Posted on 06/17/2006 5:15:15 AM PDT by wintertime
One of the ongoing controversies in the public schools is the issue of teacher salaries. Teachers largely claim they are too low while taxpayers are equally vehement that they are more than adequate.
(snip)
Then there are the actual salary levels. Statistics in 2005 showed the average teacher salary in the nation was $46,762, ranging from a low of $33,236 in South Dakota to $57,337 in Connecticut. Even this ignores the additional compensation teachers receive as fringe benefits, which may add an additional 33% or more to the costs, primarily for very good retirement and health coverage plans. Further, averages include starting teacher salaries, which may begin at $30,000 or less, which teachers gladly mention, but ignore the high salaries of career teachers at or near the maximum on their salary schedule, important because retirement pensions are often based on the best three or so years.
(snip)
Last year, the New York State Department of Education issued a study that reported maximum teacher salaries in that state of $100,000 or more and median salaries as high as $98,000 per year. That is, there were districts, in Westchester County for example, where half of the teachers earned more than $98,000 a year.
A novel approach a few years ago by Michael Antonucci, director of the Education Intelligence Agency in California, compared teachers average salaries to average salaries all workers state by state. First prize went to Pennsylvania where the teachers received 62.5% more than the average employee. That difference is even greater when it is further considered that teachers average a 185 day work year while most workers put in 235.
(snip) Women who had been educators were 7.4% of the total deceased that year but 20.6% of them, nearly three times the statistical expectation were among the affluent few. Former male educators didn't do quite as well but even they were represented among the wealthy decedents by a ratio nearly 1.5 times the anticipated numerical ratio.
you answered: The spelling police strikes again.
Spelling or grammar?
The thing is, when teachers are posting with continued misspellings and grammatical errors and erroneous mathematical postulations - (and the misspellings could be easily caught with the handy-dandy spell check) shouldn't they be held to at least an equal standard?
I would, for example, expect to get a higher level of service for, say, a new deck built by a contractor than a handy man.
The troubling thing is the level of expertise of many teachers today as compared with a few decades ago.
For example: Teachers were finally tested, a few years ago, here in N.E., for competency in their fields. The vast majority flunked miserably. They were given a second chance a few months later. The now knew what the tests consisted of.
They had not improved.
I am also impressed, or maybe unimpressed would be more accurate, with handwritten notes from teachers and even principals that is about the level of what a 4th grader used to be. (I'm not referring to handwriting that looks rushed or 'like a doctor's' - but it looks like a 4th grader!)
Which proves? For all you know, the teacher just received a large inheritance.
I don't care if it would take the average teacher 500 years to earn what some CEO of a private company earns. That doesn't mean that teachers are entitled to demand more taxpayer money every time they want a raise.
Maybe your property taxes aren't high enough but mine sure are. And I'm sick of listening to teachers whine about how little money they make when they only work 185 days a year and make more money than a lot of other people who work year round. In the school district where I live, the average teacher earns $52,000 a year plus benefits. If someone can't live off that, it isn't my problem.
No need to concede, I was just clarifying. ;)
Thanks for your reply.
Definitions/nomenclature are critical and people can play games through definitions.
I also agree that high costs of education are distressing to many of us here at FR. Particularly when news shows often only fair to middling test scores.
You are also correct that when districts spend money on apparent frills (such as your building with mosaics) it should not be surprising that many taxpayers get upset only because they are so visible to people driving by a school.
But keep in mind that such frills are not *recurring* expenses and are usually only a small part of a multi-million dollar building cost.
On the other hand, year in and year out, salaries/benefits are precisely where the bulk of any school district's expenses are.
Your sister says about a third of the school's employees are teachers.... I'd have to know how large the school is. A small school requires more support staff. Also depends how people are classified. Some schools claim librarians or counselors as instructional personnel but those employees do not have any students assigned to them.
I might agree with you if your talking about a writing an important assignment, etc. and there were gross mispellings. However, to simply say because your a teacher you can't misspell words on a Saturday morning on an informal board. Give me a break. Now your just nitpicking.
It's interesting that I posted two ideas at the same time.
[1] Vouchers are the logical freemarket solution to every education problem we have.
[2] {This is response to someone else's post} -- The oil companies are NOT an example of the free market at work.
What's interesting is that about 2 dozen people have responded to the 2nd thought, and Not One to the First.
What conclusions ought I derive from this?
I think it was done by one of FR's drive-by commedians.
in referring to my post - "How about English? Did your students "past" that? :o)
that was remarked upon with this: - keep with me :O) - "The spelling police strikes again."
