Teachers earn more than editors & reporters

email ^ | Craig J. Cantoni

[hsmomx3]

The Summer 2003 edition of the education journal "Education Next" has statistics on teacher pay from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that match my own research. To quote: "Teachers earn more per hour than architects, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, statisticians, biological and life scientists, registered nurses, university-level foreign-language teachers, and editors and reporters." The statistics exclude benefits, which are far richer for teachers than for private-sector employees.

On a related note, the web site of a private citizen has great graphs and stats on government spending. One graph shows how education productivity has declined by 70 percent over the last 40 years, based on the ratio of SAT scores to inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending. The graph can be found at:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/education.htm

Regards,

Craig J. Cantoni

Capstone Consulting Group

480-661-8175

Fax 480-661-8155

[mathluv]

You are nasty. I don't know where you got half of what you have said.

[FLAMING DEATH]

Yep. Once parents are able to get a diagnosis of a learning disorder, or ADHD from a medical doctor, they have free reign. Sometimes, a regular-ed student's parents can also wreak havoc in the class...one suggested to our teaching team that we buy air purifiers for every room because her son was sensitive to "airborne impurities". Fortunately, she did not pursue this, but I have seen equally absurd requests honored because they are backed with the force of Federal law.

For example, some students are required, in the 7th grade, to have tests READ to them, because they cannot read. In my class, I am trying to break over from simple developmental reading into analysis and appreciation of literature -- comprehension and application of knowledge. Do you really think that a child who can't read his own test is going to benefit from being in my class?

Truth is, according to the law, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT I THINK. I am require to provide "appropriate" instruction to every child in the class, on their own grade level, even if they themselves cannot read at a 3rd grade level. Even if all 30 kids in my class read on a different level!

Someone tell me how I can teach 30 different lessons to 30 different kids, all on developmentally appropriate levels while simultaneously pulling those lessons from the same on-level text!

And remember, all this is federal law and I can be sued if I don't do it!

And, all the while, I have to: make sure that the kids don't beat one another up, steal from one another, stay in their seats, refrain from distracting their classmates, and generally maintain order.

How many people take the time to find out about these laws before they start blaming every ill of the educational system on the teachers?

[arm958]

If its such good pay, give it a try.

I wholeheartedly agree. I challenge any parent who is able, to obtain substitute certification and spend a few weeks in the classsroom. It will be eye-opening. You may not agree with the way everything is done, but you will definitely have a newfound appreciation for what it takes to be a teacher. It's not easy. I liken it to trying to be a professor, a parent and a drill sergeant all at the same time.

[FLAMING DEATH]

I know what you mean. But, some people where I work are coming around. When I used to preach privatization, a lot of them scoffed and said it would never work. I'm hearing a lot more about it now, almost always because there are kids that we can't exclude, even when their behavior is extremely disrespectful or even violent.

Some teachers are still really limited in their thinking...when I suggested to one that our salaries would increase if schools were privatized, she said, "Well, on average, private school teachers earn less than public school teachers".

To which I replied, "Of course...why pay for what you now get for free?"

Mandatory education is one of the worst things that ever happened to this country...the law now protects the troublemakers and scofflaws.

I've often said that the whole thing is going to have to collapse on itself before anything will get any better. I honestly believe that we're getting close to that day.

[Principled]

I would be interested in hearing your arguments in favor of privatization. Specifically, objections from naysaying teachers.

[netmilsmom]

I juat looked at this years schedule, I'm in Michigan.
We started September 3rd
There was 2 weeks at Christmas
There was 1 week in February
There was one week at Easter + Good Friday
Classes end next week
Now count the National Holidays i.e. Martin Luther King, President's day.
Plus 5 sick days?
this adds up.

[undeniable logic]

Um excuse me, but teachers are private citizens too, and I doubt it takes into account the hours they spend at home grading papers, doing lesson plans, not counting putting up with your snot nosed kid who wont ever bring in his home work. Fair point, but many other professionals also put in a lot of time outside of work. In fact, for most people, the idea of a 40 hour work week is history. Also, what other professional gets three months summer vacation, winter break, spring break, accrued sick days, accrued vacation, etc? The hourly pay is high, the reason I wouldn't do it is because it is basically a part time job that would get in the way of me earning what I could in a real full-time job.

For part-time, I don't mean during the time that is worked; I am referring to all the time off given.

[netmilsmom]

Dude, if you are making 30,000 and putting up with all you say, move to a different district.

