"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> "The Legislature slashed $8.4 billion in funding for schools and community
> colleges. As a result, the California Teachers Association predicts class
> sizes will increase, thousands of teachers could be laid off and programs
> will be eliminated."
>
> Because, you know, those kids were getting WAY overeducated.
>
> Bob

Slashed from the requested amount or the real number used last year? Sort
of like asking the boss for a $1000 a week raise and if he gives you $100,
you complain that your pay was cut $900.

A lot of money was wasted in school systems. The US is #1 in spending, yet
#10 in education. Why is that? Money does not mean good education.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:32:22 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
>> "The Legislature slashed $8.4 billion in funding for schools and community
>> colleges. As a result, the California Teachers Association predicts class
>> sizes will increase, thousands of teachers could be laid off and programs
>> will be eliminated."
>>
>> Because, you know, those kids were getting WAY overeducated.
>>
>> Bob
>
>Slashed from the requested amount or the real number used last year? Sort
>of like asking the boss for a $1000 a week raise and if he gives you $100,
>you complain that your pay was cut $900.
>
>A lot of money was wasted in school systems. The US is #1 in spending, yet
>#10 in education. Why is that? Money does not mean good education.
>
Before you bash, look at where the money was spent.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

In article >,
"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "The Legislature slashed $8.4 billion in funding for schools and community
> > colleges. As a result, the California Teachers Association predicts class
> > sizes will increase, thousands of teachers could be laid off and programs
> > will be eliminated."
> >
> > Because, you know, those kids were getting WAY overeducated.

> Slashed from the requested amount or the real number used last year? Sort
> of like asking the boss for a $1000 a week raise and if he gives you $100,
> you complain that your pay was cut $900.

This is a cut from last year's budget. Per pupil spending will go from
US$8,784 per year to US$8,404 per year.

> A lot of money was wasted in school systems. The US is #1 in spending,

But California was near the bottom already in per pupil spending among
the 50 states. I heard predictions that California would move down to
the #50 ranking.

> yet
> #10 in education. Why is that? Money does not mean good education.

Massive teacher layoffs are predicted. Who's going to teach the kids?
If money is cut by 5%, then more than 5% of the teachers need to be laid
off, because it's strictly by seniority, and the teachers who get laid
off are way down on the salary scale.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:09:13 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
>> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "The Legislature slashed $8.4 billion in funding for schools and
>> > community colleges. As a result, the California Teachers Association
>> > predicts class sizes will increase, thousands of teachers could be
>> > laid off and programs will be eliminated."
>> >
>> > Because, you know, those kids were getting WAY overeducated.
>
>> Slashed from the requested amount or the real number used last year?
>> Sort of like asking the boss for a $1000 a week raise and if he gives
>> you $100, you complain that your pay was cut $900.
>
> This is a cut from last year's budget. Per pupil spending will go from
> US$8,784 per year to US$8,404 per year.
>
>> A lot of money was wasted in school systems. The US is #1 in spending,
>
> But California was near the bottom already in per pupil spending among
> the 50 states. I heard predictions that California would move down to
> the #50 ranking.
>
>> yet
>> #10 in education. Why is that? Money does not mean good education.
>
> Massive teacher layoffs are predicted. Who's going to teach the kids?
> If money is cut by 5%, then more than 5% of the teachers need to be laid
> off, because it's strictly by seniority, and the teachers who get laid
> off are way down on the salary scale.

Why is it strictly by seniority? Californian state law?

Horry wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:09:13 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:

>> Massive teacher layoffs are predicted. Who's going to teach the
>> kids? If money is cut by 5%, then more than 5% of the teachers need
>> to be laid off, because it's strictly by seniority, and the teachers
>> who get laid off are way down on the salary scale.
>
> Why is it strictly by seniority? Californian state law?

Darn, that's a shame, they should be able to get rid of lowest
performers, just like in business. Not get rid up upcoming
talent.

nancy

"sf" > wrote in message
>>
>>A lot of money was wasted in school systems. The US is #1 in spending,
>>yet
>>#10 in education. Why is that? Money does not mean good education.
>>

> Before you bash, look at where the money was spent.

I have. That is why I know there is waste. Much of it is in the top heavy
administration. There are a lot of things wrong with the typical school
system and it starts with parents that are not interested enough to get
involved.

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
>
> Massive teacher layoffs are predicted. Who's going to teach the kids?
> If money is cut by 5%, then more than 5% of the teachers need to be laid
> off, because it's strictly by seniority, and the teachers who get laid
> off are way down on the salary scale.

One of the problems is the teacher's union. They could get rid of the right
5% and never miss them. Every school system has some useless drones;
unfortunately they usually have to go by seniority and get rid of some good
teachers too.

