# Time to get rid of public schools ?



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Elementry schools are to shut down Friday in Ontario & the high schools next Wensday.

The goverment is hardly ever efficent compared to the private sector. The market is a lot better tool for determining the wages & benifits workers should be paid then the goverment. If all the schools go private & the private schools can afford to give thier workers something like 20 paid sick days a year & to be able to bank the sick days & get paid a 100 grand extra when retireing so be it.

Getting rid of puplic schooling would make for compitition among the private sector which would produce higher quality education system @ a cheaper price. Groups could get togeather like credit unions are formed & not be for profit.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I am not sure if this is a private sector vs. public sector issue.
This is more of a union issue.
A union that has been coddled, pampered, and spolit by this very administration for the last 8 years.

Now that the gravy train is running dry ($14B of deficit), the administration said : _sorry, guys, it's 2:00 am in the morning, we have to wind up the party._

Unfortunately, that is like trying to take a toy away from a spoilt kid.

This is a militant, entitled union that can't come to terms with reality and want to continue their priviledged status.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

*Mhew* - California thought the same thing for electricity & it didn't work out that way.


If it is completely private - which system gets stuck with the students who don't want to be in school but have to be? 

The public high school I attended used to have a regular group each year kicked out of the other system that they had to accept, which made it pretty easy to see why the academic scores were a bit better on average.


Do all the systems have to fill out the same paperwork for the province?



I'm not saying it can't work ... but unless there's an option for all schools to reject students (and/or fail them), it is going to be a broken system, like today.



Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I am not in favor of privatized education - I think we are fine with a socially funded education model.
But socially funded education should not mean militant unions rallying against the tax payers that support the system.

We need a rationalization of their total compensation plan and possibly dissolution of the union (if the former proposition is not acceptable to them).


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> I am not sure if this is a private sector vs. public sector issue.
> This is more of a union issue...


It's more than a union issue - as long as the province doesn't allow failure and requires schooling to a certain age, there will always be a problem, no matter what it costs or whether a union is involved.




HaroldCrump said:


> ...This is a militant, entitled union that can't come to terms with reality and want to continue their priviledged status.


The province also has their hand in it as they talk about "no pay raises" but their template deal they signed gives raises.

I also have to wonder about giving an extension to ratify a deal but if the deal isn't ratified, there will be a similar deal legislated.

Or "a deal is legislated so the legislation is being repealed so that there can be labour harmony" - that's sort of like a mugger saying "now that I've beaten you up with a billy club - be happy, I threw away the club".


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> It's more than a union issue - as long as the province doesn't allow failure and requires schooling to a certain age, there will always be a problem, no matter what it costs or whether a union is involved.


Passing or failing students has no bearing on the wages and compensation packages of the teachers.
Class sizes may have a bearing, of course.
And we'd all agree (I think) that mandatory schooling till a certain age is a highly desirable policy.



> The province also has their hand in it as they talk about "no pay raises" but their template deal they signed gives raises.


Of course, the province is displaying double standards, I am not disputing that.
The province is certainly to be blamed for creating the monster to begin with.

As for raises vs. no-raises, it is like a company telling its employees : _guys, you have had a great run for the last 10 years with double digit raises, bonuses, etc.
But we are going through a tough time right now, so no raises for the next couple of years._

I see no problem with that.
In fact, as a tax payer, that is exactly what we should expect our govt. to do as our representatives.

The problem is that the govt. has been setting bad precedents for the last several years, and now finds itself between the devil and the deep blue sea.


----------



## DavidJD (Sep 27, 2009)

No comment from me but this may be ironic..."Time to get rid of *puplic* schools ?"

At least it was not pubic schools - which is a more common typo.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I'm all in favour of schools remaining publicly controlled, as it seems that's the only way to ensure a minimum standard is being achieved. However, I think that it should be 100% funded by a "child tax" based on your number of kids. Schools are just another one of those things that all the wealth individuals with 0 or 1 kids have to pay the majority of the bill for while the middle and low income families with 2-5 kids pay nearly zilch for their own child's education. 

Fix that and any middle class public support that well paid teachers and wasteful school boards have will quickly dry up.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

DavidJD said:


> No comment from me but this may be ironic..."Time to get rid of *puplic* schools ?"


LOL! That's what I thought too - the question may well answer itself.


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

they seem to be doing a good job overall

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

those this trend of closing the schools to save money is nuts.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

peterk said:


> I'm all in favour of schools remaining publicly controlled, as it seems that's the only way to ensure a minimum standard is being achieved. However, I think that it should be 100% funded by a "child tax" based on your number of kids. Schools are just another one of those things that all the wealth individuals with 0 or 1 kids have to pay the majority of the bill for while the middle and low income families with 2-5 kids pay nearly zilch for their own child's education.
> 
> Fix that


Well, if you want to "fix" that, then we must also fix all the other instances of social goods and services.

Healthy people pay a disproportionate share of health care costs
Drivers pay a disproportionate share of transit costs
Safer neighborhoods pay a disproportionate share of police costs
...so on and so forth

Then we might as well go to a user-pay model, like the OP suggested


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

I think a lot of parents are getting upset with their children being held hostage in these negotiations. Do they, or do they not bring their kids to school tomorrow.

The next protesters may be the tax payers, the parents, speaking out against how their children are being treated in all of this. I am not saying that the gov't should take away teachers rights to strike, however it is always the kids that suffer.

