Mar 24 2009
why we need to eliminate teri
As you know, TERI (Teacher and Empolyee Retention Incentive) was developed to give incentives to seasoned teachers. TERI’s original good intentions were to fill a gap of needed experienced teachers. These good intentions did not materialize, however, as our research summary below will show.
TERI was designed to keep experienced teachers in the classroom longer thereby alleviating the looming teacher shortage. By that measure, it has failed. The State Department of Education website noted in late 2006 that, “The situation for K-12 education in South Carolina’s public schools is critical. Over the next decade we will face a shortage of as many as 40,000 teachers.” Clearly, TERI did little, if anything, to alleviate this problem, nor should it have been expected to.
Meanwhile, of course, TERI saddled South Carolina with myriad problems. First, the state Supreme Court ruled it open to all state employees. TERI, now open to everyone, along with the reduction in retirement eligibility from 30-28 years, cost the Retirement System nearly $2 billion. The majority of TERI participants do not even work in the public schools, much less teach there.
TERI costs our public colleges and universities tens of millions in compensation for leave and retirement contributions while TERI employees, of course, made no contributions to the System. That same has been true at our technical schools through.
TERI has wreaked havoc with agency management. TERI employees were, up until July 2007, employees at their demand instead of the discretion of management. That, of course destroyed the ability of managers to mange. I got many, many e-mails and letters from frustrated state employees who complained that TERI employees who refused to leave made advancement nearly impossible. Many frustrated employees simply left.
TERI did absolutely nothing to help South Carolina. It placed a massive burden on the Retirement System, destroyed the ability of agency managers to manage, and in no way alleviated the teacher shortage in SC.
I’m hopeful you’ll agree that TERI has shown insignificant benefit, yet has jeopardized the morale and solvency of South Carolina’s employment and post-employment systems.
Mar 28, 2009 @ 16:43:57
Every time a party loses, they blame the referees. Clinton gets impeached and THEN there’s a vast right wing conspiracy. Kerry gets hammered and THEN the media is responsible for the rise of the swift boats. 2004-05 Iraq is exploding and its the media’s fault for not publishing the good news out of Iraq. Obama’s elected and it’s the media’s fault.OR maybe because…
President Bush squandered a budget surplus, started an unneccessary war, and spied on Americans. Which led to the party losing seats in congress and the white house going blue.
Mar 28, 2009 @ 16:16:20
He showed no backbone. You’re absolutely right.
He didn’t want to have a PUBLCIZED disagreement with the leader of a major veteran’s group. That’s suicide for him politically.
I think he legitimately believed his policy plans were better for veterans than the American Legion’s alternative.
If he really believed that then he SHOULD have carried it through.
Mar 27, 2009 @ 20:54:19
So, if Obama’s real agenda was not so heinous as the headline made it out to be then why did he not go through with it after it was publicized? Has he no back bone to go through with what he believes to be right….. or DID he get caught with his had in the greed cookie jar?
The media does push the socialistic agenda of Obama and has for a long time, however truth will get out, and they know they’d better report on something like this that’s going to really get folks upset.
Mar 26, 2009 @ 20:11:12
And on top of that, the site missed a legitimate opportunity to hammer Obama. Because despite the American Legions opposition to the restructuring of benefits; HE WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH IT, if not for the media publicizing the riff.
The same media that you believe pushes his agenda.
Mar 26, 2009 @ 20:06:38
Priscilla, the headline DESERVES to be criticized. I’m liberal but after reading the headline my knee jerk reaction was to slam the president. I can imagine the reaction of most conservatives. The headline made Obama out to be villain who put greed over the troops. As it turned out, the truth was much different. The prez wanted to restructure VA benefits, not diminish them.
Mar 26, 2009 @ 08:26:43
Marcus, why are you so sore about the headline for that plan of Obama’s to trim injured vets benefits to save money when that’s exactly what it was, and you yourself were appalled by it?
If you want to start in on misleading reporting, you’ve got enough to keep you busy for a lifetime in the mainstream media. Supposing we talk for awhile about how they constantly lie about conservatives, putting their own twist on what they do and taking everything they say out of context, and only report what they want to – only what will help the Democratic agenda.
Mar 24, 2009 @ 20:55:22
It’s a good thing there wasn’t a misleading headline like say -
SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICANS: LET’S TRIM HARD WORKING TEACHER BENEFITS TO SAVE MONEY.
- or someone might have mistaken the thoughtful elimination of this program as a money grubbing tactic.
Mar 24, 2009 @ 05:54:07
Kevin, thanks for a brilliant, insightful and devastating critique of one of the worst examples of government largesse run amok.
This is exactly the kind of thing that has gotten us into the financial mess we’re in–give aways in the name of good feelings.
There’s no irony in the fact that it did nothing that it promised. That’s the way nearly all government programs work (TARP I and TARP II anyone?)
This all too rare detailed look at the effects of a government program shines the light needed to debunk it. This meticulous research merits our appreciation. Were that Congress did the same with the bailout bill that paid those AIG bonuses.