I Was WRONG

[hello fromWarsaw]

The problem is Rush and Fox keep repeating that lie (and MANY others), will never admit it , and most Pub Dupes still believe it.

[hello fromWarsaw]

Strangely, we can afford huge tax cuts for the bloated rich, that have produced this "crisis"....

[ChiTownVenture]

Mar 10, 2011 17:18:27 GMT -5 hello fromWarsaw said:

Strangely, we can afford huge tax cuts for the bloated rich, that have produced this "crisis"....

Maybe that's why we can't afford to pay teachers

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Mar 10, 2011 17:19:59 GMT -5 ChiTownVenture said:

Mar 10, 2011 17:18:27 GMT -5 hello fromWarsaw said:

Strangely, we can afford huge tax cuts for the bloated rich, that have produced this "crisis"....

Maybe that's why we can't afford to pay teachers

The rich didn't cause the financial crisis. The crisis was caused by the government- almost completely, and that includes the fraud.

[hello fromWarsaw]

Highest tax rate has been under 70% twice: in the twenties before the Pub Great recession, and under Voodoo Reaganomics, 1982 -present...now 35%. The wealth of the top 2% has doubled while everyone else has stagnated or worse.

[Angel!]

Mar 10, 2011 17:18:27 GMT -5 hello fromWarsaw said:

Strangely, we can afford huge tax cuts for the bloated rich, that have produced this "crisis"....

Funny ain't it. We can't tax the rich an extra 2% because they have worked hard for their money & deserve it. But, we can cut teachers pay because apparently they don't work hard for their money, they are overpaid & don't deserve their high salaries.

So we can take from the teachers in order to help balance the budget, but can't take from the rich to do the same? I keep hearing that everyone will have to make sacrifices, but all I see are the lower/middle class being forced to make sacrifices.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I can't believe teacher pay isn't a problem. Illinois can't possibly be alone in facing a redundant government education bureaucracy 100's of layers deep stuffed full over bloated, largely unproductive, over-paid teachers and administrators. The 100 highest-paid school administrators in Illinois in 2006 had salaries ranging from $205,590 to $380,227. Here are the 17 who made more than a quarter million dollars for the year:

www.illinoisloop.org/salary.html

Catalani Gary T $380,227 CUSD 200

Bangser Henry S $356,500 NEW TRIER TWP HSD 203

Curley Mary M $321,149 HINSDALE CCSD 181

Kelly Dennis G $317,226 LYONS TWP HSD 204

Marks Linda R $316,874 GOLF ESD 67

Kanold Timothy D $292,938 ADLAI E STEVENSON HSD 125

Codell Neil C $286,208 NILES TWP CHSD 219

Bultinck Howard J $285,137 SUNSET RIDGE SD 29

Hager Maureen L $279,767 NORTH SHORE SD 112

Murray Laura L $279,397 HOMEWOOD FLOSSMOOR CHSD 233

Burns Kevin G $277,927 CHSD 218

Torchedlo Thomas A $266,478 WHEELING CCSD 21

Van Der Bogert Rebecca $265,922 WINNETKA SD 36

Radakovich Michael L $261,451 AURORA EAST USD 131

Fleming Larry K $259,878 LINCOLNSHIRE-PRAIRIEVIEW SD 103

Alson Allan L $258,876 EVANSTON TWP HSD 202

Wolf Boyce J $256,380 ROCK FALLS TWP HSD 301

Here are just the top 200 highest paid teachers in IL:

www.familytaxpayers.org/salary.php

This is the tippy top of the list:

Name: Russell, Lucille
Salary: $413,000
Position: Special Education Teacher
Full/Part Time: Fulltime
Percent Time Employed: 100%
Assignment: Learning Behavior Specialist I
Years Teaching: 28
Degree: Master's
School Name: Curtis Elem School
District Name: City of Chicago SD 299

This is the bottom of the list:

Name: Freeman, Robert
Salary: $200,058
Position: High School Principal
Full/Part Time: Fulltime
Percent Time Employed: 100%
Assignment: Administration
Years Teaching: 34
Degree: Master's
School Name: Niles North High School
District Name: Niles Twp CHSD 219

[hello fromWarsaw]

The shortfall in money is caused by bought of Pubs voting for tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

[safeharbor37]

