Why teachers resign

[WaterMan]

ONE LESS TEACHER = ONE LESS COMMIE DEMON

 

You forgot liberal, but

[i_am_the_swammi]

but you know, something tells me there might be a simpler solution. hmm, let's see, good teachers are underpaid, bad teachers are overpaid...let's keep brainstorming here...

 

1. raise the pay scale

2. attract better applicants

3. eventually filter out the bad teachers with good ones (who now will want to enter the field upon graduation or later in life instead of taking their degree and entering another profession)

 

[i_am_the_swammi]

You won't get rich teaching HS on down, but $39K to start aint bad and many professions are worse. You also ignore the job satisfaction aspect, which is why most get into it anyway.

 

I disagree....I would wager there aren't many professions that require a college degree that pay less than $39K per year.

 

More to the point...if I excelled in college, and I had many options open to me post-graduation, $39K wouldn't be very attractive. It would likely only entice the bottom 2/3's of my graduating class. If I graduate near the top of my class with a degree in education, chances are pretty good that, if I want to, I can go work for a pharmaceutical company selling Asprin and make about $60-100K more my first year on the job.

 

That's a crime.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Seems to me that most of the complaints are recent, now that their pensions are under threat. Pensions are deferred pay, after all.

 

I certainly agree that demonstrably bad teachers should be fired much easier than at present (IIRC, California has literally thousands of teachers paid full rate to not come in to work) but if we really are going to value the work good teachers do, we need to fork over.

 

Pay peanuts, get monkeys is as true as it ever was.

 

 

I never heard this one before. I may use it. I like it.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

one would think - that being at least a moderately educated lady - that the idea that you came up with in a couple minutes was considered by her over the months and weeks that she's been evaluating the options she has. Just guessing on this one.

 

 

One would think.

[gbpfan1231]

I disagree....I would wager there aren't many professions that require a college degree that pay less than $39K per year.

 

More to the point...if I excelled in college, and I had many options open to me post-graduation, $39K wouldn't be very attractive. It would likely only entice the bottom 2/3's of my graduating class. If I graduate near the top of my class with a degree in education, chances are pretty good that, if I want to, I can go work for a pharmaceutical company selling Asprin and make about $60-100K more my first year on the job.

 

That's a crime.

Don't forget that 39k is 9 months of work. The Aspirin seller is 12 months and probably a traveling job.

 

My company just hired a shipping/recieving person - half shop work half office work - not a college degree but we had tons of resumes from college eductaed people and the job is paying under 30k. We also hired a recent college grad first professional job - smart kid working as accountant and is making 35k. Market stinks right now and 39k is not woefully underpaid considering.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Don't forget that 39k is 9 months of work. The Aspirin seller is 12 months and probably a traveling job.

 

My company just hired a shipping/recieving person - half shop work half office work - not a college degree but we had tons of resumes from college eductaed people and the job is paying under 30k. We also hired a recent college grad first professional job - smart kid working as accountant and is making 35k. Market stinks right now and 39k is not woefully underpaid considering.

 

Two things:

 

1. I submit that those responsible for properly educating our youth should be earning considerably more than a shipping/receiving person, or an accountant.

 

2. That $39K is indeed for 9 months. Assuming they can find a similar pay scale for a 3-month-per-year job (which is often impossible, but for this purpose, we'll assume they can), they then would make an annualized $52K. So now the Asprin seller now only makes $50-90K more? And in many cases, the Asprin seller has a territory that is very close to home...and often gets to work from home. Lets call the fringe benefits even....it was really just one of hundreds of examples I could have chosen to use. I still believe the top 30% of those graduating from college with a degree in education are going to have many lucrative jobs available to them that don't involve teaching, which they will take.....based mainly on the pay scale.

[SEC=UGA]

1. raise the pay scale

2. attract better applicants

3. eventually filter out the bad teachers with good ones (who now will want to enter the field upon graduation or later in life instead of taking their degree and entering another profession)

 

 

Again, teachers are not underpaid when compared to other's who hold a Bachelors Degree. BLS data proves this.

 

The problem is that it has been falsely drilled into the public's head that the teaching profession is "underpaid". Hourly, the median income for teachers is more than those with a bachelors degree. If you break it out anually, teachers are paid roughly$1,800 per year less. Though, they have a better retirement and benefits program.

