100 less students = 5 less teachers

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Re: 100 less students = 5 less teachers

Postby Dennis King » Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:07 am

Dennis King wrote:Ken, the teachers were without a contract for the first year so they were paid the same as the previous year and THEN they got a 21 percent raise over 3 years. Sorry, but the rest of us in there real world have had many years without any raise, yup, they are usually years with lay offs so you now have more work and have to do it for the same pay.

Noting the declining teachers each year is significant but why does the cost keep going up! Where are the Honeywell savings? Why can't this SB cut the budget by 2 mil?

We have put a lot of pressure on the town but the school often gets a free ride. Andy and Ken may want to hide away from the 21 percent raise in 3 years but it did in fact happen! The worse part is the town approved it as they did the new school with the coaching of the SB that we would "loose" good teachers and we needed the space for the kids, hence 18 mil for a new school that over the past several years, should now be obvious to everyone, we did not need!

Since 2/3 of the taxes comes from our schools, we really should pay more attention to it. I hope this SB will have the courage to eliminate a dozen teachers, one from each grade. Now that can not be as hard as it sounds since we already have 100 less students so that should be 5, the other 7 can be divided amongst the remaining teachers in higher class sizes. Oh, while we are at it, less reduce each school but at least one guidance counselor and one less custodian. Assistant principals should also be looked at.

People are losing everything, time to change from wants to needs. If I had my way, we would invite the nuns to run our schools, they would do it for 1/4 the price and without state retirement requirements. Of course, the extras would go, class sizes would be larger, and of course the biggest difference, grades would excel and we would no longer be in "need of improvement".


As Ken, Brian, and the other "usual suspects" have attacked my credibility on this issue, here is one of my posts and I invite people to look at this thread. It has all been said before, if you look in this thread, you will see my analysis of the NHDOL records on teacher salaries. I am tired of these distortions. Teachers did in fact get a 21 percent raise in 3 years. Ken feels the first year they did not get a raise means they only got 5.3 percent a year but that was not what we voted for. We approved the 3 year 21 percent raises, the fact that the contract was expired had nothing to do with our vote. Wonder if the evergreen law was in effect then, really does not matter as the sleeping giant (we taxpayers) have finally awakened and I see more and more charter schools coming. Nashua is debating one right now. Concord has one for drop outs (guess they only get the so called cream of the crop, huh?)

Public education is failing our kids. I do agree that the $5,500 the Merrimack charter High School gets is way too low. It would appear when we are spending $20,000.00 per High School student, one quarter is in essence "setting them up to fail" but somehow they get a 89 math proficiency and a 98 in science and we brag we increased our math level by 25% so now only 60% of the kids graduating Merrimack High School can not do math! Of course, these public schools will never look at Bishop Guerton,Trinity or charter schools. Even to make any comparison comes out with the attacks it is not fair, they can "cherry pick", etc. I have pointed out that there are private special ed schools (I used to teach at one) so the concept is there. Just like when we had over 20 kindergartens to choose from, the market will provide.

Time to eliminate tenure, to eliminate pensions and more to 401Ks, We should also look into an 8 hour school day so homework is done at school, we should eliminate teacher conferences on SCHOOL TIME. You guys want to meet, do it on your own time! We should not have to pay for a sub when you could have the conference on a Saturday or any of the many days you have off.
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: 100 less students = 5 less teachers

Postby Ken Coleman » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:48 pm

Dennis Posted

Ken, the teachers were without a contract for the first year so they were paid the same as the previous year and THEN they got a 21 percent raise over 3 years.


Sorry, but as has been point out before, this is False.

The Teachers did not get a 21 percent raise in three years without step!

The Teachers did not get a 21 percent rasie in three years with step!

The Teachers did not get a 21 percent raise in three years without step after a year with no raise!

The Teachers did not get a 21 percent rasie in three years with step after a year with no raise!

No Matter how you try and and twist this, it is FALSE FALSE FALSE

This has been pointed on here so many times to you, and each time you wait a little and then use the same FALSE information.

