"Capitalist economics" do not dictate that a company hire the most effective employee at the lowest rate, and I have made this clear in my previous posts.

 

When companies hire people, they do not necessarily hire the best qualified person for the job - nor should they. Depending on the position, sometimes an employer is better off hiring a less experienced applicant and training them than hiring a more experienced employee who may be resistant to retraining. Retaining employees is important, and an applicant who provides great references from previous employers but has held three jobs in the previous five years should have some 'splaining to do.

 

Many teachers seem determined to prevent employers from assessing the job performance of teachers and tying salaries to performance. For some reason, they assume that principals and other school administrators will be more subjective and more unfair than their counterparts in management in the private sector.

 

School management and salary administration are the areas where I believe schools and all government organizations need to borrow from the private sector. This is less about capitalism v. socialism than it is an appeal to use common sense management techniques that work well in millions of businesses every day.

 

How productive would American businesses be if they granted tenure to employees and based their pay structures strictly on seniority, college hours, and attendance?

 

Ask Ford, GE, Pepsi Bottle Co. just a few off the top of my head.

 

Does the private sector promote people when they are "retrained"?

 

Obvious the answer is yes, no different than teacher receiving a master's degree or rank I, except that money is a little bit better in the private sector.

 

Also, you keep going back to this capitalism idea! I love it, except that the private sector with unions can strike when conditions are not met, thus increasing the betterment of thier conditions. However, it is illigeal for a teacher to strike. Not the same playing field not all are equal in this instance.

I apologize to all of the teachers that I offended with my earlier post. Mr. Fundamental gave an example of a teacher with high experience that could max out at $65k while an equal in another profession would easily make $85k. I felt that the particular example that was given could be shown to prove that both were in fact equal in salary. I still stand by my calculations, but I know that few teachers make $65k and most who hold doctorate degrees make more than $85k.

 

Let me add that my father was once a teacher - in a private school, no less - making about 1/3 of what the local public school teachers were making. During his summers, he wallpapered people's homes to earn extra money so I could have a good life.

 

My wife is currently a teacher who is "forced" to work part-time because her school doesn't have enough students to validate a full-time music teacher. She is required to make lesson plans for every grade level just as any full-time teacher does. She puts in 100% of the planning and 50% of the teaching, and is only paid 50% of the salary and 0% of the benefits.

 

Both my father and my wife chose to teach, and it has rewarded both of them greatly. Their salaries didn't even come close to an equal in an outside profession, but they still put in great effort.

 

Again, I'm sorry if I offended any teachers. I should have left well-enough alone, but I just couldn't resist playing with Mr. Fundamental's numbers... I'm too much of a devil's advocate.

No harm here... I think that it has helped the decussion out!

 

I hate that music programs are dying throughout the state! I wish we would go back to more a liberal education once more!

I apologize to all of the teachers that I offended with my earlier post. Mr. Fundamental gave an example of a teacher with high experience that could max out at $65k while an equal in another profession would easily make $85k. I felt that the particular example that was given could be shown to prove that both were in fact equal in salary. I still stand by my calculations, but I know that few teachers make $65k and most who hold doctorate degrees make more than $85k.

 

Let me add that my father was once a teacher - in a private school, no less - making about 1/3 of what the local public school teachers were making. During his summers, he wallpapered people's homes to earn extra money so I could have a good life.

 

My wife is currently a teacher who is "forced" to work part-time because her school doesn't have enough students to validate a full-time music teacher. She is required to make lesson plans for every grade level just as any full-time teacher does. She puts in 100% of the planning and 50% of the teaching, and is only paid 50% of the salary and 0% of the benefits.

 

Both my father and my wife chose to teach, and it has rewarded both of them greatly. Their salaries didn't even come close to an equal in an outside profession, but they still put in great effort.

 

Again, I'm sorry if I offended any teachers. I should have left well-enough alone, but I just couldn't resist playing with Mr. Fundamental's numbers... I'm too much of a devil's advocate.

 

Problem is, your numbers don't add up. There was no consideration taken into account for vacation time for non-teachers (they all get SOME vacation time, many I know take three weeks, usually spread out) and most do not work past the required hours. As you said, most teachers do not make $65,000 a year - none in my district do, even with enough college hours for a doctorate. Principals do, but then again, their contract requires them to work many more days, usually 240 for 1st position, 195-210 for assistants.

 

I am over my original "offended"ness. I just cringe when people who don't even think about their job outside of their 9-5 hours tell me I should be happy that I "have summers off."

But if each school had a reason to hire the best candidates (just as a company has reasons to hire the best CEO's and such--profits) then teachers would get paid higher and would be challenged to teach more efficiently.

 

You are correct that in the current system, there is no reason to hire better teachers (or expect more from teachers) because the public schools aren't going to lose students. But the current system, as Trinityalum just said, is not a market system.

