Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
54 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: North Carolina: Declaring war on teachers? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
James Webb Space Telescope in 2018!
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Pay Cuts, End Of Tenure Put North Carolina Teachers On Edge
http://www.npr.org/2014/02/11/275368362/pay-cuts-end-of-tenu...

In an effort to give more control to local school districts, the state Legislature passed sweeping changes to public education, many of which affected teachers directly. The Republican-controlled General Assembly ended teacher tenure, halted a salary bump for earning a master's degree, and eliminated a cap on class size.


As usual, another education experiment that may or may not help kids.

I don't know why anyone would teach public school except for pure love of kids. Thank goodness they do it. The pay is lousy and they get little respect.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
"In an effort to give more control to local school districts"? Why bother saying that? If you are cost cutting to meet a state budget, then just say that's what you are doing.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
she2 wrote:
"In an effort to give more control to local school districts"? Why bother saying that? If you are cost cutting to meet a state budget, then just say that's what you are doing.

Polling.

No pol wants to face re-election with the onus of 'cutting funding for schools' against them.

But promoting 'liberty' and 'choice'? HELL YES, they're in favor of that and why isn't my opponent?

Aren't we ALL in favor of Liberty and Choice? Well, except for commies.

But you're not a Commie, aren't you Barb?

Darilian

(Now ducking from the Wrath of She)
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

she2 wrote:
"In an effort to give more control to local school districts"? Why bother saying that? If you are cost cutting to meet a state budget, then just say that's what you are doing.
That's already understood in the context of their shifting more control (i.e. includes financial responsibility) back to the local school districts. At the same time, it's not just a cost-cutting measure. It's also part of the Republican political agenda as well.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

she2 wrote:
"In an effort to give more control to local school districts"? Why bother saying that? If you are cost cutting to meet a state budget, then just say that's what you are doing.
That's already understood in the context of their shifting more control (i.e. includes financial responsibility) back to the local school districts. At the same time, it's not just a cost-cutting measure. It's also part of the Republican political agenda as well.


Yeah, I was being rhetorical.

Barb
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

she2 wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
"In an effort to give more control to local school districts"? Why bother saying that? If you are cost cutting to meet a state budget, then just say that's what you are doing.
That's already understood in the context of their shifting more control (i.e. includes financial responsibility) back to the local school districts. At the same time, it's not just a cost-cutting measure. It's also part of the Republican political agenda as well.
Yeah, I was being rhetorical.
Hmph! "Rhetoric", indeed! On the contrary, you took issue with the fact that a specific reason had openly and accountably been cited as the cause of that cost-cutting measure. By what you said above, it's more than apparent that you would have preferred no such reason to have been provided, thus leaving that cited explanation kept swept out of sight and mind under the proverbial carpet and not visibly calling attention to itself.

You just wanted the reporting kept to underplaying the story; i.e. stating that it was merely a cost-cutting measure and without further elaboration. And you couldn't have been more disingenuous, because that reason underlying the cost cutting was part of the Republican agenda in the first place -- an agenda that first began as mere rhetoric until it was put into action and which you apparently would have preferred to be kept hush-hush.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

she2 wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
"In an effort to give more control to local school districts"? Why bother saying that? If you are cost cutting to meet a state budget, then just say that's what you are doing.
That's already understood in the context of their shifting more control (i.e. includes financial responsibility) back to the local school districts. At the same time, it's not just a cost-cutting measure. It's also part of the Republican political agenda as well.
Yeah, I was being rhetorical.
Hmph! "Rhetoric", indeed! On the contrary, you took issue with the fact that a specific reason had openly and accountably been cited as the cause of that cost-cutting measure. By what you said above, it's more than apparent that you would have preferred no such reason to have been provided, thus leaving that cited explanation kept swept out of sight and mind under the proverbial carpet and not visibly calling attention to itself.

You just wanted the reporting kept to underplaying the story; i.e. stating that it was merely a cost-cutting measure and without further elaboration. And you couldn't have been more disingenuous, because that reason underlying the cost cutting was part of the Republican agenda in the first place -- an agenda that first began as mere rhetoric until it was put into action and which you apparently would have preferred to be kept hush-hush.


