Early retirements for teachers

[Still a Democrat]

Had a discussion with a repug (actaully a decent guy) this morning, and we were discussing Snyder, school budgets etc. He asked why we defend early retirements for teachers if more experienced teachers are better? I countered it was done to save money (new teachers on the low end make less) but he asked if that wouldn't compromise the quality of teachers. Also stated early retirements are ongoing practice, not just used in hard economic times.

What say ye? Are early retirements good policy? How can they be if more experienced teachers are better? He's got me re-examining this.

[sandnsea]

Well we would much prefer everybody got paid a decent salary, but since that's not going to happen any time soon... I mean honestly, this is what gripes me the most about Republicans. They're just anti-everything. They want teachers to be paid on merit, not tenure. So you put in a system whereby teachers who might be burnt out can retire, because they put their time in or dang near... and they don't want that either. The only thing they'd ever be satisfied with is paying everybody a nickel a day -- except themselves of course.

[Born_A_Truman]

IMO, early retirement packages for teachers are always about money. Paul was offered one this year but if he took it he'd be getting far less for the rest of his life than if he waits a few more years.

He didn't start teaching right after college--he was a LT in the Navy (RIO--think "Goose" in Top Gun) for 10 years and got out because his young son came to live with him.

In his district he gets zero health insurance as a retirement benefit and he wouldn't be old enough to get Medicare either, so to take their package would leave him without health insurance for another 5 years. No way.