And the union....I mean if a teacher loves running, and wants to spend some of their spare time helping local children cross country run after school, who is the union to tell any employee how to spend their spare time. That is not right at all. What next..the union dictates what tv shows the teachers watch when they get home.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Cal said:


> I think a lot of parents are getting upset with their children being held hostage in these negotiations.
> The next protesters may be the tax payers, the parents, speaking out against how their children are being treated in all of this.


Let us not forget the title of the propaganda campaign launched by the ETFO during the Ontario 2011 elections : *Vote for Kids*.
Their slogan was something like : _Refuse to vote against kids_

They are indeed showing great concern and commitment towards the kids of Ontario.
They have our best interests in mind.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Sorry, Harold, I meant that more as the parents/tax payers protesting against the teachers/unions and their usage of the kids as pawns in their negotiations.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Cal said:


> Sorry, Harold, I meant that more as the parents/tax payers protesting against the teachers/unions.


I know.
My comment was about the union - it is the same union that sponsored that _Vote for Kids_ campaign in support of this very government leadership.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Then we might as well go to a user-pay model, like the OP suggested


Yes, I suppose so.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Where are the left-wingers with their rhetoric about user pay now? Funny how they always come out in force to make motorists pay for roads, Gardiner repairs etc but when it comes to education, the user must not pay? Why the silence on that point now? Where's the equality?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Companies say...........we have to pay the compensation for a CEO to attract the best talent.

But people don't want to pay for the best talent for teachers for their kids?

I don't want some underpaid and under qualified person teaching my grandson.

Want to save tax dollars.........start at the Minister of Education and work your way down through the hierarchy.

That is where the real bloating occurs.

Teachers are where the rubber meets the road.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There already are "user pay" private schools.

Most people could never afford to send their kids there. Rich kids go there.

How much are those teachers earning?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I watched a Sun Media television interview the other day, and all the guy did was rant about how kids were going to be missing sports, trips, and concerts.

Teachers already have enough to do.......as teachers, family counselors, social workers, head lice inspectors, parent dispute mediators, ensuring the kids have proper clothing to go outside and have enough to eat.

If teachers volunteer their free time for extra activities........the parents should be thankful...........not expecting teachers should have to do it.

Entitled teachers?..............how about entitled parents?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

peterk said:


> I'm all in favour of schools remaining publicly controlled, as it seems that's the only way to ensure a minimum standard is being achieved...


It's the ministry of education & their high priced consultants that have brought in such wonderful ideas as "stay positive in the comments to avoid hurting the child's esteem" even if the child is failing and the parent is insisting that not handing in 80% of the assignments shouldn't be held against their child.

I also recall my high school/board being roundly beaten up in the media for spending money four years in a row as the ministry couldn't get it's act together to get the curriculum out. Since the budget system was "saving the money = losing it next year", the school/board had no choice but to spend so the money would be available the next year.

Funny how for the media that's a horrendous budget system for the school system yet every private company I've worked for uses that same system, with similar waste.


Cheers


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

lonewolf said:


> Elementry schools are to shut down Friday in Ontario & the high schools next Wensday.
> 
> The goverment is hardly ever efficent compared to the private sector. The market is a lot better tool for determining the wages & benifits workers should be paid then the goverment. If all the schools go private & the private schools can afford to give thier workers something like 20 paid sick days a year & to be able to bank the sick days & get paid a 100 grand extra when retireing so be it.
> 
> Getting rid of puplic schooling would make for compitition among the private sector which would produce higher quality education system @ a cheaper price. Groups could get togeather like credit unions are formed & not be for profit.


Given the large number of spelling and grammatical errors in these three sentences, it's hard to take anything seriously.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

It is hard to have a perfect school system but here are some of the negitives I see happening.

During school hours every high school I have driven by all have kids outside smoking cigarettes.

Spend a lot of money traveling accross Canada in the United States just to play hockey.

Kids memorize bogus theories not shown how to be good scientists i.e., man causes global warming by green house gasses yet green house gasses were 9-10 times higher in the past & the earth was cooler. It is not only the earth that is warming but the other planets orbiting the sun.

Get rid of comformity in education & having it public & the market will help solve some of these problems i.e., if parents drive past a school & they see children outside smoking cigarettes they might be less likely to send thier kids there.

If kids are not being shown & using the laws of logic & principals of thought or how to be financialy independent perhaps the parents will be less likely to send thier kids there.

Will every school be perfect probably not & some might be below the standards of today but on average the market would force improvement.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Indexxx

Your right Iam terrible @ spelling & grammer.

The focus of study should it be on "words that are empty containers with meaning we put into them" or on concepts & thier exact meaning ?


----------



## jcgd (Oct 30, 2011)

I found my public school to be very good. The teachers and people who devoted themselves to helping me learn were fantastic. In my experience, most of the negatives were due to select individuals and/or their parents who were worthless, decrepit human beings. It is those people who warp and distort the system so badly, they were somewhat able to drag others and myself down with them. But some people are like that. Some people are so self centered that they are able to hurt themselves AND everybody else for reason I cannot fathom.

In my opinion, the system is flawed in that these people cannot be removed from the system. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for second chances, but after five or six chances I think it's fine to permanently expel a child. I also don't see the need to push people through who would otherwise flunk out. Let em fail. McDonald's is always hiring. 

