Capt. Al Haynes sorta OT.

[James Blakely]

I know everyone hear remember Capt. Haynes. Capt. Haynes was the pilot of
United flight 232 when the center engine suffered an uncontained failure
and the DC-10 lost all of its hydraulic systems. Capt. Haynes landed the
ship at Sioux City using differential power. His handling of the emergency
is considered an example on how to manage cockpit resources.

However, do you know the family tragedies he has had to face since then?
His wife passed away in 1999 and his son died in 1997. Now it his daughter
who needs help. Laurie Haynes Arguello has been diagnosed with aplastic
anemia. The only treatment is a bone marrow transplant. A donor has been
located but the cost of the transplant and follow-up treatment is over
$250,000.

Capt. Haynes is trying to raise the money for the treatment. So far, he has
raised about $30,000.

If you wish to make a donation to Laurie's treatment, please click:
http://www.transplants.org/

According to the site, the donations are tax-deductible but you should check
with your tax advisor.

NOTE: I am not representing Capt. Haynes, Ms. Arguello, nor the National
Foundation for Transplants. I read this story in the paper and decided to
make a donation. I just thought that as pilots, you may be interested as
well. Go ahead and flame me if you want.

[James Blakely]

"James Blakely" > wrote in
message ...
> I know everyone hear remember Capt. Haynes. Capt. Haynes was the pilot of

Of course, the above sentense should read: "I know everyon here remembers
Capt. Haynes."

Please excuse the typo.


> United flight 232 when the center engine suffered an uncontained failure
> and the DC-10 lost all of its hydraulic systems. Capt. Haynes landed the
> ship at Sioux City using differential power. His handling of the
emergency
> is considered an example on how to manage cockpit resources.
>
> However, do you know the family tragedies he has had to face since then?
> His wife passed away in 1999 and his son died in 1997. Now it his
daughter
> who needs help. Laurie Haynes Arguello has been diagnosed with aplastic
> anemia. The only treatment is a bone marrow transplant. A donor has been
> located but the cost of the transplant and follow-up treatment is over
> $250,000.
>
> Capt. Haynes is trying to raise the money for the treatment. So far, he
has
> raised about $30,000.
>
> If you wish to make a donation to Laurie's treatment, please click:
> http://www.transplants.org/
>
> According to the site, the donations are tax-deductible but you should
check
> with your tax advisor.
>
> NOTE: I am not representing Capt. Haynes, Ms. Arguello, nor the National
> Foundation for Transplants. I read this story in the paper and decided to
> make a donation. I just thought that as pilots, you may be interested as
> well. Go ahead and flame me if you want.
>
>

[Mike Spera]

Flame you? Nope. Made a donation. This guy has been through hell enough
times. Maybe United should chip in $100k or so. Capt. Haynes and the
cockpit team probably saved the airline $100 million in additional
lawsuits (over 100 pax lived through the crash).

Any United employees on line? Please pass this request on.
Thanks,
Mike

James Blakely wrote:
> I know everyone hear remember Capt. Haynes. Capt. Haynes was the pilot of
> United flight 232 when the center engine suffered an uncontained failure
> and the DC-10 lost all of its hydraulic systems. Capt. Haynes landed the
> ship at Sioux City using differential power. His handling of the emergency
> is considered an example on how to manage cockpit resources.
>
> However, do you know the family tragedies he has had to face since then?
> His wife passed away in 1999 and his son died in 1997. Now it his daughter
> who needs help. Laurie Haynes Arguello has been diagnosed with aplastic
> anemia. The only treatment is a bone marrow transplant. A donor has been
> located but the cost of the transplant and follow-up treatment is over
> $250,000.
>
> Capt. Haynes is trying to raise the money for the treatment. So far, he has
> raised about $30,000.
>
> If you wish to make a donation to Laurie's treatment, please click:
> http://www.transplants.org/
>
> According to the site, the donations are tax-deductible but you should check
> with your tax advisor.
>
> NOTE: I am not representing Capt. Haynes, Ms. Arguello, nor the National
> Foundation for Transplants. I read this story in the paper and decided to
> make a donation. I just thought that as pilots, you may be interested as
> well. Go ahead and flame me if you want.
>
>


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Jay Honeck]

> Capt. Haynes is trying to raise the money for the treatment. So far, he
has
> raised about $30,000.

I don't mean to be cynical (that's Martin's job), but something doesn't add
up here...

Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after speaker on the
mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty much
rolling in money.

Yet he can't borrow/raise $250K to save his daughter's life?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"James Blakely" > wrote in
message ...
> I know everyone hear remember Capt. Haynes. Capt. Haynes was the pilot of
> United flight 232 when the center engine suffered an uncontained failure
> and the DC-10 lost all of its hydraulic systems. Capt. Haynes landed the
> ship at Sioux City using differential power. His handling of the
emergency
> is considered an example on how to manage cockpit resources.
>
> However, do you know the family tragedies he has had to face since then?
> His wife passed away in 1999 and his son died in 1997. Now it his
daughter
> who needs help. Laurie Haynes Arguello has been diagnosed with aplastic
> anemia. The only treatment is a bone marrow transplant. A donor has been
> located but the cost of the transplant and follow-up treatment is over
> $250,000.
>
>
> If you wish to make a donation to Laurie's treatment, please click:
> http://www.transplants.org/
>
> According to the site, the donations are tax-deductible but you should
check
> with your tax advisor.
>
> NOTE: I am not representing Capt. Haynes, Ms. Arguello, nor the National
> Foundation for Transplants. I read this story in the paper and decided to
> make a donation. I just thought that as pilots, you may be interested as
> well. Go ahead and flame me if you want.
>
>

[Richard Moore]

Link to the article:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3815583/

Here is the article:
Hero pilot has one more life to save
by Chris Genna, Journal Reporter
The King County Journal
Updated: 7:19 a.m. ET Dec. 27, 2003
December 27, 2003 - SEATAC -- Capt. Al Haynes became a national figure in
1989 when he managed to land United Airlines Flight 232 in Sioux City, Iowa,
saving 185 lives, even though he had almost no control of the DC-10 after
its center engine exploded.

Now, he hopes his lingering fame can help save the life of his daughter,
Laurie Haynes Arguello, 39, by raising enough money to pay for her bone
marrow transplant.

Arguello was diagnosed in December 2001 with aplastic anemia, a disorder in
which her bone marrow can't produce enough red or white blood cells. Lack of
red cells produces anemia; lack of white ones means the system can't fight
off infections.

A form of chemotherapy called ATG, for antithymocyte globulin, ``worked for
a while,'' she said, meaning, ``I didn't need transfusions once a week.''
The first time she had ATG, it reduced her symptoms for nine months. There
was some hope the disorder had been cured. It wasn't.

Even though the failure of ATG treatment meant a bone marrow transplant was
the only way to save her life, she had another ATG session because, ``We
hoped it would hold me out until we could collect the deposit.''

A marrow donor has been lined up and is waiting for the call. But what
Arguello calls a deposit is $156,000 that her insurance will not pay. ``That
gets you in the door to do the transplant,'' she said, but after care --
medicines, doctor visits and such -- could easily cost another $100,000.

And even after that, Haynes said, ``She'll probably need anti-rejection
drugs the rest of her life.''

So Haynes and Arquello are trying to raise $250,000. ``A committee of 25
friends of Laurie's and mine set up a foundation,'' he said, to raise money
for her transplant.

In the less than two weeks since the effort started, it raised a little more
than $30,000, Haynes said, a strong start, boosted by Haynes' associates in
the ALPA, the Airline Pilots Association, and the Association of Flight
Attendants.

Both unions have published links to the fund drive on their Web pages. So
has the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

A Seattle television station carried a story last week. MSNBC did one
Tuesday, and the story is to be picked up on NBC affiliates nationwide.

Arguello can't hide a little bitterness about the medical insurance
industry. ``I paid for insurance for many, many years when I wasn't sick;
then, when I needed it, it was ... um ... it was a tough one.''

She explained that for the eight years she was employed by Northwest
Janitorial Supply, she and her employer paid into a Regents Health Care
group plan. After she got sick and couldn't work, her employer kept her on
the group plan five or six months, as long as they could.

But when she had to apply for an individual plan, she was refused for a
pre-existing condition.

She got insurance through Washington state, but it covers only $100,000 of
the $256,000 she needs just for the marrow transplant.

About everything else, Arguello is upbeat, talking about her condition, the
treatment, the fund-raising effort as if her life did not depend on it.

As she talks to a reporter, her 9-year-old son Michael -- ``There are so
many Mikes in the family, I call him Cruz,'' Haynes said -- listens
politely, but he's heard it all. The fourth-grader's favorite subjects are
math and P.E., affinities he hopes to use in a career as professional soccer
player.

Haynes too has the matter-of-fact, almost stoic, determination that drove
him to write the book on controlling a DC-10 jetliner using only throttles,
saving the lives of more than half of the 296 souls aboard at Sioux City
July 19, 1989.

``My wife died in 1999, my oldest son was killed in a motorcycle crash (in
1997) and now this is coming up with my daughter. So we're having our share
of bad luck; but we learned a long time ago that it doesn't do you any good
to cry about it. You just do what you can and deal with what you have.''

CONTRIBUTIONS

www.friendsforlauri.com or write to the National Foundation for Transplants
in behalf of Laurie Arguello:

NFT for Laurie Arguello

P.O. Box 7781

Covington WA 98042

MORE FROM TOP STORIES


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:VLIIb.707319$Tr4.1787059@attbi_s03...
> > Capt. Haynes is trying to raise the money for the treatment. So far, he
> has
> > raised about $30,000.
>
> I don't mean to be cynical (that's Martin's job), but something doesn't
add
> up here...
>
> Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after speaker on
the
> mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty much
> rolling in money.
>
> Yet he can't borrow/raise $250K to save his daughter's life?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
> "James Blakely" > wrote in
> message
...
> > I know everyone hear remember Capt. Haynes. Capt. Haynes was the pilot
of
> > United flight 232 when the center engine suffered an uncontained
failure
> > and the DC-10 lost all of its hydraulic systems. Capt. Haynes landed
the
> > ship at Sioux City using differential power. His handling of the
> emergency
> > is considered an example on how to manage cockpit resources.
> >
> > However, do you know the family tragedies he has had to face since then?
> > His wife passed away in 1999 and his son died in 1997. Now it his
> daughter
> > who needs help. Laurie Haynes Arguello has been diagnosed with aplastic
> > anemia. The only treatment is a bone marrow transplant. A donor has
been
> > located but the cost of the transplant and follow-up treatment is over
> > $250,000.
> >
> >
> > If you wish to make a donation to Laurie's treatment, please click:
> > http://www.transplants.org/
> >
> > According to the site, the donations are tax-deductible but you should
> check
> > with your tax advisor.
> >
> > NOTE: I am not representing Capt. Haynes, Ms. Arguello, nor the
National
> > Foundation for Transplants. I read this story in the paper and decided
to
> > make a donation. I just thought that as pilots, you may be interested
as
> > well. Go ahead and flame me if you want.
> >
> >
>
>

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after speaker on the
> mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty much
> rolling in money.

There are some retired TWA pilots that need to work to make ends meet. There
are some recently retired pilots from "reorganized" carriers who have lost a
good portion of their retirement.

Then, there's those overpaid school teachers in California who retire at 100%,
get COLA increases from a bankrupt state, and who are rolling in dough.~

[Matthew S. Whiting]

wrote:
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
>>Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after speaker on the
>>mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty much
>>rolling in money.
>
>
> There are some retired TWA pilots that need to work to make ends meet. There
> are some recently retired pilots from "reorganized" carriers who have lost a
> good portion of their retirement.

That is truly infortunate, but I have a hard time feeling too sorry for
folks that made well over $100K/year and didn't sock away a little on
their own for retirement. I make less than most senior airline pilots
and I'm not planning on having SS be available when I retire nor my
company pension. If one or both are still there, that will be gravey.


> Then, there's those overpaid school teachers in California who retire at 100%,
> get COLA increases from a bankrupt state, and who are rolling in dough.~

I'm not familiar with CA (thankfully!), but in most states teachers make
a LOT less than airline pilots.


Matt

[Stu Gotts]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 05:33:05 -0800, wrote:

>
>
>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>
>> Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after speaker on the
>> mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty much
>> rolling in money.
>
>There are some retired TWA pilots that need to work to make ends meet. There
>are some recently retired pilots from "reorganized" carriers who have lost a
>good portion of their retirement.
>
>Then, there's those overpaid school teachers in California who retire at 100%,
>get COLA increases from a bankrupt state, and who are rolling in dough.~

And should we feel sorry for each and every person who either made a
bad decision in their lives or squandered their savings?

As I say to the major propilots on the field, it would be a real bitch
to have to live on $150K a year. Stop your ****ing and moaning and
get on with life.

[Stu Gotts]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:59:54 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after speaker on the
>>>mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty much
>>>rolling in money.
>>
>>
>> There are some retired TWA pilots that need to work to make ends meet. There
>> are some recently retired pilots from "reorganized" carriers who have lost a
>> good portion of their retirement.
>
>That is truly infortunate, but I have a hard time feeling too sorry for
>folks that made well over $100K/year and didn't sock away a little on
>their own for retirement. I make less than most senior airline pilots
>and I'm not planning on having SS be available when I retire nor my
>company pension. If one or both are still there, that will be gravey.
>
>
>> Then, there's those overpaid school teachers in California who retire at 100%,
>> get COLA increases from a bankrupt state, and who are rolling in dough.~
>
>I'm not familiar with CA (thankfully!), but in most states teachers make
>a LOT less than airline pilots.

And put up with mounds more bull**** for about 10 hours a day and at
least 20 days out of the month.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article <VLIIb.707319$Tr4.1787059@attbi_s03>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> I don't mean to be cynical (that's Martin's job), but something doesn't add
> up here...
>
> Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after speaker on the
> mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty much
> rolling in money.
>
> Yet he can't borrow/raise $250K to save his daughter's life?


First of all, do we know that Capt. Haynes and not some other person is
behind the public fundraising for his daughter?

Secondly, do we know how much Capt. Haynes is making these days, or what
his expenses have been through his misfortune?

And thirdly, do we know what Capt. Haynes' relationship is with his
daughter? One of the articles that I read seemed to suggest that he
didn't view his daughter's life as any more important than someone
else's, which I thought was a little strange. Maybe I misinterpreted
what he said, or perhaps he was misquoted, but even if he was trying to
be objective about this sort of thing, it is human nature to value
family and friends more than others.



JKG

[[email protected]]

Stu Gotts wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 05:33:05 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after speaker on the
> >> mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty much
> >> rolling in money.
> >
> >There are some retired TWA pilots that need to work to make ends meet. There
> >are some recently retired pilots from "reorganized" carriers who have lost a
> >good portion of their retirement.
> >
> >Then, there's those overpaid school teachers in California who retire at 100%,
> >get COLA increases from a bankrupt state, and who are rolling in dough.~
>
> And should we feel sorry for each and every person who either made a
> bad decision in their lives or squandered their savings?
>
> As I say to the major propilots on the field, it would be a real bitch
> to have to live on $150K a year. Stop your ****ing and moaning and
> get on with life.

