NCAAbbs

Quote:Risky business: States tax the rich at their peril

By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Writer Michael Gormley, Associated Press Writer – Sun Sep 27, 3:24 pm ET

ALBANY, N.Y. – This year, New York's deep-pocketed rich were required to dig even deeper to help shore up state finances.

They now pay higher taxes on their income and on limousines and yachts, more to enter a horse in a race and more to dabble in real estate. Meanwhile, many are losing millions from the closing of business tax loopholes and those making over $1 million are losing tax deductions others get.

It even costs more to hunt foxes or pheasants and have their taxes prepared.

Now, a half-dozen states in this recession-driven movement are nervously eyeing New York to see if it's wise to demand so much from people rich enough to have a second home in less taxing states — and for whom a change of address can be its own tax break.

Early data from New York show the higher tax rates for the wealthy have yielded lower-than-expected state wealth. Gov. David Paterson, who had always warned targeting the rich could backfire, fears that's just what happened.

Paterson said last week that revenues from the income tax increases and other taxes enacted in April are running about 20 percent less than anticipated.

The concern about millionaire flight has prompted some states, including New York, New Jersey and California, to increase the highest tax rates only temporarily. For New York, it's the second temporary increase for high earners since 2001.

The first one ended as scheduled after three years. But Paterson and economists warn that came as the economy began to grow fast into another boom, something that isn't expected now because Wall Street — which historically provided 20 percent of state revenues — is perhaps permanently downsized.

"People aren't wedded to a geographic place as they once were. It's a different world," said New York Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch. He said last year's surcharge on income taxes, set to last three years, won't likely meet expectations.

So far this year, half of about $1 billion in expected revenue from New York's 100 richest taxpayers is missing. The state budget office says losses suffered in the recession could be largely to blame, and it may still come in next year when filers exhaust their extensions.

Those seeking extensions nevertheless had to pay in April at least as much as they owed in 2008. The six-month extension for the balance ends in October, but given the hard times many filers likely didn't earn much more than a year ago.

State officials say they don't know how much of the missing revenue is because any wealthy New Yorkers simply left.

But at least two high-profile defectors have sounded off on the tax changes: Buffalo Sabres owner Tom Golisano, the billionaire who ran for governor three times and who was paying $13,000 a day in New York income taxes, and radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh. Golisano changed his official address to Florida, and Limbaugh, who also has a Florida home, announced earlier this year that he was relinquishing his home in Manhattan.

Donald Trump told Fox News earlier this year that several of his millionaire friends were talking about leaving the state over the latest taxes.

Golisano, who created 5,000 jobs from his Rochester payroll processing company, Paychex, bristled when politicians said he was bailing on New York in the spring.

"If anything, New York state has bailed out on us," he said.

And it's not just the well-known leaving.

Nancy Bell is moving her Science First manufacturer of scientific products from the Buffalo site her father founded in 1960 to Florida, which aggressively courted her and her two business-partner sons. They are building a new facility there and, with the state's help, had 1,000 applications for 20 jobs.

"It was the higher tax brackets, the so-called millionaire's tax" that forced the move, she said. "We feel we have to look to the future ... I'm leaving wonderful, wonderful friends. It's not our first choice. It's our 100th."

Maryland enacted higher tax rates for wealthier residents in 2008 to boost revenues but income from those taxes is down 6.7 percent so far this year. Officials in Maryland, as in New York, hope much of the revenue is simply delayed because of filers' extensions, however.

"Overall, as in most states, revenues are down at the higher income levels," said Joseph Shapiro, spokesman for the Maryland Comptroller's Office. He said there's no concern yet that the higher tax rates on the wealthy are driving the rich out.

The approach has been tried before.

The conservative-leaning Tax Foundation said that through the early 1990s, several states maintained double-digit income tax rates for the higher earners. Those rates were dropped, however, in the boom of a fast-growing economy.

States also realized that having a higher tax rate than their neighbors would cost them talent, lose jobs and hinder economic growth, the foundation reported in May after Hawaii joined Maryland, New Jersey, California and New York to adopt a "millionaire's tax." New York, for example, has been careful not to raise its highest rates above New Jersey's, according to the foundation.