I love how you just called She2 disingenuous.

Don't ever change, James.

Darilian
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walker
United States
Birmingham
Alabama
flag msg tools
"The significance of a person's life is determined by the story they believe themselves to be in." - Wendell Berry "If nothing lies beyond the pale of death, then nothing of value lies before it." - SMBC
badge
Thy mercy, my God, is the theme of my song, the joy of my heart and the boast of my tongue. Thy free grace alone, from the first to the last, has won my affection and bound my soul fast.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

she2 wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
"In an effort to give more control to local school districts"? Why bother saying that? If you are cost cutting to meet a state budget, then just say that's what you are doing.
That's already understood in the context of their shifting more control (i.e. includes financial responsibility) back to the local school districts. At the same time, it's not just a cost-cutting measure. It's also part of the Republican political agenda as well.
Yeah, I was being rhetorical.
Hmph! "Rhetoric", indeed! On the contrary, you took issue with the fact that a specific reason had openly and accountably been cited as the cause of that cost-cutting measure. By what you said above, it's more than apparent that you would have preferred no such reason to have been provided, thus leaving that cited explanation kept swept out of sight and mind under the proverbial carpet and not visibly calling attention to itself.

You just wanted the reporting kept to underplaying the story; i.e. stating that it was merely a cost-cutting measure and without further elaboration. And you couldn't have been more disingenuous, because that reason underlying the cost cutting was part of the Republican agenda in the first place -- an agenda that first began as mere rhetoric until it was put into action and which you apparently would have preferred to be kept hush-hush.


I love how James is perfectly willing to blast people who would probably otherwise agree with him just because they made a statement without exactly the words he wants them to use.
15 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

twomillionbucks wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
"In an effort to give more control to local school districts"? Why bother saying that? If you are cost cutting to meet a state budget, then just say that's what you are doing.
That's already understood in the context of their shifting more control (i.e. includes financial responsibility) back to the local school districts. At the same time, it's not just a cost-cutting measure. It's also part of the Republican political agenda as well.
Yeah, I was being rhetorical.
Hmph! "Rhetoric", indeed! On the contrary, you took issue with the fact that a specific reason had openly and accountably been cited as the cause of that cost-cutting measure. By what you said above, it's more than apparent that you would have preferred no such reason to have been provided, thus leaving that cited explanation kept swept out of sight and mind under the proverbial carpet and not visibly calling attention to itself.

You just wanted the reporting kept to underplaying the story; i.e. stating that it was merely a cost-cutting measure and without further elaboration. And you couldn't have been more disingenuous, because that reason underlying the cost cutting was part of the Republican agenda in the first place -- an agenda that first began as mere rhetoric until it was put into action and which you apparently would have preferred to be kept hush-hush.
I love how James is perfectly willing to blast people who would probably otherwise agree with him just because they made a statement without exactly the words he wants them to use.
Uhhh, no, there was no ambiguity to She2's statement: She preferred that reporters merely state it had been a cost-cutting measure -- period -- and have left it at that without providing further contextual elaboration that would otherwise clue everybody into the fact that its underlying intent complied with part of the Republican agenda.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

twomillionbucks wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
"In an effort to give more control to local school districts"? Why bother saying that? If you are cost cutting to meet a state budget, then just say that's what you are doing.
That's already understood in the context of their shifting more control (i.e. includes financial responsibility) back to the local school districts. At the same time, it's not just a cost-cutting measure. It's also part of the Republican political agenda as well.
Yeah, I was being rhetorical.
Hmph! "Rhetoric", indeed! On the contrary, you took issue with the fact that a specific reason had openly and accountably been cited as the cause of that cost-cutting measure. By what you said above, it's more than apparent that you would have preferred no such reason to have been provided, thus leaving that cited explanation kept swept out of sight and mind under the proverbial carpet and not visibly calling attention to itself.