 

Now, the argument that McKenzie makes is rational, as is a portion of your post here, that if you do pay more you have to only open up these teaching positions to the top talent. However, you run into MAJOR funding issues when doing this, an issue that McKenzie is at a loss to fully solve.

 

The US already spends some of the highest dollars per pupil in the world. Considering that teachers salary is only a small portion of this per pupil spending, I wonder how much waste on other things classified as education spending is involved.

[Clubfoothead]

Again, teachers are not underpaid

 

If you break it out anually, teachers are paid roughly$1,800 per year less.

 

Now, the argument that McKenzie makes is rational, as is a portion of your post here, that if you do pay more you have to only open up these teaching positions to the top talent. However, you run into MAJOR funding issues when doing this,

 

What?

[SEC=UGA]

What?

 

Please be more specific.

[Ursa Majoris]

The US already spends some of the highest dollars per pupil in the world. Considering that teachers salary is only a small portion of this per pupil spending, I wonder how much waste on other things classified as education spending is involved.

This is a good point. There are such things as a laptop program for every child, which I find ridiculous. Another is the use of the latest Smartboards at about $7,000 apiece.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Again, teachers are not underpaid when compared to other's who hold a Bachelors Degree. BLS data proves this.

 

I find that point meaningless, due to the importance I place on educating our youth. I feel they should be paid in approx. the top 25% of all wage earners.

 

Now, the argument that McKenzie makes is rational, as is a portion of your post here, that if you do pay more you have to only open up these teaching positions to the top talent. However, you run into MAJOR funding issues when doing this, an issue that McKenzie is at a loss to fully solve.

 

I don't pretend to be an economist, so I don't know that answer either. I do think we can offer a minimum level of education to those that con only pay minimum school taxes. I also think that my neighbor with all the fancy toys and 3 kids can pay more in school taxes. As can I with four kids. The fact that my other neighbor with zero kids pays essentially the same school taxes as I do with four kids is unbalanced.

 

The US already spends some of the highest dollars per pupil in the world. Considering that teachers salary is only a small portion of this per pupil spending, I wonder how much waste on other things classified as education spending is involved.

 

I think student athletes should pay to play sports...rather than offered as a free service by schools. Our district has recently implemented a $50 per student "activity fee" to help resolve their budget issues. many were outraged....where I think (and would pay) considerably higher. I pay $120 per year for each of my boys to play Little league, $90 each for basketball, $45 per month for each of my daughters to go to dance classes, $140 each for cheerleading per season. I don't think its unreasonable to pay $150 for an entire year of scholastic sports.

 

Other "clubs", like chess, debating, etc...could also charge a small $20 admin fee to raise revenues.

[Duchess Jack]

I think student athletes should pay to play sports...rather than offered as a free service by schools. Our district has recently implemented a $50 per student "activity fee" to help resolve their budget issues. many were outraged....where I think (and would pay) considerably higher. I pay $120 per year for each of my boys to play Little league, $90 each for basketball, $45 per month for each of my daughters to go to dance classes, $140 each for cheerleading per season. I don't think its unreasonable to pay $150 for an entire year of scholastic sports.

 

Other "clubs", like chess, debating, etc...could also charge a small $20 admin fee to raise revenues.

 

Absolutely. And I'd suggest that a school can do more with a higher quality teacher - than it can with all the bells and whistles a lot of our school taxes go to.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Absolutely. And I'd suggest that a school can do more with a higher quality teacher - than it can with all the bells and whistles a lot of our school taxes go to.

 

the concept would feed off one another. If I knew a solid teacher was running the Physics Club or Computer Club (for example), I might be more apt to want my kid to join. And I bet with more engaged teachers, there'd be a variety of additional extra-curricular activities that currently aren't offered. But for $39K, if I'm a teacher, I'm likely heading to my second-job as soon as the bell rings.

 

Similarly, we'd churn out better athletes if the coaches weren't also the English teacher volunteering to coach for a few extra bucks. Pay real coaches to coach, and charge the kids to play.

[SEC=UGA]

I find that point meaningless, due to the importance I place on educating our youth. I feel they should be paid in approx. the top 25% of all wage earners.

