Comments on: Next week: elections for Oakland teacher convention

By: wdcrachel

wdcrachel — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 17:54:11 +0000

Is there any movement/energy around the teacher convention among Oakland teachers? It seems great in theory, but I’m not hearing any buzz on the ground. Hope that EO Teacher and Ms. J both get nominated and attend but wonder how it doesn’t even generate a conversation on the blog.

By: Ms. J.

Ms. J. — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 05:12:32 +0000

On another note…I hope that a lot of teachers will attend this convention and help to determine the future of the profession in Oakland. I have learned a lot from my colleagues over the years and I think the best hope for substantive teacher evaluation and professional development is the creation of a peer/mentor system such as those in other districts, notably in Tennessee and Milwaukee, where respected, experienced and effective teachers are released from some of their classroom time to spend time observing other teachers and giving them feedback, as well as being observed as master teachers themselves. I would love to be part of such a system and see how both the master teachers and the teachers being mentored could benefit and learn a great deal.

By: Ms. J.

Ms. J. — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 05:08:15 +0000

The Boss, J.R.,
Who are “the people who do the actual work”? Are you saying that the corporations and their CEOS do more actual work than the laborers? Since both of you are such experts on economics, on the world as it is, and on the free market, can you explain how a system which subsidizes business is free? How it is fair that people who are making vastly more money are taxed vastly less? And don’t say that they create jobs and help the economy all without government interference.

Take the example of the rice growers in California. Rice is a singularly inappropriate crop for the dry climate of the Central Valley, yet huge rice farms flourish there, enriching enormous agribusinesses. They can do this because they get their water subsidized by the government. And the people who “earn” most of the money there are not doing it “through the fruits of their own labor” but through the labor of underpaid, exploited workers. I don’t know if the rice growers of the Central Valley have a union, but I’m sure you think such a union would only exist in order to help those greedy farmworkers “persist on the public’s back,” don’t you?

By: J.R.

J.R. — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 23:21:35 +0000

People create jobs that create wealth, all governments can do is confiscate that wealth(taxes,fee’s,levies and licensing), and re-distribute it(sometimes for the public good, and sometimes not). Helping those in need is noble up to a point, but greed quickly takes hold and people seek to “get over” and persist on the public’s back. What should happen is that people who earn money through the fruits of their own labor and initiative should be able to keep most of it(taxes are necessary and legal up to a point).

By: The Boss

The Boss — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:23:28 +0000

Ms. J -

It has nothing to do with “deserving” — it has to do with the fact that California is in competition with other states, and ultimately the US is in competition with other countries.

Do you think Texas cares what taxes people “deserve” to pay in California? No! What Texas cares about is encouraging the high earners to move from here to there. And that’s what’s been happening in torrents for the past decade.

This is why our perspectives differ so sharply. You’re imagining how the world “should” be. I’m looking at how it is and asking how we best succeed given the environment.

Yes, ideally everyone would have enough money, food, shelter. But if we hand out money too much, that creates disincentives for people who do the actual work.

So, the question of what “should” happen — while philosophically interesting — is mostly just a distraction.

By: Ms. J.

Ms. J. — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 20:57:04 +0000

On the tax question–I don’t know the numbers so well as you seem to, Boss, but I do know my own numbers. My husband and I make $120 between us, both working full time. We have kids in preschool and we have a mortgage. We are going to owe money this year (close to $10,000 combined state and federal) despite having paid in throughout the year. We are also paying a decent amount of property tax, having bought our house when prices were a bit higher. But although I do think that the rich should pay more, and that corporations should DEFINITELY pay more, I am not saying (as you imply others are) that others should pay and I shouldn’t. It’s a bit painful, but I feel good about paying taxes to support the things that we as a society have decided we value–schools being the entities closest to my heart, but roads, public hospitals, and other safety net systems being up there as well. I really cannot get my mind around the idea that people who make $200,000 a year deserve a tax cut. We live in one of the most expensive areas of the country on much less than that and we have more than enough. It’s kind of mind boggling that our perspectives should differ so dramatically, but the notion that the people who pay taxes are being told to shove it is completely opposite to my understanding of what is happening.

By: Livegreen

Livegreen — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 20:09:40 +0000

I guess Oakland isn’t good enough to host this conference, so OUSD moved it to Emeryville. Or is OUSD moving to teach in Emeryville?

By: The Boss

The Boss — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 19:46:42 +0000

Katy -

You’re absolutely right. I apologize. What I should have said is this:

It is frustrating to those of us in California who pay lots of taxes to be lectured by those who pay none about not being generous enough. And, it also frustrates us that our voices are nearly always drowned out by those of peopled describing what is “needed.”

29% of Californians are on MediCal, compared to 17% in Texas. California pays $786 a month for welfare compared to $233 in Texas. Our schools cost $8,852 a year per pupil, which should leave plenty of money for teachers ($170k or so per 20-kid-class), but the money just seems to evaporate.

And finally we charge $790 a year for community college versus $2,490 in Texas. My opinion on that is, you got your 13 years of free school – you can get a job and pay $2,490 for community college.

Point is, California spends too much on questionable stuff and then tells the people who pay the taxes to shove it. And, that’s why people are leaving and income tax revenues have not and will not recover.

By: Katy Murphy

Katy Murphy — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 19:37:28 +0000

This blog is not a place for name-calling and personal attacks, even in the spirit of debate. Stick to the issues, please.

By: The Boss

The Boss — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 19:37:20 +0000

Here’s the link for the budget information:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17483017