The Observation Deck

Dee Martinez wrote: Think about this. Perhaps what Dr Estrop is referring to is the rise of a movement to challenge the next levy? Can you undertand where a superintendent would rather go to a district guaranteed funding rather than lead a fight for a levy that he might lose?

If I had to take a wild guess, the next levy will probably fail, but it will have nothing to do with any perceived communication issues with the teachers or their union.

It will be because of the weak economy and the fact that our taxes are already so high. Also, I would imagine within the next 12-18 months we'll see an income tax increase on the ballot. Bad economy and multiple tax increase requests = failed levy.

But as I said, if my prediction turns out to be right, it will have nothing to do with any vast groundswell because of a perceived evasion by the teachers union to talk with the public.

For the record, I don't think there is any problem with the way the union or the school board is communicating with the public. I think the comment from the Sun Post article is being blown way out of proportion.

I will also be voting for the levy when it comes up. I would also support an income tax increase. However, I'm not sure if I'm in the majority.

I think the comment from the Sun Post article is being blown way out of proportion.

Ah yes...the PD lite. The editor makes a call, during the school day, when the LYA "officials" are in the classroom....teaching. No return call by deadline and so they can accurately report that the call wasn't returned....It's akin to the TV gambit of the reporter knocking on the door, cameras rolling.

I'd tend to assign this problem more to lazy journalists than I would to non-responsive LTA. Not that I don't have the greatest level of respect for the journalistic integrity of the Sun papers.

Jeff

Bryan Schwegler wrote: I will also be voting for the levy when it comes up. I would also support an income tax increase. However, I'm not sure if I'm in the majority.

If the school system can afford 15% raises over a 12 month period they do not need an increase in taxes. They obviously have plenty of money.

Bill Call wrote:
If the school system can afford 15% raises over a 12 month period they do not need an increase in taxes. They obviously have plenty of money.

Mr. Call - where did you get that figure? Teacher raises are no where near that amount. When you post, please cite your source; otherwise, people might think you're making things up, don't you think?

Bill Call wrote: If the school system can afford 15% raises over a 12 month period they do not need an increase in taxes. They obviously have plenty of money.

I too missed that in the new contract. Maybe it was in a footnote somewhere....

In the new contract, teachers now get 3% annual raises instead of 2% in the last contract. Combined with the same steps matrix, teachers are now guaranteed raises between 7% and 9% every year for the first 18 years of service.

Longevity increases were also raised for those teachers between years 20 & 24 and again at year 25. Between years 20 & 24, teachers are now guaranteed 4.5% (1.5 + 3) raises each year until year 25. At year 25 they get a 6.5% (2.5 + 3) annual raise for the remaining time they are employed. This compares to 4% and 6% in previous contract.

The only significant concession teachers made was Helath Care. It is a nice concession as teachers will now pay (by year 2) 10% of their Health care cost.

The final result is basically a wash. Get ready for a levy next year between 5 and 8 mils (in my opinion).

William George wrote:In the new contract, teachers now get 3% annual raises instead of 2% in the last contract. Combined with the same steps matrix, teachers are now guaranteed raises between 7% and 9% every year for the first 18 years of service.

Longevity increases were also raised for those teachers between years 20 & 24 and again at year 25. Between years 20 & 24, teachers are now guaranteed 4.5% (1.5 + 3) raises each year until year 25. At year 25 they get a 6.5% (2.5 + 3) annual raise for the remaining time they are employed. This compares to 4% and 6% in previous contract.

The only significant concession teachers made was Helath Care. It is a nice concession as teachers will now pay (by year 2) 10% of their Health care cost.

The final result is basically a wash. Get ready for a levy next year between 5 and 8 mils (in my opinion).

I can only presume, that unless facts are presented otherwise, Mr. George's statements are correct..

Dee Martinez wrote: I can only presume, that unless facts are presented otherwise, Mr. George's statements are correct..

He is correct.

By my reading raises of 14.5% to 18% over a 12 month period.

For example: On August 31, 2008 the salary is $75,000. On September 1st 2008 the teacher (at the lower end ) receives 4% step raise and 3% cost of living raise. Salary on September 1st, $80,250.

One year later on September 1st, 2009 the teacher receives a 3% cost of living raise and 4% step raise. Salary on September 1st 2009, $85,867.

Sounds like we are going to need a REALLY BIG levy.

Bill Call wrote:

Dee Martinez wrote: I can only presume, that unless facts are presented otherwise, Mr. George's statements are correct..

He is correct.

By my reading raises of 14.5% to 18% over a 12 month period.

For example: On August 31, 2008 the salary is $75,000. On September 1st 2008 the teacher (at the lower end ) receives 4% step raise and 3% cost of living raise. Salary on September 1st, $80,250.

One year later on September 1st, 2009 the teacher receives a 3% cost of living raise and 4% step raise. Salary on September 1st 2009, $85,867.

Sounds like we are going to need a REALLY BIG levy.

So I guess it must be so. No wonder the teachers arent talking.