 

 

 

I don't pretend to be an economist, so I don't know that answer either. I do think we can offer a minimum level of education to those that con only pay minimum school taxes. I also think that my neighbor with all the fancy toys and 3 kids can pay more in school taxes. As can I with four kids. The fact that my other neighbor with zero kids pays essentially the same school taxes as I do with four kids is unbalanced.

 

 

 

I think student athletes should pay to play sports...rather than offered as a free service by schools. Our district has recently implemented a $50 per student "activity fee" to help resolve their budget issues. many were outraged....where I think (and would pay) considerably higher. I pay $120 per year for each of my boys to play Little league, $90 each for basketball, $45 per month for each of my daughters to go to dance classes, $140 each for cheerleading per season. I don't think its unreasonable to pay $150 for an entire year of scholastic sports.

 

Other "clubs", like chess, debating, etc...could also charge a small $20 admin fee to raise revenues.

 

The first part is understandable and I think we all agree that if we are getting a quality individual, then, yes, it is worth paying more for that talent. THis is not how the current system is set up. There is no merit based pay scale, any warm body is accepted in to education programs, teachers are not held accountable, etc...

 

BTW. The average income for the top 25% of wage earners is roughly $67K, is that enough? Because when taking into acocunt the BLS data it appears that level of income is very achievable when the median income of all teachers in the US is $51K. Now, do you adjust this for hours worked? If you do and consider a 40 hour work week for 50 weeks, that equates (at the 33.55 per hour when breaking down the BLS data of median teachers pay) $67K per year, you're in that top 25%. Compound that with the benefits, one can argue that they are well compensated.

 

With regard to school taxes, your rich neighbor does pay more than you for the schools in the community. While the mil rate being charged is the same, his house is valued at a much higher rate. If you have a $300K house and are paying .2 mils and he has a $700K house and is paying .2 mils, who is paying more toward the schools... the rich guy. I agree with the sentiment about people witout children having ot pay school taxes.

 

I agree kids should pay for school sponsored sports/programs.

[i_am_the_swammi]

The average income for the top 25% of wage earners is roughly $67K, is that enough? Because when taking into acocunt the BLS data it appears that level of income is very achievable when the median income of all teachers in the US is $51K. Now, do you adjust this for hours worked? If you do and consider a 40 hour work week for 50 weeks, that equates (at the 33.55 per hour when breaking down the BLS data of median teachers pay) $67K per year, you're in that top 25%. Compound that with the benefits, one can argue that they are well compensated.

 

problem is, they don't work year-round, and can't get similar hourly-rated pay during the summer months. So while trying to compare what a teacher makes 9 months of the year to someone working 12 months a year, its an unfair comparison due to the seasonality of teaching.

 

That being said, to answer your question: is $67K enough? Maybe. it could be enough to make some teachers who are earning $80 selling Asprin to say "ya know what? for only $13K less, I can do what I always wanted to do, and either take the summer off, or make that extra $13K working for the summer at Target". $39K offers no such solution.

 

With regard to school taxes, your rich neighbor does pay more than you for the schools in the community. While the mil rate being charged is the same, his house is valued at a much higher rate. If you have a $300K house and are paying .2 mils and he has a $700K house and is paying .2 mils, who is paying more toward the schools... the rich guy. I agree with the sentiment about people witout children having ot pay school taxes.

 

I'm not talking about the guy in a different part of the school district. I get that houses valued higher pay more in taxes.

 

I am talking about my neighbor two doors up that is in the same house I am in, valued at the same amount, who happens to make twice as much as me but living in the same quality home. We both pay the same school taxes. But I think we can both agree that he and I could eschew a few of our extra IPads and Audis's for a higher quality education for our kids. The same way we have income tax brackets...I don't think it would necessarily be a poor idea to have a similar system in place for our school taxes.

[Azazello1313]

1. raise the pay scale

2. attract better applicants

3. eventually filter out the bad teachers with good ones

 

aye, there's the rub.

[Duchess Jack]

But I think we can both agree that he and I could eschew a few of our extra IPads and Audis's for a higher quality education for our kids.

 

:rabble,rabble,rabble: JOB CREATORS!! :rabble,rabble,rabble:

 

:rabble,rabble,rabble: SCHOOL VOUCHERS!! :rabble,rabble,rabble:

[Egret]

I didn't become a teacher to become rich, but I also didn't take a vow of poverty. I am constantly amazed at the number of people outside of the profession who find themselves to be self-styled experts on the profession.

