Senate Bill 5846 would allow teachers who want to retire before age 65 to get $250 a month over the next three years to help pay for health-insurance coverage until they can qualify for Medicare.
"Looming health-care costs for retiring teachers not only keep the highest paid teachers on the payroll who would otherwise exit the system, they create roadblocks for younger teachers eager to get their start in the classroom," Brown, D-Spokane, said in a statement.Health care costs for ALL older workers generally go up so why teachers?
Brown said the measure is aimed at teachers within three years of retirement. She expects some, if not all, of the cost would be offset because the teachers leaving would be among the higher paid in the state due to their education and experience.
A full analysis has not been done yet projecting costs and potential savings.What? Why is she sponsoring a bill that she hasn't done a full analysis on?
Here are some numbers:
Most teachers with at least 16 years of experience earn more than $57,000 a year, according to Brown's office. In comparison, a new teacher with a bachelor's degree starts out at a little over $34,000. Reducing the number of teachers making bigger salaries could lower overall education costs.
Senator Brown's rationale?
Most teachers with at least 16 years of experience earn more than $57,000 a year, according to Brown's office. In comparison, a new teacher with a bachelor's degree starts out at a little over $34,000. Reducing the number of teachers making bigger salaries could lower overall education costs
"The prime motivation is not just fiscal, but to recognize we have teachers who have dedicated decades of service to students and may have some health issues or be in a place where they are ready to move on into retirement and this could give them the opportunity to do that," Brown said in an interview."Younger teachers will have a little more space in the system, so it's a win-win from that perspective."
Okay, this might be good for some teachers on the fence about retiring. And yes, younger teachers cost less. But saying older teachers create "roadblocks"? And how old is "old"? Shouldn't legislators have term limits if it's a good idea for teachers?
There are absolutely some older teachers just putting in the time but there are also young teachers who absolutely don't seem to know what they are doing (Michelle Rhee put tape over a couple of kids' mouths in a desperate attempt at classroom management.) A good teacher is a good teacher.
Here's what the comments after the story said:
I really support union rights and senority, but these older teachers really aren't very good. I can't support terminating them because it will upset the unions. Let's pay them off so they will just leave and make room for the better younger teachers.
If old teachers are as worthless as Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown and Paul Rosier, executive director of the Washington Association of School Administrators, say they are, why don't we force them to find a new occupation at age 40?
Needless to say, older teachers should view this with skepticism, given the state's proven willingness to break financial promises to teachers.
National Board Certification stipends? Gone.
Voter-approved cost of living raises? Dumped.
Root out all the most experienced teachers just because they cost more and we will essentially root out many of the best teachers because of their experience and have a bunch of inexperienced teachers running every school. Age alone does not make a bad teacher.
One learns to do (anything) by doing! The older, experienced teachers are generally the best. Those who are not performing can be district-evaluated and retired.