You just wanted the reporting kept to underplaying the story; i.e. stating that it was merely a cost-cutting measure and without further elaboration. And you couldn't have been more disingenuous, because that reason underlying the cost cutting was part of the Republican agenda in the first place -- an agenda that first began as mere rhetoric until it was put into action and which you apparently would have preferred to be kept hush-hush.
I love how James is perfectly willing to blast people who would probably otherwise agree with him just because they made a statement without exactly the words he wants them to use.
Uhhh, no, there was no ambiguity to She2's statement: She preferred that reporters merely state it had been a cost-cutting measure -- period -- and have left it at that without providing further contextual elaboration that would otherwise clue everybody into the fact that its underlying intent complied with part of the Republican agenda.


Okay, sure, have it your way.

Barb
10 
 Thumb up
0.07
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris R.
United States
Unspecified
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
The pay is lousy and they get little respect.

If the pay is so lousy, a person is always free to pursue an occupation not backed by government money or move to a state with better benefits.

Quote:
If the teacher hissy fit in Wisconsin taught me anything, it's the fact that public school teachers are anything but underpaid. That statement is just laughable.

I was just listening to a podcast about such stuff.

According to one long-time, elderly Chicago professor, the entire state of Illinois is going under due to their "tremendous overindulgence of particularly the teachers unions to whom they cannot now deliver all the retirement benefits that were promised a long ago."

The public-sector unions in Chicago are doing just fine. Public-sector unions and some such government employees typical only look out for themselves in a desire for higher taxes. Private-sector unions at least need the their surroundings to flourish and survive to prevent their jobs, being sent somewhere else.

...

Still think public schools are always wonderful?

Check out this recent public school story.

http://nypost.com/2014/01/12/no-space-no-books-no-leader-no-...
http://nypost.com/2014/01/13/worst-principal-forced-poor-kid...

> no math or reading and writing books for the new curriculum, five months into school year
> no gym or art classes
> a school nurse with no office, sink, refrigerator, or cot
> a library that is "junk room"
> no substitutes are hired when a teacher is absent, students are divvied up among other classes.
> dilapidated student trailers that reek of "animal urine"
> rats and squirrels in the walls and ceiling
> students dressing up as little brides and grooms -- for some reason
> a $128,207+ principal who rarely shows up, but collects overtime, wears designer fur coats and drives a $40,000 BMW
> "The kids have seen more movies than Siskel and Ebert," but the kids are even too "restless and bored" to watch cartoons.
> They get $2.9 million, but it all seems to have disappeared. I guess they just need more money?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

she2 wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
twomillionbucks wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
"In an effort to give more control to local school districts"? Why bother saying that? If you are cost cutting to meet a state budget, then just say that's what you are doing.
That's already understood in the context of their shifting more control (i.e. includes financial responsibility) back to the local school districts. At the same time, it's not just a cost-cutting measure. It's also part of the Republican political agenda as well.
Yeah, I was being rhetorical.
Hmph! "Rhetoric", indeed! On the contrary, you took issue with the fact that a specific reason had openly and accountably been cited as the cause of that cost-cutting measure. By what you said above, it's more than apparent that you would have preferred no such reason to have been provided, thus leaving that cited explanation kept swept out of sight and mind under the proverbial carpet and not visibly calling attention to itself.

You just wanted the reporting kept to underplaying the story; i.e. stating that it was merely a cost-cutting measure and without further elaboration. And you couldn't have been more disingenuous, because that reason underlying the cost cutting was part of the Republican agenda in the first place -- an agenda that first began as mere rhetoric until it was put into action and which you apparently would have preferred to be kept hush-hush.
I love how James is perfectly willing to blast people who would probably otherwise agree with him just because they made a statement without exactly the words he wants them to use.
Uhhh, no, there was no ambiguity to She2's statement: She preferred that reporters merely state it had been a cost-cutting measure -- period -- and have left it at that without providing further contextual elaboration that would otherwise clue everybody into the fact that its underlying intent complied with part of the Republican agenda.
Okay, sure, have it your way.
Thanks for showing your true Republican Red colors in that other thread that you created about the AOL CEO & medical privacy. Your all-too-telling comment that the AOL CEO ought to have instead scapegoated Obamacare as the reason for cutting employee medical-benefit costs was a dead give-away. What an overtly tell-all clue for you to have left -- and a wrong-headed one at that -- especially since the CEO in question had no credible business reason for cutting employee-medical benefits in the first place after having announced that AOL had had such a significantly profitable year -- and profitable decade, to boot!

