Somebody has to teach, but how much do you make with your bachelors Jim- more than a teacher with a M+30? Teachers bargained for health care when salaries were kept low- now you want to keep salaries low and force teachers to take Mercy Care too? Maybe your blogs should stay out of the negotiations process and stick to the I's, me's and my's.

Macdaddy
Mar 11, 2010 at 6:12 p.m.
Suggest removal Just a thought.

Whoever says that public education has to be the "best" education?

What's to say that public education is to educate people to a certain level for a certain dollar amount that taxpayers agree to, and if someone wants their kid to have the best. Then enroll them in private education.

Might not be the best or most popular answer, but it maybe a solution worth exploring.

So you want teachers to be underpaid and the quality of education to go down for some while the rich kids are sent to private schools.

Yeah, I want to invest in a public education system where the goal is to be "just OK". Then kill the system all together and tell people sink or swim. Oh yeah, and INCREASE THE DOC BUDGET because those that sink will need a place to spend their time.

Vigilandy - I think the reason there is so much focus on teacher pay and benefits is because it makes up such a significant chunk of a school district's operating budget. I do know that it has been reported that Milton's administration has agreed to a pay freeze.
.
And why do the teacher pay and benefits make up such a significan chunk of a school district's operating budget.

Because the district doesn't produce anything of monetary value. What I mean is any "company" that doesn't produce an item that has high material cost is going to spend most of its money on salary.
.
Law Offices, Accounting Offices, Public Education, Psychological Services, etc... All provide an important service and ALL spend most of their "income" on salary.
.
The cost of technology, buildings, etc...Are paid for at one time and/or through fundraisers? In an ideal world, the budget would be more even...but that would mean a greater investment...something most citizens seem unwilling to make.

Sorry, I had to comment on this because it is the WORST arugment someone can make. Think of how little teachers would need to make to have their share of the budget not be the greatest %.

Seriously, someone take the next highest expense, divide it by the number of employees and what would that be. Lastly, fundraisers do not help with salaries but they do purchase things like technology and playground equipment. Just one more reason why teacher salaries/benefits take up the largest chunk of the budget.

people really need to find a better argument than that.

Jim - it falls under bashing more due to the title than to the content. The release of the data wasn't by the union, but by the district. How is that damaging to teacher credibility? Shouldn't these unsubstantiated figures damage district credibility?

Jim
Have you done any research into my comment about how much of this "savings" the district would actually get without a doubt?

Realist - I'm trying to figure out how this is an op-ed bashing the teachers, even though I figured quite a few would take it that way.
You quote a key passage from the blog and then take it somewhere completely off the wall. As I said, a casual reader of these news accounts will draw conclusions that show the union's stance in a negative light. To use your wording, I am ignorant of the details. Fair enough. Basically, the ball is now in the court of the union to clearly state to the public why this was not a good deal for them and to repair the public relations damage the release of the bid information appears to have done. If that is bashing the teachers, then I plead guilty.
You also use the term "journalism." This piece is not journalism. Nothing that appears under the Community Blogs heading on GazetteXtra should be considered journalism. Journalism is researching and reporting news, which is what news reporters are paid to do. Community bloggers are unpaid volunteers who simply comment on whatever we feel like within certain parameters. My focus is usually on Milton. So basically, this blog is my opinion, and you know what opinions are like - everyone has one.
You have every right to express your disagreement with me.
Vigilandy - I think the reason there is so much focus on teacher pay and benefits is because it makes up such a significant chunk of a school district's operating budget. I do know that it has been reported that Milton's administration has agreed to a pay freeze.

Jim,
"I write this as a casual reader myself. I have no knowledge of what the switch in insurance plans would have entailed as far as benefits and co-pays. Maybe it is a really bad deal for the teachers. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who read these stories, looked at those numbers, and connected the same dots."
So in other words you are ignorant to what is actually going on but felt it was your right to do an op-ed bashing the teachers that you "respect and admire" so much. It is your right, and it is my right to tell you that this article is completely ignorant and not fact based as a journalist writing should be. Hope you feel proud of this great piece of, hmmm..... journalism. I am sure you spent hours on digging up information on this topic so you could put together an article explaining both sides accurately. At least Eyster loved it.

Jim - perhaps you could look into how the district's overall budget has changed in the past 4 years.....is the district in financial trouble?

The District would also saved money if they didn't hire a lawyer. How much is that? How much would have been saved?

Also, I thought the Milton Courier's article only focused on the supposed savings number, without sharing what the teacher's will give up to have different insurance coverage. Other then cost, what benefits are different between insurance programs?
Each year the district has money set aside for payment of the settled materials of a contract, (for salary and insurance). The money is not used, thus sits in the bank making interest. The District gets to keep that interest. Sure it is not $600,000. How much is it?
Yet another example of more money you never hear of.

