goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: p1k3 on December 11, 2012, 07:16:13 PM

Title: Michigan
Post by: p1k3 on December 11, 2012, 07:16:13 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2Fimages%2FPolitics%2Fap_michigan_protest_jef_121210_wblog.jpg&hash=16f4583dd669a6b3cf067f734b3b8bd0eb525d13)

 :lol:
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 11, 2012, 09:54:17 PM
Why do they hate LHCBS?
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Bloodfart on December 11, 2012, 10:08:25 PM
Quote
Don't mourn, ORGANIZE!

Also, eff you Snyder

FB post by one of my relatives.  :popcorn:
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: p1k3 on December 11, 2012, 10:22:06 PM
love ya Tom, but Jesus Christ....give it up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5ZT71DxLuM&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: p1k3 on December 11, 2012, 10:23:25 PM
love ya Tom, but Jesus Christ....give it up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5ZT71DxLuM&feature=youtu.be

I mean good grief how the mighty have fallen  :lol:
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: p1k3 on December 11, 2012, 10:38:25 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNNRNIgqXgdH9rfU45Tz7W1E5axMHEsNlaf8KTBgHpf0E8eoiWkA)

hey, dip shits. Your Prez dude at the national level makes $380k year. His top cronies make $200k. The union has $169,000,000 in net assets (source: LM2 filing 2012, DOL)

but keep picketing that "R2W" law

 :lol:
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 12, 2012, 09:07:17 AM
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNNRNIgqXgdH9rfU45Tz7W1E5axMHEsNlaf8KTBgHpf0E8eoiWkA)

hey, dip shits. Your Prez dude at the national level makes $380k year. His top cronies make $200k. The union has $169,000,000 in net assets (source: LM2 filing 2012, DOL)

but keep picketing that "R2W" law

 :lol:

Is $380k a lot of money for the CEO of a large labor organization? I mean school administrators make more than $100k and that seems more ridiculous to me.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: ben ji on December 12, 2012, 09:10:56 AM
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNNRNIgqXgdH9rfU45Tz7W1E5axMHEsNlaf8KTBgHpf0E8eoiWkA)

hey, dip shits. Your Prez dude at the national level makes $380k year. His top cronies make $200k. The union has $169,000,000 in net assets (source: LM2 filing 2012, DOL)

but keep picketing that "R2W" law

 :lol:

Is $380k a lot of money for the CEO of a large labor organization? I mean school administrators make more than $100k and that seems more ridiculous to me.

AND THEY GET SUMMERS OFF?!?!? GEEZ, ITS PRACTICALLY A PART TIME JOB!!!
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 12, 2012, 09:21:26 AM
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNNRNIgqXgdH9rfU45Tz7W1E5axMHEsNlaf8KTBgHpf0E8eoiWkA)

hey, dip shits. Your Prez dude at the national level makes $380k year. His top cronies make $200k. The union has $169,000,000 in net assets (source: LM2 filing 2012, DOL)

but keep picketing that "R2W" law

 :lol:

Is $380k a lot of money for the CEO of a large labor organization? I mean school administrators make more than $100k and that seems more ridiculous to me.

AND THEY GET SUMMERS OFF?!?!? GEEZ, ITS PRACTICALLY A PART TIME JOB!!!

I don't really care about the summers off so much as most of them being awful at their jobs and still getting paid well regardless of performance.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: p1k3 on December 12, 2012, 11:41:44 AM
well yeah theyre both ridiculous
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: michigancat on December 12, 2012, 11:54:10 AM
I think they're both perfectly reasonable. :dunno:
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Institutional Control on December 12, 2012, 11:57:20 AM
$100K to manage hundreds of teachers and thousands of students is excessive?
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 12, 2012, 01:08:36 PM
$100K to manage hundreds of teachers and thousands of students is excessive?

It depends on the results, really. Most are not getting them.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: sys on December 12, 2012, 02:00:28 PM
$100K to manage hundreds of teachers and thousands of students is excessive?

It depends on the results, really. Most are not getting them.

no sonofnk, it doesn't.  the job pays what it pays.  if the person filling it isn't competent, that person should be replaced, not paid less.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 12, 2012, 02:14:27 PM
$100K to manage hundreds of teachers and thousands of students is excessive?

It depends on the results, really. Most are not getting them.

no sonofnk, it doesn't.  the job pays what it pays.  if the person filling it isn't competent, that person should be replaced, not paid less.

That's a good point.

Say what you will, but in a time where the total number of teaching positions is declining and teachers are not getting raises, it's pretty disconcerting to see an increase in the number of administrators and an increase in their salaries. Less teachers to supervise, more money earned. Sounds nice.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: sys on December 12, 2012, 02:53:01 PM
in a time where the total number of teaching positions is declining and teachers are not getting raises, it's pretty disconcerting to see an increase in the number of administrators and an increase in their salaries. Less teachers to supervise, more money earned. Sounds nice.

yeah, prolly.  don't know, don't really care.  just wanted to call you sonofnk.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: p1k3 on December 12, 2012, 06:21:38 PM
the point is that the unions are sucking millions upon millions away from these laborers yet they're worried about the "R2W" law. I mean, come on.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: sys on December 12, 2012, 06:51:30 PM
the point is that the unions are sucking millions upon millions away from these laborers yet they're worried about the "R2W" law. I mean, come on.

you may not have the best sense of proportionality.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: ednksu on December 12, 2012, 07:25:12 PM
I also like how this new brand of Republican neo conservative terrorism is using the law against judicial review. 
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: bones129 on December 13, 2012, 12:21:42 AM
Michigan?
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 13, 2012, 09:54:45 AM
Senior administrators at small rural school systems around here pull in $125 to $150K.

Plus some retire here with full beni's and then travel just across the state line and get another administrative job.

Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 13, 2012, 07:36:17 PM
eff unions in their current form. No one should be forced to participate in a union, by law or coercion.  Its patently criminal.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Kat Kid on December 13, 2012, 07:52:53 PM
Senior administrators at small rural school systems around here pull in $125 to $150K.

Plus some retire here with full beni's and then travel just across the state line and get another administrative job.

What the the max that educators should earn?  I mean considering that there is literally no way to get a significant promotion in pay in most right to work states as an educator, what should we tell people at the very beginning when they enter the profession is the most they could ever possibly earn?

MHS Head Principal Terry McCarty just resigned to seek a superintendent job.  He was barely marking over $100K for running one of the and best academic/biggest high schools in the state.  If he went to KC, Topeka or Wichita he probably could've made a few extra bucks, but not significantly, so he's hoping to maaaaybe get to $200K as a superintendent depending on where he gets a job.  That is the absolute maximum executive position overseeing a multi-million dollar operation, millions in assets, over 1,000 employees and 5-7,000 students.

Good for him.  Unfortunate to see dax reduced to class warfare and butthurt jealousy about people's paychecks.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: wetwillie on December 13, 2012, 08:36:08 PM
Senior administrators at small rural school systems around here pull in $125 to $150K.

Plus some retire here with full beni's and then travel just across the state line and get another administrative job.

What the the max that educators should earn?  I mean considering that there is literally no way to get a significant promotion in pay in most right to work states as an educator, what should we tell people at the very beginning when they enter the profession is the most they could ever possibly earn?

MHS Head Principal Terry McCarty just resigned to seek a superintendent job.  He was barely marking over $100K for running one of the and best academic/biggest high schools in the state.  If he went to KC, Topeka or Wichita he probably could've made a few extra bucks, but not significantly, so he's hoping to maaaaybe get to $200K as a superintendent depending on where he gets a job.  That is the absolute maximum executive position overseeing a multi-million dollar operation, millions in assets, over 1,000 employees and 5-7,000 students.

Good for him.  Unfortunate to see dax reduced to class warfare and butthurt jealousy about people's paychecks.