 

Where does the money come from to pay them the higher wages? No way that you could afford to run a school paying all of ONLY THE BEST teachers. It would not be affordable. So would you then hire some mediocre teachers to stay in budget and then how do you explain that to parents.

 

Comparing teachers to CEOs??? Come on now . . .

 

CEOs help bring in money - if they do well you can pay them more - how does that work in education. . . regardless of how good the teacher or administrator is the revenue stays constant. Improved work at the school does not generate more revenue it generates students. You cannot apply capitalistic principles to an organization that does not generate revenue.

I was at a Professional Development training today.

 

They gave the following stat that I thought was germane to the discussion.

 

The average length of a teacher's career in today's USA is 3.5 years.

Would you go to work tomorrow if you weren't going to be paid for it?

 

Irrelevant question because I couldn't support my family's basic needs and that wouldn't be an option.

I apologize to all of the teachers that I offended with my earlier post. Mr. Fundamental gave an example of a teacher with high experience that could max out at $65k while an equal in another profession would easily make $85k. I felt that the particular example that was given could be shown to prove that both were in fact equal in salary. I still stand by my calculations, but I know that few teachers make $65k and most who hold doctorate degrees make more than $85k.

 

Let me add that my father was once a teacher - in a private school, no less - making about 1/3 of what the local public school teachers were making. During his summers, he wallpapered people's homes to earn extra money so I could have a good life.

 

My wife is currently a teacher who is "forced" to work part-time because her school doesn't have enough students to validate a full-time music teacher. She is required to make lesson plans for every grade level just as any full-time teacher does. She puts in 100% of the planning and 50% of the teaching, and is only paid 50% of the salary and 0% of the benefits.

 

Both my father and my wife chose to teach, and it has rewarded both of them greatly. Their salaries didn't even come close to an equal in an outside profession, but they still put in great effort.

 

Again, I'm sorry if I offended any teachers. I should have left well-enough alone, but I just couldn't resist playing with Mr. Fundamental's numbers... I'm too much of a devil's advocate.

 

You give great examples for the argument that teachers are underpaid.

 

How many people that would make great teachers never would consider going into teaching because of the examples you cite above?

Where does the money come from to pay them the higher wages? No way that you could afford to run a school paying all of ONLY THE BEST teachers. It would not be affordable. So would you then hire some mediocre teachers to stay in budget and then how do you explain that to parents.

 

Comparing teachers to CEOs??? Come on now . . .

 

CEOs help bring in money - if they do well you can pay them more - how does that work in education. . . regardless of how good the teacher or administrator is the revenue stays constant. Improved work at the school does not generate more revenue it generates students. You cannot apply capitalistic principles to an organization that does not generate revenue.

You may very well be right. Have any solutions?

 

Do you think it would be possible to pit the schools in competition against each other for students? Do you think that would help?

You may very well be right. Have any solutions?

 

Do you think it would be possible to pit the schools in competition against each other for students? Do you think that would help?

 

How would that benefit rural schools where there is one MS and one HS?

"Capitalist economics" do not dictate that a company hire the most effective employee at the lowest rate, and I have made this clear in my previous posts.

 

When companies hire people, they do not necessarily hire the best qualified person for the job - nor should they. Depending on the position, sometimes an employer is better off hiring a less experienced applicant and training them than hiring a more experienced employee who may be resistant to retraining. Retaining employees is important, and an applicant who provides great references from previous employers but has held three jobs in the previous five years should have some 'splaining to do.

 

Many teachers seem determined to prevent employers from assessing the job performance of teachers and tying salaries to performance. For some reason, they assume that principals and other school administrators will be more subjective and more unfair than their counterparts in management in the private sector.

 

School management and salary administration are the areas where I believe schools and all government organizations need to borrow from the private sector. This is less about capitalism v. socialism than it is an appeal to use common sense management techniques that work well in millions of businesses every day.

 

How productive would American businesses be if they granted tenure to employees and based their pay structures strictly on seniority, college hours, and attendance?

 

Since when? Is the express purpose of capitalism in a free market economy as written by Adam Smith not to maximize profit? Is it not to produce the good (in this case education) at the lowest possible cost?

 

You make some very valid arguments but I simply do not agree that "common sense management techniques" apply to the field of education. You say that they work well in millions of companies. I say that they work well for SOME companies. Some are forced to shut their doors. Some fail entirely. Is that what the goal of our educational system should be?

 

I agree with you that something needs to change and more accountability measures need to be put in place. But turning over education to the private sector is not the answer IMO.

What you must do, is reward entire schools and entire systems, and you can compete, we do now. I live in Frankfort and kids in this community can attend either of the county schools or the independent. They may have to pay a minimal tuition (independent district is now up to 1750.00). The independent's reputation is suffering right now, not b/c of test scores mind you, but children are choosing to go to the other schools. I agree this does not work in rural counties . . .

