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

[Seth]

It's more "fair" of course. Oh, and it reduces the tax burden the steel workers have to pay for those trough-sucking government workers. That in turn translates to government consuming much less of the national GDP, which translates directly into more money being available to the free markets to use to stimulate the economy and improve the prosperity and wealth of the steel workers.

If you honestly think reducing gov't salaries and benefits will result in significantly more take home pay for steel plant workers, well....I have some "waterfront property" you might be interested in.

The size of the executive branch's payroll is expected to near a record $177 billion in fiscal 2012 — almost $35 billion more than the compensation costs for fiscal 2008.
And even with the Obama administration's two-year freeze on some pay raises for executive branch civilians, their direct compensation for 2012 is expected to be $9 billion — or 5 percent — more than in 2010.

Source

Cut the federal workforce by 1/2, and that alone will save taxpayers 88 billion a year. That's 88 billion that taxpayers don't have to fork over to the government. That's 88 billion that business owners can spend on expanding their businesses and hiring more workers. It's not chump change.

By the way, teachers are only worth what we, the People are willing to pay them, on an individual basis, according to their qualifications and skills at the job, and at the lowest possible salary that a competitive marketplace for labor can provide for us. If teachers don't like those constraints, they are free to take up garbage collecting or shit-shoveling in the private sector because there are millions of other people out there who can do their jobs cheaper and better than some union teacher who thinks public employment is a right, not a privilege.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...we know. The conservative approach to labor is "race to the bottom" capitalism where workers should be willing to accept any pay or conditions offered, because they're lucky to have jobs at all!

You get better work from workers when they know if they slack off they can be fired and replaced with someone more willing to work hard. That's a universal truth that socialists simply cannot seem to comprehend.

We get it guys.

No you don't, because if you did, it would mean you're not a dependent-class proletarian who thinks that other people owe you something, you'd be a rational human being who understands that your success in life is dependent on how hard you're willing to work, not on largess from the public treasury.

[Seth]

Again, you oversimplify and strawman. One, most people who run businesses are not rich. The person who owns the average store in a strip mall in the United States, or a pizza restaurant, etc., makes a middle class income when it's all said and done, and works twice the normal working hours. Those are the people that get taxed when we raise taxes, not just "the rich" (millionaires and billionaires).

That surely depends which taxes you raise, and how.

Raising income tax rates will raise their income tax.

No it won't, if you limit the income tax rises to income over a specified amount, above what struggling small business owners make but below what millionaires make. And, income tax is not the only form of tax, by a long way.

Obama hasn't limited the income tax hikes he calls for to "millionaires and billionaires."

No but he could do if he chose to (ie if such an idea could be sold to the American public, which it obviously can't). C'mon dude - progressive taxation, it's not a hard concept. Most countries have it.

We're going round in circles here but the bottom line is that you're simply wrong in insisting that "raising rax" as a general concept, MUST of necessity result in higher taxes for a SPECIFIC subsection of society (in this case, small business owners). The manipulation of various tax rates is far more complex and subtle than that and governments have enormous scope to vary how they tax different types and amounts of wealth, according to different political priorities. I'm sure you know that, really.

Higher tax rates translate directly into lower government revenues and a smaller GDP. That places an "invisible tax" on the poorer segments of the community by way of the inevitable rise in the cost of goods and services.

Progressive taxation is just plain old Marxist class-warfare and greed. Always has been, always will be.

[MrJonno]

Progressive taxation is just plain old Marxist class-warfare and greed. Always has been, always will be.

Without religion all politics is a clash of economic interest groups (which is why quite rationally right wing people support religion)

[Beatsong]

I take it you haven't met many real estate agents then.