No ****ing and moaning from me. I just burns me when you jerks think all airline
pilots make or made $150K per year. That was my point, but you Cessna wannabes are
so jealous of real pilots, your vision is more than slightly clouded.

That is (was) true of some, but certainly not all. At TWA they couldn't break the
$100 K barrier, and the F/Os and F/Es did far worse.

[[email protected]]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> be objective about this sort of thing, it is human nature to value
> family and friends more than others.
>
>

Hope that never changes.

[Stu Gotts]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 07:31:29 -0800, wrote:

>
>
>Stu Gotts wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 05:33:05 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Jay Honeck wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after speaker on the
>> >> mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty much
>> >> rolling in money.
>> >
>> >There are some retired TWA pilots that need to work to make ends meet. There
>> >are some recently retired pilots from "reorganized" carriers who have lost a
>> >good portion of their retirement.
>> >
>> >Then, there's those overpaid school teachers in California who retire at 100%,
>> >get COLA increases from a bankrupt state, and who are rolling in dough.~
>>
>> And should we feel sorry for each and every person who either made a
>> bad decision in their lives or squandered their savings?
>>
>> As I say to the major propilots on the field, it would be a real bitch
>> to have to live on $150K a year. Stop your ****ing and moaning and
>> get on with life.
>
>No ****ing and moaning from me. I just burns me when you jerks think all airline
>pilots make or made $150K per year. That was my point, but you Cessna wannabes are
>so jealous of real pilots, your vision is more than slightly clouded.
>
>That is (was) true of some, but certainly not all. At TWA they couldn't break the
>$100 K barrier, and the F/Os and F/Es did far worse.

I'm far from a Cessna wannabe and certainly wouldn't want to take the
pay cut in order to become an airline pilot. Fact of the matter is in
my Money Magazine defined "upscale" town of residence, the average
family annual median income is $87.5K. That'll include all the folks
making $45K and all the folks making $500K. Not NYC, where COL is
through the roof, but still located within a major metroplex. That
could be determined to say that in the surrounding area a majority of
regular people are supporting families very well at about $60K per
year. If you, or your crybaby friends can't make a go of it at $100K+
per year, why not subsidize your income with a second job at Home
Depot rather than look down your noses at who you think may be jealous
of your career choice.

It's been my experience that the higher the pay, the more ****ing and
moaning goes on. On my field we have Delta guys at $250K, American
guys at $200K and Southwest guys at $12.00 an hour. The most crying
comes from those who realize that if they can't fly, they're incapable
of surviving. The least amount of crying is from those boys that
struggled, were furloughed for a few years or out of a job completely.
They realize that life does not begin or end flying for someone.
Happy New Year.

[Ron Natalie]

> wrote in message ...
>
> No ****ing and moaning from me. I just burns me when you jerks think all airline
> pilots make or made $150K per year. That was my point, but you Cessna wannabes are
> so jealous of real pilots, your vision is more than slightly clouded.
>
We're talking about a guy who was left seat on a DC-10 for United however.

[[email protected]]

I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it is
that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
reasonable expectations. This sort of catastrophically expensive but
nonetheless essential treatment is in fact exactly why we need health
insurance. But the scenario here is, tragically, all too common. It
wouldn't even make the news if not for Capt. Haynes's (well deserved) fame.
The victim, insured through his or her employer, gets too sick to work.
Eventually he or she loses insurance coverage and cannot get a new policy
that will cover the pre-existing condition. It's win-win for the insurance
companies (who help propagate this outrage with massive campaign
contributions to corrupt politicians) and lose-lose for working Americans.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Stu Gotts]

Well said and the reminder is a good one!

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:39:20 GMT, wrote:

>I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
>could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it is
>that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
>reasonable expectations. This sort of catastrophically expensive but
>nonetheless essential treatment is in fact exactly why we need health
>insurance. But the scenario here is, tragically, all too common. It
>wouldn't even make the news if not for Capt. Haynes's (well deserved) fame.
>The victim, insured through his or her employer, gets too sick to work.
>Eventually he or she loses insurance coverage and cannot get a new policy
>that will cover the pre-existing condition. It's win-win for the insurance
>companies (who help propagate this outrage with massive campaign
>contributions to corrupt politicians) and lose-lose for working Americans.

[David Lesher]

writes:

>I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
>could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it is
>that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
>reasonable expectations.

Indeed. I knew an AA line Capt. He had a seizure in flight. They
opened up his head and said "nothing to do.."

But it took him almost another 10 years to die. His wife went
broke trying to pay for his care.....
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Kevin]

Stu Gotts wrote:
> Well said and the reminder is a good one!
>
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:39:20 GMT, wrote:
>
>
>>I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
>>could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it is
>>that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
>>reasonable expectations. This sort of catastrophically expensive but
>>nonetheless essential treatment is in fact exactly why we need health
>>insurance. But the scenario here is, tragically, all too common. It
>>wouldn't even make the news if not for Capt. Haynes's (well deserved) fame.
>>The victim, insured through his or her employer, gets too sick to work.
>>Eventually he or she loses insurance coverage and cannot get a new policy
>>that will cover the pre-existing condition. It's win-win for the insurance
>>companies (who help propagate this outrage with massive campaign
>>contributions to corrupt politicians) and lose-lose for working Americans.
>
>
If it was some low life in prison they would sue and we, (the taxpayers)
would have to pay for it.

[Richard Hertz]

Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only 7
hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.


"Stu Gotts" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:59:54 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after speaker
on the
> >>>mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty
much
> >>>rolling in money.
> >>
> >>
> >> There are some retired TWA pilots that need to work to make ends meet.
There
> >> are some recently retired pilots from "reorganized" carriers who have
lost a
> >> good portion of their retirement.
> >
> >That is truly infortunate, but I have a hard time feeling too sorry for
> >folks that made well over $100K/year and didn't sock away a little on
> >their own for retirement. I make less than most senior airline pilots
> >and I'm not planning on having SS be available when I retire nor my
> >company pension. If one or both are still there, that will be gravey.
> >
> >
> >> Then, there's those overpaid school teachers in California who retire
at 100%,
> >> get COLA increases from a bankrupt state, and who are rolling in
dough.~
> >
> >I'm not familiar with CA (thankfully!), but in most states teachers make
> >a LOT less than airline pilots.
>
> And put up with mounds more bull**** for about 10 hours a day and at
> least 20 days out of the month.
>
>

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Richard Hertz wrote:
> Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only 7
> hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.

And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
response.


Matt

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
7
> > hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.
>
> And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
> response.
>
Why not answer his question, Matthew?

Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from the
bottom quartile of their graduating classes?

[Jay Honeck]

> The alternative to the retirement plans that kill the tax payers is
> pant-loads of uneducated youth.

This is a bit of a stretch. There is "retirement", and then there is

My sister, age 54, just retired after teaching 32 years in the same Middle
School. (Actually in the same ROOM, for all those years!)

While this *does* qualify for sainthood, I'm still not sure why she was
eligible for full retirement at at 52 -- fully 13 years before the rest of
society. The taxpayers in Michigan are certainly in no position to pay
this, and should not have to -- especially nowadays, with life expectancy
for women climbing to record levels.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> Not Matt, but I would point out that a question wasn't asked. A
> statement about how the only work 180 days out of the year was posed.
> As far as 7 hour days, I can assure you that it's significantly longer.
> The 7 hour day is the portion in which the teacher gets to handle
> students on a face-to-face basis. The remainder of the day is unbilled
> and fully expected. This is the time that the teacher spends building
> lesson plans (or reviewing last year's plan or reviewing somebody else's
> plan), grading student papers, and, I assume, trying to rebuild their
> immune systems to deal with the petri dish that they visit 180 days out
> of the year.
>
> As far as why the top 5% of any particular graduating class don't become
> teachers, it's because it isn't very lucrative. It might be extremely
> satisfying on a personal level, but it doesn't bring in much money.
>
> Also, just because a person graduated in the bottom 1/4 of one's class
> does not mean that they belong in the bottom 1/4 of society. It means
> that when measured against their peers (where peers is defined as those
> people that graduated at the same time from the same school and same
> degree program [which is similar to saying 'arbitrary']), those
> individuals had 3/4 of their peers get better grades.
>
> Compared to those who chose not to get an education, even these
> 'poor-performers' have a significant advantage even though the
> uneducated don't have to carry around a sign saying 'graduated in the
> bottom 1/4 of my class'.
>
> And, you do realize that the teachers don't get paid for the remainder
> of the days that they don't work. Some of them do spread their income
> so that the summer doesn't hurt so much, but you can do the same by
> banking income and retrieving it on an as-needed basis.
>
> Why would we give them retirement packages? Because if we didn't,
> nobody would become a teacher. There would be no incentive at all. Why
> would we want teachers? I, for one, want teachers to educate children
> because I plan on retiring someday. If I am the only one left with an
> education, my retirement isn't going to be very comfortable because I
> won't be able to admire young, pert nurses. I won't be able to have
> smart architects design nice living quarters. I won't have smart
> engineers to build my next vehicle. Teachers enable all these things.
>
Uneducated youth don't make good
> incomes. Uneducated, underpaid youth don't pay taxes. Non-tax-paying
> youth mean that *you* get to pay the rest. How much can you afford?
>
> Jeff...
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
> >
> > 7
> >
> >>>hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
payers.
> >>
> >>And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
> >>response.
> >>
> >
> > Why not answer his question, Matthew?
> >
> > Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
the
> > bottom quartile of their graduating classes?
> >
> >

[Richard Hertz]

I am changing careers. After working for 12 years in the computer science
industry I am going to "semi-retire" to teach math and computer science.
Many family members and acquaintances teach and when I compare their
lifestyle and working hours and stress to mine I conclude that the pay cut
is worth the reduced hours and the retirement benefits are almost criminal.
(in my opinion)


"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
7
> > hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.
>
> And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
> response.
>
>
> Matt
>

[Richard Hertz]

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> Not Matt, but I would point out that a question wasn't asked. A
> statement about how the only work 180 days out of the year was posed.
> As far as 7 hour days, I can assure you that it's significantly longer.
> The 7 hour day is the portion in which the teacher gets to handle
> students on a face-to-face basis. The remainder of the day is unbilled
> and fully expected. This is the time that the teacher spends building
> lesson plans (or reviewing last year's plan or reviewing somebody else's
> plan), grading student papers, and, I assume, trying to rebuild their
> immune systems to deal with the petri dish that they visit 180 days out
> of the year.

Correct - I asked no questions but made a statement that does seem to
infuriate teachers.
I am sick of teachers who whine about this "take home work." Most salaried
professionals I know also do not work a 40 hour work week. Teachers get to
work from the comfort of their home for those hours. Also, after a few
years the lesson plans are made and very little work is needed after the
work day.

>
> As far as why the top 5% of any particular graduating class don't become
> teachers, it's because it isn't very lucrative. It might be extremely
> satisfying on a personal level, but it doesn't bring in much money.
>
> Also, just because a person graduated in the bottom 1/4 of one's class
> does not mean that they belong in the bottom 1/4 of society. It means
> that when measured against their peers (where peers is defined as those
> people that graduated at the same time from the same school and same
> degree program [which is similar to saying 'arbitrary']), those
> individuals had 3/4 of their peers get better grades.
>
> Compared to those who chose not to get an education, even these
> 'poor-performers' have a significant advantage even though the
> uneducated don't have to carry around a sign saying 'graduated in the
> bottom 1/4 of my class'.
>
> And, you do realize that the teachers don't get paid for the remainder
> of the days that they don't work. Some of them do spread their income
> so that the summer doesn't hurt so much, but you can do the same by
> banking income and retrieving it on an as-needed basis.

Yes, and I value my vacation time more than the extra pay. This is why I am
going to switch careers. Note that teaching (as far as I am aware) has far
greater supply than demand. The most locigal presumption is that the
benefits are very desirable compared to the working hours.

>
> Why would we give them retirement packages? Because if we didn't,
> nobody would become a teacher. There would be no incentive at all. Why
> would we want teachers? I, for one, want teachers to educate children
> because I plan on retiring someday. If I am the only one left with an
> education, my retirement isn't going to be very comfortable because I
> won't be able to admire young, pert nurses. I won't be able to have
> smart architects design nice living quarters. I won't have smart
> engineers to build my next vehicle. Teachers enable all these things.

Perhaps - however the benefit packages are way out of line. I also think
that the government run system is less than ideal. Private schools do not
give the same benefits packages, but retain some excellent teachers due to
the better working environment. Private schools also pay less.

I do concede that I am not in a normal situation. After working 11 years
programming I am in a position (not able to retire) that enables me to take
a substantial salary reduction in order to teach.

>
> The alternative to the retirement plans that kill the tax payers is
> pant-loads of uneducated youth. Uneducated youth don't make good
> incomes. Uneducated, underpaid youth don't pay taxes. Non-tax-paying
> youth mean that *you* get to pay the rest. How much can you afford?
>

We already have pant-loads of uneducated youth. I know my local school
district is doing an abysmal job. I am horrified at what the administrators
and teachers are forcing on the local taxpayers and children.
(inefficiencies and poor syllabi)


> Jeff...
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
> >
> > 7
> >
> >>>hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
payers.
> >>
> >>And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
> >>response.
> >>
> >
> > Why not answer his question, Matthew?
> >
> > Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
the
> > bottom quartile of their graduating classes?
> >
> >

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> My sister, age 54, just retired after teaching 32 years...

> While this *does* qualify for sainthood, I'm still not sure
> why she was eligible for full retirement at at 52 -- fully
> 13 years before the rest of society.

That would have added up to 84 "points" at Honeywell when last I worked
there (1995) - I think it's still figured that way. One more year (2
points) and she would have qualified for full retirement. Many corporate
retitrement plans are similar.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> Not Matt, but I would point out that a question wasn't asked. A
> statement about how the only work 180 days out of the year was posed.
> As far as 7 hour days, I can assure you that it's significantly longer.
> The 7 hour day is the portion in which the teacher gets to handle
> students on a face-to-face basis. The remainder of the day is unbilled
> and fully expected.

Not in any school district I've seen. At my daughter's HS, any teacher that
has a "0" hour class (7:00AM start) is gone at 2:00 PM. Most of their drudge
work is handled by TA's (student assistants)

>This is the time that the teacher spends building
> lesson plans (or reviewing last year's plan or reviewing somebody else's
> plan), grading student papers, and, I assume, trying to rebuild their
> immune systems to deal with the petri dish that they visit 180 days out
> of the year.

See TA's above.



> As far as why the top 5% of any particular graduating class don't become
> teachers, it's because it isn't very lucrative. It might be extremely
> satisfying on a personal level, but it doesn't bring in much money.
>

> Also, just because a person graduated in the bottom 1/4 of one's class
> does not mean that they belong in the bottom 1/4 of society.

That's your assessment; no one here made that connection except you.

> It means
> that when measured against their peers (where peers is defined as those
> people that graduated at the same time from the same school and same
> degree program [which is similar to saying 'arbitrary']), those
> individuals had 3/4 of their peers get better grades.

