| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed, Mar 24 2010, 8:46 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Proposed State Aid and Education Cuts |
 |
|
| The problem is he's cutting funding, but not mandates. A lot of municipal and school costs are related to unfunded mandates. He's looked at the dollars and said we're cutting Aid, but not helping us by looking at what the state requires and saying we're doing our part by no longer requiring you to do X, Y, and Z. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Mar 24 2010, 9:10 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Proposed State Aid and Education Cuts |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | The problem is he's cutting funding, but not mandates. A lot of municipal and school costs are related to unfunded mandates. He's looked at the dollars and said we're cutting Aid, but not helping us by looking at what the state requires and saying we're doing our part by no longer requiring you to do X, Y, and Z. |
True. Looking at our school budget, a vast amount is spent on special instruction for a small group (almost 50% what we spend on regular instruction for less than 10% of the kids). And the largest funding of course is contracted terms for the teachers which are not defined locally. We can cut teaching positions but not make any changes to the terms so we can keep everyone. And the largest line item by far is the Princeton tuition which is also defined at the State level and is not open to negotiation by us. When you add up all the expenses mandated at the state level is represents a large majority of the total budget. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Mar 24 2010, 10:26 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Proposed State Aid and Education Cuts |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | The problem is he's cutting funding, but not mandates. A lot of municipal and school costs are related to unfunded mandates. He's looked at the dollars and said we're cutting Aid, but not helping us by looking at what the state requires and saying we're doing our part by no longer requiring you to do X, Y, and Z. |
True. Looking at our school budget, a vast amount is spent on special instruction for a small group (almost 50% what we spend on regular instruction for less than 10% of the kids). And the largest funding of course is contracted terms for the teachers which are not defined locally. We can cut teaching positions but not make any changes to the terms so we can keep everyone. And the largest line item by far is the Princeton tuition which is also defined at the State level and is not open to negotiation by us. When you add up all the expenses mandated at the state level is represents a large majority of the total budget. |
Correction-- the contracted terms for the teachers are ABSOLUTELY defined locally. The contract for teachers is between the Cranbury Education Association (the local union) and the Cranbury Board of Education -- it is negotiated between the teachers you know and the Board members you elected. When the state implies that teachers contracts are out of control -- note that they are saying that our local (well -liked) teachers and local (also well-liked) board members have all done terrible jobs.
I don't believe this. The governor's rhetoric and the media's piling on has spread falsehoods and implied that these contracts were negotiated in some backroom by people who are out to screw the taxpayers. IT IS NOT TRUE. DON"T BE FOOLED.
Our local teachers pay in for their health benefits, pay towards their pensions and are capped in the number of sick days they can carry. They have negotiated in good faith and the Board of Ed has looked out for the town well.
(and no -- I don't teach in Cranbury - I just take the time to understand how my tax dollars are spent.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Mar 24 2010, 11:19 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Proposed State Aid and Education Cuts |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | The problem is he's cutting funding, but not mandates. A lot of municipal and school costs are related to unfunded mandates. He's looked at the dollars and said we're cutting Aid, but not helping us by looking at what the state requires and saying we're doing our part by no longer requiring you to do X, Y, and Z. |
True. Looking at our school budget, a vast amount is spent on special instruction for a small group (almost 50% what we spend on regular instruction for less than 10% of the kids). And the largest funding of course is contracted terms for the teachers which are not defined locally. We can cut teaching positions but not make any changes to the terms so we can keep everyone. And the largest line item by far is the Princeton tuition which is also defined at the State level and is not open to negotiation by us. When you add up all the expenses mandated at the state level is represents a large majority of the total budget. |
Correction-- the contracted terms for the teachers are ABSOLUTELY defined locally. The contract for teachers is between the Cranbury Education Association (the local union) and the Cranbury Board of Education -- it is negotiated between the teachers you know and the Board members you elected. When the state implies that teachers contracts are out of control -- note that they are saying that our local (well -liked) teachers and local (also well-liked) board members have all done terrible jobs.
I don't believe this. The governor's rhetoric and the media's piling on has spread falsehoods and implied that these contracts were negotiated in some backroom by people who are out to screw the taxpayers. IT IS NOT TRUE. DON"T BE FOOLED.
Our local teachers pay in for their health benefits, pay towards their pensions and are capped in the number of sick days they can carry. They have negotiated in good faith and the Board of Ed has looked out for the town well.
(and no -- I don't teach in Cranbury - I just take the time to understand how my tax dollars are spent.) |
I think that this post says it all. The rank and file teachers are not the villains here. Too many Administrative positions (in general not in Cranbury) and the State and Federal Politicians and all their cronies are the ones to blame. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Mar 24 2010, 11:25 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Proposed State Aid and Education Cuts |
|
|
| It's not even the teachers as much as the unions and as a result the teachers get a bad rep due to the union. Most teachers I know do not support the union and do not feel their agendas match the real needs. That there is too much expense they pay out to support the union functions that get them little in return. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest 2
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Mar 24 2010, 1:03 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Proposed State Aid and Education Cuts |
|
|
I agree that the union sometimes hurts teachers and I'm sure many teachers don't agree with the union on everything, but I also think that when the hate mongering reaches the fevered pitch it is at now, that teachers must feel glad the union is there to fight for them.
The current climate is decidedly uncivil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Mar 24 2010, 2:53 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Proposed State Aid and Education Cuts |
|
|
| Guest 2 wrote: | I agree that the union sometimes hurts teachers and I'm sure many teachers don't agree with the union on everything, but I also think that when the hate mongering reaches the fevered pitch it is at now, that teachers must feel glad the union is there to fight for them.
The current climate is decidedly uncivil. |
Actually, from the teachers I speak with they are blaming the union for a lot of the attitude we hear now. That they feel the union tactics are part of the problem of why things reached this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Mar 24 2010, 3:26 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Proposed State Aid and Education Cuts |
|
|
| On the way home from work, someone made an interesting comment about the NJEA union dues. If Teacher's apply half of their union dues to pay for the health benefits, it would not impact the take home pay and would also makeup for the 1% extra they are being asked to contribute. The teacher on phone said her dues were $700 yearly. I doubt that NEA will ever agree to this, instead its better to squeeze more from their members instead of finding solutions that would help our students and teachers during this recession, I'm afraid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