I have, and those that make good money work hard for their money. A real estate agent making $76,000 a year plus paying for their own benefits, etc., is among the top of their profession -- very few make that much -- and such a person doesn't get summers off, works odd hours to work around other people's schedules, often on weekends, and show houses many times without selling them. Median income for real estate agents in the US -- http://www1.salary.com/real-estate-agent-Salary.html -- about $37,0000. The median income for teachers in the US is about $51,000 http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Education-Traini ... achers.htm

:-)

It's funny though. When it comes to real estate agents, and other professions like small business owners where every hour worked it not accountable to somebody's timesheet, you're lavish in your admiration of "odd hours; working on weekends" etc. You're convinced that ANYONE earning decent money must be working their arse off and you swallow without reservation the general claims about hours outside of those specified to be at the office, for all of them. This despite the fact that you have provided no evidence to that effect and you (presumeably) have not personally met every single real estate agent in America.

But when it comes to teachers, your loose anecdotal experience to the contrary of "empty parking lots" outweighs everything else. You convince yourself that if the minimum specified in their contract says they turn up half an hour before the first class and leave half an hour after the last one, and doesn't specify exactly what they have to do in the holidays, that MUST be all they're doing, and it's SO much less than everyone else.

So why the double standard?

Since you were so keen for evidence that teachers are working as much as other people, how about we take this back to first principles. Since you started it all with the assertion that they are not, how about you provide the evidence of that? And just to
be clear - focusing in isolation on ONE aspect of their working year (the long summer holiday) on the false assumption that all else must be equal, doesn't cut it.

Teachers are no different from real estate agents, sales reps, people in arts-oriented fields or the like: they have a certain number of hours specified that they have to be on site (usually fairly modest, determined by the needs of working with other people) and a whole lot more hours they have to do around that where they're paid for the job; not for the number of hours. A real estate agent is paid to sell houses, a business owner is paid to return a profit on their business; a teacher is paid (outside of contact hours) to plan, prepare and evaluate effective lessons, to mark work, to liase with everyone else in the school, to liase with parents, to complete all kinds of government-required paperwork (and probably other stuff I've forgotten). Nobody specifies the number of hours that has to take, just as nobody specifies how many hours a travelling salesman has to spend on the road. They need to get the job done, to the standard required.

Which is all fine and dandy as far as I'm concerned, since I'm not the one insisting that there's some massive difference between them, you are. Since we're clearly not going to get anywhere comparing anecdotes, how about you provide some evidence for that claim, showing that the majority of teachers work significantly less than 2050 hours a year - taking into account ALL the work they do?

Then we can attach some credibility to your assertion and satisfy ourselves that it's not just some random claim pulled out of your arse based on your own prejudices.

I'm not even trying to get into this comparison bit.

That's rich.

[Gerald McGrew]

Cut the federal workforce by 1/2

And this is why I generally quit responding to your posts.

[Gerald McGrew]

How many hours do school teachers work? It depends on how you define "work".

One recent study by Scholastic shows that they work an average of 10 hours and 40 minutes a day (53 hours a week). That breaks down to about 7.5 hours class time, 1 hour 45 min pre/post school hours, and 1.5 hours outside the school (home, library, etc.). The average does not include hours spent on extracurricular activities (which adds another 1.5 hours per day). http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/download.asp

Another study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics gave different results. They estimated teachers work an average of just over 7 hours per day. However, that survey only counted work related to "the person's main job", and it's unclear how that was defined. For example, if a teacher grades homework over dinner or while watching a movie, is that "the main part of their job"? The survey doesn't say. But, the BLS survey does show that teachers are more likely to: 1) work at home (than other professions), work weekends, and hold second jobs. It also found that older teachers work longer hours than younger ones. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... terns.html

Compared to other countries, US school teachers spend more hours per year on instruction. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/06/ ... s-longest/

[Cunt]

Some friends who were teachers told me that they had a clause in their contracts dictating that they always say good things about the teaching profession.

Anyway, I still say that if they are overworked, it is their own fault for making a shitty deal. More likely, since I know several teachers, they get long hours off, get home mostly before anyone else, and have gold-plated positions which are highly desireable.