"Highest tax rate has been under 70% twice:" not including 1865-1913 when the US became the richest country on the face of the earth.
Partial History of
U.S. Federal Marginal Income Tax Rates
Since 1913
Applicable
Year
Income brackets First Top Source
1913-1915 - 1% 7% IRS
1916 - 2% 15% IRS
1917 - 2% 67% IRS
1918 - 6% 77% IRS
1919-1920 - 4% 73% IRS
1921 - 4% 73% IRS
1922 - 4% 56% IRS
1923 - 3% 56% IRS
1924 - 1.5% 46% IRS
1925-1928 - 1.5% 25% IRS
1929 - 0.375% 24% IRS
1930-1931 - 1.125% 25% IRS
1932-1933 - 4% 63% IRS
1934-1935 - 4% 63% IRS
1936-1939 - 4% 79% IRS
1940 - 4.4% 81.1% IRS
1941 - 10% 81% IRS
1942-1943 - 19% 88% IRS
1944-1945 - 23% 94% IRS
1946-1947 - 19% 86.45% IRS
1948-1949 - 16.6% 82.13% IRS
1950 - 17.4% 84.36% IRS
1951 - 20.4% 91% IRS
1952-1953 - 22.2% 92% IRS
1954-1963 - 20% 91% IRS
1964 - 16% 77% IRS
1965-1967 - 14% 70% IRS
1968 - 14% 75.25% IRS
1969 - 14% 77% IRS
1970 - 14% 71.75% IRS
1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS
1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS
1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS
1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 28% IRS
1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS
1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS
2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS
2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS
2003-2009 6 brackets 10% 35% Tax Foundation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Mar 10, 2011 17:50:12 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Mar 10, 2011 17:18:27 GMT -5 hello fromWarsaw said:

Strangely, we can afford huge tax cuts for the bloated rich, that have produced this "crisis"....

Funny ain't it. We can't tax the rich an extra 2% because they have worked hard for their money & deserve it. But, we can cut teachers pay because apparently they don't work hard for their money, they are overpaid & don't deserve their high salaries.

So we can take from the teachers in order to help balance the budget, but can't take from the rich to do the same? I keep hearing that everyone will have to make sacrifices, but all I see are the lower/middle class being forced to make sacrifices.

We're not proposing taking property from teachers. They are not entitled to choose their level of pay any more than the hated "rich". In fact, as I just posted-- many of them ARE the hated "rich"-- that magic $250K a year and up.

The difference is the rich make, the government takes. Teachers don't produce anything-- including the ONE thing they're supposed to produce-- an educated student.

82% of schools can't even meet the government's own standards, which are not, btw, very high.

Again, imagine a situation in which 82% of McDonald's franchisees were FAILING.

What would happen there?

This discussion might be different, and there might be some sympathy for the plight of teachers if they weren't paid nearly twice what their private sector counterparts are paid, and if schools were performing.

This goes well beyond the phoney-baloney argument over the fictitious "right" of collective bargaining, and bloated pay and benefits.

I frankly think it's in teachers best interest to sit down and shut the hell up before too many voters learn what I've known for years-- the government run school system has failed, and nevermind collective bargaining and teacher pay, it's time for a COMPLETE overhaul and a totally new approach.

That's where we're headed- and the more the left shrieks and cries about it-- the sooner it's going to come about.

[hello fromWarsaw]

No teacher has ever made over 250k lol

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Mar 10, 2011 17:57:34 GMT -5 hello fromWarsaw said:

The shortfall in money is caused by bought of Pubs voting for tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

No, there is no short fall. The current and proposed levels of spending are too high.

Your statement sounds like what a little teenaged brat might say to their parents to justify wanting a bigger allowance.

See, government works for us. We allocate a certain level of funding to our public servants and we set the agenda. We direct them to do X with X amount of money, and that's what we expect them to do.

Somehow or other, our servants have decided it's their house and they run the show.

We're in the process now of reminding them who is in charge, and for whom they work.

We are in charge, we direct them, we set the agenda, and if our servants do not accept our terms, they are free to leave and go do something else for a living.

If I were a government employee union member, I'd frankly tone it down, and learn my place fast. We outnumber them, and if they don't sit down and shut up, and knock off the vandalism, violence, and threats- they're going to find out in no uncertain terms that we aren't going to put up with this very much longer.