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
bjlillo wrote:
she2 wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

twomillionbucks wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
"In an effort to give more control to local school districts"? Why bother saying that? If you are cost cutting to meet a state budget, then just say that's what you are doing.
That's already understood in the context of their shifting more control (i.e. includes financial responsibility) back to the local school districts. At the same time, it's not just a cost-cutting measure. It's also part of the Republican political agenda as well.
Yeah, I was being rhetorical.
Hmph! "Rhetoric", indeed! On the contrary, you took issue with the fact that a specific reason had openly and accountably been cited as the cause of that cost-cutting measure. By what you said above, it's more than apparent that you would have preferred no such reason to have been provided, thus leaving that cited explanation kept swept out of sight and mind under the proverbial carpet and not visibly calling attention to itself.

You just wanted the reporting kept to underplaying the story; i.e. stating that it was merely a cost-cutting measure and without further elaboration. And you couldn't have been more disingenuous, because that reason underlying the cost cutting was part of the Republican agenda in the first place -- an agenda that first began as mere rhetoric until it was put into action and which you apparently would have preferred to be kept hush-hush.
I love how James is perfectly willing to blast people who would probably otherwise agree with him just because they made a statement without exactly the words he wants them to use.
Uhhh, no, there was no ambiguity to She2's statement: She preferred that reporters merely state it had been a cost-cutting measure -- period -- and have left it at that without providing further contextual elaboration that would otherwise clue everybody into the fact that its underlying intent complied with part of the Republican agenda.


Okay, sure, have it your way.

Barb

Could you possibly be more disingenuous!?!?!

Shhhhhh. ninja I'm undercover.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

she2 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
she2 wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

twomillionbucks wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
"In an effort to give more control to local school districts"? Why bother saying that? If you are cost cutting to meet a state budget, then just say that's what you are doing.
That's already understood in the context of their shifting more control (i.e. includes financial responsibility) back to the local school districts. At the same time, it's not just a cost-cutting measure. It's also part of the Republican political agenda as well.
Yeah, I was being rhetorical.
Hmph! "Rhetoric", indeed! On the contrary, you took issue with the fact that a specific reason had openly and accountably been cited as the cause of that cost-cutting measure. By what you said above, it's more than apparent that you would have preferred no such reason to have been provided, thus leaving that cited explanation kept swept out of sight and mind under the proverbial carpet and not visibly calling attention to itself.

You just wanted the reporting kept to underplaying the story; i.e. stating that it was merely a cost-cutting measure and without further elaboration. And you couldn't have been more disingenuous, because that reason underlying the cost cutting was part of the Republican agenda in the first place -- an agenda that first began as mere rhetoric until it was put into action and which you apparently would have preferred to be kept hush-hush.
I love how James is perfectly willing to blast people who would probably otherwise agree with him just because they made a statement without exactly the words he wants them to use.
Uhhh, no, there was no ambiguity to She2's statement: She preferred that reporters merely state it had been a cost-cutting measure -- period -- and have left it at that without providing further contextual elaboration that would otherwise clue everybody into the fact that its underlying intent complied with part of the Republican agenda.
Okay, sure, have it your way.

Barb

Could you possibly be more disingenuous!?!?!
Shhhhhh. ninja I'm undercover.
LOL! "Undercover", my patoot! Some ninja you'd make, wearing such flashy Republican Red attire!

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walker
United States
Birmingham
Alabama
flag msg tools
"The significance of a person's life is determined by the story they believe themselves to be in." - Wendell Berry "If nothing lies beyond the pale of death, then nothing of value lies before it." - SMBC
badge
Thy mercy, my God, is the theme of my song, the joy of my heart and the boast of my tongue. Thy free grace alone, from the first to the last, has won my affection and bound my soul fast.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Could you possibly be more disingenuous!?!?!

Of course. Anything for you, BJ.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't get an automatic salary bump for the mere act of earning a masters degree, so why should teachers? Nor am I guaranteed a job merely because of my seniority.