There are certainly good teachers out there, but the school next to my home is empty from about 4:00pm on, and the teachers I know are off doing vacation stuff for two months of the year. Those I know who earn a comparable income have to work all 12 months to do it.

As to the strike, if they are trying to force the school board to change issues other than pay and benefits, isn't that outside their responsibility? Why not just fucking stick to the contract and leave if the conditions are so bad? Don't think there should be 35 kids per class? Fucking quit. If the jobs weren't so gold-plated good, you wouldn't have to worry about others coming in to do it.

It does sound like they are using their imaginary wage issue to try to dictate policy where they have no right. Fuck em. There are more appropriate ways of changing those policies.

[Coito ergo sum]

I take it you haven't met many real estate agents then.

I have, and those that make good money work hard for their money. A real estate agent making $76,000 a year plus paying for their own benefits, etc., is among the top of their profession -- very few make that much -- and such a person doesn't get summers off, works odd hours to work around other people's schedules, often on weekends, and show houses many times without selling them. Median income for real estate agents in the US -- http://www1.salary.com/real-estate-agent-Salary.html -- about $37,0000. The median income for teachers in the US is about $51,000 http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Education-Traini ... achers.htm

:-)

It's funny though. When it comes to real estate agents, and other professions like small business owners where every hour worked it not accountable to somebody's timesheet, you're lavish in your admiration of "odd hours; working on weekends" etc.

I haven't been lavish. On average, they make less than teachers, and work more hours to earn less, and they aren't striking and asking for everyone else's solidarity. I specifically said that if they were striking for the same reasons the Chicago teachers are striking, I would be 4 square against them too. I also said that I don't care what the Chicago teachers make, a million dollars a minute would be fine - what I object to is them claiming injustice and demanding that we all be in solidarity with them.

I have not said that teachers have it easy, but that doesn't stop you folks from constantly repeating that mantra. Anyone earning $76,000 a year SHOULD be working pretty darn hard, and they are. But, that's fitting.

You're convinced that ANYONE earning decent money must be working their arse off and you swallow without reservation the general claims about hours outside of those specified to be at the office, for all of them.

Did you miss the part about real estate agents earning an average of $37K to the teacher average of $51k and the Chicago teacher average of $76k? Who is earning the more decent money?

This despite the fact that you have provided no evidence to that effect and you (presumeably) have not personally met every single real estate agent in America.

You haven't met every single teacher in America, yet that doesn't stop you from claiming they are overworked and underpaid.

But when it comes to teachers, your loose anecdotal experience to the contrary of "empty parking lots" outweighs everything else.

No, it just goes to show that they're not toiling away in the schools for 12 hours a day, generally speaking. We all know that they're not.

You convince yourself that if the minimum specified in their contract says they turn up half an hour before the first class and leave half an hour after the last one, and doesn't specify exactly what they have to do in the holidays, that MUST be all they're doing, and it's SO much less than everyone else.

I haven't said anything of the kind.

So why the double standard?

It's not. I haven't interposed a double standard.

Since you were so keen for evidence that teachers are working as much as other people, how about we take this back to first principles. Since you started it all with the assertion that they are not, how about you provide the evidence of that?

They aren't working as many hours as the average person because they get 2+ months off in the summer and have a 180 day school year. Give a ditch digger two months less to work out of the year, and unless he is adding 336 hours to his other days during the year, then he's working less. It stands to reason.

And just to
be clear - focusing in isolation on ONE aspect of their working year (the long summer holiday) on the false assumption that all else must be equal, doesn't cut it.

All else is still not equal -- teachers get more holidays than everyone else too, and have a school year of about 180 days. Add to that about 10 days before and after the school year, and you get 190. Assume 8 hours a day and that's about 1500 hours a year where everyone else working a 40 hour week works 2050 a year. Add to that that most people making $76k have to work a lot more than 40 hours in a week to make that much....