There are times when it's wise to sit down, and shut up-- and this is one of those times for public sector employees. I wouldn't rouse the public right now if I were them.

We're putting the SERVANT back in public servant.

Change is inevitable, but it doesn't have to be painful. Time to grow up, and put on the big boy pants.

[ChiTownVenture]

Mar 10, 2011 18:02:41 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Mar 10, 2011 17:50:12 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Funny ain't it. We can't tax the rich an extra 2% because they have worked hard for their money & deserve it. But, we can cut teachers pay because apparently they don't work hard for their money, they are overpaid & don't deserve their high salaries.

So we can take from the teachers in order to help balance the budget, but can't take from the rich to do the same? I keep hearing that everyone will have to make sacrifices, but all I see are the lower/middle class being forced to make sacrifices.

We're not proposing taking property from teachers. They are not entitled to choose their level of pay any more than the hated "rich". In fact, as I just posted-- many of them ARE the hated "rich"-- that magic $250K a year and up.

The difference is the rich make, the government takes. Teachers don't produce anything-- including the ONE thing they're supposed to produce-- an educated student.

82% of schools can't even meet the government's own standards, which are not, btw, very high.

Again, imagine a situation in which 82% of McDonald's franchisees were FAILING.

What would happen there?

This discussion might be different, and there might be some sympathy for the plight of teachers if they weren't paid nearly twice what their private sector counterparts are paid, and if schools were performing.

This goes well beyond the phoney-baloney argument over the fictitious "right" of collective bargaining, and bloated pay and benefits.

I frankly think it's in teachers best interest to sit down and shut the hell up before too many voters learn what I've known for years-- the government run school system has failed, and nevermind collective bargaining and teacher pay, it's time for a COMPLETE overhaul and a totally new approach.

That's where we're headed- and the more the left shrieks and cries about it-- the sooner it's going to come about.

So because you don't like system you are going to take it out on the students? Cutting the budget is not going to make the system better, students educations are not going to increase, it's going to make it worse.

You want to change the system and make it cost effective and more efficient. Propose how you are going to change, how that change is going to improve things and then adjust the costs.

You don't go in cutting and then figure it out afterward.

[Angel!]

In fact, as I just posted-- many of them ARE the hated "rich"-- that magic $250K a year and up.

Actually most of that list wasn't teachers, but superintendents. You want to argue that they are overpaid, well I can't argue. I have no idea what a superintendents job entails, but it doesn't seem worth over 200K/yr.

But, no one seems to be focusing on them. All I hear is the average teacher salary is 50K & that is too much. The average of 50K is for an average of 15 years of experience according to the website posted earlier. That doesn't seem excessive at all.

They are not entitled to choose their level of pay any more than the hated "rich".

You are right, teacher's pay like everything else is based on the laws of supply & demand. The only difference is that if you find you can't hire a good engineer for $40K, then you up the salary until you find someone qualified for the job. Maybe the teachers aren't producing because we don't pay well enough to attract any talent to the field. That is one of the basics of labor supply & demand - you want the best, then pay to get the best. Don't cut the pay of the few willing to do the job & then complain they aren't good enough. The only people willing to go into a profession that starts around 30K & 15 years experience only gets you 50K (unless you go into administrative roles) are either people who absolutely love it or those who can't make it into the higher paying professions because they aren't good enough.

[Deleted]

82% of schools can't even meet the government's own standards, which are not, btw, very high.


Yes, lets plot potential on a bell curve and then expect everyone to be proficient/advanced in achievement...

[formerexpat]

The wealth of the top 2% has doubled while everyone else has stagnated or worse.

Well that's an unintelligent and false statement.

The shortfall in money is caused by bought of Pubs voting for tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

And now you're two for two.

Can you please show me support for these statements?[/size]

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

You are right, teacher's pay like everything else is based on the laws of supply & demand.

No, it's based on a combination of taxpayer funded propaganda and extortion; which determines both the number of teachers, and the amount of pay, which in turn determines how much the union collects in dues, which in trun determines how much money is available for Democrat politicians to fund propaganda and extortion drives.

The only difference is that if you find you can't hire a good engineer for $40K, then you up the salary until you find someone qualified for the job. Maybe the teachers aren't producing because we don't pay well enough to attract any talent to the field.

