US Presidential Elections 3

[taks]

Realistically a school district has absolutely no motivation to hire qualified teachers. They make the same amount of money no matter who is in the classroom. The performance goals just don't affect the bottom line.

that's the problem, hurlshot. everyone excuses a crappy system because of the conditions that the crappy system itself created. if there was genuine competition, this would not be an issue.

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

Realistically a school district has absolutely no motivation to hire qualified teachers. They make the same amount of money no matter who is in the classroom. The performance goals just don't affect the bottom line.

that's the problem, hurlshot. everyone excuses a crappy system because of the conditions that the crappy system itself created. if there was genuine competition, this would not be an issue.

 

taks

 

Are you talking about competition among teachers? How do you gauge that? A teacher in downtown LA is never going to meet the same performance goals as a teacher in Beverly Hills. It doesn't matter if that teacher is way better, they are serving a population that has numerous outside factors against them.

 

There is already an issue with low economic areas being able to hire qualified teachers, if you start forcing them to meet performance goals to earn their paycheck, you are going to see a field that already has trouble getting people to work dry completely up.

[Gfted1]

You know, I just dont understand where teachers are coming from wrt the incessant bitching about their pay. If we look at the average income of full time adults in the U.S. we see that number comes to $39,336.00. Now lets look at the average U.S. teachers salary and we see that number is $47,602.00 and that was two years ago. So, not only do they earn vastly more per year then the average U.S. citizen but they also only work 9 months per year! If they want more how about they get a part time job during their break to suppliment their income instead of sitting on the couth scratching their nuts for 3 months?

[taks]

sigh... you're basing your opinion of competition on a corrupted system in which competition cannot exist. your previous statement highlights the problem perfectly: there is no advantage to being a better teacher. unions do not improve that, they simply put everyone on the same low level. it doesn't matter how good you are, you are all treated the same.

 

you are also doing what i abhor: mis-characterizing my position. in other words, you have erected a strawman. "performance goals" are not what i suggest, not in the least. competition is what i suggest, but that can only happen if education is privatized.

 

taks

Edited November 18, 2008 by taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

When education gets privatized only the rich will get a decent education, if anyone else will get one at all.

[Aristes]

My problem with the teachers union, particularly in California, is that it spends union money on non-education related issues. For example, prop 8 was not related to education. Please, for the love of God, please don't say something stupid about the proponents of prop 8 'lying' about California classrooms. Prop 8 had nothing to do with the classroom, pay, or fair treatment. Whether they 'lied' in their ads or not is irrelevant. The CTA is a political operation that pursues an agenda beyond protecting teachers.

 

Otherwise, unions are a part of life. I don't really like to rail against them. They have become unpopular with the American public, and the reason for their unpopularity cannot be universally attributed to conservative campaigning. A lot of folks see them as corrupt and associated with organized crime, although how much of this is true today I don't know. I don't necessarily know if unions are bad or good. That's not really my call.

[taks]

i was in both the oil, chemical and atomic workers union (OCAW) as well as the teamsters. bad is an understatement. they do more to damage the economy, and contrary to popular opinion, keep wages low, than just about any force in the country.

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

You know, I just dont understand where teachers are coming from wrt the incessant bitching about their pay. If we look at the average income of full time adults in the U.S. we see that number comes to $39,336.00. Now lets look at the average U.S. teachers salary and we see that number is $47,602.00 and that was two years ago. So, not only do they earn vastly more per year then the average U.S. citizen but they also only work 9 months per year! If they want more how about they get a part time job during their break to suppliment their income instead of sitting on the couth scratching their nuts for 3 months?

 

But if you compare teachers to other highly educated fields, they are way behind the average. Teaching requires a four year degree and at least a year of graduate work. It also requires continuing education units in order to maintain a teaching credential.

 

As for taks and Aristes, I'm really not disagreeing with you. It's not a perfect system, there are major flaws. I'm just not sure what the alternative is. I'm not a big fan of my union, but I'm also not a big fan of my district office. It's basically fighting fire with fire, but the alternative of no unions is much worse in my opinion.