Who is "the teacher" referred to in Mr. Call's previous post? I find it a bit disconcerting that the $80,000 to $85,000 range is being used as the example. This is not the average teacher salary. As a rhetorical device, using the high end salary figure as the example shifts the audience's perception towards the argument that teachers make this amount of money.

If I were making Mr. Call's argument, I would use these figures as well. It serves the purpose.

Let's remember that this contract also offers to "buy-out" those high salaries in an effort to reduce cost and bring in teachers at the lower end of the pay scale.

This is an interesting thread. I would just like a bit of clarification as to why the high-end of the salary scale is being used in the argument. Since I make roughly 50% of the figures quoted, I want to make sure that my end of the pay scale is represented.

Sean Wheeler wrote:Who is "the teacher" referred to in Mr. Call's previous post? I find it a bit disconcerting that the $80,000 to $85,000 range is being used as the example. This is not the average teacher salary. As a rhetorical device, using the high end salary figure as the example shifts the audience's perception towards the argument that teachers make this amount of money.

If I were making Mr. Call's argument, I would use these figures as well. It serves the purpose.

Let's remember that this contract also offers to "buy-out" those high salaries in an effort to reduce cost and bring in teachers at the lower end of the pay scale.

This is an interesting thread. I would just like a bit of clarification as to why the high-end of the salary scale is being used in the argument. Since I make roughly 50% of the figures quoted, I want to make sure that my end of the pay scale is represented.

The "high end" is being used because no one in the Lakewood schools or the LTA has deemed it necessary to come down from Olympus and explain it to us.

To Mr Gill and Mr Endress I would point out that it has now been a week, and there has been no comment from the teachers union here, either. so the question of lazy journalism verus people who jjust dont want to respond is unclear, I think.

Dee Martinez wrote: The "high end" is being used because no one in the Lakewood schools or the LTA has deemed it necessary to come down from Olympus and explain it to us.

To Mr Gill and Mr Endress I would point out that it has now been a week, and there has been no comment from the teachers union here, either. so the question of lazy journalism verus people who jjust dont want to respond is unclear, I think.

Have you tried to call the LTA and ask them? I think expecting them to come to the Deck and post is a little grasping considering most other government officials or government related groups don't post here either.

I just want to point out that you're being very judgemental because of the simple lact of posting here. I'm not understanding the animosity towards the LTA.

Maybe they are avoiding the discussion, but I don't think it's fair to reach that conclusion just because they don't officially participate here.

William George wrote:In the new contract, teachers now get 3% annual raises instead of 2% in the last contract. Combined with the same steps matrix, teachers are now guaranteed raises between 7% and 9% every year for the first 18 years of service.

Longevity increases were also raised for those teachers between years 20 & 24 and again at year 25. Between years 20 & 24, teachers are now guaranteed 4.5% (1.5 + 3) raises each year until year 25. At year 25 they get a 6.5% (2.5 + 3) annual raise for the remaining time they are employed. This compares to 4% and 6% in previous contract.

The only significant concession teachers made was Helath Care. It is a nice concession as teachers will now pay (by year 2) 10% of their Health care cost.

The final result is basically a wash. Get ready for a levy next year between 5 and 8 mils (in my opinion).

Am I to understand from the other posts that there is any need for the teacher union to respond to what seems a very reasonable compromise or that we as the public should be moved to action for some reason. This looks to me like a trade off, a compromise. Health costs are often sited as the top challenge for employers so the teachers agreed to pay 10%. In return it was agreed that they recieve an increased percentage raise each year.

Did I miss something important that I should be more up in arms about?

Bryan Schwegler wrote:\

Have you tried to call the LTA and ask them? I think expecting them to come to the Deck and post is a little grasping considering most other government officials or government related groups don't post here either.

I just want to point out that you're being very judgemental because of the simple lact of posting here. I'm not understanding the animosity towards the LTA.

Maybe they are avoiding the discussion, but I don't think it's fair to reach that conclusion just because they don't officially participate here.

In my other posts, I have been very critical of government and other "offficials" for not communicating.. I am not singling out the LTA. Where were you when Mr. George was hammering me on teacher salaries?
With so many firing at me from all directions, either Im a total loser or Im saying something that needs to be said.

The loser option is also possible. As the bumper sticker says, "just because nobody understands you doesn't mean your an artist"

but to move past the LTA issue..Mr George and Mr Call say that the story put out by the schools is inaccurate, that teacher compesation is going up 9 percent, not 3 percent a year. Is that correct? If it isnt whose job is it to set the record straight? If offficial Lakewood doesnt challenge it, I will assume its true.

I will NOT vote for the 8 mill operating levy Mr George suggests is coming if teachers are getting 9 percent annual raises

Don't get me wrong Dee, I'm not defending the accuracy of the information provided by the Board of Ed nor am I defending what appears to be a lack of communication by the LTA on the issue.

All I'm saying is that it's not fair to assume anything just because someone chooses or does not choose to participate on the Deck.

Has anyone here who is claiming the numbers are wrong actually called the LTA yourself for comment? Anyone contact the school board about the supposed misleading press release?

I just want to be careful that we don't paint those groups who don't participate here as liars or non-communicators. I love the Deck as much as the rest of you here, but it's not the be all, end all only way to communicate.