I wonder why!
> Compared to those who chose not to get an education, even these
> 'poor-performers' have a significant advantage even though the
> uneducated don't have to carry around a sign saying 'graduated in the
> bottom 1/4 of my class'.

I can see how the public schools taught you logic....NOT!
>
> And, you do realize that the teachers don't get paid for the remainder
> of the days that they don't work.

(More examples of public school intellect)
> Some of them do spread their income
> so that the summer doesn't hurt so much, but you can do the same by
> banking income and retrieving it on an as-needed basis.
(More examples of public school intellect)

We rest our case!


> Why would we give them retirement packages? Because if we didn't,
> nobody would become a teacher. There would be no incentive at all. Why
> would we want teachers? I, for one, want teachers to educate children
> because I plan on retiring someday. If I am the only one left with an
> education, my retirement isn't going to be very comfortable because I
> won't be able to admire young, pert nurses. I won't be able to have
> smart architects design nice living quarters. I won't have smart
> engineers to build my next vehicle. Teachers enable all these things.
>
> The alternative to the retirement plans that kill the tax payers is
> pant-loads of uneducated youth. Uneducated youth don't make good
> incomes. Uneducated, underpaid youth don't pay taxes. Non-tax-paying
> youth mean that *you* get to pay the rest. How much can you afford?
>
> Jeff...
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
> >
> > 7
> >
> >>>hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
payers.
> >>
> >>And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
> >>response.
> >>
> >
> > Why not answer his question, Matthew?
> >
> > Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
the
> > bottom quartile of their graduating classes?
> >
> >

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> --------snip--------- (s/.*//)
> I wish that I had the financials in order enough to teach math/comp sci.
>
> My senior-senior ppl at my office always get this "you've just grown
> another head" look whenever I tell them that my life goal is to teach
> math/comp sci. "But, there's no money in that!" 'no, but there's a
> great deal of satisfaction.' "But, all those kids have diseases and
> guns!" 'the .mil has immunized me against everything else, what's to
> lose?' "But, there's no money in that!" (you see where this is going,
> I'm sure).
>
How about you go back to school to re-take English Composition?

[Michael 182]

Where do you guys get these statistics - I find both very unlikely...

Michael


"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> As an aside, don't forget that 50% of all doctors graduated in the
> bottom half of their class.
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
>> the bottom quartile of their graduating classes?

[Michael 182]

LOL - ok, I thought we were talking about high school...

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> I made mine up. It *is* correct, though. Half of all _______ would
> have to graduate in the bottom half of their class.
>
> The 3/4's one, I don't know where it came from. I don't find it likely,
> either.
>
> Jeff...
>
> Michael 182 wrote:
> > Where do you guys get these statistics - I find both very unlikely...
> >
> > Michael

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
>>
> 7
>
>>>hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.
>>
>>And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
>>response.
>>
>
> Why not answer his question, Matthew?
>
> Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from the
> bottom quartile of their graduating classes?
>
>

Because he didn't ask a question. He made a statement. The only
question in the above is the one I asked.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>The alternative to the retirement plans that kill the tax payers is
>>pant-loads of uneducated youth.
>
>
> This is a bit of a stretch. There is "retirement", and then there is
>
> My sister, age 54, just retired after teaching 32 years in the same Middle
> School. (Actually in the same ROOM, for all those years!)
>
> While this *does* qualify for sainthood, I'm still not sure why she was
> eligible for full retirement at at 52 -- fully 13 years before the rest of
> society. The taxpayers in Michigan are certainly in no position to pay
> this, and should not have to -- especially nowadays, with life expectancy
> for women climbing to record levels.

Military personnel are eligible for retirement with as little as 20
years of service.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Richard Hertz wrote:
> I am changing careers. After working for 12 years in the computer science
> industry I am going to "semi-retire" to teach math and computer science.
> Many family members and acquaintances teach and when I compare their
> lifestyle and working hours and stress to mine I conclude that the pay cut
> is worth the reduced hours and the retirement benefits are almost criminal.
> (in my opinion)

Let us know what you think after completing your first year of teaching.
Good luck! I've often thought of this as well, but I know several
teachers very well and low stress isn't in their job description.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>>My sister, age 54, just retired after teaching 32 years...
>
>
>>While this *does* qualify for sainthood, I'm still not sure
>>why she was eligible for full retirement at at 52 -- fully
>>13 years before the rest of society.
>
>
> That would have added up to 84 "points" at Honeywell when last I worked
> there (1995) - I think it's still figured that way. One more year (2
> points) and she would have qualified for full retirement. Many corporate
> retitrement plans are similar.

Yes, I work at a Fortune 500 corporation and we've had two early
retirement packages in the last five years that went down to age 53. 55
is the normal early retirement age, but in the 20 years I've worked
there, the norm has been to have an early retirement incentive package
about every 4 years (there have been 5 in my 20 years, though not
equally spaced in time). These packages typically "bridge" employees
from age 53 upward.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> "Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Not Matt, but I would point out that a question wasn't asked. A
>>statement about how the only work 180 days out of the year was posed.
>>As far as 7 hour days, I can assure you that it's significantly longer.
>> The 7 hour day is the portion in which the teacher gets to handle
>>students on a face-to-face basis. The remainder of the day is unbilled
>>and fully expected.
>
>
> Not in any school district I've seen. At my daughter's HS, any teacher that
> has a "0" hour class (7:00AM start) is gone at 2:00 PM. Most of their drudge
> work is handled by TA's (student assistants)

So where do you teach? Since this job is so lucrative, you'd be insane
not to take it up, right? Although, since you can't tell a statement
from a question, you might not have the right stuff to teach...


Matt

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
> > My sister, age 54, just retired after teaching 32 years...
>
> > While this *does* qualify for sainthood, I'm still not sure
> > why she was eligible for full retirement at at 52 -- fully
> > 13 years before the rest of society.
>
> That would have added up to 84 "points" at Honeywell when last I worked
> there (1995) - I think it's still figured that way. One more year (2
> points) and she would have qualified for full retirement. Many corporate
> retitrement plans are similar.

My former employer had a similar point system, but they also had a minimum age
for retirement of 55. I think full retirement took 90 points, but you could get
out with a pension with as little as 70. A couple years ago, however, they went
over to a "cash balance pension payout" plan, and there's no such thing as "full
retirement" under that plan.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Ben Haas]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<ElgJb.730526$Fm2.630760@attbi_s04>...
> > The alternative to the retirement plans that kill the tax payers is
> > pant-loads of uneducated youth.
>
> This is a bit of a stretch. There is "retirement", and then there is
>
> My sister, age 54, just retired after teaching 32 years in the same Middle
> School. (Actually in the same ROOM, for all those years!)
>
> While this *does* qualify for sainthood, I'm still not sure why she was
> eligible for full retirement at at 52 -- fully 13 years before the rest of
> society. The taxpayers in Michigan are certainly in no position to pay
> this, and should not have to -- especially nowadays, with life expectancy
> for women climbing to record levels.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
> "Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
> ...
>
Jay is right on with this line of thought. After throwing hundreds of
Billions of dollars at education over the last few years the United
States has slipped from #1 in the industrialized world to somewhere in
the 20's for educating kids.
Look at all test scores going down the tubes, high school grads that
cannot even pass a simple math test. Here in this part of Wyoming they
even have done away with A B C D F as grades. They were afraid to hurt
little Johnnies self asteam. And of coure my absolute favorite is Jay
Leno's weekly bit called Jaywalking. He really lights up when he finds
a teacher to quiz. You know, the ones that cannot answer simple
questions like. Who is the current President?????And this tenure ****
for teachers has got to go. What other occupation has that kind of job
security??? What these new teachers do is
lay low under the radar screen till they get awarded tenure and then
don't give a crap about the kids for their remaining time. All they
want is that retirement check !!!!!!!! Now, back to the original post.
Capt Al did a spectacular job of getting that mess on the ground. We
all cannot forget there were others in that cockpit that need to share
in the glory too. The one poster that siad " United ought to pony up
some cash"is hitting the nail right on the head.

> Not Matt, but I would point out that a question wasn't asked. A
> > statement about how the only work 180 days out of the year was posed.
> > As far as 7 hour days, I can assure you that it's significantly longer.
> > The 7 hour day is the portion in which the teacher gets to handle
> > students on a face-to-face basis. The remainder of the day is unbilled
> > and fully expected. This is the time that the teacher spends building
> > lesson plans (or reviewing last year's plan or reviewing somebody else's
> > plan), grading student papers, and, I assume, trying to rebuild their
> > immune systems to deal with the petri dish that they visit 180 days out
> > of the year.
> >
> > As far as why the top 5% of any particular graduating class don't become
> > teachers, it's because it isn't very lucrative. It might be extremely
> > satisfying on a personal level, but it doesn't bring in much money.
> >
> > Also, just because a person graduated in the bottom 1/4 of one's class
> > does not mean that they belong in the bottom 1/4 of society. It means
> > that when measured against their peers (where peers is defined as those
> > people that graduated at the same time from the same school and same
> > degree program [which is similar to saying 'arbitrary']), those
> > individuals had 3/4 of their peers get better grades.
> >
> > Compared to those who chose not to get an education, even these
> > 'poor-performers' have a significant advantage even though the
> > uneducated don't have to carry around a sign saying 'graduated in the
> > bottom 1/4 of my class'.
> >
> > And, you do realize that the teachers don't get paid for the remainder
> > of the days that they don't work. Some of them do spread their income
> > so that the summer doesn't hurt so much, but you can do the same by
> > banking income and retrieving it on an as-needed basis.
> >
> > Why would we give them retirement packages? Because if we didn't,
> > nobody would become a teacher. There would be no incentive at all. Why
> > would we want teachers? I, for one, want teachers to educate children
> > because I plan on retiring someday. If I am the only one left with an
> > education, my retirement isn't going to be very comfortable because I
> > won't be able to admire young, pert nurses. I won't be able to have
> > smart architects design nice living quarters. I won't have smart
> > engineers to build my next vehicle. Teachers enable all these things.
> >
> Uneducated youth don't make good
> > incomes. Uneducated, underpaid youth don't pay taxes. Non-tax-paying
> > youth mean that *you* get to pay the rest. How much can you afford?
> >
> > Jeff...
> >
> > Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
> > >
> > > 7
> > >
> > >>>hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
> payers.
> > >>
> > >>And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
> > >>response.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Why not answer his question, Matthew?
> > >
> > > Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
> the
> > > bottom quartile of their graduating classes?
> > >
> > >

[Jay Honeck]

> Look at all test scores going down the tubes, high school grads that
> cannot even pass a simple math test. Here in this part of Wyoming they
> even have done away with A B C D F as grades. They were afraid to hurt
> little Johnnies self asteam.

As in "I'm a-fixin' to a-build up my self a-steam"?

How'd your chell-specker miss THAT one?

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[James Blakely]

Well said.


> wrote in message
...
> I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
> could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it
is
> that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
> reasonable expectations. This sort of catastrophically expensive but
> nonetheless essential treatment is in fact exactly why we need health
> insurance. But the scenario here is, tragically, all too common. It
> wouldn't even make the news if not for Capt. Haynes's (well deserved)
fame.
> The victim, insured through his or her employer, gets too sick to work.
> Eventually he or she loses insurance coverage and cannot get a new policy
> that will cover the pre-existing condition. It's win-win for the
insurance
> companies (who help propagate this outrage with massive campaign
> contributions to corrupt politicians) and lose-lose for working Americans.
>
> --
> -Elliott Drucker

[Henry Kisor]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ElgJb.730526$Fm2.630760@attbi_s04...

> While this *does* qualify for sainthood, I'm still not sure why she was
> eligible for full retirement at at 52 -- fully 13 years before the rest of
> society. The taxpayers in Michigan are certainly in no position to pay
> this, and should not have to -- especially nowadays, with life expectancy
> for women climbing to record levels.

One of the reasons -- maybe the primary reasons -- states like teachers in
their 50s to retire is that they can be replaced by fresh new teachers just
out of college at starting salaries much less than those the veterans were
getting. It actually saves the states money.

[Dave]

Some folk care

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112991

[Jay Honeck]

> One of the reasons -- maybe the primary reasons -- states like teachers in
> their 50s to retire is that they can be replaced by fresh new teachers
just
> out of college at starting salaries much less than those the veterans were
> getting. It actually saves the states money.

Hmmm. Not sure I see the math here.

While the state may save, say, half of the older teacher's salary (let's say
my sister was making $45,000 -- so they'll cut it by half in retirement, to
$22.5K) they then have to pay a new teacher what, $25K to start, plus
benefits?

Thus, we've lost a few grand in the mix.

Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
"saved the taxpayers some money"...

More typical gubmint accounting, is my hunch.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Good luck! I've often thought of this as well, but I know several
> teachers very well and low stress isn't in their job description.

My sister would laugh at that "low-stress" statement, too! Imagine
"teaching" a room full of adolescent boys and girls? NOT!

But the bottom line is this: I've had ten times the stress in my various
businesses and careers as she's had in teaching (a fact that she freely
admits), and there is no way in hell I'll be able to retire in 9 years.

At least not unless a WHOLE lot more of you guys start flying to Iowa on the
weekends! :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Natalie]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
> > state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
> > "saved the taxpayers some money"...
>
> Typically, retirement pay doesn't come out of current taxes at all. The employer
> sets a certain amount of money aside every year as a retirement account. ,

Margy pays for her own retirement which gets gratuitously mismanaged for her
by the state and the county. If she expects to get anything, she will be socking
it away in her 403b (the public teacher version of 401k).

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:kiiJb.717212$HS4.5149546@attbi_s01...
> Where do you guys get these statistics - I find both very unlikely...
>
> Michael
>

Thomas Sowell's "Inside American Education" and "Dumbing Us Down" by John
Taylor Gatto

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:fsiJb.42630$xX.147011@attbi_s02...
> LOL - ok, I thought we were talking about high school...
>
> "Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I made mine up. It *is* correct, though. Half of all _______ would
> > have to graduate in the bottom half of their class.

In medical school...not undergraduate school.

> >
> > The 3/4's one, I don't know where it came from. I don't find it likely,
> > either.
> >
> > Jeff...
> >
> > Michael 182 wrote:
> > > Where do you guys get these statistics - I find both very unlikely...
> > >
> > > Michael
>
>

[Newps]

FAA ATC has three legs of retirement. The first is your annuity. I'd
have to go and look for sure but if I retire when I am eligible, which
is after 25 years(I'll be 49), I would get about 37-40% of my base
pay.(Actually a high three year average) If I go until I have to retire
at 56 then I would get about 45%. The second leg is social security.
Even though I would be below the SS age I will get the same amount, my
calculations put it at approx $2500 per month to start. The third is
the government version of a 401K. At a 10% average annual return until
I retire, assuming age 56, it will be worth about $1.5 million. I am
putting in the IRS max at current, which will be $13K for 2004.

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
>>>state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
>>>"saved the taxpayers some money"...
>>
>>Typically, retirement pay doesn't come out of current taxes at all. The employer
>>sets a certain amount of money aside every year as a retirement account. ,
>
>
> Margy pays for her own retirement which gets gratuitously mismanaged for her
> by the state and the county. If she expects to get anything, she will be socking
> it away in her 403b (the public teacher version of 401k).
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
> >>
> > 7
> >
> >>>hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
payers.
> >>
> >>And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
> >>response.
> >>
> >
> > Why not answer his question, Matthew?
> >
> > Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
the
> > bottom quartile of their graduating classes?
> >
> >
>
> Because he didn't ask a question. He made a statement. The only
> question in the above is the one I asked.
>
>
> Matt
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
> >>
> > 7
> >
> >>>hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
payers.
> >>
> >>And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
> >>response.
> >>
> >
> > Why not answer his question, Matthew?
> >
> > Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
the
> > bottom quartile of their graduating classes?
> >
> >
>
> Because he didn't ask a question. He made a statement. The only
> question in the above is the one I asked.
>
Excuse me..."answer his point".

First, his response has little do with the original point (retirement
system).

Indeed, the education system is instilling a real propensity for evasion.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:JhpJb.727709$Tr4.1877797@attbi_s03...
> > One of the reasons -- maybe the primary reasons -- states like teachers
in
> > their 50s to retire is that they can be replaced by fresh new teachers
> just
> > out of college at starting salaries much less than those the veterans
were
> > getting. It actually saves the states money.
>
> Hmmm. Not sure I see the math here.
>
> While the state may save, say, half of the older teacher's salary (let's
say
> my sister was making $45,000 -- so they'll cut it by half in retirement,
to
> $22.5K) they then have to pay a new teacher what, $25K to start, plus
> benefits?
>
> Thus, we've lost a few grand in the mix.
>
> Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
> state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
> "saved the taxpayers some money"...
>
> More typical gubmint accounting, is my hunch.

If anyone thinks Enron's accounting was flakey, take a look at government
accounting. Primarily "cash basis", there is no real accounting for
long-term liabilities, only "estimates".

While Social Security is failing fast, the government retirement system
(which is paid out of current revenues) is looking at unfunded liabilities
of $9 to $14 TRILLION.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in
the
> > state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
> > "saved the taxpayers some money"...
>
> Typically, retirement pay doesn't come out of current taxes at all. The
employer
> sets a certain amount of money aside every year as a retirement account.
Typically,
> this money is invested in stock and bond accounts and will grow at the
rate of
> between 5% and 15% a year. Some government and education system pensions
are keyed
> to the market even after retirement - my mother's pension payments go up
and down
> with the stock market, and she has not tired of complaining about it for
the last
> three years.

Government retirement DOES come out of current revenue. They wanted to buy
stocks and bonds, but that would have given government strong control over
corporations. That was Jessie Jackson's idea...to buy up "socially
responsible" companies.


>
> In any case, salaries and benefits for those still working are paid for
out of
> tax revenue. This includes payments into the retirement account from which
their
> pensions will eventually come. Pension payments for retired people are
not - they
> are paid out of withdrawals from the pension funds. In part, they are
pre-paid by
> taxes that were paid during their period of employment, but the majority
comes
> from interest on the account.

It seems you are using "revenue" and "tax revenue" interchangeably between
private and civil service pension funds. Can you clarify?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
> state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
> "saved the taxpayers some money"...

Typically, retirement pay doesn't come out of current taxes at all. The employer
sets a certain amount of money aside every year as a retirement account. Typically,
this money is invested in stock and bond accounts and will grow at the rate of
between 5% and 15% a year. Some government and education system pensions are keyed
to the market even after retirement - my mother's pension payments go up and down
with the stock market, and she has not tired of complaining about it for the last
three years.

In any case, salaries and benefits for those still working are paid for out of
tax revenue. This includes payments into the retirement account from which their
pensions will eventually come. Pension payments for retired people are not - they
are paid out of withdrawals from the pension funds. In part, they are pre-paid by
taxes that were paid during their period of employment, but the majority comes
from interest on the account.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Matthew S. Whiting]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
>>state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
>>"saved the taxpayers some money"...
>
>
> Typically, retirement pay doesn't come out of current taxes at all. The employer
> sets a certain amount of money aside every year as a retirement account. Typically,
> this money is invested in stock and bond accounts and will grow at the rate of
> between 5% and 15% a year. Some government and education system pensions are keyed
> to the market even after retirement - my mother's pension payments go up and down
> with the stock market, and she has not tired of complaining about it for the last
> three years.

Where does this "certain amount of money" to be set aside every year
come from if note from current tax revenues?


> In any case, salaries and benefits for those still working are paid for out of
> tax revenue. This includes payments into the retirement account from which their
> pensions will eventually come. Pension payments for retired people are not - they
> are paid out of withdrawals from the pension funds. In part, they are pre-paid by
> taxes that were paid during their period of employment, but the majority comes
> from interest on the account.

Not necessarily. Just look at all of the corporations that are now
having to pour hundreds of millions into their pension funds to keep
them solvent.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
>>>>
>>>7
>>>
>>>
>>>>>hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
>>>>
> payers.
>
>>>>And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
>>>>response.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why not answer his question, Matthew?
>>>
>>>Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
>>
> the
>
>>>bottom quartile of their graduating classes?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Because he didn't ask a question. He made a statement. The only
>>question in the above is the one I asked.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
>

Gee, Tom, this "reply" is even more interesting than your last one! :-)


Matt

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> Government retirement DOES come out of current revenue.

At the Federal level. Teachers are typically State or local employees, and these
pensions are frequently funded by investment in the markets. Although not a teacher,
my mother was an employee of the University of Tennessee. Her pension comes from
the proceeds of stock/bond accounts, and the amount of the monthly payments varies
with the performance of the market. The financial crisis in California has impacted
Tennessee State pensions because a large portion of the funds are invested in
California State bonds.

> It seems you are using "revenue" and "tax revenue" interchangeably between
> private and civil service pension funds. Can you clarify?

I was speaking exclusively of personal experience with pensions in the education
system. In the systems with which I am familiar, tax revenues fund the salaries
and pension plans of current employees. If the system were to close tomorrow,
retired employees would still receive their pensions - the payments do not come
from taxes being levied today.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> Where does this "certain amount of money" to be set aside every year
> come from if note from current tax revenues?

That comes out of tax revenues. When the employee is working. Retirement pay does
not come out of current tax revenues in the education systems with which I am
familiar.

> Not necessarily. Just look at all of the corporations that are now
> having to pour hundreds of millions into their pension funds to keep
> them solvent.

We were discussing education system pensions. The corporate solvency issue is
primarily caused by the fact that the Federal government changed the requirements
to increase the amount of money that must be retained for each employee in a
standard retirement package plan. Some companies simply reacted by abandoning
these plans for new employees and providing strong incentives (as in "change or
get fired") to current employees to transfer over to what is called a "cash
balance payout" plan. The increased limit requirements were instituted in
reaction to the Enron scam.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Matthew S. Whiting]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>>Where does this "certain amount of money" to be set aside every year
>>come from if note from current tax revenues?
>
>
> That comes out of tax revenues. When the employee is working. Retirement pay does
> not come out of current tax revenues in the education systems with which I am
> familiar.

It doesn't come out directly, but it still comes from tax revenues. And
if you have more retirees, you have to more heavily fund the pension
fund and that means setting aside more each year into the fund, which
comes from tax revenues. To say that tax revenue doesn't pay the
pensioners is ridiculous.


>>Not necessarily. Just look at all of the corporations that are now
>>having to pour hundreds of millions into their pension funds to keep
>>them solvent.
>
>
> We were discussing education system pensions. The corporate solvency issue is
> primarily caused by the fact that the Federal government changed the requirements
> to increase the amount of money that must be retained for each employee in a
> standard retirement package plan. Some companies simply reacted by abandoning
> these plans for new employees and providing strong incentives (as in "change or
> get fired") to current employees to transfer over to what is called a "cash
> balance payout" plan. The increased limit requirements were instituted in
> reaction to the Enron scam.

I think the larger part was that investment returns dropped well below
the assumptions needed to keep the funds solvent. That has had a huge
impact, at least at my company as was the reason given by top management
for putting in much more money this year and last.

That may also be the reason that Capt. Haynes is not in a good position
financially to help fund his daughters medical care.

Matt

[Snowbird]

wrote in message >...
> I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
> could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it is
> that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
> reasonable expectations. This sort of catastrophically expensive but
> nonetheless essential treatment is in fact exactly why we need health
> insurance. But the scenario here is, tragically, all too common. It
> wouldn't even make the news if not for Capt. Haynes's (well deserved) fame.
> The victim, insured through his or her employer, gets too sick to work.
> Eventually he or she loses insurance coverage and cannot get a new policy
> that will cover the pre-existing condition. It's win-win for the insurance
> companies (who help propagate this outrage with massive campaign
> contributions to corrupt politicians) and lose-lose for working Americans.

Hear, hear! Aside from adding in, that many people who lack
health insurance wind up in hospital, at public expense, for
severe complications of easily-treatable conditions whose
(much cheaper) treatment wasn't covered.

It's definately a broken system. What makes me spit is that
every time someone suggests changing it, we hear "then we'll
get triage! we'll get delays!" Well folks we get triage and
delays now, they're just usually not in the public eye.

My $0.02
Sydney

[Russell Kent]

Henry Kisor wrote:

> One of the reasons -- maybe the primary reasons -- states like teachers in
> their 50s to retire is that they can be replaced by fresh new teachers just
> out of college at starting salaries much less than those the veterans were
> getting. It actually saves the states money.

Jay Honeck responded:

> Hmmm. Not sure I see the math here.
>
> While the state may save, say, half of the older teacher's salary (let's say
> my sister was making $45,000 -- so they'll cut it by half in retirement, to
> $22.5K) they then have to pay a new teacher what, $25K to start, plus
> benefits?
>
> Thus, we've lost a few grand in the mix.
>
> Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
> state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
> "saved the taxpayers some money"...
>
> More typical gubmint accounting, is my hunch.

I suspect that they make up a substantial portion of that perceived "lost few
grand" in the medical benefits payments. It's my impression that older worker's
(as a class) medical outlays greatly exceed those of younger workers, and the
retiree medical plan generally is funded more by the retiree than the state,
unlike the active employee medical plan.

Russell Kent

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Russell Kent wrote:

> Henry Kisor wrote:
>
>
>>One of the reasons -- maybe the primary reasons -- states like teachers in
>>their 50s to retire is that they can be replaced by fresh new teachers just
>>out of college at starting salaries much less than those the veterans were
>>getting. It actually saves the states money.
>
>
> Jay Honeck responded:
>
>
>>Hmmm. Not sure I see the math here.
>>
>>While the state may save, say, half of the older teacher's salary (let's say
>>my sister was making $45,000 -- so they'll cut it by half in retirement, to
>>$22.5K) they then have to pay a new teacher what, $25K to start, plus
>>benefits?
>>
>>Thus, we've lost a few grand in the mix.
>>
>>Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
>>state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
>>"saved the taxpayers some money"...
>>
>>More typical gubmint accounting, is my hunch.

It ain't just gubmint accounting. Why do you think so many corporations
give early retirement incentives whenever they want to downsize? Same
principle, pensions come out of a different bucket (usually a bucket
already accounted for by pension contributions made years ago by the
employer so "free" on the balance sheet, at least until the pension plan
becomes underfunded by corporate raiding and/or accounting manipulations).

I'll try to refrain from commenting on the kind of attitude that makes
one think this move, which is very widespread in private industry, is
some kind of "gubmint accounting."

[Jay Honeck]

> I'll try to refrain from commenting on the kind of attitude that makes
> one think this move, which is very widespread in private industry, is
> some kind of "gubmint accounting."

Well, maybe this kind of "voodoo economics" is widespread in big business,
too -- but big mega-firms continue to represent a smaller and smaller
percentage of American jobs. I can assure you that this kind numbers game
is NOT prevalent in the small to mid-sized businesses I'm used to dealing
with.

As far as my "attitude" indicating anything, I guess it's because I've spent
my lifetime paying, and paying, and paying taxes, yet all I see is the
economic waste and fraud that means we "need to raise taxes" again. Thus, I
equate bad business practices with Big Gubmint LONG before I equate it with
Big Business.

Why? Well, other than this past year (when I actually received a check from
my Federal Gubmint,thanks to GW), I've never received one damned nickel for
my troubles. Yet my Federal, State and Local taxes have continued to spiral
upward each and every year. Given that kind of performance, it's pretty
hard to NOT be cynical about our government.

Meanwhile, Big Business can screw the accounting pooch all they want, as far
as I'm concerned. At least they actually provide me with goods and
services I want and need, and if I don't like 'em, I can take my business
elsewhere.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On 4-Jan-2004, (Snowbird) wrote:

> Hear, hear! Aside from adding in, that many people who lack
> health insurance wind up in hospital, at public expense, for
> severe complications of easily-treatable conditions whose
> (much cheaper) treatment wasn't covered.

> It's definitely a broken system. What makes me spit is that
> every time someone suggests changing it, we hear "then we'll
> get triage! we'll get delays!" Well folks we get triage and
> delays now, they're just usually not in the public eye.


Yes, that's it exactly. If EVERYONE had health insurance total health care
spending would go DOWN! When an uninsured is treated in an emergency room
(the most expensive kind of care, and usually the only place that will treat
the uninsured) who pays the bills? WE ALL DO. In some cases costs are
borne by taxes, in others they are passed along to other users of the
hospital, which are reflected in higher costs for health insurance.

There are really only two "solutions". We can let the uninsured die of
treatable conditions (morally unacceptable) or we can find a way to insure
EVERYONE, like every other industrialized country has long since been doing.

-Elliott Drucker

[Margy Natalie]

Yeah, teachers only work 195 days a year (but they are only paid for 195 days a
year). Work 7 hours???!!?!?! For the past 3 years my New Year's Resolution
was to leave school before 6PM (I get there at 7:30), I usually stuck with it
until almost late January :-). The retirement is usually decent if you stick
with it for 30 or 35 years as opposed to the federal government or military
where you get a good pension at 20.

Margy

Richard Hertz wrote:

> Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only 7
> hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.
>
> "Stu Gotts" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:59:54 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after speaker
> on the
> > >>>mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty
> much
> > >>>rolling in money.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> There are some retired TWA pilots that need to work to make ends meet.
> There
> > >> are some recently retired pilots from "reorganized" carriers who have
> lost a
> > >> good portion of their retirement.
> > >
> > >That is truly infortunate, but I have a hard time feeling too sorry for
> > >folks that made well over $100K/year and didn't sock away a little on
> > >their own for retirement. I make less than most senior airline pilots
> > >and I'm not planning on having SS be available when I retire nor my
> > >company pension. If one or both are still there, that will be gravey.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Then, there's those overpaid school teachers in California who retire
> at 100%,
> > >> get COLA increases from a bankrupt state, and who are rolling in
> dough.~
> > >
> > >I'm not familiar with CA (thankfully!), but in most states teachers make
> > >a LOT less than airline pilots.
> >
> > And put up with mounds more bull**** for about 10 hours a day and at
> > least 20 days out of the month.
> >
> >

[Margy Natalie]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
> 7
> > > hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.
> >
> > And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
> > response.
> >
> Why not answer his question, Matthew?
>
> Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from the
> bottom quartile of their graduating classes?

