I'm gonna chime in a bit here, just because I've been a music teacher for 11 years, and was really sweating it out whether or not I would have a job in Sept. if our budget did not pass. The district I work in lost just over 2 million dollars in state aid, which forced the elimination of freshman sports, most 8th-grade sports, approx. 25 teachers (non-tenured and tenured), and another 25 positions (custodians, classroom aides, one nurse, and secretaries). If our budget didn't pass, even more positions would have to be cut to balance the budget. That's just one district with 50 people heading to the unemployment line in September, because you know there won't be another district in NJ hiring teachers or any other positions. And every college graduate in May of 2010 that was hoping to find a job as a teacher will now be effed as well. Now even if you go conservative and figure each district will have to cut loose 30 positions, you've just added about 10,000 people to the unemployment line in September, and my guess is that the number will be higher. That doesn't really seem like the greatest thing for our economy.
The governor's plan for a wage freeze would have only given our district back enough funds to cover 2 positions (for every $1,000,000 saved, you get back $75,000 in aid from the state). That's why we decided to not give in to the wage freeze. Don't forget, once you give in, you're opening the door to get stepped on again and again. If we gave in now, there's no reason why they wouldn't make us freeze our wages again next year, or the year after that. And, what good is a contract, if they can make you break it at any time? We negotiated in good faith, and both the BOE and the teacher's union agreed to it. If you were a GM of a major-league baseball team and hired a player for a 3-year/$30 million contract, you can't tell him to take a paycut a year later because the team needs a new stadium and they can't afford it. Is that his fault? He could sue for breach of contract if they don't pay.
Teacher's salaries are not all they're cracked up to be either. In the districts with higher starting pay, they already pay in for their benefits - that's the trade-off. In the district I work for, we take crappy pay so we can have good benefits. I'll be honest, there are 2nd year teachers in other districts making what I make now after 11 years in. And my wife, as a part-time RN, made more $$ than me (the full-time teacher) last year. And as a teacher, it takes at least 15 years to get to the top of the salary guide, whereas if you're a policeman (another public service job), you hit the top of the guide after 5 or 7 years.
Believe me, I know there is plenty of waste at the administrative level, but as Al said, that's not where the cuts will be. Is the boss gonna fire himself, or take a paycut? Nope, he's going to pass it along to the little guy down below. The superintendents make too much $$, and in a lot of schools, there are too many vice-principals, or Department Heads, or whatever, but they will eliminate people in the classroom. Sure, there are teachers making over $100K a year - they have their PhDs and have been teaching for well over 20 years. On our salary guide, if you have your bachelor's degree and wait until you hit the top in ~17 years, you'll only be raking in about $75K a year at the end. Most cops get to that point in 5 years, so we're certainly not the bad-guys here (and neither are cops, just saying that they make $$ a heck of a lot faster than we do
).