Saturday, June 06, 2009

The Issue

OK, so here’s my issue:

In a previous post, I stated, “Well, Wade-O connived a superintendent salary that is 2.5 times the amount funded by the state -- in his mind, his overly inflated salary is ‘the right thing for [the] students.’”

Some folks say that it was OK for Wade to negotiate with his family in mind – to play the board in order to receive the highest salary possible.

I do not disagree that a man has to consider his family when making decisions. [1] My issue is that he negotiated for himself and his family and now has the nerve to turn around and claim he always does “the right thing for our students and for our taxpayers.”

No. Wade does the right thing for himself, the very same course taken by administrators, teachers, etc. It’s all done for their benefit, and their benefit alone. [2]

Yet, at levy time, all of a sudden, it’s all for the kids – and the taxpayers.

Very disingenuous, to say the least.

I don’t like school employees taking me for a fool as they lift dollars from my wallet. And I do not like a board that does not recognize it represents the taxpayers, not the school employees.

Note:

[1] Keep in mind that if Wade was willing to play the board, he is also willing to play the community.
[2] That is not to say the rest of us are any different. Of course, I do not attempt to force my neighbors to pay for that which benefits me.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jim:

I couldn't help but smile when I read this....

MYTH:Teachers Are Underpaid
May 12, 2006

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955153

The last line said it best...."It's about the kids," one teacher said. "I'm not a teacher for money, because I'd be a lawyer if I wanted money. I teach because I love kids."

Maybe OTA should listen to their members and quit extorting the communities.

Anonymous said...

In general, I would say most teachers agree with that sentiment. I know few teachers who complain about pay. They chose the work they do and they know that just because a kid fresh from an MBA program can pull down a six-figure salary in his/her 20's while most teachers work 30 years and often don't reach that figure with the same amount of education, they are okay with it. It comes with the territory. I know a lot of teachers who just wish the state would fix the funding system so they wouldn't have to rely on taxes (teachers pay them, too).
When they say it's about the kids, they are talking about making sure high-quality teachers are in the classroom-- that usually translates to making sure salaries are competitive. Any district's payroll usually takes the lion's share of the budget. It is a people-intensive business.

Anonymous said...

Six figure salary by virtue of having an MBA? Doesn't happen--unless one has "Harvard" or "Stanford" on the diploma.
Having a JD doesn't mean an automatic six figure salary, either.

Regardless, most in the private sector (note "most") have to regularly prove themselves in order to keep whatever salary they have. There is no "tenure"; there is no automatic Step increases or Stipends, or any of that other silliness.