In any budget crisis, they first threaten to get rid of teachers. Next is to
eliminate sports. Both cause some outrage but I'm not willing to have my
taxes increased so your kid can play football. You rarely hear that they
are going to lay off some useless school administration staff. If
teachers were allowed to discipline the students it would be a big help too.
I went to a school with 50 kids in a class and we were made to sit quietly
and pay attention. How many kids are in a typical classroom today? How
many have a teacher's assistant too?

My salary for the past two years is the same as it was three years ago. No
bonus for the past two years either because business is off. I have to live
on less because there is only so much money available. Governments have to
do the same.

Nancy Young wrote:
> Horry wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:09:13 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>
>>> Massive teacher layoffs are predicted. Who's going to teach the
>>> kids? If money is cut by 5%, then more than 5% of the teachers need
>>> to be laid off, because it's strictly by seniority, and the teachers
>>> who get laid off are way down on the salary scale.
>>
>> Why is it strictly by seniority? Californian state law?
>
> Darn, that's a shame, they should be able to get rid of lowest
> performers, just like in business. Not get rid up upcoming
> talent.
>
> nancy

From my experience schools are nothing like business. They have an
incredible entitlement mentality and think the money should just be
showered on them no matter what.

George wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> Horry wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:09:13 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>>
>>>> Massive teacher layoffs are predicted. Who's going to teach the
>>>> kids? If money is cut by 5%, then more than 5% of the teachers need
>>>> to be laid off, because it's strictly by seniority, and the
>>>> teachers who get laid off are way down on the salary scale.
>>>
>>> Why is it strictly by seniority? Californian state law?
>>
>> Darn, that's a shame, they should be able to get rid of lowest
>> performers, just like in business. Not get rid up upcoming
>> talent.

> From my experience schools are nothing like business. They have an
> incredible entitlement mentality and think the money should just be
> showered on them no matter what.

Believe me. I know. Aggravating.

nancy

sf wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:32:22 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "The Legislature slashed $8.4 billion in funding for schools and community
>>> colleges. As a result, the California Teachers Association predicts class
>>> sizes will increase, thousands of teachers could be laid off and programs
>>> will be eliminated."
>>>
>>> Because, you know, those kids were getting WAY overeducated.
>>>
>>> Bob
>> Slashed from the requested amount or the real number used last year? Sort
>> of like asking the boss for a $1000 a week raise and if he gives you $100,
>> you complain that your pay was cut $900.
>>
>> A lot of money was wasted in school systems. The US is #1 in spending, yet
>> #10 in education. Why is that? Money does not mean good education.
>>
> Before you bash, look at where the money was spent.
>

And look at how much of the spending on what you might consider "frills"
was spent to implement state and federal mandates.

An ungodly amount is spent in some states for mandated testing and, by
extension, teaching for the testing which may or may not resemble
anything like teaching and learning in the real world.

When it costs a million a year for placement in a specialized program to
teach (aka babysit) a severely and profoundly disabled student who may
never progress to opening his/her eyes, it makes you wonder less why
average kids are left behind.

gloria p

Horry wrote:

> Why is it strictly by seniority? Californian state law?

Labor union contract. Very common in education and industry.

gloria p

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>
> One of the problems is the teacher's union. They could get rid of the right
> 5% and never miss them. Every school system has some useless drones;
> unfortunately they usually have to go by seniority and get rid of some good
> teachers too.

I couldn't agree more.


> If
> teachers were allowed to discipline the students it would be a big help too.
> I went to a school with 50 kids in a class and we were made to sit quietly
> and pay attention. How many kids are in a typical classroom today? How
> many have a teacher's assistant too?
>

How many attempts at discipline are stymied by enabling parents?

Tell a kid to turn off his IPod? Mother says he should have the right
to listen.

Tell a kid to turn off his cellphone? Parents defend his "right" to use
it because "There might be an EMERGENCY!!!"

Tell a kind to leave cellphone in his locker? The horror of Columbine
is always invoked to prove the need.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Teacher assistants? They are usually assigned to the "differently
abled" (AKA special ed) students to hold their hands and stop them from
disrupting the entire class. It's a federal law that these kids be
mainstreamed in the "least restrictive environment" and their parents
must agree to the placement.

There are so many things WRONG with education today it's amazing that
anyone learns anything.

gloria p

In article >,
Horry > wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:09:13 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:

> >> #10 in education. Why is that? Money does not mean good education.
> >
> > Massive teacher layoffs are predicted. Who's going to teach the kids?
> > If money is cut by 5%, then more than 5% of the teachers need to be laid
> > off, because it's strictly by seniority, and the teachers who get laid
> > off are way down on the salary scale.
>
> Why is it strictly by seniority? Californian state law?