I was remarking to the original poster's - a teacher - sentence in post #120: "94% of our students past the Science portion"
Oh, and just for the fun of it - "commedians" is spelled "comedians" - you a teacher? :o)
Maybe your property taxes aren't high enough but mine sure are. And I'm sick of listening to teachers whine about how little money they make when they only work 185 days a year and make more money than a lot of other people who work year round. In the school district where I live, the average teacher earns $52,000 a year plus benefits. If someone can't live off that, it isn't my problem.,
Substitute "Congressman" for "teacher" and make a few minor adjustments to the rest of it and I'll agree with you. ;-)
Thank you!! Very well said! I appreciate it!
[1] Vouchers are the logical freemarket solution to every education problem we have.
I'll respond to it.
As I have already stated I am proud of how our school prepares our students to further their education.
The bottom line ,however, is what is best for the child. If a school is constantly failing to meet even minimal standards, there is an obligation to allow the children the opportunity to get a decent education. I am all for vouchers. Parents nor children should have to wait for a school to get their act together.
Life doesn't require a degree from a highly ranked university. I have attended some of the finest schools, and can tell you it's not a big deal, nor a gage of intelligence, nor a strong indicator of success.
Also, admission to teaching programs are NOT competitive either and teachers are among the lowest with SAT scores.
That would be important is any of that mattered much. In fact, it doesn't.
Everything else you say is right on the money. Teachers, when you factor everything in, do very well, get lots of vacation time, and their union is best at whining, complaining, and demanding more money, for the sake of 'our children,' of course. :-)
Good. I like that response. AND I'd expect that one of the results of vouchers is that teachers who are GOOD -- who meet the demands of the free market -- would make lots MORE money.
And those who don't would find new work.
For example - in my area this year, the school district got a double payment from the state, by mistake. It amounted to over $850,000...big bucks for a rural area.
Instead of correcting it - they spent it.
When it was made public, they simply expected us taxpayers to come up with the shortfall.
It was put to a vote - in mid-May - with the district threatening that if we didn't okay it, the school would shut down immediately and the seniors would not graduate - indeed, seniors were told they wouldn't have their finals, their prom, their awards/presentation ceremony, etc, and would have to attend summer school to make up and graduate. (This was pretty standard scare tactics that had worked - sort of - in the past.)
The voters said no.
So, per usual, it was put to a second vote, with more dire predictions. The voters said NO!
So they went to the strategy that has always worked in the past to overturn the public vote - a straw vote at a meeting that usually consisted of about 80% teachers and teachers families.
Oops. The vote was still NO!
Guess what? The kids had their finals, got their caps and gowns, had their prom and awards/presentations night and graduation day!
However, half the teachers refused to attend the graduation ceremonies, to, as they said, "make a statement."
We got the message - we learned who the great teachers were - they were there, in support of the kids.
Maybe, but private schools traditionally pay less than public schools, and have fewer benefits. The advantages usually are more discipline and/or the religious focus of the private schools.
Around here, actually, private school teachers don't have to have a degree or teaching credentials, and some don't, especially at the small Christian schools.
The quality of private schools varies, as well, with some being highly competitive academically and some not even as rigorous as the public schools.
Especially in some rural areas, there are no private schools to compete with the public schools, but the addition of voucher money to the mix might remedy that.
If vouchers would available, I'd expect several outcomes:
1. Some parents who are currently sending their children to private schools could use voucher money to do so less expensively.2. Some parents who can't afford private school could, with vouchers.
3. Some parents would find there was no private school available even though voucher money was available.
4. Many new private schools would spring up. Some would be good, some would be adequate, and some would simply be there to try to get some of the voucher money.
Because Teachers in particular paint themselves as poor, underpaid, public servants. They make it sound like they have to apply for the EIC while paying for school materials out-of-pocket. The fact remains that they are very, VERY well paid and this puts a lie to their public posturing.
And we can be pretty sure dockworkers, mechanics, autoworkers, etc. generally can't damage an entire generation through incompetence.
Why is it okay for only a few in this country to make exorbitant salaries but the average joe is lambasted for the same ambitions?
Strawman. What CEOs make has nothing to do with what teachers(or dockworkers, auto mechanics, etc.) make. And those exorbatant salaries are NOT without a lot of compaints.
But you are complaining about your salary. Or at least your compensation. Anyone have a gun to your head keeping you there? If you don't like the way the pay works out, find a position that has the kind of pay structure you like.
Life is full of choices. It is the result of the American System and Free Will.
True -- private schools NOW generally pay less -- because less money is available.
Take away the protected monopoly of the current gvmt schools? Money will flow to quality. That IS the benefit of the free-market.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.