The trend toward hitting up the rich is re-emerging because states want to avoid spending cuts or assume that revenues will always grow in the long term, the foundation said. The result is a reliance on a volatile tax source that can contribute to more boom-and-bust cycles, even if revenue from the rich rises in the short term before high earners find a way to avoid or limit taxation.

The foundation said the taxes can undermine growth, and notes even states that increased taxes on high-income earners — New Jersey, Maryland, and California — face shortfalls comparatively worse than others.

In May, the most recent calculation available, Maryland reported that taxes collected from top earners fell by about $100 million. The number of Marylanders with more than $1 million in taxable income who filed by the end of April fell by one-third, to about 2,000.

Often pushed as a "fair tax" measure and backed by public worker unions, pinching the rich could backfire.

"You can say, 'The millionaire is evil,' but they don't just put their money in a coffee can," said Christopher Summers, president of the nonpartisan Maryland Public Policy Institute. "They employ people ... That fact is, you need rich people to keep working hard so they will invest."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_o...g_the_rich

The same principle applies to why raising taxes on corporations leads to lost revenues and jobs.

How many times have liberals tried to discourage an activity my taxing it? (Think cap and trade.) It makes perfect sense. So, if you want to discourage having money in your state, tax the bejesus out of it until they leave.

what happens if/when the 'rich' decide to no longer work, or choose to defer their income for years?

The art of businesses playing one state against another is one of the oldest power plays perpetuated by our federal system. States refused to pass laws against child labor for decades while children as young as six were put to work in mines, mills, factories and farms in America. Each state feared that they would run off businesses to other states who allowed the practice. Among the earliest attempts were the state's Compulsory School Attendance Laws passed by some states based on the idea that if children were in school, they couldn't be at a business. Parents rebelled against the laws claiming their families could not afford the cut in family income. The state courts upheld the right of parents to send their child to work, not to school. Only in the 1930s did the practice end when Congress passed a law banning goods produced by child labor from interstate commerce. The national government saved the states from themselves.

In poor states the graduation rate is still lower than the national average because many still believe education is a luxury item for those who can afford it. In Alabama the high school grad rate was 8% in 1940 and has reached 60% or so today. Of course, the rate is much higher in the districts of wealthy enclaves around the state.

That is just one of the issues where private business has played states against each other for their tax-sheltered benefits. Alabama benefits from the "Third world" status of its work force by help-ing German and Asian auto makers save money by using the cheaper labor found here than the labor at home (and the savings of not having to pay import fees helps too).

and obviously, those evil German and Asian automakers only employ German and Asian citizens.
I guess this this quote says it all

(09-29-2009 09:39 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]...The national government saved the states from themselves...

(09-29-2009 09:39 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]The art of businesses playing one state against another is one of the oldest power plays perpetuated by our federal system. States refused to pass laws against child labor for decades while children as young as six were put to work in mines, mills, factories and farms in America. Each state feared that they would run off businesses to other states who allowed the practice. Among the earliest attempts were the state's Compulsory School Attendance Laws passed by some states based on the idea that if children were in school, they couldn't be at a business. Parents rebelled against the laws claiming their families could not afford the cut in family income. The state courts upheld the right of parents to send their child to work, not to school. Only in the 1930s did the practice end when Congress passed a law banning goods produced by child labor from interstate commerce. The national government saved the states from themselves.

You make one point from the 1930's to reinforce your ridiculous statement? 1930's, REALLY?

Quote:In poor states the graduation rate is still lower than the national average because many still believe education is a luxury item for those who can afford it. In Alabama the high school grad rate was 8% in 1940 and has reached 60% or so today. Of course, the rate is much higher in the districts of wealthy enclaves around the state.

I am all for school vouchers whereas children can attend schools that work versus being stuck in crappy school systems with horrible teachers and ridiculous administrations. Since you infer that wealth is the reason why school systems are better, I disagree. With Liberals it is all about money. Birmingham City Schools spend more money per student than Hoover City Schools, wow, perhaps Birmingham should spend even more to buy an education.

Quote:That is just one of the issues where private business has played states against each other for their tax-sheltered benefits. Alabama benefits from the "Third world" status of its work force by help-ing German and Asian auto makers save money by using the cheaper labor found here than the labor at home (and the savings of not having to pay import fees helps too).

Third world status of our workforce, REALLY? You are actually teaching our kids, REALLY?