[cinFLA]

Anybody who needs a teaching job because the Bush Recession has foreclosed other emplyment prospects deserves all the sympathy in the world.

I hate to bust your bubble but the recession started on CLINTON's watch.

[lawdude]

"... and try to fire one! Tenure, tenure, tenure."

You think Saddam was hard to depose. Woof, try a teacher or professor.

[FLAMING DEATH]

Basically, the best argument in favor of privatization is that the school is a company no different from any other. There is no incentive to do better under the current system, because you will not lose your customer base. Private schools at this point are not a real threat to the public school system, because people will not pay for what they can get for free (so they believe), even if the free product is inferior.

A superintendant, a principal, or a teacher faces no monetary disincentive for a nonproductive school. A proprietor, however, will see his own livelihood suffer if his customers leave and go elsewhere. He will motivate his workers with the incetives of higher salaries and bonuses, made available by an expanding customer base that results from people seeking a superior product.

It's the same principle that explains the economies of Soviet Russia...businesses were taken out of the hands of the people who had a real stake in them, i.e., their owners, and placed in the hands of disinterested, appointed third parties. Consequently, we were able to trounce Soviet Russia economically during the 20th century, because our people and factories produced superior products and made the most of the resources available. People had a personal interest in the businesses, because they were their own, and they knew that making them the best they could be would result in a higher standard of living for themselves.

Other than the satisfaction of a job well done, what incentive does a principal, or a teacher, for that matter, have to take a school from mediocrity to greatness? The principal does not get a bonus for administering a School of Excellence. He does not get docked for floundering test scores. The status quo, therefore, remains. You can't just rely on people to be good people for the sake of others. Altruism is fleeting, and that's why its bad...you can't depend on it being there when you need it most, and it requires that people give of themselves with no guarantee of receiving an equal or agreed-upon benefit in return (Read anything by Ayn Rand, if you haven't. Preferably, "The Virtue of Selfishness").

But, personal incentives such as monetary profit (a bad word in today's society) are constant...everyone needs money to eat, money to shelter themselves, money to transport themselves, etc. Even if they have enough to get by, they always want more. And, if your money depends on the quality of the work, then the quality of the work improves.

The schools that produce an inferior product (poorly educated students) will automatically be forced out of existence because too few students will populate them. Too little funding will ensure that they close. The best and brightest teachers will be hired at the best schools, which will pay them more, because they will have a larger customer base, and consequently, greater profit.

This is the whole priciple that made America great and allowed her to lead the world during the twentieth century, but somehow that concept has been missed by our lawmakers.

[SCalGal]

I leave for work every morning at 7:30, and I get home at 4:30. [Let's see-- that's a 9-hour day.]

You don't get to include your commute time in your workday... A 16 hour day is 16 hours at work, excluding the commute.

[Principled]

Thank you for the reply, flaming death. I am looking for arguments to take to those who oppose privatization. Hell, I'm for it!

What types of anti-privatization arguments exist? Just who and why would anyone oppose such a common sense move?

[FLAMING DEATH]

I live in a very rural, isolated community. It is not going to be better anywhere else, because, if I stay in education, I will have to tolerate these same stupid laws and their effects anywhere I go in the nation, unless I decide to try working for a private school. And those jobs aren't exactly plentiful here.

Besides, I'm fortunate in that I have attained my lifelong dream of actually working in the community where I grew up. You could draw a circle with a 10 mile radius right here where I am sitting, and every home I've ever had lies somewhere within it. I love this place, but I don't know if I will be able to stay in education and actually stay HERE.

[FLAMING DEATH]

One of the opposition's big arguments is that poor families won't be able to handle the burden of funding their child's education. Which, to a point, is true. But, millions of people go to college, and none of that is mandatory, and no one is entitled to it.

Think about this...if the parents had a monetary stake in their child's education...for example, if the child could attain scholarships with good grades, don't you think this would improve a kid's chances of being successful? Would it not also improve parental involvement?

And, frequently, people pay for college with loans. In my state, there's even something called a prepaid college plan...kind of an educational savings account.

Of course the idea that a parent, not the taxpayer, should bear the burden of their child's educational expenses is viewed as ludicrous. I would put it to them this way: is it fair that the taxpayer, who has no control over how many children are born, be saddled with the responsibly of paying for each and every one's education? How or why does your decision to have children entitle you to my money to educate them?

