• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Unlimited money for Education!...Why??

JIMV

JIMV

Android Enthusiast
I spent a lot of time over the last decade trying to figure why my property taxes were so high. In my old state (taxed out of) I found the property tax was divided into two bits, a school levy and the cities costs. In general the city was raising its spending only a point or two faster than inflation. The Schools on the other hand, had a great scheme going...They would troop into city budget meetings every year and plead poverty, a lack of books, run down facilities and obsolete technology. Every year they would get an increase in revenue at least twice the inflation rate and taxpayers would get a nice tax bump...

So, I looked into where all the money was going...not to books, facilities, transportation, technology or anything else in the classroom. 81% of each and every dollar went to pay and benefit increases for the educators. The average educator was making 40% more than the median household income in the city...

Put as clearly as I can, we had the well to do going to the relatively poor for more money year after year and getting it without any resistance from the city council, who were in the unions pockets. Note, all this taxpayer largess was in no way related to performance or results, just longevity and paper credentials.

I recall my last year there...The unions again brought out their lowest paid individual, a brand new teacher making $30K and called it starvation wage...When it was my turn to speak I waved the latest contract at the council and noted that this starving teacher has her income bumped by 25% within two years and that the 'average' teacher in the system made more than the anyone in city government except heads of departments who had been in service for over 20 years. I also noted their health care was 100% free and that they only contributed 5% to their retirement.

The city council then passed the requested budget exactly as they did every year.

In short, education funding is a scam.
 
I'm curious what state/city this was.

I'm a public school employee in Ca., and I can tell you, our schools here are in a bad way. I do not make what anyone would call a "living wage", our classrooms are overcrowded, and our teachers have to pay more and more for their health benefits every year. By the time they are finished with school they are in debt up to their eyeballs. They also spend a significant portion of their salaries on basic classroom supplies.

I've always found it rediculous that people begrudge teachers and other public service employees a good salary, yet think nothing of the magnificent salaries of sports stars and entertainers. Yes, I'm aware that they are paid, (for the most part) by the private sector, but they do not provide the valuable services that our teachers, firemen and police officers do. Instead of complaining that they make more than someone else, we should be supporting them in their efforts to teach our children and keep us safe.

Just my .02.
 
JIMV said:
I spent a lot of time over the last decade trying to figure why my property taxes were so high. In my old state (taxed out of) I found the property tax was divided into two bits, a school levy and the cities costs. ...
Click to expand...

You make a good argument on why school funding should be based on income tax. Poorer districts would get the same per pupil funding as richer districts.
 
This sounds like something I tend to hear from the right quite often in an attempt to attack and render unions ineffective. I definitely understand the frustration of having a government entity in your pocket with every earning dollar or tax.

My question then is what is your proposal? To dismantle the union? Lets see what then would happen, teachers' salaries would likely go down further. And you know how the right keeps insisting that they're not attacking the middle class, going after unions is a direct assault on the middle class. Although in all fairness, that is what the GOP is all about, lower wages for workers that allows more of the wealth to rise to the top.

I've seen Union wrongdoing firsthand. I've seen union members engage in fist fights AT THE WORKPLACE that if were done in a non-union shop, both employees would be fired. Instead, they get a 5 day vacation (no pay of course although that might've changed recently).

I'm all for the Unions cleaning up their act, and in all honesty, with the economy in the shape it's in, that's EXACTLY what they should be doing. Although, I can't say I'm all for stripping the middle class of more wages and wealth in a time where our middle class is being hit hardest, and that's typically what happens when the Right-wing gets to implement its anti-union policy.
 
cmybliss said:
I'm curious what state/city this was.

I'm a public school employee in Ca., and I can tell you, our schools here are in a bad way. I do not make what anyone would call a "living wage", our classrooms are overcrowded, and our teachers have to pay more and more for their health benefits every year. By the time they are finished with school they are in debt up to their eyeballs. They also spend a significant portion of their salaries on basic classroom supplies.

I've always found it rediculous that people begrudge teachers and other public service employees a good salary, yet think nothing of the magnificent salaries of sports stars and entertainers. Yes, I'm aware that they are paid, (for the most part) by the private sector, but they do not provide the valuable services that our teachers, firemen and police officers do. Instead of complaining that they make more than someone else, we should be supporting them in their efforts to teach our children and keep us safe.

Just my .02.
Click to expand...

About the low wages...exactly what are they paid after say...5 years? How much of education spending goes for facilities or books or technology and how much directly for pay and benefits? (nationally around 80%). The classroom supplies line is really a joke...Ask yourself how much more classroom supplies would be available if the unions took only 1% less in their 80%...Say a school system is has a budget of $100m a year...a 1% change is a million bucks...a school system can buy a lot of supplies for a million. In addition, under US law, those classroom purchases by the teachers are tax deductible...