Teachers are no different from real estate agents,

Other than making more money on average, you mean?

sales reps, people in arts-oriented fields or the like: they have a certain number of hours specified that they have to be on site (usually fairly modest, determined by the needs of working with other people) and a whole lot more hours they have to do around that where they're paid for the job; not for the number of hours. A real estate agent is paid to sell houses, a business owner is paid to return a profit on their business; a teacher is paid (outside of contact hours) to plan, prepare and evaluate effective lessons, to mark work, to liase with everyone else in the school, to liase with parents, to complete all kinds of government-required paperwork (and probably other stuff I've forgotten). Nobody specifies the number of hours that has to take, just as nobody specifies how many hours a travelling salesman has to spend on the road. They need to get the job done, to the standard required.

Sure, but you'll need to present some evidence that they're working 10-12 hours a day during the school year. In Chicago, the school day is 5 hours and 45 minutes long. That leaves 2 hours and 15 minutes to do non-school day work. If the claim is that teachers are so overworked that they're working 3 and 4 hours a day, regularly, beyond the school day, then I'd love to see the evidence of it.

Which is all fine and dandy as far as I'm concerned, since I'm not the one insisting that there's some massive difference between them, you are.

I haven't insisted there is a massive difference, except that the teachers are the one's claiming they are being given the shaft.

Since we're clearly not going to get anywhere comparing anecdotes, how about you provide some evidence for that claim, showing that the majority of teachers work significantly less than 2050 hours a year - taking into account ALL the work they do?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics only 30% of teachers self-report as doing work at home. So, the idea that all or even most teachers are toiling away at home is bunk. Period. Only 30% of teachers report bringing any work home, let alone a lot of work. A Bureau of Labor Statistics study that said that, on average, teachers work fewer hours per week than people in other professions. The BLS research found that teachers, on average, worked just over seven hours a day during the week, and another two hours or so over the weekend (and that doesn't take into account the 0 school work done over the summers). http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2011/10 ... vacations/

National data shows that on average teachers work fewer hours per week than people in other professions–nearly three hours a week less. That’s according to this 2008 analysis from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (brought to our attention by the Buckeye Institute). The analysis is based on interviews from 2003–2006 conducted as part of the American Time Use Survey.

Then we can attach some credibility to your assertion and satisfy ourselves that it's not just some random claim pulled out of your arse based on your own prejudices.

My experience is in line with the Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The only one pulling anything out of his arse is you, buddy.

I'm not even trying to get into this comparison bit.

That's rich.

I wasn't. I didn't bring up real estate agents. But, since someone did, I pointed out that they get paid on average a lot less than teachers. They do work hard, as do teachers. But, the fact that teachers work hard is merely a statement that they are doing what they're supposed to do. Most people making $76k or even $51k are "working hard" for that money, and the statistics show that most people making that kind of money are working many more hours than teachers.

[Gerald McGrew]

what I object to is them claiming injustice

Right. They should just accept larger class sizes and performance evaluations based on student test scores, even though one of the biggest factors in test scores is classroom size. Oh, and no air conditioning in schools either. Just shut up and take it.

and demanding that we all be in solidarity with them.

So when did they personally contact you?

[Badger3k]

what I object to is them claiming injustice

Right. They should just accept larger class sizes and performance evaluations based on student test scores, even though one of the biggest factors in test scores is classroom size. Oh, and no air conditioning in schools either. Just shut up and take it.

and demanding that we all be in solidarity with them.

So when did they personally contact you?

My class sizes aren't too bad, but when you try to do a lab, made for no more than 24 kids, with 32+....not good. You spend too much time trying to manage them and keep them from playing around, rather than teaching and helping them learn. The highest I know is some art classes a friend teaches - she has up to 40 in one class, and most are over 30. Another friend works in the credit recovery lab I used to work in, and she has one period with more kids than computers. Where is the sense in that?