And imagine, without mandatory education, that parents who use schools as a babysitter are suddenly responsible for the supervision of their own children if they are expelled for offenses that go unnoticed in most public schools?

Imagine that schools are free to offer courses dictated by student ability levels instead of by Federal laws made by politicians hundreds of thousands of miles away who have never even seen your children!

I don't think that this can have anything but positive benefits, as students would have to work to their ability levels or finally face consequences that have real teeth to them.

Is that more along the lines of what you were looking for?

Any specific questions? I'm no Braniac, but I'll try my best to provide an answer....

[netmilsmom]

>>How about you try to help us out, give good teachers your support, instead of treating us like WE are the enemy?<<

I think that this is part of the problem. I don't think you are the enemy nor do I think you are the Madonna either. You have a job to do that's a pretty good gig. Yet all I hear from my friends who are teachers, my sister and her friends who are teachers is that they are soooo ripped off because they don't make as much as teachers as they could in any other profession. I just hate hearing the victimization of it all.
I volunteer every Wednesday in my daughter's class. That means from 8:15 until 2:45. I am there with all the supplies, cookies, candy, paper, you name it. I'm there for every field trip and party. Art projects, I've done them all. Grading papers, been there. Journals, I'm the one putting them together. Evaluations, those too. Yes the teacher works hard, but no harder than I did as an office manager in a psychiatrists office. And she only works 180 days to get double my pay.
All I'm looking for is the victimization to be taken out of it.

[FLAMING DEATH]

I understand what you are saying...we are a society of victims, and we all use our victimhood for personal gain.

It seems more ludicrous to me, however, that a baseball player only plays for about six months a year and earns millions, and they're treated like heroes.

Congressmen work only part of the year as well, and look what we pay them.

I also think that you should be willing to pay for the quality of the services you get. Teachers are professionals, and if someone is worth paying for, they should be evaluated in terms of the quality of the services they provide. These are, after all, the people shaping your children's future, and if they do a good job, they should get a fair salary.

Of course, the big thorn in the side of most people is the three month summer vacation, and I can understand this to a point. I also understand that it is insanity to expect grade school and middle school children to attend school year-round, as if it were a job.

While it is training for real life, we need to realize that they are kids and they do need some time to be so. I am not opposed to year-round school from a personal standpoint, but I am opposed to it for younger children in that I think it would result in one of two extremes...children who place their work above all else, the way some adults do(bad), or children who become bored or frustrated at working seemingly without end(also bad).

High school is a different story, however...I see nothing wrong with year-round school at this level, but I wonder if coordination of primary and secondary schools would become a nightmare, with one being nine months and one being year-round. Then again, it might work just fine.

That having been said, teachers have to live too, and just because their jobs stop for three months a year doesn't mean that their stomachs don't get hungry, their kids don't need clothes, and their house payments stop. So, they deserve competitive salaries for the job that they do.

Of course, I would be satisfied with $35,000 a year...

[netmilsmom]

>>Of course, I would be satisfied with $35,000 a year...<<

You deserve more than 35,000 a year. Most teachers do.

[FLAMING DEATH]

I can't complain, because I have a home and all the fixin's, and I don't have to go hungry. And yes, three months off is very valuable to me. I think of it as "recovery time".

But it still irks me when people talk about how teachers are overpaid.

I'm not looking for a raise...I just want people to understand that I earn every penny of what I get.

Now, if someone were to OFFER me a raise...I don't think I'd refuse!

[El Gato]

Politics. Mediocre teachers who have been around for æons don't want some young upstart making them look bad, so they seek to discourage less senior people from doing to well. The teachers who might threaten the status quo are also, quite conveniently, the ones most likely to leave in disgust.

Bovine Excrement. They leave because they can't take the micky mouse, the paperwork and the micromanagement, by everyone from the principle (usually a big problem) to the "support" staff at the district, to the school board, the state legislatur and the Congress and Federal Department of (no)Education. They aren't allowed to discipline the unruly disrupters, who make learning next to impossible for all but the most focused students, and even those students get cheated. Also, they can usually make more money elsewhere. Work 9 to 5, rather than 7:00 or 7:30 to 4:30 or 5:00 plus time at home, plus time a "sponser" etc, etc. Plus in many states, Texas is one, they must continue to take graduate classes or obtain a Master's degree, just to keep their job, not to advance in it, which of course eats into those "3 month vacations" rather seriously.