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

[Ian]

Your post was very very stupid, because it's teacher-trashing, plain and simple. No mention of the role of parents, for one thing. And you've got the nerve to bitch at teachers left and right for their results, while at the same time saying that they ought to be doing better for the resources (including salary) that they have.

Small wonder teachers unions are so thoroughly Democratic. Public education is never adequately funded, and it's thanks to people with opinions like yours.

You want better results? Let's throw some more money at the problem. Nope, even in Chicago I don't think $76k a year is a good enough value for what they really do. I think schools should look like cathedrals. And I think parents in general could do better, but I don't believe for a second that that's the whole problem. Teachers can only do so much with what we give them.

[Coito ergo sum]

Your post was very very stupid, because it's teacher-trashing, plain and simple. No mention of the role of parents, for one thing. And you've got the nerve to bitch at teachers left and right for their results, while at the same time saying that they ought to be doing better for the resources (including salary) that they have.

Of course there is a role for parents, and they may be primarily responsible. But, what does that have to do with whether the teachers deserve more money, given what they are being paid now?

No, I'm saying that you get raises for results. They're being paid sufficiently for what we're getting. If more money paid to them will not result in better outcomes, then why would we pay them more?

For example, if a salesperson doesn't generate sales because of economic circumstances in the industry that cause the buyers not to buy as much, do we give them more money anyway? Because it's not their fault? Of course not.

Small wonder teachers unions are so thoroughly Democratic. Public education is never adequately funded, and it's thanks to people with opinions like yours.

How much more should they get paid?

Do you know how much the per pupil funding is for schools?

D.C. public schools spent the most per pupil of any state in 2010, $18,667. The District of Columbia was followed by New York ($18,618), New Jersey ($16,841), Alaska ($15,783), Vermont ($15,274) and Wyoming ($15,169). This group is largely consistent with a July 2011 analysis by 24/7 Wall Street that ranked states by how much they spend on education.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/2 ... 19569.html

Jesus, man -- that's enough for expensive college. But, you tell me -- how much should it be? $50,000 per student? Some other amount? What's going to be "adequate" funding?

You want better results? Let's throw some more money at the problem. Nope, even in Chicago I don't think $76k a year is a good enough value for what they really do. I think schools should look like cathedrals. And I think parents in general could do better, but I don't believe for a second that that's the whole problem. Teachers can only do so much with what we give them.

Well, we've been throwing more and more money at the problem and kids are graduating stupider. Something wrong, there, I agree with you. But, we spend more in total, in real dollars, and per pupil than ever before. To suggest that we haven't been throwing money at the problem is wrong. It's all we've BEEN doing.

[Beatsong]

Have you seen the stats on how dumb American high school graduates are?

We could get those results by paying the teachers half as much, and babysitting the kids while they read.

The folk wisdom is astounding.

The system isn't delivering they way I'd like it to (says I, who knows fuck all about it), so let's put LESS resources into it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Have you seen the stats on how dumb American high school graduates are?

We could get those results by paying the teachers half as much, and babysitting the kids while they read.

The folk wisdom is astounding.

The system isn't delivering they way I'd like it to (says I, who knows fuck all about it), so let's put LESS resources into it.

It all depends how the resources are going to be spent. Just paying a teacher more money isn't going to make them teach better, is it?

Something is wrong with the school systems -- we're paying $15,000 to $18,000 PER STUDENT per year. How much should it cost?

[Beatsong]

Have you seen the stats on how dumb American high school graduates are?

We could get those results by paying the teachers half as much, and babysitting the kids while they read.

The folk wisdom is astounding.

The system isn't delivering they way I'd like it to (says I, who knows fuck all about it), so let's put LESS resources into it.

It all depends how the resources are going to be spent. Just paying a teacher more money isn't going to make them teach better, is it?

Well according economic mantra that we need low tax and deregulation so that companies can be free to pay enough to attract "the best people", sure, it should mean precisely that.

Oh but hang on, I forgot. Financial incentives are only necessary for the super-rich. The motivation for quality work that we're supposed to take for granted in their case doesn't apply to everyone else.

Also, I suspect your financial comparisons are bunk. According to this site the figure of $47,000 is the MEDIAN household income in Chicago. I'm not sure but every reference I can find to the compared figure of 76K describes it as the AVERAGE or MEAN teacher's salary. These are of course two completely different things, and not in any way comparable. Not that that's going to matter to lunatic right wing propaganda sites. Furthermore - and I'm not sure about this in terms of how American demographic statistics are gathered, so am happy to admit if I'm wrong - but wouldn't "household income" include people with no or only part-time income? The retired, unemployed, students etc?

