The state will say it's got this great package and that it's going to upstate schools, but mark my words... none of it will end up in Averill Park where I work or in Schodack where I pay taxes. Somehow, it never trickles down. Even with all that pandering I got NYSUT to do for me and all the brain washing I did to my students, it will come to nothing somehow... mark my words!
Sunday, March 27, 2011
state aid to education up to 270 million
If the times union anti tax blogger/teacher hater/professional misanthropes are right, and I really am the greedy bastard they say I am, I am going to take my share of this huge windfall of cabbage and splurge all of it on... um... chocalate!
Monday, March 7, 2011
dead wood
In the last few days, I've heard many people talk about replacing the seniority system with a "merit" based system. What I will argue is what Stanley Fish used to argue before he became a university administrator: merit is a tricky term.
Essentially, the seniority system is a merit based system we all agree on when we enter into a field with those parameters. Your merit is added up year after year, and if you do your job well, your merit increases with each year you invest into the system. A newcomers understands that she must stay in the system to gain merit, and looks forward to the day when she can feel some sense of assurance that, as long as she does not stink up the place, her job is relatively secure.
In other systems, merit can be replaced by nepotism, political favoring, or complete whim. In the corporate, non-union world, one gets a job and knows that at any point, one can be asked to leave. Some think this tenuous situation is somehow good for productivity. What it is good for is keeping people in line and maintaining sycophantic obsequiousness.
Would you like your teachers to feel, as they grade the exam of a school board member's kid, that one false move, and I'm out? Would you like your teachers to have absolutely no voice in a faculty meeting about the new programs administrators want to create? Would you like your teachers to worry that if they stand up for what is right, they may pay the price by being tossed out the door?
Further, how many administrators can face the financial pressure of wanting to ditch highly experienced and effective teachers because they just cost too damn much? We think in polyannish ways about how we could just cut the dead wood, but what would happen to the trunk?
This dead wood comment came up from a relative of a young woman who will most likely lose her job this fall. I feel terrible, and I agree that she is doing a great job, but the new system may not save her either. The fact is that we want to keep our favorites and dump the dead wood. But frankly, one person's dead wood is another's treasure.
Are there those in the profession who would be better off elsewhere? Of course. But most of the really good teachers I know, who started out as really quality educators, have continued to be great right up to retirement. Very few of the teachers who will be retiring at the end of this year are dead wood- trust me. They are dedicated, experienced educators who have had the freedom to be courageous leaders in a difficult field.
Before you cut the branch you are looking at, see where you will land, folks!
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Giving my 2% on education
Oh, yeah, that's supposed to be two cents. But 2% is what our school board is currently considering investing in our school district. A 2% increase "on the levy" comes to about $3 a month, or $40 a year for a modest home in Averill Park.
The joke is that the board will ask teachers like myself (and our board is not alone in such requests state wide) to "share the pain" so that we can save jobs. This would mean some sort of freeze on salary or other concessions for which we will be offered the empty promise of jobs saved somewhere in the district, and for only one year.
It sounds like my Ayn Rand factor is getting a little too high here, but I'm going to say it anyway- what's in it for me? The argument is a moral one that implies that when the going gets tough, we all pitch in to help out. Frankly, when these requests come out, we are not :all" pitching in to help, With a consistent anti-tax myopia, people look for the wrong mechanism to get us to all pitch in. Taxes are created for this very purpose.
The United States started federal taxes when our founding fathers found they could not afford to protect us from invasion or stop the pirates of the Barbary Coast or purchase a really nice piece of real estate to expand into without everyone pitching in a little. But in our current political arena, even so called Democrats like Cuomo are far more interested in helping and protecting millionaires than they are in getting us all to pitch in.
Yes, I know the rent and the taxes are already too damn high! But does that justify asking others to pay your taxes for you. When you ask people to give up their fairly negotiated salaries and working conditions without some remuneration, you are simply trying to redistribute my wealth to someone else who isn't willing to pay taxes.
Let's say a union gives up its new raise for a year. That might be a one or two thousand dollar hit. Some of us can deal with this without trouble, but for many others, this could mean losing a house or restricting the choice of schools their kid goes to. Of course, the other option is to increase revenuesl. The best way to do this is to establish a tax. Taxes (if there weren't so many exemptions and loop holes) are a fair and equitable way to share our burdens wiith each other.
If you want to save your schools, consider a %10 tax increase. Now we're talking about a $20 a month sacrifice for anyone in a modest home. That's about $240 a year. How many people living in decent homes with decent jobs will find it impossible to come up with $240? That's about 6 tanks of gas. That's 4 less dinners out in a year.
Of course, we haven't even considered the financial impact on those who are laid off. And for every lay off, that's one less person who can buy that gas or eat out at a local restaurant. If we increase taxes for everyone, we may still have enough to go out to eat, but those who are laid off are going to be eating pasta
The joke is that the board will ask teachers like myself (and our board is not alone in such requests state wide) to "share the pain" so that we can save jobs. This would mean some sort of freeze on salary or other concessions for which we will be offered the empty promise of jobs saved somewhere in the district, and for only one year.
It sounds like my Ayn Rand factor is getting a little too high here, but I'm going to say it anyway- what's in it for me? The argument is a moral one that implies that when the going gets tough, we all pitch in to help out. Frankly, when these requests come out, we are not :all" pitching in to help, With a consistent anti-tax myopia, people look for the wrong mechanism to get us to all pitch in. Taxes are created for this very purpose.
The United States started federal taxes when our founding fathers found they could not afford to protect us from invasion or stop the pirates of the Barbary Coast or purchase a really nice piece of real estate to expand into without everyone pitching in a little. But in our current political arena, even so called Democrats like Cuomo are far more interested in helping and protecting millionaires than they are in getting us all to pitch in.
Yes, I know the rent and the taxes are already too damn high! But does that justify asking others to pay your taxes for you. When you ask people to give up their fairly negotiated salaries and working conditions without some remuneration, you are simply trying to redistribute my wealth to someone else who isn't willing to pay taxes.
Let's say a union gives up its new raise for a year. That might be a one or two thousand dollar hit. Some of us can deal with this without trouble, but for many others, this could mean losing a house or restricting the choice of schools their kid goes to. Of course, the other option is to increase revenuesl. The best way to do this is to establish a tax. Taxes (if there weren't so many exemptions and loop holes) are a fair and equitable way to share our burdens wiith each other.
If you want to save your schools, consider a %10 tax increase. Now we're talking about a $20 a month sacrifice for anyone in a modest home. That's about $240 a year. How many people living in decent homes with decent jobs will find it impossible to come up with $240? That's about 6 tanks of gas. That's 4 less dinners out in a year.
Of course, we haven't even considered the financial impact on those who are laid off. And for every lay off, that's one less person who can buy that gas or eat out at a local restaurant. If we increase taxes for everyone, we may still have enough to go out to eat, but those who are laid off are going to be eating pasta
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
