The $90 an hour is for "extra work", meaning hours outside regular working hours, meaning, in any other job, overtime.
Why shouldn't the union high-ball if the board is going to lowball? Because $30 an hour is less than the national average for teacher pay. What usually happens after that is a meeting in the middle. The school board didn't even want to negotiate.
Besides, what's wrong with $90 an hour for teachers? If education is so damned important, shouldn't the pay follow?
edit:
Change the picture a bit.
Imagine it's Bobby Kotick who just fired all of Infinity Ward because they wanted higher pay, and then replaced it with new blood. Still think he would be a hero for change?
Or is it easier to justify doing something like this when you have dollars in the pockets of shareholders instead of what educators do which can't be measured by greed?
Lilnoobs on
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
The $90 an hour is for "extra work", meaning hours outside regular working hours, meaning, in any other job, overtime.
Why shouldn't the union high-ball if the board is going to lowball? Because $30 an hour is less than the national average for teacher pay. What usually happens after that is a meeting in the middle. The school board didn't even want to negotiate.
Besides, what's wrong with $90 an hour for teachers? If education is so damned important, shouldn't the pay follow?
Are you paying? Because if you're buying, I'll be happy to have some $90/hour teachers.
They're payed based on the number of people willing and able to do the job at the wage offered. There are no shortage of people that are willing to work for a standard teacher's salary, in most districts, and given the lack of accountability, there are plenty of people able to the minimum required. Thus, low wages (well, not low, but not six figures, either).
Stop being so trite. It's something to ponder because, at the moment, what people say about the importance of education and educators doesn't match the pay.
The only thing they'd have to do outside of their regular work day outlined in her plan was a weekly tutoring session for students that lasted one hour. So that's one extra hour per week. Not to mention they'd have the additional income from the summer professional sessions that they did not have earlier. Financially they came out making more, they just wanted more more.
Imagine it's Bobby Kotick who just fired all of Infinity Ward because they wanted higher pay, and then replaced it with new blood. Still think he would be a hero for change?
Or is it easier to justify doing something like this when you have dollars in the pockets of shareholders instead of what educators do which can't be measured by greed?
If the employees of Infinity Ward were doing as poorly as the teachers in this school reportedly were, I doubt they would have the audacity to demand more money. Most of them would be out of a job much quicker than these teachers.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Education is important, yes, but given teachers are not the only source of education. Your health is important, too, but that doesn't mean you should feel obligated to hand over life savings to your GP. If he asks for too much, walk away and look for another doctor. I hope you weren't seriously advocating paying teachers whatever they ask for just because what they can provide is important.
Both sides have nuclear options, the superintendent just used hers first. I'm not sure how you read a lack of negotiation into the CNN article you linked; do you have another source? This newspaper gives a timeline that seems to suggest negotiations:
November 2009: Gallo begins talks with teachers on her plans to reform the high school.
Jan. 11, 2010: State Education Commissioner Deborah A. Gist names the high school as one of the state’s worst schools and in need of closure or complete overhaul. Gallo says she already has a plan ready to implement in the fall. The plan would include a longer school day, more training, more tutoring.
Feb. 1-5, 2010: Gallo and union leaders are unable to reach an agreement on pay issues for the extra work. She says the failure is forcing her to switch to a reform model that calls for firing all teachers at the high school.
Feb. 9, 2010: During a packed meeting, Gallo gives the teachers’ union more time to agree on her original plan.
There seems to be too much noise on the Internet and too little signal; there's a huge mass of conservative blogs describing the school as paying their teachers 70-78k a year in a neighborhood with median wage 22k - when I traced this I found that it based on a magazine quoting a blog quoting a letter from an pseudonymous commenter!
Alternately, most of the math types I knew became actuaries instead of you know, mathematicians because that's where the big money is. It's depressing.
And how.
I had a friend who was taking advanced math courses at the local college during junior and senior year at high school. We all thought he'd go on to a big name UC / Ivy League and do some awesome shit. When we graduated he instead went to a JC, and then to a regular State college (the one I went to, actually) and majored in business/marketing.
Probably had his reasons, but all the same it was a little disappointing because he had serious potential to do great things in mathematics and he didn't go for it.
Alternately, most of the math types I knew became actuaries instead of you know, mathematicians because that's where the big money is. It's depressing.
And how.
I had a friend who was taking advanced math courses at the local college during junior and senior year at high school. We all thought he'd go on to a big name UC / Ivy League and do some awesome shit. When we graduated he instead went to a JC, and then to a regular State college (the one I went to, actually) and majored in business/marketing.