Wouldn't it be more meaningful to compare teachers' salaries with those in other jobs requiring similar qualifications, expected to work similar hours with similar levels of responsibility?

[Gerald McGrew]

MacGrew -- can it with all the snide remarks and insinuations, please. This is the 5th time I'm asking you. Knock it the fuck off.

See my signature line.

Now, also stop it with this "teachers have to have master's degrees" - they don't. Barely 1/2 of all teachers have masters degrees. And, most of them go to school for their master's degrees on the public dime as additional compensation. The rest of the country has to pay for their school, generally speaking, if their employer will even give them the time off or schedule flexible enough to make it to classes.

Oh dear....

Many of the teachers working today weren't required to have masters degrees when they were hired. Now, incoming new hires are required, and many districts are requiring current teachers below a certain age go back and get their graduate degrees. So when your employer suddenly requires you to have a higher degree than when you were hired, it's reasonable for them to accommodate you getting that degree.

The average salary for full-time public school teachers in 2010–11 was $56,069 in current dollars (i.e. dollars that are not adjusted for inflation). In constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, the average salary was about 3 percent higher in 2010–11 than in 1990–91. That's nationally. In Chicago, it's $76,000 -- so fucking can it with your self-righteous bullshit.

Again, your carping over people with masters degrees and 10-15 years experience who are tasked with educating the nation's children making $76k per year speaks for itself.

It isn't a sin to suggest that they are being compensated at least fairly. This is a common theme that we have to fawn over teachers as if they're the most important thing in the world. Well, it may be politically incorrect, but when I see the compensation and benefits package and working conditions of the Chicago teachers, and see what their striking over, and then compare that to the uneducated graduates they're unleashing on the world, I am pretty sure they're making what they're worth.

Yeah CES....we get it. This thread is full of little more than you bitching and bitching and bitching and bitching about how much money those fat cat public school teachers make.

You think public school teachers in inner city school districts have it easy and are over-compensated. What I wonder is, why didn't you go into that field if it's such a cushy job with fantastic perks?

[Beatsong]

It all depends how the resources are going to be spent. Just paying a teacher more money isn't going to make them teach better, is it?

And yet you're the one who insists on overlooking the fact that one of the main things they are objecting too is not their own salaries, but the desire on the part of their employers to remove the cap on class sizes. Anyone with ANY experience in education will tell you the importance of class size upon educational experience and outcomes, yet when the people actually there doing it, in a position to know, take a stand to protect this aspect of "how the resources are spent", you respond by shooting the messenger.

Something is wrong with the school systems -- we're paying $15,000 to $18,000 PER STUDENT per year. How much should it cost?

There's nothing very logical here. It doesn't follow at all from the bare quoting of that figure that "something is wrong with the school systems". It doesn't seem particularly high to me. I wonder how it compares with other western coutnries? (Not a leading question. I don't know.)

What is particularly irrational is the assumption that spending less would deliver the same, or better, outcomes.

[Cunt]

Were you to offer me incentive to deliver better student growth, I would refuse to accept students who I thought would not grow.

It isn't something to incentivize, in my opinion.

Before getting rowdy about the suggestion, has anyone tried babysitting kids while they read as an alternative to government schools? How did it measure up?

It seems that teachers expect a bit too much immunity from criticism. If they work too many hours for their pay, I think I see the problem.

They are fucking stupid.

Maybe they have a weak-minded spot which gets exploited...say, an intense love of children. In any case, they are clearly compromised and should be replaced with something...ANYTHING which demonstrates to work better.

[Beatsong]

Before getting rowdy about the suggestion, has anyone tried babysitting kids while they read as an alternative to government schools?

Sure. From what I gather the USA is full of homeschooling religious nutjobs.

It seems that teachers expect a bit too much immunity from criticism.

It's not that, really. Teachers are subject to all kinds of criticism from their senior leadership that they expect and accept as part of the normal expectation of doing their job properly.

The problem is that they're constantly being criticised by ignorant media pundits, and members of the public "informed" by them, who haven't set foot in a school in 30 years and don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about. Mostly based on unfounded hunches and back-of-a-fag-packet "calculations" about how everything would work so much better if we only brought back the cane / got rid of "political correctness" / paid teachers the same as garbage collectors like they deserve / etc. etc.