PS - Lonewolf, if you simply click on those words with the red squiggly underneath them you can select the correct spelling. It helps you out where the public school system let you down.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> Companies say...........we have to pay the compensation for a CEO to attract the best talent.
> But people don't want to pay for the best talent for teachers for their kids?


But sags, we already do.
We do indeed.
Ontario teachers are amongst the best paid in Canada.
And Canadian public school teachers in general are amongst the best paid in most of developed world.

I believe an OECD survey of education from 2010 ranked Canadian teacher pay as #2 in the developed world, second to The Netherlands.

Surely you cannot be suggesting that our teachers are _underpaid_.

Everyone loves to take digs at CEOs and private sector executives, but we are talking about a very small % of people here - the 1%.
It would only be the CEOs of our global, multinational corporations that would rank there, such as the bank executives, the oil execs, etc.
Most small to medium scale business CEOs do not make the millions that you think they make.

Let us stack rank the vast majority of private sector CEOs vis-a-vis the public sector fat cat bureaucrats taking into account _total_ compensation, i.e. benefits and pensions.

Public sector workers do not own any moral high grounds.

Just this afternoon, the Director of Education for the TDSB resigned - I am sure you would have heard on the news by now the reason why he quit.

This is a classic example of a public sector paper pushing fat cat.

Wanna stack him up against private sector CEOs that you love to vilify?
Check out what he makes:
http://canada.landoffree.com/employee/Christopher_Spence

Scroll down to this 2012 salary and get a load of that.
Note that this does not include a whole bunch of off-balance-sheet benefits, compensations, expense accounts, pension top-ups, etc.

Yes, I know, this dude is not part of the ETFO union and a teacher makes a lot less than these paper pushers.

But compensation in the Canadian public sector, in general, is quite generous.
In many ways, far more generous that your typical un-unionized, un-pensioned, in-secure private sector sod.

Surely you know what teachers in the US make?

I am not saying the US is a role model when it comes to income disparity, however, public sector workers and esp. teachers have no reason to complain whatsoever.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

sags said:


> There already are "user pay" private schools.
> 
> Most people could never afford to send their kids there. Rich kids go there.
> 
> How much are those teachers earning?


sags - I'm one of "those" teachers. 

Prior to becoming a teacher, I was a Geologist - working contract to contract - I made a decision (after 4 years of this), to re-evaluate my career at the age of 28 - I have no regrets. I love the job. My kids benefit by getting a good education at the school that employs me. I have travelled and done some wonderful things in the last 18 years.

As a teacher in the private system, I make about 2% more than a teacher in the public system - *BUT* my pension is DC not DB. I sign a contract every year - *BUT* - I am secure in my employment. I have been working at the same school for just under 20 years. The pension that I earn is poor in contrast to that earned in the public system. I didn't become a teacher for the pension. 

Yes..most (not all) of the students are from well off families...but..believe me, the family dynamic among the some of the rich is not without dysfunction, probems etc.

I agree with HaroldCrump - many of the issues in education stem from Union politics - most teachers, IMO, would be happiest to work with their students without intervention. Also - in the private school that I teach at - we (all the teachers) work quite hard to keep students IN the school - if their marks are weak - we find out why, and how to support them. If they are doing drugs - we do everthing we can in the students (and families) interest.

We do, however, have the option in the private system to "remove" a student from our ranks - but we rarely do this. In the past it was more frequent - but, in the private system, kicking a student put of a school these days is like saying to the public "we couldn't fix this one" - which is not what a school would like be recognized for. (sorry for finihing on a preposition - my grammatical error. :02.47-tranquillity:


----------



## sharbit (Apr 26, 2012)

lonewolf said:


> During school hours every high school I have driven by all have kids outside smoking cigarettes.


Is it really their job to parent your kids?



lonewolf said:


> Will every school be perfect probably not & some might be below the standards of today but on average the market would force improvement.


Private schools already exist in Canada. If you're concerned about performance why not send your kids there?


----------



## sharbit (Apr 26, 2012)

dubmac said:


> As a teacher in the private system, I make about 2% more than a teacher in the public system - *BUT* my pension is DC not DB. I sign a contract every year - *BUT* - I am secure in my employment. I have been working at the same school for just under 20 years. The pension that I earn is poor in contrast to that earned in the public system. I didn't become a teacher for the pension.


Very interesting post. Why did you pick to go private over public? I have friends who are teachers and to be honest it's a job I'd never want to do.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

sharbit said:


> Very interesting post. Why did you pick to go private over public? I have friends who are teachers and to be honest it's a job I'd never want to do.


because I enjoy it. and as long as I enjoy it, I plan to keep teaching. I enjoy moving them along in life, educating them, challenging them, and being challenged myself. I attended a private school as a boy, and felt my teachers made a difference, and I believe that a good teacher can make changes- one student at a time.

I spent a brief time in an Ont. school in the early 1990's when Bob Rae assumed control -teaching jobs in Ont. were very few, and the teaching environment was toxic. - I was given an opportunity to teach at a private school, and found the match to be very good and never looked back.

let me ask you this tho - why is teaching a job "you would never want to do?" IMO - if your teaching friends don't give you a good impression of the job - maybe they are burned out.


