watch list for underperforming schools?
Posted by: Jelloshot

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/11/12 09:17 AM

Not my school district, but it was recently reported in the paper, the GSD is no longer on the watch list. Nice try though.
Posted by: cwjga

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/11/12 09:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Jelloshot
Not my school district, but it was recently reported in the paper, the GSD is no longer on the watch list. Nice try though.


The Highschool is off the list, GSD has two schools till on.

Of course technically no school is ever off the list.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/11/12 10:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Jelloshot
Not my school district, but it was recently reported in the paper, the GSD is no longer on the watch list. Nice try though.


hence......the name of the thread!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/12/12 10:07 AM

Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: Jelloshot
Not my school district, but it was recently reported in the paper, the GSD is no longer on the watch list. Nice try though.


The Highschool is off the list, GSD has two schools still on.


nice try jelloshot but it appears you did not read the paper

jelloshot why were all 3 on the watch list?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/14/12 12:19 PM

Originally Posted By: twocats
In 2009, about 61 percent of children attended a full day of preprimary program, compared to 17 percent in 1970



so you are saying the children spent more time in school in their younger years but the teachers were still not able to provide quality education

seems the blame falls on the teachers...
Posted by: cwjga

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/14/12 12:30 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: twocats
In 2009, about 61 percent of children attended a full day of preprimary program, compared to 17 percent in 1970



so you are saying the children spent more time in school in their younger years but the teachers were still not able to provide quality education

seems the blame falls on the teachers...




Personally I think it shows that we start removing kids from thier parents way to early. I agree with Twocats in that we should move to the Finnish system where kids do not start official education until the age of, I would at least like to see us move to what the swiss do where kids start a half day at 5, and have a half day at the age of 6. Full day does not start till 7.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/14/12 01:12 PM

ACLU alleges Michigan school district violated students' 'right to ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...michigan-school.../gJQArf1jeW_story.html
Jul 12, 2012 ... The ACLU class-action lawsuit, to be filed Thursday, says hundreds of students in
the Highland Park School District are functionally illiterate.


watch the teachers go on strike asking for more money while they still do not perform their 'job'
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/17/12 10:19 AM

where else could the employees double, their pay and benefits be well above others while their results are far below average?



Quote:
America Has Too Many Teachers
Public-school employees have doubled in 40 years while student enrollment has increased by only 8.5%—and academic results have stagnated.

By ANDREW J. COULSON

President Obama said last month that America can educate its way to prosperity if Congress sends money to states to prevent public school layoffs and "rehire even more teachers." Mitt Romney was having none of it, invoking "the message of Wisconsin" and arguing that the solution to our economic woes is to cut the size of government and shift resources to the private sector. Mr. Romney later stated that he wasn't calling for a reduction in the teacher force—but perhaps there would be some wisdom in doing just that.

Cato Institute scholar Andrew Coulson on how public school employment has soared over the past 40 years even as student enrollment has flat-lined.

Since 1970, the public school workforce has roughly doubled—to 6.4 million from 3.3 million—and two-thirds of those new hires are teachers or teachers' aides. Over the same period, enrollment rose by a tepid 8.5%. Employment has thus grown 11 times faster than enrollment. If we returned to the student-to-staff ratio of 1970, American taxpayers would save about $210 billion annually in personnel costs.

Or would they? Stanford economist Eric Hanushek has shown that better-educated students contribute substantially to economic growth. If U.S. students could catch up to the mathematics performance of their Canadian counterparts, he has found, it would add roughly $70 trillion to the U.S. economy over the next 80 years. So if the additional three million public-school employees we've hired have helped students learn, the nation may be better off economically.

To find out if that's true, we can look at the "long-term trends" of 17-year-olds on the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress. These tests, first administered four decades ago, show stagnation in reading and math and a decline in science. Scores for black and Hispanic students have improved somewhat, but the scores of white students (still the majority) are flat overall, and large demographic gaps persist. Graduation rates have also stagnated or fallen. So a doubling in staff size and more than a doubling in cost have done little to improve academic outcomes.

Nor can the explosive growth in public-school hiring be attributed to federal spending on special education. According to the latest Census Bureau data, special ed teachers make up barely 5% of the K-12 work force.

The implication of these facts is clear: America's public schools have warehoused three million people in jobs that do little to improve student achievement—people who would be working productively in the private sector if that extra $210 billion were not taxed out of the economy each year.

We have already tried President Obama's education solution over a time period and on a scale that he could not hope to replicate today. And it has proven an expensive and tragic failure.

To avoid Greece's fate we must create new, productive private-sector jobs to replace our unproductive government ones. Even as a tiny, mostly nonprofit niche, American private education is substantially more efficient than its public sector, producing higher graduation rates and similar or better student achievement at roughly a third lower cost than public schools (even after controlling for differences in student and family characteristics).



St. Joseph's Catholic School in Kennewick, Wash.

By making it easier for families to access independent schools, we can do what the president's policies cannot: drive prosperity through educational improvement. More than 20 private-school choice programs already exist around the nation. Last month, New Hampshire legislators voted to override their governor's veto and enact tax credits for businesses that donate to K-12 scholarship organizations. Mr. Romney has supported such state programs. President Obama opposes them.

While America may have too many teachers, the greater problem is that our state schools have squandered their talents on a mass scale. The good news is that a solution is taking root in many states.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/18/12 09:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan

Equal pay for equal work -- White House and every house.


does that mean the 'teach'ers should be paid the same amount as day care assistances as they claim no responsiblity for the students performance?


75% drop in your school taxes...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/31/12 09:22 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats
I thought it was


Originally Posted By: cwjga
Just got notification that our health insurance plan will go from $581 to $685 a month. That is an 18% increase.


wonder who will pay for twocats 18% increase in health insurance?

taxpayers of course....
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/03/12 10:35 PM

Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: Jelloshot
Not my school district, but it was recently reported in the paper, the GSD is no longer on the watch list. Nice try though.


The Highschool is off the list, GSD has two schools still on.


the teachers need to put more effort into their job

if the lower grades are not performing well then the same students will move up to the higher grades and their poor performance will continue

Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/03/12 10:50 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: twocats
I thought it was


Originally Posted By: cwjga
Just got notification that our health insurance plan will go from $581 to $685 a month. That is an 18% increase.


wonder who will pay for twocats 18% increase in health insurance?

taxpayers of course....


Nope, just you.
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/03/12 10:52 PM


Teacher-trashing giving you insomnia tonight?
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/03/12 10:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Teonan

Teacher-trashing giving you insomnia tonight?





Bozo's meds haven't kicked in yet.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/03/12 10:58 PM

must not be any school tomorrow



Quote:
• New York's Exploding Pension Costs - The Empire Center for New ...



... tax-funded annual contributions to the New York State Teachers ... inflation of future pension payments, and the permanent elimination of employee contributions for Tier …
http://www.empirecenter.org/Special-Reports/2010/12/pensionexplosion...




New York's Exploding Pension Costs
Complete report in PDF format
December 07, 2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Public pension costs in New York are mushrooming—just when taxpayers can least afford it. Over the next five years, tax-funded annual contributions to the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System (NYSTRS) will more than quadruple, while contributions to the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS) will more than double, according to estimates presented in this report. New York City’s budgeted pension costs, which already have increased tenfold in the past decade, will rise by at least 20 percent more in the next three years, according to the city’s financial plan projections.
NYSTRS and NYSLRS are “fully funded” by government actuarial standards, but we estimate they have combined funding shortfalls of $120 billion when their liabilities are measured using private-sector accounting rules. Based on a similar alternative standard, New York City’s pension funds had unfunded liabilities of $76 billion as of mid-2008—before their net asset values plunged in the wake of the financial crisis.

The run-up in pension costs threatens to divert scarce resources from essential public services during a time of extreme fiscal and economic stress for every level of government. New York needs to enact fundamental pension reform to permanently eliminate the risks and unpredictability inherent in the traditional pension system.

INTRODUCTION

In November 2003, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research issued a report de-scribing New York State’s public pension system as “a ticking fiscal time bomb.”

The bomb is now exploding—and New Yorkers will be coping with the fallout for years to come.

New York’s state and local taxpayers support three public pension funds encompassing eight different retirement systems—five covering different groups of New York City employees, and three covering employees of the state, local governments, school districts and public authorities outside the city. Between 2007 and 2009, these funds lost a collective total of more than $109 billion, or 29 percent of their combined assets. Two of the three funds ended their 2010 fiscal years with asset values below fiscal 2000 levels; the third has barely grown in the past decade.

Meanwhile, the number of pension fund retirees and other beneficiaries has risen 20 percent and total pension benefit payments have doubled in the past 10 years. Tax-payers will now have to make up for the resulting pension fund shortfalls.

This report forecasts pension funding trends for the New York State and Local Re-tirement Systems (NYSLRS) and the New York State Teachers Retirement System (NYSTRS), which cover nearly every public employee outside New York City. It also summarizes official reports of funded status and projected costs over the next three years for the New York City Retirement Systems. Assuming the pension systems all hit their rate-of-return targets:

• Taxpayer contributions to NYSTRS could more than quadruple, rising from about $900 million as of 2010-11 to about $4.5 billion by 2015-16. The projected increase is equivalent to 18 percent of current school property tax levies.
• State and local employer contributions to NYSLRS will more than double over the next five years, adding nearly $4 billion to annual taxpayer costs even if most opt to convert a portion of their higher pension bills into IOUs that won’t be paid off until the 2020s.
• New York City’s budgeted pension contributions, which already have in-creased by more than 500 percent ($5.8 billion) in the last decade, are projected to increase at least 20 percent more, or $1.4 billion, in the next three years.

Pension costs would be even higher if New York’s state and local retirement funds were not calculating pension contributions based on permissive government accounting standards, which allow them to understate their true liabilities.

While New York’s two state pension systems officially are deemed “fully funded,” we estimate that NYSLRS is $71 billion short of what it will need to fund its pension obligations, and that NYSTRS has a funding shortfall of $49 billion, based on valuation standards applied to corporate pension funds.

The need for reform

The record-breaking investment returns of the 1980s and ‘90s lulled New York’s elected leaders into a false sense of complacency. State and local payrolls were expanded and retirement benefits were enhanced under the assumption that pension costs would remain near historic lows. The downturn of 2000-03 and its impact on pension costs should have come as a wake-up call to state officials. Instead, they responded with pension funding gimmicks and minimal “reforms.”

In the short run, assuming the state Constitution is interpreted as allowing no change in benefits for current workers, there is no financially responsible way to avoid the coming increases in pensions costs. However, state and local officials in New York can seek to contain the damage by reducing headcount where appropriate, and by exploring ways of saving money on employee compensation, including wage increases and health insurance benefits. A statewide public-sector salary freeze—which the Legislature has the power to impose, according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Empire Center1 —could help minimize the extent to which rising pension costs force service cutbacks, layoffs or tax hikes. But these will just be bandages covering a more fundamental problem.

The lesson is clear: the traditional pension system exposes taxpayers to intolerable levels of financial risk and volatility. New York’s existing defined-benefit (DB) public pension plans need to be closed to new members, once and for all. They should be replaced either by defined-contribution (DC) plans modeled on the 401(k) accounts that most private workers rely for their own retirement, or by “hybrid” plans, combining elements of DB and DC plans, that cap benefits and require employees to share in some of the financial risks of retirement planning.

This is not just a matter of financial necessity but of basic fairness to current and future taxpayers—the vast majority of whom will never receive anything approaching the costly, guaranteed benefits available to public employees.

1. PENSION FUNDING TRENDS


New York’s 1.3 million state and local government employees belong to defined-benefit (DB) pension plans, which guarantee a stream of post-retirement income based on peak average salaries and career duration. Pension (and disability) benefits are financed by large investment pools, which in turn are replenished by tax-funded employer contributions. Some public employees, depending on their hiring date and “tier” membership, also contribute a small share of their own salaries to pension funds (see Appendix).

While employee contributions (where required) are fixed or capped, contributions by employers fluctuate, based on actuarial assumptions. The rate of return on pension fund assets is the key determinant of pension costs to taxpayers. Since the mid-1980s, when pension funds began allocating more of their assets to stock investments, those rate of return assumptions have ranged from 7.5 percent to 8.75 percent; for most of the last 10 years, New York’s public pension plans have assumed their investments would yield an average annual return of 8 percent.





During the historic bull market of the 1980s and ‘90s, investment gains easily exceeded expectations, averaging in the double digits. The result, as shown in Figure 1: tax-funded employer contributions tumbled in the three state pension plans covering employees outside New York City. By 2000, employer contribution rates for members of these plans essentially had dropped to zero.2

Government workers shared in the market windfall. The state Legislature repeatedly increased pension benefits for targeted groups of employees during the 1990s. Those enhancements were topped off in 2000 by the state Legislature’s approval of cost-of-living adjustments in all public pensions, automatic partial indexing to inflation of future pension payments, and the permanent elimination of employee contributions for Tier 3 and 4 retirement system members who had been on the payroll for at least 10 years.3 Lawmakers essentially sold these changes to the public as a free lunch, assuming the stock market boom would continue indefinitely.

In fact, as elected officials should have recognized, the minimal employer contribution rates of 1990s were a historical anomaly. “Normal” contribution rates—assuming a hypothetical steady state of asset returns meeting investment targets—would have ranged from 11 to 12 percent for most non-uniformed state and local employees, including teachers, to nearly 20 percent for most police and firefighters in NYSLRS.

The decade that followed the enactment of the major pension sweeteners was characterized by extremely volatile—and ultimately stagnant—investment returns. Asset values dropped sharply between 2000 and 2002, recovered over the next five years, and then dropped sharply after 2007.

Despite the recent stock market recovery, the net assets of the New York City pension funds and the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System (NYSTRS) as of 2010 were still below 2000 levels, while the net assets of the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS) were up just 4 percent on the decade.* Meanwhile, total benefit payments doubled between 2000 and 2010. The year-by-year trends for the period are shown in Figure 2.





* NYSLERS includes both the State and Local Employee Retirement System and the Police and Fire Retirement System.

The combination of falling asset prices and rising benefit outlays meant the pension funds were developing huge shortfalls. Meanwhile, employee contributions into the state pension funds actually decreased during this period, as a growing number of Tier 3 and 4 members reached the 10-year seniority mark.4 Taxpayers were left to pick up the slack, as shown in Figure 3. In 2000, tax-funded employer contributions to New York’s pension funds totaled just under $1 billion. By 2010, they had risen to a combined $17.3 billion for the state and New York City systems.

But this was just the beginning of the pension explosion.





2. THE WRONG KIND OF “BOOM”

How hard will taxpayers be hit by New York’s coming pension explosion? To answer that question, we have projected employer contribution rates for NYSLRS and NYSTRS for each of the next five years. These projections are based on assumptions about future events, particularly the performance of fund assets, but also growth in employee headcount and salaries.

These projections represent our best effort to replicate the funds’ contribution rate calculations under the Aggregate Funding Method used by the pension system actuaries. Because the funds do not make public their expected streams of future cash flows, we must make assumptions about the path of changes in certain figures that form a part of those calculations, particularly the present value of the salaries that currently active employees are expected to earn. However, we believe that these projections represent a good estimate based on publicly available data, and can provide state and local governments with useful guidance about the path of pension costs in future years.

We projected contributions in three scenarios: “Base,” in which the pension systems hit their current investment targets (7.5 percent for NYSLRS, 8.0 percent for NYSTRS); “High Returns,” defined as 11 percent per year; and “Low Returns,” de-fined as 5 percent per year. We also estimated tax-funded contributions to NYSLRS over the next five years assuming that local employers opt to join the state in cap-ping pension contributions and amortizing excess amounts for a 10-year period.




Pension “mitigation”: Cap and owe

Under a new law backed by Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and approved as part of the 2011-12 state budget,5 the state government’s fiscal 2010-11 pension contribution rates will be capped at “graded rates” of 9.5 percent for the ERS members and 17.5 percent for PFRS members, instead of the billed rates of 11.9 percent and 18.2 percent, respectively.

Starting in fiscal 2011-12, the contribution rates used to calculate the state’s pension bill will be allowed to increase by only one percentage point a year, starting at this year’s capped level. Billed contributions above that amount in any given year can be spread, or amortized, over 10 years, payable to the pension fund at a rate pegged to interest on taxable bonds, generally in the neighborhood of 5 percent. As part of the deal, the minimum contribution level is permanently fixed at 4 percent. Local governments have been given the option of joining this “rate mitigation program,” and many are already choosing to do so.

Delayed payments will be counted as liabilities on employer balance sheets, and as receivable “assets” of the pension fund. The comptroller has strongly taken issue with any suggestion that this program is tantamount to borrowing from the pension fund. Semantics aside, however, there is no denying that the cap on pension payments simply transfers liabilities into the future—well into the 2020s, at a minimum. Assuming all local government employers amortize a portion of what they will owe the pension fund, and assuming the funds’ asset returns hit their 7.5 percent target, we estimate a total of $11 billion in state and local pension payments will be deferred over the next five years—stretching these costs into the middle of the next decade.

In any event, even employers choosing to amortize will experience a doubling of ERS contributions and a near doubling in total PFRS contributions over the next five years. If asset returns are high enough to drive down rates quickly after a few years, those employers will continue paying higher rates for a longer period. School districts paying into the NYSTRS, which has no amortization option, will see their contributions quadruple even under our rosiest scenario for asset returns over the next five years.

The impact of the projected base rates on total contribution amounts is depicted in Figure 4. The $3.6 billion rise in teacher pension contributions (from about $900 mil-lion in 2010-11 to $4.5 billion in 2015-16) equates to 18 percent of 2010-11 school tax levies, or an average increase of nearly 3.5 percent a year. This is well above the annual property tax growth that would be allowed under a 2 percent tax cap proposed by Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo.



The Big Apple’s bomb

Virtually all New York City employees (and some employees of the city Transit Authority) belong to one of five different municipal pension systems. The systems have different funding and contribution levels while pooling their assets in a common city pension trust fund.

The financing of these pension plans is arcane and complex compared to those of NYSLRS and NYSTRS. Crucial pension fund financial data for the 2009 and 2010 fiscal years has not yet been published, and the city Office of Management and Budget (OMB) uses an opaque process to generate the city’s official pension cost estimates.

The city’s pension contribution averaged about $1.4 billion during the late 1990s and dipped as low as $615 million in 2000. By 2010, the contribution had risen to an all-time high of $6.6 billion—and it’s still climbing. OMB’s official financial plan estimates of pension obligations are depicted in Figure 5.




These figures, which show the pension contribution growing from $7 billion in 2011 to $8.4 billion in fiscal 2014, reflect changes made by OMB in its November budget modifications in anticipation of a forthcoming revision of actuarial assumptions. Given the steep losses sustained by city pension funds in 2007-2009 (as shown in Figure 2 on page 4) and the underfunded status of the pension plans even before the downturn, the pension contribution is likely to grow significantly after fiscal 2014.

Measuring pension fund assets and liabilities

Parties obligated to pay an amount at some future date need to know the size of that obligation in today’s dollars, which will tell them how much money to set aside. That sum can be smaller than the principal amount due because it can earn interest until the due date. If, for example, you owe $10,000 in ten years, and your savings account offers an interest rate of 3 percent, you would need to set aside only $7,441 today. In this example, you have assessed your future obligations using a 3 percent “discount rate”—the rate at which the principal due is discounted over a given period of time to produce the loan’s net present value.

The discount rate applied to future obligations is a crucial determinant of a pension system’s necessary funding levels: the lower the rate, the larger the contributions required to maintain “fully funded” status, meaning the assets are sufficient to cover all promised pension benefits.

Private pension plans must discount liabilities based on what’s known as a “market” rate—typically, the interest paid on bonds issued by financially solid corporations. This is often much lower than the plans’ projected returns, but it reflects what the money would be earning if invested in lower-risk assets, matching the low risk tolerance of future retirees who are counting on their promised pensions.

Public funds, however, are allowed to discount their long-term liabilities based on the targeted annual rate of return on their assets—i.e., what they hope to earn from investments in a basket of assets dominated by stocks, which offer a chance of higher returns in exchange for higher risk of losses.


Until recently, all of New York’s public pension funds had pegged their target rates at 8 percent, like most other public systems around the country. In 2010, Comptroller DiNapoli, acting as sole trustee of the New York State & Local Employee Retirement System, adopted new actuarial guidelines reducing the target rate for state pension funds to 7.5 percent, along with other changes in actuarial assumptions concerning career duration, salaries and life expectancy. These are all factored into the system’s employer contribution rates going forward. The New York State Teachers’ Retirement System (overseen by a separate board of trustees) and the New York City pension funds will also be considering changes to their rate of return assumptions in 2011.

While most public pension managers continue to resist the idea, many independent actuaries and financial economists agree that the net present value of risk-free public pension promises should be calculated on the basis of low-risk market interest rates. Using this approach, for example, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute has estimated that state pensions across the country are underfunded by $3 trillion, or six times the officially reported under-funding estimates as of 2008.6 This estimate doesn't even take into account the impact of the 2008 market downturn on pension fund asset values.

Indeed, sharp drops in asset values cause pension plans' financial statements to become even more misleading. When a pension plan underperforms its targeted in-vestment returns, it does not recognize the loss immediately; instead, it “smooths" recognition of the loss over a period of years, usually five. This means that most pension plans will not have fully recognized the stock market declines of 2008 and 2009 until 2014. For example, while ERS held assets with a market value of $94 billion as of March 31, 2009, it reported an actuarial asset value of $126 billion on that date—and that $126 billion figure underpins the plan's claim that it is 101 percent funded.

In this report, we also present “market value” funding data for New York’s state and local pension funds, in addition to the more-commonly discussed actuarial funding basis. For the statewide pension funds, we calculated our market value funding calculations by using the most recent available data on market value of assets from the funds’ Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. In the case of NYSLRS, the data are for March 31, 2009; for NYSTRS, the data are current as of June 30, 2009.7

We also adjusted the estimated pension liabilities to a “market value liability” calculation by using a discount rate based on high-quality corporate bonds, provided by Mercer Consulting as of September 2010. As is the standard practice for public sector pension funds, these funds’ actuarial liabilities are calculated by discounting future payments to a present value using discount rate equal to the funds’ expected rate of return: 7.5 percent for ERS and PFRS, and 8 percent for TRS. Our adjusted discount rate is approximately 5 percent, varying slightly depending on the funds’ mix of active and retired participants. This lower discount rate reflects the typical practice for private-sector pension plans, with a discount rate based on the risk experienced by pension beneficiaries.

For the New York City pension systems, market valuation measures are already included in official financial reports, so we simply reproduce those along with our estimates for the state funds, based on their latest published financial data, in Table 2. It should be noted that the city’s actuarial and market-based data in the table are for fiscal 2008, and do not reflect the fund’s losses in 2009.





As of their reporting dates in 2009 (March 31 for New York State ERS and PFRS, and June 30 for NYSTRS), each of the state systems reported an actuarial funding ratio of slightly more than 100 percent. But recalculating these figures on a market value basis shows a much worse funding situation: TRS was just 60 percent funded, PFRS 58 percent, and ERS 56 percent. The discrepancy has two sources: sharp stock market declines in late 2008 and early 2009 meant that the market value of these plans' assets was far below their actuarial value. And changing to a market value discount rate significantly increases the plans' measured liabilities.

Updated liability estimates

In the year following the last official actuarial reporting date, asset values rebounded somewhat. We estimate the New York State ERS and PFRS were 65 percent and 69 percent funded, respectively, using a market rate standard as of March 31, 2010. The market-rate unfunded liabilities for these two systems came to $71 billion, including $61.8 billion for ERS and $9.5 billion for PFRS, according to our calculations. NYSTRS was approximately 61 percent funded as of June 30, 2010, with a shortfall of $49.2 billion. Thus, the combined shortfall for the two systems came to $120 billion, while the official estimate of the shortfall in the city funds, measured on a market basis, came to $76 billion as of June 30, 2008.

Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/03/12 11:06 PM


Worry not. You'll get schooled tomorrow.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/03/12 11:32 PM

The thread that refused to die...
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/06/12 01:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Teonan

Teacher-trashing giving you insomnia tonight?


Bluezone and others of her ilk seem to not summize that the number one predictor of student performance is parent involvement. The powers that be have put educators in the position of solving all of the ills of whatever community they serve. Parents have been absolved of a great deal of responsibility, as a result.

Furthermore, system-wide educational decisions are made by non-educators. This would be akin to Bluezone establishing regulations regarding, say, bank management.

Look at adequately performing districts, or higher, and tell me what you think. You'll see a funny correlation between SES and student performance. That brings up the issue of poverty or low income areas.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/06/12 06:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: Teonan

Teacher-trashing giving you insomnia tonight?


Bluezone and others of her ilk seem to not summize that the number one predictor of student performance is parent involvement.

I made this point months ago... On this thread, I believe.
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/06/12 07:07 PM


Sure glad you didn't have it copyrighted J. ;\)

A most excellent point and damn well worth another look.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/07/12 06:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
[I made this point months ago... On this thread, I believe.


I'm glad we think alike then.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/07/12 12:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: Teonan

Teacher-trashing giving you insomnia tonight?


Bluezone and others of her ilk seem to not summize that the number one predictor of student performance is parent involvement. The powers that be have put educators in the position of solving all of the ills of whatever community they serve. Parents have been absolved of a great deal of responsibility, as a result.

Furthermore, system-wide educational decisions are made by non-educators. This would be akin to Bluezone establishing regulations regarding, say, bank management.

Look at adequately performing districts, or higher, and tell me what you think. You'll see a funny correlation between SES and student performance. That brings up the issue of poverty or low income areas.



except for the fact that most non govt. workers have to put a whole lot more hours into their jobs......



"Furthermore, system-wide educational decisions are made by non-educators."

questionable statement,not completely factual unless you drink the same kool-aid the educators do.


"The powers that be have put educators in the position of solving all of the ills of whatever community they serve."

not true.....an opinion.


"Parents have been absolved of a great deal of responsibility, as a result."


what parents would you be speaking of?......again, only a govt. employee would think that....although liberals firmly believe it as the bigger they grow govt. the more they feel their needed thus they continue to create more mandates to keep their nanny state moving along.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/07/12 02:53 PM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: Teonan

Teacher-trashing giving you insomnia tonight?


Bluezone and others of her ilk seem to not summize that the number one predictor of student performance is parent involvement. The powers that be have put educators in the position of solving all of the ills of whatever community they serve. Parents have been absolved of a great deal of responsibility, as a result.

Furthermore, system-wide educational decisions are made by non-educators. This would be akin to Bluezone establishing regulations regarding, say, bank management.

Look at adequately performing districts, or higher, and tell me what you think. You'll see a funny correlation between SES and student performance. That brings up the issue of poverty or low income areas.



except for the fact that most non govt. workers have to put a whole lot more hours into their jobs......



"Furthermore, system-wide educational decisions are made by non-educators."

questionable statement,not completely factual unless you drink the same kool-aid the educators do.


"The powers that be have put educators in the position of solving all of the ills of whatever community they serve."

not true.....an opinion.


"Parents have been absolved of a great deal of responsibility, as a result."


what parents would you be speaking of?......again, only a govt. employee would think that....although liberals firmly believe it as the bigger they grow govt. the more they feel their needed thus they continue to create more mandates to keep their nanny state moving along.


Could you share some details in regard to your comments? They are shallow and meaningless without any explanation.

FYI I have voted for every Republican candidate since Richard Nixon, and I am still POed about the Barry Goldwater loss.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/08/12 08:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Bluezone and others of her ilk seem to not summize that the number one predictor of student performance is parent involvement.


your comment adds weight to the first post of this thread

the highly paid 'teachers' wanted a 30% pay increase

if the 'teachers' are just day care workers then pay them $10 per hour and eliminate their pension and healthcare benefits


odd that when the 'teachers' want a raise or continuation of their overly generous benefits they say they are the main force for the students performance but when the students performance is well below acceptable then the 'teachers' find every reason in the book to make excuses

in the real world one making over $130,000 in salary and benefits has to produce results

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/08/12 08:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan

Worry not. You'll get schooled tomorrow.


explain how?
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/08/12 08:40 AM

That was DAYS ago buzzard. You're late for class.

Where's your tardy slip???
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/08/12 11:15 AM

OK, I got nosey, butt only because the ignore function was compromised and after a couple of months of not reading bluenose innane posts my IQ has returned to its normal 98.

[/quote]

your comment adds weight to the first post of this thread

Which comment? Asking for an explanation is arrogant? Is refuting half truths and preconceived ideas arrogant?

the highly paid 'teachers' wanted a 30% pay increase

Are you referring to what was going on in Chicago, a while back. Where teachers were being asked to work increased number of days and more hours per day? NYS has just agreed to be one of a few states to look at that. It will be happening in a few select districts across the state. the closest being Rochester CSD which will be adding 300 hours to their school year. Stay tuned.

if the 'teachers' are just day care workers then pay them $10 per hour and eliminate their pension and healthcare benefits

Your wacky supposition, your wacky solution.


odd that when the 'teachers' want a raise or continuation of their overly generous benefits they say they are the main force for the students performance but when the students performance is well below acceptable then the 'teachers' find every reason in the book to make excuses

What book have you read that shows parents are not the number one factor in determing a childs success ... in anything?

in the real world

LOL, what actually do know about the real world?


one making over $130,000 in salary and benefits

Wrong again. Look at the South Seneca Romulus Merger study. The average for a teachers salary and benefits is less than $75,000. The other schools in the area are probaly not too much different.


has to produce results

Wrong again. That myth was shot down several months ago, your continued absences and refusal to make up your homework is interfering with your progress and abilty to comprehend complex concepts. There are none so blind.....


[/quote]
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/08/12 04:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Which comment?


you did notice my reply was to sketch

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Are you referring to what was going on in Chicago, a while back. Where teachers were being asked to work increased number of days and more hours per day? NYS has just agreed to be one of a few states to look at that. It will be happening in a few select districts across the state. the closest being Rochester CSD which will be adding 300 hours to their school year. Stay tuned.


and the rochester 'teachers' are against it ...go figure


Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
What book have you read that shows parents are not the number one factor in determing a childs success ... in anything?


then the 'teachers' pay should reflect they are just day care workers and their pay should be $10 per hour with no pension or healthcare


Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
LOL, what actually do know about the real world?


in the real world one can not put $15,000 into their retirement account and then get $1.3 million back for retirement

madoff was sent to prison

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Wrong again. Look at the South Seneca Romulus Merger study. The average for a teachers salary and benefits is less than $75,000. The other schools in the area are probaly not too much different.


you must factor in salary, pension payout and healthcare over their career and retirement

Originally Posted By: Fart in the WInd
Wrong again. That myth was shot down several months ago, your continued absences and refusal to make up your homework is interfering with your progress and abilty to comprehend complex concepts. There are none so blind.....


so if one does not produce results in the real world then they still get raises, retain all their benefits and they still continue in the same job?

feel free to list these employers






Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/08/12 05:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind

Wrong again. Look at the South Seneca Romulus Merger study. The average for a teachers salary and benefits is less than $75,000. The other schools in the area are probaly not too much different.



and what is the salary and benefit break down?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/11/12 09:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind

Wrong again. Look at the South Seneca Romulus Merger study. The average for a teachers salary and benefits is less than $75,000. The other schools in the area are probaly not too much different.


if the merger goes forward why will the school run out of money in 2018?
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/11/12 10:46 AM

http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/average-teacher-salary-new-york.html
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/12/12 07:26 PM

cut that also
student performance is ranked 34th in the nation
not much for the NYS teachers to brag about
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/14/12 07:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind

Wrong again. Look at the South Seneca Romulus Merger study. The average for a teachers salary and benefits is less than $75,000. The other schools in the area are probaly not too much different.


if the merger goes forward why will the school run out of money in 2018?
Posted by: DR. D

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/15/12 05:04 AM

Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.
Posted by: DR. D

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/15/12 05:05 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
cut that also
student performance is ranked 34th in the nation
not much for the NYS teachers to brag about


This is the part you should focus on. Why does NY require regents diplomas and create crazy amounts of unfunded mandates?
Posted by: I did it!

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/15/12 06:18 AM

can not teach those hat are not willing to leaarn.

Ref:cut that also
student performance is ranked 34th in the nation
not much for the NYS teachers to brag about.

Bring back Respect,disapline and then you might get a better student
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/15/12 11:14 AM

Originally Posted By: DR. D
1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


is that the reason for the merger study?
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/15/12 01:21 PM

Originally Posted By: DR. D
Originally Posted By: bluezone
cut that also
student performance is ranked 34th in the nation
not much for the NYS teachers to brag about


This is the part you should focus on. Why does NY require regents diplomas and create crazy amounts of unfunded mandates?

This has been explained on here before, and
you hit the nail on the head refering to regents requirement.

Ranked 34th is not about performance. It is about graduation rate.
Two top reasons for this -
New York State has the toughest graduation criteria in this great nation of ours with the regents requirement. Local diplomas are only available for IEP students.

Each state determines their own criteria for who graduates. For example, NYS goes by cohort, graduating after four years of high school. So even if you graduate after five years it does not count in NYS, most states give students 5 years.

Re Performance:
ALBANY, N.Y. Jan. 12, 2012 - Schools in New York State continue to rank among the best in the nation, according to the highly respected Education Week magazine.
In its annual "Quality Counts" report released today, New York schools ranked third in the U.S., behind only Maryland and Massachusetts. In each of the six education indicators used for the rankings - chance for success; K-12 achievement; standards, assessments and accountability; teaching profession; school finance analysis; and transitions and alignment - education in New York met or exceeded the national average. Overall, New York received a "grade" of "B;" the national average was "C."
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/16/12 01:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Ranked 34th is not about performance. It is about graduation rate.


Quote:
Andrew Cuomo declared in his State of the State address that New York is "No. 1 in spending but 34th in student performance"

Cuomo "Lobbyist for the students"


your union vote and union money got cuomo elected
are you now saying he is incorrect?


34th is nothing to brag about if you are a NYS teacher

remember it is all about the student teacher, their over generous salary, over generous healthcare and over generous pension...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/16/12 01:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
NYS goes by cohort, graduating after four years of high school. So even if you graduate after five years it does not count in NYS, most states give students 5 years.


NYS is ranked 1st in spending
there should be no reason to take 5 years for a student to graduate if the overly paid teachers were doing their job

cut the teachers pay and benefits to be at the 34th level

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/16/12 01:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
ALBANY, N.Y. Jan. 12, 2012 - Schools in New York State continue to rank among the best in the nation, according to "Quality Counts" report released today, New York schools ranked third in the U.S


'Quality....'

nice spin

NYS is ranked 34th in the nation but spends the most

give the taxpayers their money back
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/16/12 06:20 PM

25364 posts and almost everyone ignores them.

_____________________________________________
A teacher died in Connecticut on Friday, our nation is in mourning.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 08:17 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
ALBANY, N.Y. Jan. 12, 2012 - Schools in New York State continue to rank among the best in the nation, according to "Quality Counts" report released today, New York schools ranked third in the U.S


'Quality....'

nice spin

NYS is ranked 34th in the nation but spends the most

give the taxpayers their money back





Where in the world do you get your figures from? Virtually every stat I've read, places NY State in the top 5 on lists of state performance rankings.

The closest thing I can find is an odd statistic that lists NY 34 in "2009 percentage of population 25 years old and over that is a High School graduate or more" (Wikipedia).

Please show us your source. I find your figures to be utterly suspect.

Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 08:40 AM

Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.
Posted by:

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 08:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.

Yeah, he not retired!
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 09:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Chicago Jesus
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.

Yeah, he not retired!


Yes numb nut, he is.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 09:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
25364 posts and almost everyone ignores them.


appears not
your posts contradicts your other 'members' posts
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 09:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Where in the world do you get your figures from?


Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Ranked 34th is not about performance. It is about graduation rate.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 09:24 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Where in the world do you get your figures from?


Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Ranked 34th is not about performance. It is about graduation rate.



I don't think that's what it says either.

Your quote was:
"cut that also-student performance is ranked 34th in the nation-not much for the NYS teachers to brag about".

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 09:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.


is his job secure for the rest of his life?
does he get a full pension paid by the taxpayers?
does he get full healthcare paid by the taxpayers?
does he only 'work' 8 months out of the year?
can he retire at age 55?
is his pension free from taxes?
if he only 'performs' at 60% does he still a full pay check?

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 09:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Yes numb nut, he is.


did he retire at age 55?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 10:00 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.


is his job secure for the rest of his life?
does he get a full pension paid by the taxpayers?
does he get full healthcare paid by the taxpayers?
does he only 'work' 8 months out of the year?
can he retire at age 55?
is his pension free from taxes?
if he only 'performs' at 60% does he still a full pay check?



I'll try to address as many as I'm able.

* Steam Fitters Union- Probably as secure as a teacher.
* Partially.
* Partially.
* Teachers categorically do NOT work only 8 months a year. They work most weeknights, many weekends and through much of what many consider summer 'vacation' and work at least part of ALL other school vacations and holidays. PTA and other Parent/Teacher consults, Staff meetings, regular curriculum update training and at LEAST 4 years of college MORE than offsets any time-off that academics may receive.
* Partial-Yes.
* Unknown.
* Any 'thinking' person knows that teacher performance reviews are very difficult to accurately quantify, between non-standardized reviews (if any) as well as MASSIVE cuts in education and the added burden now placed on teachers to be the Wet-Nurses to kids today (sometimes the result of parents being too poor to not have to work multiple jobs and on the other side of the equation the more affluent who have a sense of entitlement that they don't need to enforce discipline upon their own children).

Your last point (in my opinion) is a bullsh!p argument with little supporting evidence to back it up.

Overall, I suspect that several of your assertions are only partially accurate. Every employee (regardless of employer) is accountable for their performance and should be dealt with accordingly. But every educator I know (and I know several) have excellent work ethics and earn every single dime they're paid. They work difficult hours and are under increased pressure with fewer tools, to be both educators as well as babysitter to ever more challenged students in continually growing classroom sizes and with hugely reduced funding.


Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 10:15 AM


So bluezone, when are you going to answer some of OUR questions to you?

You can start with "Where in the world do you get your figures from?"

Give us all a taste of that bluezone wizdumb.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 10:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo


you worried your taxes will go up?


Not as long as everyone everyone kicks in their fair share, I don't.



and who pays for the teachers pension and full healthcare?

time they pay into a 401k and far more of their healthcare costs
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 10:38 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo


you worried your taxes will go up?


Not as long as everyone everyone kicks in their fair share, I don't.



and who pays for the teachers pension and full healthcare?

time they pay into a 401k and far more of their healthcare costs



As soon as you get some stones and answer some of the questions put to you, I'll consider answering some of your questions.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 10:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.


does he get a full pension paid by the taxpayers?



* Partially.


if the plumber is not getting $60,000 in retirement then the teacher is the one getting a better deal off the taxpayers money

Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 10:46 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.


does he get a full pension paid by the taxpayers?



* Partially.


if the plumber is not getting $60,000 in retirement then the teacher is the one getting a better deal off the taxpayers money



SO WHAT? NOW who's the socialist ? ? ? Do you people even LISTEN to yourselves? Gezzuz! I'll come back after you've picked your brains up off the floor.

Posted by:

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 11:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: Chicago Jesus
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.

Yeah, he not retired!


Yes numb nut, he is.
cuziee, was your plumber friend a government worker or a plumber out of a hall?"


