Illinois Republican Governor: 40k is too much for a minimum teacher salary

[bad_teammate 13192]

On 9/18/2018 at 4:02 PM, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

So serious question, given the state of both Illinois' and Chicago's finances, how is this guaranteed teacher minimum wage going to be funded?

How do investments in education pay off for a nation? lol ok

[gmr548 16576]

We pay for weapons the Pentagon doesn't even want, but a decent wage for teachers is squeezing "blood out of a turnip."
This shit is why we have Trump. Selfishness dressed up as high-minded political theory. So many want an advanced society, but simply do not want to pay for it.

Quoted for truth.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[hayden_horn 11362]

this is a much more complicated issue, in my opinion. chicago pay should not be similar in total scope as, say, waverly (rural town pulled out of my ass, i assume that standard of living is much different between the two towns) any more than austin pay should compare to that in san angelo or wherever. 

what there should be is a median benchmark, which could be then leveraged with a cost of living analysis that's changed, say, every two years. if that becomes a baseline minimum, with a COL increase based on top of that i think would be fine as well. $9k is ridiculous as a minimum, but i doubt many teachers in illinois are making $9k. i could be wrong. however, $40k as a minimum (especially for a first year teacher) is way to high for that waverly standard of living. it would drive quality teachers out of troubled urban areas into (possibly troubled) rural areas. but the result would be a brain drain on high cost of living areas, imo. I think something like a $30k minimum or a $35k median (baseline, first year) would be reasonable, with a % increase based on the % of cost of living between the low end and the high end of the state.

further, and i've long advocated for this, payrises should not be tied to a strict schedule. this drives 15 year veterans out to seek better options. my wife is already thinking of leaving the profession, because, while she is a fucking amazing teacher, it is a beating of a career, and what she's making vs what she puts up with are at odds with her experience. there needs to be a greater incentive to stay in the career, and yes, if that means 20 year vets are in the approaching six figure or above salary level, that should be both expected and accepted. this would mean greater subsidization of the public school system (texas lotto, right? hah-hah), so that better candidates and better representation exists in the classroom for our future. there is virtually no way i'd go back to teaching until i retire, because i would never make near what i make now, much less my roof 20 years from now.

further, local administrators (principals) should be given greater leeway in rating and offering merit-based payrises to faculty. yes, there are mitigating factors involved there, such as total school personnel budget, etc, but the bottom line is that it is the classroom teacher and his/her team that drive results for the students. my son need math tutoring. his math teacher has identified that for him and several other students, and comes early to school to help them all come to where they need to be. that's above and beyond. she will see no real reward for that initiative. other, more cynical teachers would just say "fuck it, i'm only getting a 0.8% payrise next year no matter what, so as long as i reach the minimum possible TAKS benchmark, i'll take that extra 45 minutes sleep, thanks very much."

even FURTHER, the higher up local administrators (sub-superintendents and superintendents) need to be able to apportion and balance resources to their school district as needed. state funding should not be tied to better performing schools. that only results in poorer schools getting poorer results, because better teachers will go to where they can do their jobs more effectively. unless there is some incentive for talent to go to the low-performing schools, it's likely they will stay that way. i understand rewarding high-performing schools, and that should happen with commensurate payrises and resources, but those willing to take on the challenge of a lower-performance school and who succeed beyond typical results should ALSO be rewarded, even if it doesn't in that year change the grade of the school.

approaching this as a black and white zero-sum game is what is part of the problem in public education.

anyways, TL;DR, priorities in public education are stupid and fucked up.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

On 9/19/2018 at 10:46 AM, softlynow said:

We pay for weapons the Pentagon doesn't even want, but a decent wage for teachers is squeezing "blood out of a turnip."

This shit is why we have Trump. Selfishness dressed up as high-minded political theory. So many want an advanced society, but simply do not want to pay for it.

Most dems don’t want to pay for it. They want someone else to pay for it.  

[bad_teammate 13192]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Most dems don’t want to pay for it. They want someone else to pay for it.  

lol @ anyone who still tries this after decades of budget-busting Republican leadership

[Post Oak 20209]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Most dems don’t want to pay for it. They want someone else to pay for it.  

You are intellectually worthless.  

[Nolacycling 893]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Most dems don’t want to pay for it. They want someone else to pay for it.  

Ok, I'll bite, like who? Who do you think dems want to pay for education and military expenditures outside of taxes? Who?

[Nolacycling 893]

I think you got your talking points confused.