What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Los Angeles County Teachers on STRIKE! (1 Viewer)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbiggs/2015/08/28/california-teacher-retirement-benefits-are-hardly-modest-but-calstrs-doesnt-want-you-to-know-that/amp/

For a true full-career employee, CalSTRS benefits are plenty generous. According to CalSTRS data, employees who worked a full career – from age 23 to age 65 – received an average annual benefit of $110,364, equal to 105% of the employee’s final salary. Almost any financial planner would call this an excessively high replacement rate, meaning that a rational employee would prefer to receive more of their compensation as salary during their working years and less in the form of a retirement package.

 
Here is an op-Ed laying out the teachers’ justifications for the strike: 

https://www.latimes.com/

I read it...and, as on so many other issues these days, I’m not sure. I think there are many good issues raised. The idea that a special needs teacher would have 45 students in a classroom is unacceptable. The allocation of too many resources into charter schools is also a worthy point. 

Yet I think some of the arguments that jonessed and others have raised in this thread have merit as well. Salaries really shouldn’t be an issue. If there is no infrastructure available to decrease class size, how is the district supposed to give in to the teachers main demand? 

I know these days almost everyone chooses a tribe and it guides your views on every issue. So on this one if you’re a conservative you side with the district (and really with the taxpayers.) If you’re a liberal you side with the teachers. I’m not immune to this; I begin by being emotionally attached to the teachers and looking for ways to justify them. But again...I’m not sure. 

 
Here is an op-Ed laying out the teachers’ justifications for the strike: 

https://www.latimes.com/

I read it...and, as on so many other issues these days, I’m not sure. I think there are many good issues raised. The idea that a special needs teacher would have 45 students in a classroom is unacceptable. The allocation of too many resources into charter schools is also a worthy point. 

Yet I think some of the arguments that jonessed and others have raised in this thread have merit as well. Salaries really shouldn’t be an issue. If there is no infrastructure available to decrease class size, how is the district supposed to give in to the teachers main demand? 

I know these days almost everyone chooses a tribe and it guides your views on every issue. So on this one if you’re a conservative you side with the district (and really with the taxpayers.) If you’re a liberal you side with the teachers. I’m not immune to this; I begin by being emotionally attached to the teachers and looking for ways to justify them. But again...I’m not sure. 
That link takes you to a page with lots of stories. Which one specifically did you read regarding this? 

 
I couldn’t find it but here’s another one that makes some of the same points: 

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-strike-begin-01142019-story.html

One of the writer’s proposals is to close the prop.13 loophole for commercial owners. (this allows property taxes for commercial properties to have fixed very  small increases each year unless the property is reassessed due to sale or improvements.) As a commercial property manager I can say with 100%’confidence that such a move would be very bad for retail business. Rents are already through the roof in many areas and it would force large companies to pass costs onto consumers while driving small companies out of business. So I don’t think this is a good answer. 

 
The teachers kind of painted themselves into a corner on this.  They aren't going to get everything they asked for since the city can't afford it.  The City made them what looks to be a solid compromise on the outside with a 6% pay increase and promise to limit classes to 39 kids.  The teachers said no since it didn't solve the class size issue.

So how does the city solve the class size issue in a way the teachers will accept?  Hire more teachers?  That would probably come at the cost of the pay hike.  Obviously facilities can't be built over night, but there are some options to maximize the current facilities.  What if the solution to limit class sizes is to extend the school day?  Are teachers still going to want to sign off on a plan like that?

From the city's perspective, you have x amount of students and x amount of teachers. I'm sure its just a math problem for it.  On the surface the easy answer is to throw more money at the teachers and hope they accept.  Problem is that it doesn't solve the problem and shows the holdout was a lot about the money.

 
Is that right about limiting classes to 39 kids?  I thought Alabama had crowding issues.  No wonder the district has problems.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is that right about limiting classes to 39 kids?  I thought Alabama had crowding issues.  No wonder the district has problems.
There are state laws on class sizes as well.  39 would really only apply to HS.  I believe the grade and middle school maxes are all in the low 30’s.

 
LAUSD policy is 30 for Kindergarten, 32 for 1-3, 39 for 4-6, 42 for middle school and up. 

https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/123/11_District Class Size Intro and Table 06-05-2017.pdf
If our country got it's priority straight and cut these "norms" way down, success would go through the roof within a few years. Studies prove smaller class sizes benefit the student greatly. Any class should be capped at 30, tops. That is where I'd start and, hopefully, work down towards ~24ish.

 
Max Power said:
The teachers kind of painted themselves into a corner on this.  They aren't going to get everything they asked for since the city can't afford it.  The City made them what looks to be a solid compromise on the outside with a 6% pay increase and promise to limit classes to 39 kids.  The teachers said no since it didn't solve the class size issue.

So how does the city solve the class size issue in a way the teachers will accept?  Hire more teachers?  That would probably come at the cost of the pay hike.  Obviously facilities can't be built over night, but there are some options to maximize the current facilities.  What if the solution to limit class sizes is to extend the school day?  Are teachers still going to want to sign off on a plan like that?

From the city's perspective, you have x amount of students and x amount of teachers. I'm sure its just a math problem for it.  On the surface the easy answer is to throw more money at the teachers and hope they accept.  Problem is that it doesn't solve the problem and shows the holdout was a lot about the money.
“The City”? What the hell are you talking about?  The “city” of Los Angeles?

 
If our country got it's priority straight and cut these "norms" way down, success would go through the roof within a few years. Studies prove smaller class sizes benefit the student greatly. Any class should be capped at 30, tops. That is where I'd start and, hopefully, work down towards ~24ish.
Has chicago seen through the roof success? In a few years i would think that should provide some solid data points. 

 
If our country got it's priority straight and cut these "norms" way down, success would go through the roof within a few years. Studies prove smaller class sizes benefit the student greatly. Any class should be capped at 30, tops. That is where I'd start and, hopefully, work down towards ~24ish.
30 is a start but it is still too many.

 
Da Guru said:
30 is a start but it is still too many.
I agree 30 is still too much but it’d be a start. Attendance issues will bring that 30 down on a daily basis, unfortunately, but to cap at 30 will be a great start to where we are currently at. I’d love a classroom with 100% attendance capped at 24, but others don’t see the benefit in that. 

 
LOL it was about the money all along.  Way to use the kids to get a raise.
Not sure how you reached that conclusion. It ended up being a 6% raise, which was agreed to before they went on strike. In addition they lost about half  of that increase in the first year by striking. 

If it was about money it was a pretty futile effort...

 
Not sure how you reached that conclusion. It ended up being a 6% raise, which was agreed to before they went on strike. In addition they lost about half  of that increase in the first year by striking. 

If it was about money it was a pretty futile effort...
And the article also mentions the decrease in class size, adding librarians...and so on. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top