----------



## sharbit (Apr 26, 2012)

dubmac said:


> let me ask you this tho - why is teaching a job "you would never want to do?" IMO - if your teaching friends don't give you a good impression of the job - maybe they are burned out.


You're pretty much correct. My "war stories" from work never really compare to theirs. I also don't have the personality type to do that full time.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

lonewolf said:


> ...During school hours every high school I have driven by all have kids outside smoking cigarettes...


You'll need to grant a lot more authority to the teachers/principals if you want this to change.




lonewolf said:


> ...Spend a lot of money traveling accross Canada in the United States just to play hockey....


I'm not sure how the money is spread today but the teams in my high school spent a lot of time fund raising as the team had to pay for the team expenses. So this may be a lot less than you are thinking.




lonewolf said:


> ...Kids memorize bogus theories not shown how to be good scientists i.e., man causes global warming by green house gasses yet green house gasses were 9-10 times higher in the past & the earth was cooler...


Question is - are the theories you don't like in the ministry curriculum? Where they are - it is the provincial gov't that is making this decision so speak to your MPP. The local school is required to implement what the ministry says. 




lonewolf said:


> ...Get rid of comformity in education & having it public & the market will help solve some of these problems...


Again - in your market driven system, who gets the kids that have to be there & are a drag on resources/academic standing?

It is good to see from dubmac's post that some private schools aren't shipping the challenging kids over to the public system. At my high school - it was regular entertainment because the kids shipped over thought they'd run rings around everyone else because "I'm from a better school system". With few exceptions, they were eating crow shortly as they hadn't figured out that they were shipped out for a reason.




lonewolf said:


> ...If kids are not being shown & using the laws of logic & principals of thought or how to be financialy independent perhaps the parents will be less likely to send thier kids there...


Maybe ... but then again, if you talk to my co-workers long enough to get to the details of what they know of their kids education and what they are concerned about - it is most often having to arrange for child care, not what the child is learning.

Then too - the parents who are sure their kid can't be failing, regardless of lots of evidence to the contrary, probably are not tracking what's being taught.




lonewolf said:


> ...Will every school be perfect probably not & some might be below the standards of today but on average the market would force improvement.


Maybe ... but it won't change what the Ministry dictates be taught so it won't change at least one or more of what you are concerned about.


Cheers


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Hey Guys I have posted in the past that my niece is a newer teacher in Ontario.I actually got exact numbers for her NON CONTRACT position today ,in 2011 she earned $70000 including $13,000 to teach a 4 week summer school class.She said if she is forced under contract she will make $42,000 plus still be able to make that $13,000 for 4 weeks of summer school.She is not sure how much she made in 2012 as she didn't have her final numbers but figures it was in the $72,000 range.I know taking a $15,000 -$17,000 cut in pay will hurt her and other teachers in 'non contract positions' but IMO they never should have been started with such a high rate of pay.I have no issues with teachers who are 20+ years on the job making $70,000 a year but somebody only teaching 2-3 years this is nuts.


----------



## jcgd (Oct 30, 2011)

I think $70k is a perfectly reasonable teacher's salary. People all around me make $60k+ and many of them are high school drop outs with little education (trade school is about grade nine level). Why does someone who goes through university and teaches our youth, a very important position, deserve less than trades people? I'm not saying all trades people are drop outs, but we have few barriers to entry.

I suppose difference is that I don't expect any pay increases above inflation. Why should I if I hold the same position? Moving up warrants pay increase (possibly) but I don't understand the idea of pay increases without productivity/ responsibility increases.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Some have pointed out the high cost of private education.

In most goods & services that are sold there is often a large range of prices. If the market knows some people are crazy enough to pay $3000 for a purse it will supply one. The market has also found a way to allow someone with only a few dollars to buy a purse. 

Does the goverment know more then the market of how the schools should be run. Perhaps a free for all on how to teach & what to teach & the parents & children decide. If a school offers & teaches in a way the parents & children think are best they will chose it over another one. If costs are to high they will find a less expensive school or try to develope a Co op.

Iam not sure if Iam totally in favour of getting the goverment out of the education system. Often I will take the other view then most take just so the coin can be viewed from both sides.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

lonewolf said:


> Perhaps a free for all on how to teach & what to teach & the parents & children decide.


I believe this already exists in the form of home schooling. Not really enticing, is it?

I think it is easy to say that every body else makes too much money (except the person talking, of course!).

My opinion is that you cannot rely on an entity whose sole purpose is their pocket to care about whether they are providing substantive teaching to the future generations that will be owning the earth. 

The minute school is privatized (completely), you will have a severe dichotomy between "walmart" schools that provide cheap education and "ivy league" schools that will provide education only to those that can afford it. At least now, everybody has a fair chance, even at a public school.


"Hey, did you know that the capital of Manitoba is Pepsi and that Justin Bieber discovered the Americas?" <- result of commercialization of teaching.


----------



## 1.5M (Apr 21, 2012)

lonewolf said:


> *Elementry *schools are to shut down Friday in Ontario & the high schools next *Wensday*.
> 
> The *goverment *is hardly ever *efficent *compared to the private sector. The market is a lot better tool for determining the wages & *benifits *workers should be paid then the *goverment*. If all the schools go private & the private schools can afford to give *thier *workers something like 20 paid sick days a year & to be able to bank the sick days & get paid a 100 grand extra when *retireing *so be it.
> 
> Getting rid of *puplic *schooling would make for *compitition *among the private sector which would produce higher quality education system @ a cheaper price. Groups could get *togeather *like credit unions are formed & not be for profit.


No, time to get rid of private schools. 

Higher incomes in the public sector drive the incomes in the private sector to more liveable levels. Also, the private sector needs non-poor people with some money to buy all the crap the privates are producing. 

The solution to the deficit issue is a real progressive tax system, so that people making $1M would be taxed at a higher rate than those making $100k, not lower as is now. Making the poor people even poorer and the rich richer as the conservatives want would lead back to 19th century-style capitalism, social unrest and eventually communism or theocracy.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

1.5M said:


> Higher incomes in the public sector drive the incomes in the private sector to more liveable levels.


It's the other way around - incomes in the private sector is what drives the higher taxes, and therefore, higher compensation in the public sector.
Due to its unique prerogative as the only taxing authority, the govt. can appropriate any % of the private sector incomes and wealth and re-distribute to the public sector.
Without surplus value being created by the private sector, there would be nothing to tax.



> Also, the private sector needs non-poor people with some money to buy all the crap the privates are producing.


And the public sector needs non-poor people with some money in the private sector to support all the inefficient bureaucratic crap and rent-seeking.



> The solution to the deficit issue is a real progressive tax system


You mean _more_ progressive than it already is?
The highest MTR in Ontario is 50% now.
The second highest is 47%.
How much more progressive you would like it to be?



> so that people making $1M would be taxed at a higher rate than those making $100k, not lower as is now


Those making $1M are indeed taxed higher than those making $100K - _for the same type of income_.
The issue is that those making > $1M are not making it through T4 salaries, but through capital gains and dividends.



> Making the poor people even poorer and the rich richer as the conservatives want would lead back to 19th century-style capitalism, social unrest and eventually communism or theocracy.


Don't forget that communism has already been tried (or, rather, a variant of communism has been tried) several times and none of those models worked.
Taking away more and more earned income from people as taxes does not work.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

marina628 said:


> Hey Guys I have posted in the past that my niece is a newer teacher in Ontario.I actually got exact numbers for her NON CONTRACT position today ,in 2011 she earned $70000 including $13,000 to teach a 4 week summer school class.She said if she is forced under contract she will make $42,000 plus still be able to make that $13,000 for 4 weeks of summer school.She is not sure how much she made in 2012 as she didn't have her final numbers but figures it was in the $72,000 range.I know taking a $15,000 -$17,000 cut in pay will hurt her and other teachers in 'non contract positions' but IMO they never should have been started with such a high rate of pay.I have no issues with teachers who are 20+ years on the job making $70,000 a year but somebody only teaching 2-3 years this is nuts.


My DIL was in such a position for 2 years before getting a permanent position. The assurance of work and the benefits is what convinced her to switch.

OTOH a friend who has returned to teaching loves the contract approach as a supplementary approach to her retirement income. When she travels, she just puts up the away sign.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

lonewolf said:


> ...Iam not sure if Iam totally in favour of getting the goverment out of the education system.
> 
> Often I will take the other view then most take just so the coin can be viewed from both sides.


Without knowing how some key issues would work - I'm not sure either way. 

As long as the gov't forces kids who don't want to be there and there are parents who are more interested in cheap child care than the quality of education - there is always going to be a drag on how effective the education will be.


Then too - it would help if some of the silly schemes the Ministry of Education's consultants propose were dealt with. 


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Judging from talking to other parents, it seems most people blame the government for the underhanded way they invoked new legislation, used it against the teachers, and then are going to rescind it.

Very poor optics for the government.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Margaret Wente: Teachers' Unions are obsolete
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/teachers-unions-are-obsolete/article7252472/?service=mobile
An interesting article..She says in the article..*More than 1.1-million people in Ontario – civil servants, social workers, nurses, teachers, police, garbage collectors – are on the public payroll; their collective paycheque amounts to around $58-billion a year.*...wow - I mean, what is the (working) population in Ontario? What % of Ontario is paid by the gov't?

Also worth mentioning is the reference to "flipping the classroom" - this is an approach used more and more by schools that are innovative and work in the students interest. Flipping the classroom may well be a term you hear more about - especially if your kids are in junior grades. Hopefully, the education establishment will help empower teachers to undertake more initiative. OUr kids deserve the opportunity


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

jcgd said:


> I think $70k is a perfectly reasonable teacher's salary. People all around me make $60k+ and many of them are high school drop outs with little education (trade school is about grade nine level). Why does someone who goes through university and teaches our youth, a very important position, deserve less than trades people? I'm not saying all trades people are drop outs, but we have few barriers to entry.
> 
> I suppose difference is that I don't expect any pay increases above inflation. Why should I if I hold the same position? Moving up warrants pay increase (possibly) but I don't understand the idea of pay increases without productivity/ responsibility increases.


Trades people do not start at that wage ,My husband went to college to get his HVAC /Gas fitters license an in 1985 started at $12 per hour , after getting license upgrades and doing many training sessions to comply with TSSA he made it to $26 per hour when he retired in 2010.I am sure there are many other trades people or business owners here as well who can confirm these ranges and time it takes to get there.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

dubmac said:


> Margaret Wente: Teachers' Unions are obsolete


Of course. Every single full-time teacher is a future millionaire. That's how much their DB pensions are worth.