I don't think that is true, but the statistic I know is true states that most
teachers leave teaching in the first 5 years. The reason? The pay isn't worth
the headaches, time, etc.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Geez Jay,

A friend of mine from high school retired from the Navy at 38! He pulls a
decent pension and last I heard had a great civilian job at the Pentagon. Don't
most folks get a pension after 32 years at the same job?

Margy

Jay Honeck wrote:

> > The alternative to the retirement plans that kill the tax payers is
> > pant-loads of uneducated youth.
>
> This is a bit of a stretch. There is "retirement", and then there is
>
> My sister, age 54, just retired after teaching 32 years in the same Middle
> School. (Actually in the same ROOM, for all those years!)
>
> While this *does* qualify for sainthood, I'm still not sure why she was
> eligible for full retirement at at 52 -- fully 13 years before the rest of
> society. The taxpayers in Michigan are certainly in no position to pay
> this, and should not have to -- especially nowadays, with life expectancy
> for women climbing to record levels.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
> "Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Not Matt, but I would point out that a question wasn't asked. A
> > statement about how the only work 180 days out of the year was posed.
> > As far as 7 hour days, I can assure you that it's significantly longer.
> > The 7 hour day is the portion in which the teacher gets to handle
> > students on a face-to-face basis. The remainder of the day is unbilled
> > and fully expected. This is the time that the teacher spends building
> > lesson plans (or reviewing last year's plan or reviewing somebody else's
> > plan), grading student papers, and, I assume, trying to rebuild their
> > immune systems to deal with the petri dish that they visit 180 days out
> > of the year.
> >
> > As far as why the top 5% of any particular graduating class don't become
> > teachers, it's because it isn't very lucrative. It might be extremely
> > satisfying on a personal level, but it doesn't bring in much money.
> >
> > Also, just because a person graduated in the bottom 1/4 of one's class
> > does not mean that they belong in the bottom 1/4 of society. It means
> > that when measured against their peers (where peers is defined as those
> > people that graduated at the same time from the same school and same
> > degree program [which is similar to saying 'arbitrary']), those
> > individuals had 3/4 of their peers get better grades.
> >
> > Compared to those who chose not to get an education, even these
> > 'poor-performers' have a significant advantage even though the
> > uneducated don't have to carry around a sign saying 'graduated in the
> > bottom 1/4 of my class'.
> >
> > And, you do realize that the teachers don't get paid for the remainder
> > of the days that they don't work. Some of them do spread their income
> > so that the summer doesn't hurt so much, but you can do the same by
> > banking income and retrieving it on an as-needed basis.
> >
> > Why would we give them retirement packages? Because if we didn't,
> > nobody would become a teacher. There would be no incentive at all. Why
> > would we want teachers? I, for one, want teachers to educate children
> > because I plan on retiring someday. If I am the only one left with an
> > education, my retirement isn't going to be very comfortable because I
> > won't be able to admire young, pert nurses. I won't be able to have
> > smart architects design nice living quarters. I won't have smart
> > engineers to build my next vehicle. Teachers enable all these things.
> >
> Uneducated youth don't make good
> > incomes. Uneducated, underpaid youth don't pay taxes. Non-tax-paying
> > youth mean that *you* get to pay the rest. How much can you afford?
> >
> > Jeff...
> >
> > Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
> > >
> > > 7
> > >
> > >>>hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
> payers.
> > >>
> > >>And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
> > >>response.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Why not answer his question, Matthew?
> > >
> > > Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
> the
> > > bottom quartile of their graduating classes?
> > >
> > >

[Richard Hertz]

Like England and Canada, or Italy and France? No thanks.

Why can't the uninsured pay? You don't have to let them die, treat them,
then make sure you collect for the services.

> wrote in message
...
>
> On 4-Jan-2004, (Snowbird) wrote:
>
> > Hear, hear! Aside from adding in, that many people who lack
> > health insurance wind up in hospital, at public expense, for
> > severe complications of easily-treatable conditions whose
> > (much cheaper) treatment wasn't covered.
>
> > It's definitely a broken system. What makes me spit is that
> > every time someone suggests changing it, we hear "then we'll
> > get triage! we'll get delays!" Well folks we get triage and
> > delays now, they're just usually not in the public eye.
>
>
> Yes, that's it exactly. If EVERYONE had health insurance total health
care
> spending would go DOWN! When an uninsured is treated in an emergency room
> (the most expensive kind of care, and usually the only place that will
treat
> the uninsured) who pays the bills? WE ALL DO. In some cases costs are
> borne by taxes, in others they are passed along to other users of the
> hospital, which are reflected in higher costs for health insurance.
>
> There are really only two "solutions". We can let the uninsured die of
> treatable conditions (morally unacceptable) or we can find a way to insure
> EVERYONE, like every other industrialized country has long since been
doing.
>
> -Elliott Drucker

[Richard Hertz]

Most teachers I know are out the door long before then.

Also, most other salaried professionals work longer hours than teachers for
no extra pay either, so the gripes about extra take-home work falls on
uncaring ears.

The bottom line is - there are plenty of qualified people lined up to take
the teaching jobs at the current salary levels. Even when unemployment is
at historic lows this is the case.

I oppose all those government gravy pensions. (Military/combat service
excluded)

One other big problem is the non-meritocracy of government/school systems.
Pay is based on years of service and so-called education credits. In the
"real" world pay is based on performance, merit, etc.

Most of the problems lie with the administrations and the general concept of
"free" or public/government run education.


"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah, teachers only work 195 days a year (but they are only paid for 195
days a
> year). Work 7 hours???!!?!?! For the past 3 years my New Year's
Resolution
> was to leave school before 6PM (I get there at 7:30), I usually stuck with
it
> until almost late January :-). The retirement is usually decent if you
stick
> with it for 30 or 35 years as opposed to the federal government or
military
> where you get a good pension at 20.
>
> Margy
>
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
7
> > hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.
> >
> > "Stu Gotts" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:59:54 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after
speaker
> > on the
> > > >>>mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty
> > much
> > > >>>rolling in money.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> There are some retired TWA pilots that need to work to make ends
meet.
> > There
> > > >> are some recently retired pilots from "reorganized" carriers who
have
> > lost a
> > > >> good portion of their retirement.
> > > >
> > > >That is truly infortunate, but I have a hard time feeling too sorry
for
> > > >folks that made well over $100K/year and didn't sock away a little on
> > > >their own for retirement. I make less than most senior airline
pilots
> > > >and I'm not planning on having SS be available when I retire nor my
> > > >company pension. If one or both are still there, that will be
gravey.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Then, there's those overpaid school teachers in California who
retire
> > at 100%,
> > > >> get COLA increases from a bankrupt state, and who are rolling in
> > dough.~
> > > >
> > > >I'm not familiar with CA (thankfully!), but in most states teachers
make
> > > >a LOT less than airline pilots.
> > >
> > > And put up with mounds more bull**** for about 10 hours a day and at
> > > least 20 days out of the month.
> > >
> > >
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Margy Natalie wrote:
>
> A friend of mine from high school retired from the Navy at 38! He pulls a
> decent pension and last I heard had a great civilian job at the Pentagon. Don't
> most folks get a pension after 32 years at the same job?

Not in corporate America. Typical minimum retirement age is 55. Of course, many
companies will cut a deal and "give" you advance years if they really want you to
leave.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Matthew S. Whiting]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>>A friend of mine from high school retired from the Navy at 38! He pulls a
>>decent pension and last I heard had a great civilian job at the Pentagon. Don't
>>most folks get a pension after 32 years at the same job?
>
>
> Not in corporate America. Typical minimum retirement age is 55. Of course, many
> companies will cut a deal and "give" you advance years if they really want you to
> leave.

Which equates to about 32 years of service for most people. 55 - 32 =
23. Most graduates with a BS/BA degree are 21 or 22 years old. Add a
masters and they are 22 or 23 which is equates to 32 or 33 years of
service by age 55. Add in the early retirement incentives and it is
easy to retire with 31 or 32 years of service.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Richard Hertz wrote:
> Most teachers I know are out the door long before then.
>
> Also, most other salaried professionals work longer hours than teachers for
> no extra pay either, so the gripes about extra take-home work falls on
> uncaring ears.
>
> The bottom line is - there are plenty of qualified people lined up to take
> the teaching jobs at the current salary levels. Even when unemployment is
> at historic lows this is the case.

Really? In my area it is very hard to find math and science teachers.


> I oppose all those government gravy pensions. (Military/combat service
> excluded)
>
> One other big problem is the non-meritocracy of government/school systems.
> Pay is based on years of service and so-called education credits. In the
> "real" world pay is based on performance, merit, etc.

Yes, that is my biggest beef with the teaching system at present. And
the fact that it is unionized. I don't believe that "professional" and
"union" go together, but then many pilots are union also...

Matt

[Ben Haas]

Margy Natalie > wrote in message >...
> Yeah, teachers only work 195 days a year (but they are only paid for 195 days a
> year). Work 7 hours???!!?!?! For the past 3 years my New Year's Resolution
> was to leave school before 6PM (I get there at 7:30), I usually stuck with it
> until almost late January :-). The retirement is usually decent if you stick
> with it for 30 or 35 years as opposed to the federal government or military
> where you get a good pension at 20.
>
> Margy
>


Can you share with all of use out in the Internet world your views of
tenure. In the REAL world most of us are judged on performance. As a
contractor, machinist and all the other things I do I get paid for
doing the job right, not because I went through a probationary period
and during that time, laid low, crossed all my T's and dotted my I's
and was awarded a lifetime of " get out of jail free" clause in my
contract. Your answer is awaited.

Ben Haas N801BH.
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only 7
> > hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.
> >
> > "Stu Gotts" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:59:54 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after speaker
> on the
> > > >>>mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty
> much
> > > >>>rolling in money.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> There are some retired TWA pilots that need to work to make ends meet.
> There
> > > >> are some recently retired pilots from "reorganized" carriers who have
> lost a
> > > >> good portion of their retirement.
> > > >
> > > >That is truly infortunate, but I have a hard time feeling too sorry for
> > > >folks that made well over $100K/year and didn't sock away a little on
> > > >their own for retirement. I make less than most senior airline pilots
> > > >and I'm not planning on having SS be available when I retire nor my
> > > >company pension. If one or both are still there, that will be gravey.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Then, there's those overpaid school teachers in California who retire
> at 100%,
> > > >> get COLA increases from a bankrupt state, and who are rolling in
> dough.~
> > > >
> > > >I'm not familiar with CA (thankfully!), but in most states teachers make
> > > >a LOT less than airline pilots.
> > >
> > > And put up with mounds more bull**** for about 10 hours a day and at
> > > least 20 days out of the month.
> > >
> > >

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I'll try to refrain from commenting on the kind of attitude that makes
>>one think this move, which is very widespread in private industry, is
>>some kind of "gubmint accounting."
>
>
> Well, maybe this kind of "voodoo economics" is widespread in big business,
> too -- but big mega-firms continue to represent a smaller and smaller
> percentage of American jobs. I can assure you that this kind numbers game
> is NOT prevalent in the small to mid-sized businesses I'm used to dealing
> with.
>
> As far as my "attitude" indicating anything, I guess it's because I've spent
> my lifetime paying, and paying, and paying taxes, yet all I see is the
> economic waste and fraud that means we "need to raise taxes" again. Thus, I
> equate bad business practices with Big Gubmint LONG before I equate it with
> Big Business.
>
> Why? Well, other than this past year (when I actually received a check from
> my Federal Gubmint,thanks to GW), I've never received one damned nickel for
> my troubles. Yet my Federal, State and Local taxes have continued to spiral
> upward each and every year. Given that kind of performance, it's pretty
> hard to NOT be cynical about our government.
>
> Meanwhile, Big Business can screw the accounting pooch all they want, as far
> as I'm concerned. At least they actually provide me with goods and
> services I want and need,

Ummm, who paid for all those airports and ATC facilities you and your
customers use? Without those federally funded airports would you even
have a business?

Are your kids all in private school, and will they all get educations at
private universities?

Do you drive on any roads?

so many people talk about paying and paying and getting nothing back.
Unless they are living in a cabin in Montana off the grid, they are
getting something. They are just in denial because they don't like
paying for government.

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Richard Hertz wrote:

> Most teachers I know are out the door long before then.
>
> Also, most other salaried professionals work longer hours than teachers for
> no extra pay either, so the gripes about extra take-home work falls on
> uncaring ears.

The point is that there are a lot of bitter conservatives who seems to
thikn that teachers have some kind of sweetheart deal, and they often
cite "170 days a week, 6 hours a day." Margy's point is that teachers
work OT and extra time just like everyone else, and their deal is not as
sweet as some would portray it.
>
> I oppose all those government gravy pensions. (Military/combat service
> excluded)

Government pensions are good because government work pays less. The
good pensions are the compensation for working for less.

My company used to be like that too -- we were paid below market rates
but the generous pension was held out as an incentive. It's no
different -- well it is because over the last five years the company has
gutted the pension plan but you get the idea.

>
> One other big problem is the non-meritocracy of government/school systems.
> Pay is based on years of service and so-called education credits. In the
> "real" world pay is based on performance, merit, etc.

uh-oh, better call the airlines.

[Rob Perkins]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:12:01 -0500, Margy Natalie >
wrote:

>I don't think that is true, but the statistic I know is true states that most
>teachers leave teaching in the first 5 years. The reason? The pay isn't worth
>the headaches, time, etc.

There's more than just salary levels behind the paucity of good
teachers.

I'm personally acquainted with one teacher who quit after one year.
The reason? The school board stood behind a pair of wealthy parents
who wanted their daughter to get away with cheating on his final test.
When he refused his "contract was not renewed."

Rob

[Paul Sengupta]

"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...

> they often cite "170 days a week..."

Damn, I thought I did a lot of overtime.

Paul

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Paul Sengupta wrote:

> "TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>they often cite "170 days a week..."
>
>
> Damn, I thought I did a lot of overtime.
>

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT !!

:)

[Matthew S. Whiting]

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> Most teachers I know are out the door long before then.
>>
>> Also, most other salaried professionals work longer hours than
>> teachers for
>> no extra pay either, so the gripes about extra take-home work falls on
>> uncaring ears.
>
>
> The point is that there are a lot of bitter conservatives who seems to
> thikn that teachers have some kind of sweetheart deal, and they often
> cite "170 days a week, 6 hours a day." Margy's point is that teachers
> work OT and extra time just like everyone else, and their deal is not as
> sweet as some would portray it.

That's a dumb statement. I am quite conservative (NRA Life member no
less), am I am one of the folks defending teachers here ... except for
the union/tenure aspect. I don't agree with that.


Matt

[Newps]

A year ago December the teachers in our district went on strike for
better pay and benefits. The conventional wisdom is that your typical
public school teacher is lucky to make $30K after many hard years of
teaching. Since teachers salaries are a matter of public record a full
page ad was taken out in the Sunday paper the first weekend of the
strike. Every teacher in the school district was listed, by name, and
how much they made for that current school year. Turns out the average
teacher salary is $41.5 here with 25-30% of the teachers making more
than $50K per year. Starting pay was mid $20's. You could literally
see the support for the teachers evaporate on that Sunday. A settlement
was reached shortly there after. A teacher strike will not ever happen
here again.