I think the salaries are a bit low but not outrageously so, it's a tough gig and certainly not the least stressful or easiest way to earn six figures.  What is the lowest a kansas teacher can be paid per year like 30k?  Basically our top public school admins in kansas are making at a max 4 times more than the lowest teacher salary they manage.  That sounds lower than in the private sector when talking about upper management compared to average worker salary.  Not sure why dax picked this one.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: 8manpick on December 13, 2012, 09:15:56 PM
Teachers should start at 50k and then we would get better/smarter teachers.  Also, get rid of the 'education' major at colleges.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: p1k3 on December 13, 2012, 09:44:10 PM
eff unions in their current form. No one should be forced to participate in a union, by law or coercion.  Its patently criminal.

this is sort of what i meant in the beginning. Not sure why we got so side tracked. O well. Carry on
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: sys on December 13, 2012, 09:44:49 PM
MHS Head Principal Terry McCarty just resigned to seek a superintendent job.  He was barely marking over $100K for running one of the and best academic/biggest high schools in the state.

mhs has been one of the best high schools in the state since before i was born, and i'm sure it will continue to be so after this dude leaves.  you can credit the man as a competent placeholder, but given the community makeup and resources, i think it'd be harder for an administrator to allow mhs to lapse into poor shape than it would be to maintain it among the state's best.

i'm guessing they aren't going to lack qualified applicants.  so, i'd think the salary is about right.  if they don't get qualified applicants, i'd certainly be willing to rethink - but i don't think the salary should be based on never losing an upwardly mobile employee.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Kat Kid on December 13, 2012, 10:32:52 PM
MHS Head Principal Terry McCarty just resigned to seek a superintendent job.  He was barely marking over $100K for running one of the and best academic/biggest high schools in the state.

mhs has been one of the best high schools in the state since before i was born, and i'm sure it will continue to be so after this dude leaves.  you can credit the man as a competent placeholder, but given the community makeup and resources, i think it'd be harder for an administrator to allow mhs to lapse into poor shape than it would be to maintain it among the state's best.

i'm guessing they aren't going to lack qualified applicants.  so, i'd think the salary is about right.  if they don't get qualified applicants, i'd certainly be willing to rethink - but i don't think the salary should be based on never losing an upwardly mobile employee.

Have you toured the new addition?  I don't think you have.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: sys on December 13, 2012, 10:35:59 PM
Have you toured the new addition?  I don't think you have.

no, why?
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 14, 2012, 01:01:23 AM
Senior administrators at small rural school systems around here pull in $125 to $150K.

Plus some retire here with full beni's and then travel just across the state line and get another administrative job.

What the the max that educators should earn?  I mean considering that there is literally no way to get a significant promotion in pay in most right to work states as an educator, what should we tell people at the very beginning when they enter the profession is the most they could ever possibly earn?

MHS Head Principal Terry McCarty just resigned to seek a superintendent job.  He was barely marking over $100K for running one of the and best academic/biggest high schools in the state.  If he went to KC, Topeka or Wichita he probably could've made a few extra bucks, but not significantly, so he's hoping to maaaaybe get to $200K as a superintendent depending on where he gets a job.  That is the absolute maximum executive position overseeing a multi-million dollar operation, millions in assets, over 1,000 employees and 5-7,000 students.

Good for him.  Unfortunate to see dax reduced to class warfare and butthurt jealousy about people's paychecks.

I would say good for Manhattan holding firm and letting him go. There is absolutely no reason to pay more than $100k for a principal at MHS. Qualified applicants will line up out the door for that job.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: TheHamburglar on December 14, 2012, 02:02:34 AM
What the the max that educators should earn?  I mean considering that there is literally no way to get a significant promotion in pay in most right to work states as an educator, what should we tell people at the very beginning when they enter the profession is the most they could ever possibly earn?

Maybe if they are so concerned with pay they shouldn't have chosen to become teachers.   :dunno: 
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: ednksu on December 14, 2012, 03:36:08 AM
What the the max that educators should earn?  I mean considering that there is literally no way to get a significant promotion in pay in most right to work states as an educator, what should we tell people at the very beginning when they enter the profession is the most they could ever possibly earn?

Maybe if they are so concerned with pay they shouldn't have chosen to become teachers.   :dunno:
these are the kind of ideas, comboed with NCLB that are going to fix our education system.  Right rough ridin' here folks. 
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 14, 2012, 08:00:37 AM
Teachers should start at 50k and then we would get better/smarter teachers.  Also, get rid of the 'education' major at colleges.

I agree that increasing starting pay would help a whole lot, but as teachers still have tenure and raises are not performance-based, I don't think raising salaries will really do much to improve overall quality.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Kat Kid on December 14, 2012, 08:16:08 AM
Senior administrators at small rural school systems around here pull in $125 to $150K.