Nearly all teachers in the US belong to unions. An important part of
any union contract is layoff procedures. I've never heard of any union
that based primary layoff precedence on anything other than seniority.
That's within job classification, obviously. If a custodian gets laid
off, they don't get put in a position as a computer person. It can work
the other way, though. If a company gets rid of their computer
department, and outsources the function, then a computer person who has
tenure as a custodian may have to be offered a job as a custodian, even
though they haven't done that work in 20 years. The contract is
enforceable in a court of law, as a civil contract, and employers have
learned to follow the contract, as if they don't, they lose.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Ed Pawlowski > wrote in message
...
> "sf" > wrote in message

>>> A lot of money was wasted in school systems. The US is
>>> #1 in spending, yet #10 in education. Why is that? Money
>>> does not mean good education.
>>>
>> Before you bash, look at where the money was spent.
>>
> I have. That is why I know there is waste. Much of it is in
> the top heavy administration. There are a lot of things wrong
> with the typical school system and it starts with parents that
> are not interested enough to get involved.

Which school district were you a member of the board with that allowed you
to view salaries of the entire administration of that system? Which school
were you a member of the school's site council reviewing where the budgetted
money was being spent? Which school were you a volunteer at during the day,
inside the classroom, seeing the "waste" you claim is there? Where does your
state rank in spending on students? How many of the students in those
top-heavy, non-parent backed schools have special education students being
mainstreamed because the parents demanded it? How many aides are there in
each school dedicated to 1:1 or 1:4 or 1:8 student-assisted learning? Where
are the public schools in your district ranked (state-wide)?

"Discipline" from the old days isn't done anymore, thankfully.

You act like you have all the answers -- slash the money, increase
class-size, and punish those that don't perform -- when your ignorance alone
shows your true knowledge.

If you were the true business maven you make yourself out, you'd have a
developed opinion beyond the "because look at me" shout you always post.

Yes, there are school districts out there that need to trim their
superintendent's perks and bring their other district administrators'
salaries into line with everything else in the school system... But slashing
budgets to schools being mandated by Federal and State laws to teach to NCLB
won't bring the changes you expect.

The Ranger

In article >,
"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> >
> > Massive teacher layoffs are predicted. Who's going to teach the kids?
> > If money is cut by 5%, then more than 5% of the teachers need to be laid
> > off, because it's strictly by seniority, and the teachers who get laid
> > off are way down on the salary scale.
>
> One of the problems is the teacher's union. They could get rid of the right
> 5% and never miss them. Every school system has some useless drones;
> unfortunately they usually have to go by seniority and get rid of some good
> teachers too.

Can't argue with that. There were abuses in the past, and now we're
stuck with something that works poorly. It used to be that when which
political party was in office changed, so did every government employee,
down to the guy that sold you stamps in the post office. That was bad,
so now they have tenure. It used to be when the boss's niece needed a
job, room would be made for her, by getting rid of a competent but
non-related employee. That can't happen anymore. But now, once an
employee passes their probationary period, it's hard to get rid of them,
even if their work quality has dropped off.

> In any budget crisis, they first threaten to get rid of teachers.

My wife is on a school board for a K-6 (kindergarden through sixth
grade) district. Most of the budget goes to teacher salaries. There's
nowhere else to cut.

> Next is to
> eliminate sports.

No sports in K-6, but there are PE teachers at some schools. It's up to
the school PTA. If they choose to spend their money on PE teachers,
then the school has a PE teacher. No government money.

> Both cause some outrage but I'm not willing to have my
> taxes increased so your kid can play football.

I'm not a big sports fan, but some kids get a lot out of that. Most of
the sports coaches in high school are teachers who have a full time
teaching position, and get a little extra money for spending a lot of
hours coaching.

> You rarely hear that they
> are going to lay off some useless school administration staff.

My wife's district has 5 schools, over 2000 students and less than 100
teachers (that includes reading and speech teachers). There are five
principals, one business manager and the superintendent. Probably one
principal will be eliminated. Who else could go? Which one of those 7
administrators is useless? And yes, there are no other administrators.

> If
> teachers were allowed to discipline the students it would be a big help too.

State law. Only someone with an administrative credential can
discipline a child. And what can they do? Suspend the kid? That's
about it. Send them home to watch tv and play video games. For a
serious offense, they can be expelled. That requires a school board
vote and a minimum of three lawyers. After a kid is expelled, the
district is still required to educate the kid! The county runs special
schools for expelled kids. It costs the district US$20,000 per kid per
year.

> I went to a school with 50 kids in a class and we were made to sit quietly
> and pay attention.

Let me guess. Catholic? If you misbehaved, there would be a call to
your parents. If they weren't actually threatened with going to Hell,
still, life would not be good for them. And the school always had the
punishment of last resort. They could just kick you out. They were not
obligated to keep you. The public schools are required to educate their
students, they can't get rid of them.

> How many kids are in a typical classroom today?

California still has class size reduction, although the rules changed
yesterday. CSR only applies to K-3, at most, so 4-6 runs 30-32 at my
wife's district.

> How
> many have a teacher's assistant too?

Not many. There used to be a tiny bit of money, but once the districts
cut all funding for library help (there are no *librarians* in the K-6
schools I've seen), that money got diverted to keep the libraries open.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
>
> Which school district were you a member of the board with that allowed you
> to view salaries of the entire administration of that system? Which school
> were you a member of the school's site council reviewing where the
> budgetted money was being spent? Which school were you a volunteer at
> during the day, inside the classroom, seeing the "waste" you claim is
> there?