Average Salary of Jobs with Related Titles
In USD as of Dec 18, 2012
Journeyman Plumber in New York
$54,000
Plumber Pipefitter in New York
$47,000
Service Technician Pipefitting Steamfitting in New York
$94,000
Industrial Plumber in New York
$49,000
Service Technician Plumbing in New York
$94,000
Journeyman And Plumber in New York
$30,000
Plumbing Inspector in New York
$70,000
Skilled Tradesman in New York
$38,000
Commercial Journeyman Plumber in New York
$53,000
Plumber And Steamfitter in New York
$49,000
Master Plumber in New York
$65,000
Plumber Foreman in New York
$75,000
Plumber Technician in New York
$35,000
Plumbing Service Technician in New York
$70,000
Commercial Plumber in New York
$47,000




Research more salaries on PayScale.com
About Salary Search
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 11:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo

What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.


SO WHAT? NOW who's the socialist ? ? ? Do you people even LISTEN to yourselves? Gezzuz! I'll come back after you've picked your brains up off the floor.


you just proved yourself wrong
the plumber does not make more than the teacher...

Posted by:

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 11:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.


does he get a full pension paid by the taxpayers?



* Partially.


if the plumber is not getting $60,000 in retirement then the teacher is the one getting a better deal off the taxpayers money



SO WHAT? NOW who's the socialist ? ? ? Do you people even LISTEN to yourselves? Gezzuz! I'll come back after you've picked your brains up off the floor.

I never listen to smucks like you.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 02:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Chicago Jesus
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.


does he get a full pension paid by the taxpayers?



* Partially.


if the plumber is not getting $60,000 in retirement then the teacher is the one getting a better deal off the taxpayers money



SO WHAT? NOW who's the socialist ? ? ? Do you people even LISTEN to yourselves? Gezzuz! I'll come back after you've picked your brains up off the floor.

I never listen to smucks like you.


Which would explain your utter lack of knowledge on so many issues. What I'm wondering is, what explains your total lack of grammar, spelling and punctuation?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 02:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Chicago Jesus
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: Chicago Jesus
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.

Yeah, he not retired!


Yes numb nut, he is.
cuziee, was your plumber friend a government worker or a plumber out of a hall?"


Average Salary of Jobs with Related Titles
In USD as of Dec 18, 2012
Journeyman Plumber in New York
$54,000
Plumber Pipefitter in New York
$47,000
Service Technician Pipefitting Steamfitting in New York
$94,000
Industrial Plumber in New York
$49,000
Service Technician Plumbing in New York
$94,000
Journeyman And Plumber in New York
$30,000
Plumbing Inspector in New York
$70,000
Skilled Tradesman in New York
$38,000
Commercial Journeyman Plumber in New York
$53,000
Plumber And Steamfitter in New York
$49,000
Master Plumber in New York
$65,000
Plumber Foreman in New York
$75,000
Plumber Technician in New York
$35,000
Plumbing Service Technician in New York
$70,000
Commercial Plumber in New York
$47,000




Research more salaries on PayScale.com
About Salary Search



Your figures are patently WRONG.

Apparently this thread is about skilled worker pay-scale now, huh.

Stick to the script junior.

Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 02:12 PM

I don't know that the plumber figures are wrong, but I have to ask, "New York what"?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 02:30 PM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
I don't know that the plumber figures are wrong, but I have to ask, "New York what"?


I assure you, they are.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 02:43 PM

Then what are the correct figures? And is it the state, or the city?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 03:25 PM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
Then what are the correct figures? And is it the state, or the city?


It depends, but can run well into the mid 90s. Also depends on the metropolitan, I'd think.

Enough of this nonsense stick to the thread topic.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 04:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: VM Smith
Then what are the correct figures? And is it the state, or the city?


It depends, but can run well into the mid 90s. Also depends on the metropolitan, I'd think.



Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.


is there a plumber in romulus that makes mid $90's
Posted by:

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 04:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: Chicago Jesus
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.


does he get a full pension paid by the taxpayers?



* Partially.


if the plumber is not getting $60,000 in retirement then the teacher is the one getting a better deal off the taxpayers money



SO WHAT? NOW who's the socialist ? ? ? Do you people even LISTEN to yourselves? Gezzuz! I'll come back after you've picked your brains up off the floor.

I never listen to smucks like you.


Which would explain your utter lack of knowledge on so many issues. What I'm wondering is, what explains your total lack of grammar, spelling and punctuation?

Ahahahahahjahahahaha... you're showing the world how smart you think you are!
And now you're showing the world why you have to carry a handgun
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/18/12 04:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Which would explain your utter lack of knowledge on so many issues. What I'm wondering is, what explains your total lack of grammar, spelling and punctuation?


must be from the NYS schools being rated 34th...
odds the teachers will want another raise?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 12/20/12 09:53 AM

Originally Posted By: DR. D
1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


and if the teacher retires at age 55 then the taxpayers will pay $600,000 by time the teacher reaches age 65

where does that money come from?
cake raffles?

And the teacher also does not pay taxes on that money each year either

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/01/13 12:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.


is there a plumber in romulus that makes mid $90's
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/07/13 08:42 AM

are you still looking for one?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/07/13 08:43 AM

Quote:
America Has Too Many Teachers
Public-school employees have doubled in 40 years while student enrollment has increased by only 8.5%—and academic results have stagnated.



By ANDREW J. COULSON

President Obama said last month that America can educate its way to prosperity if Congress sends money to states to prevent public school layoffs and "rehire even more teachers." Mitt Romney was having none of it, invoking "the message of Wisconsin" and arguing that the solution to our economic woes is to cut the size of government and shift resources to the private sector. Mr. Romney later stated that he wasn't calling for a reduction in the teacher force—but perhaps there would be some wisdom in doing just that.

Cato Institute scholar Andrew Coulson on how public school employment has soared over the past 40 years even as student enrollment has flat-lined.

Since 1970, the public school workforce has roughly doubled—to 6.4 million from 3.3 million—and two-thirds of those new hires are teachers or teachers' aides. Over the same period, enrollment rose by a tepid 8.5%. Employment has thus grown 11 times faster than enrollment. If we returned to the student-to-staff ratio of 1970, American taxpayers would save about $210 billion annually in personnel costs.

Or would they? Stanford economist Eric Hanushek has shown that better-educated students contribute substantially to economic growth. If U.S. students could catch up to the mathematics performance of their Canadian counterparts, he has found, it would add roughly $70 trillion to the U.S. economy over the next 80 years. So if the additional three million public-school employees we've hired have helped students learn, the nation may be better off economically.

To find out if that's true, we can look at the "long-term trends" of 17-year-olds on the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress. These tests, first administered four decades ago, show stagnation in reading and math and a decline in science. Scores for black and Hispanic students have improved somewhat, but the scores of white students (still the majority) are flat overall, and large demographic gaps persist. Graduation rates have also stagnated or fallen. So a doubling in staff size and more than a doubling in cost have done little to improve academic outcomes.

Nor can the explosive growth in public-school hiring be attributed to federal spending on special education. According to the latest Census Bureau data, special ed teachers make up barely 5% of the K-12 work force.

The implication of these facts is clear: America's public schools have warehoused three million people in jobs that do little to improve student achievement—people who would be working productively in the private sector if that extra $210 billion were not taxed out of the economy each year.

We have already tried President Obama's education solution over a time period and on a scale that he could not hope to replicate today. And it has proven an expensive and tragic failure.

To avoid Greece's fate we must create new, productive private-sector jobs to replace our unproductive government ones. Even as a tiny, mostly nonprofit niche, American private education is substantially more efficient than its public sector, producing higher graduation rates and similar or better student achievement at roughly a third lower cost than public schools (even after controlling for differences in student and family characteristics).



St. Joseph's Catholic School in Kennewick, Wash.

By making it easier for families to access independent schools, we can do what the president's policies cannot: drive prosperity through educational improvement. More than 20 private-school choice programs already exist around the nation. Last month, New Hampshire legislators voted to override their governor's veto and enact tax credits for businesses that donate to K-12 scholarship organizations. Mr. Romney has supported such state programs. President Obama opposes them.

While America may have too many teachers, the greater problem is that our state schools have squandered their talents on a mass scale. The good news is that a solution is taking root in many states.


longer school days and a longer school year

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/12/13 09:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: VM Smith
Then what are the correct figures? And is it the state, or the city?


It depends, but can run well into the mid 90s. Also depends on the metropolitan, I'd think.



Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: DR. D
Hey Blue I got some fuel for you, 1 retired teacher in Romulus makes close to $60,000 a year.


What's your point? I know a plumber that makes more than that.


is there a plumber in romulus that makes mid $90's
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/12/13 09:13 AM

cuomo wants longer school days and longer school years

better remind the teachers on a salary that the hours can increase but your salary remains the same as in all other occupations
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/15/13 06:55 PM

local paper asked a few superintendents about the longer school days/year

one said that the teachers would not go for it


good to see the teachers have the students first....NOT


Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/16/13 05:51 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
local paper asked a few superintendents about the longer school days/year

one said that the teachers would not go for it


good to see the teachers have the students first....NOT





imagine that!
Posted by: DR. D

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/16/13 05:54 AM

I question on how the state plans on paying for it, or will it be another unfunded demand.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/16/13 03:39 PM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: bluezone
local paper asked a few superintendents about the longer school days/year

one said that the teachers would not go for it


good to see the teachers have the students first....NOT



imagine that!


Where does the article say teachers will not go for it? It mentions difficulty re contract negotiations. Noclue zone again with a false premise and made up conclusion.
How many teachers have you actually talked to recently?
What research can you cite that says this will solve the problems with education? Slogans and rhetoric are not the answer.

This all goes back to the start of this dicussion? What was the final resolution of the issues in Chicago?

Nocluezone - do you ever actually read the articles you post or refer to? It seems you simply skim for out of context information and come up with false or inaccurate conclusions.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/16/13 04:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: bluezone
local paper asked a few superintendents about the longer school days/year

one said that the teachers would not go for it


good to see the teachers have the students first....NOT



imagine that!


Where does the article say teachers will not go for it? It mentions difficulty re contract negotiations. Noclue zone again with a false premise and made up conclusion.
How many teachers have you actually talked to recently?
What research can you cite that says this will solve the problems with education? Slogans and rhetoric are not the answer.

This all goes back to the start of this dicussion? What was the final resolution of the issues in Chicago?

Nocluezone - do you ever actually read the articles you post or refer to? It seems you simply skim for out of context information and come up with false or inaccurate conclusions.



Facts can be so inconvenient at times.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/17/13 08:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
It mentions difficulty re contract negotiations.


why would the contract have to be changed?

a salaried employee makes the same amount whether they work 10 hours a week or 80 hours a week

the real world
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/17/13 08:51 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats
Teachers are the cause of society's ills


Originally Posted By: twocats
I buy my smokes out of state. $50-$60 off per carton.


is that legal?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/17/13 08:57 AM

Parents Poised to Take Over Failing School
..23 hours ago

They filed enough petitions under the "parent trigger" to take over the school. ... When the parents take over a school, they can hire the teachers THEY choose, ...
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/17/13 02:47 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
It mentions difficulty re contract negotiations.


why would the contract have to be changed? most teacher contracts state specific times worked during the day
a salaried employee makes the same amount whether they work 10 hours a week or 80 hours a week Teachers are not technically salaried employees, depending on contract language
the real world has unions
the no cluezone has onions


Thanks for proving my point again that you have no clue, ever.You simply make stuff up and rant about it. False premise and no facts. If I had not mentioned contract you would have been left scratching your head.

Your post above this one reminds me of Groucho Marks, You Bet Your Life - only with a secret phrase, instead of a word, of the day. Or was the word trigger?

Here is a thought for you:
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/18/13 05:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
most teacher contracts state specific times worked during the day

is that so they will show up?

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Teachers are not technically salaried employees, depending on contract language

so then they can be removed from their job at any time

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
has unions


very limited number

they also actually work 12 months and pay for their retirement and healthcare benefits
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/18/13 05:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Thanks for proving my point


how is the school merger going?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/18/13 01:37 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Parents Poised to Take Over Failing School
..23 hours ago

They filed enough petitions under the "parent trigger" to take over the school. ... When the parents take over a school, they can hire the teachers THEY choose, ...


The last thing I want is a group of homebody hausefraus coming in with plans of reforming my childrens' school! Most are half in the bag all day leading directionless lives, prying into everyone's business in the absence of employment or purpose.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/18/13 02:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Parents Poised to Take Over Failing School
..23 hours ago

They filed enough petitions under the "parent trigger" to take over the school. ... When the parents take over a school, they can hire the teachers THEY choose, ...


The last thing I want is a group of homebody hausefraus coming in with plans of reforming my childrens' school! Most are half in the bag all day leading directionless lives, prying into everyone's business in the absence of employment or purpose.


Not any relevant information in Nocluezones squawk.
I did research it, though and...
Not Relevant to this area.
Not relevant to New York State.
Not relevant to this thread.

FYI the following is the status of schools in the 5 county area as reported by NYSed for 2011 - 2012. None are failing and only two in process of improvement. Both are only in ELA, both probably have a high percentage of ESL students:

County: CAYUGA

AUBURN CITY SD In Need of Improvement - Year 1 Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts Secondary-Level English Language Arts Newly Identified
CATO-MERIDIAN CSD In Good Standing
MORAVIA CSD In Good Standing
PORT BYRON CSD In Good Standing In Good Standing
SOUTHERN CAYUGA CSD In Good Standing
UNION SPRINGS CSD In Good Standing
WEEDSPORT CSD In Good Standing

County: ONTARIO

CANANDAIGUA CITY SD In Good Standing
EAST BLOOMFIELD CSD In Good Standing
GENEVA CITY SD In Need of Improvement - Year 1 Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts
Secondary-Level English Language Arts Continuing in improvement
GORHAM-MIDDLESEX CSD (MARCUS WHI In Good Standing
HONEOYE CSD In Good Standing In Good Standing
MANCHESTER-SHORTSVILLE CSD (RED J In Good Standing
PHELPS-CLIFTON SPRINGS CSD In Good Standing
VICTOR CSD In Good Standing

County: SENECA

SENECA FALLS CSD In Good Standing
SOUTH SENECA CSD In Good Standing
ROMULUS CSD In Good Standing
WATERLOO CSD In Good Standing

County: WAYNE

CLYDE-SAVANNAH CSD In Good Standing
GANANDA CSD In Good Standing
LYONS CSD In Good Standing
MARION CSD In Good Standing
NEWARK CSD In Good Standing
NORTH ROSE-WOLCOTT CSD In Good Standing
PALMYRA-MACEDON CSD In Good Standing
RED CREEK CSD In Good Standing
SODUS CSD In Good Standing
WAYNE CSD In Good Standing
WILLIAMSON CSD In Good Standing

County: YATES

DUNDEE CSD In Good Standing
PENN YAN CSD In Good Standing
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/19/13 09:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
FYI the following is the status of schools in the 5 county area as reported by NYSed for 2011 - 2012.


cuomo did stated NYS ranks 35th in student performance and is ranked first in spending for schools

what is the financial status of the schools in the 5 county area?
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/19/13 02:02 PM


Quote:
cuomo did stated NYS ranks 35th in student performance and is ranked first in spending for schools

http://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/2012/16src.h31.html?intc=EW-QC12-CTR

This is the report you brushed off as spin, possibly because it is a multifaceted report which requires a minimum of analysis. If you want to focus on student performance (Standards, Assessments, & Accountability) NYS ranks above Maryland and Massachusetts. Click on the what do these indicators mean for more comprehensive information.

Also, article below qualifies Prince Andrews comments; information you conveniently ignore. You really should read the articles you reference, instead of quoting the sensationalized headlines. Here is a quote:

When Cuomo said New York ranked 34th among states in education, his press secretary said he was talking about U.S. Census figures for educational attainment. On that chart New York ranks worse than average for the percentage of adults with a high school degree or more (84 percent). But it actually ranks higher than average in terms of adults with a bachelors degree or more (28 percent).

The "Quality Counts" guide ranked New York No. 8 for student achievement, giving it a C compared to the average grade of D plus for states.

"We look at achievement fairly holistically," Swanson said. He said New York is at or above national benchmarks in reading, though gains have actually slipped in 8th grade reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. But gaps between poor and non-poor students on those national math and reading tests have closed faster than any other state in the nation, Swanson said.

The above is from 2011.
Actually, NYS is now #2 in the country with an A in the newly released 2013 Quality Counts report.

Want collaboration? CNBC issued a report showing that education in New York was tops in the nation in 2011. The television network, which specializes in business reporting, looked at the state's educated pool of workers; colleges and universities; research and development partnerships; and K-12 schools as a quality of life issue for employees.

More than 100 students from across the state were named semi-finalists in the prestigious Intel Science Talent Search, the nation's most prestigious pre-college science competition. New York students represent approximately one-third of all the semi-finalists.

"These rankings - presented without the taint of politics or ideology - demonstrate that, despite what some naysayers claim, we're doing a good job and the students in our state are the benefactors. It's time we start celebrating our schools."

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2...ccording-cuomo/
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/19/13 02:15 PM

Number 1 in spending? Ever heard of New York City?

Graduation rate?

Quote from Tim Weldon | Tuesday, November 16, 2010 -
Getting a handle on the nation's graduation rate has been difficult because states use different criteria to measure the percentage of students leaving high school with a diploma.

Furthermore, 5 years to graduate is often the norm for students who go into a BOCES tech or vocational tract and need the extra year to complete core requirements. NYS has the highest graduation standards in the country - think Regents diploma - a local diploma is no longer available for most students.

Of course there is still work and reforms to impliment, but look at the information holistically before making some random out of context baseless and clueless retort.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/22/13 06:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Number 1 in spending? Ever heard of New York City?

Graduation rate?


are you suggesting that the schools outside of NYC are top performers?
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/22/13 07:03 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Your assertion Number 1 in spending? Ever heard of New York City? My answer in the form of a rhetorical question

_______________________separate replies to your lack of comprehension ________________________

Graduation rate? Posing a question in re to another topic of which you have no clue. Followed by an explanation that you either did not read or did not understand, but conveniently left off when quoting.


are you suggesting that the schools outside of NYC are top performers?


Not at all. Are top performers of NYC suggesting that the schools outside are you?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/22/13 07:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Originally Posted By: bluezone
are you suggesting that the schools outside of NYC are top performers?


Not at all.


high school taxes outside of NYC and the schools fail to perform

one should see a problem with all that spending with little results
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/22/13 10:59 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Number 1 in spending? Ever heard of New York City?

Graduation rate?


are you suggesting that the schools outside of NYC are top performers?


New York State schools are graduating more students on time (in 4 years), than at any time in the past 40 years.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/23/13 06:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Number 1 in spending? Ever heard of New York City?

Graduation rate?


are you suggesting that the schools outside of NYC are top performers?


New York State schools are graduating more students on time (in 4 years), than at any time in the past 40 years.



well that would certainly justify the outrageous school taxes in this state.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/23/13 08:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Number 1 in spending? Ever heard of New York City?

Graduation rate?


are you suggesting that the schools outside of NYC are top performers?


New York State schools are graduating more students on time (in 4 years), than at any time in the past 40 years.


are all the students top performers?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/23/13 08:59 AM


Do you expect them ALL to be?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/24/13 10:01 PM

if NYS taxpayers are paying top dollar
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/24/13 11:11 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
if NYS taxpayers are paying top dollar


Then your expectations are clearly unrealistic.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/26/13 11:32 AM

then the school taxes should be lowered if the performance is not achieved
Posted by: Ohithere

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/26/13 12:12 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
then the school taxes should be lowered if the performance is not achieved


If I'm correct,some areas of NY state utilizes a school,county and city tax, how does that partiular area make up for the shortfall? The system of school property taxation is already unfair to senior citizens because they have no children in school but at least receive partial relief through STAR and over 65 years of age discounts.
Posted by: Spanky

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/26/13 12:38 PM

Oh, what the heck,let's do another 18 million for a football field and track. I am sure the schools grad rate went way up after that. Truth be known, the Seneca Falls school district is so far in the hole with these projects they will never get out. Read that Mr. Macaluso was so disapointed at DeSales cause he did not have the funnell of money that he had at Seneca Falls. We have to put a stop to these boards who heve no feeling for the people in their districts who have to foot these bills. Every budget they bring up gets passed, even if it takes 3-4 times of voteing on it.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/26/13 02:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
if NYS taxpayers are paying top dollar


Then your expectations are clearly unrealistic.


Disagreements over taxes, increased funding, and wasteful spending; of course, are a primary concern to almost everyone.

We need to try to understand why there is so much conflicting information, especially re pensions and performance of students.

I believe there are two undercurrents that we need to keep a closer eye on. Both are happening synchronously (go hand in hand). One is the breaking up of unions all across the country, which regardless of your politics, is another erosion of our freedoms in this country. I cringe at my unions politics and have never voted for a democrap beyond the local level. Education should never be about politics. Eliminating the teachers unions will open the door wider for the other concern.

The other concern is the takeover of education by the federal government. I respectfully encourage you to do some cogent research regarding the ramifications of this movement and the long term implications. Start with why education was left to local communities by our Founding Fathers.

The following are links to teacher pension issues in CA and MN.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/newman170410.html

http://www.mnpera.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BA4C377CF-1748-4FA4-906F-0F6EE1698EA3%7D

_________________________________________________________________
History of the University of the State of New York and the State Education Department 1784 - 1996

http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/edocs/education/sedhist.htm

Of particular note:
III. SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND STATE AID
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/28/13 04:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Spanky
Oh, what the heck,let's do another 18 million for a football field and track. I am sure the schools grad rate went way up after that. We have to put a stop to these boards who heve no feeling for the people in their districts who have to foot these bills. Every budget they bring up gets passed, even if it takes 3-4 times of voteing on it.


the school employees vote for it
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/31/13 09:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
We need to try to understand why there is so much conflicting information, especially re pensions and performance of students.



convert to a 401k as you claim the teacher covers 90% of their pension costs
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/31/13 04:37 PM


Quote:
nocluezone = the school employees vote for it


If there at that many school employees in any given district, then we should be thanking them and their family members for all of the money they are putting back into the local economy and for all of the property taxes and, especially school taxes they pay.


--------------------
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/01/13 08:31 AM

$1 in and $8 out

is it time for a school merger yet?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/04/13 03:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Spanky
Oh, what the heck,let's do another 18 million for a football field and track. I am sure the schools grad rate went way up after that.


it is only taxpayer money

that source is endless...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/13/13 08:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
If there at that many school employees in any given district


maybe cuomo can increase the minimum wage and also reduce the working hours to 7 hours per day, no weekends, the summer off, retirement age at 55, full pensions and full healthcare
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/14/13 06:56 AM

from 9WSYR's website


http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/Mo...rTbzAjDApg.cspx


"for every dollar the SCSD spends on salaries another 63 cents is spent on benefits".....no problem there, and of course the union's response.....


"teachers worked long and hard to earn those benefits"....just like many in the private sector have Mr. Ahern, but millions in the private sector have had to make concessions along the way something our arrogant teachers dont want to do...I guess the cuts will have to keep coming then!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/14/13 09:41 AM

Quote:
Consider a report last month by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the report found, “a full 63.5 percent” of school funds goes for teacher salaries and benefits — the highest percentage in America “by a considerable margin.”

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/16/13 09:14 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
"for every dollar the SCSD spends on salaries another 63 cents is spent on benefits".....no problem there, and of course the union's response.....


so in a sense the teachers are making nearly double their pay when the entire compensation package is factored in

when the reserve funds run out goes who will be paying for the budget shortages...
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/16/13 12:41 PM


Quote:
"for every dollar the SCSD spends on salaries another 63 cents is spent on benefits".....no problem there, and of course the union's response.....

"teachers worked long and hard to earn those benefits"....just like many in the private sector have Mr. Ahern, but millions in the private sector have had to make concessions along the way something our arrogant teachers dont want to do...I guess the cuts will have to keep coming then!


Specious comparison private business to service business to not for profit.
For example,
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/percentage-payroll-vs-income-small-business-13026.html
Businesses that manufacture a product employee compensation should be kept below 33 percent to turn a profit.

However, you can afford a higher percentage for payroll if you run a service business. Service businesses don't have materials costs, and thus have more room to pay their staff -- who are essentially their product. It is recommended to keep payroll below 50 percent.

Are you suggesting school districts should turn a profit?

Go for it.
Certificates are issued in a number of titles in three major categories: classroom teaching, administrative and supervisory, and pupil personnel service (e.g., school counselor, psychologist, social worker).
http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/certificate/certprocess.html
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/18/13 12:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind

Quote:
"for every dollar the SCSD spends on salaries another 63 cents is spent on benefits".....no problem there, and of course the union's response.....

"teachers worked long and hard to earn those benefits"....just like many in the private sector have Mr. Ahern, but millions in the private sector have had to make concessions along the way something our arrogant teachers dont want to do...I guess the cuts will have to keep coming then!


Specious comparison private business to service business to not for profit.
For example,
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/percentage-payroll-vs-income-small-business-13026.html
Businesses that manufacture a product employee compensation should be kept below 33 percent to turn a profit.

However, you can afford a higher percentage for payroll if you run a service business. Service businesses don't have materials costs, and thus have more room to pay their staff -- who are essentially their product. It is recommended to keep payroll below 50 percent.

Are you suggesting school districts should turn a profit?

Go for it.
Certificates are issued in a number of titles in three major categories: classroom teaching, administrative and supervisory, and pupil personnel service (e.g., school counselor, psychologist, social worker).
http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/certificate/certprocess.html


I'm suggesting school districts should remember that there is no infinite number of available tax dollars......the tax base is now tax weary.
Posted by: Greymane

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/18/13 02:39 PM

From the comfort of my PA office this morning, I read how the number of NY gov employees making over $100k rose by 13% from 2011 to 2012 and how the number making over $200k rose by 37% during the same period...and here I thought NY was in dire straits. So glad I moved.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/21/13 01:30 PM

once again the NY teachers and their unions showing their arrogance and contempt for the taxpayer........

http://www.stargazette.com/article/20130220/NEWS02/302200060/1113/?nclick_check=1
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/21/13 02:04 PM

I was wondering what happened to your posting. Apparently, you like it better there. I don't blame you.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/21/13 03:25 PM

RE the 2 percent tax cap the small upstate school districts will suffer the most and taxpayers could end up being hit harder.
See video
http://educationspeaks.org/2011/10/tax-cap-will-hit-some-districts-harder-than-others/

Why New York's 2 percent property tax cap isn't really 2 percent
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/why_new_yorks_2_percent_proper.html

It is not only NYSUT that is against the tax cap, many upstate legislators are not in favor of it either. For example,
http://buffalo.ynn.com/content/all_news/...x-cap/?ap=1&MP4

I suggest you look at both sides of the tax cap issue. Do not succumb to Prince Andrews politi-speak.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/24/13 09:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
I suggest you look at both sides of the tax cap issue. Do not succumb to Prince Andrews politi-speak.


did your union not support him for his election?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/01/13 02:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
I suggest you look at both sides of the tax cap issue. Do not succumb to Prince Andrews politi-speak.


are you will to take a cut in healthcare and pension to help the students?
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/08/13 06:43 AM

not in NY, but 1 state at a time is what it takes......nice to see though the head(Mabry) of the AEA's own kids are in private schools....

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/07/alabama-on-the-verge-of-breaking-powerful-teachers-union/

nice to see that the normal Dem talking points of racism didn't get left out.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/08/13 06:59 AM

and from the NYC school system.....maybe it's time Michael the Nanny actually paid attention to something other than soda, salt and ear buds........

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/08/about-...munity-college/

i guess they should be proud it's only at 80%.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/11/13 10:16 AM

and yet the teachers still get paid
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/11/13 12:36 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
and yet the teachers still get paid




and one wonders why their so against teacher evaluations.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/11/13 12:45 PM

they only need to show up to get paid
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/13 09:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
the 2 percent tax cap the small upstate school districts will suffer the most and taxpayers could end up being hit harder.


hit harder...

but you said the tapayers pay little towards the teachers
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/13 09:51 AM


Ignore worthy.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/13 09:57 AM

should you be in school 'teach'ing?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/13 10:00 AM

is this how it goes


free period
free period
class
lunch
free period
class
free period

home at 3pm
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/13 12:57 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
should you be in school 'teach'ing?


It's not my profession, why should I?
Posted by: cwjga

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/13 01:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
RE the 2 percent tax cap the small upstate school districts will suffer the most and taxpayers could end up being hit harder.
See video
http://educationspeaks.org/2011/10/tax-cap-will-hit-some-districts-harder-than-others/

Why New York's 2 percent property tax cap isn't really 2 percent
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/why_new_yorks_2_percent_proper.html

It is not only NYSUT that is against the tax cap, many upstate legislators are not in favor of it either. For example,
http://buffalo.ynn.com/content/all_news/...x-cap/?ap=1&MP4

I suggest you look at both sides of the tax cap issue. Do not succumb to Prince Andrews politi-speak.



In realtiy there is no tax cap, the things, like pensions, driving the increase in costs are exempt form the cap.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/13 02:26 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
is this how it goes


free period
free period
class
lunch
free period
class
free period

home at 3pm




My son's senior year schedule! Too funny. Darned public school went and taught him things, and somehow he proceeded to a good college and all. How can that be with these greedy teachers, horrid unions, and lazy administrators who are too busy to look for lost jackets?
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/13 07:38 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
is this how it goes


free period
free period
class
lunch
free period
class
free period

home at 3pm



Thanks for sharing your daily schedule.
What time does your day start?
What do you do at home? Think about pension envy?
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/13 07:50 PM

Quote:
somehow he proceeded to a good college and all. How can that be with these greedy teachers, horrid unions, and lazy administrators who are too busy to look for lost jackets?


The colleges need warm bodies present to keep that government tuition loan money flowing in.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/19/13 09:07 AM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
Quote:
somehow he proceeded to a good college and all. How can that be with these greedy teachers, horrid unions, and lazy administrators who are too busy to look for lost jackets?


The colleges need warm bodies present to keep that government tuition loan money flowing in.


He earned his way VM. Good grades, involved in various extracurriculars, etc. Those nasty teachers apparently did nothing for him! ;\)
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/20/13 09:24 AM

Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind

I suggest you look at both sides of the tax cap issue. Do not succumb to Prince Andrews politi-speak.



In realtiy there is no tax cap, the things, like pensions, driving the increase in costs are exempt form the cap.


maybe 'fart in the wind' will explain the 16% increase to pensions and another 16% increase to healthcare costs to the taxpayers



Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/20/13 09:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Darned public school went and taught him things, and somehow he proceeded to a good college and all.


must be for sports
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/20/13 09:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Thanks for sharing your daily schedule.
What time does your day start?


are you suggesting that a teacher has class the entire 7 hour day?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/20/13 09:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
It's not my profession


tell us when you find one ...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/20/13 09:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
What time does your day start?


4am

you need a wake up call?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/20/13 10:41 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
must be for sports


Are you still single, cutie pie?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/20/13 06:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
My son's senior year schedule! Too funny. Darned public school went and taught him things, and somehow he proceeded to a good college and all.


and what about your other children?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/21/13 10:35 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
My son's senior year schedule! Too funny. Darned public school went and taught him things, and somehow he proceeded to a good college and all.


and what about your other children?


Public education has been nothing but a great experience for our family. Why weren't we failed but this tyrannical institution?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/21/13 07:52 PM

so only one made it to junior college?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/21/13 07:54 PM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
The colleges need warm bodies present to keep that government tuition loan money flowing in.


more taxpayer money
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/13 04:53 PM

Quote:
the chicago teachers wanted a 30% pay increase and now they are on strike


and now they have to close schools cuz of the greedy teachers

will the teachers take a pay cut or benefits cut to help the students?
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/13 07:48 AM

http://auburnpub.com/news/local/deal-ens...1a4bcf887a.html

and the crying will continue.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/13 01:37 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
so only one made it to junior college?


Is what they say about you true? Maybe we'll meet someday!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/27/13 10:16 AM

so where do the other ones 'work'?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/13 08:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Is what


eliminate the taxpayer paid week off for teachers
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/05/13 10:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Rascal
And I find it hard to go back to work on monday morning...

Imagine how the poor teachers feel after 10 weeks off.


seems they get a full paid week off every month during the school year

eliminate all the time off and use it to improve the student performance
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/19/13 08:54 AM

Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
RE the 2 percent tax cap the small upstate school districts will suffer the most and taxpayers could end up being hit harder.
See video
http://educationspeaks.org/2011/10/tax-cap-will-hit-some-districts-harder-than-others/

Why New York's 2 percent property tax cap isn't really 2 percent
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/why_new_yorks_2_percent_proper.html

It is not only NYSUT that is against the tax cap, many upstate legislators are not in favor of it either. For example,
http://buffalo.ynn.com/content/all_news/...x-cap/?ap=1&MP4

I suggest you look at both sides of the tax cap issue. Do not succumb to Prince Andrews politi-speak.



In realtiy there is no tax cap, the things, like pensions, driving the increase in costs are exempt form the cap.


the teachers will keeping asking for more and the student performance will not improve
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/19/13 11:51 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone

seems they improve the student performance


It's about time you saw the light! Praise BLUEZONE!!!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/24/13 09:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: bluezone

seems they improve the student performance


It's about time you saw the light! Praise BLUEZONE!!!


what post number would that be?

seems you altered a post

hide the facts...
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/24/13 09:54 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
[what post number would that be?

seems you altered a post

hide the facts...



You're a bright cat. You see the fallacy in the tax cap. Therein lies the problem.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/25/13 07:48 AM

Quote:
the chicago teachers wanted a 30% pay increase and now they are on strike



let them go
hire new ones
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/09/13 07:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
You're a bright cat.


how soon before the 'teach'ers get another paid week off?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/09/13 09:41 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
You're a bright cat.


how soon before the 'teach'ers get another paid week off?


Cuomo says next year.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/10/13 05:04 PM

may be permanent time off...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/15/13 07:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
You're a bright cat.


would you like to see all NY schools merge for cost savings?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/28/13 09:37 AM

local news had a story about the rochester TEACHERS with an ABSENTEE rate of 25%

time to replace them if they do not want to work...
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/28/13 11:33 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
local news had a story about the rochester TEACHERS with an ABSENTEE rate of 25%

time to replace them if they do not want to work...

References? Can you post an article about that... or perhaps a video of the broadcast?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/28/13 03:23 PM


Or maybe some blogger's misspelled, speculative, out-of context, conspiratorial anti-education screed... anything at all?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/29/13 11:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo

Or maybe some blogger's misspelled, speculative, out-of context, conspiratorial anti-education screed... anything at all?


Actually 'ole Bluehairs is correct. There was a D&C article recently about the high teacher absenteeism in the Rochester schools. They're probably fried out there in the inner city.

God bless those individuals who try to reach our toughest kids, who are no more than products of neglect and abuse in many cases. They are not prepared to learn. They first need love and caring.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/29/13 11:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: Timbo

Or maybe some blogger's misspelled, speculative, out-of context, conspiratorial anti-education screed... anything at all?


Actually 'ole Bluehairs is correct. There was a D&C article recently about the high teacher absenteeism in the Rochester schools. They're probably fried out there in the inner city.

God bless those individuals who try to reach our toughest kids, who are no more than products of neglect and abuse in many cases. They are not prepared to learn. They first need love and caring.

Nonetheless, I strongly suspect there's more to the story, than the trite synopsis he provided, suggests.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/29/13 02:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: Timbo

Or maybe some blogger's misspelled, speculative, out-of context, conspiratorial anti-education screed... anything at all?


Actually 'ole Bluehairs is correct. As is usual; half right or half truths.
There was a D&C article recently about the high teacher absenteeism in the Rochester schools. They're probably fried out there in the inner city.

God bless those individuals who try to reach our toughest kids, who are no more than products of neglect and abuse in many cases. They are not prepared to learn. They first need love and caring.

Nonetheless, I strongly suspect there's more to the story, than the trite synopsis he provided, suggests.


About 10 percent of the total absences were due to teachers proctoring student testing and mandated professional development.

WORKSHEET
25 percent teacher absences
10 divided by 25 = 40 percent
Almost half of the teacher absences were days they actually worked or in required training
.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/29/13 03:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: Timbo

Or maybe some blogger's misspelled, speculative, out-of context, conspiratorial anti-education screed... anything at all?

Actually 'ole Bluehairs is correct. As is usual; half right or half truths.
There was a D&C article recently about the high teacher absenteeism in the Rochester schools. They're probably fried out there in the inner city.

God bless those individuals who try to reach our toughest kids, who are no more than products of neglect and abuse in many cases. They are not prepared to learn. They first need love and caring.

Nonetheless, I strongly suspect there's more to the story, than the trite synopsis he provided, suggests.

About 10 percent of the total absences were due to teachers proctoring student testing and mandated professional development.

WORKSHEET
25 percent teacher absences
10 divided by 25 = 40 percent
Almost half of the teacher absences were days they actually worked or in required training
.

Thank you, for not only confirming my suspicions, but also for helping to expose how common it is for people with an agenda, to misrepresent the facts, when those facts don't support said agendas.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/29/13 03:27 PM

Quote:
Thank you, not only confirming my suspicions, but also for helping to expose how common it is for people with an agenda, to misrepresent the facts, when those facts don't support said agendas.


And the article was in regard to one specific day, not the whole year, one particular day!

Quote:
According to the district, about 10 percent of the 734 absences were teachers assigned to scoring tests, taking professional development courses or leading field trips, along with vacant positions.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/29/13 03:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: Timbo

Or maybe some blogger's misspelled, speculative, out-of context, conspiratorial anti-education screed... anything at all?


Actually 'ole Bluehairs is correct. As is usual; half right or half truths.
There was a D&C article recently about the high teacher absenteeism in the Rochester schools. They're probably fried out there in the inner city.

God bless those individuals who try to reach our toughest kids, who are no more than products of neglect and abuse in many cases. They are not prepared to learn. They first need love and caring.

Nonetheless, I strongly suspect there's more to the story, than the trite synopsis he provided, suggests.


About 10 percent of the total absences were due to teachers proctoring student testing and mandated professional development.

WORKSHEET
25 percent teacher absences
10 divided by 25 = 40 percent
Almost half of the teacher absences were days they actually worked or in required training
.

This was exactly what I thought might have been causing the absences, which is why I asked for some clarification. A month ago I had to visit a local school as part of my work. I didn't meet the teacher, but met her substitute. Why? The teacher was off grading state mandated exams. Or, so I was told.

Usually, when no citation of sources accompany claims like the ones Bluezone tends to make, it means that an important part of the story is missing.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/30/13 06:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
About 10 percent of the total absences were due to teachers proctoring student testing


why not let a teachers aide do that?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/30/13 06:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
local news had a story about the rochester TEACHERS with an ABSENTEE rate of 25%

time to replace them if they do not want to work...

References? Can you post an article about that... or perhaps a video of the broadcast?


YNN
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/30/13 07:33 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
local news had a story about the rochester TEACHERS with an ABSENTEE rate of 25%

time to replace them if they do not want to work...

References? Can you post an article about that... or perhaps a video of the broadcast?


YNN

That's a news outlet. How about a link?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/30/13 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
About 10 percent of the total absences were due to teachers proctoring student testing


why not let a teachers aide do that?

I'm not a teacher, but my guess is that a certified teacher is required to proctor the exam.
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/30/13 07:41 PM

If it was that simple, any volunteer could do it. It's not that simple. That's why teachers do it.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/30/13 08:02 PM

Originally Posted By: twocats
If it was that simple, any volunteer could do it. It's not that simple. That's why teachers do it.

While we're at it... why not just have the school janitors do it? They have the training, right?
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/30/13 08:14 PM

Exactly. Or everyone could take the tests from home via their computers or some such nonsense...
Posted by: howbouthat

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/30/13 08:48 PM

Why not have the triathalon somewhere else. Why have Geneva foot the bill for extra law enforcement. Why should my taxes go up so that a small percentage of people can run around. Let them go find some deserted field to run around so I don't have to pay for their cops
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/30/13 08:59 PM

Originally Posted By: twocats
Exactly. Or everyone could take the tests from home via their computers or some such nonsense...


Yeah! Proctor by Proxy... genius! ;\)
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/31/13 09:04 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats
If it was that simple, any volunteer could do it. It's not that simple. That's why teachers do it.


must be hard to sit at the desk and let the students pick up their test material and then watch them hand it back in at the end of the test
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/31/13 09:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: twocats
If it was that simple, any volunteer could do it. It's not that simple. That's why teachers do it.

While we're at it... why not just have the school janitors do it? They have the training, right?


overqualified
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/31/13 09:08 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats
Exactly. Or everyone could take the tests from home via their computers or some such nonsense...



the 'teach'ers assistant can not perform the task?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/31/13 09:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: Timbo

Or maybe some blogger's misspelled, speculative, out-of context, conspiratorial anti-education screed... anything at all?


Actually 'ole Bluehairs is correct. As is usual; half right or half truths.
There was a D&C article recently about the high teacher absenteeism in the Rochester schools. They're probably fried out there in the inner city.

God bless those individuals who try to reach our toughest kids, who are no more than products of neglect and abuse in many cases. They are not prepared to learn. They first need love and caring.

Nonetheless, I strongly suspect there's more to the story, than the trite synopsis he provided, suggests.


About 10 percent of the total absences were due to teachers proctoring student testing and mandated professional development.



so what about the other 15% being absent?

those long summer months paid vacations too long?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/31/13 05:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
local news had a story about the rochester TEACHERS with an ABSENTEE rate of 25%

time to replace them if they do not want to work...

References? Can you post an article about that... or perhaps a video of the broadcast?


YNN

That's a news outlet. How about a link?

We're all still waiting for those links...
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 05/31/13 05:55 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: twocats
If it was that simple, any volunteer could do it. It's not that simple. That's why teachers do it.


must be hard to sit at the desk and let the students pick up their test material and then watch them hand it back in at the end of the test


If you seriously think it's that simple, you're more simple than I thought you were.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/01/13 05:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
local news had a story about the rochester TEACHERS with an ABSENTEE rate of 25%

time to replace them if they do not want to work...

References? Can you post an article about that... or perhaps a video of the broadcast?


YNN

That's a news outlet. How about a link?

We're all still waiting for those links...


have you not looked at YNN's website?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/01/13 05:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: twocats
If it was that simple, any volunteer could do it. It's not that simple. That's why teachers do it.


must be hard to sit at the desk and let the students pick up their test material and then watch them hand it back in at the end of the test


If you seriously think it's that simple, you're more simple than I thought you were.


feel free to enlighten us as to how it works
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/01/13 05:49 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
local news had a story about the rochester TEACHERS with an ABSENTEE rate of 25%

time to replace them if they do not want to work...

References? Can you post an article about that... or perhaps a video of the broadcast?


YNN

That's a news outlet. How about a link?

We're all still waiting for those links...


have you not looked at YNN's website?


No. Here's a clue, I haven't looked at CNN's website either. I'm waiting for YOU to supply citations to back up what you say, not do your work for you.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/01/13 05:51 PM

Originally Posted By: twocats
Exactly. Or everyone could take the tests from home via their computers or some such nonsense...


but then you would have to look for a job

...the real world...
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/01/13 05:54 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: twocats
If it was that simple, any volunteer could do it. It's not that simple. That's why teachers do it.


must be hard to sit at the desk and let the students pick up their test material and then watch them hand it back in at the end of the test


If you seriously think it's that simple, you're more simple than I thought you were.


feel free to enlighten us as to how it works


I don't know, truthfully. I'm not a teacher. But someone who says she is a teacher (and actually sounds like she is one) says that there is more to it than simply handing out a test and then collecting them. The way the state feels about these tests, I suspect that's true.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/01/13 05:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
No. Here's a clue, I haven't looked at CNN's website either. I'm waiting for YOU to supply citations to back up what you say, not do your work for you.


are you doubting Sketch?

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Actually 'ole Bluehairs is correct. There was a D&C article recently about the high teacher absenteeism in the Rochester schools.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/01/13 05:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
If you seriously think it's that simple, you're more simple than I thought you were.

Originally Posted By: Josephus

I don't know, truthfully.


then why are you contradicting yourself?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/01/13 06:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
But someone who says she is a teacher (and actually sounds like she is one) says that there is more to it than simply handing out a test and then collecting them.


then tell her to explain it to us
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/01/13 06:13 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
But someone who says she is a teacher (and actually sounds like she is one) says that there is more to it than simply handing out a test and then collecting them.


then tell her to explain it to us

You just did. It's up to her to decide to, but something tells me you won't accept it anyway.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/01/13 06:16 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
No. Here's a clue, I haven't looked at CNN's website either. I'm waiting for YOU to supply citations to back up what you say, not do your work for you.


are you doubting Sketch?

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Actually 'ole Bluehairs is correct. There was a D&C article recently about the high teacher absenteeism in the Rochester schools.



Did you forget Fart in the Wind's post?

"About 10 percent of the total absences were due to teachers proctoring student testing and mandated professional development.

WORKSHEET
25 percent teacher absences
10 divided by 25 = 40 percent
Almost half of the teacher absences were days they actually worked or in required training. "
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/01/13 06:17 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
If you seriously think it's that simple, you're more simple than I thought you were.

Originally Posted By: Josephus

I don't know, truthfully.


then why are you contradicting yourself?

Well, let me re-state myself then. I don't know what is involved in proctoring, but suspect that it takes more than handing out tests and collecting them. I'm waiting on further evidence?

Happy?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/01/13 07:11 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
But someone who says she is a teacher (and actually sounds like she is one) says that there is more to it than simply handing out a test and then collecting them.


then tell her to explain it to us

You know what blownzone? You sure have cajones the size of Texas to demand answers from someone, when you yourself, rarely (if ever) answer the questions put to YOU. When faced with reasonable responses to your machine gun style questioning, you simply change the subject or respond with some insipid retort or simply throw-out another accusatory question.

You strike me as just another low-intellect, forum bully. For the life of me. I have no idea why people respond to your repetitive and predictable questions.

Have ever considered offering a fair and workable solutions to the problems (as you see them). Go ahead. Amaze us with your superior intellect. We grow bored with your childishness.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/01/13 08:18 PM

Quote:
I don't know what is involved in proctoring, but suspect that it takes more than handing out tests and collecting them. I'm waiting on further evidence?


It was actually scoring the tests, which takes much more time than proctoring.
Posted by:

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/01/13 09:29 PM

Quote:
You strike me as just another low-intellect, forum bully. For the life of me. I have no idea why people respond to your repetitive and predictable questions.

Blahahahahahahah...that's some funny stuff Timmy!
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/02/13 09:09 PM

Every grade and every test is different. For example, kindergarten through second grade reading tests are administered individually, with specific prompts, wait times, administration directions for students, and probing questions for comprehension. Each test is analyzed for meaning, syntax and visual miscues, as well as error, self-correction, and reading (words per minute) rates before the teacher determines whether or not to have the child proceed to the next reading level.

Maybe (but I wouldn't know for sure) at the high school level, it could be called proctoring, but at the primary level, it is definitely an administration task that requires lots of training and practice. Things have changed greatly since we were all in school, and one can not adequately judge the job of a teacher from a student's perspective, which is the only perspective most people have.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/04/13 12:27 PM

Keep in mind that more time will be needed for such affairs with the significantly increased testing demands placed on school systems.

Bluehairs is a C&P forum user. She'll cut and paste various random interweb snippets and demand answers for erroneous questions. She had a horribly poor educational outlook, did not apply herself in school and is now angry at "the man."
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/04/13 01:51 PM

Bluetroll warning:Ignore

Posted by: Greymane

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/04/13 03:54 PM

Wow, we got a whole little troll village here. That description (or some portion of it) covers the majority of posters here.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/04/13 06:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Greymane
Wow, we got a whole little troll village here. That description (or some portion of it) covers the majority of posters here.

Including yourself? ;\)
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/05/13 05:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
No. Here's a clue, I haven't looked at CNN's website either. I'm waiting for YOU to supply citations to back up what you say, not do your work for you.


are you doubting Sketch?

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Actually 'ole Bluehairs is correct. There was a D&C article recently about the high teacher absenteeism in the Rochester schools.



Did you forget Fart in the Wind's post?

"About 10 percent of the total absences were due to teachers proctoring student testing and mandated professional development.

WORKSHEET
25 percent teacher absences
10 divided by 25 = 40 percent
Almost half of the teacher absences were days they actually worked or in required training. "


is 15% not high for 'teach'er absentee rate?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/05/13 05:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
If you seriously think it's that simple, you're more simple than I thought you were.

Originally Posted By: Josephus

I don't know, truthfully.


then why are you contradicting yourself?

Well, let me re-state myself then. I don't know what is involved in proctoring, but suspect that it takes more than handing out tests and collecting them.


LOL

nice try
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/05/13 05:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
But someone who says she is a teacher (and actually sounds like she is one) says that there is more to it than simply handing out a test and then collecting them.


then tell her to explain it to us

You know what blownzone? You sure have cajones the size of Texas


was the post presented to you?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/05/13 05:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Quote:
I don't know what is involved in proctoring, but suspect that it takes more than handing out tests and collecting them. I'm waiting on further evidence?


It was actually scoring the tests, which takes much more time than proctoring.


let the 'teach'ers assistant do it
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/05/13 05:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Bluehairs is a C&P forum user.


twocats takes that honor
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/07/13 08:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
No. Here's a clue, I haven't looked at CNN's website either. I'm waiting for YOU to supply citations to back up what you say, not do your work for you.


are you doubting Sketch?

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Actually 'ole Bluehairs is correct. There was a D&C article recently about the high teacher absenteeism in the Rochester schools.



Did you forget Fart in the Wind's post?

"About 10 percent of the total absences were due to teachers proctoring student testing and mandated professional development.

WORKSHEET
25 percent teacher absences
10 divided by 25 = 40 percent
Almost half of the teacher absences were days they actually worked or in required training. "


is 15% not high for 'teach'er absentee rate?

does your employer tolerate a 15% absentee rate?

most likely the person(s) is replaced
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/07/13 08:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Quote:
I don't know what is involved in proctoring, but suspect that it takes more than handing out tests and collecting them. I'm waiting on further evidence?


It was actually scoring the tests, which takes much more time than proctoring.


let the 'teach'ers teach during the day and then they can take the tests home and score them at home

that is what a salaried employee does
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/07/13 09:02 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Quote:
I don't know what is involved in proctoring, but suspect that it takes more than handing out tests and collecting them. I'm waiting on further evidence?


It was actually scoring the tests, which takes much more time than proctoring.


let the 'teach'ers teach during the day and then they can take the tests home and score them at home

that is what a salaried employee does

Which ones?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/07/13 09:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Which ones?


the non-tenured ones that have to perform to keep their job
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/07/13 09:40 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Which ones?


the non-tenured ones that have to perform to keep their job

You didn't answer the question.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/07/13 09:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Which ones?


the non-tenured ones that have to perform to keep their job

You didn't answer the question.


Ole' Bluebone is gerrymandering again.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/07/13 12:25 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Quote:
I don't know what is involved in proctoring, but suspect that it takes more than handing out tests and collecting them. I'm waiting on further evidence?


It was actually scoring the tests, which takes much more time than proctoring.


let the 'teach'ers teach during the day and then they can take the tests home and score them at home


You don't suppose that those tests need to be scored in school under specific supervision and guidelines, do you?

Ever hear of the standardized test cheating scandal in Washingto, DC?

Washington DC School District cheating scandal
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/07/13 03:06 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
is 15% not high for 'teach'er absentee rate?

* US illness related absences alone, can reach 5% during flue season (Dec.-March).

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat47.pdf

It would appear that those employed in careers that include being exposed to the general public (education, community, health care and office personnel) are only slightly more prone to absences. Perfectly in keeping with any other profession, especially when considering the close proximity and closed environment to over-filled rooms of sickly, coughing, snot-slinging youngsters who never wash their hands or cover their mouths.

So much for another one of your illogical assumptions.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/10/13 09:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
is 15% not high for 'teach'er absentee rate?

* US illness related absences alone, can reach 5% during flue season (Dec.-March).



and what would account for the other 10%

thanks for yet another excuse for the 'teach'ers not doing their jobs
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/10/13 09:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus

You don't suppose that those tests need to be scored in school under specific supervision and guidelines, do you?


just have the 'teach'ers stay late or work weekends to score the tests

that is how salaried employees perform their jobs
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/10/13 09:50 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
is 15% not high for 'teach'er absentee rate?

* US illness related absences alone, can reach 5% during flue season (Dec.-March).



and what would account for the other 10%

thanks for yet another excuse for the 'teach'ers not doing their jobs

Obviously, you have a reading comprehension problem. Try re-reading the links.

Apparently, you also have a word definition problem, since you clearly confuse facts with excuses.

You still didn't answer my previous question, WHICH salaried employees (specifically)?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/11/13 08:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Obviously, you have a reading comprehension problem. Try re-reading the links.


sorry but I did not read it
no clicky on linky

feel free to post it
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/11/13 08:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus

You don't suppose that those tests need to be scored in school under specific supervision and guidelines, do you?


just have the 'teach'ers stay late or work weekends to score the tests

seems simple enough

remember it is all about the students teachers
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/11/13 08:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Actually 'ole Bluehairs is correct. There was a D&C article recently about the high teacher absenteeism in the Rochester schools.


Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind

"About 10 percent of the total absences were due to teachers proctoring student testing and mandated professional development.


Originally Posted By: twocats
You should also know that the teachers at your child’s school are most likely responsible for scoring the test. That means that they will have to be pulled out of class for a day or even 2 days.


the high teacher absentee rate is due to 2 days of test scoring?

seems illogical
Posted by: Greymane

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/11/13 11:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
is 15% not high for 'teach'er absentee rate?

* US illness related absences alone, can reach 5% during flue season (Dec.-March).

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat47.pdf

It would appear that those employed in careers that include being exposed to the general public (education, community, health care and office personnel) are only slightly more prone to absences. Perfectly in keeping with any other profession, especially when considering the close proximity and closed environment to over-filled rooms of sickly, coughing, snot-slinging youngsters who never wash their hands or cover their mouths.

So much for another one of your illogical assumptions.


Assuming the abenses were evenly distributed and teachers worked a full twelve months (five days a week). Also, we will assume ten holiday days (the amount normal people get at best). That means 15% of the 250 remaining work days is 37.5 days. How many people here get 37.5 SICK days? (We are not counting vacation).

I am going to go with YES for a thousand, Alex. 15% seems excessive. I haven't used 37 sick days in the last twenty years. Even at 10%, that is 25 days. I don't know anyone I work with who used 25 sick days in the last couple of years (let alone one year).
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/11/13 11:52 AM


Grey... go back and re-read the past posts. You'll see your figures are total rubbish, if you actually READ the study and original article.

I hope your powers of deduction aren't representative of America as a whole, or we're in BIG trouble. Sheesh!
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/11/13 12:15 PM

Greymane et al, what Timbo is trying to explain to you is that the article was about a single anomalous day in May, not the whole year.

Quote:
More teachers were absent from their classrooms on Friday than any other day of this school year.
Posted by: Greymane

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/11/13 12:34 PM

That certainly makes sense. I would imagine more people in general would be absent on a Friday or Monday than in the middle of the week.

I was wondering how the numbers could have been so high. My sister-in-law probably gets close to that, but she is by no means a "normal" teacher.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/11/13 01:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Greymane et al, what Timbo is trying to explain to you is that the article was about a single anomalous day in May, not the whole year.

Quote:
More teachers were absent from their classrooms on Friday than any other day of this school year.

Thank you. I don't understand why so many, need to have things repeatedly explained to them.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/12/13 06:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Greymane et al, what Timbo is trying to explain to you is that the article was about a single anomalous day in May, not the whole year.

Quote:
More teachers were absent from their classrooms on Friday than any other day of this school year.




Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind


"About 10 percent of the total absences were due to teachers proctoring student testing and mandated professional development.


so you are saying that this one day that the teachers were proctoring tests and tending to mandated professional development?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/12/13 06:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
I don't understand why so many, need to have things repeatedly explained to them.


why is the graduation rate so low in rochester?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/12/13 07:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Greymane
Assuming the abenses were evenly distributed and teachers worked a full twelve months (five days a week). Also, we will assume ten holiday days (the amount normal people get at best). That means 15% of the 250 remaining work days is 37.5 days. How many people here get 37.5 SICK days? (We are not counting vacation).

I am going to go with YES for a thousand, Alex. 15% seems excessive. I haven't used 37 sick days in the last twenty years. Even at 10%, that is 25 days. I don't know anyone I work with who used 25 sick days in the last couple of years (let alone one year).


of course 15% is excessive but the 'teach'ers will skew the numbers to make it sound acceptable

must be the 'teach'ers could not wait another month when school is out to take time off

let them show us any other job that gets 2 months paid time off
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/12/13 07:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Greymane et al, what Timbo is trying to explain to you is that the article was about a single anomalous day in May, not the whole year.


the 'teach'ers should not get any time off during the school year as they get 2 months paid time off
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/12/13 07:23 AM

That's your view. The way I understand it is that (depending on where you work), you are paid for the weeks you teach, and receive that pay during the time you teach, or receive smaller paychecks year round.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/12/13 07:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
The way I understand it is that (depending on where you work), you are paid for the weeks you teach, and receive that pay during the time you teach, or receive smaller paychecks year round.


is that not 2 months of paid time off?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/12/13 09:06 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Greymane
Assuming the abenses were evenly distributed and teachers worked a full twelve months (five days a week). Also, we will assume ten holiday days (the amount normal people get at best). That means 15% of the 250 remaining work days is 37.5 days. How many people here get 37.5 SICK days? (We are not counting vacation).

I am going to go with YES for a thousand, Alex. 15% seems excessive. I haven't used 37 sick days in the last twenty years. Even at 10%, that is 25 days. I don't know anyone I work with who used 25 sick days in the last couple of years (let alone one year).


of course 15% is excessive but the 'teach'ers will skew the numbers to make it sound acceptable

must be the 'teach'ers could not wait another month when school is out to take time off

let them show us any other job that gets 2 months paid time off

For one thing, teachers don't get two months paid time off.

National averages put teachers at 10 paid vacation days and one summer month off.

Depending on the position, these folks can get as much and sometimes more paid time off:

* Merchant Marines
* Coaches
* Psychologists
* Snow Plow Drivers
* Guides
* Deep Sea Fisherman
* Judges and Magistrates
* Tutors
* Librarians
* Athletes
* Pilots, Copilots and Flight Engineers
* Lifeguards
* Truant Officers
* Security Personnel
* Resort Workers
* Fashion Designers
* Paralegals
* Software Developers
* Convention/Tourism Planners
* Business Consultants
* On-Call and Retainer Positions

and many more.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/12/13 09:53 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
I don't understand why so many, need to have things repeatedly explained to them.


why is the graduation rate so low in rochester?


Really? You've hit an all-time low in your display of intellectual prowess. Oiy vey.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/12/13 09:55 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
The way I understand it is that (depending on where you work), you are paid for the weeks you teach, and receive that pay during the time you teach, or receive smaller paychecks year round.


is that not 2 months of paid time off?


Who told you that they are paid in the summertime? Teachers most certainly do not get paid in the summer. Those that work in the summer for a particular district get paid. Otherwise it's a 10 month gig, my girlfriend! \:\)
Posted by:

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/12/13 10:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
The way I understand it is that (depending on where you work), you are paid for the weeks you teach, and receive that pay during the time you teach, or receive smaller paychecks year round.


is that not 2 months of paid time off?


Who told you that they are paid in the summertime? Teachers most certainly do not get paid in the summer. Those that work in the summer for a particular district get paid. Otherwise it's a 10 month gig, my girlfriend! \:\)

Billy is that you?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/12/13 12:08 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
The way I understand it is that (depending on where you work), you are paid for the weeks you teach, and receive that pay during the time you teach, or receive smaller paychecks year round.


is that not 2 months of paid time off?

No... it's 10 months pay for 10 months of work.
Posted by: Ohithere

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/12/13 12:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
The way I understand it is that (depending on where you work), you are paid for the weeks you teach, and receive that pay during the time you teach, or receive smaller paychecks year round.


is that not 2 months of paid time off?

No... it's 10 months pay for 10 months of work.



Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/12/13 12:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Ohithere
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
The way I understand it is that (depending on where you work), you are paid for the weeks you teach, and receive that pay during the time you teach, or receive smaller paychecks year round.
is that not 2 months of paid time off?

No... it's 10 months pay for 10 months of work.

Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/12/13 08:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus

No... it's 10 months pay for 10 months of work.


I am soooooo ready to be temporarily unemployed!

By the way, if I don't work in the summer, I don't get paid in the summer. That works for me! \:\)
Posted by: twocats

Re: Happy TEACHERS - 06/12/13 08:42 PM

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 08:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
For one thing, teachers don't get two months paid time off.

National averages put teachers at 10 paid vacation days and one summer month off.

Depending on the position, these folks can get as much and sometimes more paid time off:

* Merchant Marines
* Coaches
* Psychologists
* Snow Plow Drivers
* Guides
* Deep Sea Fisherman
* Judges and Magistrates
* Tutors
* Librarians
* Athletes
* Pilots, Copilots and Flight Engineers
* Lifeguards
* Truant Officers
* Security Personnel
* Resort Workers
* Fashion Designers
* Paralegals
* Software Developers
* Convention/Tourism Planners
* Business Consultants
* On-Call and Retainer Positions

and many more.


do they also get over generous pensions, full healthcare and complete job security?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 08:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: Josephus
The way I understand it is that (depending on where you work), you are paid for the weeks you teach, and receive that pay during the time you teach, or receive smaller paychecks year round.

Who told you that they are paid in the summertime? Teachers most certainly do not get paid in the summer.


did you not read josephus post?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 08:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
No... it's 10 months pay for 10 months of work.


then there is no reason to give full healthcare and overgenerous pensions for a part time job...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 08:25 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats
I am soooooo ready to be temporarily unemployed!


Originally Posted By: twocats
All of our raw materials are not standardized, and tax money that should be used for education should not be allocated towards profits.


are you willing to convert to a 401k and pay more for your healthcare?

those benefits do little to improve student performance
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 08:29 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats


ARROGANT TEACHER...

a devoted teacher would express the opposite

good to see you are only a teacher to get YOUR money
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 08:44 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
For one thing, teachers don't get two months paid time off.

National averages put teachers at 10 paid vacation days and one summer month off.

Depending on the position, these folks can get as much and sometimes more paid time off:

* Merchant Marines
* Coaches
* Psychologists
* Snow Plow Drivers
* Guides
* Deep Sea Fisherman
* Judges and Magistrates
* Tutors
* Librarians
* Athletes
* Pilots, Copilots and Flight Engineers
* Lifeguards
* Truant Officers
* Security Personnel
* Resort Workers
* Fashion Designers
* Paralegals
* Software Developers
* Convention/Tourism Planners
* Business Consultants
* On-Call and Retainer Positions

and many more.
do they also get over generous pensions, full healthcare and complete job security?


No doubt, one of the dumbest questions you've ever asked (and that's saying a lot).

Merchant marines, judges, pilots, athletes and coaches? You bet your life they do.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 08:47 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
No... it's 10 months pay for 10 months of work.


then there is no reason to give full healthcare and overgenerous pensions for a part time job...

Correct, teachers however, have full time (plus) jobs, with a summer recess.

Get your facts straight, Buck-o.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 08:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
do they also get over generous pensions, full healthcare and complete job security?



Merchant marines, judges, pilots, athletes and coaches? You bet your life they do.


incorrect
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 08:55 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
incorrect.

Please, entertain us with a desperate attempt at an explanation.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 08:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: Josephus
No... it's 10 months pay for 10 months of work.

Correct, teachers however, have full time (plus) jobs, with a summer recess.

Get your facts straight, Buck-o.


you and josephus need to get your story straight...
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 09:03 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone

ARROGANT TEACHER...

a devoted teacher would express the opposite

good to see you are only a teacher to get YOUR money



Only an ARROGANT TAXPAYER could make THAT stupid assumption.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 09:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
incorrect.

Please, entertain us with a desperate attempt at an explanation.


Originally Posted By: bluezone

do they also get over generous pensions, full healthcare and complete job security?


eliminate the ones that do not fit the conditions
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 09:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan

Only an ARROGANT TAXPAYER could make THAT stupid assumption.


so a devoted 'teach'er can not wait for their summer paid 'vacation'?


remember it is all about the students teachers
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 09:08 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
incorrect.

Please, entertain us with a desperate attempt at an explanation.


Originally Posted By: bluezone

do they also get over generous pensions, full healthcare and complete job security?


eliminate the ones that do not fit the conditions




You kept us waiting with bated breath for THAT drivel?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 09:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
Only an ARROGANT TAXPAYER could make THAT stupid assumption.


ask twocats why federal funding was lost when the 'teach'ers were evaluated in her school system and found they were not doing their 'job'
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 09:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
do they also get over generous pensions, full healthcare and complete job security?



Merchant marines, judges, pilots, athletes and coaches? You bet your life they do.


do all these have complete job security?

Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 09:11 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
incorrect.

Please, entertain us with a desperate attempt at an explanation.


Originally Posted By: bluezone

do they also get over generous pensions, full healthcare and complete job security?


eliminate the ones that do not fit the conditions

Come on, put your money where your big mouth is. Tell me how those professions don't meet your mercurial criteria. What a wriggling little worm.
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 09:14 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Teonan

Only an ARROGANT TAXPAYER could make THAT stupid assumption.


so a devoted 'teach'er can not wait for their summer paid 'vacation'?


remember it is all about the students teachers



Bash away with your agenda...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 09:16 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Teonan
Only an ARROGANT TAXPAYER could make THAT stupid assumption.


ask twocats why federal funding was lost when the 'teach'ers were evaluated in her school system and found they were not doing their 'job'


You're fading fast sista...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 09:16 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
do they also get over generous pensions, full healthcare and complete job security?



Merchant marines, judges, pilots, athletes and coaches? You bet your life they do.


do all these have complete job security?

No less than teachers. In the case of judges and merchant marines, usually Far, FAR more.

Any more stupid questions?
Posted by:

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/13/13 11:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
Originally Posted By: bluezone

ARROGANT TEACHER...

a devoted teacher would express the opposite

good to see you are only a teacher to get YOUR money



Only an could make THAT stupid assumption.






That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard you say! "ARROGANT TAXPAYER"! My God I'll bet you don't over pay your taxes.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/14/13 10:39 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: Josephus
The way I understand it is that (depending on where you work), you are paid for the weeks you teach, and receive that pay during the time you teach, or receive smaller paychecks year round.

Who told you that they are paid in the summertime? Teachers most certainly do not get paid in the summer.


did you not read josephus post?


10 months pay for 10 months work. What's the issue, Jackson?
Posted by: cwjga

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/21/13 06:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
The way I understand it is that (depending on where you work), you are paid for the weeks you teach, and receive that pay during the time you teach, or receive smaller paychecks year round.


is that not 2 months of paid time off?


Who told you that they are paid in the summertime? Teachers most certainly do not get paid in the summer. Those that work in the summer for a particular district get paid. Otherwise it's a 10 month gig, my girlfriend! \:\)


In reality they are paid in the summertime. Teachers are salaried professionals. Under their contract in order to get that salary they are required to work for (I believe) 188 days, not including some 14(?) days of paid sick time and personal days.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 06/21/13 10:15 AM

I figure they're paid for a year's work, with lots and lots of time off, and when the checks come is pretty much irrelevant. IIRC, some poster said that there is an otin for when the checks come, at least under that contract.

I'm on my 2 week summer break from English for Beginning Learners. It's different for us, though. Its not a job; it's something we do for the students, and for society.

I'm not knocking people who have jobs, and I'm not saying that getting paid for teaching means that those teachers don't care about students, and about what education does, or can, or should, do for society. I'm saying that once money and personal gain come into almost anything, it's quite often not a pure play, regarding motivation, explanations of motivation and actions, and justifications for both action and proposed courses of action.

And I'm a market capitalist, and so realize that much, of consequence, would not be accomplished in this world without the prospect of gain. I merely suggest that we look at what is, and what might be, with eyes open to human nature, which is what it is, for better and worse.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/08/13 12:11 PM

another reason to love our overworked teachers and their out of touch unions......


http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/08/buffal...lastic-surgery/
Posted by: cwjga

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/09/13 06:15 AM

OMG, Where do they find these crazies.

“If I Answer the Wrong Question, is My Teacher Going to Shoot Me?”
Posted by: Lucinda Knotts

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/09/13 07:59 AM

Yet another demonstration of poor reading comprehension or listening skills from "Mr. Conservative." The article states that Donna Chiera, the president of the New Jersey American Federation of Teachers, "seems to think that teachers would actually punish students for answering questions incorrectly by shooting them." That's not what she said. Expressing what she believed might be the reaction of some students to pistol packing teachers, she said, "I would hate for students to say, 'Oh, my goodness, if I answer the wrong question, is my teacher going to shoot me? If I make my teacher angry, is my teacher going to shoot me?' "
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/11/13 12:28 PM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
I figure they're paid for a year's work, with lots and lots of time off, and when the checks come is pretty much irrelevant. IIRC, some poster said that there is an otin for when the checks come, at least under that contract.


Originally Posted By: VM Smith
Not if it's not in a contract.


Which one is it?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/20/13 06:01 PM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
I figure they're paid for a year's work, with lots and lots of time off


make the school year 12 months long with the same pay
Posted by: Lucinda Knotts

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/20/13 09:48 PM

And then complain about the increased maintenance costs of keeping the school buildings operational and air conditioned during the summer, plus the added costs of bus transportation, paying cafeteria workers and custodians additional pay, etc. I'm sure you'll find something to complain about BZ, no matter what the schools do.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/20/13 11:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucinda Knotts
And then complain about the increased maintenance costs of keeping the school buildings operational and air conditioned during the summer, plus the added costs of bus transportation, paying cafeteria workers and custodians additional pay, etc. I'm sure you'll find something to complain about BZ, no matter what the schools do.

Details, details. ;\)
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/20/13 11:28 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
make the school year 12 months long with the same pay

It sounds to me, like you suffer from a classic case of Genus Envy.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/21/13 05:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
make the school year 12 months long with the same pay

It sounds to me, like you suffer from a classic case of Genus Envy.


In the real world Timmy people work 12 months!
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/21/13 09:33 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
make the school year 12 months long with the same pay

It sounds to me, like you suffer from a classic case of Genus Envy.
In the real world Timmy people work 12 months!

No, dumb@$$, in the real world, people work all DIFFERENT kinds of work schedules.

e.g. merchant marines, rock musicians, writers, actors, George W. Bush, etc., etc..
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/21/13 10:10 AM

What a perfect use of the dubya reference! HA!
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/21/13 11:01 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats
What a perfect use of the dubya reference! HA!

Yeah, that was pretty much on target too. Some work more, and some like the Lesser work, well... less!
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/21/13 11:08 AM


Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/22/13 09:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: Lucinda Knotts
And then complain about the increased maintenance costs of keeping the school buildings operational and air conditioned during the summer, plus the added costs of bus transportation, paying cafeteria workers and custodians additional pay, etc. I'm sure you'll find something to complain about BZ, no matter what the schools do.

Details, details. ;\)


seeing that you and lucinda knotts like obamacare why not eliminate the taxpayer funded healthcare for the teachers?

let the teachers pay for their own healthcare seeing that you say obamacare will be so cheap for the single payer

the money saved by the taxpayers could go to run the schools for 12 months

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/22/13 09:42 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
make the school year 12 months long with the same pay

It sounds to me, like you suffer from a classic case of Genus Envy.


In the real world Timmy people work 12 months!



;\)

timbo is not in touch with the real world...
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/22/13 10:06 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: Lucinda Knotts
And then complain about the increased maintenance costs of keeping the school buildings operational and air conditioned during the summer, plus the added costs of bus transportation, paying cafeteria workers and custodians additional pay, etc. I'm sure you'll find something to complain about BZ, no matter what the schools do.

Details, details. ;\)
seeing that you and lucinda knotts like obamacare why not eliminate the taxpayer funded healthcare for the teachers?

let the teachers pay for their own healthcare seeing that you say obamacare will be so cheap for the single payer

the money saved by the taxpayers could go to run the schools for 12 months

To what end? So that you can feel better about not having been motivated enough to finish high school, earn a college degree and have the intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to become a teacher yourself?

What (if anything) do YOU do for a living? It would be most entertaining to poll members of the forums, as a way to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of YOUR contribution to society.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/22/13 10:14 AM

"earn a college degree and have the intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to become a teacher yourself? "

earn a degree- short for a trillion$ in debt not getting paid back as there are no jobs for them.....

as far as having the intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to become a teacher.....that's your story so tell it anyway you wish!
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/22/13 10:28 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
"earn a college degree and have the intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to become a teacher yourself? "

earn a degree- short for a trillion$ in debt not getting paid back as there are no jobs for them.....

as far as having the intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to become a teacher.....that's your story so tell it anyway you wish!

Why don't you get your OWN insults instead of aping other posters.

* Did Teachers create a trillion $ debt by giving for the first time in history, during time of war, an unprecedented 6 billion dollar tax cut to the ultra-wealthy?

* Did Teachers do it a second time?

* Did Teachers Wage two unfunded and wholly illegal wars?

* Did Teachers raid the US treasury?

* Did Teachers FORCE the DOD to accept tens of billions of dollars of unrequested weapons and defense systems?'

* Did Teachers deregulate the Banks AND WallStreet?

* Did Teachers severely relax the laws governing MASSIVE off-shore tax dodges?

* Did Teachers conceive of and sign into law, a 'Free Trade Agreement' resulting in the loss of tens of millions of jobs, thereby drastically reducing manufacturing and employment profits, all across the country?


Shall I continue?


You're blaming the rape victim, Sporty.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/22/13 12:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
"earn a college degree and have the intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to become a teacher yourself? "

earn a degree- short for a trillion$ in debt not getting paid back as there are no jobs for them.....

as far as having the intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to become a teacher.....that's your story so tell it anyway you wish!

Why don't you get your OWN insults instead of aping other posters.

* Did Teachers create a trillion $ debt by giving for the first time in history, during time of war, an unprecedented 6 billion dollar tax cut to the ultra-wealthy?

* Did Teachers do it a second time?

* Did Teachers Wage two unfunded and wholly illegal wars?

* Did Teachers raid the US treasury?

* Did Teachers FORCE the DOD to accept tens of billions of dollars of unrequested weapons and defense systems?'

* Did Teachers deregulate the Banks AND WallStreet?

* Did Teachers severely relax the laws governing MASSIVE off-shore tax dodges?

* Did Teachers conceive of and sign into law, a 'Free Trade Agreement' resulting in the loss of tens of millions of jobs, thereby drastically reducing manufacturing and employment profits, all across the country?


Shall I continue?


You're blaming the rape victim, Sporty.


you offer up alot of issues that involve the federal govt, some true, some a stretch.....where as most teachers and their unions are putting the screws to local and state taxpayers with their wages, pensions and benefits/tenure......but continue on with your rant Timmy!
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/22/13 12:42 PM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
"earn a college degree and have the intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to become a teacher yourself? "

earn a degree- short for a trillion$ in debt not getting paid back as there are no jobs for them.....

as far as having the intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to become a teacher.....that's your story so tell it anyway you wish!

Why don't you get your OWN insults instead of aping other posters.

* Did Teachers create a trillion $ debt by giving for the first time in history, during time of war, an unprecedented 6 billion dollar tax cut to the ultra-wealthy?

* Did Teachers do it a second time?

* Did Teachers Wage two unfunded and wholly illegal wars?

* Did Teachers raid the US treasury?

* Did Teachers FORCE the DOD to accept tens of billions of dollars of unrequested weapons and defense systems?'

* Did Teachers deregulate the Banks AND WallStreet?

* Did Teachers severely relax the laws governing MASSIVE off-shore tax dodges?

* Did Teachers conceive of and sign into law, a 'Free Trade Agreement' resulting in the loss of tens of millions of jobs, thereby drastically reducing manufacturing and employment profits, all across the country?

Shall I continue?

You're blaming the rape victim, Sporty.
you offer up alot of issues that involve the federal govt, some true, some a stretch.....where as most teachers and their unions are putting the screws to local and state taxpayers with their wages, pensions and benefits/tenure......but continue on with your rant Timmy!

You seem to miss the point that if even only a couple of these actions had not been allowed or could be fixed, we wouldn't have any problem paying teachers and everyone else a decent wage.

Again, you're trying to cure the disease, by killing the patient.

Even if I agreed that teachers' unions were putting the screws to taxpayers (and I don't), The federal issues are responsible for THOUSANDS of time more potential revenue. It's also far, FAR easier to enact sweeping federal changes in law, than to coordinate all the states to achieve substantially less.

On a side note, I'd be thrilled to know which of those issues you perceive to be "a stretch". Seriously.
Posted by: cwjga

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/22/13 01:41 PM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
"earn a college degree and have the intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to become a teacher yourself? "

earn a degree- short for a trillion$ in debt not getting paid back as there are no jobs for them.....

as far as having the intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to become a teacher.....that's your story so tell it anyway you wish!

Why don't you get your OWN insults instead of aping other posters.

* Did Teachers create a trillion $ debt by giving for the first time in history, during time of war, an unprecedented 6 billion dollar tax cut to the ultra-wealthy?

* Did Teachers do it a second time?

* Did Teachers Wage two unfunded and wholly illegal wars?

* Did Teachers raid the US treasury?

* Did Teachers FORCE the DOD to accept tens of billions of dollars of unrequested weapons and defense systems?'

* Did Teachers deregulate the Banks AND WallStreet?

* Did Teachers severely relax the laws governing MASSIVE off-shore tax dodges?

* Did Teachers conceive of and sign into law, a 'Free Trade Agreement' resulting in the loss of tens of millions of jobs, thereby drastically reducing manufacturing and employment profits, all across the country?


Shall I continue?


You're blaming the rape victim, Sporty.


you offer up alot of issues that involve the federal govt, some true, some a stretch.....where as most teachers and their unions are putting the screws to local and state taxpayers with their wages, pensions and benefits/tenure......but continue on with your rant Timmy!


People have to have their fantasies. It is healthy. \:\)
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 08/22/13 02:49 PM

Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
"earn a college degree and have the intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to become a teacher yourself? "

earn a degree- short for a trillion$ in debt not getting paid back as there are no jobs for them.....

as far as having the intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to become a teacher.....that's your story so tell it anyway you wish!

Why don't you get your OWN insults instead of aping other posters.

* Did Teachers create a trillion $ debt by giving for the first time in history, during time of war, an unprecedented 6 billion dollar tax cut to the ultra-wealthy?

* Did Teachers do it a second time?

* Did Teachers Wage two unfunded and wholly illegal wars?

* Did Teachers raid the US treasury?

* Did Teachers FORCE the DOD to accept tens of billions of dollars of unrequested weapons and defense systems?'

* Did Teachers deregulate the Banks AND WallStreet?

* Did Teachers severely relax the laws governing MASSIVE off-shore tax dodges?

* Did Teachers conceive of and sign into law, a 'Free Trade Agreement' resulting in the loss of tens of millions of jobs, thereby drastically reducing manufacturing and employment profits, all across the country?

Shall I continue?

You're blaming the rape victim, Sporty.
you offer up alot of issues that involve the federal govt, some true, some a stretch.....where as most teachers and their unions are putting the screws to local and state taxpayers with their wages, pensions and benefits/tenure......but continue on with your rant Timmy!
People have to have their fantasies. It is healthy. \:\)

Then you may live to be 100.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/04/13 09:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: Lucinda Knotts
And then complain about the increased maintenance costs of keeping the school buildings operational and air conditioned during the summer, plus the added costs of bus transportation, paying cafeteria workers and custodians additional pay, etc. I'm sure you'll find something to complain about BZ, no matter what the schools do.