You have been on the government tit way to long. Better yet, go take some economics courses. Seriously man, your views are fricken ridiculous.

I too would support vouchers IF the school MUST accept said vouchers as at least 80% of all educational costs to the parent. If the voucher is only , say $3,000, and leaves $8,000+ to be paid in advance by the parent, then it effectively is nothing but a cash subsidy for the parents who could afford the tuition anyway. How about opening those fine "south of town" schools to B'ham children who want to get a better education? Just telling them they can only go to another city school is not a genuinely concerned position.

There are 133 or 134 separate and independent school districts in Alabama and each has its own budget for each year (Oct 1st to Sept. 30th). If you think there is even the pretence of parity in their financial support, you are naive or just desire to ignore the reality. I doubt the factual accuracy of your statement that Hoover schools have less funding per pupil than B'ham. I don't doubt that you believe that funding makes no difference in educational quality, but I believe it is the basic difference that separates wealthy school districts from the rest.

Children grow up in such districts and have no idea that they have advantages denied the majority of students in this state. They think everyone has what they are able to take for granted. They conclude (or are led to think by adults) that the "other people" are less motivated, less intelligent, less talented, less deserving or less something else and that explains why they have less opportunity and success than themselves. They don't intend to think that way, they just never have to experience poorly supported schools so they don't know how they are different. My stepdaughter attended Montevallo after completing Mtn. Brook. She was surprised to find she had to buy art supplies that had always been provided at her high school. Maybe it would be educational for them to attend a year at a below-average funded Alabama school to find out for themselves.

Blah, blah, blah...

America now spends four times more money at public schools than we did 40 years ago - when the government decided to increase its role in teaching our children.

Our public schools are costly disasters based on antiquated tenure systems and unmotivated teachers using overstuffed classrooms inside decaying buildings to pass on much of what they don't know to their undiscliplined, uninterested students.

Education is not a federal issue, it's a local and state one.

Teacher's aren't there to teach right from wrong. You probably don't even use a red ink pen because it is too harsh on a child to tell him he missed a question.

Facts: Consider two states with New York and Utah. New York spends almost $15k per pupil per year and Utah spends $5k per year. NY is the most spent per pupil and Utah is the least amount spent per pupil. The test scores are virtually even.

FYI BBF, my dad was an inner city school teacher for 23 years. Throwing more money at the problem will not result in Einsteins coming out of poor schools. Just like in the corporate world, throwing money at a problem never works either.

(09-30-2009 02:09 PM)RBB Wrote: [ -> ]FYI BBF, my dad was an inner city school teacher for 23 years. Throwing more money at the problem will not result in Einsteins coming out of poor schools. Just like in the corporate world, throwing money at a problem never works either.

If "throwing money at a problem" is not effective, why do so many of the high school coaches make the pay of three academic classroom teachers in K-12 and often never meet ANY classes? (Plus they NEVER have to put up with recalcitrant students since they can just kick them off the team!) Our society "throws money" at all kinds of problems everyday, but it objects when it is for something of dubious value, like a good education for children who don't matter to them.

Money is why Mtn. Brook can provide a separate tutor for each grade level of math when most school districts only can provide only one tutor for all grades.

Education is an American problem. It has reached its present condition because America considers education to be a low priority. It isn't entertaining and "funner" than other pursuits, like sports. The last era when American education was considered on a par with the rest of the industrialized modern world was in the decade following WWII when Asia and Europe were rebuilding from the war's devastation and America was physically untouched. Since then we have slipped farther and farther behind them. While embarrased, we don't really care as long as we are having fun with our entertainment driven culture. Our "disinterested and unmotivated kids" are responding to our cultural example more than things we only SAY are important. They can tell the difference.


The Federal government puts virtually NO money into general education of children. The three areas it does fund are the Federal Lunch / breakfast programs, the Vocational Education areas (since the Smith-Hughes Act of 1914) and in recent years they have been involved in protecting the educational rights of Exceptional Children. The well known "No Child Left Behind Program" had ZERO funding, only the threat of loss of other funds if schools failed to meet arbitrary standards.

In Alabama we have NEVER had to worry about throwing money at education since the state has always aimed at maintaining its (well labeled) Minimum Program Fund. Were it not for the money provided by the Federal government as "Stimulus Funds", over 3,000 public school teachers would have been laid off this year. If the state's economy does not recover before that "Stimulus" runs out in 2011, the lay offs will begin to happen. (Alabama simply can't afford to operate as a state without the Federal subsidies it receives every year.)

