National Insurance comapny's

[JDgreen227]

Ya know JD, I asked a buddy of mine with no kids that same question years ago. His reply was that he didn't mind because (theoretically!) the kids would get educated and become productive members of society, which benefits everyone. Rather than deliquents, drug addicts, and thieves. Now w/o getting political, some schools are better than others at that task. As always, YMMV.



.

Yes....his viewpoint ASSUMES the tax dollars he pays for education WILL result in educated, productive young adults, but no doubt much of what he pays will simply be wasted on students who don't want to learn, or on athletics that have no benefit toward a grade, or perhaps just toward teacher and administrator salaries and benefits. Very hard to calculate just how much of his tax dollars are actually used toward the REAL purpose of schools. My ex-in laws are in their early 80's and their only income is from Social Security...their last child graduated from the school system over 40 years ago, yet they still have to pay taxes to support the local school district. NOW, don't you feel people their age deserve a break? I certainly do.

 

[Bird]

Yes....his viewpoint ASSUMES the tax dollars he pays for education WILL result in educated, productive young adults, but no doubt much of what he pays will simply be wasted on students who don't want to learn, or on athletics that have no benefit toward a grade, or perhaps just toward teacher and administrator salaries and benefits. Very hard to calculate just how much of his tax dollars are actually used toward the REAL purpose of schools. My ex-in laws are in their early 80's and their only income is from Social Security...their last child graduated from the school system over 40 years ago, yet they still have to pay taxes to support the local school district. NOW, don't you feel people their age deserve a break? I certainly do.

But they DID send some kids to school in the past, and some other people paid part of the cost, so now they're doing the same for others. Isn't that true?

In Texas, us old folks get a break to some extent. A "homestead" exemption can help anyone a little bit by reducing the taxable value. A "Homestead over 65" can reduce the taxable value a little more. And then if you buy a home, you pay the tax rates of that time, but then the school taxes (not the city and county; only the school taxes) are frozen at that amount. It may not be a lot, but can save a little. In fact, I just looked at the current rates, and my school taxes being frozen is saving me $170.26 this year. That doesn't sound like a lot, but since I save that every year, and the amount saved will be even greater if they ever raise school taxes, it helps.

 

[JDgreen227]

But they DID send some kids to school in the past, and some other people paid part of the cost, so now they're doing the same for others. Isn't that true?

In Texas, us old folks get a break to some extent. A "homestead" exemption can help anyone a little bit by reducing the taxable value. A "Homestead over 65" can reduce the taxable value a little more. And then if you buy a home, you pay the tax rates of that time, but then the school taxes (not the city and county; only the school taxes) are frozen at that amount. It may not be a lot, but can save a little. In fact, I just looked at the current rates, and my school taxes being frozen is saving me $170.26 this year. That doesn't sound like a lot, but since I save that every year, and the amount saved will be even greater if they ever raise school taxes, it helps.

Yes, my ex-in laws sent 5 children thru the local school system, and others helped pay for that. HOWEVER, people like my ex-wife and I were unable to have kids, which means we NEVER got any benefit out of the school system we were mandated to pay for. As far as a "homestead" exemption goes here in Michigan, I am not sure if you have to be over 65 or not, but my household income will always be too high for me to qualify for any credit on my state income tax.

 

[Bird]

Yes, my ex-in laws sent 5 children thru the local school system, and others helped pay for that. HOWEVER, people like my ex-wife and I were unable to have kids, which means we NEVER got any benefit out of the school system we were mandated to pay for. As far as a "homestead" exemption goes here in Michigan, I am not sure if you have to be over 65 or not, but my household income will always be too high for me to qualify for any credit on my state income tax.

When I talk about a "homestead exemption", which is what they call it, I'm talking about exempting part of the value of your property from the property tax. In other words, I pay the same property tax rates as anyone else, but my city "exempts" $20k of the value so I'm paying property tax on $20k less than the appraised value of the property. The county gives me a $55k exemption, and the school would be giving me a $25k exemption if the school taxes were not frozen.

And I don't have to worry about any credit on my state income tax, since Texas doesn't have a state income tax . . . YET.:laughing: But probably some day.

 

[JDgreen227]

Bird, thank you for the clarifications. Michigan allows a refundable credit on state income taxes depending on the amount of property tax you pay vs. your household income. That is what they call the "Homestead exemption" here. Appreciate you telling us how it works in Texas.

 

[dave1949]

Ohio, at least in Wood County, gives the option of paying property taxes by the half or in full, the amount is the same which ever way you choose. Maine is like Bird in TX, it's all due and there is stiff interest on the unpaid amount. Both states have the Homestead Exemption if it is occupied by the property owner.

I don't get the argument that not having children should exempt one from supporting public education. Presumably, the public paid to educate JD and many others without children. When voters are willing to redefine the schools' "mission" to what it used to be, they will pay less taxes. I don't think that is political.