When my children were in school we did spend time as volunteers in the
classroom. I', along with o thers, set up the school bus program, bought a
new bus, and administered other funds for the school.

Where I live in CT, school administrator salaries are a matter of public
record. Probably where you are also. In fact, every salary in the schools
system is a matter of public record. I also attend budget meetings, and I do
get involved in town functions. More people should.


> Where are the public schools in your district ranked (state-wide)?

Too far down for the spending per pupil in the state. We can do better. It
will be brought up at our budget meetings that will start soon.

>
> "Discipline" from the old days isn't done anymore, thankfully.

Yes, you are correct. It is OK for a student to tell a teacher to **** off
or go to hell and they can't do anything but write a note to the parent.


>
> You act like you have all the answers -- slash the money, increase
> class-size, and punish those that don't perform -- when your ignorance
> alone shows your true knowledge.

I don't have all the answers, but I do have some. School boards think they
have all the answers and think money can fix anything.

In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:

> Horry wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:09:13 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>
> >> Massive teacher layoffs are predicted. Who's going to teach the
> >> kids? If money is cut by 5%, then more than 5% of the teachers need
> >> to be laid off, because it's strictly by seniority, and the teachers
> >> who get laid off are way down on the salary scale.
> >
> > Why is it strictly by seniority? Californian state law?
>
> Darn, that's a shame, they should be able to get rid of lowest
> performers, just like in business. Not get rid up upcoming
> talent.

Business? Have you ever tried to fire a warehouseman who belongs to the
Teamster's Union, just because they come to work drunk, wreck
merchandise and run the forklift off the dock? Think twice, *then* hire
a labor lawyer. If everything looks perfect, fire them and wait for the
court date. If everything goes well, they're fired, and you're just out
a few tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Don't count on
prevailing in court, though.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>> Horry wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:09:13 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>>
>>>> Massive teacher layoffs are predicted. Who's going to teach the
>>>> kids? If money is cut by 5%, then more than 5% of the teachers need
>>>> to be laid off, because it's strictly by seniority, and the
>>>> teachers who get laid off are way down on the salary scale.
>>>
>>> Why is it strictly by seniority? Californian state law?
>>
>> Darn, that's a shame, they should be able to get rid of lowest
>> performers, just like in business. Not get rid up upcoming
>> talent.
>
> Business? Have you ever tried to fire a warehouseman who belongs to
> the Teamster's Union, just because they come to work drunk, wreck
> merchandise and run the forklift off the dock? Think twice, *then*
> hire a labor lawyer. If everything looks perfect, fire them and wait
> for the court date. If everything goes well, they're fired, and
> you're just out a few tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
> Don't count on prevailing in court, though.

Most jobs do not involve labor unions. They're at their lowest
membership for decades, and most businesses aren't union
shops.

nancy

Ed Pawlowski > wrote in message
...
> "The Ranger" > wrote in message

>> Which school district were you a member of the board with
>> that allowed you to view salaries of the entire administration
>> of that system? Which school were you a member of the
>> school's site council reviewing where the budgetted money
>> was being spent? Which school were you a volunteer at during the day,
>> inside the classroom, seeing the "waste"
>> you claim is there?
>
> When my children were in school we did spend time as
> volunteers in the classroom. I, along with others, set up
> the school bus program, bought a new bus, and administered
> other funds for the school.

What source of long-term funding did you secure for the bus' maintainance
and storage, the person driving the bus, guidelines for who benefited from
the bus, etc. "Other funds" also need long-term funding solutions and
constant review. The money just doesn't "appear" and no program is
automated.

> Where I live in CT, school administrator salaries are a matter
> of public record. Probably where you are also. In fact, every
> salary in the schools system is a matter of public record. I also
> attend budget meetings, and I do get involved in town functions.
> More people should.

I'm pretty sure ours are too if you like sitting reviewing excel
spreadsheets and drawing conclusions from neighboring sd's. Specific
salaries are not provided. The last budget meeting I attended, there were
seven of us in the board room; the three board members, the school
superintendent, the building superintendent, me, and one of my Daughter-unit
Alpha. The times prior, there were fewer.

>> Where are the public schools in your district ranked (state-wide)?
>
> Too far down for the spending per pupil in the state. We can do
> better. It will be brought up at our budget meetings that will start
> soon.

We're the forth lowest in my state, and will take a devastating hit with
this latest budget blood-letting. Dan Abel's post is spot on regarding where
most of the moneys go. When you've already cut the perks, who do you decide
is axed next in a community that won't produce volunteers or parents that
care beyond the .01% already over-extended and on every committee that comes
into formation?

>> "Discipline" from the old days isn't done anymore, thankfully.
>
> Yes, you are correct. It is OK for a student to tell a teacher
> to **** off or go to hell and they can't do anything but write
> a note to the parent.