I think it's odd that whenever a school district needs to cover costs, taxpayers put the financial burden on JUST the teachers. Why not look at sharing the responsibility across the board? Start at the top and work down the ladder. It's crazy to ask JUST the teachers to shoulder a deficit without looking at the whole system that contributes to it. Not to mention that all this debate does is make teachers and their union look bad because they’re doing what any other person would do in this situation, fight for their family’s health and well-being (that’s what benefits do for people). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that once something is taken away, it will never be given back. I'm sure the administrators enjoy a nice benefits package, including bonuses. So why is it unfair to ask everyone to pitch in? Why do citizens think that teacher’s jobs, salaries, and benefits are first on the chopping block to find solutions to financial problems? This must mean that everyone who posts on here would gladly give up their benefits in order to give in to the ever popular defeatist attitude about the “’DEPRESSION’” in Rock County. We need perspective.

I agree with Stubby all the way. I see you may have a middle ground stance here, but the title of this blog indicates the board was right and the union is wrong. What would the teachers be giving up? How much money has the board saved/put away? If you do not know the details of the settlement be careful what you say or write.
Also, typically, insurance premiums always bid low and two years later, WHAM! Your rates go sky high!

Jim - I know you are a blogger and not a journalist, but you should probably get the other side of the story before publishing such a hasty blog. Remember - figure lie and liars figure. I'd bet my last dollar that there is some pretty slippery figures in that total the business office provided. They don't have a very good track record for accuracy, you know. Look at the last 6 years of budget predictions - off by millions.

Talk about a 'loss of credibility'! You admit to 'having no knowledge' of the details, but are willing to 'connect the dots' anyway??? Beautiful.

It is HIGH TIME that MEA and ALL local teachers' unions accept major CHANGE in health care coverage! WEAC has had CONTROL of teacher health care through its OWN FOR PROFIT insurance corporation & they have SCREWED (I use the term advisedly for "accuracy"!) WE THE PEOPLE - taxpayers. There are NUMEROUS very good alternatives.

I would NOT ONLY advocate that MEA and K-12 public school teachers' unions negotiate reasonable health care insurance AND move to negotiate a FREEZE of compensation in the midst of this economic "depression." (I know the official use of the term, "recession," but I also KNOW that in reality it is a "DEPRESSION" in Rock County!)

Yes, I was a long-time member of WEAC while teaching at PARKER HS, Janesville. Yes, I have been a voting & taxpaying citizen of the School District of Milton since June 1972. Yes, I was Legislative Liaison for the School District of Janesville (registered lobbyist) from October 2000 through June 2008.

I do believe that K-12 public school teachers are going to suffer a MAJOR BACKLASH from their SELF-CENTERED policies, attitudes & behaviors.

Kudos to JIM LYKE for his forthcoming blog... I agree with JIM!

So, here we go...

John

You were on a non-profit board that and couldn't control your own spending?
Think you should leave education blogs alone and go back to Fruit Loops.

I am guessing that the place you got the figure of $671,537 is from a document that the district put out to the teachers on Tuesday of this week. I had this forwarded to me by a Milton teacher after questioning them myself about those comments. What I do find interesting is that the document says "a real savings", it does not specify where this real savings will go or who would get it. (If you see it in your copy of it let me know where.) Although, by the school boards comment it is suggested the school district would get all the savings. From what I have learned after reading about contract negotiations, I am not an expert, is that if a school district is using package costing, and the insurance premium is part of package costing, the district would not see all of this savings if any at all. So although the statement of the board is correct that there would be a savings of $671,537, I think that it is misleading as they make you to believe that they will get it all.

Just a thought.

Whoever says that public education has to be the "best" education?

What's to say that public education is to educate people to a certain level for a certain dollar amount that taxpayers agree to, and if someone wants their kid to have the best. Then enroll them in private education.

Might not be the best or most popular answer, but it maybe a solution worth exploring.

The state legislature is putting almost every school board in a tough spot. The state needs to lessen the burden on all 426 school districts. The average property tax payer has been squeezed more than a roll of Charmin. The state needs to prioritize.

There are two issues that are paralyzing Wisconsin. The economy and education. Those two are the peanut butter and jelly of our existence.

What the state has done to local School Boards and school districts is glorified Finch Fighting. They take two sides that have their backs to the wall and so much to lose. They throw them in a ring full of angry citizens who are prepared to see blood.

I have a few ideas that I think will help the school funding situation. They would need to be implemented in the legislature, so there would be no immediate fix.

I am really interested in what the Milton School Board decides. Either way, the Rubicon has been crossed.

They want people to be on their "side", then they misspeak about something this important. It does take away from their credibility.

The 1st year savings when changing health insurance carriers can be a one year savings only. The new carrier bids low to get the business, then applies higher than average increases in years 2 and 3. Now, if the bid contained a limit on premium increases for a period of time, then the savings would be legitimate. I don't know if either of these situations were the case here, but point out some questions I would ask.