[Trenitay]

Taks, could you please elaborate on your argument against unions? Im not quite sure i get it

[Gfted1]

You know, I just dont understand where teachers are coming from wrt the incessant bitching about their pay. If we look at the average income of full time adults in the U.S. we see that number comes to $39,336.00. Now lets look at the average U.S. teachers salary and we see that number is $47,602.00 and that was two years ago. So, not only do they earn vastly more per year then the average U.S. citizen but they also only work 9 months per year! If they want more how about they get a part time job during their break to suppliment their income instead of sitting on the couth scratching their nuts for 3 months?

 

But if you compare teachers to other highly educated fields, they are way behind the average. Teaching requires a four year degree and at least a year of graduate work. It also requires continuing education units in order to maintain a teaching credential.

 

As for taks and Aristes, I'm really not disagreeing with you. It's not a perfect system, there are major flaws. I'm just not sure what the alternative is. I'm not a big fan of my union, but I'm also not a big fan of my district office. It's basically fighting fire with fire, but the alternative of no unions is much worse in my opinion.

 

 

I have to disagree. If you look further down the "Personal income" link it states:

 

Persons, age 25+, employed full time, with a Bachelors, average $50,944.00. So, only an average of $2,400.00 more than a teachers average.

 

Im really not trying to bash you or any other teacher, I just dont get it. I mean, I get we all want more, more, more (see unionized autoworkers) but I dont get how acting underpaid in relation to others of the same level helps when it doesnt seem to bear out to the facts.

[taks]

But if you compare teachers to other highly educated fields, they are way behind the average. Teaching requires a four year degree and at least a year of graduate work. It also requires continuing education units in order to maintain a teaching credential.

teaching is also not a 40-hour/week job. it is much more than that, and i don't recall ever hearing that teachers really "have the summer off" in general. i always got the impression that they end up working those months for extra pay, which is what brings their average salary up, but i may be mistaken on that. either way, their pay is way behind given the level of skill/education they are required to have compared to other similarly skilled/educated occupations. an average starting engineer, with only a 4-year degree, can expect to earn $10k more than than the average teacher. the average engineer (experienced) is also making twice the average teacher's salary.

 

As for taks and Aristes, I'm really not disagreeing with you. It's not a perfect system, there are major flaws. I'm just not sure what the alternative is. I'm not a big fan of my union, but I'm also not a big fan of my district office. It's basically fighting fire with fire, but the alternative of no unions is much worse in my opinion.

no unions is much worse only if you assume the current system stays in place. i don't advocate that, obviously. it's like we used flawed methods to "fix" known flawed systems. the wolf is always in charge of the hen-house for some reason. the solution, unfortunately, does not support the establishment's desire for more power and more control over our (citizens') livelihood.

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

I have to disagree. If you look further down the "Personal income" link it states:

 

Persons, age 25+, employed full time, with a Bachelors, average $50,944.00. So, only an average of $2,400.00 more than a teachers average.

 

Im really not trying to bash you or any other teacher, I just dont get it. I mean, I get we all want more, more, more (see unionized autoworkers) but I dont get how acting underpaid in relation to others of the same level helps when it doesnt seem to bear out to the facts.

 

That's an interesting chart, but there are a ton of factors to take into account here. I only feel I am underpaid based on where I live. I am in my 5th year of teaching, I make 55k a year and an extra 5k or so in summer and extra duty pay. That would be fantastic in most parts of the country, I could buy a nice house for my family and I might even be able to allow my wife to stay home and raise our child. But I live in the Bay Area. My wife needs to bring in a similar salary just so we can afford the mortgage on our 2 bedroom condo. We commute about an hour so we can afford even that.

 

Now if we decided to work where we live, we take an instant pay cut of about 10k each. That means the districts in San Jose pay 45k starting, and thirty minutes out of San Jose pay 35k. That's a huge drop in salary.

 

Many small town districts pay their teachers around 25-30k a year. Statistics don't tell the whole story here. But hey, it also doesn't account for the fact that their are a fair amount of horrid teachers out there. They would get canned in most other jobs, so they end up teaching and luck into tenure. It's a shame, but for every lousy teacher there are probably a lot more that work hard to educate and raise children up to a higher level.

[Gfted1]

teaching is also not a 40-hour/week job. it is much more than that, and i don't recall ever hearing that teachers really "have the summer off" in general.

 

According to this Wall Street Journal article from 2007, your assumtion is wrong.

 

 

i always got the impression that they end up working those months for extra pay, which is what brings their average salary up, but i may be mistaken on that.