Plus some retire here with full beni's and then travel just across the state line and get another administrative job.

What the the max that educators should earn?  I mean considering that there is literally no way to get a significant promotion in pay in most right to work states as an educator, what should we tell people at the very beginning when they enter the profession is the most they could ever possibly earn?

MHS Head Principal Terry McCarty just resigned to seek a superintendent job.  He was barely marking over $100K for running one of the and best academic/biggest high schools in the state.  If he went to KC, Topeka or Wichita he probably could've made a few extra bucks, but not significantly, so he's hoping to maaaaybe get to $200K as a superintendent depending on where he gets a job.  That is the absolute maximum executive position overseeing a multi-million dollar operation, millions in assets, over 1,000 employees and 5-7,000 students.

Good for him.  Unfortunate to see dax reduced to class warfare and butthurt jealousy about people's paychecks.

I would say good for Manhattan holding firm and letting him go. There is absolutely no reason to pay more than $100k for a principal at MHS. Qualified applicants will line up out the door for that job.

What in the world are you talking about?
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 14, 2012, 08:20:58 AM
Senior administrators at small rural school systems around here pull in $125 to $150K.

Plus some retire here with full beni's and then travel just across the state line and get another administrative job.

What the the max that educators should earn?  I mean considering that there is literally no way to get a significant promotion in pay in most right to work states as an educator, what should we tell people at the very beginning when they enter the profession is the most they could ever possibly earn?

MHS Head Principal Terry McCarty just resigned to seek a superintendent job.  He was barely marking over $100K for running one of the and best academic/biggest high schools in the state.  If he went to KC, Topeka or Wichita he probably could've made a few extra bucks, but not significantly, so he's hoping to maaaaybe get to $200K as a superintendent depending on where he gets a job.  That is the absolute maximum executive position overseeing a multi-million dollar operation, millions in assets, over 1,000 employees and 5-7,000 students.

Good for him.  Unfortunate to see dax reduced to class warfare and butthurt jealousy about people's paychecks.

I would say good for Manhattan holding firm and letting him go. There is absolutely no reason to pay more than $100k for a principal at MHS. Qualified applicants will line up out the door for that job.

What in the world are you talking about?

Why should Manhattan overpay for a position they can easily fill? I'm sure their budget is tight just like every other school in the state, so increasing administrative pay would probably require cuts elsewhere. Also, superintendent is just a better job than principal. Were you inferring that Manhattan should pay their principals like superintendents so they won't leave for better jobs?
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Kat Kid on December 14, 2012, 08:23:10 AM
Senior administrators at small rural school systems around here pull in $125 to $150K.

Plus some retire here with full beni's and then travel just across the state line and get another administrative job.

What the the max that educators should earn?  I mean considering that there is literally no way to get a significant promotion in pay in most right to work states as an educator, what should we tell people at the very beginning when they enter the profession is the most they could ever possibly earn?

MHS Head Principal Terry McCarty just resigned to seek a superintendent job.  He was barely marking over $100K for running one of the and best academic/biggest high schools in the state.  If he went to KC, Topeka or Wichita he probably could've made a few extra bucks, but not significantly, so he's hoping to maaaaybe get to $200K as a superintendent depending on where he gets a job.  That is the absolute maximum executive position overseeing a multi-million dollar operation, millions in assets, over 1,000 employees and 5-7,000 students.

Good for him.  Unfortunate to see dax reduced to class warfare and butthurt jealousy about people's paychecks.

I would say good for Manhattan holding firm and letting him go. There is absolutely no reason to pay more than $100k for a principal at MHS. Qualified applicants will line up out the door for that job.

What in the world are you talking about?

Why should Manhattan overpay for a position they can easily fill? I'm sure their budget is tight just like every other school in the state, so increasing administrative pay would probably require cuts elsewhere. Also, superintendent is just a better job than principal. Were you inferring that Manhattan should pay their principals like superintendents so they won't leave for better jobs?

No.  But you keep doing that and I'm trying to understand why.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 14, 2012, 08:26:59 AM
Senior administrators at small rural school systems around here pull in $125 to $150K.