The only one that really bothers me here is the class limits, though I can see how that would really screw with trying to stay in a budget. Not sure what a better compromise would have been. Maybe just negotiating a new max class size or something.

One thing is for sure, they need to freaking come way really far down from where they are in some schools.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Sauberer
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
she2 wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

twomillionbucks wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
she2 wrote:
"In an effort to give more control to local school districts"? Why bother saying that? If you are cost cutting to meet a state budget, then just say that's what you are doing.
That's already understood in the context of their shifting more control (i.e. includes financial responsibility) back to the local school districts. At the same time, it's not just a cost-cutting measure. It's also part of the Republican political agenda as well.
Yeah, I was being rhetorical.
Hmph! "Rhetoric", indeed! On the contrary, you took issue with the fact that a specific reason had openly and accountably been cited as the cause of that cost-cutting measure. By what you said above, it's more than apparent that you would have preferred no such reason to have been provided, thus leaving that cited explanation kept swept out of sight and mind under the proverbial carpet and not visibly calling attention to itself.

You just wanted the reporting kept to underplaying the story; i.e. stating that it was merely a cost-cutting measure and without further elaboration. And you couldn't have been more disingenuous, because that reason underlying the cost cutting was part of the Republican agenda in the first place -- an agenda that first began as mere rhetoric until it was put into action and which you apparently would have preferred to be kept hush-hush.
I love how James is perfectly willing to blast people who would probably otherwise agree with him just because they made a statement without exactly the words he wants them to use.
Uhhh, no, there was no ambiguity to She2's statement: She preferred that reporters merely state it had been a cost-cutting measure -- period -- and have left it at that without providing further contextual elaboration that would otherwise clue everybody into the fact that its underlying intent complied with part of the Republican agenda.


Okay, sure, have it your way.

Barb

Could you possibly be more disingenuous!?!?!

Shhhhhh. ninja I'm undercover.

Did you get the secret Tea Party decoder ring I sent you? It was the least I could do after you asked so nicely for help from fellow Republicans.

Damn! Did I just post that? Now James has been proven right again! If only we could ever figure out a way to outsmart that genius! I guess he's just too clever. Those links and YouTube videos are just too effective to combat.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
This Guy
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
ejmowrer wrote:
I don't get an automatic salary bump for the mere act of earning a masters degree, so why should teachers? Nor am I guaranteed a job merely because of my seniority.

But you can probably get raises, promotions, and bonuses. Those kinds of perks available to reward other careers are not available to reward teachers, or are difficult to measure and execute on an individual basis.

When you got a master's degree, you'd expect it to impact your salary. Ultimately, you'd look for another job if it didn't. Many other careers involve jumping companies to grow salary, but job jumping is detrimental to the way a school works: good teachers don't leave in the middle of a school year because of the tremendous amount of planning involved in school schedules, with next year's classes often brewing in February of the current year. Leaving a job in the middle of a semester totally fucks with kids.

And what parent wouldn't want excellent teachers to stay right where they are, teaching their kids?

If two teachers applied for the same job, it's pretty likely you'd want the better qualified one to take the job. So there needs to be some system in place for rewarding that. Things like increasing salary based on degrees is a way of measuring the quality of a candidate. Pretty much any professional job opening will have a salary range that depends on the qualifications of the candidate. But most teachers enter the career directly from school, at their 'least qualified' level. Why should they be penalized for improving their credentials?

By removing statewide rules that reward teachers for their qualifications, you're far more likely to create a situation where teachers need to move around to achieve career growth. They might leave the state, or they might just move to a school district that can pay better, or to a private school. That's great if you're sending your kids to a place that can pay teachers better, but it kinda sucks for the places that can't.

If teachers stay in-state, is it worth it to have all the disruption and cost that turnover brings when you look at it from the state level? If the experienced teachers leave the state, can you attract new teachers when you're 47th in the nation on teacher pay?

If not, I'm sure they'll change their mind when they find out that, if they're lucky, they can be one of the 0-25% of teachers in their district whom McCrory authorized to get $500 raises each year. What will they do with the extra $9.62 gross per week?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Aetheros wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
I don't get an automatic salary bump for the mere act of earning a masters degree, so why should teachers? Nor am I guaranteed a job merely because of my seniority.

