• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teacher of the year is laid off.

The recession ended over 3 years ago, that doesn't mean that state and local governments aren't experiencing budget constraints. You seem to be ignoring the technical definition of Recession and substituting your own.

Or he was being sarcastic.
 
When teachers are laid off by seniority, and they get down to one who has been on the job for ten years, one must wonder whether there are enough teachers left to do the job.

I'm not sure whether I'd rather be the one laid off who has to find another job, or the one left behind who has to take up the slack while being mandated to get every child, regardless of effort, ability or learning handicap, to pass a difficult test.

I retired from teaching eight years ago now. Were I a young, fresh graduate ready to start a career, it would not be in education, not in today's climate. Our public education program is in serious trouble.

And, we can't have a democracy without an educated populace.
 
The recession ended over 3 years ago, that doesn't mean that state and local governments aren't experiencing budget constraints. You seem to be ignoring the technical definition of Recession and substituting your own.

No, the difference is that state/local gov't must balance their budgets, while the federal gov't is free to borrow as much as they allow themselves too. Obama chooses to play Santa Claus, on the public credit card, but the bill is still due. Obama points at Romney and calls him the Grinch, but Obama knows that the debt must be paid EVENTUALLY, he just wants the GOP to be in charge when the paying (tax increases/spending cuts) must be done. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Do you know the biggest reason for state budgets being so lean? The recession caused by deregulation. So yeah, it is very sad that we put Wall Street investors before the education needs in this country.

Is this a joke or have you run out of lame Obama excuses so all you could remember is blame wall street. I think you need to write to dem HQ in Chicago and get some more lines before posting!
 
Or he was being sarcastic.

Me, sarcastic? Me??

Well, maybe.

But only when someone makes an absurd statement about the recession being over. It wasn't over four years ago, not three years ago, and not now. Unemployment is up, higher than the official figures. Family income is down. Every level of government is broke. Half of the recent college graduates are either out of work, or still working low level jobs that don't require any college training. That's half of our most precious resources unutilized.

This nation is in deep doo doo, and our neighbors across the pond in Europe aren't doing any better. In a global economy such as we have currently, you have to be really adept at wishful thinking to say that the recession is over.
 
No, the difference is that state/local gov't must balance their budgets, while the federal gov't is free to borrow as much as they allow themselves too.

Obama chooses to play Santa Claus, on the public credit card, but the bill is still due. Obama points at Romney and calls him the Grinch, but Obama knows that the debt must be paid EVENTUALLY, he just wants the GOP to be in charge when the paying (tax increases/spending cuts) must be done. ;-)
I already acknowledged the existence of budget shortfalls on the local level.

Not much merit to this statement, If you haven't noticed Obama has been attempting to raise taxes for some time now, not to mention the fact that the Ryan budget isn't exactly draconian in nature. Neither of the two candidates economic policies will come close to balancing the budget or paying off the debt in the immediate future.
 
Me, sarcastic? Me??

Well, maybe.

But only when someone makes an absurd statement about the recession being over. It wasn't over four years ago, not three years ago, and not now. Unemployment is up, higher than the official figures. Family income is down. Every level of government is broke. Half of the recent college graduates are either out of work, or still working low level jobs that don't require any college training. That's half of our most precious resources unutilized.

This nation is in deep doo doo, and our neighbors across the pond in Europe aren't doing any better. In a global economy such as we have currently, you have to be really adept at wishful thinking to say that the recession is over.
Hardly an absurd statement. You'd be accurate in saying the economy is weak or in "deep doo doo", you'd be inaccurate in saying we're in a recession.

Recession Definition | Investopedia
 
I already acknowledged the existence of budget shortfalls on the local level.

Not much merit to this statement, If you haven't noticed Obama has been attempting to raise taxes for some time now, not to mention the fact that the Ryan budget isn't exactly draconian in nature. Neither of the two candidates economic policies will come close to balancing the budget or paying off the debt in the immediate future.

Oh, I agree that the Ryan plan is simply kick the can down the road and hope for a miracle, just like Obama's plan. The Ryan plan reduces the federal deficit from 40% to 35%, which is still unsustainable, but the Obama proposed tax increases leave the federal deficit at 38% which is clearly unsustainable. So we get a choice of being like Greece in either 8 years or 10 years. Not a pretty financial picture, either way.
 
Last edited:
Hardly an absurd statement. You'd be accurate in saying the economy is weak or in "deep doo doo", you'd be inaccurate in saying we're in a recession.

Recession Definition | Investopedia

From your link:

Definition of 'Recession'

A significant decline in activity across the economy, lasting longer than a few months. It is visible in industrial production, employment, real income and wholesale-retail trade. The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.

