[link] Under a relentless drizzle of cold rain, 32,000 Los Angeles educators walked off the job Monday in the country`s second-biggest school district. That means about 600,000 kids have no... Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
My Journal
Quests. | Journs. | Gen. | News | Quiz | Links | TV | Music | Movies | Games | Sports | Sug. | Lit. | Jokes | Artcls. | Newb | O.S.
Los Angeles teachers' union strikes over class size, school funding

Back to Thread List
Bottom Last Post

1 month ago - Monday 1/14/19 - 1:04:43 PM EST (GMT-5)

Under a relentless drizzle of cold rain, 32,000 Los Angeles educators walked off the job Monday in the country's second-biggest school district.

That means about 600,000 kids have no idea when they'll see their teachers again.

Weeks of heated negotiations between the United Teachers Los Angeles union and the Los Angeles Unified School District went nowhere, leading to the city's first teachers' strike in 30 years.

But this strike isn't focused on teachers' salaries.

"It's absolutely not the pay raise. It's about class size reduction. In other words, hire more teachers," said Andrea Cohen, who's taught at John Marshall High School for 24 years.
1 month ago - Monday 1/14/19 - 1:05:04 PM EST (GMT-5)
We want to have fully staffed schools. That means librarians, nurses, psychiatric social workers and their interns. We have 46, 45, 50 students in a class. It's unacceptable."
1 month ago - Monday 1/14/19 - 3:15:15 PM EST (GMT-5)
there seems to be absolute chaos once you go over 30 students. my wife's current english class is 28 students and that's still a handful. i agree that they should hire more teachers if it's getting to 50 students in a classroom.
1 month ago - Monday 1/14/19 - 6:28:58 PM EST (GMT-5)
The only 30+ class I had (before college) was band. I think the non-audition choir was also bigger. But those are somewhat different, in that the entire point of the class is a cooperative effort where everyone works together toward the same goals. Even then, band classes in the lower grades (6-8) were often fairly chaotic (the director definitely threw his baton on MORE than one occasion *ahem* trumpet section).

Even 40 is an insane number, especially in K-5. Experienced teachers would be frazzled and frustrated by that, and a young/first-year teacher? F*cking forget it. You're setting literally everyone up for failure, students included.

The lack of support staff is another HUGE problem. A school without a school nurse is NOT a safe environment, which parents have a right to expect for their children.
1 month ago - Monday 1/14/19 - 6:32:56 PM EST (GMT-5)
...to say nothing of the facilities issues with large classes. Classrooms generally just aren't designed for that many kids, so I wonder how many of them don't even have enough room for everyone to have a desk (or enough desks, for that matter).

When we did our presentation at the local elementary school in the fall, there was one time when two classes combined due to scheduling issues. That meant 45-50 kids crammed into the music room (which is actually a trailer). That teacher is a 15+ year veteran who has excellent classroom management skills, and it was STILL insane. And all the kids barely even physically fit in the space.
1 month ago - Monday 1/14/19 - 6:36:23 PM EST (GMT-5)
Why is it this way? Where's all their money going?
1 month ago - Monday 1/14/19 - 6:43:20 PM EST (GMT-5)

1 month ago - Monday 1/14/19 - 6:52:58 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Monday 1/14/19 - 6:36:23 PM CuckingFunt wrote:
Why is it this way? Where's all their money going?

Part of the problem is with the property tax system in the county.

In the '70s, they passed Prop 13, which severely limited the amount of property taxes as a % of value. It ALSO allowed property to never be reassessed, unless it was sold (or newly constructed). So there are people who've been living in L.A. county since the '70s, who pay unbelievably low tax rates on their property because the rate is only subject to an inflation-level increase AND they're paying tax on the *dollar value of the property from the 1970s*.

If you think that sounds batsh*t f*cking insane, you're right. And it also applies equally to ALL property, including businesses. It is in.SANE.
1 month ago - Monday 1/14/19 - 6:56:31 PM EST (GMT-5)
Never reassessed? What the actual f*cking f*ck?
1 month ago - Monday 1/14/19 - 7:03:56 PM EST (GMT-5)
Right. So if you live in a house that was worth $150k in 1979 when you bought it, and now it's worth $600k, and you've never moved/sold it to someone else, you're still paying taxes based on the $150k value.

Prop 13 also made it suuuuper hard to make any changes to this, btw. Can't do it by simple majority—it takes a 2/3 majority instead.
1 month ago - Monday 1/14/19 - 7:04:07 PM EST (GMT-5)
Well in the UK the property values are set at something like 1990 levels but the actual tax goes up by as much as the council needs but their budget is capped by the Government. You can pay 175% tax on your 1980 value house. If you buy a new house it doesn't get reassessed that's hopelessly inefficient when you have 300 of the exact same houses in one street.

You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Back to Thread List