But you can probably get raises, promotions, and bonuses. Those kinds of perks available to reward other careers are not available to reward teachers, or are difficult to measure and execute on an individual basis.

When you got a master's degree, you'd expect it to impact your salary. Ultimately, you'd look for another job if it didn't. Many other careers involve jumping companies to grow salary, but job jumping is detrimental to the way a school works: good teachers don't leave in the middle of a school year because of the tremendous amount of planning involved in school schedules, with next year's classes often brewing in February of the current year. Leaving a job in the middle of a semester totally fucks with kids.

And what parent wouldn't want excellent teachers to stay right where they are, teaching their kids?

If two teachers applied for the same job, it's pretty likely you'd want the better qualified one to take the job. So there needs to be some system in place for rewarding that. Things like increasing salary based on degrees is a way of measuring the quality of a candidate. Pretty much any professional job opening will have a salary range that depends on the qualifications of the candidate. But most teachers enter the career directly from school, at their 'least qualified' level. Why should they be penalized for improving their credentials?

By removing statewide rules that reward teachers for their qualifications, you're far more likely to create a situation where teachers need to move around to achieve career growth. They might leave the state, or they might just move to a school district that can pay better, or to a private school. That's great if you're sending your kids to a place that can pay teachers better, but it kinda sucks for the places that can't.

If teachers stay in-state, is it worth it to have all the disruption and cost that turnover brings when you look at it from the state level? If the experienced teachers leave the state, can you attract new teachers when you're 47th in the nation on teacher pay?

If not, I'm sure they'll change their mind when they find out that, if they're lucky, they can be one of the 0-25% of teachers in their district whom McCrory authorized to get $500 raises each year. What will they do with the extra $9.62 gross per week?

My understanding is that they removed the automatic bump in pay for master's degree. Teachers should have to negotiate individually for their compensation just like the rest of us. Yes, having a master's degree might increase your pay, but there is no guarantee at all. It depends on what you do with it. And no, let me cut you off right there and say that it's not really any more difficult to rate teachers than it is just about any other white-collar job (as discussed in the other thread, I won't bother going into the pages and pages of arguments here).

Having an automatic bump in salary (not the worst thing ever, but not a good idea) leads to asinine policies like the one in Oregon where teachers MUST receive a masters degree to continue teaching after a certain point. Stupid. Absolutely stupid.

in short, master's degree != good teacher
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
This Guy
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
ejmowrer wrote:
Aetheros wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
I don't get an automatic salary bump for the mere act of earning a masters degree, so why should teachers? Nor am I guaranteed a job merely because of my seniority.

But you can probably get raises, promotions, and bonuses. Those kinds of perks available to reward other careers are not available to reward teachers, or are difficult to measure and execute on an individual basis.

When you got a master's degree, you'd expect it to impact your salary. Ultimately, you'd look for another job if it didn't. Many other careers involve jumping companies to grow salary, but job jumping is detrimental to the way a school works: good teachers don't leave in the middle of a school year because of the tremendous amount of planning involved in school schedules, with next year's classes often brewing in February of the current year. Leaving a job in the middle of a semester totally fucks with kids.

And what parent wouldn't want excellent teachers to stay right where they are, teaching their kids?

If two teachers applied for the same job, it's pretty likely you'd want the better qualified one to take the job. So there needs to be some system in place for rewarding that. Things like increasing salary based on degrees is a way of measuring the quality of a candidate. Pretty much any professional job opening will have a salary range that depends on the qualifications of the candidate. But most teachers enter the career directly from school, at their 'least qualified' level. Why should they be penalized for improving their credentials?

By removing statewide rules that reward teachers for their qualifications, you're far more likely to create a situation where teachers need to move around to achieve career growth. They might leave the state, or they might just move to a school district that can pay better, or to a private school. That's great if you're sending your kids to a place that can pay teachers better, but it kinda sucks for the places that can't.

If teachers stay in-state, is it worth it to have all the disruption and cost that turnover brings when you look at it from the state level? If the experienced teachers leave the state, can you attract new teachers when you're 47th in the nation on teacher pay?