The problem with teachers is that they're expected to do two jobs for the price of one. Everything that used to be expected of parents, is now expected of teachers who have to provide the emotional attention and motivation to achievement that dysfunctional home lives lack. And the government likes to pretend that every problem caused by structural economic inequality, poverty and disadvantage, could be solved if teachers only educated people better (in larger classes with less money, of course). 'Cause it's easier to pass the buck than address the problem.

In any case, they are clearly compromised and should be replaced with something...ANYTHING which demonstrates to work better.

That's a great suggestion. Now, let's see: the only thing that I know of that has consistently, in many different countries and settings, been DEMONSTRATED to work better, is halving class sizes, massively increasing budgets and improving facilities, since that's what they do in private schools, which get consistently better results. (Of course the other thing they do in private schools is not take students who are poor, or have learning or behavioural disabilities - but I assume we are talking about an inclusive solution to state education so that's not an answer.)

Problem sorted, eh?

[Badger3k]

If those numbers are even close to true, and they rejected a 16% raise over 4 years, fire every last one of the fuckers.

The numbers are misleading; "averages" are not the same as means, for example, I'm betting if you took the mean salary for a teacher in Chicago it would e a lot less than 70,000 (and a lot less than someoen in a another profession with similar educational requirements). Also that 16% is actually 4% in each of the next four years and is mostly due to the fact that teachers in Chicago have been asked to increase their work day by 20% (one of the reasons Chicago's students do poorly is that Chicago has one of the shortest school terms in the country) and are seeing cuts to their benefits.

I don't understand why people get angry about other people making a decent wage.

And that's not the sticking point in the negotiations; the big issues are things like class size, crumbling infrastructure, the waste of time and resources on pointless rounds of standardized testing,

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.

My wife's a teacher, and the most dedicated, hardest working person I know. I don't think you have any idea how much work teachers do, or why they do it.

I'll chime in - not about Chicago, but about being a teacher in Texas. High School biology now, moved from a credit recovery lab. I'm making about 43K after 6 years, not bad, but not great. I've already spent way more than the $250 tax break we teachers get, all in the first 3 weeks of class. Having to buy your own supplies because we have no budget yet, including a clock for my room, buying all the paper, printer ribbons for my own printer since I already ran out of the limited copies we're allowed so I had to print up all my own material - such as the 4 page lab handout the kids need to do the work since we still haven't gotten the notebooks the kids are going to be issued (which should have been here day one). Get up at 5:30 am to be at work by 7 (live around an hour away, some teachers live further), get home normally 7-7:30, do school work until bed at 10-10:30 so I can get enough sleep. Add in all the paperwork, and I have very little time to myself, get no relaxation, and the stress has already set my acid reflux up so I'm basically throwing up every morning - my doctors referral appt (already had the $30 visit, now will have the $50 specialist visit) is Tuesday - with another wed for an unrelated issue.

Add in kids who act up and don't want to learn or turn in anything - working on grades now (taking break) and finding out most are failing due to missing work. If they don't come in and make up the labs, etc, then they will fail, and I'm going to be held accountable for that (still need to call parents for kids missing days and work, that's a lot of calls I somehow have to find time for), while finding and producing all the activities, power points, videos, etc that I need for the days work. While keeping up on calls, special ed paperwork, and others. Add in that they reduced our sick leave and benefits - medical bills are up and so is what we have to pay, and the idiotic No Child Left Behind bullshit that expects 100% of the kids to pass by next year, plus all the other hassles of kids in an economically challenged areas (approx 80% qualify for free or reduced lunch). Blargh. I know why people quit. I don't want to, and assuming I can get my stomach under control I won't, but unless you live it, you don't have a clue. It's like talking to people who have never been in the military - unless you've been in, you don't know.

I've helped a lot of kids graduate over the last few years, and now I'm trying to get them to learn and move forward as freshman, so it's been a change. Ah, hell, I haven't even brought up the creationist bs we sometimes get, or the religious crap, or the voucher shit they keep bringing up (yeah - let's take kids out of public school and put them into a private school that has less accountability and can teach kids crap - recent study showed no difference or slightly worse performance in charter schools, and several have been closed due to...improprieties.)

Sorry to bitch a bit. This has been rewarding - some very good kids and very good days, but stress levels through the roof now and watching this thread brought it out. I personally haven't looked into any of the links or anything about the teachers in Chicago, so I have no comment to make on that at all. I lack data.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[kiki5711]

The latest report indicated that the average teacher salary was $47,602. The Federation indicated that unfortunately, teachers are struggling to find housing in their areas that they can afford on their salaries.

And that's probably in "good/rich" neighborhoods. I do not think that is the "starting" salary either. I bet you, in the "HOOD" they make half of that.

