Teacher Pay?

[Habib]

Before I add more, in all the threads we have ever had on this topic, I have never heard a teacher articulate exactly what they feel they should be paid. I would like for one to identify that for me, at least by comparing their position with some professional position they believe they should be commensurate with.

 

"We should get paid what we are worth" is a cop-out. Pretend you are interviewing and I have asked for your salary requirements. Articulate it for me.

 

And I have yet to hear someone from the "teachers are overpaid" crowd articulate exactly how much less they should make.

 

I also remain unconvinced every teacher incessantly bellyaches about their pay, especially on this forum. Most teachers chime in after someone characterizes their job as easy or claim their salaries are too high.

[leatherneck]

I read somewhere that the average length of a teacher's stay in education is 3.5 years.

 

We get some of the brightest and bests and then they see themselves underpaid for what is required of them and they move onto another occupation.

 

I think I will surprise you by agreeing to some degree with your assessment that you thought would put me into a corner. Would you agree that when a teacher is told that they need to get a parttime job to get up with their bills it is not going to attract the best and brightest? And as important, RETAIN, the best and brightest?

 

In essence your position is a FAILED position.

 

I will also add to the point that the decisions on what is best for educating children is not being made by those who are adept at making decisions on education but rather from political types who are leaned on to make decisions from those who hold opinions like yours.

 

I wasn't trying to put any one in corner. I was simply pointing out the corollary to your statement.

 

What position did I take that is a failed position by the way? Heck, I didn't take a position in my post. I asked questions.

 

And you answered one. But one you did not answer (at least not that I can tell). Do our teachers need to be the best and the brightest scientists to teach high school physics and chemistry? Do our teachers need to be the best and brightest historians to teach high school American history? Etc, etc.?

[woodsrider]

You forgot IMHO.

 

Hearsay asked what do I think it should be.

 

Are you saying I am not allowed to have my opinion in answering Hearsay's question?

I didn't forget anything. I said to compare a teacher to a store manager isn't comparing apples to apples. By your reasoning what not the CEO of a company?

[pigman]

I agree on a whole teachers are underpaid. Other than police or firemen who are also underpaid is there a more important job. Whether we like it or not they are helping raise our chidren, and in some cases doing more for the child than it's own family.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I wasn't trying to put any one in corner. I was simply pointing out the corollary to your statement.

 

What position did I take that is a failed position by the way? Heck, I didn't take a position in my post. I asked questions.

 

And you answered one. But one you did not answer (at least not that I can tell). Do our teachers need to be the best and the brightest scientists to teach high school physics and chemistry? Do our teachers need to be the best and brightest historians to teach high school American history? Etc, etc.?

 

They need to be the best and brightest teachers.

 

Just because you are a great scientific mind, can you teach. In fact, some of the worst teachers I ever had were the ones who knew the subject the best. But they were horrible at teaching it.

 

And we lose those because they can make much more money in the private sector.

 

There is a reason why the average life span of a teacher in the teaching profession is something along the lines of 3.5 years.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I didn't forget anything. I said to compare a teacher to a store manager isn't comparing apples to apples. By your reasoning what not the CEO of a company?

 

Not sure what you are asking for in the bolded.

 

I would say the superintendent would be equivilant to the CEO. (Now I am NOT saying a super should be paid in lines of Michael Eisner at Walt Disney.)

Principal, regional managers who oversee multiple stores/classrooms.

Teachers, store managers who are responsible for all aspects that happen in their store/classroom.

[leatherneck]

They need to be the best and brightest teachers.

 

And we lose those because they can make much more money in the private sector.

 

There is a reason why the average life span of a teacher in the teaching profession is something along the lines of 3.5 years.

 

Maybe they just didn't like teaching. Not everyone's cut out for it. And if we paid them more money to get them to stay, even if they didn't like teaching, would that make them instantly be a great teacher? I think not. No, they will be someone that is staying in a job (that they don't like) for the money.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Maybe they just didn't like teaching. Not everyone's cut out for it. And if we paid them more money to get them to stay, even if they didn't like teaching, would that make them instantly be a great teacher? I think not. No, they will be someone that is staying in a job (that they don't like) for the money.

 

And some great teachers staying because they are now making a wage that they are comfortable with.

 

In the case you outlined, than the principals are failing at their jobs, not the teachers, by not dismissing those poor teachers.

 

And before you bring up tenure, poor teachers can be dismissed at any time.

 

So, because of one bad apple, you penalize the whole orchard?

[HHSDad]

Do our teachers need to be the best and the brightest scientists to teach high school physics and chemistry? Do our teachers need to be the best and brightest historians to teach high school American history? Etc, etc.?

Teachers need to be above all, educators. That is someone who can make others comprehend abstract concepts. Yes, they need to understand the material, but they don't need to be Stephen Hawking to teach Physics or Edward Gibbons to discuss History. But they do need to understand the ideas that they are teaching and just as importantly, be able to pass on that knowledge to others.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Teachers need to be above all, educators. That is someone who can make others comprehend abstract concepts. Yes, they need to understand the material, but they don't need to be Stephen Hawking to teach Physics or Edward Gibbons to discuss History. But they do need to understand the ideas that they are teaching and just as importantly, be able to pass on that knowledge to others.

 

Or God to teach Creationism.:sssh::D

[Hearsay]

So, not providing information that was NOT asked for, is considered a "cop out?"

 

I don't think anyone in this thread has been asked what they think they should make. Are they all coping out too?

 

You misread my post. I asked what they should make. I was the first to ask that question. My statement, by implication, was that if the answer was "pay me what I'm worth," that it would be a cop-out answer to my question.

 

That's not too obtuse, is it?

[Hearsay]

And I have yet to hear someone from the "teachers are overpaid" crowd articulate exactly how much less they should make.

 

I also remain unconvinced every teacher incessantly bellyaches about their pay, especially on this forum. Most teachers chime in after someone characterizes their job as easy or claim their salaries are too high.

 

In the two significant threads on the subject, I can think of maybe 3 posters who claim they are overpaid. Most, like me, have stated they are paid appropriately. The defensiveness, which is crystal clear to me, is when someone has the unmitigated temerity to claim that a tenure system has value, a guaranteed retirement has value, that school break vacations, whether fully utilized or not, has value, or that teachers don't work more hours or less than your average professional, who takes home just as much work and deals with just as many expectations or problems.

 

Responses such as "If you don't pay us more you should only expect to get what you pay for" fall into this category.

[SilverShadow]

Tenure is simply I cannot be fired because the principal does not like me even though I am an excellent teacher or I cannot be let go and the district save $10,000 by keeping a new teacher over me with 20 years of experience.

 

If I am a poor teacher, I can be fired with or without tenure.

 

The retirement system of which I contribute to is excellent. I guess, I am not retired and don't know much about it.

 

In many professions that pay higher than education, people can be fired because the management/manager does not like them. Why shouldn't management have that right??? Many people (engineers and computer programers) have lost their jobs because someone would do their job for a lot less money. Why shouldn't managers have that option? Do you not comprehend the vast majority of taxpayers live under this circumstance? And you wonder why people fail to appreciate your arguements when you fail to see how many would say "The real world" lives?

 

Also, you need to be consistent. In the first sentance you said tenure is simply you cannot be fired because the principal does not like you. Then you go on to say you can be fired with or without tenure if you are a poor teacher. I am sure you are not trying to mislead us into thinking there is no value to tenure. If there is no value to it, then why is it so important to your profession to obtain it and protect it at all costs. If the principal does not like you who should be the one to make sure to get along with the principal? How many of your fellow teachers simply thump their noses to expectations and changes because of the shield of tenure?

 

As for not knowing your retirement system, all I can say is wow. When you need it and it is not enough I sure hope you do not think it is anyone else's responsibility to take care of you then.

 

Hey, look bottom line you want to keep the status quo in place? Fine by many. But what you will never see is substantial improvement to compensation under the current set up. No taxpaying public will support a significant cost obligation and keep getting the same outcome.

[rockmom]

For those of you who think that teachers are underpaid for the amount of work you do, I honestly think you'll find that the same is true in many of the private industries in which people like to compare their salaries.

 

In the private sector, there is no such thing as protection by tenure. At any time, you are at the whim of the owners/shareholders of a company/corporation. Downsizing? Guess what, if you keep your job, more than likely you'll have more work added because of someone who lost theirs. Most often, there's little to no increase in that "lucky circumstance" of keeping your job. Then, feel the fear as you await the next round of cut backs, and hope your name isn't on the list. Retirement? Watch as employer contributions decrease. Health insurance? Watch as the employee portion increases steadily year by year, and the coverage decreases, co-pays rise and deductibles rise. Planning? Watch as managers are constantly in "training" mode because every entry level job or line-level job is a stepping stone for the resume and there's no stability in your employee base. You feel like you're training someone to go down the street for .50 more an hour.

 

I can see both sides, but please don't portray working in the private sector to be some sort of utopia. There are many more risks and pitfalls that you aren't considering.

 

I guess, in short, it's a case of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence.

[Hearsay]

Teachers are not subject to the employee-at-will doctrine ("absent contract or a legally recognized exception, and employee can be fired at any time, for any reason, even for a reason others may consider objectionable, unfair, or morally repugnant."). Almost everybody else is. Why?

 

Teachers retirements are not subject to invasion/division. Ever seen a teacher retirement divided in a divorce case? No, you haven't because a state statute protects it. Noone else, not even soldiers or police officers, have this. Why?