 

Teachers salaries are based on a nine month contract so the average is based on that. Any additional work is above and beyond that.

 

 

either way, their pay is way behind given the level of skill/education they are required to have compared to other similarly skilled/educated occupations.

 

Incorrect, see link in this post.

[taks]

Incorrect, see link in this post.

i read that link. the average teacher is not the same as an "average bachelor's degreed" individual, either. that's sort of the point that hurlshot made (they have more education, in other words).

 

i also don't buy the stats in the WSJ article that you linked. the numbers are for only a pure 40-hour work week for 9 months (in 2007) which actually works out to $53k/year. they really don't make any distinction on summer hours, btw, which i contend are required for their pay numbers to hold (every teacher i've ever known works summers, though certainly not to the same level).

 

they also make the claim that all professions take work home, which is a cop-out. first, i rarely take work home. i guarantee my stock-broker brother never takes work home. second, i don't buy that teachers are at work only 40 hours a week at the school, let alone only working 9 months (your article makes the contention that they get summer breaks, but without supporting evidence).

 

don't get me wrong, i don't disagree with the article's conclusions that the way we pay teachers is incorrect. seniority being the only determinant is, well, a joke, particularly for a profession as important as teaching.

 

taks

Edited November 18, 2008 by taks

[Trenitay]

That article didnt make much sense to me. Why does it say that hourly wages are more reliable than yearly wages? Do teachers just spend money on an hourly basis? I dont get it.

Edited November 18, 2008 by awsomeness

[Pidesco]

The ideas is that teachers work less hours than other people.

[Trenitay]

But they dont work less hours than everyone else.

[Pidesco]

Generally, teachers here in Portugal don't have nine to five work days. And I assume it's the same everywhere else.

[Gfted1]

But they dont work less hours than everyone else.

 

 

Teachers only work 9 months per year. Unless your position is that those nine months are so packed with hours they make up for the 480 working hours of the remaining 3 months?

Edited November 18, 2008 by Gfted1

[taks]

Teachers only work 9 months per year. Unless your position is that those nine months are so packed with hours they make up for the 480 working hours of the remaining 3 months?

my position is that a) they work more than 40 per week, but not enough to cover 480 hours and b) they really do work over the summer, in spite of what the bureau of labor statistics says. just from the teachers that i know, they typically work summers in some fashion or another, which adds to their salaries as reported in the census/tax base numbers (which you linked to earlier).

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

But they dont work less hours than everyone else.

 

 

Teachers only work 9 months per year. Unless your position is that those nine months are so packed with hours they make up for the 480 working hours of the remaining 3 months?

 

Where are you getting that? I'm paid on a 10 month salary, and that really is what I work. But during the school year I work 10-12 hour days and usually 6 days a week. My wife is a High School teacher and she works more. This weekend we spent to entire weekend, Friday night to Sunday afternoon, at a cheerleading competition. She gets a few hundred dollars as a stipend for coaching, but I worked it out and it doesn't even cover the gas she spends driving to all the events.

 

But I do love having my two months off. I work summer school every few years, but those two months are huge for recharging. Teaching is like giving five major presentations every day to an audience with no attention span. It's not a job everyone can do (well) and it has a high burnout rate.

[Trenitay]

My teachers come into school at about 6:00 A.M. and leave at about 4:00 P.M. For those of you who cant count thats 10 hours. Thats 40 more hours a month than your average 8 hour day. Plus most of them take some work home and correct papers.

[Aristes]

I don't think teachers are underpaid. Well... I think most folks who do a good job are worth more than they're paid, but that's a human condition and worth is such an ambiguous notion. However, I have a lot of respect for teachers and the teaching profession.

[taks]

probably the biggest after school activity for teachers is grading homework. for me (i'm a lab instructor), grading labs takes twice as long as time spent in class.

 

taks

[Gfted1]

My teachers come into school at about 6:00 A.M. and leave at about 4:00 P.M. For those of you who cant count thats 10 hours. Thats 40 more hours a month than your average 8 hour day.

 

 

Yes, and for those that cant count, thats still 280 hours less per year then the rest of the country.

 

I think maybe my terminology of "they only work 9 months" may be being unintentionally abrasive. Im strictly looking at salary / hours worked per year. I personally think teachers have the second most important job in the country right behind the police force.