I'm also wondering about special ed -- I doubt that speech therapists, one-on-one aides, and OTs are considered teachers, yet the need for them is one the rise.

In my district, speech therapists and OTs/PTs are part of the same bargaining unit as teaching staff. Aides are not. Aidss would probably fall under "non-instructional staff" in the chart in the article.

That article makes it sound as if the unions are the ones hiring all this new staff.

Special education services are part of the budgetary problems, I'm sure. The extent of services providing is always growing, as is the percentage of children who are identified. But, as MrsVox pointed out, the law is the law. A free, appropriate, public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. The school boards have no control over this.

I can see the author's point with regards to an "unjustified" expansion of staff. But who is he to say how much spending for the education of children is justified?

Rather than make cuts that will directly affect educational services, districts should be looking at other areas. For example, fuel costs, electric bills, freshman sports, etc.

I don't understand why teacher's unions are routinely demonized for doing their jobs.

Of course the teachers that will lose their jobs are the young sort who are still hungry and not making all that much money, and that part truly sucks.

This is enitrely based on stereotypes of what the "young sort" are like compared to the "old sort". As a "young" teacher, I can tell you that veteran teachers are excellent assets and essential to a well run school. Sure, there are old teachers who don't care. There are also just as many young teachers who are incompetent and will be out of the profession in 5 years.

Augustus wrote:But who is he to say how much spending for the education of children is justified?

We spend more $ per pupil than any other state in the country.

Augustus wrote:

Of course the teachers that will lose their jobs are the young sort who are still hungry and not making all that much money, and that part truly sucks.

This is enitrely based on stereotypes of what the "young sort" are like compared to the "old sort". As a "young" teacher, I can tell you that veteran teachers are excellent assets and essential to a well run school. Sure, there are old teachers who don't care. There are also just as many young teachers who are incompetent and will be out of the profession in 5 years.

Some old teachers are good. Some old teachers are bad. Some young teachers are good. Some young teachers are bad. The union/tenure system makes it irrelevant how good you are at your job. The young, untenured get fired. The old, tenured keep their job. That sucks.

But do we get less for our money than other states do?

You don't have a real job or pay real estate taxes so you can just shut it.

but i have a vote so my opinion is just as important as yours, even though its not my money thats being thrown around. thats got to be annoying huh lol

VoxOrion wrote:You don't have a real job or pay real estate taxes so you can just shut it.

Dumbest. Opinion. Ever.

Oh relax Captain Liberty Bell. Easiest mark ever.

why dont you shut it

mod on mod violence is the ugliest kind

does this mean you don't love me?

dajafi wrote:There are a lot of reasons for Supreme Court speculation/suggestion even when it has no chance of happening. When Bush had his openings, I remember the Democrats suggested Sotomayor.

i suggest Obama appoint Miguel Estrada

Baffled by New Health Plan? Some Lawmakers Also Seem None Too Clear

I did not know the New York Times was on the RNC's payroll

What an article, jesus

jerseyhoya wrote:Baffled by New Health Plan? Some Lawmakers Also Seem None Too Clear

I did not know the New York Times was on the RNC's payroll

What an article, jesus

I'm not sure what you think you're reading into that article, but if you're thinking "oh boy this is great for my team" you should read it all over again, slowly.

Augustus wrote:

I'm also wondering about special ed -- I doubt that speech therapists, one-on-one aides, and OTs are considered teachers, yet the need for them is one the rise.

In my district, speech therapists and OTs/PTs are part of the same bargaining unit as teaching staff. Aides are not. Aidss would probably fall under "non-instructional staff" in the chart in the article.

That article makes it sound as if the unions are the ones hiring all this new staff.

Special education services are part of the budgetary problems, I'm sure. The extent of services providing is always growing, as is the percentage of children who are identified. But, as MrsVox pointed out, the law is the law. A free, appropriate, public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. The school boards have no control over this.

I can see the author's point with regards to an "unjustified" expansion of staff. But who is he to say how much spending for the education of children is justified?

Rather than make cuts that will directly affect educational services, districts should be looking at other areas. For example, fuel costs, electric bills, freshman sports, etc.

I don't understand why teacher's unions are routinely demonized for doing their jobs.

Of course the teachers that will lose their jobs are the young sort who are still hungry and not making all that much money, and that part truly sucks.

This is enitrely based on stereotypes of what the "young sort" are like compared to the "old sort". As a "young" teacher, I can tell you that veteran teachers are excellent assets and essential to a well run school. Sure, there are old teachers who don't care. There are also just as many young teachers who are incompetent and will be out of the profession in 5 years.

I posted and then was away for several days... I come back and find two things interesting.

First, I'm still on Cherry Hill SD's email list from when we lived there; I've tried, and there's no unsubscribe option (I guess they figure once you live there, you'll never leave). Right after Christie's announcement, that sent out a message that just screamed PANIC! about the cuts in aid that they were going to receive. I got another one last night outlying they're proposed 4% school tax increase -- it starts by listing all the horrible things that the state government is doing to "the children". In the end, even though the state cut aid to 7.9 million, the budget is only being reduced by 5.6 million. So the school is increasing the budget despite the cuts. Some of the lowest administrators aren't getting raises, some staff (non-union) are getting smaller raises than "usual", and some employees (except union) are going to start paying 1.5% of their insurance premiums. It sounds like they made some good direction is cost-cutting, although I would probably vote against the tax hike if I still lived there, because I'd like to see more of the "value-added" services that the school provides charge a fee (They are adding a student services fee for middle and high school students).

And then, to speak to the "bloat" figures, the WSJ has this today:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 68714.html

To quote, "State budget cuts only shift the pain to our towns. "[L]et's remember this, in 2009 the private sector in New Jersey lost 121,000 jobs. In 2009, municipalities and school boards added 11,300 jobs. Now that's just outrageous. And they're going to have to start to lay some people off, not continue to hire at the pace they hired in 2009 in the middle of a recession.""

Small Wisconsin town elects 19-year-old Ron Paul supporter for mayor... sidewalk construction was one of the main campaign issues.



Unrelated to the Ron Paul story, here's a pretty picture showing the disconnect between the general public's willingness to cut spending and actual spending. I feel like something like this has been posted before, but I wasn't sure.

Is that graph saved on your computer as "PeopleAreStupid.jpg"?

Werthless wrote:

Unrelated to the Ron Paul story, here's a pretty picture showing the disconnect between the general public's willingness to cut spending and actual spending. I feel like something like this has been posted before, but I wasn't sure.

for those trying to follow Werthless' posts at home, the key to his chart is:

blue=% of people who say they're willing to cut this budget item
red=% of budget that programs actually account for

so, for example, 70% of people are down with cutting foreign aid; foreign aid accounts for 1% of the budget.

Thank me later.

Harpua wrote:Is that graph saved on your computer as "PeopleAreStupid.jpg"?

Edit: but this is one:

while we're on graphs borrowed from Ezra Klein's blog, these 2 are fun:



Map of distribution of federal largesse: red states get $1+ for each dollar of taxes; blue states, <$1 per $1 of tax.

The fun starts when juxtaposed with this one:



The comparison is not really original; others have pointed to it, & months earlier. Klein suggests the charts tell us that people behave funny.