If not, I'm sure they'll change their mind when they find out that, if they're lucky, they can be one of the 0-25% of teachers in their district whom McCrory authorized to get $500 raises each year. What will they do with the extra $9.62 gross per week?

My understanding is that they removed the automatic bump in pay for master's degree. Teachers should have to negotiate individually for their compensation just like the rest of us. Yes, having a master's degree might increase your pay, but there is no guarantee at all. It depends on what you do with it. And no, let me cut you off right there and say that it's not really any more difficult to rate teachers than it is just about any other white-collar job (as discussed in the other thread, I won't bother going into the pages and pages of arguments here).

Having an automatic bump in salary (not the worst thing ever, but not a good idea) leads to asinine policies like the one in Oregon where teachers MUST receive a masters degree to continue teaching after a certain point. Stupid. Absolutely stupid.

in short, master's degree != good teacher

I agree that having a master's doesn't mean someone is better teacher. It's a qualification, just like any other job qualification.

Teachers cannot currently negotiate their salaries in NC (as I understand it). Those are on rails. But, I'm with you that it would be good if they could do it.

I only argue the measuring teacher performance is difficult at at an individual level, not that it cant be measured at all. I'm glad to be wrong if there are proven systems for determining a single teacher's impact to student achievement. What I've seen has usually been measuring the overall student achievement, and compensating teachers at large.

Alas, the budget didn't just remove automatic bumps. There will be no new raises for advanced degrees, per the enacted budget at http://ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S402v7.pdf

Quote:
PHASE OUT CERTAIN TEACHER SALARY SUPPLEMENTS
SECTION 8.22. Notwithstanding Section 35.11 of this act, no teachers or
instructional support personnel, except for certified school nurses and instructional support personnel in positions for which a master's degree is required for licensure, shall be paid on the "M" salary schedule or receive a salary supplement for academic preparation at the six-year degree level or at the doctoral degree level for the 2014-2015 school year, unless they were paid on that salary schedule or received that salary supplement prior to the 2014-2015 school year.

It's worth noting that McCrory wanted the National Board pay raise to be removed, too, but that stuck around. It has a more direct correlation to good teaching, given the work teachers have to put into it the essays and videos, and that the entries are graded.

I tried parsing out what performance bumps to salary were in the budget, but my google fu and reading prowess have totally fizzled out. Why the hell am I still awake?

Edit: I forgot to paste this back while rearranging things. In bizarro world, McCrory announced yesterday a plan to improve new teacher salaries.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I think an automatic salary bump for a master's degree isn't unreasonable...I've seen the same all over the place in private industry. I agree that your second example it stupid (though being involved in Oregon education myself, I actually haven't heard of that before..do you have a link?), but I don't think it at all follows from having a financial incentive to get a master's. That sounds like a pretty questionable slippery-slope argument. I mean, I'm not absolutely opposed to removing it and replacing it with other incentives, but it's not something I place among the many problems with teacher compensation systems that currently exist.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Webb Space Telescope in 2018!
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
bjlillo wrote:
If the teacher hissy fit in Wisconsin taught me anything, it's the fact that public school teachers are anything but underpaid. That statement is just laughable.
Education is 3rd from the bottom in this WSJ list.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degree...

Teacher salaries are not set by the market so much as by school districts.

What is the value of having well-educated people to our economy and our democracy?

Even if all you care about is the bottom line - Consider that the GI Bill after WWII returned 4X the money spent, due to higher taxes being paid by better-educated, better paid people.


Undergraduate Major/ Starting Median Salary/ Mid-Career Median Salary

Economics - $50,100/ $98,600
Computer Science - $55,900/ $95,500
Physician Assistant - $74,300/ $91,700
Finance - $47,900/ $88,300
Marketing - $40,800/ $79,600
Management (MIS) - $49,200/ $82,300
Accounting - $46,000/ $77,100
Nursing - $54,200/ $67,000
Education - $34,900/ $52,000


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tesuji wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
If the teacher hissy fit in Wisconsin taught me anything, it's the fact that public school teachers are anything but underpaid. That statement is just laughable.
Education is 3rd from the bottom in this WSJ list.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degree...