[SEC=UGA]

problem is, they don't work year-round, and can't get similar hourly-rated pay during the summer months. So while trying to compare what a teacher makes 9 months of the year to someone working 12 months a year, its an unfair comparison due to the seasonality of teaching.

 

That being said, to answer your question: is $67K enough? Maybe. it could be enough to make some teachers who are earning $80 selling Asprin to say "ya know what? for only $13K less, I can do what I always wanted to do, and either take the summer off, or make that extra $13K working for the summer at Target". $39K offers no such solution.

 

 

 

I'm not talking about the guy in a different part of the school district. I get that houses valued higher pay more in taxes.

 

I am talking about my neighbor two doors up that is in the same house I am in, valued at the same amount, who happens to make twice as much as me but living in the same quality home. We both pay the same school taxes. But I think we can both agree that he and I could eschew a few of our extra IPads and Audis's for a higher quality education for our kids. The same way we have income tax brackets...I don't think it would necessarily be a poor idea to have a similar system in place for our school taxes.

 

So we're still not to a number where we can say, "Hey, teachers should make X number of dollars"? THis is the puzzling part of the whole debate, what is enough. The other puzzling part is that they don't work year round so how do you account for that time off. If you don't count their pay in annual terms, saying you can't compare it to those who work 48 to 50 weeks per year, then how do you calculate it? People are very willing to say that teachers don't make enough because an engineer makes a median income of 67K, but he works 10 to 12 extra weeks per year. I guess you break it down to an hourly wage for hours worked. When doing this you get a very solid median hourly wage for teachers. Yet, we still have this debate about them being under paid.

 

Teachers also have access to other peks that do not extend to most of the private sector employees to whom their salaries are being compared. Most Private sector employees do not get the pensions, they pay more out of pocket for retirement, they pay more out of pocket for healthcare and have much less job security. You can absolutely place a monetary value on these benefits (I'm nt going to do the research to see what that adjusts out to, but would bet it is relatively significant.) that would seemingly further increase teacher's compensation.

 

Teachers and their unions will continue to press the point that they are underpaid. They are going to take it public and will win the PR battle on this even if it is, for the most part, false. They have the sympathy of the press and of the politicians whom they support. Neither group is likely to layout the numbers in the reasonable manner that I have done here.

 

I do find it interesting that in your posts you keep dropping back to this $39K number, when, if my understanding is correct, that this number represents the median starting salary for teachers. In the debate about pay this is usually the first and only number that people are privy to. Lost in much of the debate is the fact that we are outspending the world in education and we are falling further and further behind in academic achievement. Lost in the debate is that teachers have been marginalized in society due to the lack of accountability placed upon them. Lost in the debate is the fact that the unions are more interested in gaining memebers and dues to influence the political process than they are about ensuring that there are quality teachers in the classrooms. Lost in the debate is the fact that colleges use education programs as economic engines, accepting the marginally talented, to help fund other programs.

 

There is so much wrong with the US educational system that it almost needs to be torn assunder and rebuilt brick by brick, teacher by teacher. There has been an absolute and total systemic failure in our education system, but seemingly the only solution we ever come up with is to throw more money at the beast. An activity that has done very little and has seemingly not made any gains.

 

I disagree that what one pays for schools should be based on income. I do believe that it being based on property value is the appropriate way to go, but I'm old fashioned. I could go a bit further, however and also make it based on a combination ofproperty value and number of children enrolled in public schools. Say you pay 20 mils in school taxes for the first kid and then an additional 10 for each other student, or whatever, I could get on board with that. But, how do you charge renters for the school resources they are using. You may have one apartment complex that is paying a very low mil rate for schools but has 400 students living there, what do you do about that?

 

Also, just because your neighbor drives two Audis and has a bunch of toys does not mean he makes more than you. It just means he is more in debt.

[Azazello1313]

Does this work for anyone? I keep getting a connection reset error.

 

well the whole thing is a pretty good read.

 

again, I come to the same conclusion....good teachers may be underpaid, but bad teachers are definitely overpaid. in a scenario where there are no effective means of differentiating between the two, the incentives are geared toward mediocrity in the profession (working harder and more efficiently doesn't increase your pay). simply raising the pay scale (or benefits) just further incentivizes this mediocrity. the fact that we have so many good teachers despite these incentives is a testament to the many good people who love what they do and value their contribution to society. but you can't just rely on that to fix the system. fixing the system, I am convinced, will require rewarding good teachers at the expense of the bad to a much greater degree than we do now.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Azazello1313

[Seahawks21]

Don't forget that most teachers spend 10-20 hours per week working from home. That slides their pay scale quite drastically.