No, teachers aren't performing because they don't have to. It's not like they're ever actually fired.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/22/new-york-teachers-paid-to_n_219336.html

NEW YORK — Hundreds of New York City public school teachers accused of offenses ranging from insubordination to sexual misconduct are being paid their full salaries to sit around all day playing Scrabble, surfing the Internet or just staring at the wall, if that's what they want to do.

Because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them, the teachers have been banished by the school system to its "rubber rooms" _ off-campus office space where they wait months, even years, for their disciplinary hearings.

The 700 or so teachers can practice yoga, work on their novels, paint portraits of their colleagues _ pretty much anything but school work. They have summer vacation just like their classroom colleagues and enjoy weekends and holidays through the school year.

"You just basically sit there for eight hours," said Orlando Ramos, who spent seven months in a rubber room, officially known as a temporary reassignment center, in 2004-05. "I saw several near-fights. `This is my seat.' `I've been sitting here for six months.' That sort of thing."

Ramos was an assistant principal in East Harlem when he was accused of lying at a hearing on whether to suspend a student. Ramos denied the allegation but quit before his case was resolved and took a job in California.

Because the teachers collect their full salaries of $70,000 or more, the city Department of Education estimates the practice costs the taxpayers $65 million a year. The department blames union rules.

www.heartland.org/policybot/results/16494/How_Do_I_Fire_an_Inept_Teacher_in_New_York_City_Schools.html



We see you, Democrats.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

So because you don't like system you are going to take it out on the students? Cutting the budget is not going to make the system better, students educations are not going to increase, it's going to make it worse.

Actually, the evidence is contrary to your conclusion. The more we've spent, the worse schools have performed.

[ChiTownVenture]

Mar 10, 2011 22:29:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

So because you don't like system you are going to take it out on the students? Cutting the budget is not going to make the system better, students educations are not going to increase, it's going to make it worse.

Actually, the evidence is contrary to your conclusion. The more we've spent, the worse schools have performed.

So you are saying that the education that Children get today is worse then the education they were getting 50 years ago? And you have evidence of this?

Lets look at a recent study done by the Bookings Institute comparing the US to other countries;

In 1964, we were 0.35 standard deviations below the mean. In the most recent tests, we were only 0.06 and 0.18 standard deviations below the mean. In other words, our performance had improved. Here's Loveless on the notion that we once led the world in education and have since collapsed: This is a myth. The United States never led the world. It was never number one and has never been close to number one on international math tests. Or on science tests, for that matter....[And] there has been no sharp decline—in either the short or long run. The United States performance on PISA has been flat to slightly up since the test’s inception, and it has improved on Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) since 1995.

Now, we're still below average among these dozen countries, so this is hardly a glorious result. But we aren't doing any worse than we did in the supposed glory days of the 50s and 60s. We're doing better. And as Mathews says, "If we have managed to be the world's most powerful country, politically, economically and militarily, for the last 47 years despite our less than impressive math and science scores, maybe that flaw is not as important as film documentaries and political party platforms claim. And if, after so many decades of being shown up by much of the rest of the developed world, we are improving, it might be time to be more supportive of what we already doing to fix our schools."

motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/02/american-schools-are-better-50-years-ago

This compares us to other countries, and doesn't take into account the advances that schools have made in the US alone. If you compare what students learn today with what they were learning 50 years ago, there is proof that the system is working (flawed as it is).

In the US the literacy rates in the US is 99%
www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us®ionCode=na&#us

1950 the literacy rate was 97%
1979 the rate rose to 99%

nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

Stripping funding from education is not going to help the quality of education. Responsible reform is what is going to help.

[ChiTownVenture]

These figures come from Brookings Institution scholar Tom Loveless

Attachments:

[rockon]

Chi, Interesting information here. We were the most successful as a nation before our education improved? Makes me wonder if things like ingenuity, wisdom and common sense run contrasting lines to knowledge or intelligence?

[Deleted]

I think it has more to do with other countries catching up, and with technology becoming an equalizer.

We also took on more and more each year, in terms of special education, inclusion, second language education, etc. so that the pool becomes larger and more diverse and yes, not all of it will excel, but each group does better than it had... they are just all counted now...

[deziloooooo]

Mar 11, 2011 8:03:36 GMT -5 ChiTownVenture said:

Mar 10, 2011 22:29:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Actually, the evidence is contrary to your conclusion. The more we've spent, the worse schools have performed.

So you are saying that the education that Children get today is worse then the education they were getting 50 years ago? And you have evidence of this?

Lets look at a recent study done by the Bookings Institute comparing the US to other countries;

In 1964, we were 0.35 standard deviations below the mean. In the most recent tests, we were only 0.06 and 0.18 standard deviations below the mean. In other words, our performance had improved. Here's Loveless on the notion that we once led the world in education and have since collapsed: This is a myth. The United States never led the world. It was never number one and has never been close to number one on international math tests. Or on science tests, for that matter....[And] there has been no sharp decline—in either the short or long run. The United States performance on PISA has been flat to slightly up since the test’s inception, and it has improved on Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) since 1995.

Now, we're still below average among these dozen countries, so this is hardly a glorious result. But we aren't doing any worse than we did in the supposed glory days of the 50s and 60s. We're doing better. And as Mathews says, "If we have managed to be the world's most powerful country, politically, economically and militarily, for the last 47 years despite our less than impressive math and science scores, maybe that flaw is not as important as film documentaries and political party platforms claim. And if, after so many decades of being shown up by much of the rest of the developed world, we are improving, it might be time to be more supportive of what we already doing to fix our schools."

motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/02/american-schools-are-better-50-years-ago

This compares us to other countries, and doesn't take into account the advances that schools have made in the US alone. If you compare what students learn today with what they were learning 50 years ago, there is proof that the system is working (flawed as it is).

In the US the literacy rates in the US is 99%
www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us®ionCode=na&#us

1950 the literacy rate was 97%
1979 the rate rose to 99%

nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

Stripping funding from education is not going to help the quality of education. Responsible reform is what is going to help.

Some years ago I knew a man, who was very bright, had a very hi profile job with one of th Major Insurance companies in the country, a Officer of , VP, made a awful lot of $ , great responsibilities and invariable , as happens in these kind of inner workings of major companies, a opening for even higher position opened up and a decision had to be made between the one I knew and another, and for what ever reason my friend was passed over.
When this happens, usually / many times , the one who is passed over leaves the company in many cases with a golden parachute, full benefits , retirement intact and that is what happened here.
Now out of work, and not having to work again for income, he explored something he always had thought about, teaching, but had put aside because of the income that career would give him.

He took accelerated courses at the local college that specialized in these things and in six months he had acquired a teaching position in a inner city school, Hartford, Ct, middle school, I think 5th grade, a toughie as I understand it as far as the kids , age, just entering that semi all most grown up part of ones life.

He really loved it. He did very well , according to his superiors who monitored him closely, took more courses , had the best parent/teacher interaction in the school actually, visited his kids homes, yes in the inner city, parents came to the school to see him.
Students were doing very, very well as they moved up.

He did this for two years beyond before resigning, he's now in San Francisco, in another very hi profile job, big $, responsibilities, his back ground is actuary and leadership.

He left the education field not because of burn out, definitely not because of $, how much do you need, loved the kids and understood the parents, but the bureaucracy, the unending paper work sent down that he had to do and the guidance of what and how he had to teach, some OK, but so much was non educational for the betterment of the kids, more to cove ones butts for mandated programs, or just to cover superiors butts, but was a requirement for the position and had little to do with educating the kids.

True story, just had to put it up.

Nor being in education, knowing Jays enthusiasm and enjoyment of the job, actually enjoyed it better then his prime earlier one with the bigger paycheck, but the frustrations of the bureaucracy was what got him and in his case , he could very easily , if he wanted to , give those who were making him do these unnecessary things the bird and walk away ........... which he did.

[frankq]

Mar 10, 2011 13:17:26 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

I didn't realize the pay (+benefits) are so high. Mrs Ratchets better hurry up with her degree, because I've got a Porsche with my name on it down at the dealerships. Seriously though, if anybody making $100k isn't that satisfied with their job just let me know, I'll take it off your hands for you - see, it's a win-win situation!

Before you guys spend this "100K", keep in mind that "total" compensation takes into account group health costs which amount to over $15,000/year as well as retirement contributions.