(09-30-2009 02:05 PM)RBB Wrote: [ -> ]Blah, blah, blah...

If you disagree with my opinions, so be it, but don't trivialize my points just because of it. BTW, In what state did your dad teach?

America now spends four times more money at public schools than we did 40 years ago - when the government decided to increase its role in teaching our children.

Whose government? The only gov'ts with day to day control of education are the state and local gov'ts. The nat'l gov't has very limited say since they invest limited money.

Our public schools are costly disasters based on antiquated tenure systems and unmotivated teachers using overstuffed classrooms inside decaying buildings to pass on much of what they don't know to their undiscliplined, uninterested students.

The tenure laws are state laws in place because the public showed no concern when experienced teachers were summarily fired after a district's new elected superintendent got rid of teachers who backed his opponent. He created jobs with which to reward his backers. Tenure is a non-issue because if a principal can't tell a good teacher from a bad one in three years of working with him/her, then who is to blame? "Throw some real money" at this problem and you will get the better teachers you want. Tenure does NOT protect a "bad teacher", it only makes the principal actually prove his evaluations.

Education is not a federal issue, it's a local and state one.

Teacher's aren't there to teach right from wrong. You probably don't even use a red ink pen because it is too harsh on a child to tell him he missed a question.

Every time a teacher sets a standard of work performance for students they are being taught values including right from wrong. I went through many "red pens" to reinforce my rules and performance standards. I have had former students tell me I am the reason they are teachers or work with difficult youth today because they knew I cared about them.

Facts: Consider two states with New York and Utah. New York spends almost $15k per pupil per year and Utah spends $5k per year. NY is the most spent per pupil and Utah is the least amount spent per pupil. The test scores are virtually even.

New York state has some of the best schools in America as does Utah. They are two very divergent situations in two entirely different socio-economic-demographic environments. There are no cities in Utah of the size and complexity of many in New York. One size does NOT fit all.

(10-01-2009 12:05 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]...New York state has some of the best schools in America as does Utah. They are two very divergent situations in two entirely different socio-economic-demographic environments. There are no cities in Utah of the size and complexity of many in New York. One size does NOT fit all.

which is probably the reason RBB inserted this in his post

(09-30-2009 02:05 PM)RBB Wrote: [ -> ]Education is not a federal issue, it's a local and state one.

Federal education legislation is another attempt to usurp authority not granted to Congress/Federal Government by our Constitution.

BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:New York state has some of the best schools in America as does Utah. They are two very divergent situations in two entirely different socio-economic-demographic environments. There are no cities in Utah of the size and complexity of many in New York. One size does NOT fit all.

Yeah if only our school systems were just like New York...

Quote:700 NYC teachers paid to do nothing
Accused of misconduct, taxpayers foot bill at cost of $65 million a year

By KAREN MATTHEWS
Associated Press Writer

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

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

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

------------------

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

"It is extremely difficult to fire a tenured teacher because of the protections afforded to them in their contract," spokeswoman Ann Forte said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31494936/

I'm sure that $65 million/yr would make no difference in our budget, would it?

If you want to make the NY/Utah argument void becasue of "entirely different socio-economic-demographic environments," then what makes you think throwing money at the problem would help here?

The New York CITY (as opposed to STATE) system has a contract with an ACTUAL teacher's union-the AFT (an affiliate of the AFL-CIO) which they signed willingly (as much as any management signs union contracts) to set up their grievance procedures. Since the AFT is not significantly involved in the state of Alabama, I don't know the details of such agreements. Many large cities in the north, midwest and far west have contracts with their local AFT unions and get along quite well. Keep in mind that the CITY of New York has about as many (or even more) teachers as the whole state of Alabama so the number you cite is a small minority of the whole.

Normally, a tenured teacher can be fired for several reasons under the Alabama Tenure Law. The district's Principal at the school must show that he / she has documented whatever behavior is in question and has worked with the said teacher to improve or eliminate the problem but has failed to do so. A lazy or incompetent principal can just claim tenure laws "get in his way", but he can do it IF the firing is just. He just HAS TO HAVE DOCUMENTED PROOF of his charges. Keep in mind that a teacher today has had to invest years and tens of thousands of dollars into their college preparation to teach. They didn't just show up at the Personnel office out of high school and ask if a job was open.