I don't need to see it occur to call it a recession either. When intelligent and educated people can't find decent jobs, that's a recession. When every level of government is broke, it's a recession. But, if you don't like the term, perhaps another could be used. Let's see, what word could we use to mean that the country is going downhill fast?

I know. Let's call it a "bobsled run."
 
Oh, I agree that the Ryan plan is simply kick the can down the road and hope for a miracle, just like Obama's plan. The Ryan plan reduces the federal deficit from 40% to 35%, which is still unsustainable, but the Obama proposed tax increases leave the federal deficit at 38% which is clearly unsustainable. So we get a choice of being like Greece in either 8 years or 10 years. Not a pretty financial picture, either way.

Face it: Neither party has a workable plan to balance the budget and get us back on track economically. The only plan either of them has is to blame the other party for the deficit, for unemployment, for every other ill that besets us. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have a plan to do more than shift the blame.
 
Oh, I agree that the Ryan plan is simply kick the can down the road and hope for a miracle, just like Obama's plan. The Ryan plan reduces the federal deficit from 40% to 35%, which is still unsustainable, but the Obama tax increase leave the federal deficit at 38% which is clearly unsustainable. So we get a choice of being like Greece in either 8 years or 10 years.[/B] Not a pretty financial picture, either way.
I see this faulty comparison far too often, our economic situation is simply not comparable to Greece, neither is the nature of our impact on Global finance. Simply put, the world can't afford not to purchase both our products and our debt at this stage.
 
Reading is for the mental, I mean, fundamental. I did say union, but in this case, it is ALSO state law personnel policy. A snipette from the OP source follows:

"The Sacramento City Unified School District has suffered approximately $143 million in budget cuts in recent years. School spokesperson Gabe Ross told News 10 that who gets laid off is mandated by state law and is based on seniority, not performance."

Now, is it clear to you, that seniority and NOT performance is the deal?
If laying people off by seniority leads to a teacher of over 10 years being fired, then the problem is the budget cut or the number of teachers they have, not seniority based firing.
 
I see this faulty comparison far too often, our economic situation is simply not comparable to Greece, neither is the nature of our impact on Global finance. Simply put, the world can't afford not to purchase both our products and our debt at this stage.

So, the US will be bailed out because it is too big to fail? Nice.
 
And? Why was she selected then? Union rules are first in, first out. So likely, the remaining teachers have over 10 years teaching time. Perfect example of why that concept is absolutely destructive. You fire the teacher of the year (assuming the criteria here means she really is a great teacher) for others who didn't make the cut. Based on her performance, she SHOULD be the most protected for these layoffs. In addition, why didn't the teachers and their union offer pay and benefits concessions to avoid these layoffs? Isn't a slight reduction of pay and bennies better than laying off in mass? Well, guess not for the teachers who have seniority.

Hmmm...maybe if they scrap that stupid high speed train that NO ONE will ride, they can save these teachers jobs. The CA budget is an overflow of waste and cut outs for the various left leaning special interest groups or their causes. The worst their fiscal house gets, the more the "obligation" to these interest groups/causes begin to conflict. This is a perfect example.
Last in, first out is a policy at most workplaces regardless of unions. Your post is just another case of people blaming unions for something that exists regardless of them. I'm also amazed at how you managed to blame budget cuts, firings and seemingly a whole host of other things on teachers and unions completely ignoring all of the other factors that go into situations like this. Brilliant.
 
Face it: Neither party has a workable plan to balance the budget and get us back on track economically. The only plan either of them has is to blame the other party for the deficit, for unemployment, for every other ill that besets us. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have a plan to do more than shift the blame.

Not true, unless you ignore, as the GOP is want to do, Ron Paul. He was the ONLY candidate in 2012 to have a REAL plan to cut the federal deficit. Cutting the federal gov't POWER and SPENDING back to the limitted federal gov't, actually defined by OUR constitution, is not popular, but IS necessary. Take education as a prime example; education is NOT a federal power, yet the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal dept. is the DOEd. The "farm" bill is 80% SNAP (food stamps) yet we do not DARE call it the "welfare" bill, as that would be politcally very unpopular. What, in the constitution, allows the federal gov't to give away food? Food, shelter and clothing are definitely needs, but they ARE NOT rights, we are expected to WORK and to provide them for ourselves. Charity is when I choose to help my neighbor in need, tyranny is when the gov't takes part of my pay, by force, and gives it to your neighbor in need. We need to get back to the basics, not to add ever more "nice" things, that we refuse to demand the taxation to actually pay for.
 