Details, details. ;\)
seeing that you and lucinda knotts like obamacare why not eliminate the taxpayer funded healthcare for the teachers?

let the teachers pay for their own healthcare seeing that you say obamacare will be so cheap for the single payer

the money saved by the taxpayers could go to run the schools for 12 months

To what end? So that you can feel better about not having been motivated enough to finish high school, earn a college degree and have the intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to become a teacher yourself?


so you think obamacare is acceptable for all others but not the 'teach'ers?

how does paying for the part time 'teach'ers full healthcare benefit the students?

walk the walk...
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/04/13 11:59 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
so you think obamacare is acceptable for all others but not the 'teach'ers?

how does paying for the part time 'teach'ers full healthcare benefit the students?

walk the walk...

No. I think that you are suffering from a major case of career envy.

The term is "Walk the Talk". What you just said makes NO sense, whatsoever.

Nor does the rest of your comment, as your misconception of the definition of 'part time' employment illustrates. Your other false conclusions are even more absurd.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/05/13 07:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
so you think obamacare is acceptable for all others but not the 'teach'ers?

how does paying for the part time 'teach'ers full healthcare benefit the students?

walk the walk...

No. I think that you are suffering from a major case of career envy.

The term is "Walk the Talk". What you just said makes NO sense, whatsoever.

Nor does the rest of your comment, as your misconception of the definition of 'part time' employment illustrates. Your other false conclusions are even more absurd.


so now 8 months of work is full time Timmy?.....on top of that poor results(especially those tenured) year after year and constant push back on any system that could create some accountability......I would say the only misconceptions and absurd conclusions are those coming from the supporters of this broken system!.....you say Timmy that you do not support the idea that teachers' unions are putting the screws to the taxpayer yet everytime they dont get what they want the commercials start, telling all of us how the kids will be affected negatively.....I say if the kids get anymore negative effects from this group it would make more sense to not send them into the public school system.....just look at the results nationwide Timmy where public education is concerned.....they dont exactly get rave reviews!
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/05/13 11:20 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
so you think obamacare is acceptable for all others but not the 'teach'ers?

how does paying for the part time 'teach'ers full healthcare benefit the students?

walk the walk...
No. I think that you are suffering from a major case of career envy.

The term is "Walk the Talk". What you just said makes NO sense, whatsoever.

Nor does the rest of your comment, as your misconception of the definition of 'part time' employment illustrates. Your other false conclusions are even more absurd.
so now 8 months of work is full time Timmy?.....on top of that poor results(especially those tenured) year after year and constant push back on any system that could create some accountability......I would say the only misconceptions and absurd conclusions are those coming from the supporters of this broken system!.....you say Timmy that you do not support the idea that teachers' unions are putting the screws to the taxpayer yet everytime they dont get what they want the commercials start, telling all of us how the kids will be affected negatively.....I say if the kids get anymore negative effects from this group it would make more sense to not send them into the public school system.....just look at the results nationwide Timmy where public education is concerned.....they dont exactly get rave reviews!

Those are nothing but correlative conclusions of no scientific value, and are therefore meaningless.

As a matter of fact, the VAST majority of evidence supports the idea that increased educational funding, well-educated and compensated teachers, reductions in poverty and most significantly... parental involvement are by FAR the leading contributors to academic achievement.

FYI: Full time employment is defined by hours worked per week (35), NOT days per year. Suggesting otherwise only confirms your ignorance of the facts.

If you know anything in the least about the new core testing scores, you'd understand that the major issue is with students that have not had the opportunity to ease into the new curriculum. If the older students don't have a chance to learn that new curriculum (which most have not), of course the schools scores will be sub-par. What do you expect?

This is just one more huge change in curriculum, testing and teaching over the past 12 years or so. The No Child Left Behind program instituted under W., was by many educator's accounts, the single most disruptive contributor to current low scores in academic proficiency.

Hopefully, this will be in use long enough for it to help the students rather than hinder them as has often been the case.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/05/13 01:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
so you think obamacare is acceptable for all others but not the 'teach'ers?

how does paying for the part time 'teach'ers full healthcare benefit the students?

walk the walk...
No. I think that you are suffering from a major case of career envy.

The term is "Walk the Talk". What you just said makes NO sense, whatsoever.

Nor does the rest of your comment, as your misconception of the definition of 'part time' employment illustrates. Your other false conclusions are even more absurd.
so now 8 months of work is full time Timmy?.....on top of that poor results(especially those tenured) year after year and constant push back on any system that could create some accountability......I would say the only misconceptions and absurd conclusions are those coming from the supporters of this broken system!.....you say Timmy that you do not support the idea that teachers' unions are putting the screws to the taxpayer yet everytime they dont get what they want the commercials start, telling all of us how the kids will be affected negatively.....I say if the kids get anymore negative effects from this group it would make more sense to not send them into the public school system.....just look at the results nationwide Timmy where public education is concerned.....they dont exactly get rave reviews!

Those are nothing but correlative conclusions of no scientific value, and are therefore meaningless.

As a matter of fact, the VAST majority of evidence supports the idea that increased educational funding, well-educated and compensated teachers, reductions in poverty and most significantly... parental involvement are by FAR the leading contributors to academic achievement.

FYI: Full time employment is defined by hours worked per week (35), NOT days per year. Suggesting otherwise only confirms your ignorance of the facts.

If you know anything in the least about the new core testing scores, you'd understand that the major issue is with students that have not had the opportunity to ease into the new curriculum. If the older students don't have a chance to learn that new curriculum (which most have not), of course the schools scores will be sub-par. What do you expect?

This is just one more huge change in curriculum, testing and teaching over the past 12 years or so. The No Child Left Behind program instituted under W., was by many educator's accounts, the single most disruptive contributor to current low scores in academic proficiency.

Hopefully, this will be in use long enough for it to help the students rather than hinder them as has often been the case.



so you would suggest 35 hours/week is full time?.....try again, just because teachers and their unions have labeled that full time doesn't make it so......because in the real world Timmy(not the public sector unions or any kind of govt.) 40 hours is full time and based on 52 weeks that would be 2080 hours not the 180 days(1260 hours) that you would suggest....

as far as Govt. intrusion goes, maybe they should stay out of education, especially the federal govt. but nice to see you were able to fit in the libby talking point and blame Bush again because "O" has just been so active in the education area.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/05/13 01:16 PM

What do you consider teachers to be... temps? I consider them full time employees who get nine months of wages for nine months of work, plus holidays.

Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea. I believe a lot of countries are doing this, and most of us are no longer farmers. However, keep in mind that the increased working hours would also mean increased wages... which means your property taxes would probably go up correspondingly.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/05/13 06:40 PM

Quote:
on top of that poor results(especially those tenured) year after year

It is only a single measurement...see below

Quote:
constant push back on any system that could create some accountability

Most public schools in NYS have had accountability systems and evaluations for more than 20 years. A new system in NYS was put into place a year ago after some of the language was worked out and most schools have accepted the new system, albeit, moderately more stringent.

Quote:
I would say the only misconceptions and absurd conclusions are those coming from the supporters of this broken system

Unfortunately that is just an ignorant, no nothing about what is going on in education, you read a headline in the newspaper, no real research, listened to John Stossel, wrong and absurd misconception on your part. And as evidenced by many of your other assertions.

Quote:
the results nationwide Timmy where public education is concerned.....they dont exactly get rave reviews!

Ok, back to a single measure. Here is an analogy. Reggie Jackson is the all time leader in strikeouts as a batter with 2,597. Using a single measure you would conclude he must be one of the worst hitters of all time

Quote:
40 hours is full time and based on 52 weeks that would be 2080 hours not the 180 days(1260 hours) that you would suggest....

If I were you I would pissed be also; working 52 weeks a year with no vacation time or holidays or sick days off. Damn!
Also many area teachers are paid for 186 days (work days without students) and that does not include Professional Development hours, summer work shops, and countless other hours expected by contract. The contract is accepted in good faith and is what teachers are paid for.

Or, are you suggesting teachers should be eligible for unemployment checks during the summer?

Quote:
as far as Govt. intrusion goes

I do not care who is President or what their politics are, the US Constitution left public education to the individual states.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/07/13 02:30 PM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
so you would suggest 35 hours/week is full time?.....try again, just because teachers and their unions have labeled that full time doesn't make it so......because in the real world Timmy(not the public sector unions or any kind of govt.) 40 hours is full time and based on 52 weeks that would be 2080 hours not the 180 days(1260 hours) that you would suggest....

You are (as usual) woefully misinformed.

The legal definition of full time employment as per both the federal government and NY State are concerned, is 35 hrs. per week, REGARDLESS of hours worked per day or year, be it private or public-sector employment.

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/08/13 10:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
The legal definition of full time employment as per both the federal government and NY State are concerned, is 35 hrs. per week, REGARDLESS of hours worked per day or year, be it private or public-sector employment.


and the 'teach'ers still do NOT qualify as full time

part time job...

let them pay for their own obamacare

Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/08/13 01:22 PM

Wrong again, Missy!

Teachers work FAR more than 35 hours per week, on average.

Since there are many ways to quantify the answer, I've provided a wide range of statistics. NONE report less than 35 hrs. per week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answ...GxYGS_blog.html

http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/download.asp

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf

http://www.nea.org/home/12661.htm

http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2011/10/...mmer-vacations/

http://teaching.monster.com/careers/articles/4039-when-where-and-how-much-do-us-teachers-work

After reading the statistics, I'm more convinced than ever that teachers earn every cent they're paid.

What do YOU do for a living, how many hours per week do YOU 'work' and how much are YOU paid? More importantly, do YOU even work 40 hours a week for a living?
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/09/13 05:12 AM

spin it any way you want Timmy......they're part time!
Posted by: SilverRose

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/09/13 05:50 AM

Maybe part-year would be a better way of wording it - which is still 'part-time' but allows for the excess hours some teachers work during the school year.

I don't know how teachers' pensions work. Once they retire does the school continue to pay into their retirement fund?

I know once I retire, that's the end of the company's contribution. I don't see anything wrong with that. I've stopped contributing, so my employer does, too.

How do schools work?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/09/13 10:35 AM

Originally Posted By: SilverRose
Maybe part-year would be a better way of wording it - which is still 'part-time' but allows for the excess hours some teachers work during the school year.

Now you're just trying to redefine something that has already been legally defined, by flat-out "inventing" new and pointless terms.

Just admit it, they are full-time workers. End of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply WRONG.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/09/13 10:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: SilverRose
Maybe part-year would be a better way of wording it - which is still 'part-time' but allows for the excess hours some teachers work during the school year.

Now you're just trying to redefine something that has already been legally defined, by flat-out "inventing" new and pointless terms.

Just admit it, they are full-time workers. End of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply WRONG.


"legally defined"........by the govt. and there union.....so that would make it so!
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/09/13 10:40 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
spin it any way you want Timmy......they're part time!


Your inability to wrap your head around these simple facts, strongly suggest that you were taught by whole bunch of part-time teachers.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/09/13 10:44 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: SilverRose
Maybe part-year would be a better way of wording it - which is still 'part-time' but allows for the excess hours some teachers work during the school year.

Now you're just trying to redefine something that has already been legally defined, by flat-out "inventing" new and pointless terms.

Just admit it, they are full-time workers. End of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply WRONG.


"legally defined"........by the govt. and there union.....so that would make it so!

If by the government, you mean the US Departments of Labor, Internal Revenue, Health and Human Services, Defense etc., then YES! Is there ANOTHER way to define it... other than because YOU say otherwise ? ? ?

You and bluezone must have attended the same school together.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/13 06:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea. I believe a lot of countries are doing this, and most of us are no longer farmers. However, keep in mind that the increased working hours would also mean increased wages


the salary for the 'teach'ers would remain the same
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/13 06:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo

Teachers work FAR more than 35 hours per week, on average.



Originally Posted By: Timbo

The legal definition of full time employment as per both the federal government and NY State are concerned, is 35 hrs. per week, REGARDLESS of hours worked per day or year, be it private or public-sector employment.


make up your mind...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/13 06:22 AM

Originally Posted By: SilverRose
I don't know how teachers' pensions work. Once they retire does the school continue to pay into their retirement fund?


the taxpayers pay into the pensions for the teachers.

the pension fund is underfunded and your school taxes will reflect that in the years ahead
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/13 06:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Just admit it, they are full-time workers. End of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply WRONG.


have obama change the laws so everyone only has to 'work' 180 days a year with full healthcare and pension
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/13 07:41 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea. I believe a lot of countries are doing this, and most of us are no longer farmers. However, keep in mind that the increased working hours would also mean increased wages


the salary for the 'teach'ers would remain the same

Who says... you? Dream on, sister.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/13 09:26 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo

Teachers work FAR more than 35 hours per week, on average.

Originally Posted By: Timbo

The legal definition of full time employment as per both the federal government and NY State are concerned, is 35 hrs. per week, REGARDLESS of hours worked per day or year, be it private or public-sector employment.

make up your mind...

After THAT comment, it's now become perfectly clear that you're really not too bright. Why do you blame that on TEACHERS?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/13 09:28 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Just admit it, they are full-time workers. End of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply WRONG.

have obama change the laws so everyone only has to 'work' 180 days a year with full healthcare and pension

Wouldn't you then be without healthcare and a pension?

I'll ask again... What do YOU do for a living, how many hours per week do YOU 'work' and how much are YOU paid? Do YOU even work 40 hours a week for a living?
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/13 11:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo

Teachers work FAR more than 35 hours per week, on average.

Originally Posted By: Timbo

The legal definition of full time employment as per both the federal government and NY State are concerned, is 35 hrs. per week, REGARDLESS of hours worked per day or year, be it private or public-sector employment.

make up your mind...

After THAT comment, it's now become perfectly clear that you're really not too bright. Why do you blame that on TEACHERS?



undoubtedly the teachers and their fear mongering unions were behind whatever legislation created that set of circumstances.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/13 11:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea. I believe a lot of countries are doing this, and most of us are no longer farmers. However, keep in mind that the increased working hours would also mean increased wages


the salary for the 'teach'ers would remain the same

Who says... you? Dream on, sister.



it should!
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/10/13 02:04 PM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea. I believe a lot of countries are doing this, and most of us are no longer farmers. However, keep in mind that the increased working hours would also mean increased wages


the salary for the 'teach'ers would remain the same

Who says... you? Dream on, sister.



it should!

That's a different story... but it still shouldn't. You don't increase a person's labor without paying them for it.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 05:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea. I believe a lot of countries are doing this, and most of us are no longer farmers. However, keep in mind that the increased working hours would also mean increased wages


the salary for the 'teach'ers would remain the same

Who says... you? Dream on, sister.



it should!

That's a different story... but it still shouldn't. You don't increase a person's labor without paying them for it.




"You don't increase a person's labor without paying them for it."


a true statement......for those who work in the public sector!
Posted by: cwjga

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 05:29 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea. I believe a lot of countries are doing this, and most of us are no longer farmers. However, keep in mind that the increased working hours would also mean increased wages


the salary for the 'teach'ers would remain the same

Who says... you? Dream on, sister.



it should!

That's a different story... but it still shouldn't. You don't increase a person's labor without paying them for it.




"You don't increase a person's labor without paying them for it."


a true statement......for those who work in the public sector!


\:\)
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 09:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
You don't increase a person's labor without paying them for it.

Apparently you've never asked a Republican for HIS/HER opinion on the matter.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 10:32 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea. I believe a lot of countries are doing this, and most of us are no longer farmers. However, keep in mind that the increased working hours would also mean increased wages


the salary for the 'teach'ers would remain the same

Who says... you? Dream on, sister.



it should!

That's a different story... but it still shouldn't. You don't increase a person's labor without paying them for it.




"You don't increase a person's labor without paying them for it."


a true statement......for those who work in the public sector!

It's true, no matter who the person works for, dumb@zz.
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 10:36 AM

Your wrong it is not true for many private sector jobs.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 10:44 AM

Originally Posted By: tubby
Your wrong it is not true for many private sector jobs.

If someone allows their employer to expect more work out of them (aka. more hours) without fair compensation... that's their problem to deal with. Then again, if they had a union it probably wouldn't happen as easily.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 10:47 AM

Originally Posted By: tubby
Your wrong it is not true for many private sector jobs.

Then you won't have any problem if we cut YOUR income by 25% ?
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 10:47 AM

You must work in the public sector, most real world workers are not in a union and can't afford to argue with their employers.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 11:06 AM

Originally Posted By: tubby
most real world workers are not in a union and can't afford to argue with their employers.

So... like Timbo said, you won't mind if your employer cuts your wages by 25%. After all, what are you going to do about it?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 11:54 AM

Originally Posted By: tubby
You must work in the public sector, most real world workers are not in a union and can't afford to argue with their employers.

The argument remains the same regardless of sector served. It's just that unions help keep you from getting screwed. There are unions in BOTH sectors.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 12:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea. I believe a lot of countries are doing this, and most of us are no longer farmers. However, keep in mind that the increased working hours would also mean increased wages


the salary for the 'teach'ers would remain the same

Who says... you? Dream on, sister.



it should!

That's a different story... but it still shouldn't. You don't increase a person's labor without paying them for it.




"You don't increase a person's labor without paying them for it."


a true statement......for those who work in the public sector!

It's true, no matter who the person works for, dumb@zz.



LOL!
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 01:11 PM

Try reading my post I never said I wouldn't mind and like I said many workers have no recourse. About 5 percent of private sector workers are in a union what do you suggest the other 95 percent do when their employers cut their pay or pile on more work, quit and find another job, good luck.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 01:33 PM

...or, you could be proactive and think about trying to help start up a union, if you think your work place could use one.

Option B... quit and find another job... moving for it if you have to.
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 02:30 PM

Lol
Posted by: cwjga

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 03:14 PM

Then there are those of us that get paid a salary for a job, and when the job takes more work to get done, we do it, because we get paid to do it.
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 03:17 PM

I agree that is true very often in the private sector but rarely in the public sector.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 05:43 PM

Originally Posted By: cwjga
Then there are those of us that get paid a salary for a job, and when the job takes more work to get done, we do it, because we get paid to do it.

Only fair considering that salaried jobs usually pay far more, have generally better benefits and offer more flexible schedules than that of employees paid hourly.
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 05:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Then there are those of us that get paid a salary for a job, and when the job takes more work to get done, we do it, because we get paid to do it.

Only fair considering that salaried jobs usually pay far more, have generally better benefits and offer more flexible schedules than that of employees paid hourly.


Yeah, and teachers never work a minute past their contract hours ---(heavy sarcasm.)

And rolling my eyes.
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 05:52 PM

Maybe the reason teachers retire at least ten years before the rest of us is because they work such long hours. (Rolling my eyes and lmao)
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/11/13 06:24 PM

You can retire at 55 if you were smart enough to work at Gould's, but hey I understand. ;\)

Oh, and that's if you're NOT in a union there.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/13 07:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea. I believe a lot of countries are doing this, and most of us are no longer farmers. However, keep in mind that the increased working hours would also mean increased wages


the salary for the 'teach'ers would remain the same

Who says... you? Dream on, sister.


so you are saying that if an salaried 'employee' fails to perform their job they can work longer hours and expect to be paid more because they failed to perform their job?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/13 07:20 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Then there are those of us that get paid a salary for a job, and when the job takes more work to get done, we do it, because we get paid to do it.

Only fair considering that salaried jobs usually pay far more, have generally better benefits and offer more flexible schedules than that of employees paid hourly.


Yeah, and teachers never work a minute past their contract hours ---(heavy sarcasm.)

And rolling my eyes.


Originally Posted By: Josephus

Option B... quit and find another job... moving for it if you have to.


Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/13 07:24 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats
You can retire at 55 if you were smart enough to work at Gould's, but hey I understand. ;\)



is that the ONLY example you have?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/13 07:35 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: twocats
You can retire at 55 if you were smart enough to work at Gould's, but hey I understand. ;\)
is that the ONLY example you have?

What, upset because that means that you wouldn't qualify?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/13 09:55 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea. I believe a lot of countries are doing this, and most of us are no longer farmers. However, keep in mind that the increased working hours would also mean increased wages


the salary for the 'teach'ers would remain the same

Who says... you? Dream on, sister.


so you are saying that if an salaried 'employee' fails to perform their job they can work longer hours and expect to be paid more because they failed to perform their job?




Wow... you truly are clueless. Your teachers certainly had their work cut out when they came to you!
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/12/13 11:09 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
so you are saying that if an salaried 'employee' fails to perform their job they can work longer hours and expect to be paid more because they failed to perform their job?

Why do you put question marks at the end of declarative sentences?

Is that your way of putting words into the mouthes of people with whom you disagree with?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/13/13 06:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Wrong again, Missy!

Teachers work FAR more than 35 hours per week, on average.

Since there are many ways to quantify the answer, I've provided a wide range of statistics. NONE report less than 35 hrs. per week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answ...GxYGS_blog.html

http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/download.asp

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf

http://www.nea.org/home/12661.htm

http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2011/10/...mmer-vacations/

http://teaching.monster.com/careers/articles/4039-when-where-and-how-much-do-us-teachers-work

After reading the statistics, I'm more convinced than ever that teachers earn every cent they're paid.

What do YOU do for a living, how many hours per week do YOU 'work' and how much are YOU paid? More importantly, do YOU even work 40 hours a week for a living?


Facts are useless for many of these members. This thread is neverending. You're better off standing in a corner and banging your head against a wall.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/13/13 07:40 AM

off topic of pension, benefits and salaries but arrogance none the less..........


http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/13/school...od-as-her-idol/


http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/13/arabic...n-half-assedly/
Posted by: cwjga

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/13/13 08:01 AM

California teacher: "If unions do so much for members, why bully?"

Thu, 02/21/2013 - 18:53 — Will Collins

Writing in The Orange County Register, former teacher Larry Sand exposes the hypocrisy of teacher unions' rhetoric on Right to Work:


Teachers unions are forever telling its members how much the union does for them in the way of wages, job benefits, etc. You would think that an organization that does so much for its members wouldn't have to resort to bullying to keep them in the fold. But the unions know that without forcing the issue, many teachers would just say, "No." For instance, in Wisconsin, after Act 10 came into law allowing teachers to quit their union, about 30 percent have already quit with more to follow this June when their contracts expire.


Well said. If unions are providing valuable services, as they claim, they shouldn't have to rely on coercion to collect dues and attract members. And if teachers and other workers are no longer joining and paying dues voluntarily, union bosses should adjust their sales pitch instead of resorting to compulsion.

Sand goes on to demolish the "free rider" myth peddled by anti-Right to Work advocates:


It is a compelling argument, but untrue. The National Labor Relations Act does not mandate unions exclusively represent all employees, but permits them to electively do so. Under the Act, unions can also negotiate "members-only" contracts that only cover dues-paying members. They do not have to represent other employees.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/26/13 07:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: twocats
You can retire at 55 if you were smart enough to work at Gould's, but hey I understand. ;\)
is that the ONLY example you have?

What, upset because that means that you wouldn't qualify?


there are no other local public companies that offer it

feel free to list them...
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/26/13 12:59 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: twocats
You can retire at 55 if you were smart enough to work at Gould's, but hey I understand. ;\)
is that the ONLY example you have?

What, upset because that means that you wouldn't qualify?

there are no other local public companies that offer it

feel free to list them...

And if it IS the only example, what is your point and how is it relevant to whatever position it is that you're dancing around?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/30/13 06:41 PM

no need to offer it to the teachers
eliminate it

remember it is all about the 'students'

use the money on the students
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/30/13 06:53 PM

Originally Posted By: twocats
You can retire at 55 if you were smart enough to work at Gould's, but hey I understand. ;\)

Oh, and that's if you're NOT in a union there.


that is a big if
if your husband is not the president then he can be let go at any time
if the company does not perform then it can close down or move
if the company runs out of money then your husband most likely can not retire at 55 as he will be looking for another job
if the company fails to get government contracts his pension could be lost
his pension, job and healthcare coverage is not secure
...
...
...

your job and its compensation package are covered by yearly taxpayer bailouts
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 09/30/13 10:46 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: twocats
You can retire at 55 if you were smart enough to work at Gould's, but hey I understand. ;\)

Oh, and that's if you're NOT in a union there.


that is a big if
if your husband is not the president then he can be let go at any time
if the company does not perform then it can close down or move
if the company runs out of money then your husband most likely can not retire at 55 as he will be looking for another job
if the company fails to get government contracts his pension could be lost
his pension, job and healthcare coverage is not secure
...
...
...

your job and its compensation package are covered by yearly taxpayer bailouts


As well as any insurance policies, children, homes or vehicles that you have EVER had throughout your life. Why is that OK for you to receive bail-out $ from US, but it's not OK for others? Subsidies are subsidies.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/13/13 10:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
As well as any insurance policies, children, homes or vehicles that you have EVER had throughout your life. Why is that OK for you to receive bail-out $ from US, but it's not OK for others? Subsidies are subsidies.


from US?

since when have you paid taxes to bail others out?

the students see no benefit from taxpayers paying for healthcare and pensions for part time 'employees'



Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/13/13 10:45 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats
You can retire at 55 if you were smart enough to work at Gould's, but hey I understand. ;\)

Oh, and that's if you're NOT in a union there.


better set money aside for your healthcare (obamacare)...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/19/13 05:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea.


extended it to 12 months a year
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/19/13 05:42 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea.


extended it to 12 months a year

I don't disagree. However, increased work should also mean increased salary... or put them on an hourly wage. Their vacations would have to coincide with the school vacations (Christmas break, spring break, etc.)
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/19/13 06:20 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
As well as any insurance policies, children, homes or vehicles that you have EVER had throughout your life. Why is that OK for you to receive bail-out $ from US, but it's not OK for others? Subsidies are subsidies.


from US?

since when have you paid taxes to bail others out?

the students see no benefit from taxpayers paying for healthcare and pensions for part time 'employees'

Oh, let's start with the tens of thousands of $ in school taxes that I've paid over the course of my life. If you have children who've attended, then I've helped to subsidize YOU.

Next stupid question.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/25/13 11:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea.


extended it to 12 months a year

I don't disagree. However, increased work should also mean increased salary...


if the student performance is below average then there is no need for increased salary
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/25/13 11:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
As well as any insurance policies, children, homes or vehicles that you have EVER had throughout your life. Why is that OK for you to receive bail-out $ from US, but it's not OK for others? Subsidies are subsidies.


from US?

since when have you paid taxes to bail others out?

the students see no benefit from taxpayers paying for healthcare and pensions for part time 'employees'

Oh, let's start with the tens of thousands of $ in school taxes that I've paid over the course of my life. If you have children who've attended, then I've helped to subsidize YOU.


the healthcare and pensions have little to do with student performance

the taxpayers should pay for 25% of the 'bronze' plan under obamacare and if the teachers want a better plan then they can pay for it out of their pocket
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/25/13 02:50 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
As well as any insurance policies, children, homes or vehicles that you have EVER had throughout your life. Why is that OK for you to receive bail-out $ from US, but it's not OK for others? Subsidies are subsidies.
from US?

since when have you paid taxes to bail others out?

the students see no benefit from taxpayers paying for healthcare and pensions for part time 'employees'

Oh, let's start with the tens of thousands of $ in school taxes that I've paid over the course of my life. If you have children who've attended, then I've helped to subsidize YOU.
the healthcare and pensions have little to do with student performance

the taxpayers should pay for 25% of the 'bronze' plan under obamacare and if the teachers want a better plan then they can pay for it out of their pocket

Why do you ask questions that you don't want answers to?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/28/13 11:41 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Teachers don't work summers (in most cases), but I don't think it would be a bad idea.


extended it to 12 months a year

I don't disagree. However, increased work should also mean increased salary...


if the student performance is below average then there is no need for increased salary


And doctors charged with treating an ill populace should not receive any increased salary until the majority are healthy.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/30/13 09:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
And doctors charged with treating an ill populace should not receive any increased salary until the majority are healthy.


and what determines the doctors salary and compensation package?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/30/13 09:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Why do you ask questions that you don't want answers to?


have yet to see a valid answer in your replies

\:\(
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 10/30/13 11:52 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Why do you ask questions that you don't want answers to?
have yet to see a valid answer in your replies \:\(

That's not an answer.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 11/01/13 11:15 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
And doctors charged with treating an ill populace should not receive any increased salary until the majority are healthy.


and what determines the doctors salary and compensation package?


Unlike educators, training, specialty and demographic placement.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/03/14 01:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Unlike educators


'teachers' unions
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/03/14 03:13 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Unlike educators


'teachers' unions

You don't think the AMA is a doctor's union?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/03/14 11:50 PM


wink
Posted by: DR. D

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/04/14 06:17 AM

You could be on the other side of the coin and be a 12 month non-instructional employee and not get any insurance at all due to when you went full time.

Then just before the district would have to contribute 40% towards the cost of the plan they cut you down to part time, rinse and repeat.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/04/14 08:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Unlike educators


'teachers' unions

You don't think the AMA is a doctor's union?


do they stand up for the doctors compensation packages?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/05/14 07:38 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Unlike educators


'teachers' unions

You don't think the AMA is a doctor's union?


do they stand up for the doctors compensation packages?

What do you think? Who do you think sets the standards and everything else associated with physicians? BTW... when was the last time you heard of a doctor making house calls? Why do you think the reason is that it doesn't happen any more?
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/05/14 12:01 PM

I love this part:
If a poverty-stricken, drug-addled meth-cooker burns down his house, suffers third degree burns, and then goes to jail; we don’t blame the police, fire department, doctors, and defense attorneys for his predicament. But if that kid doesn’t graduate high school, it’s clearly the teacher’s fault.

In what other profession...

David ReberTopeka K-12 Examiner
August 27, 2010
I’m going to step out of my usual third-person writing voice for a moment. As a parent I received a letter last week from the Kansas State Board of Education, informing me that my children’s school district had been placed on “improvement” status for failing to meet “adequate yearly progress” under the No Child Left Behind law.

I thought it ironic that our schools were judged inadequate by people who haven’t set foot in them, so I wrote a letter to my local newspaper. Predictably, my letter elicited a deluge of comments in the paper’s online forum. Many remarks came from armchair educators and anti-teacher, anti-public school evangelists quick to discredit anything I had to say under the rationale of “he’s a teacher.” What could a teacher possibly know about education?

Countless arguments used to denigrate public school teachers begin with the phrase “in what other profession….” and conclude with practically anything the anti-teacher pundits find offensive about public education. Due process and collective bargaining are favorite targets, as are the erroneous but tightly held beliefs that teachers are under-worked, over-paid (earning million-dollar pensions), and not accountable for anything.

In what other profession, indeed.

In what other profession are the licensed professionals considered the LEAST knowledgeable about the job? You seldom if ever hear “that guy couldn’t possibly know a thing about law enforcement – he’s a police officer”, or “she can’t be trusted talking about fire safety – she’s a firefighter.”

In what other profession is experience viewed as a liability rather than an asset? You won’t find a contractor advertising “choose me – I’ve never done this before”, and your doctor won’t recommend a surgeon on the basis of her “having very little experience with the procedure”.

In what other profession is the desire for competitive salary viewed as proof of callous indifference towards the job? You won’t hear many say “that lawyer charges a lot of money, she obviously doesn’t care about her clients”, or “that coach earns millions – clearly he doesn’t care about the team.”

But look around. You’ll find droves of armchair educators who summarily dismiss any statement about education when it comes from a teacher. Likewise, it’s easy to find politicians, pundits, and profiteers who refer to our veteran teachers as ineffective, overpriced “dead wood”. Only the rookies could possibly be any good, or worth the food-stamp-eligible starting salaries we pay them.

And if teachers dare ask for a raise, this is taken by many as clear evidence that teachers don’t give a porcupine’s posterior about kids. In fact, some say if teachers really cared about their students they would insist on earning LESS money.

If that entire attitude weren’t bad enough, what other profession is legally held to PERFECTION by 2014? Are police required to eliminate all crime? Are firefighters required to eliminate all fires? Are doctors required to cure all patients? Are lawyers required to win all cases? Are coaches required to win all games? Of course they aren’t.

For no other profession do so many outsiders refuse to accept the realities of an imperfect world. Crime happens. Fire happens. Illness happens. As for lawyers and coaches, where there’s a winner there must also be a loser. People accept all these realities, until they apply to public education.

If a poverty-stricken, drug-addled meth-cooker burns down his house, suffers third degree burns, and then goes to jail; we don’t blame the police, fire department, doctors, and defense attorneys for his predicament. But if that kid doesn’t graduate high school, it’s clearly the teacher’s fault.

And if someone – anyone - tries to tell you otherwise; don’t listen. He must be a teacher.
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/05/14 12:17 PM


Fueled by the twisted Waiting for "Superman" narrative -- well torched David Reber. Let it burn!
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/05/14 05:56 PM

Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/05/14 06:03 PM



Yyyyuuup!
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/06/14 07:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Teonan

Fueled by the twisted Waiting for "Superman" narrative -- well torched David Reber. Let it burn!


Yes. WFS was nothing more than political nonsense aimed at taking down public ed.
Posted by: sands

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/06/14 07:15 PM

Boston Teachers Union reaches a new low by filing a grievance to save the jobs of incompetent instructors

BOSTON – Teacher union officials throughout the nation keep insisting that they are not opposed to teacher accountability, and they agree that some teachers are in over their heads and should move on to other professions.

But when push comes to shove, their actions are not matching their words. In Boston, a new teacher evaluation system has identified a small group of 30 teachers who have been deemed to be beyond repair, and they did not return to work this year.

But union leaders have filed a grievance to halt the removal of “unsatisfactory” teachers from the classroom.

The situation couldn’t be more sickeningly ironic. On the one hand, the union trumpets on its website that, “Having a great teacher has a tremendous impact on how much a child learns in any given year.” But then it sounds a discordant note by demanding that the dregs of the Boston teaching community – the lowly 1.2 percent who were judged to be unsatisfactory – be put back in front of the students who suffer from their incompetence.

http://eagnews.org/boston-teachers-union...nt-instructors/
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/06/14 08:15 PM

Originally Posted By: sands
eagnews.org

LOL. No WONDER you're a fanboy:

"It has been said that politics is downstream from culture and education was one sector leftists sought to control. Who controls how and what children learn wields a tremendous amount of power and is directly impacting the future of America. We have seen case after case of activists bringing their personal political agenda into the classroom to indoctrinate students into a leftist mindset...America was founded on beliefs of free markets, hard work and innovation, not a collectivist mindset promoted by union activists."

- from EAG Our Perspective



What you should know about Kyle Olson and the Education Action Group Foundation (EAG):

They parade as a school reform group in order to play the press with its anti-union – and increasingly, anti-public school – message.

The Education Action Group Foundation is not a new group: it is the latest iteration of several previous Michigan-based groups that led voucher campaigns — roundly rejected by Michigan voters — to divert tax dollars from public schools to private and religious schools.

They claim to be nonpartisan, but their founders are Michigan Republican Party operatives. EAG’s claim to be nonpartisan is patently untrue.

They continually advocate for transparency, but refuse to divulge who funds their operations.


More about this hot mess:
http://eagtruth.wordpress.com/



Posted by: sands

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/06/14 08:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Teonan
Originally Posted By: sands
eagnews.org

LOL. No WONDER you're a fanboy:

Logical Fallacies

Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments.
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/06/14 09:50 PM


Ha! Get real Sands, your clodhopping agorist end run ain't disguising that foul stench of fanboy.





Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/06/14 11:16 PM

Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Teonan
Originally Posted By: sands
eagnews.org

LOL. No WONDER you're a fanboy:

Logical Fallacies

Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments.

So, by your logic it would be both a genetic fallacy AND an ad hominem statement to say that Nazis were scum. crazy
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/07/14 09:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus


in 1969 how large was the 'teachers' union membership?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/07/14 11:39 AM

I have no idea, but what on earth does that have to do with anything?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/07/14 01:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
I have no idea, but what on earth does that have to do with anything?

Bluebimbo doesn't know either. It's just that since she doesn't have any answers of her own. She seems to think that asking pointless or leading questions is somehow a substitute for reasoned debate. A common tool used by manipulators, liars and cowards.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/08/14 08:11 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus


in 1969 how large was the 'teachers' union membership?


93%. It has since dropped and now look what happened. Parents attack the educators for their child's lack of effort and interest in public ed. It's horrendous and points to the need to for union membership!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/08/14 08:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: Josephus
I have no idea, but what on earth does that have to do with anything?

Bluebimbo doesn't know either. It's just that since she doesn't have any answers of her own.


if 'teachers' are just daycare workers then pay them $8/hr with no benefits
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/08/14 08:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
A common tool used by manipulators, liars and cowards.


when students fail to perform it seems odd that the 'teachers' blame everything under the sun but when it is time for a 'teacher' to get a pay raise/benefit increase/fewer hours... suddenly it is the 'teacher' that is the sole influence


remember it is all about the students 'teachers'


Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/08/14 12:26 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
A common tool used by manipulators, liars and cowards.


when students fail to perform it seems odd that the 'teachers' blame everything under the sun but when it is time for a 'teacher' to get a pay raise/benefit increase/fewer hours... suddenly it is the 'teacher' that is the sole influence


remember it is all about the students 'teachers'





well taking credit for only the good things seems to run rampant with those public sector unions.....
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/21/14 08:41 PM

their benefits package is their main priority

the students are their least
Posted by: howbouthat

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/21/14 08:46 PM

bluezonedout
"if 'teachers' are just daycare workers then pay them $8/hr with no benefits"

That's a great idea. Let's see 8x20 kids = 160.00/ hour
That's the first intelligent idea you have had since ..... no that's the first one you've had.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/21/14 08:51 PM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
bluezonedout
"if 'teachers' are just daycare workers then pay them $8/hr with no benefits"

That's a great idea. Let's see 8 = 8.00/ hour
That's the first intelligent idea you have had since ..... no that's the first one you've had.


it is only $8 per hour
Posted by: howbouthat

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/21/14 09:13 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
bluezonedout
"if 'teachers' are just daycare workers then pay them $8/hr with no benefits"

That's a great idea. Let's see 8 = 8.00/ hour
That's the first intelligent idea you have had since ..... no that's the first one you've had.


it is only $8 per hour


Guess we're back to zero on the good idea tally crazy
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/21/14 09:30 PM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
bluezonedout
"if 'teachers' are just daycare workers then pay them $8/hr with no benefits"


Guess we're back to zero on the good idea tally crazy


is your own post getting you confused?

$8 per hour is $8 per hour not $160

you must have had a wonderful 'teach'er for math...

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/22/14 07:57 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
bluezonedout
"if 'teachers' are just daycare workers then pay them $8/hr with no benefits"

That's a great idea. Let's see 8x20 kids = 160.00/ hour


see the title of the thread

Quote:
ARROGANT TEACHERS


would you say you have proven the title of the thread to be accurate?


Posted by: howbouthat

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/22/14 06:18 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
bluezonedout
"if 'teachers' are just daycare workers then pay them $8/hr with no benefits"

That's a great idea. Let's see 8x20 kids = 160.00/ hour


see the title of the thread

Quote:
ARROGANT TEACHERS


would you say you have proven the title of the thread to be accurate?