Plus some retire here with full beni's and then travel just across the state line and get another administrative job.

What the the max that educators should earn?  I mean considering that there is literally no way to get a significant promotion in pay in most right to work states as an educator, what should we tell people at the very beginning when they enter the profession is the most they could ever possibly earn?

MHS Head Principal Terry McCarty just resigned to seek a superintendent job.  He was barely marking over $100K for running one of the and best academic/biggest high schools in the state.  If he went to KC, Topeka or Wichita he probably could've made a few extra bucks, but not significantly, so he's hoping to maaaaybe get to $200K as a superintendent depending on where he gets a job.  That is the absolute maximum executive position overseeing a multi-million dollar operation, millions in assets, over 1,000 employees and 5-7,000 students.

Good for him.  Unfortunate to see dax reduced to class warfare and butthurt jealousy about people's paychecks.

I would say good for Manhattan holding firm and letting him go. There is absolutely no reason to pay more than $100k for a principal at MHS. Qualified applicants will line up out the door for that job.

What in the world are you talking about?

Why should Manhattan overpay for a position they can easily fill? I'm sure their budget is tight just like every other school in the state, so increasing administrative pay would probably require cuts elsewhere. Also, superintendent is just a better job than principal. Were you inferring that Manhattan should pay their principals like superintendents so they won't leave for better jobs?

No.  But you keep doing that and I'm trying to understand why.

I thought that was your point, because why bring up a principal resigning to look for a better job if it wasn't? I guess it was just a misunderstanding, then.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: TheHamburglar on December 14, 2012, 08:27:32 AM
 
What the the max that educators should earn?  I mean considering that there is literally no way to get a significant promotion in pay in most right to work states as an educator, what should we tell people at the very beginning when they enter the profession is the most they could ever possibly earn?

Maybe if they are so concerned with pay they shouldn't have chosen to become teachers.   :dunno:
these are the kind of ideas, comboed with NCLB that are going to fix our education system.  Right rough ridin' here folks.

Where did I say this would "fix" education?  All I'm saying is don't take a job where everyone knows the pay sucks, then complain about the pay.  If you want to live a lifestyle that requires more money than a teachers salary, don't become a teacher. Would higher teacher salaries improve education over time by attracting better people, of course. However, becoming a teacher then demanding more pay to "fix" education is bullshit, because the only way the teaching going on in your room will improve under that scenario is if this attracts a better teacher to replace you.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: ben ji on December 14, 2012, 09:26:13 AM
Teachers should start at 50k and then we would get better/smarter teachers.  Also, get rid of the 'education' major at colleges.

I agree that increasing starting pay would help a whole lot, but as teachers still have tenure and raises are not performance-based, I don't think raising salaries will really do much to improve overall quality.

If teachers started at 50k I would be teaching right now and kicking my feet up at the pool all summer.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Kat Kid on December 14, 2012, 09:28:45 AM
Senior administrators at small rural school systems around here pull in $125 to $150K.

Plus some retire here with full beni's and then travel just across the state line and get another administrative job.

What the the max that educators should earn?  I mean considering that there is literally no way to get a significant promotion in pay in most right to work states as an educator, what should we tell people at the very beginning when they enter the profession is the most they could ever possibly earn?

MHS Head Principal Terry McCarty just resigned to seek a superintendent job.  He was barely marking over $100K for running one of the and best academic/biggest high schools in the state.  If he went to KC, Topeka or Wichita he probably could've made a few extra bucks, but not significantly, so he's hoping to maaaaybe get to $200K as a superintendent depending on where he gets a job.  That is the absolute maximum executive position overseeing a multi-million dollar operation, millions in assets, over 1,000 employees and 5-7,000 students.

Good for him.  Unfortunate to see dax reduced to class warfare and butthurt jealousy about people's paychecks.

I would say good for Manhattan holding firm and letting him go. There is absolutely no reason to pay more than $100k for a principal at MHS. Qualified applicants will line up out the door for that job.

What in the world are you talking about?

Why should Manhattan overpay for a position they can easily fill? I'm sure their budget is tight just like every other school in the state, so increasing administrative pay would probably require cuts elsewhere. Also, superintendent is just a better job than principal. Were you inferring that Manhattan should pay their principals like superintendents so they won't leave for better jobs?

