Figuring out how teachers are really paid
To the editor:
In response to Cindy Johnivan's Monday letter ("Do teachers really not make enough?"): I respectfully would put forth that her underlying premise is flawed.
Teaching is, in many ways, a performance-related occupation, in that the visible part of the profession occurs during the school day in a classroom. But that's not all that is entailed.
By Ms. Johnivan's premise, professional football players should only be paid for the three hours times 16 games per year that they play; trial attorneys only for the actual hours spent in front of a judge or jury. We know that those professions require a great deal of preparation, and society rewards them for all that is entailed, not just the "performance" portion.
Teachers don't just roll out of bed, drive to school, teach a few hours and leave. They don't just "check out" for the summer and do nothing until the fall. A lot of planning and preparation must occur outside of the actual school day. Similar to an attorney preparing for a trial, a teacher is doing research, acquiring additional knowledge, preparing a presentation, creating visuals, timing the lesson, etc.
Once the presentation is completed, there is additional time spent working with students as they apply the concepts presented, testing, creating meaningful class work and homework assignments, grading them and posting those grades in legal documents kept for school records. The paperwork is increasingly burdensome.
Most teachers I know find ways to raise funds to allow them to spend all or part of their summers in classes, living in college dorms and attending classes all day long, some traveling to other countries, not to sight-see, but to observe, learn and teach.
In addition, teachers are required to attend after-school meetings, training and parent conferences, which may be why her daughter was unable to find her teacher. If she asks for assistance, the teacher will let her know what day would be best to come in after school.
Additionally, although the "median" income is in the low $50,000s, the majority of our teaching force has not been here long enough to attain that salary. Most of our workforce has been here fewer than 10 years; for those of us who have been here longer, there have been no raises for the past four years. The younger ones usually work a second job to make ends meet.
I understand that we should be grateful to even have jobs, and we are, but the public needs to know that even in the "boom years" of the last decade, teachers have not been given cost of living raises, and programs have not been reinstated. In general, education has not been funded properly.
Not one teacher I am acquainted with got into the profession for the money; but it would be nice if we were able to at least provide for our own children.
ELIZABETH GOODMAN
LAS VEGAS
Targeting foreclosures?
To the editor:
I purchased a foreclosed home in Logandale. Escrow closed Jan. 29, 2012, which was after the appeal period to challenge the property taxes. My taxes were assessed at twice what they should be, so I called the assistant Clark County assessor to state my case. In a nutshell, he told me the law protects them from having to do what is right.
I had an appraisal completed in January 2012 showing my property value at $255,000. However, my assessed value is $224,770 for 2012-2013 with a total taxable value of $642,200. My total taxable value is up from last year $248,337! This is just wrong. I have found more than 20 homes in the Moapa Valley area on which the assessor's office increased the property taxes for 2012-2013. If you don't cry about your taxes, the assessor can raise them without justification.
I believe the assessor's office targets foreclosed homes that it thinks will close after the appeal period. Examples that I've found are: APN No. 041-26-410-002, total assessed value up from $199,130 in 2011-2012 to $284,337 for 2012-2013; APN No. 041-34-301-011, assessed value up from $300,936 in 2011-2012 to $353,626 for 2012-2013; and APN No. 041-26-410-001, assessed value up from $141,352 for 2011-2012 to $224,770 for 2012-2013 - this is my property.
Why can't the county assessor's office just be honest?
MILES ADAMS
LOGANDALE
Who votes based on race?
To the editor:
I was appalled by your Monday article, "Racial bias charges permeate discussion of Obama criticism."
Susan Glisson, director of the Institute for Racial Reconciliation, suggests most of the white population and people of other backgrounds have "prejudices that people don't realize they have" and a "fear of blacks is imbedded in our culture." If true, it wouldn't be so sad, had she included the fact that the black population has these same prejudices and fears over not only white people but their own race (just ask the Rev. Jesse Jackson). Every ethnic group in the world has prejudices and fears, but for some reason, it's taboo to say the black population does, too.
In 2008, 43 percent of the white population voted for President Obama. In 2012, this percentage probably will not change much. The article attributes this low number to racial bias. What kind of objective reporting is this? Almost half the white voters are for President Obama, as one would expect if the voting public examines the candidates based on their qualifications and not race.
In the 2008 presidential election, 96 percent of the black population voted for President Obama. In 2012, even after a dismal four years, it's estimated this number may even be higher. Did the author of this article bother to suggest racial bias here?
This is a clear indication that the black population votes on racial lines. If this is not racism, I don't know what is. If 96 percent of the white population were voting for Mr. Romney, the news media would have a field day.
Racism in any form is reprehensible and morally wrong, and the news media should be vehemently reporting this no matter who the perpetrators are.
R.J. PALYO
HENDERSON