No, what I would say is when I used day care for my kids I paid per child. The average class size in a classroom ranges from 18-20 children. Using YOUR number of $8 and multiplying that by the number of kids in a teacher's care and voila! 8x20=160.00. No problem with my math and I didn't even have to take off my shoes to total it up wink
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/22/14 08:59 PM


Ha!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/23/14 04:39 PM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
No, what I would say is when I used day care for my kids I paid per child. The average class size in a classroom ranges from 18-20 children. Using YOUR number of $8 and multiplying that by the number of kids in a teacher's care and voila! 8x20=160.00. No problem with my math and I didn't even have to take off my shoes to total it up wink


and how much per hour did a child care worker receive?

there are also some other factors that you failed to include that I will explain later
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/23/14 04:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo

Ha!


is your memory failing?

this was brought up by another 'teach'er and the serious flaws in that logic were exposed
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/24/14 08:54 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
No, what I would say is when I used day care for my kids I paid per child. The average class size in a classroom ranges from 18-20 children. Using YOUR number of $8 and multiplying that by the number of kids in a teacher's care and voila! 8x20=160.00. No problem with my math and I didn't even have to take off my shoes to total it up wink


and how much per hour did a child care worker receive?

$8/hour or $160/hour?

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/27/14 07:51 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
No, what I would say is when I used day care for my kids I paid per child. The average class size in a classroom ranges from 18-20 children. Using YOUR number of $8 and multiplying that by the number of kids in a teacher's care and voila! 8x20=160.00. No problem with my math and I didn't even have to take off my shoes to total it up wink


and how much per hour did a child care worker receive?

$8/hour or $160/hour?
Posted by: kyle585

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/28/14 04:05 PM

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/...study-says?lite

By Alessandra Malito, NBC News

The gap in reading proficiency between lower- and higher-income fourth graders has grown by 20 percent in the past decade, says a new report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Eighty percent of lower-income fourth-graders do not read at their grade level compared to 49 percent of their wealthier counterparts, according to the report, "Early Reading Proficiency in the United States," which was released on Tuesday and is based on data from the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Overall, although improvements have been made in the last 10 years, 66 percent of all fourth graders are not proficient in reading, a level the researchers called “unacceptably low in an economic environment that requires increasing levels of education and skills for family-sustaining jobs.”

By 2020, the United States is expected to face a shortage of 1.5 million workers with college degrees and a surplus of 6 million unemployed people without a high school diploma, the report says.

"The research is pretty clear – grade level reading by the end of third grade is a pretty good predictor of which children will have the most success in middle school and high school, and which children will end up graduating from high school,” said Ralph Smith, senior vice president of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. “Kids who read on grade level by the end of third grade can graduate from high school at higher rates and this includes low-income children.”

That can make all the difference for a child’s future prospects, Smith said. “In the world we live in today, high school graduation is the portal to college and careers and post-secondary credentials needed to succeed in a global economy, to succeed in military service, to succeed in college and in many respects to succeed in life.”

According to the Casey Foundation report, by the time children are 8-years-old, especially those living in low-income families, many have not met the developmental “milestones” they need for future success. To reach these milestones, children need to be physically healthy, socially and emotionally on track and exposed to language as often as possible, research shows.

“There’s what we call an inconvenient truth: That there is a significant number of kids who will find it difficult to succeed even in good schools with effective teachers,” Smith said. “Those are the kids who start out so far behind that it is difficult if not impossible for them to catch up by third grade.”

The key to preventing kids from falling behind later on, he said, is to make sure that fewer start kindergarten with undetected and untreated social-emotional challenges, developmental delays, hearing and vision impairment and other correctable health issues.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/29/14 06:05 AM

Originally Posted By: kyle585
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/...study-says?lite

By Alessandra Malito, NBC News

The gap in reading proficiency between lower- and higher-income fourth graders has grown by 20 percent in the past decade, says a new report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Eighty percent of lower-income fourth-graders do not read at their grade level compared to 49 percent of their wealthier counterparts, according to the report, "Early Reading Proficiency in the United States," which was released on Tuesday and is based on data from the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Overall, although improvements have been made in the last 10 years, 66 percent of all fourth graders are not proficient in reading, a level the researchers called “unacceptably low in an economic environment that requires increasing levels of education and skills for family-sustaining jobs.”

By 2020, the United States is expected to face a shortage of 1.5 million workers with college degrees and a surplus of 6 million unemployed people without a high school diploma, the report says.

"The research is pretty clear – grade level reading by the end of third grade is a pretty good predictor of which children will have the most success in middle school and high school, and which children will end up graduating from high school,” said Ralph Smith, senior vice president of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. “Kids who read on grade level by the end of third grade can graduate from high school at higher rates and this includes low-income children.”

That can make all the difference for a child’s future prospects, Smith said. “In the world we live in today, high school graduation is the portal to college and careers and post-secondary credentials needed to succeed in a global economy, to succeed in military service, to succeed in college and in many respects to succeed in life.”

According to the Casey Foundation report, by the time children are 8-years-old, especially those living in low-income families, many have not met the developmental “milestones” they need for future success. To reach these milestones, children need to be physically healthy, socially and emotionally on track and exposed to language as often as possible, research shows.

“There’s what we call an inconvenient truth: That there is a significant number of kids who will find it difficult to succeed even in good schools with effective teachers,” Smith said. “Those are the kids who start out so far behind that it is difficult if not impossible for them to catch up by third grade.”

The key to preventing kids from falling behind later on, he said, is to make sure that fewer start kindergarten with undetected and untreated social-emotional challenges, developmental delays, hearing and vision impairment and other correctable health issues.



with the money that is spent per child in this country Kyle, none of this should be an issue!
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/29/14 11:44 AM


Quote:
with the money that is spent per child in this country Kyle, none of this should be an issue!

So, exactly where on the kids head is the slot where the money goes?

Or, do you believe the image below is how kids learn...


Posted by: kyle585

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/29/14 11:48 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
with the money that is spent per child in this country Kyle, none of this should be an issue!
So why is it? This article says the difference is between higher income and lower income students. Which is the huge income inequality gap that President Obama is talking about. The middle and lower class are hurting as the upper income group keeps making more and more.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/29/14 12:37 PM

Originally Posted By: kyle585
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
with the money that is spent per child in this country Kyle, none of this should be an issue!
So why is it? This article says the difference is between higher income and lower income students. Which is the huge income inequality gap that President Obama is talking about. The middle and lower class are hurting as the upper income group keeps making more and more.



"So why is it?"

really Kyle.....you have to ask why in some parts of our country the public school education is pathetic.....and why those who can afford it send their children to private institutions?

as far as the inequality....a public school education is open to everyone I thought, regardless of income levels......your own question suggests that you have reservations about the public sector.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/29/14 01:47 PM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
with the money that is spent per child in this country Kyle, none of this should be an issue!

With the money that is spent per child in this country, Sporty, It's a miracle that our kids can even spell their own names.

Read and Learn:


Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/29/14 01:49 PM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
"So why is it?"

See above*
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/30/14 05:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
with the money that is spent per child in this country Kyle, none of this should be an issue!

With the money that is spent per child in this country, Sporty, It's a miracle that our kids can even spell their own names.

Read and Learn:





your right Timmy......if today's teachers were more focused on educating rather than worrying about Salaries, Pensions Benefits and their liberal agendas, todays kids would be better prepared to enter society.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/30/14 05:38 AM

more crap from our public sector teachers....this time California.......


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/30/cal...reedom-fighter/
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/30/14 06:53 AM

He was encouraging us to be activists... the whole last part of the course was about how to cause ‘positive change’... but his examples of positive change were all stuff like Occupy Wall Street, the Arab Spring, and raising the minimum wage,” Bandler said. “He would say things like, 'I know you guys can go out there and make things more sustainable.'"

Right ON Professor Evans.
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/30/14 07:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Fritz
Wait and see our Conservative Spring!


YOK homie. crazy

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/30/14 07:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
With the money that is spent per child in this country, Sporty, It's a miracle that our kids can even spell their own names.



so tell us how much sudan spends per student?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/30/14 07:44 AM

How does a biker protest affect teacher's unions and salary Harley?...you are one of the examples as to why kids should stay in school and hopefully get an education....it will be useful in the future.


http://www.broadeducation.org/about/bureaucracy.html
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/30/14 08:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Fritz
Originally Posted By: Formermac
How does a biker protest affect teacher's unions and salary Harley?...you are one of the examples as to why kids should stay in school and hopefully get an education....it will be useful in the future.


http://www.broadeducation.org/about/bureaucracy.html


Try and keep up, dummy!


Funny, they told me that's what the elementary, middle and high school teachers always screamed at you about and you've been off topic since....Those Arrogant Teachers, who do they think they are?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/30/14 08:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Fritz
Originally Posted By: Teonan
Originally Posted By: Fritz
Wait and see our Conservative Spring!
YOK homie. crazy
1.3 million bikers was a warm up!

Considering the age of the average participant in that event, it's usually a good idea to "warm up" before you "spring" out of anything. wink
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/30/14 12:18 PM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
more crap from our public sector teachers....this time California.......


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/30/cal...reedom-fighter/


You want to villify public school teachers for what a college professor in California presents to students, because you have a different opinion?

I am not sure what is more absurd: you want to deny someones freedom of speeech, or you think that it is news that the majority of college professors are liberals (he is from California).

In regards to teaching you must have missed the following quote from the article:
Bandler wrote of his experience in Evans class for the conservative blog The College Fix. He later told FoxNews.com the professor was also a nice guy who made him think.


I will see your college professor and raise you scores of public school teachers.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/01/nyregion/curriculum-or-not-teachers-teach-values.html


The following is what is being mandated for public schools by the common core:

http://asiasociety.org/education/policy-...-core-standards

Since it is apparent you only read headlines and not the full article here is a summary.

They come to understand other perspectives and cultures.
Students appreciate that the twenty-first-century classroom and workplace are settings in which people from often widely divergent cultures and who represent diverse experiences and perspectives must learn and work together. Students actively seek to understand other perspectives and cultures through reading and listening, and they are able to communicate effectively with people of varied backgrounds. They evaluate other points of view critically and constructively. Through reading great classic and contemporary works of literature representative of a variety of periods, cultures, and worldviews, students can vicariously inhabit worlds and have experiences much different than their own.
Posted by: Spanky

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/30/14 01:30 PM

But,But, the former post stated that most of students can't read,or at least at a level high enough to get any where in the world.
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/30/14 05:25 PM

Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/31/14 07:52 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats


Old Blooballz will tell us that the teachers will be requesting OT pay for that overnighter! Dern selfish teachers!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/31/14 08:35 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
No, what I would say is when I used day care for my kids I paid per child. The average class size in a classroom ranges from 18-20 children. Using YOUR number of $8 and multiplying that by the number of kids in a teacher's care and voila! 8x20=160.00. No problem with my math and I didn't even have to take off my shoes to total it up wink


and how much per hour did a child care worker receive?

$8/hour or $160/hour?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/31/14 08:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
the teachers will be requesting OT pay for that overnighter! Dern selfish teachers!


do 'salaried' employees get OT?

child care workers get $8/hr
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 01/31/14 03:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: twocats


Old Blooballz will tell us that the teachers will be requesting OT pay for that overnighter! Dern selfish teachers!


Who do they think they are? Police or corrections officers?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/04/14 08:30 PM

Originally Posted By: twocats
Originally Posted By: twocats

Who do they think they are? Police or corrections officers?


you posted this rather early for your 'work' day
you must have taken friday off...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/04/14 08:32 PM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
No, what I would say is when I used day care for my kids I paid per child. The average class size in a classroom ranges from 18-20 children. Using YOUR number of $8 and multiplying that by the number of kids in a teacher's care and voila! 8x20=160.00. No problem with my math and I didn't even have to take off my shoes to total it up wink


and how much per hour did a child care worker receive?

$8/hour or $160/hour?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/05/14 07:45 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats


15 / 3,000,000 = 0.000005

what are the odds you WERE one?

Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/05/14 12:50 PM

Dern teachers! All they do is ask fer money and bennies. Time to cut 'em all free! Homeskool is the place 2 be for them there kidz!
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/06/14 06:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
more crap from our public sector teachers....this time California.......


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/30/cal...reedom-fighter/


You want to villify public school teachers for what a college professor in California presents to students, because you have a different opinion?

I am not sure what is more absurd: you want to deny someones freedom of speeech, or you think that it is news that the majority of college professors are liberals (he is from California).

In regards to teaching you must have missed the following quote from the article:
Bandler wrote of his experience in Evans class for the conservative blog The College Fix. He later told FoxNews.com the professor was also a nice guy who made him think.


I will see your college professor and raise you scores of public school teachers.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/01/nyregion/curriculum-or-not-teachers-teach-values.html


The following is what is being mandated for public schools by the common core:

http://asiasociety.org/education/policy-...-core-standards

Since it is apparent you only read headlines and not the full article here is a summary.

They come to understand other perspectives and cultures.
Students appreciate that the twenty-first-century classroom and workplace are settings in which people from often widely divergent cultures and who represent diverse experiences and perspectives must learn and work together. Students actively seek to understand other perspectives and cultures through reading and listening, and they are able to communicate effectively with people of varied backgrounds. They evaluate other points of view critically and constructively. Through reading great classic and contemporary works of literature representative of a variety of periods, cultures, and worldviews, students can vicariously inhabit worlds and have experiences much different than their own.



if the public school system is so good then explain why America trails most industialized nations while spending nearly $13,000 on average nationally......


http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/06/14 06:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind

You want to villify public school teachers


explain geneva 2020 for us?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/06/14 08:47 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
if the public school system is so good then explain why America trails most industialized nations while spending nearly $13,000 on average nationally......

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

Not familiar with the term "expenditures"?

How much should it cost?
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/06/14 05:51 PM

Quote:
if the public school system is so good then explain why America trails most industrialized nations while spending nearly $13,000 on average nationally......


http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66 [/quote]

I dunno, can you explain the correlation between the cost of education and why America trails most industrialized nations...BTW trailing in what? I do not see in your article anything about America trailing anything...Are you making this correlation up? Compared to other countries I am sure we could find numerous expenditures that we pay more for.

Your assertion is random, specious and makes no sense.

How about if we compare the cost of education and why the US has the highest number of millionaires compared to any country? Maybe the money we pay for education is money well spent?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101099732

Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/06/14 05:56 PM

Quote:
if the public school system is so good then explain why America trails most industialized nations while spending nearly $13,000 on average nationally......
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

This article talks about the US lagging behind other countries in education. Is this what you are referring to?

http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/16/why-its...ther-countries/

BTW how much to we pay per inmate in our prison system?
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/07/14 05:14 AM

"BTW how much to we pay per inmate in our prison system?"


not sure.....but the thread is not about the prison system....
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/07/14 09:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
if the public school system is so good then explain why America trails most industialized nations while spending nearly $13,000 on average nationally......

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

Not familiar with the term "expenditures"?

How much should it cost?


most of the cost is for 'teachers' pay/benefits
have the 'teachers' buy into obamacare and convert to a 401k/myra
use the savings on the students

Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/07/14 09:31 AM


I repeat... How much SHOULD it cost?

*be sure to include analysis breakdown.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/07/14 09:53 AM

Quote:
not sure.....but the thread is not about the prison system....


Quote:
Compared to other countries I am sure we could find numerous expenditures that we pay more for…

…is merely an example.

Yours and others proclivity to use random facts in isolation, as you did, just fuels your anger about paying (school) taxes. This tread was started as a vehicle to bash teachers by those who do not want to even attempt to understand anything about how our education system really works.

For all of you teacher bashers, this one from 2013 will really get your goat, as it does not fit into your perceived reality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answ...lly-new-report/
Among my favorite excerpts:

The United States was one of the few countries that cut spending on public education during the financial crisis.

Teachers salaries increased far less in the United States than in most other countries from 2000-2011, and these salaries are not competitive with those of similarly educated workers.

Teachers in the United States spend more time in front of the class than their peers in other countries.

...a larger-than-average proportion of the United States’ spending on education comes from private sources. Some 69% of expenditures on all levels of education combined come from public sources; 31% come from private sources. By comparison, across all OECD countries, 84% of education expenditures are from public sources, and 16% of expenditures are from private sources.

In 2011, some 42% of American adults aged 25 to 64 had a higher education degree. Only Canada (51%), Israel (46%), Japan (45%) and the Russian Federation (54%) had higher attainment levels among this age group. But 43% of 25-34 year-old Americans had attained a college education, which was above the OECD average...

To sum it all up.... If you think education is expensive try ignorance.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/07/14 10:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
To sum it all up.... If you think education is expensive try ignorance.

They seem to have no problem affording THAT.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/07/14 10:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Teachers salaries increased far less in the United States than in most other countries from 2000-2011, and these salaries are not competitive with those of similarly educated workers.


and what other educated workers are you comparing?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/07/14 01:25 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Teachers salaries increased far less in the United States than in most other countries from 2000-2011, and these salaries are not competitive with those of similarly educated workers.


and what other educated workers are you comparing?


You really have a poor working knowledge of the US PE system.
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/09/14 09:59 PM

The international tests began in the mid-sixties and the most important test, PISA began more recently. Since the 1960s, the U.S. has led the world in every significant prosperity indicator including patents, research and development funding, business formation, growth in productivity (Baker, 2007). During this time, the number of years that U.S. students topped the international test scores? None. (Ravitch, 2013)
High test scores are negatively correlated with national indicators of innovation and entrepreneurship (Baker, 2007). China and Singapore know this and are worried (Zhao, 2012).
Twenty-five years ago, mediocre scores triggered biased groups to warn “that America’s inadequate education system and workforce skills imperiled our competitiveness and future. Their warnings were followed by a substantial acceleration of American productivity growth in the mid-1990s, and by an American economy whose growth rate surpassed the growth rates of countries that were alleged to have better prepared and more highly skilled workers”(Strauss, 2013).


Reuters/Vincent Kessler

Myth 2: International tests prove American students don’t perform as well as other industrialized nations’ students.

Fact: The tests don’t compare “apples to apples” for many reasons.

For instance, the scores from China come only from Shanghai which is the richest and most educationally elite city in China, which forbids migrant children and represents a mere 2 percent of the students in China. (Nisan, 2013).
U.S. scores, by contrast, are a much more representative sampling of our complex demographics. In fact, students from affluent suburban school districts in the U.S. are very competitive with other students. The student groups who don’t perform well tend to come from dysfunctional families and communities of which the U.S. samples contain more than most other OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) nations (Strauss, 2013; Carnoy & Rothstein, 2013).
The score spread between all countries is fairly narrow. Between the highest performing state in the U.S. and the highest performing nation in the world (Taiwan) in 2009 is only about a 10% difference in raw scores (Schneider, 2009). Even the spread between Taiwan and the lowest performing “state” (Washington D.C) is only about a 30%. So, that would mean Taiwan scores an “A”, Massachusetts an “A- or B+” and Washington D.C. earns a C-.
The validity and reliability of the test itself is under serious question (Carnoy & Rothstein, 2013). Translations may not be good, scoring has not been validated and many student groups are not tested (Schneider, 2009). Many countries “cheat” on the test by using non-representative sampling and by “teaching to the test” to increase student scores (Stephen, 2013).
Myth 3: We should seek to emulate China and Singpore’s rigid educational system because they score well on standardized tests.



Fact: China and Singapore are very low on indices of innovation and creativity.

High test scores are inversely related to high levels of creativity and innovation. Merely 473 innovations from China were recognized by the world’s leading patent offices outside China in 2008 versus 14,399 from the United States. (Zhao, 2012).
Other indicators of happiness/prosperity/creativity are also inversely related to high test scores (Baker, 2007).

http://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/20...by-joan-landes/
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/10/14 08:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Teachers salaries increased far less in the United States than in most other countries from 2000-2011, and these salaries are not competitive with those of similarly educated workers.


and what other educated workers are you comparing?


You really have a poor working knowledge of the US PE system.


name one other educated worker that you are comparing to 'teachers'?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/10/14 09:02 AM


To what end?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/10/14 09:21 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Teachers salaries increased far less in the United States than in most other countries from 2000-2011, and these salaries are not competitive with those of similarly educated workers.


and what other educated workers are you comparing?


You really have a poor working knowledge of the US PE system.


name one other educated worker that you are comparing to 'teachers'?



You so cray-cray!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/10/14 09:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Teachers salaries increased far less in the United States than in most other countries from 2000-2011, and these salaries are not competitive with those of similarly educated workers.


and what other educated workers are you comparing?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/11/14 11:11 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Teachers salaries increased far less in the United States than in most other countries from 2000-2011, and these salaries are not competitive with those of similarly educated workers.


and what other educated workers are you comparing?


You are just too cute for your own breeches, young lady!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/12/14 07:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Teachers salaries increased far less in the United States than in most other countries from 2000-2011, and these salaries are not competitive with those of similarly educated workers.


and what other educated workers are you comparing?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/12/14 10:38 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Teachers salaries increased far less in the United States than in most other countries from 2000-2011, and these salaries are not competitive with those of similarly educated workers.


and what other educated workers are you comparing?


Are not you the pick of the pack these day, my dearest! We all love and adore you!
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/12/14 11:23 AM

Quote:
We all love and adore you!


Whom do you presume to speak for? Who's in your posse?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/13/14 08:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Teachers salaries increased far less in the United States than in most other countries from 2000-2011, and these salaries are not competitive with those of similarly educated workers.


and what other educated workers are you comparing?


You are just too cute for your own breeches, young lady!


so what other position gets the summer off, 'works' 3 hours a day, gets the weekends off, gets snow days off , gets an entire week off almost every month during the school year, is not accountable for their performance, gets full healthcare/pension...
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/13/14 09:38 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Teachers salaries increased far less in the United States than in most other countries from 2000-2011, and these salaries are not competitive with those of similarly educated workers.


and what other educated workers are you comparing?


You are just too cute for your own breeches, young lady!


so what other position gets the summer off, 'works' 3 hours a day, gets the weekends off, gets snow days off , gets an entire week off almost every month during the school year, is not accountable for their performance, gets full healthcare/pension...




This sounds like a rundown of your disability benefits!
Posted by: Geedog

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/13/14 10:07 AM

"For instance, it can cost $250,000 to $450,000 — and years of legal effort — to remove a grossly incompetent K–12 public-school teacher from the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Once removed, the teacher can still be reinstated by a separate governing board."

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/children-sue-in-order-to-learn/
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/13/14 10:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Geedog
"For instance, it can cost $250,000 to $450,000 — and years of legal effort — to remove a grossly incompetent K–12 public-school teacher from the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Once removed, the teacher can still be reinstated by a separate governing board."

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/children-sue-in-order-to-learn/

We'll, at least their honest about it. whistle

The Future of Freedom Foundation Mission:
The Future of Freedom Foundation was founded in 1989 by FFF president Jacob Hornberger with the aim of establishing an educational foundation that would advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism in the context of both foreign and domestic policy.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/14/14 08:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Geedog
"For instance, it can cost $250,000 to $450,000 — and years of legal effort — to remove a grossly incompetent K–12 public-school teacher from the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Once removed, the teacher can still be reinstated by a separate governing board."

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/children-sue-in-order-to-learn/


must be why the NYS 'teachers' fight so hard not to be evaluated
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/14/14 08:54 AM

Quote:
We'll, at least their honest about it. whistle

The Future of Freedom Foundation Mission:
The Future of Freedom Foundation was founded in 1989 by FFF president Jacob Hornberger with the aim of establishing an educational foundation that would advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism in the context of both foreign and domestic policy.


Of course...when people are doing intelligent, honorable things, there's no need to be lie about it, as Obama has necessarily had to do about his signature program, in order to sucker the public into initially accepting it.

LOL...and now the executive is attempting the desperate gambit of unconstitutionally ruling by decree, instead of fulfilling his constitutionally specified oath to "faithfully execute" the legislation which the legislature has passed.

Only people who care not at all about America could support this king. Sadly, there seems to be no shortage of that type of person.


February 11, 2014
Looking for a Democrat who screams: Enough changes to Obamacare without congressional consent
Silvio Canto, Jr.


During the Obama Care debate in late 2009, we called for a Senate Democrat to stand up and say "stop." From Pryor in Arkansas to Kagan in North Carolina to Landreaux in Louisiana, they all went along with it.
Or maybe they thought that the Supreme Court would throw it out or do the job that they didn't have the courage to do.
We ask again: Is there a Democrat willing to tell President Obama that he does not have the authority to change a law that Congress passed?
President Obama has changed Obama Care again as reported by the Wall Street Journal:
"Under the new Treasury rule, firms with 50 to 99 full-time workers are free from the mandate until 2016. And firms with 100 or more workers now also only need cover 70% of full-time workers in 2015 and 95% in 2016 and after, not the 100% specified in the law.
The new rule also relaxes the mandate for certain occupations and industries that were at particular risk for disruption, like volunteer firefighters, teachers, adjunct faculty members and seasonal employees. Oh, and the Treasury also notes that, "As these limited transition rules take effect, we will consider whether it is necessary to further extend any of them beyond 2015." So the law may be suspended indefinitely if the White House feels like it.
By now ObamaCare's proliferating delays, exemptions and administrative retrofits are too numerous to count, most of them of dubious legality. The text of the Affordable Care Actspecifically says when the mandate must take effect-"after December 31, 2013"-and does not give the White House the authority to change the terms.
Changing an unambiguous statutory mandate requires the approval of Congress, but then this President has often decided the law is whatever he says it is. His Administration's cavalier notions about law enforcement are especially notable here for their bias for corporations over people. The White House has refused to suspend the individual insurance mandate, despite the harm caused to millions who are losing their previous coverage. Liberals say the law isn't harming jobs or economic growth, but everything this White House does screams the opposite."
We remember back in 1998 when Senator Lieberman went to the floor of the US Senate and criticized President Clinton's behavior. It earned Senator Lieberman a lot of respect all over the country.
Where is a Democrat US Senator who will go to the floor and say: "You can't change the law without coming to us! Read the constitution."
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/17/14 08:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: Geedog
"For instance, it can cost $250,000 to $450,000 — and years of legal effort — to remove a grossly incompetent K–12 public-school teacher from the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Once removed, the teacher can still be reinstated by a separate governing board."


We'll, at least their honest about it. whistle


are you saying it is acceptable to keep a 'grossly incompetent' 'teacher' in that position?

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/17/14 02:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Teachers salaries increased far less in the United States than in most other countries from 2000-2011, and these salaries are not competitive with those of similarly educated workers.


do the 'teachers' not get a paid week off this week?

wonder if those other educated salaried workers get a paid week off?
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/17/14 03:02 PM

Quote:
Time to cut 'em all free!


Correct..it is high time.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/17/14 03:43 PM

Quote:
Maybe the money we pay for education is money well spent?


The money wasted on government schools could be better spent, and the children better educated.

Some of the teachers who complain that jobs in the private sector which require similar education pay more would then have the opportunity to hop aboard that "gravy train".

Some of them wouldn't like working more than their present 6 months, and some would discover that their much-trumpeted education doesn't actually qualify them to do some of those other jobs.Teaching doesn't attract the smartest hs students, on average, and education cirriculums often aren't as rigorous as are some others.

Teaching is arguably the most important job, and it's a shame that the present system is such a disaster. Some government school teachers are eminently qualified, and underpaid, and some are qualified, and paid appropriately. Those two categories are the ones that don't need a union, and would be better off without one. The tax cattle would also be better served if those unions weren't harming them.

Education is too important to be left to government, but even government schools could be much better. Unbattening the unions from them would be an excellent start.

The subpar teachers might then finds jobs that they might do well. Walmart seems always to be hiring, fi. wink

"The president’s Aug. 16, 1937 correspondence with Luther C. Steward, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, is bluntly worded -- to say the least.

Roosevelt was responding to an invitation to attend the organization’s 20th jubilee convention.

In the letter, FDR says groups such as NFFE naturally organize to present their views to supervisors. Government workers, he observed, want fair pay, safe working conditions and review of grievances just like private-industry workers.

Organizations of government employees "have a logical place in Government affairs," he wrote.

But Roosevelt then shifted gears, emphasizing that "meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government."

Then, the most-famous line and the one directly on point to Walker’s comment:

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management."

Roosevelt didn’t stop there.

"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations," he wrote.

When Walker claimed FDR said "the government is the people," he had Roosevelt’s next line in mind.

"The employer," Roosevelt’s letter added, "is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. [Or in this case, school boards] Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.""

Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/19/14 01:02 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Teachers salaries increased far less in the United States than in most other countries from 2000-2011, and these salaries are not competitive with those of similarly educated workers.


do the 'teachers' not get a paid week off this week?

wonder if those other educated salaried workers get a paid week off?

Are you seriously saying that no one but teachers gets a paid vacation?
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/19/14 04:07 PM

I believe the quote says "this week" , I don't think too many people have it off.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/19/14 05:33 PM

Originally Posted By: tubby
I believe the quote says "this week" , I don't think too many people have it off.

No kidding! crazy It could have something to do with teachers having this week as a vacation week because their students are off this week. Have you never worked in a place where you were required to take your vacation during certain times? I did once... it was called "Shop Shutdown." Teachers take certain weeks off, while most can take their vacations whenever their bosses can fit them in.

This isn't rocket science, you know...
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/19/14 05:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Fritz
Go to Washington DC, the Fed is off 25% of the time.

As opposed to you who is always off... in more ways than one.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/19/14 06:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Fritz
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: Fritz
Go to Washington DC, the Fed is off 25% of the time.

As opposed to you who is always off... in more ways than one.



Jealous!

Not in the slightest...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/20/14 06:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Are you seriously saying that no one but teachers gets a paid vacation?


tell us how many paid weeks the 'teachers' get off?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/20/14 06:30 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats
International tests prove American students don’t perform as well as other industrialized nations’ students.


Originally Posted By: twocats
Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize.


so tell us what you CAN do?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/20/14 08:43 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Are you seriously saying that no one but teachers gets a paid vacation?


tell us how many paid weeks the 'teachers' get off?

I'm not a teacher, but my guess would be three. Christmas break, February break, and Spring break.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/20/14 08:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Fritz
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: Fritz
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: Fritz
Go to Washington DC, the Fed is off 25% of the time.

As opposed to you who is always off... in more ways than one.



Jealous!

Not in the slightest...
Then why did you bring it up?

Because I never miss an opportunity to point out what a loser you are.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/21/14 08:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Are you seriously saying that no one but teachers gets a paid vacation?


tell us how many paid weeks the 'teachers' get off?

I'm not a teacher, but my guess would be three. Christmas break, February break, and Spring break.


are you sure you did not miss any?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/21/14 10:23 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Are you seriously saying that no one but teachers gets a paid vacation?


tell us how many paid weeks the 'teachers' get off?

I'm not a teacher, but my guess would be three. Christmas break, February break, and Spring break.


are you sure you did not miss any?

Get a dictionary and look up the word "guess."

Here's an idea. Why don't you enlighten us instead of asking useless questions all of the time when you clearly think you have the answer?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/21/14 10:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
tell us how many paid weeks the 'teachers' get off?
I'm not a teacher, but my guess would be three. Christmas break, February break, and Spring break.
are you sure you did not miss any?
Get a dictionary and look up the word "guess."

Here's an idea. Why don't you enlighten us instead of asking useless questions all of the time when you clearly think you have the answer?

Because she secretly knows that she doesn't.

Which is actually no secret. grin
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/22/14 07:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Are you seriously saying that no one but teachers gets a paid vacation?


tell us how many paid weeks the 'teachers' get off?

I'm not a teacher, but my guess would be three. Christmas break, February break, and Spring break.


are you sure you did not miss any?

Get a dictionary and look up the word "guess."

Here's an idea. Why don't you enlighten us instead of asking useless questions all of the time when you clearly think you have the answer?


did you miss the summer months?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/22/14 08:44 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone

are you sure you did not miss any?

Originally Posted By: Josephus

Get a dictionary and look up the word "guess."

Here's an idea. Why don't you enlighten us instead of asking useless questions all of the time when you clearly think you have the answer?

Originally Posted By: bluezone

did you miss the summer months?

No... I didn't include the summer months because teachers aren't employed in the summer. For those with short-term memories (aka. bluezone), it has already been discussed that teachers are paid for the months they teach. In this part of the country, that's early September to mid/late June.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/22/14 09:23 AM

Boy, are you a moron!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/22/14 02:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
No... I didn't include the summer months because teachers aren't employed in the summer. For those with short-term memories (aka. bluezone), it has already been discussed that teachers are paid for the months they teach. In this part of the country, that's early September to mid/late June.


full time pay, lifetime benefits and a guarenteed job for life and it is only a part time job with no performance evaluations

and what other educated salaried jobs did they compare the 'teachers' to?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/22/14 02:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Boy, are you a moron!


Originally Posted By: Geedog
"For instance, it can cost $250,000 to $450,000 — and years of legal effort — to remove a grossly incompetent K–12 public-school teacher from the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Once removed, the teacher can still be reinstated by a separate governing board."


those grossly incompetent 'teachers' are to blame...
whistle
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/22/14 05:49 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
No... I didn't include the summer months because teachers aren't employed in the summer. For those with short-term memories (aka. bluezone), it has already been discussed that teachers are paid for the months they teach. In this part of the country, that's early September to mid/late June.


full time pay, lifetime benefits and a guarenteed job for life and it is only a part time job with no performance evaluations

and what other educated salaried jobs did they compare the 'teachers' to?

It's a part time job in that it's not year round. Full time pay for the 10.5 months they work, and no pay for the 2.5 that they don't work. Or... 12 months pay at a reduced pay check. Benefits are probably based on what deal they have with the school district, and I highly doubt that there are no performance evaluations and I doubt that anything is guaranteed for life

What other facts can you make up, blowzone?
Posted by: young guns

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/23/14 12:36 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: bluezone
[quote=Fart in the Wind]Teachers salaries increased far less in the United States than in most other countries from 2000-2011, and these salaries are not competitive with those of similarly educated workers.


and what other educated workers are you comparing?




You are just too cute for your own breeches, young lady!


so what other position gets the summer off, 'works' 3 hours a day, gets the weekends off, gets snow days off , gets an entire week off almost every month during the school year, is not accountable for their performance, gets full healthcare/pension...

Let me give this a try!
A government worker? As one for the DOD or the Big One, DOE now you don't mess with these people.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/23/14 01:03 AM


Three hours a day... Riiight. crazy
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/23/14 12:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo

Three hours a day... Riiight. crazy


I have 2 friends who work construction. They will go back to work when the weather breaks. They've been off since November. Every job is different.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/23/14 06:26 PM

Here's an interesting article.

You think you know what teachers do. Right? Wrong.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/24/14 07:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus


My guess is that Blooballz would be a magnificent educator! She missed her calling, and missed out on such an easy lucrative career. Her bad!
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/24/14 08:02 AM


Can teachers lay around in their Muumuus and troll community forums all day?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/24/14 09:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo

Can teachers lay around in their Muumuus and troll community forums all day?

grin
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/25/14 08:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
No... I didn't include the summer months because teachers aren't employed in the summer. For those with short-term memories (aka. bluezone), it has already been discussed that teachers are paid for the months they teach. In this part of the country, that's early September to mid/late June.


full time pay, lifetime benefits and a guarenteed job for life and it is only a part time job with no performance evaluations

and what other educated salaried jobs did they compare the 'teachers' to?

It's a part time job in that it's not year round. Full time pay for the 10.5 months they work, and no pay for the 2.5 that they don't work. Or... 12 months pay at a reduced pay check. Benefits are probably based on what deal they have with the school district, and I highly doubt that there are no performance evaluations and I doubt that anything is guaranteed for life

What other facts can you make up, blowzone?


and what other part time educated salaried jobs did they compare the 'teachers' to?


Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/25/14 09:09 AM

Probably none because teaching is a unique position, both in the public and private sector. Again, it's a part time position in that it employs for 10.5 months rather than 12. When they work, it's full time.

Why don't you try providing answers instead of asking questions, Blowzone?
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/26/14 04:30 AM

"Again, it's a part time position in that it employs for 10.5 months rather than 12."


with full time Pensions, Benefits and salaries......
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/26/14 10:01 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
"Again, it's a part time position in that it employs for 10.5 months rather than 12."


with full time Pensions, Benefits and salaries......


You and ole Blooballz are just plain ridonkulous, and too cute for that matter!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/27/14 09:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Probably none because teaching is a unique position, both in the public and private sector. Again, it's a part time position in that it employs for 10.5 months rather than 12.


but if the 'teachers' get a full week every month of the 10.5 months except for two that they 'teach' then it is much less than a 10.5 month job

closer to 8 months
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/27/14 10:14 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Probably none because teaching is a unique position, both in the public and private sector. Again, it's a part time position in that it employs for 10.5 months rather than 12.


but if the 'teachers' get a full week every month of the 10.5 months except for two that they 'teach' then it is much less than a 10.5 month job

closer to 8 months


What about Congress, Military Sealift Command workers, Merchant Marines and some Judges? Are they also part time workers?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/27/14 10:16 AM

day care assistants
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/27/14 10:24 AM


US Congress- 239 days off in 2013.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/27/14 03:24 PM

why did you not become a 'teacher'?
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/27/14 04:10 PM



What about Congress, Military Sealift Command workers, Merchant Marines and some Judges? Are they also part time workers? [/quote] Yes all with full time benefits.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/27/14 05:53 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Probably none because teaching is a unique position, both in the public and private sector. Again, it's a part time position in that it employs for 10.5 months rather than 12.


but if the 'teachers' get a full week every month of the 10.5 months except for two that they 'teach' then it is much less than a 10.5 month job

closer to 8 months

So... using your logic, people who get two weeks of vacation every year aren't full time employees because they only work 11.5 months of the year? crazy

Please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that teachers work only 8 months of the year. If you figure teachers have from late June to late August off (2 months), and then 3 weeks of vacation during the year, that sounds more like 9.25 months of teaching to me.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/28/14 04:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Probably none because teaching is a unique position, both in the public and private sector. Again, it's a part time position in that it employs for 10.5 months rather than 12.


but if the 'teachers' get a full week every month of the 10.5 months except for two that they 'teach' then it is much less than a 10.5 month job

closer to 8 months

So... using your logic, people who get two weeks of vacation every year aren't full time employees because they only work 11.5 months of the year? crazy

Please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that teachers work only 8 months of the year. If you figure teachers have from late June to late August off (2 months), and then 3 weeks of vacation during the year, that sounds more like 9.25 months of teaching to me.



arent most districts only open around 180 days each year?.....and are you counting spring break and winter recess, vacation days, personal days and holidays....did I miss any?
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/28/14 05:40 AM

I know he's not a teacher anymore but still in the so called business of education....


http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/27/watch-...5-salary-video/
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/28/14 06:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Probably none because teaching is a unique position, both in the public and private sector. Again, it's a part time position in that it employs for 10.5 months rather than 12.


but if the 'teachers' get a full week off every month of the 10.5 months except for two that they 'teach' then it is much less than a 10.5 month job

closer to 8 months


Please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that teachers work only 8 months of the year. If you figure teachers have from late June to late August off (2 months), and then 3 weeks of vacation during the year, that sounds more like 9.25 months of teaching to me.


the last school calender showed the 'teachers' get a full week off for 8 of those months that they show up to 'teach'

8 additional weeks off equals 2 more months total not 'working'
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/28/14 07:30 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
I know he's not a teacher anymore but still in the so called business of education....
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/27/watch-...5-salary-video/

No, that would be privatized and charter schools and just about every other conservative and libertarian proposal for "improving" education.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/28/14 09:54 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
I know he's not a teacher anymore but still in the so called business of education....


http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/27/watch-...5-salary-video/


While I get it that you also hate public ed, you do bring up a major point. But be assured that education should not be treated the same as a business.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/28/14 09:55 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Probably none because teaching is a unique position, both in the public and private sector. Again, it's a part time position in that it employs for 10.5 months rather than 12.


but if the 'teachers' get a full week off every month of the 10.5 months except for two that they 'teach' then it is much less than a 10.5 month job

closer to 8 months


Please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that teachers work only 8 months of the year. If you figure teachers have from late June to late August off (2 months), and then 3 weeks of vacation during the year, that sounds more like 9.25 months of teaching to me.


the last school calender showed the 'teachers' get a full week off for 8 of those months that they show up to 'teach'

8 additional weeks off equals 2 more months total not 'working'


And SSI gets you 52 weeks of paid vacation my little (or en large) cupcake! {stroking motion}
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/28/14 10:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
I know he's not a teacher anymore but still in the so called business of education....


http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/27/watch-...5-salary-video/


While I get it that you also hate public ed, you do bring up a major point. But be assured that education should not be treated the same as a business.



so you obviously feel that the money currently spent on public education is being spent wisely....in a time when the US lags behind the rest of the world in many areas?......maybe more focus should be placed on Educating rather than on salaries,pensions and taxpayer funded benefits......I'm not a hater of education, just a hater of waste......
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/28/14 10:47 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
I know he's not a teacher anymore but still in the so called business of education....