Sadly, corporal punishment didn't help in your (or my) day but there's the
urban legend that every generation believes with religious zeal that they
survived it and IT WAS GOOD FOR THEM! Show me where cracking a cricket
paddle over a kid made them toe-the-line and become a productive citizen and
the prisons will show a 100 more how false that assumption is.

>> You act like you have all the answers -- slash the money, increase
>> class-size, and punish those that don't perform -- when your
>> ignorance alone shows your true knowledge.
>
> I don't have all the answers, but I do have some. School boards
> think they have all the answers and think money can fix anything.

Not the two school boards I've participated on. They work with the budgets
they are assigned and decide every year how our schools might do more with
less. Now they're going to have to tackle the one thing every parent will
immediately scream about -- pink-slipping teachers and district office staff
because they cannot cut anything else.

The Ranger

In article dth>,
"The Ranger" > wrote:

> Ed Pawlowski > wrote in message

> > I have. That is why I know there is waste. Much of it is in
> > the top heavy administration. There are a lot of things wrong
> > with the typical school system and it starts with parents that
> > are not interested enough to get involved.


> Which school district were you a member of the board with that allowed you
> to view salaries of the entire administration of that system?

As far as I know, in the US, public expenditures are public information.
Anybody has a right to know exactly how much every employee makes, down
to the custodians.

> Yes, there are school districts out there that need to trim their
> superintendent's perks and bring their other district administrators'
> salaries into line with everything else in the school system

From what I understand, hiring administrators is not easy. Somehow, the
candidates for these jobs are failing to see the big money that the
public, and especially the teachers, think is there. When districts
attempt to save money by hiring cheap administrators, they soon find the
error of their ways.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
ndwidth...
> Ed Pawlowski > wrote in message
> ...
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>
>>>> A lot of money was wasted in school systems. The US is
>>>> #1 in spending, yet #10 in education. Why is that? Money
>>>> does not mean good education.
>>>>
>>> Before you bash, look at where the money was spent.
>>>
>> I have. That is why I know there is waste. Much of it is in
>> the top heavy administration. There are a lot of things wrong
>> with the typical school system and it starts with parents that
>> are not interested enough to get involved.
>
> Which school district were you a member of the board with that allowed you
> to view salaries of the entire administration of that system? Which school
> were you a member of the school's site council reviewing where the
> budgetted money was being spent? Which school were you a volunteer at
> during the day, inside the classroom, seeing the "waste" you claim is
> there? Where does your state rank in spending on students? How many of the
> students in those top-heavy, non-parent backed schools have special
> education students being mainstreamed because the parents demanded it? How
> many aides are there in each school dedicated to 1:1 or 1:4 or 1:8
> student-assisted learning? Where are the public schools in your district
> ranked (state-wide)?


here you go:

Teachers and admin salaries;

LA Board of Education'

http://www.teachinla.com/Research/do...les/gtable.pdf

Back up 1 step.

http://www.teachinla.com/whyteach/salary.html

Dimitri

"Horry" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:09:13 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > "The Legislature slashed $8.4 billion in funding for schools and
>>> > community colleges. As a result, the California Teachers Association
>>> > predicts class sizes will increase, thousands of teachers could be
>>> > laid off and programs will be eliminated."
>>> >
>>> > Because, you know, those kids were getting WAY overeducated.
>>
>>> Slashed from the requested amount or the real number used last year?
>>> Sort of like asking the boss for a $1000 a week raise and if he gives
>>> you $100, you complain that your pay was cut $900.
>>
>> This is a cut from last year's budget. Per pupil spending will go from
>> US$8,784 per year to US$8,404 per year.
>>
>>> A lot of money was wasted in school systems. The US is #1 in spending,
>>
>> But California was near the bottom already in per pupil spending among
>> the 50 states. I heard predictions that California would move down to
>> the #50 ranking.
>>
>>> yet
>>> #10 in education. Why is that? Money does not mean good education.
>>
>> Massive teacher layoffs are predicted. Who's going to teach the kids?
>> If money is cut by 5%, then more than 5% of the teachers need to be laid
>> off, because it's strictly by seniority, and the teachers who get laid
>> off are way down on the salary scale.
>
> Why is it strictly by seniority? Californian state law?

UTLA and other union contracts.

Dimitri

"George" > wrote in message
...
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> Horry wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:09:13 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>>
>>>> Massive teacher layoffs are predicted. Who's going to teach the
>>>> kids? If money is cut by 5%, then more than 5% of the teachers need
>>>> to be laid off, because it's strictly by seniority, and the teachers
>>>> who get laid off are way down on the salary scale.
>>>
>>> Why is it strictly by seniority? Californian state law?
>>
>> Darn, that's a shame, they should be able to get rid of lowest
>> performers, just like in business. Not get rid up upcoming
>> talent.
>>
>> nancy
>
> From my experience schools are nothing like business. They have an
> incredible entitlement mentality and think the money should just be
> showered on them no matter what.