Ken Coleman
Ken Coleman

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results” Ben Franklin
Ken Coleman
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 8:49 am

Re: 100 less students = 5 less teachers

Postby Dennis King » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm

Ken Coleman wrote:Dennis Posted

Ken, the teachers were without a contract for the first year so they were paid the same as the previous year and THEN they got a 21 percent raise over 3 years.


Sorry, but as has been point out before, this is False.

The Teachers did not get a 21 percent raise in three years without step!

The Teachers did not get a 21 percent rasie in three years with step!

The Teachers did not get a 21 percent raise in three years without step after a year with no raise!

The Teachers did not get a 21 percent rasie in three years with step after a year with no raise!

No Matter how you try and and twist this, it is FALSE FALSE FALSE

This has been pointed on here so many times to you, and each time you wait a little and then use the same FALSE information.

Ken Coleman


Here are YOUR own words Ken:

As corrected and posted earlier, it was over 4 years not three! (But what the heck, isnt it fun to make up worse numbers). This was also becuase at this time (many years ago) we were losing a lot of teachers and unable to hire becuase our salaries were so low! The town in 2 votes (This contract was voted on in 2 year periods) voted by a Huge amount to pass these as the contracts enjoyed broad support.

Ken Coleman


I have responded enough on this, all can reread the thread. I know you have to justify the massive spending by the school, wasn't the budget like 38 mil back then, before the school we did not need and all the declining enrollment, now we are 65 mil and counting, people are losing their homes and all are asking just how is it we spend so much to send our kids to school? Of course Marge needs a new office so it can be more "professional". You think she needs new digs, you pay for it, stop going into our pockets for the never ending spending all or which is surely "for the children"
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: 100 less students = 5 less teachers

Postby Ken Coleman » Tue Apr 05, 2011 3:28 pm

Dennis,

As has been pointed out to you many times before, in much greater detail than what you have above;

You have said that it was over three years. This is FALSE. 21% over three years is a little over 6.7 percent per year after compounding. No raise in any year came close to 6.7 percent.

You said in another topic within the last day that this number did not include step. This is FALSE. All raises discussed by the school board always included step.

If you want to claim that during the 90's that over a 4 year period of 4 separate raises, including all steps that the total raise after compounding was near 21%, this would be factual.

Ken Coleman
Ken Coleman

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results” Ben Franklin
Ken Coleman
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 8:49 am

Re: 100 less students = 5 less teachers

Postby Dennis King » Tue Apr 05, 2011 3:38 pm

Ken Coleman wrote:Dennis, If you want to claim that during the 90's that over a 4 year period of 4 separate raises, including all steps that the total raise after compounding was near 21%, this would be factual. Ken Coleman


Now we are getting closer to the truth Ken, the only difference between your number and mine is I did not count the year they did not get the raise, then the 21 percent is in 3 years!

Always love when a person attacks me as a lier and then proves my point! No matter how you look at it, that is a HUGE raise especially when you consider just how many people were losing their jobs at that time.

Thanks for proving my point! :wink:
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: 100 less students = 5 less teachers

Postby Ken Coleman » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:15 pm

Dennis,

I am not going to let you get away with this twisting.

The only difference between your number and mine is I did not count the year they did not get the raise, then the 21 percent is in 3 years!


FALSE. There is NO period of three years that equals anything near 21 percent. Period.

You have known this for a long time. The fact that you keep trying to twist this to suggest that we ever gave out raises that would equal 21 percent in 3 years indicates that you do not care about factual information.

Ken Coleman
Ken Coleman

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results” Ben Franklin
Ken Coleman
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 8:49 am

Re: 100 less students = 5 less teachers

Postby Dennis King » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:24 pm

Ken Coleman wrote:Dennis,
If you want to claim that during the 90's that over a 4 year period of 4 separate raises, including all steps that the total raise after compounding was near 21%, this would be factual.
Ken Coleman


In your own words Ken, your very own words.

First year was without a contract so no raises, now 4 minus one is 3. Hmmm

Oh, must be the new math, but if we are now bragging that only 40% of our graduates can do math (and that is a huge 25% increase), well it is no wonder that this calculation would be hard.

Now if you must have the last word, go at it. I am done on this. The back and forth is now silly hence my response.

I am sure it will make you feel better, just remember your post above!

just love it when you make my point. :wink:
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Previous

Return to School Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron