The public school teacher salary thread


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

As the son and brother of schoolteachers, I am not without sympathy for the plight of many teachers. Politics tends to be ugly, whether you're a schoolteacher or an engineer. I know of no job that is always sunshine and smiles, so I don't pretend teaching to be so. But that is not and never has been my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, anyone who leaves their children in the public socialist indoctrination system is asking for trouble.  I home schooled my kids and it was the best thing I ever did.  You can't overhaul the public school system.  It needs to be scrapped and then we need to start over.  Children are denied rights in school that they have outside of school.. They aren't allowed to defend themselves against bullies; they are subject to illegal search and seizure among other things;  The overwhelming majority of the texts lean so far left you can't stand them on end.  Home school your kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...my son that graduated a year and a half ago with a software engineering degree and had an initial salary of $70,000 with a guarantee additional $10,000 for each certification obtained plus yearly merit raises...  

 

I can say with authority that this is outside the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

The blunt truth? If you want money, don't teach.  I don't have kids of my own. Educating your children isn't my responsibility. Obviously I DO think we need teachers and they should be paid, but I trust the market.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The blunt truth? If you want money, don't teach.  I don't have kids of my own. Educating your children isn't my responsibility. Obviously I DO think we need teachers and they should be paid, but I trust the market.   

 

Unfortunately, public schools are insulated from the market.  That's a problem, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Unfortunately, public schools are insulated from the market.  That's a problem, I think.

 It really is, actually. In 99% of the time, the free market handles it much more efficiently 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also once saw some food for thought. Be it known I'm not bemoaning my paycheck. But, back in the day, the notion was that teaching was one of the best-paying jobs for women widely available. So it did attract the best and brightest. Then, with social changes and other careers were openly available, there was a shift in who took the teaching jobs. I still don't mind my paycheck, but here the argument is that a better salary outlook (plus less government intrusion) to attract the truly brilliant might better improve education. But right now where so much is government test prep, it's a rather useless idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, anyone who leaves their children in the public socialist indoctrination system is asking for trouble.  I home schooled my kids and it was the best thing I ever did.  You can't overhaul the public school system.  It needs to be scrapped and then we need to start over.  Children are denied rights in school that they have outside of school.. They aren't allowed to defend themselves against bullies; they are subject to illegal search and seizure among other things;  The overwhelming majority of the texts lean so far left you can't stand them on end.  Home school your kids.

Just wondering - do your children have rights in your home? Are they allowed to stand up against bullies (parents) and are they subject to illegal search and seizure among other things in their home school?

 

If I was king of the world - children would not have hardly any rights in school.  They would be required to wear uniforms and meet grooming standards.  They would be required to eat their lunch or opt out of having lunch - which would automatically notify parents of opt out.  In the class room teachers would be all powerful - including the power to remove a student at any time and for any reason - which would also result in parents or guardians being fined - if on government assistance - the fine would come from assistance.  Teachers would also be paid based on the number of students that they teach reaching predetermined standards agreed to by the teacher and the parents (grades K-12) or paying students at universities and tech schools.  The only right a parent would have would be to remove their student from a class - but if the student was not accepted in another class by the teacher then the parent would be required to teach their child with the requirement of meeting the predetermined standards for the initial class and teacher.  If such standards are not met by the parents then the child's education becomes the ward of the state - not federal education system.

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's been a drumbeat of criticism that public schools are getting worse and worse, and that standards are rapidly eroding.  Standardized tests feel like they suck the life and art out of teaching and learning.

 

HOWEVER, I will note that the proliferation of honors programs (IB, Cambridge, and AP being the big 3), in many aspects students are accessing coursework in high school that is two-years more advanced than what I faced as a student preparing for college.  Algebra is taught in 7th grade, Geometry in 8th.  Some public colleges are giving as much as 45 credits to students finishing high school from these programs.  Also, my state has "Running Start."  Participants have the potential of graduating from high school with both their diploma and an AA degree.

 

The best and brightest teachers do seem to be the ones instructing these classes.  Sure, the kids might behave better, but the rigor and accountability are such that the sloths don't want 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a big fan of Running Start, at least from the academic perspective. I am not a fan of "honors" classes or AP. I put "honors" in scare quotes because, in my experience, "honors" classes in high school have mostly been classes with lots more homework added on but no bonus in learning. One of my sons got out of a nightmarish "honors" class and transferred into the regular class, which he found far more enjoyable, much less busywork, and actually about two weeks ahead of the "honors" class.

 

The original idea behind an "honors" class was that it would better prepare the student for more advanced (read: college) study. Not only did the classes fail to give preparation better than (or even as good as) the non-honors classes, but colleges and universities generally do not even look to see if honors classes were taken. So if you get anything less than an 'A' in the "honors" class, you have actually harmed your college/university prospects. And if you get the 'A', you have not really done yourself any favors, unless the class is truly exceptional in teaching you the subject (which, in my children's case, it was not). It's all really just a sort of ego trip, with no discernable payoff, unless you consider bragging to your high school friends about taking "honors" classes to qualify as a payoff.

 

I realize that some people have good "honors" class experience. That's great. Hasn't been that way for our family. My standard advice to my children is to avoid any class labeled "honors" and just do Running Start when they're ready.

 

The AP classes are college courses taught by high school teachers at more or less a high school level (which my children have found stultifying). With the availability of Running Start, AP classes seem redundant, unless the student actually prefers the high school classroom setting and pace. Again, YMMV, but for us it has been a waste of time.

 

In contrast, Running Start has been great. It has allowed my children to have actual college-level coursework in a more stimulating environment. It's more work, but the courses actually count for college credit, so it has been well worth the extra trouble  (driving or busing to the local college and back home, college-level expectations).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to side-track this too much, but "honors courses" mean nothing.  Vort is right.  There is no objective standard.  AP courses, whatever their faults, can land college credit, if the student takes the AP test and scores 3 or above (4 at the most competitive colleges).  Unlike honors courses, IB and Cambridge have a fixed curriculum, and graduates who pass their exams are recognized internationally.  Again, many colleges are giving up to 45 credits for successful graduates of these two programs.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took an AP English course simply out of hope of college credits and the rumor we had less homework (this proved to be true). I heard horror stories from the Honors class kids.

 

When I took AP English the focus was on the in-class essay.  Honors English focused on reports.  So, yeah, the latter had more homework, and less "cred."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, public schools are insulated from the market.  That's a problem, I think.

 

Your statement reminds me of the argument (within the Church) regarding "government" schools in the early 1900s. President Joseph F. Smith consistently warned the Saints not to turn over the education of their children to the government, but it was a losing battle and I believe he knew it. Private schools simply could not compete with "free" government schools even for "faithful" Saints. 
 
The Prophet's warning that [if they supported government schools] the Saints would see the day when God would be completely eliminated from their child's education has certainly come to pass, hasn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Are any of you taking into account the extra unpaid hours that are required to stay caught up? (Grading papers, prep for the day, etc. Prep period is not sufficient.)

I was a teacher, at least a substitute teacher, for a year. Teachers are not under paid. They are overpaid because of the union. The union, with the help of government, creates an artificial hurdle for would-be teachers with too high education requirements, student teaching requirements, and so on. Without these, there would be far more people who could teach (and teach better in many cases) than those who end up with the degree and the credential.

Pay rates are dictated by the Law of Supply'n'Demand. It is the demand that sets the price (of labor, in this case), but when the supply is curtailed artificially, as with teaching, the price must go up. So, if we had a true free market in education, teachers would fall into one of several camps. The first would be people who are just plain unfit for teaching. They would find other work, and they would be better off: less stress, more satisfaction, and more money because better fitted to their new occupation. The second class would be about the same as they are now: they would teach the average, the middle pentile of students. They would make about as much as they do now. The third class would be the superstars: they wuold open their own schools, and make a lot more money teaching a lot fewer teachers in better, private schools they own they would own themselves.

Not only would teachers be better off, so would parents, and above all, students.

Government involvement in education has ruined many people: taxpayers, students, parents, but in some very significant ways, teachers most of all.

I quit teaching because I could no longer stand the dichotomy of teaching students that they lived in a free country while they were in my classroom, right then, studying what I was teaching, solely because if they were not, the state would send well armed men with shiny badges and fancy hats to take them into custody or put their parents in jail. That and the fact that I had skills and talents that could make me a lot more money.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a perfect storm!  There is so much pressure for teachers to produce students who can do math and science like Asia and much of Europe, while maintaining the American knack for creativity and ingenuity.  So, we hold teachers ever more accountable, by increasing standards (over half have Masters degrees in our district), by giving layer upon layer of standardized tests (my wife took the WEST-B, WEST-E, WEST-SPED, and will soon take the WEST-ELL--at $180 each).  Further, we institute high stakes testing, which reduces teaching days by about 3, and then let the teachers know that if their kids scores are below a certain level, they will be held accountable.  We do all these things, and then becry the artificially high standards and pay.  Well boys and girls, we cannot have our cake and eat it too.  Quite frankly, most are too scared to lower standards, so we're just going to have to pay.  As the kiddos say, "It is what it is."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a perfect storm! 

… we're just going to have to pay.  As the kiddos say, "It is what it is."

There is another option: get the government, all levels of government, out of the education business.

Let parents reclaim their God-given right to direct the education of their children along with the responsibility to pay for it (with private help where needed).

Good teachers will get more money, poor teachers will leave the profession, and parents will be back where they ought to be.

There is no downside for anyone but totally incompetent teachers, politicians, and bureaucrats.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the parents who will not or cannot teach their children? In am ideal world maybe that will work, but there are too many factors that would making the removal of public education a failure on a massive societal level. I know you have your prejudice and conspiracy theories about public schooling, but you are part of a minority. In fact, your ideas are insulting to me on behalf of the many educators I know and love who are passionate about their work and love children (because you know they aren't in it for the money or prestige).

Edited by Eowyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the parents who will not or cannot teach their children? In an ideal world maybe that will work, but there are too many factors that would making the removal of public education a failure on a massive societal level.

Please read what I wrote.

I did not call for universal Family-Centered Education (F-CEd). I called for parents to reclaim their power to educate their children without the state's interference. How they do it is their call. (And before you ask, no, no one should check on them to see that it is done. Why? Because it's no one's business but the parents': as soon as there is a checking-up agency, there will be control. Government control is the problem, not the solution.)

You claim not to live in an ideal world, yet you put up the government-run, tax-funded welfare schools' propaganda against the worst case for parental control. For those who will not educate their children, it is obvious that they are not getting anything like a real education now. We have a north-of-50% illiteracy rate, higher in many cities. The parents of these children are not assuring their education now, and there is no reason to assume they would do anything under a parental control scenario, either. With both options, these children are not getting an education.

For parents who cannot educate their children, I first reject the proposition that these people exist in any significant numbers. Even if they did, there are a myriad of options they could choose: apprenticeships, co-op schools, Dame/Mom schools, grandma'n'grandpa, uncles'n'aunts, Khan academy, dozens of other online options, to name the first bunch that came to mind. In San Antonio, there was a private scholarship program that allowed parents to pay about $1,000 per child with the fund making up the difference for any of a dozen private schools. The waiting list was three times what the fund could cover, even though the poor parents had to make a substantial investment into their children's lives. If the taxes that now take a huge bite of people's money were to remain with them, both the number of people who could afford to educate their own children and those who would contribute to such scholarship funds would increase dramatically.

Society is in massive failure mode right now, with grtf-welfare schools.

 

I know you have your prejudice and conspiracy theories about public schooling, but you are part of a minority.

And being in a minority makes me wrong?

I submit that your being a Latter-day Saint puts you in a minority. Are you wrong? No!

 

In fact, your ideas are insulting to me on behalf of the many educators I know and love who ate passionate about their work and love children (because you know they aren't in it for the money or prestige).

Prestige I dispute. Teachers are largely put on a major pedestal. Seen as martyrs and victims, they do have prestige.

Do not forget that I was a teacher. I was on the path to a credential*. I know what goes on in the teachers' lounge. You claim relatives who are teachers. I'll put mine up against yours any time: sisters, mother, mother-in-law, father-in-law, cousins, aunts, and others. Would they be offended at my ideas? Dear Lord, I hope not. They cherish freedom, and they understand that parents are more important to a children than a school or the government.

* Under the boots to classroom, aka troops-to-teachers, program.

Ideas that insult say a lot more about the one insulted than about the ideas. Life is too short to spend it offended. Personal power is too important for you to give yours to me by being offended.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the parents who will not or cannot teach their children? In am ideal world maybe that will work, buy there are too many factors that would making the removal of public education a failure on a massive societal level.

 

Speaking for myself, I don't think that everyone "should" homeschool their children. (In an ideal world, with an ideal society, perhaps, but not in our society.) What I do think is that everyone should take responsibililty for their children's education. I have no problem in principle with leaving publicly funded schools in place, but they should be understood as an adjunct to the parental duty to educate the child. No one should ever say that the schools have the primary duty to educate the children. They do not. The parents do.

 

I understand that some parents are completely inept at parenting, and that they would be (and are) massive failures at teaching their children what the children need to know. But they still have the duty, even if they fail at it. When society as a whole recognizes that they do have that duty to educate their children and that they are failing at it, and start putting the primary blame where it belongs -- on the parents, not on the schools -- then perhaps we can have meaningful reform in education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did read what you wrote, LeSellers. I meant "teach their children" in the sense you're talking about, really. Either schooling them at home or paying someone else to do it. As Vort said, there are a number of people that aren't even taking enough initiative in a public, "free" schools (yes, I know, it falls on all of us who own property; I mean there isn't a payment that has to be made every month outside of property taxes). If you take away both the ease and responsibility of putting children in an available, publicly funded school. . . take the schools away and don't require that the children are actually, perceptibly being taught. . . well, call me jaded, but it wouldn't happen. There would be an enormous number of uneducated, educationally (and otherwise) neglected children growing into uneducated adults who probably didn't learn how to learn or take responsibility for themselves. The gap between rich and poor would get even bigger.  That IS my business, because I live here, and I like not being in a third world country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share