Yep!

Dimitri

BTW I think the board members should be held criminally responsible for
FRAUD.

Taking money under false pretenses

Dimitri

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:21:30 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

>Darn, that's a shame, they should be able to get rid of lowest
>performers, just like in business. Not get rid up upcoming
>talent.

Don't worry, they can do it and it's done more often than you hear
about. Performance reviews are subjective, of course, so 30 year
teachers with PhDs are often found to be substandard and drummed out
of the corps.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

Dimitri > wrote in message
...
> "The Ranger" > wrote in message
>> "Which sd?"

> here you go:
>
> Teachers and admin salaries;
>
> LA Board of Education'
>
> http://www.teachinla.com/Research/do...les/gtable.pdf

That's a pay scale, not a balance sheet or expense report.

> Back up 1 step.
>
> http://www.teachinla.com/whyteach/salary.html

Again, pay scale, not a balance sheet.

The Ranger

Dan Abel > wrote in message
...
> In article dth>,
> "The Ranger" > wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski > wrote in message

>> > I have. That is why I know there is waste. Much of it is in
>> > the top heavy administration. There are a lot of things wrong
>> > with the typical school system and it starts with parents that
>> > are not interested enough to get involved.
>>
>> Which school district were you a member of the board with
>> that allowed you to view salaries of the entire administration
>> of that system?
>
> As far as I know, in the US, public expenditures are public
> information. Anybody has a right to know exactly how much
> every employee makes, down to the custodians.

Ask away.

>> Yes, there are school districts out there that need to trim their
>> superintendent's perks and bring their other district administrators'
>> salaries into line with everything else in the school system
>
> From what I understand, hiring administrators is not easy.
> Somehow, the candidates for these jobs are failing to see
> the big money that the public, and especially the teachers,
> think is there. When districts attempt to save money by
> hiring cheap administrators, they soon find the error of
> their ways.

Unfortunately too true.

The Ranger

The Ranger wrote:

> Which school district were you a member of the board with that allowed you
> to view salaries of the entire administration of that system?

After I left the Navy in 1994, I briefly considered going into teaching. At
that time the entire pay schedule of the San Diego school system could be
viewed online. It didn't show how much *individuals* were paid, only what
each position was allotted for salary.

Bob

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
>
> What source of long-term funding did you secure for the bus' maintainance
> and storage, the person driving the bus, guidelines for who benefited from
> the bus, etc. "Other funds" also need long-term funding solutions and
> constant review. The money just doesn't "appear" and no program is
> automated.

Right, it does not just appear. We had a budget and that was a line item.
Some of the funds came from the students that rode the bus. Yes, they had
to pay a monthly fee if they wanted to ride. No one was forced to take the
bus.


>
> I'm pretty sure ours are too if you like sitting reviewing excel
> spreadsheets and drawing conclusions from neighboring sd's. Specific
> salaries are not provided. The last budget meeting I attended, there were
> seven of us in the board room; the three board members, the school
> superintendent, the building superintendent, me, and one of my
> Daughter-unit Alpha. The times prior, there were fewer.

Pathetic. Our meetings don't have much more. Only when a big tax increase
is being asked for do some citizens wake up. The local radio stqation has a
part time reporter that shows up mos tof hte time too.



>
> We're the forth lowest in my state, and will take a devastating hit with
> this latest budget blood-letting. Dan Abel's post is spot on regarding
> where most of the moneys go. When you've already cut the perks, who do you
> decide is axed next in a community that won't produce volunteers or
> parents that care beyond the .01% already over-extended and on every
> committee that comes into formation?

Depends on the district. Ours has been putting money away for a new school.
They want to build bigger when the census has been dropping and studies say
it will drop more. That is the type of waste that has to be watched.
Building mainenance is needed, but some improvements can be postponed, just
like you put off buying a TV when money is tight.




>
> Sadly, corporal punishment didn't help in your (or my) day but there's the
> urban legend that every generation believes with religious zeal that they
> survived it and IT WAS GOOD FOR THEM! Show me where cracking a cricket
> paddle over a kid made them toe-the-line and become a productive citizen
> and the prisons will show a 100 more how false that assumption is.

Not necessarily coprporal punishment. There are other things that can be
done but parents complain that Johhny's self esteem is hurt if he has to
stand in a corner for 10 minutes.


>
> Not the two school boards I've participated on. They work with the budgets
> they are assigned and decide every year how our schools might do more with
> less. Now they're going to have to tackle the one thing every parent will
> immediately scream about -- pink-slipping teachers and district office
> staff because they cannot cut anything else.

Perhaps, they are probably setting priorities.

A school district near here cut the basketball program. It was basketball
or a teacher. It fired up one person (my barber) enough that he personally
funded it and then got parents (and other interested citizens) to chip in.

sf wrote:

> Before you bash, look at where the money was spent.

