oldschool2

[Hidden Content]

I know that.. Originally I wasn't aware that they didn't move. That's a no-brainer denial. Apartment complexes are truly the answer to the question of "can we stop kids from transferring?". It's no..no you can't. But in this case it was an easy decision from the state committee.

I don't see how this is still a conversation. I read an article that said the kid's parent/caregiver didn't move into the school district he's trying to transfer to. That is literally close to zero chance of being approved.. and literally the reason why the UIL rule states that a kid has to sit a year if their guardian doesn't actually change/move their permanent residence to one that's in the new school's district. It's a little ridiculous that anyone thought this would fly. "We still live in the same place but I want to change school's because of academic reasons and to improve my quality of life.." Umm.. yeah that doesn't work. Whether it's true or not, it won't work. Only way it could've maybe had a remote chance would've been if the mom/dad/whoever legally gave up guardianship rights of the kid. Even then probably not happening.

I really don't mean to interject..but...what? When exactly was anything about race mentioned before you brought it up? I'm just trying to keep up.

The system that is in place now is truly the best way to go about it. If a kid transfers to another school district but changes their permanent residence to that of which is in the new school district, they sit 15 calendar days. I think the address change should be proven (mail, bills, etc) and possibly investigated but still best policy. If a student transfers but doesn't change permanent address they sit a calendar year. Of course there are holes but that is undoubtedly the best policy. Apartment complexes have opened the flood gates for bigger school transfers but it is what it is. You can't stop a parent from moving.

So what do you suggest? Make every single kid in the state just sit out a year when they transfer?.. There are some actual legitimate transfers ya know.

Ummm... pretty sure I remember some recent stories about some kids transferring to EC after beginning high school somewhere else.

I'm pretty sure there's a rule to prevent such a silly notion. Something about having to sit out of varsity athletics for 15 days if you move into a school district to which you are transferring to. And sitting once calendar year if you do not move into the school district. Come on now.. Nobody can control when a kid moves their permanent address.

From what I hear.. there’s a lot more to it than that.

Actually.. I say that like they’re a two time defending champion who lost 5 kids to D1 programs (or however many). I think that if you think they’ll be as good then you might be a little bit naive. How come WOS didn’t win it last year? They had the same head coach.. maybe because of the talent they graduated? Im not saying they won’t be good...but... I’ve seen 3A and smaller teams lose ONE D1 caliber kid and go from a state contender to a team struggling to make the playoffs.

In my opinion: Anyone who thinks Newton won’t be noticeably worse after losing all of those college caliber kids is just...well...wrong.

I agree about 1-2 years.

So I have some questions...how many games will MV win now? How deep will they go? How long will he stay? I’m curious to see how wrong the predictions will be. Like so many other schools after hiring a great coach.

I’m literally confused.

Losing 5 seniors do D1 school will also matter. I've seen 3A or smaller schools lose just one and go from a state contender to a team struggling to make the playoffs. I know.. I know.. Newton probably has a ton of talent back like always. But losing that many seniors of that athletic caliber will matter a ton.

The capitalist ideal that you can place on a public school is that if you aren't happy with the salary of the current school you work in then you can go to another public school. Since they all have different funding and a different tax base they all pay different salaries to their employees. I know their funding is dependent on taxes... I explained in a previous post why going to a small school board and asking for more money wouldn't be good.

Great point..but to be fair. 40-45 hours of that 80.5 hour week those football coaches are being paid to teach. Point remains but if we're getting technical that should be adjusted for.

There is no doubt about this one bit. In fact, this probably makes up the common core of the average small school board that the pitch would be made to. A group of school board members that just wouldn't understand the need/want for a teacher salary comparable to a teacher in an inner-city area or even community with a large tax base. As which I'm sure is the case for most schools the size of West Hardin that isn't just sitting on a pile of tax dollars via industry or natural resources. Which is probably almost every small school in the state. But...like I said. The teachers could easily go to another school is they're willing to trade small class sizes for large ones over an extra $10K or so. I would imagine that is the reason the options I gave earlier aren't considered by the teachers here or anywhere else that make this amount of money. They probably don't want to leave because of the current conditions of their classroom and they probably don't want to complain too much out of fear that the only option for a substantial pay increase (because of tax money within the district) is to have fewer teachers...which would, in turn, increase the numbers in a class.

Two things: Not all teachers fit the description you give. I know plenty who show up early and stay late. I know plenty who put in more time/days than however many their contract says they have to work because I have a lot of friends/family who teach/coach and several of them have a spouse that teach/coach. The main difference is that when/if a teacher puts more time in they aren't compensated for it. A great teacher makes the same as a bad teacher. You probably are compensated for extra time. Otherwise, I doubt you'd go. I know I don't. Second.. you did hire the teachers at your school. You voted for the school board members that hired the administrators that requested the hire of the teachers.

You can... in terms of a public school salary because they're not all the same. So. If West Hardin teachers aren't satisfied with the salary that they are receiving at the West Hardin public school then they actually have options. They can: 1. Keep complaining about their salary yet go to work every day for that salary anyway. 2. Stop going to work and refuse to work at West Hardin public school until the school either replace them or is forced to figure out a way to pay more money if it can't hire more teachers. 3. Apply and go to work for a different public school that pays more money. Same is true for class size.. not happy with the number of kids you have in class? See above options ^. Not happy with the school contribution to benefits? Above options ^.

Actually, it's not our or anyone else's opinion concerning the salaries of teacher, doctors, oil field workers or anyone else. We live in a capitalist economy where supply/demand drives everything. The demand for medical field employees is much higher so they get paid more. Just like their services cost more. As long as there are teachers willing to work for 40K/year then that's what they will get paid. Maybe teachers should just walk away or refuse to work and then we'll see how important an education really is. Or not. It's whatever to me.. I also know a lot of teachers that are perfectly happy with how much they get paid. We are, in fact, talking about the salary at West Hardin. Other schools pay a lot more so teachers could go to work somewhere else.

I'm definitely not saying you're wrong. There wouldn't be doctors without teachers...but should teachers make more money than doctors? In my opinion, no.

To be fair... working 6 months of out of the year in an environment where there are literally potential life-threatening explosions for 12 hour days doing back-breaking labor is probably worth three times more. At least.

You aren't understanding my point that a teacher making $40K/yr is more than likely not supporting an entire family (spouse/kid(s)) with that salary alone? I won't waste my time explaining any simpler than that...I don't think I could anyway.

"Eyes rolled"