Probably had his reasons, but all the same it was a little disappointing because he had serious potential to do great things in mathematics and he didn't go for it.
For what it's worth, speaking from experience... by this stage you can often tell whether your math is really good enough to cut it for math (often: no), and for any other major you need quite a bit more than math. It's possible your friend was really that stellar and just made an odd career choice, but just being able to do advanced math courses in the local college isn't an indicator of being likely to succeed at it academically.
Business/marketing is not actually very well-paying - there are too many people waving these about. Engineering tops the payscale for starting salaries (and remains high later in life), if your friend was really after money and was good at math he might've rolled that way.
For what it's worth, speaking from experience... by this stage you can often tell whether your math is really good enough to cut it for math(often: no), and for any other major you need quite a bit more than math. It's possible your friend was really that stellar and just made an odd career choice, but just being able to do advanced math courses in the local college isn't an indicator of being likely to succeed at it academically.
Business/marketing is not actually very well-paying - there are too many people waving these about. Engineering tops the payscale for starting salaries (and remains high later in life), if your friend was really after money and was good at math he might've rolled that way.
Probably false, because some people go to graduate school which changes everything. If we're only comparing people with undergraduate degrees through their entire life, then you're more likely to be right.
Imagine it's Bobby Kotick who just fired all of Infinity Ward because they wanted higher pay, and then replaced it with new blood. Still think he would be a hero for change?
Or is it easier to justify doing something like this when you have dollars in the pockets of shareholders instead of what educators do which can't be measured by greed?
If the employees of Infinity Ward were doing as poorly as the teachers in this school reportedly were, I doubt they would have the audacity to demand more money. Most of them would be out of a job much quicker than these teachers.
So if the CEO of a company reports that a certain division is doing poorly, without considering any of the context he's reporting it in, it's justifiable to replace that whole division?
You do see the whole argument revolves around the word "reportedly," and in either case, I don't think the worker class would get a fair shake because look, the CEO (or headhoncho) has numbers RAWR!
Education is important, yes, but given teachers are not the only source of education. Your health is important, too, but that doesn't mean you should feel obligated to hand over life savings to your GP. If he asks for too much, walk away and look for another doctor. I hope you weren't seriously advocating paying teachers whatever they ask for just because what they can provide is important.
Both sides have nuclear options, the superintendent just used hers first. I'm not sure how you read a lack of negotiation into the CNN article you linked; do you have another source? This newspaper gives a timeline that seems to suggest negotiations:
November 2009: Gallo begins talks with teachers on her plans to reform the high school.
Jan. 11, 2010: State Education Commissioner Deborah A. Gist names the high school as one of the state’s worst schools and in need of closure or complete overhaul. Gallo says she already has a plan ready to implement in the fall. The plan would include a longer school day, more training, more tutoring.
Feb. 1-5, 2010: Gallo and union leaders are unable to reach an agreement on pay issues for the extra work. She says the failure is forcing her to switch to a reform model that calls for firing all teachers at the high school.
Feb. 9, 2010: During a packed meeting, Gallo gives the teachers’ union more time to agree on her original plan.
There seems to be too much noise on the Internet and too little signal; there's a huge mass of conservative blogs describing the school as paying their teachers 70-78k a year in a neighborhood with median wage 22k - when I traced this I found that it based on a magazine quoting a blog quoting a letter from an pseudonymous commenter!
The bold tells me Gallo didn't negotiate her plan one bit, and that she wanted her original plan or nothing at all.
Which reflects badly on the italics. Can't have an agreement if you weren't willing to move from your original position.
Besides, these teachers should be on the upper end of the payscale. They are teaching children no one wants to teach in an environment no one wants to work. We're talking 90% of the students not being able to read English (and ESL issues in other areas), on Title 1, with little or no family help. But yeah, fire them. Not like the cards were stacked against them in the first place.
For what it's worth, speaking from experience... by this stage you can often tell whether your math is really good enough to cut it for math(often: no), and for any other major you need quite a bit more than math. It's possible your friend was really that stellar and just made an odd career choice, but just being able to do advanced math courses in the local college isn't an indicator of being likely to succeed at it academically.
Business/marketing is not actually very well-paying - there are too many people waving these about. Engineering tops the payscale for starting salaries (and remains high later in life), if your friend was really after money and was good at math he might've rolled that way.