[kiki5711]

Nassau, N.Y.
Salary: $85,780
The annual median wage of a high school teacher working in Nassau, N.Y. is $85,780, which is $32,460 more than the average pay in the profession.

Nassau County is a very RICH neighborhood.

Bronx, NY-- $43,000, as compared with $74,000 in suburban Rye, $77,000 in Manhasset, and $81,000 in the town of Scarsdale, which is only about eleven miles from Alliyah's school. Five years later, in 2002, salary scales for New York City's teachers rose to levels that approximated those within the lower-spending districts in the suburbs, but salary scales do not reflect the actual salaries that teachers typically receive, which are dependent upon years of service and advanced degrees. Salaries for first-year teachers in the city were higher than they'd been four years before, but the differences in median pay between the city and its upper-middle-income suburbs had remained extreme. The overall figure for New York City in 2002-2003 was $53,000, while it had climbed to $87,000 in Manhasset and exceeded $95,000 in Scarsdale.

Not to mention that a lot of the teachers working in poor neighborhoods contribute their "OWN" money for supplies and such.

In Manhattan, upper class neighborhoods where rent is in the range of $15,000 per month, I am certain, the teachers get a quite a bit more.

[JimC]

If those numbers are even close to true, and they rejected a 16% raise over 4 years, fire every last one of the fuckers.

The numbers are misleading; "averages" are not the same as means, for example, I'm betting if you took the mean salary for a teacher in Chicago it would e a lot less than 70,000 (and a lot less than someoen in a another profession with similar educational requirements). Also that 16% is actually 4% in each of the next four years and is mostly due to the fact that teachers in Chicago have been asked to increase their work day by 20% (one of the reasons Chicago's students do poorly is that Chicago has one of the shortest school terms in the country) and are seeing cuts to their benefits.

I don't understand why people get angry about other people making a decent wage.

And that's not the sticking point in the negotiations; the big issues are things like class size, crumbling infrastructure, the waste of time and resources on pointless rounds of standardized testing,

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.

My wife's a teacher, and the most dedicated, hardest working person I know. I don't think you have any idea how much work teachers do, or why they do it.

I'll chime in - not about Chicago, but about being a teacher in Texas. High School biology now, moved from a credit recovery lab. I'm making about 43K after 6 years, not bad, but not great. I've already spent way more than the $250 tax break we teachers get, all in the first 3 weeks of class. Having to buy your own supplies because we have no budget yet, including a clock for my room, buying all the paper, printer ribbons for my own printer since I already ran out of the limited copies we're allowed so I had to print up all my own material - such as the 4 page lab handout the kids need to do the work since we still haven't gotten the notebooks the kids are going to be issued (which should have been here day one). Get up at 5:30 am to be at work by 7 (live around an hour away, some teachers live further), get home normally 7-7:30, do school work until bed at 10-10:30 so I can get enough sleep. Add in all the paperwork, and I have very little time to myself, get no relaxation, and the stress has already set my acid reflux up so I'm basically throwing up every morning - my doctors referral appt (already had the $30 visit, now will have the $50 specialist visit) is Tuesday - with another wed for an unrelated issue.

Add in kids who act up and don't want to learn or turn in anything - working on grades now (taking break) and finding out most are failing due to missing work. If they don't come in and make up the labs, etc, then they will fail, and I'm going to be held accountable for that (still need to call parents for kids missing days and work, that's a lot of calls I somehow have to find time for), while finding and producing all the activities, power points, videos, etc that I need for the days work. While keeping up on calls, special ed paperwork, and others. Add in that they reduced our sick leave and benefits - medical bills are up and so is what we have to pay, and the idiotic No Child Left Behind bullshit that expects 100% of the kids to pass by next year, plus all the other hassles of kids in an economically challenged areas (approx 80% qualify for free or reduced lunch). Blargh. I know why people quit. I don't want to, and assuming I can get my stomach under control I won't, but unless you live it, you don't have a clue. It's like talking to people who have never been in the military - unless you've been in, you don't know.

I've helped a lot of kids graduate over the last few years, and now I'm trying to get them to learn and move forward as freshman, so it's been a change. Ah, hell, I haven't even brought up the creationist bs we sometimes get, or the religious crap, or the voucher shit they keep bringing up (yeah - let's take kids out of public school and put them into a private school that has less accountability and can teach kids crap - recent study showed no difference or slightly worse performance in charter schools, and several have been closed due to...improprieties.)