 

You also have to measure student success longitudinally. Where were they when you got them and if they were with you for say .75 of year where were they when you were done with them. If you move students through at an established rate or faster, you can recieve rewards. We did that in the early stages of CATS and then amazingly ran out of money. Add that raise to the salary scale so that new teachers coming in can be attracted to the district. If you begin to not move students then your salary scale stagnates and comes more in line with average districts. There will be competition for teachers b/c they will want to go where the money is AND they will want to generate money for their school so they will work on moving ALL students from their entering level to a new one.

 

I think there needs to be extra money to attract teachers . . . not by subject matter, but by regions of the state. Pay people more to go to Letcher County to teach or maybe forgive student loans if you teach 5 years in appalachia - those are the incentives we need.

You are comparing something that is intangible to something like a car??? Not practical

Schools provide a service. Many businesses are in the business of providing services. Service is not an intangible. I provide services to my company's customers and my immediate supervisor has a pretty good handle on how well I am providing that service.

 

I believe that principals should be able to do a pretty good job of assessing the performance of the teachers who report to them.

Before I get to my post I want to say that I don't intend to offend anyone and I have the utmost respect for teachers. I think the majority of teachers do a great job and I hope more people enter that profession, because I definitely don't want to do it.

 

After saying that, I don't get the "value" argument that people use for teacher's salaries. I doubt many people would say that civil engineers are underpaid, but because of them we are able to get to and from work or school each day. For that, should we automatically have to give them a raise? I feel this is also very important to our society as a whole. But I don't hear a public outcry that they need a raise.

 

Farmer's give us the food we eat every day. For that should we give them a raise? Also would you be willing to pay more for your food to give them this raise? Furthermore for a lot of us a McDonald's, Wendy's, or maybe a Subway employee helped get us that food. Do they also deserve a raise?

 

Right now I'm sitting comfortably in my house out of the rain and cold. The majority of people involved with the construction of this house make significantly less than a teacher. Should something be done to raise their pay?

 

Like I said, I respect teachers and have many friends that have chosen to become a teacher. But that's the key word they chose to become a teacher and chose everything that comes with it...good and bad. One of those is the pay. I work for an online bill pay company, many people use our service to pay their bills each month and some of those people would say we provide an invaluable service. I don't feel that the public should campaign for me to get a raise because of this though. Like I said I don't mean to offend anyone but there are very few professions that I feel need to be paid more or should have a set pay scale based on their value to society as a whole. The military is the first to come to mind. Because of them I can post on BGP when I can't sleep while living in a free nation!!!

Before I get to my post I want to say that I don't intend to offend anyone and I have the utmost respect for teachers. I think the majority of teachers do a great job and I hope more people enter that profession, because I definitely don't want to do it.

 

After saying that, I don't get the "value" argument that people use for teacher's salaries. I doubt many people would say that civil engineers are underpaid, but because of them we are able to get to and from work or school each day. For that, should we automatically have to give them a raise? I feel this is also very important to our society as a whole. But I don't hear a public outcry that they need a raise.

 

Farmer's give us the food we eat every day. For that should we give them a raise? Also would you be willing to pay more for your food to give them this raise? Furthermore for a lot of us a McDonald's, Wendy's, or maybe a Subway employee helped get us that food. Do they also deserve a raise?

 

Right now I'm sitting comfortably in my house out of the rain and cold. The majority of people involved with the construction of this house make significantly less than a teacher. Should something be done to raise their pay?

 

Like I said, I respect teachers and have many friends that have chosen to become a teacher. But that's the key word they chose to become a teacher and chose everything that comes with it...good and bad. One of those is the pay. I work for an online bill pay company, many people use our service to pay their bills each month and some of those people would say we provide an invaluable service. I don't feel that the public should campaign for me to get a raise because of this though. Like I said I don't mean to offend anyone but there are very few professions that I feel need to be paid more or should have a set pay scale based on their value to society as a whole. The military is the first to come to mind. Because of them I can post on BGP when I can't sleep while living in a free nation!!!

 

Not to be mean but how many of them have a college degree, master's, Rank I

 

I do agree with you it is a choice, but the discussion is dealing with money and education, are teachers underpaid, I feel yes, but I am greedy and I am a teacher. Others feel no we get what we deserve:cry: I make the arguement for the education that teachers are required to get, we are:ylsuper: Others do not see it that way:cry: I make the arguement that teacher's job is very subjective because there are so many intangiables:ylsuper: Others say look at the test scores:cry: I say teachers should demand better pay with the more education:jump: Othes say that I should be happy to have 6 weeks off a year:fight:

 

That is the jest of what I have read, by the way if you are reading this go and thank a teacher, and when you do your job today, thank a teacher, when you pay those bills (using those math skills), thank a teacher, when you cook dinner tonight, thank a teacher! When you go to bed tonight, pray for all the teachers that they all could make a difference in each individual student's life, and then thank God for teachers:dancingpa