No.  But you keep doing that and I'm trying to understand why.

I thought that was your point, because why bring up a principal resigning to look for a better job if it wasn't? I guess it was just a misunderstanding, then.

You just quoted the whole sequence.  Why don't you re-read?
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: TheHamburglar on December 14, 2012, 09:46:50 AM
KK, the only point I see I see in your MHS principal example is that a superintendent maxes out at $150-$200K if their school district has over 1,000 employees and 5,000-7,000 students.

By comparison, Schulz started out making $350K at a university with over 24,000 students, an endowment over $350MM, and over 1,200 academic staff.  Plus Schulz has to deal with at least three more major tasks in fundraising, research, and housing & dining. 

The max-out of $150K-$200K for a superintendent of a district that size seems about right. 
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Kat Kid on December 14, 2012, 09:48:31 AM
KK, the only point I see I see in your MHS principal example is that a superintendent maxes out at $150-$200K if their school district has over 1,000 employees and 5,000-7,000 students.

By comparison, Schulz started out making $350K at a university with over 24,000 students, an endowment over $350MM, and over 1,200 academic staff. 

The max-out of $150K-$200K for a superintendent of a district that size seems about right.

You just compared to another public education job?  I think you are missing the point.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: TheHamburglar on December 14, 2012, 09:50:24 AM
KK, the only point I see I see in your MHS principal example is that a superintendent maxes out at $150-$200K if their school district has over 1,000 employees and 5,000-7,000 students.

By comparison, Schulz started out making $350K at a university with over 24,000 students, an endowment over $350MM, and over 1,200 academic staff. 

The max-out of $150K-$200K for a superintendent of a district that size seems about right.

You just compared to another public education job?  I think you are missing the point.

OK, what is the point?  That making $350K in a public education job in KS isn't a high enough earning potential?
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 14, 2012, 09:55:28 AM
Teachers should start at 50k and then we would get better/smarter teachers.  Also, get rid of the 'education' major at colleges.

I agree that increasing starting pay would help a whole lot, but as teachers still have tenure and raises are not performance-based, I don't think raising salaries will really do much to improve overall quality.

If teachers started at 50k I would be teaching right now and kicking my feet up at the pool all summer.

Yeah, more people would want to teach, but there would be absolutely no incentive to do a good job or improve once you had the position.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: ednksu on December 14, 2012, 10:07:59 AM
clowns, your tailor will see you now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AsI2xc_FYX0
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: ednksu on December 14, 2012, 10:08:42 AM
eff unions in their current form. No one should be forced to participate in a union, by law or coercion.  Its patently criminal.
I like it when you make stuff up which is easily proven wrong with a moderate google search.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: 8manpick on December 14, 2012, 10:18:39 AM
Teachers should start at 50k and then we would get better/smarter teachers.  Also, get rid of the 'education' major at colleges.

I agree that increasing starting pay would help a whole lot, but as teachers still have tenure and raises are not performance-based, I don't think raising salaries will really do much to improve overall quality.

If teachers started at 50k I would be teaching right now and kicking my feet up at the pool all summer.

Yeah, more people would want to teach, but there would be absolutely no incentive to do a good job or improve once you had the position.

Yeah, higher starting pay would be no panacea, but it would be a good starting point.  Finding a way to identify and subsequently compensate exceptional teachers is a real challenge.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 14, 2012, 10:24:03 AM
Teachers should start at 50k and then we would get better/smarter teachers.  Also, get rid of the 'education' major at colleges.

I agree that increasing starting pay would help a whole lot, but as teachers still have tenure and raises are not performance-based, I don't think raising salaries will really do much to improve overall quality.

If teachers started at 50k I would be teaching right now and kicking my feet up at the pool all summer.

Yeah, more people would want to teach, but there would be absolutely no incentive to do a good job or improve once you had the position.

Yeah, higher starting pay would be no panacea, but it would be a good starting point.  Finding a way to identify and subsequently compensate exceptional teachers is a real challenge.

