Seeing red over school funding
“Seeing red over school funding” is an article in the Chicago Tribune about teachers going to Springfield to lobby for more money for schools.
Below are a coupld of pertinent excerpts:
|
One big reason: Many voters don’t trust the state and the schools to spend the money wisely.
Now consider this: Many of those red-clad educators demanding more money for schools are lobbying just as hard against state pension reforms that would free up hundreds of millions of education dollars. That money could be spent to reduce class sizes, expand art and foreign language instruction, lengthen school days and attract better teachers with higher pay. Blagojevich has recognized that the pension systems are going to break the state, and he has moved for reasonable changes. One of those changes would curtail the practice of school districts slipping huge end-of-career salary increases to teachers and principals that let them qualify for much higher pensions–which the state has to pay. But the education lobby refuses to budge on this. And so long as they refuse to budge on pension reform, taxpayers will have a hard time sympathizing with the fiscal calamity that they describe in the classroom. |
I have a simple question here, if the Teachers’ Unions and Lobby want to bankrupt the system, why should we ever give them more money?
|
There are other reasons for voters to be suspicious. Take a look at surrounding states. Missouri has 524 public school districts; Iowa, 370; Wisconsin, 426; Indiana, 294.
Illinois has a whopping 881 school districts. |
Again, a simple question, why do we need so many school districts? Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to reduce the amount of districts and corresponding Administrative staff?
How about total number of students per state?
Yes, but what are the cooresponding populations and square miles (ie; people per square mile) in each state. We may need more districts because there are more kids or more space. I don’t know the answer, just musing….
Please post the student populations if you can find them. I’ll look for them when I have time if not.
Iowa…370 districts/481,200 students/ 1,300 avg.
Indiana…295 districts/ 1,001,900 students/ 3,400 avg.
Missouri…525 districts/ 893,300 students/ 1,700 avg.
Wisconsin…440 districts/ 880,000 students/ 1,990 avg.
Illinois…880 districts/ 2,020,600 students/ 2,290 avg.
CCSD 46…4,000+ students and growing everyday…
“Blagojevich has recognized that the pension systems are going to break the state, and he has moved for reasonable changes. One of those changes would curtail the practice of school districts slipping huge end-of-career salary increases to teachers and principals that let them qualify for much higher pensions–which the state has to pay.”
it’s $11k which gets averaged into the last 4 years for $2,750. then the pension factor gets applied to that…a teacher with 20 years ends up with another $100 a month tops. where’s the “huge” and “much higher” in that?
now i’ve said it time and time again; what did the teacher have to give up in a negotiation to get that “much higher/huge” bump in pension? if this goes away, can the teachers get a “do-over” on the rest of the contract?
Carl, could you share the source for your data please?
Couple of more questions Carl. To get $11K that would make the salary about $55K correct? If the average teacher salary is $48K then I would think the final would be higher than $55K. Also, could you share the formula you used to get the $100 a month? Final question for now, how many teachers retire after 20 years? That would put them retiring in their mid-forties at the latest.
data came from school report cards…just google the state didtricts and follow the trail.
teachers get 2.2% per year of service. 20 years = 44% of the final 4 year average salary. so the $11k / 4 =$2750 * 44% /12 months = a little over $100 per month. not all teachers start work when they are 22. actually, most of our teachers have a masters degree (over 50%) and probably didn’t start til much later in life.
If you look at the years of service, 20 years is not reasonable for retirement. There are many teachers in District 46 alone with over 20 years, many over 30 and some approaching 40. That makes a much larger increase than the $100 you cite. I am in the process of more information on this. It is being mailed to me though so it will be a few days. Not only do you have to look at each individual teacher, you have to look at how many teachers and administrators retire across the state each year.
Where did you get the population numbers please?
yes…if you work 40 years, your gold watch is $200 per month. 40 years with the type of appreciation the people of these pages have for teachers and yes…another $2,420 a year in pension…WHOOOOPPPIIIEEE!
wheres the wind for that district pupil ratio…rather just rip on those teachers you applaud?
Provide the sources please so we can discuss it intelligently with all of us looking at the same data.
http://www.state.ia.us/educate/ootd/reports/psp04.pdf
http://www.dese.state.mo.us/commissioner/statereportcard/students.html
http://www.doe.state.in.us/htmls/pdf/apr-explanation-0405-mini.pdf
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/spr/xls/attend03.xls
Age Retirement Annuity
A member is eligible to receive a monthly retirement annuity when he or she terminates active service covered by TRS and meets the following age and service requirements:
age 62 with 5 years of service, or
age 60 with 10 years of service, or
age 55 with 20 years of service (discounted annuity), or
age 55 with 35 years of service.*
* If the member is eligible to receive a retirement benefit of at least 74.6 percent of the final average salary and will reach age 55 between July 1 and December 31, he or she will be considered to have attained age 55 on the preceding June 1.
The retirement benefit is calculated by applying a statutory formula based on average salary and years of service. The salary used in the calculation is the average of the creditable earnings in the highest four consecutive years within the last 10 years of creditable service. For service earned before July 1998, this average salary is then multiplied by the applicable percentage according to the following formula:
1.67% for each of years 1 through 10, plus
1.90% for each of years 11 through 20, plus
2.10% for each of years 21 through 30, plus
2.30% for each of year over 30.
For post-June 1998 service, the average salary is multiplied by 2.2 percent for each year of service.
(The huge end of career salary increase is a one time $11,000, hence, improves the average by $2,750)
Carl, thanks for the sources. I’ll take some time later to look at them in more detail.