As a comparison, a person with a 50K job and benefits such as health insurance for them selves and family and a company sponsored 401K plan with a 15% contribution would break down approximately as follows:

Salary - $50,000
Health Ins./ family - $1200-$1500/mo. - $16,000
401K contribution - employer - $15,000
------------
$81,000

Now, does your employer carry disability insurance for you? If so, add about $3000/yr

Do you have a company vehicle? Do you get to take it home every day? Add another $6000

New total - $90,000

I'm not defending teachers, but there is a big difference in paycheck money and total compensation.

[ed1066]

I'm not defending teachers, but there is a big difference in paycheck money and total compensation.

Not to the person writing the checks, which in this case are the taxpayers...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

You know, if we're going to have a discussion here, it helps to read and respond to what is posted. I have, however, noticed a pattern on these message boards with liberals-- completely avoid direct challenges to the facts they assume to be true. Specifically reply #48:

1. Teacher pay is NOT determined by supply and demand-- political and market forces are NOT one in the same.
2. Teachers perform poorly because there's no threat of termination-- it's really that simple.
3. Maybe schools have gotten modestly better, but the reality is still that according to the government's own standard-- 82% would be rated as failing. That Brookings study DOES NOT address this.

[SweetVirginia]

Mar 10, 2011 14:50:07 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The next time a school district generates a $7.5 billion profit- like Exxon Mobil did in the third quarter of 201- then we can pay teachers $100K a year, and I'll give the superintendent $100 million.

Schools don't generate anything. The don't make- the only take. And they don't even do what they're supposed to do with what they take-- 82% of government run monopoly schools are failing. Imagine if 82% of McDonald's franchisees were failing...

They are not supposed to be "for profit."

[frankq]

Mar 10, 2011 12:49:38 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Well then, I'll give you the same argument we get when we complain about CEOs (who can easily get 10X that and get golden parachutes worth millions even when they fail) : go out and become a teacher, then. If you're jealous, well be jealous no more! If you think they're overpaid, I'm sure they'll accept any pay cuts you offer them. See ya in about four years after you get your degree!

Once again, the inability/unwillingness to distinguish between public and private monies is evident here. This seems to be a highly contagious condition on the left, with no apparent cure...

Agreed.

[frankq]

Mar 11, 2011 16:09:36 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

I'm not defending teachers, but there is a big difference in paycheck money and total compensation.

Not to the person writing the checks, which in this case are the taxpayers...

There is definately cause for concern here. My point was that there is more to compensation that a person's paycheck for most people across the board. I would be looking at the pension boards of these states that are directly responsible for the unfunded pension liabilities that presently exist, and I would be asking where the surplus monies went when housing was enjoying years of double digit annual appreciation and the ensuing tax revenues reflected that.......

[SweetVirginia]

Mar 10, 2011 16:59:34 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Speaking from the California perspective, on the whole teacher salaries are not the problem, except when you get to the state university level. However, when you factor in performance versus those salaries, then it becomes a problem, since on average, the quality of the public school system is declining rapidly. This is not solely the fault of teachers, of course, the state departments of education and the school board administrations are probably more responsible than the teachers for the current pathetic state of public education.

In California, we have a serious problem with the salaries of Law Enforcement, University Education and Corrections employees. For those who want, see this link where you can search the State employee salary records and see some truly disgraceful things, including highway patrol officers making $300,000+ per year, university athletics coaches making $2,000,000+ per year, and "administrators" (whatever that is), making $500,000+ per year at various public agencies. This is why we're broke...

www.sacbee.com/statepay/

That would be part of the reason eddie, lets not forget that we have the highest illegal alien population. Illegals cost us an estimated 10 to 13 billion per year. This plays right into the public school problems. We are spending a staggering amount to educate and accommodate the children of illegal aliens. I know this first hand. 90 percent of my students' parents are here illegally. We spend so much on these kids. 100% of my school's students are on free breakfast and lunch. We provide 100% of their school supplies (which I now have to purchase because the district is out of money) We spend tons on providing private therapy sessions, in house probation officers, special education services, private school tuition when we cant meet their special needs, including taxi service to and from the private school, all kinds of expensive services. I do not agree with raising property taxes in order to accommodate these kids if the parents are not themselves paying property taxes (which the vast majority are not) This a a major problem that most of CA is ignoring.