A union of millionaires...

A strike by millionaires...

Sounds absurd, doesn't it.

What more do they want?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> A union of millionaires...
> A strike by millionaires...
> Sounds absurd, doesn't it.
> What more do they want?


It is a vicious cycle of "_me too_" entitlements.
Public sector workers union strike and negotiate higher wages.
So, the cops say : Me too
Then the city workers say : Me too
So the teachers say : Why not us? What did we do wrong.

It goes on and on every year.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Wente refers to an email from a teacher who states in an email: 
“I hope my union leadership is happy now,” one teacher told me in an e-mail. “We’ve made ourselves look ridiculous. Is there anyone we have failed to alienate?”


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Teacher Salary Grids in Ottawa:










Source

The grids across Ontario must be in the same ballpark.

The grids refer to certification categories: A, A1, A2, A3, A4. Newly graduated teacher with a 4-year Ontario university degree and at least B- average can be placed as high as category A3. See Question 3 under Qualifications and Evaluations.

Category A3 with 0 years of experience starts at 52.4K. They move up to 86.7K after 10 years on the job. If they advance to category A4 (_which I understand is not very hard to do_), they make 92.8K after 10 years on the job. This is an iron-clad guarantee.

Again... what more do they want?


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

You cant compare teachers to trades people-I hate the stereo-typical assumption that trades people are beneath alot of professions.

Every watch-this old house?Mike holmes?ect---do those guys look and seem like they are not educated?Just because a person wears blue-jeans to work doesnt mean anything.

Plumber-99.00 to know where to turn the wrench-1.00 to turn the bolt=100.00 hr.

I get what your saying jcgd but its a false assumption----just open up(reality)the millionaire next door.
Took me 14 yrs to make 80k(added bonus-NO CUBICAL...lol)there is a ton of positive of trades,I hate why people always classify trades people under white collar.I get its a class thing(why shouldnt a plumber make more than a teacher?)Why does society think this way-i guess its parents and teachers(ironic) drilling it into young minds(god knows why)=there kid failed and or had no choice so by default he had to look @ trades and isnt as respected ect.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Saying that someone else earns too much in one job, based on the salary for another job.........doesn't have any merit.

Who should earn more............someone who works in a very dangerous occupation a mile underground........or someone who spent a couple of years getting a degree?

Who should earn more............someone entrusted with the education of our children............or someone who writes an opinion piece in a newspaper?

Too much of this public debate is nothing more than petty jealousy and pension envy.


----------



## jcgd (Oct 30, 2011)

I don't want you guys to think I'm uneducated about tradespeople or trying to be insulting. I'm a journeyman electrician, and I'd rather be making my $70k as a blue collar working than many of my white collar friends making $40k with university degrees sitting at a desk all day. Anything I say about another tradesman I am also saying about myself.

But I can say first hand, that I am getting paid not for my higher education. I'm not getting paid more for my intense drive and push. I'm getting paid more because I'm willing to trade sweat and a little blood for it. Now, I guess you'd be right in that most tradespeople don't quite make as much as me because I get a premium for being in Alberta. But I walked out of high school and started at half of journeyman rate and low and behold, after four years of showing up to work and a few months (two per year) of easy, breezy schooling I got my ticket and journeyman rate. There's no magic involved. My foreman said it perfectly in a safety meeting the other day, and you may agree or disagree, but he said that you are either here because you didn't push yourself to go further, or this is the best option you've got. And he's right. I can walk out tomorrow and use my current education to land me an entry level job just like any other high school student. However, I'm not going to get anywhere near what I can earn in the trades working anywhere else. I can do trades, or military. Pretty much the same idea, show up, do as your told and get paid for it being rough. I have more options if I want to continue my education, but it can be a lot tougher for those who dropped out of high school. My point is... those drop outs are just as able to get a trade as I am. 

I happen to be a natural at fixing, building, knowing where the wrench goes... but, many are not, and the magic of being able to know where to put that wrench is a simple as me pointing and saying "here, this is where you point the wrench". It's nothing special. That's what most of the jobs out there are. Knowing where that file goes. Knowing what number to put in what field. Knowing what symptom causes what issue. Give me a kid and four years and he'll know where the wrench goes too. Some people aren't really cut out for trades, but the skills can be learned. Theoretically, you could teach all the skills a doctor would need, but it doesn't work that way. Just because you may be able to learn to be a doctor doesn't mean you will be given the chance. You could be the best unrealized surgeon in the world, but if your marks aren't up to snuff you are out of luck. 

I have full respect for tradespeople. I just don't give them any more credit than I give myself.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

GoldStone said:


> Of course. Every single full-time teacher is a future millionaire. That's how much their DB pensions are worth.
> 
> A union of millionaires...
> 
> ...


NHL lockout is a few threads over 

Only solution is to start over, rewrite the entire contract. Mandatory 8 hour days, year-round. Avoid the entire extra-curricular fiasco by giving teachers the choice to either coordinate extra-curricular activities, or sit in their class until 5pm marking, planning lessons, whatever they claim makes up their 30+ hours of extra work outside of the classroom. Teach summer school in the summer, attend professional development, I'm sure there is something productive that can be done. 

The issue is that current contracts do not require teachers to show up before the beginning of class, or stay past the end. The quoted salaries are for 10 months of the year, 5 hours a day, 5 days a week. 

