The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Public funds, private schools > Comments

Public funds, private schools : Comments

By Tom Greenwell, published 4/2/2011

A fair and intelligent funding system should not reward good luck in the lottery of life but seek to mitigate against bad luck.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. Page 27
  10. 28
  11. 29
  12. 30
  13. ...
  14. 43
  15. 44
  16. 45
  17. All
Vanna,

So, you know of a primary school where, “While the students are being taught by these specialised teachers, the normal teacher stands at the back of the room and does nothing.” (10:10:46 PM, 19/2) I’ve never heard of a school like this. It must be unique.

You say “that student marks have not improved in 20 years”. That is probably true. You may like to think abut the factors behind this; e.g., the improved retention rate, the decline in the ability of people going in to teaching because of the fall in salaries in relative terms (not “in real terms”).

“Paying someone according to CPI” may be “about as archaic as paying someone according to years of service”, but that does not alter the factual point about the real value of pay year after year.

You say, “Most people are now paid according to their level of skills and their productivity.” Teachers have to demonstrate a level of skill to become teachers in the first place. They have to demonstrate a higher level of skill to move up the salary scale. They have to demonstrate a higher level of skill to be promoted.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 11:41:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You always seem to be replying to something I wrote a week ago, as if you only just read it properly, which given your (non)replies is probably accurate. I mean, you just posted a reply that literally ignored the last half dozen posts calling you out, why even bother to reply at all? With friends like you, the DLP hardly needs enemies. I'm not surprised the author of this article hasn't come to defend you, it's embarrassing having to read through your rambling, irrelevant, unthinking posts.

More seriously though, your latest post has almost convinced me that your user name is an elaborate exercise in satire at the expense of the teacher's union, not to be taken seriously. Nobody else I asked seems to read it that way, nor does it seem well written enough, but I can't otherwise credit the absurdity of your replies. I mean, was that seriously your response? I asked you no fewer than 8 direct questions in the last few posts I made, and you've answered none of them, even implicitly... you don't seem that illiterate, for all your grammar hurts the eye... you're a joke account, right?
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 12:12:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Riddler,

If you go to the RBA calculator and put $11,400 (the subdivision 14 salary, not the subdivision 4 one), the year 1975 and the year 2010, you will get $68,678 as your result. However, we are looking at the CPI changes, not from 1975 to 2010, but from 1975 to 2011. The calculator itself tells you how many years its calculation has covered. In your case, it says 35 years, yet I have been talking about 36 years. The RBA calculator averages the CPI increases in each quarter of one year, then averages the CPI increases in each quarter of the following year and works out the difference. If you have taken in what I said in my earlier posts, you would realise that I am comparing January 1975 salaries with January 2011 salaries. The nearest CPI date to January 1 in any year is December 31 of the year before. So, you need to go to the quarterly calculator on the RBA site. Put in $11,400, December, 1974 (i.e., the nearest CPI date to January, 1975) and December, 2010 (i.e., the nearest CPI date to January 2011). The January, 1975 salary of $11,400 is $75,136 in January, 2011 dollars, even more than by my calculation. The RBA calculator is saying that the total CPI increase from January 1975 to January 2011 is 559.1 per cent, somewhat higher than I calculated in my earlier posts.

Now that I have RBA figures for the period I am looking at, I will now re-calculate the purchasing power of today’s teacher salaries compared with those of January, 1975.

A beginning teacher was paid $8,150 ($53,716 in today’s dollars) in 1975. A beginning teacher is paid $55,459 today. That is a real increase of $1,743 (3.2 per cent). However, the beginning teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $64,996 in 1975. A beginning teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $60,450 today. That is $4,546 (7.0 per cent) less.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 24 February 2011 12:39:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A sub-division 14 teacher (the top unpromoted sub-division, automatically reached after seven years) was paid $11,400 ($75,136 in today’s dollars) in 1975. A teacher with seven years’ experience is paid $69,946 today. That is $5,190 (6.9 per cent) less today than 36 years ago. However, a teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $90,915 in 1975. A teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $76,241 today. That is $14,764 (16.1 per cent) less.

The top unpromoted teacher salary is now $81,806 (reached after ten years and performance reviews), giving a real increase of $6,670 (8.9 per cent). However, a teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $90,915 in 1975. A teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $89,169 today. That is $1,746 (1.9 per cent) less.

A senior teacher was paid $13,025 ($85,847 in today’s dollars) in 1975. Today’s equivalent, a leading teacher, starts on $84,536. That is $1,311 (1.5 per cent) less. However, the senior teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $103,875 in 1975. A leading teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $92,144 in the first year today. That is $11,731 (11.3 per cent) less.

A leading teacher, subject to successful performance reviews, can reach $89,423 today. That is $3,576 (4.2 per cent) more. However, the senior teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $103,875 in 1975. A leading teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $97,471 on the top level today. That $6,404 (6.2 per cent) less.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 24 February 2011 12:39:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The top principal salary was $17,300 in 1975 ($114,023 in today’s dollars). However, we cannot make a direct comparison with principals’ salaries now.

The principal’s 1975 salary of $114,023 was equivalent to a salary package of $137,968. The current top principal’s salary package ranges from $143,209 to $161,470. For a principal in the Revised Scheme, the actual salary range is approximately $118,354 to $133,446. For a principal not in the Revised Scheme, the actual salary is higher as compensation.

Thus, in real terms, a principal, at the start of the top salary range is $4,331 (3.8 per cent) better off today in real salary terms than a principal on the top salary in 1975. Such a principal is $9,614 better off in real terms on the salary package measurement.

A principal on the top of the top salary range is $19,423 (17.0 per cent) better off today in real salary terms than a principal on the top salary in 1975.

Male average weekly ordinary time earnings were $132.50 in December, 1974. The RBA quarterly calculator makes that $873.30 in today’s dollars.

The ABS has released average earnings figures for November last year.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6302.0Nov%202010?OpenDocument

Male average ordinary time earnings for November, 2010, were $1356.90, $483.60 (55.4 per cent) more in real terms than the December, 1974 equivalent.

Of course, the RBA calculator could be wrong. The ABS could be wrong. My maths could also be wrong, but I’d like to seen an exact explanation of where.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 24 February 2011 12:41:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I skimmed your post, but I didn't read it. Why should I? You've deliberately ignored almost everything I've said, in order to discuss a subject that interests you, and is borderline irrelevant to the topic at hand. Answer some of the 8 questions from my last few posts and I'll be happy to reply to your lengthy rant about inflation (which I am sure ignores everything I've said about it to date), but I'm not going to bother with a serious reply to a (bad) joke account.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Thursday, 24 February 2011 3:56:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. Page 27
  10. 28
  11. 29
  12. 30
  13. ...
  14. 43
  15. 44
  16. 45
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy