You are wrong. Pension funding liabilities are eating up more of the educational budget.
School funding
- Thread starter NickleDimer
- Start date
What am i wrong about? I made the observation that household income has dropped under Obama, that's factually accurate, and education funding appears to have done the same thing. You said it yourself. The stimulus was passed the first year of Obama's Pres. I didn't mention anything regarding pensions. Unless you're suggesting we're spending too much money paying former teachers due to the union? However, that's a different topic. Seems you might be suggesting the Chris Christie approach towards education funding by going after the ridiculous union benefits? Please confirm I understood.
Wait, I thought you said the Gov was trying to increase funding because it was lowest since the stimulus money in 09? If not, what's the problem the Gov is trying to solve here?
Wages have gone down 1% since Obama took over that's a fact. Why can't you ever play it straight? What is the issue the Gov Wolfe is looking to solve? You said the former GOP Gov cut education spending. Was that statement inaccurate? If not, what is the new trying to do?
Please explain this post as you seem to be contradicting yourself. Did education funding in PA get "slashed" the past four years?
Is the above statement accurate. Yes or no.
Here's some more info on the proposal:
http://www.ptcc.us/solution.htm
Is education funding in PA on a downward path like wages allegedly are? Can you explain that statement that you made?
I read the link posted, it says nothing about past funding levels. It speaks to the fact they are trying to broaden the tax base and replace the current formula because the current model is unsustainable. This was covered in the first page of this thread as it was obvious that was the goal of the program. There is a hold harmless provision, as was suggested earlier. It appears there is only so much you can raise via property taxes, especially in districts were you don't have a ton of economic activity. You incorrectly tried to call this redistribution. This is simply expanding the base (spreading the pain) to ensure equitable funding. Regardless, you noted the previous GOP Gov had cut funding 4 straight years. I have no clue as I was trusting you and the document you posted doesn't mention anything about levels of funding the previous 4 years. Simply that the current model was not sustainable.
Last edited:
This is just not true. Again going back to the NJ Abbott school example, students scores were better in grammar/middle school then they were before the state funneled money to these poorer schools districts but in high school they were dramatically lower. If you can't improve upon the scores these kids are getting in high school whats the point? The government over spent and these kids join society worse off then if you hadn't spent any additional money at all.
No. It is in fact true. Ask anyone that knows anything about the subject. Your single example does not disprove a greater truth that has been proven time and time again.
Where has it been proven time and time again? And who are the people who supposedly know anything about the subject? Teachers who want more money and fatter pensions? Of course they will support the hypothesis that "more money is good for education."
And to answer the question posted above, the "problem" that Wolf is trying to "solve" is that he needs to pay back the powerful teacher's union for supporting his election campaign for governor. Hence the need to funnel hundreds of millions of additional dollars into the educational system (aka black hole) with no assurance that it will make a difference in improving the quality of education provided.
All in the name of "the children," of course.
"I never thought I'd say this," but I agree with adp. You are off your game today.
Why didn't you respond to the example cited above that refutes your position that pumping more money into poorly performing schools will increase academic performance? Or to my point that Wolfie is a political hack beholden to the teacher's union?
Kids who come from households in which education is not valued are not likely to perform well academically regardless of whether or not they have shiny new gadgets in their classrooms. That's assuming that they even bother to show up at school.
But that's the Wolfie way. Tax everyone into oblivion and throw as much money as possible at the problem.
1) He says that about anyone he's arguing with. It's a Trump-ian rhetoric trick. He's a lobbyist. He doesn't have discussions. Just smear campaigns.
2) Responding to one off outliers is pointless. Wolf is a teacher's union lapdog, for sure.
3) You are correct that districts where students where each student has their own iPad and Tesla are not successful because for their spending. Schools with lower funding levels see a greater performance improvement from an extra $X per pupil spending. Of course, all of this is speaking in general terms and you can cite plenty of examples where this does not apply.
Solid effort by ND to troll adp. Dmil is nodding with approval somewhere.
That's the narrative that Wolfie wants everyone to believe. I am not sure it is necessarily true.
Wolfie: "Our public schools need hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funding!"
My questions are these:
1) How exactly will all of this additional money be spent?
2) Are we looking at how current funding is being used? Is it being used effectively and efficiently?
3) How can the taxpayers be assured that increasing funding to schools will make any difference?
I try not to follow "narratives". But everyone knows that smarter use of school funds is needed. A puppet of a massive state employee union probably isn't the best person to make those decisions. Does he have any say anyway? Isn't the House/Assembly strongly republican?
If everyone knows it, why aren't more people pushing back on the assumption that more funding is needed, let alone hundreds of millions of dollars of additional funding?
This is where the conversation starts, as if it is a foregone conclusion that we NEED all of this additional funding.
From there the "narrative" immediately moves to "who and what is going to be taxed to pay for all of this?"
Yes, the legislature is overwhelmingly controlled by the Republicans who have fortunately pushed back on some of his more absurd proposals.
School spending is like personal weight management. It's obvious when you're f*cking it up. It's hard to negotiate a solution. You don't know if that solution will work. So politicians look for easier wins! Casinos! Local pork barrell spending! 12 pack sales!
I haven't spent 18 years in harrisburg, but I don't know why a strongly republican legislature even looks at the governor's rubbish.
If they need more money, reform the teacher pension plans. 78% of our districts budget is devoted to teacher salaries and pension cobtributions. So despite living in a very nice suburban district with high property taxes and very nice facilities, they still had to cut numerous programs, including freshmen and some middle school sports teams.