Taxpayers are fed up with seeing more than 3.6 million Canadians that work for the public service, out of a labour force of 17 million, over 20% of employees, receive increases at the expense of the rest of us. Public sector raises don't come out of thin air. They come directly from the paycheques of private sector employees. 

This feeling is only exacerbated when the public employees in question are under contract to work only HALF the days in a year. While the government definitely didn't handle this well, they have more support than opposition


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

School for our grandson starts at 9:10 a.m. and is over at 3:25 p.m, and the teachers are there before school starts and after it ends..............so at our school board they are at the school for 6.5 to 7 hours a day, at least.

Teachers do have July and August off in the summer, and many return to university to upgrade their education in order to qualify for increases in pay and if they wish to advance to higher grades or a vice principal of principal job.

The teachers are most upset about the government legislating to take away their rights.

We live in a democracy and individual rights should not be at the whim of governments.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

sags said:


> The teachers are most upset about the government legislating to take away their rights.


That's what union says. And that's an utter BS. It's all about money. Cause it's always all about money.

(The only right that was suspended is the right to strike. They wanted their right to strike to accomplish what exactly?)


----------



## dsaljurator (Jan 12, 2012)

GoldStone said:


> That's what union says. And that's an utter BS. It's all about money. Cause it's always all about money.
> 
> (The only right that was suspended is the right to strike. They wanted their right to strike to accomplish what exactly?)


I have 6 friends in the union, and for all of them it's about bill 115 and the right to collectively bargain. Maybe they are all young hippies, but they also might be representative of the union.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

dsaljurator said:


> I have 6 friends in the union, and for all of them it's about bill 115 and the right to collectively bargain. Maybe they are all young hippies, but they also might be representative of the union.


The right to collectively bargain invariably leads to one thing: more pay and benefits to the union members. They are two sides of the same coin. Not surprisingly, union members stick to the grand narrative about the rights. I am sure that many are true believers. So what? I have no sympathy for their position. Their right to collectively bargain hits me in the pocket. Who is going to protect my rights?


----------



## 1.5M (Apr 21, 2012)

HaroldCrump said:


> You mean _more_ progressive than it already is?
> The highest MTR in Ontario is 50% now.
> The second highest is 47%.
> How much more progressive you would like it to be?
> ...


Yes, that's the thing, the type of income that rich people have is taxed at a lower rate than working income. It's mind boggling to me that my stock market speculations are taxed at half the rate of my working income and is a big incentive for me to seek retirement from real work as soon as possible (as work is a big waste of time). 
So the solution is to lower taxes on poor people (10% for those making less than $100k/year) and progressively raise taxes on the rich (up to 90% for those making over $100M/year). Also, all income must be taxed as the same rate; don't give me the line with double taxation, it's just a loophole for the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. 



HaroldCrump said:


> Don't forget that communism has already been tried (or, rather, a variant of communism has been tried) several times and none of those models worked.
> Taking away more and more earned income from people as taxes does not work.


Yes, communism is worse than capitalism, that does not mean that 19th century-style capitalism is good. The reason why extremism (communism, nazism, theocracy) took hold in the past is because the rich were getting richer and the poor poorer. The way to avoid that is to try to minimize the growth of the gap between rich and poor, and to allow the poor a way out through work rather than luck.


----------



## Pennypincher (Dec 3, 2012)

Everyone knows that a more educated workforce is a smart government investment for a country - thus a strongly funded public school system is a benefit to all. Sure there are hiccups that make it ineffient at times.

Also, I doubt public school teachers can bank their sick hours and turn it into vacation time as suggested by the OP. Teachers don't take advantage of sick days - they have to call a sub at 6:00am (or call the principal so they can do it). It's not as easy to be sick as a public school teacher.


----------



## Pennypincher (Dec 3, 2012)

BTW what on earth does cigaratte smoking outside of a high school have anything to do with education? That is how you judge how well our public schools are doing?


----------



## Zoombie (Jan 10, 2012)

1.5M said:


> Yes, that's the thing, the type of income that rich people have is taxed at a lower rate than working income. It's mind boggling to me that my stock market speculations are taxed at half the rate of my working income and is a big incentive for me to seek retirement from real work as soon as possible (as work is a big waste of time).
> So the solution is to lower taxes on poor people (10% for those making less than $100k/year) and progressively raise taxes on the rich (up to 90% for those making over $100M/year). Also, all income must be taxed as the same rate; don't give me the line with double taxation, it's just a loophole for the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor.
> 
> .


While I believe your reasons for these solutions are noble, there would result unintended consequences of taxing capital gains at a higher rate than income, as well as taxing (wealthy) people at rates of 90%.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Legalize and tax marijuana.

The "taxpayers" will be mellow about the increased tax.

Increase the royalties on oil extraction. The current royalties are ridiculously low.

Increase taxes on cigarettes, booze and fast food.

Revenue shortage solved.................spend on.


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

the-royal-mail said:


> Where are the left-wingers with their rhetoric about user pay now? Funny how they always come out in force to make motorists pay for roads, Gardiner repairs etc but when it comes to education, the user must not pay? Why the silence on that point now? Where's the equality?


Are you really comparing a highway to education? Personally I think that in both cases the users should bear a higher percentage of the cost. Education is very different however, in that there are significant benefits to everyone in society (see the "Dr. Stupid" episode of the Simpsons for more  ), whether or not you directly benefit. 