Most fired teachers don't appeal a firing unless they feel it was not justified. When appeals have been made, they fail about 80% of the time according to a study done by the B'ham NEWS. Although tenure is a state law, if a teacher changes districts within the state, he must go through the three year tenure process all over again. Keep in mind that many principals got their job by being losing sports coaches (indeed, most men in the school district administration are former coaches) who were given the job so they could be replaced on the field.

Its called the Laffer Curve. Developed by Art Laffer (who I consider to be somewhat a partisan hack) but he was correct on this issue.

What many outside education want is to end tenure so that an unpopular or controversial teacher can be fired without cause or proof of deficiency. Just have a principal fire any teacher he wants and see how fast you lose money to lawsuits that don't exist now because the principal can't "go Letterman" on his staff BECAUSE THEY ARE PROTECTED BY TENURE. NO principal should be in that position. The law is fine now. A principal who can show through proper documentation that a teacher is incompetent or is covered by one of the other reasons for dismissal has no problem getting that teacher fired. Many principals are too lazy or too incompetent themselves to put together a good case so they blame tenure. The principal at Parker High School who was discussed in the front page story in the B'ham NEWS showed what can be done by well trained and capable principals.

Are there some "bad" teachers? I would guess that since there are "bad" doctors , lawyers, architects, etc. there are teachers who should be fired. A teacher in Alabama serves a probation period of three full years and then must be hired for the 4th year to receive tenure under state laws. How many years of probation does it take to become a doctor or lawyer after they are hired? How long should it take for a principal to detect the inadequacy of a new teacher? A principal can recommend that a teacher's contract be terminated at ANY time until that 4th year hiring without having to give ANY reasons. If the principal can't tell a good teacher after 3 years, whose fault is that?

Your analogy is flawed- as per usual. The vast majority of doctors, lawyers and architects do not draw their paycheck from the government. They are either self employed or work for a private firm. So, no, they do not have a probationary period. But neither do they have tenure. They are either employed at will, or under the terms of an employment contract. There are no laws governing the hiring or firing of these people. The difference is that teachers are paid by taxpayer dollars, and work for the public. But the teacher's unions have made it so that the education system exists not to primarily educate people, but to employ dues paying teachers.

(10-05-2009 11:54 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]What many outside education want is to end tenure so that an unpopular or controversial teacher can be fired without cause or proof of deficiency. Just have a principal fire any teacher he wants and see how fast you lose money to lawsuits that don't exist now because the principal can't "go Letterman" on his staff BECAUSE THEY ARE PROTECTED BY TENURE. NO principal should be in that position. The law is fine now. A principal who can show through proper documentation that a teacher is incompetent or is covered by one of the other reasons for dismissal has no problem getting that teacher fired. Many principals are too lazy or too incompetent themselves to put together a good case so they blame tenure. The principal at Parker High School who was discussed in the front page story in the B'ham NEWS showed what can be done by well trained and capable principals.

Are there some "bad" teachers? I would guess that since there are "bad" doctors , lawyers, architects, etc. there are teachers who should be fired. A teacher in Alabama serves a probation period of three full years and then must be hired for the 4th year to receive tenure under state laws. How many years of probation does it take to become a doctor or lawyer after they are hired? How long should it take for a principal to detect the inadequacy of a new teacher? A principal can recommend that a teacher's contract be terminated at ANY time until that 4th year hiring without having to give ANY reasons. If the principal can't tell a good teacher after 3 years, whose fault is that?

Teachers should be like the rest of us. If they suck at their job, be it their first year or their 20th year, then they should be able to be fired.

(10-05-2009 11:54 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]What many outside education want is to end tenure so that an unpopular or controversial teacher can be fired without cause or proof of deficiency. Just have a principal fire any teacher he wants and see how fast you lose money to lawsuits that don't exist now because the principal can't "go Letterman" on his staff BECAUSE THEY ARE PROTECTED BY TENURE. NO principal should be in that position. The law is fine now. A principal who can show through proper documentation that a teacher is incompetent or is covered by one of the other reasons for dismissal has no problem getting that teacher fired. Many principals are too lazy or too incompetent themselves to put together a good case so they blame tenure. The principal at Parker High School who was discussed in the front page story in the B'ham NEWS showed what can be done by well trained and capable principals.