[rocknrobn26]

I didn't become a teacher to become rich, but I also didn't take a vow of poverty. I am constantly amazed at the number of people outside of the profession who find themselves to be self-styled experts on the profession.

 

Amen, brother!

I've tried to stay out of this one, but...

I have had a lot of jobs/businesses in my life, but never spent more than 3 years in any of them. Am I qualified to do dissertations on the benefits/liabilities of them? I think not. At best some people have a wife/relative/friend who is a teacher. Sorry but that is not even close to being "In the Profession", making their opinion much less than valuable or learned. All the charts,stats,"professional opinions" are contrived to back one's opinion. Hardly facts that one should believe wholeheartedly.

In another post I tried to prove that teachers work more than 190 days @ 6 hours/day. Meetings, committees, parent visits, and curriculum development add time to that "desirable work load". Yes enough to more than make up for "time off". I think the 50% of teachers in their first 5 years leaving teaching says a lot...A rose garden it ain't.

And fwiw, in Illinois private schools pay woefully less than public schools and years ago and when they tried to go to the public sector there was an onus that was held by the powers that be that they couldn't be very good if they taught in a private school. Don't believe that, talk to a good friend of mine who taught in private schools for ~36 years and her last salary was ~$36K w/ no pension.

Carry on...this will fall on deaf ears as it has in the past.

[Square]

fixing the system, I am convinced, will require rewarding good teachers at the expense of the bad to a much greater degree than we do now.

Chances are you'll just end up with greater cheating and fraud.

 

Improving the system may be something a little more minor such as trying to make a more straightforward path for poor teachers to be let go, along with better overall compensation, and a better model for management that cuts out unnecessary positions.

 

At this point I have no faith in America being able to actually take system that is not working and throw the whole thing away and come up with a better idea. Hasn't happened with healthcare, teaching, defense spending, social security, medicaid, etc. We don't really have a dynamic government that trail blazes new ideas and creates well written and comprehensive plans. So at this point I'd like to tweak the system to work more efficiently since we don't really know what a better plan looks fully like. And even if we did the US never seems to look at another country where things are producing better results and then replace our current system with a better idea.

[SEC=UGA]

Amen, brother!

I've tried to stay out of this one, but...

I have had a lot of jobs/businesses in my life, but never spent more than 3 years in any of them. Am I qualified to do dissertations on the benefits/liabilities of them? I think not. At best some people have a wife/relative/friend who is a teacher. Sorry but that is not even close to being "In the Profession", making their opinion much less than valuable or learned. All the charts,stats,"professional opinions" are contrived to back one's opinion. Hardly facts that one should believe wholeheartedly.

In another post I tried to prove that teachers work more than 190 days @ 6 hours/day. Meetings, committees, parent visits, and curriculum development add time to that "desirable work load". Yes enough to more than make up for "time off". I think the 50% of teachers in their first 5 years leaving teaching says a lot...A rose garden it ain't.

And fwiw, in Illinois private schools pay woefully less than public schools and years ago and when they tried to go to the public sector there was an onus that was held by the powers that be that they couldn't be very good if they taught in a private school. Don't believe that, talk to a good friend of mine who taught in private schools for ~36 years and her last salary was ~$36K w/ no pension.

Carry on...this will fall on deaf ears as it has in the past.

 

Then it is best to not argue that teachers should be paid more than other professions as you haven't been involved in them long enough.

 

All the charts stats and professional opinions don't mean a thing until you take raw data from,oh, say, the BLS that lists the median incomes for teachers and all of those with a Bachelors Degree and it shows that annual median income difference between them is roughly $1,600. Teachers are not woefully underpaid compared to their counterparts who work in other fields. The numbers prove this. But you can conveniently ignore that fact, chalking it up to bias and cherry picking of stats.

 

It has always been interesting to me that private schools do in fact pay less than public schools, yet they are able to recruit people to teach in those schools. Also, in many cases, these students perform better. Is this a symptom of the difference between the two systems?