Probably false, because some people go to graduate school which changes everything. If we're only comparing people with undergraduate degrees through their entire life, then you're more likely to be right.
Engineers can go to graduate school too, so yeah I was comparing like with like.
I can't remember where to find my usual sources for education-specific wage data, but... IIRC doctors and lawyers eventually catch up and edge out engineers in salary during later life. But engineers remain firmly in the top ten. If I Remember Correctly, anyway.
Lilnoobs, the extra $60 dollars per teacher would have to come out of the grant, which needs to pay for a lot more than just the teachers salaries.
And again, the "extra" work this would cover would be only 1 more hour per week for tutoring. The restructering also has a two week summer session for teaching these teachers and they are paid to attend. So they were already coming out ahead finacially regardless.
Besides, these teachers should be on the upper end of the payscale. They are teaching children no one wants to teach in an environment no one wants to work. We're talking 90% of the students not being able to read English (and ESL issues in other areas), on Title 1, with little or no family help. But yeah, fire them. Not like the cards were stacked against them in the first place.
Bullshit. We want teachers who want to teach, not teach for paychecks. And they were already well paid. You can't make a cost-of-living argument when their starting pay is $35k, more than 50% more than the neighbourhood median wage of $22k.
Besides, these teachers should be on the upper end of the payscale. They are teaching children no one wants to teach in an environment no one wants to work. We're talking 90% of the students not being able to read English (and ESL issues in other areas), on Title 1, with little or no family help. But yeah, fire them. Not like the cards were stacked against them in the first place.
Bullshit. We want teachers who want to teach, not teach for paychecks. And they were already well paid. You can't make a cost-of-living argument when their starting pay is $35k, more than 50% more than the neighbourhood median wage of $22k.
The median wage around here is like $19k a year because its a retail tourist trap. That doesn't mean doctors at the local hospital should be paid $30k a year
I would suggest that the notion of "wanting to pay X amount" means that you have sided against the concept of capitalism. As we know free markets are literally amoral and the fact that if left unregulated they lead to such extremes that inevitably human disgust prompts action suggests empirically the terms we should consider payment on. Mind you I'm not suggesting a "you must cleave to the extreme of the slippery slope argument", but an acknowledgment that we are considering a choice between a system that prioritizes desire versus a human concern for "fairness/justice" is deeply useful for framing your internal dialogue over the concept of payment controls.
Further I would suggest that one of the real driving forces in someone with 50% higher than their local median salary pushing for substantially more is that we have such a cultural focus on the extremely well off in America that it skews competition up. By this I mean that our societies media biases are forcing our whole nation to "compete internally" with the top 5-10% of our society. As most modern happiness studies have shown that affluence past a certain subsistence point can only effect happiness in relation to ones peers. Thanks to modern media and America's traditionally mercantile competitive culture everyone's peers have increasingly become Paris Hilton, George Clooney, Lloyd Blankfein, and Sergey Brin. If one accepts this critique there is little wonder that depressive conditions have risen tremendously as everyone can't possibly compete in an incredibly unequal system with the top 10%.
Rising health care, fuel, food costs are 1,2, and 3. Falling Property tax revenue on the funding end have turned a small problem into a gigantic one. The ever present millstone around the neck of unfunded mandates, especially special education costs don't help either. That's the primary nut of it.
They should put a whole slew of new taxes to fund education at all levels. Educated people make more money, have fewer children, collect state and federal benefits less, tend to be healthier, much lower crime rate, and tend to borrow money slightly more responsibly.
Posts
The $90 an hour is for "extra work", meaning hours outside regular working hours, meaning, in any other job, overtime.
Why shouldn't the union high-ball if the board is going to lowball? Because $30 an hour is less than the national average for teacher pay. What usually happens after that is a meeting in the middle. The school board didn't even want to negotiate.
Besides, what's wrong with $90 an hour for teachers? If education is so damned important, shouldn't the pay follow?
edit:
Change the picture a bit.
Imagine it's Bobby Kotick who just fired all of Infinity Ward because they wanted higher pay, and then replaced it with new blood. Still think he would be a hero for change?
Or is it easier to justify doing something like this when you have dollars in the pockets of shareholders instead of what educators do which can't be measured by greed?
Are you paying? Because if you're buying, I'll be happy to have some $90/hour teachers.
They're payed based on the number of people willing and able to do the job at the wage offered. There are no shortage of people that are willing to work for a standard teacher's salary, in most districts, and given the lack of accountability, there are plenty of people able to the minimum required. Thus, low wages (well, not low, but not six figures, either).
