Highest Paid Teachers Reject 16% Raise - Go on Strike.

[Coito ergo sum]

Teachers showed up in force on picket lines Monday morning, as parents dropped their children off at 144 contingency elementary and high schools across the city, as well as at parks, libraries and YMCAs. Some parents appeared well-prepared and had already set up informal networks for drop-offs and pick-ups with other parents, others were scrambling, while a few had not even heard the news of the strike as they tried to drop their children off.

http://www.suntimes.com/15054902-761/ch ... -open.html

The coverage of the strike has obscured some basic facts. The money has continued to pour into Chicago’s failing public schools in recent years. Chicago teachers have the highest average salary of any city at $76,000 a year before benefits. The average family in the city only earns $47,000 a year. Yet the teachers rejected a 16 percent salary increase over four years at a time when most families are not getting any raises or are looking for work.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/31 ... -john-fund#

Well, if they're making $76,000 a year (not including benefits), then they better be smart as heck, and highly educated and immensely talented.

Frankly, the kids they're graduating in Chicago, like everywhere else in the country, don't show it.

If those numbers are even close to true, and they rejected a 16% raise over 4 years, fire every last one of the fuckers. They aren't worth it. Bring in people who are hungry to work and do a job. I bet you can get motivated people for 1/2 of what they're paying now.

[Kristie]

That salary sounds high, but I don't know how the cost of living differs from Indianapolis.

[SteveB]

That does sound high. My sister is a high school physics teacher and she probably makes a little more than half that.

[Coito ergo sum]

That salary sounds high, but I don't know how the cost of living differs from Indianapolis.

If the "average" in Chicago is $47,000, and they are making an average of $76,000 as teachers, they are making 1.62 times the Chicago average....for working about 180 to 210 days per year. And, that wasn't including benefits.

According to latest census results, someone making $100,000 or more is in the top 5%. Someone making $75,000 or more is in the top 10% of wage earners.

These assholes are among the "wealthiest 10% in the nation" on average, and they are rejecting a 16% pay raise over 4 years?

Fuck them. Go back to work and teach the kids, assholes! Or, quit! Go work somewhere where you think you can make more money. Bet they can't....

[Coito ergo sum]

That does sound high. My sister is a high school physics teacher and she probably makes a little more than half that.

In Chicago? Apparently Chicago teachers are already the highest paid in the nation.

[SteveB]

That does sound high. My sister is a high school physics teacher and she probably makes a little more than half that.

In Chicago? Apparently Chicago teachers are already the highest paid in the nation.

Houston. Much lower cost of living.

[Coito ergo sum]

79% of Chicago 8th Graders not proficient in reading..... http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-depa ... nt-reading

Reading? Really?

And, these douches think they deserve more than a 16% raise over 4 years?

Fuck off.

[Audley Strange]

Seems to me that they're more concerned about their pay than their vocation. Yep. fire them, hire people who are not so greedy.

[Ian]

I think the strike should've been averted beforehand also, but Coito (and the National Review, to absolutely nobody's surprise) are using money to frame the argument against the strike. However, if you listen to the reasons the teachers have for striking, money really isn't one of them. Salary negotiations went well and the two sides are pretty well done on that. The teachers' bigger grievances have to do with unfair (in their view) job security and performance evaluation methods.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think the strike should've been averted beforehand also, but Coito (and the National Review, to absolutely nobody's surprise) are using money to frame the argument against the strike. However, if you listen to the reasons the teachers have for striking, money really isn't one of them. Salary negotiations went well and the two sides are pretty well done on that. The teachers' bigger grievances have to do with unfair (in their view) job security and performance evaluation methods.

That makes their position even less sympathetic. Unfair job security? They have better job security protections than most of the rest of the American workforce. That coupled with 1.6 times the average salary, and a 9 or 10 month work schedule loaded with vacation days and other time off, excellent health and retirement benefits, etc., means they have anything they reasonably need, in my view.

Performance evaluation methods? Their performance, according to the stats on Chicago education, doesn't merit what they're getting paid now, in my view.

They aren't the best and the brightest. They are free to strike if they want to, but that doesn't require that anyone sympathize with their plight. If they were being treated unfairly now, then I'd sympathize. But they are not. They are making good money, in a comfortable working environment. To walk out of the schools based on the grievances cited is harming the children's education for no good reason.

Fuck 'em. Let 'em go. I am sure I'm not the only one.

There are engineers and accountants and other professionals making less than $76,000 per year, with fewer benefits, and no job security. Fuck off, Chicago teachers. You've got it soft now, and it's a horrible economy. They're asking the people who are getting paid less already with less job security to foot the bill for additional pay and fringe benefits, etc. Nuts to that.

[Ian]

I'm inclined to agree with a bit of that, but then again I've heard you say similar things about federal employees and your arguments about them were ill-informed, factually incorrect and astonishingly biased. So, I'm neutral about this matter (and on a personal note, I'm a parent of school-aged kids, but I'm also married to a teacher who understands what they have to deal with very well). If the strike lasts more than a couple days, I'll definitely swing to your side - there's no reason for this to be long-lived.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm inclined to agree with a bit of that, but then again I've heard you say similar things about government employees and your arguments about them were ill-informed, factually incorrect and astonishingly biased. So, I'm neutral about this matter (and on a personal note, I'm a parent of school-aged kids, but I'm also married to a teacher who understands what they have to deal with very well). If the strike lasts more than a couple days, I'll definitely swing to your side - there's no reason for this to be long-lived.

Well, my opinion of government workers is not biased, factually incorrect or ill-informed, but I also need to make clear that I don't refer to "all" government workers.

I also know full well what teachers have to deal with, and I can say with much assurance that to suggest that these teachers merit an average salary of $76,000 per year is to overstate their value.

Teaching children is one of the most fundamentally important tasks of a society. However, that does not mean that the teachers we have ought to be paid more or what they are asking for. Higher salaries are good for attracting better, more qualified teachers. The necessary implication there is that the teachers we have now are not that.

Moreover, I think an average salary of $76,000 a year ought to be plenty to attract reasonably well-qualified teachers. if they are not doing the job now, at that salary plus benefits, then it's not the money that is the issue. Some fundamental flaw in our education system is making them fail.

[Ian]

I would suggest that one fundamental flaw in our system is to bitch at teachers for any education statistics that don't strike you so well, to assume that the ones we've got apparently aren't up to snuff and at the same time gripe about how what they're being paid ought to be enough to attract the kind we need, or that $76k in an expensive city like Chicago is an overstatement of their value. I'd like to see them make 50% more than that, if only it were possible.



I think this speaks volumes on each of the above points I raised.

Moreover, there are some very serious concerns about changes to curriculum as public schools lose ground to privately-funded ones.

Further still, many school systems require teachers have a Masters degree; if not new-hires, then after a certain amount of time they're required.
Percentage of the US working-age population with a graduate degree: 7.6%
Average salary of someone educated at the graduate degree level: $63k
Average teachers salary in the US: $50k. Obviously, Chicago is a considerably more expensive place to live than the average!
I think teachers, even these ones, are demonstrably underpaid.

[Coito ergo sum]

I would suggest that one fundamental flaw in our system is to bitch at teachers for any education statistics that don't strike you so well, to assume that the ones we've got apparently aren't up to snuff and at the same time gripe about how what they're being paid ought to be enough to attract the kind we need, or that $76k in an expensive city like Chicago is an overstatement of their value. I'd like to see them make 50% more than that, if only it were possible.

Well, the thing is, they're striking against the public interest, and they are already making 1.6 times the average income in Chicago. You'd like them to make 50% more? $114,000 on average, BEFORE their generous benefits package? So, you think they merit 2.4 times the average salary in Chicago?

Well, it's certainly a position to hold. I'd like to know why you think that's reasonable, though.

I think the present salary is more than reasonable because they are making well above average and getting better benefits than average. And, it is the "average" worker that is paying their salary. They get this way above average compensation for working far fewer days and fewer hours per day than average, and getting more vacation and more sick days than average. To strike against the public interest in this circumstance is shameful.

I think this speaks volumes on each of the above points I raised.

No disagreement here. But, increases in salaries from what they're making now won't change that.

Moreover, there are some very serious concerns about changes to curriculum as public schools lose ground to privately-funded ones.

Such as?

Further still, many school systems require teachers have a Masters degree; if not new-hires, then after a certain amount of time they're required.

Good. If you're making an average of $76,000 a year, damn straight you should have a Masters degree. Also, most school systems will pay for teachers to obtain Master's degrees on the side. Another benefit the "average" non-teacher doesn't get.

Percentage of the US working-age population with a graduate degree: 7.6%
Average salary of someone educated at the graduate degree level: $63k
Average teachers salary in the US: $50k. Obviously, Chicago is a considerably more expensive place to live than the average!
I think teachers, even these ones, are demonstrably underpaid.

The average teacher salary of $50k, is above the average salary in the US. That seems to demonstrate an above-average pay scale, rather than a below average pay scale.

Most teachers do not have master's degrees, even in school systems that will pay for the Master's Degree. Those that do have master's degrees get higher compensation than those that do not.

Cost of living in Chicago is apparently doable at $47,000 a year, since that is the average salary in Chicago. Teachers in Chicago earn $76,000 per year on average which is 1.6 times the average salary in Chicago. That appears to demonstrate that they are being paid more than commensurate with the cost of living.

[Gerald McGrew]

CES,

Despite the fact that you've already had it pointed out to you that pay isn't the issue they're striking over, you continue to harp on the fact that they make $76K per year. Why?