Morgans wrote:

> "Richard Hertz" > wrote
>
>>The bottom line is - there are plenty of qualified people lined up to take
>>the teaching jobs at the current salary levels.
>
>
> You are so far out in left field, I only will make a couple comments. You
> are completely wrong about the supply of teachers. Perhaps there are
> surplus numbers in elementary and humanities, but it is almost impossible to
> find science and math teachers who are well qualified, and gets harder every
> year.
>
> Teacher's salaries have grown at under the cost of living, under inflation,
> and has meant less disposable income, even when taking into account pay
> raises for each years service. Not too many professions can claim that
> proud distinction.
>
> Come take my teaching job. See how you like it. You won't last a year.

[Margy Natalie]

Richard Hertz wrote:

> "Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Not Matt, but I would point out that a question wasn't asked. A
> > statement about how the only work 180 days out of the year was posed.
> > As far as 7 hour days, I can assure you that it's significantly longer.
> > The 7 hour day is the portion in which the teacher gets to handle
> > students on a face-to-face basis. The remainder of the day is unbilled
> > and fully expected. This is the time that the teacher spends building
> > lesson plans (or reviewing last year's plan or reviewing somebody else's
> > plan), grading student papers, and, I assume, trying to rebuild their
> > immune systems to deal with the petri dish that they visit 180 days out
> > of the year.
>
> Correct - I asked no questions but made a statement that does seem to
> infuriate teachers.
> I am sick of teachers who whine about this "take home work." Most salaried
> professionals I know also do not work a 40 hour work week. Teachers get to
> work from the comfort of their home for those hours. Also, after a few
> years the lesson plans are made and very little work is needed after the
> work day.
>

HMMMMM.... Let's see, this year I'm FCPS Aerospace Educator in Residence,
Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, last year I taught 7th and 8th grade science
(self-contained special ed and team taught) the year before I taught 7th grade
science (team and self-contained) 7th grade math (team and self-contained) and
basic skills, the year before 7th grade science (team and self-contained) Math
(team, different teacher than the next year) and basic skills, the year before
that a 5th/6th split at a pysical disablities center and the year before that a
6th grade with students classified anywhere from moderately retarded to on grade
level, but emotionally disturbed. I haven't been able to use the same plans
ever and when you do manage to get a nice groove going the curriculum gets
changed!

>
> >
> > As far as why the top 5% of any particular graduating class don't become
> > teachers, it's because it isn't very lucrative. It might be extremely
> > satisfying on a personal level, but it doesn't bring in much money.
> >
> > Also, just because a person graduated in the bottom 1/4 of one's class
> > does not mean that they belong in the bottom 1/4 of society. It means
> > that when measured against their peers (where peers is defined as those
> > people that graduated at the same time from the same school and same
> > degree program [which is similar to saying 'arbitrary']), those
> > individuals had 3/4 of their peers get better grades.
> >
> > Compared to those who chose not to get an education, even these
> > 'poor-performers' have a significant advantage even though the
> > uneducated don't have to carry around a sign saying 'graduated in the
> > bottom 1/4 of my class'.
> >
> > And, you do realize that the teachers don't get paid for the remainder
> > of the days that they don't work. Some of them do spread their income
> > so that the summer doesn't hurt so much, but you can do the same by
> > banking income and retrieving it on an as-needed basis.
>
> Yes, and I value my vacation time more than the extra pay. This is why I am
> going to switch careers. Note that teaching (as far as I am aware) has far
> greater supply than demand. The most locigal presumption is that the
> benefits are very desirable compared to the working hours.
>
> >
> > Why would we give them retirement packages? Because if we didn't,
> > nobody would become a teacher. There would be no incentive at all. Why
> > would we want teachers? I, for one, want teachers to educate children
> > because I plan on retiring someday. If I am the only one left with an
> > education, my retirement isn't going to be very comfortable because I
> > won't be able to admire young, pert nurses. I won't be able to have
> > smart architects design nice living quarters. I won't have smart
> > engineers to build my next vehicle. Teachers enable all these things.
>
> Perhaps - however the benefit packages are way out of line. I also think
> that the government run system is less than ideal. Private schools do not
> give the same benefits packages, but retain some excellent teachers due to
> the better working environment. Private schools also pay less.
>
> I do concede that I am not in a normal situation. After working 11 years
> programming I am in a position (not able to retire) that enables me to take
> a substantial salary reduction in order to teach.
>
> >
> > The alternative to the retirement plans that kill the tax payers is
> > pant-loads of uneducated youth. Uneducated youth don't make good
> > incomes. Uneducated, underpaid youth don't pay taxes. Non-tax-paying
> > youth mean that *you* get to pay the rest. How much can you afford?
> >
>
> We already have pant-loads of uneducated youth. I know my local school
> district is doing an abysmal job. I am horrified at what the administrators
> and teachers are forcing on the local taxpayers and children.
> (inefficiencies and poor syllabi)
>
> > Jeff...
> >
> > Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
> > >
> > > 7
> > >
> > >>>hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
> payers.
> > >>
> > >>And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
> > >>response.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Why not answer his question, Matthew?
> > >
> > > Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
> the
> > > bottom quartile of their graduating classes?
> > >
> > >

[Margy Natalie]

Rob Perkins wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:12:01 -0500, Margy Natalie >
> wrote:
>
> >I don't think that is true, but the statistic I know is true states that most
> >teachers leave teaching in the first 5 years. The reason? The pay isn't worth
> >the headaches, time, etc.
>
> There's more than just salary levels behind the paucity of good
> teachers.
>
> I'm personally acquainted with one teacher who quit after one year.
> The reason? The school board stood behind a pair of wealthy parents
> who wanted their daughter to get away with cheating on his final test.
> When he refused his "contract was not renewed."
>

Sad but often true. That's just one of the "headaches" I was talking about. I know
a few very talented teachers who have vowed NEVER to teach GT (gifted and talented)
again unless all of the students were orphans. They loved the kids, but the parents
drove them away.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

> Richard Hertz wrote:
> > I am changing careers. After working for 12 years in the computer science
> > industry I am going to "semi-retire" to teach math and computer science.
> > Many family members and acquaintances teach and when I compare their
> > lifestyle and working hours and stress to mine I conclude that the pay cut
> > is worth the reduced hours and the retirement benefits are almost criminal.
> > (in my opinion)
>
> Let us know what you think after completing your first year of teaching.
> Good luck! I've often thought of this as well, but I know several
> teachers very well and low stress isn't in their job description.
>

One of our newer teachers who left industry to teach stated at the end of his
first year "now I know why teachers have the summer off, they need it to
recover". He said he had never been so tired and burned out in his life. He's
still teaching and rather good at it.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Richard Hertz wrote:

> Most teachers I know are out the door long before then.

burn out

> Also, most other salaried professionals work longer hours than teachers for
> no extra pay either, so the gripes about extra take-home work falls on
> uncaring ears.

True, but most of my salaried friends make 2X or 3X what I make.

> The bottom line is - there are plenty of qualified people lined up to take
> the teaching jobs at the current salary levels. Even when unemployment is
> at historic lows this is the case.

REALLY?!?!? Send them to Northern VA where we had lots of unfilled positions
last year with subs filling in. For quite a while 1/3 of our special ed
teachers were on emergengy certificates. We can't find enough teachers to fill
the rooms.

>
> I oppose all those government gravy pensions. (Military/combat service
> excluded)
>
> One other big problem is the non-meritocracy of government/school systems.
> Pay is based on years of service and so-called education credits. In the
> "real" world pay is based on performance, merit, etc.
>
> Most of the problems lie with the administrations and the general concept of
> "free" or public/government run education.
>
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Yeah, teachers only work 195 days a year (but they are only paid for 195
> days a
> > year). Work 7 hours???!!?!?! For the past 3 years my New Year's
> Resolution
> > was to leave school before 6PM (I get there at 7:30), I usually stuck with
> it
> > until almost late January :-). The retirement is usually decent if you
> stick
> > with it for 30 or 35 years as opposed to the federal government or
> military
> > where you get a good pension at 20.
> >
> > Margy
> >
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
> 7
> > > hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.
> > >
> > > "Stu Gotts" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:59:54 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after
> speaker
> > > on the
> > > > >>>mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty
> > > much
> > > > >>>rolling in money.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There are some retired TWA pilots that need to work to make ends
> meet.
> > > There
> > > > >> are some recently retired pilots from "reorganized" carriers who
> have
> > > lost a
> > > > >> good portion of their retirement.
> > > > >
> > > > >That is truly infortunate, but I have a hard time feeling too sorry
> for
> > > > >folks that made well over $100K/year and didn't sock away a little on
> > > > >their own for retirement. I make less than most senior airline
> pilots
> > > > >and I'm not planning on having SS be available when I retire nor my
> > > > >company pension. If one or both are still there, that will be
> gravey.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Then, there's those overpaid school teachers in California who
> retire
> > > at 100%,
> > > > >> get COLA increases from a bankrupt state, and who are rolling in
> > > dough.~
> > > > >
> > > > >I'm not familiar with CA (thankfully!), but in most states teachers
> make
> > > > >a LOT less than airline pilots.
> > > >
> > > > And put up with mounds more bull**** for about 10 hours a day and at
> > > > least 20 days out of the month.
> > > >
> > > >
> >

[Margy Natalie]

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

> >
> > One other big problem is the non-meritocracy of government/school systems.
> > Pay is based on years of service and so-called education credits. In the
> > "real" world pay is based on performance, merit, etc.
>
> Yes, that is my biggest beef with the teaching system at present. And
> the fact that it is unionized. I don't believe that "professional" and
> "union" go together, but then many pilots are union also...
>

I'm in a "right to work" State so Union doesn't mean anything. The real reason
teachers don't have a merit system is they discovered it was detrimental to the
students. Right now if I write a lesson that really clicks and works great I
make copies and give it to all the other teachers. We help each other out to
give the best to our kids. Under merit pay (which many districts had for a
while) teachers would keep their best lessons to themselves so they could be in
the top 5% to get the raise. It didn't work. Another problem is how to score
teachers to rank them.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Ben Haas wrote:

> Margy Natalie > wrote in message >...
> > Yeah, teachers only work 195 days a year (but they are only paid for 195 days a
> > year). Work 7 hours???!!?!?! For the past 3 years my New Year's Resolution
> > was to leave school before 6PM (I get there at 7:30), I usually stuck with it
> > until almost late January :-). The retirement is usually decent if you stick
> > with it for 30 or 35 years as opposed to the federal government or military
> > where you get a good pension at 20.
> >
> > Margy
> >
>
> Can you share with all of use out in the Internet world your views of
> tenure. In the REAL world most of us are judged on performance. As a
> contractor, machinist and all the other things I do I get paid for
> doing the job right, not because I went through a probationary period
> and during that time, laid low, crossed all my T's and dotted my I's
> and was awarded a lifetime of " get out of jail free" clause in my
> contract. Your answer is awaited.

Tenure isn't always all it's cracked up to be either. I'll admit some teachers
shouldn't be teaching, but they aren't usually the ones the administration wants to do
away with. We have "continuing contracts" rather than tenure and it is hard to get rid
of someone without cause. Of course I do know of a teacher who taught 6th grade for
many years (maybe too many) and when the administration decided they no longer needed
that person they were moved to 1st grade (shape up or ship out). Administrations are
very good at trimming the dead wood if they want to, but it usually takes a full year of
torture.

Margy

[Richard Hertz]

I would be happy to. I am qualified to teach math. I don't see what all
the fuss is about.

Granted the pay is less than other jobs, but the benefits far outweigh the
difference in pay.

I am not wrong about the supply of teachers. I know many - some friends,
other family. I also know administrators whom have told me about the local
supply/demand.

I agree there is a shortage of math/science but the ridiculous gov't system
won't budge on silly school credentials to teach, so I have to go through
the BS of a Masters and get "education" education before I can teach.

I have done research about this and would not be changing careers if I
hadn't. It is a sweet deal that teachers have - trust me.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Hertz" > wrote
> >
> > The bottom line is - there are plenty of qualified people lined up to
take
> > the teaching jobs at the current salary levels.
>
> You are so far out in left field, I only will make a couple comments. You
> are completely wrong about the supply of teachers. Perhaps there are
> surplus numbers in elementary and humanities, but it is almost impossible
to
> find science and math teachers who are well qualified, and gets harder
every
> year.
>
> Teacher's salaries have grown at under the cost of living, under
inflation,
> and has meant less disposable income, even when taking into account pay
> raises for each years service. Not too many professions can claim that
> proud distinction.
>
> Come take my teaching job. See how you like it. You won't last a year.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

[Richard Hertz]

Thank you - someone with real numbers. I have done similar investigating
here and the differential for salaries here on Long Island NY is also not as
bad as teachers complain. While taxpayers are facing layoffs and no raises,
the school districts around here are still doing the usual raises.


"Newps" > wrote in message
news:dFnLb.1747$8H.8088@attbi_s03...
> A year ago December the teachers in our district went on strike for
> better pay and benefits. The conventional wisdom is that your typical
> public school teacher is lucky to make $30K after many hard years of
> teaching. Since teachers salaries are a matter of public record a full
> page ad was taken out in the Sunday paper the first weekend of the
> strike. Every teacher in the school district was listed, by name, and
> how much they made for that current school year. Turns out the average
> teacher salary is $41.5 here with 25-30% of the teachers making more
> than $50K per year. Starting pay was mid $20's. You could literally
> see the support for the teachers evaporate on that Sunday. A settlement
> was reached shortly there after. A teacher strike will not ever happen
> here again.
>
>
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > "Richard Hertz" > wrote
> >
> >>The bottom line is - there are plenty of qualified people lined up to
take
> >>the teaching jobs at the current salary levels.
> >
> >
> > You are so far out in left field, I only will make a couple comments.
You
> > are completely wrong about the supply of teachers. Perhaps there are
> > surplus numbers in elementary and humanities, but it is almost
impossible to
> > find science and math teachers who are well qualified, and gets harder
every
> > year.
> >
> > Teacher's salaries have grown at under the cost of living, under
inflation,
> > and has meant less disposable income, even when taking into account pay
> > raises for each years service. Not too many professions can claim that
> > proud distinction.
> >
> > Come take my teaching job. See how you like it. You won't last a year.
>

[Morgans]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote
>
> The bottom line is - there are plenty of qualified people lined up to take
> the teaching jobs at the current salary levels.

You are so far out in left field, I only will make a couple comments. You
are completely wrong about the supply of teachers. Perhaps there are
surplus numbers in elementary and humanities, but it is almost impossible to
find science and math teachers who are well qualified, and gets harder every
year.

Teacher's salaries have grown at under the cost of living, under inflation,
and has meant less disposable income, even when taking into account pay
raises for each years service. Not too many professions can claim that
proud distinction.

Come take my teaching job. See how you like it. You won't last a year.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Sengupta wrote:
>
> > "TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>they often cite "170 days a week..."