Rigorous Scholarship
Both sides have nuclear options, the superintendent just used hers first. I'm not sure how you read a lack of negotiation into the CNN article you linked; do you have another source? This newspaper gives a timeline that seems to suggest negotiations:
There seems to be too much noise on the Internet and too little signal; there's a huge mass of conservative blogs describing the school as paying their teachers 70-78k a year in a neighborhood with median wage 22k - when I traced this I found that it based on a magazine quoting a blog quoting a letter from an pseudonymous commenter!
And how.
I had a friend who was taking advanced math courses at the local college during junior and senior year at high school. We all thought he'd go on to a big name UC / Ivy League and do some awesome shit. When we graduated he instead went to a JC, and then to a regular State college (the one I went to, actually) and majored in business/marketing.
Probably had his reasons, but all the same it was a little disappointing because he had serious potential to do great things in mathematics and he didn't go for it.
For what it's worth, speaking from experience... by this stage you can often tell whether your math is really good enough to cut it for math (often: no), and for any other major you need quite a bit more than math. It's possible your friend was really that stellar and just made an odd career choice, but just being able to do advanced math courses in the local college isn't an indicator of being likely to succeed at it academically.
Business/marketing is not actually very well-paying - there are too many people waving these about. Engineering tops the payscale for starting salaries (and remains high later in life), if your friend was really after money and was good at math he might've rolled that way.
Probably true.
Probably false, because some people go to graduate school which changes everything. If we're only comparing people with undergraduate degrees through their entire life, then you're more likely to be right.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
So if the CEO of a company reports that a certain division is doing poorly, without considering any of the context he's reporting it in, it's justifiable to replace that whole division?
You do see the whole argument revolves around the word "reportedly," and in either case, I don't think the worker class would get a fair shake because look, the CEO (or headhoncho) has numbers RAWR!
The bold tells me Gallo didn't negotiate her plan one bit, and that she wanted her original plan or nothing at all.
Which reflects badly on the italics. Can't have an agreement if you weren't willing to move from your original position.
Besides, these teachers should be on the upper end of the payscale. They are teaching children no one wants to teach in an environment no one wants to work. We're talking 90% of the students not being able to read English (and ESL issues in other areas), on Title 1, with little or no family help. But yeah, fire them. Not like the cards were stacked against them in the first place.
Engineers can go to graduate school too, so yeah I was comparing like with like.
I can't remember where to find my usual sources for education-specific wage data, but... IIRC doctors and lawyers eventually catch up and edge out engineers in salary during later life. But engineers remain firmly in the top ten. If I Remember Correctly, anyway.
And again, the "extra" work this would cover would be only 1 more hour per week for tutoring. The restructering also has a two week summer session for teaching these teachers and they are paid to attend. So they were already coming out ahead finacially regardless.
Which would imply that Gallo wasn't lowballing to begin with.
Bullshit. We want teachers who want to teach, not teach for paychecks. And they were already well paid. You can't make a cost-of-living argument when their starting pay is $35k, more than 50% more than the neighbourhood median wage of $22k.
People shouldn't be paid well for a job that's vital, right?
Water is vital, too, but that doesn't mean you pay an arbitrarily high amount for it.
The median wage around here is like $19k a year because its a retail tourist trap. That doesn't mean doctors at the local hospital should be paid $30k a year
Further I would suggest that one of the real driving forces in someone with 50% higher than their local median salary pushing for substantially more is that we have such a cultural focus on the extremely well off in America that it skews competition up. By this I mean that our societies media biases are forcing our whole nation to "compete internally" with the top 5-10% of our society. As most modern happiness studies have shown that affluence past a certain subsistence point can only effect happiness in relation to ones peers. Thanks to modern media and America's traditionally mercantile competitive culture everyone's peers have increasingly become Paris Hilton, George Clooney, Lloyd Blankfein, and Sergey Brin. If one accepts this critique there is little wonder that depressive conditions have risen tremendously as everyone can't possibly compete in an incredibly unequal system with the top 10%.
They should put a whole slew of new taxes to fund education at all levels. Educated people make more money, have fewer children, collect state and federal benefits less, tend to be healthier, much lower crime rate, and tend to borrow money slightly more responsibly.
That word is relative. And that's the problem. Just how "well" is well enough?
It'll never be enough, most who are semi-rich want to be richer.