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/27/watch-...5-salary-video/

While I get it that you also hate public ed, you do bring up a major point. But be assured that education should not be treated the same as a business.

so you obviously feel that the money currently spent on public education is being spent wisely....in a time when the US lags behind the rest of the world in many areas?......maybe more focus should be placed on Educating rather than on salaries,pensions and taxpayer funded benefits......I'm not a hater of education, just a hater of waste......

Maybe more focus should be spent on the fact that the US also spends an obscene and disproportionately low percent of GDP on education. Almost the lowest in the entire list of the world's developed nations.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/28/14 04:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
But be assured that education should not be treated the same as a business.


eliminate the 'teach'ers union
Posted by: Teonan

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 02/28/14 04:50 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone


eliminate the 'teach'ers union


Umpteenth repetitive comment bz.

Tourette's syndrome?
Schizophrenia?
Autism?
Catatonia?
Cocaine abuse?
Parkinsonism?
Huntington disease?
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/01/14 05:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
I know he's not a teacher anymore but still in the so called business of education....

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/27/watch-...5-salary-video/

While I get it that you also hate public ed, you do bring up a major point. But be assured that education should not be treated the same as a business.

so you obviously feel that the money currently spent on public education is being spent wisely....in a time when the US lags behind the rest of the world in many areas?......maybe more focus should be placed on Educating rather than on salaries,pensions and taxpayer funded benefits......I'm not a hater of education, just a hater of waste......

Maybe more focus should be spent on the fact that the US also spends an obscene and disproportionately low percent of GDP on education. Almost the lowest in the entire list of the world's developed nations.



on average in the US $12,700 is spent on each student in public schools K-12(2011/2012 averages), I'm sure it's higher now.....that's not enough?


http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/01/14 05:54 AM

and an article from HuffPo Timmy that states the US is spending at a rate higher than any other developed nations.....


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/oecd-education-report_n_3496875.html
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/01/14 05:54 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
But be assured that education should not be treated the same as a business.


eliminate the 'teach'ers union



at the least TENURE.....
Posted by: Lucinda Knotts

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/01/14 08:03 AM

An interesting article from the Washington Post:

You think you know what teachers do. Right? Wrong.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/01/14 09:09 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
and an article from HuffPo Timmy that states the US is spending at a rate higher than any other developed nations.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/oecd-education-report_n_3496875.html

No, that is NOT at all what it said.

In fact, the article suggests that it is the only one in the study with a trend of cutting educational spending.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/01/14 04:00 PM

Schools All Over America Still Lock Children in ‘Cells’ Called Scream Rooms

By Chris Carrington
February 28, 2014

Yesterday Dr Keith Ablow published an article called ‘Scream rooms’ in schools are psychological sadism. In the article he details cases where patients were still traumatized decades after their incarceration in the small, cell like chambers.

Lawmakers are attempting to abolish the use of scream rooms in educational facilities. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, along with Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., want to change how children are treated by educators. They are two of a growing group of lawmakers who are pushing to get legislation through that prohibits the use of scream rooms, as well as the use of restraints on children, some as young as five years old.

A report, Dangerous Use of seclusion and Restraints in Schools Remains Widespread and Difficult to remedy: A Review of Ten Cases, makes sobering reading. It details ten cases where children were confined and/or restrained, including cases where blood had to be cleaned from the walls after the period of incarceration was over.

It states that children were often in these cells for so long they had to urinate on the floors.

Cases of children being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are cited, and the report notes that a high number of autistic children are locked up with alarming regularity.

It’s disgusting that parents are hounded for things such as letting their children play outside, yet so called educators are allowed to act as judge and jury and lock up children they can’t handle. The inability to handle children is surely a failure on the part of the school, not the child.

Obviously some children are deliberately disruptive, and that needs to be dealt with, but not by locking them in a bare room for hours on end.

It seems that children have no rights at all once they enter the school buildings. In many cases, parents were not told of the punishments dished out to their kids, and in some cases this abuse, for that’s what it is, went un-noticed until the child started being disruptive at home and refusing to go to school.

It would be very interesting to know how many kids that have opened fire on their teachers and classmates have been held in scream rooms. Did the other kids laugh at them when they were carted away? Was there a particular teacher who tormented them?

It makes you wonder.

Reprinted with permission from The Daily Sheeple.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/01/14 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
Schools All Over America Still Lock Children in ‘Cells’ Called Scream Rooms
from The Daily Sheeple


No coincidence that those of you who buy into articles like this make up our nation of sheep. Ironic, VM, that you do not see the wool being pulled over yours eyes.

My guess is most of theses incidents are occurring in residential settings like Hillside, George Junior - frame of reference only, not saying it happens in those two places. Not saying it does not happen in public schools, just saying.

Contrary to what the Harkin report says, there have been federal and state laws about time out rooms since 1994.

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/policy/timeout.pdf

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/topicalbriefs/timeoutroom.htm

This is the Harkin report you failed to hyperlink

Dangerous Use of seclusion and restraints in schools remains widespread and difficult to remedy


Check out this caveat on page 8.

Quote:
It is important to note that a case review of this nature is by definition anecdotal and the results cannot be generalized to all seclusion and restraints cases nationwide. Moreover, the opinions expressed by parents and attorneys should not be treated as confirmed facts or proof of wrongdoing on the part of schools or school personnel. However, in the absence of reliable data on the prevalence of seclusion and restraints in schools, a review of the allegations in individual cases remains one of the only tools available to analyze the continuing use of these ineffective, harmful, and outdated practices.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/04/14 05:25 AM

more liberal diversity in our schools....


http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/03/school...stbite-results/
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/04/14 08:50 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
more liberal diversity in our schools....
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/03/school...stbite-results/

What does a draconian enforcement of fire safety rules have, whatsoever, to do with "Liberal Diversity"???

You're a piece of work, pal. Even by your standards.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/04/14 09:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
more liberal diversity in our schools....
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/03/school...stbite-results/

What does a draconian enforcement of fire safety rules have, whatsoever, to do with "Liberal Diversity"???

You're a piece of work, pal. Even by your standards.


One gets the sense that Sporty and Bloohairs are an item! shocked
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/05/14 02:30 PM

teacher writes profanity on dry erase board
student records it on cell phone
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/05/14 05:23 PM

Every teacher? Boy, that was a wide paint brush! Sort of like saying every woman on the forums is clueless just because you are. Of course, that premise is not true at all.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/06/14 06:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Every


was that in my post?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/06/14 05:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Every

Originally Posted By: bluezone

was that in my post?

No. You left it ambiguous. But since you hate every teacher out there (or so it seems), one would only think that you are referring to every teacher.

However, I'll play your game. Which teacher were you referring to? Please provide the name.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/07/14 04:59 AM

"However, I'll play your game. Which teacher were you referring to? Please provide the name."


http://rochester.twcnews.com/content/news/719140/teacher-resigns-over-photo-taken-inside-classroom/

follow the link Joey......
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/07/14 07:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Every

Originally Posted By: bluezone

was that in my post?

No.


we will give you a gold star
wink
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/07/14 07:34 AM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
"However, I'll play your game. Which teacher were you referring to? Please provide the name."


http://rochester.twcnews.com/content/news/719140/teacher-resigns-over-photo-taken-inside-classroom/

follow the link Joey......

Thanks Sporty Spice. It would have been nice if Blowzone had posted that link along with her comment, so we would know just what in the world she was talking about.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/10/14 11:07 AM

<!-- -->
Originally Posted By: bluezone
teacher writes profanity on dry erase board
student records it on cell phone


Teacher shelters students from crazed gunman.

Teacher lauded for her actions.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/11/14 07:45 AM

rochester 'teach'ers union sues cuz 40% of the 'teach'ers recieved a low evaulation

time to clean house...
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/11/14 10:54 AM

<!-- -->
Originally Posted By: bluezone
rochester 'teach'ers union sues cuz 40% of the 'teach'ers recieved a low evaulation

time to clean house...


And it's only common sense that tells us how poverty and lack of family structure has zero impact on learning! Silly fools!
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/11/14 11:20 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
rochester 'teach'ers union sues cuz 40% of the 'teach'ers recieved a low evaulation

time to clean house...


Many teachers should be fired or discipline but I have a question for you Blue, can we deem many parents as dysfunctional as well due to the fact their child is failing in school? In my generation, I, my teacher and parents were involved in all aspects of my education but we are witnessing dysfunctional homes creating children with low self esteem, drugs problems along with anger issues to name a few. There is no amount of additional school hours or teacher qualification to overcome many of these obstacles. Lay the blame where is should be. BTW, a teacher down here in PA was just released from the hospital from injuries sustained from a student who attacked her......I guess that the teacher was educationally underqualified to defend herself.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/12/14 12:17 PM

A typical dysfunctional parent:
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/12/14 01:06 PM

"Lay the blame where is should be".....


thought we were!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/13/14 10:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac

Many teachers should be fired or discipline but I have a question for you Blue,


was it not the 'teach'ers that wanted the Billion dollar money from the federal government and as a result they had to have evaluations?

now the 'teach'ers want to back track

did the rta get a large pay increase last year?

Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/13/14 10:28 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac

Many teachers should be fired or discipline but I have a question for you Blue,


was it not the 'teach'ers that wanted the Billion dollar money from the federal government and as a result they had to have evaluations?

now the 'teach'ers want to back track

did the rta get a large pay increase last year?



Personally, I think that most teacher are underpaid for the reasons I've spoken of.....understaffed, unruly students with a plethora of personal issues preventing any of them from learning in the first place. Teachers can't instill education when the mindsets are not there.

I've attached a few links to which I ask the question, were these problems prevalent 40 years ago? yet teachers & schools should have the solutions to which society and professional can't seem to grasp or solve.


http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/18...=blogs&_r=0
http://onlineathens.com/health/2013-08-10/rise-and-fall-teen-pregnancy

http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/school-violence-high-schools-6858.html
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/13/14 11:06 AM

<!-- -->
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac

Many teachers should be fired or discipline but I have a question for you Blue,


was it not the 'teach'ers that wanted the Billion dollar money from the federal government and as a result they had to have evaluations?

now the 'teach'ers want to back track

did the rta get a large pay increase last year?



Personally, I think that most teacher are underpaid for the reasons I've spoken of.....understaffed, unruly students with a plethora of personal issues preventing any of them from learning in the first place. Teachers can't instill education when the mindsets are not there.

I've attached a few links to which I ask the question, were these problems prevalent 40 years ago? yet teachers & schools should have the solutions to which society and professional can't seem to grasp or solve.


http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/18...=blogs&_r=0
http://onlineathens.com/health/2013-08-10/rise-and-fall-teen-pregnancy

http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/school-violence-high-schools-6858.html


Don't bother. The anti public ed group is in full effect out here. My prayers go out to them.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/14/14 09:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Many teachers should be fired or discipline


and why does that not happen?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/14 01:16 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Many teachers should be fired or discipline


and why does that not happen?

Who says it doesn't happen? You?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/14 01:18 PM

Here's one that I'm sure twocats will understand and that Blowzone won't get.

Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/14 05:32 PM

When parents and teachers can work together for children's success, they are unbeatable. smile
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/14 07:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Many teachers should be fired or discipline
and why does that not happen?
Who says it doesn't happen?

is that why the 'teacher' evaluations were sooo low?
and the student performance was sooo poor?

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/14 07:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Here's one that I'm sure twocats will understand and that Blowzone won't get.


interesting that when the 'teachers' get a low evaluation then it is every one else to blame but when it is contract time then guess who pats themselves on the back?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/14 07:43 PM

Originally Posted By: twocats
When parents and teachers can work together for children's success, they are unbeatable. smile


do you plan on working 60+ hours a week like other salaried employees and putting in 12 months a year?

did not think so...
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/18/14 09:06 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Many teachers should be fired or discipline
and why does that not happen?
Who says it doesn't happen?

is that why the 'teacher' evaluations were sooo low?
and the student performance was sooo poor?

Which teachers?

Which students?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/19/14 11:01 AM

<!-- -->
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: twocats
When parents and teachers can work together for children's success, they are unbeatable. smile


do you plan on working 60+ hours a week like other salaried employees and putting in 12 months a year?

did not think so...


Nothing beats accepting gubmint monies by faking a disability, Sweetcheeks!! You get to do nothing for 60+ hrs a week and rake in some good coin! Keep up the good work, Sista!
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/20/14 09:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Nothing beats accepting gubmint monies by faking a disability, Sweetcheeks!! You get to do nothing for 60+ hrs a week and rake in some good coin! Keep up the good work, Sista!


feel free to present your facts
you must be thinking of someone else

nice try
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/21/14 09:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Keep up the good work


considering your boss provides your paycheck does your boss have a right to question your performance when it is lacking?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/21/14 09:39 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Nothing beats accepting gubmint monies by faking a disability, Sweetcheeks!! You get to do nothing for 60+ hrs a week and rake in some good coin! Keep up the good work, Sista!


feel free to present your facts
you must be thinking of someone else

nice try


LMAO, we've been waiting for some facts from you.
Yes! YOU
Nice try though. smile
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/21/14 09:59 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
Keep up the good work

considering your boss provides your paycheck does your boss have a right to question your performance when it is lacking?

Not when the evaluation process is clearly flawed, as it quite often is (e.g.: core standards evaluations).
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/22/14 08:33 AM

must be why the student performance is so poor
day care assistants get $8/hr
cut the 'teachers' pay to $8/hr
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/22/14 08:35 AM

'teacher' arrested for stealing musical instruments and having heroin
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/22/14 10:17 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
must be why the student performance is so poor
day care assistants get $8/hr
cut the 'teachers' pay to $8/hr


While we're at it, lets cut the salary to $8/hr for any profession requiring at least a 4 year degree, in many cases, a Master or Doctorate, not to mention state board certification, we're not speaking of your marginal education here Blue which has dictated a slightly more than minimum wage for yourself.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/22/14 12:05 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
must be why the student performance is so poor
day care assistants get $8/hr
cut the 'teachers' pay to $8/hr

Once Day Care Assistants are required to earn Bachelor's degrees and begin to teach Euclidian Mathematics, Biological Chemistry and Shakespeare, we can begin to discuss giving them raises. cool
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/22/14 12:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
While we're at it, lets cut the salary to $8/hr for any profession


see other professions are evaluated every year
if one does not perform then they are shown the door
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/22/14 12:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
must be why the student performance is so poor
day care assistants get $8/hr
cut the 'teachers' pay to $8/hr

Once Day Care Assistants are required to earn Bachelor's degrees and begin to teach Euclidian Mathematics, Biological Chemistry and Shakespeare, we can begin to discuss giving them raises. cool


Exactly, my education is focused more on the technical side but still required a Bachelor degree and several more years of apprentice work along with journeyman requirements and this Dunce is stating that a teacher, highly educated in the fields you have spoken of, should only receive the same wage as a daycare worker who's training consists of a few weeks of class room sit down ......what's the odds that Blue never went beyond high school, thus the feeling of inadequacy in her own success?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/22/14 12:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
must be why the student performance is so poor
day care assistants get $8/hr
cut the 'teachers' pay to $8/hr

Once Day Care Assistants are required to earn Bachelor's degrees and begin to teach Euclidian Mathematics, Biological Chemistry and Shakespeare, we can begin to discuss giving them raises. cool


and what is the percentage of students getting an 'A' in those subjects?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/22/14 12:35 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
While we're at it, lets cut the salary to $8/hr for any profession


see other professions are evaluated every year
if one does not perform then they are shown the door


Try this scenario, every doctor should be fired and barred from practicing medicine due to the fact that a patient has died on his/her watch or are some results beyond any amount of expertise or efficiency? Clearly you have a problem with seeing things as they are and feel more comfortable staying in your self defined perfect world. Tell me that 25 years ago that your aspirations were to spend a great deal of time debating on a internet forum. I think that you could have done a little better for yourself. blush
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/22/14 12:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
While we're at it, lets cut the salary to $8/hr for any profession requiring at least a 4 year degree, in many cases, a Master or Doctorate, not to mention state board certification


and yet you are still unable to 'teach' the students
whistle
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/22/14 12:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Try this scenario, every doctor should be fired and barred from practicing medicine due to the fact that a patient has died on his/her watch or


if the doctor had a death rate of 50%-60% would they still be practicing?
the 'teacher' would be 'teaching'
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/22/14 12:52 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
While we're at it, lets cut the salary to $8/hr for any profession requiring at least a 4 year degree, in many cases, a Master or Doctorate, not to mention state board certification


and yet you are still unable to 'teach' the students
whistle


I don't teach per say, they work for me after obtaining their degree, now it's up to them to prove and show how much they've learned all based on work ethics and proficiency on the job. After a few years of employment with me, they apply for state certification which I have no control over. Guess what? I'm batting a 100% in retention so far.....wonders never cease.
I have question for you, why do we exist in such an imperfect world? apparently all the professions below have failed us.

Academics
Accountants
Actuaries
Air Traffic Controller
Architects
Audiologist
Clergymen
Dentists
Economists
Engineers
Language professionals
Lawyers
Librarians
Nurses
Pharmacists
Physicians
Physiotherapists
Psychologists
Professional Pilots
Scientists
Social workers
Speech-Language Pathologist
Statisticians
Surgeons
Surveyors
Teachers
Urban Planners
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/22/14 12:56 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Try this scenario, every doctor should be fired and barred from practicing medicine due to the fact that a patient has died on his/her watch or


if the doctor had a death rate of 50%-60% would they still be practicing?
the 'teacher' would be 'teaching'


A unrealistic question without giving specifics, is the patient 20 years of age or 90, are they in the office for an annual checkup or suffering from terminal cancer?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/22/14 01:03 PM

If a teacher had the ability to choose all bright and promising students for his/her classroom, what are the odds that this teacher will look good on their review? adverse to one having academically subpar students with personal behavior issues. Bottom line, you need to blame God for not creating an entire human race of people who failed to obtain a 95% GPA. Were you Valedictorian in your class due to a genius IQ or a top performing teacher being your mentor thus the reasons to call many student subpar due to poor teacher performance?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/22/14 03:32 PM


What was the highest grade that you completed?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 09:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Try this scenario, every doctor should be fired and barred from practicing medicine due to the fact that a patient has died on his/her watch or


if the doctor had a death rate of 50%-60% would they still be practicing?
the 'teacher' would be 'teaching'


A unrealistic question without giving specifics, is the patient 20 years of age or 90, are they in the office for an annual checkup or suffering from terminal cancer?


just like a 'teacher' to make excuses
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 10:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
apparently all the professions below have failed us.

Academics
Accountants
Actuaries
Air Traffic Controller
Architects
Audiologist
Clergymen
Dentists
Economists
Engineers
Language professionals
Lawyers
Librarians
Nurses
Pharmacists
Physicians
Physiotherapists
Psychologists
Professional Pilots
Scientists
Social workers
Speech-Language Pathologist
Statisticians
Surgeons
Surveyors
Teachers
Urban Planners


and how many of those 'work' 4 hours a day for only 5 days a week, their 'work' year is only 6 months long, get full pensions, pay little into their pension, full healthcare, pay little into their healthcare, have no yearly evaluations, job security for life and if they do get an 'evaluation' then they blame many other factors...

crimea
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 10:07 AM

I won't waste my time on questions that appear to go around in circles. While you're researching, look up the annual salaries of many of these professionals and I'll guaranteed you that most teachers are underpaid...Most likely you'll fail to respond to my request but I've already looked them up, again, teachers are underpaid in relationship to the amount of education they're required to obtain.
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 10:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
I won't waste my time...


Exactly.

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 11:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
While you're researching, look up the annual salaries of many of these professionals and I'll guaranteed you that most teachers are underpaid...Most likely you'll fail to respond to my request but I've already looked them up, again, teachers are underpaid in relationship to the amount of education they're required to obtain.


underpaid???
all the other positions that you posted WORK 12 months a year
the other positions have to pay for their own 401k/retirement/healthcare/dental/vison coverage
and they also can not retire at 55 years of age

you take the salary of the other positions and subtract the money the person has to pay out of their pocket for their OWN retirement and their OWN healthcare(healthcare,vision and dental) and you will see that the part time 'teacher' makes more


Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 11:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
While you're researching, look up the annual salaries of many of these professionals


and how many of those get a fully paid pension?
or a fully paid healthcare for life?
or a job for life?
or retiremnt at age 55?

NONE
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 11:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
While you're researching, look up the annual
salaries of many of these professionals



if a 'part time teacher' makes $50k for six months
then another salaried employee would have to make more than $100k for 12 months to be equal in pay to the 'teacher'

and that is even before you factor in the 'teachers' overly compensated benefits package
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 11:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
teachers are underpaid in relationship to the amount of education they're required to obtain.


see in the real world you are paid based on how well you perform your job and the amount of hours on the job

the 'teachers' do not want to be evaluated cuz then their pay would be lowered


more charter schools in rochester...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 11:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
While you're researching, look up the annual salaries of many of these professionls


a full time fast food worker puts in more time than a 'part time teacher'
should you compare those wages to the 'teacher' pay ?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 11:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
apparently all the professions below have failed us.

Academics
Accountants
Actuaries
Air Traffic Controller
Architects
Audiologist
Clergymen
Dentists
Economists
Engineers
Language professionals
Lawyers
Librarians
Nurses
Pharmacists
Physicians
Physiotherapists
Psychologists
Professional Pilots
Scientists
Social workers
Speech-Language Pathologist
Statisticians
Surgeons
Surveyors
Teachers
Urban Planners


so tell us how many of those employees work less than 170 days per year?

Posted by: howbouthat

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 03:28 PM

The entire "argument" that has been stated by certain posters is based on two entirely different points. One is private/free market the other public/fixed. Measurements of wages, hours, results, etc. are impossible to compare. Attacks of hours worked by teachers are obviously being spouted by person(s) entirely without knowledge (ignorant) hence the incorrectness. The one comparison that can be made is professionalism. Any professional worth their weight put in hours that are not clocked. Hence placing hourly wages on any profession can only be presented by one who has no experience in a professional field.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 05:32 PM

Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 05:36 PM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
The entire "argument" that has been stated by certain posters is based on


pension envy
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 07:48 PM

Good read Fart in the wind & Howabout, Some just don't get that redundancy of the same questions make for an endless debate going no where.
Posted by: Lucinda Knotts

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/23/14 10:15 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
and what is the percentage of students getting an 'A' in those subjects?
Regardless of the subject, BZ, what percentage of students should be getting an 'A' ???? In your world, where all teachers are greedy hapless incompetents, student grades could never come close to a Bell curve. The fact that students, even in school districts with the worst conditions for success (i.e., low educational level of adults, high crime, extreme poverty, etc.) actually do achieve high grades and succeed beyond expectations, is evidence of some very high quality teachers. If other students who have the same teachers but are unable to achieve similar success, it shouldn't be blamed on the teachers.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 09:05 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
One is private/free market the other public/fixed. Measurements of wages, hours, results, etc. are impossible to compare. Attacks of hours worked by teachers are obviously being spouted by person(s) entirely without knowledge (ignorant) hence the incorrectness.


better tell formermac

and how many other salaried positions only 'work' 6 months a year?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 09:10 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Any professional worth their weight put in hours that are not clocked.


must be why the job is not getting done by the 'teachers'
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 09:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
teachers-dont-work-hard


is this your position?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 09:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind

pension envy


of those salaried positons that formermac posted how many receive a pension?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 09:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind

pension envy


Quote:
Fewer companies are offering retirement benefits these days – and for the ones that do, many are scaling back their plans.

“The old, traditionally-defined benefit-pension plan is pretty much gone,” said Milton Moskowitz, who’s been compiling an annual list of the “100 Best Companies to Work For” for more than 25 years.
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 09:59 AM

Blue if you care to entertain these issues along with complaint on school teachers, are we getting our money's worth on Capitol Hill which encompasses no do politicians collecting huge salaries and lucrative pensions or Corporations that gouge the general public cheat the Government out of taxes but awards it corporate heads with absorbent salaries, bonuses and pensions?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 10:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
apparently all the professions below have failed us.

Academics
Accountants
Actuaries
Air Traffic Controller
Architects
Audiologist
Clergymen
Dentists
Economists
Engineers
Language professionals
Lawyers
Librarians
Nurses
Pharmacists
Physicians
Physiotherapists
Psychologists
Professional Pilots
Scientists
Social workers
Speech-Language Pathologist
Statisticians
Surgeons
Surveyors
Teachers
Urban Planners


so tell us how many of those employees receive a pension?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 10:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Blue if you care to entertain these issues along with complaint on school teachers, are we getting our money's worth on Capitol Hill which encompasses no do politicians collecting huge salaries and lucrative pensions or Corporations that gouge the general public cheat the Government out of taxes but awards it corporate heads with absorbent salaries, bonuses and pensions?



Just as I thought, you have no new or valid questions to present so now you're in a tailspin and starting to repeat yourself. You've presented the questions multiple time but you're disappointed that no one cares to give you the response you so desperately need to hear.
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 10:35 AM

Only government workers still receive pensions.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 10:35 AM

<!-- -->
Originally Posted By: Formermac
I won't waste my time on questions that appear to go around in circles. .


You must be new here.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 10:36 AM

<!-- -->
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
must be why the student performance is so poor
day care assistants get $8/hr
cut the 'teachers' pay to $8/hr

Once Day Care Assistants are required to earn Bachelor's degrees and begin to teach Euclidian Mathematics, Biological Chemistry and Shakespeare, we can begin to discuss giving them raises. cool


and what is the percentage of students getting an 'A' in those subjects?


92%
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 10:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Blue if you care to entertain these issues along with complaint on school teachers, are we getting our money's worth on Capitol Hill which encompasses no do politicians collecting huge salaries and lucrative pensions or Corporations that gouge the general public cheat the Government out of taxes but awards it corporate heads with absorbent salaries, bonuses and pensions?



Just as I thought, you have no new or valid questions to present so now you're in a tailspin and starting to repeat yourself. You've presented the questions multiple time but you're disappointed that no one cares to give you the response you so desperately need to hear.


do you not see that you proved my point?
it is you in the tailspin...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 10:42 AM

Originally Posted By: tubby
Only government workers still receive pensions.


formermac just proved that

interesting that they say 'teachers' are underpaid but when you factoring in the entire benefits package the 'teacher' is paid well above others for the short time they are 'on the job'

let us not forget that 'teachers' work other jobs in the summer and that amount is hidden
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 10:43 AM

Au Contraire

27861 posts, you best take a second look Ms.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 10:48 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
apparently all the professions below have failed us.

Academics
Accountants
Actuaries
Air Traffic Controller
Architects
Audiologist
Clergymen
Dentists
Economists
Engineers
Language professionals
Lawyers
Librarians
Nurses
Pharmacists
Physicians
Physiotherapists
Psychologists
Professional Pilots
Scientists
Social workers
Speech-Language Pathologist
Statisticians
Surgeons
Surveyors
Teachers
Urban Planners


so tell us how many of those employees receive a pension?



hide the facts...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 10:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Au Contraire

27861 posts, you best take a second look Ms.


and what post were you reply to to?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 10:50 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: tubby
Only government workers still receive pensions.


formermac just proved that

interesting that they say 'teachers' are underpaid but when you factoring in the entire benefits package the 'teacher' is paid well above others for the short time they are 'on the job'

let us not forget that 'teachers' work other jobs in the summer and that amount is hiding


I did in fact state as such and have no reservation repeating the same premise. My problem with you personally is your attempt to focus on teachers but choose not to answer a simple question, are politicians and corporate heads off your radar in regard to taxpayers suffering the consequences of entities "cheating" the system? Unless your taxes goes only to support teacher's pension funds
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 10:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
'teachers' are underpaid

I did in fact state as such and have no reservation repeating the same premise.

so how much more money did you send in with your school tax bill to support your claim?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 10:59 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
the chicago teachers wanted a 30% pay increase and now they are on strike

let them all go and hire new ones with a less generous pay/benefits package

the reason the student performance is so low is the teachers are greedy


#1363174 - 09/10/12 08:52 AM

Look at the date that you originally posted the topic Blue, would it be safe to assume that you're not making any headway in regard to the debate? Teachers are still getting their pensions as of today.
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 11:06 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
'teachers' are underpaid

I did in fact state as such and have no reservation repeating the same premise.

so how much more money did you send in with your school tax bill to support your claim?


I'm not complaining, since I live in an upscale neighborhood, I do in fact pay a large amount in school taxes, along with rental property in upstate New York which also has a school tax assessment attach to it.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 11:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
the chicago teachers wanted a 30% pay increase and now they are on strike

let them all go and hire new ones with a less generous pay/benefits package

the reason the student performance is so low is the teachers are greedy


#1363174 - 09/10/12 08:52 AM

Look at the date that you originally posted the topic Blue, would it be safe to assume that you're not making any headway in regard to the debate? Teachers are still getting their pensions as of today.


Quote:
Detroit bankruptcy ruling triggers calls for pension cuts across the US


have you seen the budget shortfalls in the school budgets recently?

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 11:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
'teachers' are underpaid

I did in fact state as such and have no reservation repeating the same premise.

so how much more money did you send in with your school tax bill to support your claim?


I'm not complaining,


and you are also not supporting your position
send in more money with your school taxes
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 11:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: Formermac
'teachers' are underpaid
I live in an upscale neighborhood,


do all your other 'teachers' live in your upscale neighborhood?

underpaid.... whistle
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 11:29 AM

The school district that I live in is actually over budgeted and must decide to raise taxes or make cuts. The dilemma for all school districts are mandates that the government attached. There is the possibility that many schools will go on austerity budgets but before that happens, those same district will ask the state to lift the mandates in regard to classroom size, mandatory grades regardless of personal learning capacity and lastly any attempt to dump teachers will be met with resistance from parents who have their kids best interest at heart.
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 11:30 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: Formermac
'teachers' are underpaid
I live in an upscale neighborhood,


do all your other 'teachers' live in your upscale neighborhood?

underpaid.... whistle



Me thinks that you have your wires crossed, I am not a teacher, I own a electrical contracting business.
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 11:39 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
'teachers' are underpaid

I did in fact state as such and have no reservation repeating the same premise.

so how much more money did you send in with your school tax bill to support your claim?


I'm not complaining,


and you are also not supporting your position
send in more money with your school taxes


My wife & I supports the district though fund raising to send Seniors to Washington DC every fall as well as participating in booster programs. I have a question for you, what do you contribute to your district beside many complaints that will ultimately hurt our children's future here in the US?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 11:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: Formermac
'teachers' are underpaid

My wife & I supports the district though fund raising to send Seniors to Washington DC


are these senior 'teachers'?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 11:58 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: Formermac
'teachers' are underpaid

My wife & I supports the district though fund raising to send Seniors to Washington DC


are these senior 'teachers'?


What school district did you graduate? Were you first in your class in regard to GPA and did you go to college or decide to take up a career?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 12:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: Formermac
'teachers' are underpaid

My wife & I supports the district though fund raising to send Seniors to Washington DC

are these senior 'teachers'?

What school ...

you stated that the - 'teachers' are underpaid - but you fail to show any examples that you have made to correct the condition

you slipped off on a tangent relating to students
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 12:11 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: Formermac
'teachers' are underpaid

My wife & I supports the district though fund raising to send Seniors to Washington DC

are these senior 'teachers'?

What school ...

you stated that the - 'teachers' are underpaid - but you fail to show any examples that you have made to correct the condition

you slipped off on a tangent relating to students


Nope I'm still on the very topic that you've attempted to control by offering only questions but no responses. So are you now stating or admitting by not answering my question that you're in fact a high school drop out and still harbor a 50 years hatred toward all teachers due to your own personal failing?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 12:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
The school district that I live in is actually over budgeted and must decide to raise taxes or make cuts.


or do both
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 12:13 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
The school district that I live in is actually over budgeted and must decide to raise taxes or make cuts.


or do both



Nope I'm still on the very topic that you've attempted to control by offering only questions but no responses. So are you now stating or admitting by not answering my question that you're in fact a high school drop out and still harbor a 50 years hatred toward all teachers due to your own personal failing?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 12:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone

you stated that the - 'teachers' are underpaid - but you fail to show any examples that you have made to correct the condition

you slipped off on a tangent relating to students


Nope I'm still on the very topic


you have not shown any examples of your position
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 12:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
The school district that I live in is actually over budgeted and must decide to raise taxes or make cuts.

and lastly any attempt to dump teachers will be met with resistance from parents who have their kids best interest at heart.


so why do the parents that believe that the 'teachers' are underpaid just pay the extra money out of their pockets to cover the shortage?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 12:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Fritz
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
The school district that I live in is actually over budgeted and must decide to raise taxes or make cuts.

and lastly any attempt to dump teachers will be met with resistance from parents who have their kids best interest at heart.


so why do the parents that believe that the 'teachers' are underpaid just pay the extra money out of their pockets to cover the shortage?

Now that sounds like a good idea! Flootmat said he's a successful business operator. Shirley he could turn loose of some of the success he talks about and spread it around!


I did just that Thomas by producing 2 great Kids, now tell us forum posters what exactly you did in regard to giving back to the "community and school district" in Southern Seneca County?
I can tell you where monies were spent and it wasn't in the educational arena.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 12:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: Formermac
I live in an upscale neighborhood,

I own a electrical contracting business.

do you offer pensions to all your employees?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 12:48 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: Formermac
I live in an upscale neighborhood,

I own a electrical contracting business.

do you offer pensions to all your employees?


401K along with health benefits, 1 weeks vacation after a year of employment. You personally need not apply though, applicants must possess a Bachelor degree in Electrical Science, have the ability to read "Blue" prints, a working hands on knowledge of advanced electrical theory and the ability to figure some problems without constant assistance.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 01:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
401K along with health benefits, 1 weeks vacation after a year of employment.


then that is what should be offered to the 'teachers' if it is good enough for your employees

odd that you do not offer them a pension
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 01:35 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
401K along with health benefits, 1 weeks vacation after a year of employment.


then that is what should be offered to the 'teachers' if it is good enough for your employees

odd that you do not offer them a pension


Odds are that you're incorrect Blue, it's apparent that you know little in regard to tax laws and write-off. Many perks are not given to employees just to be benevolent. There are many benefits to investing monies in health care, child care services etc. You've heard of them, tell me that in time past that you didn't have the opportunity to invest in pre-taxed IRA’s ,401K savings plans, Roth accounts , all are pre-taxed deductions to name a few. All those mentioned are beneficial in minimizing your tax liabilities as well as the Employer's. Sometimes it better to invest money rather than declare it…….ask your local financial advisor wink
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 01:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Many perks are not given to employees just to be benevolent.
then why offer a pension to a 'teacher' if you do not give a pension to your own employees?

do you not value your employees?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 01:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
tell me that in time past that you didn't have the opportunity to invest in pre-taxed IRA’s ,401K savings plans, Roth accounts , all are pre-taxed deductions to name a few. All those mentioned are beneficial in minimizing your tax liabilities as well as the Employer's.



the employee is the one that has to put up to funds to maintain those accounts

if you pay your employee $50k per year and the employee has to fund his own retirement at $1666 per month then the employee only has $50,000 - $20,000 = $30,000 to spend that year on their lifestyle

the 'teacher' gets to keep the $50,000 to spend on their lifestyle

so tell us who is underpaid?
your employee at $30,000 per year
or the 'teacher' at $50,000 per year?




Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 01:59 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Many perks are not given to employees just to be benevolent.
then why offer a pension to a 'teacher' if you do not give a pension to your own employees?

do you not value your employees?



LMAO, I give my employees a pension plan which I've stated a couple of time. Either you're good a patronizing people, have a comprehension problem or actually possess an mental deficiency, I'm trying my best to lean toward your comprehension level being somewhat on the anemic side. blush
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 02:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
401K along with health benefits, 1 weeks vacation after a year of employment.

Originally Posted By: Formermac
I give my employees a pension plan


a 401k is not a pension
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 02:14 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
tell me that in time past that [b]you didn't have the opportunity to invest in pre-taxed IRA’s ,401K savings plans, Roth accounts , all are pre-taxed deductions to name a few. All those mentioned are beneficial in minimizing your tax liabilities [b/]as well as the Employer's.



the employee is the one that has to put up to funds to maintain those accounts

if you pay your employee $50k per year and the employee has to fund his own retirement at $1666 per month then the employee only has $50,000 - $20,000 = $30,000 to spend that year on their lifestyle

the 'teacher' gets to keep the $50,000 to spend on their lifestyle

so tell us who is underpaid?
your employee at $30,000 per year
or the 'teacher' at $50,000 per year?






Your equation table is very *** up first of all blush . Suppose realistically none of my employees are making $50,000 annually being that they're only apprentices & journeymen, look the prevailing salaries up on that, secondly if any of us were able to invest $1666.00 a month toward our retirement, we would have approximately 200.000 grand in 10 years not to mention the rate of return added to it. Personally I would have grab that potential 30 years ago. It's obvious that you see the need to bloviate and inflate numbers to meet you convoluted and demented mind. So if you were hiring at those rates, it's no wonder that you lost your business and now you're here babbling about teachers making more than you, I would be rather upset about it as well Blue. cry
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 02:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
if any of us were able to invested $1666.00 a month toward our retirement, we would have approximately 200.000 grand in 10 years not to mention the rate of return added to it.


so you give us a rough number you think one needs to retire at age 55?

$500,000
$1 million
$2 million
...
...
...
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 02:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Many perks are not given to employees just to be benevolent.
then why offer a pension to a 'teacher' if you do not give a pension to your own employees?

do you not value your employees?



LMAO, I give my employees a pension plan which I've stated a couple of time. Either you're good a patronizing people, have a comprehension problem or actually possess an mental deficiency, I'm trying my best to lean toward your comprehension level being somewhat on the anemic side. blush
. So you give your employees a pension plan, which means they retire with 80% of their salary and do not have to contribute any money, your an awesome employer .
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 02:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Suppose realistically none of my employees are making $50,000 annually being that they're only apprentices & journeymen,


with a bachelor degree you do not even pay them $25,000 a year?

Originally Posted By: Formermac
applicants must possess a Bachelor degree in Electrical Science, have the ability to read "Blue" prints, a working hands on knowledge of advanced electrical theory and the ability to figure some problems without constant assistance.
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 02:35 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
if any of us were able to invested $1666.00 a month toward our retirement, we would have approximately 200.000 grand in 10 years not to mention the rate of return added to it.


so give us a rough number you think one needs to have to retire at age 55?

$500,000
$1 million
$2 million
...
...
...


Again, you failed specifics Blue, do you live in dump or upscale home, do you eat at McDonalds or a 5 star restaurant? Do you stay home year around or travel extensively? Are your children prone to have only the capability to work at that same McDonalds or are they attending a University that cost $50,000 a year? Do they stay at home until they're 44 due to the fact that they lack a decent education thus minimizing their earning potential. Do you drive rusty pick up or a shiny new European SUV? ROTFLMAO, this sounds like that commercial where any small mistake turns into a catastrophic event like lying in a roadside ditch all beaten up.
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 02:38 PM

Originally Posted By: tubby
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Many perks are not given to employees just to be benevolent.
then why offer a pension to a 'teacher' if you do not give a pension to your own employees?

do you not value your employees?



