Capt. Al Haynes sorta OT.

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.

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.

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

"TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message
...

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

Damn, I thought I did a lot of overtime.

Paul

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 !!

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

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.

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?

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

"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