Also, I had one kid (I'll only mention one) who refuses to do anything. I gave some web quests (the kids had laptops and used them to go to a website and look up the answers - try to figure them out at least). Both Monday and Tuesday he refused to do anything. Same thing when I went over the sites today as a group and discussed them. His work is negligible. We have a test Friday. If he fails, as I suspect he will - this is his second time in the class, since he did the same thing last year from what I understand, that falls on me. His mother likes to sue schools, so guess what's going to happen? Yet, my pay and everything else is, in part, based on what he does on a standardized test. It's no wonder most new teachers quit - the turnover is huge.

For the most part I like what I do, but if it gets too much of a bother, or causes my health to decline, I'll be gone to something else, even if it's just wal-mart greeter. Lol.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Seth]

what I object to is them claiming injustice

Right. They should just accept larger class sizes and performance evaluations based on student test scores, even though one of the biggest factors in test scores is classroom size. Oh, and no air conditioning in schools either. Just shut up and take it.

Nope, quit and find other employment. As public employees they work at the pleasure of the public under the conditions that the public (in this case the school board) dictate. The school board is an elected body of the community which represents the interests and expectations of the public regarding education of their children. As such, if the parents or members of the community are dissatisfied with the progress their kids are making or the environment under which they learn, they can either convince the school board to change things or replace the school board.

One of the primary reasons that school boards are opting for larger class sizes is so that they can fire some teachers who are making too much money. When teachers demand more money, and the taxpayers don't agree to be taxed to provide that money, it has to come from somewhere, and it comes from things like classroom supplies, extracurricular programs, "elective" courses, art, music, air conditioning, football and other programs that benefit students.

Thus, firing one teacher who makes $75,000 per year and distributing his or her 30 students to the other teachers causes a minimal impact on class size and might provide funding for some other school program that's more important to parents and students than a sinecure for a union teacher.

It's a vicious cycle caused by union teachers in the first place. Every time they demand higher wages, parents and taxpayers look at them as being greedy union thugs who threaten to strike if their demands are not met and the taxpayers very often turn down tax measures that will burden them with providing teachers more and more money and benefits. That leaves the school district facing a conundrum: Give in to the union thugs and cut classroom programs and diminish the quality of education to their customers, the students, or stand firm, break the unions iron-fisted grip and restore a competitive free-market to teacher's salaries and benefits and have more money to do more and better education.

In those instances where the teachers have a reasonable argument that their pay is too low, very often taxpayers of the community will agree with them and will agree to higher taxes. But this sort of union thuggery is just intimidation and extortion in action, something unions are infamous for.

Were I in charge, I'd fire every union teacher who didn't report for duty and replace them with people who are hungry to educate and have a job. Then I'd refuse to collectively bargain with any public employees, from firefighters to cops to teachers.

In the end, education would improve and the system would be flushed of the union thugs and lazy-assed teachers who think nothing of depriving kids of a good education so long as they get their paycheck and pension benefits.

[Seth]

what I object to is them claiming injustice

Right. They should just accept larger class sizes and performance evaluations based on student test scores, even though one of the biggest factors in test scores is classroom size. Oh, and no air conditioning in schools either. Just shut up and take it.

and demanding that we all be in solidarity with them.

So when did they personally contact you?

My class sizes aren't too bad, but when you try to do a lab, made for no more than 24 kids, with 32+....not good. You spend too much time trying to manage them and keep them from playing around, rather than teaching and helping them learn. The highest I know is some art classes a friend teaches - she has up to 40 in one class, and most are over 30. Another friend works in the credit recovery lab I used to work in, and she has one period with more kids than computers. Where is the sense in that?