Isn't that why we pay administrators 6 figures? I would hope they would be capable of meeting the challenge of actually evaluating their employees and setting their pay.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: 8manpick on December 14, 2012, 10:30:38 AM
Teachers should start at 50k and then we would get better/smarter teachers.  Also, get rid of the 'education' major at colleges.

I agree that increasing starting pay would help a whole lot, but as teachers still have tenure and raises are not performance-based, I don't think raising salaries will really do much to improve overall quality.

If teachers started at 50k I would be teaching right now and kicking my feet up at the pool all summer.

Yeah, more people would want to teach, but there would be absolutely no incentive to do a good job or improve once you had the position.

Yeah, higher starting pay would be no panacea, but it would be a good starting point.  Finding a way to identify and subsequently compensate exceptional teachers is a real challenge.

Isn't that why we pay administrators 6 figures? I would hope they would be capable of meeting the challenge of actually evaluating their employees and setting their pay.

If I understand correctly, teacher pay is based strictly on education level and tenure.  Along with bonuses for coaching, etc.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 14, 2012, 10:33:09 AM
Teachers should start at 50k and then we would get better/smarter teachers.  Also, get rid of the 'education' major at colleges.

I agree that increasing starting pay would help a whole lot, but as teachers still have tenure and raises are not performance-based, I don't think raising salaries will really do much to improve overall quality.

If teachers started at 50k I would be teaching right now and kicking my feet up at the pool all summer.

Yeah, more people would want to teach, but there would be absolutely no incentive to do a good job or improve once you had the position.

Yeah, higher starting pay would be no panacea, but it would be a good starting point.  Finding a way to identify and subsequently compensate exceptional teachers is a real challenge.

Isn't that why we pay administrators 6 figures? I would hope they would be capable of meeting the challenge of actually evaluating their employees and setting their pay.

If I understand correctly, teacher pay is based strictly on education level and tenure.  Along with bonuses for coaching, etc.

It is. I'm saying that it shouldn't be. It should be set by their administrators.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 14, 2012, 10:57:46 AM
clowns, your tailor will see you now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AsI2xc_FYX0

Was this Christmas Eve 2010 in the US congress?
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 14, 2012, 11:04:07 AM
eff unions in their current form. No one should be forced to participate in a union, by law or coercion.  Its patently criminal.
I like it when you make stuff up which is easily proven wrong with a moderate google search.

Please explain. Is paying union dues not participating?
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: ednksu on December 14, 2012, 11:30:08 AM
eff unions in their current form. No one should be forced to participate in a union, by law or coercion.  Its patently criminal.
I like it when you make stuff up which is easily proven wrong with a moderate google search.

Please explain. Is paying union dues not participating?
You said people were forced to join.  That is wrong.  You either lied or you don't know the laws.  Either of which are reason to excuse yourself.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 14, 2012, 11:41:17 AM
eff unions in their current form. No one should be forced to participate in a union, by law or coercion.  Its patently criminal.
I like it when you make stuff up which is easily proven wrong with a moderate google search.

Please explain. Is paying union dues not participating?
You said people were forced to join.  That is wrong.  You either lied or you don't know the laws.  Either of which are reason to excuse yourself.

What? Never said you had to join the union, only pay their dues for the right to work.
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: ednksu on December 14, 2012, 12:24:04 PM
eff unions in their current form. No one should be forced to participate in a union, by law or coercion.  Its patently criminal.
I like it when you make stuff up which is easily proven wrong with a moderate google search.

Please explain. Is paying union dues not participating?
You said people were forced to join.  That is wrong.  You either lied or you don't know the laws.  Either of which are reason to excuse yourself.

What? Never said you had to join the union, only pay their dues for the right to work.
are you rough ridin' kidding me?
Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 14, 2012, 01:09:20 PM
eff unions in their current form. No one should be forced to participate in a union, by law or coercion.  Its patently criminal.
I like it when you make stuff up which is easily proven wrong with a moderate google search.

Please explain. Is paying union dues not participating?
You said people were forced to join.  That is wrong.  You either lied or you don't know the laws.  Either of which are reason to excuse yourself.

What? Never said you had to join the union, only pay their dues for the right to work.
are you rough ridin' kidding me?

I don't usually stoop to your level, but you are an absolute idiot. Paying union dues IS PARTICIPATING in a union, whether you join or not.