Finally, sports stars and entertainers are paid for performance...if they do a crappy job they get canned. Try that idea with educators...
 
OutofDate1980 said:
You make a good argument on why school funding should be based on income tax. Poorer districts would get the same per pupil funding as richer districts.
Click to expand...

It is not about money or funding per se, it is about the meme that education is underfunded...

Real example...in 1988 Portland Maine had over 14,000 enrolled and 1100 employees. In 2007 they had 7700 enrolled and 1100 employees...the budget was almost 4 times higher as well...

Would one not see significant reduction in costs or a vast increase in available resources for building, supplies, technology if one simply brought employment numbers into line with enrollment?

It is not that there is not enough money for education but that the money already in the system is spent unwisely.
 
mpw said:
this isn't an argument I've ever heard to be honest, a good salary would be fine, it's the excessively good salary that people argue against.
And far from minding the high salaries of sports stars etc., I find them to be obscene in many cases, but they are private sector and only the very top get such salaries, based on performance. Many teachers are crap, but get the same wage as truly great colleagues.

One of the things that annoy me is when teachers unions use the conditions they work in as an excuse to threaten industrial action, then agree to higher salaries, rather than changing the conditions, only to come back the next year moaning about conditions. They're disingenuous.
Click to expand...

You have obviously been to a school budget meeting...;)
 
TxGoat said:
This sounds like something I tend to hear from the right quite often in an attempt to attack and render unions ineffective. I definitely understand the frustration of having a government entity in your pocket with every earning dollar or tax.

My question then is what is your proposal? To dismantle the union? Lets see what then would happen, teachers' salaries would likely go down further. And you know how the right keeps insisting that they're not attacking the middle class, going after unions is a direct assault on the middle class. Although in all fairness, that is what the GOP is all about, lower wages for workers that allows more of the wealth to rise to the top.

I've seen Union wrongdoing firsthand. I've seen union members engage in fist fights AT THE WORKPLACE that if were done in a non-union shop, both employees would be fired. Instead, they get a 5 day vacation (no pay of course although that might've changed recently).

I'm all for the Unions cleaning up their act, and in all honesty, with the economy in the shape it's in, that's EXACTLY what they should be doing. Although, I can't say I'm all for stripping the middle class of more wages and wealth in a time where our middle class is being hit hardest, and that's typically what happens when the Right-wing gets to implement its anti-union policy.
Click to expand...

My fix would be to eliminate the union, make teachers accountable, bring employment in line with enrollment, enact merit pay, and admit educators who have been in the job for more than a few years are very well paid indeed. I would also move money to infrastructure.
 
People complaining about high salaries in the entertainment and sports worlds misunderstand how salaries work. People are paid for the rarity of their skills. A guy can strikeout 300 opposing batters a year and win 25 games. That's a rare skill set. He'll get paid $10 mil a year or more easily. The cashier at the McD's makes minimum wage because he/she can walk off the job tomorrow and is easily replaceable by someone else.

Is a teacher or a firefighter or a policeman more valuable to society than a baseball player or an actor? Absolutely. But it's much easier to replace those people than it is replace an all star baseball player or an actor who can bring in hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office.
 
A.Nonymous said:
People complaining about high salaries in the entertainment and sports worlds misunderstand how salaries work. People are paid for the rarity of their skills. A guy can strikeout 300 opposing batters a year and win 25 games. That's a rare skill set. He'll get paid $10 mil a year or more easily. The cashier at the McD's makes minimum wage because he/she can walk off the job tomorrow and is easily replaceable by someone else.

Is a teacher or a firefighter or a policeman more valuable to society than a baseball player or an actor? Absolutely. But it's much easier to replace those people than it is replace an all star baseball player or an actor who can bring in hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office.
Click to expand...


It's about how much people are willing to pay to be associated with that particular athlete, franchise, etc. What I find funny is people that complain about an Athlete's salary and then have a certain athlete's jersey that they paid near $100 for, their shoes which set them back another $160, and spend $200 an evening going to an event. At the same time though, I have seen what happens to an athlete of a sport like football after they've run their body into the ground season after season. They're not making crazy money just because of their looks.



As far as the schools are concerned, where did the 80% figure come from? Do we have cited sources on that particular rate? I would imagine that it would differ from school district to school district.


Here's an idea, let pro athletes teach. Most kids tend to look up to them anyways, so they'd probably listen to a lecture, and the athletes are accused of being over-paid, let them teach a bit and feel as though they've earned the millions in salary and endorsements. One caveat, if we do let pro athletes teach, Lawrence Taylor can't teach Sex Ed, and Jr. Seau can't teach Greek Tragedy studies....Oh and Sam Hurd (the football player caught dealing) can't teach Economics.
 
Some pro athletes are dumb as bricks though. They're hired for their physical skills, not their brainpower. There are exceptions to the rule of course and there are many pro athletes who are highly intelligent. Certainly not the norm though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom