Lackawanna School Board Shenanigans

[Genoobie]

Lets see...highest paid usually means most senior. Probably get a lot of quality applicants considering when you get in top 10 in seniority you get fired. Your thinking is assanine.

These problems were caused when the union just gets what it wants. Tops 5 in pay but bottom 5 in ranking. Definitely skewed but cutting the most senior is ridiculous.

Maybe you have not been reading the papers, teachers benefit and salary packages are SOOOO GENEROUS that people are literally clawing over each other to become teachers. There will be no shortage of applicants because as everyone on this MB will agree, teachers are overpaid, get summers off and in general have it real good. You think people won't still be applying? Just ask anyone on the MB and they'll tell you what I've said.

[literal]

Too bad no teacher aides were cut....but that would mean Ken Motyka's daughter would be cut followed by lots of other BOE relatives. Next year they will be gone for sure.


Looks like Mrs. Iafallo will have plenty of time to concentrate on city business come July 1!

[vincenzo]

Not so fast Literal.....word is Miller and co. are trying to push through a contract for the CSEA before July 1st that includes a no lay off clause for the teachers aides. Miller and Motyka are slimy enough to try something like this...but, if this is true...Dave Joyce should be absolutely ashamed of himself! First he hires his wife as an aide 1 month after he gets on the board, now this?

[CarinaDavide]

Boo hoo, I am crying, working hard your whole life and then end up on unemployment. People in the private sector have to deal with this all the time. Everybody should be treated this way. In the PRIVATE SECTOR, if you are highly paid and the company cannot afford you, they fire you.

To lower salaries, pensions and medical coverage would require negotation with UNIONS. UNIONS run the government. You won't be able to get anywhere with negotiations with the UNIONS. However with the new legislation of 3012-c, we can eliminate teachers in two years. I suggest we start with the most highly paid teachers.

Let's look at the numbers. A district has 100 teachers, we'll say starting pay is 40K and ending pay is 80K (like it is in Buffalo for example). That would put the average salary at 60K. That would make 100*60K or $6M. Suppose you needed a 5% cut in budget. That's about 300K. Just laying off 4 highly paid teachers (less than 4% of your staff) would permit you to make budget. "Well," you say, "some of them might be good." To which I reply, so what?

According to the posters on the MB, the benefits and pay are SOOO generous, that people are literally crawling over each other to get a piece of this pie. They can easily be replaced by 8 new teachers if you need (at the same budget level) or lay off 8 highly paid teachers, replace them with 8 new teachers and then make your budget.

Wealthy districts do well on tests, poorer districts not as well. Seeing as how teachers only have a small impact on these scores, the district will not see a change in quality of instruction if this scenario occurs.

Spare me the everyone takes a 5% cut versus less than 5% being laid off.

Spare me the tears for the unemployment lines. Have you checked recently, many people are standing there because of the greedy UNIONS and TEACHERS.

Can't argue with math, but don't they still receive retirement benefits if they are laid off? I'm not exactly sure how that works, but if they do that has to be taken into account on the costs also. Maybe I'm a sap, but I do hate to see anybody lose a job. Especially if it is someone very good at their job. I'd take 1 excellent teachers over 5 bad ones any day. However, time on the job doesn't always equal best at the job either. I have seen many jaded veteran teachers who are worn out and just don't care about their job or the students anymore, while many new teachers are more excited about the job and making a difference in their lives. So.. out with the old right? Well, in a perfect world I'd say the teachers get evaluated and just get rid of the crappiest ones no matter what their paycheck looks like and let the highest quality education prevail. But that'll never happen.
In response to all the teacher's aide jobs... I won't pretend to know most of those people are other then I know their names and some of them the political office they have/held.. Sometimes I feel like I shouldn't even bother getting involved in this city. How can you play the game if you don't know the players? ha

[Genoobie]

Can't argue with math, but don't they still receive retirement benefits if they are laid off? I'm not exactly sure how that works, but if they do that has to be taken into account on the costs also. Maybe I'm a sap, but I do hate to see anybody lose a job. Especially if it is someone very good at their job. I'd take 1 excellent teachers over 5 bad ones any day. However, time on the job doesn't always equal best at the job either. I have seen many jaded veteran teachers who are worn out and just don't care about their job or the students anymore, while many new teachers are more excited about the job and making a difference in their lives. So.. out with the old right? Well, in a perfect world I'd say the teachers get evaluated and just get rid of the crappiest ones no matter what their paycheck looks like and let the highest quality education prevail. But that'll never happen.
In response to all the teacher's aide jobs... I won't pretend to know most of those people are other then I know their names and some of them the political office they have/held.. Sometimes I feel like I shouldn't even bother getting involved in this city. How can you play the game if you don't know the players? ha

Here's the real deal. Schools and teachers are judged based on numbers. The "best" schools have the "best" numbers, the "worst" schools have the "worst" numbers. Wealth and parental education levels are the primary factors that dictate a child's success on the tests that generate the "good" and "bad" numbers. So you could replace 1 "excellent" teacher with 5 "bad" ones and the numbers on the test would more or less stay them same. Since that's how parents and realtors and other people judge schools, fire the highly paid teachers. The evaluations that are presently in place will be based entirely on the numbers. So the highest "quality" = "best" numbers. So the teachers themselves make very little difference in this regard. So if you fire the highly paid teachers, yes they collect a pension, but the cost will be reduced compared to if they worked the full term until retirement. Out with the old!

[literal]

Not so fast Literal.....word is Miller and co. are trying to push through a contract for the CSEA before July 1st that includes a no lay off clause for the teachers aides. Miller and Motyka are slimy enough to try something like this...but, if this is true...Dave Joyce should be absolutely ashamed of himself! First he hires his wife as an aide 1 month after he gets on the board, now this?

No new board can be held hostage to what an old board does/tries to do. No GOOD Superintendent would make such a recommendation and without the Superintendent recommendation there can be no vote/ action. A board has NO POWER
without a Superintendent recommendation.

[literal]

If you are laid off and not old enough to retire, you get no benefits. When you are old enough to retire your benefits are based on the active number of years that you worked.

[getalife123]

Posting for another teacher aide position on Lackawanna School District Employment website, wonder who it will be this time.

[Same Old, Same Old]

Here's the real deal. Schools and teachers are judged based on numbers. The "best" schools have the "best" numbers, the "worst" schools have the "worst" numbers. Wealth and parental education levels are the primary factors that dictate a child's success on the tests that generate the "good" and "bad" numbers. So you could replace 1 "excellent" teacher with 5 "bad" ones and the numbers on the test would more or less stay them same. Since that's how parents and realtors and other people judge schools, fire the highly paid teachers. The evaluations that are presently in place will be based entirely on the numbers. So the highest "quality" = "best" numbers. So the teachers themselves make very little difference in this regard. So if you fire the highly paid teachers, yes they collect a pension, but the cost will be reduced compared to if they worked the full term until retirement. Out with the old!

Seriously, what country do you think we live in? Lets go to Ford and fire the top 50% that make the most money so I can save $ on my car. I mean clearly anyone can put nuts on a bolt.

Clearly, you don't agree with unions and the benefits but this is exactly what unions were made for. You cant just fire someone because they make too much money. I would love to know what you do for a living.

[Genoobie]

We don't need UNIONS anymore, they only serve to protect ineffective employees. Yes of course you CAN fire someone because they make too much money. Sure, let's go to Ford and fire the highest paid employees. No problems there.

[Same Old, Same Old]

Clearly we aren't going to agree...your rationale is asinine.

[WNYresident]

Here's the real deal. Schools and teachers are judged based on numbers. The "best" schools have the "best" numbers, the "worst" schools have the "worst" numbers. Wealth and parental education levels are the primary factors that dictate a child's success on the tests that generate the "good" and "bad" numbers. So you could replace 1 "excellent" teacher with 5 "bad" ones and the numbers on the test would more or less stay them same. Since that's how parents and realtors and other people judge schools, fire the highly paid teachers. The evaluations that are presently in place will be based entirely on the numbers. So the highest "quality" = "best" numbers. So the teachers themselves make very little difference in this regard. So if you fire the highly paid teachers, yes they collect a pension, but the cost will be reduced compared to if they worked the full term until retirement. Out with the old!

Problem is they are only "numbers". "Best" versus "Worse" can be because of the makeup of the children not the make up of the school employees. It isn't the kids fault either. It is the environment the kids come from in some instances. Genoobie you need to be realistic also. I asked if there was just one teacher that wasn't qualified, just one. I don't think you said yes. I find that highly impossible out of 5000 employees.

Once again pay cuts or no raises starting from the top. Not just teachers... all employees. Physical cap on what is spent on health care packages period. We will never see a change in health care as long as "government employees" never shoulder the burden of rising costs.

[WNYresident]

Wealthy districts do better on tests, poorer districts, worse. The teachers have little to no impact on these results so why not just eliminate highly paid teachers. Since we are evaluating success and failure based on these standardized tests (i.e. good schools have good scores and bad schools have bad scores), then the "bad" teacher is the teacher that is highly paid.

No. Less compensation on the benefit side requires a negotiation and the unions will strong arm their solution because the unions (especially teachers unions) control the government. So what we NEED to do to solve this problem is to eliminate the highly paid teachers. Even the "best" teachers could be given a group of students that would yield poor evaluation results in accordance with the law (3012-c). So the SOLUTION is to structure classes (i.e. more difficult students) where the highest paid teachers will achieve an ineffective rating. That will solve your budget problem and pension cost as well. You are looking for out the box thinking. Contract negotations and asking for concessions is not going to get anywhere with these UNIONS. They control the elections and government. The only way we can take back our control is through these means.

I'm going to repeat myself.

Cuts across the entire spectrum of government employees in NYS.

Cap health care cost now. As long as the private sector funds all government/elected officials health care cost increases we will never see a change. We cover our cost increase and "New York State Government Employee" increases.

[Genoobie]

I'm going to repeat myself.

Cuts across the entire spectrum of government employees in NYS.

Cap health care cost now. As long as the private sector funds all government/elected officials health care cost increases we will never see a change. We cover our cost increase and "New York State Government Employee" increases.

Let me go slower then,
You will not get a cut like this because those things need to be collectively bargained (unless you repeal the Taylor Law).
See, now you are changing your tune. You are asking for a cap on health care costs which is an altogether different ball so to speak. In fact, there was a chance to curtail health-care costs by moving to a single payer system, but, um, people didn't want that. So the govt. gave carte blanche to the insurance companies and said, "Why don't you write us a universal health care coverage package?" And so this is what you got. Boo hoo that's the "private sector" in action, competing efficiently to keep those costs low...*snort*

[Clevehill]

How do people feel about having 27-30 students per class?