Teacher salaries are not set by the market so much as by school districts.

What is the value of having well-educated people to our economy and our democracy?

Even if all you care about is the bottom line - Consider that the GI Bill after WWII returned 4X the money spent, due to higher taxes being paid by better-educated, better paid people.


Undergraduate Major/ Starting Median Salary/ Mid-Career Median Salary

Economics - $50,100/ $98,600
Computer Science - $55,900/ $95,500
Physician Assistant - $74,300/ $91,700
Finance - $47,900/ $88,300
Marketing - $40,800/ $79,600
Management (MIS) - $49,200/ $82,300
Accounting - $46,000/ $77,100
Nursing - $54,200/ $67,000
Education - $34,900/ $52,000



Now multiply education by 1.3. $45,000. Still on low end, but that's a more fair comparison.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Webb Space Telescope in 2018!
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
ejmowrer wrote:
tesuji wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
If the teacher hissy fit in Wisconsin taught me anything, it's the fact that public school teachers are anything but underpaid. That statement is just laughable.
Education is 3rd from the bottom in this WSJ list.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degree...

Teacher salaries are not set by the market so much as by school districts.

What is the value of having well-educated people to our economy and our democracy?

Even if all you care about is the bottom line - Consider that the GI Bill after WWII returned 4X the money spent, due to higher taxes being paid by better-educated, better paid people.


Undergraduate Major/ Starting Median Salary/ Mid-Career Median Salary

Economics - $50,100/ $98,600
Computer Science - $55,900/ $95,500
Physician Assistant - $74,300/ $91,700
Finance - $47,900/ $88,300
Marketing - $40,800/ $79,600
Management (MIS) - $49,200/ $82,300
Accounting - $46,000/ $77,100
Nursing - $54,200/ $67,000
Education - $34,900/ $52,000



Now multiply education by 1.3. $45,000. Still on low end, but that's a more fair comparison.
Why multiply by 1.3?

If you're saying teachers get the summer off, well first of all it's usually two months instead of the three months it used to be. And my teacher-wife claims that you do not have summers off, because of teacher training and preparations for the upcoming year.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tesuji wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
tesuji wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
If the teacher hissy fit in Wisconsin taught me anything, it's the fact that public school teachers are anything but underpaid. That statement is just laughable.
Education is 3rd from the bottom in this WSJ list.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degree...

Teacher salaries are not set by the market so much as by school districts.

What is the value of having well-educated people to our economy and our democracy?

Even if all you care about is the bottom line - Consider that the GI Bill after WWII returned 4X the money spent, due to higher taxes being paid by better-educated, better paid people.


Undergraduate Major/ Starting Median Salary/ Mid-Career Median Salary

Economics - $50,100/ $98,600
Computer Science - $55,900/ $95,500
Physician Assistant - $74,300/ $91,700
Finance - $47,900/ $88,300
Marketing - $40,800/ $79,600
Management (MIS) - $49,200/ $82,300
Accounting - $46,000/ $77,100
Nursing - $54,200/ $67,000
Education - $34,900/ $52,000



Now multiply education by 1.3. $45,000. Still on low end, but that's a more fair comparison.
Why multiply by 1.3?

If you're saying teachers get the summer off, well first of all it's usually two months instead of the three months it used to be. And my teacher-wife claims that you do not have summers off, because of teacher training and preparations for the upcoming year.

OK, well ours gets two and a half months off. I have a teacher wife, too. And a teacher father-in-law and know several other teachers. I'm not buying that they spend 8 hours a day for 2 and a half months during the summer.

They also tend to have extremely good benefits and retirement packages. So again, that would need to be factored into the comparison. The bottom line is that it is not a fair comparison to compare their compensation straight across to those who work all year and under private sector conditions. This is the reason their salaries are historically lower than average. Unless you believe in some sort of conspiracy in which the rest of the entire population is conspiring against teachers because they hate them and think they are worthless.

If you want schools to pay teachers more, privatize all of them, ditch all of the mountains of "feel good" largely worthless process, programs, and training developed by school districts and politicians, ditch the unions and tenure, get rid of performance appraisals dominated by standardized testing, and have year-round school.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   |