*shrug*

Well, if YOU'RE okay with having your livelihood taken away, I guess I'm
okay with it also. My job is unaffected by any of the current federal and
state economic shenanigans.

Bob

Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> A school district near here cut the basketball program.
> It was basketball or a teacher. It fired up one person (my
> barber) enough that he personally funded it and then got parents
> (and other interested citizens) to chip in.

The strategy is to cut, or threaten to cut, something
that's highly popular like sports or libraries or theatre.
If you cut, say, a history teacher nobody will care.

Steve

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> > A school district near here cut the basketball program.
> > It was basketball or a teacher. It fired up one person (my
> > barber) enough that he personally funded it and then got parents
> > (and other interested citizens) to chip in.
>
> The strategy is to cut, or threaten to cut, something
> that's highly popular like sports or libraries or theatre.
> If you cut, say, a history teacher nobody will care.

I wish I could say that you were wrong, but, alas, I can't! That *is* a
common game.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Feb 21, 5:34*pm, "Dimitri" > wrote:
> "George" > wrote in message ...

> > From my experience schools are nothing like business. They have an
> > incredible entitlement mentality and think the money should just be
> > showered on them no matter what.

> BTW I think the board members should be held criminally responsible for
> FRAUD.
>
> Taking money under false pretenses

Which school board members have taken money under false pretenses that
warrant a charge of fraud?

The Ranger

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> A school district near here cut the basketball program.
>>> It was basketball or a teacher. It fired up one person (my
>>> barber) enough that he personally funded it and then got parents
>>> (and other interested citizens) to chip in.
>> The strategy is to cut, or threaten to cut, something
>> that's highly popular like sports or libraries or theatre.
>> If you cut, say, a history teacher nobody will care.
>
> I wish I could say that you were wrong, but, alas, I can't! That *is* a
> common game.
>


Unfortunately it isn't a game, it's money management on the part of the
School Board and Superintendent.

If your budget is cut, you have to make the money you have stretch
further by making cuts. If you cut staff it hurts the classroom. If
you cut extra curriculars, it hurts the kid who stays in school just to
participate in them. When you cut building maintenance and the
facilities to go pot, the taxpayer tells you that you were lax and
should have been making regular repairs instead of asking for money for
replacement or major renovation. DOH!

If there had been money available you WOULD have taken care of problems
as they arose. School Boards don't have the ability to stretch money
like loaves and fishes in the bible. And they are bound by labor
contracts and unfunded federal, state, and local mandates beyond their
control.

I can remember being warned to go to a school board meeting with a
toothbrush and extra set of underwear in my purse because we had been
warned we could go to jail if we refused to ratify a contract. That was
the year my blood pressure went to 210/110.

I ran for the school board as a child advocate. I left 4 years later
(due to an 1800 mile move for my husband's job) as a cynical veteran who
despised both the teachers' union and the wealthy activists who only
showed up at Town Meetings to defeat the budget, not caring what was in it.

gloria p

Gloria P > wrote:

> I can remember being warned to go to a school board meeting
> with a toothbrush and extra set of underwear in my purse because
> we had been warned we could go to jail if we refused to ratify
> a contract. That was the year my blood pressure went to 210/110.

> I ran for the school board as a child advocate. I left 4
> years later (due to an 1800 mile move for my husband's job)
> as a cynical veteran who despised both the teachers' union and
> the wealthy activists who only showed up at Town Meetings to
> defeat the budget, not caring what was in it.

You are to be admired for taking on such a role for four
entire years. I'd go nuts, and for the most part I'm happy
to blindly pay my tax money and let someone else operate
the system; putting yourself in the hot seat is a pretty
awesome thing to do.

Steve

Gloria P wrote:
> Dan Abel wrote:
>> In article >,
>> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>>
>>> Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>
>>>> A school district near here cut the basketball program.
>>>> It was basketball or a teacher. It fired up one person (my
>>>> barber) enough that he personally funded it and then got parents
>>>> (and other interested citizens) to chip in.
>>> The strategy is to cut, or threaten to cut, something that's highly
>>> popular like sports or libraries or theatre.
>>> If you cut, say, a history teacher nobody will care.
>>
>> I wish I could say that you were wrong, but, alas, I can't! That *is*
>> a common game.
>>
>
>
> Unfortunately it isn't a game, it's money management on the part of the
> School Board and Superintendent.
>
> If your budget is cut, you have to make the money you have stretch
> further by making cuts. If you cut staff it hurts the classroom. If
> you cut extra curriculars, it hurts the kid who stays in school just to
> participate in them. When you cut building maintenance and the
> facilities to go pot, the taxpayer tells you that you were lax and
> should have been making regular repairs instead of asking for money for
> replacement or major renovation. DOH!
>
> If there had been money available you WOULD have taken care of problems
> as they arose. School Boards don't have the ability to stretch money
> like loaves and fishes in the bible. And they are bound by labor
> contracts and unfunded federal, state, and local mandates beyond their
> control.
>
> I can remember being warned to go to a school board meeting with a
> toothbrush and extra set of underwear in my purse because we had been
> warned we could go to jail if we refused to ratify a contract. That was
> the year my blood pressure went to 210/110.
>
> I ran for the school board as a child advocate. I left 4 years later
> (due to an 1800 mile move for my husband's job) as a cynical veteran who
> despised both the teachers' union and the wealthy activists who only
> showed up at Town Meetings to defeat the budget, not caring what was in it.
>
> gloria p
My experience was almost the same. I was a school board member in 1966
through 1970. The athletic program was what most people bitched about
the most, "why can't we get more funding for the football team?" I would
never be a school board member again in a small, rural Texas system or
any other system that emphasizes sports over academics.