Then you need to petition your employers, the public, to hire more teachers to reduce class size, not demand more money because you can't do your job with 30 kids in a class. This is the fallacy of the "class size" argument. Unions try to argue that big classes don't work (and they are right) but then they demand higher wages because they have a more "difficult" job teaching bigger classes, rather than accepting a small pay cut so the school can use the aggregate saved to hire another teacher to cut EVERYONE'S class sizes. This is because it's not about educating kids, it's about sucking at the public teat and getting as much as possible while doing as little as possible. And the stronger the union, the less work teachers have to do because it becomes nearly impossible to fire them for incompetence. So, we end up with failing school systems stuffed with teachers who don't teach, don't care that they don't teach, but complain to their union rep that they are working too hard and not making enough. That is the evil of public-sector collective bargaining, which should be flatly illegal.

Forcing teachers to be accountable by making their pay dependent on student performance is the ONLY way to ensure that they public gets what they are paying for. If you can't teach, or won't, and your students are below the expected standard, then you SHOULD lose money, or your job. If you don't like the conditions of being a public school teacher, then go to Wal-Mart because there are a thousand people waiting to take your place.

Also, I had one kid (I'll only mention one) who refuses to do anything. I gave some web quests (the kids had laptops and used them to go to a website and look up the answers - try to figure them out at least). Both Monday and Tuesday he refused to do anything. Same thing when I went over the sites today as a group and discussed them. His work is negligible. We have a test Friday. If he fails, as I suspect he will - this is his second time in the class, since he did the same thing last year from what I understand, that falls on me. His mother likes to sue schools, so guess what's going to happen? Yet, my pay and everything else is, in part, based on what he does on a standardized test. It's no wonder most new teachers quit - the turnover is huge.

Sounds like you need to document his lack of effort out the yin-yang so you will have evidence that you've done everything possible to motivate him. Or find a way to motivate him. That's your job, isn't it?

For the most part I like what I do, but if it gets too much of a bother, or causes my health to decline, I'll be gone to something else, even if it's just wal-mart greeter. Lol.

The sooner you leave, the sooner the school district can get someone who is actually dedicated to educating children, even if they are difficult to educate.

[Beatsong]

You're convinced that ANYONE earning decent money must be working their arse off and you swallow without reservation the general claims about hours outside of those specified to be at the office, for all of them.

Did you miss the part about real estate agents earning an average of $37K to the teacher average of $51k and the Chicago teacher average of $76k? Who is earning the more decent money?

Fair enough. You're right. I must admit I'm shocked that real estate salaries are that low. The recent downturn notwithstanding, I'm sure they earn more than that over here. Although, my quip earlier was nothing to do with their pay and more about the idea that they must work so hard. There's a fairly general perception in this country - certainly among anyone who's ever sold a house - that they pretty much do fuck all, but have what is basically a cartel organised on the market so you can't sell a house without paying their percentage.

You haven't met every single teacher in America, yet that doesn't stop you from claiming they are overworked and underpaid.

When did I claim that?

Since you were so keen for evidence that teachers are working as much as other people, how about we take this back to first principles. Since you started it all with the assertion that they are not, how about you provide the evidence of that?

They aren't working as many hours as the average person because they get 2+ months off in the summer and have a 180 day school year.

Is it really 2+ months? Fuckin hell. Over here it's 6 weeks and that seems like heaven compared to other jobs. That certainly puts what you say in a different perspective, particularly when in other professions it's the other way around (statutory holiday entitlement here is 4-5 weeks, I think. In the USA it's what - two weeks?)

Sure, but you'll need to present some evidence that they're working 10-12 hours a day during the school year. In Chicago, the school day is 5 hours and 45 minutes long. That leaves 2 hours and 15 minutes to do non-school day work. If the claim is that teachers are so overworked that they're working 3 and 4 hours a day, regularly, beyond the school day, then I'd love to see the evidence of it.

Is it 5 hours 45 from when the kids turn up to when they leave? That's well short too. Ours is about six and a half.