Of course when you have teacher salaries hitting $100k for teachers with 16 years exp and a masters, that is what happens. Throw in cadillac benefits that they contribute very little to and pension plans that pay retired teachers more than some young teachers that are actually teaching, then that tells you how messed up the situation is.
We have had to offer early retirements just to cut some costs since our tenured teachers naje so much more than starting teachers, which probably should be paid more. However union leadership pumped up the salary scale for exp teachers, during previous negotiations, dramatically since union leadership was comprised of people who had been teaching for more than 15-20 years. So starting teachers get 45k, while a salary bump hits in year 16 that bumps up salaries by 25k!
Of course when you have teacher salaries hitting $100k for teachers with 16 years exp and a masters, that is what happens. Throw in cadillac benefits that they contribute very little to and pension plans that pay retired teachers more than some young teachers that are actually teaching, then that tells you how messed up the situation is.
We have had to offer early retirements just to cut some costs since our tenured teachers naje so much more than starting teachers, which probably should be paid more. However union leadership pumped up the salary scale for exp teachers, during previous negotiations, dramatically since union leadership was comprised of people who had been teaching for more than 15-20 years. So starting teachers get 45k, while a salary bump hits in year 16 that bumps up salaries by 25k!
I really don't take ND seriously anymore. Not that I took him that seriously to begin with but he's now fallen squarely into the ball/Dmil contrarian troll pot stirring camp.
Except when you use them for just about all your posts.
How about just requiring actual academic success as a prerequisite to becoming a teacher, instead of just "couldn't get a real job but 'likes kids.'"
Think about all of the teachers you had in your entire life before college. How many were actually good teachers? I think I had 2, maybe 3.
Regardless of what you think about teaching, but I am sorry a kindergarten teacher does not need to make $94K...That is what the top salary level was in our district 5 years ago when we had a protracted strike. They listed all the salaries in the district in the paper and my kids former K teacher was making $94K and believe me, she is a very nice lady, but you can't tell me she deserves that kind of money for teaching kindergarten. Meanwhile you have a Physics teacher at the HS making $50K because he is a 30 year old guy with 6 years in the district.
My kids elementary school gym teacher was making $90K . A glorified kickball referee who was in the district for nearly 20 years.. Its a joke and no wonder why districts are broke, even the wealthy ones where the unions hold the district hostage and if you have a dem school board you are screwed. Luckily we have repub run board and they held it together for the most part through the last two negotiations without giving away the store.
Prior to that we had a dem run board and they allowed the union to take a negotiated increase and apply it as they sought fit and they just rewarded those at the top of the scale...the leadership themselves.
BTW, our new basketball coach is Chuck Kornegay. Kind of cool.
its a tough balancing act. The bar for qualifying to be a teacher needs to be high enough to keep out lowlifes and attract some reasonable people but the pay structure needs to be fair enough to keep the good ones AND not gouge taxpayers AND satisfy the union. Has anyone found a successful affordable solution to this issue yet?
Merit pay...every other industry can come up with metrics that are reasonably fair, why can't teaching??? They say that too much is out of their control, well same can be said for a lot of professions, but they refuse to go to a merit pay system. If I were a teacher it would bother me if I stayed late to work with students after school while the teacher across the hall bolted at 3pm everyday and we still got paid the same or that teacher got paid more just because he or she was in their position a couple years longer than me. What would be the incentive to go the extra mile?
how would this merit pay system work? Sounds like you have a solution all mapped out?
Metrics are tough with fluid concepts like learning. And lots of people are against the idea of standardized testing because it leads to "teaching to the tests", which is a sh*t learning environment. Kids don't do anything but learn the exact exam topics and drill exam questions all year long. No child left behind hasn't been that gr8.
Metrics are tough with fluid concepts like learning. And lots of people are against the idea of standardized testing because it leads to "teaching to the tests", which is a sh*t learning environment. Kids don't do anything but learn the exact exam topics and drill exam questions all year long. No child left behind hasn't been that gr8.
I would think there would be a way to grade teachers, from feedback from colleagues & students & parents, class progress, student progress year over year, in class observation etc...Maybe a sort of extra credit for teachers that log extra time working with kids before and after school...some good ones do do that kind of thing. Hey, maybe test them on their own class material! Lets see how well, they know it without relying on their daily notes? I mean this is not rocket science, I am sure administrators know who their good teachers are vs those that just get by.
They find a way to grade students from many different backgrounds, with varying abilities and personalities, and various skill levels, I think the intellectuals could find a way to grade themselves.
In the real world you may get graded on how a project may turn out that you are involved in, but you only have limited ability to control the outcome of that project. So your grade could be affected by someone else dropping the ball or someone or a group of individuals excelling or the outside forces of the market in general. So that is not always fair either, so not saying merit pay would be perfect for teachers, but it is not always fair in the real world either.
And again, you know that the teachers and the administrators in these schools know who the better teachers are and those that just do enough to get by if that.
They find a way to grade students from many different backgrounds, with varying abilities and personalities, and various skill levels, I think the intellectuals could find a way to grade themselves.
In the real world you may get graded on how a project may turn out that you are involved in, but you only have limited ability to control the outcome of that project. So your grade could be affected by someone else dropping the ball or someone or a group of individuals excelling or the outside forces of the market in general. So that is not always fair either, so not saying merit pay would be perfect for teachers, but it is not always fair in the real world either.
And again, you know that the teachers and the administrators in these schools know who the better teachers are and those that just do enough to get by if that.