LMAO, I give my employees a pension plan which I've stated a couple of time. Either you're good a patronizing people, have a comprehension problem or actually possess an mental deficiency, I'm trying my best to lean toward your comprehension level being somewhat on the anemic side. blush
. So you give your employees a pension plan, which means they retire with 80% of their salary and do not have to contribute any money, your an awesome employer .


Only fools(YOU) would assume that employees get "FREE" Health and 401K plans, have you heard the term employee contribution?
BTW,Yes I am an awesome employer. I'll assume that you were just being coy or sarcastic but just in case, educate yourself.

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 02:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
if any of us were able to invested $1666.00 a month toward our retirement, we would have approximately 200.000 grand in 10 years not to mention the rate of return added to it.


so give us a rough number you think one needs to have to retire at age 55?

$500,000
$1 million
$2 million
...
...
...


Again, you failed specifics


if a 'teacher' makes $50K then tell us how much the 'teacher' needs in their pension to retire at age 55?

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 02:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Only fools(YOU) would assume that employees get "FREE" Health and 401K plans, have you heard the term employee contribution?


you are aware that 'teachers' only pay 3% in for the first ten years and then after that they pay zero for their pension

must be why the 'teacher' union fought against cuomo change over to a 401k plan
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 02:48 PM

If Johnny had two apples and gave one orange to Betty, how many peaches would Steve have if he ate 3 cherries? Remember that all 7 had vegetables when they arrived at the park on a one seat bicycle.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 02:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
BTW,Yes I am an awesome employer.


when you give your employees 12 months pay for 6 months of work, 5 day work weeks, full healthcare(vision, dental, health) for life, a full pension at age 55, and you can never terminate them even if they fail to perform

then you may get a gold star

1 week vacation does not make you an awesome employer
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 02:56 PM

You do not understand the difference between a 401k plan and a pension.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 02:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
If Johnny

it is obvious you do not offer a pension because the government has set standards on how to implement those plans and you are not aware of the basic rules
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 03:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
if any of us were able to invested $1666.00 a month toward our retirement, we would have approximately 200.000 grand in 10 years not to mention the rate of return added to it.


$276,328.98

could you retire on $276,328.98?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 03:08 PM

Originally Posted By: tubby
You do not understand the difference between a 401k plan and a pension.


he only offers his employees a 401k because he wants to stay in his upperclass neighborhood and also keep all his rental properties

whistle

do not forget he gives them 1 week vacation after a year
he must think they do not work hard enough the entire year
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 03:11 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
if any of us were able to invested $1666.00 a month toward our retirement, we would have approximately 200.000 grand in 10 years not to mention the rate of return added to it.


$276,328.98

could you retire on $276,328.98?





I can see that you were not a mathematic major.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 03:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
I can see that you were not a mathematic major.


you disagree with the number?
if so, tell us what you have then
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 03:49 PM

$1666 a month X 12 months = 19992 a year X 10 years= 199920 over 10 year period




your figure $276,328.98

Your math is giving a net interest return of $76408.98
But tell me where you derive the interest rate over a 10 year period? or as you normally display, a lot of numbers thrown up in the air and where they fall only Blue knows.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 03:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
we would have approximately 200.000 grand in 10 years not to mention the rate of return added to it.


$276,328.98

could you retire on $276,328.98?

I can see that you were not a mathematic major.


see the words in red
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 03:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
$1666 a month X 12 months = 19992 a year X 10 years= 199920 over 10 year period




your figure $276,328.98

Your math is giving a net interest return of $76408.98
But tell me where you derive the interest rate over a 10 year period?

Worksheet # 1. How much will my investment be worth?

Interest 7.00
Number of periods 10
Amount of each investment $20,000.00
Initial value* $0.01
Total payments $200,000.01
Total interest $76,328.97
Total value of investment $276,328.98
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 04:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
I can see that you were not a mathematic major.


are you sure?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 04:24 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
I can see that you were not a mathematic major.


are you sure?


I'm positive for one big reason, you don't have to ability to unilateral make up your own rate, it's more appropriate to add a rate based on a mutually debated equation or show me in past posting that this was an agreed equation. Realistically 7% is rather high in today's market but for the sake of argument I have in past time received a ROR in the 15% neighborhood. Now to your question, can I live off $278,000 for the rest of my life? yep! if I live only 3 more years. In another person's scenario, it may last 10 or 15 years. My other question, hypothetically where is all this math headed in relationship to a teacher's pension? Your fact and figures are all hypothetical and is in dire need of factual numbers, which you seem to negate all together.

https://www.edwardjones.com/en_US/market/rates/current_rates/index.html
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 04:52 PM

www.seethroughny.net Easy math even for you. Teacher retires at 55 years old. Ten years ago no contribution now 3% from the teacher to their pension plan. Lives another 30 years at 80% of their salary as pension typically about $60,000 a year = $1,800,0000. With zero or 3% contribution a teacher has $1,800,000 for retirement how does your 401k plan compare to that ?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 04:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Realistically 7% is rather high in today's market


the 'teachers' pension system is based on 7% return year over year for a basis
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 05:13 PM

Originally Posted By: tubby
their salary as pension typically about $60,000 a year = $1,800,0000. With zero or 3% contribution a teacher has $1,800,000 for retirement how does your 401k plan compare to that ?


Formermac - you do realize that YOU would have to put aside $1,666 each month into your 401k for 30 years to have $1,800,000

$1,666 x 12 month = $19992

if you go back to the post where I mentioned that your employee would have to put $20,000 aside each year for their retirement and you said is was not possible
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 05:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
tell me that in time past that you didn't have the opportunity to invest in pre-taxed IRA’s ,401K savings plans, Roth accounts , all are pre-taxed deductions to name a few. All those mentioned are beneficial in minimizing your tax liabilities as well as the Employer's.

the employee is the one that has to put up to funds to maintain those accounts

if you pay your employee $50k per year and the employee has to fund his own retirement at $1666 per month then the employee only has $50,000 - $20,000 = $30,000 to spend that year on their lifestyle

the 'teacher' gets to keep the $50,000 to spend on their lifestyle

so tell us who is underpaid?
your employee at $30,000 per year
or the 'teacher' at $50,000 per year?


Your equation table is very *** up first of all blush . Suppose realistically none of my employees are making $50,000 annually being that they're only apprentices & journeymen, look the prevailing salaries up on that, secondly if any of us were able to invest $1666.00 a month toward our retirement, we would have approximately 200.000 grand in 10 years not to mention the rate of return added to it. Personally I would have grab that potential 30 years ago. It's obvious that you see the need to bloviate and inflate numbers to meet you convoluted and demented mind.


formermac are you putting away $20,000 each year into your 401k?

you are for each of the 'teachers'

LOL
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 05:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Now to your question, can I live off $278,000 for the rest of my life? yep! if I live only 3 more years.


278,000 / 3 = 92,666.66

92,666.66 x 30 years = $2,780,000

formermac do you have $2.8 million for your retirement?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 05:42 PM

Originally Posted By: tubby
www.seethroughny.net Easy math even for you. Teacher retires at 55 years old. Ten years ago no contribution now 3% from the teacher to their pension plan. Lives another 30 years at 80% of their salary as pension typically about $60,000 a year = $1,800,0000. With zero or 3% contribution a teacher has $1,800,000 for retirement how does your 401k plan compare to that ?


that is just the pension
do not forget to add in the full healthcare for life also
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 06:17 PM

Originally Posted By: tubby
www.seethroughny.net Easy math even for you. Teacher retires at 55 years old. Ten years ago no contribution now 3% from the teacher to their pension plan. Lives another 30 years at 80% of their salary as pension typically about $60,000 a year = $1,800,0000. With zero or 3% contribution a teacher has $1,800,000 for retirement how does your 401k plan compare to that ?


Not new employees.

Tier 6
Your pension factor equals either: a) 1.67% per year if you have less than 20 years of service, or b) 1.75% per year for all service if credited with 20 years. Under Tier 6, you would receive 35% plus 2% per year beyond 20 years if credited with more than 20 years of service.

If you retire prior to age 63, you will receive a reduced benefit (without exception).
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 06:58 PM

New teachers or ones that started twenty years ago still have better retirement benefits than any non government worker.
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 07:26 PM

Originally Posted By: tubby
www.seethroughny.net Easy math even for you. Teacher retires at 55 years old. Ten years ago no contribution now 3% from the teacher to their pension plan. Lives another 30 years at 80% of their salary as pension typically about $60,000 a year = $1,800,0000. With zero or 3% contribution a teacher has $1,800,000 for retirement how does your 401k plan compare to that ?


News flash "Tubby boy" when it comes to math I've forgotten more than you know and that's a fact. Electricians must have a very strong background in that regard. Now I'll tell you how ludicrous your equation sound in regard to me. I worked 35 plus years and contributed 8% of my base salary but on top of that LeChase contributed matching funds up to 8%, One problem though, many companies don't keep cash based deposit anymore but more so, they utilize investment based 401K. factoring in the shaky market Mr. Bush created in the early 2000s, many of my peers lost 100 of thousands. thus your across the board standard calculations looks good only on paper.
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 09:01 PM

You can't convince tubby.

I'd rather have 60% of $100,000 than 80% of $60,000, but, hey, that's just me.

I'll never make it to 80% anyway unless I work until I'm 80. I became a teacher later in life than most.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/24/14 09:11 PM

Originally Posted By: tubby
New teachers or ones that started twenty years ago still have better retirement benefits than any non government worker.

Nonsense. Not even CLOSE.

http://work.chron.com/much-rookie-merchant-marine-make-24699.html
http://www.ehow.com/list_6729478_benefits-merchant-marines.html

After 1988 Merchant Mariners became entitled to the same as any veteran's benefits.

Most blue water mariners work six months on and six months off.

As for pay... How does up to $1000 an hour sound to you?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 06:40 AM

<!-- -->
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
BTW,Yes I am an awesome employer.


when you give your employees 12 months pay for 6 months of work, 5 day work weeks, full healthcare(vision, dental, health) for life, a full pension at age 55, and you can never terminate them even if they fail to perform


Wha? Huh?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 07:15 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
401K along with health benefits, 1 weeks vacation after a year of employment.

Originally Posted By: Formermac
I give my employees a pension plan


a 401k is not a pension


Correct, it's a savings plan, somewhere also I've mentioned a pension plan along with a week's vacation after one year of employment. Somewhere in this process, you've managed to convolute all your supposed intelligent questions and construe me as giving free benefits and early vacation time,$50,000 annual salaries along with offering $1666.00 a month toward some else's pension. Sit back and get your thought together before making yourself out of a bigger fool than you've already displayed.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 07:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: tubby
New teachers or ones that started twenty years ago still have better retirement benefits than any non government worker.

Nonsense. Not even CLOSE.

After 1988 Merchant Mariners became entitled to the same as any veteran's benefits.



you could ONLY provide one example?
eliminate the pensions for the 'teachers'
use the money for the students
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 07:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
401K along with health benefits, 1 weeks vacation after a year of employment.
Originally Posted By: Formermac
I give my employees a pension plan
a 401k is not a pension
Correct, it's a savings plan, somewhere also I've mentioned a pension plan along with a week's vacation after one year of employment.
you mentioned a 401k.
so do you offer a PENSION or a 401k to your employees?

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 07:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
News flash "Tubby boy" when it comes to math I've forgotten more than you know and that's a fact. Electricians must have a very strong background in that regard.

is that why you could not do simple interest?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 07:31 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
401K along with health benefits, 1 weeks vacation after a year of employment.

Originally Posted By: Formermac
I give my employees a pension plan


a 401k is not a pension


Correct, it's a savings plan, somewhere also I've mentioned a pension plan along with a week's vacation after one year of employment.


you mentioned a 401k.

so do you offer a PENSION or a 401k to your employees?



Seeing that I've mentioned several postings back, I can attain zero tax liability by offering my employees 401K, pension plans as well as healthcare, all being write off for my company as well as pre-tax benefits for employee, now this where your ignorance prevail by offering your own suppositions, how much does my employees contribute toward any of the benefits I've mentioned (as you've suppose) I do not give out free benefits. Your $1666 a month equation must have originated out of your toosh, along with other suppositions.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 07:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
I worked 35 plus years and contributed 8% of my base salary but on top of that LeChase contributed matching funds up to 8%, One problem though, many companies don't keep cash based deposit anymore but more so, they utilize investment based 401K.


translation
companies DO NOT offer pension plans they make their employees pay into a 401k
meaning the employee has less take home pay

the 'teachers' earn more
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 07:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
401K along with health benefits, 1 weeks vacation after a year of employment.
Originally Posted By: Formermac
I give my employees a pension plan
a 401k is not a pension

Correct, it's a savings plan, somewhere also I've mentioned a pension plan along with a week's vacation after one year of employment.

you mentioned a 401k.
so do you offer a PENSION or a 401k to your employees?

Seeing that I've mentioned several postings back, I can attain zero tax liability by offering my employees 401K, pension plans

do you offer your employees a pension or a 401k?

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 07:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
I worked 35 plus years and contributed 8% of my base salary but on top of that LeChase contributed matching funds up to 8%,

and if you were a 'teacher' you could have retired after 30 years and had a full pension and full healthcare

you also had to contribute 8% which means your take home pay was 8% less than a 'teachers' take home pay and the 'teacher' still gets a full pension

did Lechase give you full healthcare after 35 years of service? NO

which means your take home pay is even less because you also have to pay for your healthcare along with your 401k

the 'teachers' make more


Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 07:44 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
News flash "Tubby boy" when it comes to math I've forgotten more than you know and that's a fact. Electricians must have a very strong background in that regard.

is that why you could not do simple interest?


Ever hear of a IPAD Blue? It's has this amazing app which can calculate my voltages if I utilize transformers, diodes, resisters etc. One of my more simple apps can calculate mortgage interest, amortization schedules and car loans but there's a methodical madness factored into these calculations, you must input a given dollar amount times a interest rate times amount of years, now to add to your supposed intelligence, are those amount calculated based on compound interest such as daily, once a year, twice a year? What type of investment Blue? CD's Mutual Funds? all this will determine a set interest rate. All you're doing is unilaterally pulling numbers out of your arse and expect posters to read a mind that is definitely "cross wired" for lack of a better term.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 07:48 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats
You can't convince tubby.

I'd rather have 60% of $100,000 than 80% of $60,000, but, hey, that's just me.

you sound greedy to us - that is all taxpayer money

pay into your own 401k and eliminate the pensions
the money should go to the students

there are no companies in this area that offer a pension
the only one you mentioned was ITT and it is not as generous as yours
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 07:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
One of my more simple apps can calculate mortgage interest, amortization schedules and car loans


try an investment calculator app
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 08:02 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
I worked 35 plus years and contributed 8% of my base salary but on top of that LeChase contributed matching funds up to 8%,

and if you were a 'teacher' you could have retired after 30 years and had a full pension and full healthcare

you also had to contribute 8% which means your take home pay was 8% less than a 'teachers' take home pay and the 'teacher' still gets a full pension

did Lechase give you full healthcare after 35 years of service? NO

which means your take home pay is even less because you also have to pay for your healthcare along with your 401k

the 'teachers' make more




LMAO, LeChase gave me full healthcare after working 60 days, initially it was a benefit that I paid nothing into until the early 2000s after which I contributed a sum total of less than $200.00 a month. After retirement (yeah retirement but you've missed that during all of your facilitating your stance) I elected to receive a lump sum by forgoing retiree health coverage due the fact that I was now a full fledged independent contractor, supplying my own healthcare. Actually none of this is your business and it's really has nothing to do with teacher's pension but your mind has incorporated a plethora of scenarios that have nothing in common with one another but hey, it's working for you "ain't" it? Don't get offended if I decide to not take your advice and stick with the financial planner I currently use, she's worth her weight in gold. laugh
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 08:03 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats
Originally Posted By: tubby
www.seethroughny.net Easy math even for you. Teacher retires at 55 years old. Ten years ago no contribution now 3% from the teacher to their pension plan. Lives another 30 years at 80% of their salary as pension typically about $60,000 a year = $1,800,0000. With zero or 3% contribution a teacher has $1,800,000 for retirement how does your 401k plan compare to that ?


Not new employees.

Tier 6
Your pension factor equals either: a) 1.67% per year if you have less than 20 years of service, or b) 1.75% per year for all service if credited with 20 years. Under Tier 6, you would receive 35% plus 2% per year beyond 20 years if credited with more than 20 years of service.


so if you 'work' 30 years you get 35% plus 60% (30 x 2%) = 95% of your final pay

and you did not have to contribute any money towards your pension

the 'teachers' make more when you factor in all their benefits

hey formermac did Lechase give you 95% of your final pay when you left their company after 35 years of service? NO
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 08:05 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
One of my more simple apps can calculate mortgage interest, amortization schedules and car loans


try an investment calculator app


You can get it in the Windows or Android format as well laugh

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/finance.calc-loan-mortgage/id417006343?mt=8
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 08:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
After retirement (yeah retirement but you've missed that during all of your facilitating your stance) I elected to receive a lump sum by forgoing retiree health coverage due the fact that I was now a full fledged independent contractor


seems you did not retire because you were/are an independent contractor
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 08:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
After retirement I elected to receive a lump sum by forgoing retiree health coverage


the reason most people take a lump sum is because the coverage per month the company would have offered would be poor
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 08:13 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
I worked 35 plus years and contributed 8% of my base salary but on top of that LeChase contributed matching funds up to 8%, One problem though, many companies don't keep cash based deposit anymore but more so, they utilize investment based 401K.


translation
companies DO NOT offer pension plans they make their employees pay into a 401k
meaning the employee has less take home pay

the 'teachers' earn more


I have a pension, another falsehood on your part, a 401K is not mandatory and you have the option to forego it for whatever crazy reason you decide not to exercise it. Look it up
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 08:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Don't get offended if I decide to not take your advice and stick with the financial planner I currently use, she's worth her weight in gold. laugh


you must have a large accounting department in your company if it is just ONE person...

whistle
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 08:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
I have a pension, another falsehood on your part,


if you were a 'teacher' you would be getting 105% of your final pay for your pension seeing that you had 35 years of service

you are still working so most likely not
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 08:19 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
After retirement I elected to receive a lump sum by forgoing retiree health coverage


the reason most people take a lump sum is because the coverage per month the company would have offered would be poor


Or possibly some relationship to the age of the person being covered, which can be extremely high. Have you read about companies that have pass premium increases on to the retiree?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 08:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
After retirement I elected to receive a lump sum by forgoing retiree health coverage

the reason most people take a lump sum is because the coverage per month the company would have offered would be poor

Or possibly some relationship to the age of the person being covered, which can be extremely high. Have you read about companies that have pass premium increases on to the retiree?


see that does not happen with a 'teachers' health coverage because the taxpayers pay for the costs

see the 'teachers' make far more when you factor in their benefits package

keep on working to pay for your 'teachers' retirement at age 55...

wink
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 08:44 AM

Now that I've answer your questions, can you respond to a few of mines

What was the highest education level you've obtained?
What did you do for a living?
Did you have children and what level of education did they attain?
Do you have health insurance, a 401K or pension?
Did you retire or live on Social Service most of your adult life.
The reason I ask these questions, if you had your way,our children will be way behind the curve in regard to being prepared for college or the workforce. Your complaints as if they were valid, would create more harm then good when we take quality teachers out of the system. Remember that our generation, those born after 1945 decided to satisfy our personal & selfish needs by sending most jobs overseas, raising college tuitions to record levels and destroying any sibilance of obtaining a decent paying job, now along with your personal agenda to deny them a quality education by getting rid of "overpaid" dedicated teachers. Apparently the lack of common sense and greed have been true companions in your life.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 08:49 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
401K along with health benefits, 1 weeks vacation after a year of employment.
Originally Posted By: Formermac
I give my employees a pension plan
a 401k is not a pension

Correct, it's a savings plan, somewhere also I've mentioned a pension plan along with a week's vacation after one year of employment.

you mentioned a 401k.
so do you offer a PENSION or a 401k to your employees?

Seeing that I've mentioned several postings back, I can attain zero tax liability by offering my employees 401K, pension plans

do you offer your employees a pension or a 401k?



we will take that as a 'no - that you do not provide a pension to your employees'
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 08:58 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
I have a pension, another falsehood on your part,


if you were a 'teacher' you would be getting 105% of your final pay for your pension seeing that you had 35 years of service

you are still working so most likely not


Somewhere lost in your mind is the fact that I did in fact retire, started a company before I did such. The biggest asset for me is the fact that my Son and one Nephew along with 3 other employees are pretty well set in regard to continued employment. Question, are you in a "Group Home" setting? and how did you gain assess to the use of a PC? Just kidding..... I hope confused
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 09:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Somewhere lost in your mind is the fact that I did in fact retire, started a company before I did such.


you may have 'retired' from Lechase but you are running another company
not 100% retired
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 10:08 AM

This post makes absolutely no sense, 85% of privately owned companies do not give pensions so 0% of $100,000 is still zero.
Originally Posted By: twocats
You can't convince tubby.

I'd rather have 60% of $100,000 than 80% of $60,000, but, hey, that's just me.

I'll never make it to 80% anyway unless I work until I'm 80. I became a teacher later in life than most.
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 10:14 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Somewhere lost in your mind is the fact that I did in fact retire, started a company before I did such.


you may have 'retired' from Lechase but you are running another company
not 100% retired


How about the fact that I'm here most days and my Son has taken over the primary responsibilities seeing that I broke my femur last fall, it's rather painful getting around since then, so you've once again stated incorrectly, I receive a pension & supplemental income thus giving me the privilege to state that "I AM RETIRED" now for you, what has afforded you the privilege to b**** here everyday for the last 25000 plus postings?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 10:22 AM

Originally Posted By: twocats
You can't convince tubby.

I'd rather have 60% of $100,000 than 80% of $60,000, but, hey, that's just me.

I'll never make it to 80% anyway unless I work until I'm 80. I became a teacher later in life than most.


and the taxpayers would rather see the money going to help the students

but hey you just want a free ride on taxpayer money

see the title of the thread...
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 11:09 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: tubby
New teachers or ones that started twenty years ago still have better retirement benefits than any non government worker.

Nonsense. Not even CLOSE.

After 1988 Merchant Mariners became entitled to the same as any veteran's benefits.

you could ONLY provide one example?

Why NOT?

It only took one example to lay waste to another one of the patently false and largely idiotic assertions being floated around on this thread. smirk

I just love to watch, how out of desperation, you always try to "move the goal line", once the facts start to conflict with another of your silly arguments.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/25/14 11:21 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: twocats
You can't convince tubby.

I'd rather have 60% of $100,000 than 80% of $60,000, but, hey, that's just me.

I'll never make it to 80% anyway unless I work until I'm 80. I became a teacher later in life than most.

and the taxpayers would rather see the money going to help the students

but hey you just want a free ride on taxpayer money

see the title of the thread...

What... THAT inflammatory Click-Bait?

Geeze! Now that we know that that's all we have to do to solidify our arguments, you can be sure to see such future thread titles as "Inbred Conservative Mongrels" and "Libertarians - Evil Space Aliens: Yes or NO?". laugh laugh laugh
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/14 09:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
How about the fact


do you compensate your employees $150,000 per year for 6 months of 'work?
the answer is NO
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/14 09:10 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
How about the fact


do you compensate your employees $150,000 per year for 6 months of 'work?
the answer is NO



Timbo made a statement yesterday in regard to your personality and general state of mind, initially I thought maybe somewhat harsh in nature but after careful consideration, he is 100% correct. BTW, your question and answer is correct as well.

Timbo's statement to you.

Geeze! Now that we know that that's all we have to do to solidify our arguments, you can be sure to see such future thread titles as "Inbred Conservative Mongrels" and "Libertarians - Evil Space Aliens: Yes or NO?". laugh laugh laugh
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/14 09:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
How about the fact

do you compensate your employees $150,000 per year for 6 months of 'work?the answer is NO

BTW, your question and answer is correct as well.

lets see if you can grasp this

'teachers' pay for six months of 'work' paid by taxpayers $50,000
'teachers healthcare(health, vision, dental) benefits paid by taxpayers for a year $20,000
'teachers' healthcare(health, vision, dental) paid after retirement per year paid by taxpayers $20,000
'teachers' pension per year at retirement paid by taxpayers$60,000

total compensation package for 6 months of 'work'
$50,000 + $20,000 + $20,000 + $60,000 = $150,000

and formermac says the 'teachers' are underpaid be he refuses to send in a larger payment on his school taxes...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/14 09:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Timbo made a statement


you two are peas in a pod...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/14 09:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
How about the fact


did you ever figure out if you offered your employees a 401k or pension?

do not bother as it is clearly obvious you lack basic understanding of a pension
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/14 09:39 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
How about the fact

do you compensate your employees $150,000 per year for 6 months of 'work?the answer is NO

BTW, your question and answer is correct as well.

lets see if you can grasp this

'teachers' pay for six months of 'work' paid by taxpayers $50,000
'teachers healthcare(health, vision, dental) benefits paid by taxpayers for a year paid by taxpayers $20,000
'teachers' healthcare(health, vision, dental) paid after retirement per year paid by taxpayers $20,000
'teachers' pension per year at retirement paid by taxpayers$60,000

total compensation package for 6 months of 'work'
$50,000 + $20,000 + $20,000 + $60,000 = $150,000

and formermac says the 'teachers' are underpaid be he refuses to send in a larger payment on his school taxes...



Teachers are underpaid, so your premise to ask that same question many times over uniquely displays some form of mental disturbance or lack of comprehension, secondly, to put words into someone else's mouth also further confirms my supposition that you are indeed limited in your mental capabilities. I don't like paying the property taxes I owe but your ignorance to state that people who love teachers should show their appreciation by overpaying is totally ludicrous. I live in the state of Pennsylvania so it's comforting in knowing that my tax dollars aren't being wasted toward poor mental health care in the state of New York, of course I digress due to the fact the I pay Federal taxes as well. frown frown frown
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/14 09:41 AM

Originally Posted By: tubby
This post makes absolutely no sense, 85% of privately owned companies do not give pensions so 0% of $100,000 is still zero.
Originally Posted By: twocats
You can't convince tubby.

I'd rather have 60% of $100,000 than 80% of $60,000, but, hey, that's just me.

I'll never make it to 80% anyway unless I work until I'm 80. I became a teacher later in life than most.


maybe when tc retires all the pensions and healthcare coverage will be eliminated and she will get 0% of $100,000

wink
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/14 09:44 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
How about the fact


did you ever figure out if you offered your employees a 401k or pension?

do not bother as it is clearly obvious you lack basic understanding of a pension


LMAO, I was wondering why I've been receiving this windfall every month as well as why did I take a large chunk of money when I retired and rolled it over to another account. crazy
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/14 09:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Teachers are underpaid,


open your purse and send in more money
practice what you preach
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/14 09:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
How about the fact


did you ever figure out if you offered your employees a 401k or pension?

do not bother as it is clearly obvious you lack basic understanding of a pension


LMAO, I was wondering why I've been receiving this windfall every month as well as why did I take a large chunk of money when I retired and rolled it over to another account. crazy


see the large print?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/14 09:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Teachers are underpaid,
I don't like paying the property taxes
I live in the state of Pennsylvania


and you moved to PA because your school taxes were too high in NY...
whistle
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/14 09:59 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
How about the fact


did you ever figure out if you offered your employees a 401k or pension?

do not bother as it is clearly obvious you lack basic understanding of a pension


LMAO, I was wondering why I've been receiving this windfall every month as well as why did I take a large chunk of money when I retired and rolled it over to another account. crazy


see the large print?




Do You?
BYE BYE laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

~ Mark Twain
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/26/14 10:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
How about the fact


did you ever figure out if you offered your employees a 401k or pension?

do not bother as it is clearly obvious you lack basic understanding of a pension


LMAO, I was wondering why I've been receiving this windfall every month as well as why did I take a large chunk of money when I retired and rolled it over to another account. crazy


see the large print?



Do You?


getting a pension check is far different than managing a pension plan for your employees

you only offer your employees a 401k because it is too costly to offer them a pension

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/27/14 08:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Teachers are underpaid


feel free to send in more money for your school taxes then is required
of course you will NOT do that
all talk
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/27/14 09:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
How about the fact


did you ever figure out if you offered your employees a 401k or pension?

do not bother as it is clearly obvious you lack basic understanding of a pension


LMAO, I was wondering why I've been receiving this windfall every month as well as why did I take a large chunk of money when I retired and rolled it over to another account. crazy


see the large print?




Do You?
BYE BYE laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

~ Mark Twain



advice most Liberals should follow!
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/27/14 01:41 PM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
How about the fact


did you ever figure out if you offered your employees a 401k or pension?

do not bother as it is clearly obvious you lack basic understanding of a pension


LMAO, I was wondering why I've been receiving this windfall every month as well as why did I take a large chunk of money when I retired and rolled it over to another account. crazy


see the large print?




Do You?
BYE BYE laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

~ Mark Twain



advice most Liberals should follow!


While we're still off topic Sporty, I would like to congratulate myself for totally agreeing with you on your last statement. Liberals have followed the advice of Mark Twain and have managed to avoid for the most part,the foot in mouth fray or is that more of an uncontrollable disease for the Republicans?


http://www.salon.com/2013/10/24/gop_lead...show_interview/
http://dumbthingsrepublicanssay.tumblr.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post...l-their-libido/
http://prospect.org/article/why-republicans-keep-calling-women-sluts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/g...5d3a_story.html

http://crooksandliars.com/heather/wingnut-steve-king-tells-fox-republicans-b

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178574/senate-republicans-turn-their-backs-veterans
Posted by: howbouthat

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/27/14 07:00 PM

BZ, Since you like to answer questions with questions let me throw this one at you. Since you perceive teachers to be over compensated and since you continually compare their salaries/benefits with private professions that have objective, measurable goals, what is your premise to compare the subjective end product of teachers with private industry and thus comparing compensations?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/28/14 02:15 PM

Originally Posted By: twocats
Under Tier 6, you would receive 35% plus 2% per year beyond 20 years if credited with more than 20 years of service.

so you get 35% of your final salary just for 'showing up'

there are no other pensions that offer that over-generous pay out

feel free to list the ones that offer a 35% condition
Posted by: howbouthat

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/28/14 02:48 PM

BZ, Since you like to answer questions with questions let me throw this one at you. Since you perceive teachers to be over compensated and since you continually compare their salaries/benefits with private professions that have objective, measurable goals, what is your premise to compare the subjective end product of teachers with private industry and thus comparing compensations?
Posted by: newsman38

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/30/14 11:44 AM

Can a lawsuit by nine students topple teacher tenure? The nine student plaintiffs in the case – known as Vergara v. California - are challenging two main areas of state law: permanent employment and dismissal statutes the plaintiffs say make it difficult to get rid of bad teachers, and the seniority-based layoff system, which they say makes it hard to keep good, less-senior teachers during difficult times.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/31/14 06:52 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
since you continually compare their salaries/benefits with private professions


it is the 'teachers' and 'teacher' supporters that compare their salary to the private section
they refuse to factor in the entire benefits package

can you list any private sector jobs in this area that 'works' 6 months out of the year but also gets overly generous life time benefits?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/31/14 06:58 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
teachers


should bad 'teachers' be allowed to stay in their job?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/31/14 07:00 AM

Originally Posted By: newsman38
Can a lawsuit by nine students topple teacher tenure? The nine student plaintiffs in the case – known as Vergara v. California - are challenging two main areas of state law: permanent employment and dismissal statutes the plaintiffs say make it difficult to get rid of bad teachers, and the seniority-based layoff system, which they say makes it hard to keep good, less-senior teachers during difficult times.


wonder if the 'teachers' unions will be fighting against this...
Posted by: newsman38

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/31/14 07:47 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: newsman38
Can a lawsuit by nine students topple teacher tenure? The nine student plaintiffs in the case – known as Vergara v. California - are challenging two main areas of state law: permanent employment and dismissal statutes the plaintiffs say make it difficult to get rid of bad teachers, and the seniority-based layoff system, which they say makes it hard to keep good, less-senior teachers during difficult times.


wonder if the 'teachers' unions will be fighting against this...


PBS News Hour: the California Federation of Teachers, one of the unions fighting the lawsuit...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/31/14 08:03 AM

Originally Posted By: newsman38
PBS News Hour: the California Federation of Teachers, one of the unions fighting the lawsuit...


remember it is all about the students 'teachers'...
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/31/14 12:53 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone

can you list any private sector jobs in this area that 'works' 6 months out of the year but also gets overly generous life time benefits?

Please explain how you came to the determination that teachers work only six months.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/31/14 02:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Fritz
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone

can you list any private sector jobs in this area that 'works' 6 months out of the year but also gets overly generous life time benefits?

Please explain how you came to the determination that teachers work only six months.


Teaching is a seasonal job.

Actually, it's a permanent seasonal job... but that season is certainly longer than six months! Even a mental midget like you could figure that one out.
Posted by: Lucinda Knotts

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/31/14 03:22 PM

Do you think it has anything to do with Fritzi's history of being a bit less than a seasonal student while in HS???
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 03/31/14 03:35 PM

Harley... one child left behind. grin
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 09:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: Fritz
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone

can you list any private sector jobs in this area that 'works' 6 months out of the year but also gets overly generous life time benefits?

Please explain how you came to the determination that teachers work only six months.


Teaching is a seasonal job.

Actually, it's a permanent seasonal job... but that season is certainly longer than six months!


and how long is it?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 09:40 AM

Quote:
Can a lawsuit by nine students topple teacher tenure? The nine student plaintiffs in the case – known as Vergara v. California - are challenging two main areas of state law: permanent employment and dismissal statutes the plaintiffs say make it difficult to get rid of bad teachers, and the seniority-based layoff system, which they say makes it hard to keep good, less-senior teachers during difficult times.


so why does the union want to keep bad teachers?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 09:43 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: Fritz
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone

can you list any private sector jobs in this area that 'works' 6 months out of the year but also gets overly generous life time benefits?

Please explain how you came to the determination that teachers work only six months.


Teaching is a seasonal job.

Actually, it's a permanent seasonal job... but that season is certainly longer than six months!


and how long is it?

I just asked YOU that! Of coursed, you're only good at asking questions and not very special on answering them.

I believe they work about nine months of the year. Of course, keep in mind that they are not paid for the two months in the summer.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 09:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
I believe they work about nine months of the year. Of course, keep in mind that they are not paid for the two months in the summer.


do they not get a week off every month from november to june?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 10:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
I believe they work about nine months of the year. Of course, keep in mind that they are not paid for the two months in the summer.


9 months + 2 months = 11 months?
in the real world a year is 12 months long
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 10:08 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
I believe they work about nine months of the year. Of course, keep in mind that they are not paid for the two months in the summer.


do they not get a week off every month from november to june?

Why don't you spell it out for us, princess? Name the months and dates.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 10:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
I believe they work about nine months of the year. Of course, keep in mind that they are not paid for the two months in the summer.


do they not get a week off every month from november to june?

Why don't you spell it out for us, princess? Name the months and dates.


see the bold print
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 10:25 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
I believe they work about nine months of the year. Of course, keep in mind that they are not paid for the two months in the summer.


do they not get a week off every month from november to june?

Why don't you spell it out for us, princess? Name the months and dates.


see the bold print

Name the months and dates.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 10:29 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
I believe they work about nine months of the year. Of course, keep in mind that they are not paid for the two months in the summer.


9 months + 2 months = 11 months?
in the real world a year is 12 months long

Show me where I said that?

Oh... that's right. You only ask questions and never answer them.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 10:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
I believe they work about nine months of the year. Of course, keep in mind that they are not paid for the two months in the summer.


9 months + 2 months = 11 months?
in the real world a year is 12 months long

Show me where I said that?


see the large bold black print
and you 'teach'.... crazy blush crazy
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 10:41 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
I believe they work about nine months of the year. Of course, keep in mind that they are not paid for the two months in the summer.


9 months + 2 months = 11 months?
in the real world a year is 12 months long

Show me where I said that?


see the large bold black print
and you 'teach'.... crazy blush crazy

Umm...no. I'm not a teacher. I'll take bad assumptions for 600, Alex. smirk

I said that I thought teachers taught about 9 months and had about 2 months off in the summer. No where did I say that 9 months and 2 months equal 12 months. You only decided to read that, while I didn't mention the other month where I thought school was on vacation during the school year (thus, the teacher would be off too).

Once again... name the months and dates.
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 11:30 AM

Bluballz is having difficulty with the fact that Sept-June is a 9 month span. Geesh! We all pray for her.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 11:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
while I didn't mention the other month where I thought school was on vacation during the school year (thus, the teacher would be off too).


nice try
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 11:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
the fact that Sept-June is a 9 month span.


sept-may is a 9 month span
sept-june is a 10 month span
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 11:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
I said that I thought teachers taught about 9 months


how many other salaried employees in this area work only 9 months?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 12:30 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
I said that I thought teachers taught about 9 months

how many other salaried employees in this area work only 9 months?

'Atta girl... just keep moving the target and "upping" the criteria. smirk
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 12:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
I said that I thought teachers taught about 9 months

how many other salaried employees in this area work only 9 months?

'Atta girl... just keep moving the target and "upping" the criteria. smirk


'upping'??
is that why you were not able to provide a list when asked before?

LOL
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 01:26 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
the fact that Sept-June is a 9 month span.


sept-may is a 9 month span
sept-june is a 10 month span


I rest my case.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 04:11 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
while I didn't mention the other month where I thought school was on vacation during the school year (thus, the teacher would be off too).


nice try


Nice try yourself, Blowzone. Stop placing words in other people's mouths.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 04:18 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
I said that I thought teachers taught about 9 months


how many other salaried employees in this area work only 9 months?

As I've been saying all along, I believe school should be in session year round, with anywhere from two to four weeks off for vacation. Much of the rest of the world does this, and we are no longer a society where most of us are farmers and thus follow the seasons. However, that would mean that teachers would become year round employees, and as thus their salary would need to be increased commensurate with the extension of the school year.
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 04:41 PM

The typical school year is 40 weeks for the students. Summer school is 5 or 6 weeks depending on the age of the students. Many, if not not most, parents around here actually want their kids home with them or at least available during the summer. For all the rest, summer school is an option (at least at my level). At this point, we can't mandate summer school for struggling students (at my level). I wish we could.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 04:46 PM

Originally Posted By: twocats
The typical school year is 40 weeks for the students.

If this is true, then I guess I was pretty much on target when I said that teachers were teaching about 9 months of the year. Does that 40 weeks exclude vacation time during the school year?
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 04:58 PM

Total student time in school is 40 weeks.
Posted by: tubby

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 06:31 PM

must be nice
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 07:03 PM

Originally Posted By: tubby
must be nice


Have at it.

http://teach.com/states/become-a-teacher-in-new-york


...or 40 weeks
Posted by: howbouthat

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 07:30 PM

Let's do the math
Teachers are contracted for a minimum of 186 days for ten months. That would be 18.6 days per month. They are paid for 10 months. Private industry work 241 days per year at 12 months. I am subtracting weekends and 4 weeks vacation (that any employee should receive with a bachelors and Masters Degree or it's their own fault) divide 241/12= 20.1 days per month. Is there a difference? Yes. Is it as disproportionate at a certain poster would like us to think? Not nearly! Just one other point. Do private employees generally get to pick their vacation time? Usually. Teachers? No
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: twocats
Total student time in school is 40 weeks.