If you compare teacher's salaries, you need to compare them to other like-educated professionals, not just the community at large. Teachers usually end up with Master's Degrees plus continuing class hours to remain certified. Compare their lifetime compensation with others that have invested that much in education and worked in the same profession for many years. I think you will find they are not paid all that much by comparison. If they truly were paid as well, we would have better teachers, I hate to make that generalization because it is unfair to many fine and dedicated teachers, but think it has some truth.

All that is not to say we shouldn't have high expectations of the education system.

 

[Pops15]

If you compare teacher's salaries, you need to compare them to other like-educated professionals, not just the community at large. Teachers usually end up with Master's Degrees plus continuing class hours to remain certified. Compare their lifetime compensation with others that have invested that much in education and worked in the same profession for many years. I think you will find they are not paid all that much by comparison.

That is true in some areas but not in all areas, and certainly not around here.
I'm not sure that continuing education or higher pay brings in better teachers. Some of the best teachers I had were early in their careers.

 

[dave1949]

That is true in some areas but not in all areas, and certainly not around here.
I'm not sure that continuing education or higher pay brings in better teachers. Some of the best teachers I had were early in their careers.

I made a generalization about the pay, I'm sure there are locales where that description doesn't fit, but just guessing, I think it is generally true.

As to relative pay with other college graduates, consider that a math/science major in education (at least used to) take a reasonably bright person to pass the required curriculum. Those students could have become engineering majors of some flavor or other and earned a whole lot more from the get go. That is one issue with retaining talented teachers, many drop out of the profession within 5 years - I did, and part of the reason was purely economic. Those who stay fall into two camps: they receive great personal rewards from working with children, or, their choices are limited by their ability to work elsewhere. I think that is a sad reality. We want ALL the teachers to be there because they take pride in the learning and development of children, know their subject matter, and are successful.

We have to be willing to pay for talent and dedication if teaching is going to compete for talent with other professions. The problem seems to be how to sort out the talented and dedicated from the warm bodies. Also, most under-performing educators truly do not understand their own shortcomings, so it isn't really an issue of "skating" along.

I think the role of unions in education should be to protect intellectual freedom more than pure job security. Teachers need to be protected from administrators and school boards who will want to dictate methods and materials that may or may not be valid, or in the best interest of the community. We will not attract teachers with the required intellectual capacity to jobs where that ability is muzzled.

 

[aczlan]

As to relative pay with other college graduates, consider that a math/science major in education (at least used to) take a reasonably bright person to pass the required curriculum. Those students could have become engineering majors of some flavor or other and earned a whole lot more from the get go.

Most teachers I know weren't Science/Math majors, they were Liberal Arts majors and would not have stood a chance in a engineering program.

We have to be willing to pay for talent and dedication if teaching is going to compete for talent with other professions. The problem seems to be how to sort out the talented and dedicated from the warm bodies. Also, most under-performing educators truly do not understand their own shortcomings, so it isn't really an issue of "skating" along.

I agree.

I think the role of unions in education should be to protect intellectual freedom more than pure job security. Teachers need to be protected from administrators and school boards who will want to dictate methods and materials that may or may not be valid, or in the best interest of the community. We will not attract teachers with the required intellectual capacity to jobs where that ability is muzzled.

Not sure I agree. What kind of "methods and materials" are you thinking of? IMO, teaching should be consistent across a school district so as to reduce duplication of effort and/or confusion when kids change from one class to the next.

Aaron Z

 

[dave1949]

Most teachers I know weren't Science/Math majors, they were Liberal Arts majors and would not have stood a chance in a engineering program.


Not sure I agree. What kind of "methods and materials" are you thinking of? IMO, teaching should be consistent across a school district so as to reduce duplication of effort and/or confusion when kids change from one class to the next.

Aaron Z

There is a perennial shortage of math and science teachers. I picked those fields to illustrate my point. Most college students would not stand a chance in any rigorous engineering program, so teachers are no different in that regard. What we want teachers to know, in addition to subject matter, is the science of how learning takes place, teaching methods that recognize that science, some basic understanding of psychology, and a good grounding in sociology. I bet most engineering majors would not be interested in those things.


On pay scales, teachers are generally paid based on degrees earned, credit hours toward or beyond a degree, and longevity. Generally, no distinction is made for subject matter. The Athletic Director of a large school often makes more than the teachers, for an example of community priorities.

On materials, if a biology teacher was prohibited from teaching evolution, how is that going to work out? No matter your personal view, you have to see that as an artificial limiting of education and knowledge. If a history teacher cannot include some of the things omitted from standard texts, a text the teacher has to use and often had no input in its selection, we are not rewarding expertise and depth of knowledge. You cannot put smart people in a little box and expect good things. Businesses don't do that. I agree there has to be some consistency in a core curriculum, but using up all of a teacher's class time to meet that core is ignoring what they as individuals can bring to the table.

On methods, the cheating scandals around standardized testing speak for themselves. Teaching to a test is not a valid method, capable teachers know that but certainly aren't going to be given the leeway to opt out of the nonsense. No, instead we reward those who do not value intellectual integrity and cheat to succeed.

Two important things teachers can inspire in students is a thirst for knowledge and improving a student's ability to learn. Those are difficult or impossible to measure by testing, but they are crucial for the student.