Even that is not accurate, when stated correctly. In NC, we have students
for 180 days, with 20 more added for planning and training.
--
Jim in NC--
Jim in NC

[Richard Hertz]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Hertz" > wrote
>
> > Thank you - someone with real numbers. I have done similar
investigating
> > here and the differential for salaries here on Long Island NY is also
not
> as
> > bad as teachers complain. While taxpayers are facing layoffs and no
> raises,
> > the school districts around here are still doing the usual raises.
> **************************************************
>
> New York isn't NC, or many of the other states.

New York isn't a grapefruit either. What the hell has that got to do with
anything?

>
> What is the rank of NY, in relation to the whole country, Richard?

Rank in what?

>
> I'm not going to bother to look it up, since it will not change your mind.
> I've made my invitation, to you, and any others. Come to NC and teach math
> or science. You said you were changing careers. Put your money where your
> mouth is. Until then shut up. Back up those claims. Good luck with you
> being one of the 60k earners! It shouldn't be any risk, if you are so
sure
> of your claims.

I can care less about the salary, I am going in it for the benefits and the
vacation. I don;t need the money.


>
> Figures lie, and liars figure. Come live the life.
>
> Oh, by the way, how many of those 50 - 60k teachers had doctorates? What
> would a doctorate of psychology make in the same area? It is about the
same
> level of education.

Doctors of psych? I doubt they make much. Not worth the degree, that is
for sure.

>
> I'm done defending teachers. We don't deserve the bashing, and surely
don't
> need it..

I am not bashing teachers - there is nothing to defend. I am going to be
one. What I am trying to point out is that teachers are paid fairly.

> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

[Richard Hertz]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > I would be happy to. I am qualified to teach math. I don't see what
all
> > the fuss is about.
>
> So you have not taught , even for a year yet?

No - Just substitute teaching in publlic and private schools.

> >
> > Granted the pay is less than other jobs, but the benefits far outweigh
the
> > difference in pay.
>
> Hardly. Live on the pay of two teachers, send 2 or more kids to college,
> and drive less than 10 year old vehicles, and then come back and tell me
haw
> the benifits out weigh the lack of pay. Don't forget that every year,
your
> dollar earned will not keep up with inflation.

Ahh, now we get to it - the cars (and other spending) are the issues
financially. I have never driven a car that was made within 10 years of my
owning it. I live within my means and am able to budget. The benefits
are: - retirement that is second to very few occupations - health insurace
the same, and I know of few jobs in this economy where people are keeping up
with inflation. My raise the past two years in the IT industry has been 1%
each year. The benefits (in my priority system are: Over 13 weeks of time
off and health benefits and pensions. To some that might not be enough, but
after being in the IT world I have changed priorities and money is less
important than free time. (I also want to teach as I am appalled at the bad
education I see around me and want to help fix it. My tutoring, while
admittedly harly qualifies as insight into my ability to teach classes, has
been rewarding for me and the kids I help.

> >
> > I am not wrong about the supply of teachers. I know many - some
friends,
> > other family. I also know administrators whom have told me about the
> local
> > supply/demand.
>
> Not in MY state, or most of the country.

Hmm, I see many many people qualified to teach English, SS, grade school,
etc. the only shortage appears to be in math and science.

> >
> > I agree there is a shortage of math/science
>
> Then there is a shortage.

Then those salaries should be raised to meet market demand.

>
> but the ridiculous gov't system
> > won't budge on silly school credentials to teach, so I have to go
through
> > the BS of a Masters and get "education" education before I can teach.
>
> In NC, you can start teaching tomorrow, and take the required corses as
you
> go.

Thanks for the info. I might consider a move down there.

>
> And also, are you so smug, as to think you have nothing to learn about
the
> buisness of education? School law, liability, discipline, motivational
> techniques, lesson planning, pacing guides, government program
> implementations, advanced learners, slow learners, and the list goes on.
> You really need to know about all of that, and more. You can no more jump
> into teaching and be successful, than you could jump into a plane, take
off,
> do a cross country, end up where you want to be, and land successfully.

No, I am not that smug, but I have serious doubts about many of the
professional educators who have dumbed down NY state's curriculum and
constantly teach for tests, and spend money on "technology" while the kids'
basic educations are forgotten. From my experience I think I would choose a
private school over a public school.


>
> Come to NC. We really do need lateral entry math teachers. You might
> learn something in the process, and theer is a small chance the students
> could, too.

Nice backhanded compliment.

> --
> Jim in NC
> >
> > I have done research about this and would not be changing careers if I
> > hadn't. It is a sweet deal that teachers have - trust me.
>
> >
> >
> > "Morgans" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Richard Hertz" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > The bottom line is - there are plenty of qualified people lined up
to
> > take
> > > > the teaching jobs at the current salary levels.
> > >
> > > You are so far out in left field, I only will make a couple comments.
> You
> > > are completely wrong about the supply of teachers. Perhaps there are
> > > surplus numbers in elementary and humanities, but it is almost
> impossible
> > to
> > > find science and math teachers who are well qualified, and gets harder
> > every
> > > year.
> > >
> > > Teacher's salaries have grown at under the cost of living, under
> > inflation,
> > > and has meant less disposable income, even when taking into account
pay
> > > raises for each years service. Not too many professions can claim
that
> > > proud distinction.
> > >
> > > Come take my teaching job. See how you like it. You won't last a
year.
> > > --
> > > Jim in NC
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Morgans]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote

"Many true tidbits"

Margy, some people have been told by the media that the problems in
education are all the school's fault for so long, they believe it.

The situation is as bad as the poor reporting about aviation by the media,
and the general public is as poorly educated, and believes all the
mis-information they hear.

When you look at the students with good parents, with firm discipline, who
make sure the studies are number one, you see students who excel. John Q.
Publick thinks we should educate everyone to the same level, no matter the
IQ. or the devotion to learning. He will never think we deserve a raise or
better support until the results.

They need to look at the student to see where the problem is, but that
will never happen. You are wasting your breath.

John Q, tell us how to make the student care, and have the desire to be more
than mediocre. Do that, and scores will come. If you think we have bad
teachers, get the wages up so the best don't leave; then we can work on
getting the few "bad teachers" up to standard. It can't work the other way,
because there is no one any better to take their place. See the catch 22?

[Morgans]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
. net...
> I would be happy to. I am qualified to teach math. I don't see what all
> the fuss is about.

So you have not taught , even for a year yet?
>
> Granted the pay is less than other jobs, but the benefits far outweigh the
> difference in pay.

Hardly. Live on the pay of two teachers, send 2 or more kids to college,
and drive less than 10 year old vehicles, and then come back and tell me haw
the benifits out weigh the lack of pay. Don't forget that every year, your
dollar earned will not keep up with inflation.
>
> I am not wrong about the supply of teachers. I know many - some friends,
> other family. I also know administrators whom have told me about the
local
> supply/demand.

Not in MY state, or most of the country.
>
> I agree there is a shortage of math/science

Then there is a shortage.

but the ridiculous gov't system
> won't budge on silly school credentials to teach, so I have to go through
> the BS of a Masters and get "education" education before I can teach.

In NC, you can start teaching tomorrow, and take the required corses as you
go.

And also, are you so smug, as to think you have nothing to learn about the
buisness of education? School law, liability, discipline, motivational
techniques, lesson planning, pacing guides, government program
implementations, advanced learners, slow learners, and the list goes on.
You really need to know about all of that, and more. You can no more jump
into teaching and be successful, than you could jump into a plane, take off,
do a cross country, end up where you want to be, and land successfully.

Come to NC. We really do need lateral entry math teachers. You might
learn something in the process, and theer is a small chance the students
could, too.
--
Jim in NC
>
> I have done research about this and would not be changing careers if I
> hadn't. It is a sweet deal that teachers have - trust me.

>
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Richard Hertz" > wrote
> > >
> > > The bottom line is - there are plenty of qualified people lined up to
> take
> > > the teaching jobs at the current salary levels.
> >
> > You are so far out in left field, I only will make a couple comments.
You
> > are completely wrong about the supply of teachers. Perhaps there are
> > surplus numbers in elementary and humanities, but it is almost
impossible
> to
> > find science and math teachers who are well qualified, and gets harder
> every
> > year.
> >
> > Teacher's salaries have grown at under the cost of living, under
> inflation,
> > and has meant less disposable income, even when taking into account pay
> > raises for each years service. Not too many professions can claim that
> > proud distinction.
> >
> > Come take my teaching job. See how you like it. You won't last a year.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
> >
> >
>
>

[Morgans]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote

> Thank you - someone with real numbers. I have done similar investigating
> here and the differential for salaries here on Long Island NY is also not
as
> bad as teachers complain. While taxpayers are facing layoffs and no
raises,
> the school districts around here are still doing the usual raises.
**************************************************

New York isn't NC, or many of the other states.

What is the rank of NY, in relation to the whole country, Richard?

I'm not going to bother to look it up, since it will not change your mind.
I've made my invitation, to you, and any others. Come to NC and teach math
or science. You said you were changing careers. Put your money where your
mouth is. Until then shut up. Back up those claims. Good luck with you
being one of the 60k earners! It shouldn't be any risk, if you are so sure
of your claims.

Figures lie, and liars figure. Come live the life.

Oh, by the way, how many of those 50 - 60k teachers had doctorates? What
would a doctorate of psychology make in the same area? It is about the same
level of education.

I'm done defending teachers. We don't deserve the bashing, and surely don't
need it..
--
Jim in NC

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Newps wrote:
> >
> > Turns out the average
> > teacher salary is $41.5 here with 25-30% of the teachers making more
> > than $50K per year.
>
> Fifteen years ago, the figures for the Franklin Township high school were
made
> public. The janitor was making more than a CS major with a master's degree
would
> get as starting pay ($41,000). The school had two principals, both making
over
> $110,000. Teachers salaries were in the $70,000 range and up.
>
> They don't publicize the figures any more.
>
They also stopped publishing stats around the country when someone pointed
out that half or more of school spending was just "administrators"....like
third assistant vice-principals.

[Russell Kent]

Margy Natalie wrote:

> REALLY?!?!? Send them to Northern VA where we had lots of unfilled positions
> last year with subs filling in. For quite a while 1/3 of our special ed teachers
> were on emergengy certificates. We can't find enough teachers to fill the rooms.

Well maybe that's your problem then: you're supposed to fill the rooms with
STUDENTS plus ONE teacher. :-)

On a different subject, I was considering having Harbor Freight drop ship a bunch
of the cheap stuff (like the $3 voltmeters) to some worthy school science
departments. Know of any such departments? Know what's on their wish lists?

Russell Kent

[G.R. Patterson III]

Newps wrote:
>
> Turns out the average
> teacher salary is $41.5 here with 25-30% of the teachers making more
> than $50K per year.

Fifteen years ago, the figures for the Franklin Township high school were made
public. The janitor was making more than a CS major with a master's degree would
get as starting pay ($41,000). The school had two principals, both making over
$110,000. Teachers salaries were in the $70,000 range and up.

They don't publicize the figures any more.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Jay Honeck]

> Government pensions are good because government work pays less. The
> good pensions are the compensation for working for less.

Dunno what government jobs YOU are looking at -- but around here, the
Gubmint jobs pay substantially MORE than their private sector equivalents.

Just one example: A secretary at the University of Iowa can easily clear
$40K per year -- AND have the best health care and retirement I've ever
seen, anywhere.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dennis O'Connor]

In NYC it is common for the head janitor to be over a hundred grand...

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Newps wrote:
> > >
> > > Turns out the average
> > > teacher salary is $41.5 here with 25-30% of the teachers making more
> > > than $50K per year.
> >
> > Fifteen years ago, the figures for the Franklin Township high school
were
> made
> > public. The janitor was making more than a CS major with a master's
degree
> would
> > get as starting pay ($41,000). The school had two principals, both
making
> over
> > $110,000. Teachers salaries were in the $70,000 range and up.
> >
> > They don't publicize the figures any more.
> >
> They also stopped publishing stats around the country when someone pointed
> out that half or more of school spending was just "administrators"....like
> third assistant vice-principals.
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> REALLY?!?!? Send them to Northern VA where we had lots of unfilled
positions
> last year with subs filling in. For quite a while 1/3 of our special ed
> teachers were on emergengy certificates. We can't find enough teachers to
fill
> the rooms.

The fact that it's difficult to find Special Ed teachers doesn't surprise me
at all -- many people wouldn't do what you do for all the tea in China. In
fact, I think special education is such a different animal as to not really
be comparable to other teaching jobs.

What you do, Margy, is beyond special, and qualifies you for sainthood.

(Even more than being married to Ron, as hard as that is to believe...)

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Sad but often true. That's just one of the "headaches" I was talking
about. I know
> a few very talented teachers who have vowed NEVER to teach GT (gifted and
talented)
> again unless all of the students were orphans. They loved the kids, but
the parents
> drove them away.

Another facet is discipline. Without it, the teachers are doomed.

Our example: Iowa has it -- Wisconsin did not.

It took half a dozen trips to the principal's office before my then-2nd
grade son truly understood that when they said "Stay off the grass!" they
REALLY meant "Stay off the grass!"

In Wisconsin, the rules were simply not enforced. As a result, they had to
install metal detectors in the middle schools, and cops in the high
schools -- and we had to get our kids out of there.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Rob Perkins wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:12:01 -0500, Margy Natalie >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I don't think that is true, but the statistic I know is true states
that most
> > >teachers leave teaching in the first 5 years. The reason? The pay
isn't worth
> > >the headaches, time, etc.
> >
> > There's more than just salary levels behind the paucity of good
> > teachers.
> >
> > I'm personally acquainted with one teacher who quit after one year.
> > The reason? The school board stood behind a pair of wealthy parents
> > who wanted their daughter to get away with cheating on his final test.
> > When he refused his "contract was not renewed."
> >
>
>
> Margy
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> A friend of mine from high school retired from the Navy at 38! He pulls a
> decent pension and last I heard had a great civilian job at the Pentagon.
Don't
> most folks get a pension after 32 years at the same job?

Uh, no.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Ummm, who paid for all those airports and ATC facilities you and your
> customers use? Without those federally funded airports would you even
> have a business?

Actually, my research shows that our airport was built by Boeing Air
Transport.

Of course, since then it's accepted federal funding...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Newps wrote:
> A year ago December the teachers in our district went on strike for
> better pay and benefits. The conventional wisdom is that your typical
> public school teacher is lucky to make $30K after many hard years of
> teaching. Since teachers salaries are a matter of public record a full
> page ad was taken out in the Sunday paper the first weekend of the
> strike. Every teacher in the school district was listed, by name, and
> how much they made for that current school year. Turns out the average
> teacher salary is $41.5 here with 25-30% of the teachers making more
> than $50K per year. Starting pay was mid $20's. You could literally
> see the support for the teachers evaporate on that Sunday. A settlement
> was reached shortly there after. A teacher strike will not ever happen
> here again.

Did the teachers then post the salaries of the administration personnel?
That would be very eye opening...