Are there some "bad" teachers? I would guess that since there are "bad" doctors , lawyers, architects, etc. there are teachers who should be fired. A teacher in Alabama serves a probation period of three full years and then must be hired for the 4th year to receive tenure under state laws. How many years of probation does it take to become a doctor or lawyer after they are hired? How long should it take for a principal to detect the inadequacy of a new teacher? A principal can recommend that a teacher's contract be terminated at ANY time until that 4th year hiring without having to give ANY reasons. If the principal can't tell a good teacher after 3 years, whose fault is that?

Or, maybe it's that the teacher quits trying because they know if will be next to impossible for them to get fired.

(10-06-2009 04:16 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2009 11:54 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]What many outside education want is to end tenure so that an unpopular or controversial teacher can be fired without cause or proof of deficiency. Just have a principal fire any teacher he wants and see how fast you lose money to lawsuits that don't exist now because the principal can't "go Letterman" on his staff BECAUSE THEY ARE PROTECTED BY TENURE. NO principal should be in that position. The law is fine now. A principal who can show through proper documentation that a teacher is incompetent or is covered by one of the other reasons for dismissal has no problem getting that teacher fired. Many principals are too lazy or too incompetent themselves to put together a good case so they blame tenure. The principal at Parker High School who was discussed in the front page story in the B'ham NEWS showed what can be done by well trained and capable principals.

Are there some "bad" teachers? I would guess that since there are "bad" doctors , lawyers, architects, etc. there are teachers who should be fired. A teacher in Alabama serves a probation period of three full years and then must be hired for the 4th year to receive tenure under state laws. How many years of probation does it take to become a doctor or lawyer after they are hired? How long should it take for a principal to detect the inadequacy of a new teacher? A principal can recommend that a teacher's contract be terminated at ANY time until that 4th year hiring without having to give ANY reasons. If the principal can't tell a good teacher after 3 years, whose fault is that?

Or, maybe it's that the teacher quits trying because they know if will be next to impossible for them to get fired.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding* We have a winner! What do we have for him, Johnny?

(10-06-2009 05:04 PM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-06-2009 04:16 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2009 11:54 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]What many outside education want is to end tenure so that an unpopular or controversial teacher can be fired without cause or proof of deficiency. Just have a principal fire any teacher he wants and see how fast you lose money to lawsuits that don't exist now because the principal can't "go Letterman" on his staff BECAUSE THEY ARE PROTECTED BY TENURE. NO principal should be in that position. The law is fine now. A principal who can show through proper documentation that a teacher is incompetent or is covered by one of the other reasons for dismissal has no problem getting that teacher fired. Many principals are too lazy or too incompetent themselves to put together a good case so they blame tenure. The principal at Parker High School who was discussed in the front page story in the B'ham NEWS showed what can be done by well trained and capable principals.

Are there some "bad" teachers? I would guess that since there are "bad" doctors , lawyers, architects, etc. there are teachers who should be fired. A teacher in Alabama serves a probation period of three full years and then must be hired for the 4th year to receive tenure under state laws. How many years of probation does it take to become a doctor or lawyer after they are hired? How long should it take for a principal to detect the inadequacy of a new teacher? A principal can recommend that a teacher's contract be terminated at ANY time until that 4th year hiring without having to give ANY reasons. If the principal can't tell a good teacher after 3 years, whose fault is that?

Or, maybe it's that the teacher quits trying because they know if will be next to impossible for them to get fired.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding* We have a winner! What do we have for him, Johnny?

I guess it's easier to show such total disrespect for Alabama's teachers by supporting those who claim, in direct contradiction of evidence, that they keep their jobs as educators while not having to do any REAL work and do nothing except get paid while doing nothing of value. It seems much easier for mindless critics like those to continue the old saw that "those who can, do; those who can't teach". With such prevalent feelings expressed by so many, it is a wonder that we get ANY of the "best and brightest" youths to become educators. Sometimes we just get lucky.

Our state has not raised teacher pay for three years now. They announced that while there will be no pay increase next year, there probably will be a hike in insurance amounting to a pay cut for those who pay family coverage (about $250 per month) of over $30 per month. When you are among the lowest paid teachers in America, that can really hurt a family's income. The announced cut by proration has already eliminated "pupil supply" money which is used to pay for expendable supplies like paper, toner for copiers, art supplies, chemicals and instruments for science classes, etc. A friend of mine who has taught since Jan.1968 has been asked to contribute with his fellow teachers to the "toner fund" so the school copier can continue to be used. What happens when it breaks down? There are no funds to fix it. Welcome to the State of Proration. Even Hoover is feeling the pinch.

(10-06-2009 11:37 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-06-2009 05:04 PM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-06-2009 04:16 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2009 11:54 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]What many outside education want is to end tenure so that an unpopular or controversial teacher can be fired without cause or proof of deficiency. Just have a principal fire any teacher he wants and see how fast you lose money to lawsuits that don't exist now because the principal can't "go Letterman" on his staff BECAUSE THEY ARE PROTECTED BY TENURE. NO principal should be in that position. The law is fine now. A principal who can show through proper documentation that a teacher is incompetent or is covered by one of the other reasons for dismissal has no problem getting that teacher fired. Many principals are too lazy or too incompetent themselves to put together a good case so they blame tenure. The principal at Parker High School who was discussed in the front page story in the B'ham NEWS showed what can be done by well trained and capable principals.

Are there some "bad" teachers? I would guess that since there are "bad" doctors , lawyers, architects, etc. there are teachers who should be fired. A teacher in Alabama serves a probation period of three full years and then must be hired for the 4th year to receive tenure under state laws. How many years of probation does it take to become a doctor or lawyer after they are hired? How long should it take for a principal to detect the inadequacy of a new teacher? A principal can recommend that a teacher's contract be terminated at ANY time until that 4th year hiring without having to give ANY reasons. If the principal can't tell a good teacher after 3 years, whose fault is that?

Or, maybe it's that the teacher quits trying because they know if will be next to impossible for them to get fired.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding* We have a winner! What do we have for him, Johnny?

I guess it's easier to show such total disrespect for Alabama's teachers by supporting those who claim, in direct contradiction of evidence, that they keep their jobs as educators while not having to do any REAL work and do nothing except get paid while doing nothing of value. It seems much easier for mindless critics like those to continue the old saw that "those who can, do; those who can't teach". With such prevalent feelings expressed by so many, it is a wonder that we get ANY of the "best and brightest" youths to become educators. Sometimes we just get lucky.

Our state has not raised teacher pay for three years now. They announced that while there will be no pay increase next year, there probably will be a hike in insurance amounting to a pay cut for those who pay family coverage (about $250 per month) of over $30 per month. When you are among the lowest paid teachers in America, that can really hurt a family's income. The announced cut by proration has already eliminated "pupil supply" money which is used to pay for expendable supplies like paper, toner for copiers, art supplies, chemicals and instruments for science classes, etc. A friend of mine who has taught since Jan.1968 has been asked to contribute with his fellow teachers to the "toner fund" so the school copier can continue to be used. What happens when it breaks down? There are no funds to fix it. Welcome to the State of Proration. Even Hoover is feeling the pinch.

Sorry to burst your government education bubble, but there is a concept in economics called Supply and Demand. When supply of a product or service is high, or potentially high, and/or demand is low, then the price of such product or service will be lower. This holds true in every profession. Teachers get paid less for an economical reason. Anyone with a college degree can go back to school for a year, maybe two, and get a teaching certificate. Some private schools do not even require the teaching certificate, only the college degree. With the supply pool so large, the price for that service is going to necessarily be lower. Doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, pharmacists and professional athletes get paid much, much more, because the supply pool for those professions are much smaller than that for teachers, while the demand is either the same or higher. Not everyone can get into law school or medical school, and some of those who can get in do not graduate. Not everyone is born with extreme, athletic talent. With a smaller supply, the price necessarily must go up. If becoming a teacher involved more time and effort, thereby reducing the supply pool, then the price for teachers would necessarily rise. As it is, teachers get paid much less, as in reality, anyone with a college degree can become one. You may not like it and think it is unfair, but that is economics, and that is how the world works.

not in the collectivist, Marxist, socialist world. you'd have a better chance of convincing a bag of hammers.
according to bho, we have to 'return the wealth' to the rightful owners, or redistribute it, if you will.

