<p>This is getting dangerously into POLITICAL ground.</p>
<p>Edit - you can actually discuss this as long as it is limited to schools/education!</p>
<p>Well, they’re not necessarily teachers are they?. They’re part time school employees. Classroom aides, Subs. Yard duties. Office staff. These are part-time employees. So, they’ll probably just get less hours and they may not like it.</p>
<p>A substitute teacher is not a teacher?</p>
<p>A substitute teacher is not a full-time employee. Some would like full time employment but can’t find it so they sign up to be occasional subs. Some have other interests but have the credential and go in when the phone rings if they are available. They actually like it that way. </p>
<p>The kids will tell you they don’t actually do much teaching as a rule but that’s another issue. I know some awesome subs and mean no disrespect.</p>
<p>But, it’s extra money, not a full-time job.</p>
<p>Per Flossy:
</p>
<p>Per the article:
</p>
<p>First off, over here in the common sense revolution, folks working MORE than 30 hours are not REALLY “part-time” in my books. Maybe “most-time” or “3/4-time” ;)</p>
<p>Some countries have RULES about these things 
Madcap, I know!</p>
<p>Second of all, if you have to use a substitute teacher more than 30 hours a week for a protracted time, why WOULDN’T they be getting benefits.</p>
<p>And how little are “five reading teachers” earning that the benefits of a substitute would mean they’d be cut?</p>
<p>And don’t ALL teachers read? Aren’t they all “reading teachers” – or can CT only afford the illiterate kind? ;)</p>
<p>Okay, just being silly, but really, the CT Ed dude is patently ridiculous.</p>
<p>There are some real substitutes and some who just man the class. The real substitutes teach the class and cover for a missing teacher for like at least a week or more.</p>
<p>Still, the logical solution is to keep them under 30 hours. That is the most likely consequence.</p>
<p>That link is a few days old. A similar link posted at that time was going to be the original absurd post of the day. ;)</p>
<p>I guess I will give the NY Times a bad time today. How many part timers are we talking about? Teachers and other school employees?
Hiw large is Connecticut’a reserve? Budget surplus in 2013? Projected in 2014?</p>
<p>I would to know these things so I can see if this really is an issue.
Ct has a pretty good surplus. ;)</p>
<p>Are school districts in CT run by the State?</p>
<p>I dont know. I would like to know how school dustricts are funded. Good questiion.</p>
<p>How are school districts funded in Texas?</p>
<p>Aren’t part timers in the school system still union employees? If so, wonder why they wouldn’t be bargaining for their health care benefits? I really have no idea, I’m just asking the question. But if they were not union employees, that would make perfect sense why the unions would not bargain for them, as they only look after their members.</p>
<p>To add, some of these school systems that cry they don’t have enough money, have as many administrators as teachers. That whole system of having huge numbers of people “administrating” is very expensive and makes little sense to me.</p>
<p>^ No. Most of a district’s budget is from local property taxes, but every district probably gets some funding from the state. . </p>
<p>People on CC who work for companies with less than 100 employees (not necessarily excluding larger companies) will probably experience significant premium increases in 2015 because of Obamacare. Some companies (particularly those under 50 employees) may choose to discontinue health insurance.</p>
<p><a href=“The Next Shoe To Drop: Obamacare Will Increase The Cost Of Employer-Sponsored Insurance”>http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/02/25/the-next-shoe-to-drop-obamacare-will-increase-the-cost-of-employer-sponsored-insurance/</a></p>
<p>Texas funding comes from local taxes at 2/3rd and state money for the rest.</p>
<p>Enilybee, what does Ct do with the disparity of wealth issue between districts?</p>
<p>Is that where the state steps in?</p>
<p>I dont really expect anybody to read thiis. I am going to try and read this later. 
Hard to read while working out on an elliptical. :)</p>
<p>It is a little dated but I think things havent changed much. </p>
<p>In the wealthier communities the locals donate o the local school districts.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2009/090202_SFF_HowSchoolsGetTheirMoney.pdf”>http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2009/090202_SFF_HowSchoolsGetTheirMoney.pdf</a></p>
<p>Texaspg, thanks. </p>
<p>Now i have to read the above link to compare ratios. </p>
<p>We do have a Robinhood program in Texas but I don’t pay attention to how it actually works other than know some wealthier districts will get money taken from them.</p>
<p>dstark, I assume CT uses a formula like NYS does, to determine % of aid to districts. Poorer districts usually get more state aid, but wealthy districts also get state ed money. I don’t know if districts get fed money - I think that goes directly to the state to distribute - except, I think, school lunch program money goes directly from the fed to districts. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may be true in practice, but that should not be true as policy and certainly shouldn’t be offered as a reason for denying benefits to the substitute teacher.</p>
<p>Every child in every classroom is entitled to have a real teacher in class, every day – not a babysitter. </p>
<p>Obviously there are times when due to unexpected illness, regular teachers have not prepared lesson plans for the sub, and the sub may arrive with little preparation. But that doesn’t absolve the substitute of teaching responsibility. </p>
<p>Texaspg, even with the Robin Hood policy, the wealthier districts do end up with more funding? I told you. My daughter may end up in Texas. :)</p>
<p>We had the Oprah Winfrey approach where I lived. The local community raised extra money. </p>
<p>“Everybody gets an Ipad,” 
</p>
<p>80 percent of the population already had two at home . :)</p>