I don't have kids, but I can see the value in my taxes paying for the education of other peoples children. With 13 years of public school education and almost six years of government subsidized post-secondary education I am sure I haven't paid taxes anywhere near the benefits I received.

A better system for the highway would be for all vehicles to be paying a toll, and then non-car owners like myself would pay that cost at the grocery store for goods that were shipped on the highway.


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

To everyone complaining that teachers or overpaid, have cushy jobs and amazing pensions. Why aren't YOU a teacher? If it's that easy and that great, surely you'd leap at the chance right? People tend to make the same complaints about public service jobs, but if its so great why didn't you choose to do it? 

Do you also begrudge the high salary of the stockbroker, or the lawyer? You could have chosen that... if you had met the necessary qualifications, and took the necessary training, of course. 

I do tend to think that teacher compensation is generous in many ways, and there are a lot of pros and cons to the job, but personally I wouldn't take a job teaching elementary school or junior high for anything less than $100,000 per year. Frankly the fact that teachers go a full semester without murdering a child should warrant a hefty bonus in my opinion.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Pennypincher

Smoking is one of the biggest examples that the teachers union does not have the kids best interest @ hart.

A well run union should work with its employer to make sure its members work in the safest, most productive way possible & do its best to make a win/win situation for both its members & the company or in this case the goverment.

If the teachers union really had the kids best interest @ hart they would have banned its members (teachers) from smoking in the schools (staff rooms) long before they were forced to by law. The death & decay of life from secound hand smoke & even 3rd hand smoke (from clothes) was well known before it became law. A well run union would have done to the best of its ability to stop the death & decay its members were causing to the health & vitality of the kids.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

realist said:


> To everyone complaining that teachers or overpaid, have cushy jobs and amazing pensions. Why aren't YOU a teacher? If it's that easy and that great, surely you'd leap at the chance right? People tend to make the same complaints about public service jobs, but if its so great why didn't you choose to do it?


It's a weak and tired argument. What we as individuals choose to do for a living is irrelevant to this debate. Teacher compensation is a matter of public policy. Public policy, by definition, is subject to public debate and scrutiny.



realist said:


> I do tend to think that teacher compensation is generous in many ways, and there are a lot of pros and cons to the job, but personally I wouldn't take a job teaching elementary school or junior high for anything less than $100,000 per year. Frankly the fact that teachers go a full semester without murdering a child should warrant a hefty bonus in my opinion.


Again, this is your personal choice. It is irrelevant to the public debate.

BTW, we have thousands of unemployed/underemployed teachers in Ontario. See this report by the Ontario College of Teachers:

Now What?

The fact that so many young people are trying to enter the field seems to suggest that
a. teacher compensation is highly attractive
b. working conditions are not as bad as you painted them


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

1.5M said:


> So the solution is to lower taxes on poor people (10% for those making less than $100k/year) and progressively raise taxes on the rich (up to 90% for those making over $100M/year).


So you are saying that to prevent these kinds of demands and actions by public sector unions, we need to change our tax code?
Even if I agree with your ideas of changes to the tax code, I do not agree that it is the only solution for problems like these.
Sure, there could be many things unfair or wrong with our tax codes, but that has no bearing on this matter.

The demands of the teachers, the CUPE, and many other public sector unions in recent years are completely unreasonable and a burden on the tax payers, who are already at the end of their tether.
Enough is enough.



> The way to avoid that is to try to minimize the growth of the gap between rich and poor, and to allow the poor a way out through work rather than luck.


Surely you are not saying that our public sector workers, esp. teachers, are "poor".
Far from it.
Among the 17M or so employed adult Canadians, they occupy an enviable position.
They are the crème de la crème of the working population.

In fact, we need reform to bring the compensation structures in the non unionized private sector _up_ to the same levels, or at least close to it.


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

GoldStone said:


> It's a weak and tired argument. What we as individuals choose to do for a living is irrelevant to this debate. Teacher compensation is a matter of public policy. Public policy, by definition, is subject to public debate and scrutiny.
> 
> Again, this is your personal choice. It is irrelevant to the public debate.
> 
> ...


I agree with your point that it is a question of public policy and thus open for debate but not that personal choice is irrelevant.
If the argument is this:
- Teacher compensation is OVERLY generous (e.g disproportionate to the training requirements and demands of the job)
- Therefore teacher compensation should be reduced.

Then why would anyone not choose the job where you get overpaid for an easy gig? Your point is really that people have a varying tolerance for the demands of a given job. Another reason that salaries are what they are is opportunity costs. Why would anyone with a science degree choose to teach rather than work in industry if the salary is not at least competitive?

There are thousands of young people getting degrees and diplomas in many industries, that speaks to a separate question of why are taxpayers subsidizing the educations of people who may never get jobs in their fields? If the government knows that there will likely be 500 vacant teaching positions, why pump out 5000 new graduates?


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

I have heard teachers say if they are not allowed to strike they should be paid more as they are now an essential service.

What they don't realize is that they are already compensated as such.

Below was an interesting read, I did not know that because f life expectancies, many teachers will receive pensions for longer than they had worked. The recommendations at the bottom of the article will make for good conversation.

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/01/16/teachers-should-earn-their-high-pay/


----------