So in other words, Blowzone is full of excrement when she says that teachers only work six months out of the year.
Posted by: twocats

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 07:35 PM

I have never seen it put that way. Hmmm. Thanks.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 08:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: twocats
Total student time in school is 40 weeks.

So in other words, Blowzone is full of excrement when she says that teachers only work six months out of the year.


Wait for it

Quote:
WorK SHeEt

teach'ers days worked = 180

number of days in a month = 30

180 / 30 = 6 months

In the real world people work 365 days a year.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/01/14 09:49 PM

Quote:
Do private employees generally get to pick their vacation time? Usually. Teachers? No


So what? If picking their vacation time was important to them, they wouldn't have chosen teaching. It's not as if the admins sprang a big surprise on them the 1st day they showed up.
Posted by: SportsRef1

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/02/14 05:32 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Let's do the math
Teachers are contracted for a minimum of 186 days for ten months. That would be 18.6 days per month. They are paid for 10 months. Private industry work 241 days per year at 12 months. I am subtracting weekends and 4 weeks vacation (that any employee should receive with a bachelors and Masters Degree or it's their own fault) divide 241/12= 20.1 days per month. Is there a difference? Yes. Is it as disproportionate at a certain poster would like us to think? Not nearly! Just one other point. Do private employees generally get to pick their vacation time? Usually. Teachers? No



"let's do the math".......LOL!........to get to a level where you recieve 4 weeks vacation in the private sector you have probably 20 or more years there, regardless of the piece of paper hanging on the wall(unless you sit in upper mgmt.)......as far as picking their vacation....most of the time teachers have off is when those in the private sector are taking their vacations and many in the private sector are working Saturdays and Sundays....might wanna work on that math!
Posted by: Lucinda Knotts

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/02/14 09:46 AM

OK, let's have it your way just to see if there's a huge difference. Assume that an employee works 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year, gets no holidays off, and no vacation. Lessee...that's 5x52=260 days per year, 260/12 = 21.7 days per month, versus 18.6 per month. I know plenty of teachers who work part-time jobs, and many who work full time at other jobs during their summer "vacation." Not to mention the time spent at night grading papers, preparing lesson plans, etc., and don't forget the "voluntary" duties they perform like chaperoning school events, parent-teacher conferences, and the extra school supplies they often have to buy to teach their classes. All that to be maligned by someone who, even with a pound of bacon treats, probably couldn't teach a dog to sit up. A soft life indeed!
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/02/14 10:27 AM


While your numbers may be spot on and your logic is impeccable as always, the notion of communicating these facts to certain "critics", hinges on their potential adroitness to apply simple math.

Oh, wait... I guess you already said that. grin

Great Post LK!
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/02/14 10:36 AM

Danged teachers! Always taking the easy path to a life of riches. To those who say they have it easy; please feel free to enter the profession and enjoy the career that you disdain because of all of the wonderful perks and bennies.
Posted by: howbouthat

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/02/14 06:55 PM

Originally Posted By: SportsRef1
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Let's do the math
Teachers are contracted for a minimum of 186 days for ten months. That would be 18.6 days per month. They are paid for 10 months. Private industry work 241 days per year at 12 months. I am subtracting weekends and 4 weeks vacation (that any employee should receive with a bachelors and Masters Degree or it's their own fault) divide 241/12= 20.1 days per month. Is there a difference? Yes. Is it as disproportionate at a certain poster would like us to think? Not nearly! Just one other point. Do private employees generally get to pick their vacation time? Usually. Teachers? No



"let's do the math".......LOL!........to get to a level where you recieve 4 weeks vacation in the private sector you have probably 20 or more years there, regardless of the piece of paper hanging on the wall(unless you sit in upper mgmt.)......as far as picking their vacation....most of the time teachers have off is when those in the private sector are taking their vacations and many in the private sector are working Saturdays and Sundays....might wanna work on that math!

If you look at the premise of education and professionalism the guidelines I used are, in fact, quite minimal. I person with the education REQUIRED in the teaching profession should, in the private sector, be receiving at least four weeks vacation a year. If they are working weekends and have the above noted education than they should be off on other days. If you are talking minimum wage private sector jobs than you are not equating educational levels. As for the other comment made by VM your comment is true about picking their profession, and as such so too are the benefits, wages, et al. that teachers earn. Argue the same point or your argument has no validity. That's BZ's problem He/she/it is using various arguments about hours, work, benefits, and so on yet is unable to ask valid questions about the content of a post, but must pull out pieces that, out of context, appear to make his/her/its point.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/03/14 08:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Sketch
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Sketch
the fact that Sept-June is a 9 month span.


sept-may is a 9 month span
sept-june is a 10 month span


I rest my case.


you were incorrect
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/03/14 08:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
As I've been saying all along, I believe school should be in session year round, with anywhere from two to four weeks off for vacation. Much of the rest of the world does this, and we are no longer a society where most of us are farmers and thus follow the seasons. However, that would mean that teachers would become year round employees, and as thus their salary would need to be increased commensurate with the extension of the school year.


so you are saying that a salaried employee should be paid more to perform their job?

nice try
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/03/14 08:58 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Let's do the math
Teachers are contracted for a minimum of 186 days for ten months. That would be 18.6 days per month. They are paid for 10 months. Private industry work 241 days per year at 12 months. I am subtracting weekends and 4 weeks vacation (that any employee should receive with a bachelors and Masters Degree or it's their own fault) divide 241/12= 20.1 days per month. Is there a difference? Yes. Is it as disproportionate at a certain poster would like us to think? Not nearly! Just one other point. Do private employees generally get to pick their vacation time? Usually. Teachers? No


here is your challenge:

list all the private local employers in the area that offer the generous pension to their employees as the 'teacher' gets plus the employer must pay for full lifetime healthcare(health, vision, dental...) for the employee with no or little contribution by the employee

are you up to it?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/03/14 09:00 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezon

so you are saying that a salaried employee should be paid to more to perform their job?

nice try

I'm saying that if an employee that normally works 9 or 10 months of the year starts working 12 months of the year, the salary for that position should go up.

Nice try, yourself...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/03/14 09:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Lucinda Knotts
I know plenty of teachers who work part-time jobs, and many who work full time at other jobs during their summer "vacation."


do they get their healthcare and pension from those employers for those months?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/03/14 09:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezon

so you are saying that a salaried employee should be paid to more to perform their job?

nice try

I'm saying that if an employee that normally works 9 or 10 months of the year starts working 12 months of the year, the salary for that position should go up.

Nice try, yourself...


so you are saying that a salaried employee should be paid to more to perform their job?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/03/14 09:25 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
If you look at the premise of education and professionalism the guidelines I used are, in fact, quite minimal. I person with the education REQUIRED in the teaching profession should, in the private sector, be receiving at least four weeks vacation a year.

That's BZ's problem He/she/it is using various arguments about hours, work, benefits, and so on yet is unable to ask valid questions about the content of a post, but must pull out pieces that, out of context, appear to make his/her/its point.


and yet you just compared a 'seasonal/teacher' job with a 12 month job
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/03/14 09:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
I'm saying that if an employee that normally works 9 or 10 months of the year starts working 12 months of the year, the salary for that position should go up.

Nice try, yourself...


if a private sector salaried employee works 12 months then are they guaraneteed a generous pension/healthcare for life and total job security?
Posted by: howbouthat

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/03/14 06:07 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Let's do the math
Teachers are contracted for a minimum of 186 days for ten months. That would be 18.6 days per month. They are paid for 10 months. Private industry work 241 days per year at 12 months. I am subtracting weekends and 4 weeks vacation (that any employee should receive with a bachelors and Masters Degree or it's their own fault) divide 241/12= 20.1 days per month. Is there a difference? Yes. Is it as disproportionate at a certain poster would like us to think? Not nearly! Just one other point. Do private employees generally get to pick their vacation time? Usually. Teachers? No


here is your challenge:

list all the private local employers in the area that offer the generous pension to their employees as the 'teacher' gets plus the employer must pay for full lifetime healthcare(health, vision, dental...) for the employee with no or little contribution by the employee

are you up to it?






So by ignoring my other point concerning hours you are consenting? Sorry I won't play your game of moving from one partial argument to another. Let's stick with the "part time" label you keep applying. Which part of the math do you have a problem with?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/03/14 06:17 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
I'm saying that if an employee that normally works 9 or 10 months of the year starts working 12 months of the year, the salary for that position should go up.

Nice try, yourself...


if a private sector salaried employee works 12 months then are they guaraneteed a generous pension/healthcare for life and total job security?

Not necessarily. But odds are that someone who works 12 months of the year is going to be paid more than someone who works 9 months of the year.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/03/14 06:18 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezon

so you are saying that a salaried employee should be paid to more to perform their job?

nice try

I'm saying that if an employee that normally works 9 or 10 months of the year starts working 12 months of the year, the salary for that position should go up.

Nice try, yourself...


so you are saying that a salaried employee should be paid to more to perform their job?

I'm saying that if an employee's work load increases, not by hours, but by months... their pay should be increased.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/03/14 06:46 PM

here is ITS challenge:

Quote:
list all the school districts in the area that must pay for full lifetime healthcare(health, vision, dental...)
are you up to it?


Without making the list up like tubby with the no pension list.

IT may be surprised, albeit in denial, that many teachers do not get vision or dental coverage while still employed, or full lifetime any kind of healthcare in retirement. Contractual not automatic.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 08:29 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Let's do the math
Teachers are contracted for a minimum of 186 days for ten months. That would be 18.6 days per month. They are paid for 10 months. Private industry work 241 days per year at 12 months. I am subtracting weekends and 4 weeks vacation (that any employee should receive with a bachelors and Masters Degree or it's their own fault) divide 241/12= 20.1 days per month. Is there a difference? Yes. Is it as disproportionate at a certain poster would like us to think? Not nearly! Just one other point. Do private employees generally get to pick their vacation time? Usually. Teachers? No


here is your challenge:

list all the private local employers in the area that offer the generous pension to their employees as the 'teacher' gets plus the employer must pay for full lifetime healthcare(health, vision, dental...) for the employee with no or little contribution by the employee

are you up to it?


Sorry I won't play your game of moving from one partial argument to another. Let's stick with the "part time" label you keep applying.


you refuse to list local companies that offer over generous benefits because THERE ARE NOT ANY

eliminate the pensions for the 'teachers' and the healthcare benefits
convert to a 401k and sign the 'teachers' up for obamacare
use the money saved for the students
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 09:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezon
so you are saying that a salaried employee should be paid to more to perform their job?
nice try
I'm saying that if an employee that normally works 9 or 10 months of the year starts working 12 months of the year, the salary for that position should go up.

Nice try, yourself...

so you are saying that a salaried employee should be paid to more to perform their job?
I'm saying that if an employee's work load increases, not by hours, but by months... their pay should be increased.


do you understand the purpose of a salaried position?
Posted by: Lucinda Knotts

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 09:29 AM

BZ. Please tell me if I correctly understand your position. What I hear you arguing for is to reduce teacher salaries, eliminate benefits gained over many years, eliminate traditional pensions, and increase the hours worked per year. Am I getting the gist of what you're advocating?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 09:40 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
so you are saying that a salaried employee should be paid to more to perform their job?
I'm saying that if an employee's work load increases, not by hours, but by months... their pay should be increased. [/quote]
do you understand the purpose of a salaried position?
[/quote]
Do you understand that when a salaried position changes this radically, that it needs to be re-negotiated?

Of course you don't. That would require common sense.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 09:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
I'm saying that if an employee's work load increases, not by hours, but by months... their pay should be increased.


if a salaried employees work load is decreased by months then should the salary be lower?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 09:59 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
I'm saying that if an employee's work load increases, not by hours, but by months... their pay should be increased.


if a salaried employees work load is decreased by months then should the salary be lower?

I would say yes.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 10:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
here is ITS challenge:

Quote:
list all the school districts in the area that must pay for full lifetime healthcare(health, vision, dental...)
are you up to it?


Without making the list up like tubby with the no pension list.


IT may be surprised, albeit in denial, that many teachers do not get vision or dental coverage while still employed, or full lifetime any kind of healthcare in retirement. Contractual not automatic.



ITs typical response.

Again...in denial
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 10:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
I'm saying that if an employee's work load increases, not by hours, but by months... their pay should be increased.


if a salaried employees work load is decreased by months then should the salary be lower?

I would say yes.


if a 12 month salaried employee makes $50,000 per year then a 9 month salaried employee should make $37,500

$50,000 / 12 x 9 = $37,500
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 11:04 AM



Quote:
if a 12 month salaried employee makes $50,000 per year then a 9 month salaried employee should make $37,500

$50,000 / 12 x 9 = $37,500

Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 11:15 AM

Originally Posted By: newsman38
Can a lawsuit by nine students topple teacher tenure? The nine student plaintiffs in the case – known as Vergara v. California - are challenging two main areas of state law: permanent employment and dismissal statutes the plaintiffs say make it difficult to get rid of bad teachers, and the seniority-based layoff system, which they say makes it hard to keep good, less-senior teachers during difficult times.


why would the 'teachers' union fight against this?
Posted by: Josephus

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 11:17 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Josephus
I'm saying that if an employee's work load increases, not by hours, but by months... their pay should be increased.


if a salaried employees work load is decreased by months then should the salary be lower?

I would say yes.


if a 12 month salaried employee makes $50,000 per year then a 9 month salaried employee should make $37,500

$50,000 / 12 x 9 = $37,500

...and, your point?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 11:32 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
If you look at the premise of education and professionalism the guidelines I used are, in fact, quite minimal. I person with the education REQUIRED in the teaching profession should, in the private sector, be receiving at least four weeks vacation a year.


if you were seeking a salaried position in the private sector and the new employer were to offer you permanent employment then how much of a salary reduction would you take to be offered that benefit?

10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%...

Originally Posted By: newsman38

Can a lawsuit by nine students topple teacher tenure? The nine student plaintiffs in the case – known as Vergara v. California - are challenging two main areas of state law: permanent employment and dismissal statutes the plaintiffs say make it difficult to get rid of bad teachers, and the seniority-based layoff system, which they say makes it hard to keep good, less-senior teachers during difficult times.


Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 11:34 AM

Question, what should a Doctor or Lawyer make seeing that they work not by hourly wages nor necessarily by a 9-5 format?
More than likely their pay is dictated by the amount of education they possess, their expertise and any other factors causing them to be accessible after hours. Teachers have in fact years ago contacted either myself or my wife late in the evening or weekends if there were concerns regarding our children's behavior or grades. I was told during the months I worked on the Geneva General Hospital expansion project, it's CEO made more than the CEO of Strong Memorial, I'm not complaining due to the fact that they both may very well have earned every single penny then some.
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 11:42 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: newsman38
Can a lawsuit by nine students topple teacher tenure? The nine student plaintiffs in the case – known as Vergara v. California - are challenging two main areas of state law: permanent employment and dismissal statutes the plaintiffs say make it difficult to get rid of bad teachers, and the seniority-based layoff system, which they say makes it hard to keep good, less-senior teachers during difficult times.


why would the 'teachers' union fight against this?



OK, I think I am begining to understand how this game works.
Here is the answer to your above question.

From The Merger Study

Romulus
Retiree Health Insurance 50%-Individual and Family if the employee was employed in the district for 15 or more years up to age 65; 65-69-30%; 70-74-40%; 75 and up-50%

South Seneca
At retirement with at least 20 years , $6,000/year toward individual or family coverage up to age 65; after 65, $1,000 for individual or family coverage
no vision care at anytime for SS

Can you say medicaid?
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 12:03 PM


Quote:
you refuse to list local companies that offer over generous benefits because THERE ARE NOT ANY



Connect the dots

Not all about tenure.
The Vergara Trial in California could have more of an impact on American education than we realize.
Novel action to an age old theme. Student doesn't get good grades blame the teacher. Sounds like the Salem Witch trials.
The corporate education movement has reached an all time low in demonizing teachers.

http://laschoolreport.com/teacher-in-vergara-trial-blames-student-for-performing-poorly/

Perhaps educator Mitchell put it best: "How did we get to a point where corporate powers can cherry-pick some theoretical research about a complex problem and strike down imperfect but basically good laws, without offering alternatives?...Why should a few rich people's opinions on the causes of failure in poor schools be allowed to trump social science and the democratic rights of educators?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-b-gutman/children-last-california-_b_4809068.html

Cooperate education movement is maneuvering to take over public education. What many do not realize is that replacing elected school boards with cooperate management will take another bite out of democracy particularly in the hinterlands. Cooperate/federal educational reform is more about big business lining their pockets with money and very little to do with education.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-thompson/billionaires-boys-club_b_2791096.html
Posted by: howbouthat

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/04/14 02:42 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Let's do the math
Teachers are contracted for a minimum of 186 days for ten months. That would be 18.6 days per month. They are paid for 10 months. Private industry work 241 days per year at 12 months. I am subtracting weekends and 4 weeks vacation (that any employee should receive with a bachelors and Masters Degree or it's their own fault) divide 241/12= 20.1 days per month. Is there a difference? Yes. Is it as disproportionate at a certain poster would like us to think? Not nearly! Just one other point. Do private employees generally get to pick their vacation time? Usually. Teachers? No


here is your challenge:

list all the private local employers in the area that offer the generous pension to their employees as the 'teacher' gets plus the employer must pay for full lifetime healthcare(health, vision, dental...) for the employee with no or little contribution by the employee

are you up to it?


Sorry I won't play your game of moving from one partial argument to another. Let's stick with the "part time" label you keep applying.


you refuse to list local companies that offer over generous benefits because THERE ARE NOT ANY

eliminate the pensions for the 'teachers' and the healthcare benefits
convert to a 401k and sign the 'teachers' up for obamacare
use the money saved for the students


I'm still refuting your point concerning time worked.

So by ignoring my other point concerning hours you are consenting? Sorry I won't play your game of moving from one partial argument to another. Let's stick with the "part time" label you keep applying. Which part of the math do you have a problem with

So once we settle that point we can move forward. Otherwise you are muddying the waters with convoluted phrases.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/05/14 09:50 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Let's stick with the "part time" label you keep applying.


how would you define full time?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/05/14 09:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Question, what should a Doctor or Lawyer make seeing that they work not by hourly wages nor necessarily by a 9-5 format?


is their salary guaranteed?
Posted by: howbouthat

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/05/14 04:44 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Let's stick with the "part time" label you keep applying.


how would you define full time?



I'm not the one hung up on full time/part time. I just put the hours that teachers work compared to the average equally educated private employee. There isn't as great a difference as you would like people to think. Are we on the same page? Or are you having problems with semantics?
Posted by: DR. D

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/06/14 07:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: newsman38
Can a lawsuit by nine students topple teacher tenure? The nine student plaintiffs in the case – known as Vergara v. California - are challenging two main areas of state law: permanent employment and dismissal statutes the plaintiffs say make it difficult to get rid of bad teachers, and the seniority-based layoff system, which they say makes it hard to keep good, less-senior teachers during difficult times.


why would the 'teachers' union fight against this?



OK, I think I am begining to understand how this game works.
Here is the answer to your above question.

From The Merger Study

Romulus
Retiree Health Insurance 50%-Individual and Family if the employee was employed in the district for 15 or more years up to age 65; 65-69-30%; 70-74-40%; 75 and up-50%

South Seneca
At retirement with at least 20 years , $6,000/year toward individual or family coverage up to age 65; after 65, $1,000 for individual or family coverage
no vision care at anytime for SS

Can you say medicaid?




Huh, I was unaware of that. In Waterloo when you retire they show you the door and you get 0 health care coverage. They used to contribute $2000 towards it however that ended. They changed the whole layout on coverage for current workers by cutting the plans just to have the insurance companies increase the costs the following year.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/06/14 08:04 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Let's stick with the "part time" label you keep applying.
how would you define full time?

I'm not the one hung up on full time/part time.

then you must agree that the 'teachers' are part time
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/06/14 08:08 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Let's stick with the "part time" label you keep applying.
how would you define full time?

I'm not the one hung up on full time/part time. I just put the hours that teachers work compared to the average equally educated private employee.

how can you compare a 'part time' job with full benefits to a full time job with limited benefits?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/06/14 08:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
[i]Romulus
Retiree Health Insurance 50%-Individual and Family if the employee was employed in the district for 15 or more years up to age 65; 65-69-30%; 70-74-40%; 75 and up-50%


and what private sector employers in this area give out those benefits with only 15 years of service?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/06/14 08:16 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
I just put the hours that teachers work compared to the average equally educated private employee. There isn't as great a difference as you would like people to think.


and the private sector salaried employee works 10-12 hour days and even works the weekends
why?
to keep their job
the 'teacher' has a permanent job with no yearly evaluation
see lawsuit
Originally Posted By: newsman38

Can a lawsuit by nine students topple teacher tenure? The nine student plaintiffs in the case – known as Vergara v. California - are challenging two main areas of state law: permanent employment and dismissal statutes the plaintiffs say make it difficult to get rid of bad teachers, and the seniority-based layoff system, which they say makes it hard to keep good, less-senior teachers during difficult times.
Posted by: Lucinda Knotts

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/06/14 08:20 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
and the private sector salaried employee works 10-12 hour days even works the weekends
why?
to keep their job
the 'teacher' has a guaranteed job with no yearly evaluation
see lawsuit
What planet are you from? Are you seriously saying that ALL salaried employees work 50-60 hours per week AND weekends? And do you seriously believe that teachers don't receive evaluations?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 09:57 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
[i]Romulus
Retiree Health Insurance 50%-Individual and Family if the employee was employed in the district for 15 or more years up to age 65; 65-69-30%; 70-74-40%; 75 and up-50%


and what private sector employers in this area give out those benefits with only 15 years of service?


I personally like milk. You?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 09:58 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Let's stick with the "part time" label you keep applying.
how would you define full time?

I'm not the one hung up on full time/part time. I just put the hours that teachers work compared to the average equally educated private employee.

how can you compare a 'part time' job with full benefits to a full time job with limited benefits?




Since you are asking, yes, I do enjoys Parkers Grille. You?
Posted by: Sketch

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 09:58 AM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: howbouthat
Let's stick with the "part time" label you keep applying.
how would you define full time?

I'm not the one hung up on full time/part time.

then you must agree that the 'teachers' are part time


Halloween is my favorite holiday. Why do you ask?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 10:17 AM

wink
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 10:31 AM


Quote:
Halloween is my favorite holiday. Why do you ask?


OK,..... so what's the speed of dark?
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 10:48 AM


They keep getting better. grin
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 11:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind

Quote:
Halloween is my favorite holiday. Why do you ask?


OK,..... so what's the speed of dark?


Depends on latitude.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970401c.html
Posted by: Fart in the Wind

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 12:08 PM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind

Quote:
Halloween is my favorite holiday. Why do you ask?


OK,..... so what's the speed of dark?


Depends on latitude.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970401c.html


Or your attitude. Typical ancien regime liberalism and neoconservatism crap. Probably written by government workers who have nothing better to do than ask irrelevant questions and paid for by our tax dollars.
Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 12:24 PM


Actually, such information is at the very core of understanding our universe. It couldn't be more scientifically relevant.

But I digress.
Posted by: cwjga

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 12:25 PM

Everything else being equal, teachers work 80 days less per year than other salaried workers. Whether one thinks that is good or bad does nothing to improve education.

Time to start to talk about what actions will improve education.
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 12:45 PM

Originally Posted By: cwjga
Everything else being equal, teachers work 80 days less per year than other salaried workers. Whether one thinks that is good or bad does nothing to improve education.

Time to start to talk about what actions will improve education.



We have heard post after post in regard to overpaid teachers but as you so correctly stated, none of these discussions resolves or for that matter addresses the true nature of failing & under performing students. In it's present condition, a mandatory 7 days a week, 10 hours a day school years would gain minuscule results.


http://www.richmondreview.com/opinion/letters/235813591.html

Posted by: Timbo

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 01:36 PM


Proposal #1:

* Increase pay standards to 1960s/70s levels. (e.g.) Skilled Auto Assembly Workers: $50 per hour, Minimum Wage: $19 per hour.
* Roll back tax breaks for the wealthy and cut taxes to the middle class and the poor to pre-1974 levels.
* Eliminate rampant job outsourcing by reestablishing regulations on trade to pre-Reagan Administration era levels.

Families will then be able to afford to work fewer hours in single-worker homes, allowing parents to once again become engaged in the education of their children and will make available to states, massive increases in funding for education (as it was previously).

But, hey... what do I know?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 01:56 PM

All you've mentioned, defies the current mindset of our Conservative brethren. If we're not pro active to their current attempts, most Americans will digress back even further to that of the Depression era. Mr. Paul Ryan's budget seems to give us a pre view of their very agenda.


http://www.pressconnects.com/article/201...s-everyone-else
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 02:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
We have heard post after post in regard to overpaid teachers


have you sent in any additional money above your school taxes to help the condition?

of course not...
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 02:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Fart in the Wind
Probably written by government workers who have nothing better to do than ask irrelevant questions and paid for by our tax dollars.


the taxpayers pockets are only deep for your 'teachers' compensation package
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 02:48 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
We have heard post after post in regard to overpaid teachers


have you sent in any additional money above your school taxes to help the condition?

of course not...


What I actually did was spend that additional money on my two children's education via, PC's, printers and overall sitting down with them to help with their homework. The teachers were quite appreciative that we prepared them to be receptive mentally, behaviorally and academically so. How about you and yours? Based on your postings, I'm praying that the your kids received much more than you did in terms of comprehension abilities and basic common sense.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 02:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
We have heard post after post in regard to overpaid teachers
have you sent in any additional money above your school taxes to help the condition?
of course not...
What I actually did was spend that additional money on my two children's
so then you must believe the 'teachers' are overpaid...
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 03:22 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
We have heard post after post in regard to overpaid teachers
have you sent in any additional money above your school taxes to help the condition?
of course not...


What I actually did was spend that additional money on my two children's


so then you must believe the 'teachers' are overpaid...


Quite the opposite. Assuming that you're over 50(You don't act it) but lets assume that you're over 50, our generation was nurtured at home in regard to have respect for ourselves and others, disciplined to sit down and be attentive to the teachers. Today, a great deal of time is given to children with behavioral issues, personal problems at home and no desire to be there in the first place. Teachers now must be not only educators (The primary reason that they are there) but
psychologist, councilors, protector from bullies toward other students and themselves, attempting to keep pregnant girls in school as long as possible before the need to drop out, then in turn, pray that they return to complete their education.....need I go on? note where is there time to EDUCATE during this 45-50 minute class period? You've stated that teachers are so selfish and greedy, that they're not going to spend their "outside" time trying to get to these kids.....growing up in Interlaken-Romulus area, I know for a fact that you've stated one of the biggest misconceptions ever levied against most good teachers.

How many girls were pregnant during your school years? How many metal detectors did your school have? How many times did the cops come to the school for drugs and fights? How many time was your school evacuated due to a gunman shooting faculty and classmates? Your ability to circumvent truth will allow you to stated that these are only isolated incidents.


Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 03:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
most good teachers.


no reason to keep the bad ones

Originally Posted By: newsman38

Can a lawsuit by nine students topple teacher tenure? The nine student plaintiffs in the case – known as Vergara v. California - are challenging two main areas of state law: permanent employment and dismissal statutes the plaintiffs say make it difficult to get rid of bad teachers, and the seniority-based layoff system, which they say makes it hard to keep good, less-senior teachers during difficult times.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 03:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
where is there time to EDUCATE during this 45-50 minute class period?
how many 50 minute class periods does a 'teacher' have per day?

3?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 03:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
attempting to keep pregnant girls in school as long as possible


so all female students are pregnant?
even the ones in grade 7 and lower?
be real
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 03:49 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
where is there time to EDUCATE during this 45-50 minute class period?
how many 50 minute class periods does a 'teacher' have per day?

3?


There's a predicated system of honor and respect Blue, unless you're a cop or DA, most questions are precipitated by an answer. laugh laugh
but I guess that you first must possess honor and respect yourself in order to understand that concept.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 03:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Teachers now must be not only educators (The primary reason that they are there) but psychologist, councilors, protector from bullies toward other students and themselves, attempting to keep pregnant girls in school as long as possible before the need to drop out, then in turn, pray that they return to complete their education.....need I go on?


sounds like nothing but MORE excuses
and why did you not send in more money above your school taxes?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 03:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
time to EDUCATE during this 45-50 minute class period
how many 50 minute class periods does a 'teacher' have per day?

3?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 04:03 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Teachers now must be not only educators (The primary reason that they are there) but psychologist, councilors, protector from bullies toward other students and themselves, attempting to keep pregnant girls in school as long as possible before the need to drop out, then in turn, pray that they return to complete their education.....need I go on?


sounds like nothing but MORE excuses


LMAO, I get it now, you were one of those bad teachers/faculty members that did something very criminal, even the union couldn't keep you from getting canned. It all makes sense, you were so discredited that they sent you packing without the "benefit"(No pun intended) shocked of pension, medical insurance or retirement. Most likely you got back only the portion you put into your 401K. Were you a gym teacher, school bus driver/monitor or janitor?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 04:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
I guess that you first must possess honor and respect yourself in order to understand that concept.


try it yourself
Originally Posted By: Formermac
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 04:18 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
I guess that you first must possess honor and respect yourself in order to understand that concept.


try it yourself
Originally Posted By: Formermac

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.




Deflecting & circumventing by defending yourself versus substantiating your outlandish supposition LMAO.
How long ago were you fired? Did you spend the entire 401K on legal expenses?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 04:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
LMAO, I get it now, you were one of those bad teachers/faculty members that did something very criminal, even the union couldn't keep you from getting canned. It all makes sense, you were so discredited that they sent you packing without the "benefit"(No pun intended) shocked of pension, medical insurance or retirement. Most likely you got back only the portion you put into your 401K. Were you a gym teacher, school bus driver/monitor or janitor?


nice try
but incorrect
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 04:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Deflecting & circumventing by defending yourself versus substantiating your outlandish supposition LMAO.


must be why you do not offer your employees a pension...
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 04:24 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
LMAO, I get it now, you were one of those bad teachers/faculty members that did something very criminal, even the union couldn't keep you from getting canned. It all makes sense, you were so discredited that they sent you packing without the "benefit"(No pun intended) shocked of pension, medical insurance or retirement. Most likely you got back only the portion you put into your 401K. Were you a gym teacher, school bus driver/monitor or janitor?


nice try
but incorrect



Nice try and very accurate. Was it a large school district or a small one similar to Romulus or South Seneca?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 04:26 PM

Did you do jail time or was your attorney able to get you only probation and a fine?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 04:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Nice try and very accurate.


wrong again
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 04:31 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Nice try and very accurate.


wrong again



Did you hit a student?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Did you


wrong again
send in your money to the 'teachers'
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Nice try and very accurate.


wrong again



Did you hit a student?


Did you have a fight with one of your fellow faculty members?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 04:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
Did you


you tell us
you think you know it all
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 04:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Formermac
time to EDUCATE during this 45-50 minute class period
how many 50 minute class periods does a 'teacher' have per day?

3?
Posted by: Formermac

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 04:37 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Did you


you tell us
you think you know it all




I asked you being that for the last several months, you seem to have all the answers.
Were you given the benefit of finishing up the week or were you escorted off the property immediately?
Posted by: howbouthat

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/07/14 08:58 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Formermac
time to EDUCATE during this 45-50 minute class period
how many 50 minute class periods does a 'teacher' have per day?

3?


"know thy enemy" It seems that for your 'expertise' that you should know how many hours, periods, and breaks, teachers get.

So we've established that both teachers and private employees work "part time" as per your comment assessing the comparison between teacher hours and private employees. So from your assessment benefits and salaries really aren't that far apart. I'm glad we've finally settled the issue that teachers and private employees, with similar education, are really on par. See when you actually answer a question, solutions are easily found. Have a nice life. smile
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/08/14 08:03 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
So we've established that both teachers and private employees work "part time" as per your comment


and what post was that?
Posted by: bluezone

Re: ARROGANT TEACHERS - 04/08/14 08:12 AM

Originally Posted By: howbouthat
"know thy enemy"



Quote:
New York's Exploding Pension Costs
Complete report in PDF format
December 07, 2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Public pension costs in New York are mushrooming—just when taxpayers can least afford it. Over the next five years, tax-funded annual contributions to the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System (NYSTRS) will more than quadruple, while contributions to the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS) will more than double, according to estimates presented in this report. New York City’s budgeted pension costs, which already have increased tenfold in the past decade, will rise by at least 20 percent more in the next three years, according to the city’s financial plan projections.
NYSTRS and NYSLRS are “fully funded” by government actuarial standards, but we estimate they have combined funding shortfalls of $120 billion when their liabilities are measured using private-sector accounting rules. Based on a similar alternative standard, New York City’s pension funds had unfunded liabilities of $76 billion as of mid-2008—before their net asset values plunged in the wake of the financial crisis.

The run-up in pension costs threatens to divert scarce resources from essential public services during a time of extreme fiscal and economic stress for every level of government. New York needs to enact fundamental pension reform to permanently eliminate the risks and unpredictability inherent in the traditional pension system.

INTRODUCTION

In November 2003, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research issued a report de-scribing New York State’s public pension system as “a ticking fiscal time bomb.”

The bomb is now exploding—and New Yorkers will be coping with the fallout for years to come.

New York’s state and local taxpayers support three public pension funds encompassing eight different retirement systems—five covering different groups of New York City employees, and three covering employees of the state, local governments, school districts and public authorities outside the city. Between 2007 and 2009, these funds lost a collective total of more than $109 billion, or 29 percent of their combined assets. Two of the three funds ended their 2010 fiscal years with asset values below fiscal 2000 levels; the third has barely grown in the past decade.

Meanwhile, the number of pension fund retirees and other beneficiaries has risen 20 percent and total pension benefit payments have doubled in the past 10 years. Tax-payers will now have to make up for the resulting pension fund shortfalls.

This report forecasts pension funding trends for the New York State and Local Re-tirement Systems (NYSLRS) and the New York State Teachers Retirement System (NYSTRS), which cover nearly every public employee outside New York City. It also summarizes official reports of funded status and projected costs over the next three years for the New York City Retirement Systems. Assuming the pension systems all hit their rate-of-return targets:

• Taxpayer contributions to NYSTRS could more than quadruple, rising from about $900 million as of 2010-11 to about $4.5 billion by 2015-16. The projected increase is equivalent to 18 percent of current school property tax levies.
• State and local employer contributions to NYSLRS will more than double over the next five years, adding nearly $4 billion to annual taxpayer costs even if most opt to convert a portion of their higher pension bills into IOUs that won’t be paid off until the 2020s.
• New York City’s budgeted pension contributions, which already have in-creased by more than 500 percent ($5.8 billion) in the last decade, are projected to increase at least 20 percent more, or $1.4 billion, in the next three years.

Pension costs would be even higher if New York’s state and local retirement funds were not calculating pension contributions based on permissive government accounting standards, which allow them to understate their true liabilities.

While New York’s two state pension systems officially are deemed “fully funded,” we estimate that NYSLRS is $71 billion short of what it will need to fund its pension obligations, and that NYSTRS has a funding shortfall of $49 billion, based on valuation standards applied to corporate pension funds.

The need for reform

The record-breaking investment returns of the 1980s and ‘90s lulled New York’s elected leaders into a false sense of complacency. State and local payrolls were expanded and retirement benefits were enhanced under the assumption that pension costs would remain near historic lows. The downturn of 2000-03 and its impact on pension costs should have come as a wake-up call to state officials. Instead, they responded with pension funding gimmicks and minimal “reforms.”

In the short run, assuming the state Constitution is interpreted as allowing no change in benefits for current workers, there is no financially responsible way to avoid the coming increases in pensions costs. However, state and local officials in New York can seek to contain the damage by reducing headcount where appropriate, and by exploring ways of saving money on employee compensation, including wage increases and health insurance benefits. A statewide public-sector salary freeze—which the Legislature has the power to impose, according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Empire Center1 —could help minimize the extent to which rising pension costs force service cutbacks, layoffs or tax hikes. But these will just be bandages covering a more fundamental problem.

The lesson is clear: the traditional pension system exposes taxpayers to intolerable levels of financial risk and volatility. New York’s existing defined-benefit (DB) public pension plans need to be closed to new members, once and for all. They should be replaced either by defined-contribution (DC) plans modeled on the 401(k) accounts that most private workers rely for their own retirement, or by “hybrid” plans, combining elements of DB and DC plans, that cap benefits and require employees to share in some of the financial risks of retirement planning.

This is not just a matter of financial necessity but of basic fairness to current and future taxpayers—the vast majority of whom will never receive anything approaching the costly, guaranteed benefits available to public employees.

1. PENSION FUNDING TRENDS


New York’s 1.3 million state and local government employees belong to defined-benefit (DB) pension plans, which guarantee a stream of post-retirement income based on peak average salaries and career duration. Pension (and disability) benefits are financed by large investment pools, which in turn are replenished by tax-funded employer contributions. Some public employees, depending on their hiring date and “tier” membership, also contribute a small share of their own salaries to pension funds (see Appendix).

While employee contributions (where required) are fixed or capped, contributions by employers fluctuate, based on actuarial assumptions. The rate of return on pension fund assets is the key determinant of pension costs to taxpayers. Since the mid-1980s, when pension funds began allocating more of their assets to stock investments, those rate of return assumptions have ranged from 7.5 percent to 8.75 percent; for most of the last 10 years, New York’s public pension plans have assumed their investments would yield an average annual return of 8 percent.

During the historic bull market of the 1980s and ‘90s, investment gains easily exceeded expectations, averaging in the double digits. The result, as shown in Figure 1: tax-funded employer contributions tumbled in the three state pension plans covering employees outside New York City. By 2000, employer contribution rates for members of these plans essentially had dropped to zero.2

Government workers shared in the market windfall. The state Legislature repeatedly increased pension benefits for targeted groups of employees during the 1990s. Those enhancements were topped off in 2000 by the state Legislature’s approval of cost-of-living adjustments in all public pensions, automatic partial indexing to inflation of future pension payments, and the permanent elimination of employee contributions for Tier 3 and 4 retirement system members who had been on the payroll for at least 10 years.3 Lawmakers essentially sold these changes to the public as a free lunch, assuming the stock market boom would continue indefinitely.

In fact, as elected officials should have recognized, the minimal employer contribution rates of 1990s were a historical anomaly. “Normal” contribution rates—assuming a hypothetical steady state of asset returns meeting investment targets—would have ranged from 11 to 12 percent for most non-uniformed state and local employees, including teachers, to nearly 20 percent for most police and firefighters in NYSLRS.

The decade that followed the enactment of the major pension sweeteners was characterized by extremely volatile—and ultimately stagnant—investment returns. Asset values dropped sharply between 2000 and 2002, recovered over the next five years, and then dropped sharply after 2007.

Despite the recent stock market recovery, the net assets of the New York City pension funds and the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System (NYSTRS) as of 2010 were still below 2000 levels, while the net assets of the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS) were up just 4 percent on the decade.* Meanwhile, total benefit payments doubled between 2000 and 2010. The year-by-year trends for the period are shown in Figure 2.

* NYSLERS includes both the State and Local Employee Retirement System and the Police and Fire Retirement System.

The combination of falling asset prices and rising benefit outlays meant the pension funds were developing huge shortfalls. Meanwhile, employee contributions into the state pension funds actually decreased during this period, as a growing number of Tier 3 and 4 members reached the 10-year seniority mark.4 Taxpayers were left to pick up the slack, as shown in Figure 3. In 2000, tax-funded employer contributions to New York’s pension funds totaled just under $1 billion. By 2010, they had risen to a combined $17.3 billion for the state and New York City systems.

But this was just the beginning of the pension explosion.

2. THE WRONG KIND OF “BOOM”

How hard will taxpayers be hit by New York’s coming pension explosion? To answer that question, we have projected employer contribut