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
ndwidth...
> Dimitri > wrote in message
> ...
>> "The Ranger" > wrote in message
>>> "Which sd?"
>
>> here you go:
>>
>> Teachers and admin salaries;
>>
>> LA Board of Education'
>>
>> http://www.teachinla.com/Research/do...les/gtable.pdf
>
> That's a pay scale, not a balance sheet or expense report.
>
>> Back up 1 step.
>>
>> http://www.teachinla.com/whyteach/salary.html
>
> Again, pay scale, not a balance sheet.
>
> The Ranger


Sure here's their budget.

http://notebook.lausd.net/portal/pag..._schema=PTL_EP

7.9 BILLION DOLLARS. 31.9% benefit load.

Dimitri

Steve Pope > wrote in message
...
[snip]
> You are to be admired for taking on such a role for four
> entire years. I'd go nuts, and for the most part I'm happy
> to blindly pay my tax money and let someone else operate
> the system; putting yourself in the hot seat is a pretty
> awesome thing to do.

Which a sad state of affairs but the majority of John Q. & Jane D. Public
prefer -- until services disappear and funds are placed into areas "they
didn't vote for."

Better to be involved, and hence informed, than to blindly pay your tax
money with the hope someone else will manage it better than you.

The Ranger

The Ranger > wrote:

>Steve Pope > wrote in message

>> You are to be admired for taking on such a role for four
>> entire years. I'd go nuts, and for the most part I'm happy
>> to blindly pay my tax money and let someone else operate
>> the system; putting yourself in the hot seat is a pretty
>> awesome thing to do.

>Which a sad state of affairs but the majority of John Q. & Jane D. Public
>prefer -- until services disappear and funds are placed into areas "they
>didn't vote for."
>
>Better to be involved, and hence informed, than to blindly pay your tax
>money with the hope someone else will manage it better than you.

Well, one can become informed but one can only become involved
in so much. It does not take much information to surface where
some of the serious problems are. But actually doing something about
poor spending priorities and self-interested behavior within
bureaucracies is something people have been unable to solve since
the days of the Roman Empire.

Not to minimize the efforts of those who try.

Steve

Dimitri > wrote:

> Sure here's their budget.

> http://notebook.lausd.net/portal/pag..._schema=PTL_EP

> 7.9 BILLION DOLLARS. 31.9% benefit load.

When I go to that link, the document "Adopted 2007-08 Final
Budget" says on page 12 the adopted LAUSD final budget is
19.5 billion. Where do you get 7.9 billion?

In any case, the 19.5 billion comes to $24,000 per student
in LAUSD which sounds comparable to Berkeley Unified School District.
7.9 billion would be way low. Perhaps that's only the
so-called "general fund"?

For Berkeley, the number I get is that the city and school
district combined spend $560 million per year, which distributed
over 39,000 households which have an average income of $77,000
comes to 19% of household gross income spent on city
government/schools. Of course a number in the same range, or larger,
is spent on county, state and federal governments.

I'm happy with total government being maybe 1/3 of people's
income, but not 40% or 50%.

Further the current budgets are artificially low, due
to vast underfunding of benefit plans. At some point down the
road, accumulated pension and health benefit obligations
will start to approach or exceed the size of the total economy. In
any case they will rise way, way beyond the amount that can
be raised by taxation, even if it's socially acceptable to
divide society into an entitled class of former/current public
servants on the one hand, and a peon class for everyone else.

Quite obviously without painful reforms the US is headed to
fiscal collapse, and it will in all likelyhood happen first
in California. Possible future scenes are like those in Argentina
(where the government last year seized all public/private pension
money), or Ireland (where in the past week they laid a punitive
assessment on all retirement plans, leading to half a million
people protesting in the streets).

Let's see which California politicians actually want to
address these issues.

Steve

On 2009-02-21, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> teachers were allowed to discipline the students it would be a big help too.
> I went to a school with 50 kids in a class and we were made to sit quietly
> and pay attention. How many kids are in a typical classroom today? How
> many have a teacher's assistant too?

[wince]

OMG! ....and destroy civilazation as we know it!?

nb ...biting tongue an keepting out of it