Last edited:
Not true, unless you ignore, as the GOP is want to do, Ron Paul. He was the ONLY candidate in 2012 to have a REAL plan to cut the federal deficit. Cutting the federal gov't POWER and SPENDING back to the limitted federal gov't, actually defined by OUR constitution, is not popular, but IS necessary. Take education as a prime example; education is NOT a federal power, yet the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal dept. is the DOEd. The "farm" bill is 80% SNAP (food stamps) yet we do not DARE call it the "welfare" bill, as that would be politcally very unpopular. What, in the constitution, allows the federal gov't to give away food? Food, shelter and clothing are definitely needs, but they ARE NOT rights, we are expected to WORK and to provide them for ourselves. Charity is when I choose to help my neighbor in need, tyranny is when the gov't takes part of my pay, by force, and gives it to your neighbor in need. We need to get back to the basics, not to add ever more "nice" things, that we refuse to demand the taxation to actually pay for.

You are correct that the GOP wants to ignore Ron Paul and his agenda. It is likely that they will succeed in doing so, too, since there is exactly zero chance that he will be elected.

There is little difference between the mainstream Democrats and Republicans. There is a vast gulf between either of them and the philosophy of Ron Paul.
 
If laying people off by seniority leads to a teacher of over 10 years being fired, then the problem is the budget cut or the number of teachers they have, not seniority based firing.

So, in your mind it is WISER to keep fewer, but more senior and higher paid teachers, than more lower paid teachers by using performance, rather than seniority as a basis to make the cuts? I see you now attempt to move the argument away from WHAT was done to WHY it was done, but that is a BS tactic at best. Perhaps WHY is that even if though the number of teachers (per taxpayer) remained constant that the COST of those teachers went up, faster than the tax base to support them did.
 
I wish more schools would cut athletics before academics.
 
Oh, I agree that the U.S. is FAR to big too bail, but that is MORE reason for us to get our financial act together, not LESS.
 
So, in your mind it is WISER to keep fewer, but more senior and higher paid teachers, than more lower paid teachers by using performance, rather than seniority as a basis to make the cuts?
No, that's not my argument. My argument is that either the budget cuts are ridiculous or they have too few teachers working if seniority based cutting leads to an over 10 year veteran being cut.

I see you now attempt to move the argument away from WHAT was done to WHY it was done, but that is a BS tactic at best. Perhaps WHY is that even if though the number of teachers (per taxpayer) remained constant that the COST of those teachers went up, faster than the tax base to support them did.
I'm not moving the argument anywhere. You think the problem is seniority. I don't.
 
Last in, first out is a policy at most workplaces regardless of unions. Your post is just another case of people blaming unions for something that exists regardless of them. I'm also amazed at how you managed to blame budget cuts, firings and seemingly a whole host of other things on teachers and unions completely ignoring all of the other factors that go into situations like this. Brilliant.

That is not the least bit true. At most non-union places of employment performance is the main driver in determining who may have to be laid off. Seniority will typically only come into play when all other things are equal. i.e. two people have the same performance, the individual with most seniority will stay.
 
I think we've been talking about this elsewhere, and all the teachers who were underperforming were already discharged. It wasn't like this teacher was the only one let go.


That is simply false. The only underperforming teachers who were fired are those with little to no seniority, not those with a lot of seniority. So all underperforming teachers were not fired before they fired the teacher of the year.
Sacramento
School spokesperson Gabe Ross told News 10 that who gets laid off is mandated by state law and is based on seniority, not performance.
 
Last edited:
That is not the least bit true. At most non-union places of employment performance is the main driver in determining who may have to be laid off. Seniority will typically only come into play when all other things are equal. i.e. two people have the same performance, the individual with most seniority will stay.
I might have overstated by saying "most," but seniority based layoffs are quite common in non-union offices in both the public and private sector. LIFO is a legally solid policy that requires little to no explanation which makes it pretty ideal. LIFO is pretty damn common.
 
I wish more schools would cut athletics before academics.

Make the athletic programs pay for themselves, get rid of the layers of bureaucracy, and there would still be plenty of money to run the classrooms without laying off teachers and increasing class sizes.

Hold students, parents, and teachers accountable for progress, and a lot more learning would take place.

Get rid of the test driven curriculum, substitute a student centered curriculum, and a lot fewer students would be failing.

Make the federal government either put an end to illegal immigration, or pay for the education of children of illegals who have no education and don't speak English, and we'd lift a huge burden off of the schools, particularly the rural schools.

Wishes, just wishes. If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
 
I might have overstated by saying "most," but seniority based layoffs are quite common in non-union offices in both the public and private sector. LIFO is a legally solid policy that requires little to no explanation which makes it pretty ideal. LIFO is pretty damn common.

Do you have any data reflecting this? At every non-union job I have had, layoffs were determined by business need first. Then within each business unit performance was first followed by time of service.
 
Back
Top Bottom