Sorry to bitch a bit. This has been rewarding - some very good kids and very good days, but stress levels through the roof now and watching this thread brought it out. I personally haven't looked into any of the links or anything about the teachers in Chicago, so I have no comment to make on that at all. I lack data.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I sympathise. I teach senior maths and physics, and have done so for about 35 years, mostly in the same school. I suspect I have less stress than you, and I think the relative pay in Australia is somewhat better, but it is still a very full-on job, very draining, even though it is often rewarding. Most holidays I put in many hours of work creating new worksheets, tests or practical activities.

[Coito ergo sum]

Have you seen the stats on how dumb American high school graduates are?

We could get those results by paying the teachers half as much, and babysitting the kids while they read.

The folk wisdom is astounding.

The system isn't delivering they way I'd like it to (says I, who knows fuck all about it), so let's put LESS resources into it.

It all depends how the resources are going to be spent. Just paying a teacher more money isn't going to make them teach better, is it?

Well according economic mantra that we need low tax and deregulation so that companies can be free to pay enough to attract "the best people", sure, it should mean precisely that.

Offering a higher salary may attract a better qualified person (someone who could command a higher salary elsewhere), but it doesn't make the current teachers better.

And, if you reject the "economic mantra" then why would you assert it as a reason for paying more money?

Oh but hang on, I forgot. Financial incentives are only necessary for the super-rich. The motivation for quality work that we're supposed to take for granted in their case doesn't apply to everyone else.

Straw man. Like I said, the financial incentives work, but you can't view them as simplistically as you are casting them. If I higher a person at work, more money will be an incentive to work more hours or work a little harder, but that doesn't mean that if you pay someone a million dollars more that you will get a million dollars worth of benefit from them. My point about the Chicago teachers is that they are already being compensated very well. $76,000 per year -- without even counting benefits - puts them in the top 10% of income earners nationally. The top 10%. Add to that better health benefits than most, and a job from which they can only be fired "for cause" (as opposed to "at will" which is what most of us work under), along with paid schooling if they want to go and get a higher degree, matching dollars for their 403(b) retirement plans, etc. They are being paid better than more than 90% of the income earning population. That's not enough? Really?

Also, I suspect your financial comparisons are bunk. According to this site the figure of $47,000 is the MEDIAN household income in Chicago. I'm not sure but every reference I can find to the compared figure of 76K describes it as the AVERAGE or MEAN teacher's salary. These are of course two completely different things, and not in any way comparable. Not that that's going to matter to lunatic right wing propaganda sites. Furthermore - and I'm not sure about this in terms of how American demographic statistics are gathered, so am happy to admit if I'm wrong - but wouldn't "household income" include people with no or only part-time income? The retired, unemployed, students etc?

So, show me the real statistic, then? Unless you're suggesting that some small number of teachers are making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, and the bulk of the teachers are making like $40,000 a year, your criticism doesn't make any sense. But, if you think that the the average of $76k doesn't reflect what the average teacher makes, then show me some source to back you up. If you think that the average income earner earns a lot more than $47,000 a year, then back that up to.

The fact remains, though, that making over $75k per year puts one in the top 10% of income earners. Not too shabby, ay? Or are you now going to pretend that $75k is not a lot of money to earn?

Wouldn't it be more meaningful to compare teachers' salaries with those in other jobs requiring similar qualifications, expected to work similar hours with similar levels of responsibility?

Yes!

And, that would show them to be even more overpaid, because other jobs requiring similar qualifications have to work a minim of 2050 hours a year, normally, and often more than that when they work overtime. Teachers put in far fewer hours in a year than that, because they get about 500 hours fewer just because they don't work most of the summer and get huge numbers of vacation days that nobody else gets.

But, let's run that analysis. Give me your idea of a job with similar qualifications, expecting similar hours, and with similar levels of responsibility.

[Coito ergo sum]

Before getting rowdy about the suggestion, has anyone tried babysitting kids while they read as an alternative to government schools?

Sure. From what I gather the USA is full of homeschooling religious nutjobs.

Well, you gather wrong, since the percentage of American kids who are "homeschooled" is about 2.7%. Well, unless "2.7%" = "full of", which I would say it doesn't.

That's a great suggestion. Now, let's see: the only thing that I know of that has consistently, in many different countries and settings, been DEMONSTRATED to work better, is halving class sizes, massively increasing budgets and improving facilities, since that's what they do in private schools, which get consistently better results. (Of course the other thing they do in private schools is not take students who are poor, or have learning or behavioural disabilities - but I assume we are talking about an inclusive solution to state education so that's not an answer.)

Problem sorted, eh?

Is the claim here that the US spends less per pupil than "many different countries?"