3-4 hours a day either side of that would be a pretty standard minimum though. My experience of schools is that teachers on average would get in at 7.30 and do an hour and a half before classes start; then stay till at least 5 or 5.30 for another 1 1/2 - 2 hours after they finish. And that would have to be topped up with the odd later one or taking work home. It would be pretty hard to get the job done in less than that.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics only 30% of teachers self-report as doing work at home. So, the idea that all or even most teachers are toiling away at home is bunk. Period. Only 30% of teachers report bringing any work home, let alone a lot of work.

With respect, I think you're wrong here.

The statement in the BLS report is actually "Thirty percent of teachers worked at home on an average day". If you then read the preamble about how they gather the statistics, they basically ask people what they did yesterday, then extrapolate averages from that. So the conclusion is that on any particularly day, an average of 30% of teachers will be working at home - NOT that only 30% of teachers take work home EVER.

In other words, if 100% of teachers take work home every third day, that would (roughly) equate to the average in the survey.

Now I never said that teachers take work home EVERY day, and I certainly don't believe that. But most I know would probably do so at least 2-3 times a week, plus the odd absolutely manic work-all-night-and-weekend at reporting time etc. That makes sense in terms of the survey averages.

A Bureau of Labor Statistics study that said that, on average, teachers work fewer hours per week than people in other professions. The BLS research found that teachers, on average, worked just over seven hours a day during the week, and another two hours or so over the weekend (and that doesn't take into account the 0 school work done over the summers). http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2011/10 ... vacations/

Fair enough, although that was one of two sources cited earlier in this thread, and the other one gave much longer average days. I'm not sure why the difference.

But I'm out of my depth here comparing my experience in the UK to what goes on in the USA, so I can only really admit that you're probably right. Over here, the governmental bureaucracy demands upon teachers have snowballed over the last decade or so. The image of a relatively light workload designed for a non-primary-wagearner that you give might have been true in the past, but changes to the structure and accountability of the profession have meant its certainly not any more.

[Beatsong]

Just to add I wasn't actually thinking of this post by Gerald when reporting the averages I'd observed in the UK, but our before and after school figures are strikingly similar:

How many hours do school teachers work? It depends on how you define "work".

One recent study by Scholastic shows that they work an average of 10 hours and 40 minutes a day (53 hours a week). That breaks down to about 7.5 hours class time, 1 hour 45 min pre/post school hours, and 1.5 hours outside the school (home, library, etc.). The average does not include hours spent on extracurricular activities (which adds another 1.5 hours per day). http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/download.asp

What with the class time though? Coito said it was 5 hours 45 minutes. This says 7.5 hours.

[Gerald McGrew]

My class sizes aren't too bad, but when you try to do a lab, made for no more than 24 kids, with 32+....not good. You spend too much time trying to manage them and keep them from playing around, rather than teaching and helping them learn. The highest I know is some art classes a friend teaches - she has up to 40 in one class, and most are over 30. Another friend works in the credit recovery lab I used to work in, and she has one period with more kids than computers. Where is the sense in that?

Also, I had one kid (I'll only mention one) who refuses to do anything. I gave some web quests (the kids had laptops and used them to go to a website and look up the answers - try to figure them out at least). Both Monday and Tuesday he refused to do anything. Same thing when I went over the sites today as a group and discussed them. His work is negligible. We have a test Friday. If he fails, as I suspect he will - this is his second time in the class, since he did the same thing last year from what I understand, that falls on me. His mother likes to sue schools, so guess what's going to happen? Yet, my pay and everything else is, in part, based on what he does on a standardized test. It's no wonder most new teachers quit - the turnover is huge.

For the most part I like what I do, but if it gets too much of a bother, or causes my health to decline, I'll be gone to something else, even if it's just wal-mart greeter. Lol.

Now imagine if your labor contract were up, and the administration proposed increasing class sizes and tying your performance evaluations and pay raises to student performance, which studies have shown is inversely related to class sizes! Throw in classrooms with no air conditioning in a district where classroom temps can exceed 100 degrees (my guess is that doesn't improve test scores either)....

...and I think you reject that contract and go on strike.