Even the salaries you list above are way below the average in my area
for jobs that require a master's degree. Maybe they are competitive in
your area, but they wouldn't be in PA or NY. Skilled labor in our area
make in the 40s and that is with no college education at all. The must
complete an apprenticeship, but this is paid, they aren't paying for it.

Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Margy Natalie wrote:
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>>I am changing careers. After working for 12 years in the computer science
>>>industry I am going to "semi-retire" to teach math and computer science.
>>>Many family members and acquaintances teach and when I compare their
>>>lifestyle and working hours and stress to mine I conclude that the pay cut
>>>is worth the reduced hours and the retirement benefits are almost criminal.
>>>(in my opinion)
>>
>>Let us know what you think after completing your first year of teaching.
>> Good luck! I've often thought of this as well, but I know several
>>teachers very well and low stress isn't in their job description.
>>
>
>
> One of our newer teachers who left industry to teach stated at the end of his
> first year "now I know why teachers have the summer off, they need it to
> recover". He said he had never been so tired and burned out in his life. He's
> still teaching and rather good at it.

I still may well give it a try as a second career if I get a shot at an
early retirement package from my current employer. I think my CS/EE
degrees would qualify me fairly well to teach math and science.
However, I have no delusions of it being a high pay/low stress job.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Margy Natalie wrote:
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>>One other big problem is the non-meritocracy of government/school systems.
>>>Pay is based on years of service and so-called education credits. In the
>>>"real" world pay is based on performance, merit, etc.
>>
>>Yes, that is my biggest beef with the teaching system at present. And
>>the fact that it is unionized. I don't believe that "professional" and
>>"union" go together, but then many pilots are union also...
>>
>
>
> I'm in a "right to work" State so Union doesn't mean anything. The real reason
> teachers don't have a merit system is they discovered it was detrimental to the
> students. Right now if I write a lesson that really clicks and works great I
> make copies and give it to all the other teachers. We help each other out to
> give the best to our kids. Under merit pay (which many districts had for a
> while) teachers would keep their best lessons to themselves so they could be in
> the top 5% to get the raise. It didn't work. Another problem is how to score
> teachers to rank them.

We have the same problem in private industry, but there are ways to
mitigate it and I still believe that pay for performance is critical to
achieving high performance. You could have merit pay based on the
performance of an entire grade or school (somewhat analagous to profit
sharing at a corporation). You can also base merit pay and promotions
on how much a teacher helps and mentors other teachers. This is an
explicit promotion requirement for technical professionals at my
company. If you are keeping the goods to yourself, you'll not get
promoted. No system is perfect, but I've worked in both environments,
and I'll take a merit/performance based compensation system any day.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote
>
> You could have merit pay based on the
>
>>performance of an entire grade or school (somewhat analagous to profit
>>sharing at a corporation).
>
>
>>Matt
>
>
> So you want to base teacher performance on student achievement? What is the
> incentive for the students to pay attention to what is being taught, learn,
> and do well on the test? There is none, for most students, at present.
> They are only there because the law says they must be there.
>
> Have you ever watched some students take a standardized test, when there is
> nothing in it for them? They go A,B,C,D,A,B,C,D. Don't laugh, I have seen
> it, more than a few times. This is how you want merit pay to work? I don't
> think so.
>
> I welcome good answers to the problem. Problem is, no one seems to have
> any.

When I was in school there were teachers able to motivate almost any
student and teachers that couldn't motivate anyone. No system is
perfect, but I want the teachers that are best at motivating their
students to get the best pay and have the greatest chance of staying on
the job. And maybe the other teachers will watch and learn from the
teachers that have figured it out. I'm not saying it is easy, but if
all schools have this problem, then the playing field is level and
whichever teachers are best in even this environment should be rewarded.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In NYC it is common for the head janitor to be over a hundred grand...
>
>
> DAmn!
>
>

But have you checked the cost of living in NYC lately? 100 grand is
probably barely above poverty level... :-)


Matt

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:1IFLb.8790$8H.22679@attbi_s03...
> > Ummm, who paid for all those airports and ATC facilities you and your
> > customers use? Without those federally funded airports would you even
> > have a business?
>
> Actually, my research shows that our airport was built by Boeing Air
> Transport.
>
> Of course, since then it's accepted federal funding...

It's only in the past 40 years or so that airports were first built by
governments (yes, there were exceptions) rather than by businesses.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> We have the same problem in private industry, but there are ways to
> mitigate it and I still believe that pay for performance is critical to
> achieving high performance. You could have merit pay based on the
> performance of an entire grade or school (somewhat analagous to profit
> sharing at a corporation). You can also base merit pay and promotions
> on how much a teacher helps and mentors other teachers. This is an
> explicit promotion requirement for technical professionals at my
> company. If you are keeping the goods to yourself, you'll not get
> promoted. No system is perfect, but I've worked in both environments,
> and I'll take a merit/performance based compensation system any day.

Correct; no system is perfect; OTOH, a system that has no incentives, or
worse, negative incentive, is doomed to failure. Public schools are a prime
example of negative incentives.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote
>
> You could have merit pay based on the
> > performance of an entire grade or school (somewhat analagous to profit
> > sharing at a corporation).
>
> > Matt
>
> So you want to base teacher performance on student achievement? What is
the
> incentive for the students to pay attention to what is being taught,
learn,
> and do well on the test? There is none, for most students, at present.
> They are only there because the law says they must be there.

You're (properly) addressing two issues pertaining to the problem.

If a failure has three causes, you won't fix it by fixing ONE problem area.

>
> Have you ever watched some students take a standardized test, when there
is
> nothing in it for them? They go A,B,C,D,A,B,C,D. Don't laugh, I have
seen
> it, more than a few times. This is how you want merit pay to work? I
don't
> think so.
>
> I welcome good answers to the problem. Problem is, no one seems to have
> any.

There are definitely answers, problem is people want to address only one or
tow aspects of a problem that has SEVERAL aspects.

[Morgans]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote

You could have merit pay based on the
> performance of an entire grade or school (somewhat analagous to profit
> sharing at a corporation).

> Matt

So you want to base teacher performance on student achievement? What is the
incentive for the students to pay attention to what is being taught, learn,
and do well on the test? There is none, for most students, at present.
They are only there because the law says they must be there.

Have you ever watched some students take a standardized test, when there is
nothing in it for them? They go A,B,C,D,A,B,C,D. Don't laugh, I have seen
it, more than a few times. This is how you want merit pay to work? I don't
think so.

I welcome good answers to the problem. Problem is, no one seems to have
any.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> In NYC it is common for the head janitor to be over a hundred grand...

DAmn!

[Morgans]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote


> When I was in school there were teachers able to motivate almost any
> student and teachers that couldn't motivate anyone.

> Matt
>

When did you graduate from high school? Not recently, I'll bet.

How do you measure motivational abilities?

It is all objective. I teach carpentry. I am the only one teaching that
subject at my school. How am I to be measured against other teachers? How
do teachers of other subjects get students into their classes, equally
capable of being motivated? The different levels of students are in
different classes, to appropriately challenge their abilities, or to bring
up performance levels of lower performing students. How do you compare the
teacher's motivational abilities, now?

You will say, you "just know" who the teachers are that are the better
motivators. That is simply too objective, and too able for unfairness to
work its way in.

There are no easy answers. When you have them, come and be our state
superintendent.
--
Jim in NC

[Craig Prouse]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> > In NYC it is common for the head janitor to be over a hundred grand...

> DAmn!

The actual job title isn't "head janitor." It's something like "Chief
Engineer, Physical Plant" or something like that.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote
>
>
>
>>When I was in school there were teachers able to motivate almost any
>>student and teachers that couldn't motivate anyone.
>
>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> When did you graduate from high school? Not recently, I'll bet.

Not recently. 1977. However, there are still good teachers and bad
teachers and students who can be motivated. This has been true since
the time of the Greeks.


> How do you measure motivational abilities?

By how well the students in a given teacher's class learn and perform.


> It is all objective. I teach carpentry. I am the only one teaching that
> subject at my school. How am I to be measured against other teachers? How
> do teachers of other subjects get students into their classes, equally
> capable of being motivated? The different levels of students are in
> different classes, to appropriately challenge their abilities, or to bring
> up performance levels of lower performing students. How do you compare the
> teacher's motivational abilities, now?

If only it were all objective. Much of it is subjective, but that is
life. If you are a teacher that doesn't know the difference between
objective and subjective, then I can make a pretty quick assessment of
your competence. :-)

You measure the performance of students after they graduate from high
school and move to college or trade school. If all of your carpentry
students go on to carpentry vocational school and flunk out, then I'd
not rate you very highly as a carpentry teacher at the high school
level. I'm not claiming that performance evaluations are easy or
pristinely objective, but they are better than using "seat time" as an
evaluation metric. I evaluate a dozen scientists and engineers every
year. They all do different things in different areas of expertise.
However, I solicit feedback from their peers, from their subordinates
and combine that with my own observations. Not a perfect system, but
far better than using service time.


> You will say, you "just know" who the teachers are that are the better
> motivators. That is simply too objective, and too able for unfairness to
> work its way in.

That would be too subjective. I agree that isn't the best way to do it,
but there are many other tools to use to get a reasonably accurate and
fair assessment.


> There are no easy answers. When you have them, come and be our state
> superintendent.

Never said they were easy. I'm not looking for easy, I'm looking for
better. Almost anything is better than using service time. That is the
easy way out. Requires no work at all on the part of the
administrators. What a cop out.


Matt

[Margy Natalie]

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

>
>
> > How do you measure motivational abilities?
>
> By how well the students in a given teacher's class learn and perform.

That doesn't always work. Last year in my classes I had borderline mentally
retarded students, students with autism, students with emotional disturbances,
students with memory disorders, etc. Even if they were highly motivated during
class sometimes the information turned to vapor by the time they got to their
next class. Kids with safty issues at home don't do homework, don't retain
information and tend not to do very well in school no matter what class they are
in. Kids who spend a few weeks during the term in juvie lock up tend not to
score real well on the tests either.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Russell Kent wrote:

> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
> > REALLY?!?!? Send them to Northern VA where we had lots of unfilled positions
> > last year with subs filling in. For quite a while 1/3 of our special ed teachers
> > were on emergengy certificates. We can't find enough teachers to fill the rooms.
>
> Well maybe that's your problem then: you're supposed to fill the rooms with
> STUDENTS plus ONE teacher. :-)
>
> On a different subject, I was considering having Harbor Freight drop ship a bunch
> of the cheap stuff (like the $3 voltmeters) to some worthy school science
> departments. Know of any such departments? Know what's on their wish lists?
>

Find a school and contact the science department chair. They will be very pleased with
you!

Margy

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Margy Natalie wrote:
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>How do you measure motivational abilities?
>>
>>By how well the students in a given teacher's class learn and perform.
>
>
> That doesn't always work. Last year in my classes I had borderline mentally
> retarded students, students with autism, students with emotional disturbances,
> students with memory disorders, etc. Even if they were highly motivated during
> class sometimes the information turned to vapor by the time they got to their
> next class. Kids with safty issues at home don't do homework, don't retain
> information and tend not to do very well in school no matter what class they are
> in. Kids who spend a few weeks during the term in juvie lock up tend not to
> score real well on the tests either.

Nothing works always. However, I think that basing pay on service time
is just plain wrong. It is just like communism. You get the same
reward whether you work hard or coast along.

Merit pay systems aren't perfect as I said earlier, and they aren't
completely objective either. You still need administrators to use
judgement in cases like you mention above. However, warts and all, I
think pay for performance is simply better than pay for seat warming time.


Matt

[Morgans]

You are clueless.
See Ya - Not

[Newps]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>> A year ago December the teachers in our district went on strike for
>> better pay and benefits. The conventional wisdom is that your typical
>> public school teacher is lucky to make $30K after many hard years of
>> teaching. Since teachers salaries are a matter of public record a
>> full page ad was taken out in the Sunday paper the first weekend of
>> the strike. Every teacher in the school district was listed, by name,
>> and how much they made for that current school year. Turns out the
>> average teacher salary is $41.5 here with 25-30% of the teachers
>> making more than $50K per year. Starting pay was mid $20's. You
>> could literally see the support for the teachers evaporate on that
>> Sunday. A settlement was reached shortly there after. A teacher
>> strike will not ever happen here again.
>
>
> Did the teachers then post the salaries of the administration personnel?
> That would be very eye opening...

That was also in the ad however it wasn't relavant because people
weren't complaing about the number of administrators or their pay,
before or after the ad.


>
> Even the salaries you list above are way below the average in my area
> for jobs that require a master's degree.

That depends where you live obviously. What was finally driven home to
a lot of people was the fact that simply by spending more dollars does
not make education better.

[Ben Haas]

Newps > wrote in message news:<sckMb.28303$xy6.71345@attbi_s02>...
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> > Newps wrote:
> >
> >> A year ago December the teachers in our district went on strike for
> >> better pay and benefits. The conventional wisdom is that your typical
> >> public school teacher is lucky to make $30K after many hard years of
> >> teaching. Since teachers salaries are a matter of public record a
> >> full page ad was taken out in the Sunday paper the first weekend of
> >> the strike. Every teacher in the school district was listed, by name,
> >> and how much they made for that current school year. Turns out the
> >> average teacher salary is $41.5 here with 25-30% of the teachers
> >> making more than $50K per year. Starting pay was mid $20's. You
> >> could literally see the support for the teachers evaporate on that
> >> Sunday. A settlement was reached shortly there after. A teacher
> >> strike will not ever happen here again.
> >
> >
> > Did the teachers then post the salaries of the administration personnel?
> > That would be very eye opening...
>
> That was also in the ad however it wasn't relavant because people
> weren't complaing about the number of administrators or their pay,
> before or after the ad.
>
>
> >
> > Even the salaries you list above are way below the average in my area
> > for jobs that require a master's degree.
>
> That depends where you live obviously. What was finally driven home to
> a lot of people was the fact that simply by spending more dollars does
> not make education better.

Amen to that..... Now, As Rodney King said " can we all just get along? "

[xyzzy]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Government pensions are good because government work pays less. The
>>good pensions are the compensation for working for less.
>
>
> Dunno what government jobs YOU are looking at -- but around here, the
> Gubmint jobs pay substantially MORE than their private sector equivalents.
>
> Just one example: A secretary at the University of Iowa can easily clear
> $40K per year -- AND have the best health care and retirement I've ever
> seen, anywhere.

Well around here software engineers for the state don't get squat
compared to private industry. Neither do engineers working at any
level of government, actually.

[Jay Honeck]

> Well around here software engineers for the state don't get squat
> compared to private industry. Neither do engineers working at any
> level of government, actually.

That is something odd about government jobs. Entry level positions seem to
pay way above standard wages, while professional level jobs seem to pay way
under standard.

Wonder why?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Well around here software engineers for the state don't get squat
>>compared to private industry. Neither do engineers working at any
>>level of government, actually.
>
>
> That is something odd about government jobs. Entry level positions seem to
> pay way above standard wages, while professional level jobs seem to pay way
> under standard.
>
> Wonder why?

Because the civil service system is largely based on seniority and
arbitrary job classifications rather than market value as in the private
sector.

Matt