(10-07-2009 09:01 AM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]Or, maybe it's that the teacher quits trying because they know if will be next to impossible for them to get fired.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding* We have a winner! What do we have for him, Johnny?
[/quote]

I guess it's easier to show such total disrespect for Alabama's teachers by supporting those who claim, in direct contradiction of evidence, that they keep their jobs as educators while not having to do any REAL work and do nothing except get paid while doing nothing of value. It seems much easier for mindless critics like those to continue the old saw that "those who can, do; those who can't teach". With such prevalent feelings expressed by so many, it is a wonder that we get ANY of the "best and brightest" youths to become educators. Sometimes we just get lucky.

Our state has not raised teacher pay for three years now. They announced that while there will be no pay increase next year, there probably will be a hike in insurance amounting to a pay cut for those who pay family coverage (about $250 per month) of over $30 per month. When you are among the lowest paid teachers in America, that can really hurt a family's income. The announced cut by proration has already eliminated "pupil supply" money which is used to pay for expendable supplies like paper, toner for copiers, art supplies, chemicals and instruments for science classes, etc. A friend of mine who has taught since Jan.1968 has been asked to contribute with his fellow teachers to the "toner fund" so the school copier can continue to be used. What happens when it breaks down? There are no funds to fix it. Welcome to the State of Proration. Even Hoover is feeling the pinch.
[/quote]

Sorry to burst your government education bubble, but there is a concept in economics called Supply and Demand. When supply of a product or service is high, or potentially high, and/or demand is low, then the price of such product or service will be lower. This holds true in every profession. Teachers get paid less for an economical reason. Anyone with a college degree can go back to school for a year, maybe two, and get a teaching certificate. Some private schools do not even require the teaching certificate, only the college degree. With the supply pool so large, the price for that service is going to necessarily be lower. Doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, pharmacists and professional athletes get paid much, much more, because the supply pool for those professions are much smaller than that for teachers, while the demand is either the same or higher. Not everyone can get into law school or medical school, and some of those who can get in do not graduate. Not everyone is born with extreme, athletic talent. With a smaller supply, the price necessarily must go up. If becoming a teacher involved more time and effort, thereby reducing the supply pool, then the price for teachers would necessarily rise. As it is, teachers get paid much less, as in reality, anyone with a college degree can become one. You may not like it and think it is unfair, but that is economics, and that is how the world works.
[/quote]

Who is drawn to teaching regardless of compensation?
#1-Those who consider teaching as a life mission, somewhat akin to the ministry.
#2- Those who have family wealth so that teacher pay is inconsequential to lifestyle.
#3- Those married to one who has a job providing sufficient income (and insurance) so they can "dabble" in teaching for the "fun" of it or to make a little extra so they can put a child through college.
#4- Those who can depend on someone to "keep them up" as an extra source of sexual or other gratification. Teaching can provide lots of "freetime" for fun activities if that is your goal.
#5- those who want / need lots of time around children to pick out potential victims for their predatory activities. All those stories about teachers taking advantage of students make good TV copy. They also haunt other child-centered activities like church, scouts, etc.
#6- Those whose only alternative is minimum wage jobs since education degrees are usually easier to get since the pay is so low they can't usually attract the "best and brightest" to the field. ("Supply and demand" theory and "you get what you pay for" are Free Enterprise rules at work here. There are only a relative few of those in #1-#3 above and most of them seem to want to work only in the wealthier districts.)

Of course, one other way to look at teacher quality is to accept your "supply and demand" proposition and accept that our economic / political system simply can never have an internationally competitive school system since we can never afford to pay teachers enough to become competitive for the "best and brightest" of young people. In that case, "kwityourbitchin'" about teacher quality and accept the consequences of the Capitalist System in operation in America.

My daughter started college at Jax St in Early Childhood Development but switched to nursing and got her 2 yr degree from Samford. In her first year out she earned several thousands more than I did working with a Masters Degree, plus Chair of the History Dept, plus Coach of the Academic Team, plus teaching two sessions of night school, and all of summer school. With subsidy from her hospital, she has now finished her 4 yr degree and her Masters and makes an almost six figure salary in Indiana. No classroom academic teacher can can come close to her income, even with an earned Doctorate degree. Interestingly, her daughter has entered college in Early Childhood Development now. We will see if she stays the course or shifts majors later.